The Chairman first called the attention of the participants to the fact that the very appropriate theme was chosen for the symposium arranged by the University of Hiroshima, where most active research on factor analysis in Japan had been conducted. Discussion by each discussant was as follows: Osaka pointed out that since “the 8 year study”, for about 30 years, there had been no significant progress in the field of educational measurement and evalution he insisted that the educational goals should be subdivided systematically into subgoals, and that guidance for the individual student in the educational setting would be effective when as many sub-tests as possible to meet the needs of the sub-goals were administered. Furthermore, he emphasized that collaboration of the related fields, such as education, sociology, and psychology were indispensable to effective evaluation. Enumerating the following illustrations, Higuchi warned that educational measurement had limitation in its usability and was not to be misused: 1) Both the highest and lowest values of the phi-coefficient are determined by the proportion of marginal frequencies, 2)The reliability coefficient measured by test-retest is affected by means and standard deviations of the test, 3) Not so high coefficient of validity is expected even when scores of two tests are combined. Kitao regarded the role of educational evaluation as a regulator of learning effect of the individual learner and saw the points as follows: 1) Effective evaluation should meet to the information processing ability of the learner, 2) Timely evaluation which meets information retention ability is to be given to the individual learner, 3) Reinforcement as the result of evaluation is different due to the different needs in each individual. Accordingly it is possible to modify the need system of the learner by the evaluation, 4) It is necessary to give the learner information about his learning progress. With those viewpoints, Kitao insisted that both intra-individual and longitudinal evaluations were necessary in education. Shimizu stated that differences among junior high schools regarding their academic standards were to be taken into consideration when senior high schools use the academic record of applicants for admissiom. The following comments were added to their reports Akagi (Center for Science Education, Osaka) stated that objective tests were necessary for screening in admission, but subjective evaluation, at the same time, was indispensable for individual guidance in the school setting. Osaka stated that school differences in terms of academic standards among junior high schools would even be waved if senior high schools became accustomed to selecting applicants on the basis of academic records. Yanai (University of Tokyo), contrary to Higuchi's negative attitude toward the coefficient of validity of composite scores, stated that it would be possible to get higher validity by applying multivariate analysis.Arguing about that point, Higuchi said that it was necessary for cost and effect to be taken into consideration at the time of administration. Yasuda (Tottori University) saw inappropriateness in abusing objective measurement by other persons in predicting whether the individual learner would be successful or not in attaining the goal, because Yasuda thought evaluation was to be used as helpful to the learner for his self-understanding and self-actualization. Tanaka (Osaka University of Education) stated that experienced teachers would use not only intra-individual and longitudinal evaluation but also inter-individual evaluation for individual guidance. Tsuzuki (Nagoya University) said that teachers should not use any test unless they were very familiar with its use. Also he insisted that along with the efforts on the part of educational psychologists, teachers' cooperation was necessary for effective evaluation.
In recent years, especially from 1964-5, there has been increasing attention to the remainders, those who have failed to move to the advanced course and stay back in the same grade in the course of general education in college and university. For the past two years, some counselors, including chairman and four reporters of this symposium, have discussed problems concerning remainders in each university to which they belonged, in the two symposia informally held. In this symposium, each of four reporters reported and suggested as follows, depending on the achievement above mentioned. Y. Kubo (Hiroshima Univ.), from the viewpoint of prediction, reported nine signs about maladjustment of students on the basis of the data on 1) actual life condition record, 2) health examination record (CMI, UPI), 3) personality test record (MHSQ). Those are as follows: 1) constitutional infirmity, 2) wishes to change to other faculties or departments, 3) being lazy in studies, 4) feeling one's abilities weakened after entrance to university, 5) having the other sex friend, 6) being a member of some circle activities, 7) dodging a lesson all the time, 8) does not adapt oneself to the classroom atmosphere, 9) being not suited for one's department. Kubo suggested, when some of these signs were found falling simultaneously on a student, he could significantly predict the student maladjustment such as staying back in same general education course. Y. Ishigooka (Tohoku Univ.) classified students according to the following five types, including some sub-types, in their attitudes in aiming goals in their school days: Type IA aiming at a single main goal (school achievement) Type IB aiming at a single main goal (other than school achievement) Type IIA aiming at multiple goals harmoniously (focusing on school achievement) Type IIB aiming at multiple goals harmoniously (focusing on anything other than school achievement) Type IIIA failing to aim at a goal (school achievement) Type IIIB failing to aim at a goal (anything other than school achievement) Type IV trying to establish one's life goal Type V others. He discussed those types found in the students staying back in the course of general education. F. Marui (Nagoya Univ.) classified remainders into three types: 1) conventional (free from care type), 2) lack of one's intellectual capacity, and 3) lack of one's volition. And he pointed out that the third type is most serious. He suggested following three factors affecting the students' failure before their entrance to university: 1) did they have any motives to study in university or not? 2) did they understand the real meaning of university life or not? 3) ambiguity of the principle of education in pre-university education and inmaturity of personality due to failure of home education. He also suggested two factors concerning the students' failure after entrance to university as follows: 1) standerdized or stereotyped lectures and prosaism in the course of general education in university 2) difference of views concerning university education between students and professors. N. Ando (Kyushu Univ.) proposed the inductive typology by means of factor analysis instead of control group method and empirical typology in former studies. And he said that short scale for prediction for maladjustment of students had been made. On the basis of propositions mentioned in these four reports, difference of ratios of each type of remainders in each college and university; relations between increasing numbers of remainders and increasing numbers of students going on to higher education, the numbers of suicidal attempts in remainders were discussed. And also, importance of the problem of curriculum making in general education course; mental health administration, after-care and follow-up to remainders were stressed.
Today, behaviors of the adolescents are nation-wide problems of all over the country.Psychology of Adolescent is one of the fields of science contributes to the understanding of their way of thinking and attitudes. However, study of this field is still behind comparing with that of child psychology. So the intensive study in the field of adolescent psychology is seriously needed and the further progress is to be expected. The researcher has observed aspects of study in the said field in those countries, such as Japan, the United States, England, France, both West and East Germany and the Soviet Union. As a result, he has found as follows: in each country, there exists each different social system which reveals some significant features there in terms of status of scholars, procedure of study they persue, etc. At the same time, some significant common problems are also found in the respective country: These are 1) development of the theory is stll behind and 2) an approach from the viewpoint of social psychology to this field is being regarded as important.