AN EVALUATION OF THE CHANGES IN CERTAIN COMMUNICATION SKILLS EFFECTED IN COLLEGE STUDENTS BY A FRESHMAN WRITING PROGRAM

230 Pages·10.633 MB·English

by  MARCUS, FRED HAROLD

COPYRIGHTED
0y
FRED HAROLD MARCUS
195 S
Sponsoring Committee: P rofessor Lou LaBrant, Chairman
P rofessor George Cerveny and
P rofessor John Rockwell
AN EVALUATION OF THE CHANGES
IN CERTAIN COMMUNICATION SKILLS EFFECTED
IN COLLEGE STUDENTS BY A FRESHMAN WRITING PROGRAM
FRED H. MARCUS
•a*
Subm itted in p a rtia l fulfillm ent of the
requirem ents fo r the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the School of Education of
New York University
1952
July U , 1952
I hereby guarantee that no part of the d issertatio n vhich I
have submitted for publication has been heretofore published and/or
copyrighted in the United States of America, except in the case of
passages quoted from other published sources; that I am the sole
author and proprietor of said d issertatio n ; that the d issertatio n
contains no matter which, if published, w ill be libelous or other­
wise injurious, or infringe in any way the copyright of any other
party; and that I will defend, indemnify, and hold harm less hew York
University against all suits and proceedings which may be brought
and against all claims which may be made against hew York U niversity
by reason of the publication of said dissertation.
A bstract of Thesis submitted by Fred H. Marcus in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in English Education at New
York U niversity.
T itle of. Thesis: An Evaluation of the Changes in Certain Communication
S k ills Effected in College Students by a Freshnan
Writing Program
Chairman, Sponsoring Committee:
/
-1-
Problama of the Study: To determine whether the New York University School of Education
writing program succeeded in improving the following communication sk ills:
1. The ability to arrive at conclusions based upon factual data.
2. The ability to recognize abstractions which fa il to communicate completely.
3. The ability to distinguish between facts and judgments.
4» The ability to shift judgments when the introduction of new data makes
Such shifts feasible.
To evaluate the writing program, five sub-problems were prepared, as follows:
1. Did the students in the study show improvement in the development of
communication skills?
2. Did the following groups of students show improvement in the development
of communication skills?
a. Students who did not take any written English in the School of
Education, New York University.
b. Students who took two points of written English during a single
semester.
c. Students who took four points of written English during a single
semester.
3. Did the communication skills program have a greater effect on some reading
and intelligence groups than on others?
4. Could development in communication sk ills be attributed to specific courses
taken ty students?
5. Did students make more significant progress in some communication sk ills
than in others?
Sources of Data: This study was carried on between February, 1950, and January, 1951.
During the Spring semester of 1950, the following three sources of data were used:
1. Student scores on the sub-tests of the communication sk ills test battery.
2. Student scores on the American Council on Education Psychological Examina­
tion for College Freshmen.
3. Student programs as recorded in the Recording O ffice of the School of Edu­
cation, New York University.
During the Fall semester of 1950-1951, the above sources were used. In addition,
student scores on the American Council on Education Cooperative English Test (Fonn Q)
were also utilized.
Methods of the Study: Students were tested at the beginning and end of the two semesters
in communication s k ill ab ility as measured by the test battery. Mean gains and statis­
tic a l m easures of significance were calculated for the groups in the experiment. Oorre-
la tio n s were prepared to determine relationships between student scores on the communi-
cation s k ills b atteries and their intelligence and reading scores. Various intelligence
and reading groups were compared for communication skills development. Student programs
were analyzed in the lig h t of student ability to improve in communication skills. Spe­
c ific su b -tests were correlated to determine what relationships existed among specific
a b ilitie s . Student improvement in concrete abilities were compared by using statistical
m easures to determine mean gains and significance of those gains.
R esults of the Study;
1. Students taking two or four points of written English made greater numerical
and s ta tis tic a lly more significant improvement in communication skills than
students not taking any written English.
2. Student scores on the linguistic and quantitative sections of the American
Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen had little
co rrelatio n w ith student improvement in communication skills.
3. Student scores on the American Council on Education Cooperative English Test
had l i t t l e correlation with student improvement in communication skills.
4.. The experim ental classes* gains in communication skills were statistically
sig n ifican t across the entire range of student potential, as measured by the
two standardized tests above.
5. Student development in communication skills was due, primarily, to the stress
on sp ecific communication abilities in the written English classes.
6. The a b ilitie s to (a) recognize abstractions and (b) distinguish between facts
and judgments were taught most successfully. The ability to arrive at conclu­
sions based upon factual data was taught less successfully. Improvement in the
a b ility to sh ift judgments when the introduction of new data made such shifts
feasib le was very slight.
7. Improvement in one communication skill did not necessarily mean similar improve­
ment in any other.
8. Concentration on specific skills is essential to their ' te
student.
^ VETERAN ^
bursar
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE____ 1
Statem ent o f th e Problem . 1
D elim itatio n s............................ 1
Background of th e Problem 2
I n itia l Form ulations........... 18
D efin itio n s................................. 29
B asic A ssum ptions................
Sub-problem s.............................. 3*+
RELATED STUDIES 36
THE FRESHMAN WRITING PROGRAM ^3
THE TEST INSTRUMENT............. 63
Prelim inary Procedure 63
Test 1 Form A............... 67
Test 2 Form A............... 78
Test 3 Form A............... 90
V alidation Procedure. 93
Test 1 Form B............... 96
Test 1+ Form B............... 10*f
Test 2 Form B............... 116
Test 3 Form B............... 122
TEST ADMINISTRATION -
PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS........................................ 127
February, 1950 - May, 1950:
Prelim inary Study.......................................... 127
Prelim inary C onclusions Based
Upon the February, 1950 - May, 1950
Experim ent........................................................... 157
R esults o f the Septem ber, 1950 -
January, 1951 E xperim ent......................... 160
i i
CHAPTER Page
VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDED INVESTIGATIONS.......................... 189
Summary....................................................................... 18 9
Prelim inary Experiment..................................... 190
Pinal Experiment................................................... 19*+
Conclusions: February, 1950 -
May, 1950.................................................................. 200
Conclusions: September, 1950 -
January, 1951......................................................... 202
Im plications........................................................... 20*+
Recommended Investigations.......................... 212
BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................21*+
i i i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 Emphasis Accorded S p ecific
Communication S k ills by th e
New York U niversity Department of
E nglish, School o f E ducation................................... 28
2 D istrib u tio n of Scores on
February and May (1950)
Test B a tte rie s...................................................................... 128
3 Probable Ranges of True Means (99/100)............... 129
Changes in Mean Score fo r
Students in Three G roups............................................. 130
5 D istrib u tio n o f Scores on February
and May B a tte ries by Students
Taking Zero P oints o f E nglish................................. 131
6 D istrib u tio n o f Scores on February
and May B a tte ries by Students
Taking Two P oints o f E nglish................................... 132
7 D istrib u tio n of Scores on February
and May B atteries by Students
Taking Four P oints of E nglish................................. 133
8 Number of Students in the
Upper H alf of th e Gain D istrib u tio n .................. 137
9 D ecile Gain Chart and
D ecile Loss C h art........................................................... 138
iv
TABLE Page
10 Average Gains Made Prom Test
B attery 1 to Re-Test at the
End of the Semester........................................................ 139
11 Number of Students in Top Half of
February D istribution Who M aintained
Their R elative Positions on the
May Re-Test.......................................................................... I*f0
12 Raw Score Gains Made by
D ifferent Groups of Students.................................. 1*4-1
13 Probable True Mean Ranges fo r
Three Groups on the February
and May T ests...................................................................... 1*4-3
l*f Average Mean Gains Made by Students
on D ifferent Levels of the Language
Section of the American Council on
Education Psychological Exam ination................... 1*4-6
15 Average Mean Gains Made by Students
on D ifferent Levels of the Q u an titativ e
Section of the American Council on
Education Psychological Exam ination.................. 1*4-6
16 Experimental Students Grouped According
to Percentile Rank on the American
Council on Education Psychological
Examina t ion...................................... 1*4-8
17 Goals Stressed by New York U niversity
School of Education Chairmen of
Departments........................................................................... 152
18 C oefficients of C orrelation
in Sub-Skills...................................................................... 156
19 D istribution of Scores for a ll S tudents
on the September and January Test B a tte rie s 161
v