TOUR BROAD COMPONENTSOE
PERSONALITY AS IT RELATES TO , I
THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS a
OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION , . ti
STUDENT TEACHERS AND THEIR
STUDENTS IN MINNESOTA

Thesis for the Degree of .Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DONALD ROBERT MAYLEBEN

1973

 

 

‘ yBRA R 1;
Michigan Stgfg
UHI‘JEEIEII

M

  
   

  

 
  

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FOUR BROAD COMPONENTS OF PERSONALITY AS IT
RELATES TO THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION STUDENT

TEACHERS AND THEIR STUDENTS IN MINNESOTA

presented by

Donald Robert Mayleben

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for I
Ph.D . degree in Department of Business
ana Dlstributive

Education

Major professor

ADate February 22, 1973

 

0-7639

  

V aiNnme av V
HUAE & SUNS'

1 BUCK BINDERY INC.

‘ Llamnv mm) as
gummy, mum!

     

W!

 

Mg

 

 

 

 

 

    
   
    
  
 
  
  
  
    
  
  

   

w Qv- u'
‘ "Iona BROAL -. ' ' "
gamma-ms ~-
‘ WT!” .‘I- 3"».
‘ f" 1 TEN Hi;

: \ >9.” . Uta" T In.
T

'I
l
‘4

Ir

:1; m. Study 'w'ol‘: -. . ’.‘

6‘-
effect an

j" oducat; vi...

'1
IT‘Tilo'rl“‘
‘ Th8 four --«.1-. - ‘ > .

.‘ 'Wlop an 11.8 Hat “1.1.. manure the

gift»): Goran. F-rsnal It. : LLBL'S tactors.
 ‘ ~~I , teflp'Jn‘sLliJle, «no: 21131 “acuity.
19111:») by reconstructing the unabridqd
M:,:: ranchers AtcLLude inv euxory teat Into _ i

"k_§ey toot culled the deifiifld agar.

 

 

DI.A ~
a

~.'-h ‘
~. "
‘ v

‘H N A.

-
““t .

a-
K
s

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

FOUR BROAD COMPONENTS OF PERSONALITY AS IT
RELATES TO THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION STUDENT
TEACHERS AND THEIR STUDENTS IN
MINNESOTA
BY

Donald Robert Mayleben

This study was conducted to determine the con—
tributory effect that the perceived similarities of four
broad components of personality had upon the rating of
distributive education students and student teachers in
Minnesota. The four components of personality were:
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and
sociability.

Specifically, the study was undertaken for the

following purposes:

(1) To develop an instrument that would measure the
same four Gordon Personal Profile test's factors,
ascendancy, responsibility, emotional stability,
and sociability by reconstructing the unabridged
Minnesota Teachers Attitude Inventory test into

a personality test called the Modified MTAI.

 

Donald Robert Mayleben

(2) To study the relationship between the students'
and student teachers' perceived similarities in
personality, which were identified through four
broad components of the Gordon Personal Profile
test: ascendency, responsibility, emotional sta—
bility, and sociability, and the performance rating
that the students and student teachers gave to

each other;

(3

H

To determine if any difference existed between

the spring and fall classes;

(4) To detect differences, if any, between the classes

at the post—secondary level of instruction and

o "_ 7f 1" v vjvw

classes at the high school level;

L (5) To determine if any difference existed between the

 

classes of the student teachers who were judged
socially secure by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory test and the classes of those student
teachers who were judged socially insecure by the.

same measurement.

A specially constructed personality test, the

   
  
  
  
  

Modified MTAI, and the Gordon Personal Profile test were

administered to 380 students and 22 student teachers of

14 distributive education classes in the spring and 8 in
, the fall of 1971. This was done during the first week of

the student teaching assignment. However, 3 student

 

 

‘. b4

u; v

u..

,.

o v .

 

.. a

-
U...

I‘-

o a >
I...

a , _

,..
~r._

7ku-

 

Donald Robert Mayleben

teachers and 61 students were eliminated from the popu—
lation because of improper coding and/or marking of the
tests. A rank correlation was used to analyze the
relationship between the four factors on each instrument
for each class. It was found that only four of eight cor-
relations were significant at the .05 level. Therefore,
the first two null hypotheses were accepted. Therefore,
it was concluded that the Modified MTAI was not a substi—
tute for the Gordon Personal Profile in this situation.

At the end of the student teaching experience, the
students and student teacher from each class completed a
ten-question rating form on the perceived performance and
attitudes of each other. The difference in the rating of
the students and student teacher was compared with the dif-
ference of the students' and student teachers' scores for
each of the four Gordon Personal Profile test factors in
each class. The data were analyzed by using simple cor-

relation and the following results were noted:

1. Ascendency, responsibility, and emotional sta-
bility factors each had nine significant cor—

relations while sociability had eight.

2. Thirty-five of a possible eighty correlations
were significant and twenty—five of them were sig-

nificant at the .05 level.

3. Fourteen classes had one or more significant cor-

relations.

 

 

 

Donald Robert Mayleben

4. Three classes had significant correlations for all

four factors.

5. Four classes had three significant correlations
for the same factors, ascendency, emotional sta-

bility, and sociability.

6. Four classes had two significant correlations and
three classes had one significant correlation but

each for different factors.

Therefore, it was concluded that it appeared that
some relationship existed between the performance and
attitude rating of the distributive education student
and student teacher and the perceived similarities in the
four broad components of personality. However, it is
unclear what the relationship was.

In an effort to determine the difference in popu-
lations, the classes were divided into three sets of pairs.
They were spring versus fall, post-secondary versus high
school, and classes of socially secure teachers versus
classes of socially insecure teachers. Since the pairs
consisted of an uneven number of classes and subjects, an
average weighted correlation was computed for each set and
substituted into Fisher‘s Z transformation formula, which
was used to analyze the data. At the .05 level, no sig—
nificant difference in populations for any of the four

Gordon Personal Profile test factors was found for the

 

 

-14

,e‘
~

In;

up:

 

v”

I

'1

 

 

Donald Robert Mayleben

spring and fall classes, nor for the post-secondary and
high school groups. However, in the case of the classes
with socially secure teachers versus the classes with
socially insecure teachers, significant differences were
noted in the population for each of the four factors of
the Gordon Personal Profile test. The Z values were
4.790765 for ascendency, 3.904121 for responsibility,
3.790871 for emotional stability, and 4.716555 for
sociability.

In addition, the following pertinent findings

were noted:

1. Twenty-five of the possible twenty-eight cor-
relations for the classes of the seven socially
secure teachers, or 89 per cent, were significant

at the .10 level.

2. Five-sevenths of all significant correlations
were recorded in the classes of the seven socially

secure teachers.

Therefore, it was concluded that in the classes
of the socially secure teacher, the perceived similari-
ties in personality of the student and student teacher

affected strongly the performance and attitude rating.

 

FOUR BROAD COMPONENTS OF PERSONALITY AS IT
RELATES TO THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION STUDENT
TEACHERS AND THEIR STUDENTS IN

MINNESOTA

BY

Donald Robert Mayleben

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Business and Distributive Education

1973

 

 

V
4..

n.
"i

d»-

"‘|

~v

~
--~

at.
~~
r...

5"
.“

I“-

 

 

6¢$\\ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appre—
ciation to my graduate committee, Dr. Peter G. Haines,

Dr. Robert Poland, Dr. Norman Kagan, and Dr. Richard
Lewis, for the guidance and generous assistance they
provided.

A special thanks is also extended to the Minnesota
Distributive Education teacher educators, the student
teachers, and the Distributive Education students who
participated as subjects in the investigation.

In addition, my appreciation is extended to
Dr. Mohamed Askalani for his assistance in the statistical
analysis and to Michael Landwehr, clinical psychologist,
for his aid in the psychological dimension of the study.
Most of all, I wish to thank my wife for her understanding,
concern, support, and typing, my children for their
patience and help, and my friends who prayed for and

encouraged me.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . l
The Problem Statement . . . . . . . . 3
Outcomes Expected . . . . . . 6
Need for Study in Distributive Education. . 7
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . 8
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Delimitations. . . . . . . . . 13
Background of the Study . . . . . . . 14
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . 18
General Review-—Teacher Effectiveness. . . 19
The Period—-1900—1929 . . . . . . . 20
The Period-~1930-l949 . . . . . . . 22
The PeriOd“1950'1970 o u o u g a o 25
General Review——Personality Characteristics
and Perception . . . . 30
General Review——Field Dependency Person—
ality, and Perception . . . . 34
Specific Review of Related Literature. . . 40
Specific Review——Gordon Personal Profile. . 40
Specific Review—~Minnesota Teachers
Attitude Inventory . . . . . . . . 45

III . PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Design . . . . . . . . 48
Defining the Population and Selecting of

the Samples . . . . . . . . . . 52
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . 55
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . 58

 

Chapter Page
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 61
Population Elimination . . . . . . . 62

Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . 65
Hypothesis 1: students' GPP Versus Stu-
dents' Modified MTAI. . . . . . . 73
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 73
Hypothesis 2: Student Teachers‘ GPP
Versus Student Teachers| Modified
MTAI . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 76
Hypothesis 3: Rating Agreement Index and
the Ascendency Factor . . . . . . 77
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 78
Hypothesis 4: Rating Agreement Index and
the Responsibility Factor . . . . . 79
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 82
Hypothesis 5: Rating Agreement Index and
the Emotional Stability Factor . . . 85
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 85
Hypothesis 6: Rating Agreement Index and
Sociability Factor . . . . . . . 86
Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 89
Hypothesis 7: Ascendency—~Secondary .
Versus Post-Secondary . . . . . . 94
' Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 94
Hypothesis 8: Responsibility—¢Secondary
Versus Post-Secondary . . . . . . 97
i Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 97
I Hypothesis 9: Emotional Stability--
‘ Secondary Versus Post-Secondary . . . 99
i Supporting Data . . . . . . . . 99
I

iv

 

uslg..

Hypothesis 10: Sociability-—Secondary

Versus Post-Secondary . . . . . .
Supporting Data . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 11: Ascendency—~Spring Versus
Fall. . . . . . . . . . . .
Supporting Data . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 12: Responsibility-—Spring
Versus Fall . . . . . . . . .
Supporting Data . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis l3: Emotional Stability—-
Spring Versus Fall . . . . . . .
Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 14: Sociability-—Spring
Versus Fall . . . . . . . . .

Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 15: Ascendency-—Socially
Secure Versus Socially Insecure. . .

Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 16: Responsibility—-Socially
Secure Versus Socially Insecure. . .

Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis l7: Emotional Stability—-
Socially Secure Versus Insecure. . .

Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 18: Sociability——Socia11y
Secure Versus Socially Insecure. . .

Supporting Data . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Findings . . . . . .

Page

100

100

102

103

106

106

107

108

109
110

111

111

114
115

116
117

118
119
120

 

  
  
   
  
  
   
   

{f“' Page
’ I
~ .fm! . U C O Q 0 Q 0 O O I I O 123
The Problem of This study . . . . . . 124
Outcomes Expected. . . . . . . . . 127
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 128
The Population and Sample . . . . . . 131
-"_." Collection of Data . . . . . . . . 132
“'41" lb Fimings I h o I I o a I Q a Q 134
l ,I¢‘- Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 142
,’” 5—1. .‘rImplications and Recommendations. . . . 146’
I. I I__
p“ $36!: 0?. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Testing Instruments . . . . . . . . . 165

Class Rankings . . . . . . . . . . 178

Mean Standard Deviations and Correlation
Coefficients of the Four Factors of

g. the Gordon Personal Profile and

Rating Forms . . . . . . . . . . 208

   

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
3-1. Population for Spring 1971 . . . . . . . 53
3-2. Population for Fall 1971 . . . . . . . 54
4-1. Population for Spring 1971 . '. . . . . . 63
4-2. Population for Fall 1971 . . . . . . . 66

4—3. Rank and Differences for Sociability, Class AA 75

4-4. Rank Correlations of the Gordon Personal Pro-
file-~Modified MTAI Four Test Factors for
Each Class . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4-5. Rank Correlations of the Gordon Personal Pro-
file——Modified MTAI Four Test Factors for
Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . 77

4-6. Computation of the Quantities for Fitting a
Correlation Class AA Ascendency and Rating
Agreement Indices . . . . . . . . . 80

4-7. Comparison of the Computed and Table T Values
for the Ascendency Correlation Coefficient
Per Class. . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4-8. Computation of the Quantities for Fitting a
Correlation Class AA Responsibility and
Rating Agreement Index . . . . . . . 83

4-9. Comparison of the Computed and Table T Values
for the Responsibility Correlation '
Coefficient Per Class . . . . . . . 84

4~10. Computation of the Quantities for Fitting a

Correlation Class AA Emotional Stability
and Rating Agreement Index . . . . . . 87

vii

 

4-14.

4-15.

4-18.

4-22.

Comparison of the Computed and Table T Values
for the Emotional Stability Correlation
Coefficient Per Class . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Quantities for Fitting a
Correlation Class AA Sociability and
Rating Agreement Index. . . . . . . .

Comparison of the Computed and Table T Values
for the Sociability Correlation Coefficient
Per Class . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computed T Values for Ascendency, Responsi-
bility, Emotional Stability, and Socia—
bility Per Class. . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Cor—
relation for the Ascendency Factor at the
Post-Secondary Level . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Ascendency Factor at the High
School Level . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Responsibility Factor at the Post—
Secondary Level . . . . . . .. . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Responsibility Factor at the High
School Level . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Emotional Stability Factor at the
Post— —Secondary Level . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Emotional Stability Factor at the
High School Level . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Sociability Factor at the Post—
Secondary Level . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation

for the Sociability Factor at the High
School Level I O I I I O O O C O I

viii

Page

88

90

92

93

95

96

98

98

100

101

102

103

 

Table

4-23.

4-26.

4-27.

4-33.

4-35.

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Spring Group's Ascendency Factor. .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Fall Group's Ascendency Factor . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Spring Group's Responsibility
Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Fall Group's Responsibility
Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Spring Group's Emotional Stability
Factor I I O O D O O O D O I O I

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Fall Group's Emotional Stability
Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Spring Group's Sociability Factor .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Fall Group's Sociability Factor . .

MTAI Test Scores of Student Teachers . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Ascendency Factor of the Socially
Secure Teachers' Classes . . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Ascendency Factor of the Socially
Insecure Teachers' Classes . . . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Responsibility Factor of the
Socially Secure Teachers' Classes . . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Responsibility Factor of the
Socially Insecure Teachers' Classes . . .

Computation of the Average Weighted Correlation
for the Emotional Stability Factor of the
Socially Secure Teachers' Classes . . . .

Page
104

105

106

107

108

109
110

111
112

113

114

115

11.6

117

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Modern man, generally, has been concerned about
his relationship with his fellow man. This is demonstrable,
not only in his family life, his occupations, and his edu-
cation, but also in any of his pursuits involving other
human beings.
Interpersonal relationships for the future appear
to be even more paramount. Toffler (152:122—23) states,
" . . . that we must necessarily reach that ultimate
degree of transience in human relations." Inherent in
this concept is the fact that due to acceleration of
change, which in itself denotes a temporariness in
relationship, man must be able to accelerate relationships.
Carl Rogers, (130:2) a noted psychologist, says:
So he is seeking, with great determination and inven—
tiveness, ways of modifying his existential lonev
liness. The intensive group experience, perhaps the
most significant social invention of this century,
is an important one. . . . People will be experiment-

ing with ways in which a whole person can communicate
himself to another whole person.

 

Therefore, one could conclude from Toffler and Rogers

that a major emphasis for the future appears to be
development of an ability to establish meaningful temporary
relationships.

Within the school building, the concept that
interpersonal relationship is important finally comes down
to the teacher and his effectiveness. Since 1891 numerous
research studies have been conducted in order to identify
"effective" teachers or to identify some consistent cri-
teria that would measure "good" teachers. In attempts to
identify some criteria for future effectiveness, many
approaches have been tried and replicated. Some studies
have been based on student achievement, some on situational
criteria, and others had been done on personality traits
and/or behavior of teachers.

What were the findings and conclusions of the
voluminous studies? The following were typical: “The
notion of the ‘good teacher‘ which appears so basic to
the study of teacher effectiveness turns out to be almost
as vague and diffuse as the range of human experiences
relative to teaching," (Ellena, 52:54). "And yet, with
all this research activity, results have been modest and
often contradictory. Few, if any, facts are now deemed
established about teacher effectiveness, and many former
'findings' have been repudiated" (Biddle, 21:38). It

seems evident that, even with hundreds of studies

 

involving thousands of teachers, the objective of deter—
mining criteria for judging teacher effectiveness had not
been met.

If educators accept the concept that schools
should be a mirror of society, then it might be projected
that education should seek ways of preparing the student
to meet the challenges of the future. Therefore, edu-
cation should attempt to determine the affect of inter-
personal relationships on teaching and learning. Follow—
ing this line of reasoning resulted in one of the functions
of this study being to discover the perceived effectiveness
of the distributive education teacher as observed by the
distributive education student. It was the contention
of the researcher that perceived similarities in four basic
components of personality will affect the perceived effec—
tiveness of the teacher and/or the student. The four
components of personality used in this study were:
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and

sociability.

\ The Problem Statement

 

This study is concerned with determining the
affect that perceived similarities in four broad compo-
nents of personality had on the perceived effectiveness
of the distributive education student teacher and their

students. The four broad components of personality were:

 

ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and

sociability. These were defined as:

Ascendency.-—Mobility upward, especially in
respect to power, prestige, and influence. Tendency to

control the behavior of associates.

Responsibility.-—Accountability for actions and
their consequences. The character trait of carrying out

one‘s agreements or one‘s duties.

Emotional Stability.-—Characteristic of a person

 

who does not react excessively to emotive situations.

Sociability.—-Inclination to seek the company of

others and to be friendly and agreeable toward them.

It was contended by the researcher that distribu-
tive education students and student teachers would have
a tendency to perceive each other to be more effective
if similarities in personality were observed. The problem
was specified by a major hypothesis:
There are no differences in the attitude and per-
ceived effectiveness rating made by the student and
student teacher of each other, when one perceives simi‘
larities in one of the four components of personality
as measured by the Gordon Personal Profile.
The primary hypothesis was first tested by specify-
ing four questions, each isolating a component of per-

sonality.

 

Is there any difference in the perceived effective—
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in ascendency?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in responsibility?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in emotional stability?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi—

larities were observed in sociability?

It was further assumed that if the hypothesis

were to be rejected and that if differences were deter-

mined, that certain factors in the instructional setting

for distributive education should be analyzed to determine

if they were causal. These factors were:

(1

(2

(3

)

)

v

time of the school year; spring classes versus

fall;

level of instruction: post—secondary versus

secondary;

socially secure teachers versus socially insecure‘

teachers.

 

Another aspect of this study was to devise an

instrument called the Modified MTAI, that would measure

the same four components of personality as the Gordon

Personal Profile. The unabridged Minnesota Teachers

 

Attitude Inventory Test provided the basis for the develop-

 

ment of the Modified MTAI.

Outcomes Expected

 

The outcomes of this study were presumed to be

the following:

1.

In teacher education programs in distributive edu—
cation, there would be a greater emphasis in the
direction of interpersonal relationship skills.
This would occur in the preservice teacher edu-

cation programs as well as the in—service approach.

Distributive education materials for training
teachers as well as students would in effect have
to be redesigned in order to emphasize the inter—

personal relationship skills.

The selection of students for entry into a dis—
tributive education program would assume a new
dimension, such as matching life styles against

some form of pre—determined testing system.

Within a given teacher education program further
investigation would be undertaken in an attempt to

modify teacher behavioral patterns.

 

5. The entire process of recruitment for a distribu-
tive teacher education program might be signifi-
cantly changed.

Need for Study in Distributive
Education

 

A review of the literature revealed that vocational
educators traditionally had not undertaken psychologically
based research. Their concern had centered mainly around
the cognitive aspects of vocational programs or around
descriptive studies of procedure and practice of programs.
This was not to say that there had not been some attention
given to the role of interpersonal relationship in
vocational education but as a rule this form of research
had been left to the psychologist.

Education for distribution and marketing has
always recognized that human relations are a large com-
ponent of occupational competency. This belief was
recently reinforced by Crawford (37) who has identified
human relations as one of the competencies a Distributive
Education Teacher-Coordinator must possess. As noted in
the review of literature, since 1958 a much greater
emphasis has been placed on the recognition of the need
for closer personal relationships between teacher and
more understanding of them. In Minnesota, new certifi-
cation requirements state that all teachers, new or

recertified, must have a human relations component.

 

In the area of distributive education, it has
become more apparent that there is a need to discover the
extent to which interpersonal relationships affect the
entire program. In the past, distributive education
personnel, teacher educators, teachers, and coordinators
believed that the interpersonal relationship of students
and teachers had a direct bearing on the total effective—
ness of a program. However, little research had been done
to establish this fact.

By the very nature of a distributive education
program, it seemed that the aforementioned statements
were even of greater significance. A great deal of
emphasis has been placed on the recruitment and selection,
placement, and performance of students within a distribu-
tive education program. Since the components in the pre-
ceding statement were such an integral part of the distribu-
tive education program, there must be some way to determine
the extent of their importance. If a relationship can be
established between the ratings of teachers and students
to the life styles of each other, then it may be possible
to demonstrate that recruitment and selection of students
is of vital importance to the success of any distributive

education program.

Definition of Terms

 

Terms which have special meaning for the under-

standing of this paper are:

 

 

Ascendency.——Mobility upward, especially in respect
to power, prestige, and influence. Tendency to control

the behavior of associates.

Responsibility.--Accountability for actions and
their consequences. The character trait of carrying out

one‘s agreements or one‘s duties.

Emotional Stability.v—Characteristic of a person

 

who does not react excessively to emotive situations.

Sociability.-—Inclination to seek the company of

others and to be friendly and agreeable toward them.

Security.--A complex attitude of self-possession,
self—confidence, and certitude that one belongs in a

valued social group.

Insecurity.—-An indefinite condition of feeling
anxious, unsafe, threatened, or apprehensive which is
shown by withdrawing reactions, by severe limitations
of responsiveness, and by inability to make friends

because of a lack of trust in self or in others.

Personality.——It is the physical, mental, emotional,
and moral characteristics of man and any changes, which are

constantly occurring, in them.

Distributive Education.-—For the purpose of this

study only, distributive education is a cooperative

 

“4"”

10

vocational program designed to educate secondary and post—
secondary students for careers in marketing and distri-

bution as practiced in the schools of Minnesota.

Distributive Education Teacher—Coordinator.-—The
teacher in the Distributive Education program who assists
the student in developing employable competencies in
marketing by coordinating the instructional program with

the student's on-the—job activities.

Distributive Education Teacher-Educator.--The
person responsible for the planning, developing, and
implementation of a program at the college level designed

to prepare Distributive Education teachers at all levels.

Gordon Personal Profile.--A test designed to
measure four aspects of personality which are significant
in the daily functioning of the normal person, namely,
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and

sociability.

Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI).--A
test designed to measure those attitudes of a teacher
which predict how well he will get along with pupils in
interpersonal relationships and indirectly how satisfied

he will be with teaching as a vocation.

Modified MTAI.-—A test designed to measure four

aspects of personality which are significant in the daily

 

‘M‘

11

functioning of the normal person, namely, ascendency,

responsibility, emotional stability, and sociability.

Human Relations.--It is the integration of people
into a work or learning situation in a way that motivates
them to work together productively, cooperatively, and
with economic, psychological, social, and self-satis—

faction.

Interpersonal Relationships.——It is the process

 

by which one whole person can be totally free to communi—

cate himself to another whole person.

Rating Agreement Index.-—It is the difference

 

between the teacher‘s rating of each student in his class

and the individual student‘s rating of that teacher.

Test Factor Agreement Index.v—It is the difference

 

between the teacher‘s score for each factor on the Gordon
Personal Profile test and the student‘s test score for

each factor.

g.-—The letter P will be substituted for the

Greek letter p.
Limitations
For the purposes of this study, the following

limitations were noted:

 

12

The spring and fall distributive education teacher
coordinators from all four teacher education
institutions in the state of Minnesota totalled
seventy—one. All student teachers were utilized
during the spring; however, five student teachers
in the fall did not wish to participate in this
study. Therefore, the size of this population may
pose some problems as to the reliability of the
recommendations and may tend to increase any error

within the study.

Due to the fact that none of the teacher education
institutions within Minnesota had enough student
teachers in any one quarter to establish a large
enough sample of the population to be significant,
it became necessary to utilize all four insti—
tutions. However, the teacher education programs
are different in structure and content as well as
having personnel that differ greatly in background
and personality. Therefore, the background prepar-
ation of the various institutions student teachers

may affect the results of this study.

The student teachers were assigned by the insti-
tution, and the researcher had no control over
where these individuals were placed. Therefore,
the type of school setting, structure of the

distributive education programs, environmental

 

F.-.

 

13

conditions of the community, and size of the school
may have an effect on the results. However, it
would not be possible to determine what effect,

if any, these conditions would have on the findings.

4. Since all the willing student teacher coordinators
for spring and fall, 1971, were included in this
study, there was no control as to the age, sex, or
backgrounds. The universe was made up of eighteen
males and four females, varying widely in age and

background.

5. In order to develop a control factor for the Gordon
Personal Profile test, a modified MTAI test was
developed. The researcher relied heavily upon
clinical psychologists to select questions from
the unabridged Minnesota Teachers Attitude Inven-

tory Test.

6. Individual differences do exist in the perceptual
domain. The statement is true not only for type
and quantity of information that is perceived but
also for the interpolation of the data that have

been received.

Delimitations
It is assumed that in the United States there are
approximately thirty-two states that have distributive

education programs similar to those found in Minnesota.

 

 

14

Similarities are not only noted in the teacher education
programs but also observed at all levels of instructions
in distributive education. Therefore, it is anticipated
that student teacher subjects selected from the distribu-
tive education teacher education institutions and the
students from their assigned student teaching site will
constitute a sample of the total population represented
by the distributive education programs found in the
thirty-two states.

Cost factors and lack of cooperation on the part
of local school administrators prohibited the researcher
from employing additional psychological testing instru—
ments.

As in most research studies, a significant
problem as to the size of the sample to be studied may
arise. It was the intention of the researcher to deal
exclusively with the teachers in distributive education,
since the major field of study is in the area of distribu-

tive education.

Background of the Study

 

Although according to Biddle and Ellena (20:352)
little is presently known for certain about teacher
excellence, this does not diminish the importance of
continued research, nor does it mean that researchers
should give up in the hope of finding some criteria to

predict teacher effectiveness. Barr et a1. (16:147), after

 

\'L y

 

15

summarizing seventy—five doctoral studies, suggested that

more research is "needed to clear up many unresolved

problems relative to the measure and prediction of teacher

effectiveness.“ Biddle and Ellena (21:4) have also noted:
The problem is not an idle one. The domestic science
and world outlook both clearly demonstrate the urgent
need for more and better education for all men. Of
all societies, the free one depends most heavily on
quality education for the fulfillment of its destiny.
Thus, the teacher and the quality of his teaching are
of paramount importance.

The importance of determining some criteria from which to

measure teacher effectiveness has increased.

Some recent research has attempted to attack the
general problem of defining teacher traits that might be
related to effectiveness from the theoretical reference
of "self" psychology. Self—psychology is based on the
works of such men as Allport (4, 5), Maslow (111, 112),
Rogers (128, 129), Lecky (102), Tillich (151), Jersild
(91), and Combs and Snygg (34). This approach advocates
that each person is a "unique" individual, and that one
operates according to his self—concept or perception.
Behavior is in accordance with one's perception of him-
self and the world in which he lives (Combs and Snygg,
34:14).

This approach using the “self as instrument," or
an approach based on what an individual is from "within"

has shown some promise in defining criteria for effective-

ness. Recently, under the direction of Arthur Combs,

 

 

(n

0"

A-‘

16

studies by Gooding (69) and Usher (156) have demonstrated
that administrative and student ratings of teachers are
related to, or consistent with, an observed perceptual
structure. For example, those teachers who rated high

with administrators and students had:
(1) Accurate perceptions about what people are like;
(2) Perceptions of self leading to adequacy;

(3) Accurate perceptions about the purpose and

process of learning (Combs, 33:20).

Other studies by Shafer (141), Walker (159), and Good (67)
have also shown a positive relationship between super-
visors‘ perceptions of prospective teachers and the
teacher‘s self-concept.

Even though the present research has indicated
that.there is some positive indication that self—psychology
may assist in defining a criterion for effective teachers,
as yet no conclusive proof has been established. There-
fore, it may be safe to conclude that it may be impossible
to establish criteria for effective teaching since years
Of research has been unable to produce any significant
results, and since the phenomena of the individual‘s
uniqueness is such an integral part of the teaching pro-
feSsion.

Dr. David Merrill (113) undertook a research

Project in which he was concerned with the social life

 

 

17

styles of individuals. Merrill has divided social life
styles into four categories. They are driver, analytical,
amiable, and expressive.

If Dr. Merrill‘s contention, that the social life
styles of individuals play a significant role in inter-
personal relationships in the world of work is correct,
would it not be logical to conclude that the same is true
in the field of education? Hence, this would set up the
condition that maybe there is no one effective criterion
for teaching, but that students and teachers would per-
ceive each other to be more effective when their social
life styles are similar, regardless of the techniques used
or the way they are used or by whom they are used.

If the above statements contain some degree of
truth, maybe other questions should be posed. If man is
in a constant state of change, meaning growth and develop-
meuit, why not approach effective teaching from the stand-
point of the teaching situation and the individuals

involved in that same situation at a given point in time.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

An examination of the literature in distributive
education revealed that existing research did not provide
a sufficient foundation for this study which dealt with
both the students‘ and teacher‘s perceived behavior during
their interaction. Some research in distributive edu—
cation had attempted to identify desired behavior of a
teacher-coordinator, such as Harris (82), Samson (136),
and Crawford (39, 40, 41). Others tried to establish
the desired behavior of the distributive occupations per-
sonnel, such as Ertel (56), Van Blois (157), and Craw-
ford (39, 40, 41). Yet others sought to identify the
types of students in distributive education, Ball (8),
Larson (100), and Estes (57); and some studies investi-
gated teacher-coordinator's job satisfaction, such as
Johnson (92), and Olson (120). However, no studies in
distributive education were located that dealt specifi-
cally with the affect of the interpersonal of both the

StUdent and the teacher. Therefore, it necessitated

18

 

19

exploring other disciplines, such as: general elementary
and secondary education and psychology.

The review of related literature was divided into
two categories, general and specific. In the general

category, three broad areas are reviewed:
(1) Teacher Efficiency and Characteristics;
(2) Personality Characteristics and Perception; and
(3) Field Dependency Personality and Perception.

Since this study concerned itself with the effectiveness
of a student and/or student teachers based upon a per-
ceived life style which was measured by four broad com-
ponents of personality, it was the intention of the
researcher to draw upon the three aforementioned areas
to show a general historical development and create a
conceptual picture of the research related to the purpose.
Contained in the specific section were studies
pertaining to the instruments, the Gordon Personal Profile
and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory tests used
in this study. The purpose of the special review was to
present an overview of some of the research which illus—
trated several ways in which the instruments were

utilized.

General Review——Teacher
Effectiveness

 

Research in the area of teacher efficiency in

earlier decades of this century was aimed at discovering

 

 

20

the characteristics of the effective teacher. Much of it
relied upon measurement devices that are still in use
today. These devices employed for the measurement of

teaching efficiency were of three general types:
(1) rating scales;
(2) tests of teaching ability and efficiency; and
(3) tests of pupil achievement.

The following studies are intended to be indica-
tive of typical research using the above—mentioned devices
and being produced in the decades between 1910 and 1970.
Barr gt_§1. (13:46) commenting on the last four decades
(1910 — 1950) of teacher research reported that the
research did not make adequate use of established psycho-
logical or sociological theory. It had proceeded too
often on hypotheses derived from an over—simplification
of the situation and an inadequate methodology, leading
to conclusions that frequently did not make psychological

or educational sense.

The Period--l900-1929

 

While rating scales were employed earlier, the
Elliot scale in 1910 and the Boyce scale in 1915 were
the first relevant scales for the evaluation of teaching-
efficiency.

As a result of Elliot's (53) work, Boyce (26)

developed a score card using forty-five traits and

 

rvfi *7-

' 21

correlated these items against a general estimate of merit
of the teacher. He found that a high correlation existed
between the forty—five items and the criterion.

Barr (9) found fault with the then current methods
of classroom supervision because he doubted their validity,
reliability, and objectivity. Barr suggested that super-
visors be trained to observe, analyze, and describe
teaching in terms of specific teacher and pupil activi—
ties. In his study he sought to test out a better method
of supervision using the standard items he helped develop
in Detroit some six or so years earlier. He concluded
that the performance of teachers was so variable as to
make it next to impossible to say that an observed teach-
ing practice is wholly good or wholly bad without further
research.

Barr (9, 10:222) indicated that frequently these
early studies of teaching efficiency were based upon the
general estimates of supervisors and administrative
officials visiting the teacher at work and therefore,
yielded a method which was very subjective and unreliable.
He suggested that standardized tests of teaching ability
and efficiency provided more reliable evaluation and
offered the Knight (98:14) Aptitude Tests for Elementary
and Secondary Teachers as an example.

Knight (98) has been cited by Boardman (24:6)

and others as a pioneer in the standardized tests field.

 

22

Madsen (108:43) cited Knight‘s study as the first really
scientific investigation concerning factors of prognostic
value in teacher selection and it served as a base for

many of the teacher rating scales and devices then in use.
Knight (97) used both the supervisor and teachers' associ-
ated as judges to rate a teacher upon the broad quality of
general teaching ability such as: the number and types

of questions asked in class. These factors were then
ranked by each judge in order of merit. A correlation

of .541 existed between teaching efficiency and IQ scores
of elementary teachers. Knight concluded that a profess
sional test of teaching efficiency for elementary school
teachers was highly predictive but suggested that some

test other than IQ may be more desirable. Somers (144:9)
followed Knight‘s pattern but used normal school marks,
participation in extra-curricular activities and personality
estimates in addition to IQ scores to predict success of
prospective teachers. He reported the most significant
coefficients of correlation were normal school success, .73,
two years marks in school, .71, and student teaching in

training school, .70.

The Period--l930-1949

 

Wrightstone (168:32) shifted from research on
objective teacher supervision to using the classroom
climate. Data for those types of studies were obtained

through the use of trained observers who made notations

 

23

of pupil behavior in the classroom. Each time a pupil
engaged in a specified activity, the observer wrote the
coded symbol for this activity next to the pupil's name.
The accumulated material was then rated by a panel of
trained observers. In this way, Wrightstone was able to
conclude that teachers using the newer type practices in
their classrooms offered many more opportunities for self-
initiated, cooperative, and leadership activities. It

was also possible to note how teacher personality and
practices affected the democratic process.

Mort g£_al. (117) developed a questionnaire which
specified the attitudes of the teacher toward the role of
the school in modern society. Teachers who did poorly
on the seven categories of school policy covered by
statements indicated unawareness or disagreement with
progressive trends and practices.

Kelley and Perkins (95:7) felt self-evaluation of
teaching practices should be of importance to the teacher.
They developed an inventory to indicate teacher fitness
for the responsibilities of dealing constructively with
youthful personalities in the classroom. Differences
between high and low scoring teachers were found to be
significant. While not denying the value of self-
evaluation, Barr and Harris (14:9) presented a means
of evaluating the teacher's performance systematically
on an activity basis which was the anecdotal—performance

record approach to teacher evaluation.

 

 

24

After examining hundreds of studies, Corey, (38:
578), in search of scientific investigation into the traits
associated with fine teaching, claimed that supervisory
ratings were invalid criteria for teacher effectiveness
because the emphasis had been on the teacher and not on
the development of the child. Another researcher, Grieder,
(79:691-92), in his analysis of temperament used Rosanoff's
seven components which were: the "normal" component, the
hysteroid, the cycloid, the schizoid component, comprised
of the autistic phase and the paranoid phase, and the
epileptoid phase, in an attempt to establish common
patterns of temperament among the student teachers. He
also was looking for some supervisory rating to use as
criteria. His findings revealed no common temperamental
element or pattern of components in the data for various
groupings of student teachers.

Barr (10:220 and 11:280—81), in a summary of
investigations on the prediction of teaching efficiency
for two three—year periods (1940-1942 and 1945-1947),
summarized over 200 studies relating to the measuring
and prediction of teaching efficiency. Barr reported
many exhaustive and extensive studies had been made and
the majority reported correlations between such variables
as intelligence test scores, achievement test scores, 4
academic averages, and supervisors‘ ratings. Barr
attempted to show the trends and the problems of teaching

efficiency in these reports.

 

r—__—

25

The Period—-l950—l970
In the Second Report of the Committee on Criteria

of Teacher Effectiveness, Barr, Beckdolt, Burly, Gage,

 

Orleans, Pace, Remmers, and Ryans, (133215), stated that
in the earlier decades of this century, research was
directed at discovering the characteristics of the effec-
tive teacher. Attempts were made repeatedly to correlate
single traits of teachers with one or more criteria.

Most often, the criteria employed was the rating of
teachers, thus bringing, in a sense, both the criteria
and the characteristics into the same dimension. This
approach led to an over-generalized View of teaching and
reduced considerably the likelihood that good teaching
might be viewed as part of some broader situation. Barr
reported that too many of the ratings were made by persons
untrained for such tasks, and hence, were of questionable
validity.

Almost as if to answer the objections of Barr
gt;al., Ryans (133:11) reported on a study begun by the
American Council on Education in 1948 and completed in
1953. The study was, in part, an outgrowth of the program
0f the National Committee on Teacher Examinations. The
lhnportant role of personal and social behavior patterns
01? teachers was recognized from the first in planning

thus National Teacher Examinations, but lack of reliable

 

26

research data in the personal and social behavior areas
discouraged inclusion of them in the test battery which
evolved.

The purpose of Ryans' study was to identify and
analyze some of the patterns of classroom behavior, atti-
tudes, viewpoints, and intellectual and emotional qualities
which characterized teachers, and to develop objective
measures that might be used in evaluating and predicting
teacher behavior. In order to attain these objectives,
it was necessary to develop techniques for the reliable
assessment of classroom behavior, to determine some of
the more prominent patterns of teacher behavior, and to
develop inventories composed of materials hypothetically
related to teacher classroom behavior dimensions and
other personal and social characteristics of teachers.

The design of Ryans‘ study set it apart from the
others on which Barr gt_al. (13:46) had reported because
most of what was known about teacher characteristics was
derived from subjective data-gathering rather than a more
objective norm. Specifically, Ryans‘ study dealt with

the weaknesses Barr et a1. pointed out by:

(1) viewing teaching as a part of some broader situ-

ation;

(2) using qualified raters and observers whenever part

of the research design called for them;

 

27

(3) by basing hypotheses and methodologies on estab-

lished psychological and sociological theory.

Ryans‘ study examined almost every conceivable
variable in teaching effectiveness such as age, sex, work
habits, marital status, value judgments, size of school,
educational philosophy, classroom behavior, teaching
experience, avocational activities, religious activities,
academic success, size of community, and the socio-economic
status of the community. Findings and conclusions were
given on each area researched and trends were reported.

For instance, neither age nor teaching experience appeared
to be associated with teacher attitudes, and actual pupil
behavior in the classroom did not appear to be related to
the attitudes held by teachers. Ryans, however, believed
that the usefulness of his findings for the prediction of
teacher behavior would be greatest when the results were
considered in an actuarial context, rather than in attempt-
ing highly accurate predictions for given individuals.

Bush (28), working on teacher-pupil relationships,
pointed out the complexity of measuring teaching competence
because of the divergence of ratings, the different vantage
points, and the different standards in mind used by super—
visors, administrators, and pupils. He indicated that it
was not possible to classify all pupils or teachers into
one or another of three pupil and three teacher types he

described; but for those who could be so classified, it

 

28

emerged that a failure to match these types frequently
resulted in disturbed teacher—pupil relations. He
suggested that the effectiveness of the teacher-pupil
relationship might be increased by experiments involving
matching of pupils and teachers. He further reported
findings that pupil liking for the teacher was highly
related to pupil liking for the subject and to subject
matter achievement, and there was a marked tendency for
those pupils who most liked the teacher to feel that they
were learning more, even though they may not have been
learning as much. Allen (3:13), warned that professional
persons retain their effectiveness only as long as they
remain warmly human in the relationships. The more skill—
ful they are (therapists or teachers), the more natural
and human they can be as they incorporate the theoretical
background of their skill into the relationship.

Some recent research has attempted to attack the
general problem of defining teacher traits that might be
related to effectiveness from the theoretical reference
of "self" psychology. Self-psychology is based on the
works of such men as Allport (4, 5), Maslow (111, 112),
Rogers (128, 129), Lecky (102), Tillich (151), Jersild
(91), and Combs and Snygg (34). This approach advocates
that each person is a "unique" individual, and that one

operates according to his self—concept or perception.

 

."'

‘nn’.

29

Behavior is in accordance with one‘s perception of himself
and the world in which he lives (34:522 and 33:134).

This approach using the "self as instrument," or
an approach based on what an individual is from "within"
has shown some promise in defining criteria for effective-
ness. Recently, under the direction of Arthur Combs,
studies by Gooding (69) and Usher (156) have demonstrated
that administrative and student ratings of teachers are
related to, or consistent with, an observed perceptual
structure. For example, those teachers who rated high

with administrators and students had:
(1) accurate perceptions about what people are like;
(2) perceptions of self leading to adequacy;

(3) accurate perceptions about the purpose and process

of learning (Combs, 33:20).

Other studies by Shafer (141), walker (159), and Good (67)
have also shown a positive relationship between super-
visory perceptions of prospective teachers and the
teacher‘s self-concept.

Even though the present research has indicated
that there is some positive indication that self-psychology
may assist in defining a criteria for effective teachers,
as yet no conclusive proof has been established. There-
fore, it may be safe to conclude that it may be impossible

to establish criteria for effective teaching since years

 

30

of research has been unable to produce any significant .
results, and since the phenomena of the individual‘s
uniqueness is such an integral part of the teaching pro-
fession.

Since there was a voluminous amount of research
in the area of teacher efficiency and characteristics, the
preceeding review was presented for the purpose of showing
the general historical development of the methodology and
problems encountered in the scientific search for evidence.

General Review--Personality Charac-
teristics and Perception

 

 

Personality and perception had been studies and
had a history almost as long as psychology itself.
Research designed to measure individual differences in
abilities, personality traits, and intelligence likewise
have a history almost as long. Early studies in the area
of perception stressed the differences in perceptual
and sensory characteristics. Galton (60) investigated
what forms of imagery different subjects took and so
devised tests to measure weight discrimination and sensi-
tivity to high tones. Cattell and Farrand (30:620) used
a battery of tests on college students and were seeking
measures of perceptual differences. Gilbert (64:2, 3)
compared the physical growth of hundreds of children

to the performance on perceptual and motor tests.

 

31

These researchers and others working at the turn
of the century were struggling to determine individual
differences in perception. They and other investigators
believed that individual variations in attention, attitudes,
motivation, and set had an effect on perception.

A survey by Gibson (63:783—84) was made of research
on set with emphasis on perceptually oriented studies. At
first, a set was described as a transient condition of the
subject due to the instructions of the experimenter. But
it was soon learned that what the subject perceived was
also dependent on general expectations arising from the
pattern of the entire situation and on habits gained by
previous experience. Thus the notion of set was broadened

to include those perceiver conditions. Researchers have

‘become interested in the motivational factors and personal

determiners of perceptual experience and have studied their
relationship to perception. This research direction has
blended with a general shift of emphasis in differential
psychology. That shift has been from the measurement of
cognitive traits to the measurement of motivational

traits (Tyler, 155).

The relationship of personality and perception is
best shown in the area of projective techniques. The
relationship is contingent upon the hypotheses that
responses to ambiguous or unstructured stimuli reveal

characteristics of the individual's personality. The

 

32

most familiar examples of this evaluation of personality
approach were Rorschach's Ink Blot Test and Murray's
Thematic Apperception Test (Abt and Bellak, 1). These
traditional clinical-psychometric approaches have been
complemented in recent years, however, by experimental
investigations which attempt to apply laboratory techniques
to the study of individual differences in perception.
Typologies, contrasting persons whose usual ways of
experiencing the world in one way or another, have been
constructed by past investigators based on individual
differences in perception.

Jaensch (89) gave one of the most inclusive
typologies based on perception. He contrasted those
whose perceptions were unstable, irregular, and not
firmly linked to reality with those whose perceptions
are systematic, logical, and realistic. Tyler (155)
discussed a somewhat similar typology and contrasts sub—
jective with objective perceivers. The objective type
had a slow, rigid, narrow consistency in the approach
to a perceptual task while the subjective perceiver viewed
and interpreted what was seen with a fluctuating, broad
overview marked by considerable subjective interpretation.

The perceptual typology of Eysenck (58) has
appealed to many psychologists and it contrasted form

reactors to color reactors by using four tests which were:

 

33

(l) suggestibility,
(2) dark vision,
(3) questionnaire,

(4) Rorschach ranking.

The form-color typology demonstrated some relationship
with scoring procedures for Rorschach determinants. How-
ever, it was concluded that a combination of the four
tests was a better measure than any of them used singly.
This was true not only because of the statistical fact
that four tests are better than one, but because the
Rorschach appeared to be more diagnostic with respect to
hysteria than to dysthymia.

Another researcher, Vernon (158), discussed the
terms "analyzers" and "synthesizers." The analytic
observer concentrated on small details and tended to see
separate parts while the synthetic observer saw the field
as an integrated whole, but missed some of its details
completely. Various workers cited by Vernon mentioned
the fact that subjects spontaneously adopted one or the
other attitude in experiments on psychological relation-
ships, illusions, or comparisons of complex geometrical
forms. The subjects were most successful at a perceptual
task when they adopted the attitude natural for them.

In the distinction between what Vernon describes as

analyzers and synthesizers, there was a relationship

 

34

to the Rorschach location interpretations of whole (W),
large detail (D), and small detail (d).

The function of the Personality Characteristics
and Perception section was to provide a general overview
of some of the earlier as well as more recent attempts
to link the develOpment of personality characteristics
with perception. Since this study dealt with the effec-
tiveness of a student and/or student teacher based upon
a perceived life style, which was measured by four broad
components of personality, it seemed only logical to
incorporate some of the earlier developments.

General Review--Field Dependency
Personality, and Perception

 

 

The first large-scale quantitative investigation
in perceptual characteristics was a series of factor-
analytic studies published by Thurstone (149). A number
of factors centering around perceptual speed or "freedom
from Gestalt—binding" which appeared to be related to
mental ability were described. Speed and flexibility
of closure were seen as related primarily to temperament.
This dimension emerged in subsequent factor-analytic
studies by Thurstone (150:55), Botzam (25), and Pemberton
(122). Using Gottschaldt‘s test and Glaser‘s association
Value of Nonsense symbols test to determine the subject's
ability to make distinctions between aspects of given
fields presented useful information about personality

according to Gollin and Baron (66:260).

35

Witkin (165) described a perceptual type or mode
called field dependency which was related to certain per-
sonality characteristics. To measure this type of orien-
tation, Witkin devised a twenty-four item Embedded Figures
Test (EFT) selected from those developed by Gottschaldt
(76:262). To make Gottschaldt's black—and-white outline
complex figures more difficult, colored patterns were
superimposed. The simple figure was hidden by being
incorporated into the pattern of the larger figure and
the S was required to separate the item from the field in
which it was incorporated. The EFT has become a standard
part of the tests of field dependence, and shorter forms
of it have also been developed (Witkin, 164). In a manner
similar to the typologists of the past, Witkin formulated
polar perceptual approaches characterized as global and
analytical types. The global manner of perceiving
involved the inability or difficulty in overcoming an
embedding context, while the analytical method involved a
tendency to experience items as discrete from their back-
grounds, and reflected an ability to overcome the
influence of an embedding context. These individual
differences in approach to perception have been called
field dependence and field independence and are frequently
referred to just as field dependence. The tendency toward‘
one or the other approaches of field dependence charac-

terized a person‘s perception in a wide variety of

36

situations, and there is a considerable body of literature
specifying the relationship between field dependence and
performance in constancy situations (Thurstone, 149;
Witkin gt_al., 165; Perez, 123; Holtzman and Bitterman,
85; Podell and Phillips, 124; Gardner et_al., 59; Gardner,
Jackson, and Messick, 62). The perceived was markedly
self-consistent in respect to the global or analytical
approach of perception.

In general, the field dependence dimension was
related to dimensions of perceptual functioning identified
by other investigators. "Field dependency, Thurstone's
flexibility of closure, Phillip‘s spatial decontextuali-
zation, Duncker's functional fixedness, Guilford‘s adap-
tive flexibility, and perceptual organization on the
Wechsler scale all appear to involve the ability to over-
come an embedding context" (Witkin, 165:80). Even stronger
evidence of such a relationship was shown in studies by
Gardner, Jackson, and Messick (62:8) and Podell and
Phillips (124:439).

Gardner, Jackson, and Messick (62:8) factor
analyzed a large battery of perceptual, intellectual,
and personality tests. They included two tests to rep-
resent the field-dependence dimension, the EFT and RFT,
and two tests to represent the flexibility of closure
dimension, Concealed Figures and Designs. All four

tests had their major loadings on the same factor. It

37

was also evidenced that the field dependence dimension
referred quite specifically to the ability to overcome an
embedding context, which appeared distinct from the ability
to overcome the effects of distracting field (Witkin
gt_al., 164).

Witkin gt_§l. (164), using the interview technique
and various psychometric instruments, discovered field
dependent 35 were unadaptive under stress and made sig-
nificantly more errors than field independent 83 when
their social attitudes conflicted with the correct
solution. The field dependent Ss had a tendency to
lack insight, to repress their impulses, to be passive,
to yield to inferiority feelings, and to be tense. More-
over, they tended to be submissive to authority, to require
environmental support, and to deny inner events. For
defenses, field dependent Ss tended to use massive
repression and primitive denial.

Witkin found the field independent perceiver
tended to maintain his own direction in the face of the
contradictory attitudes, judgments, and values of others.
The field independent Ss tended to have relatively stable
self-views in varying social contexts since they needed
these less for self-definition, and tended to show self-
awareness, to express impulses directly, to be active,
to deal with inferiority feelings in a compensatory way,

to show self-assurance, and to have a sense of humor.

38

The field independent 83 tended to use intellectualization,
isolation, and over-control as defenses. It was assumed,
then, that an individual's performance in perceptual tasks
provided a measure of his manner of operating in other
areas of life; in other words, it represented the nature
of his personality functioning. As such, it provided

more valid information on a teacher's personal-social
behavior than did the MTAI for, as Ryans (133:12) indi—
cated, research seemed to point toward clusters of
behavior, and it is reasonable that some behavior was

more suitable for elementary than for high school situ-
ations. It was assumed that a teacher developed and dis-
played certain types of attitudes and behavior because of
his perception of self and of others. Attempts to deter-
mine attitudes characteristic of superior teachers to gain
better teacher-pupil relations were not greatly beneficial.
Swinford (147:214) reported that the type of person a
teacher is, including his knowledge, was more important

in influencing his teaching behavior and attitudes than
the pressures and influences of his education, adminis-
tration, and community. Englander (54:262) pointed out

in his study of elementary education majors that the
perceived elementary teaching was a means of maintaining
and enhancing the phenomenal self. Congruency with
reSpect to perceived personal characteristics of self

with the characteristics of elementary teachers was

39

significant at the l per cent level of confidence. In
addition, these elementary education majors perceived
that the features of elementary teaching would be con-
gruent with the features desired for themselves. These
findings tended to confirm Super‘s (146:189) notion that
one‘s vocational choice was a means of implementing the
self-concept which required a person to determine rather
explicitly their concept of self and to say, "I am this
or that type of person." An exploratory study by Dillon
(48) also lended support to Super‘s concept and reported
a definite relationship between a subject's motivational
pressure and his concept of himself as a teacher.

By the preceeding review, it was the intent of the
researcher to show a different methodology of examining
personality development through perception. This section
illustrated a general pattern of the studies that used
more objective criteria and relied upon more spontaneity
of response from the subject than the studies reported
in the Personality Characteristics and Perception section,
which were subject to distortion by the subjects because
of his willingness to give a free response or by the
examiner due to his ability to interpret the results.
However, the Field Dependency Personality and Perception
unit was of concern because the additional information

contributed to the major assumption of this study.

40

Specific Review of Related
Literature

 

 

The function of the specific review was to
illustrate some of the varied areas and uses of the
Gordon Personal Profile and the Minnesota Teachers Atti—
tude Inventory tests which were two of the four instru-
ments used in this study. This was done by selecting a
few studies that provided a broad and general perceptual
pattern in methodology. Also a brief description of
purpose as seen by the designer of the instrument was
included. It was not possible to demonstrate the appli-
cation of the ten-question rating form or the Modified
MTAI test because those instruments were designed
Specifically for this study. Therefore, the review was
confined to the first two mentioned measurements which
were presented in separate units.

Specific Review--Gordon
Personal Profile

 

 

The purpose of the Gordon Personal Profile was
to provide a simply obtained measure of four aspects of
personality which are significant in the daily functioning
of a normal person. Specifically, they are ascendency,
responsibility, emotional stability, and sociability.
Gordon (73:669-70) claimed that the four aspects of
personality were relatively independent and psychologi-

cally meaningful traits which were important in determining

41

the adjustment and effectiveness of an individual in
many social, educational, and industrial situations.

Gordon (71:407), in the initial development of
the instrument, assumed that a primary reason for the low
validity of the personality questionnaire was the moti—
vation of a majority of respondents to mark socially
acceptable alternatives to items, rather than that which
they believed applied to themselves. Using the forced-
choice method, Gordon designed a measurement of eighteen
items that presented pairs of items that had been equated
for preference value but which differentially discrimi-
nate on a criterion. This resulted from two lSO—item tests
which were administered to two groups of students number-
ing 390 and 282. He found that the correlations on all
four factors for both male and female were at least .5
at the .05 level.

Several studies were conducted to test the faka-
bility of the Gordon Personal Profile; two such studies
were: Rusmore (132:176) and Gordon and Stapleton (75:258).
Rusmore simulated an employment and vocational guidance
situation and administered the Profile to eighty—one
lower-division students. He concluded that the Gordon
Personal Profile was probably less subject to "faking"
than inventory type instruments.

Gordon and Stapleton divided the 209 subjects

into two groups: one seeking employment immediately

42

after graduation and one seeking vocational guidance.
Each was administered the profile twice, at different
times. They reported that the individuals‘ profile did
not change.

In the armed services, researchers made sub-
stantial use of the Gordon Personal Profile. The emphases
were primarily on personality traits for selection and
training. In the area of selection, Anderson and
Hertzlea (6:2) used the Gordon Personal Profile to
predict the personality profile of 216 SCUBA divers and
185 frogmen trainees as well as 50 graduated frogmen.
The most significant factor was found to be emotional
stability for the trainees. Anderson, Hertzlea, and
Gordon attempted to set some standards for selection of
SCUBA divers by administering the Profile to officers
and enlisted men on both frogmen and SCUBA units. Little
difference was found between the two groups for any of
the four factors. In the area of training, Willingham,
Wilson, and O‘Connor (161:378) investigating flight
trainees, concluded that a person might score low on
the responsibility factor and still complete a task.
They attributed it to group pressure.

Marketing, management, and sales are areas of
business that utilized the Gordon Personal Profile to a
minimal degree. Tucker and Painter (154:325), in their

study Personality and Product Use, examined 133 students

 

43

in marketing by administering the Profile, and a Sales

and Marketing Personality Index for the purpose of analyz-
ing the relationship between the two. A total of 36 com—
parisons (9 products x 4 personality characteristics)
included 13 significant relationships at the .05 level.
They concluded that personality traits are often related
to product use.

Researchers in the field of education appeared to
have used the Profile more than any other area, especially
in conjunction with other instruments. Gordon (72:245-48)
conducted a study to determine the degree to which certain
personality variables were associated with leadership.

The subjects, 168 college women who were freshmen,
sophomores, and juniors, were administered the Profile.
Three months after the election of corridor leaders, the
subjects were asked to rate their corridor mates on five
personality factors: sociability, ascendency, responsi—
bility, hypersensitivity, and refinement. The consistency
with which responsibility occurred high in the correlation
suggested that it may be a general characteristic of
leadership. A low positive relationship was found

between leadership and the absences of ascendency,
hyposensitivity, and intelligence.

In an effort to establish a relationship between
self—rating and test scores, Arbuckle (7:292-93) asked

120 college freshmen to rate themselves on Heston‘s six

44

traits which were emotional stability, sociability,
analytical thinking, confidence, personal relations, and
home satisfaction. In addition, two factors from the
Profile, ascendency and responsibility, were used. The
group was subsequently divided into three groups and the
high and low were compared. It was concluded there was a
minimal relationship between students‘ test scores and
self-rating.

Another example of the use of the Profile was one
done by Lohmann, Zenger, and Weschler (107:28-31). The
purpose of the study was to examine and measure the change
that occurred in subjects who participated in sensitivity
training. Three classes of twenty-four, twenty-two, and
nineteen students and three male trainers were administered
the profile before and after the experiences. The only
significant data reported was that in all cases, the
idolization of the trainer diminished; however, other
trends, such as students' self—perception scores rose as
a result of the training experience, were present.

In no way was the preceeding review intended to
be an exhaustive list of the studies which had used the
Profile as one of the instruments. However, the purpose
was to establish a base for the rationale for selecting
the Gordon Personal Profile, utilizing it to measure life
style through four broad components of personality which

the Profile can do.

45

Specific Review—~Minnesota Teachers
Attitude Inventory

 

 

The development of the MTAI came at a time when
greater emphasis was being placed on the recognition of
the need for more understanding of the interpersonal
relationship between teacher and student. It was designed
to measure those attitudes of a teacher which predict how
well he will function in the interpersonal relationships
with the student. According to Cook (36:5), close exami-
nation of the items, which discriminate sharply between
the teachers who have and those who do not have good
rapport with students, indicated the inferior teachers
were essentially socially insecure while teachers having
good rapport were socially secure.

A study by Mitzel, Rabinowitz, and Ostreicher
(114:501-15) was undertaken to determine the contribution
of the identified response sets to the test score variance
of the MTAI and the validity or lack of validity of those
responses. After administrators had rated 512 female
elementary teachers as superior or inferior, based upon
their ability to get along with pupils, 457 completed
the MTAI. A raw score difference of 13.86 was reported
between the two groups. It was significant at the .01
level. The reliability of the response set was shown to
be .851 and .901. Hence, a validation was concluded.

Stein and Hardy (145:321—27) attempted to check

the validity of the MTAI in establishing norms for

46

teacher satisfaction and teacher-pupil rapport in Manitoba.
Two groups of student teachers were administered the MTAI
test prior to student teaching. After a three-week period
of student teaching, "Our Student—Teacher“ rating forms
were given to the pupils. A correlation of .387 and .507
was reported when the test and rating results were compared.
Kearney and Rocchio (94:443-45) conducted a study to
determine whether the rating of secondary-school teachers
by pupils was related to the teachers' ability to maintain
harmonious relations with students. The sophomore and
senior classes of ten high schools rated their teachers
who had taken the MTAI test. The F value was found to be
8.76, significant at the .01 level. Therefore, Kearney
and Rocchio concluded that the MTAI was a useful instrument
in predicting the feeling tone of the student for the
teacher. A number of other studies, Rocchio (127:77—78),
Rocchio and Kearney (126:244-52), and Dodge and Clifton
(49:364-71) were undertaken and demonstrated significant
findings.

From the examination of some of the studies using
the MTAI and the preceding review, it was decided that
the instrument could serve as a control factor. It was,
therefore, administered to all student teachers for

that purpose.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

The study was designed to answer the following

questions:

1.

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in ascendency?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in responsibility?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective-
ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in emotional stability?

Is there any difference in the perceived effective—
ness of the student and student teacher when simi—

larities were observed in sociability?

Is there any difference in the spring and fall
population, in the post-secondary and high
school population, or in the classes of the

socially secure teachers versus the classes of

47

48

the socially insecure teachers when each of
these groups are investigated in relationship to

any of the four components of personality?

By using the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory,

 

can an instrument be developed that will measure
the same four components of personality as the

Gordon Personal Profile?
The basic procedures for this study were:

Design
Defining the Population and Selecting the Sample
Instrumentation

Collection of Data

Design
In addition to the major hypothesis of this study,

there were two sets of hypotheses that were developed one

being procedural the other set being substantive. The

first set of hypotheses was designed to identify the

relationship between perceived effectiveness and four

personality characteristics, as well as to determine the

similarities between two instruments used to measure

identical personality components.

Procedural Hypotheses:

1.

There is no significant difference in the rank
correlation coefficient of each of the four factors
on the Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified
MTAI test taken by the students as it relates to

a single class or between classes.

49

There is no significant difference in the rank
correlation coefficient of each of the four factors
on the Gordon Personal Profile test and the
Modified MTAI test taken by the student teachers.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student-~student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student——
student teachers' ascendency factor of the Gordon
Personal Profile in each class.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student—vstudent teachers‘
ratings and the agreement index of the student-—
student teachers' responsibility factor of the
Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student——student teachers‘
ratings and the agreement index of the student--
student teachers‘ emotional stability factor of
the Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student-—student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student--
student teachers‘ sociability factor of the
Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

The second set of hypotheses was substantive,

meaning that they were dependent upon the results of the

procedural hypotheses for implimentation.

Substantive Hypotheses:

 

7.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries‘ correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the ascendency agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

10.

11.

12.

13.

50

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post—secon—
daries' correlated values of the rating agreement
index and the responsibility agreement index as
compared with the same average weighted cor-
relation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the emotional stability agree—
ment index as compared with the same average
weighted correlation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the sociability agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student——student teachers‘ rating
agreement index and the student-~student teachers'
ascendency agreement index as compared with the
average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student-—student teachers‘ rating
agreement index and the student—~student teachers‘
responsibility agreement index as compared with
the average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of Spring correlated
values of the student--student teachers‘ rating
agreement index and the student-—student teachers‘
emotional stability agreement index as compared
with the average weighted correlation of the fall.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

51

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student-vstudent teachers‘ rating
agreement index and the student-~student teachers'
sociability agreement index as compared with the
average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference in the
ascendency average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test
and the ascendency average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers
were judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI
test.

There is no significant difference in the respon—
sibility average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were

judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test

and the responsibility average weighted cor—
relation of the classes in which the student
teachers were judged to be socially insecure by
the MTAI test.

There is no significant difference in the
emotional stability average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test and
the emotional stability average weighted cor-
relation of the classes in which the student
teachers were judged to be socially insecure

by the MTAI test.

There is no significant difference in the
sociability average weighted correlation of

the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test

and the sociability average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

52

Defining the Population and Selecting
of the Samples

 

It was assumed that in the United States there
are approximately thirty-two states that have distributive
education programs that are similar not only in teacher
education but also at all levels of instructions. There-
fore, the pOpulation for this study is all the distributive
education student teachers and their students from the
thirty-two states. Minnesota is one of the thirty-two
states. Thus, the sample selected was the distributive
education student teachers and their students in Minnesota.

The sample was composed of: (l) twenty—seven
available distributive education student teacher coordi-
nators from the four approved Minnesota teacher educationi
programs during the spring and fall quarters of 1971;
(2) all distributive education students from the assigned
student teaching sites. However, only 22 of the 27
student teachers agreed to participate in the study.
In the spring, 14 student teachers and 226 students
participated in the research project illustrated in
Table 3.1.

During the fall, 8 student teachers and 154 stu-
dents cooperated with this study, as shown in Table 3.2.
Even though 10 student teachers were available from the
University of Minnesota, only 5 agreed to participate.
Six of the 22 student teaching sites were post-secondary;

the others secondary.

53

 

 

mmm «a «a Hayes
0 o oooHU .Um
mm .m.m oaafl>mcuom no
we .m.m measm a: m m obmxcmz
.cooe
«a .m.m mHHOQMOGCHE UU
eunoz
ma .m.m wadedmoccflz on
ma .m.m manomcflnnom mm
ma .m.d .eome mxond mm
.O.h
hm .m.m mamocmEuoz mm
wooccmx MDOmOGGHZ mo
na .m.m coumcHEoon 4d m m muwmnm>flcb
.O.h madam
ma .m.m msmuma MM
ma .m.m nuuoz omumm mm
.O.> aamm
ea .m.m ooozomm zz
momma
uwonuoo HH
oa .m.m Epsom omumm an
coma
ma .m.m ocoeuooz we 0 m omonuooz
omummwofluumm manoawm><
MMMMWMMMd cofluoouumcH Hooeom mcaooo mumzomoe anemones HMMWMWMWMGH
Mo “@3552 .m0 Hm>oq omcmammd unmosum ucoosum “enemas

mo HonEdz mo noneoz

 

Hume meadow Mom coaumasaomtt.a.m mamas

54

 

 

«ma m ma Hmuoa
mm .m.m mwuocmxoad mm
.nome
om .m.m mwuocmxmad mm m m oooau .um
ma .m.m oumxcmz 00 H a coarse:
cemnmmmmb
ma .m.a aoumnasooam NN
NH .m.m .come mxocd MM
endow
m .m.m mflaoemoccflz xx
noecmm
ma .m.m mamomcwnnom 33 m OH mnemoccwz mo
ummoou muwmum>flcs
mm .m.m manomcflnnom >> o o omoeuooz
ooummwoflunmm manoaflc>m
UMMMMWMMM cowuosnumcH Hoonom mcaoou mnocomma macromos “MMWMWMWMGH
mo Honeoz mo Ho>mq omcmwmmd . ucoooum unmooum becomes
mo Honesz mo Honesz

 

Hams Hana sou :oaumasaomua.~.m mamas

55

Since control of the selection of the student
teaching location was impossible, and since every willing,
available, distributive education student teacher coordi-
nator was utilized, the number and nature of the student
population and the instructional level of the student
teacher were totally predicated on chance. However,
six of the twenty-two student teaching sites were post-
secondary.

Distributive education student teacher coordinators
were chosen as subjects rather than experienced teacher
coordinatOrs. Rationale for this decision stemmed from
the concept of familiarity and the possibility of people
selecting other individuals with similar personalities.
Since distributive education teacher coordinators, at
least the majority, had selection rights, and since their
personality and/or life styles were known by the students,
it was decided to eliminate these potentially contaminat-

ing factors.

Instrumentation

 

The instruments used in the study were the Minne-

sota Teachers Attitude Inventory (MTAI), the Modified

 

 

MTAI, the Gordon Personal Profile, and a teacher and

 

student rating form. These are shown in Appendix A.
The MTAI was developed by Cook, Leeds, and Collis
and has been used extensively to measure those attitudes

of a teacher which predict how well he will get along

56

with pupils in interpersonal relationships, indirectly,
how well satisfied he will be with teaching as a vocation,
and to some degree the social security and insecurity of
teachers. This instrument has consistently produced
reliability coefficients of .93.

Leonard V. Gordon developed the Gordon Personal
Profile Test which measures four factors of personality,
namely, ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability,
and sociability. He also used this instrument in seven
of his own research studies. The reliability of this
instrument rises sharply when it is used in conjunction
with other instruments such as intelligence and aptitude
measurements-~significant at the .01 level. However,
since there has been no previous similar use, it will
be necessary to quote its general reliability which
is .80.

It was contended that another test, similar to
the Gordon Personal Profile Test, could be developed and
the unabridged MTAI was an excellent source for acquiring
questions. Definitions for the four factors, measured by
the Gordon Personal Profile, were established from the

Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psycho—

 

analytical Terms. With the assistance of two clinical

 

psychologists, the questions on the MTAI Test were
investigated and categorized into the four factors:

ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and

57

sociability. Statements from the MTAI, which were judged
ambiguous, were discarded. After the items were categorized
into the four factors, six questions, representing each
area, were randomly selected. On the Modified MTAI Test,
questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, and 19 represented ascendency;
questions 8, 9, 12, 20, 23, and 24 represented responsi-
bility; questions 3, 6, 7, 10, 18, and 22 represented
emotional stability; and questions l3, 14, 15, 16, 17, and
21 represented sociability.

Another instrument used in this study was a
teacher and student rating form. Since the project was
designed to have both the students and student teachers
rate each other for performance and attitude, it became
necessary to develop evaluation sheets that would parallel
each other. Therefore, a ten—question teacher rating form
which had been used extensively throughout the Cincinnati
School system was selected because it contained a variety
of attitude and performance categories which related
significantly to elements of the study. However, it was
developed on a three-point scale and had numerous negative
selections. It, therefore, became imperative to revise
the rating sheet. All positive statements were used and
a five-point rating scale adopted: SA - A - U - D - SD,
with a numerical scale set from SA - 5 to SD - 1. Five
questions on the new rating form were identical; five

questions had words changed to fit the Operation of the

58

responder, such as this example: teaching versus learning
(see question 1, Appendix A).

In the light of the aforementioned alteration,
the instrument was administered to ten classes to check
for understanding and meaning of the statements. In all
situations, there were no cases reported in which the
students or student teachers were unable to respond due
to a lack of understanding concerning the meaning of the

statement.

Collection of Data

 

In February of 1971, the spring-quarter student
teachers from each institution were identified and a
coding system was devised. Each student teacher was
assigned a double letter indicating the school of his
student teaching site and the number one for self-
identification. The students in each student teachers'
class were subsequently identified by the double letter
and a chronological numbering system Starting with two.
Simultaneously with the aforementioned activity, the
State Department of Education was contacted and Mr. Ron
Strand, then state supervisor of Distributive Education,
wrote a letter to each participating school soliciting
cooperation. This preceded the researcher‘s letter to
each of the distributive education teacher-coordinators.

At the beginning of March, a meeting was held

for each group of student teachers from their respective

59

institutions. The purpose of this meeting was to explain
the testing procedure, define the coding system, and
administer the MTAI test to each student teacher. The
importance of retaining a roster of students with the
identification code of each student was emphasized at

the meeting. The Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified
MTAI tests were also disseminated with the coding
instructions on the envelope.

During the first week of student teaching, the
Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified MTAI were taken
by the student teacher and each student. The tests were
scored. In every class each student's percentile scores
for each of the four factors of the Modified MTAI test
were ranked and compared with the same student's ranking
percentile scores from the identical factor of the
Gordon Personal Profile test. The aforementioned
operation was processed in an identical manner for all
of the student teachers.

The Gordon Personal Profile test, which was the
main instrument, performed the principle service of
measuring life style. The student teacher‘s percentile
scores for ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability,
and sociability on the Gordon Personal Profile were com—
pared with his student's percentile scores for the cor-

responding factor. The above function provided a column

60

of differences for each factor: ascendency, responsibility,
emotional stability, and sociability in each class; hence-
forth identified as agreement index A, R, ES, and S.

After eight weeks of student teaching, the students
in each class completed the ten—question teacher rating
form on their student teacher. The coding on the teacher
rating form was the double letter designating the school
and the identically assigned number the student had on
his previous tests.

In addition, the student teacher completed a ten—
question student rating form on each student in his class.
The coding on this form was the double letter representing
the school and the student's assigned number; thus
enabling the scores from the two rating forms to be
compared with each other. This function produced a
column of differences, henceforth to be labeled rating
agreement index, for the ratings in each class, which
was then compared with the Gordon Personal Profile test
score agreement index for each of the four factors in
each representative class.

The entire Spring process of the study was repli—

cated in the fall.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

This study sought to determine the perceived effec—
tiveness of a student and/or a student teacher when per—
ceived similarities in life style were noted. A second
dimension of this study was to determine if any dif-
ferences in the perceived effectiveness existed between
groups such as: high school versus post—secondary, spring
versus fall, and socially secure versus socially insecure.
The third thrust of this study was to create an instrument
that could measure identical personality characteristics
such as those measured by the Gordon Personal Profile Test.

The findings of this study were based upon the

Minnesota Teachers Attitude Inventory Test, a Specially

 

constructed personality test, the Modified Minnesota
Teachers Attitude Inventory Test, the Gordon Personal
Profile Test, and a revised ten—question student-student
teacher rating form. The MTAI, which was used to deter-
mine whether the student teacher was socially secure or
insecure, was administered just to the student teachers
While the other instruments were dispensed to all of the

subjects.

61

62

The first data of this study were obtained from
all willing distributive education student teachers and
their assigned distributive education classes in the
Spring of 1971. The study was replicated in the fall of
1971.

A sufficient variation between high school and
post—secondary student teaching placement occurred so that
a comparison of the two populations was made. In addition,
two other groupings, spring versus fall and socially
secure teachers versus socially insecure teachers, were
made in order to analyze the population‘s relationship.

The hypotheses used for analysis of data were
previously stated in Chapter III. The ensuing data will

be presented in the same order.

Population Elimination

 

In the spring of 1971, there were 14 Distributive
Education student teachers and 226 students from 14 dif-
ferent distributive education programs who participated
in this study. However, 2 student teachers, NN and II
and their combined classes totaling 30 pupils, were
eliminated from the spring population because the stu-
dent teachers made errors in the coding procedures when
they administered the Modified MTAI test and the Gordon
Personal Profile test to their students, as illustrated

in Table 4.1.

3
6

 

 

and omfl mam SH «a Hmuoa
o o cacao .um
um mm mm .m.m maaa>mcnsm as
me SH SH .m.m madam z: m m oumxcmz
.aome
NH ma SH .m.a maaoammccaz oo
auuoz
as as we .m.a maaoammaqaz as
ea NH ma .m.m mamemcanbom mm
as as we .m.a .aooe mecca mm
.o.s
mm mm mm .m.m wwmocmEHoz mm mnemmccflz
condom mo
ma ma SH .m.m coumcflEoon dd w m muflmno>wcb
.o.e madam
NH ma ma .m.m assume as
as NS NS .m.m auuoz omuma am
.o.> maama
o o «a .m.m soozemm zz
mmxmaH
o o as .m.m uaouuma HH
a OH OH .m.m ausom comma be
some
ma SH SH .m.m emmauooz co m m emmeuooz
HH H pound
mmmem emcee Taoauumm manoawm>¢ downs»
OHQOHHM>< GOfluOSHumGH HOOfiOm ms." 0 mwm . UMO4 mHOfiDMOB lunumCH
omummfloauumm mucoooum mo am>oq omcmwmmd .o 0 some E pcoosum coflumosom
mnemooum mo HOQESZ u o um mo Hmnadz Addenda

mo Hensoz

mo monasz

 

Hume moanmm Hem

coaucaomomll.a.v mqm<e

64

For the purposes of comparison and analysis, it
was necessary that the student was assigned corresponding
numbers on both the Modified MTAI and the Gordon Personal
Profile tests, as well as a student identification list
retained by the teacher. In this case, student teachers
NN and II failed to assign those corresponding numbers
to each student and make a student identification list,
thereby negating any correlations. Also, one student
from AA, one from FF, one from EE, one from BB, one from
DD, and one from CC were excluded as subjects from the
population applicable to Hypothesis I because of either
improper or incomplete test marking.

In addition, one student from class GG, one
student from JJ, one student from HH, one student from
AA, one student from FF, one student from BB, one student
from DD, one student from CC, and one student from MM were
excluded as subjects from the population for Hypotheses
III to XVIII because of absenteeism on the scheduled
testing days, as illustrated in Table 4.1.

In the fall of 1971, there were 13 possible stu—
dent teacher participants. Only 8 student teachers and
their classes, consisting of 154 pupils, agreed to
cooperate in the study.

The student teacher in YY class failed to admin—
ister the Modified MTAI test to the students, which

eliminated those subjects from data pertaining to the

65

first two hypotheses. However, these subjects did take
the Gordon Personal Profile test and an accurate student
identification list was kept. Thus, the data obtained
from YY subjects was included in Hypotheses III to XVIII.

In addition, nine students from VV, one from WW,
one from 22, one from 00, and one from RR were eliminated
as subjects because of incomplete or imprOperly marked
MTAI tests.

Four students from class VV, two from WW, one
from XX, one from ZZ, two from 00, and two from RR were
excluded as subjects for Hypotheses III to XVIII because
of absenteeism on the scheduled testing days, as illus-

trated in Table 4.2.

Analysis of Data

 

Rank correlation, which is the product-moment
correlation obtained from two sets of ranks, was the
statistical tool used to analyze the first two hypotheses.
The percentile scores for each class obtained from the
Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified MTAI tests were
ranked, which is the arrangement of objects in order
according to the degree of some possessed characteristic.
Numbers of l to n were assigned to both the Gordon Per-
sonal Profile and Modified MTAI test scores in each
class, with l assigned to the highest value and n to the

lowest. Ties in ranking were averaged and the correction

66

 

 

flea mma vma m ma Hmuoe
om Hm mm .m.m afluocmxoam mm
.nome
mm om om .m.m oflnocmxoad mm m N odoHO .um
SH ma ma .m.m ouoxcoz 00 H a oumxcmz
comuomwmb
SH SH ma .m.m soumcHSOOHm as
«H 0 ma .m.m .nooe ozone w»
Epsom
m a a .m.m maaoammacas xx
Howcmm mnemmccflz
ma «a ma .m.m mamomcwnnom 33 m 0H m0
Hedooo muamum>aco
mm mm mm .m.m mamomcannom >> 0 o ommeuooz
HH H
emcee emcee owned o m am>m soaps»
ooummaowuumm manmaflo>4 coauosuumcH Hoosom aflofluumm wmomwmma TawmcH
mucoooum mucoooum we Hm>mq oocmammd mcfioou muonomoe ucoooum soawoosom
mo umbeoz mo umnssz ucmosum mo umueoz genomes

mo Hmuadz

 

Hams same now coaumHSSOETT.~.v mamas

67

factor for ties was not used because it was contended
that an insufficient number of ties would occur.
Hypotheses l and 2 and the alternatives restated

symbolically were:

1) H : p' = O 2) H2 p' = G

H : p' # 0 Ha p' # fl

Expressions H1 and H2 meant that the covariance,
which is the sum of the product of x and y, is equal to
the geometric mean which is the square root of the product
of x2 and y2 sums. In the above statement x represented
the difference between the actual score on the Gordon
Personal Profile test and the mean; y the difference
between the actual score on the Modified MTAI test and
its mean; x2 and y2 is the square of those differences.
The alternative hypotheses implied that the covariance
and geometric mean bore little ratio. However, the
common formula for correlation was not used because it
was not appropriate for completing rank correlation.

Through algebraic substitution the following notation

was derived and utilized:

68

Where the expression indicates:

r‘ = the rank correlation coefficient
D = the difference between a pair of ranks
n = the number of pairs of ranks.

Both Hypotheses l and 2 were judged to be sig-
nificant at the 5 per cent level.
Simple correlation was employed to analyze

Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6, symbolically stated as:

H3 PA = 0
H4 PR = 0
H5 PES = 0
H6 PS = 0

3 A
H4 PR > 0
H5 PES > 0
H6 PS > 0

The column of differences A, R, ES, and S individually
were correlated with the column of differences RT for

each class. The common formula for correlation used was:

69

Where the notation indicates:

r = the correlation coefficient

x = the difference between the column of dif-
ferences A, R, BS, or S and its mean

y = the difference between the column of dif-
ference RF and its mean

x = the square of the x difference

2
Y

the square of the y difference

All four hypotheses were tested with each class.
When the correlation coefficient had been determined, the
"Value of the correlation coefficient for different levels
of significance" table was consulted to find the critical
value for the applicable number of degrees of freedom at
the .05 and .10 significant levels.

In addition, since the alternative hypotheses
were one tailed tests, each correlation was mathematically

tested using the equation

 

t:
/ 1 - r2
where:
t = the ratio with n - 2 degrees of freedom

The
values from
freedom for

The

70

the observed sample value of the correlation
coefficient

the number of subjects

computed t values were then compared with the
the "t" table at the appropriate degrees of
the 10 and 5 per cent level of significance.

data and results obtained from Hypotheses 3

to 6 were the basic information used in the handling of

Hypotheses 7 through 18. Symbolically stated these

hypotheses were:

H7

H8

H9

H10

H11

H12

H13

H14

H15

H16

H17

H18

erH = erp
erH = erP
erSH = erSP
wrSH = wrSP
erSP = erF
erSP = erF
erssp = erSF
wrSSP = wrSF
wrad = wrag
wrrd = wrrg
wresd = wresg
wrsd = wrsg

71

And the alternative hypotheses were:

H7 erH y erP
H8 erH ¢ erP
H9 erSH # ersp

r r
Hlo w SH # w SP
H ersp # erF

11

r r

H12 W'RSP # w RF

H13 erssp # erSF

r r
Hl4 w SSP # w SF

r r
H15 w ad # w ag

r

r
H16 w rd # w rg

r r
Hl7 w esd # w esg

r r
H18 w sd # w 59
Where the expressions indicate the following:

r = the correlation coefficient

weighted average correlation coefficient

subscript w

subscript a = ascendency

subscript r responsibility

subscript emotional stability

m
to
II

subscript s = sociability
h = high school

p = post secondary

72

sp = spring

f = fall

d = teachers judged socially secure from the
unabridged MTAI

g = teachers judged socially insecure from the

unabridged MTAI

The weighted average correlation was devised by
multiplying each applicable correlation by the degrees of
freedom and dividing the product by the total number of
subjects. At this point the z transformation was used to
test for the significance of the difference between two
sample correlation coefficients at the .05 level. From
the "z” transformation table, corresponding 2 values were
found for the weighted average correlation coefficient
and inserted into the following formula:

“Z

z = (21 2)

 

 

Where the notation indicates:

z transformation table value of r

2

nl = number of subjects

The basic statistical tools used in analyzing the
hypotheses previously presented were rank correlation,

simple correlation, and Fisher's z transformation.

73

Hypothesis 1: Students' GPP Versus
StudentsT Modified MTAI

 

 

There is no significant difference in the rank cor-
relation coefficients of each of the four factors on
the Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified MTAI
tests taken by the students as it relates to a single
class or among all of the classes.
The null hypothesis, P' = 0, was accepted and the alterna-
tive hypothesis, P‘ i 0 was rejected at the .05 level.
Therefore the Modified MTAI was not a substitute for the

Gordon Personal Profile in this situation.

Supporting Data

 

The data for Hypothesis 1 were obtained from the
results of the Gordon Personal Profile and Modified MTAI
tests, which were administered to each student in every
cooperating distributive education program. For each
class, the students' percentile scores for each of the
four factors from the Gordon Personal Profile and the
Modified MTAI tests were ranked, all of which were
illustrated in Appendix B.

From the preceding results, a rank correlation
for each test factor in each class was performed using

the formula,

_ 6 D
n (n2 - l)

 

74

For example, using the Gordon Personal Profile's and the
Modified MTAI test‘s sociability factor for class AA and
substituting the differences squared in the formula, the

following resulted:

6 (437.50)
16 (162 — 1)

 

r _ 1 _ 2625
IE‘TEEET

2625
r - l 4555

r = l - .643

which yielded a rank correlation coefficient of .357.

The data for the above computation was shown in
Table 4.3.

The rank correlation coefficient was computed for
the test factors; ascendency, responsibility, emotional
stability, and sociability for each class. The results
for this mathematical process were shown in Table 4.4.

Using the t table at the .05 level, it was
observed that only four positive correlations, shown by
an asterisk in Table 4.4, were significant and one nega—
tive correlation, shown in Table 4.4 by a double asterisk,

was significant.

75

TABLE 4.3.--Rank and differences for sociability, Class AA

 

 

 

Student Modified MTAI GPP Difference Difference
Number Rank Rank Squared
1 3.50 3.00 .5 .25
2 12.00 5.00 7.0 49.00
3 15.00 8.00 7.0 49.00
4 10.00 13.50 -3.5 12.25
5 12.00 5.50 6.50 42.25
6 15.00 11.00 4.00 16.00
7 15.00 12.00 3.00 9.00
8 3.50 4.00 — .50 .25
9 1.50 7.00 -5.50 30.25
10 1.50 2.00 — .50 .25
11 7.00 9.50 -2.50 6.25
12 7.00 1.00 6.00 36.00
13 7.00 16.00 —9.00 81.00
14 12.00 9.50 2.50 6.25
15 7.00 13.50 -6.50 42.25
16 7.00 15.00 -8.00 64.00
Total -2.00 437.50

n = 16

TABLE 4.4.--Rank correlations of the Gordon Personal Pro-
file--Modified MTAI four test factors for each class

 

Emotional

 

Class Ascendency Responsibility Stability Sociability
AA -.010 —.123 .360 .357
BB -.098 -.168 -.091 -.215
CC -.146 .394 -.253 .007
DD .219 .104 .113 -.055
BB .135 .029 .297 .136
PF .013 -.063* -.276 .192
GG -.339 .578 .052 .346
BB -.524 -.012 .495 -.059
JJ -.342 .058 .415 —.400
KK .349 .622* —.331* .037
LL -.150 .174 .513 .028*
MM .379 -.041 .031 .698
00 -.l76 .142 .324 -.368
PP -.258 .045 -.166 -.045
RR -.197 .243 -.235 —.268
VV .125 .304 -.045 .118
WW -.022 .262 .179 .086
XX -.221 -.454 .146* .329
ZZ .238 -.218 -.541 .110

 

76

There were seventy-six rank correlations viewing
each of the four factors for each class as a single cor-
relation. Therefore, at the 5 per cent level, by chance,
there should be three to four significant correlations:

76 x .05 = 3.8. As noted in Table 4.4, only four positive
rank correlations occurred.

Hypothesis 2: Student Teachers‘ GPP Versus
Student Teachers' Modified MTAI

 

 

There is no significant difference in the rank cor-
relation coefficients of each of the four factors
on the Gordon Personal Profile test and the Modified
MTAI test taken by the student teachers.
The null hypothesis P' = 0 was accepted, and the alterna-
tive hypothesis, P' # 0, was rejected at the .05 level.
Therefore, the Modified MTAI was not a substitute for the

Gordon Personal Profile in this situation.

Supporting Data

 

Each student teacher was administered the Gordon
Personal Profile and the Modified MTAI tests. The per-
centile scores for each factor were ranked, and a rank
correlation coefficient was computed on each factor using
the formula:

2

6 D
n (nj- 1)

 

The supporting data for percentile scores and the ranks

were reported in Appendix B.

77

The computed rank correlation for each of the
four factors of the Gordon Personal Profile and Modified
MTAI tests taken by the student teachers was shown in

Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5.-vRank correlations of the Gordon Personal Pro-
file-Modified MTAI four test factors for student teachers

 

Number of Responsi- Emotional

 

Student Ascendency . . . . Sociability
Teachers blllty Stability
19 .088 .188 .333 .005

 

Using the t table at the .05 per cent level, it
was observed that none of the rank correlations was sig-

nificant.

Hypothesis 3: Rating Agreement Index
and the Ascendency Factor

 

 

There is no significant correlation between the agree-
ment index of the student-~student teachers' rating
and the agreement index of the student-—student
teachers' ascendency factor of the Gordon Personal
Profile in each class.
It was observed that classes AA and FF were significant at
.10 and that classes BB, HH, KK, PP, VV, YY, and 22 were
significant at .05. The null hypothesis, Pa = 0, was

rejected for the aforementioned classes and the alterna-

tive hypothesis Pa > 0, was accepted. However, for

78

classes CC, DD, EE, GG, LL, MM, 00, RR, WW, and XX the
null hypothesis Pa = 0, was accepted and the alternative

hypothesis Pa > 0, rejected.

Supportinngata

 

At the beginning of the student teaching assign—
ments, each student teacher was administered the Gordon
Personal Profile test. At the completion of the eXper-
ience, the students in each class individually rated their
student teacher and the student teacher rated each stu-
dent in his class.

In each class, the student teacher's score for
the ascendency factor on the Gordon Personal Profile test
was used as the point of origin. Then the students'
scores for the same factor were compared with the student
teacher's score and the difference was determined, which
was shown in Appendix C. The rating agreement index for
each class was computed from the differences of the
ratings by the students of the student teacher and the
student teacher of the students. These data, by class,
were reported in Appendix C.

Using the ascendency agreement index and the
rating agreement index, a correlation coefficient was

computed for each class by utilizing the formula:

79

An example of this procedure for Class AA was illustrated
in Table 4.6. _The result of the mathematical computation
yielded a correlation coefficient of .403248.

After a correlation coefficient for the ascendency

factor for each class was computed, the formula,

 

was used to determine the computed value of t, which was
compared to the "t" Table's value for the corresponding
degrees of freedom at the 5 per cent and 10 per cent level
of significance, illustrated in Table 4.7.

Hypothesis 4: Rating Agreement Index
and the Responsibility Factor

 

 

There is no significant correlation between the agree-
ment index of the student--student teacher's rating
and the agreement index of the student--student
teacher's responsibility factor of the Gordon Per-
sonal Profile test in each class.
It was noted that classes BB, 00, and YY were significant
at .10 and classes AA, DD, FF, JJ, PP, and ZZ were sig—
nificant at .05. Thus, for the previously stated classes,
the null hypothesis, Pr = 0, was rejected and the alterna-
tive, Pr > 0, was accepted. The null hypothesis, Pr = 0,
for classes CC, EE, GG, HH, KK, LL, MM. RR, VV, WW, and

XX was accepted and the alternative, Pr > 0, was rejected.

80

 

 

nm.wI u m
no.m~ u m
mam.mmma mmm.mmaa mmm.mmam o o o.mmI mva mamuoe
nmq.nom+ mov.mm mvm.mama mm.m I mm.mmI m.oaI mml ma
nvm.mom+ moo.mmm mvm.mnm mm.mHI mm.mmI N.omI wwI «a
nam.mmm+ mom.mm mvm.mmm mm.m I mm.mmI N.vHI mmI ma
mmn.mm I mew. mvm.amaa no. mm.mmI m.v I hmI NH
nma.m~ + mvv. mmm.mona no. no.mv m.v I ma Ha
www.mmm+ mom.mm mm~.mmm hm.m no.mm m.v 0 0H
wma.ma + mvv. mom.mnm so. no.vm N.v I a m
hmv.aa + mmv.m mom.¢m mm.~ I mm.v I N.h I mNI m
hmn.mma+ mom.am moo.mvm no.v no.mm N. m n
mmo.aa I mov.mm mm~.v mm.m I no.m N.oaI Hal m
mvm.omaI mmm.mm www.mmm mm.m I no.ma m.maI m I m
mmm.mm I mom.mm mmm.m ww.m mm.m I m.v mmI v
mvm.momI mma.oma mmv.amm mm.aa mm.>aI m.m le m
nah.mm + mmm.mm mow.mm mm.m I mm.m I m.mHI mmI m
hnm.vmm+ mmm.nnm mmm.~mm hw.ma .ho.mm m.aa o a
N x
meCH xmocH
ax m x m x ucmfimwumm “cmammumd ucowswm
m N mcwumm zocmpcmomfl

 

mmofipcw ucmfimmumm mcwumu was Mosmpcmomm
44 mmmao soflumamnuoo m mcflupflm Mom mofluaucmsg man no coaumusmEOUII.m.v mqm¢e

81

mo. um uCMOflmwcmHm

oa. um ucmoHMHcmHm

«a

.1

 

 

NH «H oma.H mmm.H I.~m~.~ Namavm. NH
OH NH mHm.H Nem.H IIHmm.H HaMHom. s»
e m mam.H ovs.H amp. «HHOHm. xx
HH mH mmh.H mmm.H mam. I mHNMOH.I 23
mm mm mos.H mHm.H IIHmm.H meshmm. >>
mH om amp.H omm.H mom.HI HmmHam.I mm
am am moa.H HHM.H I.¢~h.~ Homema. mm
mH pH mma.H Ham.H mmH. I samomo.I 00
MH mH Haa.H 0mm.H has. mammom. z:
mH Hm mma.H mmm.H ao~.mI mmmHmv.I HH
OH NH ~Hm.H Nam.H .IsmH.m mmROHF. mm
a a mam.H mHv.H Nvo.~I amHHHm.I an
a HH mmm.H mam.H IIHSa.v mommmm. mm
MH mH Haa.H omm.H amH. I mmeamo.I mm
mm mm «HH.H mHm.H Imom.H ammmmm. mm
mH 5H mms.H Hem.H mmm. I MHvovH.I mm
4H 0H Hes.H mam.H smH. smmmvo. on
0H NH mHm.H mam.H on. I ~o~0m~.I no
a HH mmm.H mmm.H IImma.m mHommm. mm
MH mH H>R.H omm.H Ismm.H mammov. «a
«In muowmnsm 0H. um u no pm 6 no mo wsHm> uanonmmoo mmmHo
Nun” HmQEflHZ 05Hm> mHQm—H. 05HM> mHth—t mumUSQEOU QOflUMHmHHOU

 

mmmao mom ucmfiowmmmoo cowumamu
Inoo monopsmomm map How mosam> u magma paw Umusmgoo men mo COmHHmmEOUII.h.v mqmde

82

Supporting Data

 

The second factor on the Gordon Personal Profile
test was responsibility. Taking the student teacher's
score for that factor and comparing it to the student's
score for the identical factor, the responsibility agree—
ment index was derived for each class, which was shown
in Appendix C.

Each class' responsibility agreement index was
correlated with the rating agreement index for the same

class using the formula:

A procedural exemplification for Class AA was shown in

Table 4.8. The correlation coefficient was .663035.
When the computed correlation coefficient for

the responsibility factor was completed for each class,

a "t" test, using the formula,

r V n - 2
/r1 - rz

 

t:

 

was employed for each correlation to determine the tabu-
lated value of t. This quantity was compared to the "t“
Table's value for the corresponding degrees of freedom

at the .05 and .10 level of significance. These results

were shown in Table 4.9.

83

 

 

nm.vl m
m.mHI m
omm.NmmN mmm.mmHH oom.oaova o.MNI nONI mamuoe
omo.a mov.mN ovo. mm.m I N. I N.OHI vaI ma
mam.Nmm moo.mmN ovo.vaN mm.mHI N.va N.0NI mmI «a
omm.mN mom.mm ovN.oa mm.m I N.m I N.vaI nHI ma
VVN.NN I mvv. ovN.Noaa no. N.mmI N.« I nvI NH
vmv.m I mew. ovN.>m no. N.m I N.v I NNI NH
www.mm mom.mm ovv.va nm.m m.m m.v oaI OH
mON.H mvv. ovN.m no. m.a N.v I NHI m
vmv.nN I va.m OVN.mma mm.N I m.HH N.h I N I m
vam.ma I mom.HN ovm.na mm.v N.v I N. I ma 5
mmm.mmN mov.mN ovN.ommN mm.m I N.mmI N.oaI nml o
mom.aov mmm.mm OQN.MNMN mm.w I N.va N.maI NmI m
mma.HON mom.mm ovm.va hm.m m.ON m.v h v
mqa.aam mma.oma ovv.mama hm.aa m.mv m.m on m
vmm.vaI mmm.mm ovN.aHoa mm.m I m.Hm N.maI ma N
mm¢.mmh mmm.nnN ovm.anN no.ma m.mv m.HH Nm a
w x
xmocH xmocH
ax N» Nx > x usmsmmumm usmmwwmm¢ pampsum
mcflumm Iflmsqmwmm

 

xmpcfi ucmfiomnmm means“ new huaafinwmcommon
«d mmmHo coaumamuuoo m mcwuuflm How mmwuwucmsw mnu mo coeumusmEooII.m.v mqmse

84

No. um ucmonHamHm

OH. um pcmoHNHcmHm

««

¥

 

 

NNN.H omN.H IINNH.N NNNNON. NH HH NN
NHN.H NNN.H INHH.H NNNHHH. OH NH xx
NHN.H OHH.H Nam. I HNNHNN.I m N xx
NNN.H NNN.H NNN. I HNNNOH.I HH NH 33
NON.H NHN.H NNH.H NHHHNN. NN NN >>
HNN.H ONN.H NmN. NHNNNo. NH ON mm
Noe.H HHN.H IIHNH.N mmmomm. NN NN mm
NNN.H HHN.H INNN.H momNNN. NH NH 00
HNN.H omN.H NNN. I NONNNN.I NH NH 22
NNN.H NNN.H HNN.HI NNONNN.I NH HN HH
NHN.H NNN.H NNN. HNNHNN. oH NH xx
NNN.H NHH.H IIHNN.H NNNNNN. N N as
NNN.H NNN.H OHN.H NNmHNN. N HH mm
HNN.H omN.H NNN.HI NNNNNH.I NH mH we
HHN.H NHN.H IINNo.N NNNONN. NN NN mm
NNN.H HHN.H ONN. NNNONN. NH NH mm
HNN.H NHN.H IINHN.H HNNHNH. HH NH an
NHN.H NNN.H NNH. I HNNHmo.I OH NH 00
NNN.H NNN.H INNm.H NONNNH. N HH mm
HNN.H omN.H IINNH.N NNONNN. NH NH «x
. . u ucmHOHmmmoo muomnnsm

MMHmwmmwowm wmeWmmwnwm mo msHm> :oNumHmunoo M\W mo mmmao

pmusmsoo umnfidz

 

mmMHo mom quNOHmwmoo coaumHmeoo
huHHHoncommmH map MOM mosHm> u oHnmu cam Umusmfioo may mo QOmHHmmEOUII.m.v mqm<e

85

Hypothesis 5: Rating Agreement Index and
the Emotional Stability Factor

 

 

There is no significant correlation between the agree-
ment index of the student-~student teacher's rating
and the agreement index of the student-~student
teacher's emotional stability factor of the Gordon
Personal Profile test in each class.
Classes EE, JJ, and 00 were noted to be significant at
the .10 level, while classes FF, HH, KK, PP, RR, and ZZ
were significant at the .05 level. Therefore, for the
above classes, the null hypothesis, Pes = 0, was rejected
and the alternative hypothesis, Pes > 0 was accepted.
But for classes AA, BB, CC, DD, GG, LL, MM, RR, VV, WW,
and XX the null hypothesis was accepted and the alterna-

tive hypothesis was rejected.

Supporting Data

 

Emotional stability was the third factor on the
Gordon Personal Profile test. Using the student teacher's
percentile score for the emotional stability component
of the Gordon Personal Profile test as a point of origin,
an emotional stability agreement index for each class was
derived by comparing the students' percentile scores for
the same factor with the score of the student teacher.
The data were reported in Appendix C.

By correlating the emotional stability agreement

index with the rating agreement index, a correlation

86

coefficient for each class was computed. The formula

used for this process was:

Class AA, noted in Table 4.10, was utilized to illustrate
the procedure. A correlation coefficient of .303741
resulted from the mathematical process.

Once the emotional stability's correlation
coefficient for each was established, a "t" test was
used to test the correlation's significance, using the

formula,

= r / n — 2
/f l - r2

t

 

 

The computed value of t was compared to the "t" Table
value for the corresponding degrees of freedom at the
.05 and .10 level of significance. Table 4.11 was used
to illustrate the results.

Hypothesis 6: Rating Agreement Index
and Sociability Factor

 

 

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student-~student teacher's
rating and the agreement index of the student--
student teacher's sociability factor of the Gordon
Personal Profile test in each class.

87

 

 

nm.eI m
hm.mI m
mmm.meHH mmm.mmHH mmn.nmeNH o o o.mnI mmHI meuoe
mmm.mm moe.mN nHm.NOH mm.m I mH.OHI N.oHI mHI mH
mnm.ooe moo.mmN nnn.Nmo mm.mHI mH.oNI N.ONI mmI eH
non.NNNI mom.mm nnnImmm mm.m I hm.mN N.eHI mH NH
mmN.> mee. an.mHH be. hm.0H N.e I N NH
mmm.N mee. whm.eH no. nm.m N.e I m I HH
mem.mmN mom.mm NHN.Nmm mm.m nw.mN w.e HN 0H
whe.HH I mee. hme.mmN no. mH.>HI N.e I mNI m
mmm.Nn mNe.m nuo.mmm mm.N I mH.HmI N.h I oeI m
MHm.hmH mom.HN hmm.mmNH hm.e nm.mm N. I 5N n
NNm.mmH moe.mN who.mmm mm.m I mH.HMI N.0HI oeI m
mmN.mom mmm.mm smo.NBMH mm.m I mH.hmI N.MHI meI m
woo.NHeI mom.mm an.ommH hm.m mH.meI m.e NmI e
mmN.mme mmH.mmH NHo.mmmH hm.HH nm.mm m.m Hm m
hHH.NmmI mmm.mm NHm.mmmH mm.m I nm.mm N.mHI Hm N
mnm.an mmm.NNN nmm.oeH hm.mH nm.HH m.HH m H
x
xwwcH xmocH
ax N» Nx m x ucmEomHmfi McmEmmxmd ucoosum
mcHumm uHHHQmum
. HmcoHuOEm

 

meGH ucmfimmxmm mcHumu one muHHHQmum HMGOHHOEO

«fl mmMHo cowumHmuxoo m mcHuuHm Mom mmHuHucmsw ecu mo soHumusmEOUII.OH.e mammfi

88

mo. pm ucmoHMHcmHm

0H. um unmoHMHcmHm

as

i.

 

 

NNN.H NNN.H IIeNH.e OOeHNN. NH eH NN
NHN.H NNN.H .IONe.N NOOHeN. OH NH xx
NeN.H Oee.H NNN. I NOHNNN.I N N xx
NNN.H NNN.H ONO.H NHHeNN. HH NH 33
NON.H NHN.H NNN. NNHeNH. NN NN >>
eNN.H ONN.H NHH. I NNHNNO.I NH ON xx
NON.H eHN.H u.:.NON.H eNeHHN. NN NN mm
NNN.H HeN.H INNe.H NNNNeN. NH NH 00
HNN.H ONN.H NNN. eNeNNO. NH NH 2:
NNN.H NNN.H NHN.HI NNNNNN.I NH HN HH
NHN.H NNN.H IINOO.N NNONNN. OH NH xx
NNN.H NHe.H IONN.H NONNNN. N N as
NNN.H NNN.H NIONN.H eNONNN. N HH xx
HNN.H ONN.H eNH.HI NNHNHN.I NH NH we
eHN.H NHN.H IINNN.H NNHeNN. NN NN xx
NNN.H HeN.H INNN.H NNNNNN. NH NH mm
HNN.H NeN.H HNN. NNNNNO. eH NH an
NHN.H NNN.H NON. NNNNNH. OH NH oo
NNN.H NNN.H NNN.H NNONHe. N HH mm
HNN.H ONN.H HNH.H HeNNON. NH NH «a
OH. an H No NO. um u N0 No mem> acmHoHNNmoo NI: muommwsm mmmHo
msHm> mHnmN wsHm> mHHma empsmsoo coHumHmunoo N\e Hanssz

 

mmmHo mom ucmHonmmoo COHHMmexoo NUHHHnmum
HmcoHuoEm map How mwsHm> u mHnmu one omusmEoo may mo acmHHMQEooII.HH.v mHm¢B

89

It was observed that classes VV and XX were significant
at the .10 level and classes BB, HH, KK, PP, YY, and ZZ
were significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis,
PS = O, was rejected for the aforementioned classes and
the alternative hypothesis, PS > O, was accepted. How—
ever, for classes AA, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, JJ, LL, MM, 00,
RR, and WW, the null hypothesis was accepted and the

alternative rejected.

Supporting Data

 

The last of the four factors on the Gordon Per-
sonal Profile test to be correlated with the rating
agreement index was sociability. The process for
deriving the sociability agreement index was identical
to the technique used for the other three components of

the Gordon Personal Profile test. Using the formula,

a correlation was computed for each class and an illus-
tration of the procedure was shown in Table 4.12.

The correlation coefficient for the sociability
factor in class AA was .304305.

The "t" test,

r J n - z
/’ l - r2

t:

 

 

90

 

 

Nm.eI u m
e.HeI u M
ooo.NHHH mmm.mmHH oow.mNNHH o o o.mNI HNmI mHmuOB
mmN.m0N Noe.mN owm.mmeH mm.m m.mmI N.OHI omI mH
NNN.mHm moo.mmN oom.eNe mm.mHI m.ONI N.0NI NmI eH
www.mm Nom.mm oom.NHH mm.m N.OHI N.eHI NmI mH
NNm.NN I Nee. oom.omNH Nm. m.HeI N.e I mmI NH
NNN.mm Nee. ONN.HmmN Ne. e.mm N.e I NH HH
Nom.N0HI mom.mm omm.NHH Nm.m m.0H N.e NmI 0H
NOH.mm Nee. omN.meNN No. e.Nm N.e I HH m
Nmm.mm I mNe.m omm.NON mm.N e.eH N.N I NNI m
mem.mHH mom.HN omm.mmm Nm.e e.eN N. I NHI N
meH.mm moe.mN omm.meN mm.m I m.mHI N.oHI NmI m
mmN.mHH mmm.mm omm.emH mm.m I m.MHI N.mHI mmI m
mmN.mmH mom.mm ooN.Nom Nw.m e.NH N.e eNI e
Noe.oeNI NNH.mmH omm.eNe N¢.HH m.0NI m.w NmI m
mom.mo mmm.mm omN.Nm mm.m m.N I N.mHI meI N
mmo.omN mmm.NNN omN.Nom Nm.mH e.NH m.HH eNI H
w x
xmocH xmwcH
xx N» Nx m x ucmfimmxmd ucmEomxm< unmosum
NcHumx quHHHmHooN

 

xmccH ucwswmxmm mcwamu can huHHHQMHUOm
44 mmmHo coHummexoo m mcHuuHm MOM meuHucmsw may no GOHumusmEooII.NH.e mHmNB

91

was computed for each sociability correlation coefficient.
The tabulated t value was compared to the "t" Table's
quantity with the corresponding degrees of freedom at
the .10 and .05 level of significance. The results of
the process were shown in Table 4.13.

By combining the computed t value for the four
factors, shown in Tables 4.7, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.13, into

Table 4.14, the following points were observed:

1. Ascendency, responsibility, and emotional sta-
bility factors each had nine significant cor-

relations while sociability had eight.

2. Thirty-five of a possible eighty correlations
were significant and twenty—five of them were

significant at the .05 level.

3. Fourteen classes, AA, BB, DD, EE, FF, HH, JJ,
KK, 00, PP, VV, YY, and Z2, had one or more sig—

nificant correlations.

4. Three classes, PP, YY, and Z2, had significant

correlations for all four factors.

5. Four classes, BB, FF, HH, and KK, had three sig-
nificant correlations, with HH and KK having
significant correlations for the same factors,
ascendency, emotional stability, and sociability.
Classes BB and FF had significant correlations
for ascendency and responsibility factors but the

correlation for the third factor differed.

92

NO. um HONUHNHcNHN

OH. um ucmoHMHcmHm

xx

x.

 

 

ONN.H mmm.H xxmmN.N NONNNO. NH eH NN
NHN.H NNm.H h.....eMN.N Nmmmmo. OH NH w»
mem.H oee.H «mOO.H HONmem. O m xx
ONN.H mom.H NNO. mmNNNO. HH NH 33
OON.H mHm.H «mwm.H mmemmN. ON mN >>
emN.H omm.H ONm.NI Nmmmmm.I NH ON mm
mON.H eHm.H NNmNN.H meNeHm. NN mN mm
mmN.H Hem.H eeN. I memmmO.I mH NH 00
HNN.H omm.H NmH. mmHNeO. NH mH 22
NNN.H mNm.H ONN.HI HHNHmm.I OH HN HH
NHN.H NNm.H aeHmm.m mommNN. OH NH MM
mmm.H mHe.H mmN. I mNOmmN.I N m Oh
NNN.H mmm.H «emON.N meOONm. m HH mm
HNN.H omm.H mHO. I NmNmOO.I mH mH 00
eHN.H NHN.H Nae. ONNNOH. MN mN mm
mmN.H Hem.H mOO.HI NmmHmN.I mH NH mm
HNN.H mem.H mmH. I HNmNmO.I eH OH on
NHN.H NNm.H NHO. I mmmOOH.I OH NH 00
mmm.H mmm.H «meN.e mammHm. m HH mm
HNN.H omm.H HmH.H momeom. NH mH ¢<
OH. an H No NO. an H No No mem> ucmHoHNNmoo NIc muowmnam mmmHo
mnHm> anma msHm> mHnma wousmaoo COHuMHmHHOU m\© meEdz

 

mmmHo Mom acmHonmmoo COHummexoo
NuHHHQmHoom may no“ mmsHm> u mHQmu cam Umusmsoo wsu mo somHHmmEooII.MH.e mqmds

93

TABLE 4.14.-—Computed t values for ascendency, responsi-
bility, emotional stability, and sociability per class

 

 

 

significant at

.05

Responsi- Emotional . . .
Class Ascendency bility Stability Soc1ab111ty
* **
AA 1.587** 3.193* 1.151 1.151**
BB 5.793 1.633 1.376 4.235
g: - 4:3 1:353“ :34: : :8:
EE - .528* .920** 1.586** -1.009
FF 1.503 2.037 1.995 .497
GG - .137 * -l.983 -l.184** - .018**
HH 4.967* 1.240** 1.920* 2.708
JJ -2.042** 4.561 1.850** - .796
KK 3.197 .799 2.008 3.891
LL —2.209 —1.661 -1.519 —1.796
MM .747 - .963 .238 .152
00 - .198** 1.562:* 1.433:* - .244**
pp 2.729 3.431 1.705 1.725
RR -1.808** .353 - .119 -2.920*
vv 1.831 1.172 .955 1.563
ww - .343 — .357 1.020 .073
xx .799 - .692* — .969 1.609:*
22 4.231** 1.442** 3.490:* 2.734*
22 2.252** 3.483 4.194 * 2.795 *
*
significant at .10
**

94

6. Four classes, AA, JJ, 00, and VV, had two sig-
nificant correlations each, however, JJ and 00
had identical factors, responsibility and emotional
stability. Class AA had a significant correlation
for the responsibility factor, also, but differed
for the second factor, while VV's significant cor-
relations were for ascendency and sociability

factors.
7. Three classes, DD, EE, and XX, had one significant

correlation but each for a different factor.

Hypothesis 7: Ascendengy—-Secondary
Versus Post-Secondary

 

 

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-secondary's
correlated values of the rating agreement index and
the ascendency agreement index as compared with the
same average weighted correlation value of the high
school.

At the 5 per cent level of significance, the computed

value of Z, 1.319, was compared with table quantity, 1.96.
The difference was not found to be significant. Therefore
the null hypothesis, r =

r
a aps a ahs

x

, was accepted and the

alternative hypothesis, was rejected.

r r
a aps a ahs'

Sgpporting Data

 

The computation of the ascendency correlation
coefficient for each class provided the basic data used

to test Hypothesis 7. The twenty classes were divided

95

by instructional levels into two groups, post—secondary
and high school. Classes CC, EE, FF, GG, KK, PP, and YY
were post-secondary, while the remaining classes were
high school. An average weighted correlation was computed
for both groups by multiplying the ascendency correlation
coefficient for each class by the number of its subjects.
These products were added and the sum divided by the total
number of subjects. The process was shown in Tables 4.15

and 4.16.

TABLE 4.15.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the ascendency factor at the post-secondary

 

 

level
Ascendency Number Wei hted
Class Correlation of Corrglation
Coefficient Subjects
CC -.250202 12 -3.002424
EE -.l40143 17 —2.382431
FF .298994 25 7.474850
GG -.037658 15 - .564870
KK .710752 12 8.529024
PP .464961 29 +13.483869
YY .801344 12 9.616128
Totals 0 122 33.154146

 

ar = .271755 (33.154146 5 122)

The average weighted correlation for the post—
secondary group was .271755, for the high school .119276.‘
Using the "2 value for r" table, the following 2 value

was determined for the post-secondary and high school

96

correlations, respectively: 21 = .273255 and 22 = .120276.

Fisher's z transformation formula,

21 - 22
l l
//n-3 + n-3

was used to compute Z. Substituting the Z values in the

Z:

 

 

formula, it became

z:

 

.273255 - .120276

 

//7 1 + 1
(122-3 II98Z§T

completing the mathematical computation, Z was equal to

1.319.

TABLE 4.16.-~Computation of the average weighted cor—
relation for the ascendency factor at the high school

 

 

level
Ascendency Number ‘ .
Class Correlation of Cgiiggziion
Coefficient Subjects
AA .403248 15 6.048720
BB .888019 11 9.768209
DD .049967 16 .799472
HH .855565 11 9.411215
JJ —.611167 9 -5.500503
LL -.541856 21 —9.488976
MM .203293 15 3.049395
00 -.050577 17 - .859809
RR -.391861 20 -7.836320
VV .337765 28 9.457420
WW -.103245 13 -1.342185
ZZ .544942 14 7.629188
Totals 0 198 23.616722

 

ar = .119276 (23.616722 i 198)

97

Hypothesis 8: Responsibility——Sccondary
Versus Post-Secondary

 

 

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-secondary's
correlated values of the rating agreement index and
the responsibility agreement index as compared with
the same average weighted correlation value of the
high school.

Since the computed value of Z was only .213457 and it was

less than the table value of 1.96, the null hypothesis,

wrrps - wrrps' was accepted and the alternate hypothe31s

was rejected.

Supporting Data

 

Using the same process as in Hypothesis 7, the.
average weighted correlation for responsibility at the
post-secondary level was found to be .245559 and at the
high school level it was .224998. The supporting evidence
was shown in Tables 4.17 and 4.18.

Taking the average weighted correlation for the

post-secondary, z = .245559, and the high school,

1
22 = .224998, and using the "2 value for r table," the

value for 21 was .250559 and 22 was .225798. Utilizing

the Z transformation formula and inserting the z and z

1 2

values, the expression became:

.250559 - .225798

/___1____+__1___
(122-3) (198-3)

Z:

 

 

The value of Z was .213457.

98

TABLE 4.17.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the responsibility factor at the post-secondary
level

 

Responsibility Number

 

Class Correlation of Cgifg1ziion
Coefficient Subjects
CC -.051881 12 .622572
EE .230868 17 3.924756
FF .390978 25 9.774450
GG -.482362 15 -7.234890
KK .264654 12 3.175848
PP .550565 29 15.966385
YY .414523 12 4.974276
Totals 0 122 29.958253

 

rr = .245559 (29.958253 % 122)

TABLE 4.18.--Computation of the average weighted cor—
relation for the responsibility factor at the high school
level

 

Responsibility Number

 

. Weighted
Class Correlation of .
Coefficient Subjects Correlation

AA .663035 15 9.945525

BB .477805 11 5.255855

DD .454621 16 7.273936

HH .381637 11 4.198007

JJ .865376 9 7.788384

LL -.356039 21 -7.476819

MM -.258208 15 -3.873120

00 .373605 17 6.351285

RR .083342 20 1.666840

VV .224113 28 6.275164

WW -.107351 13 -1.395563

XX -.271851 8 -2.l74808

ZZ .708773 14 9.922822

Totals 0 198 43.757508

 

rr = .224998 (43.757508 % 198)

99

Hypothesis 9: Emotional Stability——
Secondary Versus Post-Secondary

 

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-secondarys'
correlated values of the rating agreement index and
the emotional stability agreement index as compared
with the same average weighted correlation value of
the high school.

It was observed that 1.090586 was less than 1.96. Thus,
the null hypothe51s, wresps = wreshs' was accepted and

the alternative rejected.

Supporting Data

 

The emotional stabilitysl average weighted cor-
relation for the post-secondary classes was determined
to be .308219, which was illustrated in Table 4.19. For
the high school group, the emotional stability‘s average
weighted correlation was .189711 which was shown in
Table 4.20.

"The 2 value for r Table" was used to find the
z and 22 values which were .318219 and .191711. Applying

the numerical quantities for both z's to Fisher‘s formula,

the notation was:

.318219 - .191711

 

 

z _
/___l____+__}___
(122-3) (198-3)

The value of Z was calculated to be 1.090586.

100

TABLE 4.19.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the emotional stability factor at the post—
secondary level

 

Emotional

 

 

Stability Number Weighted
Class . of .
Correlation Sub'ect Correlation
Coefficient 3 8
CC .156853 12 1.882236
EB .378886 17 6.441062
FF .384197 25 9.604925
GG -.312167 15 -4.682505
KK .536065 12 6.432780
PP .311454 29 9.032166
YY .741002 12 8.892024
Totals 0 122 37.602688
esr = .308219 (37.602688 4 122)

Hypothesis 10: Sociability—~Secondary
Versus Post-Secondary

 

 

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-secondaries'
correlated values of the rating agreement index and
sociability agreement index as compared with the same
average weighted correlation value of the high school.

Since the tabulated value of Z, .732181, was smaller than

the table value of z, 1.96, the null hypothesis: wrsps

wrshs' was accepted and the alternative hypothesis,
xr # xrshs’ rejected.

Supporting Data

 

Table 4.21 and 4.22 were used to demonstrate the
computation of the sociability‘s average weighted cor-
relation for the post-secondary and high school classes

respectively.

101

TABLE 4.20.——Computation of the average weighted cor—
relation for the emotional stability factor at the high
school level

 

Emotional

 

Class Stability Nugger Weighted
Correlation Sub'ects Correlation
Coefficient 3

AA .303741 15 4.556115
BB .417092 11 4.588012
DD .066928 16 1.070848
HH .539154 11 5.929594
JJ .572603 9 5.153427
LL -.328523 21 -6.898983
MM .066494 15 .997410
00 .346735 17 5.894495
RR -.028137 20 - .562740
VV .184157 28 5.156396
WW .294119 13 3.823547
’XX -.368107 8 -2.944856
ZZ .771400 14 10.799600
Totals 0 198 37.562856

 

esr = .189711 (37.562856 % 198)

102

TABLE 4.21.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the sociability factor at the post-secondary

 

 

level
Sociability Number .
Class Correlation of Cgiiggziion
Coefficient Subjects
CC -.190339 12 -2.284068
EE —.251832 17 —4.281144
FF .102779 25 2.569475
GG -.005292 15 - .079380
KK .775868 12 9.310416
PP .314748 29 9.127692
YY .653552 12 7.842624
Totals 0 122 22.205615

 

Sr = .182013 (22.205615 % 122)

Thewr values from Tables 4.21 and 4.22 were con—
verted to 2 values by means of "the 2 value for r Table."

The corresponding numbers were 2, .184013 and 2 .099079.

2’

Making the necessary substitution of z, and 22 in the z

transformation formula, the expression became:

.184013 - .099079

1 1
/T‘—T122-3 + T_—Tl98—3

 

 

Z was computed to be .732181.

Hypothesis ll: Ascendency—~Spripg
Versus Fall

 

 

There is no significant difference between the average
weighted correlation of the spring classes' correlated
values of the rating agreement index and the ascendency
agreement index as compared with the same average
weighted correlation value of the fall classes.

 

103

TABLE 4.22.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the sociability factor at the high school

 

 

level
Sociability Number .
Class Correlation of C:::g?::ion
Coefficient Subjects
AA .304305 15 4.564575
BB .815599 11 8.971589
DD -.037571 16 — .601136
HH .670045 11 7.370495
JJ —.288079 9 —2.592711
LL -.381211 21 -8.005431
MM .042185 15 .632775
00 -.063345 17 -1.076865
RR -.566687 20 -ll.333740
VV .293495 28 8.217860
WW .022263 13 .289419
XX .548761 8 4.390088
22 .627909 14 8.790726
Totals 0 198 19.617644

 

Sr = .099079 (19.617644 % 198)

Since the computed value of Z, -.842067, was less than

1.96, the table value, the null hypotheSis, wras = wraf’
r 7‘

was accepted and Ha, w as

r , was rejected.
w af

Supporting Data

 

Of the twenty classes involved in this study,
twelve participated in the spring and eight in the fall
of 1971. The purpose of Hypotheses 11 to 14 was to
determine if any difference existed between the two
pOpulations for any of the four Gordon Personal Profile
factors. The correlation coefficient computed in Hypothe-
ses 3 through 7 provided the basic data for testing the

hypotheses.

104

An average weighted correlation was calculated
for both the spring and fall groups and for each of the
four factors. It was done by multiplying each class‘
correlation for a given factor by the number of subjects.
The products were added and the sum divided by the total
number of subjects.

The spring and fall groups' average weighted cor-
relation for the ascendency factor was illustrated in
Tables 4.23 and 4.24.

TABLE 4.23.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the spring group's ascendency factor

 

 

 

Ascendency Number .
Class Correlation of Cgifggziion
Coefficient Subjects
AA .403248 15 6.048720
BB .888019 11 9.768209
CC -.205202 12 -3.002424
DD .049967 16 .799472
EE -.l40143 17 -2.382431
FF .298994 25 7.474850
GG -.037658 15 - .564870
HH .855565 11 9.411215
JJ -.611167 9 -5.500503
KK .710752 12 8.529024
LL -.451856 21 —9.488976
MM .203293 15 3.049395
Totals 0 179 24.141681
r = .134870 (24.141681 i 179)

was

The average weighted correlation for the spring classes
was .134870 and fall .231413.
In order to compute the difference between the two

lpopulations, Fisher's Z transformation formula,

105

 

 

1 l
//n-3 + n-3

was used. To substitute in the formula, it was necessary
to convert wr to 2. Using the "2 value for r" table, the
average weighted correlation for spring, .134870, was
.136870 (21) and the average weighted correlation for
fall, .231413, was .232613 (22). By substituting the Z

values in the formula, the following expression resulted:

.136870 - .232613

 

 

z _
// 1 + 1
(179—3) 2141-35
The calculated value of Z became -.842067.

TABLE 4.24.-~Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the fall group's ascendency factor

Ascendency Number

 

 

. Weighted
Class Correlation of .
Coefficient Subjects Correlation
00 -.050577 17 — .859809 ’
PP .464961 29 +13.483869
RR -.391861 20 - 7.836320
VV .337765 28 9.457420
WW -.103245 13 - 1.342185
XX .310112 8 2.480896
YY .801344 12 9.616128
ZZ .544942 14 7.629188
Totals 0 141 32.629187
wraf = .231413 (32.629187 5 141)

106

Hypgthesis 12: Regponsibility--
Spring Versus Fall

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the spring classes'
correlated values of the rating agreement index and
the responsibility agreement index as compared with
the same average weighted correlation value of the
fall classes.

The computed Z value, -1.085708, was smaller than the

table value of Z, 1.96. Therefore, Ho' wrrs = wrrf'

was accepted and H rejected.

A

Supporting Data

 

The responsibility's average weighted correlations
for both the spring and fall classes were .179494 and
.294939, which was shown in Tables 4.25 and 4.26 respec—

tively.

TABLE 4.25.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the spring group's responsibility factor

 

Responsibility Number

 

- Weighted
Class Correlation of .
Coefficient Subjects Correlation

AA .663035 15 9.945525

BB .477805 11 5.255855

CC -.051881 12 - .622572

DD .454621 16 7.273936

EE .230868 17 3.924756

FF .390978 25 9.774450

GG -.482362 15 , -7.234890

HH .381637 11 4.198007

JJ .865376 9 7.788384

KK .264654 12 3.175848

LL -.356039 21 -7.476819

MM -.258208 15 -3.873120

Totals 0 179 32.129360

wrrs = .179494 (32.129360 % 179)

l!

107

TABLE 4.26.-—Computation of the average weighted cor—
relation for the fall group‘s responsibility factor

 

Responsibility Number

 

 

Class Correlation of CWeightEd n
Coefficient Subjects orre a 10
00 .373605 17 6.351285
PP .550565 29 15.966385
RR .083342 20 1.666840
VV .224113 28 6.275164
WW —.107351 13 -l.395563
XX -.271851 8 -2.174808
YY .414523 12 4.974276
22 .708773 14 9.922822
Totals 0 141 41.586401
wrrf = .294939 (41.586401 5 141)

From the "2 value for r" table, 2 was .181494
and Z2 was .304939. Inserting the 2 values in Fisher‘s

formula it was expressed as:

z = .181494 - .304939

 

 

// 1 + 1
4179337 TIEII3I

Through mathematical computation, Z was determined to be

-l.085708.

Hypothesis 13: Emotional Stabilipy--
Spring Versus Fall

 

 

There is no significant difference between the average
weighted correlation of the spring classes' correlated
value of the rating agreement index and the emotional
stability agreement index as compared with the same
average weighted correlation value of the fall
classes.

108

Because the tabulated value of Z, -.854494, is less than

the table value of Z, 1.96, H , r = r , was
0 w ess w ess

accepted and HA, wress # wress’ was rejected.

Supporting Data

 

It was determined that the emotional stability's
average weighted correlation for the spring classes was
.195949, and for the fall group it was .284705. The

process was shown in Tables 4.27 and 4.28.

TABLE 4.27.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the spring group's emotional stability factor

 

 

Emotional
c1 Stab 11 ity Nun‘ber Weighted
ass . of .
Correlation Sub'ects Correlation
Coefficient 3
AA .303741 15 4.556115
BB .417092 11 4.588012
CC .156853 12 1.882236
DD .066928 16 1.070848
EE .378886 17 6.441062
FF .384197 25 9.604925
GG -.312167 15 -4.682505
HH .539054 11 5.929594
JJ .572603 9 5.153429
KK .536065 12 6.432780
LL —.328523 21 —6.898983
MM .066494 15 .997410
Totals 0 179 35.074923
wress - .195949 (35.074923 . 179)

The value for z and 22, obtained from the "2
value for r" table, were .196549 and .293705. By sub—
stituting .196549 and .293705 in the Z transformation

formula, the following notation resulted:

109

TABLE 4.28.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the fall group's emotional stability factor

 

 

 

Emotional
Stability Number Weighted
Class . of .
Correlation Sub'ects Correlation
Coefficient 3 °
00 .346735 17 5.894495
PP .311454 29 9.032166
RR -.028137 20 — .562740
VV .184157 28 5.156396
WW .294119 13 3.823547
XX -.368107 8 -2.944856
YY .741002 12 8.892024
22 .771400 14 10.799600
Totals 0 141 40.143464
wress = .284705 (40.143464 % 141)
Z = .196549 - .293705

 

 

1 1
//7179=3T'+ 7141337

Then, Z was equal to -.854494.

Hypothesis l4: Sociability—-
Spring Versus Fall

 

 

There is no significant difference between the average
weighted correlation of the spring classes' correlated
values of the rating agreement index and the socia-
bility agreement index as compared with the same
average weighted correlation value of the fall classes.

The table value of Z was 1.96, and since the computed Z

value, -.875471, was less, the null hypothesis, wrSS =

wrsf’ was accepted and the alternative, wrss # wrsf’ was

rejected.

110

Supporting Data
Tables 4.29 and 4.30 were used to demonstrate the
computation of the sociability's average weighted cor-

relation for the spring and fall classes respectively.

TABLE 4.29.-—Computation of the average weighted cor—
relation for the spring group's sociability factor

 

Sociability Number

 

 

Class Correlation of CWeightEd
' Coefficient Subjects orre a ion
AA .304305 15 4.564575
BB .815599 11 8.971589
CC -.190339 12 -2.284068
DD -.037571 16 - .601136
EE -.251832 17 —4.281l44
FF .102779 25 2.569475
GG -.005292 15 - .079380
HH .670045 11 7.370495
JJ -.288079 9 -2.592711
KK .775868 12 9.310416
LL -.381211 21 —8.005431
MM .042185 15 .632775
Totals 0 179 15.575455
r = .087014 (15.575455 1 179)

WSS

Using the "2 value for r" table, the representa-
tive values for z, and 22 were .087014 and .186555. By
applying the 2 values to Fisher's formula, the equation

was:

.087014 - .186555

 

 

1 1
I/(1—T79-3 +1711 -'3)

Ivhich produced a -.87547l value for Z.

111

TABLE 4.30.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the fall group's sociability factor

 

 

 

Sociability Number .
Class Correlation of Cgiig1ziion
Coefficient Subjects
00 -.063345 17 - 1.076865
PP .314748 29 9.127692
RR -.566687 20 -1l.333740
VV .293495 28 8.217860
WW .022263 13 .289419
XX .548761 8 4.390088
YY .653552 12 7.842624
22 .627909 14 8.790726
Totals 0 141 26.247804
r = .186155 (26.247804 a 141)

w sf

Hypothesis 15: Asgendengy--Socially
Secure Versus Socially Insecure

 

 

There is no significant difference between the
ascendency average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were judged
to be socially secure by the MTAI test and the
ascendency average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teacher was judged
to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

At the .05 level of significance, the Z value from the
table was 1.96. Since the computed Z value, 4.790765,

was greater than the tabular value, the null hypothesis,

, was rejected and H ,

A wrad # wrag' was

wrad = wrag
accepted.
Supporting Data

Prior to the student teaching assignment, every

Student teacher was administered the MTAI test. According

112

to the test manual, scores on the MTAI test above 70
represented socially secure teachers; scores below the

70 mark, indicated socially insecure teachers. Table 4.31
illustrated the distribution of scores for the twenty

student teachers who were divided into the two groups.

TABLE 4.31.-~MTAI test scores of student teachers

 

 

Student MTAI Student MTAI

Teacher Test Score Teacher Test Score
AA 65* LL 52
BB 7 4 MM 9
CC 20 00 59
DD 35 PP 96*
EE 4 2 RR 3 5
FF 46 VV 59
GG 31 WW 19
BB 80* xx 62
JJ 70* xx 89*
KK 84* 22 104*

 

*
indicates socially secure

The purpose of Hypotheses 15 through 18 was to
determine if any significant difference existed between
the two populations for any of the four Gordon Personal
Profile factors. The basic data used to test the afore—
mentioned hypotheses were the correlation coefficients
computed for Hypotheses 3 through 7.

For both the socially secure and socially insecure
teachers' classes, an average weighted correlation was

calculated by multiplying each class' correlation for

113

the representative factor by the number of subjects. The
products were added and the sum divided by the total sub—
jects.

Tables 4.32 and 4.33 demonstrated the computation
of the ascendency's average weighted correlations for
the socially secure and socially insecure teachers'

classes.

TABLE 4.32.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the ascendency factor of the socially secure
teachers' classes

 

Ascendency Number

 

 

. Weighted
Class Correlation of .
Coefficient Subjects Correlation
BB .888019 11 9.768209
HH .855565 11 9.411215
JJ -.611167 9 — 5.500503
KK .710752 12 8.529024
PP .464961 29 13.483869
YY .801344 12 9.616128
ZZ .544942 14 7.629188
Totals 0 98 52.937130
r = .540175 (52.937130 5 98)

w ad

Fisher's Z transformation formula,

was utilized in order to determine the difference between

the two populations. By converting the ar values from

114

Tables 4.31 and 4.32 to 2 values, substitutions were made

in the formula which produced the following expression:

.605575 - .017269

/__;_+__1___
(98-3) (222-3)

2:

 

 

Mathematically completing the equation, Z was determined

to be 4.790765.

TABLE 4.33.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the ascendency factor of the socially
insecure teachers' classes

 

 

 

Ascendency Number .
Class Correlation of C33:21::gon
Coefficient Subjects
AA .403248 15 6.048720
CC -.250202 12 -3.002424
DD .049967 16 .799472
EE -.l40143 17 -2.382431
FF .298994 25 7.474850
GG -.037658 15 - .564870
LL -.451856 21 -9.488976
MM .203293 15 3.049395
00 -.050577 17 - .859809
RR -.391861 20 -7.836320
VV .337765 28 9.457420
WW -.103245 13 —1.342185
XX .310112 8 2.480896
Totals 0 222 3.833738
r = .017269 (3.833738 { 222)

w ag

Hypothesis l6: Responsibility—~Socia11y
Secure Versus Socially Insecure

 

 

There is no significant difference between the respon-
sibility average weighted correlation of the classes

in which the student teachers were judged to be
socially secure by the MTAI test and the reSponsibility
average weighted correlation of the classes in which
the student teachers were judged to be socially
insecure by the MTAI test.

115

It was observed that the computed value of Z, 3.904121,
was greater than the 2 value from the table, 1.96. There-

fore, the null hypothesis, wrrd = wrrg’ was rejected and

H

A' wrrd # wrrg' was accepted.

Supporting Data

 

It was determined that the responsibility‘s
average weighted correlation for the classes of the
socially secure teachers was .523281, and for the socially
insecure teachers' classes it was .101055. The compu-

tations were shown in Tables 4.34 and 4.35, respectively.

TABLE 4.34.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the responsibility factor of the socially
secure teachers‘ claSses

 

Responsibility Number

 

 

- Weighted
Class Correlation of .
Coefficient Subjects Correlation
BB .477805 11 5.255855
HH .381637 11 4.198007
JJ .865376 9 7.788384
KK .264654 12 3.175848
PP .550565 29 15.966385
YY .414523 12 4.974276
ZZ .708773 14 9.922822
Totals 0 98 51.281577
wrrd = .523281 (51.281577 % 98)

Using the "2 value for r" table, the wr quantities
were converted to z scores with z equaling .580481 and 22
.101055. The 2 values were substituted into Fisher's

formula. The expression became:

116

.580481 - .101055

1 1
./T—Y98-3 + “FT—T22 -3

 

 

Culminating the arithmetic process, the Z was equal to

3.904121.

TABLE 4.35.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the responsibility factor of the socially
insecure teachers' classes

 

Responsibility Number

 

 

Class Correlation of Cgiig1zigon
Coefficient Subjects
AA .663035 15 9.945525
CC -.051881 12 - .622572
DD .454621 16 7.273936
EE .230868 17 3.924756
FF .390978 25 9.774450
GG -.482362 15 -7.234890
LL -.356039 21 -7.476819
MM -.258208 15 -3.873120
00 .373605 17 6.351285
RR .083342 20 1.666840
VV .224113 28 6.275164
WW -.107351 13 —l.395563
XX -.27l825 8 -2.l74808
Totals 0 222 22.434184
wrrg - .101055 (22.434184 . 222)

Hypothesis 11: Emotional Stability-—
Socially Secure Versus Insecure

 

 

There is no significant difference between the
emotional stability's average weighted correlation

of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test and

the emotional stability's average weighted cor-
relation of the classes in which the student teachers
were judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

117

Since the computed value of Z, 3.790871, was greater than

= r , was

the table value of Z, 1.96, the H , r
o w ad w ag

rejected and H was accepted.

A’ wrad # wrag

Supporting Data

 

The emotional stability's average weighted cor-
relation for the socially secure teachers' classes was
.518649, and for the classes of the socially insecure
teachers it was .109630. The computations for wr were

illustrated in Tables 4.36 and 4.37.

TABLE 4.36.--Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the emotional stability factor of the
socially secure teachers' classes

 

 

 

Emotional Number
Class Stability of Weighted
Correlation Sub'ects Correlation
Coefficient 3
BB .417092 11 4.588012
HH .539054 11 5.929594
JJ .572603 9 5.153427
KK .536065 12 6.432780
PP .311454 29 9.032166
RR .741002 12 8.892024
zz .771400 14 10.799600
Totals 0 98 50.827603
wresd = .518649 (50.827603 2 98)

The correSponding value for z, and 22, obtained
from the "2 value for r" table, were .518649 and .109630.
By inserting the 2 values in the z transformation equations,

it produced:

118

= .518649 ~ .109630

 

 

// 1 + 1
(9 -3 2222-35
The value of Z was calculated to be 3.790871.

TABLE 4.37.-Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the emotional stability factor of the
socially insecure teachers' classes

 

Wm

 

 

Emotional Number
Class Stability of Weighted
Correlation Sub ects Correlation
Coefficient 3
AA .303741 15 4.556115
CC .156853 12 1.882236
DD .066928 16 1.070848
EE .378886 17 6.441062
FF .384197 25 9.604925
GG -.312167 15 -4.682505
LL -.328523 21 -6.898983
MM .066494 15 .997410
00 .346735 17 5.894495
RR -.028137 20 - .562740
VV .184157 28 5.156396
WW .294119 13 3.823547
XX -.368107 8 -2.944856
Totals 0 222 24.337950
wresg - .109630 (24.337950 . 222)

Hypothesis 18: Sociability--Socially
Secure Versus Socially Insecure

 

 

There is no significant difference between the socia-
bility's average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be
socially secure by the MTAI test and the sociabilityls
average weighted correlation of the classes in which
the student teachers were judged socially insecure by
the MTAI test.

119

The table value of z, 1.96, was less than the tabulated

value of Z, 4.716555; therefore, HO, wrSd = wrsg' was

rejected and H ,

A wrSd # wrsg' was accepted.

Supporting Data

 

It was observed that the sociability‘s average
weighted correlation for the socially secure teachers'

classes was .498172, which was shown in Table 4.38.

TABLE 4.38.-~Computation of the average weighted cor-
relation for the sociability factor of the socially
secure teachers' classes

 

 

 

Sociability Number .
Class Correlation of Cgfig1tiion
Coefficient Subjects a
BB .815599 11 8.971589
HH .670045 11 7.370495
JJ -.288079 9 -2.592711
KK .775868 12 9.310416
PP .314748 29 9.127692
YY .653552 12 7.842624
22 .627909 14 8.790726
Totals 0 98 48.820831
r = .498172 (48.820831 : 98)

w sd

The sociability's average weighted correlation for
the classes of the socially insecure teacher was noted
to be -.031521. This was illustrated in Table 4.39.

The wr quantities were converted to 2 values by
using the “2 value for r" table. This process established

the following values for z, and 22: .547672 and -.031521.

TABLE

120

4.39.--Computation of the average weighted cor-

relation for the sociability factor of the socially

insecure teachers' classes

 

 

Sociability Number .
Class Correlation of Cgiig1ziion
Coefficient Subjects
AA .304305 15 4.564575
CC -.l90339 12 — 2.284068
DD -.037571 16 — .601136
EE -.251832 17 - 4.281144
FF .102779 25 2.569475
GG -.005292 15 — .079380
LL -.381211 21 - 8.005431
MM .042185 15 .632775
00 -.063345 17 - 1.076865
RR -.566687 20 -ll.333740
VV .293495 28 8.217860
WW .022263 13 .289419
XX .548761 8 4.390088
Totals 0 222 - 6.997572
r = .031521 (-6.997572 9 222)

w sg

13y' substituting the numerical quantities for z, and 22

it) 1?isher's formula, the following equation resulted:

.547672 - {-.031521)

 

 

 

// 1 + 1
(98-3) (222-3)

The computed value of Z was 4.716555.

Summary of the Findiugs

 

The Gordon Personal Profile and the MTAI tests
provided the basic data for Hypotheses l and 2.
For the first hypothesis, the students' scores

from each test were ranked and correlated. The

121

results showed that only four of eighty cor-
relations were significant. The second hypothesis,
dealing with the ranking and correlating of the
student teachers' scores from the Gordon Personal
Profile and MTAI tests, showed no correlations
were found to be significant. Thus, both null
hypotheses were accepted. Therefore, the Modified
MTAI was not a substitute for the Gordon Personal

Profile.

The four factors from the Gordon Personal Profile
test were investigated individually in relation-
ship to the difference in the rating of students
and student teachers. It was observed that for
the ascendency, responsibility, and emotional
stability factors, nine, or 45 per cent, of the
twenty classes' correlations were significant at
the .10 level for the sociability factor (see

below B).

In an effort to establish differences between
populations, three pairs of groups were analyzed.
The groups were post—secondary versus high school,
spring versus fall, and socially secure teachers'
classes versus socially insecure teachers'
classes. For the first two groups, at the .05
level of significance, no differences were noted

for any of the four Gordon Personal Profile test

122

factors. However, in the third set, a highly sig-
nificant difference occurred for each of the four
factors. However, seven correlations for ascen-
dency were significant at the .05 level, while

six responsibility and emotional stability Cor-
relations were significant at the 5 per cent level.
Added to this was the factor that six correlations
for the sociability factor were significant at the
.05 level. Therefore, it appears that some
relationship between observed similarities in the
four broad components of personality and perceived
effectiveness existed but it is unclear as to

just what these relationships were.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

This study was conducted to determine the con—
trtikjutory effect that the perceived similarities of four
brroeud components of personality had upon the rating of
dijst:rdlmtive education students and student teachers in
Minnesota. The four components of personality were:
asczearudency, responsibility, emotional stability, and
soc i ability.

Specifically, the study was undertaken for the

fOl l owing purposes:

(1) To develop an instrument that would measure the
same four Gordon Personal Profile test's factors,
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability,
and sociability by reconstructing the unabridged
Minnesota Teachers Attitude Inventory test into

a personality test called the Modified MTAI;

(22) To study the relationship between the students'
and student teachers' perceived similarities in
personality, which was identified through four

broad components of the Gordon Personal Profile

123

124

test: ascendency, responsibility, emotional
stability, and sociability, and the performance
rating that the students and student teachers

gave to each other;

(3) To determine if any difference existed between

the spring and fall classes;

(4) To detect differences, if any, between the classes
at the post-secondary level of instruction and

classes at the high school level;

(5) To determine if any difference existed between the
classes of the student teachers who were judged
socially secure by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory test and the classes of those student
teachers who were judged socially insecure by

the same measurement.

The Problem of This Study

 

The problem of this study was to determine the
affect that perceived similarities in the four broad com-
ponents of personality had on the perceived effectiveness
(”3 t311£3 distributive education student teachers and their
Stu‘3<311ts. The four broad components of personality were:
ascendency, responsibility, emotionalstability, and

socialroility. These were defined as:

125

Ascendency.-—Mobility upward, especially in

 

respect to power, prestige, and influence. Tendency to

control the behavior of associates.

Responsibility.--Accountability for actions and

their consequences. The character trait of carrying out

one ' s agreements or one‘s duties.

Emotional Stability.--Characteristic of a person

who does not react excessively to emotive situations.

Sociabiliuy.--Inclination to seek the company of

 

others and to be friendly and agreeable toward them.

It was contended by the researcher that distribu-
tiVe education students and student teachers would have a
tendency to perceive each other to be more effective if
The problem

Similarities in personalities were observed.

was specified by a major hypothesis:

There are no differences in the attitude and per-
ceived effectiveness rating made by the student and
Student teacher of each other, when one perceives
Similarities in one of the four components of per-
£3c>nality as measured by the Gordon Personal Profile.
The hypothesis was first tested by specifying

four questions, each isolating a component of personality.

1 - Is there any difference in the perceived effective-

ness of the student and student teacher when simi-

larities were observed in ascendency?

126

2. Is there any difference in the perceived effec-
tiveness of the student and student teacher when

similarities were observed in responsibility?

3. Is there any difference in the perceived effec-
tiveness of the student and student teacher when

Similarities were observed in emotional stability?

4. Is there any difference in the perceived effec—
tiveness of the student and student teacher when

similarities were observed in sociability?

It was further assumed that if the hypothesis
werwe: to be rejected and that if differences were determined,
that certain factors in the instructional setting for dis-
tuxilciitive education should be analyzed to determine if

they were causal. These factors were:

(1) time of the school year: Spring classes versus

fall;

(I!) level of instruction: post-secondary versus

secondary;

(13) socially secure teachers versus socially insecure

teachers.

Another aspect of this study was to devise an
J'ns‘tlt‘k'unent called the Modified MTAI that would measure

the Same four components of personality as the Gordon

127

Personal Profile. The unabridged Minnesota Teachers Atti-

 

tuatle Inventory Test provided the basis for the develOpment

 

c>f' the Modified MTAI.

Outcomes Expected

 

The outcomes of this study were presumed to be the

f o l lowing:

1. In teacher education programs in distributive edu-
cation there would be a greater emphasis in the
direction of interpersonal relationship skills.
This would occur in the preservice teacher edu-

cation programs as well as the in-service approach.

2. Distributive education materials for training
teachers as well as students would in effect have
to be redesigned in order to emphasize the inter-

personal relationship skills.

3. The selection of students for entry into a dis—
tributive education program would assume a new
dimension, such as matching life styles against

some form of pre-determined testing system.

4. Within a given teacher education program further
investigation would be undertaken in an attempt

to modify teacher behavioral patterns.

5. The entire process of recruitment for a distribu-
tive teacher education program might be signifi-

cantly changed.

in. 1441],. . . ...I.l~I..\III. I. 4.535..”
.‘

 

128

Procedures

 

In addition to the major hypothesis of this study,

'tliere were two sets of hypotheses that were developed one

loeeing procedural the other being substantive. The first

:seat of hypotheses was designed to identify the relation-

:stiip between perceived effectiveness and four personality

czliaracteristics, as well as to determine the similarities

loeatween two instruments used to measure identical per-

5 onality components .

Procedural Hypotheses:

 

1.

There is no significant difference in the rank
correlation coefficient of each of the four factors
on the Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified
MTAI test taken by the students as it relates to

a single class or between classes.

There is no significant difference in the rank cor-
relation coefficient of each of the four factors

on the Gordon Personal Profile test and the
Modified MTAI test taken by the student teachers.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student-~student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student-—
student teachers' ascendency factor of the Gordon
Personal Profile in each class.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student——student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student--
student teachers' responsibility factor of the
Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

129

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student-—student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student-—
student teachers' emotional stability factor of
the Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

There is no significant correlation between the
agreement index of the student--student teachers'
ratings and the agreement index of the student-—
student teachers' sociability factor of the
Gordon Personal Profile in each class.

The second set of hypotheses was substantive,

Ineeaning that they were dependent upon the results of the

procedural hypotheses for implimentation.

Substantive Hypotheses:

 

7.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the ascendency agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the responsibility agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the emotional stability
agreement index as compared with the same average
weighted correlation of the high school.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

130

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the sociability agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student--student teachers' rating
agreement index and the student—-student teachers'
ascendency agreement index as compared with the
average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student--student teachers' rating
agreement index and the student-~student teachers'
responsibility agreement index as compared with
the average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student-—student teachers' rating
agreement index and the student--student teachers'
emotional stability agreement index as compared
with the average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student-—student teachers‘ rating
agreement index and the studentv—student teachers'
sociability agreement index as compared with the
average weighted correlation of the fall.

There is no significant difference in the ascen—
dency average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be
Socially secure by the MTAI test and the ascen—
dency average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be"
socially insecure by the MTAI test.

131

16. There is no significant difference in the responsi-

bility average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be

socially secure by the MTAI test and the responsi-

bility average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be
socially insecure by the MTAI test.

17. There is no significant difference in the emotional

stability average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were judged
to be socially secure by the MTAI test and the
emotional stability average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

18. There is no significant difference in the socia-
bility average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be
socially secure by the MTAI test and the socia-
bility average weighted correlation of the classes
in which the student teachers were judged to be
socially insecure by the MTAI test.

The POpulation and Sample

The population was composed of: (l) twenty—seven
available distributive education student teacher coordi-
nators from the four approved Minnesota teacher education
programs during the spring and fall quarters of 1971;
(2) all distributive education students from the assigned
student teaching sites. However, only 22 of the 27 stu-
dent teachers agreed to participate in the study. In the
spring, 14 student teachers and 226 students participated
in the research project. During the fall, 8 student
teachers and 154 students cooperated with this study.
Of the total number of schools involved in the study,

13 were secondary and 7 were post-secondary.

 

 

132

Collection of Data

 

In February of 1971, the spring quarter student
teachers from each institution were identified and a
coding system was devised. Each student teacher was
assigned a double letter indicating the school of his
student teaching site and the number one for self—
identification. The students in each student teachers'
class were subsequently identified by the double letter
and a chronological numbering system starting with two.
Simultaneously with the aforementioned activity, the
State Department of Education was contacted and Mr.

Ron Strand, then state supervisor of Distributive Edu-
cation, wrote a letter to each participating school
soliciting cooperation. This preceded the researcher's
letter to each of the distributive education teacher—
coordinators.

At the beginning of March, a meeting was held for
each group of student teachers from their respective
institutions. The purpose of this meeting was to explain
the testing procedure, define the coding system, and
administer the MTAI test to each student teacher. The
importance of retaining a roster of students with the
identification code of each student was emphasized at the
meeting. The Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified
MTAI tests were also disseminated with the coding

instructions on the envelOpe.

133

During the first week of student teaching, the
Gordon Personal Profile and the Modified MTAI were taken
by the student teacher and each student. The tests were
scored. In every class each student's percentile scores
for each of the four factors of the Modified MTAI test
were ranked and compared with the same student's ranking
percentile scores from the identical factor of the Gordon
Personal Profile test. The aforementioned operation was
processed in an identical manner for all of the student
teachers.

The Gordon Personal Profile test, which was the
main instrument, performed the principle service of
measuring life style. The student teacher's percentile
scores for ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability,
and sociability on the Gordon Personal Profile were com-
pared with his student's percentile scores for the cor-
reSponding factor. The above function provided a column
of differences for each factor: ascendency, responsi-
bility, emotional stability, and sociability in each
class; henceforth identified as agreement index A, R,
ES, and S.

After eight weeks of student teaching, the stu-
dents in each class completed the ten-question teacher
rating form on their student teacher. The coding on the
teacher rating form was the double letter designating
the school and the identically assigned number the stu-

dent had on his previous tests.

134

In addition, the student teacher completed a ten-
question student rating form on each student in his class.
The coding on this form was the double letter representing
the school and the student's assigned number; thus
enabling the scores from the two rating forms to be com-
pared with each other. This function produced a column
of differences, henceforth to be labeled rating agreement
index, for the ratings in each class, which was then com-
pared with the Gordon Personal Profile test score agree-
ment index for each of the four factors in each represen-
tative class.

The entire spring process of the study was repli-

cated in the fall.

Findings

 

Hypothesis 1, there was no significant difference
in the rank correlation coefficient of each of the four
factors on the Gordon Personal Profile and Modified MTAI
tests taken by the students as it related to a single
class or between classes, was accepted because by chance
three or four correlations should be significant (76 x
.05 = 3.8) and only four correlations were significant.

Since both the Gordon Personal Profile and
Modified MTAI tests contained the same four factors,
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and

sociability, the students' percentile scores for each of

135

the four test factors were ranked and compared. A rank
correlation was used to analyze the relationship between
same factors on each instrument in each of the nineteen
classes. Seventy-six rank correlations resulted, of which
only four factors, class GG responsibility .578, class KK
responsibility .622, class LL emotional stability .513,
and class MM sociability .698, were significant at the

.05 level.

Hypothesis 2, there was no significant difference
in the rank correlation coefficient of each of the four
factors on the Gordon Personal Profile and Modified MTAI
tests taken by the student teachers, was accepted. The
nineteen student teachers' percentile scores for the
ascendency, responsibility, emotional stability, and
sociability factors from both the Gordon Personal Profile
and Modified MTAI tests were ranked and compared. To
analyze the relationship between the same factor on each
instrument a rank correlation was utilized. None of the
four resulting rank correlations were significant.

Hypothesis 3, there was no significant correlation
between the rating agreement index and the ascendency
agreement index for each class, was rejected for nine
classes but was accepted for eleven classes. For the
ascendency factor, classes BB (.888019), HH (.855565),

KK (.710752), PP (.464961), VV (.337765), YY (.801344),

and 22 (.544942) had significant correlations at the

136

.05 level while the correlations for classes AA (.403248)
and FF (.298994) were significant at the .10 level.

Hypothesis 4, there was no significant correlation
between the rating agreement index and the responsibility
agreement index in each class, was rejected for nine
classes and accepted for eleven classes. Of the twenty
correlations pertaining to the responsibility factor, six
classes, AA (.663035), DD (.454621), FF (.390978), JJ
(.865376), PP (.550565), and ZZ (.708773) were significant
at the .05 level and three Classes BB (.477805), 00
(.373605), and CC (.414523) were significant at .10.

Hypothesis 5, there was no significant correlation
between the rating agreement index and the emotional sta-
bility agreement index in each class, was rejected for
nine classes but was accepted for eleven classes. The
emotional stability factors' significant correlations at
.05 level were classes FF (.384197), HH (.539054),

KK (.536065), PP (.311454), YY (.721002), and ZZ (.771400).
At the .10 level of significance, the classes were EE
(.378886), JJ (.572603), and 00 (.346735).

Hypothesis 6, there was no significant correlation
between the rating agreement index and the sociability
agreement index in each class, was rejected for eight
classes and accepted for twelve classes. Of the twenty
correlations relating to the sociability factor classes

BB (.815599), HH (.670045), KK (.775868), PP (.314748),

137

YY (.653553), and ZZ (.627909) had significant correlations

at the

.05 level while classes VV (.293495) and XX (.548761)

were significant at the .10 level.

Other pertinent findings concerning Hypotheses 3

through 6 were:

1.

Ascendency, responsibility, and emotional sta-
bility factors each had nine significant cor-

relations while sociability had eight.

Thirty-five of a possible eighty correlations
were significant and twenty-five of them were

significant at the .05 level.

Fourteen classes, AA, BB, DD, EE, FF, HH, JJ, KK,
00, PP, VV, YY, and ZZ, had one or more signifi—

cant correlations.

Three classes, PP, RR, and 22, had significant

correlations for all four factors.

Four classes, BB, FF, HH, and KK had three sig-
nificant correlations, with HH and KK having sig-
nificant correlations for the same factors,
ascendency, emotional stability, and sociability.
Classes BB and FF had significant correlations
for ascendency and responsibility factors but

the correlation for the third factor differed.

Four classes, AA, JJ, 00, and VV, had two sig-

nificant correlations each, however JJ and 00 had

138

identical factors, reSponsibility and emotional
stability. Class AA had a significant correlation
for the responsibility factor also, but differed
for the second factor while VV's significant cor-
relation were for ascendency and sociability

factors.

Because none of the computed 2 values exceeded

the 2 table value of 1.96 (i.e., .05 level of significance),

all four null hypotheses which follow were accepted:

7.

10.

There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the ascendency agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlatiOn of the high school.

There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post—
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the responsibility agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the emotional stability
agreement index as compared with the same average
weighted correlation of the high school.

There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of the post-
secondaries' correlated values of the rating
agreement index and the sociability agreement
index as compared with the same average weighted
correlation of the high school.

139

Since twelve distributive education student
teachers and their assigned classes participated in the
spring of 1971 and eight in the fall, the groups were
divided accordingly. An average weighted correlation was
computed on each group for each of the four Gordon Per-
sonal Profile test factors. Each group's average weighted
correlation for the same factor was substituted in Fisher's
z transformation formula. The resulting 2 values were
ascendency 1.318706, responsibility .213457, emotional
stability 1.090586, and sociability .732181.

None of the computed 2 values for post-secondary
and secondary groups exceeded the 2 table value of 1.96.

Therefore, the null hypotheses which follow were accepted:

11. There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring cor-
related values of the student--student teachers'
rating agreement index and the student—~student
teachers' ascendency agreement index as compared
with the average weighted correlation of the fall.

12. There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring cor-
related values of the student—~student teachers'
rating agreement index and the student-~student
teachers' responsibility agreement index as com-
pared with the average weighted correlation of
the fall.

13. There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring cor-
related values of the student--student teachers'
rating agreement index and the student-~student
teachers' emotional stability agreement index as
compared with the average weighted correlation
of the fall.

140

14. There was no significant difference between the
average weighted correlation of spring correlated
values of the student—-student teachers' rating
agreement index and the student--student teachers'
sociability agreement index as compared with the
average weighted correlation of the fall.

There were seven post-secondary and thirteen high
school classes for each of the two groups and an average
weighted correlation was computed for each of the four
Gordon Personal Profile test factors. The average
weighted correlations were converted to 2 values and
substituted in the z transformation equation. The 2
scores were ascendency -.842067, responsibility -l.085708,
emotional stability -.854494, and sociability -.875471.

Since the computed z scores for all four factors
were greater than the 2 table value of 1.96, the null
hypotheses which follow were rejected:

15. There was no significant difference in the
ascendency average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were judged
to be socially secure by the MTAI test and the
ascendency average weighted correlation of the

classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

16. There was no significant difference in the
responsibility average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were judged
to be socially secure by the MTAI test and the
responsibility average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were judged'
to be socially insecure by the MTAI test.

141

17. There was no significant difference in the
emotional stability average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test and
the emotional stability average weighted cor-
relation of the classes in which the student
teachers were judged to be socially insecure by
the MTAI test.

18. There was no significant difference in the
sociability average weighted correlation of the
classes in which the student teachers were a
judged to be socially secure by the MTAI test
and the sociability average weighted correlation
of the classes in which the student teachers were
judged to be socially insecure by the MTAI test. in

 

The same classes were divided into groups a third
time. Prior to the student teaching assignment, every
student teacher was administered the Minnesota Teachers
Attitude Inventory test. According to the test manual,
a test score of seventy or above indicated the student
teacher was socially secure; below seventy, the student
teacher was judged socially insecure. Seven student
teachers, assigned to coded classes BB, HH, JJ, KK, PP,
RR, and 22, scored seventy or above. The remainder of
the twenty classes had student teachers who were judged
to be socially insecure.

For each of the two groups, an average weighted
correlation was computed by multiplying the factor cor-
relation for each class by the number of subjects in it;
adding the products and dividing the sum by the total
number of subjects. Each group's average weighted cor-

relation for each factor was converted to z scores and

142

substituted in Fisher's z transformation formula. The
resulting 2 values were ascendency 4.790765, responsi—
bility 3.904121, emotional stability 3.790871, and
sociability 4.716555.

Additional pertinent findings for Hypotheses 15

through 18 were:

1. Twenty-five of the possible twenty—eight cor—
relations for the classes of the seven socially
secure teachers or 89 per cent were significant

at the .10 level.

2. Five-sevenths of all significant correlations
were recorded in the classes of the seven

socially secure teachers.

Conclusions

 

l. The Modified MTAI Test, when given to students,

 

does not measure the same four factors of the

Gordon Personal Profile Test. This is based on

 

the finding that only four of a possible seventy—
six rank correlations were significant. Inadequate
pretesting occurred as evidenced by the fact that
no correlation was found between the Modified

MTAI and Gordon Personal Profile Tests. The
Modified MTAI Test was not a substitute for the
Gordon Personal Profile Test. This is evidenced

by the fact that only four of a possible eighty

 

143

rank correlations, combining the students and
student teachers' rank correlations, were sig-
nificant. It is also contended that it is
unknown if the Modified MTAI Test will substitute
for the Gordon Personal Profile Test under other

conditions.

It was unclear as to the relationship that existed
between the performance and attitude rating of

the distributive education student and student
teacher and the perceived similarities in the

four components of personality, even though
thirty-five of the eighty correlations were sig-
nificant. It appears something is happening but
the implications of the relationship are not
known. When each class rating agreement index

was compared with each of its four Gordon Personal
Profile factor agreement indices, the following

major points were observed for the twenty classes:

(a) Nine or 45 per cent of the correlations for
the ascendency, responsibility, and emotional

stability factors were significant;

(b) Eight or 40 per cent of the correlations for

the sociability factor were significant;

(c) Fourteen classes AA, BB, DD, EB, FF, HH, JJ,
KK, 00, PP, VV, YY, and 22 had one or more

significant correlations;

 

144

(d) Three classes, PP, YY, and ZZ, showed all four

factors significantly correlated;

(e) Classes HH and KK had significant correlations
for the same three factors, ascendency,

emotional stability, and sociability;

(f) Classes BB and FF had three significant cor-
relations; each had the ascendency and
responsibility factor, but the third factor

differed;

(9) Four classes, AA, JJ, 00, VV, had two sig-
nificant correlations each; however, JJ and
00 had identical factors, responsibility and
emotional stability while AA also contained a
significant correlation for the responsibility

factor;

(h) Classes DD, EE, and XX had one significant
correlation but for different factors. Each
of the four factors had at least 40 per cent
significant correlation, but the significant
correlations for each factor was not consis—

tent for each class.

The term of the school year had a minimal affect
on the performance and attitude rating of student
and/or the student teacher. When the spring and
fall class groupings were compared, no significant

difference was noted.

 

145

The level of instruction at which a person teaches
has a minute affect on the perceived affectiveness
of the student and/or the student teacher. When
the post-secondary and high school class groupings
were compared, no significant differences were

observed.

 

In the classes of the socially secure teacher, the
perceived similarities in personality of the stu-

dent and student teacher affects strongly the per-

 

formance and attitude rating of each other. Even
though the primary purpose of the MTAI test was as
a control function, it provided the most informa-
tive data. When the classes taught by student
teachers who were judged socially secure by the
MTAI test were compared with the socially insecure
teachers' classes, a significance was found in the
two groups on each of the four Gordon Personal
Profile test factors. It was also observed that
the seven socially secure teachers' classes had
twenty-five of the thirty—five or five—sevenths

of the significant correlations. In addition,

in the classes of the socially secure teachers,
there was a maximum of twenty-eight possible core
relations. This meant that over 89 per cent of

the correlations were significant in those classes.

146

Implications and Recommendations

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the
affect that perceived similarities in personality had
upon the performance and attitude rating of students and
student teachers. It was recognized that the concept of
personality was an ever developing and an enormously a

ZVi

encompassing concept which made it extremely difficult,

em.

if not impossible, to measure.

Another dilemma in the study was an individual's F7

 

perception. It was assumed that an individual would be
able to perceive the similarities of another's personality
in comparison to his own and to decode these perceptions
properly. However, it is a known fact that individual's
perceptual ability varies not only in what and how much
a person sees, but also, in the persons decoding process
of the perceived data. Many variables, such as: emotional
state, surrounding conditions, fatigue, and many more, can
cause increases or decreases in the perceptual ability of
an individual. At the time the instruments of this study
were administered, it was virtually impossible to deter—
mine the perceptual status of the subjects.

In view of the two preceding points, there still
was sufficient positive data to support the following

implications for Distributive Education.

1. Distributive education teacher education programs

should incorporate additional experience that

lio’IQEIIIiwllNr . F‘IIJI
. I I v
1‘
l

147

would assist the aspiring teacher and teacher-

coordinator to become socially secure. Greater

emphases should be placed on the maturity process

and interpersonal relationship skills.

In-service programs should be developed for the
socially insecure teachers that would maximize the

growth potential of the individual in his pursuit
of becoming socially secure.

A person's ability to feel secure in social

relations and manifest behavior that exhibits that fact

is a component of maturity.

It was demonstrated that in the classes of the

socially secure teacher, twenty-five of the twenty—eight

correlations were significant. This would indicate that

the students could more readily identify with the socially

secure teacher.

Cook (37:167-72) defined the socially insecure

teacher as one who cannot trust people, has little sense

>f humor, has a dominating or overbearing attitude toward

1bordinates (students), becomes frustrated in social
Zations and uses aggression in the form of general
tility toward people, and asserts that if one knows
subject little else matters in teaching. The socially
Ire teacher is secure in social relations and there-

does not possess the aforementioned traits.

 

 

 

148

Merrill (113), in Interpersonal Identity Profile,

indicates the need for persons to become more versatile

in their relationships with others. He claims that the

more versatile the person is the more capable he is to

recognize and meet the needs of others. If this

assertion is true, and if this can be considered another

dmwmfion of maturity, then efforts should be made to
inmnmmrate activities that would help teachers achieve
maturity.

To the researcher, it seems that the first step
towaninmturity is to become responsible for one‘s
behavior or actions. One way of achieving this is by
having the aspiring teacher, with.the assistance of the
teacher-educator, establish goals, objectives, or a set

of goals. The aspiring teacher has made a commitment

to the objective and it is the function of the teacher-

educator to hold the candidate accountable for its com-4

pletion. Inherent in this process is the need for flexi-

bility which means a multitude of alternatives available

to the candidate, by which his objectives can be met.

Through this process, the aspiring teacher now becomes

responsible for his actions and thus would develop more

self-confidence which in turn would produce a greater

sense of security .

The following recommendations for further research

are generated as a result of this study:

 

149

To further validate the findings of this study,
a replication of the study should be conducted
using a broader geographic area and/or a larger

population.

A study similar to the present investigation
should be conducted using a different or an E
1

additional instrument to measure life style.

This study should be replicated to include other

service areas of vocational education. 1

 

Research should be undertaken to identify the
major characteristics that influence the per-

ception of anothers' life style.

A study should be conducted to determine the
affect that perceived social life style has upon
instructional material, more specifically, pro-
jects. Presently, a research project has been

initiated to explore the affect.

The socially insecure teachers' classes had a
very low percentage (19%) of significant cor-
relations. Additional research should be under-

taken to examine the reasons.

LIST OF REFERENC ES

 

“'3 {I

1(1.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abt, L. E., and Bellak, L. Projective Psychology.
New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1950.

Ackerman, W. "Teacher Competence and Pupil Change."
Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (1954), 273-89.

Allen, F. H. Psychotherapy With Children. New York:
Ferron and Rinehart, 1942.

Allport, Gordon W. Becomin . New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1969.

Allport, G. W., and Odbert, H. S. "Trait Names: A
Psychollexical Study." Psychological Monographs,
XLVII (1936), 211.

Anderson, Adolph V.; Hertzka, Alfred F.; Alf, Edward
F.; and Gordon, Leanord V. Selectiug Standurds
for SCUBA Diver Trainin . Bureau of Naval Per-
sonnel, TechniEal Bulletin 57—2. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957.

Arbuckle, Dugald S. "Self-Ratings and Test Scores on
Two Standardized Personality Inventories." ggpf
sonnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVII (December,
1958), 292-93.

Ball, Howard G. "Characteristics of Post Secondary
Distributive Education Students.“ Unpublished
Master's study, University of Wisconsin, 1967.

Barr, A. 8. Characteristic Differences in the Teach-
iug Performance of Coca and Poor Teachers of the
Social Studies. Illinois: Public School Pub-
lishing Co., 1929.

 

. "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching
Efficiency." Review of Educational Research, XII
(1943), 218-23.

150

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

151

Barr, A. S. "The Measurement and Prediction of
Teaching Efficiency. A Summary of Investigations."
Journal of Experimental Education, XVI (1948),
203-83.

"The Measurement of Teaching Ability."

Journal of Educational Research, XVII (1935),

 

561-69.

; Beckdolt, F. V.; Burly, V.; Gage, N. L.;
Orleans, J. 8.; Pace, R.; Remmers, H. H., Chairman;
Ryans, D. “Second Report of the Committee on
Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness." Journal of
Educational Research, XLVI (1953), 641458.

 

 

, and Harris, A. E. Teachers Performance J
Record. Illinois: Public School Publishing 1
Co., 1941.

 

, and Jones, R. E. "The Measurement and Pre-
diction of Teacher Efficiency." Review of Edu-
cational Research, XXVIII (1958), 256-65.

 

; WOrcester, D. A.; Abell, A.; Boecher, C.;
Jensen, L. E.; Peronto, A. L.; Ringness, T. A.;
Schmid, J. Jr. "Wisconsin Studies of the
Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effective-
ness: A Summary of Investigations." Journal of
Experimental Education, XXX, No. 1, 5—156.

Beck, 8.; Beck, A.; Levitt, E.; and Molish, H.
RorschachLu Test I. Basic Processes. New York &
London: Grune and Straton, 1961.

Beecher, D. E. Evaluation of Teaching. New York:
Syracuse University Press, 1949.

 

Benedetti, David T., and Hill, Joseph G. "A Deter-
miner of the Centrality of a Trait in Impression
Formation." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, LX (March, 1960), 278-80.

Biddle, Bruce J. "The Integration of Teacher Effec-
tiveness Research." Contemporary Research on
Teacher Effectiveness. Edited by Bruce Biddle
and William J. Ellena. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1964.

, and Ellena, W. J., eds. Contemporary
Research on Teacher Effectiveness. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

152

Bills, Robert E. Manual for the Index of Adjustment
and Values. Auburn: Alabama PolytechniE’Insti-
tute, 1958.

 

 

Blake, R. R., and Ramsey, G. V. Perception: An
Approach to Personality. New York: Ronald, 1951.

 

 

Boardman, C. W. Professional Tests as Measures of
Teaching Efficiency in High School. New York:
Columbia University, Contributions to Education,
1928.

 

 

Botzam, W. A. "A Factorial Study of the Reasoning
and Closure Factors." Psychometrika, XVI (1951),

 

Boyce, A. D. "Methods for Measuring Teachers'
Efficiency." National Social Study Education.
Fourteenth Yearbook, Part II,’1915.

Burkard, M. I. "Effectiveness of the MTAI in a
Parochial School Setting." Journal of Expgri-
mental Education, XXX, No. 3 (1965), 225-29.

 

Bush, R. N. The Teacher-Pupil Relationship. New
York: PrentiCe-Hall, 1954.

 

Carlide, A. B. "Predicting Performance in the
Teaching Profession." Journal of Educational
Research, XLVII (1953), 641-68.

Cattell, J. M., and Garrand, L. "Physical and Mental
Measurements of the Students of Columbia Uni-
versity." Psychological Review, III (1896),
618-48.

 

Cogan, Morris L. "Theory and Design of a Study of
Teacher-Pupil Interaction." Harvard Educational
Review, XXVI (Fall, 1956), 315-42.

Combs, A. W. "The Personal Approach to Good Teach-
ing." Educational Leadership, XXI (1964),
369-77.

 

. The Professional Education of Teachers.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965.

, and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior: A
Perceptual Approach to Behavior. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1959.

 

 

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

153

Condell, J. F. I'Use of Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory (MTAI).“ Psychological Review, III
(1957), 411-12.

 

Cook, W. W., and Hoyt, C. J. "Procedure for Deter-
mining Number and Nature of Norm Groups for the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory." Edu-
cational Psychological Measurement, XII, No. 5
(1952).

; and Eikas, A. "Studies of the
Predictive Validity of the MTAI. " Journal of
Teacher Education, VII (1956), 167—72.

 

 

 

Corey, S. M. "Evaluating Technical Teaching Com—
petence." Elementary_School Journal, XLI (1941),
577—86.

 

Crawford, L. C. A Competency Pattern Approach to
Curriculum Construction in Distributive Teacher
Education. USOE Project No. 6- 85— 044, Volumes I,
II, III, IV. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, 1967.

 

. A Competency Pattern Approach to Cur-
riculum Construction in Distributive Teacher
Education Phase II. USOE Project No. 6—85- 044.
Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1968.

 

 

 

. A Competencngattern Approach_ to Curriculum
Construction in Distributive Teacher Education,
Phase III. USOE Project No. 6485-044. Blacks-
Burg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1969.

 

 

Crutchfield, R. S.; Woodworth, D. G.; and Albrecht,
R. E. "Perceptual Performance and the Effective
Person." Personnel Laboratorngepgrt. Lackland
A.F.B., WADC-TN-58- 60. ASTIA Doc. No. ADlSl 039,
1958.

 

Dana, R. G., and Goocher, B. "Embedded-figures and
Personality." Perception Motivational Skills,
IX (1959), 99-102.

Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.

 

Day, H. P. "A Study of Predictive Validity of the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory." Journal
of Educational Research, LIII (1959), 37-

 

 

 

 

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

154

Della, P.; Gage, G. M.; and Gage, N. L. "Pupil's
Values and the Validity of the MTAI." Journal of
Educational Psychology, XLVI (1955), 167-78.

Dember, W. N. The Psychology of Perception. New
York: Henry Holt and Co., 1960.

Dillon, F. N. "The Relationship Between Basic
Motivation and Choice of Teaching as a Profession."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1949.

Dodge, G. W., and Clifton, D. O. "Teacher-Pupil
Rapport and Student Teacher Characteristics."
Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVII (October,
1956), 364%7l.

Downie, N. M., and Bell, C. R. "The Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory as an Aid in the
Selection of Teachers." Journal of Educational
Research, XLVI (1953), 699-704.

Edwards, A. L. "The Relationship Between the Judged
Desirability of a Trait and the Probability that
the Trait Will Be Endorsed." Journal of Applied
Psychology, III (1953), 90.

 

Ellena, W. J.; Stevenson, M.; and Webb, H. V., eds.
"Who's A Good Teacher?" American Association of
School Administrators, Department of Classroom
Teachers of the National Education Association,
and National School Boards Association, washington,
D.C., 1961.

Elliot, E. C. "A Tentative Scale for the Measurement
of Teaching Efficiency." Teachers Yearbook of
Educational Investigations. New York: Depart-
ment of Research, New York City Schools, 1912.

Englander, M. E. "A Psychological Analysis of
Vocational Choice: Teaching." Journal of Coun-

English, Horace B. Com rehensive Dictionagy of Psy-
ghological_and Psycfipanalytical Terms. Champney
England: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958. '

Ertel, K. A. Identification of Major Tasks Performed
b Merchandising Emplgyees working in TEEeg_Stan-
ard IndustrialClassificatioug_of Retail Estab-
lishments. USOE Project No. ERD:257F65. Moscow:
University of Idaho, 1966.

 

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

155

Estes, E. D. "A Comparative Study of the Distribu-
tive Education Classes of 1968 and 1969 with the
Respective Senior Classes of Dodge City High
School." Unpublished Master's study, Kansas
State Teachers College, 1968.

Eysenck, H. J. Qimensions of Personality. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1947.

Friedman, J. "weight Problems and Psychological
Factors." Journal gf Consulting Psychology,
XXIII (December, 1959), 524-27.

Galton, F. Inguigies into Human Facultyland Its
Development. London: Macmillan,71883.

Gardner, R. W.; Holzman, P. 8.; Klein, G. 8.;
Linton, H. E.; and Spence, D. P. "Cognitive
Control, A Study of Individual Consistencies
in Cognitive Behavior." Psychological Issues,
I, No. 4 (1959).

; Jackson, D. N.; and Messick, S. J. "Per-
sonality Organization in Cognitive Controls and
Intellectual Abilities." Puychological Issues,
II, No. 8 (1960).

 

Gibson, J. J. "A Critical Review of the Concept of
Set in Contemporary Experimental Psychology."
Psychological Bulletin, XXXVIII (1941), 781-817.

Gilbert, J. A. "Researches Upon Children and College

Students." Igwa Universiuy Student Psychology,
I (1897), 1-39.

Gillis, J. "Personality Needs of Future Teachers."

Educational Psycholggical Measurement, XXIV, No. 3
1 p 9- o

Gollin, E., and Barron, A. "Response Consistency in
Perception and Retention.“ Journal of Experimental
Psychology, XLVII (1954), 259+62.

 

Good, R. G. "An Analysis of the Self-Perceptions and
Other Selected Characteristics of Effective and ‘
Ineffective Teachers: A Study Based on the Edu-
cational Philosophy of the Fifth-Year Program in
Teacher Education at the University of North
Carolina." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of North Carolina, 1968.

156

68. Goodenough, D. R., and Karp, S. A. "Field Depen-
dence and Intellectual Functioning." Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, LXIII (1961) , in press.

 

69. Gooding, C. T. "An Observational Analysis of the
Perceptual Organization of Effective Teachers."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Florida (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor), 1964.

70. Gordan, 0.; Brayer, R.; and Tikofsky, R. "Personality
Variable and the Perception of Embedded Figures."
Perception Motivational Skills, XII (1961) ,

195-207.

71. Gordon, L. V. "Validities of the Forced-Choice and
Questionnaire Methods of Personality Measurement."
Journal of A-plied Psychology, XXXV (December,

 

 

' " 2.
72. . "Personal Factors in Leadership." Journal
of Social Psychology, XXXVI (November, 1952),
73. . "The Effect of Position on the Preference

Value of Personality Items." Educational and

P8 chological Measurement, XII (Winter, 1952),
-00

 

74. . "Some Interrelationships Among Personality
Item Characteristics." Edugutional and Ps cho-
lggical Measurement, XIII TSummer, 1953), 64-72.

 

75. , and Stapleton, E. S. "Fakability of a
Forced-Choice Personality Test Under Realistic
High School Employment Conditions." Journal of
Applied Psychology, XL (August, 1956), 258-62.

76. Gottschaldt, K. "Uber den Einfluss der Erfahrung
auf die Wahrenhmung Von Figurin; I; Uber den
Einfluss gehaufter Einpragung von Figuren auf
ihre Sichtbarkeit in unvassenden Konfigurationen."
Psychological Forsch., VIII (1926), 261-317.

77. Gowan, J. C. "A Teaching Prognosis Scale for the
Guilford-Zimnerman Temperament Survey." Journal.
of Educational Research, LIII (1960), 345-48.

78. , and Gowan, M. S. "The Guilford-Zimmerman
aria—the California Psychological Inventory in the
Measurement of Teaching Candidates." California
Journal of Educational Research, VI (1955), 35-37.

157

79. Grieder, C., and Newburn, H. K. "Temperament in
Prospective Teachers." Journal of Educational

Research, XXXV (1942), 683-93.

Fundamental Statistics in Ps chology

80. Guilford, J. P.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 195 .

and Education .

Hall, C. S., and Lindzey, G. Theories of Personality.
Inc., 1957.

81.
New York: John Wiley and Sons,

82. Harris, E. E. "Critical Requirements and Reasoned-
Judgment Comparisons." Unpublished doctor's
thesis, Council for Distributive Teacher Edu-

6,

cation Professional Bulletin Series No.
Vocational Office and Distributive Education
Materials Center, Business Education Department,
College of Business, Northern Illinois University,

June, 1965.

83. Hertzka, A. F., and Anderson, A. V. Selection
Requirements for Underwater Demolition Team
Bureau of Naval Personnel, Technical

Trainin .
Bulletin 56-4. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1956.

"The Prediction of College Grades

84. Holland, John L.
from the Psychological Inventory and the Scholas-
Journal of Educational Psy-

tic Aptitude Test."
cholpgy, L (August, l959),7135-42.

85. Holtzman, W. H., and Bitterman, M. E.
Journal of

Study of Adjustment to Stress."
Abnormal Social Psychology, LII (1956), 179-85.

86. Jackson, D. M. "A Short Form of Witkin's Embedded
Figure Test." ioyurnal of Abnormal Social Psy-
chology, LII (1956), 254-55.

87. . “Intellectual Ability and Mode of Per-
ception." Journal of Consulting Psychology,

XXI (1957) , 458.

"Independence and Resistance to Perceptual
Journal of Abnormal Social Psy-

88. 0
Field Forces."
chology, LVI (1958), 279-81.

"A Factorial

 

89. Jaensch, E. R. Der Gegentypus. Leipzig: Barth,

1938 .
90 . Jahoda, M. "Conformity and Independence: A Psy-
chological Analysis." Human Relations, XII

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

158

Jersild, Arthur T. In_§earch ofISelf. New York:
Columbia University Teachers College, 1952.

Johnson, Eldon D. "An Analysis of Factors Related
to Teacher Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction."
Unpublished doctor's thesis, Auburn University,
1967.

Karp, S. A. "A Factorial Study of Overcoming
Embeddedness in Perceptual and Intellectual
Functioning." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
New York University, 1962.

Kearney, N. C., and Racchio, D. "Relation Between a
Teacher Attitude Inventory and Pupils' Ratings
of Teachers." School Review, LXIII (1955),
443-45.

Kelley, I. B., and Perkins, K. J. How I Teach.
Minneapolis: Educational Test Bureau, 1941.

 

Klein, G. S. "The Personal World Through Perception."

Perce tion: An Approach to Personality. New
York: Ronald, 1951.

Knight, F. B. Qualities Related to Success in
Teachiug. New York: Columbia University, Con-
tribution to Education, 1922.

_if . "Possibilities of Objective Techniques in
Supervision." Journal of Educational Research,
XVI, No. l (1927 , 1-15.

 

Lancelot, W. H.; Barr, A.; Torgerson, T.; Johnson,
C.; Lyon, V.; walvoord, A.; Betts, L.; and Walker,
H. M. The Measuremeuuof Teaching Efficiency.
New York: Macmillan Co., 1935.

 

Larson, R. A. "A Comparative Study of Retailing and
Non-Retailing Students in the General College."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1967.

League, B. J., and Jackson, D. M. "Activity and
Passivity as Correlates of Field-Independence."
Perception Motivational Skills, XII (1961), 291-98.

Lecky, Prescott. Self-Consigtency: A Theor of
Personality. New York: Island Press, 195 .

‘ublllllfil. HEY. I. III)..|.I..).,..j.
‘[

159

103. Leeds, C. "Teacher Behavior Liked and Disliked by
Pupils." Education, LXXV (1955), 29-37.

104. Levin, R.; Chein, I.; and Murphy, G. “The Relation
of Intensity of a Need to the Amount of Per-
ceptual Distortion." Journal of Psychology,
XIII (1942), 283-93.

105. Linton, H. B. "Dependence on External Influence:
Correlates in Perception, Attitudes and Judgments."
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LI (1955),
552-07.

106. Loeff, R. G. "Embedding and Distracting Field Con-
texts as Related to the Field Dependence Dimension."
Unpublished Master's thesis, Brooklyn College, 1961.

107. Lohmann, Kaj; Zenger, J. H.; and Weschler, I. R.
“Some Perceptual Changes During Sensitivity
Training.” Journal of Educational Research, LIII
(September, 1959T, 28- 31.

108. Madsen, I. N. "Prediction of Teaching Success."
Educational Administration Supervision, XIII

- 7

p o

109. Marlowe, E. "Some Psychological Correlates of Field
Independence." Journal of Counselling ngchology,
XXII (1958), 234.

1.10. Martin, A., and Bendig, A. W. "Personality Needs of
College Students Selecting Teaching as a Career."
Journal of Psychological Studies, XII, No. 3
(1961) , 111-20.

111. Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New
York: Harper SI Brothers, 1954.

 

 

 

112. . Toward A Psychology of Being. New Jersey:
Van Nostrand, I962.

113. Merrill, David. "Interpersonal Identity Profile."
Unpublished research project, Colorado State
University, 1964.

114. Mitzel, Harold E.; Rabinowitz, W.; and Ostreicher, '
Leonard M. "The Effects of Response Sets on the
Validity of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inven-
tory." Educational and Psychological Measurement,

XVI (Winter, 1956), 501-15.

160

115. Mitzel, Harold E. "Teacher Effectiveness." Ency-
clgpedia of Educational Research. Edited by
Chester W. Harris. New York: Macmillan Co., 1960.

 

116. Mizuhara, T.; Masuda, S.; and Osada, M. "Formation
of Impressions on Teachers." Bulletin of Faculty
Education, XI (1964), 29-52.

117. Mort, P. R.; Cornell, F. G.; and Hinton, N. H.
What Should Our Schools Do? New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
versity, 1938.

 

118. Murray, H. A., et a1. Explorations in Personality.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.

 

119. Oliver, W. A. "Teacher's Educational Beliefs Versus
Their Classroom Practices." Journal of Edu-
cational Research, XLVII (1953), 47-55.

120. Olson, Harry, Jr. "Relationships Between Certain
Personality Characteristics of Distributive Edu-
cation Teacher-Coordinators and Job Satisfaction."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1967.

121. Pemberton, C. L. "The Closure Factors Related to
Temperament." Journal of Personality, XXI
(1952a), 159-75.

 

122. __ . "The Closure Factors Related to Other
Cognitive Processes." Psychometrika, XVII
(1952b) , 267-88.

 

 

123. Perez, P. "Experimental Instructions and Stimulus
Content as Variables in Size Constancy Perception
of Schizophrenics and Normals." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1955.

124. Podell, J. E., and Phillips, L. "A Development
Analysis of Cognition as Observed in Dimensions
of Rorschach and Objective Test Performance."
Journal of Personaligy, XXVII (1959), 439-63.

125. Remmer, H. H., and Gage, N. L. Educational Measure-
gent and Evaluation. New York: Harper and
Brother, 1 3.

 

.126. Rocchio, P. D., and Kearney, N. C. "Teacher-Pupil
Attitudes as Related to Nonpromotion of Secondary
School Pupils." Educational and Ps cholo ical
Measurement, XVI (Summer, 1956), 2 - .

 

 

 

161

127. Rocchio, P. D., and Kearney, N. C. "Using an
Attitude Inventory in Selecting Teachers.“
Elementary School Journal, LVI (October, 1955) ,
77—78.

128. Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston:
Houghton Miffli'n, I951.

 

 

129. . On Becomim a Person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1961.
130. . "Interpersonal Relationships: U.S.A.

2505." The Wilson Learning Corporation.

131. Rudin, S. A., and Stagner, R. "Figure-Ground
Phenomena in the Perception of Physical and
Social Stimuli." Journal of Psycholggy, XLV
(1958), 213-25.

132. Rusmore, J. T. "Fakability of the Gordon Personal
Profile." Journal of Applied Psycholgg , XL

(June, 1956), 175-77. “7

133. Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of Teachers, Their
Qescriptigu, Comparison, and Appraisal: A
Research Study. waSHington: AmeriCan Council
on Education, 1960.

134. 4’ . "Some Relationships Between Pupil
Behavior and Certain Teacher Characteristics."
Journal of Educational Psychology, LII, No. 2
p 8 -90.

 

135. Salley, C., and Murphy, G. Developmgnt of Ehe Per-
ce tual World. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1950.

 

136. Samson, Harland E. "Critical Requirements for Dis-
tributive Education Teacher-Coordinators."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Minnesota, 1964.

137. Sanford, N. The American College. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1962.

 

138. Saunders, David R. "Moderator Variables in Pre-
diction." Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, XVI (Summer, 1956), 209—22.

.139. Schaefer, R., and Murphy, G. "The Role of Autism in
Visual Figure-Relationship." Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, XXXII (1943), 335-43.

162

140. Scott, W. A., and Wertheimer, M. Introduction to
Psychological Research. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1962.

 

141. Shafer, Wilma Cox. "An Investigation of the Relation-
ship Between Self-Acceptance Scores of Student
Teachers and Certain Aspects of Student Teaching
Effectiveness." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1962 (Dissertation Abstracts

23:3805) .

142. Shane, H. G. "A 1950 Census of Evaluation Practices.
Educational Leadership, VIII (1950), 73-77.

143. Solley, C., and Murphy, G. Development of the Per-
ceptual World. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

1960.

144. Somers, G. T. Pedagogical Prognosis: Predictiug
the Success of ProspectiVe Teachers. New York:
Columbia University, Contributions to Education,

1923.

145. Stein, Harry L., and Hardy, James. "A Validation
Study of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
in Manitoba." Journal of Educational Research,

V (1957), 321-27.

146. Super, D. E. "A Theory of Vocational Development."
American ngchologist, VIII (1953), 185-90.

147. Swineford, E. J. "A Study of Factors that Affect
Teaching Behavior." California Journal ofLEdu—
cational Research, XIV, No. 5 (19637, 211F247

148. Symonds, P. M. "Characteristics of the Effective
Teacher Based on Pupil Evaluation." Journal of
Educational Research, XLIX (1956), 651-61.

149. Thurstone, L. L. A Factorial Study of Perception.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.

.150. . "Mechanical Aptitude III: Analysis of

Group Tests." Psychometric Laboratory Report.
Chicago: UniverSity of Chicago Press, 1949.

.151. Tillich, Paul. TherCouragg To Be. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1 5 .

.152. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Bantam
Books, Inc., 1970.

 

l»? jfifldflN {ii-J.
4|. If»...

163

153. Townsend, F. E. Introduction to Experimental Methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

T., and Painter, John J. "Personality
Journal of Applied Psychology,

325-29.

154. Tucker, W.
and Product Use."

XLV (October, 1961),

The Psychology of Human Difference.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1947.

New

155. Tyler, L.
York:

156. Usher, Richard H. "The Relationship of Perception
of Self, Others, and the Helping Task to Certain
Measures of College Faculty Effectiveness."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of

Florida, 1966.

157. Van Blois, David I. "The Automobile Salesman's
Knowledge of the Product as a Determinant of
Success in the Selling of Automobiles." Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State

University, 1968.
A Further Study of Visual Perception.

158. Vernon, M. C.
Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Cambridge:

159. walker, Ralph Edward. "An Investigation of the
Relationship Between Self and Self-Other Con-
cepts of Elementary Student Teachers and Several

Selected Factors." Unpublished Ed.D. disser-
tation, University of Oklahoma, 1967 (Disser-

tation Abstracts 28:1335-A) .

160. Wert, J. E.; Neidt, C. 0.; and Ahmann,
tistical Inference-Testing Hypothesis."
cal Methods in Education and Psychologicali

New

Research. Edited by J. E. Wert, et a1.
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1.954

.161. Willingham, W. W.; Nelson, P.; and O'Connor, W.
"A Note on the Behavioral Validity of the Gordon
Journal of Consultiug ng—

1958) , 378.

S. J. "Sta-
Statisti-

Personal Profile."
chology, XXII (October,

162. Witkin, H. A. "Individual Differences in Case of
Perception of Embedded Figures." Journal of
Personality, XVLV (1950), 1-15.

"The Nature and Importance of Individual

163.
Diffe erences in Perception." Journal of Per-
sonality, XVIII (1949), 145- 70.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

164

Witkin, H. A.; Dyk, R. B.; Faterson, H. F.; Good-
enough, D. R.; and Karp, S. A. Psychological
Differentiatiqu. New York: Wiley, 1962.

 

 

; Lewis, H. B.; Hertzman, J.; Machover, K.;
Meissner, P. B.; and Wapner, S. Personality
Through Perception. New York: Harper, 1954.

 

 

Witty, P. "An Analysis of the Personality Traits of
the Effective Teacher." Journal of Educational
Research, XL (1947), 662-67.

 

 

Wrightstone, J. W. "Measuring the Social Climate of
a Classroom." Journal of Educational Research,
XLIII (1951), 341.

 

. "Analyzing and Measuring Democracy in
the Classroom." Nation‘s Schools, XI (1933),
31-35.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TESTING INSTRUMENTS

165
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 be; 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 y0u strongly agree, blacken space under "SA” ...................................................... I
5A A U D

If you agree, blacken space under ”A" ..........................................................................

SA U
If you are undecided or uncertain, blacken space under ”U" .................................... .. .. I
SA A U D
If you disagree, blacken space under "D” .................................................................... .. .. :2 |
SA A U D

If you strongly disagree, blacken space under ”SD” ...................................... . ............

 

80
SD
80

SD

 

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.

The test contained in this booklet has been designed for use with answer forms pub-
lished or authorized by The Psychological Corporation. If other answer forms are used,
The Psychological Corporation takes no responsibility for the meaningfulness of scores.

Itcd in U.S.A. Copyright 1951. All rights reserved. The Psychological Corporation. 304 East 45th Street. New York I7. N. Y.

64-12873

 

 

166

 

SA—Strongly agree U—Undecided D—Disagree
A—Agree or uncertain SD—Strongly disagree
1. Most children are obedient. 16. A pupil’s failure is seldom the fault of the

2. Pupils who “act smart” probably have too
high an opinion of themselves.

3. Minor disciplinary situations should sometim5
be turned into jokes.

4. Shyness is preferable to boldness.
5. Teaching never gets monotonous.

6. Most pupils don’t appreciate what a teacher
does for them.

7. If the teacher laughs with the pupils in amus-
ing classroom situations, the class tends to get
out of control.

L 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.

anuestioning obedience in a child is not
[esirable.

upils should be required to do more studying
home.

e first lesson a child needs to learn is to
by the teacher without hesitation.

mg people are difficult to understand these

'e is too great an emphasis upon “keeping

in the classroom.

17.

l8.

19.

21.

27.

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

 

,
1L..- w“ “A." 'o_

l67

SA—Strongly agree

U—Undecided
A—Agree or uncertain

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree.

 

81.

32.

33.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

41.

42.

43.

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 tOpic 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.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

80.

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
suffer 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

 

168

 

GEL-Pk SA—Strongly agree U—Undecided D—Disagree
" M A—Agree or uncertain SD—Strongly disagree
—"
rsh'oned “We: 61. Children are usually too sociable in the class- 76. There is too much leniency today in the hand-
room. ling of children.
Jeamhamm 62. Most pupils are resourceful when left on 77. Difficult disciplinary problems are seldom the
their own. fault of the teacher.
an m the WI, . 78. The whims and impulsive desires of children
63. Too much nonsense goes on in many class- are usually worthy of attention.
rooms these days.
not!” ”PW-'5 79. Children usually have a hard time following
“am 64. The school is often to blame in cases of truancy. instructions.
meme??? 35. Children are too carefree. 80. Children nowadays are allowed too much free-
ydo. dom in school.
..;,.. 66. Pupils who fail to prepare their lessons daily 81 -
re ”153”” should be kept after school to make this prep- ' $11,531?” should start to read by the age
aration. '
_ M 67. Pupils who are foreigners usually make the 82. Universal promotion of pupils lowers achieve-
ll’lfi’i‘” teacher’s task more unpleasant. ment standards.

25:1

68. Most children would like to use good English.

15 0: 5"

-4 69. Assigning additional school work is often an
effective means of punishment.

5.: 70. Dishonesty as found in cheating is probably
one of the most serious of moral offenses.

71. Children should be allowed more freedom in
their execution of learning activities.

72. Pupils must learn to respect teachers if for no
other reason than that they are teachers.

73. Children need not always understand the rea-
sons for social conduct.

4. Pupils usually are not qualified to select their
own topics for themes and reports.

5. N 0 child should rebel against authority.

83.

85.

87.

88.

89.

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

SA—Strongly agree
A—Agree

169

U—Undecided

or uncertain

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree

 

 

91.

99.

100.

101.

102.

108.

104.

105.

Most teachers do not give sufficient explana-
tion in their teaching.

There are too many activities lacking in acad-
emic respectability that are being introduced
into the curriculum of the modern school.

Children should be given more freedom in the
classroom than they usually get.

Most pupils are unnecessarily thoughtless rel-
ative to the teacher’s wishes.

Children should not expect talking privileges
when adults wish to speak.

Pupils are usually slow to “catch on” to new
material.

Teachers are responsible for knowing the
home conditions of every one of their pupils.

Pupils can be very boring at times.

Children have no business asking questions
about sex.

Children must be told exactly what to do and
how to do it.

Most pupils are considerate of their teachers.

Whispering should not be tolerated.

Shy pupils especially should be required to
stand when reciting.

Teachers should consider problems of con-
duct more seriously than they do.

A teacher should never leave the class to its
own management.

106.
107.
108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.
114.

115.
118.
117.

118.
119.

120.

A teacher should not be expected to do more
work than he is paid for.

There is nothing that can be more irritating
than some pupils.

“Lack of application” is probably one of the
most frequent causes for failure.

Young people nowadays are too frivolous.

As a rule teachers are too lenient with their
pupils.

Slow pupils certainly try one’s patience.

Grading is of value because of the competition
element.

Pupils like to annoy the teacher.

Children usually will not think for themselves.

Classroom rules and regulations must be con-
sidered inviolable.

Most pupils have too easy a time of it and do
not learn to do real work.

Children are so likeable that their shortcom-
ings can usually be overlooked.

A pupil found writing obscene notes should
be severely punished.

A teacher seldom finds children really enjoy-
able.

There is usually one best way to do school
work which all pupils should follow.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

 

SA—Strongly agree
A—Agree

170

U—Undecided

or uncertain

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree

 

be emf: 121.
{0.
can but: 122.
is prehiiy:
if his: 188.
5 he tat .1.
124.
w 1.5::
125.
03:33“:
128.
was
i r "
127.
.2 he:
"C“ 128.
at?!
129.
, :‘5
has '
130.
131.
:5“;
132.
:3 133.

It isn’t practicable to base school work upon
children’s interests.

It is difficult to understand why some chil-
dren want to come to school so early in the
morning before opening time.

Children that cannot meet the school stand-
ards should be dropped.

Children are usually too inquisitive.

"It is sometimes necessary to break promises
made to children.

Children today are given too much freedom.

One should be able to get along with almost
any child.

Children are not mature enough to make their
own decisions.

A child who bites his nails needs to be shamed.

Children will think for themselves if permit-
ted.

There is no excuse for the extreme sensitivity
of some children.

Children just cannot be trusted.

Children should be given reasons for the re- A

strictions placed upon them.

i 134. Most pupils are not interested in learning.

135. It is usually the uninteresting and difficult

subjects that will do the pupil the most good.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

148.

147.

148.

ms.

150.

A pupil should always be fully aware of what
is expected of him.

There is too much intermingling of the sexes
in extra-curricular activities.

The child who stutters should be given the
opportunity to recite oftener.

The teacher should disregard the complaints
of the child who constantly talks about imag-
inary illnesses.

Teachers robably over-emphasize the ser-
iousness 0 such pupil behavior as the writing
of obscene notes.

Teachers should not expect pupils to like
them.

Children act more civilized than do many
adults.

Aggressive children require the most atten-
tion.

Teachers can be in the wrong as well as
pupils.

Young people today are just as good as those
of the past generation.

Keeping discipline is not the problem that
many teachers claim it to be.

A pupil has the right to disagree openly with
his teachers.

Most pupil misbehavior is done to annoy the
teacher.

One should not expect pupils to enjoy school.

In pupil appraisal effort should not be dis-
tinguished from scholarship.

O D b
O¢0 #0

0(3\CAL C
9.

0V

~Z‘
>9
U)
0—

‘Iofl i!.g [Dido
c... , _ p .

l 511

®

lNCOPPOPATED
IN l92|

\9
i?

 

Start with this page. Mark your answers in column A

 

a good mixer socially .........................
lacking in self-confidence .....................
thorough in any work undertaken ..............

tends to be somewhat emotional ...............

not interested in being with other people ........
free from anxieties or tensions .................
quite an unreliable person ....................

takes the lead in group discussion ..............

acts somewhat jumpv and nervous .............
a strong influence on others ....................
does not like social gatherings .................

a very persistent and steady worker ............

finds it easy to make new acquaintances ........
cannot stick to the same task for long ...........
easily managed by other people ................

maintains self—control even when frustrated ......

able to make, important decisions without help. .
does not mix easily with new people ............
inclined to be tense or higl'l-strung .............

sees a job through despite difficulties ...........

not too interested in mixing socially with people. .
doesn't take responsibilities seriouslv ...........
steady and composed at all times ..............

takes the lead in group activities ..............

a person who can be relied upon ...............
easily upset when things go wrong .............
not too sure of own opinions ..................
prefers to be around other people ..............
finds it easy to influence other people ...........
gets the. job done in the face. of any obstacle .....
limits social relations to a select few ............

tends to be a rather nervous person ............

doesn't make. friends very readilv ..............
takes an active part in group affairs ............
keeps at routine duties until completed ..........

not too well-lmlunced emotionallv ..............

Turn the page and go on

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

Mark your answers in column B ———-—+ B

 

M l
assured in relationships with others .............. H H
feelings are rather easily hurt ....................
follows well-develtiped work habits ...............

would rather keep to a small group of friends ......

becomes irritated somewhat readily ..............
capable of handling anv situation ................
does not like to converse with strangers ...........

thorough in any work perforim‘d .................

prefers not to argue with other people ............
unable to keep to a fixed schedule ................
a calm and unexcitable person ...................

inclined to be highly sociable ....................

free from worry or care .........................
lacks a sense of responsibility ....................
not interested in mixing with the opposite sex ......

skillful in handling other people ..................

finds it easy to be friendly with others ............
prefers to let others take the lead in group activity. .
seems to have a worrying nature .................

sticks to a job despite any difficulty ...............

able to swav other people's opinions ..............
lacks interest in joining group activities ...........
(piite a nervous person ..........................

\‘erv persistent in anv task undertaken ............

calm and easygoing in manner ...................
cannot stick to the task at hand ..................
enjovs having lots of people around ...............

not too confident of own abilities .................

can be relied upon entirely ......................
doesnt care for the company of most people .......
finds it rather difficult to relax ...................

takes an active part in group discussion ...........

doesn‘t give up easilv on a problem ..............
inclined to be somewhat nervous in manner ........
lacking in HL‘lf-ttSSltl‘ilHCC ........................

Prefers to pass the time in the company of others. .

 

 

A R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

» .7 ,7 Percentile
By Leonard \ . Gordon Rank A R E S
99 q T “r 1 T
95 n w ~~ —» i
90~ -. -_ .. i
Name Age. __- . _ Sex __ 75 AT 1_ 1 4_ 1
Date Marital Status WV ‘,,,_H___. ,_ l
50 ~ —- 4» + s—
School or Firm _ _c __s_.__fi.~__ __,-,__~___, 1
25 — .y. 4— —— 4-
Crade or Occupation __ _ AAA m w ___. n
City __ State _____*. 10 ‘ ‘* i” r it
5 a or ~~ 4* i
1 -— d
Score ->
Percentile
Rank —>-
Norms used
Directions:

In this booklet are a number of descriptions of personal characteristics of people. These descriptions are grouped
in sets of four. You are to examine each set and find the one description that is most like you. Then make a solid
black mark between the pair of dotted lines following that statement, in the column headed M (Most).

Next examine the other three statements in the set and find the one description that is least like you; then make a
solid black mark between the pair of dotted lines following that statement, in the column headed L (Leas-t). DO
not make any marks following the two remaining statements.

M I.
Here is a sample set: has an excellent appetite .......................... 53 55
gets sick very often ............................... l
follows a well—balanced diet ....................... H
doesn’t get enough exercise ........................ I

Suppose that you have read the. four descriptive statements in the sample and have decided that, although several
of the staten'ients may apply to you to some degree. “ doesn’t get enough exercise ” is more like you than anv of the oth-
ers. You would fill in the space following that statement in the column headed M (Most), as shown in the sample.

You would then examine the other three statements to decide which one is least like you. Suppose that gets sick
very often ” is less like you than the other two. You would fill in the space following that statement in the column
headed L (Least), as shown in the sample above.

For every set you should have one and only one mark in the .\l (Most) column. and one and only one mark in the
L (Least) column. There should be no marks following two of the statements.

In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statements you should mark. Make the best decisions you can.
Remember, this is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. You are to mark certain statements in the way in
which they most nearly apply to you. Be sure to mark one statement as being most like you and one as being least
like you, leaving two statements unmarked. Do this for every set. Turn the booklet over and begin.

J

l’wlilislmi lfflii’. (’upi/rir/hl (Q) 1.07}, [Ii-31. by Harcourt. Brace ik' World. Inc. New York. All riuhlx rrxswrrwl, The reproduction of ti n11 port of (his form by mimnnri; 51h. Fin-ta. 1.“
or in any nth” WW. whether the reproductions are sold or «ii-pfurmslml frrrfor use. is o rte/rilion of the Copyright late. (I

MOD IFI ED MTAI

Please read the statement and circle the letter that best expresses your
feeling of that statement.

SA--Strongly Agree A-Agree U-Undecided D—-Disagree
SD--Strong1y Disagree

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.
l8.

19.

A teacher should never acknowledge his ignorance of a tapic in the presence
of his pupils. SA A U D SD

There is too muCh leniency today in the handling of children.
SA A U D SD

The child who misbehaves should be made to feel guilty and ashamed of
himself. SA A U D SD

A student should never acknowledge his ignorance of a topic in the presence
of his teachers or peers. SA A U D SD

There is too much leniency today in the teacher's handling of students.
SA A U D SD

There is too much intermingling of the sexes in extra-curricular activities.
SA A U D SD

A pupil found writing obscene notes should be severely punished.
SA A U D SD

Children should be given more freedom in the classroom than they usually
get. SA A U D SD

MOst pupils are resourceful when left on their own by the teacher.
SA A U D SD

Throwing of chalk and erasers should always demand severe punishment.
SA A U D SD

The child must learn that "teacher knows best." SA A U D SD

The majority of children take their responsibilities seriously.
SA A. U D SD

Young peOple today are just as good as those of the past generation.
SA A. U D SD

Keeping discipline is not the problem that many teachers claim it to be.
SA A. U D SD

'Minor disciplinary situations should sometimes be turned into jokes.
SA A. U D SD

A teacher seldom finds children really enjoyable. SA A U D SD
Young peOple are difficult to understand these days. SA A U D SD

Children.have no business asking qpestions about sex. SA .A U D SD

Teachers should exercise more authority over their pupils than they do.
SA A. U D SD 174

.175

Mbdified MTAI 2

20. The majority of teachers take their responsibilities seriously.
SA A U D SD

21. Young peOple nowadays are too frivolous. SA A. U D SD

22. It is difficult to understand why some children want to come to school so
early in the morning before opening time. SA A U D SD

23. Pupils usually are not qualified to select their own topics for themes
and reports. SA A U D SD

24. Most pupils are resourceful when left on their own. SA A U D so

176

Please read the statement and circle the letter that best expresses your
feeling of that statement.

SAr-Strongly Agree A-Agree U--Undecided D-Disagree

SD--Strongly Disagree

He is enthusiastic, seems to enjoy teaching.
SA A U D SD

His eXplanations are clear and to the point.
SA A U D SD

His examples are clear and illustrate the point.
SA A U D SD

He has great ability to make one think for himself.
SA A U D SD

He appears to be concerned about pupil's welfare and development.
SA A U D SD

He encourages and values reasonable disagreement.
SA A. U D SD

He is adequately groomed and pleasing in appearance.
SA A II D SD

He has a positive disposition (attitude).
SA .A II D SD

He respects others as individuals with feelings, thoughts, and behaviors
of their own.
SA. A. U D SD

He is generally respected and liked by others.
SA .A. U D SD

177

Please read the statement and circle the letter that best expresses your
feeling of that statement.

SA-Strongly Agree A--Agree U--Undecided D--Disagree
SD~-Strongly Disagree

He is enthusiastic, seems to enjoy learning.
SA A U D SD

His work is well organized and clearly stated.
SA A U D SD

His statements made in class are relevant to the discussion.
SA A U D SD

He has great ability to think for himself.
SA A U D SD

He appears to be concerned about his fellow students.
SA A U D SD

He can tolerate reasonable disagreement.
SA A U D SD

He is adequately groomed and pleasing in appearance.
SA A U D SD

He has a positive disposition (attitude).
SA A U D SD

He respects others as individuals with feelings, thoughts and behaviors

of their own.
SA A U D SD

He is generally respected and liked by others.
SA A U D SD

APPENDIX B

CLASS RANKINGS

APPENDIX B

178

oo.oH NH om.a mm oo.o on oo.oH nH
on.w on oo.¢H w 00. «H m oo.nH on
oo.m mm oo.HH on 00. N no oo.¢H nu
oo.HH me . 00. MH ON on. m mm oo.mH on
oo.H mm 00. NH we 00. N no oo.H ca
om.m mm oo.m mm 00. HH NH om.m an
oo.~ mm om. m mm oo.eH m om.m mm
oo.e no 00. n no oo.¢H m oo.OH me
00 .MH mm om.m mm oo.HH NH oo.~ mm
on. m on oo.oH o oo.oH a oo.m on
00. «H mm 00. mH m oo.HH NH oo.n mu
0m. m mm 00. m «n oo.¢ mm oo.m Hm
on. m on 00. N ha om.m mu oo.~H on
oo.mH mm om.m mm 00. 0 on oo.HH «e
om.m om oo.H mm 00. c on on.n ms
oo.MH mm oc.o no 00. N no om.m an
scum H482 xcmm common scum H<Hz xcmm cannon
NuHHHnHmcommmm Noafiucuuud

<4 mdeU

Emma rmoazm>2H NGDHHBH< mmmmo<mH <HomNZZHZ anhHQOZ Gnu and
Emma mHHhomm 4420mmmm Zonmou mmH zo
mmOHo<m mDOh mmH m6
ozHMz<x

179

00.5 00 00.0H 0 00.0 00 00.0H He

 

00.5 00 00.0H 0N 00.0H 05 00.~H 0N
00.NH 50 00.0 00 00.0H 0e 00.0 05
00.5 00 00.0H 0 00.< 00 00.5 N0
00.5 00 00.H 00H 00.¢H 00 00.0 00
00.5 00 00. 00 00.N 00H 00.¢ H0
00.H 00H 00.0 mm 00.~ 00H 00.HH c0
00.H 00H 00.5 H0 00.~H 00 00.0H on
00.0 mm 00.¢ H5 00.0 00 00.0 50
00.0H 00 00.~H H0 00.0 mm 00.0H 0N
00.0H 00 00.HH 00 00.NH 00 00.0H «H
00.0H 50 00.0 #0 00.¢H 00 00.0H 0
00.0H 05 00.0H cm 00.0. No 00.H Hm
00.0H 00 00.0 mm 00.0 00 00.H H0
00.NH 50 00.0 «0 . 00.~ 00H 00.0 00
00.0 mm 00.0 00 00.HH 50 00.0 00
xcmm H<Hz xcmm covuoo. xcmm H<Hz. xcmm nofiuou
NuHHHanoom uHHHnmum HMGOHuOBm

5. 320

HmmH meHzm>zH ugeHaas. mmwmufimfi <HommZZHZ BHmHn—oz 0.3 van
Emma MHHmomm H<zommmm zonmoo axe zo
mmoao<m mach mmH ho
quxz<m

180

00.H
00.¢
00.HH
00.¢
00.0
00.e
00.HH
00.5
00.5
00.H
00.HH
00.<

00.0
00.0
00.0
00.HH
00.N
00.¢
00.¢
00.NH
00.0
00.
00.¢
00.H
xcmm

 

 

00 00.0
05 00.~H
00 00.0
05 00.HH
00 oo.e
05 00.5
on 00.0
50 00.0H
50 00.H
00 00.0
00 00.0
05 00.H
awaaanaaoom
mm 00.0
«e 00.5
mm 00.0
0N 00.HH
00 00.H
om oo.~H
on 00.0
5H oo.~
mm 00.e
Ne 00.0
00 00.e
05 00.0H
H<Hz xmwm
NMMHHnHmcoCmmm

Emma. Nachzw>zH mobBHBBQ; 0505*. 4.603222 QmeHn—o: 0:» and
HmmH MHHmomm H<zommmm zonmoo may 20
mmoeo<m mach mmh no

we
0

00
0H
00
H0
N0
0H
0m
0m
Na
00

me
00
05
e

00
N

H0
00
50
#N
50
5H

nocuou

mm mdeo

UZH 0.250

00.~H
00.0H
00.H
00.0H
00.<
00.H
00.5
00.5
00.5
00.¢
00.0H
00.0

00.0
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.0
xcwm

 

us on.m so
an oo.a as
con om.n mm
mm_ oo.- o
as om.m so
ooa oo.oa n
ma oo.HH n
ma oo.~ on
ma om.n mm
mm oo.m as
an oo.a on
Na oo.m an
3333... 3.8325
mm oo.m as
an on.a NH
o oo.~ Ne
w oo.- ~
AH om.m as
m oc.a on
m oo.o an
o om.m ~H
an oo.m as
me oo.HH a
an on." an
a. “a... a”...
H< mm
OdeCmom<

181

om.m
on.m
oo.~a
cm.~
oo.H
oo.~H
om.m
cm.m
oo.m
om.
om.m
oo.~a
om.~
seam

N0 00.0
00 00.0H
05 00.H
05 00.0
mm 00.0
05 00.0
00 00.HH
05 00.¢
00 00.5
00 00.0H
50 00.H
05 00.0
no 00.~H
NuHHHanoom
50 00.0
50 00.HH
Nq 00.0
05 00.¢
00 00.0
we 00.NH
00 00.~
00 00.¢
00 00.0
50 00.NH
50 00.5
ms 00.0H
05 00.H
H<HZ xqmm

adamanwmmmmmmm

Emma. .5582ng MODHHBB< 05020.33. $085,932 anhHQOZ 93 find

00
0H
«0
00
<5
H0
00
00
#0
on
em
50
00

00
5m
00
00
a5
0H
00
00
0e
0H
50
00
so

doouoo

00 mde0

Emma MHHmomm H<zcmmmm zoamco 038 20

mmOHo¢m mach mmH 00

“02ng

00
00H
00H
00
05
m0
00H
00
mm
mm
00
00

00.5
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.¢
00.0
00.0
00.0H

00
0m
0m
0N
00
0

00
05
00
0a
N0
HH

N5mllllllbbhHIiIIIM0

paganaum Hmaoauosm

0

.00
5H
50
mm
0N

0
50
0
0
5H
00
0

H<HZ

oo.~
oo.n~
oo.~
om.m
oo.~a
oo.sa
co.H
oo.e
om.m
om.m
oo.m
oo.w
om.n
scam

dewomoom<

[#0
0H
#0
H5
00
H0
mm
00
we
«e
No
00
H5

cocuoo

182

00.0H
00. 0H
00. N
00. 0
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00. 0H
00. 0
00. N
00.N
00.¢H
00.0H
00.0H
00.¢H
00.N
00.0H
00.0H

scam

50
0N
00
05
05
05
50
50
05
00
00
00
00
00
00
.00
00
50

H<HZ

00.0H
00. HH
00. 0
00. 0H
00.0
00.0
00.N

00.0H.

00.5H
00. 0
00. H
00. 5
00. NH
00. 0
00. 0H
00.0H
00.¢
00.0H

xqmm

NIH flawlnlldllamco mom

800.0 .50onng Nahum—”.880 00900090 «Bowman—HHS GNU—”.3502 can. can

H

HN
«0
«H
5N
00
00
0

0

N5
N0
0e
0H
00
«H
0

50
0N

couuou

on mdeo

00.0
00.NH
00.¢H
00.0
00.H
00.NH
00. 0H
00. 0
00. .0H

00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.5H
00. N
00. 0

.00. 0H

on. S
seam

80MB NHHmomm H<zommmm zonmou mmH 20

WMOHU<M macaw MPH. m0

ozH¥z<m

N¢
5H
0H
00
05
5H
0

00
0N
00
00
He
0

0

50
00
0N
0

H¢HZ

00.5H
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.¢
00.H
00.0H
00.0
00.HH
00.NH
00.0
00.N
00.5H
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.¢

scam

.Nodoocoow<

0

55
0N
H0
H5
00
0N
e¢
00
0N
Ne
00
0

0N
H0
0N
Ne
H5

common

183

seam

05 00.5H
05 00.0
00 00.0H
00 00.HH
00 00.0
00 00.¢
50 00.0H
50 00.0
50 00.0H,
50 00.0
00 00.0H
00 00.0
00 00.0H
05 00.N
00 00.5
05 00.0H
Ne 00.0
00 00.H
H<Hz xcmm

NuHHHQmHoom

an mudHo

mmOHo<m maom NEH m0
ozHMz<m

00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.¢H
00. OH
00. 0
00. NH
00. 0
00. «H
00. 0
00. H
00.0H
00.NH
00.0H
00.0

00.0H.

om.H
same

00
N0
05
00
Ne
50
05
00
00
Ne
00
00H
00
00
50
00
0N
00H

H<HZ

00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.HH
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.5H
00.0
00.¢
00.e
00.NH
00.5H
00.5
00.0H
00.¢H
00.0
00.0

mama

 

0

0H
00
0N
00
00
Ne
0

00
em
«a
0N
0

0e
0

«H
00
00

sovuoo

 

suaaaaaum Hummauosm

Emma MmazmfiwzH HEDHHHHE mmmmoaa $00ng GmHth—OZ 9.3 U8
Hmma quhomm H<zommmm zoamoo mma zo

184

00. ¢H
00. N
00. OH
00. OH
00. 5
00. «H
00.N
00.eH
00.¢H
00. 5
00. 5
00. e
00. N
00. 0H
00. 5
00. 5H
00.¢
00.¢H

scam

H<HZ

00.H
00. 0
00. 0
00. 5
00.0
00.¢
00.0H
00.0H

00.0H.

00.0

00.0H
00.N

00.5H
00.0H
00.0H
00.¢H
00.NH
00.0H

seam

Unfamilnlllmllauao 3m

somuoo

mm mmuHo

000H0<m “:00
any 06 quzz<m

00.¢
00.5
00.5
00. «H
00. 0
00. N
00.H
00. «H
00. N
00. 0H
00. m
00. «H
00. 0
00. «H
00. «H
00. 0
00. «H
00.0H

scum

50
0N
0N

H<H2

HmmH wmoazm>ZH maaHBa< $350508 <Hommzzg QmHmHooz as... find
Emma quhomm A<zommmm zonmou NIH 20

00.NH
00.0
00.5
00.0
00.¢
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.e
00.0H
00. 0H
00. 0
00. 0H
00.0H
00.N
00.0H
00.H

scam

Hose Emmwfi

00
#e
55
H0
50
0e
00
H0
0e
50
OH
0

H5
0

m

00
0H
00

cofiuou

185

00.0H
00.0
00.0H

00.0H.

00.0
00.0H
00. NH
00. 0
00. NH
00.NH
00.5H
00.H
00.0
00. NH
00. 0
00. 0
00. H
00. 0

38m

00 00.0H
00 00.HH
00 00.0

05 00.5

00 00.0

00 00.5

50 00.0

00 00.0

50 00.0H
50 00.¢

00 00.0H
N0 00.5H
00 00.N

50 00.0H
00 00.0H
00 00.H

N0 00.HH
00 00.0

H<HZ .xcmm

NuHHHanoom

HmmH. 5582ng Hanan—.94. mfimofima dacmmzzg QmHhHQOZ 93 find
Emma MHHmomm H<zcmmmm zonmoo mmH zo
000H0<m 0:00 MIR ho

NN
00
50
00
00
00
5%
5¢
00
N5
NN
5

H0
0

NN
00
00
05

coouou

mu

mdeu

UZHKZ<M

00. 5H
00. 0
00. 0
00.H
00.HH
00.0H
00.HH
00.0H
00.HH
00.HH
00.HH
00. HH
00. 0
00. 0H
00. 0
00. HH
00.0
00.H

same

00
N0
N0
00H
00
50
00
05
00
00
00
00
N0
00
N0
00
N0
00H

H<HZ

00.0H
00.H
00.0
00.¢
00.5
00.<
00.NH
00.¢H
00.0H
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.5H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.N
00.0H

as;

 

0e
#0
50
00
00
00
m0
0N
0e
50
00
N0
0

0H
0

«N
H0
0<

cuckoo

 

finds—3m sadness

186

00.NN
00.0
00.NH
00.5H
00.0N
00.NH
00.0
00.NH
00.NN
00.0
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.5H
00.NH
00.0
00.NH
00.5H
00.5H
00.5H
00.5H
00.H
00.N
00.NN
00.0N
00.¢N

x5e

NH
50
00
00
00
00
50
00
Ne
50
50
00
50
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00H
00
Ne
00
0e

H<H2

scum

mum mailman no 3.0

80mm. MmOBzmng .maDHHHnR 050308 $.00ng GMHNHGOZ 05 cam
Emma. mdhomm 4580me 20508 E 20

00
00
00
00
H0
00
0e
00
05
5N
00
em
HN
0m
00
00
we
5<
v

05
00
em
00
00
00
00

covuou

hm mdeo

000H0<m é Huh 00
ozH¥z<0

00.0N
00.0N
00.0
00.NN
00.0
00.HH
00.0H
00.HH
00.0H
00.NN
00.N
00.0
00.¢H
00.H
00.N
00.HH
00.HH
00.0H
00.HH
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.¢H
00.0N

x5e

0
0
00.
5H
on

Na
0N
Ne
0N
5H
00
00
00
50
00
Ne
Ne
0N
Ne
00
00
0N
0N
0N
00
0

H<H=

Honoucoom<

scam

Hm
cuckoo

”10:506er V @075 Lao
MUZHv—ZIK:

187

00.VH
00.N
00.0
cm.o~
00.0
00.N
ow.vH
oo.e~
om.vH
om.o~
00.VN
cm.qH
oo.m
oo.m
oo.e~
cm.vH
om.vH
oo.q~
00.N
om.vH
om.eH
cm.vH
oo.m
om.va
oo.vm
oo.m
scam

 

50 00.0H
00H 00.0H
00 00.0H
00 00.0N
00 00.0N
00H 00.0H
50 00.0
00 00.NN
50 00.NH
00 00.NN
00 00.N
50 .00.HH
00 00.N
00 00.0
00 00.0N
50 00.H
50 00.0H
00 00.0
00H 00.5H
50 00.0
50 00.0N
50 00.0H
05 00.HN
50 00.0
00 00.0H
00 00.¢
H<BZ xcmm
NuHHHQMHUOm

cm
He
an
N
as
om
am
m
be
m
mm
Hm
mm
em
n
mm
He
He
aw
me
No .
mm
HH
mm
om
mm

coouou

hm

mmmHU

om.v
om.v
oo.mH
om.v
oo.mH
om.v
om.e
oo.mH
om.m
om.~H
oo.mH
oo.v~
cm.e
oo.mH
oo.m~
oo.mH
oo.m~
cm.NH
cm.~a
oo.m~
om.~H
ow.v
ow.m
oo.mH
oo.mH
om.v
xcmm

00H
00H
50
00H
50
OCH
00H
50
N0
00
50
00
00H
50
00
50
00
00
00
Nv
00
00H
N0
05
50
00H

H<BS

00.0H
00.0H
00.5
00.NN
00.5H
00.0N
00.0N
00.5
00.0
00.5
00.0H
00.0
00.HN
00.NH
00.N
00.vH
00.0H
00.H
00.0N
00.0H
00.v~
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.¢H
00.0H

scam

coouow

 

staanemW Hmcoauoem

BMMH NmOBzw>ZH NQDBHHH< mmmmu<m9 (BOWMZZHZ DthHQOZ OCH 0cm

Emma MHHhOmm A<zommmm ZOGmOQ mma ZO
mmOBU<m c 0:9 mo

DZHKZ<m

188

00.H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.?
00.0
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.0
00.0
xcmm

00H
0N
00
00
00
00
Ne
00
Ne
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
H482

awaflaaamcommmm

00.v
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.N
00.0H
00.vH
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.NH
00.0H
00.HH
xcmm

00
HH
00
N5
00H
05
00
0H
vH
N5
00
50
00
0v
0
00
COOHOU

Ow mumHU

00.N
00.v
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.v
00.0H
00.5
00.H
00.5
00.5
00.N
00.5
xcmm

00 00.NH
NV 00.0H
5H 00.0

5H 00.N

0N 00.0H
5H 00.H

5H 00.5

5H 00.0

Ne 00.0

5H 00.0H
00 00.0H
00 00.0H
00 00.0

00 00.0

00 00.v

00 00.vH
H<HZ. xcmm

NUCUUCQUm<

Emma wmoazm>2H MQDBHBBZ mmmmu<m9 (BOmMZZH: DmHmHDOZ mnu 6cm

Emma mHHhomm H<zommmm ZOQmOD NIB 20

mmOBU<h mDO& MIR ho

324KZ<VH

coouoo

189

00.0H
00.vH
00.HH
00.HH
00.0H
00.HH
00.0H
00.0
00.¢
00.0
00.v
00.0H
00.0
00.¢
00.0H
00.¢
xcmm

mm om.m
we co.»
mm oo.m
mm 00.0H
mm 00.HH
mm 00.0H
mm oo.m
am 0m.m
ma oo.v
am oo.va
ma oo.ma
as oo.ms
so 00.NH
ma cm.m
om om.m
ma oo.ma
H<BZ xcmm
xammfineauom

H0
50
55
00
0V
om
00
H0
H5
0H
0H
0

00
H0
H0
00

common

66 mmioHU

00.¢H 00
00.HH 50
00.N N0
00.0H Nv
00.¢ 00
00.v 00
00.0 05
00.0 05
00.HH 50
00.0 05
00.HH 50
00.0H Nv
00.HH 5m
00.¢ 00
00.H 00H
00.v 00
xcmm H<BS
uflllllllll

00.N
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.vH
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.NH
00.HH
xcmm

uaasnmum Hmcoauoem

Bmma Nm092m>ZH MODBHBB< mmmIU<MB <BOWMZZHZ DMHMHDOZ 05¢ vcm

Emma mHHhOmm H<Zommmm ZOQmOO mmfi 20

mmOHU<m mDOm NIB ho

02Hv~2<m

 

190

00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.0
00.HH

00.0
00.0
00.N
00.N
00.N
00.HH
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
xcmm

mm 00.H
ms oo.~
mm 00.HH
mm oo.m
so oo.~s
ms om.e
mm om.¢
mm oo.m
as 00.5
mm ow.m
mm om.m
om oo.m
_waflwmmwmmm
am oo.~
mm oo.m
ma oo.m
ms om.m
ms oo.m
om oo.v
mm oo.a
om oo.a
so om.m
so 00.NH
am 00.0H
mm 00.HH
H<BZ kamm

awaaaaameommmm

N0
00

00

00
0N
0N

0H

00
Nv
#0
VH
00
00
00
0H
vH
0

NH
0

soouow

x: mmaHU

00.0
00.N
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.v
00.v
00.H
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.v

 

0H
H5
00
N

0

05
00
0H
0H
0

0N
VH

coouow

05 00.0
Nm 00.N
05 00.<
00 00.0H
50 00.5
00 00.H
00 00.0
00H 00.0
50 00.0
00 00.NH
50 00.¢
00 00.HH
NuHHHnmum HmCOHuOEm
0 00.5
5H 00.N
0 00.¢
NV 00.NH
5H 00.0H
0 00.H
0N 00.0
00 00.5
Ne 00.5
00 00.0H
mm 00.0
00 00.0
H492 xcmm
NUCUOCQUQ<

Emma Wmoezm>2H MDDBHBH< mmmmu<m9 (BOmMZZHZ QMHmHQOZ Gnu 0cm

Emma mHHhOmm H<ZOmmmm ZOGmOU m:& 20

mmOBU<h mDOm MIR ho
OZHZZ<Z

191

00.0 00 00.0 H0 00.0 00 00.v mm

 

 

00.0 .00 00.0 NN 00.N Nm 00.0 N0
om.m mm oo.e am . om.m me oo.m A we
00.0 cm 00.H 00 00.0 mm 00.0 00
00.5 05 00.0 H0 00.0 50 00.5 .Nv
00.5 05 00.0 v0 00.0 50 00.0 05
00.0 00 00.0H 0H 00.0H 00 . 00.5 Nv
00.H mm 00.0 H0 00.H 00H 00.N Hm
00.5 05 00.N v5 00.0 50 00.0H mm
00.0 00 00.0 NN 00.0 05 p0.H mm
NuHHHanuom uHHHnmum HmcoHuOEm
00.0H 5H 00.0 N5 00.0 5H 00.5 Ne
00.5 om 00.0 Nm 00.0 5H om.v 00
00.5 00 00.0 00 00.0 Ne 00.0 Hm
00.N m5 oo.v cm 00.0 5H 00.H 5m
00.v 00 00.0 HN 00.H 00 00.v 00
00.H Nm 00.0 0v 00.0 mm . 00.0 mm
00.5 00 00.5. 00 00.0 Nv 00.0H 0H
00.5 00 00.H mm 00.0H o 00.0 00
00.5 00 00.0H 0 00.0 00 00.H 50
00.0 50 00.H mm 00.H 00 00.0 0H
xcmm H<Bz xcmm coouou xcmm H<BZ xcmm covuow
NMHHHQHmCOQmmm Nucmucmum<
00 mmMHU

emme umoezm>zH waaauaa4 mmmxu<me <aommzsz omHmHoo: on» new
amme qumomm q<zommmm zoomow axe zo
mmoau<m moom mza mo
oZszam.

192

00.0H
00.NH
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.5
00.0
00.H

00.0H
00.0H
00.NH
00.v
00.0H
00.0
00.N
00.0H
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.N
00.0
xcmm

5H 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.0H
00H 00.N
05 00.HH
00 00.0H
Nv 00.5
05 00.NH
00 00.v
Nv 00.0
50 00.0
00 00.0
00H 00.H
NuHHHQMHuom
Nv 00.HH
Nv 00.5
0N 00.0H
50 00.5
Nv 00.NH
00 00.0H
05 00.N
0 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.N
05 00.H
00 00.4
H482 xcmm

awasanamcomuum

00
H0
mH
e5
0H

0N

50
0N
00
NN
00

HN
0H
HN

mm

04
50
00
50
00

conuou

xx mmoHU

00.0
00.HH
00.H
00.NH
00.0
00.¢
00.0
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.0
00.N
00.N

00.0
00.v
00.NH
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.HH
xcmm

 

50 00.0 0H
00 00.0 00
00H 00.NH 0
00 00.v Ne
50 00.NH 0
05 00.NH 0
05 00.0 He
50 00.0H 0
00 00.H 05
50 00.0 00
50 00.5 0N,
N0 00.N 05
mm D0.m DN
uHHHnmum HmCOHuOEm
00 00.0 00
00 00.N 00
0 00.0H o
00 00.H 5m
05 00.0 NH
0N 00.0 ON
00 00.HH v
0 00.NH N
50 00.5 H0
00 00.0 00
00 00.0H m
0N 00.0 00
5H 00.0 50
H492 xcmm COUHOU
Nucmvcmum4

90MB NmOBzm>ZH MODBHHB< mmmmU4MB <BOWMZZHZ DMHHHGOZ 0:» 0cm

Emma MHHmOmm H<ZOmmmm zoomow are 20

mmOBU<m «Dom BIB mo
02H¥Z<m

193

00.0N
00.H
00.0
00.HN
00.0
00.HN
00.V
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.NH
00.0H
00.V
00.NH
00.0H
00.0
00.NH
00.NH
00.0H
00.V
00.H
00.V

xcwm

NV
N0
05
00
05
00
00
05
00
00
50
00
00
50
00
05
50
50
00
00
N0
00

H482

oo.mH an
co.” co
oo.m~ ma
oo.e mm
oo.HH am
oo.es ma
oo.o~ m
00.N am
00.NH me
cm.m «m.
oo.- o
cm.m mm
oo.e mm
oo.o~ m
00.0H ma
oo.m «a
oo.qH mm
cm.m me
cm.m mm
oo.ma NH
oo.o~ m
oo.v mm
xcmm conuoo
Hussamwaumm

AH mmMHU

00.0H 00
00.0H 00
00.0H .05
00.V. N0
00.5H 00
00.HN NV
00.0H 05
00.5H 00
00.5H 00
00.0 00H
00.0 00
00.VH 50
00.0H 05
00.0H 05
00.HN NV
00.0H 05
00.0 00H
00.0 00H
00.VH 50
00.0H 05
00.V N0
00.0 00
xcmm H482.
.Nllllllll

00.0H
00.VH
00.5H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.5H
00.HN
00.0H
00.5
00.NH
00.0H
00.5
00.N
00.NN
00.0N
00.5
00.0

xcmm

basanmum Hmcoauoeu

Bmmfi meBZM>ZH MQDBHBH<.mmm20<MB (Homm22H2 QMHhHDO2 mnu 0cm

Emma mHHmomm H<ZOmmmm ZODmOD mmfi 20

0009040 0:00 029 00

02sz<m

0N
0N
VH
00
00
0

N0
0H
00
00
VH
V

00
N0
0V
00
N0
H0
0

0

N0
mm

coouou

 

194

00.NN
00.5H
00.5H
00.0H
00.0
00.H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.5H
00.0N
00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0N
00.0H
00.0

xcmm

00
05

H482

Emma MmOBZMZI—H MQDBHBBK.

00.VH
00.0
00.5
00.0H
00.0H
00.0N
00.0H
00.5
00.H
00.5
00.0N
00.0H
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.0
00.NN
00.0H
00.NH
00.N

scam

Bmmn. mHHmOmm ézcmmmm ZODmOU NIH. 20

00
50
00
HN
VN
mH
H0
00
mm
00
mH
VN
N5
NV
50
00
V0
V0
0

HN
NV
00

coouou

awaaaaamcommmm

HA ummHU

mmOBU<h mDOnH NHN.H. .00

UZH¥2<E

00.0
00.HH
00.V
00.0H
00.0H
00.N
00.HH
00.HH
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.HN
00.HN
00.H
00.HH
00.N
00.0H
00.0
00.HH
00.0
00.HH

scam

NV 00.0H
0N 00.N
00 00.HN
0H 00.H
0 00.0
50 00.5H
0N 00.0H
0N 00.NH
NV 00.5H
0H 00.V
0 00.0N
0H 00.0H
0 00.N
0 00.NN
N0 00.0H
0N 00.0H
50 00.0
0 00.0
00 00.0H
0N 00.0H
00 00.0H
0N 00.0
H482 xcmm
NUCOUCUUm<

mmm20<ma <BOmQZZH2 DmHhHQO2 Una Ucm

cocuow

19S

00.HH
00.HH
00.HH
00.0
00.0
00.HH
00.5
00.VH
00.H
00.HH
00.0H
00.5
00.5
00.0
00.0
00.VH

scam

H492

00.0
00.0
00.VH
00.0
00.0
00.NH
00.VH
00.0
00.HH
00.0H
00.VH
00.5
00.H
00.0
00.VH
00.N

xcmm

NUHHHnHmcommmm

50
NV

00
coouou

Z: mmmHU

00sNH
00.NH
00.NH
00.N
00.V
00.NH
00.NH
00.H
00.NH
00.V
00.NH
00.NH
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.N

scam

NV

0

GOOQOQOOMNOOO

Nucoocmum4

00.0H
00.NH
00.VH
00.H
00.0
00.5
00.0H
00.NH
00.0
00.N
00.V
00.0H
00.NH
00.0
00.0
00.0

same

8009 HmOBzm>ZH mabBHafi4.mmmmu<m9 (BOmMZZHZ DmHmHDOZ 0:» 0cm

BWMB MHHmomm H<zommmm ZOQmOO NIB 20

mmOBU<h mDOm BIB m0

GZHKZ<K

soouoo

196

00.0H
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.V
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.0H
00.H
00.0H

xcmm

00 00.0H
05 00.0H
00 00.VH
05 00.0
05 00.HH
00 00.NH
00 00.0H
00 00.0
00 00.H
00 00.N
50 00.0
Nm 00.0
50 00.0H
00 00.0
Nm 00.0
00 00.5
H492 xcmm
NuHHHanuom

22 maflHU

00.N
00.0
00.N
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.N
00.0H
00.0H
00.V
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0

xcom

9009 MmO9zm>2H .MOBH994 mmm204m9 490002222 omHmHQO2 0:“ can

90m9 MHHhOmm H4zommmm zoamow m29 20

02090.50 ”50.0 .029 .00

02 H 22<m

 

00H 00.N 00
05 00.0H 0N
00H 00.0 00
50 00.H mm
50 00.VH 0
00 00.HH 0H
00 00.0H o
NV 00.0 NV
00H 00.0 0N
00 00.0 MN
50 00.NH VH
Nm 00.0H V ,
05 00.V 00
05 00.5 V0
05 00.0H m
00 00.0 50
H492 xcmm coouow
NuHHHnnum HmcoHuOEm

197

00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.H
00.5
00.0H
00.5H
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.5H
00.5
00.5H
00.H
00.0

scam

 

NV 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.0
00 00.H
0N 00.0
50 00.0
NV 00.H
NV 00.N
NV 00.H
50 00.0
05 00.5
0N 00.0
00 00.0
0N 00.5
00 00.0
50 00.0
H492 xcmm

H 00 00.V
00 00.5
H V0 00.N
H 50 00.0H
H V 00.HH
H V5 00.H
V0 00.5
00 00.0H
00H 00.0H
H N5 00.N
00H 00.V
H 50 00.0H
mm 00.5
H 05 00.HH
00 00.HH
H HN 00.HH
mm 00.0
00 00.0H
conhow £20m

Nuaasnamcmmmmm

00 mumHU

00 00.0
0N 00.0H
NV 00.HH
0 00.0
0 .00.0H
00 00.5H
0N 00.0
0 00.HH
0 00.HH
NV 00.0H
00 00.V
0 00.N
0N 00.0
0 00.H
0 00.0
0 00.0
5H 00.0H
0 00.VH
H492 xcmm
N020U20UW<

anus smoezm>za mnoauaa< mammu<me <aommzzaz amHmHooz on» can

90m9 MHHhomm H4200mmm 200m00 029 20
0009U4h mDOh 029 00

UZHXZ<¢

coouoo

198

00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.H
00.5H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.5H
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0

3cmm

00 00.0
05 00.0
50 00.NH
50 00.0H
50 00.0H
00 00.0H
Nm 00.0H
05 00.NH
N0 00.0
NV 00.VH
00 00.0
00 00.H
50 00.NH
NV 00.0
05 00.N
00 00.V
00 00.0
05 00.0H
H492 xCMm
..NuHHHanUom

common

00 umMHU

00.0H
00.HH
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.5H
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.HH
00.0H
00.H

xcmm

 

00.0H
00.N
00.NH
00.NH
00.0H
00.0
00.N
00.H
00.0
00.NH
00.0
00.5
00.0
00.0H
00.VH
00.5H
00.5
00.V

xcmm

uaaanmum Hmcoauoeu

9009 9m09zm>ZH MDDHHHH<.mmmmU<m9 <900m22H2 DMHKH002 Ocu 0cm

9009 MHHmomm H4200mmm ZOQMOO m29 20

.0m09U4m mDOE M29 00

02sz<m

00
m0

coouoo

199

oo.~H
oo.m
om.mfi
oo.m
om.-
oo.¢
oo.m
00.V
om.-
00.NH
oo.m
oo.ma
00.NH
oo.s~
oo.om
oo.m~
om.-
oo.a
on.-
00.N
oo.em
oo.e~
oo.v
oo.mH
oo.a~
oo.m
cm.m~
00.HN
00.0H
00.0H
scam

00
50
NV
50
00
05
50
05
00
00
50
00
00
0N
5H
00
00
00H
00
00
0N
0N
05
00
0N
50
NV
0N
00
00
H492

00.0
00.0N
00.0
00.0H
00.HH
00.0N
00.HN
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0N
00.0H
00.0N
00.0
00.00
00.0N
00.0H
00.VN
00.0N
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.HH
00.0
00.HN
00.H
00.V
00.0N
00.N
00.0H
xcmm

Huaflanamcommmm

0N

conuoo

mm mmug—”U

00.0N
00.0N
00.HN
00.0

cm.H~
oo.mH
oo.m

om.m

om.H~
om.m

om.H~
oo.ma
oo.mH
00.0H
oo.m~
oo.m~
oo.mH
oo.m~
om.m

oo.m

om.a~
00.0H
00.0H
oo.mH
0m.m

oo.mH
om.H~
oo.mH
00.H

oo.m~
same

0 om.m
o oo.e~
5H om.m
mm om.sa
as om.aa
mm oo.e
mm oo.m~
Ne cm.m~
5H om.m
we om.m~
as om.aa
mm om.aa
mm oo.m
mm cm.m
m oo.¢~
o om.sa
m~ oo.m~
o 00.N
we oo.-
mm om.AH
5H 00.HN
mm oo.m~
mm om.~s
mm oo.e~
Ne oo.vH
mu. om.eH
5H 00.H
mm oo.m~
ms oo.m
o 00.0H
H49: scam
NUCQUCUUM<

9009 900920>ZH 0009H994 00020409 4900022H2 00HmH002 Gnu 0cm

9009 qumomm 44200000 200000 009 20

0009040 0000 029 00
02H024m

V0

0V
coouou

200

00.0N
00.0N
00.VH
00.VH
00.0N
00.0N
00.5
00.5
00.H
00.0N
00.0
00.5
00.VH
00.0N
00.VH
00.5
00.VH
00.H
00.00
00.0N
00.VH
00.0
00.0N
00.5
00.0N
00.5
00.VH
00.0N
00.VH
00.0N
xcm0

50 00.5
50 00.5N
05 00.0
05 00.5N
00 00.5
50 00.NH
00 00.5N
00 00.VN
00H 00.0
NV 00.0H
Nm 00.0N
00 00.HN
05 00.0H
00 00.VH
05 00.0H
00 00.0
05 00.00
OCH 00.N
0N 00.HN
00 00.0H
05 00.HH
Nm 00.0N
00 00.0H
00 00.HN
50 00.NH
00 00.5N
05 00.H
NV 00.5H
05 00.0
00 00.0
H492 xcm0
NuHHHQmHUom

mm mmmHU

00.0H
00.NH
00.0N
00.NH
00.NH
00.0H
00.0N
00.NH
00.NH
00.0

00.5

00:0H
00.NN
00.NH
00.5

00.NH
00.NN
00.5

00.0N
00.0N
00.NN
00.0

00.0N
00.NN
00.0

00.0H
00.NH
00.0N
00.0

00.0

xcm0

05 00.0
00 00.0N
00 00.NH
00 00.0H
00 00.VN
.05 00.0N
00 00.NH
00 00.0
00 00.NH
00H 00.5N
Nm 00.0H
05 00.NH
50 00.0
00 00.NN
N0 00.5N
00 00.0H
50 00.0
Nm 00.5H
00 00.0N
00 00.0H
50 00.NN
00H 00.0
00 00.N
50 00.V
00H 00.0N
05. 00.H
00 00.NH
00 00.0N
00H 00.0
00H 00.5N
H492 0cm0
.Nllllllll

coouoo

 

uaflsnmum HmcoauoEM

9009 200920>2H 0OD9H994 00020409 4900022H2 00HOH002 mnu 00m

9009 00H000m 04200000 200000 0:9 20

0009040 0000 0:9 00
02sz40

20;

00.0

00.0N.

00.4
00.00
00.9H
00.v
00.4
00.HH
00.4
00.¢H
00.0N
00.HH
00.0
00.H
00.vH
00.0H
00.0
00.¢H
00.V
00.0
00.9H

0:00

90
pH
mu
mv
mm
09
09
mm
09
00
9H
00
90
mm
00
mm
90
00
09
90
mm

H492

00.Va
00.0N
00.v
00.9
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.H
00.9H
00.H
00.0N
00.NH
00.0
00.NH
00.NH
00.0
00.0
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H

xcmm

amaflflaflmcommmm

couuoo

00 mudHU

00.0H
00.4.
00.0H
00.V
00.na
00.N
Om.v
00.0N
00.0
00.H
00.0H
00.0
00.¢
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.na
00.0N
00.0H

xcmm

m 00.0
mm oo.m~
m om.>
mm om.h
ha om.m
we 00.NH
mm cm.ba
o cm.na
mm cm.mH
mm om.m
5H ‘oo.qH
mm oo.mH
mm oo.H~
5H oo.e
ha oo.m
5H oo.~
mm 00.H
mu om.mH
5H oo.HH
o oo.mH
m oo.m
H<ax xcmm
NUCQUCOUB<

9009 X009Z0>2H 0009H994. 00000409 490002200..— 00HOH002 0:9 van

9009 00H000m 44200000 200000 009 20

0009040 0000 009 00

02sz40

90
00
N9
N9
00
00
am
am
mm
mm
04
NV
0H
mm
90
00
mm
mm
40
on
Am

covuoo

202

00.H
00.VH
om.vH
00.H.
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.H
00.0H
00.0N
om.vH
00.0
00.0N
00.0N
00.VH
00.4H
00.4H
00.vH
00.0
00.0
00.0

xcmm

mm om.vH
90 00.9H
90 00.N
mm 00.0H
m9 00.HN
mm 00.0H
N0 00.NH
mm 00.0H
90 00.VH
mm 00.0H
90 00.0N
m9 00.0H
mm 00.9
mm 00.N
90 00.9
90 00.4
90 00.N
90 00.0H
mm 00.0
09 00.9
mm 00.0
H492 xcm0
NudenMHuom

me

00
40
0H
v0
90
mm

mm
0H
0m
00
mm
00
v0
00
mm
mm
00

conuow

00 a«MHU

00.0
00.0
00.v
00.0N
00.vH
00.0N
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.9H
00.vH
00.NH
00.0
00.VH
00.9H
00.0
00.9H
00.0N
00.N
00.0
00.N

acmm

 

mm 00.0 09
mm 00.0N 9
No 00.0 mm
00 00.0 00
90 00.0H 04
00 00.0 09
m0 00.0H vH
00H 00.0H HH
mm 00.0 09
mm 00.0H 0v
90 00.0 00
m9 00.HN N
m0 00.HH me
90 00.9H mm
mm 00.0 mm
mm 00.0 mm
mm 00.HH av
00 00.H Hm
00H 00.0H 0m
mm 00.0H 0m
00H 00.0 90
H492 xcm0 cocuow
NudHHnmum HmCOHuoem

9009 N00920>2H 00995994 00000409 4900022H2 00HOH002 02“.. van

9009 0AH0000 04200000 200000 009 20

0009040 0000 009 00

02H0240

203

00.a
00.HH
00.4
00.0H
00.HN
00.HH
00.0H
00.4
00.9
00.0H
00.HH
00.NN
00.0H
00.0H
00.HH
00.0H
00.4
00.NN
00.9
00.9
00.0H
00.9
00.H

xcum

mm
00
09
00
mm
00
N4
09
90
Om
mm
9H
N4
00
00
N4
09
9H
90
90
00
90
m0

H492

00.0H
00.0H
00.4
00.0H
00.NH
00.0H
00.0H
00.m
00.H
00.MH
00.0
00.0H
00.9
00.9H
00.0H
00.0
00.NN
00.MN
00.0H
00.0H
00.HN
00.N
00.0

xcmm

Nufiaandmcommmm

9N

00
00
90
mm

mm
00
an
49
00
N9
4H
NH
90

0H
H0

90
mm

coouou

>> uuaHU

00.0N
00.4H
00.NH
00.0N
00.0N
00.0N
00.0N
00.4
00.0
00.0
00.4H
00.H
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.9H
00.0N
00.NH
00.0
00.4
00.4
00.0H
00.4

xcmm

0 00.0H
0N 00.0
mm 00.MH
0 00.0N
0 00.0
0 00.HH
0 00.MN
00 00.0
N4 00.9
N4 00.0H
0N 00.NH
mm om.m
N4 00.N
N4 00.H
mm 00.NN
0 00.0H
0 00.0
mm 00.HN
N4 00.0H
00 00.9H
00 00.0H
9H 00.4H
00 00.0
H492 xcm0
”0900060004

9009 900920>2H 0DD9H994 00020409 4900022H2 00HOH002 0:» 0:0

9009 00H0000 44200000 200000 029 20

0009040 0000 029 00

02H0240

cocuoo

204

00.0H
00.HH
00.HH
00.0
00.N
00.0
00.0H
00.HH
00.0N
00.0H
00.0N
00.0H
00.0H
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.NN
00.N
00.0N
00.0
00.0H
00.H

xcam

 

9m 00.NH
m9 oo.m
m9 oo.mH
mm oo.mN
mm 00.9
mm 00.9
90 00.0N
m9 cm.OH
mm oo.mH
9m om.mH
om om.~
pm oo.»
90 0m.N
90 00.4
mm 00.0H
mm om.oa
mm 00.H
m4 00.HN
Nm om.mH
om 00.NN
mm oo.9H
9m 00.4H
ooa oo.m
H<az xcom
mudaanmauom

9009 900920>2H 0009H994

9009 00H0000 04200000 200000 029 20

H0
00
NN
9
mm
00
NH
40
90
am
40
mm
40
H0
0N
40
mm
.0H
H0
0
mm
mm
09

covuou

>> mmmHU

0009040 0000 029 00

0ZH0240

00.0
00.0H
00.0
00.m
00.0H
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.HN
00.mN
00.0H
00.0H
00.H
00.0
00.m
00.0H
00.0
00.HN
00.0H
00.HN
00.0
00.0
00.0

xcmm

09 00.NH
mm 00.0H
Nm 00.N
N0 00.9H
90 00.0
09 00.0
mm 00.NN
09 00.0
00 00.m
N4 00.HH
mm 00.0H
90 00.H
00H 00.0H
09 00.9
N0 00.0H
mm 00.4
09 00.4H
00 00.0N
90 00.0N
00 00.MH
m9 00.HN
09 00.0
09 00.0H
H492 0:00
NHHHHQM

00020409 4900022H2 00HOH002 Gnu 00m

00
0H
Hm
ON
00
N0
N

09
N0
H4
MN
00
0N
m0
0H
09
0N
0

HH
4m
0

mm
04

coouou

 

um Hmcoauosm

205

00.VH
00.0
00.0
oo.ma
00.NH
00.0H
om.m
00.0H
00.H
00.N
om.m
00.0H
0m.m
00.0

00.HH
oo.¢
oo.aH
oo.¢
00.0
00.VH
00.HH
oo.v
oo.¢
00.H
oo.¢
00.0
00.0
oo.ma
xcmm

om oooma
mm 00.N
mm 00.0
mm 00.H
hm 00.NH
m9 00.9
mm 00.0
m9 oo.m
ooa 00.VH
Nm 00.0H
mm Om.m
m9 00.HH
mm 0m.m
mm 00.V
Nudaanmfiuom
Om oo.ma
90 00.0H
0m 00.9
90 oo.v
mm 00.HH
m Om.b
om 00.N
hm oo.m
90 00.Na
m0 oo.m
hm om.m
mm 0m.m
mm 00.H
mm oo.vH
H492 xcm0

Nuflflfinflmcommom

0H
om
mm
am
NN
mm
mv
mm

mm
9m
mm
90
00

ea
Ne

00.

mm
fin
mm
mm
00
0H
Na
90
90
mm
ma

conuow

33 mmoHU

oo.¢a
om.¢
00.0H
00.9
00.9
0m.b
om.>
0m.OH
Om.OH

,oo.MH

om.9
om.¢
om.oa
00.9

00.N
co.“
00.0H
00.5
oo.v
oo.~H
00.0H
co.“
oo.v
oo.q
cm.ma
00.0H
00.H
ow.ma
xcmm

mm
09
H

 

Hm
mm
mm
hm

hm
coouoo

mm 00.HH
Nm ooom
hm 00.0H
mm 00.0
mm Om.ma
00H 00.0
OOH 00.0
90 00.9
90 oo.m
mm 00.H
OOH Om.HH
Nm 00.V
hm 00.N
mm 0m.MH
Nuwawnmum HMCOHHOE0
om 00.0
mN 00.H
9a 00.N
mN 00.0H
mm oo.¢H
m 00.0
9H 00.0
mN om.m
mm oo.mn
mm. 0m.0
o 00.NH
9H 00.HH
mm Om.m
o 00.0
H49: xcmm
NOR—00900004

9009 N00920>2H 0009H994 000mU409 4900022H2 00HOH002 mzu new

9009 00H000m 44200000 200000 009 20

0009040 0000 009 00
wquz<z

206

00.N
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.9
00.N
00.0
00.H

00.0
00.H
00.0
oo.m
oo.m
00.0
00.0
00.0
oo.m

0:00

 

 

;mb ooo¢ v0
90 00.H 00
90 00.0 Nv
90 00.N om
N¢ 00.0 m
Om 00.9 0N
09 00.0 m
Nv 00.0 Hm
mm oo.m 09

muHHHQMHUO0
mm 00.9 HH
mm oo.v om
Om 00.0 0H
90 00.0 o
90 00.0 0
mm 00.H mm ‘
00 00.0 Nv
mm 00.N cm
90 oo.m mm

H492 xcm0 covuo0

hMHHHQHmCOQmw0

xx mmcHU

00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.9
00.0
00.0
00.0

09.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.N
oo.¢
00.0
00.H
00.0

xcmm

Nm
mm
OOH
OOH
Nv
mm
00H
Nv
OOH

00.V
oo.m
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.H
00.9
00.N
00.0

 

o 00.N
Om ooce
o 00.9
mm 00.0
mm 00.0
Nv 00.0
9H 00.0
90 00.0
o 00.H
H492 0:00
NUCQUC000<

9009 V00920>2H 00D9H994 00000409 4900022HZ 00HOH002 onu 0cm

9009 0QH0000 04200000 200000 009 20

0009040 0000 009 00

02H0240

me
me
0H
m.
0

cm
0

m0
MN

 

wwaflfinmum HmcofluoEm

207

00.9
O0.0H
OO.¢H
Om.9
OO.NH
OO.m
Om.m
OO.m
OO.H
00.0
OO.MH
Om.m
00.HH
OO.m

00.0
00.0
OO.mH
00.V
00.9
00.0H
OO.¢
OO.v
OO.m
OO.MH
OO.v
00.9
Om.OH
OO.mH
xcmm

m9 00.NH
mm Om.MH
mN 00.0H
09 00.0
Nv Om.w
Nm 00.H
mm Om.OH
Nm Om.0
OOH 00.0
90 OO.NH
mm Om.H
mm 00.0
Om Om.v
Nm OO.m
NuHHHQmHuom
90 OO.MH
9m OO.NH
mm Om.v
m9 OO.¢H
mm OO.H
NV OO.HH
09 00.0
09 00.0
Om 00.9
mm Om.¢
m9 O0.0H
mm 00.0
Nv 00.0
mm OO.N
H492 xcm0

xmflfifinflmcommmm

9009 M00920>2H 0009H994

NH
NH
H0
H9
00
00
H0
v9
00
NV
mm
09
00
mm

mm

90
0H
Na
09
N9
00
9N
mm
«m
#0

coouoo

NN mmMHU

0009040 0000 029 00

3704.12444:

00.?
ooom
OO.9
Om.OH
00.H
OO.9
00.NH
OO.m
00.VH
Om.NH
Om.H
Om.OH
OO.9
00.V

om.>
om.b
om.H
cm.HH
oo.v
cm.H
cm.mH
cm.ma
om.»
00.N
om.HH
oo.<
00.0H
om.b
xcmm

Nm
mm
mm
90
OOH
mm
mm
09
N¢
mm
OOH
90
mm
Nm

OOoVH
OO.MH
OO.N
00.9
00.0
OO.NH
OO.m
Om.m
OO.H
OO.v
O0.0H
OO.HH
00.0
00.0

 

ON
VN

 

wuaflflnmum HmcoauoEm

mN OO.MH
mN 00.VH
mm 00.H
0 O0.0
mm Om.OH
Om 00.H
O 00.0
O 00.0
0N OO.v
Nv Om.OH
m 00.0
mm 00.0
9H OO.NH
mN OO.m
H492 xcm0
NUCQUCUUm<

00020409 4900022H2 00HOH002 mnu 0cm
9009 00H0000 04200000 200000 029 20

v

N

00
mm
mm
00
H9
cm
99
mm
H9
H9
00
N0

£0008

APPENDIX C

MEAN STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS OF THE FOUR FACTORS OF
THE GORDON PERSONAL PROFILE AND

RATING FORMS

APPENDIX C

OOOOOO.H
mom¢Om.

H¢9mom.
mmOmoo.
m¢Nmoq.

OOOOOOO.H

HHmmmmO.u OOOOOOO.H

OomONmm. O90¢Hcm. . OOOOOO.H
_Om9¢¢wn. mmmO¢HO. HNNOoO.

mcaumm

 

Nufiflflnmwoom

 

wuflafinmum
chofluoem

 

Nwfiflfipflmcommmm

 

00000.0 NoamUCmom<

<10 mmmaU HO.“ 0HOH00h

 

.umuuquHJHmquHwnmmwanmmmmHWJmma mo muzmw<m may a mmmoum same qumomm a<zommmm zcamoo

o9m¢9.m

nooom.¢
mwcHumm

009 20 00O9040 ¢ ms? 00
0920HOH000O0 A42OH940000OO

mono.m~ Ommam.wm qnmo.Hm ~0mo.¢~ Om
ooo<.H¢n 90000.0 u ooow.mau nooO.m~u‘) 22
huaaflpmaoom 9uaHHQmum zuHHHnHmcémmmm mocovcmom<
choHuoam

 

:cofiuafi>mn unwuamum= ucm =mcmoz: - mzoww<>mmmmo
mmoeo<m
<4 mm<qo

208

209

H.0H- om- 0H- «H- No- mH

 

0.00- 00. mm: mm- nun «H
0.0Ha mm- 0H NH- 00. 0H
0.0 u 00: N 50: 50: NH
~.< . NH 0 n 00: mH HH
0.0 mm- HN 0H- 0 0H
0.0 u HH 00. NH- H m
N.“ : mm- 00. N u 00: 0
N. n NH- mm 0H 0 n
0.0Hn um- 00: 50. H0. 0
0.0Hu mm- 00- 00: m u m
0.0 «N: 00. n 00: 0
0.0 00. H0 00 H0: 0
«.mHu 00. H0 0H 00. N
0.HH «an m 00 o H
deHHmm huHHHanoom NuHHHQMum muHHHnHmcommwm Nocmvcmom< Hmnfinz
HmGOHuoEm acovSHm

 

mmmmU<MHIHzmnDHm Dz< mazmaaHm mmh mo mquH<m mmH Qz< mmmoom Emma mAHmomm A<zommmm zonmoo
osu Gmm3umn mozmmmthn
<< mm<qo

000000.H wcfluwm

 

 

 

0000H0. 000000.H NMHHHanoom
0000H0. 00000H. 000000.H wwHHHnwum.Hmcn:uoem
000000. 000000. 000000. 000000.H muHHmemmomwmm
0H0000. 0H0000. 000000. 000H00. 00000.H osm0Cmom<

mm mmmHU HO.“ mHOquh
mmmmo<mhlazmnbhm Qz< mHZMQDHm mma mo mozHH<m mmH 0 mmmoom Emma MAHmomm A<Zommmm Zonmoo
mmH zo mmOHo<m 0 ms“ mo
mBzmHonmmoo A<ZOHH<AmmmOU

 

210

 

 

00000.0 0000.00 00H0.00 H000.00 0000.H0 00
00000.0: H000.00u 0000.0H 0000.00 0000.00: 22
:CO HHGH>QD UHNUAHGHW: mug :mgva: l mZOHH<>~HmmmO
mmowo<m
0.HH| 00: 00 00 00: HH
0.0Hu 00: 0 H0 00: 0H
0.0 n 00: 00 00 0 n 0
0.0Hu 00: 00: . 0H: 00. 0
0.0 I 0H: 00 H0 H0: 0
0.0Hu 00: 00: 0H: 00: 0
0.0 u 0H: 00: 0H 00: 0
0.0Hu 00a 00 00 00: 0
0. u 0 00 00 00: 0
0.0 a 00: 0H: 0 00a 0
0.0 I 00: 00 00 00: H
Immmmumm hwwHHnmwoom MuHHHQMHm muHHHnHmcommmm \Ndcmvcmom< amnezz
Hm: 0.3 080 9:22.50

 

mmm=o<mauazmnaam 92¢ mazmnpam may mo mquH<m Mme nz< mmmoom amma qumomm q<zommmm zoamoo
2: 8253 8200? an
00 mm<qo

0000000.H . wcHumm

 

 

 

 

000000H. I 000000.H 0MHHHanoom
000000H. 00000H. 000000.H NufiHwQMum Hmcofiuoem
0HO0H00. I 0000H0. 000000. 000000.H hufiHHnHmcoammm
0000000. I 0000H0. 000H00. 0000H0. 00000.H MowUCmom<

”III-pp mmd HO IImHMOuOdu
mammo<mHIHzmnafim 92¢ mHZMQDHm mme ho mquH<m MIR 0 mmmoom Emma MAHmomm A<Zommmm zonmou
mmH 20 0008040 0 m2» mo

mezmHonmmou A<ZOHH<AmmmOU

 

 

 

00000.0 0000.00 0000.00 H000.H0 0H00.00 00
00000.0I Ibpbmhmw Ilmwmp.mMIIIIIII cppD.mNI 000H.0HI z:
:CQAumw>mn uHMUCMum: 0cm :mcmmz: I monH<>00000
mmoao<m
n
2 0.0 I 00 00I 00I 0 I 0H
0.0 00I 00I 00I 00I HH
0.H 00 00I 00I 00 0H
0.0 I 00 00I 00I 0 0
0.H 00 00I 0HI H0I 0
0.0 I 0H 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I H 0HI 0 I 00 0
0.H 00 0HI 00I 0H 0
0.0 I 00 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 0 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I 00 00I 00I H0 0
0.0 I 00 00I 00I 0HI H
IMMCwumm auaHHanoom zuHHflnmum muHHHnHmcoammm mochCmom< amnesz
HmcoHuoEm ucmvSWMI

 

mammo<manazmnpam az< mezmnsym mma mo mozHa<m mma nz< mmmoom ammenmmHmomm q<zommmm zcamoo
may nomzumn mozmmmmman

no mm<qo

212

 

 

0.0 I 00I 00I 00I 00I 0H
0.H I 0 I 00I 0 I 0 0H
0. I 00I HH 0 00I 0H
0.0HI 00I 00I 0HI 00I 0H
H.H . 0HI 00I H 0 0H
0.H I HHI HH 00 0H HH
H.0 . 00I 00I 00 H0I 0H
0. I 00I 00I H0I 00I 0
0.0 I 00I 00I 00I H0I 0
H.0 00I 0 00 00I 0
H.H 00I 0 00 00I 0 .
H.0 H0I 00I 0H 0H 0
H.0 H0I 00I 0 I 00I 0
0.0 I 0 I 00I 00 H0I 0
H.0 00I 00I 0HI 00I 0
H.0 00I HH H0 . 00I H
limwcwumm huHHHanoom MuHHHQMHm MuHHHnHmcoammm uocmvaom< amnesz
HchHuoEm ucflcaum

 

 

mmfiufiaézmnam 52 mazmafim 00.H no 8235 ME 02... mmmoom $09 ”3293 .Ezommmm zoomoo
St 8953 82000008
8 3.30

0000000.H
0H00000.I
0000000.
0H00000.
0000000.

0000000.H

0000000.I 0000000.H

0000000. 000H000. 00000000.H
0000000. 000HH00. 00HH0000.

wcHumm

 

NwHHflanoom

 

mwwHHnmum Hchfiuoam

 

meHHnHmcoammm

 

00000.H NmCmUCmom<

an mmmHo How muouowm

 

mammo<meIHZMDDHm Qz< mfizmaohm mmfi mo mozHH<m mmH 0 mmmoom Emma mHHmomm H<zommmm zonmoo

213

00000.0

00000.
mmcHudm

mma zo mmoao<m 0 mnu mo
mazmHonhmoo H<ZOHB<Hmmmoo

~000.0H 0000.0m ~mo0.m~ Hmmm.mm am.
0000.00I 0000.00I 000H.HH 00H0.00I z:
auHHHAmHoom muHHHnmum huHHHnHchmmmm mucoucmom<

III. HmaoHuoem

 

 

==oflumH>mo unmoamum= cam =mcmoz= I mzmma<>mmmmo
mmoao<0
an mm<go

214

 

 

0 0 I 00I 0 00 00I 0H
0. I 00I 00 0 00I 0H
0.0 I H0I 00 0H H0I 0H
0.0 00I 00 0 0 I 0H
0.0 I 0HI 0 00 HHI 0H
0.0 I 00I 00 00 00I 0H
0.0 I H0I 0 I 0 I 0HI. HH
0.0 I H0I 0HI 00I 00I 0H
0.0 I 00I 0 0 00I 0
0.0 I 0 I 00 0H HHI 0
0.0 00I 0 I 0 00I 0
0.0 H0I 0 00 00I 0
0.HHI H0 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I 00I 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I 00I 00I 00I 00I 0
0. 0H H0I 0HI 0 I 0
0.0 00I 00 0 I 00I H
mwfifimm 5: H30 .300 MuHHHnmum NuHHHnHmcommmm 02505.80. um €52
HmcoH poem €330

 

mammo<malfizmoaam Dz< mHzmnDHm mma ma mquH<m mmH nz<.mmmoom Emma mHHmomm H<zommmm zonmoo

0£u cmm3umn mozmmmtho

mm mm<Ho

 

 

i

215

000000.H MdHumm

 

 

~m0Hm~.I ooooooo.H xmmmwmmwmmm
owmwhm. omumawo. oooooo.H . mmHHmnaum Hugo.uoam
momomu. . 0H000mo. I nm0mmo. oooooo.H 000HHmwmmmmmm0
ququ.I cocoon. hmuhmH. -0m0~. ooooo.H mwcmccmom<

mm mmeo you muouodm
33%;..-” ,. a 0.. - .0 .0. I... H . 4......
mmH zo.mmOHo<m 0 may no
mazmHonmmoo 330.3000

00mm0.0 00Hm.o~ ommmm.0~ o0Hm0.0~ . 00oo.Hm am

0~00~.MI 0m~m.~mI H0000.0 mmO00.0 I H000.00I z:

mmcaaam 0.HHHumHoom aufiHHnmum zuHHflnHmaoammm 00:00amom<
HNQOHuoam

 

 

..GOHUQH>OQ UHMUCGUW: U5 :mgmz= I WZOHH<>MNWMO
mmOHo<h
mm mm<HU

216

 

0 0 00I 0H 0 H 00
0.0 00I 00 00 00I 00
0.0 00I 00 00 0HI 00
0. I H0I 00I 0 H0I 00
0.H 00I 0 H0 00I H0
0. I 00I 00I 00 00I 00
0.0 I 00I H0I 00I 00I 0H
0.0 I 00I 00 0 I 00I 0H
0.0HI 00I 00 0H 00I 0H
0.0 I 00I 00 00I 00I 0H
0.0 0 0 0 I 00I 0H
0. 00I H0 00 00I 0H
0.0 I 0 00I 00I 0 0H
0.0 I 0HI 0H 00 00I 0H
0.0 00I 00 0 I 00I HH
0.H I 0H 0H 0 I 0HI 0H
0.H 00I 0 0HI 0 I 0
0. I 0 I 00 0HI 00I 0
0.HHI 00I 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I 0HI 0 0H 00I 0
0.0HI 00I 00I 00I 00I 0
0.0 I 00I 00 00 00I 0
0.0HI 00I H0 0 I 00I 0
0.H I 0HI 00 00 00I 0
0. I 00I 0H 00I 00I H
mwcwuwm hMHHHanoom MuHHHnmwm NuHHHnHmcoamwm thmvcmom< Hmnazz
HmcoHuoam ucuvsum

 

 

II'HHI

mammoéaézmnfim a2... $20an a; 8 8255 E... 82 8.8% SE. admofiquzommmm 280a
9: :33qu 00220008
E mmfio

217

000000.H
00000H.
00H000.
000000.
000000.

 

0530

 

 

 

 

0000000.H NMHHHanuom
0H00000. 000000.H NMHHHQMum HmcoHuoem
0HH000H. 00H000. 000000.H muHHHnHmcoammm
0000H00. H0000H. 00000H. 00000.H NmCmvcmom<

mm mmmHo you muouowm

 

 

 

mmmxu<malazwnshm oz< mazmnbam mmH mo mUZHH<m mmH 0 mmmoom Emma WHHmomm H<zommmm zcnmoo

«Hm0~.0
ooo0o.~I
«055%

mmh zo mmOHu<m 0 Gnu mo
mfizmHonmmoo H<onH<Jmmmoo

0000.00 00000.00 00000.00 0000.00 am
0000.H0I 00000.0 00000.0 0000.00I z:
muHHHanoom huHHHQMum muHHHQHmcoammm mocovcoou<
Hus 9.5 08.0

 

$5ng09 cggum: Una :mCdmZ: I mzohHMS’mmmmo
mmoao<h
mm mm<Ho

218

 

0 0 H0 00 00 HH 0H
0.0 00 00I 00I 0H 0H
0.H 00 0H 0 00 0H
0.0 I 00 0 I 0H 00 0H
0.H I 0H 00 00 0H HH
0.0 I 00 0H 00 00 0H
0.0 00 00 00 00 0
0.H H0 H0I 00I 00 0
0.0 H0 0HI 00I 00 0
0.H 0HI 00 0H 0 0
0. 00I 0H 0 H I 0
0.0 I 00I 00 0 0HI 0
0.H 0 00 00 00 0
0.0 H0 00 0 I 00 0
0.0 H0 0 I 00I 00 H
ImmcHudm meHHanoom muHHHnmum huHHHnHmcommmm NoamUCmom< umnEaz
Hmc GU 08m .50 0.50

 

 

 

 

 

mammoahlazmgm 92¢ 0.0203590 MPH. ."Ho mozHaé MEH. 972 05800 Emma. qumomm izommmm zen—moo
9.? cmw3umn. mozmmmmmHa
00 0050

219

00000000.H
H0000000.I
0000H0H0.I
00000000.I
00000000.I

0:300

 

 

 

 

0000000.H MMHHHanoom
000H000.I 000000.H Nmmenwum HMCOHuoEm
m¢H~m~o.I HNO000. oooooo.H mmmafinflmaoammm
o000000. 0000mm. I HHm0mH.I ooooo.H mucoucmom<

mm mdeo you muouomm

mmmxo<malazmnbsm Qz< mquQDBm mma ho mquH<m me w mmmoom Emma NHHmomm A<zommmm zonmoo

00000.0

00000.H
mmcHudm

mus zo mmoao<m 0 may no
mHzmHuHmmmoo H<ZOHH<Hmmmoo

0000.00 HHH0.00 0H000.00 0000.00 00
0000.H0 0000.0H 00000.0 0000.H0 z:
muHHHnuHoom muHHHnmum huHHHnHmcommmm monnamom<
HwGOHuoam

 

 

:cowumgmo Ugfiuum: 0cm :mnmmz: I monH<>mmmmo

 

mmOHo<h
00 mm<Hu

220

000000.0 mC0umm

 

 

 

 

000000. 000000.H 00000000000
000000. 000000. 000000.H 000000000 000000020
000000. 000000. 000000. 000000.H 00000000000000
000000. 000000. 000000. 000000. 00000.0 0000000000

III mm mmd0o mom muou0mh
mmgofihlfizmnam 92¢. 082000590 8.0.0. 000 0020.023 50.0. .0 000000 Emma "0.00.0093 izommmm 20508
8.0.0. 20 000.0000 0 9.00 mo
mazmHlommoo 0<onH<0mmmoo

 

 

 

00000.0 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 00
00000.0 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 22
zcofiummmmqunmucmum= 000 =mcmmz= I mzoaa<>mmmmo
mmoao<m
0.0 00 00 00 0 00
0.0 00 00 00 00 00
0. I 0 I 00 00 00 0
0.0 00 0 0 00I 0
0. I 0 I 00 00 0 I 0
0.0 00 00 00 00 0
0.0 00 00 00 00 0
0.0 00 00 00 0 0
0. 00 0 0 0 0
0. I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
0. 0 I 00 0 0 0
Imwmwumm 0u000nm0oom 0u000QMu0 Nu00000mcoammm chmucmom< Honesz
0mcoerm 380:» m

 

mammo<mauazmnpam az< 00200000 may 00 mqua<m 000 020 000000 9000 0000000 q<zommmm 200000
000 cmmaumn.mozmmmmman
mm mm<00

221

ooooooé w Eumm

 

 

 

onommN . I 80884 34.23306.
moomnn. oommwaw. I ooooco.a wwwawpmum HMCOquEw
onmmom. mmmomeo. I mammoo. oooooo.~ Nuaamnfimcoammm
noaaao. I oomammm. nmmmma. I mmaoom. I ooooo.H hocwncmom<

 

IIH ah mmuuo you kau0Nh

mmgodmaIHzmQam 92¢ mHzmaam mam. mo mozHeé 8:. a mmmoom Emma. mafimomm ézommmm 28mg
are 20 mmOHo<m .V 93 mo

mHzmHonmmOU 17.20 HH<Ammmou

 

 

mmma~.m woos.m~ m¢¢<.ma ~mmm.om oo-.am om
nmmmm.NI NNNN.m~ HHHH.H¢I oooo.wmI <¢¢<.a¢ z:
:cowuww>ma vuwvcwum: cam :mcmmz: I monH<>mmmmo
. mg
m. m eNI NNI «N m
N. I o mmI n I on m
m.H mm n¢I mHI ma 5
~.m I no mmI mHI mm o
~.n I m mmI mNI oh m
~.¢ I ~¢ mNI #mI mu q
~.~ I NHI mmI m¢I m I m
N. I am ¢ I o ow N
~.m I mm ch mmI on H
mmcaudm NMaHHmmmoom Nuwawnmum Muaaflnflmcoammm hocmvcmom< umnezz
Hm: 9.5 cam ”2.895 m

 

mummofifilfizwoam Qz< mHZmQDHm ME. .3 @0585" "NEH. Qz< mmmoom Emma. NAHmomm Ilaqzommmm 28mg
may fimm3umn @075thth
ha. mmjo

222

oooooo.~

wommnn. ooooooo.H
mcoomm. omammam.
<mo¢o~. unamawo.
unseen. omémmom.

 

oooooo.~
momhmo.
Cowman.

OQOOOOIH
ommmma. I

 

mammmm

mwwaanmwoom

aquwmmum Hmcofluoam

Nuaafinwmcommmm

ooooo.a MucoUCommfi
MMImmmHmlmmMImmmWomm

 

 

 

 

 

mmmxu<malhzwobam 92¢ mhzmabam was m6 mozHH<m was a mmmoom Hmma Huamomm A<zommmm zonmoo
mmH zo mmoau<h é may no
mHzmHonmmoo A<ZOHH<Ammmoo

Hh¢m¢.n Hm¢o.am
ooomNIOHI oomNIoo I

 

mmmo.o~
oom~.~H

 

HemmIQm
noH¢IN~I

 

omam.on am
anOIQmI zz

 

zaofluufl>oa uuummmum= was =mcumz= I szHa<>mmmmo

 

 

 

mmoau<m

«I.
ma
eNI
NN
eNI
CNI
AN
«HI
on
mm
m
mm

 

o.< I NoI
0.H hmI
o.H~I mNI
o.H I «NI
o.o~I nmI
o.H~I ¢¢I
o.m I ohI
o.oHI mm-
o.oHI H¢I
o.~HI NNI
o.MHI moI
o.o I eNI
Immmwmwm mmmaflnmaoom

 

mmI
mmI
owI
omI
mmI
ooI
an

H¢I
mHI
n|
m~

hm

HmI
H
nmI
OH
mNI
soI
me
me
omI
HmI
mNI
HmI

HN
HH

HNNQ’MQI‘QQS

 

 

 

bflmeMm dZHMWam—mmm “83:83 “39:2

:28 Beam

Humanum

 

 

mmm=u<walazmnbam 92¢ mazwnbfim Ema mo mquH<m mmh nz< mmmoom Emma mAHmoxmnmdzOmmmm Zonmou

on» :mu3umn mozmmmmmHn

xx mm<AU

 

H.m I oqI ch omI mmI HN
H.< I m eeI HmI m 0N
H.m I ooI mmI mNI me mH
H.NHI o o uoI ¢ mH
H.N I wNI o I qu MNI NH
H.< I omI H0I moI eNI 0H
H.¢ I NNI mH nmI mNI nH
H.m I N HmI mNI HmI «H
H.N I oeI «HI HH eNI mH
H.oHI m I «HI mNI N NH
B H.n I m7 mm I moI omI HH
9‘ H.n I m I moI qu w I OH
H.@ I 0 «HI cHI m m
H. I NNI N I oqI HmI w
H.0 I NoI mNI HmI mmI N
H.m I HHI mmI mmI moI o
H.0 I mmI N I e I m I n
H.@ I NHI NH ¢ I n I ¢
m.H NHI aoI omI mmI n
H.¢ I MNI eoI noI amI N
H.H I NNI N I o¢I mMI H
mmcaudm hmeHmmwoom mwmeanm muHHHnHmcoamom mucovcmom< umnenz
HdcoHuoem uconaum

 

 

’lil

mammo<malazwanam 92¢ mazmmmwm NEH m6 mquH<m mmh nz<vmmmbom Emma muHmomm A<zommmm zonmoo

 

 

onu ao¢3uon mozmmmmmuo
AA mm<qo

224

oooocoH
HHNHmm. I
nNmmNm. I
mmoomm. I.
ommHme. I

«.5». mm

 

 

 

ooooooo.H NwIHIHHanoom
2820.- 8884 38% 38305
0382 . .82... 8884 53%
o~¢mmmo. nmummN. on~<H~. ooooo.H Nocmvamom<

HA mdeo pom mucuOdm

 

mmagalazmnam

c.5055.
mmNmOInI

awafldm

92.4. mazmnam “EH. .6 mquHSH 9.3.. w mmmoom Hmma mAHhomm izommmm 2855
NE. 20 mmoabfim .w 0.3 .«0
mg Bahmmoo gopammou

mmHuHm Hmom.oN mHmméN $3.?” an
HmmN.mMI omHo.mNI $25.3 I 33.0.7 22
.3 HHHndHoom huHHHnmum huHHHnHmcommmm 5052834
93395 In

 

 

:SOUQEOQ UHGU-Hflum: flflm :mGNfiz: I WZOHH<>-MWQO I

 

mmOHoSH
.HIH mmjo

225

 

 

 

 

.H H I SI 3 m I eNI mH
«.H I neI sI wHI 0HI «H
e. I oqI HmI ooI mHI nH
m.HH H Nm m I no NH
m.H NmI NcI mcI q HH
#6 I mnI HmI SI 3 0H
o.N SI SI SI «NI a
«.HHI H mNI oHI oHI m
0.H” mm NqI NmI an N
{CHI H.H .27 SI Ho 9
0.H N I mnI ooI Nm m
0.0 m noI eNI e I e
«.mHI HNI NHI Nm 0HI m
0.0 .HHI «NI 0? wH N
«.m I NH wmI ooI Hm H
an Egg a H «9303 flflmu m Mun HH HnHmcommmm hocovcoom< no 852
HdGOHuoam ucovam

 

 

 

mummofiaIEan 82 85% may mo 823% m5 n2... £88 .82. 328m .2202? 288a

 

Bu cmoaumn mozmmmmmun
:2 m3

226

OOQOOOOIH
emeNwo.
cameooo.
owONmeII
ommNMON.

m¢m=o<mHIHzmnDHm

NHmmH.s
ooo0N.H I

3533

 

 

maHumm

 

 

ooooooo.H mmmflwpmwoom
mNmeoo.I ooooooo.H _Nmmenaum Hmcofiuoem
.em¢¢omo.I oHHnoho. oooooo.~ NmMmeHmmmmmmm
omemmoh. mmmHHoo. .hoNHQN. I ooooo.fl mmmmmmmmmq

:2 mdeo mom muououh
nz< mszmnnam mma m6 mozHH<m may a mmmoum Emma mHHmomm H<zcmmmm zonmou
ass zo,mmoau<m e wsu mu
mazmHOHhhmoo H<onH<Hmmmou

mmhfl.o~ n~¢~.m~ moqn.- -H¢.~n on
.oooo.¢HI ooom.mnI ooom.¢m I umem..~ z:
muflaflaafloom muflflanuum auflHflnflmconmom mucoucoom<

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIanmmemmMIIIIIIIIIIIII.
=83u§3 2383.. 8a .3539. I 925388

 

mmoau<m
22 mm<qo

227

 

m w I nH «oI qu oN NH
m. I H N o HHI 0H
m.nH I a I N¢I «oI m mH
m.< NNI N<I NQI MH «H
m.HH I mNI NNI «oI mNI NH
n.0H I NHI H¢I «NI «NI NH
mIQH I mNI N «HI oN HH
nIN e I m o 0 OH
m.m N m I N o m
m. I m I N¢I eNI ONI m
m. CH HeI N NN N
mIN I no qu HqI Nm 0
m.H e I m I m I oN m
m.mH I an ch mHI on e
m.H I Nn mmI mHI m n
m. oN mNI NNI N¢ N
m.< I OH «NI H H H
mwaHudm MHHHHanoom muHHHnmum huHHHnHmcoammm hocmucmom< amnesz
HucoHuoam unmvnum

 

mmgufiaézmaam a2... mszmaam a; .8 825.2 m5. 9,2 388 am”: 328m .2828 2889
2: c853 mozmmmmms
8 850

228

OOOOOOOIH

omemmoo. I

omnNc¢m.
onocmNm.

monomo. I

 

 

 

 

mmmmmm
ooooooo.fl wwfiafipafioom
oooNNm~.I oooooo.H Ixmemmuum Hmcowuoam
meommoo. ammonu. oooooooo.~ mufififlnflmcoawoa
afiflqmno. Hammad. I «NNQNMQO. I ooooo.H mucoucm0m<

oo mmuHo mom muouomm

mammo<malazmnshm 92¢ mazmnbhm mus ho mozHH<m may a mmmoum Hmmh mqahomm H<zommmm Zonmou

NomNHIo
mmONmIMI

awcHudm

mma zo mmoao<m e onu mo
mazuHonmmoo H<ZOHH<Hmmmou

o~m¢~.n~ HNoN.o~ HoeN.m~ Nnmm.n~ am
mmoNe.o ummm.oMI ¢~mm.N~ I mmmm.HH z:
NUHHHgaHoom Nufiflanuum Nufiflfinamaoamom monoucuou<
HMGOHuoEm

 

:GOI—Uflflxrflg UHMUHHQHW: Us :mgOz: I WZOHH<>QWWQO
mmOHU<h
oo mm<HU

229

 

 

«.HH N «0 mm HN mN
«.mHI NmI m I cNI OMI mN
o.« I mH Nm «N mH NN
o.mHI NmI Hm H mHI «N
0.0 I N « m H I mN
«.H mNI N «HI wN «N
o.oHI NmI Nm m I o«I MN
o.m I m«I Nn 0H NMI NN
«.« mH Nm H HN HN
o.m I NmI o H NnI 3N
«.H I N«I Hm «HI wHI mH
«.o H«I Nm H mHI mH
«.m «HI on N I m« NH
0. I mHI N 0H NH 0H
«.NHI NmI o eNI omI mH
0.0HI mH 0N «H mHI «H
o.N I «mI «o H o«I mH
o. I mm mN 0HI o« NH
«.mHI H«I HH ONI NNI HH
«.« NNI 0N .mH wHI 0H
«. NHI N «H mNI a

«.H HmI «o H o«I m

«.0 I mmI mm m H I N

«.N H«I 0N «N omI o

«.n nNI HH m I N I m

«.n NmI mm mm mHI «

«.m an Nm .o« Nm n

«.H I omI m I N I o I N

0.H I «H NN «n NN H

mmcHuwm huwwmamHoom MuHHHnnum thHHpHmcgmmmm _hocovamum< umnasz
HanoHuoam ucmczum

 

 

 

mammofimwhzmndarm n24 mazmafim use .8 82:5 8:. 9,2 958% SE. SEES umzommmm 2028
23 8253 mozmmmmms
mm mm<qo

230

oooooo.H
w«N«Hm.
«m«HHm.
momomm.
Hom«c«.

ooooooo.H

NHNHm«o.I . oooooo.~
o¢mmNom. ommmao.
oea¢mmN. ooooao.

mfiumm

 

wwfiaflnmfioom

 

Nuflflfinmum Hmcowuoam

 

oooooo.H thHHnHmcommmm
N«ommN. ooooo.H chmvcmom<

mm mdeo How mucuodm

 

mummu<ufilazwnbkm n24 mhzmaaam NEH mo mquH<m mmH w mmmoom HmMH mHHmomm H<zommmm Zonmou

nnomN.o
«H«Nn.~I
amass.

NEH 20 mmoao<m

« on. no

mazmHuHhmmoo H<ZOHH<AmmmUU

onm.N~ nmm~.m~ onme.- commo.N~ am
oNNm.-I w~m«.nn H¢~NH.N NNHmm.o I z:
auflHfiguHoom muHHHnmum muHHHnflmaoamom Nocmucoou<
IHW:0Huoam

 

 

:aOHuwH>on vudufidum: can :mauQZ: I monH¢>mmmmo

mm090<h
mm mm<qo

l3: .r........_1 LE

 

H. HNI N . N N I oN
N. I on- oo- NNI NNI NH
N.N I NN NHI NN NHI NH
N.N I N I NHI NN NHI NH
H.N HNI NHI HN NNI NH
H. N I N NN NNI NH
H.N N I NNI NN so- NH
N. I NNI NNI NHI . om- NH

1 N.H I HNI N Hm NNI NH

3 H.N NNI NHI N I NNI HH
H.N NNI NHI Hm NNI NH
N. I eNI NNI NNI NNI N
N.H I N NHI HH NNI N
H. NN NNI NH N N
H.H N NHI HH 8 o
N.eHI NN NHI HH N N
N.N I NN NHI NH N N
H.H HHI NN NN NNI N
N.NHI NH NNI N I NNI N
H.0 N NNI NNI NNI H

mMCHMIdWM MU H.H.wfidfioom NAHHHHDNHW NIH HHHQHWSqmwm acmvflmom< HOflBHHZ
HdCOHHOEm UCGUHHHW

 

 

mammofiaézmaam oz... mazmapum m5 .6 mozHaé a; 9.2 $88 ammaflmwwmomm .2822 2088
m5 5.953 muzmmmmfia
mm 8.30

232

 

888o.H . wllfiumm

 

 

 

 

onooom.I oooooo.H NwHHHanoom
oomHmNo.I HmomNH. . oooooo.H HMHHNNNNN HmcoHuosm
NHNnnmo. NNNNNH. NNNNNN. ooooooo.H NMHHHnHmcmmNNN
oHNmHNN.I. ONNNNN. NONNoH. NONNNNO. oooo.H NocmocNNNN

mm mmmHo you muouumm

mummo<mHIHzmnDHm nz< mazmnsfim mma mo mquH<m mmH a mmmoom Emma mHHmomm A<zommmm Zonmco

fish 20 mmoao<m « on» M0
mfizmHonhwoo AdonH<Hmmmoo

mmn«m.o m¢mm.oN NomN.«N NONo.oN. «NON.oN am

oooo«.HI oooom.N I oom0.HNI oooo.NH comm.HmI z:

mwcHuum NuHHHanoom NuHHHQMum NuHHHnHmcoammm Nocovcuom<
HunoHuoam

 

=coHNoH>Na uuuvcaumg can gmcaoz= I mona<>Nmmmm
mmoau<m
mm 850

233

 

« m I mmI Nm mHI NmI mN
«.m I NHI m I mmI o I NN
«.HHI NH NNI NNI wH oN
«.m I omI c« m mNI mN
«. I HNI mNI eNI HeI «N
«.N I N 0H mNI o mN
o. N NH oNI mHI NN
«.mHI ooI m«I NNI mNI HN
«.N I «HI mN w «H oN
«.o I mmI OH N«I o«I NH
«.N I HNI Nm NH 0 NH
«.NHI NNI « I «mI NmI NH
«.m I 0H NNI HHI oNI oH
o.m N Hm eNI mH mH
«.H I oH oNI mHI 0N «H
«.H mH mH HNI HN mH
«.m I HmI Hm HmI mmI NH
«. I HmI mNI NNI HNI HH
«.N I «HI Hm NHI o«I 0H
«.m I mH NHI owI 0H m

«.N I moI mNI mmI NcI m

«.N I «HI o« m I OH N

«.m I NNI «mI ooI NmI e

«.OHI eNI HHI «mI NmI m

«.m I m mN HoI ON «

o. N«I omI mNI H«I m

«.m I mnI NNI N«I o«I N

«.o I mNI «N NH mmI H

mmcHumm Nu HHHndHoom NU HHHnmum MuHHHnHmnoam mm hocmvcmom< amp—N52
HHNHHOHuoem ucmvsu m

 

mammo<mHIHzmnahm 92¢ mazmnbhm was mo mozfia<m mmH mz< mmmoom Hmma qumomm H<zommmm zoommw
0:9 Goo3um£ muzmmmhmHQ
>> mm<Ho

234

oooooo.H
mm«nmN.
NmH«mH.
mHH«NN.
moNNnm.

wmmN«.«
Hanc.«I
mwcaudm

mmHumm

 

 

 

oooooo.H NMNHHanoom
NNNNNN. oooooo.H NMHHNNNNN HmaoHuoam
NNNNNH. . NoNNNo. ooooo.H HmNHNmHmmmmmmm
nNoNoN. HNHoHN. NNNNN. oooo.H chmucooNN

>> mmmHo you muouomm

mammo<mHIHzmnDHm Qz< mHZMQDHm was no mquH<m mma d mmmoom Hmms mHHhomm H<zommmm zonmoo

mma zo mmoao<m « 0nu ma
mazmHonhmou H<ZOHH<Hmmmoo

H«mw.aN mmmo.om Hmom.om mmHm.Hm am
mN«H.«N I oomNIN omNH.amI ooom.nNI z:
NuHHdeHoom NuHHHnwum NuHHHAHmcoammm Nocmvcmoa<
chOHuoem

 

 

 

“mmHmmH>oa uuuuaaumI ucm =Ncuoz= I mona<>mmmmo
mgogoNN
>> mmNHo

 

 

 

 

oooooo.H mmwumm
moNNNo. ooooooo.H NMHHHanoom
mHH«mN. mowoNoo. oooooo.H NuHHHQMum HmcoHuomW
HmmNoH. I o«HmmHm. mNHmNm. oooooo.H MuHHHnHmccmwmm
m«Nm0HI I om«mmmm. mmNmNm. mwN««N. ooooo.H chmvcmom<
33 mmmHo Ho mucuomm

 
 

 

mammufialfizmgfim 92¢ mama—Dam mmH. Ho mUZHH.<m mHmH. w mmmoom HmmH. MHHHomnH izommmm 28mg
, NEH. zo mmOHU<H .« may no
mHzmHUHHHmoo H<onH<Hmmmoo

 

 

235

 

mmmeI« NoHn.mN omON.mN HmHH.NN oomoMImN om
Ne«mm.NI oooo.mHI No«w.m« mNmo.m« ooooo.w I z:
:coHumw>mQ cuwucwum: cam :de02: I mZOHH<>mmmmo
mmoao<m
N. I HmI NN H o I MH
m. «N «N mN H« NH
N.OHI N «N Nm 0N HH
m.m mN mm 0N ONI OH
N.N I ««I o HN HmI m
N.NHI HHI mN Nm H I m
N.@ I HNI «m om o I N
w.m NNI N« N« m o
N. I moI Ho m ««I m
N.N I ONI mm mN H I «
N. I m I NN «m NNI m
m. NNI No «m eNI N
N.« I m I mN mm w H
mwdqumm huHHHanoom .NuHHHanm NwHHHnHmcomwmm Nonmvcmom< umnfisz
HmcoHuoam uaovsum

 

 

mammoéaIszman 9,2 mezmaam a: .8 823.2 Ba. HE... 888 .88. ESE: .3528 zonmoo
2: 8253 muzmmmmfia
33 mm<Ho

236

oooooo.H
Hon«m.
NOHmom .I
HanNN II
NHHOHm.

 

 

 

 

mmwmmm
oooocoo.H NMNHNmmmmmw
ONNHHHN. oooooo.H . HwHHHnaum HmcoHuomm
HNNHNNo.I NNNNHN. oooooo.H HMHHwamcomwmm
oceanoN. NNNmHo. NNNNNN. ooooo.H wwcwccmoNN

mad—D MOM mHOHONnm

 

mgoalflzmgm 92¢ mazm9am NEH. 90 m0 ZHHLDH NEH. a mmmoom HmmH. mdmomm 45,5959

 

28900 93H. 20
mmOHb¢m « 0&9 mo mazmHonmmou H¢ZOHH.¢.HM~H~HOU

 

«NNm.aN oomH .Nm w«No.«m Hn«o.om 9m

 

 

 

NHNNN.»
ooomN.oHI ooNN.HmI omNo.HH oomN.NNI coon.NNI z:
gnofiflson ufiufium.v§ :33? I as H.H..émmmmo
macau<u

o.m I NHI 0N mmI m I m
o.N I N oN NHI HNI N
o.N I NNI N I NNI NNI o .
o.n I N oNI NNI . NNI n
o.NNI NNI NNI NNI NNI N
o.mNI omI HN NN NNI N
o.N I NNI oNI NNI NNI N
o.m I NNI oN HH NHI H
mmfluam GHHHIfiHoom 53:33 m: 33 8&3 38383. $9.52

H3335 233m

 

m Eualggm

 

 

92¢ mg9am EH. Ho mop—H.H: mmH. 92¢ PIN—98m awn—H. NAHHOMH 309999 20998

0.3 609.503 wozmmwmmH9
xx mmjo

 

237

OOOOOOIH
Nmmmmo.
NO0H«N.
NNm«H«.
««MHom.

 

 

 

 

mcHumm
oooooo.H NMHHHanoom
m«mwNH. oooooo.H NMHHHanm choHuoEm
oomNom. HNHoo«. oooooo.H NuHHHnHmconmwm
cNmmNo. mmHmom. HmNmNN. OOOOOIH hocovcmom¢

mmm o no muouomm

 

mmm=o<uwwazmn=am nz< mazmmmmw m=a mo mozHNNN any a mmmoom anus mHHNon HNzommmm zoamoo

 

 

928 20 mmOHo¢m « may HO
mhzmHuHHHmoo H¢20HH¢Hmmmoo

   
 

 

   
 

 

mnomm.« oo«H«.NN ooH«.om Nmm«.Hm o«Hno.Nn am
ooomN. I . . . I Noonum I z:
..coHuaH>on 3353.. and .3529. I monasHfimmo
mmoao<m
o.» I HNI oNI N I NNI NH
o.« 0H on mN m HH
o.N I NHI N I NHI o«I oH
o.o NH No NH NH N
o.N Nm « I m Nm m
o.m NN Nn mH Nm N
o.H I m I N I H0I mm o
o.m m Nm w«I m n
o.m I m I . NNI NoI o«I «
0.H I mHI N« NHI m I m
o.H N NH NH NHI N
o.« I oH 0HI m«I NNI H
mfiudm HMHHHDdHOom ha «.H Nada m ha.“ A.“ nfimcodmom hodmficmum¢ HGDEHHZ
HmcoHuoam unmvSum

 

 

 

mmumu¢uHIhzw9DHm 92¢ m8299bhm 92% Ho mquH<m 9:9 92¢ mmmoum Emma qumomH H¢26mmmm 209900

oSu anSHwn mozmmmHHH9
a mmfio

238

oooooo.H m5 fiumm

 

 

 

 

NONNNo. oooooo.H NHHHHanoom
oONHNN. NNonN. oooooo.H NHHHHnmum HmcoHHosm
NNNmoN. Nmoo«N. o«mN«N. oooooo.H NuHHHnHmcammom
N«N««m. «N«mnN. ONmmN«. Noo«Hn. ooooo. H Mocmccoom<

In mdemw .HOM mHOUOdm—
mummo¢malflzw998m 92¢ mazm998m 928 m0 mUZHB¢m NEH w mmmoom Emma quhomm H¢20mxmm 209900

929 20 mm090¢m « any Ho
mHzmHUHHHmou H¢20HH¢Hmmmou

 

 

 

oommHIQ . «Hmm. «N mmmm.«m «o«N. «m mOHN. mN 9m
NN«Hm.N I E; oooo. omI z:
:8 H9 dfi>8 ”Hun—HG“ m : U8 : $592: I WZC HH<>mmm m0
m2080¢h
c.0NI HNI NNI HmI mNI «H
QIHNI HNI NNI wwI omI mH
«. NNI No 0 I 0 NH
«. NHI 0H mmI NHI HH
«.0 . m I mm m ««I OH
o.m I N oNI mNI o m
0.0 I NmI HNI NNI NMI m
«.N NNI Hm N I HHI N
«.0 m I an mHI wHI o
«.N mHI «N NNI m I m
«.m H«I m« o I o«I «
0.H I N mHI NoI HHI m
«.N I m I mHI mNI HHI N
«.H I m I « I 00I NmI H
Nassau 333308 .3: 33m 5333888 589.33. $9.52
H8335 883$

 

 

méuéaézmaam HE... mammal EH .8 mozHasH mi. 92 3.88 SE. 3.88m .HIHHzommmm zonmow
«5 £653 mozmmmEHo
NN mafia

   

”'TITI'ITILWHIIJQIMEI[iWIInyTLfii'Iflfljflflffli/filfi'ES