In order to clarify the impersonated factors which may affect high school achievement, the following four studies were carried out by using three hundred high school students. The purpose of the study I was to compare the psychological traits of over, normal and underachievers (OA, NA, UA) on the basis of the following five tests: (1) Yatabe-Guilford personality test (YGPT),(2) Uchida-Kraepelin performance test (UKPT),(3) Creativity test,(4) Achievement motivation test (McClelland's), and (5) EIPC (The estimative inventory for the problem child). The difference between OA and UA was found to be statistically significant with respect to UKPT, and it was pointed out thatwillis important as a factor. The study II was that canonical and discriminant analysis were attempted with the same data of UKPT as used in the study I. As a result of it an unexpected clear separation among the three groups was obtained. This indicates that the subjective judgment of the profile in study I is correct as a whole, and that the application of these two analyseslto UKPT is very useful. The purpose of the study III was to examine to what degree the multiple regression analysis using UKPT and intelligence test results could account for the academic achievement variance. The result indicated that the largest correlation coefficient was 0.368 when the measures of UKPT were four and those of intelligence test three. Therefore, the explanation was not always satisfactory. If the predictor variables were used in this way, however, predictive power was generally higher for UKPT than for the intelligence test. In order to improve the accuracy of prediction, an study IV was designed as follows:Twelve raw scores of subtests in intelligence test, nine measures in UKPT, and twelve scale scores in YGPT were adopted separately or together as predictor variables; Nine achievement records at the end of school year were used as criterion variables, and then canonical correlation coefficients between both variables were calculated. The magnitudes of the coefficient correlats with a certain test were 0.542 with intelligence test, 0.448 with UKPY and 0.378 with YGPT. The coefficient based on over-all tests was 0.603. It was proved from this result that all subtest scores of intelligence test became the strongestfactor among the three tests, and that predictive power was highly improved in comparison with the use of IQ or T-scores alone. Considering these results, we may conclude that the factors by which high school achievement is effected, are strongest for intelligence, second for will, and weakest for emotion. Furthermore, it was. clear that the providing power (coeffifient of determinant) with these tests occupied thirty-six perce nt of all power.
The present study aimed at investigating the effect of antecedent congnitive incongruity on reception of information, congnitive curiosity and instigation of information-gathering behavior. One hundred and seven 5th-graders served as Ss. Learning material was classification of animals, using classification of monkeys and apes as an example. The experiment consisted of four sessions: Pre-instruction test was conducted in the first session, presentation of Information 1 and 2 in the second session, Questionnaire I on the consultation and communication after the second session, intermediate test, presentation of Information 3 and post-instruction test in the third session, and followup test and Questionnaire 2 in the fourth session. Different Information 1 was given to experime-. ntal and control groups. Information 1 to experimental group had been constructed to arouse incongruity by informing Ss of the existence of unfamiliar monkeys which were discrepant to the standard of S's conception of a monkey. Information 1 to control group had been concerned with a familiar monkey, so as not to arouse incongruity. The same Information 2 and 3 were given to both groups. Information 2 was designed to reduce latently the incongruity aroused by Information 1 to experimental group and Information 3 to completely and manifestly reduce the incongruity. After each Information was presented, Ss were asked the following two questions:1.“How interesting is this information?” 2.“Would you like to hear more?” They were also required to ask questions in semi and non -forced situations after Information 2. The results were as follows. i) Information received in incongruity-aroused situation was used flexibly in various different situations. Furthermore the Information could be generalized and coordinated. ii) The part of information which had aroused incongruity tended to be retained longer as an interesting part. iii) Information 1 to experimental group, which had more incongruity-arousing components, instigated stronger cognitive curiosity than Information 1 to control group. However, there was no difference in curiosity stimulated by Information 2 and 3 between groups. iv) Experimental group Ss asked more questions, especially incongruity reducing ones, than control group Ss in the semi-forced situation. But there was no difference between groups in the rate of evocation of asking behavior in the non-forced situation.
An 18 month follow-up observation was made on 10 normal children (ages 2: 7-4: 0 at the beginning of follow-up), and 30 debile children (ages then 6: 0-12: 0). Figures used are: Vertical line, Horizontal line, Oblique line (inclined at 45 degree), Greek cross, X-shape (St. Andrew's cross), Square, Tilted square (standing on one of its apex), and Diamond. Children were to draw them, compose them with sticks, and represent them by dotting ends or corner points. Results and discussions. (1) It was assumed from preparatory observations and children's confessions that they pe rceived the figures correctly enough, but they met difficulties in composing or arranging lines to make the figure after a model. In other words, they were not agnostical, but apraxical. For example, a 2: 6 child, who could draw oblique lines in his spontaneous drawing, was puzzled with an oblique line as model. He laboured to represent it with vertical orhorizontal lines, or with some curved lines, saying “I cannot do it.” This constructive power seemed much more to do with general intellectual development, rather than with manual dexterity. But we discussed a case with some symptoms of developmental agraphia and constructive apraxia, showing selective defects in dealing with letters and geometrical figures. In such a case the special deficiency did not tell his general ability level. Such special deficiencies have been reported as the mark of “brain damage”. But we have on the other hand a motor aphasic case which shows selective defect in language activities, not in perceiving or constructing visual figures. Moreover, in dealing with visual figures, defect of perception and that of construction do not always go together. Symptoms of “brain damage” should be observed in a more integrated vision of clinical study on aphasic, apractic, agnostic cases. (2) On the basis of the % of successful children, we could arrange from the easiest form to the most difficult one as follows: Vertical and Horizontal lines, Greek cross, Oblique lines and Square, X-shape, Tilted square, and Diamond. Constructing with sticks, or by dotting the cornerpoints, was a little easier than copying with pencil, with some exceptions in easier forms. After all, the dominant factor of the difficulties seemed to be in the properties of the figures, not in the means of reproducing them. Diamond was distinctly more difficult than Tilted square, in that the latter was easily grasped as a whole, while the former was not. Many children who could make the tilted square with sticks failed in the diamond. Evan after having arranged three sticks correctly, they often were quite puzzled as to how to set the last side to complete the diamond. (3) Following up the normal children, we could distinguish several stages of copying power. 1) 2: 6-3: 6, in this stage they went as far as to succeed in copying the square, but often failed in the oblique forms. 2) 3: 6-4: 6, they succeeded in composing with stiks or dots the tilted square or sometimes the diamond, but failed in copying the diamond. 3) 4: 6-, they succeeded in copying the diamond. Mentally relarded children showed a retardation in attaining those stages as we had expected ; e. g. those who could do well with the diamond were to be seen after the age 9: 6. (4) Can the copying ability be improved by instructions? We know that it is much easier for a child to “imitate” the drawing behavior of an instructor than to “copy” after a model. And we can train a child to draw a diamond even at the age of 3: 6. But to accomplish a form somehow or othe r is one thing, and to copy it after a model is another. The latter being our problem, the two methods were adopted here. 1) When a child succeeds by sticks and fails in copying, he is told to compare the two results and given chance to try ag ain. 2) Children trace a model, and then copy it again.