THE SOCIAL HEATEGNS 3F TEACHERS AS
RELM‘ES TO TEACHJNQ COWETENCY

Thesis far the E’egree of M. A.
MICHIGAE‘E STi‘aTE UflE‘VERSHY
KENNETH S, FARR
19367

  
     

  

LIBRA R 1' "
Michigan State
University

TPESIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

——_._ _. ._

ABSTRACT

THE SOCIAL RELATIONS OF TEACHERS AS
RELATED TO TEACHING COMPETENCY

by Kenneth S. Parr

The basic premise of this investigation is
that education is a social process. If in an analysis
of the social factors involved, certain of them can
be isolated and conclusively related to learning,
then teaching efficiency can be improved by taking
such social factors into consideration.

The major hypothesis of this investigation
is that certain social or social-psychological factors
are related to teaching ability. Teaching ability
was measured by mean gains in pupil information. The
social factors which were investigated include: the
teacher's relationship with his students, his role
in the community, his role in.the school, his attitude
toward his work, his social adjustment, and the admin-
istrator's (principal) opinion of the teacher.

A minor hypothesis tested was: the same
social factors are related to teaching ability as
rated by pupils.

Thirty-nine secondary teachers of United States
History were included in the study. These were male
teachers in twenty-eight rural/agriculturally oriented

communities.

Kenneth S. Parr

The results, while not strongly conclusive
relative to the major hypothesis, indicate that for
the thirty-nine teachers studied, certain social
factors are of some importance in determining teacher
effectiveness. It is also apparent that many social
factors which have been considered important are
unrelated to teaching ability as measured by pupil
gains in information.

The major results of the study are summarized
as follows:

1. a. Tentative indications are that

teachers who have a more con-

genial relationship with their
students tend, on the average,
to teach slightly more history
as measured by pupil gains in

information.

b. Those teachers who do have closer
personal relationships with their
students are considered, by their
students, to be better teachers.

2. No index of the teachers' role in

the community (participation in
community affairs, church attend-

ance, etc.) or supervision of

Kenneth S.

extracurricular activities at
school is related to effectiveness
as measured by pupil gains in

information.

Parr

THE SOCIAL RELATIONS OF TEACHERS AS
RELATED TO TEACHING COMPETENCY

BY

Kenneth S. Parr

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1967

The school has not only a culture of its
own, but a social organization of its own.
There develops within the school a pattern
of social relations that is not only unique
but which persists through time so that the
pattern is not radically changed even when
different individuals enter it or leave it.
In other wards, the individuals who make up
the social system of the school act in cer-
tain social roles, roles that are defined
by the society at large, but also by the
particular school itself. Persons may move
in and out of given role positions, but the
roles themselves stay the same. The child
in the school is in the role of learner;
the teacher is in the role of purveyor of
knowledge; the principal is in the role of
authority figure.1

 

1Robert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten,
Society and Education (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., I9577, p. 185.

 

ii

PREFACE

From the foregoing statement it is clear
that interaction between persons within the same
general level of the school structure, or between
persons of two different levels may affect the
organization as a whole. It has often been asserted
that the quality of the interaction between admin-
istrators and teachers, or between teachers and
teachers, or between teachers and pupils, and even
sometimes between some segments of these and the
community at large accounts for the success or
failure a given school achieves.

The study here reported is an effort to
analyze some of the above mentioned interactions,
namely those involving the teacher and his pupils
and the teacher's community activities, attempting
to determine what effect, if any, the quality of
the interactions has upon the competency of the
individual teacher.

The writer wishes to express his gratitude
for the assistance rendered by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover
who served as a most able advisor, and of whose study

this is a replication.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREF‘ACE O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 111
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . 1

II. INSTRUMENTS, SOURCES OF DATA, AND
METHODS OF ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . 16

III. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS: THE
MAJOR HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . 33

Iv. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS: THE
MINOR HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . . . . . as

V. SUMMARY OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . 51

VI. CRITIQUE ON THE DESIGN OF THIS
INVESTIGATION . o o o o o o o o o o 56

BIBLIOGRAPHY................. 62

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Number Page
I. QUESTIONNAIRES AND TESTS . . . . . . . 66
II. TESTS OF THE MAJOR HYPOTHESES . . . . 81
III. TEST OF THE MINOR HYPOTHESIS . .i. . . 9S

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Theoretical Frame 2; Reference

 

The following study is a replication of
one done by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover for his Ph.D.
dissertation at the University of Wisconsin in l9h3.
In view of changing circumstances in the intervening
years, certain modifications have been made in this
study--primarily in the area of procedures in
gathering the data, but also in some of the instru-
ments. The size of this survey is smaller: Dr.
Brookover's sample of teachers being sixty-six and
this one being thirty-nine.

In view of the fact that the Brookover study
was in some ways a pioneer effort, and in view of
the educational and social changes which have trans-
pired in the intervening twenty-five years, the
primary interest of the writer is in determining
whether the findings will reflect such changes.

In the early l9h0's when the original study
was made, Brookover made the statement that experts
do not agree as to what a good teacher is, and it
can be added they are farther apart as to any criter-

ion by which to judge teaching competency. Let it be

-2-

stated at the outset of this replication that, after
twenty-five years, experts are still not in agreement.

In their attempts to determine what makes
a good teacher good, educational researchers have
largely oriented their work in psychology and concen-
trated their attention on the teacher, the underlying
assumption being that a certain combination of emotional
stability and a host of favorable personality traits
would produce a good teacher: in large ignoring any
effects of teaching.

This suggests that one variable is all that is
necessary in the study of effectiveness: teacher behavior
(which should be an independent variable) but not teacher
effects (which would be a dependent variable). "The
problem is[§o{§)complex because teacher-pupil interaction
is imbedded in historical, social, and physical contexts
which constrain and Interact with it."2

Strongly implied in the foregoing statement is
that psychological approaches are indeed inadequate
since they do not take into account the fact that
learning is a social process--the social interactions
being overlooked by such studies.

The social process is strongly emphasized by

Havighurst and Neugarten:

 

aBruce J. Biddle and William.J. Ellena (eds.),
Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness (New York:
HoIt: Rinehart and Winston, 196h), p. 5.

-3-

The socialization of the individual is
carried out by various agencies of society.
The social groups within which the infant
is changed into the socialized adult are the
groups that take care of him, love him, re-
ward and punish him, and teach him. The
major socializing agencies in the life of the
child are the family, the peer group, the
school, the church, the youth-serving organi-
zations, various political and economic
institutions in the community, and the mass
media such as radio and television. The
school is an example of an agency formally
organized for the purpose of inducting the
child into society; the peer group is an
example of an agency that, although informal,
plays an important role in the socialization
process.

Finney, as reported by Brookover, clearly
states that "the learning process is a social process."h
It is therefore assumed that the quality of the social
interaction in the classroom situation will have some
direct relationship with the quality of the learning
which takes place in that situation. This is the major
hypothesis of the study here presented. More specifi-
cally, the hypothesis is that some factors in the social
situations in which learning occurs influence the amount
and quality of the learning.

The school is a complex web of social inter-
action which involves in large part those interactions
which occur in the classroom.but also those which occur

between the school complex and the community at large

 

3Havighurst and Neugarten, op. cit., p. 61.

“Rose Finney, A Sociolo ical Philosophy of
Education (New York: MacMillan ompany, 1928), p. 57,
cited by Wilbur B. Brookover, "The Relation of Social
Factors to Teaching Ability" (unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Wisconsin, l9h3), p. l.

“(4"

which supports and institutes the school. As stated
in the preface, the quality of these interactions
could possibly account for the success or failure of
the teacher. Waller makes a statement which conveys
an affirmative attitude on the issue:

What the teacher gets from experience is

an understanding of the social situation in
the classroom, and an adaptation of his per—
sonality to the needs of that milieu: that

is why experienced teachers are wiser than
novices...The teacher acquires in experience
a rough, empirical insight into the personal
interaction in the school. For let no one be
deceived, the important things that happen in
the schools result from.the interaction of
personalities. Children and teachers are not
disembodied intelligences, not instructing
machines and learning machines, but whole
human beings tied together n a complex maze
of social interconnections.

The difficulty with Waller's statement is
that he gives no factual basis to either the asser-
tion that the quality of the interaction affects
teaching or the assertion that more experienced
teachers are better teachers. These are the very
questions for which we are indeed attempting to
offer a factual basis.

The second major concern of the study has
to do with the teachers' relations with the community
beyond the confines of the specific learning situation.

A recently published supervision text asserts that:

 

5Willard Waller, Sociology of Teaching(New
York: Wiley, 1932), p. l, citedIby Brodkover, ibid.,

p. 3.

-5-

Through social experiences in the
community in which the teacher has a chance
to share with others and gain greater se-
curity in his social relationships, he can
acquire some of the skills that will help
him.establigh better relationships with
his pupils.
and also from a textbook of the general teaching methods:
Relaxation at the end of the day, on a
weekend, or at the close of the school year
will enable you to live longer and to be a
happier and mcre successful teacher in the
process.

As a high school teacher in a community in close
proximity with Michigan State University (Leslie,
Michigan), those laymen who have expressed interest
in the school to this writer inevitably express
concern that so many teachers do not remain very
long and do not reside in the community. In fact,
in order to induce more commuting teachers to sponsor
extra-curricular activities such as dances, a $10.00
compensation was offered (with little success) causing
not a little resentment on the part of many school
patrons.

The above statements and the writer's exper-
ience substantiate the fact that many educators

and school patrons continue to believe that the

 

6Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools
(New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., I955}. P. 1I7.

7M. D. Alcorn, R. A. Houseman, and J. R. Shunert,
Better Tegching in Secondary Schools (New York: Henry
Holt and Company, quhT, p. h7h.

teacher's social contacts outside the classroom have
a definite bearing on his classroom success. These
views have their origin in what educational histor-
ians have labeled the "community school" concept.
Having its impetus in the 1930's, it continues to
develop today with various refinements. These views
offer evidence that:

People who think about education in broad
terms, as a process of teaching children the
concepts and attitudes of their society, and
of teaching them how to behave in their social,
civic, and economic relations, tend to think
of the whole community as an educative agent.
From this point of view, the school alone
cannot do the job of education, nor can the
school and family together. Education is the
result of living and growing up in a community.8

Joseph K. Hart, writing about the nature of
education in a democracy, said:

The democratic problem in education is
not primarily a problem of training children;
it is the problem of making a community within
which children cannot help growing up to be
democratic, intelligent, disciplined to free-
dom, reverent of the goods of life, and eager
to share in the tasks of the age. A school
cannot produce this result; nothing but a
community can do so.

Because the community is so important in the
education of children, educators are interested in
finding the best combination of school and community

experience for educational purposes. It follows,

 

8Havighurst and Neugarten, op. cit., p. 205.

9Joseph K. Hart, The Discovery of Intelligence
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., l92h), p. 353.

 

~7—

moreover, that they are concerned about how teachers

relate with the community at large.

The Hypothesis

 

The foregoing discussion points to the major
hypothesis and is here appropriately restated:
Certain social and social-psychological factors are
related to teaching ability. Henceforth when teaching
ability is referred to it will be a reference to a
measurement of mean gains in pupil information. This
measurement is to be the prime criterion used to
determine teaching ability.

As a reminder to the reader, two categories
of social factors are to be scrutinized to determine
their relationship with teaching ability. They are
as follows: those which develop out of the indivi-
dual teacher's interactions in the school, and those
which develop out of the individual teacher's inter-
action beyond the school in the community at large.

The following specific social factors will
be investigated: the teacher's relationship with his
students, his age, his activities in the community,
his activities in the school, the administrator's
opinion of the teacher, and the pupils' opinion of
the teacher. Brookover also attempted to discern

the teacher's social adjustment and his attitude

-8-

toward his work. A similar attempt was made in this
study but the questions designed to measure these
characteristics were, with two easily explainable ex-
ceptions, unanimously answered the same way by the
respondents. Therefore any possible relationships
were impossible to determine.

Before these items were selected for study,
Brookover checked them with school administrators and
this writer rechecked them. They continue to be used.
twenty-five years later. Pophaml0 established that
administrators went so far as to make use of an
"activity record“ as a criterion for evaluating appli-
cants for teaching positions.

Since it seems that everyone in the school
setting thinks he knows a good teacher when he sees
one, and it is customary for both administrators and
students to rate teachers' teaching ability, two minor
hypotheses similar to the above were also tested:

(1) certain social factors are related to teaching
ability as rated by pupils' ratings of teaching ability,
and (2) administrators' and pupils' ratings of teaching
ability are correlated with ratings of ability as
measured by gains in pupil information.

 

10W. James POpham, "Out-of-School Activities
of Teachers as Related to an Index of Their Professional
Performance" (un ublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1958 , p. 3.

_9-

Review 2: Research 13 the Field

 

Over the past several decades, many studies
have been carried out on teachers and related aspects
of the teaching complex. Personal characteristics
of teachers have been assessed with objective psycho-
'metric instruments as well as with ratings by super-
intendents, principals, peer-teachers, and students.
The environment of the classroom has been examined
with a view for assessing the teacher while working
on the job. Some studies have also been conducted
in which teachers have been assessed in terms of the
changes in behavior of their students. In general,
this latter method of evaluating teacher performance
has been accomplished by measuring the students'
educational development at two different times while
they were under the direction of the teacher.

This review of research will concentrate on
efficiency ratings and pupil growth; primarily pupil
growth and, more specifically, pupil growth defined
as subject matter mastery.

Since this is a replication of a study done
in the early 19h0's, and in view of the fact that
"no other investigator has been concerned with the
major hypothesis of this study"11 (as of l9h3), this
review will concentrate primarily on research done

from l9h5 to the present.

 

11Brookover, op. cit., p. ll.

-10-

As reported by Brookover, "LaDuke found that
teachers who are less considerate of others,[§arsh,
directive, autocratic, etc?:]as measured by Jackson's
Social Proficiency test, tend to be more effective
teachers as measured by gains in information, attitudes,
appreciation, and interests."12 Since correlations
were all slightly below the level of significance,
LaDuke cautions the reader that this is "contrary
to...common sense" even though correlations on the
four gain criteria were consistent. Brookover's study
tends to substantiate LaDuke's findings.

The literature is full of contradictions re-
garding the above findings, in research as well as
in opinion. A study by Cronbach13 may reveal at
least one reason why the studies are contradictory
at this point. He asserts that it is an error to
equate the personality characteristics of warmth
with permissiveness, and harshness with directiveness.
In fact, Cronbach's research has some significant
similarities to Brookover's and definitely reveals
that gains in achievement 3953 observed (in vocabulary

and arithmetic) in those students of warm teachers.

 

12Charles V. LaDuke, The Measurement of Teaching
Efficienc (Ph.D. dissertation, UniveréIty ofWIEconsin,
1§EI), cIted by Brookover, ibid., p. 10.

13C. M. Christensen Cronbach, "Relationships
Between Pupil Achievement, Pupil Affect-Need, Teacher
Warmth and Teacher Permissiveness," Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, Vol. LI (No. 3, 19607, pp. 169-l7h.

-11-

Asserting that pupil gains "provide the most
objective criterion discovered," Morsh, Burgess, and
Smithlh attempted to find other characteristics of
the instructor besides ability to impart subject
matter which might be related to student gains and
could thus be used to predict student achievement
(teaching success). There was a high correlation
between student gains and student ratings of teaching
effectiveness. As to the ratings of particular teachers,
rather close agreement between peer and supervisor was
observed but peer and supervisor ratings agreed only
slightly with student opinion.

In another study similar to Brookover's, but
conducted in an Air Force training center, MorshlS
found that:

(1) Under some conditions student gains can
be reliably measured.

(2) The students appeared to know when they
were well taught. Student ratings, therefore, offer
promise as a technique for instructor evaluation.

(3) The student rating of instructor's subject
matter knowledge was correlated significantly with

instructors' proficiency test scores.

 

th. E. Morsh, G. G. Burgess, and P. N. Smith,
"Student Achievement as a Measure of Instructor Effect-
iveness," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XLVII
(1956). p. 79.

15Ibid., pp. 79-88.

-12-

(A) Little relationship was shown between
supervisor or fellow instructor estimates of instruc-
tor effectiveness and student gains.

(5) The low correlation found between super-
visor rankings and student achievement suggests that
the instructors are judged on other factors--such as
subject matter knowledge.

In what is probably one of the better studies
cited in this review, Flanders16 tested the following
hypotheses in a laboratory experiment:

(1) Restricting student freedom of partici-
pation g§£ly_in the cycle of classroom learning
activities increases dependence and decreases achieve-
ment.

(2) Restricting student freedom of partici-
pation lgtg£_in the cycle of classroom learning
activities does not increase dependence but does
increase achieveme nt.

(3) Expanding students' freedom of partici-
pation garly in the cycle of classroom activities
decreases dependence and increases achievement.

It was concluded that dependent-prone junior
high school students are more sensitive than average

students to differences in patterns of teacher in-

 

16N. A. Flanders, Teacher Influence, Pupil
Attitudes and Achievements: Studies in Interactions
AnaI sis, Final Report, Cooperative Research Project
No. 397, University of Minnesota, 1960.

-13-

fluence, and that the dependent-prone learned lggg
geometry when exposed to a rigid direct pattern of
influence than they did with an indirect pattern.

One weakness of this study may be that the different
patterns were created by the 33mg role playing teacher.

Some unique qualities were noted in a study
by C. D. Jayne.17 In this writer's review of the
literature this is the only investigation in which
classroom behaviors were recorded and studied in
relation to pupil gains. Since class recitation
responses were tape-recorded, the data are restricted
to oral interaction and subjects are not separated
into good and poor teachers. There are two studies:
in his first study long-term gains and understanding
were measured, while in the second study the teaching
objective was short—term gains, chiefly recall of
factual material.

While perhaps not as unique as the data
gathering technique previously mentioned, few inves-
tigations were encountered in which any long-term
aspect of information gain was considered.

Brookover's study was one of the earlier ones
in which teaching results (according to pupil gains in

information) were correlated with certain social factors.

 

170. D. Jayne, "A Study of the Relations Between
Teaching Procedures and Educational Outcomes," Journal
of Experimental Education, Vol. XIV (Dec. 19ES),

pp. lOl'lBI-Le

“lh'

It is evident, however, that since the mid l9h0's
mmre researchers have shifted their attention to
teaching results. In fact, several studies were
encountered in which psychological tests were admin—
istered to teachers and the results were correlated
with pupil gains. The three studies discussed are
considered typical.

In Carlson'sl8 study in which both ratings
and pupil gain criteria are employed, the Washburn
test did not discriminate between good and poor
teachers with a pupil gain criterion, but in other
studies it was found to discriminate. When pupil
gain criteria were employed in studies by Gotham19
and Rolfe,20 although all correlations are positive,
no statistically significant correlations of cri-
teria to the various measures of social adjustment
or social intelligence employed were obtained. These
results stand in rather sharp contrast to correlations
obtained in investigations employing a rating cri-

terion.

 

18Gustave Carlson, "Characteristic Differences
Between Good and Poor Teachers," (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, l9h2).

19R. E. Gotham, "Personality and Teaching
Efficiency," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.

XIV (Sept. 19h5f. pp.157-165.

ZOJ. F. Rolfe, "The Measurement of Teaching
Ability, Study No. l " Journal of Experimental Education,
Vol. XIV (Sept. 19,453, Pp. 52-7“"

-15-

Gotham and Rolfe, on the other hand, are in
agreement that emotional stability, as measured by
the Bernreuter test, is not significantly related to

their pupil gain criterion.

CHAPTER II

INSTRUMENTS, SOURCES OF DATA,
AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS

The Measurement of Teaching Ability

As we have previously stated, this study
was originally undertaken more than twenty-five
years ago. In his discussion of the reasons for
using mean gains in pupil information (subject
matter mastery), Brookover first states that "the
measurement of information gain has been the most
valid and reliable of any of the measures used."1
In our review of previous research we reported a state-
ment made by Morsh, Burgess, and Smith, viz., "pupil
gains provide the most objective criterion discovered."2
This study was made approximately fifteen years after
Brookover's (1956). Of course these are reflections
of opinion even though'both scholars feel their
basis for them is sound. So many other investigators

used this measure that it is certain their (Brookover

 

lBrookover, o . cit., p. 13.

2Morsh, Burgess, and Smith, gp. cit., p. 79.

~16-

-17-

and Morsh) opinions are supported by a broad con-
sensus. It is felt by this writer, however, that

the fifteen-year period indicates that educational
research on teacher effectiveness was somewhat static.
A discussion concerning design and criterion will
follow at-a later point.

Since this is an attempt to replicate Brook-
over's study, his reasons for using pupil information
gain as the only criteria for determining teacher
competency will be restated, the first and major

one already having been given.

Second, various standardized tests of
school subject matter are readily available
for use in measuring gains in information.
Third, gains in pupil information are uni-
versally accepted as one of the criteria
of teaching ability. Fourth, gains in in-
formation are also a measure of the basic
social function of education, transmission
of the culture.

The use of such a single criterion of
teaching ability has the weakness that it
does not include all the outcomes of
teaching. Rather generally educators consider
it important that teaching should result in
the acquisition of a set of moral or ethical
precepts and habits. There is also the
somewhat overlapping concept that teaching
should result in a sound adjustment of the
child in the society of which he is a part.
It is conceivable that a teacher might be
initiating a considerable gain in the
pupil's information at the expense of the
child's satisfactory social adjustment.

None of these other outcomes of teaching
has been used as a criteria in this investi-
gation. In the first place, they were not
used because there is little agreement about

-18-

them. As a current illustration, one would
find a variety of opinion about what attitude
the pupils should acquire toward internation-
alism. The same sort of disagreement would
occur on some of the other suggested criteria.
Furthermore, it is for the present impossible
to measure any of the other results of teaching
with the same degree of accuracy with which
one is able to measure information. The final
reason for using only gains in information is
that some of the other criteria are highly
correlated with gains in information. From
the data used by LaDuke3 and Roetkerh the
writer found that mean scores on attitudes
and mean scores on information tests for 31
teachers were correlated .75 (the Pearsonian
correlation coefficient, 5.) and that mean
appreciation and information scores showed a
correlation of .57. This was to be expected
since mean scores on attitudes and appre-
ciation tests were correlated .92. 0f the
criteria used by LaDuke, only interest

showed so little correlation with informa—
tion that the two might be independent and
even in this case the coefficient was as

high as .hh. Furthermore, the gain in infor-
mation scores showed a rank correlation of
.58 with a composite of the four criteria
scores after corrections had been made in
each for differences in pupil intelligence
and differences in pre test scores.

These considerations lead us to conclude
that gains in information are the most valid
and perhaps the best single criterion of
teaching ability that we have yet developed.
The writer does not, of course, maintain that
it should always be the only criterion for
judging a teacher. It is possible that teach-
ing which results in high gains in pupil in-
formation may have undesirable effects on
the personality of the child.5

 

p. 150

3LaDuke, loc. cit., cited by Brookover, o . cit.,

 

“Leon E. Rostker, The Measurement and Prediction

pf TeachingAbility (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1939). also School and Society,
Vol. LI (Jan. l9hl), cited by Brookover, ibid..

SBrookover, op. cit., pp. 13-15.

-19-

The gains in pupil information were determined
by the use of two forms of condensed Minnesota High
School Achievement Examinations in U. S. History.

They were used by permission of American Guidance
Service, Inc., and may be examined in Appendix I.

The coefficient of reliability between the two forms
is .86. This figure would be higher except for the
fact that these were a comprehensive Egg; (thirty-four
multiple choice questions) of the above mentioned
standardized tests. A statement concerning the length
of the tests will follow later.

The mean gain score in pupil information for
each teacher was obtained in a determination of the
difference between the mean pre test score and the
mean post test score.

Measures 22 Central Tendency: The mean pupil

 

gain in information scores for the thirty-nine teachers
in the study ranged from a -l.83 to 6.29. The mean

of these means was 2.50 and the median was 2.7. The
standard deviation was 2.18.

Classification 23 Teachers by Mean Gain Scores:

 

 

The procedure used in rating the teaching ability of
the teachers, as measured by mean pupil gain in infor-
mation scores, was based on the above calculations.
Since a five category rating was desired, the teachers
whose pupils' mean gain scores fell outside the range
of the nean, plus or minus one standard deviation,

were given the extreme ratings of "very superior" and

-20-

"poor." Seven teachers were given the highest ratings
and six the lowest by this procedure. The remainder
of the scores fell within the plus or minus one
standard deviation range of h.58 to .Oh.

This range was divided approximately equally
into the three middle categories. The lowest one,

.hl to 1.67, was called "below average" and included
seven teachers. The middle one, 1.67 through 3.h3,

was temmed "average" and included fourteen (or 36%)of

the teachers. The upper of these three middle classes
was labeled “superior." Those five teachers whose
pupils' mean gain scores fell between (but not including)
3.h3 to 5.h9 were included in this classification.

There were natural breaks in the scores at these
division points, so they could be grouped into the in-
tervals, 6.30 through 5.h9, 5.h8 through 3.61, 3.60 through
1.67, 1.66 through .hl, and .hO through -1.83. This
classification of the teachers is shown in the following
table.

TABLE 1
RATING OF 39 TEACHERS BY MEAN GAIN SCORES

e c an e g an er 0 e
Teacher Gain Scores Mean.Gain Score Teachers No.
Very
S erior 6. 0 to .81 l
ror 0 0

ver 6 e 0 e

ow
Avera e 1.66 to .66

01‘ e 0" "’ a

Total 0 to - 2

 

-21-

The Validity_g£ the Criterion pf Teaching
Ability: Of course in a study of this nature it
is improbable that all possible variables can be
known so as to be able to isolate certain ones with
complete confidence and without any doubt as to
effects of hidden variables. This probably accounts
for the contradiction in findings mentioned in the
review of other research. This problem will be dis-
cussed further in a concluding chapter.

With complete awareness of the above mentioned
hazard, we proceed in an effort to establish the
validity of the criterion.of teaching ability. Cer-
tainly several background factors such as intelli-
gence differences (pupils and teachers), prior
knowledge of subject matter, differing emphases by
the teachers regarding subject matter, as well as
approaches to it (teaching methodology). length of
term or session, size of school, or size of classes,
are of major significance and were held constant
in this study.

It is at this point that a major deviation
of this study from.Brookover's occurs. His study was
done using rural consolidated high schools in northern
Indiana with enrollments ranging from forty-five to
one hundred and seventy. This study was done in
southern Michigan in high schools ranging in enrollment

from.three hundred to seven hundred and fifty.

-22-

In any event, as many of the background
factors as possible were eliminated in our selection
of schools and teachers. Thus all male high school
U.S. History teachers were selected.

In recent years many methodological innovations
have occurred in social studies teaching. On the
assumption that the Brookover sample was composed of
teacher-centered classroom situations, care was taken
to ensure that the same traditional teacher—centered
type situation prevailed with the thirty-nine teachers
of this investigation. Herein is where some diffi-
culty was encountered in getting the thirty-nine
teachers, for there are some indications that the
above described teaching situation is passing from the
educational scene.

Most of the variation in pupil gain which might
have resulted from academic or mental/emotional maturity
was also eliminated due to the fact that U.S. History is
offered predominantly at the junior level of high schOOl
in the state of Michigan.

In attempting to eliminate wide variations in
cultural background the schools wherein the teachers
of the study were employed were selected with care.

The assistance of a staff member of the Michigan
Department of Public Instruction was enlisted.
Since his personal knowledge of the schools of the
state of Michigan is quite extensive, he was

able to select a very homogeneous population of

schools; rural/agriculturally oriented and not in

-23-

close proximity (twenty to twenty-five mile minimum
distance) to any industrial areas of the state.
These schools were all located south of an imaginary
line drawn from Muskegon, on Lake Michigan, to Bay
City, on Lake Huron.

Since Brookover's study indicates that school
and class size have little or no effect on learning,
and since the variations in school and class size
were not considered very great, no attempt to deter-
mine relationship between these factors and learning
was made in this study.

In all classes the texts used by students were
one of two or three standards and no relationship
could be determined between the use of any one text
and subject matter mastery.

By performing an analysis of variance on the
pre test scores, the conclusion was drawn that no
group achieved its gain as a consequence of prior know-
ledge. We did not consider correction for intelligence
as being necessary because of the homogeneous character
of the environment being studied, and also because
there is no interest here in the gains of indivi-
dual pupils but rather in all the pupils of each
teacher. Care was taken to ensure that there was
no ability grouping in any of the schools.

Subjective Ratings g; Teachigg Ability: In
order to test the minor hypothesis mentioned in

Chapter I, it was necessary to obtain administrators'

-2g-

and pupils' subjective ratings of the teachers'
ability. This was done on a simple five point scale
on which the ratings were: very superior, superior,
average, below average, and poor. This scale was
included in the pupil and administrator questionnaires

which can be found in Appendix I.

The Instruments Used in Gathering Social

 

and Social-Psychological Data

 

Three different questionnaires were used to
obtain the desired data concerning the independent
variables which we have termed social and social-
psychological factors. One of these questionnaires
was answered by the U.S. History students of each
of the thirty-nine teachers (Student Questionnaire),
one by each of the teachers (Teacher Questionnaire),
and one by the principals who supervised the teachers
(Principal Questionnaire). A copy of each of the
questionnaires will be found in Appendix I.

Student Questionnaire: The items found in

 

Part II of the Student Questionnaire are the ones

in which we are primarily interested. They are con-
cerned with various aspects of the relationship
between teachers and their pupils, including the
pupils' reactions to the teacher's personality, and
the character of their personal relationship. It
will be noted that Part I on the questionnaire is

made up of personal questions. The data from these

-25-

were used to check the necessity of controlling

various factors, as previously described. Part III

of the questionnaire provides for the pupils' rating

of the teachers' ability. These were used to test the
related hypotheses described in Chapter I, viz.,
administrators' and pupils' ratings of teaching ability
are correlated with ratings of ability as measured by
gains in pupil information.

The twelve items in Part II were selected as a
result of earlier research by Brookover in various
aspects of teacher-pupil relations.6 Some items were
selected which these earlier studies indicated were
related to teaching ability. Others came as a result
of suggestions to Brookover by a number of educators
as possibly related to teaching ability. Several of
the items were derived from the work of Frank Hart.7

Teacher Questionnaire: Information on the role
of the teacher in the community and the school, as well
as personal data on the teachers, was obtained through
a Teacher Questionnaire. The items in this questionnaire
were primarily concerned with subjects which are fre-

quently made the basis for employment or dismissal of

 

6Brookover, "Person-person Interaction Between
Teachers and Pupils and Teaching Effectiveness,"
Journal of Educational Research (Dec. l9h0), pp. 272-287,
and unpubiished data of Teacher-pupil Relations of
Twenty Elementary Teachers inTWisconsin.

7Frank Hart, Teachers and Teaching by 10,000
High School Seniors (New York: MacMillan Company, l93h).

teachers in rural schools. For this reason it is
important to know whether or not they are related

to teaching ability. A few remaining items give .
information regarding factors that have been represented
as determinants of pupil learning. In this group are
questions four and five of Part II and questions four

to seven of Part IV.

Principal Questionnaire: The purpose of this

 

questionnaire was to determine if the factors which
these school administrators frequently use as the basis
for employment and dismissal are related to teaching
ability as measured by gains in information.

In Part II of this questionnaire are seven
items which are frequently found on teacher rating scales
and are concerned with the teacher's relationships to
the students and others in the school situation. It has
been demonstrated8 that administrators' ratings are not
highly correlated with pupil gains when ratings on
several items are taken together. The purpose here was
to see if the administrators' opinions of the teacher
on any one of these traits were related to gains in
information.

The third part of the questionnaire duplicates,
in part, some of the items in the Teacher Questionnaire.

Since all of them are at times the basis for continuance

 

BPopham, LaDuke, Rostker, et al., op. cit..

-27-

or discontinuance of employment, it was considered

important that we have the administrators' opinion also.
Part IV of the questionnaire was included for use

in testing the hypothesis that administrators' ratings

of teaching ability are correlated with gains in pupil

information.
Gathering The Data

During the legislative session of 1965 and 1966,
the Michigan State Legislature passed an act which gave
public empbyees the right to bargain collectively. This
induced a state of turmoil into nearly every school
district in the state. The initial contacts for this
study were made in the midst of this turmoil. This,
in addition to the fact that it was necessary for all
the participating teachers to be men, and 56% of them
were coaches, largely accounts for the relatively small
number of teachers included in the study. It can be
seen that in the "heat" of last minute negotiations, and
the early days of football season, the number of teachers
willing to cooperate was minimal.

From.the list of schools drawn up in consultation
with the staff member from.the Michigan Department of
Public Instruction, the initial contacts were made with
high school principals by telephone. This was done
during the latter half of August, 1966. The project
was briefly explained and the names of their U.S. History

-28-

teachers were requested along with permission to contact
them. The principal was assured that a letter describing
the project in detail would immediately follow if his
initial consent was given. In the letter, his aid was
also solicited in the completion of a confidential
questionnaire regarding his evaluation of the teacher

or teachers on his staff who might be cooperating with
the writer. Brookover administered questionnaires to
superintendents and members of the local boards of
education regarding the teachers in his study. It was
assumed by this writer that the schools in this study
were all so large that the likelihood of a superintendent
knowing the teachers well enough to complete the
questionnaire adequately was remote. This would be even
more the case with board members. It is for this reason
that principals were used instead of superintendents and
board members were not used at all. This, of course, is
another necessary deviation from Brookover, albeit a
relatively minor one.

In order to obtain the cooperation of the teachers,
it was emphasized that a minimum amount of effort and
class interruption would be required. This is the major
reason why a short history test was used. The history
examination was thirty-four multiple choice questions
and required about thirty minutes to complete. It was
suggested that, if the teacher desired, the post test

could be used as a semester test. The teachers were also

-29-

informed that the results of this study would be made
available to them.

Forty teachers agreed to cooperate. One was
dropped because of his failure to comply with the
requested dates for administration of the post test.

By the end of the second week in September, pre
tests were mailed to the teachers and, after some
"encouragement" by telephone, they were all returned
by the end of the month.

During the first half of January the question-
naires concerning the teachers were mailed out. It
should be recalled that there were three such question-
naires: one to be completed by the principal, one by
each student, and one by the teacher hnmself.

Since the responses to the Student Questionnaire
were of a confidential nature, it was important that
there be nothing to inhibit the students' frankness.

A special set of instructions was enclosed with these
questionnaires in which it was requested that another
teacher administer them, and certain procedures be
followed which would minimize even his seeing any of

the completed forms. The students' names did not appear
on the questionnaires. They were informed in advance
that the completed questionnaires would be sealed in
their mailing envelope by the administering teacher in
their presence, thereby guaranteeing that their teacher

would not know how any student appraised him, and

-30-

alleviating further any threat they could possibly
have felt.

Immediately after the return of all the
questionnaires during the third week in January, the
post tests were mailed. They were returned by the end
of the first week in February.

Since these data were gathered completely by
mail9 (with the exception of the collection of the
completed post tests which were picked up personally
by the writer or a representative), it was very impor-
tant that instructions be in detail and easily understood.
In all the correspondence sent out the teacher was always
encouraged to call the writer (collect) if any questions
arose. No calls were received. In any event, a good
lesson in communications was learned. The writer is
especially gratified in that only one respondent out
of the original forty was lost as a possible consequence

of misunderstanding.
Methods 2; Analysis

Analysis of the data by arranging it in contin-
gency tables is the major procedure followed, teaching
ability being one variable with one of the various social

factors as the other.

 

9Brookover distributed the tests and question-
naires in person.and gathered some of his data by
interview instead of questionnaires.

-31-

In order to determine the probability that
differences as large as those between the observed and
expected (theoretical) cell frequencies would occur by
chance, an application of the Chi-square test was made.
If a real relationship was indicated by means of a low
probability, the coefficient of contingency was calcu-
lated to determine the magnitude of the relationship.10

We, of course, were also greatly interested in
the direction of the relationship. Other means were
resorted to in making this determination since the
Chi-square test and the coefficient are not appropriate.
This determination was made in most cases simply by a
close scrutiny of the contingency table. In more compli-
cated cases where the table contains several cells and
the relationship is not linear, or where variations in
direction are present, the following simple method was
devised. First, cells with lower frequency were
combined with cells in the next row or column to smooth
out the minor variations in the direction of the corre-
lation. Second, the proportion of the cases in a given
column was calculated (i.e., the proportion of the
students who rated their teachers friendly). Third,
the positive or negative deviations of corresponding

row proportions from the above mean P were then determined.

 

l°The tables and calculations will be found in
AppendicesII andJII. The formulas used are shown in
Appendix II.

-32-

Fourth, points indicating the positive deviations were
plotted to determine the direction of the relationship.
In concluding this chapter, perhaps it is
appropriate that an explanation be given concerning
what is meant by the term "direction of relationship."
This pertains to the kind, or nature of the relationship
after a significant one has been established. Four
terms are used to describe the relationship: positive,
negative, curvilinear, or ambiguous. For example,
Table 2 of Appendix II indicates a positive direction
because a greater proportion of respondents indicate
that superior and very superior teachers are always
fair than indicate below average teachers as being fair.
Furthermore, a straight line can be plotted by means
of the positive numbers in the fo-ft columns; it being
noted, for example, that poor teachers are predominantly
rated as never fair or sometimes unfair. If Table 2 had
indicated that superior teachers were never fair, and
that poor teachers were always fair, then we would say
that the direction was negative. The term curvilinear
is illustrated in Table 3 of Appendix II. The direction
is considered to be curvilinear because average teachers
are more likely to be very much respected than are
either superior or below average teachers and a line can
easily be plotted which shows a definite curve. The
term ambiguous is used when no such line can be plotted
in any direction due to irregular negative and positive

magnitudes which occur in the fo-ft columns.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS: THE MAJOR HYPOTHESES

The Relation 2; Social Factors Tg Pupil Gains IE
Information Ag_§_Measure 23 Teaching Ability

 

It is the primary objective of this study to
make a determination as to the existence of a relation-
ship between a number of social factors and teaching
ability as measured by mean gains in pupil information,
to measure the amount of the relationship, and to
determine the nature of that relationship. We have
previously described the techniques and questionnaires
as the means by which the data were obtained on the
social factors. These factors include: (1) teacher-
pupil relations, (2) the role of the teacher in the
communityb(3) the role of the teacher in the school,
(h) the teacher's age, (5) the teacher's attitude toward
his work, (6) the teacher's social adjustments, and
(7) the employer's opinion of the teacher. The results
of the investigation of these relationships are pre-
sented in the following sections.

Teacher-FEET; Relations and Teaching Apiligy:
The data on the teachers' relationships with their

pupils were obtained from the replies of approximately

-33-

-3“-

1,160 students to 13 questions in the Student Question-
naire.l The analysis of the association between these
indicators of teacher-pupil relations and teaching
ability led to the following conclusions.

Brookover, in l9h3, reported significant corre-
lations with negative direction between seven of the
thirteen questions in the Student Questionnaire and mean
gains in pupil information. The questions were:

(1) Is this teacher friendly when you meet him? (2) Does
this teacher join in your recreational activities?

(3) Do you admire this teacher personally? (h) Do you
like to have this teacher join in your social and
recreational activities? (5) Do you think this teacher
is fair? (6) Is this teacher helpful to you in your
work? (7) Do you confide in this teacher and tell him
your troubles?

In each of the above questions, those teachers
who were rated favorably in terms of "admirable,"
"helpful," "friendly," etc., were less effective
according to the mean gains in information achieved by
their pupils. This, of course, led to the conclusion
that those teachers who demonstrate warmth and congen-
iality toward their students are less effective imparters

of history information.

 

1This questionnaire will be found in Appendix I.
The tablesand calculations are presented in Appendix II,
Tables 1 through 111.

-35-

The findings related to this hypothesis tend
to refute the Brookover results (see Table 2). The
response to the question, "Do you think this teacher
is fair?" reveals there is a significant (.18) but
low correlation with a positive direction between the
pupils' answers to this question and teacher effective-
ness. This is a refutation to Brookover on this par-
ticular question.

With the exception of the question on teacher
friendliness, for which no relationship was indicated,
all other questions show low (C = .32 or less) but
significant correlations.

The questions concerning the students' respect
for their teachers' academic ability, Opinions of the
teachers' peculiarity, and freedom to confide in the
teacher, all indicated curvilinear directions. The
average teachers, according to mean gains in information,
were respected more for their academic ability and were
less likely to be considered peculiar than either the
above or below average teachers. The average teachers
were also confided in much more frequently than the
above or below average teachers.

The direction of the questions on the students'
respect for their teachers' academic ability, and
students' perceptions of the teachers' peculiarity was
in conformity with that of the Brookover study. These
were the only questions where such conformity was obsa'ved.

 

 

 

 

ocoz ma. so.ma o sass»

. on waaxaemn Ga can
nueeaen monsoon can» uH

esoaans< oeoz ma. no. mo. oh.sa eh.a m m eases
.. eaoeu Aeneas» nan» noon

c-a.>ese saa.seso as. ma. -ao. -ao. No.5m mm.oa m m ens-asoce ea morocco
use» erase so» on

saw-£2 .me see: we. in. -8. mo. maid 9...: o o ecofieeoeee encased.

news¢> a can Aeneas»
was» eases so» on

esoswaose opacemez S. 3. -8. -8. 3.3 88m m m eds-osoecos use» 5
. swan menses» can» soon

nose-n3 282 mm. -8. on. 8.3 13; e 14 Assess no cases a
. cede menace» nan» neon

Seem-nee owe a»? mm. 3. -8. -8. 8A3 86m m o 2333 an:
nowae> :zocx schno>sn wdoa 30m

eaH.>sso oHH.snsc me. as. so. mo. mm.oa oo.ma m m assesses essences

«Hm sou acneeep
was» neonate so» on

csaeaeom esaeemez ma. AH. -ao. -Ho. H:.ooa mm.mm o m ended as honest»
ease scene so» on

~ooa mace Amos macs ems macs Noon «mew Nmom muow escapades

coauooadn b. _ daununoam season-Hub Eocoohm admsmnwonowea

IIMo nooawoa wnwdweedoo showcased
coupaaaoudH ma udaww Gees npn3 mannaoauaaem

 

 

20Ha<zmoezH 2H mzHac 24m:
am nmszmmamo m< pose zH on oz< mesa zH
meanness on mos weHeHme oszoama so oszam oza
szHeaqmm meow eszmmozoc szHammoa ma ea some 2H mazmoeam
coda oz< mesa zH mezmopem mews so mmmzommmm was an emszmmamo m4
monaaqmm qupm-mmmoama zmmzamm mHmmonaeqmm no mamas so meepmmm m>Ha<m<mzoo

N mange

-
7
3

-

monsoon nan» meoaz.

umzoaaou we been

swameoaau on: no caooe handosdoam
on hoses wood on» as cocansoo one: unoupuosd enemas

 

 

 

eooz eeaeemez ma. om. ca. -Ho. oa.ma »:.am m s «so» on »aedeane
wonesep menu uH

sea.>eeo housewoz ma. as. -ao. mo. mm.mm mo.ma m m shores.»

use» an essence
use so» Hook so» on

esoswaasa osaeemoz 1:. 2. mo. -8. 2.? Sim m m 26» co
asumaem sonoaou «an» uH

escswaose coaeemez S. 3. -8. -8. 88m 2:8 as m Renegades ness..»
can» season 50% on

assesses. esaoemoz 8. mm. -8. -8. moi: 5.13 m m escapeeeeos

woo» each an moment»
use» case so» on

News need woos mesa ~ooa need moms mesa meme need sconesaom
noapooafia w xwpaaanmnoam oaoswm-Heo Eooeonm Haosmnaeeouos

CowmeAOMCH-cm no no use: no

 

m memo uwaom

cessaoeoo-m mqm4a

Mo noeawon

wdadaeodoc accepuosd

-38-

The direction of all (8) other questions was
ambiguous. Therefore, in an effort to make some deter-
mination concerning the direction of the relationships,
the cells of the tables were combined and the propor-
tions of the observed frequencies were examined. We
are considering the relationships between the following
social factors of teacher-pupil relationships and
teacher effectiveness: (1) How long have you known
this teacher? (2) Does this teacher have a sense of
humor? (3) Does this teacher join in your recreational
activities? (h) Do you think this teacher has a
pleasant appearance?

A consistent positive relationship emerges in
that the largest combined frequency occurs for the very
superior and superior teachers according to mean gain
scores. These teachers are perceived to: "very much"
have a sense of humor, "often" join in student recrea-
tional activities, and "very much" have pleasant
appearances. While these findings tend to verify con-
sistent positive relationships, we hasten to add that
every one of these frequencies are offset by sizeable
(though lower) frequencies for the below average and
poor teachers according to mean gain scores.

Four other questions continue to indicate a
tendency to sustain the positive relationship tentatively
established in the preceding paragraph: (1) Does this

teacher frequently scold or use sarcasm? (2) Do you

-39-

like to have this teacher join your social and recrea-
tional activities? (3) Do you admire this teacher
personally? (A) Is this teacher helpful to you in your
work?

The high frequencies continue to favor the
superior and very superior teachers except in intermediate
responses of "sometimes" or "somewhat." These responses
continue to be offset by high frequencies for the below
average and poor teacher, however.

The above, rather crude, analysis continues to
indicate a tendency to refute the Brookover finding
that the warm, congenial teachers were less effective.
The preponderance of ambiguous directions of the
relationships indicates that students are unsure of
the relations existing between themselves and their
teachers.

Relations 2; the Teachers' Age E3 Teaching

 

Ability: Biddle and Ellena, in a very comprehensive
examination of the relationship of age to teaching,
suggest that "age may determine relationships between
teachers and students, and, therefore, the effectiveness
of teachers."2 Further, it is suggested that the
relationships teachers have with their students fall
into stages concomitant with stages in their career.

The first stage is characterized by close relationships
between teachers and students and by teacher energy

investment in classroom related activities. Middle-aged

 

2Biddle and Ellena, op. cit., p. 315.

-h0-

teachers tend to be involved in professional activities.
Older teachers often are embittered and defensive, but

those who become "old characters" or "mother counselors"
retain or even increase their ability to affect students.

Such findings imply that teachers of
all ages may be effective (or ineffective)
but that different types of behavior are
required for effectiveness at different
ages. The middle-aged teacher who yearns
for the warmth of her early relations with
students is probably less successful than
her colleague who adjusts her behavior to
her age. The elderly teacher is likely
to end her career in frustrated ineffect-
iveness unless she becomes a subject-
matter expert or a grandmother figure.
Hypotheses such as these should be ex-
plored in supplementary studies which
utilize careful measurements of teacher
style and student reactions.3

The findings of this study do not indicate an
existing relationship between teacher age and mean gain
in information. No attempt was made to establish a
relationship by controlling for specific age ranges
because of the low number of teachers in the study and
also because of the slight deviation in mean age between
the groups of teachers (very superior, 29; superior, 26;
average, 30; below average, 31; poor, 36.) This does
suggest that the better teachers were more likely to be

between 22 and 30 years of age.“

 

3Biddle and Ellena, loc. cit.

hThe questionnaire by which this information was
gained is found in Appendix I. The relevant table is
Table 15, Appendix II.

-141-

The Teachers' Role $3 the Communityig Relation

 

t_o Teaching Ability: Popes-n5 has indicated that strong
emphasis is placed on the teachers' community activities
and/or leisure activities in that it is believed such
activities do have a bearing on teaching ability. This
being the case, such beliefs do in fact influence ad-
ministration employment policies.

Brookover's study does not substantiate the
justification for such practice on the part of school
administrators, nor does this szudy.

Data on the teacher's place of residence and
acquaintance (includes involvement) with the community
were obtained by means of a questionnaire. The analysis
of these data fails to indicate any relationship between
previous residence, length of residence in the community.
or length of teaching tenure and teaching ability.
Neither is the proportion of the patrons known by the
teacher significantly related to gain in pupil infor-
mation.6

The Teachers' Role in the School in Relation

 

32 Teaching Ability: Since the writing of this thesis
began, the writer had occasion to attend a teachers'
meeting at the school where he is employed. One teacher
was overheard to say to another (who is a coach), "Come
on, now. Surely you'll admit your teaching suffers

during track season?" This comment is representative of

 

SPopham, op, cit., p. h.

6The analysis and calculations are presented in
Appendix II, Tables 16 through 18.

-42-

a wide-spread belief that coaches are not as good in
their teaching as non-coaches. The question we are
concerned with here is what bearing, if any, other school
duties have on the effectiveness of classroom teachers.
Exactly half the teachers in the study sponsor dances
or supervise other activities which bring them into
close informal contact with their students. Over half
(56%) of the teachers in this study were coaches.

In neither case was a significant relationship
established between these extracurricular activities
and pupil mean gains in information.7

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Teaching_ig Relation

 

 

52 Teaching Ability: Ringness, in his contribution to

 

a major survey of research on teacher effectiveness,
treats the subject of motivational factors, one of which
is teachers' attitudes toward teaching. His observations
led him.to report that not one investigation was en-
countered in which a clear relationship was established
between a teacher's "satisfaction with teaching and this
satisfaction as related to teaching success."8

Similar attempts were made here to establish some

relationship between teachers' attitudes toward their

 

7The analysis and calculations are shown in
Appendix II, Tables 20 and 21.

8A. S. Barr et al., Wisconsin Studies of the
Measurement and Prediction of Teaéher Effectiveness--
A Summary of Investigations (Madison, Wis., Dembar
Publications, Inc., 1961), p. 117.

-g3-

work and teaching success. No relationship whatever
was established.

The Social Adjustment pf Teachers i§_Relation
tg Teaching Ability: A chapter by Peronto in the above
mentioned survey of research gives a thorough treatment
to a problem thought by many to be a significant factor
in teacher effectiveness. While he concedes that "a
certain amount of emotional stability is essential to
teaching success,"9 he asserts that paper and pencil
tests designed to detect emotional stability are not
adequate.

Again attempts were made in this study to relate
the social adjustment of teachers to teaching ability
by using such questions on the Teacher Questionnaire as:
"Do you feel your superiors are riding you or have it
in for you?" and "Do you feel you are not appreciated
by the community?" Brookover readily concedes that
these questions were inadequate for the task. His study,
as well as this one, is not at all conclusive as to the
relationship between teacher adjustment and teaching
ability. Interestingly enough, of the nine teachers
in this study who felt unappreciated by the community,
five were commuters. It may well be in these cases
their perceptions are correct; the desire of the school
patrons that "their" teachers live in the community

being made manifest.

 

91bid., p. 97.

441‘-

Employers' Ratings gngeachers' Characteristics
ig Relation t2 Teaching Ability: It is a common and
widely held assumption that superintendents, principals,
and members of boards of education are competent judges
of good teaching. Implied here is that there is some
general ability to make such ratings. Out of this
widely held assumption has evolved the use of an almost
infinite variety (Barr and Emans studied two hundred and
ninelo) of rating scales.

This present study checked each of seven ratings
by the principals against gains in information. Ratings
of the following were included: friendliness, cooper-
ativeness, tactfulness, enthusiasm, stimulation of
students, sympathetic understanding of the students, and
fairness in treatment of students. This questionnaire
can be found in Appendix I. No significant correlations
were found between any of these ratings and pupil gain

in information.11

 

loIbid., p. 114..

11The analysis and calculations are shown in
Appendix II, Tables 21 through 27.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS: THE MINOR HYPOTHESIS

This chapter notes the relations between ratings
of the pupils and the social factors considered in this
study. Since these ratings are of a highly subjective
nature (Barr indicates there is evidence that efficiency
ratings are, in reality, compatibility ratingsl) the
relations are considered to be of minor importance.

Teacher-Pupil Relations 35 Related t3 Pupils'
Ratiggs g: Teachigg Ability: The minor hypothesis
was that certain social factors are related to pupils'
ratings of teaching ability. The data regarding
the social factors were obtained by questionnaires
from both the teachers and pupils.2

Teacher-pupil relations are related to pupils'
ratings of teaching ability. There is a positive
relationship between pupils' ratings of the effective-
ness of teachers and their response to eleven of the
thirteen questions in the Student Questionnaire. The

eleven questions were concerned with the teachers'

 

lIhid., p. 1H3. '
2The questionnaires may be found in Appendix I.

The results of this section of the analysis may be found
in Appendix III, Tables 1 through h.

-15..

-gg-

friendliness, fairness, helpfulness, sense of humor,
appearance, the pupils' length of acquaintance with

the teacher, the teachers' frequency of participation
in recreational activities, as well as the desire of

the pupils to have him participate, the pupils'

personal admiration of the teacher, the pupils' feelings
of freedom to confide in the teachers, and the pupils'
respect for the teachers' academic ability.

The responses to the other two questions were
negatively correlated with the pupils' ratings of
ability. These two questions dealt with the frequency
with which the teacher used sarcasm or scolded, and the
students' perceptions of teachers' peculiarity.

No ambiguity of results is evident here. There
is no question but what the students equate a teacher's
effectiveness with the teacher's ability to relate well
with them. The greater the degree of congeniality and
warmth between teacher and student the higher he was
rated by them as to effectiveness. Barr's previous indi-
cation is verified.3

Brookover points out that the correlation between
nine of these factors and pupils' ratings are in dis-
agreement with the corresponding correlations between
the sane factors and mean gains in information. This is
also the case for this study for the single social factor

of fairness. According to mean gain scores the teachers

 

31bid.

 

-47-

who were perceived as being unfair were the superior
and very superior teachers; here the fair teachers are
rated by the students as being superior and very
superior. There is little question but what the
students believe they learn more from those teachers
whom they like most.

The Teacher's Age and Length 2£_Acquaintance

 

pith Pupils i3 Relation tg Pupils' Ratings g£_Ability:
The teachers' age and length of acquaintance are
inter-related, therefore they are treated here together.
While a relation for the above two factors of age and
length of acquaintance is established at the .01- and
.03 levels of probability, the directions of the
relations are somewhat vague; that of age being curvi-
linear and ambiguous for the length of acquaintance.

The Teachers' H213 £g_the Community gg Relation
t2 Pupils' Ratings g£_Ability: Consistent but low
significant correlations between the social factors
of church attendance (5’: .22h), participation in
community activities (5’: .276), the percentage of
students' parents known (C= .2lh), and the tenure of
the teacher (5 = .195) and pupils' ratings of ability
were observed. No consistent pattern of direction of
the relationships was observed, however. Those teachers
who attended church often were likely to be regarded

as below average or poor teachers, establishing a

-ga-

definite negative direction, but the direction of
the other three relationships were curvilinear or
ambiguous. It does appear from examination of the
data that those teachers who have tenure of five
years or more are more consistently rated higher by
their pupils.

£2 Pupils' Ratings 2£_Teaching Ability: Those who

 

 

supervise such extracurricular activities as athletics,
dramatics, music, school yearbook, etc., are con-
sistently considered by the pupils to be below average
or poor teachers. This is in complete conformity

with Brookover.

The Teachers' Attitudes Toward Their Work and

 

 

the Teachers' Social Adjustment lg Relation 22.322
ngils' Ratings 2; Ability: All thirty-nine teachers
enjoy their work, only two are seeking some other
type of employment, none feel their superiors are
"riding" them, and only nine feel unappreciated by
the community. In view of the above tallies, it is
obvious that no relationship could be established.
Some interesting observations can be made,
however. As previously stated, five of the nine
teachers who feel unappreciated by the community are
daily commuters. Also, of these same nine teachers,

two taught at the same school. These nine teachers

-gg-

are overwhelmingly rated by their pupils as average

or above, therefore it probably can be assumed that
whatever negative feelings these teachers have for the
community have not been communicated. One teacher, in
answer to the question concerning the people with whom
he socializes, wrote in the margin of the questionnaire,
"Don't live in tgig community." Sixty-eight percent of
his students said that he frequently used sarcasm or
scolded them in his classroom. He did get good ratings
on other factors, such as being friendly to them.(outside
of class) and having a good sense of humor (90% rated
him "very much" having a sense of humor). The above
nine teachers range all the way from superior to poor

according to the pupils' gain in information criterion.

 

A Comparison gg the Various Measures

2; Teaching Ability

 

Since there is some discrepancy in the manner
in which several of the social factors in this study
are related to the different measures of teaching
ability, perhaps it will be of interest to indicate
the correlations between the measures themselves.h

There is no relation between the principals'
rating and pupil mean gains in information. The
data did indicate a low (5 = .18) relationship between

the two subjective ratings by the pupils and principals.

 

”See Table 5, Appendix III, for the summary of
the relationship between these measures.

-50-

The pupils' ratings, with respect to the objective
measure of teaching ability, indicate a low signifi-
cant relationship.

These findings continue to bear out other
findings5 that subjective ratings of teaching ability
are of dubious value.

The findings related to this minor hypothesis

are in general conformity with Brookover.

 

SLa Duke, "The Measurement of Teaching Abilit ,"
Journal of Experimental Educationerol. XIV (Sept. 19H5),
Pp. 75"I000

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results of this study indicate that,
in the specific instances of the thirty-nine teachers
studied, there are some social factors which may be
important while several factors heretofore considered
important reveal no apparent relation to teaching
ability as measured by pupil gains in information.
The summarized results of the study are here
stated.
1. a. Tentative indications are that
teachers who have a more con-
genial relationship with their
students tend, on the average,
to teach slightly more history
as measured by pupil gains in
information.
b. Those teachers who are perceived
to have closer personal relation-
ships with their students are
considered, by their students,

to be better teachers.

-51-

3.

a.

-5 2-

No index of the teachers' role

in the community (i.e., length

of residence, participation in
community affairs, church attend-
ance, etc.) is related to his
effectiveness as a history teacher
as measured by pupil gains in
information.

There is no indication that
teachers' supervision of activi-
ties which allow for close in-
formal contacts with students

is in any way related to teaching
effectiveness as measured by
pupil gains in information.
However, those teachers who do
supervise such activities are
considered, by the pupils, to be
less effective teachers than
those who do not involve them-
selves in this manner with the
pupils.

The principals' evaluations of
those teacher traits which are
frequently found in teacher
rating scales (friendliness, tact-

fulness, enthusiasm, etc.) are

-53-

not related to teaching ability
as measured by pupil gains in
information.

5. Subjective ratings of teaching
ability by principals and pupils
are inter-correlated.

6. Principals' ratings of teaching
ability are not related to pupil
gains in information.

7. Pupils' ratings have a low positive
relationship with teaching effective-
ness as measured by pupil gains in
information, but do tend to indicate
pupils know when they are well
taught.

These findings, in conjunction with those of
Brookover, continue to indicate that many of the factors
which are frequently used as the basis for teacher
employment policies are not related to the objective
measurement of teaching effectiveness used in this
study.

In the opinion of the writer, the term "tentative"
in item l-a above should be emphasized, for findings of
this study which indicate refutations of Brookover are
not believed to be significant enough to be strongly
conclusive. Certainly, however, the Brookover findings

are not sustained. It should be recalled that the pur-

-51?

pose of this replication is to determine if social and
educational daanges in the twenty-five years since
Brookover undertook his work would in some way be
reflected in the findings.

Any high school graduate should be cognizant
of the fact that many events which have precipitated
social changes of great magnitude have occurred in the
last twenty-five years (the advent of television, wars,
tremendous affluence, increased mobility, etc.). It
is unlikely that social scientists will ever be aware
of all the effects on society of such phenomena, but
they can safely isolate some. One of these, which
is presently in a dynamic state, is the problem of
authority; its manifestations and perceptions of the
manifestations.

Briml specifically refers to this question in
the educational context, saying that the task-oriented
teachers (which.is what we assume the teachers in this
study to have been) gain respect but lose attractiveness.
The findings of this study give some indication that the
better teachers are respected and retain their attract-
iveness. A major portion of the findings (ambiguous
directions for eight of the questions having to do with
student-teacher relations) indicates that student per-
ceptions of their relations with the teacher are those

of uncertainty.

 

lOrville G. Brim, Jr., Sociology and the Field of
Education (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958), p. E9.

-55-

Within the experience of this writer, and
many teachers of his acquaintance, there is much
uncertainty as to what role is proper or most effective
in terms of what is to be accomplished in the classroom.
Such questions as, "How can one effectively teach
democracy by autocratic methods?" are being raised.
This gives rise to many reservations among conscientious
teachers. In fact, such questions are known to cause
intra-faculty and faculty-administrative feuds. One
recent news headline was, "Troy Is Split By Feud Over
Teaching Ideas". A portion of the article follows:

Some teachers adopted “sensitivity training,"

a kind of no-holds-barred bull session in which
participants are free to say anything they want.
"There is nothing wrong with the idea,"

said Mrs. Perry, "but the people who were
conducting these sessions were not adequately
trained in how to use the device."
"Some teachers allowed their students
to sit and talk about anything they wanted
to, rather than study subject matter.
"This attitude meant that those of us
who wanted to teach subject matter had great
difficulty in carrying on. Students who had
no homework in other glasses greatly resisted
assignments in ours."
While there are perhaps other contributory factors,
it is the conclusion of this writer that such uncertainty
on the part of the teachers leads to the uncertain pupil

perceptions revealed in this study and referred to above.

 

2Detroit Free Press, July 10, 1967, p. 3-A.

CHAPTER VI
CRITIQUE ON THE DESIGN OF THIS INVESTIGATION

Barr, in his contributions to a major review
of eighty-three studies on the measurement of teacher
effectiveness, gives a thorough treatment of the
hazards which the pupil gain criterion presents the

investigator.

The use of measured pupil gain as a
criterion of teacher effectiveness presents
very real difficulties. First of all, each
teacher in the modern school, within very
broad limits, chooses his own purposes,
means, and methods of instruction. These
ordinarily vary from one school system to
another and within named grade levels and
subject fields. Regardless of the validating
data reported in test manuals, the tests
used in developing the pupil gain criterion
will have varying degrees of Operational
validity, except as the teachers agree to
pursue certain stated objectives which can
be defined with sufficient clarity to provide
like meanings to all the participants. [No
such agreements were held by the teachers
in either Brookover's study or this onEZI
A second difficulty arises out of the fact
that, notwithstanding over a half century
of effort, many of the outcomes of learning
and of teaching are poorly or inadequately
measured. The gaps in the criterion arising
from inadequate tests with which to measure
pupil gain will be found to be considerable.
Finally, tests measure effects but not causes.
The sources of the effects observed are not
readily ascertained, even under carefully
controlled experimental conditions. Some
of these effects will reside in the pupils,
some in their general and special capabilities,
some in their previous training, and some in

 

-56-

-57-

motivation. A few of the effects are doubt-
lessly traceable to the home environment:
socio-economic status, respect for school
education, and direct assistance rendered

by various members of the family. A few

of the effects will be traceable to the
school and community: In some, teachers'
and pupils' morale is high and in some it

is low. The physical facilities of different
schools and communities vary greatly. And
finally, there are the direct and indirect
effects of the teaching of other teachers,
both in the same and related subjects. One
of the very best measures of a teacher's
effectiveness will be found in what his
students do in subsequent course work.
Accordingly, the problem of establishing an
adequate criterion of pupil gain will not

be an easy one.

Even though every effort was made to "control"
for all the factors which Barr mentions, it is believed
by this writer that such control is impracticable in
the area even of group differences. It is possible,
as Morsh2 proved, but the setting of his investigation
(an Air Force training center) is certainly not the
norm for American public education. Most given
types of Air Force training require a minimum intelli-
gence and aptitude level. This immediately creates
a very homogeneous group. It is also the case that
when a particular group (class) is under the instruction
of a particular teacher, this teacher is the only one
it has for a thirty hour instructional week (six
hours daily), for a definite period of time, and

only one subject is taught; both student and teacher

 

lBarr et al., op. cit., p. 8.
2Morsh, Burgess, and Smith, op. cit., pp. 79-88.

 

-58-

having well defined and agreed upon objectives.
Since this is not the norm for most education which
occurs in this country, this writer would surmise
that herein lies the reason Morsh's study is not
included in Barr's exhaustive survey.

What is implied above is that a serious
weakness of the design of this investigation is the
lack of control for group differences, it being
previously stated such control is for all practical
purposes impossible to accomplish even in what is
believed to be a homogeneous cultural background.
This is believed to be true of Brookover's study
as well as this one.

Another weakness of the pupil gain criterion
is that it is a.siig1e criterion. Biddle and Ellena,
in discussing the problem of semantics in educational
research, define teacher competency as "the ability
to produce agreed upon effects."3 There is little
doubt that a consensus probably did exist in file
setting of the Brookover study that a major objective,
if not tpg_major objective, of U.S. History teaching
was to instill a maximum amount of U.S. History
factual information into the minds of the students.
How to reach the objective is another matter, however.

Here is where a further piece of research

is appropriately suggested-—a survey of the objectives

 

3Biddle and Ellena, op. cit., p. 3.

-:9-

U.S. History teachers hold for their teaching efforts.
This writer would hypothesize that such a survey
would reveal a very narrow consensus of opinion.
The present state of education in general, and the
social sciences in particular, at the elementary and
secondary levels is a very dynamic one, thereby
accounting for what is believed by this writer to
be a narrow consensus concerning objectives. For
this reason, the single criterion approach to teaching
effectiveness is inadequate, at least as presently
applied to U.S. History teaching.

According to Riessman, the progressive approach,
despite its emphasis on learning by doing, fails
with the culturally deprived child, whose cognitive
style demands structure.“ When the learning situation
is such as to demand task-orientation--when passing
an examination is at stake, for example--students
will be frustrated by permissive leadership; pro-
gressive education is not necessarily what the students
themselves want.

Brim.points out that the classroom group,
like all groups, has two general kinds of needs:
"instrumental" and "expressive." The relationship

of these to initiation of structure and consideration

 

uFrank Riessman, The Culturally Deprived Child
(New York: Harper & Row), p. 72, cited by Earl E.
Edgar, Social Foundations of Education (The Center for
Applied Research in Education, 1965), p. 105.

-60-

is clear. Brim also believes these to be relatively
incompatible roles which, in fact, are taken by
different people in informal groups. The problem
of the teacher, as the sole leader in the classroom,
involves handling both roles. Brim concludes that
the studies show the dominant role for teachers is
task-oriented ("instrumental"); that the teacher
accepts this role at the expense of "expressive"
or morale considerations, gaining respect but losing
attractiveness in doing so. Both students and teachers
wish more attention could be given the expressive
role but when this happens, learning suffers. As
a consequence, the teacher faces contradictory demands
in the classroom.5 This would explain why, in Brook-
over's study, the teachers whose academic ability was
respected were not liked.

It is therefore this writer's conclusion
that, in conducting future research in this area,
it should be known in advance whether or not the
teacher is "directive or permissive" and whether he
is properly "matched" with students who have a manifest
need for his kind of instruction. This implies that
one characteristic of an effective teacher may be
his ability to meet the psychological needs of his

students in his manner or teaching method approach.

 

SBrim, loc. cit.

-61-

Obviously then the autocratic teacher is not
necessarily the best teacher even in terms of pupil
gain (if his pupils need a permissive teacher) but
he still might be. Contrary to LaDuke, then, such
a thing would not be "contrary to . . . common sense."6

Further, it is the feeling of this writer
that future research in the area of teaching effective—
ness should be "tailored" to fit a very particular
setting (primarily according to the particularly
stated objectives and personality components of
teachers and students), and that such research will
not be of much value for purposes of generalizing,
with a view that such generalizations be applied to
all teaching.

 

6LaDuke, op. cit., p. 10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Alcorn, M. D., Houseman, R. A., and Shunert, J. R.
Better Teaching_in Secondary Schools. New
York: Henry Holt and Company, l95h.

Barr, A. S., et a1. Wisconsin Studies of the Measure-
ment and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness--
A Summary of Investigations. Madison: Dembar
Publications, Inc., 1961.

 

Biddle, Bruce J., and Ellena, William J. (eds.).
Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l96h.

 

Brim, Orville G., Jr. Sociology and the Field of
Education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1958.

Edgar, Earl B. Social Foundations of Education. The
Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965.

 

 

 

Gage, Nathaniel L. (ed.). Handbook of Research on
Teaching. New York: Rand-McNally, 1963.

 

Hart, Frank. Teachers and Teaching by 10,000 High
School Seniors. New York: Macmillan Company,

193E.

Hart, Joseph K. The Discovery of Intelligence.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., l92h.

 

 

 

Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L.
Society and Education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc., 1957.

 

Mitzel, H. E. "Teacher Effectiveness." Encyclopedia
of Educational Research. Third Edition. New
York: Macmillan Company, 1960, lh8l-lh85.

 

 

Waller, Willard. Sociology of Teaching. New York:
Wiley, 1932.

 

Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools.
New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 195;.

 

-63-

-6h-

Articles and Periodicals

 

Anderson, H. M. "Study of Certain Criteria of Teaching
Effectiveness,’ Journal of Experimental Educa-
tion, XXIII (I9Sh7. u7-71.

Brookover, Wilbur B. "The Relation of Social Factors
to Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental
Education, XIII (June,l9h5), 1913205.

 

Castetter, D. D., Standlee, L. S., and Fattu, N. A.
Teacher Effectiveness: An Annotated Biblio-
graphy. Bulletin of the Institute of Educa-
tional Research, School of Education, I (No. l),
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press,

l95ho

Cronbach, C. M. Christensen. "Relationships Between
Pupil Achievement, Pupil Affect-Need, Teacher
Warmth and Teacher Permissiveness," Journal
of Educational Psychology, LI (No. 3, 1960),
169 -1714.

Gotham, R. E. "Personality and Teaching Efficiency,"
Journal of Experimental Education, XIV

(Dec. 1914.37, 157-1650

Jayne, C. D. "A Study of the Relations Between Teaching
Procedures and Educational Outcomes," Journal
of Experimental Education, XIV (Dec. 19KB),
lOl-l3ue

 

LaDuke, Charles V. "The Measurement of Teaching Ability,"
Journal of Experimental Education, XIV (Sept.
lgHS)! 75'1000

Mitzel, H. E., and Rabinowitz, W. "Assessing Social-
Emotional Climate in the Classroom by Withall's
Technique," Psychological Monographs, LXVII
(No. 18, 1953), American Psychological Assoc.,
Washington, D.C.

Morsh, J. E., Burgess, G. G., and Smith, P. N. "Student
Achievement as a Measure of Instructor Effect-
iveness," Journal of Educational Psychology,
XLVII (1956), 79:88.

 

Popham, W. J., and Standlee, Lloyd S. Out-of-School
Activities and Professional Performance of
Teachers. Bulletin of the School of Education,
Indiana University, 1958.

 

 

-55-

Rolfe, J. F. "The Measurement of Teaching Ability,
Study No. 1," Journal of Experimental Education,

XIV (Sept. 19h5f, S2-7h.

Reports

Flanders, N. A. Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes
and Achievements: Studies in Interactions
Analysis. Final Report, COOperative Research
Project No. 397, University of Minnesota, 1960.

Unpublished Material

Carlson, Gustave. "Characteristic Differences Between
Good and Poor Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, l9h2.

Popham, W. James. "Out-of—School Activities of Teachers
as Related to an Index of Their Professional
Performance." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1958.

A P P E N‘D I X I

QUESTIONNAIRES AND TESTS

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

School Teacher Date

I.

II.

Personal Data
1. Sex of student: Male Female
2. Grade in school: 12th 11th 10th 9th

3. Age of student: 20 or over 19 18 17
16 15 or less

A. How long have you known this teacher?
Less than 1 year_ 1 year 2 years
3 years_ h years_ 5 years or more

Relationship of Teacher to Pupils

1. Is this teacher friendly to you when you meet him?
Always Sometimes Never

2. Does this teacher frequently scold or use sarcasm?
Often Sometimes Never

3. Does this teacher have a sense of humor?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

h. Does this teacher join in your recreational activi-
ties? Often Sometimes Never

5. Do you think this teacher has a pleasant appearance?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

6. Do you think that this teacher is peculiar?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

7. Do you respect this teacher for his academic ability?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

8. Do you admire this teacher personally?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

9. Do you like to have this teacher Join in your social
and recreational activities? Very much
Somewhat Not at all

10. Do you think this teacher is fair?

Always Partial to boys Partial to girls
Sometimes unfair to either group Never

11. Is this teacher helpful to you in your work?

Often_ Sometimes_ Never—

-67-

-68-

12. Do you feel you can confide in this teacher
and tell him your troubles?
Often Sometimes Never

III. Pupil Rating of Teacher's Ability

How do you rate this teacher regarding his ability
to teach history?
Very Superior___ Superior___ Average____
Below Average___ Poor___.

School

I.

II.

III.

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

Teacher Date

 

 

 

Personal Data

1.
2.
3.
LL.

5.

Teacher's Age
How long have you taught in this school?
Do you live in this community? ‘Yes No

Was your home here before you taught here?
Yes No

If you do not live here, do you commute on
weekends? Commute daily?

School Activities

1.
2.

3.

h.

5.

Do you coach a major athletic sport? Yes No

Do you supervise extracurricular activities
(other than athletics) such as dramatics,
music, etc.? Yes No

With what percentage of the parents of your
students are you well acquainted?

Above 75% 75%__ 50%__ 25%....
Below 25 ___

Do you strive to stimulate competitive acti-
vity among your students in history?
Yes No

Do you have your students cooperate in group
projects in their history work? Yes No

Community Activities

1.

2.

Do you attend church in this community?
Often Sometimes Never

Do you participate in other organized acti-
vities in this community such as lodge,
service club, etc.? Yes No

3. With.which friends do you associate outside

of school? Usually teachers Sometimes
teachers, sometimes others Usually
other people in the communIty

IV.

Personal Feelings

1.
2.

3.

LI»-

Do you enjoy your work? Yes No

Are you seeking some other type of employment?
Yes No

Do you feel your superiors are riding you or
have it in for you? Yes No

Do you feel you are not appreciated by the
community? Yes No

School

I.

II.

III.

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Teacher Date

 

 

Personal Data

1. Name of Principal

 

2. How long have you known this teacher?

 

3. How long has this teacher worked under your
supervision?

 

Teacher's Characteristics

1. Is this teacher friendly?
Very much Somewhat . Not at all

2. Does this teacher cooperate with other teachers
and administrators? Very well Sometimes
Poorly

3. Is this teacher tactful?
Very Somewhat Not at all

h. Does this teacher show enthusiasm for his work?
Very much Some Very little

5. Does this teacher stimulate his students to
acquire further knowledge?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

6. Does this teacher show a sympathetic under-
standing of his students?
Very much Somewhat Not at all

7. Is this teacher fair in his treatment of
students?
Very fair~ Quite fair Unfair

Teacher's Activities

1. Does this teacher attend extracurricular school
functions?
Always Sometimes Never

2. Does this teacher participate in organized
activities of the community?
Often Sometimes Never

3. Does this teacher participate in social and

recreational activities of the students?
Often Sometimes Never

-71-

-72-

N. Is this teacher fair and honest in his
business dealings?

Absolutely In some things Not at all
IV. Teacher's Ability

How would you rate this teacher in regard to his
ability to teach history to his pupils?

Very Superior Superior Average
Below Average Poor

PRE TEST

UNITED STATES HISTORY EXAMINATION
(Used by permission of American Guidance Service)

Name of Student Age Date
Name of Teacher School City

 

DIRECTIONS: Choose the word or group of words that most
correctly completes each sentence, note its letter and
place it in the space at the left of the question.

1. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was of con-
siderable significance in the future development of
the New World because (a) France replaced England as
a world power (b) the Netherlands replaced Spain as a
world power (c) British naval power thereafter ex-
ceeded that of Spain (d) France and England defeated
Spain (e) England lost interest in Latin America.

2. The most determined interest in planting colonies for
England in the New World during Elizabethan times was
shown by (a) Sir Frances Drake (b) Sir Humphrey
Gilbert (0) Sir Rexford Johnson (6) Sir Walter
Raleigh (e) Captain Ralph Lane.

3. The success of the Jamestown Colon can largely be
attributed to the leadership of (a Captain Miles
Standish (b) Captain John Smith (c) King James
(d) Sir Walter Raleigh (e) Sir Thomas Moore.

h. During the early colonial period, the Puritan atti-
tude toward amusements was (a) little different from
that in the South and elsewhere (b) one of strong
opposition (c) one of great tolerance (d) typical of
frontier areas (6) condemned by Catholics.

5. The "Saints" exercised political control, during the
seventeenth century, in the colony of (a) Plymouth
(b) Massachusetts Bay (c) Maryland (d) Pennsylvania
(a) Virginia.

6. Lord Baltimore tried to provide a home for the Catho-
lics by organizin the colony of (a) Connecticut
(b) New Jersey (c? North Carolina (d) Maryland
(6) New York.

7. The widest variety of nationalities, religions, occu-
pations, and resources would be found during the
colonial period in.the area of (a) New England
(b) The Southern Colonies (c) the Middle Colonies
(d) the Carolinas (6) Massachusetts.

-73-

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

16.

-7u-

During the colonial period, in matters of govern-
ment, (a) the king was usually the supreme power
(c) each colony had a unique form of government
(6) in practically every colony, political control
was divided between the king and the colonial
assemblies.

A highly feudal-type of land-holding system might
be said to have prevailed in (a) the English
Colonies (b) Delaware (c) the French and Dutch
settlements (d) New England (9) the most newly-
settled areas.

In America, the tradition of a free press was begun
in the famous trial of (a) William.Bradford

(b) Roger Williams (c) Francis Bacon (d) Peter
Zender (e) John Hancock.

Mercantilism.is (a) a political system (b) a form
of taxation (c) an economic theory (d) government
by businessmen (e) a form of internationalism
popular in the seventeenth century.

The Albany Plan of union is important because

(a) Indians dominated the convention (b) it led to
the defeat of France (c) the king of England dis-

approved of the idea (d) it was the first proposal
for political union of all of the English colonies
(e) it proposed a protective tariff.

The tax that probably aroused the anger of'the
greatest number of colonists durin the Colonial
period was the (a) Molasses Act (b Grenville
program (c) Stamp Act (d) iron tax (a) tobacco tax.

The "Intolerable Acts" were enacted to discipline
(a) Williamsburg (b) Philadelphia (c) Maryland
(d) Boston (e) frontiersmen.

The assistance given by the French to the colonies
durin the Revolutionary War might be best described
as (a? unimportant (b) psychological (c) primarily
financial (d) of critical importance (e) coming

too late.

The most successful achievement of the central govern-
ment under the Articles of Confederation was the

(a) settlement of the Indian menace (b) establishment
of respect among foreign nations (c) internal im-
provements program (d) program for the organization
and disposal of the western lands (e) regulation

of slavery.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

-75-

Shay's rebellion alarmed mainl (a) Southerners
(b) Indians (c) the English (d conservative,
propertied men (e) the Puritans.

The authority of the federal government under the
present Constitution is in sharp contrast to the
authority of the central government under the
Articles of Confederation in that (a) it is poorly
defined (b) it is more difficult to change (0) it
applies to the states (d) it applies directly to
the individual (e) the court system is weaker.

The Bill of Rights is found in (a) the Preamble to
the Constitution (b) the first five articles of

the Constitution (c) the amendments (d) Article

VI (e) the first ten amendemnts to the Constitution.

The President's Cabinet (a) is not provided for
in the Constitution (b) is provided for in the
twelfth amendment (c) is limited to six people
(d) was started by Lincoln (e) has restricted the
power of the President.

During Washington's administration, Alexander
Hamilton (a) usuall supported the policies of
Thomas Jef erson (b fought the extension of
slavery (c generally represented the propertied
classes (d) quarreled with Washington.

The first important leader of the present day
Democratic party was (a) George Washin ton

(b) Aaron Burr (c) Alexander Hamilton d) Thomas
Jefferson (9) Thomas Paine.

The outstanding effects of John Marshall's leader-
ship in the Supreme Court was to (a) weaken the
presidency (b) strengthen the Federal Government
(0) increase the power of the states (d) limit the
power of the church (a) weaken the influence of
the Supreme Court.

The Louisiana Purchase was made from.France in
(a) 1800 (b) 1806 (c) 1803 (d) 1798 (e) 1812.

Jefferson, as President, believed that the (a) powers
of the central government should be limited

(b) power of the states should be limited (c) Presi-
dent could do nothing not clearly provided for in
the Constitution (d) army should be very strong

(a) propertied classes should dominate the govern-
ment.

The Federalist party is generally considered to have
been replaced by the (a) Southern Democratic party
(b) Know-Nothings (c) whigs (d) Socialists (9) anti-
Masons.

27.

28.

29.

30-

31.

32.

33-

31;.

-76-

The major objective of the Hartford convention
was to (a) allow New England to secede (b) in-
crease the political power of the New England
section of the nation (c) nullify federal laws
(d) gill the National Bank (6) mediate the War
of l 12.

The War of 1812 was most strongly opposed by
(a) New England (b) the West (c) the South
(d) the army (e) the frontiersmen.

The presidential election of 1828 represents a
rest victory for the (a) National Bank (b) South
Io) New England area (d) frontier democracy

(e) Whig party.

Two great political leaders who failed to win the
presidency between 1810 and 1860 by compromising
on sectional interests were (a) Fremont and
Buchanan (b) Cass and Clay (c) Douglas and
Webster (d) Clay and Douglas (e) Douglas and
Yancey.

The period of Jackson's administration is impor-
tant for the (a) great growth of the political
power of the South (b) great interest in European
affairs (c) vigorous interest in humanitarian
reform (d) death of the Federalist party (9) de-
struction of the power of congress.

The Wilmot Proviso provided for the (a) govern-
ment of the Oregon territory (b) annexation of
Texas (c) purchase of Cuba (d) regulation of
slavery in the territory won from.Mexico (e) re-
striction of the powers of the Supreme Court.

Lincoln's position on slavery during the campaign
of 1860 was (a) that it must be destroyed (b) that
it could remain where it was, but it could not be
extended into the new territories (c) to do any-
thing to avoid war (d) to allow slavery to die a
natural death (a) to let each state decide it
status. .

The problem of the extension of slavery caused a
civil war to break out for a prolonged period in
the present state of (a) Nebraska (b) Florida
(c) Texas (d) California (e) Kansas.

POST TEST

UNITED STATES HISTORY EXAMINATION
(Used by permission of American Guidance Service)

Name of Student Age Date
Name of Teacherp_ School

 

 

DIRECTIONS: Choose the word or group of words that most
correctly completes each sentence, note its letter and
place it in the space at the left of the question.

 

1. British control of the seas is generally agreed to
have begun with (a) the defeat of the Dutch in the
seventeenth century (b) Drake's journey around the
world in 1579 (c) the end of the French and Indian War
in 1763 (d) Cabot's journey to the New World in 1H9?
(e) the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

2. In the 1770's the most influential people in the
large towns of the northern colonies were the
(a) ministers (b) organized workers (c) English
(d) merchants (e) professional people.

3. The Jamestown Colony became a success (a) because
husbands, wives and children were brought together
in the first ships (b) as soon as the Spanish left
the colony alone (c) when the gold mines in present-
day South Carolina were discovered (d) as knowledge
of the cultivating and curing of tobacco developed
(6) because the colonists practiced democracy from
the beginning.

h. The first English colonists to settle in the New
World in order to enjoy religious freedom were the
(a) colonists in Georgia (b) followers of William
Penn (c) Pil rims (d) Catholic friends of Lord
Baltimore (a? second group of Jamestown settlers.

5. During the seventeenth century, among the English
colonies in the New World, the Quakers would be
most numerous and welcome in (a) Boston (b) Virginia
(c) Philadelphia (d) Baltimore (e) Hartford, Conn.

6.’ The Middle Colonies might best be described (a) as
the birthplace of American democracy (b) b the
statement, "Catholics Welcome Anywhere" (c) as the
home of the Saints (d) as a land of many products,
nationalities and religions (e) as the land of the
Swedes.

7. During the first century of settlement in the English-

held areas, the greatest degree of religious freedom
would be found in (a) Pennsylvania, New York, and

-77-

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

-78-

New Jerse (b) Pennsylvania, Maryland and Rhode
Island (c Rhode Island, Massachusetts and
Connecticut (d) Virginia, Georgia and Pennsylvania
(6) Maryland, Delaware and Virginia.

The powers of government in the English Colonies
were generally shared by (a) king and church

(b) colonial governors and assemblies (c) colonial
assemblies and church (d) the different church

‘groups (a) everyone.

A similar condition in the Dutch and the French
colonies in.the New World was the (a) great number
of slaves used by both groups (b) common church to
whtch both belonged (c) great effort exerted by
each to control the Ohio valley (d) feudal land-
holding (6) high degree of democratic government
enjoyed by both colonies.

During the eighteenth century, Britain tended to
regulate the trade and commerce with her American
colonies along the lines of (a) the whims of the
kings (b) the principles of free trade (c) a
first-come-first-served basis (d) the Mercantile
Theory (e) a policy of least resistance.

The tradition of freedom of the press in America
goes back to (a) the Mayflower Compact (b) the
decisions of John Marshall (c) the theories of
R0 er Williams (d) the Peter Zenger trial

(a Bacon' s rebellion.

A major cause of the quarrel between the mother
country and the thirteen colonies was (a) the
land policy (b) the Indian trouble (c) taxation
(d) the attempt to unify the colonies (e) the
fear of the Spanish.

The original thirteen colonies did not include
the present-day state of (a) New Jersey (b) South
Carolina (c) New Hampshire (d) Vermont (6) Georgia.

The American victory at Yorktown may be attributed
to a high degree, to Britain's tempora (a) bank-
ruptcy (b) loss of the will to fight (c loss of

the control of the seas in that area (d) confusion
in the London War office (a) fear of Russian attack.

The triangular trade route involved (a) New England,
Pennsylvania, and the South (b) New England, Great
Britain, and Africa (c) the West Indies, the
Southern Colonies, and En land (d) Africa, the West
Indies, and the Colonies e) the French colonies,
the Spanish colonies, and the English colonies.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

~79-

The writs of assistance were (a) pleas for help
among the colonists just before the outbreak of
the Revolutionary War (b) orders to British
soldiers to defend the frontiersmen against the
Indians (c) laws to defend the loyalists from

the patriots in Boston (d) general search warrants
(e) pledges of assistance by the various colonies
to New England in 1775.

Shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War,
propertied interests of New England were threatened
by (a) Bacon's rebellion (b) the Albany Plan

(c) the power of the church (d) Shay's rebellion
(e) the expansion of slavery.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the greatest

political power generally rested (a) in the states
(b) with the South (0) in Massachusetts (d) in the
army (e) in the president's hands.

Under our present Constitution, the major guardian
of the ri hts and freedoms of the people is found
in the (a? third amendment (b) powers iven the
Supreme Court (c) presidential powers d) "welfare"
clause (e) Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution is silent concerning the (a) control
of the military forces (b) rights of property owners
(c) separationiof powers in government (d) political
parties (6) powers of the states.

During the first decade of our present government,
the interests of the propertied classes were most
effectively promoted by (a) Thomas Jefferson

(b) Alexander Hamilton (c) Aaron Burr (d) John
Jay (e) John Adams.

A great spokesman for the rights of "life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness rather than the

ri hts of "life, liberty and property" was

(a? John Adams (b) George Washin ton (c) Benjamin
Franklin (d) Thomas Jefferson (a? John Jay.

Many of John Marshall's decisions demonstrated

his belief in (a) a weak Supreme Court (b) a strong
states' rights government (c) the dangers of a
strong president (6) the great abilities of the
common man (s) a strong central government.

According to Jefferson's belief in a strict inter-
pretation of the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase
was (a) a mistake (b) unconstitutional (c) provided
for in the powers given the president (d) legal
under the "welfare clause (e) made possible by
special amendments.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33-

3h-

-80-

Both the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions and the
Hartford Convention expressed a belief in

(a) freedom of the press (b) states' rights

(0) a weak Supreme Court (d) a strong president
(e) secession.

The reatest single cause of the War of 1812 was
the %a) fear’of England (b) sympath for France
(c) fear of the Spanish colonies (d land hunger
of the people in the West (a) demands of the
people of New England.

Frontier democracy exhibited its clearest ex-
pression in the presidential election of (a) 1836
(b) 182h (c) 1801 (d) 1809 (e) 1828.

The most famous defenders of sectional interests
between 1811 and 1850 were (a) Benton, Cla and
Jefferson (b) Clay, Webster and Calhoun (c Lincoln,
Madison and Monroe (d) Adams, Calhoun mud Van

Buren (e) Jefferson, Calhoun and Monroe.

During Jackson's administration, the great symbol
of the power of the wealthy people was (a) the
tariff controversy (b) the American System

(c) the National Bank (d) the spoils system

(a) Jackson himself.

National party conventions, for the purpose of
choosin presidential candidates, were well estab-
lished a) during Jackson's candidacy (b) by
Washington's direction (c) when Jefferson took
office (d) just before the Civil War (a) by con-
gressional action.

The Compromise of 1850 was (a) unreasonable (b) a
victory for Calhoun (c) an example of Lincoln's
political skill (d) hailed hopefully by most
Americans (e) hated from.the beginning by all sides.

During the campaign of 1860, Lincoln insisted that
(a) slavery must be destroyed (b) it must not be
allowed to ex and to new territories (c) it was
not an issue d) compromise was the proper policy
(e) slavery was unconstitutional.

Previous to the firing on Fort Sumter the greatest
bloodshed over slavery happened in (a) Missouri
(b) West Virginia (0) Texas (d) Kansas (9) Nebraska.

The quarrel over slave was the basic cause for
the formation of the (:1 Whig Party (b) Democratic-
Republican Party (c) Republican Party (d) Know-
Nothing Party (e) Democratic Party.

A P P E N D I X II

TESTS OF THE MAJOR HYPOTHESES

FORMULAS USED IN THE ANALYSIS

Chi-Square:

l
X2 = (to-ft)2 ( ) where f0 = observed frequency
ft ft = theoretical frequency

Coefficient of Contingency:

c = x2 (2) where x2 = Chi-square and
x2-N N = table total

Correction for C

 

 

C = C where t1. and to refer to
trte correction factors for
small npmber of rows and
columns 3
1

See T. C. McCormick, Elementary Social Statis-
tics (New York: McGraw Hill, l9h2), pp. 203 ff.

21bid.

3c. c. Peters and w. R. Van Voorhis, Statis-
tical Procedures and Their Mathematical Bases (New
YorE: McGraw HilI, 19h0), p. 398.

-82-

TABLE 1

RESULTS OF TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER-
PUPIL RELATIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE RESPONSES
OF 1160 STUDENTS TO 13 QUESTIONS CONCERNING
SUCH RELATIONS AND RATING OF TEACHING
ABILITY FOR 39 TEACHERS AS DETERMINED

BY PUPILS'

m

 

Questions Concerning
Teacher-Pupil
Relations

Do you think this
teacher is fair?

Do you respect this
teacher for his
academic ability?

How long have you
known this teacher?

Does this teacher have
a sense of humor?

Does this teacher join
in your recreation?

Do you think this
teacher has a
pleasant appearance?

Do you think this
teacher is peculiar?

Does this teacher scold
or use sarcasm?

Do you like to have
this teacher join
your social or
recreational activi-
ties?

Do you admire this
teacher personally?

Is this teacher
helpful to you?

Do you feel you can
confide in this
teacher?

Is this teacher
friendly to you?

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION

 

Relationship With
Mean Gains in Information

 

Chi-
Square

169.hl

18.55
103.03
53.60
23.15

2t.95
27.02
17.76

3h~03
29.2u
15.37

23.83
13.19

Proba-
bility

.01-

.01

.01-
.01-
.01-

.01-
001‘-
.03

001'
001-
.05

.Ol-
.10

E

.18

.15
.32
.32
.17

.18
.19
.15

.21
.19

.18
.13

Direction

Positive

Curvilinear
Ambiguous
Ambiguous
Ambiguous

Ambiguous
Curvilinear

Ambiguous

Ambiguous
Ambiguous
Ambiguous

Curvilinear

None

 

MEAN GAINS IN

-3h-

TABLE 2

FAIRNESS

INFORMATION BY STUDENTS'
OPINIONS OF TEACHERS'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think this teacher is fair?
Mean Gains NeverIFaIr -
in Sometimes Unfair Partial to
Information to Either Group ‘rBoth Always Fair 4_
f0 f0 " ft to fo-ft f0 fo-ft TOtal
Very
Superior h9 - .h9 11 -6.93 139 7.%3 199
Superior 53 -l.21 20 .36 1&5 . 7 218
Average 85 -8.26 27 -6.79 263 15.06 375
Below
Average 51 h.75 l8 1.2h 117 - 5.97 186
Poor 49 ,5.25 28 12.14, 99 -17.36 176
Total 287 10h 763 115E
x2 = 169.u1 P = .01- E = .18 (positive)
TABLE 3

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS' RESPECT
FOR THEIR TEACHERS' ACADEMIC ABILITY

Mean Gains

Do you respect this teacher for
hipiacademic ability?

-‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Not at all - Somewhat , Very Much

Information rg‘?5-ft *X4’ 0 fo'ft ‘i2' :0 ro-rt xZ’ Total
Very

Superior 9 - .63 .0h 58 - 5.81 .53 132 6. .33 199
Superior 1h 3.h0 1.09 86 15.78 3.5M 119 -19.1 2.66 219
Average 12 -6.30 2.17 102 -19.21 3.0M 26h 25.50 2.73 378
Below

Average 10 1.00 .11 66 6.36 .68 110 - 7.36 .h6 186
Tptal 6 371 730 ll 7
x2 = 18.55 P = .01 6': .15 (curvilinear)

TABLE u

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY LENGTH OF
STUDENTS' ACQUAINTANCE WITH TEACHER

 

How long havepyou known this teacher?
Mean Gains 0-1 2 3 or more

in year years _ years

 

 

 

 

Very

Superior 88 -10.55 at - 2.69 67 13.25 199
Superior 9h -lh. 5 63 11.62 62 2.85 219
Average 209 22. 0 8h 13.36 83 -18.56 376
Below

Average 125 33.88 30 -l3.17 29 -20.70 18h
Poor 56,:31.65 50 - 8.h8 71 23.19 177
Total 572 271 312 1155;
X2 = 103.03 P = .01- C = .32 (ambiguous)

TABLE 5

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS' OPINIONS
OF THE TEACHERS' SENSE OF HUMOR

Does this teacher have a sense 0? humor?

Mean Gains Somewhat and

 

 

 

in Not at All pg Very Much

Information To fngt Xd f0 o‘ft XZ Total
Very

Superior 69 -37.66 %.10 131 18.83 3.16 200
Superior 133 3 .82 2 .5 86 -36.82 11.04 .219
Average 158 - .01 h.9 220 8.01 .30 378
Below

Average 97 15.75 3.05 88 -15.75 2.39 185
Poor 52 ~25.73 9.24 125 25.73 6.67 171
Total 509 650 1159

 

X2 = 53.60 P = .01- U'= .32 (ambiguous)

-86-

TABLE 6

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY THE
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH TEACHERS
JOIN IN STUDENTS' RECREATION

 
  

 

_._.-_ _.__ mah— _- —._..._._..‘ - w~_‘ _H,

Mean Gains !‘ __2 Does thIsmteEEHSFIEEIn in your recreation?
in * -N3ver Sometimes Offen
Information 0 To-ft X2 ?2. f9- t X2 f9, TEETE X2 ota

Very Super— 25 -3.58 .AS 7h - 7.57 .70 100 11.15 1:;0 199
ior

Superior 28 -3.31 .35 93 3.6a .15 97 - .33 --;- 218

Average 56 2.hh .11 182 29.10 5.5M 135 -31.5h 5.97 373
Below

Average 29 2.58 .25 67 - 8.83 .9t 88 5.85 .%2 18a
2. 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor 2 1.8 .14 -16.7u73.90 9% 14.87 175
Total 165 71 ,513 llhfip
x2=23.15 P=.01- ce.17 (ambiguOus)

TABLE 7

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY
STUDENTS' OPINIONS OF
TEACHERS' APPEARANCE

 

 

Mean GaIns 0 you think this teacher has a pleasant appearance?

 

 

 

in Not at All IISomewhat V6 much
lr—lfomation Io fo’it x2 20 io‘it x2 O o- t x2 T0178].
Very

Superior 5 “30’4“. 1.110 60 ‘15023 3.08 13 18066 3002 199
Superior 11 1.72 .32 80 - 2.79 .09 12 1.07 .01 219
gvirage 11 -h.98 1.55 170 27.h8 5.30 196 -22.50 2.32 377

e ow
Average 13 5.16 3.39 56 -13.9h 2.78 116 8.78 .72 185
Poor 9 1.5a .32 1. Mat? .30 ,96 - 6.01 ,35 116,
Total 9 E3, 670 1156

x2=2u.95 P=.01- 62.18 (ambiguous)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS' OPINIONS
OF THE TEACHERS' PECULIARITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean UaIns Eo_you tHIHE IhIs teacHer Is pecuIIar?
in Not at All Somewhat Ver much -

Information: raft f0 fo'ft 12; 1'0 o‘l't KC TUE]?
Very

Superior 117 10.21 .98 66 - 3.5M .18 1h - 6.67 2.15 197
Superior 105-13.17 1.h7 81 %.05 .21 32 9.12 3.6M 218
gverage 226 22.18 2.h1 12h - .73 .57 26 -l3.u6 h.59 376

elow

Average 101 .72 .01 60 - 5.30 .MB 2h %.59 1.08 185
Pgor 776-19.9 h.15 76 13.52 2.93 _§5 .h2 2.22 177
Total 625* IHOZg 121 1153
x2=27.02 P=.Ol- ‘2.19 (curvilinear)

TABLE 9

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS'
RATING OF FREQUENCY OF THE
TEACHERS' USE OF SARCASH

 

 

 

 

 

Very

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Superior 77 22.16 8.95 109%-16.26 2.11 In -5.90 1.75 200
Superior 56-h.05 .27 1hh‘ 6.8h .3 19 -2.79 .36 219
Average 90-13.11 1.67 2N2! 6.51 .1 an 6.60 1.16 376
Below

Average 511- .01 ---- 117g .51 ---- 18 - .50 .01 186
ggor -n.99 .521112; 2.40 .05 20 2.59 .39 175
Total ,317_ 72g22 115 1155

 

x2=17.76 P=.03 te.15 (ambiguous)

-88-

TABLE 10

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS'
TO QUESTION, "DO YOU LIKE TO HAVE THIS
TEACHER JOIN YOUR RECREATION?"

RESPONSES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Gains "Do you like this teacher to oin ypur recreation?
in Not at Alla Somewhat a Ve much

Informationle 0' t ‘X‘ o 0- t X‘ ‘f3 0- t TotaI
Very

Superior 16-11.08 h45h 9O - h.h% .21 9h 15.53 3.07 200
Superior 39 9.h8 3.0h 10h 1.0 .01 75 -lO.53 1.30 218
Average 750- .92 .02 20h 26.hh 3.9M 122 -25.53 h.h2 376
Below

Average at 9.08 3'81 76 -10.89 1. 6 7a 1.81 .05 18h
Total 156 Shh 7h 2 ll 2
x2=3u.03 P=.Ol- Es.21 (ambiguous)-:

TABLE 11

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY THE STUDENTS'

ADMIRATION FOR THE TEACHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Gains Do you admire the teacher personally?
in Not at All Somewhat ., Very much

Infomation f0 0- f, o Io-It X5 o o‘- t IDLE
Very

Superior 22-13.78 5.31 97 1.58 .03 81 12.20 2.16 200
Superior 57 18.00 8.30 10h - .01 ---- 57 -17.99 h.32 218
Average 56-11.63 2.00 187 6.66 .25 135 h.97 .19 378
Below

Average AZ 8.90 2.39 89 .7h .01 St - 9.6 1.%6 185
Total 207 552 398 1157
x2=29.2u P=.Ol- Ee.19 (ambiguous)

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS'
OPINIONS OF TEACHERS'

TABLE 12

HELPFULNESS

 

===1
Mean Gains

Is this teacher heIpFul

to on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in INever Sometimes O ten

Information TBITo-Tt X4 I3 fo-fE X4 f0 0‘ t X2 otaI
Very

Superior 13 ’20’49 eLI-O 95 " 037 -"‘"' 91 "' 2.86 009 199
Superior 19 1.95 .22 116 11.05 1.16 8h -13.00 1.7M 219
Average 25 -h.35 .65 158 -22.67 2.85 19h 27.02 h.37 37?
Below

Average 18! 3.60 .90 92 3.3M .13 75 - 6.9M .59 185
Poor 157 1.30 .12 93 8.65 .89 68 - 9.9 1.2 176
Total 90 455L 512 1156
x2=15.37 P=.05 Calla. (ambiguous).

TABLE 13
MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY THE
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE
STUDENTS CONFIDE IN
THE TEACHER
MSHn Gains Do ou confide in this teacher?
in Never A Sometimes A, Oftan

Information TE'To-ft X‘ f6 fo-fi 1‘ PIE 0- X" o a
Very

Superior 70115.81 2.91 101 11.38 1.115 29 11.11% .80 200
Superior 106 12.u6 1.66 97 - .69 ---- 15 -ll.7 5.18 218
Average 168 6.2M .2h 173 h.07 .10 36 -10.31 2.30 377
Below

Average 82 2.62 .09 72 -10.90 1.h3 31 8.28 3.01 185
Poor 70 -5.52 .40 75 -3.87 .19 51 9.38 11.07 176
TotaI’ 96 7518 1H2 1156
X2=23.83 P=.Ol- 52.18 (curvilinear)

-90-

TABLE H1

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY STUDENTS'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPINIONS OF THE TEACHERS' FRIENDLINESS
ean Gains 3 this teacher r and y to you
in ever p_ semafrmes Always
Information f0 fo’ft Xe to fo’ft XZ f0 fo’f t X2 Tetal
Very
Superior 5 -1.0h .18 72 - 2.27 .07 123 3.31 .09 200
Superior 3 -3.56 1.93 96 16.58 2.95 118 -11.86 1.08 217
Average 10 -1.h2 .18 13h - 6.36 .29 23h 7.79 .27 378
Below
Average 11 5038 5.15 68 "' 1007 .02 107 " ".031 .17 186
Poor 6 . .08 6O - 5173 .50 111 5.08 .2h 177
Total 35 £130 693 1158'
x2=13.19 P=.10 'c'=.13 (none)
TABLE 15
MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION
BY AGE OF TEACHERS
Mean Géfns _, *Teachers' Age
in 20-29 ‘30 or Mere
Information Years Years Total
Superior 8 g 12
Average 5 8 1h
Below Average 1
Tbtal 22 17 39
x2=3.36 =.3o

-91-

TABLE 16

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY THE
PROPORTION OF PATRONS KNOWN
BY THE TEACHER

——'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ngn Gains Proportion of
in Patrons Known
Information - - o a
Superior 6 5 11
Average 7 7 1h ?
Below Average 5 9 1h Q
Total 18 21‘ 39 '
X2=1.6O P3030 3.
TABLE 17 A

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY
FREQUENCY OF CHURCH ATTENDANCE

IN THE COMMUNITY
BY THE TEACHER

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Enfoiflation Never Sometimes Often Total
Superior 6 2 3 11
Average 5 5 h 18
Bglow Average 6 1 7 1
Total 17 8 IE; —§%-
x2=ue 02 P:.L‘_O

TABLE 18

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY FREQUENCY
OF TEACHERS' PARTICIPATION IN THE
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES OTHER
THAN CHURCH

       

    

 

 

 

'ean a as c pa e n

in Other Activities
Information Yes *No :TotaI
Superior 6 5 11
Average h 10 1h
Below Average ,5 9 1h
Total 15 2k 139

 

x2=1.7u =.uo

-92-

TABLE 19

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY TEACHERS'
SPONSORSHIP OF NON-ATHLETIC

 

 

 

 

 

ACTIVITIES
in Activities

Information Yes No Total
Superior 5 6 11
Average 8 7 15
Below Average 7 6 13
TotaI' '20 19 _39
Ker-0111 P=095

TABLE 20

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY TEACHERS'
SPONSORSHIP OF ATHLETICS

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Gains Sponsor of

in Athletics
Information '—_FYes No ota
Superior 9 3 12
Average 2 7
Below Average 7 13
Total 22 17' 3

2:1095 P3050
TABLE 21

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATINGS OF THE TEACHERS'
FRIENDLINESS

 

: I p
in of Friendliness
Information Very Somewhat
Much Not at A11 Total

 

Superior 8 3 11
Average 13 2 15
Below Average 9 h 1
TotaI 30 9 3

 

x2=1.13 P=.50

-93 ..

TABLE 22

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'

 

 

 

 

 

COOPERATIVENESS

Mean Gains Prinprals' Rating of

in Cooperativeness
Information Very SometImes

Well Very Poorly Total
Superior 10 1 11
Average 12 2 1h
Below Average 9 5 1h
TotaI
x2=2.86 P=.30
TABLE 23

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'

 

 

 

 

 

TACTFULNESS
Mean GaIns Principals' Rating of
in Tactfulness
Information SomewEat
Very Not at All Total
Superior 5 6 11
Average 6 8 1h
Below Average 5 9 1h
Total 16 23 39
X2=.1h P=e98
TABLE 2h

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'

 

   

 

 

 

ENTHUSIASM

roan aine”””“”"’ Pr no peie ‘ating oi”‘””*"
in Enthusiasm

Information very SOme

Much Very Little Total
Superior 8 3 11
Average 9 6 15
Below Average 8 5 13
Total 23’ 1h 39

 

x2=.37 P=.95

 

:y 1‘

TABLE 25

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'
STIMULATION OF THE STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

Mean Gains PrInpraIs' RatIng OI
in Student Stimulation

Information Very Somewfiat

Much Not at All Total
Superior 1 10 11
Average 5 9 1h
Below Average 7 7 1h
Tetal 13 26 39
x2=u.83 P=.08

TABLE 26

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'
UNDERSTANDING OF STUDENTS

———.—-. ____.

   

 

 

 

 

Mean“o; ne“7 _ “"r‘ne paIETIREEIng of
in Student Understanding
Information Very Somewhat
Much Not at All Total
Superior 5 7 12
Average 5 9 1h
Below Average 7 6
Total 17 22 39
x2=1.12 P=.6O
TABLE 27

MEAN GAINS IN INFORMATION BY PRINCIPALS'
RATING OF THE TEACHERS'

 

 

 

FAIRNESS

Mean Gains PrinpralsI Rating of
in Teachers' Fairness

Information Very Quite FEIr

Fair Unfair Total
Superior 7 h 11
Average 7 7 18
Below Average 8 6 1h
TotaI‘f ‘22 17* 39

 

x2=.58 P=.81

A P P E N D I X III

TEST OF THE MINOR HYPOTHESIS

TABLE 1

RESULTS OF TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER-
PUPIL RELATIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE RESPONSES
OF 1160 STUDENTS TO 13 QUESTIONS CONCERNING

SUCH RELATIONS AND THE SAME PUPILS'
OF THE TEACHING ABILITY OF 39 TEACHERS

RATINGS

 

 

QuestIons ConcernIng PupII RatIngs of

Teacher-Pupil .7 Teaching Ability

Relationsl Chi- PrdBa- _
Square bility C Direction

Do you think this

teacher is fair? 122.78 .01- .h2 Positive
Do you respect this

teacher for his

academic ability? 390.82 .01- .62 Positive
How long have you

known this teacher? 22.98 .01- .3h Positive
Does this teacher have

a sense of humor? 171.21 .01- .hh Positive
Does this teacher join

in your recreation? 31.11 .01- .20 Positive
Do you think this

teacher has a

pleasant appearance? 202.2h .01- .h8 Positive
Do you think this

teacher is peculiar? 120.68 .01- .38 Negative
Does this teacher scold

or use sarcasm? 68.67 .01- .29 Negative
Do you like to have

this teacher join

your social or

recreational acti-

vities? lh3.0h .Ol- .hl Positive
Do you admire this

teacher personally? 239.8h .01- .51 Positive
Is this teacher

helpful to you? 252.88 .01- .52 Positive
Do you feel you can

confide in this

teacher? 103.h1 .01- .35 Positive
Is this teacher

friendly to you? 166.17 .01- .hh Positive

 

1Listed in the same order as
11, showing relationship between the

gains in information.

-9 6-

Table 1, Appendix
same factors and

TABLE 2

RESULTS OF TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS'
TENURE AND STUDENTS' LENGTH OF ACQUAINTANCE
WITH THEIR TEACHERS AND 1160 PUPILS' RATINGS

OF THE TEACHING ABILITY OF 39 TEACHERS

Pupils' Ratings 0? teachingabiligy

 

 

 

 

ChI- Proba-
Square bility C Direction
Teacher Tenure 31.06 .01- .19 Curvilinear
Length of Pupil
Acquaintance 22.98 . .03 .17 Ambiguous
TABLE 3

 

RESULTS OF TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS'
ROLES IN THE COMMUNITY AND 1160 PUPILS' RATINGS
OF THE TEACHING ABILITY OF 39 TEACHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pu ils' Ratings of Teaching Abilipy_
hi? Proba-
Square bility, C’ Direction
Church Attendance 37.0h .Ol- .22 Negative
Participation In
Community h7.90 .Ol- .27 Curvilinear
Activities
Proportion 0f
Patrons Known 16.21 .01h .21 Curvilinear
TABLE h

RESULTS OF THE TESTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS'
ROLES IN THE SCHOOL AND 1160 PUPILS' RATINGS OF
THE TEACHING ABILITY OF 39 TEACHERS

Pupils' Ratings of Teaching Abilipy

 

 

—Chi- Proba-
Square bilipy C’ Direction
Supervisor of
Extracurricular 7.83 .10 .11 Negative

Activities
Athletic Coach 8.2M .10 .13 Negative

 

 

-98-

' ~ TABLE 5

RESULTS OF TESTS OF INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN
THE VARIOUS MEASURES OF TEACHING ABILITY

Mean GaIns in Prinprals'

 

 

Information Ratings
X2 = 09“»
Principals' Ratings P = .6
C = .005
, x2 = 56.87 x2 = 2n.71
Pupils' Ratings 3, = .01- g, = .02
C = .21.]. C = .18

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIB

I III llllllfl

3 1293 03103 7

1

 

IIIRIIIII'ES
2

_‘.._L_.!