CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE EFFECTS OF LITERACY AND SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGES
ON COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Linguistics
by
Julie Ann Easton
May 1984
The Thesis of Julie Ann Easton is approved:
Dr. Paul Kirk
Dr. Iris Shah (Chair)
California State University, Northridge
ii
To Xoua and Chue
whose generosity, friendship, and faith
have added a profound dimension to my life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express thanks to my thesis committee members,
Dr. Iris Shah, Dr. Stephen Ross, and Dr. Paul Kirk for their
invaluable assistance and encouragement; to Tom Sponheim for the
many hours he spent doing the computer analyses, patiently listening
to my ideas, and encouraging me when I needed it most; to Tina Van
Natta who managed the indispensible task of deciphering my
handwriting; to Mary, Gustavo, and Joan for their patience and
support; and finally a special thanks to Xoua and Chue and all of
the Hmong participants who so kindly and warmly welcomed me into
their lives.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION • • • •
ACKNOWLF~EMENTS.
LIST OF TABLES.
ABSTRACT.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • iii
iv
......
. . . vii
........
.viii
..
...
Chapter
1.
.....
Review of the Literature . . .
...
Luria's Research . . . . .
..
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY •••
1
6
Review of Recent Studies in Cross-Cultural
Psychology and Cognition • • •
• • • • •
11
...
17
The Hmong.
2.
1
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ••
...
...
19
Fieldwork Methodology ••
Subjects • • • • • • •
19
...
19
....
Geometric Terminology in Hmong
.• .
Results (Test 1) . . .
....
Procedures (Test 2).
...
.....
Results (Test 2)
.....
• . .
Procedures (Test 3) •• . . .
...• •
Results (Test 3)
.....
......
Sub-Groups la and 1b •
....
Male/Female Variable
.......
Procedures (Test 1) ••
•
• • • • .. =
3.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.
v
21
23
23
27
28
33
34
38
40
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 45
APPENDICES .
A.
B.
C.
D.
'
. . . . 48
DATA SHEETS (TEST 3) ••
. . . . . . . • • • 81
RAW DATA SHEET ••
. . . . . . . . . . . . • • 99
T-TEST RESULTS. •
..
. . . . . . • 101
DATA SHEETS (TESTS 1 AND 2)
<1
vi
TABLES
Table
Page
...
27
1.
Uzbekistan Naming of Geometrical Figures • •
2.
Test 1:
3.
Uzbekistan Classification of Geometrical Shapes. •
32
4.
Test 2: Hmong Classification of Geometrical
Shapes
33
27
Hmong Naming of Geometrical Figures •
... ... .. .. ... ... .
..
s.
Test 3:
6.
Test 1: Hmong Naming of Geometrical Shapes -Sub-Groups • • • • • • • • • • • •
39
Test 2: Hmong Classification of Geometric
Shapes -- Sub-Groups • • • • • • • • • •
40
7.
Hmong Classification of Pictures • • •
....
38
8.
Test 3: Hmong Classification of Pictures -Sub-Groups • • • • • • • • • •
9.
Test 1:
Hmong Male/Female Variable ••
41
10.
Test 2:
Hmong Male/Female Variable ••
42
11.
Test 3:
Hmong Male/Female Variable ••
42
vii
40
ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF LITERACY AND
SOCIOCULTURAL CHANGES ON COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
by
Julie Ann Easton
Master of Arts in Linguistics
This research project was designed to explore the effects of
literacy and socio-cultural changes on the cognitive strategies of
different members of the Lao Hmong community living in Long Beach,
California.
The motivating factor for undertaking such a study was
a desire to understand the cognitive strategies employed by preliterate
H~ong
in order to develop more effective second language
literacy materials and methods.
A. R. Luria's sociohistorical approach to understanding the
cognitive development of the peoples of Uzbekistan, and his
experiments with these people who were undergoing major socioeconomic changes as a result of the Russian Revolution, formed a
basis for the methodology of my fieldwork with the Hmong.
Using
Luria's research as my guide, I replicated several of his
experiments dealing with perception and classification, and applied
viii
them to two main groups of subjects.
The first group was comprised
of Hmong who were preliterate or had attained very low levels of
literacy skills in English, and who had limited contacts with
western culture.
Group 2 consisted of Hmong men and women literate
in both Hmong and English, and engaged in full contact with western
society.
The findings suggest that subjects in the first group
employed primarily a concrete, object-oriented and situational
strategy when naming and classifying shapes and objects, while the
subjects in Group 2 solved the same problems by utilizing a
predominately "geometric" or "abstract" approach.
In conclusion, it
is suggested that socio-cultural changes and literacy may effect a
change in cognitive strategies.
ix
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Review of the Literature
In reviewing the literature available in the area of crosscultural psychology pertaining specifically to culture and
cognition, there appears to be a fairly large body of research most
of which has been conducted during the last thirty years.
these articles will be discussed in the next section.
Some of
Before
directly discussing A. R. Luria's work in this area, it is important
to first survey the prior research to better understand the concerns
and approaches to human mental processes of those psychologists,
anthropologists and linguists who set the stage for Luria's work in
1931.
In discussing this early work, four names are given foremost
attention because of their pioneering contributions to the field of
cognition and culture; these men include W.H.R. Rivers, Franz Boas,
Wilhelm Wundt, and Lucien Levy-Bruhl.
W.H.R. Rivers was primarily concerned with basic sensory and
perceptual processes.
Beginning in the early 1900's, he and his
colleagues conducted reseach on the Papua Coast as well as in
southern India with the Toda people which examined cognitive and
perceptual processes of two disparate groups.
Through the
administration of different tasks, systematic observations were made
on memory and perceptual functioning in vision, hearing, and other
sense modalities.
According to Berry and Dasen, the aim of Rivers
and his team "was explicitly comparative, to discover whether these
basic psychological phenomena were vastly different among such an
1
2
unusual (to Victorian Britons) people" (1974: 3).
In his research with the peoples of the Papua coast, Rivers
observed that because of practice in attending to small details of
landscape, vegetation, and animal life in his surroundings, "the
savage is able to see and recognize distant objects in a way that
appears almost miraculous" (Rivers, 1901: 43).
He concluded,
however, by stating that, "It is doubtful whether his visual powers
excell those of the European who has trained his vision to any
special end" (1901: 43).
From his observations of the Todas he
further concluded that: "There is no great difference in visual
acuity between savage or barbarous and civilized races, though the
balance of superiority may be slightly on the side of the former"
(1905: 325).
Herbert Spencer, a leading figure in English scientific and
intellectual circles in the decades from 1850-1900, maintained that
there was a basic difference between the mental processes of
"primitive" and "civilized" peoples.
He claimed that primitive
thinking exhibited the following "deficiencies":
no conception of
general fact, no ability to anticipate future results, limited
concepts, absence of abstract ideas, and the lack of idea of
causality (Spencer, 1888).
However, he stated that, "the
uncivilized have acute senses and quick perception.
[They are]
imitative and clever, rapid learners of simple ideas [but] incapable
of taking in complex ideas."
He concluded:
"The primitive
intellect develops rapidly and early reaches its limit" (1888: 91).
Spencer, with his prevailing biological orientation, which relied
mainly on the concepts of natural selection, not only attributed
3
lower mental traits to "inferior" races but to lower socioeconomic
classes within industrialized nations.
The conclusions of Spencer, and the majority of other
scholars who held similar views at the turn of the century, were
challenged by Franz Boas.
A noted anthropologist and linguist, he
contributed a great deal to the understanding of the mentality, art,
religion, and folklore of "primitive" societies.
In his work,
The Mind of Primitive Man (1911), Boas considered the question of
how "primitive" man differs from "civilized" man.
Standing in
direct contrast with the racially based evolutionary theory of
cognitive processes, held by men such as Spencer, Boas stated:
We recognize that there are two possible explanations of the
different manifestations of the mind of man. It may be that
the minds of different races show differences of organization; that is to say, the laws of mental activity may not be
the same for all minds. But it may be that the organization
of mind is practically identical among all races of man;
that mental activity follows the same laws everywhere, but
that its manifestations depend upon the character of
individual experience that is subjected to the action of
these laws • • • the differences between civilized man and
primitive man are in many cases more apparent than real; that
the social conditions, on account of their peculiar characteristics, easily convey the impression that the mind of
primitive man acts in a way quite different from ours, while
in reality the fundamental traits of the mind are the same
(102-114).
Boas emphasized that the differences which exist in the
cognitive life between "primitive" and "civilized" man are in the
area of content, due to different cultural content which enters into
the mental process, and concluded that differences do not exist in
the basic process itself.
Through his research he demonstrated that
all races of man are mixed to some extent and that no race is
4
superior to another in basic capacities or abilities.
Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of psychology as a natural science,
undertook the study of the "native mind" and presented his findings
in his book, Elements of Folk Psychology (1911).
Like Boas, Wundt
argued that the intellectual process and level are comparable
between primitive and civilized man.
He maintained that
differential individual and group behavior and attainment has its
basis in cultural and environmental contexts, as well as the content
of the intellect.
Unlike Spencer, he did not view the apparent
differences as difficiencies, or low mental capacities; rather, he
explained them in terms of "the limited nature of the wants of
primitive man" (1911: 110).
He went on to explain how primitive man
found in his environment an abundance of food, game and clothing and
U;erefore lacked "the incentive to strive for anything beyond these
simple means of satisfying his wants.
He seeks for nothing further,
since he finds all that he desires in his environment • • • " (1911:
110, 111).
He concluded that
The intellectual endowment of primitive man is in itself
approximately equal to that of civilized man. Primitive man
merely exercises his ability in a more restricted field; his
horizon is essentially narrower because of his contentment
under these limitiations (1911: 113).
In 1910, Lucien Levy-Bruhl published How Natives Think, and
attacked the claim held by Boas and Wundt of the universality
thought processes.
of
Influenced by the sociologists at that time who
held the theory that the characteristics and behavior of the
individual were determined by social collectivity, he studied the
published reports of missionaries, travelers and early
5
anthropological observers, analyzing the culture of which the
individual was a member.
Not only were his conclusions challenged,
but so was the reliablity of his sources.
Levy-Bruhl used the term "collective representations" to
refer to the set of general beliefs held by a particular culture.
He maintained that these beliefs regulated the thought processes of
the individuals in that group.
In contrast with the cognitive
processes of the European, Levy-Bruhl states that
Their [primitive] mental activity is too little differentiated for it to be possible to consider ideas of images of
objects by themselves apart from the emotions which evoke
those ideas, or are evoked by them (1910: 23).
He coined the term "prelogical" and used it to describe
primitive mentality. In defining this term, he stated that "it
[primitive mentality] does not bind itself down, as our thought
does, to avoiding contradiction" (1910: 63).
He further describes
the differences in the logical connections of the primitive man as
being "mystical, with intellectual processes being hopelessly
entwined with emotional life" (1926: 35).
In conclusion he stated,
"the mental processes of 'primitives' do not coincide with those
which we are accustomed to describe in men of our own type
(1926: 14).
"
Thus, Levy-Bruhl explained the differences in cognitive
behavior as being a result of the differences in cognitive process
or capacity.
Rivers challenged Levy-Bruhl's conclusions stating that
primitive cultures generalize the facts of the external world into
different categories from those that we are accustomed to use.
He
6
maintained that the intellectual apparatus of humans in primitive
cultures was fundamentally identical to that of more advanced
people.
(Rivers, 1926: 112).
These were some of the different
approaches to the understanding of human mental processes at the
time that Luria began his work in 1931.
Luria's Research
Aleksanar Romanovich Luria completed his undergraduate work
in Kazan, his home town, in 1921.
His interest was in the field of
psychology but since there was no existing psychology department in
Kazan at that time, he entered the Kazan medical school.
In 1923 he
accepted a position at the Institute of Psychology at Moscow
University.
His thinking was greatly influenced by Soviet
psychology which maintained that
Consciousness is the highest form of reflection of reality;
it is, moreover, not given in advance, unchanging and
passive, but shaped by activity and used by human beings to
orient themselves to their environment, not only in adapting
to conditions but in restructuring them (Luria, 1976: 8).
In 1931, Luria took the view that higher cognitive
activities were sociohistorical in nature and he set out to show
that changes in the course of the historical development of a
society would effect changes in the structure of mental activity-not just the specific content but also the general forms basic to
all cognitive processes (1976: 8).
At the time of his study, enormous social changes were
taking place in all parts of the Soviet Union.
The Socialist
Revolution had brought about transformations in the socioeconomic
7
life in many parts of Central Asia.
The area where Luria conducted
the majority of his experiments--Uzbekistan--was undergoing major
changes.
Before the revolution the people lived in a "backward"
economy based mainly on the raising of cotton.
The masses in that
area had lived for centuries in a state of economic stagnation and
illiteracy.
According to Luria, they were heavily influenced by the
Islamic religion which, through its religious dogma and rigid
behavioral standards, held the people back from independent thought.
Before the revolution the people dependeded completely on the
wealthy land owners and feudal lords.
As a result of the
revolution, however, Uzbekistan became a republic with collective
agricultural production.
Chains of schools were established in areas where previously
people were almost 100 percent illiterate.
Large numbers of adults
were being familiarized with the elements of modern technology
through short-term literacy programs.
They were beginning to break
down spoken language into its constituents and encode it in a system
of symbols.
Luria believed that these programs, which accepted
people with no formal education whatsoever, were significant not
only for the training they provided, but also because of the
restructuring of the students' consciousness, which took them beyond
immediate practical concerns, expanded their outlook on the world,
and brought them into more theoretical spheres of activity (1976:
13).
The socio-historical changes that were taking place as a
result of the revolution formed an ideal testing ground for Luria's
hypothesis that these reforms effected not only a broadening of
outlook, but also a radical change in the structure of cognitive
8
processes.
In the forward to Luria's book, Michael Cole pointed out that
the intellectual climate in Moscow at the time that Luria was
working was not at all friendly to his conclusions.
Cole states
that
The status of national minorities in the USSR has long been a
sensitive issue (not unlike the issue of ethnic minorities in
the United States). It was all well and good to show that
uneducated, traditional peasants quickly learned the modes of
thought characteristic of industrialized, socialist peoples, but
it was definitely not acceptable to say anything that could be
interpreted as negative about these people at a time when their
participation in national life was still so tenuous (Luria,
1976: xiv).
Luria emphasized the beneficial consequences of collectivization but
as Cole pointed out, critics such as Razmyslov warned that his data
could be read as an insult to the people with whom he had been
working (Luria, 1976: xiv).
Luria's work was first published in Russian in 1974, and at
that time, the implications of different patterns of intellectual
behavior characteristic of different social groups was looked upon
from a broader point of view.
A leading Soviet theoretician
summarized the contribution of Luria's work: "A. Luria's book is an
important and, it may be said without exaggeration, a unique
contribution to the methodology and theory of psychological science
and to the development of its basic principle of historicism"
(Antsyferova, 1976: 256).
Cole, on the other hand, disagreed to some extent with the
conclusions that Luria drew from his research.
He states, "what
Luria interprets as the acquisition of new modes of thought, I am
9
more inclined to interpret as changes in the application of
previously available modes to the particular problems and contexts
of discourse represented by the experimental setting" (Luria, 1976:
xv).
Cole goes on to say that the value of Luria's book does not
depend on our interpretation of his results, but suggests that the
interpretation of such findings will need to be ironed out by other
investigators working in those parts of the world where traditional
societies still exist (Luria, 1976: xv).
The areas of cognitive activity analyzed for the purpose of
Luria's study included perception, classification, generalization,
abstraction, deduction and inference, reasoning and problem solving.
The tests he used in the area of perception and classification dealt
mainly with the naming and classification of "geometrical" figures.
His subjects were presented with 19 different shapes and were asked
to name them and classify similar ones into separate groups (see
Appendix A for a list of the figures).
His subjects were then shown different sets of drawings.
Each set contained 4 drawings of items which were familiar to the
subjects such as: a hammer-saw-log-hatchet, a bird-knife-daggarbullet, and a glass-saucepan-spectacles-bottle.
The subjects were
asked to choose three of the four objects which were most alike.
In
each set, the possibility was presented for the subjects to group
objects according to practical schemes or to select items belonging
to the same taxonomic categories.
Luria's method of investigation
was used for the purpose of my study; however, items in each set
were changed so that they would represent objects that were familiar
in the Hmong culture (see Appendix B for the items used).
10
The Uzbekistan subjects were divided into five basic groups:
(1)
Ichkari women who were completely illiterate and not involved
in modern social activities.
Because of the many restrictions
imposed by the Islamic religion, they were confined to special
women's quarters and could leave only if covered by a veil.
Male
interviewers were not permitted to enter the women's quarters;
therefore, the interviews for this group of subjects were conducted
by other women.
(2)
Peasants in remote villages who continued to maintain an
individualistic economy, to remain illiterate, and to involve
themselves in no way with socialized labor.
(Luria often omits this
group when calculating percentages in his findings.)
(3)
Women with no formal education and almost no literacy
training who attended short-term courses in the teaching of
kindergarteners.
(4)
Collective farm workers and young people who had taken short
courses and were still barely literate.
(5)
Women students with two to three years of study who, with
still fairly low educational standards, were admitted to a teachers'
school (Luria, 1976: 15).
The number of individual subjects, as well as the number of
groups used, seemed to vary slightly from experiment to experiment.
When administering the experiments on the naming of geometrical
shapes (see Table 1), he utilized only four of the five original
groupings of subjects, excluding Group 2 (the peasants in remote
villages).
In recording the results of the same experiment as it
dealt with the classification of the geometrical shapes, he excluded
'
6
11
two of the subjects belonging to group 5, women at teachers' schools
(see Table 3).
Luria's fieldwork was conducted by a team of more than 12
Soviets.
They held sessions with the subjects which took the form
of long conversations (in Uzbek) in places where the villagers spent
most of their time.
Most of the exchanges were done in tea houses
or around evening campfires in fields and mountain pastures.
An
assistant to the experimenter sat near the participants in a place
where he avoided drawing the attention of the subjects while
continuously recording the results.
Luria points out that the
subjects viewed the tasks as "riddles" and that they were like a
natural extension of the conversation (Luria, 1976: 16).
Luria contends that of the five groups only the last three
experienced the conditions needed for radical psychological change.
Groups 3 through 5 had access to technology, literacy skills, and
other new forms of knowledge; however, he states that "the first
two groups were much less exposed to the conditions necessary for
any such fundamental shift" (Luria, 1976: 15).
Through a comparison
of the mental processes of the five groups, he hypothesized that
changes could be observed which were caused by cultural and
socioeconomic realignment.
The results of his fieldwork are
shown concurrently with my data analysis (see pp. 27, 32).
Review of Recent Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology and Cognition
As we have seen in a previous section, many of the early
researchers studying the cognitive activity of different cultural
groups came to the conclusion that cultural differences were due to
12
innate differences in mental faculties.
The recent literature
however, seems to show agreement with Boas that the "functions of
the human mind are common to the whole of humanity" (1965: 135), and
cultural differences are seen as different manifestations of
common underlying cognitive structures (Cole and Scribner, 1974: 25).
Many contemporary researchers have investigated the
variables which effect differences in cognitive styles and
strategies.
During the last 30 years several important studies have
been made which shed more light·on how socio-cultural variations and
literacy effect differences in cognitive strategies.
A study by Sylvia Scribner (unpublished but discussed by the
author in Cole and Scribner, 1974) suggests that exposure to Western
or modern living conditions, and/or Western education seem to have
·an important effect on the verbalization of classifying strategies.
Scribner conducted her research in Liberia among the Kpelle
population.
and children.
Her subjects were divided into two main groups--adults
The adult subjects included high school students,
nonliterate rice farmers from a traditional village on a road (road
village), and nonliterate rice farmers from a traditional bush
village five hours from the nearest road (bush village).
The
children were grouped according to age; each group included children
who did not attend school as well as those who did (1974:
119)~
Her experiments closely resembled those made by Luria.
The
subjects were shown 25 familiar and common objects and were asked to
group together similar items.
The objects could be grouped
according to their taxonomic categories (in this case hunting
implements, foods, cooking utensils, clothes, etc.) or according to
13
how they functioned together in a given context.
Scribner found that most of the adults tended to group items
by taxonomic categories, except for the subjects from the bush
villages, who, although they showed some category influence,
preferred the contextual method for classifying.
Schooled and
nonschooled child subjects ranging in age from 6 to 8 grouped the
items in an idiosyncratic fashion.
The 10 to 14 year old
nonschooled children grouped the objects in basically the same
manner as the 6 to 8 year olds; however, their schooled counterparts
tended to group the items according to their semantic categories.
Cole and Scribner point out that many of the illiterate adults also
grouped the items according to taxonomic categories and suggest
that "some experiential factors other than formal Western-type
schooling may further the switch from nonsemantic to semantic bases
of classification" (1974: 120).
The interesting thing to note in this study is the way in
which the subjects described their reasons for grouping certain
items together.
The high school subjects and the schooled 10 to 14
year olds were the only groups who used categorical names or common
attributes to justify their classifications.
The other adult
subjects explained their choices by describing how the objects
functioned in a given context, or offered arbitrary statements such
as "I like them this way" (1974: 120).
The nonschooled children
usually did not give an explanation for their groupings.
In summarizing the effects of commerce and schooling on
classifying strategies Scribner concluded
14
Taxonomic class membership seems to play a dominating role as
the basis for grouping items when people move from isolated
village life to towns more affected by commerce and the exchange
of people and things. Attendance at a Western-type school
accentuates this switchover to taxonomic grouping principles.
But schooling seems to affect even more than this: attendance
at school apparently encourages an approach to classification
tasks that incorporates a search for a rule--for a principle
that can generate the answers. At the same time, schooling
seems to promote an awareness of the fact that alternative rules
are possible--one might call this a formal approach to the task
in which the individual searches for and selects from the
several possibilities of a solution (1974: 122).
Jerome Bruner, noted for his studies of perceptual and
cognitive processes, affirms that western style education clearly
influences the cognitive behavior of different cultural groups.
He
conducted a study among the Wolof tribe in Senegal where subjects
selected from three populations were given classificatory tests to
determine what influences affected their classifying strategies.
The subjects were traditional people (both children and adults) who
had not attended school, schoolchildren from the same town, and
schoolchildren living in the capital of Senegal.
Each subject was
presented with several sets of pictures mounted on cards.
The
subjects were asked to select two pictures from each set which were
most alike and to give their reason for doing so.
The test was
designed so that pairs could be formed on the basis of color, form,
or function.
According to Bruner, conceptual development in children
begins with the description of items in terms of their perceptual
qualities such as color, size and shape.
This changes as the child
begins to base his classifications on what things can do in a
context, or their ''functional" attributes.
Finally, items are
15
grouped according to a common shared feature or class name.
s~udy
In his
of the Wolof, Bruner tound that preference for color among
the unschooled children increased with age, whereas preference for
classifying pictures according to form and function was shown by the
schooled city and rural children.
The older school children
justified their classifications in terms of subordinate categories,
whereas the unschooled rarely did.
From these results it appears
that schooling strongly influenced the way classifications were made
and the kinds of reasons subjects gave for the classes they formed
(Bruner, Olver, and Greenfield, 1966).
Thus we see that the studies done by Scribner and Bruner
offer further evidence to support Luria's hypothesis that exposure
to modern living conditions and Western education affect the
cognitive strategies used in the process of classification.
Recent studies not only indicate the effect that schooling
has on cognitive strategies, but researchers are also taking a look
at the manner in which knowledge (particularly second language and
literacy skills) can be most effectively taught.
Jenny Cook-Gumperz and John J. Gumperz in their paper, "From
Oral to Written Culture: The Transition to Literacy," discuss some of
the different ways in which knowledge is acquired and stored in
written and oral cultures.
According to the authors, the
preliterate relies on folk narratives and oral genealogies as the
key methods for transmitting knowledge.
This mode of communication
is basically cyclical and allows for a wide degree of creativity in
the process of retelling.
As a result, details of a story often
16
vary but the story schemata remains relatively stable.
As the preliterate moves into literacy, knowledge is viewed
as incremental rather than cyclical.
The authors suggest that due
to the change from cyclical to incremental modes of transmission, a
change occurs in the society as the transmission and acquisition of
knowledge is further separated.
Instead of acquiring knowledge and
passing it on primarily through oral means,
New classes of literates arise who specialize in and earn
their living through the preservation, editing and
interpretation of written information. In doing so, over
time, these groups develop strategies of processing
information and conventions for dealing with language that
are quite different from those used in every day interaction
and which, as they grow more complex, must be learned through
special schooling (1982: 4).
In an oral society, knowledge is acquired in the context of
daily life and the emphasis in learning is on the recreation of
information in a natural environment.
In literate societies the
child acquiring literacy skills is removed from the family and put
in an environment where emphasis is placed on repetition, copying,
and verbatim memory.
A decontexualization process occurs which
creates a chasm between acquiring language as an oral skill and the
acquisition of language as a literate skill.
When discussing what
is required of children as they move into literacy, the authors
state that " • • • [they must] make some basic adjustments to the way
they socially attribute learning to the events and processes of the
every day world in order to be able to loosen their dependence upon
contextually specific information and to adopt a decontexualized
perspective" (1982: 16).
Thus, the child can never rely solely on
17
what is said within any one context but must learn to rely on
incrementally acquired knowledge.
The move into literacy is further
complicated as the learner cannot rely on prosodic cues to aid in
understanding but must develop a high degree of tolerance for
lexical and semantically carried new information to monitor and
reproduce written information.
The authors conclude that
Children need experiences in school that favor the learning of
written culture through the medium of the oral culture, thus
building on the interpretive skills and linguistic understandings
that children bring to the school experience, as a basis for
further learning. (1982: 28)
The Hmong
Several years ago I was employed in teaching literacy skills
primarily to Lao Hmong pre-literate refugees.
10
This experience led
the formation of growing friendships with several Hmong families.
After reading Luria's study it was clear to me that the Lao Hmong
living in Long Beach were in the process of undergoing sociocultural changes in many ways similar to the Uzbekistan people who
Luria studied in 1931.
Many of the Hmong were experiencing for the
first time the changes in life-style produced by living in a
technological society, and were being exposed to formal education.
The Hmong migrated from China more than a century ago
because of persecution by the Han, and were spread throughout
various parts of Southeast Asia.
The majority settled in the
mountainous regions of Laos and grew rice and corn by means of a
slash and burn agricultural system.
They are a creative people who
used their imagination and skills to make functional items such as
knives, cutting blocks, pipes, etc.
The women used their skills and
18
talents to create brightly colored, intricately designed needlework
and applique pieces which they used to decorate their traditional
dress.
Many Hmong men, commissioned by the U. S. Central
Intelligence Agency, fought the Communist Vietnamese and Pathet Lao.
In August of 1975 the Communists began gassing whole villages, and
between the years 1975 and 1978 the gassing had killed over 50,000
Hmong
(Hamilton-Merritt, Oct. 1980: 3).
Many Hmong fled to
Thailand for safety where they lived in camps waiting for relocation
in the United States, France, Australia, Canada, and Argentina.
Few
of the Hmong, who waited in the Thai camps for more than five years
before receiving entrance papers to a third country, took advantage
of the small scale independent programs that were set up to teach
literacy skills in Hmong and English.
It should be noted that not
until relatively recently (30 years ago) was an orthography
Jeveloped for the Hmong language by French and American
missionaries.
Coming to the United States, they were faced with the task
of adapting to a language, culture, and society completely foreign
to their own.
The vast majority were illiterate in Hmong as well as
English and were often unprepared to deal with the demands of an
American life-style.
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Fieldwork Methodology
A word needs to be said about how the research was
conducted.
In doing field work with people it is important that the
subjects not be suspicious about the experimenter's motives, but
that a relaxed, trusting relationship be established between the two
groups.
It is under such conditions that data reflecting the
subjects' actual capabilities is most easily gathered.
My fieldwork
with the Hmong took place primarily in the people's homes.
I
explained to each individual that I was doing a school project about
the Hmong and would welcome their participation.
A young Hmong woman, who is literate in both Hmong and
English, acted as my interpreter and was able to convey the
unthreatening nature of my investigation.
During the experiments
with the individuals belonging to the predominately illiterate
group, the exchanges were often conducted in Hmong.
In most
instances however, especially with those subjects literate in
English, the dialogue was in English, and only certain words that
were unknown to them were translated by the informant.
Subjects
Thirty-two subjects were drawn from the Lao Hmong community
in Long Beach, California.
The subjects were selected to represent
two basic groups; each group was comprised of sixteen subjects.
groups were divided according to the following criteria:
(1)
Attainment or lack of literacy skills in their mother tongue
19
The
20
(Hmong), and (2) Degree of contact and participation in western
culture.
An oral questionnaire was administered in order to
appropriately group the subjects.
The subjects in Group 1 ranged in age from 22 to 67 (mean
age 36).
All of the participants in this group had lived in the
United States for three to four years.
When living in Laos their
occupations and duties included farming, raising pigs to sell,
working as soldiers for the CIA, and raising families.
None of the
subjects had received any formal education in their native country.
The number of years of schooling in the United States ranged from
zero to one and one-half years, and that being limited to the study
of English as a second language.
All of the subjects
were
completely illiterate in Hmong, and ranged in literacy skills in
English from non-literate to barely literate.
Their interaction
with western culture on a daily basis ranged from restricted (stayed
home, took care of children, cooked) to somewhat limited (grocery
shopping, post office, etc.).
This group is predominantely female,
probably due to the traditional definition of roles where women are
typically responsible for the duties involved in raising families,
with little priority given to educational achievements in a "formal"
setting.
The subjects in Group 2 ranged in age from 12 to 52, (mean
age 22).
All of the subjects had lived in the United States for
four to seven years.
In their homeland they were students, farmers,
teachers, or if they were very young, they helped their parents with
household chores.
More than half of the participants had received
some formal education in Laos or in the refugee camps in Thailand.
21
All subjects had four to five years of formal education in the
United States, which was not restricted to ESL classes.
Each
subject was literate in Hmong and English and half of the subjects
were literate in a third language as well (Lao).
The subjects in
this group were not restricted in their contacts with western
society and were involved in direct interaction with Americans in
school or business.
It should be noted that in contrast with Group
1, the majority of the subjects in Group 2 were males.
Again, this
pattern can be predicted by the role patterns as defined by
traditional Hmong culture.
Group 1 was later divided into sub-groups: la and lb.
These
sub-groups were created in order to see if differences could be
detected in the naming and classifying processes as literacy in
0glish and social contact gradually increased.
The members of
Group la had attended ESL classes in the United States for zero to
three months and were illiterate in English.
They remained in large
measure tied to traditional Hmong ways and were very restricted in
terms of outside contact (none of these subjects were responsible
for grocery. shopping, paying bills, etc.).
The subjects in Group lb had attended school in the United
States for six months to one and one-half years and were at
differing low levels of literacy in English.
These subjects also
interacted to a greater degree with western society than did
subjects in Group la.
Geometric Terminology in Hmong
In looking at the terminology dealing with geometric shapes
22
in Hmong, I was struck by the paucity of actual one-word geometric
terms.
Although some exist, I found that it was more common for
the specific characteristics of shapes to be described.
In Hmong, the classifier "lub"* is used before many words to
indicate bulk, roundness, or the lumpy quality of a shape or object.
The terms "voj" meaning "a circle" or "a cipher," and "kheej kheej"
meaning "round" or "circular" are commonly preceded by the
classifier "lub" to form "lub voj" and "lub kheej kheej," both of
which were used by several subjects in Group 1 to name the circular
shapes.
The term for triangle "ib lub ua ntsais" was used by various
individuals; however, it was far more usual for them to describe the
triangular shapes according to their particular characteristics,
employing the term "lub peb ceg" meaning "three limbs, or sections."
The infrequency with which the subjects in Group 1 employed
the few geometric terms that exist in Hmong, and their apparent
preference for choosing object-oriented names for geometeric shapes,
suggest the pre-literate Hmong's inexperience in using these terms
and the possible unimportance of defining shapes in a Euclidean
fashion in a non-technological society.
* A consonant at the end of a syllable or word represents the
tone on which the vowel is pronounced, as follows: -b high tone, -j
high falling tone, -v mid rising tone, mid tone is unmarked, -s midlow tone, -g mid-low breathy tone, -m low glottalized tone, -d low
rising tone (Downing and Olney, 1982: ix).
23
Procedures (Test 1)
Each subject was asked to name 18 geometrical shapes found
in Luria's perception tests.
The figures were drawn separately on 4
1/2 by 5 1/2 inch cards and the cards were shown to the subjects one
at a time in random order.
As the shapes were identified, their
responses were recorded on a separate piece of paper (see Appendix
A).
Results (Test 1)
In defining perceptual processes, Luria (1976: 21) notes
that, "every perception is an inherently complex, active process
of assigning incoming information to a familiar category, an event
intimately involved with the abstraction and generalization
functions of language."
Categorical, abstract thinking, which is
characteristic of a technological society, is conveyed through the
linguistic system of that society, and learned by its members.
As
defined by the linguistic system in use, words then are in fact
tools we use to create categories and express perceptions and
concepts.
For instance the terms circle, square, triangle, etc. are
words we have learned in school and have accepted as familiar forms
for categorizing shapes in our society.
In a non-technological
society however, it may be that different perceptual rules,
influenced by the demands of daily experience, determine the way in
which its members choose to organize their perceptions and the type
of linguistic categories that are important.
It appears that
societies and cultures develop ways of naming and classifying
24
objects in the world around them in different ways.
In naming and
classifying geometrical shapes, a person from a highly technological
society might employ a syst.em of well-differentiated geometrical
concepts. which have been learned? whereas a farmer in a nontechnological society might describe and categorize the same objects
in terms of their practical value in concrete situations or abstractly in terms of familiar shapes.
An analysis of the data indicates a
marked change in the cognitive strategy of the two groups; one whose
perceptions are primarily shaped by practical experience, and the
other which has been influenced by formal education.
When asked to name the geometrical figures, 94.5 percent of
the subjects in Group 2 isolated the key feature of each shape and
assigned to it a geometrical name.
All of the subjects in this
group ignored the individual features of the figures (such as the
X's, dots, or half-circles which made up some of the shapes), and
focused on the major geometrical shape.
A completely different strategy was employed by the members
of Group 1 when presented with the same figures.
Of these subjects,
87.5 perceD;t identified the shapes comparing them to common objects.
A typical list of object-oriented names given to some of the objects
by this group includes:
eou
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.
a tire, black sun, moon, money, hole, ball, washing machine,
2.
a white sun, moon, earring, ring, zero
3.
a bracelet, earring, Hmong necklace, letter C
25
4.
a blackboard, little piece of wood, window, Hmong sewing,
window, floor, mirror
5.
a box, Hmong sewing, window, house
6.
a tent, sail on a boat, mountain, house
7..
a bottles shovel
fo~r
garlden:ing:r hoe, doorway,. b;rush for wa~l
paint
8.
a table, apartments, Hmong house, bed, ice chest, pool
9.
a saw, screw, leaf, knife
10. a ruler, twig, pencil, chopstick, letter L
It seems clear from the list above that many of the objectoriented names are associated with things that the Hmong have used
in their daily-life in Laos as farmers, soldiers or housewives.
However it is interesting to note that many of the object-names that
they chose were not limited to items used in practical experiences
in their native country.
More than twenty-five of the object-
oriented names given seem to have been influenced by their contact
with western culture, the new experiences that have accompanied
living in an a metropolitan area, and the exposure to schooling.
A
partial list of object-oriented names which reflect items in the new
culture include: na pool," "'men-working sign," "washing machine,"
"big apartment," "pennies," "ruler,"
11
volleyball net," "small
bathtub to wash a baby," "ice chest," "the letters X, C, 0, L, A,"
and "a blackboard."
I found many similarities between the object-oriented names
given by the Hmong, and those names used by Luria's Uzbekistan
subjects.
In both cultures subjects with very little or no exposure
to formal education called the circular shapes, "a moon,"
26
"bracelet," "earrings," or "coins."
The common names given by
people of both cultures to what we would call triangular shapes were
"a tent," and "a mountain."
What the literate described as a square
was described by both the Hmong and Uzbeks as "a window," and
"a mirror .. "
Not only were c:oimlMn object-names given by people in
the two cultures., but tla<e percentage of object-oriented names
assigned by Uzbeks with very little exposure to school and with
low level literacy skills was strikingly similar to those assigned
by the Hmong subjects in Group 1.
More than 85 percent of the
Uzbekistan subjects used object-oriented names, compared with 87
percent of Group 1 Hmong (see tables 1 and 2).
When naming geometrical shapes made up of smaller units such
as
X
'lt Jt
lt
~
X ~ ll.lt
•• ••
:
:
• • ••
..).)(,
c..
n.n. n
•
••
• •
the subjects in Group 1 tended
e• e•
to focus on the individual features rattier than perceiving the
shapes as a whole.
its parts.
Thus they would name the figure by describing
For example the figure made up of X's was named "the
letter X," "part of Hmong sewing" (referring to cross stitching), or
"stars"; they described the shape made up of dots as "candy,"
"money," "eyes," "black fruit," or "buttons"; they judged the figure
made up of small half-circles to be "letter C's," "half-moons,"
"fingernails," "horsehoof prints, 11 or "peanut shells," and so forth.
Of the subjects in this group, 17.9 percent chose to name the shapes
in terms of their individual features, in contrast with the subjects
in Group 2 who never employed this strategy but perceived them in
their entirity as geometric shapes.
27
Table 1
Uzbekistan Naming of Geometrical Figures
(percentages)
Number of
Subject;s
Group
Geometrical
Categories
ObjectOriented
Categories
Ichkari women
18
00 .. 0
100.0
Women in pre-school
courses
35
14.7
85.3
Collective-farm
activists
24
41.0
59.0
Women at teachers'
school
12
84.8
15.2
(Luria, 1976: 34)
Table 2
Test 1:
Group
Number of
Subjects
Hmong Naming of Geometrical Figures
(percentages)
Geometrical
Names
ObjectOriented
Names
Individual
Features
Names
Object
Oriented
Combined
Group 1
16
12.5*
69.9*
17.9*
87.7**
Group 2
16
94.5*
5.5*
00.0*
5.4**
*
T-test: comparisons between Groups 1 and 2 significant at p
< .001
** T-test not nm
Procedures (Test 2)
After completing the first task of naming all eighteen
shapes, the cards were placed in random order in front of the
subject on a table or on the floor.
The subject was then instructed
to group the cards according to "sameness of shape."
They were not
28
restricted as to the number of cards that could belong to each
group, nor were the number of groups limited.
Upon finishing this
exercise they were asked to explain the basis on which they had made
their decisions (see Appendix A).
Results {'rest 2)
In Test 1 the strategies used by Group 1 to encode the given
shapes differed for the most part from the processes utilized by the
subjects who had been exposed to formal education.
In this test, I
wanted to see what strategy subjects from Group 1 would employ in
order to classify their "object-named" shapes.
As the results
indicate, the strategy they chose was to classify different objects
according to how they operate together or perform certain functions.
As anticipated, subjects in Group 2 almost always grouped
the shapes according to abstract geometrical characteristics.
Rather than allowing the individual features of the shapes to
determine their classifying strategy, they isolated the major
features and assigned them to a geometric class.
This type of
decision-making process probably reflects learned ways of
classification" and is expected of subjects whose cognitive
processes have
been~
to an extent, shaped by formal education.
As
can be seen in the raw data (Appendix A), the majority of these
subjects had the same number of groups, and identified them as
belonging to the same geometric classes.
The subjects in Group 1 not only used a different strategy
in classifying the shapes, but the number of categories and the size
of each category varied greatly from person to person.
These
29
subjects used object-oriented characteristics 17.3 percent of the
time when classifying the shapes.
The data was further analyzed to
see whether the shapes were merely given a common object-name,
whether they were g,ron.p>ed acco.rd.ing to their individual features, or
whether they were functionally related. The shapes lffere classified
48.5 percent of the time purely on the basis that they shared the
same shape as objects in their environment.
1-1 grouped
~
and
A
For example, Subject
together calling them "houses";
Subject 2.-l assigned the same name to his grouping of
and Subject 11-1 put
both "doorways."
""/___\~ and
Q
/ \
together because they are
The list goes on, but it is interesting to note
that in almost all cases where one object-name is given to a
particular set of shapes, the shapes themselves share similar
geometric properties.
Other subjects from Group 1 made their choices in terms of
the individual features shared by objects.
• together, and yet the
• •••
differed from subject to subject.
•• ••! and
••••
many subjects to group :
object-oriente~
classifier
It was very common for
: •.
Subject 1-1 calls them "candy" and "pennies"; Subject 2-1 ascribes
the name "money"; Subject 3-1, "pennies"; Subject 5-1, "eyes";
Subject 6-1, "holes"; and Subject 13-1, "buttons."
It was common
for Luria's subjects to group these same shapes together assigning
object-names such as "watches," "stars," or "dots."
In all of these
examples, the subjects focused their attention primarily on the
individual features, and this became the principle reason for
grouping.
Perhaps the most interesting way of classifying used by
30
Group 1 was exhibited in the way subjects grouped "apparently"
dissimilar shapes in terms of their conceived interaction in a
situation.
below.
Some delightfully creative examples of this are recorded
Subject 1-1 groups
e
("black sun") and
together because "sun comes up, take ruler to school."
puts together
D
("table"),
\L---'
Subject 5-l
("table"),
("twig"),
because "table for writing, another for eating, and twigs for legs.''
When this subject first identified the shapes individually, she
assigned the names
0
L----'j
("house"),
("bathtub"), and
("twig"), but as she perceived them together, she changed the names
to suit a particular function.
This tendency to change the
originally assigned name of a shape to a different one when grouping
shapes, was fairly common among subjects in Group 1 • . Many times, if
a subject was unable to give a name to a shape in the first
experiment, when it came time to group the shapes together, a name
would be given to it without hesitation for it was seen as a
necessary element in a larger situation.
As might be expected, men and women differed in the
situations they created, influenced by the particular roles that
were common to their every-day experience.
£ ('
soldier in Laos, grouped together:
("big tree"), and
1
Subject 8-1, who was a
tent"),
Q
(''Hinong
("little tree"), saying
"house made from tree, little tree makes tent."
He later told me
that as a soldier he often made provisional shelter by constructing
a tent from branches of trees and banana leaves.
As a father, he
was the one responsible (with the help of other clan members) for
building a house for his family.
The women who chose this
31
situational mode of classifying tended to assign shapes to
situations that were part of their everyday experience such as
sewing and washing.
Q
Subject 6-1 grouped these shapes together:
(\'}:white house~"),.. and
f,____,.,l
"put Hmong sewing on wall of house."
put these shapes in the same group:
A
(nHmon.g sewing"), because
Another wo:man, Subject 14-1
e
("border design on Hmong sewing 11 ) ,
Hmong sewing"), and
~
("washing machine")'
~
("border design on
(?), reasoning that "sewing and washing
machine go together, dirty, put in washing machine."
I was curious to see if a subject who chose to group shapes
primarily in an object-oriented, or situational way could be
persuaded to regroup them in terms of their common geometric
features.
I asked Subject 8-1 .if it was possible to put
~ in the same group.
"hole" and
Q
e
and
~_was a
He responded by explaining that
was a "moon", and that obviously they were not the
same and could not be grouped together.
could be put together.
I then asked if
D
and •
He replied by saying that they were
different and could not be grouped together.
This was an isolated
instance and clearly, many more experiments would need to be
conducted i.n this area before any conclusions can be drawn as to how
willing (or unwilling) object-oriented subjects are to change their
classifying strategies when presented with a geometrical
alternative.
A comparison of tables 3 and 4, reveals that very little
difference exists in the strategies used by both Uzbekistan and
Hmong subjects when perceiving and classifying the shapes.
The
tables do show however, the changes in classifying-strategies
32
between subjects who have attended school and employ Euclidean
concepts, and those subjects who have grown up under the influence
of object-oriented activities.
The data suggests that the
percentage of figures grouped on the basis of object-oriented
evaluation, or in terms of their individual features, decreases and
the percentage of features seen in terms of geometrical categories
increases with degrees of literacy and years of formal education.
Table 3
Uzbekistan Classification of Geometric Shapes
Number of
Subjects
Group
Failure To
Classify
Geometrical
Categories
(percentages)
ObjectOriented
Categories
Individual
Features
Categories
18
21.8
0
20.4
57.8
35
18.3
18.3
8.4
55.0
Collective-farm
activists
24
12.8
44.8
11.6
30.8
Women at teachers'
school
10
0
0
0
Ichkari women
Worn~
in pre-school
COUr'lreS
(Luria 9 1976: 40)
100
33
Table 4
Test 2:
Hmong Classification of Geometric Shapes (percentages)
~bject-Oriented,
DbjectbJ:O"Ill!~
mi~>r
of
~:tr:i.cai
Subjet:!ts
tOri en~~
~
~
Individual
Features
Categories
Objects in a
Situation
Cat-£-gories
Features,
Situations,
Combined
Group l
.Hi
2247*
48~54'
11.3*
17.5*
77 .3**
Group 2
16
94.7*
5.3*
o.~
0.0*
5.3**
* T-test
** T-test
comparisons between Groups 1 and 2 significant at p
not run
<
.05
Procedures (Test 3)
The last test dealt with the categorization of objects.
There were a total of three sets and each set contained four
objects, or photographs pasted individually to an 8 by 10 inch
card.
The first set consisted of a tomato, a piece of pork, rice,
and a pot.
The second set included a photograph of an airplane, a
motorcycle, a car, and coins.
The last set was made up of a sewing
needle, a piece of thread, a piece of material and a photograph of
two women.
Presented with one set of pictures at a time, the
subjects were asked to choose three of the four pictures that were
the "same things," and to explain their reasons for the choice that
they had made.
After the subject's response was recorded, I chose
the remaining card and grouped it with two other cards asking if the
new set contained the "same things," and could be grouped together.
For example if a subject initially chose to classify the pot,
tomato, and pork saying that they were cooked together, I would then
34
place the tomato, pork, and rice side by side and ask if they were
the same things and could be grouped together (see Appendix B).
(Note that +'s represent the subjects initial choices; ?'s denote
the items I put together and presented to them as possible
alternative
groupings~}
In designing this test, care was taken to include material
that was open to several possible solutions.
For example, the
subjects could classify the objects in a graphic-functional way, in
terms of how things looked or worked together in a particular
situation, or extract some "abstract" distinctive attribute common
to all of the objects, thus grouping them in a categorical way.
Results (Test 3)
Two very different strategies for classification have been
pointed out in the research done by Goldstein (1948) and Vygotsky
(1962).
Both men, doing research with very different subjects
(Goldstein with brain-damaged patients, and Vygotsky with children
as they passed through different developmental stages) found that
classification was not limited to one particular process.
Goldstein
referred to one classification strategy as "categorical" or
"abstract."
Luria (1976: 48-49) explains this as involving "complex
verbal and logical thinking that exploits language's capacity for
formulating abstractions and generalizations for picking out
attributes, and subsuming objects within a general category."
Vygotsky found that children entering adolescence reflected this
mode of thought and focused primarily on the "categorical"
relationships between objects.
35
The second strategy for classifying is based on the way
objects interrelate.
Persons using this method rely on their memory
to incorporate diverse objects into functional groups based on their
daily experiences.
Vygotsky observed this process at work in young
children who had not learned to single out a "distinctive" attribute
common to all objects as grouped by adults.
According to Vygotsky,
the prime factor responsible for this shift from a concretesituational approach to an "abstract," "categorical" one is the
gradual change which occurs in a child's whole sphere of activity
when he enters school and learns to perform certain theoretical
operations.
In my investigation of Hmong classification, it is clear
that subjects in Group 1 employed a quite different strategy when
grouping objects from that used by the subjects in Group 2.
In
Hmong, unlike English, no single words exist for "food,"
"transportation," and "tools"; however, the concepts "things to
eat," "things that move," and "things that are used (for a specific
purpose)" are familar and commonly applied concepts.
In analyzing the data for this particular test, attention
was paid to the subject's reason for grouping objects rather than
the actual objects that were put together.
In other words, I was
interested to see if the subject was classifying objects in terms of
common "distinctive attributes," or according to the way they
function in a concrete situation.
~1en
presented with the first set--tomato, pork, rice, and
pot--the subjects in Group 2 extracted a distinctive attribute
common to three of the four items.
If a subject did not know the
36
English word "food" they commonly said "something to eat," or "you
eat them."
They rejected the inclusion of the pot on the basis that
it wasn't consumable, and that it was "only for cooking."
Most of
the subjects clearly separated the distinctive attribute "food" from
the fllilction of cooking •.
Group 1 on "the ott.'t.ter hamll chose a more functional strategy
for classifying the same elements.
Although some subjects initially
grouped the tomato, pork, and rice together, their reason for doing
so was purely relational; for example one subject reasoned, "make
together, they are delicious," when asked if the pot could also be
included she replied, "yes, make soup."
Subjects in Group 2, when presented with the set-motorcycle, car, plane, money--always grouped the pictures in
accordance with a shared distinctive attribute.
For example subject
22-2, not knowing the word "transportation", compiled a list of
attributes distinctive to transportation.
Choosing to group
together the motorcycle, car and p.lane he said, "they all have
wheels, lights, and something you can step on to make it go fast;
they can drive, they need gas."
Subject 25-2 grouped the same
pictures together because they "have motors."
Asked if the money
could be grouped with the car and plane he replied, "no, different,
money doesn't have a motor, only for buying and selling."
Although
the distinctive attributes varied slightly among the subjects, the
method of classification remained the same.
Situational thinking dominated the strategies employed by
Group 1.
Subject 1-1 refused to group three pictures, insisting
that only two were alike.
She grouped the car and the plane
37
together recalling that she "came from Thailand to here on
plane, in car to Long Beach."
I suggested that the motorcycle,
car, and plane should be grouped together and she denied that
possibly and added, "but money and motorcycle same; give money
to get. mot@:n:ycle .. n
Subject 7-1 grouped the motorcycle, car and
.... ~
"
*-"~-·
• ..:1
.... ..
eJlimlP.1OJ:J..ng
....~t.e .1uea
o f necess1.:...y
money t:.o.geuuer
She states,
11
l. f
you want to go to San f'rancisco, give money to buy ticket to fly."
She agreed with me that the motorcycle, car and plane belonged
together, however 5 she based her decision on the fact that they were
the same color (silver).*
Similar functional categories were revealed as the subjects
viewed the set--needle, thread, material, and women.
Subjects in
Group 1 commonly described their reasons for classifying items in
terms of the interrelated function of the objects in a situation,
where-as Group 2 consistently picked out the distinctive attribute
distinguishing the needle, thread, and material from the women (for
more examples see Appendix B).
Table 5 shows the percentage of uabstrac.t," "categorical"
answers given by each group.
A T-test which was run on the combined
score of all three sets showed significance at the .001 level.
(For
standard de•'lt:iat:i.on and standard error scores see Appendix D.)
Unfortunately, Luria does not include a table of his results in
terms of percentages; however, in the discussion of his findings he
states that marked differences existed between subject groups in the
*Throughout this study, when analyzing the data, color was
treated as a purely graphic description of the objects, and was
not considered the same as a "distinctive" attribute.
38
strategies they used for classifying objects.
Like the Hmong, the
illiterate Uzbeks grouped pictures according to their relational
characteristics in a situation, whereas subjects exposed to formal
educ:aU.on and who were involved in commerce almost exlusively
employed
"abstract'~'~
or
Test 3:
Table 5
11
t
r:at.egor.ica1" s.t:ra:tegies ..
Hmong Classification of Pictures
(percentage of abstract)
Tomato,
Pork, Rice,
Pot
Motorcycle,
Car, Plane,
Money
Needle, Thread
Material,
Women
Combined
Score of
Picture Tests
Group 1
34.4*
50.0*
53.1*
45.8*
Group 2
93.7*
100.0*
90.6*
94.8*
Group
* T-test
comparisons between Groups 1 and 2 significant at p
< .05
Sub-Groups 1a and 1b
The percentages from all three tests were compared among
groups
la~
lb, and 2 in order to see if the influence of graphic-
functional and concrete-practical activities had less influence on
the strategies employed by subjects as they were making the
transition into literacy and were more exposed to formal education.
In Test 1, (naming of geometrical shapes), the percentage of
geometri.cal-shape names given by the 3 groups was as follows:
Group 1a: 1.6 percent; Group 1b: 16.2 percent; Group 2: 94.5
percent.
For Test 2, (classification of geometrical shapes) the
percentage of geometrical categories was the following: Group 1a:
6.3 percent; Group 1b: 28.2 percent; Group 2: 94.7 percent.
In Test
39
3, the percentage of abstract or "distinctive" attributes assigned
by the three groups in the combined three picture tests was:
Group
1a: 33.3 percent; Group 1b: 50.0 percent; Group 2: 94.8 percent (see
Tables 6, 7, and 8).
Although the T-test comparisons are not statistically
significant between groups 1a and 1b, the percentages do show that
Group lb tends to employ a slightly higher percentage of
"geometrical" strategies than Group 1a when naming and classifying
shapes or objects.
To see whether these changes are truly
significant at the .05 level, a larger sampling needs to be gathered
for Group 1a, which in this study consisted of only four subjects.
Table 6
Test 1:
Group
Number of
Subjects
Hmong Naming of Geometrical Features -Sub-Groups (percentages)
Geometrical
Names
ObjectOriented
Names
Individual
Features
Names
Object
Oriented
Combined
Sub-Group
la
4
1.6*
75.7
22.7*
98.4>!<*
Sub-Group
1b
11
16.2* #
67.5#
16.3* JJ
83.8**
Group 2
16
94.5#
5.5#
00.0#
,,_
5.4**
"'" T-test comparisons between Groups la and 1b significant at p
# T-test comparisons between Groups lb and 2 significant at p
** T-test not run
< .05
< .001
40
Table 7
Hmong Classification of Geometric Shapes (percentages)
Test 2:
Object~rour:;
1>..\tmhex ;:of
ee-t:lric..al
fu-ierJ.t~
&a~je<eb
u~
~<t'!lle'5
4
6.3
46.9
12
28.2#1
49.0#
16
94. 7#
5.3#
]ndividual
Fea.lttl\res
Ca't~oriies
Objects in a
Situation
Categories
Object-Oriented,
Features,
Situations,
Combined
_I
Sub-Group
la
25.0*
21.9
93.8**
16.0##
71.8**
0,0##
5.3*''
Sub-Gra{J.p
Ib
Group Z
6.8* #I
0.0##
* T-test
comparisons between Group la and Group lb
significant at p < .05
# T-test comparisons between Groups lb and Group 2 significant
**
at p < .OS
T-test not run
Table 8
Test 3:
Tomato,
Rice,
Pot
Pork~
Group
Hmong Classification of Pictures -- Sub-Groups
(percentage of abstract)
Motorcycle,
Car, Plane,
Money
Needle, Thread
Material,
Women
Combined
Score of
Picture Tests
Sub-Group
la.
25.0
50.0
25.0
33.3
Sub-Group
lb
37.5
50.0
62.5
50.0*
Group 2
93.7
100.0
90.6
94.8*
* T-test
comparisons between Group lb and 2 significant at p
<
.001
Male/Female Variable
T-tests were run to determine if sex'differences existed in
-I
41
the cognitive strategies employed by Hmong males and females.
The percentages were compared between male and female subjects
belonging to the same group, and as the data clearly indicates there
was little variation between the sexes in the strategies they
employed for naming and c.lassi.fying (see t.ables 9, 10, and 11).
Although the percentage o£ "geometricaln responses by females: tended
to be slightly higher than those of the male subjects in the same
groups, T-test analyses clearly indicate there is no statistical
difference between the sexes.
In order to clearly understand the influences shaping the
existence (or lack) of sex differences in cognitive strategies,
tests need to be designed which deal directly and specifically with
this issue.
Table 9
Test 1:
Group
Number of
Subjects
Hmong Male/Female Variable
Geometrical
Names
(percentages)
ObjectOriented
Names
Individual
Features
Names
ObjectOriented
Combined
Group 1
male
16
13.3
67.9
18.8
86. 7>'f.*
female
16
12.3
70.1
17.6
87.7**
male
16
92.7
7.3
7.3**
female
16
98.7
1.3
o.o
o.o
Group 2
p > .OS and hence non-significant in all cases tested
** T-test not run
42
Table 10
Group
Test 2:
Number of
Subjects
llmong Hale/Female Variable
Geometrical
Names
ObjectOriented
Names
(percentages)
Individual
Features
Names
Objects in a
Situation
Categories
ObjectOriented
Combined
Group 1
male
i.6
12.5
SB~l!l
6.3
12.5
77 .6**
female
!6
22..1&
415,.,0
.13.0
19.1
77 .1**
male
16
92.3
7.7
0.0
7.7**
femal.e
16
100.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0**
Group 2
**
p > .OS and hence non:...significant in all cases tested
T-test not run
Table 11
Test 3:
Hmong Male/Female Variable
(percentage of abstract)
Group
Combined
Score of
Picture Tests
Group 1
male
45.8
female
45 .. 8
Group 2
male
98.5
female
86.7
p
> .OS
and hence non-significant in all cases tested
CHAPTER THREE
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
As a result of socio-cultural changes taking place within
this Lao Hmong community, variations can be seen in the type of
cognitive strategies aRI\)loyed by its different members.
As the
conditions uf their social life have changed, new motives for action
within the new social structure have also been created.
Once
farmers in the hill country in Laos, concerned with the concrete
task of living off the land, the Hmong have been thrust into a world
made up of abstract words and symbols and are now forced to acquire
the necessary skills to function within the framework of modern
societ.Ja·
Information is perceived and processed in terms of its
immediate, practical significance, based on the recall of graphicfunctional experience and situations by subjects in Group 1, whose
exposure to formal education and western social contacts is limited.
The subjects in Group 2 show that, with the restructuring of
their experience and needs, coupled with the attainment of the
rudiments of theoretical knowledge and literacy, a cognitive
strategy is acquired which involves different forms of abstraction
and generaL-i.zing capabilities utilizing complex abstract categories.
It must be emphasized that the data does not reflect a
difference in the mental capacity of the two groups, rather, the
emphasis should be placed on the ability of the subjects to choose a
particular cognitive strategy based upon the character of the
experiences which they have had.
To ascertain whether actual developmental changes are taking
43
44
place in the cognitive structures of the individual Hmong, further
research needs to be conducted.
A longitudinal research design
could be applied to individuals to determine if changes in their
experiences (social and/or educational) lead to changes in their
cognitive processes ..
The findings in this study
see~n
1to have direct bearing on
the development of second language literacy materials and methods
for pre-literate peoples.
Fortes (1938) in his study of the nsocial
and Psychological Aspects of Education in Thailand," observed that
the principle method of education (parent to child) in that preliterate society was by participation.
He noted that social
behavioral skills were acquired by "synthetic combination" and were
not learned in discrete categories, "Tale educational method does
not include drill as a fundamental technique.
It works through the
situation, which is a bit of the social reality shared by adult and
child alike" (Fortes, 1938: 27).
Second language literacy ma.terials and methods which
facilitate learning based on participation in practical tasks and
real situations would appear to be more effective for students who
tend to employ concrete-functional, and object-experience oriented
cognitive strategies.
Clearly the direct application of the
findings in this study to the develop of second language literacy
materials and methods necessitates further research.
'
tl
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antsyferova, L. I. (1976). Review of A. R. Luria's: The Historical
Development of Mental Processes. Social Sciences, 7, 254-256.
Berry, J. W., & Dasen, P. R. (1974). Culture and Cognition:
Readings in Cross-Cultural Psychology. London: Harper and Row
Publishers,.
(1971). Ecological and Cultural Factors in Spatial
Perceptual Development.. Canadian Jour:nal of Behavioral Science,
3 (4), 324-326.
Boas, F. (1965). The Mind of Primitive Man.
York: The Free Press.
(Reprint, 1911).
New
Boyd, R. (1969). The Psychological and Mythmaking Phenomena in
Visual Symbolization of Adult Illiterates. Wisconsin Research
Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
Bruner, J. S., Olver, R., & Greenfield, P. (1966).
Cognitive Growth. New York: John Wiley.
Studies in
Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and Thought: A
Psychological Introduction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
_____,___ , Gay, J., & Glick, J. (1968). Some Experimental Studies
of Kpelle Quantitative Behavior. Psychonomic Monograph, 2 (10),
Whole No. 26.
Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. J. (1982, unpublished paper).
Oral to Written Culture: The Transition to Literacy.
University of California, Berkeley.
From
Curriculum and Staff Development for Teachers. Non-literate
Adult ESL Students: An Introduction for Teachers, (1981, March).
Dasen, P. R. (1972). Cross-Cultural Piagetian Research:
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 3, 23-39.
A Summary.
de Lacey, P. R. A Cross-Cultural Study of Classification Ability in
Australia .. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, I (4), 293-304.
Doob, L. W. (1964).
357-363.
Societies.
Eidetic Images among the Ibo.
Ethnology,
(1957). Psychological Research in Non-Literate
American Psychologist, 12, 756-758.
Downing, B., & Olney, D.P. (1982). The Hmong in the West.
Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
45
1,
46
Fortes, M. (1938). Education in Taleland.
(supplement), 4.
Africa, xi,
Goldstein, K. (1948). Language and Language Disturbances.
York: Grune and Stratton.
Goody, J. (1968). Literacy in Traditional Societies.
Cambridge University Press.
Guds:drinskr~
s..
(1965)..
Ins.t:itut:e of
Handbook of Literacy.
Mexico:
New
Cambridge:
Summer
LiBgW..st::ics~
Greenfield, P. M.. Y and lllrlllAer~ J. S. (1966)., Culture and Cognitive
Growth. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 89-107.
Hayes" A.
Work Conference on Literacy: Recommendations.
Center for Applied Linguistics,
(1965)..
Washington~
Heimbach, E. (1969). White Hmong-English Dictionary.
Cornell University, Ithaca.
New York:
Hamilton-Merritt, J. (1980, October). Gas Warfare in Laos:
Communism's Drive to Annihilate a People: Reader's Digest.
Language and Orientation Resource Center (1981).
Non-Literate Adults. Refugee Education Guide.
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Teaching ESL to
Washington:
Levy-Bruhl, L. (1926). How Natives Think. Trans. L. A. Clare.
(Originally published 1910). London: Allen & Unwin (Les
Functions Mentales dans les Societes Inferieurs).
(1923). Primitive Mentality.
London:
Allen and Unwin.
Lloyd, B. B~ (1972)e Perception and Cognition: A Cross-Cultural
Perspective. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Luria, A.. R. (1979)., The Making of Mind.
University Press.
Cambridge:
Harvard
0976). Cognj_tive Development: Its Cultural and Social
Follili.dations. Translated by Martin Lopez-Morillas and Lyn
Solotaroff. (First published in Russian 1974).
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
(1931). Psychological Expedition to Central Asia.
Science 1974, 383-384.
Piaget, J. (1966). Need and Significance of Cross-Cultural Studies
in Genetic Psychology. International Journal of Psychology,
1 (1), 3-13.
Razmyslov, P.
(1934).
Vygotsky and Luria's Cultural-Historical
47
Theory of Psychology.
(In Russian).
Knigii proletarskii revolutsii, 4, 78-86.
Regional Experts Meeting Report. (1978). Literacy in Asia: A
Continuing Challenge. Bangkok: Unesco.
Rivers, W. H~ R. (1926)
Harcourt, Brace ..
Psychology and Ethnology.
(1905). Observations on the Sense
---Journal of Psychology, I, 321-396.
New York:
of the Todas.
Bri·tish
----,,..--- (1901). Introduction and Vision. In Haddon,. A. C. (ed.)
Report of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to the
Torres St.raits, II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer 9 H. (1888). The Principles of Sociology Vol. I (3rd ed.).
New York: Appleton and Company.
Stubbs, M. (1980). Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of
Reading and Writing. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Witkin, H. A. (1967). Cognitive Styles Across Cultures.
International Journal of Psychology, 2 (4), 233-250.
Wundt, W.
UnlW:in ..
(1916).
Elements of Folk Psychology.
London: Allen and
APPENDIX A
DATA SHEETS (TESTS 1 AND 2)
48
49
1
2
3
•0
u
"black sun"
D
6
•
Female
Age:
22
"Hmong
necklace"
nHmong
sewing"
••••
• ••
••••
7
"finished
house"
8
"white
house"
•
••
••
••••
''
"pennies"
J
11
Sex:
{5~15)
5
10
1-1
"white sun"
4
9
Sub:
l '
,JJII.
1\
-
?
"envelope"
12
•put sewing on wall"
(1,18)
"snn comes up, take
ruler to school"
(3, 16)
(points to this shape
and says) "something you
wear around your neck
and put next to necklace"
(6,9)
"dimes and pennies go
together"
(14,17)
"blackboard inside house
for teaching"
(10,13)
"half moons and
go toget h er "
(7,8)
"houses"
13
"a lot of
half moons"
14
Q
";whi~>e house
:no't ::fi~.ished"
(11,12)
"both carpets, put
inside house"
15
'"/
____\..,.
w'house started,
not finished"
(2,4)
no group
16
~?
17
..---...,"white
) blackboard"
18
"ruler"
so
2
•0
3
0
1
"tire 11
"circle"
Sub:
2-1
Sex:
Male
Age:
44
"necklace"
"lititle p:iece
of wood"
4
5
6
D
••••
•• ••
••••
"chalkboardu
(1,2)
"zeros"
{4,5,17)
nvollyball court"
"money"
"border
design"
(6,9)
"money"
(14.15)
"houses"
?
9
•••
••
••••
"money"
J
II
10
11
faz'A
"crosses"
1\
"border
design"
-
12
?
13
"half moons"
1'~
D
15 '"{____\,.. "house"
16
~
"saw"
17
"vollyball
net"
18
"twig"
(3,7,8,10,11,12,13,16,18)
no group
51
1
2
3
•0
"black moon"
"white sun"
u
Sex:
Female
Age:
67
"window"
11
D
Hmong
sewing"
(1 '2)
"Moon goes up, sun goes
down.
Sun goes up, moon
. goes down.
Go together"
6
••••
•• ••
••••
"pennies"
"all squares"
7
~
"tent"
"pennies go together"
"border
d eslgn
.
"
"bottles go together"
"pennies"
no group
8
9
6
•
••
••
••••
,,
"letter X"
t. '
.Ill'-
/\
"white bottle"
12
u
"bottle"
13
.ft.
.... "'"
"letter C"
14
D
"house"
15
I
16
~
17
[
11
18
(4,5,8,14;1s,17,18)
(6,9)
(11,12)
(3, 7, 10, 13, 16)
J
10
<)
3-1
"Hmong
necklace'!
4
5
Sub:
-
\
"table"
?
1"bed"
"pencil"
52
1
2
3
•0
"Hmong money"
0
5
nHmong sewing
worn on dress"
8
9
10
11
Sex:
Female
Age:
40
"' weckl.ac e"
"Hmong se1.d..lllg; 1111
7
4-1
"earring"
4
6
Sub:
D
(5.,1-4!>H}~l7)
"look like pieces of
material"
(6,9)
"Hmong money"
••••
••••••••
"Hmong money"
(11,12)
~
"border
design"
"shov'els for gardening"
6
nborder
design"
"big money"
(1 '2)
(3,4,7,8,10,13,15,18)
••••
•
••••
no group
"stars"
'*l
·" c r o s s e s "
l
'
,J.l.t~
"piece of
material"
1\
-
"shovel for
gardening"
12
~
13
.ft.
"fingernails"
14
Q
"house 11
15
I
16
~
"""'
\
"house"
"saw"
17
"part of Hmong
skirt"
18
"twig"
53
1
2
3
•0
"silver money"
6
Sex:
Female
Age:
48
u
"floor"
D
"house"
••••
•• ••
"eyes"
••••
(2,3)
"both circles, but one
. "
has an open1ng
(6,9)
"both eyes"
(5,17,18)
"table for writing,
another for eating,
and twigs for legs"
7
"mountain"
8
"3 sides"
(8,14,15)
•
••
••
"eyes"
"both tables" (does not
explain why she included
number 8)
t
'fcross"
no group
1\
"tent"
9
10
11
••••
''••
.l.IZI.
-
12
?
13
nhorse hoof
prints"
14
"big table"
1s
.
5-1
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
I
\
ttbig table"
16~
"border
design"
17
"small bathtub
to wash baby"
18
"twig"
.
(1,4,7,10,11,12,13,16)
54
1
2
3
•0
"silver dollar"
6-1
Sex:
Female
Age:
40
"letter O"
u
"bracelet"
4
5
Sub:
0~ ~1"3)
"3 circles"
D
••••
••
6 •
•
••••
~·1 squaret11
(4.,5)
"both Hmong sewing"
"pennies"
(6,9)
"same holes"
"house"
~10,12)
'X my first name,
C my last name"
?
9
(8~11,12)
•
••••
••••
"triangles"
?
(14,17)
r!..
1o
lr.z'J.
"letter
11
1\
?
X"
"put Hmong sewing on
wall of house"
(7,15,16,18)
-
12
"hoen
13
"Hmong hat
rwitfur balls"
14
D
1s
I
16
~?
'"white house'"1
\
?
17
"Hmong sewing
for blouse"
18
?
no group
55
1
2
3
•0
u
6
Sub:
7-1
" p u t c up on.
paper, draw"
Sex:
Male
Age:
34
"limong
necklace~
"pi.ece of
material"
4
5
"black circle"
D
••••
•• •
•
••••
(1,2)
"same~
circles"
"Hmong sewing"
(4,5,6,17)
"cutting in
Hmong sewing"
"all pieces of material"
"sail on a
boat"
"all triangles"
(9,10,13)
(7,8,11,12)
11
9
10
11
t ria n g 1 e "
•••
"design on sewing, then cut"
"small and large apartments"
''
"letter X, same
as last name"
no group
••
••••
,.
1
•
'''"
1\
-
12
?
"3 points"
"design on sewing, tben cut"
14
"Hmong border design on
Hmong sewing"
Q
"big
apartment'~~!
15 ..,/____\.,. "house"
16~
"border
design"
17
"Hmong sewing"
18
"little piece
of material"
(14,15)
(3,16,18)
56
1
2
3
•0
"hole"
6
"Hmong
D
seving~~
?
••••
•• ••
••••
?
7
8
?
••••
•
••••
?
''
?
J
10
Male
Age:
34
t '
~1ZJI.
(3"11)
"letters C and A"
'(7,14~17,18)
"h ouse made from tree,
little tree makes tent"
(1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,15,16)
no group
Can you put . a n d Q
together?
0
" N o , . is a hole,
No same.
is a moon.
D
"capital A"
Can you put
toge
r?
12
?
"No,
is Hmong sewing,
No put toI don't know.
gether"
13
npeanut shells"
11
...
Sex:
0
"tent ••• I was
soldier"
9
8-1
"moon"
4
5
Sub:
1\
-
14
Q
1s
1
16
~"screw"
w'Hmong house"
r----.. "b.lg
17
18
tree,
..__ ___._ I cut"
I
"little tree"
and
D
57
•0
1
2
"black circle"
4
"blackboard"
6
"white"
"black fruit"
8
"white"
"9 black
fruits"
9
••
••••
10
r.I ' '
~lZl.
"border
design"
11
1\
"3 black"
•
-
12
16
?
.n.
"chains"
Q
"bed"
"'""'"'
\
~
11
table"
"3 corners"
17(.____..I" box"
18
'
'
33
(1,2,3)
(4,5s6,17)
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
(14,15)
"you could plant plants
in them, same bottoms"
(18)
•••
15 /
Age:
"they all have points"
?
14
Female
"4 corners"
•••••••
•••••
7
13
Sex:
"circle"
D
5
9-1
"ball"
u
3
Sub:
- - - - " b l a c k and
long"
·no group
58
1
2
3
•0
11
white"
Sub:
10-1
Sex:
Female
Age:
48
"circle"
0
"circle"
4
"circle"
(1,2,3)
"circles"
ttwhite 11
6
••••••••
••••
?
"t r i a'n g 1 e"
8
"triangl.e"
10
11
12
•
••
••
"square"
l r't
?
1\
"triangle"
••••
•
.£II A
D
"triangle"
.n
"'"""'
"thumb fingernail"
14
Q
"triangle"
15
I
16
~
18
(14,15)
"long triangles"
(16,18)
no group
13
17
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangles"
7
9
(4,5,6,17)
"I don't know how to say"
\?
"long
triangle"
-----
} "long"
"black pen"
59
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
u
D
25
"square"
(2,6,9)
"all balls"
•••••
•••••••
"balls"
( 11 ' 12 )
"both doorways"
8
(14,15)
"houses"
(17,18)
"both have lines"
•
••
••
••••
X
"marbles"
(1,3,7,8,10,13,16)
no group
''
"stars"
-
"3 lines"
t '
,t111.
/\
12
"doorway"
13
?
14
"house"
15
&..!____\_.
16
~"leaf"
17
-----,"bathtub for
(
baby"
18
Age:
(4,5)
"both material"
"border
design"
11
Female
"piece of
material"
"3 sides"
10
Sex:
"necklace"
7
9
11-1
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
II
h0
USe
l
"twig"
II
60
61
1
2
3
••0
u
4
5
6
"ball"
••••••••
••••
"Hmong sewing"
"buttons"
"border
design"
8
"border
design"
•
••
••
••••
"buttons"
11
''
X '
,llZJi
1\
-
Female
Age.:
27
(1 '2)
"circle"
(4,5)
"same as blackboard"
(6,9)
"buttons"
(7,8,16)
"same as border design"
(14,15)
"like tables"
(3,10,11,12,13,17,18)
"no group"
J
10
Sex:
"necklace"
7
9
13-1
"circle"
"blackboard"
D
Sub:
"crosses"
"border
.
"
d es1.gn
12
?
13
"letter C"
14
Q
15
f
16
~"knife"
"house"
\"table"
17
"blackboard"
18
"ruler"
62
1
2
3
•0
u
6
D
••••
••••••••
•
••
••
••••
/',
l
'
Sll~
Sub:
14-1
Sex:
Female
Age:
34
"sun"
"Hmong
necklace"
"blackboard"
"little Hmong
sewing"
"border
design"
8
10
machine"
"border
design"
7
9
'
"mirror"
4
5
" wash2ng
.
"same as earring hole"
"X's"
(2,13)
"moon and sun together,
same"
( 1 ' 7 ' 8 ' 16 )
"sewing and washing machine
together, dirty put in
washing machine"
(12,15)
"paint brush and house together, paint walls"
(17,18)
"line and ruler together,
ruler on paper to make
line"
(3,4,5,9,10,11,14,16)
no group
11
1\
-
12
13
.ft.
"""
14
Q
?
"brush for
wall paint"
"moon"
"same as ice
chest"
'
"Hmong big
15 ,/____\~ house"
16
~?
17 ..__ ___,} "ruler"
18
"line"
-I
63
1
2
3
•0
"zero"
6
u
"little piece
of material"
D
"material"
••••••••
••••
"Hmong sewing"
8
"border
design"
11
•
••
••
"Hmong sewing"
••••
'•'
"cross"
t. '
Jll~
"border
design"
1\
-
12
"border
design"
13
"Hmong sewing"
14
"border
design"
15
£.[____\~"rna terial"
16
~
17
- - - - " l i t t l e long
piece material"
18
Female
Age:
30
(1,2,3)
"zeros"
7
10
Sex:
"necklace"
"border
design"
9
15-1
"zero"
4
5
Sub:
"border
design"
I
"twig"
(15,17)
"little long pieces of
material"
(7,8,10,11,12,13,14,16)
"border design on Hmong
sewing"
(4,5,6,9,18)
no group
64
1
2
3
•0
"letter O"
"letter 0"
u
••••
•
•
••••••
"black
lette·r O's"
"black
triangle"
7
"triangle"
8
••••
•
••••
"zero,
letter O"
•
I I
10
t. '
Jll~
11
1\
"I d on ' t know,
circle"?
-
"triangle"
12
?
13
"letter C"
14
"saw"
\~
15
..
[ ____
16
~''saw''
II
SaW II
17{.,_____,}"window"
18
Sex:
Male
Age:
37
"blackboard"
"square"
9
16-1
"letter C"
4
6
Sub:
"letter L"
(1,2,6,9)
"letter O"
(3,13)
"letter C"
(7,8)
"triangles"
(14,15,16)
"saws"
(4,5,10,11,12,17,18)
no group
65
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
u
D
"square"
••••
• ••
•••••
"square of
marbles"
"triangle"
•
•••
•
••••
"triangle of
marbles"
l,
"triangle of
crosses"
l
'
.lll"
"men working
sign"
1\
-
12
"triangle"
"triangle of
C's"
13
14
15
I
16
~
\
"two lines the
same on sides
.with top
shorter than
bottom"
"half
rectangle"
17(._____)"rectangle"
18
Age:
24
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
8
11
Male
"square"
"triangle"
10
Sex:
"C, or circle"
7
9
17-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
"line, dash"
"triangles"
(1,2,3)
"circles and 3/4 of
a circle"
(4,5,6)
"squares"
(14,15)
"same but one is larger
than the other"
(16,17,18)
"a rectangle, one line of
a rectangle, 1/2 of a
rectangle"
66
"circle"
Sub:
18-2
Sex:
Male
Age:.
28
"circle"
"circle"
4
6
9
"square"
••••
•
•
••••••
•
••
••
"square"
(4,5,6)
"squares"
"square"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangles"
"triangle"
(1,2,3)
"circles"
"triangle"
(14,15,16,17)
"rectangles and a half
rectangle"
"triangle"
(18)
no group
i0
••••
J
i ',
"triangle"
11
1\
"triangle"
"''~
-
12
"triangle"
13
"triangle"
14Q
"forgot name"
15 ,/____\~"forgot name"
~
"half of
16 ~ rectangle"
17 ....,.___..}"rectangle"
18
-----"horizon tal
line"
67
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
7
8
9
()
Male
Age:
18
"square"
(1,2,3)
D
••••
•• ••
••••
"square"
"circle"
"square"
"squares"
"triangle"
"have three lines,
are triangles"
(4,5,6)
•
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
~
•
••
••
••••
"triangle"
"triangle"
t
•''
''"''-
"triangle"
11
1\
"triangle"
12
D
"triangle"
13
j\_
""'"'
"triangle"
14
D
?
15
I
16
~ "triangle"
18
Sex:
"circle"
10
17
19-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
(14,15)
"two lines are parallel,
and other two are not"
(17,18)
no group
-
\
?
J"rectangle"
"line"
68
1
2
3
•0
u
4
5
6
"circle"
Sub:
20-2
Sex:
Male
Age:
18
"circle"
"letter C"
"blackboard"
D
•••••
•••••••
"box"
"box"
(1 '2)
"circles"
(7,8,9,10,11,13)
"triangles"
(14,15,16)
"same, I don't know how
to say"
7
"triangle"
8
"triangle"
(5,6)
"box"
•••
•
••••
"triangle"
(4,17,18)
"blackboard and ruler"
''
t
"triangle"
(3,12)
"the letters C and D"
1\
"triangle"
•
9
l
10
11
l
,l.IZ~
-
12
"letter C"
13
"triangle"
14
?
15
I
16
t'::::>...
17
...
( ____}"black board"
18
?
"ruler"
69
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
7
8
9
()
16
(1,2,3)
D
••••••••
••••
"square"
"square"
"triangles"
"triangle"
"squares"
"triangle"
"rectan&les"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
•
(4,5,6,15)
(14,17)
~
•
••
••
••••
(18)
"triangle"
I I
"triangle"·
l '
,lll'l.
/\
14
Q
?
15
I
16
~"triangle"
13
Age:
"circles"
"triangle"
12
Male
_"square"
D
.n
",..."'
11
Sex:
"circle"
)
10
21-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
"triangle"
"triangle"
\
?
17
]"rectangle"
18
"chopstick"
no group
70
1
2
3
•0
u
6
7
8
9
10
D
••••••••
••••
•
~
•
••
••
••••
•
''
J''"
l
'
II
square"
II
square"
13
" cJ.rcles
.
'
1
" squares"
~7,~,9,10,11,12,13,14
trJ.angles"
"t rJ.angle"
.
(15,17)
rectangles"
II
lit rJ.angle"
.
"t rJ.angle
.
'1
"t rJ.angle"
.
D
11
"t r1angle
.
13
.;) (.
.JC.
II
"""'
t
•
I
rJ.angle'
11
"t rJ.angle
.
II
rectangle"
16
~lit.
rlangle"
17
.._____,l" rectangle"
1
18
Age:
(4,5,6)
12
15
Female
(1,2,3)
11
lit rJ.angle
.
Q
Sex:
square"
1\
14
22-2
"circle"
11
-
Sub:
"circle"
II
4
5
"circle"
"line"
(18)
no group
16)
'
71
1
2
3
•0
u
4
"circle"
Sub:
23-2
Sex:
Female
Age:
15
"circle"
"circle"
"square"
(1,2,3)
5
6
7
8
D
•••••
•••••••
A
6
"circles"
"square"
(4,5,6)
"squares"
"square"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangles"
"triangle"
(14,15,17)
"rectangles"
"triangle"
(16,18)
•
••
••
"triangle"
I l
1 '
"triangle"
11
/\
"triangle"
12
D
"triangle"
13
51.
"triangle"
9
10
••••
•
~~%~
-
no group
"'"'"
14
"rectangle"
.
15
I
16
~"rectangle"
17
}"rectangle"
18
0
D
\"rectangle"
?
72
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
u
Sex:
Female
Age:
15
"circle"
"square"
(1,2,3)
D
"square"
"circles"
(4,5,6)
••••••••
••••
"square"
•
"squares"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangle"
"triangles"
(14,15)
~
••••
•
••••
•'
'.&lll.
'
"triangle"
"octagon"
(16,17,18)
"triangle"
l
"triangle"
1\
"triangle"
D
"triangle"
.n
"triangle"
"""
14
n
15
I
16
~"rectangle"
17
[
18
24-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
"octagon, or
hexagon"
\
"octagon, or
hexagon"
}"rectangle"
"line"
no group
"but number 16 is half
of number 17 11
73
1
2
3
•0
u
4
5
6
"circle"
Sub:
25-2
Sex:
Male
Age:
52
"circle"
"ring or
b race_let"
"square"
D
••••••••
••••
7
(1,2,3)
11
"square"
circle"
(4,5,6)
"square"
"square"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
"triangle"
"triangle"
(14,15)
8
"triangle"
•
••
••
(17,18)
9
••••
10
t '
.tl%~
"triangle"
1\
"triangle missing corners"
11
•
''
-
"triangle"
12
"triangle missing top"
13
"triangle"
14
"frame of house"
15
...
/ ____\_"frame of house"
16
t:::::::.,. "
17
.._.___.,J"rec tangle"
18
t
r i a ng1e "
"line"
no group
74
1
2
3
•0
u
6
Sub:
26-2
Sex:
Male
Age:
32
"c ire le ''
"bracelet or
earring"
"square''
4
5
"circle"
D
••••••••
••••
7
"square"
(1 '2)
"circles"
(4,5,6)
'' square"
"squares"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
"triangle"
"triangles"
(14,15)
8
9
'. 0
11
•
••
••
••••
,
''
I.
'
""'"
1\
-
"triangle"
"look like triangles but
a little different"
"triangle"
no group
"triangle of
crosses"
"triangle"
12
" t r i
13
"triangle,
14
"looks like
a triangle".
15
"looks like
""(_ _ _\... a triangle"
16
~"triangle''
17
._,_ _ _],rectangle"
18
----,straight
line,
an g 1 e ''
(3,17,18)
75
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
u
Female
Age:
12
"triangle"
D
?
••••••••
?
••••
"triangle"
8
"triangle"
•
••
••
"circle
triangle"
9
••••
10
X '
,JJIJ.
"X triangle"
11
1\
"triangle"
•
I l
-
12
"triangle"
13
"triangle"
14
Q
15
../ ____\_."rectangle"
16
t::::>,..
18
Sex:
"half circle"
7
17
27-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
"?,pool"
?
'"rectangle"
"line"
(1,2,3)
"circle"(4,5,6)
"square"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangle"
(14,15,16,17,18)
no group
76
1
2
3
•0
u
6
round black"
Sub:
28-2
Sex:
Male
Age:
28
"round"
"round not
complete"
"square"
4
5
II
D
••••
• ••
•••••
11
p 1 a in s q u a r e "
"12 points
making square"
"triangle dark"
7
(1,2)
"round complete"
(4,5,6)
"squares"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangle"
(14,15)
II
"triangle"
8
9
••••
•
••••
J
"9 dark points
make triangle"
(16,17,18)
" rectangle .completew
" rectangle
10
t
'''
~''"
"9 X's making
a triangle"
11
1\
"t r1.ang
.
1e
broken edge"
-
12
"t r1.ang
.
1e
no head"
13
"10, 180% round
make triangle"
II
14
15
rectangle both
sides go in"
!..L_____\,. " r~c
tange
s1.des go
both
in"
~"half of a
16
rectangle"
171..___..].. "rectangle"
18
rectangle not complete"
"straight line"
(3)
no group
incomplete"
77
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
u
"square"
••••
• ••
••••
"circles forming a square"
•
"triangle"
"triangle"
10
11
•
••
••
••••
•
''
''zl.
l
"circles forming triangle"
"X's forming
triangle"
'
"triangle not
connected"
1\
-
12
"triangle not
connected"
13
"arcs forming
a triangle"
1.4
"rectangle"
15
16
17
18
Sex:
Male
Age:
18
"circle not
connected"
"square"
9
29-2
"circle"
4
6
Sub:
"{____\..,.
"looks like a
rectangle"
~
"right
triangle"
)"rectangle"
"line"
(1,2,3,6,9,13)
"all circles"
(4,5,17)
"squares"
(7,8,11;12,14,15,16)
"triangles"
(10,18)
"lines"
78
1
2
3
•0
"circle"
6
u
D
"square"
••••
•• ••
••••
"points making
a square"
8
"triangle"
11
14
•
••
••
"points making
a triangle"
••••
l,
"plus making
an angle"
t '
,JlZI.
(4,5)
"squares"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangles" (proceeds to
describe small differences)
(14,15,16,17)
"all like number 17, but
lost a little" (describes
the differences)
(6,18)
no group
"3 lines almost make angle"
1\
-
"angle lost
one vertex"
13
"half circle
make a triangle"
14
"2 lines parallel,
2 lines intersect"
"rectangle" (describes as above)
15
,/____\..
16
~"triangle"
18
Age:
(1,2,3)
"all circles"
12
17
Male
"black
square"
7
10
Sex:
"almost a
circle"
"black
triangle"
9
30-2
"circle"
4
5
Sub:
)"rectangle"
"line"
79
1
2
3
•0
u
6
Sub:
31-2
Sex:
Female
Age:
30
"circle"
"like a
circle"
"square"
4
5
"circle"
D
••••
• ••
•••••
7
"square"
(1,2,3)
"circles"
(4,5,6)
"square"
"triangle"
"squares"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
"triangles"
(14,15)
"triangle"
"same, but don't
remember name"
•••
•
••••
"triangle"
(16,17,18)
no group
''
"triangle"
/\
"triangle"
8
9
•
r
10
11
l '
,,l%~
-
.12
"triangle"
13
"triangle"
14
?
15
I
16
~?
17{.._____,I "rectangle"
18
"straight"
80
1
2
3
•0
u
6
Sub:
32-2
Sex:
Male
Age:
33
"circle"
"circle not
complete"
"square"
4
5
"black circle"
D
•••••
• ••
••••
7
"square"
(1,2,3)
"circle"
"square with
circles"
(4,5,6)
"square"
"triangle"
"triangle"
"triangle"
"parallelograms"
(7,8,9,10,11,12,13,16)
(14,15)
8
9
10
11
•
••
••
••••
•
t '''
.tlll.
1\
-
"t r2ang
.
1 e wit h
circles"
"triangle with
X's"
"triangle"
12
"not complete
triangle"
13
"triangle"
14
"parallelogram"
"parallel-
15
../ ____\..a o gram"
16
~"right
triangle"
17
.,(_ _ _..)"rectangle"
18
----"straight
line"
(17,18)
no group
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEETS (TEST 3)
81
82
T
0
M
A
T
0
p
0
R
K
R
I
p
c
0
E
T
Subject: 1-1
+
?
?
+
"make rice inside pot separately"
"yes, can put together for soup and juices"
?
Subject: 2-1
+
+
+
?
?
+
?
?
(£-f)
"make together, they are delicious"
?
"yes, make soup"
Subject: 3-1
+
(£-£)
+
(f-f)
"cook together"
"Hmong people don't cook together, maybe
?
someone else does"
Subject: 4-1
+
+
+
(a-a)
"Hmong people always eat pork, tomato and
rice"
?
?
?
"no, different, because pot used not eaten"
Subject: 5-1
+
+
+
(f-f)
"because make tomato and pork together in pot,
very good"
?
?
"no, Hmong people don't make rice together
?
with pork and tomato"
Subject: 6-1
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"good for eating"
+
?
"no, different ••• pork and tomato eat, pot no
eat"
83
T
0
M
A
p
T
0
R
0
K
R
I
p
c
0
E
T
Subject: 7-1
+
+
+
(f-a)
"cook rice in oil, cook pork in oil, cook
tomato in oil"
?
?
?
"no, pot hard, no good to eat"
Subject: 8-1
+
+
+
?
?
"same, eat"
?
"no, pot no good eat, pot for cooking"
Subject: 9-1
+
+
?
?
"different because you can't eat a pot"
Subject: 10-1
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"you eat them"
+
?
(a-a)
{a-f)
"because we eat them"
+
?
"yes, because you can cook tomato and pork in
pot"
Subject: 11-1
+
+
?
?
+
{f-f)
"to make soup"
"no, different, after make soup they eat
?
together but not make together"
Subject: 12-1
+
+
?
?
+
(f-f)
"because cook together"
"no, rice and tomato not make together ••• yes,
?
same because can eat together"
Subject: 13-1
+
+
?
?
+
?
{f-f)
"because cook together"
"no, different, rice is cooked separately"
84
T
0
M
A
T
0
p
0
R
K
R
I
p
c
0
E
T
Subject: 14-1
+
+
?
?
(a-f)
"same, eat"
+
?
"yes, put pot, pork and tomato together •••
rice no"
Subject: 15-1
+
+
?
?
+
(f-f)
"because you cook together"
"no, different ••• rice doesn't use salt or oil,
?
but you do use salt and oil with the tomato
and pork"
Subject: 16-1
+
+
+
(f-f)
"put tomato and pork together, make inside
pot"
?
?
"no, different, don't cook together"
?
Subject: 17-2
+
+
+
?
?
"food, eat"
?
"no, pot not food"
Subject: 18-2
+
+
+
?
?
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"food"
?
"no, can't eat a pot"
Subject: 19-2
+
(a-a)
(a-a)
"something to eat"
?
"no, one is metal, the other is something
to eat, but use together"
85
T
0
M
A
T
0
p
R
I
0
R
K
p
c
0
E
T
Subject: 20-2
+
+
?
?
"you eat them"
+
"no, you don't eat the pot"
?
Subject: 21-2
+
+
?
?
"no, pot doesn't grow"
?
+
?
(a-a)
"all have life and grow"
+
Subject: 22-2
+
(a-a)
(a-a)
"because you eat them"
+
?
?
"no, different because you can't eat the
pot"
Subject: 23-2
+
+
?
?
"cook together"
+
?
"pot is different"
Subject: 24-2
+
+
+
?
?
+
+
?
?
?
"no, pot not food, it's metal"
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"eat"
?
"no, can't eat the pot"
Subject: 26-2
+
(a-a)
"food"
Subject: 25-2
+
(f-a)
(a-a)
"because we eat them"
?
"no, because pork and rice are food ••• pot
is steel, only for cooking"
86
T
0
M
A
p
R
0
I
T
R
c
p
0
0
K
E
T
Subject: 27-2
+
+
+
?
?
(f-a)
"cook them"
?
"no, can't eat the pot, but eat the rice
and pork"
Subject: 28-2
+
+
?
?
"food"
+
?
"no, different, food and equipment"
Subject: 29-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
(a-a)
"food"
?
"no, different, because you can eat pork
and rice, but not the pot"
Subject: 30-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"can eat them"
?
"no, different because pot is metal and
rice is food, and pork is meat"
Subject: 31-2
+
+
+
?
?
"we can eat"
?
"no, different, can't eat pot"
Subject: 32-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
(a-a)
"together cook and eat"
?
"no, pot used for cooking, it's a
container ••• others are food"
87
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
A
E
R
p
L
A
M
0
N
N
E
E
y
Subject: 1-1
+
(f-f)
"came from Thailand to here on plane ••• in
+
car to Long Beach"
?
"no, but money and motorcycle same ••• give
?
?
money to get motorcycle"
Subject: 2-1
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"all machines"
?
"no, different, money is different, can't
move"
Subject: 3-1
+
+
?
?
+
"money buys motorcycle and car"
"no different, plane flies, cars not fly"
?
Subject: 4-1
+
+
+
?
?
+
?
(a-f)
"they all use gas"
?
"yes, give money to buy car and plane"
Subject: 5-1
+
(f-a)
(a-f)
"all use gas, all move"
+
?
?
"yes, because ride car and plane to go to.
work and make money"
Subject: 6-1
+
?
+
"they are running, they are the same"
+
?
(a-a)
?
"no, money is different"
88
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
A
E
R
p
L
A
M
0
N
N
E
E
y
Subject: 7-1
+
+
+
(f-f)
"if want to go to San Francisco, give money
to buy ticket to fly"
?
?
"yes, same color, silver"
?
Subject: 8-1
+
+
?
?
"same, drive"
+
?
"no, different"
Subject: 9-1
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
(a-a)
"they have something to put gas in"
+
?
"no, different ••• cars are different from
money"
Subject: 10-1
+
+
?
?
(f-f)
"tires and color (red) same"
+
?
"no, different. •• money has a different
color"
Subject: 11-1
?
+
+
?
?
+
(f-a)
"give money to buy airplane and car"
"no, different ••• airplane knows how to fly,
car and motorcycle don't"
Subject: 12-1
+
+
?
?
+
?
(f-a)
"because money buys car and motorcycle"
"no, different ••• airplane flies, others run
don't know how to fly"
89
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
E
A
R
p
L
A
N
E
M
0
N
E
y
Subject: 13-1
+
+
+
?
?
?
"all know how to move and fly"
"no, different, money can't move"
Subject: 14-1
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
(f-f)
"all pictures have red"
+
?
"yes, money buys gas for motorcycle and
car"
Subject: 15-1
+
+
?
?
+
(f-a)
"if someone makes a lot of money, they take
car or motorcycle to pick up money"
"same, yes, all are running"
?
Subject: 16-1
(f-f)
"nothing the same ••• Car, plane, motorcycle,
money, all different"
?
+
?
"no, all different"
+
+
Subject: 17-2 (a-a)
"all move, same"
?
?
?
?
"no, money can 1 t move, but can use to buy''
Subject: 18-2
+
?
+
"all transportation"
+
?
(a-a)
?
"no, money is for economy, these are
transportation"
90
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
A
R
E
p
L
A
N
E
M
0
N
E
y
Subject: 19-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"transportation"
?
"no, money is different. •• doesn't have an
engine, not transportation"
Subject: 20-2
+
+
?
?
"they move, they go"
+
?
"no, money doesn't go"
Subject: 21-2
+
+
?
?
+
(a-a)
"need gas, have engines, need batteries"
+
?
"no, doesn't need engine and batteries"
Subject: 22-2
+
(a-a)
(a-a)
"they all have wheels, lights, and
+
something you can step on to make it go
fast ••• they can drive, they need gas"
?
?
?
"they are different because they have
different things"
Subject: 23-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"transportation"
?
"no, money is not transportation"
91
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
A
R
E
p
L
A
N
E
M
0
N
E
y
Subject: 24-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"all transportation"
?
"no, money is different, it's not
transportation, but it can buy
transportation"
Subject: 25-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"have motor"
?
"no, different, money doesn't have a
motor, only for buying and selling"
Subject: 26-2
+
(a-a)
"all ride, fly, drive,--transportation ••• made
+
of steel and aluminum ••• all have engines.
?
?
?
"no, different, motorcycle and car are
transportation, money isn't"
Subject: 27-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"people drive with them"
?
"no different ••• plane and car can go,
money can't go"
Subject: 28-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-?)
"transportation"
?
"yes, all are valuable"
92
M
0
T
0
R
c
y
c
c
L
A
R
E
p
L
A
N
E
M
0
N
E
y
Subject: 29-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"transportation"
?
"yes, if you have money you have
transportation"
Subject: 30-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"all have motor"
?
"no, different because money to buy things,
car and plane go places"
Subject: 31-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"have engine"
?
"no, different because money doesn't have
engine and doesn't run"
Subject: 32-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"all have motor"
?
"no, different ••• money and transportation
are different"
93
M
A
N
E
E
T
H
T
E
w
R
D
L
E
A
R
I
0
M
E
D
A
L
E
N
Subject: 1-1
+
+
?
"take needle put in thread, sew material"
+
?
?
"yes, women take needle and sew material"
Subject: 2-1
+
+
?
?
"yes, woman use needle to sew material"
Subject: 3-1
+
+
?
?
(a-f)
"use together"
+
?
(f-f)
(f-f)
"take needle, put in thread, sew material"
+
?
"yes, women put clothes on, use needle and
thread to make clothes"
Subject: 4-1
+
+
?
"use together"
+
?
(a-f)
?
"yes, woman knows how to sew material and
make clothes"
Subject: 5-1
+
+
?
+
?
"take needle, put in thread, and sew"
?
"yes, women know how to use material"
Subject: 6-1
+
+
?
?
(f-f)
+
(f-f)
"put thread in needle, and sew on material"
?
"yes, the women take needle, put thread in
hole, know how to make sewing"
94
N
E
E
D
L
E
T
H
R
E
A
D
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
w
0
M
E
N
Subject: 7-1
+
+
+
+
(f-f)
"all four are needed to make blouse, can't
pick three"
?
?
'~es,
?
take thread in hole, sew material •••
thread comes form material"
Subject: 8-1
?
+
+
?
?
+
(f-a)
"thread and material put on women body"
"no, needle sharp and hard ••• thread and
material soft"
Subject: 9-1
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"use for sewing"
+
?
"no, different ••• those are things, and a
woman is a person"
Subject: 10-1
+
+
+
?
?
(a-f)
"use needle and thread to sew"
?
"no, because women's clothes are a
different color"
Subject: 11-1
+
+
(a-a)
"because thread in needle, used to sew
+
material"
?
?
?
"no, different ••• women are people, material
and needle are not"
95
M
N
E
E
D
L
E
T
H
R
E
A
D
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
w
0
M
E
N
Subject: 12-1
+
+
?
"use together"
+
?
(a-a)
?
"no, different, because people are person,
material and needle not people"
Subject: 13-1
+
+
"use together"
+
?
?
(a-a)
?
"no, different, because woman is people,
can walk ••• material and needle can't walk"
Subject: 14-1
+
+
(a-a)
"same ••• woman separate ••• woman no together •••
+
woman sewing"
?
?
?
"no, needle and thread not people"
Subject: 15-1
+
+
?
"take needle and thread and sew material"
+
?
(f-a)
?
"no, different ••• women are people ••• thread
and material not people"
Subject: 16-1
?
(a- )
+
+
"made of same, take thread from material"
?
?
"no, nothing else the same"
Subject: 17-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"use together for sewing"
+
?
"no, women are human, others are not"
96
M
A
N
E
E
D
L
E
T
H
T
E
R
R
E
A
D
I
A
L
w
0
M
E
N
Subject: 18-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"used to make clothes"
?
"no, women people ••• thread and material are
things"
Subject: 19-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"to use for making clothes"
+
?
"human being is different from things you
use"
Subject: 20-2
+
+
?
?
"go together to sew"
+
?
"no, because she ia a woman"
Subject: 21-2
+
+
?
(a-a)
"don't have life"
+
?
(a-a)
?
"no, women walks, talks, and needle and
thread don't"
Subject: 22-2
+
+
+
(f-f)
"women wear clothes and they are sewn with
thread"
?
?
"yes, because you put the thread in the
?
needle and sew on the material"
Subject: 23-2
+
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"make clothes"
?
"no, because women is people, material and
thread not people"
97
M
A
N
E
E
D
L
E
T
H
R
E
A
D
T
E
R
I
A
L
w
0
M
E
N
Subject: 24-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"all used for sewing"
+
?
"no, different ••• this is a human being,
needle and thread are not"
Subject: 25-2
?
+
+
?
?
+
(f-a)
"women wear thread and material"
"no, different because needle is made from
metal"
Subject: 26-2
+
+
+
(£-a)
"women need material on body and use thread
to make clothes for the body"
?
?
"no, thread and material made of same
?
thing, needle made of steel, different"
Subject: 27-2
+
+
(a-a)
"use needle and thread to make design on
+
material"
?
?
?
"no, different ••• thread and needle are used
together"
Subject: 28-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"for same job"
+
?
"no, different ••• needle and thread are
equipment, product ••• women are human energy"
98
N
E
E
D
L
E
T
H
R
E
A
D
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
w
0
M
E
N
Subject: 29-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"you need all three for sewing clothes"
+
?
"no, different ••• people can move, needle
and thread can't"
Subject: 30-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"use for sewing"
+
?
"no, different because women are different
from other two ••• other two for sewing, you
need them"
Subject: 31-2
+
+
·}
?
(a-a)
"can work together"
+
?
"no, different, because needle and thread
don't have life, and people do"
Subject: 32-2
+
+
?
?
(a-a)
"use together"
+
?
"no, different, because
material, needle
and thread are for sew ••• people
different"
APPENDIX C
RAW DATA SHEET
'
ll
99
100
RAW DATA SHEET
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
Subject
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
TEST 1.
Naming Shapes
1 - 18
TEST 2
Grouping
Shapes
TEST 3
Grouping
Pictures
222223223020322022
212223203320322222
222223223322322022
222223223322322222
212223213320322222
222213200302320020
122223213301322222
222200200020320222
121223023230322122
211120111011310122
112213123312022222
222222222222222222
212223223320322222
222222223302322021
222222222322222222
222213113110322222
111111111121111111
111111111111100111
111111111111100111
112222111112100022
111111111111100112
111111111111111111
111111111111111110
111111111111111111
112111111111122111
112111111111111111
111100111111121011
111111111111111111
111111111111111111
111111111111111111
111111111111100011
111111111111111111
444343240
22320
14230
23220
34120
3411220
212120
420
14110
21110
122320
222220
123220
24440
2220
22110
11111
l1110
11110
l10222
11110
l1110
11110
11110
11120
11110
1110
111011
ll11
l1110
l1110
11110
222222
221112
222122
ll1212
221222
111122
212222
ll1121
ll1111
122212
222111
222111
221111
122211
222121
222210
ll1l11
111111
llll11
11l111
111l11
111122
211111
1111ll
111l11
111121
2111ll
111111
l1111l
1ll111
111111
llll11
Test 1 and 2:
0 = No answer
1 = Geometric name
2 = Object-oriented name
3 = Described individual features
4 = Objects grouped in a situation (test 2 only)
Test 3:
0 = undetermined
1 = abstract
2 = functional
APPENDIX D
T-TEST RESULTS
101
102
TEST 1 -- NAMING OF SHAPES
(table 2)
Percentage of geometric categorical names:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
12.5230
94.5399
17.605
11.899
4.401
2.975
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
F 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2.19
.141
30
-15.44
0
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
FREEDOM
VALUE
PROB.
-15.44
26.34
.ooo
Percentage of object-oriented names:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
69.5585
5.4601
18.209
11.899
4.552
2.975
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2.34
.110
11.79
30
.000
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
11.79
25.83
.000
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
17.9186
0
8.077
0
2.019
0
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
8.87
30
.ooo
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
8.87
15.00
.ooo
103
TEST 1 -- NAMING OF SHAPES. (table 6)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
1.5625
16.1765
3.125
19.019
1.563
5.490
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
T
VALUE
37.04
-2.56
.013
-1.50
14
.157
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
FREEDOM
PROB.
12.55
.024
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
75.7496
67.4947
4.889
20.665
2.444
5.966
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
17.87
.037
.451
14
.77
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
13.60
1.28
2-TAIL
PROB.
.221
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
22.6879
16.3288
2.121
8.758
1.060
2.528
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
17.05
.039
1.41
14
.181
T
VALUE
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
2-TAIL
PROB.
2.32
13.66
.036
104
TEST 1 -- NAMING OF SHAPES
(table 6)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
16.1765
94.5399
19.019
11.899
5.490
2.975
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2.55
.ooo
26
.093 -13.39
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
-12.55
17.31
2-TAIL
PROB.
.000
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
67.4947
5.4601
20.665
11.899
5.966
2.975
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
F 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
3.02
.049
.ooo
26
10.03
T
VALUE
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
2-TAIL
PROB.
9.31
16.41
.000
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
16.3288
0
8.758
0
2.528
0
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
7.51
26
.000
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
PROB.
VALUE
FREEDOM
6.46
11.00
.ooo
105
TEST 1 -- NAMING OF SHAPES -- GROUP 1 (table 9 )
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
13.3272
12.2549
12.975
19.401
6.488
5.601
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2.24
.552
14
.10
.920
7.94
.13
.904
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
67.8559
70.1260
16.696
19.358
8.348
5.588
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.34
.904
14
-.21
.838
T
VALUE
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
-.23
5.96
2-TAIL
PROB.
.829
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
18.8168
17.6191
7.220
8.622
3.610
2.489
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.43
'
0
.859
.25
14
.807
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
FREEDOM
PROB.
VALUE
.27
6.15
.794
106
TEST 1 --NAMING OF SHAPES -- GROUP 2 (table 9)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
11
5
92.6641
98.6667
14.016
2.981
4.226
1.333
MALES
FEMALES
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
.T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB •
22.10
-1.35
.009
14
-.93
• 368
11.80
.201
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MALES
FEMALES
11
5
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
7.3359
1.3333
14.016
2.981
4.226
1.333
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
22.10
.009
14
.93
•368
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
1.35
11.80
2-TAIL
PROB •
.201
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MALES
FEMALES
STANDARD
DEVIATION
MEAN
0
0
11
5
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
'
j)
0
14
0
0
0
0
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
STANDARD
ERROR
1.000
DEGREES OF
T
FREEDOM
VALUE
0
0
2-TAIL
PROB.
.500
107
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 4)
Percenttage of geometric categorical names:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
22.7083
94.6875
26.154
15.861
6.538
3.965
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2. 72
.062
.ooo
30
-9.41
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
-9.41
24.72
.ooo
Percentage of object-oriented names:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
48.4896
5.3125
29.662
15.861
7.416
3.965
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
3.50
.021
5.13
.ooo
30
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
5.13
22.93
.000
Percentage .in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
11.3542
0
11.945
0
2.986
0
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
3.80
30
.001
DEGREES OF
T
VALUE
FREEDOM
3.80
15.00
2-TAIL
PROB.
.002
108
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 4)
Percentage of objects in a situation:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
17.4479
0
24.917
6.229
0
0
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
2.80
30
.009
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB •
2.80
15.00
• 013
109
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 7)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
6.2500
28.1944
12.500
27.547
6.250
7.952
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
4.86
.220
-1.51
14
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
.152
12.00
-2.17
2-TAIL
PROB.
.051
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
46.8750
49.0278
32.874
30.063
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
• 713
14
-.12
16.437
8.678
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.20
STANDARD
ERROR
.905
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
-.12
4.80
2-TAIL
PROB.
.912
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
25.0000
6.8056
0
10.211
0
2.948
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
3.48
14
.004
T
VALUE
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
2-TAIL
PROB.
6.17
11.00
.000
llO
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 7)
Percentage of objects in a situation:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
4
12
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
21.8750
15.9722
29.536
24.479
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
.560
.40
14
14.768
7.066
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.46
STANDARD
ERROR
.696
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
.36
4.47
2-TAIL
PROB.
.737
111
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 7)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
28.1944
94.6875
27.547
15.861
7.952
3.965
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
3.02
.049
.ooo
26
-8.06
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
-7.48
16.41
.ooo
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
49.0278
5.3125
30.063
15.861
8.678
3.965
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
3.59
.024
.ooo
26
4.98
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
4.58
15.57
2-TAIL
PROB.
.000
Percentage in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
6.8056
0
10.211
0
2.948
0
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
2.68
26
.013
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
T
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
2.31
11.00
.041
112
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION
(table 7)
Percentage of object in a situation:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
15.9722
0
24.479
7.066
0
0
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
2.63
26
•014
·T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB •
2.26
11.00
.045
113
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION -- GROUP 1
(table 10)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
22.5000
22.7778
26.300
27.278
MALES
FEMALES
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
14
-.02
13.150
7.875
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.08 1.000
STANDARD
ERROR
T
VALUE
.986
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
FREEDOM
PROB.
5.35
-.02
.986
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
58.7500
45.0694
11.815
33.327
5.907
9.621
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
7.96
.114
14
.79
.443
DEGREES OF
T
FREEDOM
VALUE
13.71
1.21
2-TAIL
PROB.
.246
Percentage·in terms of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
4
12
6.2500
13.0556
12.500
11.803
6.250
3.407
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.12
• 6
.765
-.99
14
.341
T
VALUE
-.96
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
4.93
2-TAIL
PROB.
.383
114
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION -- GROUP 1 (table 10)
Percentage of features in a situation:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
12.5000
19.0972
25.000
25.775
MALES
FEMALES
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
-.45
14
12.500
7.440
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.06 1.000
STANDARD
ERROR
.662
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOH
PROB •
-.45
5.32
•669
115
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION -- GROUP 2 (table 10)
Percentage of geometric categorical responses:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MALES
FEMALES
11
5
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
18.890
0
5.695
0
92.2727
100.0000
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
14
-.90
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
.385
-1.36
10.00
.205
Percentage of object-oriented responses:
VARIABLE
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
7. 7273
18.890
5.695
0
0
0
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
11
5
MALES
FEMALES
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
14
.90
.385
1.36
10.00
.205
Percentage of individual graphic features:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MALES
FEMALES
STANDARD
DEVIATION
MEAN
11
5
0
0
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0
14
0
0
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
0 1.000
0
0
STANDARD
ERROR
1.000
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
0
0
.500
116
TEST 2 -- SHAPE CLASSIFICATION -- GROUP 2 (table 10)
Percentage of features in a situation:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MALES
FEMALES
STANDARD
DEVIATION
MEAN
11
5
0
0
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
0
14
0
0
0
0
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
STANDARD
ERROR
1.000
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
0
0
.500
117
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 5)
Tomato, pork, rice, pot -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
16
16
34.3750
93.7500
43.661
17.078
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
.001
-5.07
10.915
4.270
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
6.54
STANDARD
ERROR
.T
VALUE
.ooo
30
-5.07
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
FREEDOM
PROB.
19.49
.ooo
Motorcycle, car, plane, money -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
16
16
MEAN
50.0000
100.0000
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
-4.90
.ooo
30
40.825
0
STANDARD
ERROR
10.206
0
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
0 1.000
STANDARD
DEVIATION
T
VALUE
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
2-TAIL
PROB.
-4.90
15.00
.000
Needle, thread, material, women -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
16
16
53.1250
90.6250
42.696
27.195
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
.091
-2.96
30
10.674
6.799
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
2.46
STANDARD
ERROR
.006
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
-2.96
25.45
.007
118
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 5)
Combined score of all picture tests -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
16
16
45.8333
94.7917
26.874
10.035
6.719
2.509
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
7.17
.ooo
-6.83
30
.ooo
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
-6.83
19.10
2-TAIL
PROB.
.ooo
119
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 8)
Tomato, pork, rice, pot -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
25.0000
37.5000
50.000
43.301
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
.627
14
-.48
25.000
12.500
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.33
STANDARD
ERROR
.637
T
VALUE
-.45
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
4.61
2-TAIL
PROB.
.673
Motorcycle, car, plane, money -- percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
50.0000
50.0000
40.825
42.640
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
14
0
20.412
12.309
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
F 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.09 1.000
STANDARD
ERROR
T
DEGREES OF
FREEDOM
VALUE
1.000
0
2-TAIL
PROB.
1.000
5.38
Needle, thread, material, women -- percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
25.0000
62.5000
28.868
43.301
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
.548
-1.60
14
14.434
12.500
SEPARATE VARIANCE
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
2.25
STANDARD
ERROR
.132
ESTI~~TE
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
-1.96
7.97
2-TAIL
PROB.
.085
120
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 8)
Combined score of all picture tests -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
33.3333
50.0000
30.429
25.624
GROUP 1a
GROUP 1b
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
'
0
.584
-1.08
14
15.215
7.397
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.41
STANDARD
ERROR
.298
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
-.99
4.52
2-TAIL
PROB.
.370
121
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 8)
Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
12
16
50.0000
94.7917
25.624
10.035
7.397
2.509
GROUP 1b
GROUP 2
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
6.52
.001
-6.40
26
.ooo
T
DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE
FREEDOM
PROB.
-5.73
13.54
.ooo
122
TEST 3 -- PICTURES
(table 11)
Combined score of picture tests -- Group 1 -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4
12
45.8333
45.8333
28.464
27.639
MALES
FEMALES
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
.810
.oo
14
14.232
7.979
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
F 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
1.06
STANDARD
ERROR
1.000
T
DEGREES OF
VALUE
FREEDOM
.oo
5.05
2-TAIL
PROB.
1.000
Combined score of picture tests -- Group 2 -- Percentage of abstract:
VARIABLE
NUMBER
OF CASES
MEAN
STANJARD
DEVIATION
STANDARD
ERROR
11
5
98.4848
86.6667
5.025
13.944
1.515
6.236
MALES
FEMALES
POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE
SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE
F 2-TAIL
T DEGREES OF 2-TAIL
VALUE PROB. VALUE FREEDOM PROB.
7.70
.008
2.55
14
.023
DEGREES OF
T
VALUE
FREEDOM
1.84
4.48
2-TAIL
PROB.
.139