This stndy is the first step in investigating what effects “moral” classes have on the character development of children and is aimed at the analysis of the teacher-pupil interaction during “moral” education. For this purpose three records of instructions by different teachers each pursuing one and the same aim, were analysed according to the following methods. 1) Analytic rating of the instruction process Several trained observers rated 17 items according to 5 grades. The items consisted of three groups. (1) instructional materials dealt with (2) techniques of teaching (3) teacher-pupil relationships 2) Content analysis of the instruction process according to certain categories The classificatory system was based on the categories for the analysis of counseling processes and was revised especially for the present analysis of “moral” lessons. They involved (α) categories concerning the content of the problem,(β) categories concerning the function of teacher's utterances and (γ) categories concerning the pupil's utterances. Utterances were regarded as one unit when they expressed one completed idea and were classified from their psychological functions as well as from their contents, such as whether they described pupil's own conduct or the conduct of others, or whether or not they were expressed emotionally. 3) The pupil's cognition of the class (by means of a questionaire) Immediately after the class was over, the pupil were required to evaluate the class. (ex. Was it interesting? Did you learn something new? etc. The questionaire consisted of 15 items which were evaluated into 7 grades) Five months after the class, the pupils were again asked to write what he had learned in the class. The results gained through these methods were consistent with each other and seemed to reflect the characteristics of each “moral” lesson. But as for the details, not a few points are still left, to be improved. This study, we believe, played a pioneering role in studying about the effects of “moral” classes.
The purpose of this paper is to study the basic factors behind educational attitudes by the Q-technique. As an instrument, Fred N. Kerlinger's Q-sort statements were used, somewhat revised to adapt for Japanese teachers. The original 80 item Q-sort had been constructed according to the following paradigm: (A) Attitudes (1) Restrictive-Traditional (2) Permissive-Progressive (B) Areas (a) Teaching-Subject matter-Curriculum (b) Interpersonal Relations (k) Normative-Social (m) Authority-Discipline Thirty-one subjects, consisting of six university professors in Education, six university professors in Psychology, eight elementary school teachers, five junior high school teachers, five senior high school teachers and one layman, were asked to sort 80-statements on an approval-disapproval dimension. Each subject's sort was analyzed with a factorial analysis of variance. As was expected, all the professors' educational attitudes were “permissive” at 1% level, and the other subjects were multifarious in their educational attitudes. About half of the latter had high F-ratios in the permissive direction and the rest had low F-ratios in the permissive or restrictive direction. Twenty-two subjects' sorts were intercorrelated and the resulting correlation matrix was factor-analyzed. Orthogonally rotated factors, I, II and III were named “Progressivism”,“Traditionalism” and “Psychology” respectively. A Spearman rank order coefficient of correlation was computed between the attitudes F-ratios and the factors. The rhos were.86, -.24 and.44 for I, II and III respectively. In addition, three factor arrays were computed to examine the nature of the factors. The results were commensurate with the foregoing interpretation of the factors. Although both I and III were progressive in nature, the subjects who had high loading of I were progressive, especially in “Normative-Social” and “Authority-Discipline” areas of education, and those who had significant positive loading of III were all psychologists and were inclined to be progressive in “Interpersonal Relations” and “Teaching -Subject matter-Curriculum”.
In this Journal (Vol.8, No.2, Vol.9, No.1) we have discussed the etiology and classification of mental deficiency, and found that several etiological classifications have been advocated. The one most frequently used is that of A. A. Strauss, who divides mental deficiency into the exogenous or brain injured group and the endogenous or familiar group. This classification has, however, imperfections regarding classification-validity and other procedural defects. For the purpose of educational diagnosis of mental deficiency, we have tried to set up the typological approach from the standpoint of behavior patterns and of personality traits. With relation to our approach, several problems about the procedural methodology were considered.