ERIC ED045463: Evaluation Report: Project Insight. 1969-1970

POCI1MvNT P7SMt' 7p 0L SO 00C 200 LI1 Tonall ".: Ar r 17'F(' "ricr 41-tic -OPF, rticrs rj-c, (-4-111onfn, *Curri.culw- cqnn41or, Tn 1,1...

0 Downloads 7 Views
POCI1MvNT P7SMt' 7p 0L

SO 00C 200

LI1

Tonall ".:

Ar

r

17'F(' "ricr

41-tic

-OPF,

rticrs

rj-c,

(-4-111onfn,

*Curri.culw-

cqnn41or,

Tn

1,1 T

arf'r 'rolo7k

7-.-Ir

11,,Trn4a7'v

*"q7ar -Plations ImO°71'9, Tnr17.1crt-, *Prn4orf!---, rwt rf-crtric, Foco,lilry Foconlary ccool Trirt,o75,,

cool

c+11,,n* Af,i+Al0F,

tt

TtcjUti

!,rsTyAnT roPor+ loFclihoE 41c roa,,,IIT:ar,lf. ;_rnal7t of "r ail a :7,vr14-Fis of toaror in'-ervor. ("rctli.7-11 of +1,f

"1111;1!1 =c,lation, on stiv1.01-t

,701P:S,=,

vows frol rxtr,t1tivo

1711

r9c'rio:],

471111nc

arel.

0-1),

71(171rilr'rlt91. Fl"rn+S worr, tll

4't'

roUrS. 1

(7o1)1''t inl

tLrr'n listin(74 fcrm: '01

0^11. Ti' wrrtlfl rolOtF

1";.#111r, w,,r^ iv4o 1]1c71,s anl whito!-; on17: apl, inlirr +ha+ +)10 r7oor57o !la 11 r'CC=C CT

v. ripd 14f.i,-111, acoorl cc 5,1-qlrn+s rii1vjy 1711 ;,rcr,,,7f1 tto trooriT, -,:r11-'-awaro'.fss. 7( hi,h F'c'ool t,,achct-,7 (rrprrn+jr11 "r scool who vsn rnrrirulip,

cxr,r,,czp,?.1 (pc

40a(:hPr roFnJn!,-0

"4(!:+.1tiVo anl itrrtr,PioniF-tic" q(71-)oot

t..f-achrtv

17,--Fronc!rs

3P

liF.711,;s thr-jr cotrrns about

t-!,f

aro

i15.0

--11.7..mary of o1o!nr-4auv

rrovilr'. rirallv, t!o autl-rt:r vhoir rrroaTM.

S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR

ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING II POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO 501 NECES SARILI REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF IOU CATION POSITION OR POLICY

EVALUATION REPORT:

PROJECT INSIGHT

1969-1970

Ronald R. Besel Robert Knappenberger Ruth Lees T. Joseph Sheehan Marvin Wasman

Table of Contents

Page

Prologue

1

Introduction

1

Impact of the Program on Student Attitudes

2

Summary of Secondary School Teacher Interviews

9

Summary of Elementary School Teacher Interviews

16

Classroom Observations

18

Areas of Concern

18

Appendix A

21

Appendix B

22

Appendix C

27

Appendix D

41

Appendix E

44

EVALUATION REPORT:

PROJECT INSIGHT

Prologue

One goal of Project Insight was to increase sensitivity and selfawareness.

It worked.

As evaluators, we experienced increased self-

awareness and sensitivity toward the evaluator's untenable role.

If he

is able to demonstrate that a project has been a grind success, the anticipated response from the project dArectors is:

"Why, of course.

Your're simply telling us the obvious and we could have told you the same thing more cheaply."

If, however, he fails to show that the project is

having the intended effects, he can expect another response, such as,

"Those poor fellows never did understand what we were trying to do. Their design was poor and they are probably incompetent."

If he stresses

the positive, he will be accused of "buttering up" the project people.

If he should mention areas in need of improvement, he is accused of being angry and hostile.

He can't win.

Since this report is intended to be an honest and objective discussion of our findings, it is natural to expect that all of the above themes will be touched.

Introduction

In undertaking an evaluation of confronted with a number of limitations.

Project Insight, we have been These included the following:

(1) Absence of precise instructional objectives; (2) Absence of detailed

2

guidelines for teachers except for a general directive to utilize inductive teaching methods; (3) Difficulty in measuring changes in the affective domain- -the few existing instruments were outdated and of doubtful validity for high school students; and,

(4) Diversity of the target populationthe

program was conducted in schools which differed in the socio-economic, ethnic, and racial make-up of students.

This year, again, our strategy was two-pronged, using the formativesummative model of evaluation described in last year's report, with the formative data emphasizing what is actually going on from day to day and the summative data attempting to assess the impact of the program on the behavior and attitudes of students.

The main differencesin approach are

tactical with extensive changes in the instruments and evaluation design. The report will first describe the measurable impact of the course on student attitudes and then a synthesis of views collected from extensive teacher interviews.

Technical aspects of design, instrumentation, and

tables will follow in appendices.

Impact of the Program on St dent Attitudes

We found in our evaluation study of last year that certain broad general aims were shared by all the teachers:

to increase the student's

awareness of his own attitudes, values and ideals; to promote the growth of an empathic, tolerant individual especially with regard to other racial and religious groups; and to increase the student's knowledge of social problems in our community and our society.

Unfortunately, it is

apparent that no measures exist for assessing change in many of these

3

areas, either within or outside the classroom.

Nor does the program have

a theoretical framework which specifies the type of behavioral changes which would follow from the above goals.

We felt that assessment of the

effectiveness of the program required objective and quantifiable measures in which change could be predicted in a given direction on the basis of the curriculum goals.

Utilizing these criteria we selected verbal atti-

tudes with regard to racial problems, anti-Semitism, and attitudes toward the poor as our basic measures of the effectiveness of the program. measuring instruments are obviously quite limited in scope.

These

The program

may well have an enormous impact on the student in many areas which were not included or even considered by this evaluation approach. Our basic design focused on a comparison of those students who were finishing a one-semester Human Relations course with comparable groups who were about to begin.'

It was hoped that any bias in the selection of

control groups could thus be eliminated.

The way in which the students

were chosen to participate in the Human Relations curriculum varied from school to school, but within each of the schools tested, the selection method WS3 comparable between semesters.

Also, as nearly as possible

classes 'Jere chosen at random within each school from those available.

Thus, we believe that the control group was generally comparable except for participation in the Human Relations course.

'The study generally utilized the "Institutional Cycle Design" described in Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

4

Utilizing this design, 811 students completing the Human Relations course and 849 students about to begin the curriculum were tested and compared. A.

A detailed description of the sample will be found in Appendix

These students attended the fourteen schools in the program in which

the course was taught on a one-semester basis in both the spring and fall semesters by the same teacher.

The sample included both inner city

and suburban schools representing a wide range of geographical locations and socioeconomic conditions; classes were all white, all black, and integrated; both junior and senior highs were included; grade levels ranged from ninth to twelfth and included several levels of ability grouping.

We have no reason to conclude that this sample is not repre-

sentative of the ent:kre population within the program.

We did, however,

measure the effects of the one-semester format only. The instruments used to assess student attitudes were modified extensively from last year; a detailed technical description of their construction will be found in Appendix B.

Briefly, some fourteen attitude

scales were cast into three distinct forms.

The titles of these scales

and the form on which they appear are shown in Table 1.

Complete scale

definitions and the items constituting each scale are presented in Appendix C.

Form A-6, which is in the first column was designed to be

identical for both black and white students and to measure attitudes toward integration; acceptance or rejection of stereotypes toward Jews,

toward Negroes, and toward poor people; feelings toward the concept of Black Power, as well as acceptance or rejection of militancy as an alternative to other vehicles for achieving civil rights.

Finally, a scale termed

flexibility designed to measure tolerance for ambiguity and capacity for changing or responding to new situations was included.

*

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD JEWS

INTEGRATION

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF WHITES +

TOLERANCE +

TOLERANCE +

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF BLACKS -

HUMAN RIGHTS +

MILITANCY +

EASE IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH WHITES +

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD WHITES

A-7 Blacks Only

HUMAN RIGHTS +

MILITANCY +

EASE IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH BLACKS +

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD NEGROES

A-5 Whites Only

-Differences favorable to the control students, but not at a statistically significant level.

+Differences favoring the Human Relations Curriculum, but not at a statistically significant level.

*Indicates statistically significant differences favorable to th- Human Relations Curriculum.

FLEXIBILITY

MILITANCY

BLACK POWER

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD POOR PEOPLE

POSITIVE-SOUNDING STEREOTYPES TOWARD NEGROES

*

*

*

*

A-6 Blacks and Whites

TABLE 1.--Summary of Scales Used on Three Forms of Attitude Measurement Instruments

6

In columns two and three of Table 1, the other two forms are listed,

The A-5 form was administered to white students only, and the A-7 form was administered to black students only.

These two forms are parallel with the

scales on A-5 measuring attitudes of whites toward blacks, and the scales on A-7 measuring the attitudes of blacks toward whites.

Specifically,

these scales were designed to measure acceptance or rejection of racial stareotypes, ease or discomfort in interpersonal relationships and social

acceptance of other racial groups, and acceptance of basic human rights in a society as compared with individual rights.

As on the A-6 form, a scale

dealing with acceptance or rejection of black militancy was included along with a scale termed tolerance which was designed to assess acceptance or rejection of persona with values, attitudes, and life style: differing from one's awn.

The overall results indicate that the Human Relations curriculum has an effect on expressed verbal attitudes of students as measured by our instruments in accord with the general goals of the program.

These results

are summarized in Table 1 and reported in detail in Appendix D.

The results

with form A-6 clearly support the benefits from the curriculum.

The re-

sults with A-5 and A-7 show trends mostly in the same direction and are supportive; however, we cannot draw definitive conclusions concerning the results obtained with these two forms.

Specifically, students who have participated in the program and hove finished a one-semester course, as compared with a similar group who are about to begin, can be described as differing along the following dimensions:

7

the participating students have more positive attitudes toward integration of the races, tend to reject derogatory stereotypes about Jews and poor people, are less negative and anxious about black power and black militancy, and appear to be more flexible or less rigid in their response to new situations.

These results are statistically significant in that it is

highly unlikely that differences between the two groups could have occurred by chance alone (indicated by asterisk in Table 1).

In addition, there were mixed trends on the A-5 and A-7 forms (indicated by + and - signs in Table 1).

Both black and white students in the

program tended to value human rights more highly than the rights of the property owner (+), and expressed themselves ac more at ease in interpersonat relationships with members of the other race (+).

Black students

in the program, however, tended to agree somewhat more with derogatory stereotype statements about whites (-).

It should be emphasized that even

though most of the differences measured by the A-5 and A-7 forms are in a direction favorable to the Human Relations curriculum, they do not allow us to draw firm conclusions.

Differences between the results obtained with the A-6 form and the A-5 and A-7 forms could be attributable to a variety of factors and we can only speculate as to their influencr.

The A-6 form may have contained

scales which were more relevant to the program.

These scales may also

have been less variable and more homogenous in terms of item construction. The format and wording of the items specific to racial groups with A-5 and A-7, may also have contributed to this difference.

8

The question as to whether the program is working in similar fashion for both black and white students requires some detailed consideration. Our results do not allow us to conclusively state from a statistical standpoint that blacks responded to the program in terms of a measurable attitude change.

Nor can we state on the other hand, that the program had no effect

or a different effect on the black student since our analysis did not show significant differences in the pattern of change for blacks and whites.

The blacks did show trends similar to whites on many of our scales but on both the A-6 and A-7 forms these changes were not always statistically significant.

A contributing factor to these results with blacks could be

the relatively small sample size which represents a statistical limitation in data analysis.

In addition, the scales themselves may not have been

appropriate for black students in terms of language or the testing atmosphere.

The statements may have had different implications for the black

students than intended by white researchers.

Blacks themselves varied more

in their attitudes among themselves and polarization with regard to some issues may have washed out the course effect.

Another reason for this

effect could be the high turnover of black students within the inner city schools so that relatively few students actually completed the program. In brief, the program does appear to have changed the verbal attitudes

of the black student but our confidence in this effect is less than in the case of the white student. A final, note of caution should be added.

These results are limited to

verbal attitudes obtained by a teacher administered instrument.

The program

may have served to sensitize the student to the aims of the program and

9

changes may represent a desire for approval or giving "correct" answers rather than a real attitudinal change.

On the other hand, the program

may be successful in making some students more open and prone to express "negative" as well as "positive" answers thereby nullifying the effects on instruments such as an attitude scale.

These results are also re-

stricted to responses to verbal statements and we have no way of knowing how they relate to behavior outside of the classroom.

Finally, we measured

the effects of the program only in those schools in which it was taught on a one-semester basis.

One would have to be cautious in making general

statements which by implication include various other scheduling formats although our subjective impressions and those of the teachers suggest that the one-semester model is not critical to the outcome of the program.

Summary of secondary School Teacher Interviews

Our formative evaluation approach this year focused on collecting teachers' views of the Human Relations (H.R.) program by means of a structured teacher interview. view,)

(See Appendix E for a copy of the inter-

The interview schedule was formed from an original interview

document which had been pilot tested and revised several times. A representative sample of twenty-six of the fifty-two secondary school teachers using the H.R. curriculum were interviewed by one of five interviewers. 2

2

All of the interviewers had training in the use of

Two persons not official members of the evaluation team interviewed sixteen of twenty-one elementary teachers using a greatly revised interview schedule. A summary of their reports will be included later in this section.

10

the interview instrument.

Exactly half of the thirty-six senior high and

sixteen junior high school teachers were interviewed.

Two of the eight

junior high teachers and nine of the eighteen senior high teachers had taught for more than one year in the program.

Sever teachers were from inner city

schools and nineteen from schools in various suburban areas.

The twenty-

six teachers represented a total of twenty different school systems.

A summary of the composite findings of the teacher interviews will be presented.

A.

A full report of these results is available.

The H.R. Course within the School Curriculum The H.R. program was taught as a separate course in slightly less

than one-half of the schools.

In the remaining schools it was included

as a part of a larger curriculum area, usually a variation of history or social studies.

The curriculum was taught as a required course in forty

percent of the schools and as an elective elsewhere.

Many of the teachers suggested that the H.R. program should be offered to students at all age and ability levels, beginning in the elementary school.

A few teachers did express strong beliefs that the

program worked best with students of higher ability in the last years of high school.

B.

General Emphases of the H.R. Program As we see in Table 2, a few topics were given moderate or stronger

emphasis and others were practically by-passed by the majority of teachers as they tailored their individual H.R. curriculum.

Other topics stressed

by at least two teachers included adolescent problems, communication and intergroup relations, ecology, alienation, commitment and involvement, and student protest.

11

TABLE 2

Percentage of Teachers Giving Specified Topics Indicated Degrees of Emphasis

Topics

PERSONAL AWARENESS AND SELF-ACCEPTANCE BLACK-WHITE ISSUES AND RELATIONS

Strong Emphasis

Moderate Emphasis

65

15

Some Emphasis

4

No Emphasis or only Passing Mention

:16 ...0,.,

'..

61

19

11

4

WAR AND PEACE

11

19

27

43

ANTI-SEMITISM

7

19

30

44

SCHOOL PROBLEMS

15

23

34

28

POVERTY

19

34

:27

20

DRUGS

0

7

46

47

SEX

0

7

38°

55

,

..

,

C. %Subjective Impressions of the H.R. Program The majority of teachers held very positiveimpres'sions aVout the H.R. program:

They expressed the beliefs that the program overall' had been very

productive, the students had been quite responsive,in class discussions,' and they personally felt satisfied with the experience of teaching the' curriculum.

,r)I

12

There were a few exceptions to these general views.

Several teachers

expressed disappointment with the students'lack of responsivemss,explaining Chili: they perhaps expected too much from their students.

Three teachers

admitted feeling quite dissatisfied personally because all of their goals were not met.

Administrative and co-teacher esistance to the program was

cited by others as a direct hindrance to the program's productivity.

D.

Effect of Haman Relations Teaching on the Teacher The teaching of human relations appears to effect the teacher as much

as, if not more than, those taught.

The teachers believe that their in-

volvement is the program has radically influenced them personally and altered their approach to teaching.

If we were to paint a composite picture of all these influences, we would see a flexible and empathetic teacher who is confident in his own ideas and approach using pr'dominately inductive teaching methods which encourage discussion and student contribution.

This teacher would emphasize

the humin element in the curriculum paying special attention to the views, needs, and criticisms of the students.

E.

Building and Maintaining Group Awareness This area elicited some of the most divergent views expressed through-

out the entire interview.

Half of the teachers indicated that they gave

great emphasis to the use of group experiments for establishing group awareness.

The other teachers said they made little or no use of such

group awareness exercises.

Most of the teachers in the latter group felt

they were "not qualified to handle awareness exercises" and hesitated using "artificial type games."

13

F.

Teacher Evaluation of the H.R. Course A large majority of the teachers surveyed were expected by their

school administrations to give letter or nur,ber grades for the H.R. course.

A small minority were allowed to use a pass/fail or credit

system.

Most of the teachers based their students' grades on special

projects, their level of class participation, or on the content of the course with which the curriculum had been combined.

More than half of

the teachers felt that the present grading system was an inadequate measure of student progress and should be changed to some variation of ;ass/fail or satisfactory/unsatisfactory.

Some new assessment attempts including

personal awareness writings, student evaluation of the curriculum, videotaping, individual interviews with students, and role playing were also tried by teachers.

G.

School and Community Response to the H.R. Program Within the school setting, the superintendents were generally thought

to be accepting of the H.R. program. to or not knowing about the course.

The remainder were seen as neutral The same views were held about the

principals except several were experienced as being actively negative toward the program.

Other teachers, however, were seen quite differently.

About one-third of the teachers interviewed saw their colleagues as accepting the program quite well.

The majority of the teachers saw other

teachers as generally neutral to or antagonistic toward the H.R. course.

In the majority of school systems, the teachers saw the program was evoking little response from the community.

Mere were exceptions in which

a strongly pusitive or strongly negative response occurred.

14

H.

Summer Training Program Considered as a total group, the teachers found that th3 summer train-

ing program offered many positive experiences.

The experienced teachers

viewed their summer sessions as somewhat more valuable than those who were invnlved in last summer's program.

I.

Saturday Workshops

On the average, about one-half of the teachers attended each of the Saturday workshops.

A majority of them found the workshops to be in

general quite valuable with the one most important asset being the opportunity to get together and talk with other teachers.

A third of the teachers,

however, had some pointed questions concerning the organization and general helpfulness of the workshops.

J.

The H.R. Program:

Its Strong and Weak Points and Some Suggestions for

Change

In response to questions concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the H.R. program and even more so in answer to inquiries about areas needing change, the teachers offered a wide range of views.

Only the three

main points will be listed for each category. Strong Points of the H.R. Program: 1.

There is an increase in a student's self-awareness and his awareness of others' problems.

2.

There is a relaxed and free classroom atmosphere which turns kids on.

3.

Teachers have the freedom to experiment.

15

Weak Points of the H.R. Program: 1.

Film distribution and faulty equipment are some of tie mechanical problems.

2.

Curriculum problems include insufficient teacher training, vagueness of the program's structure, lack of individual student projects, overemphasis on films and depressing film content.

3.

Individual counseling for students is one of the supporting services needed by the program.

Suggestions for Change: 1.

Provide teachers with additional curriculum and selfawareness training and more opportunities to share ideas with each other.

2.

Further program development should explore the needs for more overall program structure and a revised curriculum for the inner city schools.

3.

K.

Make use of other media in addition to films.

Additional Help Sought from the PACE Association and the Program Evaluators

As in the previous topic, we shall list the three areas most frequently suggested.

What PACE Could Do: 1.

Establish more contact with the teachers giving them individually more support and feedback as well as making possible more interaction among all of the teachers.

16

2.

Train teachers in the program to recruit and train other teachers.

3.

Work with school administrators and boards for more program support.

What Evaluators Could Do: 1.

Establish more contact with teachers by visiting in classrooms and giving supportive-critical feedback.

2.

Help teachers develop "in-house" evaluation of classroom process and studert attitudes.

3.

Provide more feedback to teacher concerning evaluation procedures and observations already completed.

We conclude that most teachers were generally very positive and enthusiastic about the H.R. program.

At the same time, they were willing

to be openly critical of its weaknesses and consider the need for constant program evaluation and revision.

Summary of Elementary School Teacher Interviews

Our efforts to evaluate the human relations curriculum at the elementary school level were limited to collecting reports of the program from participating teachers.

Sixteen teachers, both inner city and suburban, were

interviewed by two students using a modified version of the questionnaire utilized with secondary school teachers.

Informal contacts between the

evaluation group and the elementary school teachers also provided some information concerning the program at this level.

Neither the interviews

17

nor other contacts were highly standardized and the data were not subjected to rigorous analysis.

Therefore, the following results, while

representative of the teacher's responses, should be regarded as tentative and impressionistic. I.

There was a general feeling that the program was of value.

Children came to recognize their own feelings and the rights of others.

They also became more involved in community problems, school issues, and learned about Negroes' contributions to society.

These gains were es-

pecially evident in group discussion. 2.

They felt that the program worked best integrated into other

aspects of the curriculum rather than as a separate graded subject. 3.

The teachers reported their own teaching techniques had changed

in that they now encouraged discussion and were more sensitive to students' feelings. 4.

Teaching materials appropriate for the elementary level were

highly inadequate. 5.

Teachers did not receive enough help ,Dither in constructing the

program during the summer workshop or in setting up and carrying out the program during the year.

The Saturday workshops, in general, were of little

value to them since they were primarily directed toward

secondary school

teachers. 6.

The evaluation group did not provide any external feedback as to

how the program was going nor any assistance in teacher-initiated efforts at evaluation.

18

Classroom Observations

The results of classroom observations in large measure confirmed our findings of last year.

Styles of teaching and the patterns of classroom

interaction again varied widely:

from teacher-dominated classrooms to

student-dominated classrooms, from classes devoted to a narrative recital of movie plots to debate among students about social issues involving a good deal of personal feelings.

Many times these issues were related to

actual student involvement in immediate social and community problems. Often, the observers were impressed by the high degree of teacher and student enthusiasm as evidenced by very active discussion and student involvement.

These discussions often focused on differences in attitude

within the class itself.

Areas of Concern Human Relations Curriculum 1970

1.

The program has really not had an adequate tryout in the inner

city schools and the question as to whether special methods, techniques, and curricula for the inner city child have to be developed remains unanswered.

Some teachers in the inner city schools have reported that the

program has not been firmly established at least in part because of the absence of support fri.m middle and upper level administrators. 2.

Based on classroom observations the program appears to be more

effective in terms of the content and quality of discussion with regard to racial attitudes in integrated schools.

In schools where black and white

19

students are together in the classroom, the discussion has an immediate firsthand impact on students which is otherwise lacking.

Unfortunately,

very few schools are integrated to any significant extent.

Thus, the

possibility of increased inter-school projects and contacts is an area to be explored. 3.

The whole area of self - awareness remains vague.

considerably in their emphasis and approach to this area.

Teachers vary The use of group

exercises and games in order to promote self-awareness should be further explored, techniques developed, and limits defined.

Teachers are interested

in using these techniques but feel inadequately trained and prepared to apply them in the classroom. 4.

Teachers are aware of the need for other media and techniques in

addition to films for initiating discussion.

In some classrooms, film

discussion appears to remain primarily focused on specific details concerning plot and characterization.

A rigid film schedule may contribute

to this orientation. 5.

There is a significant need for having teachers continue to inter-

act with each other and to discuss mutual problems.

Identification with

the "human relations group" is especially important because teachers often feel isolated from their usual sources of support. 6.

Teacher initiated evaluation techniques need to be developed if

the program is to become indigenous to the school.

Grading of the program

is a difficult question demanding the concern of teachers, students, and administrators.

20

7.

Individual school systems may require further encouragement before

they seriously adopt the program in terms of giving adequate financial and personnel sqpport. 8.

The elementary school program is still in a pilot stage and requires

additional consideration of its methods and goals.

21

Appendix A

Summary of Sample Statistics: Distribution According to Race, Time of Testing, Grade, and Racial Makeup of Schools

White Students Student Group

Form A-5

Black Students

Form A-6

Form A-6

Form A-7

Pretest

327

323

.97

103

Posttest

325

318

82

85

Totals

652

641

179

188

Distribution by Grade Level

12th Grade

382

376

88

91

11 & 12 Mixed

179

171

41

45

11th Grade

62

63

2

2

9th Grade

29

31

48

50

Distribution by Racial Makeup of Schools

All White

571

563

3

7

All Black

2

3

151

154

79

75

25

27

Integrated*

*

Classes in which only one student was white or only one was black were not considered to be integrated.

22

Appendix B

Technical Description of Scales

Forms A-5, A-6, and A-7 are the most recent versions of opinion survey forms used in the evaluation of Project Insight.

The White and

Black forms (C-7 and C-8) used at the end of the 1968-69 school year were revised for pilot testing during December, 1969 (Forms A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4).

Items were selected for these pilot forms with the intent of

sampling from fifteen distinct content areas.

With each revision of the

survey instrument, items have been revised, added and scale descriptions adjusted in an attempt to clarify the content domain of each scale.

Items

have then been eliminated so as to increase the homogeneity of the scales.

In the final selection of items for the scales used in the evaluation design, the following formalized procedures were used.

A.

Content Specification: I.

2.

3.

4. 5.

B.

Brief descriptionsof each scale were written which stated what the scales were attempting to measure. A number of people (judges) were given several of the scale descriptions and a stack of cards, each of which contained one item from one of the opinion survey forms. The judges were asked to classify each item as belonging on one of the scales, as described, or as belonging on none of them. The pattern of responses was plotted and interpreted with the assistance of comments made by the judges. The descriptions of the scales were revised. For each content domain a pool of items (which had been consistently identified with the corresponding scale description) was constructed.

Homogeneity Maximization: 1.

2.

Coefficient C0( was chosen as an index of homogeneity. Based on prior experience it was decided that all scales except the personality measures would be composed of six equally weighted items.

Appendix B (continued)

3.

4.

5.

6.

23

A length of twelve items was arbitrarily selected for the two personality scales. Separate computations of 0( were made for two sub-populations of the Lotal sample tested; (a) Black students, (b) ninth grade students. This was done since both of these groups were small compared to the total sample size; the total sample could conceivably have high 0( values while the 0/, values for Black students, considered separately are much lower. A max-min decision rule was used to select items from the content domains, to form six and twelve item scales. If the choice of items to be eliminated was insensitive to the "maximize Cii(" criterion, two additional criteria were applied in sequential order. (1) Items which were most frequently identified with the scale description were preferred over other items; (2) Items which "extended" the domain of content were preferred over redundant items.

The max-min decision rule will be illustl,,ted with the following example.

The content specification procedure identified seven items as

belonging in the content domain of scale 3, "Positive Sounding Stereotypes of Negroes."

These were items 15, 18, 20, 42, 44, 39, and 60 of from A-6.

Table 1 contains the

01, values with each of the seven eliminated--the

seven possible six item scales that can be selected from a pool of seven items.

TABLE 1.--Coefficient

Item Eliminated

15 18

20 42 44 59 60

O. for Six-Item Scales (Scale 3)

Total Sample N'435

Black Students N=83

.77 .76 .75 .76 .78

.49 .55 .46

.73

.46 .46

.74

.47 .37

9th Grade Students N=48

.77 .78 .i5 .76 .77 .75 .76

Appendix B (continued)

24

If only the O( values for the total group were considered, item 44 would be eliminated in selecting a six-item scale.

The Q;(.

Black students would be only .37 for this selectit..

value for

The max-min rule

dictaf-es the elimination of that item which leads to the maximum value

of the smallest Ck values. .55 is the smallest

Eliminating item 18 satisfies this criterion;

0( value with this selection.

This procedure for forming scales led to the elimination of scales for two of the content areas. Anti-White on the A-7 form.)

(Negro Inferiority on the A-5 form and

In both cases the content specification

procedure led to the conclusion that either the items did not form a distinct content domain or that we had failed to describe the domain adequately.

The

0( values for scales formed from the items intended to

define these content domains were also too low to justify scaling.

Table 2 contains the O( values for each of the fourteen scales for the four groups of students considered in the evaluation design.

Table 3 contains the intercorrelation matrices for the scales on ?itch of the three fot.fts; for form A-6 computations were made separately

for White and Black students.

A construct validity study for the scales on form A-6 has been done a3 a doctoral thesis.3

A factor analysis of the items and a variation of

the "known groups" methods was included in this study.

3

Ronald R. Besel, "The Construct Validation of an Opinion Survey Instrument," unpublished doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University, August, 1970.

Appendix B (continued)

25

for the Population Samples of the TABLE 2.--Coefficient Project Insight Evaluation Design

White Students

Scale

1 INTEGRATION

Pretest

Posttest

Black Students

Pretest

Posttest

.87

.62

.59

.72

.80

.79

.77

.72

3 POSITIVE SOUNDING STEREOTYPES (NEGROES)

.70

.74

.61

.64

4 DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES (POOR PEOPLE)

.78

.73

.64

.54

5 BLACK POWER

.77

.74

.63

.58

6 MILITANCY

.62

.62

.57

.57

7 FLEXIBILITY

.63

.64

.52

.58

8 TOLERANCE

.65

.68

.61

.72

9 EASE

.74

.76

.71

.71

10 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

.84

.88

.71

.80

11 HUMAN RIGHTS

.80

.84

.65

.73

.76

.77

a

ft 0

IN.O.

.72

.77

.71

.68

.57

.54

2 DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES (JEWS)

12 DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES (NEGROES)

lb 0

13 DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES (WHITES)

14 MILITANCY

26

Appendix B (continued)

TABLE 3.--Correlation Matrices

A-6 Whites Scale 1 INTEGRATION 2 DEROG. STEREO. (JEWS) 3 POS. SOUNDING STEREO. 4 DEP.OG. STEREO. (POOR)

5 BLACK POWER 6 MILITANCY 7 FLEXIBILITY

2

1

4

5

6

1.0 .406 .143 .401

1.0 .316 .408

1.0 .159

.281 -.151 .350

1.0 .119 .366 .270 .054 .352

.361 .117 .322

1.0

-.024 -.083 -.104 .069

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTEGRATION DEROG. STEREO. (JEWS) POS. SOUNDING STEREO. DEROG. STEREO. (POOR) BLACK POWER MILITANCY FLEXIBILITY

1.0 .134 .054 .236 .265 .088 .178

1.0 .231 .307 .203 .166 .494

1.0 -.045 .025 .052 .199

1.0 .392 .191 .428

1.0 .356 .343

1.0 .183

A-5

8 9 10 11 12 14

TOLERANCE EASE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE HUMAN RIGHTS DEROG. STEREO. (NEGROES) MILITANCY

8

9

1.0 .238 .246 .065 .410 .319

1.0 .441 .265 .415 .138

10

1.0 .322 .411 .150

11

12

1.0 .320 .066

1.0 .268

14

1.0

A-7

Scale 8 9 10 11 13 14

TOLERANCE EASE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE HUMAN RIGHTS DEROG. STEREO. (WHITES) MILITANCY

1.0

Blacks

SctAe

Scale

7

1.0

A-6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3

8

9

1.0 -.038 .066 -.063 .327 .385

1.0 .617 -.034 .290

-.260

10

1.0 .013 .383 -.142

11

1.0 .088 .100

,

13

1.0 .017

14

1.0

7

1.0

27

Appendix C

Form A-6

Scale 1 Integration: Measures feelings toward a policy of integration of blacks and whites in terms of overall benefits and problems. 3.

17.

24.

School officials should not try placing black and white children in the same schools because of the danger of fights and other problems. Integration of schools is beneficial to both white and black children alike. It is a good idea to have separate schools for Negroes and whites.

30.

Integration should not be attempted because of the turmoil it causes.

32.

Integration is more trouble than it is worth.

38.

Integration will result in greater understanding between Negroes and whites.'

Score low if integration is opposed. Score high if inteScoring: gration is seen as so beneficial that difficulties or problems should not delay or deter the implementation of an integration policy. 17, 38 Agree; 3, 24, 30, 32 Disagree

The scale does no: measure whether the individual Interpretation: favors various social policies, such as open housing or bussing, which have been proposed as means of achieving integration.

Appendix C (continued)

28

Form A-6

Scale 2

Derogatory Stereotypes (Jews): of Jews are rejected.

Measures whether derogatory stereotypes

16.

Jews keep too much to themselves instead of taking the proper interest in community problems and good government.

33.

There are a few exceptions, but in general, Jews are pretty much alike.

34.

No matter how Americanized a Jew may be, there is always something strange about him.

45.

A major fault of the Jews is their conceit and overbearing pride.

48.

Jews are never contented, but always want the best jobs and the most money.

55.

Jewish landlords don't care how run down their property gets, as long as they get the rent.

Scoring: Score high if derogatory stereotypes of Jews are rejected. items scored Disagree.

All

Interpretation: A high score is hypothesized to be caused by either of two factors (or both). 1) The person rejects all statements which he feels are unfavorable toward Jews. 2) The person rejects statements which are phrased as a stereotype.

Appendix C (continued)

29

Form A-6

Scale 3

Positive Sounding Stereotype (Negroes): Measures whether positive sounding stereotypes of Negroes are rejected. 15.

In this day of rush and hurry, the black man has met his problems in a much calmer manner than the white man.

20.

Suffering and trouble have made Negroes better able to withstand the stresses and strains of modern life than most whites.

42.

I think that black people have a sense of dignity that you see in few white people.

44.

Negroes have more sympathy for other minorities than most whites do.

59.

I think that black people have a kind of quiet courage which few white people have.

60.

What Negroes have suffered in the past has made them a more noble people than are whites.

Score high if positive sounding stereotypes of Negroes Scoring: are rejected. All items scored Disagree. Interpretation: A person may scope high if he is either anti-Negro or if he detects the generalization and rejects it. A person attempting to appear favorable toward Negroes will score low.

Appendix C (continued)

30

Form A-6

Scale 4

Derogatory Stereotypes (Poor People): Measures whether derogatory stereotypes of poor people are rejected. 8.

The poor are often looking for free handouts instead of doing something to better themselves.

10.

Most welfare programs are giveaways to people who won't work.

21.

Poor people really do not want a job because they are living comfortably on relief.

23.

People who are poor are usually irresponsible.

52.

Most people who live in slums would make a slum out of better housing if it were given to them.

58.

People who are poor are generally lazy or not trying hard enough.

Score high if derogatory stereotypes of poor peorle are Scoring: rejected. All items scored Disagree. Interpretation: A high score is hypothesized to be caused by either of two factors (or both). 1) The person rejects all statements which he feels are unfavorable toward poor people. 2) The person rejects statements which are phrased as a stereotype.

Appendix C (continued)

31

Form A-6

Scale 5 Black Power: Measures feelings toward the concept "Blazk Power" in terms of whether the concept has a positive or negative meaning and whether it has had a constructive impact. 6.

The Black Power movement has greatly harmed black-white relations.

7.

For me, Black Power means "hate whites."

13.

There is nothing good in the aims of the Black Panther Party.

26.

Black Power is black racism.

29.

Black Power is hurting the civil rights movement.

49.

Black power means violence toward whites.

Scoring: A high score indicates a favorable attitude toward "Black Power." A low scorer has a negative reaction to any statement

referring to Black Power or Black Power organizations. All items scored Disagree. Inter retation: A person may have a mid-range score on the scale e reels that "Black Power" has a different meaning to different people--some meanings positive and some negative--but that it has had a negative impact since most whites accept the negative meanings of the concept.

Appendix C (continued)

32

Form A-6

Scale 6 Militancy: Measures the degree to which militant actions are accepted or advocated as possible alternatives to legal and peaceful methods. 12.

When non-violent methods fail, stronger measures are justified.

31.

Boycotts of white owned businesses by blacks do more harm than good.

35.

It is good that the slogans and aims of Black Power are sometimes frightening.

36.

Violence and riots never serve a useful purpose.

46.

Black people should remain peaceful even when non-violent methods fail to gain them their rights.

51.

Even if whites prevent blacks from getting power, they are never justified in taking it by force.

Scoring: A high scorer expresses impatience with the calm orderly approach to Civil Rights and other reforms and feels that stronger measures are justified. A low scorer rejects the possibility that violent methods are ever justified or effective. 12, 35 Agree; 31, 36, 46, 51 Disagree Interpretation: Since four of the six items refer to militancy by blacks, an individual's score may depend, to an indeterminate extent, on his feelings toward black people.

Appeuul

u kLuuktituuti)

J.)

Form A-6

Scale 7

Flexibility: A flexible individual can tolerate a high level of ambiguity, can resist viewing life in terms of absolutes such as positive-negative or good-bad, and is capable of changing or responding to new situations. An inflexible person likes things definite, neat and unambiguous; he may be described as rigid or self-righteous and may endorse extreme solutions to complex problems. 5.

For most questions there is just one right answer, once a person is able to get all the facts.

9.

An insult to our honor should always be punished.

11.

People can be divided into two distinct classes:

the weak and the

strong. 14.

The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough.

22.

I can't stand to listen to a teacher who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he really believes.

25.

I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the consequences.

28.

Our thinking would be a lot better off if we would just forget about words like "probably," "approximately," and "perhaps."

39.

It is hard for me to sympathize with someone who is always doubting and unsure about things.

43.

I don't like to work on a problem unless there is the possibility of coming out with a clear-cut answer.

50.

Once I have my mind made up I seldom change it.

53.

I set a high standard for myself and I feel others should do the same.

56.

The police should attempt to wipe out the Black Panther Party.

Scoring: A flexible person will score high; an inflexible person will score low. All items scored Disagree.

Appendix C (continued)

34

Forms A-5, A-7 Scale 8

Tolerance: The tolerant person is accepi.'ng of people whose life Life style includes values, styles may differ from his. The tolerant individual may also be opinions and behaviors. described as trusting, sympathetic, able to understand the The intolerant shortcomings of others and empathize with them. person is critical of others, impatient and prone to be vindictive and judgmental. 9.

11.

A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. In the long run, it is best to pick friends whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.

13.* There is nothing good in the aims of the Black Panther Party. 25.

People who don't live up to the standards they set for themselves are not fit to be leaders.

28.

I have no patience with a person who always refuses to admit he's wrong.

39.

It is hard for me to sympathize with someone who is always doubting and unsure about things.

43.

No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.

47.

I just can't like a person who does things which I consider wrong.

SO.

I can't tolerate people who are hypocritical.

53.

There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents.

54.

I can't trust a person until I know him well.

56.

If

I found out that one of my friends used drugs, I would lose my respect for him.

A tolerant person will score high; an intolerant person will score low. All items scored Disagree.

Scoring.:

Appendix C (continued)

35

Forms A-5, A-7 (Different.wording on A-7 indicated). Scale 9

Measures whether the person feels he is "color-blind" in his personal feelings or if he is completely at ease, in intimate relationship, with members of the other race.

Ease:

16.

It makes no difference to me whether I'm a black person or a white person.

27.

I probably would feel somewhat self-conscious dancing with a Negro (white).

33.

I can easily imagine myself falling in love with and marrying a Negro (white).

34.

I would not mind at all if most of my friends were Negroes (whites).

45.

I would feel uncomfortable about going out with a Negro (white) date.

59.

I'd just as soon live in a black (white) neighborhood as a white (black) one.

Scorin Score high if completely at ease in intimate relationships with, members of the other race. 16, 33, 34, 59 Agree; 27, 45 Disagree. :

It is hypothesized that any individual scoring Inter retation: high on Scale 9 will score high on Scale 10 (Social Acceptance);

any individual scoring low on Scale 10 should also score low on Scale 9. Scale 9 items deal with a closer degree of social distance than Scale 10 items. A person attempting to appear equalitarian should score high on this scale.

Appendix C (continued)

36

Forms A-5, A-7 (Different wording on A-7 indicated). Scale 10 Social Acceptance: Measures willingness to accept persons of another race in personal or social associations. 15.

I would rather not hP.),e Negro (white) guests to a party at my home with most of r.w white (Negro) friends.

18.

If I were invited to be a guest of a mixed Negro and white group on a weekend trip, I would probably want to go.

20.

I would accept an invitation to a New Year's Eve party given by a Negro (white) student in his (her) own home.

42.

I am willing to have Negroes (whites) as close personal friends.

44.

60.

I would be willing to introduce Negro (white) visitors to friends and neighbors. I have no abjection to double-dating with a Negro (white) couple.

Score high if willing to accent persons of the other ,'ace Scoring: in personal or social associations. Interpretation:

See Scale 9 interpretation.

Appendix. C (continued)

37

Dorms A-5, A-7 Scale 11

Items on this scale force a choice between "human Human Rights: rights' and private or property rights. The person favoring "private rights" believes that the individual's right of free association or "freedom of choice" allows him as a businessman or property owner to discriminate against Negroes. Those favoring human rights believe that the right of each individual to equal and fair treatment takes precedence over property rights. 3.

A hotel owner ought to have the right to decide for himself whether he is going to rent rooms to Negro guests.

17.

Barbers and beauticians have the right to refuse service to anyone they please, even if it means refusing Negroes.

24.

An employer should not be required to hire blacks if he doesn't want to.

32.

Real estate agents should be required to show homes to Negro buyers regardless of the desires of home owners.

38.

A person should not have the right to run a business in this country if he will not serve Negroes.

48.

A landlord has the right to refuse to rent to all black tenants.

Score high if "human rights" are favored over "private Scorin rights." 32, 38 Agree; 3, 17, 24, 46 Disagree. :

Appendix C (continued)

38

Form A-5 Scale 12

Derogatory Stereotypes (Negroes): Measures whether derogatory stereotypes of Negroes are rejected. 7.

Negroes imagine that they have been discriminated against on the basis of color even when they have been treated quite fairly.

26.

Negroes spend money for big cars and television sets instead of spending it for better housing.

49.

One big reason why racial prejudice is still so strong is that Negroes offend people by being so sensitive about racial matters.

29.

One important reason why Negroes are discriminated against in housing is that they don't keep up the property.

41.

Black people can hardly be expected to gain social equality until many more of them exert some effort to better themselves and live more decently.

8.

Negroes would solve many of their social problems if so many of them were not irresponsible, lazy, and ignorant.

Scoring: Score high if derogatory stereotypes of Negroes are rejected. All items scored Disagree.

A high score is hypothesized to be caused by Interpretation: 1) The person rejects all either of two factors (or both). 2) The statements he feels are unfavorable toward Negroes. person rejects statements which are phrased as a stereotype.

Appendix C (continued)

39

Form A-7 Scale 13

Derogatory Stereotypes (Whites): Measures whether derogatory stereotypes of whites are rejected. 6.

White people are insensitive to the needs of poor people.

8.

No matter how nicely they treat a black person, white people don't really mean it.

26.

The whites have shown by their actions that they are naturally hypocritical.

29.

White people are friendly to Negroes only when they want something out of them.

41.

Whites are always looking for ways to cheat black people.

49.

Whites look down on anyone who is not white.

Score high if derogatory stereotypes of Whites are Scoring: rejected. All items scored Disagree. Interpretation: A high score is hypothesized to be caused by 1) The person rejects all either of two factors (or both). statements he feels are unfavorable toward Whites. 2) The person rejects statements which are phrased as a stereotype.

Appendix C (continued)

40

Forms A-5, A-7 Scale 14

militancy: Measures the degree to which militant actions are accepted or advocated as possible alternatives to legal and peaceful methods. 12.

When non-violent methods fail, stronger measures are sometimes justified.

31.

Boycotts of white owned businesses by blacks do more harm than good.

36.

Violence and riots never serve a useful purpose.

46.

Black people should remain peaceful even when non-violent methods fail to gain them their rights.

51.

Even if whites prevent blacks from getting power, they are never justified in taking it by force.

57.

When a group resorts to force they defeat their own purposes.

A high scorer expresses impatience with the calm orderly approach to Civil Rights and other reforms and feels that stronger measures are justified. A low scorer rejects the possibility that violent methods are ever justified or effective. 12 Agree; 31, 36, 46, 51, 57 Disagree

Scoring:

Since three of the six items refer to militancy Interpretation: by blacks, an individual's score may depend, to an indeterminate extent, on his feelings toward black people. Note that this scale differs from scale 6 on form A-6 only in the wording of item 12 and the replacement of item 35 with item 57.

.0937

2.82 7.49

11.15

+.57

+.22

+.45 +.43

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD POOR PEOPLE

BLACK POWER

MILITANCY

FLEXIBILITY

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors = 5.39, df = 7 and 810, probability <.0001.

.0001

30.72

-.07 .80

.0009

.0064

.3706

.0118

POSITIVE-SOUNDING STEREOTYPES TOWARD NEGROES

6.38

+.22

.0116

Probability 4.

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD JEWS

6.41

Univariate F

+.32

Differences

(Common for both Blacks and Whites.)

INTEGRATION

List of Scales

TABLE 1.--Summary Statistics for Form A-6.

.41

1.14

+.21

+.20 -.05

HUMAN RIGHTS

TOLERANCE

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF BLACKS

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors = .5640, df = 6 and 621, probability .7592.

1.35

+.04

MILITANCY

.02

.20

+.11

EASE IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH BLACKS

2.22

Univariate F

+.15

Differences

(Unique to white students.)

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD NEGROES

List of Scales

TABLE 2.--Summary Statistics for Form A-5.

.8809

.2870

.5223

.2466

.6586

.1364

Probability 4:.

.4430 .2599 .1499

.15

.59

1.28 2.09 .10

+.15 +.15 +.28 +.47

+.15

MILITANCY

HUMAN RIGHTS

TOLERANCE

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF WHITES

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors = 1.3997, df = 6 and 173, probability 4..2174.

.7573

.6992

.2488

EASE IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH WHITES

1.34

-.43

DEROGATORY STEREOTYPES TOWARD WHITES

Probability Z.

Differences

Univariate F

(Unique to black students.)

List of Scales

TABLE 3.--Summary Statistics for Form A-7.

TEACHER INTERVIEW SCHEDULE April, 1970

Teacher School Grade Level Date Interviewer

Directions:

In the first part of the interview you will be asked to respond in several different ways. For some questions you will merely check the appropriate answer. In addition, in others you will be asked to react to the question by circling a number some place along the line between the word pairs which best indicates the teachers answer. For example, suppose the teacher is asked, "What was the general response to the human relations curriculum from your school principal?" Very Enthusiastic

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very Unenthusiastic

If the teacher feels it was very enthusiastic indeed, you would circle the "1." Very Enthusiastic

0:

2

:

3

:

4

:

S

Very Unenthusiastic

If the teacher feels it was very unenthusiastic indeed, you would circle the "5." Very Enthusiastic

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:(5.)

Very Unenthusiastic

As the teacher feels loss strongly that one of the word pairs Further expresses his answer, circle a number closer to the middle. brief notes unique to the teacher's answer may be placed in the margin.

The final seven questions of the interview are more openended and therefore a brief statement for each is sought. 1.

What is the nature of the course in which the H.R. curriculum has been taught? (a) A separate H.R. course (b) Part of a larger curriculum, e.g., History

English

Black History

Sociology

Social Studies

Other (specify)

Appendix E (continued) 2.

45

The H.R. course is: elective

required

What do you think about the course being taught under these conditions?. Best possible way 3.

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Worst possible way

(a) What has been the major emphasis(es) of your course? (Mark with the following symbols: XXX=strong emphasis XX=moderate emphasis X=some emphasis 0=no emphasis or only passing mention)

personal awareness and self acceptance black-white issues and relations war and peace anti-Semitism school problems

poverty drugs SOX

other (specify)

(b) To what extent do your :lass discussions focus on problems an issues which exist within the black community? (Use same :;ymbols as explained in (a) above.)

(coot inued)

Appenu IX

4.

,$t)

Did you teach in last year's H.R. program? Yes

No

If yes, what are your subjective impressions of last Consider this in terms of the year's experiences. over-all productiveness of the course, student responsiveness and your personal feelings. "Over-all Impression" Very Productive last year

1

:

2

3

:

:

4

:

5

Very Unproductive last year

S

Very Unresponsive last year

"Student Response" Very Responsive last year

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

"Personal FeeLings"

Very Satisfied last year S.

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very Dissatisfied last year

Did you teach in the H.R. program last semester? Yes No

If yes, was it a one semester course? Yes No

Whether your course was for one semester only or ir it is continuing for the entire year, think back to the laut are your subjective experiences of last semester. impressions of last semester's experiences. Consider this in the same terms as number 4, above. "Over-all Impression" Very Productive last semester

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very Unproductive last semester

S

Very Unresponsive last semester

"Student Response" Very Responsive last semester

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

"Personal Peelings"

41

Appendix E (continued)

6. What are your subjective impressions of the H.R. program this semester? Consider this in the same terms as numbers 4 and 5, above. "Over-all Impression" Very Productive this semester

1

2

:

3

:

4

:

:

5

Very unproductive this semester

"Student Response"

Very Responsive this semester

1

2

:

3

:

4

:

:

5

Very Unresponsive this semester

"Personal Feelings" Very Satisfied this semester

1

2

:

3

:

4

:

:

5

Very Dissatisfied this semester

7. What approaches have you found to be effective for involving passive students? aWriting

bUsing a camera cHave them make visual presentations

dInvolve in small groups

eQuestion directly concerning non-involvement (Other (specify)

8. How much emphasis have you placed in your over-all program plans on building and maintaining group awareness and experiences through group exercises and experiments? a)Very great emphasis

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

S

Very little emphasis

b)If used, please specify any particularly successful and/or unsuccessful exercises or experiments. Successful enos:

Unsuccessful ones:

Appendix E (continued)

48

9. What kind of grading system is used for the H.R. course? (a) Pass-fail Credit

Letter or number grade Other (specify)

(b) What effect does this have on your handling of the tours::?

10. How have you attempted to evaluate the progress of the H.R. course? (a) Personal aliareness writings

(b) Questionning on film plots (c) Written assignments

(d) student evaluation of the curriculum (e) Evaluation through class discussion Judging most appropriate action in response to set situation (g) Other (specify)

11. How has the H.R. program been accepted by tho school superintendent, principal, and other teachers? "Superintendent" Very well accepted

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very negative toward

"Principal"

Very well accepted

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

S

Very negative toward

"Other Teachers" Very well accepted

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

S

Very negative toward

Appvnuix

qi

(continued)

12. What responses have occurred within the community to the H.R. program? (a) Great response (b)

2

:

3

:

4

:

:

5

:

No re ;ponse

If there has been some response, what has been the nature of the response? (If there has been more than one type of response indicate this by circling more than one number on the continuum). Very well accepted

(c)

1

Very negative 1

2

:

3

:

4

:

toward

5

:

If possible, specify the particular kind of response.

13. How many Saturday workshops have you attended? (a) What is your general response to these workshops? Do they serve a valid function? Very valid and helpful I

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very invalid and non-helpful

(b) Which were the most valuable workshops? 'Introduction to Workshops 2l3liciting Student Response

3Pilms and Games (New Media by Ron H.) 4Media Making (Kodak) SCommunication Games (Len H.)

6Demonstration of Student and Teacher Produced and Created Materials (c) Which were the least valuable workshops? (See above for workshop titles). 4 2

S

3

6

Appendix E (continued)

14.

50

In retrospect, did you find your summer training program valuable? Very valuable

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

Very worthless

(a) What specifically did you find valuable? 1Training in group process 2Film review

3Discussion of course goals 4Presentation of different teaching styles SExperiencing inductive learning 6Other (specify)

(b) What meeds were not met? 1Learning about new teaching methods

2lnsufficient experience in applying group exercises 3Viewing actual or simulated class discussions

4Film review for various age groups SCourse guide of creative activities 60ther (specify)

IS. How would you describe your role(s) in carrying out the H.R. program? 'Director or stage manager 2

Facilitator

3Resource person 4lnitiator SLecturer

60ther (specify)

Appendix E (continued)

16. In what ways has your involvement in the H.R. program influenced your approach to teaching in other classes?

17. As a result of having implemented the H.R. course, what changes have taken place within you and your thinking in areas other than teaching?

18.

Is there an especially "good" age or grade level for which the H.R. program is particularly suited? In response to the program, have you found any significant track, age, grade level, or other differences?

19. What do you consider to be the strong points of the H.R. program? What are the weak ones? (a) Strong ;.pints --

(b) Weak points--

20. What suggestions would you have for making changes in the H.R. program?

51

Appendix E (continued)

21. How could the PACE Association and/or the curriculum and program evaluators be of additional help to the teachers? (a) PACE

(b) Evaluators

22. Do you have any additional comments not covered in this interview?

RATING OF INTERVIEW (a) Very animated

(b) Very productive

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

S

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

Very dull S

Very unproductive

Appendix E (continued) 21. How could the PACE Association and/or the curriculum and program evaluators be of additional help to the teachers? (a) PACE

(b) Evaluators

22. Do you have any additional comments not covered in this interview?

RATING OF INTERVIEW (a) Very animatod

(b) Very productive

I

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

5

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

:

Very dull

Very unproductive