Differences Between Developmental Studies Communication Students and Regular College Communications Students in Their Orientation to Symbols and Their Meanings

This study tested the hypothesis that regular communication students are oriented to more symbols and their meanings than are developmental communication students and thus have more ways to receive information. One-hundred students (50 regular and 50 developmental) at Central Piedmont Community Coll...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author Griffin, Thomas E
Format Report
LanguageEnglish
Published 01.01.1975
Subjects
Cognitive Processes
Cognitive Style Interest Inventory
Cognitive Tests
Communication (Thought Transfer)
Comprehension
Developmental Programs
Developmental Studies Programs
Individualized Instruction
Learning
Learning Modalities
Learning Processes
Remedial Instruction
Symbolic Learning
Two Year College Students
Two Year Colleges
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This study tested the hypothesis that regular communication students are oriented to more symbols and their meanings than are developmental communication students and thus have more ways to receive information. One-hundred students (50 regular and 50 developmental) at Central Piedmont Community College were given the 220-item Cognitive Style Interest Inventory, developed by Oakland Community College. The inventory measures major and minor cognitive style orientations. Results substantiated the hypothesis. Of the four major theoretical symbol orientations (auditory, visual, linguistic, and quantitative), regular students had a mean of 1.44 major orientations while developmental students had a mean of 1.04 major orientations. Fifteen developmental students and eight regular students were found to have major orientations to no theoretical symbols. Of the fifteen qualitative symbol orientations, regular students had a range of 3 to 15 major orientations with a mean of 9.94. Developmental students had a range of 0 to 13 major orientations with a mean of 6.84. Implications for instruction are discussed. A list of symbols and their meanings, a graph of theoretical symbolic orientations of the two groups, a graph of qualitative symbolic orientations of the two groups, a qualitative orientation profile for each group, a literature review, and a bibliography are included. (DC)