University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An evaluation of bilingual/cross-cultural education in the Pasadena Unified School District among Spanish-surnamed students…

(USC Thesis Other)

An evaluation of bilingual/cross-cultural education in the Pasadena Unified School District among Spanish-surnamed students…

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EVALUATION OF BILINGUAL/CROSS-CULTURAL EDUCATION IN THE PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AMONG SPANISH-SURNAMED STUDENTS AT THE KINDERGARTENJ FIRSTJ SECONDJ AND THIRD GRADE LEVELSJ WHO ARE NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING/LIMITED ENGLISH SPEAKING by Ida Ferguson Guillermo A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) March 3J 1978 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by IDA FERGUSON GUILLERMO under the direction of fz~r_ ____ Dissertation Com- mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to ({fld accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requi1·enzents of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean DISSERTATION COl\lMlrfTEE -:--~ C->,., ~ .. ~ -.... -.. .. ,. .. .. . --. -.... , -.. -------------.. -.. -----. -----.. ------------------- ... .... .. :. ;:· .. ~ ...... : ·········. ·1h, .. J!/J~J,t .. ~.1.o.4 ...... ~ .... . E CO NTENTS Page LIST O F TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Chapter I . II . III . IV . INTRO DUCTIO N . . . . . . . . Background of the Problem Importance of the Study Purp ose of the Study Hypotheses Outline of the Research Limitati on and Delimitati on of the Study • • • • • • • • Definiti on of Terms Organizati on of the Remaining Chapters REVIEW O F THE LITERATURE Problem Results Findings PRO CEDURE O F THE STUDY . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . Admi nistration and Scoring of Tests Hypotheses ANALYSIS O F THE DATA AND FINDINGS O F THE STUDY ......... . • • • • • 1 12 22 25 V. SUMMARYJ CO NCLUSIO NSJ AND RECO MMENDATIO NS . . 33 REFERENCES . APPENDICES . • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . • • • • • • • A. Parent Permission for Participation • • • • • • • • • • in the Study ........... . • • • • B. Interview Guide for Parents • • • • • • • • ii 38 42 43 45 C. D. E. Study Group and Comparison Group Interviews with Parents .... • • • • • • Revised Scale for Rating Occupation . • • • • Self - Perception Rating Scale : English and Spanish Versions . . . . . . • • Page 48 55 58 F . Children ' s Individual Test of Creativity Scoring Guide : English and Spanish Versions . 69 G. Children ' s Individual Test of Creativity Pupil Response Record Booklet . . ... iii • • 102 LIST CF TABLES Table 1 . Differences in Means and Standard Deviations on the Self-Perception Test between Page Pre- and Posttest Subjects . . . . . . . . . ?.7 2 . Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of the Percentage of Objectives Learned on the Reading Achievement Tests ( SOBER- SOBAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3. Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Verbal Performance on the Creativity Test (CITOC) between Pre- and Posttest Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Nonverbal Performance on the Crea tivity Test (CITOC) between Pre- and Posttest Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 31 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION American education has become increasingly plural istic in nature. The many languages which are spoken and the many cultural differences which exist in our· soc ety are a vital part of America today) for they have been found to provide a strength and beauty to our nation) of which all Americans cRn be proud. Bilingual/cross-cultural education is the recogni tion and acceptance of our need to promote and develop this diversity in our society within the educational framework. The federal Bilingual Education Act (ESEA Title VII) became law in January 1968. This Act heralded a new period in American education. It recognized the importance of a child's first language and cultural background as assets to be encouraged and promoted by the public schools) in order to bring about increased academic and social success for all children. Many school districts in California have worked to develop bilingual/croGs-cultural programs for their stu dents; however) if these programs are to be effective) studies must be conducted to evaluate their effect on stu dent progress and also to identify other factors) such as 1 2 the home and parental attitudesJ which control and influence students' educational and social development. Background of the Problem Bilingual education is not a new concept. Bilingual education programs have existed in other parts of the world for many years (DavisJ 1967; EngleJ 1973; GudschinskyJ 1972; Lambert & TuckerJ 1972; MackeyJ 1972; ModianoJ 1966J 1968). In the pastJ in this country, such education was the privilege of the elite. A family that could afford a pri vate tutor or governess could achieve relative bilingualism for their children. Bilingual education reached its peak in the United States during the pre-Civil War days. GermanJ French, and Spanish bilingual public schools developed dur ing the period from 1839 to 1917. HoweverJ with the wave of nationalism brought on by the First World WarJ these schools disappearedJ and even the teaching of foreign languages in the public schools was discouraged. During recent years the massive spread of communica tion beyond our national borders introduced the concept of the mastery of foreign languages as a matter of national necessity. It was then observed that this resource already existed in many bilingual American homes and should be pro moted and developed. The advent of the Cuban revolution with the subsequent arrival of refugees became another factor in the promotion of bilingual education, and a bi lingual elementary school was set up in Miami in 1963. Similar schools were established a year later in San An tonio and Laredo, Texas. Since then, many bilingual pro grams were initiated, especially in the Southwest. 3 These events along with the research findings of Peal and Lambert, psychologists at McGill University, on the positive effects of bilingualism gave force to the develop ment of bilingual education in the United States. This study concluded that bilinguals performed better than mono linguals on verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests, and that the bilingual children were further ahead in school than the monolinguals, and 0 chieved significantly better than their classmates in languages and in school work in general. As the interest in bilingual education has in creased in the United States during the last ten years, articles and collections of readings have begun to appear on the subject. Also, the federal government has become increasingly involved in the issue and in January 1974 the Supreme Court affirmed in Lau vs. Nichols that school dis tricts are compelled under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide children who speak little or no English with special language programs which will give them an equal opportunity to an education. The form such assistance should take is the subject of debate among educators today. 4 One met:1od., referred to as the "Dual Language Model.," involves a classroom situation in which there would be two models., each of whom would be totally fluent in the language., culture., and social patterns and values of the particular language. Each model would consistently use and maintain the sp ecific language throughout the entire 8chool day., and the learners would come to associate that individ ual with the language and culture he represents. The goal then would be to develop a truly bilingual individual cap able of thinking in two languages and functioning effec tively in two cultures. This method has been adapted for use through the use of techniques such as team teaching., of instructional aides as models., and of bilingual resource teachers who provide instruction in Spanish in various classrooms throughout the day. There is little disagreement that learning English is essential to economic and social mobilit~ in our mono lingual English-speaking society. However., as was stated before., there is much to be gained from promoting bilingual ism in our society today. And both teacr.s-rs and researchers agree that the early stages of development are the most critical for learning languages. The challenge then is to provide an educational program which will be successful in developing individuals capable of functioning and achieving successfully in our society. Importance of the Study As previously indicatedJ bilingual education has been mandated by the federal government. HoweverJ the form it is to take and the manner in which it is to be imple mented are the subject of much controversy in education today. There have been no guidelines provided for the development of bili.ngual prog::.19,ms in a manner in which local needs and circumstances can be met. Research and evaluation are of vital importance at this time in order to shed light on the effectiveness of methods and materials in developing these programs. Al though school districts are required to evaluate their pro grams as a requirement for federal fundingJ a careful de scription of programs including documentation of evaluation techniques would prove helpful in these early stages. Fur therJ continued investigation and research are needed if bilingual education is to be accepted as a natural and valid aspect of American education. Purpose of the Study The major purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of bilingual education in promoting aca demic achievementJ specifically in the area of reading, a positive self-conceptJ and the development of creativity among non-English speaking/limited English speaking students at the kindergarten through third grade level. More specifically, the study attempted to: 1. Determine whether students involved in a bilin gual program at the kindergarten, first, second, and third grade levels, exhibited any marked dif ference in reading achievement and in personal characteristics, such as self-concept and crea tivity, as opposed to students who were in traditional classes. 2. The study also attempted to identify other fac tors, such as home and parental background and attitudes, degree of parental involvement in the student's school life, and the parents' own perception of their child's capabilities and educational potentiRl, in promoting success and progress in school. Hypotheses This study was concerned with the following null hypotheses: 1. There is no significant difference between the comparison and study groups in the area of self-concept. 2. There is no significant difference between the comparison and study groups in the area of read ing achievement. 6 3. There is no significant difference between the comparison and study groups in the area of creativity. Outline of the Research 7 Data for this study were obtained from the pretest and posttest-results of the comparison and study groups which consisted of 25 students in each group. These stu dents were matched through the use of the Revised Scale for Rating Occupation by Warner, Meeker, and Eells (1964 [see Appendix D]). Achieveme~t was measured by the use of the tests: "SOBER-Espanol" (System for Objectives-Based Evaluation Reading) for the study group ✓ and its companion test in English, "SOBAR Reading" (System for Objectives -Based Assessment-Reading), which are objective-based and criterion-referenced, and were designed for use in the evaluation of bilingual programs. Self-concept was measured by the use of the Self Perception Scale developed by N. S. Metfessel and trans lated into Spanish for use in this study in both English and Spanish (~;ee Appendix E). This is a rating scale which provides a measure of a student's perception of himself. The student iEl asked to simply rank himself correctly by drawing a circle around the appropriate stick figure. The scale is easily administered and scored, and basically nonverbal . 8 Creativity was measured through the use of the Children 1 s Individual Test of Creativity (CITOC) developed by N. S . Metfessel for Project Potential and translated into Spanish for use in this study (see Appendix F) . The CITOC consists of a verbal and a performance section which measure the following six abilities : sensitivity to prob lems, fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and redefinition . The test has been found to make allowances for the limited verbal skills of young children as well as the limited verbal skills of culturally disadvantaged chil dren . The above two tests which were translated by the researcher were considered comparable and appropriate for use after translation because of their design or construc- tion which required primarily the questioning of the student to elicit recponses, and the recording and rating of the quality of the responses . The variables of home and parental background and attitudes, degree of parental involvement in the student 1 2 school life, and the parent's own perception of his child 1 z capabilities and educational potential were identified throug.ri the use of personal interviews in the home with parents from both groups, accompanied by a questionnaire developed by the researcher . 9 The statlstical procedure used for testing the hypotheses of this investigation was the t test for measur ing differences in gains . Limitation and Delimitation of the Study The following limitation and delimitation were in effect for this study : 1 . The study was limited to those students at the K-3 level whose parents granted permission for participation in the investigation . 2 . The study was delimited to K-3 students at Jefferson Primary School in the Pasadena Uni fied School District . Definition of Terms The following terms are often confused and are therefore provided here for better understanding by the reader . Bilingualism. Bilingualism may be defined ''as the knowledge and use of two languages by the same persons" (Anderson & BoyerJ 1970J p . 8) . Bilingual-bicultural education or bilingual/cross cultural education . Bilingual-bicultural education is "a process which uses two languagesJ one of which is EnglishJ as mediums of instruction for the same pupil population in a well-organized program which includes the study of the hj_story and cultures associated with the mother tongue" (Pasadena Unified School District, 1974, p. 1). 10 English-as-a-Second Language program (ESL). Eng lish-as-a-Second Language programs are those designed to teach students the language and culture of the dominant society without instruction in the student's dominant lan guage and culture (Pasadena Unified School District, 1974, Foreword). Non-English speaking/limited English speaking stu dent. Those students selected and identified for placement in the program from their performance on the screening instrument used by the Pasadena Unified School District (Burt, Dulay & Hernandez, 1975). Self-concept. Operationally defined as the total score obtained on the Self-Perception Rating Scale. The scale focused on children's percepti0ns in relation to school achievement and interpersonal relationships. Creativity. Operationally defined as a character istic related to scores obtained on the Children's Individ ual Test of Creativity (CITOC). SOBER-Espanol (S~stem for Objectives-Based Evalua tion-Reading). A new approach to the assessment of reading 11 achieve~ent and the evaluation of instructional programs in reading in Spanish (CornejoJ 1975). SOBAR Reading (System for Objectives-Based Assess ment-Reading). A parallel system for objectives-based assessment of reading in the English language (CornejoJ 1975). Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II is a review of the literature that re lates to this study. Emphasis will be given to the varia bles included in the model for investigation. Chapter III includes the procedure and questions to be answered by the study. Chapter IV is the analysis of the data and findings of the study. The summaryJ findingsJ conclusionsJ and recommenda tions are included iil Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The beginning of language is one of the most sig nificant events in human development . It not only opens up the social world to the individual, but it is closely linked to intelligence, learning, and cognitive development . Research findings in the field of educational psy chology and test results of verbal behavior in psycholin guistics and bilingualism have provj_ded a great deal of data on language acquisition in general and also on first and second language learning . There appears to be general agreement that the early stages of development are the most appropriate for learning languages . One researcher who approaches the study of language acquisition from a biological point of view is Lenneberg, who stated that children have a biological capacity to learn a language, and that language develops as the result of maturation and its relationship with environmental condi tions which help to shape the language of children . Two major approaches to the study of language which have been identified in recent years are the learning theory approach exemplified by B. F . Skinner and the lin- 12 13 guistics approach advocated by Noam Chomsky (in Pasadena Unified School District, 1975, p. 15). The learning theory approach considers language behavior simply the result of operant conditioning, that is, speech is a response whose strength is determined by the reinforcement applied to it. Chomsky, on the other hand, proposes the transformational theory of language acquisi tion, which involves the relationship between the under lying structure of a sentence and its superficial structure . A child learns these relationships as he listens to others, but also only because he has the innate capacity to notice and apply them . There are many other points of view concerning lan guage acquisition and it appears that the way in which lan guage develops and emerges is still not known, nor how it relates to the cognitive and affective development of chil dren . There are many fallacies associated with the concept of bilingualism or multilingualism. Bilingualism refers to fluency in two languages by the same person. Bilingual education is the use of two languages, one of which is English, as mediums of instruction for the same pupil popu lation. This includes the study of the history and culture associated with the mother tongue. Bilingual/cross-cultural education is, therefore, instruction using the native language and culture as a basis 4 for learning subjects until second language skills have been developed sufficiently. A major aspect of bilingual/cross-c.ultural educa tion is inclusion in the curriculum of the child's histori calJ literaryJ and cultural traditions for purposes of strengthening identity and a sense of belonging . Great emphasis is placed on fostering self-concept and developing cognitionJ language expressionJ reading, and English skills . Cornejo (1974), in his paper which summarized the research and the theories on the subject of teaching in first and second languagesJ emphasized the many controver sies dealing with the topic of language acquisition and urged further research in order to determine what language isJ how it developsJ and how it affects the cognitive and affective development of children . Also supportive of the education of children in their own native language were the recommendations made by a group of specialists in 1953 . This was later published in a monograph entitled "The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education" (UNESCOJ 1953). These recommendations have had a tremendous effect on bilingual programs throughout the world . There has been extensive literature on bilingualism and intelligenceJ with the vast majority of the early lit erature documenting that monolinguals were more intelligent than bilinguals (Darc~·J 1953, 1963; DieboldJ 1968). Gen erallyJ those studies were done in communities where members 15 of the monolingual group were speakers of the societally dominant languageJ and where bilinguals were often from a lower socioeconomic level than the monolinguals. Further moreJ the extent of bilingualism of the so-called bilinguals was not establishedJ suggesting the possibility of improper testing techniquesJ such as an inappropriate language used for testingJ as well as a biased test, improperly normed and interpreted (De Avila, 1972). ThereforeJ until recently, research tended to support the theory that bilingualism is detrimental to intellectual functioning. Peal and Lambert (1962) reported the following from their search of the literature prior to embarking on their study: A large proportion of the investigators have con cluded from their studies that bilingualism has a detriillental effect on intellectual functioning. The bilingual child is described as being hampered in his performance on intellectual tests in compari son with the monolingual child. A smaller propor tion of the investigators found little or no influ ence of bilingualism on intelligence in that no significant difference between bilinguals and mono linguals on tests of intelligence was apparent. (p. 27) Many studies appear to be methodologically inade quate. Many are inconclusive. An example of this is a study conducted with Spanish-speaking people in Arizona (Arizona State UniversityJ 1960). In this studyJ no sig nificant relationship was demonstrated between intellectual functioning and bilingualism; however, significant relatj_on ships were found between sociocultural factorsJ such as school success and test performance. The well-designed 16 Arizona study and its findings add credence to the idea that many other studies of bilingualism fail to control social factors adequately and, very often, report differences between high socioeconomic-status monolinguals and low status bilinguals . A study done in Canada referred to as The Saint Lambert's Study, and controlled for the factors cited above, yielded remarkable results . The main purpose of this study was to develop linguistic proficiency in a second language by using that language as the medium of instruction in the various content areas of the curriculum . The researchers reported the following : After five years, we are satisfied that the experi mental program has resulted in no native language or subject matter (i .e., arithmetic) deficit or retardation of any sort, nor is there any cognitive retardation attributable to participation in the program . (Lambert & Tucker, 1972, p . 152) It appears that the best controlled study of bilin gualism which has been available is Peal and Lambert's (1962) . After thorough testing with careful control for sociocultural factors, they concluded the following : The effects of bilingualism on intellectual function ing are explored in this study . A group of mono lingual and a group of bilingual ten-year-old children from six Montreal French Schools were administered verbal and non-verbal intelligence tests .... Con trary to the previous findings, this study found that bilinguals perform significantly better on both verbal and non-verbal intelligence tests . (p . 22) Very few empirical studies suggest that bjJingualism may have favorable intellectual consequences, such as the Peal and Lambert study (1962) . The details of this study will be outlined in full due to the comprehensiveness and importance of the findings : Problem 17 The research was designed to examine more extensively the effects of bilingualism on the intellectual func ti oning of children and t o explore the relations be tween bilingualism, school achievement, and student ' s attitude toward the second language community . (p . 22) Subjects Ten -year -old students from M ontreal , Canada . The total sample was 110 students . Instruments Used 1 . Measures of Intelligence a . Lavoire-Laurendeau (1960) Group Test of General Intelligence b . Raven (1956) Progressive Matrices Test c . Thurstone (1954) Primary Mental Abilities 2 . Measures of Attitudes a . Attitude - t oward -English Scale, Attitude toward -French Scale b . Parents' Attitude toward English Canadians, Parents ' Attitude toward French Canadians c . Evaluation of Me d . Voice Study 3. Achievement Measures--Teacher Ratings 18 Results Bilinguals performed better than monolinguals on verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests . A possible expla nation may be that intellectually the French-English bilin gual in Montreal's experience with two language systems seems to have been left with a mental flexibility, a superi ority in concept information, and a more diversified se~ of mental abilities . In contrast, the monolingual appears to have a more unitary structure of intelligence which he must use for all types of intellectual tasks . It was also found that the bilingual children were further ahead in school than the monolinguals and they achieved significantly better than their classmates in English~ study and in school work in general . Finally, the pattern of attitudes that emer 1 ged for the two groups is distinctively different and these atti tude differences might be expected to influence performance on intelligence tests, but this is not the case . There were no significant correlations between attitude and intelligence for either group . Findings Thus, a picture emerges of monolingual and bilingual childr8n as representatives of two distinct groups, differing in intellectual structure, attitude pat terns, achievement in school, and achievement in lan guages . (Peal & Lambert 1962, p . 27) 19 Needless to say·J confusion does exist regarding the effect of bilingualism on children's development . But em pirical evidence seems to argue against the idea that bilin guals have lower intellectual functioningJ and yet many school people still subscribe to the idea and tend to view bilingualism as a liability and a source of mental confu- sion . In an article by Gonzales and Lezama (1974)J many of the myths surrouding bilingual education were examinedJ and a dual language model was presented . The authors em phasized the importance of including the cultural ~spects of the language in the program and the use of models who are fluent in the languages being taught. Native language teachers are generally used for instruction in the native language of the childJ and native English speaking teachers for instruction in English . On the subject of emotional and social development of bilingualsJ Levine (1969) wrote in his article that while the popular tendency is to associate "bilingualism" with 1 t t +-"h • t 1 b th ower S a US J v.1..1.lS may DO a ways e e case . In certain areas such as New Mexico and New OrleansJ bilingualism tended to increase a person's status and thereby aid in his social and emotional adjustment . He pointed out that this misconception stems from the difficulty of separating those factors in the person's social and emotional adjustment actually caused by bilingualism itselfJ and those which are 20 caused by socioeconomic fact~rs in the background of those studied. However, research designed to differentiate be tween the effect of these two factors has not yet been perfected. Pinter and Arsemian (1937), who studied a large number of subjects in order to determine the effects of bilingualism on social and emotional adjustment, concluded that wherever all other factors are equated, 11 bilingualism in this particular population [Jewish schoolboys and girls, New York City] bears no relation to verbal intelligence and school adjustment as measured by tests employed 11 (p. 262). However, in a methodologically unsound .study by Bossard (1945), it was concluded that although it is dif ficult to isolate the basic factors of socioeconomic status, health, etc., there appears to be a residue of turmoil left in those who grevr up in a bilingual atmosphere. This study is flawed by the use of small numbers in the investigation (17 subjects), and the technique of in-depth interviews to gather information. Also, it is difficult to accept the findings of this study done among Jewish boys and girls sampled in New York in 1937 and apply them to Spanish speaking j_ ndi vi duals in the Southwest. For here the con flict appears to be clearly one of culture, and not of the home and with the family, as was evident in Bossard's study. In conclusion, it appears that the findings so far ' 21 on this issue are inconclusive and that the issue needs further investigation, for there seems to be far more writ ten on intelligence quotients and on how to teach bilingual children, than on its psychological effects. The movement toward bilingual education for bilin gual children in the public schools provides educators with the opportunity to evaluate whether such programs would have a concomitant, beneficial effect on the social and emotional adjustment of their students. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY In this chapter the process used in conducting the study is presented . The known characteristics of the sub jectsJ the method of selectionJ and the process of testing will be discussedJ followed by a discussion of the adminis tration and scoring procedures of the various tests used . The major hypotheses tested are described as well as the other variables which were explored through the use of personal interviews in the homes of the subjects . Subjects The study was made possible through the cooperation of the staff and parents of Jefferson Primary School in the Pasadena Unified School District . In the school year 1976 - 77J after all Spanish-surnamed students in the school had been administered the Bilingual Syntax Measure to determine language dominanceJ the students eligible for bilingual classes were identifiedJ and their parents given the choice r: htlingual instruction for their child . Once these classes were establishedJ parent permission was obtained for participation in the study. Permission was also obtained from those parents who chose to keep their children intra ditio11al monolingual classes . From these groups) selected 22 23 kindergartenJ firstJ second, and third grade studentsJ mate;hed according to language dominance (score on Bilingual Syntax Measure)J and socioeconomically through the use of the Revised Scale for Rating Occupation by WarnerJ MeekerJ and Eells, constituted the "comparison" and "study" groups . In the fall of 1976J both groups were administered three individual tests : the CITOC (Spanish and English ver sions)J the SOBER- Espanol (SOBAR Reading for the "compari son" group)J and the Self - Perception Scale (Spanish and English versions) . In the spring of 1977J both groups were again admin istered the tests . AlsoJ at this timeJ a randomly selected group of ten families from each group were interviewed per sonally in their homes by this investigator . A series of questions in the form of an interview guide was preparedJ in order to obtain information regarding home backgroundJ and parental attitudes towards the school and academic suc cess for the child . Administration and Scoring of Tests All tests except the SOBER-EspanolJ which is used in the evaluation of the district's bilingual programJ were administered individually by this investigator and a trained bilingual assistant . The same tests were also scored by this investigator in the following manner : the CITOC's total scoresfor each of six abilities measured were tallied ; 24 the SOBER and SOBAR were scored in terms of the number of correct responses made by the child in accordance with the selected objectives to be mastered for each grade level . Hypotheses The study was concerned with the following null hypotheses : 1 . There is no significant difference between the 2 . 3 . comparison and study groups in the area of ing achievement . There is no significant difference between comparison and study groups in the area of concept . There is no significant difference between comparison and study groups in the area of creativity . read - the self- the CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of bilingual education in promoting academic achievement, and the development of selected personal char acteristics in young children . Specifically, the study measured progress in the area of reading, the development of a positive self -concept, and the development of creativity among non-English speaking/limited English speaking students at the kinder garten through third grade level . In this chapter, the findings of the study are reported and discussed, incorporating the findings and impressions obtained from the personal interviews with selected families . The study investigated the following research hypotheses : 1 . There is a difference between the study (bilingual) and comparison groups in the area of self - concept . 2 . There is a difference between the study (bilingual) and comparison groups in the area of reading achievement . 25 26 3 . There is a difference between the study (bilingual ) and comparison groups in the area of creativity . The . 05 level of significance was established for rejection of the companion null hypotheses . The t test was used for measuring differences in gains for the study (bi lingual) group as compared to the comparison group . Table 1 shows the differences in means and standard deviations of the pre - and posttest scores for the study and comparison groups in the area of self-perception . The dif ferences for both groups are included . Scores indicate that the self - concept of the study group remained constant for the duration of the study, and that the comparison group's self - concept decreased by 12 percent, even though there was no significant difference between the two groups at the conclusion of the study . The null hypothesis was therefore not rejected . This was further supported by the findings of the personal interviews with the parents from both groups . These interviews revealed that the two groups were m ore alike than they were different in terms of their parents ' attitudes and perception of their children ' s capabilities . M ost parents felt their child was "very intelligent" or at least "average . 11 And all had high expectations for their children ' s future educational achievements . All parents interviewed spoke Spanish in the home, and all reported Study Comparison Table 1 Differences in Means and Standard Deviations on the Self-Perception Test between Pre- and Posttest Subjects Pre Post Difference t Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 24.4 2.9 24.4 5.0 0.0 5.2 1.7 24.6 3.4 21.6 5.8 -2.9 6.2 n = 23 per group df = 44 p .08 I\) -,"J 28 that they continued to perpetuate the customs and practices of the Latin cultureJ and took pride in their heritage . Table 2 presents the differences in means and stand ard deviations based on percent of objectives learned in the area of reading achievement . No differences were found between the mean scores of the study and the comparison groups on the posttest . Interviews revealed that among parents of subjects in both groups there was a wide range of educational backgrounds ranging from no formal education to university training . And although there were parents who were not literate in either languageJ the emphasis on the importance of educa tion and its value was continually discussed with the chil dren . All responded to the question regarding how they accounted for achievement and success in lifeJ that it was the result of hard work and dedication- - few felt "luck" was a factor . Table 3 presents the findings of the pre- and post test of the verbal section of the creativity test and Table 4 presents the findings of the nonverbal section of the same test . The performance of the subjects in this area re vealed great variability within each individual group J and some difference between the two groups on the verbal and nonverbal scores . The study group performed somewhat better Study Table 2 Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of the Percentage of Objectives Learned on the Reading Achievement Tests (SOBER-SOBAR) Pre Post Difference t Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. .24 .14 .43 .24 .19 .15 1.04 Comparison .20 .14 . 45 .18 .25 .21 n = 23 per group df = ~-4 p .30 I- f\) \..0 Study Comparison Table 3 Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Verbal Performance on the Creativity Test (CITOC) between Pre- and Posttest Subjects Pre Post Difference t Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 61.4 30. 7 69.4 30.8 8.o 30.1 1.2 67.0 41.6 87.3 27.3 20.3 39.8 n = 23 per group df = 44 p .24 l>J 0 Study Comparison Table 4 Differences in Means and Standard Deviations of Nonverbal Performance on the Creativity Test (CITOC) between Pre- and Posttest Subjects Pre Post Difference t Mean S. D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 101.0 25.8 107.4 23.4 6.3 28.8 1.3 76 .3 32.6 92.9 19.9 16.6 24.5 n = 23 per group df = 44 p .19 vJ j-J 32 on the pretest than the comparison group on the nonverbal section., but the comparison group showed an increase on the posttest . Overall., however., on both verbal and nonverbal performance., there was no significant difference between the mean gains of the study and comparison groups . CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Bilingual/bicultural education represents a posi tive step forward to remedy the unequal preparati on and progress of students who enter school with a limited knowl edge of English . The passage of legislation authorizing and promoting bilingual programs emphasizes the fact that the United States government is committed tc this concept . Bilingual education needs further clarification in terms of its implementation . Curricular designs need t o be developed and tested as well as the methods and materials used . Teachers must be well-trained and the public needs to be fully informed of the goals of bilingual education . The general purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the bilingual/bicultural education program in promoting such important outcomes or expecta tions of schooling as the development of a positive self concept, increased reading achievement, and the nurturance of creativity at the primary level. Selected students from the Spanish - surnamed/limited English speaking population at a specific school were in cluded in the study . Twenty-five students were selected from among those students enrolled in traditional mono- 33 34 lingual classes, and 25 from those enrolled in bilingual/ bicultural classes. The latter group were designated as the "study" group and the former as the "comparison" group. The students in both groups were tested at the be ginning and at the close of the s~hool year. Testing was done in the areas of reading achievem2nt; self-concept and creativity; using assessment tools in both English and Spanish; and English with the comparison group and Spanish with the study grou:J. The instruments used in this study were the SOBER Espanol and its companion English version., the SOBAR. These instruments are designed for the assessment of reading achievement and the evaluation of instructional programs. In the evaluation of self-concept., the Self Perception Rating Scale was used. The scale focused on children's perceptions in relation to school achievement and interpersonal relationships. Creativity was measured through the use of the Children's Individual Test of Creativity (CITOC) developed by N. S. Metfessel and translated into Spanish by the in vestigator for this study. Three major hypotheses were under investigation in this study. Stated in the null form., it was hypothesized that there are no differences on any of the three variables between the scores of the study (bilingual) and comparison groups. Another area of investigation concerned the home 35 and parental background and attitudes. The t test for measuring differences in gains in pre - and posttests was used to analyze the data . The . 05 level of significance was established for rejection of the companion null hypotheses . The study was concerned with investigating the dif ference in academicJ socialJ and personal development of the two groups. An ancillary purpose of the study was to identify variables not directly under the control of the school and which have been found to influence the progress of students . The variables considered were : background and parental at titudesJ degree of parental involvement in the student's school lifeJ and the parents' perception of their child's educational potential . The study indicated that while there was wide varia bility in the performance of the two groups on pre- and posttestsJ no significant differences were identified in amount of gains during the period of the study . The simi larity of the two groups was further supported by the per sonal interviews with randomly selected parents from both the study and the comparison groups . Home interviews revealed the following: 1 . Families were primarily from Mexico . 2 . Families in the study group reported more visits to the country of origin since immigration than those families of subjects in the comparison group . 3 . All families spoke Spanish in the home . 4. Parents of children in the study group had im migrated to the United States as recently as two years and no longer than nine years ago . 5. Parents of children in the comparison group had been living in the United States over a period of nine to 14 years . A possible explana tion of this difference is the perceived need of recent immigrants for the support of a bilingual education program in their transition to American society . 6 . While all famil~es interviewed agreed on the importance of bilingual education) those who did not have their chi l dren enrol l ed in bilingual classes J did so because they did not want to impede the children's progress in schoolJ and felt that the native language could be learned in the home . From this investigation it appears that in order 36 for the process of bilingual education to continue and develop as a vital part of our educational systemJ modifica tions are needed in the implementation of the various types of programs . The approach of offering two different types 37 of bilingual programs) a transitional bilingual program in order to speed up fluency in English and the maintenance bilingual program designed to nurture and develop fluency in both the native language and English) may be the answer for some school districts . As a result of this studyJ it is this investigator's impression that if bilingual education is to be successful) commitment on the part of the school staff and the community is essential . AlsoJ further research is needed which will evaluate the methods and materials used in the implementa tion of these programs . Longitudinal studies with students in primary and elementary grades would also reveal valuable data on the growth and development of students in the early school years . REFERENCES 38 REFERENCES Anderson, T. , & Boyer, J . (Eds . ) . Bilingual schooling in the United States (Vol . 1) . Washington, D. C.: HEW, January 1970 . Arizona State University, College of Education . Investiga tion of mental retardation and pseudo -mental retarda tion in relati on to bilingual and sub -cultural factors (Financed under contract with HEW) . Tempe, Arizona : Author., 1960 . Bossard, J . The bilingual as a person--linguistic identi fication with status . American Sociological Review, 1945., 10., 699 . Burt ., M . K . ., Du 1 a y., H . C . ., & Hernadez ., E . ( Eds . ) . Bi 1 in - gual syntax measure . New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich., 1975 . Cornejo., R. J . A synthesis of theories and research on the effects of teaching in first and second languages - implications for bilingual education (No . EC-015) . Austin, Texas : National Educational Laboratory Pub lishers., 1974 . Cornejo., R. J . SOBER-Espanol . Los Angeles: UCLA., Center for the Study of Evaluation., 1975 . Darcy., N. T. A review of the literature on the effects of bilingualism upon the measurement of intelligence . Journal of Genetic Psychology., 1953, 82., 21-57 . Darcy., N. T. Bilingualism and intelligence : Review of a decade of research . Journal of Genetic Psychology., 1963., 103., 259- 282 . Davis., F . B. Philippine language-teaching experiments . Quezon City., Philippines : Alemar-Phoenix., 1967 . De Avila., E. A. Some cautionary notes on attempting to adapt IQ tests for use with minority children and a neo-Piagetian approach to intellectual assessment. In Bilingual testing and assessment : Proceedings of BABEL workshop and preliminary findings (Multilingual Assessment Project) . Berkeley : Bay Area Bilingual Education League., 1972 . Pp . 65-105 . 39 40 DieboldJ A. R. Incipient bilingualism . In D. Hymes (Ed . )J Language in culture and society : A reader in linguistics and anthropology . New York : Harper & RowJ 1968 . Pp . 495-508 . EngleJ P . L. The use of the vernacular language in educa tion : A literature review prepared for the Ford Founda tion Office of MexicoJ Central America and the Carib bean . Panama City : Instituto de Nutricion de Centro America y Pan.amaJ December 1973 . GonzalesJ E.J & LezamaJ J . The dual language model : A practical approach to bilingual education . TESOL QuarterlyJ June 1974J 8J 154 . GudschinskyJ S . C. Literacy in the mother tongue and second language learning (Conference on Child LanguageJ ChicagoJ November 22 - 24J 1971) . LavalJ Quebec : Les Presses de l'UniversiteJ 1972 . Pp . 341-355 . LambertJ W . E. J & Peal-AnisfeldJ E. A note on the rela tionship of bilingualism and intelligence . Canadian Journal of Behavioral ScienceJ 1962J lJ 123-128 . LambertJ W . E. J & TuckerJ G. R. Bilingual education of children : The St. Lambert experiment . RowleyJ Mass.: Newbury HouseJ 1972 . LevineJ H. Bilingualism: Its effect on emotional and social development . Journal of Secondary EducationJ February 1969J 44J 70-71 . MackeyJ W . F . Bilingual education in a binational school . RowleyJ Mass . : Newbury HouseJ 1972 . ModianoJ N. Reading comprehension in the national lan guage : Comparative study of bilingual and all Spanish . Unpublished doctoral dissertationJ New York UniversityJ 1966 . ModianoJ N. National or mother language in beginning read ing? Research in the Teaching of EnglishJ 1968J _g_J 32-43 . Pasadena unified School District . Research on bilingualism . Pasadena : AuthorJ 1972 . PealJ E. J & LambertJ W . E. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence . Psychological MonographsJ 1962J 76J 22J 27 . 41 PinterJ R. J & ArsemianJ S. The relation of bilingualism to verbal intelligence and school adjustment . Journal of Educational ResearchJ 1937J 31J 255 . UNESCO. The use of vernacular languages in education . Monographs on Fundamental EducationJ 1953J 8J 17-44 . WarnerJ W . L. J MeekerJ M . J & EellsJ K. Revised occupational rating scale . In D. C. Miller (Ed . )J Handbook of re search design and social measurement . New York : David McKayJ 1964 . APPENDICES 42 APPENDIX A PARENT PERMISSION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY 43 Dec..r Pa.rent, I.'1 an ef!'~r:. to rletermi.'1e the stren~hs mi weaknesses nf the district\ s -:,lli.ngual/crosscultura~ prcgra.J'", a, e·:tluaticr is being ~onducted hy one of the district's ,;,syr::1olog~ sts. Yom:· .;h.i.lC. h...s '>:; 3n s "lcctef. to p~!.c~.pa te in +.his resca.rcl: pro jec:. which wiJ~ ~volve tha aJministration ,,f achieveni.ent a.nd self-concept testr, L~ Octcber and May of this school year. Please sign and return t'tl.s 1 ette.r as seem al'; p<,s~1b~.e to y0ur child's t.eacher, if you hc»ve no objection. to t..is/her part::.cipa.+.ion in :.he study. Thmld.ng yo1J. in advance for yo11r cooperation ln this mat.tar, I remain, Oincerely yours. Mr. Jar.ra.tt t. Prunscn, Principal I approve ct· ey chila.' s par'"icipa tion 1n the bllingua.1/ c:=oss ~u.L t.urru. R :.t.idy. Signati.=e 7 de vctubrA de 1976 Estimado Pa.er~ de Fami~.ia., ~ Su hljo/aJ1a sido seleccionado Pa.rc!; participu un ur.? evaJ.Ucl.d.on del program bill.ng,:i.e del distrlwo. El p:roposito d.e este estudio es ie enr.ontrar los ~ectos positives del ~:ro~-rama., y asi poder mejorar di~hu ~:rog:ra.ma para el prmd.mo air'c. escolar. , El proceso de la evaluacitn incluir! la admi.nlst4::a.cion 5e E;xfrnene~ para evalua.r 61 p:rogreso acad,mico y soc:al del alwnno. Esto3 a.xamenea serar~ adrn1n:tstrados por un psic~logo del distri,:,o du.ra.i ~ te l:>s meses de octubre y mayo de e3te a!ro escolar. Favor d~ fimar esta carta y regresarla 10 mls pronto po~ible al maest=-o/a de au hij~/a, si usted aprueba de su p~icipaci!n en el proyecto. Muchisimas gracias por su covpuacion er1 este esfu~..rzc. Sincera.m':3Ilte, Sr. Jarratt L. Brunson, DirJctor Apruehl de la participaciln de mi hijo/~ en el proyecto bilingue. , _____________ _ Firma 44 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH PARENTS 45 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PARENTS Child's name Grade ---------------- Last First Middle Child's birthplace Length of time in U. S. ----------- No . of siblings Child's position in order of birth ------ Number of visits to country of origin since immigation --------- Family and Home Background Father's occupation Mother's occupation -------- How far did he go in school? Language spoken in the home How far did she go in school? --- Do parents read and speak the above language? Do parents watch Spanish language TV channels and listen to Spanish language radio stations? Do other persons live in the home? If so, who? What magazines, newspapers, and books are in the home? Do parents maintain certain practices peculiar to the Latin culture? (i.e., christenings, godparents, church activities, Sunday gatherings in home or parks) What does the chi~d do when he gets home from sch8ol? Is anyone at home when he gets home from school? Is child involved in boy or girl scout troops? If so, who? When and under what conditions does child do his homework? Does mother or father ever assist c~ild with homework? Does child have other duties which interfere with homework? 46 Parents' Involvement in School Do parents attend PI'A meetings? If so, how often? Do parents have regular conferences with child's teachers? Are conferences initiated by parents? Do parents attend and participate in activities sponsored by the school? How important to the parents is education? Parents' Perception of the Child What would parents like the child to be when he grows up? What would they consider their child's intellectual potential to be? How satisfied are they with child's progress in school? Why did parents make the choice they did regarding class placement? (General feelings about bilingual education) 47 APPENDIX C STUDY GROUP AND COMPARISON GROUP INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS 48 STUDY GROUP (BILINGUAL) INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS Subject No. 1 Place of birth: Mexico (family 8 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 5 Parents' education: Secondary and 1 yr. university training Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "bright" Subject No. 2 Place of birth: Mexico (family 2 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 4 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "bright" Subject No. 3 Place of birth: United States (family 7~ yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 4 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child. is "very intelligent" Subject No. 4 Place of birth: United States (family 8 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 2 Parents' education: Secondary and some higher education Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of chi.ld' s educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" 49 Subject No. 5 Place of birth: United States (family 9 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 5 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Not very Parents' perception of child's educational potential: "very intelligent" Subject No. 6 Place of birth: Mexico (family 3 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 5 Parents' education: No formal schooling Dominant language: Spanish involved Feel child is Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' pPrception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" Subject No. 7 Place of birth: Mexico (family 2 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 5 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "bright" Place of birth: Mexico (family 3 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 6 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language : Spanish Degre2 of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" 50 Subject No. 9 Place of birth: Mexico (family 6 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 5 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "very intelligent" Subject No. 10 Place of birth: Costa Rica (family 4 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 4 Parents' education: Secondary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" 51 COMPARISON GROUP INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS Subject No. 1 52 Place of birth: United States (family 14 yrs. in U.S. from Philippines) No. of siblings: 2 Parents' education: College Dominant language: Tagalog Degree of involvement in school activities: Not very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feels child is "average" Subject No. 2 Place of birth: Mexico (family 9 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 4 Parents' education: Secondary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feels child is "very intelligent" Subject No. 3 Place of birth: United States (family 10 yrs. in U.S. from El Salvador) No. of siblings: 3 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "average" Subject No. 4 Place of birth: Mexico (family 9 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 6 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Not involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent'' Subject No. 5 Place of birth: United States (family 9 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 3 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Not involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "capable" Subject No. 6 Place of birth: United States (family 12 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 2 Parents' education: Secondary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree o:f involvement in school activities: Not involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "average" Subject No. 7 Place of birth: Mexico (family 11 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 4 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree o:f involvement in school activities: Moderately involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" Subject No. 8 Place of birth: United States (family 14 yrs. in U.S.) No. o:f siblings: 5 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant 1anguage: Spanish Degree o:f involvement in school activities: Not involved Parents' perception o:f child's educational potential: Feel child is "very intelligent" 53 Subject No. 9 Place of birth: Mexico (family 10 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 6 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language: Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Moderately involved ?arents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "intelligent" Subject No. 10 Place of birth: Mexico (family 14 yrs. in U.S.) No. of siblings: 6 Parents' education: Elementary school Dominant language : Spanish Degree of involvement in school activities: Very involved Parents' perception of child's educational potential: Feel child is "bright" 54 APPENDIX D REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION 55 \Jl CJ\ RATING ASSIGNED TO OCCUPATION 1 2 3 PROFESSIONALS Lawyers, doctors, dentistA, engi neers, judges, high school super intendents, veter inarians, ministers (graduated from divinity school), chemists, etc. with post-graduate train in_fI1- architects High school teach ers, trained nurses, chiropodists, chiro practors, undertak ers, ministers (some training), newspaper editors, librarians (graduate) REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION PROPRIETORS AND MANAGERS BUSINESS MEN CLERKS AND KINDRED WORKERS Businesses val- Regional and !Certified Public ued at $75,000 divisional Accountants and over managers of large financial and industrial enterprises Businesses val ued at $20,000 to $75,000 Assistant ma.na- Accountants, sal~s gers and office men of real entate and department and of insurance, managers of postmasters large businesses, assistants to executives, etc. Social workers, Businesses val- All minor offi- Auto salesmen, bank grade-school teach- ued at $5,000 cials of busi- clerks and cashiers, ers, optometrists, to $20,000 nesses postal clerks, sec- librarlans (not retaries to execu- graduate), undertak- tiv~s, supervisors ers' assistants, of railroad, tele- ministers (no train- phone, etc., jus- in tices of the ace MAJ-ruAL WORKERS Contractors PROTECTIVE AND SERVICE WORJ(ERS FARMERS Gentlemen fanners Large farm owners, fann owners REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION (Continued) RATING ASSIGNED TO OCCL'PATION 4 , 6 7 PROFESSIONALS PROPRU,•IORS AND MANAGERS Businesses val ued at $2,000 to $5,000 Businesses val ued at $500 to $2,000 Businesses val ued at less than $500 BUSINESS MEN CLERKS AND KINDRED WORE.lRS Stenographers, book keepers, rural mail clerks, railroad ticket agents, sales people in dry goods store, etc. Dime store clerks, hardware salesmen, beauty operators, telephone operators MANUAL WORKERS Factory foremen, own business : elect:ticians plumbers carpenters wo.tchma.kers PRaI'ECTIVE AND SERVICE WORKERS Dry cleaners, butchers, sheriffs, rail road engineers and conductors FA™ERS Carpenters, Barbers, firemen, !Tenant plUir.bers, butchers' appren- farmers electricians tices, practical (apprentice), nurses, policemen, t:iJnekeepers, seamstresses, linemen, cooks in restau- telephone or ants, bartenders telegraph, radio re- painnen, medium-skill workers Moulders, semi-skilled workers, as sistants to carpenters, etc. Heavy labor, migrant work, odd job men, Baggage men, night policemen and watchmen, taxi and truck drivers, gas station attend ants, waitresses in restaurants Janitors, scrub women, newsboys Small ten ant f arrner8 Migrant farm laborers ----------------...J miners Source: Warner, Meeker, and EeU.s Revised Occupation See.le (1964). \J7 ~ APPENDIX F SELF - PERCEPTIO N RATING SCALE : ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS 58 PROJECT POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDE: SELF-PERCEPrION N. S. Mettessel University of Southern California The pul"i)Ose of this rating scaJ.e was to develop an instrument which would meet the fol.lowing criteria: (1) provide a measure of a student's perception of himself, (2) be easily administered, (3) be easily scored, (4) be essentitlly non-verbaJ., (5) be amenable to statistical interpretation, and (6) be flexible enough to measure many areas without changing the essentiaJ. f'ormat and in structions of the instrument. There are at least two problems involved in obtaining self-estimates from 1.ndividua.l.s. One is the matter of obtaining accurate ratings: ca.n a student honestly rank himself correctly, or will there be a response set, e.g., a tendency to mark either in the middle or at the extremes. The other proble~ is that of reliability. However, if' there is good rapport in the classroom and the children perceive the teacher or test administrator as a person worthy of trust, valid results will be obtained • . Instructions for Stick Figure Self-Perception Rating Grades K - 6 Instructions that are to be read to the examinee will appear in capital letters. Display the test while giving instructions. IT WILL HELP ME TO KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HOW WELL YOU AAE oonrG. HERE ARE SIX PAGES WITH STICK FIGURES ( PE.llliAPS YOU K?mw TF'.AT STICK FIGURES ARE JUST A SIMPLE WAY OF DRAWING A PERSON). F.ACH ROW OF STICK FIGURES GOES FROM LITTLE TO BIG (point to each figure from left to right) AND FROM A SAD FACE TO A VERY HAPPY FACE (point to each face from left to right). MARY KNOWS SHE OOES VERY WELL IN SCHOOL, SO SHE WOULD DRAW A CIF.CLE AROUND THE BIGGEST STICK FIGURE WITH THE HAPPIEST FACE (point to the figure on the far right). JOHNNY KNOWS HE IS NOT THE BEST STUDENT IN CI.ASS BUT THAT HE IS CI.DSE,. SO HZ WOULD DRAW A CIRCLE AROtmD THE SECOUD FIGURE FROM THE RIGh'T (point to the second figure from the right. Wait for any questions. Point again to the second figure from the right). SALLY FEELS THAT ABOUT HALF OF THE CLASS .ARE DOING WORK HARDER T"rlAN SHE IS A?ID ABOUT HALF ARE DOING WORK EASIER . THAU SHE IS, SO SHE WOULD DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THE FIGURE nr TEE MIDDLE (point to the third figure f':rom the right). DICK KNOWS THAT HE IS HAVI TG A HARDER Tl}!E IN CIASS Copyright 1965: n. s. Metfessel 59 THAN MJST KIDS BUT IS DOING BETTER THAN A FEW, SO HE WOULD DR~W A CIRCLE. AROUND THE NEXT TO SMALLEST (point to the second f'igure from the left. Wait for any questions. Point again to the second figure from the left) • SUSAN SOMETIMES DOESN'T LIKE TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT SHE IS HAVING A VERY HARD TD1E IN · SCHOOL AND KNOWS THAT TO SHOW WrlERE SHE IS, SHE WOULD CIRCLE THE SMALLEST FIGURE WITH THE SADDEST FACE (point to the figure on the f'ar left). NOW, IT lS YOUR TURN. PLEASE TAKE YOUR PENCIL AND DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THE FIGURE THAT SHOWS: l) How Well You Do In School. Turn the page. Now draw a circle around the figure that shows 2) How Your Teachers Feel About You. Ttn-n the page. Now draw a circle a.round the figure that shows 3) How Other Gr~m-U-os In School Feel About You. Turn the l)age. Now draw a circle around the figure that shows 4) How The Kids In This Class Feel. About You. Turn the l)age. Now draw a. circl.e around the figure that shows 5) How Well The Kids In Your Class Think You Do Things. Turn the page. Mow draw a circle around the figure tba.t shows 6) How You Feel About Yoursel.f. That is the end of the game. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 60 PROYECTO POTENCIAL GUIA INTERPRETATIVA: PERCEPCION PROPIA N. s. Mettessel University of Southern California El prop6sito de esta escala de evaluacidn ru, para desarrollar un instrumento, el que encontrar!a el siguiente criteria: {1) proporcio nar una medida de la percepcion propia de un estudiante· , (2) ser ta cilmente administrada, (3) ser taeilmente califieada, (4) ser esencial mente no verbal, (5) ser adaptable a la interpretaci6n estad!stica, y (6) ser su!icientemente flexible para medir diversas ireas sin cambiar el tormato esencial e indicaciones del instrumento. Hay por lo menos dos problemas 1mpl1cados en obtener estimaciones pro pias de 1nd1viduos. Uno es el proposito de obtener evaluaciones co rrectas: iPuede un estudiante clasificarse honesta y correctamente?, o iHabra una respuesta ya establecida?, por ejemplo, una tendencia a mar car ya sea en medio o a los extremes. El otro problema es el de con fianza. Sin embargo, si hay buena armonfa en el sal6n de clases y los ni!os perciben al maestro o administrador del examen como una persona digna de con!ianza, se obtendrin resultados valiosos . Instrucciones para la evaluacion de la percepcion propia, con figura-modelo Grados K-6 I , 1 Las instrucciones que se leeran al examinante, apareceran con etras may6sculas. Extienda el examen mientras d' las instrucciones. ME AYUDARA SABER COMO TE SIENTES ACERCA DE LO BI:slf QUE ESTAS TRABAJANDO. AQUI HAY SEIS PAGINAS CON FIGURAS-MODELO (TAL VEZ TU SABES QUE FIG~AS MODELO SON SOLAMENT~ UNA FORMA SIMPLED£ DIBUJAR UNA PSRSONA). CADA HILERA DE FIGURAS-MODELO VAN DE PEQUENO A GRANDE (senale cada tigura de izquierda a derecha) Y DE UNA CARA TRISTE A UNA MUY FELIZ (senale cada cara de izquierda a derecha). MARIA SABE QUE VA MUY BIEN EN LA ESCUELA, ASI QUE ELLA DIBUJARIA UN CIRCULO ALREDEOOR DE LA FIGURA-MODELO MAS GRAN DE CON LA CARA MAS FELIZ (senale la !igura de la extrema derecha). JUA NITO SABE QUE NO ES EL MEJOR ESTUDIANTE DE LA CLASE PERO ESTA CERCA, ASI QUE EL DIBUJARIA UN CIRCULO ALREDEDOR DE LA SEGUNDA FIGURA DE LA DE RECHA (sefiale la segunda figura de la derecha. Espere cualquier pregunta. Senale de nuevo la segunda figura de la derecha). SARITA SIENTE QUE CER CA DE LA MITAD DE LA CLASE TRABAJA MAS DURO DE LO QUE !!I.LA RACE, Y LA OTRA MITAD RACE EL TRABAJO ~S FACIL DE LO QUE ELLA HACE, ASI QUE :s:LLA I 61 DIHUJARIA tm CIP.CULO ALREDE R Dr.- LA 1''IGURJ\ DE ENMEDI0 ( oenale l.1 te-:- cer figure, dct !.a det"echa). RICJ.RDITO SA.3~ QUE • rIENE Y.AS PRUBLEMAS DI Y!CILES EN CLASE ~UE lA MAYORIA DE LOS NINOS, ?EP.O LO ijAC~ MEJOR QUE UNOS POr.:>s, ASI QUE EL DIBU."ARIA lPt CTl<CULO ALREDED01' DEL P1'0nMo IL MAS PEQtJENO (senale a la l!~gu~da !igura <ie Vt izc;Ui , '.)rda. Espere cual quier ,r~gunta. s~nale de nuevo a la segunda tigura d~ 1~ izquierda). SuSANI'l'A A.i/lUNAS VECES ?;0 LE GUJTA P:NSAR CUANOO TIENE PHOBLEM!.S BN T~A ESCUELA, PERC ELLA E~TA TENIENDO ~R0'9LEMAS MTJY D~FIClLES Y SABE QUE PARA ).f,STRARLO DIBU"rARl.4 UN CIP.CULO A LA FIGURA MAS !>~QUENA CO~ LA CAR/. TRIStE (s&nale la tigura ·de la extrema izqui6rda). AijQRA ES ~U TURNO. FOR FAVOR TCMA EL LJ?IZ Y DIBUJA UN C!RCtTLO ALREOEDOR DE tA. FIGURA ~· cr:: MtrESTRA: 1' 2UE TAN B~~N TRABAJAS EN LA EScu- ~A. vOLTEA LA ROJA. ARORA DIBUJA tnt cr~:ULo ALREDEDOR DE LA FIGUP.A ~UF MUESTRA: 2) QUE Sil'NTEN TUS ~~ESTROS DE TI. DA VUELTA A LA HOJA, ARORA DTBUJA UN C!RCULO ALREDEOOR DE LA FIGURA Q.UE MUESTRA: 3) fQ!"Q_gTROS AuULTOS EN LA ESCUELA SIENTEN ACERCA PS TI. PASA A LA SiltUIENTE PAGINA. AHORA DIBU, JA UN CiaCULO ALf-<~DEIY;R DZ LA FIGURA QUE MUESTRA: 4) COMO LOS NINOS DE TU SALON SIENT~ AC~RCA DE Tl. VJLTEA LA HOJh. AHORA DIBUJA UN CIRCULO ALREDEDOR DE LA FIGURA QU!. MUESTRA: 5) COMO LOS NINOS DE TU SALON PI'SNSAN 1 JUE HACES LAS COSAS. DA VOU..l'A A LA HOJA. AP.ORA DIBuJA UN CIRCULO ALREDEDOR DE L, FI'1URA - ~"JB Mt"ES '.rRA: 6) ~UE S.~lT~S DE TI MISMO. E'TE ES EL FINAL DEL JJZGO. MUCHISIMAS GRACIAS. 62 Proyccto Potoncial Guia Interpretativa: Es~~la de Clab1fic~cion de 1~ P~rcepci6n del s! M.iE!mo Newton S. MetfcssAl University or Southerr Ca~Jfornia La relaci6n de las acti tudes de'.L. estt·.diante y los buenos resul tados en la e~c uela ha esr.imul"'do la in iestigacic;n de la importo.~1cio., tanto teor~tica como prictica, de ed~~adores y ;sic3lo$OS. Mu~hjG de los estudios de ~ctitudes ban sitlc enfvcados al concepto d3l si oiamo y su relaci6n ~on los varia~tes r~l~cion~dos a la &sc~ela. La investigacion ha i~dicado que esta preocupa~idn csta juotificada en l'ls resul tados que ind"ic~n una reJ aci6n E:iguificc. t:lxa del con.::epto del e! oismo, a los faiiomenos en la es\.uela, tal .::omo: J•esul tadoa ma lob (Belleau, 1963: Brodie, 196~), inteligen~ie ext~Ro~dir.~ria (Bachtold, 1969; Entwhist:.e y Wilson, 197(): aeuralii"ln, 1969), probl!_ mas emoc-!.onales ( Johnson, t 972), a candona r la escue .. a, y pr~ vacicn. Maclios estudios del concepto del s{ ~isrn0 aan siao unidos dir€c tamente a las areas espec1ficac de estud1cs en: le:turc (Carlton, 1 970), ma. tetai tica.s, ciencia y estuclios sociales ( Brook-:>ver, Ttomas, Hacia una Definici6~ del_f2n~epto del s! Mis~o La idea d~l s! mismo ~omo una :eoria de ~~rsonalidad primaria, tie£18 anteceden tes hiet6rir:os 1ue da tc1n ddE::c.e nilllam James en 1890 (Labenne y Gregne, 1969; Super, 1970). Ja~es vi6 al si mismo como sentimientos y actitudes iucluyentes y u~a cualidad dinamica en t~r minos de ~reEervacid~ 7 bnaqu~da. la idea do Allp~rt tambirln inclu 63 d el d~rse cuenta del s! mir.mo y bnsquada de actividod; incluyd entido del cuerpo, image~ p~op~a, estima propia e identidad, as{ omo p~nsalLieLt~ ~ conocimianto. Fara Freud, el ego tut ~n agent~ unciondl o eje~utivo de la personalidad, lo ~ue for~d pr~reren :ias racionales y acciOn contro:ad~ en la ~ers~na. De acuerdo a {ead, la person~ resporde a~! misma con ci~rt.os sentimient~s y lCtit• 1ies c.Jmo ~t-oc le respondf'n. Lewin asevero q·Je el conce!)to 1el a! mismo estaba representado por la region de es~cio en la Vida, la ~ue det~rmino una creencia pr~sente ace:ca jel st ~ismo. Luudhol~ ~i&ttngu{o rntr& un s! mismo subj~tivo y un si mismo ob jetivo. La r~rma en que el indiv~duo reacci~uo a sf mismo :ue parcibida como e: concepto del s! mimo por Symonds. Rogers sugi riJ que s6lo cuanio la in!ormaci6n acerca del s! mismo y el am~ien te tue a.cepta'Jle al darse cuenta, que in!luirla lc:1 ccnducta. Snyg~ I y Co~bs dijeron que toda conducta, sir excepcion, estuvo compl&te- ■ente determinada p~r y pertlnente a el area !enomenal del orgaui! mo conductivo. Recje~temente, el t,rmino del s{ cismo ha sid~ d? auavo intr~ ducido aunque en una forma unida, como se ·ha vis~o e~ la investig! cion sobre: "el concepto del s! mismo", "percepcion del si mismo", y "reporte del ::d . .nismo" l Wiggins, Renner, Clore y Rose, 1971 ) • El t,rmino "concepto dcll s! mismo" es hoy tan ampliarnente usado a:i educaci6n, que uno asume que este termino es genaralmentc entendi do; sin embargo. un an~lisis indico que hay muchas ue!iniciones al gunas v~ces contradictorias (Johnso~ y Medin~us, 1969). 64 EJ conc~pto del si mismo frac~e~te~~n,e e~ definido en la-! tera t,,ra cucniii como un aprecio :ct~l de una persona de los P"'"OC".l t,l)f' congnitivo y ?..ft?ctivo, cu:~!ls.nQO en :a cire<.cltr:. de la cc:i- • Jucta (Kl!it;srneicr y Gc.iod•,-1.n, 1966; Ferkins 1969). Labenne y Oreene (l 969) va,1 U:.i pa.so ad2l,qnt:~ para s· .igerir c:ue el darse cue!! ta cuns~i9n,emente de procasos a!ectivos y cogniti7o~ es lo que gufa le accioc del individuo. Otrod (Baller y Charl~s, 1951: ~oleman, 1969; Super y Bohn, 197v) sim~l1!1can la ~efinicion que es el re~rato db la p&rsona del si mis~o. Beatty y Clark (1969) ~st~b1e~i&r~n ~ue el c~ncepto de! si :n.ismo es ~1 ~oncepto total ~el ijdivicuo fe suficiencia y concrpto del s1. mism,> percibido. De acuArao a Carl:Oon y Moore ( 1 9~3' Ja forma en que un individ~o ve del si mis~o ~a venido a signifjca~ qu& Jl piensa q~e JUed~ h~cer, lo que ~l piensa que no puadc Meer, c~ sl se gusta as! mis~o. Como lo definido por JohnGon y Med!nnus (1909), el concepto del si mismo e~ la ~ctitud del 1nciv1duo hacia su s! mismo r!sico y su propi~ conduct~. Una idqa recianteMente introducida en la literatura trata del concepto del s! mismo r.~mo la suma de competencias sentidas (Wiggins, Renn~r, Cl~re, y Ro3a, 1970). Andre~s (1970) dij~ que el concepto del oi .ai.smo pued& ser visto coma un juego complicado de faclores, algu nos dflt lvs cl.2.l~s es tan relacionados con los buenos resul tados en la e~eu~la y allunos de los que no son. ttuchll de :ia confusion en literatura resulta de la talta de buenas d6finiciones operacionales (Gord~n, 1969). Gordon sugirio dos me~odos de hacer una d~finici6n operacionRl: FILMED FROM ROOR ORIGINAL 65 ( t ) bi:potetiza1· lo que la propia org'cl • . • izc,.cidn "·o v:: nino podr{a aer deducida por su conducta, y (2) 1gt:.a~ar ~l cor.cepto del El m.is~o con el punto de vista indicado por el n~no acerca des! mismo. E~ esta defini.ci6n 9 el c;.,n:r.pto 1el ai :::is!l1C es lo q· .i~ un nine dice q~e ?$tA par indicaciones d~ examen u otros m~to~os. F.l segu.ido zr,,todo ha sido usado ampli&.mente c :omo e jern1->lo en estu dios de RuP.di y West (1973), '1'.'rowbridge (1972), y · ,vessrnan y Ricks (1966). Fue el contexto de es~a segunda def1nici6a que el Pro yecto Potencial de la Es~ala de Clasificacidn d& Pe~cepr.i6n del S! Mismo fuer~ disenado. Escala de Clasificaci6n d~ Perceocibn del s{ Mj~mo El prop6sj.to de esta ~scala ~e Cla~ificac16~ f~~ la ~e desa rrollar un instrumen~o ~ue tendria la biguid~te ciiteric: (1) pr£ veer una medida de la percepcibn del nir.o de su si ~ts~o, (2J s~r r, cil111ente a<iministrado., 1 3) ser fa cilmen te clasi f'icadc, ( 4) c;e1· esenc-ialmente no verbal, (5) ser reformabl~ a una interp-ret,,ci6n I estadistica, y (6) ser suficientemente flexihle para medi~ aspec- tos limttados o t.otales del co~cepto del ai mi~~o, sin cambiar al tormato eseucial e instrucciones del instrumentu. Hay por lo menoz dos consideracio~Js involucr?das en obtener estimacionee del s! mismo 1~ individuos. r~a es el ,robla~ de ob ter.er calificaciones exactas: aPuece un estudia~t~ h~nestame~te clasiticarse co~rectam6nte o habri una raspuest~ arrcgl~da?, po= ejemplo, una ·cendencia a .narcar ya sea ent.edic o a !..os extremos. !.a otra coneideracion es la de ser confi~bl~. Si~ emb~rgo, si hay buena co~unicacion en el sal6n de cla~es y lus niPos perciben al 66 u\&estr~ c aa~tnistrador dP.l ex1men come una per~ona digna de con fianza, •-ilida ( .4,.., con clasi!icac~ .ones de maestro) y conf'iab1e (.87) C'lat~~ sel!l?nas de clasificacio~es de examen y re-examen se pueden esperar. uescripcidn. Cada ~regunta esta representada por un juego de c~nco tiguras ~e mad~ra, graduando en tamano. ~guntas. Las preguntas pueden ser seleccionadas de n.anera que permitan a lC's qu,a contest.en reaccionar a tdpicoz diversifica dos con en:,sis sobre preguntas relacionadas al grupo estudiado. Pueien darse ejem~los de as ·ectos lim.itados o totales ~el concepto del s! irl~:no. !3rc~n~o. Los ninos sen instr~!aos para responder a cada prsguut4 ZMrcandu una de las cinco !iguras de madera. La persona :narcarA la :igura grande si se siente ~osi~i7a en su s~~tir haci& la preg~n~a. Marcara la siguien~e fibura de 1%.adera ds grande. si se siente ligeramente positiva hacia la pregunta. Si el ~ue cou testa se siente neutral nacia una pregunta, ma=car~ la !igura de madera en el centro. Si el nin se sien~e aleo negativo hacia la pregunta, marcara la c,1arta !i3ura que sigue de la ill.1s grande. Si el estudiante se siente negativo hacia la pregunta, marcard la figura de madera mas pequeffa. Califica.cion. Se asigna una calificacior1 numerica a cac.3- una de las cinco !iguraa de madora. Una calificaci6~ ~e cinco se otor ga a la !igura 1e madera mas grande, cuatro a la sjguiento, y &si contin~ hasta llegar a un~ par~ la !igura de maciera mas peq~ena. Entre mas alta sea la calificacion, t:As g~nde serA la indicaci6n del c~ncepto positive del s! ~i3mo. - 67 68 \ \ APPENDIX F CHILDREN'S INDIVIDUAL TEST OF CREATIVrrY SCORING GUIDE : ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS 69 CIT c, C Children's Individual Test o: Creativity SCORING MAN1.TA71 N. S. fietfessel M. E. Bu:,,:ns J. T. Foster Project Pocentitl Uni ~,ersi ty of Southern California FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY Form 9-66 70 PLEASE 'i< E A D __, ________ _. CAU'l'ICN: T!~s test is to be ~ .... istrib11~~ ed ror re~earch use only. l·he us~ of thin test by qu~ ifi1:?d '?Xrur.in~:cs 1.s encour- age1 to accumulate the normative dL.ta nc~essary for ~tcurate ir1 t~i·pretatioi: To simplify the collection of ciata, a cc.rb011 d""plicate of the test rtcox·d ~ummary is jr..clt:.d~cl in each test. rec<."'rd prov1.deci. The careftl use of the test record will ,revcnt vn necess~y markir.g cf the preseurt-sensitive ~aLbon.~ w;~d fo· r tl:e first twc pages of eac,h record# Eopec ially to be avoid2d is ~ha iolC:i,J. g b&ck vf the frunt s~cc~s be~ri.Ld the otners 30 th.£..t writ~~g on tte test re')ord will be re"1rcJuced :>n the ca!"l>on .. ... Please fill uut the summa.ry sheet completely and in clude a:i::,· colLI:ler..tc, afd1.ti.:>r..al ir.fc•rm~tior:, '1r sug gcsticn:- you ma.y have. 9-66 71 Introduction to the CIT08 The theoretical model upon wh-i.ch CITOC tests are based poatul?.tes that creativity ha s six major com ponents: sensitivity to problems, fluency of thin.~ ing, flexibility in thinking, origi~ality in thir.k ing, elabo~ation ability, and redefl~ition. These six intellectual factors are among wcllly verified through factor analysis research by J.P. Guilford and his associates at the University of Southern California. The creativity tests have been designed to measure intellectual factors not usually sampled intra ditional intelligence tests which E;.nph[l.5ize conver gent thinking or the ability to prod~ce the one I ·right answer. In contrast, tests of creativity empha3ize diver~en\ thinking, or the ability to produce new or original answers. Recent findings from several centers of research on creativity indicate that tests of creativity are as effective as intelligence tests in predict1ng aca demic success, as measured by grades in school. For 11 culturally disadvantaged" students, certain ethnic groups, and children with leos verbal facil ity, there are inc1cati~n~ that tests of creativity may be preferred to the traditional intelligence tests in identifying creative potential and pre dicting academic snccess. 9-66 72 ~hrc~oir~ are given for each appropriatP- aspect of pa:"+.y planrJ -Lng identified. ~acb a3pect should be reasonably discret~ to be c~ed itecl.. If both a gene:-al c;,.tegory and specific acts \litbiu th~ ca~egory ar~ given, do not gi,c c1edit fer the general c~tagory. Exan:pie l (all r(!s:pcnses from t:c\.me indi vidual) (Get food (Ice cream (Cake (Clean house <Get food (M3.ke gn;res (~ake ganbS (Make donkey no credit cr€dit c::-ed.it c!edit credit credit game no credit cr~dit ~:c:inrple 3 • ,W (Hake call gam~ czedit (Get cake credit EV Maximum Scar~: 30 pcints 9-66 73 Fle:d.billty - V&rbal (XV) -- The flcxibili ty factor is represen.ted ty the uses given for the object, as altered undP.r rv - Part~, which indicate a shift frGffi the type of usage approp riate for the o·oj~ct as descri.bed unticr 'J·V - Part A. ~"j points cu'e given for each different ~n.ift in use of the object. Ten points ma.ximu1r. is possi1.Jle for - each situo.tion. Tc be c=eeited, the use must bee poosiile one for the alt~~ed object and not duplicate a use 4vcn \,Jj.der Part A. Exa.m}~l es. - Part A - -- III make alpha.bets III 'take l~ttle dolls !I inake faces .Pa:'t B _, __ mai<e lettet·z--no ~redi t make legs for doll--credit make designs--credit :.V Maxi~um ~cvre: 30 points 9-66 74 3~oring is based only on Pa.rt A. T,..,., po1nts are gi.\nn for e&ch diffe~ent acceptab~e us~ of the obje~t ~i·1en ·..ri t:tin the one-minute ti:ie limit. ~~ po~2'-~xi~:~ is possible for each situation. Qu.antity is the iu1portc:3nt factor in this test, so any reasoneble answer ia acceptabie. i'V t-ia'-1I'ltl.'L Score: ~O points ~-66 75 Ori ~in~1ity - Verbal (0V) . --------...... The scori?!g !or the ~1·iginality ttst is necessarily more subjective than fer other tests, The Examiner will become more familiar with the n:~st comll'lo:i re sponseG as he conti~ uP.s tc use the ~es~. A few exar;-:~l~s of corumon responses will be give.a as an it -+;i.tl guide. Part P. ---- One point for a common or cX!)ected statement. 1-'i ,,,.e noints ~or an un- - comr-lon or unexpected stateme~t. (Hi doggy. Excunples--1 pt. (What are you doing? (Go away. OV-IJ (1) 01J e point fer a cottmon or expected - ~bject. Five points for an uncomm~n or unexpected object. (A cat. Examples--1 pt. (A squirrel. (An apple. OV •II (2) O . .,C? point for a commoH or exn~c ted "fi;nction. Five points fer a.'1. un c~~on or unexpected functionft (Climbing. (animal) EJ:a:nples--1 pt. tMaking a nest. (bird) (Hanging there. (fruit) (Growing on tr.e trea. (fruit) 9-6£ 76 Ori~j_ 7iality - Verbal (OV) conti:r.u.ed - -- ~ ..-.--.----...------ Part B - One 'PJin-c is given fl)!· a cor;:unon non-functional re·- - - ----- sp~nseA Two p~ints are given for a co~ncn ·functional respon~e. I,_ou.r .Foint,e are given for an ,uncorrenon non functional response. Five points are gi · .. -e~ for an u.ncoomon funct:i.onal re:.;ponse. (P. ld.tty. ~les--1 pt. (A ~ird. (A b~ar. (A kitty sitting d~wn. Exao:?les--2 pts. (A birdie singing a Eong. (The bear .is walking. (A black fuzzy kitten. EY..amples--4 pts. (A l)retty bluebird. (A brown. be~r, A grizzly btar. EAamples--; pts. (A kitten is waiting bye gopher hole. (A crow or talking bird--learn ing to talk. (The big bear is looking every where for his babies. OV Maxi.mum Score: 30 points 9-66 77 R:-defini tion - Verb:i.l (RV) The ReC'1,~finition facto~ is represented ~y the variety of uoes or functions which the Subje~t gives for the ~bje~t under FV - Part A. Two _E9ints are given 1 ·or each differen~ function or use of tha vbject. Ten Eoints @aximvm is possible for ~ach situati:n. Some of the possible functions fo~ each vbject ar~ lioted below. ~ack conta:i.nP.!' to w-rite on to draw on ~apping pa.per r~otect ~urfaces to blow anC: pop we&pon { wt.ter er dirt bomb) make ;'apier· :n-3.chE: make a t.0~:- (puppet, pig, clei)hant) play stCJre rein;orcemeut (put inside shoe) make oask make clothing String l'.&laY.e jew~lry (ring, bracelets, etc.) form designs or letters hold things together (package, ehoe, handcuffs, keys) catapuLt, slingshot to strruigle 9-66 78 Redefinition - V~rbr:tl (RV) (~o::ti11-v.ed) .;,:.:.=.::;..:.;:.;..=.~~--_.;..;~----..,;_,---- -- §tring (continued) ~uspend tilings (kitteu, toy, pict\lre) decorat5.on (bow) to hold things back (curtains, hair) drawstring · ~o me:isure with give birrls for n~st miniature toy (kite string, j~ rop~) Stick a hancUe (avple, sueker, etc.) to draw· wi+.h c&tapult {sho~t rocks) to stab soffiaone to d.i.g with ruler stem (flower 1 tree) toy (miniature s~e-saw, aurf"ooa:r'd, diving board) t~y p~t (doll leg, airplane ~g; place tag 79 9-66 Sensitivity to Problems - Verbal (PV) PV - Pe.:r.t A - One J)Oi:it is gi ·:en for each different appropriate respc~s e recognizing a problem. The question iE worded so that two types of respons~s a.Tc epprop rjate. One type refers to the tr·cycle alone, such as: Seat would tear, Handlebars come off, Tire go flat, or Get rusty. The other refers to difficulties which may occur while operating th~ tricycle, such as: Tip over, Hit sonieone, A car could hit you, You could go too far and get lost. Inapprcpriate resp0nses are those which are extremely unlikclJ or do not answer the questior., such as: I like to ride, It can g~t on the roof, or I have a tricycle. A response which refers to injury alone should be questioned. Fo~ exwnple: You can get hurt (Q) If a problem ~ith the tricycle is elicited, give credit. 10 points maxi.mu~ is possible for Part A. PV - Pact B Two pcints are given for each appropriate re sponse avoiding each problem recognize1. (20 points maximum is possible for Part B.) PV maxi.mum score: 30 points 9-66 80 Elaboration - Perfc~mri.llc~ ,EP) -- The clabcration factor is rep.esentcd by the &mount of it!formation or detail prcdnc~d in + .he si-cuations under FP, 1t:hich is in 'excess of tha basic f eatu:-es demcnstrated on the Face Gard. ~c, _pc,j..ntE._ are given for ~ach pi~ce plci.ced in FP-I a.aJ FP-II, excluding basic eyes, nose~ and mouth. PiP.ces which elaborat~ o~ these b~~ic ~aatures such ns pupilci, nostrils, or t~tg:uc, a.Ie scored as ele.bor~tj on.. In FP-IJ.I score: -two ;poir-t~ for cacn !ea~ura er detail beyond tha basic features. Ten )JOint6 maxi.mum is possible for each situation. EP M - ~..n1u4 Sco='e: ;jO pcints 9-66 81 r-.exibility - Perfcrrnan~e (XP) -----------· ----· · - Th~ measure of flexirility iu this t~st is the ability of the Subje,::t to shift the t.L.c_e of the same felt shape or bead, in F·P-I and II, and use it in a different way. Ea~h1ae is noted on the teo~ record next t~ that shape. It is permissibl~ to ask the Subj~ct for clarificatior after he has compl~ted e~~h task. If .the Examin~r thinks t~erc '\ill be ar.y q~estion later about the use of a giveu pj_ece> he ~hould label it on the taGt rec0rd during administration of the test. Three points a1·e si ven for each addi ti or.a 1. use. Fif teen points is the max:i.:num for each situation. XP Maximum Score: 30 ;>oi~.ts 9-66 82 Fluency• Performance (FP) ----------·--- The measure of fluency iri this test is the number of pieces pl&.ced within the first 60" on Si'tnatic,ns I aud II. The Subject muGt not be stopI,Jed after 6ur- but should conti.nue t~ p~r I orm until he incli.catas that he has finished the f e-.ce. 0~ Si tuatioa III, the st:ore is bas£cl on the n~iiber of features indic~ted, adcb..ng ~.~e points for formatioa of refe1 ·cnce face. Timing begins in Situation III ~pon placement of the first pi~ct since many children spend cc77le ti:ne softening the clay before they a1 e ready to ~a!{~ a fa~e. Ten poi~ts ~a}:i.mum ts possibl~ for each Situati0n. FP Yw...v-~~um Scor~: 30 points 9-66 The ability to construct purposeful objects represents the measure of oI-i.ginality i11 'this test. Two r _ oints are given for 3. comm~)n, no?L-fu.nc:-!:ioning object. Four points are given f <"'r ci. com:non func tic,ni:cg object. Seven point~ are e;iYen for an un commC"n non-functio11ins object .. Ten poi nts c:.re given for an uncomm~n functioning object. Exampl~ 2 pts: TrEe, Lolli:?or, Sters, Cha-t!', D(:d, '!'a.b1e 4 pts: Baton (to twirl), Airplane (ilics)t Gun (to kill a wolf), Car or Truck (run), ~ind.mill (goes arvun~ for wate:) ? pts: A garden lounee cha::..!'. A tenn:i s court 10 pts: Crop dUEter (spreads poi~on), A h~lico~ter lane.inc place--bu.lle:ts come out here. U.t·cle men hide in holes and gv dcvm on the pole. OP Mrur..imu:l Score: 30 po:i.llta 9-66 84 . Fe:i~fj ni tion - Performance (RPl - The measure of redef:.nition in this test is the degr-e~ to whi=h ~he Subject is able to discover hidden animal figures in a..~ outdoor &~ene. During the test performance, the Examiner- ~hecks the box j_n the test. record next to the i ten ~a.:n~d by the Subject. 1'he E:---.arriner eho:.tld beco~e familiar with beth the :pic tt:.re loca.tion 2.nd the test recorl location of each scorable fignre. This should be rlone before adm5 .. nis te1·in6 tb.e tesi; ,since e,redit is given for loc.ation of ea~h fie;11r~ even if it is misnrui1ed 01· pointed out. If there is o.ny ~ueGtion about recognition of th~ figure it is i:,er::.lissible to arik the Subject to tra.cF? the outline with his finser. Point vtlues are indicaterf's capar:i ta dos se eRtirauJ.a con eJ fi n de a cui"'lular los d~ tns l'lorma tl vos n~ cesari')G _I:.ara una inte-rpretaci6u exac~a. Para simpJ.ifics.r la co:ecci.on de de.tcs 1 se in~luye un ri·sume:i dG...1. record pun tos por irJ formaci6n no co- ' • ..J mun ~ inccpera.o.a. Ejemplos - l p 1 1nto: (Ola perrlto (. ~u, es~is haciendo1 (Vete iJn pul"l.to por un obj~to ~cm~r.. o es-oerado. "i Cinco puntos po~ un objeto no :omun ~ -:r:::-:- - .1.nespArado. Eje~plos - 1 pilnto: (Un gato (Una ardilla 1 Una manzana .. 94 OV-!! (2) Un uunt~ por un~ funci6n com~n o espera1a. Cinco puntos por unn funclon nc cvmun 0 inesperadc:. Ejemplos - 1 p~nto: ( Tre pando. (animal) (Haciendu UL nido. (p{- jarv) 1 (Colgando ahi. (fruta) (Greciendo en el trbol. ( fruta). 9-66 Orl~inalid: ~ - Verbal (OV~ ton~inuacl6n Serl~ ~4 Fun t ~ por un~ r~spuesto cornun oc funcicnR~. Se dan !!_os _£Un to s por una respu st~ col!l6n fun 7 ic,nal. Se ean cua.tr~ I?_!;l~to-:_ por uria rc spuet:;1,P l"O ccmun, no tuncional ~ Seda~ ciico nuntos r or una ~espuesta ~o ~omdn funci0nal. Ejamploc - 1 punto: (Un gatito (Un ~ ja1·C' (Un oso Ejemplos •. 2 pU!l tos: (Un ga ti to sen ta d0 EJemplos - ~ ,untos: (Un pa~aritn cant~ncto una can cibn (El oso e~td c.amina~do (Un gatit0 relud0 negro {Un pa.ja~c a zul Jonito (Un oso c~rJ, UL oso gris 95 Ejemplcs - 5 runtoB: (Un g~tito eat& esperando junto a un agujero de reeder (Un cuervo o pljaro pa~lante - aprendiendo a hah~ar (El oso g~ande est~ buscando por todas partes a sus ~sitoa 9-66 Redefjnicidn - Verh'l (RV) ----------- --~------ }~l f3 c tor Rede fini 1 ::i 1 • u&os o functones a lae:; to ba jo FV - ~o.rte A. Sc ~recenta por la varied:- d de I r~ue l rt ::,ersona dn para el obje- Sedan ~~s_.r.~~tos por : a da fanc~d~ dJfer2ntc o uso ~el objeto. Es posible diez. Ol'.u.tc,F; ~om~ ma.:ximc por cada I ---- ~--.-..-.. situci cion .. A continuacibn se da~ algunas de las posib:3s funcion n~s para cada objeto. Bolsa en vase . ~scribir en dibujar en papcl pc.tra envolver ~rotector de superficies cortar formas soplar y reventar arma (agua o bomba d2 lodo) a&cer pa!J~l mac!'.e hacer un juguete (tic re, pt:erco, elefants) jugar a la tienda rcforz&r ( poner a den tro uol z-3.pa to j hacer mAscarcl hacer ropa ~inta hacer joyer{a (ani:lo, puls~r3R, etc.) formar disenos o letras juntar o unir cosGs (bulto, zapatu, &3~osas, llaves) lanzadort resortera estra ngula:c 9-66 96 ; edefinici6n - verbal (RV) ( con tj nuacion 1 Cint& (c~ntinuaci6n) -- colgar e;osas (gatito, J1.1gvete, foto) de~oraci0n (mono) mantoner l~s cosas t~ su lug~r (cortinas, cabello) cinta sogt~nedora medir cori. dar p~jaros para el nido juguete miniatur~ (c~nta para papalote, r~at~ par& brinccr) Palo SuRten~dor (manzana, chupun, e+.c.) di~u~ar con lanzacior (d~sparar rocas) apunala r a alqu;_en escarbar con regla tallo (flor, ~rbol) 97 jt~guete (sut>e-baja en miniatura, rompeolas, tr--mpol{n) parle d~ juguete ( pierna de muneca, .J.la de e.erop~ano) etiquetar 9-66 98 PV - Parte A Se d~ .!!n ptrnto por cada rer=:pt:.esta apr0p➔ adc. y difez·P.n te al xe~onocirnient0 de ·n prob!ema. La pregunta se hac.e er. pa:a bras ~ara que dos tipos de respuest?.s sean apropie.Jas. Un tipo se refiere solomentc ai tricJ.clo, tal como: Ll asiento se romperia, Los manubrios se cc?en, Llanta ponchada, o Sc oxida. El otro se. refiere a 1as diticul~ades quc pueden suce der mientra~ se opera e~ triciclo, tal cn~o: CaP.r~e, P&e~r a alg~ien, Un c~rro podr1a pegarte, Poctr{as ir ~~y l~jos y p2rderte.. Rcnpue&'i..as iaapropiadas son aqu~l:.ao que son PXtremada mcLte improbab~e8 o 4~A n0 conte~tap la pregunta; como: Me gusta pasear en bicicleta, ?ued3 li~gar al techo, c TP,ngo un triciclo~ Jna redpuesta que se refiere s6lc a lesi6n, deber!a du darse. Po~ aj6mplo: Pue~e~ lastimartP. (Q). · ~i un ,.,,, 1 t · i 1 _ p~o L•~ema con P, __ ri c c o s6 elige, at cr6dito. Es posible 10 p11ntos como miximo para la Parte A. PV - .f'~rte B Se dan .dos puntos per cada respuesta apropiada, esqui Vbndo cada prob ema reconocido. (~s posible 20 puntos com, maximo para la Parte B.) ?V Calific&cj6~ maxima: 30 puntos. 9-66 Elaboraci&n - En Habilidad (EP) -- El factor ela~oraci6n csti rApressnt3cO fOr la cantidad de i~lormacidn o detaJle proa~cidos en las situaciones bajo FP, lo qt e es en exceso do 0G rasgos bisicos de mostrados en la Ficha Cara. Se dan rlos puntos por ~a,j~ piezo. col. "Cada en lt'P--I y FP-lI, excluyendo basicos: ojos, nariz y boca,.. Las pieze.s ciue se elaboran sabre esco5 rasgos basico 1, - ~n. ~~s co~o: ,upilas, ventan~s de 1~ nariz, o leneu~, se califican coma ela b0:a ci6n. ..Sn Ff-III callflque dos , ; ------ p~n tos par cada rasg0 0 det~!~e ~~s al~a de los ~as- go.3 bJ&icos. I Es posJ.ble diHZ puntos com~ax1m0 po~ c~da 8ituaci n. EP Callficaci6n c&xima: 30 puntoc. 9-66 99 100 Fl exi bilidaa - En Ha bilidad ( XP) La medi1a de flexibilid~d 6n bste examen es la tabili dad de la pcrsuua para cambiar el uso de lc1 misma figu ra de fiEl tr:, o cuanta, en FP-I y II, y usarla en distin ta forma. Cada ~so Be anota en el record del EXaffien junto a esa figura. S9 permit e pre gun tar a la persona e lp-una cl.clo. ra ci6n despues d~ quE haya completado cada tra"uajo. Si el &xam; nador piensa c::ie ,JespuJs ha brc;{ alguna pregun ta acerca del uso de una pieza dada, 61 deber1& senalar lo en el recoid del cxa~en nurante la administra~ion del examen . Sc dan tree p· dntoc; por cada uso adicional. Quince pun too es lo tdx..i..mo _po r ce.da si tuaci6n. XP Gclificaci6n maxima: 30 puntos. 9-66 fluidez - En Hab.lida o (FP) _._. . L& medida de fluidez en este exa,r.en es el ntlmero cie piez3s colocad~s rientro de las pri'lleras 60" sobre Situ~cio1~es I y II. .. ., No se debe parar & l a p&rso1 a decpu3s ce b0" pero deber:f.a cr,ntinuar trabaja'1do ha.otA. ~ue incllque que liA. ter~inado la cara. En Situaci6n III, la calific~ci6n est' b~s~d~ so~re cl nt.mero dE: rasgos indicado~r o.g,:ega~dCJ _ges pu:itos p~r la for~aci6n de la cara ds r~ferencia. La c~en ta dal tiempo comienza en la S~~ua~ion III ~l cola car la primer ,1e~~ , y ~ue mucho~ ~~iios emplcan al gun ticILpo suavi73.nd.o la p].astilir:c?. antes de que es ten listos para hacer la cara. Es posible diez puntos como maxi~o por end& Situa c-i.6n. FP ~alificacion rnJxima: 30 puntos. 9-66 101 102 O:.:ieinalidaJ ..::._JH Ha bilidad (OP; La hc:.bilidad )ara construir· c,bjetos con proposito, re presenta la ~e1id& de originalidad en este examen. 3& dan dos JJU'1tos a un objet~ com1n, no funci.onab.Lc. Sedan ~uucro 0untos & un objeto com6n funcionable. Se cian siete PUn~os a un objeto no comfin, no funciona ble. Se ci,.n--g_~~- ,PUnics a un objetc n0 comun funciona bl9. Ejemplos 2 pur.ltos: Arbol, Paleta J~ dulce, Fscalones, .Silla, C&ma, Mesa 4 puntos: Ba.stJ t1 (pa.ra gi1·ar), Aeroplan0 (vuela), ~rma lpara matar ~n ]o~o), ~arro ~ Camidn {cor~e), Moli~o de viento (da vuelta por 'Uedio ~e. c..gu.3.) I 7 puncos: Una silla de descanso para jardin, Una cancha de t- n.is 10 pantcs: Avioneta fumi~adora (csp3.rce v~ncno), ~r lugar para aterrizar un helic6ptero - las balas c~len par aqu{. Ho~brecitus s& es con~en en agujeros y bajan por cl ~&ta. OP C&lificacibn m~xima: 30 puntos. 9-66 Redefinici6n - .Sn HabiJ.idari ( · P) L~ medida de redefinici6n en este examen es el grado e~ ~l q~e a ia persona pucde descubr{r£ele, en un pai saje al Diz·e Jibre, figuras ae anima.lE::2 Pscondidas. 103 Al d.ars~ el examen, el Examinc.dor checa el cuadro mar cado en el rcccrd del examen, junto al a1t{cul0 ~encio nado p')r la persona. :Sl f;xamirL~dor deber{a familiariza.rse cori ambos: ia lo c0.li2a ci0n del di bu jo y la del re cord ciel_ exame_ n, de ca~c firura a calific~r. ~Et9 dsberi hacerse anteb de aciministr-ar 9l examen, -puesto q 1 1e el cre'dito se d-1 po~ la l~ca ·~ j z3ci6n de: cada fig~ra, aun cuanio no sea ~ien ~omcrada o senalada. Si hay c11al1uier pregu~ta acercc=t ~el reco~ocjmiento de ,,.., la figura. sc permite preguntar a la persona que sena- le el c~ntorno r.on su dedo. Los valores de puntos s€ indica~ P.n el recor~ dP.l exa men. I I • RP Co.l i fi ca cj_0n maxi me.: ?. C pu:-i toe. 9---66 104 Sensiti.'lide.d a frobl€!r.9.S - En Hahili11 c. ~d (Pl-') Sc da~ jos Eunto~ por cade def2~to o deficiencia ~ue se i dentifiquen. Es posible di ez puntua coma ~~ximo por cada situaci6n. Lista de defectos aceptables o deficicr.ci~s: PP-1 ojo fal tantc ore j& fal ta.nte pecho fal tan· ~e cola fal tante pierna fal tante PP-2 faro f:t l tan te rueda !'al tan t e sin manera d~ a brir la p 1 .1erta exha l!q -',o . 1e.l fi ~al e(!uivccado chofer a 13. de rec~1a sin manija -:it:: puerta sin asiento tra sero PP Calificaci6n mAxima: 30 puntos. PP- .~ C.r-!.SCO f P .J_ tan te manu faltante Ze ill to f a 1 tan 1,e code fc:.:.J tA.nte hcmtr~ .fci:!. tante 9-66 Sabre No. 1 -----·-- I Lista de A!'tJ.cUlLG 1 b~lsa de parel~ completa 2 1ols?s dg papel, a 1~ mita1 i Ci~ i cl. u e i 4 " 2 c in t-3 s de 7" 1 palo de pa l~ta ? 1necics pal OS Sohre N0. 2 --------- 1 circulc de fieltro de color ca~J claro, de 6¼" de di~ metro 6 ani 11 os de fiel tro de 1-¼" cle ditr.ietro (2 d& r.ad~ uno: r0jo, azul y cafe) 6 c:!!'culns de fiel tro de 1 ½" 0.e diAmetro (2 u~ cad~ uno: rcjo, az~l y cafS) 6 trianeulos de fieltro de 1" (d~s de carla uno. rcjo, azul y cafd) 6 ttedios c{rculos rie fiel'tro de 1" de di~metro (1os de cada uno: rojo, azul y caf6) 24 cuentas (6 de cada 4 diferentes fig~~as) Sobre No • .L 7 siluetas de animales .) g!ito pijaro oso Sobre No. 4 2 onzas de plastilina Piezas de juguetes para pensar 6 rcd~ncios 2 cilindros 3 piezas planas de plJstico verde 4 palos rojoc 4 palos azules 4 pales ama.rillos 8 palos anaranjados 9-66 105 APPENDIX G CHILDREN'S INDIVIDUAL TEST OF CREATIVITY PUPIL RESPONSE RECORD BO KLET 106 CITOG RECORD FORM aame Sex ----------- ------ • Ad~ress --· --~ · ---------·-------------- Parent'l'J Name Grade ----------------- ----- School :,.)!strict ---------------- -------- Date or Birth r VC'rbal Scor~ Pertonnan~e I Total Score NOTlS Pom 2-2 '!ear Month Dey J - l I I ~cor~ ' I J I Vert'al Te!ltS Raw S-._ore rv vv ;cv ov sv RV Verual Score P~rfo!T.lauc~ Tests PP FP y:p OP EP RP Performance Score fcal ~d Seer(.. Exclffliner ----------- 107 7 l SENS!TIVITY TO PROBLEMS :._ i,_~AL __ Vrl, (l} (2) (3) ( b.) !5) (6) - Part A . (7) (8) (9) - (IO) . - Part A Total Poin~s (l point ea~h appropriate response) ' Pa.rt B -- - - - - -- ' - - - p,,.rt D Total Points (2 points ca~h appro~r-ia_t_e_ response) Point Seo-re: (Total Pvint~-.-x---.-·g-J-- 108 Indicate 7 l' time l:in'j,t fWENCT VER.nrJ. ' f-V) t - - I I - I • I -----r- ►- --- - IL I • ·-- I • I ·-- III I FV Scc,re: P.ARI' A (1) (2) (3, -- (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (1) (2) (3) (4) (S' • J - (t>) - (7) (8) {9) {10) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) REDEFINITION VERBAL (RV) Score: 109 !:!-EX1BILITY VERBAL (XV) PAJU B I - - -- - -· - - f . - 'XY Score: -- -- OR!GINALI'!'_Y - "F...RBAL ( OV) OV-I ov ... 1r {l) (2) OV-III OV-IV ~V-V OV Score: --- ___ ..._ ____________ _, ______________ _ ELA.BOM.TIO!T - VERBfL (EV) (1) ________ "--__, (9) (~) ________ _.,___, (10) (3) __________ 4-----4 (11) (4) (12) (5) (1~) -----------~-- (6) (14) (7) (15) (8) (16) FN Scor~: SENSITIVITY TO PRODLEMS - PEF.:-'O~\!A.NCE _jPP} Ch~ck Defects identified. PP-II I eye exhaust ear driver chest wheel leg ~eadlight· tail door PP Score: ___ _ (2 points each check) PP-III hand r.elmet . shoe elbow ::boulder I R 110 ~ENCY - PERFCRM.tJ,CE ( F'P) Show shapP. and location of all pieces in completed races. PP-I r ~ Pf-I . ~~ore ) I ' Pl'-II PP-III FP-II ~core PP-J:tI Score -- --- (No. or p:!eces placej w!thir; 60·•) PP Score: (No. or pieces _placed - within 60"} (Total po1trC3 I 4 :CI + Ill) (No .• ot' reatures indi cated w1th1r. 60 11 ~ter placement of first piec~. - - --Add .:, points for for mation or A rererence tace.) -==-=~=-~ PrznBILITY - PER!- 1 CPr-'.A NCE List u~e 'Jf fll!&ch !'el t S.."'ld bead piece in PP-I o.nd FP-II. :...--- Fjrst u~e !Additional First Use Additional Uses U.3es ~ -, 0 I a C;> @ 0 ' 0 c::::J No. Additic~al u~es I No. Additional Uses !I --- --- XP Sc~re: (3 points for each use I• II) .. .... - ELAEORAT!ON - PER FORJ.'.ANCE (EPl ,o. or ~ieces placed on FP d.fter basic features completed . EP Score: --- II__ piecee III ___ features - or detail. (2 points tor each piece I+ n + III) 111 112 ORIGINALITY - ?ERP ORM.tr. :rs. (OP) - t -- I OP-I 1 2 1 □ JJ} . - --- O!-!I 122 □ .Q OP-ItI ~fl-+~---------□ · ---------11 ·o~ Score: ('l'o~al points I +--ZI + III} RWE?I?:ITION - ?ER.FORMAN CE {RP) Ci1eck figures located. boy La.ndscape detail (Bocks, Shrubs, etc. do 6 tree cat Moater equi:rrel squirrel t'&bbita let. bird ) ~- Total pojnta Column I __ _ (one point each) , _______ _J 2nd. bfrd ateer calr turtle J)ig duck deer Mbcat ~-- Total points Column II __ _ (two pcints e&ch) RP Score --- (Total poitts I+ !I)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Full title: An evaluation of bilingual/cross-cultural education in the Pasadena Unified School District among Spanish-surnamed students at the kindergarten, first, second, and third grade levels, who are non-English speaking/limited English speaking.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Rorschach technique applied to the evaluation of educable mentally retarded secondary school age students

PDF

Student perceptions of the Los Angeles Community College District instructional television college credit program: an appraisal

PDF

The Muslim World and its efforts in Pan-Islamism

PDF

The role of the campus instructor in student achievement in community college television instruction

PDF

The minorities in higher education: undergraduate characteristics of law students

PDF

To preserve good humor and perfect harmony: Guy Carleton and the governing of Quebec, 1766-1774

PDF

A computer assisted analysis of Stephen Crane's grammatical style

PDF

An investigation of oxygen-pulse time course as a measure of cardiorespiratory adaptation to exercise

PDF

Women and the city, 1870-1920

PDF

The origins of American involvement in Vietnam: a thematic content analysis of the Pentagon Papers

PDF

An examination of a concept of image in presidential campaigning: the Humphrey-Nixon compaign of 1968

PDF

An investigation of the chronic physiological changes due to relaxation training and practice

PDF

The social ecology of delinquency in Los Angeles county: a structural analysis

PDF

Action of DDT on two clones of a marine green alga Pyramimonas

PDF

Administrative reform in Sudan: A human resource perspective

PDF

Application of finite field transforms to image processing and x-ray reconstruction

PDF

Teacher involvement in participatory management

PDF

Investigations of the oxidative metabolism of phagocytizing polymorphonuclear leukocytes

PDF

Attitudes toward work and success of women employed in male versus female-dominated jobs

PDF

An analysis of the needs and problems of individuals at mid-career for career development

Asset Metadata

Creator Guillermo, Ida Ferguson (author)

Core Title An evaluation of bilingual/cross-cultural education in the Pasadena Unified School District among Spanish-surnamed students…

School School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 1978

Publication Date 03/01/1978

Defense Date 03/03/1978

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Biculturalism -- California -- Pasadena,Education, Bilingual -- California -- Pasadena,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC25311

Unique identifier UC25311

Identifier Educ Ph.D. Ed '78 G958 (call number),etd-GuillermoI-1978.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GuillermoI-1978

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Guillermo, Ida Ferguson

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230120-usctheses-microfilm-box5 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu