The purpose of this study was to find that developmental change to recognition about parental leadership behavior would be different between emotional interaction and control leadership functions and cetween ideal and real. Subjects were kindergartner, second, fourth, sixth, and eleventh graders and mothers.
Results were;
(1) In ideal recognition, the different developmental change showed between parent's two leadership functions. In real recognition, that showed between mother's two leadership functions but not showed between father's two leadership functions.
(2) The different developmental change between real and ideal recognition showed the father's emotional interaction leadership function, but nots howed the parent's control and mother's emotional interaction leadership function.
(3) The ideal recognition about parent's emotional interaction function was more than real. The real recognition about mother's control was more ideal but not about father's control.
(4) The difference between real and ideal was that father showed developmental change about control and that mother showed developmental change about emotional interaction. From these results, we could find that there was a different discontinuity between reality and ideal of their parents as they grow. That is to say, the father's absence and the mother's control will develop with no connection to their age and a child feels discontinuity against father in emotional interaction and also against mother in control.

View full abstract

The present study is a genetic approach to the analysis-synthesis process that characterizes structural cognition of humans. It is hypothesized that interactions in the group situation would systematize the complex analysis-synthesis process and create internal structural systematic cognition in each individual.
The subjects solved the task of combinating random figures.(FIG. 1-1). The systematic solution of this task needs to differentiate following two levels of analysis-synthesis process and to systematize them (i) analysis-synthesis on each figure,(ii) analysis-synthesis on the relation of all six figures.
In the first experiment, the subjects were divided into three groups:
(1) 10 individuals who were instructed to verbalize about each figure (V group), 10 individuals without such an instruction (NV group), and (3) 9 pairs who were instructed to work together but were not asked to verbalize (G group). V group committed less errors and got the solution suddenly and “by insight”. In the other hand, NV group made more errors and reached the criterion gradually and “by trial and error” (TABLE 1-1, FIG. 1-3). It took much time for V group to do every trial at the early stages of the task, but it rapidly decreased. But NV group performed rapidly and monotonously through all the stage of the task.(FIG. 1-4). In G group there were more verbalization and more “momentary inhibition of directly reinforced response” (making response time larger) through all the stage of the task than in NV group. It is suggested that the origins of V's behaviors can be found in group interactions.
In the second experiment, what interrelations in the group would create such interactions were examined. One group that consisted of individuals was compared with three groups that had different interrelations. I group (individual group) were given the same instructions as NV in the first experiment. Gc (control) were instructed only to work together. Gd (decision group) were told to present cards after a decision by the pair. Gv (verbalization group) were told to present cards and to name each of them together. All three pair groups committed less errors than I group (TABLE 2-1). But Gc's behavior patterns were similar to the I's. They were apt to present cards monotonously and hastily without any agreements and inhibitions from their partners and without verbalizations. Gd took much time at all stages of the task (TABLE 2-3) and had more inhibitions. They often uttered “wait a. moment” to their or to themselves. Though the rate of their verbalization of figures was about a half of Gv's, but more than Gc and I. Gv's regulatory response time per every trial showed the same decreasing pattern as in V (FIG 2-1).
Thus different inderactions led to different performances and it is showed momentary inhibition has a relation to verbalization. But how the elements of interactions had relations to systematization of the analysis-synthesis process was not directly revealed. This should be examined in the future by corrected procedures.

View full abstract

The English classroom practice by the direct method has proved to be effective in extensive reading for senior high school classes. In the class, a question and answer interchange, summarization and storytelling have been tried, and summarization has been a difficult task for average students. The aim of this research was to investigate the effects, on the communication skills of the subjects, of transmitting the instructor's expectation as to the constituent information to be used for the summarization to them. Four measures were employed: i) useful communication unit score, ii) useless communication unit score, both based on the evaluation of the test material by six teachers, iii) summarization judgment, a measure based on the interaction between the useful and useless communication units, and iv) the number of words. Three matched groups, each of 29 first-year students of a senior high school, were trained and tested according to the following program.
In the pre-test, all the subjects were asked to read and summarize in the written form within 40 minutes a chapter of an adventure story. In the training period, all the subjects were given the same lesson for understanding the material by questions and answers. After this, for the control group (C-group) the instructor asked two students to summarize the material orally; for the first experimental group (EI-group) he told them a model of the summarization and then let a student tell the class his own summarization; for the second experimental group (EII-group) he asked the students and let them answer the questions which covered the same information as the model given to EI-group, and then asked a student to summarize the lesson. This training procedure was repeated four times. The post-test was the same as the pre-test in the test material, the length of time, the form of answering, etc.
The result was that EII-group was superior to the others in general, and C-group showed little progress in the manipulation of information. EI- group came in between, similar to EII-group in that useless communication units did not increase; similar to C-group and inferior to EII-group in the increase of useful communication unit score, though the difference between the useful communication unit score of EI-group and that of EII-group was moderate. From this it is supposed that how to organize information was better acquired by questions and answers.
Contrary to the author's expectation, the number of words increased, in all the three groups. This suggests that the progress in the understanding of the material will develop the tendency to express oneself in a less succinct way, which seems to be an important cause of the difficulties that summarization tends to have. The largest increase in the control subjects, and the tendency to re- strain in both the groups of experimental subjects show the necessity of the proper help on the part of the instructor.

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract