CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR STYLES REPORTED BY
TEACHERS OF EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED: CHILDREN

flush for tho. Dogm of Ed. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

John Lemuel Johnson '
1965 I.

THESE;

  
     

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
CLASSAOOM BLIittVIUtt STILLS anfiOItTLlJ BY Tinting-Lt}
OF LiU’l‘Iui‘tt'LLiJY LI‘cS'l‘iniD UttlLLiifiu’

presented by

John Lemuel Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Special qucation

,M/pg/

{’gM. an‘lION HICKS

LL degree in

 

Major professor

August 2, 1965
Date

 

0-169

CLASSROOM
OF

The purj
ssnality charac
turbed children
turbed children
important varia
children in bot
extensive revie
seam on teach
SPecial educat:
he StUdY uses
theoretical fre
as the Concept;-
room styles Of

‘u
~~0m the five c

5910»):

 

 

ABSTRACT

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR STYLES REPORTED BY TEACHERS
0F EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

by John Lemuel Johnson

The purpose of the study is the description of per-
sonality characteristics of teachers of emotionally dis-
turbed children. The personality of the teacher of dis—
turbed children is assumed from the literature, to be an
important variable in the educative process with disturbed
children in both open and closed treatment settings. An
extensive review of the literature shows that little re—
search on teacher personality has been carried out for
special education teachers or teachers of disturbed Children.
The study uses Ryans' information systems model as the
theoretical framework and "teacher behaving style" is used
as the conceptual basis for determining the reported class-
room styles of the teachers.

The population for the study is drawn from teachers

from.the five defined types of treatment settings noted

below:

____aaSetti Messrs
State Mental Hospitals 22
Intensive Treatment, Training & Research 32
Residential Treatment Centers 22
Training Schools for Delinquents 33

Public Sohool Special Classes 9

Also part
sists of I:
P ring t0
students (1
station-ally
is used for
bath indivi<
The
strunents: T
:easure of p,
Orientation 1
tionnaire (Tc
ameasure of
:30th85, 3 Ch
Classroom app]

PSthhiat:ri¢_d3

bfihav'
tom 1 , an

 

John Lemuel Johnson

Also part of the population is a contrast group which con-
sists of both undergraduate (N=20) students who are pre-
paring to become teachers of disturbed children and graduate
students (N=9) enrolled in a class on the education of
emotionally disturbed children. A purposive sampling method
is used for selection of the population and anonymity of
both individual and treatment setting is preserved.

The data are collected mainly by means of two in-
struments: The Teacher Preference Schedule (TPS), a validated
measure of presumed unconscious motives, and the Theoretical
Orientation to Teaching Emotionally Disturbed Children Ques-
tionnaire (TOQ). The data collected on each participant:

a measure of the strength of ten presumed unconscious
motives, a choice of educational framework, and a choice of
classroom approach. Possible theoretical choices are:
psychiatric-dynamic, psycho-educational, psychological-
behavioral, and educational.

Configurationel analysis procedures are used to
obtain patterns of response to the TPS and the TOQ. McQuitty's
Method of Pattern Analysis, Hierarchial Classification by
Reciprocal Pairs (HICLASS), is used on TPS data by the
tMidhigan State University CDC 3600 Computer and types are
isolated. Types of response patterns are generated from
TOQ data by response comparison. Frequency distributions,
percentages and correlation coefficients are used, along '

vdth nonparametric statistics, when applicable, to test for

cording to
:-::CIASS 8“
:reatment 5‘
59X.

Disc
g style
styles tend 1
dtild-centere
and the teach
in strength 0
style tend to
carbination wi
is no clear di
is evidence of
Various treatm'
the teaChers c<
styles within c
f

ndmg concert

 

John Lemuel Johnson

sample differences. Behaving styles are formulated, ac“
conding to the magnitude of the types derived from the
HICLASS analyses, for teacher and contrast groups, for each
treatment setting group, for TOQ profile groups, and by
sex.

Discernable differences exist between teacher be—
having styles within each group and among groups. The
styles tend to have primary and secondary patterns with the
child-centered, permissive pattern being the most dominant
and the teacherucentered, structured pattern being secondary,
in strength of need. The focal motives in the permissive
style tend to be high nogdirectiveness and nurturant in
combination with IOW'motives dominance and orderly. There
is no clear dichotomy between the patterns although there
is evidence of a constricted, controlndng teacher pattern.
Various treatment setting groups have various styles among
the teachers composing the group. The highest number of
styles within a specific group is two. One significant
finding concerns differences between male and female teachers.
Both have patterns which emphasize high motives nurturant,
and nondirective but males tend to be more organized and
self-assured. One female style is constricted.

The study has implications for continued research
on teacher personality of special education teachers, using
theoretical models from general education, for the relevance

of differing behaving styles for other special teachers in
terms of the selection process, and for continued research

in classroom process with disturbed children.

CLASEE

 

in pa

 

Depart”

 

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR STYLES REPORTED BY TEACHERS
OF EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

John Lemuel Johnson

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Elementary and Special Education

1965

The :6
tion to all t
:ade doctoral
First
Brs. G. Maria
Secon
doctoral comm
of whom inher:
Third
COMIttee man]
DIS. Walter S1
Final:
suPport, indu}

Stmy and this

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincerest apprecia-
tion to all those persons whose time, effort, and thought
made doctoral study and this culminating research possible.

First, to those members of his doctoral committee:
Drs. G. Marian Kinget, Norman Kagan, and Douglas Gilmore.

Second, to the thesis director and chairman of his
doctoral committee: Drs. Ted Ward and W. Vernon Hicks, both
of whom.inherited the writer as a doctoral student.

Third, to those who made important contributions as
committee members during the course of doctoral study:

Drs. Walter Stellwagen and James Crowner.

Finally, to family and friends for their special

support, indulgence and assistance, without which doctoral

study and this research might never have come to fruition.

ii

immune:
LIST OF TAE
LIST or no
LIST or APP

CHAPTER

I DEE

(n rn ht

11 Raw

III PRO

IV PRES

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNCMLEDGEMENTS.................
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LISTOFAPPENDICES............'..'..

CHAPTER

I DESCRIPTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Background of the Problem . .
Statement of the Problem . .
Scope and Limitations . . . . . .

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK, AND DEFINITIONS

Review of the Literature . . . . .
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . .
Definitions of Specific Terms . . o e

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Objectives and Basis for Hypotheses
Research Hypotheses . . . D . . . .
Population and Sample . . . 9 . .
Instrumentation and Data .2. o .
Procedures for Analysis . . . . .

_IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . .

Analysis of TOQ Responses . . . . . 0
Results of HICLASS Pattern.Analysis
9f TPS Data 0 o o o o e e o o o o o e o

o e e o
o o o o o
o o

9 0

III

C

O O O
O O O O O
.0 O ‘9 f O

1. Behaving Styles for Teachers and

Contrast Groups 3 3 Z 3 1 3 1 8 i S

V

2. Behaving Styles for
Setting Groups . .
3. Behaving Styles for
GrouPs . . . . . .
4. Behaving Styles for
Female Teachers . .

Synthesis of Hypotheses
Analysis . . . . . o .
Summary e o o o e e o e

SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSIONS .

Summary . . .
Conclusions .
Implications

O.

.09.

BIBLImRAPHYoeeooeeoeot

iii

Treatment

TOQ Profile

0 O O O O O O

Male.and

O O O O O O O

and Data from
o o e o e e e
0 O O O 6 O Q
. o o o e e O

o e o e o o
o o o o o

0...
O

O O O O O

O O O O O

‘x. O O

.00....

O

Page

ii
iv
vii
ix

81
96
113
130

135
143

146

‘146
151
157

162

Table

10

2.

8a.

8b.

8c

8d.

8e

10

Des
Peri
Resc

Numl
to J
of C

Grou
Numb

Numb
to T

las
miss:

Corrt
Educe
Least
for E

Numbe
Struc

Orien

Group
to Te

Numbe
Of Ag
Teach!

Group

tured

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1. Descriptive Classifications of Teacher
Personality-Behavior Types by Different .
ResearCherS o o o o o e o o o o e o o o o o o 30

2. Numbers of Teachers Contacted, Response
to Invitation to Participate and Return

of Completed Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Groups Included in HICLASS Analysis and .
Numbers in each Sub-Group . . . . . . . . . . 66

4. Numbers and Percentages of Teacher Responses
to TOQ Current Educational Framework and
Classroom Approach According to the Per—
missive-Structured Dichotomy . . . . . . . . 72

5. Correlations Between Current and Ideal
Educational Framework.Which are Most and
Least Descriptive for All Teachers and
for Each Treatment Group . . o e . . . . . . 76

6. Number and Percentages of Teachers Choosing
Structured, Permissive or Mixed Theoretical
Orientations (EF and CA)

7. Summarization of Highest Percentages of
Group Choice of Theoretical Orientation
to Teach Emotionally Disturbed Children . . . 78

8a. Number of Reciprocal Pairs and Mean Number
of Agreements by Hierarchial Level for
Teacher and Contrast Groups . . . . . . . . . 79

.OOOOOOOOO 77

8b. Number of Reciprocal Pairs and Mean Number
of Agreements by Hierarchial Level for
Groups According to Treatment Setting . . . . 79

8c. Number of Reciprocal Pairs and Mean Number
of Agreements by Hierarchial Level for
Groups According to TOQ Profiles: Struc-
tured and Permissive . o o . . o . o o . . . 80

8d. Number of Reciprocal Pairs and Mean Number
of Agreements by Hierardhial Level for
Groups According to TOQ Profiles: Mixed
orientation 0 e o o o o o o e e o o e o e e o 80

86. Number of Reciprocal Pairs and Mean Number
of Agreements by Hierarchial Level for Male
andFemaleTeaCherS...0.90.50... 80

9. Mean TPS Scores by Type and Magnitude from. _
HICLASS Analysis: All Teachers; N=119 . . . . 83

10. Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis: Student Contrast

Group 0 e o o o o o o e o e e e e o o e o o e 90

iv

0—4 (J‘

18.

19.

20,

21.

22.

23,

24,

25

 

Table
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

LIST OF TABLES Con't.

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
fromHICLASSQAnalysis: Mental Hospital
Treatmnt Setting; N=22 . g g Q g g o g Q 3

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from HICLASS Analysis: Intensive Treatment.
setting; N=32 o o o o o o o o e o e o o o a

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from HICLASS Analysis: Residential Treat—

ment Group; N=22 . o . o e o o o o o o o 9

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from HICLASS Analysis: Training Schools
for Delinquents; N=33 . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from HICLASS.Analysis: Public Schools; N=9

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis: TOQ Profiles: Struc-

tured Orientation; N=40 e o e o o o e o e 0
Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude

from.HICLASS Analysis: TOQ Profiles: Permis-.
Siva Orientation; N=18 . Q g g Q g . g g g .

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis: TOQ Profiles:

Combined Mixed Orientation; N=58 . . . . . .

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis: TOQ Profiles:,
Mixed Orientation A; N=13 e o o e o o o e 0

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis: TOQ Profiles:
Mixed Orientation B; N=45 . Q Q g p g Q Q 0

Mean TPS Scale Scores by Type and Magnitude
from.HICLASS Analysis for Male and Female

Teachers 0 9 e e o e e e o o e o o e e e 0

Summary of Results of KruskaléWallis One-
Way Analysis of Variance for Strong
Teacher Types . o o . o o o e o . . . o o 0

Summary of Results of Mann-Whitney U Test
for Differences Between Teacher and
Contrast Styles . o o o o e o o . o o o o 0

Summary of Results of Mann-Whitney U Test
for Differences Between Styles for Each
Treatment Setting Group . . . o o o o . . .

Summary of Results of Mann—Whitney U Test
for Differences Between Patterns Within

Treatment Setting Groups . o o e o o o . .

V

Page

97

101

104

108

111

115

118

120

125

126

131

137

137

139

139

(D

to u-
ox w
.

27.

28.

of
Sty

for
Sty

Beh.

 

 

Table
26.

27.

28.

LIST OF TABLES Con't.
Page

Summary of Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis
of Variance for TOQ Profile, Mixede2 .

Styles 0 e o e o o o e o o o o o o o e e o o 140

Summary of Results of Mann-Whitney U Test
for Differences Between Male and Female ‘
Styles 0 e o o e o e o o o o e o o e o e o o 143

Summary of the Number and Magnitude of ...
Behaving Styles for All Group.Analyses . . . 150

vi

Figure

1.

All 1
Stror

All ]
Patte

All 1
Patte

All 1
Patte

Combi
(Very

Combi
(Stro
Under
(Very

Gradu
Patte

Menta
(Stro

Inten
(Very
Resid
and 2

Train
Patte

Publi
(Strd

TOQ s.
and 2

T P
<33.
TOQ c
(Very
T c
(33.0
TOQ 8
(Str
TOQZ
(Strc

Male
Patte

 

 

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

LIST OF FIGURES

All Teachers: Behaving Style 1 (Very.
Strong Pattern; N=18) . o o o o e o e o .

All Teachers: Behaving Style 2 (Strong

Pattern; N=13) . . . . . . . . o o o o o

All Teachers: Behaving Style 3 (Strong. _
Pattern; N=8) o o e o e e o o o o e o o o

All Teachers: Behaving Style 4(Strong,

Pattern; N=6) . . . . . . o o o . o e 0

Combined Contrast Group: Behaving Style
(Very Strong Pattern, N=18) . . . . . .

Combined Contrast Group: Behaving Style
(Strong Pattern, N=4) . g g g g g g . .

ONOHO

Undergraduate Student: Behaving Style 1
(Very Strong Patterns N=14) . o o o o o 0

Graduate Student: Behaving Style 1 (Weak.
Pattern, N=7) . . .1....... . . . . . . .

Mental Hospital: Behaving Styles 1 and 2_

(Strong Patterns) o o o o o o e o o e o o o ”
Intensive Treatment: Behaving Styles,1 and 2

(Very Strong Patterns) . . o o o e o o o o

Residential Treatment: Behaving Styles 1
and 2 (Strong Patterns) . . . . . . . . .

Trainin School: Behaving Style 1 (Strong

Pattern o o o o o o o e e o o o e o o e

Public School: Behaving Styles 1 and 2.
(Strong Patterns) . . . . . o o o o . e e

TOQ Structured Teacher: Behaving Styles 1
and 2 (Strong PatternS) . g Q g Q g . 5 .

TOQ Permissive Teacher: Behaving Style 1-

(Very Strong Pattern) . . . . . . .

TOQ Combined Mixed: Behaving Styles
(Very Strong Patterns) . . . . . .

TOQ Combined Mixed: Behaving Styles
(Strong Patterns) . . o o o o o o o

TOQ Separate Mixed: Behaving Styles
(Strong Patterns) e e . e o o e o o

TOQ Separate Mixed: Behaving Styles
(Strong Patterns) 0 o e o e e e O O

h). hie-use h‘

D

O O
and
o e
and
.0
and
O.

and

O Q

Male Teachers: Behaving Style 1 (Strong
Pattern, N316)... o o o o o e o o o e o 0

vii

o.> one C D-O h).

Page

85
86
87
88
91
92
93
94
98
102

106

.l 109
112

g 116

119

.‘ 122

123

.‘ 127
’ 128

.‘ 132

Figur‘

21.

22.

 

LIST OF FIGURES Con't.
Figure Page

21. Female Teacher: Behaving Style 1 (Very.
Strong Pattern, N=19) . . . . g . . . . . Q 133

22. Female Teacher: Behaving Styles 2 and 3
(Strong Patterns) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

23. Recapitulation of Behaving Styles for TOQ
Profile Groups (Permissive and Structured).
According to Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . 141

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. List of Motives from the Teacher Preut
ference Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

B. ’ Directions to Teachers and Students,
Teacher Preference Schedule, Form.G, ,
and Seperate Answer Sheet for TPS e o o . 174

C. Theoretical Orientations to Teaching
Emotionally Disturbed Children, TOQ .
Separate Answer Sheet . . . . . . . . . . 181

D. Teacher Preference Schedule Scales and. ._
Item Nmbers .o.......o......g....o....... 185

ix

DESC

Spec
of its goal
status in de
American edL
has deve10pe
with physice
Cluding the:
“OER have be

I .
raw, Increag

Vices, Sepaz
altered lea]
maximum habz'

It 1
WOUId be the

titles and met

Serial ma lac

CHAPTER 1

DESCRIPTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Special education has become recognized, by virtue
of its goal of helping the less fortunate achieve full
status in democratic society, as an authentic member in the
American educational system. This field within education
has developed techniques and methods for teaching children
with physical and mental impairments. Provisions for in-
cluding these children in the general educational frame-
work have been made through modification of existing school
law, increased financial support and para-educational ser-
vices, separate administrative responsibility, and an
altered learning environment, all based upon the goal of
maximum habilitation for these children.

It has naturally followed that special education
would be the field looked to for the development of techni-
ques and meflhods for teaching children with emotional and
social maladjustments. "In more recent years, because of
the increased urbanization, because of frequent breakdown
of the family structure, because of disturbances related
to disruption caused by war, and because of advances in

psychology and psychiatry, more extensive interest has

been taken 1'
358, p. 48}
cmmtry in t
sdmol syste
with emotion
visions of v
recognition
cmfiributes
therapies an
process by w:
and vocation.
A prf
education prc
been the prox
trained Persc
128d methods,
Of the Patric
need for a Sp!
is all the H101
"The DOrSOn W]
is handling t:

Eind . n

 

(JOrda

tiVe
SOnal
Sever
their
beha,

been taken in this large group of Children." (Cruickshank,
1958, p. 48) Programs have been established throughout the
country in hospitals, clinics, private institutions, and in
school systems for the detection and treatment of children
with emotional and social maladjustments. Educational pro-
visions of various forms and degrees have been made in
recognition that a specially designed learning environment
contributes immeasurably to the success of the various
therapies and in some instances are the foundation of the
process by which these children achieve emotional, social,
and vocational stability.

A primary concern in the establishment of special
education procedures for these exceptional Children has
been the provision for specially selected and specially
trained persons who establish the curriculum, employ special-
ized methods, and utilize unique materials to the benefit
of the particular type of child in their classroom. The
need for a specially selected and specially trained teacher
is all the more necessary in work with distrubed children.
"The person who plays the role of teacher in this instance
is handling that most exquisite of structures, the human
mind." (Jordan, 1962, p. 29) Rabinow (1960) verifies this
concern:

This is a field which is singularly attrac-
tive to crackpots--the adults with severe per-
sonality problems, severe authority problems,
severe sexual problems, a need for living out

their own rebellion through the anti-social
behavior of children.

The
person who 1:
understandir
rent of the
ings of his
producing at
l-ng-standir
manner that
his functior

The
demanded of
tain'mg to s
emotionally
aggreSSiVe’
and the Chi]
With Primar)
111C1Ulged and
actions are
PermissiVe
sitizing and
toward

Child

teacher and

The teacher of disturbed children then, must be a
person who by virtue of his own emotional stability, his
understanding of dynamic psychology, his therapeutic manage-
ment of the classroom, and his empathic regard for the feel-
ings of his charges, fosters the establishment of a growth
producing atmosphere, often in the midst of painful and
long-standing pathology. It is in this highly personal
manner that the teacher of disturbed children must perform
his function.

The clientele served and the ranges of attitudes
demanded of these teachers, underscores the concern per-
taining to special selection and special training. The
emotionally disturbed child is the withdrawn and the highly
aggressive, the child with a transient situational reaction
and the child with fixed personality disturbances, those
with primary and secondary disorders, and both the over-
indulged and the deprived. The teachers attitudes and
actions are often defined as instructional and therapeutic,
permissive and structured, remedial and enriching, desen-
sitizing and socializing, and his orientation must be
toward children and adolescents. "If the transaction between
teacher and disturbed students should be mutually satisfying
in a natural, spontaneous exchange, what special needs in
teachers have been identified which can facilitate this type
of reciprocity?" (Rabinow, 1964, p. 16) Nowhere else in

education are such diverse demands placed upon the teacher

rt»? 13 the:
sonality of
sionall)’ pr

settings .

variable in
tern to thos
administrati
likewise, ha
this concern
the important
(Getzels 5, J,
The 1
dram} like a

special natuz

given on 13’ i:

 

1 I

Te
perSo a

8

Each 8%}? .
Lne t Che
108$ erS
t‘ ph
lonal (115::

 

nor is there the need for such thorough scrutiny of the per-
sonality of those persons who choose to become profes-
sionally prepared to work with disturbed children in school

settings.

Background of the Problem

The personality of the teacher is a significant
variable in the educative process and has long been of con-
cern to those who have the responsibility for educational
administration and supervision. The educational researcher,
likewise, has devoted considerable time and attention to
this concern and the "growing body of research" represents
the importance of the teachers personality Characteristics.
(Getzels & Jackson, 1963)

The personality of the teacher of exceptional chil-
dren,1 like all teachers, is recognized as a significant
variable in the provision of educational services of a
special nature for children who otherwise might not develop
to their maximum capacity. It appears, though, that the
importance of the personality of the special teacher is

given only intuitive, descriptive recognition by special

 

1TeaCher of exceptional children herein refers to
persons who are specially trained and are now in-service
teachers of children who attend special classes. These are
the teachers of the child with a visual loss, a hearing
loss, a physical handicap, mental retardation, or an emo-
tional disturbance.

mlnfhnkAH

A w.

p- q
.1.

Council fc

ti
va
me

(3;

The
0f Persons
Characteris
for manPOWE;
Problem to 1
faculty in w
training of
is now Place
Fragrams Suc
Public fUnds
Vim eXCept:
faculties s
acteristiCS

”Mona;

 

educators. Cruickshank, a well known special educator,
states:

The teacher of exceptional children must be
the most secure individual who can be found.

The teacher of exceptional children must be the

most patient individual who can be located, for

young minds are often times perplexingly in-
consistent. . . There is a harmony of ideas
andcflfpersonality characteristics which must be
sought within any individual before he can be
adjudged as one in whom democracy can place

its trust for future deve10pment and security.

(Cruickshank, 1958, p. 139)

Harrie M. Selznick, the current president of the
Council for Exceptional Children, has written:

As a local administrator, I have been ex-
periencing an increase in employment applica-
tions from persons who by personality, moti-
vation, and training have no right to assign-
ment in a responsibility with children.

(Selznick, 1964)

The concern about the identification and selection
of persons who will be able, by virtue of these personal
Characteristics and training, to fulfill the growing demands
for manpower in special education has become a critical
problem to university faculties. It is the university
faculty in whom the trust is placed for the selection and
training of these teachers. Even greater responsibility
is now placed upon the university with the advent of federal
programs such as Public Act 88-164 in Which considerable
public funds are being expended to train teachers to work
with exceptional children. The problem for university
faculties seems to center upon selection procedures and char-

acteristics of persons who will make good teachers of ex-

ceptional children.

sonality

dren, it

‘nown abo
A compari:
regular te
gests that
teacher is
dence desc:
in the pos;
shank or i:
tors such a

The

importance .
'be further <
Survey teXtE
(Jordan, 196

separate a t t

 

While great importance has been placed upon the per-
sonality characteristics of the teacher of exceptional chil-
dren, it has become increasingly evident that little is
known about the make-up of the personality of this teacher.
A comparison of the quantity of research on personality of
regular teachers and personality of special teachers sug-
gests that the personality characteristics of the special
teacher is virtually a neglected entity. At most, the evi-
dence describing special teacher personality is contained
in the positive-ideal opinions of experts such as Cruick-
shank or in the negative-pragmatic opinions of administra-
tors such as Selznick.

The apparent lack of empirical understanding of the
importance of the personality of the special educator can
'be further demonstrated by a cursory review of the so-called
survey texts of special education. In only one such text
(Jordan, 1962) is the teacher of exceptional children given
separate attention (a full chapter) as an important aspect
of the educative process. Even in this single, separate
reference the special teacher is described as "a person
qualified by temperament and training to deal with those
children who have not prospered.in the regular program

. ." (Jordan, 1962, p. 21) and as one who possesses ". . .
zeal, a sense of conviction, a burning desire to help that
transcends the daily problems of teaching." (Jordan, 1962,

p. 23) These descriptions hardly qualify as descriptions

Qualifica
his own 0
Cain (195‘.
teachers I
and degree
rePort the

The
0f exceptic
is further
rePort on d
W
ence listing
cmpped beca
classified L
regular Sect

veals that a

 

 

 

of personality characteristics, in the psychological sense.
He has given considerable attention to the identification

of four types of teachers, according to their duties, rather
than definable personality characteristics.

Samuel Kirk (1962) in Education of Exceptional
Children devotes one page to the topic of "General Personal
Qualification" in which he reports some survey research and
his own opinions from earlier writings. Mackie, Dunn, and
Cain (1959) state that (as Cruickshank implied) special
teachers need personal characteristics different in kind
and degree from those of regular teachers, but they only
report the opinions of teachers of exceptional children.

That the personality characteristics of the teacher
of exceptional Children is a relatively unstudied problem
is further demonstrated by Laird and Ellis (1962). They
report on doctoral studies in teacher education in the
Journal of Teacher Education and note that the cross refer-
ence listing for "Teachers of Exceptional Children" has been
dropped because "there were no studies that could be easily
classified under these topics." A review of this same
regular section of the Journal for the past ten years re-
veals that a significant dearth does exist.

The teacher of emotionally disturbed children, the
major subject of this study, is likewise first neglected
and then characterized in highly opinionated language. It

would seem that the personality characteristics of this

1

(3y profes
necessary <
grams, the:
children a:
qualities 0

Ber
astraNge, h:
relate her ,-
turbed Child
and Phillips

 

teacher should come under particular scrutiny because of
the nature of the child this teacher deals with and the
absolute necessity that persons assuming this teaching role
be able to bring emotional stability to their classrooms.

In an early "survey" text on special education, Lord
and Kirk (1940) have a chapter on education of teachers of
special classes. It is significant that while they outline
(by professional judgment) qualities of these teachers and
necessary course subjects for university preparation pro-
grams, there is only cursory note of teachers of disturbed
children and no note of the authors' notions of personal
qualities or preparation programs.

Berkowitz and Rothman (1961, p. 129) describe a
"strange, hybrid creature" while Glaser (1959) attempts to
relate her internal flow of eXperiences in teaching dis-
turbed children to the growth of her personality. Haring
and Phillips (1962, p. 110) in a section entitled "person-
ality factors" list such factors as "a firm belief in the
potential of all children" and "a healthy and enthusiastic
outlook upon living and working." Mackie, Kvaraceus, and
Williams (1957, p. 13) under the heading "Personal Qualities
of the Teacher" (suggested by a committee of experts) state:

The personal qualities of the teachers of
socially maladjusted or emotionally disturbed
children are as important as their competen-

cies. Children always learn more by example

than by precept. They should be people of

good judgment, possess a sense of humor, have

the ability to place people and events in
prOper perspective, have adaptability and

I1}

0
a
d.
In additic
c’escriptic

work in re

school set

no depth 5
disturbed :
“3193’ repom
teachers I‘C
thESe artic
‘V’ations bas
author, bUt
tics of the
in which he

authOrs froH

10
as: Opposi

 

:eriStiCS .

flexibility of mind, be conscious of their

own limitations, and idiosyncrasies, and have

a normal range of human contacts outside the

daily task of working with problem children.
In addition to this general description, they offer similar
descriptions of personal characteristics of teachers who
work in residential settings and teachers who work in day
school settings. They note that there is some overlap
and that researCh and evaluation is needed.

Morse and Dyer (1963) report that there have been
no depth studies of the characteristics of teachers of the
disturbed and under the heading, "Training of Teachers"
they report several published articles concerning the
teachers role in various treatment settings. A perusal of
these articles reveals, again, highly opinionated obser-
vations based on the personal experience of the particular
author, but relatively high feeling that the characteris-
tics of the teacher vary according to the type of setting
in which he teaches. These opinions are confusing since
authors from same and different types of settings sometimes
list opposite characteristics and sometimes the same charac-
teristics. (LaVietes, 1962) (Douglas, 1961) There is rela-‘
tive agreement, though, that different settings require

specific personality characteristics within the general

type: teachers of emotionally handicapped children.

T
stand the
:eristics

rade by i:

 

10

Importance of the Study

 

There has been much precedent for the desire to under-

stand the interaction of personality factors (personal charac-

teristics, personal traits, needs, etc.) and the choices
made by individuals for their life work.
A better understanding of the ways different
personality traits relate to different kinds of
intellectual pursuits would not only provide
a sounder basis for selection of students but
also for counseling the individual student in
his choice of a field of study. Guiding the
student toward a field that best suits his
present characteristics tends to preserve
the status quo both in the individual and in the
field he enters. Ideally the student ought to
pursue the curriculum that would produce in him
the most beneficial growth, even if it meant
taking a course in which he did badly and had
a very trying time . . . (Bereiter and
Freidman, 1962, p. 589)
Nowhere is this importance more amplified than in teaching.
The "half century of prodigious research effort" noted by
Getzels and Jackson (1963) would seem to verify this. On
the other hand, Getzels and Jackson (1963) also point out
that "very little is known for certain about the nature and
measurement of teacher personality . . ." In special edu-
cation there is, based upon the complex role of the teacher
of disturbed Children, a more pressing need to provide for
a better understanding of this interaction.

In special education it has been noted that opinion
dominates the current state of knowledge about the charac-
teristics of teachers, while at the same time great emphasis

is placed upon the requirement that these same teachers

H
pos ses 5 IT‘-

teachers.
is groundet
time, be a
The concer1
rode}. for 1
apply to t3
justified
division: '
nature of I
Frymer, 196
It
the need fc
(Haring and
for SeleCti
fall Upon
monetary Su
Of the inCr

v‘
ice, throu

 

11

possess "more of" or "different" characteristics than other
teachers. A study of special teacher characteristics which
is grounded in a solid theoretical framework would, at this
time, be a significant contribution to special education.
The concern raised by Duncan and Frymer (1960), in their
model for research in teacher education would certainly
apply to this study, in that the need for this study can be
justified in its contribution as basic research (reality
division: "those studies which are attempts to discover the
nature of the situation, to describe what is") (Duncan and
Frymer, 1960, p. 358) which has an ideological orientation.
It has been estimated that within the next decade,
the need for teachers of disturbed children will triple
(Haring and Phillips, 1962) and much of the responsibility
for selection and preparation of suitable candidates will
fall upon established teacher education programs. Federal
monetary support, as previously noted, is ample evidence
of the increasing interest in providing rehabilitative ser-
vice, through education, to disturbed children. It seems
urgent that investigation be pursued to examine the charac-
teristics of these prospective teachers, much as psycholo-
gists did when federal funds were being utilized to prepare
needed personnel. (Kelley and Fiske, 1951) Knobloch (1963),
in his article on factors which influence programming for

disturbed children, states:

r) F? r" t

"“2:

rl
a.

T}

of disturl
identifica
Work. The
according
Clientele
A
bution thi:
make to al]
through the
to a SrEate
their meani
should Even
haVior Wi th
prOCesS. T

be to the b

 

Children,

The

of
teacher 5

12

. . . There has virtually been no attempt to
isolate important variables related to selec-
tion of prospective teachers of disturbed
children and their subsequent effectiveness.

It is h0ped that within the next few

years investigations will direct their atten-

tion to selection studies grounded in theo-

retical frameworks and away from the unreli-

able methods which are generally employed. . .

The information to be gained from studying teachers
of disturbed children should then aid in the empirical
identification of the qualities of persons engaged in this
work. The need to look at the qualities of these persons
according to the setting in which they teach and the
clientele of the setting is also of importance.

A final consideration of importance is the contri-
bution this study of teachers of disturbed children would
make to all educational practice. It is possible that
through the study of the atypical or abnormal that we come
to a greater understanding of individual differences and
their meaning to educational practice. This initial step
should eventually aid in our understanding of teacher be-
havior with all children and of the teaching-learning
process. The sharing of such understanding would certainly

be to the benefit of both exceptional and non-exceptional

Children, and in particular to disturbed children.

Statement of the Problem
The problem under study in this dissertation is con-
cerned with identification of the personality characteristics

of teachers of emotionally disturbed children. The need for

specially 5
children wi
marily from
whereby spe
has also be:
characteris
settings Wit:
:0 differ-em
A s;
of the relat
3f the teac':
teristics.
following pt
1.
ality Charac
turbed child
2.
ality Charaq
aCQording t
3.
between the

7.13 choice C

Ab,

fie . .
Scriptlve

 

CLSturbed C:

13

specially selected and specially trained teachers who serve
Children with emotional problems has been established pri-
marily from expert opinion but no empirical system exists
whereby special selective procedures can be employed. It

has also been suggested that there may be specific personality
characteristics for persons who teach in certain treatment
settings while other sets of characteristics are specific

to different treatment settings.

A sub-problem in this dissertation is investigation
of the relationship between the theoretical orientations
of the teachers in this sample and their personality charac-
teristics. Taken together, the problems give rise to the
following purposes:

1. To ascertain if there are identifiable person-
ality characteristics which are common to teachers of dis-
tur bed (11 i ldren .

2. To ascertain if there are identifiable person-
ality characteristics for teachers of disturbed children
according to the setting in which they teach.

3. To ascertain whether or not a relationship exists
between the personality characteristics of the teacher and

his choice of educational framework and classroom approach.

Sc0pe and Limitations
A basic procedure of the research was to derive a
descriptive typology of in-service teachers of emotionally

disturbed children in five types of treatment settings.

Contras
ing as
who W81“

childrer

tence ir.
numbers

jects fo:
State of
high-qua]
Specially
disturbed

the Partic

 

14

Contrast groups consisting of undergraduate students prepar-
ing as teachers of disturbed children and graduate students
who were enrolled in a course on education of disturbed
children made up the remainder of the study population.

A complete range of treatment settings was in exis-
tence in the State of Michigan1 thereby providing sufficient
numbers of certified teachers of disturbed children as sub-
jects for the study. One treatment setting outside the
State of Michigan was chosen because of its well-established,
high-quality school program Which had teachers who were not
specially trained, in university programs, to work with
disturbed children. This setting was included because its
total emphasis very closely fit the academic description of
the particular type of treatment setting.

The general criteria for definition of treatment
settings was formulated from the description given by Alt
(1960) and from.the description of public school programs
given by the Michigan Department of Public Instruction,
Bulletin 365 (MiChigan Department of Public Instruction,
1964). The names and descriptions of these treatment set-

tings are given in the list which follows.

 

1Michigan is considered to be an exceptional state in
total mental health programming for children. In particular
three areas in child mental health are noted: 1) the number
and excellence of child treatment and research facilities under
state, local, and private control' 2) the provision for state
reimburseme t for public school c assrooms for disturbed chil-
dren; and 3 the number of undergraduate and graduate training
programs for teachers of disturbed children. Of some twelve
ap roved univegsity and college training programs in the
United States, three are in Michigan.

 

characte
:hemse 1v

than it

[\3

number of
six month:
ratio is f
through in

training a;

 

15

Classification of Treatment Settings
1. State Mental Hospital
This setting is designed to accommodate children
who require long-term treatment (two years or more). The
characteristic clientele are children who are a danger to
themselves and who cannot be cared for without more restraint
than it is desirable in other settings.
2. Intensive Treatment, Training, and Research
This setting is designed to accommodate a small
number of specifically defined Children who require from
six months to one year of treatment. The staff-to-patient
ratio is frequently very high and qualitative treatment
through individual and milieu design shares priority with
training and research goals.
3. Residential Treatment
This setting is designed to accommodate children
who require intermediate treatment (one to three years).
Emphasis is placed upon the creation of a total therapeutic
situation for rehabilitation of the disturbed child. The
elements of treatment are usually: a) a conditioned or con-
trolled environment, b) an individual life situation, and
c) a healthful milieu.
4. Training School for Delinquents
This setting is designed to separate children
from adults in carrying out provisions of the penal code and

for re-education, The major goals are custody and treatment

of juven

educati 01

who can I

fiting fr
turbing t.

Tl
t0 treatme
Pl-lblic sch
from the I

In View of

 

16

of juvenile offenders. Counseling and academic-vocational
education form.the elements of the re-education process.

5. Public School Class for Disturbed Children

This setting is designed to accommodate children
who can remain in public schools but who require a specially
adjusted school program and an altered classroom schedule.
The characteristic clientele are children who are not pro-
fiting from their educational experiences and/or are dis-
turbing to their groups because of an emotional problem.

The population of teachers was generated according
to treatment setting with the exception of subjects from
public school settings. These were selected arbitrarily
from the list of Department of Public Instruction program
approval applications available during February, 1965.

In view of the descriptive goal of this study, every attempt
was made to obtain as many subjects as possible in order to
strengthen the nature of these descriptions, particularly

in view of the method of analysis of data which is being
utilized. In this regard, only minimums‘were suggested and
in most groups these were met with little difficulty. The
over-all procedure for Choice of the study population is a
modification of non-probability purposive sampling in which
an objective basis (the classification of treatment settings)
and the benefits of professional experience in several
treatment settings were utilized to draw subjects which were
satisfactory to the purposes of the study (Selltiz, Jahoda,

Deutsch, and Cook, 1961, Appendix B).

17

One limitation was, in fact, the procedure for choice
of subjects. Rather than explicit choice of subjects by
sampling procedures, treatment programs were selected and
potential subjects within programs were asked to volunteer
their services. In most every defined treatment setting
group there were individuals who did not wish to participate
in the study and in at least one instance an entire insti-
tutional group did not wish to participate in the study.

The problem of non-response is briefly discussed by Cornell
(1961) in relation to educational research and the general
implications, in light of the purposive representation of
both treatment settings and individuals is to be found in
the possible introduction of an experimental effect which
would signal caution in generalizability of results. The
descriptive goal of this study, the strength of the basic
data, and the adequacy of configurational analysis would
serve to eliminate the possible effect'ofvsampling as a
vitiating factor. In sum, the external validity of this
study should be sound.

Another limitation is in relation to the choice of
and administration of the instruments used in this study.
The general regard for caution in utilizing projective self:
reports would apply, particularly in view of the applicability
of the chosen instruments, to a reasonably psychologically
sophisticated population of teachers. The possibility of
individual and group response sets is taken into account

in the configurational analysis,in that it is-patterns:

'n’hiCh ‘*
ment of
study 01
ficient
treatmen-
analysis.
A
attempt t
on instrui
room). Tl
chological
eXposition
dEIImiting
RYams (196.
Shortcoming
intent to c'
of any grow;
mmpleXity
and the co
aSSumed th
as easily

5:

Somehow s t:

 

to define

 

SeVe
rely v'

ll

work 0f th‘

 

0f Underly

 

18

which will be sought. The publication describing develop-
ment of these instruments (Stern and Masling, 1958) and the
study of Travers, Wallen, Reid, and Wodtke (1961) give suf-
ficient evidence for the use of these instruments and the
treatment of data under both configurational and variance
analysis.

A final limitation of a general nature is in the
attempt to generalize from the present (patterns of responses
on instrumentation) to the future (performance in the class-
room). This presents various problems in educational-psy-
chological research. Ryans (1964) has given a five-point
exposition of this particular limitation and he expands the
delimiting factor to include generalization to individuals.
Ryans (1963a) discusses these from the standpoint of the
shortcomings of past research. In this study there is no
intent to define "effectiveness," "success," or "failure"
of any group. "So many studies have overlooked both the
complexity of interactions involved in teaCher behavior
and the complexity of the criterion. Somehow they have
assumed that teacher competency could be easily defined and
as easily judged once the magic words and devices were
somehow stumbled upon." (Ryans, 1963a, p. 106) Any attempt
to define such with teaChers of disturbed children would
severely violate this logic. It is proper, within the frame-
work.of this study, to infer behavior utilizing the concept

of underlying needs (Murray, 1938) (Travers, Wallen, Reid,

and Wodtke
m tives ca:
in the cla:
upon this I
will serve
education (
of theoreti
stated:
be}:
bef
sci
and
the

dev

tio

 

19

and Wodtke, 1961) in that the teacher's expressed needs or
motives can be considered to represent potential behavior
in the classroom. Considerable emphasis is to be placed
upon this method and the descriptive goal of the study

will serve as the primary focus. In this regard in general
education (and in view of the pressing need for a beginning
of theoretical research in special education), Ryans has
stated:

One factor impeding understanding of teacher
behavior has been the failure to recognize that
before progress can be made in any field of
science, and before phenomena can be explained
and their influencing conditions discovered,
there must be a long period of investigation
devoted to identifying the elements or compon-
ents that make up the behavior under considera-
tion. (Ryans, 1963a, p. 106)

One final specific limitation exists in that it was
not possible for contrast group subjects to respond to one
section of the Theoretical Orientations to Teaching Emo-
tionally Disturbed Children Questionnaire. Since most
were full-time students rather than in-service teachers,

there is no response nor provision for analysis of them on

the dimension of current classroom approach.

j__,_.___‘__.—._L

I“?

inent t
tific er
of perso
The sec01
of the t1‘.

third sec

 

 

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE, THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK, AND DEFINITIONS

The first section of this chapter will give per-
tinent background and serve as a review of previous scien-
tific and professional literature pertaining to the study
of personality and personal characteristics in education.
The second section of this chapter will be the formulation
of the theoretical framework which guides the study. The
third section will be specific assumptions and definition of

terms and concepts utilized in the study.

figyiew of the Literature
There will be four subdivisions of the review,
demonstrating the character of research on personality
differences in professions in general, teachers in general,
special education teachers, and teachers of disturbed

chi ldra’l .

Personglity Manifestations of Professional Groups

Several studies have been carried out in which per-
sonality characteristics of persons in various professional
groups, exclusive of education, were studied. Roe (1953)

(1956) studied social scientists and physical scientists and

20

concluded
the person
on psychoa
social sci
physical s
terns were
family lif
tive state:
research 5‘
identify e:
tists. Ke
tration st1
Of academy
had defin8(
and PSYCho‘
to the unrt

Th.
College St
educatiOn.
SCOres, fOi
Students.
accord Wit
that is,

a Pattern

 

the Imed

StUdy fie ‘

21

concluded that the personality differences were related to
the person's field of specialization. She based her studies
on psychoanalytic theory and found contrasts between the
social scientists who had a concern for people and the
physical scientists who had a concern for things; both con-
cerns were based upon the individual's experiences in early
family life. Cough and Woodworth (1960) utilized descrip-
tive statements of stylistic concepts in their study of
research scientists. They utilized a factor analysis to
identify eight types of scientific styles among the scien-
tists. Kelley and Fiske (1951), in the Veterans Adminis-
tration study of clinical psychologists, utilized a number
of academic and personality measures to predict what they
had defined as clinical competence (ability in diagnosis I
and psychotherapy). Their findings were inconclusive due
to the unreliability of certain criteria.

There have been a considerable number of studies of
college students in various academic fields, excluding
education. Sternberg (1955), utilizing patterns of test
scores, found differences between groups of male college '
students. He concluded that these "differences were in
accord with what might be termed 'logical expectations,‘
that is, there appeared to be a logical relationship between
a pattern characteristic of a particular major group and
the need satisfactions which would probably be found in the

study field or in related occupations." (Sternberg, 1955, p. 17)

Bereiter
students
ventional
emotional
related t
son, it d«
attractiw
more attra
and Freed:
Ot

including
Blum (1947
ality Inve.
Blank, Stu<
Students '12
engineer-inE
and aVocati
traits. Hi
pathologica
sonality m
found What
which diff
Studtént te—
LeBold, an
between

ed
w
.dwards Pe,

Erman ‘

22

Bereiter and Freedman (1962) (1960) studied female college
students and found differences in such attitudes as uncon-
ventionality and social confidence, and behavior such as
emotional stability. These differences were significantly
related to field of study. They stated: "Whatever the rea-
son, it does appear that some fields are relatively more
attractive than others to liberal—minded people and some
more attractive to conservative-minded people." (Bereiter
and Freedman, 1962, p. 569)

Other studies compare various professional groups
including teachers or persons preparing to become teachers.
Blum (1947), utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-
ality Inventory (MMPI) and the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank, studied personality differences of 125 male college
students in education, law, journalism, medicine, and
engineering. He found greatest differences in vocational
and avocational interest tendencies rather than personality
traits. His findings may reflect the focus of the MMPI upon
pathological personality traits rather than positive per-
sonality manifestations. Adams, Blood, and Taylor (1957)
found what they termed a docility pattern, the strength of
which differed between groups of experienced teachers,
student teachers, and arts and science students. Cook,
LeBold, and Linden (1963) found patterns of differences
between education and engineering student responses to the
Edwards Personality Preference Schedule and the Guilford

Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

' IX

‘bv‘
.w

 

cerned w
cently w
research
fects tea
Persons w
0f teache.
a Pseudo-l
to link te
SL18863sted
the deVelo}
Tanner (19'
aCteristic
based Upon
Can be dra
Se
groups of

dlSConsin

 

23

Personality Manifestations of Teachers Other Than
Special Education

There have been several reports which provide a gen-
eral rationale for the study of personality of teachers.
Symond's (1954) work has become well known and his studies
support the contention that teaching is a function of per-
sonality and that other factors such as college prepara-
tion have only superficial influence. There has been wide
testing of the influence of personality when compared with
other factors and in the literature there are studies con-
cerned with psychophysiology (Schwartz, 1950) and more re-
cently with race (Pace, 1960). In general, much of the
research has accpeted the contention that personality af-
fects teaching and studies have been carried out in Which
persons who were not teachers were asked to give a picture
of teachers as they knew them. (Saltz, 1960) The result was
a pseudo-personality description. Another study attempted
to link teacher and pupil personality (Amatora, 1954) and
suggested that the well-adjusted teacher was important to
the development of wholesome personality in children.

Tanner (1945) described the pathological personality char-
acteristics of persons rated as superior or inferior teachers
based upon their student teaching ratings. Few conclusions
can be drawn as none of the experimental evidence is given.

Several reviews of the literature or summaries of
groups of studies exist. Barr's (1948) summary of the

Wisconsin studies reports much of the work done prior to

‘eaChe

24

that date. More recently the existing research on teacher
personality and characteristics in relation to teachers in
general has been summarized by Getzels and Jackson (1963).
They point out the fact that there are varying conceptions
of personality and that researchers fail to distinguish be-
tween.thenh Another significant note in their review is
the failure of researchers to diStinguish between sub-groups
of the general teacher population, thus there is little
reported research on teachers of exceptional children.
Durflinger's review (Durflinger, 1963) of research on teacher
characteristics reflects a similar attitude, even though
there are several reported studies of teacher sub-groups.
There appears to be considerable overlap between these re-
views and Ryans' (1963) review of research on teacher be-
havior. Ryans utilized a taxonomy and thus, logically
classified each study rather than merely reporting what had
been done. The April, 1963 issue of Theory Into Practice
presented the major issues involved in the perception of
the teacher as a person. Most of the articles maintain a
personality-dharacteristic orientation and many suggest
that there are varying qualities to be found in teachers.
The positive suggestion of variance in teacher char-
acteristics has been noted. In the summary of the "Wiscon-
sin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction of Teadher
Effectiveness,” Worchester (1961) discussed personality of

teachers and concluded that there was little attempt in

Sona
tOtai
alSo

0D or

Which
genera
wOlfSc

ing be

25

these studies, to find if there were "patterns of personality
traits of teachers especially effective with pupils who pre-
sent particular patterns of personality." He indicated that
some provision may be looked into wherein classes would be
made up according to the characteristics of the pupils,

"and teachers assigned whose own characteristics are appro-
priate for these children." Worchester further indicated
that it may be desirable to employ teachers with different
patterns of personality, different degrees of intelligence
and so on for different grades and different fields of sub-
ject matter on the chance that each Child will encounter

some teacher whose specifications will fit his. Dugan's
(1961) article, based upon her observation of teachers, gives
further credence to the need to understand variance in
teacher personality. She concluded that there may be no
single personality factor which can be found. She suggested
that a constellation of personality factors exists. "Per-
sonality is complex and dynamic, and is more than a sum
total of personality factors for each individual; it is

also the organization of these factors and the effect of them
on other people. (Dugan, 1961, p. 334)

More variations are suggested in several studies
which note differences between more specific groups of
general educational workers. One such study is that by
Wolfson (1957) who was moderately successful in differentiat-

ing between personality variables of teaChers and guidance

26

counselors. This would seem to verify the statement by
Callis (1950) that: "Individuals who choose to teach special
subjects are basically different in attitude structure

from other teachers." Stern (1963) cited several such
studies in his discussion of methods of differentiating
among teachers. Wandt (1954), in a sub-study from.the data
of the American Council on Education study of teacher
characteristics, found differences in attitude patterns
between elementary, mathematics-science, and English-social
studies teachers, while Powell's (1950) study was in a
similar direction. Garrison and Scott (1961) conducted a
study in which differences were noted between upper elemen-
tary, general secondary, and special education college
students. They found significant differences between secon-
dary students and elementary students on measures of achieve-
ment and nuturance needs. They also found that special
education college students displayed a greater achievement
need than did the other groups of students. Southworth
(1962) found significant differences, on measures of needs
and values, of teachers who preferred early and later ele-
mentary. In the well known teacher characteristics study,
Ryans (1960) reported differences in personal qualities and
observable classroom behavior of elementary and secondary
teachers. Specific patterns were reported for elementary,
mathematics-science, and English-social studies teachers in

addition to the general elementary and secondary pattern.

, . ._
régg -—

quality
a Small

M

“are six

27

These findings are in agreement with those of Wandt (1954)
Which were previously cited.

A number of studies have been directed toward deter-
mination of qualitative properties of personality of teachers
rather'than magnitude of differences. These studies differ
from others previously cited in that they represent findings
in clearly differentiated patterns of response. .Levin,
Hilton, and Lederman (1957) in their summary of the Harvard
Teadher Education Project report studies on authoritarianism
and need satisfaction. Also reported was a dichotomy between
interests of elementary student teachers and secondary stu-
dent teachers. The dichotomy of interests was one of child
dren versus subject matter. Jackson and Guba (1957) in an
excellent analysis of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(EPPS) scores of 118 male and 248 female in-service teachers,
generated need profiles of both groups. Their study would
seem to provide an excellent normative base for comparisons
of needs in studies such as Southworth's (1962) and Garrison
and Scott (1961). Barr (1960) discussed the importance of
the teacher's personality and reported the development of~
a ranking method for assessment of personality characteris-
tics. He outlined fifteen qualities and used synonyms thought
to be associated with each quality as a description of the
quality. He was able to generate patterns of response for
a small group of teachers but no further definitive results

were given nor were the patterns specifically named. Cook,

m—

on
mot
Whi

Cri

28

Linden, and McKay (1961) utilized factor analysis of two
personality measures given to teacher trainees and identified
six factors: Docility, Dependency, Authoritarianism, Come
pulsive Conformity, Introversion-Extroversion, and Avoidance.
They also found a discrepancy between the subjects idealized
and observed personality.* Lang (1959) reported the findings
of his study of motives in which he utilized a non-stan-
dardized scale along with the EPPS. There was some reason

to suspect acquiescedpe, however, he reported motives related
to mothering for elementary teachers and motives related

to academic and intellectual activity for secondary teachers.
Stern, Masling, Denton, Henderson, and Levin (1960) reported
on their development of two scales for the measurement of
motivations for teaching. Their scales give ten motives
Which can be formulated into patterns which purport to des-
cribe particular types of teachers. The specific findings
will be described in section three of this chapter and the
instruments will be described in Chapter III of this study.
Finally, in this group is Wandt's (1952) study which utilizes
measures of attitudes to "study the relationships betWeen
teachers verbalized attitudes and various overt behavior."

A factor analysis showed variation in patterns of response
between elementary and secondary teachers on attitudes to-
ward pupils and toward non-teaching personnel. The elemen-
tary teachers generally had more favorable attitudes.

Other differences in patterns were toward parents and toward

democratic classroom procedures.

Ffls

an.

pé

f1

di

 

29

Another group of studies, including some previously
cited, give desoriptive classifications of teachers based
upon either patterns of responses to personality measures,
analysis of classroom ovservations, or a combination of both.
These studies are significant because of their seemingly
educationally functional descriptions, their sound theoretical
approach, and the strength of the particular measuring devices
and analysis procedures which were utilized. Table 1 gives
a condensed summary of the studies in this group. Other
similar and more extensive classifications are reported by
Ryans in the Review of Educational Research (1963c) and in
the Journal of Teadher Education (1963b).

In all of the studies thus far, except Garrison and
Scott (1961), the special teacher was either systematically
omitted or purposely not considered in the study population.
Several studies infefired that special qualities may be re-
quired by persons who teach divergent groups. Heil, Powell,
and Feifer (1960) and Ryans (1960) considered the behavior
of pupils in their overall study formulations and both
specifically focused upon relationships between teacher
personality and types of students in their discussion of
future research. Heil, Powell, and Feifer (1960), in their
discussion of groupings in elementary school classes stated:

The findings of this study might be used

to postulate Children-teacher personality as a

different kind of basis”for grouping and, as a

variation of this, intelligence-personality
grouping. (P. 80)

 

 

.Illl' In!"

fur-bruc 1 LL.

EC DECTb <Lhk hvnvesat M> HHQHMUWWQ

H Exam/VF

 

3‘0

m>auoouapndoa

 

 

 

 

macaw one poumxAu paupeuoua Aoomfiv
Lovemaumuw mquHSuD: muauwanoau Ga>m4 prJMOm
mooSuauu¢ uaoanxo "renounce panda .N uuooaom Acounon
manpmsum ;, unmocodoo one aa .wcaammz .cuoum
023.39, mo mammamna museum Immune .uawcflaoo madcap AwmmC
mamkaddm Guouumm uuoum panacea .H nomad moououcou Monumou .H wcaamdz one duoum
ocwusou
uoa>mnoo .HHDp .m> oaummwmsnuao
Eooummeao no anemone .0>Hu
no ungammom uncawmfia .waaueanfiaum .m
the uoouapaH .m ponmowam
uses .podGmHQGS Awdee>o
ammommm menu .m> oaumaoumhw .mxaa
uauum uuouan .N unmodwmsn .oaoamaommou .N
AmHH .mv puouon pmuoauumou .uanuaoo
mmHOUm doauouwuo doaum>uomno nowo .mooHe om>uha
mamhaedm nouuwm EoouummHo .H nonmauu .waHoGMumwmoqd .H Aoomfiv mankm,
mundauomumd
wcaheam maom .q
manponum
umououca
onomaamz o>auuommm
"phonon mama umaom .oucopamzoonmamm .o
kuaHMGOmuom .m wcaaoom .m
coaumcdamxm mwcaaoou ..
maoaudauomon doaumu no soaumuaamsuuoaaouca .e Aoomflv
madmaum> mo mamhaed< unpm HonomoH .N Hamumom .m Hams one Gusonmmz
doaumaouuoo doaum>uomoo wcaaaouudooumaom .N Aooofiv HoMHOh
mamhaeae oawuoum Eooummmao .H unmasousu .H can .Haosom .Haom
mdmkadd< humaaum GoaueunoaduumcH mama now>mnomnmuAHMGOmumm Honoumomom

 

 

 

 

 

mmmmom¢ummm Hzmmmthn wm
mmmWH moH>¢mmmtVHHA¢ZOmmmm mmmo<ma ho monH<UHmHmm<AU M>HHmHmomun

H m4m<H

 

 

 

 

o u . CCU

~

M4 2 <9.

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

mm0c0>am
mwaaouooou smoudxo huaueao .m>
Weep yo mama neocodwm> .kuauaomoo .e
named ucoucoo .m mmoao>auoououm
Goaum>uom .m> muono>ammouwwm .m
uno.EooummmHo .N hwuoam .m> hwuonuoa .N Adomav
ouwmnaoau , How». whoodomom one
mammamco uouomm .H nomad unooSum .H Luau .m> mmoco>ammdfihom .H .xaodom .Gdfioaom
auoocoo nuafinuams
uo>odnum uafiooeum
suds Guouaou oauuaa .m
ocean
mfiau oHuuHH nonon
Qaau none mododm .q
coaue>uom suwcouum owe 30H
uno_EooummmH0 .q usuwcouum owe swan .m
now>mnmo o>auom
mam EooummmHu .waaudefiaumIHHSo
ukaec< Houumm .N no uaoEmmOm .ooHHouunoo umado .N
uuom O .H .m the uoouaozH .m wnaaaouuaoo .oHou
mcoaumauomoa .m oasoonom ,no>ammdeuoa .Ehma .H .m
mouoom oooz oodmumm omen Houucou .q
Hmdoauco>doo .N noum nosomoa .N owe: coauaGwooou .m Afioofi
. mam non>mnmm no emu: soaumaaammm .N oxueoz a .eao
shama¢ cumuuem .H .< zosum new: .H ode: unwEo>oanUm .H .4 .aoHHmz .muo>muh
.uaumazoauananxo ono
Acadumuauaunood AHo
Icoammououmv Heuuuauu . AmomHv
mwca>auumnm5umum.uooxae am :Houm one madame:
mHmXAddd hueadum coaumucgasuumca woke uoa>o£omnhuaamcomuom MancheOmom

 

 

 

|1IL

 

mmmmom¢mmmm HzmmwmmHn wm
mmmwa MOH><mmmanHA<zommmm mmmU<MH mo monH<UHhHmm¢AU m>HHmHmome

.u .GOO H ”HHde

1

 

mmMIUm<mmmx E2kahbh... it
mummcra. xOH>S~mml>hHA<ZOmmmnw mmzofimfi .mO WZOHH<UHEHWWSU M>HHQH-UWMQ

.U.C00 a M42<H

4... .4112‘ 11m

32

 

mmmdoaoo .w> nuEhoS .5
00cm

shonaeau .m> muonzuo .c
wcausuuoa .m>

Goauemauauuem udoonum .m

 

 

mamhaec< AHMEHum coauMudofisuuwzH make How>e£omnhuaHMG0mumm

 

 

 

Honuueomom

 

 

mmmmom<Mmum HzmmmhhHQ Mm

mmmwe MOH>¢mmmIMHHA<ZOmmmm mme<MH m0 mZOHH<OHmHmm<AU M>HHmHMUmMQ

cu .GOO H mun—gm.

 

r_L‘.
‘"_w

ath
jecw
rese
or P

infe

neEde
perSc

Studi

33

Two special groups that hQYe been con-

sidered as problems also come '0 mind:

a) Disturbed or difficult children and

b) Gifted children who are "underachievers."
Ryans (1963c) suggested that a similar study with teachers
of "atypical pupils, such as the gifted, the retarded, and
the handicapped" would be a possible direction of future
research. There appears to be some beginning research in
this vein as studies of structured and unstructured teach-
ing methodology and its interaction with specific types of
pupils (Grimes and Allinsmith, 1961) and the relationship

between teacher personality and learner-supportive or “‘

threatening classroom structures. (Spaulding, 1963)

Personality Manifestations of Special Educagign Teachers

It has been suggested, from intuitive sources, that
teachers of exceptional children are subject to diverse
danands which necessitate divergence in specific personality
characteristics. It appears though that personality Char-
acteristics of teachers of exceptional children, as a sub-
ject for empirical research, is only an emerging topic for
research. Much of the literature is in the form of opinion
or performance descriptions, from which personality can be
inferred. One such source permeates the literature. Mackie,
Dunn, and Cain (1959) in a nation-wide study of competencies
needed for teachers of exceptional children, noted that "the
personality of the teacher is of utmost importance. Many

studies have been made and considerable research has been

FH‘
alb"

C61:
212
str

to

34

done on personality characteristics of teachers in general,
and so it was decided not to use the resources of this pro-
ject to make a thorough study of this admittedly important
factor in teaching success." They reported the opinions

of a committee of experts and the opinions of their sample
of 740 in—service teachers of exceptional children. A
series of similar studies was carried out for each area of
deviation and opinions about personality characteristics
were gathered in the same manner. It is noteworthy that no
documentation is given to support any of the opinions about
personality.

The need for empirical research on teachers of ex-
ceptional children has been supported by Cain (1964, p. 211-
212) who stated that: "The development of conceptual con-
structs and the testing of hypotheses have been subordinated
to meet urgent needs which often require information that
can be obtained from the collection of status data, by
appraisal of the consensus of expert opinion, and by der
scriptions of programs in operations."

A beginning in empirical research on personality
characteristics of exceptional children has apparently been
made by Cawley (1963). His study examined "selected per-
sonality and interest characteristics of individuals oriented
toward mental retardation." The rasults appear to be con-
taminated by poor design and inaccurate definitions, but

they indicate that there may be patterns of personality

1“!» .

35

characteristics specific to persons "oriented toward mental
retardation." The findings also were, based upon MMPI pro-
files, that there were no clinically deviant patterns although
there was evidence of individual differences. Another study,
utilizing the MMPI compared with subjective success-criteria
is that of McBride, Hammill, and Gilmore (1964). They found
five MMPI scales to be related to supervisor-rated "success-
ful teaching" in a population of teachers of multi-handicapped
children.
Pergonalitx_Manifestations of Teachers of Disturbed
Children

The same relative paucity of empirical research
exists for teachers of disturbed children. Mackie, Kvaraceus,
and Williams (1957), utilizing the same format as the pre-
viously cited Mackie, Dunn, and Cain (1959) reported the
opinions of a committee of experts and a sample of in-ser-
vice teaChers of disturbed children. A list of nine personal
qualities for teachers of disturbed children in day schools
was given and a list of nineteen personal qualities which
are important to the degree that they were suggested
". . . in addition to, or in greater degree thafi, those
Previously listed." In addition, the authors stated: "That
teachers are needed who have the skill to develop a flexible
Pupil-centered, rather than a subject-centered curriculum."
It is interesting that other, more recent research (non-

SPecial education) (Ryans, 1960) (Heil, Powell and Feifer,

36

1960) have found this to be a functional personality char-
acteristic rather than a skill. Dorwald (1963), in a partial
replication of the Mackie, Kvaraceus, and Willaims (1957)
study, compared competencies but there was no note of
personality characteristics.

Rabinow (1964) suggested that teachers of disturbed
children should be classified as either task-oriented and
person-oriented, although he gives no evidence of empirical
assessment of either pattern. Berkowitz and Rothman (1960)
described a permissive type educational program based upon
need-acceptance theory. In their formulation the child is
the focus of the teacher's activity and the teacher's prin-
ciple role is toward acceptance and non—directiveness.

Haring and Phillips (1962) described a structured type educa-
tional program based upon interference theory. In their
formulation the structure of the program was the focus of

the teacher's activity and the teacher's principle role was
toward maintaining order and dominance. Haring and Phillips
(1962) conducted a study of the differential therapeutic
value of permissive and structured classrooms. They utilized
the findings of Heil, Powell, and Feifer (1962) as the N
rationale for the selection of the teachers for their struc-
tured classes. They suggested that there was a causal rela-
tionship between the characteristics of the teacher and the
maintainence of a structured classroom.

In a lay survey of the problems of obtaining treat-

ment for disturbed children, Smith (1964) described the

D. , ‘fim, 'w-v-L

fin

twe

Spa:

bhe

Ebil

37

educational program in three residential centers. Her def
scriptions vividly portray the variance of personalities
required by these different educational programs.

Morse and Cutler (1964) under the auspices of the
Council for Exceptional Children, conducted a nation-wide
survey of public school classes for disturbed children.
Through a factor analysis of the Ryans (1960) Teacher
Characteristics Schedule and other data, they were able to
describe, tentatively, the qualities of "the poor teacher,"

"the good teacher," and "the protective teacher."

Summary of the Literature

The review of the literature consists of four sub-
division and reports research on personality manifestations
in professions, teachers in general, special education
teachers, and teachers of disturbed children. One general
finding was the existence of personality differences be-
tween varying groups. Another finding was the relationship
of the variations to the nature of the group, both for
professions and teachers, such that it appears that persons
of certain personality types are relatively more attracted
to certain fields.

In special education, the empirical literature is
sparse but reflects, both in opinion and experimental studies,
the varying nature of personality characteristics by dis-

ability grouping. It appears though that personality

charac

ject c

noted,

:3 the

To hel
tulate
:harac
‘Jti liz.
and te.

theore‘

38

characteristics of teachers of disturbed children, as a sub—

ject of empirical research, is virtually neglected.

Theo;etical_Framewgrk and Definitions

Teachers personality characteristics, as previously
noted, have not been well defined and much of the research
on these characteristics has been carried out in a theoreti-
cal vacuum and in a fragmentary manner. (Ryans, 1963a)
To help fill this vacuum, Ryans (1963 b;c) (1960) has for—
mulated a theoretical model upon which research on teacher
characteristics can be based. This investigation will
utilize Ryan's theory of the teacher as an informative system
and teacher behavior as information processing for its
theoretical foundation.

. . . the teacher may be considered an infor-
mationaprocessingsystem that functions for the
purpose of.aiding the pupil in acquiring an
appropriate behavior repertoire.

Teacher behavior is defined genotypically
by reference to a set of hypothetical con-
structs which have their focus in teacher'
decision making. These constructs are assumed
to characterize the teacher system. They are
postulated to interact with and mediate be-
tween (a) the conditions (i.e., inputs) influ-
encing the teacher and (b) the observable teach-
ing response in a particular situation. The
functioning of the teacher-system we describe
as "teacher information processing." (Ryans,
1963b, p. 274)

In this discussion, a "system” will be de-
fined simply as any identifiable assemblage of
complexity organized elements of sub-systems
(e.g., which may be behavior variables charac-
terizing an individual group, etc.) which are
interdependent and united by a common informa-
tion network, which are characterized by a
regular (i.e., lawful or orderly) form of

39

interaction, and which function as an organized
whole to attain some objective or produce some
effect or end product uniquely characteristic
of the system operating as a unit. (Ryans,
1963b, p. 277)

The role of personality characteristics and inferences about
subsequent classroom behavior can logically be included in
this formulation.

In Ryans' systems model there are three sub-systems
which allow:for the transmission of information both within
and between the sub-systems. These sub-systems are:

a) Teacher capabilities and characteristics.
(inputs)

b) Operating conditions and situational char-

acteristics. (mediators)

c) Major classes of teacher (teaching)

behavior. (outputs)

Thus, according to Ryans (1963b), the possibility of trans-
mission (communications, exchange) of information between
the sub-systems allows for the postulation of a meaningful
association between inputs and outputs, both of which are
observable. The mediating function is usually inferred
”from analysis of the observable inputs, observable outputs,
concomitants, and known sub-systems and their discernable
interdependence." (Ryans, 1963b, p. 278)

One of the implications of this model for the under-
standing of teacher behavior is that it "directs attention
to the importance of behaving styles of teachers . . . in

facilitating information transmitted and subsequent pupil

tn

 

 

40

learning." (Ryans, 1963b, p. 281) According to Ryans,
teacher behaving styles ”might be thought of as 'teaching
styles' or as personal-social behavior patterns of teachers."
(Ryans, 1963b, p. 284) It is an input dimension within the
sub-system of teacher capabilities and characteristics and
is further defined as "personal-social characteristics
contributing to such behavior patterns as warm-understanding,
responsible-systematic, stimulating-original, and attrac-
tive-articulate." (Ryans, 1963b, p. 280) This is consistent
with the discussion of Getzels and Jackson (1962, p. 574)
concerning the need to clarify the term personality when

used in reference to teachers: .

There are profound differences in what is
meant by the term personality. Despite its.
widespread use--surely no psychological term
is more popular-~personality is an inordinately
elusive concept. Definitions are often contra-
dictory, and observations based on one defini-
tion will contradict observations based on
another definition. In general, the more com-
mon definitions may be classified into three
main categories: (1) behavioral definitions,
that is personality is the totality of a person's
usual behavior; (2) social-stimulus definitions,
that is, personality is defined by the response
made by others to the individual as a stimulus;
(3) depth definitions, that is, personality is
the dynamic organization within the individual
that determines his unique behavior. The pro-
blem is not that there are different concep-
tions of personality, but that researchers fail
to distinguish one conception fromfanother, and
the data obtained in terms of one definition
are not differentiated from the data obtained
in terms of another.

The second definition (behavioral) is especially consistent

with the concept of teacher behaving style and the instruments

a.

an...

W0

th

all

41

to be utilized in measurement of the styles of teachers of
disturbed children.

Ryans, utilizing this model, has classified much
of the significant research on teachers and teaching as it
fits into the model. His taxonomies (Ryans, 1963b;c) in-
clude as teacher behaving styles, sets of teacher behavior
in which the teacher may be viewed from a behavioral frame
of reference as‘Heil, Powell, and Feifer (1960) and as Ryans
himself has suggested. (Ryans, 1960) Within the five sets
of characteristic behaving styles, set five contains those
"similar appearing" behavioral constructs which are hypo-
thésized to influence the teacher to be "teacher centered"
or "child centered" as a characteristic behaving style.
These behavioral constructs are the result of the work of
Stern, Masling, Denton, Henderson, and Levin (1960). (See
also Stern and Masling, 1958) The assumption on which the
work of Stern, p£_gl., is based is that the behavior of
the teacher is influenced by unconscious motives (Masling
and Stern, 1963) or non-cognitive variables (Stern, 1963).

They are termed non-cognitive variables so that
they may be distinguished from the more "consciously
organized conceptual schema associated with measures of
intelligence, aptitude, achievement, or performance."
(Stern, 1963) Stern (1963) suggests that those variables
may be related to creative type activity and are "measures

of individual differences in attitudes, values, interests,

a ,_v.,.- ,. “wok

’VI

‘.
.n.

1

m.
at

42

appreciations, adjustments, temperament, and personality."
(Stern, 1963, p. 400) The assessment of these variables
is described by Stern and he notes that the particular
techniques for multivariate assessment are attributable
largely to the innovations of H.A. Murray (1938).1 "The
purpose of Murray's constructs is to provide ways of de-
scribing dimensions of personality and environment as they
are revealed in the characteristic strivings of the indi-
vidual and his perceptions of the interpersonal world."
(Stern, 1963, p. 407)

In reference to teacher behavior, the organization
of underlying motives of the teacher is certainly a deter-
minent of behavior. Individual motives are considered to
represent trends in behavior that could be aroused by the
presence of certain environmental cues and the strength of
the particular motives can be related to the behavior of
the teacher in the classroom. This formulation is entirely
consistent with Ryans (1963b) conception of the teacher as
an information processing system and within the systems
model, unconscious motives are maintained as information
input while patterns of these motives can then be described
as characteristic teacher behaving styles. This rationale
has been utilized, in a slightly different manner, by

Travers, et a1. (1961) and Wodtke, et al.(1963) to predict

 

A 1See page 54-129, "The conce t of need," including

Murray's definition of need on page €23. Another well known
application of Murray's need-press schema is: Stern, G.G.,

Stein, M.I., & Bloom, B.S., Methods in Personality Assess-

ment. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1956.

1 .r x‘_

able 1

those ,
tain b.
patter,
(TPS).
rate at
Obtaine
the TPS

is attat

43

teacher behavior in the classroom. The instrument used to
measure these unconscious motives was the Teacher Preference
Schedule (Stern, g£_§l., 1960). In their own research,

Stern and Masling formed three distinctive teacher behaving
styles, two of which have relevance to teachers of disturbed
children. The Stern Masling child—centered style corresponds
with Berkowitz and Rothman's (1962) description of the teacher's
behavior in their need-acceptance framework while the Stern-
Masling teacher-centered style corresponds with Haring and
Phillips' (1963) description of the teacher who functions

in their structured setting. Both represent major theoretical

approaches to teaching emotionally disturbed children and
suggest several hypotheses which will be elaborated in

Chapter III.

Definition of Specific Terms

In this study the following definitions will apply:

Teacher characteristipp will refer to those observ-
able inputs within the information system model. (Ryans, 1963b)

gpppacteristic teacher behaving style will refer to
those personal-social characteristics contributing to cer-
tain behavior patterns (Ryans, 1963b;c) as measured by
patterns of obtained scores on the Teacher Preference Schedule
(TPS). (Stern, et al,, 1960) The TPS booklet and its sepa-
rate answer sheets are Appendix B.

Underlying or unconscious motives will refer to the
obtained scores on the measures of ten individual motives of

the TPS. A list of these motives, and their descriptions

is attached as Appendix A.

'—l
2..—_

'T
A-
—

who are i
described
g
enrolled
ally Dist
the winte
U:
declared I
i'ith distm
Children,
g

disturbed

on Form I

h

Choice of

The TOQ is

individua:

F<

 

 

 

44

Teacher of disturbed children will refer to persons
who are in-service teachers in one of the treatment settings
described in Chapter I.

anduate student will refer to persons who were
enrolled in Education 882 - Seminar on Education of Emotion-
ally Disturbed Children at Michigan State University during
the winter term of 1965.

Undeggraduate student will refer to persons who were
declared majors (who were not engaged in student teaching
with disturbed children) in special education for disturbed
children. Included are all levels, freshman through senior.

Educational framework will refer to a teacher of
disturbed children's choice of one of the four descriptions
on Form I of the Theoreticgipgrientations to Teaching Emo-
tionally Distu;bed_Children Qpestionnaire (TOQ) and Clapp-
room.Appppgpp will refer to a teacher of disturbed children's
choice of a description contained in Form 11 of the TOQ.

The TOQ is attached as Appendix C. The titles of the

individual paragraphs of the TOQ are as follows:

 

Form I - (Educational Framework)
Paragraph 1 - Psychiatric Dynamic
Paragraph 2 - Psychological Behavioral
Paragraph 3 - Psycho-educational
Paragraph 4 - Educational

Form II - (Classroom Approach)

Paragraph.A - Structured, Interference Oriented
Paragraph B - Permissive, Need-Acceptant Oriented

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The procedure and methodology of this study is
based upon the descriptive method of research. Analytic
description, as a sub-form of the descriptive method, is
especially appropriate to fulfilling the general purposes
of this study, since by its very nature, it is most appro-
priately utilized in discovery of the underlying nature of
educational and psychological phenomena.

In the analysis of dynamic structures such as teacher
behaving styles, it is certainly appropriate that the study
take on a descriptive emphasis, which will be of great
value by providing research results and information about
a phenomena which at best can only be termed as non-quan-
titative. Such non-quantitative data as teacher behaving
styles and underlying motives can be analyzed, from a
research standpoint, through valid descriptive statements
of the nature of its components which when meaningfully
fitted together make up a conceivable and important whole.
This formulation of research methodology is consistent with
the need for a sound theoretical foundation noted in the
previous chapter, the concern which must be paid to the

nature of the study population, the complex nature of the

45

46

raw data, and the necessary requirement that the potential
findings be of such depth that they provide extensive pos-
sibility for future study. These justifications are all in
keeping with the nature of general educational research, and
all research on human behavior, that of giving direction
rather than scientific law giving.

The descriptive method in no way precludes the use
of conventional forms of measurement and experimentation.
Both are consistent with descriptive analysis and in this
study are considered at specific levels, maintaining, there-
fore, an overall consistency with the purposes of the study
and the assumptions required by the particular nature of
the data generated in this study. This contention also
holds in relation to the specific methods used for analysis
of the data. Where appropriate, measurement and quantifi-
cation are utilized, however, specific, non-numerical tech-
niques are employed to increase the strength of the findings

and to complement the nature of the data.

Objectives and Basis for Hypotheses

The objectives of this study are threefold:

First, to determine the characteristic teacher be-
having styles (as previously defined) of persons who teach
emotionally disturbed children.

Second, to determine the characteristic teacher be-
having styles of persons who teach disturbed children in
specific treatment settings. These settings have been de-

fined in Chapter One.

47

Third, to ascertain whether or not characteristic
teacher behaving style and stated theoretical orientation
(educational framework and classroom approach) are related.

A subsidary objective is to ascertain the relationship
between current theoretical orientation (educational frame-
work) and ideal theoretical orientation (educational frame-
work).

Several hypotheses are advanced about behaving styles
of teachers of disturbed children. These hypotheses are
formulated from professional experience, observation of
teachers in various treatment settings, and from the liter-
ature. The major implication to be drawn from the literature
is that teachers of disturbed children should exhibit a
different behaving style from other teachers. The two
styles most frequently noted were the "structured" and the
"permissive." It is possible that other characteristic be-
having styles do exist, but little empirical evidence is

given to demonstrate their existence.

 

1Morse, Cutler and Fink (1964) give a categorization
of program ty es (p. 28) including those with dynamic substrata
( sychiatric- ynamic psychoeducational, and chaotic and
those with specific earning or conditioning theory substrata
(psychological behavioral, educational, and primitive) and a
third category of circumstantial (naturalistic ty e programs).
They state ". . . a multitude of dimensions ran t ough the
complex characteristics of the several programs and that no
sin le dimension or set of categories sufficed for their de-
scription. Certain extremes were clear, but no single con-
tinuum encompassed the variation." In this study, much the
same rationale was utilized for differentiation of " ermissive"
and "structured." Specifically, " rmissive" will re er to
dynamic oriented choices of t e T Q and "structured" Will refer
to the learning or conditioning theory choices on the TOQ.

the tea<
“he teac

noted we

Speciali
they are
state tr.
fluences
logical 1
C0n8u1t31
inStitutj
attitudeE
teachers
of these
teaching

support I

 

 

48

It has also been implied that the behaving style of
the teacher should differ according to the setting in which
the teacher teaches. The two settings most frequently
noted were the open treatment (public school) and the closed
treatment setting. It is likely that there are characteris-
tic behaving styles which are specific to particular types
of treatment settings. Intuitively, it is to be expected
that a wide difference exists in style between teachers in
specialized treatment, research, and training settings when
they are compared to teachers in public school settings or
state training school settings. Specific examples of in-
fluences likely to influence style are: (a) type of patho-
logical behavior exhibited in the classroom, (b) amount of
consultation and reciprocal valuing of staff roles, (c) the
institutional attitude toward etiology, and (d) the teacher's
attitudes toward the target children. Observation of
teachers in several settings seems to support the validity
of these differences. The functional descriptions of
teaching roles, as found in expert opinion, also seem to
support this contention.

Finally, professional eXperience suggests that cer-
tain theoretical orientations have an aura of pseudo-pro-
fessional attractiveness to many who teach disturbed
children.

It would seem that the value of a preferred theo-

retical orientation is often based upon the presence of or

Ii
1 Elli 9‘ VOI

n u

49

lack of ideal conditions rather than its potential effective-
ness with a specific group of disturbed children, showing
specific symptoms, and modes of pathology. In many instances
a continuing controversy exists as to the use of "permissive"
or "structured" classrooms for disturbed children without
cognizance of the typology of the children. Thus, teachers
who have large classes of potentially aggressive and
destructive children will maintain (because of professional
attractiveness) that they prefer one orientation but that

the setting in which they work will not allow it. If this

is actually the case one would expect congruence between
choice of ideal theoretical orientation, and the teacher's
underlying motives rather than congruence between current

theoretical orientation and underlying motives.

Research Hypotheses

Three main hypotheses are advanced on the premise
that there would be observed differences in patterns of
underlying motives, as measured by the Teacher Preference
Schedule, and-in theoretical orientation to teaching emo-
tionally disturbed children, as measured by the TOQ. A
further premise is that the patterns of motives observed
could be fonmulated into characteristic teacher behaving
styles which would be unique for teachers of emotionally
disturbed children, and thus provide a meaningful typology.
The first hypothesis was tested for the entire population
and all others were tested for each treatment setting

group within.the total population.

50

Hypotheses were stated as follows:

1. There will be describable teacher behaving
styles for the total population of teachers
of emotionally disturbed children.

2. There will be describable teacher behaving
styles for each of the treatment setting
groups.

3. There will be a positive relationship between
stated theoretical orientation and teacher
behaving style.

One sub-hypothesis, pertaining to behaving styles
of teachers was stated, since it related directly to the
study and could be readily tested.

4. There will be separate, describable teacher

behaving styles for male and female teachers.

Eppplption and Sample

The population included persons who were in-service
teachers of disturbed children in the five representative
types of treatment settings described in Chapter One. The
first four treatment settings (State Mental Hospital, In-
tensive Treatment, Residential Treatment, and Training
Schools) will be referred to as closed treatment settings
and the public school classes as open treatment settings.
This dichotomy is in keeping with the classification sug-
gested by Alt (1960). A complete range of treatment settings

was available and were very much like the descriptions given.

V
' 0.;£_.'Y~ v "'-

educat:
settin;
progra:
of stu
in the
studen
tional
sisted

Course

was a
by Se
Thr0u
ChOSe

were

51

All but one of the settings was within the State of Michigan.
The out-state treatment setting was included because it had
a sufficiently large number of teachers who were, in con-
trast to other settings, generally not graduates of special
education programs. A final reason for selection of this
setting was its reputation for excellence of educational
programming for disturbed children. Two contrast groups
of students from Michigan State University were included
in the population. The first consisted of undergraduate
students who were enrolled in the special education for emo-
tionally disturbed children curriculum. The second con-
sisted of graduate students who were enrolled in a graduate
course on education of emotionally disturbed children.

The method of choosing the sample for this study
was a form of non-probability purposive sampling as described
by Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook (1961, pp. 520).
Through professional judgment, representative settings were
chosen and all persons who were teaching in that setting
were invited to participate in the study. The actual method
of selection was: (a) the educational supervisor or a re-
sponsible teacher-inecharge was contacted by personal letter
which explained the general purpose of the study, gave the
population of the study, and the time involved for each
person. The letter also specified anonymity for all per-
sons and settings and asked the supervisor to solicit his
teaching staff as participants in the study. A return post-

card was included upon which the supervisor indicated the

v 'D

puff. 3 ‘3 Z"
tpon rc
dated :
with d
settin:
:icipa
along '
:eache

preset

also g

lated
settin
in the
Publir
only 1
had 0
devel
train
teach
lar t,
P0881!
insta,
and in
Hot in!

and jU(

52

number of teachers who were actually willing to participate.
Upon receipt of the return post-card the investigator mailed
dated sets of schedules to the responding supervisor along
with directions for their return at no cost to the treatment
setting. Personal telephone calls were made to each par-
ticipating setting and the mailing procedure was re-explained
along with stress upon the need to refrain from coercing
teachers to participate in the study. Reassurance of the
preservation of anonymity of teachers and settings was

also given.

The rationale for choice of the settings was formu-
lated to provide for a full range of types of treatment
settings, accounting for all possible variations. Included
in the selection of closed settings were, for example, both
public and private settings; settings serving only boys and
only girls and others serving both sexes; settings which
had old, well-established programs and those with new and
developing programs; and finally, those with specially
trained teachers and those without specially trained
teachers. The number of settings chosen within a particu-
lar type was based upon the need to maintain, in so far as
possible, equal numbers of teachers in each group. In some
instances the choice of settings exhausted the universe
and in others it did not, as several possible settings were
not included. The investigator's professional knowledge

and judgement of the quality of educational program was, in

511 cas
setting-
g’b) A 1i
proved p'
:hildren
Listed on
the popul.
return p0:
above was
as indivi
(C) Under
graph deg
m‘mts wit
participa

wfire Com

 

partiCipé

(d) Grad

Of the S

 

53

all cases, the deciding factor in choice of a particular
setting.

(b) A list of Michigan Department of Public Instruction ap-
proved public school programs for emotionally disturbed
children was obtained and all classroom teachers who were
listed on the approval application forms were included in
the population for that group. The same personal letter -
return post-card mailing system as described under (a)
above was utilized. In this group all persons were contacted
as individuals rather than through administrative channels.
(c) Undergraduate students were asked to read a two para-
graph description of the study during enrollment appoint-
ments with their academic advisor. Those who wished to
participate were asked to sign a list and subsequently

were contacted by the investigator who arranged for each
participant to receive a dated set of schedules along with
instructions for their return to the College of Education
at Michigan State University.

(d) Graduate students were read a two paragraph description
of the study during one of their regularly scheduled class
meetings of Education 882 - "Seminar on Education of Emo-
tionally Disturbed Children" and were asked to participate
if they chose. The instructor of the course made dated sets
of schedules available and asked that they be returned at a
future class meeting. The completed schedules were then

turned over to the investigator.

54

Follow-up of initial non-respondents was by both
letter and telephone, where appropriate. After a potential
participant group or individual failed to respond to a
second personal letter with another return post-card they
were no longer considered for participation. In one in-
stance an educational supervisor responded to the initial
invitation by asking that his teachers (after discussion)
be excluded from participation because of a previous commit-
ment to another research project. Two other educational
supervisors failed to respond to any communication.
Cooperation was judged to be generally good except for those
in the public school and graduate student groups, who in
effect, were most difficult to contact and who were not
part of an established group, but rather responded as in-
dividuals.

Follow-up of participants who had received dated
schedules but who had not returned them by the specified
date was by way of telephone call to educational super—
visor in closed settings and through a general acknowledgement
and request-for-return letter to individuals. In some cases
up to two letters were sent and when possible telephone
calls were utilized to effect return of outstanding schedules.
This procedure was carried out with caution, as every pos-
sible effort was made to maintain anonymity and to pre-
serve an attitude of freedom from coercion among the par-

ticipants.

 

IN

. ‘iilul
( roul‘ a

1‘15
1

.. a...

55

Table 2 gives the combined data on potential number
of participants, the replies to invitations to participate
in the study, and the numbers of completed schedules returned.
The actual number of completed schedules returned was 148
which represented 88% of the schedules sent out and 78% of
the potential participants, based upon the purposive sampling

method.

Ins trumentati on and Data

The selection of instruments for assessing person-
ality characteristics was influenced by four issues relevant
to the purposes of the study. Substantial consideration was
given first to the behavioral definition of personality and
the non-cognitive formulation of the dimensions of teacher
behavior advanced in Chapter II. This formulation neces-
sitated an instrument which would yield objective assess-
ment of "healthy, positively oriented" personality charac-
teristics rather than those of the "pathological, negatively-
oriented" types. A second consideration was the particular
population under study and the need for differentiation
among types of teachers. An instrument which gave assess-
ments which were functionally congruent with the performance
expected of the study population, as teaChers, was required.
Third, the results of previous studies and the ability of
the instruments used in them to communicate information

Which was tenable data for the determination of teaCher

56

 

 

 

 

“fl

 

ill

 

 

 

 

 

 

l‘

[I

mmqbnmmom QMHMAmZOU mo ZMDHNM Qz< MH<mHUHHm<m
OH monH<HH>zH OH mmzommmm .QMHU<HZOU mammo<m9 ho mmmZDz

N MHQ<H

 

«m He He He Hmuownnsm
m m m m z pas:
mH ON ON ON 2 uHcD
0H 0H 0H @H H was:
mucoachHon
now Hoommm
mfimalmmm
NN wN wN 0N Hmuoeunnm
H m m m M uasa
oH mH mH mH h was:
m m m m H awn:
m o H m 0H mzuacz
usmfiummuy
HmHucopammm
Nm Nm Nm Nm HauoeuQSm
NH NH NH NH 0 pass
NH_ NH NH NH m was:
N . N N N. m uHaD
o o o o n was:
uGoEummuH
mwflmmmmmw
NN mN H mN 0N Hmuoeundm
N m m n 0 ads:
o NH H NH mH m ness
0 o o o d pas:
Hmuammom
Houcmz
pmauduom use ucmm omaommmm wGHHHHZ opmawowuumm .336 mafia. Ga. 9.5km
onDvonum mmHsvosom oz uoz .ou wcHHHHB munmmaowuummmtu wcauuom
pouoHano COHumum>GH on hHamm 909532 Hmaucouom uamfiummua

E

 

 

Hilli ill}.

 

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

qu HOH HN m OOH qON H<HOH
0 ON ON ON pawnsum
mumsvmuw
ON ON ON ON ucmOSum
mumsmmuwumuca
o o HN N o Hm Hoonom UHHndm
Ooaudumm uDo unmm mmaommom wGHHHHS mammaoaunmm .HHVSum 35H. Ga. @596
mmHDOosom mmHDOmnom oz uoz ou wcHHHHZ muammauauummmtu wcauumm
OmuoHQEoo Goaume>cH ou zHaom umnESZ Hmwucmuom unusummuH

 

 

 

mmqbnmmom QMHMHmZOU mo ZMDHMM Oz< MH<mHUHHm<m
OH monH¢HH>zH OH mmzommmm .QMHU<HZOU mammo<me m0 mmmZDz

.u.coo N mqm<H

 

58

behavior. Of particular concern was the need to utilize

an assessment device with sufficient projectivity that im-
portant descriptive data could be obtained about the func-
tioning or "psychological roles" (Redl and Wattenberg, 1959)
of teachers of disturbed children. Finally, consideration
was given to practical variables such as administration

and scoring procedures, cost, and the availability of norma-
tive and validational data. A special consideration was

the need to utilize an existing standardized instrument
rather than undertake to develop an instrument.

A number of instruments were examined and discarded
since they failed to meet one or more of the previously
stated considerations:

1. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,

a self-report test for clinical description of
abnormal personality patterns.

2. The 16PF Test, a self-report test which has
several advantages for research purposes and
yields sixteen scores on traits which were de-
rived from factor analytic methodology.

3. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, a
paired-comparison self-report test which
yields scores on fifteen needs which are use-

ful to counselors.

59

4. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, a
self-report test which measures ten relatively
independent traits which were derived from
factor analytic methodology.

The instruments selected for use in the study were
the Teacher Preference Schedule (TPS) (Stern and Masling,
1958) and the Theoretical Orientations to Teadhing Emotion-
ally Disturbed Children Questionnaire (TOQ). Copies of both
tests and their separate answer sheets are included as
Appendices B and C. The data upon which these tests were
developed was derived from a number of different sources in-
cluding cognitive formulation of teacher motivational types,
intensive interviews and individual projective tests of
teachers who were thought to represent the various motiva-
tional types. The TPS consists of a measure of gratifica-
tions found in teaching (Form G) and a measure of attitudes
about educational practices (Form A). Each form consists
of 100 items distributed in blocks of ten, corresponding to
the list of motives given in Appendix A. Appendix D gives
a list of motives and item numbers for the G Form.which was
the main instrument used in the study. Stern and Masling
have given the following description:

These two tests are self-administering, fol-

lowing instructions reproduced with the ques-

tion booklets, and require from 25 to 40

minutes to complete. Both forms require re-

sponses to be made on a sixpoint scale, rang-

ing from "strong dislike, disapproval" to

"strong liking, preference, approval" in the
case of the gratification items, and "strong

 

I'm 5‘

 

 

(n
F"

(I)
Ff

60

disagreement" for the attitude items. A

special answer sheet was designed for this

purpose. . . (Stern and Masling, 1958, p. 37)

The scoring procedure provides for a score of one (1) for
strong rejection and a score of six (6) for strong accep—
tance. The total score per scale, then, can range between

a minimum of ten (in the case of all ten items being

strongly rejected) to a maximum of sixty (all ten items being
strongly accepted).

The tests were validated on two independent samples
through the use of item-discrimination analyses and inter-
scale relationship tests. There was generally a high level
of discrimination for all items. The range indices was
from -.11 to +1.00, with a median of +.43 and the lowest
scale average was +.26, well above the value indicating a
significant discrimination. The inter-scale relationship
tests were carried out through tetrachoric correlation and
cluster analysis of the two scales. The correlations were
generally positive and extensive tabular data is given to
support the reliability of the scales. (Stern and Masling,
1958, pp. 43-48) An analysis of variance (samples, forms,
and scales) yielded significant differences above the .001
level giving additional confidence that there were signifi-
cant differences between Forms G and A and between the ten
scales in each forms Travers, Wallen, and Wodtke (1963)
substantiate these normative and validational indexes in
their study of teacher needs in which they utilized the TPS

as a criterion instrument.

:‘e:
an;

WI

61

The TOQ consists of four separate one (1) paragraph
descriptions of specific educational frameworks and classroom
approaches which are often associated with teaching dis-
turbed children. The particular descriptive paragraphs
utilized in this study were adapted from a study of pro—
grams for disturbed children completed by Morse, Cutler,
and Fink (1964) in which they formulated seven descriptions
of programs. Only four were utilized in development of the
TOQ. The descriptions for classroom approach were gener-
ated from the previously discussed notions of permissive
and structured programs. The teacher is asked to choose
an educational framework which is most and least descrip-
tive of the manner in Which he functions in the classroom
under both current and ideal conditions. The teacher is
also asked to make a choice of classroom approach on a four-
point scale which ranges from.permissive-need acceptant to
structured-interference oriented. Corresponding titles
for descriptions of educational framework.and classroom
approach were given in Chapter I.

The TPS was scored by hand with stencils made for
each scale from blank TPS answer sheets. The scores for
each item on both forms of the TPS, the total score for each
scale from.the TPS, and the five choices form fine TOQ along
with the teachers identifying number and sex were transferred
to an 8 X 11 summary sheet, which was then the source of the
raw data for analysis. A check for accuracy of scoring and

transfer was performed by taking a twenty per cent random

WEre
numbe
0f 0n
hand
that
°f th.

62

sample of the summary forms and rescoring them by hand, mak-
ing note of the number of errors. It was found that the

amount of scoring error was negligible.2

Procedures for Analysis

In keeping with the purposes of the study, the pre-
viously stated rationale for descriptive analysis, and the
goal of inferring to classroom behavior from assessment of
underlying needs, it was decided to emphasize configura-
tional analysis rather than conventional statistical pro-
cedures as the method for analysis of the data. To some
degree the non-linear and inter-dependent nature of the data
itself required a form of analysis where the usual statis-
tical assumptions need not apply, and yet an effective anal-
ysis could be carried out. The use of configurational
methodology has been reviewed by Gaier and Lee (1953) par-
ticularly in relation to personality profiles. They con-
tend that "there is a growing belief that a configuration
is important in its own right," and that "the discriminatory

power of a prognostic instrument is partially a function of

 

2In this test for accuracy of scoring, the sample of
summary forms consisted of thirty (30) forms in which there
were a total of 6000 scoring operations required. The total
number of errors was twenty-one which is less than one half
of one per cent error (the actual per cent was .35) in the
hand scoring. This low per cent of error is an indication
that there was a high degree of accuracy in the scoring phase
of the study.

L

the
v. A
unu

ana

Tra‘
TPS
anaj
all
of t

and

63

how it is scored, and that an analysis which takes into
account patterns of responses may have more predictive use-
fulness than the traditional total-score approach." (Gaier
and Lee, 1953, p. 142) Cronbach and Gleser (1953) have dis-
cussed methods of forming descriptive indices applicable to
the purpose of this study and they have formulated what they
term "A Generalized Concept of Pattern Similarity." (p. 459)

The use of configurational or pattern analysis has
been discussed by Travers, Wallen, Reid, and Wodtke (1961)
in their study of teacher classroom behavior. They supported
the view that the validity of analysis of variables such as
underlying needs could be enhanced through use of pattern
analysis.

. . . pattern analysis procedure lends itself

logically to the prediction of complex be-

havior based upon need theory. In a situa-

tion as complex as that of the classroom it

is probable that needs interact in various
ways in determining behavior. . .

. . . in predicting the classroom behavior of

a teacher one might expect the patterns of

his needs to predict his classroom behavior

at least as well, and perhaps better, than

the absolute strength of the single needs.

(Travers, ££_al., 1961, p. 601)
Travers , et a1. (1961) as previously stated, utlized the
TPS and found it to be a better predictor, with pattern
analytic methodology, than other similar instruments. Over-
all, they found that independent need scores (from a battery
of tests) predicted classroom behavior as well as pattern

scores. This method was not a fonnal configurational analysis

and some problems were encountered in defining strength of

 

 

2e
th
ev

cl

pa

V»

.1'\_

f0

64

needs. There was also evidence of inter-correlations between
the pattern and conventional scores. Their results do, how-
ever, support the usefulness of the TPS as a predictor of
classroom behavior when pattern analysis is the method of
data analysis.

The specific method utilized in the study was Hier-
archial Classification by Reciprocal Pairs (HICLASS) through
which it was possible to classify the persons who partici-
pated in the study into types, or clusters, according to
McQuitty's specific definition of a type. McQuitty has
described a type and the methods for generating types as

follows:
a) McQuitty's definition of a type:

. . . every 'member' of a cluster is more like
every other 'member' of a cluster than it is
like any 'member' of any other cluster. 'Mem-
ber' is here used in the first level of classi-
fication to refer to the items; but in the
second it refers either to a reciprocal pair
of items, or an item with a reciprocal pair of
items, or an item with a reciprocal pair, or
an item with an item, and in a later level it
refers to a reciprocal pair of pairs of items,
etc.; 'member' refers to the variables between
which the indices mediate at any level of
classification. The classification proceeds
by selecting the reciprocal pairs from every
'matrix at every level of classification until
the classification is completed. (McQuitty,
1964, p. 451)

Hierarchial Classification by Reciprocal
Pairs possesses at least three unique advan-
tages: (a) it classifies all data into clusters
which are redefined and presumably become more
dependable as the analysis proceeds, (b) it
does not superimpose the form of the structure,
and (c) it indicates whether the classification
is dimensional or typal. (McQuitty, 1964, p. 452)

 

 

 

0f

the

65

b) Description of the method:

Hierarchial Classification by Reciprocal
Pairs is a statistical method for classifying
people (institutions or other objects) into a

hierarchial system based on indices of asso-
ciation between them. (McQuitty, 1964a, p. 1)

The method selects initial pairs of ob-

jects which are indicative of types in terms

of common characteristics and generally ex-

pands and improves the types by incorporating

additional objects and by eliminating charac-

teristics which are irrelevant to the descrip-

tion of the types. The method realizes both

types of any size and successive levels of

classification while at the same time limit-

ing itself to reciprocal pairs. (McQuitty,

1964a, p. l)

A matrix of interassociations between each variable
and every other variable (item scores from the TPS, by
groups) was generated. The measures of association used
were agreement scores computed as part of the program for
HICLASS available at the Michigan State University Computer
Laboratory. All of the HICLASS procedures were performed
on the Control Data Corporation 3600 Computer operated by
the Laboratory. (Michigan State University: Computer Insti-
tute for Social Science Research, 1964).

Several HICLASS analyses were performed to meet the
tests of the stated hypotheses. HICLASS analysis was per—
formed for teacher and contrast groups, for the individual
sub-groups by treatment setting, for sub-groups according
to TOQ profile, and by sex. Table 3 gives a presentation

of the analysis populations, the sub-groups involved, and

the respective numbers of respondents in each group.

AWHHndmmvl 3: ...w

 

:U/Vm 2 H

runway—37H Qz< WHWW‘HANZAV WWSUH: ZH QMQDQUZH WANDOWNU

HY HNJOH/NF.

66

.mmH mnu ou omcoammu ouonEOUGH mo mmsmomn UoumnHEHHm mm3 ucoocommou oaom

 

 

 

 

 

mm meaom u museumoa
NO mHm: u mumSUmmH
xmm .mmauoam - s mamsamc<
me numonmm< EooummmHO
Obhduosuum use xnoSoEmum Hmcoaumosvm conduosuumab u muonomoH
mH nomoumm< EooummmHo
Oousuonuumss was xuo3mEmum Hmcowumosvm Omanuusuum u muonommH
mm Ham .maauoum emxaz - masseuse
OH oHamoum nouSHUDHumGO a mumnumme
OO oHamoum Oouduufluum : mumnomofi
masons-n:m mmaauoum ooh .mmaaoam - m mammams<
o mmumsnmuu u mquOSum
ON mumsvmuwuoccs n mucovnum
o mHoonum UHHDSm u mumnumma
mmm mHoonum wGHGHQHH u mumnomoH
NN ucmfiummue HMHuGoOHmom : muonomoy
Nm ucmfiummuH o>amcmucH : mumnommfi
NN mHMuHmmom Hausa: u amazommH
mmdouwunam ucoEumouH .wm<Hon n N mamkac<
ON HHm .asouo ummuuaoo ucmcsum
OHH couOHHSU Oonuduman mo mumnomma
asouu sauce .mmauoam - H mamsamc<
anonu cH coaumHzmom
nonesz

 

 

 

 

mDOMOImDm mo<m zH mmmZDz Dz< mHm>A<z< mm<AUHm zH QMQDHOZH mmsomw

m MHm<H

 

67

The output from the computer program was inspected
for accuracy by checking the original matrices and examing
them for reciprocal pairs. Notation was made of the numbers
of reciprocal pairs and the number of agreements for each
reciprocal pair at each hierarchial level in order to de-
termine the point at which the obtained patterns (hierarchial
types) were most valid, and to determine the common charac—
teristics for each reciprocal pair, by level, in each of
the typal analyses. In this manner it was possible to order
the emergent types by magnitude on a continuum as either
(a) very strong (the type with the highest number of level
one and level two reciprocal pairs), (b) strong (the type
with the next highest number of level one and level two
reciprocal pairs) and so forth including, (c) weak, and
(d) insignificant. No descriptions were made for specific
plots in which there was no pattern or type.

When the types within each analysis group were iden-
tified by structure (number of persons composing the type)
and by magnitude (number of reciprocal pairs) (McQuitty,
1964a, p. 3), the various styles were formulated by plotting
the mean TPS scores (the ten underlying motives listed in
Appendix A according to the fonmat utilized by Stern, g£_al.
(1960) in their development of the TPS. The first four
motives form the "child centered (permissive)" behaving

style and the last four form the "teacher centered (struc-

 

tured)" behaving style with motives critical and stat s

68

striving falling into either of the two basic behaving styles.
(Stern, g£_§l., 1960, p. 43) On each plot the TPS scores
(range 10 to 60) were marked to indicate low and high motive,
thus giving a measure of strength of behaving style for each
of the analysis sub-groups.

No further analysis, beyond use of mean scores, was
attempted in view of the nature of the data generated by use
of the TPS. This is in keeping with the preservation of the
underlying order of the data as suggested by Lorge (1950).
The configurational analysis was of sufficient strength
that it was possible to formulate the behaving styles and
remain within the framework of descriptive analysis which
was specified in the initial section of this chapter.

One method of analysis of responses to the TOQ was
by frequency distributions and percentage representations
of the choices of the various groups of teachers.3 Another
method of analysis of responses to the TOQ was by determin-
ing the relationships between choices of current and ideal
educational frameworks. This analysis was by Pearson pro-
duct moment correlation performed on the Control Data Cor-
poration 3600 Computer operated by the Michigan State Uni-

versity Computer Laboratory. (Michigan State University:

 

3Analysis of the TOQ responses was carried out for
the teachers only since it required responses based upon cur-
rent performance in a classroom for disturbed children.

69

Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963). The procedure for
test of significance of correlation coefficients according
to McNemar (1949) was also utilized. Finally, the TOQ re-
sponses were formulated into three basic patterns based
upon the combinations of responses to choice of educational
framework and classroom approach. The titles of the indi-
vidual paragraphs of the TOQ were listed in Chapter II, under
Definitions of Specific Terms. In the formulation of the
three basic patterns, paragraph 1 (Psychiatric Dynamic) and
paragraph 3 (Psycho-educational) of Form 1: Educational
Framework and paragraph B (responses 1 and 2) of Form 11:
Classroom Approach were denoted as representing the unstruc—
tured (permissive) orientation while paragraph 2 (Psycholog-
ical-Behavioral) and paragraph 4 (Educational) of Form I:
Educational Framework and paragraph A (responses 3 and 4)
of Form 11: Classroom Approach were denoted as representing
the structured orientation. A category of mixed Educational
Framework and Classroom Approach was also denoted. On the
basis of these derived profiles the third HICLASS analysis,
previously noted, was generated. Finally, various frequency
distributions and percentages of TOQ responses were utilized
where they would enhance the basic analysis scheme.

The final HICLASS analysis procedure was according
to sex of the teacher group. In the initial stages of the
analysis it was determined that the number of male teachers

in this study (and by inference, the percentage teaching

70

emotionally disturbed children) was much higher than the per—
centage of male teachers in the total teaching profession.
It was decided to include the sex dichotomy as part of the
total analysis.

The specific statistical procedures utilized were
the Mann-Whitney U Test (Siegel, 1956) and the Kruskal-Wallis
One Way Analysis of Variance (H) (Siegel, 1956). The U is
a nonparametric statistical test for two independent samples
when at least an ordinal level of measurement has been
achieved and the H is utilized for independent samples.
These tests were used to test the null hypothesis that there
were no statistical differences between identified behaving
styles, where magnitudes were equal. The .05 level of
significance was set as significant for acceptance or rejec-
tion of the null hypotheses. The achieved level of signifi-
cance is reported for all of the statistical tests which

were carried out.

 

4In this study there were 52.1 per cent males and
47.8 per cent females in contrast to the national average
for all classroom teachers reported by the National Educa-
tion Association (1963). "In 1950, only 21.3 per cent of the
public school teachers were men. The percentage has been
increasing since the low of 14.1 per cent in 1919-20. Cur-
rently 31.3 per cent of the public school teachers are men."
(National Education Association, 1965)

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In this chapter the data gathered by the procedures
described in Chapter III is presented, analyzed, and inter-
preted. The two basic sources of data for the study were
teacher's responses to the TOQ and teacher's and contrast
group reSponses to the TPS. The sequence of presentation
of data will be first, to present the results of the
analysis of the teacher's responses to the TOQ and then the
results of the HICLASS which was partially based upon the
profiles generated from TOQ data. This procedure for pre-
sentation and analysis appears to enhance the descriptive
emphasis of the study and also, to allow for testing of the

main hypotheses of the study.

Analysis of TOQ Responses
The first procedure was to attempt to determine the
predominant choices teachers made in response to the TOQ.
It was possible to categorize responses to the TOQ as either
"permissive" or "structured" orientations according to the
previously noted criteria concerning dynamic or learning
theory substrata. These criteria have been noted in Chapter

II and in Chapter III. The teacher's responses to Form I

71

72

(Educational Framework) represents a theoretical choice per-
taining to methods of teaching disturbed children and Form
11 (Classroom Approach) represents a similar choice per-
taining to the process of teaching. Thus, by tallying the
teacher's choice of current educational framework (EF) and
classroom approach (CA), by group, a measure of consistency
of theoretical approach was generated. Table 4 presents the
combined data on "current-most" educational framework and

classroom approach for all teachers and for each treatment

TABLE 4

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF TEACHER RESPONSE TO TOQ CURRENT
EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND CLASSROOM APPROACH ACCORDINGTK)
THE PERMISSIVE-STRUCTURED DICHOTOMY

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
Educational Framework Classroom Approacha
Group Permissive Structured Permissive Structured
N % N % N % N %
Teachers,
All 62 53 54 46 31 26 84 73
Mental
Hospital 14 63 8 36 2 9 20 90
Intensive
Treatment 20 63 12 37 7 22 24 77
Residential
Treatment 10 45 12 54 4 18 18 81
Training
School 15 48 16 51 15 48 16 51
Public
School 3 33 6 66 3 33 6 66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aone teacher did not respond to this form.

setting group. On the whole, more teachers choose the per-
missive mode of educational framework (method of teaching)

while fewer teachers choose the permissive mode of classroom

73

approach (process of teaching). The respective percentages
from the table are 53 per cent and 26 per cent. The oppo-
site pattern of choice exists for the structured approach
with 46 per cent of the teachers choosing the structured
educational framework and 73 per cent choosing the structured
classroom approach. These percentages would seem to indicate
that teachers of disturbed children make a definite separa-
tion between the methods of teaching and the process of
teaching. The percentage differences seem to substantiate
this finding for the total group of teachers. A similar
comparison can be made for each treatment setting group from
the data within Table 4. These frequencies and percentages
give, in effect, a measure of consistency of choice for each
treatment setting group. A group can be termed consistent

in method and process where its collective percentages for
permissiveness or structure are uniformly high on both di-
mensions and inconsistency is noted where a group's collec-
tive percentages are highcn1one dimension and low on another.
In Table 4 the mental hospital and intensive treatment groups
have higher EF permissive percentages and higher CA struc-
tured percentages indicating a mixed pattern which is incon-
sistent in terms of total theoretical orientation. The
training school and public school groups have the reverse
mixed pattern with concomitant inconsistency. The residen-
tial treatment group is completely consistent. This trend

seems to reflect a preference by teachers in training schools

74

and public schools special classes for the structured, learn-
ing theory mode within a permissive classroom atmosphere
while the mental hospital and intensive treatment groups
prefer permissive methods within a structured classroom at-
mosphere. The residential treatment group prefers uniform
structure. The training school and public school groups
are, by tradition and purpose (see descriptions in Chapter
II), oriented toward continuing academic performance and re-
education (both have learning theory substrata) while the
mental hospital and intensive treatment (the group with the
largest percentage differences) are oriented, in theory,
toward therapeutic education (dynamic substrata) and re—edu-
cation, within the concept of psychiatric team treatment

of disturbed children. The residential treatment group is
appropriately between the two major orientations as its
description and purposes indicate.

The teacher's responses to the TOQ included choices
of both current and ideal educational framework which was
most and least descriptive of their classrooms. This for-
mat generated a measure of the relationship which existed
between the educational frameworks in which the teachers
perceived themselves as most and least comfortable. Pearson
product moment correlations (g) were computed, on the Michi-
gan State University Computer Laboratory CDC 3600 Computer,
for both sets of measures. The resulting E's were tested
for significance according to the procedure recommended by

McNemar (1949) wherein the t-test with N-2 degrees of freedom

75

was computed for samples with N<30 and a critical ratio (CR)
was computed for samples with N)30. Where the CR was greater
than 2.58 the corresponding 3 was denoted as significant.
Table 5 presents the correlation between current and ideal

EF which are most and least descriptive for all teachers and
for each treatment group. The level of significance, where
appropriate is also indicated for each 3. These g's served
as an additional indication of consistency of response to

the TOQ by separate groups and also as an index of the rela-
tive group satisfaction with current program. Where the g
for most descriptive ("What I do now and what I would like

to do.") is lower than that for least descriptive ("What I

do not do and what I would not do."), an assumption of sat-
isfaction can be made for the group. Only the intensive
treatment group reflects definite dissatisfaction. The trend
toward dissatisfaction is strong for all teachers, for the
mental hospital and public school groups (where both g's

are significant) and more limited for other groups.

The final procedure for analysis of the TOQ was by
formulation of the choices from Form I and Form II into
patterns which would be consistent for each individual within
treatment groups. This was accomplished by dichotomizing
the teacher's responses into the previously noted permissive
and structured modes and then combining the EF and CA dicho-
tomized responses into consistent patterns for each indivi-

dual widhin the various treatment setting groups. Thus,

76

TABLE 5

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CURRENT AND IDEAL EDUCATIONAL
FRAMEWORK WHICH ARE MOST AND LEAST DESCRIPTIVE
FOR ALL TEACHERS AND FOR EACH TREATMENT GROUP

 

 

 

— o o o 0
Most Descriptive Least Descriptive
Group N r CR or t g CR or t

Teachers. All 119 .30 3.33* .61 6.77*
Mental Hospital 22 .38 1.83a .74 4.91b
Intensive

Treatment 32 .59 5.37* .39 2.16‘
Residential -

Treatment 22 .008 N}S. .48 2.44c
Training School 34 .23 1.32d .55 3.152 *
Public School 9 .66 2.32 .81 ' 3.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant CR

a. p>.10<.05; b. p>.01; c. p>.05<.02

d. p = .05; e. p>.01
when an individual teacher's response to EF and CA were both
structured choices it could be assumed that his stated orien-
tation to teaching disturbed children follows those approaches
which have learning theory substrata, and similarly, the
reverse, for those with the permissive orientation. A third
group of teaChers was also identified. They were termed
eclectic or mixed as their choices relect either the struc-
tured mode of educational framework and the permissive mode
of classroom approach or the opposite pattern. The first
mixed group (structured EF and permissive CA) will be referred
to as "Mixed-Orientation A" and the second mixed group
(permissive EF and structured CA) will be referred to as
Mixed-Orientation B." Table 6 presents the grouped data for
teachers choices of structured, permissive and mixed theoret-

ical orientations.

77

TABLE 6

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF TEACHERS CHOOSING STRUCTURED,
PERMISSIVE, OR MIXED THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS
(EF AND CA)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘fi _'1_: ==
Group S truc ture d Permis s ive Mixe—
Group N N % N % N %
Teachers, All 117a 40 34 19 16 58 49
Mental Hospitals 22 7 32 1 4 14 64
Intensive
Treatment 31 8 26 4 12 19 61
Residential
Treatment 22 11 50 3 14 8 36
Training School 33 9 27 9 27 15 45
Public School 9 5 '55 2 22 2 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aTwo respondents did not respond to both EF and CA

The majority of all teachers (58) preferred the
mixed orientation when the responses are taken as a whole.
No group has a majority choice of the permissive approach
while the mental hospital and intensive treatment groups
have more than fifty per cent choice of the mixed approach.
The residential treatment and public school groups have more
than fifty per cent choice of the structured approach. The
training school group tends toward the mixed approach
although a relatively high percentage of teachers in that
group choose the permissive approach. It is to be noted
that training school teachers choose the permissive approach
more than any other group. To some degree these results are
consistent with those derived from Table 4. The mental
hOSpital and intensive treatment responses for method and
process choices are consistent in their collective advoca-

tion of a mode which emphasizes treatment and education.

78

The residential treatment group continues in its structured
orientation as in the previous analysis. The training
school group continues as mixed in orientation. However,
the public school group now becomes structured in its total
orientation. Table 7 summarizes the highest percentage
choices from both analyses and indications are given of

the size of the per cent, where appropriate.

TABLE 7

SUMMARIZATION OF HIGHEST PERCENTAGES OF GROUP CHOICE
OF THEORETICAL ORIENTATION TO TEACHING
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

 

 

 

 

Dichotomized Only Dichotomized
Group 4(Table 4) and Combined,
EF CA (Table 6)
Teachers, All Permissive Structured Mixed**
Mental Hospital Permissive Structured Mixed**
Intensive
Treatment Permissive Structured Mixed*
Residential
Treatment Structured Structured Structured*
Training School Structured Permissive Mixed**
Public School Structured . Permissive Structured*

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 50% choice by total group
*# 45% choice by total group
This final form of patterns by structured, permissive,
and mixed was utilized for a HICLASS analysis which included
a further differentiation of the mixed pattern although no

further frequency analysis was computed for the mixed group.

Result§_of HICLASS Pattern Analysis of TPS Data

Sixteen separate HICLASS were carried out on the data

from the TPS. The method for determining the level at which

79

the obtained patterns (hierarchical types) were most valid,

and for determining the common characteristics for each

reciprocal pair, by level, for each of the analyses was

given in Chapter III.

The corresponding tables for num-

bers of reciprocal pairs and mean number of agreements by

level are given below.

TABLE 8

NUMBER OF RECIPROCAL FAIRS AND MEAN NUMBER OF
AGREEMENTS BY HIERARCHICAL LEVEL .

8a . . . For Teacher and Contrast Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Group; N=119 Contrast Group, N=29
Hierarchical. Reciprocal Agreements Reciprocal Agreements
Level Pairs Pairs
1 18 44.2 6 46.6
2 8 40.1 2 39.5
3 11 38.9 2 40.0
4 8 37.3 1 39.0
5 7 30.7 2 27.5
6 4 29.2 2 20.5
7 3
Total 56 40.4 15 38.4
8b . . . For Groups According to Treatment Setting
Mental Intensive Residen. Training Public
Hierarchical Hospital Treatment Treatment Ehool §_c_hool
Level P i P )‘E P X P x P x
1 5 37.4 4 43.5 4 38.7 4 41.7 2 38.0
2 2 35.5 4 39.0 4 31.7 2 41.0 1 30.0
3 2 29.0 3 35.6 2 26.0 4 35.5 1 28.0
4 1 27.0 3 31.3 3 32.3
Total 9 38.1 14 37.3 10 33.4 13 37.5 4 33.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8c . . . For Groups According to TOQ Profiles:
Structured and Permissive
Structured Permissive
Hierarchical Orientation - Opientation
Level Pairs Mean Pairs Mean
1 7 40.1 5 37.4
2 5 34.4 2 29.0
3 1 36.0 2 25.1
4 3 32.3
5 2 25.5
6 1 29.0
Total 19 35.0 9 32.8
8d . . For Groups According to TOQ Profiles: Mixed
Mixed
Hierarchical Orientation. all Mixed-1 Mixed-2
Level Pairs Mean Pairs Mean Pairs Mean
1 12 42.0 3 38.0 10 41.1
2 7 37.5 3 31.0 5 35.2
3 4 33.7 1 36.0
4 3 29.0 2 32.0
5 2 26.5
Total 26 38.0 6 34.5 20 37.0
8e . . . For Male and Female Teachers
Male Teacher§__ _ Female Teachep__
Hierarchical Pairs Mean Pairs Mean
Level Agreements Agreements
1 8 44.5 11 39.7
2 5 . 39.4 5 36.6
3 7 36.8 2 37.5
4 3 35.3 4 33.7
5 3 33.6 2 33.0
6 1 36.0 4 28.7
7 2 26.0
8 2 26.0
Total 30 37.3 28 36.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

While there is no specifically advocated point at
which patterns cease to be valid, in this study no further
members were included in a pattern when the number of agree-
ments were below thirty at a particular level. This, by
professional judgment, represented a sufficient number of
agreements within a matrix which was built on a 100 item
test. The HICLASS method itself emphasized selection of
the common characteristics of types and the elimination of
characteristics which are irrelevant to the type, thereby
giving additional assurance of the validity of the ob-
tained patterns.

1. Behaving Styles for Teachers
and Contrast Groups

The analyses were carried out for groups as indi-
cated in Chapter III. The first analysis was for all teachers
and contrast groups. Eleven types of teacher responses and
three types of contrast group responses were identified
along with two separate types for under graduates and one
for graduate students. Table 9 presents the Mean TPS Scale
scores for type identified, the magnitude of the type, and
the number in each type for all teachers. One additional
type with very low magnitude is not included in the table.
The analysis for all teachers yielded one very strong type,
three strong types; five weak types, and two insignificant
types. The very strong and strong types are the basis for
formulation of behaving styles I through IV for all teachers.

Figures 1 — 4 present pictorial representations of the

82

behaving styles which were formulated. Behaving Style-I
gives a picture of a relatively higher permissive orienta-
tion than structured although all scores fall within the
median range on the scale. Attention is called to motives

(M) rebellious and status-striving, both of which become

 

part of the permissive style, thereby indicating a teacher
who looks for change, possibly through innovation and who
finds considerable identification with education as the
profession in which this gratification is found. This
general style might well be denoted as one which emphasizes
moderate permissiveness and change. Other features of this
style are its low M dominance and its higher M dependency
giving a picture of relative assurance of personal value

but a need for support from appropriate authority. The
second behaving style gives a picture of strong acceptance
of the permissive orientation and yet relatively closely
following acceptance of the structured orientation parti-
cularly M orderliness and dependency. Included in this
picture is the lower acceptance of M preadult-fixated. Once
again, M rebellious and status-striving fall into the per-
missive orientation and together take on an innovative
effect. This pattern reflects a teacher who recognizes the
need for structure and dependence within an innovative,
runturant atmosphere yet maintaining appropriate status as

an adult. This pattern is a reflection of a strongly thera-

peutic teacher, one who must maintain structure and yet rely

meumabz amsom an vomeuaoea mum monks

unmonacmeqH u CH was “Hams u 3
“waouum u m ”waouum huw> u m>

83

”msoHHOH mu nouma>ounnm we meauHGwmzs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OHHHZ "mmmmU<MH HH< "mHm>H<z< mm<HUHm
20mm MMQDHHZU<S 92¢ mm»& »m mmmcom MH<Um mmH z<mz

O MHO<H

 

 

 

 

m.mm o.om O.Hm m.aN o.em m.om a.e~ o.mm m.om m.mm m.m~ mocMcHan .oH
m.os o.om m.ee o.oq w.Hs m.ae o.H¢ w.ms m.ee a.we e.oe sauna

-coauanaaxm .a

0.0m N.mm Owen H.Hm m.om w.am s.om H.mm m.mm o.om o.em sucoecmaoa .w

H.sm w.om m.mm 0.0m m.~m ~.Hm o.s~ o.am ~.mm o.sm o.mm mmocaauoeuo .a
m.mm m.sm m.ee o.om 0.0m m.~e o.wm m.ae m.om H.oe m.am emumxam

A -uaaemoum .O

m.mm 0.0m m.mm m.e~ o.wm O.He o.mm w.mm n.3m m.ms o.~e msoaaamnmm .m
w.oe a.mm H.3e o.oq m.qs o.ae o.me o.me w.oe H.ae a.me m>au

nuouHOcoz .d

m.os a.me m.me o.~s o.am O.ae a.me w.oe ~.oe o.aq m.e¢ unsusuunz .m
o.qs o.Hq m.ee H.am m.~s ~.om m.~e m.He a.mq m.ae O.m¢ waa>auum

nmdudum .N

o.sm m.~m mem m.Hm o.~m «.3m m.om H.mm o.~m o.mm ~.~m amuauumua .H

ouz wuz onz Ouz ouz manz NNuz Ouz muz mauz 2%
E .Q 5 .x 3 .33 3 .x: 3 .3; 3 A». 3 .> m .3 m .H: m .2 m> .H 3:8 may
6 H 50mm SH mcomuom mo Honesz can .oUSUHGwIz .anmaucoUH o H
I'- H

84

upon appropriate authority (a therapist, for instance) for
direction. The third behaving style is one of commitment
to the permissive orientation. While this teacher has high

feeling for children (high M nurturant and lower M dominance)

 

the intermediate acceptance of M.preadult-fixated and M ppp-
directive indicates an attitude of insecurity around the
ability of the children to possess self—direction, therefore,
this teacher remains an adult and attempts to control the
children by personal display of self (high M exhibitionistic)
probably through affection (high M nurturant). The innova-
tive combination is broken also as M rebellious now becomes
part of the structured orientation, indicating speed to
maintain an atmosphere without change or of one who deter-
mines in advance the stage upon which he will perform and
then maintains an undhanging role. The pattern could well
be denoted as one an undecided performer who teaches dis-
turbed children for the status it brings but also for the
purported help which is brought to the children. The fourth
style emphasizes higher structure especially M dependenge
and M orderlinesgnuithin a strongly permissive orientation
featuring high M nurppgance and M preadult-fixated. M
exhibitionistig and npndirective are approximately equal.
This teacher appears to be one who has strong feeling for
ChiLdren and achieves great satisfaction from strong iden-
tification and participation in.children's activities, in

fact one who purports, in a controlled fashion, to be able

nooz anm vooz SCH
ounmuamuo< wcouum GOHuoonmm waouum

OO Om Om dm Nm Om we O¢_¢¢ Nd Oq mm Om em Nm Om ON ON «N NN ON OH OH OH NH OH
M>HHOmmanoz

.ataaenammm
azaesampz

85

azOHHHmHmNM

mDOHHHmmmm
Nuzmnzmmmo
mmMZHAmmngo
moz¢ZHZOn

 

_
_
_
_
_
_
_ . qu>Heemnaem
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

H<UHHU<mm
Om mm Om Om Nm Om wq OO «O NO Od mm Om em Nm Om ON ON «N NN ON OH OH OH NH UH

Heinz mzmmeeaa uzomam wmm>v H newem ezH>ammm "mammoaue qua

H MMDOHM

.q
.O

.m
.N
.m

.5
.OH
.H

emmz swam emmz 304
moguaooo< Ocouum coauuonom 93qu

OO Om OO «O NO Om Od OO 33 NO Oi» Om OM OM NO on ON ON IN NN ON OH OH OH NH OH

   

86

 

as mm mm «m Nm om we as ea Ne os mm on em Nm om ON ON «N NN oN OH OH «H NH 03
Hmauz wzmmaaam uzomamv N massm oza><eum "mammoaue aa<

N MMDUHnH

MVH Boga—202
. .mIHADQSmmnH
Hzgfigz
.ZOHHHmHHHNM
gH>HMHmL<Hm
ODOHHHNmMMH
Wozmnzmmmn
mmmzHHmmnHmo
MOSHEQ
H<UHHU<~HnH

3»
.O
.m
.m
.N
.m
.O
on
.3
.H

emoz swam 252 33
monouaoooa anuum GOHuomnom Onouum

OO Om Om «m Nm Om Oq Ow «q Ne Oq Om OO «O NO on ON ON ON NN ON OH OH OH NH OH M>HHUMMHQZOZ

_

_

_ .aéaaeamma
.

_ azgegz

.ZOHHHmHmNM

 

87

UZH>HMHOI<HO

Nozmnzmmun
mmmzfimusw

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
._ meoafimmum
_
_
_
u M .mozazeaon
_

om mm om em Nm om we as as Ne os mm am an Nm om mN 0N «N NN 0N ma ca «3 NH oH asuHHoamm

Hmuz mzmmfié 0293va m gem ozgammm "Sumo/E .3...

m MMDme

oq
.O
.m
.m
.N
.m

.5
.OH

emmz swam emoz 304
mocsuaouu< Onouum GOHuumnom Onouum

OO Om On On Nm Om Oq O¢_¢¢ Ne 03 Om Om cm NO OO ON ON ON NN ON OH OH OH NH OH

88

   

_

_

_ .

00 mm om em Nm om we we as Ne os mm on em Nm om ON ON eN NN oN OH OH «H NH oH
Honz «3mmeaam ozomemv e mawam ozH>ammm "memmuama qua

d WMDUHM

m>HHUMMHonz
cthHDn¢mmm
BZ<MSHMDZ
oonHHmHmNM
DzH>HmHm1¢Hm
ODOHHAMmMM
wozmnzmmmn
mmmzHHmmomo
MUZdZHZOG
.H<UHHO<mm

sq
.O
.m
um
oN
cm
.O
on
.OH
.H

89

to show by personal example how childhood is to be experienced.
Within this style is a high need to maintain dependency upon
appropriate authority and through it regulation of inter-
personal relationships with adults. This teacher is essen-
tially a dependent identifier with children who is able to
maintain a structured learning environment yet allOwing self-
direction on the part of the children. There appears to be

a dichotomy in interpersonal relationships with substantial
differences in child and adult relationships.

Three separate analyses were carried out for the
student contrast group. These included a comprehensive HICLASS
for all students and individual analyses for undergraduates
and graduate students. Table 10 presents the Mean TPS Scale
scores by type identified, the magnitude of the type, and
the number in each type for student contrast groups. One
additional type for graduate students is not identified due
to its very low magnitude. The one type, although weak, is
described for graduate students while the very strong and
strong types are the basis for formulation of Behaving
Styles I and II for all the contrast group and for single
behaving styles for undergraduate and graduate students.
Figures 5 - 8 present pictorial representations of the be-

having styles which were formulated.

90

TABLE 10

MEAN TPS SCALE SCORES BY TYPE AND MAGNITUDE FROM
iHICLASS ANALYSIS: STUDENT CONTRAST GROUP

 

 

 

 

Contrast Group Undergraduate Graduate
All.1N=29 N=20 N-9
TPS Scales 1,v§“i1,s III,'In 1, 11,14 '1',w' "
fl N=28 N=4 N=7 N=‘14 N=6 N=7
1. Practical 30.2 34.0 25.8 29.4 32.8 29.5
2. Status-

Striving 45.5 41.2 37.2 49.8 43.3 35.7

3. Nurturant 49.5 41.0 37.2 50.1 42.1 43.2
4. Nondirec-

tive 51.5 41.2 36.1 51.4 43.5 45.0

5. Rebellious 38.8 38.2 31.8 40.5 36.1 31.4
6. PreadUIt"

Fixated 48.9 32.5 36.8 _ 48.5 40.1 45.5

7. Orderliness 26.2 26.2 27.8 28.4 32.5 20.0

8. Dependency 31.7 30.0 29.2 32.8 35.3 27.4

9. Exhibition—
istic 47.7 40.0 35.4 49.3 43.0 39.1
10. Dominance 23.0 26.0 24.4 24.7 23.5 15.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first behaving style for the combined contrast
group is decidedly permissive with high M nondirective and‘

preadult-fixated. High M statpp-striving enters this style

also. Thus, we have a somewhat classical picture of the

student preparing to become a practitioner. Essentially
the student gives a picture of high need to relate to

children, to allow them self-direction (note the .high M
nondirective and the concomitantly low M dominance) and
strong need for personal display and identification with

children. Their identification with the teaching profession

cmmz swam e003 304
ooqmummou< Osouum GOHuuofimm waouum

OO Om On «O NO on O3 OO «O Nd O¢ Om OO «O NO Om ON ON 3N NN ON OH OH OH NH OH
m>HHOMManoz

.hIHHDGOMMm
Hz<m=Hsz
.ZOHHHmHmNM

91

UZH>HMHOI¢HO
ODOHAHMmmm
wuzmnzmmun

mmmzHAMMOMO
MUZ<ZHZCQ

 

_ .HauHeoaam
oc cm cm em Nm om we cs as Ne 03 mm cm em Nm om wN cN «N NN 0N ma OH «H NH 03

Hwauz mzemeeam uzomem amm>v H manem qu>a3mm ”macaw amamezoo emzamzoo

m MMDUHm

o o o o
e—c O N (I) lfi N 0‘ on \0 <1“

3033 33.3 303 33
possummood Osonum GOHuuonom wsouum

OO Om Om dm NO Om Od Od dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

92

.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.

 

_
_
_
_
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ .
_
_

OO Om Om dm NO Om Od Od dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON

ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

Aduz MZMMHHON UZOMHOV N unHm UZH>¢mwm "ADOMG HO<MHZOU QNZHmZOU

O MMDUHm

m>HHUMManoz
ohIHHDndmmm
HZOMDHsz
oZOHHHmHmNm
UZH>HMHmI¢Hm
mDOHHAmmHm
Nuzmnzmmmn
mmmzHAHMQMO
NUZ¢ZHSOO
H¢0H90<mm

cmoz eme eomz 30H
ooswuaouod Osouum GOHuooOom Odouum

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Od dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
. EHHUmmanoz .d

_
_
_ .axeaeaammm .c
_ Hzameamsz .m
.onaHmmeu .a

93

OZH>H~HHOI<HO oN
ODOHHHMQMHM .O
Wozmnzmmmn 0O

OOMZHHMMQMO ch

NUEHSOQ .OH

   

_
_
_
_
_
_ 35395 . H

O

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Od dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

AdHuz Hzmmaeam uzomem sense H masem ozH><3mm .ezmnpam measnamuemnze

5 mm: UHm

somz 3me H083 39H
museumouu< waouum GOHuoonom Ocouum

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Od.dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
u>HHUMManoz

ahIHHDQ¢mmm
HdeDHMDz
conHHmHmNm

94

qu>HMHmI<Hm
ODOHHHNOMM
wozunzmmmn
mmmzHHmmnMC
moz<zHZOO

 

.39 seems.

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Od_dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON_ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

:uz 353333 335 H Sim 033.33 SE95 mafiaée

O MMDUHO

.O

.0
.N

cO
on
aOH

95

is also high. Of particular interest is the low need for
order and moderate need for dependence and pragmatic con-
cerns. The overall pattern reflects an intense identifica-
tion with teaching and children with lesser concern for the
practice of teaching which, of course, few of these students
had experienced. The additional, separate analyses for
umdergraduates and graduates were carried out to determine
more clearly the type of pattern and style which would dif-
ferentiate those with no actual teaching experience.
Figure 6 shows the second behaving style for all contrast
group and reflects a fairly conservative style, yet main-
taining low need for dominance and order. There is only a
trend toward the permissive style, but with relatively little
identification with children and an undifferentiated struc-
tured style. The low'number of cases in this style suggests
that a highly individualistic pattern is operating and that
perhaps more intensive assessment is required before a de-
finite description of this style can be made.

The separate HICLASS revealed a style, shown in
Figure 7, which is similar to Behaving Style I for the con-
trast group, but with much stronger motives expressing a
primary pattern of permissiveness. Style I for Undergraduate
Students reflects stronger identification with children and
maintains the lesser concern for the actual practice of
teaching. The final behaving style, although of weak

magnitude, is for graduate students and is given in Figure 8.

96

Since the magnitude of this type is weak, caution must be
exercised in interpreting the behaving style. The features
of this style are the low M dominance and orderliness, and
the high M preadultngxateg and nondirective with other
motives spreading theneelves within the intermediate range.
This pattern reflects unusually high self-concept on the
part of the responbent and an interest in personal inter-
action with children, through participation in which chil—
dren.are able to be self directing. The M nurturant and M
exhibitionistic, in combination with other high motives,
seem.to indicate a person who welcomes a display of their
own personality and a great deal of feeling for children.
Essentially, this is suggestive of a counselor or therapist
pattern, yet maintenance of status as a teacher (note M

status-striving) is evident.

2, Behaving Sgyles for Treagpent
Setting Groups

The first HICLASS analysis for treatment setting
groups consisted of teachers from.state mental hospitals.
Three types were identified, including two of strong magni-
‘tude, one of weak.magnitude. One group of subjects was
very poorly distinguished by magnitude as a type. Table 11
presents the Mean TPS Scale scores by type and magnitude for
this analysis. The two strong types are the basis for for-
mulation of Behaving Styles I and II for the mental hospital

group. Figure 9 gives a pictorial representation of these

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.NN OeON NeON 1 ounmadfion .OH
Ode OeOd OeOO UHuchOHananu to
OwNO OeOO OeON hucmosomon .O
OeHO OwON OoON mwosHHuooso on
meO 0.0d NoOO owuoNHmzuHDoeoum .O
OodO OedO HeNN mSOHHHoemm oO
0.0d HeOd NeHd . m>HuumuHOcoz ed
Ode med OoOd -unmuduuflz .O
OoNd . Ocdd OomO wnH>HHum1m9udum oN
OedO Oenm HoOO HooHuoon .H
1,. Ouz One . On 1 1
3.HHH m.HH m.H oHtom may
3334413 to “2531133433132

 

 

NNflz «OOZHHHMO HZMZH¢HMH HOHHmmom Hwfizmz
uOHOMH<Z¢.mw¢nUHm 20mm MQDHHZU<ZHQZ<.mmMH Mm OMMCOO MH¢UO mmH Z¢mz

HH MHO<H

 

oooz swam
muqmuaoood Osouum

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Odfdd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO

\5

o _

98
0

G

_ 0

@002 30H
GOHuuonom Osouum

ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

_
_

OO OO OO dO NO OO Od Od dd Nd Od OO OO dO NO OO ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

Hmzmmeeam ozomemv N nza H mmawem ozH>¢mmm "HagHmmom 34923:

O MODUHO

cuz .N oHaum : o
wuz .H oHsum - x

Homewoq

m>HHUmmanoz
emIHHmndmmm

HZ<MDHMDZ
«ZOHHHOHmNM
UZH>HMHO1<HO
ODOHHHmmmm
wozmnzumwn
OOMZHHMHQMO
MUZ¢ZHZOQ
HOUHHodmm

o o o o s
l‘ w m N 0‘ m \0 d‘

oOH
.H

99

behaving styles. Behaving Style I is characterized by low
M dominance, dependency and rebellious indicating low need
for structure or teacher direction while there is a more
overt, yet intermediate pattern of perndssiveness especially
featuring M exhibitionistic and M.preadult-fixated which are
slightly lower than M nurturant and nondirective. This
style seems to reflect a relative degree of need for inde-
pendence (low M dependency) and a definite need to maintain
the status-quo (IOW'M rebellious). Seemingly indicated

here is also rejection of authority and the need for super-
vision and guidance of their own activities while maintain-
ing a reasonable facade of professional dignity with the
children. This pattern, in relation to the intermediate
degree of permissiveness or child centered attitude, with
its equal need for identification with children and expres-
sion with some feeling for children and willingness to let
them be self-determining, seems to reflect a "don't rock the
boat, kids, I feel for you but we can't change" style of
bdaavior. In other terms, particularly relevant to the
mental hospital, the style reflects institutionalization

on the part of the teacher. Behaving Style 11 is quite dif-
ferent. It features a primary permissive pattern with high
feeling for children and willingness to let children be
self-directing along with teacher willingness to display
self and be identified with children (high M pghipgpippgpgig,

and ppeadult-fixated) as a teacher (high M ppagg§;§££ixias)e

100

At the same time, there appears to be some tendency for
Change and innovation and reliance upon authority (inter-
mediate Mlpebellious and dependency) and a great deal of
identification with need for change in the instrumental
values of teaching (M_practical higher than M rebellious)
and possible some tendency toward rejection of authority,
supervision and guidance. The relatively low M dominant
and orderly, in context with the other two overt motives of
the structured pattern reflects a focus on independence

and rejection of organization from above and doubt concern-
ing prohibitions which authorities or supervision imposes.
This teacher seems to represent one who is highly identified
with children and who strives to maintain a high degree of
status for the teaching profession While at the same time
is someWhat hostile toward authority.

The second HICLASS analysis for treatment setting
groups consisted of teachers in intensive treatment, train-
ing, and research facilities. Three types were identified,
including two of stronglnagnitude and one of weak magnitude.
Table 12 presents the Mean TPS Scale scores by type and
magnitude for this analysis. The two strong types are the
basis for formulation of Behaving Styles I and II for the
intensive treatment group. Figure 20 presents a pictorial
representation of these behaving styles. Behaving Style I
is diaracterized by its primary permissive patterns with

complimentary lower M ppeadult-fixated and relatively lOW'M

101

 

 

 

N.oN H.wN ooooeHsoo .oH
o.me m.me oHooHooHeHoHoxm .o
m.wm N.Nm soooooooon .m
o.em m.oN oooaHHuooho .N
N.me N.Ne oouoxamtoHsoooua .o
N.Hd N.om . esoHHHooom .m
N.ee o.Ne o>Hooouaoooz .e
N.om o.me ooohoouez .m
N.ee o.me on>Huomnooooem .N
m.Nm H.Nm HooHuooum .H
1. suz Nan 1
m>.HH m>.H oHoum may

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmNH room GH mucouom mo nooSdz O .oOSuHGOmz .ooHMHuaoOH omNH

 

 

 

 

NOuz "OUZHHHMO HZMZHdeH M>HOZMHZH
"OHOOA<Z< mdeUHm 20mm MQDBHZU<ZHQz¢.mmMH MO OMMOOO MH<UO mmH 24m:

NH MHde

 

euz .N oHsum . o
NNuz .H «Harm - x
HOGOOQH
Homoz anm Huooz 39H
moamuaouod Odouum GOHuuoOom 93qu

OO Om OO «O NO on we Oe ea No es Om Om em NO on ON ON ON NN ON OH OH OH NH 0H
9 _ masomfinzoz .e

  

.aueaeaamma .O
_ Hzameemez .m
_ , .oneHOmeu .o

102

qu>Hmam1<Hm .N
_ mecHHHmOmm em
wozmnzuamo .O

_
_ mmmzHHmuomo .N
_ mozazHZOO .oH

 

e _ HaoHeoama .H
OO Om Om em NO on Os Os sq No 03 mm Om em NO on ON ON ON NN oN OH OH «H NH oH

pl.
4

AOZMHMHHHHAH UZOMHHO MMHHC N 924 H OEHO UZH>$HMO "Hzgdmmm. EHOZMHZH

OH ”55me

103

dominance and orderly while the more intermediate Mpractical,
dependeppy, and rebellippg contribute to the pattern in terms
of calculated detachment, reasonable need for change and
innovation, and high identification with teaching. There
is some reliance upon authorities for guidance although
this teacher seems to have faith in the ability of daildren
to change (high M nondirective and relatively high M ggpg_-
lipps) and is secure about his own ability to maintain respect
for children without completely identifying as a child (high
M nondigegtive and lowered M ppeadult-fixated in the child
centered pattern. This teadher reflects a style of control-
led-permissiveness. Behaving Style 11 is very similar with
an increase in M nurturant, possibly revealing a person with
high empathy for children and high need to be with and en-
gage in innovative activity with children, although maintain-
ing effectivecontrol, with supervision. This is especially
noted in the generally higher mean scores for structure and
the combination of M practical, dependence, and rebellious.
This teacher reflects a style of high empathy with children
and calculated control for fostering change in the classroom.
One additional feature of this type is that all of the sub-
jects identified in this type are from.a single intensive
treatment setting.

The analysis of the TPS Responses of teachers from.
residential treatment settings revealed three types.

Table 13 presents the essential information pertaining to

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

NHNm Otmm e.Hm ooooaason «oH
N.me Hsoe m.Ne oHuoHtoHuHOHtxm .o
mwoN N.om N.Nm sachetooon HO
N.Nm NtNm O.mm oooeHHhoouo .N
N.oe e.om m.Nm touoxHaiuHsOooua .O
o.Ne «.mm m.Om osoHHHoooe .O
Name 0.0d O.He o>HuoouHoeoz .e
N.me «.me N.Ne eeousousz .m
otme N.Ne m.me OeH>Huemrosooem .N
m.mm H.Nm 0.0N HooHuooua .H
en Nu HHuz

(111 13. .HH .H

more room eH oeoohoa Oo hoossz O..ooseHa oz OOHOHooooH o H

 

NNHZ “OUZHHHMO Egan. H4HHZHQHOMM
"OHOwdzee. OmfiUHHH 20mm HODHHZUHVZ 02¢ ME NO mmmoom MH<UO OnHH 2%

OH Baa.

 

105

magnitude and number of persons constituting these types.
The two strong types form the basis for the behaving styles
shown in Figure 11. It should be noted that with the ex-
ception of a single motive (nurturant for Behaving Style II)
that all the motives fall within the intermediate range
although there is some spread from.highest to lowest within
the styles.

The implication of these intermediate scores is the
possibility of evenly balanced patterns with outstanding
fieatures. Behaving Style I tends to focus on permissive-
ness with lower M preadult-fixated and rebellious indicating
a balance between identification with children and adults
and well developed need for Change and criticism. In
addition, the secondary structured pattern is fairly well
developed and there appears to be need for reliance upon
authority and a lack of concern with the tangible goals of
teaching. This style reflects a dedication to teaching ‘
with calm assurance. Style 11 features high M nurtgpant,
relatively high M deppndent Which is equal with M.rebellious,
exhgbitioniptic, ppeadult-figated, and nondirective. Motive
dpmipgpce also interacts in this style. The separate pat-
terns are not well defined although permissiveness is mere
dominant than structure. It appears that this teacher is
very supportive but yet somewhat directive of children and
seeks Change*while maintaining some status as an adult

(equal M dominance and preadult-fixated). There is relatively

 

“"2 .N masum : o
Han «H oasum : x
«usowmq
emmz swam vooz sou

measumuoodeaouum coauoonomwnonum

om mm mm «m an on ms ed «a quaq mm mm dm mm om mm mm «N «N om ma 0H «H NH oH
_ _ m>Haommunzoz .q

_ .mIHADndumm .0
_
HZdMDHMDz .m

.ZOHHHmmem co

  

106

UZH>HMHmI¢Hm .N

 

mDOHAAHmMM om

_
_

mmMZHAmwngo .n

_

_

_

_

_

_ wozmnzumun .w
_

_

" moz<zazon .oH
_

_
_
_
_ qaoHaoamm .H

00 mm mm dm mm on wd ed dd Nd 0d mm om dm mm on mm 0N dN NN ON ma 0H dH NH 0H

AmzmMHHdm OZOMHWV N Qz< H mMAWHm UZH>¢EMm "HZNZH¢MMHA4HHzmnmem

HH MMDOHm

107

high dependence upon direction and some concern over main-
taining control within a pupil-centered classroom. This
style reflects dedicated manipulation of children through
directed use of self in an atmosphere of controlled free-
dom. One additional feature of Behaving Style 11 is that
four of the seven individuals who form.its basic type all
represent a single residential treatment setting.

The analysis for training Sohool teachers yielded
one strong type, three insignificant types, and one group
with very low magnitude. Table 14 presents the essential
information pertaining to magnitude and number of persons
constituting these types. The behaving style formulated
from.the single strong type is shown in Figure 12.

This behaving style features wide variance in indi-
vidua1.motive scores and a uniqueness characterized by a
lack.of definate formulation of either pattern. There are
equally high M.status-striving and nurturant, rebellious
and exhibitionistic, and dependency and preadult-fixated.
There appears to be high need for personal status and crit-
icalness at one point (M.rebellious, status-striving and
exhibitionistic) and at another point there is high need to
relate to Children and to maintain a pupil centered class-
room (high M nondirective and relatively low M dominance).
The interaction of M dependency and Mlpreadult~fixated and
of dependency with rebellious is noteworthy. The first

interaction reflects a need for direction from without as

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.a~ o.mm w.s~ H.Hm ooaaaaaon .oH
o.~q o.mq o.wm o.mq oaumaaonuanaaxm .m
o.mm s.mm o.Hm o.~¢ suamncoaoo .m
o.- ~.om o.Hm H.5m mmmnaaumego .a
o.m¢ N.om H.5m owmq woumxam:uasnuoum .o
o.m~ 0.5m m.mm m.o¢ msoaaflonom .m
m.oq m.H¢ o.mm w.nd o>auuouanaoz .q
o.mq a.~¢ m.oq H.om unuusuusz .m
o.mq m.oq o.~q N.Hm wca>auum1msumum .N
o.d~ m.dm o.~m m.mm Hooauouum .H
mnz euz ouz .muz
3.: Edit. 3.2 m; 33m mms
make 30mm ca mcomnme mo umbEdz w ampsua m2 poauequUH onNH

LET

 

 

 

mmuz umwzHHHmm Hoomom EZHZHde
umHmwA¢z< mmdAOHm 20mm HQSHHZU¢Z Qz<.mmVH Mm mMMOUm MA¢Um mmH Z¢HZ

dH MAm<H

 

nooz swam
measumouo< waouum

00 mm mm dm Nm on w

109

0d

 

 

pmmz 304
coauumhmm waouum

dd Nd Od mm om dm Nm Om mN ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
_
_
_

gflomfinzoz
.muyqoaaumm
ezameumnz
.onsHmmem
qu>Hmmeaym
maquqmmmm
wozuazmmmo
mmmzHAmuago
moz<szoa
qaoHaoamm

00 mm on dm Nm om md od_dd Nd Od mm om dm Nm Om wN_ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

Honz mzmmfié ozomemv H Seem ozgémm 385m quzHés

NH mMDUHm

110

if in their (teacher's) identification with children they
interact in an aquiesent manner with authority. There is.
also high need for personal status which over shadows the
high need to relate to children andutheir identification
with deprived groups. This style reflects a mixture of."
high needs and strong dependence and status-seeking complex.

The final analyses for treatment setting groups was
carried out for public school teachers. Table 15 presents
the mean TPS scale scores by type and magnitude. There
were two strong types identified.and they are fmnuulated as
behaving styles in Figure 13.

The first behaving style is decidedly permissive as
shown by the high Mieghibitionistic, nurturant and nondirec-
gigg with relatively high preadult-fixated and high gtatus~
strivigg entering the picture. The relatively low M
dominance and orderliness confirm.the permissive picture.
There is acknowledgement of identification with children as
a teacher, but there is a tendency to maintain an unchanging
mode (low intermediate M rebellious) and to focus attention
upon the instrumental rewards of teaching(intermediate M
practical). In addition, there is some need for dependence
upon.authority for guidance, although the rejection of order
and organization would seem to initiate attempts by author—
ities to bring guidance and organization to the classroom.
This style reflects desire for freedom and relatively un~

changing, disorganized behavior in the classroom. Behaving

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.w~ m.om oocuaasoa .o~
m.ae e.wd oaumacoauanaaxu .a
o.om 0.0m sucovaoaoe .m
.13 v.8 383386 .5
m.<¢ e.q¢ a vouuxasuuaavaoum .e
o.me m.~m msoaasonma .m
o.om w.m¢ o>auoouaecoz .e
o.om o.aq ucuusuusz .m
o.oq o.aq waa>auumumauuum .N

. o.m~ s.qm anoauooum .e

kw; ‘muz on
.nuoIIIIIIL runwnnunnllIInaIIIunuiNIIMMMMIIIrnlumumnuqn macaw mas
o a scan as muomuom a noossz a means: a: eosuauaoea o a

 

Ouz «ma—OOHHOw UHamHHnH
umHme<z< mijHHH 5mm MQDHHZU§ nz< ME Mm mmmoom 55w mnHH 24m:

mH MumfiH.

 

muz .N ossum - o
ouz .H masum . x

«bummed

nooz swam vooz sou
ooaoumouod waouuw coauuohom wcouum

00 mm on dm Nm om wd Od dd Nd Od mm on dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

f

M>HHUmMHonz ad
.mlfiqaadmmm .O
HZ<MDHMDZ om
oonHHmHmNH cm

112
‘3

.
_
_
_
_ ozH>Hmemu<am .N

6 mDOHHAmmHm .m

(A

wuzmnzmmmn ow

mmmzHHMHQMO on

'3

6

HQZ¢ZHZOQ oOH

_ _ o qfigosa . H
as mm mm «m Nm on we we «a Na oq mm om «m mm on mm ow «N Nu om ma on «H NH oh

AZMMHH¢N UZOMHmV N 02¢ H mwflwam UZH>¢mMm "Hoomom OHAmDm

mH MMDUHh

113

.ter II reflects similar disorganization with higher in-
volvement with children and high need for child centered
activity rather than teacher display (M nurturant, nondir-
ective, exhibitionistic, and orderliness interact). There
appears to be little interest in the instrumental rewards
of teaching, but high need for the status which accompanies
teaching (low'pgactical and high status—striving). Motive
rebellious in combination with motives nurturant and agar
directive along with depressed motive exhibitionistic re-
flects a tendency toward high need for change and innova-
tion of child centered activity. There also appears to be
the similar disorganization and rejection of authority with
concomitant self-assurance (low M.dominance), as in Behaving
Style I. This style reflects an unorganized innovator who
is always trying new activities, probably in a highly free
and child centered atmosphere.
3. Behaving Styles for
T ' G s

The teachers in the study were classified into one
of three profiles according to their responses to the TOQ.
The method for determining these profiles and the profiles
themselves have been described earlier in this chapter and
in Chapter III. Separate HICLASS analyses were carried out
for the TOQ profile groups to attempt to establish a rela-
tionship between the teacherS' theoretical orientation and

their corresponding underlying motivation.

114

The first analysis was for the group who indicated
a consistent structured orientation. Table 16 presents the
essential information for two strong types, one weak type,
and one insignificant type. The corresponding strong be-
having styles are shown in Figure 14.

Behaving Style I has a diffusely controlled permis-
sive quality indicated by the relatively low M dominance and
orderlinegg in conjunction with high M nurturant and non-
digective. Additional interactors are intermediate M ggpggr
ggggg and Egbgllious, indicating some willingness to innovate
but with guidance and supervision which is controlled. Low
M dominance and the concave M preadult-fixated indicate a
degree of self-assurance as a teacher*(high M.§tatu§-sgggg-
ing). This pattern is similar to Intensive Treatment Behav-
ing Style I (Figure 10) in its structured pattern and in
Training School Behaving Style I (Figure 12) in its permis-
sive patterns. The more intermediate degree of dependence
in combination with the self-assurance expressed bY’lOW’M
dominance, characterizes this style. It does not reflect a
structured style emphasizing learning theory or condition-
ing substrata. This style reflects a teacher who is highly
invested in controlled freedom. Behaving Style 11 features
control and structure by a person with blunted feeling for
children shown by the interaction of M nurturant and pag-
adth-fixaged while at the same time there is not a great
deal of need for self-display either on the part of the

teacher or provision for children to display self (inter-

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.- o.mm H.Hm H.wm mommaason .oH
“.0m 54mg w.em q.mq caumaaoapananxm .a
N.Hm N.Nm ~.Hm s.mm sunoeammon .w
o.aN N.qm 0.0m. w.am mamasauoeuo .a
o.wm mtoq N.Nm H.H¢ eoumxas:uaseuoum .o
o.mm awom wwmm m.am msoaaaonom .m
N.em o.~q 0.0m m.mq m>auumuaeaoz .e
m.mm o.mq m.om n.0e ucmusuusz .m
o.eq o.oq N.om c.5e wca>auum-msumum .N
o.em N.Hm a.em o.~m Hmuauumum .H
quz euz oeuz Nunz
cH.>H 3.HHH11 m.HH . m.H memom may
mQNH sown CH mnOmumm wo HmnEDz O .mOSUH m: OOHMHuchH m H

 

 

oqnz “on94pzmHmo nmmseoamam “mmaHmomm cos
"memwa<zavmm¢qum some maeaHzeaz nza mews we museum maaum may zamz

OH MAO<H

 

emmz swam
moawuamoo< Ocouum

OO Om Om dm Nm Om Od Od_dd Nd Od Om Om dO Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

116

_ pd
_ c
- .
_ V

_ C

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
_

oHuz .N oflaum : o
NNuz .H mesum . x

“vaowmq

oomz sou
GOHuuonmm Onouum

W>HHUMMHQZOZ
.mlHubndmmm
HZOMDHMDZ
.ZOHHHmHmKM
wzH>HMHOI¢Hm
ODOHHAMOmm
Muzmnzmmmn
mmmzHAmmOMO
MUZ<ZHZOQ
AOUHHUOMm

OO Om Om dm NO Om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

253% ozomemv N can. H madam ozgémm “mmmofia nmgeoemem coy

dH WMOUHm

.5
.OH
.H

117

action between M exhibitionistic, nondirective, and dominance).
The relative flatness of this entire profile suggests gener-
alized restruction of affect and control of expression of
feelings, thereby reflecting a style based upon control and
constructure.

Table 17 presents the mean TPS scale scores by type
and magnitude for the TOQ permissive profile group. One very
strong, one weak and one insignificant type was identified.

Figure 15 presents the behaving style which was
formulated from the very strong type. Permissive Behaving
Style I is characterized by high permissive need and relative-
ly high need for change and innovation while M orderlinesg
and dependency reflect an awareness of the need for control
and supervision of this permissiveness. This style also has
the concave M status-striving (within the permissive pattern)
and the low need dominance (within the structured pattern);
this seems to reflect a focus on security and awareness of
self on the part of the teacher. This pattern reflects a self-
assured permissive teacher, and its strength of permissive
pattern is similar to Behaving Style I for Undergraduate
Students.

The next HICLASS analyses were carried out for the
Mixed TOQ groups, including a comprehensive analysis for the
entire mixed group and separate analyses for’the Mixed Orien-
tation.A (structured method and unstructured process) and the
IMixed Orientation B (unstructured method and structured pro-

cess) groups. Table 18 presents the essential data for the

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.m~ o.~m o.o~ ooauqascn .oH
N.H¢ o.o¢ m.mq oaumanoauunhnxu .m
N.mm m.om H.mm ausoeaoaon .w
~4Hm_ N.mm o.~m mmocauumego .a
Ntod Nswm c.0q eoumxamtuusemoum .o
5.0m m.om H.qq wsoauuonom .m
msqq o.Hq m.mq m>uuuouaeaoz .e
«.me o.~¢ w.om unmusuusz .m
m.mm n.0m m.me waa>auumumsumum .N
N.m~ a.mm “.mm Hmuauomum .H
duz euz wuz
aH.HHH 3.HH m>.H ouuom may

 

 

make zoom ca mGOmumm mo MWEEDZ ijonsudflmeaUmameuchH mnfiw

 

wunz "oneayzmHeo m>HmmHzmmm “mmaHmoMm cos

umHqu<z< mmdAUHm 20mm MQDHHZUOZ Dz< mmWH Mm mmmovm MAOUO OmH ZONE

NH MAOOH

 

emoz swam eooz sou
monmudooo<_waouum coauoohom waouum

om mm on em mm om we we as Nd oq mm on em Nm cm mm 0N «N Na om mH oH dH NH oH
m>Heommanoz

.mleflandmmm
HZOKDBMDZ
.ZOHHHmHmNM

119

UZH>HMHOI¢HO
ODOHAAMOMM
wozmnzmmun

mmmzHAmmnmo
moz<zHZCG

   

_ _ uaoHHoamm

OO Om Om dm NO on Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm NO on ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

Amnz mzmmae<m ozomsm wmm>v H muwem ozH>¢mmm “mmmoame m>HmmHzmum cos

OH MMDOHm

.d
.O

.m
.N
on
.O
on
oOH
.H

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

o.e~ ~.om o.m~ o.o~ o.Hm o.a~ mogugafioa .oH
m.mm o.mq o.md 045d ~.me o.dd oHumunoHanaaxm .m
o.~m H.mm a.em m.qm 04mm o.dm aunoeaoaua .m
m.e~ m.Hm awmw Nwom o.mm «.mm mmoaaHuoeuo .a
m.em w.Hd o.o¢ m.¢d m.o¢ o.~q eoumxamnuHsemaum .e
e.mm 0.0m a.qm N.H¢ m.dm e.mm msoaHHmnom .m
N.aq o.Hq o.Hd H.5d m.md o.oq o>HuoouHeaoz .e
o.~q m.qq N.mq Nwse m.~d m.ed pamusuusz .m
o.mq w.~q N.Hq m.e¢ m.Hd a.m¢ waH>Huumumsumum .N
H.mm m.w~ m.Hm m.om o.em o.Hm HuoHpouum .H
mnz oHuz an mmwuz mu mama

34> :H .> m .5 1 we: 3.: £3 28m may

vase some amnmaomumm no umnasz e manna a: eoamHmmmmmlmmNH

 

 

 

Omnz "ZOHHAQHZMHHHO EH2 nmszSOU "OMAHWOME OOH
"OHOVASHHH mijHHH 20mm HBHHZUHHZ Qz< MEN? wm mum—”Cum ”340m 93. 2%

OH MAO<H

 

121

combined mixed group and Figures 16 and 17 ShOW’the corres-
ponding behaving styles which were formulated from.the two
very strong types and the two strong types which were iden-
tified. Behaving Styles I and II feature M rebellious and
dependency as mediators between either a structure or per-
missive extreme, as both appear to co-vary. Style I has
lower structured needs with M orderliness standing out and
at the same time the higher permissive needs are evident,
including the equality of M nurturant and nondirective.
This is similar to Behaving Style I for the Public school
Group (Figure 13) in its unorganized quality and to yet
.there is indication of need for control and criticism.

This style reflects an individualistic type of behavior
found in the status and professional dignity linked with
teaching disturbed children. Style 11 reflects constric-
tion and control but a definate need for order, supervision,
and criticismbof the pragmatic aspects of teaching shown

by the equality of M.practical and rebellious. Mbtive
dependency contributes in its interaction with M preadult-
fixated as reflection of need for the children to rely upon
the teacher for direction in their selfeexpressions. This
style reflects a constfiitted-dissatisfied teacher. Style
III (Figure 13) features a primary permissive pattern with
adult self-assurance (concave Mlpgeadult-fixated and rela-
tively low M dominance and ordeplinesg). This style is es-

sentially the controlled permissive teacher shown in Figure 10

eooz eme
ounmunooo< Onouum

OO Om Om dm NO on Od Od.dd Nd Od Om Om dm NO on ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
6

.U

‘ —

122
O

_

o _
a _

_ o _

_ O

muz .N «Haum . o
oHuz .H oHsum . x
uucowoq

vooz 304
coauomnom Onouum

M>HHUmmanoz .d
.mIHADQ<Mmm oO
Hz<mDHsz .m
.ZOHHHmHmNu .m
UZH>HMHOI¢HO oN
ODOHHHMOMM om
Vuzmnzmmmn . O
OOMZHAMMQMO on
moz<ZHZOQ .OH
A¢UHHO<§M .H

OO On On dm Nm Om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm NO on ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

AmZMMHfidm OZOMHO MMM>V N Qz< H OMANHO UZH><mmm "QMNHZHOMZHOZOU OOH

OH MMDGHm

quz :d 3.5m .. 0
2% .m 25m .. x
unflmwmg
Hummz swam Humoz 39H
oonmuooood.wsouum coauUOMOM Ocowum

OO On On dm NO on Od Od_dd NdeOd Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

_ mayoufinzoz .e
_

. .méaeafimm .o
_ 233.5 .m

_ .onsHmmem .o

123

_ ozH>Hmme<am . N
_

ODOHAAMOMM .m
Wuzmnzmmmn oO

 

_ :5 OOMZHAmHun—MO o n

_ O

OO Om Om dm Nm Om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

_
_
_ c _ moz<zH§n .oH
— .
_ adHeosHm .H

AmzmeHusm OZOMHHOV d D24 m OEHO OZH><mmm "EH2 QMZHOZOU 09H.

NH MMHDUHnH

124

with higher expression of empathy and personal display of
respect for children. Style IV is another in the constricted
group, similar to the style shown in Figure 12 with an in-
cmeased tendency toward interaction with adults (relatively
low M ggmipggp§_and ppgerliness) and with need for super-
vision and guidance. This style reflects a well controlled,
satisfied mode of behavior.

The first separate analysis for the mixed TOQ Pro-
file group was for the Mixed Orientation A. Two weak types
were identified and behaving styles were not formulated for
these types since their magnitude was very low and extreme
caution would necessarily limit any interpretation of the
styles. Table 19 presents the essential data for these types.

The analysis of the Mixed Orientation B profiles
identified four strong types and one insignificant type.
Table 20 presents the appropriate mean scores and magnitudes
for these types. Four behaving styles were formulated from
the strong types and Figures 18 and 19 present the corres-
ponding pictorial representations. All four styles have
relatively few persons in them.and therefore typify particu-
lar sub-groups as in the case of Style I in Which five of
the persons represent a particular intensive treatment
setting. Style 1 features wide variance as shown by low M
dominance and relatively high M nurturant and nondirective
in combination with concave M preadult-fixated, thereby
indicating a need for identification with children, freedom

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.~m o.m~ mommaHson .oH
Heme o.mq UHumH:0Huaanxm .a
~.mm N.em summeamamn .m
oth m.a~ mamaHHumego .5
o.~m N.Od eoumxam:uHsemmum .e
w.em 0.0m msoHHHmnom .m
m.ee N.ee m>HuuouHeqoz .d
¢.¢q N.od pamusuusz .m
eyed m.mq waH>uuum1msumum .N
e.qm m.om HmoHuomum .H
auz dnz
Mill .3.HH .3.H mHmum was
.85 some 5. 283m .8 .8sz a 93%

man u<.onHaquHmo nmtz "mmuHeomm cos
“mHmwu<z< mmeuon some squeezed: nze.mmws we museum mHaom mme 2am:

OH MAO<H

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.m~ N.mm 0.05 m.em o.d5 mucmnaaoa «oH
H.wd 5.5a m.o¢ o.5d w.wm oHumHnoHananm we
H.qm o.5m m.~m o.mm m.~m augmecoamn .m
o.e~ 5.mm m.om H.om H.w~ mmosHHuoeuo .5
m.oq 5.5q H.om H.md o.om eoumxHenuHseuonm .o
m.oq 5.mm m.5m m.wd m.mm msoHHHmnom .m
e.wq m.oq m.o¢ c.5q m.mq m>HuumuHecoz we
o.oq m.o¢ o.am m.om. o.md usmusuusz .m
c.0e o.mq c.5d o.mq 5.wm waH>Huum-msumum .N
w.w~ 5.qm o.Hm m.mm m.Hm HmUHuouum .H
onz enz ouz ouz wuz

cH .P m .3 m.HHH .m .3 m .H 38m may

maze some sH mnemuwm mo umnasz a .mmmmmmummlnmmmwmucmeH o a

 

 

mduz um oneaezmHmo nmtz “mmuHmomm coy
"mHmwa<z< mmauon some mosequez nz< mews we museum muaom may zen:

ON mafia.

 

ouz .5 mHsum - o
mnz .H oHsum ‘ x
. "Ozowoq

eooz ame eomz sou
oosmuaoood Ocouum Goauoohom wcouum

OO Om Om dm NO on Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
a EHHUMMHQZOZ . d

.eneueeaumm .o
Hzampamaz .m
.ongHmmeu .m

127

OZH>HMHO|¢HO .N
ODOHAAMOMHH . m
wozmazwmmn oO

OOMZHAMMQMO on

  

MUZ¢ZHZOG .OH

 

OO Om. Om dm. NO Om. Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

AdUHHodmm .H

Hmzmmsa<m ozomem v N oz< H mmawem ozH>¢mum.uamtz myamammm coy

OH mmzuHm

eomz ame
ouswumooo< Ononum

quz we oHaum - o
.ouz .m oHsum ' x
. unnamed

oooz 364
GOHuuonom Onouum

OO Om Om dm Nm om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

.
_ 0

a _

.. _

128
0
l

a

3

_
e
_

OO Om Om dm Nm Om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm

_
_
_
_
_

m>HHUMManoz .e
.mnaasnammm so
azamaamez .m
.onaHmmeu so
ozH>Eemn<em «N
meoHAHmmmm .m
wozmnzmmmn . m
mmmzHummnmo .5
mozaszon .oH
H<oHeu¢mm .H

Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

AmzmMHH<m OZOMHOV d Oz< m OMHNHO UZH>¢EMO “Gmxfiz MHOMONMO OOH

OH MODUHm

129

of expression yet relative self-assurance as an adult. The
relatively low M orderliness in combination with other
structured motives and M status-striving and exhibitionig-
tic reflect a need to appear permissive with little self-
investment or personal display but the covert controlled
permissive pattern is in opposition. This style reflects

a constructed, intellectual, permissive style of behavior.
Style 11 is characterized by its generally high motives in
all patterns with a definite direction toward permissiveness.
This style is similar to Behaving Style 11 for the Intensive
Treatment Group shown in Figure 10. This style reflects a
high degree of organization, feeling for children, and need
for change in both tangible and intangible goals. It also
reflects a high degree of sensitivity and empathy for
children and adults and ability to utilize the elements of
structure for the pursuit of child-centered activity.

Style 111 is a constricted permissive pattern emphasizing
relatively high identification with children (M preadult-
fixated) and the teaching profession (M status-striving).
Motive rebellious mediates this style and focuses upon an
identification with the need for change and innovation with
children. This style reflects controlled permissiveness
for reasons of instituting change in children. Style 1V is
consistent in its structured pattern shown by the eveness
of M practical, dominance, dependency, and the concave M
preadult-fixated. The permissive pattern is also clearly

130

differentiated, especially by covert M nondirective. This
style is similar to Behaving Style III for TOQ Groups shown
in Figure 16. This is a highly individualistic form of
permissiveness and structure with M rebelligus as a mediator.
This style reflects individualized behavior found in the
status of teaching disturbed children in a permissive yet
organized fashion.
4. Behaving Styles for Male
and Female Teachggg

Separate‘HICLASS analyses were carried out for male
and female teachers in consideration of the previously noted
ratio for these groups. The analyses revealed five male
types including one of strong magnitude, three of weak mag—
nitude, and one insignificant, while there were also five
female types including one of very strong magnitude, two of
strong magnitude, and two of insignificant magnitude.
Table 21 presents the mean TPS scale scores by type and
magnitude for both male and female analyses. Behaving
styles were formulated for the strong and very strong types.
Figure 20 shows the behaving style which was formulated for
the single strong male type. This style features a permis-
sive pattern including high M status-striving and inter-
mediate M dependgpgy with M orderliness close by. This
style is similar to Behaving Style I for Training School
Teachers shown in Figure 22. Dependency upon authority and

gratification from status seeking are characteristics of

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.05 H.55 5.55 H.d5 H.55 5.H5 mosmcusoo .0H
5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.Hd 5.He 5.5d 5.05 5.55 UHpmaaOHananxm .5
5.55 0.05 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 enamesmaon .5
5.55 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.H5 5.55 5.H5 5.55 5.55 5.55 wmmc5Huoeuo .5
5.55 5.55 5.55 H.5d 0.55 5.55 0.55 H.0d 5.55 5.55 emumx5mnuHsemmum .5
0.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.05 5.H5 H.55 5.55 msOHHHmnmm .5
5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 0.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 0.55 5.55 m>5505555aoz .d
0.55 5.05 5.55 5.55 H.5e 5.55 5.Hq H.5q 0.05 0.55 ucmusuusz .5
5.55 5.He 5.Hd H.5d 5.5a H.55 5.55 5.Hd 5.5d 5.55 5c5>55551555555 .5
5.55 5.55 5.05 5.55 5.55 5.05 5.55 H.55 5.55 5.H5 HQUHuumum .H
enz 5uz 5uz 55uz 0Huz 5Huz dnz 5nz 0an 3%

3 .> 5 .3 5 .HHH 5 .HH 5>.H :H .> 3 .5 3 .HHH 3 .HH 5 .H

mmnz .muGQUMOH mHmEmm NOHZ .muoaomma OHM:
mmNH 50mm CH 5GOmumm mo umnEflZ O .OUDHHfiMMZK4UOHMHuc0oH mahH

 

 

 

 

OMMEUOMH mH<me Qz< mam: mom OHOWA¢Z<_OO<AUHZ

20mm MODHHZUOZ Qz<.mme wm mmmoom mudum mmH z<m2

HN MHO<H

 

82 55$ 32 39H
mucoumouud Ocouum Goauoonom anuum

OO Om Om dm Nm Om Od Od_dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH
_

_

132

 

_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _

OO On On dm NO on Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

aOHuz mZMMHHOM UZOMHOV H MAMHO UZH><mmm "mmmUOMH MAO:

ON MMDGHm

N>HHOmmanoz
.mIHADndmmm
HZ<MDHMDZ
.ZOHHHmHmNm
wzH>HMHmI¢Hm
OOOHAAMONM
Mozmnzmmmn
mmmzHAmmomo
MOZ<ZHZOO
A<UHHO<Mm

.OH
.H

emmz 55E 50oz 39H
moamumooud Osouum Goauoonom Osouum

OO Om Om dm NO on Od Od_dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

133

 

_
_
_
._

OO Om Om dm Nm Om Od Od dd Nd Od Om Om dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH

AmHuz HZMMHH<N UZOOHO wmm>v H MANHO UzH>¢mmm «MMZUOMH mamzmm

HN mMDUHm

m>HHUMMHonz
.MIHADO¢Hmm
HZOMDHMDZ
.ZOHHHOHmNu
UZH>HMHO1<HO
ODOHAAMOMM
Nozmnzmmmn
OOHZHAMMQQO
MOZdZHZOn
AdUHhodmm

5uz .5 oHsum . 0
55uz .5 mH555 . x
"osmOoA

5552 5555 5552 305
ounwumouod Ocouum coauuonom Onouum

OO Om Om dm NO Om O Od_dd Nd Od Om Wm dm Nm Om ON ON dN NN ON OH OH dH NH OH m>HHUmmHOzoz .d
a .mlaqanmmmm .O

_
_
_
n. _ 5.2553552 . 5
” .onaHmmem .5

134

a ozH>H555a5H5 .5
o 5:0H555555 .5
_ a _ wozmnzmmma .5
_ e _ mmmzHummnmo .5
_ a _ 50z5zH205 .0H

_ c _ 55oHHo5mm .H
05 55 55 55 55 05 55 55 55 55 05 55 55 55 55 05 55 55 55 55 05 5H 5H 5H 5H 0H

AmzmeH<m UZOMHOV m 92¢ N mmqum UZH><mmm "mmmUOMH ma<2mm

NN MMDOHO

135

this style yet the style includes considerable investment

in an orderly child-centered learning environment with less
need for gratification from the pragmatic concerns of teach-
ing.

The behaving styles formulated for the female
teacher are shown in Figures 21 and 22. Style I has a well-
developed permissive, nurturant pattern. It is character-
ized by considerable need for status and relationship with
children while there is also need for some control (M
dependency and orderliness interact). Figure 22 shows
Female Behaving Styles 11 and III which are similar to
previously described styles. Style 11 is similar to Behav—
ing Style 111 for TOQ Combined Mixed Groups, shown in
Figure 17 which emphasizes a permissive pattern. This
female style has M practical and Egbellioug as mediators
with high M nurturant. This reflects overt-positive detach-
ment but need for change within the highly affectionate
child-centered pattern. Style 111 is one of constricted-
controlled patterns (relatively equal M dominance, pgggp-
liness, and nondirective) although this teacher has slightly
more identification with children than with the status of
teaching. This style reflects control and inhibition.

Synthesis of Hypotheses and
Data From Analysis‘

Three main hypotheses were advanced in Chapter III
on the premise that there would be observed differences in
patterns of underlying motives as measured by the TPS and

in theoretical orientation to teaching disturbed children,

136

as measured by the TOQ. The analysis procedures previously
described and carried out were designed for test of these
research hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 stated:

There will be discernable teacher behaving styles

for the total population of teachers of emotion-

ally disturbed children.

To test this hypothesis, the HICLASS Analysis for
the total group and for the contrast groups was carried out.
Four teacher types and two contrast group types were of
sufficient magnitude that they could be formulated, by the
procedure outlined, into discernable behaving styles.
Further differentiation of the contrast group was made and
separate undergraduate and graduate student behaving styles
were formulated. The magnitude of the basic types and the
differences in patterns within styles indicated sufficient
descriptive differences between styles. The Kruskal-Wallis
One-way'Analysis of Variance By Ranks (Siegel, 1956) was
employed to determine whether the differences among the
types, for the teacher types shown in Table 9, were genuine
differences or just chance variations within the population.
A summary of the analysis is presented in Table 22.

This summary supports acceptance of the null hypoth~
esis (alpha = .05) that there are no statistical differences
among the identified general teacher types although signi-
ficant descriptive differences have been shown. The Mann-

Whitney U Test (Siegel, 1956) was employed to determine

137

TABLE 22

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY.ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE FOR STRONG TEACHER STYLES

 

 

Style 1 Style 2 Style 3 11 Significance

 

# of Cases 10 10 10
Sum of Ranks 179.5 120 265.5

2.04 p= <.50 >.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whether there were statistical differences between Teacher
Styles and Contrast Group styles. A summary of this analysis

is presented in Table 23. This summary supports acceptance

TABLE 23

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN TEACHER.AND CONTRAST STYLES

 

W
Style N R [J Significance

Teacher Style 1 10 147 44 N S
Contrast Style 1 10 111 ’ '
Teacher Style 2 10 130 _

Contrast Style 2 10 80 25 p-.1O
Teacher Style 1 10 96 41 N 8
Contrast Style 2 10 114 ‘ ‘
Teacher Style 2 10 100 45 N S
Contrast Style 2 10 109 , ° °
Contrast Style 1 10 98 43 N S
Undergrad Style 1 10 112 ° ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the null hypothesis (alpha = .05) that there are no
statistical differences between the identified teacher types

although significant descriptive differences have been

138

shown. On the basis of the descriptive formulation of dis-
cernable teacher behaving styles, Hypothesis 1 is tenable.
Hypothesis 2 stated:

There will be discernable teacher behaving styles
for each of the treatment setting groups.

To test this hypothesis, the HICLASS Analysis for
each of the treatment setting groups was carried out and
corresponding behaving styles were formulated. On the whole,
nine types were of sufficient strength that they could be
formulated into discernable behaving styles including two
each for the mental hospital, intensive treatment, residen-
tial treatment, and public school groups and a single style
for the training school teachers. The Mann-Whitney U Test
(Siegel, 1956) was employed to determine whether there were
significant statistical differences between the pairs of
types for each group, and to test for significant differences
between the structured and permissive patterns within each
style. A summary of this analysis is presented in Tables 24
and 25. The summary in Table 24 supports acceptance of the
null hypothesis (alpha = .05) that there are no significant
statistical differences between the identified behaving
styles within each treatment setting group, although signi-
ficant descriptive differences have been shown for each
style. The summary in Table 25 in all except one test,
that for differences between permissive patterns in the
mental hospital styles, supports acceptance of the null

hypothesis (alpha = .05) that there are no significant

139

TABLE 24

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR
' DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STYLES FOR EACH
TREATMENT SETTING GROUP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group and Style N R U Significance
Mental Hospital

Style 1 ‘ 10 81.5 =

Style 2 ; 10 138.5 26 p '10
Intensive Treatment

Style 1 10 97 N S

Style 2 10 113 42 ‘ '
Residential Treatment

Style 1 10 88 N 8

Style 2 10 121 33 ‘ ’
Public School

Style 1 10 102 N S

Style 2 10 109 47 ’ ’

TABLE 25

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PATTERNS WITHIN
TREATMENT SETTING STYLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structured Permissive .
Group and Styles Pattegnfi, Pattern
U S‘gn‘ficance U Significance

Mental Hospital

Styles 1 and 2 6 p=.343 O p=.014*
Intensive Treatment

Styles 1 and 2 2 p=.057** 6 p=.343
Residential Treatment

Styles 1 and 2 4 p=.171 7 p=.443
Public School

Styles 1 and 2 8 p=.557 8 p=.557

*Po < .05

**Po < .10

 

140

statistical differences among the structured and permissive
patterns. In the case of the mental hospital permissive
pattern, the null hypothesis is rejected. Since the HICLASS
analysis identified discernable types and on the basis of
the descriptive formulation of separate behaving styles for
each treatment setting group, hypothesis two is tenable.

An additional statistical test for differences among
styles identified for the TOQ Profiles, Mixed Orientation B
group was carried out, The Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis
of Variance by Ranks (Siegel, 1956) was employed. Table 26
presents a summary of this analysis. This analysis supports
acceptance of the null hypothesis (alpha = .05) that there
are no statistical differences among the identified types
for the specific group, although significant descriptive

differences have been shown.

TABLE 26

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE-WAY ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE FOR TOQ PROFILE,
MIXED ORIENTATION'B STYLES

 

 

Style 1 Style 2 Style 3 Style 4 II Significance

 

# of Cases 10 10 10 10
Sum of Ranks 150.5 284.5 153.5 219.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

Hypothesis 3 stated:

There will be a positive relationship between

stated theoretical orientation and teacher

behaving style.

To test this hypothesis, the TOQ responses for
teachers were formulated into three discernable groups.
Those representing structured orientation, those represent-
ing permissive orientation, and a mixed group. Separatez
HICLASS analyses were carried out for each of the profile
groups and two styles were formulated for the structured
profile group, one style was formulated for the permissive
profile group and two styles were formulated for the com-
bined mixed profile group. In addition, four separate styles
were formulated for the Mixed Orientation B profile group.
Tests for significance of differences among these styles
have been previously noted. A recapitulation of the for-

mulation of behaving styles for the TOQ Structured and

Permissive Profiles is presented in Figure 23. The TOQ

FIGURE 23

RECAPITULATION OF BEHAVING STYLES FOR TOQ PROFILE
GROUPS (PERMISSIVE & STRUCTURED) ACCORDING TO PATTERN

 

’f

 

TPS Motives.Acco ding to Pattern
Structured Permissive

1 107 8 e9__§.-_..Q.._‘L_-__

 

f

TOQ Permissive Oriented

 

Style 1 I- L I- I H H H H
TOQ Structured Oriented *

Style 1 1- I- I- 1- 1+ 1+ 1- 1+

Style 2 I— I- I- I-- 1+ 1+ 1- 1+

 

 

 

 

H High Motive (X = 45-60)
1+ Intermediate Motive (Z
I- Intermediate;Motive (X
L Low Motive (X = 10~26)

35-44)
25-34)

142

Permissive Oriented teachers (Style I) have uniformly high
mean scores for the permissive pattern and intermediate low
mean scores for the structured pattern. We can, therefore,
conclude that there is a congruence between their stated
theoretical orientation and their behaving style. The evi-
dence is less clear for the structure oriented styles.
Style I features both structured and permissive patterns,
while Style II is equally inconclusive. Thus, Hypothesis 3
cannot be accepted from the evidence generated in this
study.

Finally, a fourth hypothesis, stating differences
between male and female teacher behaving styles was stated.
To test this hypothesis, separate HICLASS Analyses for
male and female teacher groups were carried out. One male
and three female types were of sufficient magnitude that
they could be formulated, by the procedure outlined, into
discernable behaving styles. The magnitude of the basic
types and the differences in patterns within styles indicates
sufficient descriptive difference between styles. The Mann-
Whitney U Test (Siegel, 1956) was employed to determine
whether there were significant statistical differences
between the types for males and females. A summary of this
analysis is presented in Table 27.

This summary supports acceptance of the null hypoth-
esis (alpha = .05) that there are no statistical differences

between the identified types although significant descriptive

143

TABLE 27

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF MANN-WHITNEY U TEST FOR
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE STYLES

 

Style N R U Significance
Male Style 1 10 115 ‘
Female Style 2 10 95 40 N.S.
Male Style 1 10 129 _
Female Style 3 10 81 26 P - .10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

differences have been shown. On the basis of the descrip-
tive formulation of discernable teacher behaving styles,

Hypothesis 4 is tenable.

Summary

The data from the "Theoretical Orientation to
Teaching" (TOQ) was analyzed by frequency distribution, per-
centage representation and correlational analyses. Dicho-
tomies and categories were formulated and judged to be
consistent or inconsistent according to the responses, both
from all teachers and from teachers in the five types of
treatment settings. According to analysis of TOQ responses,
the central theoretical orientation for teachers of disturbed
children is one which emphasizes a permissive educational
framework and a structured classroom atmosphere. Further
analyses showed that the majority of the teachers (58%)
were of mixed theoretical orientation, while 34% were of

structured orientation and 16% were of permissive orientation.

144

Correlational analysis showed varying relationships between
current and ideal educational framework and all treatment
setting groups except the intensive treatment group were
consistent in their statements.

HICLASS analyses were carried out for major groups
and sub-groups and discernable teacher behaving styles were
formulated. Focus, through descriptive analysis, was placed
upon the structured-teacher centered pattern and the per-
missive-child centered pattern. The permissive-child
centered pattern was the more generally manifest pattern
while the structured teacher-centered pattern was more
generally latent in most styles. The results of the HICLASS
Analysis were utilized to test the major hypotheses and all
hypotheses except the third, that postulating relationship
between TOQ Profile and Behaving Style, were tenable. Addi—
tional non-parametric statistical tests were carried out
and there were no significant differences at the stated
level of significance.

The focus of the study was upon descriptive rather
than statistical investigation. The non-statistical nature
of the data accounts largely for the lack of significant
statistical differences to support deduced descriptive
differences. The pattern analytic methodology yielded
useful typology data about teachers of disturbed children.

In conclusion, it can be said that there is evidence
that there are differing teacher behaving styles among

teachers of disturbed children and that there appear to be

145

characteristic styles for treatment setting groups, and
styles according to sex of the teacher. Some evidence
exists to support a statement of congruence between teacher

behaving style and theoretical orientation.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The rapid growth of special education programs for
disturbed children, the implementation of Federal training
grants to colleges and universities, and the demand for
specially selected and specially trained teachers has
created new problems for which research on special educa-
tion teacher personality and behavior holds great promise.
The sensitive nature of the teaching-learning process with
disturbed children amplifies the need for understanding of
therapeutic management of children, dynamic psychology,
and corrective education on the part of the teacher. Each
of these understandings is founded, to some degree, upon
the teacher's personality Characteristics and the classroom
behavior of these special teachers. The behavior of the
teacher must necessarily include both empathic-giving
gelements and empathic-receptive elements which allow the
teacher to cope with certain pathological behaviors and to
defend against the constant bombardment of a wide range of
disturbed children. The selection of these teachers is
primarily the province of teacher educators in colleges

and universities with special education programs.

146

147

The general purpose of the study was to identify,
through descriptive analysis, personality characteristics
of teachers of disturbed children. The major population
for the study consisted of teachers of disturbed children
from five defined types of treatment settings and a con-
trast group, consisting of undergraduate and graduate
students.

The review of literature concerned itself with the
character of research on personality differences in pro-
fessions in general, teachers in general, special education
teachers, and teachers of disturbed children. There was
extensive literature and research to demonstrate the exis-
tence of varying personality characteristics among profes-
sions and within the general teaCher profession, however,
there were few significant studies of personality variables
or behavior of special education teaChers nor of teachers
of disturbed children. There was in existence considerable
opinion, both negative and positive, among leaders in special
education. A general finding from the literature was that
there was sufficient research evidence to isolate a rela~
tionship between field of study and personality character~
istics and that research on personality characteristics of
disturbed children was empirically neglected.

A theoretical framework was outlined to provide
ground for the study. Ryans' (1963b) systems model was
ad0pted and teacher behaving sgzle was utilized as the con-
ceptual definition of the functioning of personality char-

acteristics in the classroom.

148

In the study, the Teacher Preference Schedule (TPS),
a validated measure of unconscious motives, and the Theo-
retical Orientations to Teaching Emotionally Disturbed
Children Questionnaire (TOQ), an instrument designed for
this study, were the major data collection devices.
Teachers from five treatment settings and non-teaching
students (undergraduates and graduates) at Michigan State
University completed sets of the instruments used in the
study. There were 119 teachers and 29 students who par-
ticipated in the study. Data collection was carried out
through a purposive sampling method which enabled the
investigator to send and receive materials through a con-
tact person at each treatment setting. The basic data
collected on each participant were: a measure of the
strength of ten unconscious motives, a choice of educational
framework, and a choice of classroom.approach, both of
which were defined in the theoretical framework of the
study.

The data were analyzed bthcQuitty's Method of
Pattern Analysis, using Hierarchial Classification By Recip-
rocal Pairs (HICLASS) to determine patterns of response
and to isolate types. Teacher Behaving Styles were formu-
lated and described. In addition, nonparametric statisti-
cal tests were utilized to test differences between styles.

The data from.the TOQ were formulated into theoretical pro-

files and pattern analysis was carried out for each profile.

149

Frequency distributions and correlational analyses were

also carried out.

The pattern analysis revealed discernable types for
the total group of teachers and the contrast group. The
formulation, according to the magnitude of the type, of
teacher behaving styles for both groups followed. There
were no statistical differences between types although they
were descriptively different from each other. The pattern
analysis also revealed discernable types for the treatment
setting groups, for the TOQ Profile groups, and for male
and female teachers. Individual teacher behaving styles
were formulated for each of the group types which were
identified. There were no statistical differences among
and between the types although they were descriptively dif-
ferent from each other. Table 28 presents a summary of the
number and magnitude of behaving styles for all group
analyses.

TOQ data showed that the majority of the teachers
preferred a mixed theoretical orientation emphasizing struc—
tured educational framework and permissive classroom approach.
Various treatment setting groups were, upon further analysis,
shown to be consistent or inconsistent in their choices.

.An index of satisfaction was generated and all groups except
the intensive treatment group appeared to be functioning
in an atmosphere in which they stated that they were com-

fortable.

150

TABLE 28

SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER.AND MAGNITUDE OF BEHAVING
STYLES FOR ALL GROUP ANALYSES

;

 

Viv

 

 

 

 

Total Number of Types b Magnitude
Group Very Strong Strong

Teachers, All 119 1 3
Contrast Group, All 29 l 1
Undergraduates 20 1 0
Mental Hospital 22 O 2
Intensive Treatment 32 2 0
Residential

Treatment 22 O 2
Training School 33 O 1
Public Schools 9 O 2
TOQ - Structmred 4O 0 2
TOQ - Permissive 18 O 1
TOQ - Mixed

Orientation A 58 2 2
TOQ - Mixed

Orientation B 45 O 4
Male Teachers 62 O 1
Female Teachers 57 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher behaving styles tended to have primary and
secondary patterns within them and within these patterns
specific motives seemed to enter into complex interactions.
The permissive pattern was predominant (had higher mean
scores) in all styles while the structured pattern was
secondary in strength of need. The focal motives in the
styles were the generally high M nondirective in the per-
missive patterns and the low M dominance in the structured
patterns. These behaving styles emphasized high need for
identification with children, relative degrees of need for

change and guidance along with similar patterns of need for

151

control. A second general style seemed to be that of a con—
stricted controlled teacher with less need for identifica-
tion with children and greater need for the status and
rewards forthcoming from teaching. One rather unexpected
style came from the TOQ group which indicated a preference
for structure, and learning theory based approaches. Their
behaving style indicated a rather free, child-centered
pattern with indications of a high degree of self-assurance
and need for direction and supervision. The styles for
male and female teachers were of interest as the single
male style reflected very child-centered nurturant, yet
organized patterns while the female styles reflected child-
centered, nurturant, unorganized patterns. One female
style was constricted.

In conclusion, there was evidence of discernable
teacher behaving styles for teachers of disturbed Children.
The method of descriptive analysis was utilized to formu-
late these styles and to define patterns within the styles.
Hypotheses tested pertained to discernable styles for the
total group and a contrast group, for treatment setting
groups, and according to theoretical framework. All hypoth-
eses were tenable, with the exception of that pertaining

to theoretical framework.

Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from.this study must be con-

sideredixlthe light of the samples which have been

152

investigated, the nature of the data collected, and parti-
cular methodology which was used. The descriptive method
has essentially provided the investigator with a statement
of the nature of the specific populations which were
studied with the particular instruments and analyses used
for those data. It is hoped that sufficient data have been
presented to allow for significant conclusions and a degree
of generalizability. The conclusions offered, when taken
with conclusions of previous research should make a con-
tribution to better understanding of teacher behavior.

Conclusions advanced are:

1. There was sufficient descriptive evidence to
show that teachers of distrubed children have
varying behaving styles which can be assessed
and analyzed.

2. There was descriptive evidence to conclude that
the behaving styles of teachers of disturbed
children and undergraduate students were descrip-
tively different.

3. There was sufficient descriptive evidence to
show that teachers of disturbed children, in
five types of treatment settings, had varying
behaving styles which could be characterized by
their primary and secondary patterns. There
was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate
existence of a complete dichotomy between the

two major behaving styles.

153

4. There was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate
a relationship between theoretical framework and
teacher behaving style.

5. In this study, there was an unusually high per-
centage of male participants and there were
discernable teacher behaving styles for both
male and female teachers.

6. Few teachers of disturbed children espouse a
consistent theoretical orientation and fewer
still espouse a total orientation based upon
permissive-child centered substrata. The
majority of teachers, in this study, espoused
an eclectic point of view. There was a very
definite separation between methods of teach-
ing and the process of teaching in the view of
teachers of disturbed children.

7. Specific groups of teachers showed lower need
for change and innovation in their behaving
styles while others had high need for innova-
tion. Most characteristic of the low change
group were the mental hospital and the training
school teachers, while the intensive treatment
group had higher need for change and a low
satisfaction index.

The conclusion pertaining to discrepancy and incon-

sistency of theoretical orientation is of special note and

154

there is some evidence to show that this discrepancy between
theory and practice exists for all teachers. Evidence for
this conclusion is to be found in the statement by Ryans:

. . . the educational viewpoints of an indivi-
dual teacher may or may not conform to the
objectives of the school system in which he

is employed. Furthermore, because of lack of
real understanding of the implications of
VieWpoints held, or inability to translate the
viewpoints into classroom behavior (or perhaps
because of external pressures), a teacher may
not actually conduct his classes in keeping
with the vieWpoints he professes about educa-
tional matters. Nevertheless, one might ex—
pect a teacher committed to a particular set
of educational vieWpoints to behave differently
in specified school situations from a teacher
committed to some different educational view-
point. Or, to put it briefly, it seems rea-
sonable to assume that teacher behavior is in-
fluenced by the educational values held by the
individual teacher. (Ryans, 1960, p. 148)

The nature of this discrepancy and inconsistency for
teachers of disturbed children is twofold. Not only did
teachers describe themselves as theoretically committed
to a behavior style which had little congruence with their
personality characteristics but they espoused theoretical
committment to a position which was, in some instances, not
congruent with the purposes of the treatment setting nor
the clientele they served. The findings of unorganized
styles in public schools and of permissive styles in train—
ing schools seems to substantiate this conclusion. The
confusion may well lie within the need to reexamine the
concepts of permissiveness and structure. It is evident,

from this study, that teachers of disturbed children have

155

both permissive and structured theoretical orientations and
behaving styles with a reasonable degree of reliance upon
order and supervision so that we can no longer speak of
classification as functions of extreme points. Heil,
Powell, and Feifer (1960) have suggested that a complete
rethinking of the concept of permissiveness is necessary.
They noted that there has been a "confusion of structure
and order with irrational authority" on the one hand and a
misconception on the other hand that permissiveness implies
"letting the child do what he wants" because it is good

for him. They stated further:

A second misconception regarding permis—
siveness is that of regarding it as a "tech-
nique." The fallacy has been that this is
something you learn to do like tying one's
shoe laces and you use it when necessary.

The fact that genuine permissiveness flows

from one's own self-acceptance, self-under-

standing and general good mental health, has

tended to be neglected. Permissiveness is not

a "face" one puts on.

The conclusions and the previous discussion raises
another significant question pertaining to both behaving
style and theoretical orientation. To what extent do ex—
ternal conditions influence the thinking and behavior of
the teacher? In essence, what specific effect do particu-
lar treatment settings, the particular clientele within
them, or administrative structure have upon the behavior
of the teacher? The index of satisfaction for theoretical

orientation suggests that there may well be a situational

factor operating upon behavior. One might hypothesize that

156

the cause of the dissatisfaction among intensive treatment
teachers is related to their greater degree of therapeutic
support and their generally recognized higher level train-
ing and the intensive intellectual stimulation which ensues
from working in a research and training milieu. In effect,
their relative dissatisfaction represents a higher degree
of sophistication and knowledge of the need for change.
It would seem.that the more sophisticated people know what,
is ideal and therefore strive for it, and are dissatisfied,
relatively speaking, until they achieve their goal.
Another consideration, from.the conclusions, per-
tains to what Rabinow (1964) refers to as the "fixity of
traits, characteristics, and attitudes, and the degree and
manner in Which these may be influenced by training,
supervision, or consultation." The literature indicates
that there is a mutual attractiveness between the person
and the field, thereby giving indication that the person
brings with him a general mein which may be relatively un-
changeable. The question which should be considered has
to do with the extent to which teacher training programs
can institute, amend, or solidify behaviors which are
adaptable to work with disturbed children in specific g2;-
giggg. It is evident that cognizance might well be given
to the situation and clientele with which the teacher of
disturbed children will interact. The program description

given by Dorney (1964) and that given by Douglas (1961),

157

for instance, seemingly require teachers with different
theoretical orientations and behaving styles. Can univer-
sity teacher training programs, in a single comprehensive
program, meet the needs of both extremes of consumption
of their products? 1

A final consideration has to do with the extent to
which there is congruence between the "paper and pencil"
behaving styles of teachers of disturbed children and their
on-the—scene performance, in a classroom with a multitude
of counter forces impinging upon them. This, of course,
is a necessary extention of this study. With the data in
hand that there are describable behaving styles, there must
be an effort to validate their existence, de factp, through
systematic observation of teachers and classroom processes
in all treatment settings. Failure to confirm the existence
of these styles leaves the field in much the same position
as Ryans (1960) has suggested it is in relation to con-

gruence between theory and practice.

Implications

General Implications
The first implication has to do with the current

state of thought pertaining to teachers of disturbed chil-
dren and their characteristic behaving styles and theoretical
orientations. The study demonstrates, to some extent, what
has been known but not acknowledged all along: that there

are significant, individual differences among teachers and

158

various groups of teachers. Since there was no "all-per-
missive teacher" nor "all-structured teacher," but one
representing several degrees upon the continuum, teacher-
educators, and researchers should be able to proceed in
other meaningful fields of research with knowledge that
personality characteristics can be assessed, in terms of
their supposed influence in classrooms. Subsidiary to this
implication is the fact that there was little evidence to
suggest that pathological-like needs were part of the com-
plex of behaving styles. In only two styles, was there
suggestion of negative quality as it would effect behaving
style. This finding also suggests procedure for an effec-
tive method of screening for purposes of more intensive re-
view by faculty charged with the responsibility of candi-
date admission. Subsidary to the implication pertaining to
the attraction that the field holds for certain personality
types and the possibility of effective screening procedures,
is the implication of the higher percentage of male teachers
who are practitioners in various settings. This finding in
itself is surprising, based upon the distribution of males
in the general teacher population. One study (Gottfried
and Jones, 1965) reported a sample of prospective special
education teachers from one college and there were more
males (based upon a very small N) than females. No explana-
tion is given for this finding. In other reviews on special
education teacher education (Cain, 1964) there are no impli-

cations pertaining to the sex of the teacher.

159

The second general implication has to do with the
relevancy of teacher behaving styles within other fields
of special education. The sparcity of literature and
empirical research seems to indicate a pressing need for
differentiation between teachers of exceptional children.
Questions such as: are there varying strength of patterns
for different teachers of exceptional children? Which
behaving styles are optimal for enhancement of the teach-
ing-learning process with crippled, blind, deaf, retarded,
or disturbed children? What is the effect of differences
in behaving styles for males or females upon exceptional
children? These are the matrix from which significant study
and advancement of knowledge develops.

The final general implication pertains to the util-
ization, by special education, of research and literature,
particularly concerning teacher behavior, from.eources other
than those specifically directed toward exceptional Children
and their teachers. The review of research for this study,
the adoption of a "non-special education" theoretical frame-
work, and utilization of an existing teacher personality
assessing device points toward the feasibility of increased
usage of existing knowledge and methodology. Studies such
as Grimes and Allinsmith (1961) on the effect of intra-
psychic processes on learning and behavior or of Martin's
(1963) formulation of a logical position concerning effec-

tive teaching have unusual relevance, if they can be viewed

160

by special educators as meaningful to general practice rather
than to specific groups of children. In this regard, there
would then be no lack of sound theory upon which to study

processes in special teacher behavior.

Rppearchglmplications

Several research implications arose from the-study,
particularly relevant extensions of the study which would
make other significant contributions to the literature and
knowledge in special education.

a. Further research on educational framework (methods
of teaChing) and classroom approach (process of teaching)
with disturbed children should be undertaken. Any research
consideration should, in all probability, include the
rationale suggested by Schmid, et al., 1962, in their study
of some necessary qualities of teachers. Cognitive formu—
lations such as knowledge of the principles of educating
disturbed children and a measure of the teacher's knowledge
of the clientele he contacts would be essential. These
assessments would give an objective and comparable comple-
ment to the TOQ.

b. Further research on teacher behaving styles
should include a consideration of the-on-the scene behavior
of the teacher along with personality assessment. Gump (1964)
suggests that there is a inter-dependency among various
factors which operate in the classroom. Teacher behavior

may thus be only a single factor and "significant

161

methodological implications arise" in the flow of attitudes
between the teacher and the children, the specific techniques
and behaviors that the teacher uses and displays, and the
range of deviant behaviors found in the particular treat~
ment setting. This varied situation is prevalent in class-
rooms for disturbed children and future research might well
be directed toward investigation of the entire, complex
classroom milieu rather than maintenance of specificand
often unbeneficial focus upon isolation, manipulation, and
measurement of minute variables.

In conclusion, several general implications and two
important research implications have been drawn from the
study of behaving styles of teachers of emotionally dis-
turbed children. Significant conclusions were related to
needs for future research on all teachers of exceptional
children and for greater understanding of the teaching-
learning process with disturbed and other exceptional
children and the need for developing insight into the effect
of teacher education programs upon the behavior of teachers

of exceptional children.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, H.L., Blood, D.F. & Taylor, H.C. "Personality dif-
ferences among arts and science students, education

students and experienced teachers," Amer. Psycholo-
gist, 1957, 13, 371.

Alexander, T. "The prediction of teacher-pupil interaction

withaprojective test," Jll clin. Psychol“ 1950, p,
272-276. .

Alt, H. Residential Treatment get the Disturbed Child.
New York: International Universities Press, 1960.

Amatora, Sister Mary. "Similarity in teacher's and pupil
personality," J, Psychol., 1954 (Jan.), 31, 45-50.

Anderson, C.C. & Hunka, S.M.' "Teacher evaluation: Some'
problems and a proposal," Harvard Educ Rev , 1963,

Anderson, H.H. & Brewer, J.E. "Studies of teachers class-
room personalities: 11. Effects of teaChers dominativef
& integrative contacts on children's classroom behavior,"

Applied Psychol. Monogp., 1946, 8,

Barker, R.G. (ed.) The Stpeam.of Behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.

 

Barr, A.S. "The measurement and prediction of teaching

efficiency: A summary of investigations," Jl egp. Educ.,
1948, lg, 203-283.

Barr, A.S. "The assessment of the teacher's personality,"
Sch. Rev,, 1960, pg, 400-408.

Bereiter, C. & Freedman M.B. "Personality differences
among college curricular groups," Amer Ps cho o ist,

1960, _1_§, 435.

Bereiter, C. & Freedman, M.B. "Fields of study and the
people in them," in Nevitt Sanford (ed.) The American
Cpllege. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962, 563-596.

Berkowitz, Pearl H. & Rothman, Esther P. The Disturbed
Child. New York: New York University Press, 1961.

Biddle, B.J. & Ellena, W.J. (eds.) Contempprapy Research.

on Teacher Effectiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehartlfi
Winston, 1964.

Bischoff, L.J. Interpreting Personality Theories. New
York: Harper & Row, 1964.

162

163

Blum, L.P. "Comparative study of students preparing for
five selected professions including teaching," J, exp.
Educ., 1947 (Sept.) 16, 31-65.

Bruce, W.F. & Holden, A.J. The Teacher's Personal D 'elo
ment. New York: Henry Holt E Co., 1957, IDS-Itz.‘
Callis, R. "Change in teacher-pupil attitudes related to

training and experience," Educ. psychol, Measmt., 1950,
19, 718-727.

Cain, L.F. "Special education moves ahead: A Comment.on.theg
education of teachers," Except,yCh,, 1964, 3Q, 211-217.

Cawley, J.F. "Selected characteristics of individuals
oriented toward mental retardation," Unpublished manu-
script, 1968. ~

Cohen, S. "The role of education as an integral part of the
total treatment program," paper presented at the annual
meeting of The American Association for Children'sI .
Residential Centers, Chicago, Illinois, October 26, 1963.

Colvin, R.W. "The education of emotionally disturbed chil-
dren in a residential treatment center," Amer, J,
Orthopsychiat,, 1961, 31, 591—597.

Conner, Frances P. "Teacher selection and preparation," .
in Education of tpg Severely Retarded Child: Clagproom
Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Bull. OE-5022, 1961, #20.

Cook, D.L.,Linden, J.D. & McKay, H.E. "A factor analysis
of teacher trainee responses to selected personality

inventories," Educ s Chol Measmt , 1961, 2134,

Cook, D., LeBold, W. & Linden, J.D. "A comparison of fac-
tor analyses of education and engineering responses to
selected personality inventories," J, TeachI Educ,,

.1963, 13, 137-141.

Cornell, F.G. "The sampling problem in educational research,"
.in R.O. Collier Jr. & S.M. Elam (eds.) Resegpch D si n _
and Analysis. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 961.

Cronbach, L.J. & Gleser, G. "Assessing similarity between'
profiles," Psychol. Bull., 1953, 29, 456-473.

Cruickshank, W.M. "Current educational practices with ex-
ceptional Children," in W.M. Cruickshank & G.O. Johnson
(eds.) Education ongxceptionalGhildren and Youth.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1958a.

Cruickshank, W.M. "The exCeptional child in the elementary
and secondary schools," in W.M. Cruickshank andfG.0h

Johnson (eds.) Educatipn pf Egceptiopgl Chilgpen 5nd
Youth. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeuHall, 1958b.

164

D'Evelyn, Katherine E. Meeting Children's Emotignal Needs.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1957..

Dixon, W.J. & Massey, F.J. Jr. Introduction to Statisti—
pal Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957. 3
Dixon, W.R. & Morse, W.C. "The prediction of teacher peré

formance: Empathic potential," J, TeachI Educ., 1961,
12:3, 332-339.

Domas, S.J. & Tiedeman, D.V. "Teacher competence: An anno-
tated bibliography," J. expj Educy, 1950, 12, 99—218.

Dorney, W.P. "The educational program as a part of a dee
tention service," Fed. Pgobation, 1964 (Dec.), 28g4,
55-57.

Dorwald, Barbara. "A comparison of competencies for regu»
lar classroom teachers and teachers of emotionally
disturbed children," Except, Ch,, 1963, 30 67-73.

—

Douglas, Katherine B. "The teacher's role in a Childrenls
psychiatric hospital unit," Except, Ch,, 1961 (Jan.),
21, 246-51. .

Dugan Ruth R. "Personality and the effective teacher,"
M. 1961, I2. 335-337.

 

Duncan, J.K. & Frymer, J.R. "Research in teacher education:)
A syntactical view," J, Tgach, Educ., 1960, 11, 3573364.

Durflinger, G.W. "Recruitment and selection of prospective
elementary and secondary school teachers," Rev. Educ.
Res,, 1963, 33:4. '

Freud Anna. "The role of the teacher," Harvard E uc Rev ,
1952, 22:4, 229—246.

Gaier, E.L. & Lee, Marilyn C. "Pattern analysis: The cone
figural approach to predictive measurement," Ps Chol.
Bull., 1953, 59, 141-149.

Garrison, K. & Scott, Mary Hughie. "A comparison of the
personal needs of college students preparing to teach
in different teaching areas," Educ cho Meas t ,
1961, 21:4. , ‘

Getzels, J.W. "Methods used to study personality," J, Nat.
Asso. Dean of Womep, 1953, 16, 154-158.

Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. "The teachers personality
and characteristics," in N.L. Gage (ed.) ngdbook of
Research on Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Research Association, 1963.

Glaser, Judy. "Teacher personality: The_growth of assurance
and aumhority," Excepg. Ch., 1959, pp, 151-154. -

Gotham, R.E. "Eersonality and teacher efficiency," J, egp;
Edup., 19 5 (Dec.), 14, 157-65.

165

Gottfried, N.W. & Jones, R.L. "Career choice factors in
special education,‘ Except. Ch-, 1964, 3Q, 218~223.

Gough, E.G. & Woodworth D.G. "Stylistic variations amongl
professional research scientists," J. Psychol., 1960,

Gowan J.C. "Self report tests in the prediction of teach?
ing effectiveness," Sch. Rev., 1960, 6§, 409~419.

Grimes, J.W. & Allinsmith, W. "Compulsivity, anxiety, and
school achievement," Merrill-Palmer art , 1961, 1,
247-71.

Guba, E.G. & Getzels, J.W. "Personality and teacher effec-
tiveness: A problem in theoretical research," J. educ.
Psychol., 1955, fig, 330-344.

Gump, P.V. "Environmental guidance of the classroom behav-
ioral system," in Bruce J. Biddle & William.J. Ellena.
(eds.) Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.

Haring, N.G. & Phillips, E.L. Educating Emotlonally Dis-
.turbed Children. New.York: McGraw-Hill, 96 .

Heil, L.M., Powell, Marion, & Feifer, I. Chgragteglgtlgg
of Teacher Behavior and Com etenc Related ' t
Achievement of Different Kinds of Children in Several
Elementary Grades. Brooklyn College, U.S. Office of ‘
Education, Final Report # SAE 7285, May, 1960.

lsaacson R.L.,!McKeachie, W.J. & Milholland, J.E; "Corre-
lation Of teacher personality variables and student
ratings," g5 educ. Psychol., 1963, 54:2, 1104117.

Jackson, B.W. & Guba, E.G. "The need structure of in-set-

vice teachers: n occupational analysis," Sch, Rev.,
1957, 62, 176-192. ,

Jordan, T.E. The Exceptional Child. Columbus, Ohio: Charles
E. Merrill, Inc., 1962.

Kelley, E.L. & Fiske, D.W. The Prediction of Pegfogmance in
Clinigal Psychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press, 1951.

Kirk, S. Education of Exceptional Chllgren. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1962.

Knoblock, P. "Critical factors influencing educational pro-
gramming for disturbed children," Except, Ch,, 1963,

Kuenzli, A.E. "A field experience prOgram.With emotionally
disturbed children," Except, Ch,, 1960, ;§, 158~16lo

Laird, Dorothy C.S. & Ellis, Helen C. "Doctoral studies on
the education of teachers and administrators, 1960-61,"
J; Teach, Educ., 1961, l;, 254-362.

 

166

Laird, Dorothy C.S. & Ellis, Helen C. "Doctoral Studies on
the education of teachers and administrators, 1961-62,"
J, Teach, Educ., 1962, 13, 337-345. - .

Lamke T.A. "Personality and teaching success," J, exp.
Educ., 1951 (Dec.), g9, 217-260.

Lang, G. "Teadhers motives for teaching," Clearing House,
1959 (May), 542-544.

Long, N.J. & Newman, Ruth G. "The teacher's handling of
children in conflict," Bull. of Sch, Educn Indiana
University, 1961 (July), 37:4.

LaVietes, Ruth L. "The teacher's role in the education of .
the emotionally disturbed child," Amer, J, Orthopsychiat,,
1962 (Oct.), 32, 854-62.

Levin, H., Hilton, T.L. & Lerderman, Gloria F. 7"Studies in
teacher behavior," J. exp, Educ., 1957, 26, 81-91.

Lord, Frances E. & Kirk, S.A. "The education of teachers

of special classes," Forty-ninth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study pf Education, Part 11. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1950, O -1 6. -

 

I. "The fundamental nature of measurement," in E.F.
iindquist (ed.) Educational Measurement. owashington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950.

Lucio' W.H. Prediction o§:Teacher Performance and Emotiona
stabillt§?'X‘?§yehophysiologloal FITS?"§EEE§TEF‘FEEETHJ
Student TeaChers. U.S. Department of Health, Education

& Welfare, Office of Education, Coop. Research Project
No. 648, Los Angeles: University of California, 1961.

Mackie, R.P., KVaraceus, W.C. & Williams, H.M. Teachers of

Children Who Are Socially and Emotionally Maladjuste .
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education

& Welfare, Bull. 1957, No. 11, 1957.

Lorge

 

 

Mackie, R.P., Dunn, L.M., & Cain, L.F. Professional Pre-
pagation for Teachers of Exceptional Children: An
Overview. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, Bull. 1959, No. 6, 1959.

Mackie, R.P. & Conner, Frances P. Teacheps of Crippled
Children and Teachers of Children withTSpecial Healph,'
Ergblems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, Bull. 1960, No. 21, 1961.

Martin, Jane Roland. "Can there be universally applicable
criteria of good teaching," Harvard Educ. Rev,, 1963,

Masling, J. & Stern, G. "Changes in motives as a result of
teaching," Theory Into Practice, 1963, 2, 95-104.

Medley, D.M. & Mitzel, H.E. "A tentative framework for the
study of effective teacher behavior," JI egp, Educ.,
1962 (June), go, 317-20.

 

167

Medley, D. M. & Mitzel, H. E. "Measuring classroom behavior
by systematic observation, " in N. L. Gage (ed.) Hand-'
book of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand—McNally,
Co., 1963.

Messick, 8. "Personality structure," Annu. Rev. Psychol.,
1961, ll, 93-128.

Michaelis, J.U° "The prediction of success in student teach-
ing from personality and attitude inventories," Univ.
Calif. Publs. Educ,, 1954, ll, 415-481.

Michigan Department of Public Instruction. The Michigan
Program for the Education of Empplonally Disturbed
Children. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public
Instruction, Bull. 365, 1964.

Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station.
Program Description 3: CORE. East Lansing Michigan:
Michigan State University, September 30,1963

Michigan State University, Computer Laboratory. Pattern
Analytic Methods (PAM) for the CDC 3600,L EaSt Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963.

Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social
Science Research. Technical Report 8 a Mchitty's
Methods of Pattern Analysis. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, February 17,1964.

Morse, W.C., Cutler, R.L. & Fink, A.L. Public School Classes
for the Emotionally Handlcapped: A Research Analysis. '
Washington, D.C.: The Council for Exceptional Children,
1964. .

Morse, W.C. "Socially and emotionally disturbed children,"
in Recent Research and Developments and Their Implica—
tipps for Teacher Education. 13th Yearbook. Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960.

Morse, W.C. & Dyer, C.D. "The emotionally and socially
handicapped," Rev. Educ.Re§&, 1963, 3;, 109-125.

Mitchell, J.V. "Personality Characteristics associated with
motives for entering teaching," Phi Delta Kappan, 1965,
4Q, 529-532.

Murray, HaA., et al. Explorations in Personality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1938.

McBride, D.W., Hammill, D. & Gilmore, D. "Personality fac-
tors in the success of classroom teachers of the
multihandicapped," Cereb, Pol,_Rev,, 1965, 26, 1-5.

McNemar, Q. Psycholpgical_Statistics. New York: John
Wiley, 1949.

McQuitty, L. L. "A method of pattern analysis for isolating
typological and dimensional constructs," AFPTRC Research
Bull,, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, 1955, TN-55- 62.

168

McQuitty, L.L. "A method for selecting patterns to difé
ferentiate between people," Educ. psychol,Measmt,,
1961, ll, 85-94.

McQuitty, L.L. "Rank order typal analysis," Educ, psychol.
Measmt,, 1963a, gg, 55~61.

McQuitty, L.L. "Elementary factor analysis," Psydhol.
Reports, 1963b, 2, 71-78.

McQuitty, L.L. "Capabilities and improvements of linkage
analysis as a clustering method," Educ, psychol.
Measmt,, 1964a, 24, 441-456.

McQuitty, L.L. "Single and multiple hierarchial classifica-
tion by reciprocal pairs and rank order types,"
Mimeographed 1964b, accepted for publication in Educ.

psychol, Measmt., Summer, 1966.

National Education Association. Estimates of School Sta-
tistics. 1963~64. Washington, D.C.: NEA Research
Report 1963 R-12, Dec., 1963.

National Education Association. Rankings of the States,
1965. Washington, D.C.: NEA Research Report 1965

Rnl, Feb., 1965.

Pace, W.T. "Profiles of personal needs and college press
of negro teacher trainees," Unpublished dissertation,
Wayne State University, 1960-61. ‘

Pearson, G.H.J. Psychoanalysis and Education of the Child.
New York: W.W. Norton 5 Co., 1954, 255-260.

Philippus, Marion John. "A study of personality value and
interest patterns of student teachers in three areas,"
Unpublished dissertation, University of Denver, 1961-2.

Powell, H.F. "Characteristic differences in certain attri-
butes of teachers in various teaching fields," Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
1950.

Rabinow, B. "A training program for teachers of the emo-
tionally disturbed and the socially maladjusted,"

Except, Ch,, 1960, _2_§, 287-293.

Rabinow, B. "An agenda for educators working with the
emotionally disturbed in residential settings," Amer.

J, Orthopsychiat,, 1961 (July), 3;, 584-90.

Rabinow, B. ThggTrainingand Supervision of Teachers for
Emotionally Disturbed Children. Albany, NJ¥.: The
State Education Department, 1964. ‘

Roe, Anne. "A psychological study of eminent psychologists
and anthropologists and a comparison with biological
and physical scientists," Psychol, Monogr,, 1953, 62:2
(Whole No. 367).

169

Roe, Anne. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: Wiley,
1956. _

Ryans D.G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1960.

Ryans, D.G. "Possible directions for teacher-behavior
research," Theory Into Practice, 1963a (April), 2,
105-112.

Ryans, D.G. "Teacher behavior theory and research: Impli-

cations for teacher education," J, of Teach, Educ,,
1963b (Sept.), l4, 274-293.

Ryans D.G. "Assessment of teacher behavior and instruction,"
Rev.of Educ. Res., 1963c (Oct.), 3;, 415-441.

Ryans, D.G. "Research on teacher behavior in the context
of the teacher characteristics stud ," in Biddle,
Bruce J. & Ellena, William J. (eds. Contemporary
Research_on Teacheg Effectiveness. New York: Holt-
Rinehart & Winston, 1964.

Saltz, Joanne W. "Teacher stereot e - liability in recruit-
ingT," Sch. Rev,, 1960 (Spring , 68, 105-11.

Schmid, J. "Factor analyses of prospective teacher's dif-
ferences," J, exp, Educ,, 1950, l8, 287-319.

Schmid, J., Looney, M.O., North, W.E., VanZandt, B.R., &
West, N.E. An Analysis ofl§ome Necessary nglities
of Teachers. University of Arkansas, U.S. Office of
Education Final Report CRP 453, 1962.

Schnitzen, J.P. "Assessment of certain personality poten-
tials in relation to student teaching," Unpublished
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1961-62.

Schwartz, A.N. "A study of the descriminatory efficiency
of certain tests of the primary source personality
traits of teachers," J, exp, Educ,, 1950 (Sept.), l2,
63-93.

Sears, Pauline Snedden. The Effect of Classroom.Conditions
on The Strength of Achlevement Motive and Work Output
on Elementary School Children. U.S. Department of
Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education, Coop.
Res. Proj. 873, Stanford, California; Stanford Univer-
sity, 1963, 311.

Selltiz, Clare, Johoda, Mary, Deutsch, M. & Cook, S.W.
Reseagch Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1961. . .

Selznick6 H.M. "Presidents page," Except, Ch,, 1964, Ql,
97- 8.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: MCGraw-Hill, 1956.

170

Silberman, H.F. (ed.) "Current research on classroom be-
havior of teachers and its implications for teacher
behavior," 2,T§ach. Edu§.,1963 (Sept.), 14:2.

Smith, Burt Kruger. No language But.A pr. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1964.

Soar, R.S. Multivariate Statistical Procedures in Predict-
ing Teacher—Pupll Classroom Behavior. U.S. Department
of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education,
Coop. Res. Proj. No. 1170, Columbia: University of
South Carolina, 1962, 167.

Soloman, D., Bendik, W.E. & Rosenberg, L. "Dimensions of
teacher behavior," J. exp, Educ., 1964, 22, 23-40.

Southworth, H.C. WA study of certain personality and value
differences in teacher education majors preferring
early later elementary teaching levels," Unpublished
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962.

Sparks, H.L. & Blackman, L.S. "What is special about
special education revisited: The mentally retarded,"

Except, Ch,, 3;, 242—247.

Spaulding, R.L. Achievement, Creativity, and Self-Concept
ngrelahggolfiTeacher--Pupil Transactlpns in Elemen-'

tary School Classrooms. U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, Office of Education, Coop. Res.’
Proj. No. 1352, Urbana: University of Illinois, 1963,
126.

Stern, G.D. & Masling, J.M. Unconscious Factors in Career
Motivation for Teachin . Final Report, U.S. Department
of Health, Education 5 ‘Welfare, Contract No. SAE 6459,
1958.

Stern, G.D., et g . "Two scales for the assessment of
unconscious motivations for teaching," Educ, psychol.
Measmt., 1960, 22, 9-29.

Stern, G.D. "Measuring non-cognitive variables in research
on teaching," in Gage, N.L. (ed.) Handbook of Research
on Teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally &.Co. 1963.

Sternberg, C. "Personality trait patterns of college stu-
dents majoring in different fields," Psychol, Monogg:
Gen, and Applied, 1955 (April), Q2:403.

Stullken, E.H. "Special schools and classes for the socially
maladjusted," in Henry, Nelson B. The Education of
ExceptionallChildren, Chicago: The National Society
for the Study of Education, 49th Yearbook, Part 2, 1950.

Suess, J.F. & Haskimo, A.Y. "Therapeutic development and
management of an adolescent residential treatment ser-
vice in a state hospital,".Amer, J, Psychol,, 1961
(April), lll, 891-96.

171

Symonds, P.M. "Teaching as a function of the teacher's per-
sonality," J. teache;_Educ., 1954, 5, 79-83. .

Tanner, W.C. Jr. "Personality bases in teacher selection,"
Phi Delta Kappap, 1954, 35, 271-277.

Theiner, E.C. "The magnitude of four experimental needs as
expressed by two projective techniques," J, Proj, Tech.,
1962, 26:3, 354-365.

Theory Into Practice, April, 1963.

Travers, R.M.W., et al. Measured Needs of Teachers and Their
Behaviorpin The Classroom. U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, Office of Education, Coop. Res.
Proj. No. 444, Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1961.

Walker, Helen M. & Lev J. Statistical Inference. New York:
Henry Holt & Co., 1953.

Wandt, E. "The measurement of teacher's attitudes toward

groups contacted in the schools," J, educ, Res,, 1952,
fig, 113-122.

Wandt, E.A, "A comparison of the attitudes of contrasting

groups of teachers," Educ, psychol, Measmt,, 1954, 14,
418-422.

Worbruton, F.W. "Educational psychology," Annu, Rev, Psychol.,
1962, 1;, 317-414.

Washburn, C. & Heil, L.M. "What characteristics of teachers
affect children's growth7," Sch, Rev,, 1960, §§, 420-428.

Wodtke, K.H., Reid, I.E., Wallen, N.E. & Travers , R.M.W.
"Patterns of needs as predictors of classroom behavior
of teachers," Educ. psychol,Measmt,, 1963, 2;, 569-577.

Wodtke, K.H. & Wallen, N.W. "The effects of teacher centrol
in the classroom on pupil's creativity-test gains,"
Amer, Educ, Res, J,, 1965, 2, 75-82.

Wolfson, Beatrice Natalie. "A study of personality variables,
as measured by certain instruments that may differentiate
school guidance counselors from classroom teachers,"
Unpublished dissertation, University of Connecticut,
1957-58.

Worchester, D.A. "Some assumptions, explicitly and implicitly
made, in the investigation here summarized," J, exp.
Educ., 1961 (Sept.), 3Q, 120-133.

"Use of hierarchial classification by
reciprocal pairs (HICLASS) program," Mimeographed,
May, 1965.

 

APPEND ICES

 

III I." I I llll‘l‘ul! Ill ‘1 ll. Illa]...

APPENDIX A

LIST OF MOTIVES FROM THE TEACHER PREFERENCE SCHEDULE
(Stern and Masling, 1958)

1. Practical. These people utilize teaching as a
means of achieving pragmatic, utilitarian, tangible goals.
Involvement in teaching is limited to the instrumental
value the occupation has for such individuals, in terms of
hours, pay, vacations, and similar sources of gratification.
Since their primary investmentszare in non-academic activi—
ties, the supporting attitudes must necessarily justify
detachment.

2. Status-Strivin . These are the individuals for}
whom the ascribed status of the teacher is more important
than the teaching function. Whether for socio-economic
reasons, family ambitions, or personal identifications,
they find considerable gratification in teaching from the
prestige it confers on them. The significant attitudes in
this case reflect a preoccupation with professional dignity
and propriety. A

3. Nurturant. These teachers are characterized by a
pervasive feeling of affection for children, and a desire
to assist and support them. These teachers are warm.and
loving in their relationships with children, devote them-
selves freely to their pupils problems, and derive their
greatest satisfactions from the reciprocal affection and
gratitude of the children. They justify these activities
on the grounds that a child's greatest need is for love.

4. Nondigectiyg, The motive here is to minimize the
pupils' expression of dependency on the teacher. These
teachers feel rewarded to the extent that their pupils
demonstrate capacities for selfudirection, and they identify
with an ideology which stresses respect for the integrity
of the child and justifies the use of pupil-centered class-
room.techniques in the name of self-actualization.

5. Rebellious. (Critical) For these teachers, the
central theme is a dedication to reform and improvement.
These teachers are the organizers and critics of the pro-
fession, and find gratification in the opportunities which
exist for championing the cause of an underdog. Relevant
attitudes involve criticism of contemporary practices in

172

173

educational administration, and a generally negative view
concerning the qualifications and motives of authority
figures.

6. Preadult-Eixated. These people prefer the society
of children to that of their own agemates, feeling essen-
tially inadequate in the role of an adult. Their greatest
pleasures in teaching come from sanctioned opportunities to
participate vicariously, and sometimes directly, in the
activities of their pupils. Their attitudes reflect an
idealization of childhood and a justification for identify-
ing with pupils.

7. Orderliness. The motive here is to codify and
regulate behavior, minimizing the uncertainties inherent
in personal interactions. These teachers are characterized
by a compulsive preoccupation with rules and procedures,
and are most gratified by demonstrations of bureaucratic
timing and organization in the classroom and school. They
justify this in terms of the need for developing good
pupil habits.

8. Dependency. The focus for these teachers is the
inverse of the rebel. Their personal insecurities are ex-
pressed in the form.of a reliance on support from.euthority
figures, and their major gratifications in teaching come
from close supervision and guidance. Supporting attitudes
justify compliance and cooperation with authority on the
grounds that superiors know best.

9. Exhibitionistic. For this group of teachers the
motive is oriented toward personal display and attention-
seeking. These teachers achieve satisfaction from.opportun-
ities to entertain and captivate their pupils. They have a
pervasive need to be admired, and rationalize their exhibi~
tionistic activities in the classroom on the grounds that
clowning, personality, and showmanship are essential quali-
ties for effective instruction.

10. Dominance. These individuals are concerned with
reassurances regarding their own superiority and value.
The subordinate status of the pupil is a significant source
of gratification for them and they derive considerable
pleasure from activities which keep the child in that posi-
tion to the enhancement of their own. These behaviors are
justified in terms of the need to maintain discipline.

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Department of Elementary and Special Education

Enclosed is a packet of schedules to be utilized in a study
entitled: "Characteristic Teacher Behaving Styles of
Teachers of Emotionally Disturbed Children." The packet
includes one copy of each of the following:

Teacher Preference Schedule (TPsg, Form‘A 958

Teacher Preference Schedule (TPS , Form G 958

Theoretical Orientations to Teaching Emotionally
Disturbed Children (TOQ)

Separate Answer Sheet for TPS Form A 958
Separate Answer Sheet for TPS Form G 958
Separate Answer Sheet for TOQ

No special pencil is required. Use any #2 lead pencil.
GENERAL DIRECTIONS:

1. Each schedule has a description of its purpose and
its own directions. Please read and follow them.
carefully.

2. It is not necessary to enter your name on any form:
enter Teacher or Student, as applicable. Please
complete all other infonmation; (How long have you
been at your present school, how lon have you been
teaching all together, age, and sex.)

3. Please return all forms and materials in the self-
addressed stamped envelope provided for the pur-
pose, or according to other instructions.

RETURN WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM
WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

 

Thank you for your cooperation in this project.

John L. Johnson

National Defense Education
Act Fellow, 3rd Year

343 Erickson Hall

174

175

U.S. Office of Education Study No. 1620.479
Syracuse University

TEACHER PREFERENCE SCHEDULE
FORM G958

The purpose of this schedule is to investigate teachers'
preferences for various aspects of teaching. The schedule
consists of a number of statements describing many kinds of
activities, events, and situations relating to teaching.
Teachers differ in their feelings about these activities
and this schedule has been developed as an aid to determining
how great and how varied these differences are. It is im-
portant that you record your own personal feelings about
these activities, even in those cases Where you think that
most teachers probably feel differently than yourself. Your
responses will be processed and tabulated with those of
other teachers by means of electronic devices, and no one
will ever be permitted to examine the replies you have given
here. Although your name is to be recorded on the answer
sheet, this is solely for the purposes of cross-tabulating
materials from the other schedules you have completed.

Please indicate on the special answer sheet the items
that you like, approve of, or would find pleappnt to experi-
ence. For the purposes of this study it is not important
whether or not you have actually done the things mentioned
or have really had the opportunity to experience the events
described. The schedule requires only an indication of your
feeling about these events if you were to have the oppor-
tunity to experience them.

Directions: Be sure your answer sheet is labelled
Teacher Preference Schedule G958. Please do not make any
marks on this booklet. Fill in the questions at the top
of the answer sheet, and proceed as follows:

Use the special pencil provided and blacken the space
opposite each item.number, all or part of the way, according
to the following key:

9 v 91' 99,... v

.55uu.» Strong liking, preference, approval

 

 
   

'V'V'V'V'

kkuwkkkha Mbderate liking, preference, approval

Blacken Space through e

a b c d e f

M Slight liking, preference, approval

Blacken space through d

176

a b c d e;;
25%;}. Slight dislike, disapproval

Blacken space through c

a b c d e f
xxx Moderate dislike, disapproval

Blacken space through b

a b c d e_£
§§V Strong dislike, disapproval

Blacken space through a

Note that the length of your line indicates the extent
to which you like, view favorably, or approve of the teach-
ing activity described by the item. The longer your line,
the more you like the activity; the shorter your line, the
less you like it.

Please check your item numbers carefully as you proceed,
to be sure your preferences are marked in the correct place.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

1. Playing games with my pupils.

2. Having my pupils put on plays and exhibitions for other
classes or for parents.

3. Subscribing to educational journals.

4. Enlivening my lessons with stories, jokes, or personal
anecdotes.

5. Working actively to promote greater public recognition
and appreciation of the professional problems of teachers.

6. Being concerned about my pupils welfare outside the school.

7. Letting my pupils whisper or talk quietly among them»
selves.

8. Having the pupils do over papers that are not neat.

9. Having a principal who takes a close interest in the
things I do.

10. Keeping careful and accurate records of pupils' pro-
gress, assignments, attendance, etc.

11. Getting home early enough to spend a few hours every
afternoon with my family and/or other interests.

12. Having my pupils dramatize stories and lessons.

13. Conducting myself in the community in ways that reflect
my status as a teacher.

14. Permittingruainfractions of discipline, however minor,
to go unnoticed.

15 .- Discduraging children from telling me personal things
about'themselves.

17.
18.

19.
20.

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

38.
39.

40.
42.

44.

177

Seeing how much I can do for children who have been
deprived of affection and emotional support.

Having as few rules and regulations for the students

as possible.

Fighting for better pay, sickness and accident protec-
tion, retirement provisions, etc., for teachers.
Browsing in toy shops.

Having brothers and sisters, or children of former pupils
in my class.

Having a supervisor or principal who shows as much con-
cern for my personal development as for my professional
growth.

Having my pupils copy my favorite expressions or man-
nerisms.

Being introduced to others as a teacher.

Following a daily classroom routine faithfully.

Having other teachers take an interest in my work and
offer me advice or suggestions.

Being an active member of a teachers' federation or
union.

Capturing the attention of my pupils to the point where
they're hanging on my every word.

Attending concerts, art exhibits, plays, etc., with
other teachers.

Making up stories for children:

Writing letters to newspaper editors or congressmen
about educational problems.

Having the principal or supervisor visit my classes
regularly.

Giving the pupils the opportunity for a lot of drill and
formal recitation.

Hearing a child unconsciously call me "mother" or "father."
Keeping my classroom as clean and neat as my own home.
Putting loyalty and obedience to my principal or super-
visor above personal differences of opinion.

Keeping my classroom so quiet that you can hear a pin
drop.

Finishing all my work during the school day, so that
when I go home my time will be my own.

Attending educational conferences.

Discouraging pupils from getting to expect extra help
after school. .
Praising a child only when he's really done something
deserving.

Bringing the problems of the school system to the atten-
tion of the public.

Having pupils regard me not only as their teacher but
also as someone who understands and really cares about
them.

Letting the students make their own decisions about
classroom.activities and procedures.

Keeping up with the songs, books, T.V. programs, etc.,
that my pupils are interested in.

45.

46.

48.
49.

50.
51.

52.
53.

55.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.

77.

178

Encouraging other teachers to take an active role in a
teaCher federation or union.

Being closely supervised by my superiors. .
Scheduling activities of the school day minute by minute.
Having pupils compliment me on my clothing or appearance.
Having the entire class do the same thing at the same
time.

Being provided by the school administration with de-
tailed lesson plans to be followed throughout the term.
Permitting children to talk only when called upon.
Following the careers of former pupils.

Encouraging my pupils to direct their own activities,
providing help only when needed.

Forgetting all about teaching during the summer vacation.
Having a reputation among the pupils for being a strict
teacher.

Seeing the girls in my family, or of close friends,
develop an interest in teaching as a career.

Speaking up for more objective and politically inde-
pendent appointments of principals and educational
supervisors.

Being invited by the pupils to join in their games or
parties.

Telling others what my occupation is.

Being appreciated by the children for my sense of humor.
Making sure my pupils cover every bit of the curriculum.
Inviting pupils to question my decisions and express
their own opinions.

Relying closely on a supervisor for help and guidance.
Having a pupil confide in me as in a parent.
Discouraging class discussions and other distractions
from the planned lesson.

Leaving school right after the end of classes.
Introducing a great deal of variety in my lessons so that
the pupils are continually looking forward to the next
surprise.

Running my class with a firm hand.

Being identified as a member of the same social and
cultural class as other teachers.

Putting school problems out of my mind as soon as I get
home.

Letting students choose their own projects, topics for
themes, etc.

Questioning activities of the local school board of
legislative agencies.

Joining in the fun my pupils are having.

Helping children with their personal problems.

Helping children to discover and assert their own indi-
viduality.

Holding the whole class responsible for any breaches

of discipline.

Working for a principal who doesn't make excessive de-
mands on my personal time.

 

 

 

 

78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.

84.
85.

86.
87.

88.
89.

90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.

99.
100.

179

Spending a considerable amount of class time in group
discussions. ‘

Leaving extra-curricular assignments to teachers who
are more interested in them.

Having my pupils knOW'WhO is boss.

Helping children with their hobbies.

Being known as a colorful and stimulating teacher. ,
Continuing my education as a teacher by taking courses,
attending lectures, etc.

Being outspoken in defense of teachers' rights.

Getting to know my pupils well enough to be able to
share fully their thoughts and feelings with them.,
Doing my best to please my supervisor or principal.
Reminding my pupils to dress warmly, button their coats,
wear rubbers, etc.

Following specific and carefully organized lesson plans.
Encouraging pupils to express themselves freely in my
classroom.

Being supervised by a person who expects me to discuss
all my problems with him.

Making it clear to the youngsters that I won't tolerate
any fooliShness.

Being selected to represent the teaching profession on
a civic committee.

Having a reputation for experimenting with novel and
unusual teaching techniques.

Having the pupils maintain proper respect at all times
for my position as their teacher.

Insisting that parents contact me during the school day
rather than on my own time.

Being a pal to my pupils.

Organizing my class so that each pupil is following his
own interests and doing independent work most of the
time. ,
Encouraging other teachers to express their opinions
publicly about issues or events of significance to

our profession.

Forgetting my dignity and getting right down to the
children's level.

Having former pupils remember me, stop to talk on the
street, or come to visit.

.a'rll '.

:11 I.) \wla‘lllll |.|.ll.llull|1‘l.' 1
I. III-1 77"]!

 

 

Name

Date
Age
Sex

Wt wN

OkDCDVCH

.—

ll
l2
I3
14
Is

16
I7
18
I9
20

2]
22
23
24
25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3‘30
FORM6958 TEACHING PREFERENCE SCHEDULE
1A ”3 2A 28 2C What is your present teaching assignment? Grade Subject
How long have you been at your present school? How long have you been
R teaching altogether? In how many different schools?
Education beyond high school: institution, majors, degrees received
W Other occupations
‘ f 6 a c d e f 5‘ a b c d e f 76 a b c ld . e f
I L J 2 l lg
; I _J 27 fix i I 4I__l 52 l 1 77 r7 x l l
‘ 28 ' 53 ‘ 78 W ‘
l
' 29 51+ 1 79
i I 1 30 r7 x i l 1Q 55 F—‘l'i L i x 1 J 80 r'"—1—" x i x ##4##
‘ f 3] a c 1 d e f 56 a b c I d e f 8| : b c l d e f
‘ 32 *— 57 I 82 ‘ l
‘ 33 ‘ 58 1 r 83 ‘
* 3L. ' 59 1 t 84 I
l #_s
l e 35 ‘ <30 ' 85
f a c d e f a b c I d e f a b c ‘ d e f
l 36 ‘ 6| ' 86 l
; J 37 _—fi l . . . 52 cal-:12: 87 1* . ' L—J
' 38 ‘ 63 ~—1 ‘ a 88 a ‘
l 39 6L} 1 - 41__l 89 I "
1 1+0 1 65 l 90 L
f a c d e f a b c 1 d e L a b c I d e f
I 1.] ' _‘ 66 91
' e .2 ‘ 67 —w ‘ t 92
i [,3 I 53 ‘ g” 93 i
1 Lfl.‘ 1 69 Pi L 9’4
1
. .5 # 70 ‘ 95
f a c d e f a b c l d e f , a b c d e f
i l _; [+6 1:_L___L__._i____L———1———’ 7‘ ' *‘4 90 C l ' l I l *1
l . l
' 1+7 ' 72 —* ‘ 97 I
' 48 e ' 73 g 98 .
' 1+9 1 71+ 99 1 4‘4
l 50 ‘ 75 l #J 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORM 6958

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS TO TEACHING
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

Questionnaire Booklet (TOQ)

The paragraphs you have been given describe several
types of educational provisions for socially and emotion-
ally handicapped children. They are not intended to be
exhaustive, nor are the various descriptions entirely
independent of one another. Some of them may seem.less
desirable to you than others, but all of them are based
upon theoretical orientations commonly known to teachers
of disturbed children. The purpose of this questionnaire
is to determine the theoretical orientation of in-service
teachers of disturbed children. Your responses will be
coded, transcribed, and processed electronically, no one
will ever be permitted to examine your responses.

DIRECTIONS

a Please read the entire set of descriptions on
Form I Educational Framework) and: '

1. Decide which descriptions are most and least
descriptive of your current classes. Record
your choices in the space provided on the
separate answer sheet.

2. Decide which descriptions would most and
least complement your personality when given
ideal conditions. Record your choices in the
space provided on the separate answer sheet.

b Please read the two descriptions on Form 11
(Classroom Approach) and on the separate answer sheet,
circle the number of the statement which most closely ap-
proximates your personal classroom approach.

181

182

THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS TO TEACHING,
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

 

Form I (Educational Framework)

Paragraph 1

The disturbed child should have a classroom atmosphere
which is based upon freedommand the program should be
elastic enough to ensure that each child is reached on his
own level of development. The classroom.ahould present a
picture of diverse activities in which the disturbed child
can work on his own project, academic or non-academic, se-
cure in the knowledge that what he is doing is looked upon
with approval and is of value to himself and to the group.
The function of the teacher is to provide experiences
which the child can meet with growing confidence and success.

Paragraph 2

 

The classroom for disturbed children should have an
emphasis upon the diagnosis of learning potential capaci-
ties and their relationship to specific remediation techni-
ques. The use of associative learning, formal habit, and
behavioral training should be an integral part of the
classroom. There should be a very highly structured but
non-punitive atmosphere with emphasis on changing sympto-
matic responses through specific techniques on a planned,
ego level.

Paragraph 3

The classroom for disturbed children should have an
interweaving of an educational and clinical environment.
Decisions about the educational procedures to be followed
should be formulated within the framework of the under-
lying and unconscious motivation of the children involved.
Educational aspects will normally stress creative, project
type work, individual differences, and a benign but not
permissive atmosphere.

Paragraph 4

The classroom for disturbed children should have an
emphasis on the formalized, accepted educational procedures.
The existence and resolution of psycho-pathological aspects
of the personality should be secondary to the instructional
goals and attention should be given to skill training, use
of workbooks, and routine drill. There should be minimum
emphasis on group procedures and maximum emphasis on control
with restrictive handling, in a non-hostile atmosphere.

183

THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS TO TEACHING
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

Form 11 (Classroom.Approach)

,Ratagraph A

The disturbed child should have a regulated school
environment which is based upon the present and what can
be done to bring about growth-producing changes. There
should be an especially prepared daily program of educa-
tional tasks, behavioral limits, the use of consequénces
to aid in motivation, and a definite overall routine.

The function of the teacher is to interfere with patholog-
ical and immature processes and to provide a well-defined
learning environment which will help the child achieve
siccess in learning.

_Paragraph B

The classroom for disturbed children should have an
emphasis on opportunity for the child to gain insight into
his behavior with educational considerations being secon-
dary. The most important aspect should be the provision
of a benign therapeutic environment which will permit the
child to express these emotions, whatever they might be,
without censure and to control these emotions realistically
within the framework of what is considered socially accept-
able. The teacher's role is based upon acceptance and the
use of interpersonal relationships to foster education of
emotions.

184

THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS TO TEACHING
EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

 

 

 

Age Sex: M F School or Institution

 

Form I (Educational Framework)
Current Desppiption
Please list the paragraph by number below, which you

find most descriptive and least descriptive of the educa-
tional framework of your current classes.

Paragraph Number
Most descriptive

 

Least descriptive

 

Ideal Dégcriptipp

Please list the paragraphs by number below, which in
an ideal setting would most complement your personality.

Paragraph Number
Most descriptive

 

Least descriptive

 

Form II (Classroom Approach)
Circle one of the following, after reading Form II
1. Strongly accept description A and.reject description.B.

2. Partially accept description A andpartially\accept
description B.

3. Partially accept description B and partially accept
description A.

4. Strongly accept description B and reject description A.

185

 

 

 

 

so no om mm as me No ooN No no
Na Na om no co «N am Nm mm on
om so me No mm NN we «a so as
cm on on as an em me so on as
we we be me me me He mm on we
mm NN mm «m mm as No Ne an an
Hm NN Hm Nm sq om mm mm mm mm
oq NH mN «N mN oN me ON mN Nm
cm s HN oH as Na Na we NH ma
«a N o m H m N o m as
so mm oa om ooH we as we no Na
no «N mm me No mm um am am as
ow on no so mm NN we as we NN
on on om as Nw mm MN No on so
no we as as me me H. mm em as
mm mm mm mm pm He «0 «e mm mm
Hm mN Hm Nm Nq mN «m em on oe
mm Ha «N mN mN 0N me as NN an
em m HN oH Na Na ON on ma ma
«a H o N N e o m m NH
oozed UH umwnoeu .nucop no one.” pmumxam 35.: o>HuUOHHU pseudo wcflrauum Houau
iasoa landed 1..st immune -uasemmum Josue inoz fizz 1.33m .63..
x NH HHH> HH> H> >_ >H HHH NH H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$58.52 EHH Qz< madam wasnmmom mozmmmmam Mmmufimm.

Q XHszmm<

 

 

<iEHom

"Illlllllllllllllllllllls