ELEVENES REAKSJON PÅ SKOLENS PROGRAM,ARBEIDSMETODE OG ARBEIDSORDEN

Grunewald, K., Simeonsson, R. J. &; Scheiner, A. Piaget and Normalization: Developmental Humanism. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 21, 181‐195. The technology of behaviorism and the social consciousness of normalization have produced monumental changes for developmentally handicapped children. Both, however, lack an intrinsic developmental perspective and as pragmatic approaches they do not provide conceptual bases to distinguish the means‐end aspects of ‘normality’. Piaget's cognitive‐developmental theory is proposed as a framework to provide content, direction and structure for educational and habili‐tative intervention. The specific contributions of (a) competency focus, (b) cognitive stages, (c) invariance of development, (d) construction of reality, (e) assimilation‐accommodation, and (f) decentration are considered within the context of main‐streaming and other normalization efforts. An interface between the sequences of ‘guiding environments’ and the Piagetian construct of stages in the construction of reality is specified. The juxtaposition of common themes promotes the systematic analysis of environments and experiences of the developmentally handicapped to meet developmental as well as humanistic criteria.     

NORGES ALMENVITENSKAPELIGE FORSKNINGSRÅDS GRUPPE G: PSYKOLOGI,UTDANNINGS‐OG UNGDOMSSP0RSM#afAL. HOVEDLINJER I VIRKSOMHETEN

Sandven, J. (1970). Students with Lowered Mark for Conduct at the End of the Youth School. A study of their situation in school, their background and possibilities. Scand. J. educ. Res. 14, 74—104. The major aim of the study was to bring to light whether characteristic differences exist between students who get a lowered mark for conduct and other students, and what are the particular features of such differences. The main material was collected in the youth school partly by direct investigations among students in the 9th grade, partly by means of information and evaluations from the schools. Althogether about 3,500 students were involved in the study. At the end of the youth school about 11 % of the students, i.e. 15% of the boys and 7% of the girls, got a lowered mark for conduct. The percentage varied markedly from school to school, from 1% as the lowest to 31% as the highest. The majority of students with a lowered mark (92 %) had a course program not preparing for the gymnasium. Nearly half of them had no plans for further education. Most of them (85 %) were regarded by their teachers as not suited for the gymnasium. As a rule they had a negative attitude to school and a low sense of well‐being. Marked differences in home background between these students and the others were not observed. As a group the students with a lowered mark differ markedly from the others as to problem‐solving ability and school achievement motivation. The conclusion is that as the school is today with regard to content, methods, and demands, students who are weak intellectually and in achievement motivation, will much more frequently run into a situation where they develop behaviour conflicting with the norms of the school, thus leading to a lowered behaviour mark. Though it is not possible to know whether an alteration of the school would result in behaviour in harmony with educational aims, it is argued that serious effort in this direction should be made, considering the importance of the behaviour and character development of the student.     

DET TEORETISKE OG METODISKE GRUNNLAG FOR MODENHETSPRØVING

Werdelin, I. (1969). Relationship between Teacher Ratings, Peer Ratings, and Self Ratings of Behavior in School. Scand. J. Educ. Res., 13, 147‐169. A rating scale of student behavior was given to teachers and a self‐rating scale to the students themselves, who also judged the behavior of their classmates. The teacher rating scale was factor analyzed, separately for each sex, and so was the self‐rating scale. The teacher rating scale, the self‐rating scale, and the peer rating scale were also factor analyzed jointly. Relations with other behavior variables and intellectual variables were found. Close connection appeared between teacher ratings (including school marks) and peer ratings, while self‐ratings differed considerably from these.

This is a report from the School Mathematics Project at the School of Education, Malmö, Sweden. The data treated were collected during the author's stay in the United States, and he wants to thank Dr. Max Beberman for kind support.