PERCEPTUAL BIAS IN TEACHERS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR BEHAVIORS AND THE SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN By Terry M. Tabackman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1978 This Process and c how biased pe Furthermore, bias in teacr their studem as they funC‘ TEGCHErs' PE' behaviOrs we naire was ad: the PPEmige teacher bEha Adjusting“ 1. to Identify bias and the ABSTRACT PERCEPTUAL BIAS IN TEACHERS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR BEHAVIORS AND THE SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN By Terry M. Tabackman This study was designed to increase our understanding of the process and consequences of person perception. It was concerned with how biased person perception might be related to overt behaviors. Furthermore, I was interested in the relationship between perceptual bias in teachers and the social adjustment of children who were their students. More specifically, this study examined teachers as they function in the classroom environment with their students. Teachers' perceptual bias sets were measured, their classroom behaviors were observed, and a school social adjustment question- naire was administered to their students. The study was based on the premise that perceptual bias does exist, it relates to specific teacher behavior patterns, and it can influence a student's social adjustment in the classroom. The first research problem was to try to identify the existence of any relationships between the perceptual bias and the teacher behavior patterns. The second problem was to try to dermis for the enoti ”while than expectec ticnship bet» 1.8., the IE! positive beh aiso indicat of the stade negative per IEd firm CC! SLWort for With and . associated - was associa some demanc “”EXDec-ted blag MS as Particular the ban“ bEhavigrs 1 50m warmu StrUCtUr‘e E Terry M. Tabackman try to demonstrate how differences in perception have consequences for the emotional adjustment of children in the school environment. While the absolute number of significant results was lower than expected, findings nonetheless suggested that there was a rela- tionship between one perceiver-based person perception process-~ i.e., the tendency to be differentially sensitive to negative or positive behaviors in children--and teacher behaviors. Findings also indicated that perceptual bias was related to the adjustment of the students, especially when grade level was considered. The negative perceiver was associated with social behaviors that sugges- ted firm control and strict compliance to directives with little support for opposing points of view and an unexpected display of warmth and affectionate behaviors. This "perceptual" style was associated with poorly adjusted students. Positive perceiver bias was associated with social behaviors that demonstrated openness and some demand for structure, but little ability to control and an unexpected lack of overt caring and nurturance. Positive teacher bias was associated with adjusted students who appeared to have particular problems in the area of conflict resolution. Finally, the balanced perceiver was most often associated with social behaviors that demonstrated a combination of openness and fairness, some warmth and affection, and appropriate supportive criticism, structure and control to the classroom environment. It appears that this relationship yielded predominantly well adjusted students. RESu major theori: nihioptiona‘ research. Terry M. Tabackman Results were discussed in terms of their implications for major theories in social science, practical problems associated with optional socialization experiences, and directions for future research. The agenent, we to express 1 my disserta Support and to the otne Dr. Bradiey and advice. I a and Nancy K my School ation and v Produce a ‘ Student ad‘ An‘ Whom ex SYStem. I to the man. Public Her I a for their E ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this study was dependent upon the encour- agement, work and support of many people. It is a special pleasure to express my appreciation to Dr. Lawrence A. Messé, chairman of my dissertation committee, who provided stimulation and constant support and direction for this extensive project. I am also grateful to the other members of my committee, Dr. Santo F. Camilleri, Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg and Dr. Charles Johnson for their interest and advice. I am especially indebted to two teachers, Kathleen Couzzins and Nancy Kopietz, and their students from the Delta Mills Elemen- tary School, Grand Ledge. It was through their extensive cooper- ation and willingness to open their classrooms that enabled me to produce a videotape, train the classroom observers and pretest the student adjustment questionnaire. Any study involving the schools cannot be accomplished without extensive assistance from many individuals within that system. I am pleased to be able to express my sincere appreciation to the many teachers, students and principals of the St. Johns Public Elementary Schools for their full cooperation and assistance. I am especially grateful to David Gerbing and William Brown for their expert assistance in the necessary computer programming ii and anaiysi task to co." To gratitude f Fir lbnica Gert and contint working ass hoc’n more 1 and analysis. Without their help, it would have been an impossible task to complete. To my family, my husband, Win and children, I express my gratitude for their love and patient understanding during this time. Finally, and most importantly, there is one close friend, Monica Gerbing, who could never be thanked enough for her constant and continual support and encouragement, her active interest and working assistance in every phase of this study. To her, I owe much more than a simple thank you. LIST 0' LIST O Chaote I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . Chapter I II INTRODUCTION . Socialization--A Complex Process Influences Child Development . . The School--A Significant Socialization Agent . Adult Caregiving Behaviors Influence the Social Adjustment of Children . . . Perceptual Bias--A Correlate of Adult Caregiving Behavior Patterns . . . . . . Rationale . DEFINITIONS, INSTRUMENTATION, HYPOTHESES Definitions of Concepts Perceptual Bias Teacher Behaviors Patterns Instrumentation . Development of the Teacher Behavior Rating Scales . (TBRS) for Classroom Observation . . Selection, Training and Coding for Classroom Observation . . Development of the Standard Classroom Perceptual Stimulus . . Development of the Stduent Behavior Rating Scale DevelOpment of the School- Social Adjustment Questionnaire . Development of the Teacher Performance Scale and Instructions for Administering the SCPS Personal Data Sheet . . Hypotheses iv Page vii ix Chapter III IV METHODOLOGY The Study . Subjects Design . . Data Collection . . Statistical Techniques ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Perception Correlated with Teacher Behaviors . . Perception Correlated with School Social Adjustment Scores . . . . . . . . . . . Analyses of Variance. Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels Influencing Teacher Behaviors Interaction Effects of Perceptual Sets by Grade Levels . (3 x 2) . Simple Main Effects . . . . . . . . Mutliple Regression Analysis: Perception Related to Teacher Behaviors - WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL, and INDEPENDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance: Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels Influencing Student Adjustment in the Classroom Interaction Effects of Perceptual Bias Sets by Grade Levels (3 x 2) . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Main Effects . Summary . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The Influence of Perceptual Bias on Teacher Behaviors: Conclusions The Influence of Perceptual Bias on Student Adjustment ' Behaviors: Conclusions . . Discussion of Specific Hypotheses . . Perceptual Bias Influences Teacher Behavior and Student Adjustment . . . Implications for Future Research 7] 7T 77 82 82 83 B7 90 98 100 Appendix APPEHCI A EACaEi B IJDEW C SCECC- GIRL D IEACrE E INSTR. F PERS? G TUE? H RESEL I J TI-hf IVE/h PEAR? LIST OF RE f'v-fi-‘ RLFLRLNCE Appendix 7? CJHICD'TIMD OW) APPENDICES TEACHER BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE . STUDENT BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE . . SCHOOL SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONNAIRES (BOYS AND GIRLS . . . . . TEACHER PERFORMANCE SCALE . . INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE VIDEOTAPE (SCPS) PERSONAL DATA SHEET . . . . . STUDY INFORMATION SHEET . RESEARCH CONSENT FORM STUDENT CONSENT LETTER . . PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TEACHER PERCEPTION AND TEACHER BEHAVIOR SCORES . . PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TEACHER PERCEPTION AND STUDENT CLASSROOM ADJUSTMENT SCORES. . . LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCE NOTES vi Page l02 103 I18 121 I42 I44 I46 I48 I50 I52 I54 I56 158 I66 I Ryan' Teach PdpiI ReIie Ratir Perce In161 Stud Fact Pear PErc Pear Perc Scor Per: 4 Mean Invc for Mean Invo Beha Mean Invo Table #OJN \DCDNOSU'I IO II I2 I3 I4 LIST OF TABLES Ryan's Teacher Behavior Patterns Teacher Rating Scale Pupil Classroom Behavior Patterns . Reliability Coefficients for the Student Behavior Rating Scale (Perceptual Bias Measure) . . Perceptual Bias Sets Inter-rater Reliability Between Observer Teams Student Aggregate Adjustment Scores Factor Loadings of Teacher Behaviors . Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between TEacher Perception and Teacher Behavior Scores Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Teacher Perception and Student Classroom Adjustment Scores . Perceptual Bias Score Distribution and Cell Frequencies by Grade Level Means and f_Ratios of Significant Interactions Involving Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels for Teacher Behaviors . Means and f_Ratios of Significant Main Effects Involving Perceptual Bias Sets for Teacher Behaviors . . . . . Means and f_Ratios fo Significant Main Effects Involving Grade Level for Teacher Behaviors vii Page 26 30 SI 52 53 55 57 59 6I 63 65 67 69 ' I Iahh IS Ieache I6 Means InvoIv II Means InvoIv Adjust l8 Means . InvoIv Scores Table l5 16 I7 I8 Teacher Behaviors Regressed on Perception Means and f Ratios of Significant Interactions Involving Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Level Means and f_Ratios of Significant Main Effect Involving Perceptual Bias Sets for Student Adjustment Scores Means and F Ratios of Significant Main Effects Involving Grade Levels for Student Adjustment Scores . . . . \fiii Page 70 73 76 78 Figure I Perce; LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page l Perception Regressed on Self-Control . . . . . . . 72 ix The Dr. herbert If Our ; environ" one DVD} other is survive' 0f air 1 Iove, t is chiI save 0U chiIdre Hov deVEIOP‘Wen‘. 90mg to c; yuang, So tudes and deSIrabIe SOCIEty (Ii within Soc Peers and VdIUeS and CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The basic concern of this research is well expressed by Dr. Herbert Hendin of Columbia University, who said: If our physical environment is worth saving, our emotional environment is even more deserving of protection, since the one provides us with the means to sustain life, while the other is our humanity; the one offers the necessities of survival, the other a life worth living . . . the equivalent of air and water is the source of our ability to feel, to love, to endure. The most endangered of all our resources is children. We need to do everything that is possible to save our greatest of all resources - children, all children, (Hendin, l975). How can we insure an environment that is conducive to the development of emotionally healthy children? Any process that is going to contribute to this objective must begin with the very young. Socialization--A Complex Process That Influences Child Development Socialization is the process whereby an individual's atti- tudes and behaviors are shaped to conform to those regarded as desirable and appropriate for his or her present or future role in society (Hetherington, 1975). Certain groups and organizations within society play key roles in socialization. Parents, siblings, peers and teachers spend a great deal of their time communicating values and directing and modifying children's behaviors. Some forra' insti the c their viII It is venh thes hone to e thei by! as ‘ EVE: wit for _——J LL) ( 7‘ Ins the Cha Inf' formal organizations, such as the school, the church, and legal institutions, have evolved with the specific mission of transmitting the culture's knowledge and its social and ethical standards. It is their goal to maintain certain culturally valued behaviors. All of these elements combine to create the "environment" that will directly affect the devel0pment of emotionally healthy children. It is obvious that one research study cannot control all these inter- vening variables and produce a definitive report on the effects of these factors on the develOpment of the child. It is possible, however, to focus on one of these key social subsystems and attempt to establish some relationship among the existing variables and their impact on a child's emotional adjustment state. The School--A Significant Socialization Agent Most psychological theories of child development, influenced by Freud, stress the early experiences of the child in the family as the main determinants of his/her future social, emotional and even intellectual develOpment. Though early childhood experiences with one's family are extremely important, there are other major forces in the socialization process such as the peer group (O'Connor, 1969) and the often neglected school experience. Probably no other institution has as much opportunity as does the school to shape the developing child. Within this institution, an important central character is the teacher, who plays a powerful role in the exerting influence on the overall psychological development of the child. This study focuses on the teacher as a significant socialization agent within the school system. Although impressive, merely underlining the increasingly large amount of time that children spend in the classroom is hardly convincing evidence that school has an impact on the child's devel0pment. More substantial documentation is necessary. One of the most influential kinds of evidence concerning the importance of the school as a socializing force has come from studies in which the relative impacts of the family and of the school are directly assessed. Bronfenbrenner and his colleagues (Bronfenbrenner, Devereux, Suci, & Rodgers, I965) found that the child's report of his teacher's behavior toward him was a more important predictor of his moral value orientation than reports of parental behavior. A child who had a positive relationship with his teacher was partic- ularly likely to endorse adult moral values. Others (e.g. Schmuck & Van Egmond, l965) have reported parallel effects: the pupil- teacher relationship was not only linked to academic performance but, in the case of boys, was more important than parental attitudes in determining values. These reports present a clear challenge to traditional family-oriented theories of socialization. While neither study denies the impact of parental influence, both dramatic- ally illustrate the need for a greater recognition of the importance of the school as a socialization agency (Hetherington & Parke, l975). By far the most important figures in the school are the teachers. Teachers are a powerful group of men and women who have continuous contact with children. Teachers can administer the "pain-relieving aspirin of acceptance," time to listen, and toler- ance for and understanding of deviant conduct. Research has shown that the personality of the teacher and her attitudes towards pupils can create either a positive or negative classroom environment (Ryans, l960). The teachers' effects on the mental health of the child lie not in what they d9_fgr_for thild, but in what they do in front of the child; that is, the example they set, and the classroom atmos- phere they create (Featherstone, 1968). Teachers rank second only to parents in the amount of time they spend with children. Because of this time, teachers possess an enormous potential for affecting the mental health of children. They can be an effective agent in the prevention of emotional mental disorders and the promotion of a young person's healthy growth and development or they can be destructive to this process. Inevita- bly, teachers teach, in addition to academic subjects, attitudes toward self and life. Classroom education is not restricted to the traditional 3R's. In the daily interaction process between student and teacher, teachers communicate their likes and dislikes about themselves, their students, and life in general. Rosenfeld and Zander (l96l) have shown that teachers influ- ence student aspirations and behaviors. They conclude that when praise, criticism, or assignments are indiscriminate, and when teachers tend to be coercive and demanding, students tend to ignore the teachers. They also found that when teachers' expectations were I I CT (I) C1 C1 based on varied abilities, and when pupils felt that they were judged fairly, they responded by achieving in accord with their abilities. The focal importance of the teacher is not new to education- al thinking. But in spite of the recognition and lip service accorded good teaching, relatively little is done to ensure the certification of such teachers. In the past, part of the problem was a lack of reliable information regarding the nature of some of the major patterns of teacher characteristics that underly teacher behavior. Today, a combined source of research studies on parent- child and teacher-pupil relationships provides a basis for esta- blishing distinguishable characteristics for care~giving interactions. It is believed that care-giving interactions of parents and children and teachers and children can be described in terms of similar behavior dimensions. The following is a review of the social science literature that documents this point of view. Adult Caregiving_Behaviors Influence the Social Adjustment of Children In behavior-oriented theory in social science, some expres- sion of faith in the reliability or consistency of behavior is required. Thus, a major assumption of this study was that similar behaviors, whether emitted by parent, teacher or some other person, can be described in terms of similar dimensions. These dimensions can be used to summarize any care-giving behaviors that occur in relationships between an adult and child. Baumrind (I967) identified three patterns of child behavior by observing preschool aged children in nursery schools: those who were self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative and content (Pattern 1); those who were discontented, withdrawn and distrustful (Pattern II); or those who had little self-control or self-reliance and displayed a tendency to retreat from novel experiences (Pattern 111). These three patterns of child behaviors related to different types of parents. Parents of Pattern I children were found to be "notably firm, loving demanding and understanding." Parents of Pattern 11 children "lacked control and were moderately loving" with the fathers of these latter children being "ambivalent and lax." Furthermore, the spontaneity, warmth and zest of Pattern I children were not affected by high parental control (p. 83). And, parents of Pattern III children were found to be laissez-faire and incon- sistent in their caregiving behaviors. The energetic, friendly, apparently better-adjusted children had parents who provided a combination of high nurturance with high expectations and maturity demands for their children, which were clearly communicated and consistently, but not inflexibly, enforced. They were willing to listen and respond to reasonable demands by their children. Baumrind describes their control as authoritative rather than authoritarian, since it was not necessarily extremely restrictive, punitive, rigid or intrusive. Parents of the Pattern 11 children, in comparison with parents of the other two groups, were less nurturant and involved with their children. They were found to exert firm control and used power freely, but offered little support or affection. They did not attempt to convince the child through use of reason to obey directives, nor did they encourage their child to express him or herself when s/he disagreed. The parents of Pattern II children, who, relative to the parents of children in other patterns, were detached and con- trolling and somewhat less warm, were called Authoritarian. Finally, the infantizing, lax, inconsistent discipline of parents of Pattern III children, coupled with their apparent inability to define and maintain restrictions, comprised a syndrome of caregiving that Baumrind labelled Permissive. In a subsequent study, Baumrind (l97l) used a reverse strategy from that employed in her earlier work. Rather than ini- tially finding the groups of children and then studying their parents, she first identified groups of parents who had clusters of different attributes and then related these attributes to the behavior of their children. The results of this research replicated many findings of the previous study. Children of Authoritative parents were more competent thatn children of parents who displayed other patterns. Authoritative control was associated with social responsibility and independence in children, while Authoritarian control was not associated with social responsibility and Permissive non-control was not associated with independence. Baumrind's work and the reports of Coopersmith (l967) and Thomas et al. (l969) tell us a great deal about the behavior of "sensitive” and "insensitive" adults. The speculative writings of Ainne (I969), Dreikus (1968), Ginott (1965, 1971), Gordon (1970), NmsmkaSI‘ (parent, te] deveIopment behaviors. RyE' Study (ICS) evaIuating a direct obsev and sobseqa interdepenq IQPOTIS the the Sepa Y‘a‘ data. The ICS Pa (‘9' (f (D TCS PattE TCS patt£ Moustakas (I966) and Stollak (I978) also have detailed the adult (parent, teacher, therapist) behaviors that should maximize the development and maintenance of prosocial and self-confident child behaviors. Ryans (1960) conducted an extensive Teacher Characteristic Study (TCS) and developed objective measures that could be used in evaluating and predicting teacher behavior. As a result of the direct observation and assessment of teacher classroom behavior and subsequent statistical analyses of the measurement data, several interdependent patterns of teacher behavior were suggested. Ryan reports that three patterns in particular appeared to stand out in the separate factor analyses of elementary and secondary teacher data. These behavior patterns are shown in Table I. Table l Ryan's Teacher Behavior Patterns TCS Pattern Xo - "warm, understanding, friendly" vs. "aloof, egocentric, restricted behavior" TCS Pattern Yo - “responsible, businesslike, systematic“ vs. "evading, unplanned, disordered behavior" TCS Pattern Zo - “stimulating, imaginative" vs. "surgent, dull, routine behavior" Ryan teachers, SE behavior. vior of the students' . degree, up rmintahie A with thes Luria, Sh descriptt Patterne. “democra and per: 861 f-de1 COmbjna. activjt CaIIed IS c0rt nauthOr pre‘SCh ta] Int) Ryan found that, especially for the elementary school teachers, several factors were related significantly to pupil behavior. Ryan's work suggests that the specific care-giving beha- vior of the teacher had an influence on student behavior. Thus, the students' behavior in the class appears dependent, to a considerable degree, upon the teacher's ability to stimulate the pupils and to maintain effective control. A typology of adult care-giving behaviors begins to emerge with these and other studies (Schaffer, 1959; Becker, Peterson, Luria, Shoemaker, & Hellmer, l962; & Cameron, l977). Schaffer's description of parental behavior emphasizes the interaction of two patterned dimensions, love-hostility and autonomy-control. The "democratic family" would be one in which the parents were loving and permissive, allowing the child considerabel exploration and self-determination in an atmosphere of warmth and support. The combination of love and restrictiveness in which the child's activities are curtailed by loving, intrusive parents is frequently called the ”over-protective family." In contrast, when hostility is combined with restrictiveness, a family often labeled as "authoritarian" emerges. Finally, the combination of laxness and hostility is associated with neglect and rejection (Schaffer, l959). More recently, Cameron (l977) demonstrated against that pre-school children's temperament scores correlated with eight parental clusters of behavior. These clusters revealed that paren- tal intolerance, inconsistency and conflict were associated with negative te" that “grante causation he that parenta The tions in car differences chiIdren. I basic direns ent cIusters characterize trictiveneg. tions have sociaITy de seIf-C0ntr1 Th StUd)’ int: More 1.1100 WOUId be In par“ Of Care- DP thege pe'CEptv 10 negative temperament changes in their children. Cameron reported that “granted the truth of the correlation does not indicate causation maxim, one is tempted to conclude from these findings that parental treatment can modify a child's temperament," p. 575. The critical question, then, is whether or not these varia- tions in care-giving behaviors relate in any systematic way to differences in the emotional development and social adjustment of children. To date, the research is encouraging. It indicates that basic dimensions of adult behaviors can be associated with differ- ent clusters of behavior in children. In general, adults who are characterized as authoritative, displaying warmth, moderate res- trictiveness, consistent discipline practices and open communica- tions have children who exhibit many behaviors regarded as socially desirable, such as adaptability, self-exteem, competence, self-control, and p0pularity with peers. The present body of research certainly encourages further study into exploring the existence of these described relationships. More importantly, it seems to raise the question of whether it would be meaningful to explore the existence of other relationships. In particular, it would be interesting to know if these patterns of care-giving behavior relate to any other specified criteria. Do these specific care-giving behaiors in fact relate to an adult's perceptual bias of the world of events s/he views? Ilv It do exist ar one's viee propensity events is 1954; Cor Taguiri, Percepti further 0f event terms i tIon at pFIITar PI Othe ImpreS write 11 Perceptual Bias: A Correlate of Adult Care-GivinggBehavior Patterns It appears reasonable to assert that perceptual differences do exist and that selective perception does operate to influence one's view of the world. This general assumption about a person's propensity to make biased inferences about peOple, objects and events is supported by much research and theory (Bruner & Taguiri, T954; Combs & Snygg, I959; Mead, l934; Shrauger & AItrocchi, T964; Taguiri, I969; Warr & Knapper, I968). A complete review of person perception literature by Hastorf, Schneider, and Polefka (T970) further supports the proposition that people do perceive the world of events, people and objects differently. This general research area has been referred to by various terms including social perception, person perception, person cogni- tion and interpersonal perception. The research concerns have primarily focused on how we perceive and know the characteristics of other persons. These past studies have focused on how different impressions are formed and the factors which affect these different perceptual biases. Darwin's work (1872) on emotional expressions and their recognition gave scientific impetus to this problem area. Many writers, including Cooley, G. H. Mead, G. W. Allport, E. Brunswik and H. H. Murray, drew attention to the importance of understanding person perceptual processes. Indeed, the literature is now quite extensive in describing the basic situation of person p's perception or cognition of person's o's characteristics or states. The main eIenents of ‘ They incIude to, (b) how personaIity 1 into a generv reIationship stinuIated t. tuaI differe not a person I975). A se set, if, inc sonaI behav- The Snygg, 1959 I955; Mead, PEFSOn Dev‘c that how pe perceptuaI SImiIarly, argue that and PTOCeg I‘OIe theOr I934) that influenCe GI tIIEOrists 12 elements of this person perception process are well documented. They include the study of (a) what stimuli in others are attended to, (b) how these stimuli are encoded to form a meaningful trait or personality construct, and (c) how these inferences are integrated into a general impression. The elements of this process and their relationship to various other major lines of investigation have stimulated thinking in several areas, including the area of percep- tual differences. One major question that has evolved is whether or not a person possesses a stable perceptual set, (e.g. Kaplan, l976). A second issue concerns the extent to which this perceptual set, if, indeed, it is constant, is also related to specific per- sonal behaviors and characteristics. There is a set of theories in psychology (e.g., Combs & Snygg, I959; Kelly, I955; Rogers, I959) and sociology (e.g. Cottrell, I966; Mead, T934) that explain human behavior in part in terms of person perception processes. For example, Kelly (l969) postulates that how persons "anticipate" events through their cognitive and perceptual process has an effect on the course of those events. Similarly, perhaps even more strongly, Combs and Snygg (1955) argue that all human behavior is determined by perceptual mechanisms and processes. This position is also similar to the proposition of role theory (Cottrell, I966) and symbolic interactionism (Mead, I934) that people's "definitions of the situation" have a large influence on the course of their interpersonal encounters. Given that person perception processes are seen by such theorists as important determinants of social behavior, it is somewhat sur_ and attempt: and behavior In 11'. have examine a person's t Specific res possibIe reI sociaI behat and social aI The SAID bEtweei differences by KeIIey ( they PErcei him to be “ PErcejVe tI bette,‘ 5cm the QEDEra' that firm behaviors be Physica we. perCePtion they do no CIOSS 0f p‘ I3 somewhat surprising that little systematic work has been conducted and attempts to establish empirically the link between perception and behavior. In reviewing the literature, a few studies were found that have examined how these specific perceptual biases may influence a person's behavior patterns. Within this same perspective, the specific research interest of the present study was to explore the possible relationship between adult perceptual biases and adult social behavior and between such bias and children's psychological and social adjustment. The few studies in the past that have explored the relation- ship between perceptions and behaviors suggest that perceptual differences do have consequences for overt behavior. An early study by Kelley (I950) found that students interacted less in a class when they perceived their instructor to be cold than when they perceived him to be warm. Davidson and Lung (l960) found that children who perceive their teachers as having positive feelings about them have better scholastic performance and a more positive self-concept. In the general adult p0pulation, Kleck, Ono and Hastorf (I966) found that persons responded with a more restricted than normal range of behaviors when they interacted with a person that they perceived to be physically handicapped. While these studies demonstrate that in general, person perception mechanisms play a role in people's overt social behavior, they do not establish the link between such behavior and an important class of person perception variables: those factors in_the perceive his or I AIbrocc asitfi primer betwee yet is (Part Stall 2; L1 insi CIir Spe bee to Ior Chi the the hav‘ UndE 14 perceiver (e.g. personality, behavior patterns, etc.) that affect his or her impressions and judgments (Erdelyi, T974; Shrauger & Albrocchi, T964). Perceptual set, as it was induced by Kelley, is a situational variable, while physical appearance variables are primarily factors in the target person. Thus, the relationship between perceiver-based perception variables and social behavior as yet is not clearly established. More recently, several major studies have completed (Partyka, l97l; Ferguson, Lester and Partyka, I974; Messe', Stollak, & Michaels, Note I; Stollak, Messe', Michaels & Ince, Note 2; Larson, Messe', & Stollak, Note 3) that begin to provide some insight into this problem area. Partyka's work indicated that clinic-referred children are seen by their parents as having and emitting more "negative and undesirable“ characteristics and behavior, and less positive behavior, when compared to the per- ceptions of parents of non-clinic children. Stollak and Messe' speculated that "although the child behavior could certainly have been the primary cause of parental perceptions, it was not untenable to assume that the parents in Partyka's research might have had long term differences in their perceptual set or sensitivity to child behavior affecting their behavior with their children since their child's birth and thereby contributing to the childs behaviors they perceive in middle childhood" (I976, p. l5). Between June 1974, and September I976, several major studies have been completed by Messe' and Stollak and/or have been conducted under their supervision. The research conducted to date has focused dhadvon ndaiben. toIIak and mnnnhity acnssa la ence a Iarg; rather direq The even with a biases Iowa ianoence 2 I've IIOh that havior. $Ihhdard aIEDaIe SeIected ”Egatj vg 25 We asked ( chde . “Dre C 5130 ‘ perCe 15 directly on the connection between adult perception style, adult social behavior and children's psychological and social development. Stollak and Messe' maintain that perceptual style is at a level of personality functioning that (a) permits it to be rather stable across a large number of social situations; (b) causes it to influ— ence a large number of behaviors, and (c) allows us to measure it rather directly. The overall results of these combined research projects, even with a limited number of subjects, suggest that perceptual biases toward child behavior do exist, can be measured, and can influence adult behavior even on an indirect projective measure. Messe', Stollak and Michaels (note I), examined the proposi- tion that perceiver-based perceptual processes affect social be- havior. In this study, approximately llOO undergraduates viewed standard video-taped excerpts from a series of encounters between a female adult and a female or male child. Subjects were then selected who judged the child's behavior as equally positive and negative; as more positive, or as more negative. These subjects, 25 males and 25 females of each perceptual type, were further asked to engage in a cooperative task activity with a 7-year old child volunteer of the same sex as the original stimulus child. It was found that negatively biased adults tended to display more dominance and less submission than did accurate perceivers; they also engaged in more acts of structuring. When compared to accurate perceivers, positively biased subjects also engaged in more structuring tended to b In reported tr chiIdreariI tential pa and posit' and ridic ceivers ‘ \east, i and al5( IIIese f P€rceiv Person examj under th31 and Vie» tAja 16 structuring activity. Moreover, positively biased male adults tended to be more helpful and cooperative. In another study, Green, Stollak and Messe' (Note 4) reported that perceptual style was related to three of seven childrearing practices identified in a self-report measure of po- tential parenting behavior. Negative perceivers were most extreme and positive perceivers least extreme in their endorsement of shaming and ridiculing as a behavior control technique. Negative per- ceivers tended to be most extreme, again with positive perceivers least, in their endorsement of moralizing as a childrearing technique and also with acts of praise as a persuasion technique. Thus, these findings, taken together, did support the position that perceiver-based person perception processes are related to inter- personal behavior. In a related study, Larson, Messe' and Stollak (Note 3), examined the same set of subjects, but in interaction with a trained undergraduate confederate. Subjects were paired with a confederate whose task was to discuss a number of salient issues in a rational and non-threatening manner, always taking the opposite point of view of the subject. The results indicated that a person's percep- tual bias did produce consequences for the person's interpersonal experiences. More specifically, when comparing the effectiveness of the dyadic interactions for the three types of behavior per- ceivers, it was found that in a conflict situation positively biased perceivers engaged in the most dysfunctional interaction, the accurate perceivers engaged in the most effective interaction, and the negr interactior accurate pelI Tai strongly so differentia function ad biased peopl personal cc Stc relationsh ThirtIf-six tested, F exhibit Sc children . as PEIng thirty-si ChildrEn OI nOn-p, m9nts. bias sco DEQati Ve that P81 Stil] 1 bias Se I7 and the negatively biased perceivers engaged in more effective interaction than positive perceivers, but not as effective as accurate perceivers. Taken together, this study and Messe' et al. (Note I) strongly suggest that accurate perceivers are most adaptive to differential encounters, that negatively biased perceivers seem to function adequately in confrontational situations and positively biased people seem to function well in highly cooperative inter- personal contexts. Stollak, Messe', Michaels and Ince (Note 2) examined the relationship between perceptual style and children's adjustment. Thirty-six intact families from the Lansing-East Lansing area were tested. For about half the families, the child was known to exhibit some (usually mild) psychological problems, while the children in the remaining families were judged (by their teachers) as being relatively free of these problems. An analysis of all thirty-six families indicated that parents in families with "problem" children were significantly more negatively biased than were parents of non-problem families as measured by the perceptual style instru- ments. In particular, the more negative the father's perceptual bias score, the more frequently the father and child exhibited negative behaviors during the family tasks. The research findings that are reported here do indicate that perceptions influence behavior. The research in this area is still limited, however, and the importance of person perception bias sets, the possible relationship between these perceptual I I8 biases and behaviors, needs further exploration. At least, these findings lead to the conclusion that interpersonal perceptual style is an important and measureable personal characteristic that has implication for adult-adult and adult-child social inter- action as well as child psychosocial development. Therefore, there is a definite challenge to continue to conduct research which may establish this relationship more precisely and contribute to our understanding of the consequences of the adult perceptual pro- cesses and related behaviors influencing the developing child. Rationale This research was concerned with the relationship between types of teacher behavior patterns and perceptual bias and its possible influence on the emotional adjustment of children. Specifically, this study had three objectives: (l) to identify existing perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior patterns, (2) to specify the relationship between these perceptual biases and teahcer behavior patterns, and (3) to demonstrate how such differ- ences in perception have consequences for the emotional adjustment of children in the school environment. The basic premises of the research was that a “negative perceptual bias" would lead to selective attention and punishment of a child's negative and undesirable behaviors, with the child's positive pro-social behaviors tending to be ignored, and a "positive perceptual bias" would lead to selective attention and rewarding of I I achild‘s I and undesi Th goal was t the existe of their 1 children. Baumrind': determine Perceptua influence Classrooé 19 a child's positive pro-social behaviors, with the child's negative and undesirable behaviors tending to be ignored. The proposed study was designed to test this premise. Its goal was to progress from more basic and simple issues regarding the existence of these relationships, to more definitive evidence of their formation and implication to the social adjustment of children. An attempt was made to further the theoretical basis of Baumrind's identified adult care-giving behavior patterns and determine if there is a relationship between these patterns and perceptual bias. Just as importantly, the study explored the influence of perceptual bias on a student's social adjustment to the classroom. i 1 perce same di ff has; PTOC peo thr DEr tm Cei So Un Dr. as to CHAPTER II DEFINITIONS, INSTRUMENTATION, HYPOTHESES Definitions of Concepts Perceptual Bias A basic premise of this study was the existence of adult perceptual biases. It is suggested that indivdiuals can perceive the same situations and have similar experiences and come to totally different conclusions on what they, as individuals, actually saw happening. This is what is referred to as perceptual bias, the process by which pe0ple assign their own meaning to the events, people, places, objects and other occurrences that they perceive through their lifetime. It is also suggested that this tendency in individuals to perceive their world in a particular way can be measured so that those persons who have a negative perceptual bias, positive per- ceptual bias, or a balanced perceptual bias can be identified. A person characterized as a negative perceiver would be someone who predominantly attended to a person's negative and undesirable behaviors and a person's non-performance of positive pro-social behaviors. Conversely, a person characterized as a as a positive perceiver would be someone who predominantly attended to a person's positive pro-social behaviors without recognizing the 20 21 person's negative actions. The balanced perceiver would be a person who could be characterized as attending equally to others' negative and positive behaviors. Teacher Behavior Patterns The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate that there is a relationship between perceptual bias and behavior patterns. I was particularly interested in the adult care-giving behavior patterns of teachers. Therefore, this study focused on the actions of teachers toward their students in the classroom setting. The previously referred to research of Baumrind, which studied parent childrearing patterns of behavior, served as the basis for the present research into the existence of specific adult childrearing behavior patterns that seem to have an influence on the emotional development of the child. According to Baumrind's work, there are three basic patterns of child care-giving. The first is what she calls the authorita- tive adult pattern. These adults are described as being both controlled and demanding and yet warm and open to communications. The second pattern, known as authoritarian, is described as both controlled and demanding and limited in nurturance and communicative behaviors. Thirdly, she describes a permissive pattern that is neither controlling nor demanding, but is quite warm and open, although somewhat inconsistent. As mentioned previously, these patterns emerged as theoretically important factors in the 22 determination of what adult childrearing behaviors seemed to influ- ence a child's devel0ping emotional state. This study attempted to extend Baumrind's findings by basing observations of teacher's classroom behaviors on these four dimen- sions: control, maturity demands, communication and nurturance. The teacher control dimension includes behaviors relating to the teacher's "consistency in enforcing directives, ability to resist pressure from the child and willingness to exert influence upon the class with specific rules, regulations, and structure of activities," (Baumrind, I957, p. 54). The teacher maturity demand dimension was defined in terms of the teacher's expectations of the student's intellectual attain- ment, the teacher's demand and respect for self-reliant behavior, and the teacher's demand for self-control on the part of the stu- dents. Maturity demands refer both to the "pressure put upon the child to perform at least up to ability in intellectual, social and emotional spheres and leeway given the child to make his own decisions" (Baumrind, I967, p. 55). The teacher-student communication dimensions emphasizes the teacher's demonstration of reasoning to obtain compliance, of verbal given and take and of clarity and ease of directives (p. 57). The fourth dimension, teacher nurturance, is defined as the teacher's expressions of warmth and involvement. It includes the teacher's attentiveness to children, warmth in the form of support and reassurance, absence of hostile behavior, and individual attention given. Involvement is further explained through the 23 "amount of pride and pleasure taken in a child's accomplishments, manifested by words of praise and interest, and conscientious pro- tection of the child's welfare“ (p. 57). Baumrind's research (l967, I970, l97l) is very encouraging. She has been able to identify the existence of a definite relation- ship between the specified behavior patterns (authoritative, authoritarian and permissive) and perceptual bias (positive, negative or balanced). There also are data that support the premise that this relationship has a direct influence on a child's devel0p- ing competence and attainment ability. Instrumentation Devel0pment of the Teacher Behavior Rating Scales (TBRS) for Classroom Observation The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS) (see Appendix A) was based upon the "Manual for the Parent Behavior Rating Scales" (PBRS) developed by Diana Baumrind, Parental Authority Research Project Director (l967, l97l, I972). The decision to utilize this scale was made after much review and a personal conversation with Dr. Baumrind. The feasibility of adapting her PBRS instrument to this study was discussed at length. I decided that this would be an excellent starting point upon which to base the measurement of a major variable (i.e., teacher behavior) of this study and, thus, I undertook the task of modifying Baumrind's instrument to make it more appropriate for the foci of the present research. 24 The PBRS originally was developed to study four dimensions of parental behavior: control, maturity demands, parent-child communication, and nurturance (see definitions section). Each of these conceptual dimensions was operationally defined by Baumrind. These operational definitions consist of a set of specific component variables. These samecomponentvariables have been adapted to this study as the TBRS. The researcher spent about two months with a third and a fourth grade teacher and her students, observing their daily classroom activities, familiarizing herself with the routine behaviors of the teachers and using them as consultants to the scale adaptation process. These teachers were specifically recom- mended by the school district's psychologist becasue of their mutual willingness to cooperate, coupled with their diverse person- alties, training, and experience. One teacher had been teaching for over l6 years while the other one for only l8 months. The TBRS was developed using this input as the basis for modifying Baumrind's instrument. Each component variable or di- mension was defeined by a scale that described five levels of possible behavior. These scales corresponded to Baumrind's four behavior dimensions. Each of the four behavior dimensions was defined in terms of six different observable behaviors. Observers were trained to use these scales for ascertaining the teacher's behavior. The observers arrived at a composite score for each individual scale by using a l-5 scaling system. The TBRS was pretested prior to its utilization in this study. The Delta Mills Elementary School, Grand Ledge School 25 District, graciously allowed me to train the required observers in their school. Selection, Training and Coding for Classroom Observations A group of twenty-four undergraduate psychology, education and communication students from Michigan State University were trained as classroom observers. These students were selected, because of their interest, from a larger group that had been can- vassed for their participation. They received either 490 or 49l independent study credits. The undergraduates participated in an extensive training period before the study actually began. The training period pro- vided the students with an understanding of the behavior dimensions they would be observing in the classroom. Each student attended several of these evening instructional sessions. At these sessions, they received a copy of the TBRS and had an opportunity to fully discuss the conceptual and operational definitions upon which this scale was developed. I led these dis- cussions, in which I always included numerous examples to explain the measurements further. The undergraduate students displayed a great deal of enthusiasm for their task, and an effective cohesive group of observers slowly began to emerge. In these sessions, we developed a uniform observation scoring sheet which included scale direction and contained an abbreviated description of each scale. This became known as the “crib“ sheet and was used during the actual classroom observations (see Table 2). Teacher's name 26 Table 2 Teaching Rating Scale School Rater Date Grade ID Code I - Teacher Control Demands II - Teacher Maturity Demands task (5) A. directives (1) (5) A. responsibilipy (1) (1) B. listening (5) (1) B. clean—up (5) (5) C. courtesy (1) (1) C. assistance (5) (5) D. non-compliance (1) (1) D. emotional dependency (5) (5) E. specific task (1) (5) E. attention span (1) (5) F. scheduling (1) (5) F. temper (1) III - Teacher-Class Communication IV - Teacher Nurturance (5) A. explanation (1) (5) A criticism (1) communication (1) B. level (5) (5) B closeness (1) decision-making (1) C. pproccss (5) (5) C. discipline (1) rational (5) D. argument (1) (1) D disagreement (5) (1) E. verbalism (5) (5) E sharing_ (1) (1) F. reason (5) (1) F coolness (5) 27 Before the students participated in the pretest classroom observa- tion session, each of them had to demonstrate in writing that he or she understood the conceptual and Operation definitions of the TBRS. The Delta Mills Elementary School was used for all pretest- ing. Prior to the study, the undergraduates observed in these class- rooms for a minimum of two half-day sessions. There were two students to every observing team. The two observers were instructed to independently examine the teacher's behavior. At the end of the day, they were told to compare rating sheets. If there was a definite unresolvable difference of Opinion on most measures, the teacher would be viewed a second time by another team. If there was general agreement, the session was complete. The observers also were instructed to use the number 9 if they had not observed one of the scale's behaviors. The pretesting went very well. There was, however, some need for clarification of observer behavior in the classroom, especially with regard to the amount of inter- action with children and how much to communicate to the teacher. All of these points were discussed and resolved at our last group meeting. Development of the Standard Classroom PerceptuaTEStimulus For the purposes of this study, it was necessary to find or deveTOp an instrument that would measure the perceptual bias of teachers. After considering the advantages and disadvantages of several existing methods, I decided that a visual stimulus in the 28 form of a videotape depicting the interactions of a teacher with his or her students in a classroom setting would most effectively serve the needs of this research. I felt that such a tape would provide the necessary opportunity for all teachers involved in the study to be exposed to the same stimulus at various times and thus contribute to the reliability and validity of the perceptual bias measure. Once the decision was made that a perceptual stimulus in the form of a videotape would be used, it remained a problem to find or develop such an instrument. I engaged in an extensive search of existing teacher-student interaction tapes that were produced by MSU's Instructional Media Department. Unfortunately, none of the existing tapes seemed appropriate for my purposes. The major problem was identifying precisely what types of actions should comprise the content of the tape. I determined that the tapes should portray a natural image of classroom behaviors. More specifically, the tape should display both positive and nega- tive behavior interactions. It became apparent that such a tape would have to be developed. The videotape that was finally produced became known as the Standard Classroom Perceptual Stimulus (SCPS). The SCPS took several weeks to produce and the final tape was a result of several combined experiences. The foundations of the content of the tape are based on an observation instrument that was developed by Ryan (1960). This observation instrument, the Pupil Classroom Behavior Patterns (PCBP), was especially constructed to measure a range of personal—social behaviors of students in the 29 classroom. Work with this instrument indicates that the PCBP has satisfactory reliability and construct validity (Ryan, l960, p. l3-56). The instrument was chosen for the variety of interactions it identifies (see Table 3). The behaviors are defined in terms of four basic dimensions: —l 0 apathetic—alert pupil behavior 2 obstructive-responsible pupil behavior 3. uncertain-confident pupil behavior 4 dependent-initiating pupil behavior. These dimensions, which are described in greater detail in the actual Ryan instrument, served as the basis for the content of the SCPS. I combined this classificationcfl’pupil activities with ideas drawn from screening of a number of existing videotapes of teacher-student interaction. The next step was to obtain coopera- tion to tape from a willing teacher and his/her students. Two teachers from the Grand Ledge School District agreed to assist in the project and were extermely cooperative. After several weeks of actual observations of these third and fourth grade classrooms, the videotape equipment was brought into the classroom. The equipment was left in the room for one week. The children were able to play with it and several practice tapes were made. After much discussion and planning with the teachers involved, one class was chosen for the actual production of the SCPS. I went over a pre-selected lesson plan and steps were taken to insure that a wide range of pupil behaviors would be displayed during the taping ses- sion. Most of the children were unaware that this was the tape \l GUI-hm N #WN-J 0‘01 Chm-F wN—‘ 30 Table 3 Pupil Classroom Behavior Patterns 1. Apathetic—Alert Pupil Behavior Apathetic . Listless . Bored-acting. . Entered into activities half- heartedly. Restless. . Attention wandered. . Slow in getting under way. Alert . Appeared anxious to recite and participate. . Watched teacher attentively. Worked concentratedly. Seemed to respond eagerly. Prompt and ready to take part in activities when they begin. 2. Obstructive-Responsible Pupil Behavior Obstructive teacher. . Interrupting; demanding atten- tion; disturbing. . Obstinate; sullen. . Refusal to participate. . Quarrelsome; irritable. . Engaged in name-calling and/ or tattling. . Unprepared. . Rude to one another and/or to l. 0301 #00 N Responsible Courteous, cooperative, friend- ly with each other and with teacher. . Completed assignments without complaining or unhappiness. Controlled voice. Received help and criticism attentively. . Asked for help when needed. Orderly without specific direc- tions from teacher. . Prepared. 3. Uncertain-Confident Pupil Behavior Uncertain Seemed afraid to try; unsure. Hesitant; restrained. . Appeared embarrassed. . Frequent display of nervous habits, nail-biting, etc. . Appeared shy and timid. . Hesitant and/or stammering speech. d 0501th Confident . Seemed anxious to try new pro- blems or activities. . Undisturbed by mistakes. . Volunteered to recite. . Enetered freely into activities. . Appeared relaxed. . Spoke with assurance. #0)“) 3] Table 3 (Cont'd) 4. Dependent-Initiating Pupil Behavior Dependent . Relied on teacher for explicit l. directions. . Showed little ability to work 2. things out for selves. 3. . Unable to proceed when initia- 4. tive called for. . Appeared reluctant to take lead or to accept responsibil- ity. Initiating Volunteered ideas and sugges- tions. Showed resourcefulness. Took lead willingly. Assumed responsibilities without evasion. 32 that was to be used for the actual research project. Two children, however, were asked to stage a few types of behaviors. The original production tape was approximately 40 minutes in length and depicted ll children and their teacher during a reading group period. After previewing the tape with Gary Stollak and Lawrence Messe', I decided that the tape should be edited. The final videotape used in the actual research study was eighteen minutes in duration. Develogment of the Student Behavior Rating Scale The Student Behavior Rating Scale (SBRS) (see Appendix B) provides a measure of the teacher's perceptual bias. This instru- ment was developed and used in conjunction with the Standard Class— room Perceptual Stimulus. The basis for the scale content was Ryan's pupil classroom behavior dimensions (please review Table 3). Each of the statements developed reflect one of the pupil behaviors described in Ryan's original scale. Sixty-two statements were constructed. These statements, along with the videotape, were previewed by a group of teachers at the Grand Ledge elementary school. These teachers were asked to view the tape and make recommendations about the statements in the scale that seemed to most appropriate reflect the activities depicted in the tape. From these recommendations and other comments, a group of 40 statements, 20 worded in a negative direction and 20 worded in a positive direction, were finally chosen for the rating scale. The scale associated with each item contains five possible 33 response categories: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. For example: >m > Z O l. The class has difficulty in learning school subjects. 2. The students seem to respond eagerly. 3. The students are unwilling to take the lead. ___ An attempt was made to determine whether the SBRS and the SCPS would yield a wide range of scores. A SOphomore class of under- graduate education students at MSU were administered the two instru- ments and the results indicated that this procedure yielded a reasonable degree of diversity in responses across subjects. Development of the School-Social Adjustment Questionnaire One of the objectives of this study was to develop and test a measure of a child's social adjustment to the classroom environ- ment. I knew from past experiences that it would be difficult to administer a standard questionnaire to these young children. Some- thing was needed that could be easily read and readily understood. With these considerations in mind, I decided that an instrument modeled after the form developed by Bower (1960, 1969) and Weikart (1966) would be best suited for the questionnaire used in this study. The work of Eli M. Bower was particularly helpful because it related closely to my own research interests. Bower's work 34 attempted to help the schools be more effective in educating children with "emotional handicaps." His efforts led him to develop an instrument that he called "Thinking About Yourself." The purpose of this instrument was to elicit from the students themselves an intra-self measure of the relationship between a student's percep- tion of his/her environment and his/her conception of what it ought to be. Thus, this instrument provides a comparison of the degree of discrepancy between a student's self-perception and an ideal self, between the student's perception of how he or she is and how he or she would like to be. Bower has found that this instrument provides a meaningful and useful screening device to identify those students with adjustment problems. To obtain this comparison, Bower designed a simple instrument that contained two sets of the same 40 statements. The first set of 40 statements asked the question, "Do you want to be like him?" The second set of 40 statements asked a different question, "Are you like him?" For example: Set A 1. This boy has many dreams. Do you want to be like him? 2. This boy enjoys teasing girls. . Do you want to be like him? 40. This boy eats lots of different foods. Do you want to be like him? 35 Set B 1. This boy has many dreams. Are you like him? 2. This boy enjoys teasing girls. . Are you like him? 40. This boy eats lots of different foods. Are you like him? The overall attractiveness of Bower's instrument was its proven format. As I mentioned earlier, one of the chief concerns was to obtain accurate information from a wide range of elementary aged school children. It was encouraging to know that this instru- ment with its specific format, set of directions and response cate- gories had been used successfully with primary aged school children. Bower also modified the standard response categories of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree into the more understandable words of YES, yes, no, NO. The directions that accompanied the Thinking About Yourself questionnaire for boys was as follows: All of us at one time or another would like to be someone else. Often we play at being other persons during games or parties. We also think about what it would be like to be someone in a book, in the movies, or on a television program. On the next two pages, are descriptions of many different boys. Use your imagination to decide if you would want to be like the boy described in each sentence. If you would like very much to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the big "YES," this way ---------------------------- YES yes no NO 36 If you perhap§_would like to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the small "yes," this way --------------------- YES yes no NO If you think you would not like to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the small "no," this way ---------------------- YES yes no NO If you would very much not want to be like the boy described in the sentence, circle the big "NO.“ this way -------------------- YES yes no NO Now, try these examples from A through D. "Oh, "I don't "No, no, a very "Well, think thousand much!" yes." so." times, no!" A. This boy owns a pony. Would you like to be him? YES yes no N0 B. This boy hits little children. Would you like to be him? YES yes no ND C. This boy gets good grades. Would you like to be him? YES yes no N0 D. This boy gets sick. Would you like to be him? YES yes no NO There are no right or wrong answers. Each of you will want to be like some fo the boys and ngt_want to be like others. Read each sentence carefully before deciding how you will answer. If you do not understand how to answer some of the questions, ask your teacher. Answer questions 1 through 40 and then close your booklet and wait for further instructions. These directions were read to the students who were encouraged to ask questions and demonstrate their understanding of what was expec- ted of them. I felt that the error free data that were collected in the present study were another indication that the students, indeed, understood the category meanings. The work of David Weikert, 1966, was also carefully examined. He had developed an instrument called What Is Your Opinion, a rating 37 scale that was constructed to assess students' perceptions of their classroom teacher's behaviors in eight routine classroom stiuations. This rating scale was extremely helpful in providing us with content ideas for the instrument that we needed to construct. For example, some of the What Is Your Opinion questions read as follows: 8. When things go wrong, my teacher says it's her fault. Almost always Usually Sometimes Hardly ever true trre true true 24. My teacher says the class is improving little by little. Almost always Usually Sometimes Hardly ever true true true true 29. My teacher is firm and understanding in her dealings with problem kids. Almost always Usually Sometimes Hardly ever true true true true The next step was to combine all these ideas. The School- Social Adjustment questionnaire (SSA) was the result of these efforts (see Appendix C). This instrument was designed to elicit from the students themselves a measure of how well they feel they are adjusted to the school and classroom environment. The format is similar to Bower's questionnaire. Each of the students is asked the same set of 22 statements twice. The first set of statements asked the "Do you want to be like her?" question. The second set asked the "Are you like her?" question. For example: 38 Set A l. This girl is liked by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 8. This girl is afriad to ask questions when she doesn't understand what the teacher has said. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO Set B 1. This girl is liked by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 8. This girl is afraid to ask questions when she doesn't understand what the teacher has said. Are you like her? YES yes no NO The SSA yields an easy scoring system by comparing how the student would like things to be to how s/he believes they really are. The discrepancy or lack of discrepancy between the two sets of questions is determined by subtracting the student's responses on Set A questions from Set B questions. The four responses cate- gories were scaled as follows: YES (5), yes (4), no (2), and NO (1). A large difference score indicated that the student was having some adjustment problem. Thes SSA was pretested in the Grand Ledge School system with the second, third and fourth grade students. The students were able to complete it with a minimum of problems. 39 Development of the Teacher Performance Scale and Instructions for Adminis- tering the SCPS Just prior to entering the schools for the data collection, my chairman recommended that another brief questionnaire be added to the study. He felt that a questionnaire should be given about the effectiveness of the teacher's performance on the videotape. The purpose of this questionnaire was to divert the viewing teacher's full attention away from the student activities on the SCPS. This Teacher Performance Scale (see Appendix D), a modification of Michigan State University's Student Instructional Rating Scale, contained ten brief statements and one open-ended question. Personal Data Sheet Teachers participating in the study also were asked to complete a brief personal data sheet that collected information on the teacher's age, sex, number of years teaching and grade presently teaching. There was one question on special training in mental health programs and an open-ended question for general comments (see Appendix F). Hypotheses This study was based on the premise that perceptual bias does exist, it relates to specific teacher behavior patterns, and it can influence a student's social adjustment in the classroom. The first research problem was to identify the existence of any rela- tionships between the perceptual bias and the teacher behavior patterns. 4O Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between perceptual bias and teacher behavior patterns. Hypothesis 1A: It was expected that negativity of perception would be directly related to control and demand behaviors. Hypothesis 13: It was expected that negativity of perception would be negatively related to nurturant and communicative behaviors. Hypothesis lC: It was expected that a balanced perceptual style would be positively associated with control, demand, nurturant and communicative behaviors. The study also attempted to demonstrate how differences in perception have consequences for the emotional adjustment of children in the school environment. Hypothesis 2: It was expected that perceptual bias would influence a child's school—social adjustment. Hypothesis 2A: It was expected that the balanced perceptual style would be associated with well adjusted students. Hypothesis 23: It was expected that negativity in perception would be asscoiated with poorly adjusted students. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Overview This study was designed to increase our understanding of the process and consequences of person perception. It was concerned with the expression of perceptual bias sets and how these might relate to a person's overt behaviors. Furthermore, I was interested in the relationship between perceptual bias and behavior patterns and its possible consequences for the social adjustment of children. More specifically, this study examined teachers as they function in the classroom environment with their students. It was the teachers' perceptual bias sets that were measured; their behavior patterns that were observed, and their students to whom the school adjustment questionnaire was administered. It is particularly important to recognize that this was a field study conducted under all the limitations imposed by field conditions. Although most people cooperated very well, two cases had to be discarded because data were not complete. I must also note that teachers and students had the opportunity not to partici- pate and this could have distorted data. Overall, this study went extremely well. The St. Johns elementary school district, including principals, teachers, staff and students cooperated fully in all phases of the study. The 41 42 large research team that was formed and trained to collect the data must also be commended for their professional performance. Subjects I realized that it might be a difficult task to find the personnel Of a school district that was willing to particpate in this study. Information was gathered on several possible school districts within a reasonable amount of travel time from the Michigan State University campus. After much consideration, I felt that the St. Johns School District provided the best environ- ment for a field study and the unique Opportunity to collect infor- mation from a most diversified population of subjects. The St. Johns School District is made up of eight elementary schools and serves an area populationof approximately 15,000. Four of the schools are considered "city" schools and draw their student enrollments from professional families, government workers, white- and blue-collar workers. The other four schools are considered "country" schools and draw their student enrollments from middle- to lower-class farm families. I saw the diverse socio-economic background of this population as an asset, since it would tend to increase the external validity Of the study. In late fall of 1976, I made initial contact with the Super- intendent of the St. Johns Public Schools, requesting permission to conduct this research project in their school system. I provided the Superintendent with a brief description of the study and informed him of the need to have all of the district's eight elementary 43 schools involved. The Superintendent was quite enthusiastic about the project, but felt that any decision to participate or not should involve the principals of the schools. Several weeks later, I attended a staff meeting where I had the opportunity to speak with the group of principals. I had pre- pared a small hand-out (see Appendix G) that I distributed at this meeting. During the meeting, I explained the project more fully and explored the possiblity of involving the teachers and students from their schools in the study. The principals all reacted positively to the proposal, but they did not want to commit their teaching staffs without their prior knowledge. They felt that the teachers individually should have the Opportunity to decide whether or not they would like to be involved. Therefore, at the request of the principals, arrangements were made for me to visit with each of the schools' teachers. During the months of January and February, on eight consec- utive Monday afternoons, meetings were conducted with the indi- vidual staffs of each school. At these meetings, I informed the teachers that the project was designed to increase our understanding of the social adjustment of children in the classroom. I also explained in detail what would be expected of the teachers and their students if they agreed to participate. At the conclusion Of the presentation the teachers were encouraged to ask questions. Throughout the meeting, I stressed that all the information that would be collected would be strictly confidential. I also promised 44 to provide them with an in-depth report of the results of the completed study. Then the teachers were given a research consent form (see Appendix H) and I asked them to talk the project over among them- selves and make their decision about participating in it by the end Of the week. Overall, the teachers were a friendly group who seemed interested in participating. There were men and women on the staff who represented a wide range of ages and who had varying years of experience. A few were openly against the project. The potential teacher subject pool was 56 teachers in grades l-6. The number of teachers who actually participated was 48, 8 male teachers and 40 female teachers. The breakdown according tO grades was 8 first grades, 9 second grades, 9 third grades, 10 fourth grades, 8 fifth grades and 4 sixth grades. As soon as the partici- pating teachers were identified, letters (see Appendix I) went out to the students' parents informing them of the study and Of their right to refuse to allow their child to participate. There were 1074 students from the 48 classrooms who participated, 585 girls and 589 boys. Only three parents requested that their child not participate. I definitely believe that the various meetings which in- volved the teachers in the decision making process contributed to the development of an extremely cooperative research relationship between the study team and the schools. As small problems arose during the study, they were easily resolved with minimum disruption. 45 It was rewarding to know that this extensive planning yielded the number of subjects needed to conduct a meaningful research project. Design This study employed a correlational design. Thus, the hypotheses were explored via examining the degree of correlation between the measures that were constructed to represent the variables of interest, that is, teacher perception, teacher behavior, and student adjustment. Data Collection Setting up the most efficient data collection procedures for this study was a major scheduling problem. It necessitated con- sideration of the requirements of the research design, and the needs and wishes of the eight different schools, the 48 teachers and the 24 MSU students who were the data collectors. The data were collected in two separate phases. The first phase was concerned with the classroom observations. The second phase was concerned with Obtaining the data from the teachers on perceptual bias and from the studentsirltheir school social adjustment questionnaires. A schedule to conduct the first phase Of classroom Obser- vations was arranged so that a team of two trained Observers spent one-half day with each of the participating teachers. The Observing team was picked up from the MSU campus and transported to the appropriate school. The team then was left there on their own to complete the observation. When possible, the Observing team spent the entire day at the school and Observed one teacher in the morning 46 and one in the afternoon. In most cases, the pre-arranged schedul- ing was followed. There were four classroom Observations that had to be rescheduled because the teachers were absent that day and in two other cases the Observers were not able to make their appointment and a replacement team could not be found in time to complete the scheduled observation. The Observations were completed with minimal problems con- sidering the number of people that had to be coordinated. There were one or two complaints about the student observers and these were taken care Of immediately. There was only one classroom out of 48 whose teacher had agreed to participate but for which data were not collected. Unfortunately, this Observation was a re- scheduled classroom and somehow the data sheets werelost. Ihi all, it took three weeks to complete the data collection for all 48 classroom observations. The second phase of the data collection process required the study team to return to the schools and Obtain information from both the teachers and their students. Pretests indicated that it would take the students approximately 45 minutes to complete the school social adjustment questionnaire and it would take the teachers approximately the same amount Of time to complete their portion Of the study. A schedule was arranged so that all participating teachers in a given school would simultaneously complete the pro- ject. Through the COOperation Of the school principals, each school provided a room where the video playback machine and tape 47 were set-up for the teachers to view. All participating teachers were shown the Standard Classroom Perceptual Stimulus at each school as a group and were then asked to complete the Teacher Behavior Rating Scale, the Student Behavior Rating Scale and the Personal Data Sheet. At the same time the teachers were viewing the SCPS and filling out the various questionnaires, the study team adminis- tered the School Social Adjustment questionnaire to the students. There wre no teachers in the classroom when the students completed this instrument. The entire data collection process took about 60 minutes per school. Through adequate planning and some rearrangement Of recess times and other on-going activities, the second phase of the data collection process was completed with few problems. Thus, the research team met the goal of completing the second phase Of the data collection from all eight schools within one five-day school week. I felt that this relatively brief period Of time minimized the teachers' opportunity to discuss the videotape with teachers from other schools. Statistical Techniques There were several statistical techniques used in analyzing the data, including: (a) correlation analysis, (6) analysis of variance, (c) factor analysis and (d) multiple-regression analysis. The choice Of correlation procedure was based on a variety of different reasons. First, it met the research need to describe the strength Of association between an independent and a dependent 48 variable. I was interested in determining the relationship between perceptual bias, the "independent variable," and teacher behavior patterns, a "dependent variable;" and the relationship between perceptual bias and student adjustment measures, another "dependent variable." This is not to say that this research study could support a cause-and-effect model, since no variable was actually manipulated. However, it was of interest to discuss the strength and direction Of observed relationships in terms of independent and dependent varia- bles. Second, correlational analysis was used to examine sets of variables in order to determine if they were related in a way that would allow them to be combined into a composite scale. TO com- plete the composite scales, I ran a reliability analysis for the scale items and used the coefficient alpha as a criterion for deleting variables from the composite scale. In order to further the understanding Of the relationship between perceptual biases and teacher behaviors and perceptual biases and student adjustment scores, 3 x 2 analyses of variance also were computed. These analyses explored the influence Of varying types of perceptual biases, across grade levels, on the teacher behaviors and student adjustment scores. Again, cause and effect conclusions could not be reached, but these analyses did permit examination of potential nonlinear relationships between the variables. Factor analysis, whose distinct characteristic is its data reduction capacity, was also performed on the data obtained from the TBRS, the measure fO the teacher behavior patterns. The 49 objective was to identify and separate the variables that appeared to be accounting for the emerging sets of interrelations. From these patterned factors, it was possible to potentially reduce the number of variables into more meaningful component groups. Varimax rotation, which provided an orthogonal factor structure solution, was used on this data set. From this structure, the groups Of variables that actually covaried together were determined. And finally, it was possible to name these factors in accordance with the definitions provided by the teacher behavior measure. Multiple-regression analysis also was used to evaluate and measure the overall relationships between the perceptual bias com- posite variable and the set of teacher behavior variables that were identified through the factor analysis. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Several hypotheses were developed to study the basic prem- ises that perceptual bias sets do exist, they do indeed relate to specific teacher behaviors, and they appear to influence a student's social adjustment in the classroom. In order tO examine the hypotheses several preliminary steps had to be taken to prepare the data for meaningful analysis, as outlined in the previous chapter. To begin, a perceptual bias score had to be derived from the Student Behavior Rating Scale (SBRS). This was done through reliability analysis. The perceptual bias measure became a compos- ite score that was based on the item-total correlations (see Table 4). I felt that item-total correlations of at least .48 reflected a reasonable amount of interrelationship between the items that were to comprise the scale. Thus, .48 was arbitrarily selected as the minimum criterion for an item's inclusion in the final SBRS. In all, 18 (of the original 40 items) met this criterion and, thus, made-up the composite score that was derived from each teacher's responses. In subsequent analyses, perceptual bias was defined in terms Of this composite score. The mean score for perceptual bias was 2.98 with a §Q_Of .33. Negative, balanced and positive 50 51 Table 4 Reliability Coefficients for the Student Behavior Rating Scale (Perceptual Bias Measure) Corrected Item- Squared Alpha Total Multiple If Item Correlation Correlation Deleted V1 .65703 .98830 .91365 V2 .61953 .98285 .91339 83 .45935 .98982 .91556 V4 .38513 .94422 .91659 V5 .61753 .98420 .91373 V6 .41276 .95781 .9l6l6 V7 .54699 .95470 .91468 V8 .55589 .97864 .91438 V9 .55810 .96133 .91434 VlO .58295 .91066 .91402 Vll .15453 .85792 .91877 V12 .39050 .91605 .91632 V13 .58194 .94913 .91420 V14 .22661 .95018 .91777 V15 .38723 .92066 .91633 V16 .55562 .97357 .91451 V17 .71836 .96621 .91200 V18 .47988 .96660 .91537 V19 .08035 .83696 .91942 V20 .25885 .95209 .91808 V21 .52139 .99396 .91482 V22 .53475 .96585 .91478 V23 .62926 .98457 .91362 V24 .46210 .95507 .91552 V25 .44209 .93534 .91575 V26 .46254 .92826 .91552 V27 .48046 .91854 .91533 V28 .12336 .94099 .91924 V29 .47864 .96268 .91539 V30 .41816 .99069 .91617 V31 .43132 .96560 .91596 V32 .36617 .93334 .91653 V33 .60282 .96528 .91377 V34 .54325 .95351 .91451 V35 .07929 .99269 .92080 V36 .35153 .94060 .91675 V37 .58478 .97587 .91420 V38 .49427 .92159 .91516 V39 .13833 .86681 .91815 V40 .48561 .93416 .91530 n‘ Reliability Coefficients Alpha = .91763 Standard Item Alpha = .91511 52 perceivers were identified by the extent to which a teacher's score deviated by at least .5 §D_from this mean, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 Perceptual Bias Sets Bias Set N Range of SBRS Scores Positive Perceivers (18) 1.98 - 2.64 Balanced Perceivers (10) 2.65 - 3.31 Negative Perceivers (19) 3.32 - 3.98 Absolute range = 1-5 x = 2.98 §Q_= .33 The teacher behavior rating scale (TBRS) was based on the data collected from the team of classroom Observers. These scale scores ranged from 1-5. Two observersindependenttycompleted a separate TBRS for each teacher. Estimations of the interrater reliability were Obtained from these coder pairs. The test of inter-rater reliability (correlation coefficient across coder pairs) for the 47 observer teams ranged from .70 to 1.00 with an overall mean of .92, as shown in Table 6. Because of this high correlation expressed in the inter-rater reliabilities, it was felt that the two observer scores could simple be combined to obtain an average or mean score for the TBRS. These mean scores that were 53 used for all other analyses that involved the teacher behavior data and the standard deviations are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Inter-rater Reliability Between Observer Teams Class- __ Class- ._ room # r x 5.0. room # r x S.D. l .905 3.02 1.67 25 .959 2.83 1.73 2 .699 2.40 .53 26 1.000 3.04 1.33 3 .834 2.85 1.90 27 .750 2.50 .66 4 .942 2.66 1.75 28 .990 3.06 1.40 5 .991 2.93 1.82 29 .952 2.66 1.26 6 .752 2.43 .97 30 .993 2.68 1.63 7 .913 3.29 1.08 31 .962 3.12 1.80 8 .857 3.45 .85 32 .827 3.20 1.65 9 .978 2.60 .92 33 .953 2.93 1.81 10 1.000 3.16 1.59 34 .971 3.22 1.76 11 1.000 3.25 1.63 35 .755 2.97 1.49 12 .843 2.52 .96 36 .975 3.72 1.82 13 1.000 2.87 1.05 37 .976 3.45 1.65 14 1.000 4.00 1.09 38 .942 3.37 .81 15 .900 2.85 1.46 39 .821 3.16 .78 16 .767 2.39 1.64 40 .839 3.16 1.69 17 .770 2.77 1.85 41 1.000 2.79 1.99 18 .824 3.14 1.57 42 1.000 3.12 1.64 19 .964 2.81 1.66 43 1.000 2.37 1.03 20 .972 2.91 1.58 44 .954 3.02 1.56 21 1.000 3.00 1.65 45 .992 2.68 1.94 22 .971 3.81 1.66 46 .987 2.60 1.14 23 1.000 3.79 2.27 47 .940 3.33 1.51 24 .958 2.37 .98 Inter-rater Reliability §'= .9230 The Student Social Adjustment data (SSA) was a measure Obtained from each student who made up the enrollment Of each of the 47 classroom studies. Two steps had to be completed in order 54 to ready these data for analysis. First, an adjustment score for each student had to be derived. This was done by subtracting the student's responses on the SSA questionnaire that asked "DO you want to be like him or her?" from the SSA questionnaire that asked "Are you like him or her?" The four response categories were coded as follows: YES (5), yes (4), no (2), and N0 (1) (note that subjects were not permitted to neither agree nor dis- agree about an item--a response that would have been scored as 3--since I was concerned that young children especially might overuse this category.). Thus, a large adjustment or discrepancy score indicated that the student was having some adjustment problems. Next, an aggregate discrepancy score, a mean score which represented the responses of the students for all 48 classes, had to be derived from the individual student responses to the 22 variables. This was computed by summing over the complete subject pool of student discrepancy scores for each variable. This pro- duced a set of 22 aggregate scores. These means (see Table 7) were then used as a measure Of student adjustment for each of the sub- sequent analyses. Basically, the two primary analyses in this study were (1) correlational analyses to determine how the perceptual bias measures correlated with the other measures of teacher behaviors and student adjustment, and (2) the analysis Of variance to deter- mine the nonlinear relationships between positive, balanced and 55 Table 7 Student Aggregate Adjustment Scores Mean Standard Deviation V1 .112 .438 B2 .604 .629 V3 .381 .533 V4 .282 .437 V5 -.150 .427 V6 .113 .475 V7 .256 .490 V8 .664 .502 V9 -.929 .565 V10 .126 .270 V12 .432 .421 V13 .381 .360 V14 .436 .429 V15 -.158 .373 V16 .927 .483 V17 .393 .357 V18 -.035 .388 V19 .267 .415 V20 .053 .351 V21 .506 .393 V22 .314 .298 56 negative perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior and school adjustment by grade levels, grades 1-3 and grades 4-6. Perpgption Correlated with Teacher Behaviors Factor analysis was performed on the data obtained from the TBRS to identify the categories of teachers' behavior that were related to or independent of, each other. Also, it was possible to compare these factors with the model of teacher behavior that was used to construct the TBRS, and if possible, name the factors accordingly. The four factors that were devised (see Table 8) did not directly correspond to the four component behaviors described by Baumrind. Therefore, they were renamed to more closely reflect the patterns of behavior that did emerge. Factor 1, labeled WARM, contains variables 7, 11, 20, 21, 19, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24 and is closely related to the nurturant behavior component of the original model. Factor 11, labeled FIRM, contains variables 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, l3, l7 and is closely related to the control behavior component of the model. Factor III labeled SELF-CONTROL contains variables 4,14,16,18 and relates to the maturity component of the model. Factor IV labeled INDEPENDENT contains variables 8, 10 and relates to the communication component of the model. The coefficient alphas for each of these component scores respectively were .89, .95, .58, and .34. Variable 15 was eliminated because it did not seem to covary with any of the factors. Table 8 Factor Loadings of Teacher Behaviors FACTOR I (Nurtrance or Warm Component) Item Factor Number Loading 7 .76 11 .77 20 .81 21 .72 19 .63 9 .67 12 .76 22 .71 23 .77 24 .79 Proportion of Variance .26 FACTOR III (Maturity or Self-Control Component) Item Factor Number Loading 4 .56 14 .57 16 .54 18 .63 15 .29 Proportion of Variance .09 FACTOR II (Control or Firm Component) Item Factor Number Loading 1 .77 2 .71 3 .58 5 .64 6 .70 13 .57 17 .55 Proportion of Variance .14 FACTOR IV (Communication or Independent Component) Item Factor Number Loading . 8 .71 10 .60 Proportion Of Variance .08 58 Table 9 presents the correlations between teacher perception and teacher behavior scores with a significance that reached a prob- ability level Of p < .10. The full table of 24 behavior scores and four behavior factors appears in Appendix J. Specifically, it was anticipated that negativity of perception would correlate positively with the teacher's control and demand behaviors emitted during the classroom Observation period. It was also expected that the nega- tivity of perception would correlate negatively with nurturance and communicative behaviors. The obtained correlations, in general (see Appendix J), were in the anticipated directions, however very few reached a respecta- ble significance level. Note, in particular that those obtained correlations that were signficant were in the expected directions especially with respect to those variables for which positive relations with negative perceptions were expected. Negative per- ception correlated positively with those teacher behaviors that displayed firm control, rigidness and structure within the class- room. Table 9 also shows that out of the four component teacher behavior patterns that were constructed, only one showed a signifi- cant correlation with perception. This was the SELF-CONTROL or maturity demand component that includes variables 4, 14, 16 and 18. As expected, negativity of perception was positively correlated with behaviors that expressed a demand for children to be well-disciplined in the classroom environment. In only one situation did negativity of perception corre- late in a negative direction with Open communicative behaviors. This 59 Table 9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Teacher Perception and Teacher Beahvior Scores Teacher Behavior Category Correlation Coefficients (Firm) 2. Require students to pay attention .19* (Self— 4. Persist in getting child to comply .29* control) (Firm) 6. Set structured schedule for class .23* (Indepen- 8. Require students to express .21* dent) themselves clearly (Warm) 12. Give reason and explanation with -.19* directives (Firm) 13. Set regular tasks .21* Composite variable Of items 14, 16, 18, 4. Self-control (maturity demand) .35* *2_< .10 (Note: Full table appears in Appendix J). 60 relationship stressed the teacher's ability to give reason and explanation with class assignments and directives. There were some correlations (see Appendix J), however, that were not in the predicted direction. In particular, these correlations related to those teacher behaviors that depicted warm, understanding behaviors. It was expected that negativity in perception would correlate nega- tively with these behaviors, while the opposite trend tended to occur. In general, these results show that perception is related to certain teacher behaviors suggesting that there is a positive relationship between negative perception and those teachers who display firm controlling behaviors in the classroom. In addition, it should be noted that while there were no significant correla- tions, negativity of perception was related to warm, Open teacher behaviors. Perception Correlated with School Social Adjustment Scores Table 10 presents the correlation coefficients between teacher perception and student adjustment scores. The correlation for these two sets Of data were accomplished by correlating teacher perception with an aggregated student adjustment score. Only those correlations that were significant are presented here. 'There were, however, a total of 22 student adjustment statements (see Appendix K) with some others producing interesting, if not significant, results. 61 Table 10 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Teacher Perception and Student Classroom Adjustment Scores Student Classroom Adjustment Items Correlation Coefficients l. The students did not feel liked by .22 .87 their teachers 7. The students felt sick when they had to .28 .03 take a test 18. The students did their homework -.25 .05 22. The students were punished by their .30 .02 teacher p_< .10 Note: A positive correlation between negativity of perception and a student adjustment score indicates that the students are generally poorly adjusted in this area of the classroom environment. 62 It was expected that a positive correlation between nega- tivity of perception and student adjustment for those adjustment items that produced large discrepancy scores between the target student and self, indicated that the students were generally poorly adjusted to some aspect of the classroom environment. In reviewing the significant correlations between perception and the student adjustment scores, the data showed that negativity of perception was positively related to a student's uncertain feelings of whether or not their teacher liked them; there was also discrepancy in how good the students felt and how they desired to feel when taking a test; and a third positive correlation indicated that discrepancies occurred in the area of punishment. Although there were only a few statistically significant positive correlations, the complete analysis indicates that 14 of the 22 statements correlated in a positive direction. Thus, the expectation that in general a positive correlation between negativity of perception and student adjustment as typified by a large discre- pancy score between how the student sees him or herself, when com- pared to a behavior in the target student, the more poorly adjusted. was supported. The negative correlations between teacher negativity and the student adjustment scores as typified by a small discrepancy score between how the student sees him or herself when compared to a behavior in the target student indicated well adjusted students. The only significant negative correlation showed that students are adjusted to the classroom expectation of completing his or her 63 homework assignments. In general, these results suggest that the more negative the teacher's perceptual bias set, the more poorly adjusted the students are to the social environment of the class- room, a possible exception is when academic achievement is con- sidered. Analyses of Variance: Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels Influencing Teacher Behaviors An analysis of variance design was super-imposed on the data collected in this study in order to further explore possible non- linear relationships among the involved variables. In addition to testing hypotheses, analysis of variance was done on grade levels for differences. For purposes of discussion, perception and grade level have been named the independent measures and teacher behavior the dependent measure. A descriptive breakdown Of the levels of the measures is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Perceptual Bias Score Distribution and Cell Frequencies by Grade Level Mean Perceptual Bias Scores Grade Level of Teacher Positive Balanced Negative 1 - 3 (26) 1.98-2.64 (8) 2.65-3.31 (4) 3.32-3.98 (14) 4 - 6 (21) 1.98-2.64 (10) 2.65-3.31 (6) 3.32-3.98 (5) Note: Numbers in parentheses are cell frequencies. 64 The dependent measures, the average mean scores for each 24 behavior variables and the four component variables, WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL and INDEPENDENT were subjected to 3 (perceptual bias set of the teacher) x 2 (grade level of the teacher) analyses of variance. These analyses of variance yielded a number of signifi- cant findings but not as many as anticipated. Interaction Effects of Perceptual Bias Sets By Grade Levelspj3 x 21* The analyses of variance of the perceptual bias sets by grade level generated significant interactions for only 3 of the 24 teacher behavior variables. None of the four behavior component variables, WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL and INDEPENDENCE, yielded signi- ficant interactions. As indicated in Table 12 an analysis of variance of positive, balanced and negative perceptual bias sets of teachers and grade levels (1-3) or (4-6) produced significant interaction for the following: (1) "persists in getting child to comply" generated a significant perceptual bias set x grade interaction, [(2,46) = 3.24, p_< .05; (2) "set regular tasks" generated a significant 2.98, p-< .lO; perceptual bias set x grade interaction, [(2,46) and (3) ”provide warm positive praise" generated a significant 10.56, p_< .01. perceptual bias set x grade interaction, [(2,46) Table 12 also presents the relevant cell means. These significant two-way interactions were then subjected to simple effects tests and, where appropriate, individual comparisons were performed Means and F Ratios of Significant Interactions 6 Tabl 5 e 12 Involving Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels for Teacher Behaviors Teacher Behavior Grade Perceptual Bias Set Category Level Positive Balanced Negative -— 4. Persist in l 4.07 3.25 4.13 3.24** getting child 2 3.70 3.91 3.12 to comply 13. Set regular 1 1.75 2.75 1.96 2.98*** tasks 2 2.90 2.50 1.70 19. Provide warm, 1 2.06 2.25 2.28 10.56* positive praise *p_< .Ol *fp_< .05 **fp_< .lO 66 between the positive and balanced conditions and between the balanced and negative conditions of perceptual bias. The simple effects test for teacher behavior variable 4 did not yield any significant findings. However, the direction and size of the means and F ratio indicate that the interaction was attribu- table mainly to the differences between the balanced and negative perceivers for grade level I. The more negatively biased teachers at grade level I required the student to comply to his or her instructions to a greater degree than did the balanced perceivers at grade level 1. The simple effects test and further mean comparisons of variable 13, sets regular tasks, indicates that negative biased perceivers who are teaching at grade level 2 set significantly fewer tasks for their students to follow than do balanced per- ceivers for the same grade levels, f(l,10) = 3.75 at p_< .10. Also, more warmth was displayed by the negative perceiver at grade level 2 than by the balanced perceiver, though further comparison of this behavior dimension did not reach an acceptable level of signifi- cance. Thus, taken together, these findings support somewhat the position that perceiver bias does influence teacher behavior in the classroom, especially when different grade levels are considered. Significant Main Effects Further comparisons were made between means that yielded a significant main effect for perceptual bias. Table 13 summarizes 67 Table 13 Means and f Ratios of Significant Main Effects Involving Perceptual Bias Sets for Teacher Behavior Teacher Behavior Perceptual Bias Sets Category Positive Balanced Negative F 8. Require students 2.44 (18) 1.953(10) 2.503(19) 4.20** to express them- sleves clearly. 11. Encourage verbal 2.00 (18) 3.40b(10) 2.15b( give-and-take. 19) 2.89* *p_< .lO **p< .10 Note: aNo significant difference found in the contrast of marginals. However, the direction indicated a strong difference between the balanced and negative group means. bGroups yield a significant difference, [_(l,28) = 2.7, p_< .10. 68 the means and E_ratios Of significant main effects involving per- ception groups and teacher behavior category 8 (required students to express tehmselves clearly), [_(2,46) 4.20, p.< .05 and category 11 (encourage verbal given and take), F_(2,46) = 2.89, p_< .10. No significant differences were found by contrasting the means for category 8, however, the direction indicated that negatively biased teachers demanded more from their students than did positive per- ceivers. As anticipated, the positive perceivers encouraged more verbal give-and-take in the classroom than did the negative per- ceivers, f_(l,28) = 2.7, p_< .10. Three other significant findings were relevant tO the influence of grade. These analyses, shown in Table 14, reveal that in each significant case, the teachers at the higher level displayed more restrictve teacher behavior than did the lower grade teachers. Multiple Regression Analysis: Perception Related"to Teacher Behaviors - WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL, AND INDEPENDENCE. The multiple regression analysis provided another means of understanding the relation of each of the teacher behavior variables, WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL and INDEPENDENCE have on perception. For purposes Of this analysis, the teacher behaviors were identified as the predictor variables and perception was the criterion variable. Table 15 shows the summary of the influence of the variables on perception. The tolerance level was insufficient to include further computation for the relationship Of WARM with perception. SELF-CONTROL had the only significant influence on perception, 69 Table 14 Means and f_Ratios of Significnat Main Effects Involving Grade Level for Teacher Behaviors Teacher Behavior Grade Levels Category 1 (Grades 1-3) 2 (Grades 4-6) .5 l. Firm enforcement 2.038 2.809 6.76* of directive 2. Require students to 2.038 2.666 4.14* pay attention FIRM (categories #l,2,3, 3.123 2.680 7.67* 5,6,13, and 17) *p'< .05 70 Table 15 Teacher Behaviors Regressed on Perception Regression Multiple Variable F Significance Weights R's SELF-CONTROL 7.17 .010 .38 .35 FIRM 2.17 .140 -.21 .40 INDEPENDENCE .147 .769 -.O4 .41 These findings contribute to the overall meaning of the relationships expressed by the regression equation. 71 {(2,46) = 7.17, p_< .05. The plot of the regression line pictured in Figure 1 shows that other things being equal, the more negatively biased the teacher, the morelmzor she will demand students to display self-controlling behaviors. Thus, this set of behaviors was the most importance predictor Of perceptual bias. Analyses of Variance: Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Levels Influencing Student Adjustment in the Classroom An analysis of variance was performed with perceptual bias and grade levels designed as the independent variables and student adjustment scores as the dependent measure. This dependent measure, the discrepancy score between a student's adjustment of reality and desire, was subject to 3 (perceptual bias set of the teacher) x 2 (grade level of the teacher) analyses of variance. These analyses yielded a number of significant findings. Interaction Effects of Perceptual Bias Sets by Grade Levels The analyses of variance of the perceptual bias sets by grade levels generated significant interactions for 4 of the 22 student adjustment measures. Table 16 reports the means and 5 ratios for these significant interactions, which include: (3) understanding by the teacher, (4) listening by the teacher, (14) being liked by classmates, and (15) taking action to quit school. These significant interaction indicate that the effects of perception are not the same over different grade levels of teaching. To determine where these signifiicant differences had 72 tom“: 0 amqw. ooo.m Jompzouimqum ooo.v oom.~ o L 1 GD db 1 I E) coo." boo.~ boo.” éao.¢ oomhzounagmm zo oummumwmm Panama — «gamed oo.m NOIchBZlHHd 73 Table 16 Means and {_Ratios for Significant Interaction Involving Perceptual Bias Sets and Grade Level Perceptual Bias Sets Student Adjustment Grade Posi- Bal- Nega- Statements Level tive anced tive - _l 3. This student is -.625 -.684 4.414 3.28** understood by the 2 1.155 1.122 2.475 teacher. —I I 4. This student is .006 -l.302 4.591 3.72** listened to by the 2 4.763 2.550 1.632 teacher. 14. This student is liked by the other students in the class. 1.480 3.221 3.254 3.11* .171 3.108 3.263 N—l .b 15. This student is going to quit school as soon as possible. 1.943 2.198 1.621 4.15** .789 1.903 2.049 Nc—l n—l *p_< .10 **p < .05 74 occurred, simple main effects tests were computed for each of these variables that indicated a significant interaction. These further comparisons among the cell means for perceptual bias and specific grade levels confirmed the expectation of signi- ficant differences. For variable 3, the students who were better adjusted (a small discrepancy score) were in classrooms of grade level 1 teachers with positive and balanced perceptual bias sets. The comparison of negative and positive teacher perceivers yielded a significant [(1,21) = 3.12 at p_< .10, as did a comparison between balanced and negative conditions, [(1,17) = 3.03 at p_< .10, all at grade level 1. A simple effects test for perceptual bias and grade level for variable 4 also yielded a significant simple main effect 5 ratio, [(1,27) = 5.49, p_< .01. Students in grade level 1 were found to vary more in their adjustment to the school situation. Further comparisons indicate that these negative biased teachers when compared to balanced perceivers tend to have more poorly adjusted students in their classrooms ([(1,17) = 4.81, p_< .05). The other significant interactions involving perceptual bias and grade level were analyzed via tests of simple effects and, where appropriate, individual comparisons were performed between the negative and balanced conditions, the negative and positive conditions and the positive and balanced conditions. The results of these analyses for variable 14, a measure of whether students feel liked by the other students, again, indicated that children in the lower grades displayed more adjustment variability among the 75 conditions of perceptual bias. Negatively biased teachers again produced the most poorly adjusted children when compared to the positive perceivers, [(1,11) = 3.37, p_< .10, and when compared to the balanced perceivers, {(1,17) = 3.35, p.< .10. The same supportive findings can be seen in Table 16 for grade level differences for variable 15; however, the variability in the relationship between the sets of perceptual bias is reversed. When further comparisons are performed between these conditions, balanced perceivers have more poorly adjusted students, {(1,13) = 3.3 at p_< .10. In general, these findings support the position that differ- ences in the degree of student adjustment can be attributed to a relationship between perceptual bias and student grade. Moreover, this relationship produces varying effects when specific perceptual bias sets and different grade levels are considered. In particular, it was found that the lower grades produced the significant differ- ences between the perceptual means. Significant Main Effects Only one student adjustment statement produced a significant main effect for perceptual bias. Table 17 shows that across grades how a student feels about test taking was affected by a teacher's perceptual style. Further comparisons between the means indicate that children exposed to negatively biased teachers felt more sick when taking a test than those students exposed to any other group Of teachers. A significant difference was reached in comparing negative perceivers and positive perceivers, [(2,46) = 5.08, p_< .01. 76 Table 17 Means and {_Ratios Of Significant Main Effect Involving Perceptual Bias Sets for Student Adjustment Scores Student Adjustment Percgptual Bias Sets Statement Positive Balanced Negative .5 7. This girl/boy feels 1.0ma 1.289 1.480a 4.64* sick when she/he has to take a test. *p_ .05 aNote: The contrast of the means yielded a significant difference between the positive and negative group means. 77 Several significant main effects involving grade level and student adjustment were also found. Table 18 summarizes these results. In every situation, studenisin the higher grades were more poorly adjusted than students in the younger grades. Thus, taken together, these findings support the position that perceptual bias sets are related to the degree of classroom adjustment in children, and moreover, there is a changing relation- ship when the grade level of the child is considered. mail This chapter has presented the relationships that were found to exist between teacher perceptual bias sets and teacher behaviors, and between perceptual bias sets and student adjustment in the classroom. In addition, it has shown how the interaction of grade level and perception further influences teachers' behaviors and students' abilities to adjust. The correlation Of perception with the 24 teacher behavior variables and the four behavior component variables (WARM, FIRM, SELF-CONTROL, and INDEPENDENCE) that were derived through factor analysis produced seven significant correlations at the p.< .10 level. Six of the seven correlations yielded positive relationships. The positive correlation indicated that negative perception was pos- itively associated with those teacher behaviors that expressed rigid, persistent and firm enforcement of classroom environmental conditions. A strong positive correlation between perception and the component variable SELF-CONTROL supported the finding that 78 Table 18 Means and [_Ratios of Significant Main Effects Involving Grade Levels for Student Adjustment Scores Student Adjustment Grade Levels Statements (G. 1-3) 2 (G. 4-6) .5 1. This girl/boy is liked by her/ -.0155 .2694a 7.65* his teacher. 3. This girl/boy is understood by .1212 .7025a 22.42* her/his teacher. 4. This girl/boy is listened to by .1264 .4738a l3.l4* her/his teacher. 5. This girl/boy likes being in this -.0157 .3151a 3.89*** classroom. 6. This girl/boy has fun in school -.0505 .3157a 10.60* and enjoys her/his work. 9. This girl/boy does not have to 3.827 .628a 8.56* go to school. 12. This girl/boy knows she/he does .3422 .5432a 5.06** the best work she/he can in school. 14. This girl/boy is liked by the .3060 .5973a 4.83** other girls and boys in the class. 16. This girl/boy is very good in .8097 .0713a 3.89*** arithmetic. 17. This girl/boy feels happy in .2635 .5541a 9.22* school. 22. This girl/boy always gets pun- 3.202 .451a 7.63* ished by her/his teacher. fp’< .01 **Q_< .05 ***E.< '10 ‘aNote: In each case, the students in the upper grades experienced more adjustment problems than the students in the lower grades. 79 negative perception was positively associated with those teacher behaviors that demanded strict adherence to classroom rules and regulations with structured activities and student compliance. The other significant correlation produced a negative relationship. This indicated that negative perception was negatively associated with a teacher behavior that displayed reason and a willingness to listen and explain situations to the students in the classroom. The correlation of perception with the 22 student adjustment scores resulted in four significant correlations. Three of the correlations were positive at the p_< .01 level of significance. This indicated that perception was positively associated with those students that expressed adjustment to the classroom environment especially in theareas of test taking and feeling liked by his or her teacher. A significant negative association was also produced for one other variable, p_< .10. This indicated that perception was negatively associated with those students that expressed adjust- ment problems to certain aspects of the classroom environment. In particular, children had adjustment problems in the areas of test taking and the receipt of punishment. The analyses Of variance produced several other interesting findings. Significant interactions involving perceptual bias sets and grade levels were found in three teacher behavior categories. In two of these cases the significant changes occurred at grade level 2, and for the other cases at grade level 1. However, in all situations the simple effects tests on the perceptual bias sets produced significant differences in behavior responses between the 80 balanced and negative perceivers. These findings support the premise that perceptual bias sets do influence behavior. Unfortunately, the expectation that the negative perceiver would be characterized as diSplaying the more restrictive behavior patterns was only there in the one situation when the teacher persisted in getting the students to comply. The findings also produced a reverse associa- tion between balanced perceivers and warm pro-social behaviors. In this situation, the negative perceivers emitted the most supportive behaviors. In contrasting the means of the two variables with significant main effects involving perceptual bias sets, it is again supported that perceptual bias sets do influence behavior with strong differences being yielded between the balanced and negative group means. The age of the children is also shown to have some direct influence on the teacher behavior with the older children being exposed to teachers who display more intense restrictions and firm directions. Several significant interactions involving perceptual bias sets and grade levels were also found after examining the analyses of variance for student adjustment scores. The results indicated that all significant changes occurred for students in gardes 1-3 and that the differences in these changes can be attributed to adjustment disparities between those students who are exposed to negative perceivers and those exposed to positive perceivers. The findings strongly support the premise that perceptual bias does influence adjustment and that those children who are more poorly adjusted are significantly associated with negative perceivers. 81 Another supportive finding is that grade level continues to produce significant differences. In fifty percent of all our student adjustment situations, students in the higher grades demonstrated an overwhelmingincrease in adjustment problems over the younger children. The next chapter presents an overall summary of this study, conclusions, and directions for further development. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The primary goal of this research was to explore variables that possibly mediate the extent to which the classroom environment can influence the development of emotionally healthy children. While considering,the specifics of this study, its summary infor- mation, conclusions and possible implications for the future, let us keep in mind this overall objective. To begin, this research project was based on the theories in psychology and sociology that explain human behavior in part in terms of person perception processes. Given the proposition that person perception processes are important determinants Of social behavior, it was surprising to find that little systematic work had been conducted to empirically establish the link between per- ception and behavior. This study attempted to help establish that link. The purpose of the research was to determine the influence of the teacher's perceptual bias sets on the teacher's classroom behaviors and on the students' adjustment. I was interested in establishing the link between these social behaviors and outcomes and one particular perceiver-based person perception variable: the differential attention that teachers pay to the behavior Of children. Perception in this sense was measured by the teacher's 82 83 response to common stimulus situation, a videotape that depicted children interacting with other students in a routine classroom reading group. Teacher behavior measures were obtained through classroom observations and student adjustment behavior scores were determined by student responses to a questionnaire. Specifically, this project had three objectives: (1) to identify existing perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior patterns, (2) to specify the relationship between these perceptual biases and teacher behavior patterns and (3) to demonstrate how such differences in perception have consequences for the emotional adjustment Of children in the school environment. The Influence of Perceptual Bias on Teacher Behaviors: Conclusions The results to some extent supported the basic premise that served as the impetus for this research: social behavior was some- what related to perceiver-based person perception processes. More specifically, it was found that specific teacher behavior cate- gories did relate differentially to specific perceptual bias sets. Negatively biased teachers tended to act to constrain the behavior of the students in the classroom. These teachers generally persisted in getting students to comply after initial refusal or failure to meet the teacher's expectation. This pattern of social behavior that negatively biased teachers exhibited would be expected of those teachers who have a propensity to focus on children's negative behaviors, since it is likely that persons of this type would feel that they could not trust the student to act 84 "appropriately" without "adequate" supervision. The data also showed several significant main effects involving grade level and student adjustment. When considering the grade level of the stu- dents, it was found that the relationship between negatively biased teachers and the behavior of setting rigid tasks changes. The results indicated that negatively biased teachers at the upper grade levels set signficantly fewer tasks for their students to follow. Considering that the older children have more advanced academic capabilities and may be involved in completing more complex tasks, this reverse in the teachers task setting behavior may be reasonable. This. finding becomes even more interesting when we consider the total classroom environment. It is reasonable to expect that the behavior of the children to some extent relates to their teacher's perceptual bias set. Students exposed to negatively biased teachers are conditioned to a structured environment. This study was conducted at the end Of the school year. SO it is reasonable to conclude that these children knew what was expected (of them, that their day was already conditioned to structure, and 'therefore they did not have to be reminded or told what to do. Overall, however, negatively biased perceivers expressed a demand for children to be well-disciplined in the classroom envi- rwanment. In particular, the negatively biased teachers expected the Older children to pay strict attention in the classroom and to extend real courtesy and consideration to others. It was also found that in most situations, these higher grade level teachers dispflay significantly more controlling teacher behaviors than do 85 the lower grade level teachers. Again it was interesting to note that the students may only be acting out the teacher's expectations. This research could support the position that teachers who display more directive, disapproving behaviors are more likely to produce children who are highly aggressive. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that this relationship between negatively bias and dominant teacher behaviors may in fact influence children to act out their hostility and aggression in the classroom. It could then be expected that the older children would be more inclined to act out their frustrations and see this as socially acceptable behavior, whereas, the younger children may be afraid to misbehave in the classroom situation. 0n the other hand, positively biased teachers tended to be more Open and receptive to student questions and tolerated some verbal give-and-take. However, they did demand a degree of class— room structuring and generally tried to get the students to comply after initial refusal to requests. However, they did not tend to make an issue out Of it, as did the negative perceivers. Again, such behavior is reasonable in someone who is relatively inattentive to the negative behaviors in a student. Larson et. a1 (1977) found that the positive perceiver avoids confrontation, so it would be expected that these teachers would not persist in their demands. Findings also suggested that those teachers who were judged as balanced perceivers permitted rational argument and discussion in the classroom. The decision-making power in the classroom was also shared and students had final authority in some matters. It 86 was found that those teachers with a balanced perspective of the negative and positive behaviors of the students could control the classroom situation with moderate or limited structure and could provide open opportunity for verbal give-and-take. The results that bore on the relationship between pro-social and warm teacher behaviors and perception were disappointing and unexpected. None of these comparisons was significant in the pre- dicted direction, and several yielded unpredicted associations. This may suggest that behaviors that diSplay warmth and commendation are more subtle than the controlling behaviors. In order to accur- ately observe these behaviors in a classroom, a team of observers may need to spend more than half a day with that teacher. It may also suggest a need to better define the three categories of per- ceptual bias. Perhaps the results could have been clearer, if only the extreme cases of positive and negative perceivers were observed, with the balanced perceivers also being chosen on using more pre- cise criteria. In addition, the intrusiveness of the classroom observers may have created an artificial and strained environment that affected the teacher's display of nurturant behaviors. Thus, taken together, the results do indicate a link between perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior with grade level differences indicating that the age Of the child does contribute to the strength of the Observed relationship. 87 The Influence of Perceptual Bias on Student Adjustment Behaviors: Conclusions The results also tended to support the second basic premise that served as the impetus for this research: social adjustment is influenced by the perceiver-based person perception processes. More clearly, it was found that the degree to which students were adjusted to the classroom environment related differentially to specific perceptual bias sets of the teacher. Furthermore, the specific findings that did emerge, on the whole, were reasonable. The findings indicated that negatively biased teachers were likely to have students who experienced some adjustment problems in the classroom situation. These negatively biased teachers tended to have students who felt they were not understood nor listened to by their teachers. This would be expected, since negatively biased teachers did not allow for discussion in the classroom and discourage students from asking questions. These negatively biased teachers enforced their own directives and did not take into account the various needs of the students. Thus, it appears that the perceptual bias of this adult in a care-giving role had an effect on the child's emotional development. It is reasonable to speculate that this type of relationship can be damaging to the child's emerging self-concept and could influence his or her overall achievement level. More importantly, results suggested that the younger children responded with more intensity to the negatively biased teacher. Perhaps, young children are more impressionable and more motivated to do well. It is possible that negatively biased teachers in these 88 early grades could break the spirit of a child and turn him or her against the school. On the other hand, both balanced and positively biased teachers had students who felt that the teacher did understand and at least listen to their concerns. Again, such a result is reason- able since these teachers are more open to suggestions and in fact give some opportunity for the students to make their own decisions. The child responds to this supportive environment with positive feelings toward his or her teacher. These results are especially important when one considers that this can influence the develop- ment of long-term attitudes and feeligs toward school. Younger children felt more secure in classrooms of positively biased teachers. They felt they are better liked by the other children. It is reasonable to expect that such a teacher would create an atmosphere of acceptance and comfort. It becomes more evident with such findings that teachers are a powerful group Of men and women who have continuous influence with children. Perhaps, the positively biased teacher does administer the "pain-relieving aspirin of acceptance," time to listen, and displays tolerance for and understanding of deviant behavior, while the negatively biased teacher could be destructive to the child's emotional development. The balanced perceiver attends appropriate to both negative and positive behaviors of the students in his or her class- room. For this reason, we can expect the students in these classes to possess a more accurate feeling of reality and thus experience 89 some dissonance about themselves. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that these children are also experiencing some adjustment problems. In many situations, the perceptually balanced teachers had students who had a larger discrepancy score than those students associated with positively biased teachers. Again, such a rela- tionship is reasonable when the latter type teacher is relatively inattentive to what most peOple would consider to be negative behaviors. In such a situation the student could acquire a false sense of security and an improper perspective of right and wrong. It could be that these children will retreat from challenges and possess little self-reliance. It is especially interesting given this background to find that students associated with balanced teachers were more willing to entertain the idea of quitting school than students associated with positively biased teachers. This pattern of social adjustment supports the "safe nesting" effect that positively biased teachers evoke in the students. Again, findings suggest that the balanced biased teachers provoke some conflict and adjustment problems for their students when they have to take a test; however, the negatively biased teachers are associated with those students who experience a more extreme adjust- ment problem when facing a test. In addition, the adjustment behavior of the students is to some extent related to the perceptual bias set of their teachers. Considering the number of children who are exposed to this teacher for an entire school year, it is important to substantiate the impact 90 of such a relationship on the child's behavior and general psycho- logical functioning. It seems reasonable to conclude that when a child's primary socializing agents (e.g. his or her parents or teachers) are negatively biased, the child appears discontent, withdrawn and unsure Of his or her abilities. Similarly, when the child's primary influencing agent is positively biased, the child appears could lack self-control and realistic understanding of the impact of one's behavior on others. It appears that encounter- ing socialization agents who are perceptually balanced maximizes the student's probability of developing effective levels of self-control and self-reliant behaviors. In addition, it should be noted that throughout our findings we can see that the older children express significantly more adjustment problems, no matter what the situa- tion. Therefore, it is reasonable to support the need to have children exposed to perceptually balanced socializing agents at very young ages. Discussion of Specific Hypotheses The findings did support to some degree the premise that teachers are important influential socializing agents in the emo- tional development of children. While this study in no way denies the impact of parental influence, it does illustrate the need for a greater recognition of the importance of the teacher as a socializ- ing agent. Also these findings lend some support to the theories that explain human behaviors in part in terms Of person perception processes. 91 Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior patterns. The major premise of this study that social behavior is related to person perception processes was somewhat supported by the findings. More specifically, it was found that teacher behavior categories did relate differentially to specific perceptual bias sets. Sub-hypothesis 1A: It was expected that negativity of perception would be positively associated with control and demand behaviors. The results supported this hypothesis, again, contributing to the validity of Baumrind's patterns of care-giving behaviors. Negatively biased teachers, those persons sensitive to the student's disruptive behaviors, constrained the behaviors of the students in the classroom, set regular tasks, demanded strict codes of compli- ance and were quite closed to disagreement, opposing points of view and any discussion. This supports the findings of Stollak, Messe', Michaels and Ince who found significant correlations between fathers' negative bias and negative behaviors during father-children family interaction tasks. Again, Messe', Stollak, and Michaels lend support to these findings by reporting that negatively biased adults tended to act to constrain the behavior of the child in a playroom interaction situation. They report that "this result is especially striking, given the social psychology of the observational setting--i.e. the interactants were strangers to each other, their tasks were highly cooperative in nature, they knew they were being observed, and they interacted for a relatively 92 brief period of time (30 minutes) in which both adult and child most likely were "putting their best foot forward" (p. 15). The positively biased teachers did attempt to provide some structure for the class, however they were quite lax in the enforce- ment Of specific directions and requests and generally would not try to get the students to comply after their initial refusal. It would be interpreted that the students were actually managing the teachers in conflicting situations. This pattern of results supports the research of Larson, Messe' and Stollak (Note 3) who found that positively biased adults had the most difficulty in a conflict resolution task with a peer. It was found that in a conflict situation positively biased perceivers engaged in the most dysfunctional interaction. It appeared that "they may never have really 'entered' the conflict situation with the confederates, remaining more passive 'on the line' for a confrontation" (p. 14). Thus, it becomes clear that positively biased perceivers do relate to those behaviors which indicate a passive or submissive behavior role. It would be expected that a person who perceives his or her social reality to be "better" that it actually is, would encounter difficulty when confronted with a conflicting situation. Thus, it appears that there is a relationship between person perception processes and social behavior. Moreover, taken together, the results Of the present study and the past work of Messe' and Stollak and their colleagues suggests that variations in 93 care-giving behaviors do relate in a systematic way to a person's perceptual set. Sub-hypothesis 18: It was expected thate negativity of perception would be negatively associated with nurturant and communicative behaviors. The results at most, only partially supported this predic- tion. Negativity of perception related negatively with communicative behaviors as expected; however it also related positively to nurturant behaviors. It was found that negatively biased teachers, those who attended primarily to the negative behaviors of the students, were more closed and less receptive to student question- ing and were quite unwilling to add further explanation to insure that the students understand their assignments. However, they also tended to display more warmth than the positive perceiver, which was unexpected. A possible explanation for the unexpected relationship between the positive and negative perceiver and nurturant behaviors is susgested by Larson, Messe' and Stollak, (Note 3), who found that positively biased peOple act less apprOpriately in social encounters that were less harmonious and cooperative. It is possible that the observers in the classroom created an uncomfort- able situation for these positively biased teachers who then over- reacted by displaying an unusual degree of controlling behaviors. Overall, the present study suggests that the manner in which people perceive their social reality strongly affects the ways that they actually behave with others. Thus, negatively biased teachers seem to demonstrate predominantly controlling and demanding 94 behaviors, while positively biased teachers seem to demonstrate modified control behaviors, open-communicative behaviors and an unexpected nurturant result. Sub-hypothesis 10: It was expected that a balanced perceptual style would be positively associated with control, demand, nurturant and communicative behaviors. The results supported this hypothesis with some limitations. The specific findings that did emerge, however, are on the whole reasonable and supportive. It was observed that those teachers who were judged as balanced perceivers, attending to both negative and positive behaviors of the child, conducted a classroom environ- ment with moderate structure and scheduling, provided an opportunity for Open communication and shared decision making in some situations. However, the nurturant component that was predicted to be a part of their behavior did not emerge. Again, the results that depicted the relationship between pro-social, warm teacher behaviors and person perception did not produce any significant findings. In general, however, these findings support the previous research of Baumrind (1967) who reported specific care-giving behavior dimen- sions. She was able to define groups of parents having clusters of behavior attributes falling into the four basic categories of control, demand, nurturant and communicative. These categories of control, demand, nurturant and communicative covaried into basic behavior patterns which she labeled Authoritative, Authoritarian and Submissive. In an attempt to find a relationship between person perception and social behavior, it was found that these 95 behavior dimensions covaried into similar behavior patterns, except for the nurturance dimension of her typology. Tlie findings suggest that perceptually balanced teachers are not differentially sensitive to good or bad children behaviors but attend both to negative and positive behaviors of the child. Thus, this perceiver based bias influences the teacher to behave in a more open, flexible manner, being more trusting and COOperative when the child's behavior is acceptable, while being more controlling when the child's behavior is unacceptable. Hypothesis 2: It was expected that perceptual bias would influence a child's adjustment to the classroom environ- ment. The results of this study supported this prediction and are consistent with those findings obtained in several past studies that have examined the adjustment of children in the family situa- tion and in the school environment. Davidson and Lenz (1960) found that children who perceive their teachers as having positive feelings about them have better scholastic performance and a more positive self-concept. Partyka (1971) found that clinically referred problem children have parents who tend to be negative perceptual perceivers when compared to the perceptions of parents of non-clinic children. It is not untenable to assume that the parents in Partyka's research might have had long-term differences in their perceptual set or sen- sitivity to child behavior affecting their interactions with their children and thereby contributing to the child's psychosocial adjustment problem. In general, therefore, it can be concluded 96 with building assurety that a person's perceiver based orientation affects the other person's action and reaction to the given situation. Sub-hypothesis 2A: It was expected that the balanced perceiver would be associated with well-adjusted students. Perceptually balanced teachers were associated with those students who had minimal adjustment problems (a low discrepancy score between the reality of what one is compared to what one would like to be). These students felt their teachers understood them and that the teachers were interested in their classroom progress. This also supports the findings of Bronfenbrenner and his colleagues (1965) who indicated that a child's report Of the teacher's behavior toward him or her was an important predictor of the child's moral adjustment. Students of perceptually balanced teachers are considered well adjusted even though they experience, from time to time, serious adjustment problems. This is justifiable when one considers that these perceptually balanced teachers reinforce their students apprOpriately for negative and positive behaviors. Thus, a child receives an accurate assessment of the situation and has been given the needed support to make the best decision which will hope- fully lead to a satisfactory solution. Results of this study showed that positively biased teachers were associated with students who are, in most situations, moder- ately to well adjusted. In fact, many of the findings indicated that there was little to no significant difference in the way that positively biased or perceptually balanced teachers influenced 97 student adjustment. Both positive and balanced perceivers were associated with students who felt they were liked by their teachers and by the other children in the classroom. Similarly, these students felt secure and happy in the classroom environment. There is, however, one significant difference in the student adjustment Of those exposed to positive versus balanced perceivers. The positively biased teacher was associated with students who have difficulty dealing with conflict. It is believed that students who have been inappropriately reinforced for only positive behaviors are left without the needed experience to resolve disagreements. It has been found that these students will Often withdraw and avoid confrontation. The recent reseach Of Larson, Messe' and Stollak are congruent with this observed difference. They have found that positively biased perceivers themselves have the most dysfunctional interaction in a conflict situation. Thus, it is important to conclude that adjustment differences do exist when students are influenced by either positive or balanced perceivers. Moreover, these results suggest that the students exposed to the positive perceivers will have more problems adjusting to confron- tational situations. Sub-hypothesis 28: It was expected that the negative perceiver would be associated with poorly adjusted students. The results supported this hypothesis since negative bias in teachers was associated with the most poorly adjusted students. Negatively biased teachers have a propensity to focus on the child's negative behaviors, thus, perhaps, reinforce this type of activity. 98 Children may find that the only way that they can get attention is to continue to maintain these nonadpative behaviors. Over a long period of time, negative perceptual bias possibly could have destructive effects on the developing child. Messe', Stollak, Michaels and Ince found in studying thirty-six intact families, where for half the families the children were known to exhibit some mild psychological problems, and for the other half they were thought to be free Of problems, that parents in families with "problem" children were significantly more negatively biased than were parents of non-problem families. It could be that the influence of the long-term exposure to the negatively biased socializing agent, whether parent or teacher, contributes to the adjustment problem. Perceptual Bias Influences Teacher Behavior and Student Adjustment In conclusion, the present study suggests that there are relationships between one perceiver-based person perception process, i.e. the tendency to be differentially sensitive to negative or positive behaviors in children, and teacher behaviors. The findings also indicate that this person perception variable influences the adjustment of the students, especially when grade level is con- sidered. Thus, for example, negativity in perception was associated with social behaviors that demonstrate firm control and strict compliance to directives with little support for Opposing points of view and an unexpected diSplay of warmth and affectionate behaviors. Moreover, it also related to lower adjustment levels in students. 99 It should be noted as well that the positive perceiver was associated with social behaviors that demonstrated openness and some demand for structure, but little ability to control. In addition, unex- pectedly, positivity in perception was not related to overt caring and nurturance. Teacher positivity was also associated with moderatley adjusted students. Finally, the balanced perceiver was most often associated with social behaviors that demonstrated a combination Of openness and fairness, some warmth and affection, and appropriate supportive criticism, structure and control to the classroom environment. It appears that this perceptual style predominantly was associated with well-adjusted students. Taken together, the speculations and the underlying theory assume that perception at least in part determines social behavior. It seems reasonable to conclude that there is a causal link between perceptual bias sets and teacher behavior patterns. This conclu- sion is congruent with the conceptual biases of this research project that was derived from theories such as Mead's and Kelly's. These theories have had a major impact on speculations in social psychology conerning the role that perceiver-based person percep- tion processes play in structuring overt social behavior. As Hastorf has noted, up until now there has been little empirical evidence that could be marshalled to support these speculations or the theories from which they were derived. Thus, the results of this study appear to be a useful contribution to furthering the empirical support and understanding of person perception and its relationship to social behavior. 100 Implications for Future Research This dissertation began by rhetorically asking "How can we insure an environment that is conducive to the development of emo- tionally healthy children?" Obviously, achieving this goal is contingent on a complex socialization process. However, the findings in this study suggest empirical avenues to follow in our attempts to create such an environment. The study reported here has been essentially exploratory in nature. It was based on the assumption that perceptual bias could be measured validly. However, in future studies, there is a need to attempt to differentiate more precisely the levels Of perceptual bias. I believe that we could obtain a clearer understanding Of the relationship between perception and the warm, nurturant social behaviors if this were done. I also believe that the feasibility of measuring teacher behaviors has been demonstrated. However, perhaps a more productive approach for future research would be to limit the study to a fewer number of teachers who are representative of the extreme categories of perceptual bias. This modification in design would permit an extended period of Observation time. In the present study, it was difficult for the Observers to make accurate assessments of the teachers' behavior after such a limited exposure. Research also should be conducted to refine techniques of observing and assessing teacher behaviors in the classroom. This research perhaps could lead to the development of a behavior check test that would provide more valid behavior-in-process criterion data. 101 In order to begin to influence an environment that is con- ducive to the development of emotionally healthy children, it is suggested that a training program for primary care-givers be instituted. This should be apilbt program-model in the context of an experimental paradigm to study the influence of different kinds of teacher education programs, content, and actual experiences which could contribute to a person's develOping patterns of perceptually balanced perceivers. Then, longitudinal studies should be under- taken to monitor changes in caregiving behaviors. Additional studies of "student adjustment" and its relation- ship tO the person perception process also are needed to better define age and sex differences. The number of possible investigations of person perception and its relationship to social behaviors and influences on social adjustment is limited only by the insight and creative imagination Of research workers in this area. The suggestions that are made above represent only a few of the many studies that should be conducted to advance the frontiers of knowledge regarding person perception processes and the conditions which affect social behavior. Recent work in the area, including the present study, is a promising beginning to the attack on a fundamental issue in social science, an issue, whose practical and theoretical implications are impor- tant enough to merit continued, increased attention. APPENDICES 102 APPENDIX A TEACHER BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE 103 Teacher Rating Scale Teacher's name School Rater Date ID Code I - Teacher Control Demands A. C. D. P. II - Teacher-Class Communication ’0 A. C. D. 104 Grade III - Teacher Maturity Demands A. B. IV - Teacher Nurturance 105 Note: The numbers in parentheses correspond to the variable numbers referred I. to in the text of this study. Teacher Control (1) A. ‘Firm vs. lax enforcement of teacher directives. Rate the teacher's (2) a. tendency to use power to obtain obedience for all directives in the classroom. 1. 2. 3. Teacher attaches considerable significance to firm enforcement, letting the students know clearly that the teacher is in charge. 'The teacher will not be coerced by the students and will use power where necessary to enforce directives. Thacher exerts firm control and enforces directives, but not as consciOusly and consistently as above. Teacher does not on principle enforce or fail to enforce directives, or is ambivalent about whether to be firm or lax. Teacher control is lax; teacher does not have a well-formulated code of behavior for students; students can get their own way. I'Teacher cannot enforce his/her directives and students seem to be managing teacher, or teacher on principle refrains from .issuing and enforcing directives. Does not require studcnts to pay attention/Requires child to pay: attention. 1. Teacher does not require students to pay attention to him/her or cannot handle students if student mocks teacher for trying to get his/her attention. . 0‘..,.. ‘Teacher seldom requires children to pay attention and may or may not be able to handle students when they pay no attention. Teacher sometimes requires children to pay attention to him/her and can usually handle children when they pay no attention. -(3) c.. 4. 5. 106 Thacher generally requires child to pay attention, but will stop short of a scene in trying to enforce his/her demands for attention. Teacher requires students to pay attention when helshe talks to them and will persist in repeating directives and in demanding attention until the student does pay attention, even if in doing so he/she provokes a scene. Firl‘vs. lax enforcement of code of behavior for child by use of some sort of power/does not use power to promote code of behavior for children. Examples: dress regulation, courtesy towards others, respect for teacher and others. 1., 3. 5. Teacher has a strictly formulated code of behavior for the students which he/she expects the child to follow and willingly uses power I to obtain conformity to his/her expectations. ‘Teacher'has a'welleformulated code of behavior for the child which the child is expected to follow, but enforcement here is not as rigid as above. Teacher has a preferred‘code of behavior for the students, but ' does not accord it universal value and/or is ambivalent about using power to alter the children's behavior or promote any specific kinds of behavior. Teacher has a code of behavior for his/her students which at best is vague or loosely formulated, and is reluctant to use any sort of power to alter student behavior. Teacher either has not formulated a code of behavior for the students or avoids using power to promote a code of conduct. 107 (4) D. Teacher control: Teacher persists after student's or class's (5) 2. initial non-compliance/Does not persist after child's initial non-compliance. l. , 2.‘ Teacher follows up to see that students do comply. Teacher insistence on compliance is apparent, teacher is almost always successful, won't give up. Teacher generally persists in getting child to comply after initial refusal or failure to comply, but may occasionally give up after an issue has been raised (and perhaps run into the ground). ' Teacher generally tries to get child to comply_after initial refusal but doesn't make an issue out of it.if the childgrefuses, and is less persistent than above. When students resist obeying a directive, teacher rarely persists in trying to obtain compliance. ‘ On principle, the teacher_does not enforce a directive if the .students_refuse to obey. Gives numerous.and specific directives about tasks./Permits students to go about tasks their own way. ‘1. Teacher totally discourages“student from going about tasks his own way or from suggesting ways of reaching a goal or doing a task. Teacher tells students what to do and how to accomplish a task or reach a goal, but does not direct quite as much as above. Teacher does not over direct, but makes no great effort to avoid directing the students. 4. 5. 108 Teacher seldom directs the students about what to do or about how to reach a goal or do a task, giving the students latitude in selecting their own means of reaching them. Teacher intentionally refrains from telling the students how to accomplish specific tasks. (6) P. 'Teacher control: Sets schedule for class/Allows class to set own schedule. ;” 1. 3. 5.’ ' Class‘sldaydto-day activities are structured by the clock by the. teacher, and daily regimen is adhered to with only rare exceptions. There is a scheduled regimen which structures the children's day, but activities are not run quite as much by the clock as in 1. There is some scheduling of activities, but students are allowed some freedom to structure their own day. Teacher makes few schedules to structure the child's activities, but makes an effort to get the students to schedule the day's activities. Teacher avoids structuring the children's day with a schedule, or does not set up a regimen or pay attention to it if one is set up. (7) (8) o . J _- ... '11. A. 109 Teacher-class Communications Readiness of Explanation: Satisfies curiosity/Thwarts curiosity I. 2." 3. 4. The teacher answers questions as adequately as possible. Anticipates questions and encourages verbal give and take. The teacher answers fairly involved questions but may evade extensive verbal give and take. The teacher usually tries to answer the students' questions but sometimes loses patience. The teacher answers simple questions but seldom goes out beyond_. Idnimum needed to silence class. . The teacher provides additional explanations grudgingly and reluctantly. B. Accommodates to childfs level of communication/Requires clear I communication. 1. 3. 5. clearly, may allow some unclear communication. Teacher tries to accommodate himself/herself to the child's level of communication, talking down to child rather than trying to bring child's speech up to his/her level. Teacher feels that child should not have to recode inadequate verbal messages, seldom requires clear communication. - Teacher sometimes asks for clarification, will often allow unclear communication. Teacher often requests that child try to express himself more Teacher requires that students express themselves clearly at all times and tries to induce child to recode inadequate verbal ‘””i€886ges by telling child what his problem 18. e.g. using s.’;_., pronoun instead of a noun, talking too fast, etc. 110 (9) C. Does not share decision-making power with child/Shares decision- (10) 1). 'making power with child. 1. 3. . 5... Decision-making power is exercised by the teacher as a means of establishing authority and maintaining status barriers as well as a means of getting things done.' i The teacher does not in any substantial way share the power to make decisions with his/her class. The teacher allows the students some share in decisiondmaking but does not make a point of doing so. The teacher allows the students to share the power to make decisions, although the teacher generally retains final authority. . The teacher allows class to share in the power to make decisions and allows the students to have the final authority in some matters which will affect them even though the teacher disagrees with the students' decision. Open to rational argument/Not open to rational argument. 1. 3. Teacher encourages students to present their case rationally and convincingly and will grant a request he/she feels is justified; Teacher is usually receptive to rational arguments-of students and will grant most justifiable requests.o Teacher is open to rational argument at times, and sometimes grants requests that are well-argued and_justified. 'Teacher is generally not receptive to rational argument from*child although not as rigid about rejecting requests as 5 below. Teacher is not receptive to rational argument by student and remains unmoved even if child's case is well-argued and apparently justified.- (ll) (12) 111 E. IDiscourages verbal give and take/Encourages verbal give and take. F. 1.1 2. 5. Teacher openly rejects child's retorts or questions. Teacher does discourage verbal give and take, but not as strongly as 1 above. . Teacher sometimes accepts verbal give and take, but may not tolerate it for very long or very often. Teacher generally allows verbal give and take. Teacher encourages and may even enjoy verbal give and take and back and forth banter. Gives directives without reasons/Gives reasons with initial directives. l. 2. 3. Teacher's initial directives or expressed wishes are almost always issued without giving a reason for them, even if it is clearthat the students do not understand. Teacher's initial directives or expressed wishes are usually issued without giving a reason, even if child does not understand; when a reason is given, it is often unclear to child. Teacher sometimes gives reasons with initial directives or expressed wishes, but the reasons may not be clear or relevant, or the teacher may assume that the students understand the reasons when it appears clear to the observor that the child does not. Teacher's initial directives or expressed wishes generally include a pertinent reason or are given in a context which assumes that the child understands the reason. . Teacher almost always gives a full and careful explanation to the class when initially issuing directives, unless teacher is sure that the child already understands. 112 III. Teacher Maturity Demands (13):Au Sets regular tasks/Does not set regular tasks. 4 1.. Students have one or more tasks to perform which hefshe is responsible for doing regularly, without exception. 2. Students have tasks which they are expected to perform regularly, although teacher is not as adamant as in 1 above. 3. Students have no regular tasks but are asked to help upon occasion. " 4. Students have no regular tasks and help only when they offer to. help. i 5. Teacher discourages children from helping in classroom chores. (14) B. Cleans up after students/Expects students to clean up after themselves. 1. Teacher does not believe that the students should have to put their things away and clean up their own messes. 2. Students are not expected to help put things away and clean up classroom.messes but may help if they want to. 3.“ Teacher expects child to help him/her put away and clean up ' classroom messes, clean up tasks are shared between students and .teacher. 4. Teacher expects students to put all things away and clean up but will help occasionally. 5. Teacher expects children to put away all things and clean up on their own with little or no help from teacher. (15) c. Over helps vs. withholds help (general babying) l. Continually helps child, even when child is fully capable and willing. (16) (17) D. E. 3. 4. 113 'Teacher usually helps more than needed. Seldom lets child struggle unsuccessfully. Teacher helps when needed, but not when child can get by alone. Teacher tends to withhold aid, letting child solve own minor problems, although offers help after prolonged failure. Teacher leaves student alone to solve even major problems, often refusing aid when requested. Encourages emotional dependence/Discourages emotional dependence. 1.. 3. Teacher anticipates child's dependent emotional demands and psychological discomfort and behaves in an overly solicitous manner. Teacher caters to certain students by being very attentive to possible dependent emotional demands and psychological discomfort, although not as much as in 1. Teacher is attentive but not overly attentive to students' dependent emotional demands and psychological discomfort. . Teacher discourages dependent emotional demands although legitimate emotional demands for help which do not suggest emotional dependency are met fully. Teacher discourages dependent emotional demands by not responding or by becoming annoyed, or by handling even legitimate emotional demands in a rather impersonal way and ignoring the child's Vpsychological discomfort. Demands real courtesy and consideration/Does not demand real courtesy and consideration. 1. Teacher almost always demands that the students show real courtesy (18) F. 2. 3. 4. 114 and consideration for others based on an understanding of their_ position and the reasons for courtesy and consideration. Teacher usually demands courtesy and consideration of the child, but without as clear an understanding of the reasons. Teacher is satisfied with the forms of courtesy and consideration, "manners", without requiring that the students have a real understanding of the position of others and the reasons for courtesy and consideration. Teacher sometimes demands "mannerly behavior" but without child's understanding of the reasons for it. Teacher demands neither real courtesy and consideration nor "manners" from students. Does not permit outbursts of temper/Permits outbursts Of temper. l. 3. Teacher shows students°non-destructive ways to release temper and does not permit students to accomplish their ends by means of temper tantrums . Teacher encourages control of pique and anger in the child and does not permit child to use tantrums to accomplish his ends, but is not as conscientious in teaching child alternative outlets as in 1. Teacher sometimes allows fits of temper and tantrums; teacher does little or nothing to teach child non-destructive outlets for temper. Teacher does not encourage control of pique and anger in the child, but allows fits of temper and tantrums and sometimes rewards child by letting him/her have his/her.way. Teacher discourages control of pique and anger, thinks that child should release temper and emotions directly and immediately, even when others are discomforted. IV. 115 Teacher Nurturance (19) A. iDirection of criticism (approval vs. disapproval) (20) B. l. 2. 3. 4. '50' The teacher provides warm, unambiguous praise and commendation toward even rather ordinary behavior. ‘ The teacher attempts to notice the children and provides moverwhelming comments of praise and approval of students' approved actiOns. Teacher provides balanced criticism providing praise or disapprobation only as merited by child's behavior. Teacher tends to disapprove more readily than to approve. Host praise is tempered with fault finding. Teacher is always finding fault, continually ignores or belittles students. Responsive to student's bids for closeness/Unresponsive to child's bids for closeness. l. 3. Teacher responds to student's bids for closeness with a great _ deal of personal attention. Teacher responds to student's bids for closeness, but with less attention than above. Teacher responds to student's bids for closeness, but without enthusiasm, or ambivalently. Teacher is unresponsive to student's bids for closeness, or respohds perfunctorily. Teacher is unsympathetic, ridiculing, and/or irritated. (21) c. 116 Disciplines supportively/Disciplines harshly. l. 2. 3._ 4. '5. Discipline or correction is administered with feeling and concern.’ Discipline or correction is administered in a supportive manner. Discipline or correction is administered ambivalently. Discipline or correction is administered in a non-supportive m... Discipline or correction is administered in a harsh or frightening manner 0 (22) D. Becomes-inaccessible when teacher-student disagreement arises/ (23) E. l. 2. 5. ' Remains open when teacher-student disagreement arises. 'Teacher becomes extremely inaccessible and closed when a teacher- student disagreement arises, even ridiculing and belittling him/her in such a situation. Teacher becomes inaccessible‘and closed when a teacher-student disagreement arises, but no as severely as above. Teacher makes an effort to remain open and accessible to child when“a,disagreement arises; but may not always be successful. Teacher remains accessible and open when a teacher-student disagreement arises. ‘ 'Teacher is solicitous'when e teacher-student disagreement arises. Shares own experiences and.feelings with child/Does not share own experiences and feelings with student. 1. o . .. 'A L' a Teacher openly and freely shoares relevant experiences and own ' feelings with students. (241 r. 117 Teacher is somewhat less open and sharing with child than above.- 2. 3. Teacher sometimes shares own experiences with children. 4.. Teacher is reserved and unwilling, or finds it difficult to share experiences and feelings with child. 5. Teacher does not share experiences and feelings with students, maintains an emotional distance or aloofness from students. Cooliwarm 1. Students are treated coldly by teacher. 2. ‘Students are treated coolly by teacher. 3. Teacher either alternates between warm and cool or treatment is lukewarm. . 4. Students are treated with warmth. Students are treated with extreme warmth. APPENDIX B STUDENT BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE 118 119 IHRBCTIONS: The following statements are about the specific behaviors of the students you have just viewed on videotape. We would like to know how you perceive their behavior as a STUDENT NUMBER 1 [‘thTS group. Please indicate whether you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), neutral (N), disagree (D), or strongly disagree (SD) with these statements by penciling in the appropriate box. Use boxes I through 5, 1 indicating strongly agree and 5 indicating strongly disagree. Do 925 use boxes 6 through 10. 1. The class has difficulty in learning school subjects. 2. The students in the class are often rude to one another. 3. The students have to be coaxed or forced to work or play with each other. 4. The students unnecessarily rely on the teacher for explicit directions before they can act. 5. Host students in the class try to do their work to the best of their ability. 6. The students complain about the work they have to do. 7. Host of the students seem unhappy or depressed. 8. The students show little ability to work things out for themselves. 9. The students in the class are listless. 10. The children come to school prepared to work. 11. ‘Nany of the boys and girls appear shy and timid and get embarrassed-easily. 12. The students are unable to proceed when initiative is called for. 13. The students seem to respond eagerly. 14. ‘The students usually ask for help when needed. 15. 'The class in general becomes upset or nervous, especially ‘when faced with a difficult school problem or situation. 16. 'The students as a whole are reluctant to accept responsibility. 1?. The class enters into activities half-heartedly. 18. ‘There is quite a bit of quarrelsome, irritable behavior in the classroom. 19. 'The students are usually undisturbed to make mistakes. 20. {The students are unwilling to take the lead. 21. frhe students appear eager to answer questions and participate . 22. frhe children usually act friendly in the classroom. 23. fflhe students enter freely into activities, happily pouring their energies into many new activities. 24. Many times the students act on their own ideas. —1 v— :Y W — r_ .. -- ". .. _.‘ .7 v? J" L: n n . s . ‘ I ' 5111 F r STUDENT NUMBER DIGITS 7nd 3m 41': SI 1 pm 1:» ' z .. lb S n 25. The children are slow in getting underway. 25. 26. The children are generally courteous and freely help one 26. another. 27. Most of the students in the classroom speak with 27. assurance and appear relaxed. 28. The students are willing to take the lead and initiate 28. new activity. 29. Most of the time the class's attention wanders. 29. 30. Where an activity requires the students to share their 30. materials, there is general cooperation. 31. These students enjoy working hard and playing hard. Most 31. of them volunteer to participate in all kinds of activities. 32. The class shows resourcefulness in trying to work out new 32. situations. 33. The students do concentrate on their work. 33. 34. Interrupting and disturbing behaviors are often displayed 34. in the classroom by the students. 35. The students behave in ways which seem hesitant and 35. restrained. They appear afraid to try new activities. 36. The students are full of good suggestions for classroom 36. activities. 37. The students are prompt and ready to take part in 37. activities when they begin. 38. The teacher had to unnecessarily repeat directions before 38. the class followed them. 39. The students seem to enjoy taking tests. 39. 40. Most of the students are able to assume some level of 40. independent responsibility. We thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your participation in this research project is greatly appreciated. APPENDIX C SCHOOL SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONNAIRES (BOYS AND GIRLS) 121 Directions : Fill in the space at the top of the cover of your paper: "My classroom code is " All of us at one time or another would like to be someone else. Often we play at being other persons during games or parties. we also think about what it would be like to be someone in a book, in the movies, or on a television program. On the next few pages are descriptions of many different boys. Use your imagination to decide if you would want to be like the boy described in each sentence. If you would like vegy much to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the big "‘YES,‘F this way — YES yes no NO If you perhaps would like to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the small "yes,‘3 this way-- ~ —- YES yes no NO If you think you would not like to be the boy described in the sentence, circle the small ”no," this way—— YES yes no NO If you would very much not want to be like the boy described in the sentence, circle the big ”N0," this way--- —— YES yes no NO Now, try these examples from A through D. "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!“ A. This boy owns a pony. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 B. This boy hits little children. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO C' This boy gets good grades. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO x D' This boy gets sick. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 122 123 There are no right or wrong answers. Each of you will want to be like some of the boys and E15. want to be like others. Listen to each sentence being read carefully before deciding how you will answer. If you do not understand how to answer some of the questions, please ask for the sentence to be repeated. Are there any questions before we begin? 124 Thinking About Yourself my classroom code is "Oh, "well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 1. This boy is liked by his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 2. This boy is praised by his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 3. This boy is understood by his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 4. This boy is listened to by his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 5. This boy likes being in this classroom. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 6. This boy has fun in school and enjoys his work. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 7. This boy feels sick when he has to take a test. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 8. This boy is afraid to ask questions when he doesn't understand what the teacher has said. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 125 -2- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 9. This boy does not have to go to school. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 10. This boy enjoys playing with other " children in the class. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 11. This boy gets to school on time. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 12. This boy knows he does the best work he can in school. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 13. This boy plays by himself a lot. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 14. This boy is liked by the other boys and girls in the class. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 15. This boy is going to quit school as soon as possible. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 16. This boy is very good in arithmetic. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 17. This boy feels happy in school. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 126 -3- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 18. This boy does his homework. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no NO 19. The teacher is this boy's friend. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 20. This boy likes his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 21. This boy always gets help from his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 22. This boy always gets punished by his teacher. Do you want to be like him? YES yes no N0 127 Directions: Fill in the space at the top of the cover of your paper: "my classroom code is " All of us think about ourselves, at times. we think about what we like, what we don't like, what we do, and what we don't do. To some extent we are able to see ourselves as others see us. Each of us, however, has his own ideas about himself. Decide what you are like and then decide whether or not you are like the boy described in each of the following sentences. If you see yourself as very much like the boy described in the sentence, circle the big "YES," this way YES yes no N0 If you think you are somewhat or sometimes like the boy described in the sentence, circle the small "yes," this way YES yes no N0 If you believe you are not much like the boy described in the sentence, circle the small "no," this way — — YES yes no N0 If you believe you are not g£_all like the boy described in the sentence, circle the big "NO," this way YES yes no NO Now, try the examples from A through D. "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" A. This boy owns a pony. Are you like him? YES yes no NO B. This boy hits little children. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 C. This boy gets good grades. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 D. This boy gets sick. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 128 There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably decide that you are somewhat like or very much like some of the boys described in the sentences, and not much like or not at all like other boys described. Listen to each sentence carefully before deciding how you will answer. If you do not understand how to answer some of the questions, please ask for the sentence to be repeated. Are there any questions before we begin? ‘— 129 Thinking About Yourself My classroom code is "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!” This boy is liked by his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 This boy is praised by his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no NO This boy is understood by his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 This boy is listened to by his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no NO This boy likes being in this classroom. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 This boy has fun in school and enjoys his work. Are you like him? YES yes no NO This boy feels sick.when he has to take a test. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 This boy is afraid to ask questions when he doesn't understand what the teacher has said. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 130 -2- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 9. This boy does not have to go to school. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 10. This boy enjoys playing with other children in the class. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 11. This boy gets to school on time. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 12. This boy knows he does the best work he can in school. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 13. This boy plays by himself a lot. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 14. This boy is liked by the other boys and girls in the class. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 15. This boy is going to quit school as soon as possible. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 16. This boy is very good in arithmetic. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 17. This boy feels happy in school. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 131 -3- ”Oh, "well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 18. This boy does his homework. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 19. The teacher is this boy's friend. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 20. This boy likes his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 21. This boy always gets help from his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no NO 22. This boy always gets punished by his teacher. Are you like him? YES yes no N0 132 Directions: Fill in the space at the top of the cover of your paper: "my classroom code is " All of us at one time or another would like to be someone else. Often we play at being other persons during games or parties. We also think about what it would be like to be someone in a book, in the movies, or on a television program. On the next few pages, are descriptions of many different girls. Use your imagination to decide if you would want to be like the girl described in each sentence. If you would like very much to be the girl described in the sentence, circle the big "YES," this way YES yes no no If you perhaps would like to be the girl described in the sentence, circle the small "yes," this way — YES yes no N0 If you think you would not like to be the girl described in the sentence, circle the small "no," this way-— YES yes no N0 If you would very much not want to be like the girl described in the sentence, circle the big "N0," this way —— YES yes no N0 Now, try these examples from A through D. "Oh, "well, "I don't "no, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" A. This girl owns a pony. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO B. This girl hits little children. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 C. This girl gets good grades. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO D. This girl gets sick. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 133 Each of you will want to be like some of the girls and ng£_want to be like others. Listen to each sentence being read carefully before deciding how you will answer. If you do not understand how to answer some of the questions, please ask for the sentence to be repeated. There are no right or wrong answers. Are there any questions before we begin? 134 Thinking About Yourself My classroom code is "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!"- so." times, no?” 1. This girl is liked by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 2. This girl is praised by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 3. This girl is understood by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 4. This girl is listened to by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 5. This girl likes being in this classroom. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 6. This girl has fun in school and enjoys her work. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 7. This girl feels sick when she has to take a test. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 8. This girl is afraid to ask questions when she doesn't understand what the teacher has said. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 135 -2- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 9. This girl does not have to go to school. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 10. This girl enjoys playing with other children in the class. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 11. This girl gets to school on time. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 12. This girl knows she does the best work she can in school. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 13. This girl plays by herself a lot. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 14. This girl is liked by the other girls and boys in the class. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 15. This girl is going to quit school as soon as possible. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 16. This girl is very good in arithmetic. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 17. This girl feels happy in school. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 136 -3- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 18. This girl does her homework. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 19. The teacher is this girl's friend. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no N0 20. This girl likes her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 21. This girl always gets help from her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 22. This girl always gets punished by her teacher. Do you want to be like her? YES yes no NO 137 Directions: Fill in the space at the top of the cover of your paper: "My classroom code is All of us think about ourselves, at times. ‘we think about what we like, what we don't like, what we do, and what we don't do. To some extent we are able to see ourselves as others see us. Each of us, however, has her own ideas about herself. Decide what you are like and then decide whether or not you are like the girl described in each of the following sentences. If you see yourself as very much like the girl described in the sentence, circle the big "YES," this way — YES yes no NO If you think you are somewhat or sometimes like the girl described in the sentence, circle the small "yes," this way — YES yes no N0 If you believe you are not much like the girl described in the sentence, circle the small "no," this way —--- YES yes no N0 If you believe you are not g£_a11 like the girl described in the sentence, circle the his "No." this way YES yes no N0 Now, try the examples from A through D. "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" A. This girl owns a pony. Are you like her? YES yes no NO B. This girl hits little children. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 C. This girl gets good grades. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 D. This girl gets sick. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 138 There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably decide that you are somewhat like or very much like some of the girls described in the sentences, and not much like or not at all like other girls described. Listen to each sentence carefully before deciding how you will answer. If you do not understand how to answer some of the questions, please ask for the sentence to be repeated. Are there any questions before we begin? 139 Thinking About Yourself My classroom code is "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" 80." times, no!” 1. This girl is liked by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 2. This girl is praised by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 3. This girl is understood by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 4. This girl is listened to by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 5. This girl likes being in this classroom. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 6. This girl has fun in school and enjoys her work. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 7. This girl feels sick when she has to take a test. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 8. This girl is afraid to ask questions when she doesn't understand what the teacher has said- Are you like her? YES yes no NO 140 -2- "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 9. This girl does not have to go to school. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 10. This girl enjoys playing with other children in the class. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 11. This girl gets to school on time. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 12. This girl knows she does the best work she can in school. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 13. This girl plays by herself a lot. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 14. This girl is liked by the other girls and boys in the class. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 15. This girl is going to quit school as soon as possible. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 16. This girl is very good in arithmetic. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 17. This girl feels happy in school. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 141 "Oh, "Well, "I don't "No, no, a very yes." think thousand much!" so." times, no!" 18. This girl does her homework. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 19. The teacher is this girl's friend. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 20. This girl likes her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no N0 21. This girl always gets help from her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no NO 22. This girl always gets punished by her teacher. Are you like her? YES yes no NO APPENDIX D TEACHER PERFORMANCE SCALE 142 Teacher code Teacher Performance Scale SA - if you strongly agree with the statement A - if you apree_with the statement N - if you neither agree nor disagree D - if you disagree with the statement SD - if you strongly disagree with the statement Please indicate by placing an X on the line which most closely reflects your perception of the teacher's behavior in this videotape. Thank you! 10. 11. SA A N D SD The teacher was enthusiastic when presenting course material. The teacher seemed to be interested in teaching. The teacher's use of examples or personal experiences helped to get points across in class. The teacher seemed to be concerned with whether the students learned the material. The teacher encouraged students to express opinions. The teacher appeared receptive to new ideas and others' viewpoints. The teacher generally stimulated class discussion. The teacher attempted to cover too much material. The teacher generally presented the material too rapidly. The teacher's style made the class enjoyable. Please write a brief description of the teacher's effectiveness. 143 APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE VIDEOTAPE (SCPS) 144 Instructions for Tape You will be seeing excerpts from a third grade reading group taken from a class in the Grand Ledge School System. The class chosen was one of a number of classes observed over a period of weeks. What we are asking you to do is to view this 15 minute videotape of portions of this reading group. After the tape is over you will be asked to evaluate the teacher's behavior with the children. Are there any questions? Now I am going to start the tape. Match the screen carefully to see how the teacher relates with the students. SHOW TAPE TURN OFF TAPE MACHINE AND TV SET HAND OUT QUESTIONNAIRES AND TEACHER CODE NUMBERS We would like to know your impressions of both the teacher and the students. First, please take the questionnaire that is on the scoring sheets. Fill in your teacher code number. Please trust your first impressions and indicate whether you agree or disagree with the questionnaire statements. Neutral means that you did ngt_perceive this on the videotape. Please read the specific instructions and raise your hand if you have any questions about the directions. Are there any questions? If there are no further questions, go ahead and complete the questionnaire. When you are done, fill out the next questionnaire, the Teacher Performance Scale and the brief personal data sheet. Please read the instructions care- fully before you begin to complete it and fill in your teacher code number. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (CHECK CAREFULLY THAT TEACHER CODES HAVE BEEN FILLED-IN). 145 APPENDIX F PERSONAL DATA SHEET 146 Personal Data If you would please answer the following questions, it will make this study complete. Thank you. Teacher ID Code Date- I. Are you male? female? 2. What is your age? 20-25 41-50 26-30 above 50 31-40 3. How many years have you been teaching? 4. What grade are you teaching now? 5. Have you had any special training in mental health school programs? yes no 6. Are there any comments that you would like to make? 147 ‘. ‘ .. .. . a v' . , . ‘ v . . . . ‘1 . — ~ V‘ .. . . I ‘ .3’ . I - . . ~ I . . .L .- . " . '_ n - .- ‘ fl . - ‘~_. .u' an -. - I H - .- APPENDIX G STUDY INFORMATION SHEET 148 MSVO T0: Elementary Principals and School Teachers, St. Johns FROM: Terry M. Tabaclonan DATE: February 24, 1977 , I am here to speak to you today about the possibility of involving the teachers and students in your school in a research project that I am conducting as part of my doctoral program at Michigan State University. _ The project is designed to increase our understanding of the social adjustment of children in the classroom. The study requires the following teacher-student involvement: 1. Teachers would be asked to view a 20 minute video tape of ' a typical classroom. Then, the teachers would complete a brief questionnaire about. teacher effectiveness . 2.. At _a pre-arranged time, teachers would themselves be observed in their normal classroom for approximately one-half day by ' a specially trained observer. 3. Students in the class wouldbe asked to complete a general questionnaire concerning their feeelings about school. . All information collected will'be strictly confidential. At the conclusion of the project, I would be more than glad to share with you and your staff the results. If you have any further questions, please contact me at either my office (517) 485-7168 or my home (517) 337-0158. I would be happy to meet with you and provide you with additional information. ' Thank you very'much for your time and consideration. ’1MT/ am 149 APPENDIX H RESEARCH CONSENT FORM 150 Zr. AUDI (I?! I- l. 2. 3. 4. 5. IE) Indxigan State miversity DaparhmtofPsydiology mammmmm Ihavefreelycmsenbedbotalepartinasdentificstmly beingomdmtedbyierryfl.rabadm,aspartofher doctoralprogran. flammabemeagflaimdboneandlmderstandtte explmaticm thathas bengmmmtnyparticipatim "dfliMl-“o Iuflsrstandtmttlnresultsofthestudywillbetreabed msuictoaifimmflutlvdnmmmm. iiithinthese restrictims. results of the shadytrillbe mmmlebomatmyregmst. Imdsrstmdthatwpartieipatiminthesttfiydoesnot guarmteeanybenefieialresultsmne. Tumstandthat.atwrequest,1amreoeiveadditimal explanatim of tie surly after my partidpatim is oarplebed. Teacher ' a this - (please print) - Signature mine m lb. of m 75551— lsifls) Sdnol nut/am 151 APPENDIX I STUDENT CONSENT LETTER 152 March 25, 1977 war Parents: Your child's teacher has agmd to participate in a study being conducted by Terry M. Tabadonan, Ph.D. candidate, Michigan State University. This study has been fully explained to the teachers and principals of the St. Johns Elementary Schools. For axe-half day, a trained person will be caning into the classroan to observe the daily activities. The stflntswillalsobeaskedtofill-outabriefquestiormiremhm they like school. Ifyoudomtwantyourdiildtoparticipate,pleasesendamte badctosdioolwithymirchild. Thank you very such for your moperation. Sincerely, Dmald Burns, Ph.D. Superintendent St. Johns Public Schools 153 APPENDIX J PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETNEEN TEACHER PERCEPTION AND TEACHER BEHAVIOR SCORES 154 APPENDIX J perception and Teacher Behavior Scores Correlation Teacher Behavior Category coefficients warm -.0438* 7. Provide explanation for questions -.0812 9. Share decision-making power with .1067 students ll. Encourage verbal give and take 12. Give reason and explanation with directives l9. Provides warm, positive praise 20. Responsive to student bids for closeness 21. Discipline supportively 22. Remain open when teacher-student disagreement arises 23. Share own experiences and feelings with child 24. Treat students warmly F rm do 0 l Firm enforcement of directives 2 Require students to pay attention 3. Strict enforcement of child code of behavior 5 Discourage students from doing tasks their own way 6. Set structured schedule for class 13. Set regular tasks l7. Demand real courtesy Self-control 42 Persist in getting child to comply 14. Expect students to clean up 16. Discourage emotional dependence 18. Does not permit outburst of temper Independent 8. Require students to express themselves clearly 10. Open to rational argument *Note: The results here were unexpected and unexplained. .0451 .1927 .0956* .0859 .0451* .1245* .1637 .1091 .1610 .1551 .1952 .1573 .1185 .2332 .2123 .0002 .3469 .2877 .0768 .0192 .1501 -.0254 .2158 .0727 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Teacher p: level of significance .385 .294 .233 .382 .097 .261 .283 .382 .202 .136 .233 .140 .149 .094 .145 .214 .057 .076 .500 .008 .025 .304 .449 .276 .433 .077 .314 It was predicted that negativity of perception would correlate in a negative direction with warm, expressive teacher behaviors. 155 APPENDIX K PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN TEACHER PERCEPTION AND STUDENT CLASSROOM ADJUSTMENT SCORES 156 Appendix K Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Teacher Perception and Student Classroom Adjustment Scores Correlation p; level of Student Adjustment Statement Coefficients significance 1. This girl/boy is liked by her/his teacher. .2209 .068 2. This girl/boy is praised by her/his teacher. .1484 .160 3. This girl/boy is understood by her/his teacher. ' -.0039 ' .490 4. This girl/boy is listened to by her/his teacher. .0156 .459 5. This girl/boy likes being in this classroom. .1892 .101 6. This girl/boy has fun in school and enjoys her/his work. -.0080 .479 7. This girl/boy feels sick when she/he has to take a test. .2828 .027 8. This girl/boy is afraid to ask questions when she/he doesn't understand what the teacher has said. -.0937 .266 9. This girl/boy does not have to go to school. .1417 .171 10. This girl/boy enjoys playing with other children in the class. .1633 .136 11. This girl/boy gets to school on thne. .1194 .212 12. This girl/boy knows she/he does the best work she/he can in school. .1406 .173 13. This girl/boy plays by herself/himself a lot. .0468 .377 14. This girl/boy is liked by the other girls and boys in the class. .0085 .477 15. This girl/boy is going to quit school as soon as possible. -.0534 .361 16. This girl/boy is very good in arithmetic. -.0649 .332 17. This girl/boy feels happy in school. -.0286 .424 18. This boy does his homework. -.2510 .044- 19. The teacher is this girl's/boy's friend. .0346 .409 20. This girl/boy likes her/his teacher. -.0713 .317 21. This girl/boy always gets help from her/ his teacher. .0104 .472 22. This girl/boy always gets punished by her/his teacher. .3059 .018 157 L I ST 0F REFERENCES 158 LIST OF REFERENCES Ainsworth, M. D. 5., Bell, 5. M., & Stayton, D. J. Four scales for rating maternal behavior, 1970. Allinsmith, N., & Goethals, G. N. The role of schools in mental health. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and'Mental Health Monograph Series #7, New York: Basic Books, 1962. Allport, G. N. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt, 1937. Allport, G. u. Pattern and_growth in_persona1ity. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Hifiston. Alwin, D. F. Approaches to interpretation of relationships in the multitrat-multimethod matrix. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodolggy, 1973-1974. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974} Arkoff, A. Adjustment and mental health. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 1968. Association for Childhood Education Internation. "Parents - children - teachers: Communication,“ Bulletin. 28-A, Washington, D.C., 1970. Axline, V. Play thergpy. New York: Ballantine Books, 1969. Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology_Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 1971, 4, No. 1, Part 2. Baumrind, D. The development of instrumental competence through socialization. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychnggy, Vol. 7, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973, pp. 3-76. Becker, N. C., & Krug, R. S. A comparison of the ability of the PAS, PARl parent self ratings and empirically keyed question- naire scales to predict ratings of child behavior. Mimeo- graphed report, Urbana, 111: University of Illinois, 1964. 159 160 Becker, N. C., Peterson, 0. R., Luria, Z., Shoemaker, D. J., & Hellmer, L. A. Relations of factors derived from parent- interview ratings to behavior problems of five year-olds. Child Development, 1962, 33, 509-535. Bernard, H. Mental health in the classroom. New York: McGraw Hill, 1970. Biber, 8. Integration of mental health principles in the school setting. In G. Caplan (Ed.), Prevention of mental disorders in children, Basic Books, 1961. Bossard, J. H. S., & Boll, E. S.' The sociology of child develppment. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Bower, E. M. Earlygidentification of emotionally handicgpped children in school. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111., 1960, 1969. Brody, G. F. Relationship between maternal attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 317—323. Bronfenbrenner, V., Devereux, E. C., Jr., Suci, G. J., & Rodgers, R. R. Adults and peers as sources of conformity and auto- nomy. Unpublished study. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1965. BrOphy, J. E., & Sood, T. L. Teacher-student relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Ninston, Inc., 1974. Brown, 8. 5., M.D. The public corporation for mental health: Hope for the future. Paper--1975 Hodson Memorial Lecture, University of Minnesota, April 24, 1975. Bruner, J. 5., & Tagiuri, R. The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison—Nesley,71954, 634-654. Campbell, D. T., 8 Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experi- mental desigg§_for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Combs, A. N., & Snygg. D. Individual behavior: A_perceptua1 approach to behavior (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: w. H. Freeman, 1967. 161 Cottrell, L. 5., Jr. The analyses of situational fields in social psychology. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Boyalta, 8 R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small groups: Studies in social interaction (Rev. ed.), New York: Knapp. 1966. Cowen, E. L., 1220, L. D., Miles, H., Telschow, E. F., Trost, M. A., 8 Zax, M. A preventive mental health program in the school setting: Description and evaluation. Journal of ngchology, 1963. 69, 307-356. Cowen, E. L., Zax, M., 1220, L. D., 8 Trost, M. A. Prevention of emotional disorders in the school setting: A further investigation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 39, 381-387. Crano, H. D., 8 Brewer, M. B. Pringjples of research in social psycholggy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Darwin, C. The expression of the emotion in man and animals. London: J. Murray, 1872. Davidson, H. H., 8 Lang, G. Children's perceptions of their teachers feelings toward them related to self-perception, school achievement, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 1960, 33, 107-118. Davis, J. A. Education for positive mental health. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965. Dreikuers, R. Psychology in the classroom. New York: Harper 8 Row, 1968. Erdelyi, M. H. A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance. Psychological Review, 1974, 31, 1-25. Featherstone, J. Report analysis: Children and their primary schools. Harvard Educational Review, 1968, 33, 317-328. Ferguson, L. R., Partyka, L. 8., 8 Lester, B. M. Patterns of parent perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psycholggy, 1974, 19, 554-558. Ginott, H. Betweengpprent and child. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Ginott, H. Between teacher and child. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Goldston, S. E., 8 Brown, B. 5. Prevention today and tomorrow. In H. A. Otto 8 A. J. Lewis (Eds.), Preventive_prgg:ams: The growing edge in mental health, Vol. 1, The NationaT’Center for the Exploration of Human Potential, LaJolla, Calif., 1975. 162 Gordon, C. W., 8 Adler, L. M. Dimensions of teacher leadership in classroom social systems. Research supported by OffTCe of Education, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education 8 Welfare, 1963. Gordon, 1. Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden, 1970. Gronlund, N. E. The accuracy of teachers' juggments concerning the sociometric status of sixth-gradepupils. TNew York: Beacon House, 1951. Harris, F. R., Wolf, M. M., 8 Beer, D. M. Effects of adults social reinforcement on child behavior. Young Children, 1964, 20, 8-17. Hartup, W. W. Nurturance and nurturance-withdrawal in relation to the dependency behavior of young children. Child Develop- ment, 1958, 133, 501-509. Harvey, 0. J., Prather, J., White, B. J., 8 Hoffmeister, J. K. Teachers beliefs, classroom atmosphere, and student behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 3, 151-166. Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, 0. J., 8 Polefka, J. Persongperception. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Hendin, H. The revolt against love. Harpers, August, 1975, 21-27. Hetherington, E. M., 8 Frankie, G. Effects of parental dominance, warmth, and conflict on imitation of children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 9, 119-125. Hetherington, E. M., 8 Parke, R. D. Child. 5 cholo : -A contem or- ar; viewpoint. New York: McGraw Hill, 1975, 307-349 and Hoffman, M. L. Parent discipline and the child's consideration for others. Child Development, 1963, 35, 573-588. Jahoda, M. Current concepts ofgpositive mental health. New York: Basic Books, 1958. ‘ Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. Crisis in child mental health, challenge for the 1970's. New York: Harper Row, 1969. Kelley, G. A. Ontological accelration. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical psychology and personality; The selected papers of Georgg_ Kelley, New York: Wiley, 1969. 163 Kelley, H. H.. The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 1950, 18, 431-439. Kleck, R., Ono, H., 8 Hastorf, A. H. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 1966, 12, 425-436. LaBenne, H. P. 8 Greene, 8. L. Educational implications of self- concept theory. California: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1969. Larson, R. Studying the effects of perceptual bias on adult-adult interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Messe', L. A., 8 Stollak, G. E. Adult perceptions and child behavior dysfunctions. Current research, l975-present. Moustakas, C. E. The authentic teacher. Cambridge, Mass.: H. A. Doyle, 1966. Moustakas, C. E., 8 Schlalock, H. D. An analysis of therapist- child interaction in play therapy. Child Develgpment, 1955, 26, 143-157. Nunnally, J. C., Jr. ngular conceptions of mental health. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, 196l. O'Connor, R. D. Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, g, 15=22. Partyka, L. B. The agreement between parents in perceiving the behavior of clinic and non-clinic children. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1971. Patterson, G. R. Behavioral intervention procedure in the classroom and in the home. In A. E. Bergin 8 S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook ofgpsychotherapy and behavior change, New York, John Wiley, 1971. Rosenfeld, H., 8 lander, A. The influence of teachers on aspira- tions of students. Journal of Education Psychology, 1961, 529 1'1]. Rosenthal, R., 8 Jacobsen, L. Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, 1968. 164 Rubin, L. J. (Ed.). Facts and feelings in the classroom. New York: Walker, 1973. Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of teachers. American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1960. Samler, J. The school and self understanding. Havard Educational Review, 1965, 35(1), 55-70. Sarason, S. 8., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., 8 Waite, R. R. Classroom observations of high and low anxious children. Child Development, 1958, 22, 287-295. Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., 8 Waite, R. R. Anxiety in elementary school children. New York: Wiley, 96D. Schaeffer, E. S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 52, 226-235. Schmuck, R. A., 8 Van Egmond, E. Sex differences in the relationship of interpersonal perceptions to academic performance. Psycholggy in the Schools, 1965, g, 32-40. Shrauger, S., 8 Altrocchi, J. The personality of the perceiver as a factor in person perception. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 289-308. Stover, L., Guerney, B. G., Jr., 8 O'Connell, M. Measurements of acceptance, allowing self-direction, involvement and empathy inadult-child interaction. Journal of Psychology, 1971, 11, 261-269. Taguiri, R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey 8 E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.), Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Thomas, A., Chess, 5., 8 Birch, H. G. Temperament and behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press, 1968. Waetjen, W. B., 8 Leeper, R. R. (Eds.). Learninggand mental health in the school. Washington, D.C.: Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development, 1966. Walberg, H. J. Changes in the self-concept during teacher training. Psychologygin the Schools, January 1967, Vol. 4, 1, 165 Wllen, N. E., 8 Wodtke, K. H. Relationships between teacher charac- teristics and student behavior. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education (Contract #1217), 1963. Warr, P. 8., 8 Knapper, G. The perception of people and events. New York: Wiley, 1968. Weikart, D. P. A semi-structured projective test for measuring educational attitudes. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. Yando, R. M., 8 Kagan, J. The effect of teacher tempo on the child. Child Development, 1968, 39, 27-34. REFERENCE NOTES 166 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Meese', L. A., Stollak, G. E., 8 Michaels, G. Y. Sensitivity to children's behavior and adult-child playroom interaction. In A. H. Hastorf (Chair), Consegpences of person perception processes for social interaction. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977. 2. Stollak, G. E., Messe', L. A., Michaels, G. Y., 8 Ince, R. Children's behavior problems and parental perceptual style. In A. H. Hastorf (Chair), Consequences ofeperson perception processes for social interaction. Symposium presentedfiat the meeting of the AmeriEan Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977. 3. Larson, R. W., Messe', L. A. 8 Stollak, G. E. Perceptual bias and social interaction during a revealed differences task. In A. H. Hastorf (Chair), Conseguences ofepersoneperception processes for social interaction. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977. 167