”-‘J- -JIW-‘v‘w— ——w- -v—-".— - —— ~ ‘ WW- 4 COMPARISON 0F TEACHER ANS STANDARDIZED “ TEST cmssgrzamom OF STUDENTS AS ‘ UNDER - AND OVER - ACHiEVERS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. womam 3mm UNIVERSITY RONALD ANDREW ESPOSETO 1968 {HESIS LIB-FAD" Michiman Stew: Uniicrsity This is to certifg that the thesis entitled COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND STANDARDIZED TEST CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS AS UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS presented bg RONALD ANDREW ESPOS I TO has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. , Education __ degree In _____ Major professor March 29, 1968 Date 0-169 ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND STANDARDIZED TEST CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS AS UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS by Ronald Andrew Esposito This study was concerned with two problems. The first was with differences in student academic motivation, between those who were classified as under- and over- achievers by teacher ratings as opposed to achievement test scores. The secondary problem was concerned with determining differences in academic motivation of students classified as under- or over-achievers in one, and only one, of four course areas (English, social science, math- ematics, and science). For both problems the same sample of 600 tenth grade students was used. Three groups of under- and over- achievers were identified, one by GPA, one by standardized achievement tests, and one by both estimates for each of the four subject matter areas. The Farquhar-Payne Tech- niquel was used for selection of the under- and over- achiever. Their technique entails the selections of subjects falling one standard error of estimate either 1w. W. Farquhar and D. Payne, "A Classification and Comparison of Techniques Used in Selecting Under- and Over- Achievers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 196A, pp. 87A-88A. Ronald Andrew Esposito side of the regression line as over-achievers (one standard error above) or under-achievers (one standard error below). Within this study DAT-VR (Differential Aptitude Test—Verbal Reasoning) was used to estimate GPA (Teacher Grades) and the ITED (Iowa Test of Educational Development) scores were used to estimate achievement from a standardized test. The first analysis tested separately by sex and the four subject matter areas, the significance of M-Scale factor means (seven M-Scale factors plus total score) among under- and over—achievers selected by either GPA achieve- ment test scores or both estimates. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for significance. The results of the first analysis indicated only nine of the 128 analyses were significant at the .05 level. Four of the nine significant analyses were in the Science area, three were in Mathematics, and two in English. Any generalizations based upon the nine significant analyses must be tempered with caution because the nine may be due to change. The second analysis in the study was concerned with tests of significance among the variables of over- and under-achievement, subject matter (four areas), and the seven M-Scale factors plus the total M-Scale score. A two—way analysis of variance with "F" test was employed for the A x 2 design. No significant difference was found among the means of the seven M-Scale factors and total score across the Ronald Andrew Esposito four subject matter areas. Significance was found, at the .05 level, between over- and under-achieving males for M-Scale factors I (Academician), II (Job Involvement), III (Agitation), V (Disinterested), VI (Succumbing to versus Defying School Norms), VII (Unique versus Common Accomplish- ment) and Total M-Scale scores. Significance was also found between female over- and under-achievers, at the .05 level, for M-Scale factors I (Academician), V (Educational Commitment), VII (Common versus Unique Accomplishment), and Total M-Scale scores. No significant difference was found among the means for any interaction among the eight cells of the two-way analysis of variance design. COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND STANDARDIZED TEST CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS AS UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS By Ronald Andrew Esposito A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 Q5/4193 To Andy and Laurie ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. William W. Farquhar, director of this research, for his advice, assistance, time and patience given and expressed to me throughout the course of this study. To Dr. James Costar, my major professor, for his friendship, advice, encouragement and confidence expressed throughout my graduate work. To Dr. Charles Blackman for his advice and encouragement. To Dr. Norman Abeles for his encouragement and patience. Dr. Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. Norman Kagen, Dr. Buford Stefflre, Dr.Iewrance Idtwack and Dr. Milton E. Wilson for their interest and support. To Dr. Mildred Erickson for her assistance and encouragement. To Mr. Robert Sakata and Mr. Arthur Resnikoff for their day by day support and encouragement, as well as technical assistance given unselfishly throughout the course of this study. To my parents for their unfailing support. Lastly, and most deeply, to my wife Marilyn for being what she is. Her love and encouragement were most necessary for the completion of this study. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Need. Purpose of the Study Statement of Problem Hypotheses. Organization of the Study. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Achievement Motivation. Measurement Difficulties Differential Achievement Summary. III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOTY Sample Selection. Nature of the Data Analysis Procedures. Statistical Hypotheses. Major Hypothesis. Summary. . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Analysis of Differences of Means Among Under- and Over-Achievers Designated by Three Achievement Criteria Analysis of Differences in Each of the Four Subject Matter Areas by Each M-Scale Factor and Total Score: Male Under—Achievers iv Page ii iii vi ix H EWMNH 31 32 Chapter Analysis of Differences in Each of the Four Subject Matter Areas by Each M- Scale Factor and Total Score: Female Under- Achievers . Analysis of Differences in Each. of the Four Subject Matter Areas by Each M- Scale Factor and Total Score: Male Over-Achievers . Analysis of Differences in Each. of the Four Subject Matter Areas by Each M-Scale Factor and Total Score: Female Over-Achievers. Hypotheses. . . . Analysis of Differences of Means. Males Analysis of Differences of Means: Females Summary. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions and Findings Discussion. . Implications for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES. . Page 32 BA LIST OF TABLES Classes Used to Determine Grade Point Average . . . . F—Ratios for Under-Achieving Males, by M—Factor, in Four Subject Matter Areas F-Ratios for Under-Achieving Females, by M-Factor, in Four Subject Matter Areas F—Ratios for Over-Achieving Males, by M—Factor, in Four Subject Matter Areas F-Ratios for Over—Achieving Females, by M-Factor, in Four Subject Matter Areas Summary of M-Scale Means, Males, Factors 1-7, and Total. . . . Summary of M-Scale Means, Female, Factors l_7 (N=23) o o o o o o o 0 Analysis of Variance(0ne—Way) of Male Under- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under- Achievers in Science by the Three Achieve- ‘ment Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under— Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under—Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total vi Page 19 33 35 36 37 A0 A2 59 60 61 62 63 Table Page A.6 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under-Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 6A A.7 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under-Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 65 A.8 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under-Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 66 A.9 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 67 A.lO Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 68 A.ll Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over— Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 69 A.l2 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over— Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 70 A.l3 Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over-Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 71 A.lA Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 72 A.l5 Analysis of Variance (One—Way) of Female Over—Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 73 vii Table Page A.l6 Analysis of Variance (One—Way) of Female Over-Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total . . . . . 7A 8.1 Analysis of Variance of Motivational Scores (Factor 1 thru 7, Plus Total Males) for Under- and Over—Achievers from Four Academic Areas . . . . . . . . . . 76 8.2 Analysis of Variance of Motivational Scores (Factor 1 thru 7, Plus Total Females) for Under- and Over-Achievers from Four Academic Areas . . . . . . . . . . 78 viii Figure 3.1 3.3 3.“ LIST OF FIGURES Selection of Individuals with Stable Measured Aptitude . . . . Method of Selecting Under- and Over-Achievers by GPA. Method of Selecting Under- and Over-Achievers By ITED . . . . . . . Schematic Summary of Groups Tested ix Page 2“ 25 26 27 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Analysis of Variance of Under- and Over- Achievers (Male, Female) in Four Subject Matter Areas by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale Factors . . . . 58 B. Analysis of Variance of Motivational Scores for Under- and Over-Achievers from Four Academic Areas (Male, Female) . . . . . 75 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Concern for academic achievement reaches higher levels of intensity each year. The increasing costs of education, plus the needs of an advanced technological society for highly trained and specialized personnel, place pressure on schools to identify, train, and produce educated people efficiently. Academic motivation is a pivotal factor in. increased quality of academic achievement. i292. Previous studies using general (total) scholastic achievement have focused upon identification of under- achievers. Few studies have focused upon under-achievement in various specific areas of course work. With the present emphasis upon earlier selection of vocational goals, the need to identify motivational characteristics in academic areas is important. The need exists for highly specialized knowledge about low motivation, discrepant achievement, and standardized test achievement. All may have parts in common; but empirical evidence about the interrelationships is scant. In addition, knowledge about the differences in achievement motivation among the four subject matter areas could have implications for curriculum development. If differential motivational factors are found across subject areas individ— ual selection and scheduling for specific high school classes could become more realistic. Instructional methods in these subjects could also be changed to be more appropriate for the motivational patterns of the selected students. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to examine what differen- ces existed among students who were classified as under- or over-achievers on the basis of teacher grades as opposed to standardized achievement test results. The problem was examined Specifically by using grade point average and achievement scores in each of four major course areas, i.e., language arts, mathematics, social science, and science. Furthermore, relationships among motivation (as measured by the M-Scale) and the four areas of teacher and standardized achievement estimates of performance were determined. Statement of Problem Most studies predicting academic achievement use grade point average as an achievement criterion. Its use is defensible because it is one of the better predictors of future academic grades. However, limitations, especially due to the contamination of teacher bias, are well estab- lished. Little work has been done to evaluate the differen- ces, specifically those of academic motivation, between teacher ratings and achievement test scores used as measures of academic achievement. At the same time, the use of grade point average as a measure of academic achievement has typically involved the total combined grade point average of all academic courses taken by the student. Studying the academic achieve- ment of students in specific areas, as it relates to specific motivational patterns, has not been attempted to date. The above points are the focus of attention of this study. Hypotheses The rationale for the development of hypotheses is found most readily in studies of vocational-choice. Roe'sl study of scientists suggest that differential motivational patterns are associated with differential professional achievement. Motivational constructs have been extensively used by clinical and school psychologists to explain under- achievement as well as differential achievement. It should follow that different motivational patterns exist among those students who are successful in certain selected academic areas. ’ Thus the question generated by the above assumption becomes: Is_differential achievement in separate academic areas a function of differential motivational factors? Stated in broad research form: differential achievement in lA. Roe, ThePsychology of Occupations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New—York, 1956, p. 321. separate academic areas is a function of differential motivational factors. Organization of the Study The general plan of the study is to present in the second chapter a review of the literature indicating rela- tionships between selected achievement and motivation. The third chapter is an account of the sample selection, nature of the data, and the design and techniques employed to analyze the data. The results of the data are reported in the fourth chapter. The summary, conclusions and implica- tions for further study appear in the fifth (final) chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Studies relating to the areas of achievement motivation and differential achievement were reviewed. Since literature in achievement motivation was broad, only brief reviews were attempted. Little has been done in the study of differential.achievementgvthus the few studies were reviewed in greater depth. Achievement Motivation In most texts in Educational Psychology and in Learning much attention is given to the concept of motiva- tion and its relationship to learning outcomes (Lindgren 19621, McDonald 19652, McClellan 19533). Two recent texts (Cofer and Appleyu 1967, Atkinson and Feathers 1967) are 1H. C. Lindgren, Educational Psychology in the Class- room, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 19 2. 2F. .J. McDonald, Educational Psychology, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California, 1965. 3D. C. McClellan, J. w. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. L. Lowell, The Achievement Motive, Appleton-Century- Crofts, New York, 1953. “C. N. Cofer and M. H. Appley, Motivation: Theory and Research, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966. 5J. W. Atkinson, N. T. Feather, A Theory of Achievement Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1966. devoted completely to discussing both theory and research of motivation. Special projects that are devoted to problems of motivation include the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation6 and Federal Grant Projects such as Farquhar's study under Grant number 8A6.7 In a review of the literature prior to 1933 Stagner (1933)8 indicated: 1. Grades are the best measure of achievement. 2. Correlation between achievement (grades) and intelligence (IQ tests) is about .50. 3. Relationship between achievement and personality traits are inconsistent, negligible, or spur- iously high. Reviewing the literature for the 15-year period between 1933 and 19A9 Donahue, Coombs, and Travers9 in "Student Adjustment and Achievement" reported near zero correlations 6Mr. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1949. 7W. Farquhar, "Motivational Factors Related to Academic Achievement," U.S. Office of H. E. W., Coop. Research Project #8A6 ER9 Office of Research & Publications, College of Education, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1963. 8R. Stagner, "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude and Achievement," J. of Educational Research, 1933, 26, 6A8-660. 9W. T. Donahue, C. H. Coombs, and R. W. Travers, The Measurement of Student Adjustment and Achievement, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949. between scholarship and every conceivable variety of adjust- ment inventory. Ronald G. Taylor,10 in an extensive review of the literature from 1933-1963, looked at the relationship of discrepant achievement to the following personality traits: (a) academic anxiety, (b) self values, (0) author- ity relations, (d) interpersonal relations, (e) independence- dependence conflict, (f) activity patterns and (8) goal orientation. The weight of the evidence in the literature supports the following: . . .-l. The degree to which a student is able to handle his anxiety is directly related to his level of adjustment. 2. The value the student places upon his worth. affects his academic achievement. 3. The ability to conform to and/or accept authority demands will determine the amount of academic success. 4. Students who are accepted and have positive relationships with peers are better able to accept themselves. Students who do not have peer acceptance generally go outside the school environment for their satisfactions. 5. The less conflict over independence-dependence relationships a student copes with, the more effort he places on achievement. 6. Activities which are centered around academic interests are more likely to produce success- ful achievement. 7. The more realistic the goal the more chance there is of successful completion of that goal.11 10R. G. Taylor, "Personality Traits and Discrepant Achievement: A Review," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. XI, No. 1, 1964, pp. 76-82. llIbid., p. 81. 8 McClelland et a1.12 and Atkinsonl3both found the achievement (Ach) motives to be of negligible relationship. In addition, Atkinson indicated feelings that other motives interacted, thus contaminating the simple relationship. McKeachielu _reported in the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: "Individual differences in motivation are responsible for the remaining variance in college grades . . . We still have no measure of motivation which has proven useful . . " (p. 111) Farquhar gp_al.,15 in his research on Academic Motivation attempted to rectify this state of affairs by developing an objective theory based on a reliable motiva- tional instrument. Theory was developed at two levels (focusing and predictive). Level One Theory (focusing) was used in attempting to relate personality structure to academic motivation. At Level Two Theory (predictive) McClelland's n-Ach three factors were bi-polarized and exten- ded to predict extremes in academic motivation. The three bi-polarized factors were need for (a) long-term vs. short term involvement; (b) unique vs. common accomplishment; and (c) competing with a miximal vs a minimal standard of excellence. 12McClelland, op. cit. 13J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), "Motives in Fantasy," Action and Sociegy, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1958. 14 McKeachie, op. cit., 1961. 15Farquhar, op. cit., 1963. The instrument that was developed (the M-Scales) consisted of 139 male and 136 female items. The reliability estimates ranged from .60 to .93 for the various scales. The total scale reliability estimate was .9A for males and .93 for females. The grade-point average criterion relia- bility estimates were .75 for males and .80 for females. Results indicated the three factors bi-polar theory was too simple to explain academic motivation. Further study concluded with seven motivational factors for males and seven motivational factors for females. These factors and their descriptions are found in Chapter III. Measurement Difficulties Much of the variation between intelligence and achieve- ment must be attributed to the measures themselves--the familiar problem of the reliability and validity of intel- ligence tests, grades and achievement tests. Added to these difficulties are the low correlations found between achievement test scores and teacher ratings of achievement. Carterl6 studied this problem in six high school algebra classes (3 male and 3 female teachers). Holding I.Q. constant, he found the men teachers giving significantly lower grades than the female teachers. Female 16R. S. Carter, "How Invalid are marks assigned by Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psychology, A3, 1952, 10 students' marks were also found to be higher than male students' marks. Female student marks and marks given by female teachers had relatively little correlation with achievement (as measured by an achievement test). Tiegsl7 has also indicated the unreliability of teacher grading. The disagreement in the selection of under- and over-achievers also contributes to measurement difficul- ties. In a comparison of techniques of selection, Farquhar and Payne]?8 found numerous instances of significant lack of classification agreement. One conclusion stated . .-. "With the exception of the DuBois and Farquhar and Payne techniques, there appears to be little or no agreement among techniques in which an individual is designated as a discrepant achiever."19 Differential Achievement Another difficulty in.the prediction of overall achievement at the high school level might be the lower sig- nificance of the general achievement factor. Although 17E. W. Tiegs, "Educational Diagnosis," Monterey, California: California Test Bureau, 1952, Educational Bulletin No. 18. 18W. W. Farquhar and D. A. Payne, "A Classification and Comparison of Techniques Used in Selecting Under- and Over-Achievers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, May 1964, pp. 87A-88A. 19Ibld., p. 883. ll factor analysis research of the past thirty years has revealed a general factor (g) underlying a great deal of performance on ability tests, it has also revealed a large number of Specialized abilities and skills which have rela- tively low correlations with each other. The relationship between a general index of intelli- gence and overall performance on a battery of achievement tests approaches unity at the elementary school level20 and drops to about .50 at the college leve1.2l‘ The above would suggest we cannot view high school or college students, as we might elementary students, as having general transferable abilities. Guilford22 has presented a logical analysis of mental abilities along three dimension: 1. operations (cognition, memory, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and evaluation) 2. products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications) 3. contents (figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral) 2OW. Coleman and E. E. Cureton, "Intelligence and Achievement, The Jangle Fallacy Again." Education Psycholggy Measurement, 195A, 14, pp. 3A7—551. 21A. B. Crawford and P. S. Burnham, Forecasting College Achievement, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 19A6. 22J. P. Guilford, "Three Faces of Intellect," American Psychologists, 1959, 14, pp. 469-479. 12 23 in an unpublished study speculated that Bloom "any study in which half a dozen or more specialized apti- tude tests (which have low correlations with each other) are used, one-half or more of the students are likely to be in the upper tenth on one or more of the tests." It would appear that the teacher's recognition of the above diver- sity of each child could be important in subsequent student- teacher interactions. Carrollzu (1962) reviewed past studies of prediction of success in language courses and concluded ". . . facility in learning to speak and understand a foreign language is a fairly Specialized talent (or a group of talents), rela- tively independent of those traits ordinarily included under intelligence . . ." (p. 89) The above references point strongly enough to the presence of differences in aptitude and ability within any individual. Although many studies have focused on differ- ences in interest patterns within individuals and groups, few studies have focused upon differential achievement and motivation, especially across subject matter areas. The following studies relate most closely with this focus. 23B. S. Bloom, "Testing Cognitive Ability and Achievement," Handbook of Research on Teaching Ed. N. L.- Gage, Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, 1963, p. 385. 2”J. B. Carroll, "The Prediction of Success in Intensive Language Training;" R. Glaser-(ed.),, Training Research and Education, Pittsbur h: University of PIttsburgh Press, 1962, pp. 87-136. 13 In a study designed to determine the nature of the relationship between interests and differential academic 25 found that differential interests achievement, Johnson correlated with differences in achievement more highly than with a general ability measure and/or past achievement. Johnson also found that correlations between interests and differential achievement were significantly greater than correlations between interests and "absolute" achieve- ment (i.e., general achievement). Campbell,26 in a Ph. D. study (reported by Strong, 1943) also found evidence to suggest that achievement in one area was not related to achievement in another area. The Strong Vocational Interest Blank items, predictive of achievement in social science, were found to be insignif- icantly related to Strong Vocational Interest Blank items predictive of achievement in engineering. Krathwohl,27 (1952), in a study of undergraduates at the Illinois Institute of Technology, studied discrepant achievement in four subject matter areas. He used 308 second term sophomores who had-taken aptitude tests in English, chemistry, mathematics, and physics as freshmen, 25Richard W. Johnson, "The Relationship between Measured Interests and Differential Academic Achievement," Ph. D. dissertation University of Minn., 1961. 26Campbell, as cited in Johnson thesis. 27William c. Krathwohl, "Specifity of Over- and Under-Achievement in College Courses," Journal of Applied P h l , April, 1952, pp. 103—106. 1L: and as sophomores took achievement tests in the same four subject matter areas. Under- and over-achievers were iden- tified by a comparison of scores (standard) on the two tests. The results indicated that the indices of achieve- ment for English, chemistry, math, and physics were inde- pendent of each other with the exception of a slight rela- tionship between chemistry and mathematics. The correla- tion ranged from .08 (English with chemistry) to .34 (math with chemistry). Krathwohl concluded from this study that the achieve- ment (over, under, or normal) of any individual should be considered only as achievement (under, over, or normal) in the specific subject matter area. Haggard28 (1957) at University of Chicago Laboratory School found differential patterns of achievement among skill areas. Students who were not high general achievers but who, nevertheless, excelled in one of the three achieve- ment areas, were compared. Forty-five students were studied longitudinally from grades three through seven. The results clearly indicated that the specific nature of the achievement was related to particular trends in per- sonality. Haggard's findings underscored the point that 28E. A. Haggard, "Socialization, personality, and academic achievement in gifted children," The School Review, 65, Winter 1957, pp. 388-414. 15 achievement is not necessarily a general pattern but will often follow relatively specific directions. The three areas of achievement Haggard used were (1) Mechanics of Expression (spelling and languages), (2) Reading Speed and Comprehension and (3) Arithmetic. Patterns of personality for each achievement area were as follows: A. Mechanics of Expression (Achievers) 1. Viewed parents-and authority figures as more or less omnipotent, rejecting, and punitive. Were more dependent on parents and were 'passive-and dependent in general. Sought social and parental acceptance in conformity. Were emotionally inhibited. Revealed a barren, unimaginative, fantasy life. Reading Speed and Comprehension (Achiever) l. 2. Mildly negative towards parents Socially withdrawn and somewhat non- conforming to correction. Had difficulty relating to others. Concentrated on maintaining inner freedom, spontaneity and independence of thought and action. 16 C. Arithmetic Achievers 1. Viewed their environment with curiosity and Optimism. 2. Saw parents and authority with less strain. 3. Were more mature emotionally. 4. Were relatively uninhibited, expressing feelings freely without guilt-anxiety. Summary Although research in academic motivation is plenti- ful and broad, at least through 1949, little correlation was found between achievement and either personality traits or adjustment inventories. The most significant corre— lates were between differential interest patterns and differential professional achievement. When low correlations were found, a large number could be attributed to measurement difficulties. Problems of reliability and validity of tests and grades, sampling errors, and techniques of selection of under- (low) and over- (high) achievers all contributed to these diffi- culties. Few studies in academic motivation focused upon either discrepant achievement across subject matter areas or motivational differences between teacher designated and test designated under- and over-achievement. 17 Those who studied discrepant achievement in subject matter found little to slight (.08 to .34) correlation between subject areas. Indications were that the Specific nature of achievement was related to particular personality patterns. The design of the present study was an attempt to identify discrepant achievement as it related to achieve- ment motives and selection bias. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The design of the study relates to (1) Sample Selection (2) Nature of the Data (3) Analysis Procedures. 1. Sample Selection The original sample was taken from 309 female and 281 male tenth grade students from the Aurora (East) High School. Aurora, a city of 65,000 people is divided by a river which separates the east side from the west. The east side is predominantly lower middle and upper lower class and contains much of the smaller, older industry of the city. Over the previous five years about 17% of the graduating seniors enrolled in either a college or uni- versity. These tenth grade students were administered the Michigan M—Scales during a class period in one day. The Iowa Test of Education Development (ITED) was admin— istered over a four-hour period on two consecutive days. Approximately 280 pupils took the ITED each day. School counselors acted as proctors during the test periods. All other data on these students were taken from their cumu- lative records. The data were gathered in the late spring of 1965. 18 19 Under- and Over-Achievement Reference is to students identified as under- or over- achievers (according to Farquhar—Payne technique)1 on both standardized test scores and grade point average. Performance of the student on standardized achieve- ment tests and in classes (as evidenced by grades) was measured in the following areas: language, mathematics, science,.and social science. Four subtests of the Iowa Tests of Educational Development were used as the standard- ized achievement test. Achievement in classes was measured by the grades recorded over a two-year period in the areas listed in Table 3.1.- TABLE 3.1--Classes Used to Determine Grade Point Average. Area Courses Used Language English, English Composition, English Literature Mathematics Business Mathematics, Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry Science General Science, Biology, Chemistry Social Science Social Studies, History, Geography 1 W. W. Farquhar and D. Payne, "A Classification and Comparison of Techniques Used in Selecting Under- and Over- Achievers " Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 1964, pp. 87u-8 u. 2O 2. Nature of the Data Four Types of data were gathered on each student: (1) Aptitude scores, (2) Achievement test scores, (3) Grade Point, (4) Motivational scores. Aptitude Measures The California Test of Mental Maturity-Language (CTMM-L) and the Differential Aptitude Test-Verbal Reasoning (DAT-VR) scores were used in obtaining a stable estimate of academic aptitude. Grade Point Average The grade point average was computed for each indi- vidual in each of four subject matter areas. These four areas include Language, Mathematics, Science and Social Science for both ninth and tenth grades. Only grades in courses designated as academic subjects were used, i.e., subjects requiring homework. Achievement Test Scores The Iowa Test of Educational Development was used as the second measure of the students' achievement. The first four subtests of the ITED (English, Social Science, Mathematics, and Natural Science) correspond with the four subject matter areas measured by grade point averages. Motivational Score 21 The motivational score was obtained from the student's responses to the Michigan M-Scales. These M-Scales and the resultant motivational factors are based on the work of 2 Farquhar, et al. The scores are reported in seven cate- gories for males and seven categories for females. 3 For males, these factors with descriptions are as follows: Name, I Academician II Job Involvement III Agitation IV Immediate versus Long Term Gratification Interpretive Emphasis The highly motivated male feels that his teachers will describe him with terms which have pos- itive educational value. These terms imply a person who does well in school because he is bright, organized and dependable. The highly motivated male sees himself using his abilities to gain respect while the lowly motivated male wants little, if any,commitment which involves abstractions. The lowly motivated male pro- fesses problems of concentra- tion using fantasy and dis- traction to avoid academic pressure. The highly motivated male pro- fesses ability to wait for rewards whereas the lowly moti- vated male desires short term returns without exerting much effort. 2 W. W. Farquhar, Unpublished paper. 3The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. Reliability coeffi- cient for the present study was .977. V Disinterested VI Succumbing to versus defying school norms. VII Unique Versus Common Accomplishment 22 The lowly motivated male sees himself as one with little commitment to any task--on1y finishes for the sake of finishing. There is an erratic element in mood. The highly motivated male internalizes the school norms, feeling that such endeavors are useful and rewarding. The lowly motivated male feels hostile towards school norms, particularly because he feels they are not worth much. The highly motivated male reacts positively to doing the unusual--to continuing educa- tion and to deriving future rewards. The lowly motivated students want to do those things which the average students do, particularly in terminating formal education. For femalesf these factors with descriptions are as follows: Name I Same as Male I II Job Involvement III Free—Floating Anxiety Interpretive Emphasis The lowly motivated female wants a job which has few ties-- particularly in number of hours worked. The highly motivated female wants a job which permits commitment because of high standards and independence of decision making. The lowly motivated female sees herself as a person of inaction: who feels uneasy about not being able to focus on academic tasks. 4 The Kuden-Richardson Formula 20 Reliability coefficient for the sample was .974. IV VI VII Academic Versus Social Involvement Education Commitment Fantasy Common Versus Unique Accomplishment 23 The highly motivated female. chooses the school oriented. tasks in contrast to the lowly motivated female's choice of meeting affiliation needs. The lowly motivated female wants a job which requires no education beyond high school, the highly motivated female wants a job which requires application of self with pos-. sibility of continued learning. The lowly motivated female reports difficulty with focus-. ing attention; energy is. directed towards well developed day dreams. Some implication of guilt in handling repressed desires. The lowly motivated female wants to do as the crowd does academically. The highly motivated female wants to do the unusual in school. 3. Analysis Procedures Procedures for analysis of the data were as follows: 1. The DAT-Verbal Reasoning and CTMM-Language scores were used in obtaining a stable estimate of academic aptitude. This is the by Farquhar and Payne. the average determining 5 first step of the regression approach developed 2. A regression line was constructed whichrepresented of X on Y, and Y on X. This line is located by the point of intersection of the means and 5Farquhar, pp. cit. 24 standard deviation of two aptitude predictors, and represents the regression between the two variables if the correlation were +1.00. Two lines are then drawn parallel to the regression line which are a distance away equivalent to the average of the standard error of estimate of the aptitude predictors. Only those students who fell within these limits were included in the study. Although this method runs the risk of a larger Type I error (rejected when should have been accepted), it is more important that the criteria groups be classified with little chance of making a Type II error (accepted when should have been rejected). See Figure 3.1. ® / ®®® /v H> > H> HHH HH H appease paeomuz m.mwoh¢ poops: ooonosm psom CH .mouommlz an .moamz wcfi>oano¢|aco23 mom moapmmlmtua.: mqm H> > >H HHH HH H nsososm easemnz .wmomm Locum: noonosm usom 2H .nouommnz mo .monEom wcfi>oano00 00. man 00 000000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 *0.0 00.0 00wmmwmsm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 momwwmwmmez 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 seep0wmnmmmmom 00.0 0m.0 00.0 m0.o 00.0 ,00.o 00.0 @0.0 OHNMMMMQM 00000 00> 0> > 0> 000 00 0 0000000 00000-2 .mmms< 00000: poonosm 0:00 :0 00000012 0o .w0002 wcfi>00£oo 000 000pmmlmllm.0 mqm H> ,> >H HHH HH H mQOpomm mHMOmIz .mwo0< amppmz poonnsm 0:00 :0 .000ommlz 0o .0000800 wC0>o0noo 000 0000mmlmnl0.0 mqm<0 38 total score in Mathematics. The Hypothesis was not rejected for each of the other M—Scale Factors and two remaining total scores across the four subject matter areas (Table 4.4). Hypotheses Five hypotheses were advanced to investigate relation- ships in the study. The three listed below were conceived to investigate the posSibility that motivational differences existed across the four major subject matter areas of study. H03: There is no difference in motivation (for seven subscales and total M—Scale factors) among individuals classified as either under- or over-achievers within one, and only one of four major subject matter areas (English, Math— ematics, Social Science, and Science). Hou: There is no difference in motivation (for the seven subscales and total M-Scale factors) between under- and over—achievers (classified as such by both achievement tests and GPA). Ha“: The over-achievers mean scores are higher than the under-achievers mean scores.1 Hos: There is no interaction among classification of under— and over—achievers by subject matter for the motiva— tion scores. Analysis of Differences of Means: Males Differences were found in the predicted direction at the .01 level, for M—Scales Factors I (Academician), II (Job 1Actually the hypothesis about over- and under-achieving differences on the M-Scales constitutes a varification of the validity of the test for the sample of this study. 39 Involvement), III (Agitation), V (Disinterested), VI (Succumbing to versus defying school norms), VII (Unique versus Common Accomplishment) and the total score. No difference was found for Factor IV (Immediate versus long term gratification). No differences were found among the four subject matter areas in academic motivation scores for each of the subscores and the total M-Scale score. Furthermore, no interactions were found among discrepant achievement clas- sifications and the four areas of academic concentration. Thus, for males the second Hypothesis (ROM) was rejected for M-Scale factors I, II, III, V, VI, VII, and total score, and was not rejected for M-Scale factor IV. The subject matter area and interaction (H03, H05) hypotheses were not rejected for each of the M-Scale factors and the total M-Scale score. The means for each factor and the total mean score of the M-Scale for males selected as discrepant achievers in one, and only one, of four areas of academic concentra— tion (English, social science, science, and math) are summarized in Table 4.5. The analysis of variance of moti- vational factors (1-7 and Total, males) for the four aca- demic areas can be found in Appendix B. 40 .mmhoom Emma QO>OH£OGIHOUCS UCM Ihm>0 .HOM HO>OH H0.0 OSU pm HCMOHHficmea. 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 mnc>m0noo0noo mopoom 000o00 m0.m0 00.00 00.00 00.00 nm>o0£o00noo Aucosan0oEooo< cossoo 0:000> o500c0v 00> 0Opowmm mm.0_ 00.0 00.0- 00.0 00>00500|0o0c0 mm.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mo>o050o 008002 0ooaom wc0>moa mampo> on wC0nsdoosmv 0> monommx mm.0 m0.0 mm.m 00.0 0o>c0noo020o 000000000200000 > 000000: 00.00 00.0 mm.00 00.0 nm>oHno<|000CD 00.0 00.00 00.0 m0.00 po>o0no¢lpc>o 0:0000000002000 8000 0:00 mamno> mum0oo5§00 >0 0000000 m0.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0o>m0co¢nnovca 00.00 00.00 m0.00 00.00 00>00£oo 00000000000 000 0000000 om.m0 00.00 mm.00 00.00 no>cHnoo0noo Aucmsc>0o>20 2000 00 0o00000 m0.00 00.00 00.00 m0.00 no>o0£o00£o¢t00>o 0:0000Eoumo<0 0 noquMa mocc0om 0000060200: moco0om 000000 £000wcm mnouomm ll .0wpo0 0:0 .0:0 0000000 .mo0wz .mcmo: c000maz no mumsssmntm.0 m0m<0 41 Analysis of Differences of Means: Females Differences were found at the .01 level, M-Scale factors I (Academician), V (Educational Commitment), VII (Common versus Unique Accomplishment) and total score. No differences were found for factors II (Job Involvement), III (Free Floating Anxiety), IV (Academic versus Social Involvement), and VI (Fantasy). No differences were found among the four subject matter areas in academic motivation scores for each of the subscales and the total M-Scale. Furthermore, no inter- actions were found among discrepant achievement classifi- cations and the four areas of academic concentration. Thus, for females the second Hypothesis (Hon) was rejected for M-Scale factors I, V, VII and total M-Scale score and not rejected for M-Scale factors II, III, IV, and VI. The subject matter and interaction Hypotheses (Ho3 and H05) were not rejected for each of the M-Scale factors and the total M-Scale score. The means for each Factor and the total mean score of M-Scales for females selected as discrepant achievers in one, and only one, of four areas of academic concentration (English, social science, science, and math) are summarized in Table u.6. The analysis of variance of motivational factors (1-7 and Total, females) for the four academic areas can be found in Appendix B. U2 .000000 :008 00>00£00|000:0 0:0 I00>o 000 00>00 00.0 0:0 00 0:00000:w0m** .000000 :008 00>00:00|000:: 0:0.u00>o 000 00>00 00.0 0:0 00 0:00000:000* 00.00 00.m0 00.00 00.00 m00>00c0<|000:0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.000 00>00£0o 00000 00poe** 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00>00£0<|000:D 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00>00£0<|00>o 00:06:00008000< :oEEoo mzm0m> 0:00:00 00> 000000* 00.00 00.00 00.00 0m.00 00>00£00|000:0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00>00£0<|00>o 005002 000:00 0:00000 m:m00> op 0:008:00300 0> 000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00>00£0¢|000:0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00>00£0¢|00>o 000000000:0m000 > 000000* m0.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00>00:0<1000:0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00>00Qo<|00>o 0:000000000000 E000 0:00 mzm0m> 0000008500 >0 000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00>00:000£0<|00>o 00000000000 000 000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00>00:0<|000:0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00>00no<|00>o 00:080>0o>:0 0000 00 000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 0m.00 00>00£0<|000:0 00.00 00.00 00.00 0m.0m 00>0000<|00>o 0:00008000000 0 0opo0m* 00:0 0 00000800002 00:0000 000Mom 0000000 0000000 .Am0n20 0I0 000000 d000E000 .m:0mz 0000012 00 000EESmII0.0 mqm .05 level, between over- and under-achieving males for ”7 M-Scale factors I (Academician), II (Job Involvement), III (Agitation), V (Disinterested), VI (Succumbing to versus defying school_norms), VII (Unique versus Common Accomplish- ment) and Total M-Scale scores. Significance was also found between female over- and under-achievers, at the .05 level, for M-Scale factors I (Academician, V (Educational Commit- ment), VII (Common versus Unique Accomplishment), and Total M-Scale scores. No significant difference was found among the means for any interaction among the eight cells of the two-way analysis of variance design. Conclusions and Findings The failure to reject all but one of the null hypotheses of the study was interpreted as an indication that, within the limitations imposed, little difference can be found in motivational patterns-of students who are classified according to three categories of under— and over-achievement or who do exceptionally well or poorly in four subject matter areas. 1. For the three designated groups of under-achievers in each of the four subject matter areas only three factors in two areas (M-Scale factor I and Total in Science, and M-Scale factor Total in Mathematics) were found signifi- cant. Thus little difference appeared to exist in academic motivation among the three classifications of under- achievement. A8 2. For the over-achieving group, significance was found for only six of the factors thus indicating that little difference in academic motivation can be found among the three classifications of over-achievement. 3. For this pOpulation there were no differences in academic motivation among students who were classified as under- and over-achievers in one, and only one area of achievement: English, social studies, mathematics, and science. A. There were significant differences between under- and over-achievers on all but one M-Scale factor for males and for three of the seven M-Scale factors for females. Significant differences between under- and over—achievers on the total M-Scale score were found for both males and females. 5. When academic motivation is the dependent vari- able, no significant interaction appeared among the four subject matter areas and under- and over- achievement. 6. When identified by teacher grade point averages or standardized test scores the results indicate that, for this sample,_under-achievers as a group or over—achievers as a group are not different in academic motivation. If the finding is consistent from future cross-validation, the researcher will be free to use the less expensive estimate of achievement, whatever it is. “9 7. The Science area indicated signs of being more sensitive to the M-Scale factor differences than the other three areas. The Science data indicated higher but not significant F-ratio scores than in the areas of English, mathematics, and social science. It is possible that over- and.under-achievers in science might have a more differ- ential pattern of academic motivation than over- and under- achievers in the other subject matter areas. Discussion The findings of few, other than chance, differences between three classifications of under- and over-achievers and the non—significance of differential achievement- motivation across subject matter areas is somewhat-of an enigma. It was also surprising that no differences were found between discrepant achievers identified as such by either teacher grades or achievement test scores. The_ related literature indicated large discrepancies between teacher perception <>f achievement and test measures of achievement. The policy of the school from which the sample of this study was drawn encouraged relying heavily upon standardized and departmental testing to award grades may have nullified-some of the expected differences between GPA and achievement tests. The lack of differences across subject matter areas would indicate little uniqueness of these areas, leading to the conclusion that special tech- niques to aid learning in specific subject areas was not~ employed. 50 The possibility that the M-Scales might not be as sensitive to differences between specific subject matter areas since they were validated using combined GPS should not be overlooked. Perhaps the differences which might have existed were obscured by the loss of items in the original Farquhar study. The studies by Krathwohl,l Haggard2 and Johnson,3 all of which resulted in significant differences among subject matter areas, did not relate as closely as assumed to this study. One reason for the difference among the studies can be found in the criterion for identification of under- and over-achievement used. Each study used different criteria for identification than the present study and none of the former studeis met the.criteria of selection and identification established by Farquhar and Payne.“ Thus, the possible reasons for negative findings include: 1. An error in the basic assumptions, i.e., perhaps no differences do exist in motivation across subject matter areas or between estimates of achievement. 2. Sample fluke, i.e., a possibility that the popula- tion was atypical or not large enough. 1Krathwohl, op. cit. 2Haggard, op. cit. 3Johnson, op. cit. “Farquhar and Payne, op. cit. 51 3. Measurement limitations, as previously dis- cussed. The negative findings have not proved equality but also have failed to prove inequality. Although little can be said concerning curricular implications in this study speculation of the importance of similar studies for curric- ulum development should generate continued research. Implications for Further Research The need for further research has been testified to in the review of the literature which indicates that little has been done on the subject of differential academic achieve- ment. The assumption that individuals selected within under- and over—achiever groups came from different statist- ical populations and thus may be discrepant achievers for different reasons remains reasonable. More work nees to be done in defining the discrepant achiever population. Other recommendations are as follows: 1. Replicate the study using a larger, more heter- ogeneous sample than the one employed for this study. 2. Refine the sample population to include high schools using well-defined track systems for more adequate differentiation of ability and subject matter levels, holding intelligence constant. 3. An intensified study of discrepant achievement using just the science area since it appeared to 52 be more sensitive to differences. Selected in- depth interviews could be used in addition to the original M-Scale items to increase under- standing of responses of under- and over-achievers. Inclusion of M-Scales as a variable in future studies of the learning process in single subject matter areas. If there are different learning processes for specific subject matter areas, differential motivational patterns might also be found. The development of a new motivation scale or the refinement of the present M-Scale validated separately for each subject matter area has promise if initial analysis as detailed above discovers any differences. BIBLIOGRAPHY 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkinson, John W. (ed.). Motives in Fantasy,gAction and Society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. Atkinson, John W. and Feather, Norman T. A Theory of Achievement Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Bloom, Benjamin S. "Testing Cognitive Ability and Achieve— ment," Handbook of Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage, editor. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Caroll, John B. "The Prediction of Success in Intensive Language Training," Training Research and Education, R. Glaser, editor. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962. Carter, Robert S. "How Invalid Are Marks Assigned by ’Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psychology, A3 (1952), 218-228. Cofer, Charles N. and Appley, Mortimer H. Motivation: Theory and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Coleman, William and Cureton, Edward E. "Intelligence and Achievement—-The Jangle Fallacy Again," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1A (195A), 3A7-351. Crawford, Albert B. and Burnham, Paul S. Forecasting College Achievement. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 19A6. Cronbach, Lee J. Educational Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963. Crow, Lester and Crow, Alice. Educational Psychology. New York: American Book Company, 1963. Donahue, Wilma T., Coombs, Clyde H., and Travers, Robert W. The Measurement of Student Adjustment and Achievement. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, l9A9. Edwards, A. L. Statistical Methods for the Behavior Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1951. 5A 55 Farquhar, William W. Motivation Factors Related to Academic Achievement. Final Report of U. S. Govern- ment Cooperative Research Project No. 8A6. East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Research and Publica- tions, College of Education, Michigan State University,'January, 1963. Farquhar, William W. and Payne, David A. "A Classifica- tion and Comparison of Techniques Used in Selecting Under- and Over-Achievers," Personnel and Guidance Journal (May, 196A),87A-88A. Finger, John and Silverman, Morton. "Changes in Academic Performance in the Junior High School," Personnel and Guidance Journal, A5 (October, 1966), 157—I6A. Garrison, Karl, Kingston, Albert, and McDonald, Arthur. Educational Psyghology. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 196A. Guilford, Joy P. "Three Faces of Intellect," American Psychologist, 1A (1959), A69-A79. Haggard, Ernest A. "Socialization, Personality, and Academic Achievement in Gifted Children," The School Review, 65 (Winter, 1957), 338-A1A. Johnson, Richard W. "The Relationship between Measured Interests and Differential Academic Achievement." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1961. Jones, Marshall R. (ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, l9A9. Krathwohl, William C. "Specificity of Over- and Under- Achievement in College Courses," Journal of Applied Psychology (April, 1952), 103-106. Lingren, Henry Clay. Educational Psychology in the Classroom. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1962. McClellen, David C., Atkinson, John W., Clark, Russell A. and Lowell, Edgar L. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. McDonald, Frederick J. Educational Psychology. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1965. 56 Payne, David A. "A Dimension Analysis of the Academic Self—Concepts of Eleventh Grade Under- and Over- Achieving Students." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Roe, Ann. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956. Stagner, Ross. "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude and Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, 26 (1933) 6A8-660. Strong, Edward K. Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Women. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 19A3. Taylor, Ronald G. "Personality Traits and Discrepant Achievement: A Review," Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 11, no. 1 (196A), 76-82. Tiegs, Ernest W. "Educational Diagnosis," Educational Bulletin No. 18. California Test Bureau, 1952. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in EXperimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. APPENDICES 57 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS (MALE, FEMALE) IN FOUR SUBJECT MATTER AREAS BY THE THREE ACHIEVEMENT CRITERIA ON THE M-SCALE FACTORS 58 59 TABLE A.1--Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among A8.1A 2 2A.O7 0.19 Within A101.75 32 128.18 Total A1A9.89 3A Factor II Among 10.95 2 5.A8 0.33 Within 536.93 32 16.78 Total 5A7.89 3A Factor III Among 106.55 2 53.27 1.55 Within 1097.85 32 3A.3O Total 120A.39 3A Factor IV Among 8.99 2 A.A9 O.AO Within 357.58 32 11.17 Total 366.57 3A Factor V Among 6.82 2 3.A1 1.62 Within 67.35 32 2.10 Total 7A.l7 3A Factor VI Among 2.AO 2 1.20 0.20 Within 185.60 32 5.80 Total 188.00 3A Factor VII Among 26.69 2 13.35 0.67 Within 635.87 32 19.87 Total 662.57 3A Total Score Among 110.75 2 55.38 0.12 Within 12279.9A 32 A5A.81 Total 12390.69 3A 60 TABLE A.2--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 272.06 2 136.02 1.15 Within 3A07.81 29 117.51 Total 3679.87 31 Factor 11 Among 8.61 2 A.30 0.33 Within 369.10 29 12.72 Total 377.71 31 Factor III Among 6.05 2 3.02 0.16 Within 525.16 29 18.10 Total 531.21 31 Factor IV Among 2.A3 2 1.21 0.1A Within 251.07 29 8.65 Total 253.50 31 Factor V Among 0.21 2 0.10 0.06 Within A8.25 29 1.66 Total A8.A6 31 Factor V1 Among A.26 2 2.13 0.A3 Within 1A2.70 29 A.92 Total 1A6.96 31 Factor VII Among 9.90 2 A.95 0.31 Within A58.56 29 15.81 Total A68.A6 31 Tota1 Score Among 65.71 2 32.85 0.07 Within 11A21.00 32 A56.8A Total 1A86.7l 3A 61 TABLE A.3-—Analysis of Variance (One—Way) of Male Under- Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 237.55 2 118.77 1.00 Within A010.77 3A 117.96 Total A2A8.32 36 ‘ Factor II Among 0.22 2 0.11 0.00 Within 522.75 3A 15.37 Total 522.97 36 Factor III Among 15.32 2 7.65 0.21 Within 119A.68 3A 35.13 Total 1210.00 36 Factor IV Among 1.38 2 0.69 0.05 Within A6l.53 3A 13.57 Total A62.9l 36 Factor V Among 2.28 2 1.13 0.60 Within 63.82 3A 1.87 Total 66.10 36 ‘Factor VI Among 2.02 2 1.00 0.21 Within 161.22 3A A.7A Total 163.2A 36 Factor VII Among 36.73 2 18.35 0.86 Within 72A.9A 3A 21.32 Total 761.67 36 Total Score Among 1777.69 2 888.8A 1.159 Within 26071.12 3A 766.79 Total 278A8.81 36 62 TABLE A.A--Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Under- Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 538.83 2 269.A1 2.73 Within 2668.63 27 98.83 Total 3207.A6 29 Factor II Among 27.71 2 13.85 1.05 Within 355.79 27 13.17 Total 383.50 29 Factor III Among 18.AA 2 9.22 0.35 Within 698.52 27 25.87 Total 716.96 29 Factor IV Among 3A.21 2 17.10 2.31 Within 199.79 27 7.39 Total 23A.00 29 Factor V Among 9.53 2 A.76 1.80 Within 71.13 27 2.63 Total 80.66 29 Factor VI 'Among A.7l 2 2.35 0.A1 Within 153.96 27 5.70 Total 158.67 29 Factor VII Among 10.20 2 5.10 0.25 Within 530.76 27 19.65 Total 5A0.96 29 Total Score Among 2506.82 2 1253.A0 2.76* Within 12255.05 27 A53.89 Total 1A761.87 29 *Significant at the .05 level. 63 TABLE A.5-—Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. n Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor i Among 170.5A 2 85.26 0.70 Within 267A.90 22 121.58 Total 28A5.AA 2A Factor II Among 36.96 2 18.A8 0.6A Within 633.0A 22 28.77 Total 670.00 2A Factor III Among 0.06 2 0.03 0.02 Within 23.9A 22 1.08 Total 2A.00 2A Factor IV Among l3.AA 2 6.72 0.87 Within 168.80 22 7.67 Total 182.2A 2A Factor V Among A3.22 2 21.60 2.25 Within 210.78 22 9.58 Total 25A.oo 2A Factor VI Among 15.A3 2 7.71 1.125 Within 150.81 . 22 6.85 Total 166.2A 2A Factor VII Among 3.07 2 1.53 0.32 Within 102.93 22 A.67 Total 106.00 2A Total Score 'Among 557.56 2 278.78 0.535 Within 9908.30 22 521.A9 Total 10565.86 2A 6A TABLE A.6--Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under- AchieversiJISocial Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I _ Among 5.50 2 2.75 0.02 Within 3262.66 27 120.83 Total 3268.16 29 Factor II Among 86.92 2 A3.A6 1.51 Within 776.AA 27 28.75 Total 863.36 29 Factor III Among 1.A8 2 0.73 0.52 Within 37.88 27 l.A0 Total 39.36 29 Factor IV . Among 8.1A 2 A.07 0.68 Within 161.22 27 5.97 Total 169.36 29 Factor V Among 29.39 2 1A.69 1.21 Within 327.81 27 12.1A Total 357.20 29 Factor VI' Among 12.86 2 6.A3 0.90 Within 191.80 27 7.10 Total 20A.66 29 Factor VII Among A.57 2 2.28 0.A3 Within 1A0.88 27 5.21 Total 1A5.A6 29 Total Score Among 590.A9 2 295.28 0.609 Within 13085.81 27 A8A.66 Total 13676.30 29 65 TABLE A.7--Analysis of Variance (One~Way) of Female Under- Achieverszh18cience by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 815.38 2 AO7.69 3.83* Within 2871.98 27 106.36 Total 3687.36 29 Factor II Among 10A.02 2 52.01« 2.27 Within 617.8A 27 22.88 Total 721.86 29 Factor III Among A.51 2 2.25 1.89 Within 32.15 27 1.19 Total 36.66 29 Factor IV Among 20.65 2 10.32 1.22 Within 227.51 27 ” 8.A2 Total 2A8.16 29 Factor V Among 32.78 2 16.39 1.66 Within 265.38 27 9.82 Total 298.16 29 Factor VI Among 17.71 2 8.85 1.23 Within 19A.15 27 7.19 Total 211.86 29 Factor VII Among 2A.73 2 12.36 3 20 Within 10A.23 27 3.86 Total 128.96 29 Total Score Among 2A6o.86 2 1230.A3 3.399* Within 10A96.10 27 361.93 Total 12956.96 29 *Significant at the .05 level. 66 TABLE A.8--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Under- Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F: Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among AA9.76 2 22A.88 1.7A Within 3730.A5 29 128.63 Total A180.21 31 Factor II Among 58.80 2 29.A0 0.90 Within 9A3.20 29 32.52 Total 1002.00 31 Factor III Among 2.50 2 1.25 0.95 Within 37.96 29 1.30 'Total A0.A6 31 Factor IV Among 3A.A7 2 17.23 2.A3 Within 205.A0 29 7.08 Total 239.87 31 Factor V Among A5.05 2 22.52 1.79 Within 363.81 29 12.5A Total A08.87 31 Factor VI Among 27.60 2 13.80 2.28 Within 175.36 29 6.0A Total 202.96 31 Factor VII Among 20.83 2 10.Al 2.03 Within 1A8.67 29 5.12 Total 169.50 31 Total Score Among 862.05 2 A31.03 0.73 Within 1A103.36 29 587.6A Total 1A965.A1 31 67 TABLE A.9--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 162.91 2 81.A5 0.78 Within 3118.72 30 103.95 Total 3281.63 32 Factor II Among 33.56 2 16.78 1.76 Within 285.A0 30 9.51 Total 318.96 32 Factor III Among 1.81 2 0.90 0.11 Within 235.70 30 7.85 Total 237.51 32 Factor IV Among 5.36 2 2.68 0.20 Within 390.15 30 13.00 Total 395.51 32 _ Factor V Among 0.57 2 0.28 0.25 Within 33.43 30 1.11 Total 3A.00 32 Factor VI Among 10.A3 2 5.21 2.72 Within 57.AA 30 1.91 Total 67.87 32 Factor VII Among 77.53 2 38.76 2.51 Within A63.19 30 15.A3 Total 5A0.72 32 Total Score Among 1050.A9 2 525.25 1.65 Within 9553.02 30 318.A2 Total 10603.51 32 68 TABLE A.10--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. flrl Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I. Among 158.66 2 79.33 0.96 Within 2223.6A 27 82.35 Total 2382.30 29 Factor II Among A5.57 2 22.78 3.29 Within 186.59 27 6.91 Total 232.16 29 Factor III Among A273 2 2.36 0.27 Within 23A.23 27 8.67 Total 238.96 29 Factor IV Among 27.65 2 13.82 1.16 Within 319.81 27 11.8A Total 3A7.A6 29 Factor V Among 1.82 2 0.91 1.11 Within 22.0A 27 0.81 Total 23.86 29 Factor VI Among 6.85 2 3.A2. 1.98 Within A6.51 27 1.72 Total 53.36 29 Factor VII Among 55.68 2 27.8A 2.AA Within 307.51 27 11.38 Total 363.19 29 Total Score Among 1320.08 2 660.0A 2.52 Within 7077.78 27 262.1A Total 8397.86 29 69 TABLE A.ll—-Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Male Over- Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square; Statistic Factor I Among 58.73 2 29.36 0.33 Within 260A.90 30 86.83 Total 2663.63 32 Factor II Among 6A.6O 2 32.30 5.62* Within 172.30 30 5.7A Total 236.90 32 Factor III Among 21.0A 2 10.52 1.A2 Within 220.83 30 7.36 Total 2A1.87 32 'Factor IV Among 3A.60 2 17.30 2.02 Within 256.30 30 ”8.5A Total 920.90 32 'Factor V Among 0.80 2 0.A0 0.A5 Within 26.71 30 0.89 Total 27.51 32 Factor VI Among 5.70 2 2.85 2.36 Within 36.17 30 1.20 Total A1.87 32 Factor VII Among 97.55 2 A8.77 3.05 Within A78.51 30 15.95 Total ,576.06, 32 Total Score Among 893.6A 2 AA6.82 1.608 Within 8335.33 30 277.8A Total 9228.97 32 *Significant at the .05 level. 70 TABLE A.12-—Ana1ysis of Variance (One—Way) of Male Over- Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. 1 Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic~ Factor I Among 51.13 2 25.56 0.28 Within 3187.08 35 91.05 Total 3238.21 37 Factor II Among A.26 2 2.13 0.27 Within 271.63 35 7.76 Total 275.89 37 - Factor III Among 13.55 2 6.77 0.55 Within A26.66 35 12.19 Total AAO.21 37 Factor IV Among 0.65 2 0.32 0.03 Within 316.32 35 9.03 Total 316.97 37 Factor V Among 1.29 2 0.6A 0.50 Within A5.05 35 1.28 Total A6.3A 37 Factor VI Among 1.51 2 0.75 0.51 Within 51.33 35 1.A6 Total 52.8A 37 Factor VII Among 12.35 2 6.17 0.3A Within 630.A1 35 18.01 Total 6A2.76 37 Total Score Among 103.90 2 51.95 0.173 Within 10207.18 35 300.21 Total 10311.08 37 71 TABLE A.l3--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over- Achievers in English by the Three Achievement Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 578.97 2 289.A8 2.92 Within 2872.53 29 99.05 Total 3A51.50 31 Factor 11 Among 38.56 2 19.27 1.69 Within 329.90 29 11.37 Total 368.A6 31 Factor III Among 3.7A 2 1.87 1.31 Within Al.13 29 1.A1 Total AA.87 31 Factor IV Among 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 Within 179.21 29 6.17 Total 179.21 31 Factor V Among 39.23 2 19.61 2.95 Within 192.73 29 6.6A Total 231.96 31 Factor VI Among 32.3A 2 16.17 2.31 Within 202.53 29 6.98 Total 23A.87 31 Factor VII Among 37.29 2 18.6A A.23* Within 116.71 29 A.02 Total 15A.00 31 Total Score Among 2066.9A 2 1033.A7 3.816* Within 7852.77 29 270.78 Total 9919.71 31 *Significant at the .05 level. 72 TABLE A.lA——Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over- Achievers in Social Science by the Three Achievement on ' Criteria on the M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. w _ Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic 225129.23. Among 81.62 2 A0.81 0.A7 Within 2319.3A 27 85.90 Total 2A00.96 29 Factor II Among 7.78 2 3.89 0.3A Within 301.A2 27 11.16 Total 309.20 29 Factor III Among 2.A0 2 1.20 0.71 Within A5.A6 27 1.68 Total A7.86 29 Factor IV Among 0.77 2 0.38 0.05 Within 207.09 27 7.67 Total 207.86 29 Factor V Among 5.A1 2 2.70 0.A8 Within 1A9.38 27 5.53 Total , 15A.79 29 Factor VI Among 30.62 2 15.30 1.93 Within 213.38 27 7.90 Total 2AA.00 29 Factor VII Among A.61 2 2.30 0.A7 Within 130.35 27 A.82 Total 13A.96 29 Total Score Among 235.85 2 117.92 0.333 Within 8A86.1A 27 353.59 Total 8721.99 29 73 TABLE A.15--Analysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over- Achievers in Science by the Three Achievement Criteria on M—Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 156.95 2 78.A7 0.87 Within 2252.A7 25 90.09 Total 2A09.A2 27 Factor II Among A6.0A 2 23.02 .95 Within 29A.06 25 11.76, Total 3A0.10 27 Factor III Among 1.36 2 '0.68 .37 Within A5.31 25 1.81 Total A6.67 27 Factor IV Among 30.83 2 15.Al .A9* Within 110.13 2? A.AO. Total 1A0.96 2 Factor V. Among 8.77 2 A.38 .A9 Within 222.08 25 8.88 Total 230.85 27 Factor VI Among 18.22. 2 9.11 .97 Within 232.63 25 9.30 Total 250.85 27 Factor VII ‘ Among 13.20 2 6.60 .18 Within 138.80 25 5.55 Total 152.00 27 Total Score Among 582.12 2 291.06 0.8A5 Within 8609.98 25 3uu.39 Total 9192.10 27 *Significant at the .05 level. 7A TABLE A.l6--Ana1ysis of Variance (One-Way) of Female Over- Achievers in Mathematics by the Three Achievement Criteria on M-Scale, Factors 1 thru 7, Plus Total. _= Sum of Degrees of Mean F- Source Squares Freedom Square Statistic Factor I Among 195.67 2 97.83 1.13 Within 1722.75 20 86.13 Total 1918.A3 22 QFactor II Among 91.07 2 A5.53 3.A6 Within 262.75 20 13.13 Total 353.82 22 Factor III Among 3.02 2 1.51, 1.91 Within 32.98 20 1.6A Total 36.00 22 Factor IV Among 32.09 2 16.0A 1.89 Within 169.6A 20 8.A8 Total 201.73 22 ,Factor V Among 10.55 2 5.27 0.57 Within 182.75 20 9.13 Total 193.30 22 Factor VI Among 63.19 2 31.59 5.A8* Within 115.2A 20 5.76 Total 178.A3 22 :Factor VII Among 1A.99 2 7.A9 1.62 Within 92.22 20 A.61 Total 107.21 22 Total Score Among 2708.A9 2 135A.2A 5.805* Within A665.A2 20 233.27 Total 7373.91 22 *Significant at the .05 level. APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MOTIVATIONAL SCORES FOR UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS FROM FOUR ACADEMIC AREAS (MALE, FEMALE) 75 76 mmm mm.wmm: Hmpoe :m.mH mmm mm.Hom: poppo mchHmEom mmm.o mm.o m mm.wH COHuompoch *mm:.mH Ho.mwm H Ho.mwm muo>mH£omlpmocs m> lum>o amm.o H:.a m mm.mm noooos ooomoom HHH pouomm mmm :m.:wmm Hmuoe am.HH mmm mm.mmom noooo meHeHoEom wmm.o mH.: m om.mH COHpompoch *oom.>m o:.sHm H o:.NHm mpo>oHnomlnmocs m> Imo>o mm:.o mH.m m m:.mH mounds poohosm HH nonomm mmm m:.:::mm Hmpoe mm.:oH mmm om.m:m:m ponho MCHCHMEom wom.o mw.Hm m Hm.mm COHpomhoch *Hmo.wH m:.mme H m:.mmmH mpw>mH£omlhmccz m> lum>o mm:.o HH.m: m :m.mMH moppme poomnsm H nonomm oHpmempm ohmsvm coo: Eoooohm mopmzvm mo Esm mocmHmm> mo condom um no mompwoo .mmmp< OHEoomo< 930m Song mno>oH£oo ocm tacos: pom Hmonz Hmpoe msz .n sun» H hopommv mopoom HmQOHpm>Hpoz mo oocmHnm> mo mHmszcoH mo. ono on ocooaoflomam* me mm.mmm:> Hmuoe Hm.ooa BAH mm.:maHa oonoo moaofiosom MH:.o os.~mH m mm.mom COHpomumch *mm:.m MH.mHmm H ma.mamm mLm>oH£omlthCS m> IL®>O mmm.o mo.mmm m mo.sHa oopoos poohozm opoom Hmpoe mmm mm.mmom HGpOB wm.mH mmm mm.mmoz poppo mchHmEom MOH.H mm.mH m :H.wm COHpomhmch *mHN.Hm on.wom H ow.wom who>mflsomlhoUCS m> IL®>O m:m.o mm.: m Hw.mH pounds poomosm HH> hopomm 0mm m©.wom Hmpoe oa.m mmm mm.oma motto woficfiosom moz.o mm.H m HH.: COHuommmch *Hwo.Hm oo.moH H oo.mOH mno>ownomlmoocs m> upm>o mmm.o mw.H m :m.m moppms poonnsm H> 9090mm mmm om.:Hz Hmpoe mm.H mmm o:.owm ponmo wchHmEom Hwo.o HH.o m mm.o COHuomhmch *mmm.mm Hw.mm H Hw.mm mno>mHnomnmmocz m> Imm>o mHm.o :m.o m mo.H noppwe poownzm > nonowm mmm ow.mzmm Hmpoe mm.m mmm 0:.mmmm nonpo wQHchEmm mHH.H No.HH m Hm.mm COHpoMmesH wmm.H mH.mH H mH.mH mpo>mH£omlnoocz m> Ino>o mmm.o :m.m m mm.w nopums poownsm >H popomm 78 me mH.©mm Hmpoe H:.H mNH mm.w:m Lomho wchHmEom smw.o mm.H m om.m COHpompoch mmm.o mo.H H oo.H who>oH£omlnoocz m> upm>o om©.o mm.o m mm.m Loppms pomnnsm HHH LOpomm me Hm.mHmm Hmpoe om.ma SAH ma.aomm ooooo meacHoEom am:.o NH.m m mm.am coaooonoocH NHH.o NH.m H NH.m muo>mH£om|LoUCS m> Ipo>o mmm.o mm.o m mm.mH nooooe ooonosm HH nopomm mmH om.ommom Hmpoe No.~oH mNH m:.z:mmH Lotto wchHmEom m:m.o mo.wm m 0H.:NH COHpompmch *wmm.zH mw.ommH H mm.ommH who>mHnomlmoUCS m> Imo>o 050.0 5:.m m mz.mm noupme poonosm Mlmmmmmm OHpmempm onmzwm cmoz Eoooomm mogmsom go Esm mocmHhm> mo oohsom um mo moopmoa . .mmop¢ oHEoomo¢ mzom Eon“ mpo>oH£o¢lao>o ocm tacos: mom AmonEmm Hmpoe mSHm w 3pc» H pouommv monoom HmQOHpm>Hpoz mo mocmem> Ho mHmmHmzmHLQMILwUCS m> Ihm>o wno.H mm.:o: m ww.:HmH poppme pomhnsm opoom Hopoe me OH.mmm Hmpoe Np.: 05H ow.ozw Lomum mchHmEom OHm.H mm.m m :m.wH COHpowLoch *mwm.©H mm.wm H mm.wm mpo>oHcomlnoocz m> Imo>o mmo.o mm.o m mm.o noppme powwodm HH> hopomm me mo.amaH Hoooe :w.s ouH mm.omMH compo wchHmEmm mHm.o mm.m m m~.wH COHQoMLopCH smm.m ww.mm H Nm.mm mpo>oH£omlpoocs m> Imo>o m::.o m:.m m ma.oH nooooe oooHozm H> houomm mmH ow.w:sH Hmooe mo.m 05H NH.wmmH Loppo wCHCHmEom m:m.o mm.m m wm.mm COHpomnoch *wmm.mH :w.mHH H :m.mHH mLo>mH£omlpoocs m> Ino>o Hom.o mm.w m oo.mH poppme poomnsm MWMMMMMM me Hw.mHMH Hmpoe oa.s BAH Hm.momH noono weficaoEom mmo.o wm.o m mN.H COHpomhmch moo.o No.0 H No.0 mpo>chomammocs m> Ihm>o omm.o sm.m m mo.m pmuume poonnsm >H honomm 93 03058 4383 u n H u "I I" " A ll H u 31