urvey kept the students in a natural environment allowing the students to feel comfortable and at ease. The teacher would introduce the sample taker to the students. The sample taker would then explain what they were doing and would come back and explain the results to the students once the survey was completed. The students reacted positively by asking questions which she(surveyor) answered. After the students had asked all of their questions she passed out the Most Recent Dream Form and read the instructions to the students. This resulted in 272 samples being taken between 16 classrooms. Once collected, the samples were coded for quantitative dream content analysis by the first and second authors. By the "method of agreement"(Domhoff, 1996, p.28) in which the number agreed-upon codes made by two coders is divided by the sum of all their codes. If there was a difference in the coding, the surveyors discussed and resolved the difference.The results of the survey demonstrated that of all the girls and boys interviewed only 57% could not or would not recall a recent dream. That is why the survey had to entail 16 classrooms to net enough samples to have a credible result. The dream reports were measured by time and showed that it took younger people(12 - 13 years old) longer to write down a dream than it took young adults. The gender similarities and differences found in the present study are consistent with those in the Hall and Van de Castle(1966) norms for young adults. These findings support the usefulness of most recent dream reports from teenagers in scientific investigations. They also fit with Foulkes'(1982, pp. 184, 217). The percentage of dream reports in three different length categories for girls, women, men and boys are as follows. Girls over 200 words 28%, 50-199 words 64.5%, under 50 words is 7.5%; Women over 200 words 15%, 50 - 199 words 77.8%, under 50 words was 7%; Boys over 200 words 10%, 50 - 199 64.3%, under 50 words ...
