Lauer Chapter 7

As discussed in the Lauer book, in 1981, Schuessler, Gere, and Abbot tried to make scales for teacher attitudes related to writing. They used 46 items in five scales. These items came from a Composition Questionnaire from the Commission on Composition of the National Council of Teachers of English. One scale was eliminated because nine items had low reliability. Four scales were used. The alpha coefficients were: "1. Attitudes toward the instruction of the conventions of standard written English, r=.72. 2. attitudes toward the development of students' linguistic maturity, r-.73 3. attitudes toward defining and evaluating writing tasks, r-.70, and 4. attitudes toward the importance of student self-expression, r-.74. (137)."

In 1987, a similar topic was studied, with findings that "suggest that certain attitudes, such as concern with individual writers' development, an understanding of the flexibility of language, and a desire to de-emphasize grades, rules, and rigid formats, facilitate better student attitudes. (Four tables are included; 17 references are attached; and samples of the Reigstad and McAndrew "Writing Attitude Scale" and the Gere, Schuessler and Abbott "Composition Opinionnaire" used in the study are appended.)" This information comes from Eric document ED347536, and I found it interesting that this study went back to Schuessler's work. Scales of teacher attitudes seem like an area that needs more research, even today, as a means of getting away from the sheer "number obsessiveness" of standardized tests. While quantitative means are certainly used to assess even attitudes, it makes sense that those teaching writing should have a say about student writing practices. I'm sure different alpha coefficients could have been used, or current studies could adapt them for a specific purpose. .72-.74 is not a big range, though the 4 items listed above were also quite similar.

It does seem, thoug,h that things like "linguistic maturity" are difficult to define, and despite efforts to be objective, I would think that using such language naturally calls into question the validity of the research. I know that many terms are rather ambigiuous and that we work with them in the fieled. I notice a drastic difference between the language used in composition and the hard sciences, which of course is not surprising. I admire our field's persistance in doing quantitative research, though.