rv W._v vvw ‘-4 ‘— n c ‘ , . .. u- I .' "2632‘! RN‘EQ". I. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL- EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR AND INFORMATION- ACHIEVEMENT 0E HEAD START CHILDREN Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARJORIE HEATH NOBLE 1968 LI B RAR Y Michigan State University III III III I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 10138 8 SSSSSS ABSTRACT THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR AND INFORMATION-ACHIEVEMENT OF HEAD START CHILDREN by Marjorie Heath Noble The major theoretical position underlying this study was founded on the increasing recognition by social scientists of the need for a process conception of the human being which recognizes the "whole" person instead of a simple partite breakdown of the person into his component systems. In ap- plying this conception to the study of children in the schools, concern with the implications of the fact that "persons" go to school, and not simply equipment for learning, becomes paramount. The awareness that every mental function is im- bedded in a personal life implies that studies of cognitive functioning should include reference to the individual's personality. With the advent of Project Head Start there devel- oped an increasing interest in studying the disadvantaged child in the school, as it has been found that children who have known only poverty tend to be unsuccessful in school. Head Start, then, offers fertile ground for exploring the interrelationship between social-emotional behavior and cog- nitive learning in children coming from deprived backgrounds. The present study, in affiliation with the national Marjorie Heath Noble Head Start evaluation program, attempted to explore this interrelationship among l33 Head Start Children represent- ing a wide range of community types and ethnic groups in‘ the middle west. Two instruments were employed in the study. The Preschool Inventory was constructed by Caldwell and Soule to give a measure of achievement in areas regarded as nec- essary for success in school and yields four subscores. The Qperation Head Start Behavior Inventory was designed by Ziegler for use by Head Start to evaluate the behavior of nursery school children and yields four subscores accord— ing to Cline's factor analysis. The Preschool Inventory was administered to each child during the first and last months of attendance in Head Start. The Behavior Inventory was completed for each child by the teacher during the first month of the program. All of the gains in the subscores and total on the Preschool Inventory_were correlated with the four subscores on the Behavior Inventory. The general hypothesis was: There are positive re- lationships between positive aspects of teachers' ratings of social—emotional behavior and gains in information-achieve- ment; and negative relationships between negative aspects of teachers' ratings of social-emotional behavior and gains in information-achievement of children enrolled in Head Start. Although some significant relationships were found among the variables, the results did not yield as substantially Marjorie Heath Noble significant relationships as hypothesized. Further explora- tions and implications of these results were discussed. It was concluded that there may be substantial relationships between the variables as hypothesized, but that these rela- tionships were concealed in the present study by the diffi- culty in accurately measuring a subtle variable as social— emotional behavior and by the diversities and intricacies of the classroom setting in which the investigation was conducted. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR AND INFORMATION-ACHIEVEMENT OF HEAD START CHILDREN BY Marjorie Heath Noble A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Home Management and Child Development College of Home Economics 1968 M) Q\ .. \N \ \ - * x3 \\ ' <3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper has been the combined effort to express deep-seated convictions and to make them a reality through research. To all those who either played a part in forming those convictions or who supported the research, I acknow- ledge with great appreciation. Specifically to Dr. Sarah Hervey, who directed this research, I am especially grateful. Many pleasant hours were spent in association with her while this research was being conducted; and while this paper was being prepared, she contributed much of her time, wisdom and continued sup- port to its completion. For her patience, encouragement and understanding, I am in deep appreciation. To Mr. Robert Lance, my academic advisor, I also wish to extend my gratitude. Without his valuable guidance and encouraging support throughout my graduate program, this thesis would not have been launched. For my professional association.with him and for a meaningful friendship, I am especially appreciative. To Dr. Clark Moustakas, who introduced to me, through many valuable hours of class time, through many wonderful experiences in the playroom, and through his many books, some of the basic convictions upon which this paper was based, I am deeply indebted. Being touched by his warmth, ii sensitivity, and beautiful concern for human life especially manifested in his concern for children, has indescribably enriched my own professional and personal world. My very real association with him throughout my graduate program has been an immeasurably important and especially meaning- ful one for me. For this and more I am extremely grateful. Lastly, but especially, I wish to acknowledge the unending support and unfaltering patience of my husband Bill as he stood beside me through the writing of this paper. He played an invisible but very valuable part in bringing it to completion. For his encouragement and understanding I am forever grateful. Marjorie Heath Noble iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . l The "Whole Person" Concept. . . . . . . . . . 1 Recent Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project Head Start and the Deprived Child . . ll Purpose of the Present Study. . . . . . . . . 15 II. PROCEDURES . C C C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l7 Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Preschool Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Behavior Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27 Data 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 27 Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27 Results 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 28 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . 32 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 APPENDIX A The Preschool Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX B The Behavior Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Behavior Inventory Four Factor Structure. . . 53 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of the Sample by Sex, Race, and UrbaniCity O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 O 20 2. Correlation Coefficients Between Behavior Inventory Subscores and Gains in Preschool Inventory Subscores and Total. . . . . . . . . 29 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS JUSTIFICATION 222."!2213 Person“ Concept The assumptions underlying research in the social sciences are being challenged by an increased interest in what Maslow calls "Third Force Psychology” (1962). Bugental describes the parameters that are being challenged. Among these are "the model of man as a composite of part functions; the model of a science taken over from physics; and the cri- terion of statistical frequency as a demonstration of truth" (1963). Allport states that the biologist, physiologist and biochemist tend to retreat into a pattern of "deliberately avoiding the phenomena both of total organization and of consciousness, and thus reduce the person to something less than a complete system for study" (1955, p. 6). From this scientific model that Allport describes the ”so-called 'be- havior sciences' ablate an aspect of personal conduct from the integral nexus of personality, and relate this aspect to some outer frame of reference” (Allport, 1955, p. 5). This is to say that a picture is provided of the political man in relation to a political system, or of the economic man in relation to the economic system, but not of the whole man in relation to his own individual system. Social scientists, then, have often operated on the basis that the total human being could be sufficiently under- stood in terms of a catalogue of his component parts. More recently, the need for a ”process conception of the human being," a conception which recognizes the whole person, is being recognized (Bugental, 1963). The behavioral scientist especially cannot be satisfied with segments of persons re- lated to outer ordinates. "He must consider the system as a whole, and show how part systems are related to one an- other” (Allport, 1955, p. 6). In the study of children, for example, it should be realized that the child is not simply a composite of his intellect, language, emotions, social behavior, and motor skills; but rather, is a unique human being comprised of complex interrelationships between all of these factors, and possessing an individuality which cannot be categorized (Allport, 1943). A cursory review of the educational and child development research shows, however, that the primary concern has traditionally been to study the child in terms of his component parts and behaviors. Even in the major child development textbooks this emphasis upon the child in components is maintained. In Breckenridge and Murphy's text (1963), for example, the chapter headings include such topics as Physical Needs, Psychological Needs, Motor Develop— ment, Intellectual Development, and Adult-Child Relationships. The student of child development is therefore channeled into thinking of the child in terms of the sum total of separate entities. Sigel, referring to understanding the "whole" child, says “A starting point for now may be a tripartite breakdown of biological, psychological, and exogenous environmental systems” (1956, p. 244). He further describes delineation in these three basic systems. In diagnosing and analyzing children's behaviors and actions as separate entities in this way, however, there exists the very real danger of los- ing sight of the importance of the value and individual worth of the child as he exists in his own right as a "whole per- son.“ This method of study inevitably leads to the use of comparisons, standards, and common symbols from which it is difficult to deviate (Bugental, 1963). In the educational realm, teachers too often have viewed the child in terms of external measures of IQ and experts' categorizing of behavior (Moustakas, 1956). How— ever, it is being realized more clearly than before that this categorizing and labeling is not enough. Increasingly, "we are more concerned with the implications of the fact that 'persons' go to school, not just an equipment for learn- ing, not just memories, minds or intellects" (Jones, 1966, p. 322). A number of researchers are coming to emphasize the person in the educational process. For example, Allport asserts the important role of ego involvement or what might be called ”personal stake" in learning, judgment, attitudes and belief (1943). In applying his perceptual theory to education, Bills states that "to teach a person we must understand him, and this is most easily accomplished by trying to see him and his world as he sees them" (1955, p. 36). Traditionally, education has started with problems; those problems which teachers perceive to be important and usually those which are designed for the future—need satisfaction of pupils. This procedure can lead to difficulty as Snygg and Combs (1949) point out. They assert that problem behavior in schools is most often the result of this kind of instruction where teachers attempt to teach, for future-need satisfac- tion, children who are in need of immediate-need satisfac- tion. For example, “To start teaching with such a problem as number combinations because they will be needed in the future to solve arithmetic problems, and after that, life's problems, is to divorce learning from the purposes of people" (Bills, 1955, p. 36). This is to say, therefore, that in education one must not lose sight of the fact that a child is an emotional as well as a cognitive being, one being interdependent upon the other. The child comes to school with an emotionalism which is entwined with his values and beliefs about reality. Any learning that this child acquires will be colored by all of these factors. Recent Research Empirically the interdependence of social and emo- tional behavior and achievement in children has been demon- strated for several years. In reviewing the literature from 1933 to 1963, Taylor (1964) concluded that overachievers, as opposed to underachievers, are characterized by well— controlled (rather than "free—floating") anxiety, high self- esteem, acceptance of authority, good relations with peers, either independence or little conflict about dependency, academically-oriented (rather than socially-oriented) in- terests and activities, and realistic goals. While Crandall, in her own review of the literature concerning achievement as it relates to other factors (1967), agreed with most of Taylor's conclusions, she acknowledged several studies which have found that the achieving child has a number of less desirable behavior characteristics and relationships with important persons in his life. These findings will be addressed first. A longitudinal study (Sontag, Baker, & Nelson, 1958), based on ratings of children's behavior in nursery and ele- mentary school as well as in the home, showed that both boys and girls whose IQs increased during the preschool years were independent of adults and competitive with peers. In addi- tion, the girls were less "feminine" in their behavior. During the elementary school years, boys with increasing 105 were also more aggressive and anxious than boys with declining IQs. In spite of the fact that independence was found to be related to achievement in one study (Crandall, Preston and Rabsom, 1960), the same investigators (1958) found in a similar sample of children, who displayed more achievement efforts in nursery school, a compliance to the requests and demands of the adult staff. Haggard in a longitudinal study (1957) has also reported that compliance to adult pressures and values was found among children at the elementary school age who were high academic achievers. In the later grades strong antagonistic attitudes toward adults were found among the achievers and they became more aggressive and destructive. In discussing the findings, contrary to those of Taylor, in her overview of the literature, Crandall states, It would appear then that achieving children, in contrast to peers who perform less well, do not need to depend upon adults but are somewhat compliant and conforming to their demands. . . . While achiev- ing children of preschool and early elementary age are somewhat aggressive and competitive, their so- cial relationships are generally good. . . . By later elementary schoOl or junior high age, aggression and competition have become accentuated, relation- ships with siblings, peers, and adults show some disruption, and children are less creative, more anxious, and less able to resist the temptation to cheat . . . these attributes become increasingly pronounced at later ages. Does this mean that the effort to achieve 'produces' the less desirable per- sonality attributes? Or does it mean that only if children have acquired such personality constella- tion will they then be able to achieve in our highly competitive, post-Sputnik educational system? Cause and effect relations cannot be determined from these data, but it is obvious that our 'education for ex- cellence' is accompanied by certain psychological costs. (1967) The relationships between positive behaviors and achievement gain as well as between negative behaviors and negative achievement, however, have been demonstrated repeat- edly in recent years at varying levels of development. The research yielding these relationships will now be addressed. First, at the university level several studies have been recently carried out concerning academic success as it relates to social and/or emotional behavior. Wilson, Sodiquist and Zemke (1967) hypothesized that academic underachievement is a manifestation of emotional illness. The investigators found that in most of the 14 underachievers studied, under- achievement proved to be one manifestation of rather signif- icant underlying emotional disturbances. In another study the results of S32 examinations of students, who were inter- viewed by the Mental Health Services and who exhibited prob- lems in this area, were compared with the remaining 1968 students who did not exhibit problems in mental health. The results confirmed the existence of significant correla- tions between emotional disturbances and the ability to mobilize sufficient intellectual resources to meet the de- mands of university work (Frighi, Pichini, Biette, 1966). Lastly, in comparing social maturity with academic success in college students, it was found that the socially immature students were more disruptive of classroom proceedings, whereas socially mature students contributed more to class- room discussion. The socially immature students also had a higher absentee rate and underachieved in academic per- formance (Kipnis, 1968). At the high school level investigators have studied the relationships between these variables especially to aid in the understanding of the factors involved in producing a "school drop out" as opposed to a university candidate. Crites and Semler (1967), for instance, followed up their study of 483 fifth graders seven years later in the twelfth grade, in order to collect cross sectional and longitudinal data on the interrelationships of adjustment, educational achievement, and vocational maturity as dimensions of de- velopment in adolescence. It was found that early adjust- ment was related not only to later adjustment but also to later educational achievement and vocational maturity. The current adjustment correlated even higher with these vari- ables. In the elementary school the importance of the re- lationship between social and emotional adjustment and achievement is also being recognized and researched. Using a sample of 1,500 boys and girls, grades one through six, Young (1965) identified clusters of significant relation- ships between academic achievement measurements, emotional stability, and motor performance measures. Implications for curriculum planning and development were deducted. In another study, Koppitz (1966) studied the relationship of emotional indicators as demonstrated on the Human Figure Drawings with learning problems in 110 children age five to ten. Several emotional indicators were positively re- lated to school achievement. Koppitz also discovered six emotional signs which could be used to predict learning problems in school beginners. Several studies of elementary school children have investigated the relation between anxiety, a negative emo~ tion, and test performance, a measure of achievement and intelligence (Cowen, Zax, Klein, Izzo, & Trost, 1965; Feldhusen & Klausmeier, 1962; Hill & Sarason, 1966; Keller & Rowley, 1962; McCandless & Castaneda, 1956; Reese, 1961; Ruebush, 1960; Saxena, 1965). Among early elementary school children the findings generally show that more anxious child- ren tend to perform more poorly on achievement and intelli- gence tests, although the relations are weak and vary greatly from one investigation to the next. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies indicate that anxiety increases with age and the relation between high anxiety and poor test performance is stronger and more frequent in the stud- ies of fifth and sixth grade students (Crandall, 1967). However, Haggard (1957) found, as did Feldhusen and Klaus- meir, that gifted achieving children were more anxious than their nonachieving peers. According to Crandall, it may be that the achieving children were characterized by only moderate amounts of anxiety or that some anxiety has a facilitating effect upon the academic performance of bright children. Finally, in considering the relationship between social and emotional adjustment and behavior in the ele- mentary school age child, a report on equality of educa- tional opportunity (Coleman, Cambell, Hobson, McPartland, 10 Mood, Weinfeld & York, 1966) deserves mention. The report covering nationwide assessment of children of elementary and high school ages, demonstrated that self-concept, relative to intellectual and academic ability, was highly related to academic performance among white children. As to minor- ity groups, however, a sense of being in control of one's own successes and failures was the factor most strongly associated with achievement. These two orientations were more highly related to achievement than any of the many other environmental, family, school or teacher variables studied. Even at the preschool level several studies have revealed a relationship between achievement and social- emotional adjustment (Bruner, 1961; Deutsch, 1964; Hunt, 1961; Hunt, 1963). Researchers and educators are recogniz- ing the importance of this relationship in children before they reach the primary grades. A group of researchers under the direction of Martin Deutsch (1964) have studied preschool age children in this vein and have found that concept for- mation, auditory and visual discrimination, language ac- quisition and IQ scores related to such factors as race, social class, nursery school or kindergarten attendance, and father's presence or absence from the home. One of the elements common to all these factors was the Social and phys- ical stimulus deprivation or enrichment concomitant to the child's status on each dimension. In another study cited previously, Crandall, Preston and Rabson (1960), using a 11 sample of three to five year old children, found that inde- pendence was a consistent characteristic of children who showed increases in IQ scores. It would appear from the literature cited, that im— plications for future success academically and vocationally are inherent in the interdependence of achievement and social— emotional adjustment. It becomes necessary to consider the "whole" child in the school, taking into account all facets of his behavior as they interrelate with his learning. This consideration leads to an increasing awareness that "every mental function is imbedded in a personal life," and since "each personality is a law unto itself," studies of cognitive functioning and achievement should include reference to the individual's personality (Allport, 1937). Project Head Start and the Deprived Child It has been found that children who have known only poverty tend to be unsuccessful in school (Bereiter, 1966). In fact, "economically deprived families produce three to five times as many children with intellectual subnormalities, social and emotional disturbances, and/or school achievement problems than their more economically advantaged counterparts" (Hodges & Spicker, 1967, p. 263). Authorities report that severely disadvantaged children at the preschool level, when compared to middle-class preschoolers, are more likely to exhibit deficits in general intelligence, language develop— ment, fine motor coordination, time concepts, self concept, 12 and motivation. Upon school entrance it is further hypoth- esized that these deficits will produce subsequent scholas- tic achievement failure culminating in early school drop out. The negative effects of psychosocial deprivation on intellectual development are well documented in the litera- ture (Kennedy, 1963; Jensen, 1966). In general, the mean IQ of children from socioeconomically deprived areas is ap- proximately ten points below that of middle-class children. Furthermore, these poverty areas, which generally contain ten percent of the community's school age population, often contribute to fifty percent of the children enrolled in spec- ial education programs for the educable mentally retarded. It is important to point out, however, that "this symptom of intellectual subnormality merely represents manifest capacity (intellectual functioning at the present time). It is quite possible, and highly probable, that the optimum intellectual potential (basic capacity) of these children is considerably higher than their present intellectual func- tioning" (Hodges & Spicker, 1967, p. 264). If, therefore, the home environment of the disadvantaged child provides inadequate stimuli for optimum intellectual development, but the potential for average intellectual functioning ex- ists, it would seem advantageous to research the interrela- tionship between this child's intellectual development and his social—emotional behavior which has been contributed to by his psychosocial deprivation. Project Head Start, which was conceived in 1965 to 13 help children who are among the economically and culturally deprived, offers fertile ground for exploring this interre- lationship. The Head Start program is attempting to reverse the course of intellectual, social, and physical retardation of the deprived child (Ausubel, 1963). Local communities with aid from the federal government are attempting "to give pre-school children from economically and culturally disad- vantaged backgrounds and their families the education, med— ical care and social services they so desperately need" (Project Head Start and How You Can Help," 1965). Since the advent of this program, investigators in the fields of child development and education have become increasingly interested in studying the behavior of the culturally de- prived child as it interrelates with his cognitive function- ing in the schools. Hess, using two groups of Head Start Children, at- tempted to determine "the degree to which certain behavioral measures interact with intelligence, whether in a linear or curvilinear fashion, to help one predict academic achieve— ment in Head Start children to a greater degree than would be possible were intelligence test performance alone used as the predictor variable” (1966, p. 28). It was found that on tests or ratings which profess to objectively measure achievement, scores of high IQ children seem to be signif- icantly more affected by differences in level of aggression, verbal-social participation, independence, and achievement- oriented behavior than do scores of low IQ children. This 14 suggests that handicaps in those performance areas assessed by intelligence tests cannot be effectively mediated through the adoption of optimal behavior patterns. It was also seen, however, that behavior patterns of low IQ children appear to facilitate or impede general adjustment to the school environ- ment, as measured by teachers' report card ratings, more than do behavior patterns of high IQ children. Hayweiser (1967) and Rosenthal (1966) in studying lower income level preschool c hildren have demonstrated that teachers' perceptions of children's social adaptedness is significantly and positively correlated with intelligence. Researchers in child development in education, there- fore, are beginning to make important strides in disclosing the intricacies of cognition as it relates to the total child, and some important differences among children coming from deprived backgrounds and middle-class children in these areas of relationship are beginning to be recognized. There is a need, however, for much more research in this area. Head Start's Research and Evaluation Office is con- ducting a national, comprehensive study of the impact of Head Start upon children. A major component of this study is an analysis of the gains exhibited by Head Start child- ren in cognitive and in social-emotional behavior. In the 1966-1967 evaluation, two independent instruments were used. The Preschool Inventory, developed by Caldwell and Soule, was designed "to give a measure of achievement in areas re- garded as necessary for success in school“ (undated, p. 1). 15 The Qperation §g3g_5tart Behavior Inventory, designed by Ziegler to be used by Head Start, was constructed to assess those social and emotional behaviors of nursery school child- ren ”which are relatively independent of intelligence” (un- dated, p. 1). Using these instruments as entirely separate entities in the analysis of Head Start programs embodies the implicit assumption that achievement and social-emotional behavior are independent, a position contrary to the posi- tion on which the present study was based. In evaluating the Head Start program, researchers should not, as has been demonstrated, be concerned solely with a child's gains in cognitive functioning and with his behavior improvement independently, but rather with the child as a ”whole person." "Cognition does not function independ— ently as an inborn disposition conditions a profile effect, because it is colored and codetermined by interests and traits of character, by habits and external influences“ (Stern, 1938). If Head Start's impact on children is to be assessed, these interrelationships of variables must be examined. Purpose p£_the Present Study In the present study the child was recognized and examined as a "whole" entity. It was the purpose of this Study to (1) identify the social-emotional and information— aChievement characteristics of children enrolled in Head Stariz, and (2) to explore the interrelationships found to be assisting between social-emotional behavior, as assessed 16 by the teacher at the outset of the school year, and the gains exhibited over the school year in information-achieve- ment. The major hypothesis of this study was: There are positive relationships between positive aspects of teachers' rating of social-emotional behavior and gains in information- achievement; and negative relationships between negative aspects of teachers' rating of social-emotional behavior and gains in information-achievement of children enrolled in Head Start. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES Population and Sample Population The Michigan State University Head Start Evaluation and Research Center was responsible for gathering data on Head Start programs within the geographic area of Minnesota and Wisconsin, Michigan and western Ohio. The population for the present study includes all children enrolled in full year Head Start programs in this region. Represented in this area are a wide range of community types and ethnic groups, from farm and non-farm rural areas to the most dense- ly populated urban ghettos. Head Start in this area serves Whites, Negroes, and a few Indians and Spanish-Americans, all English-speaking. Procedures £g£_3amp1e Selection The sample selection was carried out in such a way that the community and ethnic group diversity represented in the population would be reflected in the sample. Selec- tion of the sample was also constrained by the necessity of including only those Head Start programs which were op- erational early in the fall, 1966, so that pre-testing could be completed early in the year. 17 18 The sample was gathered in most cases by first writ- ing or calling the Community Action Program (CAP) director in a locality which had received funds, or was in the proc~ ess of requesting funds, for a full-year Head Start program. If the CAP director exhibited an interest in participating in the national evaluation program, the Evaluation and Re- search (E&R) Center Director met with him, and his Head Start program director summoned some of his teachers to a meeting with the E&R Center's Director or Evaluation Coordinator, who outlined to the teachers the philosophy and procedures of the evaluation. The teachers were entirely free to de- cline participation. This option was made very clear to the teachers and to other school personnel who might have wanted to require teacher participation. Every effort was made to establish with the teachers a relationship based on mutual respect and honesty. The Stratified-random Sample The sample of classes was thus stratified in that the variability in community type and children's ethnic group was represented in the sample. The selection of only those classes whose teachers were interested in the program was a constraining element. This might have been criticized as a contributor to bias, but it was felt that the bias that might result from the teachers' interest and permission would be far less harmful to the study than would be the influence of a hostile, resistant teacher upon data collection, and 19 particularly the testing of children. Within the stratified-sampled classrooms, children were selected at random to be included in the study. The original E&R Center sample included 161 children from 17 classes in five communities; attrition during the year re- duced the sample size at the conclusion of the E&R study to 136 and of the present study to 133. At the outset of the study, the children ranged in age from 3 to 5 years, 5 months (Hervey, 1967); the mean age of the children was 52.42 months (4 1/3 years) with a standard deviation of 6.61 months. In the national evaluation half of this sample was administered the Stanford Binet at the outset of the pres- ent study. The mean intelligence quotient was found to be 91.71 with a standard deviation of 13.97. The distribution of the sample by sex, race, and urbanicity appears in Table 10 Instruments Preschool Inventory Caldwell and Soule in the introduction to the Egg: school Inventory manual describe the instrument in this way; The Preschool Inventory is a brief assessment pro- cedure designed for individual use with children in the three-to-six age range. It was developed to give a measure of achievement in areas regarded as necessary for success in school. It is by no means culture free; in fact, one aim of the instru- ment is to permit educators to highlight the degree of disadvantage which a child from a deprived back- ground has at the time of entering school in order to help eliminate any observed deficits. Another goal in the development of the procedure was to make available an instrument that was sensitive to expe- rience and could thus be used to demonstrate changes associated with educational intervention (undated, p. l). 20 mma u z HMDOB mmama m mHMEmm a mMHME N meMEmw m GMUHumE mmmcm>emcomem IGOHpm>Huu< Icoaum>auu< 0>HBMHUOmm< amauom ummucou pamucou IHMGOmwmm mmuoum :Hmo muoucm>CH Hoonummum monoumnsm huoucm>CH uoa>mcmm Hmuoa ocm mmuoomnsm hwoucm>GH Hoosummwm CH mcfimw can mmuoumnsm mu0pc0>cH woa>mcmm cmmzumm mpcmfluammmou cowumamuuou N OHQMB II 30 correlate significantly with gains in Associative Vocabulary, Concept Activation-Numerical, Concept Activation-Sensory and total score on the Preschool Inventory_in the directions hypothesized. The "Donald Duck" subscore on the Behavior Inventory_ correlated negatively with gains in Personal-Social Responsiveness, and Concept Activation-Sensory as hypothesized, but did not correlate significantly with gains in Associative Vocabulary, Concept Acti- vation-Numerical, and total score in the directions hypothesized. The "Casper Milquetoast" subscore on the Behavior Inventory correlated negatively with gains in Per- sonal-Social Responsiveness, Associative Vocabulary, and total score as hypothesized, but did not corre- late significantly with gains in Concept Activation- Sensory in the directions hypothesized. The "Young Horatio Alger” subscore on the Behavior Inventory correlated positively with gains in Per- sonal-Social Responsiveness, Concept Activation- Sensory, and total score as hypothesized, but did not correlate significantly with gains in Associative Vocabulary and Concept Activation-Numerical in the directions hypothesized. Gains in Personal-Social Responsiveness on the Pre- school Inventory correlated significantly with all four subscores on the Behavior Inventory_in the di- rections hypothesized. A Gains in Associative Vocabulary correlated negatively with the "Casper Milquetoast" subscore as hypothesized, but did not correlate with the "Jack Armstrong," "Donald Duck," or "Young Horatio Alger" subscores on the Behavior Inventory in the directions hypoth- esized. Gains in Concept Activation-Numerical did not corre- late significantly with any of the four subscores on the Behavior Inventory in the directions hypoth- esized. Gains in Concept Activation-Sensory correlated neg- atively with the "Donald Duck" subscore and positively with the "Young Horatio Alger" subscore as hypothe— sized, but did not correlate significantly with the "Jack Armstrong" or "Casper Milquetoast" subscores on the Behavior Inventory_in the directions hypoth- esized. 31 E. Gains on the Preschool Inventory total score corre- lated negatively with the ”Casper Milquetoast” sub- score and positively with the "Young Horatio Alger" subscore on the Behavior Inventory as hypothesized, but did not correlate significantly with the ”Donald Duck" subscore on the Behavior Inventory_in the di- rections hypothesized. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion pf_Results The Correlation Coefficients Interestingly, all of the four Behavior Inventory factor structures were significantly correlated with gains in personal-social responsiveness on the Preschool Inventory. This was the only subfactor on the Preschool Inventory which seemed to be directly related to all four behavior types. If we look at the kinds of questions included in the per- sonal-social responsiveness category, this relationship can easily be understood. As was discussed previously, personal—social respon- siveness involved the child's knowledge of his own personal world and his ability to establish rapport and respond to the communications of an adult (Caldwell and Soule, undated). It would appear, then, that the social-emotional state of a "Casper Milquetoast" (i.e. fearful and withdrawn) had a neg- ative effect on his ability to communicate with an adult and played a part in preventing him from being able to im- prove in responding to questions about himself. Likewise, a ”Donald Duck,N being very excitable and irrepressible, seemed to have had difficulty in controlling 32 33 his emotionalism enough to be able to improve in his com- munications with adults and in his ability to answer ques- tions about his own world. On the contrary, a "Jack Armstrong," who is well rounded and well adjusted, seemed to have the emotional sta- bility required to enable him to quickly establish good rap- port with others. His communications with adults were there- by improved and.he was better equipped and more willing to answer questions about himself and his world. Similarly, the emotional state of a ”Young Horatio Alger," who perseveres at his tasks and who is compelled to work hard, appeared to positively affect his personal-social responsiveness. His desire to work hard and do well seemed to yield improvement in his ability to respond to adults and to communicate knowledge of his own world. All of the factors in the Behavior Inventory factor structure, with the exception of ”Casper Milquetoast," were not found to be significantly related to gains in the asso- ciative vocabulary subfactor on the Preschool Inventory. A small but nevertheless significant negative correlation was found to exist between the frightened, withdrawn child and his gains in associative vocabulary. This would seem to indicate that the child's shy, frightened, withdrawing nature hinders him in being able to verbalize or demonstrate his awareness of the connotation of words and verbal concepts. This is not to say that the child has not cognitively incor- porated these concepts; he may or may not have. It does 34 say that he has been unable to improve in his desire and ability to verbalize or act out his knowledge of these con- cepts and that his withdrawing social-emotional behavior contributes to this inability. None of the correlation coefficients between the four factor structures on the Behavior Inventory and the ”Concept Activation, Numerical" factor on the Preschool £2? ventory were significant. It would appear, therefore, that the acquisition of numerical concepts is not directly related to the child's social-emotional behavior. Whether the child is well adjusted, withdrawn, hyperactive, or industrious does not seem to positively or negatively contribute to his being able to call on established numerical concepts in the form of labelling quantities, making judgments of more or less, and recognizing seriated positions. These results raise the question of whether learning in numerical areas of cognition is ever related to behavior or whether the non- existent relationship found is unique to the present study. Questions which could be explored in further research might include: (1) Are behavior and gains in numerical con- cept activation unrelated? (2) If in fact, a relationship does not exist, what are the unique factors occurring in the acquisition of numerical concepts, but not occurring in the acquisition of other kinds of cognitive tasks, which make numerical concept activation unrelated to behavior? (3) Why do children of varying behavior types, all other vari- ables being controlled, have an equal chance of gaining 35 cognitively in numerical concepts? Gain in the "Concept Activation, Sensory” subscore on the Preschool Inventory was found to be more negatively related than gain in any other subscore to the "Donald Duck" factor structure on the Behavior Inventory. Gain in this Preschool Inventory subscore was also found to be more pos- itively related than any other subscore to the "Young Horatio Alger" factor structure on the Behavior Inventory. In order to gain in sensory concept activation, the child must have improved in his awareness of certain sensory attributes such as shape, size, motion and color, and in his execution of certain visual-motor configurations such as geometric forms. It would appear that the child who is hyperactive and uncontrolled has significant difficulty in growing in sensory awareness. Logically, this difficulty could occur because this child is too preoccupied in being overly active and irrepressibly excited to take the time to notice and incorporate sensory attributes. Implications for teaching might be drawn from this finding. The teacher of young children might do well to concentrate on introducing pleasant and satisfactory kinds of sensory experiences to her overly active children to help bridge the gap in this area that these children seem to exhibit. The industrious, hard working child, on the other hand, apparently is prone to be very conscious of sensory attributes and therefore exhibits significant gains in his knowledge of sensory concepts over a period of time. 36 The Preschool Inventory total scores were negatively related to the ”Casper Milquetoast" factor structure on the Behavior Inventory and positively related to the ”Young Horatio Alger“ factor structure on the Behavior Inventory. It would appear that the frightened, withdrawn child did not make positive strides in cognitive development through- out the school year due, in part at least, to his social- emotional behavior. The child who is quiet and exhibits withdrawing tendencies is apparently least likely to gain in areas necessary for success in school. It is felt that this finding discloses important implications for teachers. Even more than the hyperactive, uncontrolled child who is most often singled out in a classroom for his "bad" behavior and consequently his poor school work, the child who is often times inconspicuous in the classroom (i.e. the quiet, frightened, and withdrawn child) also needs singling out as a potential slow learner due to his disturbed emotional state. Too often the little “Casper Milquetoasts" in the classroom are left to their own withdrawn world, getting further and further behind cognitively as well as emotion- ally because they cause few outward discipline problems for the teacher (Moustakas, 1966). The sensitive teacher should therefore be aware of and give special attention to the "Casper Milquetoasts” as well as the ”Donald Ducks,“ ”Jack Armstrongs," or "Young Horatio.Algers." The most significant correlation found in this study was that between the Preschool Inventory total and "Young 37 Horatio Alger." It would appear that "Young Horatio Alger's" perseverance and hard work did "win out," as he exhibited significant positive gains in the cognitive areas regarded as necessary for success in school. Further Discussion The results presented and discussed above indicate that the variables measured by the two instruments are not as substantially related as hypothesized. In summary, the testing of hypothesis one, concerning the relationship of "Jack Armstrong" to gains on the Preschool Inventory, yielded only one positive relationship out of the five hypothesized; the testing of hypothesis two, concerning the relationship of "Donald Duck" to gains on the Preschool Inventory, yielded only two negative relationships out of the five hypothesized; the testing of hypothesis three, concerning the relationship of ”Casper Milquetoast" to gains on the Preschool Inventory, yielded three negative relationships out of the five hypoth- esized; and finally, the testing of hypothesis four, concern- ing the relationship of "Young Horatio Alger“ to gains on the Preschool Inventory, yielded three positive relationships out of the five hypothesized. Upon examination of these results, two possible interpretations could be applied. The first, in the tradition of hard core scientific research, would be to accept the relationships found at face value and as a result assume that since the general hypothesis was not substantially supported in the present study, there is 38 no substantial relationship between social-emotional behavior and gains in information-achievement. On the other hand, the data obtained and the instruments used in this study could be analyzed further in light of the possibility that the hypothesized relationship might exist even though it was not strongly supported by the empirical evidence in this study. The assertion that emotional behavior does play an important role in cognitive learning is becoming a widely accepted theory (see chapter one). In order to examine this role it was necessary to use the best instruments available which measured the variables in question. Because this study was done in affiliation with the National Head Start evalua- tion program, instruments were chosen which were especially constructed for evaluation of Head Start programs. It was felt after careful analysis of these instruments (see chap~ ter two) that they were the best instruments available to measure the pending variables. After completion of this study, however, serious questions were raised concerning the usefulness of the 22? havior Inventory in assessing areas of behavioral adjustment in nursery school children. These questions include: (1) Was teacher "A" rating the childrens' behavior from the same frame of reference as teacher "B"? It has already been stated that since no directions were available for standardized administration of the instru- ment, the teacher was asked to respond to each item by 39 recording her impression of the child's behavior from her classroom interaction with the child (Hervey, 1966). Because no standardized directions were utilized for evaluating be- havior, teachers may very likely have assigned different meanings to the frequency of behaviors in defining "very much like" and the other categories. This lack of a consistent viewpoint would have a definite bearing on the categorizing of behavior types among children from different classrooms and, in the final analysis, have a bearing on the relation— ships hypothesized and explored. (2) Does the teacher's viewpoint of the child's social-emotional behavior within the first month of school actually reflect a valid pic- ture of the child as he exists in his own right? The problem of "first impressions" is one we all are confronted with in our dealings with people. We have all experienced judging people falsely on the basis of their outward appearances and actions until we actually become better acquainted with them and are better able to understand their modes of thinking and basic beliefs. It would seem that this very simple experience could apply to teacher-pupil relationships also. Even though preschool teachers in gen- eral are well trained in the complexities of child develop- ment and behavior, each child is a very unique and complex individual in his own right. Is it possible for even a teacher within the course of one month to fully understand the complexities of a classroom full of individual person- alities so that she can accurately assess their social- 4O emotional status? If some inaccurate judgments in fact were made in assessing the social-emotional behavior of the child- ren in the sample, these would have had a bearing on the relationships found among the variables in question. (3) Are the four behavior types measured by the B37 havior Inventory_purely positive or purely neg- ative? In analyzing the items which comprised the "young Horatio Alger” subscore on the Behavior Inventory, for in— stance, the question could be raised as to whether all of these items are entirely indicative of positive personality ll traits. If a child possesses the characteristics of "sticks with a job until finished,” "tries to figure out things for himself," and "is methodical and careful in tasks," he could possibly be leaning toward possessing rather compulsive and restrictive characteristics, as well as being a good worker. If in fact the "young Horatio Alger" subscore does incorpor- ate negative characteristics, then it is not surprising that the relationship found between this subscore and gains in achievement was not more substantial. Other similar ambi- guities might exist within the other three subscores. The three questions cited, then, may have been cause for partially invalidating the data gathered on the social- emotional behavior variable. This data would in turn con- taminate the relationships found between this variable and the information-achievement variable to some extent. In summary, it would appear that the Behavior Inventory seems to be teacher-specific and therefore most useful when children 41 are compared on judgments made by a common rater which was not the case in the present study. Conclusions The possibility of interpreting the results of this study literally seems to be implausible in view of the ap- parent inconsistencies in the data collected and, consequently, the relationships found. It therefore becomes essential to conclude the present investigation with an interpretation of the results other than a literal one. Because some sig- nificant relationships were found between the variables that ~~H cannot be overlooked, and because the majority of the the- oretical and empirical evidence which has been presented support the hypothesized relationship, the possibility that a substantial relationship does exist between behavior and gains in information-achievement should not be ignored. In order for this conclusion to be an acceptable one in the present study, however, it cannot be in direct conflict with the results found. The attempt to resolve this conflict will be discussed further. As has been mentioned, the fact that some signif- icant relationships were found in the direction hypothesized lends support to the hypotheses. However, the fact that these relationships were not more substantial and that all of the hypotheses were not supported by significant relation- ships among the variables, might be clarified upon further examination. 42 First, some of the empirical evidence presented in chapter one did lend credence to the possibility that some negative behavior traits such as aggressiveness are positively related to achievement gains. This discrepancy in the avail— able empirical evidence could offer a partial explanation as to why these relationships were not more substantial and of why all of the hypotheses were not supported. Second, if we in fact refer back to a major theoret- ical principle upon which this study was based--that ”cogni- tion does not function independently as an inborn disposition but conditions a profile effect, because it is colored and codetermined by interests and traits of character, by habits and external influences” (Stern, 1938, p. 235)--the subtlety of the influence of behavior alone on cognition in the pres- ence of many other influences becomes manifest. This mani- festation can be accounted for in two ways: First, the so- cial-emotional variable itself, as has been demonstrated, is a difficult construct to measure in view of the fact that the definition and observation of various behaviors is dif- ficult to standardize. The construct, therefore, seems to be a subtle one.' Secondly, because this study was conducted in the natural setting of many different classrooms, the diversity of the numerous factors which could influence the cognitive development of each child in the sample throughout the year would be difficult to control. It is apparent that such factors as teacher attitudes, peer influence, intelli- gence, motivation, interests, experiences, health, family 43 influences, classroom equipment, classroom environment, as well as social-emotional behavior could all be functioning influences on the child's performance in the classroom. If the facilities had been available to assess these variables, some of them could have been accounted for in the analysis. However, because this study was done in affiliation with the national Head Start evaluation program and utilized the data collected for that evaluation, many of these variables were not included. If the present study were to be replicated, it is suggested that the intelligence variable be considered. The question might be raised that degree of intelligence may be directly related to the amount of potential a child has for COgnitive gain within the time span of less than a year. If this relationship does exist, the children falling into the lower IQ bracket in the present study would not have been able to gain cognitively as quickly as the children falling into the higher IQ bracket. Possibly, then, if in- telligence were controlled by dividing the sample into IQ groupings, more substantial relationships might be discov— ered between the variables hypothesized in this study.1 The influence of social-emotional behavior upon gains in achievement could then be a substantial one. However, because of the subtle nature of the variable itself in 1An investigation of this question is presently being carried out by Norman L. Story at Michigan State University. 44 addition to the prevalence of other mitigating factors in the classroom, the influence of social-emotional behavior on achievement gains may have been subdued in the present study. It would seem, therefore, that the multiformity of the factors in the classroom setting is likely to conceal any relationship between information achievement and a subtle and elusive variable such as social-emotional behavior. It is very possible that had the hypothesis been tested under laboratory conditions where the extraneous factors could be controlled and the behaviors standardized, that a substan- tial relationship between the variables might be found. This possibility is made very probable in light of the es- tablished theoretical and empirical evidence. Since the present investigation was not conducted in the sterile conditions of the laboratory, to conclude that there are substantial relationships among the variables hypothesized, is to expand the face value of the results found in this study by emphasizing the value of theoretical evidence and related research. To conclude that there is not a substantial relationship between social-emotional be- havior and gains in information—achievement is to place in- ordinate emphasis on the results of the present study to the detriment of sound theoretical assertion. Since the present study, as has been demonstrated, considerably re- flected the social scientists' continuing problem of (l) accurately measuring subtle variables and (2) generalizing 45 from laboratory to field, the possibility of substantial, functional relationships as hypothesized between social- emotional behavior and gains in information—achievement can- not be abandoned. Accordingly, it is concluded that because the theory and the available evidence seem to substantiate the general hypothesis-~that there will be significant positive relation- ships between positive social—emotional behavior and gains B in information-achievement, and significant negative rela- A tionships between negative social—emotional behavior and I gains in information-achievement—-there may very likely be relationships between these variables as hypothesized, though the results of this study were not supportive. It is felt that the relationships hypothesized were concealed in the present study by the subtlety and elusiveness of the social- emotional behavior construct causing difficulty in accurately measuring that variable, and by the diversities and intri- cacies of the classroom settings in which the investigation was conducted. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Allport, Gordon W. Personality: A Psychological Interpreta- tign. New York: Holt, 1937. . "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology." Psychologf ical Review, 1943, 50, pp. 451-78. . Becoming. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Ausubel, David P. ”A Teaching Strategy for Culturally De- prived Pupils: Cognitive and Motivational Considera- tions." Tpg_5chool Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, Winter, 1963, pp. 454-63. Bereiter, Carl, and Engelmann, Siegfried. Teaching Disad- vantaged Children in the Preschool. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Bills, Robert. “About People and Teaching,” Bulletin, Bureau of School Service, University of Kentucky, Vol. XXVIII, No. 2, Dec., 1955. Breckenridge, Marian, and Murphy, Margaret. Growth and 227 velopment pf_the Young Child. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1963. Bruner, J. S. "The Cognitive Consequences of Early Sensory Deprivation." In P. Solomon (Ed.), Sensory Depriva- tion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Bugental, J. F. T. "Humanistic Psychology: A New Break- through." American Psyghologist, 1963, 18, 563-67. Caldwell, Bettye, and Soule, Donald. The Preschool Inven- tory. New York: Upstate Medical Center, State Uni- versity of New York, Syracuse, mimeo, undated. Cline, Marvin G. "Behavior Inventory Four Factor Structure,“ mimeo, undated. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. Egpality g£_Educational Opportunity. Report of Office of Education, 1966. Washington, D.C., Supt. of Docu- ments, U.S. Gov't. Printing Office. 46 Cowen, 47 E. L., Zax, M., Klein, R., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. "The Relation of Anxiety in School Children to School Record, Achievement and Behavioral Measures.” Child Development, 1965, 36, 689-95. Crandall, Virginia C. "Achievement Behavior in Young Child- Crites, ren." The Youn Child, Reviews of Research. Hartup & Smothergil l (Eds.). Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1967. , Orleans, 5., Preston, A., Rabson, A. ”The Develop- ment of Social Compliance in Young Children." Child Development, 1958, 29, 429—43. , Preston, A., and Rabson, A. "Maternal Reactions and the Development of Independence and Achievement Behavior in Young Children." Child Develppment, 1960, 31, 243-51. J., and Semler, I. ”Adjustment, Educational Achieve- ment and Vocational Maturity as Dimensions of Develop- ment in Adolescence.” Journal g£_Counse1ing Psychol- ggy, 1967, 14(6), 489-96. Deutsch, M., & Brown, B. "Social Influences in Negro-white Intelligence Differences." Journal 2; Sociological Feldhusen, J. F., & Klausmeier, H. J. ”Anxiety, Intelligence, Frighi, and Achievement in Children of Low, Average, and High Intelligence." Child Development, 1962, 33, 403-409. L., Pichini, F., and Brette, C. "Correlations Be- tween Psychopathology and Academic and Examination Difficulties Among University Students." Revista Bi Psichiatria, 1966, 1(1), 3-19. Haggard, E. A. "Socialization, Personality, and Achievement in Gifted Children." School Review, Winter Issue, 1957, 318-414. Hayweiser, Lois. "Cognitive, Social and Teacher Variables Hervey, and Behavioral Change.” In A Digest of the Research Activities of Regional Evaluation and Research Cen- ters for Project Head Start, 19664I967, Institute for fiEducational Development, 1967.* Sarah D. The Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, 1966-1967, Volume 1: Evaluation, East Lan- sing, Michigan, 1967. 48 Hess, Robert D. "Techniques for Assessing Cognitive and Social Abilities of Children and Parents in Project Head Start." Report on Research Contract O.E.O. - 519 with U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Uni- versity of Chicago, July, 1966. Hill, K. T., and Sarason, S. B. "Relation of Test Anxiety and Defensiveness to Test and School Performance Over the Elementary—School Years: a Further Longi- tudinal Study.” Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Development, 1966, 104 (whole No. 2?. Hodges, Walter, and Spicker, Howard. "Effects of Preschool Experiences on Culturally Deprived Children." In The Young Child, Reviews g£_Research, Hartup & Smothergill (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1967. Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press, 1961. . "The Epigenesis of Intrinsic Motivation and the Stimulation of Early Cognitive Learning." Paper read at American Psychological Association, Phila- delphia, August, 1963. Jensen, A. R. "Cumulative Deficit Compensatory Education." Journal g£_School Psychology, 1966, 4, 137-47. Jones, Harold E. "The Educational Psychology of Persons." In Studies ig_Human Development, Herbert E. Conrad, Ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Keller, E. D., & Rowley, V. N. ”Anxiety, Intelligence and Scholastic Achievement in Elementary School Children." Psycholggical Repgrt, 1962, 11, 19-22. Kennedy, A., Vande Riet, V., and White, J. C. Jr. "A Norma- tive Sample of Intelligence and Achievement of Negro Elementary School Children in the Southeastern United States." Monogr. §gg. 333. Child Development, 1963, 28. Kipnis, David. "Social Immaturity, Intellectual Ability, and Adjustive Behavior in College.” Journal g£_Apf plied Psychology, 1968, 52 (1, Pt. 1), 71-80. Koppitz, Elizabeth M. "Relationship of Emotional Indicators on Human Figure Drawings and Learning Problems in Children Age 5-10." Journal gf Clinical Psygholoqy, 1966. l... 49 Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology Lf Being. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van- Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962. McCandless, B., and Castaneda, A. “Anxiety in Children, School Achievement, and Intelligence.“ Child Develop— ment, 1956, 27, 379-82. Moustakas, Clark. The Authentic Teacher, Sensitivity and Awareness in the Classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Howard A. Doyle Publishing Co., 1966. Moustakas, C., and Berson, M. The Young_Child igSchoolo New York: Whiteside, Inc., and William Morrow and Company, 1956. 4 h ”Project Head Start and How You Can Help.“ Project Head Start. Washington, D. C.: Office of Economic Oppor- tunit , 1965. Reese, H. W: "Manifest Anxiety and Achievement TeSt Perform- ance." Journal g£_Educationa1 Psychology, 1961, 52, Rosenthal, H. Study (unnamed) cited in A Digest Lf the Re- search Activities Lf Regional Evaluation and Research Centers for Project Head Start, 1966- 1967_ Institute for Educational Development, 1967. Saxena, P. "Anxiety and Its Effect on Adolescent Achieve- ment." Research Journal g: Philosophy and Social Science, 1965, 2, 120-23. Sigel, Irving E. "The Need for Conceptualizing in Research on Child Development.n Child Development, 1956, 27, Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper, 1949. Sontag, L. W., Baker, C. T., and Nelson, V. ”Mental Growth and Personality Development: A Longitudinal Study." Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Development, 2, 1958. Stern, W. General Psychology from the Personalistic Standa pgint. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1938. Taylor, R. G. "Personality Traits and Discrepant Achieve- ment: A Review.“ Journal 2; Counseling_Psychology, 1964, 11, 76-81. ' 50 Wilson, M. R. Jr., Sodequist, R., Zemke, R., and Swenson, W. "Underachievement in College Men: Evaluation of the Psychodynamics." Psychiatry, 1967, 30(2), 180-86. Young, Jean M. "An Educational Achievement Profile of Child- ren Grades 1-6: Interrelationships of Cognitive, Social-Personal, and Psychomotor Factors.“ Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Ziegler, Edward. Operation Head Start Behavior Inventory. Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity, Project Head Start, mimeo, undated. APPENDIX A Preschool Inventory Machine Scoring Answer Sheet I.“ RUSS.“ SIDE 1 PRESCHOOL INVENTORY CHIlD’S NAME BIRTH DATE ofi INSTRUCTIONS CHILD’S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER I. USE A NO. 2 PENCIL 3-- --'-- =:3 :3 33 :3 3 3 '. 3 2. SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR 333 -33 33-- 33.. 333. 333 33 3 ADMINISTRATING WILL BE 3 3 :3 :3 3.: 3 3 '- 3 FOUND IN PRESCHOOL :3: 3:: =-=:3 :3: :33 :3: ’== :-==3 :3: INVENTORY MANUAL °3 3 333 33 33 3 '_ 3 33 -9-- -9- .9-_ _-9 -.9-- -_9 -.9 --9 AGE IN MONTHS -9-- -_9-- _9 --9__- ---_9 -_9-_ -9- 9 TEST I I. WHAT IS YOUR FIRST NAME? --.'-’=- 13. RAISE YOUR HAND 2:23 :37 2. WHAT IS YOUR LAST NAME? -='-':= I4. WIGGLE 333 3. HOW OLD ARE YOU? 15. HELLO VERY LOUDLY 33.. 4. WHEN IS YOUR BIRTHDAY? ":15. HELLO VERY SOFTLY 3’3 5. SHOW ME YOUR EYE "fl I7. FACE DOOR "=- 6. SHOW ME YOUR NECK :33 -" Ia, JUMP 33.. L 7. SHOW ME YOUR SHOULDER -"== I9. RED CAR ON BLACK Box .33 8. SHOW ME YOUR HEEL :3: 20. BLUE CAR UNDER GREEN Box 3, 9- WHAT CALL (EAR) -":= 21. YELLOW CAR ON LITTLE Box ~39 10- WHAT CALL (FINGER) 2'5: 22. ONE CAR IN MIDDLE-SIZE Box 3' no WHAT CALL (KNEE) :2: 23. SLLHECRAI'ESDSNE SIDE, ALL BOXES : 12. WHAT CALL (ELBOW) 24. 3 CARS IN BIG Box 3:29 25. 2 CARS BEHIND Box IN MIDDLE 3.. 26. GIVE EVERYTHING TO ME .33 TEST ll 27. (CHECKERS) CAR THAT PULLS TRAIN 3:: 35. TIME OF YEAR HOTTEST? 33.. 28. (CHECKERS) LAST CAR ON TRAIN '-= 35. TIME OF YEAR COLDEST? 3 29. WHICH WAY DOES SAW GO? -"-= 37. TIME OF YEAR NOW? 3 30. WHICH WAY ELEVATOR? :33 ‘-'=: 3a, wHERe FIND ”on? .3 31. WHICH WAY FERRIS WHEEL? 39. WHERE BUY GAS? 3 32. WHICH WAY PHONOGRAPH RECORD? 3 40. WHO GO TO IF SICK? --" 33. WHICH WAY WATER FALL? 33 3" 4I. WHERE FIND BOAT? 3 34. WHEN BREAKFAST? :13 42. WHAT DO TO READ SOMETHING? :1: 43. WHAT DOES DENTIST DO? 3:3 :3: 44. WHAT DOES POLICEMAN DO?::::3 2:23 45. WHAT DOES TEACHER DO? :3: :33 46. WHAT DOES FATHER DO? 3:23 °- 47. WHAT DOES MOTHER DO? 333 --° SIDE 2 - .. DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA CHILD’S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER __9 -9.-_ -9.-- ----9- --9.- --9-- --_-9 -_9- _9._ .2». I. .2... .9. .9... .9. .9. .9. .9. - .2. .1... .2. .2... .9... .9. .3. .9. .9. .3. I... .1... .9... .4. .9... .3. .9. .9. .3. .3. .9. .l. .2... .2... .9. .9. .9. .9. .9. .9. .2}. .E. .2... .2... .9. .93.. .9. .2. .9. TEST III 48. HOW MANY EYES? =='='== 57. COUNT (TO 5) 49. HOW MANY NOSES? -='='=- 58. HOW MANY CORNERS, PAPER 22': --" 50. HOW MANY HANDS? -='== 59. 2 8. 8 CHECKERS, WHICH MORE 51. HOW MANY TOES? =='=':= 6o. 6 8. 6 CHECKERS, WHICH MORE =23 52. HOW MANY WHEELS-CAR? 2232: 61. 2 8. 8 CHECKERS, WHICH FEWER -." 53. HOW MANY WHEELS-BICYCLE? 22:: 2:2: 62. POINT TO MIDDLE ONE 7.. --" 54. HOW MANY WHEELS-TRICYCLE? :32: 63- POINT To FIRST 0N5 55. HOW MANY WHEELS-WHEELBARROW?==3== 22'2'22 64. POINT TO LAST ONE 56. HOW MANY WHEELS-ROW BOAT? =='=’=- 65. POINT TO SECOND ONE 66. POINT TO NEXT-TO-LAST TEST IV 67. DRAW A LINE -'='== 79. WHAT COLOR IS: (RED CRAYON) 68. DRAW A CIRCLE 22322 80. WHAT COLOR IS: (BLACK CRAYON) 69. DRAW A SQUARE 22‘2'22 81. SAME COLOR AS THE SKY 7o. DRAW A TRIANGLE =="=2 82. SAME COLOR As THE NIGHT 71. WHICH MOST LIKE WHEEL =="== 83. COLOR CIRCLE YELLOW :33 72. WHICH MOST LIKE TENT 22'22 :2": 84. COLOR SQUARE PURPLE 3'3 ..‘.’. 73. WHICH MOST LIKE STICK 22': 2:3: 85, COLOR TRIANGLE ORANGE '3.- .3 74. BIGGER, BALL OR BICYCLE =2": =="== 75. BIGGER, TREE OR FLOWER 33:: 33'. EXAM'NER'S NAME 76. SLOWER, CAR OR BICYCLE =23 OTHER= 77. HEAVIER, BRICK OR SHOE :3-2 -‘:'.- 78. HEAVIER, FEATHER OR FORK 3-: :3 A. ----- . _--_9 9.-- 9 .9 9.-- 9- ----9 9 9 B. .9. .E. .9.- ..9. .9... .9. .9. .9. .9... C. .9. I. .9. .9... .9... .9. .9... .9. .9... 2' .9}. Ii. .9. .9... .9... .9. .9... .9. .9... "9.. © by BETTYE M. CALDWELL & DONALD SOULE, Dec. 1965 m. ”135?: APPENDIX B Behavior Inventory and Behavior Inventory Four Factor Structure A or‘ric: bricoaom ‘o'ii'éonrumrv PROJECT Hm sun BEHAVIOR INVENTORY CAP-HS Penn 37 (0- Mid” . and experience with the child. SUMMER Child's name ~ School , Grant No. I Child No. 1 Other 1 Emma's identification Date Present week of I . INSTRUCTIONS t ' at’ cc" er 5 Op" '0” Please indicate as accurately as possible how this child behaves by marking one 0f the f°“' responses to each question. Base your response to every item on your personal observation l. is usually carefree; rarely becomes frightened or apprehensive ............. 2. Is sympathetic, considerate, and thoughtful toward others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Is easily distracted by things going on around him ..................... Very much like Some- what like Very little like Not at all like L1. L; L3. L4_ . Is very suggestible; lets other children boss him around . . . . ...... 4 5. Talks eagerly to adults about his own experiences and what he thinks . . . . . . . 6 . ls unduly upset or discouraged if he makes a mistake or does not perform well . . . N . Often keeps aloof from others because he is uninterested,suspicious. or bashful. . 8.Defendsorpraiseshisownefforts 9. Is confident that he can do what is expected of him .................... l0. ls jealous; quick to notice and react negatively to kindness and attention bestowed upon other children . ll. ls methodical and careful in the tasks that he undertakes l2. ls rarely able to influence other children by his activities or interests ........ l3. Tries to figure out things for himself before asking adults or other children for help . . ...... l4. Greatly prefers the habitual and familiar to the novel and the unfamiliar .. ...... iAppears to trust in his W“ abi'ities C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O C C O O 16. Has little respect for the rights of other children; refuses to wait his turn, usurps toys other children are playing with. etc .................. . . . . . . Q fieems disinterested in the general quality of his performance ............ . . 18. Responds to frustration or disappointment by becoming aggressive or enraged . . . 19. Is excessive .r. seeking the attention of adults ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 20. Sticks with a job until it is finished . ............................. k 21. Goes about his activities with a minimum of assistance from others . . . . . . . . . . 22. ls constricted, inhibited, or timid; needs tobe urged before engaging in activities 23. Is even-tempered, imperturbable; is rarely annoyed or cross ............... by 24. Is reluctant to talk to adults; responds verbally only when urged . . . . . . . . 25. Works earnestly at his classwork or play; does not take it lightly . ...... . . . . 26.- Is often quarrelsome with classmates for minor reasons ........ . . . . . . . . . . ‘ Please continue on reverse side Very much like Some- what like Very little like Not at all like 27. Does not need attention or approval from adults to su5tain him in his work or play 28. When faced with a difficult task. he either does not attempt it or gives up VerYQUiCkIY eeeeeeeeeee e eeeeee e eeeee eeeee’eeeeeeeeeee eeeeee 29. Does not like to be interrupted when engaged in demanding activities, e.g., puzzles. painting, constructing things . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ....... 30. Welcomes changes and new situations; is venturesome. explores, and generallyenjoysnovelty ..... ............. 3i. Calmly settles difficulties that arise without appeal to adults or others . . . . . . . 32. Is reluctant to use imagination; tends not to enjoy ”make-believe" games . . . . . 33. Likes to talk with or socialize with the teacher ......... . ............ 34. Often will not engage in activities unless strongly encouraged ..... . ....... 35. Is eager to inform other children of the experiences he has had . . . . . ..... . . 35 Emotional response is customarily very strong; over-responds to usual classroom problems, frustrations, and difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 37. Is uncooperative in group activities . . . . . . ........................ 38. is usually polite to adults; says “Please," “Thank you," etc. ............ 39. Asks many questions for information about things. persons, etc. (Emphasis here should be on questions prompted by genuine curiosity rather than bids for attention.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ....... 40. Usually does what adults ask him to do ...... . ......... . . . . ....... 41. Requires the company of other children; finds it difficult to work or play by himself 42. 43. 44. ReSponds to frustration or disappointment by becoming sullen,withdrawn. or suiky Demonstrates imaginativeness and creativity in his use of toys and play materials Insists on maintaining his rights, e.g., will not yield his place at painting. or at the carpentry bench. etc.; insists on getting his turn on the slide or in group games, etc. I I I I I OOOOOOOOOOOOO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I & 47. . is wanted as a playmate by other children ......... L ............. . . . . Is lethargic or apathetic; has little energy or drive . . . . ...... . . . . ...... Has a tendency to discontinue activities after exerting a minimum of effort ..... 49 . .lsgenerallyahappychild ........ Approaches new tasks timidly and without assurance; shrinks from trying new things ........ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . What he does is often imitated by other children ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DO NOT MARK IN THlS SPACE CAP-HS FORM 37 to-to-eo) Page 2 GSA DC 66- 2072? Behavior Inventory Four Factor Structure Marvin G. Cline NATIONAL EVALUATION: YEAR ROUND HEAD START 1966-67 BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FOUR FACTOR STRUCTURE (post) TOTAL VARIANCE (Four Factors): 47.55% FACTOR I: Jack Armstrong, The All-American Boy Variance: 12.78% Loading Item No. in order Name of Item 5 +.766 Talks eagerly to adults about his own experiences and what he thinks. 35 +.766 Is eager to inform other children of the experiences he has had. 33 +.764 Likes to talk with or socialize with the teacher. 39 +.650 Asks many questions for information about things, persons, etc. 48 +.643 Is generally a happy child. 45 +.604 Is wanted as a playmate by other child- ren. 3O +.S67 Welcomes changes and new situations; is venturesome, explores, and generally enjoys novelty. 9 +.533 Is confident that he can do what is ex- pected of him. 53 FACTOR II: Item No. 18 26 36 16 10 42 23 4O 44 19 54 Donald Duck, irrepressible, excitable, uncontrolled Loading in order +.786 +0777 +.729 +.724 +.639 +.636 -e614 -e601 +0547 -.536 +e518 Variance: 12.00% Name of Item Responds to frustration or disappointment by becoming aggressive or enraged. Is often quarrelsome with classmates for minor reasons. Emotional response is customarily very strong; over-responds to usual classroom problems, frustrations, and difficulties. Has little respect for the rights of other children; refuses to wait his turn, usurps toys other children are playing with, etc. Is jealous; quick to notice and react negatively to kindness and attention bestowed upon other children. Responds to frustration or disappointment by becoming sullen, withdrawn, or sulky. Is even tempered, imperturbable and rarely annoyed. Usually does what adults ask him to do. Insists on maintaining his rights, e.g., will not yield his place at painting, or at the carpentry bench, etc.; insists on getting his turn on the slide or in group games, etc. Is sympathetic, considerate and thought- ful. Is excessive in seeking the attention of adults. FACTOR III: Item No. 22 49 34 46 14 24 28 12 32 Loading in order +.723 +.704 +.653 +.650 +.631 +.589 +.581 +.S47 +.524 +.518 +e502 55 Casper Milquetoast: Frightened and Withdrawn Variance: 11.55%- Name of Item Is constricted, inhibited, or timid. Approaches new tasks timidly and with- out assurance. Often keeps aloof from others. Often will not engage in activities. Is lethargic or apathetic. Greatly prefers the habitual and familiar. Is reluctant to talk to adults. Is very suggestible; lets other children boss him around. When faced with a difficult task, he either does not attempt it or gives up quickly. Is rarely able to influence other child- ren by his activities or interests. Is reluctant to use imagination. FACTOR IV: Item No. 20 13 ll 25 21 15 43 56 Young Horatio Alger: Perseverence and hard work Loading in order -.734 —.719 -.717 -.694 -.641 "e561 -e506 will win out Variance: 11.22% Name of Item Sticks with a job until finished. Tries to figure out things for himself. Is methodical and careful in tasks. Works earnestly at his classwork or play. Goes about his activities with a minimum of assistance. Appears to trust in own abilities. Demonstrates imaginativeness and creativ- ity in use of toys and play materials. nIllilillllllllilllilli11111111111111155 31293101