WI 93? . .PREDICTIVE ABILITY 0F ELEMENTAAYIEACHERS =: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND THE ABILITY TO JUDGE Q ~- RATINGS PUPILS MAKE 0F THEMSELVES AND OTHERS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HORACE LEWIS SMITH 1969 N7 ‘3” II LIBRAR Y I I I‘I‘Iichxqan State a La 1 Universit ‘1 L ( lulb This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY VARIABLES 8 THE ABILITY TO JUDGE RATINGS PUPILS MAKE OF THEMSELVES 5 OTHERS presented by HORACE LEVI S SMITH has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. 0. Education degree in _____ A ___~__-_. flm 0-169 E A. “h PRE 1C BET K. PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND THE ABILITY TO JUDGE RATINGS PUPILS MAKE OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS By Horace Lewis Smith AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Psychology 1969 PREDICII'VE BETAEEE T0 JL'L partiCiPated the Study 55:1; THO hi" stated that t': 1m; pIEdiCtiné iables Here; or CIOSEd min mssiVeness ' ‘ A — — — — — — —_ — — ABSTRACT PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND THE ABILITY TO JUDGE RATINGS PUPILS MAKE OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS By Horace Lewis Smith This study was an investigation of the possible relationship between selected personality variables and the ability of elementary classroom teachers to predict the self concept and sociometric status of pupils in their classes. Forty-five teachers of grades four, five, and six from three selected school districts of southeastern Michigan participated in this study. These teachers and their pupils comprised the study sample. Two hypotheses were tested empirically. The first hypothesis stated that there would be no significant differences between high and low predicting teachers on selected personality variables. These var- iables were: progressive and traditional educational attitudes, open or closed mindedness, affiliation or rejection, and dominance or sub- missiveness. The second hypothesis stated that there would be no sig- nificant differences between high and low predicting teachers on selected demographic characteristics. These were: age, sex, level of educational attainment, total years of teaching experience, years of elementary school experience, and grade level assignment. Instruments utilized with teachers were: Kerlinger's Education Scale VII, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and the Interpersonal Check List. The pupils Her: sociometric 9"- An ans Chi Square teS‘ variables was be significant were low predi exceeded the respectively. dic‘ not reach predicting tea; Vere 10v predi bies could not There were s1; and legs eXPE‘.’ The a‘.‘ tions abou: pg only Slightl} variatiOn l Horace Lewis Smith The pupils were tested with the How I See Myself Test and Gronlund's sociometric questionnaire. An analysis of the data utilizing the Mann Whitney-U and/or the Chi Square tests revealed that the hypothesis concerned with personality variables was rejected in part. High predicting teachers were found to be significantly more other person oriented and more responsible than were low predicting teachers. Differences on these two variables exceeded the .05 level of significance and the .01 level of significance respectively. Differences on all other examined personality variables did not reach the critical level. There were slight tendencies for high predicting teachers to be more democratic, open, and affiliative than were low predictors. The hypothesis concerned with demographic varia- bles could not be rejected at the established level of significance. There were slight tendencies for high predicting teachers to be younger and less experienced than the low predictors. The average participating teacher was capable of making predic- tions about pupils at an accuracy level of 53 per cent. This level is only slightly better than one could expect by chance. There was wide variation in prediction ability with the average high predictor being at 64 per cent of accuracy and the average low predictor being 34 per cent accurate . PREDICTIVE BETA'EE.‘ '10 III PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND THE ABILITY TO JUDGE RATINGS PUPILS MAKE OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS By Horace Lewis Smith A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Psychology 1969 This support, peti would be none Claudia, and was not gain; and appreciat I won assistance gi\ Who from the I task. Her guj in her inimite Tm Pitfalls t IILteQ fOr LI", Dr' RiChard p, formulation (: Vidéd many PS laterprfitat iC ructiVe a, Cease hssertation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my wife Barbara. Without her support, patience, understanding, love, and constant encouragement it would be nonexistent. To each of my children, Bill, Mary Ann, Harry, Claudia, and John, none of whom have ever known a time when their father was not going to school, I would like to express my deepest affection, and appreciation for their sacrifices and patience. I would especially like to acknowledge the encouragement and assistance given by Dr. Louise Sause, chairman of my doctoral committee, who from the very beginning had faith in my ability to complete this task. Her guidance at crucial moments was of inestimable help. She, in her inimitable fashion, has helped me over all the hurdles and around the pitfalls that confront one in an effort such as this. My appreciation is extended to each member of my doctoral com- mittee for the many constructive suggestions so generously supplied. Dr. Richard Featherstone gave valuable advice concerning the initial formulation of a viable research proposal. Dr. G. Marion Kinget pro- vided many psychological insights which were of inestimable help in the interpretation of the data. Dr. Troy Sterns graciously consented to act as chairman while Dr. Sause was out of the country, and supplied many constructive suggestions for the improvement of the final draft of this dissertation. I am deeply indebted to each committee member for his ii continuous gu 1-. tine in my beh. , th: my task much In. in the locatic' garbled thoug'r‘.‘ generously cf ': suggestions re there much les to the Statis: Stuiv_ J continuous guidance, constructive criticism, and generous expenditure of time in my behalf. My grateful thanks goes to Dr. Thomas Monahan, my friend and colleague, whose editorial suggestions and personal encouragement made my task much more simple. Dr. Monahan spent many, many hours assisting in the location of materials, and helping to clarify my sometimes garbled thoughts. I am also indebted to Mrs. Darlene Mood who gave generously of her time and advice. Her contribution of many valuable suggestions regarding the format of data presentation made the writing chore much less complex. Her efforts also included subjecting the data to the statistical tests which had been selected as appropriate for this study. To each of the people who helped me collect and summarize data I am deeply indebted. Miss Nora Fisher contributed innumerable hours in the collection and scoring of data, and in typing. Miss Bonnie Kosmolski and Miss Colleen Eccolsten were responsible for the typing of several drafts of the manuscript. These acknowledgments would not be complete without an expres- sion of gratitude for the cooperation of the personnel of the school systems in which these data were collected. I would especially like to thank each of the teachers who cooperated in this study for taking time out of their busy teaching schedules to contribute to this effort. iii Hummers: use or use; LIST OF APPEIJ Chapter 1. INT». PL. D'l II.“ c; OJ 3" II. F. I. S. s nmtbrvcpropomru ,( .t’ (D 3’ TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . Purpose and Assumption . Definition of Terms Hypotheses General Procedure Organization of the Study Summary II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Teacher Personality . Self Concept and Social Structure Summary III. METHODOLOGY Purpose Hypotheses Research Site Population . Selection of the Data Gathering Instruments Procedures . . . Administration of the Instruments Scoring Procedures Congruence . Analysis of Data . Summary iv Page ii vi ix I—Ir-‘VVONH r—w—e 13 28 46 48 48 50 51 52 52 63 65 66 7O 72 72 Chapter IV. PRES? At: 09 In: D6? A9 be Tc": E1 Te. St: V. CCNC- Te. Te De: Re. 391°33ch ES BIBLIOGRAPHY Chapter IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Congruence . Attitudes Toward Education . Open and Closed Mindedness . Interpersonal Aspects of Personality . Demographic Characteristics of Teachers Age and Sex Educational Attainment . Total Years of Teaching Experience Elementary School Teaching Experience Teaching Assignment Summary V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES Teacher Prediction Skills Teacher Personality Traits Demographic Characteristics Recommendations Summary BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 74 75 80 83 86 88 91 95 98 101 105 108 111 112 115 120 124 127 129 155 Table P-J Ul 10 11 12 13 Table 10 ll 12 l3 14 LIST OF TABLES Summary of Adaptive and Maladaptive Interpersonal Response System by Octant Designations Summary of Teachers' Scores for Pupil Self Concept: Simple Congruence Summary of Teachers' Scores for Pupil Self Concept: Weighted Congruence Summary of Teachers' Scores for Sociometric Questions: Simple Congruence Summary of Teachers' Scores on Sociometric Questions: Weighted Congruence Summary of Teachers' Scores: Simple Congruence Summary of Teachers' Scores: Weighted Congruence Median and Ranges on Three ES-VII Scales: All Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of ES-VII Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence Analysis of ES-VII Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence . Analysis of ES-VII Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Combined Congruence Analysis of D-Scale Scores for All Teachers Analysis of D-Scale Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence Analysis of D-Scale Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence vi Page 59 76 77 78 78 79 8O 81 81 82 83 84 84 85 Table 15 18 19 F (I 5 n‘ _/ h 27 31 Table 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 Analysis of Congruent Analysis of Analysis of Teachers: Analysis of Teachers: Analysis of D-Scale Scores for High Congruent and Low Teachers: Combined Congruence ICL Scores: All Teachers ICL for High Congruent and Low Congruent Simple Congruence ICL Scores for High and Low Congruent Weighted Congruence ICL Scores for High Congruent and Low Congruent Teachers: Combined Congruence Age and Sex: Total Teachers Age of High and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence . . . Age and Sex of High and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence Age of High and Low Congruent Teachers: Combined Congruence Educational Attainment: Total Teachers Educational Attainment for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence Educational Attainment for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence Educational Attainment for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Total Years Total Years Congruent Total Years Congruent Total Years Congruent Elementary School Teaching Experience: Combined Congruence of Teaching Experience: Total Teachers of Teaching Experience for High and Low Teachers: Simple Congruence of Teaching Experience for High and Low Teachers: Weighted Congruence of Teaching Experience for High and Low Teachers: Combined Congruence vii Total Teachers. Page 85 87 87 79 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 97 98 99 100 101 102 Table 33 3A 33 36 38 39 Ye ;- Ye.. Yén; Te_. Te.; If: Try. It}. Table Page 33 Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence . 103 34 Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence . . 104 35 Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Combined Congruence . . 105 36 Teaching Assignment: Total Teachers . . . . . . . . . 105 37 Teaching Assignment of High and Low Congruent Teachers: Simple Congruence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 38 Teaching Assignment of High and Low Congruent Teachers: Weighted Congruence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 39 Teaching Assignment for High and Low Congruent Teachers: Combined Congruence . . . . . . . . . . . 108 viii Appendix A. B. Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Education Scale VII Dogmatism Scale Interpersonal Check List Participating Teacher Inventory Predictions of Self Concept and Sociometric Position How I See Myself Test Sociometric Instrument Distribution Scores by Class Groups on the How I See Myself Test Distribution of Sociometric Scores by Class Groups Trait Descriptions from the Interpersonal Check List For High Predictors, A11 Predictors, and Low Predictors ix Page 130 132 135 139 143 145 148 149 151 154 The of attitudes fll must fi: Fears consi; ‘0 describe Education. been made b} diVidEd int. ThCh underSEL knOwled; Th0: interes: t10nshi; This dEScri; teachel. ”he of amid“. \. lDe: :ErlCan Cg A IL \ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose and Assumptions The act of teaching is a complex process involving a multitude of attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and relationships which to be success- ful must fit together as the pieces of a complex terrazo. Through the years considerable time, effort, and funds have been expended in efforts to describe and define facets of this vital keystone in the process of education. One of the more recent and comprehensive definitions has been made by Ryans1 who says the complex behavior of teachers may be divided into two categories: Those involving the teacher's mental abilities and skills, his understanding of psychological and educational principles, and his knowledge of general and special subject matter to be taught. Those qualities stemming from the teacher's personality, his interests, attitudes, and beliefs, his behavior in workin rela- tionships with pupils and other individuals and the like. This description of the teaching task seems to contain the basic elements of other, more detailed descriptions of the process. The teacher who can effectively carry out this task has been the subject of considerable study and description. At various times, he has been 1David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960). 2 Ibid., p. 4. characterizec maintain C135 ject matter, corolfiion 0f . l Messy repori the National oi the NatiOIl quate, perm“- the other haz‘ teacher who . understandins; adequate pets: are in great acceptance. both "effect; of teachers Almo: a Vital infl ms is 3 dir. l D. Facto A :15. ’2 es 2 list I 3 Ryar 4 Ship Art ‘ as - Entatioges; 5 I Per characterized as possessing: a dynamic personality, the ability to maintain classroom discipline, personal warmth, knowledge of basic sub- ject matter, ability to organize, creativity, and a successful record of completion of a professional sequence of courses. Cook, Linden, and McKay1 report that "the competent teacher has recently been defined by the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards of the National Education Association as an intelligent, socially ade- quate, personally desirable, and professionally able individual."2 0n Ila the other hand, an effective teacher has been described by Ryans as teacher who acts in ways favorable to the development of basic skills, understanding, work habits, desirable attitudes, value judgments, and adequate personal adjustment of the pupil."3 Statements such as these are in great abundance in the literature and appear to have general acceptance. In fact, in a study by Coombs and Soper4 it was found that both "effective" and "ineffective" teachers agreed upon the ideal role of teachers in the helping relationship. Almost all writers agree that the personality of the teacher has a vital influence upon the process of teaching, and some feel that teach— ing is a direct expression of personality. According to Symonds,5 the 1Desmond L. Cook, James D. Linden, and Harrison E. McKay, "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XX (1961), 865- 72. 2Ibid., 865. 3Ryans, op. cit., p. 2. 4Arthur W. Coombs, and Daniel W. Soper, "The Helping Relation- ship as Described by ‘Good' and 'Poor' Teachers, Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (1963), 64-67. 5 . Perc1val M” Symonds, "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's teacher's be: the methods 'h Rcrschach, t3: several obser to; adapts h; toward 1: during but the to his c. y pa The s exceedingly C of Personali: PSFCI‘IO log} . ticularly in which affECt hum“ “late tire and qual t10nships Wh, l’aPPOrt dEVA . C r teacher's basic personality determines his method of teaching and not the methods he learned in school.1 He concludes in a study using the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), ten interviews and several observations that: . teaching is an expression of personality. The teacher adapts himself in a manner that is harmonious with his expressions toward life situations in general. Methods and procedures learned during college preparations may influence teaching superficially, but they do not determine the nature of the relation of a teacher to his pupils or the teacher's basic attitude toward teaching.2 The structure and development of the teacher's personality is exceedingly complex, and there may be as many theories and definitions of personality and its function in existence as there are schools of psychology. Among the most important facets of that personality, par- ticularly in regard to the process of helping others learn, are those which affect or go into making up one's capacities for interpersonal human relationships. This is so because learning in both its quantita- tive and qualitative aspects is related to the kinds of personal rela- tionships which are developed in the classroom. The relationships or rapport developed between teacher and child, and relationships developed among pupils,are the responsibility of the teacher. Good personal relationships in the classroom depend upon the ability of the teacher to relate in a wholesome manner to pupils; accept- ing them emotionally, and being able to understand their feelings, values, and perceptions. The teacher who is capable of accurately Personality," Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954), 79-83. lIbid., 82. 21bid., 83. assessing the general psychological make-up of pupils will be able to design and develop activities for them which will result in greater growth-producing experiences in all aspects of their educational pro- 1 found that increased knowledge of pupil's grams. Ojeman and Wilkinson problems enable teachers to do a much more effective job of teaching. Burrell,2 in a similar study found that when teachers make a deliberate effort to design educational experiences to meet the educational and personal needs of children exhibiting behavior problems and blocks to learning, the need to act out was reduced, and the pupil was able to learn more effectively and efficiently. Moustakas3 describes in detail how increased ability on the part of teachers to relate to pupils, understand their concepts of self, and the environment in which they are functioning increases the effectiveness of the total learning situation for both the teacher and pupil. These and other studies emphasize the importance of being able to adequately develop relationships with chil- dren which will enhance the teaching-learning situation. The assumption that attitudes and personality characteristics are, in fact, important components of teacher effectiveness has long been a basic belief of teacher educators. Literally thousands of empiri- cal investigations have been conducted, investigating attitudes and lRalph J. Ojeman, F. R. Wilkinson, "The Effect on Pupil Growth of an Increase in Teacher Understanding of Pupil Behavior," Journal of Egperimental Education, VIII (1939), 143-47. 2Anna P. Burrell, "Facilitating Learning Through Emphasis on Meeting Children's Basic Emotional Needs," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIV (1951), 381-93. 3Clark E. Moustakas, The Teacher and the Child: Personal Inter- action in the Classroom (New York: McGraw Hill, 1956). personality traits as these influence teacher effectiveness. Morsh and Wilder1 and A. S. Barr2 have developed extensive bibliographies in this area, and the reporting of specific investigations has long been one of the chief purposes of the Journal of Educational Research. These assump- tions are shared by social psychologists concerned with the relation- ships between perception and accuracy of judgment.3 Based on the foregoing assumptions, this was a study which pro- posed to search for possible relationships between traits in the teacher's personality and the teacher's ability to assess the pupil's view of himself and others in his class. In other words the study was based on the hunch that teachers who possess open and democratically oriented values and certain personality traits (e.g., Affiliation- Dominance) would tend to be better judges of pupil and group traits than those with a closed or authoritarian value system. .A selected group of elementary teachers and their respective classroom students became the focus of the study. The major purpose of this study, then, was the examination of significant personality variables possessed by elementary classroom teachers. These variables were studied in terms of their relationship to the teachers' ability to make accurate predictions about their pupils. 1J. E. Morsh, E. W. Wilder, Identifying the Effective Instructor: A Review o;;the Quantitative Studies, 1900-1952 (San Antonio, Texas: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, 1954). 2A. S. Barr, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Effi- ciency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education, XVI (1948), 203-83. 3Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo (eds.), Person Perception and Integpersonal Behavior (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1958). The teacher personality variables upon which this study focused were: the traditional or progressive educational attitudes of teachers, their general life attitudes, aspects of affiliation and power, and certain demographic characteristics. Pupil self concept and sociometric status was selected as the two pupil variables about which teachers were asked to make predictions. Definition of Tegmg The terminology employed in the hypotheses developed for this study, and used throughout the narrative is, in some instances, unique. Thus the following definitions are provided: 1. Congruence: A state of agreement between pupil self-evaluation and teacher prediction of pupil self-evaluation. 2. High congruence: A state of agreement between pupil self- evaluation and teacher prediction of pupil self-evaluation in which teacher prediction scores within the upper quartile of the range of accuracy are included. 3. Low congruence: A state of agreement between pupil self- evaluation and teacher prediction of pupil self-evaluation in which teacher prediction scores within the lowest quartile of the range of accuracy are included. 4. Simple congruence:~ A state of agreement between pupil self- evaluation and teacher prediction of pupil self-evaluation as measured by the teacher's percentage of accuracy. 5. Weighted congruence: A state of agreement between pupil self- evaluation and teacher prediction of pupil self-evaluation as measured by a method designed to penalize grossly inaccurate teacher judgments. Hypotheses The foregoing required the formulation of two specific hypothe- ses. These are: 1. There will be no significant differences between High and Low Congruent teachers on the personality traits of: a. Democratic or authoritarian educational attitudes b. Open or closed mindedness c. Affiliation or rejection d. Dominance or submission 2. There will be no significant differences between High Congruent and Low Congruent teachers in their demographic characteristics of: a. Sex b. Age c. Level of educational attainment d. Total years of teaching experience e. Years of elementary teaching experience d. Grade level assignment General Procedure Population The teachers who were selected as participants in this investiga- tion represent a variety of age, experience, and education. The schools II in which these individuals teach are located in the Detroit metropolitan area of southeastern Michigan. This whole area is an integral part of a vast industrial complex which extends from Chicago to Cleveland. These schools serve pupils with a wide range of social, economic, racial and cultural backgrounds. Sampling_Technique The universe of this study consisted of all tenure teachers of grades four, five, and six in the three largest Wayne and Washtenaw County off-campus student teaching centers utilized by Eastern Michigan University. All tenure teachers of grades four, five, and six in each of the three selected school districts were listed in a random order and assigned a number. A table of random numbers as shown in Dixon and 1 was utilized to select fifteen teachers from each school district Massey as subjects for the investigation. These forty-five teachers were then personally contacted and asked to cooperate. All agreed to participate. The pupils utilized in this study comprised the entire class of each teacher who was selected for membership in the study. Methodology After the research cite had been established, and the sample for the study had been selected, data were collected from each of 45 teachers and their pupils. 1Wilfred J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw Hill, 1957). The duck list, predictions position of The gestionnai: the “95> def: The teachers completed two attitudinal scales, a personality check list, and a demographic instrument. They were then asked to make predictions of pupil scores on a self concept measure and sociometric position of pupils from a sociometric questionnaire. The pupils completed a self concept measure and a sociometric questionnaire. Description of the Instruments Utilized in This Study A. Instruments administered to teachers 1. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale1(D Scale) has as its primary purpose the measurement of individual differences in openness or closed- ness of belief systems: Because of the way in which Rokeach defines open and closed belief systems, it also serves as a measure of authoritarianism and intolerance. The D-Scale has undergone five revisions since its origination. Each revision has resulted in greater reliability, and in a reduction of the instrument's length. Thgzlpterpersonal Check List2 is the result of the efforts of Robert Suczek, Rolfe La Forge, and other members of the Kaiser Foundation staff. The instrument was first developed in 1952 as a result of its authors' interest in the phrases used in describ- ing personality factors by various clinical psychologists and 1Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books Inc. , 1960) . 2Robert Suczek, and Rolfe La Forge, "The Interpersonal Dimen- sions of Personality: III, An Interpersonal Check List," Journal of Personality, XXIV, 1955. lO psychiatrists. The instrument has gone through several revi- sions and assesses certain aspects of personality related to the ability to develop interpersonal relationships. These relation- ships are assessed by sampling sixteen variables set along eight continui which relate to power or affiliation. 3. The Kerlinger Education Scale VIII is the latest in a series of scales developed by the author to assess attitudes and beliefs in education. Factor analysis of the instrument indicates that it measures two broad bi-polar areas of attitudes and belief systems which are defined by Kerlinger as "Educational Progres- ' and "Educational Traditionalism." sivism,’ 4. The Participating Teacher Inventory was developed for this study to elicit the various experimental variables characterizing the subjects of this investigation. Data included sex, age, under- graduate, graduate, in-service education, total years of teach- ing experience, years of elementary school experience, and present teaching assignment. B. Instruments administered to pupils l. A sociometric device was utilized in this study which was devel- oped by Gronlund.2 His exact format was preserved because it seemed most appropriate for the groups in this study. Three basic questions were asked of each child in the classes under study. 1Fred M” Kerlinger, and Elazor J. Pedhazur, Attitudes and Percep- tions of Desirable Traits and Behaviors of Teachers (United States Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967) 2Norman E. Gronlund, Sociometry in the Classroom (New York: Harper and Bros., 1959). 11 These were: a. I would choose to sit near these children. b. I would choose to work with these children. c. I would choose to play with these children. Students were asked to identify five persons for each question. 2. The How I See‘MyselfyTestl was developed by Gordon and has been utilized in several studies conducted by the author in the state of Florida. It is designed to assess a child's feelings about himself as related to home, school, and peers. Organization of the Study A review of the literature relevant to this study is presented in Chapter II. Chapter III, Methodology, describes the research proce- dures utilized. Presentation of the Findings, Chapter IV, presents the study data. Chapter V, Conclusions and Recommendations, is concerned with summary interpretations and their implications. Summary The variable of teacher pupil rapport is an important factor in the teaching process. The greater the accuracy of knowledge that teach- ers possess about their pupils the greater efficiency of the learning process and the quality of learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher attitudes and personality aspects and their relation- ship to teacher's understanding of pupil's self perception and classroom social structure. The attitudes and personality of elementary classroom 1Ira J. Gordon, Studying the Child in School (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966). 12 teachers were examined in View of their ability to make accurate predic- tions about selected aspects of their students. It was believed that information in this area would contribute to the body of knowledge which pertains to an important dimension of teacher effectiveness. k CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the literature which has bearing upon the various aspects of this investigation. The hypoth- eses and methodology of this study suggested that the review be divided into two major areas, one which deals with attitudes and personality of teacher and the second which is concerned with pupil self-concept and classroom social structure. The first major area is concerned with various aspects of teach- er personality which have been studied by past investigators, and a re- view of the wide variety of instrumentation which has been utilized to isolate attitudes and other aspects of personality. The second major division of the literature review has to do with the factors about which the teachers in this investigation were asked to make predictions. The first of these is the area of self- concept. The second deals with the importance of sociometric position. Teacher Personality The personality structure, attitudes, and traits of teachers have been the subject of a considerable amount of empirical research. Unfortunately, few of these efforts have proven fruitful. We know that there are real differences in the effectiveness of teachers but the 13 l4 qualities which are responsible for this difference seem to be elusive. There is also considerable disagreement among researchers as to the direction that research on teaching should take. A. S. Barr, among others, has summarized many of the earlier studies in this field. He concludes that although research has added materially to our understand- ing of desirable teacher traits, and abilities, ". . . it is apparent that the identification and definition of teaching competencies is as yet by no means satisfactory."1 Getzels and Jackson2 also summarize research efforts centered upon the problem of teacher behavior. Their conclusions are quite similar to those of Barr. Inconclusive though they may have been, a review of pertinent efforts in assessing the personality structure of teachers in general, and those qualities which contribute to teaching success appears to be in order. Ryans3 notes that in conceptualizing the competent teacher, the profession must take into account . a variety of human traits and abilities. In general, these may be grouped into two major categories: (1) those involving the teacher's mental abilities and skills, his understanding of psy- chological and educational principles, and his knowledge of general and special subject matter to be taught; and (2) those qualities stemming from the teacher's personality, his interests, attitudes and beliefs, his behavior in working relationships with pupils and other individuals, and the like.4 EA. S. Barr, "Teaching Competencies? in 8. Monroe (ed.) Encyclo- pedia of Educational Research (rev. ed.; New York; Macmillan, 1950), p. 1453. 2J. Getzels, and P. Jackson, "The Teacher's Personality and Characteristics," in N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), pp. 506-82. 3David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington, D.C.: American Council of Education, 1960), p. 3. 4Ibid., p. 3. 15 The present review is confined to Ryan's second category. Watson says: "There is something, a teaching personality, which is vital for teaching success."1 In separate investigations, Butschzand Witty3note that pupils consistently name a similar pattern of qualities which describe the "good teacher." The major qualities identified are: fairness, kindness, firmness, pleasantness, patience, cooperativeness, accepting, and democratic. Symonds,4 agrees by saying that the teacherh basic personality determines the method of teaching employed and not the methods he learned in school. He concludes in a study where he used the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), ten interviews and several obser- vations, that: . teaching is an expression of personality. The teacher adapts himself in a manner that is harmonious with his expressions toward life situations in general. Methods and procedures learned during college preparations may influence teaching superficially, but they do not determine the nature of the relation of a teacher to his pupils or the teacher's basic attitude toward teaching.5 1Goodwin Watson, "Character Tests and Their Application Through 1930," Review of Educational Research, II (1932), 244. 2R. C. Butsch, "Teacher Rating," Review of Educational Research, I (1931), 99-107. 3Paul Witty, "Evaluation of Studies of Characteristics of the Effective School Teacher," Improving Educational Research (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1948), pp. 198-204. 4Percival‘M. Symonds, "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Personality," Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954), 79-83. 51bid., 83. 16 Accepting this premise as valid raises the question as to what characteristics if any are common to teachers in general and elementary teachers in particular? Several studies have concerned themselves with this problem. A selected review of these studies will be presented. Jackson and Cuba1 using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) report findings based upon data obtained from 366 public school teachers in 22 schools. 0f the 15 needs which comprise the EPPS, those, . which seem to characterize teachers as a group are their high deference, orderliness, and endurance and their low exhibition and heterosexuality. These characteristics appear to fit the stereo— typic model of the teacher as sexually impotent, obsequious, extern- ally patient, painstakingly demanding, and socially inept--the stereotype which is frequently portrayed in the mass media.2 Adams,3 using the same instrument,EPPS, found that the attitude most central to students in professional education was that of docility (although less docile than experienced teachers) while Palacios4 using the Guilford-Zimmerman Tempgrment Survey (GZTS) noted that student teachers tended toward being conservative and serious. Linden and‘McKay5 in their study of 196 sophomore students selected from an educational psychology class at Purdue University 1Philip W. Jackson,and Egon G. Cuba, "The Need Structure of In- Service Teachers: An Occupational Analysis," School Review, LXV (1957), 176-92. 21bid., 189. 3Henry L. Adams, Don F. Blood, and Herbert C. Taylor, "Personal- ity Difference.Among Arts and Science Students, Education Students, and Experienced Teachers," American Psycholggist, XIV (1959), 371. 4John R. Palacios, "A Validation Study of Selected Tests for Possible Use in Admission to Professional Education Sequence at Purdue University" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1959). 5James D. Linden, and Harrison E. McKay, "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educa- tiongl and Psychological Measurement, XXI (1960), 865-71. l7 employed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personalipyilnventoyy (MMPI), and the EPPS. Utilizing the statistical procedure of factor analysis, they identified six factors which accounted for the total variance. These factors were: docility, dependency, authoritarianism, compulsive con- formity, introversion-extroversion, and avoidance. These conclusions, "lend support to other recent findings which suggest a discrepancy between idealized and observed characteristics of teachers."1 2 matched 86 nurses and an equal number of education Beaver majors. Using the MEET, she found 36 items which differentiated educa- tion majors from nurses. These items involve social-sexual attitudes, conventionality, psychosomatic concerns, and freedom from neuroticism. Compared to nurses, teachers are less stable, have less liking for man- nish qualities, prefer the opposite sex, are less fastidious and con- ventional, and are more hypochondriacal and neurotic.3 4 utilized the Thurstone Temperament Schedule with 836 Fish junior and senior students in eleven colleges at the University of Tennessee. College of education students were found to be less reflec- tive, less vigorous, but more sociable. They also placed a higher value on marriage, children, and helping others than did the ten comparison groups. 1Ibid., 171. 2Alma P. Beaver, "Personality Factors in Choice of Nursing," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 374-79. 3Ibid., 378-79. 4Lloyd E. Fish, "A Study of Personality as Related to the Choice of College or Major Field of Study" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1954). 18 Kerlinger and Pedhazur1 in a study of perception of desirable teacher traits found two major factors of desirable teacher traits, one of which is described as person orientation, and the other as task orien- tation. These factors are similar in nature to those described by Ryans.2 These factors are also related to progressive and traditional education- al attitudes, with person orientation relating to progressive attitudes and task orientation relating to traditional educational attitudes. In a study focusing on the values held by engineering students 3 found education and education students at Ohio University, Dilley students to have decidedly stronger preferences than their engineering peers for contacts with children and opportunities to help other people. A general summary of teacher attitude is provided by Anderson and Rusher4 when they say "Social attitudes scales tend to show teachers as being more liberal in their opinions than the general public. They ranged from extreme conservative to communists."5 6 Dilley, who compared a group of education majors to a group of engineering majors, found no difference of significance in the attitudes 1Kerlinger and Pedhazur, op. cit. 2Ryans, op. cit., p. 102. 3Norman E. Dilley, "Personal Values Held by College Students Who Enter a Teaching Education Program," Journal of Teacher Education, VIII (1957), 289—94. 4Earl W. Anderson, and Alfreda W. Rusher, "Staff-Characteristicsfl' in Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York; Macmillan and Company, 1960), pp. 1357-61. 5Ibid., p. 1359. 6Dilley, op. cit. 19 and preferences of either group. He did report a slight tendency for teacher education majors to have more positive attitudes toward con- tacts with children and adolescents. Kerlinger1 offers evidence which supports the position of Anderson and Rusher in a study which investi- gated the attitudes toward education held by Professors and laymen. His findings were that the professor group had more progressive attitudes toward education than laymen. He also found that within the group of professors, professors of education (who in general tend to be reconsti- tuted classroom teachers) had more progressive attitudes toward educa- tion than professors in other academic disciplines. Within the ranks of teachers as within the professorial ranks, there seems to be significantly different levels of attitudes.2’3’4’5 Kerlinger has probably made as great a contribution to the investigation of attitudes toward education and the development of a theoretical framework on which to base them as has anyone else in the 1Fred N. Kerlinger, "The Attitude Structure of the Individual: A Q-Study of the Educational Attitudes of Professors and Laymen," Genetic Psychology Monographs, LIII (1956), 283-329. 2 Edwin Wandt, "Comparison of the Attitudes of Contrasting Groups of Teachers," Educational and Psychology Measurement, XIV (1954), 418-22. 3Leslie Y. Robkin, "The Dogmatism of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (1966), 47-49. 4H. C. Lindgren and Gladys Mn Patton, "Attitudes of High School and Other Teachers Toward Children and Current Educational Methodology," California Journal of Educational Research, IX (1958), 80-85. 5M. s. Sheldon, J. M. Coale, and R. Copple, "Current Validity of the Warm Teacher Scales," Journal of Educational Psychology, L (1959), 3-40. 20 l,2,3,4,5 field. In his studies he has found a broad range of difference in attitude. The findings of many studies have some general agreement in their characterization of the personality of teachers. There are a num- ber of researchersé’7 however who have been unable to discover discrete differences between "effective" and "ineffective" teachers. Borggattempted to measure the relationship between teacher effectiveness and teacher personality. This study, involving 89 teachers who were rated on personality by students, peers, and 1Fred N. Kerlinger, "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Factors of Educational Attitudes," Journal pf Social Psygpology, XLVIII (1958), 111-35. 2Kerlinger, "Factor Invariance in the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Education," Educggional and Psychological Measurement, XXXI (1961), 273-85. 3Kerlinger, and Esin Kaya, "Construction and Factor Analytic Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Toward Education," Educational and Psychological Measurement, IXX (1959), 13-29. 4Kerlinger, "Attitudes Toward Education and Perceptions of Teacher Characteristics, a Study," American Educational Research Journal, III (1966), 159-68. 5Kerlinger, "The First- and Second-Order Factor Structures of Attitudes Toward Education," Agerican Educational Research Journal, IV (1967), 191-205. 6Stephen Corey, "The Present State of Ignorance about Factors Affecting Teacher Success," Educational Administration and Supervision, XVIII (1932), 198-204. 7T. L. Togerson, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Ability," Review of Educational Research, IV (1937), 245-46. 8Walter R. Borg, "Personality and Interest Measures as Related to Criteria of Instructor Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research, L (1957), 701-709. 21 supervisors, revealed that each group placed emphasis on different personality traits and interests with no agreement among the three. Lamke1 studied the relationship between personality and teach- ing success, using as the criteria for teaching success expert opinion and the principal's acceptance of the teacher. The subjects were 32 teachers engaged in their first years of teaching. Personality was measured by use of Cattell's 16 pgint Test and three paired comparison rating scales. Lamke noted that use of the discriminant function of the 164point test indicated that the response of good and poor teachers do not fall into well defined and characteristic patterns.2 Another study which explored the possibility that personality is 3 He an important factor in teaching efficiency was conducted by Gotham. used (1) teacher rating scales, (2) measures of qualities commonly asso- ciated with teaching success, (3) data regarding changes produced in pupils, and (4) a composite of all three factors. The personality of each teacher was measured through the use of a variety of personality rating scales, which included having each teacher fill out several personality inventories. His conclusions were that he could find no significant patterns or relationships. A great range of differences appear to exist in the personality structure of teachers at various levels of instruction and in various 1Thomas A. Lamke, "Personality and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education, XX (1957), 217-59. 2Ibid., 258-59. 3R. E. Gotham, "Personality and Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIV (1945), 157-65. 22 fields of instruction. Elementary teachers show evidence of better "human relations," participate more in professional activities, are more accepting of pupil behavior and have a higher social service interest than do their secondary counterparts.1’2’3 They also exhibit measures 4,5,6,7 of democratic, permissive, and nondominative behavior. They have also been found to be more progressive and more extroverted than secondary teachers. Della Dor§3characterized elementary teachers as . mothering, nurturing people who like children. They are relatively feminine, docile, dependent, social minded, interested in people and able to get along well with others . . . in class- room situations they tend to be more permissive and integrative (less dominant) in relations with students.9 1George Goodwin, "A Study of Certain Teacher Activities and Human Relations with Special Reference to Working Patterns of School Principals" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1955). 2Douglas Scates, "With the Researchers," Journal of Teacher Education, (1957), 433-37. 3George Stoufer, "The Attitude of Secondary School Teachers Toward Certain Behavior Problems of Children," The School Review, LXIV (1956), 358-62. 4Stewart Jones and Eugene Gaier, "Study of Anti-Democratic Potential of Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, XLVII (1953), 18. 5A. Beamer and R. Ledbetter, "The Relations Between Teacher Atti- tude and the Social Service Interest," Journal of Educational Research, (1957), 656-66. 6Scates, op. cit., 436. 7ElwynA. Morey, "Vocational Interests and Personality Character- istics of Women Teachers" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1948). 8Delmo Della-Dora, "A Comparison of the Personality of Elemen- tary School Teachers and Secondary School Teachers" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1960). 9Ibid., p. 138. 23 Elementary teachers, also, appear to have more open, person oriented attitudes than do secondary teachers. Descriptions of the personality characteristics which accompany more open and more closed attitudinal systems are provided by Plant, Telford and Thomas.1 They report that subjects with closed or dogmatic attitudinal systems are more "impulsive, defensive, and conventional and stereotyped in thinking."2 In relating attitudes to personality and overt behavior, Piers3 reported that authoritarian tendencies in teacher- pupil relationship behaviors are directly related to so-called "anti- democratic" or "authoritarian" personality types. She also found a correlation between permissive behavior and liberal attitudinal disposition. All researchers agree that personality is a factor in teaching behavior, and in the selection of teaching as a profession. There is also agreement that the elementary teachers possess different traits than secondary teachers in a very generalized way. Other related aspects of personality of particular importance to this study are the several factors which may relate to the teacher's ability to make accu- rate assessments of pupil self perception and the interpersonal rela- tionships which obtain among pupils. LW. T. Plant, C. W. Telford and J. A. Thomas, "Some Personality Differences between Dogmatic and Non-dogmatic Groups," The Journal of Social Psychology, LXVII (1965), 67-75. 2lbid., 75. 3Ellen V. Piers, "Effects of Instruction on Teacher Attitudes: Extended Control Group Design," Abstracts of Dissertations for the Year 1954 (Nashville: Peabody College for Teachers, 1955), pp. 245-49. 24 The act of making predictions or assessments regarding other persons has been the subject of serious study by researchers for several decades. Much of the energy expended in this area has related to the factors which influence one's ability to assume the role of another person. This process has been referred to as "social perception," " "socioempathy," "empathy," and "role taking." All "person perception, may be defined as "an implicit empathic process whereby a person pre- dicts the behavior in a given situation of another person or persons." One's ability in this area has generally been investigated through a rating scale approach. The subject is usually required to take some sort of test, first as he would respond to it. Next, he is asked to take the role of another person and take the test as he thinks he would. Dymond2 published an empathy scale based upon this method. The scale was designed to measure the subject's ability to predict how others would rate themselves and himself on each of six traits. In a study utilizing 53 college students she found that the individual demon- strating a high degree of empathy on the test was characterized by greater insight into the amount of empathy he possessed than the rest of his group. She felt that this might indicate a relationship between the ability to understand one's self and the ability to take the role of another. Luszki3 using a modification of Dymond's scale in an 1N. An Milgram, "Cognitive and Empathic Factors in Role-Taking," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholggy, LX (1960), 220. 2Rosiland F. Dymond, "A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Ability," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII (1949), 127-33. 3Margaret B. Luszki, "Empathetic Ability and Social Perception" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1951). 25 investigation of empathy and social perception found that empathic ability was related to a high level of personal adjustment as measured by two personality scales. Motto1 studied the characteristics of college teachers of high and low empathic ability. The subjects were identified through the use of a rating scale. The five teachers with greatest discrepancy (least accuracy) and the five with least discrepancy (greatest accuracy) were intensively studied. He found that the high empathy group differed from the low empathy group in that they were more goal directed, more con- cerned about feelings of hostility, had less anxiety associated with interpersonal relations, and less restrictive ego controls. In an effort to dissect predictive skills or socioempathic ability, Bronfenbrenner, Harding, and Gallway2 found it to be composed of at least two components, sensitivity to individual differences, and sensitivity to social nonms. These findings were supported by Cline and Richards3 who found that although the ability to judge others is general, it is composed of two relatively independent components, "sensitivity to 4 the generalized other" and "interpersonal accuracy." Their evidence 1J. Motto, "An Investigation of Some Personality Correlates of Empathy in College Teachers" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1958). 2Urie Bronfenbrenner, J. Harding, and Mg Gallway, "The Measure- ment of Skill in Social Perception," in D. C. McClelland, U. Bronfen- brenner, and F. L. Strodtbeck (eds.), Talent and Society (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958). 3V. B. Cline and J. M. Richards, "Accuracy of Interpersonal Per- ception--A General Trait?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LX (1960), 1-7. 4Ibid., 7. 26 was based upon a study of the responses of the 50 college students to a series of motion pictures. The subjects, after viewing films, were asked to respond to several pencil and paper instruments as they be- lieved the persons they had viewed in the films would have done. In a later research effort, they1 presented additional support from four replicated studies to support low but consistent generality of accuracy in interpersonal preception. People do then possess the ability to make predictions about others. Some possess this ability to a far greater degree than others. There has been considerable effort expended by social psychologists in efforts to gain understanding regarding the characteristics of good pre- dictors or persons who possess high person perception ability. Taft2 identified several variables related to empathic skill and concluded that: Our review of the literature suggests that the following characteristics are fairly consistently found to be positively correlated with the ability to judge the personality characteris- tics of others: (a) age (children), (b) high intelligence and academic ability (with analytic judgements especially), (c) spe- cialization in the physical sciences, (d) esthetic and dramatic interests, (e) insight into one's status with respect to one's peers on specific traits, (f) good emotional adjustment and integration (analytic tests only), and (g) social skill (only with tests of ability to predict S's behavior).3 Taft further states, 1V. B. Cline and J. M” Richards, "The Generality of Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXII (1961), 446-49. 2Ronald Taft, "The Ability to Judge People,"_Psychological Bulletin, LII (1955), 1-23. 3Ibid., 20. 27 . probably the most important area of all is that of motivation: if the judge is motivated to make accurate judgements about his subjects and if he himself feels free to be objective, then he has a good chance of achieving his aim. 1 Schrauger and Altrocchi2 in an extensive review of research relat- ed to the personality of perceivers declare that: Neither personality theories nor empirical research thus far have clearly spotlighted the independent personality variables that might be most significantly related to person perception. 3 In a study related to personality and accuracy of prediction, 4 Gordon and Guertin utilizing the EPPS and the TTS studied the responses of 60 women elementary student teachers and 30 men student teachers. They failed to establish a relationship between personality variables and ability to make inferences. Bruner and Taguiri5 in summarizing the research findings in this area conclude: Studies on the "accuracy" of judging others have not progressed to a point at which firm substantive conclusions can be brought to bear upon a theory of judgment. The criteria employed have been too often of a consensual kind: accuracy is mostly defined as agreement with others regarding a person's characteristics. Given systematic biases in judgment--the halo effect, the leniency effect, the 11bid., 21. 2Sid Shrauger and John Altrocchi, "The Personality of the Per- ceiver as a Factor in Person Perception," Psychological Bulletin, LVII (1964), 289-308. 3rbid., 299-300. 4Ira J. Gordon and Wilson H. Guertin, "Relationship between the Predictor's Personality and Accuracy of Prediction of Children's Self- Reports," Paper read at Philadelphia, Pa. meeting: .American Psychologi- cal Association, August 29, 1963. 5Jerome S. Bruner and Renato Taguiri, "The Perception of People," in Gardner Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), pp. 634-54. 28 logical error, etc.--these studies may be seriously confounded. Accuracy may mean simply that a particular judge shares the most common bias found among his fellow judges. Taken from the point of a theory of judgment, relatively few firm conclusions can be drawn. Tentatively, the most reasonable seem to be these: (a) Accuracy is aided by similarity between judge and judged. To some extent this may be a function of "resonance" between judge and judged; to some extent it may be a function of better acquaint- ance with people like oneself, with more intervening opportunities for observing their behavior. To some extent it could be projec- tion, which happens to be accurate when the other person is like one's self. (b) Accuracy depends upon having cues to work on. Traits with little behavioral manifestation are poorly judged. Individuals whose expressiveness is damped are harder to judge. (c) Certain systematic errors in judgment--halo effect, logical error, and the like--account for much of the error involved in judgment. Other sources of error are more dynamically explicable, notably in terms of the tendency to project. (d) There are systematic relationships between various person- ality variables and judging ability. Detachment helps. Social adjustment and intelligence can, under certain conditions, improve judgment. (e) A global or intuitive approach seems to improve judgment. It may well be that the correlation between judging ability and aesthetic orientation can be accounted for--at least in part--in these terms. Over and beyond this, the aesthetic orientation may be associated with a form of empathic capacity. It may turn out to be the case, finally, that empathic ability (as yet poorly understood) may be the critical capacity in this difficult form of cognitive enterprise. Thus, one can see there are many difficulties and complexities involved in the apparently simple process of making predictions about other people. Self Concept and Social Structure The concept of a self or inner being extant within one's body has been the concern of philosophers, theologians, and writers for cen- turies. The literature of every writing culture is replete with Ibid., p. 646. 29 material expressing various themes relating to self. The modern conception of self may have had its basic beginning in the writings of Descartes in the Seventeenth Century. Descartes1 postulated that man had a soul which was independent of the body. To him, the ultimate criterion of existence was man's awareness of thought; man alone possessed a soul and consequently man alone possessed the faculty of thinking. He sought to reconcile the dualism between soul and body by locating the "mind" in the brain. Thus, he was the first to describe the self as a thinking substance. Throughout history, man has been struggling to develop adequate feelings of self. However, the study of the concept of self, and its role in the development and maintenance of the total human organism has only recently come under the scrutiny of psychologists and other researchers in the area of human behavior. In the early part of this century, a few psychologists gave attention to the study of the self. The self and its functions was the central core of introspectionistic psychology. Titchener2 was concerned 3 who with localizing the self in reference to the body. William James, devoted a whole chapter in his The Principles of Psycholpgy to the development of self, believed that man had more than one self. James 1Renes Descartes, A Discourse on Method (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1912). 2Edward B. Titchener, Primer of Psychology: Revised Edition (New York; Macmillan, 1903). 3WilliamJames, The Principles of Psychology, Vol. I (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Co., 1890). 30 differentiated between a material, a social, and a spiritual self. He also used the concept of present self and past self. For him, the present self was the "knower" and the stream of consciousness the medium between present and past self. C. H. Cooley1 was one of the first social psychologists to con- ceive of the self in relation to a social milieu. His conception of the "looking glass self" has become a classic construct in sociological theory. In this construct, self perception is the product of three separable and ever recurring thought processions--(l) imagining how one appears to others, (2) imagining or interpreting how others evaluate or interpret this appearance, and (3) responding with feelings about him- self based upon his perceptions of the perception of others.2 The influence of introspectionism on American psychology was short lived. Behavioristic psychologists became dominant in the first decade of this century and have been the central influence ever since. Therefore, concern for self and the internalized psychological processes was abandoned or at the very least placed far down on anyone's priori- ties for study. A few scholars, however, persisted in their interest in the self and its development. Mead? for example, postulated that the self was essentially a social structure. He like Cooley believed that the self arose from social experience and placed emphasis on the 1C. H. Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Scribners, 1902). 2Ibid., p. 184. 3G. H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934). 31 influence of the response of others in shaping self definitions. The self, in.Mead's theory, took the role of the "generalized other" which refers to the individual's conception of the organized social process of which he is a part. This organized social process is composed of numerous specialized roles, and the individual identifies his role in it. He thus fulfills his role and allows the organized social process to continue. Freud1 in his later writings had assigned greater importance to ego development and functioning, and the neo-Freudians had stressed the importance of the self picture. In their treatment of the problem, Kofka2 and Lewin3 assumed the ego to be an object in the environmental field, with the self constituting the permanent core of the ego system. Toward the middle of this century, interest in the self as a concept and theory worthy of scholarly pursuit was revived. Although behaviorism was still the dominant theme for empirical study, several theoretical constructs evolving about the self began to emerge; the empirical investigations grew out of these concerns. The self concept theory of personality organization first received its formal statement by Raimy4 in 1943, although related lines of thinking are to be identified both previous to and since that time. 1Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id (London: Hogarth Press, 1950). 2Kurt Kofka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935). 3Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory_of Personality (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1935). 4Horace English, and Victor c. Raimy, Studying the Individual School Child: A Manual of Guidance (New York: H. Holt and Co., 1941). 32 2 3 Lecky,1 Snygg and Coombs, and Rogers were largely concerned with the role of the conscious self or phenomenal self. They contrasted the objective external frame of reference with internal perceptions of reality. The basic contention of these psychologists was that the basic referent for organizing and responding to the environment lies within the phenomenal field of conscious experience. Snygg and Coombs gave much attention to one's perceptual cognitive field and identified the self as the most important factor of this field. Before proceeding further, it would perhaps be well to define and examine the meaning of self concept or self perception. Several recent definitions would seem to be helpful. "The self concept may be thought of as a set of expectancies, plus evaluations of the areas of behavior with reference to which these expectancies are held."4 Jersild5 states: "The self is a composite of thoughts and feelings which constitute a person's awareness of his individual existence, his conception of who and what he is." Self concept is described by 1P. Lecky, Self-Consistengyy A Theory of Personality (New York: Island Press, 1945). 2Donald Snygg, and Arthur W} Coombs, Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for Psychology (New York: Harper, 1949). 3Carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951). 4Boyd R” McCandless, Children and Adolescents (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 174. SArthur T. Jersild, In Search of Self (New York: Bureau of Publi- cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952), p. 9. 33 Perkins1 as those perceptions, beliefs, feelings, attitudes and values which the individual views as describing himself. The concept of self is viewed as the highest order value of the individual, and therefore the basic reference for the understanding of human behavior. The behavior of the individual is primarily determined by, and pertinent to, his phenomenal field. In particular, it is deter- mined by that aspect of his field which is the individual's perception of self. For this reason, parents, teachers, and psychologists should be always seeking ways to understand the "self" in an effort to more effectively utilize the assets of a well adjusted pupil and to redirect the negative attitudes of the pupil with behavior problems by providing more reasonable and attainable goals and tasks. Although the basic core of personality seems to remain relative- ly stable throughout life, according to Bloom,2 one's self concept does not. It is affected by growth and experience. He says, In research concerned with assessing self concept, a number of approaches and systems have been utilized, but most appear to include the identification of specific traits presumed to relate to self and a system of weighing or attaching values to these traits.3 McCandless says, Measurements of self concepts vary, then, along the dimension of how values are attached; some research workers use general social norms; others use the personal norms of the people whom they include in the study.4 1H. V. Perkins, "Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self Concepts," Child Develppment, XXIX (1958), 221-30. 2Kenneth L. Bloom, "Some Relationships between Age and Self," Dissertation Abstracts, XXI (1960), 670. 3lbid., 690. 4McCandless, op. cit., p. 177. 34 Self concept is partially the result of how an individual believes himself to be seen by "significant" people in his life. In his early life, parents are the basic reference for the child. After he begins school, teachers to some degree replace parents in this role. 1 work has given some support to this point, and Helper2 Brookover's gives added support in his finding of positive correlation between parental evaluations of their children and their children's self evaluations. In most studies, a number of terms, traits, or characteristics are presented to subjects, and the subject responds to them as he be- lieves they fit his self concept. Some investigators use descriptive adjectives and require the subjects to respond by evaluating how each term applies to them.3 A num- ber of researchers have used descriptive statements to which the subject attaches some identifying value. Gordon4 uses opposing statements such 5 as "Teachers like . . . Teachers don't like me." Becker used descrip- tive statements to which the subjects indicated for each statement 1Brookover, op. cit., 271-78. 2M” M" Helper, "Parental Evaluations of Children and Children's Self-Evaluations," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LVI (1960), 190-94. 3L. P. Lipsitt, "A Self Concept Scale for Children and Its Rela- tionship to the Childrens' Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale," Child Development, XXIX (1958), 463-72. 4Ira Gordon, Studying the Child in School (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966). 5Jerome Becker, "The Influence of School Camping on the Self Concepts and Social Relations of Sixth Grade School Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, L1 (1960), 352-56. 35 whether "This is very much like me"; "This is a little bit like me"; or "This is not at all like me." Carlson1 also used short self-descriptive statements to which the subjects respond by a system of checks or ratings of how the characteristic applies to him. Another method of assessing self-perception is through the use of essays2 in which the subject describes himself by answering questions such as,"Who am I?" Still another method is referred to as the Q-sort procedure. A number of descriptive adjectives are given to the subject on cards. He is then required to sort and arrange the cards according to a pre- planned procedure. In attempts to prove more deeply into the subject's concept of self, projective techniques, such as the TAT, the Rorschach Inkblot Test, sentence completion tests, word association tests, and various drawing tests have been used. Two assumptions relevant to this study are: (1) teacher cogni- zance of pupil self concept is a necessary requisite to meaningful cur- riculum implementation, and (2) one's self concept is a basic factor in school achievement. A review of the literature in this area reveals considerable evidence to support these assumptions. In studying the relationship of self concept to achievement in fifth grade children, Lumpkin3 found a number of significant 1Betty R. Carlson, "Parent-Child Relationships and the Self Con- cept of Children," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1958), 1436. 2Jersild, op. cit., pp. 19-20. 3D. D. Lumpkin, "The Relationship of Self Concept to Achievement in Reading," Dissertation Abstracts, XX (1959), 204. 36 relationships between pupil's self concepts and achievement in reading. He found that "over achievers" in the area of reading demonstrated sta- tistically superior performance in the area of arithmetic, language, and work-study skills. As measured by the instrument employed, over achiev- ers revealed significantly more positive self concepts and high levels of adjustment. These students were also viewed positively by their teachers and their peers. Under achievers in reading made significantly lower scores on all measures of achievement. They also manifested a predominantly nega- tive self perception with a desire to be different from their perceived self. They were viewed by teachers as manifesting high problem tenden- cies.1 Bodwin2 studied the relationship between immature self concept and certain educational disabilities of children in grades three through six. He found that (1) a positive and statistically significant rela- tionship existed between immature self concept and reading disability; (2) a positive and statistically significant relationship existed be- tween immature self concept and arithmetic disability, (3) the relation- ship that existed between immature self concept and disabilities in reading and arithmetic was greater than the relationship between imma- ture self concept and disability in other school subjects; (4) the rela- tionship between immature self concept and reading disability was 1Ibid., p. 204. 2Raymond F. Bodwin, "The Relationship between Immature Self Con- cept and Certain Educational Disabilities," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1959), 1645. 37 somewhat less although not to the degree of statistical significance than was the relationship between immature self concept and arithmetic disability; and (5) the relationshipsbetween.immature self concept and reading and arithmetic disabilities were greater at the third grade level than at the sixth.1 At the junior high school level, Brookover2 studied the relation- ship between the self concept a pupil has regarding his ability to do certain school work and the grades he received. His purpose was to determine whether or not self concept of ability was a significant fac- tor in the achievement of junior high school pupils. Fifty-five per cent of the seventh graders of four junior high schools in a single com— munity were included in the sample of this study. Instruments used to measure the important variables of the study were measures of self con- cept of ability, measures of academic achievement, and grade point average. Pupils who were one or more standard deviation above or below the mean academic achievement score were classified as "over achievers" and "under achievers" respectively. He correlated students' achievement scores with their self concept of ability and found that self concept of ability was significantly related to achievement for both boys and girls. He also found that self concept of ability may be quite different from one academic area to another, and each may be different from the pupils' general self concept of ability. In both this report, and in a later 1Ibid. 2W. B. Brookover, A. Patterson, and S. Thomas, "The Relationship of Self-Images to Achievement in Junior High School Subjects," Michigan State University, 1962 (final report), Cooperative Research Project No. 845. 38 report be indicated that the expectations of significant others as per- ceived by pupils was positively correlated with their self concepts as learners. Among the significant others mentioned were parents, "favorite" teachers, and peers. At the other end of the educational ladder, Wattenberg and Clifford2 studied the relationship of self concept to beginning reading achievement in kindergarten and second grade. They administered self concept measures while the children of two schools were in kindergarten, and administered to these same pupils two years later self concept meas- ures and a reading progress index. They found that self concept of ability was only slightly correlated with self concept of "goodness." They concluded that self concept bears a causal relationship to achieve- ment but not vice versa, and that self concept is a much more complex concept than it is commonly thought to be. In studying the influence on academic achievement of the actual self concept and the ideal self concept of ninth-grade students, Chicker- ing3 observed that: (1) there is an inverse relationship between aca- demic achievement and discrepancy between the actual and ideal self con- cept; (2) under achievers apply certain actual self-perceptions to them- selves to a greater degree than to over achievers; (3) over achievers 1W. B. Brookover, Thomas Shailer, "Self Concept of Ability and School Achievement," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXVII (1964), 271-78. 2WilliamW. Wattenberg, and C. Clifford, "Relationship of the Self Concept to Beginning Achievement in Reading," Wayne State Univer- sity (final report), Cooperative Research Project No. 377, 1962. 3Arthur W. Chickering, "Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept and Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1958), 164. 39 apply certain actual self-perceptions to themselves to a greater degree than to under achievers. He also found that the ideal self-perceptions of under achievers and over achievers are more similar than are their actual self-perceptions, and under achievers apply to themselves items seen as least self-descriptive by the general population to a greater degree than do over achievers. Over achievers, on the other hand, apply to themselves items seen as most self-descriptive by the general popula- tion to a greater degree than do under achievers. There was no evi- dence to suggest a stable relationship between self-discrepancy and effort in school or school attendance. Neither was there evidence to indicate that under achievers differ from over achievers in their ideal self perceptions. The overall results of the investigation suggested that the relationship between academic achievement and the discrepancy between actual and ideal self-concepts pertains primarily to differences in actual self concept. In a comprehensive investigation of school children in grades three to eleven, Bruck1 found academic grade point averages to be influenced by self concept in relation to differences in age and sex. The conclusions of the study were: (1) a positive and statistically significant relationship exists between self concept and grade point average on all grade levels; (2) there are statistically significant age differences in the relationship between self concept and grade point achievement when one compares early and later elementary pupils with HMax Bruck, "A Study of Age Differences and Sex Differences in the Relationship between Self Concept and Grade Point Average," Disser- tation Abstracts, XXIX (1959), 1646. 40 high school students; (3) there are also statistically significant sex differences among early elementary pupils and among high school students, but not among later elementary school pupils. Changes in self concept can be influenced by the "significant" others in a child's life, and to some degree by succeeding in a given 1 task. Wylie reports research in which subjects changed their self evaluations after experimentally induced success. Along this same line, Machr et al.2 found that approval or disapproval by "significant" others brought about statistically significant increases or decreases in self regard. 3 Wingo summarizing research efforts which relates to the class- room climate expressed the importance of this facet of the learning situation very aptly when he says: Research of the last decade supports the principle that learning in both the qualitative and quantitative aspects is related to the kinds of personal relationships which obtain in the classroom. There are two important dimensions involved in such relations. One is the degree of rapport which exists between the teacher and the students. The other is the nature of the relations among the students.4 1Ruth c. Wylie, The Self Concept: A Critical Survey of Perti- nent Research Literature (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), p. 198. 2Martin L. Machr, Josef Mensing, and Samuel Nafzger, "Concept of Self and the Reaction to Others," Sociometyy, XXV (1962), 353-57. 3C. Max Wingo in Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclgpedia of Educa- tional Research, third edition (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960), pp. 848-58. 4Ibid., p. 848. 41 The structure of the classroom social order is, as Wingo suggests, an important aspect of the entire learning situation. It is also an extremely complex structure that involves social order, socio- logical structure, and sociometric structure, among others. The concern here is with the effect the group has upon the individual pupil. To that end, a brief review of literature relating to the effect of the group upon individuals is in order. Included in this review is a selected examination of the literature referring to sociometrics and the sociometric structure of classes. The school, as well as the family, assumes a responsibility for helping the child become integrated into society. As a conveyor of societal values, the school is charged with the function of assisting the child to internalize these values. The pupil's relationship to the teacher, as a conveyor of societal values, and his relation to other pupils, as conveyors of peer group standards, constitute the two major dimensions of classroom interpersonal dynamics. That these inter- personal dynamics affect the pupil's acquisition of socially approved modes of behavior cannot be denied. Lippitt,1 in studying delinquents and matched nondelinquents, reports that the delinquents much more fre- quently have records of early school failure in terms their relation- ships within the classroom group. The power of the group for the modification of behavior is aptly described in a summary of research on group behavior in the 1Ronald Lippitt, "The Learner and the Classroom Group," in Walter P. Waetjen (ed.), Human Variability and Learning, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D.C.: National Educa— tion Association, 1961). 42 classroom by Trow et a1.1 After listing twelve assertions which have direct bearing upon classroom management, they summarize by saying: Thus we can safely accept the view that group phenomena definitely effect the progress of learning, as well as the kind of learning that takes place. The educational significance of this view derives from the fact that the pupil's attitudes as well as his behavior patterns are modifiable. Increased motivation in partici- pating in classroom activities and consequently in learning derives from several different potential sources in a group atmosphere where good mental health prevails.2 The relationship between acceptability and achievement is reported in a study by Rosenfeld and Zander3 in which they assert that the classroom group significantly influences the motivation and learning of a great majority of pupils. A further exploration of the relationship between acceptability and achievement was carried out by Buswell4 who studied the relationship between peer acceptance and achievement in the public schools of St. Paul, Minnesota. Three hundred twenty-one fifth grade pupils and 286 kindergarten children were the subjects under study. Measures of social acceptability and achievement appropriate to the grade level were studied closely. Comparison of these groups with no factors controlled yielded a significant difference in mean achievement at both levels, UN. C. Trow et al., "The Class as a Group," in J. F. Rosenbloth and W. Allinsmith (eds.), The Causes of Behavior 11. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966), pp. 204-10. 2Ibid., pp. 206-207. 3H. Rosenfeld,and A. Zander, "The Influence of Teachers on Aspi- rations of Students," Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 1-12. 4Margaret M" Buswell, "The Relationship between the Social Struc- ture of the Classroom and the Academic Success of the Pupil," Journal of Eyperimental Education, XXII (1953), 37-52. 43 always in favor of the accepted group, except in arithmetic at the fifth grade. The author concluded that,"With the exception of this arithmetic factor, . . . it was rather definitely shown that achievement as such is related to social acceptability."1 Bjerstedt,2 reporting on extensive studies carried out among ele- mentary school children in Sweden noted that data from intelligence tests and school marks showed a clear difference between highly chosen and rejected children in favor of the highly chosen group. Lippitt and Gold3 found in a study of the relationship of social structure to mental health that: . children who were low in the social structure have a continu- ing experience of social failure and rejection. . . . Those low in the social structure experienced more failure of their own attempts and were more dominated by the behavior of others.4 They also reported that the classroom group tended by its structure to retard any positive change in mental health on the part of these children. Seigel and Seigel5 conducted a study which explored the impact of a pupil's membership group and the reference group from which he 1Ibid., p. 47. 2A. A. Bjerstedt, Interpretations of Sociometric Choice Status (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1956). 3Ronald Lippitt and Martin Told, "Classroom Social Structure as a.Mental Health Problem," Journal of Social Issues, XV (1959), 40-49. 4Ibid., p. 43. 5A. E. Siegel and S. Siegel, "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LV (1957), 360-64. 44 draws his basic cultural mores upon his attitudes. Their findings support the proposition that inclusion, or acceptance into the group, should result in a higher congruence between the attitudes a pupil holds about himself and those he attributes to others in the classroom. Research evidence supports the generalization that pupils in the classroom, acting as a group or groups, exert a powerful influence on each individual within that class. They may create or enhance whatever positive or negative feelings a student may have about himself. They may also significantly affect his achievement. Among the many techniques designed to determine group structure, the area of sociometry appears to have contributed fruitful and widely used measurement devices. Literature describing the application of sociometry to schools is voluminous, and would appear to support the generalization that the sociogram and sociometric questionnaire have become an integral part of many if not most teachers' diagnostic tools. Of particular concern to this dissertation is the use of socio- metric tests and the effect of sociometric position upon pupils. The sociometric test has been described by its creator, Moreno, as: An instrument to measure the amount of organization shown by social groups is called a sociometric test. The sociometric test requires an individual to choose his associates for any group of which he is or might become a member.1 Bronfenbrenner2 has done the most extensive study of the use of 1Jacob L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? (Washington, D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1934), p. 11. 2 . . Urle Bronfenbrenner, "A Constant Frame of Reference for Soc10- metric Research: Part II, Experiment and Inference," Sociometpy, VII (1944), 40-75.. 45 the sociometric test in the classroom. It was he who established the optimum number of questions to be asked and the number of choices that should be made by each pupil. Through his research efforts he concluded: In classroom situations, marked shifts in sociometric status are comparatively rare. On the whole, children tend to retain the same general social position and this tendency becomes more pro- nounced in older age groups. This finding is supported by Bonney2 who found sociometric choice to be as stable as intelligence and academic ability. Sociometric status or position within the classroom has some demonstrable effect upon one's ability to function. There in fact seems to be a spiral effect where inclusion or exclusion influences achieve- ment skills, which in turn influence inclusion or exclusion. Van Egmond,3 for example, found that those students who were influential with peers and accepted by them utilized their intellectual ability to a greater degree than did those who were not as influential nor as well accepted. Epperson4 found that there was a strong relationship between peer exclusion and other forms of alienation. 1Ibid., 73. 2Merl E. Bonney, "The Relative Stability of Social, Intellectual, and Academic Status in Grades II to IV and the Inter-Relationships be- tween these Various Forms of Growth," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIV (1943), 88-102. 3Elmer E. Van Egmond, "Social Interrelationship Skills and Effective Utilization of Intelligence in the Classroom" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1960), p. 67. 4David C. Epperson, "The Dynamics of Two Variants of Classroom Alienation" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michi- gan, 1962). 5Ibid., p. 87. 46 Working with elementary pupils, Bonney1 studied the relationship between achievement and social acceptability. Utilizing achievement tests and sociometric tests, he found an average correlation of .33 between achievement and social acceptance. Sociometric devices appear to contribute to teacher understanding of the classroom group climate, and to the consequence of pupil socio- metric status as a factor affecting his performance. There is clear evidence that sociometric status has a demonstrable effect upon pupil performance. Jenningssays: Investigation reveals . . . that better work in general is done when pupils are in close association with other pupils with whom they want to be and with whom they feel most comfortable. Moreover, many other outcomes of such grouping practices make the teacher's work more enjoyable.2 The literature uniformly endorses the sociometric test as a valuable diagnostic device. It is less clear in suggesting appropriate classroom application of sociometric findings. Such application is beyond the scope of this study, but the cautions noted by Dahlke and Monahan3 merit careful scrutiny by the classroom teacher. Summary Chapter II has first of all attempted to summarize the research on the topic of teacher personality. All researchers agree that the 1Bonney, op. cit., p. 101. 2Helen Jennings, "Sociometric Grouping in Relation to Child Development," in Fostering Mental Health in Our Schools, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1950 Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1950), p. 203. 3H. O. Dahlke, and T. O. Monahan, "Problems in the Application of Sociometry to Schools," School Review, LVII (1949), 223-34. 47 teacher's personality is an important aspect of their teaching success. Some researchers have concentrated on the personality traits of elemen- tary teachers. They generally agree that elementary classroom teachers differ from secondary teachers in many ways. One aspect of personality which has significance for this study is the area which deals with the influences of personality upon the prediction of the behavior of other persons. There are many variables that influence prediction, but most researchers agree that some teachers are capable of making accurate pre- dictions about their pupils. Research related to the self concept of elementary school children and to children's awareness to class social structure have also been reviewed. Several studies have explored the influence of these variables upon school achievement and personal adjust- ment. There is general agreement that each of these have a direct bear- ing upon the success and adjustment of elementary school children. Chapter III will discuss the methodology of this study. It will review the hypotheses about which the study was designed, and describe the procedures which were followed in gathering data. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to report the design of the study and to describe how it was conducted. The major focus of the investiga- tion was upon educational attitudes, belief systems, particularly open or closed mindedness,and selected aspects of the personality structure of elementary classroom teachers, based on the assumption that these factors had some influence upon the ability of teachers to accurately assess the self perceptions of pupils and their sociometric status. Much of the literature in curriculum theory and practice empha- sizes these skills as being essential to the rapport which must exist in effective learning situations. There is evidence in the literature, cited in Chapter II, which indicates that teachers can, in general, make reasonably accurate predictions about their pupils. It also indicates that there is great variance in this skill. There seems, however, to be little investigation into the how or why of these capabilities, or the causative factors which may account for the great variance in teachers' ability to make accurate predictions. Several questions were developed to explore factors which may affect accuracy of predictions. These were: 48 49 1. What differences exist in terms of attitudes toward education between elementary classroom teachers who are most accurate in making predictions about pupil self concept and sociometric position, and those teachers who are least accurate in making these predictions? 2. What differences exist in the open and closed mindedness of accurate predicting teachers and inaccurate teachers? 3. What differences exist in the interpersonal aspects of person- ality between high predicting and low predicting teachers? In considering the process of studying teachers and the varia- bles which contribute to their prediction skills, one must take into; consideration the possible effects of a number of other variables. Several questions appeared to require answers. Does the sex of the predicting teacher affect ability to make accurate predictions? What effect does the age of the predictor have upon ability to make accurate predictions? All of the elementary teachers in this study were certi- fied by the state of Michigan and therefore had at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution, but beyond that one could assume a range of difference in educational attainment. Some teachers would have only a bachelor's degree, some would have their master's degree, others would be working toward this degree status, and conceivably some teachers would be taking graduate work beyond their master's degree. This situation then raises the question: Does the level of educational attainment have an effect on the ability of teachers to make accurate predictions about their students? There also existed a range of dif- ferences in the experiences of the teachers involved in this study. All of them were on tenure, but experience could conceivably range from 50 two years to several decades. One might reasonably assume that not all of these teachers had all of their teaching experience in an elementary school setting. Some may have spent a portion of their professional careers as secondary teachers. These two considerations raise another set of questions. These are: Is there a difference in the ability of elementary classroom teachers to make accurate predictions about their students which is related to the number of years they have taught? In other words, Does experience make a difference? The other question raised relates to experience at the elementary level. Are those teachers who have been elementary teachers throughout their careers better predictors than those who have not? Another question which seemed related to this investigation was: Is there any difference between high predicting teachers and low predicting teachers which is related to the grade level which they teach? These questions led to the formulation of two testable hypotheses. Hypotheses The hypotheses of this study are: 1. There will be no significant differences between High and Low Congruent teachers on the personality traits of: a. Democratic or authoritarian educational attitudes b. Open or closed mindedness c. Affiliation or rejection d. Dominance or submission 2. There will be no significant differences between High Congruent and Low Congruent teachers in their demographic characteristics of: 51 a. Sex b. Age c. Level of educational attainment d. Total years of teaching experience e. Years of elementary teaching experience f. Grade level assignment Research Site The three school districts chosen for this study were the Plymouth Community School District, the Wayne Community School District, and the Ypsilanti Public School District. They were selected first because they each serve as an off-campus student-teaching center for Eastern Michigan University, and therefore may have value for any fur- ther exploration which may result from this study. Second, they are the three largest off-campus student-teaching centers associated with the University. Potentially they offer the greatest range of dif- ferences among their teaching populations. Third, each of these dis- tricts have in their student population a wide variety of pupils in terms of cultural and socio-economic differences in background. Fourth, each of these school districts select their teachers from a number of universities and geographic areas of the country and therefore provide teachers who represent a great range in background and personality. Grade Level Selection Grades four, five, and six were selected for five basic reasons. First, the study was limited to elementary school teachers, and these grade levels are commonly part of the elementary school. Second, the 52 pupils of these grades possess adequate maturity, and academic skills to make the tasks they were asked to perform reasonable. Third, the social structure of the class has more stability than in earlier grades. Fourth, these pupils possess the skill and maturity required for making accurate and reliable assessments of their feelings about themselves. Fifth, the teachers of the grade levels are generally the last teachers in the educational program to have prolonged daily contact with one group of pupils. This presumably would have given them ample opportunity to become acquainted with their pupils and their groups. Pppulation The teachers selected for this study were restricted to teachers with tenure, in the belief that, unlike beginning teachers, these teachers have had sufficient experience in teaching to enable them to make the evaluative judgments required by this investigation. Using a procedure described in a latter section of this chapter, 14 male and 31 female tenure teachers from grades four, five, and six were selected for inclusion in this study. Selection of the Data Gathering Instruments In the review of the literature and examination of previous research, a number of approaches were noted in various attempts to deter- mine the dynamics of the phenomenon of teacher sensitivity to pupil need. The concern in this investigation was to find instruments which would be relevant to the major hypotheses under study. To this end, several approaches were given consideration. 53 Several inventories, check lists, scales and survey instruments were examined for possible use in this study. Those which appeared most promising were: the California F Scale (F Scale); the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI); the Allport-Vernon-Lindzay Study of Values; the Dogmatism Scale (D-Scale); the Education Scale VII (ES-VII); the Integpcrsonal Check List (ICL). The F Scale was developed as a result of research on anti- Semitism. A complete description is found in the book, The Authori- l tarian Personality. One type of personality structure was identified as "authoritarian," "antidemocratic," or "Fascist." Those who did not give evidence of anti-Semitic feelings were termed "democratic" or "equalitarian." The democratic personality is one who has ". ." and ". . . more more flexible emotion and cognitive adjustment pronounced appreciation of the complexity of social and personal rela- tions, as well as a more profound sympathy with the psychological and social sciences studying these relations."2 The F Scale was seen as a major contribution to the measurement of basic personality structure and has been used in many studies, including at least two explorations involving teachers' attitudes.3’4 However, a number of 1T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Bros., 1950). 2Ibid., p. 481. 3Kristen D. Juul, "Authoritarian Personality in Relation to Teachers' Attitudes Toward Child Behavior" (unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Wayne State University, 1953). 4Robert F. Allen, "A Preliminary Exploratory Study of Authori- tarianism as'Manifested in the Formal Education of Children" (unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1956). 54 scholars have questioned the validity of the F Scale. Coh points out that intelligence scores and ". . . a response set to answer positively" seem to be major factors in determining F Scale scores.1 Christie2 and Rokeach3 severely criticize it as measuring Fascistic ideology or "right- wing" authoritarianism rather than authoritarianism in general. Thus, the "left-wing" authoritarian or "rigid liberal" might be characterized as a "democratic" or "equalitarian" type simply on the basis of F Scale scores. Since one of the concerns of this study was open or closed mindedness,the F Scale was considered to be too narrow in scope and therefore was rejected. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was given serious con- sideration as an instrument for assessing the educational attitudes and values of the teachers in this study but was rejected because the litera- ture suggests it to be extremely high in fakability.4 The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values was also considered. This scale measures general value constellations, but is not concerned with educational values. Two instruments which were capable of measuring the broad spec- trum of attitudes and values which teachers might hold toward the disci- pline of education and life in general were located. There were used to 1Thomas S. Coh, "Factors Related to Scores on the F Predisposi- tion to Fascism Scale" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Univer- sity of Michigan, 1953). 2R. Christie and M. Jahoda, Studies in the Scope Methods of the Authoritarian Personality (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1954), pp. 24- 29, 123-96. 3Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1960), p. 13. 4 J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, op. cit., pp. 519-21. 55 obtain a measure of teacher's attitude and belief systems in the areas of open or closed mindedness, and rigidity and flexibility concerning educational issues and general life themes. The first of these was Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (D-Scale); the second was Kerlinger's Educational Scale VII (ES-VII). It was felt that these two scales would adequately assess a broad range of teacher atti- tudes. The third instrument selected for use in this investigation was the Interpersonal Check List (ICL) which was developed by Suczek and LaForge. The I§L_provided ease of administration plus adequate relia- bility. It also provided a measure of several (eight) interpersonal aspects of personality. The fourth instrument to be utilized with teachers was the Partic- ipating Teacher Inventogy. This was designed to elicit information regarding the sex, age, educational attainment, total years of experience, years of elementary experience and grade level assignment of elementary classroom teachers who participated in this study. The Kerlinger Educational Scale VII was selected as an instru- ment in this study because it measures educational attitudes more relia- bly than any other scale examined. Kerlinger originally tested his scale on approximately 200 students. An item analysis helped identify those students who were "progressive" and those who were "traditional." The item analysis also revealed those items which were highly saturated and those items which had high discriminatory power. In an effort toward improvement, several revisions of the scale were made. One of these was administered to a sample which included 136 undergraduate students in 56 education, 157 graduate students in education, and 305 people outside of the university and unrelated to academic life. As a result Kerlinger concludes: . The cross-sectional study seemed to demonstrate the factor identity and validity of the items, confirming the original analysis. Evidently the 5 items measure Progressivism and the B items measure Traditionalism.1 2 which involved 400 teachers and graduate students A more recent study also supported previous research on this instrument. There are several versions of the Education Scale in existence and use. Kerlinger, in a personal letter,3 advised the use of scale ES-VII. This scale consists of thirty (30) statements which the respondent must assign a value, representing the degree of agreement or disagreement with each item. The Dogmatism Scale was selected because it appeared to have more reliability than the F Scale and other similar instruments. The D-Scale is the result of Rokeach's studies in the area of prejudice and dogmatic thinking. Rokeach describes the purpose of the scale as follows: The primary purpose of this scale is to measure individual differences in openness and closedness of belief systems the scale should also serve to measure general authoritarianism and general intolerance.4 There have been five major revisions of the D-Scale since it was originally devised. Each revision was the result of an exhaustive item 1Fred N. Kerlinger, Manual for E.S., mimeographed, p. 2. 2Kerlinger and Pedhazur, op. cit., pp. 106-10. 3Letter from Fred N. Kerlinger, January, 1967. 4Rokeach, op. cit., pp. 71-72. 57 analysis and was an attempt to bring greater reliability to the scale. Form B, the latest revision, was tested on 528 subjects in different settings ranging from English factory workers,to American university students, to patients at Veterans Administration hospitals. The relia- bilities obtained from these samples ranged from .68 to .93. Replica- tion of certain of these correlation studies have reported general agreement with the Rokeach findings.1 This instrument seemed appropriate for this study because it clearly discriminated between subjects whose general belief systems were in fact different in that one group could be described as open, flexible, and antiauthoritarian, and the other as closed, rigid, and authoritarian. The Integpersonal Check List (ICL) was selected because its entire foundation is based upon a theoretical construct of interpersonal relations as expressed by Harry Stack Sullivan. The authors of the instrument emphasized the interpersonal aspects of behavior in the belief that the essence of human happiness and despair, success and failure, centers in the manner in which the person consistently sees, symbolizes and communicates with others.2 Following this conceptual belief, an instrument which contains 16 aspects of interaction organized in a circular continuum was developed on which these variables are "sys- tematically related to each other in an orderly descending relationship 0 O 3 as one moves around the c1rcle from any given reference p01nt. UN. T. Plant, "Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale as a Measure of General Authoritarianism," Psychological Rgports, VI (1960), 164. 2Timothy Leary, and Hubert S. Coffey, "Interpersonal Diagnosis: Some Problems of Methodology and Validation," Journal of Abnormal and Social ngchology, L (1950), 111. 3lbid. 58 Intensity of interpersonal behavior variable is measured by distance from the center of the circle. Extreme, rigid behavior which is con- sidered nonadjustive is indicated along the perimeter of the circle, while flexible adjustive behavior is placed closer to the center. For clinical and research purposes it is "convenient to summarize a person's repertoire of behavior into eight broader descriptive categories obtained by combining adjacent variables.1 Thus, eight interpersonal modes of adjustment and eight interpersonal types of maladjustment are possible. Utilizing a series of descriptive adjectives which were developed by Suczek and LaForge2 these patterns are described by Leary and Coffey in a schema which is condensed in Table l. The intensity of interpersonal behavior on each of these varia- bles is assessed by a series of eight descriptive adjectives. Each adjective is designed to indicate an individual's placement along a con- tinuum of adjustment. Therefore, there are four positive and four nega- tive statements for each variable, or 16 for each of the eight combined variables. Location of a summary point on the circle which epitomized the subject's interpersonal behavior is achieved by obtaining the point where the two major axes meet. These axes are combinations of the ver- tical and horizontal weights of interpersonal behavior intensity along 1Ibid., 112. 2Robert Suczek, and Rolfe LaForge, "The Interpersonal Dimensions of Personality: III. An Interpersonal Check List," Journal of Personal- ipy, xxrv (1955), 94-112. 3Leary and Coffey, op. cit., 112. 59 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ADAPTIVE AND MALADAPTIVE INTERPERSONAL RESPONSE SYSTEM BY OCTANT DESIGNATIONS ___7 Variable Interpersonal Mode Interpersonal Type Code of Adjustment of Maladjustment A P Executive, forceful, Managing, autocratic power respected personality oriented personality B C Independent, competitive Narcissistic, explorative personality personality D E Blunt, frank, critical, Aggressive, sadistic unconventional personality personality F G Realistic, skeptical Passively resistant, bitter, personality distrustful personality H I Modest, sensitive Passive, submissive, self- personality punishing personality J K Respectful, trustful Docile, dependent personality personality L‘M. Bland, conventional, Naive, "sweet," over- friendly, agreeable conforming personality personality N 0 Popular, responsible Hypernormal, hyperpopular, personality compulsively generous personality each continuum. The vertical axis refers to the Dominant-Submissive tendencies (Dom) of the subject, while the horizontal axis refers to the HostilitywAffiliation tendencies (Lov) of the subject. For purposes of administration,the descriptive adjectives are organized by random distribution into a check list of 128 items. personal adjustment at two levels. This check list may be employed to obtain a measure of inter- At Level I the subject may be tested 60 on the instrument by professional observers or his peers. At Level II, the subject gives his responses to instruments. The check list is com- pleted by having the respondent place a check next to each of the descriptive adjectives which describe the subject. Scoring is accom- plished by summing the number of checked statements for each of the eight combined variables. Scores for the two major axes of 22p and Lgy are obtained by trigonometric formulas. The ICL has had several major revisions. Each revision has resulted in obtaining greater test reliability. The version used in this study is reported by Leary to have a test reliability of .78 for octant reliability. The Participating Teacher Inventopy A personal data inventory was developed for use by the classroom teachers participating in this study. The following information was included: name, sex, age, type of initial degree and certification, present certification status, graduate status, courses taken in the area of psychology, total credit hours in psychology, total years taught, total years of elementary school teaching, and present teaching assign- ment. Instruments Used with Pupils A basic concern of this investigation is an examination of ele- mentary classroom teacher's attitudes as they affect the ability of teachers to make accurate predictions about their students and their class group. Student self-perception was selected as one of the areas about which teachers were asked to make predictions. It was selected 61 because it was felt to be one of the prime aspects of the teaching- 1earning process. As the literature indicates, the feelings one has about himself significantly affect his ability to learn. The other area selected for examination was the teacher's knowledge of the sociometric positions held by individual pupils. Sociometric structure was selected because it is widely accepted as being another major influence upon the teaching-learning process. One of the problems of assessing the two variables was that of finding reliable instruments. A second problem was selecting instruments which were easily understood by all students. Two measures of children's self concept were given serious con- sideration. The first was the Coopersmith Self Esteen Inventory.1 The second was the How I See Myself Test. The Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory was given careful con— sideration. It met the criterion of simplicity. It was easy to read and easily understood by children. It was discarded when information was discovered which seriously questioned its lack of internal validity? The second instrument which was considered and found acceptable for use in this study was an instrument developed by Ira Gordon at the University of Florida. This scale, entitled the How I See Myself Test, was, according to Gordon, developed from . the categories developed 1S. Coopersmith, "A Method for Determining Types of Self-Esteemf' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (1959), 87-94. 20. O. Dyer, "Construct Validity of Self-Concept Multi-Trait Multi-Method Analysis" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Univer- sity of Michigan, 1963). A /—‘ 62 by Jersild (1952) out of the compositions of children. On the surface, the scale assesses attitudes toward school, peers, physical body, and one's own emotions. Factor analysis, however, reveals that the struc- ture is not that simple. Different clusters of items assume different degrees of importance in children's eyes from grades 3 to 12 and depend- ing upon sex.1 In a private communication,2 Gordon suggested three factors as being most appropriate for this study. These factors were "Academic " and Personal Adequacy." Adequacy," "Teacher-School Relationships, These three categories have the greatest amount of reliability for pupils of grades four, five, and six. The "How I See Myself Test" consists of 40 sets of oppositional statements to which the pupils respond on a five point differential scale, circling the number which most appropriately indicates his feel- ings. An example of the manner in which the pupil responds to the state- ments is contained in the test instructions.3 The items are categorized into three major factors--Teacher-Pupil Relationships, Personal Adequacy, and Academic Adequacy. The pupils cumulative score for all items in each category becomes his factor score. The assessment of the sociometric position of each pupil followed standard sociometric procedure. The specific device selected for this 1Gordon, op. cit., p. 56. 2Letter from Dr. Ira Gordon, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, November 6, 1967. 3Gordon, Studying the Child in School, p. 73. 63 1 and is based study appears in Gronlund's Sociometpy in the Classroom upon the empirical studies of Bronfenbrenner who studied the problem of the best sociometric structure of groups. The instrument consisted of three questions,each designed to assess a different aspect of the group's structure. The three questions are: I would choose to sit near these children: I would choose to work with these children: I would choose to EIEE'GIEE these children:2 Each pupil was instructed to choose five classmates per question. The number of choices allotted to each question was based on research reports that five choices provide the most stable sociometric results. Procedures This study was initiated during the school year of 1967-68. After the school districts of Plymouth, Wayne, and Ypsilanti had been selected, a meeting was arranged with the Superintendents of these school districts. At these meetings the plan of the investigation was presented to the Superintendent of the schools and/or his assistant for elementary education. The purpose of these meetings was to obtain per- mission from the central administration for the collection of data from a sample of tenure teachers in their districts. Permission was granted in all three school districts. The Wayne Community Schools limited the study to eight of their 25 elementary schools. This limited the popula- tion to some degree. However, the eight schools which were agreed upon appear to be representative of all of the schools within that district. 1Norman E. Gronlund, Sociometry in the Classroom (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959). 21bid., p. 50. 64 Following the meetings with the central staff, the principals of each of the schools which had fourth, fifth, or sixth grade classes were contacted by telephone after they had been informed by the super- intendent's office that this investigation was approved. A meeting was scheduled with each principal. The study was described, questions were answered, permission was obtained to utilize the teachers of their build- ings. Where agreement was reached, the names of the tenured teachers were obtained for the completion of the population list. Two principals refused to cooperate. In one case, the principal had provided the names of his tenure teachers but later refused permission to collect data. In the other, the principal refused to cooperate in any way. After meeting with the principal of every building which had teachers who met the criterion for this study, lists of all tenure teachers of the appropriate grades were compiled for each school dis- trict. Since the names of the tenure teachers from the two buildings where permission had not been obtained were available, these teachers were included on the appropriate list. The effort here was to preserve the randomization process as much as possible. It was hoped that if any of these teachers were selected in the sample, the principal might be convinced to allow his teacher to participate. The name of each eligi- ble teacher was placed on a card, each deck of cards was shuffled, and each card was then assigned a two digit number. A table of random num- bers was consulted and fifteen names were selected as a sample from each of the three school districts. One teacher was selected from the two schools which had refused permission for data collection. The principal 65 of this school was contacted and when he again declined to cooperate, the sixteenth randomly ordered card provided the needed fifteenth teacher for that district's list. An appointment was made with each of the 45 teachers on the sample list. The project was explained to them, questions were answered, and although some of them expressed reservations, everyone agreed to par- ticipate in the study. Arrangements were then made with the teachers for the collection of data from themselves and their pupils. Agginistration of the Instruments At the agreed upon time, the examiner arrived at the classroom with two packets of materials. One packet was for teachers, and the other for pupils. The teacher's packet contained: The Education Scale VII, the Dogmatisp Scale, the Interpersonal Check List, the Participat- ing Teacher Inventory, a form on which the teacher was to make predic- tions, copies of the How I See Myself Test, and the sociometric question- naire. The packet of materials for the pupils consisted of a copy of the How I See Myself Test and a copy of the sociometric questionnaire for each child. The examiner presented the teacher with his materials. Each instrument was explained and questions were answered. The teacher then had the option of remaining in the classroom or going to another part of the building to complete his task. The How I See Myself Test was distributed to each member of the class. The standardized directions were read to the class, and ques- tions were answered. Each of the 40 sets of statements which comprise the instrument was then read to the pupils. Each one responded by 66 indicating on a five point scale his position on the continuum describing opposing statements. When the How I See Myself was completed and collected, the socio- metric questionnaire was distributed. The directions for the test were read from a standardized set of directions, and any questions the chil- dren raised were answered. Before the pupils began to complete the instrument, the examiner called their attention to the chalkboard. Prior to the examiner's arrival the teacher had written the first and last name of each member of the class on the chalkboard. This was done to assist the students in making their selections, and in helping them to accurately record their choices. ‘While the pupils were responding to the sociometric questionnaire, the examiner moved about the room assisting anyone who was having difficulty. ScoringgProcedures Teacher Instruments The Kerlinger Education Scale VII was scored according to the procedures suggested in the manual. The scale is divided into two major parts; 15 A "progressive" items, and lS‘B "conservative" items. These items are rated by the examinee on a seven point scale which ranges from plus three through minus three for each item. Scoring is accomplished by summing the g items and dividing by ten for the A score. High positive scores on this factor indicates an agreement with attitudes associated with "Progressivism." ‘B items are scored in a similar manner with high positive scores indicating agreement with attitudes associated with "Traditionalism." A 9 score is obtained by reversing the sign on the B 67 score and combining it with the A score. This score according to Kerlinger gives an indication of the examinee's degree of general "Progressivism." The Rokeach ngmatism Scale (D-Scale) was scored according to procedures suggested in The Open and Closed Mind.1 The subjects indi- cate agreement or disagreement on a seven point summated scale as in the ES VII. Scoring is accomplished by adding four to each response and summing the responses. High scores on this scale indicate attitudes which are associated with closed belief systems. Conversely, low scores are associated with open belief systems. The directions for scoring the Interpersonal Check List indicate that one is to place a check before each adjective which is descriptive of the person being described. Each item is coded as belonging to one of the sixteen factors on the instrument. These scores are combined by successive pairs giving eight raw scores that refer to the eight varia- bles of interpersonal behavior which compose the basic units of the scale. Following a weighted scoring procedure, one next arrives at the raw scores for the two major axes of the scale; dominance-submissiveness (Dom) on the one hand, and hostility-affection (Lov) on the other. These scores can be plotted on a circular index and function much as vectors of force in the physical sciences. The data from the Participating Teacher Inventory was compiled into a series of tables which related to each of the sub-hypotheses stated in Chapter I. The data in each area was grouped so that it could be more readily analyzed. 1Rokeach, op. cit. 68 When the scoring procedures were completed for each of the instruments administered to teachers, the teachers were placed in rank order according to their score on each instrument. In some cases, such as the ES VII and the ICL, the teachers were also ranked according to the sub-scales of the instruments. Pppil's Instruments Each instrument administered to the children was scored by hand following the procedures outlined in the appropriate manual except where otherwise noted. The scoring of the How I See Myself Test followed procedures outlined by Ira Gordon in a private communication. He sug- gested using the three most productive factors which he had identified after conducting a factor analysis of the test. These include: Teacher- School Relationship items, Academic Adequacy items, and Personal Adequacy items. The pupil was directed to indicate on a five point scale the degree to which one of two opposing statements most accurately described his feelings. A score of one indicated applicability of the positive statement. Seventeen items of the test had been reversed to provide a check on the consistency of pupil responses. In scoring, these items had to be reversed. A one became a five, a two a four, a three remained the same, a four became a two, and a five became a one. The pupil's score was obtained by summing his responses to the items of each factor. The sociometric device was scored by using weighted scores. A score of five was awarded each time a pupil was chosen as a first choice by one of his peers. Four points were awarded each time he was chosen 69 second, three when chosen third, two when fourth, and one when fifth. In order to obtain a pupil score for a given sociometric question his score for each position of choice was summed. This method of scoring differs from that used by Gronlund in that each choice was weighted according to position. However, a ten per cent check of the sample in which Gronlund's scoring procedure was followed revealed no statistical difference in the obtained scores. Because the weighted scoring proce- dure produced a greater range of differences, it was decided to adhere to this method of scoring. When the scoring of each instrument was completed, the median and interquartile ranges were established for each class. All scores which were in the first quartile or upper 25 per cent were marked with a plus sign. All scores which were in the fourth quartile or lower 25 per cent were marked with a minus sign. This procedure was used to facili- tate the later process of establishing congruence. At the time that each of the 45 teachers completed the instru- ments in his packet, he made several predictions about the pupils in his class. First, each teacher was asked to name three pupils who would score highest on each of the three factors of the How I See myself Test. Second, they were asked to name three pupils who would score lowest on the three factors of the same test. The three factors were Teacher- School Relationships, Academic Adequacy, and Personal Adequacy. Third, the teachers were asked to predict the three pupils who would be most frequently chosen by their classmates on each of the three sociometric questions. Fourth, they were asked to predict which three of their 70 pupils would be least selected by their classmates on each of the three sociometric questions. After the pupils' tests had been scored, and the upper and lower 25 per cent had been identified for each of the three factors on the How I See Myself Test and the three sociometric questions, they were com- pared with the teacher's predictions. When a pupil actually ranked in the quartile into which the teacher had predicted he would fall, con- gruence was established. When the pupil was not ranked in the quartile in which the teacher predicted he would fall, congruence was not estab- lished. By this means, all pupils in the upper 25 per cent became eligi- ble as one of the teacher's three choices for high scoring pupils. All pupils who ranked in the lowest 25 per cent were eligible for congruence with the teacher's three choices for least chosen. Congruence The purpose in establishing the level of congruence was to permit the detailed examination of the attitudes, beliefs, and other variables of High and Low Congruent teachers. It was believed that significant differences might exist in these areas between High Con- gruent teachers and Low Congruent teachers. The level of congruence that each teacher attained was developed in two ways. The first was simple percentage of accuracy; the second, a Weighted score. These two measures of congruence were called Simple Congruence and Weighted Congruence, respectively. Simple Congruence was the percentage of accuracy attained by each teacher. Although this pro- Vided an index of the percentage of accuracy of teacher predictions, it 71 failed to discriminate between a teacher's prediction which was, in fact, grossly inaccurate. Weighted Congruence, the second measure of congruence, was developed to take into account differences in degrees of inaccuracy. Exact congruence obtains when the teacher's prediction falls in the same quartile as the pupil's obtained score. Each exact prediction was assigned a point value of plus one. Absolute noncongruence obtains when the teacher's prediction falls in the quartile most removed from the pupil's actual quartile placement and was assigned a point value of minus one. Teacher predictions which fell between these extremes when compared with the actual pupil placement were assigned a point value of plus one-half. The teacher's congruence score on Weighted Congruence was obtained by summing his congruence score on all factors. The congruence level that each teacher obtained depended upon the degree of accuracy with which he made the 36 predictions which were required. After the level of congruence was established for each of the two systems of measurement, the teachers were placed into three rank ordered groups. The first was ranked according to scores on Simple Con- gruence, the second was according to their rank on Weighted Congruence. The third grouping was obtained by ranking those teachers who scored low or high on both Simple Congruence and Weighted Congruence. This grouping was called Combined Congruence. After the teachers were ranked according to their prediction Skill, the highest 25 per cent were designated as High Congruent teachers and the lowest 25 per cent were designated as Low Congruent teachers. 72 Analysis of Data Following the establishment of high congruence and low con- gruence groups in each of the three areas of Simple Congruence, Weighted Congruence, and Combined Congruence, the scores that the teachers in each group had obtained on the various instruments were analyzed. The scores of High and Low Congruent teachers on each of the three ES VII sub-scales were analyzed by means of the Mann-Whitney U test. The scores of each group on the D-Scale were analyzed by applica- tion of the same test. The same statistical tests were applied to the various sub-scores of the TEL, These included the scores on each of the eight octants, and the £21 and 22m scores. The variables of age, sex, educational attainment, total years of teaching experience, years of elementary school teaching experience, and grade level assignment were subjected to the Chi-Square test. These distribution-free statistical tests were selected for analysis of the data because: (a) size of the samples was small; (b) there was some question concerning the normality of the underlying distributions; and (c) the level of measurement of the independent variable was ordinal. Chi Squares were analyzed by the Olivetti Programmer lOO Computer using appropriate programs. The Mann-Whitney U tests were Completed by hand. Summary This study included 45 tenure teachers of grades four, five, and Six of the Plymouth Community Schools, Wayne Community Schools, and the Ypsilanti Public Schools. Personal data was collected from each teacher 73 through the utilization of the Education Scale VII, the Dogmatism Scale, the Interpersonal Check List, and a ParticipatinggTeacher Inventory. Every teacher was then asked to name three students who he believed would score highest and the three who he believed would score lowest on each of three factors of the How I See Myself Test and each of three sociometric questions. Two measures of congruence were applied to these predictions. The first method involved percentage of correct pre- dictions, and the second utilized weighted scores which penalized inaccurate predictions on the part of the teacher. After these data were scored, appropriate statistical procedures were applied to test for statistical significance. These procedures included Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney U tests. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to report the data which comprise the findings of this study. The chapter is organized about the findings relative to teacher congruence, and to the two hypotheses which have been developed. Teacher congruence was established by two methods. The first was a simple computation of percentage of accuracy. The second was a weighted measure designed to penalize grossly inaccurate predictions. These data are described in Tables 2 through 7. Hypothesis 1, to be reported first, states: There will be no significant differences between High and Low Congruent teachers on the personality traits of: a. Democratic or authoritarian educational attitudes b. Open or closed mindedness c. Affiliation or rejection d. Dominance or submissiveness The discussion of the findings regarding this hypothesis is divided into three parts, one for each of the instruments which were used to test the subdivisions of the hypothesis. These data are described in Tables 8 through 19. 74 75 Hypothesis 2, which is next reported, states: There will be no significant differences between High Congruent and Low Congruent teachers in the demographic characteristics of: a. Sex b. Age c. Level of educational attainment d. Total years of teaching experience e. Years of elementary teaching experience f. Grade level assignment The data which are relative to the hypothesis are discussed as they are pertinent to each of its subheadings. Tables 20 through 38 report these findings. Congruence One of the prime assumptions of this study is that elementary classroom teachers can make accurate judgments or predictions about the pupils in their classes. In order to differentiate between teachers who could or could not make accurate judgments about their pupils, each was asked to make predictions about two aspects of pupil perception. The first prediction was about the self concept of pupils. The second was in regard to the sociometric position of pupils within the class. The elementary teachers who participated in this investigation were asked to predict the three highest scoring and three lowest scoring pupils on each of six factors. This meant that teachers made 18 predictions about self concept and 18 about sociometric position. Two methods of determining congruence were used, as reported in Chapter III. One measure of congruence was a simple percentage of 76 accuracy. This is henceforth referred to as Simple Congruence. The second method defined congruence by using weighted scores, and is now referred to as Weighted Congruence. A third method of determining con- gruence required the combination of teacher scores on both Simple and Weighted Congruence; that is, when teachers scored in the upper quar- tile or lower quartile on both measures, the relevant data are referred to as Combined Congruence. This process more stringently defined High and Low Congruent teachers. Its effect was to reduce the number of teachers in any single category. The first variable for which simple accuracy scores were deter- mined was pupil self concept. These measures for all teachers are reported in Table 2. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR PUPIL SELF CONCEPT: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE W N Median Range Q3 Q1 All Teachers 45 .4705 .7900 .5294 .3529 High Congruent 12 .6111 .3612 -- -- Low Congruent 12 .4123 .3889 -- -- Table 2 shows that the average teacher who participated in this Study was accurate in his-assessment of pupil self concept 47 per cent 0f the time. The High Congruent teachers were able to make predictions at: a somewhat higher level (61 per cent) while the median accuracy score Ifi>r Low Congruent teachers was 41 per cent. These data 77 show that the average teacher in this sample was able to predict pupil self concept with a degree of accuracy greater than chance. A weighted accuracy score for prediction of pupil self concept was also determined for each teacher. These data are reported in Table 3. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR PUPIL SELF CONCEPT: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE N ‘Median Range Q3 Q1 All Teachers 45 10.5 9.0 12.0 9.0 High Congruent 13 12.0 5.5 -- -- Low Congruent 11 9.0 6.0 -- -- The data show a narrow range of difference between the High Congruent and the Low Congruent teachers in terms of their ability to predict the self concept of their pupils when the weighted scores are applied. Three points separate the highest low predictor and the lowest high predictor. The second characteristic about which teachers were asked to make predictions was that of pupil sociometric position. The participating teachers were asked to predict which three students in their classes would be most frequently chosen, and which three would be least frequently chosen by their classmates on each of three sociometric questions. Their simple accuracy scores are reported in Table 4. Table 4 shows a wide difference between the median scores of High and Low congruent teachers in their ability to make accurate 78 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONS: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE N Median Range Q3 Q1 All Teachers 45 .6111 .7777 .7222 .4444 High Congruent 13 .7499 .4444 -- -- Low Congruent 11 .4166 .4444 -- -- predictions regarding the sociometric position of their pupils as meas- ured by Simple Congruence. The median for all teachers is higher than one could expect by chance alone. The median for High Congruent teachers is much higher than one could expect from chance factors alone, while the Low Congruent teachers appear to be unable to make predictions even at the chance level. The weighted accuracy scores of teacher prediction of socio- metric position are reported in Table 5. TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS} SCORES ON SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONS: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE N Median Range Q3 Q1 A11 Teachers 45 13.5 13.0 15.0 12.5 High Congruent 13 15.75 3.5 -- -- Low Congruent 11 10.75 9.5 -- ~- \ 79 Table 5 shows that there is relatively little distance between the median score of the High Congruent and the Low Congruent teachers in terms of their ability to predict sociometric position. Since the major concern of this investigation includes teacher attitudes and interpersonal aspects of personality, teacher predictions on the two variables of self concept and sociometric position were com- bined. The data were analyzed in terms of simple accuracy scores or Simple Congruence, and weighted accuracy scores or Weighted Congruence. Table 6 summarizes the scores obtained by teachers on Simple Congruence. TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' SCORES: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE N Median Range Q 3 Q]. All Teachers 45 .5328 .5206 .6047 .4059 High Congruent Teachers 12 .6420 .1666 -- -- Low Congruent Teachers 12 .3472 .1429 -- -- Teachers show a wide range of difference in their ability to make accurate predictions about their students, the range being slightly more than 52 per cent. The median score for the High Congruent teachers on Simple Congruence was 64 per cent, while the median score for the Low Congruent teachers was approximately 34 per cent. The data relating to teachers' scores on Weighted Congruence are reported in Table 7. 80 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' SCORES: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE N Median Range Q3 Q1 All Teachers 45 23.5 21.5 25.5 21.75 High Congruent Teachers 13 27.0 8.0 -- -- Low Congruent Teachers 11 20.5 9.0 -— -- This table reveals that there was also a wide range of difference between the highest and lowest teachers on Weighted Congruence. The range here was 21.5, with the median of the high group being 27.0 and the median of the low group being 20.5. Attitudes Toward Education The first part of Hypothesis 1 states: There will be no signif- icant difference in the attitudes toward education of High or Low Con- gruent elementary classroom teachers. The instrument employed to examine differences between High and Low Congruent teachers on the variable of teacher attitude was the Kerlinger ES VII. This instrument was designed to measure progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. Tables 8 through 11 report the data from this test. §§kVII Scores: All Teachers Table 8 reports the median and range for the total group of Participating teachers on each of the three scales of the test. 81 TABLE 8 MEDIAN AND RANGES 0N THREE ES-VII SCALES: ALL TEACHERS (N = 45) Scale Median Range A 2.8 4 7 B 0.0 6.0 C 2.9 7 6 These.scores are slightly lower in all three areas than those reported by Kerlinger in other studies which included teachers from the state of Michigan. All scores, however, are within less than one standard deviation of those reported by Kerlinger. ES-VII Scores: Simple Congruence In Table 9 one can see only slight differences between the High and Low Congruent teachers on each of the three parts of ES-VII as meas- ured by Simple Congruence. TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF ES-VII SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE “; —_ Scale Median Range High A 3.2 3.7 (N = 12) B 0.1 5.7 C 3.45 6.4 Low A 2.9 2.0 (N = 12) B 0.6 4.7 C 2.6 5.0 Mann-Whitney U-Test- for Scales A, B, and C were nonsignificant. 82 The application of the Mann-Whitney U Test showed that the dif- ference between the two groups was not statistically significant for any ES-VII scale. ES-VII Scores: Weighted Congruence An examination of Table 10 reveals that those who scored high and low on Weighted Congruence had a distribution similar to the Simple Congruence groups. TABLE 10 ANALYSIS OF ES-VII SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT.AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE Scale Median Range High A 2.8 2.5 (N = 11) B -0.6 4.1 C 3.0 4.7 Low A 2.5 2.4 (N = 13) B 0.3 4.0 C 2.3 5.0 Mann-Whitney U Test for Scales A, B, and C were nonsignificant. There were slight differences in medians, but none reached the critical level. ES—VII Scores: Combined Congruence Table 11 shows the Low Congruent group to have had slightly lower scores than the High Congruent group, but the differences were too slight to have meaning. 83 TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF ES-VII SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT.AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: COMBINED CONGRUENCE Scale Median Range High A 3.40 1.80 (N = 7) B 0.10 3.80 C 2.90 3.70 Low A 2.65 1.80 (N = 8) B 0.60 4.00 C 2.60 4.10 Mann-Whitney U Test for Scales A, B, and C were nonsignificant. Open and Closed Mindedness The second part of Hypothesis 1 refers to the open or closed [mindedness of teachers. It goes as follows: There will be no signifi- czant difference between High Congruent and Low Congruent elementary classroom teachers in terms of open or closed mindedness. In question form, What effect does open or closed mindedness have upon the ability of these elementary classroom teachers to make accurate predictions about their pupils? The instrument which was selected to measure this variable was the Dogmatism Scale (D-Scale) which is a measure of open or closed mindedness. The data which refers to the D-Scale are reported in the Tables 12 through 15. D-Scale Scores: All Teachers Table 12 reports the median and range on the D-Scale for all participating teachers. 84 TABLE 12 ANALYSIS OF D-SCALE SCORES FOR.ALL TEACHERS fl 1 N Median Range 45 137 89 These data are quite similar to the data reported by Rokeach in his studies of college students. The median score of this group of teachers is slightly lower than Rokeach's groups, but still within one standard deviation of his mean. D-Scale Scores: Simple Congruence The scores on the D-Scale for High and Low Congruent teachers on ESimple Congruence are reported in Table 13. TABLE 13 ANALYSIS OF D-SCALE SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE N Median Range High 12 130 70 Low 12 141 73 Mann-Whitney U Test: nonsignificant. These data showed a difference in the mean and median scores of the high and low groups but the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant. 85 D-Scale Scores: Weighted Coggruence Table 14 reports the scores of the High and Low Congruent teachers on the D-Scale. There were differences between the two groups, but the application of the Mann-Whitney U Test revealed that the dif- ference were not significant. TABLE 14 .ANALYSIS OF D-SCALE SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE m N Median Range High 13 126 70 Low 11 139 75 Mann-Whitney U Test: nonsignificant. jflgScale Scores: Combined Congruence Similar results to those in Tables 13 and 14 were obtained when tlie High and Low Congruent groups were defined by the combination of Sinmfle Congruence and Weighted Congruence. Table 15 shows these data. TABLE 15 AELALYSIS OF D-SCALE SCORES FOR HIGH CONGRUENT AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: COMBINED CONGRUENCE N Median Range High 7 137 70 Low 8 141.5 70 Mann-Whitney U Test: nonsignificant. 86 Interpersonal Aspects of Personality The third part of Hypothesis 1 refers to the interpersonal aspects of personality. It says: There will be no significant difference between High and Low Congruent teachers on the personality traits affiliation or rejection or the traits dominance or submissive- ness. These aspects were measured by means of the Interpersonal Check List. The High and Low Congruent teachers on each of the three measures of congruence were compared on each of the eight octants of the check list, and on the Lov (affiliation-rejection) and the Dom (dominance- submissive) continui. The scores, and the results of the statistical test which was applied to each are reported in Tables 16 to 19. ICL Scores: All Teachers Table 16 reports the scores on each of the eight octants of the ,Lgllplus the Dom and Lev scores. An examination of this table reveals that the median scores for teachers in this sample ranged from 2.0 to 17.0 out of a possible score of 16. The median scores for Dom and Lov vvere within less than one standard deviation of the means established for this test . ‘LSQL Scores: Simple Congruence Table 17 presents the ICL data as it relates to the High and Low C<3ngruent teachers on Simple Congruence. These data show that the Igl,scores for High and Low Congruent teeachers were similar except for Octants II and VIII. In these two alreas, the Mann-Whitney U Test indicated a difference of medians which aClhieved the critical level of statistical significance. On most 87 m2 m2 Ho.uva m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 mo.”va mz muasmom “may : %mcua£3nccmz N.NH m.m o.m o.m o.“ o.“ o.m o.o o.m o.m amuse m.m 0.x o.m o.w m.o o.m o.N ode 0.x m.o amass: ANS u zv Boa m.om N.NH 0.x o.oH o.m o.m o.“ o.k o.n 0.0 amuse s.H w.m m.q m.m o.m m.m m.N o.m o.m 0.0 cases: ANH n zv amps >oq son HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H ucmuuo mozmomozoo mqmsz "mammuama Hzmpmozoo so; nza.yzm=mozoo muHm mom 40H mo mHmwA¢z< NH mamas o.mm s.NN o.qH o.NH o.NH o.¢ o.w o.¢ o.HH o.HH mwcmm H.s s.m 0.x 0.x o.m o.q o.~ o.m m.m m.m amass: me n 2 >04 eon HHH> HH> H> > >H HH HH H ucmuoo mammo04 son HHH> HH> H> > samuoo >H HHH HH H mozmamuzoo QMHmUHm3 '7 'llv "mammUoH son HHH> HH> H> > “amuse >H HHH HH H mozmnmwzoo szHmzou "mammormcepts and the sociometric positions of their pupils. The data r Elated to this area are reported in Tables 32 to 35. 102 Elementary School Teaching Experience: Total Teachers The focus of this investigation was restricted to tenure teachers of grades four, five, or six. It was considered highly pertinent to determine, of the total years of experience represented in the sample, the number of years spent in elementary school teaching. These data are reported in Table 32. TABLE 32 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE: TOTAL TEACHERS — ——'- .‘_—— r J __> Years Male Female Total 21 or more 1 5 6 1.1m’120 5 6 11 €5-fil() 4 5 9 2-5 __1_» 1.5. .12 14 31 45 Median Years 7.5 5.5 7.5 Forty-two per cent were fairly new teachers with the remainder <>f tfliea {group having spent from six to more than 21 years in the elemen- tary SChool. Both males and females seemed to follow the same general distribution, except for the category of from two to five years of exPerierice where approximately 42 per cent of the female teachers were located as opposed to 29 per cent of the males. 103 Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience: Simple Congruence Years of elementary school teaching experience for High and Low Congruent teachers were examined as a separate variable in this study. The results of this examination are presented in Table 33. TABLE 33 YEARS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE FOR HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE fiYears High Male Low HighFemale Low High TOtalLow 2 1 or more 0 0 2 O 2 0 1 1 -20 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 —— 10 0 2 0 3 0 5 2 — 5 .2 .9. .2 .3 .1 .3. 3 4 9 8 12 12 Median 4.0 12.5 5.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 These data show that more than 50 per cent of the group had less than ten years of teaching experience at the elementary level. They also Show the 58 per cent of the High Congruent teachers had less than five years experience, while 66 per cent of the Low Congruent teachers had six years or more of experience at the elementary level. When the group is divided by sex, the distribution is relatively unchanged. Y MElementary School Teaching Experience: WCongruence The data presented in Table 34 show that the majority of High and Low Congruent teachers on Weighted Congruence had spent the greater 104 TABLE 34 YEARS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE FOR HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE Male Female Total EYearS High Low High Low High Low 21 or more 0 1 2 0 2 1 11-20 1 l 2 3 3 4 6-10 1 l l l 2 2 2 - 5 .1 .1 .5. .1 .5 .1 3 4 10 7 13 11 Median 8.5 10.5 5.5 8.5 8.0 10.0 7 portion of their teaching careers in the elementary school. The dis- tribution of this data followed about the same pattern as the data on total years of teaching experience except for those few teachers who had a number of years of experience at all levels and fewer years of experience in the elementary grades. Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience: Combined Congruence These data are reported in Table 35, and show that the number of years Of elementary school experience for the High Congruent teachers Was less than for that of the low group. The median number of years for High Congruent teachers was four, while the median for the Low Congruent teachers was ten. The High Congruent group also had a greater ran ° . ge in experience. 105 TABLE 35 YEARS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE FOR HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: COMBINED CONGRUENCE Male Female Total Years High Low High Low High Low 21 or more 0 0 l 0 1 0 11-20 0 1 2 l 2 2 6- 10 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 - 5 l 0 3 2 4 2 Median 2.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 Teaching Assignment The final subhypothesis to be tested by this investigation relates to the grade level assignment of the participating teachers. The subhypothesis states that there will be no significant difference be tween High and Low Congruent teachers in terms of their grade level ass ignment . _TgaChing Assignment: Total Teachers In order to report the distribution of teachers assigned at each grade level, Table 36 was prepared. TABLE 36 TEACHING ASSIGNMENT: TOTAL TEACHERS Grade Male Female Total 4 2 14 16 5 8 13 21 6 .1 .4 .1 14 31 45 106 The heaviest concentration, 47 per cent, of the participating teachers have a fifth grade assignment. Thirty-six per cent of them were found at the fourth grade level, while the remaining 18 per cent taught sixth grade. Teaching Assignment: Simple Congruence The grade level to which High and Low Congruent teachers on Simple Congruence were assigned is shown in Table 37. This table shows that the High Congruent teachers were fairly evenly distributed through- out the three grades. 0n the other hand the majority of Low Congruent teachers were concentrated in the fourth grade and of these approximately 85 per cent were female. TABLE 37 TEACHING ASSIGNMENT OF HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: SIMPLE CONGRUENCE G Ma le Female Total ; rade High Low High Low High Low 4 1 1 3 6 4 7 5 0 3 5 2 5 5 6 .2 _Q __1 .2 __3. .2 LA.) b \O 00 12 12 WAssignment: Weighted Congruence Table 37 depicts the distribution of High and Low Congruent t eaCherS on Weighted Congruence in terms of their teaching assignment. I 1: above that slightly less than 50 per cent of the High and Low Con- ru . . g ent teachers on Weighted Congruence were aSSigned at the fourth grade 1eVel. 107 TABLE 38 TEACHING ASSIGNMENT ‘OF HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: WEIGHTED CONGRUENCE Male Female Total Grade High Low High Low High Low 4 0 1 5 5 5 6 5 l 3 3 2 4 5 6 __2. .2 .2 .2 .‘1 .2 3 4 10 7 13 ll The High Congruent teachers on this variable were distributed evenly throughout the three grades to which this study is limited. The Low Congruent teachers, on the other hand, were evenly divided between the fourth and fifth grades. When the distribution was examined by sex, males appear to have been concentrated at the fifth grade level (57 per cent), while approxi- mate ly three-fifths of the females were concentrated in a fourth grade assignment. The percentage of males assigned to a sixth grade was higher than the percentage of females similarly assigned, but the nu“lber:s involved were too small to warrant further analysis. m Ass ignment: Combined Con r1dence Table 39 reports the grade level assignment of High and Low CongrUQnt teachers as defined by the combination of Simple Congruence and We ighted Congruence . These data show an even distribution of the High Congruent te . achers Wlth the Low Congruent teachers concentrated in grades four and five. 108 TABLE 39 TEACHING ASSIGNMENT FOR HIGH AND LOW CONGRUENT TEACHERS: COMBINED CONGRUENCE Male Female Total Grade High Low High Low High LOW 4 0 l 2 3 2 4 5 0 2 3 2 3 4 6 .1 .2 .1. .2 __2_ .2 l 3 6 5 7 8 Summary This study was an effort to determine what relationships if any exist between eleven different variables and the ability of elementary classroom teachers to make accurate predictions about their pupils. The re were two major hypotheses. One of them was relative to the personality traits of High and Low Congruent teachers. It was concerned With their educational attitudes, open or closed mindedness, and aspects related to affiliation and dominance. A second hypothesis involved the demographic characteristics of the teachers. A series of six sub- hYPOCheses were postulated involving the age, sex, educational attain- ment, total years of teaching experience, years of elementary experience and grade level assignment of these teachers. These hypotheses were teSted by means of nonparametric statistical tests. The findings indicate that the average elementary teacher in this study possesses the ability to make accurate predictions about his 131113113 approximately 53 per cent of the time. There is a wide range of 109 difference in the degree to which they possess this skill. Some teachers were very accurate in their predictions and some were quite inaccurate. There was no significant difference in the attitudes toward edu- cation of the participating teachers on any of the three measures of con- gruence. There was a tendency for High Congruent teachers to have more progressive attitudes, and less identification with traditional atti- tudes. This tendency did not reach the pre-established level of statis- tical significance. In the area of open or closed mindedness, there was no signifi- cant difference between High and Low Congruent teachers. The median score of the total group was slightly lower than the mean of the norma- tive population; however, it was within one standard deviation of that mean. There was a distinct tendency for the High Congruent teachers to have lower scores and therefore be more open minded than the Low Congruent teachers. On the ICL, which was utilized to measure the affiliation and dominance factors of personality, there was no significant difference between the Dom (dominance) scores and the Lov (affiliation) scores of Iiigh Congruent and Low Congruent teachers. There was, however, a dif- fterence beyond the critical level on two of the eight octant scores of tliat test. The first was Octant Two which relates to the continuum rainging from competitive to narcissistic behavior. The second was 0<:tant Eight which relates to the continuum ranging from responsible to hyfipemnormal behavior. On each octant, the Low Congruent teachers scored hiégher, which meant they were closer to the narcissistic and hypernormal ends of the continuii than were the High Congruent teachers. 110 There was no significant difference between the High Congruent teachers and the Low Congruent teachers on any of the variables of sex, age, educational attainment, total years of teaching experience, years of elementary teaching experience, or grade level assignment. Within each of these variables, there was a tendency for High Congruent teachers to be younger, less experienced teachers. Low Congruent teachers on the other hand tended to be older and more experienced. None of these differences reached the critical level of statistical significance. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V is devoted to the interpretation of the findings reported in Chapter IV, and to the presentation of those conclusions and recommendations which seem warranted as a result of the examina- tion of the data. The format of this chapter is similar to that selected for reporting the findings, so that the reader may readily refer to the data upon which these conclusions and recommendations are based. Each of the two major hypotheses of this study contain several variables which may account for some of the differences in the teacher's ability to accurately assess various aspects of both his individual student's personality and his status in the group. Those included in the first hypothesis were:(l) attitudes toward education, (2) level of open or closed mindedness, (3) position on the continuum (If dominance, (4) position on the continuum of affiliation,and (,5) position on each of the eight factors that relate to each of the CV90 previously mentioned qualities of interpersonal aspects of per- SCDnality. The second hypothesis dealt with the demographic character- isitics of the group of teachers who were involved in this study. These 111 112 subhypotheses relate to: (l) the age and sex of the teachers, (2) their level of educational attainment,(3) their total years of teaching experience, (4) their years of teaching experience at the elementary school level, and (5) their present grade level assignment. In the discussion which follows, each variable will be discussed separately where appropriate to the findings or recommendations, or in combination where this is more meaningful. TeaghgrrPredictipn Skills The teachers who participated in this study showed great varia- tion in their ability to make accurate predictions about the pupils in their classes. Some were extremely accurate and made predictions far beyond the chance level. Others were seriously lacking in this skill, and were unable to make accurate predictions even at the chance level. The average teacher in the group was able to make predictions about his students at a level slightly higher than one could expect from chance alone. It is interesting to note that the participating teachers were Inore accurate in their predictions regarding the sociometric position of their pupils than they were regarding pupil self concept. One ¢axp1anation for these results may be that teachers as a group are more =3ensitive to the sociometric status of various pupils in their classes than to individual pupil's perception of self. The sociometric struc- tlire of the class is a phenomenon which is more closely related to 0t>servable behavior. From day to day relationships which occur among ttle pupils within a classroom the teacher receives a multitude of 113 clues. These may be as obvious as the declared acceptance or rejec- tion of one pupil for another. Whenever someone is chosen by the group as leader or mocked by the group or scapegoated, the teacher receives evidence of sociometric status. Other clues or evidence which are projected to the teacher about sociometric position may be more subtle than the examples mentioned here. The point is that the teacher is continually bombarded with information related to children's relationships with each other. On the other hand, the feelings that individual pupils have about their self-worth are not always obvious and therefore may be of less concern to the teacher. Overt behavior is easier to perceive than the subtleties of covert feelings. It is not uncommon for chil- dren to hide their feelings. Bravado conceals timidity--anger and hostility are masked by compliance. The ego is frequently protected by role playing, or other masking techniques. Another possible reason these teachers were more accurate in their predictions about the sociometric position of their pupils than they Were in assessing self concept level may be that they were more fa“Ii-liar with the instrumentation. The processes of assessing socio- metric, position in contrast to those related to self concept are more commonly taught in most teacher preparation programs. Future teachers are SiVen only a slight introduction to techniques related to assessing pupil Self concept. More time and effort is spent in familiarizing Prospective teachers with the area of sociometric status and structure. The PIOCess is carefully explained, and almost every student teacher 114 is at some time required to assess the sociometric structure of his class. Many in-service teachers frequently use sociometric instru- ments with their class groups. It is seldom, however, that the average teacher has been introduced to instruments for assessing pupil self concept. Most teachers recognize self concept as having some influence on pupil behavior, but have few concerns and little famili- arity with its measurement. The procedures for this study required administration of the instruments over a period of approximately seven months. The first group of teachers were making predictions about their pupils after being with them for a period of approximately two months while the last group of teachers had been with their classes for about nine months when they made their predictions. Interestingly, there were no differences in the accuracy of prediction between those teachers who were among the first to make predictions and those who were among the last to make predictions. One might expect that the longer a teacher works with a group, the more accurate he would be in making judgments about his pupils. Since this was not the case, it may be COHCluded that the length of time a teacher spends with a group does “0‘3 Significantly influence his judgment about pupils. The dynamic here may be that teachers make judgments about their pupils very quickly, and then are very slow to modify their perceptions. Those teachers who were high predictors may possess a skill WhiCh is not wholly dependent upon their degree of open or closed mindedness, nor upon their attitudes toward education. If this is 115 true, then it would seem profitable for teacher educators to examine the dynamics upon which this skill is based, and to explore methods and techniques for developing this skill in pre-service and in- s ervice teachers . Teacher Personality Traits Educational Attitudes Attitudes toward education, as measured by the E_S_V_I_l_'., show the teachers in this study to be slightly less progressive in educational attitudes, and also less traditional than teachers on whom the scales were standardized. The average teacher in this study identified to a lesser degree with those educational attitudes which are associated With more liberal educational attitudes than did teachers on whom this instrument was standardized. The teachers who participated in this study also identified less strongly with traditional or more conserva- tive educational attitudes than did the normative group. The differ- ences which the group display in both areas are less than one standard deviat ion different from the normative mean. This indicates that there are no measurable and therefore real differences between this sample and the normative group. One of the subhypotheses which was tested by this study was that there would be no significant differences between High and Low Congruent teachers in their educational attitudes. The results of the statistical 116 tests which were applied to the data relative to educational attitude indicated that this hypothesis could not be rejected. In other words, there are not real differences between the High Congruent and Low Con- gruent teachers on this variable. There was a tendency for the High Congruent teachers to be more progressive and less traditional in their educational attitudes than the Low Congruent teachers. Under the limitations which the present research design impose upon the analysis of the data, and under the con- ditions by which congruence was defined, one can only conclude that attitudes toward education do not appear to relate to teacher predic- tion of pupil self concept or sociometric position. Open or Closed Mindedness A second subhypothesis of this investigation relates to the open or closed mindedness of the teachers who participated in this study. Attitudes of open mindedness are related to progressive educa- tional attitudes. Each of these in turn is related to anti-authori- tarian attitudes. In other words, closed minded traditionalists tend to be authoritarian in their behavior toward other people. One of the hunches upon which this study was based was that teachers who were more open and less authoritarian would be better able to make accurate judg- ments about the pupils with whom they work. Stated in the null form it says that there will be no significant difference between High and Low (Zongruent teachers in their open or closed mindedness. Statistical «examination of the data related to open and closed mindedness suggests that the hypothesis cannot be rejected. 117 The data regarding open or closed mindedness for the total group of participating teachers show the median score to be lower than the mean of college students from whom norms were derived. This means that these elementary classroom teachers are slightly more open minded than the college group. The differences, however, are not greater than one standard deviation. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the High and Low Congruent teachers, there was a definite tendency for High Congruent teachers to be more open minded and also less authoritarian than Low Congruent teachers. Affiliation and Dominance The last two subdivisons of Hypothesis 1 were tested by the use of the Interpersonal Check List. This instrument was used to test the subhypotheses that there would be no significant difference between High and Low Congruent teachers in terms of (a) dominance-submission, and (b) affiliation-rejection. The median score for all teachers in the sample is higher on the dominance-submission continuum than the mean score of the normative population of this test. In other words, the teachers in this sample tended to be more managerial or dominant than the people on whom this test was standardized. Although these differ- ences were not greater than one standard deviation from the norm, they were closer to being significant than on any other scale. 0n the con- t:inuum of affiliation-rejection, the teachers in this sample had a tnedian score which was very close to the mean score of the normative £;roup. The interquartile range was also quite similar to that of the n ormat ive group . 118 There was a tendency for High Congruent teachers to be less dominating and managerial than Low Congruent teachers. However, the dif- ferences between the two groups were not great enough to reach the criti- cal level. Similarly, the High Congruent teachers tended to be more warm and affiliative, but again the differences were not critical. For comparative purposes, the descriptive adjectives which apply to the median High Congruent teacher and the descriptive adjectives which apply to the median Low Congruent teacher are listed below. High Predictors Are: Low Predictors Are: Respected by others Often admired Able to give orders Good leader Self reliant, assertive Boastful Businesslike Businesslike Hard boiled when necessary Stern but fair Straight forward, direct Critical of others Skeptical Skeptical Hard to impress Hard to impress Easily embarrassed Modest Can be obedient Very respectful of authority Often helped by others Trusting and eager to please Trusting and eager to please Eager to get along with others Wants everyone to like him Affectionate and understanding Warm Kind and reassuring Considerate Gives freely of self As previously described in Chapter III, the ICL is composed of eight related octants. The score obtained on each of the octants is com- bined in different ways to obtain the dominance and affiliation score. High and Low Congruent teachers were compared on each of these octants. There were two octants on which High and Low Congruent teachers differed beyond the critical level established in this study's design. The first octant on which there was a significant difference was that whose 119 continuum runs from competitive to narcissistic. Low Congruent teachers were significantly more narcissistic than High Congruent teachers. The level of significance was beyond the .05 level. Low Congruent teachers can be described as more likely to be selfish, boastful, assertive or indifferent. High Congruent teachers on the other hand tend to be independent, self respecting, and able to take care of themselves. The dynamics involved in this area may well be that the Low Congruent teachers are more self-centered and concerned with their personal satis— faction than with the needs of their pupils and of the class as a whole. High Congruent teachers on the other hand may be less self-oriented and more other-person directed. The other octant on which the critical level was exceeded was Octant Eight which is concerned with the continuum that ranges from responsible to hypernormal. The difference between the two groups in this area reached the .01 level of significance. Low Congruent teachers can be typified as over-responding to authority, over-conforming, and excessively concerned with how others view them. High Congruent teachers were more considerate and helpful. It would seem that the Low Congruent teachers would be more concerned about their pupils' conform- ity to norms than they would be sensitive to pupil needs or feelings. One can also speculate that they would more likely identify conforming, submissive children as being happy and well adjusted. High Congruence teachers on the other hand may not be so concerned with what others think. Therefore, they may be more capable of accurately assessing and providing for the needs of their pupils. 120 On each of the three major instruments which were utilized to test the first major hypothesis of this study, there were slight dif- ferences in measured attributes in favor of those teachers who were able to make accurate predictions about their students. None of these dif- ferences was great enough to cause rejection of the null hypotheses which had been made about the population of this study, except for two subscales of the ICL, These show the Low Congruent teachers to be more narcissistic and hypernormal than are High Congruent teachers. These results suggest that the attitudes measured here have little to do with one's sensitivity toward his pupils either collectively or individually. Demographic Characteristics In the process of testing Hypotheses 2, questions related to the age and sex of the teachers, their level of education attainment, their years of teaching experience both in the elementary school and other school settings, and to their present grade assignment were studied. Sex The first subdivision of Hypothesis 2 states that there will be no significant difference in terms of sex between High and Low Congruent teachers. There were 14 male and 31 female teachers who participated in this study. When they were divided into High and Low Congruent groups, the ratio of two to one remains fairly constant. When the tables con- cerning high and low congruence are examined, they show no difference in prediction ability which can be related to sex. There were as many High Congruent men as there were Low Congruent men in each case. Women fol- lowed the same pattern. Based upon this evidence, one must conclude 121 that the sex of the teacher was not a significant factor in making pre- dictions about pupil self concept and sociometric position. £182 The next demographic characteristic to be examined was age. Examination of Table 22 shows the median age for men to be four years higher than that of the women. More than one-third of the women in the sample were under 30 while only 14 per cent of the men fell into this category. These results are not surprising since men usually make their vocational choice at a later age than women. In terms of the ability to make accurate predictions about their pupils, there is a tendency for younger teachers to make more accurate predictions by all methods used to establish congruence. Although the median age for Low Congruent teachers remains fairly stable, the median age for High Congruent male teachers does not. A possible explanation for this variance is the small number of men who are included in each group. With this small an N it is possible for any one score to drastically influence the median score . Educational Attainment The next variable to be studied under Hypothesis 2 was that of educational attainment. Since all of the teachers who participated in this study were tenure teachers, each possessed a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. Of the 14 males who participated in the study over half of them had attained their Master's degree. Only one male, however, had proceeded beyond this level. Of the 31 females who participated in this study, less than half had earned their Master's 122 degree. Three had taken work beyond the Master's level. One of these was actively pursuing a Ph.D., while the other two had merely taken additional hours. Forty per cent or 12 of the female teachers had taken work beyond the Bachelor's degree. Most of these were working toward their Master's degree. For the total sample, slightly more than one- half had less than the Master's degree. When the educational attainment of High and Low Congruent teachers was compared, there were no significant differences. High Con- gruent teachers appeared to be evenly divided between those who had attained the Master's level and those who had not. When the Low Con- gruent teachers were examined, one found a greater portion of them to have had less than their Master's degree. The only conclusion that can be drawn from examining the educa- tional attainment is that educational attainment has no influence on teachers' ability to make accurate judgments about their pupils' self concept and sociometric position. Total Years of Teaching Experience Hypothesis 2 was also concerned with the demographic character- istic of total years of teaching experience. Examination of the data related to total years of teaching experience indicates that the average teacher in this sample has taught for approximately seven and one-half years. Male teachers have taught an average of three years longer than the females of the group. These data are consistent with Table 1 which indicated male teachers to be older than their female colleagues. When examined in terms of high and low congruence there was no significant 123 differences in total years of teaching experience between High and Low Congruent teachers. Years of Elementary School Teaching Experience Years of elementary school teaching experience was examined as a separate variable under Hypothesis 2. Examination of the data revealed that the average teacher had taught about seven and one-half years in an elementary school setting. This is the same median score as for total years of teaching experience. From this, one may conclude that the great majority of the teachers in this sample had spent either all or most of their professional careers teaching in elementary schools. There were no significant differences between High and Low Con- gruent teachers in terms of their elementary school teaching experience. There was, however, a slight tendency for High Congruent teachers to have less experience than Low Congruent teachers. This tendency is in keeping with other data concerned with age and total teaching experience. Teaching Assignment The last subdivision of Hypothesis 2 states that there will be no significant differences between High and Low Congruent teachers in terms of their grade level teaching assignment. Almost one-half of all the teachers in this sample were assigned to the fifth grade. Sixteen of the remaining 24 were teaching fourth grade, and eight taught sixth grade. When divided by sex, men were concentrated in the fifth and sixth grade while women were concentrated at the fourth and fifth. When 124 the High and Low Congruent teachers were divided and statistical tests were applied to the two groups, no statistical difference was found beyond the critical level. In other words there seems to be no dif- ference in the ability to make accurate predictions about their pupils between fourth, fifth or sixth. grade teachers. Examination of the data related to the demographic characteris- tics of the teachers who participated in this study revealed that there was no significant difference between High and Low Congruent teachers on any of the variables of sex, age, educational attainment, total years of teaching experience, years of elementary school teaching experience or teaching assignment. There was a tendency for High Congruent teachers to be younger and less experienced than the Low Congruent teachers. These tendencies are similar to those reported in the manual of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Recommendations The general conclusion reached as a result of this investigation was that attitudes and other personality traits, and demographic charac- teristics of elementary classroom teachers examined in this study do not significantly relate to their ability to make accurate judgments about their pupils. Certain slight but persistent tendencies existed between High and Low Congruent teachers. These differences suggest that teachers who are accurate judges of pupil self concept and sociometric position possess very slightly more open, democratic, and accepting attitudes. 1W. W. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. Callis, The Minnesota Teacher Attitpdeiinventory (New York: Psychological Corporation, 1951). 125 They also tend to be younger and less experienced than their less accurate predicting peers. Once again, it must be emphasized that these differences did not reach a level of statistical significance under the present design. One recommendation worth considering is that this study be repli- cated, modifying the sample to include teachers at all levels of public school instruction. Comparisons of early elementary, later elementary, junior high and senior high school teachers could be made. Such a study would disclose the predictive abilities of a broader range of profes- sionals, and if significant differences were discovered, would stimulate further investigations into variables which might account for these differences. Another recommendation involves a replication of this study, but modifying the sample to include teachers from rural, suburban, parochial, and inner city schools. Such a study might reveal differences in predic- tive ability in a variety of educational settings, and these differences could then be investigated in terms of specified environmental variables. Future investigations related to assessing teacher sensitivity to pupil need might profitably consider the effect of an intensive in- service experience in developing teacher sensitivity and prediction skills. Such a study could be confined to the staff of single building, or of a single system. Thus staff sensitivity and predictive ability could be empirically tested following the training program. Insight might be gained into which teachers with what kinds of personality varia- bles show most gain in predictive accuracy, and which show the greatest resistance to change. 126 students. What these measures might be cannot at this time be suggested, but it would seem wise to include measures which purport to relate to empathic processes. The data which were collected in this study indicates that a wide range of differences exist in teacher personality traits. Future investigators might do well to study the relationship between these atti- tudes and the actual classroom behavior of teachers. It may be that dif- ferences in the attitudes and other traits that were considered here are evidenced in teacher behavior during the teaching-learning process. A pertinent question for such a study would be, "Do open, democratically oriented teachers behave differently in their teaching behavior than closed, authoritarian teachers?" A study such as the one suggested above might also profitably study the differences in the behavior of younger, less experienced teachers versus older, more experienced teachers. The present study also suggests investigation into the process of teacher preparation, both in its pre-service and in-service aspects. What kinds of experiences do we provide or should we provide that will help teachers become more sensitive to pupil need? A study which has as its focus the sensitivity of the teacher might help us gain information regarding the effectiveness and direction of our present programs of teacher education. This suggests another study which would be concerned with a comparison of certified teachers and para-professional school personnel. The purpose of such a study would be to investigate differ- ences in sensitivity to pupil need which may be related to one's level of professional preparation. Are teachers who have completed a 127 professional education program more sensitive to pupil need than persons who have not? The great increase in the use of para-professional personnel in schools makes such an investigation particularly valuable, and provides a suitable population from which a sample could be drawn. A final recommendation which is suggested by the results of the present investigation is the formulation of a similar study, focused upon the question of the relationship of teacher sensitivity to teacher attitude. If the attitudes which were examined in this study have little or no bearing upon teacher sensitivity to the pupil and the class, which ones do? It is a common belief that attitudes are the springboards for behavior. If this is in fact true, then which are the attitudes which influence a teacher's sensitivity to the social and emotional needs of pupils? Summary This study was developed around the belief that teacher sensi- tivity and empathy toward the pupil and the class are essential ingre- dients of effective teaching behavior. Certain attitudes and other per- sonality traits of a selected group of elementary school teachers were examined as they related to the teacher's predictive abilities. Certain demographic characteristics of these teachers were also studied. No significant differences in attitudes related to openness or closed mindedness, or progressivism or traditionalism in education as measured by the study instruments were found to exist. Significant dif- ferences were found to exist between High and Low Congruent teachers on two octants of the ICL. One related to the continuum ranging from 128 competitive to narcissistic; the other related to the continuum ranging from responsible to hypernormal. High Congruent teachers were found to be less narcissistic and less hypernormal than Low Congruent teachers. No significant relationships were found to exist in the selected demo- graphic characteristics of High and Low Congruent teachers. Certain persistent but very slight differences did exist between High and Low Congruent teachers. High Congruent teachers were slightly more open minded and slightly more liberal in their educational attitudes than Low Congruent teachers. They also tended to be more affiliative and less dominant. Finally,High Congruent teachers tended to be very slightly younger and less experienced than Low Congruent teachers. Although these were not significant differences, their persistence would seem to warrant further investigation. APPENDICES APPENDIX,A Education Scale VII Instructions: Given below are 30 statements on educational ideas and problems about which we all have beliefs, opinions, and attitudes. We all think differently about such matters, and this scale is an attempt to let you express your beliefs and opinions. Respond to each of the items as follows: Agree Very Strongly: +3 Agree Strongly: +2 Agree: +1 Disagree Very Strongly: -3 Disagree Strongly: -2 Disagree: -1 For example, if you egree very_stronglijith a statement, you would write +3 on the short line preceding the statement, but if you should happen to disagree with it, you would put -1 in front of it. Respond to each statement as best you can. Go rapidly but carefully. Do not spend too much time on any one statement; try to respond and then go on. 1. Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knowledge. 2. The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. 3. The learning of proper attitudes is often more important than the learning of subject matter. 4. It is more important that the child learn how to approach and solve problems than it is for him to master the subject matter of the curriculum. 5. The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. 6. What is needed in the modern classroom is a revival of the authority of the teacher. 7. Teachers should keep in mind that pupils have to be made to work. 8. Schools of today are neglecting the three R's. 9 Standards of work should not be the same for all pupils; they should vary with the pupil. 130 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 131 The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests and needs, as well as by the demands of society. Each subject and activity should be aimed at developing a particular part of the child's makeup: physical, intellectual, social,moral, or spiritual. Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in. Teachers need to be guided in what they are to teach. No indi- vidual teacher can be permitted to do as he wishes, especially when it comes to teaching children. Learning experiences organized around life experiences rather than around subjects is desirable in our schools. We should fit the curriculum to the child and not the child to the curriculum. Subjects that sharpen the mind, like mathematics and foreign languages, need greater emphasis in the public school curricu- lum. Since life is essentially a struggle, education should empha- size competition and the fair competitive spirit. The healthy interaction of pupils one with another is just as important in school as the learning of subject matter. The organization of instruction and learning must be centered on universal ideas and truths if education is to be more than passing fads and fancies. The curriculum should contain an orderly arrangement of sub- jects that represent the best of our cultural heritage. True discipline springs from interest, motivation, and involve- ment in live problems. Emotional development and social development are as important in the evaluation of pupil progress as academic achievement. Education and educational institutions must be sources of new social ideas. Children should be taught that all problems should be subjected to critical and objective scrutiny, including religious, moral, economic, and social problems. One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that disci- pline is often sacrificed to the interests of children. Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than they usually get. Schools should teacher children dependence on higher moral values. The public school should take an active part in stimulating social change. Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to test alternatives before accepting any of them. APPENDIX B D Scale The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do. ‘Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case. +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH l. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person. Some people exaggerate their problems in order to get sympathy. 3. Society owes a lot more to the businessman and manufacturers than it does to the artist and professor. It seems that people used to have more fun than they do now. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own. 6. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. 7. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. 8. I think I could do better than most politicians if I were in office. 9. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. 0. The only interesting part of the papers is the "funnies." 1. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. 2. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. N U1-L‘ 132 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. __18. __19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 133 It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future. I would disapprove of anyone's drinking to the point of intoxi- cation at a party. Most people worry too much about sex. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes. Most people just don't know what's good for them. When prices are high, you can't blame a person for getting all he can while the getting is good. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on. A person who doesn't vote is not a good citizen. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. Most people are honest chiefly through fear of getting caught. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. A person should not be expected to do anything for his community unless he is paid for it. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. Every family owes it to the city to keep their sidewalks cleared in the winter and their lawn mowed in the summer. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. If given the chance I would do something of great benefit to the world. 40. _41. 42. 43. __44. 45. __46. 47. l 48. __49 . __50 . 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. __58. 59. 60. 134 Only a fool would try to change our American way of life. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the things they stand for. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. ‘ When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement. There's no use doing things for people, you only get it in the neck in the long run. In most ways the poor man is better off than the rich man. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. If given a chance I would make a good leader of people. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp than by those in the opposing camp. Police cars should always be clearly marked so that you can always see them coming. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all." Our thinking would be a lot better off if we would just forget about words like "probably," "approximately," and "perhaps." Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop. The future seems hopeless. A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. In the history of mankind there have probably been just a hand- ful of really great thinkers. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. APPENDIX C THE INTERPERSONAL CHECKLIST Name of Person Making the Date Description DIRECTIONS: This is a list of descriptive words and phrases which you will use in describing yourself. Read the items quickly and check in front of each item what you consider to be generally descriptive of yourself at the present time. Your first impression is generally the best so work quickly and don't be concerned about duplications, contradictions, or being exact. If you feel much doubt whether an item applies, leave it blank. 135 well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take care of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary firm but just can be frank and honest critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed able to criticize self apologetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative 136 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. eager to get along with others friendly affectionate and understanding considerate encourages others helpful big-hearted and unselfish often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive businesslike likes to compete with others hard-boiled when necessary stern but fair irritable straightforward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily embarrassed lacks self-confidence 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 137 easily led modest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted enjoys taking care of others gives freely of self always giving advice acts important bossy dominating boastful proud and self-satisfied thinks only of himself shrewd and calculating impatient with others' mistakes 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. self-seeking outspoken often unfriendly bitter complaining jealous slow to forgive self-punishing shy passive and unaggressive meek dependent wants to be led lets others make decisions easily fooled too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone fond of everyone likes everybody forgives anything oversympathetic generous to a fault overprotective of others tries to be too successful expects everyone to admire him 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 138 manages others dictatorial somewhat snobbish egotistical and conceited selfish cold and unfeeling sarcastic cruel and unkind frequently angry hard-hearted resentful rebels against everything stubborn distrusts everybody timid 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. always ashamed of self obeys too willingly spineless hardly ever talks back clinging vine likes to be taken care of will believe anyone .ET”””””E wants everyone's love agrees with everyone friendly all the time loves everyone too lenient with others tries to comfort everyone too willing to give to others spoils people with kindness Card Column 10 12 13 APPENDIX D Participating Teacher Inventory Name: (Punch 2) I.D. N0. School Se N Male Female |~|~| .'> 00 0 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51+ First collegiate degree granted from: Wayne State University Eastern Michigan University University of Michigan Michigan State University Western Michigan University Central Michigan University University of Detroit Other: (please specify) e of degree: he :6 B.S. B.A. Other: (please specify) 139 gm9W¢?¥fl 140 Card Column that degree in Education? 2: m m 14 Yes No 15 If yes, check one: Early Elementary Later Elementary Secondary--Jr. High Secondary--Sr. High Special Education Other: (please specify) 17 ta :8 e of initial certificate: Nursery Elementary Provisional Secondary Provisional Other: (please specify) 18 Type of present certification: Same as above Life Permanent Elementary Permanent Secondary Special Education (specify area) Temporary HUI li|w|~|~l 20 Have you taken any graduate courses? 1 Yes 2 No 21 If yes, Graduate School attended: Wayne State University Eastern Michigan University University of Michigan Michigan State University University of Detroit Other: (please specify) Card Column 22—24 26 27 28 30-31 32-33 34-35 36-37 38-39 40-41 141 Sem. hrs. Graduate credit hours completed: Quarter hrs. Currently working for which degree: 1 MNA. 2 Ed. Spec. 3 Ph.D. or Ed.D. 4 Other: (please specify) 5 Not currently working for degree Highest graduate degree earned: {P H |..|..|..|..|..|.|..|..|..| 3 4.1 8.4 9) MHA. Ed. Spec. Ph.D. or Ed.D Other: None (please specify) of graduate concentration (check only one): Education Psychology Guidance & Counseling Administration Reading Research Curriculum Social Foundations Elementary Education Secondary Education Other: (please specify) Indicate the graduate credit hours received in psychology. (Credit for a course should be counted in only one of the areas.) Sem. Hrs. Quarter hrs. Educational Psychology: Child Psychology: Adolescent Psychology: Human Growth & Development: Mental Hygiene: Juvenile Delinquency: Card Column 42-43 44-45 46-47 48-49 50-51 52-53 54-55 56-57 58-60 62-63 64-65 66 67-75 142 Sem. Hrs. Learning Theory: Psychology of Adjustment Abnormal Psychology: Testing and Measurement: Research and Statistics: Others: Total credit in psychology Total number of years of teaching experience: Total number of years of elementary school teaching: Grade presently taught: 4 5 6 Grades taught (check as many as apply): G>\IO\UID‘UJBJPJ7§ Quarter hrs. APPENDIX E Name Grade School I believe that the students listed below will score the highest or lowest in my class on the three factors of the "How I See Myself Test." Factor I. Interpersonal Adequacy refers to the child's perception of his ability to get along with other children, his perception of self worth, and his feelings about his self control. Highest scores Lowest scores Factor II. The Teacher-School factor refers to the child's liking for and feelings of adequacy about his teacher's and the school milieu in general. Highest scores Lowest scores Factor III. The Academic Adequacy factor refers to the child's perception of his ability to be academically successful. Highest scores Lowest scores 143 144 I believe that these students will be the most and least popular students on a sociogram administered to my class: Question I. I would choose to sit near these children: Most often chosen Least often chosen Question II. I would choose to work with these children: Most often chosen Least often chosen Question III. I would choose to play with these children? Most often chosen Least often chosen APPENDIX F Elaborative Materials 1. Instructions for the "How I See Myself" Scale I would like to explain this scale to you and tell you why you are being asked to answer these questions. This is a part of a study. We are trying to get information that we hope will eventually help to improve the kind of school and education for you and other pupils. Let me emphasize that this is not a test to see how much you know or do not know about something. These questions are all about you. They are to learn how you see yourself most of the time. There are no right or wrong answers. we are only interested in what you think about yourself. I am going to ask you to think about yourself for a little while before you write anything. I want you to think of how you are most of the time . . . not how you think you ought to be--not how the teacher thinks you ought to be . . . not how you want to be or your parents or friends want you to be. No--this is to be how yep yourself feel you are most of the time. Let me first promise you that these papers will not be seen by anyone other than the people making this study. Your teacher will not see them nor your parents or friends. No one will know your answers but you and the ones who are doing this study. We are asking you to put your names on the papers so that we can check them on any other scales we might give you in the future. Now--let's look at the papers. Look at No. 1. On one side it has "Nothing gets me mad" and on the other side "I get mad easily and explode." If you feel that nothing gets you too mad most of the time you would circle the i. If you feel that most of the time you get mad easily and explode you would circle the 2. If you feel you are somewhere in between, you would circle the 2, 3, or 4. Look at No. 2. It is different. On one side it has "I don't stay with something till I finish." If you feel that most of the time you don't stay with things and finish them, you would circle 3.1- If you feel that most of the time you do stay with things and finish you would circle a 2, If you feel you fit somewhere in between you would circle the 2, 3, or 4. It is important to see that some of these mean one thing on the left side, some of them mean another. So it is very important to think about each statement as I read it. I will answer any questions you need answered, so feel free to ask them. Remember, we want how you yourself feel. We want you to be honest with us in your answer. Remember, it is how you feel most of the time. HYI__"H 145 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 146 How I See Myself, Elementary Form . Nothing gets me too mad . I don't stay with things and finish them . I'm very good at drawing . I don't like to work on committees, projects . I wish I were smaller (taller) . I worry a lot . I wish I could do something with my hair . Teachers like me . I've lots of energy I don't play games very well I'm just the right weight The girls don't like me, leave me out I'm very good at speaking before a group My face is pretty (good looking) I'm very good in music I get along well with teachers I don't like teachers I don't feel at ease, comfortable inside I don't like to try new things I have trouble controlling my feelings I 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 5 I get mad easily and explode I stay with something till I finish I'm not much good in drawing I like to work with others I'm just the right height I don't worry much My hair is nice-looking Teachers don't like me I haven't much energy I play games very well I wish I were heavier, lighter The girls like me a lot, choose me I'm not much good at speaking before a group I wish I were prettier (good looking) I'm not much good in music I don't get along with teachers I like teachers very much I feel very at ease, comfortable inside I like to try new things I can handle my feelings 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. How I See I do well in school work I want the boys to like me I don't like the way I look I don't want the girls to like me I'm very healthy I don't dance well I write well I like to work alone I use my time well I'm not much good at making things with my hands I wish I could do something about my skin School isn't interesting to me I don't do arithmetic well I'm not as smart as the others The boys like me a lot, choose me IMy clothes are not as I'd like I like school I wish I were built like others I don't read well I don't learn new things easily 147 Myself--(CONTINUED) l 2 3 4 5 I don't do well in school 1 2 3 4 5 I don't want the boys to like me 1 2 3 4 5 I like the way I look 1 2 3 4 5 I want the girls to like me 1 2 3 4 5 I get sick a lot 1 2 3 4 5 I'm a very good dancer 1 2 3 4 5 I don't write well 1 2 3 4 5 I don't like to work alone 1 2 3 4 5 I don't know how to plan my time 1 2 3 4 5 I'm very good at making things with my hands 1 2 3 4 5 My skin is nice-looking l 2 3 4 5 School is very interesting 1 2 3 4 5 I'm real good in arithmetic l 2 3 4 5 I'm smarter than most of the others 1 2 3 4 5 The boys don't like me, leave me out 1 2 3 4 5 My clothes are nice 1 2 3 4 5 I don't like school 1 2 3 4 5 I'm happy with the way I am 1 2 3 4 5 I read very well 1 2 3 4 5 I learn new things easily APPENDIX C Name Date During the next few weeks we will be changing our seats around, working in small groups and playing some group games. Now that we all know each other by name, you can help me arrange groups that work and play best together. You can do this by writing the names of the chil- dren you would like to have sit near you, to have work with ypu, and 52 have playxwithgypp. You may choose anyone in this room you wish, includ- ing those pupils who are absent. Your choices will not be seen by any- one else. Give first name and initial of last name. Make your choices carefully so the groups will be the way you really want them. I will try to arrange the groups so that each pupil gets at least two of his choices. Sometimes it is hard to give every- one his first few choices so be sure to make five choices for each question. Rememberl 1. Your choices must be from pupils in this room, including those who are absent. 2. You should give the first name and the initial of the last name. 3. You should make all five choices for each question. 4. You may choose a pupil for more than one group if you wish. 5. Your choices will not be seen by anyone else. I would choose to sit near these children: 1. 3. 2. 4. 5. I would choose to work with these children: 5. I would choose to play with these children: 1. 3. 2. 4. 148 APPENDIX H Class Median and Quartile Scores: How I See Myself Test Factor I Factor II Factor III Interpersonal Academic Adequacy Teacher-School Adequacy Group N Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 101 31 59 64 51 23 28 21 21 25 19 121 33 59 65 52 23 29 19 22 24 18 122 31 59 65 54 26 29 21 22 26 20 123 31 61 67 50 26 28 22 23 26 18 131 31 55 66 49 24 26 21 22 26 16 132 36 58 64 52 23 26 19 19 24 16 133 33 53 57 51 25 27 17 21 24 18 161 36 60 65 52 25 28 18 21 24 18 171 29 50 62 49 23 25 20 19 23 15 172 31 56 64 52 20 26 15 22 24 16 181 29 56 60 48 22 26 16 21 24 12 182 30 57 63 52 22 25 21 21 24 18 183 32 59 63 55 26 29 23 25 26 19 191 27 58 66 51 27 29 26 22 25 19 192 25 57 62 50 26 29 21 21 23 18 Total Groups 465 57 64 53 24 27 20 21 25 17 Total Sample 1307 59 66 53 24 27 20 21 25 17 149 Class Median and Quartile Scores: Factor I 150 Factor II Mdn Q3 Q1 How I See Myself Test Factor III 69 75 63 58 70 50 59 67 50 58 65 53 58 64 52 53 61 52 67 71 60 58 63 46 71 8O 63 57 65 50 64 68 54 49 58 47 56 62 49 70 76 63 65 72 56 61 68 54 59 66 53 Factor I Interpersonal Adequacy 28 30 25 25 28 23 21 28 16 23 28 20 19 26 17 21 26 19 22 24 20 26 28 21 25 30 21 26 30 22 20 22 17 22 25 18 25 28 18 26 29 22 22 24 19 23 27 20 24 27 20 Factor II Teacher-School 22 25 17 22 25 18 21 26 16 24 27 19 19 26 17 20 24 18 22 24 17 21 25 18 24 28 20 25 27 19 20 22 19 19 23 l4 18 21 14 21 24 l6 19 21 17 21 25 17 21 25 17 Factor III Academic Adeqpacy Group N 211 24 212 25 213 25 221 28 222 30 223 28 231 31 232 26 241 30 242 28 243 29 251 27 261 23 262 31 263 30 Total Groups 415 Total Sample 1307 Group N 311 31 312 30 313 30 321 27 331 27 332 29 341 29 342 28 351 29 352 29 353 29 354 30 361 24 362 25 363 30 Total Groups 427 Total Sample 1307 70 77 58 62 67 55 56 62 48 57 67 50 62 68 51 41 61 47 65 71 61 69 72 57 54 62 50 61 65 37 67 71 63 56 62 47 44 55 45 58 63 52 63 68 56 59 66 52 59 66 53 26 28 23 28 29 25 22 27 14 23 28 16 20 27 14 24 28 20 23 27 20 24 28 21 23 27 17 25 30 13 23 29 22 24 27 19 26 28 19 28 21 26 29 23 24 28 19 24 77 20 22 25 l9 18 22 16 20 22 l6 18 22 16 20 20 l7 18 21 14 23 26 19 21 27 17 19 22 18 21 25 12 21 24 18 20 22 16 19 21 15 20 22 17 22 25 19 20 23 17 21 25 17 APPENDIX I Class Median and Quartile Score: i_Question l Sociometric Test Question 2 Question 3 Sit Near Work with Play with Group N Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 101 31 12 19 3 15 20 2 14 18 3 121 33 ll 22 6 12 20 6 12 18 5 122 31 14 20 6 ll 22 3 ll 23 6 123 31 10 20 6 10 20 6 9 l8 6 131 31 12 24 4 ll 23 4 13 21 5 132 36 ll 18 8 13 22 8 11 22 8 133 33 l3 l9 9 15 20 7 12 21 8 161 36 ll 19 6 10 18 6 ll 15 9 171 29 10 22 5 ll 19 4 ll 21 4 172 31 ll 18 5 ll 18 5 ll 17 6 181 29 9 20 4 10 17 5 10 18 4 182 30 12 22 6 ll 25 5 12 22 5 183 32 12 21 4 9 20 5 13 21 4 191 27 ll 23 4 10 17 6 13 18 8 192 25 12 19 5 13 17 7 12 18 5 Total Group 465 ll 20 5 ll 20 5 12 19 6 Total Sample 1307 12 21 6 ll 20 6 12 20 6 151 152 Class Median and Quartile Scores: Sociometric Test Question 1 AQuestion 2 Question 3 Sit Near Work with Play with Group N Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 211 24 16 24 8 12 19 10 12 19 10 212 25 ll 24 6 11 18 5 11 21 5 213 25 ll 19 6 13 23 9 ll 19 4 221 28 14 20 8 10 22 7 13 20 7 222 30 19 26 3 8 26 3 ll 25 2 223 28 13 22 4 12 21 5 13 20 5 231 31 12 15 4 9 20 6 10 16 6 232 26 ll 25 5 ll 19 4 ll 20 7 241 30 8 21 2 13 21 3 12 20 4 242 28 12 27 4 12 23 5 l3 19 10 243 29 ll 21 7 14 20 8 ll 19 5 251 27 ll 21 5 9 l9 4 12 20 6 261 23 13 28 8 12 18 7 13 18 7 262 31 13 21 7 l3 l9 8 14 22 7 263 30 14 27 6 10 21 4 16 22 5 Total Group 415 13 23 6 ll 21 6 12 20 6 Total Sample 1307 12 21 6 11 20 6 12 20 6 153 Class Median and Quartile Scores: Sociometric Test Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Sit Near Work with Play with Group N' Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 Mdn Q3 Q1 311 31 l4 l8 8 10 23 5 ll 17 6 312 30 12 19 8 12 19 6 13 20 9 313 30 15 19 5 15 19 4 15 18 6 321 27 13 15 7 12 16 7 9 18 5 331 27 9 21 4 12 22 4 ll 19 6 332 29 8 l7 3 9 23 4 ll 21 l 341 29 12 21 8 12 22 8 13 26 6 342 28 9 24 6 10 20 5 12 21 4 351 29 10 22 6 13 23 6 14 23 6 352 29 10 22 6 l4 l8 5 14 20 7 353 29 12 26 9 12 22 6 ll 22 6 354 30 10 25 3 10 21 5 13 20 5 361 24 15 21 6 15 19 7 15 20 8 362 25 ll 19 6 10 15 6 12 18 5 363 30 14 23 6 10 25 7 12 21 6 Total Groups 427 12 21 6 12 21 6 12 20 6 Total Sample 1307 12 21 6 ll 20 6 12 20 6 APPENDIX J ICL Descriptive Adjectives High, Median, and Low Scoring Teachers Lowest Score self confident likes to compete with others businesslike can complain if necessary able to doubt others apologetic can be obedient appreciative cooperative sociable and neighborly encourages others gives freely of self Median Score respected by others good leader self reliant, assertive likes to compete with others stern but fair irritable can complain if necessary able to criticize self can be obedient grateful appreciative wants everyone to like him affectionate and understanding encourages others big hearted and unselfish 154 Highest Score acts important likes responsi- bility self reliant, assertive likes to compete with others sarcastic critical of others skeptical able to doubt others lacks self confidence easily led admires and imitates others easily fooled pleasant and agreeable likes everybody oversympathetic overprotective of others BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, H. E., and Vidulich, R. N. "Dogmatism, and Belief Congruence in Paired Associate Learning," Psychological Reports, X (1962), 91-94. Adams, Henry L.; Blood, Don F.; and Taylor, Herbert C. "Personality Differences Among Arts and Science Students, Education Students and Experienced Teachers," American Psychologist, XIV (1959), 371. Adorno, T. W.; Frankel-Brunswick, Else; Levinson, Daniel; and Sanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Bros., 1950. Allen, Robert F. "A Preliminary Exploratory Study of Authoritarianism as Manifested in the Formal Education of Children." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1956. Allport, Gordon. Personaliiy: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1937. Amidon, Edward, and Simon, Anita. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction," Review of Educational Research, XXXV (1956), 130-39. Anderson, Earl W., and Rusher, Alfreda W. "Staff-Characteristics," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Chester W. Harris. New York; Macmillan and Company, 1960, pp. 1357-61. Barr, A. 8. "Teaching Competencies," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Chester Harris. Revised edition. New York: Macmillan, 1950, p. 1453. Beach, Leslie R. "Sociability and Academic Achievement in Various Types of Learning Situations," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI (1960), 208-12. Beamer, A., and Ledbetter, R. "The Relations between Teacher Attitude and Social Service Interest," Journal of Education Research, L (1957), 656-66. Beaver, Alma P. "Personality Factors in Choice of Nursing," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 374-79. 156 157 Becker, Gilbert, and Dileo, Diana T. "Scores on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale and the Response Set to Present a Positive Social and Personal Image," Journal of Social Psychology, LXXI (1967), 287-93. Becker, Jerome. "The Influence of School Camping on the Self Concepts and Social Relations of Sixth Grade School Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI (1960), 352-56. Bernhardson, Clemens S. "Dogmatism, Defence Mechanisms, and Social Desirability Responding," Psychological Reports, XX (1967), 511-13. '93“?! Bjerstedt, A. A. Interpretations of Sociometric Choice Status. Lund: Sweden's CWK Gleerup, 1956. h" Bladsoe, Joseph. "Sex differences in Mental Health Analysis Scores of Elementary Pupils," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXV (1961), 364-65. "Self Concepts of Children and Their Intelligence, Achieve- ment, Interests, and Anxiety," Journal of Individual Psychology, xx (1964), 55-58. Bloom, Kenneth. "Some Relationships between Age and Self,” Dissertation Abstracts, XXI (1960), 670. Bockman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. ”Liking, Selective Interaction, and Misperception in Congruent Interpersonal Relations," Sociometxy, XXV (1962), 321-35. Bodwin, Raymond F. "The Relationship between Immature Self Concept and Certain Educational Disabilities," Dissertation.Abstracts, XIX (1959), 1645. Bonney, Merl E. "The Relative Stability of Social Intellectual, and Academic Status in Grades II to IV and the Inter-Relationships Between These Various Forms of Growth," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIV (1943), 88-102. Borg, Walter R. "Personality and Interest Measures as Related to Criteria of Instructor Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research, L (1957), 701-709. Briar, S., and Briar, J. “A Factor Analytic and Trait Inference Study of the Interpersonal Check List," Journal of Clinical Psychology, xxx (1963), 193-98. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "A Constant Frame of Reference for Sociometric Research: Part II, Experiment and Inference," Sociometry, VII (1944), 40-75. 158 Bronfenbrenner, U.; Harding, J.; and Gallway, M” "The Measurement of Skill in Social Perception," in Talent and Society. Edited by D. C. McClelland, U. Bronfenbrenner, and F. L. Strodtbeck. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958. Brookover, Wilbur B., and Shailer, Thomas. "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXVII (1964), 271-78. ; Patternson, A.; and Thomas, S. "The Relationship of Self- Images to Achievement in Junior High School Subjects," Michigan State University, 1962 (final report) Cooperative Research 9 Project No. 845. . I f Bruck, Max. "A Study of Age Differences and Sex Differences in the a Relationship between Self-Concept and Grade Point Average," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1959), 1646. Bruner, Jerome, and Taguiri, Renato. "The Perception of People," in Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Vol. II. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954, pp. 634-54. Burke, W. Warner. "Social Perception as a Function of Dogmatism," Perceptual and Motor Skills, XXIII (1966), 863-68. Burrell, Anna P. "Facilitating Learning Through Emphasis on Meeting Children's Basic Emotional Needs," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIV (1951), 381-93. Busswell, Margaret M. "The Relationship between the Social Structure of the Classroom and the Academic Success of Pupils," Journal of Experimental Education, XXII (1953), 37-52. Butsch, R. C. "Teacher Rating," Review of Educational Research, I (1931), 99-107. Carlson, Betty Rae. "Parent Child Relationships and the Self Concept of Children," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1958), 1436. Chickering, Arthur W. "Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept and Achievementfl' Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1958), 164. Christensen, C. M. "Relationship between Pupil Achievement,Pupil Affect- Need, Teacher Warmth, and Teacher Permissiveness," Journal of Educational Psychology, L1 (1960), 169-74. Christie, R., and Jahoda, M. Studies in the Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality." Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1954. 159 Cline, V. B., and Richards, J. M. "Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception --A General Trait?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LX (1960), 1-7. "The Generality of Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXII (1961), 446-49. Coh, Thomas S. "Factors Related to Scores on the F Predisposition to Facism Scale." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1953. Cook, Desmond L.; Linden, James D.; and McKay, Harrison E. "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXI (1961), 865-72. Cook, W. W.; Leeds, C. H.; Callis, R. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1951. Cooley, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners, 1902. Coombs, A. W., and Soper, D. W. "The Self: Its Derivative Terms and Research," Journal of Individual Psychology, XIII (1957), 134-45. ; and Coursen, C. C. "The Measurement of Self Concept and Self Report," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXIII (1963), 493-500. ; and Daniel, W. "The Helping Relationship as Described by 'Good' and 'Poor' Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (1963), 64-67. Coopersmith, S. "A Method for Determining Types of Self-Esteem," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (1959), 87-94. Corey, Stephen. "The Present State of Ignorance About Factors Affect- ing Teacher Success," Educational Administration and Supervision, XVIII (1932), 198-204. Cratty, Bryant J. "The Assessment of Teacher Sensitivity," California Journal of Educational Research, XIII (1962), 72-77. Dalke, H. 0., and'Monahan, T. 0. "Problems in the Application of Socio- metry to Schools," School Review, LVII (1949), 223-34. Della-Dora, Delmo. "A Comparison of the Personality of Elementary School Teachers and Secondary School Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1960. 160 Descartes, Rene. A Discourse on Method. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1912. De Soto, Clinton; Kuethe, James L.; and Wunderlich, Richard. "Social Perception and Self-Perception of High and Low Authoritarians," Journal of Social Psychology, LII (l960),l49-55. Dilley, Norman E. "Personal Values Held by College Students Who Enter a Teacher Education Program," Journal of Teacher Education, VIII (1957), 289-94. Dixon, Wilfred J., and Massey, Frank.J., Jr. Introduction to Statisti- cal Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill, 1957. Dobbs, James M”, Jr. "Self Esteem, Communicator Characteristics, and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIX (1964), 173-81. Dyer, C. 0. "Construct Validity of Self-Concept Multi-Trait, Multi- Method, Analysis." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Univer- sity of Michigan, 1963. Dymond, Rosiland F. "A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Ability," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII (1949), 127-33. Dyson, Ernest. "A Study of Ability Grouping and the Self-Concept," Journal of Educational Research, LX (1967), 403-405. Ehrlich, Howard J., and Bauer, Mary Lou. "The Correlates of Dogmatism and Flexibility in Psychiatric Hospitalization," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXX (1966), 253-59. English, Horace, and Raimy, Victor. Studying the Individual School Child--A Manual of Guidance. New York: H. Holt & Co., 1941. Epperson, David C. "The Dynamics of Two Variants of Classroom Aliena- tion." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1962. Fink, Martin B. "Self-Concept as It Relates to Academic Under- Achievement," California Journal of Educational Research, XII (1962), 57-62. Fish, Lloyd Edward. "A Study of Personality as Related to Choice or Major Field of Study.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Tennessee, 1954. Foulkes, David, and Foulkes, Susan H. "Self-Concept, Dogmatism, and Tolerance of Trait Inconsistency," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, II (1965), 104-10. f - '.' '1‘, 161 Freud, Sigmund. The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth Press, 1950. Gage, N. L. "Desirable Behaviors of Teachers," Urban Education, I (1965), 85-95. Getzels, J. W., and Jackson, P. W. "The Teachers Personality and Characteristics," in Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963, pp. 506-76. Gillet, Lowell R. "Affective Relationships Among Student Teachers' Acceptance of Self, Acceptance of Pupils, and Acceptance by Pupils," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 1686-87. Goodwin, George. "A Study of Certain Teacher Activities and Human Rela- tions with Special Reference to Working Patterns of School Prin- cipals." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1955. Gordon, Ira J. Studying_the Child in School. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Personal Correspondence. November, 1967. , and Guertin, Wilson H. "Relationship between the Predictor's Personality and Accuracy of Prediction of Children's Self- Reports." Paper read at Philadelphia Pa. meeting: American Psychological Association, August 29, 1963. Gotham, R. E. "Personality and Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIV (1945), 157-65. Grey, David M”, and Pepitone, Albert. "Effect of Self Esteem on Draw- ings of the Human Figure," Journal of Consultipg Psychology, XXVIII (1964), 452-55. Gronlund, Norman E. Sociometry in the Classroom. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959. Guinouard, Donald E., and Rychlak, Joseph F. "Personality Correlates of Sociometric Popularity in Elementary School Children," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XL (1962), 438-42. Gynther, M. D. "Degree of Agreement Among Three 'Interpersonal System' Measures," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXVI (1962), 107. Helper, MH‘M. "Parental Evaluations of Children and Children's Self Evaluations," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LVI (1960), 190-94. 162 Horowitz, Frances Degen. "The Relationship of Anxiety, Self Concept, and Sociometric Status Among 4th, 5th, and 6th Grade Children," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV (1962), 212-14. Hott, Leland, and Sonstegard, Manford. "Relating Self-Concept to Curri- culum Development," Journal of Educational Research, LVIII (1965L 348-51. Jackson, Philip W.,and Guba, Egon G. "Need Structure of In-Service Teachers: An Occupational Analysis," School Review, LXV (1957), 176-92. James, William. The Principles of Psychology. Vol. I. New York: Holt Rinehart and Co., 1890. Jennings, Helen. "Sociometric Grouping in Relation to Child Develop- ment," in Fosterinngental Health in Our Schools. Associathan for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1950 Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1950. Jersild, Arthur T. In Search of Self. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1952. Johnson, Lois V. "Teacher's Reports of Children's Self-Concept," California Journal of Educational Psychology, XI (1960), 135-40. Jones, Stewart,and Gaier, Eugene. "Study of Anti-Democratic Potential of Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, L (1957), 1-18. Juul, Kristen D. "Authoritarian Personality in Relation to Teachers' Attitudes Toward Child Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Wayne State University, 1953. Kaplan, Louis. Mental Health and Human Relations in Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Kerlinger, Fred N. "The Attitude Structure of the Individual: A Q- Study of the Educational Attitudes of Professors and Laymen," Genetic Psychology Monographs, LIII (1956), 283-329. "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Factors of Educa- tional Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, XLVIII (1958), 111-35. "Factor Invariance in the Measurement of Attitudes Toward Education,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXXI (1961), 273-85. "Attitudes Toward Education and Perceptions of Teacher Characteristics, A Study," American Educational Research Journal, III (1966), 159-68. 163 Kerlinger, Fred N. "The First- and Second-Order Factor Structures of Attitudes Toward Education," American Educational Research Journal, IV (1967), 191-205. Personal correspondence. January, 1967. , and Kayo, Esin. "Construction and Factor Analytic Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Toward Education," Educational and Psychological Measurement, IXX (1959), 13-29. , and Rokeach, Milton. "The Factorial Nature of the F and D Scales," Journal of Personalityyand Social Psychology, IV (1966), 391-99. , and Pedhazur, Elazar J. Attitudes and Perceptions of Desir- able Traits and Behaviors of Teachers. United States Depart- ment of Health,Education, and Welfare, 1967. Kirkwood, James. "Incidence, Contributory Etiological Factors, and Use of the MLMHP.I. as a Prognostic and Diagnostic Instrument of Teachers in California." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1949. Koffka, Kurt. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935. Lamke, Thomas A. "Personality and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education, XX (1957), 217-59. Lantz, Donald L. "Relationship between Classroom Emotional Climate and Concepts of Self, Others, and Ideal Among Elementary Student Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LIX (1965), 80-83.'; La Gattuta, Nicholas P. "The Relationship of Teacher Perception of Organizational Climate to Dogmatism," Dissertation Abstracts, xxv11 (1966), 1714. Leary, Timothy. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: The Roland Press Co., 1957. , and Coffey, Hubert S. "Interpersonal Diagnosis: Some Prob- lems of Methodology and Validation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L (1955), 110-24. Lecky, P. Self-Consistency, A Theory of Personality. New York: Island Press, 1945. Lewin, Kurt. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York; McGraw-Hill, 1935. Lewis, Gertrude M. "Interpersonal Relations and School Achievement," Children, XI (1964), 235-36. 164 Lewis, Marvin N., and Spelka, Vernard. "Sociometric Choice Status, Empathy, Assimilative and Disowning Projection," Psychological Record, X (1960), 95-100. Lindgren, H” C.,and Patton, Gladys Mu "Attitudes of High School and Other Teachers Toward Children and Current Educational Method- ology," California Journal of Educational Research, IX (1958), 80-85. Linden, James D., and McKay, Harrison E. "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, XXI (1960), 865-71. Lindzey, Gardener, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I. E Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954. i'.; , ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. II. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954. , and Borgotta, E. F. "Sociometric Measurement," in Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by G. Lindzey. Vol. I. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Lipsett, L. P. "A Self Concept Scale for Children and Its Relationship to the Children's Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale," Child Development, XXIX (1958), 463-72. Lippitt, Ronald. "The Learner and the Classroom," in Human Variability in Learning. Edited by Walter P. Waetgin. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1961. , and Gold, Martin. "Classroom Social Structure as a Mental Health Problem," Journal of Social Issues, XV (1959), 40-49. Lumpkin, D. D. "The Relationship of Self Concept to Achievement in Reading," Dissertation Abstracts, XX (1959), 204. Luszki, Margaret B. "Empathic Ability and Social Perception." Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1951. Machr, Martin L.; Mensing, Josef; and Nafzger, Samuel. "Concept of Self and the Reaction to Others," Sociometry, XXV (1962), 353-57. McCallon, Earl L. "Interpersonal Perception Characteristics of Teachers," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXIV (1964), 97-100. McCandless, Boyd R. Children and Adolescents. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. 165 McDonald, Robert L. "Leary's Overt Interpersonal Behavior: A Valida- tion Attempt," Journal of Social Psychology, LLXIV (1968), 259-64. Mead, G. H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Milgram, N. A. "Cognitive and Empathic Factors in Role-Taking," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LX (1960), 219-24. Moreno, Jacob L. Who Shall Survive? Washington, D.C.: Nervous and '-~ Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1934. The Sociometric Reader. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960. Morey, Elwyn A. "Vocational Interests and Personality Characteristics of Women Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1948. Motto, J. "An Investigation of Some Personality Correlates of Empathy in College Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1958. Moustakas, Clark E. The Teacher and the Child: Personal Interaction in the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956. Muma, John R. "Peer Evaluation and Academic.Achievement in Performance Classes," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (1968), 580-85. Murphy, Gardner. Personality: A Bio-Social Approach to Origins and Structure. New York: Harper and Bros., 1947. Ojeman, Ralph J., and Wilkinson, F. R. "The Effect on Pupil Growth of an Increase in Teacher Understanding of Pupil Behavior," Journal of Egperimental Education, VIII (1939), 143-47. Oliver, R. A. C., and Butch, H. J. "Teacher's Attitudes to Education. The Structure of Educational Attitudes," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, I (1962), 56-59. Palacios, John R. "A Validation Study of Selected Tests for Possible Use in Admissions to Professional Education Sequences at Purdue University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1959. Panther, Edward E. "Development of a Technique for Assessing Children's Attitudes Towards School," Child Study_Center Bulletin, State Universipy College, Buffalo, New York, III (1967), 27-31. Parker, James. "The Relationship of Self Concept to Inferred Self Concept," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXVI (1966), 691-700. 166 Perkins, Hugh V. "Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self- Concepts," Child Develgpment, XVIII (1954), 443-46. "Teachers' Peers' Perceptions of Children's Self-Concepts," Child Development, XXXIX (1958), 203-20. "Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self Concepts," Child Develgpment, XXIX (1958), 221-30. 1 1 Perry, Doris Cahoon. "Self-Acceptance in Relation to Adjustment." :al Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1961. 1: Phillips, A. 8. "Self Concepts in Children," Educational Research, VI (1964), 104-109. [ Piers, Ellen V. "Effects of Instruction on Teacher Attitudes: Extended i Control Group Design," Abstracts of Dissertations for the Year 1954. Nashville: Peabody College for Teachers, 1955. PP. 245- 49. Plant, W. T. "Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale as a Measure of General Authori- tarianism," Psychological Reports, VI (1960), 164. ; Telford, C. W.; and Thomas, J. A. "Some Personality Differ- ences between Dogmatic and Non-Dogmatic Groups," The Journal of Social Psychology, LXVII (1965), 67-75. Quimby, Violet. "Differences in the Self-Ideal Relationships of an Achieved Group in an Underachieved Group," California Journal of Educational Research, XVIII (1967), 23-31. Raths, Lewis; Harmin, Merrill; and Simon, Sidney. Values and Teaching. Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Books, 1966. Robkin, Leslie Y. "The Dogmatism of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, XVII (1966), 47-49. Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rosenfeld, H., and Zander, A. "The Influence of Teachers on Aspirations of Students," Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 1-12. Roth, R” M” "Role of Self Concept in Achievement," Journal of Experi- mental Education, XXVII (1959), 265-81. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Education, 1960. 167 Ryans, David G. "Some Relationships between Pupil Behavior and Certain Teacher Characteristics," Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 82-90. Scates, Douglas. "With the Researchers," Journal of Teacher Education, VIII (1957), 433-37. Schmuk, R. "Some Relationships of Peer Liking Patterns in the Classroom to Pupil Attitudes and Achievements," School Review, LXXI (1963), 337-59. Secord, Paul F.; Backman, Carl W.; and Eachus, H. Todd. "Effects of Imbalance in the Self-Concept on the Perception of Persons," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXVII (1964), 442-46. Shaw, Merville C., and Alves, Gerald J. "The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Underachievers: Continued," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII (1963), 401-402. Sheldon, M. S.; Coole, J. M.; and Copple, R. "Current Validity of the Warm Teacher Scales," Journal of Educational Psychology, L (1959), 3-40. Shrauger, Sid, and Attrocchi, John. "The Personality of the Perceiver as a Factor in Person Perception," Psychological Bulletin, LXII (1964), 289-308. Siegel, A. E., and Siegel, 8. "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LV (1957), 360-64. Snygg, Donald, and Coombs, Arthur W. Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for Psychology. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949. Soderbergh, Peter. "Dogmatism and the Public School Teacher," Journal of Teacher Education, XV (1964), 245-51. Stone, Douglas E. "Measured Stability of Teacher Personality," Psycho- logical Reports, XVI (1965), 1293-1302. Stoufer, George. "The Attitude of Secondary School Teachers Toward Certain Behavior Problems of Children," The School Review, LXIV (1956), 358-62. Suczek, Robert, and La Forge, Rolfe. "The Interpersonal Dimensions of Personality: III. An Interpersonal Check List," Journal of Personality, XXIV (1955), 94-112. Symonds, Percival Mn "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Person- ality," Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954), 79-83. 168 Symonds, Percival M. "Characteristics of the Effective Teacher Based Upon Pupil Evaluations," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII (1955), 289-310. Taft, Ronald. "The Ability to Judge People," Psychological Bulletin, LII (1955), 1-23. Taguiri, Renato and Petrullo, Luigi, eds. Person Perception and Inter- personal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. Teele, J. E., et a1. "Teacher Ratings, Sociometric Status, and Choice- Reciprocity of Anti-Social and Normal Boys," Group Psycho- therapy, XIX (1966), 183-97. Titchener, Edward B. Primer of Psychology. Revised edition. New York: Macmillan, 1903. Togerson, T. L. "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Ability," Review of Educational Research, IV (1937), 245-46. Trow, W. C., et al. "The Class as a Group," in The Causes of Behavior .ll- Edited by J. F. Rosenblith and W. Allinsmith. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966, 204-10. Van Egmond, Elmer E. "Social Interrelationship Skills and Effective Utilization of Intelligence in the Classroom." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1960. Vidulich, R. N., and Kaiman, O. P. "The Effects of Information Source Status and Dogmatism Upon Conformity Behavior," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXII (1961), 639-42. Vroom, Victor H. "Projection, Negation, and the Self Concept," Human Relations, XII (1959), 335-43. Wandt, Edwin. "Comparison of the Attitudes of Contrasting Groups of Teachers," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIV (1954), Watson, Goodwin. "Character Tests and Their Application Through 1930," Review of Educational Research, 11 (1932), 244. Wattenberg, Williame., and Clifford, C. "Relationship of the Self Concept to Beginning Achievement in Reading," Wayne State Univer- sity (final Report), Cooperative Research Project No. 377, 1962. White, Jack; Alter, Richard D.; and Rardin, Max. "Authoritarianism, Dogmatism, and Usage of Conceptual Categories," Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, II (1965), 293-95. Wilcox, Preston R. "Teacher Attitudes and Student Achievement," Teacher's College Record, LXVIII (1967), 371-79. 169 Williams, Robert L., and Cole, Spurgeon. "Self-Concept and School Adjustment," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (1968), 478-81. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept: A Critical Survsy of Pertinent Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Zagona, Salvatore V., and Zurcher, Louis A. J. "Notes on the Reliabili- ty and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Psychological Reports, XVI (1965), 1234-36. Zander, Alvin, and Curtis, Theodore. "The Effects of Social Power on Aspiration Setting and Striving," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIV (1962), 63-74. "Social Support and Rejection of Organization Standards," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVI (1965), 87-95. Ziller, Robert C.; Shear, Howard J.; and De Cencio, Dominic. "A Profes- sional Response Set: Dogmatism," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XX (1964), 299-303.