Data obtained from 80 first year university students of middle-class and working-class origin were used to explore aspects of the relationships between oral and written language systems. Subjects participated in a group testing situation (written) and an individual interview (oral). The analysis, based on code elaboration theory, compared oral and written language protocols along the dimensions of structural complexity, language elaboration, verb complexity and personal reference. Results indicate that, in relation to oral systems, written systems were more complex in structure; revealed more adjectival but less adverbial elaboration; showed more complex verb structures; but contained fewer indices of personal reference. The Bernstein initiated model of verbal code elaboration and code restriction is well established in sociolinguistic research literature. Studies emanating from England ) have tended to support the Bernstein thesis of social class differences in language utilization especially in manipulating the syntactic and semantic components of language which facilitate precision, flexibility, and complexity in verbal encoding. such differences have been noted in both oral (Bernstein). However, there has been little interest shown to date in comparing elaborated or restricted codes in oral and written language samples for the same subjects, whether of middle-class or working-class origin.Differences in spoken and written language have long been studied from the time of Aristotle (&dquo;the style of written prose is not that of spoken oratory&dquo;) to the present day (Golub, 1969). Various aspects of difference have been considered: the levels of abstraction in spoken and written language (de Vito, 1967); the frequency with which certain types of linguistic structures appear in oral and written discourse (Blankenship, 1962;Golub, 1969); differing modes of expression at the ideational, structural, and psychological levels (Horowitz and Newman, 1964); and developmental aspects of oral and written language (Harrell, 1957).The purpose of the present study was to explore a particular aspect of this more complex and general problem of differences, similarities, and inter-relationships of spoken and written language systems. By comparing oral and written language in terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue,

Some clever high school students are academically successful, but others with equally high IQs are not. Thus, it is possible that achievement involves cognitive variables other than simply level of intellect (IQ). Science achievement was shown to be related to several such variables including abstract thinking, originality, and category width. These findings were interpreted as supporting the importance of "intellectual style" in achievement. Large sex differences were also obtained. Better understanding of the role of style in classroom performance would be particularly useful in view of the current desire to identify talent early and to foster its realization.

Summary. An investigation of the quality of passes attained by 101 Arts and Science students who entered the University of New England in 1968, indicated that while convergent bias was associated, in both faculties, with more high level passes in first year, there was no difference in the relative success of convergers and divergers in second year. At the same time, it was found that among these students the relationship between choice of faculty and intellectual style was in accord with Hudson's (1966) suggestions despite the less specialised schooling of Australian students when compared with their English counterparts.

A number of studies have attempted to identify the basic dimensions of variability underlying students' perceptions of teachers. It is possible that these perceptions reflect stylistic differences among teachers. Applying the method of discriminant analysis, it was shown that distinctive patterns of items were characteristic of students' discriminations. These patterns were interpreted as representing important configurations of teaching behavior, and the combination of behaviors for each teacher was viewed as a description of his personal teaching style. The teachers in the study were clearly differentiated in terms of these patterns of teaching behavior.