"‘~‘~'r‘l'-~e<v~n- a-“ ”‘V

ASTUDY ems RELATEONSHIP 35mm Beummms , f
ANDCOGNITEVE Funcrsowmemcmmmos” . ‘

GRADES FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. -
MSCHBGAN STATE UNWERSETY '
JOHN FORD
1968

, mm!

....m- n; -A

 

 
  

I IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII M w

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEF SYSTEMS
AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING IN CHILDREN“OF GRADES
FOUR, FIVE, AND SIx.

presented by

John Ford

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Elementary and Special
Education

4/le M % 2.

Major iirofduér

Date ILL’L'éjLL/i v, ’7 /96 8/

0-169

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEF SYSTEMS
AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING IN CHILDREN OF
GRADES FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX

by John Ford

The current literature in elementary social studies,
as well as in general education, indicates a growing con-
cern over the development of thinking skills in children.
One frequently overlooked, but important element in the
development of these skills is one's belief system--not
only those held by pupils, but also those held by teachers.
Belief system is defined as all ideas, sets, expectations,
or hypotheses that one accepts as true of the world.

The purpose of this study was to explore the rela—
tionship between one area of-belief systems of teachers
and their pupils, and to analyze the ways in which this
relationship is related to cognitive functioning in pupils.

It was hypothesized that the number of open- and
closed-minded pupils will vary with the open- and closed-
mindedness of the teacher. Further, pupils taught by
Open-minded teachers will show greater cognitive ability
when compared with pupils taught by middle-scoring teach-

ers and closed-minded teachers.

John Ford

One hundred five fourth, fifth, and sixth grade

teachers completed the Rokeach Dogmatism E Scale1 during

 

May, 1968. From this group nine teachers and their pupils
were selected as the sample used in this study. Teachers
with the three most extreme scores at either end of the
scale were designated as high and low in dogmatism. The
other three were drawn by random selection from the cluster
of scores within one standard deviation of the mean.

Pupils in these nine classrooms were classified low,
middle, and high in dogmatism as determined by their scores

on Figert Dogmatism C Scale.2 Cognitive Functioning was

 

measured by pupil's scores on Sequential Tests of Educa-

tional Progress:Social Studies, Form “B (STEP). Further,

 

test items of STEP were divided into three classifications
according to the thinking skill required of the child in
responding correctly. The items tested ability to identify
generalizations and values, to compare and contrast data,
and to draw valid conclusions and generalizations.

The chi-square statistical technique was employed to
test differences in the number of pupils who were classified
low, middle, and high in dogmatism when taught by the three
teacher types. The analysis of variance (mixed model) was
used to analyze mean difference in pupils' cognitive func-
tioning as it related to teacher dogmatism and pupil dogma-
tism. Significant mean differences obtained via over-all
F-test were further analyzed using Scheffe's multiple—com-

parison technique.

John Ford

The following hypothesis was supported.

Disregarding pupil type, cognitive

functioning among pupils taught by

three teacher types will tend to

show an inverse relationship (p .01).
Pupils in open-minded teachers' classrooms scored highest
of all three groups in cognitive functioning, while those
in closed-minded teachers' classrooms scored lowest. While
this was significantly supported by the data, several other
non-significant trends were evident which would bear fur-
ther analysis in future studies. The mean scores of open-
minded pupils were consistently highest whereas mean scores
for closed-minded pupils, in more instances than not, were
lowest. Even more interesting was the pattern of the inter-
action of pupil dogmatism and teacher dogmatism when exam-
ining cognitive functioning. The trend was clearly evident
(but not statistically significant) that Open-minded pupils
in open—minded teachers' classrooms scored highest of all
sub-groups on cognitive functioning, and closed-minded
pupils in closed-minded teachers' classrooms (in more in-
stances than not) scored lowest.

The second statistically-supported hypothesis of the

study was

Mean scores for all pupils on cog—

nitive functioning will tend to

vary from subscale to subscale (p .01).

Pupils scored highest on test items requiring ability to

John Ford

identify generalizations and lowest on ability to draw

conclusions.

 

lMilton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1960):'pp. 71—86.

 

2Russell L. Figert, "An Elementary School Form of
the Dogmatism Scale:Development of an Instrument for Use
in Studies of Belief—Disbelief Systems of Children in
Grades “—6" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ball State
University, 1965), pp. 106-109.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELIEF SYSTEMS
AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING IN CHILDREN OF

GRADES FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX

By

John Ford

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary and Special Education

1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researcher wishes to acknowledge the cooperation
of the participating teachers who availed their classes
for the study; the helpful statistical aSsistance of
Dr. Andrew Porter and Mr. David Wright; and the helpful
suggestions from Dr. Frank Blackington, Dr. Robert Houston,
Dro William Joyce, and Dr. James McKee. A special grati—
tude to advisor, William Joyce for his constructive

criticism and encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . 1
Need for the Study
Purpose of the Study
Research Hypotheses
Rationale
Definitions of Terms
Overview
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 1“
Teacher Influences on Pupil Thinking
Behavioral Consequences of Dogmatism
Interaction of Teacher-Pupil Types
Summary
III. DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Procedures
Instrumentation
Statistical Hypotheses
Analysis
Summary
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . A2
Teachers and Pupils
Hypotheses l - 8
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 O O O O O 0‘ O O O O O O O 61“
APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o 6 O o o 69

iii

Table

4.1

4.3

4.4

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Summary of Demographic Characteristics of
the Nine Sample Teachers . . . . . . . 43

Summary of Characteristics of Pupils Low,
Middle, and High in Dogmatism . . . . . 44

Frequency of Pupils Classified as Low, Middle,
and High in Dogmatism for Each of Three
TeaCher Types or o o o O} o o O o o o “6

Summary Table Showing a 4-Way Analysis of

Variance of Cognitive Functioning, Teacher
Types, and Pupil Types 0 o o o, o 0‘ o o “7

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Sequential Test of Educational Progress:
Social Studies . . . .. . . . . . . 70

B. Raw Scores of Cognitive Functioning for
Pupil and Teacher Types . . . . . . . 91

C. Dogmatism E Scale . . . . . . . . . . 94
D. Dogmatism C Scale--

Distribution of Pupils' Scores on Dogmatism

C scale 0 o o o o o o o o O o o' 99
E. Form Letter Sent to Cooperating Teachers . . 105

F. Map of School District Participated in the
Study 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 107

V

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

The current literature in elementary social studies
indicates an accelerated concern pertaining to the devel-
opment of thinking abilities in children.1 This growing
concern appears to be because children are growing up in a
free and increasingly complex society. Teaching for accu-
mulation of descriptive facts per se is criticized as
being highly obsolescent.2 The current focus is upon de-
velopment of thinking skills, such as identifying concepts,
comparing alternate solutions, and evaluating data. Car—
penter claims that thinking skills ". . .represent more
generalized learnings and thus are likely to be appli-

cable continually in all facets of an individual's life."3

 

lJean Fair and Fannie R. Shaftel (eds.), Effective

Thinking in the Social Studies (Washington, D.C.: National
Council for the Social Studies, 37th Yearbook, 1967);
Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, Massa—
chusetts: Harvard University Press, I960); and Hilda Taba,
Thinking in Elementary School Children (San Francisco State
Collegé} United States Office oIEducation, Cooperative Re—
search ProJect No. 1574, 1964).

 

 

 

2Arthur W. Foshay, "A Modest Proposal. . .For the Im—
provement of Education," Educational Leadership, 18:506-
516, May, 1961.

 

3Helen M. Carpenter, "The Role of Skills in Elemen-
tary Social Studies," Social Education, 182220, 1967.

 

Need for the Study

 

In preparation of goals for social studies education
the National Council for the Social Studies states, "In a
free society, behavior must rest upon reasoned convictions
as well as emotional acceptance. Knowledge and the abil—
ity to think should provide the basis on which American
children and youth build the beliefs and behavior of free
citizens."LI If knowledge and ability to perform various
cognitive operations are legitimate social studies (educa-
tional) outcomes, then to improve training and selection
of teachers, educators need to know the relationships
among teacher personality, pupil personality, and pupil
ability to perform certain cognitive operations.r Results
of past studies indicate that different teaching styles
have different effects on children's learning. Greater
general achievement and positive feelings are results of
the class climate produced by Lewin's "democratic" teach-

5

er, Anderson, Brewer, and Reed's "integrative" teacher,6

7

Withall's "learner-supportive" teacher, and Ryan's

”The National Council for the Social Studies, "The
Role of the Social Studies," Social Education, 26:316,
October, 1962.

5K. Lewin, R. Lippitt, and R. White, "Patterns of
Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Greated Social Cli—
mates," Journal of Social Psychology, 10:271-299, 1939.

6H. H. Anderson, J. E. Brewer, and M. R. Reed, "Stu-
dies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities," Applied Psycho-
logical Monograph, No. 11, 1946.

 

 

 

 

7J. Withall, "The Development of a Technique for the
Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms,"
Journal offExperimental Education, 17:347—361, 1949.

"warm-flexible" teacher8 which are all similar styles
called by different names. Because these studies only
identified teaching style as an antecedent variable, they
implied that all children in a given class are influenced
equally by the teacher. These studies assumed a one-to—
one relationship between some teacher characteristic (SLR;
warmth) and pupil achievement with no account of the vari-
ance within classes taught by "warm" or "happy" teachers.
There is a dearth of research dealing with both
teacher and pupil personality variables as antecedants to
pupil achievement. Meanwhile, teacher training and teach-
er selection continue as before being based on an unsub-
stantiated assumption as a one-to-one relationship. In

9 claims that the type of re-

one of her articles Crabtree
search needed is verified evidence of which population of

learners learn what type of task best by what method.

Purpose of the Study

 

Both teachers and pupils vary in their respective
beliefs and characteristic ways of looking at the world.
Further, teachers influence the thinking abilities of
children in different ways. If the cognitive functioning

(thinking skills) of children is related to their belief

 

8D. G. Ryans, "Some Relationships between Pupil Be-
havior and Certain Teacher Characteristic," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 52:82-97, 1961.

 

 

9Charlotte Crabtree, "Supporting Reflective Thinking
in the Classroom," in Fair and Shaftel (eds.), 100. cit.,
p. 85.

 

/ systems and the belief system of the teacher by whom they
are taught, then the focus of study should be on the con-
figuration of belief systems held by the classroom members,
both teacher and pupils. Belief system is defined as all
ideas, sets, expectations, or hypotheses that one accepts
as true of the world. It is the purpose of this study to
explore the relationship between belief systems of teachers
and pupils and to analyze the ways in which this relation-
ship is related to cognitive functioning in pupils.

The findings of this study can contribute to a better
understanding which can be used in training teachers. Fur-
ther, the findings may help in eliminating the unsubstan-
tiated assumption that a single method or ideal teacher is
best for all pupils. Third, this exploratory and analytic
study may facilitate the establishment of a framework for a
more definitive base on which to select and place teachers.
Finally, this study can serve as a stimulus for future re-

search between personality variables of teachers and pupils.

Research Hypotheses
The two major hypotheses of this study are that the
number of open— and closed—minded pupils will vary with
the open- and closed—mindedness of the teacher, and pupils
taught by open-minded teachers will Show greater cognitive
ability when compared with pupils taught by middle—scoring
teachers and closed-minded teachers. (One is open— or

closed—minded to the extent that he accepts or rejects

information uncritically. Cognitive functioning and
ability refer to skill in identifying, comparing, and

drawing conclusions from data).

Rationale

 

Rationale for this study is divided into four parts.
In the first part the classroom is described as a sub-
social system. Origin of belief system is explained in
the second part. In the third part interaction of belief
systems is discussed. The basic assumptions are listed
in the final part.

A Sub—Social System

 

The classroom is conceptualized as a sub-social
system, i.e., a group of actors organized to perform

10 The actors ful—

imperative goal-directed activities.
fill various status-roles which are complementary and
interdependent. The teacher teaches and pupils learn.
Thus, one can predict classroom behavior by knowing the
preestablished pattern (formal status-roles) of behavior.
However, the status-roles are, in fact, held and acted
out by individuals who have diverse belief systems. Di-
verse belief systems are related to variations in teacher
and pupil behavior.

Teachers have different teaching styles that are

consistent with their respective belief systems. One

 

loTalcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illi-
nois: The Free Press, 1951); and N. B. Henry (ed.), The
Dynamics of Instructional Groups, 59th Yearbook of NaEIEnal
Society fer the StudyiofrEducation, Part II (1960).

teacher, for example, holding a relatively closed belief
system teaches in a very rigid and structured fashion
whereas another teacher holding to a relatively Open
belief system provides very little structure and order.
Yet a third teacher may hold beliefs between the open’
closed polarized positions, thus exhibiting behavior
between these positions. No casual relationship is
intended here. The intention is that there is a posi-
tive correlation between one's belief system and one's
overt behavior.ll

Similarly, children are of different types in any
given class taught by a teacher who has a particular be—
lief system. Some of the children hold fixed beliefs
while other children in the same class hold beliefs that
can be changed on the basis of evidence. Further, child—
ren holding to rigid belief system accept authority with-
out question while children holding to an open belief
system are-able to distinguish between authority and the
information from that same source.
Development of Belief System

From birth one begins to absorb the external world

according to his interpersonal relationships.‘ As implied

 

11H. M. McGee, "Measurement of Authoritarianism and
Its Relation to Teachers' Classroom Behavior," Genetic Psy—
chological Monograph, 52:89-146, 1955; Shia-Ling Liu, "Per—
sonal Characteristics in Secondary School Social Studies
Student Teaching As Related to Certain Measures of Poten-
tial Teaching Behavior" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
North Texas State University, 1964).

 

in Mead'sl2 writings, the child takes on a private replica
from his significant others. In response to making sense
of experiences, a conceptual system evolves. This system
of beliefs about the world serves as a filter, a trans-
former which processes and codes impinging stimuli into
psychological significance.l3
However, as one assimilates knowledge of the world,
he also acquires a characteristic mode of accomodating
(reorganizing) information based on what he has learned to
accept as a definitive source in which and by which he can
check the validity of the information. The acquired con-
ceptual system varies with the socializing conditions in
which it evolves. Frenkel-Brunswik states, for example,
that varying degrees of permissiveness or punitiveness in
early child-parent relations result in individual differ-
ences in ability to tolerate ambiguity, and this emotional—
social ambivalence influences the cognitive system (think-

ing skills).lu Thus, one who has a relatively closed con—

ceptual system is less able to perform certain cognitive

 

12George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1934).

138. Inhelder and J. Piaget, The Growth of Logical
Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (NeW'York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1958); and Harold Schroder and O. J. Harvey,
"Conceptual Organization and Group Structure," Motivation
and Special Interaction (New York: Ronald Press, 1963) pp.
I3ULI66.

l“Else Frenkel-Brunswik, "Intolerance of Ambiguity
As an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable,"
Journal of Personality, 18:108—143, 1949.

 

 

operations when compared to one who has a relatively open
conceptual system. Yet, a third conceptual system func-
tions within the polar positions. Each is the result of
different training conditions or different teachers holding
different belief systems.
Interaction of Belief Systems

One teacher exerts complete control in which he de-
termines procedures, maintains a uniform standard, adheres
to absolute authority, and rewards conformity. Authority
is viewed as infallible, knowledge is definite, and achieve-
ment (mastery of rules) per se is valued. This teacher is
said to be closed—minded.15 Closed-mindedness leads to
great dependence, undifferentiated concepts, need for high—
ly structured situations, and search for specific, absolute
correct answers. Self-worth is synonomous with conformity
to absolute external rules.l6

Taking on such a conceptual system in the setting
described, the child will have his ability to assimilate
and accomodate new ideas impaired. The impaired ability
can take the form of distorting information and an in—
tolerance for ambiguity. Similarly, opposing, but perti-

nent parts of information may be falsified or eliminated

15Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1960), pp. 31-70. ‘ ' I'

16Bruce R. Joyce, "Developing Open Minds," Strategies
for Elementary Social Science Education (Chicago, Illinois:
Science Research Associates, Inc., 1965), pp. 83-99.

in order to leave the closed mind intact. Thus, thinking
efficiency is lowered or arrested due to premature clo-
sure.17

Another teacher, said to be open-minded, creates
conditions in which the child is aided in understanding
himself, searching behavior is rewarded, and the child is
valued as an individual in his own right. Further, knowl—
edge is held as tentative, and authority as fallible. De—
termination of daily procedures and academic standards are
accomplished by both teacher and pupils. Thus, reciprocity
or interdependence takes the place of teacher dominance.18
The child in this setting can try alternatives without fear
due to lack of dependence on external criterion. He is free
to explore and gain experience at various thinking levels.

The conditions emanating from closed-mindedness and
open—mindedness of teachers were described respectively
as stifling thinking skills or enhancing them. However,
there is practically no one-to-one relationship between
stimulus and response because of different internal, me-
diating belief systems in different children.

A closed-minded teacher, then, does not affect all

pupils in the same way. A closed-minded child functions

better when taught by a closed—minded teacher because the

17C. Gratton Kemp, "Effect of Dogmatism on Critical
Thinking," School Science and Mathematics, 302314-319,
April, 1960.

18Joyce, loc. cit.

lO

teacher offers a constant highly bounded and ordered en-
vironment which is what the closed-minded child needs.

The same closed-minded child feels threatened by the open-
ended view ofthe world offered by the open—minded teacher.
Yet, the open-minded child taught by an open-minded teach—
er should have his thinking abilities enhanced.

It becomes axiomatic that different children need
different learning conditions, supplied by the teaching
style (indicative of the teacher's belief system), in
which to function.19 It also becomes axiomatic that a
teacher varies his teaching style to meet the diverse
needs in a given classroom. Further, in light of what has
been mentioned, the open-minded teacher is more likely
than the closed-minded teacher to vary his behavior to
meet diverse pupil needs because he can perceive and act
on classroom cues unencumbered by irrelevant factors (ELEL.
unrelated personal beliefs, irrational ego motives, and
need for self-aggrandizement).2O
Basic Assumptions

The basic assumptions underlying this study are
that

1. both children and adults have belief

systems which tend to vary from person
to person;

19William C. Trow, "Role Functions of the Teacher in
the Instructional Group," in N. B. Henry (ed.), loc. cit.,
pp- 30-50-

2ORokeach, loc. cit., p. 58.

 

ll

beliefs provide a basis for behavior;
children can report degrees of agree-

ment to statements designed to measure
beliefs;

behavior can be inferred from test scores
serving as predictors of overt behavior;

knowledge and thinking abilities can be
classified and measured.

Definitions of Terms

 

Several terms used throughout this study refer to

variations in teachers' belief systems, variations in

pupils' belief systems, and pupils' knowledge and thinking

skills.

1.

These are defined as follows:

Teachers' Belief System.-—A11 ideas, sets, ex—
pectations, or hypotheses that one accepts as
true of the world.

 

a. High Dogmatism (Hdt).--Teacher who scores
at least one standard deviation above the
mean of scores on the Dogmatism E Scale21
indicating closed—mindedness, or one who
holds rigidly to external absolute rules,
ignores individual differences, and pro—
vides definite structure (see p. 8).

 

 

b. Middle Dogmatism (Mdt).—-Teacher who scores
at the mean or within one standard devia—
tion of the mean of scores on the Dogmatism
E Scale. 22 I

0. Low Dogmatism (L dt)° --Teacher who scores at
least one standard deviation below the mean
of scores on the Dogmatism E Scale23 indi-
cating open—mindedness or one who is flex-
ible, allows for pupil differences, has
loose structure,amuiencouragasparticipation
in setting rules (see p. 9).

 

 

 

 

21
22

Ibid., pp. 73-80.

Ibid.

23Ibid.

12

2. Pupils' Belief System.-—Same as for teachers,
pupils are categorized according to thfiir
scores on Figert's Dogmatism 0 Scale.2

 

 

 

a. High Dogmati§m_(Hd ).--Child who needs a
great deal of strugtured experience,.
holds to fixed and few beliefs, and ac-
cepts authority uncritically (see pp. 6-10).

b. Middle Dogmatism (Md ).--Child whose behav-
ior varies somewhere between high and low
dogmatic behavior, but closer to high dog—
matic psychologically. (Rokeach25 states
that because little theory or empirical re-
search has been done on the middle-scoring
subjects, little can be said about them;
however, they were more like the closed
than the Open-minded group in his study.

c. Low Dogmatism (Ld ).—-Child who holds
alternate Beliefs, whose system is open
(loose) enough to tolerate ambiguity, to
see contradictory ideas from various
sources.

 

3. Cognitive Functioning.--Pupils' scores On STEP26

whibhiare divided into three classifications
based on intellectual skills required of the
pupils. Three classifications are

 

a. to identify generalizations and values,
b. to compare and contrast-data,
c. to draw valid conclusions.

Overview
The present study will be divided into the next four
chapters. Pertinent literature dealing with the relation—

ship Of beliefs and thinking skills in the classroom will

——V v

zuRussell L. Figert, An Elementary School Form Of the
Dogmatism ScalezDevelopment of an Instrument for Use in
Studies of Belief-Disbelief Systems of Children in Grades
4-6 (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana, Ball State
University, 1965).

25Rokeach, loc. cit., pp. 357-365.

26Sequential Tests of Educational Progress:Social Stud-
ies, Form 4B, Gradesi4-6: (Princeton,TNew‘JerSey3'COOpefative
Test'DiviSion, Educational Testing Service, 1957).

 

 

13

be reviewed in Chapter II. The sample, instrumentation,
statistical hypotheses, and statistical model will be de-
scribed in Chapter III. In Chapter IV each of the hypoth-
eses will be presented and analyzed in detail. The thesis
will conclude in Chapter V with a summary, integration of

the findings, and educational implications of the findings.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The first chapter indicated that any given classroom
teacher behavior will influence the functioning of one
type of child in one way.and influence another type of
child in another completely different way. The classroom
was described as having both teacher and pupils possessing
individual needs and individual ways of perceiving which
would affect what is learned by whom. Yet, a lack of
experimental research dealing with the differential in-
fluence of different teachers on different pupils was
indicated.

The following review of related literature consists
of studies dealing with teacher influence on pupil thinking
and studies pertaining to behavioral consequences of dogma-
tism. A single study that stands alone in analyzing inter-
action between the personalities of both teachers and
pupils is reviewed last. A summary of the relevant

major findings of the studies cited concludes the chapter.

14

15

Teacher Influence on Pupil Thinking

 

Possien'sl study.focused on the manner in which
three classes of sixth.graders solved map reading problems
after having been instructed by one of three methods,
yi§., inductive, deductive-causal relations, or deductive.
The first dealt with guiding the pupil in discovering for
himself how to use map legends in order to understand map
symbols. The deductive—causal relation group was given
detail explanations.of.causes in the same subject matter
while the deductive group was simply told the necessary
facts. After 30 minutes a day for three weeks, six pupils
from each group were matched on their respective map
reading ability pretest score and mental age. The 18
selected pupils were given ten map reading problems to
solve while "thinking.out loud." The inductive method
was found to be effective, significant at the .02 level
via Friedman 2-way analysis of variance, more frequently
than both deductive-causal.relations and deductive method.

Thus, the investigator‘s major hypothesis that the
inductive method is more effective than the deductive
method in teaching problem-solving skills was supported.
Further, the foregoing study supports the idea that
rewarding pupil searching and discovering behavior not

only broadens the pupil's conceptual system, but also

 

1 .
Wilma M. POSSlen, A Comparison of Effects of Three

Teaching Methodologies on Development of Problem Solving
Skills of Sixth Grade Children (unpublished Doctoral dis—
sertation, Alabama, University of Alabama, 1964).

16

enhances the characteristic mode of viewing new problems
whereas deductive teaching seems to stifle the trying of
alternate solutions to problems.

Possien acknowledges that the conclusion cited above
may be open to question due to a couple of confounding
variables that were not controlled. The investigator was
the teacher for all three class groups and possibility of
pupil reaction effects2 while-expressing one's thoughts
are two confounding variables. ‘There seems to be no proof
given that the same teacher for all three groups held
consistently to the appropriate*teaching method throughout
the various sessions, a common shortcoming Of studies of
this type. Also, a shy child may find it difficult to
think out loud or a child may not say everything he is
thinking, thereby giving rise to the problem of how to
measure the child's thinking while he is not talking.
Nonetheless, this study demonstrates that problem solving
skills are said to increase.with inductive teaching more
so than with deductive teaching.

Aside from rewarding pupil searching and discovering
behavior, there are other teacher characteristics related

to pupil thinking. Miller3 assumes that the teaching,

 

2See Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, "Exper-
imental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on
Teaching," in N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teaching (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 1963) pp. 171-
éEET““““ ’

 

3G. L. Miller, "Collaborative Teaching and Pupil
Thinking," qurnal of Teacher Education, 17:337-358, 1966.

 

1?

role consists mainly of working on content (providing
focus, development, information, and evaluation) and
maintaining order. Further, teachers vary in carrying out
the roles of teaching which can be measured and plotted
along a responsive-directive dimension. Some teachers are
quite responsive to classroom cues while other teachers,
disregard cues, rigidly direct instructional activities.
Based on this bipolar view of teaching behavior, Miller
hypothesizes that teacher's responsiveness to classroom
cues will be positively related to pupils' expressions of
complex and high level thinking. (It should be noted that
Miller defined thinking as recalling, explaining, hypo-
thesizing, and synthesizing.)

One hundred seventh and eighth graders were divided
into two treatment groups.(responsive and directive) and
eight instructional groups to be taught American economics
in ten thirty—minute lessons. ‘From pencil and paper
achievement test and observation the researcher found
that children taught by responsive teachers expressed more
complex and abstract thinking during class discussion than
did the children taught by directive teachers. Using chi-
square techniques, difference was significant at .001
level.

Other studies Show similar findings. For example,

one study where 45 lessons were taught to 9 junior high

18

classes, it was found that.teaehers who invited divergent

thinking generated more student°divergent thinking)"l

In an attempt to.relatevtheory‘to practice Taba5
set forth a theory of teaching social studies based on
Piaget's theory of intellectual development. Her basic
assumption was that if thinking is learned from the child
"making his mind" in active transaction via assimilation
and accommodation of experiences, then teaching strategies
based on structure and.sequence of both content and child's
thinking ability should.enhance its development. The
investigation of this assumption involved 20 classes of

second to sixth graders for.18 months. From data gathered

from administration of Taba's Social Studies Inference

 

Test, and Application of Principles and from tapes revealed

 

that there was an earlier beginning of "formal thinking"
due to the teaching strategies, earlier than Piaget had
found.

Significant gains in ability to make inferences were
made in classes whose teachers used the teaching strategies
for which they (the teacher) were trained, but there were

no gains in those classes whose teachers did not use the

 

“B. B. Hudgins and.W..Ahlbrand, Jr., "Teachers'
Demands and Students' Thinking," Educational Leadership,
25 583-189, March, 1968. Also, see B. O. Smith and M. 0.
Meux, A Study of the Logic of Teaching (Urbana, Illinois:
University of Illinois, United States Office of Education,
Health, Education and Welfare, Project No. 258 (7252) 1963).

 

 

5H. Taba, Thinking in Elementary School Children (San
Francisco:' San Francisco State College, United States Office
of Education, Cooperative Research Project NO. 1574, 1964).

 

19

strategies. However, pupils in either group did not do
equally well. While the.strategies may be effective for
developing thinking, teaching strategies are used by
teachers and teachers.vary according to their beliefs.
Therefore, lack of focus on the belief system of the
teachers may account for a great deal of the variance.
While the foregoing studies did not focus directly
on belief systems, there are studies that have this direct

focus. A discussion of the pertinent ones follows.

Behavioral ConsequenceS‘of Dogmatism
Ehrlich6 assessed the relative difference in long-
term effects of dogmatism and learning. He hypothesized
in both his studies that dogmatism of students was inversely
related to the degree of learning in an introductory
sociOIOgy course, and that the relation was independent

of academic ability. Rokeachis Dogmatism E Scale and

 

Sociology Test (mostly definitions and generalizations
constructed by the sociology department) were administered
to the original sample of 100 college students at the
beginning and at the end of a five-month period. The same
two tests were mailed five years later to the same sample

of whom Ohio State Psychological Examination (OSPE) scores

 

were‘available.

 

6Howard J. Ehrlich, "Dogmatism and Learning: A
Fige-Year Follow-Up," Psychological Reports, 9: 283-286,
19 l.

 

20

Based on a 72% return,.an intercorrelation among

dogmatism scores, point hour ratio, and Sociology Test

 

scores ranged from -.29 to -.O43. An intercorrelation
with OSPE yielded -.001 which confirmed his hypothesis.
The findings indicate that students low in dogmatism
learned more and retained more'over a period Of time.

Kemp7

tested the hypothesis that Open-minded stu-
dents would solve correctly.more critical thinking prob-
lems than closed-minded students. Critical thinking was
defined as one's score on.a 50-item self-constructed test
of problem solving.

From a sample Of 500 college students tested on the

Dogmatism E Scale, 150 who were highest and 150 who were

 

lowest were selected and given.a test of critical thinking,

especially prepared for this study.' He found that those

who were relatively low in.dogmatism (Open-minded) scored

higher which was a significantidifference at the .01

level. Kemp concluded that open-minded students were

more successful than closed-minded students in analyzing

and evaluating information. ‘Further, those with a closed

system had the most difficulty with test items calling

for selection of alternative routes to arrive at a solution.
In order to relate rigidity to the teaching and

learning of the scientific method (i.e., application of

 

7G. Gratton Kemp, "Effect of Dogmatism on Critical
Thinking," School Science and Mathematics, 30: 314—319,
April, 1960.

21

logic to test opinion as opposed to use of authority or g
priori), Solomon8 compared 146.college freshmen classified
as rigid and non-rigid.via-Rokeach's Dogmatism D Scale in
a biological science course. Several different tests were
used in testing the hypotheses that the rigid person would
react differently to the scientific method, that the non-
rigid person would exhibit more comprehensive thinking
than the rigid person, and that both cognitive patterns
can be found in the classroom.

First, the groups had to measure a volume of water
by manipulating jars. Secondly, they had to define bio-
logical terms. And thirdly,.they were to respond in
written essay form to several.questions related to an
experiment in zoology which they had seen.

It was found that the rigid-thinking student dif-
fered significantly from his non-rigid peer on each of
the tasks at the 1% level. Because those who were rigid
showed an inability to use the scientific method whereas
those who were non-rigid.demonstrated an ability to over—
throw preconceived ideas On the basis of evidence, Solomon
concluded that,

Perhaps the most"important results appear to indi-

cate that the effectiveness of the teaching of the
scientific method is possibly, at least partially,

 

8Marvin D. Solomon, The Personality Factor of Rigidity
as an Element in the Teaching of the Scientific Method (un-
published Doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1951).

22

determined by the rigidity--non-rigidity and the
comprehensiveness-—non-comprehensiveness Of the
student.9

Further,
It can be hypothesized that the traditional,
idealistic approach with its formalistic and
paternalistic attitude to subject matter, in
which the mind develops and is dependent only
upon the material presented, might lead to a
rigid personality. 0
The studies cited above have several basic limita-
tions which tend to limit their applicability to the study
undertaken by the present researcher. None of these studies
dealt with variables resulting from the congruency of
belief systems. That is, while the first set of studies
focused on pupil thinking abilities resulting from con-
trasting teacher behavior, the second set focused on the
congruency Of both learner and teacher's belief system as
antecedant to pupil thinking abilities. ~Yet, Solomonll did
admit that the effectiveness of teaching is partly determined
by the learner's "openness to experience" which would imply
that the subsequent learning is also partly determined by

the openness of the teacher.12

13

In a similar vein, Gross postulated concerning the

congruency between role behavior and role expectation that,

 

10Ibid., p. 1A6. 11Ibid.,p.l3O.

9Ibid., p. 130.

12Fair and Shaftel, loc. cit., pp. 77-122. Also see
Herbert A. Thelen, "Matching Teachers and Pupils," NEA
Journal, 56:18-20, April, 1967.

13Neal Gross, "The Sociology of Education," in R. K.
Merton, L. Broom, and L. S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology
Toda (New York: Harper, Row Publishers, Volume 1, 1959),
p. 141.

23

If we assume that subordinates work most effec-
tively in a social climate in which their super-
ordinate conforms to their expectations for his
behavior, then we can assume that students who
hold an 'authoritarian' role definition for the
behavior of their teacher will work harder in an
'authoritarian' environment and that students who
hold a 'democratic'.role definition for their
teacher's behavior will work harder in a democratic
environment.

Interaction of Teacher-Pupil Types

The only study that was directly concerned with
teacher and pupil personality types and their effects on
pupil learning was reported by Heil, Powell, and Feifer.lu
Their study was based on the assumption that teacher
behavior will evoke one kind of achievement for a part of
the class, another kind of achievement for another part,
while a third part may be unaffected. Both teachers and
children were categorized to determine the kinds of effects
on types of children taught by various types of teachers.
The study included 55 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
teachers and their pupils representing different socio-
economic levels in 9 different elementary schools.

On the basis of the teachers' scores on the Teacher

Observation Scale (17 polar.categories from various sources

 

by the researchers) and the Maniford Interest Schedule

(activity statements to which teacher responds like,

 

ll'L. M. Heil, M. Powell, and I. Feifer, Character-
istics of Teacher Behavior and Competency Related to the
Acfiievement of Different Kinds of Children in Several
Elementary Grades (United States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Cooperative Research Project No.
7285, 1960).

 

24

dislike, indifferent), the teachers were classified as
"turbulent" (unconventional, defensive intellectual),
"self-controlling" (methodic, well-integrated), and "fear-
ful" (weakly-integrated, authoritarian). According to

the children's similarity of profiles on the Assessigg

 

Children Feelingg (designed especially for this study),
they were classified as "conformers," "opposers," "waver-

ers,"

and "strivers."‘ The children were given the Stagg-
ford Elementary Achievement Test at the beginning and end
Of the school year.

Investigators found that the "self-controlling"
teachers were equally effective with all four pupil types
which was not true of the other two teacher types. The
"turbulent" teachers were just as successful as "self—
controlling" teachers with "conformers" and "strivers,"
but were ineffective with "opposers" and "waverers."

The "fearful" teachers, in contrast, had low achievement
for all except the "strivers." In turn, the "strivers"
had greater achievement compared to the other pupil types;
however, the "strivers" appeared to achieve independent

of the teacher types whereas the "waverers" had very
little achievement with all teacher types.

Although this study clearly supports its basic
assumption that the differential effects of the teachers
upon the children is a function of the personalities of
both teacher and children, there is no other corroborating

evidence.

25

Summary

The major finding pervading the first section of the
foregoing review were that inductive teaching, responsive-
ness to classroom.cues,.and the use of instructional strate-
gies enhance the thinking abilities of the child.

In the second section on the behavioral correlates
of dogmatism, the major findings were that,
l. dogmatism is inversely related to learning;15
2. low dogmatism is related to success in critical

thinking (analyzing and.evaluating information);16

3. dogmatism is.independent of 1.0.17
The last section of the review indicated that learn-
ing and/or thinking in class.was a function of both teacher
and pupil personalities.
While the studies cited were related to the study
undertaken here, the last.study reviewed was most germane
in that it gave clear evidence of a teacher—pupil interaction
resulting in differential effects in achievement. But,
since the researchers did not focus on thinking abilities,
one can only assume that they too would be influenced dif-
ferentially depending on the teacher and pupil types
involved.

'Procedures for this study.for investigating the ways

in which pupil thinking abilities are related by both
teachers and pupils are described in the next chapter.

 

15Ehrlich, loc. cit. l6K'emp', loc. cit.

l7Ehrlich, loc. cit. and Kemp, loc. cit.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN

Procedures to investigate the ways in which pupil
thinking abilities are related to teacher types and pupil
types are presented in this chapter. First, the population
and sample are specified and described. This is followed
by a complete description of the instruments used to col-
lect data. Next, the statistical hypotheses and methods
Of testing the hypotheses are presented. Last, a summary

of the design is presented.

Procedures

 

The sample in the present study was drawn from a
Midwestern city of approximately 150,000 people. The city
is partly industrial as well as the state capital. Thus,
about half of the working adults are factory employed
while another large portion is state employed. Many of
the city's teachers are married to a factory employee,
state employee, or someone associated with the large uni-
versity in the adjacent town. This industrial state
capital has 50 elementary, 5 junior, and 3 senior high
schools.

First the approval of the school system's Curric-
ulum Committee, Research Department, and Director of

26

27

Elementary Education was secured in order to begin the

research. Then, RokeachisgDegmatism E‘Sc'alel along with

 

a letter introducing the.present study were mailed in the
spring of 1968 to all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade,
teachers assigned to self-contained classrooms.

The selection of grades 4-6 was that the pupils
were assumed to be mature enough to respond adequately to
the type of instruments used. ‘Also, pupils having one
teacher throughout the day and year would be subjected to
many more hours of influence.frcm the teacher whereas
pupils exposed to several teachers daily may be influenced
less from any one of the several teachers.

Teachers who completed and returned the Dogmatism E

Scale2 via a stamped, self-addressed envelope also supplied

 

demographic data concerning their age, years of teaching,
sex, grade now teaching, and school. 'Code numbers were
used for teachers to insure their feeling of anonymity.
Also, it was hOped that this procedure would increase the
likelihood of obtaining truthful responses to the opinion-
aire. Location of schools for various socio—economic
classes and geographic areas were ascertained from Chamber

Of Commerce supplied informationconcerning economic status

 

lM. Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1960), pp. 71-80.

2

 

Ibid.

28

of geographic areas throughout the city. School adminis-

trator supplied city school maps.

Nature of the Sample
Teachers were selected on the basis Of their scores on

3

the Dogmatism E. Scale. Three teachers who scored the low-
est were selected and classified as low in dogmatism (open-
minded, Ldt) whereas three teachers who scored the highest
were selected and classified as high in dogmatism (closed-

minded, H Finally, three teachers were randomly

dt)'
selected from those whose scores clustered around the mean
and classified as middle (average) in dogmatism (Mdt)' Con-
sequently, nine teachers and their respective pupils were
involved in the present study.

The demographic data, for the teacher sample of 9
were described. Range and.mean of teachers' dogmatism
scores were given.

The nine teachers were contacted personally by the
researcher a week after they had received the initial
letter and instrument. The study was explained in general
terms, and the teachers were given cepies Of the STEP“

with directions for administering to their respective

class. Within another week the STEP was collected at the

 

3Ibid.

 

“Sequential Tests of Educational Progress: Social
Spudies, Form 4B (Princeton, New Jersey: Cooperative Test
Division, Educational Testing Service, 1957).

 

 

29

different schools by the.researcher and, in turn, teachers
were given copies of Figert's.Degmati mlc Scale5 with
directions to administer. This too was collected a few
days later.

Sex, age, grade level, intelligence quotient, and
sociO-economic class were ascertained for the pupil sample
partly from them and partly from their school records.
Determination of pupil's sociO-economic class was based
on father's occupation.as defined by Havighurst.6 Thus,
socio-economic class.(SEC) I consisted of professionals
and business managers; SEC.II were white collar workers;
SECIEKIincluded blue collar workers; and SEC IV was for
unskilled laborers.

Pupils were classified, similar to the teachers, on
the basis of their collective dogmatism scores. Those
who scored minus one standard deviation or lower were
classified as low in dogmatism (Ldp), or average in dog-
matism (Mdp) if they scored one standard deviation within
the mean, or high in dogmatism (Hdp) if they scored plus

one standard deviation or higher.

 

5R. L. Figert, An Elementary School Form of the Dog-
matism Scale:Development of an Instrument for Use in Studies
of Belief-Disbelief Systems of Children in Grades 4-6 (un-
published Doctoral dissertation, Indiana, Ball State Uni-
versity, 1965), pp. 106-109-

6Robert Havighurst, Growing up in River City (Uni-
versity of Chicago: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962),

pp. 7-14.

 

3O

Instrumentation
Three different instruments were used in this study,
as stated above, viz., Dogmatism E Scale7, Dogmatism C

8

Scale, and STEP.9 These instruments are discussed pres-

 

ently in the order given here.

Dogmatism E Scale
Rokeach postulated that there is a characteristic
way that people respond to the world about them. This
characteristic way of responding is based on one's accep-
tance and rejection of ideas, of people, and of authority
which, in turn, involve the phenomena of cognition, intol-
erance, and authoritarianism.respectively. From infancy
one learns, consciously or unconsciously, to accept beliefs,
sets, expectations, or hypotheses as true about the world
in which he lives. One's total configuration of these
Rokeach called the belief-disbelief—system.10 One's system
is open or closed to the extent that he accepts or rejects
information uncritically.ll
Consequently, Rokeach constructed a series of items

to measure one's cognitive aspects along an open-closed

continuum. The original samples were college students in

 

7Rokeach, loc. cit.
8Figert, loc. cit.

9STEP, loc. cit.

lORokeach, loc. cit., pp. 31-53.

11Ibid., p. 57.

 

It‘ll-Ill lllllll Ill: 1| I! I

31

Midwestern universities, Eastern-universities, and English
students and laborers.in England.' The test yielded relia-
bility coefficients (oddeeven method by Spearman-Brown
formula) ranging from .68 to .93)“ Studies comparing

l2 and studies involving the "Doodle-

diverse political gropus
bug Problem"l3 attest to its validity.

The test has 40 items to which the subject indicates
disagreement or agreement with each item ranging from —3
to +3 which is converted to a l tO'7 scale by adding a
constant of 4 to each item. .Then.to place each subject

on the 7-point scale, the total score is divided by 40.1”

Figert's Dogmatism C Scale

 

Figert15 adapted Rokeach's Dogmatism E Scale16 for

use with children based.on.3 samples in 3 different towns
in central Indiana. There were 675 children in grades
4-6 who were white, mostly protestant, middle socio-
economic class, and had a typical classroom range in
intelligence. Figert.reworded the Rokeach's test items
in order to be understoodzbytchildren."The readability

level of the items was grade 3.0 via Spache formula and

 

l2M. Rokeach, "Political and Religious Dogmatism:
An Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality," Psycho-
logical Monograph, Whole NO. 425, 1956.

l3Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 196OI, pp. 182-195.

 

lulElQ-S pp- 88-89. 15Figert, loc. cit.

l6Rokeach, loc. cit., pp. 71—80.

32

item discrimination.of p .05 was yielded when comparing
the responses Of the upper 27$?(elosed-minded) and lower
27% (open-minded) of the distribution of scores.

Split-half reliability coefficients via odd-even
pearson r technique were .73 for the 4th, .60 for the 5th,
and .70 for the 6thgraders. Content validity was estab-
lished by consensus of judges in psychology and education,
including Rokeach.

The test in its final form consisted of 50 items to
which the child responds by circling +, 0, or - to repre-
sent agreement, indifference, or disagreement. The responses
are given weights of 3, 2, 1 respectively. The total score
is the sum of subscores obtained on all items which indi-
cate the higher the score, the more closed-mindedness.
Figert found that the instrument can identify children
on bases other than that.which can be predicted through
analysis of age, sex, schoolgrade level, intelligence,

and sociO-economic class.

STEP: Social Studies

A committee of educators and test specialists con-
structed test items based on the basic assumption that
education focuses on ability to apply school-learned
skills rather than isolated, specific facts. According
to the consensus of this committee, the test items require
the child to identify generalizations and values, to com-

pare and contrast data, and to draw valid generalizations

33

conclusions. Further, understandings as "social change,"
"geographic environment," "forces of nature," democratic
society," "economic wants," "interdependence," and "explana-
tion of environment" pervade subject matter areas of his-
tory, geography, economics, government, and social anthro-
pology. Maps, photographs, tables, and diagrams are some
of the types Of materials that are used in the test.17
The test consists of 70 items divided into two parts,
each half of 35 items require a time limit of 50 minutes.
Each item has a multiple choice of 4 possible answers to
which the child blackens the appropriate space on the
answer sheet having the same letter as the answer he would
choose in the test booklet.. The test has reported relia-
bility coefficient of .93 via Kuder-Richardson formula 20.
General reasoning is an important factor explaining
the total score. Further, and somewhat ironically, while
social studies are generally thought of as technical ideas,
this technical aspect is subordinated to general problem
solving. However, according.to the most recent Mental

Measurement Yearbook, STEP is without a peer.18

k

l7Sequential‘Tests'oquducational Progress: Tech-
leeil Report (Princeton, New Jersey: Cooperative Test
Divixsion,'Educational Testing Service, 1957).

18Oscar K. Buros, The Sixth Mental Measurement
Yearflaook (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press,
5 ‘, pp. 1224-1226.

34

Statistical Hypotheses

 

Chapter I revealed that the number of open- and

closed-minded pupils will vary with the Open- and closed-

mindedness Of the teachers. Further, evidence indicates

that pupils taught by open-minded teachers will show

greater cognitive ability when compared with_pupils taught

by middle-scoring teachers and closed-minded teachers.

The null hypotheses under investigation and their

alternates follow.

1.

Null Hypothesis: NO difference will be found
in number of Open- and closed-minded pupils
taught by three teacher types.

Alternate Hypothesis: Number of open- and
closed-minded pupils will differ among teach-
er types.

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil type,
no difference will be found in cognitive
functioning as measured by average test
performance among pupils taught by teach-
ers low, middle, and high in dogmatism.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil
type, cognitive functioning as measured by
average test performance among pupils taught
by teachers low, middle, and high in dogma-
tism will show an inverse relationship.

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher type,
no difference will be found in cognitive
functioning as measured by average test per-
formance among pupils low, middle, and high
in dogmatism.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher
type, cognitive functioning as measured by

average test performance among pupils low,

middle, and high in dogmatism will Show an

inverse relationship.

35

4. Null Hypothesis: 'No difference will be
found in mean.scores of cognitive function-
ing among pupils low, middle, and high in
dogmatism with each of the nine teachers.

Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of cogni-
tive functioning.among pupils low, middle,
and high in dogmatism with each of the nine
teachers will tend to differ.

5. Null Hypothesis: 'NO difference will be
found in three classifications (subscales
Of cognitive functioning) for all pupils.

Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores for sub-
scales of cognitive functioning for all
pupils will tend to vary from subscale to
subscale.

6. Null Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil type,
no difference will.be found from subscale
to subscale among pupils taught by three
teacher types.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil
type, mean scores will from subscale to
subscale vary among pupils taught by three
teacher types.

7. Null Hypothesis: .Disregarding teacher
type, no difference will be found from
subscale to subscale among three pupil
types.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher
type, mean scores will vary from subscale
to subscale among three pupil types.

8. Null Hypothesis: -No.difference will be
found among 27 combinations of mean sub-
scale scores for teacher types and pupil
types. .

Alternate Hypothesis: Twenty-seven mean

subscale scores will vary with teacher and
pupil types.

Analysis
Two major kinds of.evidence were obtained in this

exploratory study; evidence regarding belief systems of

36

teachers and pupils, and evidence regarding cognitive

functioning of pupils.

Evidence Regarding Belief Systems

Number of pupils classified as low, middle, and high
in dogmatism for as many classifications of teachers were
analyzed via chi—square technique. The significance level
was set at .05 and the results were given. Because the
groups under study were thought of as nine independent
samples and the data were in discrete categories, the

chi-square was the appropriate statistic.19’

Evidence Regarding Cognitive Functioning

A mixed model of analysis of variance was used to
obtained information from the data on cognitive function-
ing.20 The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of
variance underlying the F-test were assumed rather than
tested. According to Lindquist,21 analysis of variance

should be neither abused nor be considered so sacred that

it is not used when its assumptions are not met and yet

 

19N. M. Downie and R. w. Heath, Basic Statistical
Methods (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965),
pp. 160-175.

20See both Jason Millman and Gene v. Glass, "Rules
Of Thumb for Writing the ANOVA Table," Journal of Educa-
tional Measurement, 4:41-51, Summer, 1967; and William L.
Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York: Holt, Rine-
llart and Winston, 1963), pp. 356-458.

 

21E. F. Lindquist, Design and Analysis of Experiments
irl Psychology and Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,

1953) 3 pp“ 72-900

37

be applicable. In this regard Hays states, ". . . the
real concern of the experimenter must always be for the
logic of the experiment and the interpretability of the
data."22
The design for this study is diagrammatically repre-
sented on the next page. The statistical model is used
to determine the ways in which cognitive functioning is
influenced by the belief systems of teachers and pupils.
The model was specifically constructed for this study
for which the computation was done by machine.23
The model is an analysis of the variance mixed model
with teacher type, pupil type, and subscale fixed and.
classroom nested within type of teacher as random. Three
teachers classified as low in dogmatism are symbolized
dt; Mdt refers to
three teachers classified as middle dogmatism; and H

in the design on the following page as L

dt
refers to three teachers classified as high in dogmatism.

The second column refers to collectivities of pupils
categorized as low, middle, and high in dogmatism for

each of the three types of teachers. Thus, L are

dpl
three groups of pupils each low in dogmatism and taught

by one of L Subdivision of each of 9 classrooms into

dt'
low, middle, and high dogmatism is represented in the

third column. The last three columns refer to the

 

22Hays, loc. cit., p. 456.

 

23Glass, loc. cit. and Hays, loc. cit.

 

38

 

Cognitive Functioning

 

Teacher Pupil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type Type Classroom Identify Compare_. Conclude
C
1
Ldpl £2
3
C
l
Ldt Mdp2 E2
3
C
l
Hdp3 g2
3
C
A
Ldpl $5
6
M M 8“
dt dp2 05
6
C
4
Hdp3 g5
6
C
7
Ldpl g8
9
C7
Hdt Mdp2 C8
C
9
C
7
Hdp3 E8
9

 

 

classifications of cognitive functioning, 113., identify
generalizations and values, compare and contrast data, and
draw valid conclusions.

This design can yield the following kinds of informa—

tion concerning variations in means: Means can vary

39

between teacher types

between pupil types

teacher x pupil interaction

classroom x pupil nested within teacher;
between subscales

subscales x teacher interaction

subscales x classroom nested within teacher;
subscales x pupil interaction

subscales x pupil x teacher interaction'
subscales x classes x pupil nested within teacher.

Control of Extraneous Variables

In carrying out research one has to be concerned
with variables confounding internal (difference due to
treatments) and external (generalizability) validity.
Campbell and Stanley2u discussed several factors which-
might jeopardize a study.~ The factors are reviewed here
briefly in the context of this study.

History.—-Specific events occurring between first
and second measurement.. .

Maturation.—-Changes in respondents due to passage
of time.

Testing.--Effects of first test on scores of second
test.

Statistical Regression.—-Extreme scores tend regress

towardymean.

4

21‘Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, "Experi-
mental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on
Teaching," in N. L.-Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 19637, pp.7i71—

4O

Mortality.--Differential loss of respondents. Be-

 

cause there was no pre-test and there were 9 groups, each
serving as a control for the other, history, testing, and
maturity were irrelevant. Statistical regression was not
entirely applicable because there was no pre-test and the
selection based on extreme scores were for independent
reasons.25 Mortality was accounted for via school records.

Instrumentation.--Changes in instrument. Validity

 

in the classification of test items may be questionable
due to the difficulty in establishing which thinking abil-
ities are involved and common for all respondents.

Selection.--Unequal respondents before experiment.

 

Because the subjects were volunteered, teachers assigned to
teach intact and self—contained classes, selection may ac-
count for any difference. In an attempt to control for

bias in selection, correlational technique was used for any
relationship between demographic factors and cognitive
functioning. Also, collective mean scores for cognitive
functioning (dependent variable) were used rather than indi-
vidual pupil scores. The foregoing explanations are also
appropriate for any interaction of the variables mentioned

(above) jeopardizing representativeness.

Summary

Nine 4-6 grade teachers assigned to self-contained

classrooms and their respective pupils were classified as

25Ibid., pp. 181-182.

41

low, middle, and high in dogmatism determined by their
scores on the Dogmatism E Scale26 for teachers and 29g-
matism G Scale27 for pupils. STEP was administered to
pupils and the results were analyzed to determine possible
relationships between belief systems and cognitive function-
ing of pupils. Design was a mixed model of repeated meas-
ures.

The findings of this exploration and analysis are

presented in the next chapter.

 

26Rokeach, loc. cit.

27Figert, loc. cit.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The two major purposes of this study as described
in Chapter I was (1) to explore the relationship between
belief systems Of teachers and their pupils, and (2) to
analyze the ways in which this relationship is related
to cognitive functioning in pupils.

The data collected and presented in this chapter
are the responses of 9 teachers to Dogmatism E Scale and
the responses of their pupils to Dogmatism C Scale and
STEP. Following is a description of the subjects after-

which the analysis of the data are presented.

Teachers and Pupils

 

Fifty-seven per cent of 185 teachers completed and
returned the Dogmatism E Scale. The scores ranged from
1.64 to 5.96 with a mean Of 3.38. The three most extreme
scores at both ends of the 7-point scale were selected
and classified as low in dogmatism (low scores) and high
in dogmatism. Extreme scores were selected to accentuate
differences in behavior. Nature of the study presumed
marked differences in behavior inferred from scores on
dogmatism test. Three more were selected randomly from
the cluster of scores at the mean. Table 4.1 summarizes

the demographic information pertaining to the 9 teachers.

42

43

Table 4.1 shows that most of the teachers are with-
in the 30-49 age range while one is beyond age 50 and
another is within 21-25 age range. The teachers are mostly
females and almost equally distributed in grades 4-6. As
a whole, the teachers are apparently experienced; however,
low dogmatism teachers have taught longer while the high
dogmatism teachers have taught the least number of years.

TABLE 4.l.-—Summary of Demographic Characteristics Of the
Nine Sample Teachers.

M
Years of

 

Teacher Age Teaching Sex Grade

1 30-39 7 F 4
Low 2 30-39 10+ F 5

3 40-49 10+ F 6

1 40-49 10+ F 4
Mid 2 40-49 3 F 5

3 26-29 8 F 6

1 26-29 1 M 4
High 2 50+ 10+ F 4

3 21-25 2 F 5

 

Pupils' scores on the Dogmatism C Scale1 ranged from

 

83 to 147 (possible range is 50-150) with a mean of 106 and
standard deviation of 9. Those who scored 97 or lower were
classified as low in dogmatism while those who scored 115

or higher were classified as high in dogmatism. The pupils

 

1R. L. Figert, An Elementary School Form of the Dog-
matism Scale: Development of an Instrument for Use in
Studies of Belief Systems (unpublished Doctoral disserta-
tion, Indiana, Ball State University, 1964).

44

in between and including scores 98-114 were classified
as middle in dogmatism. Pupils' demographic information
is presented in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2.--Summary of Characteristics of Pupils Low,
Middle, and High in Dogmatism.

 

Categories of Dogmatism

 

 

Total
Low Middle High
Girls 18 52 17 87
Boys 18 63 28 109
Total 36 115 45 196
Age_ (in months)
x 130 131 130
I.Q._~(stanines)
x 5.0 4.3 4.1
Grade
4 15 55 23 93
5 ll 45 8 64
6 10 15 14 39
Tota1 36 115 45 196
SEC*
I 7 l5 7 29
II 9 31 6 46
III 20 53 16 89
Total 36 99 29 144**

 

*SEC = Socio-Economic Class.
**Numbers vary from total due to unemployment, pupil not
sure, or father deceased.

Table 4.2 shows that there were more boys than girls,
nearly the same mean age (chronological) for each group,
and expected proportions in each grade level and socio-

economic class. That is, because the basis for categor-

izing the pupils was the distribution Of scores, Obviously

45

the middle group should have approximately two-thirds
of the total number of subjects. A glance at the table
will substantiate the foregoing statement. Also, it~
should be noted that slightly less than half of the
pupils are SEC 111 (blue collar work) and none are SEC

IV (unskilled).2

Hypothesis 1

 

Null Hypothesis: NO difference will be found
in number of Open- and closed-minded pupils
taught by three teacher types.

Alternate Hypothesis: Number Of open- and
closed—minded pupils will differ among teach-
er types.

The alternate (research) hypothesis 1 was based on
the assumption that if a teacher were low in dogmatism,
for example, then his pupils would be low in dogmatism
by the end of the school year. Or, if the teacher were
high in dogmatism, then his pupils would be high in dog-
matism by the end of the school year.

However, Table 4.3 shows that the proportions of
pupils low, middle, and high in dogmatism for each of the
three teacher groups are nearly the same for each cell.

Inasmuch as the difference (X2 = 1.11)* did not reach the

critical value (9.49), the null hypothesis is accepted.

2Pupils' socio-economic class was determined by the
father's occupation, (see page 29).
*Chi square formula used was X2 = (O-E)2.
E

46

TABLE 4.3.--Frequency of Pupils Classified as Low,
Middle, and High in Dogmatism for Each
of-Three Teacher Types.

 

 

 

 

Teachers
Pupils Total
Low Middle ' High
Exp. 9.7 13.2 13.0
Low 36
Obs. 12 13 ll ‘
Exp. 31.9 43.3 47.8
Middle 118
Obs. 33 4O 45
Exp. 11.4 15.4 15.2
High 42
Obs. 8- 19 15
TOTAL 53 72 71 196
2 2 ,
X = 1.11 d.f.-= 4 x.05" 9.49

An analysis of variance mixed model was used-to test
hypotheses 2 through 8. Summary table showing a 4-way
analysis of.variance.of cognitive functioning, teacher

types, and pupil types is given in Table 4.4.

Hypothesis 2

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil type, no
difference will be found in cognitive function-
ing as measured by average test performance
among pupils taught by teachers low, middle,
and high in dogmatism (Ldt’ Mdt’ Hdt)' ‘

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil type,.
cognitive functioning as measured by average.
test performance among Ld and Hdt will

tend to show an inverse relationship.

47

TABLE 4.4.--Summary Table Showing a 4-way Analysis of
Variance of Cognitive Functioning, Teacher
Types, and Pupil Types.

 
  

 

 

Sum of Mean
Source of Variation d.f. Squares Square F
Teachers 2 154.77 77.38 7.63*
Classrooms 6 240.15 40.02 3.95**
Pupils 2 7.51 3.75 .37
Tea x Pup Interaction 4 21.53 5.38 .54
CS:T (w) 12 121.63 10.14
Subscales 2 106.99 53.49 36.66*
Sub x Tea Interaction 4 .49 .12 .08
RC:T (w) 12 17.85 1.49
Sub x Pup 4 5.53 1.38 1.09
Sub x Pup x Tea 8 5.43 .68 .54
RCS:T (w) 24 30.37 1.26
TOTAL 80 712.25 8.90

 

*Statistically significant beyond .01 level.
**Statistically significant at the .05 level.
CS:T refers to classroom and pupils nested within teacher.
RC:T refers to subscales x classroom nested within teaCher.
RCS:T refers to subscales x classrooms x pupils nested with-
in teachers.

With pupil type held constant for testing hypothesis
2, there was a substantial difference (7.63) which was sig-
nificant beyond the .01 level. Thus, the null was rejected
in favor of the alternate. Results indicated pupils taught
by one type of teacher scored significantly different from
pupils taught by another or other type(s) of teacher(s).
To discover which teacher was different, another test was

used.

48

3

Scheffe's multiple-comparison technique was used
to examine further the means for teacher types. Their
means were as follows:

Low = 16.44

Middle = 13.63

High = 13.40.
Results were that low (open-minded) dogmatic teachers were
significantly different from both middle dogmatic and high
(closed-minded) dogmatic teachers at the .05 level. But,
the middle teachers were not significantly different from
closed-minded teachers. Nonetheless, it should be noted

that the mean values do tend toward the inverse relation-

ship.

Hypothesis 3

 

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher types,
no difference will be found in cognitive
functioning among three types of pupils.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher
types, cognitive functioning among three
types of pupils will tend to show an inverse
relationship, i.e. open-minded pupils will
score higher than middle and closed-minded
pupils.

To test Hypothesis 3 all of the scores of pupils

categorized as low were summed and averaged. Scores for

 

3William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wigston, 19637, pp. 483-489;

' - 7
Scheffe s formula is Vs S/V (VS) 1 VS 1 Vs + S V (Vs)

where T combination of sample means, S = ¢(J-1)Fa, and
VV (vs) =J€M8error)ws‘

 

49

the other two groups were treated similarly. Their mean
scores were:

Low = 14.89

Middle = 14.15'

High = 14.44.
As_the reader can see, the means vary slightly. However,
mean score of Open-minded (low) pupils is greater than
the other two while middle pupils' mean score is the
lowest. The data given above and presented in Table 4.4
do not give evidence which justify rejecting the null at
the significance level of .05. Thus, the research hy-
pothesis is not supported, although the mean differences

are partly in the direction predicted.

Hypothesis 4

 

Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found
in mean scores of cognitive functioning among
three types of pupils with each of the nine
teachers.

Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of cognitive
functioning among three types of pupils with
each of nine teachers will tend to differ.

To test Hypothesis 4, the three means for open-minded
pupils taught by Open-minded teachers are combined and
averaged. Similarly, the three means for middle-scoring
pupils for each of the open-minded teachers are combined
and averaged. This procedure is repeated until there are

9 means, i.e., low, middle, and high for each category of

teachers. The 9 means are given on the following page.

50

 

Teachers
Pupils Low Middle High
Low 17.11 14.44. 13.11
Middle 16.44 13.22 12.78
High 15.78 13.22 14.33

That the mean scores of cognitive functioning among three
types of pupils for each of nine teachers will vary is

not supported by the over-all F-test at the significance
level of .05. Again, however, the tendency for the low
dogmatic pupils to score higher (first row and first col-
umn) than the middle dogmatic and high dogmatic pupils is
quite apparent. Also, it is interesting to note that high
dogmatic pupils scored higher with high dogmatic teachers

than either pupil type with high dogmatic teachers.

Hypothesis 5

 

Null Hypothesis: NO difference will be found

in three subscales of cognitive functioning,

for all pupils, holding teacher and pupili

types constant.

Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores for subscales
of cognitive functioning for all pupils will
tend to vary from subscale to subscale.

The reader should recall that the test items for
cognitive functioning were classified on the basis of
the thinking abilities that were required of the pupil
to respond correctly to the items. The three different
types of items required the pupil to identify generaliza-

tions and values (24 items), to compare and contrast data

(21 items), and to draw valid generalizations and

51

conclusions (25 items). The three mean scores for each
subscale is presented below:

To identify = 15.89 (subscale 1)

To compare = 13.07 (subscale 2)

To conclude = 14.52 (subscale 3)
Pupils collectively responded correctly to 66% of
subscale 1, 62% of subscale 2, and 60% Of subscale 3. The
over—all F-test set at the significance level Of .05 yields
a significant difference beyond the .01 level. The null
is rejected in favor of the research hypothesis that the

subscale scores tend to vary.

Hypothesis 6

 

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil type,
no difference will be found from subscale
to subscale among three teacher types.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding pupil
type, mean scores will vary among three
teacher types from subscale to subscale.

The mean scores for three subscales by teacher type

are given below:

 

Teachers
sabscales Low Middle High
To identify 17.89 15.11 14.67
To compare 15.007 12.11 12.11
To conclude 16.44 13.67 13.44

Mean difference among the subscales is not significant at

the .05 level.

The Null Hypothesis 6 is accepted.

But,

the subscale mean scores do indicate that low teachers did

better (scored higher) than middle and high teachers whereas

52

middle teachers scored higher than high teachers. Al-

though not significant, the direction indicated should

be noted.

Hyppthesis 7

 

Null Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher type,
no difference will be found among subscales
by pupil type.

Alternate Hypothesis: Disregarding teacher
type, mean scores among subscales by pupil
type will vary.

 

Teachers
Subscales Low Middle High
To identify 16.56 15.22 15.89
To compare 13.00 13.11 13.11
To conclude 15.11 14.11 14.33
Null Hypothesis 7 was accepted because mean difference

amon

.05

sent

nifi

g subscales by pupil type was not significant at the

level. The subscale means are presented above.

Hypothesis 8

 

Null Hypothesis: No difference will be found
in mean scores among subscales by pupil type
and by teacher type.
Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores among sub-
scales by pupil type and by teacher type will
vary.
The 27 combinations of subscale mean scores are pre-
ed on the following page. The difference is not sig-

cant. The null was accepted at the .05 level.

53

 

 

Subscales
Teachers Pupils Identify Compare Conclude
Low 19.33 14.67 17.33
Low Middle 17.33 15.67 16.33
High 17.00 14.67 15.67
Low 15.67 13.00 14.67
Middle Middle 14.67 11.67 13.33
High 15.00 11.67 13.00
Low 14.67 11.33 13.33
High Middle 13.67 12.00 12.67
High 15.67 13.00 14.33
Summary

This study was based on the hypothesis that the

number of open- and closed-minded pupils will vary with

the Open- and closed-mindedness of the teachers.

Fur—

ther, evidence indicates that pupils taught by open-

minded teachers will show greater cognitive ability when

compared with pupils taught by middle—scoring teachers

and closed-minded teachers.

The following hypotheses were supported:

Hypothesis 2: Disregarding pupil type, cog-
nitive functioning among pupils taught by
three teacher types differed significantly
at the .01 level. Further, low dogmatic
teachers were significantly (.05) greater
compared with middle and high dogmatic
teachers, and an inverse relationship was
indicated but not significantly so;

54

Hypothesis 5: Mean scores of subscales on cog-
nitive functioning for all pupils differed sig-
nificantly at the .01 level.

The following hypotheses were rejected at the significance
level of .05: -

Hypothesis 1: Number Of open— and closed-minded
pupils will vary with the open- and closed-minded-
ness of the teacher;

Hypothesis 3: Disregarding teacher type, cognitive
functioning among three types of pupils will show
an inverse relationship;

Hypothesis 4: Mean scores of cognitive functioning
among three types of pupils with each of nine teach-
ers will tend to differ.

Hypothesis 6: Disregarding pupil type, mean scores
will vary among pupils taught by three teacher
types from subscale to subscale.

Hypothesis 7: Disregarding teacher type, mean
scores will vary from subscale to subscale among
three pupil types;

Hypothesis 8: Mean scores among subscales by
pupil type and by teacher type will vary.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter is divided into three parts. The
first section summarizes the findings of the study. In
the second section the major conclusions are presented.
Discussion of the findings and implications for future

investigation appear in the final section.

Summary

In recent years researchers have focused upon the
development of thinking abilities in children. It-would
appear that the more complex society becomes, the more
intense the need for development Of thinking abilities.
Because there is a dearth of experimental research dealing
with differential influence of different teachers on dif-
ferent pupils, little is actually known about the ante-
cedents influencing thinking abilities in the classroom.

Indeed, prior studies have assumed that all children
in a given class react to the teacher in the same way. The
assumption of this researcher is that no one-to—one rela-
tionship exists due to the diverse belief systems within
a given classroom.

Both teachers and pupils vary in their respective

beliefs and characteristic way of looking at the world.

55

56

Further, teachers influence the thinking abilities of
children in different ways. Suggested was the idea that
if cognitive functioning (thinking) of children is related
to their belief system and the belief system of the
teacher by whom they are taught, then the focus of study
should be on the configuration of belief systems held by
the classroom members, teacher and pupils. It was the
purpose of this study to explore the relationship between
belief systems of teachers and pupils and how the rela-
tionship influences cognitive functioning in children.

Hypotheses.--The major hypothesis under investiga—

 

tion was that the number of Open- and closed-minded pupils
will vary with the Open- and closed-mindedness of the
teachers. Further, evidence indicates that pupils taught
by Open-minded teachers will show greater cognitive ability
when compared with pupils taught by middle—scoring teachers
and closed-minded teachers. Subhypotheses used to struc-
ture the investigation were as follows:
1. Number of Open- and closed-minded pupils will
vary with the open- and closed-mindedness of
the teacher;
2. Cognitive functioning will show an inverse
relation among pupils taught by three teacher
types, holding pupil type constant;
3. Cognitive functioning will show an inverse
relation among three pupil types, holding

teacher type constant;

4. Cognitive functioning will vary among three
pupil types with each of nine teachers;

57

5. Mean scores of cognitive functioning will
vary among three subscales, holding pupil
and teacher type constant;

6. Mean scores of cognitive functioning by
teacher type will vary;

7. Mean scores of subscales by pupil types
will vary, holding teacher type constant;

8. Mean scores of subscales will vary among
all teacher types and all pupil types.

Procedure.--Nine teachers and their respective pupils

 

(N = 196) in grades 4-6 in six different schools located in
a Midwestern city volunteered to participate in the study.
Teachers were classified as low, middle, and high in dog-
matism determined by their scores on ROkeach's Dogmatism

E Scale.l Similarly, pupils were classified low, middle,
and high in dogmatism determined by their scores on Figert's

Dogmatism C Scale.2 Cognitive functioning was determined

 

by pupils' scores on STEP.3 The test items of the latter
had 3 classifications, viz., identification of generali-
zations and values, comparison of data, and drawing of

valid conclusions.

 

lM. Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1960), pp. 71-80.

 

2R. L. Figert, An Elementary School Form of the Dogma-
tism Scale: Development of an Instrument for Use in Studies
of Belief-Disbelief Systems of Children in Grades 4—6 (un-
published Doctoral dissertation, Indiana, Ball State Uni—
versity, 1965), pp. 106-109.

3Sequential Tests of Educational Progress: Social Stud-
ies,_Form 4B, Grades 4-6 (Princeton, New Jersey: Coopera-
tive Test DiViSion, Educational Testing Service, 1957).

 

58

Analysis.--The chi-square statistical technique
was employed to test differences in the number of pupils
who were classified low, middle, and high in dogmatism
when taught by the three teacher types. The analysis of
variance (mixed model) was used to analyze mean difference
in pupils' cognitive functioning as it related to teacher
dogmatism and pupil dogmatism. Significant mean differen-
ces obtained via over-all F-test were further analyzed

using Scheffe's multiple-comparison technique.“

Conclusions

 

Hypotheses that were supported are presented below.

Hypothesis 2: Disregarding pupil type,
cognitive functioning among three teacher
types differed significantly at the .01
level. Further, low dogmatic teachers
were significantly (.05) different from
middle and high dogmatic teachers, and an
inverse relationship was indicated but
not significantly so;

Hypothesis 5: Mean scores for subscales
of cognitive functioning for all pupils
differed significantly at the .01 level.

The following hypotheses were rejected at the significance
level of .05.

Hypothesis 1: Number of open- and closed-

minded pupils will vary with the open- and

mindedness of the teacher;

Hypothesis 3: Disregarding teacher type,.

cognitive functioning among three types of
pupils will show an inverse relationship;

 

”William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), pp. 483-489.

 

59

Hypothesis 4: Mean scores of OOgnitive
functioning among three types of pupils
with each of nine teachers will tend to
differ;

Hypothesis 6: Disregarding pupil types,
mean scores will vary among pupils taught
by three teacher types from subscale to
subscale;

Hypothesis 7: Disregarding teacher types,
mean scores will vary from subscale to sub-
scale among three pupil types;

Hypothesis 8: Mean scores among subscales
by pupil type and by teacher type will vary.

Discussion

 

Number of pupils low, middle, and high in dogmatism”
from class to class yielded but chance differences in
spite of teacher type. One interpretation of this find-
ing is that pupils in the different classes may have
changed from one point to another on the Open—closed
scale. However, this study was designed to give the dog-
matism test to children at one point in time. Had there
been a pre-test at the beginning of the school year and
post-test at the end, change could have been detected.

Evidence that different teacher types influence
different children in different ways is reported by Heil,

Powell, and Feifer.5 In their study of three teacher

 

5L. M. Heil, M. Powell, and I. Feifer, Characteris-
tics of Teacher Behavior and Competency Related to the
Achievement of Different Children in Several Elementary
Grades (United States Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Office of Education, NO. 7285, 1960).

60

types and four pupil types, they found significant mean
gain scores in friendliness for different pupils. For
example, children under a "turbulent" teacher (lack of
structure, warmth, and order) revealed more feelings of
active resistance and hostility compared to children under
a "self-controlling" teacher (warm, orderly, and strict).6
Another possibility for the non-significant differ-
ence in number of open- and closed-minded pupils with
three teacher types is the difference in amount of time
teachers typically spent with children in class compared
to the length of children's life time spent learning their

respective beliefs.

Hypotheses 2—4: While Hypothesis 2 was statistically

 

significant and Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not, mean scores
did maintain the relative positions predicted (see pages
48—50). This finding is consistent with the major hy-
pothesis that OOgnitive functioning would vary with belief
systems of teacher and pupils involved. Open-minded pupils
scored consistently higher than middle-scoring and closed-
minded pupils. Yet, Open-minded pupils did not score
equally high under all three teacher types. In contrast
closed-minded pupils consistently scored lowest. But,
closed-minded pupils scored highest under Open-minded
teachers compared to closed-minded pupils under middle and

closed-minded teachers.

 

6Ibid., pp. 60-61.

61

The findings indicate that even though pupil type
makes a difference in cognitive functioning, a greater
difference is attributed to the teacher type involved.
The influence of the teacher on the cognitive function-
ing of children seems to be overwhelming.

Subscales.-—Pupils collectively did better with

 

test items requiring identification of generalizations
than they did with test items requiring comparisons and
drawing of conclusions. Pupils scored lowest consistently
on items requiring skills in drawing valid conclusions.
This might suggest that the teachers in this study spent
more time providing experiences in identifying generali-
zations and values. Or drawing conclusions may be more
difficult than identifying generalizations. The latter
requires recognition of statements, an intellectual skill

7 and Guildford's memory8 which

akin to Bloom's knowledge
are considered as low cognitive levels. To compare data
requires skill of relating similarities and dissimilari-
ties in wholes and drawing conclusions involves weighing

alternatives. Both skills seem much more complex.

 

7Benjamin S. Bloom, (ed.), Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, Handbook 1: Cpgnitive Domain (New York:
David McKay CO., Inc., 1956).

8J. P. Guildford, Personality (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1959).

 

62

The implication of the finding described on the
preceeding page is related to the findings of Ford's

9 of 499 children in alternate grades three to

study
eleven. From his investigation of pupils' perceptions

of classroom experiences related to Guildford's classi-
fication of intellectual abilities, Ford found that the

higher the grade level, the fewer experiences were re-

lated to higher levels of thinking abilities.

Implications for Future Research

 

The results of this study should serve as a stimulus
for future research in studying learning (or thinking
abilities) in relation to personality variables of both
teachers and pupils. Suggestions are given below.

1. Repetition of this study beginning in the
autumn and ending in the spring. A pre-
test and post-test of dogmatism test to
both pupil and teacher. The study could
focus on the direction of change for teach-
er and pupil types. The change could be
studied in relation to cognitive functioning.

2. Repitition of this study to investigate
belief systems of teachers and pupils in
relation to feelings and perception of
school work, peers, teacher, and how these
change over time.

3. Construct a test of belief system for pri-
mary school children in order to study in-
fluence of belief systems on cognitive
functioning through the elementary grades.
Probably, the lower the grade level, the
more critical the teacher's beliefs.

 

9John Ford, An Exploration and Analysis of Pupils'
Perceptions of Classroom Experiences Related to Intellectual
Factors (unpublished Master thesis, Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan, 1963).

63

Repetition of the design of the study
using a different sample, a sample from
"middle class" suburb and a sample from
"culturally disadvantaged." There are
probably more closed-minded teachers in
a slum area than in the suburbs.. What
would happen to children's cognitive
functioning if the teachers in the slum
area were open-minded?

Construct a test that measures the var-
ious thinking skills, perhaps as defined
by Bloom.

Clearly this study indicates that chil-
dren's cognitive functioning varies with
teacher type. This suggests a different
type of teacher training program in which
focus is upon prospective teacher's con-
sistent examination of what goes on be-
tween himself and the child as a result
of interaction of personalities. An ex-
periment could be set to compare this
group with the graduate of the tradi-
tional program.

Repetition of the study using tape
recordings in the classroom. Analyze
the tape with respect to relationship
between frequency of level of thinking
in class and collectivity of teacher-
pupil types. How does the verbal be-
havior of Open-minded teachers differ
from closed-minded teachers?

In a given classroom the child is in-
fluenced by both teacher and peers.

Also, a classroom has a range of beliefs.
In some schools matching children with
teachers of similar belief systems might
be possible and warranted.

Finally, compatibility and relationship
of belief systems among teachers, chil-
dren, and parents needs exploring.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, H. H., Brewer, J. E., and Reed, M. R. "Studies
of Teachers' Classroom Personalities." Applied
Psycholpgical Monograpp. NO. 11 (1946).

 

Bentzen, M. M. "Some Effects of Dogmatism in Elementary
School Principals and Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, 1965.

Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Ob-
jpctives: Cognitive Domain. New York: David
McKay CO., Inc., 1956.

 

 

Buros, Oscar K. The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook.
Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965.

Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. "Experimental
and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teach-
ing." In N. L. Gage (ed.) Handbook of Research on
Teaching. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and CO.,
19 3.

Ehrlich, Howard J. "Dogmatism and Learning: A Five-Year
Follow-Up." Psychological Reports, 9:283-286 (1961).

 

Fair, Jean and Shaftel, Fannie R. (eds). Effective Think-
ing in the Social Studies. Washington, D. 0.: Na-
tional COunciI for the Social Studies. 37th Year-
book, 1967.

Figert, Russell L. "An Elementary School Form of the Dog-
matism Scale: Development of an Instrument for Use
in Studies of Belief-Disbelief Systems of Children
in Grades 4-6." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana, Ball State University, 1965.

Ford, John. "An Exploration and Analysis Of Pupils' Per-
ceptions of Classroom Experiences Related to Intel-
lectual Factors." Unpublished Master thesis, Ann
Arbor, University of Michigan, 1963.

Fox, Raymond B. "Difficulties in Developing Skill in

Critical Thinking." Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 55 (April, 1962), 335-337.

65

66

Frenkel-Brunswick, Else. "Intolerance of Ambiguity As an
Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable."
Journal of Personality, 18:108-143 (1949).

 

Guildford, J. P.- Personaliyy, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1959.

 

Glass, Gene V. and Millman, Jason. "Rules of Thumb for
Writing the ANOVA Table." .Journal of Educational
Measurement, 4:41-51 (Summer, 1967).

Gross, Neal. "The Sociology of Education." In R. K.
Merton, L. Broom and L. S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.)

Sociology Today. New York: Harper, Row Publishers,
V0 0 l ’ pp. 128-152.

Harvey, O. J.~ Motivation and Social Interaction: Cog-
nitive Determinants. New York: Ronald Press, 1963.

Havighurst, Robert. Grpying up in River City. University
of Chicago: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Heil, Louis., Powell, Marion., and Feifer, Irwin. Charac-
teristics of Teacher Behayior angCompetency Related
to the Achievement of Different Kinds of Children in
Several Elementary Grades.. United States Office of
Edgcation, Cooperative Research Project No. 7285,

19 O.

 

 

 

Hudgins, B. B. and Ahlbrand, W., Jr. "Teachers' Demands
and Students' Thinking." Educational Leadership,
25:583-589 (March, 1968).

 

Jensen, G. "Sociopsychological Structure of the Instruc-
tional Group." In N. B. Henry (ed.) The Dynamics of
Instructional Group. 59th Yearbook of National So-
gietylior the Study of Education, Part II (1960),

3—11 .

 

 

Jones, Rita H. "Relationships Between Two Modes of Social
Studies Instruction." Unpublished Doctoral disserta—
tion, University of California, 1964.

Joyce, Bruce R. "Developing Open Minds." Strategies for
Elementary Social Science Education. Chicago, Illi-
nois: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1965.

 

 

Kemp, C. Gratton. "Effect of Dogmatism on Critical Think—
ing." School Science and Mathematics, 30:314-319
(1960).

 

67

Kemp, C.-Gratton. "Improvement of Critical Thinking in
Relation to Open—Closed Belief Systems."- Journal
of Eyperimental‘Education, Vol. 31 (March, 1963),
321;323.

 

Klein, Milton 1. "Measurement of Developmental Level with
Reference to Authoritarianism and Dogmatism." Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Yeshiva University,
1965.

Kropp, R. P., Stoker, H. W., and Bashaw, W. L. "The
Validation of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectivesfl
Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 34 (Spring,
1966), 69-76.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Eyperiments in
Ps cholo and Education. Boston: Houghton MiPTlin
CO., 1953.

Liu, Shia-Ling. "Personal Characteristics in Secondary
School Social Studies Student Teaching As Related
to Certain Measures of Potential Teaching Behavior."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas State
University, 1964.

McGee, H. M. "Measurement of Authoritarianism and Its
Relation to Teachers' Classroom Behavior." ‘Genetic
Psychological Monograph, Vol. 52 (1955), 89-146.

 

Massaialas, Byron G. and Smith, Frederick R. (eds.). New
Challenges in the Social Studies. Belmont, Callior-
fiia: Wadsworth Publishing CO., 1965.

Miller, G. L. "Collaborative Teaching and Pupil Thinking."
Journal of Teacher Education, 17:337-358 (1966).

The National Council for the Social Studies. "The Role
of the Social Studies." Social Education, 26:316-
318 (October, 1962).

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois:
The Free Press,il951.

Possien, Wilma M. "A Comparison of Effects of Three
Teaching Methodologies on Development of Problem
Solving Skills of Sixth Grade Children." Unpub-
ligfied Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama,
19 .

68

Quinn, Patrick V. "Critical Thinking and Open-Mindedness
in Pupils from Public and Catholic Secondary SchoolsJ'
Unpublished Ph.D.-dissertation, Columbia University,
19 4. .

Rokeach, Milton. The Qpen and Closed Mind. New York:
Basic Books, 1960.

 

Rokeach, Milton. and Norrell,.G. The Nature of Analysis
and Synthesis and Some Condipipns in the Classroom
Which Facilitate or Retard These Cognitive Processes,
Part II:‘ Analysis,ySynthesis, and Academic PerfOr-
mance. United States OTPice of Education, Cbopera-
tive Research Branch Project No. 879, 1966.

Ryans, D. G.~ "Some Relationships between Pupil Behavior
and Certain Teacher Characteristic." Journal of
Educational Psychology, 52:82-97 (19617.

 

 

Taba, Hilda. Thinking in Elementary School Childrpn.
San Francisco State College: Unitedistates Office
of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 1574,
1964.

Tyler, Louise L. "The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
Cognitive Domain - Its Use in Evaluating Programmed
Instruction." California Journal of Educational Re-
search, Vol. 17 (January, 1966), 26-32. 7

Withall, John. "The Development of a Technique for the
Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Class-
rooms." Journal of Experimental Education, 17:347-
399 (1939).

APPENDICES

69

APPENDIX A

SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS:
SOCIAL STUDIES

7O

 

Social Studies

 

General Directions

This is a test of some of the understandings, skills, and abilities you have
been developing ever since you first entered school. You should take the
test in the same way that you would work on any new and interesting as-
signment. Here are a few suggestions which will help you to earn your
best score:

l. Make sure you understand the test directions before you begin work-
ing. You may ask questions about any part of the directions you do
not understand.

2. You will make your best score by answering every question because
your score is the number of correct answers you mark. Therefore,
you should work carefully but not spend too much time on any one
question. If a question seems to be too difficult, make the most care-
ful guess you can, rather than waste time puzzling over it.

3. If you finish before time is called, go back and spend more time on
those questions about which you were most doubtful.

 

SEQUENTIAL TESTS OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS ° STEP

DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING

Note: Instructions which are to be read aloud to students are printed in bold type.
Instructions printed in regular type are intended only for the examiner.

In these Directions and in the test booklets the students are instructed to make
their marks heavy and black. This is desirable for IBM 805 answer sheets or
for hand-scoring. It may not be advisable, however, with other types of scoring
machine. It is suggested, therefore, that you consult the person responsible
for scoring (or the manufacturer of your machine), and modify this instruction
if necessary.

When the students are assembled in the examination room and seated, say:

The testing period has begun. There should be no talking among you until
after you have been dismissed.

We shall now pass out test materials. Do not open your booklet or turn it
over until you are told to do so.

Distribute booklets, scratch paper (if Mathematics is being administered), answer
sheets, and pencils (if they are to be supplied).

Have students fill in the necessary identification information on their answer sheets:
name, form of test, date, school, etc. If you are using a two-sided answer sheet check
that each student is working on the correct side.

Then say:

Open your test booklet to the GENERAL DIRECTIONS, on the inside of
the front cover. Read these directions silently while I read them aloud.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS

This is a test of some of the understandings, skills, and abilities you have been
developing ever since you first entered school. You should take the test in the
same way that you would work on any new and interesting assignment. Here
are a few suggestions which will help you to earn your best score:

1. Make sure you understand the test directions before you begin working.

You may ask questions about any part of the directions you do not understand.
2. You will make your best score by answering every question because your

score is the number of correct answers you mark. Therefore, you should work

carefully but not spend too much time on any one question. If a question
seems to be too difficult, make the most careful guess you can, rather than
waste time puzzling over it.

3. If you finish before time is called, go back and spend more time on those
questions about which you were most doubtful.

Are there any questions?

Answer any legitimate questions. Stay within the meaning and, as far as possible,
use the vocabulary of the printed directions.

On p. 1 you will find DIRECTIONS FOR PART ONE of the test. Look at
page 1 and read these directions silently while I read them aloud.

DIRECTIONS FOR PART ONE

Each of the questions or incomplete statements in this test is followed by four
suggested answers. You are to decide which one of these answers you should
choose. You must mark all of your answers on the separate answer sheet you

Copyright © I964 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved.

 

 

have been given; this test booklet should not be marked in any way. You must
mark your answer sheet by blackening the space having the same letter as the
answer you have chosen.

For example:

0 Which one of the following is an animal?
A Bed B Dog C Chair D Box

Since a dog is an animal, you should choose the answer lettered B. On your
answer sheet, you would first find the row of spaces numbered the same as the
question—in the example above, it is 0. Then you would blacken the space in
this row which has the same letter as the answer you have chosen. See how the
example has been marked on your answer sheet.

Make your answer marks heavy and black. Mark only one answer for each
question. If you change your mind about an answer, be sure to erase the first
mark completely.

The example on p. 1 has been given to you so that you will know how to mark
your answer sheets. The questions on the inside of the test are not just like the
example; but each one does present four choices, and you must choose your
answer from among them.

Are there any questions?
Answer any legitimate questions. Stay within the meaning and, as far as possible,
use the vocabulary of the printed directions.
When I say “Begin,” turn to Part One on p. 2 and start working. Ready? Begin!
Examiner and proctors (if any) should move quietly about the room to see that
each student is working on the proper pages of his test booklet and that he is marking

his answers correctly in the proper section of the answer sheet. Make certain that
students do not go on to Part Two of the test.

At the end of exactly 35 min., say:

STOP! Even if you have not finished Part One you must stop and lay down
your pencil.
If both parts ofthe test are being given in one session, allow a short break at this time.

If the test is being administered in two sessions, collect answer sheets. test booklets,
and other test materials and then dismiss the students.

When the students are ready to begin Part Two, say:

Turn to Part Two of your test booklet. Part Two contains the same kind of
material as Part One. Mark your answers in the same way. If you finish before
time is called, you may check your work on Part Two. Do not go back to Part One.
If there has been a considerable time lapse between administration of Parts One
and Two, review the General Directions and the Directions for Part One before
giving the instructions above.

When I say “Begin,” start working on Part Two. Ready? Begin!
Again the examiner and proctors should move quietly about the room to make sure
that every student is working in the proper part of both test booklet and answer sheet.
At the end of exactly 35 min., say:
STOP! Even if you have not finished Part Two you must stop and lay down
your pencil.
Collect answer sheets, test booklets, and other test materials.

At this time you should write down for the record a description of any unexpected
variation from the normal testing procedure that may have occurred. Such incidents
need to be in the record and considered when scores are interpreted.

 

DI l4P50A

 

 

 

‘4

).3

 

0" must
r as the

n your
as the
race in
on the

r each
I: first

mark
.9 the
your

. pO‘iii.

‘ I
gin.

see that
maxi;-

mm 122:

“TI

‘- Q .9
itstrmv

jails."-

Page I

DiRECTlONS FOR PART ONE

Each of the questions or incomplete statements
in this test is followed by four suggested answers.
You are to decide which one of these answers
you should choose.

You must mark all of your answers on the sepa-
rate answer sheet you have been given; this test
booklet should not be marked in any way. You
must mark your answer sheet by blackening the
space having the same letter as the answer you
have chosen. For example:

0 Which one of the following is an animal?

A Bed
8 Dog
C Chair
D Box

Since a dog is an animal, you should choose the.
answer lettered B . On your answer sheet, you
would first find the row of spaces numbered the
same as the question—in the example above, it
is 0. Then you would blacken the space in
this row which has the same letter as the an-
swer you have chosen. See how the example
has been marked on your answer sheet.

Make your answer marks heavy and black.
Mark only one answer for each question. If
you change your mind about an answer, be
sure to erase the first mark completely.

Do not turn this page until you are told to do so.

 

 

Page 2

PART ONE

Mrs. Jones has just returned from shopping. She is putting away the foods she bouglff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Which of these foods did NOT come from 4 If Mrs. Jones lives in Chicago which of

farms in our own country? these foods traveled farthest to reach the
A Eggs store where she bought it?
B Lettuce E Butter
C Bananas - F Lemons
D Ham G Milk
2 Which of these foods probably came from H Eggs
a farm NOT far from where Mrs. Jones 5 Which of these foods may have come from
bought it? packing houses in Chicago, Kansas City.
E Milk or St. Louis?
F Bananas A Meat
G Cereal B Citrus fruits
H Frozen orange juice C Canned salmon

3 Which of these foods did NOT have to be D szc“ (”range 1m“

prepared for use before Mrs. jones bought
it?

A Milk

B Lettuce

C Cereal

D Salmon

 

Go on to the next page

 

 

 

 

Here are descriptions of the way four boys live.

»HENRY traveled west with his mother and
' father in a covered wagon. His father has a
blacksmith shop near a mining camp.

BEN lives on a farm where his father raises
wheat and keeps a few cows and chickens. He
also has a small vegetable garden.

TOM lives in an apartment house in a large
city where his father is a bus driver. His
mother shops in a nearby market and business
section.

AG lives in a cave. Men have not yet
learned to plant and harvest crops. His father
j. fishes and hunts.

. Below are some questions about the parents
' of these boys. Pick the correct boy or boys for
each question.

6 Which boy’s mother might say, “You’ll
have to walk. The elevator isn’t working
today”?

E Henry’s
F Ben’s

G Tom’s
H Ag’s

7

IO

Page 3

Which boy’s mother might say, “It is cold.
Roll the stone in front of the door”?

A Henry’s

B Ben’s

C Tom’s

D Ag’s

Which boy’s father might say, “Better put
some gasoline in the tractor”?

E Henry’s

F Ben’s

G Tom’s

H Ag’s

The work of which boys’ fathers depends
LEAST on the weather and the seasons?

A Henry’s and Ben’s
B Henry’s and Tom’s
C Ben’s and Ag’s

D Tom’s and Ag’s

Which boys’ fathers provide most of the
family’s food?

E Henry’s and Ben’s

F Henry’s and Tom’s

G Ben’s and Tom’s

H Ben’s and Ag’s

 

Go on to the next page.

 

Page 4

These pictures show some of the kinds of boats
used in the world today.

\ .:-}
\§“\'

\
‘_ n k\\
. ‘ \

 

Boat 4

 

Go on to the next page.

 

 

 

 

II

I12

 

I3

w“ —
- -~ “a“ _

_

-I m- 3“:-

l4

£15

’-

'—v‘ " ‘

Which boat would most likely be used
in traveling from New York City to the

Congo?
A Boat 1 3 Boat 2
C Boat 3 D Boat 4

Which boat looks most like the flatboats
used by pioneer families to float down the
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers?

E Boat 1 F Boat 2

G Boat 3 H Boat 4

Which boats were most likely made from
materials found near the river or ocean
where they were to be used?

A Boats 1 and 2 8 Boats 1 and 3
C Boats 2 and 4 D Boats 3 and 4

Which boat looks like one used by the
people who lived in America before white
men came?

E Boatl
G Boat3

F Boat 2
H Boat 4

In what part of the world would you be
most likely to see Boat 1?

A In New York City harbor only

8 In countries like the United States only
C In European countries only

D In almost any seaport in the world

What do these pictures tell us about water
transportation in various parts of the
world?

E All people of the world would find
steamships better than the kind of boats
they now use.

F Although the kinds of boats used are
different, most people need and use
water transportation.

G Most people of the world like their oWn
kinds of water transportation and are
not interested in anything better.

H The kinds of water transportation peo-
ple use are the same everywhere in the
world.

 

 

Page 5

Joe usually walked to school, but today, be-
cause he had stayed in bed too long, he was
riding with his father. “Hurry, Dad, you’re
driving too slow. I’ll be late, and that’s against
the rules.”

“Sorry, son,” said his father. “Twenty-five
miles an hour is the speed limit, whether you
are on time at school or not.”

I7

18

I9

20

 

When must Joe’s father observe the speed

limit?

A Whenever he is driving a car

8 When many people are crossing the
street

C When traffic is heavy

D When there is a policeman on duty

What is the best reason why Joe’s father
should obey the speed limit?

E There is less danger of accidents when
speed limits are observed.

F He may be punished if he does not ob-
serve the law.

G The policeman may see him driving
too fast.

H The law says that speed limits should
be observed.

Who makes the laws about speed limits?

A The drivers of cars

8 The city policemen

C The city and state governments
D All of these

Who should be interested in whether
speed limits are observed?

E The city policemen
F The drivers of cars
G The state policemen
H All of these

 

Go on to the next page.

 

These pictures tell the story of shoes. They

are not in the right order.

 

l/l'f/
M u
y”

 

/a
it
it

\w’-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    
  
      

 

 

         
 
  

 

   

 
 

 

 

 

 

Pasture

 

 

 

 

Shoe store Stockyard
V O
. , , "tn-illlllllll
000° '3 I! 'Illllljl
o -. . ‘ ,‘ ,

a. w i 3 ll lllll‘l‘fl'
- - ‘dII'
- ., ._ W31“ ., :;;,‘.',”,'u/

Tannery Shoe factory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shoes in use

Page 6

‘4

Go on to the next page.

 

 

 

2I

22

23

24

25

Which picture should come first?

A The stockyard

B The tannery

C The shoe factory
D The pasture

Which picture should come next after the
tannery?

E The stockyard

F The shoe factory
G The pasture

H The shoe store

In which of the pictures does electricity
play the most important part?

A The shoe store

3 The stockyard

C The shoe factory
D The pasture

Which of the pictures about shoes could
also be shown in the story of meat?

5 The stockyard and the tannery
F The tannery and the pasture

G The shoe factory and the pasture
H The stockyard and the pasture

Which of the pictures shows something
that most people see most often?

A The shoe store

3 The stockyard
C The tannery

D The shoe factory

 

Page 7

In each of the following questions there are

four sentences.

ONE sentence does not be-

long with the others. Find the sentence that
should come out because it does not belong
with the other three.

26 Grandmother is talking about her early

days in the West.

E Once we met Buffalo Bill.

F One day we saw an old Model T Ford
come chugging along after us.

G The hardest part of the journey was
through the mountains.

H We traveled in a covered wagon.

27 John was giving a talk about “Why I’m

28

 

Glad I Live in America.”

A It doesn’t cost anyone any money for
my education.

8 People can go to whatever church they
choose.

C A man can change his job whenever
he wants to.

D We can travel from one state to an-
other without asking anyone.

Henry is writing a description of life along
the Amazon.

E The natives live in small villages along
the river.

F They live in grass huts.

G They ride on camels.

H They shoot small animals with blow
guns

 

Go on to the next page.

 

Here is a map of a make-believe island called
Hawk Island. It does not look much like any
of the lands you may have studied about in
school, but you will see some of the same things

29

you have seen on other maps. If you know
what these things mean on other maps, you
will be able to answer the questions abo'
Hawk Island.

PageB

 

 

 

 

HAWK ISLAND
o‘c-
AA
AN
A A“
A
k A A A
63 ”A AA
A A
A
m: ”A El CD A
A” ©A A
A
mg R \ b
A A”
A
A» . g
‘A
A AA
O A a
o ‘
@
(It
0 350 700

 

 

Scale of Miles

About how far is it across Hawk Island
from place 1 to the mouth of the river di-
rectly south of it?

A 200 miles
3 700 miles
C 1400 miles

D 2200 miles

 

 

 

30

31

Which of these places is on a peninsula?
E 4 F 6 G 7 H 9

If explorers came by ship to Hawk Island.
at what place would they find the safest
harbor? ')
A 2 B 4 C 9 D 10

 

 

Go on to the next page.

 

 

 

gt

The GAMAS worshipped Rabu, the god of
rain. When Rabu was unhappy no rain fell
’and the crops died. To make the rain god
happy again the Gamas would sacrifice one of
their finest animals.

The RATAS raised cattle on plains where
rainfall was light. When no rain fell the hot
sun burned the grass. Then the medicine man
would dance and sprinkle water on the brown
grass. He hoped to drive back into the earth
the demon who caused the dryness.

The LEDOS, to get a sure supply of water,
dug a tunnel through a nearby mountain
range. They put a dam across the river so that
the water would flow through the tunnel. The
Ledos believed in one god. They thanked him
for rich crops from the land which they had
watered.

The MONT people lived 300 miles from
the ocean, on the far side of a high range of
mountains where there was too little rain for
good crops. On the seaward slope of the
mountains the winds blowing over the ocean
caused heavy rains to fall. When the Mont
people learned this, they crossed the moun-

tains and settled where the rainfall was plenti-
ful.

32

33

(a)
Us

Page 9

Which people believed that demons
caused bad luck?

E Gamas
F Ratas
G Ledos
H Mont

Which people had a religion most like
that of many Americans?

A Gamas
B Ratas
C Ledos
D Mont

Which people were probably the best
builders?

E Gamas
F Ratas
G Ledos
H Mont

The Gamas probably worshipped a rain
god because

A they had killed all the missionaries
3 they didn’t know any better

C rain was very important to them
D

all people worshipped a rain god at
that time

Stop. If you finish before time is called,
check your work on this part. Do not go
on to Part Two until you are told to do so.

 

DEKECTIS‘NS FOR PART TW’O

Part Two contains the same kind of material as Part One. Mark your answers in the same way.

Do not turn this page until you are told to do so.

 

 

Page l0

2'

Faria is a girl who lives in the Arabian
Desert. Picture 1 shows where Faria lives.

 

PICTURE 1

Helen lives in Arizona where it is also hot
and dry. Picture 2 shows where Helen lives.

 

 

 

 

Q -_ .

O
J

I. L ,

£-‘

-\

.7”; - ~. Do-v

\Jlibr this} 3.-

.s
‘. r ,
_ g

I Why does Faria’s family move from place

to place?

A Faria’s people have to move in search
of water and grass for their herds.

B Faria’s father cannot find work.

CFaria’s father believes that there will
be better houses in the next town.

DFaria’s family likes to move.

In what way are the people on the Ara-
bian Desert and the people in Arizona
most alike?

5 They use electricity to cool their homes.

F They depend on the inventions and
work of many people to supply their
needs.

G They eat the same kinds of food since
they have electric refrigerators.

H They cannot control the out-of-door cli-
mate.

F aria and her family bow toward a re-
ligious center called Mecca several times a
day. Helen and her family go to church
each week. This shows that

A Faria and her family are more religious

3 people worship God in different ways

C Helen’s religion is a better one

D people must go to a church when they
worship God

Which of these is the best reason for the

difference in the way Faria and Helen

live?

E They live in different climates.

F The people in the Arabian Desert have
a different religion.

G Helen’s people have irrigated their
land.

H Faria’s family doesn’t work as hard as
Helen’s.

 

Page I I

Many people have done much for our country
during the 300 years since the first colonists
made permanent settlements on the eastern
shore of North America. Here are four ways in
which people have helped our country.

1.
2.

3.

4.

5

 

Some have helped to open up new regions.
Some have worked to set up and improve
our government.

Some have given us better ways of living
through their work in science and invention.
Some have added to our enjoyment of living
through their writings, or their music, or
through their efforts to help people.

In which of the four ways did Thomas
Edison and Alexander Bell help our coun-
try?

A l B 2 C 3 D 4

In which of the four ways did Abraham
Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt help our
country?

E1F2 GS H4

In which of the four ways did Kit Car-
son and Brigham Young help our coun-
try?

A1 B2 C3 D4

In which of the four ways did Cyrus Mc-
Cormick and Orville Wright help our
country?

E 1 F 2 G 3 H 4

In which of the four ways did Carl Sand-
burg and Booker T. Washington help our
country?

A1 B2 C3 D4

 

Go on to the next page.

 

r2 I
W“

895

,/////////f/l/él
//

////////

////////

/////////////////////

///f/

‘3...
’5

(5)

r

  
  
    
  

//

A

 

////:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"9%
c-"- tc

Questions 10— 1 3 are based on the maps on p. 12.

i 0 A country shown on both maps is

E Italy

F England

G the United States
H Spain

I I What region on Map B has a hot, wet cli-
mate?

A6 B7 C9 010

Page 13

I 2 Find 8 on Map B. How is the same place
numbered on Map A?

E 1 F 2 G 4
I3 If you traveled from 3 on Map A to 7 on

Map B, you would be traveling mainly
from

H5

A west to east
8 east to west
C north to south
D south to north

 

Here are some sentences which children wrote
about Norway.

SUSAN: Norway is a country of harbors, moun-
tains, and swift streams.

JACK: Every little patch of good land in Nor-
way is farmed.

PATTY: Norway has some iron, but almost no
coal and oil.

BILL: Norway sends fish, paper, and paper
products to other countries.

HARRY: Hay, an important crop in Norway,
must be spread out on racks to dry.

ANNE: Norway is the “Land of the Midnight
Sun.”

I 4 Whose sentence shows that Norway prob-
ably uses water power?
E Susan’s
F Jack’s
G Bill’s
H Anne’s

I5 Whose sentence helps us to know that
Norway is a country far from the equator?
A Susan’s
B Patty’s
C Harry’s
D Anne’s

 

l 6 Whose sentence tells us that Norway has

a difficult time raising enough food for its
people?

E Susan’s

F Jack’s

G Bill’s

H Harry’s

I7 Whose sentence helps us to know that
Norway has many forests?
A Patty’s
B Bill’s
C Harry’s
D Anne’s

I8 Whose sentence leads us to believe that
dairying may be an important industry in
Norway?

E Susan’s
F Patty’s
G Bill’s

H Harry’s

 

Go on to the next page.

 

This is a time line which shows some important
events in American history.

Page 14

 

California
Jamestown Louisiana Becomes a World War II
Settlement Purchase State Ends
1607 1803 1850 1945
I l l I
If I I F T I l I H
1600 1 700 1800 1900 2000
‘I 9 Which of the events on the time line shows 2] How many centuries are shown between
when the United States first owned all of the Jamestown Settlement (1607) and
the Mississippi Valley? California Becomes a State (1850)?
A Jamestown Settlement A l
8 Louisiana Purchase 3 About 2%
C California Becomes a State C 4
D World War II Ends D About 5%
20 Between which two events did Texas join 22 If the Civil War were put on the time line,

the United States?

E Jamestown Settlement and Louisiana
Purchase

F Louisiana Purchase and California Be-
comes a State

G California Becomes a State and World
War II Ends

H Texas has not yet become a state

it would fall closest to which of the events?

E Jamestown Settlement

F Louisiana Purchase

G California Becomes a State
H World War II Ends

 

Go on to the next page.

 

 

 

 

 

)rld War II
Ends
I945

Jr—

I]-

are shown Er:-

ment or? .

State 1185?

wt on then:
,vhich Oltlt’f".
Int

21 State

/

 

A shy, dark-haired girl from another country
began school several weeks late. On the first
day she was in school, Miss Jones introduced
'her to her classmates saying, “Try to help our
new classmate feel at home. She doesn’t speak
our language very well, but I am sure that you
can help her learn what she needs to know very
quickly.”

At playtime some of the children who usu-
ally played together wondered about the new
girl. Here is what they said.

RUTH: She’s awfully pretty. Shall we ask her
to play with us?

ANNE: We don’t want her with us. She won’t
be able to understand a thing we tell her.
JACK: My mother says there are far too many
people like her in our town already. But

she’s the first one I’ve had to play with.

BILL: We don’t know that she wouldn’t be
able to understand our games. Let’s treat
her like any other girl and see how much
we can help her with her English. We’ll
probably find that we really like her, once
we get to know her.

23 Which of these is probably the reason the
teacher asked the children to help the new
girl?

A She was too busy to take care of the girl
during playtime.

B She couldn’t understand very well what
the girl was saying.

C She had other new children to worry
about

0 She hoped the children could show the
girl what to do at school.

 

Page 15

24 Which of the children seemed to under-
stand and believe in “fair play”?

E Anne

F Jack

G Bill

H There is nothing about fair play in what
any of them said.

25 What is one of the chief problems the new
girl will have in starting school in the
United States?

A Getting the teacher to help her

3 Learning to get to school on time

C Making friends with children who are
strangers

D Getting the books and school supplies
that she will need for her school work

26 Why did Jack say what he did about the

new girl?

E He was repeating what he had heard at
home.

F He had been hurt once in playing with
a strange child.

GHe had seen a movie where people like
this girl behaved badly.

H There was no special reason; he was just

talking.

 

Go on to the next page.

 

 

 

 

This chart shows cash farm income for four dif-
ferent years. Each dollar sign ($) equals $1000
received in cash by farmers from the sale of
crops or livestock.

For Example: $$$ equals $3000

 

 

$$$$$ equals $5000
CASH FARM INCOME IN JONES
COUNTY
YEAR INCOME
1910 Crops $$$$$ $$$$$
Livestock $$$$$
1915 Crops $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$
Livestock $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$
1920 Crops $$$$$ $$$
Livestock $$$$$ $$$$$ $$
1925 Crops $$$$$ $$$$$
Livestock $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$

 

 

27 In which year was the total cash farm in-

23

29

30

come the greatest?

A_l910
3 1915
c 1920
D 1925

In which year did people who raised cat-
tle probably make the LEAST money?

E 1910
F 1915
5.1920
H 1925

What was the total cash farm income in
1910?

A $15,000 (15 thousand dollars)
8 $20,000 (20 thousand dollars)
C $25,000 (25 thousand dollars)
D $30,000 (30 thousand dollars)

Which of the two sources of income
brought the farmers the most money dur-
ing these four years?

E Livestock

F Crops

G The same for both

H You cannot tell from the chart.

 

 

 

3I

Pagelé

What does this chart tell us about farm-
ing?

A Farmers are prosperous. .’
3 Farmers are poor.

C Farmers make more money every year.
D Farm income is not the same from year

to year.

 

In the Table of Contents of a social studies
book we find the following chapter headings:

#95999”???

8.

32

33

34

35

Europe Finds America

People Come to Stay

America Becomes a Nation

America Stretches from Sea to Sea
Many Nations Build America

America Improves Its Ways of Living
America and Other Nations Need Each
Other

America Looks Ahead

In which chapter would you expect to find
a description of huge dams built by the
government?

E1 F3 66

In which chapter would you look for a
report on peacetime uses of atomic en-
ergy?

A 3 a 4 C 5 D 8

To find out how California and Oregon
became part of the United States you
would look in Chapter

El F2 G4

Which two chapters might tell how stories
of riches brought traders to new settle-
ments?

A2and4
g 4and8
c 6and7
D 7and8

H7

H6

It you finish before time is called, you
may check your work on Part Two. Do
not go back to Part One. ,

 

 

,—

 

D] l 4P.”

l |

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

RAW SCORES OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING FOR

PUPIL AND TEACHER TYPES

91

92

RAW SCORES OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING FOR
PUPIL AND TEACHER TYPES

 

Teacher Cognitive Functioning

 

Classification Class Pupil Sub 1 Sub 2 Sub 3

 

 

 

L 19 12 15

l M 16 15 15

H 15 13 14

L 18 1M 15

Low 2 M 17 16 16
H 17 18 17

L 21 18 22

3 M l9 16 18

H 19 13 16

L 16 1a 17

1 M 12 1o 11

H 1H 11 11

L 15 13 13

Middle 2 M 15 12 1a
H 18 l3 16

L 16 12 1a

3 M 17 13 15

H 13 11 12

L 10 7 7

1 M 13 10 12

H 11 9 10

L 16 1M 15

High 2 M 12 12 11
H 16 15 16

L 18 13 18

3 M 16 1M 15

H 20 15 17

 

93

A. Formulae for u-way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

analysis of variance with repeated

 

 

 

measures .
source d; g 2 [ZJXCSTR 2 £1] XCSTR
_ (CSR ) (CSTR )
T (t’l) T ' 1 CSR (27) ' CSTR (81)
3 z [3]
2 z x 2
_ (CTR CSTR)
S (s-l) S - l CTR (27)
[A] z
6 z z z x 2
Cit (c-1)T CT (SR XCSTR )2 — T (CSR CSTR)
SR (97i ICSR (27)
[5]
2 z z x 2
R (R—l) R = l (TSC CSTR) _ [l]
TSC (27)
u z z [6]
TS (t-l)(5-l) TS (CRCRxeS€R)2 _ [2] _ [2] + [1]
2 z ' [7]
12 x 2
CS:T (C—1(s—1(t) CST (R R C???) - [4] — [6] + [2]
z
2 x 2E8]
RT (R—l)(t-l) RT (SC SC C§g§) - [21 - [51 + [11
u z z X [9] 2
RS (R-l) (S-l) RS (TRTRCSng _ [3] _ [5] + [l]
12 z z [10]
RC:T (R-l)(C-1)T RCT (S SXC%§§)2 _ [u] _ [8] + [2]
2 [ll]
8 z x 2
TSR (t-1)(S-l)(r-l) TSR (C C CS??? — [61-181-[91+£21+[31+[51-[1
2n 2 X 2 _ _ _
RCS:T (r=1)(C-l)(s-l)t RCST ( CSTR) [7] [101+E§%3EE§J+E6J

APPENDIX C

DOGMATISM E SCALE

91+

95

DOGMATISM E SCALE

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

Age (Circle one)
21—25, 26—29, 30-39, uo-ug, 50+
Years of Teaching - - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,_8, 9, 10+

Sex Grade Now Teaching School

 

The following is a study of what elementary school
teachers think and feel about a number of important social
and personal questions. The best answer to each-statement
below is your personal Opinion.. We have tried to cover
many different and opposing points of View; you may find
yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements,
disagreeing Just as strongly with others, and perhaps un-
certain about others; whether you agree or disagree with-
any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the
same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin according to
how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every
one.~ Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2,.-3, depending on how you

feel in each case.

+l = I Agree a Little -1 = I Disagree a Little
+2 = I Agree on the Whole -2 = I Disagree on the Whole
+3 = I Agree Very Much -3 =.I Disagree Very Muchw

l° The United States and Russia have Just about noth-
ing in common.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and
the highest form of democracy is a government run
by those who are most intelligent.‘

10.

11.

12.

13.

IN.

15.

16.

17.

18.

96

Even-though.freedom of—speech for all groups is
a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary
to restrict the freedom of certain political
groups.

It is only natural that a person would have a
much better acquaintance with ideas he_believes
in than with ideas he opposes.

Man on his own is a helpless and miserable crea-
ture.

Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty
lonesome place.

Most people Just don't give a "damn" for others.

I'd like it if I could find someone who would
tell me how to solve my personal problems.=

It is only natural for a person to be rather
fearful of the future.

There is so_much to be done and so little time
to do it in.

Once I get wound up in‘a heated discussion I
Just can't stop.

In a discussion I often find.it necessary.to re-
peat myself several times-to make sure I am being
understood.

In‘a heated discussion I generally become so ab-
sorbed in what I.am going to say that I forget
to listen to what the others are saying.

It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live
coward.

While I don't like to admit it even to myself, my»
secret ambition is to become a-great man, like
Einstein, Beethoven, or Shakespeare.-

The main thing in life is for a person to want to
do something important.

If given the chance I would do something of great
benefit to the world.

In the history of mankind there have probably
been Just a handful of really great thinkers-

190

20°

21.

22.

23.

2A.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

97

There are a number of people I have come to hate
because of the things they stand for.

A man who does not believe in some great cause
has not really lived.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an.
ideal or causethat life becomes meaningful.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in
this world there is probably only one which is
correct.

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many
causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy"
sort of person.

To compromise with out political opponents is»
dangerous because it usually leads to the betray-
al of our own side.

When it comes to differences of opinion in reli-
gion we must be careful not to compromise with .
those who believe differently from the way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty
selfish if he considers primarily his own happi-
ness.

The worst crime a person could commit is to at-
tack publicly the people who believe in the same.
thing he does.

In times like these it is often necessary to be
more on guard against ideas put out by people or
groups in one's own camp than by those in the
opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too many differences of
opinion among its own members cannot exist-for
long. ‘

There are two kinds of people in this world:
those who are for the truth and those who are
against the truth.

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly re-
fuses to admit he's wrong.

A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness
is beneath contempt.

33.

3M.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

98

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays
aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

In this complicated world of ours the only way
we can know what's going on is to rely on
leaders or experts who can be trusted.

It is often desirable to.reserve Judgment about
what's going on until one has had a chance to
hear the opinions of those one respects.

In the long run-the best way to live is to pick
friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs
are-the same as one's own.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness.
It is only the future that counts.-

If a man is to accomplish his mission in life-it
is sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing
at all."

Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I
have discussed important-social and moral prob—
lems don't really understand what's going on.

Most people Just don't know what's good for them.

APPENDIX D

DOGMATISM C SCALE
DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS' SCORES
ON DOGMATISM C SCALE

99

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

I, ‘
p . link a
.. . _ 1. A . . .
I . 4 r I V l
(V. .a I...“ , \ 1 . v. 1
. r 1 . . .. . 4 .
a , . .. I {I ‘ r 1. 1. . n .
. u
. . v ‘. . p
I J ‘.
1
. I .
v V» H .v
v 4 . 1 r . . .1 fl -~
1. . r.” , 1 . .
_ . 1 1 t . .
1 1. .. . . q r
. . K 1 _ . 1
- a . .
. 3. a , v~L .u. . . 1
I . ~
'5 . — 1
v‘
1 .1. . . .. 1 .
s . . I . .
r
1 I b
I 1 n .
1 u. 11.. l.
! U ‘ I 1 A 0‘ .
I v \- ‘1 2 ,1 A ‘
. . . 1 .11
a 1. 1
s 5 I n
. 1.1 1. i 1 .
a , . 1. .
. . :n
. 1 1 1
l 1 I
1 . 1
. p K 4 1 1
i Q 1- A . I
. k . .. . e .
l a . 0 .
I e u l .
. i .1 .
H d, 1 f 0L .
0 ' \ u. I
n . p h» . l. < u ‘ 1‘. ~
. 1 ~
1 a 4.
. 1 4 , 11 .
.y c I a Q,
I 4 l
. . . 1 A . .v . 1 1
v A 1 1 p
1 .1 «1. .
1 .v 1 . .. w 1 .
l . 4 . A A I v n .
I 9 \ 1 Or
.1. \1 .l . .
I i I." I V
I 1 . . a. 1 ,1 1 . .
. r 1 . . 1
.. . . :1 . .
. « v I 1 . . . . .
v! i . . Q
I I c | n I 4 l A .
.Iw . 1 . v, . v 4
. . '\ TI 1 . p . J \
1 .1 n . 1 1
« t ,
. .1
u . . . 1
. r . .1 . ..
' V l u I k1 . AO A ‘ 1
. 1
. . i . .1 tt- . O ..1 .1 . . .
~ 1 s 0- 1 . (A I.
v V 'I‘l‘ ’ \ V
v N O I s 1 ‘i
I « 'I .l n
I ‘ . .— 0.. . . J.
I K v J - V . h
v A 1 . . s . 1 . :v I 1
l . 1 1 I 11 1.1x .. . u 1
up \. w u i L l . [\I l l n r
V — \If ‘v- v
. v . r . I 1.
.. .01 t . \ . .2 ) . 1 . o - I
a o . . . _ .1 . ..
IO- 0 w t . )\\o‘ hri
1” . u I
1 J. I. \
. .|
0 v v} v . . — . I A A 1 1 ~ -
l n 1.} . 1.. . . . I
. . NF. 1 . . C 4 r f. . . u . .. 1.
. . :5. . 1.. . i. (A . 1
n ‘ u
4 A! . n a ‘ C
\- l I a 4 1
I I- n ‘ 1‘ u a ‘
. 1. _ z 1 . . ‘1 1 v
- V . n ; .
a. .
. a... . .
. . 1. . . I 1 1 . . . I11 . . .
n I.
4 o \ o 9 1“ .
I 1 1 c \l O . I
. a . , 7 .
. . . 1 . _ 1 . - _ ..
. .1. . _ .. I 1 _ 1 . or 3 . .
1 . .1101 . . ‘3 1 .
. v . 1 . . ....V r . . . .a. 1 1.
. . o. . a . a 1. . .
1 . . 1 , u at. - . - 1 . . a.
t .. . . v I 6 u. . .. ... u . 7 . x. . . .
i I xv! 1.. 1 . . ,o . 1 . . u .. .1 . 1.” a.
1 i . .A .. . 1
A . s u» I e v n 1
r 1 . 1 . .4 . A; 1 1 \ . a ‘3' 1
5 . 1 v . . . v . . .1 1‘.
u c I u x I r o 4 C “ \l
. .. v r o .90 I 1 q . alt:
. . l s. 1 1 . 1 . t . p
1 II . . p u 1 1 I
I .1 l. . u . : .. , , . u 1 3| 1 1 F 4 \. .
. 1! A. . u'l. I . .m .. 4 v. .a
4 l u' v A 0‘ O .. c
1 \ . 1 .1 2|: TV. )1. a v o
I. 1 l I l .I |
. ~ ’ . I a
L . 1 a I .
c p . .11 . 1 1 I . o
. . 2 . _
, 1. . . . L . . 4.
. k A . . . _ \ u . ‘ . . o q. 3 .0.-
. L :1 , . .. | \. n . «I, h d \1. .I“.
. 1 . u .I . . 1
_ .. . .. . . . . . . J. , .
y . . .. o r r... 1 . . .\ .
. 1. .. .. 1 L . . .. .
T r. . . . . . 1 y I... I _ . . 1 1. . . ...
a . . "5 I 1
V V . . 4 7 ¢ I
. 1 u. . .. e . .1.
.. 1 o. .. Q) 1‘ .‘ - 1'. 0|. u. . ~¥ \.4
1 . (a .. . . ~ . 11 . . . ..
. 1 .. ’ ... “‘34. a... . x . p 1
. 2. r73 1 u . 1 . . .
'1 rt .. a!

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

1 . . . 1J4 .. . .1 ..
.. - .. a! m. .. ... 1 ..
10a . u .1 3 .N .‘v L. 1 (t y u
.. . .p
. I. 1 . ... . t . I
. h a x «a I. l . I. y n I
A l 1. I. k
..D . r o . , "1.“.I .‘ 1 .I. . \ .511 .1... .
. . . 1 .1 a . .1 . 1r 1 z 1.1
.1 f: 4.. .. 1 c... 1 1l. . . . o -
6 u. . K a l‘ . o. .4
1.. ... .1 . 1. A .1 1:. . .c . _. . . . ,.
e . 1 . n x p . t\ .. 11 .. . p .1 ‘1‘}. .1 . . o I
1 . \ , ‘. 1A.. 1.. A fit: .0... w
I! u I It . . .1. 1k .. .
A; ‘.. Kt 1 x . 1 .v x . o 1
.1. n u. . . \. I Ii. 1 1 1 .. . p
. 1 . . . . .1 ...\ i1 I .0 f. so
. o. o .1. W t .o— . . l p ‘r .. e .
I . n.‘ O ' \ v. NJ - 6 . R. I .
. .1 . . § . J. 1 . o 4h. . 1 x . . . ‘ .u. ‘. ”in ..
\ - I v I 1 . 5 . n
. v? I. . r I "A. (L F.IJ . ~ A I. e
. . .. u . t h.
1 .. G. . .
. . a . ( lJ 1.4. a .. . 1 1 .
. . .0. . .VL h . I r i: J .. A I. . .
.‘ v Q . ' .1! IL 1 \ 1 s . a . In... 1 I \ . a 0
,1. . \ . . 1. . . 1 1 .
. a. II. 1.1; I! o I, W“. . . 1 _ ‘ v i 4 .1.
o. . l 1 u o O. U a 4 a 0 Val I .| u I. My). 11!... II a . p U _ \
. .1 l a... 1.: o. . i q . . LI" . u 1‘. J L) n . . . .1. . n. 1 .7; .~.
I . . 1. .1. . .. . . 1. . l . . . .
4 \ u l .11. _ ‘
ch 1 . . 4 . . m
h \ I ' .‘ I -
. . . - . . \. . . 1 .
. .1. . . I 1... . .. 1 l
s, u s. ”(.1 1 1r 1 1 . no \ r . v
. . . c

 

In; .

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 

. .. -1.

 

 

.n.

 

IOU

mad and

1.1.11.1 qua
111-111. maucfiz
x1111111 seq ”mp unmade ”Haasm

.oma 1.2 .m 11cm
mmpoom.smapwewoa

mma OMH mNH ONH mad Odd moa OOH mm om

mpmsowma mo mmapommpmo mmhne nom.ucm dance
you mawom.o Smfipmawom co mmnoom .maaasm no cowusna.

Illllll Hauoe

J)

.11
.

 

am

 

ma
om

mm
om

mm

o:
m:

APPENDIX Ev

FORM LETTER SENT TO COOPERATING TEACHERS

105

 

IN

 

 

...\
. an
a
1.. o 1
I
. 1
11;
.
‘-
’11
u .
I» V. a
r
T1 ..
. E
\cr.
. . ,0
ti.
~
1.
. I .
11\ X.\
. 1,1.
T...
1
ur ’
1 I. . 3
_ 1.1.
\
r.

.1
.
,o
)1.
. .
.1
.J
1 .
1 1|!
.1.
T.
I v
.
.
1. 1 J
N
.1. 1
. .. 1
.
..~

1 .

\x

11h

 

‘1...-
. \.

 

 

[‘1‘
. r,
»f 11
I I
.
[A
. J
. 1. 1
II .
\1
‘<
1 r 11.
3
1‘
. |1
. .
I
‘1
\ .33..
1.. .
.11
1 r.,
..1 lw
7!. n
31.1
1 \1.
n 1f:
1 .
.. T
1 1
m .
1. 1 I,
f ..
..1 §
1 . I.
1..
1..
4
n 1 . J
F 1.
‘I
F,
. .
..¢4 .
It).
‘4
11 I 1/
.
n
. a
.
u . L.

1.! .
VA
§ 1
V
. . .
.I 4
t1.
, .
...
,o
4
.1.
p ..
. . <1
I!
..
—
1;

.1
,J
. 9
1 1r!
1!
11.1
1‘
37.1]
I .
u. .
.
J89,

 

1.11
.11, ..

Q
It.
. a
P A
( .
l n
_ c 1 1
v
.I1 .
.v V. J
:,
1 a!
1 1),,
w _ 1
. 1
11 ‘5. .
1
.
(1.11; rt 1 .3
\ HI s 11”
} p
w . fi
will 1."

 

 

.1
'7- .l
I\ ,.,1
4. I11 , 1 .1
‘ \
1.
1w
1 c
.1 .
o I.
. J 1
..1
...
1..

 

APPENDIX F

MAP OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PARTICIPATED
IN THE STUDY

107

108

Cooperating schools, number of pupils per class and

 

 

 

 

mortality.

M m

Number in Mortality
School Class Enrollment Study
1 . l 15 14 l
2 Low 2 23 2O 3
3 3 22 19 3
TOTAL 60 53 7
A l 30 29 l
5 Middle 2 23 23 O
6 3 23 20 3
TOTAL 76 72 A
7 1 26 25 1
8 High 2 26 25 l
9 3 25 21 A
TOTAL 77 71 6

 

OVERALL TOTAL 213 196 17

 

 

 

>01

 

 

 

 

'0‘?

-y/

 

l0?

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llNllWillWIIHIINWIWWll"W"IIIIIWWVI
31293100398365