THE SUBJECT MATTER EVALUATION AND

GUIDANCE GOALS IMPLEMENTATION IN A

GUIDANCE-ORIENTED PSYCHOLOGY CLASS

•by

John Timothy Thomas

>1

A thesis
suhmitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts in the School of education
Fresno State College

January, 1971
 AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER'S THESIS

I grant permission for the reproduction of this

thesis in its entirety, without further authori­
sation from me, provided the person or agency re­
questing reproduction absorbs the cost.

I grant permission for the reproduction of parts

of this thesis without further authorisation from
me, provided the person or agency requesting
reproduction absorbs the cost.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety
must be obtained from me.
Permission to reproduce parts of this thesis must
be obtained from me.
X go not approve the reproduction of all or part of
this thesis.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The valuable idea of a guidance-oriented psychology

class which resulted in this thesis research v/as the pro­

duct of Paul Chiames, Dominic Papagni, Barbara Thomas, and

the researcher. The actual educational result was imple­

mented by Dominic Papagni, Jeanette Abrahamian, and the

researcher—who literally donated countless hours of per­

sonal time to produce a professional product worthy of the

above idea. The researcher was advised beyond normal limits

in experimental design, evaluation and critique by Mr.

Ronald Langley, (Presno State College Computer Center) and
Dr. I. Ace Griffiths (Professor of Education, Presno State

College). In addition, Professors Mahler, Engle, and Snell-

grove, whose contribution is noted in tne thesis, deserve

special appreciation. The counseling and administrative

staff at Bullard High School deserve the researcher's special

thank: you for their personal and professional aid. A special

and equal thank you was well deserved by the researcher's

family all of whom contributed lovingly. Each of these

above individuals gave an essential and immeasurably impor­

tant contribution. The researcher's sincere desire is that

this thesis is concomitant to their assistance.

 TABLE OP CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM . 1

Educational Master Plan 5

The Problem Statement 5

Analysis 5

Statement of the Hypotheses 6

Delimitations 9
Assumptions 10

Importance of the Problem 12

Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 20

2. REVIEW OP THE PERTINENT LITERATURE RELATED TO

THE STUDY 21
Introduction 21

Brief Description of the Guidance Oriented

Psychology Glass at Bullard High School 26

Philosophy 27
General Project Goals and Activities ... 30

Summary 35
3. METHOD AND RESULTS OP STUDY 37

Introduction 37
The General Study Design and Results ... 37
The Specific Study Design and Results for
Subject Matter Evaluation 43
v
 vi
CHAPTER pAGE

The Specific Study Design and Results for

Guidance Goal Implementation . 46

Study Design Specifics 47

Questionnaire Instruments 60

Statistical Tests and Results 65

Summary 84

4. DISCUSSION OP THE STUDY RESULTS 85

Hypothesis One 86

Hypotheses Two Through Eight 87

Hypothesis Two . 88

Hypotheses Three and Pour 89

Hypotheses Pive and Six 91

Hypotheses Seven and Eight 92

Suhtest One: Counselor Role According

to PROJECT DESIGN 92
Subtest Two: Counselor Role in Addition

to PROJECT DESIGN 97
Subtest Three: Self Understanding

According to PROJECT DESIGN 98

Subtest Pour: School - Student Rela­

tionships 107
Subtest Five: Faculty-Student Relation­

ships 108
Subtest Six: Student-Student Relation­

ships 108

Subtests Seven and Eight 109

 vii
CHAPTER PAGE

Summary 109

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND REGOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDY 112
Summary 112

SuUtest One: Counselor Role According to

PROJECT DESIGN 117

Subtest Two: Counselor Role in Addition

to PROJECT DESIGN 117

Subtest Three: Self Understanding Accord­

ing to PROJECT DESIGN 118

Subtest Four: School-Student Relation­

ships ....... 118

Subtest Five: Faculty-Student Relation­

ships 118
Subtest Six: Student-Student Relation­

ships 119

Conclusions 119
Recommendations for Further Study 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • 12?
 ix
LIST OP TABLES

^aD^e Page
1. t_ Test Summary for Statistical Tests of Hy­
pothesis One 46

2. Diagrammatic Representation of Test Group

Relationships 48

3. Guidance Questionnaire Subtest Numbers and

Related Names 61

4. Chi Square Values per Hypothesis by Item

with Subtest Classification Noted ... 67

5. Significant Chi Square Results Only, Noted

by Asterisks per Hypothesis by Item

with Subtest Classification 68

6. t Values for Each Hypothesis by Subtests . 71

7. Significant t Values for Each Hypothesis by

Subtests .' 73
 X

LIST OP FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The total Number of Chi Square Significant

Differences for Each Hypothesis Relative

to Guidance Goal Implementation 70

2. The Total Number of t Test Significant Dif­

ferences for Each Hypothesis Relative to

Guidance Goal Implementation 76

 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

During the academic year of 1967-68 PROJECT DESIGN

conducted a needs assessment of the Presno City Unified

School District.1 A portion of PROJECT DESIGN'S efforts

was spent assessing the needs of the Guidance Department.

One method of assessing student reaction relative to various

facets of the guidance program was the use of the Guidance

Questionnaire.2

Education Needs. Volume 20, Guidance, is PROJECT

DESIGN'S publication which presents its interpretations from

the Guidance Questionnaire which was given to seniors at all

six high schools in the Presno City Unified School District—

PROJECT DESIGN (Inter-Agency Planning for Urban

Education Needs) was organized as a two-year project to
develop a comprehensive long-range master plan of education
for the Presno City Unified School District in Presno,
California.

2The Guidance Questionnaire was developed by Dr.

Clarence Mahler and Harold Bonillas (Chico State College)
for a Master's Thesis. The purpose of said questionnair e
was to "ascertain more of the overall climate of a high
school and hopefully to measure changes either when personnel
changes are made or when definite program changes are made."
Mahler was consultant to PROJECT DESIGN on guidance. (Based
on personal correspondence between Dr. Clarence Mahler, De­
partment of Psychology, and the writer, October 19, 197G.)
1
 2
one of which was Bullard High School. This PROJECT DESIGN

document slates that "the most pervasive impression one gets

±rom studying these thirteen items is that seniors in our

high schools do not view the counselor role as having much

significance or influence on their lives."5 The thirteen

ioems mentioned ahove are those which relate to counselor

role. Similarly, the eight items which relate to self under­

standing yielded data which was interpreted to mean that "25

to 50 percent of the study "body of the individual • high schools

feel that the counselors have "been of little or no help with

the problems they face in planning their future.

Similar data was cited relative to the school's
aiding students to find their strengths and weaknesses, the

use of occupational materials, the interpretation of test

results, time for discussion about problems that bother them,

and finally that "high school guidance programs are not

presently designed to systematically improve the self under­

standing of the student as to his talents, abilities, and

achievement."5 So that it is understood that the above is

not an indictment of the Eresno City Unified School District's

Guidance Department, PROJECT DESIGN makes it clear that the

5EdwardE. Hawkins (director), et al.. PROJECT DESIGN.

Vol. XX , Educational Needs: Guidance Ti7resno: Eresno City
Unified School District, JxJScT}, p. 9.

^Tbid., p. 8.

5Ibid., p. 9.
aoove condition is about normal for almost all high schools
in the State of California.

Hence, a need was felt by the Fresno City Unified

School District's G-uidance Department to attempt to improve
even with the same limited resources. At the same time

as the previous need was being expressed, the Guidance De­

partment at Bullard High School and two faculty members were

designing a course in psychology which was partially a re­

sponse to PROJECT DESIGN'S needs assessment described above,

and p artially a response to a significant curricular vacuum

felt by the parties above. A third need for a pilot course

in psychology, which was more implied than directly stated,

was that a course of this type would possibly serve as a

training-ground for future counselors and possibly as a

method of preparing personnel and materials for the guidance-

oriented ninth grade plan also submitted by PROJECT DESIGN'S

g
Educational Master Plan.
Further support for a guidance-oriented psychology

class can be found in the "General Recommendations. . ." and

"Major Conclusions. . ." sections of Vol. 20. PROJECT DESIGN

Educational Needs.7 A complete detailing of the above would

take too much space; however, a sample is warranted. One of

^Edward E. Hawkins (director), et al. PROJECT DESIGN,

Vol. C , Edunati onal Master Plan:Implementation; Planned
Change (Fresnoj Fresno Ci'cy Uni xied School District, _l963),
ppl 11-2 32-36.

7Ibid., Vol. XX, p. 33.

 4

ohe general recommendations was "instructional programs

aimea au enhancing student's academic and personal effective-

8
ness." Hence, it was felt that there was more than necessary
support for such a curriculum innovation.

lhe intent, then, was to produce a pilot guidance-

oriented psychology class in which an attempt would he made

to implement and supplement, where possible, guidance goals

by using psychology subject matter; hence, the fulfillment

of the two primary needs—those of curriculum and those of

guidance—was attempted simultaneously.

From a survey of the literature relative to tie

above, two significant items were evident. They are as

follows:

1. Even though many psychology courses have goals

similar to the psychology course at Bullard High

School, none except the latter has as one of its

explicit goals the implementation and supplemen-

tation of guidance goals.9

2. The appropriateness of teaching psychology at the

high school level is totally justified and well

substantiated.10

8Ibid., p. 33.

^See the bibliography for sources consulted.

10T. L. Engle and M. E. Bunch, "The Teaching of Psy­

chology in the High School," American Psychologist, XI (Febru­
ary, 1956), 188-93. Soe also "Special Issue, Teaching Psy­
chology and the Behavioral Sciences in the Schools," Journal
of School Psychology, V (Spring, 1967), 168-261.
 5
xhrs introduction is intended to yield some histori­
cal and etiological perspective about the nature of the

course. Similarly, this should lead one to understand the

primary purpose of this thesis, which is the evaluation of
the above program.

In view of the need for guidance, curriculum, and

the concomitant need for evaluation, the importance of t he

thesis should be clear. In addition, the prospect that this

program may be a partial basis for a more extensive and

effective guidance program is particularly pragmatic.

THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The purpose of this thesis was to perform a statisti­

cal evaluation of the Bullard High School pilot guidance-

oriented psychology program in two respects cited below:

1. To determine the actual amount of psychology
subject matter learned by the students.
2. To compare the implementation of guidance goals
in a guidance-oriented psychology class with
similar guidance goals of the Guidance Depart­
ment at Bullard High School, Fresno, California.

Analysis
Both of the above problems were analyzed with appro-

priate statistical tests. The related questions asked below

were stated in comparative terms without stipulating the

specific statistical measure which was used. Null hypotheses
 6
were developed to test the questions stated below. An

explanation of the relevance of each question asked below is

in the "Importance of the Study" section. When the questions

below were answered, the problem statement was satisfied.

1. How much psychology subject matter did the stu­

dents know after completion of the course as compared to the

beginning of the course as measured by the revised "Engle

Psychology Test," alternate and equivalent forms "E" and "E?"

2. How did the non-psychology students of the class

of 1970 perceive the implementation of guidance goals as

compared with the PROJECT DESIGN sample students of the

class of 1968?
3. How did non-psychology students perceive the

implementation of guidance goals as compared with the psy­

chology students' perceptions of the implementation of gui­

dance goals at the beginning and at the end of the school

year?
4. What effect did the guidance-oriented psychology

class have on the students'- perceptions oi t he implementation

of guidance goals at the end of the course as compared with

the student's perceptions of the implementation or guidance

goals at the beginning of the course as measured by the Gui­

dance Questionnaire at the beginning of the course and the

Modified Guidance Questionnaire at the end of the course?

Statement of the Hypotheses

The hypotheses below were tested using the null

hypothesis form. These hypotheses were proposed to answer

 7
the above questions. They were stated in pairs, (except

for one and two), the first of which deals with item subtests,

and the latter of which deals with individual item tests.

They are as follows:

1. The psychology students will not know signifi­

cantly more psychology subject matter at the conclusion of

the course as compared to the beginning of the course as

measured by the revised "Engle Psychology Test," alternate

and equivalent forms "E" and "F," as measured by a t test

for uncorrelated means and a second t_ test for correlated

means.
2. There will be no significant differences on the

Guidance Questionnaire items between the PROJECT DESIGN sample

(seniors of the class of 1968) and the non-psychology sample

(seniors of the class of 1970), as measured by the chi square

test of independence.
3. There will be no significant differences on the

Guidance Questionnaire subtests between the non-psychology

seniors (class of 1970) and the psychology seniors (class of

1970, September administration) as measured by a t test for

uncorrelated means. No significant differences between the

same groups will occur on individual items as measured by the

chi square test of independence.

4. There will be no significant differences on the

Guidance Questionnaire subtests between ohe non-psychology

seniors (class of 1970) and the psychology senior control

group (class of 1970), as measured by at test for uncorrelated
 8
means. No significant differences between the same groups

will occur on individual items as measured by the chi square

test of independence.

5. There will be no significant differences on the

Guidance Questionnaire subtests between the psychology class

control and experimental groups (class of 1970) on the

September administration as measured by a t test for uncor­

rected means. No significant differences between the same

groups will occur on individual items as measured by the chi

square test of independence.

6. There will be no significant differences on the

Guidance Questionnaire subtests between the psychology

control group in the September and June administration, as

measured b y a t test for "uncorrelated means. No significant

differences between the same groups will occur on individual

items as measured by the chi square test of independence.
7. There will be no significant differences between

the experimental psychology students' responses to the sub­

tests of the Guidance Questionnaire administered in September
and the Modified Guidance Questionnaire, administered in June

to the same group, as measured by a _o test for uncorrelated

means. No significant differences between the same groups

will occur on individual items as measured by the chi square

test of significance,
8. There will be no significant differences between

the control psychology students' responses to the subtests

of the Guidance Questionnaire and the experimental psychology
 9

students' responses on the subtests of the Modified Guidance

Questionnaire, both of which were administered in June,

1970, as measured by a t test for uncorrelated means. No

significant differences between the same groups will occur
on individual items as measured by the chi square test of
independence.

Delimitations

The following factors were delimited for this study:

1. The revised "Engle Psychological Test" forms "E"

and "F" were used as the sole indicator of subject matter

evaluation. According to the test author, both forms are

highly correlated standardized tests of achievement. They

were written by the author of the text used in the class

ana contain valuable norms which are not available on any

other test. Therefore, these tests were taken to be a repre­

sentative and fair sample of the subject matter presented

in class.
2. The questions on the Guidance Questionnaire are

not to be taken to be representative of all guidance goals.

Only those guidance goals represented on that instrument

were measured. Similarly, it is not the purpose of this

thesis to define behaviorally or any other way what guidance

goals may be.

3 This thesis is not intended to evaluate the, pilot

psychology class as a potential training—ground xor coun­

selors, even though one might be tempted to infer that if a

psychology teacher could successfully implement some guidance

 10
goals in a psychology class, then he could do so as a coun­
selor.

4. Any generalizations from this thesis pertain only

to the groups used at Bullard High School, Fresno, California.

Generalizations of these results to other situations, programs,

or subjects would be scientifically inappropriate until tested.

5. Replication is delimited from the scope of this

thesis.
6. The review of literature in this study was confined

to the materials available at Fresno State College up to

October, 1970.

Assumptions
The basic assumptions in this study included the

following:
1. The Guidance Questionnaire sufficiently samples

guidance goals, which were taken to be synonymous with

counselor goals, to be representative and correco.

2. The Modified Guidance Questionnaire with the modi­

fications which are noted later, is equivalent to the origi­

nal Guidance Questionnaire except for tne variable being
tested—namely that of the effect of the psychology class
relative to the implementation of the guidance goals being

tested.
3. The respondents to the questionnaire answered

honestly with ample time to complete the task.

4. The experimental group adequately differentiated
 11

"between guidance goals implemented in the psychology class

and those implemented in the Guidance Department, hence

maintaining the experimental variable uncontaminated.

5. The non-psychology students of the class of 1970,

which composed the secondary control sample, were unbiased.

This assumption is important because the original Guidance

Questionnaire could not be administered to this group at the

same time as the psychology control sample. The secondary

control sample took the Guidance Questionnaire during the

nineteenth week of school, and the psychology control sample

took the first administration during the second week of

school and again at the end of the school year.

6. The basic academic structure and function of

Bullard High School are the same as they were for the class

of 1968 and during the year which this study occurred.

7. The data from original PROJECT DESIGN study is

not spurious.
8. The personalities of the three teachers who

taught the ps ychology class had little effect on the results.

The researcher assumed that the positive and negative effects

probably cancelled out each other because of the team teaching

method employed.
9. Chi square analysis on individual items is no more

spurious than a student's t_ test on item suogroups.

]_Q # All groups tested against one another are sta­

tistically comparable.
11 The three response format of the questionnaire was

adequate in sampling the degree of student opinion accurately.

 12

12. The items on the questionnaire did not influence

each other.

13. The item subtests are logically arranged rela­

tive to measuring similar variables.

Importance of the Problem

In the introduction to Chapter 1 several remarks were

made indicating a need for various improvements in the Gui­

dance Program of Eresno City Unified Schools by PROJECT DE­

SIGN. It was shown that several recommendations were made

by PROJECT DESIGN which seemed to be fulfilled by the guidance-

oriented psychology class. The following significant points

were made:

1. This pilot program could be articulated into the

ninth grade model delineated in the Educational Master Plan.11

2. This pilot guidance-oriented psychology class

could be used as a training ground, a practicum, as it were,

for future counselors.

3. The subject matter of this pilot guidance-oriented

psychology class lends itself to the implementation of guidance

goals. The very focus of attention on human behavior blends

in with teaching-learning methodological experimentation,

which can help the future counselor complete his ideas on
how he can aid and assist the classroom teacher. The potential

here is almost limitless.

4. While this project implements guidance goals, it

also offers a needed subject matter xor students. This is

111bid., p. 11-72.
substantiated oy PROJECT DESIGN whose findings stated that

students did "express a desire for more courses that deal

with infcerhuman personal relationships. They seem to be

more aware than their parents or school personnel of the

need to learn how to live with other .people.1,12

5. Some guidance programs requiring trained clerical

aid (i.e. VIEW Project) could be facilitated by students
from this class.

6. Counseling loads could be considered to be

somewhat lessened because of the guidance activities under­

taken by the psychology teachers or the facilitation of same

by the same individuals.

7. PROJECT DESIGN made thirteen major conclusions

1 "5
from their study. Each is listed by its number, with the

intent that each item is fulfilled by this guidance-oriented

psychology class:
TE 20- 3. At the present time a restricted number
of students with special problems re­
ceive the focus of professional atten­
tion for guidance services.
TE 20- 5. The guidance program in Eresno City
Schools emphasizes diagnosis and
treatment rather than prevention.
TE 20- 6. Guidance personnel do not sufficiently
involve teachers and particularly par­
ents in their concern for personal
and academic success of students.
TE 20- 9. fAe present counseling program is •
weak in providing vocational gui­
dance at the secondary level.

12Ibid., p. H-72
 14

TP 20 - 10. High School students find little

or no opportunity to discuss
in school the problems that bother
them.
TP 20- 11. There is a need for a high school
guidance program designed to system­
atically improve self understanding
of the student as to his talents,
abilities, and achievements.

Definition of Terms

1. Chi square test of Independence, (x^). This is

a statistical test for significant differences with respect to
certain characteristics between two or more groups which have

been classified into categories. In this experiment there

were always two groups of subjects who responded to question-

naire items with one of three categories of response types.14

2. Confidence level. "By common consent an arbitrary

choice has been made to adapt two particular levels of
confidence. One is known as the 5 percent level, or .05
level, and the other as the 1 percent level, or .01 level."

Therefore, for the purposes of this thesis, any t or chi square

value that is within these limits (or greater, i.e., .001 level)
will be considered as a significant difference between the two
15
groups or items being tested and not attfioutaole oo ch ance.

3, Difference, significant. A difference which is

so great that it may not be reasonably attriouued to
chance factors (that is, sampling errors or errors of
random sampling); usually determined on ohe basis O ±

URobertH. Koenker, Simplified Statistics for Stu-

dents in Education and Psychology (Bloomington, Illinois; Mc
Knight and Mcknight Publishing Company, i9o1), p. 109.

15T p Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology

ana Education (Hew York: McGraw-Hill BOOK Company, 19WJ, 11.
 15
statistical tests such as t, E, x2. . ,16

4* Guidance goals. Those aims or objectives which

may be represented on the Guidance Survey used by PROJECT

DESIGN to evaluate and assess student needs relative to the

F.C.U.S.D. Guidance Department.

5. Guidance goal implementation. The F.C.U.S.D.

Guidance Department has no behaviorally stated objectives

and neither did PROJECT DESIGN when both agencies determined

that the Guidance Questionnaire was appropriate for their

needs. Therefore, the term goal is used instead of objec­

tive. The term implementation is used to directly denote the

fulfillment of certain student needs—a task assumed by the

Guidance Department.

6. Guidance-oriented psychology class. This refers

to specific attempts to implement goals within the subject

matter of psychology.

7. Hypothesis. Alternate. The alternate hypothesis

is that hypothesis which is accepted if the statistical test

involved indicates that null hypothesis should be rejected.

Depending on the mathematical sign (+ or -), _t test or the

direction of change in response categories in ohe chi square

test, it is then determined what kind of difxerence has

l6Carter V. Good (ed.), Dictionary of Education (2nd

ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p.
1211
 16
occurred. lor the t_ tests in this experiment, any alternate
hypothesis which may be accepted is expected to have a nega­

tive sign, except for one case. Statistically this occurs when
the mean 01 sample one is less than the mean of sample two

(Mi ^' w^Lere mean one occurred at a time period prior to

mean two; hence indicating a significant increase in whatever
is measured over that time period.

Therefore, for the purposes of this experiment, one-

tail t tests are conducted.1 7

8. Hypothesis, Null.
"A hypothesis stated that no
1R
difference or no relationship is hypothesized ..." No
relationship refers to no significant difference as measured

by some statistical method. This type of hypothesis is

methodological because a mathematical representation for the

alternative positive or negative hypothesis, in a test for

a difference between means, is not possible. "The null hy­

pothesis can be stated mathematically as a particular, well
19
defined, testable case."
Therefore, when the null hypothesis is accepted,

"it is said that the obtained difference is not significant"

20
and can be attributed to chance factors.

17Guilford, pp. 204-05.

1 William Wiersma, Research Methods in Education (New

York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1969;* P« 404.

1^Guilford, p. 173. P*
 17
9* Modixied G-ij.id.ance Questionnaire, That question­
naire modified as per the section on Methodology of this thesis.

..his is the experimental instrument, which is the modification

of Mahler's Guidance Questionnaire, the purpose of which is

to measure the experimental variable.

'0* Non-psychology students. Those students not

enrolled in psychology, but who participated as secondary

control subjects for the study, and who were members of the
senior class of 1970.

11. One-tailed statistical test. "A directional test

of a statistical hypothesis so constructed that the re­
jection region,for the null hypothesis is located entirely
in one tail."

12. Original Guidance Questionnaire. That questionnaire

used by PROJECT DESIGN to assess student needs relative to the

P.C.U.S.D. Guidance Department. This is the unmodified form

of the original Guidance Questionnaire.

13. Psychology experimental group. That randomly

selected one-half of the psychology students who took the

original Guidance Questionnaire at the beginning of the year

and the Modified Guidance Survey at the end of the year; who
completed all items on both questionnaires; who should show

a significantly greater implementation of guidance goals on

OA
Y/iersma, p. 404.
 18

the guidance survey than either of the control groups, if the

psychology class was effective in its implementation of gui­

dance goals.

14"* Psychology control group. That randomly selected

one-halx of the psychology students who took the original

Guidance Survey at the beginning and the end of the year; who
should show less indication of implementation of guidance

goals than the psychology experimental group, or the secondary

non-psychology control group, if the guidance goals are less
implemented by the Guidance Department.

15. Random Sample. This is the "selection of cases

from the population in such a manner that every individual

in the population has an equal chance of being chosen. In

addition, the selection of any one individual is in no way
tied to the selection of any other." In all cases in this
22
study, these criteria were met.

16. Secondary non-psychology control group. Those

students who were not enrolled in psychology; who were members

of the senior class of 1970; who served as a method to detect

contamination of the psychology control group; who also were

compared to the original PROJECT DESIGN sample (1968) data

to obtain validity and reliability measures for the Guidance

Survey.

22Guilford, p. 139.
 19
11' Subtests for Guidance Questionnaire and Modified
Guidance Questionnaire. These are groups of items which v/ere
stipulated oo represent or classify eight types of school be ­

havior. Two classifications were employed by PROJECT DESIGN

in their analysis of Guidance Questionnaire data and remained

intact for statistical comparisons in this study. These classi­

fications are labeled as "Counselor Role according to PROJECT

DESIGN" and student "Self Understanding according to PROJECT

DESIGN."25
The remaining six classifications were not employed

by PROJECT DESIGN but appeared to be valid categories as

generally agreed upon by counselors and deans at Bullard High

School. Of the six classifications which follow, only the

first four appeared to be relevant to this study: (1) Coun­
selor Role in Addition to PROJECT DESIGN, (2) School-Student
Relationships, (3) faculty—Student Relationships, (4) ouudent—
24
Student Relationships, (5) General, (6) Miscellaneous.
Note that five and six above are not considered rele­

vant to the study, but all items had to be classified so that

t tests could be employed.

18 t test for uncorrected Means. This is the

"ratio of a deviation from the mean or other parameter, in a

25Hawkins, Vol. XX, pp. 8-9-

24Maioritv
agreement was reached on the categories
Majorioy ag principal, school psycholo-
)y a ranking process by ^ Bullard High School,
iist, three counselors, ana uwu
?resno, California.
 20

distribution of sample statistics, to the standard error of

ohat distribution" where the means arc independently sampled,

and where various sample size and characteristics are met.

these are the conditions for which the questionnaire subtests

were designed. The exact formula will be specified in Chapter

3.25

ORGANIZATION OR THE STUDY

Chapter 2 is composed of a brief description of the

guidance-oriented psychology class under study and a review

of the pertinent literature in the Eresno State Library.

Chapter 3 is a detailed account of the Methodology

and statistical results of the subject matter and guidance-
goal implementation study. Chapter 4 is the interpretation

of the statistical tests in Chapter 3, by hypothesis.

Chapter 5 includes the summary, conclusions, and

recommendations for further study.

^Guilford, p. 182.
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OP THE PERTINENT LITERATURE

RELATED TO THE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

The library search on this paper's topic was some­

what of an exercise in semantics and. interpretation. The

apparent differences in teaching approaches and course

organization lie in their nomenclature and emphatic trend

they represent. Some high school psychology classes are

primarily subject matter oriented, v/here self understanding is

hoped to occur by cognitive knowledge of the subject; some

classes focus on the life-adjustment orientation, where

subject matter is secondary. The class under study had a

core curriculum which emphasized subject matter, yet main­

tained a set of activities related to subject matter which

were the basis for implementation of guidance goals.

The division described above seems obvious enough

until one asks how self—understanding, life adjustment, and

guidance goal implementation are different from the above

categories? The distinction was not made in the literature;

hence, it was assumed that if a researcher had reported on an
attempt to supplement and implement guidance goals, then it

21
 22
would have been stated as such. Therefore, in the search
for references where others had worked on the sarne or simi­

lar problem presented in Chapter 1, nothing was found where

guidance goal implementation was attempted in psychology

classes by teacher-counselors. Belenky, and Mosher and

Sprinthall reported in tv/o separate articles about the Newton

High School Project, which most closely approximated what was

attempted at Bullard High School.2^' 27

With the preceding background in mind, this Chapter

was organized to reflect the state of the literature, yet

separate the basic approaches into categories—subjective

or not. Hence, the Chapter contains a brief description of

the guidance-oriented high school psychology class at Bullard,

the relationship of the two preceding categories, a recent

trend, and a summary.

Historically, there is evidence that psychology in

secondary schools was offered prior to tne twentieth century.

In fact, T. C. Upham's Elements of Mental Philosophy was used

in some schools beginning in 1831. In 1889 the first nigh

2^RobertBelenky, "Guidance and the Teaching of High

School Psychology," Community Mental Health Journal, II, 1
(Spring, 1966), 4-1 -46.
27RalohL Mosher and Norman A. Sprinthall, "Psycho­
logical E ducation'in Secondary Schools: A Program to _Promote
Individual and Human Development," American Psychologist, XXV
(October, 1970), 911-924.
28A A Robach. "Psychology in American Secondary
Schools i, n, Psychologist. YII (January,
1952), 44-45.
 23

school text cooks contained tho word psychology in their

uiolcs. ihere were seven books on psychology intended for

high school use available in 1890.^

Since the beginning of high school psychology, and

continuing today, psychology has appeared in the curriculum

in many other forms. Some high schools offer courses which

are primarily psychological in content but have such course

titles as Mental Hygiene, Human Relations, family Living,

30
Social Problems. Similarly, psychological information has
been offered in commercial and vocational classes, home eco­

nomics, sociology, civics, health, biology, and general

science. Engle stated that guidance programs account for a
considerable amount of instruction that is of a psychological
31
nature. Engle does not elaborate on how guidance makes
this contribution. In view of the dearth of literature rela­

tive to a guidance-oriented psychology class, the researcher

assumed that Engle probably was referring to the traditional

one-to-one cou nseling relationship.

The preceding section represents the problem of pre­

senting literature pertinent to this study. Even though there

29c. Louttit, "Psychology in the Nineteenth Cen-^

tury High School," American Psychologist, XI (December, 1956),
717.

3°t l Engle and M. E. Bunch, "The Teaching of Psy­

chology in the * High School," American Psychologist, XI (Febru­
ary, 1956), 188-93.

31m e EnD"le and Louis Snellgrove, Teacher's Manual

^ nMr~+i*r- ^ Use with Psychology, Its Principles
and ZlicalloL (gto ed.; Kewlorh Wilrt, dirace ah
World, Inc., 1970), p. 4.
 24
is much written on high, school psychology and behavioral
science m high school and elementary school the persistent
conclusion by the writer is that there is little, if any,

consistent approach to high school psychology—especially as

i" elates to guidance goal implementation. Nolan supported

uhis idea in his study by stating that, "despite the fact

that psychology seems to have merit as a secondary subject,

there exists little uniformity of opinion regarding its exact

role."32

The most extensive researcher into the nature of high

school psychology courses throughout the nation is T. L.

Engle. Although he has collected a considerable amount of

questionnaire data on the subject, he admits that "we do not

know [what] most high school psychology courses are like."33

Both Engle and Nolan present a large quantity of data

relative to curriculum emphasis, teacher qualifications, de­

partment placement, comparative subject matter emphases by

teachers and psychologists, and suggestions for improvement.

This data, however, would be inappropriate for this thesis be­

cause it is irrelevant to its primary objective. Therefore,

those findings relevant to the description of the Bullard High

32Robert
L. Nolan, "School Psychologists and Counsel­
ors View the Role of the High School psychology Course,"
Journal of School Psychology, V (Spring, 19o/), 1/7-84.

53T L Engle, "Teaching Psychology at the Secondary

School Level: *Past] Present, Possible Future," Journal of
School Psychology, V (Spring, 1967), I / .
 25
School guidance-oriented psychology class will he presented
in the following section.

In a final attempt to determine if any published or

unpuolished accounts relative to this thesis problem were

available, three letters of inquiry were written. Each

le u ix specifically requested sources on the topic or know­

ledge of someone who would be able to provide information.

The first letter was written to Periodically, which

is puolisned by the American Psychological Association for

the expressed purpose of providing information to teachers

of precollege psychology. The result was the reference to

two articles, neither of which answered the problem question.

The second and third letters were sent to T. L. Engle

and Louis Snellgrove, respectively, v/ho c oauthored the text

used in the guidance-oriented course and who have published

widely on high school psychology. Engle replied with pre­

viously unfruitful suggestions. He made no direct response

to the notion of the guidance-oriented psychology clsss in

question. Snellgrove replied similarly but stated that

"although I have not researched journals, libraries, etc.,

in recent years on your topic, I would doubt that you will

34
find any experimental data on your topic."
In summary, an exhaustive search for relevant infor­

mation was attempted. Many resources referred to high school

54Based on personal correspondence between Dr. Louis

Snellgrove, Professor of Psychology, Lambuth College, Jackson,
Tennessee, and the writer, Octooer, 1970.
 , _ 26
psyc ology; however, none were found to relate to the problem
in question.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OFfflEGui:DAKCE ORIENTED PSYCHOLOGY

CLASS AT BJLLARD HIGH SCHOOL

In the Spring of 1969, the planning and preparation

began for a pilot psychology course. It was to he a guidance-
oriented cou rse offered to seniors as a one year elective

course. Sngle and Snellgrove's widely accepted high school

oexo and laooratory activities manual were o r d e r e d . O r i ­

ginally a team of four guidance personnel were to operate the

program. This consisted of Barbara Thomas, dean-administra-

uion; Paul Chaimes, guidance counselor; Dominic Papagni, a

biology teacher and credentialed counselor; ani the writer,

also a biology teacher and credentialed counselor with a

second major in psychology. It was agreed that the former

two participants would articulate the guidance activities

and advise; and that the latter two participants would imple­
ment the curriculum as teachers.

Later, Paul Chaimes was advanced to another position

at another school; Barbara Thomas was not allowed to partici­

pate as fully as anticipated because of administrative policy

and duties; Dominic Papagni was advanced to counselor at

midyear; while the writer and a psychology student teacher,

Engle and Louis Snellgrove, Psychology, Its

Princioles and*Anolications and Record of Activities and Ex­
periments (9th ed.. New xork: Harcourt, Brace and World,
Inc., 1970).
 27
Miss Jeanette Abrahamian, remained the only consistent year-
long teachers.

Philosophy

Even though there were many reasons for organizing

the course, one "basic rea son existed. George A. Miller,

American Psychological Association President, summarized our

basic concern in his presidential address:

The most urgent problems of our world today

are tne problems we have made for ourselves ...
Tney are human problems whose solutions will require
us to cnange our behavior and our social institu­
tions.bb

The members of the previously mentioned team attempted

to employ or implement the potential of guidance services in

the subject matter framework of psychology. Of note, however,

was the transition from the concern summarized by Miller to a

philosophy and resultant attitude which permeated the imple­

mentation of the course. This same philosophy and attitude

was exceptionally well stated by Miller. His concern as a

psychologist was with how to promote human welfare. His so­

lution was to "discover best how to give psychology away" to
the public.^7 The team, then, coincidentally shared the same

concern as Miller did.

Miller proposed to implement a solution based on the

research of McGregor, whose theories evolved from studies of

industrial management, and Varela, whose "paradigm" evolved

36George A. Miller, "Psychology as a Means of Pro­

moting Human Y/elfare," American Psychologist, AAIV (December,
1969)," 1063.

^7Ibid., p. 1063-75.
 28
from .vuhn's research on scientific revolutions. McGregor's
contribution was the Theory X and Theory Y formulation of
work behavior, which follows:

,, xJ'leory X is the traditional theory which holds

that oecause people dislike work, they must be coerced,
^controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment
bexore tney will do it. People tolerate being directed,
and many even prefer it, because they have little ambi­
tion and want to avoid responsibility. McGregor's al­
ternative Theory Y, oased on social science, holds that
work is as natural as play or rest. External controls
are not the only means for inspiring people to work.158

This latter theory states that individual self-

direction will occur as a function of commitment to an objec­

tive, when rewards are associated with the goal; similarly,

people will seek responsibility; "imagination, ingenuity,

and creativity" are widely dispersed among people but poorly

facilitated in our society.

The ramifications of the above are obvious education

per se. Is not the teacher the manager of his "educational

industry?" Does this not have very important implications

for the managers of a course in psychology?

Miller summarized Varela's conception of "our current

social paradigm" as follows:

All men are created equal. Most behavior is
motivated by economic competition and conflict is in­
evitable. One truth underlies all controversy, and
unreasonableness is best countered by facts and logic.
When something goes wrong, someone is to blame,^and every
effort must be made to establish his guilt so that he
can be punished. The guilty person is responsible for^
his own misbehavior and for his own rehabilitation, his
teachers and supervisors are too busy to become experts
in social science; their role is to devise ^solutions
and see to it that their students Oj. subordinates do
what they are told.59

39lbid., p. 1070.
38Ibid., p. 1070.
 29
The reverse of the above is fairly easily imagined
and would save space if not quoted. However, the stated

concept oy Miller is superior to any summary and must be

included in its entirety because of its obvious value. The

following alternative paradigm is based on psychological

research.

^ The re are large individual differences among people,

both in ability and personality. Human motivation is
complex and no one ever acts as he does for any single
reason, but, in general, positive incentives are more
effective than threats or punishments. Conflict is no
more inevitable than disease and can be resolved or,
still better, prevented. Time and resources for resolv­
ing social problems are strictly limited. When something
goes v/rong, how a person perceives the situation is more
important to him than the "true facts," and he cannot
reason about the situation until his irrational feelings
have b een toned down. Social problems are solved by
correcting causes, not symptoms, and this can be done more
effectively in groups than individually. Teachers and
supervisors must be experts in social science because
they are responsible for the cooperation and individual
improvement of their students or subordinates.4"0
The implications for the guidance-oriented psychology

class are multitudinous. Basically, every instructional

act, plan, and goal was made with this revolutionary concep­

tion in mind. The implementation or which is a near impos­

sibility under current educational circumstances, This,

then, is the case and potential possibilities for giving

away psychology to the non-psychologists, who practice psy­

chology poorly every day. Consequently, the aim is to teach

the "scientifically valid principles" of psychology so the

non-psychologists can practice psychology better.

40Ibid.
 30
GENERAL PROJECT GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

Needless to say, the transition from the attitude

expressed i n the Theory Y and alternative paradigm to goals

and activities was difficult. Similarly, this transition

is implied, rather than directly stated, hecause it is a

foundation upon which the various general goals and activi­

ties are "based. The section which follows enumerates these

goals and activities with a brief narrative explanation

where necessary. Unfortunately, a lack of time has not

permitted the delineation of behavioral objectives.

1. To aid each student in developing an understand­

ing of the dynamics of personal and social behavior with

special reference to the needs of the adolescent age group.

2. To create a learning environment, that is,

student-centered and teacher directed (not dictated;, where

psychology is presented as a science. The methods and

techniques of psychology are necessary to dispel the popular

beliefs that psychology is not scientific m its approach.

3 To develop a preventative failure mode of in­

struction with emphasis on success-oriented experiences

and the increased potential for student involvement. for

students with only a general interest who have heavy academic

loads, or students with a failure attitude in school, the

optional pass-fail grade system helped to optimize success

because the threat of a grade was removed. Similarly, the

u. student's desired level of accomplish
stress on success at tne smauit
^ hv sdvertising the specific types of
ment was increased oy aavex u
 31

behaviors necessary for "the given activity and test.

4. To develop a learning environment in which each

student is given an opportunity to practice and improve in

problem solving skills and make decisions about future

goals. Future goals decision making was implemented by

the Post High School Planning Unit and activities, laborator­

ies, and teaching techniques which stressed individual and

group problem solving and decision making.

5. To offer each student an opportunity for guidance

and counseling services through a guidance-curriculum oriented

learning environment. Curricularly, this was implemented by

addressing the course to adolescent needs. In relation to

guidance and counseling services this aim was implemented

by individual counseling interviews, some after-school group

counseling, and guidance help when needed.

6. To promote individual responsibility oy individual­

ization of each program where the student maintains the re­

sponsibility for his program. The individual responsibility

was facilitated by contract programming for grades; time and

grade commitments relative to given units of self grading of
same; and student designated projects, programs, etc., which

' provided for individual relevance in the curriculum.

7 To present an adequate and representative core

curriculum. This is basically what is contained in most

elementary psychology curricula except that the high school

students' needs are greatly considered; therefore, lecture

time is reduced, discussion time, gaming techniques and

 32
laooratories are increased. In an attempt to preserve

space, yet prevent any mystery as to the overall curricular

content ox course, a "brief outline follows. It is certainly

not intended to be detailed, for example, it would be

prohibitive to explain such special units as the relationship

of transactional analysis to riots and such tragedies as the

Kent State deaths.

a. Historical development: philosophy, religion,

modern systems of psychology.
b. Biological "background of behavior: heredity,
nervous systems, endocrine systems, population
dynamics as a psychobiological function, learn­
ing, biologically induced "mental illness."
c. Individuality: differences in intellectual
ability, achievement, aptitudes, personality,
relationship to norms and values, and adjustment.
d. Learning and thinking: classical and operant
conditioning, remembering and forgetting, prob­
lem solving, creative thinking, practical effi­
cient learning.
e. Maturation and development: physical and be­
havioral development in infancy, babyhood,
childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age.
f. Mental health: conflicts, frustration, defense
mechanisms, personal and social adjustment,
anxiety, psychoneuroses, psychoses, aggression,
systems of therapy, etc. _
g Motivated and emotional behavior: drives, needs,
personal-social motives, emotional motivation,
emotional states,
h Sensation and perception: the senses, attention,
object and personal perception, etc.
i Social behavior: social-psychology attitudes,
"beliefs propaganda$ v/ork, social oherapy, and
sensitivity groups, family relationships,
i Statistics* measurement of central tendency and
variability, scales, distribution of measure­
ments and correlation as tools of validating
h.vpo*fch.eses, menial measur ements ^
k Post High School Plans: an extensive two semester
search into individual decisions about his future,
psychology of work and recreation.
8. To implement or supplement guidance goals. Some

of these goals were fullfilled by the following activities.

, . „ _ mil-audit interview with each
a' stSdjnHwKere all standardized test data from
 33
grades eight through twelve was interpreted;
kuder Occupational Interest Survey, Form DD
interpretation; correlation of interests,
abilities and vocational development validation.
D. Being available for individual counseling as
the student's need arises.
c. Interpretating standardized tests in class
sized groups.
d. Making occupational, college entrance and
scholarship information.
e. Conducting some small group counseling after
school for groups with special interests, whe­
ther they were academic or personal, or about
psychology. There is no implication of therapy
in the above.
f. Encouraging greater use of their guidance coun­
selor whenever possible.
9. To implement the counselor's role in accordance

with PROJECT DESIGN'S recommendations and a separate research

paper done by the writer, from which several conclusions were

reached about how the counselor-teachers would implement

their counselor role function. The full content of said

paper is not appropriate here; however it did have consi­

derable bearing on the above goal. First, it was determined

that there are many similar statements of the appropriate

role a counselor should maintain. Second, it appears that

Duniap and Westrate were correct when they stated that the
"question of the counselor's role, so vigorously researched

and argued during the 60's, seems.now as we begin the 70's

to be less relevant than questions related to how that role
can be implemented."41 Third, this role can be. determined

largely by t he counselor's own perception of his role; hence,

q Duniap and Donald Westrate, "The School Coun-

R. S. Duniap ,0+ ?«» Poous on Guidance, II
selor: Generalist.or Specialism , _
(March, 1970), p. 1-
 34
this perception yields various expectations of teachers,

students, parents, and administrators.42 Fourth, research

indicated that counselors were more nearly "quasi-adminis-

trators or quasi-clerks than they were guidance workers or

A "5
counselors.11 This view is supported "by Dunlap44 and
PROJECT DESIGN, which stated that:

a. Guidance personnel perform their appropriate

function as well as administrative functions.
t>. Counselors are viewed as "being "administration
oriented" "by students, teachers, administrators,
and "even themselves;" hence because of other
factors, the "counseling position, rather than
emphasizing student service, has become a step­
ping stone to administration."45

Needless to say, in the implementation of the coun­

selor's role by the psychology teachers, the student service

role was adopted. No administrative functions were attempted.

Similarly, the perception of the role was constant with PRO1-

JEOT DESIGN'S recommendations relative to stressing "decision

making," focusing on "developmental" rather than "remedial"

student services, and maximum "accessibility" of these ser­

vices to every student by the people most accessible to the

4i"2D.E. Johnson, Expanding and- Modifying Guidance Pro­

grams. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968), p. 4.

43Ibid., p.,10-11.

44Dunlap, p. 1.

4 ^Edwar
d E. Hawkins (director), et al., PROJECT DESIGN
Vol. c, Mimntinnfll Master Plan; Implementation: _ Planned
Change (Fresno, Fresno City Unified Scnool District, 19oo;,
PP. 11-134-35.
 55
student namely, "the "par ent, guardian or teacher.

Hence, the above idea was tested by the guidance-

oriented psychology class which stressed developmental func­

tions; it was taught by teachers who were also counselors,

who were accessible and non-administrative task oriented,

whose role was focused on student services. Interestingly

enough, Belenky suggested that secondary "counselors would

be more effective if they influenced unashamedly and taught

a psychology course."^ Belenky based his paper on his

observations, experiences and conclusions of the Newton High

School psychology project. This project was well described

by Mosher and Sprinthall and seemed to have many of the oo-

jectives of the Bullard guidance-oriented psychology class;

however, no mention was made of implementing guidance goals

48
or using counselors as teachers.

SUMMARY

The research for this chapter indicated that no

direct information or data on a guidance-oriented psychology

class appeared to exist. Much has been written about psy­

chology or behavioral science curricula at many levels xn the
schools. Therefore, a brief description of the course under

study was made, including the goals of same. The goals of the

^Ibid.

47Belenky, p. 41-

^^osher and Sprinthalx, p. 911 24.

course were intended to reflect and implement recommendations
made o y PROJECT DESIGN in its evaluation of Guidance. Fi­

nally, tne c ounselor's role as teacher of this class was

explored and noted to "be similar to the appropriate role

submitted from several sources.

The next chapter tests the implementation of the

counselor's role in the guidance-oriented psychology class

as well as other scales pertinent to guidance goal implemen­

tation.
 Chapter 3

METHOD AND RESULTS OR STUDY

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this thesis is to evaluate

the guidance-oriented psychology class relative to subject

matter accomplishment and guidance goals implementation.

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the study design

(method) and present the results of the study.

This study generated a large quantity of data and

resultant statistics; similarly, the study design is some­

what complex. Therefore, the format of this chapter is

arranged so as to provide a molar overview of the study

design and results and then a detailed treatment 01 same.

This approach should allow the reader co see the "forest

for the trees," as well as provide xor a simplified presen­

tation. Chapter 3 will note all significant data; however,

the discussion and interpretation of the data is reserved

for Chapter 4.
All statistical computations were made by the Eresno

State College Computer Center Staff, Rail, 19/0.

THE GENERAL STUDY DESIGN AND RESULlS

How much psychology subject matter did the psychology

37
 38

students le^rn? This question was analyzed "by administering

equivalent forms of an appropriate standardized test to the

students at the beginning and at the end of the academic

year. The population sample was all students who remained

in the class for the full duration of the year. The data

was tested with a t test; the results were highly signifi­

cant. It was demonstrated that the amount of psychology sub­

ject matter learned by the psychology students was significant­

ly more than they knew when they entered the class.

Since the PROJECT DESIGN data was used to demonstrate

the need to implement guidance goals more adequately, it

was necessary to ask the following question: How did the

PROJECT DESIGN sample in April, 1968, compare with the non-

psychology sample in January, 1970, relative to guidance

goals implementation? The same forty-six item questionnaire

(Guidance Questionnaire) was administered. A chi square test

of independence was used to determine statistical differences

between the samples for each item on the Guidance Question­

naire. The test resulted m significant differences in

three of the forty-six items. These differences, occurred

on items twenty-one, twenty-three, and xorty-six. At least

it can be said that these two groups showed no significant

differences with respect to forty-three oi the forty-six

items. The above question is answered by hypothesis number

two, the purpose of which was to determine if the PROJECT

DESIGN study population was the same as the current study

population.
 39
Similarly, the next set of tests was performed to
determine if the psychology sample population was repre-

sentative of cue toual class of 1970. If no significant

differences are xound or the same significant differences

between groups occur, then there would "be no significant

differences "between the groups and representativeness would

be assumed. The testing was somewhat complicated "by the fact

that the non-psychology students could not be sampled at the

same times as the psychology students; hence, all the psy­

chology students who completed the course, and appropriately

completed the Guidance Questionnaire at the start of the

course were compared against the non-psychology sample for

hypothesis three; and a random sample of the psychology sample

who took the Guidance Questionnaire in June was compared to

the non-psychology sample to satisfy hypothesis four.

Chi square tests of independence were made on all

items, and t_ tests were made on all suotests. (See Chapter

1 for subtest definition.) Relating to hypothesis three,

three significant differences were found on subtest four,

six, and seven, which are School-Student Relationships, Stu­

dent-Student Relationships, and General Relationships re­

spectively. Chi square results for each item indicated sig­

nificant differences for each of the following sxx items:

five, ten, twenty-one, thirty, thirty-two, and thirty-nine.
Relative to hypothesis four, no significant differences were

found on subtest or individual items. Inspection of the

items revealed that most are related to time situations or
 40
variables which, would nob make the psychology group unrepre­

sentative, especially since no differences appeared in the

June sample of the psychology sample.

The previous tests were employed to determine the

representativeness of the psychology groups to the whole

senior class non-psychology group. The tests for hypothesis

five were employed to determine if the psychology control

group was comparable to the psychology experimental group

at the beginning of the school year on the Guidance Question­

naire. If both groups were comparable, then there should be

no significant differences in either chi square or t tests.

There were no significant differences; hence comparability

was concluded.
The above tests as well as the one to follow begin

to answer question four in Chapter 1, which asks what effect

the guidance-oriented psychology class had on guidance goal

implementation. Hypothesis six was written to determine if

there were any change in the psychology control group Be­
tween September and June relative to guidance goal imple­

mentation by the Guidance Department. In short, if no signi­

ficant differences were found, then the effect of the Gui­

dance Department in implementing guidance goals was not sta­

tistically measurable. Therefore, if any significant dif-

. Vi^rnn'i"hese3 seven and eight, then they
ferences were found m hypomcots
night to attributed to the effect of the guidance-oriented
psychology class. The chi square tests on each iter* had no

significant differences. The t tests indicated only one

 41
significant difference, which, was for subtest six, Student-

Student Relationships. lor the control group between Sep­

tember and June, there was a significant decrease in opinion,

for all practical purposes, then, the control group remained

unchanged, particularly with respect to the Counselor Role

and Self Understanding subtests and items employed by PROJECT

DESIGN.
Hypothesis seven was one of the critical hypotheses

employed to determine the effect of the guidance-oriented

psychology class on guidance goal implementation. The method

was to compare the experimental group of psychology students

in September and June on the Guidance Questionnaire and the

Modified Guidance Questionnaire respectively. The Modified

Guidance Questionnaire is the Guidance Questionnaire altered

so that the effect of the psychology class was measured,

rather than the Guidance Program per se. The t tests indi­

cated significant differences on subtests one, two, tnree,

six, and the whole questionnaire (total t test on all items
combined). According to these results, there were significant

increases in the following subtests: (1) "Counselor Sole

According to PROJECT DESIGN", (2) "Counselor Role m Addi­

tion to PROJECT DESIGN," (3) "Self Understand
ing," and (4)
•t rVioi There was a significant decrease
the questionnaire as a whole, meie
n . 1 ^-t-j n~n^hins. which might mean that
on the Student-Student relationships,
looc; qtress on "money and clothes,
the students perceived les^
- jr oiiaues, etc. in the psychology
"getting-in with students, - 1
. se. Briefly, then, the students
class than in the school ___
in the psychology class they could talk more
indicated that in
 42
aoout things that bothered them, have a conference with their

psychology teacher more easily, understand themselves more,

feel more personal interest, get along with other students

better, study better, be assured that their future was better

planned, be trusted more by the psychology teachers than

other teachers, feel less emphasis on grades, and see less

stress on "money and good clothes" in their fellow psychology

students. (The above are paraphrased segments of the
question for purposes of illustration).

The eighth hypothesis was equally as critical as

hypothesis seven. It was the final test where psychology

control and experimental groups were compared to determine

the effect of the guidance-oriented psychology class on gui­

dance goal implementation. In this case, the control group

Guidance Questionnaire data was compared with the experimental

group Modified G-uidance Que stionnaire, both of which v/ere

administered in June. The t test, results indicated significant

differences in subtests one (Counselor Role According to

PROJECT DESIGN) and two (Counselor Role in Addition to PRO­
JECT DESIGN) and the whole questionnaire (total t test on all
items). The chi square tests results indicated xifteen sig­

nificant differences. Seven of those differences were on the

same items as hypothesis seven; hence their general content

will not be repeated. Briefly, then, the experimental stu­

dents indicated that in the psychology class they could talk

about problems that bothered them, detect fewer cliques than

in the school £er se, have more responsxoxlxty for unexr own
 43
leaxning "than in the school per so, detect more friendliness

in tne class ohan in school per se, feel more "real considera­

tion" given to the ideas of students, and feel that discipline

problems had "been fairly handled in comparison to the school

cer se» Two negative relationships occurred: the experimen­

tal group indicated that the psychology class helped less

with, teacher problems than the counselors, and that they

discovered less information relative to their strengths and

weaknesses than the school had helped with the same function.

In summary, the four questions asked in Chapter 1 were

satisfied "by the statistical tests on eight hypotheses. The

results were briefly presented. This section was not in­

tended to be a technical analysis of the design, evaluation

or results, but rather a general report on design and results.

The technical version of same follows.

THE SPECIFIC STUDY DESIGN AND RESULTS

FOR SUBJECT MATTER EVALUATION

As the reader will recall, question one was to be an­

swered by testing hypothesis one. The hypothesis stated in

the appropriate null form for testing is as follows:

The psvcholovy students will not know significantly
more psychology subject matter at the conclusion 01
more psyomuj-ufc./ t beginning of the course
the course as co p ^vise£ "Engle Psychology Test," al­
as measurea oy th forms "E" and "F," as measured by
ternate ana equivalent lorn test for correlat-
a t test for uncorrelated means and a t test lor correiat
ed means.
Ihe independent variable which was measured in hy-

pothesis one w as 4-v cnniprt matter

the suo^ect matt«x function of the psychology
n 4- was the achievement of the
class. The dependent variuDi
 44

students on the subject matter tests. The instruments used

xo measure the dependent variable were the "£ngle Psychology

lest," forms "E" and "P." Engle is the coauthor of the

text used (see Bibliography).

The experimental method was basically a pre—post

administration format of the "Engle Psychology Test."4"9

''Form E" was given to all the students at the beginning of

the year. Then, at the end of the year, approximately one-

half of those who took "Form E" and remained in the class
were randomly selected to take "Form E" and the other one-half

of the students randomly selected to take "Form P." Ran­

domization was accomplished by using a book of random

numbers and placing those even numbered students in "Form

E" and the odd numbered students in "Form F" groups.

The reason for the above split-half test and sub­

sequent randomization was to control for the possible inter­

vening variable that "Form E" and "Form F" might not be
equivalent (even though the test booklet stated that they
were) and might therefore lead to spurious soatistical re­
sults. The sample size (14) was nine by-one students, all of
whom took "Form E." After randomization, the "Form E" sample

was forty-three and the "Form F" sample was forty-eight.

The experimental design dictated that two t test

types be employed. She first test was between forms »E" and
"F" in June to determine if there was a significant difference

aq n• a - f*r\Y» p c ontent disti?i"bu.tion end i^em

classification of6the "Kngle ts^ology fast, Form E ahd F,'
 45
between iOrms. This v/as the test f or substantiating the

author's claim of statistical equivalence. Fisher's t

test for uncorrelated means v/as used, the formula for which
follows:

t = M1 - M2 50

X2X + X22 e] + N2

Nx + N2 - 2 H-jNg

The t value for this test was a -0.0068 with 89 degrees of

freedom; hence it was statistically insignificant, indicating

that the two forms were equivalent.

The second test v/as to compare the "Form E" admin­

istration in September with the cumulated results of both

forms administered in June. A t test for correlated means

used the formula which follows:

M1 - M2 51
t =

S2) -( J)2
N2 - (N - 1)
The t value for this test proved to oe highly significant;
therefore, it v/as concluded that a significant amount of psy­

chology subject matter was learned.

The t value was a -25.3020 with 90 degrees of free­

dom. Any value greater than + 2.632 was considered significant

50t b Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology

and Education (New York; Company, 1**,. P- 1<».

81 _ T /nnnVpr Simplified Statistics for Sou—

i tt
Robert H.
Koenker, -naoomingtori. minors:
dents in Education and -L^.YC . "*4- .. 1961), p. 91.
hcKnight and McKnigbt Rublxsnmg Company, iybU, p. a..
 46
to the .01 or 1 percent level of confidence. The minus

sign could De disregarded since there was a mean increase

on the test, nence this value was regarded to be highly

significant, indicating that there was an increase in sub-

jeco matter. It was with a high degree of confidence that

hypothesis one was rejected and its alternate hypothesis

accepted—namely that there would be a net increase in sub­

ject matter learned. Table 1 summar izes the data below.

Table 1

t Test Summary for Statistical

Tests of Hypothesis One

Test t Value Degrees of Significance

freedom indicated by
asterisk

Equivalence - 0.0068 89

Subject Matter -25.3020 90 * at .01

level

In summary, hypothesis one. was rejected and its al­

ternate accepted. Statistical values of t indicate that the

two forms «E" and »F« of the "Engle Psychology Test" were

equivalent and that the students showed a statistically sig­

nificant net increase in subject matter learned.

m-u-p qpmnTPIC STUDY DESIGN AND RESULTS

FOR GUIDANCE GOAL IMPLEMENTATION

The primary purpose of this section is to present

a detailed treatment of the study methods and results. The

 47
problem m Demg detailed and understood when there is a

large body of statistics is not new in writing. The objec­

tive of the a.o rmat of this section is to be scientifically

correct and appropriate in presentation, yet to maintain a

potential xor understanding the findings. Therefore, the

first p^-rt 01 this section will retain traditional academic

standards by p resenting a complete treatment of the experi­

mental method and statistical results. The latter part of

this section will present only significant results closely

associated with the items and subtests to which they are

related. Perhaps this v/ill lead to a more comprehensive

understanding of the important findings of this experiment.

In relation to the last statement, it should be noted that

this study would not have been possible without the personnel

and facilities of the computer center at Presno State College.

Study Design Specifics

Hypotheses two through eight were designed to answer

questions two through four. Hypotheses two through six were

intended to test the representativeness of the samples to

the total populations, which would insure the-appropriate­
ness of generalizing about same. Hypotheses seven and eight

were the critical tests to measure the effects of the psy­

chology class on guidance goal implementation.
Table two denotes the relationship among the various
owawc! denote the fact that a
groups tested. The two-way arrows denouo
-j Atnted along the arrow is the
statistical test was made, b
 48
hypothesis tested between the groups. Each square notes the

population name, the instrument used with it, and the date

of test. Hypothesis two was tested only with a chi square

test of independence. All other hypotheses were tested by

both the chi square test of independence for items and the
t test for uncorrelated means for subtests.

fable 2
Diagrammatic Representation of
Test Group Relationships
 49

^Guidance Questionnaire (See Appendix B).

*-*Modified Guidance Questionnaire (See Appendix C).

The section that follows is a complete delineation of

the relationship between the questions asked in Chapter 1 and

the hypotheses proposed to test them. In addition, each

hypothesis will be analyzed in terms of the independent,

dependent, or possible intervening variaoles which relate

to same. Similarly, sample detail will be presented with

each hypothesis.
Question two. How did the non—psychology students
of tEe*~Class of"l970 perceive the implementation of
guidance goals when compared with the iROJnCT DESIGN
Sample students of the Class cf 1968?
Hypothesis two was proposed to test question one.

It is as follows:
There v/ill be no significant differences on the
n -j
Guidance n .i.-r,r,rloi"T'p items
Questionnaire it between the PROJECT
} and the
DESIGN sample (sen; f/rJs^f the Class of 1970),
non-psychology sample (o . independence,
as measured by tne chi square icsu ^
In hypothesis two there was no variable directly
„0v,o>,Ar' hence, there is no true
manipulated by the reseo.rcner,
 50
independent variable. However, the variable being measured
is the guidance goal implementation by the Guidance Depart­
ment. In relation to this is the dependent variable which
is the student's perceptions of the guidance goal implemen­
tation.

The purpose of this test was to determine if the

students in the class of 1970 perceived the implementation

of guidance goals similarly to the class of 1968, which

was the PROJECT DESIGN sample. The necessity for knowing

if any significant differences existed was: (1) to determine

if any changes in guidance goal implementation by the

Guidance Department had rendered the 1970 sample statisti­

cally contaminated since this would affect the interpre­

tation of data relative to this study, and (2) to obtain

possible basel ine data for comparative purposes. If no

significant differences occurred, then it could be con­

cluded that the two samples were comparable; hence gener­

alizations between the guidance-oriented psychology class

and the PROJECT DESIGN sample would be made possible. (Hy­

potheses three and four tested the representativeness ox

the psychology sample to the non—psychology sample.) The

possible intervening variable.in this teso was ohe pos sible

changes in the guidance program.

The PROJECT DESIGN sample was composed of 226

seniors who were apparently randomly sampled on a day m

April. Information on the sampling procedure could not De

 51
obtained, however, irom interviews with the Bullard Guidance
Department it would appear that the method was appropriate;

certainly an N of 226 should yield a representative sample

from a senior class total of approximately 420 students.

This sample apparently contained students who had been at

Bullard High School from one to all three years. The non-

psychology sample of the class of 1970 had an N equal to 2.12.

In order to be included in the sample, the student had to be

present on January 19, 1970; he could not be a psychology

student; and he had to complete all items (for statistical

purposes). Since the N sizes of both populations were large

and apparently random, it would appear that there were no

sampling biases present.

Question three. How did the non-psychology students

perceive the implementation of guidance goals when com­
pared with the psychology student's perceptions of the
implementation of guidance goals at the beginning and
at the end of the school year?
Hypothesis three and four were designed to test

question three. They are in order as follows.

mhoTA will be no significant differences on the

differences beuwe
dividual items as
inaep endence.
 52
It was necessary to use two hypotheses to answer
question three oecause of the poor, yet unavoidable, timing
01 the non-psychology sampling—January. This factor in

itself could be a significant intervening variable, which

if left uncontrolled, might possibly render the data spurious,

or at least questionable; therefore, the best control for

this intervening variable v/as to test before January and

after January. This was accomplished in the only way possi­

ble, which was to use the September Guidance Questionnaire

data from all psychology students, and the one-half of the

September sample known as the psychology control group.

The whole September sample could not be used because there

would be n o subjects for the experimental group.

As with hypothesis two, hypothesis three has no

independent variable in the sense that the experimenter

manipulated the factor being measured. However, the variable

being measured v/as guidance goal implementation between

September and January for the class of 1970. Tne dependent

variable is the student's perceptions of tne guidance goal

implementation. The purpose of this test was GO de termine

if the psychology class students were a representative sample

of the class of 1970. The intervening variable for which

it was necessary to control was the possibility tnat tne

psychology students were not representative because they se­

lected the psychology class for reasons known to them. Thus

the possibility of their not being representative of the

class of 1970 was necessary to control. Without controlling

for same it would not be permissible to generalise the

 53
experimental results to the class of 1970 or the PROJECT

DESIGN Sample, all of which would render the experiment use­

less.

The hypothesis three test is not as critical, how­

ever, as the hypothesis four test. The reason for this is

that the moso intensive counseling period for most seniors

is between September and January; hence changes are expected.

The hypothesis iour test compares the January non-psychology

group with the June control group. More statistical credence

was placed on this test because there was a full year of

guidance goal implementation time for the June control group.

This test would positively indicate three objectives if no

significant differences were found: (1) the psychology

control group was representative of the class of 1970, (2)

that any differences found in the hypothesis three test

could probably be accounted for by the intervening variable

mentioned above, and (3) even when a longer period of

guidance goal implementation time was available, the groups

remained similar. Furthermore, in relation to tests seven

and eight to be discussed later, this test would indicate

that the psychology class itself was probably not a detectable

intervening variable relative to the comparability of ohe

psychology and control groups in terms of their differenti­

ating between the effect of the Guidance Department and the

psychology class in implementing guidance goaio. Therefore,

if few or no significant differences are found' in hypothesis

 54
teso throe and no significant differences are found in

hypothesis oest four, then it will be concluded that the

psycnology class s oudents were representative of the class

Ox 1970 and that the control group can be compared with the
PROJECT DESIGN sample.

The sample sizes for the non-psychology group, the

psychology group, and the psychology control group, were

212, 71, 32, respectively. The population data for the

first two p receding groups was supplied. The June psychology

control group was randomly selected from the September psy­

chology group with a table of random numbers in which

each student was given a number. The even numbers became the

control group and the odd numbers became the psychology ex­

perimental group. Other criteria the students of each of

these two g roups had to meet v/ere: (1) remain in the

psychology class the whole year, (2) be a three year Bulla
rd

student, (3) and complete all items on the questionnaire.

The above three criteria were for s oatistical purposes and

to control student response oiases in those wno had not,

had a three year exposure to Bullard, or who had had an
incomplete ex posure to the psychology class. The only dis­
parity among the non-psychology population (N=212) ana the

September psychology and the June psychology populations

was the requirements that in the latter two populations the

students had to be a three year "native" of Bullard. The

purpose for this requirement was that these populations were
 55
much smaller. The smallness (N=71 and 32 respectively)

could have caused a population "bias because of an uninformed

or unexperienced opinion which would have an increasingly

greater effect as the population sample size reached thirty.

This factor was not controlled in the much larger non-psy­

chology population because the possible difference would be

much less detectable statistically in a sample size of 212;

and because the PROJECT DESIGN sample v/as in that order

(226) and was not stratified relative to this factor. In

any event, it was reasoned that if this factor was signifi­

cant it would be detected in the hypothesis four test results.

Question four. What effect did the guidance-

oriented psychology class have on student's percep­
tions of the implementation of guidance goals at the end
of the course as compared with the student's perceptions
of the implementation of guidance goals at the beginning
of the course as measured by the Guidance Questionnaire
at the beginning of the course and the Modified Guidance
Questionnaire at the end of the course?
Hypothesis five through eight were designed to

test question four. Since each hypothesis served a special

function, each will he treated separately. Hypothesis five

is as follows:

>efore, was not directly manipulated by the

waver the variable beihg measured was the

meriter; however,
 56
guidance goal implementation of by the Guidance Department.

The degree of implementation of guidance goals perceived by

the psychology students was the dependent variable. If

the statistical degree of significant difference is small

and, therefore, statistically insignificant, then the groups

would be con sidered to be comparable. The purpose of

this test was to insure that randomizing resulted in com­

parable groups. This test was, in effect, a control for

potential intervening variable of group selection bias.

These two groups were randomly selected from the

psychology group (N=71). This was done with a book of

random numbers from which each student was assigned a

number. The even numbered students became the psychology

control group (September) and the odd numbered students

became the experimental group (September). Sample sizes

were thirty-seven and thirty-four respectively.

Next in the series of tests of question four is

that designed by hypothesis six, whicn is restated below:

There will be no significant differences on the
Guidance Questionnaire subtests between the psychology
control group in the September and June administrations,
as measured by a t test for uncorrected. means. No
significant differences between the same groups will
occur on the same groups on individual items as
measured by the chi square test 01 independence.
The independent variable being measured was the

guidance goal implementation by the Guidance Department.

The dependent variable was the control group-s perceptions

of guidance goal implementation hy the Guidance Department

from September to June. Tbe potential intervening m

 57
variable was the effect of the psychology class on the

student's perceptions of guidance functions implemented by

both uh e gui dance Department and the psychology class. Shis

variaole was controlled by the response "set" established

in the Guidance Questionnaire.

The purpose of this test was to determine the degree

of implementation of the guidance goals represented by the

questions on the Guidance Questionnaire. If from the fore­

going hypothesis, it could be ascertained that this control

group was representative of the whole psychology class—not

significantly different from the experimental group, and

representative of the class of 1970—then valid comparisons

could be det ermined if there were significant differences

found relative to the experimental variable, tested by

hypotheses seven and eight.

The method of randomizing to form this group was

previously mentioned. The sample size in ohe September

sample v/as thir ty-seven; in June, it was thirty-two. five

students were disqualified because they did noo appropriately

complete the June questionnaire; hence their responses could

not be used statistically.

Hypotheses seven and eight were the two critical

experimental tests where the experimental variable was

tested. The next step v/as to deter mine the effect 01 the

psychology class on the implementation of guidance goals,

which effect was tested by hypothesis seven, which follows:
 58
There will be no significant differences between the
experimental psychology student's responses to the sub­
tests of the Guidance Questionnaire administered in
September and the Modified Guidance Questionnaire ad­
ministered in June to the same group, as measured by a
t oest^ for uncorrelated means. No significant differ­
ences between the same groups will occur on individual
items as measured by the chi square test of independence.

The independent variable being measured by hypothesis

seven is the effect of the guidance-oriented psychology class

on guidance goal implementation from September to June on

the experimental group. The dependent variable is the stu­

dent's perceptions of that implementation. These percep­

tions were measured by the Modified Guidance Questionnaire,

which will be discussed in the section immediately following

this one in this chapter. The Modified Guidance Questionnaire

itself could have been an intervening variable producing

spurious results. The changes in it were examined by three

colleagues who agreed that the changes in the Guidance

Questionnaire were consistently made throughout tne question­

naire and were appropriate to the variaole being tested,

hence, face validity was accomplished. The modifications

of the Guidance Questionnaire were designed to change the

frame of reference from the Counselor, Guidance Department,

or school to psychology teachers or psychology elates,

or psychology class respectively. If the face validity

accomplished was true, then it could be concluded that any

nooiir 3,s a function of tnc
significant differences that occux
independent variable being teeted were caused by it, provided
these changes had not been detected in the tests of hypotheses
 59
four, live and six. The method of selection of the experi­

mental group was previously explained. The sample size was

thirty-four at both administrations.

hypothesis eight was the second test of the experi­

mental variable. Hypothesis eight follows:

There will be no significant differences between

the^ control psychology student's responses to the sub­
tests of the Guidance Questionnaire and the experimental
psychology student's responses on the subtests of the
Modified Guidance Questionnaire, both of which'were
administered in June, 1970, as measured by a t test
for uncorrelated means. No significant differences
between the same groups will occur on the same groups
on individual items as measured by the chi square test
of independence.

The independent variable tested by hypothesis eight

is the effect of the guidance-oriented psychology class on

guidance goal implementation of the psychology control and

experimental groups in June as measured by the Guidance

Questionnaire and Modified Guidance Questionnaire respective­

ly. The d ependent variable is the student's perceptions

of that implementation at the same poinc in time June

which is the conclusion of the class. This test was neces­

sary to make the final statistical comparison between the

control and experimental groups. If, in lact, there are

significant differences between the June and September

administrations of the experimental group, there snould

also be significant differences between the control ana

experimental groups. The method of sample selection and

, -nr»p>vi ouslv discussed for ohese groups,
sample size nave been previo y
. ,
Immediately +
ton -follow is a discussion'of the
follow it,
 60
questionnaire instruments; then, a detailed presentation
of the data.

Questionnaire Instruments

ihe sources of the Guidance Questionnaire and its

use in PROJECT DESIGN were previously explained in Chapter

1. Ihe questionnaire was modified consistently along the

following guidelines:

1. All questions must be changed in a consistent

fashion.

2. Any item which cited counselor in a direct

capacity in a personal role would have "psychology teacher"

substituted.
3. Any item which cited counselor as part of the

guidance services would have "psychology class" substituted.

4. Any item which cited counselor where it was the

purpose of either the psychology class or the psychology

teacher to perform a similar role had both referents substi­

tuted.
5. Any item where the "school" was cited as the

active participant or place of an activity would have "psy­

chology class" substituted.

After the items were modified, j.ace val idity was

attempted by having the following individuals (whose positions

are noted) check each item:

1. Mr. R. J. Langley, Student Coordinator for

Computer Services, Fresno Staoe College.

 61
2. Dr. I. A. Griffiths, Professor of Education,
Fresno State College.

3. Mr. Dominic Papagni, Counselor, Bullard Higi

School, Fresno City Unified Schools.

4. Mrs. Barbara Thomas, Dean of Girls, Bullard

High School, Fresno City Unified Schools.

The final product was agreed upon by all the above to be

consistent and representative of the variable being measured.

The second major concern was with simplifying the

forty-six item questionnaire into fewer number types; hence,

the subtests. The questionnaire was divided into eight sub­

tests which are named by the predominant benavior characoeris-

tic which it represents. The subtest numbers and names are

presented i n Table 3 below.

Table 3

Guidance Questionnaire Subtest

Numbers and Related Names

Subtest Name
Subtest Number
Counselor Role According
to PROJECT DESIGN
Counselor Role in Addi­
2 tion to PROJECT DESIGN
Self Understanding Accord­
ing to PROJECT DESIGN
School-Student Relation-
4 ships
Faculty-Student
5 Relationships
 62
Sable 3 (continued)

Subtest Number Subtest Name

6 Student-Student
Relationships
I General

8 Miscellaneous

The same procedure was used to validate the subtests.

Both Deans, the three counselors, and the school psycholo­

gist were asked to indicate on the Guidance Questionnaire

(arranged by subtests) if each item was appropriately

categorized. There was majority agreement, including the

idea that the items in the "Miscellaneous" and "General"

categories should be deleted from the study. Inasmuch as

the whole questionnaire was administered by PROJECT DESIGN,

so was this—the case in study—primarily to prevent new

inter-item biases from occurring. The questionable items

were simply relegated to meaningless categories and treated
as such. It should be noted tnat subtests one and three
are identical to the grouping that PROJECT DESIGN used, as

their name suggests. A sample of the original C-uidance

Questionnaire, its instructions, and answer sheet is in the

Appendix. It should he noted that the Qui dance Questionnaire

was used with the permission of Dr. Clarence Mahler.52

52~ a nr1 r,prsonal correspondence between Dr.

Based on per Psvchology at Chico State
Clarence Mahler, Professor
College, and the writer, October, 1970.
 63

Similarly, the first three subtests were taken to

be most relevant to guidance goals. The other subtests

certainly were not the exclusive domain of the Guidance

Department—if at all. The other subtests covered important

oehavioral areas, but not necessarily guidance goals;

hence, they were labeled for the type of behavior they

represent.

x^ach i oem and its modified form, to be treated in

the nexo section of this paper will be associated with sig­
nificant data.

Statistical Tests and Results

The purpose of this section is to accomplish the

following:

1. To delineate the statistical tests employed.

2. To present the data obtained from these tests

in its complete form, its abbreviated significant form, and

in association with the items on the questionnaire.

3. To present a sample statistical interpretation

of a significant item or subtest.

4. To present a brief narrative summary of the

test results.
Two different statistical tests were used to evaluate

the data. The subtests were tested by risher's t_ between

uncorrelated means.The precise xormula xor this test

53-p. - oher »s t test for correlated means was used for

the subject matter test because of the nature of the data.
 64
was presented in the first section of this paper. Basically

a t test is used to detect differences between means of uncor­

rected populations. In this study, the Presno State College

computer was programmed to sum all the totals of all eight

suDoests, plus a total questionnaire subtest, and compare

the means of these suotests between the groups being com­

pared. To remain mathematically and scientifically correct,

null hypotheses were stated for test; however, most investi­

gators attempt to disprove or reject the null hypothesis and

therefore accept an alternate hypothesis. Traditionally,

the level of confidence and the direction of the expected

change are stated in advance by the investigators.

for this study, the investigator stated in advance

that the traditional levels of confidence would be used for

interpretation. These are the five percent and one percent

levels of confidence. Similarly, the expected direction of

change was stated—namely, that if any significant differ­

ences did oc cur, they would indicate a positive difference

in favor of the guidance—oriented psycnology Ciass. ihis

means statistically that a one-tail test interpretation

could be per formed, as opposed to a two-tailed interpretation.

(See Guilford, pages 171-224.) This method of interpretation

was used consistently according to prescribed values ox tne

five and one percent levels of sigmncance.

The chi square test of independence was employed to

test for significant differences between a pair of items

between any two test populations employed. The chi square,

however, is a test between observed and statistically computed

 65
expected results relative to the populations and character­

istics Deing tested. A "two by three" cell test format

was employed. This means that there were two test popula­

tions (i.e. psychology control vs. psychology experimental),

and three categories into which their behavior was classi­

fied (i.e. their response types of Much, Somef or Little or

None on the questionnaire). The traditional levels of con­

fidence were consistently used and the direction of signifi­

cance was noted on all items according to the computer print­

out contingency table. The Yates correction for continuity

was employed to correct for small response categories.

It was decided to employ both statistical tests

because the t test would allow the simplification of the

lengthy forty-six item questionnaire into categories, which

would si mplify interpretation. Yet, because the categoriza­

tion of items into subtests might lose significance because

of a "weighting" effect by one or two very significant xtems,

the chi square test for individual items would yield a

mare specific analysis of the data.

Tests of t v/ere perf ormed on hypotheses one and

three through eight. Hypothesis two was not compatible

to the t test because PROJECT DESIGN did not publish (nor

could it be located) the individual response sets for each

student; hence another good reason for the chi square test.

Similarly the chi square test was not compatible with the

data for the test on hypothesis one (subject matter). The

statistician who advised the investigator was. Mr. R. J.

 66
Langley, computer Center Student Coordinator. His authority

was th e sour ce of the statistics to be used and the relevant

statistical assumptions which related to same.

ihe exact statistical values obtained by item and

hypothesis on ihie chi square tests of independence are

presented in the tables oelow. A single asterisk adjacent

to any value means that it was significant to the five

percent level of confidence. A double asterisk indicates a

significant value at the one percent level of confidence.

There were two degrees of freedom for all chi square tests;

hence the critical value for the five percent and one per-
54
cent level was 5.991 and 9.210 respectively. The numbers
listed under the column Subtest Classification correspond

to the subtests as follows: One, Counselor Role According

to PROJECT DESIGN, Two, Counselor Role in Addition to PROJECT
DESIGN'S, Three, Self Understanding According to PROJECT
DESIGN, Pour, School-Student Relationships, Five, Eacuity-

Stuaent Relationships, Six, Student-Student Relationships,

Seven, General, and Eight, Miscellaneous. Appendix E con­

tains all the raw data used to compute chi squares.

54Guilford, p. 582.
 Table 4 67

Gni I+lu2s ?er hypothesis by Item

with Subtest Classification Noted

Subtest'
Hypothesis Classi­
2 fica­
Item 3 4 7 8 tion
1 1.27 1.86 2.10 0.00 0.00 26.70** 25.29** Two
2 0.35 0.05 1.62 0.48 1.99 0.23 0.16 One
3 1.96 0.54 0.22 0.39 0.55 1.24 2.14 ' Seven
4 0.98 0.55 0.54 2.98 0.74 0.84 0.05 Three
5 1.38 6.00* 0.96 0.66 5.10 0.56 3.89 Three
6 3.75 1.20 1.42 0.69 3.31 0.16 0.55 Pour
7 1.99 0.81 0.48 0.10 1.090.13 .1.13 Pour
8 0.56 3.71 0.23 1.31 2.26 11.58** 2.05 Three
9 4.79 0.04 3.36 0.43 1.24 1.43 6.15 Three
10 4.11 6.20* 0.07 0.00 1.72 0.04 0.43 Eight
11 1.39 0.62 0.71 0.79 0.50 3.26 4.01 One
12 3.29 3.87 0.67 0.54 1.00 5.46 6.85* One
13 2.69 0.24 1.06 3.32 0.65 3 93 0.07 Pive
14 0.58 2.89 0.06 0.00 0.00 17.70** 10.20** One
15 3.86 0.45 3.11 0.41 0.84 2.72 9.46* One
16 1.23 0.52 2.39 2.58 5.63 0.19 0.74 Three
17 2.73 0.69 0.00 0.42 0.37 0.00 0.00 Eight
18 0.46 0.34 0.55 0.76 0.43 0.56 0.73 One
19 C.54 2.40 0.19 0.29 0.24 10.28** 3.9 6 One
20 2.27 2.45 2.11 0.90 1.45 0.19 2.90 Pive
21 27.23** 7.76* 0.77 2.97 3.08 10.27** 0.04 • One
22 1.28 5.87 2.91 1.00 0.35 2.52 0.38 Three
23 6.47* 0.21 0.34 0.06 0.22 0.63 0.63 One
24 0.77 0.56 0.06 1.05 0.44 33.05** 25.97** Two
25 0.06 1.75 1.07 0.07 0.44 0.37 0.18 Eight
26 1.90 0.08 3.14 0.81 2.06 2.69 5.62 Pour
27 3.78 1.04 0.10 1.27 1.47 9.49** 11.08** Six
28 2.26 1.33 0.46 0.43 0.59 .0.47 Two
3.59 One
29 2.46 1.69 2.91 0.15 5.26 2.52 2.33
30 1.15 2.47 0.52 2.40 0.07 Seven
3.28 11.20**
31 0.78 0.16 2.13 0.53 0.35 0.39 Six
0.05
32 1.70 9.79** 0.15 0.02 0.83 0.15 1.88 Six
33 0.43 0.94 2.05 2.11 4.01 0.78 1.48 Three
0.15 0.34 0.05 2.66 7.69* Six
34 0.23 0.21 Three
35 0.65 0.27 2.49 3.87 6.70*
3.05 1.34 25.08** Pive
36 2.17 4.49 1.07 0.08 3.95 18.08**
0.06 0,03 5.83 3.48 Pour
37 1.63 1.19 0.03 Pour
3.23 0.96 4.33 1.84 3.71
38 0.97 0.02
39 6.61* 0.15 0.36 0.31 0.85 6.60* Six
0.63 1-.27 Six
40 2.43 1.47 1.47 0.34 0.03 0.41
3.98 One
41 5.69 4.29 1.14 4.35 0.77 25.02**
0.05 1.66 5 . 8 0 12.12** Pour
42 0.37 2.38 0.82
 63
Table 4 (Continued)

Subtest
Hypothesis Classi­
fica­
Item 2 0 4 5 6 7 8 tion
45 0.37 0.61 0.06 1.69 0.86 17.32** 16.13** Five
44 0.05 2.19 1.27 2.96 0.03 0.16 1.94 One
45 3.22 2.65 0.15 1.52 2.23 4.31 9.15** Four
46 7.73* 1.20 0.06 0.12 0.05 18.14** 11.01** One

The two negative values on the above table for hypothesis

eight indicate a negative effect by the psychology class.

All other values are positive. Since the above table is

relatively cluttered with the many insignificant values, a

similar table below indicates only significant values noted

hy single asterisks (values significant to the 5 percent

level of confidence), and double asterisks (values signifi­

cant to the 1 percent level of confidence).

Table 5

Significant Chi Square Results Only, Noted,

by Asterisks per Hypothesis by Item
with Subtest Classification

Hypothesis Subtest
Classifi­
4 5 6. 7 cation
Item
Two
One
Seven
3 Three
4 Three
5 *
Four
6 Four
7 Three
* Three
 69
Table 5 (Continued)

Hypothesis Subtest
Item 2 3 Classifi­
4 5 6 7 8 cation
10 * One
16 Three
17 Sight
18 One
19 •X--X- One
20 Five
21 •A* TV W -X--X- One
22 Three
20 *
• One
24 VCDO -X--X- Two
26 Eight
26 Pour
27 -X--X- *A''X~ Six
28 Two
29 One
30 -X-* Seven
31 •
Six
32 ** Six
33 Three
34 -X- Six
36 YC Three
36 -X--X- ** Pive
37 Pour
38 Pour
... .... -X- Six
39 •Xr

40 Six
-X--X- One .
42
** Pour
Pive
43 One
44 Pour
45 -X-'X- X"X One
46 *

table will
A graphic representation of the preceding
trends in the total number of signiiicant
aid in noting the

significant differences in hypotheses four, five and six.

Briefly, the acceptance of the null hypothesis for the pre-
4-o>n i c-Kes the representativeness of iH®
ceding hypotheses establishes one x ±
i ond exoerimental groups; hence, giving
psychology c onorol and exp
statistical meaning to the effect of the
significant positive sta
This representation is indicated on Figure
psycnology class, ini^ - F
 70

15

14

13
Number of
12
Chi Square ^^

Significant

differences 9

8
7
6
5

4
3
2

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Hypothesis

Figure 1

The Total Number of Chi Square Significant

Differences for each Hypothesis
Relative to Guidance Goal Implementation

•There were two negative values; this means that the experi­

mental group was negatively influenced by the psychology

class. All other values are positive and have the reverse

interpretation, depending on the hypothesis.

 71
The exact statistical values obtained by sub test and
hypothesis on the t^ tests are presented on Table 6, below.

A single asterisk adjacent to any value means that it was

significant to the five percent level of confidence. A

douoie asterisk indicates that it was significant to the one

percent level of co nfidence. There were varying degrees of

freedom on different tests; hence to simplify matters the

critical values, degrees of freedom, test means, and other

raw data for each test are presented in Appendix D.

Table o

t Values for Each Hypothesis

by Subtests

Subtest 1 Subtest 2 Subtest 3

Counselor Counselor Self

Role Role in Understanding
According Addition According to
to PROJECT to PROJECT PROJECT DESIGN
DESIGN DESIGN

Hypothesis 3 0.4002 0.3418 -0.5989

Hypothesis 4 0.0676 0.6117 -1.0652

Hypothesis 5 0.4421 1.3793 1.3946

0.2439 1.0442 0.1996

Hypothesis 6
-3.3188** -6.9402** -2.4463**
Hypothesis 7
Sig. .01 Sig. .01 Sig. .01

-6.2205** -0.8502
Hypothesis 8 -2.2776*
Sig. .05 Sig. .01
 72

Table 6 (continued)

Subtest 4- Subtest 5 Subtest 6

School- Faculty- Student-
Student Student Student
Relation­ Relation­ Relation­
ships ships ships

Hypothesis 3 -1.8787* -0.5425 -2.2888*

Sig. .05 Sig. .05
Hypothesis 4 -0.1286 - 0.1833 -0.5016
Hypothesis 5 1.3946 0.4526 0.4946
Hypothesis 6 1.4491 0.9429 1.7884*
Sig. .05
Hypothesis 7 -0.8113 -1.0288 2.5025**
Sig. .01
Hypothesis 8 -1.4591 -1.3353 1.5941

Table 6 (continued)

Subtest 7 Subtest 8 Total t

General Miscellaneous All items on

questionnaires

Hypothesis 3 -1.8869* 0.0329 -1.1046

Sig. .05

Hypothesis 4 -0.9887 -0.7956 -0.5094

Hypothesis 5 -0.9449 -0.7093 0.8940

Hypothesis 6 0.0978 -1.0143 1.0085

Hypothesis 7 1.2482 -0.1551 -2.7988**

Sig. .01

Hypothesis 8 0.6857 0.5060 -2.1685*

Sig. .05
 72

vlhen the preceding table has the insignificant

values removed and significant values noted with asterisks,

the trend is more detectable. In fable 7, which follows,

significance at the one percent level is noted by a double

asterisk and significance at the five percent level is

noted by a single asterisk.

Table 7
Significant t Values for Each
Hypothesis by Subtests

Subtest 1 Subtest 2 Subtest 3

Counselor Counselor Self
Role Role in Understanding
According Addition According to
to PROJECT to PROJECT PROJECT DESIGN
PESICR DESIGN

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 7 *"* **
Sig. .01 Sig. .01 Sig. .01

Hypothesis 8 * **
Sig. .05 Sig. .01
 74

Table 7 (continued)

Subtest 4 Subtest 5 Subtest 6

School- Faculty- Student-
Student Student Student
Relation­ Relation­ Relation­
ship ship ship

Hypothesis 3 * *

Sig. .05 Sig. -.05

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 6 *

Sig. .05
Hypothesis 7 **

Sig. .01
Hypothesis 8

Table 7 (continued)

Subtest 7 Subtest 8 Total t

General Miscellaneous All items on

questionnaires

Hypothesis 3 *

Sig. .05

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 6
-X-*
Hypothesis 7
Sig. .01
*
Hypothesis 8
Sig. .05
 75

Trie rea der should note that all the significant t

values are negative numbers except subtest six values for

hypotheses si.v and seven; these are positive values. First,

all negative values occurred as such because of the computer

program and the t_ formula. Actually the negative value notes

a positive statistical difference in favor of the effect of

the psychology class. Second, on subtest six a positive value

indicates the positive effect of the psychology class; this

is due to the nature of the questions, which soon follow.

Similar to the chi square table with ceil values presented,

the above t table is relatively cluttered; therefore a chart

presenting only significant values was prepared. The format

is the same as the similar preceding chart. Immediately

following is the corresponding figure representing the total

number of _t values per hypothesis.

The reader should note the relative lacx or signi­

ficant differences in hypotheses four, five, ana six. The

tests appear to have yielded similar outcomes; hence the
acceptance o f the null hypothesis and verification of the

representativeness of the psychology groups to the class of

+n PROJECT DESIGN data and
1970 and possible generalization to

conclusions.
 76

5 —
Number of 4
t Test
~ 3 —
Significant
Differences 2
1 —

3 , 4 5 6 7 8

Hypothesis

Figure 2

The Total Number of t Test Significant Differences

for Each Hypothesis Relative to Guidance
Goal Implementation

The graphic representation of the preceding table will

aid in noting the trends in the total number of significant

t values for each hypothesis. This figure supports the con­

clusion made about Figure 1 where positive statistical mean­

ing relative to the effect of the psychology class was noted.

The preceding tables and figure yield a great quantify of

statistics. However, the data was not in close enough proxi­

mity to the questions and related behaviors being sampled to

indicate exa ctly what the nature of the student response was.

For further clarification, the actual items are arranged by

subtest with related notation of statistical significance.

Each Guidance Questionnaire item and its Modified Guidance

Questionnaire equivalent is indicated. Between each dyad is

the related statistical notation.

Of similar importance is the meaning of a .05 or .01
 77
(live percent and one percent) level of significance inter-

prcoaoion. This means that under similar conditions only

five U ive percent) times or one time (one percent) out of

one hundred trials or experiments could this difference be

caused by chance or sampling fluctuations.

Subtest On e.* COUNSELOR ROLE According to PROJECT DESIGN.

2. How much have you met with your counselor

during the last year?
do significant differences on any hypotheses.
2m.A" How much have you met with your psychology
teacher during the last year?
11. How much do you talk with your counselor
about things that bother you?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
11m. How much do you talk with your psychology
class or teacher about things that bother you?
12. How much opportunity do you have to discuss in
school the problems that bother students your
age?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
12m. How much opportunity do you have to discuss
in your psychology class the problems that
bother students your age?

14. How much have the counselors helped you to

understand yourself more?
Significant difference on hypotheses 7 and 8.
14m. How much has the psychology class or teacher
helped you to understand yourself more?
15. When you have had problems with teachers, how
much have counselors helped you in solving them?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
15m When you have had problems with teachers, how
much have the psychology class or teacher
helped you in solving them?
18. How much have you talked with a counselor
when you have had personal problems?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
° 18m How much have you talked with your psycnology
teacher(s) when you have had personal problems?
'^Subtest On e, significant (.01) on Hypothesis 7, and signm-
cam (.05) on fiypo'!(^'t^^ 8'eStion on the Modified Guidance
**m stands for the modmed dqueboxu-u
Questionnaire.
 78
rnuch are your counselors personally
interested in you*?
Significant difference on hypothesis 7.
'9m. How much are your psychology teacher(s)
personally interested in you?

21. how much difficulty have you had getting a

. conference with your counselor?
Significant difference on hypotheses 2, 3> and 7.
21m. How much difficulty have you had getting a
conference with your psychology teacher?

25. How well does the counselor help you when you
feel you need help?
Significant difference on hypothesis 2.
23m. How well does the psychology class or teacher
help you when you feel you need help?
29. How much do you feel the counseling program
contributes to improving the total school
program?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
29m. How much do you feel the psychology class
contributes to improving the total school
program?
41. How much of a chance do you get to. talk v/ith
your counselor about things that really bother
you?
Significant difference on hypothesis 7.
41m. How much of a chance has the psychology class
or teacher given you to talk about things
that really bother you?
44. How many of the students in this school who
most need counseling are receiving such help?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.^
44m. How many of the students in this psychology
class who most need counseling are receiving
such help?
46 Do what extent are one guidance personnej.
associated v/ith this school competent?
Significant difference on hypotheses 2, 7 and 8.
46m To what extent are the psychology teachers
associated with this school competent?

Subtest Two.* nOIIHSSLQH ROLE IN ADDITION TO PROJECT DioIG-N.

1 How much help has your counselor given you
in getting along with other students.

^Subtest Two, significant (.01) on Hypothesis 7, and signi-

ficant (.01).on Hypothesis o.
 79

Significant difference on hypotheses 7 and 8.

1m- H°w ^ch help has your psychology teacher or
psychology class given you in getting along
with other students?

24. How much have you learned from your counselor

regarding good study habits?
Significant difference on hypotheses 7 and 8.
24m. How much have you learned from your psychology
class or teacher regarding good study habits?

28. How much help from your counselor have you

been given in getting along better with teachers?
Ho significant differences on any hypotheses.
28m. How much help from your psychology class or
teacher have you been given in getting along
better with teachers?

Subtest Three.* SELF UNDERSTANDING- According to PROJECT DE­

SIGN.
4. How much do you feel the school has provided
courses that will be of benefit to you in
later life?
Ho significant differences on any hypotheses.
4m. How much do you feel that the psychology
class has provided experiences that v/ill be
of benefit to you in later life?
How much do you feel the selection of courses
at your school allows you to explore your
interests as much as you would like?
Significant difference on hypothesis 3.
5m. Hov/ much do you feel the selection of one
psychology course at your school allowed you
to explore your interests?
8 How much help have you been given by your
counselor with, problems that have to do wiuh
the planning of your future?
Significant difiere^®h°^egP^e°you7been given by your
nsvchology class or psychology teacher with
problems that have to do with planning your
future?

ficant (.01) on Hypothesis 7.

^Subtest Three, signi
 60

How much has the school helped you to discover

d - i n - n - j f a- : ^ U r r e a l strengths a n d weaknesses?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
jTa' How much has the psychology class helped you
to discover your real strengths and weaknesses?
1^?w
much have you used the occupational materi-
a-Ls
prov ided in your schools?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
16m. How much^have you used the occupational materi­
als provided relative to the psychology class?
22. How much have the tests you have taken in
school helped you to understand your achieve­
ment and ability levels?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
22m. How much has the interpretation of school
tests in psychology class or by psychology
teacher(s) helped you to understand your
achievement and ability levels?

33. To what extent are you aware of your own

abilities and talents?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
33m. To what extent are you aware of your own abili­
ties and talents?

35. How much responsibility for your own learning

are you given in your school?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
35m. How much responsibility for your own learning
are you given in your psychology class?

Subtest Pour.* SCHOOL—STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS.

6. How much do you feel you have had as much oppor­
tunity as you would like to participate in extra­
curricular activities (ciubs, athietics, e oc.)?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
6.m. How much do you feel you have had as much oppor­
tunity as yon would like to participate in
extra-curricular activities (clubs, athletics,

etc.)?
7 How much have you participated in extra-cur­
ricular activities?
No significant differences on anyJ^otheses. extra-cur-
7m. How much have you participated m extra car
ricular activities?
•Subtest Jour, Significant (.05) on Hypothesis 3.
 26. How much have you felt "burned up" by rigid
^"c,a school rules, regulations, or
.„. assignments at this school9
slSni^icant differences on any hypotheses.

How_much have you felt "burned up" by rigid or

Sfii ^ry class rules, regulations or assign­
ments m the psychology class?

67. How much of a "run-around" do kids get in this

school?
IJo significant differences on any hypotheses.
67m. How much of a"run—around" do kids get in your
psychology class?

33. How much are the ideas and needs of students

considered in this school?
Ho significant differences on any hypotheses.
38m. How much are the ideas and needs of psychology
students considered in your psychology class?
42. How much real consideration is given to student
ideas in this school?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
42m. How much real consideration is given to student
ideas in your psychology class?

45. How many discipline problems of this school do

you feel have been handled fairly?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
45m. How many of the discipline problems of your
psychology class do you feel have been handled
fairly?

Subtest Hive.* FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS.

13. How much do you feel the school keeps you in­
formed of your progress?
No significant differences on any hypotheses;
13m. How much do you feel the psychology class or
teacher helps keep you informed of your progress?

20. How much personal interest have your teachers

given you in school?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
20m How much personal interest has your psychology
teacher(s) given you in school?
^Subtest Eive, no significant differences on any Hypotheses.
 3S' your™oSoo°vteaCherS really trU3t stu4ents
Significant difference on'hypotheses 7 and 8.
How mueh does your psychology teacher(s)
really trust students in your psychology class
43. HOY/ much does this school place too much empha
sis on good grades?
Signnicant difference on hypotheses 7 and 8.
43m. Hov/ mucn does your psychology class place too
much emphasis on good grades?

Subtest Six.* STUDENT-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS.

27. How much do you feel that students in this

school place too much stress on having money
and very good clothes?
Significant difference on hypotheses 7 and 8.
27m. How much do you feel that students in the psy­
chology class put too much stress on having
money and very good clothes?

31. How much trouble have you had in getting "in"

with students in this school?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
31m. How much trouble have you had in getting "in"
v/ith the students 'in the psychology class?

32. How friendly are the other students in this

school?
Significant difference on hypothesis 3.
32m. How friendly are the other students in your
psychology class?
34. How much do Yre have c liques (close "in" groups
of students in this school?
Significant difference on hypothesis 8.
34m. How much do we have cliques (close "in" groups
of students in your psychology class?

39. To what extent do you feel this is a friendly

school? ^
Significant difference on hypotheses 3 ana 8. _
39m. To what extent do you feel this is a friendly
class?

•Subtest Six, significant (.05) In H^thesis*

(.05) on Hypothesis 6, ana significant (.01) on Hypothesis
7.
 85
40. Plow much opportunity do you have to really
. . , S® 0 "to know other students?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
40m. How much opportunity do you have to really
geo L,O kn ow other students in your psychology
C lclSS?

Subtest Seven.* GENERAL

?.* HoV muc-':1 y°u enjoy attending school?

No significant differences on any hypotheses.
3m. How much do you enjoy attending your psychology
class?

30. To what extent do you have an opportunity to

be of value to your school?
Significant difference on hypothesis 3.
30m. To what extent do you have an opportunity to
be of value to your psychology class?

Subtest Eight.** MISCELLANEOUS.

17. How much help have you been given by your coun­
selor in money management?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
17m. How much help have you been given by your psy­
chology class or teacher in money management?

25. How much have you talked with your counselor

about health problems? If you have not had
health problems, how much would you talk with
your counselor if you did have such problems?
No significant differences on any hypotheses.
25m. How much have you talked with your psychology
teacher about your health problems? If you
have not had health problems, how much would
you talk with your teacher if you did have such
problems?

(.05) on Hypothesis 3.
^Subtest Seven, sl^t^ificant differences on any hypotheses,
**Subtest Eight, no srgnxiic
 84
SUMMARY

i ere ar*_ fa r coo many separate significant dif­

ferences to interpret independently. These differences and
uhe precise behavior sampled -^re noted in the previous

section. Of particular importance, however, is the general

trend that the data indicates, particularly for subtests one

through three, the total t subtest and the individually sig­

nificant items. In general, hypotheses tw<~> through six were

accepted—meaning that the class of 1970 was statistically

similar to the PROJECT DESIGN sample from the class of 1968.

Similarly, the psychology samples were statistically similar

to the class of 1970; hence, any significant differences

which occurred in hypotheses seven and eight could, accord­

ing to statistical probability, be the effect of the guidance-

oriented psy chology class. Therefore, it would apnear that

items relating to Counselor Role According to PROJECT DESIGN,

Counselor Role in Addition to PROJECT DESIGN, and Self Under­

standing, According to PROJECT DESIGN categories of behavior,

as sampled hy the questionnaires employed, were implemented

in a statistically greater decree in the guidance-oriented

psychology class than by the Guidance Department.

The next chapter will Interpret ohat assertion in

view of other variables that relate to the above.

 Chapter 4

DISCUSSION ON THE STUDY RESULTS

The owo primary purposes of this study were to

measure subject matter implementation of the psychology

class and compare guidance goal implementation by the Gui­

dance Department and guidance-oriented psychology class.

Hypothesis one was tested to measure the former and hypo­

theses two through eight were tested to measure the latter.

The statistical results were presented in the previous chap­

ter. The primary purpose of this chapter is to interpret

these results, with the focus of attention, being subject

matter and guidance goal implementation. The other areas

measured, such as Student-Student Relationships, are also

included.
The statistics presented previously will not be

presented again; rather, they v/ill be discussed and inter­

preted. The entire questions or subtests 01 questions will

not be presented. Instead, they will be abbreviated in such

a. way that the activity and reference are specified, hence

the reader will be supplied enough information to understand

the intent of the question. The method of interpretation in

this chapter will be by hypothesis in the experimental sequence

85
 86

previouoly employed, except for hypotheses seven and eight,

where the em ployed significant items for both hypotheses

are comoined and arranged "by subtest for clarity.

During the process of discussing the results, or

interpreting the data, "the researcher is free to take off

^ron the data and discuss what he believes they mean and how

he oelieves they came about. What a given question meant

and how it came about can be problematical because the sta­

tistic from which the interpretation is made has no bearing on

any question except the mathematical significance noted;

therefore, interpretation is somewhat subjective. This re­

searcher intends that the interpretation does not suffer

from myopia or tunnel vision, resulting in an inappropriate,

overconservative, or liberal interpretation. This caution is

made because the evaluation of another department's performance

is difficult when one is not a full-fledged member of the

department. Therefore, an attempt was made to carexully

perceive the Guidance Department's structure and function as

it might perceive the same data. Tnis chapter is organized

with a section for the interpretation of each hypothesis and

a summary.

HYPOTHESIS ONE

-P hypothesis
The purpose of v-iTT\P**[*VtP^i s one
one was to determine if
. _. i of subject matter learned
there was a signiiicant amount
-i a-f-q+iccil test indicated significance •
during the year. The sratisticai

qcr .. -p^~~T'oln ~ pT*r>£>£>£> in Education,

* D- J- *2?' mo., 1W) P. 742.
(New York: Holt, Rmehart ana
 87
this result is interpreted to mean that the actual cognitive

instruction was successful and was expected in as much as

the text was well covered and a great deal of supplementary

information was presented. Similarly, the preventative

jhi-ure mode of instruction is concluded to be successful.

lhe "Engle Psychology Test" has seventy-five items,

ihirty-six Oi these items relate strictly to cognitive know­

ledge. The remaining items relate to understanding inter­

relationships of major principles and to applying knowledge

to daily situations. The understanding and application type

items do not deal directly with affective objectives; how­

ever, Engle stated that "the skills and competencies required

to make many of the items do involve an application of re-

56
lated attitudes, appreciations, and value judgements.'1

Sven though no direct affective measurement was a part of

the test, Engle suggested that over one-half ox the items

on the test relate to affective objectives; nence one could

infer that the problem solving and decision making aspect of

the course was also significantly implemented.

HYPOTHESES TV/O T HROUGH EIGHT

Hypotheses two through six were intended to test the

^ 4.- n-p thP experimental and control psychology
representativeness of tnt expex
f-onpralization to the PROJECT
Populations, thus allowing generaliza.io

RA , Psvchology Test r-'iamxal (rev. ed.,

pdT. L. Engle, ., 1 9 b b ) p. 4.
ew York: Harcourt, Bra.c<-
 88
DESIGN sampl e and the non-psychology population of the class
of 197C.

Hypothesis Two

This hypothesis tested how the students of the

PROJECT DESIGN sample perceived guidance goal implementation

oy the Guidance Department when compared to the non-psychology

sample for the class of 1970.

The class of 1970 non-psychology seniors perceived

three differences in the comparison:

1. The could obtain a conference more easily with

their counselor (Item 21, Self Understanding

Subtest).
2. Their counselor helped them when they needed it.

(Item 23, Counselor Role According to PROJECT

DESIGN Subtest).
3. The guidance personnel were more competent than

before. (Item 4-S, Counselor Role According to

PROJECT DESIGN Subtest.)

Items one and three above are two of the items which

PROJECT DESIGN sampled relative to counselor role. The

Bullard Guid ance Department had made progress on these tnree

questions or activities, which are important ones. The re­

searcher knew that the appointment system was modified after
the PROJECT DESIGN survey; hence, because a goal was selected,

an improvement did occur.

The above items suggest an interesting trend. If a
A- _ ep P then the student feels that he has
counselor xs easier i>o see,
 89
been helped, and therefore, that the guidance personnel are
more competent.

The primary concern was whether these two groups

were comparable. Strictly speaking, they were comparable on

all items except the three noted above. The primary con­

clusion is, then, that these two groups were basically

similar, hence allowing possible generalization to the con­

trol and experimental groups.

Hypotheses Three and lour

These two hypotheses test the representativeness ox

the psycholo gy sample to the non-psychology sample. Because

of a design problem the non-psychology seniors could be

sampled in January; hence hypothesis three is the September

comparison of the psychology class and hypothesis four is

the June comparison of the psychology class wioh the non-

psychology students.
There were six significant differences xound in the

September-January comparison. There were no differences

found in the January-June Comparison. The psychology stu­

dents perceived the following differences more than did the

non-psychology students:
1. Course selection allowed them to explore their
interests more (Item 5, Sell Understanding

According to PROJECT DESIC® Subtest).

2. Adjustment to high school from elementary school

was difficult (Item 10, Miscellaneous Subtest).

3 A conference could only be obtained with more

 90
difficulty from their counselor (item 21, Coun­

selor Role According to. PROJECT DESIGN Subtest).

4. ihe ex cent to which they had an opportunity to

be oi value to their school was greater (Item

30, General Subtest).

5. Other students were friendlier (Item 32, Stu­

dent-Student Subtest).

The above differences perceived by the psychology

students are all from the September-January comparison. If

any of these chi square differences had persisted or any

others occurred in the hypothesis four test, then there

would be a reason to doubt the representativeness of the psy­

chology sample to the whole class of 1970.

The chi square item test validity may be checked by

comparing it with the results of the t_ tests on subbesos.

These results, previously reported in Chapter 3, indicate

the same type of relationship noted aoove for chi square

tests. In short, both tests show no differences in the

January-June comparison. Therefore, one can justifiaoly

conclude that the differences in the third test were due to

the time d ifference and the concomitant counselor activity

from September to January.

Therefore, the psychology samples are interpreted
, ,.
to be representative oi~ the cia^o
Oioqs of 1970 as a whole. Conse-
ox
quently, it is possible to make valid conclusions as to the
effect of tbe guidance -oriented psychology class relative to
the whole class of 1970. Similarly, these conclusions may be
considered valid when compared to the PROJECT DESIGN sample.

Hypotheses five and. Six

Hypothesis five tested the comparability of the psy­

chology control and experimental groups in September. Since

no chi square or t test differences were found, these two

groups were concluded to be statistically similar. Hypothe­

sis six tested guidance goal implementation attributable to

the G-uidance Department by the control group from September

GO June. No changes were indicated on the chi square test.

One subtest, Student-Student Relationships, showed a signifi­
cant difference. This subtest presents a small problem in

interpretation because t'hree out o f the five items on the

subtest are negatively stated and two are positively stated.

It would appear, however, that the students perceived fewer

cliques, less stress on good clothes, etc. It would be con­

jecture to attempt to interpret this test.

Of notable and particular emphasis is the fact that

no other differences occurred in the other subtests. Except

for the Student-Student Relationships Subtests (not items), all

other aspects of these groups are concluded to be comparable.

Since the groups were comparable at the beginning of the year,

ana only one small difference was found in the beginning to
end comparison in the control group, then it may be deduced

that any differences which occur as a function of the psy­

chology class are due to that treatment.

 92
Hypotheses Seven and Eight

These hypotheses were the two critical tests to

determine ohe effect of the guidance-oriented psychology

class. Hypothesis seven was the test psychology experi­

mental group from Septemoer to June. Hypothesis eight

tested che June control and June experimental groups. The

format for this section will he to list the significant chi

square items by subtest in a narrative fashion.

The basic content of the "Guidance Questionnaire"

item, and the "Modified Guidance Questionnaire" item is

abbreviated to save space yet still maintain the basic

purpose of the item. Following each subtest will be an in­

terpretation of that subtest. Following the section are a

summary and interpretation of the t test results. This sec­

tion is completed with some general observations and questions

which have a definite bearing on the general interpretation

of the significance of the study. Each item is begun with

the psychology class as the referent. Their perceptions are

as follows:

Subtest One: Counselor Role According to PROJECT

DESIGN.
1. They felt that there was more opportunity "to

discuss problems that bother students" their

age in the psychology class than in the school

(Item 12).
 95

2. The psychology class or teacher helped them

understand themselves more than their counselor

(Item 14). This item occurred in both hypotheses.

3. The psychology class or teacher helped them less

in solving proolems with their teachers when

they had them than their counselor (item 15).

Note the negative relationship.

4. Their psychology teacher(s) showed more personal

interest in them than their counselor (Item 19).

5. They have less difficulty getting a conference

with their psychology teacher than counselor

(Item 21).

6. Their psychology class or teacher gave them

more of a chance to talk about things that really

bothered them compared to their counselor (Item

41).
7. The apparent interpretation that the counselors

were less competent than the psychology teachers

is misleading Qecause item 46 is not stated in

comparative terras; hence it was deleted.

In Subtest One, there are thirteen items, six of

which showed significant differences. One of these six was

deleted and number three above indicated a negative relation­

ship.
PROJECT DESIGN stated that "the most pervasive im­

pression one gets from studying these thirteen items is that

 94
seniors in our nigh schools do not view the counselor role

as having much significance or influence on their lives."*^

Then PROJECT DESIGN cited four questions which were apparently

used to support the ahove evaluation of the counselor role.

The reader should note that the four items cited by

PROJECT DESIGN were numbers one, tv/o, four and six listed

above, all of which showed significant improvement because

of the guidance-oriented psychology class. In addition, the

psychology students indicated that a conference was more

easily obtained from the psychology teacher than their coun­

selor. The negative relationship relative to problems with

teachers is interesting because the students perceived

adequate help with many other kinds of problems. Perhaps

this is one type of situation in which the psychology class

failed.
In reflecting on counselor-counselee ratios, ohe

distracting administrative chores which absorb counselor

time and possibly his image, and the lack of a preventative

model for guidance services, this researcher is compelled to

consider whether any significant improvement could be shown

if the guidance-oriented psychology class were placed under

such restrictions. Perhaps these results verify the use­

fulness of multiple counseling techniques, the consistent

daily class meetings with the psychology teacher, the inde­

pendent study, the emphasis on individual ..conferences" with

PROJECT
57BdwardS. Hawkins pflnce" fpresno: Presno
ffiSIGI, vol. XX, Eaucalwnlljeeds^^
City Unified School Dio o •>
 95
studenos about academic or personal problems, the

attempted implementation of the "new" attitude described

in Chapter 2, the curriculum and its adolescent orientation,

uhe seminar discussion groups and similar techniques. The

data from this study do not verify which of the above or

other features were, responsible for the change; however,

the question still lingers as to whether the guidance-oriented

psychology class would have performed as well under the same

restrictions the Guidance Department. This is a highly sig­

nificant consideration in this evaluation. In any event,

with the understanding explained above, it was concluded

that the guidance-oriented psychology did show the statistical­

ly documented changes summarized above.

Of similar note in this analysis are the items in

which no significant difference occurred. The psychology

students did not perceive having met with the psychology

teacher more than their counselor (Item 2), talked about things
that bothered them or personal problems with their counselor

more than the psychology teacher (Items 11 and 18), or having

felt that the counselor or psychology teacher helped any

better or worse when they needed help (Item 23). (Perhaps

Item 23 is indicative of the acces sibility need that PROJECT

DESIGN mentioned. Even though the Guidance Office or the

psychology teacher never denied anyone a conference, there

was usually a waiting period. In this case, then, crisis

needs may not have been fulfilled.) Apparently students

perceived that there is more of a "ehance" to talk about

 96
bothersome problems (item 41) than the amount that they

actually do talk about them (item 11), inasmuch as the former

was significant and the latter was not relative to the psy­

chology class. It is curious that the psychology students

understood themselves more because of the psychology class

(Item 14); yet, when they needed help they perceived no

difference in the fulfillment of that need. Is it plausible

that the psychology curriculum, with the techniques and "new"

attitude employed, were responsible for the changes noted,

rather than the "guidance activities" which were undertaken?

Perhaps Belenky was correct when he stated that counselors

would be m ore effective if they taught a psychology course.

Belenky had no data to support his assertion, nor does this

researcher. It would certainly be worth further soudy to

determine if psychology subject matter alone, psychology

subject matter and guidance activities, or guidance activi­

ties in the guidance office were tne most effective in gui­

dance goal implementation. The data of this study can be

deduced to support either of the two former suggestions; but

not if the psychology class personnel must perform administra­

tive duties and have a teacher-student load ox 550.

Therefore, an examination of the semantic content

of the questions shows there to be three important questions,

summarized below:
1) Did the high counselor-counselee ratios and

administrative duties decrease the potential

of the Guidance Department's function? Are

these the only factors which may cause a lower
 97
level of function?

2. Did the guidance-oriented psychology class

actually implement guidance-goals better, or

was it that the opportunity was provided?

3) Even though significant increases were impor­

tant ones in relation to PROJECT DESIGN, were

they affected by the guidance aspect of the

course, the psychology curriculum alone, or a

combination of the two?

In each of the above cases the question occurred

because of a deduction from the data of this study or a sub­

stantiated fact from research in the case of number one above.

The t test data, which was a test for a change in

means between both sets of items, was significant in both

hypotheses. These data clearly support the chi square data,

but do not aid in answering the questions posed aoove. The

t results do clearly substantiate that the activioies men­

tioned in the whole subtest were implemented; however, this

statistic does not give a weighting to each component of it,

so that it can be determined which activities were mos* sig­

nificant in producing the desired results.

Two: Con^eTor Role in Addition to PROJECT

DESIGN.
1) Their psychology class or psychology teacher
gave them more help in getting along with other

students than their counselor (Item 1).

 98
2) They learned more regarding good study habits

-i-rom their psychology class or teacher than

their counselor (item 24).

number one above appears to substantiate a finding

in Suotest One relative to being able to discuss problems

that are DOohersome. No doubt peer problems are highly

imp or »an t to ado lescents. Number two above is no surprise

because the curriculum contained a large unit in learning

theory and the application of same. Of particular note is

Item 28 in this subtest, which is almost identical to Item

15 in Subtest One—the former showing no statistical dif­

ference and the latter showing a negative difference. This

is an unexplained variability in the data. Nor certain, how­

ever, the psychology class did not aid in improving teacher-

student relations.
Similar to Subtest One, both hypotheses showed a

significant increase on the t test results. The interpre­

tation of t and chi square data are largely the same as Sub­

test One.

Subtest Three: Self Understanding According to

PROJECT DESIGN.
1 ) Their psychology class or teacher had given onem
more help with problems in planning their xuture

than their counselor (Item 8;.

2) The psychology class helped them mss an discov­
ering their real strengths and weaknesses than

the school (Item 9). ^te the negative relation­

ship.
 3) lhey noted more of an opportunity for being

responsible for their own learning in the

psychology class than in the school (Item 35).

In relation to the PROJECT DESIGN interpretation,

the following comparisons are apparent:

1) On items 4 and 5 on the Guidance Questionnaire,

which relate to courses that have any relation­

ship to later life or provide an opportunity to

explore their own interests, the indication of
no improvement in comparison to PROJECT DESIGN'S

analysis was statistically noted. However, the

psychology students indicated in hypothesis
three that the psychology class, when compared

to the non-psychology sample, did allow explora­

tion of their interests. Hence, there could be

some conjecture as to why psychology students

fglt the above need satisiied at the beginning
Q-f year, but not at the ena of the year.

2) PROJECT DESIGN noted that counselors should give

more help in vocational planning (Item 8).

Apparently the psychology class did fulfill
this need. This result can probably be attri­

buted to the year long post high school planning

unit and the shorter work behavior unit.

3) PROJECT DESIGN noted the need to do more about

helping students to discover their own strengths

and weaknesses (Item 9) and the interpretation of

 100
tests to help in knowing their achievement ana

cDilioy levels (item 22). Interestingly enough,

the psychology class had. a negative or less of

an exiec o in t he discovery of strengths and

weaknesses (Item 9) and no greater effect in

helping students understand their achievement and

ability levels as per test interpretation. Per­

tinent to the above is item 53, where all students

were asked how much they were aware of their own
abilities and talents. In all tests approximately
forty per cent responded "much" and fifty percent
responded "some" to this question. In no test
were there any significant differences. What

does this mean? In view of the fact that great

pains were taken to interpret all test data to

each the psychology student during the year in

an individual conference and since tne students

in all groups maintained about the same level of

awareness relative to their abilities and talents,

then perhaps the following may be deduced:

rpe^t interpretation to seniors has no in-
ore^sed imoact on their self concept
relative to achievement and ability levels

i, 2heidSself concept relative to their ahili-

ties and talents is well formulated by the
-t-welfth grade and resistent to change which
the statistics inferentially support.

Apparently, then, the negative relationship noted in

number two above could be due to the fact that .he s.uaents

arrived at their real strengths and weaknesses prior to the

 101

psychology class and the test interpretation had less effect

than anticipated, hence the negative relationship. The above

is obviously inferential; however, some attempt at explana­

tion is important because of the apparent relationships

involved, ihese xindings suggest the need for a great deal

more study co determine when and how it would be best accom­

plished to help students to learn their real strengths and

weaknesses. Therefore, PROJECT DESIGN'S assertion that

students can understand their achievement and ability levels

from test results may be inappropriate. Contrary to the

above, the deduced results of this study confirm that students

do need help in discovering talents and abilities, strengths

and weaknesses; however, a more extensive method rather than

general aptitude categories; may be necessary and perhaps

this method should be attempted earlier than the twelfth

grade. PROJECT DESIGN concedes that "it is not clear how

much counselors areinvolved in this particular process"—
58
meaning awareness of "abilities and talents."
4) The finding relative to being responsible for
one's own learning is no surprise because of
the curricular emphasis on this poino. oimilarly,

PROJECT DESIGN does not appear to hold the

counselors responsible for Lhis item.

5) The final item in this subtest relates to the

"^Hawkins, Vol. XX, p. 9.

 102
use of occupational materials in the school

and psychology class (Item 3U l'his item appears

to have been inappropriately modified; hence not

giving an accurate measure.

The t test results showed the positive effect of the

psychology class. As was the case with other t test results,

it cannot be staged which items were the significant deter­

miners of this result.

In summary, for Subtests one, two, and three, there

were several positive difference indicating the effect of the
guidance-oriented psychology class. The actual fairness of

comparison between the Guidance Department (i.e. counselor-

counselee ratio, administrative tasks) and the psychology

class or psychology teacher was questioned in some instances.

Items which indicated no difference were inferentially re­

lated to others to pose other questions necessary for con­

sideration until further judgement could be made or programs

evaluated. Two items with modification discrepancies were

noted and deleted.

In general terms, the data definitely suggests that
the items and subtests above show a greater degree o± imple­

mentation of guidance goals by the psychology class than the

Guidance Department's implementation of same relative ^o the

experimental group. In specifics, six of the thirteen items
on the Counselor Role According to PROJECT DESIGN Subtest
show the positive effect of the psychology class. The other

six, excluding number forty-six, remained unchanged. One

item (number 15) showed a negative relationship. Two of

 tnree itemo in the Counselor Role in Addition to PROJECT
DESIGN Subtest indicated the positive effect of the psychology

class. Two 01 the eight items in the Self Understanding

According to PROJECT DESIGN Subtest showed the positive

effect of the psychology class. One item (number sixteen)

was delered and one item (number nine) showed a negative

relationship. Relative to the total questionnaire t test,

significance was indicated to both hypotheses seven' and eight;

hence, ten of the twenty-two items relating to guidance goal

implementation items showed the positive effect of the psy­

chology class (excluding numbers forty-six and sixteen).

Certainly, these results merit commendation and they

do indicate a definite improvement; however, many of the

target activities in the Counselor Role and Self-Understand­

ing Subtests did not indicate the improvement that the experi­
menter subjectively predicted. This does not mean that a
perfect score was anticipated. It does mean that other con­

siderations had to be made in order to interpret the data;

hence, many questions were raised, not the least of which

follows:
1) How much of a modification is necessary for the
group being measured oo be significant enougn

when the degree of their needs is not known?

2) How can counselors and guidance departments

perform a counseling role when much of tneir
time is consumed by administrative duties?
3) If PROJECT DESIGN is correct, tnat j_ew Cali­
fornia high schools have the model they present
 104
and that this model is not present in the

Fresno City Unified School District, then how

can one expect guidance to make changes without

the resources and necessary support?

4) If a counselor is expected to participate in

the process of discipline, then would this not

interfere with the counseling process or coun­

selor image?

5) In terms of the philosophy and attitude expressed

in Chapter 2, would it not he more easily imple­
mented in a classroom where the teacher meets
with his student-counselees regularly? The
time exposure would be greater.

6) In terms of some of the questions on the ques­

tionnaire, there is an assumption of need

relative to each one, since there is no "does

not apply response." For example, question

twnety-two asks, "How much have the tests you

have taken in school helped you to understand

your achievement and ability levels?" The re­

searcher and his team partner, in an individual
conference setting, interpreted all the achieve­
ment and ability aptitude tests which each psy­
chology student had taken since the 8th grade.
If this had one impact of providing new informa­
tion to the student, then there should have been

a significant difference. There was no such

difference. Perhaps there was no new information
 105

th.e lil e. 1 erhaps, then, the expressed need

"by the students was more of an -expressed curio­

sity which, when fulfilled, did not lead to any

new iniormation, but rather to the situation of

knowing what v/as in those previously "secret"
cumulative files; if this is the case, then the

suotle nuances of these questionnaire items do

not measure the actual activity. It is not

known for sure how many items are like this ex­
ample; but, how then, can one criticize a program '
when the question's intent and the activity it
is supposed to measure may be different?
7) How could a counselor, or psychology teacher,

for that matter, establish enough rapport to

score well on this questionnaire if they have

a counselor-counseiee ratio of about one to

550? (This ratio was 550 the year of this study.)

8) PROJECT DESIGN recommends a preventative rather

than a remedial guidance service. How can this

be accomplished if the counselors are not pro­

vided the necessary time and facilities for such
a program? (This would increase the counselor's
gHqq!iveness on the Guidance Questionnaire if

they did have such time). Time for research is

needed here.
9) Could the results of this study oe accomplished
if the teacher -counselors involved did not spend
 copious hours of non-school time developing the

program? (Although the researcher does not have

s.uay to support this point, the strong sub­

jective possibility is highly likely).

10) Can the counselors be responsible for the

activity noted in items which do not make spe­

cific reference to a service totally within his

domain, or which does not make specific refer­

ence to him as the implementer of that service?

(Many items in the Guidance Questionnaire are
of this nature—particularly those in Subtests
lour through Eight. According to the originator
or the Guidance Questionnaire, Dr. Clarence
Mahler, it was supposed to measure the "overall
climate of a high school and hopefully to measure
changes either when personnel changes are made
or when definite program changes are made,"*^

Therefore, these subtests will not be directed

toward guidance goal implementation.

The above questions are designed to yield an under­

standing of the relationship between both the Guidance Depart­

ment and the guidance-oriented psychology class to the poten­

tial problems of extrapolating from the data on specific

questions. Therefore, according to Mahler, the psychology

"^Based on uersonal correspondence between Dr.

Clarence Mahler, Professor of Psychology, Chico State College,
Chico, California, and the v/riter, October, 19/0.
 107
class would be considered as a "program change," which,
in
p r , ould relate to guidance goal implementation. Hence,

one through three relate to guidance; the remaining

relate to their appropriate area of influence and concomitant

title. This is the primary reason why each item is carefully

laoeled with the area or function it represents in this
chapter.

Therefore, Subtests Pour through Eight relate to

goals and characteristics of the school, faculty, student,

general, and miscellaneous categories of behavior, which are

ac best tangential to guidance goals. Because of this

reason the reader should not impute guidance responsibilities

to the interpretations noted. To follow, then, are those
interpretations:

Subtest Four: School - Student Relationships.

1) The psychology students felt more "real considera­

tion" was given to student ideas in the psychology

class than in the school (Item 42).

2) The discipline problems in the psychology class

were apparently handled more fairly than those

in the school (Item 45).

The apparent reason for these differences was the

student—oriented curriculum and attitude expressed in Chapter

2. Trust is an important factor in human relationships.

Even though consideration and discipline were perceived more

favorably than the school, rigid school rules (Item 26) were

perceived no differently than elsewhere in the school. No t

test difference was found for the whole subtest.

 108

D The psychology students felt that the psychology

teachers trusted them more than other teachers

the school (Item 56, both hypotheses six and

seven).

2) Compared to the school, they felt that the psy-

chology class placed less emphasis on good grades

(Item 43, both hypotheses).

These differences can be accounted for because of

the contract to^auing and other techniques, and the attitude

expressed in Chapter 2. Of considerable interest is Item

20, which asks how much personal interest the psychology

teacher had in them compared to other teachers. This item

is of interest because there was no significant difference

compared to Item 19, which is almost an identical question

except for a couple of adjectives. Apparently the frame of

reference (school) was the only difference between the two

questions in Item 20. No t test difference was found for

the whole subtest.

Subtest Six: Student-Student Relationships.

1) The psychology students felt that their class­

mates put less stress on having very good

clothes compared with students in school (Item

27, both hypotheses seven and eight).

2) They felt that there were fewer "cliques" in

the psychology class than in the school (item 34,1.

3) They felt that the psychology class was friendlier

 109
than the school E se (item 39).

She above Items probably reflect the curricular

aspect of the course where understanding behavior was impor­
tant. Similarly the students had more opportunity to inter­

act with one another. However, when asked how friendly are
tne other students in the class compared to the other stu­

dents in tne school, there was no difference. Apparently

they perceived the class to be friendlier, but not necessarily

other students individually. There was a t test difference,

however, as previously explained, it is not considered

valid for internal content reasons.

Subtests Seven and Eight showed no differences on

chi square or t tests. There were, however, significant t

test differences between total questionnaires, indicating

the positive effect of the guidance-oriented psychology

class in guidance goal implementation and the other rela­

tionships noted in subtests four through Six.

SUMMARY

An interpretation of all eight hypotheses was per­

formed. It v/as determined that the psychology control and

experimental samples were statist realty representative of

the Class of 1970, which v/as comparable to the PROJECT DE­

SIGN sample; hence, the conclusion was that the PROJECT DE­

SIGN sample could be compared with psychology samples.

Generalizations were made to the PROJECT DESIGN

sample and the psychology samples from the statistical

differences observed.
 110
There were ten positive significant differences
interpreted relative to guidance goals. Two questions

were deleted for technical reasons. There were two negative

significant differences interpreted relative to guidance

goals: these were compared with PROJECT DESIGN'S find­

ings and with other relationships noticed in questions.

These interpretations occurred from results taken from

Suotesos One through Three. Several questions were raised

^elauive to the findings. Tests of 1; were noted as signi­

ficant in five of the six tests.

Subtests Pour through Eight tested goals or relation­

ships which were considered to be only tangentially rele­

vant to guidance; consequently, they were considered sep­

arately. Apparently seven non-guidance goal differences

occurred,which is comparable to the number of guidance goal
differences noted.

In general, the importance of the guidance-oriented

psychology class was statistically substantiated by subtests

and by item analysis as noted above. On most of the items

specifically employed by PROJECT DESIGN, the guidance-

oriented psychology class showed a statistically significant

increase in guidance goal implementation.

Inferences v/ere made ab out/ ibems where no signifi­

cant difference were indicated. Similar inferences v/ere

made in an attempt to determine the relationship of certain

restrictions placed on the Guidance Department that were not

placed on the -oriented psychology class.

g uidance Restrictions
 111
on the Guidance Department such as high counselor-counselee

ratios, time consuming administrative duties and functions

which were non-guidance oriented, the lack of time and resources

to develop a preventative model of counseling, the counselor

control oi his perceived role, and some technical question­

naire prool ems all appear to detract from the optimal function

ox on e Guidance Department. The meaning of these inferences

and t^e positive results caused by the guidance-oriented psy­

chology clas s definitely suggest the need for further study,

program reconstruction, and goal adjustment for the Guidance

Department so that the above restrictions can be removed.

Similarly, extended supplementary programs such as a gui­

dance-oriented psychology class with its stated philosophy

and subject matter were suggested by the data. In addition,

there were statistical inferences substantiating the valuable

effect of the guidance-oriented psychology class in relation

to non-guidance goals.
 Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EnR FURTHER STUDY

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a

guidance-oriented psychology class relative to subject

matter and guidance goal implementation at Bullard High

School. The purpose of the course was a response to many

stimuli, expressed in Chapter 1. In order to investigate

the problem, four questions, which are stated on pages six

and seven of this thesis, were asked.

Eight statistically testable hypotheses were pro­

posed to test the four questions. These hypotheses are

stated on page seven and eight of this thesis. Basically,

the hypotheses had three purposes which are summarized below:

1. Hypothesis one was designed to test the cognitive
aspects of the subject matter learned during the

course of the year. Appropriate statistical

measures were cited.

2# Hypotheses two through six were designed to test

•the equi valence and representativeness of

112
 113
various test groups. The purpose of these

tests was to determine if the psychology

control and experimental groups were statis­

tically similar to the PROJECT DESIGN sample,

wnich was employed to evaluate the Guidance

Department. Appropriate statistical measures

(t and chi square) v/ere cit ed to test these
hypotheses.

Hypo oheses seven and eight were designed to

test the effect of the independent variable—

the guidance-oriented psychology class—in the

implementation and supplementation of guidance

goals. The reasoning was that if statistically

significant differences occurred on hypotheses

seven and eight, then it could "be concluded

that improvements had occurred in comparison to

PROJECT DESIGN*s evaluation. Appropriate sta­

tistical measures (t and chi square) were cited

to test these hypotheses.

A survey of the literature relative to a guidance-

oriented psychology yielded the conclusion that high school

psychology classes are very prevalent/, out very divers e in

nature. Similarly, no evidence was found of a course which

had the explicit intent of implementing ana supplementing

guidance goals within the framework of psychology subieci

natter. These conclusions were supported through correspon­

dence from nationally recognized authorities.

 Included in chapter 2 was a brief description of the
inception, pn ooophy, goals, and implementation of the psy­

chology class. A brief curriculum outline and guidance ac­

tivities was included. The conclusions relative to coun­

selor role were considered justifiable because of the poten-

tial relationship to the interpretation of the statistical
data on same.

The general method of evaluating subject matter goals

was to administer a standardized subject matter inventory

with alternate ana equivalent test forms at the beginning

and end of the year. This comparison was tested with a t

test for correlated means. The results were highly signifi­

cant—meaning that the psychology students had learned sig­

nificantly more than they knew at the beginning of the course.

The method for evaluating guidance goal implementation

was considerably more complex and is detailed in general and

specific terms in Chapter 3. Basically, the study design was

to determine if t here were any statistical differences be­

tween the PROJECT DESIGN sample and the psychology experimen­

tal and control groups, the latter of which was exposed oo

the effect of the psychology class. The Guidance Question-

toe was administered to the PROJECT DESIGN sample and the

Psychology control sample to determine any changes m guid-

ance goal implementation during the academic year of one

study. The effect of the psychology class was measured by
,. . . _„,_0 A which was the same as
the Modified Guidance Questionnai ,
„„„+ the references to the
"he Guidance Questionnaire ezc I
 Guidance Department or counselor were changed to psychology
class or psychology teacher; hence the effect of the psy­
chology class or psychology teacher was measured.

The questionnaires were tested by item (chi square)

and by subtest (test of t). For comparative purposes, the

subtests on Counselor Role and Self Understanding remained

the same as PROJECT "DESIGN employed. The remaining items were

categorized into subtests according to the relationship

noted. All suotests are numbered and summarized as used

previously in the study.

1. Counselor Role According to PROJECT DESIGN.

2. Counselor Role in Addition to PROJECT DESIGN.

3. Self Understanding According to PROJECT DESIGN.

4. School-Student Relationships.

5. Faculty-Student Relationships.

6. Student-Student Relationships.

7. General.

8. Miscellaneous.
Items relating to Subtests One through Three were
considered relevant to guidance goal implementation, or twenty-
four of forty-six items. The items relating to Subtests

Pour through Eight were considered to be only tangentially

related to guidance; hence they were considered according

to the subtest they represented and were the remaining twenty-

tv/o items. These items represented non—guidance goa-i-s. ine

successes of the psychology class in implementing guidance

goals were indicated by a positive significant difference.

 116
The chi square analysis nn -a
aiy.i., on the items indicated six positive
and one negative significant differences, with one item

(number forty-six) deleted on the Counselor Role according

to PROJECT DESIGN Subtest. Two of the three items on the

Counselor Role in addition to PROJECT DESIGN Subtest were

significantly different. Two of the eight items on the

Serf understanding according to PROJECT DESIGN Subtest showed

the positive effect of the psychology class-one item was

deleted and one item (number nine) showed a negative re­

lationship. Therefore, ten of the twenty-tv/o items showed

the positive ef fect of the psychology class (excluding numbers

forty-six and sixteen which were deleted). On the t tests

of Subtests One through Three, the positive effect of the

psychology class was demonstrated in five of six tests.

Subtests four through Eight tested non-guidance

functions. There were seven positive chi square signifi­

cant differences on Subtests four through Six which included

eighteen items. There was one t test significant difference,

which was deleted for technical reasons.

It is important to note that both hypotheses seven

and eight on a total questionnaire test of t were signifi­

cantly different.
The items which indicated statistical significance

are listed below in an abbreviated manner. Thio will yield

a literal interpretation of what was significantly differ­

ent. The items are listed according to the subtests GO

which they belong.

 117

Subtest One: Counselor Role According to PROJECT DESIGN

Poychology students felt more opportunity "to

discuss problems that bother students" their

age in the psychology class than in school

(Item 12).

2. The psychology class or teacher helped them

understand themselves more than their coun­

selor (Item 14).

3. The psychology class or teacher helped them less

in solving problems with their teachers, when

they had them, than their counselor (Item 15).

Note the negative relationship.

4. The psychology students felt more personal

interest from the psychology teacher than their

counselor (Item 19).

5. Psychology students had less difficulty getting

a conference with their psychology teacher than

counselor (Item 21).

6. The psychology class or teacher gave them more
of a chance to talk about "things" that really

bothered them compared to their counselor (Item

41 ).

Subtest Two: nmrnselc in Addition to PROJECT DESIGN

1. She psychology class or psychology teacher gave
them more help in "getting along" with other

students than their counselor (Item 1).

 118

More was learned regarding good study habits

from their psychology class or teacher than their

counselor (item 24).

SuL- ues o inree;. Sell Understanding According to PROJECT DE­

SIGN

1. The psychology class or teacher had given them

more nelp with proolems in planning their fu­

ture than their counselor (Item 8).

2. The psychology class helped the psychology stu­

dents less in discovering their real strengths

and weaknesses than school (Item 9). Note the
negative relationship.

3. They noted more of an opportunity for being

responsible for their own learning in the psy­

chology class than in the school (Item 35).

Subtest Four: School-Student Relationships

1. The psychology students felt more "real con­

sideration" was given to student ideas in the

psychology class than in the school (item 42).

2. Discipline problems in the psycnology class

were handled more fairly than those in the

school (Item 45).

Subtest Five: Faculty-Student Relationships

1. The psychology students felt that the psychology
 119
teachers trusted them more than other teacher
(Item 36).

2. Compared to the school, the psychology' students

felt that psychology class placed less emphasis

on good grades (item 43).

Subtest Six: Student-Student Relationships

1. The psychology students felt that their class­

mates put less stress on having very good clothes

compared with students in school (item 27).

c.. They felt that there were fewer cliques in the

psychology class than in the school (Item 34).

3. The psychology students felt the psychology

class to be friendlier than the school per se

(Item 39).

The literal interpreation above indicates that the

guidance-oriented psychology class had impact in guidance

and non-guidance functions. Conclusions on the significance

of these findings follow.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are either based on or

deduced from the results previously cited in tnis study.

1. The subject matter taught, with emphasis on the

preventative failure mode of instruction and similar methods,

was learned at a significantly greater degree than demon­

strated by the s tudents when they entered the course. The
 120
author of the standardized tests suggested that affective

types of learning were also indirectly measured; therefore,

the psychology class was at least to some degree representa­

tive of a current trend in science instruction which empha-

sizes problem solving and decision making.

2. The goal of guidance goal implementation and

supplementation is well documented by the results of the

study, by item, subtest, and total questionnaire t test.

This course appears, then, to be a worthwhile supplementary

effort to guidance goals. Similarly, the possibility of the

psychology class implementing certain guidance goals that

the Guidance Department cannot implement is highly probable.

3. Therefore, it is apparent that a guidance-oriented

psychology class may provide an important alternate strategy
to guidance services, provided that it is not treated as

just another academic area of study and that conditions are

similar to this study.

4. The deduction that counselors might increase

their productivity by teaching or being a member of a team

who teaches a course of this type is justifiable. Perhaps

just the increased exposure to students will increase the

counselor's success in interpreting human behavior in a class­

room; it might motivate a student to seek his counselor's aid

when needed. Hence, a team approach to guidance would de­

velop and probably be successful simply because of the di­

versity of potential to satisfy student needs when they

arise.
 PROJnCj. DESIGN'S concept of accessibility
and the lncreased results
of this study indicate an increase
in o nese guidance oblectivp"
J
4.-, .
1Ve°' then ^is type of course would

appear to partially fulfill thio + •

-- oiio ciioerion 01 a successful
guidance program.

6. Pauterson stated that one of the central com­

ponents for the success of psychotherapy is the relation­
ship between the client and therapist or counselor.60

Similarly, PROJECT DESIGN asked, "how can one expect to have

a significant influence in the lives of individuals who do

not feel you are interested in thern?"^1

The significant increase in personal interest that

one psychology students felt from their psychology teachers

could likely be caused by the guidance goal implementation

and the non-guidance goal item, where the psychology stu­

dents felt more "trust" from the psychology teachers than

from other teachers.

7. If the many sources cited previously substantiate

the fact that counselors are administrative assistants,and

see themselves similarly, ana can control their role by con­

trolling their perception of same, as the literature sug­

gested, then perhaps an important contributing reason for

the success of guidance-oriented psychology class v/as that

the teacher—counselors were not administrative assistants

6oc. H. Patterson, Theories of Counseling and Psycho­

therapy. (N
ew York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966) p. 492,

Hawkins (director), e o al., x,•.0-J,1.-

1,1

DKSIGN, Vol. XX, u^^iirynal Needs: Guidance (Fresno: Fresno

^ity~bnified School District, 1CJ68), P. J*
 122
and did control the npwOT,+ <
pe-cep.ion of their role. »e above
implies no particular fault with guidance personnel.

Slmllarly, 1Z "he a_bove is true in concert with

the consideration 01 a oounselee-counselor ratio of 550 to

one, tnen there should be no surprize in the increase of the

guidance goal implementation by the psychology class—es-

peci; l y considering that the teacher-counselors used large

quantities of non-class and after school time for counseling

purposes.

9. If one accepts the assertion that the evaluated

increases in guidance goal implementation as per this study

are valid, then it v/ould appear that a course of this type

would "be an excellent training-ground for counselor train­

ees working with experienced counselors in a team.

The above obviously assumes the same degree of pre­

paration and a course structure and philosophy similar to

the one being evaluated in this thesis.

10. Since guidance goal implementation was amply

demonstrated, there v/ould appear to be a very real proba­

bility of employing this type of curriculum in the PROJECT

DESIGN recommended guidance oriented ninth grade school—

given the understanding of the ninth grade needs and cur­

riculum modifications.
11. PROJECT DESIGN recommended "instructional pro­

grams aimed at enhancing student8 s academic and personal

 123
r9
effectiveness."

Hie conclusion appears warranted that this need

ws,s fulfillsd. in so Q+nriav,4.
SO xar as students indicated that they could
discuss problems, understand themselves more, "get along

better with other students," learn more good study habits,

plan for their luture, score as well as they did on the

subject matter evaluation, and be given more responsibility

for their own learning. Similarly, the problem solving
and decision making aspects of the psychology course would
appear to be substantiated from the above.

12. fne conclusion is at least inductively apnarent

from the literature, PROJECT DESIC-N, and the data, that this

experiment may not have been fair in the sense that there is

no unified structure or policy to induce change in the Gui­

dance Department. This means that.if the necessary research

ana development time were allowed the Guidance Department,

and if administrative duties and counselor loads were de­

creased, then the Guidance Department would have changed;
hence, the test is somewhat unfair because the implementers

of the guidance-oriented psychology class were free to pursue

the objectives previously outlined.-

13. The non-guidance goals would appear to have had

important outcomes, since students felt that their ideas were

more considered (involvement), that discipline was more

fairly handled, that teacher trust of students had increased,

62Ibid., p. 33.
 124

that the emphasis on grades had heen decreased, and that they
perceived their fellow students to be friendlier and to put
less stress on money, clothes, and cliques.

The researcher would attribute these changes to the

curriculum implementation of the attitude in Chapter 2 and
the increased opportunity to interact with their peers.

14. I'inally, and not least importantly, the con­

clusion is well justified that it is possible to implement
many (not all) guidance goals within the framework of a

thorough curriculum in psychology, which conclusion supports

Belenky's suggestion—namely, that counselors would be more
effective teaching a psychology class.

RECOMMENDATIONS DOR FURTHER STUDY

In the course of doing this study the researcher

noted the need fo r the following investigations:

1. Even though the Guidance Questionnaire was ade­

quate, and was necessary to use in this study, it does need

some revision, restructuring, and re-examination as to

whether it measures what should be measured.. Bexore this

is done hov/ever, the researcher recommends the determination

of behavioral objectives for guidance;; hence a study of the

appropriateness of the Guidance Questionnaire items is

called for.
2. Determine precisely whether the psychology

curriculum or the guidance activities, or a combination of

the two is most influential in producing guidance goal imple-

Mentation.
 125
3. If self understanding is to be explored in the
future, the use of a standardized personality test would

perhaps yield more meaningful results. This might create

legal problems, but it should be attempted.

ouudy how to make guidance services more accessible

to stuaents. This recommendation implies the use of a

variety of programs to meet the variety of student needs.

5. Investigate the total effect of having all the

teachers in a school with guidance credentials implement

some small phase of guidance within the framework of their

curriculum.

6. Even though preventative guidance procedures

are ill-defined, a study of the potential of these procedures

at the high school level would be important.

7. Investigate the actual effect of Miller's two

paradigms expressed in Chapter 2 on teacher output, student

attitudes, and student output.

8. Determine when and how to better help students

understand their strengths and weaknesses, and talents and

abilities as explored in Chapter 4, Subtest Three subsection.
2# Investigate the effect OJ. increased multiple

counseling.
10. Research the potential and attitude of the coun­

selor's willingness to implement guidance goals with other

teachers, or in other circumstances, but away from the

guidance office.
 126

11. Determine metno(is oo reduce the image of a

counselor as an administrative assistant.

12. Research methods of teaching decision

and problem solving, possibly through simulation and
gaming techniques.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 126
A. BOOKS

Angle, 1. L. Engle Psycholop-y Test M^mmi v.m, j nT

York* HarpoijVi- iil; •"—-"4—-• manual. xcv. ed. New
^ oaro ' Brace ana World Inc., 196(>6,

' Aaf;-d - • Psychology, Its Principles.

and ^plications,. 5th ed. Few York: Hareourt Brace
ana Worla, Inc., 1970. ' nxc.ee

* Record of Experiments and Activities. 5th ed.

hew Yorx: narcourt, Brace and World, Inc.', 1970.

—v teacher's Manual and Objective Tests for Use with

Psychology. 5th ed. hew York: Harcourt, Brace and
•World, Inc., 1970.

Pox, D. J. The Research Process in Education, hew York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Good, Carter V. (ed). Dictionary of Education. 2nd ed.

hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. 4th ed. hew York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1965.

Hawkins, Edward E. (director), et al. PROJECT DBSIGh. 46

vols. Vol. C. Educational Master Plan; Implementation:
Planned Change; Vol. XX, Educational heeds: Guidance.
Fresno: Fresno City Unified School District, 196Eh

Johnson, D. E. Expanding and Modifying Guidance Programs.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 19o8.
Koenker, Rohert H. Simplified Statistics for Students in
Education and Psychology. Bloomington, Illinois: Mc­
knight and McKnight Publishing Company, i961.
Batterson, C. Ii. Theories of Counseling and . Psychotherapy.
hew York: Harper ana Row, Publishers, 1966.
Wiersma, William. Research Methods in Education, hew Yorx.
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1969.

B. PERIODICALS

Belenky, Robert. "Guidance and the Teaching of High school

Psychology," Community Mental Heal en Journal, ,
(Spring, 19667") 41-46.
 129
Dunlap, R. S., and Donald V/estm+o mnv.
Generalist or Specialist?" S' e °ch°o1 Counselor:
1970), 1-7. * cxairst? Iocus_jra G^dance, II (March,

EnSlIevei:1-Pas?rSesfntSypoSif? a?, P® SeeonSary School

e
School Psycholo.w v (Spring,d 96
7)"ri6S-7b?rnal

hgh
HighdSchooid ?mhs„r!phtti
School," UAmihcf hLh,adin? °
? Pf Psychology in
1956), 188-93. ^ycnologist, XI (February,

Louttit, C.^M. "Psychology in the Nineteenth Century Hi-h

7°7-^y' Amer:LCan gsycnoiogj at. XI (December, 1.956),°

Filler, George A. "Psychology as a Means of Promoting Hu-

foo^l'/VlineriCan Ps''cho] ngi -qt' JJ:LY (December,

Kosher, Ralph 1., and Norman A. Sprinthall. "Psychological

education m Secondary Schools: A Program to Promote
Individual ^and ilurnan Development," American Psycholo­
gist, XXV (October, 1970), 911-24.

Nolan, Robert L. "School Psychologists and Counselors View

tnc Role of the High School Psychology Course," Journal
of School Psychology, V (Spring, 1967), 177-84.

Rooach, A. A. "Psychology in American Secondary Schools

in the '9C's," American Psychologist, VII (January,
1952), 44-5.
"Special Issue, Teaching Psychology and the Behavioral Sci­
ences in the Schools," Journal of School Psychology,
V (Spring, 1967), 168-2^1:

C. PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE

American Psychological Association Educational ^ Afxairs

Office. Personal correspondence be cween Miss Margo
Johnson, Staff Affiliate of Periodically, and tne
writer, October, 1970.
Chico State College Department of Psychology. Personal
correspondence between Dr. Clarence Manler, _ro essor
of Psychology, and the writer, October, 1970.
Indiana University at Port -n
Personal Correspondence between®!?1 m"1? °£ py=hology
lessor of Psychology, and the ^r^veS!'^:

^bpondeSoeefeet5einrS:nLSf/lL0U10gy- *«•<>»* ™
Psychology, and the tri^SotoLT