Citation
Elective and traditional English program structures and English achievement

Material Information

Title:
Elective and traditional English program structures and English achievement
Creator:
Young, Joan Carol, 1928-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 225 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
English teachers ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
High schools ( jstor )
Mathematical independent variables ( jstor )
Mathematical variables ( jstor )
Radiocarbon ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Traditional schools ( jstor )
Academic achievement ( fast )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Curriculum planning ( fast )
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
English language -- Study and teaching ( fast )
Florida ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 218-223).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Joan Carol Young.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023340061 ( ALEPH )
06560838 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text















ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT







BY

JOAN CAROL YOUNG







A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE R.EQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1979








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



To Professor Theodore W. Hipple and Professor Arthur J. Lewis, both of the College of Education, University of Florida, go my thanks for their help in clarifying the direction of this study and the research design. In addition, I am indebted to Professor Hipple for his continuing inspiration and encouragement, without which my efforts might more than once have floundered.

For their splendid cooperation, I am sincerely grateful to the senior students, administrators, guidance personnel, English faculty, senior class advisors, and office personnel of the high schools in Florida in which data were collected for this study. They all lightened my tasks in various ways.

I am deeply grateful to all members of my immediate and extended families, especially my daughter Dale and my son David, for their moral support. In addition to approving and sympathizing, however, two family members contributed some time and effort to my endeavors: my brother, Eugene Samter, who extended his professional consultative services, and my sister, Jill Risley, who aided in the tedious frequency counts.

My gratitude to all.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1

Background of the Study . . . . . . 1

Need for the Study . . . . . . 4

Objectives of the Study . . . . . . 6

A Review of the Literature . . . . . 7

Literature Related to English Elective
Programs . . . . . . . . 9
Research on Factors of English
Achievement . . . . . . . 49

Overview of the Study . . . . . . 54

Organization of the Study . . . . 54
Limitations of the Study . . . . 55

II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . S7

Design and Procedures . . . . . . 57

Selection of the Sample . . . . . . 59

School Selection . . . . . . 59
Student Selection . . . . . . 62

Collection of the Data . . . . . . 66





iii








CHAPTER PAGE

Instrumentation and Sources . . . . 67

Instrumentation . . . . . . 67
Other Sources . . . . . . 71

Treatment of the Data . . . . . . 71

III. ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES . . . . . 74

General Features of Elective and Traditional
Programs . . . . . . . . . 74

Length of Courses . . . . . 74
Non-Graded Courses . . . . . 76

Criteria for Program Determination for This
Study . . . . . . . . . . 76

Structures of Programs in This Study . . 79

School A . . . . . . . . 79
School B . . . . . . . . 81
School C . . . . . . . . 83
School D . . . . . . . . 85

Summary . . . . . . . . . . 87

IV. TEACHER VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 89

English Faculty Experience . . . . . 89 English Faculty Teaching Load . . . . 92 English Faculty Certification . . . . 95 Summary . . . . . . . . . 98

V. SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION VARIABLES . . . 100 Non-White Population . . . . . . jol

Population with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling . . . . . . . . . 103

School Years Completed . . . . . . 104

Annual Family Income . . . . . . 106

Summary . . . . . . . . . . 107




iv








CHAPTER PAGE

V1. STUDENT VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 108

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Academic Aptitude . . . . . . . 110

Grade Point Averages . . . . . . 114

Attitude.Toward English . . . . . . 119

Achievement in English . . . . . . 123

Summary . . . . . . . . . . 127

VII. ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT . . . 131 Focus and Procedure . . . . . . . 131

Symbolization and Set Classification of
the Variables . . . . . . . . 133

Values Represented by Each Variable . . . 135

Means and Standard Deviations of the
Variables . . . . . . . . . 138

Intercorrelation of the Variables . . . 141 The Analytical Procedure . . . . . 145

Analysis of the Regression Series . . . 151 Summary . . . . . . . . . 158

VIII. INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . 161

Limitations on Interpretation . . . . 161 Conclusions . . . . . . . . 165

Implications for Practice and Research . . 167 APPENDIXES

A. LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS . . . 171





v









APPENDIXES PAGE

B. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH . . . 172 C. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS . . . 173 D. ENGLISH TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 174 E. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . 175

F. DATA FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL VARIABLES . . 176

G. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS . . . . . 216

H. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION . . . 217 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 218

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . 224




































vi

















LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 65

2 CRITERION CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS . 88 3 ENGLISH FACULTY EXPERIENCE . . . . . . 90

4 ENGLISH FACULTY TEACHING LOAD . . . . . 93 5 ENGLISH FACULTY CERTIFICATION . . . . . 97 6 NON-WHITE POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS . . 101 7 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOL SIZE AND DISTRICT SIZE. 102

8 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOLS BY POPULATION AND
DISTRICTS BY NON-WHITE POPULATION . . . 103

9 POPULATION WITH FEWER THAN FIVE YEARS' SCHOOLING. 104 10 NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED . . . . 105 11 ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME . . . . . . . 106

12 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL, SEX, AND PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . 109

13 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL SEX, AND APTITUDE . . . . . . . . . 113

14 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES . . . . . . 117

15 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND ATTITUDE . . . . . . . . . 122

16 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL., SEXP
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT . . . . . 126






vii











TABLE PAGE

17 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS ON SEVEN VARIABLES (N = 495) . . . . . . . . . 130

18 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE VARIABLES (N = 495) . . . . . . 140

19 CORRELATION MATRIX (N = 495) . . . . . 142

20 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION RESULTING FROM THREE SERIES OF REGRESSION EQUATIONS . . . 152













































viii












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT

BY

JOAN CAROL YOUNG

DECEMBER 1979

Chairman: Theodore W. Hipple Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction

The primary objective of this study was to examine the

relationship between elective and traditional English program structures and English achievement.

Four hundred ninety-five senior students from four high schools in Florida constituted the sample population. Each student in the sample had attended his school for at least three years. Two of the high schools had been conducting elective English programs for at least three years and two, traditional programs for at least three years.

Three sets of variables, totaling fifteen were hypothesized to be associated with English achievement: a student set consisting of academic aptitude of student, 2)sex of student, 3)grade point average of student in all subjects, 4)grade point average of student in English courses, S)student's attitude






ix












toward English as a subject; an environmental set consisting of 6)size of school (student population), 7)English faculty average certification, 8)English faculty average number of years teaching, 9)English faculty average number of years at the school, 10)English faculty average teaching load, ll)percentage of non-white population in the school district, 12)percentage of the population in the school district who had completed fewer than five years of schooling, 13)median number of years of schooling completed by the population in the school district, 14)median annual family income of the population in the school district; and a program set consisting of 15)program structure (elective or traditional).

Several instruments and sources were employed to

quantify these variables. Variable 1 was measured by the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program. Variables 2, 3, and 4 were recorded or computed from school records. Variable 5 was measured by an original Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject. Variables 7, 8, 9, and 10 were measured by an original English Teacher Questionnaire. Variables 11, 12, 13, and 14 were recorded or computed from the 1970 Census of the Population.








x












The dependent variable of English achievement was measured by the English Composition Test o:F the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program.

Three series of step-wise multiple linear regression equations were computed, each forcing sets of independent variables into the equation in a different order of entry. Each of the sets was given initial priority in one of the series.

The resultant squared multiple correlation coefficients were interpreted as estimates of the proportion of dependent variable variance accounted for by the variable(s) in the equation and were evaluated for statistical significance by means of an P statistic.

Findings

1. At least 73.32 percent of dependent variable

variance was associated with the complete system of fifteen variables.

2. Student academic aptitude was the individual variable most substantially associated with English achievement, significant at the .001 level.

3. The student set accounted for a greater proportion of variance in English achievement than either of the other two sets or the other two sets combined.






xi












4. The percentage of non-white persons in the school district accounted for a small, but significant (at the .001 level) proportion of variance in English achievement.

S. The program variable accounted for a very small, but significant (at the .001 level) proportion of variance in English achievement.

Conclusions

1. A student's achievement in English does not

appear to be predictable from his participation in an elective or a traditional program.

2. Students' individual characteristics and

attributes have a predictive relationship with English achievement that is considerably stronger than that of participation in an elective or a traditional program.

3. Further research is needed to examine all assumed advantages of an elective English program.




















xii









CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

A trend in secondary English education in American schools in the past decade or two has been the offering of elective courses, permitting students in grades ten through twelve choices among a variety of courses of varied duration, in contrast to the traditional requirement of three years of general English. These new elected English courses, unlike traditional electives which were chosen in addition to the required English, fully satisfy graduation requirements in English. 1

This change in the organizational structure of the

English curriculum would appear to have developed both as a reactionary reversion to a 19th-century approach to English study and as a result of the increasing dissatisfaction with the English program expressed by educators. The "pendulum swing" in education reforms has often been noted. In the case of secondary English in the United States, it was not until about 1900 that English as a subject became established as a conglomerate study of grammar, rhetoric, literary--history, spelling', and composition, all





1 George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English: A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972), p. 1.

1






2



of which had previously been considered as and taught as separate studies. 2 The "new proliferation" of separate courses in English studies in the 1960's can be viewed, therefore, as a natural "pendulum" movement along the path of curriculum development. An additional cause was the growth of concern, especially among teachers of English, that high school students generally were learning less and less of the English content and skills in high schools because English as a subject had become more and more irrelevant to their needs and interests and, therefore, more disliked.

To supplant "the old practice of teaching grammar, composition, and literature every year to every student
3
by every English teacher in every grade," a number of English courses a semester or less in duration have been offered to students for their selection. In some schools, especially during the period of early experimentation with the elective idea, the courses offered were no more varied than 1110th-Grade Literature" or'112th-Grade Grammar," presenting little actual choice for the student.





2 Arthur N. Applebee, Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History (Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1974), p. 21.
3 Kilburn Culley, Jr., "Changing an English Program," English Journal, 57 (May 1968), 657.






3

This practice, rare even during that early period, is now virtually non-existent. Schools with elective programs in English have developed course offerings by "loose analogy to the practices of college departments." 4 Courses in literature, for example, are focused on theme or topic ("Literature of Love," "Science Fiction"), genre ("The Novel," "Poetry"), or combinations of these foci ("Twentieth-Century Stories of Adventure"). Language courses may range from "Word Power" to "History of the English Language" and often present separate choices in semantics, dialectology, vocabulary, oral language, etymology, and usage, as well as grammar. Separate reading and writing courses are usually also offered.

Regardless of the number and extent of the elective

offerings, however, and regardless of the limited domain implied for each course by its title, it is often a stipulated agreement among the faculty and/or the curriculum planners that students in every course should be exposed to some instruction and practice in each of the language communication skills: reading, writing, speaking, listening, verbal reasoning. 5 Growth in skill





4 John K. Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives," English Journal, 59 (October 1970), 990.
5 Linda Kubicek Harvey, comp., Elective English Programs in Junior and Senior High Schools (Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on the Teaching of English, 1971), p. 3.






4



in each of these areas of communication for each student during grades ten through twelve is still viewed as a long-range goal of the total elective English program, even as it usually has been of the traditional.

Need for the Study

The chief difference between traditional and elective English programs has been., then, not so much a matter of changed long-range cognitive objectives, as one of changed organizational structure. That is to say that the anticipated outcomes of three years of English instruction have remained much the same in respect to "coverage" and domains of knowledge; the packages in which the instruction is wrapped have been altered. They have been partitioned, decreased in size, increased in number, and had the total contents subdivided among them. School after school which has developed an elective English program lists the broad goals of the total program in terms of the same domains of literature and reading skills, knowledge of language and skills or oral expression, and writing skills that schools with traditional programs have.

Systematic evaluation of the elective programs in

terms of the cognitive goals has, however, been lacking, especially in comparisons with evaluations of traditional programs with the same goals.

In most cases, schools have reorganized their

English offerings into an elective structure as a result






5


of the felt need to revitalize English: to make it more

popular with the students., to make it more relevant to the

students' needs and interests and abilities, and to increase teacher proficiency as a result of increased teacher interest and motivation. Hillocks summarizes

"rationales" for the elective English program as a whole

offered most frequently by twenty-five schools in several

states:

The advantage of elective programs cited by
more rationales than any other (14 of 25) was
that they permit students to choose courses in which they are interested. Close behind
were statements alluding to the increased
ability of elective programs to meet the
needs (13) and interests (8) of the students.
Nearly as many rationales (12) pointed to
the opportunity for the teacher to "specialize,"
to make use of his interests or special talents,
as a major advantage. The argument is that a teacher cannot be expected to master all
aspects of English, as the traditional program
demanded. Accordingly, a number of the program rationales (7) and several articles
asserted that the teaching task is more clearly defined in elective programs, a result, no
doubt, of increased specialization.

Vague claims that "students will still learn as much

English" have been often expressed, but largely unsubstantiated, a fact which some critics of the elective

curriculum have seized upon as a supporting argument for

their objections. 7





6 Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7.
7 The section of this chapter entitled a Review of the Literature contains a more detailed discussion of some of these critical writings and others.





6



The information obtained from this study will, it is

hoped, help clarify the extent to which the program structure of English, whether elective or traditional, to which a student is exposed in grades ten through twelve is associated with his achievement of English skills.

Objectives oftheStudy

The study reported herein was primarily undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which the organizational structure of the English program to which a student has been exposed for three years from tenth through twelfth grades influences his achievement of English cognitive skills. Specifically, how significant a factor of English achievement is the kind of English program structure (elective or traditional) compared with other factors associated with English achievement?

In the course of the report of this study, selected programs, students, and teachers in the state of Florida are described, and collected data about these programs, students, and teachers are recorded. Certain verbal and statistical comparisons are made concerning these programs, students, and teachers. In addition, certain pertinent educational characteristics of the populations of the school districts in which the programs were implemented are recorded and compared. These comparisons are intended to be descriptive only, and any parallels drawn are intended only to suggest possible relationships.








7


A secondary purpose of the study, therefore, is to examine and describe English programs in selected Florida high schools, certain characteristics of students and teachers involved in these programs, and certain characteristics of the population of the districts in which the schools are located.

The first objective, then, of this study is to explore the nature and extent of the relationship between the independent variable of English program structure and the dependent variable of English achievement. A second objective is to describe, examine, and compare selected English programs, students, teachers, and school districts in Florida.

A Review of the Literature

An initial review of the recent (i.e., of the past two decades) professional writings dealing with any aspect of secondary English education soon leads to an impression that, although the quantity of such literature is voluminous, it is uneven in its quality. This imbalance is most marked in respect to kind; that is, while there exist reams of journal articles, books, and theses which describe, explore, report, propose, speculate, survey and/or informally evaluate trends, theories, programs, instruction, curriculum, student perceptions and attitudes, teacher perceptions and attitudes, materials, philosophy, student needs--any possible aspect of secondary English







8


education--there is a relative dearth of systematic, basic research in the field.

That so little systematic evaluation of variables

in secondary English education has been performed is not, however, surprising. All educational research has been inhibited by the difficulties in identifying independent and orthogonal variables and developing meaningful units of measurement of these variables; thus little has been attempted. An additional reason, perhaps, for the appearance of so much subjective, non-experimental writing in English education particularly might be that the English professional, especially the teacher of English on the secondary or post-secondary level, seems, more than any other educator, to view himself, consciously or not, as a "creative" author rather than as a scientific writer, and much of the writing in English education has been produced by teachers of English rather than by specialists in English education or experimental researchers.

Unfortunately, the unevenness of quality in the literature also exists in its degree of excellence, whether it is of the subjective, informal type or the objective and formal. Some of the former are too inconsistent and too little informative to be useful, and some of the latter are too flawed in design and selection to be useful.






9


In view of the vast quantity of literature in

secondary English education, therefore, and of the uselessness of some of it as background for this study, the writer of this study has chosen to discuss only a selection of both kinds, a selection based not only on the general worth of the Writing, but also on its specific pertinence to this study in the areas on English elective programs and English achievement. Additional sources examined but not reviewed are listed in the bibliography.

Literature Related to English Elective Programs

In November 1972 George Hillocks, Jr., presented

a report of his study of English elective programs being conducted in a number of states, 8 the most comprehensive attempt to describe and to critically evaluate such programs ever published before that time or since. Hillocks' account extends beyond his extensive reportage and summaries of practice and other studies, as he, informally but responsibly and, on the whole, objectively, analyzes trends, qualitatively assesses practices and materials, and identifies needs for further study and research.





8 Hillocks, Alternativesin English.








10


Hillocks' study is based upon "the reports of programs published in various journals, program descriptions from seventy-six schools and school systems in thirtyseven states, questionnaire responses from eighty-four chairmen or supervisors in charge of elective programs, and various other published and unpublished materials." 9 He describes in detail the program rationales and designs, the course offerings and designs, and the evaluation methods and results reported by the seventy-six school systems. 10 The general conclusions Hillocks makes at the termination of his study, especially in respect to cognitive gains (English achievement), however, are of particular interest to this investigation.

Hillocks concludes that elective English programs are "based on a series of assumptions which require examination." The first of these is that such programs meet the interests, needs, and abilities of students. Regarding student interests, however, he concludes that "many of the courses offered parallel college and





9 Ibid., p. 3. In a commentary note on p. 19, Hillocks explains that four of "the seventy-six schools and school systems" are, indeed, systems and that these systems represent a total of thirty schools.
10 A summary of the rationales presented by twentyfive schools (the others examined submitted none) is given in Chapter I of this study in the section entitled Need for the Study. Also, some of the evaluation methods and results reported by Hillocks will be discussed later in this section.











traditional high school offerings and appear to reflect teacher interests rather than those of the students," suggesting that "careful inventories of student responses to each course be made systematically." Likewise, in regard to meeting the needs of students, there is no evidence that any of the programs examined have made a systematic analysis of student needs . . The most traditional English program can lay claim to serving the needs of its students with the same confidence that elective programs can." On the other hand, he concludes, "Elective English programs do go well beyond traditional programs in their attempts to provide courses appropriate to students with various ability levels," but still unrealistically assume that students will elect courses appropriate to their abilities and that all students in a course are-of much the same ability. Teachers, therefore, rarely vary their instruction any more than those in traditional programs. Consequently, little may be being accomplished in this regard other than "maintaining the abilities that students have when they enter the courses."






Ibid., pp. 115-16.






12



A second assumption on which elective English programs are based, continues Hillocks, is "that the opportunity afforded teachers to specialize is beneficial." The benefits of specialization are questionable, however, and the question of who benefits is paramount. He concludes that, while "the 'teaching task' may be clearer"

-- a benefit for the teacher -- "it is clearer only at the expense of fragmenting the subject more than is necessary." The integration of the skills of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking claimed by many of the programs may be "no greater . than it would be in a course in geometry in which a student must also read, write, speak, 'Listen, and think.,' 12

Thirdly, many English elective programs are conducted on the assumption that "shorter courses and a greater variety of teachers are strengths." Hillocks concludes that the evidence available seems to indicate that course length makes less of a difference in learning than instructional method, but that too short a course (he considers ten or fewer weeks too short) probably does





12 Ibid., p. 117.







13

not provide sufficient time for a teacher to familiarize himself with students' individual abilities and needs or for students' skills to develop meaningfully. Fortunately, most English elective courses (in the programs examined by Hillocks) were of more than ten weeks' duration. 13

The fourth assumption underlying many of the English elective programs examined by Hillocks is "that the choice of courses in and of itself will have a meaningful positive effect on both affective and cognitive responses." This assumption seems to be supported in regard to affective responses, he concludes, but these positive responses may not last and may in any event be more a result of "the character and quality of instruction in particular courses" than of the freedom to choose. 14

Of particular interest to the writer of the present study is Hillocks' conclusion concerning the assumption of positive cognitive responses. He finds that in respect to "growth in measurable cognitive areas," the "little evidence . available suggests that elective programs . provide no advantage over traditional programs tItalics added for emphasis]..'I'S Hillocks continues:





13 Ibid., p. 118.
14 Ibid., p. 119.
is Ibid.







14


Real differences in skill development, understanding, and attitudes toward various aspects of
English are not likely to derive from a simple
repackaging of traditional course content, coupled
with the continuation of traditional teaching
strategies . . Real change will have to involve
not simply an administrative change in course
offerings, but a complete reexamination and
revitalization of both course content and teaching
strategies.16

Hillocks' reaction to the fifth and last assumption on which he finds English elective programs are based, that learning is the student's responsibility, is simply that it is, and always has been, but that it is still the teacher's responsibility to aid in the process. 17

Two years after the publication of Alternatives

in English, Hillocks reinforced some of his above-stated conclusions and explained their implications for teachers of English in an article in English Education: "The teacher is and must be more than a technician Tin an elective program. He must be a maker of curricula for his own students." 18

Robert C. Small, Jr., agrees that an English

elective program "involves . an additional burden for the teachers, for they must not only teach but also





16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., pp. 119-20.
18 George Hillocks, Jr., "The English Teacher as Curriculum Maker: Preparing Teachers for Elective Programs," English Education, 5 (April/May 1974), 243.







is


design the units which are offered." 19 This opinion is offered by Small in partial answer to the question: Isn't this more work for the teacher?, one of the series of questions posed (and answered) by him in response to a "demand" from parents, teachers, and students for "answers to their questions, a resolution of their doubts." 20

While the questions asked by Small range in content from a rationale of English elective programs to solution of practical matters, such as scheduling, the answers are far from unbiased (in favor of such programs), and, indeed, the tone of the article is highly argumentative. In addition, the very important--and particularly relevant-to-this-study--aspect of evaluation of elective programs is never discussed. The article is reviewed here, however, since (1) it is generally comprehensive, save for the exception noted above, and (21 it is representative of several such articles written by English education specialists 21 and published in professional journals in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.





19 Robert C. Small, Jr., "Framework for Diversity:
The Elective English Curriculum," The High School Journal, 56 (November 1972), 104.
20 Ibid., p. 93.
21 It is assumed by the investigator that Small is, if not an English education specialist, at least an education specialist. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" is printed beneath his name with no further explanation.





16


Small presents three "sound educational reasons for moving the traditional, required English class augmented with a few choices to a totally elective program":

(1) English, more than any other subject in high school, requires a curriculum designed to allow great freedom to the student and the teacher, because it deals with "the highly personal relationship between a man and his language."

(2) "Elective English programs provide a

different but stronger and more logical focus than traditional programs." Instead of attempting to structure all of English (an impossible task, since the subject of English includes so many areas), the subject is divided "into meaningful units, each of which has its own structure."

(3) . elective English programs provide a coherentY educationally sound system for grouping students." Grouping by age, sex, ability, or achievement has not been satisfactory in the past, and especially in English, "the type and degree of interest the student has are surely more important" than any of those other factors of learning, although the four other factors "frequently influence those interests.," of course. 22





22 Ibid., pp. 93-95.





17



It is interesting to compare Small's philosophical rationale of three reasons to the five most frequent ones presented by twenty-five schools engaged in the actual implementation of an English elective program and reported by Hillocks 23 in the same month. 24 While the two advantages to teachers cited by the schools are not mentioned by Small in his answer to the question: Why should we have an elective English program?, they are fully discussed later in the article in answers to other questions. 25 The discussion makes it evident that Small agrees on these advantages (and others) that accrue to teachers in such a program, but he stresses the subordination of teacher benefits (and, for that matter, administrative or other benefits) to those to be reaped by the students in such a program. For example, he says, in respect to the English teacher's "opportunity to make use of his special skills and interests," that "the only





23 Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7. A summary of these rationales is-q-uoted in the section of this chapter entitled Need for the Study. They are, in order of frequency from most to least: students can choose courses in which they are interested, elective programs can meet the needs of students, teachers can specialize (use interests or talents), elective programs can meet the interests of students, the teaching task is more clearly defined.
24 It is assumed that Small had had no access to Hillocks' study. Both Smallts article and Hillocks, book are dated November 1972.
25 Small, pp. 103-05.





18



limitation on the teacher freedom isl a requirement that the material have interest for and value to the students of the school." 26 Such a concept of priorities is obviously his reason for not including teacher advantages as part of his rationale of English elective programs. They are not, to Small, "sound educational reasons."

Small's second reason for elective programs.,

"stronger and more logical focus," would appear, however, to be related to the fifth reason given by the schools, clearer definition of the teaching task, except that Small's generalization is obviously intended to apply to all individuals concerned and involved in the program.

Similarly, Small's first reason, the "great freedom"

possible in an elective program, is related to the schools' first reason, freedom of choice by students. Again, however, Small's statement is more generally applicable and more philosophically derived. It also restricts the special need for freedom to the subject of English, as the schools' statement does not. (This "need," incidentdlly, is the only one mentioned by Small. "Needs of students" referred to in the schools' second reason are never specifically discussed.)





26 Ibid., pp. 103-04.





19


Most interesting to this writer is Small's third reason, the provision of a sound method of grouping students on the basis of common interests. The schools reported by Hillocks state as their fourth reason that an elective program can meet the interest of students. Small implies that theydo; he relates this advantage of elective programs to the historical educational (schooling) problem of grouping for instruction and argues reasonably (although without supporting evidence) against the use of other, heretofore employed factors of grouping: age, sex, ability, and achievement. 27

Small thus for the most part provides an informal

theoretical and philosophical basis for English elective programs in his article. In addition, as mentioned previously, he does cite some actual examples, some practical experience, and some pragmatic solutions to problems.

The article's greatest lack is a discussion of evaluation. No evaluation of any kind, formal or informal, is mentioned.





27 Interestingly, as a result of her study of the problem of grouping in English, Susie Ann Boyce recommended that "planning for curriculum and for grouping must proceed simultaneously . and combine into a course of study the goals of English, including the needs of students, the components of content, and the means by which students are grouped." Susie Ann Blackburn Boyce, "A Study of Grouping for Secondary English Education
-[Abstracti," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII, No-11A (1971), 6284.






20


The forces behind the development of such elective

programs in English as are described by Small and Hillocks have been analyzed by a number of authors, either as part of a comprehensive history of developments in English study in the United States or as a specific history of the elective program itself. Arthur N. Applebee, for example, in his "systematic exploration of the history of the teaching of English" in Aeia28discusses the English elective program as the last (and presumably the most recent) of a long line of developments and changes in English study. He attributes the growth of the elective program in English to:

(1) ". .the failure of the academic model {of the

1950s and early 1960s} for the curriculum to find any widely accepted structuring principles"

(2) the fact that "1.. it is more responsive to the demands of the students, more 'relevant,' than the traditional course"l

(3) its attempt "1. . to fit the institutional

structure to the course content, instead of the courses to the existing institutional frame"

(4) its convenience for proponents of behavioral objectives and programmed instruction. 2





28Applebee,'Tradition and Reform, p. xi.
29 Ibid., pp. 238-39.





21


Applebee sees the development of the elective programs in English as one result of a counter-movement in the 1970s, in the course of which the concern of the individual has returned and the "new" goals of relevance and personal growth have been established. 30

In his examination of the decade from 1958 to 1968, Daniel Donlan found three concurrent developments in secondary English curriculum: the content-centered model, the student-centered model, and the elective-centered model. The last of these he described as based on the assumptions that teachers do best in areas of special interest and that students can and should plan their own English programs.31

Richard Graves, associate professor of secondary

education at Auburn University in 1974, saw the development of the elective program in English as the result of the failure of the unit method to individualize instruction. 32 That is, individualized instruction had continued to be a desired goal for over a quarter of a century, and in the forties and fifties, the unit method was generally thought





30 Ibid., p. 236.
31 Daniel Mahaney Donlan, "Dilemma of Choice:
Revolution in English TAbstractl 11 Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 12 (1972), 6740.
32 Richard L. Graves, "English Elective Curricula and How They Grew", Educational Forum, 38 (January 1974), 196.






22


to be the best way to achieve this goal. Graves mentions two of the reasons for the failure of the unit method to gain widespread acceptance: (1) the excessive complexity of its organizational and administrative procedures and

(2) the fact that "English teachers themselves do not learn their subject by the unit method." 33 Elective programs evolved therefore as a more effective and more acceptable means of individualizing instruction, according to Graves.

In effect, the direct relationship between goals and objectives in English instruction has been noted by many. In his overview of the development of the goals and objectives of English teaching from the pre-Civil War period to the early seventies, 34 Samuel Kelly indicates that, as the goals changed, so did the programs and methods. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the emphasis on fundamental, academic, disciplinary objectives and on more objectivity in assessment resulted in attempts to teach English as a structured discipline. 35 The return, in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, to the emphasis on social and personalistic (cognitive and affective) goals 36





33 Ibid.
34 Samuel P. Kelly, "Goals and objectives for the
Teaching of English," English Education, 4 (Fall 1972), 16-26.
35 Ibid., p. 23.
36 Kelly describes the goals of the 1920s and 1930s in similar terms.






23


brought about changes in instructional method and programs, one of which is the elective program. 37

Yet, even during the fifties, the period of the

"academic," "post-Sputnik" approach to English study as a discipline, there were individual voices like Stanley Cook's raised to express objections. 38 Cook had students, parents, and teachers of English in Grosse Pointe C.Michiganj High School, as well as freshmen college students of English who were graduated from that high school and their teachers, rank the degree to which fifty aims (taken from actual courses and professional literature) were the "proper business" of a high school English program. One of the interesting conclusions drawn by Cook from the study is that the immediate needs of the students themselves seem to be a more valid criterion for course planning than anything else. 39

Whatever the forces that worked to bring about the elective programs in English throughout the nation, they appeared and grew -- in number and in diversity. While the first mention in print of such a program was that by





37 Kelly, p. 25.
38 Stanley Snider Cook, "A Comparative Study of Aims Held by Parents, Students, and Teachers for an English Program in a Suburban High School lAbstractl- 11 Dissertation Abstracts, XV, No. 9 (195S), 1570.
39 Ibid.








24

Harry Overton, a secondary English teacher,40 the program developed by G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner and described by them in an article in the English Journal in 1962 was apparently the pioneer effort that triggered a barrage of imitative efforts. 41

Carlsen held at that time positions as professor of English and education at the State University of Iowa as as head of the English Department of University High School. 42 After several attempts to structure the English curriculum in the high school meaningfully and productively, all of which failed, the decision was made in 1960 to set up semester courses, for seniors only at first, but later for both juniors and seniors in non-graded courses. The resulting number of courses was ten: four in literature, three in writing, and three in speech. All ten were offered each year, five in the fall and five in the spring. Students were required to take one course in each area of literature, writing, and speech and had to elect a total of at least four English courses during the two years. 43





40 Harry Overton, "Eleventh Grade Electives," English Journal, 44 (April 1955), 211-14.
41 G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner, "New
Patterns from Old Molds," English Journal, 51 (April 1962), 244-49.
42 Graves, p. 196.
43 Carlsen and Conner, pp. 244-46.





25



The success reported by Carlsen and Conner 44 apparently served to inspire many similar experimental attempts in high schools throughout the United States. A proliferation of articles, mostly by secondary school teachers of English, appeared in the next decade, describing English elective programs of one kind or another. Although the details of implementation among these programs vary considerably, expressions of purposes and results are remarkably similar.

Differences in implementation among these programs may be indicated by the following representative ranges:

(1) from courses six weeks in length 45 to courses eighteen weeks in length 46

(2) from admission to the program of students of certain ability levels only or of certain vocational aims only 47 to admission of all students into the program 48





44 Reported results and outcomes of this and other elective programs are discussed later in this section.
4S Ann M. Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity: Another Approach to the English Curriculum," English Journal, 56 (February 1967), 222-26.
46 Max Klang, "To Vanquish the Deadliest Game: A New English Curriculum," English Journal, 53 (October 1964),
504-15.
47 Kenneth R. McCormic and C. Louis Kaupp, "An Elective
English Program for the Non-College Bound," English Journal, 61 (February 1972), 277-80.
48 Frank J. Barone, "The Answer Is 'A Performance
Curriculum'," English Journal, S6 (February 1967), 227-28.





2 6 4


(3) from inclusion of specified grade levels only to

inclusion of all grade levels 50

(4) from completely free election, with counseling, by students 51to limited election within requirement bounds 52

(5) from phasing of courses (developing different levels of difficulty) 53to no phasing 5

(6) from the subject of English only 55to integration with other subjects. 56





49 Culley, "Changing a-n English Program."
so Donald F. Weise, "Nongrading, Electing, and Phasing: Basics of Revolution for Relevance," English Journal, 59 (January 1970), 122-30.
51 Adele H. Stern, "Sorry, Dr. Silberman! Mini-Courses in the High School," English Journal, 61 (April 1972),
550-54.
52Franklin G. Myers, "A Plan for All Seasons: Independent Study in an English Electives Program," English Journal, 59 (February 1970), 244-53.
53 Jack E. Smith, Jr., "1180 Days: Observations of an
Elective Year," English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 229-35.
54 David B. Bronson, "The Story of an English Elective Program," English Journal, 60 (November 1971), 1086-90.
55 Robert V. Rife, "Would You Believe?" English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 555-59, 599.
56 Thomas H. Morton and Mario P. DeiDolori, "An Electives Program in a Small High School? It Works!" English Journal, 60 (October 1971), 952-56.








27


Despite these differences in implementation, features common to all these programs are choice by students of separate courses in English studies, offerings of courses a semester or less in duration, and some degree of nongrading within at least some courses. It is mainly from these common elements that the definition of an elective English program used in this study was developed. 57

The most elaborate and systemically organized of the English elective programs developed during the sixties and early seventies appears to have been the APEX (Appropriate Placement for Excellence) program, researched and developed under the auspices of a federal grant in Trenton High School, Trenton, Michigan. The written program design included a statement of philosophy and rationale, a statement of goals and objectives, an outline of administrative procedures, and plans for evaluation. (Evaluation of the entire APEX program after three years by an external agent was also planned.) 58





S7 This definition is explained in detail in Chapter III, English Program Structures.
58 This evaluation was apparently performed by George
Hillocks, Jr., and others in 1971, as Hillocks, in Alternatives in English, provides many of the results of tRe evaluation, citing as his source another work of his own authorship: An Evaluation of Project APEX: A Non-Graded, Phase-Elective English Program (Trenton, Michigan: Trenton Public Schools, 1971). Some of the results of this evaluation are discussed later in this section.





28



All English courses in the APEX program lasted one

semester and were available for free election by all students, ninth through twelfth grades, with no requirements or prerequisites. Courses were phased by the assignment of a number from one to five to each course indicating its level of difficulty. (Some courses were multi-phased.) Help in course selection was provided by English counselors and other advisors. Each course, regardless of content, was to contain experiences in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 59

Donald' F. Weise, chairman of the English Department in Trenton High School, reported many positive results of the APEX program after two years of operation, among them:

(1) English became one of the most liked (by students) subjects after having been the least liked for a number of years.

(2) Students' general attitudes improved.

(3) The number of discipline referrals to the administration from English classes decreased from eighty-nine (more than in any other department) to nineteen in one year, eight of which were from substitute teachers.

(4) Students were accepting more responsibility for their own learning.

(5) Students' individual needs were being met.





59 Weise, pp. 124-26.





29



(6) Insecurity and apathy among the English staff disappeared.

(7) The teaching task was clearly defined.

(8) The average number of failures per semester went from sixty in two thousand to eleven in two thousand. 60

These advantages and positive results of the elective English program reported by Weise are remarkably similar to many of those given by many of the authors mentioned above. Indeed, Carsen and Conner's original "success" with the elective program in English was expressed by them in the following terms:

(1) teacher security (emotional and academic)

(2) immediate feedback and evaluation of an offering (because of student choices)

(3) improved student attitudes (high involvement and few discipline problems)

(4) the election of more than the required four courses by a "significant" number of students. 61

Others who reported similar outcomes were Thomas H. Morton, English curriculum coordinator at Granby Memorial High School, Granby, Connecticut, and Mario P. DeiDolori,





60 Ibid., pp. 123-28.
61 Carlsen and Conner, pp. 248-49.





30



superintendent of schools in New Hartford, Connecticut. They found increased student and teacher enthusiasm, improved morale of both students and teachers, fewer discipline problems, and a generally more creative atmosphere as results of an elective Eng lish program. 6

Ann Jaekle reported "increased awareness of what

English has to offer them-fthe students},"* improved grades, and student delight in the frequent change. 63Max Klang felt that, among others of its advantages, the elective program fostered student and parent interest, enhanced motivation, and allowed the teacher greater opportunity to fulfill definable goals. 64Jack E. Smith, Jr., curriculum coordinator of English in Hickory Township High School, Sharon, Pennsylvania, observed that, after one year of operation of an elective program in English, students liked the new curriculum, teachers were more innovative, and there was "no difference" in either final grades or standard test performances. 65

George L. Williams, chairman of the English Department at Weber Junior High School, Port Washington, New York,





62 Morton and DeiDolori, pp. 954-55.
63 Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity," p. 226.
64 Klang, pp. 506, 515.
65 Smith, pp. 230, 235.







31


reported the results of an investigation of student reactions to an English elective program after one year. A questionnaire submitted to 234 ("almost all") students in ninth grade (the only students in the seventh-throughninth-grade school who had participated in the program) elicited the following results:

(1) Ninety-five percent preferred the elective program to the traditional one.

(2) A "vast majority" felt there was more individualization in the elective program.

(3) Sixty-two percent thought that "all skill areas were contained in the electives--reading, writing, speaking, and listening- -and at the same time the electives provided for greater depth in the content area."

(4) A majority listed as advantages of the elective program: "the teacher . was genuinely interested," students "get to change topics," students "get to be with other students who are interested in learning about the same subject," "there is more freedom and more depth," and there is more chance "1 to show and develop one's own talents." 66





66 George L. Williams, "English Electives Evaluated," Clearing House, 47 (April 1973), 469-71. It is not clear whether the language quoted above is Williams' or that of the questionnaire or that of students. Surely, phrases like "skill areas," "depth," and "content area," in their educational senses seem beyond the ken of most ninth-graders.






32


Hillocks summarized the evaluations offered by fiftynine of the elective programs examined by him as follows:

Generally the respondents felt that the attitude
and enthusiasm of both staff and students had
improved perceptibly. A few reported higher
student grades, fewer discipline problems, and
more students taking more English courses during
their senior year.67

It becomes increasingly clear to the reader of these numerous reports of English elective program experience that such results and advantages as are expressed are, indeed, evaluative, or so intended, but limited. These evaluations are, with rare exceptions, informally and subjectively made. Systematic (i.e., planned and controlled) evaluation is seldom to be found. In addition, these informal evaluations are generally evaluations of outcomes only and of affective outcomes primarily.

In respect to elective programs in English, no

reports of systematic evaluation of course designs, of program designs, of goals and objectives, of classroom atmosphere and dynamics, of teacher attitudes, of costs, or of theory have been unearthed by the present investigator in her search. A very small number of controlled evaluations which deal with instruction, materials, classroom activities, student attitudes, and cognitive growth in English elective programs have been found, however, and will be described.





67 Hillocks, Alternativesin English, pp. 103-04.






33


In 1974 Philip Di Stefano published his study of a comparison of student attitudes toward English elective programs and those toward traditional programs and of differences between the two kinds of programs in terms of materials, instructional techniques, classroom activities, and final grades. He reports finding a statistically significant difference between students in the two programs in respect to attitudes toward English and attitudes toward English program structure, 68 but unfortunately does not indicate the directionof this difference (that is, which were more positive) or the quality (that is, 69
what attitude means).

Other findings of Di Stefano's indicate that students in elective programs use more materials, are exposed to more instructional techniques, participate in more activities, and receive higher final grades than students in the traditional program. 70 The significance (philosophical) of these findings is perhaps questionable in that the first three suggest a question re the benefits of quantity (that is, is more better?) and the fourth contributes little to an explanation of the meaning of teacher-given grades.





68 Philip Paul Di Stefano, "A Comparison of Student Attitudes Toward Traditional and Diversified Elective English Offerings TAbstract ,11 Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV, No. 05A (1974), 2642.
69 It is likely that the full dissertation would provide answers to these questions. Unfortunately, only the abstract was available to the present investigator.
70 Di Stefano, p. 2642.






34

If the extent to which these differences (in materials, instructional techniques, activities., and final grades) contributed to differences in student attitudes were analyzed, the results would probably be useful. In point of fact, while Di Stefano poses the question of the extent of this contribution as one of the purposes of his study, the question is never answered (at least, not in the abstract).

Di Stefano also concluded that differences in sex or college aspirations made no significant difference in attitudes, whereas differences in urban/suburban school attendance did. 71

Although the study by Charles Wethington, Jr., of the relationships between student attitude toward English and such variables as IQ, general achievement, English achievement, English course grades, and sex was not made of students in an elective program, one of his findings seems particularly relevant to this study. Wethington examined and measured students in the ninth through the twelfth grades in several schools and found, among other things, that only for ninth-graders was there any significant relationship between their attitudes toward English and their IQs, general achievement, English achievement, or





71 Ibid.





35



English grades. Tenth-, eleventh-, and twelfth-graders exhibited no such relationships. 72

John Hunt, Jr., also examined changes in student

attitudes, as well as in certain verbal skills. Although Hunt's study was also not of students in an elective program in English, one of his conclusions seems pertinent to the increasing amount of evidence of improved attitude of students in English elective programs and to the question of achievement in such programs: "an instructional program that is more concerned with attitude than with achievement does not detract from student achievement in the English skills of reading and listening." 73

The one of the English elective programs mentioned previously which underwent the most extensive and the most sophisticated of systematic evaluations was the APEX program at Trenton {Michigan}. High School. Hillocks 74 reports some of the methods and results of these evaluat ions:





73 John Wuest Hunt, Jr., "Changes in Selected Attitudes and Verbal Skills of Low-Achieving High School Students in an Experimental, Team-Planned, Non-Graded English and Social Studies- Program {CAbstract} Dissertation Abstracts, XXXI, No. OSA (1970), 2254.
74 The reader is referred to footnote 59 of this chapter.





36



The evaluation attempted to compare
several aspects of the program over a three-year
period to similar aspects of the traditional programs
in two schools with similar socioeconomic
environments. Among other things, the investigation examined reading and writing achievement as measured by standardized tests and randomly drawn composition samples, the character of the students' classroom experiences as indicated by
their responses to various questionnaire items
and by classroom observations, and student attitudes
as gauged byuestionnaire responses and personal
interviews.

When mean scores on the STEP Reading and Writing Tests for Trenton High School and the two control schools were compared for the two years 1968 and 1969, it was discovered that in both reading and writing, the Trenton mean scores were higher than the control school's in 1969, the differences being statistically significant, whereas in 1968, the Trenton mean scores were both slightly lower than the control school's, but the differences were not statistically significant. In addition, the Trenton scores in both reading and writing dropped significantly from 1968 to 1969, a warning, according to Hillocks, that "if succeeding administrations of the same tests were to indicate negative changes of the same magnitude, there might well be cause for concern." 76

Comparing percentages of responses of students in

Trenton and in the control schools to questionnaire items





75 Hillocks, Alternatives in English, pp. 105-06.
76 Ibid., p. 106.






37



that requested they check "never," "sometimes," or "frequently" after each of several classroom activities, Hillocks concluded that "control school students perceive a greater homogeneity of classroom activities than do Trenton students." The most frequent activities listed by students in the control schools were "traditional" ones like "listening to the teacher talk," "discussing literature," and "writing compositions." 77

In addition, a result of having the students rank the

three most frequent English class activities was the indication that "Trenton students perceive greater heterogeneity in their classroom activities than do students in the control programs." 78

Analysis of trained classroom observations resulted in the conclusion that "the level of student initiated talk is much higher in Trenton English classes than in those of the control schools." 79 Hillocks comments, however:

The more important question has to do with the kind of talk rather than the extent or degree
of talk . . the degree of student talk
cannot be an unqualified criterion for judging
the success of a course or program. 80 One must
consider the kind of talk involved.

"The most striking finding of the Trenton evaluation," continues Hillocks, "is the positive change in students'





77 Ibid., p. 108.
78 Ibid., pp. 108-09.
79 Ibid., p. 109.





38


attitudes toward their English courses and their classroom activities." 81 Results of questionnaires administered to students at Trenton in 1967 (before the full implementation of the elective program), in 1968 and in 1969, and to students at one control school in 1968 and the other in 1969 indicate that the number of Trenton students who recorded extreme positive responses to most items (aspects of English) increased steadily from 1967 to 1969. The number of Trenton students who recorded extreme negative responses decreased each year. 82

On the other hand, it is clear that the attitudes of

Trenton students toward English and English class activities were far more positive than those of the students in the control schools even before the elective program was implemented. For example, in response to one question, How much have you enjoyed English during the past year?-,, over 30 percent of the Trenton students registered extreme positive responses in 1967, considerably more than in either of the control schools in 1968 (22 percent) and 1969 (16 percent). Correspondingly on the same item, only 11 percent of the Trenton students responded extremely negatively in 1967, whereas 21 percent of the control students in 1968 and 22 percent of the control students in 1969 gave extreme negative responses. 83





81 Ibid.
82 Ibid., pp. 111-12.
83 Ibid.





39


Perhaps not surprisingly, the percentage of extreme positive responses of the Trenton students to the three traditional aspects of English study decreased from 1967 to 1969: reading literature, from 63.6 percent to 51.8 percent; writing compositions, from 29.7 percent to 29.1 percent; and grammar, from 10.9 percent to 7.4 percent. During the same period the percentage of extreme positive responses to the study of English in general, however, rose from 29.3 percent to 38.6 percent. 84

Joan Gibbons, however, from her study of "attitudes

and performance" of students in elective English programs, found that "no significant difference in attitude existed between the traditional and the all-electives programs," but also concluded that "positive attitudes toward English result in superior learning and superior student performance." 85

A total of two hundred forty-three senior students were randomly selected by Gibbons from high schools offering three different types of English program structure: a traditional, an all-electives, and an "elective requiring linguistic diagnosis and remediation prior to entrance into electives." Attitudes were measured on Remmers Attitude Toward Any School Subject Scale, and performance, by





84 Ibid., pp. 112, 114.
85 Joan Mary Gibbons, "A Study of Attitudes and Performance of High School Students Enrolled in Elective English Programs Abstract]-," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIII, No.12A (1973), 2742.






40


standardized tests of achievement in two domains: English usage and understanding and interpreting literature. 86

Gibbons used posttest data only and therefore was confined to statistical analysis of differences between programs, between sexes within and across programs, and between attitude and performance measures. "Multiple t-tests and correlations" were the statistical procedures employed. 87 Such a design would, of course, yield little information on long-range (three- or four-year) effects of program structure on either attitude or performance, since effects of other variables are not controlled. (There is also no indication in the abstract of the length of time students had participated in their respective programs

Nevertheless, the combination of a reasonably large sample and their random selection would serve to exercise considerable control of extraneous variance. Certain other of Gibbons.' findings and conclusions relevant to the present investigation (of traditional and elective programs only) are of interest:

No significant difference in achievement
in English usage existed among the three groups.
Little difference in literature achievement and
no significant difference in attitude existed between the traditional and the all-electives
programs. Girls were more positive toward
English and achieved higher scores in literature





86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.







41



than did boys. Positive correlations existed
between achievement in literature and attitude
toward literature and writing, and between
literary achievement and attitudes toward
literature and writing . . Students in an
all-elective English program perform as well in
language and in literature as do students in a
traditional .. . Program organization has
little to do with s@ differences in attitude
toward English. ..u

A similar study was reported the following year by John Nushy. 89Both Nushy and Gibbons used posttest-only research to analyze differences in achievement and in attitude of senior students in differing English programs. Both used standardized tests as measuring instruments.

Nushy's study differed from Gibbons', however, in several respects:I

(1) The sample was larger--581 students.

(2) All students in the sample had participated in their respective programs for three years.

(3) Only two program structures were involved in the study--traditional and elective.

(4) Achievement in English was defined as four variables: vocabulary, reading, effectiveness of expression, and mechanics of expression.

(5) The statistical procedure employed was analysis of covariance, using scores from the Lorge-Thorndike





88 Ibid.

89 John Michael Nushy, "A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Student Achievement and Attitude in a Secondary Elective and Conventional English Program {[Abstractl~" Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV, No. 06A (1974), 3399.






42


Intelligence Tests as the covariate.

(6) More caution was employed in deriving conclusions from findings and in generalizing.

The two most relevant (to the present study) of Nushy's conclusions, for example, were that:

(1) Secondary school students from middle-class community backgrounds who have participated for
three years in an elective, nongraded program of English instruction would be expected to achieve
at least as high a level in standardized test
measures as would students of comparable backgrounds
who had been in a traditional program for three
years. (2) Students who had participated in an
elective program could be anticipated to exhibit a level of attitude toward English as a subject that
would be judged to be at least as favorable as that
of students who had been exposed to a traditional
program.90

Despite the lack of distinction between "participating in" and "being in" or "participating in" and "being exposed to," the careful circumspection of Nushy's conclusions becomes more evident as the statistical findings on which they are based are considered. Nushy found that the mean scores of the two groups (elective and traditional) differed significantly on all five dependent variables (four cognitive and one affective) and that the differences on all five variables "favored the elective group." 91

The most controlled and truly experimental study of the effect of English program structure on achievement in English is probably the one reported by Paul McCormick in 1973. Three hundred twenty eleventh- and twelfth-grade





90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.






43


students were selected at random from two New Jersey high schools. One hundred.sixty (the experimental group) were instructed for one school year in an elective English program; the remaining one hundred sixty (the control group) were instructed in a traditional English program. Students were also assigned to groups according to grade level and sex. All students were administered a standardized test of English achievement at the beginning of a school year and an alternate form of the same test at the end

of that school year. Their pre- and posttest scores were submitted to analysis of covariance. 92

Of six hypotheses tested, only the one concerning treatment effects was found to be statistically significant. The other hypotheses tested concerned grade level effects, sex effects, treatment/grade level interaction, treatment/sex interaction, grade level/sex interaction, and treatment/grade level/sex interaction. 93

McCormick's conclusion that "students enrolled in an elective English program do achieve more than their peers





92 Paul Joseph McCormick, "A Comparison of Achievement in English of Eleventh- and Twelfth-Grade Students in an Elective Program with Those in a Traditional Program
-CAbstractl.," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIV, No. 09A (1973), 5535.
93 Ibid.





44



enrolled in a traditional program . Tandl that the difference is due to the treatment and not to any other factor" would thus appear to be a sound one because of the efficiency of his research design. The treatments are distinct from each other. Random selection and assignment assure considerable control of extraneous variance. Additional control is achieved by testing the effects of sex and grade level. Error variance is minimized by controlling conditions, by the use of a reliable measure, and by adjusting for individual differences.

McCormick notes, however, that, since "the mean score for the experimental group as adjusted for individual differences, does not represent a great increase over the mean score for the control group, . care should be exercised . not to conclude that the advantage for the experimental group necessarily implies superiority large enough to warrant implementation of elective programs as a means of improving learning." 94 The obvious implication is that further research is needed.

Another study, Prudence Dyer's evaluation of a limited English elective program in a small rural high school in Garretsville, Ohio, focused on the effects upon student learning of three elements: "nongrading, for the purpose of interest grouping; opportunities for choice in what to study; and time and encouragement for specialization in





94 Ibid.






45



a selected unit in English." Dyer employed "two evaluative methods--a narrative report and statistical tests--to determine the accomplishment of general and specific program objectives." 95~

Certain of Dyer's findings are of interest to this investigation. She found that the age or grade level of students did not appear to be a factor in student achievement on the measures of students' grades and of student participation in class. She also found statistically significant gains in English achievement on the STEP Writing Test, the composition samples, the motivation achievement index, and student grades. 96

The limitations of Dyer's study, however, considerably reduce the possibilities of generalization and inference. The one hundred twenty-five students in the program were all college-bound (presumably by declaration of intent). The nongraded units of English study were elected by these students for one third of a school year only (presumably as an experiment).9 Thus, there is no indication of the effects of even a one-year program of English electives on the achievement of a varied group of representative students.





95 Prudence Osborn Dyer, "The Development and Evaluation of a Program of Nongraded English Electives {Abstract},"f Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, No. 10A (1966), 3365.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.






46



In sum, the meager amount of objective, systematic, and/or experimental research that has been undertaken on long-term English elective programs has contributed little to our understanding of the effects of such programs on achievement in English in cognitive areas. There appear to be strong indications of improved student attitudes toward English and English classes, as well as mild indications of concomitant increases in quantity and variety of instructional methods, materials, and classroom activities.

Yet the relationship of elective programs to cognitive learning remains somewhat of a mystery, in spite of opinions like this of Graves: "Although there is not enough hard data to state unequivocally that students learn more in an elective curriculum than they do in other approaches, there are many indications that such is true." 98 The "indications" Graves offers in support of this conclusion are improved student attitudes, the frequent election by students of more than the required number of courses, "the apparent satisfaction of the teachers involved, -landl the widespread acceptance of the rationale of the elective curriculum,"--hardly relevant measures of "more" learning! (Indeed, Graves confounds the argument even further by concluding his paragraph with the statement that the "indications" listed above "all . point to an improvement in the quality -[Italics added]- of learning.") 99





98 Graves, p. 200.
99 Ibid.






47


Criticisms of the elective English curriculum and

analyses of its weaknesses have been appearing regularly in print since the early 1970s.. Roger J. Fitzgerald, an early supporter of electives, later found many weaknesses, such as lack of coherence, frivolousness, and triviality, in several programs he visited: "They represent neither change nor relevance." 100 Others, like Albert R. Kitzhaber, were similarly disillusioned. 101

Two years earlier John K. Crabbe, from the Department of English at the University of Oregon, had noted several specific objections to an elective English program, which he described as "the current palliative to student and
102
teacher boredom." First, he felt that flexible scheduling means team teaching which inevitably means large group lecture, objectionable in secondary school. Then, some electives must be required or they will be second choices, thus obviating the benefits of true election. In addition, Crabbe argues, nongrading seems at first to do away with ability grouping, but phasing by difficulty or having prerequisites means that "in effect only the ages are mixed." Also, election can mean personality contests for teachers,





100 Roger J. Fitzgerald, "The New Supermarket: A
'Dystopian' View of English Electives," English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 536.
101 Albert R. Kitzhaber, "A Rage for Disorder," English Journal, 61 (November 1972), 1199-1219.
102 Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives," p. 990.






48


who, moreover, may be required to make as many as five unique preparations. 103

Another criticism made by Crabbe is that the scope of an individual course in an elective program is often very narrow or else it is too broad to fit into the time allowed. The sequence in skills is not consistent for each student nor can a teacher assume a common literary experience. Furthermore, some students do not get a desired course because not enough other students have elected it. Course descriptions, he continues, usually hide from the students the fact that composition and language are included. The program is too expensive; too many books are necessary. And finally, students may read the same book in more than one course. 104

The weaknesses in elective programs observed by .

George Hillocks, Jr., are stated in both more general and less trivial terms. Although Hillocks concludes from his study of elective programs that they "represent the first massive shattering of the structures that shackled curricula in English" and offer many advantages, he is careful to note that their greatest weaknesses are the same ones that have plagued traditional programs:

One of the greatest weaknesses of traditional
programs is their tendency to require all students
to do the same work at the same rate. Elective
programs which offer courses at various levels
of difficulty obviously avoid that problem. However,





103 Ibid., p. 991.
104 Ibid., pp. 991-93, 1004.






49


to the extent that individual courses fail to provide means of differentiating instruction,
they make the same error as the traditional programs.

Other weaknesses in traditional programs have
been carried over directly to elective programs:
weaknesses in the rationale for course offerings,
in the approaches to language, composition, and
literature, and in course design.105

In respect to the last-mentioned of these weaknesses, that in course design, Hillocks specifically notes that

(1) content is vague, "global," or "ridiculously narrow,"

(2) objectives are often vague, (3) means to evaluate instruction are lacking, and (4) there is great fragmentation of subject matter. 106

Stephen N. Judy, too, commented on the fragmentation usually implicit in English electives, as well as "indirection leading to proliferation of unrelated courses, justified (or rationalized) as giving students a Ichoice.1t1107 Research on Factors of English Achievement

Of the numerous studies dealing with various aspects

of cognitive growth and achievement in English, this writer





105 Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 120.
106 Ibid., p. 121.
107 Stephen N. Judy, Explorations in the Teaching of
Secondary English: A Source Book for Experimental Teaching
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1974), p. 154.






50


has chosen two only, to review. 18This choice is prompted primarily by the fact that by far most of the research on English achievement has no direct bearing on this investigation, except inasmuch as it relates to elective programs in English. The few studies so related have been discussed above.

The two studies described hereinafter are included in this review because (1) both state as their purpose an intent to investigate the relationships of certain socioeconomic characteristics, certain institutional characteristics, and/or intelligence to academic achievement,

(2) both employ scores on tests of the Florida TwelfthGrade Testing Program as measures, (3) both employ United States census data as measures of certain county-wide socioeconomic characteristics in Florida, and (4) both offer findings of significant association of certain factors to academic achievement in English and other studies of students in Florida high schools.

As noted previously, the primary objective of the

present investigation is to explore the nature and extent of the relationship between the structure of an English





108 Samuel Sandy Bottosto, "Relationship Between CountyWide Measures of Certain Socio-Economic Factors, Intelligence, and Academic Achievement of High School Seniors in Florida {CAbstract}," Dissertation Abstracts, XX, No. 03 (1959), 1931, and Richard Marvin Moore, "Selected Community and Institutional Characteristics of Florida Public Schools Related to Twelfth Grade Test Scores {Abstracti," Dissertation Abstracts, XXX, No. OlA (1968), 102.





51


program and the achievement of cognitive skills in English, using data relating to selected high schools, students, and school districts in Florida. The selection of independent variables in this investigation was influenced by the findings of Bottosto's and Moore's studies. 109 In addition, the choice for this investigation of certain test scores on the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program as measures of English achievement and of academic aptitude, as well as the choice of United States census data as measures of certain school district population characteristics, was influenced by the findings of these two studies. 110

Samuel Bottosto developed measures of the socioeconomic levels of Florida counties ill from census data relating to the median numbers of years of school completed by persons twenty-five years old and over and to median annual family income. He developed measures of county-wide intelligence and academic achievement from individual test scores made by 24,026 high school seniors who had participated in the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in 1956 and in 1957.





109 The section of Chapter II entitled Design and Procedures provides further details on the selection of variables.
110 The section of Chapter II entitled Instrumentation and Sources provides further information on the Florida TwelfthGrade Testing Program, the United States census, and their use in this study.
ill In Florida, the county is the school district.





S2


All measures were developed for the white population, the

non-white population, and the total population of each county.

Simple and multiple correlations were computed and tested

for statistical significance. 112

The major findings of Bottosto's study of interest to

the present investigation are the following:

(1) Achievement of white high school seniors
in English . is significantly related to the
socio-economic factors of adult schooling and
family income of the white population in Florida
counties.
(2) Achievement of non-white high school
seniors in English . is significantly related
to the socio-ecomomic factors of adult schooling
and family income of the non-white population
in Florida counties.
(3) The county-wide socio-economic factors
of schooling and income appear to be more closely associated with achievement in English and social studies than with natural science and mathematics.
(4) The greater the proportion of non-whites
in a county, the lower the academic achievement of
non-white high school seniors in that county.
(5) When the measures of intelligence and
size of county are held constant, socio-economic factors of schooling and income are still found
to be significantly related to total academic
achievement for the white and non-white high
school seniors in Florida counties.113

Richard Moore examined the relationships of several

socioeconomic characteristics of Florida counties (determined by data reported in the 1960 United States census)

and of several institutional characteristics (including

school size, library expenditures, student-to-teacher ratios,





112 Bottosto, p. 931.
113 Ibid.





53



and degrees held by teachers) to academic achievement as

measured by county mean scores on the Florida Twelfth-Grade

Testing Program. Step-wise multiple regression correlations

were computed and analyzed for significance, using coefficient-s of multiple correlation. 114

The major findings of Moore's study of interest to the

present investigation are the following:

(1) The institutional characteristic which
was associated with the greatest percentage of
variation in test scores was the size of the school.
It was a positive correlation.
(2) Library expenditures were positively and
significantly related to test score results on all
six sections of the test.
(3) The ratio of men to women teachers in grades
7-12 was significant on every section of the text
Tsicl except the mathematics portion and was
positively correlated .
(4) . student to teacher ratio and percent of teachers having a Master's degree were not significantly related to scores on any section of
the test.
(5) The percent of non-white population was
significantly and negatively correlated with
scores in all areas of the test.
(6) . the percent of persons having less than
five years schooling was significantly related to
scores on the test and had a negative correlation with
test scores.
(7) . median school years of the 5 population
. was positively related to output.11





114 Moore, p. 102.
115 Ibid.





54



Overview of the Study

Organization of the Study

The objectives of this study, it will be recalled, are (1) to assess the extent of the association between the independent variable of English program structure and the dependent variable of English achievement and

(2) to examine selected English programs in Florida high schools, their products (students), their teachers, and their environments.

The immediately following chapter (II) outlines

the methodology of the study: its design and procedures, selection of the sample, collection of the data, instrumentation, and treatment of the data.

The succeeding four chapters are devoted to a

discussion of the English programs investigated, the English teachers, the school district populations, and the students, respectively. The English programs of four high schools in Florida are described in the first of these chapters (III). Descriptions of selected English teacher variables, school district population variables, and student variables for each of the four high schools constitute the subject matter of the other three chapters (IV, V, VI).

Following these descriptive chapters is a chapter

(VII) given to a detailed report of a series of multiple regression analyses, performed in an effort to ascertain





5S


the extent and significance of the association between fifteen independent (and antecedent) variables and the dependent variable of English achievement. Since the independent variable of English program structure is the primary target toward which this study is aimed, it will be singled out with special emphasis and in special detail. In addition, the results of the analysis of the association of the remaining fourteen independent variables (student variables, English teacher variables, and school district variables) with English achievement will be reported.

The concluding chapter (VIII) of this study will

interpret the findings of the analysis, draw conclusions from them, and discuss their implications for English program development and for further research. Limitations of theStudy

Curriculum research, like much educational research, is plagued by many limitations. The number of variables appears infinite and their number is often further confounded by the trait of non-isolatability. Uncontaminated data are virtually. non-existent and many relevant data are unattainable. Instrumentation is frequently unsophisticated. Random sampling and random assignment of treatment or subjects are often impossible.

This study reflects many of the above-mentioned limitations generally. There are, however specific





56


limitations peculiar to this study or particularly pertinent to this study or both.

The non-experimental nature of this study is the

most comprehensive of these limitations. The investigation of the long-range "influence" of an aspect of curriculum (in this case, English program structure) on a type of behavior (in this case, demonstrated achievement in English) does not easily lend itself to experimental inquiry.

The phenomenon of achievement is an after-the-fact phenomenon. Thus, the present investigation is in the nature of ex post facto research. As such, it lacks the possibilities of direct control that exist in experimental research: control of the independent variables. Neither

(1) manipulation of the variables nor (2) randomization (of drawing of samples of subjects, of assignment of subjects to groups, or of assignments of treatments to groups) was possible.

Most of the data collected ex post facto are also

severely limited by their availability or its lack. The practical aspects of availability and collectability of data in relation to the present study are discussed in Chapter II, Methodology.









CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

Design and Procedures

The question of the extent and significance of the

association between the (independent) 1 variable of program structure and the product measure (dependent variable) 2 of English achievement appeared at the outset to be difficult to investigate. The number of variables potentially associated with English achievement is legion. Experimental manipulation of these variables, many of which would require longitudinal control, would be virtually impossible.

The decision was made, therefore, to select several variables, in addition to program structure, most likely correlated (associated) with English achievement, and to identify, isolate, measure, and record data concerning these variables. (Practical considerations also required that data concerning these independent variables be available and collectable.) Values would be assigned to each of these and their means and standard deviations computed. Intercorrelations among these independent variables would be computed and reviewed, as well as the correlation





1 The terms independent variable and predictor variable are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this report.
2 The terms dependent variable and product measure
are used interchangeably oughout the remainder of this report.
57





58



between each of these independent variables and the product measure.

The final statistical procedure would be to conduct

an analysis of a series of multiple linear regression equations 3 to examine the extent to which independent variables are associated with the product measure and to evaluate the contributions of the independent variables to the prediction of product measure variance. Such a procedure could be anticipated to produce information on the extent of the contribution of the target variable (English program structure) singly and in concert with other selected variables.

The final set of variables hypothesized as associating with English achievement numbered fifteen and related to

(1) size of school population, (2) characteristics of the English faculty of the school, (3) educational and economic characteristics of the school district (county) 4 population,

(4) student characteristics, and (5) English pro-gram structure. 5





3 This procedure (multiplelinear regression) and the
analytical procedure are described more fully in Chapter VII.
4 In Florida, the county is the school district.
5 These variables were selected on the basis of suggestions from secondary English teachers, teaching interns in secondary English, professors'of English education, and graduate students English education; and from ideas gleaned from research and position papers (some of which are discussed in A Review of the Literature in Chapter I); in addition to the practical considerations mentioned above.





59



Following is an outline of these independent variables:

I. Size of School (Student Population)

Ii. English Faculty

A. Average Certification

B. Average Number of Years of Teaching

C. Average Number of Years at the School

D. Average Teaching Load

III. School District Population

A. Percentage of Non-White Population

B. Percentage with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling

C. Median Number of Years of Schooling

D. Median Annual Family Income

IV. Students

A. Sex

B. Academic Aptitude

C. Grade Point Average, All Subjects

D. Grade Point Average, English

E. Attitude Toward English as a Subject

V. English Program Structure

Selection of the Sample School Selection

In an effort to select representative high schools

with traditional English programs and those with elective English programs, of varying size (student population), geographic location, etc., four Florida high schools were selected for this study, hereinafter referred to as Schools A, B, C, and D. Two schools, A and B, had had traditional






60


English program structures for at least two years preceding the 1975-1976 school year and were continuing the same structure for that year. Two schools, C and D, had had elective program structures in English for at least two years prior to the 1975-1976 school year and were continuing the structure for that year. .

In 1976, all four schools had been accredited fully by the Department of Education of the State of Florida and, additionally, by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. All four schools comprised ninth through twelfth grades, and seniors (twelfth-graders) in all four schools were enrolled in English courses.

School A is located in a rural area in north central Florida and is one of three high schools in the county in which it is located. The county population in 1970 was 32,059 persons. 6 In the spring of 1976, the total student population of school A was 882 students and 147 of these were classified as seniors. There were fifty teachers on the faculty; eight of these teachers were





6 1970 Census of the Population, Vol. 1 (Characteristics of the Population), Part 11 (Florida), issued April 1973, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economics Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., p. 154.





61



designated as teachers of English courses, seven exclusively and one partly. (This one also taught other courses in other departments.) The English program at School A was traditional. 7

Also with an English program designated as traditional for the purposes of this study, 8 School 3, located in a sprawling metropolis in the southeastern coastal region of Florida, had a population in the spring of 1976 of 2,307 students, 380 of whom were seniors. It is one of eleven high schools in its district. Of the eighty-seven teachers on its faculty, nineteen were assigned to the English Department full-time and one taught English part-time. The total number of residents in the county in 1970 was

348,753. 9

School C had a population of 787 students in the spring of 1976, including 135 seniors. There were three other high schools in the county, which had a population in 1970 of 36,290 persons. 10 The school is located in a small city in





7For further explanation and description of the English programs, the reader is referred to Chapter III; for further English teacher information, Chapter IV; for further school district information, Chapter V; and for further student information, Chapter VI. A summary of the school characteristics enumerated in this section can be found in Table I at the end of the section.
8 Operational definitions of "traditional'? and "elective" are provided in Chapter II, English Program Structures.
9 1970 Census of the Population, p. 155.
10 Ibid.





62


north central Florida and had an elective English program. Of forty-six teachers on the faculty, six were teaching three or more English classes a day in the 1975-1976 school year.

The fourth school, D, is in a large urban center in southwest Florida, in a county whose population in 1970 was 522,329 persons. 11 The school population in the spring of 1976 was approximately 3,200, 12 and there were 640 seniors. Of 164 teachers in the school, twenty-two taught English three or more periods a day, and the English program was elective. School D is one of twelve high schools in the county.

Student Selection

Students in all four schools who were seniors in the spring of 1976 and who had been enrolled and in attendance at the school for at least two consecutive previous school years (from at least the fall of 1973) were selected as the initial sample student population for the purposes of this research. This determination was made because the nature of the independent variable of particular concern to the objectives of this study, viz., the structure of the English program (traditional or elective), is such that only students who had been exposed to either program consistently





11 Ibid.
12 There appeared to be no accurate source of the exact school population, but several authoritative and otherwise reliable sources agreed on this approximate figure.







63

for at least three years could qualify as valid products of the program.

The student sample was further refined by the elimination of all seniors who had not taken the battery of tests in the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in the fall of 1975 or who had not at least taken the English Composition Test and the Aptitude Test of that battery at that time. This limitation was required by the fact that scores on the English Composition Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program were used as the product measures of the dependent variable of English achievement in this study. In addition, scores on the Aptitude Test of the battery were used in this research as measures of the general academic ability of the students. 13

Finally, those seniors whose course grade scores from the fall of 1973 through January 1976 were not available through school records and those seniors who did not respond to the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject were, of necessity, eliminated from the sample. In the latter case, response was either lacking because of absence on the day of administration of the questionnaire or invalid because of incompleteness or misunderstanding.





13 For further information on and details of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program and the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject, the reader is referred to the section of this chapter entitled Instrumentation and Sources.





64



As a result of all refinements of the student sample, forty-two students from School A were included in the final sample. From School 3, 215 students were included; from School C, seventy-eight students; from School D, 160 students. The total number of students in the sample from all four high schools who were seniors who had been in attendance from grade ten through grade twelve at the school, who had taken both the English Composition Test and the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in the fall of 1975, whose subject grade scores in all courses completed in grades ten through twelve were available, and who responded to the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject was 495.

Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the selected school sample.





65



Table 1

SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS




Sample School

A B C D

State Location north south north south
central east central west

Rural/Urban rural urban urban urban


Total Number of
High Schools in 3 11 4 12
County


County Popula- 32,059 348,753 36,290 522,329
tion (1970)


School Popula- 882 2,307 787 3,200
tion (1976)


Number of Senior 147 380 135 640
Students (1976)


Number of Teachers so 87 46 164
(1976)


Number of English 8 20 6 22
Teachers (-1976,


English Program tradi- tradi- elec- electructure tional tonal tive tive



Number of Stu- 42 215 78 160
dents in the
Sample





66


Collection of the Data

Permission was solicited and obtained from the county superintendent of schools (or from his authorized representative) in each of the four counties in which a sample school was located, as well as from the principal of each school, to visit the school, submit questionnaires to senior students and to English teachers, and collect data from school records. Appendixes A, B, and C are samples of the letters and form used to accomplish this purpose.

Upon arrangement with each school principal, each school was visited from a minimum of three days to a maximum of five days. During the visit (1) the investigator met with the English Department chairperson, who agreed to distribute English Teacher Questionnaires to faculty members teaching one or more English classes a day and collect them when completed; (2) the investigator met with all seniors in attendance, either en masse or in small groups, and administered the Student Ouestionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject; and (3) the investigator recorded, from students, cumulative folders, for all seniors who had been in attendance at the school since at least the fall of 1973, their grade scores in all courses completed from the fall of 1973 through January 1976, their sex, and their scores on both the English Composition Test and the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program administered in fall 1975.





67


Instrumentation and Sources

Instrumentation

Three instruments were used to measure English

faculty characteristics, student attitude toward English as a subject, and English achievement.

The English Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix D) is an original instrument designed to elicit information from which to establish values for certain English teacher characteristics used as predictor variables in this study. Item 1 asks for the number of years of teaching and Item 2, for the number of years at the school. Items 3, 4, and 5 deal with the teaching load: number of classes taught, number of students taught, and number of preparations. Items 6 and 7 establish levels and types of state certification.

The Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject (Appendix E) is an original instrument containing seven items which yielded information regarding

(1) the student's sex, (2) the number of years of the student's attendance at the school, and (3) the student's attitude toward English as a school subject. Items 1 and 2, on sex and years of attendance, respectively, served as a cross-check on cumulative folder information about the student. Items 3 through 7 asked for the student's ratings on a five-point scale of his interest in English studies (Item 3), his perception of the degree to which





68


English studies satisfied his needs (Items 4 and 5), and his liking for English studies (Items 6 and 7). Answers to Items 3 through 7 therefore supplied data concerning the student's total attitude (based on interest, need and liking) toward English as a subject.

The Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program (FTGT) is a battery of tests which, until 1976, was annually administered to seniors in all Florida public high schools. The Office of Instructional Resources at the University of Florida was responsible for the construction, administration, scoring, and statistical analyses of the FTGT. The battery consisted of five tests: Aptitude, English Composition, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Social Studies, and was designed "to measure academic aptitude and achievement for all seniors.V114 Scores on the Aptitude Test and the English Composition Test were used in this study as measures of the independent variable of student academic aptitude and the dependent variable of English achievement, respectively.

In the fall of 1975, the total battery of tests was

taken by 78,453 senior students from 435 schools in Florida.

All tests on the FTGT were scored on a "right-only" basis, an individual scoring one point for each item





14 Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program, Report No. 1-75, University of Florida, 1975.
Ibid.





69


answered correctly. The total of these points constituted an individual's raw score. 16 The raw scores were converted to percentile ranks and reported to the schools and the students in the form of percentiles.

The Aptitude Test of the FTGT battery consisted of two sections of fifty items each: Verbal Analogies and Math Comparison. Twenty minutes were allowed for administration of each section.

The statewide mean raw score for the Aptitude Test

of the FTGT in 1975 was 52.29, and the standard deviation was 16.15. The split-half reliability coefficient (corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula) for the Aptitude Test was .94. The standard error of measurement was 3.96. 17

The English Composition Test of the FTGT battery

consisted of a total of eighty-five items in three sections: I, Usage; II, Capitalization and Punctuation; III, Effectiveness of Expression. All items on all three sections were of multiple-choice (five-choice) construction, with directions to identify an error, if any, in the item. One of the five choices for every item was NO ERROR. The administration of each section was timed: fifteen minutes for section I of thirty-five items, ten minutes for section





16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.





70



II of twenty items, and fifteen minutes for section III of thirty items.

The statewide mean raw score for the English Composition Test of the FTGT in 1975 was 48.51. The statewide standard deviation was 15.44. The reliability coefficient, computed as for the Aptitude Test, was .94. The standard error of measurement for the English Composition Test was 3.78. 18

The decision to use scores on the English Composition Test of the FTGT battery as measures of the dependent variable of English achievement was based, at least in part, on the following considerations:

(1) A score on the test was a "given" for a majority of the senior students in the selected schools. That is, although participation in the testing program was voluntary in 1975, a sizable majority of the seniors in each of the sample schools had taken the test. Thus, administration of another instrument for this measure was unnecessary.

(2) The test was a reasonably valid measure of English achievement, at least in the areas of certain writing skills, certain reading skills, and knowledge of standard usage, in spite of its limiting title. In the words of its constructors and administrators, the test was designed "to measure achievement." 19 (The test did





18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.





71


not, however, measure, or purport to measure, achievement in all of the communication skills or cognitive goals mentioned earlier in this report, Chapter 1, Introduction.) Other Sources

As reported earlier, school records on each student were employed as sources for obtaining a student's scores on the Aptitude Test and the English Composition Test in 1975. In addition, those records provided grades earned by each student in all courses in all subjects completed by that student from September 1973 through January 1976.

The final source of data employed in this investigation was the report from the Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., of the 1970 census of the population, the most recent census reDort available. From this report were elicited (1) the total population of each county investigated, (2) the number of white persons in each county, (3. the number of non-white persons in each county, (4) the number of persons twenty-five years of age and over in each county who had completed fewer than five years of schooling,

(5) the median annual family income for each county, and

(6) the median number of years of schooling completed by persons twenty-five years of age and over in each county.

Treatment of the Data

It will be recalled that data were collected on 495 students in the sample of four high schools in Florida. These 495 individuals are those for whom data were available





72


on every variable (the product measure-[dependent variable I of English achievement and the fifteen predictor (independent]variables). For purposes of analysis, the 495 subjects were treated as a single group.

After collection of the data on all sixteen variables, values were assigned or computed for each and the mean and standard deviation computed. The intercorrelation among the independent variables was computed, as well as the correlation between each of these independent variables and the dependent variable.

A series of multiple linear regression equations were

computed and analyzed to examine the extent to which (1) the complete prediction system 20 and (2) sets of independent variables were associated with the product measure. A statistical evaluation was made of the significance of the contribution of independent variables to the prediction of product measure variance. 21





20 That is, all of the independent (predictor) variables together.
21 The analytical procedures are described in more detail in Chapter VII, Analysis of the Association Between Sets of Independent Variables and English Achievement.





73


The multiple regression analysis model seemed
particularly appropriate to this study because it
provides an estimate of the proportion of ...
{(product measurel}variance attributable to the
entire group of independent variables (the complete
prediction system) as well as any individual (single)
variable . from the group.
These data can be used, in conjunction with
the F test, to derive further information concerning
the association between a giv en variable and the
..{ dependent variablel2





























22 Donald Groover Aten, A Study of Two Teacher Education
Programs and an Analysis of the Association Between Antecedent Variables and Product Measures, Ed. D. Dissertation (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969), pp. 200-01. The investigator is indebted here and generally throughout this report to Aten for the use of his dissertation as a guide to the format for reporting this kind of analysis.









CHAPTER III
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES

General Features of Elective and Traditional Programs

As noted in the introduction to this report, the fundamental difference between elective English programs and traditional English programs in secondary schools is that the courses elected by students in an elective program fulfill graduation requirements in English, whereas elected courses in a traditional program are in addition to the English courses specified as requirements for graduation for all students.

While this difference remains a fundamental (and substantial) one, in practice several other features have gradually become. associated with the elective program in English, some to the extent of almost obligatory concomitance. The most important and prevalent of these additional features are (1) shorter course lengths and (2) non-grading of courses. Length of Courses

The traditional program has usually offered three

required courses in English, each course thirty-six weeks in duration, for students in each of grades ten through twelve. Since thirty-six weeks (180 weekdays) I is the





I In the following discussion, week is construed to
mean five weekdays in a calendar wei-kof school attendance required by law. Year is construed to mean a school year, thirty-six weeks in a calendar year of school attendance required by law.

74





7S


usual amount of time constituting a school year, these courses may be considered, and usually have been considered, year-long courses. Such courses are traditionally entitled English I, English II, and English III (or English II, English III, and English IV, if course numbering is initiated with the ninth-grade curriculum), although in some few schools, other nomenclature based on the concentrated focus of the year's study is used, such as American Literature for eleventh-grade English and English Literature for twelfth-grade English.

In contrast, elective English programs have almost exclusively offered courses lasting eighteen or fewer weeks: 2

. fifty programs offer the bulk of their
courses in eighteen-week blocks. The remainder
of the programs offer courses of four, six, nine,
ten, or twelve weeks in length. Several use a
combination of course lengths, for example, nine
weeks, a semester, and a year.3

Indeed, this feature of English elective programs (courses lasting eighteen or fewer weeks) has become so universal





2 George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English:
A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois:
IC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972), pp. 13-15. Of seventy-six schools and school systems in thirty-seven states with elective English programs investigated by Hillocks, none offered courses longer than eighteen weeks, except (rarely) in combination with courses shorter than eighteen weeks.
3 Ibid., pp. 13-14.





76


that its use as a criterion for designation of a program as elective appears justified. Non-Graded Courses

In a year-long English course of a purely traditional program, students are of the same grade level. That is, except for the occasional student who is repeating a course for reasons of failure, excessive absence, or the like, all students in English I, for example, are tenth-grade students.

Most elective programs, on the other hand, offer courses which are non-graded; that is, students of differing grade levels may enroll in the same courses. 4 This practice is sometimes restricted in some respects, such as the limiting of some electives to tenth and eleventh grades and others to eleventh and twelfth. Elective English programs in which courses are phased (i.e., developed at various levels of difficulty) are more likely to be non-graded.

Since most elective programs are phase-elective programs., however, and in spite of occasional restrictions, non-graded courses have become a common feature of English elective programs.

Criteria for Program Determination for This Study

Although the salient contrasting features of English programs entail the areas described above: (1) graduation requirements in English, (2) length of courses, and (3)





4 Ibid.







77


grade levels of students enrolled in courses, these features are not always mutually exclusive between kinds of programs. Many schools in Florida which had for many years conducted totally traditional programs in English had, by 1973, introduced modifications into those programs, such as, for example, a degree of non-grading of some courses. In some cases, length of courses had been shortened for some or even all English courses in some otherwise traditional programs.

The characteristic of the traditional English program in Florida which continued to distinguish it from the elective program, despite other changes, was the specification of three years of English courses required in grades ten through twelve for graduation. That is, no election of English courses was permitted in order to satisfy graduation requirements in English.

Even this last fully distinguishing characteristic,

however, has been modified somewhat. A few Florida schools, with otherwise traditional English program structure, have introduced a limited degree of choice of English courses for seniors only, while maintaining the required specified courses for all tenth- and eleventh-grade students. A few other Florida schools have dropped the requirement of a






78



third year of English for graduation entirely, thus permitting senior enrollment in English courses as an entirely elective option. 5

As a result of the many modifications in structure of English programs in Florida, it became necessary for purposes of this investigation to establish criteria on which to determine the "electiveness" or traditionallyt" of any given English program. The decision was made to use a criterion measure to arrive at operational definitions of elective English program and traditional English program.

For this study, an English program is designated

elective if it satisfies all of the following criteria:

(1) A majority of courses offered in the program for grades ten through twelve in which to earn English credit for graduation are eighteen weeks or fewer in duration.

(2) The program permits enrollment by students of more than one grade level in at least a majority of the English courses, grades ten through twelve, offered in which to earn English credit for graduation.





5 Florida statutes contain no specifications of graduation requirements from high schools, but grant powers to local school boards to establish these (Flroida Statutes 230.22.2 and 230.23.6.a). They are established by school district (county) school board policy entirely. Some few counties in Florida require only two years of English (earned in grades ten through twelve) for graduation, while most continue to require three.





79


(3) The program specifies no more than 50 percent of the courses required for all students in which to earn English credit for graduation. For example, if courses are eighteen weeks in length for one-half credit each, and three credits in grades ten through twelve must be earned to graduate, then no more than three courses (one and one-half credits) may be specified as required of all students for the program to qualify as elective.

(4) The total number of English credits offered for graduation credit is at least three times as many as the number of English credits required for graduation. Criterion #4 is included to insure a substantial measure of true variety of choice to qualify a program as elective.

Any program not meeting all four of the criteria is designated traditional for this study.

A summary of the criterion characteristics of the four sample schools in this study is offered in Table 2 at the end of this chapter.

Structures of Programs in This Study

The programs of all schools are described as they were in operation during the 1975-1976 school year and had been in operation for at least two years preceding the 1975-1976 school year.

School A

In School A, all courses last for nine weeks and offer

one-fourth credit each. Three years of English (12/4 credits) in grades ten through twelve are required for graduation.





80


Four courses (Sentences, Spelling and Vocabulary, Literature, and Composition) are offered to tenth-grade students and are required of all tenth-grade students, although the sequence in which the courses are taken varies.

In eleventh grade, students are required to take either American Writings A and American Writings B or Everyday English A and Everyday English B for two of the nine-week quarters of the year. The remaining two quarters of English credit may be earned from a choice of eleven courses.

Likewise,. the twelfth-grade student in School A must

take one of the following pairs of English courses: English Writings A and English Writings B or Everyday English C and Everyday English D for two quarters of the year and earn the two fourths of additional credit required for graduation by choosing from among the remaining eleven courses.

The eleven courses, four of which must be elected by

each student, two in grade eleven and two in grade twelve, 6 are entitled: Research Paper, English Review, Developmental Reading, Poetry, Basic Writing Skills, Media, Fiction, College English, Practical Writing, Legends, and Creative





6 That is, unless a student opts, as he may, to take
both American Writings A and B and Everyday English A and B in grade eleven, and/or English Writings A and B and Everyday English C and D in grade twelve.





81



Writing. These eleven courses are open to enrollment by both eleventh- and twelfth-grade students.

The English program in School A is traditional in

structure in terms of the criteria established in the preceding section. It can be seen in Table 2 that course length (Criterion #I) is the only criterion satisfied in order for the program to qualify as elective. The number on non-graded courses, eleven, is less than half the number of courses offered for English graduation credit, twentythree (Criterion #2); two-thirds of the courses required for all students are specified (Criterion #3); and the number of courses (credits), offered for English graduation credit, twenty-three, is less than twice the number of credits required for graduation, twelve (Criterion #4). School B

All English courses in School B are thirty-six-week

courses for one credit each. Three years of English credit are required in grades ten through twelve for graduation.

There are four courses offered to students in each of three grades, ten through twelve; students do not, however, choose among these courses, since the students are grouped on the basis of verbal ability and assigned to the course designed for their level of aptitude. Students are required to take one of these courses each year in grades ten through twelve.





82


The required courses (on four ability levels from

Level 1, the lowest, to Level IV, the highest) bear the

following titles:

Grade 10 I Reading
II Practical English 1/Exploring Life Thru Literature
III Grammar and Communication/American Literature Survey
IV Composition 2/Modern American Literature
Grade 11 I Developmental Reading 1
11 English 3/Communication Skills 1
111 Mythology and Science Fiction/Practical English 2
IV English Literature
Grade 12 I Developmental Reading 2
II English 4/Communication Skills 2
III Modern Literature/English Communication
IV World Literature

The pairs of titles for some levels in some grades indicate that a semester of instruction is planned for each of the pair, although the pair jointly constitutes a year-long course.

The English Department of School B further offers

fifteen elective courses for grades ten through twelve which

may be taken by students in addition to the courses required

for graduation:

Speech 2 (10-12) Library Science 1 (10-12)
Speech 3 (11-12) Library Science 2 (10-12)
Debate 1 (10-12) Creative Writing (11-12)
Debate 2 (10-12) Mass Media/ContemDrama 1 (10-12) porary Drama (11-12)
Drama
Workshop (10-12) Language Thru Lens (11-12)
Jounralism 1 (10-12) Publications (11-12)
Journalism 2 (11-12) Independent Study (11-12)





83


Four of these elective courses may be substituted, by seniors only, fdr the required course in English with special permission: Speech 3, Creative Writing, Mass Media/Contemporary Drama, and Language Thru Lens.

Thus, as indicated in Table 2,the English program of School B is a traditional program as defined. The courses are all longer than eighteen weeks (Criterion #1). The number of non-graded courses offered for English graduation credit is four, which is only one-quarter of the total number of courses offered (Criterion #2). In regard to Criterion #3, at least two courses for two credits (three, in most cases) are specified for all students, more than 50 percent of the number of English credits required for graduation, three. While Criterion #4 is satisfactorily met, the total number of courses offered by the department for graduation credit, sixteen, being more than three times the number of English credits required for graduation, three, it is obvious that, for any individual student, a maximum of seven courses (one in each grade and four exclusive senior options) is the actual offering. School C

School C is one of the few Florida schools mentioned previously in which the requirement of a third year of English study in grades ten through twelve has been eliminated. Two English credits earned in grades ten through twelve are required for graduation.






84


Most English courses are eighteen weeks in duration,

for one-half credit each, with the exception of four courses which are year-long courses, for one credit each. All students in grade ten take English II, a thirty-six-week (yearlong) course for one English credit.

The remaining one required English credit may be earned by students in grades eleven and twelve by taking any of several courses listed below. The grade levels for which the course is open to enrollment are also listed, as well as the length of the course. Students in grades ten through twelve may, of course, take additional English credits, in excess of those required for graduation.

36-Week Courses 13-Week Courses

World Literature (11-12) Developmental Reading
Journalism (11-12) Lab (11-12)
Publications (11-12), American Literature (11)
Fiction (11-12)
Creative Writing (11-12)
Writing (10-12)
Speech (11-12)
Drama 1 (10-12)
Drama 11 (11-12)

The data which qualify the English program of School C as elective are presented in Table 2. All criteria are satisfied. Twice as many courses are eighteen weeks long as are longer (Criterion #1). Ten of twelve courses (83.3 percent) offered for English graduation credit are nongraded (Criterion #2). No more than 50 percent of the courses required for all students for graduation are specified (Criterion #3). The total number of credits





85



offered for English graduation credit is four times the number of required credits (Criterion #4). School D

In School D, three English credits earned in grades

ten through twelve are required for graduation. All English courses, with one exception, are eighteen weeks long and grant one-half credit each.

Three of the eighteen-week courses: Language, Composition IP and American Literature, are required of all students. These courses actually number six, since all three courses are offered on two levels of ability, regular and advanced, for free (although counseled) election by students. Language (or Advanced Language) must be taken in tenth grade. Composition I (or Composition I Advanced) and American Literature (or American Literature Advanced) may be taken in either the junior or the senior year.

All of the English courses offered by School D may earn a student English credit for graduation. The complete list of offerings is as follows:

36-Week Courses

Advanced Placement English (12) one credit

18-Week Courses (one-half credit each)

Language (10) or Advanced Language (10) Composition 1 (11-12). or Composition I
Advanced (11-12)
American Literature (11-12) or American
Literature Advanced (11-12)





86


Other

Mass Media 1 (10-121
Mass Media 11 (11-12)
Humanities (10-12)
Yearbook (10-114.),
Journalism (10-12)
Composition II Advanced (11-12)
Drama 1 (10-12)
Drama 11 (10-12) Drama 111 (11-12 Drama IV (11-12)
Drama V (11-12)
Drama VI (12)
Publications (10-12),
World Literature (10-12)
Advanced World Literature (10-12),
Creative Writing (11-12)
Modern Fiction (10-12)
Corrective Reading (10-12) British Literature (11-12)
Public Speaking (10-12)
Contemporary Literature (11-12

May be repeated for a maximum of two and a half
credits, one credit only in English

May be repeated for a maximum of three credits,
one credit only in English

The English program of School D is elective as defined.

All but one course is eighteen weeks long (Criterion #1).

Twenty-four of twenty-eight courses (85.2 percent) offered

for English graduation credit are non-graded (Criterion #2).

No more than 50 percent of the courses required for all

students for graduation are specified (Criterion #3). The

total number of credits offered for English graduation

credit (19/2' is almost five times the number of required

credits (6/2) (Criterion #4).





87


Summary

Elective English programs can be distinguished from traditional programs by their satisfying the following criteria: (1) course lengths of eighteen or fewer weeks,

(2) non-grading of a majority of courses, (3) specification of no more than half the required courses, and

(4) offering a number of courses at least three times the number required. On the basis of these criteria (summarized in Table 2), the English programs of Schools A and B are classified as traditional; the English programs of Schools C and D are classified as elective.









88









tn En 0 0
0 4-J co C14 4J
-4 rq tn
z En In k 14 "0 4 10 f-4 4-J $4
ul U-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 r4 0 0
.4 U) cz w 4-4 $4 4-4 k 4.4 44 $4
< = w -rq u u
E- M 4. $4 tn C4 u 00
0 0 ". u Clq rq
E- U 0






P-0 Im 00 tA 1.4 o) fn
4J r4 W 4-)
0 .,4 41 4 .,4
H k -H 0 "a 0 "0
uj U) $ 4 0 73 44 0 4-4 4)
a. W 4) 4-4 4) k $-I
U) Cn 4-J 0 u U m u
= 0 44
0 u 00
z u u



Q E- tn
W4 )--4 e---, W
uj oz 0 4J
uj Lu zm cn
4J .,4
u 0 1-4 -4
I ..,q u 10
z W u P 1-4 0 CD k
0 w z 0 Z U) W 4-J
.,q C14
u = = $4
C) 0 0 u
z u U.




Cd m CIS
u a Q) V) 0
< V) 0 A4 V)
-14 41 x +j 0 4J 4J
0 4J 0 -H a) Q) -,4
.,.I V) 10
V) "0 V Q 3: Q
u U-3 0 -14 0 a P 00 $4 $-4
tn E- 41 4) P 0 u u z u 00 u u \0 u
= U -H 0 u u 3 co tn 1.4 t.0
z m z p 3: 0 -4 4) w w -V
C) 0 "1 u -\t (D Z
u Cl tt 00 CN



On



W
tn
C14
z 0 10
w g 4)
4
tn C14
0 W4 z C4



C

En




Cd co > >
r, I = r.4
H 0 .,q 0 4J 41
"a rq "0 rq u u
z Cd +j as +j Q




Full Text
124
+0.9 and B, by -3.8. The mean ACH's of students in Schools
C and D, however, diverge more from the statewide mean.
School C's mean (33.7) reflects a difference of -16.3 and
School D's mean (64.7), a difference of +14.7.
Students in traditional Schools A and B as a group
displayed slightly lower achievement in English than the
78,453 students who took the English Composition Test in
1975, as indicated by their mean score of 46.9 (3.1 less
than the statewide mean of 50.0). Students in elective
Schools C and D as a group displayed somewhat higher
achievement in English than those 78,453 students, as
indicated by their mean score of 54.5 (4.5 more than the
statewide mean of 50.0).
Obviously, students in the sample elective schools
ranked higher in English achievement than students in the
sample traditional schools (means of 46.9 and 54.5, respec
tively) .
It is tempting at this point to conclude that students
exposed to an elective English program achieve more learning
in English than those exposed to a traditional English pro
gram. Since, however, the general academic aptitude of
the students in the sample elective schools was measured
as considerably higher than the aptitude of the students in
the sample traditional schools and since an underlying
assumption of this study (stated in Chapter II, Methodology)
has been the existence of several variables associated with
English achievement, no such conclusion is justifiable.


91
It is obvious that School D, with twenty-two teachers
of English, had the generally most experienced teachers,
in that 100 percent of the teachers in School D had been
teaching for four or more years, compared with 87.5 percent
in School A, 65 percent in School B, and 83.3 percent in
School C.
Schools A and B, it will be recalled, conducted
traditional programs in English, while Schools C and D
conducted elective programs in English. It is interesting
to note that the higher proportion of more experienced
teachers occurs in the two schools with elective pro
grams. While it might be proposed that the probability
of more total teaching experience increases with the
number of teachers within a department, this probability
would apply only, in this case, to School D, with twenty-
two teachers. School C, of course, has the smallest
English faculty investigated, six teachers, yet 83 per
cent of these had been teaching for six or more years.
Using the same categories of quantification, the
number of years each teacher had been at each school
was recorded (Item 2). Schools B and D had both been in
operation for eleven or more years, whereas Schools A and
C had been in operation for six and seven years, respec
tively. Thus, as computed from the data in Table 3, in
respect to the number of years of the school's operation,
37.5 percent (three of eight) of the teachers of English in


and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B312
45
32
1.81
0.80
3.4
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B313
41
77
2.39
3.20
3.0
0
B314
13
34
2.07
3.40
2.0
0
B315
01
01
1.69
2.33
1.4
0
B316
92
96
3.60
3.80
2.8
0
B317
43
67
2.38
1.86
2.2
0
B318
16
08
2.57
2.40
2.4
0
B319
02
11
2.82
2.60
1.2
0
B320
39
50
1.72
1.67
2.4
0
B321
83
96
3.70
3.40
3.0
0
B322
81
96
2.78
2.60
3.8
0
B323
70
63
3.54
3.63
1.8
0
B324
39
71
2.79
3.00
2.6
0
201


25
The success reported by Carlsen and Conner apparently
served to inspire many similar experimental attempts in high
schools throughout the United States. A proliferation of
articles, mostly by secondary school teachers of English,
appeared in the next decade, describing English elective
programs of one kind or another. Although the details of
implementation among these programs vary considerably,
expressions of purposes and results are remarkably similar.
Differences in implementation among these programs
may be indicated by the following representative ranges:
45
(1) from courses six weeks in length to courses
46
eighteen weeks in length
(2) from admission to the program of students of
certain ability levels only or of certain vocational
47 48
aims only to admission of all students into the program
Reported results and outcomes of this and other
elective programs are discussed later in this section.
45
Ann M. Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity: Another Approach
to the English Curriculum," English Journal, 56 (February
1967), 222-26.
46
Max Klang, "To Vanquish the Deadliest Game: A New
English Curriculum," English Journal, 53 (October 1964'),
504-15.
4 7
Kenneth R. McCormic and C. Louis Kaupp, "An Elective
English Program for the Non-College Bound," English Journal,
61 (February 1972) 277-80.
48
Frank J. Barone, "The Answer Is 'A Performance
Curriculum'," English Journal, 56 (February 1967), 227-28.


26
(3) from inclusion of specified grade levels only to
inclusion of all grade levels^
(4) from completely free election, with counseling, by
51 52
students to limited election within requirement bounds
(5) from phasing of courses (developing different levels
5 3 54
of difficulty) to no phasing
(6) from the subject of English only^ to integration
with other subjects.^
4 9
Culley, "Changing an English Program."
^Donald F. Weise, "Nongrading, Electing, and Phasing:
Basics of Revolution for Relevance," English Journal,
59 (January 1970), 122-30.
^Adele H. Stern, "Sorry, Dr. Silberman! Mini-Courses
in the High School," English Journal, 61 (April 1972),
550-54.
52
Franklin G. Myers, "A Plan for All Seasons:
Independent Study in an English Electives Program,"
English Journal, 59 (February 1970), 244-53.
53
Jack E. Smith, Jr., "180 Days: Observations of an
Elective Year," English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 229-35.
54
David B. Bronson, "The Story of an English Elective
Program," English Journal, 60 (November 1971), 1086-90.
^Robert V. Rife, "Would You Believe?" English Journal,
61 (April 1972), 555-59, 599.
^Thomas H. Morton and Mario P. DeiDolori, "An Electives
Program in a Small High School? It Works!" English Journal,
60 (October 1971), 952-56.


24
Harry Overton, a secondary English teacher, the program
developed by G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner and
described by them in an article in the English Journal in
1962 was apparently the pioneer effort that triggered a
41
barrage of imitative efforts.
Carlsen held at that time positions as professor of
English and education at the State University of Iowa
as as head of the English Department of University High
4 2
School. After several attempts to structure the English
curriculum in the high school meaningfully and productively,
all of which failed, the decision was made in 1960 to set
up semester courses, for seniors only at first, but later
for both juniors and seniors in non-graded courses. The
resulting number of courses was ten: four in literature,
three in writing, and three in speech. All ten were
offered each year, five in the fall and five in the spring.
Students were required to take one course in each area
of literature, writing, and speech and had to elect a total
of at least four English courses during the two years
40
Harry Overton, "Eleventh Grade Electives,"
English Journal, 44 (April 1955), 211-14.
41
G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner, "New
Patterns from Old Molds," English Journal, 51 (April
1962), 244-49.
42
Graves, p. 196.
43
Carlsen and Conner, pp. 244-46.


CHAPTER V
SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION VARIABLES
It will be recalled that, in Florida, the school
district is geographically and demographically identical
with the county. Districts, as a result, differ con
siderably in the extent of their areas of jurisdiction
as well as in the size of their populations. The employer
and policymaking body in each district is a five- or
seven-person publicly elected board. The administration
of each school district is managed by a superintendent of
schools, either publicly elected or appointed (hired)
by the school board.
As previously outlined,^ certain information con
cerning the populations of the school districts in which
each of the four sample schools is located was sought
for this study. This information comprised (1) the
percentage of non-white persons in the district population,
(2) the percentage of persons twenty-five or more years of
age in the district population who had completed fewer than
five years of schooling, (3) the median number of years
of schooling completed by the district population, and
(4) the median family income of the district population. Since
the school district and county in Florida are demographically
identical, this information was derived from the most recent
1
See Chapter II, Methodology.
100


TABLE
PAGE
17 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS ON SEVEN VARIABLES
(N = 4 95) 130
18 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE
VARIABLES (N = 495) 140
19 CORRELATION MATRIX (N = 495) 142
20 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION RESULTING FROM
THREE SERIES OF REGRESSION EQUATIONS 152
vi i i


164
independent variables, to offset the resultant inter
pretive difficulties by the calculation of unique con
tributions, which could be expected to estimate the
contribution of an independent variable to the variance
of the dependent variable after one or more other inde-
4
pendent variables had been "taken into account." As
previously explained, such calculation entails the in
clusion of the entire prediction system of independent
variables in the equation and thus proved impossible in
this analysis, because of the large number of independent
variables and their substantial intercorrelation. The
computer program employed a criterion for entry which
precluded entry of the entire prediction system (all
fifteen variables) into the regression equation.
In addition, with too many independent variables,
"it becomes more and more difficult to find other independ
ent variables that are not in effect redundant with the
first three or four," according to Kerlinger. There is
"a regression law of diminishing returns.
One result of the several difficulties described
above is to limit interpretation, that is, the formu
lation of generalizations and implications based on the
analysis. Such limitation does not, however, preclude
4
See footnotes 5 and 11 of Chapter VII.
5Kerlinger, p. 625.


38
attitudes toward their English courses and their class-
81
room activities." Results of questionnaires administered
to students at Trenton in 1967 (before the full implementa
tion of the elective program), in 1968 and in 1969, and
to students at one control school in 1968 and the other in
1969 indicate that the number of Trenton students who
recorded extreme positive responses to most items (aspects
of English) increased steadily from 1967 to 1969. The
number of Trenton students who recorded extreme negative
responses decreased each year.^
On the other hand, it is clear that the attitudes of
Trenton students toward English and English class activities
were far more positive than those of the students in the
control schools even before the elective program was imple
mented. For example, in response to one question, How much
have you enjoyed English during the past year?,, over 30 per
cent of the Trenton students registered extreme positive
responses in 1967, considerably more than in either of the
control schools in 1968 (22 percent) and 1969 (16 percent).
Correspondingly on the same item, only 11 percent of the
Trenton students responded extremely negatively in 1967,
whereas 21 percent of the control students in 1968 and
22 percent of the control students in 1969 gave extreme
8 3
negative responses.
81
82
83
Ibid.
Ibid.,
Ibid.
pp. 111-12.


71
not, however, measure, or purport to measure, achievement
in all of the communication skills or cognitive goals
mentioned earlier in this report, Chapter I, Introduction.)
Other Sources
As reported earlier, school records on each student
were employed as sources for obtaining a student's scores
on the Aptitude Test and the English Composition Test in
1975. In addition, those records provided grades earned
by each student in all courses in all subjects completed
by that student from September 1973 through January 1976.
The final source of data employed in this investigation
was the report from the Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., of the 1970 census of the population, the most
recent census report available. From this report were
elicited (1) the total population of each county investi
gated, (2) the number of white persons in each county,
(3) the number of non-white persons in each county, (41 the
number of persons twenty-five years of age and over in each
county who had completed fewer than five years of schooling,
(5) the median annual family income for each county, and
(6) the median number of years of schooling completed by
persons twenty-five years of age and over in each county.
Treatment of the Data
It will be recalled that data were collected on 495
students in the sample of four high schools in Florida.
These 495 individuals are those for whom data were available


CHAPTER
PAGE
VI.STUDENT VARIABLES 108
Sex 109
Academic Aptitude 110
Grade Point Averages 114
Attitude Toward English 119
Achievement in English 123
Summary 127
VII.ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT 131
Focus and Procedure 131
Symbolization and Set Classification of
the Variables 133
Values Represented by Each Variable 135
Means and Standard Deviations of the
Variables 138
Intercorrelation of the Variables 141
The Analytical Procedure 145
Analysis of the Regression Series 151
Summary 158
VIII.INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS 161
Limitations on Interpretation 161
Conclusions 165
Implications for Practice and Research .... 167
APPENDIXES
A. LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS 171
v


18
limitation on the teacher freedom {is} a requirement that
the material have interest for and value to the students
2 6
of the school. Such a concept of priorities is obvi
ously his reason for not including teacher advantages
as part of his rationale of English elective programs.
They are not, to Small, "sound educational reasons."
Small's second reason for elective programs,
"stronger and more logical focus," would appear, however,
to be related to the fifth reason given by the schools,
clearer definition of the teaching task, except that
Small's generalization is obviously intended to apply
to all individuals concerned and involved in the program.
Similarly, Small's first reason, the "great freedom"
possible in an elective program, is related to the schools'
first reason, freedom of choice by students. Again,
however, Small's statement is more generally applicable
and more philosophically derived. It also restricts
the special need for freedom to the subject of English,
as the schools' statement does not. (This "need," inci
dentally, is the only one mentioned by Small. "Needs of
students" referred to in the schools' second reason are
never specifically discussed.)
26
Ibid., pp. 103-04.


101
census statistics of Florida counties compiled by the
2
Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., in 1970.
Non-White Population
3
The figures in Table 6 show that District C has the
4
highest proportionate number of non-white persons m its
population, while it ranks third (and very close to fourth)
in total population size.
Table 6
NON-WHITE POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
District
A BCD
Total Population*
32,059
348,753
36,290
522,329
Number of White
Persons *
29,058
286,460
26,503
478,043
Number of Non-White
Persons *
3,001
62,293
9,787
44,286
Percentage of Non-White
Persons
9.4
17.9
27.0
8.5
*taken from 1970 Census of the Population, pp. 154-55
+computed for this study
2
1970 Census of the Population, Vol. 1 (Characteristics
of the Population), Part 11 (Florida), issued April 1973,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economics Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
3
Here, and throughout the remainder of this discussion,
the school district in which School A is located will be
designated District A; that in which School B is located,
District B; School C, District C; and School D, District D.
4
The classifications, white and non-white, used in this
study are those employed in the 1970 Census of the Population,
in which no explanation of these classifications is provided.


93
number of students taught by each teacher (Item 4) and the
number of instructional preparations made by each teacher
(Item 5) are jointly considered an indication of the
2
teacher's work load.
Table 4
ENGLISH FACULTY TEACHING LOAD
School
Total
Students
Taught
Number
of
Eng. Preparations
0-
75
75
99
100-
124
125
150
151 +
1
2
3 4
5
A
0
2
0
3
3
0
1
4 0
3
B
U
X
0
1
7
11
1
7
9
1 2
1
C X5
e
3
o
a
0)
1
1
1
3
0
0
2
1 1
2
D z
E-
0
0
5
12
5
7
11
4 0
0
The data in Table 4 indicate that, while 100 percent
of the teachers of English in School D were teaching one
hundred or more students in 1975-1976, only 66.7 percent
of the teachers in School C, 95 percent of the teachers in
School B, and 75 percent of the teachers in School A were
The values assigned to this joint construction for
the purposes of analysis are explained in Chapter VII,
Analysis of the Association Between Sets of Independent
Variables and English Achievement.


iJUUUU i
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B338
63
75
2.00
2.43
2.6
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B339
61
50
2.34
2.89
1.6
1
B340
16
17
2.00
1.20
1.8
1
B341
16
17
2.34
1.80
1.4
1

B342
85
89
3.07
3.20
2.6
1
B343
14
32
1.22
1.20
2.0
1
B344
25
19
2,48
2.00
2.4
1
B345
20
44
2.26
2.60
2.2
1
B346
94
75
3.32
2.80
2.6
1
B347
24
03
1.75
1.80
2.2
1
B348
08
17
2.13
2.40
3.4
1
B349
97
97
3.31
3.43
1.8
1
B350
93
77 1.88 2.10 2.4
1
203


34
If the extent to which these differences (in mater
ials, instructional techniques, activities, and final grades)
contributed to differences in student attitudes were
analyzed, the results would probably be useful. In point of
fact, while Di Stefano poses the question of the extent of
this contribution as one of the purposes of his study, the
question is never answered (at least, not in the abstract).
Di Stefano also concluded that differences in sex or
college aspirations made no significant difference in
attitudes, whereas differences in urban/suburban school
attendance did.'7*
Although the study by Charles Wethington, Jr., of the
relationships between student attitude toward English and
such variables as IQ, general achievement, English achieve
ment, English course grades, and sex was not made of
students in an elective program, one of his findings seems
particularly relevant to this study. Wethington examined
and measured students in the ninth through the twelfth
grades in several schools and found, among other things,
that only for ninth-graders was there any significant
relationship between their attitudes toward English and
their IQs, general achievement, English achievement, or
71
Ibid.


110
The data in Table 12 reveal that there were more female
(260) than male (235) students in the total sample. Also,
the traditional programs had more female students (four more)
and more male students (fifteen more) in the sample than the
elective programs, but the difference appears slight. The
257 students in the sample traditional programs constituted
51.9 percent of the sample, while 48.1 percent of the sample
were the 238 students in the sample elective programs.
Academic Aptitude
A score on the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program was reported for each student by the
Office of Instructional Resources at the University of
Florida as a percentile ranking. As previously indicated,
this score is a measure of a student's academic aptitude
or capability of achievement in school studies.
A comparison of the aptitude scores of females and males
in each school and program in the sample can be made from the
data in Table 13. For convenience, the percentile scores
have been grouped into deciles.
The mean aptitude scores for Schools A and B, 46.4
and 49.2 respectively, are well within the range of normal
expectations, in spite of the small number of students'
scores recorded from School A. The mean aptitude score for
School C, 25.1, however, is considerably lower than the
mean statewide percentile of 50.0, while that of School D,
69.9, is considerably higher. The mean aptitude scores of


54
Overview of the Study
Organization of the Study
The objectives of this study, it will be recalled,
are (1) to assess the extent of the association between
the independent variable of English program structure
and the dependent variable of English achievement and
(2) to examine selected English programs in Florida
high schools, their products (students), their teachers,
and their environments.
The immediately following chapter (II) outlines
the methodology of the study: its design and procedures,
selection of the sample, collection of the data, instru
mentation, and treatment of the data.
The succeeding four chapters are devoted to a
discussion of the English programs investigated, the
English teachers, the school district populations, and
the students, respectively. The English programs of
four high schools in Florida are described in the first
of these chapters (III). Descriptions of selected English
teacher variables, school district population variables,
and student variables for each of the four high schools
constitute the subject matter of the other three chapters
(IV, V, VI).
Following these descriptive chapters is a chapter
(VII) given to a detailed report of a series of multiple
regression analyses, performed in an effort to ascertain


CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Design and Procedures
The question of the extent and significance of the
association between the (independent)'*' variable of program
2
structure and the product measure (dependent variable)
of English achievement appeared at the outset to be diffi
cult to investigate. The number of variables potentially
associated with English achievement is legion. Experi
mental manipulation of these variables, many of which
would require longitudinal control, would be virtually
impossible.
The decision was made, therefore, to select several
variables, in addition to program structure, most likely
correlated (associated) with English achievement, and to
identify, isolate, measure, and record data concerning
these variables. (Practical considerations also required
that data concerning these independent variables be
available and collectable.) Values would be assigned to
each of these and their means and standard deviations
computed. Intercorrelations among these independent variables
would be computed and reviewed, as well as the correlation
The terms independent variable and predictor variable
are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this
report.
2
The terms dependent variable and product measure
are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this
report.
57


120
Responses to Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 were scaled from
one to five: Very much, 1; Much, 2; Some, 3; Very little, 4;
Not at all, 5. The rank number assigned by the student to
the subject of English in Item 7 was considered his scaled
response to that item.
Each student's index of attitude (ATT) is computed
as an arithmetic average of his scaled responses to Items
3 through 7. For example, if a student's responses to Items
3 through 7 were 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, the average of those res
ponses, or 2.8, would serve as that student's index of
attitude.
Thus, the indexes range from an ATT of 1 to an ATT of 5,
with 1 representing the highest, most positive attitude and
5 representing the lowest, least positive attitude.
As indicated in Table 15, the mean ATT in each school
in the sample differs from the mean ATT of each other
school in the sample very slightly (a difference of no more
than .3). The difference between the mean ATT of the stu
dents in the traditional program and between the mean ATT
of the students in the elective program is even slighter (.1).
In all schools and under both programs, the attitude
of the senior students in the sample toward English would
appear to be generally positive, since all school and program
mean ATT's are higher than the mid-index of 3.0.
This appearance of a generally positive attitude toward
English in all schools is additionally supported by the
evidence that the ATT's of 59.5 percent of the students in


225
From August 1977 until the present she has been an associate
professor of English at Palm Beach Junior College, Lake
Worth, Florida.
Ms. Young was married to George James Young from 1951
to 1960 and has one daughter,. Dale, and one son, David.
She is the grandmother of four: Tracy, Lee Ann, John,
and Beth.


106
District C, however, is approximately one and one-half
years less than those in the other three districts.
Annual Family Income
The median annual family incomes for the school
districts recorded by the Bureau of the Census are shown
in Table 11. District C ranks the lowest. The median
annual family income of District B is the greatest, and
it is considerably more than that of each of the other
three, particularly of Districts C and D. The median
annual family income of District B is 133.9 percent of
the income of District C and 119.2 percent of the income
of District D.
Table 11
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
District Median Annual Family Income* Rank*
A
$8,430
2
B
$9,112
1
C
$6,803
4
D
$7,642
3
*taken from the 1970 Census of the Population
+computed for this study


TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Need for the Study 4
Objectives of the Study 6
A Review of the Literature 7
Literature Related to English Elective
Programs 9
Research on Factors of English
Achievement 49
Overview of the Study 54
Organization of the Study 54
Limitations of the Study 55
II. METHODOLOGY 57
Design and Procedures 57
Selection of the Sample 59
School Selection 59
Student Selection 62
Collection of the Data 66
1X1


40
standardized tests of achievement in two domains: English
86
usage and understanding and interpreting literature.
Gibbons used posttest data only and therefore was
confined to statistical analysis of differences between
programs, between sexes within and across programs, and
between attitude and performance measures. "Multiple
t-tests and correlations" were the statistical procedures
8 7
employed. Such a design would, of course, yield little
information on long-range (three- or four-year) effects
of program structure on either attitude or performance,
since effects of other variables are not controlled.
(There is also no indication in the abstract of the length
of time students had participated in their respective
programs.)
Nevertheless, the combination of a reasonably large
sample and their random selection would serve to exercise
considerable control of extraneous variance. Certain other
of Gibbons! findings and conclusions relevant to the present
investigation (of traditional and elective programs only)
are of interest:
No significant difference in achievement
in English usage existed among the three groups.
Little difference in literature achievement and
no significant difference in attitude existed
between the traditional and the all-electives
programs. Girls were more positive toward
English and achieved higher scores in literature
86
87
Ibid.
Ibid.


169
While exact replication of this study would not be desirable,
because of the previously reported difficulties in interpre
tation arising from certain procedures and selection, the
data collected and reported may be incorporated into other
research designs and subjected to different analyses for
investigation of the question. The investigator encourages
such use of the data reported in this study.
In addition, many of these data, particularly those
collected or computed for the individual subjects, may
provide a resource for investigators of other problems.
To this end, the data for each subject have been listed
in Appendix F.
It is also hoped that "true" experimentation of the
question of the influence of elective programs on English
achievement will be undertaken in the not-too-distant future,
despite the seemingly overwhelming practical difficulties.
The findings of such research should prove invaluable in the
making of decisions related to high school English programs.
Otherwise, if the current trend continues, as there is
every indication it will, more and more high schools
will be introducing elective programs in English, and the
decision to do so will be based, at least in part, on
unsupported and unverified assumptions concerning the
benefits to be derived from such a program.


APPENDIX E
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
AS SENIORS IN THIS SCHOOL, YOU CAN HELP WITH A STUDY IN FLORIDA
HIGH SCHOOLS BY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW. PLEASE BE AS
HONEST AND SINCERE AS YOU CAN WITH YOUR ANSWERS AND ANSWER EVERY
QUESTION. MARK THE BOX FOR YOUR ANSWER.
1. SEX: a Male n Female
2. HOW LONG HAVE YOU ATTENDED THIS SCHOOL? (COUNT THIS YEAR AS ONE YEAR.)
n One n Two years n Three years n Four years
nMore than four years
3. HOW INTERESTING DO YOU FEEL MOST OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE STUDIED
IN ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL ARE?
nVery much n Much n Some n Very little n Not at all
4. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK STUDYING ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL HELPS YOU
WITH YOUR FUTURE PROFESSIONAL (EDUCATIONAL AND/OR VOCATIONAL) NEEDS?
a Very much n Much n Some a Very little a Not at all
5. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK STUDYING ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL HELPS YOU
WITH YOUR PERSONAL NEEDS?
nVery much a Much n Some n Very little nNot at all
6. HOW MUCH HAVE YOU LIKED ENGLISH DURING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL CAREER?
nVery much n Much n Some n Very little nNot at all
7.FOR THIS LAST QUESTION, PLEASE RANK THE FIVE SUBJECTS LISTED BELOW
FORM THE ONE YOU LIKE BEST TO THE ONE YOU LIKE LEAST BY WRITING
THE NUMBERS 1 TO 5. WRITE ONE NUMBER IN THE BOX BEFORE EACH
SUBJECT, USING 1 FOR THE BEST-LIKED AND 5 FOR THE LEAST-LIKED.
n Social studies (history, geography, psycho
logy, etc.)
Q English (literature, writing, grammar, etc.)
13 Science (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)
n Physical education
n Mathematics (general math, algebra, geometry,
etc.)
YOUR NAME (PLEASE PRINT.)
SCHOOL
175


and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D147
35
65
2.43
2.80
4.2
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D148
81
86
3.00
3.00
2.2
0
D149
77
90
3.04
3.17
4.4
0
D150
77
55
3.12
3.40
2.6
1
D151
68
46
3.31
3.33
2.8
1
D152
68
82
3.25
3.00
4.0
1
D153
31
63
3.25
3.75
1.8
0
D154
77
93
3.57
3.20
3.2
0
D155
70
63
3.42
2.80
2.8
1
D156
81
95
2.87
2.80
1.6
0
D157
52
34
2.25
2.50
2.0
1
D158
83
85
3.37
3.50
2.4
1
D159
59
67
3.41
3.40
1.8
1
188


64
As a result of all refinements of the student sample,
forty-two students from School A were included in the final
sample. From School 3, 215 students were included; from
School C, seventy-eight students; from School D, 160 stu
dents. The total number of students in the sample from
all four high schools who were seniors who had been in
attendance from grade ten through grade twelve at the
school, who had taken both the English Composition Test
and the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Test
ing Program in the fall of 1975, whose subject grade
scores in all courses completed in grades ten through
twelve were available, and who responded to the Student
Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject
was 495 .
Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics
of the selected school sample.


14
Real differences in skill development, under
standing, and attitudes toward various aspects of
English are not likely to derive from a simple
repackaging of traditional course content, coupled
with the continuation of traditional teaching
strategies. . Real change will have to involve
not simply an administrative change in course
offerings, but a complete reexamination and
revitalization of both course content and teaching
strategies.
Hillocks' reaction to the fifth and last assumption
on which he finds English elective programs are based,
that learning is the student's reponsibility, is simply
that it is, and always has been, but that it is still the
teacher's responsibility to aid in the process.^
Two years after the publication of Alternatives
in English, Hillocks reinforced some of his above-stated
conclusions and explained their implications for teachers
of English in an article in English Education: "The
teacher is and must be more than a technician fin an
elective program]-. He must be a maker of curricula for
18
his own students."
Robert C. Small, Jr., agrees that an English
elective program "involves ... an additional burden
for the teachers, for they must not only teach but also
16T.. .
Ibid.
1 7 lb id., pp. 119-20.
1 8
George Hillocks, Jr., "The English Teacher as
Curriculum Maker: Preparing Teachers for Elective
Programs," English Education, 5 (April/May 1974), 243.


27
Despite these differences in implementation, features
common to all these programs are choice by students of
separate courses in English studies, offerings of courses
a semester or less in duration, and some degree of non
grading within at least some courses. It is mainly from
these common elements that the definition of an elective
English program used in this study was developed.
The most elaborate and systemically organized of the
English elective programs developed during the sixties and
early seventies appears to have been the APEX (Appropriate
Placement for Excellence) program, researched and developed
under the auspices of a federal grant in Trenton High
School, Trenton, Michigan. The written program design
included a statement of philosophy and rationale, a state
ment of goals and objectives, an outline of administrative
procedures, and plans for evaluation. (Evaluation of the
entire APEX program after three years by an external agent
5 8
was also planned.)
^This definition is explained in detail in Chapter III,
English Program Structures.
5 8
This evaluation was apparently performed by George
Hillocks, Jr., and others in 1971, as Hillocks, in Alterna-
tives in English, provides many of the results of the
evaluation, citing as his source another work of his own
authorship: An Evaluation of Project APEX: A Non-Graded,
Phase-Elective English Program (Trenton, Michigan: Trenton
Public Schools, 1971). Some of the results of this evalu
ation are discussed later in this section.


143
in English: the higher the average number of years of
teaching among the English faculty (EFAT, r = -.17), the
higher the achievement scores of the subjects; the higher
the average number of years at the school of the English
4
faculty (EFAS, r = -.15), the higher the achievement scores.
Three of the significantly correlated (with DACH)
E variables that are represented by measures of socio
economic characteristics of the school district population
(ENWP, EUFY, and EMSY) also seem of reasonable expectation:
the lower the percentage of non-white population, the
higher the achievement scores of the subjects (r = -.35);
the lower the percentage of persons who completed fewer than
five years of schooling, the higher the achievement scores
(r = -.34); the higher the mean number of school years
completed by persons in the district, the higher the achieve
ment scores (r = .22).
Of the four independent variables non-significantly
correlated with the dependent variable, two (SSEX and PRTE)
have correlations that are uninterpretable in any simple
fashion because they are both dichotomous variables with
an approximately equal frequency for each half of the
dichotomy (SSEX: 1, 260; 0, 235 and PRTE: 1, 238; 0, 257).
The negative direction of the correlations of EFAT
(-.17) and EFAS (-.15) with DACH is the result of assign
ing values from 1 to 6 to these independent variables, with
1 representing the highest number of years and 6 representing
the lowest number of years. The lower the value, therefore,
the higher the number of years.


uv-uuux
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B456
12
14
1.33
1.00
2.4
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B457
13
21
2.41
2.60
2.0
0
B458
14
57
3.04
3.40
3.8
0
B459
10
21
1.83
1.20
1.6
0
B460
63
83
2.67
3.60
2.4
0
B461
03
12
1.82
1.71
2.2
0
B462
83
82
1.19
1.33
1.4
1
B463
19
28
2.28
2.75
2.4
1
B464
43
44
1.52
.75
2.6
1
B465
07
40
3.36
3.75
2.4
1
B466
14
22
2.29
2.14
1.0
1
B467
22
24
2.46
3.17
2.8
1
B468
45
46
3.41
4.00
1.8
1
212


APPENDIX C
College of Education
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
------, 1976
, Principal
High School
, Florida
Dear Sir:
Dr. Theodore W. Hippie and I are conducting a research
study of English language arts programs in Florida high
schools. We are anticipating that the information gene
rated by this study will contribute to the improvement of
English instructional and curricular planning. ------
High School is important to this study, so we hope you will
agree to participate.
The study will necessitate the completion of a question
naire by each member of the English faculty and another
by each 12th-grade student. Neither questionnaire should
require more than ten or fifteen minutes. The student
questionnaire asks for some information concerning the
student's background and his attitudes toward English; the
teacher questionnaire, for information concerning the tea
cher's professional background and current teaching status.
In addition, access to the records of senior students will
be necessary for the recording of certain test and grade
data.
My plan is to visit your school at times which will suit
your convenience and that of your students and faculty.
Whether I submit the questionnaire to students and teachers
in small groups or in one large meeting is also entirely a
matter of convenience to you.
All data will be collected anonymously from teachers and
will be reported and analyzed in summary form only. Student
data will be reported and analyzed anonymously, and no
school will be identfied in the study. If you wish, you
will be informed of the results of the study.
Enclosed is a permission form which has already been signed
by ----- -, Superintendent of Schools in your county.
Please sign both copies and return one to me. A stamped,
addressed envelope has also been enclosed.
If you agree to participate, will you please indicate (on
the back of the copy you return to me) the most suitable
days in the next few weeks for me to visit your school?
Or, if you prefer, indicate which days you would prefer that
I do not visit your school.
Sincerely yours,
173
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant


50
has chosen two only to review. This choice is prompted
primarily by the fact that by far most of the research
on English achievement has no direct bearing on this
investigation, except inasmuch as it relates to elective
programs in English. The few studies so related have been
discussed above.
The two studies described hereinafter are included in
this review because (1) both state as their purpose an
intent to investigate the relationships of certain socio
economic characteristics, certain institutional character
istics, and/or intelligence to academic achievement,
(2) both employ scores on tests of the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program as measures, (3) both employ United
States census data as measures of certain county-wide
socioeconomic characteristics in Florida, and (4) both
offer findings of significant association of certain factors
to academic achievement in English and other studies of
students in Florida high schools.
As noted previously, the primary objective of the
present investigation is to explore the nature and extent
of the relationship between the structure of an English
Samuel Sandy Bottosto, "Relationship Between County-
Wide Measures of Certain Socio-Economic Factors, Intelligence,
and Academic Achievement of High School Seniors in Florida
{Abstract }," Dissertation Abstracts, XX, No. 03 (1959), 1931 ,
and Richard Marvin Moore, "Selected Community and Institu
tional Characteristics of Florida Public Schools Related to
Twelfth Grade Test Scores {Abstract}," Dissertation Abstracts,
XXX, No. 01A (1968 ), 102.


CHAPTER III
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
General Features of Elective and Traditional Programs
As noted in the introduction to this report, the funda
mental difference between elective English programs and tra
ditional English programs in secondary schools is that the
courses elected by students in an elective program fulfill
graduation requirements in English, whereas elected courses
in a traditional program are in addition to the English
courses specified as requirements for graduation for all
students.
While this difference remains a fundamental (and sub
stantial) one, in practice several other features have
gradually become associated with the elective program in
English, some to the extent of almost obligatory concomitance
The most important and prevalent of these additional features
are (1) shorter course lengths and (2) non-grading of courses
Length of Courses
The traditional program has usually offered three
required courses in English, each course thirty-six weeks
in duration, for students in each of grades ten through
twelve. Since thirty-six weeks (180 weekdays)^ is the
In the following discussion, week is construed to
mean five weekdays in a calendar week of school attendance
required by law. Year is construed to mean a school year,
thirty-six weeks in a calendar year of school attendance
required by law.
74


U1UU1
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C82
04
01
2.00
1.75
1.8
0
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C83
73
12
2.72
2.75
2.0
1
C84
01
01
1.23
1.00
2.4
1
C85
43
14
2.35
3.00
2.4
1
C86
97
61
3.91
4.00
2.8
1
C87
54
30
3.05
2.67
3.1
0
C88
37
15
2.26
2.50
3.0
0
C89
48
21
1.91
2.00
2.0
0
C90
39
05
2.61
3.33
1.6
1
C91
29
48
2.92
3.00
3.4
0

C92
06
32
2.90
3.00
2.2
0
C93
02
01
1.05
1.25
1.2
0
C94
07
08
2.27
2.75
1.0
0
183


80
Four courses (Sentences, Spelling and Vocabulary,
Literature, and Composition) are offered to tenth-grade
students and are required of all tenth-grade students,
although the sequence in which the courses are taken
varies .
In eleventh grade, students are required to take either
American Writings A and American Writings B or Everyday
English A and Everyday English B for two of the nine-week
quarters of the year. The remaining two quarters of English
credit may be earned from a choice of eleven courses.
Likewise, the twelfth-grade student in School A must
take one of the following pairs of English courses: English
Writings A and English Writings B or Everyday English C and
Everyday English D for two quarters of the year and earn
the two fourths of additional credit required for graduation
by choosing from among the remaining eleven courses.
The eleven courses, four of which must be elected by
each student, two in grade eleven and two in grade twelve/
are entitled: Research Paper, English Review, Developmental
Reading, Poetry, Basic Writing Skills, Media, Fiction,
College English, Practical Writing, Legends, and Creative
That is, unless a student opts, as he may, to take
both American Writings A and B and Everyday English A and B
in grade eleven, and/or English Writings A and B and Every
day English C and D in grade twelve.


139
As noted during discussion in previous chapters,
52 percent of the subjects in the sample are female
(MgsEx = -52) and 48 percent were in schools with elective
English programs (MpRTp = .48). The average subject's
grade point averages, both in all courses and in English
courses, were higher than 2.00, the midpoint of the range
between 0.00 and 4.00 = 2.63 and M = 2.65).
The average subject also scored close to the mean per
centile score of 50.0 on both the English Composition
Test (M = 50.59) and the Aptitude Test (M = 51.82),
U ALH oAr 1
although there was extensive variability in both sets of
scores = 29.15 and SDgApT = 29.35).
The average subject also attended a school with an
enrollment of approximately 2,400 (M = 4.91).
E O 1 L
The EFAC, EFAT, EFAS, and EFAL data in Table 18
reveal that the average English faculty member in the
four schools in the sample (1) held a master's degree
and was certified in English and/or a subject related
to English (MepAc = 2.51), (2) had been teaching for
approximately seven or eight years (MEFAT = 2-48)> had
taught at the subject's school for four or five years
(Mefas = 3.81), and (4) was teaching from 100 to 124 stu
dents in courses requiring three separate preparations
during the 1975-1976 school year (M = 3.00).
E r AL
The average school district (county) of the four in
the sample had a population, over 15 percent of whom were


77
grade levels of students enrolled in courses, these features
are not always mutually exclusive between kinds of programs.
Many schools in Florida which had for many years conducted
totally traditional programs in English had, by 1973,
introduced modifications into those programs, such as, for
example, a degree of non-grading of some courses. In some
cases, length of courses had been shortened for some or
even all English courses in some otherwise traditional
programs.
The characteristic of the traditional English program
in Florida which continued to distinguish it from the
elective program, despite other changes, was the specifi
cation of three years of English courses required in grades
ten through twelve for graduation. That is, no election of
English courses was permitted in order to satisfy graduation
requirements in English.
Even this last fully distinguishing characteristic,
however, has been modified somewhat. A few Florida schools,
with otherwise traditional English program structure, have
introduced a limited degree of choice of English courses
for seniors only, while maintaining the required specified
courses for all tenth- and eleventh-grade students. A few
other Florida schools have dropped the requirement of a


58
between each of these independent variables and the product
measure.
The final statistical procedure would be to conduct
3
an analysis of a series of multiple linear regression equations
to examine the extent to which independent variables are
associated with the product measure and to evaluate the
contributions of the independent variables to the prediction
of product measure variance. Such a procedure could be
anticipated to produce information on the extent of the
contribution of the target variable (English program structure)
singly and in concert with other selected variables.
The final set of variables hypothesized as associating
with English achievement numbered fifteen and related to
(1) size of school population, (2) characteristics of the
English faculty of the school, (3) educational and economic
4
characteristics of the school district (county) population,
(4) student characteristics, and (5) English program structure.'
This procedure (multiple linear regression) and the
analytical procedure are described more fully in Chapter VII.
4
In Florida, the county is the school district.
These variables were selected on the basis of sugges
tions from secondary English teachers, teaching interns
in secondary English, professors of English education,
and graduate studentsof English education; and from ideas
gleaned from research and position papers (some of which
are discussed in A Review of the Literature in Chapter I);
in addition to the practical considerations mentioned above.


Ill
the students in each program collectively approach the
statewide mean of 50.0 somewhat more closely, while the mean
aptitude score of the total sample, 51.8, is quite close to
the statewide mean percentile.
The standard deviation of the aptitude scores of the
total sample was 29.35, a possible indication of slightly
greater variability of scores than that of the scores of
all students who took the Aptitude Test in 1975.*
In respect to the se 1f-se 1ective factors of this student
sample, it would be reasonable to expect the mean aptitude
scores of students in all schools in the sample to be some
what higher than the statewide mean.
It will be recalled, in particular, that only students
in each school who had taken the battery of tests of the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program were included in the
sample. Participation in the testing program was voluntary
in each of the schools in the sample. (Participation was
not voluntary in all schools in the state. That is, al
though taking the FTGT was not mandated by law, many schools
required it of all their seniors.) In addition, one of
The standard deviation of 16.15 reported for the
78,453 scores on the Aptitude Test in 1975 was, of course,
computed from the raw scores, but it is reasonable to
assume a generally corresponding dispersion of both raw
scores and percentile scores.


7
A secondary purpose of the study, therefore, is to examine
and describe English programs in selected Florida high
schools, certain characteristics of students and teachers
involved in these programs, and certain characteristics
of the population of the districts in which the schools
are located.
The first objective, then, of this study is to ex
plore the nature and extent of the relationship between
the independent variable of English program structure
and the dependent variable of English achievement. A
second objective is to describe, examine, and compare
selected English programs, students, teachers, and school
districts in Florida.
A Review of the Literature
An initial review of the recent (i.e., of the past two
decades) professional writings dealing with any aspect
of secondary English education soon leads to an impression
that, although the quantity of such literature is volu
minous, it is uneven in its quality. This imbalance is
most marked in respect to kind; that is, while there
exist reams of journal articles, books, and theses which
describe, explore, report, propose, speculate, survey
and/or informally evaluate trends, theories, programs,
instruction, curriculum, student perceptions and attitudes,
teacher perceptions and attitudes, materials, philosophy,
student needs--any possible aspect of secondary English


102
It will be recalled that one of the bases of selection
of the four sample schools for this study, in order to pro
vide variation in as many variables as possible, was
school size (population). That is, Schools A and B were
selected as sample schools with traditional programs in
English partly on the basis that School A is small (student
population: 882), while School B is large (student popula
tion: 2,307). Correspondingly, the selection of Schools C
and D with elective programs in English was partly based
on their sizes: Schools C's student population was 787 and
School D's, 3,200.
It is interesting, then, to discover an almost one-to-
one correspondence between rank orders of school sizes
(populations) and district sizes (populations), as shown
in Table 7, especially in view of the fact that none of
the schools is either the largest or the smallest in its
district. District size was not, however, employed as a
variable in the analysis reported later in this study.
Table 7
RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOL SIZE AND DISTRICT SIZE
School
School Size
District Size
D
1
1
B
2
2
A
3
4
C
4
3


132
The computations and analyses reported in this chapter
are based on the data pertaining to the 495 subjects
described in previous chapters. These subjects were the
senior students from School A (n = 42), School B (n = 215),
School C (n = 78), and School D (n = 160) for whom data
were available on all fifteen independent variables
hypothesized to be associated with achievement in English.
The 495 subjects are treated as a single group in
the analyses reported in this chapter. The raw data
recorded or computed for each subject are listed in
Appendix F.
The report of the analysis in this chapter proceeds
as follows:
first, the assignment of alphabetic symbols to all
sixteen variables (the fifteen independent variables and
the one dependent variable) for identification, as well
as the classification of the independent variables in
sets;
second, the determination of values for each variable
for each subject;
third, a computation of the means and standard devi
ations of the sixteen variables;
fourth, a computation of the correlations between
and among the sixteen variables;
fifth, an explanation of the analytical procedure;
sixth, a computation of ordered series of multiple


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A38
31
50
2.85
2.40
2.4
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A39
93
92
3.16
3.17
3.2
0
A40
68
26
2.74
2.40
2.6
1
A41
59
38
2.94
2.60
1.6
0
A42
79
75
2.69
2.60
2.4
0
179


53
and degrees held by teachers) to academic achievement as
measured by county mean scores on the Florida Twe1fth-Grade
Testing Program. Step-wise multiple regression correlations
were computed and analyzed for significance, using coeffi
cients of multiple correlation.
The major findings of Moore's study of interest to the
present investigation are the following:
(1) The institutional characteristic which
was associated with the greatest percentage of
variation in test scores was the size of the school.
It was a positive correlation.
(2) Library expenditures were positively and
significantly related to test score results on all
six sections of the test.
(3) The ratio of men to women teachers in grades
7-12 was significant on every section of the text
Cs ic > except the mathematics portion and was
positively correlated .
(4) . student to teacher ratio and per
cent of teachers having a Master's degree were not
significantly related to scores on any section of
the test.
(5) The percent of non-white population was
significantly and negatively correlated with
scores in all areas of the test.
(6) . the percent of persons having less than
five years schooling was significantly related to
scores on the test and had a negative correlation with
test scores.
(7) . median school years of the population
. . was positively related to output.
114
Moore, p. 102.


30
superintendent of schools in New Hartford, Connecticut.
They found increased student and teacher enthusiasm,
improved morale of both students and teachers, fewer
discipline problems, and a generally more creative atmos-
6 2
phere as results of an elective English program.
Ann Jaekl reported "increased awareness of what
English has to offer themfthe students}, improved grades,
6 3
and student delight in the frequent change. Max Klang
felt that, among others of its advantages, the elective
program fostered student and parent interest, enhanced
motivation, and allowed the teacher greater opportunity
64
to fulfill definable goals. Jack E. Smith, Jr.,
curriculum coordinator of English in Hickory Township
High School, Sharon, Pennsylvania, observed that, after
one year of operation of an elective program in English,
students liked the new curriculum, teachers were more
innovative, and there was "no difference" in either
final grades or standard test performances.^
George L. Williams, chairman of the English Department
at Weber Junior High School, Port Washington, New York,
6 2
Morton and DeiDolori, pp. 954-55.
^Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity," p. 226.
64
Klang, pp. 506, 515.
65Smith, pp. 230, 235.


116
The data in Table 14 reveal that D averages (0.50 1.49)
in all courses (GPA) were earned by 9.5 percent of the
students in School A, 5.6 percent of the students in School
B, 10.3 percent of the students in School C, and only 1.9
percent of the students in School D. These differences
might be expected, in view of the much higher mean aptitude
score of the students in School D (69.9 percentile) and
much lower mean aptitude score of the students in School C
3
(25.1 percentile).
Correspondingly, 14.3 percent of the students in
School A attained D averages in English courses (GPE), 9.8
percent of those in School B, 12.8 percent in School C,
and only 1.3 percent in School D.
Interestingly, however, in spite of the very low
mean aptitude score of the students in School C, 89.7
percent of those students attained a GPA of C or higher
(1.50 4.0) and 87.2 percent, a GPE of C or higher.
Whether this is attributable to less stringent grading
standards of the faculty in School C, a high proportion
of genuine overachievers in the student sample of School
C, or other factors is uncertain.
The data in Table 14 indicate also that the mean GPA
and the mean GPE of the students in Schools A, B, and C
differ slightly from each other, while both the mean
^See Table 13.


22
to be the best way to achieve this goal. Graves mentions
two of the reasons for the failure of the unit method to
gain widespread acceptance: (1) the excessive complexity
of its organizational and administrative procedures and
(2) the fact that "English teachers themselves do not
33
learn their subject by the unit method." Elective
programs evolved therefore as a more effective and more
acceptable means of individualizing instruction, accord
ing to Graves.
In effect, the direct relationship between goals and
objectives in English instruction has been noted by many.
In his overview of the development of the goals and
objectives of English teaching from the pre-Civil War
34
period to the early seventies, Samuel Kelly indicates
that, as the goals changed, so did the programs and
methods. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the emphasis on
fundamental, academic, disciplinary objectives and on
more objectivity in assessment resulted in attempts to
3 5
teach English as a structured discipline. The return,
in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, to the emphasis on
social and personalistic (cognitive and affective) goals'^
33.,
Ibid.
34
Samuel P. Kelly, "Goals and Objectives for the
Teaching of English," English Education, 4 (Fall 1972),
16-26.
35Ibid., p. 23.
3 6
Kelly describes the goals of the 1920s and 1930s
in similar terms.


19
Most interesting to this writer is Small's third
reason, the provision of a sound method of grouping
students on the basis of common interests. The schools
reported by Hillocks state as their fourth reason that
an elective program can meet the interest of students.
Small implies that theyd_o; he relates this advantage
of elective programs to the historical educational
(schooling) problem of grouping for instruction and
argues reasonably (although without supporting evidence)
against the use of other, heretofore employed factors
2 7
of grouping: age, sex, ability, and achievement.
Small thus for the most part provides an informal
theoretical and philosophical basis for English elective
programs in his article. In addition, as mentioned pre
viously, he does cite some actual examples, some prac
tical experience, and some pragmatic solutions to problems
The article's greatest lack is a discussion of evala
tion. No evaluation of any kind, formal or informal, is
mentioned.
27
Interestingly, as a result of her study of the
problem of grouping in English, Susie Ann Boyce recom
mended that "planning for curriculum and for grouping must
proceed simultaneously . and combine into a course
of study the goals of English, including the needs of
students, the components of content, and the means by
which students are grouped." Susie Ann Blackburn Boyce,
"A Study of Grouping for Secondary English Education
C Ab stract}, Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII,
No.11A (1971), 6284.


49
to the extent that individual courses fail to
provide means of differentiating instruction,
they make the same error as the traditional programs.
Other weaknesses in traditional programs have
been carried over directly to elective programs:
weaknesses in the rationale for course offerings,
in the approaches to language, composition, and
literature, and in course design.
In respect to the last-mentioned of these weaknesses,
that in course design, Hillocks specifically notes that
(1) content is vague, "global," or "ridiculously narrow,"
(2) objectives are often vague, (3) means to evaluate
instruction are lacking, and (4) there is great frag-
, 106
mentation of subject matter.
Stephen N. Judy, too, commented on the fragmentation
usually implicit in English electives, as well as "indi
rection leading to proliferation of unrelated courses,
justified (or rationalized) as giving students a 'choice.'"
Research on Factors of English Achievement
Of the numerous studies dealing with various aspects
of cognitive growth and achievement in English, this writer
105
106
107,
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 120.
Ibid., p. 121.
Stephen N. Judy, Explorations in the Teaching of
Secondary English: A Source Book for Experimental Teaching
(New York: Dodd, Mead § Company, 1974), p. 154.
107


96
For purposes of tabulation, the following numerals are used
in Table 5 to indicate areas of certification (responses
to Item 7):
1- if certified in English and in any other
subject or subjects
2- if certified in English only
3- if certified in a subject or subjects
related to English (e.g., drama, journalism,
reading, speech), but not in English
4- if certified in a subject or subjects not
related to English and not certified in
English or a related subject or subjects
5- if not certified.
Table 5 indicates the results of the English teacher
certification survey for each school. In no school was
there a teacher of English with no degree. School A
had one specialist and no doctor; School B, one doctor
and no specialist; Schools C and D, no doctors or spe
cialists.
Predictably, 50 percent or more of the teachers in
each school held bachelor's degrees only: 50 percent in
School A, 55 percent in School B, 83.3 percent in School
C, and 54.5 percent in School D, the highest proportion
of bachelor's degrees occurring in School C (five of
six teachers).
The lowest ratio of masters to bachelors also
occurred in School C, with but one of six teachers holding
a master's degree (16.7 percent). On the same scale,
School A had 42.9 percent masters of the seven teachers


4
in each of these areas of communication for each student
during grades ten through twelve is still viewed as a
long-range goal of the total elective English program,
even as it usually has been of the traditional.
Need for the Study
The chief difference between traditional and elective
English programs has been, then, not so much a matter of
changed long-range cognitive objectives, as one of changed
organizational structure. That is to say that the antici
pated outcomes of three years of English instruction have
remained much the same in respect to "coverage" and domains
of knowledge; the packages in which the instruction is
wrapped have been altered. They have been partitioned,
decreased in size, increased in number, and had the total
contents subdivided among them. School after school
which has developed an elective English program lists
the broad goals of the total program in terms of the
same domains of literature and reading skills, knowledge
of language and skills or oral expression, and writing
skills that schools with traditional programs have.
Systematic evaluation of the elective programs in
terms of the cognitive goals has, however, been lacking,
especially in comparisons with evaluations of traditional
programs with the same goals.
In most cases, schools have reorganized their
English offerings into an elective structure as a result


73
The multiple regression analysis model seemed
particularly appropriate to this study because it
provides an estimate of the proportion of . .
[product measure 1 variance attributable to the
entire group of independent variables (the complete
prediction system) as well as any individual (single)
variable . from the group.
These data can be used, in conjunction with
the F test, to derive further information concerning
the association between a given variable and the
. .{dependent variable}.22
2 2
Donald Groover Aten, A Study of Two Teacher Education
Programs and an Analysis of the Association Between Antecedent
Variables and Product Measures, Ed. D. Dissertation (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969), pp. 200-01 .
The investigator is indebted here and generally throughout
this report to Aten for the use of his dissertation as a
guide to the format for reporting this kind of analysis.


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B495 08 34 2.73 2.40 3.2 0 5 2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4 6 12.2 0
215


otinuui
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D199
35
48
1.59
1.50
3.8
0
7
2,52
2.00
3,27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D200
86
73
2.58
2.75
2.6
1
D201
77
75
2.61
3.00
3.4
0
D202
35
42
2.21
2.63
2.0
1
D203
31
57
3.00
3.00
3.6
0
D204
81
90
2.82
2.83
2.6
1
D205
99
99
4.00
4.00
3.4
0
D206
79
91
3.90
3.83
2.8
1
D207
68
73
3.31
3.00
2.6
0
D208
54
88
3.23
3.20
3.8
0
D209
41
50
2.04
1.60
3.6
0
D210
94
57
3.53
3.00
1.2
1
D211
79
73
3.22
3.00
2.4
1
192


104
as the percentages of the population they represent in
each district, are tabulated in Table 9.
Table 9
POPULATION WITH FEWER THAN FIVE YEARS SCHOOLING
District
Total Population
Under
Five Years' Schooling
Number
* Percentage*
Rank*
A
32,059
921
2.9
3
B
348,753
11,943
3.4
2
C
36,290
1,960
5.4
1
D
522,329
12,422
2.4
4
*taken from the 1970 Census of Population, pp. 154,
481, 485
+computed for this study
District C is the district with the highest percen
tage of persons twenty-five years of age or more with
under five years of schooling completed. A comparison
of Tables 8 and 9 will reveal that the ranked order of
the districts is identical for both the percentage of
non-white persons and the percentage of persons with
fewer than five years of schooling.
School Years Completed
The number of school years completed by persons
twenty-five years of age or more in each school district


144
While the direction of the correlation (-.08) between
the variable of English faculty load (EFAL) and DACH is
negative as expected, its statistical non-significance is
not expected.
Only two of the independent variables (EFAC and EMFI)
show zero correlation (no discernible relation) with the
dependent variable of English achievement.
In the case of the variable of student attitude toward
English (SATT), the correlation coefficient of .12 is
rather surprising, both in its direction and its statis
tical non-significance. (As with EFAT and EFAS, the values
of SATT are reversed, 1 representing the most positive
attitude and 5, the least positive.)
The fifteen independent variables also reflect rather
extensive intercorrelation.^ Twelve of the independent
variables (SAPT, SGPA, SGPE, SSIZ, EFAT, EFAS, EFAL,
ENWP, EUFY, EMFI, EMSY, PRTE) correlate significantly with
The effect of this intercorrelation of independent
variables on the analysis of multiple regression is to
make interpretation more difficult. According to Ker-
linger: "The ideal predictive situation is when the
correlations between the independent variables and the
dependent variable are high, and the correlations among
the independent variables are low. . The more the
independent variables are intercorre 1 ated, the more
difficult the interpretation." His "most satisfactory"
solution to this interpretation problem, however, the
calculation of "squared semipartial correlations" or
unique contributions, proved impossible in this study,
as explained in footnote 11 of this chapter. Fred N.
Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 622-24.


133
linear regression equations in a stepwise manner and
analysis of each series of multiple regressions for the
purpose of determining the extent of association between
certain independent variables and the dependent variable
and between sets of independent variables and the depen
dent variable.
Symbolization and Set Classification of the Variables
In order to facilitate identification of variables,
reference to variables, and reading of the ensuing analysis,
each variable has been assigned an alphabetic symbol con
sisting of four upper-case letters, the first of which
designates the category (set) in which the variable has
been classified, the other three of which relate to its
designation, except in the case of the symbol for the
dependent variable (in which all four letters are desig-
native).
Thus, the dependent variable of English achievement,
for which a score on the English Composition Test of the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program has been used as a
measure, has been symbolized DACH.
The independent variables have been categorized and
symbolized as in the following list. The £tudent (subject)
independent variables include:
(1) academic aptitude (SAPT)
(2) grade point average for all courses (SGPA)
(3) jjrade point average for English courses (SGPE)


107
Summary
In summary, then, comparison of four measures of
the population of the school districts in which the
four sample schools are located reveals that (1) the
population of District C contains the highest proportion
of non-white persons, (2) the population of District C
contains the highest proportion of persons twenty-five
or more years of age who completed under five years of
schooling, (3) the median number of school years com
pleted by the population of a district is least in
District C, and (4) the median annual family income of
a districts population is lowest in District C.


168
grams (that they improve student attitudes toward English,
provide greater heterogeneity of activities and materials,
encourage more student participation in English courses,
better meet the needs and interests of students, and permit
desirable specialization by teachers), could be interpreted
as implying an overall advantage of the elective program over
the traditional. The reasoning would proceed as follows:
if there are so many benefits to be derived from an elective
program, i^f there are no disadvantages to an elective pro
gram, and i_f the program structure makes no difference in
learning, then an elective program is preferable.
The logic inherent in such reasoning contains no
fallacies. The difficulty, of course, lies in the "truth"
of the conditions. While a few of the assumptions about
elective programs listed above have been objectively
verified to some degree, most have not, to any degree.
Clearly, further research is needed to examine the relation
ships between elective programs in English and 1) needs,
interests, attitudes, and goals of students, 2) benefits
to teachers, 3) administrative requirements, 4) costs,
5) curricular goals and objectives, 6) curricular and
instructional theory, and 7) classroom atmosphere and
dynamics -- to name the most important.
The findings and conclusions of this study also
indicate a need for further research into the question of
elective programs and their influence on learning in English.


39
Perhaps not surprisingly, the percentage of extreme
positive responses of the Trenton students to the three
traditional aspects of English study decreased from 1967
to 1969: reading literature, from 63.6 percent to 51.8
percent; writing compositions, from 29.7 percent to
29.1 percent; and grammar, from 10.9 percent to 7.4 percent.
During the same period the percentage of extreme positive
responses to the study of English in general, however, rose
84
from 29.3 percent to 38.6 percent.
Joan Gibbons, however, from her study of "attitudes
and performance" of students in elective English programs,
found that "no significant difference in attitude existed
between the traditional and the al1-electives programs," but
also concluded that "positive attitudes toward English result
8 5
in superior learning and superior student performance."
A total of two hundred forty-three senior students were
randomly selected by Gibbons from high schools offering
three different types of English program structure: a tra
ditional, an al1-e1ectives, and an "elective requiring
linguistic diagnosis and remediation prior to entrance into
electives." Attitudes were measured on Remmers Attitude
Toward Any School Subject Scale, and performance, by
84 lb id., pp. 112, 114.
8 5
Joan Mary Gibbons, "A Study of Attitudes and Perform
ance of High School Students Enrolled in Elective English
Programs -C Abstract > ," Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIII, No. 12A (1973), 2742.


90
The total number of years taught by each teacher
(Item 1} was indicated in one of six quantified categories:
one year, two or three years, four or five years, six or
seven years,eight through ten years, or more than ten years.
As indicated in Table 3, in no school was a first-
year teacher engaged in the teaching of English. School B
had the highest proportionate number of teachers with only
two or three years of experience, seven of twenty teachers
(35 percent), compared with School A (12.5 percent), School
C (16.7 percent), and School D (0 percent). School D had
the highest proportionate number of teachers with eleven
or more years of experience, fourteen of twenty-two tea
chers (63.7 percent), compared with School A (25 percent),
School 3 (25 percent), and School C (50 percent).
Table 3
ENGLISH FACULTY EXPERIENCE
School
Total
Years
Teaching
Number
of
Years,
School
1
2-3
4-5 6-
7 S-
10 11 +
1
2-3
4-5
6-7 8-
10 11 +
A
0
1
2 1
2
2
1
1
3
3 0
0
4-1
B
O
u
0
7
5 2
1
5
5
10
2
2 0
1
5h
0
C
0
Jm
O
0
1
0 1
1
3
0
3
1
2 0
0
6
aJ
3
0
D
Z
8-
0
0
5 2
1
14
0
5
8
1 4
4


UV^IIUU X
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C69
31
15
2.78
3.25
2.8
1
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C70
59
15
3.50
3.50
1.6
1
C71
92
93
3.09
3.25
2.8
0
C72
24
17
2.28
3.50
1.2
1
C73
01
13
1.77
2.20
3.6
0
C74
09
01
2.00
1.33
1.6
0
C75
25
21
2.43
1.75
2.8
0
C76
07
02
2.32
3.00
2.2
1
C77
29
15
3.14
1.60
3.6
0
C78
43
40
2.65
2.50
2.4
1
C79
77
30
2.47
3.40
1.6
0
C80
43
57
2.38
3.40
2.8
0
C81
33
36
2.58
2.75
2.6
1
182


221
McCormic, Kenneth R., and C. Louis Kaupp. "An Elective
English Program for the Non-College Bound." English
Journal, 61 (February 1972), 277-80.
McCormick, Paul Joseph. "A Comparison of Achievement in
English of Eleventh- and Twelfth-Grade Students in an
Elective Program with Those in a Traditional Program
{Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIV, No. 09A (1973), 5535.
Miller, Richard F. "Increasing Curricular Change Through
Project Organization {Abstract!-. Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXI, No. 10 (1970), 5087.
Mood, Alexander M. "Partitioning Variance in Multiple
Regression Analysis as a Tool for Developing Learning
Models." American Educational Research Journal, 8
(1971), 191-202.
Moore, Richard Marvin. "Selected Community and Institutional
Characteristics of Florida Publis Schools Related to Twelfth
Grade Test Scores { Abstract Dissertation Abstracts,
XXX, No. 01A (1968), 102.
Morton, Thomas H., and Mario DeiDolori. "An Electives
Program in a Small High School? It Works!" English
Journal, 60 (October 1971), 952-56.
Myers, Franklin G. "A Plan for All Seasons: Independent
Study in an English Electives Program." English Journal,
59 (February 1970), 244-53.
1970 Census of the Population. Vol. 1 (Characteristics of
the Population). Part 11 (Florida). Issued April 1973.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economics
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Wash
ington, D. C.
Nushy, John Michael. "A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation
of Student Achievement and Attitude in a Secondary Elective
and Conventional English Program {Abstract]-." Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXV, No. 06A (1974), 3399.
Nystrand, Philip Martin. "A Philosophical Analysis of the
Question 'What Is English?' {Abstract!-." Dissertation
Abstracts International,XXXV, No. 11A (1974), 5384.
Overton, Harry. "Eleventh Grade Electives." English Journal,
44 (April 1955), 211-14.
Parker, Robert Prescott. "The 'New English' in England and
America: 1958-1968 {Abstract!-." Dissertation Abstracts,
XXIX, No. 11 (1968), 3899.


I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
ore W. Hippie, Chairman ,7 //
Professor of Subject Specialisation
Teacher Education
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Phil
E. J. Beldue
Professor of Subject Specialization
Teacher Education
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertqt^3n for /:h¡
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


81
Writing. These eleven courses are open to enrollment by
both eleventh- and twe1fth-grade students.
The English program in School A is traditional in
structure in terms of the criteria established in the pre
ceding section. It can be seen in Table 2 that course
length (Criterion #1) is the only criterion satisfied in
order for the program to qualify as elective. The number
on non-graded courses, eleven, is less than half the number
of courses offered for English graduation credit, twenty-
three (Criterion #2); two-thirds of the courses required
for all students are specified (Criterion #3); and the
number of courses (credits) offered for English graduation
credit, twenty-three, is less than twice the number of
credits required for graduation, twelve (Criterion #4).
School B
All English courses in School B are thirty-six-week
courses for one credit each. Three years of English credit
are required in grades ten through twelve for graduation.
There are four courses offered to students in each of
three grades, ten through twelve; students do not, however,
choose among these courses, since the students are grouped
on the basis of verbal ability and assigned to the course
designed for their level of aptitude. Students are
required to take one of these courses each year in grades
ten through twelve.


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B469
50
42
2.24
2.33
2.4
1
5
2.55 2.9Q 4.75 2.83 17,9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B470
63
80
3.04
3.00
2.8
0
B471
33
63
2.92
2.25
1.8
0
B472
95
97
3.81
4.00
1.6
1
B473
17
11
2.42
2.71
2.6
1
B474
45
52
2.45
2.50
1.8
1
B475
09
21
1.33
1.40
2.8
1
B476
66
65
3.07
2.60
3.0
1
B477
31
03
1.17
1.86
2.2
1
B478
41
22
2.70
2.00
3.0
1
B479
24
24
1.31
1.00
1.8
1
B480
57
12
2.86
3.56
2.6
1
B481
37
63
1.34
1.20
1.6
0
213


23
brought about changes in instructional method and programs,
one of which is the elective program.3'
Yet, even during the fifties, the period of the
"academic," "post-Sputnik" approach to English study as
a discipline, there were individual voices like Stanley
3 8
Cooks raised to express objections. Cook had students,
parents, and teachers of English in Grosse Pointe {'Michigan).
High School, as well as freshmen college students of Eng
lish who were graduated from that high school and their tea
chers, rank the degree to which fifty aims (taken from
actual courses and professional literature) were the
"proper business" of a high school English program. One
of the interesting conclusions drawn by Cook from the study
is that the immediate needs of the students themselves
seem to be a more valid criterion for course planning than
anything else. 3^
Whatever the forces that worked to bring about the
elective programs in English throughout the nation, they
appeared and grew -- in number and in diversity. While
the first mention in print of such a program was that by
37Kelly, p. 25.
3 8
Stanley Snider Cook, "A Comparative Study of Aims
Held by Parents, Students, and Teachers for an English
Program in a Suburban High School {Abstract} ," Dissertation
Abstracts, XV, No. 9 (1955), 1570.
39
Ibid.


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
ELJFY
EMFI EMSY
PRTE
B443
12
03
2.60
2.00
2.4
0
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2,83
17.9
3.4
6 12.2
0
B444
89
95
3.59
3.89
1.6
0
B445
12
17
2.22
2.13
1.6
0
B446
75
96
2.87
2.60
3.8
0
B447
17
34
1.58
1.50
3.0
0
B448
37
36
2.69
2.00
2.2
0
B449
35
86
2.11
2.29
2.4
0
B450
92
89
3.59
4.00
2.6
0
B451
02
15
1.69
1.60
2.2
0
B452
41
73
2.79
3.43
2.0
0
B453
10
07
1.80
2.60
1.6
0
B454
13
52
2.25
1.40
3.0
0
B455
85
77
3.46
3.67
1.4
0
211


125
The mean ACH (50.6) of the total sample was only
0.6 more than the statewide mean of 50.0, indicating
representativeness of the total student sample in res
pect to the variable of English achievement.
The standard deviation of the ACH's of the total
sample was 29.15, a possible indication of slightly
greater variability of scores than that of the scores of
all students who took the English Composition Test in
1975.8
The standard deviation of 15.44 reported for the
78,453 scores on the English Composition Test in 1975 was
of course, computed from the raw scores, but it is reason
able to assume a generally corresponding dispersion of
both raw scores and percentile scores.


97
holding either a master's or a bachelor's degree; School B,
42.1 percent; and School D, 45.5 percent.
The total number of teachers holding master's degrees
in traditional Schools A and B as a group (eleven of twenty-
eight teachers), however, is exactly the same as the number
of teachers holding master's degrees in elective Schools C
and D jointly (eleven of twenty-eight teachers'!, 39 percent
in both cases.
Table 5
ENGLISH FACULTY CERTIFICATION
School Degree Teachers
No. %
Area of Teachers
Certification No. %
A Doctor 0
Specialist 1 12.5
Master 3 37.5
Bachelor 4 50
None 0
1 6 75
2 2 25
3 0
4 0
5 0
B Doctor 1 5
Specialist 0
Master 8 40
Bachelor 11 55
None 0
1 10 50
2 8 40
3 1 5
4 1 5
5 0
C Doctor 0
Specialist 0
Master 1
Bachelor 5 83.3
None 0
1 5 83.3
2 1 16.7
3 0
4 0
5 0
D Doctor 0
Specialist 0
Master 10 45.5
Bachelor 12 54.5
None 0
1 1150
2 1150
3 0
4 0
5 0


8
education--there is a relative dearth of systematic, basic
research in the field.
That so little systematic evaluation of variables
in secondary English education has been performed is not,
however, surprising. All educational research has been
inhibited by the difficulties in identifying independent
and orthogonal variables and developing meaningful units
of measurement of these variables; thus little has been
attempted. An additional reason, perhaps, for the
appearance of so much subjective, non-experimental writ
ing in English education particularly might be that the
English professional, especially the teacher of English
on the secondary or post-secondary level, seems, more
than any other educator, to view himself, consciously
or not, as a "creative" author rather than as a scien
tific writer, and much of the writing in English edu
cation has been produced by teachers of English rather
than by specialists in English education or experimental
researchers.
Unfortunately, the unevenness of quality in the
literature also exists in its degree of excellence,
whether it is of the subjective, informal type or the
objective and formal. Some of the former are too incon
sistent and too little informative to be useful, and some
of the latter are too flawed in design and selection to
be useful.


151
Analysis of the Regression Series
The data in Table 20 reveal that in none of the three
series of computations of multiple regression equations was
the complete prediction system (the complete set of fifteen
independent variables) added to the equation, regardless of
the order of entry of the subsets (student, environment, and
program). In each of the series, the F level proved
insufficient for further computation after eight or nine of
the fifteen variables had been entered into the equation.
(The criterion F level for entry into the equation, it will
be recalled, was .01.)
In the S E P series, nine variables were entered
before computation ceased: the full set of five student (S)
variables and four of the environmental (E) variables (EFAL,
EFAS, ESIZ, and EFAT, in that order). These nine variables
in concert account for at least 74.18 percent of the variance
of the dependent variable of English achievement (DACH).
In the E P S series, eight variables were entered
before computation ceased: three environmental variables
(ENWP, ESIZ, and EFAC, in that order), and again the full
set of five student variables. These eight variables are
associated with, again, 74.18 percent of the product measure
(DACH) variance, in spite of the facts that (1) two of these
E variables (EFAC and ENWP) are ones that were not included


146
The program employed was the BMD02R component of the
Biomedical Computer Programs developed by the Health Sciences
Computing Facility, University of California at Los Angeles:
This program computes a series of multi
ple linear regression equations in a
stepwise manner. At each step one variable
is added to the regression equation. The
variable added is the one which makes
the greatest reduction in the error sum
of squares. Equivalently it is the
variable which has the highest partial
correlation with the dependent variable
partialed on the variables which have
already been added; and equivalently it
is the variable which, if it were added,
would have the highest F value. In
addition, variables can be forced into
the regression equation.
g
The criterion F level for entry into the equation was .01.
The computer was made available by the University of
Florida Northeast Regional Data Center, Gainesville, Florida.
Three series of multiple regression equations were com
puted with the data, each series forcing sets of variables
into the equation in a different order of entry. The first
regression series entered the student (S) set first, the
environmental (E) set second, and the program (P) set third.
The second series gave initial priority to the environmental
set, then forced entry of the program set into the equation,
followed by the student set. The third series entered the
program set first, then the student set, then the environmental
W. Dixon, ed., BMP: Biomedical Computer Programs
Berkeley, California: University of California Press,
1970), p. 305.
g
Ibid., p. 309.


158
Summary
In this chapter the focus has been on the analysis of
the association between the fifteen independent variables
described in previous chapters and the dependent variable
described in previous chapters. This analysis was performed
in an attempt to achieve the primary objective of this study:
to analyze the nature and extent of the relationship between
the independent variable of English program structure and the
dependent variable of English achievement.
The data employed in the analysis are those pertaining to
the 495 subjects described in previous chapters from four
high schools in Florida.
Each of the sixteen variables (fifteen independent and
one dependent) was assigned an alphabetic symbol to ease
identification and reference. In order to isolate the program
variable for analysis, the fifteen independent variables
were categorized into three sets:
(1) student set the five variables of academic aptitude,
grade point average for all courses, grade point average for
English courses, attitude toward English, and sex -
(2) environmental set the nine institutional and dis
trict variables external to the student: school size, Eng
lish faculty average certification, English faculty average
number of years in teaching, English faculty average number
of years at the school, English faculty average teaching load,
percentage of non-white persons in the district population,


41
than did boys. Positive correlations existed
between achievement in literature and attitude
toward literature and writing, and between
literary achievement and attitudes toward
literature and writing. . Students in an
all-elective English program perform as well in
language and in literature as do students in a
traditional. . Program organization has
little to do with sgg differences in attitude
toward English. . .
A similar study was reported the following year by
89
John Nushy. Both Nushy and Gibbons used posttest-only
research to analyze differences in achievement and in
attitude of senior students in differing English programs.
Both used standardized tests as measuring instruments.
Nushy's study differed from Gibbons', however, in
several respects:
(1) The sample was larger--581 students.
(2) All students in the sample had participated in
their respective programs for three years.
(3) Only two program structures were involved in
the study--traditional and elective.
(4) Achievement in English was defined as four
variables: vocabulary, reading, effectiveness of
expression, and mechanics of expression.
(5) The statistical procedure employed was analysis
of covariance, using scores from the Lorge-Thorndike
88
Ibid.
John Michael Nushy, "A Comparative Analysis and
Evaluation of Student Achievement and Attitude in a
Secondary Elective and Conventional English Program
[Abstract}" Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV,
No. 06A (1974), 3399.


CilUUl
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B351
96
90
3.60
3.60
2.2
1
5
2,55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3,4
6
12.2
Q
B352
93
85
3.13
2.60
2.6
1
B353
39
26
2.06
2.00
1.8
1
B354
61
61
2.44
3.00
1.2
1
B355
12
22
1.81
2.20
2.8
1
B356
94
78
3.38
3.67
3.0
1
B357
81
85
2.78
2.20
2.2
0
B358
89
90
3.57
3.50
3.4
0
B359
22
71
2.55
2.20
2.6
0
B360
17
30
2.00
1.40
1.8
0
B361
99
99
3.63
4.00
2.2
0
B362
06
07
1.76
1.20
4.0
0
B363
45
94
3.37
3.17
3.2
0
B364
24
75 2.17 1.60 2.6
0
204


98
None of the teachers in any of the four schools was
uncertified. Only School B, with a traditional English
program, had teachers of English courses who were not
certified in English (two of twenty). School C, with
an elective program, had the highest proportionate number
of teachers certified in English and at least one other
subject area, 83.3 percent.
Generally, the certification of the teachers of
English in the schools taken in program pairs is relatively
comparable in respect to certification in English: 92.9
percent of the teachers in Schools A and B were certified
in English and 100 percent of the teachers in Schools
C and D were certified in English.
In summary, then, slightly more teachers of English
in the sample schools with traditional English programs
had earned higher degrees than teachers of English in
the sample schools with elective English programs, while
slightly more teachers of English in the sample schools
with elective programs held certification in English and/or
in English and at least one other subject area than teachers
of English in the sample schools with traditional English
programs.
Summary
Teachers of English in the sample schools with
elective programs in English were more experienced generally
and had instructed at the school longer than teachers of


79
(3) The program specifies no more than 50 percent of
the courses required for all students in which to earn
English credit for graduation. For example, if courses
are eighteen weeks in length for one-half credit each,
and three credits in grades ten through twelve must be
earned to graduate, then no more than three courses
(one and one-half credits) may be specified as required
of all students for the program to qualify as elective.
(4) The total number of English credits offered for
graduation credit is at least three times as many as the
number of English credits required for graduation.
Criterion #4 is included to insure a substantial measure
of true variety of choice to qualify a program as elective.
Any program not meeting all four of the criteria is
designated traditional for this study.
A summary of the criterion characteristics of the four
sample schools in this study is offered in Table 2 at the
end of this chapter.
Structures of Programs in This Study
The programs of all schools are described as they were
in operation during the 1975-1976 school year and had been
in operation for at least two years preceding the 1975-1976
school year.
School A
In School A, all courses last for nine weeks and offer
one-fourth credit each. Three years of English (12/4 credits)
in grades ten through twelve are required for graduation.


135
in this study and since the order of entry of variables
into the multiple regression equation affects the deter-
2
mination of the proportion of variance accounted for,
a more meaningful analysis can be made if the other inde
pendent variables (other than the program variable) are
3
not considered singly, but in sets.
Values Represented by Each Variable
Values for the variables were determined in order
to quantify the data for computation. The methods used
to determine values for the variables are explained in
this section.
DACH/SAPT The percentile rank of the subject's
scores on the English Composition Test and the Aptitude
Test, respectively, of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing
Program in the fall of 1975.
SGPA/SGPE The average grade point earned by the
subject in all courses completed from the fall of 1973
through January 1976 and the average grade point earned
by the subject in courses offered by the English Depart
ment and completed from the fall of 1973 through January
1976 (range: 0.00 through 4.00).
This effect of order in the regression is further
explained later in this chapter.
In addition, the number of possible orders of entry
of fifteen independent variables, entered singly, fifteen
in each equation, would be more than one trillion (P =
n! > the number of permutations of n things taken rat
(n-r)!
a time), a humanly impossible task!


46
In sum, the meager amount of objective, systematic,
and/or experimental research that has been undertaken on
long-term English elective programs has contributed little
to our understanding of the effects of such programs on
achievement in English in cognitive areas. There appear to
be strong indications of improved student attitudes toward
English and English classes, as well as mild indications of
concomitant increases in quantity and variety of instructional
methods, materials, and classroom activities.
Yet the relationship of elective programs to cognitive
learning remains somewhat of a mystery, in spite of opinions
like this of Graves: "Although there is not enough hard data
to state unequivocally that students learn more in an elec
tive curriculum than they do in other approaches, there are
9 8
many indications that such is true." The "indications"
Graves offers in support of this conclusion are improved
student attitudes, the frequent election by students of more
than the required number of courses, "the apparent satisfaction
of the teachers involved, {and} the widespread acceptance of
the rationale of the elective curriculum,"--hardly relevant
measures of "more" learning! (Indeed, Graves confounds the
argument even further by concluding his paragraph with the
statement that the "indications" listed above "all. .point
to an improvement in the qua 1 i t y {Italics added!- of 1 earning.")
98
Graves, p. 200.


63
for at least three years could qualify as valid products
of the program.
The student sample was further refined by the elimi
nation of all seniors who had not taken the battery of tests
in the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in the fall of
1975 or who had not at least taken the English Composition
Test and the Aptitude Test of that battery at that time.
This limitation was required by the fact that scores on the
English Composition Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade
Testing Program were used as the product measures of the
dependent variable of English achievement in this study.
In addition, scores on the Aptitude Test of the battery
were used in this research as measures of the general
1 3
academic ability of the students.
Finally, those seniors whose course grade scores from
the fall of 1973 through January 1976 were not available
through school records and those seniors who did not respond
to the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as
a Subject were, of necessity, eliminated from the sample. In
the latter case, response was either lacking because of ab
sence on the day of administration of the questionnaire
or invalid because of incompleteness or misunderstanding.
For further information on and details of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program and the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject, the reader is
referred to the section of this chapter entitled Instru
mentation and Sources.


9
In view of the vast quantity of literature in
secondary English education, therefore, and of the use
lessness of some of it as background for this study,
the writer of this study has chosen to discuss only a
selection of both kinds, a selection based not only on
the general worth of the writing, but also on its
specific pertinence to this study in the areas on
English elective programs and English achievement.
Additional sources examined but not reviewed are listed
in the bibliography.
Literature Related to English Elective Programs
In November 1972 George Hillocks, Jr., presented
a report of his study of English elective programs being
g
conducted in a number of states, the most comprehen
sive attempt to describe and to critically evaluate
such programs ever published before that time or since.
Hillocks' account extends beyond his extensive reportage
and summaries of practice and other studies, as he,
imformally but responsibly and, on the whole, objectively,
analyzes trends, qualitatively assesses practices and
materials, and identifies needs for further study and
research.
^Hillocks,
Alternatives in English.


128
The mean grade point average of grades earned in all
courses completed from the fall of 1973 through January 1976
was higher for the students in the sample schools with
elective English programs than that for the students in
the sample schools with traditional English programs. The
mean grade point average of grades earned in all courses
offered by the English Department completed from the fall
of 1973 through January 1976 was higher for the students in
the sample schools with elective English programs than
that for the students in the sample schools with tradi
tional English programs.
A generally positive attitude toward English is
indicated by scores on the Student Questionnaire on
Attitude Toward English as a Subject of students in both
traditional and elective programs in the sample. Students
in the sample schools with traditional programs recorded
very slightly more positive attitudes toward English as
a subject than students in sample schools with elective
programs.
Students in sample schools with elective English pro
grams scored higher in English achievement measured by
scores on the English Composition Test of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program than students in sample
schools with traditional English programs.
Table 17 provides an overview of the distribution of
the 495 students in the sample on the seven variables of


bcnool
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B365
12
22
2.03
1.00
1.2
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B366
29
48
2.28
2.20
3.0
0
B367
52
46
1.73
1.60
2.0
0
B368
01
01
1.89
1.75
2.6
0
B369
52
82
2.83
2.40
3.4
0
B370
16
14
2.07
1.86
2.0
0
B371
16
46
3.20
2.80
2.2
0
B372
48
65
1.93
1.80
4.0
0
B373
43
50
2.72
2.80
2.4
0
B374
59
88
1.94
1.40
1.8
0
B375
41
19
2.93
2.00
2.2
1
B376
10
15
2.66
2.20
3.4
1
B377
52
73
3.58
3.25
3.6
1
205


O^IIVJU i
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D186
59
86
2.00
2.33
3.6
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D187
85
94
2.93
3.50
2.0
0
D188
63
63
2.21
2.60
1.4
0
D189
66
32
1.79
1.60
3.0
1
D190
52
50
3.00
3.20
1.6
1
D191
63
83
3.41
3.20
3.4
0
D192
52
63
2.14
3.00
2.0
0
D193
35
61
2.77
2.83
4.2
0
D194
63
63
2.36
2.33
3.6
0
D195
35
01
1.81
2.40
3.0
1
D196
79
69
2.00
2.29
1.6
0
D197
79
75
2.52
2.67
2.8
1
D198
52
99
2.92
2.75
3.2
1
191


APPENDIX B
AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
Permission is granted to Theodore W. Hippie and Joan
C. Young to conduct a research study in School under
the following conditions:
1. The teachers and students who participate in the study
will do so voluntarily.
2. Data will be collected in such a manner as not to unduly
interfere with the school's programs.
3. The principal of the school will be asked for permission
to use the school in the study.
4. The identity of individual persons or schools will not
be revealed in the study.
5. The results of the study will be made available to all
participants.
Theodore W. Hippie
Professor of Education
University of Florida
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant
University of Florida
Superintendent of Schools
------ County
Principal
------ High School
172


220
. "The English Teacher as Curriculum Maker:
Preparing Teachers for Elective Programs." English Education,
5 (April/May 1974), 238-48.
. An Evaluation of Project APEX: A Non-Graded,
Phase-Elective English Program. Trenton, Michigan:
Trenton Public Schools, 1971.
Hunt, John Wuest, Jr. "Changes in Selected Attitudes and
Verbal Skills of Low-Achieving High School Students in
an Experimental, Team-Planned, Non-Graded English and
Social Studies Program -[Abstract }. Dissertation
Abstracts, XXXI, No. 05A (1970), 2254.
Jaekle, Ann M. "Safe for Diversity: Another Approach to the
English Curriculum." English Journal, 56 (February 1967),
222-26.
. "Spontaneity with a Purpose: English Elective
Programs." English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 529-35.
Josephs, Lois. "Electives in the English High School Program:
Drama and Flexibility." English Journal, 60 (February 1971),
246-50.
Judy, Stephen N. Explorations in the Teaching of Secondary
English: A Source Book for Experimental Teaching.
New York: Dodd, Mead § Company, 1974.
Kelly, Samuel P. "Goals and Objectives for the Teaching of
English." English Education, 4 (Fall 1972)-r 16-26.
Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, 1968.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. "A Rage for Disorder." English Journal,
61 (November 1972), 1199-1219.
Klang, Max. "To Vanquish the Deadliest Game: A New
English Curriculum." English Journal, 53 (October 1964),
504-15.
Lehner, Andreas P. "The Laissez-Faire Curriculum in the
Democratic School." English Journal, 59 (September 1970),
803-10.
Leonard, Alan J. "How to Define the Sanctity of English."
English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 242-45.


82
The required courses (on four ability levels from
Level I, the lowest, to Level IV, the highest) bear the
following titles:
Grade 10 I Reading
II- Practical English 1/Exploring Life
Thru Literature
III- Grammar and Communication/American
Literature Survey
IV- Composition 2/Modern American Literature
Grade 11 I Developmental Reading 1
11 English 3/Communication Skills 1
111 Mythology and Science Fiction/Practical
English 2
IV English Literature
Grade 12 I Developmental Reading 2
II English 4/Communication Skills 2
III Modern Literature/English Communication
IV World Literature
The pairs of titles for some levels in some grades indicate
that a semester of instruction is planned for each of the
pair, although the pair jointly constitutes a year-long
course.
The English Department of School B further offers
fifteen elective courses for grades ten through twelve which
may be taken by students in addition to the courses required
for graduation:
Speech 2
(10-12)
Library Science 1
(10-12)
Speech 3
(11-12)
Library Science 2
(10-12)
Debate 1
(10-12)
Creative Writing
(11-12)
Debate 2
(10-12)
Mass Media/Contem
Drama 1
(10-12)
porary Drama
(11-12)
Drama
Workshop
(10-12)
Language Thru Lens
(11-12)
Jounralism 1
(10-12)
Pub 1ications
(11-12)
Journalism 2
(11-12)
Independent Study
(11-12)


APPENDIX G
COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
Computation of t,+ using the formula: t
I -r
7
n- 2
where n = the sample size (in this case, 495) and n-2 =
degrees of freedom, df (in this case, 493), was performed for
each correlation coefficient, r.*
The resultant t statistic was then, in each case, evalu
ated through the use of a standard table of Student t distri
butions to determine its significance.
Since, for df = oo t
+
+
. 001
1461
l-(. 1461)
3.291, the equation,
= 3.291,
493
was computed as a solution for the r value at the .001 level
of significance. Thus, for the correlations tabulated in
Table 19, p(r> .1461) < .001.
"For N > 30, the t_ distribution may, for most practical
purposes, be regarded as normally distributed." Roger E. Kirk,
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
(Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company,
1968), p. 42.
*
The quantity r satisfies a Student's t distri
bution." Henry L. Adler and Edward B. Roessler, Introduction
to Probability and Statistics (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Company, 1972), p. 213.
+
The table of t values consulted was "Table D.4, Per
centage Points of Student's t_ Distribution," in Kirk, p. 523.
216


4. The percentage of non-white persons in the school
district accounted for a small, but significant (at the
.001 level) proportion of variance in English achievement.
5. The program variable accounted for a very small,
but significant (at the .001 level) proportion of variance
in English achievement.
Conclusions
1. A student's achievement in English does not
appear to be predictable from his participation in an elective
or a traditional program.
2. Students' individual characteristics and
attributes have a predictive relationship with English
achievement that is considerab1ey stronger than that of
participation in an elective or a traditional program.
3. Further research is needed to examine all assumed
advantages of an elective English program.


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
P.equirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
BY
JOAN CAROL YOUNG
DECEMBER 1979
Chairman: Theodore W. Hippie
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
The primary objective of this study was to examine the
relationship between elective and traditional English program
structures and English achievement.
Four hundred ninety-five senior students from four high
schools in Florida constituted the sample population. Each
student in the sample had attended his school for at least
three years. Two of the high schools had been conducting
elective English programs for at least three years and
two, traditional programs for at least three years.
Three sets of variables, totaling fifteen were hypothesized
to be associated with English achievement: a student set
consisting of ljacademic aptitude of student, 2)sex of student,
3)grade point average of student in all subjects, 4)grade point
average of student in English courses, 5)student's attitude
IX


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
B430
01
11
2.28
2.80
1.0
0
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2.83
17.9
3.4
6
12,2
0
B431
99
99
3.96
3.80
3.4
0
B432
25
36
2.05
2.20
1.6
0
B433
14
05
1.00
0.86
2.6
0
B434
50
40
1.70
2.57
3.2
0
B435
12
40
1.78
1.40
2.4
0
B436
99
99
3.31
2.86
4.0
0
B437
06
34
2.17
3.67
2.4
0
B438
24
19
2.16
1.80
2.6
0
B439
29
63
2.13
1.86
2.2
0
B440
07
24
2.40
2.80
2.4
0
B441
83
98
3.10
2.60
3.2
0
B442
98
96
2.97
2.40
2.4
0
210


and
Student
Numb er
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D264
22
75
2.96
3.50
1.8
1
7
2,52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D265
43
55
1.96
1.40
4.2
0
D266
85
95
2.89
2.40
3.6
1
D267
99
93
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
D268
86
71
3.75
3.83
2.0
1
D269
54
83
2.72
2.86
1.2
0
D270
86
69
3.79
4.00
1.6
1
D271
98
96
3.86
4.00
2.0
1
D272
99
94
3.86
3.57
3.8
1
D273
37
52
2.36
2.75
3.2
1
D274
61
52
3.97
3.60
2.2
1
D275
91
95
4.00
4.00
1.2
0
D276
48
59
2.75
3.60
1.4
0
197


126
Table 16
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
Program:
Traditional
Elective
School:
A
B
(
D
Sex:
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
ACH
Decile
1
(0-9)
1
3
5
15
8
12
2
1
2
(10-19)
2
17
20
3
5
3
3
3
(20-29)
2
5
11
10
5
7
4
2
4
(30-39)
1
10
8
4
2
6
7
5
(40-39)
2
3
12
10
9
5
5
7
6
(50-59)
5
14
9
6
1
11
9
7
(60-69)
3
3
16
4
1
12
11
8
(7079)
4
2
12
3
3
2
13
14
9
(80-89)
2
5
9
2
16
12
10
(90-91)
1
3
15
10
1
2
16
6
Total:
15
27
117
98
40
38
88
72


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B417
92
96
3.77
4.00
2.6
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
Q
B418
06
01
1.65
1.80
2.0
0
B419
22
14
1.72
1.57
2.0
0
B420
50
52
2.41
1.80
3.4
0
B421
52
90
1.29
1.60
3.0
0
B422
68
83
2.37
2.40
2.6
0
B423
83
55
2.35
2.80
4.6
0
B424
73
73
2.58
2.50
2.4
0
B425
22
28
1.86
1.80
1.6
0
B426
39
48
2.24
1.33
3.6
0
B427
01
07
1.26
1.86
2.2
0
B428
09
14
2.54
3.00
1.8
0
B429
17
19
1.74
1.86
3.8
0
209


and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B391
75
71
2.74
3.30
3.2
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B392
61
30
2.86
3.00
2.6
1
B393
66
44
2.82
2.40
2.2
1
B394
16
08
2.43
2.57
1.8
1
B395
61
85
2.67
2.50
2.8
1
B396
77
59
2.75
2.80
2.0
1
B397
25
30
2.39
3.20
1.8
1
B398
31
32
2.79
3.22
1.8
1
B399
48
52
2.26
1.62
1.4
1
B400
59
38
2.73
3.14
2.0
1
B401
43
63
2.74
3.17
2.0
1
B402
86
71
3.22
3.50
2.6
1
B403
61
73
2.04
2.00
2.2
1
207


acnooi
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D225
63
44
2.68
3.20
2.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2,93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D226
93
36
3.21
3.33
2.0
1
D227
73
82
2.43
2.00
2.4
0
D228
59
55
2.89
2.80
2.0
1
D229
61
48
2.29
2.60
1.2
1
D230
66
61
1.93
1.83
3.8
1
D231
48
77
2.30
2.60
2.4
0
D232
66
77
3.32
3.83
2.4
1
D233
68
96
2.93
2.83
3.4
0
D234
41
44
3.16
3.17
2.2
1
D235
22
38
2.30
2.20
1.6
1
D236
24
36
2.81
2.60
1.0
1
D237
98
99
4.00
4.00
1.8
1
194


68
English studies satisfied his needs (Items 4 and 5), and
his liking for English studies (Items 6 and 7). Answers
to Items 3 through 7 therefore supplied data concerning
the student's total attitude (based on interest, need and
liking) toward English as a subject.
The Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program (FTGT) is
a battery of tests which, until 1976, was annually admin
istered to seniors in all Florida public high schools.
The Office of Instructional Resources at the University
of Florida was responsible for the construction, administra
tion, scoring, and statistical analyses of the FTGT. The
battery consisted of five tests: Aptitude, English Compo
sition, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Social Studies,
and was designed "to measure academic aptitude and achieve-
14
ment for all seniors." Scores on the Aptitude Test and
the English Composition Test were used in this study as
measures of the independent variable of student academic
aptitude and the dependent variable of English achievement,
respectively.
In the fall of 1975, the total battery of tests was
taken by 78,453 senior students from 435 schools in Florida.
All tests on the FTGT were scored on a "right-only"
basis, an individual scoring one point for each item
14
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program,
No. 1-75, University of Florida, 1975.
15T, ,
Ibid.
Report
15


3
This practice, rare even during that early period,
is now virtually non-existent. Schools with elective
programs in English have developed course offerings by
4
"loose analogy to the practices of college departments."
Courses in literature, for example, are focused on theme
or topic ("Literature of Love," "Science Fiction"!, genre
("The Novel," "Poetry"), or combinations of these foci
("Twentieth-Century Stories of Adventure"). Language
courses may range from "Word Power" to "History of the
English Language" and often present separate choices in
semantics, dialectology, vocabulary, oral language,
etymology, and usage, as well as grammar. Separate
reading and writing courses are usually also offered.
Regardless of the number and extent of the elective
offerings, however, and regardless of the limited domain
implied for each course by its title, it is often a
stipulated agreement among the faculty and/or the curric
ulum planners that students in every course should be
exposed to some instruction and practice in each of the
language communication skills: reading, writing, speak
ing, listening, verbal reasoning.' Growth in skill
4
John K. Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives,"
English Journal, 59 (October 1970), 990.
^Linda Kubicek Harvey, comp., Elective English
Programs in Junior and Senior High Schools (Urbana,
Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on the Teaching of
English, 1971), p. 3.


154
variables in each series
F.01;S,* = 2-51) and F
01-9.t=o
= 2.41) .
14
F = 174.54 (for eight variables,
= 154.81 (for nine variables,
It is reasonable to assume, in other words, that if
only eight or nine of the fifteen variables which constitute
the complete prediction system account for a major (74.18
percent) and significant proportion of the product measure
variance, the complete system would account for at least
as substantial and significant a proportion.
The set of variables which makes the largest total con
tribution to product measure variance is the student (S) set.
In the S E P series, at the point at which only the five
S variables have been entered into the equation (and no E or
P variables have been entered), the S set accounts for 73.32
percent of the total variance, significant at F = 268.72,
p < .01 (F ni.r = 3.02). The addition of four other (E)
variables into the equation (in the S E P series), in-
2
creases the R value by only .0086.
In the second (E P S) series, three of the environ
mental (E) variables account for 13.87 percent of the total
variance, significant at F = 26.34, p < .01 (F = 3.78),
. (J i ; oo
while neither the remaining six E variables nor the program
The procedures employed in the computation of F as a
test of significance of R^ are described in Appendix H.
(This F test of significance is not to be confused with the
criterion F level of .01 used as a standard for entry into
the multiple regression equation.)


APPENDIX A
Superintendent of Schools
------ County
------, Florida
Dear Sir:
College of Education
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
------, 1976
Dr. Theodore W. Hippie and I are conducting a research study
of English language arts programs in Florida high schools.
We are anticipating that the information generated by this
study will contribute to the improvement of English instruc
tional and curricular planning. One of the schools which
we wish to use in this study is .
The principal will be informed that the voluntary partici
pation of the English faculty and of the 12th-grade students
in the school will be sought. Each of these groups will be
asked to complete a questionnaire which should require no
more than ten or fifteen minutes. The student questionnaire
asks for some information concerning the student's back
ground and his attitudes toward English; the teacher ques
tionnaire, for information concerning the teacher's pro
fessional background and preparation. The questionnaire
may be submitted to both teachers and students in small
groups or in one large meeting, or in any manner convenient
to the principal and faculty.
In addition, access to school records of senior students
will be requested for the recording of certain test and
grade data.
All data will be collected anonymously from teachers and
will be reported and analyzed in summary form only. Student
data will be reported and analyzed anonymously, and no
school will be identified in the final report.
Enclosed is a form on which we are requesting your consent
to study this school. If you agree, we will then proceed
to solicit the consent of principal of the school.
Please sign the three copies, retain one for your files,
and return the other two to me. I have also enclosed a
stamped, addressed envelope for your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
171
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant


145
seven or more of the fourteen other independent variables.
Of one hundred five correlations, fifty-two are significant.
Some, at least, of these significant intercorrelations are
attributable in part to the fact that a variable is a
component of another, as, for example, SGPE's being a
component of SGPA (r = .83), or to the logical relation
ship between the two variables, as, for example, the relation
ship between SAPT and SGPA (r = .59).
In addition, an examination of Table 19 reveals that
certain variables form groups or clusters in which each
of the variables in the cluster is significantly cor
related with each other variable in the cluster. For
example, the DACH, SAPT, SGPA, and SGPE variables form
such a cluster.
The Analytical Procedure
Multiple linear regression equations were employed
to examine the extent to which (1) the complete set of
independent variables (the complete prediction system)^
and (2) each set of independent variables (predictor
variables) are associated with the dependent variable
(product measure).
"The multiple linear regression model is at once a
prediction and association (correlation) model since the
two concepts are statistically complementary. Thus when
prediction is examined, association (correlation) between
the independent (predictor) variable(s) and the criterion
(dependent variable) is also examined." Donald Grover Aten,
A Study of Two Teacher Education Programs and an Analysis
of the Association Between Antecedent Variables anZ
Product Measures, Ed.D. Dissertation (New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1969), p. 199, footnote 2.


165
meaningful assessment of the findings, provided that
the assessment proceeds cautiously and responsibly. In
the remainder of this chapter, therefore, only such
generalizations, inferences, and implications as can be
reasonably substantiated by the data analysis will be
discussed.
Conclusions
The most important (in terms of the objectives of
this study) inference that can be drawn from the findings
is that the structure of an English program in high school
seems to make relatively little impact on achievement in
English. That is, a student's cognitive growth in English
would appear not to be predictable from his participation
in either an elective or a traditional program. Although
the statistical extent of the association between the
program variable and achievement is significant, it is
obvious that the association is an extremely unsubstantial
one and therefore an extremely insignificant one in a
practical sense.
Rather, it seems that the individuals "make more
difference," considerably more, than the program. Indeed,
the individual (student) variables "make the most differ
ence" in English achievement of all the measured variables.
A student's sex, academic ability, attitude toward the
subject, and scholarship ("grade-making") -- as a group --
are the greatest predictors of this cognitive growth.


UV.I1UU x
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
D121
66
83
2.23
2.17
3.6
0
7 2.52 2.00 3.27 2.93
8.5 2.4 3 12.1 1
D122
81
71
3.31
3.40
2.8
1
D123
68
88
2.93
2.83
3.4
0
D124
73
80
3.76
3.60
1.4
1
D125
77
80
3.44
3.00
4.0
0
D126
16
44
1.83
1.80
2.6
1
D127
77
75
2.89
3.20
3.2
1
D128
98
99
3.00
2.83
3.0
0
D129
75
90
2.82
2.60
2.6
0
D130
85
94
2.96
3.00
3.8
0
D131
92
88
3.75
3.90
2.0
1
D132
77
59
2.74
3.17
3.4
0
D133
85
69
3.31
3.67
3.0
1
186


I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
L J
p
Arthur J. Lewis f
Professor of Instf
L
fractional
Leadership and Support
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Kevin M. McCarthy
Associate Professor of English
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Department of Subject Specialization
Teacher Education in the College of Education and
to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1979
Dean, Graduate School


155
(P) variable contributes sufficiently to the variance to be
entered into the equation (criterion level to enter: .01).
After the five S variables are included in this series, how-
2
ever, the value of R increases by .6031 to .7418.
Again in the third (P S E) series, the S set of
variables accounts for the greatest percentage of product
measure variance. The program (P) variable makes a total
contribution of only .0170 (or 1.7 percent) to the variance
of DACH. After inclusion of the S set of five variables, the
2
value of R increases by .7162 to .7332, the same coefficient
of determination achieved by the set of S variables as its
(the set's) total contribution in the S E P series,
significant at the .01 level of confidence.
It has already been observed that the complete prediction
system of fifteen variables can be assumed to account for at
least 74.18 percent of the product measure (DACH) variance.
The set of five S variables accounts for 98.8 percent of that
proportion (.7332 divided by .7418). Obviously, the S set is
the set which makes the most quantitatively dramatic contribu
tion to product measure variance.
The S set may also be viewed temporarily as a complete
prediction system in order to compute the unique contribution^
of the SGPE variable, the last one of the student set entered
in the S E P series. Thus viewed, the prediction system
15
See footnote 11 of this chapter.


118
Table 14 continued
Program
Mean
GPA*
2.51
2.78
Program
Mean
GPE*
2.49
2.84
*computed for this study from individual grade point
averages (of the 495 students in the sample) recorded in
Appendix F.
GPA and the mean GPE of the students in School D are some
what higher than those of the other three schools.
All mean grade point averages of females in the sample
in all schools are higher than those of males, except the
GPA of School C.
A comparison of the mean GPA of the students in each
school with the mean GPE of those same students reveals
that School A with a traditional program is the only school
in the sample whose students attained a mean GPE lower than
their mean GPA. The mean GPA of the students in the tra
ditional English programs (2.51) is slightly higher than
their mean GPE (2.49), whereas the reverse is true of the
students in the elective programs (2.78 and 2.84, respec
tively) .
The mean grade point averages of the students in the
elective programs are higher, both in all courses and in
English courses, than those in the traditional programs.


The dependent variable of English achievement was
measured by the English Composition Test of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program.
Three series of step-wise multiple linear regression
equations were computed, each forcing sets of independent
variables into the equation in a different order of entry.
Each of the sets was given initial priority in one of the
series.
The resultant squared multiple correlation coefficients
were interpreted as estimates of the proportion of dependent
variable variance accounted for by the variable(s) in the
equation and were evaluated for statistical significance
by means of an F statistic.
Finding s
1. At least 73.32 percent of dependent variable
variance was associated with the complete system of fifteen
variables.
2. Student academic aptitude was the individual
variable most substantially associated with English
achievement, significant at the .001 level.
3. The student set accounted for a greater proportion
of variance in English achievement than either of the other
two sets or the other two sets combined.
xi


31
reported the results of an investigation of student re
actions to an English elective program after one year.
A questionnaire submitted to 234 ("almost all") students
in ninth grade (the only students in the seventh-through-
ninth-grade school who had participated in the program)
elicited the following results:
(1) Ninety-five percent preferred the elective program
to the traditional one.
(2) A "vast majority" felt there was more individuali
zation in the elective program.
(3) Sixty-two percent thought that "all skill areas
were contained in the electives--reading, writing, speak
ing, and listening--and at the same time the electives
provided for greater depth in the content area."
(4) A majority listed as advantages of the elective
program: "the teacher . was genuinely interested,"
students "get to change topics," students "get to be with
other students who are interested in learning about the
same subject," "there is more freedom and more depth," and
there is more chance to show and develop one's own talents.
^George L. Williams, "English Electives Evaluated,"
Clearing House, 47 (April 1973), 469-71. It is not clear
whether the language quoted above is Williams' or that of
the questionnaire or that of students. Surely, phrases
like "skill areas," "depth," and "content area," in their
educational senses seem beyond the ken of most ninth-graders.


149
(3) The need for further computation was obviated by
the results explained in the ensuing analysis.
In the ensuing analysis, a squared multiple correlation
2
coefficient, R (referred to also as a coefficient of
determination), is interpreted alternatively as an estimate
of (1) the percentage of the product measure variance
accounted for by the variables(s) in the equation, or
(2) the percentage of the product measure variance associ
ated with the variables) in the equation or (3) the total
contribution'*'1 (to prediction) of the variable(s) in the
11
It might be well at this point to add a comment on
the difference between total contribution and unique
contribution. As explained above, the total contribution
to the product measure variance of an individual variable
or set of variables in the equation is estimated by
as the proportion of product measure variance for which that
variable or set of variables can account. The unique,
or independent, contribution of an individual variable or
set of variables is an estimate of how much less product
measure variance is explained if the individual variable
or set of variables is omitted from the equation. A
unique contribution of, say, variable X can be determined
only by computing (1) the R* of the complete prediction
system (all independent variables in the equation),
(2) the R^ of the complete system except for X, and (3) the
difference between the two. The difference i_s the unique
contribution of X.
The use of both measures (total and unique) would be
desirable in determining the extent of association between
independent variables and the dependent variable. In the
present study, however, as the report of the analysis in
the immediately following section of this chapter will make
clear, unique contributions of any individual variables or
sets of variables could not generally be determined, since
in no case was the entire prediction system (all fifteen
independent variables) entered into the multiple regression
equation by the computer. Thus, in this study, only total
contributions are interpreted (with one exception, to be
explained later).


130
ATT index of attitude
Category Range
A
1.0 -
1.5
B
1.6 -
2.5
C
2.6 -
3.5
D
3.6 -
4.5
E
4.6 -
5.0
Table 17
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS ON SEVEN VARIABLES
(N = 495)
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Variable
SEX
Trad.
132
125
Elec.
128
110
APT
Trad.
19
31
30
24
28
29
26
23
19
28
Elec.
17
28
12
16
23
25
20
29
31
37
ACH
Trad.
24
39
28
19
27
28
26
21
16
29
Elec.
23
14
18
19
26
27
24
32
30
25
GPA
Trad.
16
111
110
20
Elec.
11
70
112
45
GPE
Trad.
27
100
102
28
Elec.
12
48
132
46
ATT
Trad.
24
126
91
15
1
Elec.
26
102
81
28
1


ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
BY
JOAN CAROL YOUNG
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF -PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1979


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B404
43
46
2.97
3.20
2.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17,9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B405
27
48
1.70
2.00
2.4
1
B406
63
61
1.97
2.00
2.2
1
B407
79
50
3.19
3.20
3.4
1
B408
77
69
3.71
3.80
3.0
1
B409
14
22
1.79
2.20
1.4
1
B410
73
55
2.81
3.14
2.0
1
B411
\
81
63
2.97
2.60
3.4
1
B412
09
14
1.64
1.43
2.6
1
B413
98
96
3.32
3.80
1.6
0
B414
13
26
1.89
2.33
2.0
0
B415
08
08
1.84
1.80
2.4
0
B416
35
67
2.68
2.80
3.8
0
208


103
More relevant to this study is the range of variation
among three of the variables for this study: the percentage
of non-white population in the school district, school size,
and English program structure. That is, as Table 8 indi
cates, there is substantial (and desirable) variance among
these variables for each subject (student) in the analysis
reported in Chapter VII.
Table 8
RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOLS BY POPULATION
AND DISTRICTS BY NON-WHITE POPULATION
School
Kind of
School
Pop .
Non-White
in District
English
Program
Number
Rank
Percentag
e Rank
A
Traditional
882
3
9.4
3
B
Traditional
2,307
2
17.9
2
C
Elective
787
4
27.0
1
D
Elective
3,200
1
8.5
4
Population with
Fewer
Than
Five Years'
Schooling
The number of persons in each school district who
had completed fewer than five years of school was reported
in the 1970 Census of the Population for those persons
twenty-five years of age or more. These numbers, as well


67
Instrumentation and Sources
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used to measure English
faculty characteristics, student attitude toward English
as a subject, and English achievement.
The English Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix D) is an
original instrument designed to elicit information from
which to establish values for certain English teacher
characteristics used as predictor variables in this
study. Item 1 asks for the number of years of teaching
and Item 2, for the number of years at the school. Items
3, 4, and 5 deal with the teaching load: number of classes
taught, number of students taught, and number of prepara
tions. Items 6 and 7 establish levels and types of
state certification.
The Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English
as a Subject (Appendix E) is an original instrument con
taining seven items which yielded information regarding
(1) the student's sex, (2) the number of years of the
student's attendance at the school, and (3) the student's
attitude toward English as a school subject. Items 1 and 2,
on sex and years of attendance, respectively, served as a
cross-check on cumulative folder information about the
student. Items 3 through 7 asked for the student's
ratings on a five-point scale of his interest in English
studies (Item 3), his perception of the degree to which


33
In 1974 Philip Di Stefano published his study of a
comparison of student attitudes toward English elective
programs and those toward traditional programs and of
differences between the two kinds of programs in terms
of materials, instructional techniques, classroom activ
ities, and final grades. He reports finding a statisti
cally significant difference between students in the two
programs in respect to attitudes toward English and
6 8
attitudes toward English program structure, but unfortun
ately does not indicate the direction of this difference
(that is, which were more positive) or the quality (that isj
69
what attitude means).
Other findings of Di Stefano's indicate that students
in elective programs use more materials, are exposed to
more instructional techniques, participate in more activ
ities, and receive higher final grades than students in
70
the traditional program. The significance (philosophical)
of these findings is perhaps questionable in that the first
three suggest a question re the benefits of quantity (that
is, is more better?) and the fourth contributes little to
an explanation of the meaning of teacher-given grades.
6 8
Philip Paul Di Stefano, "A Comparison of Student
Attitudes Toward Traditional and Diversified Elective
English Offerings i Abstract}," Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXV, No. 05A (1974), 2642.
69
It is likely that the full dissertation would provide
answers to these questions. Unfortunately, only the abstract
was available to the present investigator.
^Di Stefano, p. 2642.


72
on every variable (the product measure {dependent variable >
of English achievement and the fifteen predictor {independent}
variables). For purposes of analysis, the 495 subjects were
treated as a single group.
After collection of the data on all sixteen variables,
values were assigned or computed for each and the mean and
standard deviation computed. The intercorrelation among
the independent variables was computed, as well as the
correlation between each of these independent variables and
the dependent variable.
A series of multiple linear regression equations were
computed and analyzed to examine the extent to which (1) the
20
complete prediction system and (2) sets of independent
variables were associated with the product measure. A
statistical evaluation was made of the significance of the
contribution of independent variables to the prediction
21
of product measure variance.
That is, all of the independent (predictor) variables
together.
21
The analytical procedures are described in more detail
in Chapter VII, Analysis of the Association Between Sets of
Independent Variables and English Achievement.


76
that its use as a criterion for designation of a program
as elective appears justified.
Non-Graded Courses
In a year-long English course of a purely traditional
program, students are of the same grade level. That is,
except for the occasional student who is repeating a course
for reasons of failure, excessive absence, or the like, all
students in English I, for example, are tenth-grade students.
Most elective programs, on the other hand, offer courses
which are non-graded; that is, students of differing grade
4
levels may enroll in the same courses. This practice is
sometimes restricted in some respects, such as the limiting
of some electives to tenth and eleventh grades and others to
eleventh and twelfth. Elective English programs in which
courses are phased (i.e., developed at various levels of
difficulty) are more likely to be non-graded.
Since most elective programs are phase-elective pro
grams, however, and in spite of occasional restrictions,
non-graded courses have become a common feature of English
elective programs.
Criteria for Program Determination for This Study
Although the salient contrasting features of English
programs entail the areas described above: (1) graduation
requirements in English, (2) length of courses, and (3)
4 Ibid.


113
Aptitude
Decile
1
(0-9)
2
(10-19)
3
(20-29)
4
(30-39)
5
(40-49)
6
(50-59)
7
(60-69)
8
(70-79)
9
(80-89)
10
(90-99)
Table 13
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND APTITUDE
Program: Traditional Elective
School: A B C D
Sex: F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
1
1
6
11
7
8
2
0
2
2
15
12
13
12
2
1
3
5
16
6
6
5
1
2
1
9
12
5
4
6
1
2
2
17
7
5
3
12
3
1
8
14
6
3
1
12
9
2
2
11
11
1
10
9
3
13
7
1
18
10
2
1
7
9
2
13
16
2
9
17
2
12
23
Total: 15
27
117
98
40
38
88
72


Table 2
CRITERION CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS
KIND OF
PROGRAM
SCHOOL
NO. ENG. CREDITS
REQUIRED FOR GRAD.
GRADES 10-12
COURSE
LENGTH
(Criterion #1)
NO. NON-GRADED
COURSES OFFERED
FOR ENG. CREDIT
(Criterion #2)
NO. SPECIFIED
COURSES AND
CREDIT
(Criterion #3)
TOTAL NO.
COURSES
OFFERED
(Criterion #4)
Tradi
tional
A
3 (12/4)
credits
9 weeks
{h credit
each)
11
(11/4 credits)
8 for 2 (8/4)
credits
23 for 23/4
credits
Tradi
tional
B
3 credits
36 weeks
(1 credit
each)
4
(4 credits)
2 for 2
credits
16 for 16
credits
Elective
C
2 credits
4 @36 weeks
(1 credit each
8 @18 weeks
(h credit each)
10
(6 credits)
1 for 1
credit
12 for 8
crdits
Elective
D
3 (6/2)
credits
27 @18 weeks
C' credit each)
1 @36 weeks
(1 credit)
24
(24/2 credits)
3 for 3/2
credits
28 for 29/2
credits


224
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Joan Carol Young was born on November 16, 1928, in
Long Island City, New York, to Charles and Emma Samter.
She was the second of five children.
After graduating from Hunter College High School in
June 1944, Ms. Young attended Hunter College and State
University of New York at Geneseo, from which she received
a Bachelor of Science degree in June 1950. She pursued
graduate studies at the University of Texas from September
1967 through June 1968 and later graduated with a Master of
Science in Education degree from State University of New York
at Oswego in September 1971. Admitted into the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in the fall of 1974,
Ms. Young became a candidate for a Doctor of Philosophy
degree the following year.
Ms. Young was employed as an office worker in Rochester,
New York, from 1950 to 1952 and in West Palm Beach, Florida,
in 1959 and 1960. From 1960 until 1977, she held a position
as teacher of English and geography in public schools in
Palm Beach County, Florida. (For two of those years, granted
professional leave, she was employed by the University of
Florida as a graduate assistant, supervising intern teachers,
in the Subject Specialization Teacher Education Department
of the College of Education of the University of Florida.)


32
Hillocks summarized the evaluations offered by fifty-
nine of the elective programs examined by him as follows:
Generally the respondents felt that the attitude
and enthusiasm of both staff and students had
improved perceptibly. A few reported higher
student grades, fewer discipline problems, and
more students taking more English courses during
their senior year.67
It becomes increasingly clear to the reader of these
numerous reports of English elective program experience
that such results and advantages as are expressed are,
indeed, evaluative, or so intended, but limited. These
evaluations are, with rare exceptions, informally and
subjectively made. Systematic (i.e., planned and controlled)
evaluation is seldom to be found. In addition, these
informal evaluations are generally evaluations of outcomes
only and of affective outcomes primarily.
In respect to elective programs in English, no
reports of systematic evaluation of course designs, of
program designs, of goals and objectives, of classroom
atmosphere and dynamics, of teacher attitudes, of costs,
or of theory have been unearthed by the present investi
gator in her search. A very small number of controlled
evaluations which deal with instruction, materials, class
room activities, student attitudes, and cognitive growth
in English elective programs have been found, however,
and will be described.
67
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, pp. 103-04.


65
Table 1
SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
Sample School
A
B
C
D
State Location
north
south
north
south
central
east
central
west
Rural/Urban
rural
urban
urban
urban
Total Number of
High Schools in
3
11
4
12
County
County Popula-
tion (1970)
32,059
348,753
36,290
522,329
School Popula-
tion (1976)
882
2,307
787
3,200
Number of Senior
147
380
135
640
Students (1976)
Number of Teachers r
87
46
164
(1976)
Number of English
8
20
6
22
Teachers (1976)
English Program
tradi-
tradi-
elec-
elec
Structure
tional
tional
t ive
t i ve
Number of Stu-
dents in the
42
215
78
160
Sample


153
in the S E P series and (2) six of the E variables did
13
not meet the criteria for entry into the equation.
In the P S E series, eight variables were entered
before computation ceased: the P variable, the full set of
five S variables, and two other E variables (EMFI and EUFY,
in that order). These eight variables again account for
74.18 percent of the variance of the DACH variable.
Only one independent variable (EMSY) is excluded from
the equation in all three series of equations.
Thus, while the total contribution of the complete
prediction system of fifteen independent variables cannot
be accurately estimated from these series of equations,
because in no series were all fifteen variables included
in the regression equation, it is certain that the complete
system of independent variables does account for a very
substantial proportion of the variance of the product mea
sure, significant at the .01 level of confidence, since,
2
for an R of 74.18, the proportion of product measure
variance accounted for by only eight or nine of these
1 3
That is, in the E P S series, all of the E
variables were assigned priority for entry into the equation
before the P and S variables, but six of them did not
"qualify," nor did the P variable "qualify" before the S
variables. Thus, the S variables were entered after in
clusion of only three E variables.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EBMT3SQQI_QT03LL INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T01:01:58Z PACKAGE AA00025736_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


87
Summary
Elective English programs can be distinguished from
traditional programs by their satisfying the following
criteria: (1) course lengths of eighteen or fewer weeks,
(2) non-grading of a majority of courses, (3) specifica
tion of no more than half the required courses, and
(4) offering a number of courses at least three times the
number required. On the basis of these criteria (summa
rized in Table 2), the English programs of Schools A and B
are classified as traditional; the English programs of
Schools C and D are classified as elective.


52
All measures were developed for the white population, the
non-white population, and the total population of each county.
Simple and multiple correlations were computed and tested
112
for statistical significance.
The major findings of Bottosto's study of interest to
the present investigation are the following:
(1) Achievement of white high school seniors
in English ... is significantly related to the
socio-economic factors of adult schooling and
family income of the white population in Florida
counties.
(2) Achievement of non-white high school
seniors in English ... is significantly related
to the socio-ecomomic factors of adult schooling
and family income of the non-white population
in Florida counties.
(3) The county-wide socio-economic factors
of schooling and income appear to be more closely
associated with achievement in English and social
studies than with natural science and mathematics.
(4) The greater the proportion of non-whites
in a county, the lower the academic achievement of
non-white high school seniors in that county.
(5) When the measures of intelligence and
size of county are held constant, socio-economic
factors of schooling and income are still found
to be significantly related to total academic
achievement for the white and non-white high
school seniors in Florida counties.
Richard Moore examined the relationships of several
socioeconomic characteristics of Florida counties (deter
mined by data reported in the 1960 United States census)
and of several institutional characteristics (including
school size, library expenditures, student-to-teacher ratios,
112
Bottosto, p. 931.


42
Intelligence Tests as the covariate.
(6) More caution was employed in deriving conclusions
from findings and in generalizing.
The two most relevant (to the present study) of
Nushy's conclusions, for example, were that:
(1) Secondary school students from middle-class
community backgrounds who have participated for
three years in an elective, nongraded program of
English instruction would be expected to achieve
at least as high a level in standardized test
measures as would students of comparable backgrounds
who had been in a traditional program for three
years. (2) Students who had participated in an
elective program could be anticipated to exhibit a
level of attitude toward English as a subject that
would be judged to be at least as favorable as that
of students who had been exposed to a traditional
qn r
program.*u
Despite the lack of distinction between "participating
in" and "being in" or "participating in" and "being exposed
to," the careful circumspection of Nushy's conclusions
becomes more evident as the statistical findings on which
they are based are considered. Nushy found that the mean
scores of the two groups (elective and traditional)
differed significantly on all five dependent variables
(four cognitive and one affective) and that the differences
91
on all five variables "favored the elective group."
The most controlled and truly experimental study of
the effect of English program structure on achievement in
English is probably the one reported by Paul McCormick in
1973. Three hundred twenty eleventh- and twe1fth-grade
91 T1..
Ibid.


122
toward English of students in the traditional programs
in this study and the mean attitudes toward English of
students in the elective programs in this study would not
appear to support Hillocks' and others' conclusions.
It must be noted, however, that in most of the
reports referred to above, reference was being made to
a change of attitude in students who had experienced both
the "old and the "new" programs, the traditional and
the elective. Senior students in the sample schools in
this study had participated in one type of program ex
clusively for all of their high school career (or, at the
very least, from the beginning of tenth grade).
Table 15
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND ATTITUDE


150
equation to the product measure variance, or (4) the pro
portion of product measure variance that the variable(s)
1 2
in the equation can account for. The significance
2
(statistical) of any R (percentage of, total contribution
to, or proportion of variance) is evaluated by using an
F test.
12
The multiple correlation coefficient (R, or the
square root of r2) is not considered as useful for interpre
tation, according to Kerlinger: "In sum, R_2^ is an estimate
of the proportion of the variance of the dependent variable,
Y, accounted for by the independent variables, Xj. R, the
multiple correlation coefficient, is the product-moment
correlation between the dependent variable and another
variable produced by a least-squares combination of the
independent variables. Its square is interpreted analogously
to the square of an ordinary correlation coefficient. It
differs from the ordinary coefficient, however, in taking
values only from 0 to 1. II is not as useful and interpre-
able as r£." Kerlinger, p. 618.


147
set. The order of entry in each series of each set of
variables may be symbolized thus:
first series: S E P
second series: E P S
third series: P S E.
These differing orders of entry of sets of variables
into the regression equations in this study require some
explanation. Although "multiple regression analysis is an
efficient and powerful . inference-making technique
. . for helping . the scientist study, with relative
precision, complex interrelations between independent
variables and a dependent variable, and thus . helping
. . him to 'explain' the presumed phenomenon represented
by the dependent variable," the order of entry of variables
into the equation can affect the relative amount of variance
of dependent variable that each independent variable
9
accounts for or contributes. That is, while the R (mul-
2
tiple correlation coefficient), R and regression coef
ficients remain the same, the relative contribution of an
independent variable may change if the order of its entry
into the regression equation is changed.
The decision of the order of entry of independent
variables into the regression equation thus presents a
problem to the researcher. As Kerlinger explains:
9
Ker1 inger,
p. 631.


219
Crandall, Jeanine. "Caution: Elective Program Ahead."
English Journal, 61 (November 1972), 1225-31.
Culley, Kilburn, Jr. "Changing an English Program."
English Journal, 57 (May 1968), 657-58.
Di Stefano, Philip Paul. "A Comparison of Student Attitudes
Toward Traditional and Diversified Elective English Offer
ings {Abstracty." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXV, No. 05A (1974), 2642.
Dixon, W., ed. BMP: Biomedical Computer Programs. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, 1970.
Donlan, Daniel Mahaney. "Dilemma of Choice: Revolution in
English ^Abstract!." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXII, No. 12 (1972), 6740.
Douglas, Wallace W. "An American View on the Failure of
Curriculum Reform and the Way Ahead." English in
Education, 6 (Summer 1972), 5-18.
Dyer, Prudence Osborn. "The Development and Evaluation of
a Program of Nongraded English Electives {Abstract!."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, No. 10A (1966), 3365.
Fitzgerald, Roger J. "The New Supermarket: A 'Dystopian'
View of English Electives." English Journal, 61 (April
1972), 536-49.
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program. Report No. 1-75.
University of Florida, 1975.
Gibbons, Joan Mary. "A Study of Attitudes and Performance
of High School Students Enrolled in Elective English
Programs {Abstract!." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIII, No. 12A (1973), 2742.
Graves, Richard L. "English Elective Curricula and How They
Grew." Education Forum, 38 (January 1974), 195-201.
Harvey, Linda, comp. Elective English Programs in Junior
and Senior High Schools. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clear
inghouse on the Teaching of English, 1971.
Henry, George H. "English Education and the American Dream."
English Journal, 62 (April 1973), 23-29.
Hillocks, George, Jr. Alternatives in English: A Critical
Appraisal of Elective Programs. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972.


156
(student variables) accounts for 73.32 percent of the total
2
product measure variance. The increase in R of .0001, re
sulting from the entry of the SGPE variable, may in such an
analysis be considered its unique contribution, the only
such contribution that may be computed from these data.^
The unique contribution of .0001 of the SGPE variable to the
product measure variance in the S E P series, when that
variable is viewed as one of a five-variable complete pre
diction system, indicates that the SGPE variable contributes
practically not at all to the total variance of DACH, after
the variables SAPT, SGPA, SSEX, and SATT have been taken into
account.
The individual variable which represents the single
greatest proportion of variance is SAPT, accounting alone
for almost nine-tenths of the minimum variance of the entire
prediction system (.6567 divided by .7418). SAPT alone
(in the S E P series) makes a total contribution of
.6567, significant at F = 943.02, p < .01 (F = 6.63),
01,1, 00
to the total product measure variance. When added as the
fourth variable in the equation (E P S series), SAPT
2
increases the R by .5280 to .6667, significant at F = 244.98,
p < .01 (F a, = 3.32). When added second, after the P
Of course, the same procedure can be applied to the
E P S series: considering a complete prediction system
of eight variables (three E variables and five S variables),
the SGPE variable's unique contribution to the total variance
of .7418 is .0002.


56
limitations peculiar to this study or particularly perti
nent to this study or both.
The non-experimental nature of this study is the
most comprehensive of these limitations. The investigation
of the long-range "influence of an aspect of curriculum
(in this case, English program structure) on a type of
behavior (in this case, demonstrated achievement in English)
does not easily lend itself to experimental inquiry.
The phenomenon of achievement is an after-the-fact
phenomenon. Thus, the present investigation is in the
nature of ex post facto research. As such, it lacks the
possibilities of direct control that exist in experimental
research: control of the independent variables. Neither
(1) manipulation of the variables nor (2) randomization
(of drawing of samples of subjects, of assignment of sub
jects to groups, or of assignments of treatments to groups)
was possible.
Most of the data collected ex post facto are also
severely limited by their availability or its lack. The
practical aspects of availability and collectability of
data in relation to the present study are discussed in
Chapter II, Methodology.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Professor Theodore W. Hippie and Professor Arthur
J. Lewis, both of the College of Education, University of
Florida, go my thanks for their help in clarifying the
direction of this study and the research design. In
addition, I am indebted to Professor Hippie for his con
tinuing inspiration and encouragement, without which my
efforts might more than once have floundered.
For their splendid cooperation, I am sincerely grateful
to the senior students, administrators, guidance personnel,
English faculty, senior class advisors, and office personnel
of the high schools in Florida in which data were collected
for this study. They all lightened my tasks in various ways.
I am deeply grateful to all members of my immediate
and extended families, especially my daughter Dale and my
son David, for their moral support. In addition to
approving and sympathising, however, two family members
contributed some time and effort to my endeavors: my
brother, Eugene Samter, who extended his professional
consultative services, and my sister, Jill Risley, who
aided in the tedious frequency counts.
My gratitude to all.


148
Actually, there is no "correct" method for
determining the order of variables. A researcher
may decide that he will let the computer choose
the variables in order of the size of their
contributions to the variance. . For some
problems this may be satisfactory; for others,
it may not. As always, there is no substitute
for depth of knowledge of the research problem
and concomitant knowledge and use of the theory
behind the problem. In other words, the research
problem and the theory behind the problem
should determine the order of entry of ^
variables in multiple regression analysis.
In the present study, decisions concerning the orders
of entry of the independent variables into the equations were
based on the following considerations:
(1) As previously explained, grouping the fifteen
independent variables into sets (with the program variable,
PRTE, constituting a set of one) not only isolated the program
(target) variable for easier analysis, but also reduced the
number of possible "orders" from trillions to six (that is,
considering the variables not as fifteen individual variables,
but as three -[sets of} variables) Expressed in terms of
the set symbols, those six possible orders of entry, re
quiring computation of six separate multiple regression
equations, would be S E P, S- P E, E P S,
E-S-P, P-S-E, and P E S.
(2) Equations employing the first (S E P), third
(E P S), and fifth (P S E) of the above-listed
possible orders of entry of sets of variables were computed,
so that each of the sets was given initial priority in the
equation one time.
10
Ibid., p. 627.


School
and
Student
Number
DAC1I
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D238
31
52
1.97
2.00
2.4
1
7
2,52
2,00
3,27
2,93
8,5
2.4
3
12,1
1
D239
75
75
2.83
2.71
2.8
0
D240
45
52
2.39
2.60
3.0
0
D241
68
82
3.10
3.00
2.8
1
D242
61
77
3.52
3.40
4.8
1
D243
89
73
3.65
3.83
2.0
1
D244
68
63
1.31
2.17
1.6
0
D245
01
09
1.31
1.80
1.0
1
D246
86
96
3.75
3.80
2.6
0
D247
77
88
1.41
1.17
3.8
0
D248
43
73
2.17
2.83
1.8
1
D249
29
26
2.64
2.00
1.4
1
D250
75
92
3.17
2.80
2.6
0
195


162
relationships discovered between variables as effects.
That is to say, no causative connection should or will be
assumed between significantly associated variables.
Nevertheless, an implicit assumption in this research
from its outset has been that there is, if not a cause-
effect relationship, at least a predictive relationship
between structure of English program (traditional or elec
tive) and degree of achievement in English. This assump
tion has been implied in several ways: by frequent refer
ence to the English program structure variable as the "target"
independent variable, by the use of words such as "influence"
and "factor" in early discussion of the objectives of the
study, and by designating the exploration of the relationship
between English program structure and English achievement the
primary objective of the study, for example.
Since the investigation of necessity was to proceed
ex post facto, additional independent variables thought to be
influential on English achievement were introduced to the
design of the study, as explained in Chapter II, Methodology,
in order to achieve a measure of control:
In ex post facto studies, although one
cannot have the confidence in the "truth" of
an "If jc, then y" statement that one can have
in experiments, it _Ls possible to set up and
test alternative or "control" hypotheses. . .
Let us first consider alternative independent
variables as antecedents of a dependent vari
able. ... If we say "alternative independent
variables,". ... we are in effect stating
alternative hypotheses or explanations of a
dependent variable. . The method of test
ing alternative hypotheses, though important in


66
Collection of the Data
Permission was solicited and obtained from the county
superintendent of schools (or from his authorized repre
sentative) in each of the four counties in which a sample
school was located, as well as from the principal of each
school, to visit the school, submit questionnaires to
senior students and to English teachers, and collect data
from school records. Appendixes A, B, and C are samples
of the letters and form used to accomplish this purpose.
Upon arrangement with each school principal, each
school was visited from a minimum of three days to a
maximum of five days. During the visit (11 the investi
gator met with the English Department chairperson, who
agreed to distribute English Teacher Questionnaires to
faculty members teaching one or more English classes a
day and collect them when completed; (2) the investigator
met with all seniors in attendance, either en masse or
in small groups, and administered the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject; and (3) the
investigator recorded, from students' cumulative folders,
for all seniors who had been in attendance at the school
since at least the fall of 1973, their grade scores in
all courses completed from the fall of 1973 through
January 1976, their sex, and their scores on both the
English Composition Test and the Aptitude Test of the
Florida Twe1fth-Grade Testing Program administered in
fall 1975.


92
School A had been at the school since about the time of
its inception; 5 percent of those in School B, 33.3
percent of those in School C, and 18.2 percent of those in
School D had been at the school since the time of its
inception.
In School D, however, 40.8 percent (nine of twenty-
two) of the teachers of English had been at the school for
six or more years, as compared with 37.5 percent of those
in School A, 15 percent of those in School B, and 33.3
percent of those in School C. Schools C and D, moreover,
the two schools with elective programs in English, were the
only two schools in the sample in which no teacher of
English was in his first year at the school.
In summary, then, teachers of English in the sample
schools with elective programs in English were more
experienced generally and had instructed at the school
longer than teachers of English in the sample schools
with traditional programs.
English Faculty Teaching Load
Responses to Items 4 and 5 on the English Teacher
Questionnaire (Appendix D) were employed to assess the
work load of the faculty in each school.'*' The total
Item 3, number of English classes taught, was in
cluded in the questionnaire solely for the purpose of
establishing that respondents, were, indeed, teaching at
least one English class. Since the response to this item
does not indicate the total number of classes taught nor
the number of students in each class, it is deemed irrele
vant to an assessment of teacher work load.


CHAPTER VII
ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
Focus and Procedure
It will be recalled that the objectives of this study
have been (1) to analyze the nature and extent of the
realtionship between the independent variable of English
program structure and the dependent variable of English
achievement and (2) to examine and describe certain
characteristics of selected English programs, of selected
students, and of English teachers in selected Florida
high schools, as well as of the populations of the districts
in which these schools are located.
The second (and secondary) objective has been achieved
first (in order of presentation) through the description
and discussion in previous chapters. To achieve the
first (and primary) objective, attention will be focused
in this chapter on analysis-analysis of the nature and
extent of statistical association of the fifteen indepen
dent variables (predictor variables)^ with the dependent
variable (product measure) of English achievement--with
particular emphasis on the relationship between the "target"
independent variable of English program structure and the
dependent variable of English achievement.
An outline of these fifteen variables was presented
in the section of Chapter II entitled Design and Procedures.
131


85
offered for English graduation credit is four times the
number of required credits (Criterion #4).
School D
In School D, three English credits earned in grades
ten through twelve are required for graduation. All English
courses, with one exception, are eighteen weeks long and
grant one-half credit each.
Three of the eighteen-week courses: Language, Composi
tion I, and American Literature, are required of all stu
dents. These courses actually number six, since all three
courses are offered on two levels of ability, regular and
advanced, for free (although counseled; election by students
Language (or Advanced Language) must be taken in tenth grade
Composition I (or Composition I Advanced) and American Liter
ature (or American Literature Advanced) may be taken in
either the junior or the senior year.
All of the English courses offered by School D may earn
a student English credit for graduation. The complete list
of offerings is as follows:
36-Week Courses
Advanced Placement English (12) one credit
18-Week Courses (one-half credit each)
Language (10) or Advanced Language (10)
Composition I (11-12) or Composition I
Advanced (11-12)
American Literature (11-12) or American
Literature Advanced (11-12)


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUBY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
B378
78
73
3.66
3.57
2.2
1
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2.83
17,9
3.4
6
12.2
0
B379
27
38
2.27
2.60
2.0
1
B380
63
50
2.19
1.80
2.6
1
B381
41
40
3.03
3.20
2.0
1
B382
24
38
2.68
2.40
3.0
1
B383
39
21
2.30
2.20
2.6
1
B384
16
26
2.44
2.60
2.6
1
B385
04
01
2.23
2.00
2.0
1
B386
13
02
1.21
1.40
1.8
1
B387
70
50
3.29
3.00
2.2
1
B388
85
73
3.53
3.80
1.6
1
B389
99
91
3.39
3.60
1.2
1
B390
54
44
1.89
2.00
2.8
1
206


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A25
66
69
3.00
3.00
3.4
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A26
07
08
1.19
1.36
3.2
1
A27
24
44
2.60
1.67
4.0
0
A28
97
80
3.54
3.36
2.2
1
A29
75
30
2.57
2.30
1.8
1
A30
24
30
3.08
3.00
1.8
1
A31
41
21
3.06
2.90
2.0
1
A32
77
44
3.17
3.20
3.0
1
A33
27
24
1.18
1.17
2.2
0
A34
10
12
1.77
1.73
1.6
1
A35
66
88
2.71
2.85
2.8
0
A36
08
12
1.75
1.30
3.0
0
A37
61
52
2.70
2.82
1.2
0
178


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS 65
2 CRITERION CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS. . 88
3 ENGLISH FACULTY EXPERIENCE 90
4 ENGLISH FACULTY TEACHING LOAD 93
5 ENGLISH FACULTY CERTIFICATION 97
6 NON-WHITE POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 101
7 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOL SIZE AND DISTRICT SIZE. 102
8 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOLS BY POPULATION AND
DISTRICTS BY NON-WHITE POPULATION 103
9 POPULATION WITH FEWER THAN FIVE YEARS' SCHOOLING. 104
10 NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED 105
11 ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME 106
12 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL, SEX, AND
PROGRAM 109
13 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL SEX,
AND APTITUDE 113
14 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES 117
15 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND ATTITUDE 122
16 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX,
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT 126
vi i


86
Other
Mass Media I ([10-12")
Mass Media II (11-12)
Humanities (10-12)
+ Yearbook (10-12)
Journalism (10-12)
Composition II Advanced (11-121
Drama I (10-12)
Drama II (10-12)
Drama III (11-12)
Drama IV (11-12)
Drama V (11-12)
Drama VI (12)
* Publications (10-12)
World Literature (10-12)
Advanced World Literature (10-12)
Creative Writing (11-12)
Modern Fiction (10-12)
Corrective Reading (10-12)
British Literature (11-12)
Public Speaking (10-121
Contemporary Literature (11-12)
+ May be repeated for a maximum of two and a half
credits, one credit only in English
* May be repeated for a maximum of three credits,
one credit only in English
The English program of School D is elective as defined
All but one course is eighteen weeks long (Criterion #1).
Twenty-four of twenty-eight courses (85.2 percent) offered
for English graduation credit are non-graded (Criterion #2[*
No more than 50 percent of the courses required for all
students for graduation are specified (Criterion #3). The
total number of credits offered for English graduation
credit (29/2) is almost five times the number of required
credits (6/2) (Criterion #4).


2
of which had previously been considered as and taught as
separate studies. The "new proliferation" of separate
courses in English studies in the 1960's can be viewed,
therefore, as a natural "pendulum" movement along the
path of curriculum development. An additional cause was
the growth of concern, especially among teachers of
English, that high school students generally were learning
less and less of the English content and skills in high
schools because English as a subject had become more and
more irrelevant to their needs and interests and, there
fore, more disliked.
To supplant "the old practice of teaching grammar,
composition, and literature every year to every student
3
by every English teacher in every grade," a number of
English courses a semester or less in duration have been
offered to students for their selection. In some schools,
especially during the period of early experimentation with
the elective idea, the courses offered were no more varied
than "10th-Grade Literature" or"l2th-Grade Grammar," pre
senting little actual choice for the student.
Arthur N. Applebee, Tradition and Reform in the
Teaching of English: A History (Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1974), p. 21.
3 .
Kilburn Culley, Jr., "Changing an English Program,"
English Journal, 57 (May 1968), 657.


83
Four of these elective courses may be substituted, by seniors
only, for the required course in English with special per
mission: Speech 3, Creative Writing, Mass Media/Contempo
rary Drama, and Language Thru Lens.
Thus, as indicated in Table 2, the English program of
School B is a traditional program as defined. The courses
are all longer than eighteen weeks (Criterion #1). The
number of non-graded courses offered for English graduation
credit is four, which is only one-quarter of the total
number of courses offered (Criterion #2). In regard to
Criterion #3, at least two courses for two credits (three,
in most cases) are specified for all students, more than
50 percent of the number of English credits required for
graduation, three. While Criterion #4 is satisfactorily
met, the total number of courses offered by the department
for graduation credit, sixteen, being more than three times
the number of English credits required for graduation, three,
it is obvious that, for any individual student, a maximum
of seven courses (one in each grade and four exclusive
senior options) is the actual offering.
School C
School C is one of the few Florida schools mentioned
previously in which the requirement of a third year of
English study in grades ten through twelve has been elim
inated. Two English credits earned in grades ten through
twelve are required for graduation.


70
II of twenty items, and fifteen minutes for section III
of thirty items.
The statewide mean raw score for the English Composition
Test of the FTGT in 1975 was 48.51. The statewide standard
deviation was 15.44. The reliability coefficient, computed
as for the Aptitude Test, was .94. The standard error of
18
measurement for the English Composition Test was 3.78.
The decision to use scores on the English Composition
Test of the FTGT battery as measures of the dependent
variable of English achievement was based, at least in
part, on the following considerations:
(1) A score on the test was a "given" for a majority
of the senior students in the selected schools. That is,
although participation in the testing program was voluntary
in 1975, a sizable majority of the seniors in each of the
sample schools had taken the test. Thus, administration
of another instrument for this measure was unnecessary.
(2) The test was a reasonably valid measure of
English achievement, at least in the areas of certain
writing skills, certain reading skills, and knowledge of
standard usage, in spite of its limiting title. In the
words of its constructors and administrants, the test was
designed "to measure . achievement." (The test did
18
19
Ibid.
Ibid.


APPENDIX D
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
YOUR COOPERATION IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL BE
HELPFUL TO US IN A STUDY OF ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS.
PLEASE MARK AN X IN THE BOX BEFORE YOUR ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION.
1. HOW LONG HAVE YOU TAUGHT? (COUNT THIS SCHOOL YEAR AS ONE YEAR.)
n One year n Two or three years n Four or five years
n Six or seven years n Eight through ten years
n More than ten years
2. HOW LONG HAVE YOU TAUGHT AT THIS SCHOOL? (COUNT THIS SCHOOL YEAR
AS ONE YEAR.)
n One year n Two or three years n Four or five years
n Six or seven years n Eight through ten years
n More than ten years
3. HOW MANY ENGLISH CLASSES DO YOU TEACH EACH SCHOOL DAY?
n One or two n Three n Four n Five n Six or more
4. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS YOU TEACH THIS YEAR?
n More than 150 n 125 150 n ioo 124 n 75-99
n Fewer than 75
5. HOW MANY COURSES DO YOU CURRENTLY PREPARE FOR IN ENGLISH? (COUNT
EACH DIFFERENT COURSE OR GRADE LEVEL AS ONE PREPARATION.)
a One n Two n Three n Four n Five or more
6. WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HAVE EARNED?
n Bachelor's n Master's n Specialist's
n Doctor's n None
7. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR TEACHING
CERTIFICATION STATUS? (MAY BE MORE THAN ONE.)
n Certified n Not certified English n Speech
n Journalism n Other subjects (Please specify.)
SCHOOL:
174


45
a selected unit in English." Dyer employed "two evaluative
methods--a narrative report and statistical tests--to
determine the accomplishment of general and specific program
ob j ectives .
Certain of Dyer's findings are of interest to this
investigation. She found that the age or grade level of
students did not appear to be a factor in student achieve
ment on the measures of students' grades and of student
participation in class. She also found statistically
significant gains in English achievement on the STEP
Writing Test, the composition samples, the motivation
achievement index, and student grades.^
The limitations of Dyer's study, however, considerably
reduce the possibilities of generalization and inference.
The one hundred twenty-five students in the program were
all college-bound (presumably by declaration of intent).
The nongraded units of English study were elected by these
students for one third of a school year only (presumably
97
as an experiment). Thus, there is no indication of the
effects of even a one-year program of English electives on
the achievement of a varied group of representative students.
95
Prudence Osborn Dyer, "The Development and Evaluation
of a Program of Nongraded English Electives {Abstract},"
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, No. 10A (1966), 3365.
96..
Ibid.
97
Ibid.


16
Small presents three "sound educational reasons
for moving the traditional, required English class
augmented with a few choices to a totally elective program"
(1) English, more than any other subject in high
school, requires a curriculum designed to allow great
freedom to the student and the teacher, because it deals
with "the highly personal relationship between a man and
his language."
(2) "Elective English programs . provide a
different but stronger and more logical focus than tra
ditional programs." Instead of attempting to struc
ture all of English (an impossible task, since the
subject of English includes so many areas), the subject
is divided "into meaningful units, each of which has its
own structure."
(3) "... elective English programs provide a
coherent, educationally sound system for grouping stu
dents." Grouping by age, sex, ability, or achievement
has not been satisfactory in the past, and especially
in English, "the type and degree of interest the stu
dent has are surely more important" than any of those
other factors of learning, although the four other fac-
2 2
tors "frequently influence those interests," of course.
22
Ibid., pp. 93-95.


Criticisms of the elective English curriculum and
analyses of its weaknesses have been appearing regularly
in print since the early 1970s. Roger J. Fitzgerald, an
early supporter of electives, later found many weaknesses,
such as lack of coherence, frivolousness, and triviality,
in several programs he visited: "They represent neither
change nor relevance."^^ Others, like Albert R. Kitzhaber,
were similarly disillusioned.'*'^*'*
Two years earlier John K, Crabbe, from the Department
of English at the University of Oregon, had noted several
specific objections to an elective English program, which
he described as "the current palliative to student and
102
teacher boredom." First, he felt that flexible scheduling
means team teaching which inevitably means large group
lecture, objectionable in secondary school. Then, some
electives must be required or they will be second choices,
thus obviating the benefits of true election. In addition,
Crabbe argues, nongrading seems at first to do away with
ability grouping, but phasing by difficulty or having
prerequisites means that "in effect only the ages are mixed."
Also, election can mean personality contests for teachers,
*****Roger j. Fitzgerald, "The New Supermarket: A
' Dystopian View of English Electives," English Journal,
61 (April 1972), 536.
^^Albert R. Kitzhaber, "A Rage for Disorder,"
English Journal, 61 (November 1972), 1199-1219.
102
Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives," p. 990.


10
Hillocks' study is based upon "the reports of pro
grams published in various journals, program descriptions
from seventy-six schools and school systems in thirty-
seven states, questionnaire responses from eighty-four
chairmen or supervisors in charge of elective programs,
9
and various other published and unpublished materials."
He describes in detail the program rationales and de
signs, the course offerings and designs, and the evalu
ation methods and results reported by the seventy-six
school systems.^ The general conclusions Hillocks
makes at the termination of his study, especially in
respect to cognitive gains (English achievement), how
ever, are of particular interest to this investigation.
Hillocks concludes that elective English programs
are "based on a series of assumptions which require
examination." The first of these is that such programs
meet the interests, needs, and abilities of students.
Regarding student interests, however, he concludes that
"many of the courses offered parallel college and
Ibid., p. 3. In a commentary note on p. 19, Hillocks
explains that four of "the seventy-six schools and school
systems" are, indeed, systems and that these systems
represent a total of thirty schools.
10, ,
A summary of the rationales presented by twenty-
five schools (the others examined submitted none) is
given in Chapter I of this study in the section entitled
Need for the Study. Also, some of the evaluation methods
and results reported by Hillocks will be discussed later
in this section.


117
Table 14
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Program: Traditional
Elective
School:
V
B
C
D
Sex: F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
Grade Point
Average
Range
3.50-4.0 GPA 1
8
11
5
4
23
13
GPE
14
14
5
6
24
11
2.50-3.49 GPA 10
17
50
33
16
14
45
37
GPE 8
10
55
29
26
14
50
42
1.50-2.49 GPA 3
7
53
48
13
18
19
20
GPE 6
12
39
43
5
12
14
17
0.50-1.49 GPA 1
3
6
6
6
2
1
2
GPE 1
5
9
12
4
6
2
0.00-0.49 GPA
GPE
Sex Mean GPA* 2.74
2.48
2.52
2.46
2.46
2.52
2.99
2.83
Sex Mean GPE* 2.57
2.19
2.60
2.42
2.73
2.43
3.28
2.57
School Mean GPA* 2.57
2.
49
2
.49
2
.92
School Mean GPE* 2.33
2 .
52
2
60
2
. 96


APPENDIXES
PAGE
B. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH 172
C. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS 173
D. ENGLISH TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 174
E. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 175
F. DATA FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL VARIABLES .... 176
G. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 216
H. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY 218
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 224
vi


170
If ever it is reasonably confirmed that elective
programs at their best enhance achievement, improve
attitudes toward English, provide for individualization,
promote morale among teachers and students, and meet
the needs and interests of students--and at their worst
make little or no difference (from traditional programs)
in any of the above--then elective programs in English
can be established as knowledgeable options.


toward English as a subject; an environmental set consisting
of 6)size of school (student population), 7)English faculty
average certification, 8)English faculty average number of
years teaching, 9)English faculty average number of years at
the school, 10)English faculty average teaching load,
11)percentage of non-white population in the school district,
12)percentage of the population in the school district who
had completed fewer than five years of schooling, 13)median
number of years of schooling completed by the population in
the school district, 14)median annual family income of the
population in the school district; and a program set consisting
of 15)program structure (elective or traditional).
Several instruments and sources were employed to
quantify these variables. Variable 1 was measured by the
Aptitude Test of the Florida Twe1fth-Grade Testing Program.
Variables 2, 3, and 4 were recorded or computed from school
records. Variable 5 was measured by an original Student
Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject.
Variables 7, 8, 9, and 10 were measured by an original English
Teacher Questionnaire. Variables 11, 12, 13, and 14 were
recorded or computed from the 1970 Census of the Population.
x


acnuoi
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSF.X
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D277
91
77
3.03
3.33
1.6
1
7
2.52
2.QQ
3,27
2,93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D278
25
59
2.58
2.60
3.0
0
D279
13
36
2.13
1.80
3.0
0
D280
39
48
2.58
2.89
1.2
0
B281
59
61
2.39
2.10
2.0
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B282
10
17
2.34
2.82
1.8
1
B283
61
48
2.13
2.67
1.8
1
B284
97
96
3.09
2.83
1.4
1
B285
52
12 3.13 2.83 1.4
1
198


62
north central Florida and had an elective English program.
Of forty-six teachers on the faculty, six were teaching three
or more English classes a day in the 1975-1976 school year.
The fourth school, D, is in a large urban center in
southwest Florida, in a county whose population in 1970
was 522,329 persons.^ The school population in the spring
1 2
of 1976 was approximately 3,200, and there were 640
seniors. Of 164 teachers in the school, twenty-two taught
English three or more periods a day, and the English program
was elective. School D is one of twelve high schools in
the county.
Student Selection
Students in all four schools who were seniors in the
spring of 1976 and who had been enrolled and in attendance
at the school for at least two consecutive previous school
years (from at least the fall of 1973) were selected as the
initial sample student population for the purposes of this
research. This determination was made because the nature
of the independent variable of particular concern to the
objectives of this study, viz., the structure of the English
program (traditional or elective), is such that only stu
dents who had been exposed to either program consistently
n.,..
Ibid.
1 2
There appeared to be no accurate source of the exact
school population, but several authoritative and otherwise
reliable sources agreed on this approximate figure.


CHAPTER PAGE
Instrumentation and Sources 67
Instrumentation 67
Other Sources 71
Treatment of the Data 71
III.ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES 74
General Features of Elective and Traditional
Programs 74
Length of Courses 74
Non-Graded Courses 76
Criteria for Program Determination for This
Study 76
Structures of Programs in This Study 79
School A 79
School B 81
School C 83
School D 85
Summary 87
IV.TEACHER VARIABLES 89
English Faculty Experience 89
English Faculty Teaching Load 92
English Faculty Certification 95
Summary 98
V.SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION VARIABLES 100
Non-White Population 101
Population with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling 103
School Years Completed 104
Annual Family Income 106
Summary 107
iv


acnooi
and
Student
Number HACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B325
17
09
1.96
2.00
2.2
1
5
2,55 2.90 4,75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B326
29
19
1.77
2.00
2.4
1
B327
57
26
2.04
1.67
1.8
1
B328
10
21
3.07
3.44
1.8
1
B329
63
65
3.07
2.00
4.4
1
B330
33
40
1.62
1.60
2.8
1
B331
48
34
2.72
2.60
1.6
1
B332
70
73
3.04
3.20
3.4
1
B333
33
22
1.65
2.22
2.6
1
B334
35
57
1.66
2.33
3.4
1
B335
93
59
1.54
1.43
2.6
1
B336
97
86
2.88
3.11
2.0
1
B337
39
71
3.52
3.60
2.6
1
202


129
program, sex, aptitude, grade point average (all), grade
point average (English), attitude, and achievement. Follow
ing are the variable codes and the category codes used to
simplify Table 17:
SEX male or female
Category
Sex
A Female
B Male
APT/ACH percentile score on Aptitude Test and
English Composition Test
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
GPA/GPE grade point
Category
A
B
C
Decile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
averages, all and English
Range
0.00 0.49
0.50 1.49
1.50 2.49
2.50 3.49
3.50 4.0
D
E


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
A trend in secondary English education in American
schools in the past decade or two has been the offering
of elective courses, permitting students in grades ten
through twelve choices among a variety of courses of
varied duration, in contrast to the traditional require
ment of three years of general English. These new elected
English courses, unlike traditional electives which were
chosen in addition to the required English, fully satisfy
graduation requirements in English.'*'
This change in the organizational structure of the
English curriculum would appear to have developed both as
a reactionary reversion to a 19th-century approach to
English study and as a result of the increasing dissatis
faction with the English program expressed by educators.
The "pendulum swing" in education reforms has often been
noted. In the case of secondary English in the United
States, it was not until about 1900 that English as a sub
ject became established as a conglomerate study of grammar,
rhetoric, literary history, spelling, and composition, all
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English:
A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana,
Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication
Skills, 1972), p. 1.
1


59
Following is an outline of these independent variables:
I. Size of School (Student Population)
II. English Faculty
A. Average Certification
B. Average Number of Years of Teaching
C. Average Number of Years at the School
D. Average Teaching Load
III.School District Population
A. Percentage of Non-White Population
B. Percentage with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling
C. Median Number of Years of Schooling
D. Median Annual Family Income
IV.Students
A. Sex
B. Academic Aptitude
C. Grade Point Average, All Subjects
D. Grade Point Average, English
E. Attitude Toward English as a Subject
V.English Program Structure
Selection of the Sample
School Selection
In an effort to select representative high schools
with traditional English programs and those with elective
English programs, of varying size (student population),
geographic location, etc., four Florida high schools were
selected for this study, hereinafter referred to as Schools
A, B, C, and D. Two schools, A and B, had had traditional


55
the extent and significance of the association between
fifteen independent (and antecedent) variables and the
dependent variable of English achievement. Since the
independent variable of English program structure is the
primary target toward which this study is aimed, it will
be singled out with special emphasis and in special
detail. In addition, the results of the analysis of the
association of the remaining fourteen independent vari
ables (student variables, English teacher variables, and
school district variables) with English achievement will
be reported.
The concluding chapter (VIII) of this study will
interpret the findings of the analysis, draw conclusions
from them, and discuss their implications for English
program development and for further research.
Limitations of the Study
Curriculum research, like much educational research,
is plagued by many limitations. The number of variables
appears infinite and their number is often further con
founded by the trait of non-i so 1 atabi1ity. Uncontaminated
data are virtually non-existent and many relevant data
are unattainable. Instrumentation is frequently unsophis
ticated. Random sampling and random assignment of treat
ment or subjects are often impossible.
This study reflects many of the above-mentioned
limitations generally. There are, however, specific


29
(6) Insecurity and apathy among the English staff
disappeared.
(7) The teaching task was clearly defined.
(8) The average number of failures per semester went
from sixty in two thousand to eleven in two thousand.^
These advantages and positive results of the elective
English program reported by Weise are remarkably similar
to many of those given by many of the authors mentioned
above. Indeed, Carsen and Conner's original "success"
with the elective program in English was expressed by
them in the following terms:
(1) teacher security (emotional and academic)
(2) immediate feedback and evaluation of an offering
(because of student choices)
(3) improved student attitudes (high involvement and
few discipline problems)
(4) the election of more than the required four
courses by a "significant" number of students.^
Others who reported similar outcomes were Thomas H.
Morton, English curriculum coordinator at Granby Memorial
High School, Granby, Connecticut, and Mario P. DeiDolori,
60Ibid., pp. 123-28.
61Carlsen and Conner, pp. 248-49.


Ot^llUU A
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C56
59
55
3.17
3.40
2.0
1
2
2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C57
24
34
2.00
1.60
2.2
0
C58
68
46
2.96
3.33
1.8
1
C59
16
14
1.88
1.75
3.6
1
C60
79
26
4.00
4.00
1.4
1
C61
57
55
2.48
3.00
2.0
1
C62
24
28
2.39
3.33
2.2
1
C63
04
04
1.95
2.00
1.6
1
C64
54
32
2.84
2.80
1.8
1
C65
43
08
2.64
2.75
2.6
1
C66
22
19
2.85
2.67
1.4
0
C67
01
03
1.21
1.25
1.2
1
C68
13
15
1.53
1.75
1.6
0
181


APPENDIX H
COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION
The procedures employed in the computation of F to test
2
the hypothesis, Rk = 0, are those described in Foundations of
*
Behavioral Research.
The following formula is employed for the F test of
SS k
significance: F = reg/
SSres/ (N-k-1)
where ssreg = the sum of squares due to regression, SSres =
the sum of squares of the residuals (or the deviations from
regression), k = the number of independent variables in the
equation, and N = the sample size. The computer provided
sums of squares to be used in the formula.
Thus, for example, the resultant F = 174.54 (for eight
variables) on page 154 was computed as follows:
SS /k
reg
311394/8
38924
174.54
SS /(N-k-1)
res 1 1
108387/(486) 223
The resultant F statistic was then, in each case, evalu
ated through the use of a standard F table to determine its
significance.+
In the above example, F = 174.54 is significant at
p < .01, since F>01.8 oo = 2.51.
*
Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 608-20.
throughout this report the table of F values consulted
has been "Table D.5, Upper Percentage Points of the £
Distribution," in Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Pro
cedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 524-28.
217


48
who, moreover, may be required to make as many as five
103
unique preparations.
Another criticism made by Crabbe is that the scope of
an individual course in an elective program is often very
narrow or else it is too broad to fit into the time allowed.
The sequence in skills is not consistent for each student nor
can a teacher assume a common literary experience. Further
more, some students do not get a desired course because
not enough other students have elected it. Course descrip
tions, he continues, usually hide from the students the
fact that composition and language are included. The program
is too expensive; too many books are necessary. And finally,
1 04
students may read the same book in more than one course.
The weaknesses in elective programs observed by
George Hillocks, Jr., are stated in both more general and less
trivial terms. Although Hillocks concludes from his study of
elective programs that they "represent the first massive
shattering of the structures that shackled curricula in Eng
lish" and offer many advantages, he is careful to note that
their greatest weaknesses are the same ones that have plagued
traditional programs:
One of the greatest weaknesses of traditional
programs is their tendency to require all students
to do the same work at the same rate. Elective
programs which offer courses at various levels
of difficulty obviously avoid that problem. However,
\
103
1Ibid. p. 991.
1 04
Ibid., pp. 991-93, 1004.


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D251
92
95
3.57
3.00
3.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D252
77
89
3.69
3.20
2.0
0
D253
88
96
3.70
3.40
3.2
0
D254
70
57
2.80
3.20
3.0
1
D255
77
86
4.00
4.00
1.8
1
D256
93
83
3.66
3.63
3.8
1
D257
97
91
4.00
4.00
3.0
0
D258
59
71
2.52
3.00
1.8
0
D259
73
63
2.66
3.00
3.0
1
D260
52
82
2.41
2.20
3.0
0
D261
89
99
3.96
3.29
2.4
0
D262
50
82
2.57
2.86
3.4
0
D263
79
97
3.76
3.60
2.4
0
196


and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D212
59
50
2.50
2.80
1.6
1
7
2,52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D213
66
71
2.80
2.40
2.4
0
D214
43
52
2.86
2.80
3.6
0
D215
70
77
3.32
3.00
2.0
1
D216
43
55
2.93
3.20
3.2
1
D217
83
71
2.77
3.33
3.4
1
D218
98
96
3.59
3.80
1.4
0
D219
85
96
3.21
3.00
3.0
0
D220
81
83
3.56
3.40
2.4
1
D221
66
71
2.97
3.67
2.4
0
D222
20
78
2.64
2.80
2.8
0
D223
10
55
2.37
2.80
3.2
0
D224
93
82
3.19
3.40
2.2
1
193


121
School A, 58.1 percent of the students in School B, 65.4
percent of the students in School C, and 48.2 percent of the
students in School D fall between 1.0 and 2.5, the upper
three-eighths of the possible range between 1.0 and 5.0.
A slightly higher proportion (58.4 percent) of the
students in the traditional English programs in the sample
recorded ATT's between 1.0 and 2.5 than of the students in
the elective English programs in the sample (53.8 percent).
Indexes of the student variable of attitude toward
a subject show little dispersion in the total sample, as
indicated by a standard deviation of 7.613.
It will be recalled (1) that George Hillocks, Jr.,
concluded that English elective programs generally pro
duce a positive affective response and "a more concrete
awareness of student attitudes toward what they are sup
posed to be learning in English"^ and (2) that many
teachers expressed their beliefs that students' interest
in and enthusiasm for English had improved considerably
as a result of participation in English elective programs.^
The barely discernible difference between the mean attitudes
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English: A
Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills,
1972), p. 119.
6Ibid., p. 122.
7
The reader is referred to the section of Chapter I
entitled A Review of the Literature.


84
Most English courses are eighteen weeks in duration,
for one-half credit each, with the exception of four courses
which are year-long courses, for one credit each. All stu
dents in grade ten take English II, a thirty-six-week (year
long) course for one English credit.
The remaining one required English credit may be earned
by students in grades eleven and twelve by taking any of
several courses listed below. The grade levels for which
the course is open to enrollment are also listed, as well
as the length of the course. Students in grades ten through
twelve may, of course, take additional English credits, in
excess of those required for graduation.
36-Week Courses
World Literature (11-12)
Journalism (11-12)
Publications (11-12)
13-Week Courses
Developmental Reading
Lab (11-12)
American Literature (11)
Fiction (11-12)
Creative Writing (11-12)
Writing (10-12)
Speech (11-12)
Drama I (10-12)
Drama II (11-12)
The data which qualify the English program of School C
as elective are presented in Table 2. All criteria are
satisfied. Twice as many courses are eighteen weeks long
as are longer (Criterion #1). Ten of twelve courses (83.3
percent) offered for English graduation credit are non-
graded (Criterion #2). No more than 50 percent of the
courses required for all students for graduation are
specified (Criterion #3). The total number of credits


and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D173
77
61
2.93
3.00
2.6
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D174
61
67
3.26
3.11
1.8
0
D175
92
99
4.00
4.00
2.4
1
D176
37
32
2.23
2.43
1.6
1
D177
66
86
3.37
3.17
2.0
1
D178
59
40
3.45
3.83
2.2
1
D179
89
83
3.37
3.60
2.6
1
D180
75
63
2.97
2.25
2.0
1
D181
39
80
2.14
2.40
3.4
0
D182
85
79
3.73
3.20
2.6
0
D183
81
80
3.76
3.20
1.8
0
D184
59
73
3.07
3.20
1.8
1
D185
88
92
3.26
3.00
3.0
0
190


28
All English courses in the APEX program lasted one
semester and were available for free election by all stu
dents, ninth through twelfth grades, with no requirements
or prerequisites. Courses were phased by the assignment of
a number from one to five to each course indicating its
level of difficulty. (Some courses were multi-phased.)
Help in course selection was provided by English counselors
and other advisors. Each course, regardless of content,
was to contain experiences in reading, writing, speaking,
and 1istening.
Donald F. IVeise, chairman of the English Department
in Trenton High School, reported many positive results of
the APEX program after two years of operation, among them:
(1) English became one of the most liked (by students)
subjects after having been the least liked for a number of
years.
(2) Students' general attitudes improved.
(3) The number of discipline referrals to the admin
istration from English classes decreased from eighty-nine
(more than in any other department) to nineteen in one year,
eight of which were from substitute teachers.
(4) Students were accepting more responsibility for
their own learning.
(5) Students' individual needs were being met.
59
Weise, pp. 124-26.


140
TABLE 18
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE VARIABLES
(N= 495)
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
DACH
50.59
29.15
SAPT
51.82
29.35
SGPA
2.63
. 69
SGPE
2.65
. 75
SATT
2.43
. 07
SSEX
. 52
.49
ESIZ
4.91
1.86
EFAC
2.51
. 06
EFAT
2.48
.41
EFAS
3.81
1 .21
EFAL
3.00
. 26
ENWP
15.57
6.51
EUFY
3.34
. 98
EMF I
4.07
1.86
EMSY
11.92
.53
PRTE
.48
. 50


1S9
percentage of adults in the district who had completed
fewer than five years of schooling, median family income in
the district, and median number of school years completed
by adults in the district -
(3) program set the one variable of English program
structure (elective or traditional).
The mean and the standard deviation of each variable
were computed and reported, as was the intercorrelation among
the variables. There is extensive intercorrelation. Nine
of the fifteen independent variables correlate significantly
with the dependent variable. Twelve of the independent
variables correlate significantly with seven or more of the
other independent variables.
Three series of multiple linear regression equations
were computed, each forcing sets of independent (predictor)
variables into the equation in a different order of entry.
Each of the sets was given initial priority (entered first
into the equation) in one of the series.
The resultant coefficients of determination (squared
multiple correlation coefficients) were interpreted as
estimates of the proportion of product measure (dependent
variable) variance accounted for by the variable(s) in the
equation and were evaluated for statistical significance by
means of an F statistic.
A major proportion of the product measure variance is
associated with the complete prediction system of fifteen
independent variables.


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D134
68
65
2.33
2.80
3.6
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D135
45
80
2.15
1.83
3.2
0
D136
91
92
2.89
2.60
1.6
1
D137
92
88
3.83
3.80
1.6
1
D138
57
65
3.11
3.00
3.0
1
D139
86
73
2.96
3.00
1.4
1
D140
09
14
2.08
2.50
1.8
1
D141
45
44
2.81
2.80
2.6
1
D142
88
78
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
D143
91
96
3.64
3.11
3.2
1
D144
59
48
3.25
3.33
2.2
1
D145
14
11
2.00
1.71
2.0
0
D146
07
44
2.56
2.40
2.4
0
187


CHAPTER IV
TEACHER VARIABLES
Data concerning the professional background and experi
ence and the nature of the current teaching assignments of the
English faculty in the four sample schools were collected in
the spring of 1976 for the ultimate purpose of establishing
values for four predictor variables used in the analysis
reported in Chapter VII.
These data were derived from responses of teachers of
English in all schools to the English Teacher Questionnaire
(Appendix D). In School A, there were eight responses; in
School B, twenty responses; in School C, six responses; in
School D, twenty-two responses. In each case, the number of
responses equaled the total number of teachers in the school
who were teaching one or more English courses.
In this chapter these data will be described and dis
cussed, and certain comparisons, both verbal and statistical,
made among them and between them and the kind of English
program structure in which the teachers were engaged.
English Faculty Experience
The extent of the professional experience of the Eng
lish faculty in each school was determined from responses
from all teachers in the school teaching one or more Eng
lish courses to Items 1 and 2 of the English Teacher
Questionnaire.
89


61
designated as teachers of English courses, seven exclusively
and one partly. (This one also taught other courses in
other departments.) The English program at School A was
traditional.^
Also with an English program designated as traditional
g
for the purposes of this study, School B, located in a
sprawling metropolis in the southeastern coastal region of
Florida, had a population in the spring of 1976 of 2,307
students, 380 of whom were seniors. It is one of eleven
high schools in its district. Of the eighty-seven teachers
on its faculty, nineteen were assigned to the English
Department full-time and one taught English part-time.
The total number of residents in the county in 1970 was
348,753.9
School C had a population of 787 students in the spring
of 1976, including 135 seniors. There were three other high
schools in the county, which had a population in 1970 of
36,290 persons.^ The school is located in a small city in
7
For further explanation and description of the English
programs, the reader is referred to Chapter III; for further
English teacher information, Chapter IV; for further school
district information, Chapter V; and for further student
information, Chapter VI. A summary of the school character
istics enumerated in this section can be found in Table 1
at the end of the section.
g
Operational definitions of "traditional" and "elective"
are provided in Chapter II, English Program Structures.
9
1970 Census of the Population, p. 155.
Ibid.


17
It is interesting to compare Small's philosophical
rationale of three reasons to the five most frequent
ones presented by twenty-five schools engaged in the
actual implementation of an English elective program and
23 24
reported by Hillocks in the same month. While the
two advantages to teachers cited by the schools are not
mentioned by Small in his answer to the question:
Why should we have an elective English program?, they
are fully discussed later in the article in answers to
25
other questions. The discussion makes it evident that
Small agrees on these advantages (and others) that accrue
to teachers in such a program, but he stresses the subor
dination of teacher benefits (and, for that matter, admin
istrative or other benefits) to those to be reaped by the
students in such a program. For example, he says, in
respect to the English teacher's "opportunity to make use
of his special skills and interests," that "the only
2 3
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7. A sum
mary of these rationales is quoted in the section of this
chapter entitled Need for the Study. They are, in order
of frequency from most to least: students can choose
courses in which they are interested, elective programs
can meet the needs of students, teachers can specialize
(use interests or talents), elective programs can meet
the interests of students, the teaching task is more
clearly defined.
24
It is assumed that Small had had no access to
Hillocks' study. Both Small's article and Hillocks'
book are dated November 1972.
25
Small, pp. 103-05.


21
Applebee sees the development of the elective programs in
English as one result of a counter-movement in the 1970s,
in the course of which the concern of the individual has
returned and the "new" goals of relevance and personal
30
growth have been established.
In his examination of the decade from 1958 to 1968,
Daniel Donlan found three concurrent developments in
secondary English curriculum: the content-centered model,
the student-centered model, and the elective-centered
model. The last of these he described as based on the
assumptions that teachers do best in areas of special
interest and that students can and should plan their own
31
English programs.
Richard Graves, associate professor of secondary
education at Auburn University in 1974, saw the development
of the elective program in English as the result of the
3 2
failure of the unit method to individualize instruction.
That is, individualized instruction had continued to be a
desired goal for over a quarter of a century, and in the
forties and fifties, the unit method was generally thought
30Ibid., p. 236.
3^Daniel Mahaney Donlan, "Dilemma of Choice:
Revolution in English {Abstract! ," Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXII, No. 12 f19 7 21. 6740.
32
Richard L. Graves, "English Elective Curricula and
How They Grew", Educational Forum, 38 (January 1974), 196.


CHAPTER VI
STUDENT VARIABLES
In the preceding chapters, the description and discus
sion of variables measured and recorded for this study have
been concentrated on those variables that may be considered
environmental, in the sense that they are external to the
subjects (students) with whom the study is concerned. Those
several attributes of the student's environment that have
been identified for this study are ones associated either
with the school or with the school district population.
Variables within the category of school environment are
(1) the size (population) of the school, (2) the structure
of the English program, (3) the experience of the English
faculty, (4) the teaching load of the English faculty, and
(5) the certification of the English faculty. Variables
within the category of the environment of the school district
population are (1) the number of non-white persons, (2) the
number of persons who completed fewer than five years of
schooling (3) the number of school years completed, and
(4) the annual family income.
In this chapter, those remaining variables outlined in
Chapter II and in the analysis reported in the next chapter
are described and discussed and compared in various combin
ations. These are the student variables, that is, those
which are attributes of the subjects themselves.
108


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C43
52
12
3.50
3.33
1.6
1
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C44
88
86
3.82
3.86
3.4
0
C45
45
15
2.62
3.00
2.6
1
C46
10
09
2.10
1.40
2.2
0
C47
19
34
2.27
2.50
3.4
1
C48
45
46
2.96
3.60
3.0
0
C49
07
15
1.88
1.75
2.4
0
C50
57
34
3.23
3.25
1.4
1
C51
86
86
4.00
4.00
2.2
0
C52
48
32
2.00
3.00
1.4
1
C53
98
94
3.76
4.00
2.8
0
C54
27
28
3.58
3.50
1.0
0
C55
41
14
2.72
2.25
2.4
0
180


134
(4) attitude toward English (SATT)
(5) s_ex_ (SSEX) .
These five variables (1 through 5) constitute the student
set of independent variables. The environmental (external)
independent variables include:
(6) school size (ESIZ)
(7) English faculty average certification (EFAC)
(8) English faculty ^verage years t_eaclii-ng (EFAT)
(9) £nglish faculty ¡average years, cc^ool (EFAS)
(10) English faculty average teaching j^oad (EFAL)
(11) non-white population, county (ENWP)
(12) adults with under £ive years' schooling
county (EUFY)
(13) median family income> county (EMFI)
(14) median £chool years completed, county (EMSY).
These nine variables (6 through 14) constitute the evi-
ronmental set of independent variables. The English pro
gram variable (traditional or elective) is symbolized as:
(15) PRTE.
Variable 15 constitutes the program set of independent
variables.
The grouping of the independent variables into sets
was performed for the purpose of isolating the program
variable in the regression analyses reported later in this
chapter. That is, since the program variable is the inde
pendent (predictor) variable of specific interest


20
The forces behind the development of such elective
programs in English as are described by Small and Hillocks
have been analyzed by a number of authors, either as part
of a comprehensive history of developments in English
study in the United States or as a specific history of
the elective program itself. Arthur N. Applebee, for
example, in his "systematic exploration of the history
2 8
of the teaching of English" in America, discusses the
English elective program as the last (and presumably
the most recent) of a long line of developments and
changes in English study. He attributes the growth of
the elective program in English to:
(1) ". . the failure of the academic model {of the
1950s and early 1960sJ for the curriculum to find any widely
accepted structuring principles"
(2) the fact that ". . it is more responsive to
the demands of the students, more 'relevant,' than the
traditional course"
(3) its attempt ". . to fit the institutional
structure to the course content, instead of the courses
to the existing institutional frame"
(4) its convenience for proponents of behavioral
2 9
objectives and programmed instruction.
2 8
Applebee, Tradition and Reform, p.
29
xi .
Ibid., pp. 238-39 .


12
A second assumption on which elective English pro
grams are based, continues Hillocks, is "that the oppor
tunity afforded teachers to specialize is beneficial."
The benefits of specialization are questionable, however,
and the question of who benefits is paramount. He con
cludes that, while "the 'teaching task' may be clearer"
-- a benefit for the teacher -- "it is clearer only
at the expense of fragmenting the subject more than is
necessary." The integration of the skills of reading,
writing, speaking, listening, and thinking claimed by
many of the programs may be "no greater . than it
would be in a course in geometry in which a student must
12
also read, write, speak, listen, and think."
Thirdly, many English elective programs are conducted
on the assumption that "shorter courses and a greater
variety of teachers are strengths." Hillocks concludes
that the evidence available seems to indicate that course
length makes less of a difference in learning than
instructional method, but that too short a course (he
considers ten or fewer weeks too short) probably does
12
Ibid., p. 117.


160
The student set of independent (predictor) variables
accounts for much greater proportion of product measure
variance than either of the other sets singly or of the
other two sets combined. The total contribution of the
student set to product measure variance is statistically
signficant.
The independent variable of student academic aptitude
singly accounts for a much greater proportion of product
measure variance than any other single variable. Its total
contribution is statistically significant.
Three of the environmental set of independent (predictor)
variables jointly account for a small but statistically sig
nificant proportion of product measure variance. They are
the percentage of non-white persons in the school district
population, the school size (population), and the average
kind and quality of certification held by English faculty
members.
The percentage of non-white persons in the school
district singly accounts for a small but statistically sig
nificant proportion of product measure variance.
Determination of the proportion of product measure
variance accounted for by the entire environmental set of
nine variables jointly was not possible, since in none of the
equations were all nine environmental variables included.
The program variable singly accounts for a very small
but statistically significant proportion of product measure
variance.


6
The information obtained from this study will, it is
hoped, help clarify the extent to which the program structure
of English, whether elective or traditional, to which a stu
dent is exposed in grades ten through twelve is associated
with his achievement of English skills.
Objectives of the Study
The study reported herein was primarily undertaken
for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which the
organizational structure of the English program to which
a student has been exposed for three years from tenth
through twelfth grades influences his achievement of
English cognitive skills. Specifically, how significant
a factor of English achievement is the kind of English
program structure (elective or traditional) compared
with other factors associated with English achievement?
In the course of the report of this study, selected
programs, students, and teachers in the state of Florida
are described, and collected data about these programs,
students, and teachers are recorded. Certain verbal
and statistical comparisons are made concerning these
programs, students, and teachers. In addition, certain
pertinent educational characteristics of the populations
of the school districts in which the programs were imple
mented are recorded and compared. These comparisons
are intended to be descriptive only, and any parallels
drawn are intended only to suggest possible relationships.


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B482
12
44
2.46
1.80
3.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B483
33
38
2.52
3.00
3.2
1
B484
45
42
1.97
1.86
3.2
1
B485
50
21
2.61
2.80
1.8
1
B486
48
12
1.66
2.50
2.0
1
B487
92
93
2.55
3.20
1.6
1
B488
13
19
2.50
2.50
3.0
1
B489
68
61
2.86
2.75
1.8
1
B490
43
34
2.24
2.40
2.6
0
B491
08
14
2.45
2.00
1.2
0
B492
20
07
2.39
2.80
1.8
0
B493
52
67
2.45
2.60
2.0
0
B494
66
65
2.90
3.18
2.0
0
214


75
usual amount of time constituting a school year, these
courses may be considered, and usually have been considered,
year-long courses. Such courses are traditionally entitled
English I, English II, and English III (or English II,
English III, and English IV, if course numbering is
initiated with the ninth-grade curriculum), although in
some few schools, other nomenclature based on the concen
trated focus of the year's study is used, such as American
Literature for e1eventh-grade English and English Literature
for twe1fth-grade English.
In contrast, elective English programs have almost
exclusively offered courses lasting eighteen or fewer
weeks : ^
. . fifty programs offer the bulk of their
courses in eighteen-week blocks. The remainder
of the programs offer courses of four, six, nine,
ten, or twelve weeks in length. Several use a
combination of course lengths,^for example, nine
weeks, a semester, and a year.^
Indeed, this feature of English elective programs (courses
lasting eighteen or fewer weeks) has become so universal
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English:
A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972),
pp. 13-15. Of seventy-six schools and school systems in
thirty-seven states with elective English programs investi
gated by Hillocks, none offered courses longer than eighteen
weeks, except (rarely) in combination with courses shorter
than eighteen weeks.
3Ibid., pp. 13-14.


119
The standard deviations of the GPA's and the GPE's of
the total sample of 495 students are 69.50 and 75.90,
respectively. Thus, in respect to grade point averages,
the sample contains considerable variability or dispersion.
Attitude Toward English
As previously indicated, a measure of each student's
attitude toward English as a subject was derived from his
responses to Items 3 through 7 of the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject (Appendix E).
A student's attitude toward a school subject is con
strued as a composite of his perceptions of the degree to
which the subject holds his interest, satisfies his needs,
and gains his liking. Each item on the questionnaire
provided the student an opportunity to rate the subject
of English on a five-point scale in one of the areas of
4
interest, need, or liking.
Item 3 asked for an expression of interest; Items 4
and 5 related to two kinds of perceived needs, professional
and personal; Items 6 and 7 related to the liking of Eng
lish as a subj ect.
The factors influencing students' attitudes toward a
school subject are no doubt divers and diverse, in all
probability including at least the home and family attitude
and environment, the like (or dislike) of a particular
teacher, and the choice of a career. For the purposes of the
present study, however, the etiology of a student's attitude
toward English is considered irrelevant.


44
enrolled in a traditional program . {and! that the
difference is due to the treatment and not to any other
factor" would thus appear to be a sound one because of the
efficiency of his research design. The treatments are
distinct from each other. Random selection and assignment
assure considerable control of extraneous variance.
Additional control is achieved by testing the effects of
sex and grade level. Error variance is minimized by
controlling conditions, by the use of a reliable measure,
and by adjusting for individual differences.
McCormick notes, however, that, since "the mean score
for the experimental group as adjusted for individual
differences, does not represent a great increase over
the mean score for the control group, . care should
be exercised . not to conclude that the advantage for
the experimental group necessarily implies superiority
large enough to warrant implementation of elective programs
94
as a means of improving learning." The obvious impli
cation is that further research is needed.
Another study, Prudence Dyer's evaluation of a limited
English elective program in a small rural high school in
Garretsville, Ohio, focused on the effects upon student
learning of three elements: "nongrading, for the purpose
of interest grouping; opportunities for choice in what to
study; and time and encouragement for specialization in
94
Ibid.


141
non-white persons = 15.57), but only 3 percent
of whom had completed fewer than five years of schooling
(M_IIC,V = 3.34). The average county resident twenty-five
curl
or more years of age had completed high school =
11.92), and the annual income of his family ranged from
$8,000 to 8,499 (MC..CT = 4.07).
bMr 1
Intercorre 1 at ion of the Variables
The intercorrelation of the entire set of variables
is shown in Table 19.
The data in Table 19 reveal that there is extensive
correlation among many of the variables. Nine of the
fifteen independent variables (SAPT, SGPA, SGPE, ESIZ,
EFAT, EFAS, ENWP, EUFY, and EMSY) correlate significantly
( p .001) with the dependent variable (DACH).
Of these nine significant correlations, all but one
might be expected on logical and empirical grounds. The
positive correlations of three S variables with achievement
in English (DACH) seems reasonable: the higher the
academic aptitude scores (SAPT, r = .81, the higher the
achievement scores; the higher the grade point averages
in all subjects (SGPA, r = .65) and in English (SGPE,
r = .57), the higher the achievement scores in English.
Correspondingly, the two E variables dealing with
English faculty (EFAT and EFAS) that are significantly
correlated statistically with achievement in English seem
to be in a logically concomitant relationship to achievement


176
APPENDIX F
DATA FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL VARIABLES
School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENVVP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A1
27
22
2.00
2.30
1.2
1
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A2
59
77
1.44
1.07
2.2
0
A3
96
96
3.20
3.27
2.4
0
A4
54
28
2.51
1.91
3.0
0
A5
68
82
3.15
2.80
1.2
1
A6
43
24
2.15
1.36
2.2
0
A7
08
28
2.80
2.50
2.2
0
A8
85
59
2.72
2.10
2.2
0
A9
41
50
2.58
1.90
2.6
0
A10
96
77
2.46
2.33
3.4
0
All
77
48
3.38
3.27
1.8
1


51
program and the achievement of cognitive skills in English,
using data relating to selected high schools, students, and
school districts in Florida. The selection of independent
variables in this investigation was influenced by the find-
109
ings of Bottosto's and Moore's studies. In addition,
the choice for this investigation of certain test scores
on the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program as measures
of English achievement and of academic aptitude, as well as
the choice of United States census data as measures of
certain school district population characteristics, was
influenced by the findings of these two studies.^^
Samuel Bottosto developed measures of the socioeconomic
levels of Florida counties^^ from census data relating to
the median numbers of years of school completed by persons
twenty-five years old and over and to median annual family
income. He developed measures of county-wide intelligence
and academic achievement from individual test scores made
by 24,026 high school seniors who had participated in the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in 1956 and in 1957.
The section of Chapter II entitled Design and Pro
cedures provides further details on the selection of variables.
110TL
The section of Chapter II entitled Instrumentation and
Sources provides further information on the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program, the United States census, and their
use in this study.
Ill
In
Florida,
the county is the school district.


Table 19
CORRELATION MATRIX (N = 495)
SAPT
DACH .81
SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX
.65 .57 .12 .11
ESIZ
.31
EFAC
.00
EFAT
- 17
EFAS
- 15
EFAL
- 08
ENWP
- 35
EUFY
- 34
EMF I
. 00
EMSY
.22
PRTE
.13
SAPT
.59 .50 .24 -.10
.47
.07
- 17
-.11
- 20
- .46
- .48
.08
. 37
. 11
SG PA
.83 .07 .07
. 20
. 00
- .22
-.11
- 03
- 22
- 19
- 11
. 06
. 19
SG PE
-.04 .17
.21
. 08
- 24
- .02
- 09
- 15
- 13
- 13
.01
.23
SATT
- 17
. 13
.01
- 07
- 04
- 04
- 13
- 13
. 00
. 09
.05
SSEX
. 07
.10
- .01
. 08
- 09
. 00
- .01
.01
.01
.02
ESIZ
.52
- 30
.15
- 71
- 69
- 80
.22
. 65
.22
EFAC
. 06
.91
- 94
. 24
. 03
. 30
.12
. 02
EFAT

. 31
-.13
. 30
. 11
. 86
. 3 9.
- 98
p (r > .1461K.001
EFAS
- 79
. 58
. 36
. 36
- .05
- 19
EFAL
. 02
. 26
- .48
- 43
. 10
ENWP
. 95
- 09
- 70
- 14
EUFY
- 33
- 86
.03
EMF I
.77
- .89
EMSY
- 51
*The procedures employed to test the significance of r are described in Appendix G.
142


115
opt a pass or fail grading, and of work study courses in
all schools, which are graded either satisfactory or
2
unsatisfactory).
The following grade points are assigned to each letter
grade for the purpose of computing a grade point average:
A 4, B 3, C 2, D 1, F 0. The grade point average
attained by a student is determined by dividing the number
of grade points earned by the number of courses completed.
For example, a student who completed sixteen courses in all
subjects and had earned forty grade points in those courses
attained a grade point average (GPA) of 2.50 in all subjects.
A student who had completed six courses of English and had
earned thirteen grade points in those courses attained a
grade point average (GPE) of 2.17 in English.
The grade point averages in Table 14 are tabulated in
the ranges used for letter-grade equivalents in all four
schools; that is, a grade point average within the range of
3.50 to 4.0 is equivalent to an A average, 2.50 to 3.49,
a B average, and so forth. No student in the sample had
earned an F average (0.00-0.49) either in all subjects (GPA)
or in English courses (GPE) completed in his tenth,
eleventh, and twelfth grades.
Grades for these physical education courses and work
study courses have been excluded from the computations of
grade point averages.


114
Table 13 continued
Mean Sex Aptitude* 40.1
49.9
47.5
51.2
21.5
28.9
64.4
76.5
Mean School Aptitude* 46.4
49.2
25.1
69.9
Mean Program Aptitude* 48.7
59.3
Mean Sample Aptitude* 51.8
*computed for this study from individual percentile
scores (of the 495 students in the sample) on the Aptitude
Test of the FTGT in 1975, recorded in Appendix F.
Grade Point Averages
Two grade point averages have been computed for each
student in the sample: (1) that based on grades earned
by the student in all courses which he completed from the
fall of 1973 through January 1976 (GPA) and (2) that based
on grades earned by the student in all courses offered by
the English Department of the school and completed from
the fall of 1973 through January 1976 (GPE).
In all schools in the sample, grades are recorded
as A, B, C, D, or F (with the exception of courses in
physical education in School B, for which students may


163
all research, is particularly important in
ex post facto studies, because it is one of
the only ways to "control" the independent
variables of.such research.*
The independent variables added to the study number
2
fourteen, it will be recalled, the large number the
result of an attempt to "exhaust the possibilities" to
a reasonable degree.
The addition of alternative independent variables
to introduce some control in the regression analysis, how
ever, posed some difficulties of interpretation in the
present study. As previously noted, the more extensive
the intercorrelation among the independent variables, the
more obscuration of systematic relationships in multiple
regression analysis, since more of the common variance
of the dependent variable and one or more independent
variables is inevitably shared by any individual inde
pendent variable. The fifteen independent variables in
this study are substantially intercorrelated, it will be
3
recalled.
It was the original intent of the investigator,
anticipating such substantial intercorrelation among
Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 388-90.
2
For information concerning the selection of these
variables, the reader is referred to footnote 5, Chapter II.
3See Table 19.


60
English program structures for at least two years pre
ceding the 1975-1976 school year and were continuing the
same structure for that year. Two schools, C and D, had
had elective program structures in English for at least
two years prior to the 1975-1976 school year and were
continuing the structure for that year.
In 1976, all four schools had been accredited fully
by the Department of Education of the State of Florida
and, additionally, by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. All four schools comprised ninth through
twelfth grades, and seniors (twe1fth-graders) in all four
schools were enrolled in English courses.
School A is located in a rural area in north central
Florida and is one of three high schools in the county
in which it is located. The county population in 1970
was 32,059 persons.^ In the spring of 1976, the total
student population of school A was 882 students and 147
of these were classified as seniors. There were fifty
teachers on the faculty; eight of these teachers were
1970 Census of the Population. Vol. 1 (Character-
istics of the Population), Part 11 (Florida), issued
April 1973, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and
Economics Statistics Administration, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C., p. 154.


U1UU1
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B299
98
93
2.96
3.00
1.4
1
5
2,55 2,90 4.75 2.83 17,9 3,4
6
12.2
Q
B300
70
44
2.89
3.40
2.4
1
B301
61
59
1.93
1.80
2.0
1
B302
75
94
3.03
3.60
2.8
1
B303
29
30
2.50
2.20
2.6
0
B304
54
42
2.70
2.43
3.4
0
B305
48
34
1.10
2.20
1.0
0
B306
91
93
4.00
4.00
3.2
0
B307
85
86
3.33
3.00
3.6
0
B308
57
67
2.62
2.40
2.4
0
B309
13
32
2.16
1.80
2.2
0
B310
43
61
3.14
2.71
1.4
0
B311
92
97
3.80
3.60
3.2
0
200


222
Piche, Gene Laurence. "Revision and Reform in the Secondary
School English Curriculum, 1870-1900 {Abstract}."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII, No. 8 (1967), 2997.
Price, Alice Hayes. "A Description of a Changing High School
Department {Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts Inter
nationa^, XXXII, No. 10 (1971), 5658.
Rife, Robert V. "Would You Believe?" English Journal, 61
(April 1972), 555-59, 599.
Schiro, Michael Stephen. "An Analysis of Factors Affecting
Curriculum Creation {Abstract}." American Doctoral
Dissertations (1971), p. 111.
Shane, Estelle Lader. "Structure of Knowledge and the
Development of Curriculum and Instructional Materials
in the Field of English { Abstract }. Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 02 (1971), 728.
Slack, Robert C. "A Report on Project English." College
English, 26 (October 1964), 43-47.
Small, Robert C., Jr. "Framework for Diversity: The
Elective English Curriculum." The High School Journal,
56 (November 1972), 93-107.
Smith, Jack E., Jr. "180 Days: Observations of an Elective
Year." English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 229-35.
Squire, James R. "National Study of High School Programs:
A School for All Seasons." English Journal, 55 (March
1966), 282-90.
Stern, Adele H. "Sorry, Dr. Silberman! Mini-Courses in the
High School." English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 550-54.
Stone, George Winchester, Jr. "Five Years Since the Basic
Issues Report." College English, 26 (May 1965), 585-91.
Vandenberg, Eugene M. "The Changing Objectives and Philosophy
of the American Secondary School Curriculum, 1893-1961
{Abstract}." American Doctoral Dissertations (1963), p. 64.
Weber, B. Hart. "The Effect of Two Language Arts Curricula
upon Standardized Achievement Test Scores in the Inner-City
{Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVIII,
No. 08 (1969), 3208.
Weise, Donald F. "Nongrading, Electing, and Phasing: Basics
of Revolution for Relevance." English Journal, 59 (January
1970), 122-30.


School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A12
25
24
2.29
1.91
1.0
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A13
41
44
2.28
1.90
2.4
0
A14
75
52
3.06
2.89
2.2
1
A15
52
57
2.30
2.00
2.4
0
A16
73
67
2.73
2.54
3.2
0
A17
22
11
2.04
1.73
3.0
0
A18
52
55
3.12
2.30
3.4
0
A19
03
04
2.79
3.08
3.2
0
A20
13
15
1.93
1.80
1.6
1
A21
25
52
2.67
2.30
1.6
0
A22
61
65
3.21
2.38
3.0
1
A23
85
50
1.38
1.43
2.8
0
A24
43
67
3.19
2.92
2.0
1
177


109
The student variables identified for this study are
(1) sex, (2) academic aptitude, (3) grade point averages,
(4) attitude toward English, and (5) English achievement.
Sex
Of the 495 subjects in this study, all seniors in
the sample Florida high schools in the spring of 1976
who had been enrolled and in attendance at the school
from at least the fall of 1973, 260, or 52.5 percent,
are female; 235, or 47.5 percent, are male. The number
of female and male subjects in each school is indicated
in Table 12, as well as the number who had been exposed
to each kind of program structure.
Table 12
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL,
SEX, AND PROGRAM
School
Program
Sex
Female
Male
Total
No .
T~
No .
%
No.
%
A
Traditional
15
35.7
27
64.3
42
B
Traditional
117
54.4
98
45.6
215
Program Total
: 132
51.4
125
48.6
257
51.9
C
Elective
40
51.3
38
48.7
78
D
Elective
88
55.0
72
45.0
160
Program Total
: 128
53.8
110
46.2
238
48.1
Sample Total: 260
52.5
235
47.5


11
traditional high school offerings and appear to reflect
teacher interests rather than those of the students,"
suggesting that "careful inventories of student re
sponses to each course be made systematically." Like
wise, in regard to meeting the needs of students, ". .
there is no evidence that any of the programs examined have
made a systematic analysis of student needs. . .
The most traditional English program can lay claim to
serving the needs of its students with the same confidence
that elective programs can." On the other hand, he
concludes, "Elective English programs do go well beyond
traditional programs in their attempts to provide courses
appropriate to students with various ability levels," but
still unrealistically assume that students will elect
courses appropriate to their abilities and that all
students in a course are of much the same ability. Tea
chers, therefore, rarely vary their instruction any more
than those in traditional programs. Consequently, little
may be being accomplished in this regard other than
"maintaining the abilities that students have when they
enter the courses."^
11
Ibid., pp. 115-16.


218
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, Henry L., and Edward B. Roessler. Introduction to
Probability and Statistics. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 1972.
Applebee, Arthur N. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching
of English: A History. Urbana, Illinois: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1974.
Aten, Donald Groover. A Study of Two Teacher Education
Programs and an Analysis of the Association Between
Antecedent Variables and Product Measures, Ed. D. Disser
tation (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
1969) .
Barone, Frank J. "The Answer Is 'A Performance Curriculum'."
English Journal, 56 (February 1967), 227-28.
Bottosto, Samuel Sandy. "Relationship Between County-Wide
Measures of Certain Socio-Economic Factors, Intelligence,
and Academic Achievement of High School Seniors in Florida
{Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts, XX, No. 03 (1959),
1931 .
Boyce, Susie Ann Blackburn. "A Study of Grouping for
Secondary English Education {Abstract}-." Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 11A (1971), 6284.
Bronson, David B. "The Story of an English Elective Program."
English Journal, 60 (November 1971), 1086-90.
Carlsen, G. Robert. "Some Random Observations -- About the
English Curriculum." English Journal, 61 (October 1972),
1004-09.
Carlsen, G. Robert, and John W. Conner. "New Patterns from
Old Molds." English Journal, 51 (April 1962), 244-49.
Commers, Mary C. "Operation English Freedom." English
Journal, 59 (May 1970), 674-76,
Cook, Stanley Snider. "A Comparative Study of Aims Held by
Parents, Students, and Teachers for an English Program in
a Suburban High School {Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts,
XV, No. 09 (1955), 1570.
Crabbe, John K. "Those Infernal Electives." English Journal,
59 (October 1970), 990-93, 1004.


223
Wethington, Charles Turner, Jr. "A Study of the Relation
ships Between Attitude Toward English and Several Selected
Variables -[Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXI, No. 04A (1965), 1637.
Williams, George L. "English Electives Evaluated."
Clearing House, 47 (April 1973), 469-71.


36
The evaluation . attempted to compare
several aspects of the program over a three-year
period to similar aspects of the traditional programs
in two schools with similar socioeconomic
environments. Among other things, the investi
gation examined reading and writing achievement
as measured by standardized tests and randomly
drawn composition samples, the character of the
students' classroom experiences as indicated by
their responses to various questionnaire items
and by classroom observations, and student attitudes
as gauged by questionnaire responses and personal
interviews.
When mean scores on the STEP Reading and Writing Tests
for Trenton High School and the two control schools were
compared for the two years 1968 and 1969, it was discovered
that in both reading and writing, the Trenton mean scores
were higher than the control school's in 1969, the differences
being statistically significant, whereas in 1968, the Trenton
mean scores were both slightly lower than the control school's
but the differences were not statistically significant. In
addition, the Trenton scores in both reading and writing
dropped significantly from 1968 to 1969, a warning, according
to Hillocks, that "if succeeding administrations of the same
tests were to indicate negative changes of the same magnitude,
7 6
there might well be cause for concern."
Comparing percentages of responses of students in
Trenton and in the control schools to questionnaire items
7^Hillocks,
76t,.,
Ibid., p.
Alternatives in English,
106.
pp.
105-06.


37
that requested they check "never," "sometimes," or "fre
quently" after each of several classroom activities, Hillocks
concluded that "control school students perceive a greater
homogeneity of classroom activities than do Trenton students."
The most frequent activities listed by students in the control
schools were "traditional" ones like "listening to the
teacher talk," "discussing literature," and "writing composi-
77
tions."
In addition, a result of having the students rank the
three most frequent English class activities was the indication
that "Trenton students perceive greater heterogeneity in
their classroom activities than do students in the control
7 8
programs."
Analysis of trained classroom observations resulted in
the conclusion that "the level of student initiated talk is
much higher in Trenton English classes than in those of the
79
control schools." Hillocks comments, however:
The more important question has to do with the
kind of talk rather than the extent or degree
of talk. . the degree of student talk
cannot be an unqualified criterion for judging
the success of a course or program. One must
consider the kind of talk involved. 0
"The most striking finding of the Trenton evaluation,"
continues Hillocks, "is the positive change in students'
7 7 lb id., p. 108.
7 8
Ibid., pp. 108-09.
7^lb id. p. 109.


99
English in the sample schools with traditional programs.
Teachers of English in the sample schools with elective
programs were teaching more students in a school year,
but generally had fewer preparations to make, than tea
chers of English in the sample schools with traditional
programs.
More teachers of English in the sample schools with
traditional English programs had earned higher degrees
than teachers of English in the sample schools with
elective programs, while more teachers of English in the
sample schools with elective English programs held certi
fication in English and/or in English and at least one
other subject area than teachers of English in the sample
schools with traditional programs.


13
not provide sufficient time for a teacher to familiarize
himself with students' individual abilities and needs or
for students' skills to develop meaningfully. Fortunately,
most English elective courses (in the programs examined
13
by Hillocks) were of more than ten weeks' duration.
The fourth assumption underlying many of the English
elective programs examined by Hillocks is "that the choice
of courses in and of itself will have a meaningful posi
tive effect on both affective and cognitive responses."
This assumption seems to be supported in regard to affec
tive responses, he concludes, but these positive responses
may not last and may in any event be more a result of
"the character and quality of instruction in particular
14
courses" than of the freedom to choose.
Of particular interest to the writer of the present
study is Hillocks' conclusion concerning the assumption
of positive cognitive responses. He finds that in
respect to "growth in measurable cognitive areas," the
"little evidence . avai1ab1e suggests that elective
programs . provide n_o advantage over traditional
programs {Italics added for emphasis}." Hillocks
continues:
13 Ibid., p. 118.
14Ibid., p. 119.
is.,.,
Ibid.


students were selected at random from two New Jersey high
schools. One hundred .sixty (the experimental group) were
instructed for one school year in an elective English pro
gram; the remaining one hundred sixty (the control group)
were instructed in a traditional English program. Stu
dents were also assigned to groups according to grade level
and sex. All students were administered a standardized
test of English achievement at the beginning of a school
year and an alternate form of the same test at the end
of that school year. Their pre- and posttest scores were
9 2
submitted to analysis of covariance.
Of six hypotheses tested, only the one concerning
treatment effects was found to be statistically signif
icant. The other hypotheses tested concerned grade level
effects, sex effects, treatment/grade level interaction,
treatment/sex interaction, grade level/sex interaction, and
9 3
treatment/grade level/sex interaction.
McCormick's conclusion that "students enrolled in an
elective English program do achieve more than their peers
Paul Joseph McCormick, "A Comparison of Achievement
in English of Eleventh- and Twelfth-Grade Students in an
Elective Program with Those in a Traditional Program
[Abstract Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIV,
No. 09A (1973), 5535.
93
Ibid.


35
English grades. Tenth-, eleventh-, and twe1fth-graders
72
exhibited no such relationships.
John Hunt, Jr., also examined changes in student
attitudes, as well as in certain verbal skills. Although
Hunt's study was also not of students in an elective pro
gram in English, one of his conclusions seems pertinent
to the increasing amount of evidence of improved attitude
of students in English elective programs and to the
question of achievement in such programs: "an instruc
tional program that is more concerned with attitude than
with achievement does not detract from student achieve-
73
ment m the English skills of reading and listening."
The one of the English elective programs mentioned
previously which underwent the most extensive and the
most sophisticated of systematic evaluations was the APEX
74
program at Trenton { Michigan ]- High School. Hillocks
reports some of the methods and results of these evalu
ations:
73
John Wuest Hunt, Jr., "Changes in Selected Attitudes
and Verbal Skills of Low-Achieving High School Students in
an Experimental, Team-P1anned, Non-Graded English and
Social Studies Program {Abstract> Dissertation Abstracts,
XXXI, No. 05A (19 70) 2254.
74
The reader is referred to footnote 59 of this
chapter.


5
of the felt need to revitalize English: to make it more
popular with the students, to make it more relevant to the
students' needs and interests and abilities, and to in
crease teacher proficiency as a result of increased tea
cher interest and motivation. Hillocks summarizes
"rationales" for the elective English program as a whole
offered most frequently by twenty-five schools in several
states :
The advantage of elective programs cited by
more rationales than any other (14 of 25) was
that they permit students to choose courses
in which they are interested. Close behind
were statements alluding to the increased
ability of elective programs to meet the
needs (13) and interests (8) of the students.
Nearly as many rationales (12) pointed to
the opportunity for the teacher to "specialize,"
to make use of his interests or special talents,
as a major advantage. The argument is that
a teacher cannot be expected to master all
aspects of English, as the traditional program
demanded. Accordingly, a number of the pro
gram rationales (7) and several articles
asserted that the teaching task is more clear
ly defined in elective programs, a result, no
doubt, of increased specialization.
Vague claims that "students will still learn as much
English" have been often expressed, but largely unsub
stantiated, a fact which some critics of the elective
curriculum have seized upon as a supporting argument for
7
their objections.
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7.
7
The section of this chapter entitled a Review of the
Literature contains a more detailed discussion of some of
these critical writings and others.


105
is reported in the census only as a median number by sex.
The arithmetic mean of the two census median figures, for
female and for male, in each district was computed for
this study and is recorded in Table 10 as the median for
the total twenty-five-years-or-older population of the
district. The ranked order of these computed medians is
also listed in Table 10.
Table 10
NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED
District
Median
Rank
A
12.1
2.5
B
12.2
1
C 10.7 4
D 12.1 2.5
Obviously, in Districts A, B, and D the median number
of school years completed by persons twenty-five years of
age or more is almost the same. The median number in
1970 Census of the Population: District A, male-12.1,
female-12.1, p. 481; District B, male-12,2, female-12.2,
p. 485;District C, male-10.5, female-10,8, p. 485; District
D, male-12.0, female-12.1, p. 485.


127
Table 16 continued
Sex Mean ACH* 50.9
50.9
50.8
40.7
36.7
30.6
66.1
63.0
School Mean ACH* 50.9
46.2
33.7
64.7
Program Mean ACH*
46.9
54.5
Sample Mean ACH* 50.6
*computed for this study from individual percentile
scores (of the 495 students in the sample) on the English
Composition Test of the FTGT in 1975, recorded in Appendix F.
Summary
Of the total sample of 495 students, 257 were in the
sample schools with traditional English programs and 238
in the sample schools with elective English programs. Of
the total sample, 260 are female and 235 are male. There,
are more female than male students in both the sample schools
with traditional English programs and those with elective
English programs.
The mean aptitude percentile score on the Aptitude Test
of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program of the students
in the sample schools with traditional English programs was
lower than that of the students in the sample schools with
elective programs.


157
2
variable (P S E series), it increases the R by .6414 to
.6584, significant at F = 474.22, p< .01 (p gi 2 oo = 4.61).
No other S variable singly makes as substantial a contribu
tion to the prediction of DACH. Indeed, none of the other
fourteen independent variables in any of the sets makes as
substantial a contribution.
The program variable (PRTE) can singly account for only
1.7 percent of the total variance in the dependent variable
scores in English achievement (P S E series). This P
variable did not have a high enough F value (the criterion,
it will be remembered, was .01) to be included last (of
fifteen) in the equation in the S E P series or even
fourth in the equation (after three of the E variables) in
the E P S series.^
2
Nevertheless, the coefficient of determination (R )
of .0170 of the PRTE variable in the P S E series, at
the point at which it is the only variable in the equation,
is statistically significant at F = 8.54, p < .01 (F ^ ^ ^
6.63). Thus, the total contribution of the PRTE variable is
a significant one. The extent of the association between
PRTE and the dependent variable (DACH) is obviously very
small, however, in comparison with that, for example, between
the SAPT variable and the DACH variable.
That is, even when "forced" into the equation after
the environmental set (E P S series), it was not added
because its F ratio, if it had been added, would not have
satisfied the Q L criterion level for entry.


167
Implications for Practice and Research
The findings of this study yield no clear implications
for the design of an English high school program, at least
in relation to the program's effectiveness in promoting
student growth in English achievement. Whether the pro
gram is traditional or elective in structure appears to
make little impact on such growth.
Since the findings indicate that certain individual
differences in students do^, however, seem to relate strongly
to their achievement in English, there may well be a sug
gestion that certain kinds of individualization are desirable,
regardless of other aspects of program structure.
In regard to individual academic aptitude, for
example, it might seem likely that any method of group
ing students by aptitude or any individualization of
instruction according to aptitude would be encouraging
of cognitive growth in either a traditional or an elective
program. (Individualized instruction need not be indivi
dual instruction.) To the extent, then, that an elective
program in English individualizes both offerings and
instruction, to that extent, perhaps, it should be success
ful in furthering learning in English.
In addition, the primary conclusion of this study (that
elective or traditional program structure is not strongly
related to English achievement), when considered in the
light of certain prevalent assumptions about elective pro-


112
the major reasons for a student's obtaining scores on the
tests was for admission to state universities in Florida
on their basis.
Thus, there is a high probability (non-statistical)
that the aptitude scores recorded here are mostly of those
seniors who expected to attend college, a group more
likely to have a mean aptitude score higher than the mean
score of all seniors who took the test. School D is the
only school in the sample whose students reflected this
probability in their mean aptitude score.
Fifty percent of the sample students in School A
achieved an aptitude percentile rank of 50.0 or higher;
forty-eight percent of those in School B, thirteen percent
of those in School C, and eighty-two percent of those in
School D achieved an aptitude percentile rank of 50.0
or higher.
The mean aptitude of the students in Schools A and
B with traditional English programs (48.7) was 10.6
lower than the mean aptitude of the students in Schools
C and D with elective programs (59.3).


136
SATT A value from 1 through 5 representing an
arithmetic average of the subject's answers to Items 3
through 7 of the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward
English as a Subject (Appendix E).
SSEX The value 1 for female subjects; the value 0
for male subjects.
ESIZ A value indicating the student enrollment of
the subject's school in January 1976:
Enrollment
Value
fewer
than 500
1
500 -
999
2
1,000
- 1,499
3
1,500
- 1,999
4
2,000
- 2,499
5
2,500
- 2,999
6
3,000
- 3,499
7
3,500
or more
8
EFAC A value of 1 through 5 representing the average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Items 6 and 7 of the English Teacher Question
naire (Appendix D):
Item 6 (highest degree earned) Doctor's degree,
1; specialist's degree, 2; master's degree, 3; bachelor's
degree, 4; no degree, 5.
Item 7 (certification status) Certified in
English and at least one other subject, 1; certified in


138
ENWP The percentage of the population of the county
which was non-white.
EUFY The percentage of the population of the county
twenty-five or more years of age who had completed fewer
than five years of formal schooling.
EMFI A value indicating the median annual family
income of the population of the county:
Income Value
$6,999 or less 1
$7,000 $7,499 2
$7,500 $7,999 3
$8,000 $8,499 4
$8,500 $8,999 5
$9,000 or more 6
EMSY The median number of years of schooling com
pleted by persons twenty-five or more years of age in the
county.
PRTE The value 0 if the English program in the
subject's school was traditional as defined; the value 1
if the English program in the subject's school was elective
as defined.
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variables
The mean and the standard deviation of each variable
are listed in Table 18, which thus provides a statistical
overview of the 495 subjects in terms of the variables.


137
English only, 2; certified in a subject related to English
(speech, journalism, drama, reading, etc.) but not
English, 3; certified in any subject other than English
or a subject related to English, 4; not certified, 5.
EFAT A value of 1 through 6 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subjects
school to Item 1 (number of years in teaching) of the
English Teacher Questionnaire:
More than ten years, 1; eight through ten years,
2; six or seven years, 3; four or five years, 4; two or
three years, 5; one year, 6.
EFAS A value of 1 through 6 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Item 2 (number of years at school) of the
English Teacher Questionnaire:
More than ten years, 1; eight through ten years,
2; six or seven years, 3; four or five years, 4; two or
three years, 5; one year, 6.
EFAL A value of 1 through 5 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Items 4 and 5 of the English Teacher Questionnaire
Item 4 (total number of students) Fewer than
75, 1; 75-99, 2; 100-124, 3; 125-150, 4; more than 150, 5.
Item 5 (number of preparations) One, 1; two, 2;
three, 3; four, 4; five or more, 5.


95
one or two preparations only. School D, with an elective
English program, was the only school in the sample in which
no teacher of English had more than three preparations.
In traditional Schools A and B jointly, 39.3 percent
of the twenty-eight English teachers prepared for instruc
tion in three or more English courses. In elective Schools
C and D jointly, only 28.6 percent of the twenty-eight
English teachers made three or more preparations.
In summary, then, teachers of English in the sample
schools with elective programs were teaching more students
in a school year, but generally had fewer preparations to
make, than teachers of English in the sample schools with
traditional programs.
English Faculty Certification
The English faculty certification in each of the four
schools was determined from answers from all teachers in
the school teaching one or more classes of English to
Items 6 and 7 of the English Teacher Questionnaire
3
(Appendix D).
Item 6 concerns the highest degree earned at that
time by each teacher. Item 7 concerns the teacher's areas
of certification in relation to the teaching of English.
The values assigned to this combination of responses
for the purposes of analysis are explained in Chapter VII,
Analysis of the Association Between Sets of Independent
Variables and English Achievement.


uv ivyw x
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D160
50
42
2.50
3.14
1.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D161
99
96
4.00
4.00
2.0
0
D162
45
59
1.70
2.40
2.4
1
D163
81
55
3.07
3.67
3.4
1
D164
10
17
1.69
2.00
1.6
1
D165
85
83
3.52
3.43
3.4
1
D166
19
44
1.92
2.60
3.0
1
D167
79
91
2.93
3.00
2.0
0
D168
83
90
2.96
2.00
3.8
0
D169
94
73
3.52
3.60
3.2
1
D170
59
93
2.11
1.60
3.2
0
D171
59
73
2.11
2.17
3.4
0
D172
37
40
2.38
3.00
2.6
1
189


166
Of these student attributes considered singly, how
ever, only one appears to be a major and consistent pre
dictor of English achievement: academic ability. The
academic aptitude measure for students is, in every ana
lysis, very substantially associated with their scores on
the test of achievement. The extent of this relationship
is indeed so large as to render practically insignificant
the predictive potential of all other individual variables
or groups of variables, even those whose contributions
are statistically significant.
In any event, it seems clear that individual dif
ferences collectively have a predictive relationship
with cognitive growth in English that is considerably
stronger than that of program differences and that an
individual's academic aptitude has by far the strongest
such relationship.
Most of the environmental aspects taken singly do
not appear readily interpretable as predictors of English
achievement. Indeed, the total contribution of only one
single environmental variable (the non-white proportion
of the county population) is assessed as statistically
significant, as well as substantially contributory to
cognitive growth in English. Other sociological measures
of the population (education and income) were found to be
individually unreliable or insignificant as predictors
of English achievement, as were the size of the school
population and English faculty measures.


94
teaching one hundred or more students. That same 75 per
cent of the teachers of English in School A, however, and
77.3 percent of the teachers in School D were teaching one
hundred twenty-five or more students, in comparison with
60 percent and 50 percent of the teachers in Schools B
and C, respectively, with one hundred twenty-five or
more students. School A, with a traditional program,
and School D, with an elective program, thus appear to
have assigned more students to their English teachers
than the other two schools.
Of the total number of teachers in the two schools
with traditional programs, A and B, however, it can be
ascertained that twenty-five of twenty-eight teachers,
of 89.3 percent, in traditional programs were teaching
one hundred or more students, and eighteen of twenty-
eight teachers, or 64.3 percent, were teaching one
hundred twenty-five or more students. A slightly greater
number of teachers in Schools C and D (schools with
elective programs) were teaching one hundred or more stu
dents: twenty-six of twenty-eight, or 92.9 percent, and the
number teaching one hundred twenty-five or more students
was twenty-eight, or 71.5 percent, also slightly greater.
In regard to the number of instructional preparations
made by each teacher, it is interesting to note that in
the two largest schools, B and D, most teachers (80 per
cent and 81.6 percent, respectively) were responsible for


and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C108
10
19
1.52
3.14
1.4
1
2
2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C109
17
11
1.48
1.40
2.0
0
C110
06
17
2.27
1.75
1.8
0
cm
22
24
3.00
2.33
2.6
0
Cl 12
77
77
3.48
3.75
2.0
0
Cl 13
27
08
2.28
2.50
2.4
1
C114
13
19
2.85
2.50
1.2
0
C115
06
17
2.84
2.75
3.2
0
C116
02
01
1.94
2.50
1.6
0
C117
45
21
2.75
2.25
2.8
1
C118
03
11
1.27
1.00
1.8
1
Cl 19
02
14
1.50
1.50
2.6
1
C120
10
09
1.57
1.00
3.8
0
185


UV.UUU A
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ F.FAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C95
01
08
2.04
2.00
2.0
0
2 2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C96
43
28
3.04
3.20
2.0
1
C97
45
44
2.84
3.25
2.6
0
C98
05
01
1.23
1.20
3.0
1
C99
01
17
1.65
1.33
3.8
0
C100
48
26
2.96
2.60
2.4
1
C101
22
12
1.40
1.50
2.0
1
C102
29
22
2.65
2.80
1.2
1
C103
39
21
3.23
3.00
2.4
0
Cl 04
33
14
1.33
3.00
1.6
1
C105
41
04
3.13
2.75
4.2
1
C106
05
03
1.63
2.50
2.4
1
C107
79
59 3.80 4.00 2.0 1
184


123
Table 15 -continued
Sex Mean ATT* 2.1
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.8
School Mean ATT* 2.4
2.4
2
.3
2.6
Program Mean ATT* 2.4
2
. 5
computed for this study from individual indexes of
attitude (of the 495 students in the sample) recorded in
Appendix F.
Achievement in English
As previously indicated, the English Composition Test of
the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program is employed in this
study as a measure of a student's achievement in English.
Scores on the English Composition Test, as on the Aptitude Test,
were reported by the Office of Instructional Services at
the University of Florida as percentile rankings.
A comparison of the achievement scores (ACH) of the
students in each school and program can be drawn from the
data in Table 16. As with the aptitude scores, the achieve
ment percentile scores have been grouped into deciles for
convenience.
The mean ACH's of students in Schools A and B, 50.9
and 46.2 respectively, approximate the statewide mean
percentile score of 50.0 rather closely, A differing by only


ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
BY
JOAN CAROL YOUNG
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF -PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1979

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Professor Theodore W. Hippie and Professor Arthur
J. Lewis, both of the College of Education, University of
Florida, go my thanks for their help in clarifying the
direction of this study and the research design. In
addition, I am indebted to Professor Hippie for his con
tinuing inspiration and encouragement, without which my
efforts might more than once have floundered.
For their splendid cooperation, I am sincerely grateful
to the senior students, administrators, guidance personnel,
English faculty, senior class advisors, and office personnel
of the high schools in Florida in which data were collected
for this study. They all lightened my tasks in various ways.
I am deeply grateful to all members of my immediate
and extended families, especially my daughter Dale and my
son David, for their moral support. In addition to
approving and sympathising, however, two family members
contributed some time and effort to my endeavors: my
brother, Eugene Samter, who extended his professional
consultative services, and my sister, Jill Risley, who
aided in the tedious frequency counts.
My gratitude to all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Need for the Study 4
Objectives of the Study 6
A Review of the Literature 7
Literature Related to English Elective
Programs 9
Research on Factors of English
Achievement 49
Overview of the Study 54
Organization of the Study 54
Limitations of the Study 55
II. METHODOLOGY 57
Design and Procedures 57
Selection of the Sample 59
School Selection 59
Student Selection 62
Collection of the Data 66
1X1

CHAPTER PAGE
Instrumentation and Sources 67
Instrumentation 67
Other Sources 71
Treatment of the Data 71
III.ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES 74
General Features of Elective and Traditional
Programs 74
Length of Courses 74
Non-Graded Courses 76
Criteria for Program Determination for This
Study 76
Structures of Programs in This Study 79
School A 79
School B 81
School C 83
School D 85
Summary 87
IV.TEACHER VARIABLES 89
English Faculty Experience 89
English Faculty Teaching Load 92
English Faculty Certification 95
Summary 98
V.SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION VARIABLES 100
Non-White Population 101
Population with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling 103
School Years Completed 104
Annual Family Income 106
Summary 107
iv

CHAPTER
PAGE
VI.STUDENT VARIABLES 108
Sex 109
Academic Aptitude 110
Grade Point Averages 114
Attitude Toward English 119
Achievement in English 123
Summary 127
VII.ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT 131
Focus and Procedure 131
Symbolization and Set Classification of
the Variables 133
Values Represented by Each Variable 135
Means and Standard Deviations of the
Variables 138
Intercorrelation of the Variables 141
The Analytical Procedure 145
Analysis of the Regression Series 151
Summary 158
VIII.INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS 161
Limitations on Interpretation 161
Conclusions 165
Implications for Practice and Research .... 167
APPENDIXES
A. LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS 171
v

APPENDIXES
PAGE
B. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH 172
C. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS 173
D. ENGLISH TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 174
E. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 175
F. DATA FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL VARIABLES .... 176
G. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 216
H. COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY 218
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 224
vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS 65
2 CRITERION CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS. . 88
3 ENGLISH FACULTY EXPERIENCE 90
4 ENGLISH FACULTY TEACHING LOAD 93
5 ENGLISH FACULTY CERTIFICATION 97
6 NON-WHITE POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 101
7 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOL SIZE AND DISTRICT SIZE. 102
8 RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOLS BY POPULATION AND
DISTRICTS BY NON-WHITE POPULATION 103
9 POPULATION WITH FEWER THAN FIVE YEARS' SCHOOLING. 104
10 NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED 105
11 ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME 106
12 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL, SEX, AND
PROGRAM 109
13 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL SEX,
AND APTITUDE 113
14 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES 117
15 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX
AND ATTITUDE 122
16 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM, SCHOOL, SEX,
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT 126
vi i

TABLE
PAGE
17 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS ON SEVEN VARIABLES
(N = 4 95) 130
18 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE
VARIABLES (N = 495) 140
19 CORRELATION MATRIX (N = 495) 142
20 COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION RESULTING FROM
THREE SERIES OF REGRESSION EQUATIONS 152
vi i i

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
P.equirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ELECTIVE AND TRADITIONAL
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
BY
JOAN CAROL YOUNG
DECEMBER 1979
Chairman: Theodore W. Hippie
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
The primary objective of this study was to examine the
relationship between elective and traditional English program
structures and English achievement.
Four hundred ninety-five senior students from four high
schools in Florida constituted the sample population. Each
student in the sample had attended his school for at least
three years. Two of the high schools had been conducting
elective English programs for at least three years and
two, traditional programs for at least three years.
Three sets of variables, totaling fifteen were hypothesized
to be associated with English achievement: a student set
consisting of ljacademic aptitude of student, 2)sex of student,
3)grade point average of student in all subjects, 4)grade point
average of student in English courses, 5)student's attitude
IX

toward English as a subject; an environmental set consisting
of 6)size of school (student population), 7)English faculty
average certification, 8)English faculty average number of
years teaching, 9)English faculty average number of years at
the school, 10)English faculty average teaching load,
11)percentage of non-white population in the school district,
12)percentage of the population in the school district who
had completed fewer than five years of schooling, 13)median
number of years of schooling completed by the population in
the school district, 14)median annual family income of the
population in the school district; and a program set consisting
of 15)program structure (elective or traditional).
Several instruments and sources were employed to
quantify these variables. Variable 1 was measured by the
Aptitude Test of the Florida Twe1fth-Grade Testing Program.
Variables 2, 3, and 4 were recorded or computed from school
records. Variable 5 was measured by an original Student
Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject.
Variables 7, 8, 9, and 10 were measured by an original English
Teacher Questionnaire. Variables 11, 12, 13, and 14 were
recorded or computed from the 1970 Census of the Population.
x

The dependent variable of English achievement was
measured by the English Composition Test of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program.
Three series of step-wise multiple linear regression
equations were computed, each forcing sets of independent
variables into the equation in a different order of entry.
Each of the sets was given initial priority in one of the
series.
The resultant squared multiple correlation coefficients
were interpreted as estimates of the proportion of dependent
variable variance accounted for by the variable(s) in the
equation and were evaluated for statistical significance
by means of an F statistic.
Finding s
1. At least 73.32 percent of dependent variable
variance was associated with the complete system of fifteen
variables.
2. Student academic aptitude was the individual
variable most substantially associated with English
achievement, significant at the .001 level.
3. The student set accounted for a greater proportion
of variance in English achievement than either of the other
two sets or the other two sets combined.
xi

4. The percentage of non-white persons in the school
district accounted for a small, but significant (at the
.001 level) proportion of variance in English achievement.
5. The program variable accounted for a very small,
but significant (at the .001 level) proportion of variance
in English achievement.
Conclusions
1. A student's achievement in English does not
appear to be predictable from his participation in an elective
or a traditional program.
2. Students' individual characteristics and
attributes have a predictive relationship with English
achievement that is considerab1ey stronger than that of
participation in an elective or a traditional program.
3. Further research is needed to examine all assumed
advantages of an elective English program.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
A trend in secondary English education in American
schools in the past decade or two has been the offering
of elective courses, permitting students in grades ten
through twelve choices among a variety of courses of
varied duration, in contrast to the traditional require
ment of three years of general English. These new elected
English courses, unlike traditional electives which were
chosen in addition to the required English, fully satisfy
graduation requirements in English.'*'
This change in the organizational structure of the
English curriculum would appear to have developed both as
a reactionary reversion to a 19th-century approach to
English study and as a result of the increasing dissatis
faction with the English program expressed by educators.
The "pendulum swing" in education reforms has often been
noted. In the case of secondary English in the United
States, it was not until about 1900 that English as a sub
ject became established as a conglomerate study of grammar,
rhetoric, literary history, spelling, and composition, all
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English:
A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana,
Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication
Skills, 1972), p. 1.
1

2
of which had previously been considered as and taught as
separate studies. The "new proliferation" of separate
courses in English studies in the 1960's can be viewed,
therefore, as a natural "pendulum" movement along the
path of curriculum development. An additional cause was
the growth of concern, especially among teachers of
English, that high school students generally were learning
less and less of the English content and skills in high
schools because English as a subject had become more and
more irrelevant to their needs and interests and, there
fore, more disliked.
To supplant "the old practice of teaching grammar,
composition, and literature every year to every student
3
by every English teacher in every grade," a number of
English courses a semester or less in duration have been
offered to students for their selection. In some schools,
especially during the period of early experimentation with
the elective idea, the courses offered were no more varied
than "10th-Grade Literature" or"l2th-Grade Grammar," pre
senting little actual choice for the student.
Arthur N. Applebee, Tradition and Reform in the
Teaching of English: A History (Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1974), p. 21.
3 .
Kilburn Culley, Jr., "Changing an English Program,"
English Journal, 57 (May 1968), 657.

3
This practice, rare even during that early period,
is now virtually non-existent. Schools with elective
programs in English have developed course offerings by
4
"loose analogy to the practices of college departments."
Courses in literature, for example, are focused on theme
or topic ("Literature of Love," "Science Fiction"!, genre
("The Novel," "Poetry"), or combinations of these foci
("Twentieth-Century Stories of Adventure"). Language
courses may range from "Word Power" to "History of the
English Language" and often present separate choices in
semantics, dialectology, vocabulary, oral language,
etymology, and usage, as well as grammar. Separate
reading and writing courses are usually also offered.
Regardless of the number and extent of the elective
offerings, however, and regardless of the limited domain
implied for each course by its title, it is often a
stipulated agreement among the faculty and/or the curric
ulum planners that students in every course should be
exposed to some instruction and practice in each of the
language communication skills: reading, writing, speak
ing, listening, verbal reasoning.' Growth in skill
4
John K. Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives,"
English Journal, 59 (October 1970), 990.
^Linda Kubicek Harvey, comp., Elective English
Programs in Junior and Senior High Schools (Urbana,
Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on the Teaching of
English, 1971), p. 3.

4
in each of these areas of communication for each student
during grades ten through twelve is still viewed as a
long-range goal of the total elective English program,
even as it usually has been of the traditional.
Need for the Study
The chief difference between traditional and elective
English programs has been, then, not so much a matter of
changed long-range cognitive objectives, as one of changed
organizational structure. That is to say that the antici
pated outcomes of three years of English instruction have
remained much the same in respect to "coverage" and domains
of knowledge; the packages in which the instruction is
wrapped have been altered. They have been partitioned,
decreased in size, increased in number, and had the total
contents subdivided among them. School after school
which has developed an elective English program lists
the broad goals of the total program in terms of the
same domains of literature and reading skills, knowledge
of language and skills or oral expression, and writing
skills that schools with traditional programs have.
Systematic evaluation of the elective programs in
terms of the cognitive goals has, however, been lacking,
especially in comparisons with evaluations of traditional
programs with the same goals.
In most cases, schools have reorganized their
English offerings into an elective structure as a result

5
of the felt need to revitalize English: to make it more
popular with the students, to make it more relevant to the
students' needs and interests and abilities, and to in
crease teacher proficiency as a result of increased tea
cher interest and motivation. Hillocks summarizes
"rationales" for the elective English program as a whole
offered most frequently by twenty-five schools in several
states :
The advantage of elective programs cited by
more rationales than any other (14 of 25) was
that they permit students to choose courses
in which they are interested. Close behind
were statements alluding to the increased
ability of elective programs to meet the
needs (13) and interests (8) of the students.
Nearly as many rationales (12) pointed to
the opportunity for the teacher to "specialize,"
to make use of his interests or special talents,
as a major advantage. The argument is that
a teacher cannot be expected to master all
aspects of English, as the traditional program
demanded. Accordingly, a number of the pro
gram rationales (7) and several articles
asserted that the teaching task is more clear
ly defined in elective programs, a result, no
doubt, of increased specialization.
Vague claims that "students will still learn as much
English" have been often expressed, but largely unsub
stantiated, a fact which some critics of the elective
curriculum have seized upon as a supporting argument for
7
their objections.
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7.
7
The section of this chapter entitled a Review of the
Literature contains a more detailed discussion of some of
these critical writings and others.

6
The information obtained from this study will, it is
hoped, help clarify the extent to which the program structure
of English, whether elective or traditional, to which a stu
dent is exposed in grades ten through twelve is associated
with his achievement of English skills.
Objectives of the Study
The study reported herein was primarily undertaken
for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which the
organizational structure of the English program to which
a student has been exposed for three years from tenth
through twelfth grades influences his achievement of
English cognitive skills. Specifically, how significant
a factor of English achievement is the kind of English
program structure (elective or traditional) compared
with other factors associated with English achievement?
In the course of the report of this study, selected
programs, students, and teachers in the state of Florida
are described, and collected data about these programs,
students, and teachers are recorded. Certain verbal
and statistical comparisons are made concerning these
programs, students, and teachers. In addition, certain
pertinent educational characteristics of the populations
of the school districts in which the programs were imple
mented are recorded and compared. These comparisons
are intended to be descriptive only, and any parallels
drawn are intended only to suggest possible relationships.

7
A secondary purpose of the study, therefore, is to examine
and describe English programs in selected Florida high
schools, certain characteristics of students and teachers
involved in these programs, and certain characteristics
of the population of the districts in which the schools
are located.
The first objective, then, of this study is to ex
plore the nature and extent of the relationship between
the independent variable of English program structure
and the dependent variable of English achievement. A
second objective is to describe, examine, and compare
selected English programs, students, teachers, and school
districts in Florida.
A Review of the Literature
An initial review of the recent (i.e., of the past two
decades) professional writings dealing with any aspect
of secondary English education soon leads to an impression
that, although the quantity of such literature is volu
minous, it is uneven in its quality. This imbalance is
most marked in respect to kind; that is, while there
exist reams of journal articles, books, and theses which
describe, explore, report, propose, speculate, survey
and/or informally evaluate trends, theories, programs,
instruction, curriculum, student perceptions and attitudes,
teacher perceptions and attitudes, materials, philosophy,
student needs--any possible aspect of secondary English

8
education--there is a relative dearth of systematic, basic
research in the field.
That so little systematic evaluation of variables
in secondary English education has been performed is not,
however, surprising. All educational research has been
inhibited by the difficulties in identifying independent
and orthogonal variables and developing meaningful units
of measurement of these variables; thus little has been
attempted. An additional reason, perhaps, for the
appearance of so much subjective, non-experimental writ
ing in English education particularly might be that the
English professional, especially the teacher of English
on the secondary or post-secondary level, seems, more
than any other educator, to view himself, consciously
or not, as a "creative" author rather than as a scien
tific writer, and much of the writing in English edu
cation has been produced by teachers of English rather
than by specialists in English education or experimental
researchers.
Unfortunately, the unevenness of quality in the
literature also exists in its degree of excellence,
whether it is of the subjective, informal type or the
objective and formal. Some of the former are too incon
sistent and too little informative to be useful, and some
of the latter are too flawed in design and selection to
be useful.

9
In view of the vast quantity of literature in
secondary English education, therefore, and of the use
lessness of some of it as background for this study,
the writer of this study has chosen to discuss only a
selection of both kinds, a selection based not only on
the general worth of the writing, but also on its
specific pertinence to this study in the areas on
English elective programs and English achievement.
Additional sources examined but not reviewed are listed
in the bibliography.
Literature Related to English Elective Programs
In November 1972 George Hillocks, Jr., presented
a report of his study of English elective programs being
g
conducted in a number of states, the most comprehen
sive attempt to describe and to critically evaluate
such programs ever published before that time or since.
Hillocks' account extends beyond his extensive reportage
and summaries of practice and other studies, as he,
imformally but responsibly and, on the whole, objectively,
analyzes trends, qualitatively assesses practices and
materials, and identifies needs for further study and
research.
^Hillocks,
Alternatives in English.

10
Hillocks' study is based upon "the reports of pro
grams published in various journals, program descriptions
from seventy-six schools and school systems in thirty-
seven states, questionnaire responses from eighty-four
chairmen or supervisors in charge of elective programs,
9
and various other published and unpublished materials."
He describes in detail the program rationales and de
signs, the course offerings and designs, and the evalu
ation methods and results reported by the seventy-six
school systems.^ The general conclusions Hillocks
makes at the termination of his study, especially in
respect to cognitive gains (English achievement), how
ever, are of particular interest to this investigation.
Hillocks concludes that elective English programs
are "based on a series of assumptions which require
examination." The first of these is that such programs
meet the interests, needs, and abilities of students.
Regarding student interests, however, he concludes that
"many of the courses offered parallel college and
Ibid., p. 3. In a commentary note on p. 19, Hillocks
explains that four of "the seventy-six schools and school
systems" are, indeed, systems and that these systems
represent a total of thirty schools.
10, ,
A summary of the rationales presented by twenty-
five schools (the others examined submitted none) is
given in Chapter I of this study in the section entitled
Need for the Study. Also, some of the evaluation methods
and results reported by Hillocks will be discussed later
in this section.

11
traditional high school offerings and appear to reflect
teacher interests rather than those of the students,"
suggesting that "careful inventories of student re
sponses to each course be made systematically." Like
wise, in regard to meeting the needs of students, ". .
there is no evidence that any of the programs examined have
made a systematic analysis of student needs. . .
The most traditional English program can lay claim to
serving the needs of its students with the same confidence
that elective programs can." On the other hand, he
concludes, "Elective English programs do go well beyond
traditional programs in their attempts to provide courses
appropriate to students with various ability levels," but
still unrealistically assume that students will elect
courses appropriate to their abilities and that all
students in a course are of much the same ability. Tea
chers, therefore, rarely vary their instruction any more
than those in traditional programs. Consequently, little
may be being accomplished in this regard other than
"maintaining the abilities that students have when they
enter the courses."^
11
Ibid., pp. 115-16.

12
A second assumption on which elective English pro
grams are based, continues Hillocks, is "that the oppor
tunity afforded teachers to specialize is beneficial."
The benefits of specialization are questionable, however,
and the question of who benefits is paramount. He con
cludes that, while "the 'teaching task' may be clearer"
-- a benefit for the teacher -- "it is clearer only
at the expense of fragmenting the subject more than is
necessary." The integration of the skills of reading,
writing, speaking, listening, and thinking claimed by
many of the programs may be "no greater . than it
would be in a course in geometry in which a student must
12
also read, write, speak, listen, and think."
Thirdly, many English elective programs are conducted
on the assumption that "shorter courses and a greater
variety of teachers are strengths." Hillocks concludes
that the evidence available seems to indicate that course
length makes less of a difference in learning than
instructional method, but that too short a course (he
considers ten or fewer weeks too short) probably does
12
Ibid., p. 117.

13
not provide sufficient time for a teacher to familiarize
himself with students' individual abilities and needs or
for students' skills to develop meaningfully. Fortunately,
most English elective courses (in the programs examined
13
by Hillocks) were of more than ten weeks' duration.
The fourth assumption underlying many of the English
elective programs examined by Hillocks is "that the choice
of courses in and of itself will have a meaningful posi
tive effect on both affective and cognitive responses."
This assumption seems to be supported in regard to affec
tive responses, he concludes, but these positive responses
may not last and may in any event be more a result of
"the character and quality of instruction in particular
14
courses" than of the freedom to choose.
Of particular interest to the writer of the present
study is Hillocks' conclusion concerning the assumption
of positive cognitive responses. He finds that in
respect to "growth in measurable cognitive areas," the
"little evidence . avai1ab1e suggests that elective
programs . provide n_o advantage over traditional
programs {Italics added for emphasis}." Hillocks
continues:
13 Ibid., p. 118.
14Ibid., p. 119.
is.,.,
Ibid.

14
Real differences in skill development, under
standing, and attitudes toward various aspects of
English are not likely to derive from a simple
repackaging of traditional course content, coupled
with the continuation of traditional teaching
strategies. . Real change will have to involve
not simply an administrative change in course
offerings, but a complete reexamination and
revitalization of both course content and teaching
strategies.
Hillocks' reaction to the fifth and last assumption
on which he finds English elective programs are based,
that learning is the student's reponsibility, is simply
that it is, and always has been, but that it is still the
teacher's responsibility to aid in the process.^
Two years after the publication of Alternatives
in English, Hillocks reinforced some of his above-stated
conclusions and explained their implications for teachers
of English in an article in English Education: "The
teacher is and must be more than a technician fin an
elective program]-. He must be a maker of curricula for
18
his own students."
Robert C. Small, Jr., agrees that an English
elective program "involves ... an additional burden
for the teachers, for they must not only teach but also
16T.. .
Ibid.
1 7 lb id., pp. 119-20.
1 8
George Hillocks, Jr., "The English Teacher as
Curriculum Maker: Preparing Teachers for Elective
Programs," English Education, 5 (April/May 1974), 243.

15
19 ...
design the units which are offered." This opinion is
offered by Small in partial answer to the question:
Isn't this more work for the teacher?, one of the series
of questions posed (and answered! by him in response to
a "demand" from parents, teachers, and students for
"answers to their questions, a resolution of their
doubts.
While the questions asked by Small range in content
from a rationale of English elective programs to solution
of practical matters, such as scheduling, the answers
are far from unbiased (in favor of such programs) and,
indeed, the tone of the article is highly argumentative.
In addition, the very important--and particularly
relevant-to-this-study--aspect of evaluation of elective
programs is never discussed. The article is reviewed
here, however, since (1) it is generally comprehensive,
save for the exception noted above, and (2) it is repre
sentative of several such articles written by English
2 1
education specialists and published in professional
journals in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
19
Robert C. Small, Jr., "Framework for Diversity:
The Elective English Curriculum," The High School Journal,
56 (November 1972), 104.
2 0
Ibid., p. 93.
2 1 _
It is assumed by the investigator that Small is,
if not an English education specialist, at least an
education specialist. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute"
is printed beneath his name with no further explanation.

16
Small presents three "sound educational reasons
for moving the traditional, required English class
augmented with a few choices to a totally elective program"
(1) English, more than any other subject in high
school, requires a curriculum designed to allow great
freedom to the student and the teacher, because it deals
with "the highly personal relationship between a man and
his language."
(2) "Elective English programs . provide a
different but stronger and more logical focus than tra
ditional programs." Instead of attempting to struc
ture all of English (an impossible task, since the
subject of English includes so many areas), the subject
is divided "into meaningful units, each of which has its
own structure."
(3) "... elective English programs provide a
coherent, educationally sound system for grouping stu
dents." Grouping by age, sex, ability, or achievement
has not been satisfactory in the past, and especially
in English, "the type and degree of interest the stu
dent has are surely more important" than any of those
other factors of learning, although the four other fac-
2 2
tors "frequently influence those interests," of course.
22
Ibid., pp. 93-95.

17
It is interesting to compare Small's philosophical
rationale of three reasons to the five most frequent
ones presented by twenty-five schools engaged in the
actual implementation of an English elective program and
23 24
reported by Hillocks in the same month. While the
two advantages to teachers cited by the schools are not
mentioned by Small in his answer to the question:
Why should we have an elective English program?, they
are fully discussed later in the article in answers to
25
other questions. The discussion makes it evident that
Small agrees on these advantages (and others) that accrue
to teachers in such a program, but he stresses the subor
dination of teacher benefits (and, for that matter, admin
istrative or other benefits) to those to be reaped by the
students in such a program. For example, he says, in
respect to the English teacher's "opportunity to make use
of his special skills and interests," that "the only
2 3
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 7. A sum
mary of these rationales is quoted in the section of this
chapter entitled Need for the Study. They are, in order
of frequency from most to least: students can choose
courses in which they are interested, elective programs
can meet the needs of students, teachers can specialize
(use interests or talents), elective programs can meet
the interests of students, the teaching task is more
clearly defined.
24
It is assumed that Small had had no access to
Hillocks' study. Both Small's article and Hillocks'
book are dated November 1972.
25
Small, pp. 103-05.

18
limitation on the teacher freedom {is} a requirement that
the material have interest for and value to the students
2 6
of the school. Such a concept of priorities is obvi
ously his reason for not including teacher advantages
as part of his rationale of English elective programs.
They are not, to Small, "sound educational reasons."
Small's second reason for elective programs,
"stronger and more logical focus," would appear, however,
to be related to the fifth reason given by the schools,
clearer definition of the teaching task, except that
Small's generalization is obviously intended to apply
to all individuals concerned and involved in the program.
Similarly, Small's first reason, the "great freedom"
possible in an elective program, is related to the schools'
first reason, freedom of choice by students. Again,
however, Small's statement is more generally applicable
and more philosophically derived. It also restricts
the special need for freedom to the subject of English,
as the schools' statement does not. (This "need," inci
dentally, is the only one mentioned by Small. "Needs of
students" referred to in the schools' second reason are
never specifically discussed.)
26
Ibid., pp. 103-04.

19
Most interesting to this writer is Small's third
reason, the provision of a sound method of grouping
students on the basis of common interests. The schools
reported by Hillocks state as their fourth reason that
an elective program can meet the interest of students.
Small implies that theyd_o; he relates this advantage
of elective programs to the historical educational
(schooling) problem of grouping for instruction and
argues reasonably (although without supporting evidence)
against the use of other, heretofore employed factors
2 7
of grouping: age, sex, ability, and achievement.
Small thus for the most part provides an informal
theoretical and philosophical basis for English elective
programs in his article. In addition, as mentioned pre
viously, he does cite some actual examples, some prac
tical experience, and some pragmatic solutions to problems
The article's greatest lack is a discussion of evala
tion. No evaluation of any kind, formal or informal, is
mentioned.
27
Interestingly, as a result of her study of the
problem of grouping in English, Susie Ann Boyce recom
mended that "planning for curriculum and for grouping must
proceed simultaneously . and combine into a course
of study the goals of English, including the needs of
students, the components of content, and the means by
which students are grouped." Susie Ann Blackburn Boyce,
"A Study of Grouping for Secondary English Education
C Ab stract}, Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII,
No.11A (1971), 6284.

20
The forces behind the development of such elective
programs in English as are described by Small and Hillocks
have been analyzed by a number of authors, either as part
of a comprehensive history of developments in English
study in the United States or as a specific history of
the elective program itself. Arthur N. Applebee, for
example, in his "systematic exploration of the history
2 8
of the teaching of English" in America, discusses the
English elective program as the last (and presumably
the most recent) of a long line of developments and
changes in English study. He attributes the growth of
the elective program in English to:
(1) ". . the failure of the academic model {of the
1950s and early 1960sJ for the curriculum to find any widely
accepted structuring principles"
(2) the fact that ". . it is more responsive to
the demands of the students, more 'relevant,' than the
traditional course"
(3) its attempt ". . to fit the institutional
structure to the course content, instead of the courses
to the existing institutional frame"
(4) its convenience for proponents of behavioral
2 9
objectives and programmed instruction.
2 8
Applebee, Tradition and Reform, p.
29
xi .
Ibid., pp. 238-39 .

21
Applebee sees the development of the elective programs in
English as one result of a counter-movement in the 1970s,
in the course of which the concern of the individual has
returned and the "new" goals of relevance and personal
30
growth have been established.
In his examination of the decade from 1958 to 1968,
Daniel Donlan found three concurrent developments in
secondary English curriculum: the content-centered model,
the student-centered model, and the elective-centered
model. The last of these he described as based on the
assumptions that teachers do best in areas of special
interest and that students can and should plan their own
31
English programs.
Richard Graves, associate professor of secondary
education at Auburn University in 1974, saw the development
of the elective program in English as the result of the
3 2
failure of the unit method to individualize instruction.
That is, individualized instruction had continued to be a
desired goal for over a quarter of a century, and in the
forties and fifties, the unit method was generally thought
30Ibid., p. 236.
3^Daniel Mahaney Donlan, "Dilemma of Choice:
Revolution in English {Abstract! ," Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXII, No. 12 f19 7 21. 6740.
32
Richard L. Graves, "English Elective Curricula and
How They Grew", Educational Forum, 38 (January 1974), 196.

22
to be the best way to achieve this goal. Graves mentions
two of the reasons for the failure of the unit method to
gain widespread acceptance: (1) the excessive complexity
of its organizational and administrative procedures and
(2) the fact that "English teachers themselves do not
33
learn their subject by the unit method." Elective
programs evolved therefore as a more effective and more
acceptable means of individualizing instruction, accord
ing to Graves.
In effect, the direct relationship between goals and
objectives in English instruction has been noted by many.
In his overview of the development of the goals and
objectives of English teaching from the pre-Civil War
34
period to the early seventies, Samuel Kelly indicates
that, as the goals changed, so did the programs and
methods. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the emphasis on
fundamental, academic, disciplinary objectives and on
more objectivity in assessment resulted in attempts to
3 5
teach English as a structured discipline. The return,
in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, to the emphasis on
social and personalistic (cognitive and affective) goals'^
33.,
Ibid.
34
Samuel P. Kelly, "Goals and Objectives for the
Teaching of English," English Education, 4 (Fall 1972),
16-26.
35Ibid., p. 23.
3 6
Kelly describes the goals of the 1920s and 1930s
in similar terms.

23
brought about changes in instructional method and programs,
one of which is the elective program.3'
Yet, even during the fifties, the period of the
"academic," "post-Sputnik" approach to English study as
a discipline, there were individual voices like Stanley
3 8
Cooks raised to express objections. Cook had students,
parents, and teachers of English in Grosse Pointe {'Michigan).
High School, as well as freshmen college students of Eng
lish who were graduated from that high school and their tea
chers, rank the degree to which fifty aims (taken from
actual courses and professional literature) were the
"proper business" of a high school English program. One
of the interesting conclusions drawn by Cook from the study
is that the immediate needs of the students themselves
seem to be a more valid criterion for course planning than
anything else. 3^
Whatever the forces that worked to bring about the
elective programs in English throughout the nation, they
appeared and grew -- in number and in diversity. While
the first mention in print of such a program was that by
37Kelly, p. 25.
3 8
Stanley Snider Cook, "A Comparative Study of Aims
Held by Parents, Students, and Teachers for an English
Program in a Suburban High School {Abstract} ," Dissertation
Abstracts, XV, No. 9 (1955), 1570.
39
Ibid.

24
Harry Overton, a secondary English teacher, the program
developed by G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner and
described by them in an article in the English Journal in
1962 was apparently the pioneer effort that triggered a
41
barrage of imitative efforts.
Carlsen held at that time positions as professor of
English and education at the State University of Iowa
as as head of the English Department of University High
4 2
School. After several attempts to structure the English
curriculum in the high school meaningfully and productively,
all of which failed, the decision was made in 1960 to set
up semester courses, for seniors only at first, but later
for both juniors and seniors in non-graded courses. The
resulting number of courses was ten: four in literature,
three in writing, and three in speech. All ten were
offered each year, five in the fall and five in the spring.
Students were required to take one course in each area
of literature, writing, and speech and had to elect a total
of at least four English courses during the two years
40
Harry Overton, "Eleventh Grade Electives,"
English Journal, 44 (April 1955), 211-14.
41
G. Robert Carlsen and John W. Conner, "New
Patterns from Old Molds," English Journal, 51 (April
1962), 244-49.
42
Graves, p. 196.
43
Carlsen and Conner, pp. 244-46.

25
The success reported by Carlsen and Conner apparently
served to inspire many similar experimental attempts in high
schools throughout the United States. A proliferation of
articles, mostly by secondary school teachers of English,
appeared in the next decade, describing English elective
programs of one kind or another. Although the details of
implementation among these programs vary considerably,
expressions of purposes and results are remarkably similar.
Differences in implementation among these programs
may be indicated by the following representative ranges:
45
(1) from courses six weeks in length to courses
46
eighteen weeks in length
(2) from admission to the program of students of
certain ability levels only or of certain vocational
47 48
aims only to admission of all students into the program
Reported results and outcomes of this and other
elective programs are discussed later in this section.
45
Ann M. Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity: Another Approach
to the English Curriculum," English Journal, 56 (February
1967), 222-26.
46
Max Klang, "To Vanquish the Deadliest Game: A New
English Curriculum," English Journal, 53 (October 1964'),
504-15.
4 7
Kenneth R. McCormic and C. Louis Kaupp, "An Elective
English Program for the Non-College Bound," English Journal,
61 (February 1972) 277-80.
48
Frank J. Barone, "The Answer Is 'A Performance
Curriculum'," English Journal, 56 (February 1967), 227-28.

26
(3) from inclusion of specified grade levels only to
inclusion of all grade levels^
(4) from completely free election, with counseling, by
51 52
students to limited election within requirement bounds
(5) from phasing of courses (developing different levels
5 3 54
of difficulty) to no phasing
(6) from the subject of English only^ to integration
with other subjects.^
4 9
Culley, "Changing an English Program."
^Donald F. Weise, "Nongrading, Electing, and Phasing:
Basics of Revolution for Relevance," English Journal,
59 (January 1970), 122-30.
^Adele H. Stern, "Sorry, Dr. Silberman! Mini-Courses
in the High School," English Journal, 61 (April 1972),
550-54.
52
Franklin G. Myers, "A Plan for All Seasons:
Independent Study in an English Electives Program,"
English Journal, 59 (February 1970), 244-53.
53
Jack E. Smith, Jr., "180 Days: Observations of an
Elective Year," English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 229-35.
54
David B. Bronson, "The Story of an English Elective
Program," English Journal, 60 (November 1971), 1086-90.
^Robert V. Rife, "Would You Believe?" English Journal,
61 (April 1972), 555-59, 599.
^Thomas H. Morton and Mario P. DeiDolori, "An Electives
Program in a Small High School? It Works!" English Journal,
60 (October 1971), 952-56.

27
Despite these differences in implementation, features
common to all these programs are choice by students of
separate courses in English studies, offerings of courses
a semester or less in duration, and some degree of non
grading within at least some courses. It is mainly from
these common elements that the definition of an elective
English program used in this study was developed.
The most elaborate and systemically organized of the
English elective programs developed during the sixties and
early seventies appears to have been the APEX (Appropriate
Placement for Excellence) program, researched and developed
under the auspices of a federal grant in Trenton High
School, Trenton, Michigan. The written program design
included a statement of philosophy and rationale, a state
ment of goals and objectives, an outline of administrative
procedures, and plans for evaluation. (Evaluation of the
entire APEX program after three years by an external agent
5 8
was also planned.)
^This definition is explained in detail in Chapter III,
English Program Structures.
5 8
This evaluation was apparently performed by George
Hillocks, Jr., and others in 1971, as Hillocks, in Alterna-
tives in English, provides many of the results of the
evaluation, citing as his source another work of his own
authorship: An Evaluation of Project APEX: A Non-Graded,
Phase-Elective English Program (Trenton, Michigan: Trenton
Public Schools, 1971). Some of the results of this evalu
ation are discussed later in this section.

28
All English courses in the APEX program lasted one
semester and were available for free election by all stu
dents, ninth through twelfth grades, with no requirements
or prerequisites. Courses were phased by the assignment of
a number from one to five to each course indicating its
level of difficulty. (Some courses were multi-phased.)
Help in course selection was provided by English counselors
and other advisors. Each course, regardless of content,
was to contain experiences in reading, writing, speaking,
and 1istening.
Donald F. IVeise, chairman of the English Department
in Trenton High School, reported many positive results of
the APEX program after two years of operation, among them:
(1) English became one of the most liked (by students)
subjects after having been the least liked for a number of
years.
(2) Students' general attitudes improved.
(3) The number of discipline referrals to the admin
istration from English classes decreased from eighty-nine
(more than in any other department) to nineteen in one year,
eight of which were from substitute teachers.
(4) Students were accepting more responsibility for
their own learning.
(5) Students' individual needs were being met.
59
Weise, pp. 124-26.

29
(6) Insecurity and apathy among the English staff
disappeared.
(7) The teaching task was clearly defined.
(8) The average number of failures per semester went
from sixty in two thousand to eleven in two thousand.^
These advantages and positive results of the elective
English program reported by Weise are remarkably similar
to many of those given by many of the authors mentioned
above. Indeed, Carsen and Conner's original "success"
with the elective program in English was expressed by
them in the following terms:
(1) teacher security (emotional and academic)
(2) immediate feedback and evaluation of an offering
(because of student choices)
(3) improved student attitudes (high involvement and
few discipline problems)
(4) the election of more than the required four
courses by a "significant" number of students.^
Others who reported similar outcomes were Thomas H.
Morton, English curriculum coordinator at Granby Memorial
High School, Granby, Connecticut, and Mario P. DeiDolori,
60Ibid., pp. 123-28.
61Carlsen and Conner, pp. 248-49.

30
superintendent of schools in New Hartford, Connecticut.
They found increased student and teacher enthusiasm,
improved morale of both students and teachers, fewer
discipline problems, and a generally more creative atmos-
6 2
phere as results of an elective English program.
Ann Jaekl reported "increased awareness of what
English has to offer themfthe students}, improved grades,
6 3
and student delight in the frequent change. Max Klang
felt that, among others of its advantages, the elective
program fostered student and parent interest, enhanced
motivation, and allowed the teacher greater opportunity
64
to fulfill definable goals. Jack E. Smith, Jr.,
curriculum coordinator of English in Hickory Township
High School, Sharon, Pennsylvania, observed that, after
one year of operation of an elective program in English,
students liked the new curriculum, teachers were more
innovative, and there was "no difference" in either
final grades or standard test performances.^
George L. Williams, chairman of the English Department
at Weber Junior High School, Port Washington, New York,
6 2
Morton and DeiDolori, pp. 954-55.
^Jaekle, "Safe for Diversity," p. 226.
64
Klang, pp. 506, 515.
65Smith, pp. 230, 235.

31
reported the results of an investigation of student re
actions to an English elective program after one year.
A questionnaire submitted to 234 ("almost all") students
in ninth grade (the only students in the seventh-through-
ninth-grade school who had participated in the program)
elicited the following results:
(1) Ninety-five percent preferred the elective program
to the traditional one.
(2) A "vast majority" felt there was more individuali
zation in the elective program.
(3) Sixty-two percent thought that "all skill areas
were contained in the electives--reading, writing, speak
ing, and listening--and at the same time the electives
provided for greater depth in the content area."
(4) A majority listed as advantages of the elective
program: "the teacher . was genuinely interested,"
students "get to change topics," students "get to be with
other students who are interested in learning about the
same subject," "there is more freedom and more depth," and
there is more chance to show and develop one's own talents.
^George L. Williams, "English Electives Evaluated,"
Clearing House, 47 (April 1973), 469-71. It is not clear
whether the language quoted above is Williams' or that of
the questionnaire or that of students. Surely, phrases
like "skill areas," "depth," and "content area," in their
educational senses seem beyond the ken of most ninth-graders.

32
Hillocks summarized the evaluations offered by fifty-
nine of the elective programs examined by him as follows:
Generally the respondents felt that the attitude
and enthusiasm of both staff and students had
improved perceptibly. A few reported higher
student grades, fewer discipline problems, and
more students taking more English courses during
their senior year.67
It becomes increasingly clear to the reader of these
numerous reports of English elective program experience
that such results and advantages as are expressed are,
indeed, evaluative, or so intended, but limited. These
evaluations are, with rare exceptions, informally and
subjectively made. Systematic (i.e., planned and controlled)
evaluation is seldom to be found. In addition, these
informal evaluations are generally evaluations of outcomes
only and of affective outcomes primarily.
In respect to elective programs in English, no
reports of systematic evaluation of course designs, of
program designs, of goals and objectives, of classroom
atmosphere and dynamics, of teacher attitudes, of costs,
or of theory have been unearthed by the present investi
gator in her search. A very small number of controlled
evaluations which deal with instruction, materials, class
room activities, student attitudes, and cognitive growth
in English elective programs have been found, however,
and will be described.
67
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, pp. 103-04.

33
In 1974 Philip Di Stefano published his study of a
comparison of student attitudes toward English elective
programs and those toward traditional programs and of
differences between the two kinds of programs in terms
of materials, instructional techniques, classroom activ
ities, and final grades. He reports finding a statisti
cally significant difference between students in the two
programs in respect to attitudes toward English and
6 8
attitudes toward English program structure, but unfortun
ately does not indicate the direction of this difference
(that is, which were more positive) or the quality (that isj
69
what attitude means).
Other findings of Di Stefano's indicate that students
in elective programs use more materials, are exposed to
more instructional techniques, participate in more activ
ities, and receive higher final grades than students in
70
the traditional program. The significance (philosophical)
of these findings is perhaps questionable in that the first
three suggest a question re the benefits of quantity (that
is, is more better?) and the fourth contributes little to
an explanation of the meaning of teacher-given grades.
6 8
Philip Paul Di Stefano, "A Comparison of Student
Attitudes Toward Traditional and Diversified Elective
English Offerings i Abstract}," Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXV, No. 05A (1974), 2642.
69
It is likely that the full dissertation would provide
answers to these questions. Unfortunately, only the abstract
was available to the present investigator.
^Di Stefano, p. 2642.

34
If the extent to which these differences (in mater
ials, instructional techniques, activities, and final grades)
contributed to differences in student attitudes were
analyzed, the results would probably be useful. In point of
fact, while Di Stefano poses the question of the extent of
this contribution as one of the purposes of his study, the
question is never answered (at least, not in the abstract).
Di Stefano also concluded that differences in sex or
college aspirations made no significant difference in
attitudes, whereas differences in urban/suburban school
attendance did.'7*
Although the study by Charles Wethington, Jr., of the
relationships between student attitude toward English and
such variables as IQ, general achievement, English achieve
ment, English course grades, and sex was not made of
students in an elective program, one of his findings seems
particularly relevant to this study. Wethington examined
and measured students in the ninth through the twelfth
grades in several schools and found, among other things,
that only for ninth-graders was there any significant
relationship between their attitudes toward English and
their IQs, general achievement, English achievement, or
71
Ibid.

35
English grades. Tenth-, eleventh-, and twe1fth-graders
72
exhibited no such relationships.
John Hunt, Jr., also examined changes in student
attitudes, as well as in certain verbal skills. Although
Hunt's study was also not of students in an elective pro
gram in English, one of his conclusions seems pertinent
to the increasing amount of evidence of improved attitude
of students in English elective programs and to the
question of achievement in such programs: "an instruc
tional program that is more concerned with attitude than
with achievement does not detract from student achieve-
73
ment m the English skills of reading and listening."
The one of the English elective programs mentioned
previously which underwent the most extensive and the
most sophisticated of systematic evaluations was the APEX
74
program at Trenton { Michigan ]- High School. Hillocks
reports some of the methods and results of these evalu
ations:
73
John Wuest Hunt, Jr., "Changes in Selected Attitudes
and Verbal Skills of Low-Achieving High School Students in
an Experimental, Team-P1anned, Non-Graded English and
Social Studies Program {Abstract> Dissertation Abstracts,
XXXI, No. 05A (19 70) 2254.
74
The reader is referred to footnote 59 of this
chapter.

36
The evaluation . attempted to compare
several aspects of the program over a three-year
period to similar aspects of the traditional programs
in two schools with similar socioeconomic
environments. Among other things, the investi
gation examined reading and writing achievement
as measured by standardized tests and randomly
drawn composition samples, the character of the
students' classroom experiences as indicated by
their responses to various questionnaire items
and by classroom observations, and student attitudes
as gauged by questionnaire responses and personal
interviews.
When mean scores on the STEP Reading and Writing Tests
for Trenton High School and the two control schools were
compared for the two years 1968 and 1969, it was discovered
that in both reading and writing, the Trenton mean scores
were higher than the control school's in 1969, the differences
being statistically significant, whereas in 1968, the Trenton
mean scores were both slightly lower than the control school's
but the differences were not statistically significant. In
addition, the Trenton scores in both reading and writing
dropped significantly from 1968 to 1969, a warning, according
to Hillocks, that "if succeeding administrations of the same
tests were to indicate negative changes of the same magnitude,
7 6
there might well be cause for concern."
Comparing percentages of responses of students in
Trenton and in the control schools to questionnaire items
7^Hillocks,
76t,.,
Ibid., p.
Alternatives in English,
106.
pp.
105-06.

37
that requested they check "never," "sometimes," or "fre
quently" after each of several classroom activities, Hillocks
concluded that "control school students perceive a greater
homogeneity of classroom activities than do Trenton students."
The most frequent activities listed by students in the control
schools were "traditional" ones like "listening to the
teacher talk," "discussing literature," and "writing composi-
77
tions."
In addition, a result of having the students rank the
three most frequent English class activities was the indication
that "Trenton students perceive greater heterogeneity in
their classroom activities than do students in the control
7 8
programs."
Analysis of trained classroom observations resulted in
the conclusion that "the level of student initiated talk is
much higher in Trenton English classes than in those of the
79
control schools." Hillocks comments, however:
The more important question has to do with the
kind of talk rather than the extent or degree
of talk. . the degree of student talk
cannot be an unqualified criterion for judging
the success of a course or program. One must
consider the kind of talk involved. 0
"The most striking finding of the Trenton evaluation,"
continues Hillocks, "is the positive change in students'
7 7 lb id., p. 108.
7 8
Ibid., pp. 108-09.
7^lb id. p. 109.

38
attitudes toward their English courses and their class-
81
room activities." Results of questionnaires administered
to students at Trenton in 1967 (before the full implementa
tion of the elective program), in 1968 and in 1969, and
to students at one control school in 1968 and the other in
1969 indicate that the number of Trenton students who
recorded extreme positive responses to most items (aspects
of English) increased steadily from 1967 to 1969. The
number of Trenton students who recorded extreme negative
responses decreased each year.^
On the other hand, it is clear that the attitudes of
Trenton students toward English and English class activities
were far more positive than those of the students in the
control schools even before the elective program was imple
mented. For example, in response to one question, How much
have you enjoyed English during the past year?,, over 30 per
cent of the Trenton students registered extreme positive
responses in 1967, considerably more than in either of the
control schools in 1968 (22 percent) and 1969 (16 percent).
Correspondingly on the same item, only 11 percent of the
Trenton students responded extremely negatively in 1967,
whereas 21 percent of the control students in 1968 and
22 percent of the control students in 1969 gave extreme
8 3
negative responses.
81
82
83
Ibid.
Ibid.,
Ibid.
pp. 111-12.

39
Perhaps not surprisingly, the percentage of extreme
positive responses of the Trenton students to the three
traditional aspects of English study decreased from 1967
to 1969: reading literature, from 63.6 percent to 51.8
percent; writing compositions, from 29.7 percent to
29.1 percent; and grammar, from 10.9 percent to 7.4 percent.
During the same period the percentage of extreme positive
responses to the study of English in general, however, rose
84
from 29.3 percent to 38.6 percent.
Joan Gibbons, however, from her study of "attitudes
and performance" of students in elective English programs,
found that "no significant difference in attitude existed
between the traditional and the al1-electives programs," but
also concluded that "positive attitudes toward English result
8 5
in superior learning and superior student performance."
A total of two hundred forty-three senior students were
randomly selected by Gibbons from high schools offering
three different types of English program structure: a tra
ditional, an al1-e1ectives, and an "elective requiring
linguistic diagnosis and remediation prior to entrance into
electives." Attitudes were measured on Remmers Attitude
Toward Any School Subject Scale, and performance, by
84 lb id., pp. 112, 114.
8 5
Joan Mary Gibbons, "A Study of Attitudes and Perform
ance of High School Students Enrolled in Elective English
Programs -C Abstract > ," Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIII, No. 12A (1973), 2742.

40
standardized tests of achievement in two domains: English
86
usage and understanding and interpreting literature.
Gibbons used posttest data only and therefore was
confined to statistical analysis of differences between
programs, between sexes within and across programs, and
between attitude and performance measures. "Multiple
t-tests and correlations" were the statistical procedures
8 7
employed. Such a design would, of course, yield little
information on long-range (three- or four-year) effects
of program structure on either attitude or performance,
since effects of other variables are not controlled.
(There is also no indication in the abstract of the length
of time students had participated in their respective
programs.)
Nevertheless, the combination of a reasonably large
sample and their random selection would serve to exercise
considerable control of extraneous variance. Certain other
of Gibbons! findings and conclusions relevant to the present
investigation (of traditional and elective programs only)
are of interest:
No significant difference in achievement
in English usage existed among the three groups.
Little difference in literature achievement and
no significant difference in attitude existed
between the traditional and the all-electives
programs. Girls were more positive toward
English and achieved higher scores in literature
86
87
Ibid.
Ibid.

41
than did boys. Positive correlations existed
between achievement in literature and attitude
toward literature and writing, and between
literary achievement and attitudes toward
literature and writing. . Students in an
all-elective English program perform as well in
language and in literature as do students in a
traditional. . Program organization has
little to do with sgg differences in attitude
toward English. . .
A similar study was reported the following year by
89
John Nushy. Both Nushy and Gibbons used posttest-only
research to analyze differences in achievement and in
attitude of senior students in differing English programs.
Both used standardized tests as measuring instruments.
Nushy's study differed from Gibbons', however, in
several respects:
(1) The sample was larger--581 students.
(2) All students in the sample had participated in
their respective programs for three years.
(3) Only two program structures were involved in
the study--traditional and elective.
(4) Achievement in English was defined as four
variables: vocabulary, reading, effectiveness of
expression, and mechanics of expression.
(5) The statistical procedure employed was analysis
of covariance, using scores from the Lorge-Thorndike
88
Ibid.
John Michael Nushy, "A Comparative Analysis and
Evaluation of Student Achievement and Attitude in a
Secondary Elective and Conventional English Program
[Abstract}" Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV,
No. 06A (1974), 3399.

42
Intelligence Tests as the covariate.
(6) More caution was employed in deriving conclusions
from findings and in generalizing.
The two most relevant (to the present study) of
Nushy's conclusions, for example, were that:
(1) Secondary school students from middle-class
community backgrounds who have participated for
three years in an elective, nongraded program of
English instruction would be expected to achieve
at least as high a level in standardized test
measures as would students of comparable backgrounds
who had been in a traditional program for three
years. (2) Students who had participated in an
elective program could be anticipated to exhibit a
level of attitude toward English as a subject that
would be judged to be at least as favorable as that
of students who had been exposed to a traditional
qn r
program.*u
Despite the lack of distinction between "participating
in" and "being in" or "participating in" and "being exposed
to," the careful circumspection of Nushy's conclusions
becomes more evident as the statistical findings on which
they are based are considered. Nushy found that the mean
scores of the two groups (elective and traditional)
differed significantly on all five dependent variables
(four cognitive and one affective) and that the differences
91
on all five variables "favored the elective group."
The most controlled and truly experimental study of
the effect of English program structure on achievement in
English is probably the one reported by Paul McCormick in
1973. Three hundred twenty eleventh- and twe1fth-grade
91 T1..
Ibid.

students were selected at random from two New Jersey high
schools. One hundred .sixty (the experimental group) were
instructed for one school year in an elective English pro
gram; the remaining one hundred sixty (the control group)
were instructed in a traditional English program. Stu
dents were also assigned to groups according to grade level
and sex. All students were administered a standardized
test of English achievement at the beginning of a school
year and an alternate form of the same test at the end
of that school year. Their pre- and posttest scores were
9 2
submitted to analysis of covariance.
Of six hypotheses tested, only the one concerning
treatment effects was found to be statistically signif
icant. The other hypotheses tested concerned grade level
effects, sex effects, treatment/grade level interaction,
treatment/sex interaction, grade level/sex interaction, and
9 3
treatment/grade level/sex interaction.
McCormick's conclusion that "students enrolled in an
elective English program do achieve more than their peers
Paul Joseph McCormick, "A Comparison of Achievement
in English of Eleventh- and Twelfth-Grade Students in an
Elective Program with Those in a Traditional Program
[Abstract Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIV,
No. 09A (1973), 5535.
93
Ibid.

44
enrolled in a traditional program . {and! that the
difference is due to the treatment and not to any other
factor" would thus appear to be a sound one because of the
efficiency of his research design. The treatments are
distinct from each other. Random selection and assignment
assure considerable control of extraneous variance.
Additional control is achieved by testing the effects of
sex and grade level. Error variance is minimized by
controlling conditions, by the use of a reliable measure,
and by adjusting for individual differences.
McCormick notes, however, that, since "the mean score
for the experimental group as adjusted for individual
differences, does not represent a great increase over
the mean score for the control group, . care should
be exercised . not to conclude that the advantage for
the experimental group necessarily implies superiority
large enough to warrant implementation of elective programs
94
as a means of improving learning." The obvious impli
cation is that further research is needed.
Another study, Prudence Dyer's evaluation of a limited
English elective program in a small rural high school in
Garretsville, Ohio, focused on the effects upon student
learning of three elements: "nongrading, for the purpose
of interest grouping; opportunities for choice in what to
study; and time and encouragement for specialization in
94
Ibid.

45
a selected unit in English." Dyer employed "two evaluative
methods--a narrative report and statistical tests--to
determine the accomplishment of general and specific program
ob j ectives .
Certain of Dyer's findings are of interest to this
investigation. She found that the age or grade level of
students did not appear to be a factor in student achieve
ment on the measures of students' grades and of student
participation in class. She also found statistically
significant gains in English achievement on the STEP
Writing Test, the composition samples, the motivation
achievement index, and student grades.^
The limitations of Dyer's study, however, considerably
reduce the possibilities of generalization and inference.
The one hundred twenty-five students in the program were
all college-bound (presumably by declaration of intent).
The nongraded units of English study were elected by these
students for one third of a school year only (presumably
97
as an experiment). Thus, there is no indication of the
effects of even a one-year program of English electives on
the achievement of a varied group of representative students.
95
Prudence Osborn Dyer, "The Development and Evaluation
of a Program of Nongraded English Electives {Abstract},"
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, No. 10A (1966), 3365.
96..
Ibid.
97
Ibid.

46
In sum, the meager amount of objective, systematic,
and/or experimental research that has been undertaken on
long-term English elective programs has contributed little
to our understanding of the effects of such programs on
achievement in English in cognitive areas. There appear to
be strong indications of improved student attitudes toward
English and English classes, as well as mild indications of
concomitant increases in quantity and variety of instructional
methods, materials, and classroom activities.
Yet the relationship of elective programs to cognitive
learning remains somewhat of a mystery, in spite of opinions
like this of Graves: "Although there is not enough hard data
to state unequivocally that students learn more in an elec
tive curriculum than they do in other approaches, there are
9 8
many indications that such is true." The "indications"
Graves offers in support of this conclusion are improved
student attitudes, the frequent election by students of more
than the required number of courses, "the apparent satisfaction
of the teachers involved, {and} the widespread acceptance of
the rationale of the elective curriculum,"--hardly relevant
measures of "more" learning! (Indeed, Graves confounds the
argument even further by concluding his paragraph with the
statement that the "indications" listed above "all. .point
to an improvement in the qua 1 i t y {Italics added!- of 1 earning.")
98
Graves, p. 200.

Criticisms of the elective English curriculum and
analyses of its weaknesses have been appearing regularly
in print since the early 1970s. Roger J. Fitzgerald, an
early supporter of electives, later found many weaknesses,
such as lack of coherence, frivolousness, and triviality,
in several programs he visited: "They represent neither
change nor relevance."^^ Others, like Albert R. Kitzhaber,
were similarly disillusioned.'*'^*'*
Two years earlier John K, Crabbe, from the Department
of English at the University of Oregon, had noted several
specific objections to an elective English program, which
he described as "the current palliative to student and
102
teacher boredom." First, he felt that flexible scheduling
means team teaching which inevitably means large group
lecture, objectionable in secondary school. Then, some
electives must be required or they will be second choices,
thus obviating the benefits of true election. In addition,
Crabbe argues, nongrading seems at first to do away with
ability grouping, but phasing by difficulty or having
prerequisites means that "in effect only the ages are mixed."
Also, election can mean personality contests for teachers,
*****Roger j. Fitzgerald, "The New Supermarket: A
' Dystopian View of English Electives," English Journal,
61 (April 1972), 536.
^^Albert R. Kitzhaber, "A Rage for Disorder,"
English Journal, 61 (November 1972), 1199-1219.
102
Crabbe, "Those Infernal Electives," p. 990.

48
who, moreover, may be required to make as many as five
103
unique preparations.
Another criticism made by Crabbe is that the scope of
an individual course in an elective program is often very
narrow or else it is too broad to fit into the time allowed.
The sequence in skills is not consistent for each student nor
can a teacher assume a common literary experience. Further
more, some students do not get a desired course because
not enough other students have elected it. Course descrip
tions, he continues, usually hide from the students the
fact that composition and language are included. The program
is too expensive; too many books are necessary. And finally,
1 04
students may read the same book in more than one course.
The weaknesses in elective programs observed by
George Hillocks, Jr., are stated in both more general and less
trivial terms. Although Hillocks concludes from his study of
elective programs that they "represent the first massive
shattering of the structures that shackled curricula in Eng
lish" and offer many advantages, he is careful to note that
their greatest weaknesses are the same ones that have plagued
traditional programs:
One of the greatest weaknesses of traditional
programs is their tendency to require all students
to do the same work at the same rate. Elective
programs which offer courses at various levels
of difficulty obviously avoid that problem. However,
\
103
1Ibid. p. 991.
1 04
Ibid., pp. 991-93, 1004.

49
to the extent that individual courses fail to
provide means of differentiating instruction,
they make the same error as the traditional programs.
Other weaknesses in traditional programs have
been carried over directly to elective programs:
weaknesses in the rationale for course offerings,
in the approaches to language, composition, and
literature, and in course design.
In respect to the last-mentioned of these weaknesses,
that in course design, Hillocks specifically notes that
(1) content is vague, "global," or "ridiculously narrow,"
(2) objectives are often vague, (3) means to evaluate
instruction are lacking, and (4) there is great frag-
, 106
mentation of subject matter.
Stephen N. Judy, too, commented on the fragmentation
usually implicit in English electives, as well as "indi
rection leading to proliferation of unrelated courses,
justified (or rationalized) as giving students a 'choice.'"
Research on Factors of English Achievement
Of the numerous studies dealing with various aspects
of cognitive growth and achievement in English, this writer
105
106
107,
Hillocks, Alternatives in English, p. 120.
Ibid., p. 121.
Stephen N. Judy, Explorations in the Teaching of
Secondary English: A Source Book for Experimental Teaching
(New York: Dodd, Mead § Company, 1974), p. 154.
107

50
has chosen two only to review. This choice is prompted
primarily by the fact that by far most of the research
on English achievement has no direct bearing on this
investigation, except inasmuch as it relates to elective
programs in English. The few studies so related have been
discussed above.
The two studies described hereinafter are included in
this review because (1) both state as their purpose an
intent to investigate the relationships of certain socio
economic characteristics, certain institutional character
istics, and/or intelligence to academic achievement,
(2) both employ scores on tests of the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program as measures, (3) both employ United
States census data as measures of certain county-wide
socioeconomic characteristics in Florida, and (4) both
offer findings of significant association of certain factors
to academic achievement in English and other studies of
students in Florida high schools.
As noted previously, the primary objective of the
present investigation is to explore the nature and extent
of the relationship between the structure of an English
Samuel Sandy Bottosto, "Relationship Between County-
Wide Measures of Certain Socio-Economic Factors, Intelligence,
and Academic Achievement of High School Seniors in Florida
{Abstract }," Dissertation Abstracts, XX, No. 03 (1959), 1931 ,
and Richard Marvin Moore, "Selected Community and Institu
tional Characteristics of Florida Public Schools Related to
Twelfth Grade Test Scores {Abstract}," Dissertation Abstracts,
XXX, No. 01A (1968 ), 102.

51
program and the achievement of cognitive skills in English,
using data relating to selected high schools, students, and
school districts in Florida. The selection of independent
variables in this investigation was influenced by the find-
109
ings of Bottosto's and Moore's studies. In addition,
the choice for this investigation of certain test scores
on the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program as measures
of English achievement and of academic aptitude, as well as
the choice of United States census data as measures of
certain school district population characteristics, was
influenced by the findings of these two studies.^^
Samuel Bottosto developed measures of the socioeconomic
levels of Florida counties^^ from census data relating to
the median numbers of years of school completed by persons
twenty-five years old and over and to median annual family
income. He developed measures of county-wide intelligence
and academic achievement from individual test scores made
by 24,026 high school seniors who had participated in the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in 1956 and in 1957.
The section of Chapter II entitled Design and Pro
cedures provides further details on the selection of variables.
110TL
The section of Chapter II entitled Instrumentation and
Sources provides further information on the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program, the United States census, and their
use in this study.
Ill
In
Florida,
the county is the school district.

52
All measures were developed for the white population, the
non-white population, and the total population of each county.
Simple and multiple correlations were computed and tested
112
for statistical significance.
The major findings of Bottosto's study of interest to
the present investigation are the following:
(1) Achievement of white high school seniors
in English ... is significantly related to the
socio-economic factors of adult schooling and
family income of the white population in Florida
counties.
(2) Achievement of non-white high school
seniors in English ... is significantly related
to the socio-ecomomic factors of adult schooling
and family income of the non-white population
in Florida counties.
(3) The county-wide socio-economic factors
of schooling and income appear to be more closely
associated with achievement in English and social
studies than with natural science and mathematics.
(4) The greater the proportion of non-whites
in a county, the lower the academic achievement of
non-white high school seniors in that county.
(5) When the measures of intelligence and
size of county are held constant, socio-economic
factors of schooling and income are still found
to be significantly related to total academic
achievement for the white and non-white high
school seniors in Florida counties.
Richard Moore examined the relationships of several
socioeconomic characteristics of Florida counties (deter
mined by data reported in the 1960 United States census)
and of several institutional characteristics (including
school size, library expenditures, student-to-teacher ratios,
112
Bottosto, p. 931.

53
and degrees held by teachers) to academic achievement as
measured by county mean scores on the Florida Twe1fth-Grade
Testing Program. Step-wise multiple regression correlations
were computed and analyzed for significance, using coeffi
cients of multiple correlation.
The major findings of Moore's study of interest to the
present investigation are the following:
(1) The institutional characteristic which
was associated with the greatest percentage of
variation in test scores was the size of the school.
It was a positive correlation.
(2) Library expenditures were positively and
significantly related to test score results on all
six sections of the test.
(3) The ratio of men to women teachers in grades
7-12 was significant on every section of the text
Cs ic > except the mathematics portion and was
positively correlated .
(4) . student to teacher ratio and per
cent of teachers having a Master's degree were not
significantly related to scores on any section of
the test.
(5) The percent of non-white population was
significantly and negatively correlated with
scores in all areas of the test.
(6) . the percent of persons having less than
five years schooling was significantly related to
scores on the test and had a negative correlation with
test scores.
(7) . median school years of the population
. . was positively related to output.
114
Moore, p. 102.

54
Overview of the Study
Organization of the Study
The objectives of this study, it will be recalled,
are (1) to assess the extent of the association between
the independent variable of English program structure
and the dependent variable of English achievement and
(2) to examine selected English programs in Florida
high schools, their products (students), their teachers,
and their environments.
The immediately following chapter (II) outlines
the methodology of the study: its design and procedures,
selection of the sample, collection of the data, instru
mentation, and treatment of the data.
The succeeding four chapters are devoted to a
discussion of the English programs investigated, the
English teachers, the school district populations, and
the students, respectively. The English programs of
four high schools in Florida are described in the first
of these chapters (III). Descriptions of selected English
teacher variables, school district population variables,
and student variables for each of the four high schools
constitute the subject matter of the other three chapters
(IV, V, VI).
Following these descriptive chapters is a chapter
(VII) given to a detailed report of a series of multiple
regression analyses, performed in an effort to ascertain

55
the extent and significance of the association between
fifteen independent (and antecedent) variables and the
dependent variable of English achievement. Since the
independent variable of English program structure is the
primary target toward which this study is aimed, it will
be singled out with special emphasis and in special
detail. In addition, the results of the analysis of the
association of the remaining fourteen independent vari
ables (student variables, English teacher variables, and
school district variables) with English achievement will
be reported.
The concluding chapter (VIII) of this study will
interpret the findings of the analysis, draw conclusions
from them, and discuss their implications for English
program development and for further research.
Limitations of the Study
Curriculum research, like much educational research,
is plagued by many limitations. The number of variables
appears infinite and their number is often further con
founded by the trait of non-i so 1 atabi1ity. Uncontaminated
data are virtually non-existent and many relevant data
are unattainable. Instrumentation is frequently unsophis
ticated. Random sampling and random assignment of treat
ment or subjects are often impossible.
This study reflects many of the above-mentioned
limitations generally. There are, however, specific

56
limitations peculiar to this study or particularly perti
nent to this study or both.
The non-experimental nature of this study is the
most comprehensive of these limitations. The investigation
of the long-range "influence of an aspect of curriculum
(in this case, English program structure) on a type of
behavior (in this case, demonstrated achievement in English)
does not easily lend itself to experimental inquiry.
The phenomenon of achievement is an after-the-fact
phenomenon. Thus, the present investigation is in the
nature of ex post facto research. As such, it lacks the
possibilities of direct control that exist in experimental
research: control of the independent variables. Neither
(1) manipulation of the variables nor (2) randomization
(of drawing of samples of subjects, of assignment of sub
jects to groups, or of assignments of treatments to groups)
was possible.
Most of the data collected ex post facto are also
severely limited by their availability or its lack. The
practical aspects of availability and collectability of
data in relation to the present study are discussed in
Chapter II, Methodology.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Design and Procedures
The question of the extent and significance of the
association between the (independent)'*' variable of program
2
structure and the product measure (dependent variable)
of English achievement appeared at the outset to be diffi
cult to investigate. The number of variables potentially
associated with English achievement is legion. Experi
mental manipulation of these variables, many of which
would require longitudinal control, would be virtually
impossible.
The decision was made, therefore, to select several
variables, in addition to program structure, most likely
correlated (associated) with English achievement, and to
identify, isolate, measure, and record data concerning
these variables. (Practical considerations also required
that data concerning these independent variables be
available and collectable.) Values would be assigned to
each of these and their means and standard deviations
computed. Intercorrelations among these independent variables
would be computed and reviewed, as well as the correlation
The terms independent variable and predictor variable
are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this
report.
2
The terms dependent variable and product measure
are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this
report.
57

58
between each of these independent variables and the product
measure.
The final statistical procedure would be to conduct
3
an analysis of a series of multiple linear regression equations
to examine the extent to which independent variables are
associated with the product measure and to evaluate the
contributions of the independent variables to the prediction
of product measure variance. Such a procedure could be
anticipated to produce information on the extent of the
contribution of the target variable (English program structure)
singly and in concert with other selected variables.
The final set of variables hypothesized as associating
with English achievement numbered fifteen and related to
(1) size of school population, (2) characteristics of the
English faculty of the school, (3) educational and economic
4
characteristics of the school district (county) population,
(4) student characteristics, and (5) English program structure.'
This procedure (multiple linear regression) and the
analytical procedure are described more fully in Chapter VII.
4
In Florida, the county is the school district.
These variables were selected on the basis of sugges
tions from secondary English teachers, teaching interns
in secondary English, professors of English education,
and graduate studentsof English education; and from ideas
gleaned from research and position papers (some of which
are discussed in A Review of the Literature in Chapter I);
in addition to the practical considerations mentioned above.

59
Following is an outline of these independent variables:
I. Size of School (Student Population)
II. English Faculty
A. Average Certification
B. Average Number of Years of Teaching
C. Average Number of Years at the School
D. Average Teaching Load
III.School District Population
A. Percentage of Non-White Population
B. Percentage with Fewer Than Five Years'
Schooling
C. Median Number of Years of Schooling
D. Median Annual Family Income
IV.Students
A. Sex
B. Academic Aptitude
C. Grade Point Average, All Subjects
D. Grade Point Average, English
E. Attitude Toward English as a Subject
V.English Program Structure
Selection of the Sample
School Selection
In an effort to select representative high schools
with traditional English programs and those with elective
English programs, of varying size (student population),
geographic location, etc., four Florida high schools were
selected for this study, hereinafter referred to as Schools
A, B, C, and D. Two schools, A and B, had had traditional

60
English program structures for at least two years pre
ceding the 1975-1976 school year and were continuing the
same structure for that year. Two schools, C and D, had
had elective program structures in English for at least
two years prior to the 1975-1976 school year and were
continuing the structure for that year.
In 1976, all four schools had been accredited fully
by the Department of Education of the State of Florida
and, additionally, by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. All four schools comprised ninth through
twelfth grades, and seniors (twe1fth-graders) in all four
schools were enrolled in English courses.
School A is located in a rural area in north central
Florida and is one of three high schools in the county
in which it is located. The county population in 1970
was 32,059 persons.^ In the spring of 1976, the total
student population of school A was 882 students and 147
of these were classified as seniors. There were fifty
teachers on the faculty; eight of these teachers were
1970 Census of the Population. Vol. 1 (Character-
istics of the Population), Part 11 (Florida), issued
April 1973, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and
Economics Statistics Administration, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C., p. 154.

61
designated as teachers of English courses, seven exclusively
and one partly. (This one also taught other courses in
other departments.) The English program at School A was
traditional.^
Also with an English program designated as traditional
g
for the purposes of this study, School B, located in a
sprawling metropolis in the southeastern coastal region of
Florida, had a population in the spring of 1976 of 2,307
students, 380 of whom were seniors. It is one of eleven
high schools in its district. Of the eighty-seven teachers
on its faculty, nineteen were assigned to the English
Department full-time and one taught English part-time.
The total number of residents in the county in 1970 was
348,753.9
School C had a population of 787 students in the spring
of 1976, including 135 seniors. There were three other high
schools in the county, which had a population in 1970 of
36,290 persons.^ The school is located in a small city in
7
For further explanation and description of the English
programs, the reader is referred to Chapter III; for further
English teacher information, Chapter IV; for further school
district information, Chapter V; and for further student
information, Chapter VI. A summary of the school character
istics enumerated in this section can be found in Table 1
at the end of the section.
g
Operational definitions of "traditional" and "elective"
are provided in Chapter II, English Program Structures.
9
1970 Census of the Population, p. 155.
Ibid.

62
north central Florida and had an elective English program.
Of forty-six teachers on the faculty, six were teaching three
or more English classes a day in the 1975-1976 school year.
The fourth school, D, is in a large urban center in
southwest Florida, in a county whose population in 1970
was 522,329 persons.^ The school population in the spring
1 2
of 1976 was approximately 3,200, and there were 640
seniors. Of 164 teachers in the school, twenty-two taught
English three or more periods a day, and the English program
was elective. School D is one of twelve high schools in
the county.
Student Selection
Students in all four schools who were seniors in the
spring of 1976 and who had been enrolled and in attendance
at the school for at least two consecutive previous school
years (from at least the fall of 1973) were selected as the
initial sample student population for the purposes of this
research. This determination was made because the nature
of the independent variable of particular concern to the
objectives of this study, viz., the structure of the English
program (traditional or elective), is such that only stu
dents who had been exposed to either program consistently
n.,..
Ibid.
1 2
There appeared to be no accurate source of the exact
school population, but several authoritative and otherwise
reliable sources agreed on this approximate figure.

63
for at least three years could qualify as valid products
of the program.
The student sample was further refined by the elimi
nation of all seniors who had not taken the battery of tests
in the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program in the fall of
1975 or who had not at least taken the English Composition
Test and the Aptitude Test of that battery at that time.
This limitation was required by the fact that scores on the
English Composition Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade
Testing Program were used as the product measures of the
dependent variable of English achievement in this study.
In addition, scores on the Aptitude Test of the battery
were used in this research as measures of the general
1 3
academic ability of the students.
Finally, those seniors whose course grade scores from
the fall of 1973 through January 1976 were not available
through school records and those seniors who did not respond
to the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as
a Subject were, of necessity, eliminated from the sample. In
the latter case, response was either lacking because of ab
sence on the day of administration of the questionnaire
or invalid because of incompleteness or misunderstanding.
For further information on and details of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program and the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject, the reader is
referred to the section of this chapter entitled Instru
mentation and Sources.

64
As a result of all refinements of the student sample,
forty-two students from School A were included in the final
sample. From School 3, 215 students were included; from
School C, seventy-eight students; from School D, 160 stu
dents. The total number of students in the sample from
all four high schools who were seniors who had been in
attendance from grade ten through grade twelve at the
school, who had taken both the English Composition Test
and the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Test
ing Program in the fall of 1975, whose subject grade
scores in all courses completed in grades ten through
twelve were available, and who responded to the Student
Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English as a Subject
was 495 .
Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics
of the selected school sample.

65
Table 1
SUMMARY OF SELECTED SAMPLE HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
Sample School
A
B
C
D
State Location
north
south
north
south
central
east
central
west
Rural/Urban
rural
urban
urban
urban
Total Number of
High Schools in
3
11
4
12
County
County Popula-
tion (1970)
32,059
348,753
36,290
522,329
School Popula-
tion (1976)
882
2,307
787
3,200
Number of Senior
147
380
135
640
Students (1976)
Number of Teachers r
87
46
164
(1976)
Number of English
8
20
6
22
Teachers (1976)
English Program
tradi-
tradi-
elec-
elec
Structure
tional
tional
t ive
t i ve
Number of Stu-
dents in the
42
215
78
160
Sample

66
Collection of the Data
Permission was solicited and obtained from the county
superintendent of schools (or from his authorized repre
sentative) in each of the four counties in which a sample
school was located, as well as from the principal of each
school, to visit the school, submit questionnaires to
senior students and to English teachers, and collect data
from school records. Appendixes A, B, and C are samples
of the letters and form used to accomplish this purpose.
Upon arrangement with each school principal, each
school was visited from a minimum of three days to a
maximum of five days. During the visit (11 the investi
gator met with the English Department chairperson, who
agreed to distribute English Teacher Questionnaires to
faculty members teaching one or more English classes a
day and collect them when completed; (2) the investigator
met with all seniors in attendance, either en masse or
in small groups, and administered the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject; and (3) the
investigator recorded, from students' cumulative folders,
for all seniors who had been in attendance at the school
since at least the fall of 1973, their grade scores in
all courses completed from the fall of 1973 through
January 1976, their sex, and their scores on both the
English Composition Test and the Aptitude Test of the
Florida Twe1fth-Grade Testing Program administered in
fall 1975.

67
Instrumentation and Sources
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used to measure English
faculty characteristics, student attitude toward English
as a subject, and English achievement.
The English Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix D) is an
original instrument designed to elicit information from
which to establish values for certain English teacher
characteristics used as predictor variables in this
study. Item 1 asks for the number of years of teaching
and Item 2, for the number of years at the school. Items
3, 4, and 5 deal with the teaching load: number of classes
taught, number of students taught, and number of prepara
tions. Items 6 and 7 establish levels and types of
state certification.
The Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward English
as a Subject (Appendix E) is an original instrument con
taining seven items which yielded information regarding
(1) the student's sex, (2) the number of years of the
student's attendance at the school, and (3) the student's
attitude toward English as a school subject. Items 1 and 2,
on sex and years of attendance, respectively, served as a
cross-check on cumulative folder information about the
student. Items 3 through 7 asked for the student's
ratings on a five-point scale of his interest in English
studies (Item 3), his perception of the degree to which

68
English studies satisfied his needs (Items 4 and 5), and
his liking for English studies (Items 6 and 7). Answers
to Items 3 through 7 therefore supplied data concerning
the student's total attitude (based on interest, need and
liking) toward English as a subject.
The Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program (FTGT) is
a battery of tests which, until 1976, was annually admin
istered to seniors in all Florida public high schools.
The Office of Instructional Resources at the University
of Florida was responsible for the construction, administra
tion, scoring, and statistical analyses of the FTGT. The
battery consisted of five tests: Aptitude, English Compo
sition, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Social Studies,
and was designed "to measure academic aptitude and achieve-
14
ment for all seniors." Scores on the Aptitude Test and
the English Composition Test were used in this study as
measures of the independent variable of student academic
aptitude and the dependent variable of English achievement,
respectively.
In the fall of 1975, the total battery of tests was
taken by 78,453 senior students from 435 schools in Florida.
All tests on the FTGT were scored on a "right-only"
basis, an individual scoring one point for each item
14
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program,
No. 1-75, University of Florida, 1975.
15T, ,
Ibid.
Report
15

69
answered correctly. The total of these points constituted
an individual's raw score.^ The raw scores were converted
to percentile ranks and reported to the schools and the
students in the form of percentiles.
The Aptitude Test of the FTGT battery consisted of
two sections of fifty items each: Verbal Analogies and
Math Comparison. Twenty minutes were allowed for admin
istration of each section.
The statewide mean raw score for the Aptitude Test
of the FTGT in 1975 was 52.29, and the standard deviation
was 16.15. The split-half reliability coefficient
(corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula) for the Aptitude
Test was .94. The standard error of measurement was 3.96.^
The English Composition Test of the FTGT battery
consisted of a total of eighty-five items in three sec
tions: I, Usage; II, Capitalization and Punctuation;
III, Effectiveness of Expression. All items on all three
sections were of multiple-choice (five-choice) construction,
with directions to identify an error, if any, in the item.
One of the five choices for every item was NO ERROR. The
administration of each section was timed: fifteen minutes
for section I of thirty-five items, ten minutes for section
16
17
Ibid.
Ibid.

70
II of twenty items, and fifteen minutes for section III
of thirty items.
The statewide mean raw score for the English Composition
Test of the FTGT in 1975 was 48.51. The statewide standard
deviation was 15.44. The reliability coefficient, computed
as for the Aptitude Test, was .94. The standard error of
18
measurement for the English Composition Test was 3.78.
The decision to use scores on the English Composition
Test of the FTGT battery as measures of the dependent
variable of English achievement was based, at least in
part, on the following considerations:
(1) A score on the test was a "given" for a majority
of the senior students in the selected schools. That is,
although participation in the testing program was voluntary
in 1975, a sizable majority of the seniors in each of the
sample schools had taken the test. Thus, administration
of another instrument for this measure was unnecessary.
(2) The test was a reasonably valid measure of
English achievement, at least in the areas of certain
writing skills, certain reading skills, and knowledge of
standard usage, in spite of its limiting title. In the
words of its constructors and administrants, the test was
designed "to measure . achievement." (The test did
18
19
Ibid.
Ibid.

71
not, however, measure, or purport to measure, achievement
in all of the communication skills or cognitive goals
mentioned earlier in this report, Chapter I, Introduction.)
Other Sources
As reported earlier, school records on each student
were employed as sources for obtaining a student's scores
on the Aptitude Test and the English Composition Test in
1975. In addition, those records provided grades earned
by each student in all courses in all subjects completed
by that student from September 1973 through January 1976.
The final source of data employed in this investigation
was the report from the Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C., of the 1970 census of the population, the most
recent census report available. From this report were
elicited (1) the total population of each county investi
gated, (2) the number of white persons in each county,
(3) the number of non-white persons in each county, (41 the
number of persons twenty-five years of age and over in each
county who had completed fewer than five years of schooling,
(5) the median annual family income for each county, and
(6) the median number of years of schooling completed by
persons twenty-five years of age and over in each county.
Treatment of the Data
It will be recalled that data were collected on 495
students in the sample of four high schools in Florida.
These 495 individuals are those for whom data were available

72
on every variable (the product measure {dependent variable >
of English achievement and the fifteen predictor {independent}
variables). For purposes of analysis, the 495 subjects were
treated as a single group.
After collection of the data on all sixteen variables,
values were assigned or computed for each and the mean and
standard deviation computed. The intercorrelation among
the independent variables was computed, as well as the
correlation between each of these independent variables and
the dependent variable.
A series of multiple linear regression equations were
computed and analyzed to examine the extent to which (1) the
20
complete prediction system and (2) sets of independent
variables were associated with the product measure. A
statistical evaluation was made of the significance of the
contribution of independent variables to the prediction
21
of product measure variance.
That is, all of the independent (predictor) variables
together.
21
The analytical procedures are described in more detail
in Chapter VII, Analysis of the Association Between Sets of
Independent Variables and English Achievement.

73
The multiple regression analysis model seemed
particularly appropriate to this study because it
provides an estimate of the proportion of . .
[product measure 1 variance attributable to the
entire group of independent variables (the complete
prediction system) as well as any individual (single)
variable . from the group.
These data can be used, in conjunction with
the F test, to derive further information concerning
the association between a given variable and the
. .{dependent variable}.22
2 2
Donald Groover Aten, A Study of Two Teacher Education
Programs and an Analysis of the Association Between Antecedent
Variables and Product Measures, Ed. D. Dissertation (New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969), pp. 200-01 .
The investigator is indebted here and generally throughout
this report to Aten for the use of his dissertation as a
guide to the format for reporting this kind of analysis.

CHAPTER III
ENGLISH PROGRAM STRUCTURES
General Features of Elective and Traditional Programs
As noted in the introduction to this report, the funda
mental difference between elective English programs and tra
ditional English programs in secondary schools is that the
courses elected by students in an elective program fulfill
graduation requirements in English, whereas elected courses
in a traditional program are in addition to the English
courses specified as requirements for graduation for all
students.
While this difference remains a fundamental (and sub
stantial) one, in practice several other features have
gradually become associated with the elective program in
English, some to the extent of almost obligatory concomitance
The most important and prevalent of these additional features
are (1) shorter course lengths and (2) non-grading of courses
Length of Courses
The traditional program has usually offered three
required courses in English, each course thirty-six weeks
in duration, for students in each of grades ten through
twelve. Since thirty-six weeks (180 weekdays)^ is the
In the following discussion, week is construed to
mean five weekdays in a calendar week of school attendance
required by law. Year is construed to mean a school year,
thirty-six weeks in a calendar year of school attendance
required by law.
74

75
usual amount of time constituting a school year, these
courses may be considered, and usually have been considered,
year-long courses. Such courses are traditionally entitled
English I, English II, and English III (or English II,
English III, and English IV, if course numbering is
initiated with the ninth-grade curriculum), although in
some few schools, other nomenclature based on the concen
trated focus of the year's study is used, such as American
Literature for e1eventh-grade English and English Literature
for twe1fth-grade English.
In contrast, elective English programs have almost
exclusively offered courses lasting eighteen or fewer
weeks : ^
. . fifty programs offer the bulk of their
courses in eighteen-week blocks. The remainder
of the programs offer courses of four, six, nine,
ten, or twelve weeks in length. Several use a
combination of course lengths,^for example, nine
weeks, a semester, and a year.^
Indeed, this feature of English elective programs (courses
lasting eighteen or fewer weeks) has become so universal
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English:
A Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972),
pp. 13-15. Of seventy-six schools and school systems in
thirty-seven states with elective English programs investi
gated by Hillocks, none offered courses longer than eighteen
weeks, except (rarely) in combination with courses shorter
than eighteen weeks.
3Ibid., pp. 13-14.

76
that its use as a criterion for designation of a program
as elective appears justified.
Non-Graded Courses
In a year-long English course of a purely traditional
program, students are of the same grade level. That is,
except for the occasional student who is repeating a course
for reasons of failure, excessive absence, or the like, all
students in English I, for example, are tenth-grade students.
Most elective programs, on the other hand, offer courses
which are non-graded; that is, students of differing grade
4
levels may enroll in the same courses. This practice is
sometimes restricted in some respects, such as the limiting
of some electives to tenth and eleventh grades and others to
eleventh and twelfth. Elective English programs in which
courses are phased (i.e., developed at various levels of
difficulty) are more likely to be non-graded.
Since most elective programs are phase-elective pro
grams, however, and in spite of occasional restrictions,
non-graded courses have become a common feature of English
elective programs.
Criteria for Program Determination for This Study
Although the salient contrasting features of English
programs entail the areas described above: (1) graduation
requirements in English, (2) length of courses, and (3)
4 Ibid.

77
grade levels of students enrolled in courses, these features
are not always mutually exclusive between kinds of programs.
Many schools in Florida which had for many years conducted
totally traditional programs in English had, by 1973,
introduced modifications into those programs, such as, for
example, a degree of non-grading of some courses. In some
cases, length of courses had been shortened for some or
even all English courses in some otherwise traditional
programs.
The characteristic of the traditional English program
in Florida which continued to distinguish it from the
elective program, despite other changes, was the specifi
cation of three years of English courses required in grades
ten through twelve for graduation. That is, no election of
English courses was permitted in order to satisfy graduation
requirements in English.
Even this last fully distinguishing characteristic,
however, has been modified somewhat. A few Florida schools,
with otherwise traditional English program structure, have
introduced a limited degree of choice of English courses
for seniors only, while maintaining the required specified
courses for all tenth- and eleventh-grade students. A few
other Florida schools have dropped the requirement of a

78
third year of English for graduation entirely, thus per
mitting senior enrollemnt in English courses as an entirely
elective option.^
As a result of the many modifications in structure of
English programs in Florida, it became necessary for pur
poses of this investigation to establish criteria on which
to determine the "electiveness" or "traditionality" of any
given English program. The decision was made to use a
criterion measure to arrive at operational definitions of
elective English program and traditional English program.
For this study, an English program is designated
elective if it satisfies all of the following criteria:
(1) A majority of courses offered in the program for
grades ten through twelve in which to earn English credit
for graduation are eighteen weeks or fewer in duration.
(2) The program permits enrollment by students of
more than one grade level in at least a majority of the
English courses, grades ten through twelve, offered in
which to earn English credit for graduation.
Florida statutes contain no specifications of grad
uation requirements from high schools, but grant powers to
local school boards to establish these (Flroida Statutes
230.22.2 and 230.23.6.a). They are established by school
district (county) school board policy entirely. Some few
counties in Florida require only two years of English
(earned in grades ten through twelve) for graduation, while
most continue to require three.

79
(3) The program specifies no more than 50 percent of
the courses required for all students in which to earn
English credit for graduation. For example, if courses
are eighteen weeks in length for one-half credit each,
and three credits in grades ten through twelve must be
earned to graduate, then no more than three courses
(one and one-half credits) may be specified as required
of all students for the program to qualify as elective.
(4) The total number of English credits offered for
graduation credit is at least three times as many as the
number of English credits required for graduation.
Criterion #4 is included to insure a substantial measure
of true variety of choice to qualify a program as elective.
Any program not meeting all four of the criteria is
designated traditional for this study.
A summary of the criterion characteristics of the four
sample schools in this study is offered in Table 2 at the
end of this chapter.
Structures of Programs in This Study
The programs of all schools are described as they were
in operation during the 1975-1976 school year and had been
in operation for at least two years preceding the 1975-1976
school year.
School A
In School A, all courses last for nine weeks and offer
one-fourth credit each. Three years of English (12/4 credits)
in grades ten through twelve are required for graduation.

80
Four courses (Sentences, Spelling and Vocabulary,
Literature, and Composition) are offered to tenth-grade
students and are required of all tenth-grade students,
although the sequence in which the courses are taken
varies .
In eleventh grade, students are required to take either
American Writings A and American Writings B or Everyday
English A and Everyday English B for two of the nine-week
quarters of the year. The remaining two quarters of English
credit may be earned from a choice of eleven courses.
Likewise, the twelfth-grade student in School A must
take one of the following pairs of English courses: English
Writings A and English Writings B or Everyday English C and
Everyday English D for two quarters of the year and earn
the two fourths of additional credit required for graduation
by choosing from among the remaining eleven courses.
The eleven courses, four of which must be elected by
each student, two in grade eleven and two in grade twelve/
are entitled: Research Paper, English Review, Developmental
Reading, Poetry, Basic Writing Skills, Media, Fiction,
College English, Practical Writing, Legends, and Creative
That is, unless a student opts, as he may, to take
both American Writings A and B and Everyday English A and B
in grade eleven, and/or English Writings A and B and Every
day English C and D in grade twelve.

81
Writing. These eleven courses are open to enrollment by
both eleventh- and twe1fth-grade students.
The English program in School A is traditional in
structure in terms of the criteria established in the pre
ceding section. It can be seen in Table 2 that course
length (Criterion #1) is the only criterion satisfied in
order for the program to qualify as elective. The number
on non-graded courses, eleven, is less than half the number
of courses offered for English graduation credit, twenty-
three (Criterion #2); two-thirds of the courses required
for all students are specified (Criterion #3); and the
number of courses (credits) offered for English graduation
credit, twenty-three, is less than twice the number of
credits required for graduation, twelve (Criterion #4).
School B
All English courses in School B are thirty-six-week
courses for one credit each. Three years of English credit
are required in grades ten through twelve for graduation.
There are four courses offered to students in each of
three grades, ten through twelve; students do not, however,
choose among these courses, since the students are grouped
on the basis of verbal ability and assigned to the course
designed for their level of aptitude. Students are
required to take one of these courses each year in grades
ten through twelve.

82
The required courses (on four ability levels from
Level I, the lowest, to Level IV, the highest) bear the
following titles:
Grade 10 I Reading
II- Practical English 1/Exploring Life
Thru Literature
III- Grammar and Communication/American
Literature Survey
IV- Composition 2/Modern American Literature
Grade 11 I Developmental Reading 1
11 English 3/Communication Skills 1
111 Mythology and Science Fiction/Practical
English 2
IV English Literature
Grade 12 I Developmental Reading 2
II English 4/Communication Skills 2
III Modern Literature/English Communication
IV World Literature
The pairs of titles for some levels in some grades indicate
that a semester of instruction is planned for each of the
pair, although the pair jointly constitutes a year-long
course.
The English Department of School B further offers
fifteen elective courses for grades ten through twelve which
may be taken by students in addition to the courses required
for graduation:
Speech 2
(10-12)
Library Science 1
(10-12)
Speech 3
(11-12)
Library Science 2
(10-12)
Debate 1
(10-12)
Creative Writing
(11-12)
Debate 2
(10-12)
Mass Media/Contem
Drama 1
(10-12)
porary Drama
(11-12)
Drama
Workshop
(10-12)
Language Thru Lens
(11-12)
Jounralism 1
(10-12)
Pub 1ications
(11-12)
Journalism 2
(11-12)
Independent Study
(11-12)

83
Four of these elective courses may be substituted, by seniors
only, for the required course in English with special per
mission: Speech 3, Creative Writing, Mass Media/Contempo
rary Drama, and Language Thru Lens.
Thus, as indicated in Table 2, the English program of
School B is a traditional program as defined. The courses
are all longer than eighteen weeks (Criterion #1). The
number of non-graded courses offered for English graduation
credit is four, which is only one-quarter of the total
number of courses offered (Criterion #2). In regard to
Criterion #3, at least two courses for two credits (three,
in most cases) are specified for all students, more than
50 percent of the number of English credits required for
graduation, three. While Criterion #4 is satisfactorily
met, the total number of courses offered by the department
for graduation credit, sixteen, being more than three times
the number of English credits required for graduation, three,
it is obvious that, for any individual student, a maximum
of seven courses (one in each grade and four exclusive
senior options) is the actual offering.
School C
School C is one of the few Florida schools mentioned
previously in which the requirement of a third year of
English study in grades ten through twelve has been elim
inated. Two English credits earned in grades ten through
twelve are required for graduation.

84
Most English courses are eighteen weeks in duration,
for one-half credit each, with the exception of four courses
which are year-long courses, for one credit each. All stu
dents in grade ten take English II, a thirty-six-week (year
long) course for one English credit.
The remaining one required English credit may be earned
by students in grades eleven and twelve by taking any of
several courses listed below. The grade levels for which
the course is open to enrollment are also listed, as well
as the length of the course. Students in grades ten through
twelve may, of course, take additional English credits, in
excess of those required for graduation.
36-Week Courses
World Literature (11-12)
Journalism (11-12)
Publications (11-12)
13-Week Courses
Developmental Reading
Lab (11-12)
American Literature (11)
Fiction (11-12)
Creative Writing (11-12)
Writing (10-12)
Speech (11-12)
Drama I (10-12)
Drama II (11-12)
The data which qualify the English program of School C
as elective are presented in Table 2. All criteria are
satisfied. Twice as many courses are eighteen weeks long
as are longer (Criterion #1). Ten of twelve courses (83.3
percent) offered for English graduation credit are non-
graded (Criterion #2). No more than 50 percent of the
courses required for all students for graduation are
specified (Criterion #3). The total number of credits

85
offered for English graduation credit is four times the
number of required credits (Criterion #4).
School D
In School D, three English credits earned in grades
ten through twelve are required for graduation. All English
courses, with one exception, are eighteen weeks long and
grant one-half credit each.
Three of the eighteen-week courses: Language, Composi
tion I, and American Literature, are required of all stu
dents. These courses actually number six, since all three
courses are offered on two levels of ability, regular and
advanced, for free (although counseled; election by students
Language (or Advanced Language) must be taken in tenth grade
Composition I (or Composition I Advanced) and American Liter
ature (or American Literature Advanced) may be taken in
either the junior or the senior year.
All of the English courses offered by School D may earn
a student English credit for graduation. The complete list
of offerings is as follows:
36-Week Courses
Advanced Placement English (12) one credit
18-Week Courses (one-half credit each)
Language (10) or Advanced Language (10)
Composition I (11-12) or Composition I
Advanced (11-12)
American Literature (11-12) or American
Literature Advanced (11-12)

86
Other
Mass Media I ([10-12")
Mass Media II (11-12)
Humanities (10-12)
+ Yearbook (10-12)
Journalism (10-12)
Composition II Advanced (11-121
Drama I (10-12)
Drama II (10-12)
Drama III (11-12)
Drama IV (11-12)
Drama V (11-12)
Drama VI (12)
* Publications (10-12)
World Literature (10-12)
Advanced World Literature (10-12)
Creative Writing (11-12)
Modern Fiction (10-12)
Corrective Reading (10-12)
British Literature (11-12)
Public Speaking (10-121
Contemporary Literature (11-12)
+ May be repeated for a maximum of two and a half
credits, one credit only in English
* May be repeated for a maximum of three credits,
one credit only in English
The English program of School D is elective as defined
All but one course is eighteen weeks long (Criterion #1).
Twenty-four of twenty-eight courses (85.2 percent) offered
for English graduation credit are non-graded (Criterion #2[*
No more than 50 percent of the courses required for all
students for graduation are specified (Criterion #3). The
total number of credits offered for English graduation
credit (29/2) is almost five times the number of required
credits (6/2) (Criterion #4).

87
Summary
Elective English programs can be distinguished from
traditional programs by their satisfying the following
criteria: (1) course lengths of eighteen or fewer weeks,
(2) non-grading of a majority of courses, (3) specifica
tion of no more than half the required courses, and
(4) offering a number of courses at least three times the
number required. On the basis of these criteria (summa
rized in Table 2), the English programs of Schools A and B
are classified as traditional; the English programs of
Schools C and D are classified as elective.

Table 2
CRITERION CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS
KIND OF
PROGRAM
SCHOOL
NO. ENG. CREDITS
REQUIRED FOR GRAD.
GRADES 10-12
COURSE
LENGTH
(Criterion #1)
NO. NON-GRADED
COURSES OFFERED
FOR ENG. CREDIT
(Criterion #2)
NO. SPECIFIED
COURSES AND
CREDIT
(Criterion #3)
TOTAL NO.
COURSES
OFFERED
(Criterion #4)
Tradi
tional
A
3 (12/4)
credits
9 weeks
{h credit
each)
11
(11/4 credits)
8 for 2 (8/4)
credits
23 for 23/4
credits
Tradi
tional
B
3 credits
36 weeks
(1 credit
each)
4
(4 credits)
2 for 2
credits
16 for 16
credits
Elective
C
2 credits
4 @36 weeks
(1 credit each
8 @18 weeks
(h credit each)
10
(6 credits)
1 for 1
credit
12 for 8
crdits
Elective
D
3 (6/2)
credits
27 @18 weeks
C' credit each)
1 @36 weeks
(1 credit)
24
(24/2 credits)
3 for 3/2
credits
28 for 29/2
credits

CHAPTER IV
TEACHER VARIABLES
Data concerning the professional background and experi
ence and the nature of the current teaching assignments of the
English faculty in the four sample schools were collected in
the spring of 1976 for the ultimate purpose of establishing
values for four predictor variables used in the analysis
reported in Chapter VII.
These data were derived from responses of teachers of
English in all schools to the English Teacher Questionnaire
(Appendix D). In School A, there were eight responses; in
School B, twenty responses; in School C, six responses; in
School D, twenty-two responses. In each case, the number of
responses equaled the total number of teachers in the school
who were teaching one or more English courses.
In this chapter these data will be described and dis
cussed, and certain comparisons, both verbal and statistical,
made among them and between them and the kind of English
program structure in which the teachers were engaged.
English Faculty Experience
The extent of the professional experience of the Eng
lish faculty in each school was determined from responses
from all teachers in the school teaching one or more Eng
lish courses to Items 1 and 2 of the English Teacher
Questionnaire.
89

90
The total number of years taught by each teacher
(Item 1} was indicated in one of six quantified categories:
one year, two or three years, four or five years, six or
seven years,eight through ten years, or more than ten years.
As indicated in Table 3, in no school was a first-
year teacher engaged in the teaching of English. School B
had the highest proportionate number of teachers with only
two or three years of experience, seven of twenty teachers
(35 percent), compared with School A (12.5 percent), School
C (16.7 percent), and School D (0 percent). School D had
the highest proportionate number of teachers with eleven
or more years of experience, fourteen of twenty-two tea
chers (63.7 percent), compared with School A (25 percent),
School 3 (25 percent), and School C (50 percent).
Table 3
ENGLISH FACULTY EXPERIENCE
School
Total
Years
Teaching
Number
of
Years,
School
1
2-3
4-5 6-
7 S-
10 11 +
1
2-3
4-5
6-7 8-
10 11 +
A
0
1
2 1
2
2
1
1
3
3 0
0
4-1
B
O
u
0
7
5 2
1
5
5
10
2
2 0
1
5h
0
C
0
Jm
O
0
1
0 1
1
3
0
3
1
2 0
0
6
aJ
3
0
D
Z
8-
0
0
5 2
1
14
0
5
8
1 4
4

91
It is obvious that School D, with twenty-two teachers
of English, had the generally most experienced teachers,
in that 100 percent of the teachers in School D had been
teaching for four or more years, compared with 87.5 percent
in School A, 65 percent in School B, and 83.3 percent in
School C.
Schools A and B, it will be recalled, conducted
traditional programs in English, while Schools C and D
conducted elective programs in English. It is interesting
to note that the higher proportion of more experienced
teachers occurs in the two schools with elective pro
grams. While it might be proposed that the probability
of more total teaching experience increases with the
number of teachers within a department, this probability
would apply only, in this case, to School D, with twenty-
two teachers. School C, of course, has the smallest
English faculty investigated, six teachers, yet 83 per
cent of these had been teaching for six or more years.
Using the same categories of quantification, the
number of years each teacher had been at each school
was recorded (Item 2). Schools B and D had both been in
operation for eleven or more years, whereas Schools A and
C had been in operation for six and seven years, respec
tively. Thus, as computed from the data in Table 3, in
respect to the number of years of the school's operation,
37.5 percent (three of eight) of the teachers of English in

92
School A had been at the school since about the time of
its inception; 5 percent of those in School B, 33.3
percent of those in School C, and 18.2 percent of those in
School D had been at the school since the time of its
inception.
In School D, however, 40.8 percent (nine of twenty-
two) of the teachers of English had been at the school for
six or more years, as compared with 37.5 percent of those
in School A, 15 percent of those in School B, and 33.3
percent of those in School C. Schools C and D, moreover,
the two schools with elective programs in English, were the
only two schools in the sample in which no teacher of
English was in his first year at the school.
In summary, then, teachers of English in the sample
schools with elective programs in English were more
experienced generally and had instructed at the school
longer than teachers of English in the sample schools
with traditional programs.
English Faculty Teaching Load
Responses to Items 4 and 5 on the English Teacher
Questionnaire (Appendix D) were employed to assess the
work load of the faculty in each school.'*' The total
Item 3, number of English classes taught, was in
cluded in the questionnaire solely for the purpose of
establishing that respondents, were, indeed, teaching at
least one English class. Since the response to this item
does not indicate the total number of classes taught nor
the number of students in each class, it is deemed irrele
vant to an assessment of teacher work load.

93
number of students taught by each teacher (Item 4) and the
number of instructional preparations made by each teacher
(Item 5) are jointly considered an indication of the
2
teacher's work load.
Table 4
ENGLISH FACULTY TEACHING LOAD
School
Total
Students
Taught
Number
of
Eng. Preparations
0-
75
75
99
100-
124
125
150
151 +
1
2
3 4
5
A
0
2
0
3
3
0
1
4 0
3
B
U
X
0
1
7
11
1
7
9
1 2
1
C X5
e
3
o
a
0)
1
1
1
3
0
0
2
1 1
2
D z
E-
0
0
5
12
5
7
11
4 0
0
The data in Table 4 indicate that, while 100 percent
of the teachers of English in School D were teaching one
hundred or more students in 1975-1976, only 66.7 percent
of the teachers in School C, 95 percent of the teachers in
School B, and 75 percent of the teachers in School A were
The values assigned to this joint construction for
the purposes of analysis are explained in Chapter VII,
Analysis of the Association Between Sets of Independent
Variables and English Achievement.

94
teaching one hundred or more students. That same 75 per
cent of the teachers of English in School A, however, and
77.3 percent of the teachers in School D were teaching one
hundred twenty-five or more students, in comparison with
60 percent and 50 percent of the teachers in Schools B
and C, respectively, with one hundred twenty-five or
more students. School A, with a traditional program,
and School D, with an elective program, thus appear to
have assigned more students to their English teachers
than the other two schools.
Of the total number of teachers in the two schools
with traditional programs, A and B, however, it can be
ascertained that twenty-five of twenty-eight teachers,
of 89.3 percent, in traditional programs were teaching
one hundred or more students, and eighteen of twenty-
eight teachers, or 64.3 percent, were teaching one
hundred twenty-five or more students. A slightly greater
number of teachers in Schools C and D (schools with
elective programs) were teaching one hundred or more stu
dents: twenty-six of twenty-eight, or 92.9 percent, and the
number teaching one hundred twenty-five or more students
was twenty-eight, or 71.5 percent, also slightly greater.
In regard to the number of instructional preparations
made by each teacher, it is interesting to note that in
the two largest schools, B and D, most teachers (80 per
cent and 81.6 percent, respectively) were responsible for

95
one or two preparations only. School D, with an elective
English program, was the only school in the sample in which
no teacher of English had more than three preparations.
In traditional Schools A and B jointly, 39.3 percent
of the twenty-eight English teachers prepared for instruc
tion in three or more English courses. In elective Schools
C and D jointly, only 28.6 percent of the twenty-eight
English teachers made three or more preparations.
In summary, then, teachers of English in the sample
schools with elective programs were teaching more students
in a school year, but generally had fewer preparations to
make, than teachers of English in the sample schools with
traditional programs.
English Faculty Certification
The English faculty certification in each of the four
schools was determined from answers from all teachers in
the school teaching one or more classes of English to
Items 6 and 7 of the English Teacher Questionnaire
3
(Appendix D).
Item 6 concerns the highest degree earned at that
time by each teacher. Item 7 concerns the teacher's areas
of certification in relation to the teaching of English.
The values assigned to this combination of responses
for the purposes of analysis are explained in Chapter VII,
Analysis of the Association Between Sets of Independent
Variables and English Achievement.

96
For purposes of tabulation, the following numerals are used
in Table 5 to indicate areas of certification (responses
to Item 7):
1- if certified in English and in any other
subject or subjects
2- if certified in English only
3- if certified in a subject or subjects
related to English (e.g., drama, journalism,
reading, speech), but not in English
4- if certified in a subject or subjects not
related to English and not certified in
English or a related subject or subjects
5- if not certified.
Table 5 indicates the results of the English teacher
certification survey for each school. In no school was
there a teacher of English with no degree. School A
had one specialist and no doctor; School B, one doctor
and no specialist; Schools C and D, no doctors or spe
cialists.
Predictably, 50 percent or more of the teachers in
each school held bachelor's degrees only: 50 percent in
School A, 55 percent in School B, 83.3 percent in School
C, and 54.5 percent in School D, the highest proportion
of bachelor's degrees occurring in School C (five of
six teachers).
The lowest ratio of masters to bachelors also
occurred in School C, with but one of six teachers holding
a master's degree (16.7 percent). On the same scale,
School A had 42.9 percent masters of the seven teachers

97
holding either a master's or a bachelor's degree; School B,
42.1 percent; and School D, 45.5 percent.
The total number of teachers holding master's degrees
in traditional Schools A and B as a group (eleven of twenty-
eight teachers), however, is exactly the same as the number
of teachers holding master's degrees in elective Schools C
and D jointly (eleven of twenty-eight teachers'!, 39 percent
in both cases.
Table 5
ENGLISH FACULTY CERTIFICATION
School Degree Teachers
No. %
Area of Teachers
Certification No. %
A Doctor 0
Specialist 1 12.5
Master 3 37.5
Bachelor 4 50
None 0
1 6 75
2 2 25
3 0
4 0
5 0
B Doctor 1 5
Specialist 0
Master 8 40
Bachelor 11 55
None 0
1 10 50
2 8 40
3 1 5
4 1 5
5 0
C Doctor 0
Specialist 0
Master 1
Bachelor 5 83.3
None 0
1 5 83.3
2 1 16.7
3 0
4 0
5 0
D Doctor 0
Specialist 0
Master 10 45.5
Bachelor 12 54.5
None 0
1 1150
2 1150
3 0
4 0
5 0

98
None of the teachers in any of the four schools was
uncertified. Only School B, with a traditional English
program, had teachers of English courses who were not
certified in English (two of twenty). School C, with
an elective program, had the highest proportionate number
of teachers certified in English and at least one other
subject area, 83.3 percent.
Generally, the certification of the teachers of
English in the schools taken in program pairs is relatively
comparable in respect to certification in English: 92.9
percent of the teachers in Schools A and B were certified
in English and 100 percent of the teachers in Schools
C and D were certified in English.
In summary, then, slightly more teachers of English
in the sample schools with traditional English programs
had earned higher degrees than teachers of English in
the sample schools with elective English programs, while
slightly more teachers of English in the sample schools
with elective programs held certification in English and/or
in English and at least one other subject area than teachers
of English in the sample schools with traditional English
programs.
Summary
Teachers of English in the sample schools with
elective programs in English were more experienced generally
and had instructed at the school longer than teachers of

99
English in the sample schools with traditional programs.
Teachers of English in the sample schools with elective
programs were teaching more students in a school year,
but generally had fewer preparations to make, than tea
chers of English in the sample schools with traditional
programs.
More teachers of English in the sample schools with
traditional English programs had earned higher degrees
than teachers of English in the sample schools with
elective programs, while more teachers of English in the
sample schools with elective English programs held certi
fication in English and/or in English and at least one
other subject area than teachers of English in the sample
schools with traditional programs.

CHAPTER V
SCHOOL DISTRICT POPULATION VARIABLES
It will be recalled that, in Florida, the school
district is geographically and demographically identical
with the county. Districts, as a result, differ con
siderably in the extent of their areas of jurisdiction
as well as in the size of their populations. The employer
and policymaking body in each district is a five- or
seven-person publicly elected board. The administration
of each school district is managed by a superintendent of
schools, either publicly elected or appointed (hired)
by the school board.
As previously outlined,^ certain information con
cerning the populations of the school districts in which
each of the four sample schools is located was sought
for this study. This information comprised (1) the
percentage of non-white persons in the district population,
(2) the percentage of persons twenty-five or more years of
age in the district population who had completed fewer than
five years of schooling, (3) the median number of years
of schooling completed by the district population, and
(4) the median family income of the district population. Since
the school district and county in Florida are demographically
identical, this information was derived from the most recent
1
See Chapter II, Methodology.
100

101
census statistics of Florida counties compiled by the
2
Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., in 1970.
Non-White Population
3
The figures in Table 6 show that District C has the
4
highest proportionate number of non-white persons m its
population, while it ranks third (and very close to fourth)
in total population size.
Table 6
NON-WHITE POPULATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
District
A BCD
Total Population*
32,059
348,753
36,290
522,329
Number of White
Persons *
29,058
286,460
26,503
478,043
Number of Non-White
Persons *
3,001
62,293
9,787
44,286
Percentage of Non-White
Persons
9.4
17.9
27.0
8.5
*taken from 1970 Census of the Population, pp. 154-55
+computed for this study
2
1970 Census of the Population, Vol. 1 (Characteristics
of the Population), Part 11 (Florida), issued April 1973,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economics Statistics
Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
3
Here, and throughout the remainder of this discussion,
the school district in which School A is located will be
designated District A; that in which School B is located,
District B; School C, District C; and School D, District D.
4
The classifications, white and non-white, used in this
study are those employed in the 1970 Census of the Population,
in which no explanation of these classifications is provided.

102
It will be recalled that one of the bases of selection
of the four sample schools for this study, in order to pro
vide variation in as many variables as possible, was
school size (population). That is, Schools A and B were
selected as sample schools with traditional programs in
English partly on the basis that School A is small (student
population: 882), while School B is large (student popula
tion: 2,307). Correspondingly, the selection of Schools C
and D with elective programs in English was partly based
on their sizes: Schools C's student population was 787 and
School D's, 3,200.
It is interesting, then, to discover an almost one-to-
one correspondence between rank orders of school sizes
(populations) and district sizes (populations), as shown
in Table 7, especially in view of the fact that none of
the schools is either the largest or the smallest in its
district. District size was not, however, employed as a
variable in the analysis reported later in this study.
Table 7
RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOL SIZE AND DISTRICT SIZE
School
School Size
District Size
D
1
1
B
2
2
A
3
4
C
4
3

103
More relevant to this study is the range of variation
among three of the variables for this study: the percentage
of non-white population in the school district, school size,
and English program structure. That is, as Table 8 indi
cates, there is substantial (and desirable) variance among
these variables for each subject (student) in the analysis
reported in Chapter VII.
Table 8
RANKED ORDERS OF SCHOOLS BY POPULATION
AND DISTRICTS BY NON-WHITE POPULATION
School
Kind of
School
Pop .
Non-White
in District
English
Program
Number
Rank
Percentag
e Rank
A
Traditional
882
3
9.4
3
B
Traditional
2,307
2
17.9
2
C
Elective
787
4
27.0
1
D
Elective
3,200
1
8.5
4
Population with
Fewer
Than
Five Years'
Schooling
The number of persons in each school district who
had completed fewer than five years of school was reported
in the 1970 Census of the Population for those persons
twenty-five years of age or more. These numbers, as well

104
as the percentages of the population they represent in
each district, are tabulated in Table 9.
Table 9
POPULATION WITH FEWER THAN FIVE YEARS SCHOOLING
District
Total Population
Under
Five Years' Schooling
Number
* Percentage*
Rank*
A
32,059
921
2.9
3
B
348,753
11,943
3.4
2
C
36,290
1,960
5.4
1
D
522,329
12,422
2.4
4
*taken from the 1970 Census of Population, pp. 154,
481, 485
+computed for this study
District C is the district with the highest percen
tage of persons twenty-five years of age or more with
under five years of schooling completed. A comparison
of Tables 8 and 9 will reveal that the ranked order of
the districts is identical for both the percentage of
non-white persons and the percentage of persons with
fewer than five years of schooling.
School Years Completed
The number of school years completed by persons
twenty-five years of age or more in each school district

105
is reported in the census only as a median number by sex.
The arithmetic mean of the two census median figures, for
female and for male, in each district was computed for
this study and is recorded in Table 10 as the median for
the total twenty-five-years-or-older population of the
district. The ranked order of these computed medians is
also listed in Table 10.
Table 10
NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED
District
Median
Rank
A
12.1
2.5
B
12.2
1
C 10.7 4
D 12.1 2.5
Obviously, in Districts A, B, and D the median number
of school years completed by persons twenty-five years of
age or more is almost the same. The median number in
1970 Census of the Population: District A, male-12.1,
female-12.1, p. 481; District B, male-12,2, female-12.2,
p. 485;District C, male-10.5, female-10,8, p. 485; District
D, male-12.0, female-12.1, p. 485.

106
District C, however, is approximately one and one-half
years less than those in the other three districts.
Annual Family Income
The median annual family incomes for the school
districts recorded by the Bureau of the Census are shown
in Table 11. District C ranks the lowest. The median
annual family income of District B is the greatest, and
it is considerably more than that of each of the other
three, particularly of Districts C and D. The median
annual family income of District B is 133.9 percent of
the income of District C and 119.2 percent of the income
of District D.
Table 11
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME
District Median Annual Family Income* Rank*
A
$8,430
2
B
$9,112
1
C
$6,803
4
D
$7,642
3
*taken from the 1970 Census of the Population
+computed for this study

107
Summary
In summary, then, comparison of four measures of
the population of the school districts in which the
four sample schools are located reveals that (1) the
population of District C contains the highest proportion
of non-white persons, (2) the population of District C
contains the highest proportion of persons twenty-five
or more years of age who completed under five years of
schooling, (3) the median number of school years com
pleted by the population of a district is least in
District C, and (4) the median annual family income of
a districts population is lowest in District C.

CHAPTER VI
STUDENT VARIABLES
In the preceding chapters, the description and discus
sion of variables measured and recorded for this study have
been concentrated on those variables that may be considered
environmental, in the sense that they are external to the
subjects (students) with whom the study is concerned. Those
several attributes of the student's environment that have
been identified for this study are ones associated either
with the school or with the school district population.
Variables within the category of school environment are
(1) the size (population) of the school, (2) the structure
of the English program, (3) the experience of the English
faculty, (4) the teaching load of the English faculty, and
(5) the certification of the English faculty. Variables
within the category of the environment of the school district
population are (1) the number of non-white persons, (2) the
number of persons who completed fewer than five years of
schooling (3) the number of school years completed, and
(4) the annual family income.
In this chapter, those remaining variables outlined in
Chapter II and in the analysis reported in the next chapter
are described and discussed and compared in various combin
ations. These are the student variables, that is, those
which are attributes of the subjects themselves.
108

109
The student variables identified for this study are
(1) sex, (2) academic aptitude, (3) grade point averages,
(4) attitude toward English, and (5) English achievement.
Sex
Of the 495 subjects in this study, all seniors in
the sample Florida high schools in the spring of 1976
who had been enrolled and in attendance at the school
from at least the fall of 1973, 260, or 52.5 percent,
are female; 235, or 47.5 percent, are male. The number
of female and male subjects in each school is indicated
in Table 12, as well as the number who had been exposed
to each kind of program structure.
Table 12
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL,
SEX, AND PROGRAM
School
Program
Sex
Female
Male
Total
No .
T~
No .
%
No.
%
A
Traditional
15
35.7
27
64.3
42
B
Traditional
117
54.4
98
45.6
215
Program Total
: 132
51.4
125
48.6
257
51.9
C
Elective
40
51.3
38
48.7
78
D
Elective
88
55.0
72
45.0
160
Program Total
: 128
53.8
110
46.2
238
48.1
Sample Total: 260
52.5
235
47.5

110
The data in Table 12 reveal that there were more female
(260) than male (235) students in the total sample. Also,
the traditional programs had more female students (four more)
and more male students (fifteen more) in the sample than the
elective programs, but the difference appears slight. The
257 students in the sample traditional programs constituted
51.9 percent of the sample, while 48.1 percent of the sample
were the 238 students in the sample elective programs.
Academic Aptitude
A score on the Aptitude Test of the Florida Twelfth-
Grade Testing Program was reported for each student by the
Office of Instructional Resources at the University of
Florida as a percentile ranking. As previously indicated,
this score is a measure of a student's academic aptitude
or capability of achievement in school studies.
A comparison of the aptitude scores of females and males
in each school and program in the sample can be made from the
data in Table 13. For convenience, the percentile scores
have been grouped into deciles.
The mean aptitude scores for Schools A and B, 46.4
and 49.2 respectively, are well within the range of normal
expectations, in spite of the small number of students'
scores recorded from School A. The mean aptitude score for
School C, 25.1, however, is considerably lower than the
mean statewide percentile of 50.0, while that of School D,
69.9, is considerably higher. The mean aptitude scores of

Ill
the students in each program collectively approach the
statewide mean of 50.0 somewhat more closely, while the mean
aptitude score of the total sample, 51.8, is quite close to
the statewide mean percentile.
The standard deviation of the aptitude scores of the
total sample was 29.35, a possible indication of slightly
greater variability of scores than that of the scores of
all students who took the Aptitude Test in 1975.*
In respect to the se 1f-se 1ective factors of this student
sample, it would be reasonable to expect the mean aptitude
scores of students in all schools in the sample to be some
what higher than the statewide mean.
It will be recalled, in particular, that only students
in each school who had taken the battery of tests of the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program were included in the
sample. Participation in the testing program was voluntary
in each of the schools in the sample. (Participation was
not voluntary in all schools in the state. That is, al
though taking the FTGT was not mandated by law, many schools
required it of all their seniors.) In addition, one of
The standard deviation of 16.15 reported for the
78,453 scores on the Aptitude Test in 1975 was, of course,
computed from the raw scores, but it is reasonable to
assume a generally corresponding dispersion of both raw
scores and percentile scores.

112
the major reasons for a student's obtaining scores on the
tests was for admission to state universities in Florida
on their basis.
Thus, there is a high probability (non-statistical)
that the aptitude scores recorded here are mostly of those
seniors who expected to attend college, a group more
likely to have a mean aptitude score higher than the mean
score of all seniors who took the test. School D is the
only school in the sample whose students reflected this
probability in their mean aptitude score.
Fifty percent of the sample students in School A
achieved an aptitude percentile rank of 50.0 or higher;
forty-eight percent of those in School B, thirteen percent
of those in School C, and eighty-two percent of those in
School D achieved an aptitude percentile rank of 50.0
or higher.
The mean aptitude of the students in Schools A and
B with traditional English programs (48.7) was 10.6
lower than the mean aptitude of the students in Schools
C and D with elective programs (59.3).

113
Aptitude
Decile
1
(0-9)
2
(10-19)
3
(20-29)
4
(30-39)
5
(40-49)
6
(50-59)
7
(60-69)
8
(70-79)
9
(80-89)
10
(90-99)
Table 13
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND APTITUDE
Program: Traditional Elective
School: A B C D
Sex: F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
1
1
6
11
7
8
2
0
2
2
15
12
13
12
2
1
3
5
16
6
6
5
1
2
1
9
12
5
4
6
1
2
2
17
7
5
3
12
3
1
8
14
6
3
1
12
9
2
2
11
11
1
10
9
3
13
7
1
18
10
2
1
7
9
2
13
16
2
9
17
2
12
23
Total: 15
27
117
98
40
38
88
72

114
Table 13 continued
Mean Sex Aptitude* 40.1
49.9
47.5
51.2
21.5
28.9
64.4
76.5
Mean School Aptitude* 46.4
49.2
25.1
69.9
Mean Program Aptitude* 48.7
59.3
Mean Sample Aptitude* 51.8
*computed for this study from individual percentile
scores (of the 495 students in the sample) on the Aptitude
Test of the FTGT in 1975, recorded in Appendix F.
Grade Point Averages
Two grade point averages have been computed for each
student in the sample: (1) that based on grades earned
by the student in all courses which he completed from the
fall of 1973 through January 1976 (GPA) and (2) that based
on grades earned by the student in all courses offered by
the English Department of the school and completed from
the fall of 1973 through January 1976 (GPE).
In all schools in the sample, grades are recorded
as A, B, C, D, or F (with the exception of courses in
physical education in School B, for which students may

115
opt a pass or fail grading, and of work study courses in
all schools, which are graded either satisfactory or
2
unsatisfactory).
The following grade points are assigned to each letter
grade for the purpose of computing a grade point average:
A 4, B 3, C 2, D 1, F 0. The grade point average
attained by a student is determined by dividing the number
of grade points earned by the number of courses completed.
For example, a student who completed sixteen courses in all
subjects and had earned forty grade points in those courses
attained a grade point average (GPA) of 2.50 in all subjects.
A student who had completed six courses of English and had
earned thirteen grade points in those courses attained a
grade point average (GPE) of 2.17 in English.
The grade point averages in Table 14 are tabulated in
the ranges used for letter-grade equivalents in all four
schools; that is, a grade point average within the range of
3.50 to 4.0 is equivalent to an A average, 2.50 to 3.49,
a B average, and so forth. No student in the sample had
earned an F average (0.00-0.49) either in all subjects (GPA)
or in English courses (GPE) completed in his tenth,
eleventh, and twelfth grades.
Grades for these physical education courses and work
study courses have been excluded from the computations of
grade point averages.

116
The data in Table 14 reveal that D averages (0.50 1.49)
in all courses (GPA) were earned by 9.5 percent of the
students in School A, 5.6 percent of the students in School
B, 10.3 percent of the students in School C, and only 1.9
percent of the students in School D. These differences
might be expected, in view of the much higher mean aptitude
score of the students in School D (69.9 percentile) and
much lower mean aptitude score of the students in School C
3
(25.1 percentile).
Correspondingly, 14.3 percent of the students in
School A attained D averages in English courses (GPE), 9.8
percent of those in School B, 12.8 percent in School C,
and only 1.3 percent in School D.
Interestingly, however, in spite of the very low
mean aptitude score of the students in School C, 89.7
percent of those students attained a GPA of C or higher
(1.50 4.0) and 87.2 percent, a GPE of C or higher.
Whether this is attributable to less stringent grading
standards of the faculty in School C, a high proportion
of genuine overachievers in the student sample of School
C, or other factors is uncertain.
The data in Table 14 indicate also that the mean GPA
and the mean GPE of the students in Schools A, B, and C
differ slightly from each other, while both the mean
^See Table 13.

117
Table 14
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Program: Traditional
Elective
School:
V
B
C
D
Sex: F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
Grade Point
Average
Range
3.50-4.0 GPA 1
8
11
5
4
23
13
GPE
14
14
5
6
24
11
2.50-3.49 GPA 10
17
50
33
16
14
45
37
GPE 8
10
55
29
26
14
50
42
1.50-2.49 GPA 3
7
53
48
13
18
19
20
GPE 6
12
39
43
5
12
14
17
0.50-1.49 GPA 1
3
6
6
6
2
1
2
GPE 1
5
9
12
4
6
2
0.00-0.49 GPA
GPE
Sex Mean GPA* 2.74
2.48
2.52
2.46
2.46
2.52
2.99
2.83
Sex Mean GPE* 2.57
2.19
2.60
2.42
2.73
2.43
3.28
2.57
School Mean GPA* 2.57
2.
49
2
.49
2
.92
School Mean GPE* 2.33
2 .
52
2
60
2
. 96

118
Table 14 continued
Program
Mean
GPA*
2.51
2.78
Program
Mean
GPE*
2.49
2.84
*computed for this study from individual grade point
averages (of the 495 students in the sample) recorded in
Appendix F.
GPA and the mean GPE of the students in School D are some
what higher than those of the other three schools.
All mean grade point averages of females in the sample
in all schools are higher than those of males, except the
GPA of School C.
A comparison of the mean GPA of the students in each
school with the mean GPE of those same students reveals
that School A with a traditional program is the only school
in the sample whose students attained a mean GPE lower than
their mean GPA. The mean GPA of the students in the tra
ditional English programs (2.51) is slightly higher than
their mean GPE (2.49), whereas the reverse is true of the
students in the elective programs (2.78 and 2.84, respec
tively) .
The mean grade point averages of the students in the
elective programs are higher, both in all courses and in
English courses, than those in the traditional programs.

119
The standard deviations of the GPA's and the GPE's of
the total sample of 495 students are 69.50 and 75.90,
respectively. Thus, in respect to grade point averages,
the sample contains considerable variability or dispersion.
Attitude Toward English
As previously indicated, a measure of each student's
attitude toward English as a subject was derived from his
responses to Items 3 through 7 of the Student Questionnaire
on Attitude Toward English as a Subject (Appendix E).
A student's attitude toward a school subject is con
strued as a composite of his perceptions of the degree to
which the subject holds his interest, satisfies his needs,
and gains his liking. Each item on the questionnaire
provided the student an opportunity to rate the subject
of English on a five-point scale in one of the areas of
4
interest, need, or liking.
Item 3 asked for an expression of interest; Items 4
and 5 related to two kinds of perceived needs, professional
and personal; Items 6 and 7 related to the liking of Eng
lish as a subj ect.
The factors influencing students' attitudes toward a
school subject are no doubt divers and diverse, in all
probability including at least the home and family attitude
and environment, the like (or dislike) of a particular
teacher, and the choice of a career. For the purposes of the
present study, however, the etiology of a student's attitude
toward English is considered irrelevant.

120
Responses to Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 were scaled from
one to five: Very much, 1; Much, 2; Some, 3; Very little, 4;
Not at all, 5. The rank number assigned by the student to
the subject of English in Item 7 was considered his scaled
response to that item.
Each student's index of attitude (ATT) is computed
as an arithmetic average of his scaled responses to Items
3 through 7. For example, if a student's responses to Items
3 through 7 were 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, the average of those res
ponses, or 2.8, would serve as that student's index of
attitude.
Thus, the indexes range from an ATT of 1 to an ATT of 5,
with 1 representing the highest, most positive attitude and
5 representing the lowest, least positive attitude.
As indicated in Table 15, the mean ATT in each school
in the sample differs from the mean ATT of each other
school in the sample very slightly (a difference of no more
than .3). The difference between the mean ATT of the stu
dents in the traditional program and between the mean ATT
of the students in the elective program is even slighter (.1).
In all schools and under both programs, the attitude
of the senior students in the sample toward English would
appear to be generally positive, since all school and program
mean ATT's are higher than the mid-index of 3.0.
This appearance of a generally positive attitude toward
English in all schools is additionally supported by the
evidence that the ATT's of 59.5 percent of the students in

121
School A, 58.1 percent of the students in School B, 65.4
percent of the students in School C, and 48.2 percent of the
students in School D fall between 1.0 and 2.5, the upper
three-eighths of the possible range between 1.0 and 5.0.
A slightly higher proportion (58.4 percent) of the
students in the traditional English programs in the sample
recorded ATT's between 1.0 and 2.5 than of the students in
the elective English programs in the sample (53.8 percent).
Indexes of the student variable of attitude toward
a subject show little dispersion in the total sample, as
indicated by a standard deviation of 7.613.
It will be recalled (1) that George Hillocks, Jr.,
concluded that English elective programs generally pro
duce a positive affective response and "a more concrete
awareness of student attitudes toward what they are sup
posed to be learning in English"^ and (2) that many
teachers expressed their beliefs that students' interest
in and enthusiasm for English had improved considerably
as a result of participation in English elective programs.^
The barely discernible difference between the mean attitudes
George Hillocks, Jr., Alternatives in English: A
Critical Appraisal of Elective Programs (Urbana, Illinois:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills,
1972), p. 119.
6Ibid., p. 122.
7
The reader is referred to the section of Chapter I
entitled A Review of the Literature.

122
toward English of students in the traditional programs
in this study and the mean attitudes toward English of
students in the elective programs in this study would not
appear to support Hillocks' and others' conclusions.
It must be noted, however, that in most of the
reports referred to above, reference was being made to
a change of attitude in students who had experienced both
the "old and the "new" programs, the traditional and
the elective. Senior students in the sample schools in
this study had participated in one type of program ex
clusively for all of their high school career (or, at the
very least, from the beginning of tenth grade).
Table 15
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND ATTITUDE

123
Table 15 -continued
Sex Mean ATT* 2.1
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.8
School Mean ATT* 2.4
2.4
2
.3
2.6
Program Mean ATT* 2.4
2
. 5
computed for this study from individual indexes of
attitude (of the 495 students in the sample) recorded in
Appendix F.
Achievement in English
As previously indicated, the English Composition Test of
the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program is employed in this
study as a measure of a student's achievement in English.
Scores on the English Composition Test, as on the Aptitude Test,
were reported by the Office of Instructional Services at
the University of Florida as percentile rankings.
A comparison of the achievement scores (ACH) of the
students in each school and program can be drawn from the
data in Table 16. As with the aptitude scores, the achieve
ment percentile scores have been grouped into deciles for
convenience.
The mean ACH's of students in Schools A and B, 50.9
and 46.2 respectively, approximate the statewide mean
percentile score of 50.0 rather closely, A differing by only

124
+0.9 and B, by -3.8. The mean ACH's of students in Schools
C and D, however, diverge more from the statewide mean.
School C's mean (33.7) reflects a difference of -16.3 and
School D's mean (64.7), a difference of +14.7.
Students in traditional Schools A and B as a group
displayed slightly lower achievement in English than the
78,453 students who took the English Composition Test in
1975, as indicated by their mean score of 46.9 (3.1 less
than the statewide mean of 50.0). Students in elective
Schools C and D as a group displayed somewhat higher
achievement in English than those 78,453 students, as
indicated by their mean score of 54.5 (4.5 more than the
statewide mean of 50.0).
Obviously, students in the sample elective schools
ranked higher in English achievement than students in the
sample traditional schools (means of 46.9 and 54.5, respec
tively) .
It is tempting at this point to conclude that students
exposed to an elective English program achieve more learning
in English than those exposed to a traditional English pro
gram. Since, however, the general academic aptitude of
the students in the sample elective schools was measured
as considerably higher than the aptitude of the students in
the sample traditional schools and since an underlying
assumption of this study (stated in Chapter II, Methodology)
has been the existence of several variables associated with
English achievement, no such conclusion is justifiable.

125
The mean ACH (50.6) of the total sample was only
0.6 more than the statewide mean of 50.0, indicating
representativeness of the total student sample in res
pect to the variable of English achievement.
The standard deviation of the ACH's of the total
sample was 29.15, a possible indication of slightly
greater variability of scores than that of the scores of
all students who took the English Composition Test in
1975.8
The standard deviation of 15.44 reported for the
78,453 scores on the English Composition Test in 1975 was
of course, computed from the raw scores, but it is reason
able to assume a generally corresponding dispersion of
both raw scores and percentile scores.

126
Table 16
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BY PROGRAM,
SCHOOL, SEX, AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
Program:
Traditional
Elective
School:
A
B
(
D
Sex:
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
ACH
Decile
1
(0-9)
1
3
5
15
8
12
2
1
2
(10-19)
2
17
20
3
5
3
3
3
(20-29)
2
5
11
10
5
7
4
2
4
(30-39)
1
10
8
4
2
6
7
5
(40-39)
2
3
12
10
9
5
5
7
6
(50-59)
5
14
9
6
1
11
9
7
(60-69)
3
3
16
4
1
12
11
8
(7079)
4
2
12
3
3
2
13
14
9
(80-89)
2
5
9
2
16
12
10
(90-91)
1
3
15
10
1
2
16
6
Total:
15
27
117
98
40
38
88
72

127
Table 16 continued
Sex Mean ACH* 50.9
50.9
50.8
40.7
36.7
30.6
66.1
63.0
School Mean ACH* 50.9
46.2
33.7
64.7
Program Mean ACH*
46.9
54.5
Sample Mean ACH* 50.6
*computed for this study from individual percentile
scores (of the 495 students in the sample) on the English
Composition Test of the FTGT in 1975, recorded in Appendix F.
Summary
Of the total sample of 495 students, 257 were in the
sample schools with traditional English programs and 238
in the sample schools with elective English programs. Of
the total sample, 260 are female and 235 are male. There,
are more female than male students in both the sample schools
with traditional English programs and those with elective
English programs.
The mean aptitude percentile score on the Aptitude Test
of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program of the students
in the sample schools with traditional English programs was
lower than that of the students in the sample schools with
elective programs.

128
The mean grade point average of grades earned in all
courses completed from the fall of 1973 through January 1976
was higher for the students in the sample schools with
elective English programs than that for the students in
the sample schools with traditional English programs. The
mean grade point average of grades earned in all courses
offered by the English Department completed from the fall
of 1973 through January 1976 was higher for the students in
the sample schools with elective English programs than
that for the students in the sample schools with tradi
tional English programs.
A generally positive attitude toward English is
indicated by scores on the Student Questionnaire on
Attitude Toward English as a Subject of students in both
traditional and elective programs in the sample. Students
in the sample schools with traditional programs recorded
very slightly more positive attitudes toward English as
a subject than students in sample schools with elective
programs.
Students in sample schools with elective English pro
grams scored higher in English achievement measured by
scores on the English Composition Test of the Florida
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program than students in sample
schools with traditional English programs.
Table 17 provides an overview of the distribution of
the 495 students in the sample on the seven variables of

129
program, sex, aptitude, grade point average (all), grade
point average (English), attitude, and achievement. Follow
ing are the variable codes and the category codes used to
simplify Table 17:
SEX male or female
Category
Sex
A Female
B Male
APT/ACH percentile score on Aptitude Test and
English Composition Test
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
GPA/GPE grade point
Category
A
B
C
Decile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
averages, all and English
Range
0.00 0.49
0.50 1.49
1.50 2.49
2.50 3.49
3.50 4.0
D
E

130
ATT index of attitude
Category Range
A
1.0 -
1.5
B
1.6 -
2.5
C
2.6 -
3.5
D
3.6 -
4.5
E
4.6 -
5.0
Table 17
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS ON SEVEN VARIABLES
(N = 495)
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Variable
SEX
Trad.
132
125
Elec.
128
110
APT
Trad.
19
31
30
24
28
29
26
23
19
28
Elec.
17
28
12
16
23
25
20
29
31
37
ACH
Trad.
24
39
28
19
27
28
26
21
16
29
Elec.
23
14
18
19
26
27
24
32
30
25
GPA
Trad.
16
111
110
20
Elec.
11
70
112
45
GPE
Trad.
27
100
102
28
Elec.
12
48
132
46
ATT
Trad.
24
126
91
15
1
Elec.
26
102
81
28
1

CHAPTER VII
ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT
Focus and Procedure
It will be recalled that the objectives of this study
have been (1) to analyze the nature and extent of the
realtionship between the independent variable of English
program structure and the dependent variable of English
achievement and (2) to examine and describe certain
characteristics of selected English programs, of selected
students, and of English teachers in selected Florida
high schools, as well as of the populations of the districts
in which these schools are located.
The second (and secondary) objective has been achieved
first (in order of presentation) through the description
and discussion in previous chapters. To achieve the
first (and primary) objective, attention will be focused
in this chapter on analysis-analysis of the nature and
extent of statistical association of the fifteen indepen
dent variables (predictor variables)^ with the dependent
variable (product measure) of English achievement--with
particular emphasis on the relationship between the "target"
independent variable of English program structure and the
dependent variable of English achievement.
An outline of these fifteen variables was presented
in the section of Chapter II entitled Design and Procedures.
131

132
The computations and analyses reported in this chapter
are based on the data pertaining to the 495 subjects
described in previous chapters. These subjects were the
senior students from School A (n = 42), School B (n = 215),
School C (n = 78), and School D (n = 160) for whom data
were available on all fifteen independent variables
hypothesized to be associated with achievement in English.
The 495 subjects are treated as a single group in
the analyses reported in this chapter. The raw data
recorded or computed for each subject are listed in
Appendix F.
The report of the analysis in this chapter proceeds
as follows:
first, the assignment of alphabetic symbols to all
sixteen variables (the fifteen independent variables and
the one dependent variable) for identification, as well
as the classification of the independent variables in
sets;
second, the determination of values for each variable
for each subject;
third, a computation of the means and standard devi
ations of the sixteen variables;
fourth, a computation of the correlations between
and among the sixteen variables;
fifth, an explanation of the analytical procedure;
sixth, a computation of ordered series of multiple

133
linear regression equations in a stepwise manner and
analysis of each series of multiple regressions for the
purpose of determining the extent of association between
certain independent variables and the dependent variable
and between sets of independent variables and the depen
dent variable.
Symbolization and Set Classification of the Variables
In order to facilitate identification of variables,
reference to variables, and reading of the ensuing analysis,
each variable has been assigned an alphabetic symbol con
sisting of four upper-case letters, the first of which
designates the category (set) in which the variable has
been classified, the other three of which relate to its
designation, except in the case of the symbol for the
dependent variable (in which all four letters are desig-
native).
Thus, the dependent variable of English achievement,
for which a score on the English Composition Test of the
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program has been used as a
measure, has been symbolized DACH.
The independent variables have been categorized and
symbolized as in the following list. The £tudent (subject)
independent variables include:
(1) academic aptitude (SAPT)
(2) grade point average for all courses (SGPA)
(3) jjrade point average for English courses (SGPE)

134
(4) attitude toward English (SATT)
(5) s_ex_ (SSEX) .
These five variables (1 through 5) constitute the student
set of independent variables. The environmental (external)
independent variables include:
(6) school size (ESIZ)
(7) English faculty average certification (EFAC)
(8) English faculty ^verage years t_eaclii-ng (EFAT)
(9) £nglish faculty ¡average years, cc^ool (EFAS)
(10) English faculty average teaching j^oad (EFAL)
(11) non-white population, county (ENWP)
(12) adults with under £ive years' schooling
county (EUFY)
(13) median family income> county (EMFI)
(14) median £chool years completed, county (EMSY).
These nine variables (6 through 14) constitute the evi-
ronmental set of independent variables. The English pro
gram variable (traditional or elective) is symbolized as:
(15) PRTE.
Variable 15 constitutes the program set of independent
variables.
The grouping of the independent variables into sets
was performed for the purpose of isolating the program
variable in the regression analyses reported later in this
chapter. That is, since the program variable is the inde
pendent (predictor) variable of specific interest

135
in this study and since the order of entry of variables
into the multiple regression equation affects the deter-
2
mination of the proportion of variance accounted for,
a more meaningful analysis can be made if the other inde
pendent variables (other than the program variable) are
3
not considered singly, but in sets.
Values Represented by Each Variable
Values for the variables were determined in order
to quantify the data for computation. The methods used
to determine values for the variables are explained in
this section.
DACH/SAPT The percentile rank of the subject's
scores on the English Composition Test and the Aptitude
Test, respectively, of the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing
Program in the fall of 1975.
SGPA/SGPE The average grade point earned by the
subject in all courses completed from the fall of 1973
through January 1976 and the average grade point earned
by the subject in courses offered by the English Depart
ment and completed from the fall of 1973 through January
1976 (range: 0.00 through 4.00).
This effect of order in the regression is further
explained later in this chapter.
In addition, the number of possible orders of entry
of fifteen independent variables, entered singly, fifteen
in each equation, would be more than one trillion (P =
n! > the number of permutations of n things taken rat
(n-r)!
a time), a humanly impossible task!

136
SATT A value from 1 through 5 representing an
arithmetic average of the subject's answers to Items 3
through 7 of the Student Questionnaire on Attitude Toward
English as a Subject (Appendix E).
SSEX The value 1 for female subjects; the value 0
for male subjects.
ESIZ A value indicating the student enrollment of
the subject's school in January 1976:
Enrollment
Value
fewer
than 500
1
500 -
999
2
1,000
- 1,499
3
1,500
- 1,999
4
2,000
- 2,499
5
2,500
- 2,999
6
3,000
- 3,499
7
3,500
or more
8
EFAC A value of 1 through 5 representing the average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Items 6 and 7 of the English Teacher Question
naire (Appendix D):
Item 6 (highest degree earned) Doctor's degree,
1; specialist's degree, 2; master's degree, 3; bachelor's
degree, 4; no degree, 5.
Item 7 (certification status) Certified in
English and at least one other subject, 1; certified in

137
English only, 2; certified in a subject related to English
(speech, journalism, drama, reading, etc.) but not
English, 3; certified in any subject other than English
or a subject related to English, 4; not certified, 5.
EFAT A value of 1 through 6 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subjects
school to Item 1 (number of years in teaching) of the
English Teacher Questionnaire:
More than ten years, 1; eight through ten years,
2; six or seven years, 3; four or five years, 4; two or
three years, 5; one year, 6.
EFAS A value of 1 through 6 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Item 2 (number of years at school) of the
English Teacher Questionnaire:
More than ten years, 1; eight through ten years,
2; six or seven years, 3; four or five years, 4; two or
three years, 5; one year, 6.
EFAL A value of 1 through 5 representing an average
of all answers by teachers of English in the subject's
school to Items 4 and 5 of the English Teacher Questionnaire
Item 4 (total number of students) Fewer than
75, 1; 75-99, 2; 100-124, 3; 125-150, 4; more than 150, 5.
Item 5 (number of preparations) One, 1; two, 2;
three, 3; four, 4; five or more, 5.

138
ENWP The percentage of the population of the county
which was non-white.
EUFY The percentage of the population of the county
twenty-five or more years of age who had completed fewer
than five years of formal schooling.
EMFI A value indicating the median annual family
income of the population of the county:
Income Value
$6,999 or less 1
$7,000 $7,499 2
$7,500 $7,999 3
$8,000 $8,499 4
$8,500 $8,999 5
$9,000 or more 6
EMSY The median number of years of schooling com
pleted by persons twenty-five or more years of age in the
county.
PRTE The value 0 if the English program in the
subject's school was traditional as defined; the value 1
if the English program in the subject's school was elective
as defined.
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variables
The mean and the standard deviation of each variable
are listed in Table 18, which thus provides a statistical
overview of the 495 subjects in terms of the variables.

139
As noted during discussion in previous chapters,
52 percent of the subjects in the sample are female
(MgsEx = -52) and 48 percent were in schools with elective
English programs (MpRTp = .48). The average subject's
grade point averages, both in all courses and in English
courses, were higher than 2.00, the midpoint of the range
between 0.00 and 4.00 = 2.63 and M = 2.65).
The average subject also scored close to the mean per
centile score of 50.0 on both the English Composition
Test (M = 50.59) and the Aptitude Test (M = 51.82),
U ALH oAr 1
although there was extensive variability in both sets of
scores = 29.15 and SDgApT = 29.35).
The average subject also attended a school with an
enrollment of approximately 2,400 (M = 4.91).
E O 1 L
The EFAC, EFAT, EFAS, and EFAL data in Table 18
reveal that the average English faculty member in the
four schools in the sample (1) held a master's degree
and was certified in English and/or a subject related
to English (MepAc = 2.51), (2) had been teaching for
approximately seven or eight years (MEFAT = 2-48)> had
taught at the subject's school for four or five years
(Mefas = 3.81), and (4) was teaching from 100 to 124 stu
dents in courses requiring three separate preparations
during the 1975-1976 school year (M = 3.00).
E r AL
The average school district (county) of the four in
the sample had a population, over 15 percent of whom were

140
TABLE 18
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE VARIABLES
(N= 495)
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
DACH
50.59
29.15
SAPT
51.82
29.35
SGPA
2.63
. 69
SGPE
2.65
. 75
SATT
2.43
. 07
SSEX
. 52
.49
ESIZ
4.91
1.86
EFAC
2.51
. 06
EFAT
2.48
.41
EFAS
3.81
1 .21
EFAL
3.00
. 26
ENWP
15.57
6.51
EUFY
3.34
. 98
EMF I
4.07
1.86
EMSY
11.92
.53
PRTE
.48
. 50

141
non-white persons = 15.57), but only 3 percent
of whom had completed fewer than five years of schooling
(M_IIC,V = 3.34). The average county resident twenty-five
curl
or more years of age had completed high school =
11.92), and the annual income of his family ranged from
$8,000 to 8,499 (MC..CT = 4.07).
bMr 1
Intercorre 1 at ion of the Variables
The intercorrelation of the entire set of variables
is shown in Table 19.
The data in Table 19 reveal that there is extensive
correlation among many of the variables. Nine of the
fifteen independent variables (SAPT, SGPA, SGPE, ESIZ,
EFAT, EFAS, ENWP, EUFY, and EMSY) correlate significantly
( p .001) with the dependent variable (DACH).
Of these nine significant correlations, all but one
might be expected on logical and empirical grounds. The
positive correlations of three S variables with achievement
in English (DACH) seems reasonable: the higher the
academic aptitude scores (SAPT, r = .81, the higher the
achievement scores; the higher the grade point averages
in all subjects (SGPA, r = .65) and in English (SGPE,
r = .57), the higher the achievement scores in English.
Correspondingly, the two E variables dealing with
English faculty (EFAT and EFAS) that are significantly
correlated statistically with achievement in English seem
to be in a logically concomitant relationship to achievement

Table 19
CORRELATION MATRIX (N = 495)
SAPT
DACH .81
SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX
.65 .57 .12 .11
ESIZ
.31
EFAC
.00
EFAT
- 17
EFAS
- 15
EFAL
- 08
ENWP
- 35
EUFY
- 34
EMF I
. 00
EMSY
.22
PRTE
.13
SAPT
.59 .50 .24 -.10
.47
.07
- 17
-.11
- 20
- .46
- .48
.08
. 37
. 11
SG PA
.83 .07 .07
. 20
. 00
- .22
-.11
- 03
- 22
- 19
- 11
. 06
. 19
SG PE
-.04 .17
.21
. 08
- 24
- .02
- 09
- 15
- 13
- 13
.01
.23
SATT
- 17
. 13
.01
- 07
- 04
- 04
- 13
- 13
. 00
. 09
.05
SSEX
. 07
.10
- .01
. 08
- 09
. 00
- .01
.01
.01
.02
ESIZ
.52
- 30
.15
- 71
- 69
- 80
.22
. 65
.22
EFAC
. 06
.91
- 94
. 24
. 03
. 30
.12
. 02
EFAT

. 31
-.13
. 30
. 11
. 86
. 3 9.
- 98
p (r > .1461K.001
EFAS
- 79
. 58
. 36
. 36
- .05
- 19
EFAL
. 02
. 26
- .48
- 43
. 10
ENWP
. 95
- 09
- 70
- 14
EUFY
- 33
- 86
.03
EMF I
.77
- .89
EMSY
- 51
*The procedures employed to test the significance of r are described in Appendix G.
142

143
in English: the higher the average number of years of
teaching among the English faculty (EFAT, r = -.17), the
higher the achievement scores of the subjects; the higher
the average number of years at the school of the English
4
faculty (EFAS, r = -.15), the higher the achievement scores.
Three of the significantly correlated (with DACH)
E variables that are represented by measures of socio
economic characteristics of the school district population
(ENWP, EUFY, and EMSY) also seem of reasonable expectation:
the lower the percentage of non-white population, the
higher the achievement scores of the subjects (r = -.35);
the lower the percentage of persons who completed fewer than
five years of schooling, the higher the achievement scores
(r = -.34); the higher the mean number of school years
completed by persons in the district, the higher the achieve
ment scores (r = .22).
Of the four independent variables non-significantly
correlated with the dependent variable, two (SSEX and PRTE)
have correlations that are uninterpretable in any simple
fashion because they are both dichotomous variables with
an approximately equal frequency for each half of the
dichotomy (SSEX: 1, 260; 0, 235 and PRTE: 1, 238; 0, 257).
The negative direction of the correlations of EFAT
(-.17) and EFAS (-.15) with DACH is the result of assign
ing values from 1 to 6 to these independent variables, with
1 representing the highest number of years and 6 representing
the lowest number of years. The lower the value, therefore,
the higher the number of years.

144
While the direction of the correlation (-.08) between
the variable of English faculty load (EFAL) and DACH is
negative as expected, its statistical non-significance is
not expected.
Only two of the independent variables (EFAC and EMFI)
show zero correlation (no discernible relation) with the
dependent variable of English achievement.
In the case of the variable of student attitude toward
English (SATT), the correlation coefficient of .12 is
rather surprising, both in its direction and its statis
tical non-significance. (As with EFAT and EFAS, the values
of SATT are reversed, 1 representing the most positive
attitude and 5, the least positive.)
The fifteen independent variables also reflect rather
extensive intercorrelation.^ Twelve of the independent
variables (SAPT, SGPA, SGPE, SSIZ, EFAT, EFAS, EFAL,
ENWP, EUFY, EMFI, EMSY, PRTE) correlate significantly with
The effect of this intercorrelation of independent
variables on the analysis of multiple regression is to
make interpretation more difficult. According to Ker-
linger: "The ideal predictive situation is when the
correlations between the independent variables and the
dependent variable are high, and the correlations among
the independent variables are low. . The more the
independent variables are intercorre 1 ated, the more
difficult the interpretation." His "most satisfactory"
solution to this interpretation problem, however, the
calculation of "squared semipartial correlations" or
unique contributions, proved impossible in this study,
as explained in footnote 11 of this chapter. Fred N.
Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 622-24.

145
seven or more of the fourteen other independent variables.
Of one hundred five correlations, fifty-two are significant.
Some, at least, of these significant intercorrelations are
attributable in part to the fact that a variable is a
component of another, as, for example, SGPE's being a
component of SGPA (r = .83), or to the logical relation
ship between the two variables, as, for example, the relation
ship between SAPT and SGPA (r = .59).
In addition, an examination of Table 19 reveals that
certain variables form groups or clusters in which each
of the variables in the cluster is significantly cor
related with each other variable in the cluster. For
example, the DACH, SAPT, SGPA, and SGPE variables form
such a cluster.
The Analytical Procedure
Multiple linear regression equations were employed
to examine the extent to which (1) the complete set of
independent variables (the complete prediction system)^
and (2) each set of independent variables (predictor
variables) are associated with the dependent variable
(product measure).
"The multiple linear regression model is at once a
prediction and association (correlation) model since the
two concepts are statistically complementary. Thus when
prediction is examined, association (correlation) between
the independent (predictor) variable(s) and the criterion
(dependent variable) is also examined." Donald Grover Aten,
A Study of Two Teacher Education Programs and an Analysis
of the Association Between Antecedent Variables anZ
Product Measures, Ed.D. Dissertation (New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1969), p. 199, footnote 2.

146
The program employed was the BMD02R component of the
Biomedical Computer Programs developed by the Health Sciences
Computing Facility, University of California at Los Angeles:
This program computes a series of multi
ple linear regression equations in a
stepwise manner. At each step one variable
is added to the regression equation. The
variable added is the one which makes
the greatest reduction in the error sum
of squares. Equivalently it is the
variable which has the highest partial
correlation with the dependent variable
partialed on the variables which have
already been added; and equivalently it
is the variable which, if it were added,
would have the highest F value. In
addition, variables can be forced into
the regression equation.
g
The criterion F level for entry into the equation was .01.
The computer was made available by the University of
Florida Northeast Regional Data Center, Gainesville, Florida.
Three series of multiple regression equations were com
puted with the data, each series forcing sets of variables
into the equation in a different order of entry. The first
regression series entered the student (S) set first, the
environmental (E) set second, and the program (P) set third.
The second series gave initial priority to the environmental
set, then forced entry of the program set into the equation,
followed by the student set. The third series entered the
program set first, then the student set, then the environmental
W. Dixon, ed., BMP: Biomedical Computer Programs
Berkeley, California: University of California Press,
1970), p. 305.
g
Ibid., p. 309.

147
set. The order of entry in each series of each set of
variables may be symbolized thus:
first series: S E P
second series: E P S
third series: P S E.
These differing orders of entry of sets of variables
into the regression equations in this study require some
explanation. Although "multiple regression analysis is an
efficient and powerful . inference-making technique
. . for helping . the scientist study, with relative
precision, complex interrelations between independent
variables and a dependent variable, and thus . helping
. . him to 'explain' the presumed phenomenon represented
by the dependent variable," the order of entry of variables
into the equation can affect the relative amount of variance
of dependent variable that each independent variable
9
accounts for or contributes. That is, while the R (mul-
2
tiple correlation coefficient), R and regression coef
ficients remain the same, the relative contribution of an
independent variable may change if the order of its entry
into the regression equation is changed.
The decision of the order of entry of independent
variables into the regression equation thus presents a
problem to the researcher. As Kerlinger explains:
9
Ker1 inger,
p. 631.

148
Actually, there is no "correct" method for
determining the order of variables. A researcher
may decide that he will let the computer choose
the variables in order of the size of their
contributions to the variance. . For some
problems this may be satisfactory; for others,
it may not. As always, there is no substitute
for depth of knowledge of the research problem
and concomitant knowledge and use of the theory
behind the problem. In other words, the research
problem and the theory behind the problem
should determine the order of entry of ^
variables in multiple regression analysis.
In the present study, decisions concerning the orders
of entry of the independent variables into the equations were
based on the following considerations:
(1) As previously explained, grouping the fifteen
independent variables into sets (with the program variable,
PRTE, constituting a set of one) not only isolated the program
(target) variable for easier analysis, but also reduced the
number of possible "orders" from trillions to six (that is,
considering the variables not as fifteen individual variables,
but as three -[sets of} variables) Expressed in terms of
the set symbols, those six possible orders of entry, re
quiring computation of six separate multiple regression
equations, would be S E P, S- P E, E P S,
E-S-P, P-S-E, and P E S.
(2) Equations employing the first (S E P), third
(E P S), and fifth (P S E) of the above-listed
possible orders of entry of sets of variables were computed,
so that each of the sets was given initial priority in the
equation one time.
10
Ibid., p. 627.

149
(3) The need for further computation was obviated by
the results explained in the ensuing analysis.
In the ensuing analysis, a squared multiple correlation
2
coefficient, R (referred to also as a coefficient of
determination), is interpreted alternatively as an estimate
of (1) the percentage of the product measure variance
accounted for by the variables(s) in the equation, or
(2) the percentage of the product measure variance associ
ated with the variables) in the equation or (3) the total
contribution'*'1 (to prediction) of the variable(s) in the
11
It might be well at this point to add a comment on
the difference between total contribution and unique
contribution. As explained above, the total contribution
to the product measure variance of an individual variable
or set of variables in the equation is estimated by
as the proportion of product measure variance for which that
variable or set of variables can account. The unique,
or independent, contribution of an individual variable or
set of variables is an estimate of how much less product
measure variance is explained if the individual variable
or set of variables is omitted from the equation. A
unique contribution of, say, variable X can be determined
only by computing (1) the R* of the complete prediction
system (all independent variables in the equation),
(2) the R^ of the complete system except for X, and (3) the
difference between the two. The difference i_s the unique
contribution of X.
The use of both measures (total and unique) would be
desirable in determining the extent of association between
independent variables and the dependent variable. In the
present study, however, as the report of the analysis in
the immediately following section of this chapter will make
clear, unique contributions of any individual variables or
sets of variables could not generally be determined, since
in no case was the entire prediction system (all fifteen
independent variables) entered into the multiple regression
equation by the computer. Thus, in this study, only total
contributions are interpreted (with one exception, to be
explained later).

150
equation to the product measure variance, or (4) the pro
portion of product measure variance that the variable(s)
1 2
in the equation can account for. The significance
2
(statistical) of any R (percentage of, total contribution
to, or proportion of variance) is evaluated by using an
F test.
12
The multiple correlation coefficient (R, or the
square root of r2) is not considered as useful for interpre
tation, according to Kerlinger: "In sum, R_2^ is an estimate
of the proportion of the variance of the dependent variable,
Y, accounted for by the independent variables, Xj. R, the
multiple correlation coefficient, is the product-moment
correlation between the dependent variable and another
variable produced by a least-squares combination of the
independent variables. Its square is interpreted analogously
to the square of an ordinary correlation coefficient. It
differs from the ordinary coefficient, however, in taking
values only from 0 to 1. II is not as useful and interpre-
able as r£." Kerlinger, p. 618.

151
Analysis of the Regression Series
The data in Table 20 reveal that in none of the three
series of computations of multiple regression equations was
the complete prediction system (the complete set of fifteen
independent variables) added to the equation, regardless of
the order of entry of the subsets (student, environment, and
program). In each of the series, the F level proved
insufficient for further computation after eight or nine of
the fifteen variables had been entered into the equation.
(The criterion F level for entry into the equation, it will
be recalled, was .01.)
In the S E P series, nine variables were entered
before computation ceased: the full set of five student (S)
variables and four of the environmental (E) variables (EFAL,
EFAS, ESIZ, and EFAT, in that order). These nine variables
in concert account for at least 74.18 percent of the variance
of the dependent variable of English achievement (DACH).
In the E P S series, eight variables were entered
before computation ceased: three environmental variables
(ENWP, ESIZ, and EFAC, in that order), and again the full
set of five student variables. These eight variables are
associated with, again, 74.18 percent of the product measure
(DACH) variance, in spite of the facts that (1) two of these
E variables (EFAC and ENWP) are ones that were not included

P Set E Set S Set
Table 20
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION RESULTING FROM THREE SERIES OF REGRESSION EQUATIONS
Variable
S -
E P Series
E -
P S Series
P -
S E Series
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
SAPT
1
.6567
.6567
4
.6667
.5280
2
.6584
.6414
SGPA
2
.7035
.0468
6
.7410
.0271
3
.7036
.0451
SGPE
5
.7332
.0001
8
.7418
.0002
6
.7332
.0000
SATT
4
.7331
.0007
7
.7416
.0006
5
.7332
.0007
SSEX
3
.7324
.0289
5
.7139
.0473
4
.7324
.0289
ESIZ
8
.7418
.0000
2
.1347
.0088
EFAC
3
.1387
.0040
EFAT
9
.7418
.0000
EFAS
7
.7418
.0008
EFAL
6
.7410
.0078
ENWP
1
.1259
.1259
EUFY
8
.7418
.0002
EMFI
7
.7415
.0083
EMSY
PRTE
1
.0170
.0170
152

153
in the S E P series and (2) six of the E variables did
13
not meet the criteria for entry into the equation.
In the P S E series, eight variables were entered
before computation ceased: the P variable, the full set of
five S variables, and two other E variables (EMFI and EUFY,
in that order). These eight variables again account for
74.18 percent of the variance of the DACH variable.
Only one independent variable (EMSY) is excluded from
the equation in all three series of equations.
Thus, while the total contribution of the complete
prediction system of fifteen independent variables cannot
be accurately estimated from these series of equations,
because in no series were all fifteen variables included
in the regression equation, it is certain that the complete
system of independent variables does account for a very
substantial proportion of the variance of the product mea
sure, significant at the .01 level of confidence, since,
2
for an R of 74.18, the proportion of product measure
variance accounted for by only eight or nine of these
1 3
That is, in the E P S series, all of the E
variables were assigned priority for entry into the equation
before the P and S variables, but six of them did not
"qualify," nor did the P variable "qualify" before the S
variables. Thus, the S variables were entered after in
clusion of only three E variables.

154
variables in each series
F.01;S,* = 2-51) and F
01-9.t=o
= 2.41) .
14
F = 174.54 (for eight variables,
= 154.81 (for nine variables,
It is reasonable to assume, in other words, that if
only eight or nine of the fifteen variables which constitute
the complete prediction system account for a major (74.18
percent) and significant proportion of the product measure
variance, the complete system would account for at least
as substantial and significant a proportion.
The set of variables which makes the largest total con
tribution to product measure variance is the student (S) set.
In the S E P series, at the point at which only the five
S variables have been entered into the equation (and no E or
P variables have been entered), the S set accounts for 73.32
percent of the total variance, significant at F = 268.72,
p < .01 (F ni.r = 3.02). The addition of four other (E)
variables into the equation (in the S E P series), in-
2
creases the R value by only .0086.
In the second (E P S) series, three of the environ
mental (E) variables account for 13.87 percent of the total
variance, significant at F = 26.34, p < .01 (F = 3.78),
. (J i ; oo
while neither the remaining six E variables nor the program
The procedures employed in the computation of F as a
test of significance of R^ are described in Appendix H.
(This F test of significance is not to be confused with the
criterion F level of .01 used as a standard for entry into
the multiple regression equation.)

155
(P) variable contributes sufficiently to the variance to be
entered into the equation (criterion level to enter: .01).
After the five S variables are included in this series, how-
2
ever, the value of R increases by .6031 to .7418.
Again in the third (P S E) series, the S set of
variables accounts for the greatest percentage of product
measure variance. The program (P) variable makes a total
contribution of only .0170 (or 1.7 percent) to the variance
of DACH. After inclusion of the S set of five variables, the
2
value of R increases by .7162 to .7332, the same coefficient
of determination achieved by the set of S variables as its
(the set's) total contribution in the S E P series,
significant at the .01 level of confidence.
It has already been observed that the complete prediction
system of fifteen variables can be assumed to account for at
least 74.18 percent of the product measure (DACH) variance.
The set of five S variables accounts for 98.8 percent of that
proportion (.7332 divided by .7418). Obviously, the S set is
the set which makes the most quantitatively dramatic contribu
tion to product measure variance.
The S set may also be viewed temporarily as a complete
prediction system in order to compute the unique contribution^
of the SGPE variable, the last one of the student set entered
in the S E P series. Thus viewed, the prediction system
15
See footnote 11 of this chapter.

156
(student variables) accounts for 73.32 percent of the total
2
product measure variance. The increase in R of .0001, re
sulting from the entry of the SGPE variable, may in such an
analysis be considered its unique contribution, the only
such contribution that may be computed from these data.^
The unique contribution of .0001 of the SGPE variable to the
product measure variance in the S E P series, when that
variable is viewed as one of a five-variable complete pre
diction system, indicates that the SGPE variable contributes
practically not at all to the total variance of DACH, after
the variables SAPT, SGPA, SSEX, and SATT have been taken into
account.
The individual variable which represents the single
greatest proportion of variance is SAPT, accounting alone
for almost nine-tenths of the minimum variance of the entire
prediction system (.6567 divided by .7418). SAPT alone
(in the S E P series) makes a total contribution of
.6567, significant at F = 943.02, p < .01 (F = 6.63),
01,1, 00
to the total product measure variance. When added as the
fourth variable in the equation (E P S series), SAPT
2
increases the R by .5280 to .6667, significant at F = 244.98,
p < .01 (F a, = 3.32). When added second, after the P
Of course, the same procedure can be applied to the
E P S series: considering a complete prediction system
of eight variables (three E variables and five S variables),
the SGPE variable's unique contribution to the total variance
of .7418 is .0002.

157
2
variable (P S E series), it increases the R by .6414 to
.6584, significant at F = 474.22, p< .01 (p gi 2 oo = 4.61).
No other S variable singly makes as substantial a contribu
tion to the prediction of DACH. Indeed, none of the other
fourteen independent variables in any of the sets makes as
substantial a contribution.
The program variable (PRTE) can singly account for only
1.7 percent of the total variance in the dependent variable
scores in English achievement (P S E series). This P
variable did not have a high enough F value (the criterion,
it will be remembered, was .01) to be included last (of
fifteen) in the equation in the S E P series or even
fourth in the equation (after three of the E variables) in
the E P S series.^
2
Nevertheless, the coefficient of determination (R )
of .0170 of the PRTE variable in the P S E series, at
the point at which it is the only variable in the equation,
is statistically significant at F = 8.54, p < .01 (F ^ ^ ^
6.63). Thus, the total contribution of the PRTE variable is
a significant one. The extent of the association between
PRTE and the dependent variable (DACH) is obviously very
small, however, in comparison with that, for example, between
the SAPT variable and the DACH variable.
That is, even when "forced" into the equation after
the environmental set (E P S series), it was not added
because its F ratio, if it had been added, would not have
satisfied the Q L criterion level for entry.

158
Summary
In this chapter the focus has been on the analysis of
the association between the fifteen independent variables
described in previous chapters and the dependent variable
described in previous chapters. This analysis was performed
in an attempt to achieve the primary objective of this study:
to analyze the nature and extent of the relationship between
the independent variable of English program structure and the
dependent variable of English achievement.
The data employed in the analysis are those pertaining to
the 495 subjects described in previous chapters from four
high schools in Florida.
Each of the sixteen variables (fifteen independent and
one dependent) was assigned an alphabetic symbol to ease
identification and reference. In order to isolate the program
variable for analysis, the fifteen independent variables
were categorized into three sets:
(1) student set the five variables of academic aptitude,
grade point average for all courses, grade point average for
English courses, attitude toward English, and sex -
(2) environmental set the nine institutional and dis
trict variables external to the student: school size, Eng
lish faculty average certification, English faculty average
number of years in teaching, English faculty average number
of years at the school, English faculty average teaching load,
percentage of non-white persons in the district population,

1S9
percentage of adults in the district who had completed
fewer than five years of schooling, median family income in
the district, and median number of school years completed
by adults in the district -
(3) program set the one variable of English program
structure (elective or traditional).
The mean and the standard deviation of each variable
were computed and reported, as was the intercorrelation among
the variables. There is extensive intercorrelation. Nine
of the fifteen independent variables correlate significantly
with the dependent variable. Twelve of the independent
variables correlate significantly with seven or more of the
other independent variables.
Three series of multiple linear regression equations
were computed, each forcing sets of independent (predictor)
variables into the equation in a different order of entry.
Each of the sets was given initial priority (entered first
into the equation) in one of the series.
The resultant coefficients of determination (squared
multiple correlation coefficients) were interpreted as
estimates of the proportion of product measure (dependent
variable) variance accounted for by the variable(s) in the
equation and were evaluated for statistical significance by
means of an F statistic.
A major proportion of the product measure variance is
associated with the complete prediction system of fifteen
independent variables.

160
The student set of independent (predictor) variables
accounts for much greater proportion of product measure
variance than either of the other sets singly or of the
other two sets combined. The total contribution of the
student set to product measure variance is statistically
signficant.
The independent variable of student academic aptitude
singly accounts for a much greater proportion of product
measure variance than any other single variable. Its total
contribution is statistically significant.
Three of the environmental set of independent (predictor)
variables jointly account for a small but statistically sig
nificant proportion of product measure variance. They are
the percentage of non-white persons in the school district
population, the school size (population), and the average
kind and quality of certification held by English faculty
members.
The percentage of non-white persons in the school
district singly accounts for a small but statistically sig
nificant proportion of product measure variance.
Determination of the proportion of product measure
variance accounted for by the entire environmental set of
nine variables jointly was not possible, since in none of the
equations were all nine environmental variables included.
The program variable singly accounts for a very small
but statistically significant proportion of product measure
variance.

CHAPTER VIII
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS
AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of the analyses reported in Chapter VII
have been recorded as statistical associations only, in
accordance with a conscious intent to minimize interpre
tation, generalization, and drawing of inferences con
comitantly with data presentation and analysis. This
chapter will be focused on interpreting, generalizing
from, and inferring from the findings of Chapter VII in
order to arrive at meaningful conclusions and practical
implications.
Limitations on Interpretation
Prior to consideration of conclusions and implica
tions, it would appear not only appropriate but obligatory
to discuss the limitations imposed on their formulation
by the non-experimental design of this study. An under
standing in particular of the effects on subsequent interpre
tation of the selection of variables and of the analytical
procedure employed in this study is essential to an under
standing of the possibilities of generalization and
inference in this study.
The non experimenta1 nature of this research was
discussed briefly in the introductory chapter. In con
sideration of the impossibility of direct control (manip
ulation of the variables and randomization) in this study,
it would be irresponsible to interpret any significant
161

162
relationships discovered between variables as effects.
That is to say, no causative connection should or will be
assumed between significantly associated variables.
Nevertheless, an implicit assumption in this research
from its outset has been that there is, if not a cause-
effect relationship, at least a predictive relationship
between structure of English program (traditional or elec
tive) and degree of achievement in English. This assump
tion has been implied in several ways: by frequent refer
ence to the English program structure variable as the "target"
independent variable, by the use of words such as "influence"
and "factor" in early discussion of the objectives of the
study, and by designating the exploration of the relationship
between English program structure and English achievement the
primary objective of the study, for example.
Since the investigation of necessity was to proceed
ex post facto, additional independent variables thought to be
influential on English achievement were introduced to the
design of the study, as explained in Chapter II, Methodology,
in order to achieve a measure of control:
In ex post facto studies, although one
cannot have the confidence in the "truth" of
an "If jc, then y" statement that one can have
in experiments, it _Ls possible to set up and
test alternative or "control" hypotheses. . .
Let us first consider alternative independent
variables as antecedents of a dependent vari
able. ... If we say "alternative independent
variables,". ... we are in effect stating
alternative hypotheses or explanations of a
dependent variable. . The method of test
ing alternative hypotheses, though important in

163
all research, is particularly important in
ex post facto studies, because it is one of
the only ways to "control" the independent
variables of.such research.*
The independent variables added to the study number
2
fourteen, it will be recalled, the large number the
result of an attempt to "exhaust the possibilities" to
a reasonable degree.
The addition of alternative independent variables
to introduce some control in the regression analysis, how
ever, posed some difficulties of interpretation in the
present study. As previously noted, the more extensive
the intercorrelation among the independent variables, the
more obscuration of systematic relationships in multiple
regression analysis, since more of the common variance
of the dependent variable and one or more independent
variables is inevitably shared by any individual inde
pendent variable. The fifteen independent variables in
this study are substantially intercorrelated, it will be
3
recalled.
It was the original intent of the investigator,
anticipating such substantial intercorrelation among
Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 388-90.
2
For information concerning the selection of these
variables, the reader is referred to footnote 5, Chapter II.
3See Table 19.

164
independent variables, to offset the resultant inter
pretive difficulties by the calculation of unique con
tributions, which could be expected to estimate the
contribution of an independent variable to the variance
of the dependent variable after one or more other inde-
4
pendent variables had been "taken into account." As
previously explained, such calculation entails the in
clusion of the entire prediction system of independent
variables in the equation and thus proved impossible in
this analysis, because of the large number of independent
variables and their substantial intercorrelation. The
computer program employed a criterion for entry which
precluded entry of the entire prediction system (all
fifteen variables) into the regression equation.
In addition, with too many independent variables,
"it becomes more and more difficult to find other independ
ent variables that are not in effect redundant with the
first three or four," according to Kerlinger. There is
"a regression law of diminishing returns.
One result of the several difficulties described
above is to limit interpretation, that is, the formu
lation of generalizations and implications based on the
analysis. Such limitation does not, however, preclude
4
See footnotes 5 and 11 of Chapter VII.
5Kerlinger, p. 625.

165
meaningful assessment of the findings, provided that
the assessment proceeds cautiously and responsibly. In
the remainder of this chapter, therefore, only such
generalizations, inferences, and implications as can be
reasonably substantiated by the data analysis will be
discussed.
Conclusions
The most important (in terms of the objectives of
this study) inference that can be drawn from the findings
is that the structure of an English program in high school
seems to make relatively little impact on achievement in
English. That is, a student's cognitive growth in English
would appear not to be predictable from his participation
in either an elective or a traditional program. Although
the statistical extent of the association between the
program variable and achievement is significant, it is
obvious that the association is an extremely unsubstantial
one and therefore an extremely insignificant one in a
practical sense.
Rather, it seems that the individuals "make more
difference," considerably more, than the program. Indeed,
the individual (student) variables "make the most differ
ence" in English achievement of all the measured variables.
A student's sex, academic ability, attitude toward the
subject, and scholarship ("grade-making") -- as a group --
are the greatest predictors of this cognitive growth.

166
Of these student attributes considered singly, how
ever, only one appears to be a major and consistent pre
dictor of English achievement: academic ability. The
academic aptitude measure for students is, in every ana
lysis, very substantially associated with their scores on
the test of achievement. The extent of this relationship
is indeed so large as to render practically insignificant
the predictive potential of all other individual variables
or groups of variables, even those whose contributions
are statistically significant.
In any event, it seems clear that individual dif
ferences collectively have a predictive relationship
with cognitive growth in English that is considerably
stronger than that of program differences and that an
individual's academic aptitude has by far the strongest
such relationship.
Most of the environmental aspects taken singly do
not appear readily interpretable as predictors of English
achievement. Indeed, the total contribution of only one
single environmental variable (the non-white proportion
of the county population) is assessed as statistically
significant, as well as substantially contributory to
cognitive growth in English. Other sociological measures
of the population (education and income) were found to be
individually unreliable or insignificant as predictors
of English achievement, as were the size of the school
population and English faculty measures.

167
Implications for Practice and Research
The findings of this study yield no clear implications
for the design of an English high school program, at least
in relation to the program's effectiveness in promoting
student growth in English achievement. Whether the pro
gram is traditional or elective in structure appears to
make little impact on such growth.
Since the findings indicate that certain individual
differences in students do^, however, seem to relate strongly
to their achievement in English, there may well be a sug
gestion that certain kinds of individualization are desirable,
regardless of other aspects of program structure.
In regard to individual academic aptitude, for
example, it might seem likely that any method of group
ing students by aptitude or any individualization of
instruction according to aptitude would be encouraging
of cognitive growth in either a traditional or an elective
program. (Individualized instruction need not be indivi
dual instruction.) To the extent, then, that an elective
program in English individualizes both offerings and
instruction, to that extent, perhaps, it should be success
ful in furthering learning in English.
In addition, the primary conclusion of this study (that
elective or traditional program structure is not strongly
related to English achievement), when considered in the
light of certain prevalent assumptions about elective pro-

168
grams (that they improve student attitudes toward English,
provide greater heterogeneity of activities and materials,
encourage more student participation in English courses,
better meet the needs and interests of students, and permit
desirable specialization by teachers), could be interpreted
as implying an overall advantage of the elective program over
the traditional. The reasoning would proceed as follows:
if there are so many benefits to be derived from an elective
program, i^f there are no disadvantages to an elective pro
gram, and i_f the program structure makes no difference in
learning, then an elective program is preferable.
The logic inherent in such reasoning contains no
fallacies. The difficulty, of course, lies in the "truth"
of the conditions. While a few of the assumptions about
elective programs listed above have been objectively
verified to some degree, most have not, to any degree.
Clearly, further research is needed to examine the relation
ships between elective programs in English and 1) needs,
interests, attitudes, and goals of students, 2) benefits
to teachers, 3) administrative requirements, 4) costs,
5) curricular goals and objectives, 6) curricular and
instructional theory, and 7) classroom atmosphere and
dynamics -- to name the most important.
The findings and conclusions of this study also
indicate a need for further research into the question of
elective programs and their influence on learning in English.

169
While exact replication of this study would not be desirable,
because of the previously reported difficulties in interpre
tation arising from certain procedures and selection, the
data collected and reported may be incorporated into other
research designs and subjected to different analyses for
investigation of the question. The investigator encourages
such use of the data reported in this study.
In addition, many of these data, particularly those
collected or computed for the individual subjects, may
provide a resource for investigators of other problems.
To this end, the data for each subject have been listed
in Appendix F.
It is also hoped that "true" experimentation of the
question of the influence of elective programs on English
achievement will be undertaken in the not-too-distant future,
despite the seemingly overwhelming practical difficulties.
The findings of such research should prove invaluable in the
making of decisions related to high school English programs.
Otherwise, if the current trend continues, as there is
every indication it will, more and more high schools
will be introducing elective programs in English, and the
decision to do so will be based, at least in part, on
unsupported and unverified assumptions concerning the
benefits to be derived from such a program.

170
If ever it is reasonably confirmed that elective
programs at their best enhance achievement, improve
attitudes toward English, provide for individualization,
promote morale among teachers and students, and meet
the needs and interests of students--and at their worst
make little or no difference (from traditional programs)
in any of the above--then elective programs in English
can be established as knowledgeable options.

APPENDIX A
Superintendent of Schools
------ County
------, Florida
Dear Sir:
College of Education
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
------, 1976
Dr. Theodore W. Hippie and I are conducting a research study
of English language arts programs in Florida high schools.
We are anticipating that the information generated by this
study will contribute to the improvement of English instruc
tional and curricular planning. One of the schools which
we wish to use in this study is .
The principal will be informed that the voluntary partici
pation of the English faculty and of the 12th-grade students
in the school will be sought. Each of these groups will be
asked to complete a questionnaire which should require no
more than ten or fifteen minutes. The student questionnaire
asks for some information concerning the student's back
ground and his attitudes toward English; the teacher ques
tionnaire, for information concerning the teacher's pro
fessional background and preparation. The questionnaire
may be submitted to both teachers and students in small
groups or in one large meeting, or in any manner convenient
to the principal and faculty.
In addition, access to school records of senior students
will be requested for the recording of certain test and
grade data.
All data will be collected anonymously from teachers and
will be reported and analyzed in summary form only. Student
data will be reported and analyzed anonymously, and no
school will be identified in the final report.
Enclosed is a form on which we are requesting your consent
to study this school. If you agree, we will then proceed
to solicit the consent of principal of the school.
Please sign the three copies, retain one for your files,
and return the other two to me. I have also enclosed a
stamped, addressed envelope for your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
171
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant

APPENDIX B
AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
Permission is granted to Theodore W. Hippie and Joan
C. Young to conduct a research study in School under
the following conditions:
1. The teachers and students who participate in the study
will do so voluntarily.
2. Data will be collected in such a manner as not to unduly
interfere with the school's programs.
3. The principal of the school will be asked for permission
to use the school in the study.
4. The identity of individual persons or schools will not
be revealed in the study.
5. The results of the study will be made available to all
participants.
Theodore W. Hippie
Professor of Education
University of Florida
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant
University of Florida
Superintendent of Schools
------ County
Principal
------ High School
172

APPENDIX C
College of Education
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
------, 1976
, Principal
High School
, Florida
Dear Sir:
Dr. Theodore W. Hippie and I are conducting a research
study of English language arts programs in Florida high
schools. We are anticipating that the information gene
rated by this study will contribute to the improvement of
English instructional and curricular planning. ------
High School is important to this study, so we hope you will
agree to participate.
The study will necessitate the completion of a question
naire by each member of the English faculty and another
by each 12th-grade student. Neither questionnaire should
require more than ten or fifteen minutes. The student
questionnaire asks for some information concerning the
student's background and his attitudes toward English; the
teacher questionnaire, for information concerning the tea
cher's professional background and current teaching status.
In addition, access to the records of senior students will
be necessary for the recording of certain test and grade
data.
My plan is to visit your school at times which will suit
your convenience and that of your students and faculty.
Whether I submit the questionnaire to students and teachers
in small groups or in one large meeting is also entirely a
matter of convenience to you.
All data will be collected anonymously from teachers and
will be reported and analyzed in summary form only. Student
data will be reported and analyzed anonymously, and no
school will be identfied in the study. If you wish, you
will be informed of the results of the study.
Enclosed is a permission form which has already been signed
by ----- -, Superintendent of Schools in your county.
Please sign both copies and return one to me. A stamped,
addressed envelope has also been enclosed.
If you agree to participate, will you please indicate (on
the back of the copy you return to me) the most suitable
days in the next few weeks for me to visit your school?
Or, if you prefer, indicate which days you would prefer that
I do not visit your school.
Sincerely yours,
173
Joan C. Young
Graduate Teaching Assistant

APPENDIX D
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
YOUR COOPERATION IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL BE
HELPFUL TO US IN A STUDY OF ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS.
PLEASE MARK AN X IN THE BOX BEFORE YOUR ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION.
1. HOW LONG HAVE YOU TAUGHT? (COUNT THIS SCHOOL YEAR AS ONE YEAR.)
n One year n Two or three years n Four or five years
n Six or seven years n Eight through ten years
n More than ten years
2. HOW LONG HAVE YOU TAUGHT AT THIS SCHOOL? (COUNT THIS SCHOOL YEAR
AS ONE YEAR.)
n One year n Two or three years n Four or five years
n Six or seven years n Eight through ten years
n More than ten years
3. HOW MANY ENGLISH CLASSES DO YOU TEACH EACH SCHOOL DAY?
n One or two n Three n Four n Five n Six or more
4. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS YOU TEACH THIS YEAR?
n More than 150 n 125 150 n ioo 124 n 75-99
n Fewer than 75
5. HOW MANY COURSES DO YOU CURRENTLY PREPARE FOR IN ENGLISH? (COUNT
EACH DIFFERENT COURSE OR GRADE LEVEL AS ONE PREPARATION.)
a One n Two n Three n Four n Five or more
6. WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HAVE EARNED?
n Bachelor's n Master's n Specialist's
n Doctor's n None
7. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR TEACHING
CERTIFICATION STATUS? (MAY BE MORE THAN ONE.)
n Certified n Not certified English n Speech
n Journalism n Other subjects (Please specify.)
SCHOOL:
174

APPENDIX E
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
AS SENIORS IN THIS SCHOOL, YOU CAN HELP WITH A STUDY IN FLORIDA
HIGH SCHOOLS BY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS WHICH FOLLOW. PLEASE BE AS
HONEST AND SINCERE AS YOU CAN WITH YOUR ANSWERS AND ANSWER EVERY
QUESTION. MARK THE BOX FOR YOUR ANSWER.
1. SEX: a Male n Female
2. HOW LONG HAVE YOU ATTENDED THIS SCHOOL? (COUNT THIS YEAR AS ONE YEAR.)
n One n Two years n Three years n Four years
nMore than four years
3. HOW INTERESTING DO YOU FEEL MOST OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE STUDIED
IN ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL ARE?
nVery much n Much n Some n Very little n Not at all
4. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK STUDYING ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL HELPS YOU
WITH YOUR FUTURE PROFESSIONAL (EDUCATIONAL AND/OR VOCATIONAL) NEEDS?
a Very much n Much n Some a Very little a Not at all
5. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK STUDYING ENGLISH IN HIGH SCHOOL HELPS YOU
WITH YOUR PERSONAL NEEDS?
nVery much a Much n Some n Very little nNot at all
6. HOW MUCH HAVE YOU LIKED ENGLISH DURING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL CAREER?
nVery much n Much n Some n Very little nNot at all
7.FOR THIS LAST QUESTION, PLEASE RANK THE FIVE SUBJECTS LISTED BELOW
FORM THE ONE YOU LIKE BEST TO THE ONE YOU LIKE LEAST BY WRITING
THE NUMBERS 1 TO 5. WRITE ONE NUMBER IN THE BOX BEFORE EACH
SUBJECT, USING 1 FOR THE BEST-LIKED AND 5 FOR THE LEAST-LIKED.
n Social studies (history, geography, psycho
logy, etc.)
Q English (literature, writing, grammar, etc.)
13 Science (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)
n Physical education
n Mathematics (general math, algebra, geometry,
etc.)
YOUR NAME (PLEASE PRINT.)
SCHOOL
175

176
APPENDIX F
DATA FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL VARIABLES
School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENVVP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A1
27
22
2.00
2.30
1.2
1
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A2
59
77
1.44
1.07
2.2
0
A3
96
96
3.20
3.27
2.4
0
A4
54
28
2.51
1.91
3.0
0
A5
68
82
3.15
2.80
1.2
1
A6
43
24
2.15
1.36
2.2
0
A7
08
28
2.80
2.50
2.2
0
A8
85
59
2.72
2.10
2.2
0
A9
41
50
2.58
1.90
2.6
0
A10
96
77
2.46
2.33
3.4
0
All
77
48
3.38
3.27
1.8
1

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A12
25
24
2.29
1.91
1.0
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A13
41
44
2.28
1.90
2.4
0
A14
75
52
3.06
2.89
2.2
1
A15
52
57
2.30
2.00
2.4
0
A16
73
67
2.73
2.54
3.2
0
A17
22
11
2.04
1.73
3.0
0
A18
52
55
3.12
2.30
3.4
0
A19
03
04
2.79
3.08
3.2
0
A20
13
15
1.93
1.80
1.6
1
A21
25
52
2.67
2.30
1.6
0
A22
61
65
3.21
2.38
3.0
1
A23
85
50
1.38
1.43
2.8
0
A24
43
67
3.19
2.92
2.0
1
177

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A25
66
69
3.00
3.00
3.4
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A26
07
08
1.19
1.36
3.2
1
A27
24
44
2.60
1.67
4.0
0
A28
97
80
3.54
3.36
2.2
1
A29
75
30
2.57
2.30
1.8
1
A30
24
30
3.08
3.00
1.8
1
A31
41
21
3.06
2.90
2.0
1
A32
77
44
3.17
3.20
3.0
1
A33
27
24
1.18
1.17
2.2
0
A34
10
12
1.77
1.73
1.6
1
A35
66
88
2.71
2.85
2.8
0
A36
08
12
1.75
1.30
3.0
0
A37
61
52
2.70
2.82
1.2
0
178

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
A38
31
50
2.85
2.40
2.4
0
2
2.31
2.75
4.0
3.75
9.4
2.9
4
12.1
0
A39
93
92
3.16
3.17
3.2
0
A40
68
26
2.74
2.40
2.6
1
A41
59
38
2.94
2.60
1.6
0
A42
79
75
2.69
2.60
2.4
0
179

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C43
52
12
3.50
3.33
1.6
1
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C44
88
86
3.82
3.86
3.4
0
C45
45
15
2.62
3.00
2.6
1
C46
10
09
2.10
1.40
2.2
0
C47
19
34
2.27
2.50
3.4
1
C48
45
46
2.96
3.60
3.0
0
C49
07
15
1.88
1.75
2.4
0
C50
57
34
3.23
3.25
1.4
1
C51
86
86
4.00
4.00
2.2
0
C52
48
32
2.00
3.00
1.4
1
C53
98
94
3.76
4.00
2.8
0
C54
27
28
3.58
3.50
1.0
0
C55
41
14
2.72
2.25
2.4
0
180

Ot^llUU A
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C56
59
55
3.17
3.40
2.0
1
2
2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C57
24
34
2.00
1.60
2.2
0
C58
68
46
2.96
3.33
1.8
1
C59
16
14
1.88
1.75
3.6
1
C60
79
26
4.00
4.00
1.4
1
C61
57
55
2.48
3.00
2.0
1
C62
24
28
2.39
3.33
2.2
1
C63
04
04
1.95
2.00
1.6
1
C64
54
32
2.84
2.80
1.8
1
C65
43
08
2.64
2.75
2.6
1
C66
22
19
2.85
2.67
1.4
0
C67
01
03
1.21
1.25
1.2
1
C68
13
15
1.53
1.75
1.6
0
181

UV^IIUU X
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C69
31
15
2.78
3.25
2.8
1
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C70
59
15
3.50
3.50
1.6
1
C71
92
93
3.09
3.25
2.8
0
C72
24
17
2.28
3.50
1.2
1
C73
01
13
1.77
2.20
3.6
0
C74
09
01
2.00
1.33
1.6
0
C75
25
21
2.43
1.75
2.8
0
C76
07
02
2.32
3.00
2.2
1
C77
29
15
3.14
1.60
3.6
0
C78
43
40
2.65
2.50
2.4
1
C79
77
30
2.47
3.40
1.6
0
C80
43
57
2.38
3.40
2.8
0
C81
33
36
2.58
2.75
2.6
1
182

U1UU1
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
C82
04
01
2.00
1.75
1.8
0
2
2.50 2.17 4.17 3.25 2.70 5.4
1
10.7
1
C83
73
12
2.72
2.75
2.0
1
C84
01
01
1.23
1.00
2.4
1
C85
43
14
2.35
3.00
2.4
1
C86
97
61
3.91
4.00
2.8
1
C87
54
30
3.05
2.67
3.1
0
C88
37
15
2.26
2.50
3.0
0
C89
48
21
1.91
2.00
2.0
0
C90
39
05
2.61
3.33
1.6
1
C91
29
48
2.92
3.00
3.4
0

C92
06
32
2.90
3.00
2.2
0
C93
02
01
1.05
1.25
1.2
0
C94
07
08
2.27
2.75
1.0
0
183

UV.UUU A
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ F.FAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C95
01
08
2.04
2.00
2.0
0
2 2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C96
43
28
3.04
3.20
2.0
1
C97
45
44
2.84
3.25
2.6
0
C98
05
01
1.23
1.20
3.0
1
C99
01
17
1.65
1.33
3.8
0
C100
48
26
2.96
2.60
2.4
1
C101
22
12
1.40
1.50
2.0
1
C102
29
22
2.65
2.80
1.2
1
C103
39
21
3.23
3.00
2.4
0
Cl 04
33
14
1.33
3.00
1.6
1
C105
41
04
3.13
2.75
4.2
1
C106
05
03
1.63
2.50
2.4
1
C107
79
59 3.80 4.00 2.0 1
184

and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
C108
10
19
1.52
3.14
1.4
1
2
2.50
2.17
4.17
3.25
2.70
5.4
1
10.7
1
C109
17
11
1.48
1.40
2.0
0
C110
06
17
2.27
1.75
1.8
0
cm
22
24
3.00
2.33
2.6
0
Cl 12
77
77
3.48
3.75
2.0
0
Cl 13
27
08
2.28
2.50
2.4
1
C114
13
19
2.85
2.50
1.2
0
C115
06
17
2.84
2.75
3.2
0
C116
02
01
1.94
2.50
1.6
0
C117
45
21
2.75
2.25
2.8
1
C118
03
11
1.27
1.00
1.8
1
Cl 19
02
14
1.50
1.50
2.6
1
C120
10
09
1.57
1.00
3.8
0
185

UV.I1UU x
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
D121
66
83
2.23
2.17
3.6
0
7 2.52 2.00 3.27 2.93
8.5 2.4 3 12.1 1
D122
81
71
3.31
3.40
2.8
1
D123
68
88
2.93
2.83
3.4
0
D124
73
80
3.76
3.60
1.4
1
D125
77
80
3.44
3.00
4.0
0
D126
16
44
1.83
1.80
2.6
1
D127
77
75
2.89
3.20
3.2
1
D128
98
99
3.00
2.83
3.0
0
D129
75
90
2.82
2.60
2.6
0
D130
85
94
2.96
3.00
3.8
0
D131
92
88
3.75
3.90
2.0
1
D132
77
59
2.74
3.17
3.4
0
D133
85
69
3.31
3.67
3.0
1
186

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D134
68
65
2.33
2.80
3.6
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D135
45
80
2.15
1.83
3.2
0
D136
91
92
2.89
2.60
1.6
1
D137
92
88
3.83
3.80
1.6
1
D138
57
65
3.11
3.00
3.0
1
D139
86
73
2.96
3.00
1.4
1
D140
09
14
2.08
2.50
1.8
1
D141
45
44
2.81
2.80
2.6
1
D142
88
78
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
D143
91
96
3.64
3.11
3.2
1
D144
59
48
3.25
3.33
2.2
1
D145
14
11
2.00
1.71
2.0
0
D146
07
44
2.56
2.40
2.4
0
187

and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D147
35
65
2.43
2.80
4.2
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D148
81
86
3.00
3.00
2.2
0
D149
77
90
3.04
3.17
4.4
0
D150
77
55
3.12
3.40
2.6
1
D151
68
46
3.31
3.33
2.8
1
D152
68
82
3.25
3.00
4.0
1
D153
31
63
3.25
3.75
1.8
0
D154
77
93
3.57
3.20
3.2
0
D155
70
63
3.42
2.80
2.8
1
D156
81
95
2.87
2.80
1.6
0
D157
52
34
2.25
2.50
2.0
1
D158
83
85
3.37
3.50
2.4
1
D159
59
67
3.41
3.40
1.8
1
188

uv ivyw x
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D160
50
42
2.50
3.14
1.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D161
99
96
4.00
4.00
2.0
0
D162
45
59
1.70
2.40
2.4
1
D163
81
55
3.07
3.67
3.4
1
D164
10
17
1.69
2.00
1.6
1
D165
85
83
3.52
3.43
3.4
1
D166
19
44
1.92
2.60
3.0
1
D167
79
91
2.93
3.00
2.0
0
D168
83
90
2.96
2.00
3.8
0
D169
94
73
3.52
3.60
3.2
1
D170
59
93
2.11
1.60
3.2
0
D171
59
73
2.11
2.17
3.4
0
D172
37
40
2.38
3.00
2.6
1
189

and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D173
77
61
2.93
3.00
2.6
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D174
61
67
3.26
3.11
1.8
0
D175
92
99
4.00
4.00
2.4
1
D176
37
32
2.23
2.43
1.6
1
D177
66
86
3.37
3.17
2.0
1
D178
59
40
3.45
3.83
2.2
1
D179
89
83
3.37
3.60
2.6
1
D180
75
63
2.97
2.25
2.0
1
D181
39
80
2.14
2.40
3.4
0
D182
85
79
3.73
3.20
2.6
0
D183
81
80
3.76
3.20
1.8
0
D184
59
73
3.07
3.20
1.8
1
D185
88
92
3.26
3.00
3.0
0
190

O^IIVJU i
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D186
59
86
2.00
2.33
3.6
0
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D187
85
94
2.93
3.50
2.0
0
D188
63
63
2.21
2.60
1.4
0
D189
66
32
1.79
1.60
3.0
1
D190
52
50
3.00
3.20
1.6
1
D191
63
83
3.41
3.20
3.4
0
D192
52
63
2.14
3.00
2.0
0
D193
35
61
2.77
2.83
4.2
0
D194
63
63
2.36
2.33
3.6
0
D195
35
01
1.81
2.40
3.0
1
D196
79
69
2.00
2.29
1.6
0
D197
79
75
2.52
2.67
2.8
1
D198
52
99
2.92
2.75
3.2
1
191

otinuui
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D199
35
48
1.59
1.50
3.8
0
7
2,52
2.00
3,27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D200
86
73
2.58
2.75
2.6
1
D201
77
75
2.61
3.00
3.4
0
D202
35
42
2.21
2.63
2.0
1
D203
31
57
3.00
3.00
3.6
0
D204
81
90
2.82
2.83
2.6
1
D205
99
99
4.00
4.00
3.4
0
D206
79
91
3.90
3.83
2.8
1
D207
68
73
3.31
3.00
2.6
0
D208
54
88
3.23
3.20
3.8
0
D209
41
50
2.04
1.60
3.6
0
D210
94
57
3.53
3.00
1.2
1
D211
79
73
3.22
3.00
2.4
1
192

and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D212
59
50
2.50
2.80
1.6
1
7
2,52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D213
66
71
2.80
2.40
2.4
0
D214
43
52
2.86
2.80
3.6
0
D215
70
77
3.32
3.00
2.0
1
D216
43
55
2.93
3.20
3.2
1
D217
83
71
2.77
3.33
3.4
1
D218
98
96
3.59
3.80
1.4
0
D219
85
96
3.21
3.00
3.0
0
D220
81
83
3.56
3.40
2.4
1
D221
66
71
2.97
3.67
2.4
0
D222
20
78
2.64
2.80
2.8
0
D223
10
55
2.37
2.80
3.2
0
D224
93
82
3.19
3.40
2.2
1
193

acnooi
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D225
63
44
2.68
3.20
2.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2,93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D226
93
36
3.21
3.33
2.0
1
D227
73
82
2.43
2.00
2.4
0
D228
59
55
2.89
2.80
2.0
1
D229
61
48
2.29
2.60
1.2
1
D230
66
61
1.93
1.83
3.8
1
D231
48
77
2.30
2.60
2.4
0
D232
66
77
3.32
3.83
2.4
1
D233
68
96
2.93
2.83
3.4
0
D234
41
44
3.16
3.17
2.2
1
D235
22
38
2.30
2.20
1.6
1
D236
24
36
2.81
2.60
1.0
1
D237
98
99
4.00
4.00
1.8
1
194

School
and
Student
Number
DAC1I
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D238
31
52
1.97
2.00
2.4
1
7
2,52
2,00
3,27
2,93
8,5
2.4
3
12,1
1
D239
75
75
2.83
2.71
2.8
0
D240
45
52
2.39
2.60
3.0
0
D241
68
82
3.10
3.00
2.8
1
D242
61
77
3.52
3.40
4.8
1
D243
89
73
3.65
3.83
2.0
1
D244
68
63
1.31
2.17
1.6
0
D245
01
09
1.31
1.80
1.0
1
D246
86
96
3.75
3.80
2.6
0
D247
77
88
1.41
1.17
3.8
0
D248
43
73
2.17
2.83
1.8
1
D249
29
26
2.64
2.00
1.4
1
D250
75
92
3.17
2.80
2.6
0
195

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D251
92
95
3.57
3.00
3.4
1
7
2.52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D252
77
89
3.69
3.20
2.0
0
D253
88
96
3.70
3.40
3.2
0
D254
70
57
2.80
3.20
3.0
1
D255
77
86
4.00
4.00
1.8
1
D256
93
83
3.66
3.63
3.8
1
D257
97
91
4.00
4.00
3.0
0
D258
59
71
2.52
3.00
1.8
0
D259
73
63
2.66
3.00
3.0
1
D260
52
82
2.41
2.20
3.0
0
D261
89
99
3.96
3.29
2.4
0
D262
50
82
2.57
2.86
3.4
0
D263
79
97
3.76
3.60
2.4
0
196

and
Student
Numb er
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D264
22
75
2.96
3.50
1.8
1
7
2,52
2.00
3.27
2.93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D265
43
55
1.96
1.40
4.2
0
D266
85
95
2.89
2.40
3.6
1
D267
99
93
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
D268
86
71
3.75
3.83
2.0
1
D269
54
83
2.72
2.86
1.2
0
D270
86
69
3.79
4.00
1.6
1
D271
98
96
3.86
4.00
2.0
1
D272
99
94
3.86
3.57
3.8
1
D273
37
52
2.36
2.75
3.2
1
D274
61
52
3.97
3.60
2.2
1
D275
91
95
4.00
4.00
1.2
0
D276
48
59
2.75
3.60
1.4
0
197

acnuoi
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSF.X
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
D277
91
77
3.03
3.33
1.6
1
7
2.52
2.QQ
3,27
2,93
8.5
2.4
3
12.1
1
D278
25
59
2.58
2.60
3.0
0
D279
13
36
2.13
1.80
3.0
0
D280
39
48
2.58
2.89
1.2
0
B281
59
61
2.39
2.10
2.0
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B282
10
17
2.34
2.82
1.8
1
B283
61
48
2.13
2.67
1.8
1
B284
97
96
3.09
2.83
1.4
1
B285
52
12 3.13 2.83 1.4
1
198

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B286
63
55
2.26
2.00
1.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B287
77
63
3.04
2.80
2.8
1
B288
37
17
1.57
2.17
2.2
1
B289
57
59
2.38
2.67
1.0
1
B290
57
48
2.15
3.20
2.8
1
B291
92
88
3.17
3.40
2.2
1
B292
54
48
2.50
3.00
1.2
1
B293
63
55
3.23
2.93
4.4
1
B294
94
96
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
B295
25
28
2.44
2.80
2.2
1
B296
73
75
3.07
3.17
1.8
1
B297
54
83
3.07
3.00
3.0
1
B298
54
63
2.07
1.80
3.0
1
199

U1UU1
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B299
98
93
2.96
3.00
1.4
1
5
2,55 2,90 4.75 2.83 17,9 3,4
6
12.2
Q
B300
70
44
2.89
3.40
2.4
1
B301
61
59
1.93
1.80
2.0
1
B302
75
94
3.03
3.60
2.8
1
B303
29
30
2.50
2.20
2.6
0
B304
54
42
2.70
2.43
3.4
0
B305
48
34
1.10
2.20
1.0
0
B306
91
93
4.00
4.00
3.2
0
B307
85
86
3.33
3.00
3.6
0
B308
57
67
2.62
2.40
2.4
0
B309
13
32
2.16
1.80
2.2
0
B310
43
61
3.14
2.71
1.4
0
B311
92
97
3.80
3.60
3.2
0
200

and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B312
45
32
1.81
0.80
3.4
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B313
41
77
2.39
3.20
3.0
0
B314
13
34
2.07
3.40
2.0
0
B315
01
01
1.69
2.33
1.4
0
B316
92
96
3.60
3.80
2.8
0
B317
43
67
2.38
1.86
2.2
0
B318
16
08
2.57
2.40
2.4
0
B319
02
11
2.82
2.60
1.2
0
B320
39
50
1.72
1.67
2.4
0
B321
83
96
3.70
3.40
3.0
0
B322
81
96
2.78
2.60
3.8
0
B323
70
63
3.54
3.63
1.8
0
B324
39
71
2.79
3.00
2.6
0
201

acnooi
and
Student
Number HACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B325
17
09
1.96
2.00
2.2
1
5
2,55 2.90 4,75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B326
29
19
1.77
2.00
2.4
1
B327
57
26
2.04
1.67
1.8
1
B328
10
21
3.07
3.44
1.8
1
B329
63
65
3.07
2.00
4.4
1
B330
33
40
1.62
1.60
2.8
1
B331
48
34
2.72
2.60
1.6
1
B332
70
73
3.04
3.20
3.4
1
B333
33
22
1.65
2.22
2.6
1
B334
35
57
1.66
2.33
3.4
1
B335
93
59
1.54
1.43
2.6
1
B336
97
86
2.88
3.11
2.0
1
B337
39
71
3.52
3.60
2.6
1
202

iJUUUU i
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B338
63
75
2.00
2.43
2.6
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B339
61
50
2.34
2.89
1.6
1
B340
16
17
2.00
1.20
1.8
1
B341
16
17
2.34
1.80
1.4
1

B342
85
89
3.07
3.20
2.6
1
B343
14
32
1.22
1.20
2.0
1
B344
25
19
2,48
2.00
2.4
1
B345
20
44
2.26
2.60
2.2
1
B346
94
75
3.32
2.80
2.6
1
B347
24
03
1.75
1.80
2.2
1
B348
08
17
2.13
2.40
3.4
1
B349
97
97
3.31
3.43
1.8
1
B350
93
77 1.88 2.10 2.4
1
203

CilUUl
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B351
96
90
3.60
3.60
2.2
1
5
2,55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3,4
6
12.2
Q
B352
93
85
3.13
2.60
2.6
1
B353
39
26
2.06
2.00
1.8
1
B354
61
61
2.44
3.00
1.2
1
B355
12
22
1.81
2.20
2.8
1
B356
94
78
3.38
3.67
3.0
1
B357
81
85
2.78
2.20
2.2
0
B358
89
90
3.57
3.50
3.4
0
B359
22
71
2.55
2.20
2.6
0
B360
17
30
2.00
1.40
1.8
0
B361
99
99
3.63
4.00
2.2
0
B362
06
07
1.76
1.20
4.0
0
B363
45
94
3.37
3.17
3.2
0
B364
24
75 2.17 1.60 2.6
0
204

bcnool
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B365
12
22
2.03
1.00
1.2
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B366
29
48
2.28
2.20
3.0
0
B367
52
46
1.73
1.60
2.0
0
B368
01
01
1.89
1.75
2.6
0
B369
52
82
2.83
2.40
3.4
0
B370
16
14
2.07
1.86
2.0
0
B371
16
46
3.20
2.80
2.2
0
B372
48
65
1.93
1.80
4.0
0
B373
43
50
2.72
2.80
2.4
0
B374
59
88
1.94
1.40
1.8
0
B375
41
19
2.93
2.00
2.2
1
B376
10
15
2.66
2.20
3.4
1
B377
52
73
3.58
3.25
3.6
1
205

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUBY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
B378
78
73
3.66
3.57
2.2
1
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2.83
17,9
3.4
6
12.2
0
B379
27
38
2.27
2.60
2.0
1
B380
63
50
2.19
1.80
2.6
1
B381
41
40
3.03
3.20
2.0
1
B382
24
38
2.68
2.40
3.0
1
B383
39
21
2.30
2.20
2.6
1
B384
16
26
2.44
2.60
2.6
1
B385
04
01
2.23
2.00
2.0
1
B386
13
02
1.21
1.40
1.8
1
B387
70
50
3.29
3.00
2.2
1
B388
85
73
3.53
3.80
1.6
1
B389
99
91
3.39
3.60
1.2
1
B390
54
44
1.89
2.00
2.8
1
206

and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B391
75
71
2.74
3.30
3.2
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B392
61
30
2.86
3.00
2.6
1
B393
66
44
2.82
2.40
2.2
1
B394
16
08
2.43
2.57
1.8
1
B395
61
85
2.67
2.50
2.8
1
B396
77
59
2.75
2.80
2.0
1
B397
25
30
2.39
3.20
1.8
1
B398
31
32
2.79
3.22
1.8
1
B399
48
52
2.26
1.62
1.4
1
B400
59
38
2.73
3.14
2.0
1
B401
43
63
2.74
3.17
2.0
1
B402
86
71
3.22
3.50
2.6
1
B403
61
73
2.04
2.00
2.2
1
207

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B404
43
46
2.97
3.20
2.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2,83 17,9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B405
27
48
1.70
2.00
2.4
1
B406
63
61
1.97
2.00
2.2
1
B407
79
50
3.19
3.20
3.4
1
B408
77
69
3.71
3.80
3.0
1
B409
14
22
1.79
2.20
1.4
1
B410
73
55
2.81
3.14
2.0
1
B411
\
81
63
2.97
2.60
3.4
1
B412
09
14
1.64
1.43
2.6
1
B413
98
96
3.32
3.80
1.6
0
B414
13
26
1.89
2.33
2.0
0
B415
08
08
1.84
1.80
2.4
0
B416
35
67
2.68
2.80
3.8
0
208

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B417
92
96
3.77
4.00
2.6
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
Q
B418
06
01
1.65
1.80
2.0
0
B419
22
14
1.72
1.57
2.0
0
B420
50
52
2.41
1.80
3.4
0
B421
52
90
1.29
1.60
3.0
0
B422
68
83
2.37
2.40
2.6
0
B423
83
55
2.35
2.80
4.6
0
B424
73
73
2.58
2.50
2.4
0
B425
22
28
1.86
1.80
1.6
0
B426
39
48
2.24
1.33
3.6
0
B427
01
07
1.26
1.86
2.2
0
B428
09
14
2.54
3.00
1.8
0
B429
17
19
1.74
1.86
3.8
0
209

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
EUFY
EMFI
EMSY
PRTE
B430
01
11
2.28
2.80
1.0
0
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2.83
17.9
3.4
6
12,2
0
B431
99
99
3.96
3.80
3.4
0
B432
25
36
2.05
2.20
1.6
0
B433
14
05
1.00
0.86
2.6
0
B434
50
40
1.70
2.57
3.2
0
B435
12
40
1.78
1.40
2.4
0
B436
99
99
3.31
2.86
4.0
0
B437
06
34
2.17
3.67
2.4
0
B438
24
19
2.16
1.80
2.6
0
B439
29
63
2.13
1.86
2.2
0
B440
07
24
2.40
2.80
2.4
0
B441
83
98
3.10
2.60
3.2
0
B442
98
96
2.97
2.40
2.4
0
210

School
and
Student
Number
DACH
SAPT
SGPA
SGPE
SATT
SSEX
ESIZ
EFAC
EFAT
EFAS
EFAL
ENWP
ELJFY
EMFI EMSY
PRTE
B443
12
03
2.60
2.00
2.4
0
5
2.55
2.90
4.75
2,83
17.9
3.4
6 12.2
0
B444
89
95
3.59
3.89
1.6
0
B445
12
17
2.22
2.13
1.6
0
B446
75
96
2.87
2.60
3.8
0
B447
17
34
1.58
1.50
3.0
0
B448
37
36
2.69
2.00
2.2
0
B449
35
86
2.11
2.29
2.4
0
B450
92
89
3.59
4.00
2.6
0
B451
02
15
1.69
1.60
2.2
0
B452
41
73
2.79
3.43
2.0
0
B453
10
07
1.80
2.60
1.6
0
B454
13
52
2.25
1.40
3.0
0
B455
85
77
3.46
3.67
1.4
0
211

uv-uuux
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B456
12
14
1.33
1.00
2.4
0
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B457
13
21
2.41
2.60
2.0
0
B458
14
57
3.04
3.40
3.8
0
B459
10
21
1.83
1.20
1.6
0
B460
63
83
2.67
3.60
2.4
0
B461
03
12
1.82
1.71
2.2
0
B462
83
82
1.19
1.33
1.4
1
B463
19
28
2.28
2.75
2.4
1
B464
43
44
1.52
.75
2.6
1
B465
07
40
3.36
3.75
2.4
1
B466
14
22
2.29
2.14
1.0
1
B467
22
24
2.46
3.17
2.8
1
B468
45
46
3.41
4.00
1.8
1
212

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B469
50
42
2.24
2.33
2.4
1
5
2.55 2.9Q 4.75 2.83 17,9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B470
63
80
3.04
3.00
2.8
0
B471
33
63
2.92
2.25
1.8
0
B472
95
97
3.81
4.00
1.6
1
B473
17
11
2.42
2.71
2.6
1
B474
45
52
2.45
2.50
1.8
1
B475
09
21
1.33
1.40
2.8
1
B476
66
65
3.07
2.60
3.0
1
B477
31
03
1.17
1.86
2.2
1
B478
41
22
2.70
2.00
3.0
1
B479
24
24
1.31
1.00
1.8
1
B480
57
12
2.86
3.56
2.6
1
B481
37
63
1.34
1.20
1.6
0
213

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B482
12
44
2.46
1.80
3.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B483
33
38
2.52
3.00
3.2
1
B484
45
42
1.97
1.86
3.2
1
B485
50
21
2.61
2.80
1.8
1
B486
48
12
1.66
2.50
2.0
1
B487
92
93
2.55
3.20
1.6
1
B488
13
19
2.50
2.50
3.0
1
B489
68
61
2.86
2.75
1.8
1
B490
43
34
2.24
2.40
2.6
0
B491
08
14
2.45
2.00
1.2
0
B492
20
07
2.39
2.80
1.8
0
B493
52
67
2.45
2.60
2.0
0
B494
66
65
2.90
3.18
2.0
0
214

School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B495 08 34 2.73 2.40 3.2 0 5 2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4 6 12.2 0
215

APPENDIX G
COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
Computation of t,+ using the formula: t
I -r
7
n- 2
where n = the sample size (in this case, 495) and n-2 =
degrees of freedom, df (in this case, 493), was performed for
each correlation coefficient, r.*
The resultant t statistic was then, in each case, evalu
ated through the use of a standard table of Student t distri
butions to determine its significance.
Since, for df = oo t
+
+
. 001
1461
l-(. 1461)
3.291, the equation,
= 3.291,
493
was computed as a solution for the r value at the .001 level
of significance. Thus, for the correlations tabulated in
Table 19, p(r> .1461) < .001.
"For N > 30, the t_ distribution may, for most practical
purposes, be regarded as normally distributed." Roger E. Kirk,
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
(Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company,
1968), p. 42.
*
The quantity r satisfies a Student's t distri
bution." Henry L. Adler and Edward B. Roessler, Introduction
to Probability and Statistics (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Company, 1972), p. 213.
+
The table of t values consulted was "Table D.4, Per
centage Points of Student's t_ Distribution," in Kirk, p. 523.
216

APPENDIX H
COMPUTATION OF TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION
The procedures employed in the computation of F to test
2
the hypothesis, Rk = 0, are those described in Foundations of
*
Behavioral Research.
The following formula is employed for the F test of
SS k
significance: F = reg/
SSres/ (N-k-1)
where ssreg = the sum of squares due to regression, SSres =
the sum of squares of the residuals (or the deviations from
regression), k = the number of independent variables in the
equation, and N = the sample size. The computer provided
sums of squares to be used in the formula.
Thus, for example, the resultant F = 174.54 (for eight
variables) on page 154 was computed as follows:
SS /k
reg
311394/8
38924
174.54
SS /(N-k-1)
res 1 1
108387/(486) 223
The resultant F statistic was then, in each case, evalu
ated through the use of a standard F table to determine its
significance.+
In the above example, F = 174.54 is significant at
p < .01, since F>01.8 oo = 2.51.
*
Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 608-20.
throughout this report the table of F values consulted
has been "Table D.5, Upper Percentage Points of the £
Distribution," in Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Pro
cedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 524-28.
217

218
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, Henry L., and Edward B. Roessler. Introduction to
Probability and Statistics. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 1972.
Applebee, Arthur N. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching
of English: A History. Urbana, Illinois: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1974.
Aten, Donald Groover. A Study of Two Teacher Education
Programs and an Analysis of the Association Between
Antecedent Variables and Product Measures, Ed. D. Disser
tation (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
1969) .
Barone, Frank J. "The Answer Is 'A Performance Curriculum'."
English Journal, 56 (February 1967), 227-28.
Bottosto, Samuel Sandy. "Relationship Between County-Wide
Measures of Certain Socio-Economic Factors, Intelligence,
and Academic Achievement of High School Seniors in Florida
{Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts, XX, No. 03 (1959),
1931 .
Boyce, Susie Ann Blackburn. "A Study of Grouping for
Secondary English Education {Abstract}-." Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 11A (1971), 6284.
Bronson, David B. "The Story of an English Elective Program."
English Journal, 60 (November 1971), 1086-90.
Carlsen, G. Robert. "Some Random Observations -- About the
English Curriculum." English Journal, 61 (October 1972),
1004-09.
Carlsen, G. Robert, and John W. Conner. "New Patterns from
Old Molds." English Journal, 51 (April 1962), 244-49.
Commers, Mary C. "Operation English Freedom." English
Journal, 59 (May 1970), 674-76,
Cook, Stanley Snider. "A Comparative Study of Aims Held by
Parents, Students, and Teachers for an English Program in
a Suburban High School {Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts,
XV, No. 09 (1955), 1570.
Crabbe, John K. "Those Infernal Electives." English Journal,
59 (October 1970), 990-93, 1004.

219
Crandall, Jeanine. "Caution: Elective Program Ahead."
English Journal, 61 (November 1972), 1225-31.
Culley, Kilburn, Jr. "Changing an English Program."
English Journal, 57 (May 1968), 657-58.
Di Stefano, Philip Paul. "A Comparison of Student Attitudes
Toward Traditional and Diversified Elective English Offer
ings {Abstracty." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXV, No. 05A (1974), 2642.
Dixon, W., ed. BMP: Biomedical Computer Programs. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, 1970.
Donlan, Daniel Mahaney. "Dilemma of Choice: Revolution in
English ^Abstract!." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXII, No. 12 (1972), 6740.
Douglas, Wallace W. "An American View on the Failure of
Curriculum Reform and the Way Ahead." English in
Education, 6 (Summer 1972), 5-18.
Dyer, Prudence Osborn. "The Development and Evaluation of
a Program of Nongraded English Electives {Abstract!."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, No. 10A (1966), 3365.
Fitzgerald, Roger J. "The New Supermarket: A 'Dystopian'
View of English Electives." English Journal, 61 (April
1972), 536-49.
Florida Twelfth-Grade Testing Program. Report No. 1-75.
University of Florida, 1975.
Gibbons, Joan Mary. "A Study of Attitudes and Performance
of High School Students Enrolled in Elective English
Programs {Abstract!." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIII, No. 12A (1973), 2742.
Graves, Richard L. "English Elective Curricula and How They
Grew." Education Forum, 38 (January 1974), 195-201.
Harvey, Linda, comp. Elective English Programs in Junior
and Senior High Schools. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC Clear
inghouse on the Teaching of English, 1971.
Henry, George H. "English Education and the American Dream."
English Journal, 62 (April 1973), 23-29.
Hillocks, George, Jr. Alternatives in English: A Critical
Appraisal of Elective Programs. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1972.

220
. "The English Teacher as Curriculum Maker:
Preparing Teachers for Elective Programs." English Education,
5 (April/May 1974), 238-48.
. An Evaluation of Project APEX: A Non-Graded,
Phase-Elective English Program. Trenton, Michigan:
Trenton Public Schools, 1971.
Hunt, John Wuest, Jr. "Changes in Selected Attitudes and
Verbal Skills of Low-Achieving High School Students in
an Experimental, Team-Planned, Non-Graded English and
Social Studies Program -[Abstract }. Dissertation
Abstracts, XXXI, No. 05A (1970), 2254.
Jaekle, Ann M. "Safe for Diversity: Another Approach to the
English Curriculum." English Journal, 56 (February 1967),
222-26.
. "Spontaneity with a Purpose: English Elective
Programs." English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 529-35.
Josephs, Lois. "Electives in the English High School Program:
Drama and Flexibility." English Journal, 60 (February 1971),
246-50.
Judy, Stephen N. Explorations in the Teaching of Secondary
English: A Source Book for Experimental Teaching.
New York: Dodd, Mead § Company, 1974.
Kelly, Samuel P. "Goals and Objectives for the Teaching of
English." English Education, 4 (Fall 1972)-r 16-26.
Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, 1968.
Kitzhaber, Albert R. "A Rage for Disorder." English Journal,
61 (November 1972), 1199-1219.
Klang, Max. "To Vanquish the Deadliest Game: A New
English Curriculum." English Journal, 53 (October 1964),
504-15.
Lehner, Andreas P. "The Laissez-Faire Curriculum in the
Democratic School." English Journal, 59 (September 1970),
803-10.
Leonard, Alan J. "How to Define the Sanctity of English."
English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 242-45.

221
McCormic, Kenneth R., and C. Louis Kaupp. "An Elective
English Program for the Non-College Bound." English
Journal, 61 (February 1972), 277-80.
McCormick, Paul Joseph. "A Comparison of Achievement in
English of Eleventh- and Twelfth-Grade Students in an
Elective Program with Those in a Traditional Program
{Abstract>." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXIV, No. 09A (1973), 5535.
Miller, Richard F. "Increasing Curricular Change Through
Project Organization {Abstract!-. Dissertation Abstracts
International, XXXI, No. 10 (1970), 5087.
Mood, Alexander M. "Partitioning Variance in Multiple
Regression Analysis as a Tool for Developing Learning
Models." American Educational Research Journal, 8
(1971), 191-202.
Moore, Richard Marvin. "Selected Community and Institutional
Characteristics of Florida Publis Schools Related to Twelfth
Grade Test Scores { Abstract Dissertation Abstracts,
XXX, No. 01A (1968), 102.
Morton, Thomas H., and Mario DeiDolori. "An Electives
Program in a Small High School? It Works!" English
Journal, 60 (October 1971), 952-56.
Myers, Franklin G. "A Plan for All Seasons: Independent
Study in an English Electives Program." English Journal,
59 (February 1970), 244-53.
1970 Census of the Population. Vol. 1 (Characteristics of
the Population). Part 11 (Florida). Issued April 1973.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economics
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Wash
ington, D. C.
Nushy, John Michael. "A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation
of Student Achievement and Attitude in a Secondary Elective
and Conventional English Program {Abstract]-." Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXV, No. 06A (1974), 3399.
Nystrand, Philip Martin. "A Philosophical Analysis of the
Question 'What Is English?' {Abstract!-." Dissertation
Abstracts International,XXXV, No. 11A (1974), 5384.
Overton, Harry. "Eleventh Grade Electives." English Journal,
44 (April 1955), 211-14.
Parker, Robert Prescott. "The 'New English' in England and
America: 1958-1968 {Abstract!-." Dissertation Abstracts,
XXIX, No. 11 (1968), 3899.

222
Piche, Gene Laurence. "Revision and Reform in the Secondary
School English Curriculum, 1870-1900 {Abstract}."
Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII, No. 8 (1967), 2997.
Price, Alice Hayes. "A Description of a Changing High School
Department {Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts Inter
nationa^, XXXII, No. 10 (1971), 5658.
Rife, Robert V. "Would You Believe?" English Journal, 61
(April 1972), 555-59, 599.
Schiro, Michael Stephen. "An Analysis of Factors Affecting
Curriculum Creation {Abstract}." American Doctoral
Dissertations (1971), p. 111.
Shane, Estelle Lader. "Structure of Knowledge and the
Development of Curriculum and Instructional Materials
in the Field of English { Abstract }. Dissertation
Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 02 (1971), 728.
Slack, Robert C. "A Report on Project English." College
English, 26 (October 1964), 43-47.
Small, Robert C., Jr. "Framework for Diversity: The
Elective English Curriculum." The High School Journal,
56 (November 1972), 93-107.
Smith, Jack E., Jr. "180 Days: Observations of an Elective
Year." English Journal, 60 (February 1971), 229-35.
Squire, James R. "National Study of High School Programs:
A School for All Seasons." English Journal, 55 (March
1966), 282-90.
Stern, Adele H. "Sorry, Dr. Silberman! Mini-Courses in the
High School." English Journal, 61 (April 1972), 550-54.
Stone, George Winchester, Jr. "Five Years Since the Basic
Issues Report." College English, 26 (May 1965), 585-91.
Vandenberg, Eugene M. "The Changing Objectives and Philosophy
of the American Secondary School Curriculum, 1893-1961
{Abstract}." American Doctoral Dissertations (1963), p. 64.
Weber, B. Hart. "The Effect of Two Language Arts Curricula
upon Standardized Achievement Test Scores in the Inner-City
{Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVIII,
No. 08 (1969), 3208.
Weise, Donald F. "Nongrading, Electing, and Phasing: Basics
of Revolution for Relevance." English Journal, 59 (January
1970), 122-30.

223
Wethington, Charles Turner, Jr. "A Study of the Relation
ships Between Attitude Toward English and Several Selected
Variables -[Abstract}." Dissertation Abstracts International,
XXXI, No. 04A (1965), 1637.
Williams, George L. "English Electives Evaluated."
Clearing House, 47 (April 1973), 469-71.

224
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Joan Carol Young was born on November 16, 1928, in
Long Island City, New York, to Charles and Emma Samter.
She was the second of five children.
After graduating from Hunter College High School in
June 1944, Ms. Young attended Hunter College and State
University of New York at Geneseo, from which she received
a Bachelor of Science degree in June 1950. She pursued
graduate studies at the University of Texas from September
1967 through June 1968 and later graduated with a Master of
Science in Education degree from State University of New York
at Oswego in September 1971. Admitted into the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in the fall of 1974,
Ms. Young became a candidate for a Doctor of Philosophy
degree the following year.
Ms. Young was employed as an office worker in Rochester,
New York, from 1950 to 1952 and in West Palm Beach, Florida,
in 1959 and 1960. From 1960 until 1977, she held a position
as teacher of English and geography in public schools in
Palm Beach County, Florida. (For two of those years, granted
professional leave, she was employed by the University of
Florida as a graduate assistant, supervising intern teachers,
in the Subject Specialization Teacher Education Department
of the College of Education of the University of Florida.)

225
From August 1977 until the present she has been an associate
professor of English at Palm Beach Junior College, Lake
Worth, Florida.
Ms. Young was married to George James Young from 1951
to 1960 and has one daughter,. Dale, and one son, David.
She is the grandmother of four: Tracy, Lee Ann, John,
and Beth.

I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
ore W. Hippie, Chairman ,7 //
Professor of Subject Specialisation
Teacher Education
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Phil
E. J. Beldue
Professor of Subject Specialization
Teacher Education
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertqt^3n for /:h¡
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
L J
p
Arthur J. Lewis f
Professor of Instf
L
fractional
Leadership and Support
I certify that I have read this study and that
in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Kevin M. McCarthy
Associate Professor of English
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Department of Subject Specialization
Teacher Education in the College of Education and
to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1979
Dean, Graduate School



P Set E Set S Set
Table 20
COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION RESULTING FROM THREE SERIES OF REGRESSION EQUATIONS
Variable
S -
E P Series
E -
P S Series
P -
S E Series
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
Order of
Entry
R^ After
Entry
Increase
in R2
SAPT
1
.6567
.6567
4
.6667
.5280
2
.6584
.6414
SGPA
2
.7035
.0468
6
.7410
.0271
3
.7036
.0451
SGPE
5
.7332
.0001
8
.7418
.0002
6
.7332
.0000
SATT
4
.7331
.0007
7
.7416
.0006
5
.7332
.0007
SSEX
3
.7324
.0289
5
.7139
.0473
4
.7324
.0289
ESIZ
8
.7418
.0000
2
.1347
.0088
EFAC
3
.1387
.0040
EFAT
9
.7418
.0000
EFAS
7
.7418
.0008
EFAL
6
.7410
.0078
ENWP
1
.1259
.1259
EUFY
8
.7418
.0002
EMFI
7
.7415
.0083
EMSY
PRTE
1
.0170
.0170
152


CHAPTER VIII
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS
AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of the analyses reported in Chapter VII
have been recorded as statistical associations only, in
accordance with a conscious intent to minimize interpre
tation, generalization, and drawing of inferences con
comitantly with data presentation and analysis. This
chapter will be focused on interpreting, generalizing
from, and inferring from the findings of Chapter VII in
order to arrive at meaningful conclusions and practical
implications.
Limitations on Interpretation
Prior to consideration of conclusions and implica
tions, it would appear not only appropriate but obligatory
to discuss the limitations imposed on their formulation
by the non-experimental design of this study. An under
standing in particular of the effects on subsequent interpre
tation of the selection of variables and of the analytical
procedure employed in this study is essential to an under
standing of the possibilities of generalization and
inference in this study.
The non experimenta1 nature of this research was
discussed briefly in the introductory chapter. In con
sideration of the impossibility of direct control (manip
ulation of the variables and randomization) in this study,
it would be irresponsible to interpret any significant
161


15
19 ...
design the units which are offered." This opinion is
offered by Small in partial answer to the question:
Isn't this more work for the teacher?, one of the series
of questions posed (and answered! by him in response to
a "demand" from parents, teachers, and students for
"answers to their questions, a resolution of their
doubts.
While the questions asked by Small range in content
from a rationale of English elective programs to solution
of practical matters, such as scheduling, the answers
are far from unbiased (in favor of such programs) and,
indeed, the tone of the article is highly argumentative.
In addition, the very important--and particularly
relevant-to-this-study--aspect of evaluation of elective
programs is never discussed. The article is reviewed
here, however, since (1) it is generally comprehensive,
save for the exception noted above, and (2) it is repre
sentative of several such articles written by English
2 1
education specialists and published in professional
journals in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
19
Robert C. Small, Jr., "Framework for Diversity:
The Elective English Curriculum," The High School Journal,
56 (November 1972), 104.
2 0
Ibid., p. 93.
2 1 _
It is assumed by the investigator that Small is,
if not an English education specialist, at least an
education specialist. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute"
is printed beneath his name with no further explanation.


School
and
Student
Number DACH SAPT SGPA SGPE SATT SSEX ESIZ EFAC EFAT EFAS EFAL ENWP EUFY EMFI EMSY PRTE
B286
63
55
2.26
2.00
1.8
1
5
2.55 2.90 4.75 2.83 17.9 3.4
6
12.2
0
B287
77
63
3.04
2.80
2.8
1
B288
37
17
1.57
2.17
2.2
1
B289
57
59
2.38
2.67
1.0
1
B290
57
48
2.15
3.20
2.8
1
B291
92
88
3.17
3.40
2.2
1
B292
54
48
2.50
3.00
1.2
1
B293
63
55
3.23
2.93
4.4
1
B294
94
96
4.00
4.00
2.0
1
B295
25
28
2.44
2.80
2.2
1
B296
73
75
3.07
3.17
1.8
1
B297
54
83
3.07
3.00
3.0
1
B298
54
63
2.07
1.80
3.0
1
199


78
third year of English for graduation entirely, thus per
mitting senior enrollemnt in English courses as an entirely
elective option.^
As a result of the many modifications in structure of
English programs in Florida, it became necessary for pur
poses of this investigation to establish criteria on which
to determine the "electiveness" or "traditionality" of any
given English program. The decision was made to use a
criterion measure to arrive at operational definitions of
elective English program and traditional English program.
For this study, an English program is designated
elective if it satisfies all of the following criteria:
(1) A majority of courses offered in the program for
grades ten through twelve in which to earn English credit
for graduation are eighteen weeks or fewer in duration.
(2) The program permits enrollment by students of
more than one grade level in at least a majority of the
English courses, grades ten through twelve, offered in
which to earn English credit for graduation.
Florida statutes contain no specifications of grad
uation requirements from high schools, but grant powers to
local school boards to establish these (Flroida Statutes
230.22.2 and 230.23.6.a). They are established by school
district (county) school board policy entirely. Some few
counties in Florida require only two years of English
(earned in grades ten through twelve) for graduation, while
most continue to require three.


69
answered correctly. The total of these points constituted
an individual's raw score.^ The raw scores were converted
to percentile ranks and reported to the schools and the
students in the form of percentiles.
The Aptitude Test of the FTGT battery consisted of
two sections of fifty items each: Verbal Analogies and
Math Comparison. Twenty minutes were allowed for admin
istration of each section.
The statewide mean raw score for the Aptitude Test
of the FTGT in 1975 was 52.29, and the standard deviation
was 16.15. The split-half reliability coefficient
(corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula) for the Aptitude
Test was .94. The standard error of measurement was 3.96.^
The English Composition Test of the FTGT battery
consisted of a total of eighty-five items in three sec
tions: I, Usage; II, Capitalization and Punctuation;
III, Effectiveness of Expression. All items on all three
sections were of multiple-choice (five-choice) construction,
with directions to identify an error, if any, in the item.
One of the five choices for every item was NO ERROR. The
administration of each section was timed: fifteen minutes
for section I of thirty-five items, ten minutes for section
16
17
Ibid.
Ibid.