Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio state University, 1924. / On cover: The Ohio state university. University studies. vol. II, no. 9. Autobiography. Bibliography: p. 240-245.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1921. / Vita. Published also without thesis t.p. Thesis title page has date of publication 1920. Bibliography: p. 132-137.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1921. / Vita. Published also without thesis t.p. Thesis title page has date of publication 1920. Bibliography: p. 132-137.

It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the present types of report cards and pupil promotion forms; to study carefully their advantages and disadvantages, evaluate them, and give a suggested policy that might better suit the schools and society. / Typescript. / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts under Plan II." / "July 22, 1946." / Advisor: R. L. Eyman. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 40-47).

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

Throughout the history of American education there have been many procedures, methods and systems used in reporting pupil progress in school. It is important to appraise the perceptions of individuals directly involved when a change has been made or is contemplated.The purpose of the study was to identify the perceptionsof the students of the Fifth Street School, Connersville, Indiana, as well as the perceptions of the parents and teachers of the students in regard to the effectiveness of the parent-teacher conference method of reporting pupil progress in school.The review of literature revealed that the three basic methods of reporting pupil progress were written, oral, and a combination of the written and oral method. Several authorities believed that the face-to-face oral reporting method, between parent and teacher, to be an important part of the reporting of pupil progress.Interview guides were developed for the students, parents and teachers included in the study. All were interviewed separately and perceptions of the reporting systemnoted.The following major conclusions of the study were noted:1. Students learned what their individual strengths and weak nesses were during student-teacher conferences. Individual attention directed to each student by the teacher was a factor in motivating them to do their best work in school. When given a choice as to the method of individual evaluation they preferred, the majority chose the written report.2. Parents indicated satisfaction with the amount and kinds of information they received about their child from the parent-teacher conference method of reporting. The parents were equally divided as to their preference of receiving written or conference reports of pupil progress from the teachers.3. Teachers believed that the parent-teacher conference method was the best system to report pupil progress to parents. Difficulties in scheduling the conferences and the numberof conferences held with only one parent in attendance were noted. The teachers expressed a unanimous opinion in wanting to continue the teacher-parent conference method of reporting pupil progress to parents.There is no one best method to report pupil progress in school. Any school corporation desiring to change the method of reporting pupil progress should define the educational philosophy of the school system, have goals stated clearly, and provide a comprehensive training program for their teaching staff for maximum success.

Recording the progress of children and reporting to parents is one of the important responsibilities of the elementary school today. Reporting is a request by parents to know about the progress or lack of progress of children, but there has not been found any type of law stating that the school must give parents any type of report. It is assumed that each school will engage in this activity. / Typescript. / "August, 1953." / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science." / Advisor: Mildred E. Swearingen, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 46-48).

No description available.

No description available.

abstract / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy