ATTITUDE SCALE CONSTRUCTION
We are now coming into the home stretch stage ... and beginning to work on a practice attitude scale construction project in class. All students have made their own topic selections and the in-class practice is meant to provide some "models" of how to generate items and what has to be done. This is essentially a rational phase of the undertaking ...
ATTITUDES ABOUT SALARIES OF COLLEGE FACULTY
For final version of this ... go to ... FacSal Final Version Final version of SEX ED scale ... go here ... Sex Ed Scale Since I have some very strong views on this issue, I have made it the focal point for our practice discussions. The intent is to develop 15 to 20 items that could reflect views of people with respect to how THEY FEEL about college faculty salaries. Today, we made a short list of possible components that should/could be incorporated into the statements that are created, such as:
Quality of work Type of work (teaching/research) Market forces Being a compatible colleague Amount of work Reputation Amount of funding brought in Willingness to accept the salary you are given
Each student is writing 2 or 3 items and we will then look at them next week, and see if we can edit/revise/scrap/add ... so that by the end of the week, we might have a first "final" draft of such a scale. here are a few that we have tossed out in class so far. 1. Faculty should be paid according to what are normal salaries for different disciplines (ie, engineering, or business, or education) 2. Faculty salaries should be largely determined by supply and demand; ie, when the candidate pool is large, we should pay less (and vice versa)
3. When supply of the faculty candidate pool is large, then salary offers should be low 4. University faculty should be compensated for the type of work they do (ie, faculty doing comparable work should be compensated approximately the same) 5. One associate professor teaches a heavy load (and very well) but, does little research. Another associate professor does alot of research (and very well) but does little teaching. Both faculty should be compensated at approximately the same salary level. 6. Assume that 2 faculty at the Associate Professor level teach about 2 courses per semester, do about the same amount and quality of research, and mentor approximately the same number of graduate students.If one is in Engineering and the other is in Liberal Arts, it is fair to pay them considerably different salaries Well ... more on this later ... and comments send a note to me .. Roberts
ATTITUDES ABOUT ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN THE US of A
Concurrent with the 550 class, I have another class 450 down at our graduate center near Philly. Here is a parallel report on their work on a similar topic. For the Edpsy 450 course that I am teaching down at our Great Valley graduate campus near Philly ... we decided on Friday night (April 5) to attempt to create an attitude scale about "Eng as the Official Language in the US". Then, Saturday morning, we first tried to tie down a bit "what" that meant ... and suggested that possible components of such a scale might include things like national unity, continuance of cultural heritage, and trade implications. Then, after back and forth debate item by item ... of which students had produced some samples ... we came up with a first cut set, and here they are.
1. All immigrants who are candidates for receiving citizenship should pass an English competency test prior to becoming a citizen. 2. Having English as the official language would discourage illegal aliens from crossing the borders into the United States. 3. The current practice of publishing official signs and documents in multiple languages (Spanish, English, etc.) should be discontinued. 4. Having English as the official language in the US undermines the ability of immigrants to continue their heritage.
5. US companies should recognize English as the official language by transactiing all their business, including international, in English even if the consequence of that may include loss of some business. 6. Making English the official language in the United States would help to increase national unity. 7. School children whose native language is NOT English should be required to take English as a second language until mastery is achieved. 8. Students who cannot pass a stringent English compentency test would NOT be allowed to graduate from high school. 9. All drivers tests in all states should be given exclusively in English (directions, items, etc.). 10. To be eligible to vote in any election in the US, voters must be able to demonstrate an understanding of English. 11. Requiring immigrants to become fluent in English before granting them their citizenship would help them to become more productive citizens in the US. 12. The United States should pass a bill that would require English to be recognized as the official language in the US unless the State could demonstrate that at least 30% of its residents had a native tongue other than English.
Now, as a first "test" of this, I showed this set of items to the 550 class ... and we spent nearly a period reviewing the content. As I am sure that the 450 class would see, when we go over them again next time, there were many concerns raised about many of the statements, the primary one being: does it really speak to the issue of "English as the Official Language in the US"? That is, is the statement really an example of items drawn from the large population of possible items measuring this "attitude" domain ... or merely an approximate proxy item? Another continuing problem (and we are having it in the Faculty Salary scale too) is where an agreement to the item (or disagreement if the item were worded in the reverse) may very well suggest that the person is in favor with the premise (ie, Eng should be the official language in the US) but, a disagreement with the statement is NOT nearly as clearly being a vote AGAINST the premise. So, we will try to refine the items to make them fit the original premise better. Meanwhile, for the Attitudes about Faculty Salaries scale, we kind of spent the period with the English as the Official Language scale ... so did not make much progress. But, I did suggest that we needed to narrow the focus of the Fac Salary attitude scale ... and suggested that it represent at one end, those that thought faculty salaries should be determined by "market forces" and at the other end, should be determined by quality of work and productivity. We agreed that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive but,
as the same time, were not necessarily the same either. Friday we will work more on items related to this scale ... and hopefully have some items to take down to Great Valley and let THEM do some "critiquing" in kind. Stay tuned.
ATTITUDES ABOUT FACULTY SALARIES: FINAL VERSION
This attitude survey is primarily about whether market forces determine faculty salaries ... and has been th\rough several iterations ... and helpful input from Bob Frary at VPI ... Anyone interested in using this ... that is fine by us BUT, we would appreciate a note about it if you would like to ... and how you are intending to use it. Thanks! Attitudes about Market Forces determining Faculty Salaries
1. Faculty should be paid according to what are the normal salaries at other institutions for different disciplines (ie, like engineering, or business, or education). 2. University faculty should be compensated for the type of work that they do (ie, they teach and do research) and not according to the discipline they belong to. 3. Assume that two faculty who are at the Associate Professor level teach about two courses per semester, do about the same amount/quality of research, and advise about the same number of doctoral students. If one is in Engineering and the other is in Liberal Arts, it is fair to pay them considerably different salaries. 4. Primarily, market forces (ie, discipline driven) should determine the salaries of faculty. 5. One Associate Professor teaches a heavy load (very well) but, does little research. Another Associate Professor in the same department does a lot of research (very well) but does little teaching. Both faculty should be compensated with approximately the same salary. 6. Professor X has been working at the university for 25 years, coming as an Assistant Professor, being relatively productive, and moving through the ranks to the rank of Full Professor. Currently, the department is searching for another professor, perhaps at the beginning Associate Professor level, who would be a second addition to complement the work done by Professor X (assume that the department has grown and more sections of courses need to be offered). The department is successful in finding a person but has to offer that new person a higher salary than Professor X. This seems fair. 7. Faculty, regardless of discipline, who have been at an institution for approximately the same length of time, and have been approximately equally
productive, and who have achieved the same rank (say Full Professor with 4 years in rank) ... should be earning approximately the same annual salary.
8. A survey was done that showed that Associate Professors in Engineering made about 35% more, on average at the top 25 schools, than Associate Professors in Liberal Arts (with similar records of productivity) at these same top 25 schools. These data seem adequate reason and argument for continuing this practice. 9. Let's say that quality of a group of universities is categorized into 3 tiers: Level 1 (Best) to level 3 (Weakest). Also assume that in all of these institutions, there are programs in education, business, and engineering, and liberal arts, etc. There should be more variation (ie, differences) in salaries across the different levels of institutions than across the disciplines WITHIN the institutions. 10. Assume that in Institution Y ... the typical Associate Professor of English makes 40% less than the typical Associate Professor of Business. Because of this, it is reasonable for the Institution to expect that the Associate Professor of Business to do approximately 40% more work. 11. A university is part of the larger community, where salaries vary according to the professions in which people work. Therefore, similar salary variation should exist across disciplines within the university. 12. The role of any university/college should be to produce well trained professionals to fill the job needs of society. In society, some professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) earn higher salaries than others (school teachers, social workers, writers for local newspapers). Because of this, salaries of faculty should reflect these differences too. 13. Assume that two faculty members are similar in terms of quality of work. Any difference In their general levels of salary should primarily be based on their different years of experience. 14. The salaries of university professors should be based primarily on the number of years of work experience within the institution (ie, one associate professor who has been at that rank at University X should be paid more than another associate professor who has only been in that rank for 5 years at that institution). 15. Salaries for different levels of professorship (Assistant, Associate, etc.) should follow the same general pay scale across the different departments (engineering, business, liberal arts, etc.) within the same institution.
16. Some colleges have a salary scale where the years of experience and the degree you have (masters, doctorate) are the major factors in levels of compensation no matter what subject you teach or department you work in. This seems a reasonable way to determine faculty pay. 17. One would expect that the morale of faculty with respect to their pay would be similar in institutions where there is a relatively fixed pay schedule compared to other institutions where faculty are paid much more in some disciplines than others. 18. Salaries of faculty should be based solely on the discussions between the faculty member and the department head or dean. 19. Above and beyond some base salary that is common to all faculty in all disciplines based on rank and years in rank ... differences in salary between those at the same rank should primarily be determined by productivity differences (ie, better quality of teaching .. more funded research, etc.). 20. The Dean should have the authority to offer whatever salary he/she must in order to get a good faculty candidate to commit to come to that institution, independent of what other faculty in his/her college earn.
DIFFICULTIES IN ATTITUDE SCALE CONSTRUCTION
I have come to the conclusion that it is MORE difficult to develop a good attitude scale than a test for a class. Why? Well, first of all ... the domain or construct of interest is less clear ... and of course, there is no BASE correct answer to compare things to. So, the first difficulty is to define the "theme" of the attitudinal construct clearly and, attempt to list components of this theme. Secondly, it becomes apparent quickly that while we are trying to have a collection of items that when responded to ... reflect bipolar opposites ... that is easier said than done. For example, take the following item on our Attitudes about Sex Education in the Schools scale, that we are working on: It is morally wrong for the public schools to get involved with teaching material about sex. Now ... the intent of the scale is to have high scores represent (say) strongly against having sex education in the schools while opposite end scores would mean strongly in favor of sex education in the schools. So, how does the item above help in this regrard? Well, if you Strongly Agree with the above statement, it is probably not too far off from the truth that you are NOT in favor of sex education being taught in the schools. But ... what if you Strongly Disagree with this? Well ... does that necessarily mean that you are in FAVOR of sex education being taught in the schools? NO! Your view could be that it is NOT MORALLY WRONG for the public schools to teach sex education but, you are NOT advocating that they do. You might feel that parents are in a better position to do this ... not the schools.
Now, readers of the above statement might claim that there is a problem with the statement and, better statements can be written that don't have the difficulty just alluded to. Well ... good luck! We have found that this is easier said than done. So, our recommendation is that one try to decide the MAIN purpose of the scale ... in the case above ... is it to identify those who are strong opponents of sex education in the schools or advocates? If you can identify that ... then perhaps you can write the items with that in mind such that the responses are clearEST and contribute MOST to that end of the total score scale ... while not being as "informative" at the other end of the scale. Again .. easier said than done.
Attitudes about Sex Education in the Public Schools
EdPsy 550's final effort at developing "this" attitude scale ... unfortunately, we ran out of time to make any further revisions.
1. Sex education should be the exclusive responsibility of the parents. 2. Schools should be able to distribute contraceptives to students. 3. Since some kids are likely to experiment with sex, it is a good idea to have sex education taught in the public schools. 4. It is morally wrong for the public schools to get involved with teaching material about sex. 5. Local school districts should develop and implement a sex education program in the public schools. 6. Allowing sex education to be taught in the public schools would lead to an increase in teenage pregnancy. 7. The thought of public schools distributing information about birth control is repulsive to me. 8. Sex education should not be taught in the public schools since it will lead to kids experimenting with sex earlier than they might otherwise. 9. Lack of resources should not be a factor in whether sex education is taught in the public schools. If necessary, reallocation of resources should be made to make sure that sex education is taught in the public schools. 10. I am against having public schools teach sex education because it is impossible to know exactly when is the most appropriate time for school kids to be exposed to such material.
11. Parents are much better at providing information to their children about sex education than are teachers in the public schools. 12. While I don't think that contraceptions should be distributed in the public schools, I do feel that schools should discuss contraceptive methods in the health education classes. 13. Even in schools that do not have a formal sex education program, health education teachers who are asked by students about sex education should be able to answer the students' questions. 14. Since school age kids do sometimes get involved in experimenting with sex, it is the role of the schools to help students better understand matters related to sex. 15. Junior high schools should have 1 or more sex education courses and require that all students take at least one of the courses. 16. Sex education should be discussed in public schools as long as no graphic material is presented in during these discussions. 17. While the public schools might have some program of sex education, it is the ultimate responsibility and right of parents to decide if they want their children to participate in such programs. 18. No financial resources (teachers, space, etc.) should be allocated in the public schools and put towards providing a sex education program. 19. Because most teachers are parents too, it would be better to leave sex education to parents rather than formally have sex education in the schools. 20. Local citizens within a school district should be able to vote on the issue of allowing sex education in the public schools and, if they vote no, then the public schools should not have a sex education program.
FINAL 550 TEST
Here are 8 short answer questions. You may select any 8 out of the 8! The key here is to say enough ... but not too much. I would expect that in each case, a few sentences would be sufficient. Please use your own paper for the responses. All questions will be equally weighted.
1. How can doing an item analysis help you in the process of continual improvement of the quality of your class tests? 2. What is a table of specifications and, how can it help you make a better test?
3. What are the assumptions on which the classical correction for guessing formula is based? 4. In what way does the confidence or probabilistic method of testing (MC testing) allow for partial knowledge and discourage guessing? 5. What does the term "psychophysical" scaling mean? Draw a small diagram to clarify your points. 6. Discuss why allowing a choice of questions (say 4 out of 6) on an essay exam is bad measurement practice. 7. In Likert type scaling for questionnaires and attitude surveys, what is the main problem with using a midpoint or ? or neutral point? What is a better way to handle this? 8. Here is an item from my Stat Attitude Scale. "I make a lot of errors when I calculate statistics problems" Now ... the scale is score in such a way that high scores mean positive attitudes about stat and low values mean negative attitudes about stat ... at least that is the intention. So ... for the item above, discuss if one SA or SD ... and how that would be clear evidence for contributing + or - weight towards the total attitude score.
This has been a blast .... and I hope some of the material in the page has been of use. Again, any comments welcome ... send note to ... Roberts the guy with an "Attitude"
The attitude-scale towards mathematics 1986 [P0981]
Study Title P0981 Belevingsschaal voor wiskunde 1986
Order this dataset
English title The attitude-scale towards mathematics 1986 Primary investigator(s) Kuhlemeier, J.B. Martinnot, M. Centraal instituut voor toetsontwikkeling, CITO * Arnhem Funding agency Centraal instituut voor toetsontwikkeling, CITO * Arnhem Research initiator Centraal instituut voor toetsontwikkeling, CITO * Arnhem Abstract Standardization and validation of the attitude scale towards mathematics ( BSW ). This study aimed at standardization and validation of the attitude-scale towards mathematics. Its 32 items are grouped into four sub scales, measuring: enjoyment of mathematics, fear of, or having trouble with mathematics, enthusiasm and interest and perception of usefulness and relevance. Standardization took place at the class-level for the first three years of secondary education ( LBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO ). An additional questionnaire was used to collect background data on pupil and school and comparative data regarding the evaluation of-, homework spent on- and school marks for mathematics, Dutch and English. The second file ( P0981b ) contains data collected from the mathematics teachers involved, referring to their background, teaching methods and testconditions. Background variables: basic characteristics/ education Keyword(s) education, secondary methodology youth Discipline(s) education Data file(s) Name Cases Variables P0981a P0981b 2102 356 57 36
Additional description Questionai re and extra information Bibliograp hy Your comments New Search
Last modified: unknown
Investigation of tertiary classroom learning environment in Singapore
MYINT Swe Khine Nanyang Technological University, Singapore GOH Swee Chiew Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Paper presented at the International Educational Research Conference, Australian Association for Educational Research (AARE), University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Western Australia, 2-6 December 2001.
Investigation of tertiary classroom learning environment in Singapore
MYINT Swe Khine GOH Swee Chiew Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Over the last three decades, researchers in many countries have shown increasing interest in the conceptualization, assessment and investigation of student perceptions of psychosocial dimensions of their classroom environment. A considerable amount of work on the assessment and investigation of classroom environment in schools were conducted in Singapore over the last few years. These include studies on the associations between students’ perception of interpersonal teacher behaviour and learning outcomes in primary mathematics classrooms (Goh & Fraser, 1996) and environment-attitude associations in secondary science classrooms (Wong & Fraser, 1996). However, no studies were made to examine the tertiary learning environment. This paper reports the first study to focus on the learning environment in the only teacher-training institution in Singapore. The College and University Classroom Environment Inventory, the CUCEI, was used to measure the perceptions of graduate teacher trainees’ learning environment and also to examine the associations between attitude and environment. The sample comprised two groups of graduate teacher trainees (primary and secondary teachers) enrolled on the one-year Postgraduate Diploma in Education Programme at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. The findings provided evidence of the reliability of the instrument and a significant attitudeenvironment relationship as well as gender-related differences among teacher trainees.
Introduction Classroom learning environment refers to a space or a place where learners and teachers interact with each other and use a variety of tools and information resources in their pursuit of learning activities (Wilson, 1996). The nature of the classroom environment and psycho-social interactions can make a difference in how the students learn and achieve their goals (McRobbie, Roth & Lucus, 1997). Over the last 30 years, a number of research projects on classroom learning environment have been conducted. The Harvard Project Physics of Walberg (Welch & Walberg, 1972) in the USA and studies by Fraser (1981, 1986) in Australia are noteworthy. Interest in the study of learning environments becomes more prominent when there was evidence that learning outcomes and student attitudes towards learning were closely linked to the classroom environment. Studies were conducted to determine the degree of importance of classroom environment in the teaching-learning process. During this process of studying classroom environments, various forms of measurements were developed to measure the psycho-social or classroom climate in different school contexts. Among the well used instruments for studying classroom environments in secondary schools were the Learning Environment Inventory (Fraser, Anderson & Walberg, 1982), the Classroom Environment Scale (Moos & Trickett, 1986), the Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (Fraser, 1987), and the latest instrument, What is Happening in this Class (Fraser, Fisher & McRobbie, 1996). For studying classroom environment in primary schools, The Learning Environment Inventory was re-designed to meet this need and became known as the My Class Inventory (Fisher & Fraser, 1981). In addition, to assess the learning environment at higher education level, Fraser & Treagust, (1986) developed the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory. Apart from these instruments used for studying learning environments at primary, secondary and higher education levels, more instruments were developed and validated in the 1990’s for use in specific classroom contexts. The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (Wubbels & Levy, 1991) was devised for studying interpersonal teacher behaviour. The Geography Classroom Environment Inventory (Teh & Fraser, 1994) was conceived for examining computer-assisted learning environments. The Constructivist Classroom Inventory (Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997) aimed at measuring the learning environment of a constructivist classroom. With the emergence and availability of a whole range of classroom environment questionnaires for use in different school and classroom contexts, the study of learning environments assumes a position of significance. There is currently a wealth of literature on the conceptualisation, evaluation and investigation of student and teacher
perceptions of various aspects of the classroom environment (Fraser, 1998, Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Background to Study Research in learning environment in Singapore began to appear in the last ten years. But it has covered a wide spectrum of the kinds of such research similar to those done in the USA, Australia, The Netherlands. Among the first studies done in Singapore was the research reported by Lim (1993) who did a study in secondary classroom environments, comparing learning environments in different types of schools (good, average and below average) and different educational streams, (gifted, express and normal). Teh & Fraser (1994) reported a study concerning computer learning environments in secondary geography classrooms. It resulted in the development and validation of a new instrument, the Geography Classroom Environment Inventory. There was also a study on secondary science laboratory environments using the SLEI (Wong & Fraser, 1995) that assessed the learning environment from the perceptions of students and teachers. Studies were also done in gifted education classes (Quek, Wong & Fraser, 1998) and secondary social studies classes (Chionh & Fraser, 1998). The study in primary mathematics classrooms (Goh & Fraser, 1996; Goh, Young & Fraser, 1995) was distinct in that it was the only study undertaken at primary school level and it combined the study of classroom climate with interpersonal teacher behaviour. Besides studies in secondary and primary classroom environments, Khoo and Fraser (1997) studied the learning environment in adult education computer classes. Despite these efforts in other educational levels, study of learning environment in one crucial dimension of education in Singapore, teacher education is not yet explored. The graduate teacher trainees and their perceptions of the class environment in their "Teaching and Classroom Management" classes formed the subjects of this investigation. This pioneer study used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess the perceptions of these teacher trainees of their psycho-social environment as the CUCEI was an appropriate tool to use for tertiary level. This was also the first time the CUCEI was used in learning environment research in Singapore. College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) The College and University Classroom Environment Inventory, (CUCEI), was specially developed by Fraser, Treagust, Williamson & Tobin, (1987) to assess perceptions of the psycho-social environment in university and college classrooms. Originally, the CUCEI was developed for use with small groups of about 30 students in seminars and tutorials in higher education classrooms (Fraser & Treagust, 1986; Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986). The final form of the CUCEI contains seven scales: Personalization,
Involvement, Student Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, Task Orientation, Innovation, and Individualization. Each scale comprises seven items, making a total of 49 items in all. There are four responses provided for each item, namely, Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree and the polarity is reserved for approximately half of the items. Examples of items are "Activities in this class are clearly and carefully planned" (Task Orientation), and "Teaching approaches allow students to proceed at their own pace" (Individualization). Validation of the CUCEI, conducted by Fraser and Treagust (1986), yielded scale alpha reliabilities ranging from 0.70 to 0.90. The descriptions for each scale and sample items in the CUCEI are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Scale Descriptions and Sample Items in the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI)
Scale Description Item
Extent to which graduate teacher trainees know, help and are friendly towards each other
Graduate teacher trainees in this class get to know each other well (+)
Extent to which graduate teacher trainees are allowed to make decisions and are treated differently according to ability, interest and rate of working
Graduate teacher trainees are generally allowed to work at their own pace (+)
Extent to which the instructor plans new, unusual class activities, teaching techniques and assignments
New and different ways of teaching are seldom used in this class (-)
Extent to which graduate teacher trainees participate actively and attentively in class discussions and activities
There are opportunities for graduate teacher trainees to express opinions in this class
Emphasis on opportunities for individual graduate teacher trainees to interact with the instructor and on concern for graduate teacher trainees’ personal
The lecturer helps each student who is having trouble with the work (+)
Extent of enjoyment of classes
This class is a waste of time (-)
Extent to which class activities are clear and well organized
Getting a certain amount of work done is important in this class (+)
Items designated (+) are scored by allocating 4,3,2,1 respectively, for the responses Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree and Strongly Disagree. Items designated (-) are scored in the reverse order.
Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study were to (i) provide validation data for the CUCEI when used in the Singapore context; (ii) investigate associations between graduate teacher trainees’ attitudes to the course and their perceptions of the classroom environment as assessed by the CUCEI; and (iii) to investigate gender-related differences in graduate teacher trainees’ perceptions of their environment. Methodology The Sample The sample for the study comprised of 151 primary graduate teacher trainees from the Postgraduate Diploma in Education Programme (Primary) and 184 secondary graduate teacher trainees were from the Postgraduate Diploma in Education Programme (Secondary). The total sample size was 355. These graduate teacher trainees were actually being trained to teach in different school contexts as primary and secondary school teachers respectively. They have a common course in Teaching and Classroom Management though there are distinct differences in emphasis and illustrations because of different school contexts. Attitudinal Measures Graduate teacher trainees’ attitudes were measured using two scales. These two scales were (i) Difficulty and (ii) Speed. This part of the questionnaire is adapted from Nair & Fisher (1999). The scale Difficulty was designed to measure the degree of difficulty the teacher trainees encounter in the coursework in class. The scale Speed measured the pacing of the lessons. Typical items are "I am constantly challenged in this class" (Difficulty) and "I have plenty of time to cover the prescribed amount of work" (Speed). Each scale has seven items and each item provides four-point Likert-type response alternatives, ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree to Strongly Agree. Results
Reliability and Validation of the CUCEI The data were analysed to test the internal consistency of the CUCEI scales. It was found that the Cronbach Alpha reliability ranged from 0.65 to 0.90. These figures were comparable to the results reported by Fraser, Treagust, Williamson and Tobin (1987). Overall, the Cronbach Alpha reliability of the instrument was found to be at a high of 0.92. These findings supported the cross-cultural validity of the classroom environment scales when used for the first time in this context. Each scale in the CUCEI was found to display satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Associations between attitude and environment In order to find out the associations between environment and attitudinal outcomes, simple correlation coefficients were calculated between each scale of the CUCEI and the attitudinal measures. A multiple regression analysis, involving the whole set of scales in the instrument was conducted to test the association of each scale of the CUCEI with attitudes when all other scales were controlled. Table 2 reports associations of each scale of the CUCEI with the graduate teacher trainees’ attitudinal outcomes. An examination of simple correlation coefficients indicates that there are statistically significant relationships between graduate teacher trainees’ perceptions of learning environment and their attitudes towards the course. It was found that three CUCEI scales, Student Cohesiveness, Innovation and Satisfaction, were significantly correlated (p<0.001) to the attitude scale Difficulty. The other scales Involvement and Personalisation were also correlated to the attitude scale Difficulty at p<0.05 level. The scale Individualisation, Innovation, Involvement and Personalisation were significantly correlated (p<0.001) with the graduate teacher trainees’ attitudes towards the Speed of the course. The multiple correlation R for the attitude scale Difficulty was found to be 0.31 and it was statistically significant at p<0.001 level. An examination of beta weights revealed that perception of Satisfaction to the course was significantly and independently associated with the attitude scale Difficulty. On the other hand, the graduate teacher trainees’ perception on Individualisation was significantly and independently associated with the attitude scale Speed. The multiple correlation R was 0.39, which is statistically significant (p<0.001). Generally, the series of r, R and values presented in Table 2 confirmed that there were significant associations between the learning environment and attitudes in this tertiary learning context.
Table 2 Associations between CUCEI Scales and Difficulty and Speed in Terms of Simple Correlations (r) and Multiple Correlation (R) and Standardised Regression Coefficient ().
Scale Difficulty Speed
Multiple Correlations R R2 *p<0.05, **p<0.001
Gender-related differences in graduate teacher trainees’ perceptions of learning environment Gender differences in graduate teacher trainees’ perceptions of their learning environments were explored using one-way multivariate analysis of variance with the set of CUCEI scales as dependent variables. Table 3 reports the gender differences in graduate teacher trainees’ perceptions of their learning environment as measured by the CUCEI. It was found that out of seven scales only Student Cohesiveness was significantly different (p<0.05).
Table 3 Scale Means and Gender Differences in Graduate Teacher Trainees’ Perceptions of Learning Environment Measured by CUCEI Scales.
Scale Gender Item Mean SD Mean Difference t
*p<0.05 n = 105 males and 230 females
Female graduate teacher trainees perceived that within their classroom environment, they knew each other well and maintained good friendships among themselves. This finding is hardly surprising in a teaching workforce that is female-dominated. This also appeared to corroborate with similar findings on gender differences in the classrooms. In a study by Goh and Fraser (1997), they found that at primary school level, the girls in Singapore generally viewed their classroom environments more favourably than boys. In
Fisher and Rickards’ (1998) study, statistically significant gender differences were detected in students’ responses to classroom environment scales. They found that females perceived their teachers in a more positive way than do males. Conclusion It appears that the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) to assess the learning environment in a tertiary institution in Singapore and to establish whether there was any link to attitude yielded positive results. When used in tertiary education in Singapore, each scale in the CUCEI was found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. These findings are significant as they supported the crosscultural validity of the CUCEI scales when used for the first time in this learning environment context. Significant attitude-environment associations were also found in this teacher-training learning context. This finding implies importantly that these graduate teacher trainees, having experienced positive learning environments at the NIE, would be more inclined to establishing positive learning environments in their classroom to enhance their students’ learning. This definitely would reinforce the concept of effective classroom management and the need to create a positive learning environment as emphasised in their course on "Teaching and Classroom Management" Measuring learning environment with an appropriate tool will help the teacher to examine their classes and continuously improve to a productive learning environment. It will be an advantage for the teacher to use these instruments in finding out the nature of the classroom. Such information can then be used with other source of data to be aware of the changing needs of the classroom environment.
References Chionh Y. H & Fraser, B.J. (1998, April). Validation and use of the "What Is Happening In This Class?" Questionnaire in Singapore. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class Inventory. Science Education, 65, 145-156. Fisher, D.L., & Rickards, T. (1998). Cultural background and gender differences in science teacher-student classroom interactions: Associations with student attitude and achievement. In L.Y.Pak., L. Ferrer, & M. Quigley. (Eds.), Science, Mathematics and Teacher Education for National Development (pp. 55-56). Brunei: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Fraser, B.J., (1981). Using environmental assessments to make better classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, 131-144. Fraser, B.J., (1986). Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm. Fraser, B.J., Anderson, G.J. & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Assessment of Learning Environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology. Fraser, B.J. (1987), Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ). Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research. Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science Learning Environments: Assessments, Effects and Determinants. In B.J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.) International Handbook of Science Education, 527-564. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L. & McRobbie, C.J. (1996, April). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F., Williamson, J.C., & Tobin, K.G. (1987). Validation and application of the College & University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). The Study of Learning Environments, 2, 17-30. Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F., & Dennis, N.C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom pyschosocial environment in universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43-54. Fraser, B.J. & Treagust, D.F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychological environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57. Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Validation of an elementary school version of the questionnaire on teacher interaction. Psychological Reports, 79, 522-525. Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1997). Classroom climate and student outcomes in primary mathematics. Educational Research Journal, 12 (1), 7-20. Goh, S.C., Young, D.J., & Fraser, B.J. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: A multilevel analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 29-40.
Khoo, H.S. & Fraser, B.J. (1997, March). Using classroom environment dimensions in the evaluation of adult computer courses in Singapore. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Lim, T.K. (1993, September). Secondary four students’ perceptions of their classroom environment. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Association, Singapore. McRobbie, C.J., Roth, W.M., & Lucus, K.B. (1997). Multiple learning environments in a physics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 333-342. Moos, R.H. & Trickett, E.J. (1986). Classroom Environment Scale Manual: An Overview. Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Nair, C.S. & Fisher, D.L. (1999, March). A learning environment studyTransition from senior secondary to higher education. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Melbourne. Quek, C.L., Wong, A.F.L., & Fraser, B.J. (1998, April). Teacher-Student interaction among gifted chemistry students in Singapore secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(2), 293-302. Teh, G.P.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1994). Development and validation of am instrument for assessing the psychosocial environment of computer-assisted learning classrooms, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12 (2), 177-193. Welch, W.W. & Walberg, H.J., (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 373-383. Wilson, B.G. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In B.G. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments (pp.38). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Educational Technology Publications. Wong, A.F.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1995). Cross-validation in Singapore of the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory. Psychological Reports, 79, 522-525.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.) (1991). Do You Know What You Look Like: Interpersonal Relationships in Education. London: Falmer Press.
SOLVING PROBLEMS ANALYTICALLY AND CREATIVELY
Innovative Attitude Scale
Indicate the extent to which each of the following statements is true of either your actual behavior or your intentions at work. That is, describe the way you are or the way you intend to be on the job.
1. I openly discuss with my boss how to get ahead.
Make a Selection
2. I try new ideas and approaches to problems.
Almost alw ays
3. I take things or situations apart to find out how they work.
Make a Selection
©2001 by Prentice-Hall, Inc. A Pearson Company
4. I welcome uncertainty and unusual circumstances related to my tasks.
Make a Selection
5. I negotiate my salary openly with my supervisor.
Make a Selection
6. I can be counted on to find a new use for existing methods/equipment.
Make a Selection
7. Among my colleagues and co-workers, I will be the first or nearly the first to try out a new idea or method.
Make a Selection
8. I take the opportunity to translate communications from other departments for my work group.
Make a Selection
9. I demonstrate originality.
Make a Selection
10. I will work on a problem that has caused others great difficulty.
Make a Selection
11. I provide critical input toward a new solution.
Make a Selection
12. I provide written evaluations of proposed ideas.
Make a Selection
13. I develop contacts with experts outside my firm.
Make a Selection
14. I use personal contacts to maneuver into choice work assignments.
Make a Selection
15. I make time to pursue my own pet ideas or projects.
Make a Selection
16. I set aside resources for the pursuit of a risky project.
Make a Selection
17. I tolerate people who depart from organizational routine.
Make a Selection
18. I speak out in staff meetings.
Make a Selection
19. I work in teams to try to solve complex problems.
Make a Selection
20. If my co-workers are asked, they will say I am a wit.
Make a Selection
<<Previous Survey Back to the Survey Chooser
Attitudes to Primary Science: Notes for Teachers Using the Scales
1.1 When administering these attitude scales, announce at the start that you have some questions about school and science that you want the pupils to fill in. That they will be helping the school, which will be helping other schools in Leicester, to find out how to improve the learning and teaching of science. Point out that this is not a "test" of what they know, but of how they feel, so there is no "correct" answer to be found. Stress that pupils do not have to spend long working out "answers", but should quickly, just give their first, natural response each time. Stress to pupils that their own, truthful answers are so valuable. They should not bother themselves with what their friends have
marked, or talk with them while answering.
Cover Page and Instructions
2.1 The pupil's name is needed on the cover page because the questionnaires are to be administered twice in a "before and after" format. The idea is to monitor changes in attitudes. To ensure confidentiality, you might want to put the questionnaire in to the return envelope, marked with a class identifier, immediately after the pupils have finished. The questionnaires are designed for self-completion by the pupils without teacher intervention, with the pupil's feeling being expressed with a tick mark. For the senior primary pupils of years 4, 5 and 6 there should be no problem with a general, class administration, but for comparison purposes, the same questionnaire items are being used with the earlier years of 1 to 3 as well. With the younger pupils, it will be necessary to read the item out. In return, the pupils might well, busily, colour in the smiley face for their answer. These young pupils quickly decide on their answer to an item, but then take great pleasure in creating a perfectly coloured face. Although this extends the time for completion, the pupils remain better motivated to the other items, and so the validity of the questionnaire is maintained. 2.3 For the youngest pupils, the teacher or classroom assistant might take four to six pupils at a time and explain the meaning of the items. Reading the item itself will, unfortunately, not work well, because the language has been pitched at the level of the selfcompleting older pupils. If the teacher has some items of scientific equipment available to refer to, this makes mention of "experiment" and "finding
out" more concrete and understandable. With the youngest of pupils, the teacher might want to split the questionnaire into its natural sections and administer each, separately over one day and the next.
First attitude scale: Being in school
3.1 Completion times in the pilot trials were found to be: Year 6 Year 4 Year 2 40 to 60 seconds 30 to 70 seconds 6 minutes
3.2 The youngest pupils might be slow to start as they try out their pens and colours! Check that felt tip pens do not have ink which penetrates to the sheet underneath. Time for completion in a group activity is governed by the slowest member.
Second attitude scale: Science experiments
4.1 Completion times in the pilot trials were found to be: Year 6 Year 4 Year 2 30 seconds 30 seconds 7 minutes
4.2 A display of some familiar science apparatus is very helpful for young pupils. This is essential for the understanding of item 8. If a pupil is puzzled, then "not sure" is the answer.
Third attitude scale: What I really think of science
5.1 This scale requires the pupils to choose one of only three faces. This is because the conceptual demand is greater.
Completion times in the pilot trials were found to be: Year 6 75 to 120 seconds (4-point scale) Year 4 60 to 150 seconds (3-point scale) Year 2 10 minutes (3point scale)
Take questions from pupils who cannot read some of the words. For example, some pupils in year 3 and above will not be able to read "scientist" or know what it means. The young pupils will, of course, be helped by the teacher presenting the items directly. The two questions in the boxes at the end are restricted to Years 4 to 6. Answers extracted from items 1 to 20 are acceptable, as these will draw attention to particularly strong viewpoints. Completion times in the pilot trials were found to be: Year 6 up to 60 seconds Year 4 up to 120 seconds
6.1 Total completion times in the pilot trials were found to be: Year 6 Year 4 Year 2 6.2 4 to 5 minutes 4 to 6 minutes 23 minutes
Average scores for your class will be returned to you within a few weeks of providing the initial data. After an interval, which might be six months, repeating the administration will allow changes in pupils' attitudes to be explored.
There is no reason why one or more of the scales could be used by the class teacher to monitor pupil changes for themselves, year on year. This is valuable in-school based evaluation, which enhances the professional reputation of the school and its staff. The first scale "Being in school" is particularly recommended for your own use. As an active participant in this research project, you will be provided with sufficient feedback to compare your pupils in terms of attitudes with those in the City of Leicester at large.
MODULE 4 Attitude Measurement
,. It would be impossible to make any judgments about how certain variables affect attitudes if there were no way to measure attitudes. The attitude scale is used widely when an investigator wishes to measure the attitudes of individuals. When he wishes to measure public opinion, he may use one of several public-opinion polling procedures. This section will cover the attitude scale and some of the techniques used in publicopinion polling. As you read the text, keep the following questions in mind.
What is an attitude scale? How would you figure a score? What are the characteristics of fixed-alternative questions and open- ended questions? What are the drawbacks of each? What are the major differences between probability sampling, quota sampling, and area sampling? What are some of the drawbacks of each sampling technique?
93 An attitude scale measures the intensity of attitudes An attitude scale is made up of a series of numbered statements. These statements are constructed in a way to indicate a positive or negative attitude toward the subject. When
all the statements are constructed, the scale is handed out to a large group of judges The judges rate each statement according to its positive or negative character. This scale is rated by using numbers from 1 to 11. Number 1 is the most favorable statement and number 11 the least favorable statement. The ratings by the judges are averaged and a numerical value is assigned to each of the statements. This numerical value is called the scale value. A classical scale for measuring attitudes toward the church, constructed by Thurstone and Chave (1929), is shown in Figure 4 The best way to understand how an attitude scale operates is to scale your own attitude by responding to the questions in Figure 4. To obtain your score, arrange in rank order the scale values for the statements you check. Your final score will be the scale value of the middle statement. Thus, if you check statements with the following values: 4.7, 6.9, 7.2, 8.6, 9.6, your final score will be 7.2, which is the median. ATTITUDE SCALE Check every statement below that expresses your attitude toward the church. That is. I you agree with the statement place a check mark In front of it. 1. I think the teaching of the church Is altogether too superficial to have much social significance f8 3) 2 I feel the church services give me inspiration and help me live up to my best during the following meek (1 7) 3 I think the church keeps business and politics up to a higher standard than they would otherwise tend to maintain /2 6) 4 I find the services of the church both restful and inspiring. (2 3) 5. When I go to church I enjoy a fine ritual service with good music (4 0) 6. I believe in what the church teaches but with mental reservations. (4 5) 7 I do not receive any benefit from attending church services but I think it helps some people. (5 7) 8 I believe in religion but I seldom go to church. 5 4 9 1 am careless about religion and church relationships but I would not like to see my attitude become general (4.7) 10 I regard the church as a static crystallized institution and as such it is unwholesome and detrimental to society (10 5) 11. I believe church membership is almost essential to living life al its best. (15) 36. 12. I do not understand the dogmas or creeds of the church. but I find that the church 37 helps me to be more honest and creditable. (3.1) 13. The paternal and benevolent attitude of the church is quite distasteful to me. (8.2)
14. I feel that church attendance is a fair index of the nation's morality (2.6) 15. Sometimes I feel that the church and religion are necessary and sometimes I doubt it. (5.6) 16. I believe the church is fundamentally sound but some of its adherents have given it a bad name (3.9) 17. I think the church is a parasite on society. (11.0) 18. I feel the need for religion but do not find what I want in any one church (6.1) 19. I think too much money is being spent on the church for the benefit that is being derived. (7.5) 20. I believe in the church and its teachings because I have been accustomed to them since I was a child. (4.0) 21. I think the church is hundreds of years behind the times and cannot make a dent on modern life. (9.5) 22. I believe the church has grown up with the primary purpose of perpetuating the spirit and teachings of Jesus and deserves loyal support. (1.0) 23 reel the church perpetuates the values which man puts highes; In his or osophy of life 10 8} 24 I feel I can worship God better out of doors than m the church and I get more inspiration there (6 9) 25 Sty experience is that the church is hopelessly out of date (9 1 } 26 i feel the church is petty. always quarreling over matters that have no interest or ~mponance is 6) 2i I do not believe in any brand of religion or m any particular church but I hare never given the subject serious thought (s 9) 28 I respect any church-member's beliefs but I think it is all .4bunk '(8.8) 29, enjoy my church because there is a spirit of friendliness there. (3.3) 30 I think the country would be better off if the churches were closed and the ministers set to some useful work. (105) 31 I behave the church IS the greatest instnution in America today (0 2) 32 I behave in sincerity and goodness without any church cererronies. (6 71 33 I believe the church IS the greatest influence for good government and right living. t0 4) 34. I think the organized church is an enemy of science and truth. (10 7) I believe the church is losing ground as education advances. (7.4) 35. The churches may be doing good and useful work but they do not interest me. (5.9) I think the church is a hindrance to religion for it still depends upon magic. superstition.
and myth (9.6) 38 The church is needed to develop religion which has always been concerned with man s deepest feelings and greatest values. (1.4) 39. I believe the churches are too much divided by factions and denominations to be a strong force for righteousness. (7.2) 40 The church represents shallowness hypocrisy and prejudice. (104) 41 I think the church seeks to impose a lot of worn-out dogmas and medieval supersti~ tions. (9.2) 42. I think the church allows denominational differences to appear larger than true religion. (7 2) 43. I like the ceremonies of my church but do not miss them much when I stay away. (5t) 44. I believe the church is a powerful agency for promoting both individual and social nghtepusness. (1.2) 45 I like to go to church for I get something worthwhile to think about and it keeps my mind filled with right thoughts. (2.2) From The Measurement of Attitude by L. Thurstone and E Chave. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1929.
Figure 4. Attitude Scale 94 If you agreed with an even number of statements, your final score is the average of the two center values. Thus, if you check statements with the values 4.7, 6.9, 7.2, and 8.6, your final score will be: 69+ 72/2 = 7.05 The score can be interpreted as follows: a number above 6 would indicate a negative attitude toward the church; a number below 6 would indicate a positive attitude toward the church. The attitude scale is used to measure the attitude of an individual. Public opinion polls, however, are conducted with people who represent a sample of some particular group. The group may be those who vote in a particular district, or those who smoke. It is not
easy to get members of this sample to sit down and fill out long, complicated forms. Therefore, interviews are conducted face to face. Each is asked questions which are rather simple, and a range of subjects is covered. Expressed attitudes are hea v fly influenced by the way questions are phrased In a public-opinion poll, a single question must serve as a measure of an attitude, whereas many statements are used in the attitude scale. For this reason, the phrasing of an item is a matter of extreme importance and makes a great difference in the outcome of the poll. In general, there are two types of questions used in polling. One type gives the subject fixed alternatives. An example is, "Would you like to see more family films, fewer family films, or about the same as are shown now?" In this question the subject has the opportunity to choose among three responses: 'more, fewer, about the same." Some questions used are open ended; they allow the respondent to phrase his answer in his own words. In practice, however, the interviewer has a number of possible alternatives to the question already coded, and after listening to the respondent, he simply checks one of the possibilities. The fixed-alternative questions are easier to administer. However, inaccuracy can creep in because the answers may be restricted in a way that does not reflect the subject's true opinion. In the example given earlier, the subject may feel that there should be more of a certain type of family film and fewer of others. "About the same" does not really reflect this opinion. In addition, rela tively minor differences in wording can greatly affect the result, which often leads to complete misinterpretations of the respondents' attitudes. During World War II, two polling agencies asked the following questions: a. "After the war would you like to see the United States join some kind of world organization, or would you like to see us stay out?" (National Opinion Research Center, January, 1945). b. "Do you think that the United States should join a world organization with police power to maintain world peace?" (American Institute of Public Opinion, April, 1945). To the first question, 64 percent responded in favor of joining and 26 percent were against. To the second question, 81 percent responded "yes" and 11 percent "no." A large part of the difference in the results between these two questions is the use of the phrase "maintain world peace." Pollsters know that inserting any phrase which by itself is generally approved, increases the number of approvals of the question as a whole. The problem in sampling is to ensure that the sample is typical of the population In general, there are two ways of constructing samples so that they represent the population. The first is probability sampling. The names are arranged randomly, and one constructs the sample by picking every nth name. This technique is widely used when
the target population has been recorded on a list. The great danger in this method is that the list may not represent the population. 95 When the population is not on some kind of list, pollsters may use area sampling. They divide an area into small units and assign a number to each unit. They then select areas to be included in the sample. From each area, they randomly select a number of dwelling units. This technique yields accurate results, but is expensive. The second major technique is quota sampling. Quota sampling is based on the assumption that a sample can be an accurate miniature of the larger population. If important sociological groups are represented in the sample in the same proportion in which they occur in the population, accuracy can be as- sured. Interviewers are told how many women to interview, how many people over five years of age, and so forth. It is then left up to the interviewer as to how he will manage to fill his quota. Interviewers, however, tend to select the person most cooperative, or the person at home, or the house that seems somewhat better kept. Thus, biases can creep into the sample. In any case, public-opinion polling has become increasingly accurate. Though polls occa- sionally result in inaccurate predictions, the long-term trend has been toward an ever-decreasing percentage of error. 96
MODULE 4 PROGRESS CHECK 1
Now test yourself without looking back.
ATTITUDE TOWARD WAR Selected Items: 1. A country cannot amount to much without a national honor, and war is the only means of preserving it. (1.3) 2. When war is declared, we must enlist. (2.5) 3. Wars are justifiable only when waged in defense of weaker nations. (5.2) 4. Peace and war are both essential to progress. (5.4) 5. The most that we can hope to accomplish is the partial elimination of war. (5.6) 6. The disrespect for human life and rights involved in a war is a cause of crime waves. (8.4) 7. All nations should disarm immediately. (10.6)
(Droba, 1930) 1. Look at the attitude scale above. An individual is asked to check those items which represent his views. The series of statements is called a(n)________________________________ 2. Suppose the individual checked statements 1, 2, and 3. His score is_______________________ 3. Suppose the individual checked statements 3, 4, 5, and 6. His score is______________________ 4. Match. 1 ) Open ended_____________ 2) Fixed alternative________________ a. Would you like to see more foreign trade, less, or about the same amount as we have now? b. How do you feel about government control of prices? c. Would you like to see more money spent on pollution control, less, or about the same amount that we are now spending? 97 5. Match the sampling technique with an example. 1 ) Probability sampling ______________ 2) Area sampling_______________ 3) Quota sampling__________________ a. The voting district is divided into small units. Dwellings are selected randomly within the units. b. Names on a list of new-car buyers are arranged randomly. The pollster selects every third name. c. The interviewer is responsible for interviewing 10 percent over 50, 3 percent under 10, and so on. 6. The inclusion of a phrase that has general approval will: a. increase the unfavorable responses to a question.
b. increase the favorable responses to a question. c. have no effect on the outcome of the poll. ANSWER KEY PAGE 118 98 5 OR MORE CORRECT PAGE 103 FEWER THAN 5 CORRECT PAGE 99
MODULE 4 EXERCISES
An attitude scale consists of a series of statements about a particular subject. Judges rate each statement, usually on a scale from 1 to 11. The scale value assigned to each statement is the average of the numbers assigned by the judges. The individual checks the statements that agree with his views. Suppose the individual checks statements with the following values, arranged in order: 1.2,1.6, 2.4, 4.8, 4.9. His score is the median value, 2.4. Suppose he checks an even number of statements with the values: 1.2, 1.6, 2.4, 4.8. His score is the average of the two center values. Thus 1.6 + 2.4/2 = 2 0 Compute scores for the values given below. a. 4.2,6.3,6.4,6.5,7.1____________ b. 1.2, 1.6, 2.2, 4.8________________ _____________________________________3 There are basically two types of questions used in public-opinion polling. A fixedalternative question requires the respondent to choose among the alternatives given. An open-ended question allows the respondent to phrase his answer in his own words. Write "fixed alternative" or "open ended" next to each of the questions below. a. How do you feel birth control?________________ b. Would you like to see more space exploration, less, or about the same amount as we have now?_____________________ c. Do you feel that churches should have tax advantages?____________________ The phrasing of a question can affect the outcome of the poll. The inclusion of any phrase that has general approval will make the results more favorable. Read the two
questions below. 1. Do you feel we should have a campaign for birth control to reduce poverty and hunger? 2. Do you feel that the government should support a campaign for birth control? You would expect the results to be: a. more favorable to question 1 than to question 2. b. the same for both questions. c. more favorable to question 2 than to question 1. ____________________________________________4 To obtain a sample for opinion polling, there are three major techniques: probability sampling, area sampling, and quota sampling. Match each technique with a description. 1) Probability sampling_____________ 2) Area sampling______________ 3) Ouota sampling________________ a. Names on a list are arranged in order. This gives each name an equal probability of appearing in the sample. The pollster selects each nth name. b. The interviewer questions everyone who goes into the supemmarket between 1 and 3 p.m. c. The pollster calculates the percentages of major social categories that appear in the population. The interviewer attempts to get the same percentages in his sample. d. The geographical unit is divided into small areas. Dwellings are selected from a number of geographical areas. ___________________________________ 2 ANSWERS a. a. open ended b. fixed altemafive c. fixed alternative 2 1) a 2) d 3) c
3 a. 6.4 b. 1.9 4a 99 If you have reason to believe that the target population does not appear on a list, you would not use: a. probability sampling where you select every nth name. b. quota sampling. c. area sampling. When the interviewer is allowed to choose respondents within cer categories, he may choose the most cooperative. Thus, biases may creep into the results of: a. probability sampling. b. quota sampling. c. area sampling. On an attitude scale. an individual checked statements with the following values: 6.4. 2.8. 3.6. 1.2 His score is___________________________________________1 Write the type of sampling technique used in each of the examples below: a. For a poll of voters in a particular district, the pollster obtained a list of all registered voters. He arranged the names in random order and selected every fourth name for the sample.________________________________ b. For a population of all salaried persons. the pollster used a list from the tax rolls. He arranged the names in random order and picked every tenth name.___________________________ c. The pollster determined the percentages of certain social categories within the total population. He then told the interviewers to get a certain number of respondents for each category._____________________________________________________________2 NOW TAKE PROGRESS CHECK 2 ANSWERS 1. 3.2
2 a. probability sampling b. probability sampling c. quota sampling 3b 4a 100
MODULE 4 PROGRESS CHECK 2
1. An individual checks statements 1, 5, and 6 on the following panel: ATTITUDE TOWARD POPULATION CONTROL Selected Statements: 1. Abortion is murder. (1.2) 2. All males over 30 should be sterilized. (10 2) 3. Couples should be encouraged to have only two children. (7.1) 4. Parents should be taxed for having more than two children. (8.2) 5. People should be allowed to have as many children as they want without any controls. (1.6) 6. I feel that all forms of birth control are immoral. (1.5) His score will be _______________________ 2. A series of statements measuring attitudes toward a particular topic is called a(n)___________________________ 3.An individual checks statements with the values 6.2, 7.1, 7.3, and 8.2. His score will be _______________ 4. In a public opinion poll, the number of favorable responses will increase when the question contains___________________________ 5. Match sampling Technique with an example. 1) Probability sampling _________ 2) Area sampling_________ 3) Quota sampling__________
a. The interviewer chooses a certain number of respondents within each of several social categories. b. The names on a list are arranged in random order. The pollster selects every 95th name. c. The state is divided into geographical units. Dwellings are chosen from some of these units. 101 6. Match the type of question with an example. 1 ) Fixed alternative .___________ 2) Open ended ______________ a. All forms of birth control are immoral. b. Would you like to see more educational TV programs, fewer, or about the same number as shown now? c. How do you feel about sales taxes? ; ANSWER KEY PAGE 119 102 5 OR MORE CORRECT PAGE 103 FEWER THAN 5 CORRECT INSTRUCTOR CONFERENCE Module 8 Table of Contents Psych 200 Home Page
UNIT 8 PROGRESS CHECK ANSWER KEYS
MODULE 1 Progress Check 1 1. primacy effect 2. b 3. b 4. c 5. a 6. a, b
Progress Check 2 1. total concept or impression of the person 2. a.c 3. ignore those elements that seem to contradict his first impression 4. a.c 5. primacy effect 6. balanced impression MODULE 2 Progress Check 1 1. b 2. c 3. a,b 4. social norm or standard 5. b 6. a, c 7. b 8. 1) c 2) a 9. a,c Progress Check 2 1. social norm or standard 2. a,b,c 3. a normal curve or a J curve 4. a deviant subculture 5. other deviants 6. norms 8. a 9. increase 10. a, b 118 MODULE 3 Progress Check 1 1. a,b 2. c 3. a 4. a 5. a,b 6. a,b,c 2.
Progress Check 2 1. a social adjustment function an instrumental function 3. c 4. b,c 5. b.c 6. c MODULE 4 Progress Check 1 1. attitude scale 2. 2.5 3. 5.5 4. 1) b 2) a, c 5. 1) b 2) a 3) c 6. b Progress Check 2 1.5 2. attitude scale 3. 7.2 4. a phrase that is generally favored 5. 1) b 2) c 3) a 6. 1) b 2) c MODULE 5 Progress Check 1 1. a,b,c 2. reduced 3. b,c
4. self-defensive 5. b Progress Check 2 1. c 2. c 3. a, b 4. reduced 5. self-defensive MODULE 6 Progress Check 1 1. b 2. b 3. learn in competitive situations 4. modify his own response accordingly 5. b,c 6. a Progress Check 2 1. a. Condition B b. Condition A 2. b 3. b 4. circular reaction 5. c 7. modify his own response accordingly 119
Return to Unit 8 Table of Contents Psych 200 Home Page
UNIT 8 PROGRESS CHECK ANSWER KEYS
MODULE 1 Progress Check 1 1. primacy effect 2. b 3. b 4. c 5. a 6. a, b Progress Check 2 1. total concept or impression of the person 2. a.c 3. ignore those elements that seem to contradict his first impression 4. a.c 5. primacy effect 6. balanced impression MODULE 2 Progress Check 1 1. b 2. c 3. a,b 4. social norm or standard 5. b 6. a, c 7. b 8. 1) c 2) a 9. a,c Progress Check 2 1. social norm or standard 2. a,b,c 3. a normal curve or a J curve 4. a deviant subculture 5. other deviants 6. norms 8. a 9. increase 10. a, b 118 MODULE 3 Progress Check 1
1. a,b 2. c 3. a 4. a 5. a,b 6. a,b,c 2. Progress Check 2 1. a social adjustment function an instrumental function 3. c 4. b,c 5. b.c 6. c MODULE 4 Progress Check 1 1. attitude scale 2. 2.5 3. 5.5 4. 1) b 2) a, c 5. 1) b 2) a 3) c 6. b Progress Check 2 1.5 2. attitude scale 3. 7.2 4. a phrase that is generally favored 5. 1) b 2) c 3) a 6.
1) b 2) c MODULE 5 Progress Check 1 1. a,b,c 2. reduced 3. b,c 4. self-defensive 5. b Progress Check 2 1. c 2. c 3. a, b 4. reduced 5. self-defensive MODULE 6 Progress Check 1 1. b 2. b 3. learn in competitive situations 4. modify his own response accordingly 5. b,c 6. a Progress Check 2 1. a. Condition B b. Condition A 2. b 3. b 4. circular reaction 5. c 7. modify his own response accordingly 119
Return to Unit 8 Table of Contents
Psych 200 Home Page