........ '.!-r.:' 1-! WW. .-. [9 .. ABILITY GEDWXNG AND HACK-113R ATTIMBS: AN EXI’LORATCXRY STUDY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND THEIR COLDMTMBNT TO 5.1311,le GHQUPDEG THESIS F01 1113 DEGREE m. D. MECHIGAN STATE umvm 51w IAMES A. FEMS, JR. 1 9' 6 1‘1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ABILITY (momma AND TEACIE‘Z ATI‘ITUDES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND THEIR COMENIENT T0 ABILITY CEDUPING presented by James A. Phillips, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed-D degree tum $4,129 Q 864%.“ Major professor Date W MAI 1193313 ‘V—x y .- ,s \- ‘ V‘ W‘- 1““...- 5 9.-. 0. «v .NU 1‘“ Q5 2 ‘ tn , W‘s—P“ 'H"‘ ABSTRACT ABILITY GROUPING AND TEACHER ATTITUDES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF JUNIOR HIGH SChOOL TbACHERS AND THEIR COMIITMEKT TO ABIL TY GROUPING by Janes A. Phillips, Jr. The investigation is an eXploratory study to determine whether teachers highly committed to ability grouping reflect different attitude patterns toward pupil-teacher relationships, as opposed to those less committed to ability grouping; and to eXplore possible relationships between teachers' personal and profession- al backgrounds and their commitment to ability grouping. The sample consisted of all junior high school teachers in twelve schools in five county systems in Maryland. A total of 440 teachers was involved. An index of commitment to ability grouping was developed. Validity of items was determined by scalo- gram analysis, coefficient of reproducibility, 85 per cent. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) served as the index of teacher-pupil rapport. The total instrument administered by the investigator con- sisted of eleven questionnaire items about teachers' personal and professional backgrounds, seven items related to beliefs about ability grouping, and the MTAI. An F test was applied to mean score differences for each ‘ -“f '1. I? t 7.. - ”‘5' ’ O .7. A .qean: 7 . ‘.vv‘.h -"“ C :‘:""V‘.~ s ‘V ......._v - -“ ' O a. ‘9-”‘;“ ‘v ox- 1:11.4vA - ......--..a..'uSe “ - 5‘ ,-. ..J - o .3 ‘I 'N‘ - A r- “h' -..‘-\vt::1 -‘v. k— i. r\ a w... ..- 9.. S- - r;3“ L“ c '~.~-..uc..vg’ I: . r- \‘-”;hlc an- "-‘v¢ s. v- _ “Lt“.V‘g‘r‘ .v‘,~_‘.“‘:.‘uo . w, h \ 57"““LF"QV ""‘\'-.V~ C2 .Vv' ~‘f .“ ; s. V'\ r.» . ““~~:S 7.9“; y- ‘_ €“*~r‘: H‘~:U Ar .. ‘V-., l” u.‘ . ‘I‘e-L ‘T'Hp ’ hi vw'k y - \ " . es ~ ‘FTC-" a.) 0+ . V“ 5U ‘ne Vac Q“A ‘ ~v- ~14; Pay-g . “‘V-an C“ s. Q»..‘ . ‘ H:.J.‘:£N ' “-5 o‘ y. I‘- A ‘ UV Lian} v ,‘_‘1. ‘ “'5n.‘ \.,c Ext ‘ “'8 A. vt)‘ JAMES A. PHILLIPS, JR. ch'the indices for each of the factors investigated. Tkua .05 level of significance was established for sta- tistical computations. A least significant difference test was employed to determine sub-categories for the factors which contributed the significant differences. Principals in the participating schools were interviewed to gather information about staffs, programs, and policy determinants. The following relationships of factors to the two indices arer'eported: Significant index of commit- ment mean score differences only were found for age of respondents, North-Hatt Index of Occupational Prestige (father's occupation), amount of college education of respondents, grade level taught by respondents, and respondents' experience with grouping practices. Significant mean score differences for both indices were found for respondents' amount of college education, major field of study at the undergraduate level, type institution in which respondents matricu- lated at the undergraduate level, degree held by re- spondents, subject area taught by respondents, and re- spondents' stated preference for type ability group to teach. Insignificant F values were found for respond- ents' sex, marital status, size and type community in a ‘ C . a-q- A n.— .» “5‘ .I’u- U. Q ‘~’ . a - . “-D. .5.. sq..-» .1»)... I IA -. . _Y‘_re.~ V~~.v...y . . ‘ 9:. :'n'-" (‘5wa s 'd.‘ ”'- us..- --.- 8. .--‘ f - u . -..V. 5 i.) :.~-'~‘ p‘ " --. :' 5‘ 9‘- .-~ 4‘ 8.. o I 'F. ‘n 9!: V EECCV“ ‘ V n C tWCeh I ‘a 0 § 6 'u ”.1: “5 aw , bo“ ‘2 U h 7:. ye‘il‘ri “2‘ ; cf m (D "b which respondents were reared, attained educational level of respondents' parents, amount of graduate study completed by respondents, and respondents' years of ex— perience. Significant mean score differences were not found for schools and school systems. Coefficient of correlation of relationship between commitment to ability grouping and MTAI scores ’ .0065. Though too small to be significant, limited evidence of patterns of inverse relationships between index of commitment mean scores and MTAI mean scores was found. Limited evidence of a relationship between school staff involvement in policy making and the two indices was found - the greater the involvement of staff the lower the index of commitment and the higher the MTAI scores. Among the conclusions resulting from the study are the following: 1. Teachers' commitment to ability grouping can be ascertained. 2. There may be some inverse relationship be- tween a teacher's commitment to ability grouping and his ability to create good rapport with pupils. 3. There appear to be factors in teachers' personal and professional backgrounds related to t "W‘ Owe v 6- '- ‘bo- 6—».. U I to a. I‘._ 2‘ “"V' I.“ "---U‘ L.‘ (J! O "H'-o. 1 ‘fi r‘w-.€S .. U JAIES A. PHILLIPS, JR. cxxmnitment to ability grouping. 4. Most teachers indicate a preference for ability grouping and prefer to teach groups with average or above ability. 5. A need for further research into grouping practices and results in which the teacher factor is controlled is indicated. ABILITY GROUPING AND TLACHER ATTITUDES: AN EXPLOHAIORY STUDY OE‘JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ILACHERS AICD TEZEIR COT-ELTI'I‘LENT T0 ABILITY GROUPING by id . I :1 4 I“ ‘D James A? Phillips, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1961 a}? $3 if 7/2237; / ‘5. ~',.. ,. us“ . a\ a». 4.;C “.vu -. ' . .L‘fifa ' "'“V at. '. A “4.: .. \ . . .'."'" . O b... . A; ‘ .A , vtf‘“ y. ”r o-g.v‘ ‘ h P. o.,‘\. ducAv-aaa‘i“ \- ; \ :p,‘ 0 - -. -ct.‘ ‘1‘“; ~ ‘ l .rc‘ _C .. 8» "IV y U Iflhcn Q’s-0'0 «45v ~U3.‘ ‘. .“ -_:~- .,' 6.?!- .4“"‘J 3‘" "Q ‘ V ‘ ‘ “t‘ t... ~§A~ U ‘1““ ACKNOWLEDGEKENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to: the members of his guidance committee, Professors George R. Eyers, Archibald O. Heller, Carl H. Gross, Louise M. Sause, and particularly the chairman, Pro- fessor Charles A. Blackman for their careful and thoughtful guidance; to the school systems and teach- ers and administrators who so generously cooperated; to the Baltimore County Maryland Board of Education whose staff and data processing equipment were made readily available; and especially to his wife, Mildred Bluett Phillips who as typist, editor, and inspiration, made completion of the project possible; and to Jimmy and Stephen, who were patient with daddy. ii "' 'Pfy-v '“‘o I. t. .- ‘~~-—‘Jt'~ -J~_ u“. n— -.,. \ ._ .. o... y- .‘p_“‘ .‘C‘ ‘ 'v.‘ - _‘ v hon. . ‘ "v A‘n‘. “ "n.6, ’ V"- ‘ P « ‘° C“; Q‘. Lev 1;: .- a ..a vs V 3 L..- C... ‘ u Y? __ “' 1;. v. i- '- «.‘ ‘a r.- \J\ Cs: Na. \ U - TV- ‘\ I“s .. .~\ ‘ ‘ K. ‘ Page AC KNOVJLEDGEIVIENTS o o o o o o a o o o a o o o o o o i 1 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O I O V LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi Chapter I. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem Background of the Study Research on Grouping The Study Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study Summary II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 20 Early Research and Literature Summary of the Early Findings The Literature Since 1957 Other Pertinent Literature on Grouping Selected Literature Relating to Classroom Climate The Classroom as a Group Situation Selected Literature on Teacher Attitudes Characteristics of Teachers Summary III. METHODS AND PROCEDURE. . . . . . . . . . . 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS Identification of Factors to be Studied Selection of the Sample Description of Counties - Policy on Grouping Description of School Communities Instrumentation Commitment Index Teacher-Pupil Rapport Socio-economic Background of Teachers The Questionnaire Administrator Interview Schedule Data Gathering Procedure Proposals For Analysis iii C» IV. V. APPENDIX BIBLIOGR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . 89 The Junior High Schools Represented in the Sample Analysis of Teacher Responses Findings Related to Teachers' Edu- cational and Professional Background and Experience Differences Between Schools and School Systems Teachers' Stated Preferences of Type Ability Group Desirous of Teaching Teachers' Beliefs About Grouping Practices Correlation of Commitment to Ability Grouping and Teacher-Pupil Rapport Summary CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMLENDATIONS. . . . . . 177 Commitment to Ability Grouping and Teacher-Pupil Rapport Commitment to Ability Grouping As Related to Other Variables Professional Background Factors Teachers' Preferences for Type Ability Groups to Teach Factors Not Related to Commitment to Ability Grouping Teachers Described in Relation to Degree of Commitment to Ability Grouping Relationships of Factors to Schools and Systems Corroboration of Earlier Findings Recommendations Recommendations for Further Research Implications for Administrative Practices Summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q Q 200 APE-TY O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O 241 iv 8 Po , cab- “ -V“’\ “'a.‘ .4-.. 9. s. g r. .ry nu. f .u w. mL. a P; V4 u . Q» C I O ASL iv 3.. Z J E .. n. Q0 “P; L" h. a. w. ,p. r: N 1 r e r. g m. . . .uu a». Table 1. 2. 5. 4. LIST OF TABLES Enrollment in Schools by Grades. . . . . Number of Teachers Comprising the Sample by School and County . . . . . . Organization of School Programs. . . . . Summary of Sectioning and Grouping Practices As Reported By Principals. . . Summary of Respondents' Stated Pref- erences For Type Ability Groups to Teach By Per Cents For Selected Factors Page 90 92 94 96 In Personal and Professional Backgrounds. 165 Summary of Responses to Items About Grouping by Numbers and Per Cents . . . . 170 In C. C» C» .. 29.. .P.» r. h. r” W. Cu 5 «a r; .. I“ .p» 9.» .PH E. r. e .. NC.» . .Qu 3. r . . h; . c all» In. ... O 0 v .s. k r . P. L». I“. .me ...u n. I O 0 a. a, t I. w“ .. a. r... A4 0.. L» «L n .. .. .b m.” . .NU . 5. r s. .a h. A C r . «a 0. § r: my .a L.» (c u . . . 7' h‘ r- 3 l. fly a.‘ QC 3 n. u. C 1 fl. 8* at?» fly a. ~v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. 2. 6. 10. 11. Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Age of Respondents . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for North-Hatt Quintile Rank- ings of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Sex of Respondents . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Marital Status of Re- spondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Size of Communities in Which Respondents were Reared . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Types of Communities in Which Respondents Were Reared . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Fathers' Attained Educa- tional Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Mothers' Attained Educa- tional Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Years of College Education Completed by Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Respondents' Major Field of Study at the Undergraduate Level . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Types of Institutions in Which Respondents Matriculated at the Under- graduate Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 109 112 114 115 116 118 119 120 122 126 151 .\5 a u I , . . L .2 . . . .. ... v. . w. W. u r“ .m. u: ”A... W” m» (C .. Cu 3 W“ Cr. ... .v 2. Mn ... a __. _. C x. Aw I .._m pp ’ 5‘ s . ‘ v Q H» W» 0‘. .5. «\U .H.. r . ~\\U .L. ~ . fix» . CL “Cu .1” . . O O I 7». . In. .KAJ Arv Q a...“ . . a. ~. 1 o o o O c n O . o no a . . — i a r a . ~ . . g _ . o . 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. 20. Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Grade Levels Taught By Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Respondents' EXperience With Types of Ability Groups. . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Academic Degrees Held by Respondents O O 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on ITAI for Subject Areas Taught by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Some Graduate Study vs. No Graduate Study by Respondents. . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Graduate Study by Fields Pursued by Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Respondents' Years of Teaching Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Schools Represented in the sample. C O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for School Sizes Represented in the Sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2l.Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean 22. 25. Scores on MTAI for County School Systems Represented in the Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Respondents' Preferred Types of Ability Groups for Teaching. . . . . . Mean Scores on Index of Commitment and Mean Scores on MTAI for Highest and Lowest Quartiles of Respondents' on Index of Commitment. . . . . vii 155 158 159 141 145 146 149 152 155 156 158 174 ‘IA.. _; H'v 8,: NQUA~-“K k - . - C H AFTER I PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to determine whether teachers who are highly committed to ability grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils into class groups, as opposed to those who are negatively commit- ted to ability grouping as a school practice for section- ing pupils, tend to reflect significantly different attitude patterns toward pupil—teacher relationships. 4 Additional purposes of this study are to de- termine and eXplore possible relationships between teachers' personal and professional backgrounds and their commitment to ability grouping. A basic assumption is that there may exist characteristic differences between teachers highly committed to ability grouping and those less committed to ability grouping. If such distinguishable character- istics do exist, knowledge of such might permit antici- pation of attitudes toward grouping - hence, making it possible to consider teacher differences when making teaching assignments. 2: disc r2: .' a , xx-iear31r U f‘ 1 - . ’ “DC VIC!- “ dV~¢$G~4 U... -.U-Cns 81“:— 3"N "c- "h‘r ""V 46"“ .4“ .t‘; “"“'\|\ «Sue U... 4. *. . 6 .3 31 qnlpfln ' ‘w 88 a~ ". .2. Background of the Study Among the major concerns of educators is how to discern and utilize those conditions of the teach- ing-learning situation which promote the greatestamount of desirable growth for the learner. Among these con- ditions are the administrative arrangements of pupils into "teachable" groups. Numerous attempts have been made through the years to create "more teachable" groups of pupils by means of administrative devices such as ability grouping. Grouping procedures have been utilized exten- sively because of a belief that they contribute sig- nificantly to the individualization of instruction. Research has produced conflicting evidence, however, about the relative values of heterogeneous versus homo- geneous (ability) grouping in achieving "educational results". The more crucial question is the one of the teacher and his role in creating a classroom climate most conducive to learning, rather than the fact of homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping per se. Altho contradictory findings have come from the many studies, a summary of the evidence slight- ly favors ability grouping as contrasted with heterogeneous grouping in academic learning. Standard tests of academic achievement, particu- larly where adaptations of standards, materials, and methods are made, show that pupils make slight- ly larger gains under ability grouping. The evi- dence for ability grouping indicates greatest rela- tive effectiveness in academic learning for dull children, next greatest for average children, and least for bright children. This conclusion must be regarded as tentative. . . . Classroom teachers have Ci ing, b: of tea: effect: charac: jective he drew 5:,“er of 0.3583101} ’ thTD' 1mm '1 n O (Pitta-f o: 0 I‘Him ' .— 1 p (I) (7154-: I L.’ - 4) C) n7 0 m K‘ C,“ ‘4 In" (—3 C" 3' 1 (I I D I 00 have differences of Opinion.about ability group- ing, but several studies reveal that a majority of teachers prefer it. The data regarding the effects of ability grouping upon the personal characteristics of pupils are so inadequate or sub- jective in character that no valid conclusions can be drawn.1 Educators have placed a great deal of faith in grouping procedures as a means for reducing the range of differences among pupils in given classes. One summary of basic assumptions, which may be open to question, is stated by Hammond: 1. Intelligence is so adequately measured by ver- bal intelligence tests that the result may serve as basis for action which concerns the whole individual. 2. A further assumption is that homogeneity of grouping reduces the range of variations with a grade. 5. Perhaps, the most important assumption is that homogeneity of grouping tends to bring superior learning results. 4. Another important assumption is that homogeneity tends to make superior provision for individual differences. 5. . . . homogeneous grouping provides for better attitudes in pupils.2 Investigation of the proposed problem appears timely in light of recent developments on the educa- tional horizon in this, the age of space. With the rising concern for fostering growth of the "whole child" and providing for "individual differences" 1J. Wayne Wrightstone, Class Organization for Instruction (Department of Classroom Teachers American Educational Research Association of the National Edu- cation Association, 1957), p. 8. ZSarah Lou Hammond, Homogeneous Grouping and Educational Results, Department of School Services and Publications, CurrICulum Letter No. 40 (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University, 1959). 32:18 ’38 I‘i gm; “‘ examirn 'L d (D '() :5 _ O :' ‘ (0 F4 m cf came the realization that adequate investigation of the teaching-learning continum demanded identification and examination of multiple forces on learning. Developmental experiments were burgeoning. And then came Sputnik: With the surge of fear came a kind of absolute impatience that made most of the thoughtful reservations seem, to much of the public, like mere academic quibbling. To many minds, the extreme demands upon science and technology made any kind of goodness except in- tellectual brillance seem near-irrelevant. Their solution is--or seems--simp1e: Identify the in- tellectually brilliant as early as you can; push them as hard as you can, along intellectual lines. The timeliness of further investigation into grouping practices is highlighted by a resolution adopted by the Association for Supervision and Curricu- lum Development at its 1960 national convention. The resolution is partially reproduced below. Whereas, some schools are grouping pupils into separate classes or sections of the same subjects on such bases as: intelligence, achievement, social maturity, teachers marks, or some combination of these or other factors in an attempt to provide for individual differences, and Be It Resolved, that while th Association fo Supervision and Curriculum Development continues to encourage experimentation with various organiza- tional patterns to deal with the problem of individ- ual differences, we authorize the Executive Commit- tee to take appropriate steps to urge all schools to review present administrative devices for grouping in the light of their previous history, the relevant research, and the effect of these devices on learn- ing, personality, and social deve10pment.2 1"The Nature of Classroom Grouping for Learning" Prepared by Fred T. Wilhelms (Background for Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development Dis- cussion Group H-7, 1958), p. 18. (Mimeographed.) 2Association for Supervision and Curriculum De- velopment, News Exchange, II, No. 2 (April, 1960), p. 17. 111.; such .V‘wa -....nt cry , eztitudes ‘ , ‘ ' x a! . : Co¢3ace ‘S 93 the eff .: '- ~ EC 1“? A‘ I 833‘“, “CE Much recent research, expecially studies utili- zing such measures as the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, has been based on the assumption that teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relation aspects of the teaching-learning situation may be of uppermost im- portance in determining the extent to which classroom climate is conducive to learning. Research is needed on the effect of patterns of organization such as ability grouping upon the classroom climate. There are some indications that reservations about "panacean" administrative devices appear to be giving way to a return to the practice of sectioning pupils into class groups on more rigid and restricting bases, particularly with respect to "gifted" learners. In some geographical regions with which the writer is familar, the Intelligence Quotient has become as sacred and potent as in the Thirties as the major basis for making pupil placement decisions. Many recent lay and professional articles have been devoted to championing a narrow "academic" cause - ability grouping one pre- scription to cure the disease. This movement toward increasingly narrow bases for grouping gives the appear- ance of being a retrogression from that which Otto re- ported in 1955. At that time he said: "The trend in recent years has been away from the more mechanical aspects of grouping and toward a greater consideration of such factors as mental hygiene, sociometrics, human relations in the classroom, and the various dynamics of group relations."1 More than at any time in history the demand is for an effective "total personality" with many competencies, academic proficiency but one of these. Research on Grouping (More extensive discussion and analysis of the following selected studies appears in Chapter II). Re- search on grouping practices needs to be considered in light of what ultimately happens to the learner be- cause of grouping. Are the instructional products, either positive or negative, claimed for the practices the results of the administrative arrangement? Nature of findings in terms of pupils.--Billett produced evidence in 1929 which cast doubt on the bene- fit of ability grouping for all pupils of all ability levels. 2 raises serious In her classic study, Keliher question about the validity of ability grouping, gs- pecially when factors other than academic achievement are measured. She emphasizes the inconclusiveness of evidence for or against either homogeneous or heterogen- 1Henry J. Otto, "Organization of the Educational Program," Review of Educational Research, XXIII (April, 1953) ’ p. 185. '2Alice V. Keliher, A Critical Study of Homo- eneous Grouping. (New York: Bureau of PfiBlications, eachers College, Columbia University, 1951), pp. 95-96. ms gr cap. painted to .1. if. 1.7th elaj. :33C18C, {j VE-“iebles ( P:v- '\ I ““e ‘58 01 “a 9 ties, 4 I \ V d (D '1 ‘0 f-' (3 (1} (ft ’4. (3‘ I: I (7) (’7 () (15 I“ 1 D eous grouping. This same inconclusiveness has been pointed to by Cornelll, Ottoz, and Goodlads. Though fifteen and twenty-five years respective- ly had elapsed between the reviews by Cornell, Otto and Goodlad, no different or additional conclusions were drawn. Likewise, the same questions are posed relative to the efficacy of ability grouping. There seems to be implied in the above inconclusiveness, notions that variables other than the administrative device deter- mine the outcome of learning activities. Among these, certainly, is the teacher, his attitudes and competen- cies. Since 1950 a few studies on the problem of grouping have appeared. Severson's4 study (1955) is comprehensive in scope. He presented evidence indicating lEthel L. Cornell, "Effects of Ability Grouping Determinable From Published Studies," Part I The Group- ing of Pupils, National Society for the Study of Edu- catibn, Thirty-fifth Yearbook, (Bloomington, Ill: Public School Publishing Co., 1956), p. 504. 2Henry J. Otto, "Elementary Education--III. Organization and Administration." EncycloPedia of Edu- cational Research. Revised edition.‘(New York: MacmiIlan Co., 1950), pp. 577-578. 5John Goodlad, "Ability Grouping," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, edited by Chester W. Harris, 5rd edition. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960), pp. 223-224. 4Ole Burnett Severson, Jr. "A Study of Academic Achievement and Personal-Social Development of Junior High School Pupils as Affected by Ability Grouping." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Den- ver, 1956). 5:29 (1651? iratorted L, " .1 Smile“ utilized ijl 55 e‘iiiencs ?‘ ‘ 1 ~ . a 51101110. 7 A ’ ‘Q cent incl at u .4, 0‘" in. :8 n: some desirability for ability grouping. His findings (reported in detail in Chapter II) are noteworthy for the investigation at hand. Some of the positive re- sults he reported may have been materially effected in part by the experimental situation in the school he studied. He indicates that grouping procedures as utilized in the experimental situation were changed as evidence of pupil growth and development was gathered. It should be noted that such pupil growth and develop- ment included not only that in academic achievement, but in mental health and personal-social adjustment as well. Harrahl studied the effects of five kinds of grouping within the classroom; ability, alphabetical, arbitrary, friendship, and interest. He reported grouping, especially friendship and interest, an in- fluence on both achievement and social behavior. Follow- ing is one of several implications he drew: That grouping within the classroom has two major factors that must be considered if grouping is to be effective on the achievement and social behavior of the students involved. a. The students should have an active part in the selection of their peers with whom they are to carry on their learning activities if good rapport is to be established and main- tained among and between members of the class. b. Students should have an active part in the identification, selection, and planning of 1Delvin Dae Harrah. "A Study of the Effective- ness of Five Kinds of Grouping in the Classroom." (Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1955). 0‘ . . I. u A S t 1 .u 3 w. ‘2; C < . x . AV Pu U‘. 'gu‘ *¢ RH. 1A 7. “Nb 5.“ N‘ ‘4 m e 1... C S 3: n a. D. E 9 . C Q 2.. . T. C 8 T. 3 n. 0 0 P C r... h. .1 .1 Au C 6... .1. o. . e e ’ “U. V. a C, 2» A v 01‘ C i .1. . l T. a... . a... p 3: 1 e m e .C. «u ”A 3. cu C #U “a e .11 e e D» .J S wm e 5 a. D. e .N r so. v. we a u e f p 3 a. c. a .s in. e I ,. a a: 0. «Id 5 . ~ . 3‘. ,V r 0 5 m . t s -. u e. u "ml .3 their activities for and within their areas and scopes of interest. Students' interests may be individual or collective; usually there are sufficient group interests to organize groups within a class unit to carry on classroom activities. Interests of individuals within the class may change in varying degrees, but most members of the group will retain suffici- ent interest to complete, within reasonable limits, the job or task selected by them. The conditions which Harrah sees as desirable may be products of the teacher-pupil rapport factor which results in a good climate for learning. Research pointing‘up teacher variable.--In the sampling of some of the more pertinent literature, the question of the possible or probable effect of the teacher, the interaction of his personality with that of the pupils and the group, his attitudes toward the group, and his expectations for the learners persists. Billettsaid, ". . . the teacher factor is a more potent influence in pupil accomplishment than is the grouping factor."2(Italics mine.) On the basis of similar results obtained by a particular teacher in three consecutive experiments, he suggested that teach- ers may be better adapted to teaching one or another type group. In citing needed research, Keliher stated: "Especially should some effort be made to ascertain the differences brought about by the degree of antici- 1Ib1d., pp. 188-89. 2Roy Oren Billett, "The Administration of Homo geneous Grouping." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1929) p. 585. :etion of h———-_‘ 2123.) SI. i:the ed; PEECGI‘H. 10 LEation.of results in the teacher's mind."l (Italics 'mine.) She implicates the teacher variable as crucial in the educational results which occur in any grouping pattern. P'ei Yu L12 builds a strong case for ability grouping in his treatment of the literature. However, he emphasizes the need to differentiate subject matter and technique within the group. He seems to indicate clearly that quality teacher-pupil relationships are demanded if instruction is to be maximally effective. In part, Li draws his conclusions from criticism he leveled at studies presenting inconclusive evidence in favor of ability grouping. In reporting his investigation, Severson makes the following statements about the teachers of the experimental group: It is noteworthy that the faculty and staff of Morey Junior High School have been able through the years to maintain an Openminded attitude to- ward the grouping of pupils. This was true even during the late 1950's and the subsequent decades when ability grouping was so vociferously condem- ned by many nationally known educators. In so far as the local school system was concerned the same pressures against the practice were evident, but fortunately each school unit was allowed to carry on whatever experimentation its personnel felt desirable.3 lKeliher, 22. cit., p. 96. 2P'ei Yu Li, A Critical Study of Group In- struction in American SchooIé. (Shanghai: The Comacrib Press, 1957). 3Severson, pp. cit., p. 92. .3 appear: ' I :2". seer. Emerson‘s 'U d' r4 c.) 11 It appears that the teacher-pupil rapport factor may have been of sufficient magnitude to contribute to Severson's findings favoring ability grouping. Similarly, with Harrah's findings, though he doesn't specify the teacher factor, any discussion of personal-social relationships in the classroom cannot ignore the role of the teacher. Reeder's recent study tends to substantiate the need for research on the teacher factor in the question of grouping. Her study dealt with relation- ships of self-concept to academic achievement and classroom adjustment. She says: The academic and social success or failure of children with either high self-concepts or low self-concepts is often dependent on the types of behavior patterns which they manifest. Teachers often have a stereotype in mind of the ideal pupil: respectful, obedient, non-aggressive, amenable both to authority and suggestion, wide awake, eager to learn and able to subordinate present goals to planning for the future. Hopkins, Blair, Buhler and Redl hold with the theory that the purposes of teachers and pupils are often not the same. She emphasizes that "children learn what they feel. ."2 Haegney, in her summary of Thelen's recent presentation to the 5th Annual Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development Research Institute, says: 1Thelma Adams Reader, "A Study of Some Rela- tionships Between Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achievement and Classroom Adjustment," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Denton, Texas, 1955), p. 142. 21bid., p. 148. A a: «t‘ ‘1. 9U C. mu .5“ p... .U P» T” .uu . . q” E U val e .7. Fun Tl. 1w. 1“S+j& u‘: t -: ~AL . ‘fih .UA *1 ¢ Vet fi“ 7“ 4'...» . . p qut ‘r- u.‘ 5 $136 12 It is the teacher, in most cases, who establishes the climate and determines the kind of group. Surely the climate in American classrooms is determinéd to a large extent by teachers. What teachers do is important, according to Thelen. If we know—the teachers' goals, we can estimate some possibilities about the quality of IEarning that is likely to transpire in a given group.1 (Italics mine.) In discussing the best climate for learning she says: Quoting from recent experiments in teaching and learning, Dr. Thelen presented data Wiich point clearly to the learner-centered classroom as that in which learning of the highest quality takes place. Learning seems to fare best when the teacher is well-grounded in content certainly, but also in human relations.2 The learner-centered group which Thelen sees superior to other types of groups, "is one in which the teacher is responsive to needs of the learners. The teacher's time is given to building and supporting the learner's ego, to clarifying, to defining, to help- ing children build understanding."3 Such conditions and results of experimentation as those described by Billett, Keliher, Severson, Harrah, and Reeder cannot be dismissed as mere happen- stance with respect to the teacher variable. Undoubted- ly, classroom.climate is highly related to pupils' learning. Teachers create classroom.climate. It lGenevieve Heagney, "The Individual in the Group," Summary of presentation to 5th Annual Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum.Development Research Institute, (Washington, D. 0., December, 1959), p. 2. 21bid., p. 5. 5Ibid., p. 2. nature cast c“ er 331-6 . Id 1" h u t \ 5.9 2b 6 a U l .5“ FF. \NL . hi .. .u I) D. 15 appears valid to assume that the teacher variable re- mains the crucial issue in the ultimate effectiveness of learning under any program of sectioning pupils into classroom groups. The basic concern being developed is not a new one. In the Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Coxe said: The success of an organization by ability groups depends very largely upon the attitude of the teach- ers - a matter that merits careful attention on the part of the administrator, because the principles underlying such an organization seem to differ radically from those underlying our traditional school organization under which most of the present teachers have been brought up. There must be ample opportunity for discussion of the new plan of or- ganization before it is initiated and also for dis- cussion of difficulties that arise after it is put into operation.1 Conclusions reached by the above cited authors cast questions on the values of ability grouping. Further, these authors seem to be pointing to the im- portance of teacher-pupil rapport as it may affect learning in any type class group. The Study The design of this study is exploratory in nature. It is an effort to determine whether or not, within the limitations of this project, (1) teachers readily identify into two groups, those oriented toward —_.¥ lWarren W. Coxe, "Summary and Interpretations," The Grouping of Pupils, Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Co., 1956), p. 514. ,- \. 331356318 a p u . . . a; \c . rC 0‘..- .t. as P new A. e e m“ .3. . 1 9 Met . a A. . e . . . . . . S n m.“ n... 0 New 0 . a m... .3 ML 9. mm .u. p. U . u I .Q t Md 9. .hu mi. “.1“. +u rw C .s . h. h. to 3: «In. . H.“ c A w e e A. J O h. 0H“ “A h u 0‘ « C 1. e T. An V -. r . n: 8 c .. . l S e .U‘ai - V. V.A 0"...“ .W L D. v 8 ~ s. A .- .E "I.“ a A. ‘ \. t . “1 def-‘9 A‘:;‘ I‘SSD" 14 homogeneous grouping and those oriented in opposition to homogeneous grouping as a means of assigning pupils to class groups or sections; and (2) when identified whether these two groups of teachers tend to reflect any characteristic differences relative to classroom atmosphere (rapport) and selected concomitant personal and professional characteristics. At present there are indications of an impera- tive need to learn more about the factors which contrib- ute to effective learning. Among these is the need to know the relative effectiveness of various grouping procedures on the learning of children. The teacher variable has been cited as a crucial one by early re- searchers and recent reporters on grouping practices. In recent research there have been implications and insinuations that the teacher variable has contributed significantly to the findings. Hence, the question is raised whether or not grouping procedures are really responsible for obtained results - or whether these results are more closely related to the teacher and his beliefs. The teacher variable is one of the more diffi- cult variables to assess in research on classroom prac- tices. Factors such as administrative and instructional demands on the teacher, factors in the teacher's person- ality and background and his reaction to the above de- mands may affect the quality learning experience he 15 creates. It is anticipated that this investigation may provide some insight into possible approaches for assessing the teacher factor in learning. The under- lying assumption on which this study is based has been stated as follows by Wilhelms: ". . . The particular systems used in grouping are far less important than general warmth and acceptingness toward persons, and the efficient organization of work."1 The working hypothesis of this study may be stated thus: Teachers who tend to be highly committed to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for section- ing pupils tend to differ significantly with respect to the teacher-pupil rapport factor and other selected characteristics than teachers Who tend to be less commit- ted to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils. The null hypothesis may be stated: There are no significant differences between those teachers highly committed to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils and teachers less committed to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils as measured by an index of commitment to ability grouping. Definitions of Terms Ability grouping.--The term ability grouping as used in this study is an attempt to divide students lWilhelms, op. cit., p. 16. $0 clej\ H» .d H E C 8‘; n D ‘ J enerel 0 -3;he r {I; A '6 g..\ti\vave is u q 1 A \y naex Q i 9Pence 16 into classes according to their ability to attain on the basis of any one or combination of the criterion cited by Goodlad: General ability as revealed by in- telligence or readiness tests or inferred from past general or specific accomplishments.l The terms "homogeneous grouping" and "ability grouping" are used synonymously in this study. Preliminary investigation by the researcher and interviews with teachers have indicated that these terms tend to bear synonymous meaning for teachers in the sample. Grouping.--For purposes of this study, grouping is used synonymously with sectioning. The reference is to intra-grade grouping into class-size sections. Index of commitment.--As used in this study, index of commitment or commitment score is a numerical value ascertained by the accumulation of weighted item responses relative to the teachers' indication of pref- erence for homogeneous (ability) grouping. The range in scores is from low (negative) (four or less) to high (positive) (16). MTAI.-4Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory - referred to throughout the study as MTAI. Limitations of the Study Among the major difficulties in conducting re- search on grouping procedures and practices is the in- lGoodlad, pp. cit. hi it} t I 1 0 5333192 1 [5551558 Seen too 91‘8' res; uses as Within t?) 03 What 1 (1’ 17 ability to replicate conditions of prior studies because of the human element. Investigation of the proposed problem is launched in full recognition of a major weakness of prior studies - the fact that they have been too piecemeal. It is also recognized that teach- ers' response patterns may be subject to such influ- ences as administrative preferences, class organization within the system, teacher-administrator relationships, size of school and system, and teachers' perceptions of what they think should be best practices. The sample.--The sample for this study consists of total junior high school faculties representing sev- eral school systems within the state of Maryland. Preliminary investigation has supported earlier findings to the effect that most teachers seem to pre- fer homogeneous (ability) grouping. Therefore, the percentage of teachers with negative attitudes toward ability grouping is expected to be substantially smaller than those with positive attitudes toward ability grouping. Delimiting the study.-~Some delimitation is achieved by restricting the study to junior high school ‘teachers. It is at this level in the school program at which the question of grouping seems to become most <3rucial. Goodlad supports this choice. "The arguments for and against [ability grouping tend to increase and decrease, respectively, as the focus of attention ti v . . no a u I ‘ w . 3m. e e M.“ e .Q u. r. rd n. 3|. .n... flu or. WU D. 5 L v .w. . a 5 Wu 6 S. no .. e e v D; a...” o D. v A {.1 ‘U .4 :2 1..“ . ‘h ..' a. 3113.1 31‘ Ibere ‘“ Q 18 moves upward from elementary to higher education.":L Among those factors assisting the creation of grouping problems in the junior high school are: (l) the nature of human physiological development in the pre and early adolescent period and (2) our pro- fessional concern with the "transitional" functions of the junior high school. The junior high school period is characterized by wide ranges in maturity at a given grade level. Traditionally, the American public high school has a differentiated program. The junior high school is that point in general education where preparation for entrance into this differentiated program is begun. Summary Olson has resolved that: . . . grouping by height or no groupings at all in the junior high school competes with ability grouping in terms of educational outcomes. A good school environment for growth provides di- versity of Opportunity in the difficulty of mater- ials and in the areas of eXperience provided. The environment should have a diversity that matches the diversity of the human beings in it.2 Evidence is inconclusive and knowledge inade- Quate about the effect of ability grouping on pupils' learning. Evidence and opinion supports the quality _—_ lGoodlad, op. cit., p. 224. 2Willard C. Olson, "Reaching and Teaching the Individual," Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (June, 1960), p. 593. the cl| i leer a A o 1?) 0 eat in 1 - 4 ~ ‘9 . I ate tze 19 Of the classroom climate for learning as a crucial factor in learning results, the teacher being the central ele- ment in the establishment of the climate. There is in- creasing concern about the advisability of grouping on some bases. Group instruction is commonly accepted in public schools as a basic administrative facility. Much more research into grouping pupils on bases other than those heretofore utilized is needed. In light of the above conditions, along with little more than in- formed Opinion about teacher-pupil relationships as :related to attitudes toward grouping procedures, the :investigation here proposed appears valid and necessary. PJ\ Csc CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE What Otto calls: "The fetish about ability grouping which pervailed in educational circles be- tween 1920 and 1955 . . ."l is clearly indicated by the variety and extent of the literature and experiments in the field during that period. More recently the amount of research has shown marked decrease. Current- ly, however, a resurgence of the amount and intensity of the writing characteristic of that early era is evident. Pertinent literature on grouping will be pre- sented in chronological order. Where apprOpriate, note is made of references to the teacher factor in the studies cited. The latter part of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of some pertinent studies and literature Which point up the role and impact of teacher attitudes on the classroom climate. Early Research and Literature The limits and purposes of this research do Ilot warrant extended description and analysis of the ¥ 1Henry J. Otto, "Elementary Education-~III. f Five Kinds of Grouping in the Classroom," (Unpublished (ioctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1955.) pp. 188-90 . Q *;:r* a» a. .. "5"?“- Cw- . t‘r u 56 learning atmosphere created by the teacher and the amount of pupil growth, both academic and social. Severson's study.--One of the more compre- hensive studies on grouping in recent years is that reported by Severson in 1956. He investigated the comparative progress of pupils who had experienced their junior high school academic instruction grouped according to two different criteria: 1. Reading comprehension as determined by standard- ized tests; 2. Random age-grade distribution.1 The major characteristics he compared were: academic achievement, mental health, and personal- social adjustment. It should be noted that his sample was limited to "more able" students, defined as these pupils possessing an I.Q. of 114 or above. Following are some of the more salient of Severson's findings. Pupils grouped for academic in- struction according to reading comprehension excelled the control group in: 1. Language arts 2. Academic marks in junior high school 5. Records achieved during the first year in high school (They were also less likely to drop out Of high school before graduation). 4. Nearly all personal-social areas; moreso for boys than for girls with the exception of "sense 1Ole Burnett Severson, Jr., "A Study of Academic Achievement and Personal-Social Development of Junior iHigh School Pupils as Affected by Ability Grouping," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of iDenver, 1956) p. 2. “a 57 of responsibility" and "response to authority."1 He stated that there is no evidence to indicate that ability grouping has a negative effect on mental health. He further draws the following conclusions: 11. The evidence indicates that certain differences in background and personal characteristics exist between the most successful and least successful pupils regardless of grouping. The successful were younger and had a fifteen point I.Q. advantage. Least successful pupils were not much below average in intelligence, however. The successful had far more stable home con- ditions and more than likely had fathers who were professional men or who had their own businesses. Most of the relatively unsuccess- ful pupils had quite the opposite type homes. In mental health tests the successful were on the average thirty-three percentile points above the other extreme group. The successful were not only high in academic marks but far excelled the others in personal-social develop- ment. 12. In so far as the more able pupils were concerned (higher I.Q. group), ability grouping based on reading comprehension fostered better growth in nearly all areas. Arithmetic appears to be an exception in which there was not much difference either way. In high school progress the more able who had been grouped in junior high school according to ability made a much better record than their random-grouped peers. In personal- social development the former group also ex- celled in relation to the latter. There appears to be a close relation between good gental health and fairly high intelligence. His findings appear in part to substantiate IKeliher's earlier contention "that it is a natural and :reasonable procedure to group according to a specific - ability when the purpose is to improve that ability-" E 1Severson, 2p. cit., pp. 522-25. 21bid., pp. 524-25. i.e. : I; m I”) H. 111 C" "h 58 i.e. Severson's findings relative to the language arts.1 Two important aspects of Severson's study of which he is cognizant, but which he appears to not consider in his analysis are the importance of the school climate and of a high degree of flexibility in the grouping. It should be noted in passing that the present Morey program has evolved from earlier experiments in grouping and from various combinations of "core" programs. For example, from 1922 to 1940 the school under the administration of Jessie M. Hamilton utilized the I.Q. on group tests as a basis for grouping. Other similar criteria were given con- sideration through the years. Principal Clark H. Spitler in 1941 encouraged the faculty to ex- periment with reading as'a criterion. The Morey faculty and administrative staff have recognized the necessity for gaining school- wide and community-wide acceptance of any grouping plan if it is to succeed. . . . The idea of working to ability, whatever the level Of ability might be, is of prime importance.2 .He goes on to state that: "The locale appeared to be reasonably typical as compared with other metropolitan junior high schools. However, typicality is not proved if} the study."3 (Italics mine.) As to flexibility of the groups he states: 'EIn.the experimental group, pupils were frequently changed from section to section if initial placement PINoved unsuitable. Over thirty per cent Of the pupils \_ 11bid., p. 26. 21bido, pp. 90-950 5Ibid., p. 289. ‘1 Qt 59 were changed, thus maintaining flexibility in grouping."l It occurs to this researcher that the findings favoring ability grouping in this study may be in part, if not wholly, more the result of the attitudes of ad- ministration and faculty members, and procedures utilized after grouping, rather than the fact of the adminis- trative device itself. Martin's study.--In 1958 Martin reported a study of the effects Of ability grouping on junior high school achievement Of 176 children. The primary purpose of this study was to analyze the mean achievement gains for total battery and each subtest, as determined by the use of the Stanford Achievement test. These gains were meas- ured from grades 6 to 7, 7 to 8, and 6 to 8, in an ability grouped, nonability grouped and modified ability grouped school.2 Secondarily, the researcher wished to determine Which ability group, low, middle or high benefited most from.the grouping and whether there were advantages for grouping in some subjects and not in others.3 He reported that significant gains in three II.Q. groups in language achievement in grade seven 21n.the ability grouped school could be attributed to 11516., p. 296. 2William B. Martin, "Effects of Ability Group- idlg on Junior High School Achievement," (Unpublished Eki. D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 51bid. 9 g, F“ U-‘ . av: V“. 40 ability grouping.1 However, the null hypothesis for the study could not be rejected: Mean gain in School A (ability grouped) ‘ Mean gain in School B (nonability grouped) = Mean gain in School C (moderate ability grouped) at the .05 level of significance.2 The findings in this study clearly indicate no advantages for ability grouping. Severson appeared not to take cognizance of the teacher factor. Neither did he pursue the question of why his findings may have been SO. ‘ 1 Summary of later finding§.--In the 1950 edition of the Encyclopedia of Educational Research Otto reported: l. The evidence slightly favors ability grouping as contrasted wi h heterogeneous grouping, par- ticularly where adaptations of standards, mater- 1818, and methods are made. 2. The evidence regarding the attitudes of teachers toward ability grouping is that most teachers prefer to work with "homogeneous" rather than mixed groups. 5. The evidence regarding the relative merits of various types of adaptation of standards, mater- ials, and methods is inadequate to form a judgment. 4. The evidence indicates greatest relative effect- iveness for dull children, next greatest for average children, and least (frequently harmful) for bright children. 5. The evidence regarding the particular grade levels or subjects in which ability grouping is particularly effective is inadequate to form a judgment. 6. The evidence regarding the effect of ability grouping upon characteristics of pupils other lIbid. 21bid., p. 97. V“ : if. 41 than knowledges and skills is highly subjective and cannot be said to be conclusive, although one study shows that the great majority of pupils are happy and satisfied in schools using ability grouping. 7. On the whole, where grouping is used parents are favorable to its use; the majority of parents believe that children are at least as happy as in other groupings, do better work in school, and are correctly sectioned according to ability. 8. The indications are that in general the vari- ability in achievement (which is an index of difficulty of teaching and the need for instruc- tional adjustments) in ability groups, in grades which have three groups each, is about 85 per cent as great as in unselected groups. In grades having two groups each, the variability in a- chievement in ability groups is about 95 per cent as great as in unselected groups. These percentages are reduced to about 74 and 84 re- spectively if the plan Of ability grouping is accompanied by a multiple track of promotion. As has been stated previously, it is noteworthy that Goodlad reports nothing to alter these conclusions in the 1960 edition Of the same volume. Goodlad does (:onclude with the following commentary: . . . An analysis of the many studies of ability grouping reported by Cornell and by Petty and of several more recent studies suggests that curricu- lar differentiation for the range of student vari- ability represented in a given group is a more significant contributor to academic progress than is the basis for establishing classroom groups. Teachers tend to react more favorably to teaching groups in which the heterogeneity has been somewhat reduced, than to teaching groups selected at random. This finding raises the serious question as to whether many teachers see in ability grouping a kind of UtOpia in which undifferentiated teaching procedures and content will be applied to differ- entiated, "homogeneous" groups. The results would be far from Utopian for the students unfortunate enough to find themselves in such classrooms. lOtto, pp. cit., pp. 577-78. 2Goodlad, pp. cit., p. 224. .fi 01. mt. ‘i N n: ‘1‘ a .. Tl r .. \ & .5. 1 42 Wrightstone has reported no conclusions or evidence conflicting with those reported by both Monroe and Goodlad.1 Other Pertinent Literature on Grouping Within the last few years professional pub- lications have deluged the reader with discussions about grouping. Most of this deluge adds little or nothing to knowledge about the advisability or in- advisability of ability grouping. Most writers re- iterate the confusion and report status of practices in one or more situations. Grouping for the exceptional learner.--Fre- quently expressed points Of view in recent years have dealt with rapid and slow learners, and especially with the rapid or "gifted" learner. The U. S. Office reported in 1954 that 48 per cent of 795 secondary schools surveyed (including 597 separate junior high schools) practiced ability grouping in making adminis- trative provision for both rapid and slow learners.2 Much recent attention has been directed to ability grouping for gifted children. As early as 1951 Gray and Hollingworth reported superior learning 1J. wayne Wrightstone, Class Organization for Instruction, (Washington, D. C.: NatibnaIlEducation Association, 1957), p. 6. 2U. 5. Office of Education, Some Types of Classroom Organization. NO. 5, November, 1955, p. 8. J. 45 for gifted in terms Of subject matter accomplishment regardless of whether segregated for instruction or spread throughout heterogeneous groups.1 These researchers further concluded that: The advantages to be hOped for from the homo- geneous grouping Of gifted children lie not so much in the expectation of greater achievement in the tool subjects of (reading, arithmetic, spelling) as in an enrichment Of scholastic experience with additional intellectual Opportunities.2 It occurs to this researcher that the quality of enrichment discussed at length in provisions for the gifted may in part at least, be a product of teach- ers' perceptions, skill, creativity and personality 7 in short, their ability to develop rapport with pupils. Barbe reviews practices and research up to 1956 in the problem Of homogeneous grouping of gifted chil- dren. His final statement follows: While no definite conclusions can be reached about .the best method of providing for the gifted, it is important to recognize that the gifted child is being neglected and is in need of special attention.3 The above further attests to the inconclusive evidence for ability grouping, even for this limited segment of the school population. 1Howard A. Gray and Leta S. Hollingsworth, "The Achievement of Gifted Children Enrolled and Not Enrolled in Special Opportunity Classes," JOurnal of Educational Research, XXIV (November, 1951), pp. 255-61. 2151a., p. 261. 3Walter B. Barbe, "Homogeneous Grouping for Gifted Children," Educational Leadership, (January, 1956), p. 229. I) 44 The results of an opinion poll of superintend- ents published in the Nation's Schools in 1955 showed 40.5 per cent of the respondents said yes; 59.2 per cent, no; and 0.5 per cent, undecided on the question: "Do you favor grouping of children through the early years on the basis of ability rather than on the typical age-grade system?"l Superintendents who favored ability grouping generally were concerned that the gifted child was not getting the attention he needed, and they felt that ability grouping was one way to give it to him. The majority opposed ability grouping for three reasons: (8) children learn from one another as well as from the teacher and the instructional material, and they should not be segregated; (b) ability grouping subjects the school to great parental displeasure; (c) new teachers are almost always assigned the lower ability groups, a prac- tice very destructive of teacher morale. Some superintendents who favored the practice in high school said that reliable classification was not possible in the elementary school.2 In his recent report on the American High School, Conant advises ability grouping. "In the re- quired subjects and those elected by students with a wide range of ability, the students should be grouped according to ability, subject by subject."5 For each of the subjects he advocates at least 1National Education Association, Research Division, "Organization Plans in the Elementary School." (Washington, D. 0., February, 1956).(Mimeographed.) 21bido ’ pp. 4‘50 3James B. Conant, The American High School Today. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 9 p. 490 45 three types of classes - "one for the more able in the subject, another for the large group whose ability is about average, and another for the very slow readers who should be handled by special teachers."l In response to ability grouping for the above stated purposes, Goodlad and Anderson hold out little hope for its effectiveness. . . . it is noted that the greatest variation [in achievement in paragraph meaning, word mean- ing, spelling, arithmetic reasoning, and arith- metic computation] occurs, usually, for children at the top and bottom of the achievement continu- um. And yet, paradoxically, when grouping by a- bility levels is proposed in educational circles, invariably it is the gifted or the slow pupils who are to be segregated into "homogeneous" groups. When will we start paying at least some attention to the facts, to the realities of the human materi- al with which we deal? Consequently, teachers wh proceed as though their class of gifted or retarded pupils were homogeneous are fooling themselves and cheating their pupils.2 Some of what has been reported in the fore- going sections Of this chapter is "feeling" of re- searchers and commentators, while some is research- based "fact". Selected Literature Relating to Classroom Climate (The Human Relations Factor) A second dimension of the problem under in- vestigation is the classroom climate factor - one of lIbid. 2John I. Goodlad and Robert H. Anderson, The Nongraded Elementary School. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959), pp. 15,17. b r 8.. ('J r) (0 'r1 ‘4 <7 46 the variables which may appreciably affect the learn- ing outcomes Of any classroom situation. Inherent in this variable is the teacher, his attitudes toward pupils and his perception of his role in the classroom. Ruby Dahlin states in regards to grouping for reading: What a teacher does with children and the quality of her leadership and guidance are tied closely to her educational values. These values are not always evident or even consciously recog- nized; yet they are determinants of practice. The Classroom as a Group Situation An essential factor contributing to classroom climate is the group dynamics aspect of the classroom situation and the role of the teacher as perceived both by himself and his pupils. Jenkins is among the researchers who has pur- sued with depth and precision some of the social- psychological aspects of the learning situation. He holds that "greater learning will occur in the class- room to the extent that the pupil is able to get his emotional needs satisfied there."2 He proposes two sources of the satisfaction 1Ruby Dahlin, "Evaluation of Current Practices In Grouping." Supplementary Educational Monograph, NO. 72. Edited by William S. Gray. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, October, 1950), p. 58. 2David H. Jenkins, "Interdependence in the Classroom," The Journal of Educational Research, XXXXV (October, 1951), p.Il58. 47 of pupils emotional needs in the classroom; one, from other pupils in the class, and two, through the teacher. A second dimension which he feels merits attention is the dependence of the teacher on the children in the classroom to satisfy many of his emotional needs.1 Resultant of considerable research which he has conducted, Jenkins believes that far too little attention has been given to the learning situation the classroom provides for the teacher. In another publication this author elaborates on the "helping" relationship in education, a key principle in a healthy learning climate.2 "Those of us who, in any one of many ways, are trying to help people will have to assume primary responsibility for the relationship be- tween ourselves and those we are trying to help."5 Among the assumptions underlying research on the class as a group, one group of investigators stated as a truism that "teachers have long known that pupils responded to other stimuli than the words of wisdom emanating from behind the teacher's desk."4 These lIbid. 2David Jenkins, "The 'Helping' Relationship in Education," School of Education Bulletin, XXII (February, 1951), p. 66. 51bid., p. 67. 4William C. Trow, Alvin E. Zander, William C. Morse, and David H. Jenkins, "Psychology Of Group Be- havior: The Class as a Group," The Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, XXXXI (OctoEer, 1950): p. 524. (f 48 researchers went on to establish a set of assertions which needed research and investigation. Among them: 1. Groups, especially those similar to classroom groups, can be disrupted into separate cliques; . . . [a condition which can.b8] effected by an outsider, such as a teacher. . . The grou climat or sty e Of group life can have an important influence on the member's personalities. One such style of group life can develop hostile, obedient, uncreative, 'goldbrickers'; another can produce confused, purposeless, competitive, drifters; and still another can mould cooperative, flexible, purpose- ful, turn-taking, we-spirited persons. The group climate that produces such effects is created by the resultant of a number of group properties which can be combined in various ways, among which are the leadership style of the teacher or that of those who function most as group—leaders. . .1 (Italics mine.) 2. "Thus we can safely accept the view that group phenomena definitely affect the progress of learning, as well as the kind of learning that takes place."2 Trow and his co-workers contend that there are several different potential sources in a group atmosphere where good mental hygiene prevails, one of which is the teach- er. "The second source of increased motivation lies in the extent to which the teachers and the pupils build a supportive atmosphere in the classroom . . ."5 It is through this supportive atmosphere that the teacher fulfills one of his important roles, that of therapist - helping all children toward individual and social ad- gm llbid., pp. 527, 528. 2Ibid., p. 529. 3Ibid., p. 550. 49 justment.l All of these concerns help to emphasize the importance of interpersonal perceptions in the develop- ment of a healthy classroom climate. Specifically, Jenkins states: Because of the impersonal character Of these contacts, [teacher—pupil in situations where teachers see many pupils in a day] the mental pictures which the teachers and the students build up of each other may be important factors in determining the nature of their working re- lationship.2 The role and effect Of interpersonal relations have been extensively elaborated on by, among others,Combs and Snysa.3 Kelley,4 and Kelley and Rasey.5 This im- portant element in the learning situation is receiving increasing attention in our professional research and literature. Bush6 points up the need for research attention llbid., p. 555. 2David H. Jenkins and Ronald Lippitt, Inter- pgrsonal Perceptions of Teachers, Students, and Parents. (Washington,ID. 0.: National Education Assodiation, 1951.) p. 510 5Arthur w. Combs and Donald Snyaa, Individual Behavior. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949). 4Earl C. Kelley, Education for What is Real. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947). 5Earl C. Kelley and Marie I. Rasey, Education and The Nature Of Man. (New York: Harper & BrOthers, I952). 6Robert N. Bush, "Principles of Successful Teacher-Pupil Relationship," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), pp. 271-75. 50 to the human relations factor in teaching and learning. He cautions that the problem is broad, comprehensive, and complex; in danger of being oversimplified. "The personal factor in the teacher-pupil relationship, the rapport and feeling tone, is one, and only one, aspect Of the total teacher-pupil relationship which must be taken into account."1 Benne and Bennisz, in the same publication, follow up Bush's remarks with a further treatment of the previously cited concept - the class- room as a group. Thelen's approach to grouping.--A most pro- vacative approach to grouping pupils based upon the con- cepts of group dynamics and interpersonal perceptions has been proposed by Thelen.:5 In light of extensive interest in grouping pupils for instruction coupled with the fact of instructional groups in educational organization, Thelen contests traditionally accepted bases for grouping for learning, including ability grouping. In addressing himself to the need for in- creasing homogeneity within class-size groups, Thelen questions the commonly accepted approaches and bases. 11516., p. 271. 2Kenneth D. Benne and Warren G. Bennis, "Study- ing the Classroom as a Group," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), pp. 274-79. 3Herbert A. Thelen, "Classroom Grouping of Students," The School Review, LXVII (Spring, 1959), pp. 60-77. 51 Dimensions commonly ascertained and employed as bases for assigning pupils to class groups are ability (I.Q.) and achievement. Thelen holds that dimensions other than these might provide more adequate preliminary information on which to base assignments to groups for learning. He raises the following questions as to what might constitute appropriate bases for the establishment of class groups: 1. What are the student's values and eXpectations concerning the situations he is to be grouped for? 2. What is the student's standing with respect to the Objectives of the course? What are his potentials in the subject? 5. With which teachers can the student identify? 4. Who threatens and who supports each child? 5. How does the child deal with stress in the classroom? 6. What kind of situation can the student deal with? What kind of situation is meaningful and challeng- ing tp him? What kinds of activities does he seek? Even if we established groups on these or a com- bination Of these bases with a wealth of utilized know- ledge about the teachers involved, would it necessarily follow that school achievement would be greater? "The answer probably depends on what the teacher does with the group, that is, on the method of teaching."2 In citing the need for breadth and depth re- search Of the foregoing dimensions, Thelen appears to be pointing, among others, to the teacher-pupil rapport lIbid. 21bid., p. 77. 52 factor as one of the salient variables in the problem of grouping for learning. In the 1960 Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, de- voted to extensive examination Of this phase Of the problem, Olson says: "The teacher becomes the central figure in determining the nature of the atmosphere which is to prevail in the group. . . ."l 0 Selected Literature on Teacher Attitudes A third area from which basic assumptions for the current investigation are drawn is the role of teacher attitudes as they may effect the classroom climate. It should be noted that this facet may be considered either in conjunction with the group dy- namics and interpersonal relations factor or as adjunct to it. Research has been cited which claims both advantages and disadvantages for ability grouping. Other research findings and writings cited have pointed to the classroom as a group situation. Still a third area which has been implied and identified is that Of teacher attitudes as they may relate to the effective- ness of teaching. The problem of researching the ques- tion of ability grouping is complex. The point of view of this researcher is that all three Of these areas, lWillard C. Olson, "Implications of the Dynamics of Instructional Groups," The Dynamics of Instructional Grou 8, National Society for the Study of Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 270. 55 findings about ability grouping, the classroom as a group situation, and teacher attitudes, must be con- sidered in studying the administration and results of ability grouping. Only in so doing can results of such investigations be interpreted with maximum meaning. Several authors have tied together teacher attitudes, interpersonal relations and teacher-rapport in meaningful terms. Ambrose and Miel talk about "a climate which supports democratic interaction."l They elaborate as follows: Research related to healthy personality develop- ment has shown that the emotional tone of the social environment in which children live has a decisive influence upon the behavior of children. Important- ly determining the emotional tone are interpersonal relations. As at home, so at school, the climate which prevails is determined by interpersonal re- lations. The teacher plays a key role in influ- encing not only the pupil-teacher relations but also pupil-pupil relations. Mill has emphasized that teacher attitudes are an important variable in the learning process of children? Bishop suggests that intangibles such as room atmosphere and teacher attitudes may be factors in the individuali- zing Of instruction within a classroom situation.4 A lEdna Ambrose and Alice Miel, Children's Social Learning, (Washington, D. 0.: Association for SupervisiOn and Curriculum Development, 1958.). 21bid., p. 65. 5Cyril R. Mill, "Attitudes Affect Pupils' Learn- ing," Educational Leadership, XVII (January, 1960), pp. 212-16 0 4Leslee J. Bishop, "Methods of Individualism - in Junior High School," Educational Leadership, XVII (November, 1959), pp. BOff- 54 recent yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development emphasizes the importance of the teacher role in facilitating learning.1 Several recent investigations of teacher attitudes help to clarify and reveal the scope of this phase of the problem. Juul's study.--In her study of authoritarian personality in relation to teachers' attitudes toward child behavior, Juulz reported that: 1. Men tended to be significantly more authori- tarian and less understanding of child behavior than women. 2. A proportionate correlation between number of courses taken in psychology - decrease in authoritarianism and increase in understanding of child behavior. 5. Sectarian differences were found; Jewish students less authoritarian than Protestants, who were less authoritarian than Catholics. The inverse was found for understanding of child behavior. 4. Working class students tended to be less authori- tarian and were inclined to have better under- standing of child behavior than middle and upper class students, however there was no difference in these two groups with respect to understand- ing of child behavior. Kerber and Reeder's studies.--Kerber concluded from his study that ". . . the role of the teacher grows out of the primary fact that he will be and teach what he is, as his personality lends him to certain emphasis 1Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Learning and the Teacher. (Washington, D. C., 1959). 2Dristen Dortheus Juul, "Authoritarian Person- ality in Relation to Teachers' Attitudes Towards Child Behavior," (Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1955). 55 or blind spots."1 Being what he is, in part his feel- ings and sensitivity,are qualities which this writer would consider contributory to his rapport creating ability. Reederg found positive correlations between a child's self-concept and group status, achievement in proportion to his potential, lack of being classi- fied as a behavior problem, and socially acceptable be- havior characteristics. She concluded that "the im- provement of the self-concept is pre-requisite to the improvement of group status, behavior, and achievement."3 Reeder has reiterated as a result of her investigation that "the process of learning is not divorced from emotional involvement."4 It appears reasonable to con- clude that there may be a significant relationship be- tween the teacher's ability to create good teacher- pupil rapport and his success in helping develop high level self-concepts in learners. 1August Kerber, "The Interrelation of Value- Attitude Structure and Role Perception Among School Teachers and Administrators," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1956), p. 122. 2Thelma Adams Reeder, "A Study of Some Re- lationships Between Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achievement and Classroom Adjustment," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1955), p. 154. 3Ibid., p. 155. 41bid., p. 148. i .26 Mannl has recently produced evidence showing that ability grouping may have negative effects on the develOpment of self-concepts in fifth grade pupils. In asking why this may be so, she questions the approach and attitudes exhibited by the teacher toward the group he is teaching. McCardle's study.--McCardlé3investigated re- lationships of teacher attitudes as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI). He grouped the sample of 29 first year algebra teachers from 15 schools into high, middle, and low groups on the basis of MTAI scores. Pupil achievement was meas- ured by tests of quantitative thinking, functional competence in mathematics and elementary algebra achieve- ment. He reported significantly greater gains in both quantitative thinking and functional competency in mathematics for pupils taught by the group of teachers with high MTAI scores. There were no significant differences among the three teacher groups in pupil mean scores in the elementary algebra achievement test. He concluded that these results might be attributed to lMaxine Mann, "What Does Ability Grouping Do to the Self-Concept?" Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), p. 60. 2Hugh Joseph McCardle, "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Pupil Achievement in First Year Algebra and Some Teacher Characteristics." (Un- published Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1959). ' 57 the fact that pupils of teachers who obtained high MTAI scores may have had a more pleasant claSsroom experience, and may have beenexposed to other qualities of good teaching than were pupils of other teachers in the sample. He further indicated that teachers who obtained high MTAI scores probably tended to be less "text-book bound" than teachers who obtained lower MTAI scores. Studies of attitudes toward school practices.-- Two studies here cited report findings of teachers' attitudes toward grouping of pupils. Both these are concerned with the intellectually gifted. Smithl sampled opinions of both lay and professional groups as to what should be done with regard to the gifted in the secondary school. Her findings included the following: 1. The large majority of the respondents desired segregated classes, superior teachers, and a "hard core" of rigorous subjects for gifted learners. 2. The more academic and traditional oriented responses came from (a) teachers and (b) the non-education group of professors in the sample. 5. Those who selected the more permissive responses were guidance counselors and education professors. 4. Administrators were about evenly divided be- tween teacher and guidance counselor point of View. lGgertrud H orth Smith, "Professional and Lay Attitu es Tower the Education of the Intellect- ually Gifted High School Students." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Calif- ornia, 1959). 2lbid. 58 Justman and Wrightstone studied attitudes of teachers of intellectually gifted children (classes of these intellectually gifted children are referred to as IGC classes) at the elementary level in New York City'Schools.1 Recognition that attitudes of the ‘teaching staff toward the administrative arrangement Inay well be an important factor in assessing results of'the sions: l. 5. 5. 6. program gave rise to the study. The researchers reached the following conclu- Teachers who have had specific experience with IGC classes show markedly more favorable attitudes toward such classes than teachers who have not been assigned to such groups. Teachers who report less than twenty years of experience show markedly more favorable attitudes toward such classes than those who have served in the schools for twenty or more years. Teachers who have had specific experience with IGC classes show much the same attitude toward such classes, regardless of the number of years of service they may have had as a teacher. Teachers reporting less than twenty years of service show much the same attitude toward IGC c1asses,regardless of their specific experience with such classes. Teachers reporting more than twenty years of service show marked differences in attitude toward IGC classes, depending upon whether or not they have had specific experience with such classes. Unfavorable attitudes toward IGC classes take the form of: a. rejecting the basic philosophy underlying the formation of IGC classes; b. maintaining that enrollment of a child in lJoseph Justman and J. Wayne Wrightstone, "The Expressed Attitudes of Teachers Toward Special Classes for Intellectually Gifted Children," Educational Admin- istration and Supervision, XXXXII (March,_l956), pp.fil4l- 4S. 59 an IGC class is conducive to personal and social maladjustment; c. resenting the activities of parents of children placed in IGC classes; and d. contending that organization of IGC classes leads to undesirable administrative prac- tices.1 The aforementioned reasons for unfavorable attitudes (:ompare closely with criticisms of ability grouping as stated by Otto in his 1950 review in The Encyclopedia of Educational Research cited in an earlier part of this chapter. Worthy of mention in conjunction with Justman and Wrightstone's findings, is Oliver's study. His study led him to conclude ". . . it is evident that there is little relationship between the professed educational beliefs of these teachers and their class- room practices."2 Ie reported a coefficient of corre— lation of .51. The above finding would seem to raise a question about the degree to which teachers really be- lieve what they say they believe. A further correlate of this speculation may be the degree to which teachers' responses to items about their educational beliefs are related to how they (the teachers) perceive expectations of a given administrator or administrative hierarchy.. Oliver has pointed to what may be a very real lIbid., pp. 147-48. 2w. A. Oliver, "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices," Journal of Education- al Research, XXXXVII (September, 1955) p. 55. GO problem when conducting research in which teachers are asked their opinions about school practices. His findings raise questions about validity of results, as well as indicate that conclusions resulting from such techniques must be held tentatively. His re- ported coefficient of correlation is not so substantial as to negate use of the technique, however. Characteristics of Teachers Currently, considerable attention is being directed toward ascertaining characteristics of teachers judged good to poor. Such efforts as those of the University of Illinois1 and The California Teachers Association2 include as dimensions to be measured relative to classroom proficiency, climate for the teacher and climate for the pupil. In a recent study directed by Hughes5 good teaching is defined in terms of a reduction of Con- trolling Functions performed by the teacher. Hughes describes good teaching in terms of several criteria. lFrancis G. Cornell, Carl M. Lindvall, and Joe L. Saupe, An Exploratory Measurement of Individu- alities of Schools and Classrooms. University of Ill- inois Bulletin, L, No. 75, June, 1955. (Urbana: Bureau of Educational Research, 1955). 2Teacher Competence: Its Nature and Scopp. San FTanciECo: CéIifOrnia Teachers Association, 1957. 3Marie M. Hughes and Associates, Development of the Means for the Assessment of the Quality of Teaching in Elementary Schools: A Research Study. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1959). 5,... 6'“ ‘ W‘V‘ “Cu ace ' 4 {1 (D be? 61 Among them she says: Good teaching requires an increase in the use of functions of Personal Response. . . . Good teaching requires that minimum use of functions of Negative Affectivity be used. Func- tions of Positive Affectivity need to be used more frequently than those of Negative Affectivity.1 She emphasizes the role of a classroom environ- ment conducive to learning - a circumstance requiring adequacy and maturity of the teacher as a person. These researchers also hasten to note: "From our ex- perience we would hypothesize that anything said about teaching in elementary school is just as applicable to all segments of education including graduate school."2 A recent publication wnich promises to be monumental in the study of teacher characteristics is the culmination of Ryans3 many years work. The sum total of Ryans' findings are much too extensive for in- clusion here. However, since several of the findings relate directly to the design of this project, they are reproduced below. After thorough investigation of patterns of values, verbal ability, emotional stability and numerous behavior syndromes of a broad sample of teachers, Ryans reports numerous observed trends. Among them: 1. The attitudes of elementary teachers toward 1Ibid., p. 297. 21bid., p. 502. 5David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers. (Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1960). h" I“ 2. 5. 59 6. 7. 9. 62 pupils, toward administrators, and also toward fellow teachers and nonadministrative personnel in the schools were markedly more favorable than were similar attitudes of secondary teachers. The attitudes of teachers who were judged by their principals to be superior in teaching performance were significantly and distinctly more favorable toward pupils, and also toward administrators, than the attitudes of teachers who were judged by their principals to be un- satisfactory or poor. Neither amount of teaching experience nor age appeared to be very highly associated with teacher attitudes, although there was a slight tendency for the attitudes of secondary teachers of greater experience to be slightly more favor- able toward administrators and somewhat less favorable toward pupils than other experience groups 0 More favorable attitudes toward pupils were expressed by women teachers in the secondary school, but among elementary teachers there was a tendency for men to possess more favor- able pupil attitudes than did women. Teachers whose observed classroom behavior' was judged to be more characteristically warm and understanding and more stimulating possess- ed more favorable attitudes toward pupils and also more favorable attitudes toward adminis- trators. Actual pupil behavior in the classroom (based upon observers' assessments) did not appear to be related to the attitudes held by teachers. The educational viewpoints expressed by second- ary teachers were of a more traditional or learning-centered nature, while those of elemen- tary teachers leaned more in the direction of permissiveness; within the secondary school, science and mathematics teachers appeared more traditional in their viewpoints and English and social studies teachers more permissive in theirs. Teachers judged to be more warm and understand- ing in their classroom behavior, and to a some- what lesser extent, those judged to be more stimulating, expressed more permissive edu- cational vieWpoints. Teachers judged to be more businesslike and systematic showed a slight tendency toward more traditional view- points. The verbal understanding scores obtained by secondary teachers were significantly higher than those of elementary teachers, English and foreign language teachers excelling other subject- 63 matter groups within the secondary school. 10. Men teachers at both the elementary and secon- dary levels appeared to be markedly more emo- tionally stable than women teachers. 11. There was a tendency for elementary teachers who were judged to be warm and understanding in classroom behavior, and also those judged to be stimulating in their classes, to manifest superior emotional adjustment. 12. There seemed to be no observable relationship between scores on the validity-of-response scale and the classification of teachers by amount of teaching experience, age, sex, grade or subject'taught, or observed classroom be- hQVioro In addition to the above trends, Ryans found no clear picture in differences among secondary teach- ers in relation to the type of undergraduate college attended. Elementary teachers from large universities scored higher than those attending other types of colleges on scales measuring stimulating classroom be- laavior and child-centered educational vieWpoints.2 Though significant differences relative to Inarital status were reported, . . . the patterns of differences were not the same for the teachers responsible for different grades and subject matters, and although general trends are apparent, it probably is more important to recog- nize the interaction of marital status with grade or subject taught when considering many of the teacher characteristics which have been studied.3 Significant differences at the .05 level were .found with regard to five characteristics in relation to size of school. Teachers (elementary and secondary llbid., pp. 585-86. 21bid., p. 394. 51b1d., p. 595. 64 combined) from larger schools (17 to 50 or more teach- ers) scored higher in stimulating imaginative classroom ‘behavior; understanding, friendly classroom behavior; .favorable attitudes toward administrators and other school personnel; emotional stability; and verbal under- standing than did those from small schools. Teachers .from one-teacher schools, and three-to-five teacher schools scored even lower.1 Differences in relation to the size of the <3ommunity were reported. "Analysis of the data suggests that teachers from smaller communities attain lower Inean scores and those from larger communities, higher Inean scores. . ."2 Results of analysis of character- .istics in relation to socio-economic status of the (zommunity in which the school is located appeared IDarabolic. Higher scores on the characteristics and hnore permissive educational viewpoints were contributed tby'teachers representing communities typified by both ‘Jlow socio-economic and high socio-economic levels. The 3Lowest scores on characteristics and the most traditional Eiducational vieWpoints were contributed by teachers in (zommunities judged to be about average in socio-economic level.3 ¥ 1;bid., p. 595. 2151a., p. 596. 3Ibid., p. 595. QT; One of Ryan's concluding paragraphs is pertin- ent for inclusion: There was a general tendency for high teachers to: be extremely generous in appraisals of the behavior and motives of other persons; possess strong interest in reading and literary affairs; be interested in music, painting, and the arts in general; participate in social groups; enjoy pupil relationships; prefer nondirective (permissive) classroom procedures; manifest superior verbal in- telligence; and be superior with respect to emo- tional adjustment. On the other hand, low teachers tended generally to: be restrictive and critical in their appraisals of other persons; prefer activities which did not involve close personal contacts; express less favorable opinions of pupils; manifest less high verbal intelligence; show less satisfactory emotional adjustment; and represent older age groups. Summary In presenting the review of literature appro pos to this study, attention has been directed toward three areas - first, ability grouping; second, the concept of the school class as a group and related role of interpersonal relations; and third, teacher characteristics. As to ability grouping, predominant amounts of research were carried on during the 1920's and early 1950's. Most of the studies were interpreted in terms of measured academic achievement. The evidence was inconclusive. Later studies into the 1950's have failed to present any more clear evidence on the relative Jmerits of ability grouping, though in some instances ‘ lIbido , pp. 397-980 66 more precision has been exercised than was true in earlier studies. The value of ability grouping is still under question. There is some confusion about the terms "ability grouping" and "homogeneous grouping." They are commonly used interchangeably. There are those who contend that they are not synonoymous - the evi- dence appears to point, however, to an emphasis on in- telligence and academic achievement as measured by standardized tests as predominant bases for grouping children when either of the terms is used. The literature is virtually devoid of evi- dence which points specifically to the teacher variable in the success or failure of grouping procedures. How- ever, virtually every researcher has cited the probable :impact of the teacher on his findings. It seems imperative to examine the rapport .factor in terms of implications it may have for the Irelative effectiveness of different types of grouping saituations for learning. The rapport factor is but one Ibart of the complex whole of what makes for good teach- iLng. It seems feasible to conclude that group dynamics ign the classroom - the classroom as a group - and the iLnterpersonal perceptions of members of that group, igncluding the teacher, may have great bearing on the Ciegree of rapport created. Evidence has been presented SBhowing the wide concern given to this facet of creating an 8‘ :13: to ‘(VHV Infill . 67 an environment conducive to learning. This writer considers it inadvisable to proceed with an examina- tion of teacher characteristics related to commitment to ability grouping without recognizing the possible impact of these factors on the quality of learning en- vironment established by teachers. The third area given attention and assumed to have a relationship to the outcomes of the learning situation, and possibly to teachers' degree of commit- ment to ability grouping is teachers' attitudes. Ample evidence has been presented to focus attention on the apparent importance of teacher attitudes. More dimen- sions have been proposed in this respect than this study is designed to clarify. It is hoped that the dimensions under investigation might point directions for further study into the relation of teacher commitment to adminis- trative devices such as ability grouping, and the re- sults of interaction of these commitments with teacher- pupil rapport and resultant classroom climate. In a very recent article Shane has prOposed: It seems reasonable to conclude that the "best" grouping procedures are likely to differ from one school to another, the most desirable practice often being dependent upon such factors as: (1) the competence and maturity of the local staff; (2) the nature of the physical plant, (5) school size, (4) class size, (5) the local curriculum or design of instruction, and (6) a highly intangible quality - the intensity of the desire of a teacher or a group of teachers to make a particular plan work effect- ively. The philosophy and ability of the able teacher 68 are undoubtedly more important than any grouping plan, however ingenious it may be, with respect to creating a good environment for teaching and learning. In light of our limited evidence on the values and results of ability grouping, Goodlad has so aptly pointed to the serious issues which must be examined. His statements are re-cited as they focus attention so appropriately. . . . Teachers tend to react more favorably to teaching groups in which heterogeneity has been somewhat reduced, than to teaching groups select- ed at random. This finding raises the serious question as to whether many teachers see in ability grouping a kind of Utopia in which undifferentiated teaching procedures and content will be applied to differentiated, "homogeneous" groups. The results would be far from UtOpian for the students unfortu- nate enough to find themselves in such classrooms. lHarold G. Shane, "Grouping in the Elementary School," Phi Delta Kappan XLI (April, 1960), p. 518. 2Goodlad, 2p. cit. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURE Identification of Factors to be Studied For purposes of this investigation it was de- termined that the following information should be gathered about each in-service junior high school teacher included in the sample: 1. Index of commitment to ability grouping 2. Index of teacher-pupil rapport (Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Score) 5. Personal background information a. Age b. Sex 0. Marital status d. Size and type community in which reared e. Father's occupation f. Attained educational level of parents 4. Educational and professional background a. Amount of college education b. Degree held c. Major field in undergraduate school d. Type institution in which undergraduate work was taken e. Major field in graduate work, if such had been undertaken 70 f. Grade level teaching g. Subject or subjects currently teaching h. Basis on which pupils are sectioned in the school i. Types of bases for sectioning with which one has had experience j. Type ability group preferred for teaching (See Appendix I - items relating to above factors). A further factor to be taken into consideration is the judged "atmosphere" of the school as determined by interview with the principal. It is recognized that this dimension as treated is highly subjective, and that any reported analysis on this factor may be subject to question on this basis. The principal interview was further adjudged the best means to gather infor- mation about size of school, class organization, type school population, and grouping policy. A presentation of these findings appears in Chapter Four. Selection of the Sample The sample consists of total junior high school faculties from 12 junior high schools in five Maryland counties. The schools were selected on the basis of: (1) their representativeness of the county system in ‘which they were located — including diversity of program and organization within the system, if such be the case; (2) the representativeness of the county of organiza- tional patterns of the state; (5) desire of county and local school officials to participate in the study; Q“ 71 and (4) suggestions from school officials in partici- pating counties. It should be noted that in Maryland's school system the smallest independent administrative unit is the county. There are 24 systems in the state, one in each of the 25 counties and Baltimore City. Description of Counties - Policy on Grouping There is a statement of state policy on group- ing procedures (See Appendix V) which calls for flexi- bility in grouping and classifying procedures - suggest- ing both homogeneous (ability) and heterogeneous group- ing. None of the school systems are bound to subscribe to it, but are encouraged to consider questions of class organization for themselves. County A.--County A has no stated policy on grouping or sectioning practices and procedures. Means of arriving at policy on this question are left to the disgression of the principals in each school. County B.--County B follows basically the same procedure as County A with regard to grouping policies. However, in a county handbook the following statement appears. When a grade is large enough to require more than one section, pupil placement should be de- signed to provide sections that are basically heterogeneous, but in which the range of ability is not so extreme that the teacher finds it diffi- cult to meet the needs of all pupils. County C.--County C has no stated policy on grouping. In its administrative handbook the state- f3“ 72 ment from the Maryland State Department, School Ad- ministrative Manual (Appendix V) appears. County D.--County D's policy is one requiring homogeneous grouping as the basis for sectioning pupils - ability, as measured by standardized tests, being the principle criterion. The policy is not stated in writ- ing, but is conveyed to administrators and teachers through the administrative and supervisory hierarchy. This system is currently placing heavy emphasis on programs for gifted and superior learners. County E.--County E, like County A has no stated policy, means of arriving at decisions on group- ing practices being left to the disgression of the principal in each school. Description of School Communities The majority of the schools whose faculties comprise the sample are located in areas adjacent to large metrOpolitan districts. Two factors should be observed. First, truly rural areas are rapidly on the decline in Maryland. The state as a whole is becoming heavily urbanized. Second, there is a trend toward greater consolidation within the administrative units in the state. This in turn means that a large majority of pupils from rural areas are transported to schools located in more urban centers. Schools in County A.--County A is one of the few counties in the state which is predominantly 75 rural. Schools 1 and 2 are located in small rural communities, population under 2500, and serve their surrounding rural territories. Seventy-five per cent of the pupils in school 1 and 85 per cent of the pupils in school 2 are transported by bus. School 5 is loca- ted in the county seat, a community a little over 25,000 and a college town. Approximately 75 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus to this school. Schools in County B.--All three schools in County B are located in the metropolitan areas sur- rounding a large city. All three schools are located in suburban communities which the principals charac- terize as average to high-average in socio-economic status. Most of the parents are government employees. Less than 25 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus to schools 4 and 5, however, upwards of 75 to 85 per cent of the pupils in school 6 are trans- ported by bus. The pupil pOpulation of school 6 is composed of Negro youngsters from approximately three- fourth's of the county. This school draws from a wide range of socio-economic levels. Schools in County C.--County C is represented by only one school. This probably is not an adequate sample. It was not found feasible, however, to include other schools from this system for this investigation. School 7 is located in another suburban area adjacent to a large Eastern metropolitan district. Over 60 per 74 cent of the pupils in this school are transported by bus. Many come from rural areas and a wide range in socio-economic levels is represented. Schools in County D.-—The three schools in County D are located adjacent to a large Eastern metrOpolitan district. School 8 is located in a low socio-economic area, most parents of pupils are labor- ers in industry. A small portion of the pupil pepu- lation is drawn from rural areas. Over 75 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus. Pupils in school 9 come from relatively stable communities - a generally average socio-economic status. Most of the many pupils living in rural areas have parents who work in industry. Over 75 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus. School 10 represents a wider spread in socio- economic status than either school 8 or 9. This school draws a large percentage of its pupils from rural communities, few of whom come from farm families. Over 75 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus. It should be noted that in most of the counties in Maryland, census figures are shown only in terms of counties, few towns having the status of corporate political units. This explains the failure to cite population figures fbr communities in which the schools are located. Schools in County E.--School 11 serves two 75 small communities under 1000 population and a large rural farm and resort area. A few parents of pupils in this school are industrially employed. Over 95 per cent of the pupils in this school are transported by bus. School 12 is located in a county seat. A large percentage of those pupils from the town come from a low socio-economic background. (The community was a war-time boomtown). A substantial number of pupils come from rural areas surrounding the school community, though few are farmers. Approximately 75 per cent of the pupils are transported by bus. The schools whose faculties comprise the sample would seem to be typical of the state. The five count- ies represent essentially four different geographic regions within the state, the selected schools repre- senting essentially different areas of the counties. Typicality of the sample is not proved, however. Instrumentation Commitment Index The initial problem of instrumentation for the study was the development of a reliable scale whereby an individual's relative attitude or opinion toward ability grouping could be determined. Scalogram analysis.--In describing scalogram technique, Goodenough cites Guttman's definition. 76 . . . the multivariate distribution of a set of qualitative items forms a scale for a population if the following conditions are satisfied: a. the items have sameness of content (that is they form a universe of content); h. each item is a simple function of scores derived from the distribution. Condition (a) is mainly determined by the nature of the problem the investigator is interested in. 1 It was ascertained that a scalogram analysis technique was most appropriate for treatment of this qualitative data. The conditions were satisfied that: (l) the rank order of response categories within items could be judged beforehand with reasonable accuracy; and (2) relative positive and negative values could be judged for the responses within the items in terms of the dimension being measured.2 (For a complete expla- nation and description of scalogram technique see Guttmans, Goodenough4 and Torgesons. The above conditions were established for the researcher by the general tenor of the literature on ability grouping substantiated by informal interviews with nine in-service teachers and three in-service lWard H. Goodenough, "A Technique for Scale Analysis," Educational and Psychological Measurement, IV, 1944, p. 180. 2Ibid. 3Louis Guttman, "A Basis for Scaling Qualti- tative Data," American Sociological Review, IX, 1944, pp 0 139-50 0 4Goodenough, op. cit. 5Warren S. Torgeson, Theory and Methods of Scaling, (New York: John Wesley and Son, 1958). 77 supervisors representing both positive and negative positions on the issue at hand. (Samples of teacher and supervisor responses are reproduced in Appendix III). On the basis of the above conditions eight multicategory items were prepared for paper and pencil administration to in-service elementary through high school teachers. (It was anticipated in light of earlier findings, that junior and senior high school teachers might exhibit more favorable attitudes toward ability grouping than elementary school teachers). A set of seven items (See Appendix II) evolved was administered to 100 elementary school teachers, 60 junior high school teachers, 80 senior high school teachers, and an un- classified summer workshop group of 50 teachers rep- resenting all three levels. A random sample of 100 cases was drawn from the total of 270. A tabulation technique for scale analysis as develOped by Goodenough was applied to the responses of the teachers. Four items were found to be scalable- coefficient of reproducibility 85 per cent. (See Appendix IV). Goodenough's criteria for scalability allows for 15 per cent error in response patterns. Though more recent statements of criterion of scali- bility set the limits of error at 10 per cent for four items, evaluation of reproducibility must take into account: 78 The proportion of people in the most popular cate- gory for each of the items, the number of items, and the number of categories per item. In light of the nature of the universe, the consistency of type responses made by teachers in interviews, four categories per item and need to combine two response categories only in each of three items, for purposes .of this investigation, the items are considered scalable. It is Ibrther believed that validity of the items is enhanced by the fact that reproduciability was estab- lished on a wide sample spanning the three levels of teachers, elementary, junior high school,and senior high schoOl. Following are the items: 1. For most efficient learning to occur, pupils of like ability should be placed together almost always more than half the time about half the time or less seldom or rarely 2. Homogeneous (ability) grouping helps the teacher meet individual pupils' needs much easier _____ easier ____ possibly easier with little or no difference in ease 5. Pupils' learning in a homogeneous (ability) group, as compared with that of pupils in a heterogeneous group, will be 1Torgeson, pp. cit., p. 525. 79 very much more much more some more little or no more 4. Homogeneous (ability) grouping is a good school practice strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree Index of commitment to ability grouping is the Stun score obtained by a respondent on these four items “filen responses are valued from 4, high; to 1, low, and C) for no response for each item. The rank order of FHDssible responses to each item is from high (positive) tC) low (negative). Hence, it is determined possible to proceed ‘Wi‘th the remainder of the investigation. Relative degree of commitment to ability grouping can be de- termined, making available an index of the commitment 'bC> ability grouping variable which can be correlated ‘"1.th other variables in the investigation. Three additional non-scaling items believed to IDEB related to teacher attitudes toward ability grouping Were incorporated in the final instrument. It is be- lfiieved worthwhile to examine teachers' responses to these isbems as these responses might be related to other factors under investigation. 80 Teacher-Pupil Rapport 0n the basis of literature reviewed, it has been ascertained that there is probably a relationship between a teacher's ability to establish rapport with pupils and the quality learning climate created in the classroom. Teacher-pupil rapport is therefore a key variable in the investigation. It is hypothesized that a relationship exists between a teacher's degree of commitment to ability grouping and the rapport factor. Few measures of teacher attitudes, especially directed toward the rapport factor, exist. The Minnesota Teach- er Attitude Inventory (See Appendix VI) was designed to do this, and has had wide usage in recent years. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy.--The authors of the Inventory state: It is assumed that a teacher ranking at the high end of the scale should be able to maintain a state of harmonious relations with his pupils character- ized by mutual affection and sympathetic under- standing.1 The authors see teacher attitudes as key to the qualities which make it possible for him or her to create a classroom climate conducive to learning. . . . it can be assumed that the attitudes of a teacher are the result of the interaction of this multitude of factors Eacademic and social intelli- gence, general knowledge and abilities, social skills, personality traits, energy, values and teach- ing techniqueé] and, therefore, that attitudes 1Walter W. Cook, H. Carroll, and Robert Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventqpp: Manual. (New York: The PsychologibalfCorporatibn), p. 5. 51 afford a key to the prediction of the type of social atmosphere the teacher will maintain in the classroom. The MTAI is a carefully constructed and vali- dated measure. Most of the work with the Inventory has been done with in-service teachers, even though the authors state its major purpose as prediction of prObable success in teaching. In reviewing the in- strument Cronbach states: The authors wisely seek to predict a particu- lar aspect of the teaching job, success in estab- lishinglcapport with children, rather than a nebu lous global criterion. Ratings of this quality by principals, observers, and pupils themselves correlate .45 to .49 with scores on the test. When the three types of rating are combined into a more reliable criterion, correlations with test score in three studies are remarkably good: .60, .65, and .46. In design, replication, and care in reporting, these studies are distinguished. There is a clear correspondence between inventopy scores angpteaching behavior at the time the test isgiven.z (Italics mine.) Split half reliability on the inventory is .95. Norms for the MTAI have been developed for students and both elementary and secondary teachers at various age levels for students, and years of train- ing for teachers, including academic and non-academic secondary teachers. Norms for elementary teachers tend to be higher than those for secondary teachers. 1Ibid., pp. 5-4. 2Lee J. Cronbach, "Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by Oscar K. Buros. (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1955), p. 798. 82 Pertinent studies utilizing MTAI.--Numerous studies have implemented and tested the MTAI since its development. Mention of several is warranted. Rocchiol studied relationships between teacher attitudes and personal characteristics of teachers and pupils using MTAI. He reported significant re- lationships between MTAI scores and level of teaching, type school in which teacher was trained, number of years of college education, subject matter taught, teachers rated as liked or disliked by pupils, type .teaching situation (self-contained classroom or special subject) for elementary teachers, and levels of fathers' occupation for high school seniors who chose teaching as a vocation. The differences were in favor of, elementary teachers, teachers with the greater number years of training, teachers who attended a university, secondary teachers of academic subjects, teachers liked by pupils, elementary teachers in a self-contained class- room and students whose parents were classified as pro- fessional, semi-professional and managerial. Fergusonz substantiated that the MTAI measures 1Patrick D. Rocchio, "Teacher-Pupil Attitudes as Related to Teachers' Personal Characteristics and Pupil Adjustment." (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1954). 2John L. Ferguson, "A Factoral Study of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," (Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1955). (‘0' 85 expressed attitudes toward students. Mazzitelli1 reported a reliability coefficient of .91, not sig- nificantly different from .95 reported by the authors of the instrument. Price2 is one of several researchers who has tested the instrument's susceptibility to dis- tortion. Though this has been found possible in his and other studies, Mazzitelli feels there is not a valid criticism in this respect as too much information appeared to have been given respondents.5 The nature of administration of the instrument in this research would not seem to create an atmosphere conducive to faking or distorting responses. Standlee's study of the use of the MTAI with 880 Indiana public school teachers supports ". . . the notion that the MTAI may be utilized not only as an index of the type of social atmosphere a teacher will maintain in the classroom, but also, with caution, as an index of a teacher's over-all teaching performance."4 Use of MTAI justified.--The inventory contains 1Dominick J. Mazzitelli, "A Forced-Choice Ap- proach to the Measurement of Teacher Attitudes," (Unpub- lished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois,l957). 2Monroe S. Price, "The Susceptibility to Dis- tortion of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1956). 3Mazzitelli, pp. cit. 4Lloyd S. Standlee and James W. Popham, "The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as a Predicator of Over-All Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educa- tional Research, LII (April, 1959), pp. 5I9-20. 84 150 opinion statements to be marked "Strongly agree," "Agree", "Uncertain", "Disagree", or "Strongly disagree". The inventory is not timed, although respondents are encouraged to record their first impressions. Most respondents should complete the inventory within thirty minutes. For purposes of this investigation the MTAI appears to be an apprOpriate measure and index of teacher-pupil rapport. Socio-economic Background of Teachers Two factors will be considered in determining the relative socio-economic level from which teachers in the sample came. One, fathers oCcupation at time of entrance to college and two, attained educational level of parents. Analysis of occupational level will be determined from the North-flatt Scale of Occupational Prestige. In addition to the original North-Hatt ratings, the Ohio State University interpolations by Dynes, and University of Wisconsin interpolations by Silverman, Cook and Haller were utilized. (See Appendix VIII). The Questionnaire For purposes of gathering data about the in- dividual, his personal and professional background, a check-type questionnaire was developed (See Appendix I and II). Included among the items were requests for 85 information about the nature of the respondent's teach- ing assignment (grade and subject), his experience with ability and other types of grouping and his preference of type ability group to teach. The seven items re- lating to teacher opinions about grouping were appended to the questionnaire, giving the appearance of one in- strument. Recognizing that some respondents might feel limited and reluctant to express their true feelings if restricted to one of the four choices in each of the items on grouping, a section for comments was provided. It is believed that this gesture may have provided a bit more permissive atmosphere, thereby obtaining more reliable responses, at the same time not doing violence to validity of the items. Administrator Interview Schedule An interview schedule was developed for use of the investigator when interviewing principals in the schools comprising the sample (See Appendix VII). The rationale for the principal interview was that of providing evidence about: (1) the philosophy and basis whereby sectioning practices were determined in the school, (2) source of responsibility for decisions rela- tive to grouping practices in the school, and (5) size and organization of the school. Recognizing the subjecthh- ity of the data gathered in this semi-formal interview situation, it was believed the information yielded 86 valuable to the purposes of the investigation. Analy- sis of results of the interviews will be presented in Chapter Four. Data Gathering Procedure During the Spring of 1960 the investigator visited each of the schools selected for the sample. This visit occurred in an afternoon when all the faculty members were brought together for a professional faculty meeting. A portion of the time, usually 45 to 50 minutes, given over to the investigator was sufficient. In all cases faculties had been previ- ously informed of the investigators visit. In most cases the principal reported prior consent of the faculty to participate in the study. All respondents were assured by the investigator that participation was voluntary. A unit of materials, including the complete questionnaire, a MTAI inventory booklet, and standard answer sheet was distributed to each teacher. The following instructions were given: Instructions to Teachers Your school faculty has been selected as one of several groups of teachers throughout the state to participate in a comprehensive investigation relating to certain phases of the problem of group- ing for learning. Since you,the teachers, hold the key to the learning situation, it is only you who can supply the necessary information for this type investigation. We are most appreciative of your time and c00peration this afternoon. The project is an independent research effort, it is not sponsored by your school system and the results 87 cannot be used in any way to evaluate your effective- ness. You will of course, be informed of the results of the total study. Please note that the only identification on the materials is a matching pair of numbers on the MTAI answer sheet and the ques- tionnaire. Your responses are completely anonymous - please do not sign your name. Now if you will look at the materials you have been furnished — a standard answer sheet for the MTAI, a questionnaire, and a copy of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. (Check to make certain numbers on questionnaires and answer sheets agree). The first part of the questionnaire asks for background data. The second part asks for responses to several items relating to some of the factors in the problem of grouping. These seven items begin on page 2 and continue on page 5. Be sure to read the statement of instruction about mid-way of page 2. Please feel free to comment in the space provided if you would like to do so. (If any area needs clarification or additional information, please write it in). Instructions on the MTAI booklet were read to the teachers with emphasis on the importance of speed in the case of the MTAI, and completing every item on both instruments. _ When finished, please clip all three pieces of material together and return them to me. Are there any questions? You may begin. If you have any questions please raise your hands. The investigator's interview with the principals was completed either prior to or after the meeting with the teachers, Whichever was most convenient in his or her schedule. A large portion of an afternoon was given over to the visit in the school in each case. Proposals for Analysis It is proposed to test by analysis of variance technique for differences in teachers' commitment to ability grouping mean scores and MTAI mean scores for the following factors: 1. Schools represented in the sample 88 2. Counties represented in the sample 5. School size 4. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Scores 5. Age of teachers 6. Sex 7. Marital status 8. Size and type community in which reared 9. Socio-economic factors 10. Amount of college training 11. Major field of study at undergraduate level 12. Type institution in which matriculated at undergraduate level 15. Graduate studies - amount and major field of study 14. Current teaching assignment - subject area, grade level 15. Experience with grouping practices and pro- cedures 16. Type group with which the teacher prefers to work It is anticipated that analysis of these mean score differences will permit comparisons to determine patterns of relationship between the two variables, commitment to ability grouping and MTAI scores, as they may be related to the factors under consideration. In addition to the above, which will constitute the major analysis, it is further proposed to determine correlations of commitment scores with MTAI scores, and commitment scores with total scores derived from the sum of seven items on grouping. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Data presented in the chapter were gathered from two sources: interviews with principals; and questionnaires from teachers in the schools selected for study. In the first source, attention is focused on information relating to size of schools, organization of the school program, nature and source of grouping policy in the school, and the principals' stated he- liefs of their own notions about beet grouping practices as well as those notions they believe are held by their teachers. ' In the second source, attention is focused on data yielded by the teachers' responses to items in the questionnaire, Index of Commitment, and the MTAI. Statistical analyses of these data are presented. In- dex of commitment mean scores and MTAI mean scores are compared with respect to personal and professional background factors. Some tabulations of percentages of responses per sub-categories are presented. The Junior High Schools Represented in the Sample Size of the schools.--Table 1 summarizes en- rollment by schools. The number of pupils taught by 89 TMmEl ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOLS BY GRADES TOtal HoSo 7th 8th 9th Special County SChOOl Grade Grade Grade Ungraded Enrollment 1 94 71 65 . . . 278 A 2 9O 81 80 . . . 251 5 554 546 . . . . . 680 4 505 455 540 . . . 1280 B 5 514 297 266 16 895 6 412 570 266 . . . 1048 C 7 618 480 500 . . . 1598 8 512 465 421 17 1415 D 9 480 418 589 15 1500 10 520 445 559 14 1546 11 112 97 82 . . . 291 E 12 217 255 168 57 557 Total 12 4148 4878 2754 97 12857 91 the 440 teachers total 12,857. All but one of the schools contains all three junior high school grades seven, eight and nine. School 5 houses the seventh and eighth grades only. Five schools:reported one or more ungraded classes of retarded learners. In the re- maining six schools youngsters of this type were placed in sections bearing grade level designations. The size of faculty groups is tabulated by school and county in Table 2. For purposes of this study, the schools will be arbitrarily designated as small (less than 20 teachers), medium (20 to 40 teach- ers), or large (more than 40 teachers); schools 1, 2, and 11 are designated small; schools 5,4,5, and 12 are designated medium in size and schools 6,7,8,9, and 10 are designated large. Patterns of housing the several grades differed, as did the extent of the principal's jurisdiction. Al- though there is but one principal in each building, there are several instances in which his jurisdiction extends to grade levels other than seven, eight and nine. In schools 1,6, and 11 grades seven through twelve are housed together. In schools 2 and 5 grades seven and eight are housed with grades one through six. Grade nine in both these cases is housed with grades ten through twelve. In the case of school 2, the ninth grade teachers are included in the study. This is because the buildings are immediately adjacent to each r, o (0 TABLE 2 NUMBER OF TEACHERS COMPRISING THE SAHPLE BY SCHOOL AND COUNTY County School SChOOl County Total Total 1 15 A 2 15 56 5 28 4 40 B 5 40 128 5 48 C 7 54 54 8 49 D 9 54 155 10 60 ll 9 E 12 30 59 T0138]. 440 95 other and the principal in school 2 assumes some ad- ministrative responsibility for the ninth grade program and staff. In the case of school 10, grades seven through ten are housed as a single administrative unit. Program organization in the schools.--Table 5 summarizes the reported organization of the schools' programs. It is notable that the patterns are not necessarily consistent within a given county. Further, it is noteworthy that one county works dilligently to extensively develop the "core concept", whereas a second county terms its program of correlated English and social studies its core. In all cases where a block-time or core-type organization is indicated, English and social studies provide the basic content. Basically, four patterns of program orgalization were found in the schools as indicated in Table 5. In those schools where programs were organized on a separate subject basis, traditional departmental lines were retained. A second type organization identi- fied was that of a block-time,though separate subjects organization. In this pattern teachers who were quali- fied taught both English and social studies to the same group of pupils in a block of time. Subject area identity was retained. In the third pattern of organi- zation - core - the program tended toward an experience- centered program. Blocks of time were given to a program developed around personal and social problems. The 94 TABLE 5 ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL PROGRAMS Completely Block-Time Modified School Separate Separate Core Core & Subject Subject Separate (English & Subject SOC o StUdo Taught by same Teach.) 1 Grade 7-9 2 Grade Grade 9 7&8 5 Grade 7&8 4 Grade 7-9 5 Grade 7-9 6 Grade 7-9 7 Grade 7-9 8 Grade 7-9 9 Grade 7-9 10 Grade 7-9 11 Grade 7-9 12 Grade Grade 8-9 7 95 fourth pattern - modified core - was a block of time given to English and social studies (taught by the same teacher). A limited amount of time was given over to a correlation of the two areas. Subject matter lines were retained and readily distinguishable, however. Bases for sectioning pupils in the schools.-- Table 4 indicates that bases for sectioning in the schools of the sample rest on ability and academic achievement criteria. There is some evidence of frequent shifting from pattern to pattern as in schools 1 and 2. In the cases of schools 8,9, and 10, county policy has strongly recommended ability grouping for ten years. In all but three cases (schools 8,9, and 10) the grouping bases have been static for a period of six years or more. (Schools 8 and 9 have been more recently organized as separate junior high schookw. In all but two instances (schools 1 and 6) the number of years the particular sectioning program has been in effect corres- ponds to the period of time the school has been in operation or to the tenure of the principal. In the majority of the cases these coincide. There is limited evidence of movement from one plan to another as in the cases of schools 1 and 2. The general acceptance of ability grouping seems to indicate a belief that an administrative device will materially reduce instructional and human relations problems within the classroom. A summary of principals' .mgsoaw EooaoEon m:ooc®moacpom .mmdoam .Emamoam OHEopmom HwGOHpodapm once a Mo mchomgo IGH hog Apnea mdoocomoaopom 1 80090803 Aopmaw mom COHp noom popmaoHooom oeov .mm50am on» oHnHmmom moxmsuo>oHnom cam th HmGOHpodaumcH .aosmew one mH wcH IHHnmv meoocow how thocowOAo lgsoaw msoocoonom IoEon thOHApm mow adoosomoaopom H upom poccmHm m .mGOHpoom aoBOH one sH mEoHnoam oaaaaaoaao caaamao .maHoacm sHH pan .moHpHHHnm CH uwHoommo .pcoe thocomoEon oeomuo>oHnow HwnoGom new; maonowoa CH pmomgm .wGH Ho>oH 065nm .d.H Ixaos pom mH wQH pooh NV thosow AthHHnov Indoam maoocomosom nonopom poQCme mow mSOoCQwoaopom H mdoonomosom H popcoHch ocmH mHmwm poohmm smmmH I poGOHp SH caoam MH CH loom thaoaaao oowno omeno owawno pqcpndo on macaw one mHHmsm aom Commom Ho chapwz a mH noHam mHmmm Mo .02 noHna Go mHmam Hoonom qumHoszm Mm Dmemommm m< WMOHBOw .annv onwaw cco SH th0 mHo>oH moans A.d.Hv macocoonom e o o o 0 OZ 0 o o m AooaoaoHCOo aonowoe psoEo>oHno< ow< Hmpnosv unooComoEom n owcmno aom Cowmom copmoHoeH mammm poowem CH egocm QH CH owzwno owswno psoaaso op mamow mo.ohsuwz a mH honm mHmwm Mo .02 oomH nmmmH I poCOHu noom thnoaaao ohm mHHmsm noHng so mHmmm Hoonom woschcooaH BmoHnom mmmHo =HmHoomm: OHEopwoHw HmmHonHam n Amocmaw hamchEoHo SH meoocowoaopon hHGov HmaHocHam .d.H mo mHmmn no 02 ans paosooamw QH muoocoonon vaHm thdomm m .mQOHp Ioom 30H :H mEoH Inoam osHHQHome maome oxHHme maonomoe .socx p.nmooa thonomoEon oEom paw; IsoQSm mo Hm>oammm sea; I Hoeaoaaam H Amono pocv thoQoonon 080m :95 IGoHpoomv wchsoaw pdonm Hook Hoonom wagoaw Ho momhp 950% CH whonowop pGvoMHHc Scoop on» mo thaohmE op oxHH maonowop om onp xcan 50% 06 Bow l‘ mHHoa hHHmsvo wAmCHGOHpoomV wnH Indoaw odhp zpmonz «Hoonom 950% CH one #5095 wCHHooh hoHHom AmGHGOHuoomV :30 950% pH was; mchsoaw mopHoop on; Hoonom NOHHOW wszbomU UzHngwmm mMmzommmm .mqgmHoszm HH swam He mugs 101 GOHmson HomHquam IoQQEoo wchooa 50 oz 55H; onEooamo 5H woman I m5oo5omofiom HHopm 05o HomHonHam a mooclooQKo m5H IzaooH 5H npmop 50% noHpmo5v ocH>055 I mpmoaop m5oocom05opon m> m50 IQH HoHoomm hopHm UoNHmoSQEo I mQOH oz Ionomoaon 50 pocHaHQ I500 pm5EIoHnHKon ImHoop “Mono Hopoa o hochoan mgopm %50mH>po55m Ho m5505w o>Hm 50% m50o5omoaopoz oocopmHmmo 35H? who Isommoa pmooH wow oopme %HHoInooop ho mGOHmHoop a oxHHch aopooaw HomHocHam IHoommo .moanpxo 55H; mGOHmm5omH0 50 oz 55H; onEoonmo 5H 50% m50o5ow0§oz comma I HomHocHam m mnoHpoom mop noocHoan ozop op oaonooop pom m5oo5ow05opom mo o05opo5Hom mpGoEowsoaao moanpKo AmHmoQQEo oz an3 chonsoo oz 50% m5oo5om0§0m anav HomHocHam w tops I50Hpoomv m5H5505m wHHoa %HHo50o p5ono Hoom Hoonom m55opw Mo mom%p 550% CH maonooop pflohozth Scoop on» 90 %5H50noE 05 oxHH maonooop 0Q onp xcan 50% 00 30m «AwnHaoHpoomv mGH I5505w om%p zumonz «Hoonoo 550% CH onp psono quHoom %0HH05 chHQOHpoomv 530 550% mH pong m5H5505w mooHooc on; Hoonom 0o55H5500IHH Bm¢m v mqm¢e 102 mm5o5m .G.H 50 .d.H ann onB pmoz Ho5505555 mHmoQ 50 %pHHHno pcofioo5wo 5555m oz £553 pfloEoo5®o 5H I m5oo5owoeom £553 Ho550555m HH m05ooo5 5onooop 05o pnofi Io>oHnoo oHEooooo aaaap 5558555 .o.H ..d.H go 55555 5555555 oz I mcH55o5m %pHHHn¢ 50 m5oo5omosoz I %0HH05 %555oo 0H oUHm opHoommo oxop op 55o505Ho5 %H .G.H Inono55 I Ho5505555 50 mHmoQ 50 m5o %5HHHQo oz £553 pGoEoo5mo 5H Ioaowogon onHm I %oHH05 %555oo m .d.H 05 oomommo mo ooco§5055o5 oHeoo Iooo om5 op GonHooo mSOHpoom o05585055o5 o>55o5pchH88o 55o 505 new; pmos Ho5505555 oHSooooo 50 comon 5onoooev %5HHHno oz £553 onEoo5wo 5H I m5oo5om080m I %oHH05 %555oo m _ «AwQHGOHpoomV «HHoB %HHo5oo m555505w p5ono HooM «AMQHCOHpoomV mGH m5505m 50 mo5%p Hoonom 550% 55 m5o I5505w o5%p =5mob= «Hoonom 550% CH 55o5o5550 scoop 05.nooop on» 50 %pH50%oE onp pdono wnHHooh %0HH05 wGHGOHpoomv oxHH m5onooop onu on onp x5525 50% 00 30m 530 550% m5 pong m555505w mocHoop on; Hoonom Uo5555500IHH Bm154 125 46 Per cent of responses 9 14 36 29 11 115 F values were not significant were sex, marital status, size and type communities in which respondents were reared, and attained educational levels of respondents' parents. Mean scores achieved by respondents for the sub-categories in each of these factors are summarized in Figures 5 through 8. No-responses recorded for these factors were as follows: sex, two,N = 458; marital status, seven, N = 455; size of community in which reared, none, N = 440; type of community in which reared, eight, N = 432; father's attained educational level, 16, N = 424; and mother's attained educational level, 11, N 429. Findings Related to Teachers' Educational and Professional Background and Experience Pbur factors in this major area yielded sig- nificant F values for both index of commitment to ability grouping and MTAI scores. Two factors yielded sig- nificant F values for index of commitment to ability grouping only, and two yielded significant F values for MTAI scores only. The factors for which significant F values were obtained for mean score differences on both measures were amount of educational training as determined by the number of years of college work completed by the respondents, respondents' major field of study at the undergraduate level, the type institutions in which 114 FIGURE 3 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND “MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR SEX OF RESPONDENTS Index of Commi tment Mean Scores / MTAI Mean Scores 5*. 8 «R - H S {.1. 2% 3 S a: g . E; a Sex 5 '2 3 é a. NO 0 of ' respondents 212 226 Per cent of responses 48 52 1l5 FIGURE 4 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS Index of Commitment Mean Scores [fl MTAI Mean Scores j 13.28 - junk 11.35 Marital Status , \\\\\\i\\\\\\\l v .1. Handed No. of : respondents 315 118 Per cent of responses 75 27 116 FIGURE 5 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR SIZE OF COMMUNITIES IN WHICH RE- SPONDENTS WERE REARED Index of Commitment Mean Scores 13:1?“ ; 0 j; ':9 f: aé 3: ‘7: g 7" / Z ‘3 ¢ / :3 2 6 7 7* ¢ / / / 5 % ¢ 2 ¢ ¢ / / ' / / ; V % ¢ / / a ¢ ¢ ¢ 1/ 1’ 14 7/ _ ”Punt-1°“ Over 100,000 25,000 10,000 2500 °f “mun" to to to to 11122;: Which500,000 500,000 100,000 25,000 10,000 No. of respondents 80 32‘ 61 46 69 Per cent of responses 18 7 14 11 16 117 FIGURE 5-Continued (5. RI: 0. «x 0: H H ' a...“ 55 fi. 1‘7: m . Z3 / . A - less .Enmd than 25m: 63 84 15 19 118 FIGURE 6 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR TYPES OF COMMUNITIES IN WHICH RESPON- DENTS WERE REARED Index of Commitment Mean Scores @ MTAI lean Scores 13.117 ] 13.13 - _j 13.02 fif ‘Kx\\\\\\\\\\x‘\1 8 .11. Type ”m“ \\\\\\\\\\\i\\ N 1....- .Subm \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\J 11.hh Community '3 :2 No. of respondents 165 117 150 Per cent of responses 38 27 35 119 FIGURE 7 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR FATHERS' ATTAINED EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Index of Commitment Mean Scores MTAI Mean Scores 2. ‘13: 3"” riff-[‘2t ‘— a ‘95 ”g . U; 37, 2 / Z) / 2 a. 2 2 2 * 2 2 2 2 ‘2 ‘2 2 ‘2 2 / / ;/ 4% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ‘2 2 2 A 4 / ‘/ ‘/ Fathers ' 1-6 7-12 13-11; 15-16 17 + Educ a t 1 on years years years years years No. of - respondents 55 255 59 64 55 Per cent of responses 15 55 9 15 8 120 FIGURE 8 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR MOTHERS' ATTAINED EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Index of Commitment Mean Scores @ MTAI Mean Scores fi fi 13.10 &\\\\\‘\\\\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\ 1. .68 m\\\\\\\\\\&\\\\\\§ fins 12.7h I 12.71 ‘ ‘T:éQTQ§Q§:§Q§3:C§§:§E{t§:§:§:| 21.h3 J 3.18 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1?- .57 &X\ WI 4 3 1.1 ‘V’ AL- ‘ ‘ fl _ g g , - A y r 1 L 1-6‘( 7-12 13-1h 15-16 171- Mothers ' rs )/ years years years years Education No. of respondents 40 261 58 65 7 Per cent of responses 9 61 15 15 g 2 121 respondents matriculated, and respondents stated pref- erences for the type ability group or groups which they might teach. Amount of_college education.--Findings from item two on the questionnaire, highest year of college com- pleted are summarized in Figure 9. The number of respond- ents in sub-categories one, two, and three representing, one, two, and three years of college work respectively, were deemed too small to be considered in the analysis, as was the case with one added sub-category, eight, representing more than seven years of college work. One response each was recorded for sub-categories one, two, and eight; four responses for sub-category three; and eight no-responses, N = 425. The F value obtained for index of commitment mean score differences was 5.11 significant at the .01 level. Teachers with four, five, and seven years of college edu- cation were significantly greater committed to ability grouping than teachers with six years of college educatioi The F value obtained for MTAI mean score differ- ences was 10.70, highly significant at the .01 level. The L.S.D. test showed teachers with five years of college education to have significantly higher MTAI scores than teachers with four or seven years of college education. Teachers with six years of college education scored significantly higher than those teachers with four years of college education. There appears to be an inverse relationship between index of commitment l 2 2 FIGURE 9 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR YEARS OF COLLEGE EDUCATION COMPLETED BY RESPONDENTS 8 Index of Commitment Mean Scores '/ MTA'Mean % Scores / / 2 m :3 :3 _5_' Z r ] 13 .119 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 2h - 9s v— L ._‘ 2 ~° 53. /. 2 g; 2 2 2 2 2 / / / /. 2 3 ‘%t g) 4;; ' / / fi 1 ‘4 Years of / ' ' College 1 g 2 3 h 5 Completed ‘ No. of @ respondents l 4 291 95 Per cent of responses .5 .5 l 67 22 3125 FIGURE 9-C ontinued 2.3” mm: 5... 7V///////////// 6.55 5 J /M////,fl/ ./////////.///.///// . New 14 25 124 scores and MTAI scores in this dimension. Major field of study at the undergraduate level.-- In response to items four, six, and eight on the ques- tionnaire respondents indicated subjects, subject combinations, and areas of matriculation at both undergraduate and graduate levels as well as teaching assignments. The following twenty sub-categories evolved: 1. Business and business education 2. Educational administration 5. Elementary education 4. English ( including language arts and speech) 5. Fine arts (art and music) 6. Foreign language 7. Guidance 8. Junior high school education 9. Mathematics and mathematics education 10. Physical education 11. Science and science education 12. Social science 15. Special education 14. Vocational education including industrialamts 15. Library science 16. English and social science 17. Core 18. General education 19. Mathematics and science 20. Other Not all of this list evolved from responses to any one of the three aforementioned questionnaire items. As noted, this same listing of sub-categories is implemented in the analysis of responses to items four, six, and eight. All sub-categories are not necessarily represented in responses to each of the three items, however. The order of the listing of the sub-categories has no significance - it is the order 125 in which the sub-categories happened to be tabulated. For the factor, under consideration, (major field of study at the undergraduate level) no responses were recorded for sub-categories two (educational ad- ministration), seven (guidance), 15 (special education) and 17 (core). This would be eXpected. With the ex- ception of core, which is a teaching area only in Mary- land, work in the subject areas cited is generally reserved for graduate study. Two no-responses for the item were recorded. Responses in sub-categories 15 (library science) and 20 (other) were considered too small for meaningful inclusion in the analysis. Sub-category 15 was rep- resented by two responses and 20 by five responses, N = 451. Findings relative to reapondents' under- graduate major field are summarized in Figure 10. The F value obtained for index of commitment mean score differences was 1.74. In that the obtained F value so nearly approaches significmice at the .05 level, the L.S.D. test was performed. (Significant F, .05 level, 1.75). The L.S.D. test yielded the follow- ing results: combination English and social science majors were least committed to ability grouping, com- bination mathematics and science majors were most com- mitted to ability grouping. Respondents who reported undergraduate major areas of general education, mathe- matics, foreign language, social science, junior high 126 FIGURE 10 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR RESPOND- ENTS' MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL \\\23.2E . \\\\:X 2'35 Index of fiififi‘éfifil‘. Z 2' MTAI Mean / Scores ? .3 é {T} u. a if 2‘? 3 a :5 23 81/ / ‘ a g 2/ ¢ ‘ 2 2‘ / / /> 2 / 2 . fl f M . / A ./ / / / / /. 2 /. 2* § ‘/L 1 / / / /// C?% //4 g} I / / ' a? / / /. 2 2 2 ' U d d / .{L = /b . ' a L 3 E5" .2 f:Eesggngengs 11 12 57 44 7 ‘- rgsgzgse: 5 5 15 10 l 127 FIGURE lo-Continued ~m.m~ 5m.m5 _ Huaoom 5 . 5 ,. //////// /,///// V//V)/ :m.m5 —:1 . eeno5em 5.5 //// .83 2.5 , 58225. S. m- /.////_ mm.m5 nan: a. a (////J////////VA 3&5 r as ///////// //// CONS 9 530553055 4 00505om ////////////// ///////////////2 00. m5 088 :55: .ae 76 35 30 50 4'7 17 11 128 FIGURE 10-Cont1nued 8.3.. . @— 3.2, 5 1 9 / on ma .w and: 7 2 - :2. / / 9.3 fl H833 Mu. 3 .. .3. m 8:38 o H‘HOOM m. n w a .5 n 3 m... ma ammwwm 2 5 - banana . 129 school education, and English showed greater commitment to ability grouping than combination English and social science majors. English and combination mathematics and science majors showed greater commitment to ability grouping than combination English and social science, elementary education,and physical education majors.* The F value obtained for MTAI mean score differ- ences, 2.75 is significant atiflu3.Ol level. Application of the L.S.D. test revealed a variety of significant differences. Sub-categories tended to "group" them- selves. Combination mathematics and science majors scored lowest on MTAI, while junior high school edu- cation majors scored highest. Other significant differ- ences were found. Fine arts majors scored significantly higher than combination mathematics and science majors. Combination English and social science and foreign language majors scored significantly higher than com- bination mathematics and science, general education, and mathematics majors. Physical education majors scored significantly higher than the previously mentioned three sub-categories and fine arts majors. Social science, vocational education, and business and business *Note: Proper distinction of major areas is difficult for this sample. Since 1945 Maryland's teachers colleges hawe trained teachers for junior high school teaching. Stu- dents elect to concentrate in either English and social science or science and mathematics - the major is junior high school education. Those conclusions drawn from these data must be tentative. 130 education majors scored significantly higher than all the previously mentioned sub-categories (combination mathematics and science, general education, mathematics, fine arts, combination English and social science, foreign language, and physical education majors). Science majors scored significantly higher than the above mentioned group of seven sub-categories and social science majors. Respondents in the three remaining categories (English, elementary education, and junior high school education majors) scored significantly higher on MTAI than respondents in all other sub-cate- gories. No particular pattern of inverse relationship between index of commitment and MTAI scores appears pronounced with respect to major field of study at the undergraduate level. Type institution in which respondents matricu- lated at the undergraduate level.--A third factor in which significant differences were found for both index of commitment mean scores and MTAI mean scores were responses to item five on the questionnaire, the type institution in which undergraduate work was taken. Several respondents indicated a combination of types of institutions attended rather than four years attend- ance at either a teachers college, liberal arts college, or university. Findings relating to this factor are summarized in Figure ll. Three no-responses were re- corded, four responses recorded in sub-category five Bl FIGURE 11 .Hou .noaoa.4 a. g aév ///M///V////vvw//y/a mags , m~.~H - L - . a..ma9////¢/./////,/A/VV///////%//¢/flI. ”was? . mc.HHIHI .Hou .soaoa.o a3. 7///VM////V/Vi 7 guanuopaaamm n“ 8.2 V¢¢/V//V//%//A/ a“... .N.Qn Hifizfin 166 “ . II a : Egg/€39 a 3.. DENTS MATRICULATED AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL INSTITUTIONS IN IHICH RESPON- MEAN SCORES ON ITAI FDR TYPES OF KERN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND u“ nn.ma— uncaouou .l 4. i s s n t .m m .m m omuc e .M .38 M8 .3 f 14. ./ a 4i omw emmWVIr at was Am um mm ICH W8 TI N 30 58 29 Per cent of responses 132 FIGURE 1.1-0 out inued a. ma a 33 £3 . race .58." 133 and one each in sub-categories six, seven, and eight were considered too small to include in the analysis, N = 430. The F value obtained for index of commitment mean score differences was 3.49, significant at the .05 level. Application of the L.S.D. test showed those respondents who had attended a university, a liberal arts college, or a teachers college to be significantly more committed to ability grouping than those whose undergraduate work was divided between a teachers college and liberal arts college. The number of respondents in this sub-category however, is quite small in pro- portion to the numbers of respondents represented in the remaining three sub-categories analyzed. The F value obtained for MTAI mean score differ- ences was 5.79, significant at the .01 level. Applica- tion of the L.S.D. test showed the same group of teach- ers' scores to be significantly different from those of teachers in the other sub-categories. Teachers who had matriculated in both a teachers college and a liberal arts college obtained significantly higher MTAI scores than teachers who matriculated solely in either a teachers college, liberal arts college, or university. Grade level taught by respondents.-- Item seven on the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the junior high school grade level or combination of levels they were currently teaching. Findings for this factor 154 are summarized in Figure 12. Six no-responses were recorded for this factor, N 3 434. The F value obtained for mean score differences for this factor was 6.78, significant at the .01 level. Application of the L.S.D. test showed teachers who taught both eighth and ninth grades and those who taught grade seven to have significantly greater commit- ment to ability grouping than those teachers least committed to ability grouping,(those who taught all three levels, grades seven, eight and nineL (In many cases, those teachers who teach all three levels are special subject and special area teachers). Those teachers who taught both seventh and ninth grade classes showed significantly greater commitment to ability grouping than those teachers in all other sub-categories. This group is, however, a proportionately smaller group of respondents than is the case in other sub-categories. No significant differences for MTAI mean scores was found with respect to this factor. Teachers experience with grouping practices.-- Item ten in the questionnaire asked respondents to in- dicate past experience with grouping practices. One response in sub-category four, and four resoonses in sub-category five were recorded. These two sub-cate- gories were considered too small to yield meaningful results in the analysis. Two no-responses were re- corded, N = 453. 155 FIGURE 12 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND IEAN SCORES ON HTAI FOR GRADE LEV- ELS TAUGEI' BY RESPONDENTS Index of Commitment Mean Scores m 27.80 MTAI lean Z Scores 0/ 3? 1%: :1 2*. 7/ "" a :5 a a [—7. 53 '5; .._.. __ / 54 ‘5’: a / a 9; f 7 W . / 6 ¢ / a Z ‘/ / / J; g g é a .2 a a / 1 ¢ 6. a €232; 1' a 9 78.8 74.9 156 FTGURE lZ-Continugg a. a V/V%~////¢A om.~a _ , 3.3 “WA” A Aflflflflu/A 0W w HHW, «Sufi 7,8,&9 8&9 92 21 54 12 157 Findings with respect to this factor are summarized in Figure 15. The F value obtained'for mean score differences on index of commitment was 45.15, highly significant at the .01 level. Results of the L.S.D. test showed those respondents who had had experience with heterogeneous groups only, to be significantly least committed to ability grouping, and those who had had experience with homogeneous (ability) grouping only, to be significantly most committed to ability grouping. Those respondents who had had ex- perience with both types of grouping practices showed significantly greater commitment to ability grouping than those who had had experience with heterogeneous grouping only. No significant difference with respect to MTAI mean scores was found. Degree held by teachers.--Item three in the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the highest academic degree held. Findings for this factor are summarized in Figure 14. Three no-responses were re- corded for this factor. Two responses recorded for sub-category four, the doctors degree, were considered too few to include in the analysis, N = 455. No significant differences with respect to index of commitment mean scores were found. However, respondents indicating no-degree status showed the highest commitment to ability grouping, and those with 158 FIGURE 13 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF CONMITIENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR RESPON‘ DENTS ' EXPERIENCE WITH TYPES OF ABILITY GRWPS Index of n Commitment Mean Scores MTAI Mean E Scores g g F H . . / / U“ A Q / N H '1 / "0‘ . —- N :2 ; ‘H ‘4: V" / [—F :3 / »~- #2. ' é '.. ¢ 2 — 5 2 / 5! é ' ' 7H ; - 1; ¢ Q / / ;/ / 5! / / / xo / / ¢ / ./ / / 5 f / ¢ / ‘/ / é a 4 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ / / " é / ¢ 4 fl / 1; / é ¢ ' a l2 , Experience 1 3. ~ " a With 3 B 0 Groups 3 o g. 8 43 No. of g .3 gig =8: respondents 154 48 23f 1 4 Per cent of responses 35 11 53 .2 . .9 159 FTGURE 14 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR ACADEMIC DEGREES HEED BY RESPONDENTS Index of 22:13:33; 6 ”I 6 333%.?” a / ¢ :1 E". g¢ :3 7.: w *- ; w ‘ :/ a Z JV/l // z 3 a a 2g 6 ¢ / ‘/ g a / 1% ¢ é *a // 1 4/ ' I Degree g g E 3‘ 3 g No. of respondents 15 525 97 2 Per cent of responses ~5 74 22 -.4 140 the masters degree showed the lowest commitment to ability grouping. MTAI mean score differences were found to be highly significant at the .01 level, the F value ob- tained was 181.49. Results of the L.S.D. test showed significantly lowest MTAI scores for those respondents holding the bachelors degree, and significantly high- est MTAI scores for those respondents holding the masters degree. There appears to be some inverse re- lationship between index of commitment and MTAI mean scores with respect to this factor. Subject area taught by respondents.--Item eight in the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their current teaching areas. Findings on this factor are summarized in Figure 15. One response for sub-category two, administration,was recorded, but not included in the analysis, (one administrator indicated a desire to complete the instruments with the teachers in his school). Two no—responses were recorded for the item, N = 457. No significances were found in index of commit- ment mean score differences with respect to this factor. MTAI mean score differences were found to be significant. The F value obtained was 2.54, signifi- cant at the .01 level. Results of the L.S.D. test showed that mean scores obtained by special education, core, and English teachers were significantly higher 141 WWOMZxa0o0777ZxAAAAAooooaxxnoouxéoyyvzééoawx mm.m~ Eu: _ sonata 12 . N i a. 7//////////// ......N A T R4: F smasher." 6 w. m m a4- 2 w mm 3.9 F 3.: and M m mmm N... W////////.///F//////////////////// .NNN . M I Oafiuv mm. H mm 2 WWW .3 a?/////////////#//////¢////// mm“. 1 mm . m m m m n in .mm m. m m .m Dmm m @ um Mmm N.m m%m ms 3 T 11 .2 Per cent of responses 142 FIGURE 15-Cont1nued R5 .— o4.m TU/wnym/unyn/mnz N. .. 7///////////A4//////////////,fix... 2.22— .3 Hagan a. fi 7/////////////////.//’ . mm. ma _ aquoonm ‘ 0838 38m 2. .2 V//////////.//////////// . «QJH OSOHOm 2.. H: -.~H album Na. m." b». m... fiflOHfidoq—Ufl 5 H3033“; 5 17 30 12 11 145 FIGURE 15-Cont1nued S.“ .7//.//4//N// 35.8 .3. ma _ a 5:. w s... ///V/////.//,///////////M///////N//@. . .. 4h 0 H 20 9 w... 1. 7////////// . ma 3 8... mm. m." summing M O 1 s. N x///////////////////////////_ E... 3.2 _ 21 144 than those mean scores obtained by fine arts, physical education, and mathematics teachers. The mean score for guidance counselors was the highest of all sub- categories, and was significantly higher than mean scores obtained by vocational education, combination mathematics and science, and combination English and social science teachers in addition to those of fine arts, physical education, and mathematics teachers. Professional background and experience factors found not to be significant.--Two remaining factors in teachers' professional area for purposes of this study were analyzed and found not to yield significant F values. These factors were graduate study and years of experience. The graduate study factor was analyzed in two ways: first in terms of those respondents who had done some graduate study as opposed to those who had done no graduate study, and secondly, in terms of field of matriculation for those Who had completed some graduate study. Findings for this factor are summarized in Figures 16 and 17. The second remaining factor failing to yield a significant F value was years of experience of re- spondents. Findings for this factor are summarized in Figure 18. Differences Between Schools and School Systems Mean score differences with respect to the 145 FIGURE 16 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR SOME GRAD- UATE STUDY vs NO GRADUATE STUDY BY RESPONDENTS Index of Commitment Mean Scores 7) MTAI Mean Scores 13.26 i 13.11 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i 1133 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V1 “’51 Graduate Study Some 5 8 No. of respondents 272 168 Per cent of responses 62 38 146 FIGURE 17 MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR GRADUATE STUDY BY FIELDS PURSUED BY RESPONDENTS MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND 8.... V/Aflé .. 9 . 2. S a... gas/V245 ///A//.///,//7//////// 3. ma a 7////////////4/¢/////N/////V////// -- 1- m MW. mind own—5:3 3.2 8E 2 8 .3388 .l. 4. g. N a..¢/////////////////////////// i odmafl N g¢V/////////////V/w///V//// S—J Mean Scores VA MTAI Mean Scores Com-itmmnt “'1 Index of goon-v.3 .naflfid «u .9 Hififieflgfin.z .I. 4. 0005345 8 tf nos 6 e e dtfi tv. nnn aAu f.0.6nv uu oPcP dt 8 S aS .ere P orer G N P 147 FIGURE 17-Cont1nued // menowow v. deacon 2 mm. D” m3 / 8.2 7 pm. HI $.27 N... .//%/An///////////. nag duccwum‘no cogwonuw $225 12 fin: 14 mama 8536 9 8 V///////./W//////////////.///// / 3. a $ng awaohOh 10 11 148 FIGURE 17-Continued a... .7//////////////////.///////////V/é/P/ RAH— .. afi//////////%V/////////////. a 2_ 85HWAAAAALAAKA/// ./ 3.2 7 seamwwmWmaUAACAOAOOOOQJMVVVV/Afldooammmb 00.HH asanan%mooooovyzxnnnanox / 0H.NH HmWflflooooWJOOCCCOOWOOOVQVVVV/ZZ/ 2 H 0338 .sfiu: 538:3 H3055 wagon ENSS 8 383m Hugo fiaoe> :oapdoaon .33on '78 19 5 29 149 FIGURE 18 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR RESPON- DENTS' YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCES Index of Commitment Mean Scores HTAIVMean E Scores H 7i E: f? :5 :3 352;: J ‘ S m—I-d. g ‘7 7 ~ g / g / é M V p / ‘ é ; L4 ? z / é -~ / ¢ fl /' / ‘/ / ~92 r é a / “‘- / / ‘/’ ‘/ 7 / ~/ / / / / /. ./ :; ¢ ? é . ‘ ‘5‘ ‘/ 4 if f ./ ‘ f 6 é ¢ 6 4 . ./ fight!“ 1-2 3-1/ 5—6/ 7-9/ lo-lh No. of . respondents 103 55 58 73 74 Per cent of responses 24 13 13 17 17 150 FIGURE 18-Continued mo.m ¢////////.////.V A hooma a. a g////////////V//////// 15-19‘ o~.~a_ 20-+ 43 27 10 151 twelve schools represented by the sample and the five county systems failed to yield significant F values for either index of commitment or MTAI scores. Find— ings for these factors are summarized in Figures 19, 20, and 21. Mean score differences for the schools were analyzed first for the twelve schools and secondly, with respect to school size. Arbitrarily schools 1, 2, and 11 were considered small schools; schools 5,4, 5, and 12 medium sized schools; and schools 6,7,8,9, and 10 large schools. School populations, both pupil and faculty, were cited earlier in the chapter. Like- wise, mean score differences for the five county systems were analyzed. The inspection of Figure 19 shows that school 6 contributed the lowest index of commitment mean score, 11.15, and the highest MTAI mean score, 17.72; and that school 1 contributed the highest index of commitment mean score, 14.58, and the lowest MTAI mean score, 2.31. Similarily, in the case of the county systems, (Figure 21) county B contributed the lowest index of commitment mean score and the highest MTAI mean score. Again, it appears that there may be some inverse relationship be- tween these two measures operating in some instances. Teachers' Stated Preferences of Type Ability Group De- sirous of Teaching Teachers were asked to respond to item eleven on the questionnaire by checking the type group they 152 FIGURE 19 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MI'AI FOR SCHOOLS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE Index of Con-itment Me an Scores MTAI Mean Scores m ‘3‘ g: 3 al '3'" a E ? ._....F l/ *2 / 7‘, g A % ‘/ 1% ‘/ / l/ as w/ ‘/ / = 4/ 4% / 7W / / g / / l/ v o: / / 4/ +/’ a 4 z 2 _Z é ‘6 Q / SChOOl 1 2' 3 h 5 ‘Ho. of respondents 13 15 28 4O 40 Per cent of responses 3 3 6 9 9 ‘ [41! I'll All}: 155 FIGURE 19-Continued 2.62//A.A AAAA AAAA AA/% ma.:a~ a. a TW/é/V//////////////////6 whom." _. as ////V///J/////// 3.2 can a, 4 lflm/flm 4 He.ma, a. :7/fl/V///////////V/////%// . AAAAA 2.2— 10 60 54 49 54 48 14 12' 11 12 11 154 FIGURE 19-Continued SJ. 6 3.3 mm o H «Now ‘//////w//JA/V/ 155 FIGURE 20 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR SCHOOL SIZES REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE Index of Commitment Mean Scores /1/ MTAI Mean Scores :3 E3 8. a fl :3 L33 s5 2: :1 f 7" 1/ .1; g z 4 / é / f y/ 1% / / / / 19 a é 1/ / ‘/ a / é / - / */ z z a _ $2 ¢+ ‘ ‘% 3331001 Small Medium Large ‘ 2° (1.2.11) (315,12) (6.7.8.9.10) N0. of ' respondents 37 138 265 Per cent of responses 8 31 6O 156 FIGURE 21 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE Index of Commitment Mean Scores A MTAI Mean Scores ” 3‘3 23 5% a .: ’18. a l/ f 6 ¢ / n / a ‘/ u: f a fi {I / a ‘/ 8. / / -=' z 1% v 1; 7 / / 1/ /. 2 ~% ? é 6 v 1 ‘ ¢ 4 /, ~ 4 A B C D 3 County , No. of respondents 56 128 54 163 39 Per cent of responses 13 29 12 37 9 157 would prefer to teach if they had a choice, high ability, average ability, low ability, mixed ability, or no preference. Findings for this factor are summarized in Figure 22. Sub-categories eight through 15 (various combinations of types of groups preferred) accounted for only ten responses. These were considered too small to contribute meaningfully to the analysis and two no- responses were recorded, N = 428. As with all other factors, per cents of respondents represented in each sub-category are reported in the figures, it is deemed worthy of restating these findings for this factor. Forty-one per cent of the respondents indicated a pref- erence for teaching high ability groups, 52 per cent average ability groups, three per cent low ability groups, six per cent mixed ability or heterogeneous groups, nine per cent had no preference, five per cent indicated a preference for a combination of high and average ability in teaching groups, one per cent pre- ferred a combination of high and low, the remaining three per cent indicated preference for varying com- binations. In other words, 78 per cent of the teachers in this sample state a preference to teach youngsters with average or above average ability, and 15 per cent of the sample states either a preference for teaching heterogeneous groups or has no preference for the type ability group to teach. With respect to index of commitment mean score 158 FIGURE 22 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR RESPON-‘i DENTS ' PREFERRED TYPES OF ABILITY GROUPS FOR TEACHING 1% Index of % Commitment / Mea/n Scores 3: y j MTAI Mean 55’ ¢ (5. , Scores 0:? / 1; 51‘ 2i? 16' 1% ‘9 a V / 3s é 1a 9’4 - Q m/ i/ o .3 4/' / :1 / . / / 47/? f 3 / f v M / z 7/ / / / / / / / / / ¢ i/ / / / 1/ / ,/ é / a / é / z ~= a / a / é 1;, / 41 L M Q ‘, ”35:33:11. 3 g» ‘ .6. g ' a; ity group 2 5.". No. of E respondents 179 140 14 28 39 Per cent of responses 41 32 3 6 9 159 FIGURE 22-Continued I. .7////////// mn.aa s away/éé/é/r/ ////M//////./y///// NH S- . nn.H ‘ 4H F1 a? a. S //////////V/////////V///VJea at»: 160 FIGURE 22-C ont inued 2 _ ., NH amu/////////////////////////////////J m; confi— owdhobd 1 2 161 differences, the F value obtained was 16.12, highly significant at the .01 level. Application of the L.S.D. test yielded the following results. Teachers who preferred to teach mixed ability (heterogeneous) groups were significantly less committed to ability grouping than those represented in all other sub-cate- gories. Teachers who indicated a preference for teach- ing high ability groups, groups composed of pupils with high and average ability and high and low ability showed significantly greater commitment to ability grouping than those who indicated a preference for teaching mixed ability groups, average ability groups, or had no preference for the type group they would teach. (These findings appear to further substantiate the validity of the items comprising the index of commitment to ability grouping). With respect to MTAI mean score differences for this factor, the F value obtained was 2.55, sig- nificant at the .01 level. Application of the L.S.D. test indicated that respondents who preferred to teach mixed ability groups scored significantly higher on MTAI than those teachers who indicated a preference for teaching groups with average ability or high and low ability. Those who indicated a preference for teaching groups composed of pupils with high and average ability, had no preference, or preferred low ability groups had significantly higher MTAI scores than those who pre- 162 ferred to teach groups composed of pupils with high and low abilities. There appears to be some inverse relationship in this factor between index of commitment and MTAI mean scores. The sub-category of respondents obtain- ing the significantly lowest index of commitment scores also obtained the significantly highest MTAI scores. Reporting findings of a slightly different nature was deemed desirable for this factor, the preferences of teachers concerning groups and grouping. From the data collected it was possible to ascertain with respect to personal and professional background factors, the sources of those responses in each of the sub-categories. These findings are summarized in Table 5.* The selected factors for which responses within sub-categories were tabulated were as follows: school, county, age, sex, marital status, years of experience, size and type community in which reared, North-Hatt index, parents' attained educational level, amount of educational training, degree held, graduate study,experience with grouping, and type institution of undergraduate matriculation. “Note: Table 5 is a two-way table. It is designed to be read both horizontally and vertically. Three values for each sub-category of responses to preference for type groups are listed horizontally: N = number of responses for the sub-category, per cent "1" represents the per cent of responses within that sub-category of preference obtained from the total responses to sub-category of sources (listed vertically in the left-hand margin). Per cent "2" represents that per cent of total responses Response 11 12 signs. 1112 Average :1 81¢: a. M Preference has maximum! sumrmmcmmmmommm PMflfimmLHMMMMB $1 tnwsrannmsmnanmmnmmmInmmwudn 21 $1 School 165 HHN—fi—fi—‘i .d \O 0" I I ICDh-MU‘ICDQ Hmm I I IMMQ‘O INN IIIHN—SMIu—IH 5 sun H MH H wldlIlle HIHIIINHIH eaa'eeae'a (“on IMNFN am NN (“MN I Hr-I-SH I M mm n (000 «3:2me Hm 0N IAN M NM :HNJH‘O HHMO¢NNM4N MIMMFQn Ial O IJMU‘a‘O Ital r'I IHHNfiMIQ I nlhshsonhg n I IJMMNQINM IHHHH‘AIHM saaaaaaaa ~~°swanaza c~~naflnaaa aassseasas “aaa:~aaaa rNM—S‘AWFOQS a a 39 39 28 28 9 3 9 M; h 113 1.3 lho 11.0 5563 1.07 12 N 179 N 179 n H 1154 mm. «H o «a on nu Ad on." ha a 9 Saw” mu“ «mu mamam Mm“ 22m mama-Hammad A8 mm mm. -a- mlm a... .12.--- Sherman: 2. Rm 4. Sa H fl: n 331. am e - H a 3 and MR 5 «1. mm -.... Sun an... Swan. dmn 85: 283.32».- cum mm m m m an m m an M M mg m m a u a . u n n N am mm ma ow mm arm 2 a - - - a .- 366 fig; 8.1.. «Hm SBSIIFHWlmmoao Ho endow .mmu S e «w an 5 D and 2A a an an n RN a 9.. m as - 94 m on; m 22 R, R5 mm :33 man 2. N a S H a t. m S 8 S «m S 1. - «o n a a. an «S 8 an 92 INN-3. REP. .32! mm. NH 0 M. an 8. .3 and 2h - as S s a S a.- H om m n 2 a n om e .2 8 m «a a a t S R a .3: NS RN; 8am ommdfimow Spade-”nu .335 REM-Mus. . - new Inna: 3 o 8 mm 8 fl «2 «S a 2 QNH -u- flan 22m 4a” FNH 19231-22385 3 m - H :2 H S - m S o a an e a 2.... o 3 mama 98 8 omug mi 0on 8n; mmnm 233 Sneaks.” flung wwmmfiosufi 2: mm m a S mu. H 3 m m an a ma mm a - 2 n o R 5 R R om mm mmméu . a a wad: «ad: ad: Nude mud: «ad: «ad: «ad... .. econ eunuch awake» m: 0 exam: gunman e and“. eeuunmuoam can“: son 4 swam one 0359 1135 N.auHunoouN mamas . nmmuu HH N NN NN NN NH NNH NNH _z NN - - - oN N N N H N N H .NN NH N N N H HH NN NH HH. HN NH N NNH NN N N . oN N.. H NN N N NN N oH HN N N NN N N NN HN HN NN NN oN NH NNH NN N N oN N4 H NN N N NN N NH NN N N NN N N NN NN NN NN NN NN HHH HN - - - u u - NN oH N NH N N N N N NN N N NH NN NH NH NN NN NH NN - - - oN N H N N NH NH N HH N. N N N H N NN oH N NN NH H .mHHmmHmmnu NNNN. 5.25 “mm NH N NN NN NN NH NNH NNH a NNH NN N N NN H N oN N HH NN N NH NH N N NN N N NN NN oN NN NN NN HNNNN NHH N N. H NN N N NH N N NN N oH NN N N N N. H NN NN NN HN NN NN napnsnam NNH NN N N u - u NN N N NN N NH NN 0H NH 0N N N NN oN NN NN NN NN a: mmwmmmmmo NNH NH N NN NN NN NH NNH NNH z NN N H H NN N N NN NH N NN HH N N N N HN N N NH HN NN NH NN NN N NN N H H NH H H NH N N N . N N HH N N NH N N NH NN NN NH NN NN N NN . - . 0N N N N N N oH N N NN oH N NH N N NH oN HN NH NN oN N NN NH N N - - - N N H N N N NN NH N N N H NH NN NH N NN NH N HN NN N N - - - NH N N NH HH N HH N N N N H NH NN HN NH NN NN N NN NH m m - - u M m N MH NH M - M - M m M “H MN NH N mm mm N oN N n - - N N HH HN N N N oN NN H . . anmNaaeo oNHN N NN Hu 2 Nu HN 2 Nu Hu 2 Nu Hu .2 Nu Hu 2 NN Hu z Nu Hu 2 Nu Ha a encomenm you omuuopd. ooaeuowepm ueMN: sea ensured. nuHm nacho onha 02 N NNHN N NNHN a: 1£36 gage!“ an INNNu NH N NN NN NN NH NNH NNH a H - u - NH oo H - u - - - - - - u - - u - - - - - - N NH - - - - - - - - - N N H N NH N - n n N NN N N NN N N NN . u . NN N N N N H N N N . NH NH N - - - N NN N N NN N N NN NH N N NN N N NN N N NH N .N nNH N N HN N N NH NN NN. NN NN NN N HNN NN N OH NH N H NN N NH oN N NN HN N NH HN N oH oN NN NN NN HN NHH N N u - - - u - - - - u - n N NN H N N H H oN N u u - N H - - - - - u - - u N ooH H - - n u - - n - - - - n N H - - u u w n - - - u - - .- u - - u - - - - No ooH H w .uaem.nuanu INNNI NH N NN NN NN NH NNH NNH a N N NH H u n- u - - - - - - u - u - - - - u u N NN N N» NH NN N N H - n - NN NH N NH HH N HN N N HN N N NH oN NH HH ON NH NHuNH NN N N H NN N N NH N N NH N N N N H HN N N NH NN NN oH HN NH NHuNH HNN NN N N NN N N NN N oH NN N NN NN N NH 0N N N oN HN NN NN NN oHH NH-N 0N - o . NN N N N N H HH oH N N N N N N H N NN HH HH NN NH Inlmuwnlu somwaoanm uncapoa nmmmu HH N NN NN NN NH NNH HNH N NN - - . NH N H N N N OH NH N N N N N N H N NN N N NN ,NH NN_NH NN NN N N NH H H NH N N NH N N NH N N HN N N NH NN HN NH NN NN NHnNH NN . s n - u a N N H N N N N N H N N H HH NN NH HH NN NH NHuNH NNN NN N N oN H N 0N N HH HN 0H NN NN N NH NN N N HN NN NN NN «N NN NHnN . NN - , - - NH N H NH N N N N N HN HH N N N H NH NN HN HH NN NH qumuHunu . nomwausun muonvah 2 Nu Hu 2 Nu Hu 2 Nu Ha N Na Hu 2 Nu Hu a Na Ha a Na Hu a Nu Hu n endomuom non «manned eonnueuonm NQHH: seq oueuepd. NUHM nacho cane on a NNHN a NNHN ea 167 N --- --- --- NNNN NNHH --.. N.,NHH N.NHH§N .Hoo £0539 NNH NN N N NH N... H NH N N N 2 NH NN N N NN N N HN NN NN NN NN oN bHflopHaN NNH NH H N NN N N NN N NH N N NH NN N NH NN N N NN NN NN NN NN NN .NoHHoo . 3.: H833 HNH! NN N. N NH N. H NN N N N N N. NN N N NN N N NN oN NN .NN NN NN. 938° .NHNNNH :5! NH N «N mm mm 4N and. NNH z N - .. - .. u - N R N - u .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. - u H 3 N 5383.23 H -u- --- u--. ...... -u- u-.. NNSHH --u 92.5 Rm 3 n N mm N m no N NH .3 on Am cm o N: om n N 3 mm me am mm .3 .ouoaomddacm N M... 3m : N? I. NNN .3525. H H H N H . H N N o N .23 N N N N N 3 N N .NmmFII 39.3% bum NH N mm mm mm AN 9:“ NNH z NNH NNN N .. - .. NNN N NNN NH NNN HH NNN N NN NNNN NNHNNN 8oz NNN 3 N N 02 N N NN N NH NN NH NN HN N NH NN N N HN NN NN HN oN NHH 8am . .5 333.5 FBI NH N NN NN NN .NH NNH NNH N N u-.. NHNNH u..- ..-- ....- u..- --.. N.oNH:38N NN NN N N NN N N NH N N 8 N N NN N N u .. .. oN NN NN NN NN NN 888: man S N N mm o. N «N N Na «N N R .3 0 NH mm a ma 2. mm No." 2. ON NNH 20?:on NH --- .._-.. --- NoNN NNHN NNH NoNN NNNNS on N NNHN: NNHN NNHN. NNHN. NNHN. NNHN: NNHNNN NNHNN .3038 .3 83:4 02.8393 3 5 34.3.5 swam 90.8 cab. on a NNHN a NNHN on 168 OOHH I I I .3 Q..." a I)“ ..oo.n.n .850 - 32.853. a 3.2.43 .Hoo, gong N10 ms n .. 8a a: 53235 a 3.: H333 ragga a 48 I33 169 Teachers' Beliefs About Grouping Practices As previously stated in Chapter III, seven items about grouping practices and procedures were included in the questionnaire. Four of these items comprised the index of commitment to ability grouping on which much of the foregoing analysis was based. Items three, five, and six in this part of the question- naire (see Appendix II) have therefore not previously been accounted for. Responses to all seven of these items are summarized in Table 6; N = number of responses in each category for each item, "A" being the most positive for the sub-category of preference represented by the particular sub-category of source. For example: To read the table for County D - County is the factor of source of responses, "D" the sub-category of source of responses. N = 85 indicates that 85 out of a total of 165 respondents from County D stated a preference for teaching high ability groups. %1 a 51 indicates that this is 51 per cent of all the respondents from County D. %2 = 46 indicates that these respondents from this county contributed 46 per cent of the total 179 respondents in the sub-category of preference who indicated a preference for teaching high ability groups, and so forth across the table. It will be noted that total N's in the right-hand column do not always total 440 (the total number of teachers in the sample). This figure subtracted from 440 will indicate the number of respondents who failed to respond to that particular item. For example, total N for Age = 459, one respondent failed to indicate his or her age, therefore could not be included in the summary of the findings. The sub-category titled "No Response" indicates sources of non-responses or responses elimin- ated from the analysis as indicated on pp. 55-34. Investigation of teachers' preference for types of ability groups to teach is not a major part of this study. Due to the size of the sample, sub-categories for the several preferences represent relatively small numbers of respondents in many cases. The findings, as summarized in Table 5, are informative, but do not provide suffici- ently valid bases from which to draw conclusions and recommendations. 170 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF RbSPONSES TO ITEMS ABOUT GROUPING BY NUMBERS AND PER CENTS No Response A B C D Response N % N % N % N % N % Item I 295 67 110 25 24 5 7 2 4 .9 II 248 56 119 27 55 12 16 4 2 .5 III 87 20 250 52 81 18 42 IO . . . . IV 92 21 256 54 92 21 19 4 l .2 V 172 59 198 45 50 11 2O 5 . . . . VI 217 49 170 59 57 8 l6 4 . . . . VII 195 44 208 47 5O 7 5 l 2 .5 171 response to the item and "D" the least positive re- sponse. Observation of responses to all items indicate a highly positive belief in the merits of ability group- ing with respect to these items. In response to item three, 75 per cent of the sample indicated a highly positive attitude toward the importance of academic achievement as a result of pupils' school experience. In response to item five, 84 per cent of the respondents indicated belief in a high degree of re- lationship between ability grouping and the utilization and development of individual pupils' potential. In response to item six, 88 per cent of the respondents indicated the belief that ability grouping facilitated classroom management. A second approach to determining the relation- ship between responses to these items and those com- prising the index of commitment was undertaken. A total score was obtained on the basis of response to all seven items. A coefficient of correlation was then obtained to determine the degree of correlation of these total scores with the previously obtained index of commitment scores. The formula for using raw score data is: U - (X) (y) N W2 " (’92) Y2 - (1)2) N N 172 In this case r = .95. A significantly high degree of correlation was found, thus substantiating a high de- gree of relationship between teachers responses to these three items and their responses to the items comprising the index of commitment. It will be noted that in the instructions for responding to the seven items on grouping, the teachers were asked to make any comments if they so desired. Less than ten respondents availed themselves of this opportunity. In the majority of these cases, the comments tended to reinforce the positive or negative direction of the respondent's choice of answer. The paucity of these comments tends to negate any par- ticular value which might be derived from their in- clusion. Correlation of Commitment to Ability Grouping and Teacher-Pupil Rapport A basic assumption underlying the working hypothesis for this investigation was that there may be an inverse relationship between a teacher's commit— ment to ability grouping and his or her ability to es- tablish rapport with pupils. The measure of the rapport factor used was the MTAI. Throughout the previously cited findings there have appeared suggestions of inverse relationships of the above stated type. A single entry analysis of variance test such as used for previous analysis was 175 performed to test for significant MTAI mean score differences with respect to those groups of teachers who scored high and low on the Index of Commitment. The upper and lower quartiles of respondents provided the basis. These findings are summarized in Figure 25. Some inverse relationship between the two measures is observed, however, the differences do not produce a significant F value. A second approach to testing the relationship of these two variables is to obtain a . coefficient of correlation. The formula is as shown on page 171. In the case of an inverse relationship, a significant correlation would be a negative correla- tion between index of commitment and MTAI scores. r 3 -.OO65. While the obtained r is negative it is too small to be more than slightly significant. A second r was obtained. In this instance total scores (obtained from the seven items about grouping) and MTAI scores were correlated; r = -.OO94, leading to a conclusion similar to the previous finding. Summary The principle findings from the sample for this study tend to indicate a significant relationship between factors in teachers personal and professional backgrounds and their commitment to ability grouping as a means .for meeting individual differences in junior high school garades. Factors for which significant relationships to 174 FIGURE 25 MEAN SCORES ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT AND MEAN SCORES ON MTAI FOR HIGHEST AND LOWEST QUARTILES OF RE- SPONDENTS' ON INDEX OF COMMITMENT Index of Commitment Mean Scores I A MTAI Mean Sc or e s 3 "—'1 :53 o 2 H o H H 7- F: O\ 1, rt 1 16 H1618“; finest Qua 16 0-11 No. of respondents 72 95 Per cent of responses 16 21 175 index of commitment only were found were: age of teachers North-Hatt scale of occupational prestige, grade level taught by respondents, and past experience respondents had had with grouping practices. Results of obtained scores on the MTAI (the in- dex of a teachers' ability to establish rapport with learners) revealed two instances of relationship to teachers' personal and professional background factors for this measure only. These factors were: degree held by respondents and subject area in which respond- ents were currently teaching. For four of the factors; amount of college training of respondents, major field of undergraduate study, type institution in which respondents matricu- lated at the undergraduate level, and stated preference of type ability group to teach, significant relation- ships were found to exist for both the measures. There is limited evidence of an inverse relationship between the two indices, index of commitment and MTAI. The obtained coefficient of correlation (-.OO65) does not indicate a highly significant inverse relationship be- tween these two measures. Results of interviews with principals of the schools whose teachers comprise the sample indicated varying philosophies about grouping practices and pro- cedures, some variety in the organization of the school program, and varying sources of grouping policy. The 176 sources of grouping policy ranged from system-wide policy and entirely principals' decisionsto that of policy decision by the total school staff. In schools where principals appeared to assume sole responsibility for policy decisions, teachers tended to reflect lower mean MTAI scores and higher commitments to ability grouping than was found in those schools where more staff members were involved in group- ing policy making decisions. System-wise, Counties A, C, and E reflected lower MTAI scores than did Counties B and D. Counties A and E are the more rural counties in the sample. County C, while primarily suburban was represented by only one school. County B appeared to be most flexible in all its policy making practices - teachers' MTAI mean score was higher than those MTAI mean scores recorded for teachers in other counties. Conversely, these teachers' index of commitment to ability grouping mean score was lower than those index of commitment mean scores for all other counties. Table 5 illustrates that by far, the largest proportion of teachers in the sample indicated a pref- erence for teaching classes of pupils with average or above abilities. There appear to be some observable patterns of preferences for type ability groups teachers wish to teach and factors in the teachers' personal and professional backgrounds. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIENDATIONS Within the limitations of the sample represent- ed in the findings in this study, it can be concluded that: 1) there are some characteristic differences among junior high school teachers with respect to their degree of commitment to ability grouping as a means of providing for individual differences, and 2) these differences appear to be related to factors in their personal and professional backgrounds. Commitment to Ability Grouping and Teacher-Pupil Rapport On the basis of the findings in this study, there is no conclusive evidence of a high degree of relationship between junior high school teachers' commitment to ability grouping as a means of section- ing pupils into class groups and their ability to es- % tablish rapport with children as measured by the MTAI. *Note: Obtained MTAI mean scores for this sample tended to fall just below the 50th percentile rank for ex- perienced teacher norm groups. The Manual for the MTAI lists norms for academic and non-academic secondary teachers with four and five years of training. Collec- tively, academic and non-academic teachers in the sample tended to fall around the 40th percentile for both these groups of secondary teachers. No norms are pre- sented for junior high school teachers. 177 178 In several instances, the findings suggest the possibility of a negative relationship. Yet, the obtained coefficient of correlation for the two meas- ures -.OO65, while slightly negative, is too small to be considered significant. It appears reasonable to conclude, with re- spect to the relationship of these two factors, that there may be other variables in a teacher's personal and professional background which operate to effect both the above indices. The effects of these vari- ables, may in some instances, produce a negative re- lationship. Commitment to Ability Grouping As Related to Other Variables Significant results were found for relation- .ships between teachers' commitment to ability group- ing and the following factors in their backgrounds: age, father's occupation at time of college entrance, number of years of college education, major field of study at the undergraduate level, type institution in which matriculated at the undergraduate level, grade level teaching, experience with grouping practices, and stated preferences for type ability groups to teach. It may be that a teacher's commitment to ability group- ing is an attitude in itself, a product of the several above cited factors; or a product of attitudes formed from.experiences within these several factors. 179 Personal Background Factors Agg.--Junior high school teachers in the age category thirty-one to forty tend to be least committed to ability grouping as a means of meeting individual differences than do junior high school teachers in other age categories. Within the limitations of the sample, it appears that junior high school teachers are least committed to ability grouping during the period of time in their professional life that they are likely to be professionally well established. An implication may be that this period of time, from thirty to forty, represents the period of greatest mobility to profession- al responsibilities other and "higher" than classroom teaching at the junior high school level. The basis for such a conclusion is in part because of the greater proportion of younger teachers found in the sample. Therefore, some professional qualities resulting in a more tentative attitude toward the results of an ad- ministrative device such as ability grouping may play a part in selection for professional mobility. North-Hatt Scale of Occupational Prestige.-- Results of inquiry into the socio-economic backgrounds of respondents comprising the sample lead to the con- clusion, within the limitationsof the study,that teach- ers Who come from the extremes, high and low socio- economic backgrounds as indicated by the North-Hatt scale, are likely to be less committed to ability 180 grouping than those who come from middle class homes. It appears that those teachers whose fathers were un- skilled workers express greater reaction against ability grouping as a means of meeting individual differences. Other socio-economic background factors, size and type community in which reared, and parents' attained educational level, investigated in this study appear not to be related to junior high school teach- ers' commitment to ability grouping. Professional Background Factors Number of years of college education.--There appears to be a pronounced relationship between the amount of college education completed by junior high school teachers and commitment to ability grouping. Those teachers who had completed six years of college study, the equivalent of one year beyond the masters degree, were statistically significantly less committed to ability grouping than groups of teachers representing all other categories. In that there is no significant difference between teachers who have completed either four or five years of college, study beyond the equivi- alent of the masters degree may contribute to an attitude of questioning the efficacy of administrative arrangements such as ability grouping. On the basis of MTAI scores, teachers who hold the masters degree indicate a better ability to create 181 teacher-pupil rapport in the classroom than other groups of teachers in the sample. Since this group would in— clude the largest majority of the previously mentioned group (six years of completed college work), it seems feasible to conclude that there may be a substantial relationship between higher education and attitudes to- ward pupils and administrative practices. It is suggest- ed that teachers who have a high degree of concern for pupils tend to examine administrative policies in light of ultimate results on classroom climate. An alterna- tive conclusion may be that teachers who have completed the masters degree or its equivalent are better teachers (on the basis of MTAI scores) than teachers with less education, regardless of administrative arrangements within which they work. Major field of study at the undergraduate level.-— The findings in the study have indicated that there is probably a relationship between junior high school teachers' major fields of study at the undergraduate level and their commitment to ability grouping. Those who majored in the more technical subject areas, fine arts, science, mathematics, foreign languages, English and social science, were more highly committed to ability grouping than those who majored in such areas as a combination of English and social science, ele- mentary education, and physical education. Conversely, those groups of teachers who were 182 leastcxmmntted to ability grouping obtained significantly higun‘MTAI mean scores, and those most committed to mfijity grouping obtained significantly lower MTAI mean scores. It appears that those teachers who have a strong allegiance to their chosen field of study believe that an administrative device such as ability grouping might enhance their teaching effectiveness. Type institution of undergraduate matriculation.-- Statistically, those junior high school teachers who matriculated in both a liberal arts college and a teach- ers college at the undergraduate level, were signifi- cantly less committed to ability grouping. This group also was more concerned about pupils, as indicated by MTAI scores, than other groups of teachers. Since this group of teachers is prOportionately small, it seems reasonable to conclude that there may be other factors operating to produce the observed differences. There is, therefore, probably little re- lationship between the type institution in which the teachers pursued undergraduate studies and commitment to ability grouping. Grade level.--Junior high school teachers who taugfirt all three grade levels,(seven, eight, and nine,) werwa:found to be significantly less committed to ability gunmrping than teachers who taught single grade levels, CH‘tJther combinations. However, these teachers would Amostzllikely be those who taught special subjects such as l85 art, music, vocational subjects, etc., to all three grade levels. This conclusion is somewhat substantiated by the findings with respect to subject area taught. While no statistical differences between index of commitment mean scores were found for this latter variable, teach- ers of vocational subjects, physical education, fine arts, special education, and guidance counselors were among those groups of teachers for whom low index of commitment scores were obtained. Within the limits of this sample, teachers who teach "special subject areas" to all three grade levels in the junior hig school tend to be less committed to ability grouping than teachers responsible for teaching one of the more "academic" subjects to one grade level only. Experience with grouping.--There is a high degree of relationship between teachers' experience with types of ability groups and their commitment to ability grouping for this sample. For the teachers in this sample it can be concluded that: teachers who have had experience with heterogeneous grouping only are least committed to ability grouping, while teachers who have had experience with homogeneous (ability) grouping only are moat committed to ability grouping. Those teachers who have had experience with both types of grouping practices fall in the middle, reflecting a significantly higher commitment to ability grouping than those teachers whose experience has been limited 184 to heterogeneous groups, and a significantly lower commitment to ability grouping than teachers who have had experience with homogeneous (ability groups) only. There appears to be a clear relationship between teach- ers experience with grouping practices and their degree of commitment to ability grouping. Teachers' Preferences for Type Ability Groups to Teach The findings tend to indicate rather conclusive- ly that there is a relationship between junior high school teachers preferences for types of ability groups to teach and degree of commitment to ability grouping. As it would be expected to follow, teachers who prefer groups with mixed abilities (heterogeneous) are least committed to ability grouping. Teachers who prefer to teach low ability groups are most committed to ability grouping, followed by those who prefer to teach high ability groups and average ability groups. (Higher index of commitment mean scores were reported for other sub-categories, but represent small, scattered numbers of respondents) On the basis of MTAI scores obtained, it is concluded that there is a relationship between teach- ers'preferences for types of ability groups to teach and their ability to establish a classroom climate conducive to maximum teacher-pupil rapport. On the basis of the MTAI, teachers who prefer heterogeneous 185 groups, low ability groups or have no preference are likely to establish a higher degree of teacher-pupil rapport than teachers who prefer to teach average ability groups, followed by those Who prefer to teach high ability groups. Factors Not Related to Commitment to Ability Grouping On the basis of the data presented in this study, statistically significant relationships were not found for the following factors in teachers' personal and professional backgrounds: 1. Sex 2. Marital status 5. Size and type communities in which reared 4. Parents' attained educational level 5. Academic degree held 6. Completion of some graduate study vs.no study beyond the bachelors degree 7. Major field of study at the graduate level for teachers who had completed some graduate work 8. Years of teaching experience Since index of commitment mean score differences were not found significant for the above eight factors, it is concluded, within the limitations of this study, that there is no substantial relationship between these factors and junior high school teachers' commitment to ability grouping. Teachers Described in Relation to Degree of Commitment to Ability Grouping Teachers within the sample for this study found to tuaxnost highly committed to ability grouping may be 186 characterized as follows: 1. Fall within the age range 41 to 50 2. Reflect upper middle-class socio-economic backgrounds (second quintile on North-Hatt scale) 5. Have completed five years of college education 4. Majored in both mathematics and science at the undergraduate level 5. Matriculated in a teachers college at the undergraduate level 6. Teach either seventh or both seventh and ninth grades 7. Have had experience teaching only homo- geneous (ability) groups 8. Prefer to teach low ability groups Teachers found to be least committed to ability grouping may be characterized as follows: 1. Fall within the age range 51 to 40 2. Reflect lower class socio-economic back- grounds (fifth quintile on North-Hatt scale) 5. Have completed six years of college education 4. Majored in both English and social science at the undergraduate level 5. Matriculated in both a liberal arts college and a teachers college at the undergraduate level 6. Teach all three junior high school grade levels (seventh, eighth, and ninth grades) 7. Have had experience teaching only hetero- geneous groups 8. Prefer to teach heterogeneous groups Relationships of Factors to Schools and Systems No significant differences among either index of commitment mean scores and MTAI mean scores were found to exist for the schools or counties from which the sample was drawn. However, limited possible patterns of relationships are apparent. Those schools for which lower index of commitment mean scores were found tended to supply the higher MTAI mean scores. The sharpness M +3 l_Tl' r" 187 cfl‘contrast was not found to be true of the counties. It seems reasonable to conclude that there is a relationship between the degree to which a school staff is involved in policy making decisions on such issues as ability grouping and degree of commitment to ability grouping and MTAI scores. The greater the involvement of the staff, the lower the commitment to ability grouping and the higher the MTAI scores. Several find- ings tend to support this conclusion. The case of County B.--County B was deemed to have the more flexible policy-making arrangements at both the county and local school levels of the counties represented by the sample. Schools 5 and 6 refected substantially more staff involvement in policy making than school 4. These two schools contributed the low- est index of commitment mean scores and the highest MTAI mean scores of schools represented by the sample. These two schools also contributed the largest per cents of teachers who preferred to teach either heterogeneous groups or had no preference for those sub-categories. Policy making in school 4, on the other hand, was de- cidedly'the province of the principal. Though a part of the same county system, and about the same size as tflua other two schools in the county, it showed a higher deguwxa of commitment to ability grouping and markedly IloweI'IWTAI mean scores. Seventy-seven per cent of the teaufliers in.this school indicated a preference for 188 teaching high and average ability groups as opposed to 62 per cent of the respondents from school 6. Schools 5 and 6 also reported more grouping of the heterogeneous type than other schools represented in the sample. The case of County A.--County A leaves policy making on issues such as ability grouping primarily to the principals. In schools 1 and 5 the principal appear- ed to retain this responsibility for himself. In school 2 the principal tended to place the responsibility on his faculty. Index of commitment mean scores were higher and MTAI mean scores substantially lower in schools 1 and 5 than they were in school 2. School 12 in County E tended to refect results similar to that of schools 1 and 5 in County A. Corroboration of Earlier Findings Several conclusions made on the basis of the data presented in this study tend to corroborate certain earlier findings and suggestions about grouping prac- tices and teacher-pupil rapport which have been cited in Chapter II. Among these findings in this study, it is re-affirmed that teachers tend to prefer homogeneous (ability) grouping. Eighty-five per cent of the re- spondents in this sample indicated a preference for some kind of ability grouping. It is further concluded that the large majority of this group believe it more l89 desirable to teach high and average ability groups. Forty-one per cent of the sample indicated a preference for teaching high ability groups, and 52 per cent a preference for teaching average ability groups. In other words, the remaining 12 per cent of the respond- ents in this sample indicating a preference for ability grouping preferred either low ability groups or some combination of types of abilities in teaching groups. This suggests that teachers who are highly committed to ability grouping may be so because they, the teach- ers, believe it more desirable to teach high ability groups. The efficacy of ability groupipg.-—As reported by Billett, 19291, Martin concluded that ability grouping benefited slow pupils most, and average pupils least. Billett, 19292, suggested that the teacher was a more potent influence on pupils' learning than the factor of grouping. The findings in the current study suggest that Martin's and Billett's conclusions may be so, if teachers have some choice in the groups they teach. Teachers who stated a preference for teaching low ability groups, it will be recalled, possessed a higher MTAI mean score, and those who indicated a preference for 1Roy Oren Billett, "The Administration of Homo- geneous Grouping." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1929). 2Ibid. l9O teaching average ability groups, a substantially lower MTAI mean score. The obtained MTAI mean score for'those teachers indicating a preference for teaching high ability groups fell about midway between those mean scores for the other two groups. Keliher, 19511, Cornell, 19562, flonroe, 19503, and Goodlad, 19604, have each contended that the im- portant factor to be considered is the phiIOSOphy be- hind the grouping, the attitudes and methods of the teacher, not the fact of the grouping itself which de- termines the effectiveness with which individual differ- ences are met in classroom situations.A Keliher further indicated that unless carefully directed, ability group- ing may tend to dull the teacher's alertness to individu- al differences. Findings in this investigation tend in part to corroborate the above contentions if the MTAI is a valid indicator of quality of teaching. Ryans, lAlice Keliher, A Critical Study of Homogeneous Grouping. (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951). 2Ethel L. Cornell, "Effects of Ability Grouping Determinable From Published Studies," Part I The Group- ing of Pupils, National Society for the Study of Edu- cation, Thirty-fifth Yearbook, (Bloomington, Ill: Public School Publishing Co., 1956). 5Henry J. Otto, editor. Encyclopedia of Edu- cational Research, Revised edition. (New York: Macmillan Company, 1950). 4John Goodlad, "Ability Grouping," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, edited by Chester N. fiarris, 5rd edition. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960). 191 1, found teachers judged most effective by their 1960 principals to possess most favorable attitudes toward pupils. The suggestion is, that those persons who are more rigid may tend to favor ability grouping, and in turn reflect less favorable attitudes toward pupils. Findings with respect to differences in policy making atmospheres in the schools in the current sanple, tend to suggest that an experimental attitude on the part of the faculty may, in part, eXplain Severson's 19562 findings in favor of ability grouping as a means of meeting individual differences. At this point, a question may be posed on the basis of Oliver's findings. In his study, Oliver5 concluded that there was evidence of little relationship between teachers' professed edu- cational beliefs and their classroom practices. There- fore, do teachers tend to respond to questions about such issues as ability grouping as they really feel, or as they believe their principal or other school officials eXpect them to respond? Oliver's coefficient of correlation of .51 was not particularly high. How- 1David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers. (Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, I960). 201e Burnett Severson, Jr., "A Study of Academic Achievement and Personal-Social Development of Junior High School Pupils as Affected by Ability Grouping," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1956). 5W. A. Oliver, "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices," Journal of Educa- tional Research, XXXXVII (September,Il955). 192 ever, if his findings should be so, it raises a serious question about the validity of data gathered from teach- ers' responses to items such as those utilized in this study. Oliver's findings do not present a strong enough case to disqualify the technique. They merely suggest a limitation of which to be cognizant when conducting this type of investigation. The conclusion that teachers tend to prefer the type group they have had experience teaching corrobor- ates earlier findings by Justman and Wrightstone in 1956.1 These researchers found teachers who had had experience with intellectually gifted classes exhibited more favorable attitudes toward such classes. In the current study, teachers who had had experience with homogeneous groups tended to prefer that type group, as did those teachers who had had experience with heterogeneous groups. In light of the statements by Trow and otherse, and Jenkinss, among others, that interpersonal per- lJoseph Justman and J. Wayne Wrightstone, "The Expressed Attitudes of Teachers Toward Special Classes for Intellectually Gifted Children," Educational Admin- istration and Supervision, XXXXII (March, 1956). 2William C. Trow, Alvin E. Zander, William C. Morse, and David H. Jenkins, "Psychology of Group Be- havior: The Class as a Group," The Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, XXXXI (October, 1950). 5David H. Jenkins and Ronald Lippitt, Inter- personal Perceptions of Teachers, Students, and Parents. (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1951). 195 ceptions and group phenomena effect progress of learn- ing and kind of learning, the current findings tend to suggest that: the more flexible the policy making situation and the greater the involvement of the faculty; the less rigid the teacher in his attitudes toward pupils, and most likely, the more tentative his acceptance of any administrative devices per se. Findings that the amount of teaching experience did not appear to be associated with teachers' commit- ment to ability grouping, or this factor plus age with MTAI scores tends to corroborate Ryansl findings that these two factors were not highly associated with teachers' attitudes. Another comparison with Ryans' findings seems appropriate. He found secondary school science and mathematics teachers appearing to hold most traditional VieWpoints and English and social studies teachers most permissive in their viewpoints. In the present study, those teachers Who had majored in a combination of mathematics and science were most committed to ability grouping, and those who had majored in a com- bination of English and social science were least commit- ted to ability grouping. Recommendations On the basis of the findings in the study, recommendations for further study and administrative lRyans, 0p. cit. action may be formulated. Recommendationsfpr Further Research 1. This study should be replicated: a. in other geographic areas where somewhat differ- ent philosophies might prevail. b. with elementary and high school teachers, as well as other junior high school teachers to determine any differences that might exist among the three groups with respect to commit- ment to ability grouping. 2. Utilizing those characteristics of teachers highly committed to ability grouping and of teachers least committed to ability grouping as established by this study, experimental studies should be carried out to ascertain to what degree total educational results may be the result of the teacher. Such areas of in- vestigation about the pupils should include: a. academic achievement b. social growth and development 0. development of creativity d. deveIOpment of self concept e. measures of frustration levels 5. In light of the findings related to teacher back- ground factors such as the North-Hatt index, age, amount of college training, and preferences for type ability groups to teach, investigation should be undertaken to 195 determine if there may be a relationship between teachers' personality types and attitudes toward group- ing procedures. 4. Further study should be done to test for correlation between commitment to ability grouping and teachers' background and knowledge in the field of group dynamics. 5. On the basis of findings from the MTAI scores in this investigation and the apparent relationship of this index to school policy making procedures, further study should be engaged in to determine if teachers who strongly favor heterogeneous grouping are relatively secure in professional competence, relatively Open to change, and relatively able to support their own sense of security in change. 6. Teachers' commitment to ability grouping should be re-researched with attention to a possible relationship to some acceptable ratings of teacher effectiveness. 7. Further study should be done to determine whether the way in which teachers' respond to their major fields of college study, and the teaching area for which they are responsible in any way reflects a professional identity the teacher desires for himself. Do teachers who majored in junior high school education, for example, and who state their major field of study as science, wish to be identified as"scientists" rather than junior high school teachers? 8. Additional study should be conducted on teachers' 196 preferences for types of ability groups to teach. More definative research is needed to provide reliable bases for administrative flexibility to compensate for teach- ers peculiar competences and desires. Implications for Administrative Practices Administrators need to be cognizant of teacher attitudes toward pupils and group ng practices when making placement decisions. If it is desirable that teachers be flexible and Open to change, it would then seem wise for teachers to be put into positions in which they might experiment and draw their own conclu- sions about such devices as ability grouping. Lack of Opportunity for, and encouragement of experimentation on the part of teachers may contribute to an attitude Of acceptance of administrative devices per se as panaceas for their (the teachers') instruction- al problems; hence, contributing to maintaining more rigid "teacher personalities" less open to, and less able to cope with change. Junior high school administrators should be continually conscious that administrative devices to aid instructional programs in and of themselves do not pro- duce desired results. The teacher is probably the key to the quality of the climate for learning in the class- room. The question is likely not one of "shall we group" or "how may we group". The problem is how are teachers 197 likely to interpret the fact of a particular grouping pattern in terms of their own behavior with children. This study seems to emphasize that it is no longer appropriate to isolate individual factors of the teaching-learning situation in research such as this. Rather, the teaching-learning situation may be a matter of a complex system, or complex of systems which must be examined as a uncle. Summary It has been determined and concluded that it is possible to ascertain teachers' degree of commit- ment to ability grouping. The null hypothesis for the study: There are no significant differences be- tween those teachers highly comhitted to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils, and teachers less committed to homogeneous (ability) grouping as a basis for sectioning pupils as measured by an index of commitment to ability grouping, is re- jected. Significant differences were found to exist between these two groups of teachers. Among earlier conclusions which this investi- gation tends to corroborate are: 1) most teachers state a preference for ability grouping; 2) teachers tend to indicate a preference for those administrative arrange- ments they know best; and 5) there probably is not any "right type" group for all teachers to teach. A major 198 concern which should be registered before embarking on any program of grouping pupils at the junior high school level, or any other level, should be - how to assure the best possible teaching-learning climate, and therefore the best possible instruction for all boys and girls. It would seem logical to conclude, on the basis of this study, that attention to concerns such as the above must involve not only administrative arrangements for instruction, but also teachers' attitudes toward groups and grouping, knowledge and ability to use knowledge about group dynamics and interpersonal perceptions, and attitudes toward pupils as individuals. APPENDIX APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Please complete all the following personal data items. A. B. C. Please circle the appropriate age bracket. 21-50 51-40 41-50 over 50 Sex (please check) Male Female Marital status (please check) Married Single Please indicate the number of years teaching experience. Please check the size community in which you were reared. Over 500,000 DO you consider this 100,000 - 500,000 Urban 25,000 - 100,000 Suburban 10,000 - 25,000 Rural 2,500 - 10,000 Less than 2,500 Rural Please indicate in the space provided your father's occupation at the time you entered college. (If deceased at that time, please indicate what his occupation would have been if living.) 200 201 g;. Please indicate the highest school level com- pleted by your parents. Father Mother 2. Please circle the highest year of college completed. 11254567 3. Please circle highest degree held. none Bachelors Masters Doctors 4.. Plxaase indicate your undergraduate major field. 5. lflease circle the type institution in which you did 'your undergraduate work. Teachers College Liberal Arts College University 6. If you have done graduate work, please indicate your major field. 7. Please circle the grade level or levels you teach. 78g 8. Please indicate in the following spaces the subject or subjects you teach. 9.Iflease check (J) the basis on which pupils are sectioned in your school. Homogeneous (ability) Heterogeneous Other (please specify) 10.]flease check (J) the type class section or sections ymlhave had eXperience teaching. Homogeneous (ability) Heterogeneous Other (please specify) ,_.~ “’W' [EA I]? r.. illn .ill' 202 ll.Please check (J) the type group you would prefer to teach if you had a choice. High ability Average ability Low ability Mixed ability No preference APPENDIX II Please complete the following items by checking (l) the response to each item which most nearly describes our personal feeling. These items apply to sectioning pupils into class-size groups within a given grade level. YOur candid responses and cooperation are appreciated. Please do not sign your name. Note: Space is provided if you care to make any comments. Cpmments 1. For most efficient learning to occur, pupils of like ability should be placed together almost always more than half the time about half the time or less seldom or rarely 2. Homogeneous (ability) grouping helps the teacher meet individual pupils' needs much easier easier possibly easier with little or no difference in ease 5. Academic achievement as an outcome of school experience is most important is important is no more important than some other kinds of learning may be less important than some other kinds of learning 205 4. 204 Pupils' learning in a homogeneous (ability) group, as compared with that of pupils in a heterogeneous group, will be very much more much more some mor 6 little or no more In homogeneous (ability) groups individual abilities can be utilized and developed much more adequately more adequately possibly better about the same or less 6. Homogeneous (ability) grouping facilitates classroom management to a great degree to some degree possibly to some degree little or none at all 7. Homogeneous (ability) grouping is a good school practice strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree APPENDIX III STATEMENTS ABOUT ABILITY GROUPING MADE BY TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL (In that these comments are reproduced as they were recorded, no particular organization or ranking is assigned to them). "Homogeneous grouping is necessary in a large school." "Homogeneous grouping helps me know pupils better." "The major basis for homogeneous grouping should be ability." "If assignment to groups is done carefully enough there should be few changes in assignment." "If I am expected to teach a low ability group, I want a high group too - they (the high group) are so responsive." "Pupils should be grouped heterogeneously - it is a more life-like situation - children need the stimu- lation of a variety of personalities." "Homogeneous (ability) grouping provides for stereo- types and points up mediocrity which becomes a 'cross to bear'." "Ability grouping takes the right to fail away from capable youngsters and removes the right to succeed from youngsters below average in ability." "Gifted pupils in homogeneous groups have to live up to standards not of their own choosing." "Homogeneous grouping is a device of the teacher who wants to 'make life easy'." "We have homogeneous grouping in our system because teachers want it." "Ability grouping does not do violence to a democratic philosophy." 205 206 "We have no problems with ability grouping." "Heterogeneous grouping provides more opportunity for pupils to learn from each other if we let them - the relationships youngsters build among themselves are more apt to happen." "Social maturity would be a better basis for sectioning than ability." "Homogeneous grouping may build an oligarchy for egg- heads 0 II "In an ability grouping situation I can teach pupils a lot more than in a heterogeneous group. Good kids can learn a lot." "In a heterogeneous situation I only teach in the middle of the road." "Teachers are unhappy with heterogeneous groups." "In a heterogeneous group too many kids are unprepared for group participation.’ "Heterogeneous groups are difficult to teach because below average students have not learned self-direction." "Ability grouping makes for smoother Operation - it lets you get the kids in line a little faster." "In a heterogeneous group social adjustment and social living of necessity becomes a part of the curriculum." "Heterogeneous grouping is a greater burden on the teacher and administrator - it requires a better and broader education, more information on the part of the teachfir and more supplies and equipment in the class- room. "The.teacher who prefers heterogeneous grouping is very conscious of individuals and individual differences." "The teacher who prefers homogeneous grouping feels 'I know what you need to know', is textbookish, factual and rote." "Ability grouping provides pressure for conformity." "Heterogeneous groups provide more Opportunity for pupils to learn from each other if we let them." "Reducing the range in only one aspect may give the teacher some security and cut frustration or anxiety." 207 "Most teachers like ability grouping if they have a 'top' group." "The teacher who likes to teach slow groups is: sym- pathetic - in someway identifies with pupils, gets satisfaction from working with someone needing lots of help, is patient, not very aggressive, not lazy, is a 'good' teacher." "The teacher who wants to teach high groups is moti- vated to get high academic achievement, does not want to teach low groups, is impatient toward underachievers and underpriviledged, and believes greatly in I.Q." APPENDIX IV SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS The figure which follows shows how the items in the questionnaire used to determine a teacher's commitment to ability grouping form a scale. ". . . given the marginal frequencies to a set of items and the relative position of the categories within each item, it is possible to ascertain which response com- binations, from among all those possible for the items constitute the ideal scale types for those marginal frequencies."l Obtained response patterns will always vary to a greater or lesser degree from the ideal scale established for the marginal frequencies. The figure shows the response patterns for the items under question, and indicates Obtained combinations of reSponses other than those corresponding to the established ideal scale types. The 15 obtained other combinations fell within the established point of tolerance (deviation at 15 per cent) from the ideal scale. lWard H. Goodenough, "A Technique for Scale Analysis," Educational and Psychological Measurement, IV 1944’ p. 183. 208 Items 1 2 a 45 a&b 66 C._._.x_____i b 20 —‘—‘-' —--q ———dF—- r——— ..._...... o c 19 25 L_____ _._ _ )n———a————-+ d d 15 12 209 Ideal Fre- quenoy _ 5 4 r--1-—-j a a 16 16 28 12 b b 15 4O 40 15 |*‘ i- — —- _‘_‘_ 2 c&d 0&6 17 44 52 L. _ .. 1 _. — _ 3 12 Scale Type 10 Response Combination a&b-a-c-a a&b-a-b-a a&b-a-b-b a&b-b-b-b a&b-b-c&d-b a&b-c-c&d-b c-c-c&d-b c-c-c&dqp&d d-c-o&d—c&d d-d-c&d-c&d 210 Ideal Scale Ideal Obtained Type Frequency Frequency 1 16 15 2 12 10 5 15 16 4 15 11 5 7 4 6 5 5 7 2 5 8 17 8 9 5 6 10 12 9 Total 100 85 Other Combina- Obtained tions Obtained » Frequency Items 1 2 5 4 a&b - a - c - a 1 aab- b - a ,.- a 1 a&b - b - b - a 1 a&b - a - c&d - b 1 b - c - c&d - c&d 4 c - a - ckd - c&d 1 c - b - c&d - c&d 2 c - b - b - b 1 c - b --c&d - b 1 c. - c - b - o&d 1 c - d - c&d - c&d 1 15 APPENDIX V GROUPING AND PROMOTION POLICIES Grouping and Classifying Pupils for Learning Teachers and administrators are faced with finding the best methods of grouping pupils if the Optimum.growth of individuals is accepted as.a primary objective of schools. Any device for assigning pupils to sections will vary in its application according to the pattern of organization that is set up and with the purpose for which grouping is made. The device and the pattern which give the greatest amount of aid to teachers in individualizing instruction should be the accepted practice in schools. The placement of each individual within a group where he will work best, where he will have a sense of belonging and status, and where his mental health will be safeguarded and improved must be the objective of placing pupils in appropriate groups. Grouping becomes a problem when children enter school in the first grade, if there is more than one class. Methods for classifying pupils within certain groups may vary at this age. Some schools prefer placing the six-year-Old children in one group and those Who are five in another. Another solution is 211 212 to arrange the names of children alphabetically and then assign groups to teachers. These ways remove the appearance of favoritism and are procedures which parents can understand. However, they do not always provide the best educational experiences for children as can be achieved by more complicated arrangements. Most authorities agree that it is not wise to divide the group on mental ability alone. Some school systems are attempting to orgaiize a primary school for the first three or four years a child spends in school. This plan accepts the con- tinuous learning program for each child, and the same teacher remains with the group for the entire period. Progress and growth are stressed rather than grade lines, standards, promotions, and markings. Such a group is identified by the teacher's name rather than the traditional grade designations. As pupils progress through the elementary grades and enter junior high school, the same principles for grouping must be considered. If conditions permit pupils to be placed in relatively small groups, such factors as social interests, hobbies, friends, and physical and mental development, as well as achievement in skill subjects, should be considered in pupil place- Inent. Records from the elementary school giving the social and emotional development need to be added to tflua information on the cumulative card. This informa- 215 tion must be studied carefully before groups are organ- ized. Care should be taken to avoid having one child with unusual physical development alone in a group. Any other pattern that shows gread differences from the normal should be studied and those individuals placed where they feel most comfortable. Heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping is still debated by educators. If schools are organized in ways that are thoroughly consistent with democratic principles, heterogeneous grouping is recommended. This permits respect for personality and consideration for the development of the whole child. Planned hetero- geneity makes possible a broad program of practice in experiencing satisfying human relationships, of de- velOping an appreciation for and techniques in the democratic way of life, and of realizing the reponsi- bilities of school and community citizenship. It would seem desirable to organize groups that may be heterogeneous for part of the day and form homo- geneous groups according to certain skills or abilities for the other part of the program. The latter grouping may be for remedial purposes but must be flexible according to the growth of the individual. Grouping Within the Class Small working groups within the classroom are desirable at all levels. Numerous projects and activi- ties carried on as a part of the program make it neces- 214 sary to divide into subgroups. If pupils are grouped within the classroom on the basis of achievement in reading, it must be kept in mind that these groups should never be permanent. Teachers must keep the plan flexible and move pupils to the groups where they can make the most progress. Groups in arithmetic, spelling, art, and other subjects may be quite a different organization. Pupils Often select their own groups for work- ing by joining those working on the activities or pro— jects that interest them most. Such groups may be made up of both slow andrapid learners but both will play their roles well. These groups are flexible and may Operate for long or short terms. The individual pupils need to be made conscious of the nature of the problem of the group and their responsibility to the group. Leadership in such groups changes frequently and pupils learn how to be good participants. Many occasions should be provided in the school program to allow for experiences in which children from different grades come together. Programs in the audi- torium, student government, safety patrols, interest clubs, and other such groupings provide opportunities for pupils of different ages to work and play together.1 1Maryland's Educational Program, School Admin- istrative Manual, V01. XXXII, NO. 2, June, 1952. (Mary- land State Department Of Education), pp. 89-90. APPEND IX VI DO NOT OPEN UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE ’ INVENTORY Form A WALTER W. COOK CARROLL H. LEEDS ROBERT CALLIS University of Minnesota Furman University University of Missouri DIRECTIONS This inventory consists of 150 statements designed to sample opinions about teacher-pupil relations. There is considerable disagreement as to what these relations should he; therefore, there are no right or wrong answers. What is wanted is your own individual feeling about the statements. Read each statement and decide how YOU feel about it. Then mark your answer on the space provided on the answer sheet. Do not make any marks on this booklet. SA A U D If you strongly agree, blacken space under "SA" ...................................................... l .. .. .. SA A U D If you agree, blacken space under "A" .............................................................. . ............ I . SA A U D If you are undecided or uncertain, blacken space under ”U” .................................... .. .. I SA A U D If you disagree, blacken space under "D” ..................................................................... I SA A U D If you strongly disagree, blacken space under "SD” ................................................... SO SO SD 50 Think in terms of the general situation rather than specific ones. There is no time limit, but work as rapidly as you can. PLEASE RESPOND TO EVERY ITEM. Copyright 1951. All rights reserved. The Psychological Corporation 304 East 45th Street New York 17, N. Y. Printed in U.S.:\. 215 51-161 TB SA—Strongly agree A—Agree U—Undecided or uncertain D—Disagree SD—Strongly disagree l. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Most children are obedient. Pupils who “act smart” probably have too high an opinion of themselves. Minor disciplinary situations should sometimes be turned into jokes. Shyness is preferable to boldness. Teaching never gets monotonous. Most pupils don’t appreciate what a teacher does for them. If the teacher laughs with the pupils in amus- ing classroom situations, the class tends to get out of control. A child’s companionships can be too carefully supervised. A child should be encouraged to keep his likes and dislikes to himself. It sometimes does a child good to be criticized in the presence of other pupils. Unquestioning obedience in a child is not desirable. Pupils should be required to do more studying at home. The first lesson a child needs to learn is to obey the teacher without hesitation. Young people are difficult to understand these days. There is too great an emphasis upon “keeping order” in the classroom. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 26. 27. 28. A pupil’s failure is seldom the fault of the teacher. There are times when a teacher cannot be blamed for losing patience with a pupil. A teacher should never discuss sex problems with the pupils. Pupils have it too easy in the modern school. A teacher should not be expected to burden himself with a pupil’s problems. Pupils expect too much help from the teacher in getting their lessons. A teacher should not be expected to sacrifice an evening of recreation in order to visit a child’s home. Most pupils do not make an adequate effort to prepare their lessons. Too many children nowadays are allowed to have their own way. Children’s wants are just as important as those of an adult. The teacher is usually to blame when pupils fail to follow directions. A child should be taught to obey an adult without question. The boastful child is usually over-confident of his ability. 29. Children have a natural tendency to be unruly. A teacher cannot place much faith in the state- ments of pupils. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA—Strongly agree A—Agree U—Undecided or uncertain D—Disagree SD—Strongly disagree. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 45. Some children ask too many questions. A pupil should not be required to stand when reciting. The teacher should not be expected to man- age a child if the latter’s parents are unable to do so. A teacher should never acknowledge his ig- norance of a tapic in the presence of his pupils. Discipline in the modern school is not as strict as it should be. Most pupils lack productive imagination. Standards of work should vary with the pupil. The majority of children take their responsi- bilities seriously. To maintain good discipline in the classroom a teacher needs to be “hard-boiled.” Success is more motivating than failure. Imaginative tales demand the same punish- ment as lying. Every pupil in the sixth grade should have sixth grade reading ability. A good motivating device is the critical com- parison of a pupil's work with that of other pupils. It is better for a child to be bashful than to be “boy or girl crazy.” Course grades should never be lowered as punishment. 46. 47. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. More “old-fashioned whippings” are needed today. The child must learn that “teacher knows best.” . Increased freedom in the classroom creates confusion. . A teacher should not be expected to be sym- pathetic toward truants. Teachers should exercise more authority over their pupils than they do. Discipline problems are the teacher’s greatest worry. The low achiever probably is not working hard enough and applying himself. There is too much emphasis on grading. Most children lack common courtesy toward adults. Aggressive children are the greatest problems. At times it is necessary that the whole class sufl'er when the teacher is unable to identify the culprit. Many teachers are not severe enough in their dealings with pupils. Children “should be seen and not heard.” A teacher should always have at least a few failures. It is easier to correct discipline problems than it is to prevent them. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA—Strongly agree A—Agree U—Undecided or uncertain D—Disagree SD—Strongly disagree 61. 63. 67. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Children are usually too sociable in the class- room. Most pupils are resourceful when left on their own. Too much nonsense goes on in many class- rooms these days. The school is often to blame in cases of truancy. Children are too carefree. Pupils who fail to prepare their lessons daily should be kept after school to make this prep- aration. Pupils who are foreigners usually make the teacher’s task more unpleasant. Most children would like to use good English. Assigning additional school work is often an effective means of punishment. Dishonesty as found in cheating is probably one of the most serious of moral offenses. Children should be allowed more freedom in their execution of learning activities. Pupils must learn to respect teachers if for no other reason than that they are teachers. Children need not always understand the rea- sons for social conduct. Pupils usually are not qualified to select their Own tOpics for themes and reports. N 0 child should rebel against authority. 76. 77. 78. 79. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 87. 89. There is too much leniency today in the hand- ling of children. Difficult disciplinary problems are seldom the fault of the teacher. The whims and impulsive desires of children are usually worthy of attention. Children usually have a hard time following instructions. Children nowadays are allowed too much free- dom in school. All children should start to read by the age of seven. Universal promotion of pupils lowers achieve- ment standards. Children are unable to reason adequately. A teacher should not tolerate use of slang expressions by his pupils. The child who misbehaves should be made to feel guilty and ashamed of himself. If a child wants to speak or to leave his seat during the class period, he should always get permission from the teacher. Pupils should not respect teachers anymore than any other adults. Throwing of chalk and erasers should always demand severe punishment. Teachers who are liked best probably have a better understanding of their pupils. Most pupils try to make things easier for the teacher. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE l. 2. 3. 5. 6. APPENDIX VII PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW GUIDE Total Jr. H. S. enrollment What is the general nature of your school popuIation? Descrip- tion? Enrollment by grades 7 8 9 Number of sections in each grade Size of enrollment in each section How is the school program organized? Separate subjects Block Time Core Other On what basis or bases are pupils sectioned? Description of grouping in the school. How long has it been in effect? When changed, if it was? Why? How well is it working? Provisions for individual differences within the groups. Texts Materials Size of groups Special help Assignment of teachers 216 217 8. Who decides grouping policy in the school? (County, local - teachers or administrator) 9. What is your own feeling about the best type grouping? 10. How do you think the majority of the teachers in your school feel about grouping? Do teachers like to teach different groups equally well? Do you have a statement of the philOSOphy (purposes) for grouping in your school on file? APPENDIX VIII THE NORTH-HATT SCALE The North-Hatt Scale had its origin in 1947. At that time, the National Opinion Research Center interviewed a "Nation-wide cross section of America with a battery designed to explore some of the basic public attitudes regarding occupations." The people interviewed (N-2,900) were asked to evaluate each of I! "$006., It "Average, ll 90 occupations as "excellent, "Somewhat below Average" or "Poor." These ratings were converted into a single score by assigning a maximum of 100 points to excellent ratings and a min— imum of 20 points to jobs unanimously rated as poor. The report of the initial study can be found in Cecil C. North and Paul Hatt "Jobs and Occupations: A Pop- ular Evaluation," Opinion News, September, 1947, pp. 3-13; and parts of this article are reproduced in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949, pp. 464-475. While the initial scale was a by-product of a study focused upon the factors involved in the evalua- tion of the prestige of an occupation, it offered the potentialities for a useful research tool. While 218 219 other rank order of the prestige of occupations existed, many differences between occupations were obscured by the large categories used. A numerical scale of pres- tige would have obvious advantages in allowing a choice of cutting points. Since the initial scale rated such a small number of the usual occupations ordinarily encountered in research projects, some method was needed to place other occupations on the scale. Several different studies have been faced with the problem of unranked occupations and there evolved a standard method of interpolation. Five judges, who were in almost all instances sociologists, were asked to judge numerical- ly an occupation in terms of the original scale (see list). The original 90 occupations were used as the norms for each judgement. This list includes both the original list and the interpolations from it. This list is only an approximation and a number of questions as to the validity of the interpolation are unanswered. The alphabetization was guided by a rather ar- 'bitrary logic whereby types of jobs as maiager and en- égineer were classified together regardless of the tspecialty of the person. In the cases where a job label has no significance apart from the specialty, IYIP example, the occupations of Railroad Switchman and M8:11 Carrier etc. both are specified. Individuals who have contributed to the expanded 220 list are Christen Jonassen, Robert Bullock, Jerome Folkman, William Kenkel, Alfred Clarke and Russell Dynes. RRD 221 The Original North-Hatt Scale U.S. Supreme Court Justice 96 Undertaker 72 Physician 93 Reporter, Daily News- State Governor 93 ‘paper 71 Cabinet Member, Fed. Gov. 92 Manager, Small Store 69 Diplomat, U.S. Foreign Bookkeeper 68 Service 92 Insurance Agent 68 Mayor, large city 90 ‘Praveling Salesman.for College Professor 89 ‘wholesale concern 68 U.S. Representative 89 Playground Director 67 Banker 88 jPoliceman 67 Government scientist 88 jRailroad Conductor 67 County Judge 87 JMail Carrier 66 Head, Dept. in State Gov. 87' Carpenter 65 Minister 86 Automobile Repairman 63 Architect 86 Plumber 63 Chemist 86 Garage Mechanic 62 Dentist 86 Local Official, Union 62 Lawyer 86 Owner-Operator, Lunch Member, Board of Directors Stand 62 Large Corporation 86 Corporal, Reg. Army 60 Nucelear Physicist 86 Machine Operator, Priest 86 Factory 60 Psychologist 85 Barber 59 Civil Engineer 84 Clerk in Store 58 Airline Pilot 83 Fisherman, owns own Artist that paints pic- boat 58 tures that are exhibited Streetcar Motorman 58 in galeries 83 Milk Route Man 54 Owner of a factory that Resturant Cook 54 employs about 100 people 82 Truck Driver 54 Sociologist ‘ 82 Lumberjack 53 Account for large bus. 81 Filling Station Attend- Biologist 81 ent 52 Musician in Symphony 81 Singer in Night Club 52 Author of novels 80 Farm Hand ' 50 Capt. in Reg. Army 80 Coal Miner 49 Building Contractor 79 Taxi Driver 49 Economist 79 Railroad section Hand 48 Instructor Public Schools 79 Resturant Waiter 48 Public School Teacher 78 Dock Worker 47 County Agricultural Agent 77 Night Watchman 47 Railroad Engineer 77 Clothes Presser in Official, International Laundry 46 Labor Union 75 Soda Fountain Clerk 45 Radio Announcer 74 Bartender 44 Newspaper Columnist 74 Janitor 44 Owner-Operator, Printing Share Cropper 40 Shop 74 Garbage Collector 35 Trained Machinist 73 Street Sweeper 34 'Welfare Worker, City Gov. 73 Shoe Shiner 33 Electrician 73 222 Interpolations Accountant Accountant, Certified Public Accountant, tax, Gas Co. Acctuary~ Acctuarial Ass't. (life ins.) Advertising man, metro— politan paper Advertising promoter Advertising writer Agent, Internal Revenue Agent, Purchasing Agent, Rental Airway Operation Special- ist (Control Airport Traffic) Analyst, Service Appraiser, Real estate, commercial property Artist, Technical Artist, Advertising Arborist for city Assembler at aircraft plant Attendant, Tool Crib Audiologist Auditor, Bank Auditor, Insurance Co. State Automotive spare parts specialist Baker (owns shop) Baker Bakery worker Bank teller Barber who owns his own shop and employs 1 man Baseball player, minor league Blueprint reader Biochemist Boards children at home Boilermaker Boilermaker's Helper,R.R. Bookbinder Brakeman, Railroad Bricklayer Brickmason Brick setter Broker, Manufacturer's 78 Broker, Broker, 81 Broker, 8O Buffer, 78 Builder of homes (super- vises work) 74 Busboy - Busgirl Butcher Real Estate Stock Auto Motor Freight Co. 71 72 79* 56 59 45 59* 70 Buyer for furniture store 71 72 Buyer for a department 70 store for a single 77 department 70* 68 Buyer for a hardware store70* 68 Cabinet maker Captain in city fire de- partment 74 Carpet layer 55 Carton Maker Cashier 68*Cashier, Bank 59 Cement Finisher 74 Chainman (surveying) 75 Checker in metal-assembly line 59 Chemist, Ink (no formal 57 education) 75 Chief of a bureau, within so a dept. in state gov. Chief of police, city of 79 350,000 ChirOpodist 52 Chiropractor 68 Clerk, Actuarial in an 62 insurance company 48rClerk, Billing 67*Clerk, Chief, R.R.Feight Office 63sClerk, General Office worker 67*Clerk, Payroll *Clerk, Postal 57 Clerk, Shipping factory 85 Clerk, Stock 59 Clerk, Technical 65 Concessionaire 60 Contractor, General a Painting 637:;(Jontractor, Cement 60“Coordinator, management- 65 labor 50 Coordinator, Oil Co. 70 Coppersmith (R.R.) 66 70* 54* 55 62 70* 52 52 64 64 81* 80* 77 75* 65 59 68 62* 66 65* 59* 51 66 62 74 74 75 74 62 225 Cosmetologist 58 Engineer, Sales (gas Custodian 44 heating) 68 Cytologist 8O Engineer, Sales 73 Dairyman 66 Engineer, Stationary 62 Dealer, Automobile 77 Engineer, Surveying 78* Dealer, Hardware 66 Engineer, Tool 75 Department head of a Engineer, Time study 75? dept. store 75* Engineer, T. V. 75“ Department head of large Engineering aids,senior 72 company 78 Engineman, R.R. 65 Department head (Ass't) Examiner, Balk 75 of a dept. store 70* Examiner, Tax 77 Department Leader - Steel Executive, Jr. adver- ' Fabrication 65 tisins firm 70* Dress designer 75* EXGCUtiVG: large manu- Designer, Tool 75 facturing plant 81* Dietician 78 Executive (publicity Director, Activities, director) for a large “ Lazarus Co. 71 department store 78“ Director, Ass't., Trade EXBCUtiVG. Publishing and Industrial Edu- ~ Company 81, cation, State of Ohio 81 Executive, telephone 00.78w Director, Executive, Executive, Transporta- Y.W.C.A. 81 tion 79 Dishwasher 53 Express messenger, Dispatcher, Chief Highwafi supervisor on express Motor Carrier Co. 69 train 66 Dispatcher, Train, R.R. 67 Farmer, tenant - one Distributor, 011 Bus. 69 who owns livestock Draftsman 69* & machinery & manages Dressmaker 62 the farm 68 Driller, Dianwnd Core 68 Fieldman, Producers Driver, City bus 57 Livestock Corp. 70“ Driver, Greyhound Bus 63 Fireman, City 55” Druggist, Wholesale 70 Fireman, R.R. 65 Editor 81 Fireman, Stationary 53 Electric Motor Tester 62 Bitter (female) 61‘ Electrotyper 66 Flagman, Railroad 6O“L Expeditor, aviation co. 66 Foreman, Assembly line 66* Embalmer who owns his own Foreman, light company 66* undertaking estab. 72* Fbreman, main crew, Engineer, Aeronautical 83 factory 67* Engineer, (mechanical) Foreman, maintenance, Assistant research 78 of schools 52 Engineer, Ceramic 79* Foreman, Railroad Engineer, Construction 80 roundhouse 66* Engineer, Consulting 86 Fbreman, Shipping Dept. Engineer, Electrical 83* Casket 00. 69* Engineer, Heating 68 Foreman, shop, factory 67 Engineer, Industrial 82 Funeral director 72* Engineer, Maintanence 64 Furniture maker, church 57 Engineer, Operating, city 70 Glass worker 59* Engineer, Process 77 Governess 69 Engineer, Radio 77 Grinder, bearing 67 Engineer, Research 82* Grinder, casting ' 60 Gringing, general Guard ‘ Guard, Railroad Horticulturist Hospital Aide, Psychi- atric Housekeeper Housekeeper, Private Iceman Inspector, Assembly line Inspector, Bank Inspector, Building Inspector, Factory Inspector, machine shop Inspector, Railroad steel car Inspector, refrigerator controls in plant Installer, canopy in jet planes Installer, Escalator Instructor, Ceramic (makes & sells) Insurance Group Leader, V. A. Insurance underwriter Interviewer, Personnel Investigator, city tax division Investigator, credit Iron Worker, Ornamental Iron Worker, Structural Jeweler Jeweler, Manufacturing Jig and Furniture Builder Class Job Setter Laboratory aide Laborer, Common Laborer, Construction Laborer, Factory Laundress Leader of a dance band 'Librarian, Museum Lieutenant, Air Force Lieutenant of police (R.R.) Loan officer in bank Lineman, telephone Co. Machinist's helper (R.R.) Machinist, Master Maid Mail Handler at Depot 224 59 55 55* 77 51 55 54 50 55 74 58* 55 57 60* 62 63 62 78 74 69 71 71 61 68 63 72 75 68 59 50* 40 50* 47 45 70* 75 75* 59 74 55* 59 70 48 52* Maintenance man in factory55 Maintenance worker in furnished apt. 48“ Major, Air Force 81* Manager, Advertising 78 Manager, Assistant Floor 69 Manager, Ass't. Parts, Factory 65* Manager, Ass't., res- turant 67* Manager, branch, large company 71 Manager, chain retail grocery store 72 Manager, credit, van & storage Co. 70 Manager, large dept. retail groc. 68 Manager, dept. in large company 72 Manager, district, heat regulation 00. 70 Manager, display, single dept. of dept. store 68”r Manager, district sales for large co. 72 Manager, division, wholesale coop 72 Manager, dry cleaning store 68 Manager, dry goods store 69 Manager of garage 68 Manager of general, manuf. plant that “ employs over 100 men 77: Manager of a grill 67w Manager of a hotel 78* Manager of large co. 72 Manager of a large dept. store 80* Manager of life in- surance co. 75 Manager of movie thea- ter in downtown section of city 70* Manager,dept., news- paper 76 Manager, office 70 Manager, parts, factory68* Manager, plant, of lar- ger company 75‘ Manager of a poolroom 58* Manager, Prod. control 79 Manager, Promotion Manager, Public Utility Manager, regional claims, (Life Insurance) Manager, Sales Manager, Sales - salesman who supervises 7-12 other salesmen Manager of a service sta. 68* Manager of transportation and moving co. Manager, T. V. service (wholesale) Meat Packer Mechanic, nership) Airplane Auto (in part- Mechanic, Cash register Mechanic, Elevator Mechanic, Field, Road Building Machinery Mechanic, Gas meter Mechanic maintenance Machanic, Mechanic, Radio refrigeration Melter Loader Messenger car CC. for armored Metallurgist Metal plate worker Mica layer in factory Millwright Minister (No theological training, high school education) Nurse (hospital) Nurse, practical Nurse, registered Officer, Trust Officer, Security Operator, Operator, Operator, Machine Operator, Operator, Operator, Operator, Beauty sh0p Bulldozer Calculating Coal elevator Crane Diesel Equipment, army depot Operator, Operator, linetype, print- Freezer ing shop Operator, movie projector 62* Plumber who owns his Operator, Multigraph 225 74 81 7O 7O 70* 7O 70 54 57* 55 55* 55* 57 62-3:- 55 57* 57* 51 57 80 58 58 6O 72 75 55 78 78 57 50 59* 54 51 59* 52 58 59 67 63 Operator, radio, air- port tower 67* Operator, radio tele- phone 64 Operator, steam shovel 59* Operator, telephone 59 Opthalmologist 89 Optometrist 83 Owner - dry cleaning store 75 Owner, Grocery store 70 Owner, large wholesale business 82* Owner, Machine shOp 73 Owner, small-to-medium restaurant in city 68* Owner, shoe repair shop 65 Owner, small mfg. plant 78* Owner,(co), insurance corporation- 78* Owner,(co) Motel bus. 72 Owner,(co) small store in city 72 Owner-operator of an automobile repair shop that employs 3 other people 67* Owner and operator, beauty shop 65 Owner and operator, cigarette vending machine co. 69 Owner-operator, con- fectionary- ‘ 66 Owner-operator, cleaning " business (one store) 681‘. Owner-operator, farm 76 Owner-operator, real estate agency 73* Painter 60* Patrolman, State High- way . 68 Pattern maker (wood & metal) 67 Personnel (testing etc.)76 Pharmacist 75* Photographer, Commercid.72 Physical Therapist 68 Piano Tuner 69 Pipefitter 58* Plasterer 50* Player in a dance band 65* own shop 67* 714‘s. 1‘ Police officer (R.R.) Porter President, large retail chain store President, wholesale company Press feeder - printing shop Printer, Newspaper Printing pressman Proof reader Proprietor of sheet-metal business Publicity man for large companies Publisher Rag sorter Railroad switchman Recreation Director (Y.M.C.A.) Repairman, Office machine Repairman, shoe (cobbler) Repairman, shoe Repairman, telephone co. Repairman, T.V. Repairman, washing mach. Repairman, watch Restaurant partner Roofer Sales Correspondent - Division local branch of nationwide manuf. Salesman - retail, not in- volving canvassing or traveling Salesman, route Salesman, route (driver) Salesman- wholesale, not involving traveling Sales promotion worker Sales representative Saw Sharpener Scientist Seamstress Secretary, Univ. Dept. Secretary Secretary-Treasurer, large company Sergeant, Army Servant, Domestic Sheet metal worker Social worker Soil Conservationist Specifier, Order Dept. 226 66 44 84 81* 59 68 66 67 71 71 84 59 , 50* 70 57* 50 57 52* 57 55* 57* 55 50* 70 A'. 68" 6O 56 58* 72* 58 50* 89 57 55 55 76 66* 47 54 74 76 66 Statistician, Dept. Of Agrl C 0 Steel mill worker Steel temperer Stenographer Stockhandler Stockkeeper, municipal div., of electricity Stockman in Linen Supply co. Stock selector Student, Senior Medical Student, University Supervisor - State of Ohio Fish Management Supervisor, Long Dis- tance, telephone co. (female) Supervisor, Office Supervisor, Coal Co. Superintendent, Bldg. Superintendant, Con- struction Co. Roads and Streets Superintendant, factory Superintendant, high school Superintendant, piping Superintendant, plant Superintendant, rail- road Superintendant, service, large dept. store Superintendant Superintendant, Steel Mill Superintendant, Truck stop Technician, Aircraft Technician, Dental Technician, Radio Technologist, Medical Tree surgeons, self- employed Tree trimmer for public utility Truck gardener Tailor Upholsterer U.S.Employee-Quarter- master Purchasing Veternarian Vice president of a 78" 50"" 6O 66 5O 64 52 58 79 74* 77 65" 68“ 64 52 77 72 80* 69 74 75 76 67 72 55 78 75* 58 74 76 51 55 57* 52* 69’ 84:? large wholesale foodcxx80 Vice President, Real Estate develop. co. Vocational Rehabilitator, V.A. Waitress Warehouse worker Watchmaker Welder Writer in Public Re- lations Dept. Yardmaster. R.R. N) (0 q 84 78 5O 51 74 59 3!! 74 75 * - This has no significaice ‘ ‘IF- " —--— .- 228 Smith* Occupational Prestige Ranks and Their Actual or Interpolated North-Hatt Equivalents Two types of interpolations were used in compiling this list of equivalents: (l) The Ohio State University interpolations, by Russell R. Dynes et al, explained in Dynes' mimeographed paper (attached) (2) The University of Wisconsin interpolation by Leslie Silverman, W. Roy Cook, and A. O. Haller. In interpolating, the following priority was used: (1) Original North-Hatt values, except farmer (all farmers were coded 72). (2) OSU interpolations, where no N-H value is listed. (3) UW interpolations, where neither N-H values nor OSU values are listed. In the latter case, the original 90 N—H items were used as norms for each judgment, and judgments were averaged. * Mapheus Smith, "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occupations," American Sociological Review, 8:185- 192, 19450 N) N) (O U. S. Supreme Court Justice U. S. Ambassador to foreign country U. S. Cabinet secretary U. S. Senator Governor of state College Pres. or chancellor, 3000 students Banker, large city Banker, other Mayor, large city M. D., city of 500,000 + people College professor . Doctor, other State prosecuting attorney Captain, oceai-going merchant vessel Lawyer Criminal lawyer Large factory and major business owners, » major executives Architect Author, poet; has published poems Writing Actor, motion picture, above rank of extras Aviator, transcontinental airline Clergyman Dentist Psychologist, anthropologist, social science Veterinarian Chemist, biochemist, etc. "science", physical science Certified public accountant Postmaster, city Superintendent of schools Foreign service (diplomat or consul) Radio entertainer, except announcer Musician, vocalist & other entertainers, includ. announcer Artist (including commercial) cartoonist Inventor, working alone on patentable device Professional engineer, industrial designer Cashier of bank Major govt. employee; i.e. dept. head, etc. other auditors and accountants Building contractor Business medium (includes wholesales, factory owners, brokers Editor-owner, small town paper "Journalism", adv. copy writer, English major, liter. work School principal, 1,000+ students Trained nurse Smith rank 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 071 080 090 091 092 100 110 119 120 121 130 140 141 150 160 170 171 172 173 174 180 190 191 192 200 201 202 210 212 220 221 222 230 231 240 241 250 260 N-H rank 95 94* 92 91* 95 90* 88 87* 90 95 89 95 87* 82* 85 85 81 85 80 75* 75* 83 85 85 84* 84 84 81 - 79* 80 92 75* 74 75* 74* 82 70 87 79 79 80* 80* 74* 80 78 N) o: O Pharmacist, chiropractor, osteOpath, occupational therapist, stewardess Justice of the Peace Professional baseball player, major league Racing driver, coach in major league Interior decorator High school teacher Fashion designer Owner & operator - department store Radio operator Owner & operator, any type mine Retail jewelry dealer Undertaker Owner of log or timber camp County sheriff Clerk of circuit court, county officials Social or welfare worker Teacher Dietician, home economics, etc. Librarian, recreation director Forester (professional) County agent (ag & home demonstration) Supervisory position (railroad) Personnel director & other secondary mgrs. Superintendent of factory Traffic manager Real estate agent Life insurance salesman & other major agents Army-Navy officer Retail dealer - five, ten, variety store Mate, ocean-going vessel Dept. buyer, head salesman, purchasing agent "Business" when occupational choice with coll. train. ‘ Major salesman, e.g. traveling, auto X-ray technician, "science" for 00¢. choice without college, surveyor Fieldman ( dairy), milk inspector, health inspector Insurance adjuster, real estate appraiser Manager or other official, log or lumber camp Detective, FBI agent Interpreter Private secretary to executive Manager or official, any type of mine Foreman, supervisor, factory Foreman, non-factory Electrician, own.business Hotel keeper or manager, city - 25,000 or less Smith rank 261 270 280 281 290 291 292 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 361 370 371 372 373 374 375 380 381 382 383 390 391 392 400 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 420 421 422 430 440 450 451 460 470 N-H rank 75 ., 59* 70* 70* 70* '7 is... 231 Elementary school teacher, music teacher- non college Owner small retail business-grocery, tavern, beauty parlor Photographer "church worker" Stewardess (non-nurse) Policeman - city of +15,000 Fireman Other policemen Railroad yardmaster Watchmaker - factory Owner-operator general farm Owner-Operator dry cleaning establishment Linotyper Pattern maker, lay-out man Monotyper, printer, lithographer Machinist - tool die setter Draftsman, engraver, window trimmer, sign printer Radio service:mal Heating and refrigeration (engineer) Locomotive engineer Diesel engineer (non-prof.) other operating engines Oil well driller Well driller, other Conductor, steam railroad Bus dispatcher, signalman Railway mail clerk Clerical employee of P.O. & other govt. bureaus Manager, small store, service station, etc. Bookkeeper Stenographer — secretary, proofreader Bank teller Typist "Office work" (girls), "clerk" except for sales Ticket agent, R.R. Bill collector Express agent Mail carrier, rural and urban Practical nurse jHomemaker Nurses' aid, lab assistant Carpenter, general business for himself Structural iron worker Blank (?) Inspector, tester Pawnbroker Smith rank 471 472 473 478 479 480 481 482 483 490 500 510 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 530 531 540 541 550 551 560 561 562 570 571 572 580 581 590 591 592 600 610 611 612 620 630 631 632 640 N-H rank 58 72 57* 55 57 55 55 75 74 72 58 57 57 57 73 69 67 68 77 59* 55* 54* 57 57 55 65 68 68 66 67 52 52* 50* 59* 55 55 6O 65 63 55* 51* Salesman in store Soldier, sailor "Aviator" - non professional Auto parts clerk - railroad clerk Receptionist Dressmaker, own business conducted at home Fisherman & merchant marine, sailor, trapper Telephone operator Telephone installer Telegraph or telephone lineman Painter, house and other non-factory Skilled trades - non owner, electricians, plumber, carpenter, mason, etc. Beautician Barber Model Cashier Cook, hotel or metropolitan restaurant Food industries, skilled Factory worker, skilled Farm tenant - operates for share of profits Forestry - non pro, game warden Baggageman, R.R. R.R. car inspector & other R.R. semi-skilled Semi-skilled worker, automobile factory " " " other factories Assistants to skilled trades Assistants to doubtful (class with 74l) Milk man Truck driver, tractor, steam shovel & bus drivers Chauffeur, private fanily Semi-skilled worker - building trades Food industries, semi-skilled Semi-skilled worker, clay, glass, pottery Semi-skilled worker, cotton mill Auto filling station attendant Lockman, pump operator & other semi-skilled operators Employee of a municipality, utility, etc. Works for business firm Shipping, stock, time and receiving clerk Waiter, hotel or metropolitan restaurant Bartender Taxicab driver Manual worker, stone quarry Mine, coal mine Mine, other Porter on pullman or dining car Presser in dry cleaning plant W00dchopper or sawyer at lumber camp Smith rank 650 651 652 653 654 660 661 670 681 680 690 691 699 700 701 702 710 711 712 720 721 730 731' 740 741 742 745 748 749 750 760 761 770 780 790 791 792 793 794 800 801 810 820 830 831 840 841 850 N-H rank 58 50 57* 57* 55* 52 58 59 55 55 50 54* 50 59 55* 52 54 50* 55* 55* 50* 50 55* 55* 54* 54* 54 54* 52* 57* 55* 59 58 52 55* 58* 55* 48 44 49 40 49 49 44 45 55 233 Farm laborer Unskilled laborer, R.R. Janitor, public building Waitress, dishwasher Caretaker, plant guard, etc. Baby sitter, nursemaid Laundry worker Elevator Operator, other unskilled attend. Longshoreman, unskilled heavy work Loader, trucking co., warehouse worker Unskilled worker, auto factory " " construction Common labor, laborer Unskilled worker, woolen mill Unskilled factory worker Newsboy Huckster or peddler Messenger Scissors or other tool grinder, house-to- house Unskilled worker, odd jobs Domestic servant Scrub woman Garbage collector Unskilled migratory worker Unemployed Retired Dead, divorced, "no father", etc. Smith rank 860 870 880 881 882 883 884 885 890 891 900 910 911 920 921 930 931 940 950 960 961 970 980 990 997 998 999 N-H rank 50 48 44 59* 49*- 44 45* 45* 47 51 47 50 40 47 47 59* 57* 45* 50* 40* 47 59* 55 40 * U-W interpolation 234 Special North-Hatt Occupational Prestige Rati As Interpolated by Haller Occupation Nurse with B. A. or M. A. or teacher of nurses Bar - Co-owner and operator Upholsterer Factory machine operators Factory machine semi-skilled (assembly work) General office work - farm loan service (coded same as bookkeeper) Part-time farm laborer (coded as common labor and unskilled odd jobs) Clerk, female, drygoods store or clothing store (same as salesmen in store) Unskilled factory workers - sausage company, canning, shoe factory Minister - interne Clerk and general office worker X-ray technician with degree Loan service office job Feed mill, part owner and Operator (classified with other small owners) Manager, dime store Manager of new car sales - large metropolitan auto company Milk bottler (unskilled) Porcelain factory boss's son-in-law (considered equal to most low managers) Church worker, female, (runs office, makes calls, etc.) Rural school teacher Owner-operator of rural milk truck - Two rural milk trucks Full-time political party worker Folder and trimmer, printing establishment Co-owner and operator of small excavating company Owner-operator filling station - part owner - operator (non-owner) Nurses aid Assistant editor, small-town paper Timekeeper (coded same as bookkeeper) Mason Owner-operator, small wholesale cookie business Girl who sells insurance at airplane terminal Beer distributor Insurance claims adjustor Showman of animals atfhirs Inseminator ngs Rating 80 60 62 60 55 68 40 58 47 81 62 79 66 67 69 75 50 70 74 75 59 63 73 50 70 70 69 60 57 74 68 68 68 65 70 70 55 61 235 Occupation Help with father's monument business Appliance repairman and salesman Table slide worker in burial vault (codes same as common laborer) Dock foreman for trucking company Man who sells odds and ends of food from truck he owns Traveling inspector of water supply company Auto salesman Manager, small city chain lumber yard Owner-Operator, small grocery and butcher shop Owner-Operator, radio and TV shop Bar owner Factory worker (no other information) Knife maker and sharpener Nursing or rest home Operator Rating 65 66 40 66 47 70 70 72 67 72 62 50 44 67 In general, Haller reduced ratings of helpers and apprentices five points below the occupational rating. APPENDIX IV ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR FACTORS FOUND SIGNIFICANT Age of Respondents - Index of Commitment Source of Degrees of Sum Of Mean F Variation Freedom Squares Square Total 458 2802.86 Between Sum. h of Squares 3 165.09 41.70 6.77% Within Sum of Squares 455 2677.77 5.15 *Significant at the .01 level North-Hatt Quintile Rank - Index of Commitment Source of Deggees Sum of Mean F Variation Freedom Squares Square Total ' 422 2558.40 Between Sum. 4 71.71 17.95 2.92% of Squares . Within Sum of Squares 418 2566.69 5.14 1 *Significant at the .05 level 236 237 Amount of Educational Training of Respondents - Index of Commitment rees Source of Degf Sum of Mean _ F JVariation Squares Square Total 424 2760.56 B°t'°°n 5““ 5 97.04 52.55 5.11* of Squares “ithin 3““ 421 2555.52 5.55 of Squares *Significant at the .05 level . Amount of Educational Training of Respondents - MTAI Source of D°§§°°° Sum of Variation Freedom Squares Total 424 536707.76 r5°*'°°n 3““ 5 58028.88 12575.29 10.70* of Squares “Vithin Sun. 421 498578.88 1184.51 ~§ of Squares Z -‘Significant at the .01 level Degree Held by Respondents - MTAI k iDegrees Source of of Sum.of lean F 1 Variation Freedom.) Squares SturOT V Total 454 55887.08 Between Sun, 2 25517.79 12758.90 181.49*‘ of Squares Within Sum- 452 50559.29 70.50 of Squares *:** Significant at the .01 level 238 Respondents' Undergraduate Field of Study - Index Of Commitment ees Source of Deg)? Sum of Me an F Variation Squmres Square ‘ W Total 450 5044.52 B°t'°°n sum’ 15 155.92 12.07 1.74* of Squares Within Sum 417 2887.40 5.92 of Squares *Significant at the .05 level Respondents' Undergraduate Field of Study - MTAI Source of D°§§°°3 Sum of Variation Freedom. Squares Total 450 1575148.58 Bet'00n Sum 15 45055.70 5454.15 2.75* of Squares Within Sum 417 of Squares *Significant at the {61 level Type Institution of Respondents' Undergraduate Matriculation - Index of Commitment [531114.98 1257.58 PSOurce of Degrees Sum of Mean F Variation Freedom. SQueres Square ” " Total 429 2686.57 Bet'een Sum 5 54.52 21.51 5.49*' of Squares Within Sum 426 ~ 2622.05 6.16 of Squares *Significsnt at the .05 level g . ’ O 1 .. a Q . . I O O C o . . ' . It 239 Type Institution of Respondents' Undergraduate Matriculation - MTAI of Squares rees Source of Degf Sum of Mean F Variation W Squares Square Total 429 548158.981 B°t'°°n S““’ 5 21463.23[7154.4l 5.79* of Squares “thin sum 425 525595.75! 1255.58 *Significant at the .01 level Respondents' Preference for Type Ability Group to Teach - Index of Commitment Source of Degrees Sum.of lean F Variation Freedoms Squares Square Total 427 2744.55 B°t'°°n Sum 5 512.50 85.42 15.12* of Squares _ Within Sun 421 2252.05 5.50 of Squares *Significant at the .01 level Respondents' Preference for Type Ability Group to Teach — MTAI v Source of Degrees Sum of lean V 1 ti of S u r S u re F er a on Freedom q a 68 q a Total 427 549897.05 Betveen Sum. 5 19270.57 5211.75 2.55* Of Squares Within Sum 421 550525.48 1250.40 of Squares *Significant at the .05 level 240 Grade Level Taught by Respondents- Index of Commitment e rees Source of D %f Sum.of Mean F Variation m squares Square Total 433 2619.07 Between Sum- 5 227.80 57.97 5.78* of Squares Within Sum- 427 2591.27 5.50 of Squares *Significant at the .01 level Respondents' Experience With Grouping- Index of Commitment Source of Deggees Sum Of Mean F Variation Freedom. Squares Square Total 452 2915.57 Between 5*“ 2 505.59 252.70 45.15* of Squares p Within Sum 450 2409.98 5.50 of Squares *Significant at the .01 level Subject Taught by Respondents - MTAI Source of Deggees Sum.of Mean F Variation Freedom. Squares Square Total 455 580915.98l Bet'een Sum- 15 58988.55I2999.l2 2.54* of Squares Within Sum 425 541927.45 1281.15 of Squares *Significant at the .01 level BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents Maryland State Department of Education, "Grouping and Promotion Policies," Maryland's Educational Pro ram, School Administrative Manual, XXXII, NO. 2 (June, 1952). New York State Education Department. A Design for Im- proving Early Secondary Education in New York State. Albany: The Department, 1954. (22-25). U. S. Office of Education. Some Types of Classroom Organization. NO. 5, November, 1955. U. S. Office of Education. Grouping Children for Growth and Learning. No. 28, June, 1957. U. S. Office of Education. Teaching Rapid and Slow Learners in High_Schools. Bulletin 1954, NO. 5, 1960. Books Ambrose, Edna and Miel, Alice. Children's Social Learn- ing. Washington, D. C.: Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development, 1958. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Fostering Mental Health in Our Schools. Wash- ington, D. C., 1950. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Learning and the Teacher. Washington, D. C., 1959. Beck, Robert H., Cook, Walter W. and Kearney, Nolan C. Curriculum in the Modern Elementary School. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour M. (eds.) Class, Status and Power. "Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation." Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953. 241 242 Blackman, Charles A. and Jenkins, David H. Antecedents and Effects of Administrator Behavior. COiumbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956. Caswell, Hollis L. and Foshay, Arthur W. Education in the Elementary School. New York: American Book Company, 1957. Combs, Arthur W. and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949. Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,‘l959. Cook, Walter W., Leeds, Carroll H., and Callis, Robert. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory: Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Cornell, Francis G., Lindvall, Carl M., Saupe, Joe L. An Exploratory_Measurement of Individualities of Schools and Classrooms. (University of Illinois Bulletin, L, No. 75, June, 1953). Urbana: Bureau Of Educational Research, 1953. Cunningham, Ruth and Associates. Understanding the Group Behavior of Boys and Girls. New York: Bureau of Publications,_Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Analysis. Revised ed. New York: Rinehart and Company Inc., 1958. . Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Goodlad, John I. and Anderson, Robert H., The Nongraded Elementary School. New York: Harcourt, Brace and COO, 1959. Gruhn, William T. and Douglass, Harl R., The Modern Junior High School. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1947. Hughes, Marie M. and Associates. Degelopment of the Means for the Assessment of the Quality 6?- Teadhing in Elementary Schools: A Research Study. Salt Lake City: University Offitdl Press, 1959. Jenkins, David H. and Lippitt, Ronald. Interpersonal Perceptions of Teachers, Students, and Parents. Washington, D. C.: National Education Associ- ation, 1951. -41 .-_.-v- k A 3 . 243 Keliher, Alice V. A Critical Study of Homogeneous Grouping. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931. Kelley, Earl C. Education for What is Real. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947. Kelley, Earl C. and Rasey, Marie I. Education and The Nature of Man. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. Li, Pei Yu. A Critical Study_of Group Instruction in American Schools. Shanghai: The Comacrib Press, 1937. National Society for the Study of Education. Fifty- ninth Yearbook, The Dynamics Of Instructional Groups. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1960. Ryan, Heber Hinds and Crecelius, Philipine. Ability Grouping in the Junior High School, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1927. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D. C.: American CounciI—On Education, 1960. Teacher Competence: Its Nature and Scop_. San Francisco: California Teachers Association, 1957. This We Believe. A Statement of Philosophy for the Public Schools of Prince George's County, Maryland. Upper Marlboro: The Board of Edu- cation. Torgerson, Warren S. Theory and Methods of Scalipg. New York: John Wesley and Son, 1958. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. Chicago: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1955. Welcome To Junior High. Prince George's County, Mary- land:—The Board Of Education. Wrightstone, J. Wayne. Class Orgalization for Instruct- ion. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1957. Articles and Periodicals Addicott, Irwin 0. "An Experimental Class for Bright Children," Bulletin of Department Of Elementary School Principals, IX (April, 193077287-293. 244 Alberty, H. B. and Brim, 0. G. "The Relation of the Newer Educational Practices to Grouping," Part I The Groupingkof Pupils, National Society for the Study of Education,Thirty-fifth Year- book (Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Pub- lishing Co., 1936). 117-133. Arnold, Dwight L. "Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by Oscar K. Buros. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1953. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. News Exchangp, II, Number 2, (April, 1960). Bailey, Etta Rose, "What Groups Do for Children," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 60-61 0 Bahner, John M. "Grouping Within a School," Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), 354-356. Barbe, walter B. "Homogeneous Grouping for Gifted Children," Educational Leadership, (January, 1956), 225-229. Barr, A. S. "Characteristics of Successful Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), 282-4. Benne, Kenneth D. and Bennis, Warren G. "Studying the Classroom as a Group," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), 274-279. Billett, Roy 0. "The Administration of Grouping In Secondary Schools," Part I The Groupingjpf Pupils, National Society for the Study of Education, Thirty-fifth Yearbook (Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Co., 1936) 217-245. Bishop, Leslee J. "Methods of Individualism - In Junior High School," Educational Leadership, XVII (November, 1959), 80-83. Blumenthal, Frances."A Study of the Correlation of Pupil Ability With Chronological Age," E927 cational Administration and Supervision, XXXV (May, 1949), 290-291. Bonar, Hugh S. "Ability Grouping in the First Grade," Elementary School Journal, XXIX (May, 1929), 765-706 0 245 Bowden, M. G. and others. "Quality Through Individu- alized Instruction," Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), 361-370. Brink, William G. "Adaptation of Instruction to In- dividual Differences," Encyclopedia of Edu- cational Research. New York: Macmillan Co., 1960. 1267. Brown, Virginia C. "The Problem of Grouping in the Social Studies: A Junior High School Teacher's VieWpOint," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXX (January, 1955), 42-45. Burton, Willimn.H. "Basic Principles in a Good Teaching- Learning Situation," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX Bush, Robert Nelson. "Principles of Successful Teacher- Pupil Relationship," Phi Delta qupan, XXXIX (March, 1958), 271-273. Carlson, Esther S. and Northup, Joyce. "An Experiment in Grouping Pupils for Instruction in Reading," National Elementary Principal, XXXV (September, 19557, 53-57. Clausen, Robert. "Grouping for Continuous Learning: Why Probe Grouping Practices?" Childhood Edu- cation, XXXVI (April, 1960), 352-353. Colburn, Jesse B. "Organizing Classes for the Slow and Bright Pupil, Bulletin of Department of Ele- mentary School Principals, IX (April, 1930), 278-286 0 Conant, John L. "Observations on Grouping Practices," Bulletin of the National AsSociation of Sec- ondary-School Principals, XXXIX (April, 1955), 127-129. Cook, Walter W. and Leeds, Carroll H. "Measuring the Teaching Personality," Educational and ng- chological Measurement, VII (August,l947), 399-410. Cook, Walter W. "The Gifted and the Retarded in His- torical Perspective," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958), 249-255. Cooke, Edward W. "Ability Grouping," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Prin- cipals, XXXVI—IJanuary, 1952), 79-83. 246 Cornell, Ethel L. "Effects of Ability Grouping Deter— minable From Published Studies," Part I The Grouping Of Pupils, National Society for the Study Of Education, Thirty-fifth Yearbook, (Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Co., 1936), 289-304. Courtis, Stuart A. "Ability-Grouping in Detroit Schools," Part II Adapting The Schools to Individual Differences, National Society for the Study of Education, Twenty-fourth Yearbook, (Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Co., 1925), 44-57. Coxe, Warren W. "Summary and Interpretations," Part I The Grouping of Pupils, National Society for the Study of Education, Thirty-fifth Yearbook, (Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Co., 1955), 505-515. Cronbach, Lee J."Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by Oscar K. Buros. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1953. Dahlin, Ruby. "Evaluation Of Current Practices In Grouping," Supplementary Educational Monograph, NO. 72. Edited by William.S. Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, October, 1950, 49-54. Day, Harry P. "A Study of Predictive Validity Of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," JOurnal pf Educational Research, LIII (September, 1959), 37-38. '. "Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers After ‘ Initial Teaching Experiences," The Journal of Teacher Education, X (September, 1959), 326-328. Duncan, David B. "Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests," Biometrics, II (March, 1955), 1-42. Dvorak, August and Rae, J. J. "A Comparison of the Achievement of Superior Children in Segregated First-Grade Classes," Elementary School Journal, XXIX (January, 1929), 380-386. Edwards, Allen L. and Kilpatrick, Franklin P. "A Tech- nique for the Construction of Attitude Scales," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXII (January, 1948), 574-584. Foshay, Arthur W. "Choice-Points in Working Groups," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 58-59. ii 247 Goodenough, Ward H. "A Technique for Scale Analysis," Educational and Psychological Measurementp IV T1944), 179-190. Goodlad, John. "Ability Grouping," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Edited by Chester W. Harris, 3rd edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960. 223-224. Gowan, May Seagoe. "Why Homogeneous Grouping," Cali- fornia Journal Of Secondary Education, XXX (January, 1955), 22-28. Gray, Howard A. and Hollingsworth, Leta S. "The Achieve- ment of Gifted Children Enrolled and Not En- rolled in Special Opportunity Classes," JOurnal of Educational Research, XXIV (November, 1931), 2553261. Gross, Robert D. "A Parent Looks at His Children in the Light of Ability Grouping," California Journal of Secondary_Education, XXX (January, 1955), 58-59. Guttman, Louis. "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data," American Sociological Review, IX (1944), 139-150. Hamalainen, Arthur E. "Method of Grouping Pupils Should Provide Normal Social Situations," Nation's Hay, Morris E. "Effective Learning Through Grouping in Junior High School," California Journal pf SecondarypEducation, XXXII (January 1957): 11-13. Heffernan, Helen, "Grouping of Pupils for Well-Rounded Growth and Development," Education Digest, (March, 1953). Holmes, Darrell and Harvey, Lois. "An Evaluation of Two Methods of Grouping," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXV (November, 1956), 213-222. Huck, Charlotte and Young, Doris. "Maiy Methods and Materials," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1955), 76-83. Jenkins, David H. "The'Helping' Relationship in Edu- cation," School Of Education Bulletin, XXII (February, 1951), 65-68. 248 "Interdependence in the Classroom," The Journal of Educational Research, XXXXV (October, 1951), 137-144. Jones, Daisy Marvel. "An Experiment in Adaptation to Individual Differences," The Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, XXXIX (May, 1948), 269-271. Justman, Joseph and Wrightstone, J. wayne. "The Expressed Attitudes of Teachers Toward Special Classes for Intellectually Gifted Children," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXXII (March, 1956), 141-148. Kaar, Galeta M. "How Group Instruction and Adjustment to Individual Needs Can Be Co-ordinated in Pro- moting Growth in and Through Reading Grades 1-3," Supplementary Educational Monograph, No.72. Edited by William S. Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, October, 1950, 155-157. Keliher, Alice V. "A Critical Study of Homogeneous Grouping," Teachers College Record, XXXIII (October, 1931), 64-65. Kilpatrick, William H. "An Effort at Appraisal," Part II Adapting the Schools to Individual Differences, National Society—for the Study of Education, Twenty-fourth Yearbook, (Bloomington, 111: Public School Publishing Co., 1925), 273-286. Kubik, Edmund J. and Pease, J. E. "A Promotion and Grouping Policy for the Elementary School," American School Board Journal, CXI (February, 1948;, 37-380 Lewin, Kurt. "The Effects Of Social Climates," Readipgs in Child Psychology. Edited by Wayne Dennis. New York: Prentice-dall Inc., 1951. 531-538. McAulay, J. D. "Elementary Education - Five Straws in the Wind," Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (June, 1960), 394-396. McAvoy, T. T. "Myth of the Great Teacher," Catholic Educational Review, LVI (September, 1958), 561-567 0 McGauphy, James R. "Random Grouping," Journal of Edu- cation, CXV (April, 1932), 276. MacLean, Malcolm S. "Should the Gifted Be Segregated?" Educational Leadership, (January, 1956), 215-220. , illlllllllll"| it'll i..." 249 Mann, Maxine. "What Does Ability Grouping DO to the Self-Concept?", Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1950), 557-550. Mill, Cyril R. "Attitudes Affect Pupils' Learning," Educational Leadership, XVII (January, 1960), 212-216. Miller, W. S. and Otto, Henry J. "Analysis Of Experi- mental Studies in Homogeneous Grouping," Journal of Educational Research, XXI (February, 1930), 95-102. Morgan, H. Gerthon, "Grouping for Growth and Develop- ment," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 72-75. Morrison, Nellie C. "Instead of Ability Grouping - What?", Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), 371-373. Nordlinger, Stephen E. "Standards Threatened by Slow Students," The Baltimore Sunday_Sun, June 5, 1960’ seetion A, p. l. Oliver, W. A. "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices," Journal of Edu- cational Research, XXXXVII (September, 1953), 47-55. Olson, Willard C. "Reaching and Teaching the Individual," Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (June, 1960), 393. . "Implications of the Dynamics of Instructional Groups," The Dynamics Of Instructional Groups, National Society for the Study Of Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 268-280. One-Hundred-One Questions About Public Education," National Congress of Parents and Teachers, Committee on School Education, National Parent- Teacher, XXXXVIII (March, 1954), 7-9. Otto, Henry J. "Organization of the Educational Program," Review Of Educational Research, XXIII (April, 1953), 181-188. "Elementary Education--III. Organization and Administration," Encyclopedia Of Educational Re- search. Revised edition. New York: Macmillan Compan , 1950, 376-378. 250 Parker, J. Cecil and Russell, David H. "W8 3 of Pro- viding for Individual Differences,' Educational Leadership, XI (December, 1953), 168-174. Pearson, John C. "Certainly, We Group Our Students," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (May, 1958), 358. Polkinghorne, Ada R. "Parents and Teachers Appraise Primary-Grade Grouping," The Elementary School Journal, LI (January, 1951), 271-278. Reavis, W. C. "Differentiated Requirements in the Uni- versity Of Chicago High School," Part II Adap- ting the Schools to Individual Differences, National Society for the Study of Education, Twenty-fourth Yearbook, (Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Company, 1925), 49-52. Ryans, David G. "Superior and Good Teachers," School and Society, LXXXV (October 26, 1957), 315. (Report on annual convention of American Psychological Association). "Schools Can Change Grouping Practices," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 64-68. Shane, Harold G. "Grouping Practices Seem to Favor Composite Plan," Nation's Schools, XXXXIX (May, 1952), 72-75. "We Can Find Better Ways of Grouping Children," Childhood Education, XXXVI (April, 1960), 350- 351. "Grouping in the Elementary School," Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (April, 1950), 515-519?“ Standlee, Lloyd S. and Popham, W. James. "The Minne- sota Teacher Attitude Inventory as a Predicator Of Over-A11 Teacher Effectiveness," Jourppl of Educational Research, LII (April, 1959), 319-320. Strevell, wallace H., and Oliver, Pauline. "Grouping Can Be Flexible Within the Classroom," Nation's Schools, LIX (February, 1957), 89-91. Symonds, Percival M. "Homogeneous Grouping," Teachers College Record, XXXII (March, 1931), 501-517. Thelen, Herbert A. "Classroom Grouping of Students," The School Review, LXVII (Spring, 1959), 60-77. Thomas, Edith M. "Grouping in the Classroom," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 69-71. 251 Thompson, Evelyn S. "The Role of Group Dynanics and Differentiated Instruction in Promoting Pupil Development." Supplementary Educational Mono- graph, No. 72. Edited by William 8. Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, October, 1950, 148-162. Tonsor, Charles A. "Must We Segregate?", The Bulletin Of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, XXXVII (November, 1953), 75-77. Trow, William G., Zander, Alvin E., Morse, William C. and Jenkins, David H. "Psychology Of Group Behavior: The Class as a Group," The Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXXI (October, 1950), 322-338. Veatch, Jeannette, "Grouping in the Whole School," Childhood Education, XXX (October, 1953), 62L63. Welke, Harold C. and Bragg, Desmond H. "A Study of Ability Grouping, Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, XXXXII (November, 1958), 85-91. Witty, Paul. "Nature and Extent Of Educational Pro- visions for the Gifted Pupil," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVII (February, I951), 65-79. Wrightstone, J. Wayne. "What Research Says About Class Organization for Instruction," National Educa- tion Association Journal, XXXXVI (April, 1957), 254-255. Unpublished Material Billett, Roy Oren. "The Administration of Homogeneous Grouping." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1929. Dynes, Russell R. "Interpolations of North-Hatt Occu- pational Prestige Ranks," The Ohio State Uni- versity. (Mimeographed). Ferguson, John L., Jr. "A Factoral Study of the Minne- sota Teacher Attitude Inventory." Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1953. 252 Gray, W. Maxine. "The Use of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory in the Selection, Counseling and Placement of Student Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1956. Hammond, Sarah Lou. "Homogeneous Grouping and Education- al Results." (Department Of School Services and Publication, Curriculum Letter No. 40) Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University. Harrah, Delvin Dae. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Five Kinds of Grouping in the Classroom." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Virginia, 1955. Heagney, Genevieve. "The Individual in the Group." Summary of presentation to 5th Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Research Institute, Washington, D. 0., December, 1959. (Typewritten). .1. maufwgnfl Juul, Dristen Dortheus. "Authoritarian Personality in Relation to Teachers' Attitudes Towards Child Behavior." Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1953. Kerber, August. "The Interrelation of Value-Attitude Structure and Role Perception Among School Teachers and Administrators." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1956. McCardle, Hugh Joseph. "An Investigation Of the Re- lationships Between Pupil Achievement in First Year Algebra and Some Teacher Characteristics." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1959. Martin, Willian B. "Effects of Ability Grouping on Junior High School Achievement." Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1958. Mazzitelli, Dominick J. "A Forced-Choice Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Attitudes." Unpub- lished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1957. National Education Association, Research Division, "Ability Grouping." Washington, D. C., March, 1954. (mimeographed.) _ . . 1 v \ \ O . . O . I . . . O . v I g . f . O . l . . . . 7 . Q C . C . o. C . . ' , I . . . O u ' t . . . - U . . - I I , . . . ‘ O . . '. - e . _ . . O 253 National Education Association, Research Division, "Organization Plans in the Elementary School." Washington, D. 0., February, 1956. (Mimeographed.) Petty, Mary C. "Intraclass Grouping in the Elementary School." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1952. Price, Monroe Samuel. "The Susceptibility to Distortion of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1956. Between Level of Self-Concept, Academic Achieve- ment and Classroom Adjustment." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Texas, 1955. A Reeder, Thelma Adams. "A Study of Some Relationships F‘ 1 ~. 9‘! ' kn: ‘ Rocchio, Patrick Dominic. "Teacher-Pupil Attitudes as Related to Teachers' Personal Characteristics and Pupil Adjustment." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1954. Schwartz, Dane. "The Organization and Administration of the Junior High School Instructional Pro- gram." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1959. Seagoe, May V. "Research on Ability Grouping: A Critical Analysis," Paper prepared for Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1957. (Mimeographed.) Severson, Ole Burnett, Jr. "A Study of Academic Achieve- ment and PersDnal-Social Development of Junior High School Pupils as Affected by Ability Grouping." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1956. Silverman, Leslie, Cook, W. Roy, and Haller, A. O. "Interpolations of North-Hatt Occupational Prestige Ranks," The University of Wisconsin. (Mimeographed.) Smith, Gjertrud Hjorth. "Professional and Lay Attitudes Toward the Education of the Intellectually Gifted High School Students." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Southern,California, 1959. Spence, Eugene Samuel. "Intra-class Grouping of Pupils for Instruction in Arithmetic in the Intermedi- ate Grades Of the Elementary School." Unpublished 254 doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1958. Sub-Committee on Superior and Gifted Children."A Study of Superior and Gifted Students." Baltimore County: Board of Education, 1958-1959. (Mimeo- graphed.) Tidwell, Charles Herman. "A Study Of Grouping Practices in Large American High Schools." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska Teachers College, 1959. Walter, Ralph, W. "The Basis Of Classification into Ability Groups." Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Harvard University, 1926. Westminister Junior High School Handbook. Westminister, Maryland, 1959-60. (Mimeographed.) Wilhelms, Fred T. "The Nature of Classroom Grouping for Learning." Paper prepared for Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1958. (mimeographed.) ROOM 03ng _ _ ____ . . . .K ’1. ._ . .u. i a f . . “Us; .11 ,iiufifi "I111111111111“111,113