|| llIlIll I I I I | “3% III STUDENT ATTITUDES IN RELATION TO CLASSROOM ACHIEVEMENT Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Jerrold Bruce Armour 1954 This is to certify that the thesis entitled " Studs»:- Attitudes in Relation to Classroom Achievement “ presented by Jerrold B. Armour has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master Mdegree in_2.n;zchology my Date M" 20' 195“ ‘ A _ __..._.___4_._._.._._-_.:__ III‘iLY 1v.“7 ’1 15;? STUDENT ATTITUDES IN RELATION TO CLASSROOM ACHIEVEI’VENT By Jerrold Bruce Armour u AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studiee of Michigan Stete College of Agriculture end Applied Science in pertiel fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology Year l95h Approved m C/Qak m? 4 A Jerrold Bruce Armour The purpoee of this study was to test several hypotheses to the effect that there is no relationship between students‘ expressed satisfactions with eight areas of their college and classroom life and: (1) students8 achievement; (2) students' gain in a course. The subjects were 100 students in two beginning Psychology classes, 56 in a business Psychology class, and approximately 550 students in eight classes of beginning Psychology. All of the classes were taught by the lecture-discussion method. The first two groups of subjects were given the I'Student Opinion Questionaire' purported to measure satisfaction in eight areas considered important and relevant to college students. From the first group (N : 100), measures of course gain as well as course achievement were obtained. Only measures of achievement were obtained from the second group (N Z 56). Achievement and gain scores were based on results from taking objective- type tests during the term. The third group (N : 550) was given a short questionaire containing three scales found in the 'Student Opinion Questionaire'. Achievement in this group was based on the score on a standard final test. Correlations were run between students' satisfaction scores and achieve- ment scores, and between students' satisfaction scores and gain scores in the two beginning Psychology classes. Two multiple prediction equations were calculated; one.for the prediction of course achievement scores from students’ satisfaction scores, and the other to predict course gain scores from students' satisfaction scores. 331‘ he ‘5 CI Jerrold Bruce Armour 2 The relationships found between students' satisfaction scores and achievement in beginning Psychology were cross validated with the students in the business Psychology course. The results of the cross validation supported all the null hypotheses made pertaining to relationships between student satisfaction and course achievement. It was not possible to predict classroom achievement in business Psychology using the regression equation developed for this purpose, from a knowledge of students' satisfaction scores as measured (supposedly) by the “Student Opinion Questionaire'. ' course gain and students' Relationships were found between student: satisfaction with the role of a student, satisfaction with the college, and satisfaction with the work. They should be considered tentative until they are cross validated. For the eight beginning Psychology classes, rank order correlations were obtained between mean claee eatiefscttbn:eoareeinatthetthreerareas measured and mean class achiefementneeoreee Mean class level of satisfaction with the teacher was apparently related to mean class achievement. It was the only one of the three areas of satisfaction examined in this way found related to achievement. This finding should also be regarded as tentative until the stability of the relationship is tested. S'l‘UJELT A‘I‘I i'l‘UDES IN 831415110}; ‘I‘O CLASSROOM ASHIEVEHEI‘T By Jerrold Bruce Armour A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1951} scmwm $121inth The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. James S. Karslake and Dr. Henry C. Smith, under whose patient super- vision this investigation was undertaken and to whom the thesis is herewith dedicated. TABLE OF COATELTS Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Questionaire . . . . . . . . . . Tests of Achievement . . . . . . . . Measure of Gain . . . . . . . . . . . Validation Study . . . . . . . . . . Cross Validation Study of Achievement Group Study of Achievement . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Validation Study . . . . . . . . . . Cross Validation Study of Achievement Group Study of Achievement . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O PféO O (D (I) O\ 0\ O\ \N 11 11 15 14 17 18 21 25 LIST OF TABLES P38. Student satisfaction scores correlated with each other, with achievement scores, and with gain scores in two beginning Psychology classes (N = 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Student satisfaction scores correlated with each other and with achievement scores in a business Psychology class (N : 56) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Average class satisfaction scores correlated with each other and with average class achieve- ment in eight beginning Psychology classes . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Split-half reliabilities of the 'Student Opinion Questionaire' satisfaction scales corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Mean scores and standard deviations of two student groups on the scales of the ”Student Opinion Questionaire' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Mean scores, rank, and standard deviations of eight beginning Psychology classes on three measures of satisfaction and an achievement test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A STATEMENT O? PROSLEM This study arose from an interest in job satisfaction and productivity. dorkers' job satisfaction has long been measured on the arsumption that the more satisfied workers were the more productive workers. It was ac- cepted that workers' job satisfaction and productivity were related. In this study the principal problem was to find: (1) whether there were sig- nificant relationships between measures of students' satisfaction with their college and classroom life and measures of students' achievement, and (2) whether there were significant relationships between measures of students' satisfaction and measures of their gains in classroom achieve- ment. A secondary problem was one of eXploring differences, if any, be- tween the satisfactions of one class and that of another as related to the level of class achievement. \ HIPOTHESES ‘\ Many investigations in the past have attempted the study of\felation- ships between satisfaction and achievement. Students“ satisfactidhe in eight areas of classroom and college life were investigated by use ofxthe writer's 'Student Opinion Questionaire'. Because of inconsistencies in\\ other studies, it was hypothesized that there were null relationships be- tween students' satisfactions in the eight areas, and both (1) course achievement; and (2) gain in a course, as indicated by achievement test scores. The major hypothesis is: Students' satisfaction with their college and classroom life is not related to either achievement or gain in the classroom. Secondary hypotheses are: Neither achievement nor gain for students is related to: l) The student's satisfaction with the role of a student; 2) The student's satisfaction with the college; 5) The student's satisfaction with the teacher; 4) The student's satisfaction with his class associates; 5) The student's satisfaction with the work; .6) The student's self satisfaction; 7) The student's satisfaction with the class; 8) The student's satisfaction with his mark and the grading system; in so far as any of these are measured by the 'Student Opinion Question- alre'. BACKGROUND Satisfaction is considered a general attitude that results from many specific attitudes (5). Newcomb (14) defined an attitude as ' . . . a more or less persistent set to respond in a given way to an object or sit- uation. The concept of attitude relates the individual to any aspect of his environment which has positive or negative value for him.I When so conceived, a person's attitudes can be measured. Previously, studies have dealt with problems closely related to those considered in this study. Linton (12) would conceive of the role of a student as including the sum total of the cultural patterns associated with student status and those occupying the status. It should encompass the attitudes, values, expectations, and behavior associated with being a student by society in general. How readily the student accepts the role and assumes its responsibilities indicates his satisfaction with it. In considering the occupational or educational ladder, the college student's position will generally be found at higher levels of status. To generalize from Super’s findings (22), it is expected that students, as a group, will be satisfied with what they are doing, and show little variation in their degree of satisfaction. Neidt and Merrill (1;) indicated a lack of relation- ship between satisfaction with the student's role and achievement when they found little correlation between students' attitude toward education and course achievement. Student evaluations of teachers were significantly correlated with teacher evaluations made by fellow teachers and supervisors (2), (25). However, students did not evaluate instructors in terms of the grades they received (5)9 (15), (19)- Johnson and Smith (10) found no relationship between measures of student democratic gains and achievement gains in classroom situations designed to foster student interaction. Feidler, Hartman, and Rudin (6) found less effectiveness among basketball teams conferring status on the more likable players than among teams which conferred status on the game oriented players. Attitudes toward associates tend to be independent of achievement, even when considered in different situations. Satisfaction with the work may be likened to interest in it. Strong (21) has pointed out that satisfactions with an activity may only be indicators of interest, and have no reference to ability or proficiency. Over short periods of time, he contends, there is probably no correlation of interest with achievement. Berdie (1) found only a low correlation between a measure of curriculium satisfaction and the honor point ratio of engineering students. Freyer (7) found low and contradictory corre- lations between interests and course grades used as criteria of ability, and concluded that there was no relationship between them. Self satisfaction, an indicator of personal adjustment is the atti- tude a person holds toward himself. Harris (9) found no correlations of consequence between college grades and scores on measures of inferiority and extraversion for college students. Cronbach (4) found that the relationship between grade average and Group Rorshach adjustment rating was very unstable for students beyond the first year of college. Class satisfaction indicates the students' perception of the class meetings as being satisfying, stimulating, and enjoyable. Johnson and Smith (10) found an insignificant correlation between the way students evaluated the class for these qualities~and the students' achievement in the class. Smith (17) found no difference between students' class eval- uations in two types of classes. he also found inconsistent relationships between measures of class satisfaction and students' classroom achievement. Similar results were also found by Smith and Dunbar (18). Knowledge of the mark being received in the course had no motivating effect on students' achievement, according to Ross (16). Smith (17) found no significant relationships between students'attitudes toward an incentive system of grading and course achievement among student groups being graded by different methods. Ghiselli and Brown (8) observe that no consistent relationships have been found in industry between production or output levels and workers' expressed satisfactions with the wage payment system. From these studies it is readily seen that no clear-cut relationships have been found between measures of satisfaction and measures of achieve- ment. In the present study the writer attempted to consolidate and clarify the diverse findings by investigating the different relationships in single groups of subjects. PROCEDURE Relationships (if any) between various aspects of student satis- faction and both: (1) achievement, and (2) gain in achievement were explored in this study using the devices and procedures described in this section. The Questionaire The different aspects of student satisfaction were measured by using a 120 item 'Student Opinion Questionaire'. It was composed of eight satis- faction scales; one to test each hypothesis. Seven of the scales had 16 items; one had eight. The items in each scale were semi-randomly arranged throughout the questionaire so that they were separated, yet easy to score. Item arrangement is shown in Figure 1, Appendix B. Half the statements in each scale were positive; half were negative. There were five possible responses to each item. Responses were entered on separate answer sheets,and the response to each item was scored from one to five; high numbers indicating favorable attitudes (11). (Question- aire is found in Appendix B.) Tests of Achievement The achievement tests used in the validation study with two beginning Psychology classes were of the objective, multiple-choice type. The initial and final tests used in the beginning Psychology sections were equivalent forms of the same test. Each test was ninety items long; com- posed of three sections, thirty items each. The sections measured vocab- ulary, facts, and the application of psychological principles. Examples of each type of item follow: Vocabulary Set (1) preparation (2) reaction (5) pathway (4) choice (5) fixation. Factual Raising body temperature by electric current is a specific treatment for (l) psychosomatic illness (2) psychoneurosis (5) brain syphilis (4) manic-depressive psychosis (5) paranoid schizophrenia. Application of Psychological Principles Under which of these conditions will the sex drive of rats be stronger? (1) Give animal plenty of food and water. (2) Place animal in obstruction box when young. (5) Deprive animal of food, water, and sex for two days. (4) Deprive animal of food and water for one day. (5) Keep male and female together constantly. The reliabilities of these tests were reported as .45 for the initial administration and .71 at the end of the course (10). Three quizes given during the term and the final examination determined the students' achieve- ment in the course. Achievement was considered the total score obtained by a student on the three quizes and the final test. Students' achievement in the business Psychology class, he cross validation sample, was measured by three objective, multiple-choice tests. The first was 105 items, the second was sixty itens, and the final was fifty items. The tests were given during the third and sixth weeks and at the end of the term. No reliability data was available for these tests, however the distribution of achievement scores was approximately normal. Measure of Gain A measure of gain was found for the students in the beginning Psy- chology classes. One form of the equivalent 90 item tests was administered at the beginning of the term; the other at the end of the term as the final test. The score on the final minus the score on the initial test was con- sidered a measure of students' gain. Validation Study The subjects of the validation study were 1C0 students, 52 male and 48 female, in two beginning psychology classes taught by the same instruc- tor. The classes met four hours a week and were conducted in an informal lecture-discussion manner. One quarter of the meetings were devoted to class projects. The students were mostly sophomores, with some juniors and seniors. The first week of the term, Fall, 1955, the students took the initial test. During the term they took tne three quizes. The 'Student Opinion Questionaire' to which the students signed their names, was admin- istered during the ninth week. The final test was given at the term end. Students' achievement and gain scores were calculated and the satisfaction questionaires were scored. Correlations were found between students' achievement scores and sat- isfaction scores and between gain scores and satisfaction scores. The intercorrelations of the eight satisfaction scales were also calculated. Two multiple correlation coefficients and two multiple regression equations were calculated. One was to predict achievement scores from satisfaction scores and the other was to predict gain scores from satisfaction scores. Cross Valilation Study of Achievement The relationsnirs between students‘ satisfaction and course achieve- ment were tested for stability the following term, Winter, 195A. The sub- jects consisted of fié students, 29 male and 7 female, enrolled in a business Psychology class taught by a different instructor. The students ranged in class standing from sophomores to seniors. The class met three one-hour periods a week and was conducted on an informal lecture-discussion basis. Two tests were taken by the students during the term. They were given the 'Student Opinion Questionaire' during the ninth week. Names were signed to the questionaire. The final test was given at the term's end. Satis- faction scores were found for each student on the eight scales and on the questionaire as a whole. From a knowledge of satisfaction scores, achieve- ment scores for the 56 students were predicted using the multiple regression equation developed for this purpose in the previous study of 100 students in a beginning Psychology course. Intercorrelations of possible interest were computed. Group Study of Achievement Because of an interest in the possibility of some relationship be- tween group satisfaction and group achievement, three satisfaction scales were taken from the original questionaire and administered to eight begin- ning Psychology classes taught by five different instructors. All instruc- tors used the lecture~discussion method. There were approximately 550 subjects. About the ninth weekkof the term, group satisfaction with the teacher, the class, and the work were sampled. Names were omitted from the questionaires. The average scores of the eight classes on each satis- faction scale were calculated and ranked. Achievement was measured by 10 a 90 item final test taken by all of the students at the end of the term. Average class achievement was found from the test results. The average achievement scores were ranked and correlated with the average achievement scores obtained from the three scales. It should be noted that there was no cross validation of either b’ relationships between students' satisfaction and course gains or relation- ships between group satisfaction and group achievement. ll FINDINGS Validation Study The results of the first study are shown in Table l. The set of relationships between students' satisfaction scores and achievement scores is of primary interest. From the table it can be seen that the null hypo- thesis regarding students' general satisfaction was accepted as tenable. The correlation between total satisfaction score and achievement score was not significantly different from zero. Five of the other eight hypo— theses pertaining to satisfactions and achievement were accepted as tenable; the correlations in question being zero. Tentatively rejected were hypo- theses of no relationship between achievement and satisfaction with the college, satisfaction with associates, and self satisfaction. Correlations were found for these three relationships significant at the five percent level of confidence or better. A multiple regression equation was derived to predict achievement scores from a knowledge of satisfaction scores. The WherryeDoolittle method (20) was used. Four scales were selected by this method as the best predictors of achievement. The scales picked were measures of satisfaction with associates, self satisfaction, satisfaction with the college, and satis- faction with the mark and grading. The beta weights were: B], : 9-.521 B6 2 'fi17 82 : ‘e185 38 : .157. The multiple R for predicting achievement score with a knowledge of satis- faction scores was: Ra Z .495 and RE : .2475.~ R was significantly different 12 from zero beyond the one percent level of confidence. The prediction equation in standard score form was: x5 2 -.§2lxg + .517x6 -.18§x2 e .157x5. TABLE 1 STUDENT SATISFACTION SCORES CORRELATED HITH EACH OThER, NITH ACHIEVEMENT dCORES, AND NITH GAIN SCORES IN TJO BEGINNING PGYCHOLOGY CLASSES (N:100) (Decimal points omitted) Scale 2 5 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1. Role 18 05 15 29’ 54’ 18 -07 08 hl’ 45“ 2. College -- -06 57* -11 15 15 10 ~25' 57' 50 5. Teacher -- -08 25' 25' 72' 17 08 ~01 65' 4. Associates -- 18 15 17 -07 -55’ 01 41' 5. Work -— 1u 7o. 07 08 50‘ 65' 6. Self -- 08 —05 24' 05 42' 7. Class -- 14 05 ll 79' 8. Mark and -- 15 ~05 18 Grading 9. Achievement -- -- O6 10. Gain -— O2 Total_Sca1e -— ’ significantly different from zero at the 1% level.- significantly different from zero at the 5% level. greater than spurious correlation. I I The correlations between satisfaction scores and gain scores found in Table 1, show that the null hypotheses were for the most part tenable. No significant correlations were found between total (general) satisfaction score and gain score or between scores on five of the eight specific satis- faction scales and gain. Significant correlations were found between gain // score and satisfaction with the role of a student, satisfaction with the college, and satisfaction with the work. The null hypotheses were tentatively rejected beyond the one percent level of confidence in those three instances. 15 Of interest is the multiple regression equation derived for predicting gain score from a knowledge of satisfaction scores. The Nherry-Doolittle method was again used, and four satisfaction scales were selected as the best predictors of gain. The scales were: satisfaction with the role of a student, satisfaction with the college, satisfaction with the work, and satisfaction with the class. The beta weights were: Bl : .245 32 Z .451 35 I .528 37 Z .560. The multiple R for predicting gain score, knowing satisfaction scores was: Rg : .667 and RE : .444. The regression equation in standard score form was: xg : .245x1 +'.451x2 + .528x5 +’.56Ox7. Cross Validation Study of Achievement The real test of stability for the relationships found, involved using the regression equation to predict achievement. The four satisfaction scale scores previously selected as predictors of achievement were sub- stituted into the regression equation, and achievement scores were pre- dicted for students in the cross validation sample. Students' predicted achievement scores were correlated with their actual achievement scores in the course. The resulting correlation was nearly zero (rpa: -.0896) for §6 cases. Comparing this with the original R of .497, showed that achievement scores were not predicted from satisfaction scores. In as much as the relationships between students' satisfaction scores and course achievement scores failed to hold up on cross validation, all null hypotheses p/ with reference to satisfaction and achievement must be accepted as tenable. 14 In Table 2 are the intercorrelations between satisfaction and achieve- ment for the 56 students in the cross validation group. TABLE 2 STUDENT SATISFACTION scosss CORRELATED 411s EACH crass AND HITH AChIEVE— MENT scosss IN A BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY CLASS (N = 56) (Decimal points omitted) Scale 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Hole 55’. 18 ~08 50’ 2 52 15 OO 2. College -- 14 11 o; -01 12 ~15 07 5. Teacher —- 24 O4 10 82’ 48’ -25 4. Associates —- 52 27 41' 52 ~26 5. work -— 52 51 oo 18 6. Self -- 19 O 17 7. Class -- 54' -57' 8. Mark and __ -14 Grading 9. Achievement -- ‘ significantly different from zero at the 1% level. ' significantly different from zero at the 5% level. Group Study of Achievement Table 5 shows the results found in the study of group satisfaction and group achievement. Average class scores on three satisfaction scales, of interest to the writer, were correlated with average class scores on a standard final test. The relationships found in eight beginning PsychOIOgy classes (N, approximately 550 students) were studied. The classes were taught by five instructors; A,B,C,D, and E. Instruc- tors A, B, and C each taught two sections. hean class scores of achieve- ment and satisfaction are found in Table 6, Appendix A. Of the three measures of class satisfaction, only average satisfaction with the teacher was significantly related to average class achievement. -It was interesting 15 to note that group level of satisfaction vith the teacher was related to group achievement, whereas individual studentPs satisfaction with the teacher was not found significantly related to the student's course achieve- ment. The relationship between class satisfaction with the teacher and I: " average class achievement can only be tentatively accep ed as its stability was not re-examined by means of a cross validation study. mass 5 AVERAGE CLAéd SATISFACTION scosss CORRELATED 41TH aACH OTHER AnD HITH AVERAGE CLASS ACHIEVEhENT IN EISHT BEGILKINS PSYCH- OLOGY CLASSES" Scale 1 2 5 4 1. Teacher -- .80’ -.O5 .75' 2. Class -- .54 .17 j. Work -- -.50 a . Achievement -- “ rank order correlations were used. ’ significantly different from zero at the 1% level. ' significantly different from zero at the 5% level. The significant findings of the studies may be summarized: l. The relationships between students' satisfaction with areas of ‘their college life and students' course achievement found in the validation istudy were not found in the cross validation study. 2. Students' achievement scores in a business Psychology class could Ilcrt be predicted from their satisfaction scores when substituted into a IDrfiediction equation derived from the relationships between students' sat- ififaction scores and students' achievement scores in beginning Psychology. 5. The virieue aspecte'of=ttudentiJrsatisfaction; an measured’inrthie ”my wgr’e"not related. to'. students'. Classroom‘echiefement. . 16 4. It was tentatively found tnat students' "atisfaction with the role of a student, satisfaction with the college, and satisfaction with the work were related to a measure of students' gain in a course. C.‘ ). It was tentatively found that average class satisfaction with the teacher was significantly related to average class achievement. 17 CONCLUDIONS To the extent that the “Student Opinion Questionaire' measured stud- ents' satisfaction and the achievement tests measured students' class achievement, the results of this study indicated that students' satisfaction with their college and classroom life was not consistently or significantly related to course achievement. Satisfaction scores could not be used to predict students' classroom achievement scores. A pattern was found in which three areas of student satisfaction were significantly related to course gain. The level of satisfaction with the teacher shown by the class was found relative to the average achievement of the class. The last two relationships must be considered tentative for lack of crossuvalidation. 18 DISCUSSION In general, the hypotheses of null relationship between students' satisfaction with sreas of their college and classroom life and students' course achievement were accepted as tenable. Eight areas of student sat- isfaction were studied, and none of them, as measured by the "Student Opinion Questionsire was found consistently related to mussures of students' ceurse achievement. This was illustrated by the fact it was not possible “#1 W to predict students' achievement in one course using a multiple regression equation derived from relationships found between achievement and satisfstion scores of students in another course. It is possible that factors other than the relationships studied affected the results. The questionaire used to measure students' satisfaction must be considered. It was constructed by the writer specifically for use in this study. To the extent that it measured what it was designed to measure, the questionaire was valid. However, it is not known whether the question- site actually measured students' satisfaction in the eight areas it purported te measure. The questionsire's reliability is also in doubt. Internal con- sistency estimates of the questionsire's eight scales ranged from .58 to .88 (See Table 4, Appendix A). These merely estimated the homogeniety of items in each scale as the students responded to them. Reliability in terms of accuracy of measurement or consistency was not estimated, The measures of achievement used should also be considered for their effect upon the results. Internal consistency estimates of reliability were available for one set of achievement tests used. However, no 19 reliability estimates were available for the other set of achievement tests; those used in the business Psychology class. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the accuracy of measuring achievement was known. The achievement tests supposedly measured students’ knowledge in either begin- ning or business Psychology. There was no external criterion against which the tests could be validated. They had to be accepted on their face val- idity as measures of classroom achievement in the course. Operational validity of the tests is a matter of speculation. In light of the measuring insturments that were available, the relation— ships between measures of students' satisfaction and students' classroom achievement were not stable. It may be conceived, assuming valid measures, that relationship patterns of the type studied are transient; relative to the situation in which they are observed. Students have different back- grounds, training, and expectations. These differences should be reflected in students' satisfactions; what satisfies them and to what degree. It may be that satisfaction is basically personal in nature, and as a result is not related in any consistent way to classroom achievement; which was measured in a rather impersonal manner. The relationship found between average class satisfaction with the teacher and average class achievement could be interpreted to illustrate the above Point. §pth class satisfaction with the teacher and class achieve- ment, as measured, were gross and impersonal in nature. Possibly satis- faction with the teacher may affect the class's achievement as a unit, because the class tends to center around the teacher. But the individual student can be conceived of as being on his own, having personal focal points of satisfaction which may or may not affect his c1assroom.achieve- ment. Such speculation is, of course, only tentative because the relation- ship was not cross validated by subsequent study. Po 0 The relationships that were found between course gain scores and I” students' satisfaction with the role of a student, satisfaction with the college, and satisfaction with the work are also tentative, for lack of cross validetion. However, the relationships, if true, formed a neat pattern that could have positive implications for predicting students' improvement in course work. It appesred that students who expressed satisfaction with the work they were doing, where they were doing it, and the idea that they were in a position to do that kind of work, tended to show high gain in the pursuit of the work, although not necessarily high echievemen}. 10. ll. 12. lie 14. BIBLIOdRAEHX Berdie, R.F. The prediction of college achievement and satisfaction. J. Appl. P:ychol., 1944, 28, 259-245. Boardmen, 0. An analysis of pupil ratings of high school teachers. Efluc. sdm. and sup., l9§O, 16, 440-446. Blum, M.L. Industrial Psychology and its Social Foundations. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949, 75. Cronbach, 1nd. Studies of the group Rorsech in relation to success in the College of the University of Chicago. J. educ. Psychol., 1950, 41, 65-82. Detchen, L. Shall the student rate the teacher? J. higher educ., 1940, Feidler, F.E., Hartman, W., and Rudin, S.A. Social perception measures as predictors of effectiveness in basketball teams. Amer. Psychol., 1952. 7, 515- Freyer, D. Predicting ability from interests. J. Appl. Fsychol., 1927, 11, 212-225. Ghiselli, E.H., and Brown, 0.3. Personnel and Industrial Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948, 446-447. Harris, 0. The relation to college grades of some factors other than intelligence. Arch. Psychol., 1951, No. 131. Johnson, D.M., and Smith, H.C. Democratic leadership in the college classroom. Psychol. Monogr., 1955, 67, No.11 (Jhole No. 561). Likert, R. A technique for the messurenent of attitudes. Arch. Psychol., 1952, No. 140. Linton, R. Concepts of role and status. In T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley (Eds). Readings in Social Psycholo¢*. New York: Holt and 00., 1947 . Neidt, 0.0., and Merrill, N.R. The relative effectiveness of two types of response to items on a scale on attitudes toward education. J. educ. Psychol., 1951, 42, 452-456. Newcomb, T.M. Studying social behavior. In T.3. Andrews (Ed). Methods of Psychology. New York: Wiley, 1948, 669-670. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. r\) N Remmers, H.H. The relationship between student marks and student attitude toward instructors. School and soc., 1928,28, 759-760. 8083, 0.0. The influence upon achievement of a knowledge of progress. J. educ. Piychol., 1955, 24, 609-619. Smith, H.0. Teamwork in the college class. (Unpublished study), 1955. and Dunbar, 0.5. The personality and achievement of the classroom participant. J. educ. Fsychol., 1951, 42, 65-84. Starrsk, J.A. Student rating of instruction. J. higher educ., 1954, 5: 88-90- In Stead, #.H., and Shartle, 0.L., et a1. Occupational Counseling Techniques. New York: American Book, 1940, 245-455. Strong, E.K., Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Nomen. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press, 1945, 14-20. Super, D.E. Occupational level and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol., 1959, 25: 547-564. Ward, N.D., Remmers, H.H., and Smalzried, N.T. The training of teach- ing-personality by means of student ratings. School and soc., 1941, 55, 189-192. A. B. Table: Questionaires APEENDIX f\) \vq Appendix A TABLE 4 SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITIES OF THE "STUDENT OPINION QUESTIONAIRE' SATISFACTION SCALES CORRECTED BY THE SFEARMAN-BRONN FOREULA Scale rhh rt 1. .41 .58 2. .71 .85 5. .79 .88 4. .76 .86 5. .76 .86 6. .47 .64 70 e72 .85 8e e55 e71 Total .95 .96 TABLE 5 MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 0F THO STUDENT GROUPS 0N.THE SCALES OF THE "STUDENT OPINION QUESTIONAIRE' Satiefaction Group I Group II Scale (N:100) (Nt56) Mn 5.9. Mp 3.0- 1. Ro1e 59.52 7.21 61.42 6.06 2. College 59.76 10.56 56.56 9.52 5. Teacher 49.05 14.46 62.86 15.05 4. Associates 60.84 10.22 . 58.64 8.17 5e Work 60.61} 11e59 66055 7.48 6. Self 55.50 8.96 57.58 8.89 7, Olaee 55.05 11.54 57.56 10.58 8. Mark and 25.85 4.69 24.05 5.29 Grading Total 419.58 46.90 444.58 44.75 .uoposupmnw eadm An pawSSp mGOfivoom 03¢ evened evmauomnsm e 3.3 m no.3 S 3.0 a 3:3 9.3 w R60 No.3 w «03m m: u «6.6 H nq.eo NS Se.m m HH.qw mn.o~ n o~.oe mm.HH H Sm.mw Sn m NH.m S ~n.mm an Sm.m h ~¢.Ho o~.m p 8:.mm 6~.ofl 0.8 mo.mn me an 6H.oH n m~.oe Hm Hm.nH m mm.wm mm.n~ w om.Hm om.mH m.o mo.mn a: He mN.HH m mm.wn on 80.6 n ~m.mw om.ma S mn.mm ~:.oH n m~.me «a mm. mm.ofi m mm.oe a: wm.o w oo.~e nm.ofl H mm.nw 06.6 m nfl.mo we am Sn.od e mo.wm m: He.ma n no.me -.~H m oa.mn mm.n~ m q~.¢w mm m< 3.3 N 00.8 2 3.6 S 2.8 and .o. 2.8 8.; S 2% 3 .2 .3. 83¢ 2.2 2 .od 6.5m :2 .a.m E c: .65 3 SA. 2 hug eceee>oflsow Cowpoeuuavem anon cofipoaheflvum umeao Emma Bzmzm>mHmo< 24 n34 ZOHaodmmHadm a0 mmmsmdm: mamas 20 mumm1ao Nmoqomowmm mszszMm ammHm mo mZOHBmQ nm . ‘t I . l | .. .| . .. " ' . 1 I . . “ i. ’a ‘ : l 1 ' . ‘. -‘JJ " .n u . ‘ 'w a. v ' . .' . . .l- l ‘ . ' . .-Q W? - . H ' ‘ ' II. ' . v . ‘ ~ . ".- l. . . a I. . . I s. I av. '-. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3-4. 36. 37. 38. 39. 1+0. Ln. u2,, 1&3. at. Page 2 The importance of psychology seems to me a bit overrated. The teacher of this course is Just about the best one I have ever had. If I changed this class, I would change to another somewhat similar to it. mu. teacher is sometimes difficult to pay attention to. I get more benifit from studying psychology than I do from most other subJects. I dislike this class much more than most people dislike it. I have few doubts as to whether I should continue taking psychology courses. I think this teacher usually does an adequate Job of teaching. I hate these psychology classes. To me, all of this psychological "mambo—Jumbo” seems a bit ridiculous. If I had known what this teacher was going to be like, I wouldn't have taken the course. I an enthusiastic about the way the psychology classes are conducted. I wouldn't want to take any more courses in psychology. I‘m quite satisfied with the instructor of this course. Psychology is an interesting subject and may have practical use for me. I think I like this class more than most people like it. Studying Psychology is Just about the biggest waste of time I have encountered. I doubt if I could find a poorer teacher than the one who teaches this course. There is a lot of material in psychology which I would like to understand better. I seldom. if ever. feel satisfied with the meetings of this class. The teacher of this course seems a little below par as far as I'm concerned. I thing I would like to change this class for almost any other which was practical. I'm sure that I would like to continue learning about psychology. is instructor is better than many others that I have had. I feel satisfied with the class meetings of this course almost all of the time. I can't understand how so many people can claim they are interested in psychology. C . ‘ e. . . C .e t . . ’ . U u I ‘ ". a t .. . ‘u c O . . . l n e . o a f . A: . . e . s . .. . l a . . . I . . . O . . . n. . "I Haunu.c HUFM tuhcflh lit! ‘ ..a e. . . . a l .. Q I a I . . . in; . V a . a I 0 . b . C a. 0.. , . . . I p t ' . , . . .1 . . v . IV I. u . ‘ 0' . t a . U I l u .- . 2 3 4 2 mama SHEET roe ”STUDENT OP. ..... 1|. .... 1 ....t el- ...‘ es. 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 “Hum” 5 5 HUT. 5 ..... 5 “pun” 4 1.,u 4 “HT.” 4 ”HUN” 4 “Hum... 3 .... 3 ..... 3 ..... 3 “HM” 2 ..... 2 HUN” 2 ”Hum 2 ..... I. HUN” 1 UN” 1. ”nun” .1 23m m ml” >20 m T— mil— EmEnoE a NI" >:c:00 m ~|~ ............ 3 3 ..... 3 ..... 3 “2 ..-L2 ..... 2 ..... 2 t “H 1.. ..... 1. “Huh“ I. 0 1| 2 7 7 7 5 5 .314 5 ..... r) 4 4 4 ”NH“ 4 3 ..... 3 3 “Hum“ 3 2 ..... 2 2 ”UN” 2 1 1 ”HT. 1.. “HM” I. O .I 2 4 4 4 5 ..... 5 HUN“ 5 3“,.” 5 . 4 “UN...“ L.,h4 “nun“ 4 3 3 ..... 3 an”... 3 2 ”HUN 2 ..... 2 ”H...“ 2 l ”H“. 1 ..... 1 ..... 1 O .l 2 1| 4'. all 2 03.050 ”955:5 :3:— naO! xmm m0< hmMF no m£ : .ec; x220 >>ee2 m mme 0H >_EE c300 02m 0: E60 .603 m5 m>0E use .me:: no Ed r HUT. UH” E HT.“ HT.“ 4 UH” 4 UK” 4 4 ..... 4 ..... 4 HUN 4 ..... 4 “UH 4 HUN” 4 ”NH 4 ..... 4 HT,” 4 HT... E V 3 ..... 3 ..... d m “u .3 ”SH 3 ”NH“ 3 ”3..” 3 39.... 3 ”NH“ 3 ”NH” 3 33.. 3 “Hum 3 ”HR 3 UV.” 3 ..... 3 ”HR 3 .LH” 3 HT... 1. ..... ‘1 N _ H... 2 “HR 2 ”3.. m A 2 ”NH” 2 ..... 2 ”HUN 2 ..... 2 ”Hun 2 ..... 2 HUN 2 ..... 2 Hun” 2 “Hum 2 ”NH 2 “EH 2 “HR 2 “NH“ 2 ..... R Y :3“ 1 .HJ 1 ”HI A N l 3”,... l “H.” 1. HUN 1 ..... 1.. ..... 1 ”Hum I. Hun“ .1 ”NH 1. ”Hum” t... “NH” 1 ”UN 1. ..... 1 ”NH 1.. 1..“ 1 ..... 3 4 5 M A 6 7 8 9 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O 7 7 7 R Y 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 U L 5 “HF. 5 ..... 0 m...“ 5 HUN 5 “NH 5 ..... 5 ”HT. 5 NH” 5 HUN 5 NH” 5 3.)... 5 ..... 5 “UH 5 ..... 5 ..... 5 UH“ 5 ..... 5 ..... Y I. . I . 4 HR“ 4 ..... P.“ L 4 “UH 4 ”UH 4 NH“ 4 ..... 4 ”NH 4 NH“ 4 ”NH 4 ”RH 4 HR“ 4 ..... 4 ”HT. 4 ”Hi. 4 4 ”3..“ 4 PAH R P 3 “HR 3 ”NH U M 3 Huh 3 ..... 3 ..... 3 ..... 3 HUN 3 HUN 3 ”NH“ 3 HUN 3 “3..” 3 ..... 3 3 ..... 3 ..... 3 HUT. 3 ..... S ) 2 NH” 2 ..... [Ba 2 ..... 2 ”UV, 2 ..... 2 HUN 2 “3.... 2 SH” 2 ”NH” 2 HUN 2 ..... 2 ”In” 2 ..... 2 ..... 2 ..... 2 2 ..... ‘41 1 NH” 1 ”EH A 1 “HR 1 ...... 1 “NH 1 UN“ 1 ..... l ..... 1 “EH 1 NH” 1 ”NH” 1 “EH 1 “NH 1. NH” 1 HUN 1 ”NH 1.. ..... 3 4 5 R 6 7 8 9 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O . 4 4 4 E 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 . .Hu 5 H3” 5 NH” 5 ..... 5 ”NH“ 5 HT.“ 5 ..... 5 ”HM“ 5 H 5 “NH” 5 ..... 5 ”Hum 5 Hun” 5 ”NH 5 HUN. 5 ..... 5 ”HE 5 HUM . H“ 4 “Hum 4 “HUN 4 ”NH” 4 “HUN 4 NH.» 4 ”Huh 4 ”UH 4 Hun” 4 “UH 4 ..... 4 ..... 4 ”NH 4 ”NH” 4 Huh” 4 ”RH 4 ..... 4 3 ”NH 3 “Hum 3 ”UN” 3 ..... 3 ”UH 3 ”Hum 3 “NH“ 3 ..... 3 ”HM“ 3 3H,. 3 ”HT.“ 3 ”NH” 3 ”NH” 3 ”NH” 3 ”NH” 3 “HR 3 If.” 2 ”HUN 2 ”Hum 2 NH“ 2 NH” 2 HUN 2 ..... 2 HR” 2 H3” 2 “UN 2 NH” 2 NH” 2 HUN 2 ”Hun 2 ..... 2 ..... 2 ..... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O 1 .l 1 1 1. 1 1. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 .:0> «36% :58 >mE >05 “mme >95 0: axes. .>_$m_QE00 etmE and: 50> omens .mEE 50> ewcccu mm wee. mm x58 50> axes. 46:00 .20QO 9: 2:3 «emcm £5 :0 8QO mcficoametou 05 cexomfi 503.5. 2 526cm :05; 806% 96: 30> can; .mnekmcm peneoEzc m: 02m cozmmnc come team @2075wa m v N lllll I h llm >P_U JOOIUm m N . 32:: 5e... 5.: m _ win was... H a... $.hwull f‘,’l~r'" '4 ‘f‘ t‘ < MICHIGAN STATE UNIVER III III“ Y LIB SIT RARIES 3 1193 03082 3557