A BESCREPTWE STUBY OF CERTAIN FERSONALE'EY REFERENCES AND TEACHER SATISFACTION AMGRG TEACEERS IN ECONOMECALLY MSTBESSEB $630025 Thesis §0P {Erie asqres of DH. D. MECEHGAN STATE UNWERSET Gene Walter Franks 1972 {Ti-1:33. LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AND TEACHER SATISFACTION AMONG TEACHERS IN ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED SCHOOLS presented by Gene Walter Franks has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Education Arm/6:1; Major professor Date Febmaiy 16. 1972 A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AND TEACHER SATISFACTION AMONG TEACHERS IN ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED SCHOOLS By Gene Walter Franks AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 0f seie with a mates 5 fifteer 5Donsit Enced . COmbat ”omlCa which Stand_ leaVe 1.“divi Study lng ii r.’7" / (i ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AND TEACHER SATISFACTION AMONG TEACHERS IN ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED SCHOOLS by Gene Walter Franks Statement 9f_the Problem In recent years education has been challenged with the problem of selecting, preparing, and retaining teachers who can work effectively with a rapidly growing disadvantaged youth population. The 1970 esti- mates suggest that more than one-half the youngsters in the country's fifteen largest city school systems are disadvantaged. The school administrator is continually confronted with the re- sponsibility of assigning new staff members or of reassigning experi- enced individuals in order to accommodate changes in enrollment and to combat teacher retention problems. Thus, teachers are assigned to eco— nomically depressed schools by a rotation system or by other methods which place teachers in positions which they neither desire nor under- stand. Consequently, a high percentage of these teachers resign and leave the system. The dilemma of identifying, placing, and retaining the type of individual who is best suited to teach in these schools prompts this study of the satisfaction and personality differences of persons teach- ing in economically depressed areas. .n ‘ .r .. ’ . . m...- '11. dassr school oersor mi, tion z of thi ggygz means 90ries buiid' tion ( frame; 99mm “id t! Profi' itiat THEa r9590 Gene Halter Franks The study is based upon the participation of 213 elementary classroom teachers from eleven schools classified as primary target schools under the Elementary_and Secondary School Act gle965. Their personality characteristics were measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indi- cator, which isolates a person's basic preference in regard to percep- tion and judgment. Their satisfaction levels were determined by the use of thirty-seven questions from two of the subtests of The School Socio- economic Status Study. Additional satisfaction data were obtained by means of a separate satisfaction questionnaire. Effectiveness cate- gories were then determined by a forced choice ranking of teachers by building principals on the basis of common criteria. Thus, identifica- tion of effectiveness categories and satisfaction levels provided a framework for a subsequent comparison with personality types. On the personality type indicator, it was necessary to compute the mean scores and the frequency of preference in order to establish a personality type profile. A Chi-Square Test of Significance was used to investigate the relationship of personality to teacher effectiveness and satisfaction. The analysis of satisfaction factors was determined by the frequency of response to each item on two separate satisfaction questionnaires. Findings 1. On all.factors relating to personality type preference, no . total pattern of personality type emerged that would distinguish one category from another. Individual type patterns did materialize: a. Judgment was preferred over perception in both the higher and lesser ef- fectiveness and higher and lesser satisfaction categories; and, b. Age V .r L; .-_ and long in young in older tvoes a: and age in effe tion. varioUS sought teacher ”0 dist; tlo“ <:a have cl HSatis- eache‘ Gene Walter Franks and longevity factors indicated a transition from a feeling orientation in younger and less experienced teachers toward a thinking orientation in older and more experienced teachers. 2. Few significant relationships were found between personality 'types and effectiveness levels, satisfaction levels, college degrees, and age. 3. No correlation was found between teachers judged high or low in effectiveness and those indicating a high or low level of satisfac- tion. 4. The data revealed no significant difference between the various groups on the satisfaction items, although the final objective sought to examine the nature of satisfactions and dissatisfactions among teachers in economically distressed schools. In spite of the fact that no discriminating patterns emerged between effectiveness and satisfac- tion categories, some patterns did develop which were common to all. ‘Conclusions No systematic differences between the Myers-Briggs profiles on the effectiveness and the satisfaction categories became evident; how- ever, certain personality types, such as Sensing-Judgment, were gener- ally indicative of the total population. The personality type profile indicated that."age" and “longevity" have classifications similar in type to those of the "effectiveness" and “satisfaction" categories, with the exception of their ratings on the thinkingefeeling orientation scale. Thus, younger and.less experienced teachers used "feeling" as a means of making judgments, while older and 1' . —'—-—'~.L— ~.-.-.—-vo more ex: nmsm questior HEY? COl satisfa faction adults. like to and lag Challen ing nee Corrobc would 5 that ti Their r NEre fl. Chlldr: Start I the Dr: (Iran a? Gene Walter Franks more experienced teachers used "thinking." Though there were no pat- 'terns which discriminated between the various groups on the satisfaction questionnaire, several important and relevant patterns did develop which were common to the total population. The most discernible area of agreement was that of expressed satisfaction in working with children. The highest percentage of satis- ‘faction reflected the desire to work with children instead of with adults. .These data furthermore suggested that teachers, on the whole, like to work best with average pupils, second with exceptional pupils, and last with slow pupils. The teachers responding perceived teaching in these schools as a challenge; but, more significantly, they indicated a strong sense of be- ing needed and of serving a useful function. This point was further corroborated by their responses to the question, "Which class of people 'would you choose to work with and why?" Seventy-five per cent indicated that they would prefer to teach in low socio-economic area schools. Their most prevalent reasoning was that by so doing they felt that they were fulfilling an important need of society. .The major dissatisfaction seen by all groups was that these children have so many problems that it is difficult to know where to start or how to find time to work with them. These teachers also saw the problems of little hope of change in behavior and control of chil- dren as important factors influencing teacher satisfaction. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AND TEACHER SATISFACTION AMONG TEACHERS IN ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED SCHOOLS By Gene Walter Franks A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 ,_ l h m . raw | 40...-..” tribut major and St quest‘ my cc» lStra ly h‘ and f ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special acknowledgment is due the many persons who have con- tributed in varying ways to the conpletion of this endeavor. I would particularly like to thank Dr. William V. Hicks, my major advisor, for his guidance, encouragement, patient understanding, and support throughout my doctoral program. The direction, support, and questioning provided by Drs. Ann Almsted, Gene Rex, and Byron Van Roekel, my committee members, were sincerely appreciated. Acknowledgment is due also to the Cincinnati faculty and admin- istrators who participated in this investigation, and I should especial- ly like to thank my wife and children fer their patience, understanding, and belief in its completion. ii ACK‘IDWLE LIST OF Chapter I. II. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................... LIST OF TABLES .......................... Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION ....................... The Purpose of the Study ............... Statement of Objectives ................ Population of Study .................. Obtaining the Data .................. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................... Studies of Teacher Satisfaction ............ Studies of Teacher Effectiveness ........... Importance of Personality in Teaching ......... Summary ........................ PROCEDURE ......................... Rationale for the Study ................ The Design of the Study ................ The Setting of the Study ............... The Procurement of the Data .............. Procedure for Analysis ................ Summary ........................ PRESENTATION OF DATA ................... SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... Statement of Problem ................. Related Literature .................. Procedure . ...................... Summary of Findings .................. Age-Longevity—Degree and Effectiveness ........ iii Page ii 1 .- Iu-é—t : A‘a‘uxu‘u‘i‘lfl ._ l 1'.- Chapter EIBLIDG APPET-IDI imam ammo] APPEADT APPEHD Apeeuo ammo memo APPEAR new: Chapter Page Conclusions ...................... 57 Implications ..................... 59 Recommendations .................... 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 65 APPENDIX A FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF PREFERENCES 0F EFFECTIVENESS AND SATISFACTION CATEGORIES ....... 69 APPENDIX B FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF THE PREFERENCES BY AGE ........................ 77 APPENDIX C FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF THE PREFERENCES BY LONGEVITY . . .. .................. 85 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN PERSONALITY TYPES AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS ...... 93 APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN PERSONALITY TYPES AND LEVELS OF TEACHER SATISFACTION ..................... 96 APPENDIX F PRINCIPAL RATING SCALE ................ 99 APPENDIX G SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE .............. 101 APPENDIX H DESCRIPTION OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR . . . . 109 APPENDIX I COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS ............... 112 APPENDIX J POPULATION DATA .................... ll3 iv Table 3.2 33 3.4 4 ...I....1Il _ 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Table 3.l 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Population among Cincinnati Primary Target Schools ...................... Summary of the Characteristics of the Sample: Age Distribution ..................... Distribution of Educational Attainment .......... Mean Scores of Satisfaction Indices by Categories of Effectiveness, Satisfaction, and Total School ...... Frequency and Mean Strength of the Preferences of Effectiveness and Satisfaction Categories fer Total Population ........................ Percentage Frequencies of the l6 Types among Teachers Judged High and Low in Effectiveness ........... Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Types among Teachers Indicating a High or Low Level of Satisfaction ...... Percentage Frequencies of the l6 Types for Total Population ........................ Frequency and Mean Strength of the Preferences of the Four Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels ........ Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Personality Types among Four Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels .......... Frequency and Mean Strength of the Preferences by Age for Total School Population ............... Frequency and Mean Strength of the Preferences by Longevity for Total School Population .......... Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Teacher Effectiveness for Total Effectiveness Categories ................. Page 22 21 23 25 30 32 32 33 35 37 38 39 4.15 Pe Sa Su Pe to Le- Su. be th Sat Sun PEI Tee Sal Res Table Page 4.10 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Teacher Satisfaction for Total Satisfaction Categories ................. 41 4.11 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and the Four Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels .......................... 43 4.12 Summary of Composite Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and the Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels ................... 44 4.13 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Degree ............... 45 4.14 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Teacher Effectiveness and Levels of Teacher Satisfaction ....................... 48 4.15 Responses Indicating Satisfaction in Working with Children of Various Abilities .............. 49 vi ‘ ' 1r . ” challeng strued 1 Of our r 0f ever) would be that upl SDeakin aDDroxi School gest th are dis tion, a age, fi standar \ Der ANT pengUll ”Err” i » CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Education has always been beset by innumerable problems and challenges, but recently, the culturally disadvantaged--usually con- strued to mean the poverty-stricken youth--have become a growing concern of our nation. Frank Riessman has predicted that by the 1970's one out of every two public school pupils in the large metropolitan schools would be economically impoverished,1 and M. Harrington has indicated that upward of one-third of our population is presently impoverished.2 Speaking of the problem, Robert D. Strom states that "[thereas in 1950 approximately ten percent of the pupils in fifteen of the largest city school systems were classified as disadvantaged, the 1970 estimates sug- gest that in those same cities more than one-half of all the youngsters are disadvantaged."3 In 1969 the United States Office of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare placed the number of disadvantaged students of school age, five through seventeen years, at 16,800,000. Thus, by today's Istandards some on-fifth of the total population is considered at 1Frank Riessman, The Culturally Deprived Child (New York: Har- per and Brothers, 1962). 2Michael Harrington, The Other America (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 15. 3Robert D. Strom, The Urban Teacher (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing CompanyT—T97II, p. 48. 1 . .wn‘ A I a 4*" p. :1; ~_-_.nu_- ' m ooverty 1: from a 1‘01 shadow of been exoe and servi cruitment Harry R11 superinte the Prob' OISXIIIT ties,"6 0f tumo SUCH tUr gram; ar ministra “was We Otl (10 not fornla: Of pUDI poverty level, and some seventeen to twenty-three million youngsters, from a fourth to a third of all children, are growing up in the gray shadow of poverty.“ Within the last decade millions of dollars have been expended to modify and create school programs, practices, materials, and services. However, significant improvement will depend upon the re- cruitment and retention of competent and committed teachers.5 As Dean Harry Rivlin has stated, "It is clear that even the most imaginative superintendent and the most cooperative board of education cannot solve the problems of urban education until the schools get an adequate staff of skilled and understanding teachers, and then make use of their abili- ties."6 The Purpose gf_the Study An extremely serious problem in urban schools is the high degree of turnover of teachers each year and the concomitant negative effect of such turnover on parent, teachersand pupil morale; on stability of pro— gram; and on the general quality of instruction. Since the school ad- ministrator has the responsibility of selecting and assigning new staff members to these schools, teachers may be placed on a rotation system or some other arbitrary arrangement which may put them in a position they do not.desire or may not fUlly.understand. 1+Margaret Gordon, ed., Poverty in America (San Francisco, Cali- fbrnia: Chandler Publishing Company, 1935}, p. 10. 5Harry Passow, Education in_Depressed Areas (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers ColTége, Columbia University, 1963), p. 237. 6Ibid. ‘I 1 . x '- 4-_._.., ‘ m l V ‘L vv " - and—caud- . g . areas? ly than among te schools cems of was to e ity and tressed ESt and Cole in ACCUY‘ate aCideml l of some Vali di t; and Main meaSUril anume Why do teachers resign when assigned to economically depressed areas? Are there some types of individuals who function more effective- ly than others in urban schools? Are there personality type differences among teachers who feel satisfied or dissatisfied with teaching in schools serving children from poverty areas? What are the major con- cerns of satisfied or dissatisfied teachers? The purpose of this study was to explore, to gain insight into, and to describe certain personal- ity and satisfaction characteristics of teachers in economically dis- tressed schools. The influence of personality on teaching has been of key inter- est and concern to researchers fer many years. For example, Lord and Cole in their study of teaching success state that personality is a more accurate indicator of teaching success than data based on conventional academic information.7 Sheldon, Coale, and Copple related personality to the selection of.students entering teaching.8 Their goal was to examine the current .validity of a number of empirically developed scales such as the MTAI and MMPI K Scale. They proposed that if these tests were in some way measuring a particular personality structure then those scoring high on a number of these scales should differ on certain other psychological neasures from individuals who scored low on these scales. They found that those with a high cumulative score on the MTAI and MMPI K Scale 7R°P9Vt Lord and Dav1d 0019. "Principle Bias in Rating Teachers," Journal 9j_Education Research, LV No.1, (September 1961), pp. 33- 35. 8N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on 7Teaching (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Co manyC—l 963), p. (potentia and Domi n; Abasement A. [91ers ness 1 standi person one co goals, Darson; merits Thomas A, 11011 15 no ment and t In am on 90: Ryans CODC (potentially good teachers) scored significantly higher on Affiliation and Dominance and significantly lower on Aggression, Succorance, and Abasement than did those low on the "warm teacher scales." A. S. Barr states that [pJersonality may be considered a factor in teacher effective- ness in somewhat the sane way as scholastic proficiency, under- standing of children, or verbal fluency. Whether one considers personality as a factor in teacher effectiveness depends on how one conceives of personality and its relation to the means, goals, and processes of education. In any case, the problem of personality assessment as it relates to teacher effectiveness merits thoughtful consideration.9 Thomas A. Ringness furthermore suggests that study of teacher satisfac- tion is not only worthy in terms of efficiency but in terms of recruit- ment and the permanency of the teacher's career.10 In reviewing the limitations and restrictions of such studies, and on applying the findings of teacher characteristics research, David Ryans concludes that "[d]espite limitations, evidence about teacher characteristics is accumulating--and will accumulate more rapidly in the future. Studies being conducted have great potential and will eventual- ly be directly useful to teacher education and to practicing teachers and administrators."11 9A. S. Barr, gt_a1., The Measurement and Prediction 9j_Teacher Effectiveness (Madison, Wi§conETEE Dunbar Publications, Inc., 1968), p. 117. 10A. S. Barr, "The Assessment of the Teacher's Personality," Ihg_ School Review, LXVIII (1960), pp. 400-408. 11Bruce Biddle and William Ellena, Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness (New York: Holt, Rinéhart, & Winston, 1964T:' p. 101. rm.._e._w__,.1 4‘6 éa‘:-‘~ “*7 11 and new pressed s ing: 1 sonali ty high or Sonality faction tyDES t1 effecti. tYDes t leachi n jUdged Have] 0 dissati tIOns 0 Statement 9j_0bjectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the satisfaction and personality differences of teachers of children in economically de- pressed schools. The specific objectives of the study were the follow- ing: Objective I: To determine whether differences existed in per- sonality types among teachers in inner city elementary schools judged high or low in effective teaching. Objective II: To determine whether differences existed in per- sonality types among teachers who indicated high or low levels of satis- faction in teaching in inner city elementary schools. Objective III-A: To examine the relationship of personality types to teachers in inner city elementary schools judged high or low in effectiveness. Objective III-B: To examine the relationship of personality types to teachers stating a high or low level of satisfaction with teaching in inner city elementary schools. Objective IV: To examine the relationship between teachers judged high or low in effectiveness and teachers stating a high or low level of satisfaction with teaching in inner city elementary schools. Objective V: To examine the nature of the satisfactions and dissatisfactions among teachers in inner city elementary schools. @pulation 9113113 Study The study utilized data gathered from the responses and reac- tions of a population of classroom teachers selected from eleven Cincinnat' nentary g 213 teach I' eleven sc were dist Personali the level lists of asked to nature of urban Sch i tl‘0n, U01 Cincinnati schools classified as primary target schools under the Ele: mentary and Secondary School Act gj_1965. Involved in the study were 213 teachers who had volunteered to participate. Obtaining the Data Information concerning the study was presented in each of the eleven schools during the winter of 1970 and data gathering instruments were distributed, completed, and returned in the spring of that year. Personality types were measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the level of teacher satisfaction indicated by scores on several sub- lists of The School Socio—economic Status Study.* Each teacher was also asked to complete an inventory which included questions related to the nature of the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of teaching in central .urban schools. *By permission of Dr. Neal Gross, Dean of the College of Educa- tion, University of Pennsylvania. F" “' ——‘! -‘1 _~ -...L- .m J...“ 'A-rL _ _. the pers schools. 0f teach 0? retei formats Derienc Class F in the tangib 31‘159 homer C161 e than t CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter constitutes a review of the literature dealing with the personality characteristics of teachers in economically depressed schools. .Most professional literature touching on the career patterns of teachers is usually in the areas of teacher utilization, selection, or retention. An occasionally occurring design may investigate the fermative influences of career experiences on the teacher. Such an ex- perience as a move from the inner city to a school in a lower middle class neighborhood (or the reverse) might constitute a dramatic change in the social world of the teacher.1 Teaching does not take place in a vacuum but in a very relevant tangible situation. Since teacher effectiveness, therefore, does not arise solely from the teacher, but also from the interrelationship of a number of vital aspects of the learning-teaching situation and the so- cial environment, these aspects of the question merit more attention than they have heretofore received.2 1N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research gg_Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p.—734. 2A. S. Barr, gt_al., The Measurement and Prediction gf_Teacher Effectiveness (Madison, WTsconsin: Dunbar PuBTTcations, etc., 1968), p. 141. I. play betwe nodes of 5 around “th school: c lens were ers experi gaining 1' n dent. Cor tressed ne borhoods.‘ to the DH ternate 51 Adequate]: Bl of adJ'us t1 therrsGive: conCTUded the "34111 Mate to dithns 1 ti 3 'onshlos In 1952, H. 5. Becker, working in Chicago, examined the inter- play between the demands of the teaching situation and the teachers' modes of adjustment to them. He found that the basic problems revolved around "the important categories of people in the structure of the school: children, parents, principal, and other teachers." These prob- lems were concentrated most heavily in lower class schools where teach- ers experienced their initial contacts with teaching. Here, problems of gaining intrinsic rewards and of filling teacher needs soon became evi- dent. Consequently, teachers in "slum areas" (now "economically dis- tressed neighborhoods") made an early exodus to schools in "better neigh- borhoods." Becker interpreted this mobility as one mode of adjustment to the problems of teaching. Such a flight could be regarded as an al- ternate solution derived from the teacher's incapability of adjusting adequately to need fulfillment. Becker suggested the above rationale when he offered other modes of adjustment, such as encouraging teachers to discover ways of adapting themselves to the basic problems of working in difficult schools. He concluded that the techniques and outlooks a teacher develops to suit the requirements of his teaching circumstance may be entirely inappro- priate to another teaching situation.3 Studies gf_Teacher Satisfaction For a number of reasons, teacher satisfaction with working con- ditions is difficult to analyze. Even a cursory examination of the 3H. 5. Becker, "Social-Class Variations in Teacher—Pupil Rela— tionships,“ Journal gj_Educationa1 Sociology, XXV (1952), pp. 451-465. literatur bers of a comon as the orofe such as g tration 11 among tea Dredictic more di f1 1 from M Point: 1. literature dealing with job satisfaction reveals that teachers, as mem- bers of a profession, do not seem to have as many primary interests in common as poeple in most other occupations. So diverse is the nature of the profession that teachers tend to cluster around special interests such as grade levels, academic areas, specialized teaching, and adminis- tration more strongly than around teaching itself. This diversity among teachers may be a strength for the profession, but analysis and prediction of teacher satisfaction with working conditions thus becomes more difficult. Several generalizations formulated by Donald Super and taken from Vocational Interests Measurement: Theory and Practice bear on this point: 1. The process of compromise between individual and social fac- tors, between self-concept and reality is one of role play- ing, whether the role is played in fantasy, in counseling interview, or in real life activities such as school classes, clubs, part-time work, and entry jobs. 2. Work satisfactions and life satisfactions depend upon the extent to which the individual finds adequate outlets for his abilities, interests, personality traits, and values; they depend upon his establishment in a type of work, a work situation, and a way of life in which he can play the kind of role which his growth and exploratory experiences have led him to consider congenial and appropriate.” NEA research on teacher morale and job satisfaction corroborates these generalizations, concluding that: . teachers generally view their social status in the commu- nity in a way more consistent with their overall job-related morale. If teachers are generally unhappy in many areas on the l*John Darley and Theda Hagenah, Vocational Interests Measurement: Theory and Practice (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955), pp. 160-161. 5’.“ Arc-unnat- satis of te they A: olex when ceoti on an personalit In in terms c Patticioar also relat not test 1 991301181 [ 10 satisfaction scale, they tend to perceive the community's view of teachers as being low. If the teachers are generally happy, they view the community as thinking highly of teachers. As Isabel Myers brings out, role conflict becomes even more com- plex when two or more people in similar roles use opposite types of per- ception and judgment and thus precipitate a conflict of roles through personality differences.6 In the study of Jenkins and Lippitt, role conflict was expressed in terms of the effects of misperceptions on the satisfactions of the participants in the role relationships, but, as in other studies, was also related to social psychological theory. The authors noted but did not test the following relevant consequences of divergence in the inter- personal perceptions of teachers: 1. Teachers become insecure in their jobs and need a greater amount of recognition and attention from their students when parents fail to satisfy these teachers' needs. 2. Relationships within teacher groups deteriorate when the needs of teachers are not met satisfactorily by members of other groups; this common frustration may result in agres- sions among the group members themselves, thereby reducing their ability to get on with their own task efficiently. For example, the NEA Research Study found that when teachers in a particular school are dissatisfied with the school's principal, they tend to become more dissatisfied with system-wide factors than teachers in other schools who are more satisfied with their principals. Also, teachers who feel dissatisfied with their principals tend to be 5"Are Teachers Happy?" NEA Research Bulletin, XLVI (May, 1958). pp. 40-41. 51. B. Myers, The M ers-Bri e Indicator Manual (Princeton, New Jersey. Education§T_Test1ng Serv1c; 962), p. 51. 7N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 19 963), p. 778. dissatisf therefore general 1 F absence c teachers more sati low achie the varic factionfi tions to not by me therefore great 091 SQuality dbles mus 11 dissatisfied with the superintendent and with their students.8 The study therefore suggests that satisfaction-dissatisfaction factors tend to be general in nature rather than personal or specific. A factor limiting the assessment of teacher satisfaction is the absence of consistent findings. For example, L. W. Anderson fbund that teachers of students with a high degree of academic achievement reported more satisfying community relations than those who taught students of low achievement; whereas Knox found no significant correlation between the various efficiency ratings of teachers and their reports of satis- faction.9 Nevertheless, research in attitudes has suggested that situa- tions to be considered should be viewed through the teacher's eyes and not by means of some arbitrary scale or model. Teacher satisfaction is ”therefOre more complex than has previously been assumed and is to a great degree related to interpersonal relationships.‘ Consequently, per- 'sonality, effectiveness, social standing, role conflict, and other vari- ’ ables must be seen as affecting teacher satisfaction. Studies gf_Teacher Effectiveness Probably no facet of education has met with greater concern or frequency of discussion by educators than teacher effectiveness and how to define it, identify it, measure it, or evaluate it. Expressing this ‘common concern, Bruce Biddle says, "Few, if any, problems are more 8"Are Teachers Satisfied with Their Working Conditions?" NEA Research Bulletin, XLVII (March, 1969), pp. 6- 7. 9N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teachin (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company—‘19631, pp 800-801. crucial 1' search to N sessment various per and other the instr and rati ngs Mos built upon tiveness. Wit corre' have 6150 . In teacher ef Skewed tow. principal I 12 crucial in education; and as elusive as teacher excellence may be, re- search toward its understanding must continue."10 Many different types of measurements have been used in the as- sessment of effectiveness. Such techniques have included ratings (by various persons), direct observation of behavior, objective instruments, ‘ and other devices. Of these methods, behavioral observations and objec- tive instruments are recommended over existing records, self reports, and ratings. Most attempts to measure teacher effectiveness have used scales built upon dimensions believed by the researcher to be related to effec- tiveness. Generally, however, these did not yield sufficiently signifi- cant correlations to warrant serious consideration. Judgmental factors have also influenced findings. In an earlier study, Cole found that principals' ratings of teacher effectiveness over a five-year period tended to be severely .skewed toward the favorable side. When, in an effbrt to reappraise principal bias, Lord and Cole redirected data collecting procedures so 'that principals had to rate teachers on a forced choice quintile assign- ment, the principals' judgments became more realistic and prediction improved.11 Again, H. I. Von Haden found that personal subjective data 1°Bruce Biddle and William Ellena, Contemporary_Research gn_ Teacher Effectiveness (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., , p. v. 11Robert Lord and David Cole, "Principal Bias in Rating Teach- ers," Journal 9f_Education Research, LV (September, 1961), pp. 33-35. ._..J_' .‘£_.£X-r ALB—um ‘fi'l made a su teacher e D warmth, c study was different low asses study Sup "Low” in 1 favor ures, Flor l anxic F t0 cover cused on room 1'nte (Koum’n E 13 made a substantial contribution to the accuracy of predictions of teacher effectiveness.12 David Ryan's study involved three dimensions of teacher behavior: warmth, organization, and stimulation. An important aspect of this study was its effbrt to identify the personal or social characteristics differentiating groups of teachers receiving uniformly high or unifbrmly low assessments on three patterns of teacher classroom behavior., Ryan's study supported establishment of a difference between the "High" and the "Low" in several broad areas of teacher personality: The "High Group" had more favorable opinions of pupils, more 'favorable opinions expressed about democratic classroom proced- ures, higher mean verbal intelligence score, and suggested supe- rior emotional adjustment of stability. The "Low Group" [was} characterized by being self-centered, anxious, and restricted. 3 Research in teacher effectiveness has, therefbre, been extended to cover the multi-dimensional aspects of the topic. Studies have fo- cused on effectiveness as problem-solving (Turner and Fatu), on class- room interaction (Meux, Smith, and Flanders), on environmental variables (Kounin and Gump-Redl and Gump; and Barker), and on age, sex, and gener- ation (Peterson).1't 12H. I. Von Haden, "An Evaluation of Certain Types of Personal Data Employed in the Prediction of Teaching Efficiency," (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1946). 13Bruce Biddle and William Ellena, Contemporarijesearch gn_ TeaCher Effectiveness (New York: Holt, Rinehart, andTWinston, Inc., 1"Ibid. .hg teacher e Horatorx sme idea itmighti teacher at NC . l Subjec validi leachi SUDEri CErtai tICS a for al Certai DINEr Effect tYDes Teachi 0f int SODnel and Dr tion 0 age ab h0ped 14 Further review of the literature indicates that research on teacher effectiveness has been descriptive in character as well as ex- ploratory. The principal aim of these investigations has been to gain some ideas about the nature of teacher effectiveness and to find out how it might be evaluated and predicted. Worcester lists a number of assumptions stated or implied in the teacher effectiveness literature completed at the University of Wiscon- sin: Subjective evaluation of teaching perfbrmance has considerable validity. Teaching effectiveness can be adequately rated by supervisors, superintendents, principals, subject-matter specialists. Certain personality characteristics or patterns of characteris- tics are essential to effective teaching. These are the same for all ages, all types of pupils and all types of learning. Certain characteristics are effective in certain situations and other characteristics in other situations. Effectiveness is determined by motivation of the teacher. Some types of motives result in greater success than do others. Teaching effectiveness is a matter of an almost infinite number of interrelationships among teachers, pupils, administrative per- sonnel, colleagues, the comnunity, influenced by inherent talent and professional training so that at best, perhaps, identifica- tion of individuals with some very high ability or several aver- age abilities and no completely negative one is all that can be hoped for. The performance of a teacher when participating in a research program is representative of her customary or best performance.15 A statement by David Ryans concerning the aspects of placement, teacher satisfaction, and teacher utilization projects the hope that, 15A. S. Barr, et al., The Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness (Madison:_WT§consin: Dunbar Publications, Inc.:—l968), p. 132. .1; L _'_-e" . "Am if it wer- istics, t situa‘ the t. In it- ing t tary s classe ment 1 terns, object requin Th1 t1‘i-Dendous For example as the mm The fact t1 “11y of ti Lord and Q Er effeCtli 15 if it were possible to identify and estimate effective teacher character- istics, then: . ideally, in assigning a teacher t0‘a particular school or situation an effort [would be] made to match the abilities of the teacher to the situation in which teaching [was] to be done. In its grosser and.very obvious application, this means assign- ‘ing teachers educated for elementary school teaching to elemen- tary school classes, secondary school English teachers to English 'classes, and so on. At a more refined level, successful assign- ment is judged in terms of the matching of teacher-behavior pat- terns, teacher view points, and educational preparation to the 'objectives of a particular school program and to the needs and requirements of the pupils to be taught.16 Importance 9f;Personality_in_Teaching The importance of personality in teaching is indicated by the tremendous number of studies and research projects devoted to the topic. ‘For example, Sister Mary Amatora states, I'The prominence of personality as the number one quality of the teacher is no longer a disputed topic. The fact that the personality of the pupil is influenced by the person- ality of the teacher is maintained by many educators."17 Furthermore, Lord and Cole, in'a research study, concluded that predictions of teach- er effectiveness based upon personality data were more accurate than predictions derived from conventional academic data.18 The instrument predominantly used to measure personality needs is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. However, studies 16Biddle and Ellena, 92, git,, p. 98. 17Sister Mary Amatora, "Similarity in Teachers' Personality," Journal of Psychology, XXXXVIII (January, 1954), pp. 45-50. 18Robert Lord and David Cole, "Principal Bias in Rating Teachers," Journal gf_Educational Research, LV No. 1 (September, 1961), pp. 33-35. by La Bue tween the has been that it o found that inated bet from the '- and ineffe teacher ev nosis Scal. used to dis "normally 3 Al- couragjng, theory and Ncs of un Th. JUNg's the [a fact t; heredj diffic Plalm'. \ Q r . 4. \ffectl V9111 2'3 Illinois: I 16 by La Bue, Hedlund, and others have found few positive correlations be- tween the MMPI and teacher effectiveness. A major addition to the MMPI has been the development of the K scale. Several studies have indicated that it possesses a high discriminatory power. For example, Tanner found that the K scale was the only assessment of the MMPI that discrim- inated between superior and inferior male teachers.19 Specific items from the MMPI which have been proved to discriminate between effective and ineffective teachers have become the basis for new scales. One such teacher evaluation scale, developed by Gowan, is called the Teacher Prog- nosis Scale. Validity tests tend to indicate that this scale can be used to discriminate between very effective teachers and those termed "normally successful."20 Although the studies of Cook, Medley, and Gowan have been en- couraging, other studies seem to indicate a still greater need for theory and infbrmation concerning the personal traits and characteris- tics of "normal" persons. The personality index used in this study was developed from C. G. Jung's theory of personality type. Isabel Briggs Myers' interpretation of the way in which type theory is implemented stresses that [a] modern personality theory must take into account the fact that individuals are the unique product of their particular heredity and environment, and are therefbre different. It is difficult, however, to construct an economical theory for ex- plaining the principles on which individuals accept or reject 19J. C. Gowan, "Self-Report Tests in the Prediction of Teaching Effectiveness," School Review, LXVII (1960), pp. 409-419. 20N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook gf_Research 99_Teaching (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 542. 17 certain elements of their environment, the way they act and re- act, the bases on which they reason, or the highly individual differences in interests, values, and satisfactions that moti- vate them. The merit of the personality theory presented here is that it accounts fer many of the differences which other theoretical frameworks leave to random variation; yet, the theory has the 'merit of unusual simplicity, and, indeed, is not incompatible with most other approaches. Briefly, the theory is that much apparently random variation in human behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being caused by certain basic differ- ences in mental functioning. These basic differences concern the way people prefer to use their minds, specifically the way they use perception and judg- ' ment.21 While the work of I. B. Myers was useful as a general resource in the pursuit of this problem, specific questions dealt with in this study were not the subjects of her research. ’Jackson and Cuba, in a study using the Edwards Personal Prefer- ence Schedule, found interesting differences between high school teach- ers and norm groups of liberal arts students. In Deference and Hetero- sexuality, there were significant differences between all four teacher groups and the norms. Furthermore, the study showed that teachers ex- hibited higher scores (with the exception of male elementary teachers) in Order and Endurance than did the norm group but scored lower on Exhi- bition. These five needs were fbund to betypical, in general, of the needs of teacher groups as differentiated from those of liberal arts people.22' 211. B. Myers, The MyerseBriggs Type Indicator Manual (Princeton, New Jersey: EducationaT—Testing Service, 1962)} p. 51 22N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company,—T963), p. 5462 S teristics articles tion, tee teacher 6 directly faction 1' Kenneth ( teacher 1 chi ldren I Characte' known f0- IECti V8111 18 Summar Studies of certain of the personality and satisfaction charac- teristics of teachers in economically distressed schools have led to articles and books dealing with teacher personality, teacher satisfac- ‘ tion, teacher effectiveness, teacher recruitment, teacher placement, and teacher evaluation. No studies, however, seem to have been made which directly related personality to.teacher effectiveness or teacher satis- faction in inner-city school settings; although many writers, such as Kenneth Clark and Patrick Goff, continually stress the.need to examine teacher personality and effectiveness in relation to disadvantaged children. Nevertheless, despite the critical importance of these teacher characteristics and the abundant research perfbrmed, very little is known for certain about teacher personality and its relationship to ef- fectiveness and satisfaction. 11 of the $01 data obtai Th considered trator is new staff CONHDdate It 15 com deDl‘essed teachers a 11evertheie ties bette inner City ing ti'lc‘in u Th. indIVIdual CHAPTER III PROCEDURE This chapter consists of descriptions of the design of the study, of the sources and procedures for obtaining the data, of the types of data obtained, and of the means of analysis of data. Rationale for the Study The personality characteristics of the teacher have long been considered a significant variable in the classroom. The school adminis- trator is continually confronted with the responsibility of assigning new staff members or reassigning experienced individuals in order to ac- commodate changes in enrollment and to combat teacher retention problems. It is common practice in large cities to assign teachers to economically depressed schools by means of a rotation system or other method whereby teachers are placed in positions which they do not desire or understand. Nevertheless, neny administrators maintain that certain individual quali- ties better equip teachers for teaching. Many believe that teachers of inner city children nust possess even higher degrees of warmth in teach- ing than usually are expected for other classrooms. The dilemma of identifying, placing, and retaining the type of individual who is best suited to teach in these schools therefore 19 20 prompts this study of the satisfaction and personality differences of persons teaching in economically depressed areas. The Design 9_f_th_e Study The study was designed to investigate and describe certain per- sonality types and satisfaction characteristics of teachers in economi- cally distressed schools, and the objectives were thus constructed to provide a structure for examination of the relationships of teacher per- sonality, satisfaction, and effectiveness. The literature pertaining to the relationship of teacher satisfaction and teacher effectiveness of- fered little support, since the studies to date did not exhibit adequate or consistent findings. Personality research, on the other hand, indi- cated possible evidence of a relationship to effectiveness; for example, the teacher effectiveness scales developed from specific items in the MMPI have proved to be to some degree discriminatory. The objectives of this study, moreover, allow for further testing of and inquiry into the inter-relationship of satisfaction, personality, and teacher effective- ness in investigation of the nature of teacher satisfaction in central urban schools. The Setting 9f_thg_$tudy .The study was carried on in the Cincinnati Public School Dis- trict. This district is located in an urban, industrial area with a population of 500,000. Its enrollment consists of children of various ethnic, racial, and socio-economic backgrounds, whose distribution among the attendance districts varies according to the residential patterns within the city. 1 I F1194. :1,., 1H. . go... at 41 A 21 The data were derived from the responses of 213 elementary classroom teachers from eleven schools classified as primary target schools under the Elementary and Secondary School Act gf_1965. Table 3.1 shows the population size and the response from each school. Participation in the study was limited to teachers who had at least one year or more of teaching experience. Their distribution by age was uniform, with no one classification significantly outweighing another. Table 3.2 gives the distribution by age for the total popula- tion. Table 3.2 Summary of the Characteristics of the Sample: Age Distribution Age Range Number 20 - 24 30 25 - 29 45 30 - 34 25 35 - 39 29 4O - 49 33 50 and over 36 The educational background of the teachers in this study was as fellows: twenty-eight teachers had taken course work beyond the Mas- ‘ter's degree; twenty-nine had attained the Master's level; and seventy per cent had taken college work beyond the B. S. degree. Table 3.3 shows the variation in educational attainment. 22 .>m>ezm esp cw wastage; mmmcoamme mo emnE=: mg» op Loewe mmmmzpcmeea cw mmezmwds Amsv mm Amsv mm Am_NV Rom _epoe Amy m fimv m Aw_v km sewage: x Amy m Amv m AN_V m_ cabana: a Amv w Amv m Aemv me peek H Lew m Mew m Anew LN m_me=o>< :asom I As m e e Ae_ _m macaw a Lev e Lev m Ak_v _m semacagpom L Rev m Amy m AN_V mm sm_mema m Amv s AME s Am_v _N seaseea mee>__ez a ARV a Lav k Ammv em m_Lonmz u Amw m Ame m “one mm mass: m As s Lev s efis_v FN traverse < Asomv m>esumeem Asom a>wsomeem mascoeme _oo;om Lemme; emanaw cm; L: ummuso c mpoocom unwrap zgeewra wpeccwocwo ocean cowweF=aoa mo :owuanweumwo —.m m—nmh 23 Table 3.3 Distribution of Educational Attainment Educational Degree Number B. S.- 10 B. S. 50 B. S.+ 88 M. A. 29 M. A.+ 28 Ph. D. O The Procurement of Data In January, 1970, teachers from eleven of thirteen primary tar- get schools volunteered to participate in the study. Effectiveness cate- gories were then determined by a forced choice ranking of teachers by each building principal based on the effectiveness of the teacher as a person and the teacher as a guide to the learning process. Criteria governing these rankings are contained in Appendix A. The sub-categories of these effectiveness groups were composed of the upper and lower twenty.per cent of the ranking continuum.* The twenty per cent factor was chosen in order to eliminate the area that would cluster around the median. Satisfaction level was determined by the use of thirty-seven questions from two subtests of The School Socio-economic Status Study. Material concerning these is contained in Appendix B. Satisfaction ~ *Lower effectiveness as perceived by the principals did not necessarily indicate "ineffective teachers" but rather the position the {teacher held on a continuum of higher effective to lower effective with- ' 111 a given school. 24 levels were designated by calling scores which fell above the mean "higher satisfied" and those below the mean "lesser satisfied." Table 3.4 presents the mean satisfaction indices by schools. In the final analysis, the characteristics of effectiveness and satisfaction were combined to form four groups: higher effective more satisfied, higher effective lesser satisfied, lower effective more sat- isfied, and lower effective lesser satisfied. Teacher personality characteristics were measured by the Mygy§:_ Briggs Type Indicator. This is a 166-forced-choice-item self-report in- ventory which ascertains a person's basic preferences with regard to perception and judgment. The Indicator contains separate indices for determining which of the four preferences structures an individual's personality. These various types of personality are described in the Indicator's manual1 as follows: The ExtrOVert is oriented primarily to the outer world, thus tends to focus his perception and judgment upon people and things. The Introvert is oriented primarily to the inner world and thus tends to focus his perception and judgment upon con- cepts and ideas. The Intuitive person relies primarily on the less obvious process of intuition which is understood as indirect perception by way of the unconscious with the emphasis on ideas or associa— tions which the unconscious tacks onto the outside things per- ceived. The Sensing individual relies primarily on the familiar process of sensing by which he is made aware of things directly ‘through one or another of his five senses. 1I. B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. (Prince- "R)n, New Jersey: Educational Testing Serv1ce, 1962). 25 mo N.¢oF mFN w.mm oFF F.¢FF moF m.¢oF we N.FoF me 4FpomFFm z w>FuomFFm z Foogom FeFoF FmFOF Lemme; ego: emmmmg emngI emcem cum: 400:0m 4Fhumumm do mmHmocmhm mmoHozF zthuwpum$mm Lm304 ¢.vp xm.m~ m.om Rm.mn m.w_ &o.av m.¢p Ro.—m me Locomwh w>wpumm+m Lwcmw: e.w~ &F.Om m.m~ &m.mm m.w— xm.¢m «.mp am.me mFN newpwpam0a punch 4wuum$mu Lm304 m.mp Rn.¢m F.m~ Nm.mm o.mp Rm.~m m.m~ gm.nm av gmgummh m>wuowmmm gmgmw: m.o~ ww.mm m.mm am.mm N.NF NF.0¢ N.om xm.mm mPN cowpmpamoa Punch 4wpuommu mo mmucmgmemgm asp mo gpmcwgpm cam: new Aucmzcmgu P.¢ m—nmh 31 throughout the text: Extroverted, E; Introvertive, I; Sensing, S; Intu- itive, N; Thinking, T; Feeling, F; Judgment, J; and Perception, P. Objective II sought to determine whether differences exist in personality types among teachers who indicate high or low levels of satisfaction in teaching. In computing the satisfaction score from the questionnaires, levels of satisfaction were derived by using the mean as a division point. Table 3.4 shows no between-school differences on mean satisfaction score for: l. Effective; 2. Lesser Effective; 3. More Satisfied; 4. Lesser Satisfied; and 5. Over Total. There were no sig- nificant differences of personality type between the more satisfied and the lesser satisfied. The judgment factor was still predominant for those teachers in both groups, while those in the more satisfied groups were in schools tending to be more Feeling than Thinking oriented. There were between- school differences in the numbers of satisfied and less satisfied. How— ever, there were no systematic differences on the Myers-Briggs profile in the number of satisfied and less satisfied teachers within a school. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show the percentage frequencies of the sixteen types among teachers indicating a high or low level of satisfaction and effec- tiveness. Moreover, when the effectiveness and satisfaction percentage frequencies were compared with the total population percentage frequen- cies, no difference was found. Dominant types emerging were ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, and ESFJ, with the judgmental (J) factor dominating throughout. Table 4.4 illustrates the percentage frequency of the sixteen types fer the total population. 32 Table 4.2 Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Types among Teachers Judged High and Low in Effectiveness Higher Effective N=50 Lesser Effective N=46 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 18.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 21.7 21.7 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 2.0 2.1 2.1 4.3 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 6.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 14.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 26.0 4.3 6.5 2.1 Table 4.3 Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Types among Teachers Indicating a High or Low Level of Satisfaction More Satisfied N=102 Less Satisfied N=110 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 12.8 14.7 5.9 1.9 18.0 11.7 1.8 2.7 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 2.9 4.9 .98 .98 .9 3.6 8.1 .9 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP .98 2.9 8.8 1.9 4.5 3.6 8.1 .9 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ ESTJ ESFJ . ENFJ ENTJ 16.6 13.7 4.9 4.9 13.5 7.2 5.4 4.5 33 Table 4.4 Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Types fer Total Population Total N = 213 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 15.6 13.1 3.8 2.3 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 1.9 4.2 4.7 .9 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 2.3 3.3 9.9 2.3 ESTO ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 15.0 10.3 5.2 4.7 A supplementary analysis was made by combining the effectiveness and satisfaction categories, which resulted in fbur sub-groups: higher effective more satisfied, higher effective less satisfied, lower effec- tive more satisfied, and lower effective less satisfied. Hereafter, fer reasons of clarity and ease of interpretation, when the various groups are cited in abbreviated from, the following symbols will be used throughout the text: HEMS, Higher Effective More Satisfied; HELS, Higher Effective Less Satisfied; LEMS, Less Effective More Satisfied; LELS, Less Effective Less Satisfied. Although this new dimension developed more precise sub-groups, a few differences between the new sub-groups and the effectiveness and satisfaction categories became evident. Whereas the percentage of pref- erences fOr most types remained the same, the HEMS group was predomi- Iwantly extrovertive, while the LEMS displayed a preference for 34 introversion. As can be seen in Table 4.5, no complete type pattern de- veloped that discriminated one group from another. Percentage frequencies of the personality types fer the sub- groups were substantially the same as the percentage frequencies of the higher and lower effectiveness groups. Table 4.6 illustrates the con- formity of the sub-groups to the effectiveness patterns in Table 4.2. The use of age and longevity characteristics in personality type analysis resulted in data almost identical to that demonstrated in ear- lier findings related to effectiveness and satisfaction. There were differences between schools, differences within age and longevity cate- gories, and a high percentage frequency in both groups on sensing and judgment. Mean scores were similar between age and longevity fer all personality types. However, in one set of personality types, thinking vs. feeling, there was an inverse order. Here, the 20-34 age group re- corded a low percentage selecting a thinking orientation (39.4%) and a high percentage (60.6%) selecting a feeling orientation. The 35-49 age group clustered around the mean, while the over 50 group displayed a high thinking orientation (62.2%) and a low feeling orientation (37.8%). The same inverse pattern developed between longevity and thinking and feeling type. Tables 4.7 and 4.8 summarize the frequency of personality type preferences of age and longevity fer the total population in each category. In summary, for all factors relating to personality type prefer- ence, no total pattern of personality type emerged which would distin- guish one group from another. However, individual type patterns did 35 m.N_ $0.8m _.©N 30.48 m.w2 &O.Nm o._m No.me mm newcmwpam ammo m>wuummwm Lmzob N.m~ eo.m_ 4.8N 30.5m m.m_ 3m.om m.NN xfi.mm mm emecmwpam «to: w>vuummmm Logo; e.m_ &F.mm o.o_ xm.om o._N ee.om N._N &Q.mo mm umwcmepam mam; m>wpumccw amgmw: e._N $8.4m m.o~ ee.mm 8.x Na.om N.m_ 3N.mo 0N emwcmwpam ago: m>_gumccm tweet: mmHmoomeHPumacm mcoom & «Loom & mgoum & mxoum & z :mmz m cow: H cam: m cam: oucmgmmmga mucmcmemga mocmgmmmga mococmmmga mFm>m4 cowaummmwpmm can mmmcm>wpum¢$u 304 use now: we cowumcvano mg» an coaxed newcommpmu Lao; asp yo mmucmgowmgm mcu mo gumcmgum cam: ucw xucmzcmcu m.¢ m—nmh 36 m.m~ $0.4N m._N $0.82 e.m2 xo.oe m.m_ xo.om mm umwcmvpam ammo m>wpum$$m gm304 N.e_ RN._N m.m~ Nm.mn _.©N Rm.he N.e_ 3N.Nm mm emwcmwpam ago: o>wpumm$m Logo; 0.02 Ne.2_ m.NN xe.~m m.m2 RN.Nm m.m_ em.ke mm umwcm_pam mam; m>_pomccm Loewe; m.N_ ee.mo m.¢m NN.mo N.NP No.0m m.m2 No.om 0N umvcmwpam mcoz m>2pomccm 26:82: mmHmouupHAumcam mgoum & «Loom & msoom & msoum & a com: a cum: 2 cam: H cam: a Low a. LP... .u_ Lou... ._. «S.+ mucwgmmwgn— mocmgmmwgm mucmsmmmgn— wucmgmmmgm Aum=:2pcoov m.e w_na» Table 4.6 37 Percentage Frequencies of the 16 Personality Types among Four Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels Higher Effective More Satisfied N=26 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 11.5 11.5 3.8 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 3.8 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 11.5 11.5 3.8 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 19.2 7.7 3.8 11.5 Lower Effective More Satisfied N=23 ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 21.7 26.1 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 4.3 8.7 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 4.3 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 21.7 4.3 8.7 Higher Effective Less Satisfied N=23 INTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 17.4 8.7 4.3 4.3 ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 13.0 ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 13.0 13.0 17.4 4.3 Lower Effective Less Satisfied N=25 1510 ISFJ INFJ INTJ 20.0 16.0 4.0 ISTP INSP INFP INTP 8.0 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 4.0 8.0 4.0 5510 ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 24.0 4.0 8.0 38 . . r5... :1 .I...I-.1.1.1.. . . 1.31% o.HH &N.mH m.mm Rm.mw w.mH Rm.nm w.np NN.Nm mm . om o.mH N¢.mm N.mm am.vm m.mH Nm.mm m.n~ fim.e¢ mm ow 1 mm H.0N xv.mm H.mN xm.~o ¢.NH xm.oo H.m— uv.mm mm «m u om m3 4 H HmmcoH zn maucmgmmmga 8:» mo :pmcmcpm cam: ncm mucmzcmgm m.¢ oHan develop faction teachers teachers personal gevity c 1 of perso. a conting III-A was less effe any of t1 Square Te tivenesg “41 Schor Table 4.( 40 develop: judgment orientation predominated over effectiveness and satis- faction; and, age and longevity factors indicated that younger and novice teachers tended to be feeling oriented and older and more experienced teachers to become thinking oriented. Data regarding the frequency of personality type preferences fer individual schools in the age and lon- gevity categories are shown in Appendices B and C. Objectives III-A and III-B sought to establish the relationship of personality type to effectiveness and satisfaction through the use of a contingency table and the Chi-Square Test of Significance. Objective III-A was to test the relationship of personality type to effective and less effective teaching. N0 relationship was f0und to be significant in any of the eleven schools. Table 4.9 presents a summary of the Chi- Square Test of Significance between personality types and teacher effec- tiveness fer all effectiveness categories. The data concerning individ- ual schools are contained in Appendix D. Table 4.9 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Teacher Effectiveness for Total Effectiveness Categories Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level TOTAL Higher Effective N = 49 Lesser Effective N = 48 Total N = 97 Extrovert-Introvert 3.75141 2.99741 .10 Sensing-Intuition 1.28824 0.82448 .50 Feeling-Thinking 0.09627 0.01143 .80 Judgment-Perception 0.43510 0.17714 .80 ‘0po \x 00) 1 than 1 sonal relat niiic tota cont Tabl €ffe: 109 1 11005 41 Objective III-B was to examine the relationship of personality type to the more satisfied and lesser satisfied categories. However, only in school F on the E-I preference was there a relationship greater than the .05 level of significance. Consequently, data regarding per- sonality type and satisfaction were considered to have no significant relationship. Table 4.10 is a summary of the Chi-Square Test of Sig- nificance between personality types and teacher satisfaction for the total satisfaction categories. Data relating to individual schools are contained in Appendix E. Table 4.10 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Teacher Satisfaction fer Total Satisfaction Categories Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level TOTAL More Satisfied N = 102 Less Satisfied N = 111 Total N = 213 Extrovert-Introvert 0.06544 0.01398 .95 Sensing-Intuition 1.01752 0.74605 .50 Feeling-Thinking 0.45558 0.28865 .70 Judgment-Perception 3.43728 2.90267 .10 No evidence to support any relationship of personality type to effiectiveness and satisfaction was found, and analysis of data reflect— irag the total population reinforced the conclusion that no such rela- tionships exist. formed 1: In only square c troverti size evi be beyon this, a : 4.11 exa lntultio (.10) wh 4.12 sun l‘Elnforc Younger the 01 de parsonal Ilon age TF and c 115.101: fa feeling tle lmpa dEQree a such as . the Darc. 42 The next aspect of the study was concerned with the sub-groups fermed by the combination of effectiveness and satisfaction categories. In only two of the six pairings of the sub-groups did a significant chi- square develop: LEMS-LELS vs. sensing-intuition and HEMS-LEMS vs. ex- trovertive-introvertive. Distributions which produce chi-squares of the size evidenced between a 6.72862 (.01) and 5.00051 (.02) are assumed to be beyond the realm of chance--thus significant. In studies such as this, a significance level of .10 may well be quite indicative. Table 4.11 examines these sub-group comparisons. As is shown, sensing- intuition is the only personality type that approaches significance (.10) when the sub-groups are examined in a composite manner. Table 4.12 summarizes chi-squares for the composite analysis of sub-groups. The chi-square of 9.78957 (.01) for age vs. thinking and feeling reinfbrces the earlier data which gave an inverse relationship. Here, younger teachers indicated a direction toward feeling orientation, and the older staff exhibited a thinking orientation. Table 4.13 summarizes the relationship between degree status and personality type. The TF type lends minimal support (.10) to the direc- tion age and thinking-feeling type have developed. The chi-square fer TF and degree was not significant, but approached .05. In this, the major factor was the young teacher with a B. A. degree who exhibited a feeling orientation. The higher levels of degree advancement made lit- tle impact on the measure. The chi-square of 9.63763 (.05) between degree and 0 vs. P had significance in that people with lower degrees such as the B. A. tended to be more perceptive, and a high percentage of the perceptive individuals indicated low levels of satisfaction. Tab1e 4.11 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and the Four Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Level Higher Effective More Satisfied N=26 Higher Effective Less Satisfied N=23 Extrovert-Introvert .09314 .90 Sensing-Intuition .04450 .90 Feeling-Thinking .29511 .70 Judgment-Perception 1.03438 .50 Less Effective More Satisfied N=23 Less Effective Less Satisfied N=25 Extrovert-Introvert .75659 .50 Sensing-Intuition 6.72862 .01* Feeling-Thinking .38322 .70 Judgment-Perception .27197 .70 Higher Effective More Satisfied N=26 Lower Effective More Satisfied N=23 Extrovert-Introvert 5.00051 .02** Sensing-Intuition 2.99678 .10 Feeling-Thinking .29508 .90 Judgment—Perception 1.12739 .20 Higher Effective Less Satisfied N=23 Lower Effective Less Satisfied N=25 Extrovert-Introvert .87917 .50 Sensing-Intuition .87917 .50 Feeling-Thinking .27473 .75 Judgment-Perception .32488 .75 One degree of freedom *Denotes .01 Level of Significance **Denotes .02 Level of Significance 44 Table 4.11 (continued) Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Level Higher Effective More Satisfied N=26 Lower Effective Less Satisfied N=25 Extrovert-Introvert 1.59311 .25 Sensing-Intuition .93614 .50 Feeling-Thinking .53552 .50 Judgment-Perception .31907 .75 Higher Effective Less Satisfied N=23 Lower Effective More Satisfied N=23 Extrovert-Introvert 3.13636 .10 Sensing-Intuition 2.98700 .10 Feeling-Thinking .00000 .-- Judgment-Perception .00000 .-- One degree of freedom Table 4.12 Summary of Composite Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and the Categories Formed by the Combination of High and Low Effectiveness and Satisfaction Levels Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Level Higher Effective More Satisfied N=26 Higher Effective Less Satisfied N=23 Lower Effective More Satisfied N=23 Lower Effective Less Satisfied N=25 Extrovert-Introvert 5.54031 .25 Sensing-Intuition 6.73706 .10 Feeling-Thinking .57309 .95 Judgment-Perception .17175 .99 Three degrees of freedom 45 Table 4.13 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Personality Types and Degree DEGREE B. A.-, B. A., B. A.+, M. A., M. A.+ Personality Type Extrovertive-Introvertive 2.37649 Sensing-Intuition 2.51282 Feeling-Thinking 8.62197 Judgment-Perception 9.63763 .10 .05* Four degrees of freedom *Denotes .05 Level of Significance 46 Another concern of the study was the relationship of satisfac- tion to age, longevity, and degree. Age was the only characteristic to provide a significant chi-square 5.8340 (.05). The relationship was found to be inverse in that the 20-34 age group exhibited a high degree of lesser satisfaction, while the upper two age groups, 35-49 and 50-, exhibited more satisfaction than dissatisfaction. In the lower age classification, 39.6% indicated a more satisfied level of teaching in ghetto schools, while 60.4% exhibited a lesser degree of satisfaction. The middle and upper age groups reversed the flow, the majority being more satisfied, 56.6% and 57.1%, while the minority, 43.4% and 42.9%, were less satisfied teaching in disadvantaged schools. The characteristics of age, longevity,/and degree were also ex- amined for their relationship to effectiveness, but chi-square tests of significance revealed only the characteristic of degree to be related. Here, the chi-square for effectiveness and degree was 11.106 at the .05 level of significance. Teachers with a B. A. degree exhibited 25% ef- fectiveness, while teachers with an M. A.+ indicated 75% effectiveness. Nevertheless, considering the small number of students evaluated, these differences could not be said to be reliable. Thus, only two sub-group pairings of effectiveness and satisfac- tion were significant. When measured in a composite group, these did not produce any relationship beyond the .10 level. A lack of consistent findings therefore precluded the establishment of any patterns or rela- tionships between personality types as related to effectiveness and sat- isfaction. 47 Younger teachers, however, exhibited different characteristics than older staff members in thinking and feeling orientation. Teachers with a B. A. and an M. A.+ degree differed on TF and JP orientations, while the various age groups were dissimilar in levels of satisfaction. Consequently, degree status was the only characteristic to discriminate between high and low effectiveness groups. Objective IV sought to investigate the relationship between teachers judged high or low in effectiveness of teaching and teachers stating a high or low level of teaching satisfaction. However, results of analysis data using the Chi-Square Test of Significance offered no evidence of a relationship when teacher satisfaction was based on the responses of all teachers. A summary of the Chi-Square Test of Signifi- cance between teacher effectiveness and level of teacher satisfaction is presented in Table 4.14. The goal of Objective V was to examine the nature of satisfac- tions and dissatisfactions among teachers in economfically distressed schools. The data revealed no significant differences between groups in their responses to the items. Although no discriminating patterns emerged between groups, some patterns developed that were corrmon to all with a high degree of frequency. The most discernible area was the expression of satisfaction in working with children. The highest percentage satisfaction reflected a desire to work with children instead of adults. The data suggested that teachers on the whole like to work best with average pupils, second with exceptional pupils, and last with slow pupils. Table 4.15 presents the percentage distribution in each area. la 11' 1“ — E 2 .121311-Ipliinl _ . 1. 48 Table 4.14 Summary of Chi-Square Tests of Significance between Teacher Effectiveness and Levels of Teacher Satisfaction Effectiveness- Original Corrected Significance Satisfaction Chi-Square Chi-Square Level SCHOOL A 2.00000 0.50000 .50 SCHOOL B 0.03556 0.32000 .70 SCHOOL C 0.28571 0.00000 -— SCHOOL 0 1.20000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL E 0.90000 0.05625 .90 SCHOOL F 0.27778 0.01736 .90 SCHOOL G 0.00000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL H 0.00000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL I 0.47619 0.00000 -- SCHOOL J 0.00000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL K 3.60000 1.60000 .30 TOTAL 0.25673 0.09217 .80 One degree of freedom Corrected chi-square by Yates correction f0rmu1a *Denotes .05 Level of Significance lal 11,1111" H01 Der WC 01) 0t} 49 Table 4.15 Responses Indicating Satisfaction in Working with Children of Various Abilities Higher Lesser More Less Ability Groups Eff.1 Eff. Sat.2 Sat. Total Exceptional Pupils 88% 87% 86% 82% 84% Average Pupils 94% 93% 95% 94% 95% Slow Pupils 73% 69% 87% 71% 79% Although the responses indicated that satisfaction or desire to work with children, as opposed to adults, was first, the second highest percentage was found in the satisfaction of talking to parents about problems concerning their children. In the area of dissatisfaction, only one major concern became unifbrmly evident throughout all groups. This was dissatisfaction with the academic performance of the students in the school. Some dissatisfactions which appeared with less percentage fre- quency were: the necessity to discipline children; the methods employed in schools for making decisions on curriculum matters; and the amount of recognition given to teachers by non-educators and society as a whole. No differences were f0und between the more effective and the lesser effective, or between the more satisfied and the lesser satisfied on the basis of response to: l. influence patterns; 2. perception of other's satisfaction; 3. perceived assets and liabilities of building; 1Abbreviation for "Effective." 2Abbreviation fer "Satisfaction." 50 and 4. own expressed satisfaction with teaching: a. in the city; and b. the culturally disadvantaged. Although the teachers responding indicated some dissatisfaction with decision making methods, seventy-five per cent saw the principal as most influential, teachers as second, and parents as least effective in this process. Nevertheless, six per cent saw the teachers as the most influential, while thirteen per cent saw parents as possessing the most influence. The more effective, lesser effective, lesser satisfied, and total population were balanced between "Very well" and "Pretty well“ in their responses to the question: "How well do you feel most other teachers like this building as a place to work?" The more satisfied responded two to one in the "Very well" category. Only eighteen per cent replied, "Not too well," (most would prefer to teach elsewhere), and just two people stated that they planned to leave their particular building. The most evident asset of each building reinforced the satisfac- tion preference of principal and staff for being understanding, helpful, and sympathetic. They saw their schools as less pressured than other buildings. They perceived teaching in these schools as challenging; but, more significantly, they indicated a strong sense of being needed and of serving a useful function. This point was corroborated by their responses to the question: "Which class of people would you choose to work with and why?" Seventy-five per cent indicated that they would prefer to teach in low socio-econonfic schools. Their most prevalent reason was that they felt they were fulfilling an important need of society. 51 The major dissatisfaction as seen by all groups was that these children had so many problems teachers feund it difficult to know where to start or to find time to work with them. .These respondents also saw little change in behavior and the control of children as important fac- tors influencing teacher satisfaction. The children‘s arrogant, aggres- r‘ sive, noisy, or foul-mouthed behavior was recorded as least important of the areas questioned, along with the children themselves being slow, ir- responsive, and lacking in ability. The majority of teachers classified themselves in the second position as being satisfied, liking more things about teaching in their immediate situation than they disliked. Only eleven per cent responded that they were sonewhat dissatisfied, and 2.4 per cent indicated that they were not at all satisfied. Fifty-seven per cent of the group ques- tioned felt that teaching in a culturally disadvantaged school had af- fected them so positively that they now appreciated the importance of teaching, and thirty-one per cent responded that teaching in this area had exercised a positive influence to some extent. Seven per cent felt that their concept of teaching and satisfaction would.have been differ- ent had they worked in a different kind of school. No differences were therefore f0und to exist between groups as they responded to the satisfaction index and the satisfaction question- naire. There were, however, some dissatisfactions that ranked consis- tently high among all four groups. A summary of the study, conclusions, and recommendations drawn from the data analyzed in Chapter IV are contained in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Statement of the Problem In recent years education has been challenged with the problem ‘of selecting, preparing, and retaining teachers who can work effectively with a rapidly growing population of disadvantaged youth. The 1970 es- timates suggest that more than one-half of the youngsters in the coun- try's fifteen largest city school systems are disadvantaged. Speaking of the problem, Dean Harry Rivlin stated, It is clear the most imaginative superintendent and the most co- operative board of education can not solve the problems of urban education until the schools get an adequate staff of skilled and understanding teachers, and then make use of their abilities.1 In consequence, this study was designed to investigate certain persOnal- ity and satisfaction characteristics of elementary teachers working with disadvantaged youth. Related‘Literature In the past many studies have been made dealing with teacher personality, satisfaction, effectiveness, or the relationship between them. (Nevertheless, despite the critical importance of these 1Harry Passow, Education in De ressed Areas (San Francisco, CalifOrnia: Chandler PuEIisfiing Campany, 1965), p. 10. 52 53 characteristics of teachers and the abundance of research that has been perfbrmed, very little is known for certain about teacher personality and its relationship to teacher satisfaction and effectiveness. In a search of the literature, few studies were found that dealt with these relationships in teachers of low socio-economic youth. One dealt with the impact of race and poverty on teachers. Another dealt with social class composition and the attitudes and behaviors of teachers and admin- istrators. Still another concerned itself with teacher satisfaction in general, not with satisfaction in working with low socio-economic youth. Thus, the dearth of related material in the general literature desper- ately urged the examination of teacher personality and effectiveness in core urban schools. In his study of teacher effectiveness, A. S. Barr states, Personality "my be considered a factor in teacher effectiveness in somewhat the same way as scholastic proficiency, understand- ing of children, or verbal fluency. Whether one considers per- sonality as a factor in teacher effectiveness depends on how one conceives of personality and its relation to the means, goals, and processes of education. In any case the problem of person- ality assessment as it relates to effectiveness merits throught- ful consideration.2 Procedure The study utilized the participation of two-hundred-thirteen ele- mentary classroom teachers from eleven schools classified as primary target schools under the Elementary and Secondary School Act 9f_1965. Theirpersonality characteristics were measured by the Myers-Briggs Type 2A. S. Barr, gt al,, The Measurement and Prediction gf_Teacher Effectiveness (Madison, Wisconsin: Dunbar Publications, Inc., 1968), p. 117. 54 Indicator, which ascertains a person's basic preferences in regard to perception and judgment. Their satisfaction level was determined by the use of thirty-seven questions from two of the subtests of The School Socio-economic Status Study. Additional satisfaction data were obtained by the use of a separate satisfaction questionnaire, and effectiveness categories were determined by a ferced choice ranking of teachers by building principals on the basis of common criteria. Thus, the identi- fication of effectiveness categories and satisfaction levels provided the framework for subsequent comparison with personality types. On the personality type indicator it was necessary to compute the mean scores and frequencies of preference in order to establish a personality type profile. Furthermore, a chi-square test of significance was used to in- vestigate the relationship of personality to teacher effectiveness and satisfaction. The analysis of satisfaction factors was determined by the frequency of response to each item on the satisfaction question- naires. Summary of Findings Objective I. No significant differences were found in the domi- nant pattern between higher and lower effectiveness groups, but there were differences between schools on the dominant pattern of the Myggs; Briggs Indicator for each group. Judgmental orientation was the only factor which showed a consistently high frequency of preference fer all categories. Objective II. There were no between-school differences on the mean satisfaction score for: 1. More Effective; 2. Lesser Effective; 55 3. More Satisfied; 4. Lesser Satisfied; and 5. Total Population. There were, however, between-school differences in the number of more satisfied and lesser satisfied teachers. Nevertheless, no systematic differences were found on the Myers-Briggs profile on the basis of num- ber of satisfied and less satisfied teachers within a school. The judg- ment factor was again predominant f0r both satisfaction levels. When the categories of effectiveness and satisfaction were com- bined to form the four sub-categories; HEMS, HELS, LEMS, and LELS; no systematic differences on the Myers-Briggs profile were found to be sig- nificant. An analysis of personality type and of the variables of age and longevity resulted in almost identical data concerning effectiveness and satisfaction. There were differences between schools, differences with- in age and longevity categories, and a high percentage frequency for both groups toward the judgment type. One type pairing, thinking vs. feeling, developed an inverse order for both age and longevity. In this category, younger and less experienced teachers manifested a higher fre- quency of feeling type, while the older, more experienced teachers showed themselves to be thinking type. Consequently, on all factors relating to personality type pref- erence, no total patterns of personality type emerged on the Mygr§;_ Brigg§_profile that would distinguish one group from another. Individ- ual type patterns developed, however, for: 1. frequency of judgment types unifbrmly high on all groups; and 2. feeling and thinking types, and age and longevity. 56 Objective III-A. Objective III-A sought to test the relation- ship of personality type to the teacher who had been judged more effec- tive or lesser effective. No relationship was found to be significant in any of the eleven schools. Objective III-B. In objective III-B the relationship of person- E“ ality to the more satisfied and less satisfied categories of teachers 1 was examined. In only one school on the E-I preference was there a re- lationship greater than the .05 level of significance. Consequently, data regarding personality and satisfaction were considered to have no significant relationship. Furthermore, analysis of data reflecting the total population reinforced the conclusion that no relationship existed. When the sub-groups formed by the combination of effectiveness and satisfaction were examined, only two of the six pairings were sig- nificant at the .05 level. However, when the sub-groups were examined in a composite manner, only one personality type, sensing-intuition, reached the .10 level. There was thus no consistent evidence to support any relationship of personality type to effectiveness and satisfaction. Analysis of college degree and personality type gave rather weak support (.10) to the importance of the direction that age and thinking- feeling type had developed. A comparison of age and thinking-feeling type revealed a .01 level of significance, younger teachers displaying a feeling orientation and older teachers being thinking oriented. Age-Longevity-Degree and Effectiveness Analysis of the correspondence between age, longevity, and degree in relation to effectiveness revealed only the characteristic 57 of degree to have a significant relationship. A significance level of .05 was obtained between degree and effectiveness, but because of the small number in the population, these differences could not be said to be reliable. Objective IV. In this analysis, the data gave no evidence of relationship between teachers judged high or low in effectiveness and those indicating a high or low satisfaction level. Objective V. The goal of this objective was to examine the nature of satisfactions and dissatisfactions among teachers in economi- cally distressed schools. The data revealed no significant differences between groups in their responses to the items on the satisfaction ques— tionnaire. However, although no discriminatory patterns emerged between groups, some relevant patterns did develop which were common to all. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study and on the basis of the evidence of the data, the following conclusions seemed warranted: 1. *Teachers who were judged high in effectiveness in inner-city schools did not differ in personality type preference pattern and strength of preference from teachers in these schools judged low in effectiveness . 2. Teachers who indicated a higher level of satisfaction in inner-city schools did not differ in personality type preference and strength of preference from teachers who indicated a lower level of satisfaction in inner-city schools. '31 .' I17 H.-:. .12' 2' demor Hi ghe Satis Brioc PEFSC were "long tiven think ers u EXDer tween the p tWEEn Satis 58 3. Examination of the mean satisfaction scores between schools demonstrated that no significant differences occured among the: 1. Higher Effective; 2. Lower Effective; 3. More Satisfied; 4. Less Satisfied; and 5. Total Population. 4. Although there were no systematic differences on the Myers; Brigg§_profile in the effectiveness and satisfaction categories, certain personality types, such as sensing-judgment, manifested themselves that were generally indicative of the total population. 5. The personality type profile indicated that "age" and "longevity" had type classifications similar to those of the "effec- tiveness" and "satisfaction" categories, except in their ratings on the thinking-feeling orientation scale. Younger and less experienced teach- ers used "feeling" as a means of making judgments, while older and more experienced teachers used I'thinking" as a means of making judgments. 6. Analysis of data indicates that there is no relationship be- tween personality type as defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the principals' judgmental levels of effectiveness in inner-city schools. 7. Analysis of data indicates that there is no relationship be- tween personality type as defined on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and satisfaction levels as determined by teachers in inner-city schools. 8. Analysis of data indicates that there is no correlation be- tween those teachers judged high or low in effectiveness and those who profess a high or low level of satisfaction. 9. The data reveal that although no patterns were established which discriminated between the various groups on the satisfaction u‘) m . ‘ (- Wfl'_—' QUG WEE tio ted tha' song ins of ' to s 65( N30d 59 questionnaire, some important and relevant patterns did develop which were common to the total population. Implications Several implications concerning teacher personality and satisfac- tion may be drawn from the results of this investigation. Those submit- ted here are presented in the hope that they may be valuable in improv- ing teacher satisfaction and retention. The results of this study, and their interpretations, suggest that the assignment to a given school of teachers possessing varied per- sonality types might be considered a desirable practice. Interpretative instructions for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator suggest that a diversity of individual personality types might be mutually supportive. This is to say that two or more people having the same type preference pattern as defined by the test would probably use the same means of perceiving and making judgments, thus find themselves quite compatible. This would not necessarily mean, however, that they would make the best team, since in all probability they would be prone to make the same mistakes. When teachers have two or three of the four basic personality type prefer- ences in common, as evidenced in this study, such teachers have the po- tential to compensate for each other's limitations, thus supplementing one another and making in actuality a more effective team. Therefbre, the results of the study tend to reinforce Robert G. Owens' concept of organizational equilibrium in dealing with interpersonal relations and organizational behavior.1 1Robert G. Owen, Organizational Behavior in the Schools (Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1970), pp. 66-89. 60 A plausible interpretation of the above in terms of implications leads the investigator to conclude that this infOrmation should be use- ful to administrators, since it would strongly suggest the advisability of regularly scheduled planned sessions to maximize this inter-relation- ship between teachers of varying personality types and thus bring about more effective exercise of their professional skills and practices. Moreover, while there may have been a feeling in the past that homogene- ity of personality was essential to the successful functioning of a group of teachers, the findings of this study suggest the desirability of heterogeneity of personality characteristics in staff members working together. The judgments of the investigator resulting from this study tend to support the findings of Egerton, which conclude that the vast major- ity of teacher preparation programs are, at best, only marginally con- cerned with producing teachers equipped to teach in inner-city schools.2 In light of this, therefore, college curricula for teachers of disadvan- taged children should f0cus on the social and learning problems of inner- city youth. With this in mind, provisions should be made to examine, rethink, and redo the curricula for the teaching of educational person- nel around actual classroom activities, actual community-school rela- tions, and a variety of other experiences that characterize education as the disadvantaged experience it. Classroom exposure to minority prob- lems, to racial and ethnic cultures, and to human relations, and a move 2John Egerton, "Survey: A Lack of Preparation in the Colleges," Southern Education Report (April, 1967), quoted in Robert D. Strom, Ihg_ urban Teacher: Selection, Training, and Supervision (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill PuBlishing Company, 1971), p. 61. 61 from the survey approach in teacher education to a more practical diag- nostic approach are but a few ways of making the curriculum more rele- vant. What implications for teacher recruitment and placement arise from this study? Of particular importance is effective preparation for the job at hand. For example, teachers who expressed low levels of satisfaction and a desire to transfer to schools in outlying areas of the city found that their actual experiences did not match their expec- tations of job satisfaction. The scope and depth of the complex prob- lems they encountered were something they had not been prepared for. Thus, the school will have to take the initiative in developing new techniques to communicate the needs of the inner-city children to those preparing to work with them. Several ways to implement this might be: 1. Use teachers from inner-city schools to teach teacher can- didates. 2. Use teachers from inner-city schools to work with teachers from other schools in order to increase comprehension and understanding of the ghetto schools and thus, possibly, open new avenues for recruitment of teachers fer inner- city schools. 3. Develop new approaches for recognizing and acknowledging outstanding efforts and achievements in inner-city schools as a means of upgrading the general quality of education in these schools. The beneficial effects on staff morale of such recognition would do much to counteract the present defeatism so often found in these schools. Moreover, the personnel officer must go beyond traditional and academic criteria. The prospective teacher's willingness and commitment to work with children in low socio-econonfic schools must be assessed. Personality type data (if such data are available) should be examined 1‘ 110E313 vfldflj 62 with a view toward completing a staff organizational unit which would function well together, yet which would have the potential to supplement any differences that might exist. What is more, the candidate's amount and type of teaching experience and association with children from inner-city schools should provide a valuable index of potential success. "Additionally, the findings of this study and their interpretation sug- gest that priority be given to candidates who are older and more mature, as they seem to be more satisfied in inner-city schools. This suggests that the frequent practice in many large cities of assigning a high per- centage of newly hired and usually inexperienced teachers to inner-city ‘ schools can be seriously questioned in light of study data relative to the satisfaction factor. The personnel director needs to consider col- ‘lege experiences and special preparation in various aspects of sociology; cultures, history, and religion of minorities, group dynamics and dis- cipline, diagnostic and remedial techniques; and specialized studies in urban education. Furthermore, while the administrative structure f0r doing so would be open to some question, it nfight be most expedient if teams of inner-city teachers could assist in the screening of prospec- tive teachers. A further implication is to be feund in the subjective comments of a significant number of teachers in the study indicating their satis- faction with the knowledge that they, the teachers, had the support and encouragement of their principals. Therefore, if a desirable climate is to be established in schools, particularly in the inner cities, which seek to provide fuller job satisfaction, principals must express support of their teachers. nmts adequ Such l the 1 “U11191 tlnue 311991 and 1 Part- tiver 1009) Isach [Undi. 63 Still another implication of the study growing out of the com- ments of teachers deals with the importance to teacher satisfaction of adequate help in carrying out the multitudinous tasks of the classroom. Such necessary helps might include: 1. The use of para-professionals to free the teacher from less crucial duties so that her time could be better spent with student needs and problems. 2. The use of subject matter and other specialists in nusic, art, reading, body management, psychology; who would provide the in-depth and technical knowledge and assistance so often needed by classroom teachers, and thus reassure them and re- inforce their classroom positions and programs. 3. The provision of a wide range of instructional and other learning tools so that the teacher's efforts to meet widely varying individual needs of students could be facilitated. The above constitute the major implications to be derived from the results of the study. The complex and interrelated nature of the numerous factors involved in these results might be examined with con- tinued interest and benefit by the readers. Recommendations The findings of this study and their interpretation strongly suggest that several problems investigated here are deserving of further and deeper study. Furthermore, the trends demonstrated by the findings; particularly those which deal with the relationship of teacher effec- tiveness to college degree, age to satisfaction, and personality type index of thinking-feeling to longevity and age; might well be feund to reach statistical significance in a larger study. As the study shows, additional knowledge must be gained about conditions which cause teachers in inner-city schools to request 64 transfers or to leave teaching permanently. Follow-up studies of stu- dents graduating from institutions initiating programs to prepare teach- ers fer inner-city experience are needed to determine the appropriate- " ness of such instruction to their jobs. Research is also necessary which will determine the real value of para-professionals to classroom teachers and their students insofar as more effective teaching and learn- ing are concerned. Research is further needed to establish the amount and nature of knowledge and understanding required by classroom teachers about the communities in which they teach. For example, must teachers know about the life styles and problems of the family and the community? If the teacher is to establish effective communication and understanding, what aspects of this knowledge are.essential? Moreover, the investigator's contact with numerous teachers and "administrators during the period of this study, as well as his investi- gation of the literature, leads him to conclude that the reasons why teachers leave or request transfers from inner-city schools are of great importance and deserve continued study and analysis. These investiga- tions could, in turn, produce findings which would lead to the continued ’ improvement of teacher working conditions, would have the potential of providing greater teacher satisfaction and retention, and would ultimate— ly benefit the student. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Barr, A. 5., ed. Studies 9f_the Measurement and Prediction 9f_Teacher Effectiveness: A_Summary gjLInvestigation. *Madison, Wisconsin: Dunbar Publications, 96 . Barr, A. 5.; Worcester, 0. A.; Abell, A.; Beecher, C.; Jensen, L. E.; Peronto, A. L.; Ringness, T. A.; and Schmid, J., Jr. The_Meas- urement and Prediction gf_Teacher Effectiveness. Madison, Wis- consin: Dunbar Publications, 1968. Biddle, Bruce, and Ellena, William. Contemporary Research 9n_Teacher Effectiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964. Blackham, Garth J. One Deviant Child in_the Classroom. Belmont, Cali— f0rnia: WadsworthPuBlishing Company, Inc., 1967. Cutts, Norma E., and Moseley, Nicholas. Teachin the Disorderly Pupil. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 19 . Darley, Jean, and Hagenah, Theda. Vocational Interests Measurement: Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1953. Ebel, Robert L., ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. London: MacMillan Company Collier-MacMillan Limited, 4th edition; 1969. Gage, N. L., ed. Handbook of Research 99_Tea¢hing. Chicago: Rand McNally and Companyj—1963. Gordon, Margaret, ed. Povert in_America. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publis ing Company, 1965. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Public Schools. Education of Culturally Disad- vantaged Children. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 0ct0ber 1,11963. Harrington, Michael. The Other America. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1963. Havighurst, Robert J. Education in_Metrgpolitan Areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. 65 66 lerriott, Robert E., and St. John, Nancy Hoyt. Social Class epg_the_ Urban School. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., Jung, C. G. Psychological Types. London: Rutledge and Kegan, Paul, 1923. 4cGeoch, Dorothy M., e§_el, Learning tp_Teach jp_Urban Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 1965. 3assow, Harry A., ed. Education jp_Depressed Areas. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Rees, Helen E. Deprivation and Compensatory Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. 2iessman, Frank. The Culturally Deprived Child. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. {yans, D. G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, T96 . Shaftel, Fannie R., and Shaftel, George. Role Playing for Social Values: Decision Making ip_the Social Studies. Eng ewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice H311} Inc., 1967. ;impson, Ray H. Teacher Self-evaluation. New York: MacMillan Company, 1966. Smith, Louis M., and Geoffrey, William. The Complexities pflep_Urban Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968. :ullivan, George. The_Image pf_the Effective Teacher. New York: The Central School Study, Teachers College, C6lumbia University, 1962. 'iedt, Sidney W., ed. TeaChipg_the Disadvantaged Child. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. lrles, Kimball, ed. The Inner-City Classroom: Teacher Behaviors. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966. PERIODICALS matora, Sister Mary. "Similarity in Teachers' Personality," Journal 9]: Psychology, XXXVII (January, 1954), pp. 45-50. Are Teachers Satisfied with Their Working Conditions?" NEA Research Bulletin, XLVII (March, 1969), pp. 6-7. 0 f .- O‘- 3:; “.3. 1.": - s . "f ’1‘ V .k' :2: 5: .M ‘.I . .. .0 .1 I 1 67 Barr, A. S. "The Assessment of the Teachers' Personality," The School Review, LXVIII (1960), pp. 400-408. Becker, H. 5. "Social Class Variations in Teacher-Pupil Relationships," Journal pf_Educational Sociolpgy, XXV (1952), pp. 451-465. Carey, Robert D. "How to Select and Place Teachers," The American School Board Journal, CXXXIX (December, 1959), pp. 17-18. Edson, William H., and Davies, Don. "Selectivity in Teacher Education," 'Journal pf_Teacher Education, (September, 1960), pp. 326-334. "Evaluation of Teaching Competence," NEA Research Bulletin, XLVII (Octo- ber, 1969), pp. 67-74. Fisher, Duane 0. "Reducing Teacher Turnover," Michigan Educational Journal, XI (January, 1963), pp. 395-397. Gowan, J. C. "Self Report Tests in the Prediction of Teaching Effec- tiveness," School Review, LXVIII (1960), pp. 409-419. Graff, Patrick J. "Dissatisfaction in Teaching the Culturally Disadvan- taged Child, " Phi Delta Kappan, XLV (November, 1963), p. 76. Hamacheck, Don. "Characteristics of Good Teachers and Implications for Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan, I (February, 1969), pp. 341 -344. Lord, Robert, and Cole, David. "Principal Bias in Rating Teachers," The Journal of Educational Research, LV (September, 1961), pp. 33- 35. Riessman, Frank. "Teaching the Culturally Deprived, " NEA Journal, LII (April, 1963), pp. 20- 22. Riessman, Frank. "The Culturally Deprived Child: A New View," School Life, XLV (April, 1963), pp. 5-7. Ryans, David G.. "Problems in Identifying Effective Teachers," Growth, Teachipg, and Learning, New York: Harper and Brothers, 11957L pp. 538-545. Stout, Ruth A. "Selective Admissions and Retention Practices in Teacher Education," Journal pf_Teacher Education, (September, 1957), pp. 299-317. "Teacher Behavior and the Disadvantaged Child," Ohio Schools, XLVII (May 9, 1969), pp. 20-21. Tyler, Fred T. "Teachers' Personalities and Teaching Competencies," School Review, LXVIII (Winter, 1960), pp. 429- 449. 68 OTHER SOURCES Cook, Walter W. Construction pf_Teacher Attitude Inventogy Tests. A Report to the University of Minnesota, NCA Workshop. July 26, 1961. Hicks, William V. How Should the Work of Teachers Be Evaluated? A Re- port of Current Trends and Pradtices in TeaEher Appraisal. Prepared by School of Education, Michigan State College. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL McMillan, Joseph H. "The Influence of Caucasian Teachers on Negro and Caucasian Students in Segregated and Racially-Mixed Inner-City Schools,‘I unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1967. Mickerson, Donald H. "A Survey of the Distribution of Personality Types and Related Interests among Competent Teachers in Advantaged and Disadvantaged Settings," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1966. Von Haden, H. I. "An Evaluation of Certain Types of Personal Data Em- ployed in the Prediction of Teaching Efficiency," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1946. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF THE PREFERENCES OF EFFECTIVENESS AND SATISFACTION CATEGORIES 69 v.5N Rm.mm «.mm Nu.¢o m.o~ fim.mv o.wH NH.nm vp swsommh umwmmwpmm memm4 “.mH &m.~¢ m.mm NH.nm o.mH N¢.N¢ o.- RH.~m 4H gmcowmh umwmmwpmm mgoz o.nH &m.vH o.o~ an.mm o.mH &m.mm ¢.aH &¢.Pn n gmcucmh o>Huummmu gaze; o.mm xm.mm m.mH &¢.Hm m.- N¢.N¢ m.m~ Nr.mm m gmcummh m>wpummmm Locmw: m.mH wm.mm N.om Nm.om n.wH xm.~¢ o.om N~.nm mm :OHHmpzawa Punch 0 Aoozum o.mH &m.Hm n.m~ Rn.mm m.mH ww.me ¢.n~ fim.mm m— ngommh umwmmwumm memmH o.o~ mm.w~ N.mm xv.—u m.mH Rm.wm ¢.N~ xv.Hn «H gmgumoh cwmeHpmm mgoz 0.5 &¢.mm o.mm am.mm o.m~ xn.mm o.uH wm.mm m gmgommh m>vuummmm gmzog m.om No.00 o.mH xo.o¢ o.m xo.o¢ m.mH $0.0m m ngummh w>wpummmm Logow: ¢.mH xo.om ¢.¢~ xo.on o.mH Nu.mm m.mH xm.mm om newumyzmoa HmHOh m Hoozum o.mN 44.44 m.mH 44.mm 0.4 44.44 H.mm 4m.mm m aaeuaoe eaHLmemm Lemmas o.mm xo.o¢ m.mH &o.oo n.m $0.0m o.¢N go.o¢ m succumb vmwmmwpwm mgoz o.m xo.om o.mH $0.0m N.n No.mm o.Hm xo.mm w stommh m>wuowmmm gmon N.Hm &o.mn o.H xo.mm o.m No.mm n.mH No.mn v gmcummp w>muuommm memw: m.mm xm.mw o.mH &H.nm m.m Nu.vm v.NN Rm.mm v— cowpmpzaom Hmpoh < Hoozum 28m 4. 28m .4. 28m .4. 28m x z :32 m cam: H :82 u cam: 2L8. mLE. H.3m m.S$ 8583.5 mocmgmmwé 3:28ng 8:05.42; 70 N NH.nm m.NN Nm.N¢ m.mH Nu.¢m ¢.NH xm.mm «H gmgomoh umwmmwpom Lemme; &¢.HN H.Nm gm.mn m.mH Nm.~n o.oH Rm.mN «— Lwcommh umwmmwpmm use: Nm.¢— m.mN Nu.mm n.mH Nm.Nv o.m— NH.mm n gmsumwh m>Hpow$mm gmon N No.wN o.mN N¢.Hn o.mH &¢.—n o.mN N¢.NN n gmzommh m>wpowmmm gmgmw: H Nm.mm ¢.om xn.om w.¢H Nm.nm —.¢H NH.Nm NN cowpmpzaoa Hench u Hooxum N Nm.nm w.mm Rm.Nm m.0N NN.mm m.m xm.m¢ oH Lugommh vmwmmwpmm meme m NN.N N.mm Nw.Nm w.mH xw.mm ¢.HH NN.¢© e— gmcommh umwmmwpmm «Lo: &¢.mm o.MN xm.mm o.HH N¢.mm o.m— am.mw m Lugowmh m>wpuow$m LszA No.o w.mm No.00H o.NN No.0v m.NN No.0m m gmnummh m>wpum$$m ngmw: N Nm.MN ¢.mm Nu.mn o.mH Nn.m¢ w.oH Nm.mm om cowpmHamom Hugo» m Hooxum o.mm NN.NN m.MN NN.~N n.mH xm.mm n.m~ Rm.mm m gmcummb umwmmwpmm memmH o.nm No.0N o.mm No.0w o.HN No.o¢ m.NN No.om m succumb umwkmwpmm mLoz o.n¢ No.mN n.mN No.mn o.wN No.9m o.mH No.om v Lugommp m>wuumwmm gaze; 0.5m No.mN o.mN No.mn o.mH No.om o.mN No.0m v smsuwmh m>wuumm$m Lugmw: N.Hm Nm.HN N.vm &¢.Nm o.NH N~.mm o.mH N¢.Nv v— coHpmHzmom Hmpop < Hoozum «Loom N mcoum N mgoum x meoom N a cam: a cam: a new: H cum: a S.+ H. S.+ n. .84 ._. .84 mocogmmoga mucmgmemgm mucmgmmmga mucmgmemga 71 0.4 40.00 0.00 40.04 0.0 40.0 0.04 40.004 0 0000004 004404000 000000 0.40 40.44 0.00 40.00 0.04 44 00 4.44 40 00 0 0000004 004404000 0000 0.44 44.04 0.00 40.00 0.04 44.00 0.00 40.00 0 0000004 044000440 00000 0.0 40.0 0.04 40.004 0.0 40.0 0.0 40.004 4 0000004 0>4000440 000040 0.44 40.44 4.00 44.00 4.04 44.00 4.04 40.04 44 0040040000 40004 0 000000 0.44 40.00 0.0 40.04 0.00 40.04 0.00 40.00 4 0000004 004404000 000000 4.40 40.40 0.40 40.00 0.0 40.00 0.04 40.00 0 0000004 004404400 0000 0.40 40.00 0.44 40.04 0.0 40.00 0.40 40.00 4 0000004 0>4000440 00000 0.0 40.00 0.04 40.00 0.00 40.04 0.04 40.00 0 0000004 044000440 000040 0.00 40.00 0.04 44.00 4.44 40.00 0.04 44.44 04 0040040000 40004 0 000000 0.00 40.00 0.04 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0 0000004 004404000 000000 0.00 40.04 0.00 40.40 4.04 40.40 0.00 44.04 44 0000004 004404000 0000 0.0 40.0 4.40 40.004 0.04 40.00 0.44 44.00 0 0000004 044000440 00000 0.00 40.00 0.04 44.00 0.40 40.00 0.0 44.00 0 0000004 0>4000440 000040 0.00 40.40 0.00 44.00 0.04 44.00 4.40 40.44 04 0040040000 40404 0 000000 0.4on 4 0.080 4 0.080 4 003m 4 z :00: m :00: H :00: m .0002 008. 008. H08. 003. 00000004000 0000.00.40.00 0000004000 0000004040 72 0.0 40.40 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.04 40.00 0 0000004 004004000 000000 0.04 40.00 0.04 44 00 0.00 44.00 4.44 40.00 0 0000004 004404000 0000 0.00 40.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 44.00 0.4 40.00 0 0000004 004000040 00000 0.0 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.44 40.00 0.0 40.00 4 0000004 004000000 000040 4.04 40.00 4.00 44.40 4.04 40.00 4.44 40.44 44 0040000000 40004 0 000000 0.04 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.04 40 04 0.4 40.00 4 0000004 004004000 000000 0.44 40.00 0.04 40.00 0.00 40 04 0.44 40.00 0 .0000004 004404400 0000 0.00 40.00 0.40 40.00 0.04 40.04 0.4 40.00 4 0000004 004000440 00000 0.0 40.04 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.44 40 04 0 0000004 004000440 000040 0.04 40.00 0.00 40 00 4.04 40.04 4.0 40.00 04 0040040000 40004 0 000000 0.40 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.04 40.00 0 0000004 004404000 000000 0.04 40.04 4.00 40.40 0.04 40.40 0.04 44.04 44 0000004 004004000 0000 0.0 40.0 4.04 40.004 0.40 40.00 0.00 44.00 0 0000004 004000000 00000 0.0 40.00 0.04 44.00 0.44 40.00 0.04 44 00 0 0000004 0>4000000 000040 4.00 40.40 0.00 44.00 0.40 44.00 0.04 40.44 04 . 0044040000 40404 0 000000 00000 4 00000 4 00000 4 00000 4 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 4 0000 0. LOL. n0 LOL. “— Lom ._. Low, 0000004000 0000004000 0000004000 0000004000 73 N.N~ $0.~N N.m~ $~.Nn m.m— $0.0m F.0N $0.0m my gmzowmh vmwwmwpmm memmg m.- $m.mm m._m $m.N0 0.0m $m.nm ¢.np $m.~m 0F Lmsommh 0mw$mmpmm mgoz 0.0 $0.0 N.0¢ $0.00F m.0F $0.0m 0.mm $0.0m m gmzummh m>wpomm+m gmzbq 0.0? $0.00 0.F $0.0m 0.m $0.0m 0.m~ $0.0m m gmcummh m>wpumwmm gmzmw: _.N_ $¢.Nm o.om $0.50 N.$_ NP.¢¢ N.m_ Nm.mm em gawp~_=mm¢ _mp0P H 400:0m 0.0 $0.0 0.0m $0.00~ 0.0F $N.nm 0._F $m.~v n Locommh vmwmmwumm memmA 0.m~ $n.0~ w.n~ $m.mm m.~m $5.00 0.00 $m.mm 0 gmzomwh vmwmmwpmm «go: 0.0 $0.0 0.~m $0.00— m.0m $0.mn 0.P $0.0m w smgommh w>wuomwmm Lw304 0.0 $0.0 m.mm $0.00_ 0.mp $0.mN n.0N $0.mn v meummh m>wpummmm Lucmw: 0.NN $$.n m.0~ $m.Nm 0.0m $m._0 m.np $m.mm mF cowam—zaom prOH I 400:0m m.—~ $0.0m 0.0m $v.mv N.NN $5.00 m.0~ $m.0m FF Lugommh umwwmwpmm gamma; 0.0— $0.00 0.—N $0.00 0.— $0.0N 0.~m $0.00 m gmgumwh uwm$mwumm mgoz 0.0m $0.0m 0.0m $0.0m 0.—N $0.0N n.~m $0.mn v Lugowwh m>wpommmm Lm304 0.0 $0.0 m.n~ $0.00~ n.m_ $0.mn 0.~ $0.mm e stommh m>wpomm$m Lwcmw: 0.0F $0.0m 0.0m $0.0m 0.0m $0.0m m.mm $0.0m 0P newuszaoa Fmpoh 0 400:0m «Loom $ wgoum $ wgoom $ mgoom $ z :3: m :32 H :3: m :82 z .8 m 3., H 3., m .5 mocmgmmmé mocflmmmé 3:232; 8:882“. 74 $$.m_ N.mN Rm.mm Rm.mm ¢.N_ $_._m m_ Lugommp umwmmwpmm memmA Rm.m_ m.o~ $N._m Nm.mm $.NN Rm.Nm m_ gmcomm» umwmmwpmm mgoz $0.9 m.o~ $o.oo~ $0.0m o.o~ $0.o¢ m .mgummh m>wuumm$m gmch $o.o m.Pm No.0ofi $0.ov $.m_ $o.om m ngommh o>wpumm$m .mcmwz $m.N~ o.m~ $¢.Nm $0.0m N.m_ $o.om em cowpm_=aoa .mpOH H Aoozom $o.m~ N.m_ $¢._N Rm.mm ¢.__ $¢.~$ N gmzummk nmwmmwumm memmg $m.mm o.¢¢ $5.mm Nu.mm o.m_ xm.mm o .mgommp umwmmwpmm «Lo: $o.mm $.$_ $o.m~ $0.0m o.$F No.om ¢ .msummp m>wpuo$.m L¢3¢4 No.mm “.mm No.m$ No.mm n.m_ No.m$ q Lwcommh m>rpum$$m ngmw: Rm.om o.mm Nm.mm $N.me m.m_ $m.mm m_ co_me=gm¢ .maop I 4oo=um $N.m_ m.¢~ Rm._m Nm.mm m.~F $¢.mm __ gmgomoh new»mwpmm gwmmw4 $0.0m o.~m $0.0m xo.om o.¢_ No.o¢ m gmgummp umwymwpmm «so: $o.o o.m~ No.oo_ $o.mm m.o~ $0.m$ e .mgomwp m>_pum$.m LszA $0.o m.m~ $o.oo_ No.mm o.m $o.m$ w gmcuwmk m>wpummmm nguwz Nu.w_ m.m~ $m._m $$.m¢ m.- Nm.mm m_ cow»m_=gom _up0h u Acozom «Loom $ mgoum $ «Loom $ «Loom $ a com: 0 cum: 0 cam: h cam: n— Lo.._. m. Lo.._. ..._ Low. ._. LOL. mucmgmmmgm mucmgmngm mocmsmmmga mucogommga 75 0.0m $0.00 0.00 $5.00 0.mm $m.NN 5.0F $5.55 0 smsummh umwwmwpwm memm4 m.0~ $5.00 0.m~ $0.00 0.mN $0.00 N.0N $0.00 0 gmsommh umwmmwpmm ego: 0.0m $0.00 0.0m $0.00 0.0m $0.0m 0.NN $0.00 0 Lugowmh m>wpommmm Lm304 0.0 $0.00 5.5N $0.00 0.m~ $0.0m 0.0m $0.00 0 smcummh o>w¢umm+m gmsmw: m.NN $0.9m m.m~ No.0m N.N~ 0m.mm m.FN $$.om m cowpm_amam _~yop x 400100 5.0m $0.N0 0.0 $N.50 0.0~ $N.50 5.0m $0.~0 5 stomwh umwmmwpmm memmA 0.0 $0.0m 0.0 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 smnuuwp waymwpmm wgoz 0.0F $m.mm 0.0— $5.00 0.5F $5.00 0.5m $0.00 0 gmsommk m>wpomwmm gmzoA 0.0 $0.0m 0.0 $5.00 0.0F $0.00 0.5m $5.00 0 gmgumwh w>wpummmm gmzmw: m.m~ xm.mm m.m $$.mw N.mp $o.om m.m~ No.om N cowpm_:aom _mp0F 0 400100 mgoom $ ogoom $ «Loom $ ogoum $ 2 cum: 0 cam: H com: 0 com: 2:8. 0:8. H.3m 0L8. 8:238; 3:282; 3:232; 8:238; 76 N.0N $0.00 0.0F $0.00 5.00 $0.00 5.0? $5.00 0 Lucomm5 nmwmmwpmm memm4 0.5_ $0.00 0.0m $0.00 0.NN $0.00 0.0_ $0.00 0 Locummh vwwwmwpm0 ago: 0.00 $0.00 5.Fm $0.00 0.0— $0.0m 0.0F $0.00 0 ngummh m>wpomwmm Lm304 0.0P $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0.FN $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 gmsommh m>wpuwm$0 Lw10w1 N.mm $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0P $0.00 0 cowpm~zaoa FmpOP 1 400100 0.0m $0.0m 0.5m $0.~5 0.00 $0.50 0.00 $0.00 5 gmcowmh 0mw%mwumm memm4 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00~ 0.0_ $0.00 5.—N $0.00 0 gmcummh 0mw$mwpmm mgoz 0.0 $0.0 0.0m $0.00~ 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $5.00 0 gmcommh m>wuummmw Lm304 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0P $0.00 0.0_ $5.00 0 gwcummh w>wpuom$0 L9.10.5 o.mN 0N.m_ m.om 0m.mm o.- $o.om m.mN $0.om N gawpm_=goa _m00h 0 400100 ogoum $ mgoum $ agoom $ mgoom $ a cum: 0 cum: 0 new: h cum: 0 go» 0 Low 1 000 p Low mocmgmmogm mucmgwmmgm mucmgm$mgm mocmgmwmga APPENDIX B FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF THE PREFERENCES BY AGE 77 “a..nw= ,;@m$ 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $5.0_ 0.0m $0.00 0 n 00 0.0~ $m.NN «.mp $5.55 0.0~ $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.—N $0.00 0.5— $0.00 0.0_ $5._0 0.5_ $0.00 N— 00 u 00 mum 0 400100 0.50 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.FN $0.00 0 a 00 0.—m $0.00 0.0F $5.55 0.00 $0.00 0.~N $5.55 0 00 u 00 0.0F $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0.0~ $0.00 0.0— $0.00 0F 00 u om mod 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.0— $0.00— 0.NF $0.00_ 0.0 $0.0 N u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.~_ $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0_ $0.00 .0 00 u 00 5.0F $0.50 0.~— $0.00 0.0 $N.50 0.5m $0.~0 5 00 u 0N 0% < 400100 mgoum $ mgoum $ mgoom $ mgoom $ 2 com: 0 20¢: H cum: 0 com: 2 Lem 0 gay mucmgmkmga mocogm$msa mocmgowmga mocmgmmmga 78 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 u 00 0.50 $N.—_ 0.50 $0.00 0.—_ $0.00 0.5~ $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.0_ $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.~F $0.00 0.0F $0.00 N— 00 u 00 m3. 0 400100 040 $0.0 0.0m $0.00H 0._ $5.0— 0.N~ $0.00 0 u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $5.55 0.0_ $0.00 0.0p $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.5— $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0_ 00 u 00 $0 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00~ 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 u 00 0.50 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.F5 0.PN $5.50 0.5p $0.0— 5 00 u 00 M3 < 400100 mgoom $ «$000 $ mgoum $ mgoum $ 0 com: 0 com: 0 cam: H cum: 0 Lo0 0 Low 1 Low H 00% mucmgmmwgm mucmgmmmgm mucmgmmmga mocmgmmogm J: ..1...-. ll...” 55..., L. j . .1 , 79 0.0 $0.41 0.00 $5.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0._.5 5 u 00 0.0 $0.0 0.0— $0.00_. 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 00 .. 00 0.00 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0.0 $0.0 0.0— $0.00— 0 00 .. 00 No.0 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.00— 0._F $0.00_ 0.0 $0.0 _ - 00 0.00 $0.00 0.2 $0.: 0.: $0.00 0.0_ $_..50 5 00 .. 00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.2 $0.05 0.3 $0.00 0 00 u 00 No.0 0 400100 0.0_ $0.00 0.0.. $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 n 00 0.00 $0.00 0.0p $0.: 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $045 5 00 .. 00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.00 $0.00 0.50 $0.50 0 00 .. 00 000 0 400100 mgoom $ mgoom $ «1000 $ mgoum $ 2 cum: 0 cum: 0 cam: m cum: 2 Low 0 Low mocmgmymgm mucmgmmoga mocmgommga mucmgmmmga 80 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.~5 0.0 $0.00 0.5F $0.~5 u 00 0.5F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0._F $0.00 00 u 00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0._— $0.0op 0.0 $0.0 00 n 00 Mad 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00~ 0.0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 u 00 0.0_ $0.00 0.00 $~.50 0.5? $F.50 0.0 $0.00 00 a 00 0.5_ $0.05 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00_ 0.0 $0.0 00 u 00 mad 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.0up 0.00 $0.00— 0.0 $0.0 u 00 0.50 $0.00 0.50 $0.~5 0.0— $0.00 0.5— $0.F5 00 a 00 0.00 $0.50 0.00 $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0.5 $0.00 00 n 00 MS 0 400100 mgoum $ mgoum $ mgoom $ mgoum $ a cam: 0 :mm: 0 cam: P cam: 0L8. 0L8. 0.8% mucmgommgm mocmgmmmga mucmgmwmga mucmgmmwga 81 0.5 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 o.5_ $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0 - 00 0.05 $0.00 0.00 $0._5 o.5_ $_.50 0.00 $m.~0 5 m0 . mm 0.00 $0.50 0.00 $5.05 0.0_ $0.00 0.5_ $0.00 00 00 - 00 a0 H 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.05 $0.005 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 N - 00 0.50 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 m.m0 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0 m0 - mm 0.0 $0.0 0.0m $o.oo_ 0.0_ $0.00 o.m_ $0.00 0 0m - 00 am 1 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.005 o.—N $0.00 0.5 $0.00 N u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0._m $0.00 0 m0 . 00 0.0F $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0.0~ $0.00 0.00 $0.00 a 0m - 00 m3 0 400100 mgoum $ «Loom $ mgoum $ mgoom $ 2 sum: 0 com: H cum: 0 com: 2 gem 0 Lo; H Lam mucmgm$wga mocmgmmogm mocmgm$mga mocmgmwmga 82 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 u 00 0.P $0.05 0.0? $5.00 0.00 $0.~5 0.00 $0.00 5 00 n 00 0.0— $0.00 5.00 $0.55 0.0— $0.00 5.0F $0.00 00 00 u 00 03. H 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.~0 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0 u 00 0.~_ $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.05 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0~ $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 00 m3 1 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00_ 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00_ 0 u 00 0.—0 $0.00 0.50 $0.00 0.0_ $0.00 0.0P $0.00 0 00 n 00 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $5.55 0.0 $0.00 0.5 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0mm 0 400100 «Loom $ «Loom $ mgoum $ «Loom $ a cum: 0 sum: 0 cam: 5 cum: a gem 0 Low mocmgmmmgm mocmgmmoga mucogokmga mocmgmymga 83 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F u 00 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.F0 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0 00 n 00 F.00 $0.00 0.F0 $5.F0 0.F0 $5.0F 0.F0 $0.00 0F 00 u 00 0% 1 100100 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.05 0.0F $0.05 0.50 $0.00 0 n 00 0.0F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F F 00 u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0% 0 400100 mgoum $ msoum $ mgoum $ mgoum $ 2 sum: 0 cam: F cum: 0 saw: 2L8. 0&8. ng. 0&8. mocmgmmmga mucogm$mgm mocmgmmmgg mocmgmmmsm 84 EM... \....l..fMl1 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0 0.0F $0.00F F u 00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 00 u 00 0.F0 $0.00 0.F0 $5.F0 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0F 00 n 00 0% 1 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0 u 00 0.0 $0.0 0.F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.50 $0.00F F 00 u 00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 00 u 00 mad 0 400100 880 $ .280 $ 380 $ 280 $ 5 :52 F. :52 5 52 F :5: a 505 355525 855555 35555 35555 APPENDIX C FREQUENCY AND MEAN STRENGTH OF THE PREFERENCES BY LONGEVITY 85 0.F0 $0.00 0.5F $0.05 0.F $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0 00 u 0F 0.5 $0.00 0.50 $0.50 0.F0 $0.50 0.5F $0.00 5 0F n 0 0.00 $0.50 0.0F $0.00 0.5F $0.50 0.0F $0.00 0F 0 n F mgoo> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 0F 0.00 $0.00 0.F0 $0.F5 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.F5 5 0F u 0 0.00 $0.00 5.00 $0.05 0.00 $5.F0 F.0F $0.00 0F 0 n F mgmw> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.0F $0.00F 0.0F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 50 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.FF $0.00F 5.0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 0Fu0 0.00 $0.00 0.FF $0.50 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 0 n F mgmm> < 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ ogeem $ 2 new: 0 new: H cum: 0 new: 2 gem 0 gem H gem 0 gem 85555 855055 35555 85555 11......r I... O- s»... It! 86 0.0 $0.00 0.50 $0.05 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 00 . 0F 0.5F $0.00 0.0F $0.F5 0.0F $0.00 0.FF $0.50 5 0F u 0 F.0F $5.00 5.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.F0 0F 0 n F mgmm> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0F $0.00F 0 00 u 0F 0.00 $0.0F 0.F0 $5.00 0.0F $5.00 0.0 $0.0F 5 0F u 0 0.00 $5.F0 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $5.F0 0.FF $0.00 0F 0 n F mgmm> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0 0F u 0 0.F0 $0.50 0.00 $0.00 0.F0 $0.05 0.00 $0.00 0 0 n F mgww> < 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ 5 com: 0 new: 5 com: F cemz 5 gem 0 gem 5 gem F gem oecwgmmmg5 oecmgmmog5 mecmgmmmg5 mecmgmmmga 87 0.0 $0.0H 0.00 $0.50 0.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.05 0 00 - mF 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 0F - m 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.F5 0.5 $0.00 0.0F $0.F5 5 0 . F mgmw> 5 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.00F 0.FF $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0 00 - mF 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 0F . m 0.00 $0.50 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.50 0.00 $0.00 5 0 n F mgmm> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 00 I mF 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 0F . F 0.50 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 FF 0 . F mgmm> 0 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ 2 emu: 0 cam: H new: 5 :55: z gem 0 gem. meemgmmmg5 mecmgwmmg5 meemgmmmg5 eecmgmmmg5 88 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.FF $0.00 0.0F $0.05 0 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 0F u 0 0.0F $0.50 0.50 $0.00 0.F0 $5.00 0.0 $0.0F 5 0 n F mgem> 5 400100 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.5F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 00 u 0F 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.5 $0.00 0 0F n 0 0.0F $0.50 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.F5 0.FF $0.00 5 0 n F mgem> 0 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.50 $0.00F 0.0F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0 0F u m 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.00 FF 0 n F mgmw> 0 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ 5 gem: 5 new: 5 new: F cum: 5 gem m gem oecmgmmmg5 mecmgmmmg5 meemgmmog5 mecmgmmmg5 j 3, if $1 -I.F 89 ...u“lfi.l . h r—‘ H‘ 0.5 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0.FF $0.00 0 00 u 0F 0.0F $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0 0F u 0 0.5F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.5F $0.00 00 0 n F mgmm> H 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.00F F 00 . 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.F0 $0.90F 0.0 $0.0 0 0F u m 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0F $0.00 0.F0 $0.50 5 0 n F mgem> 1 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.F $0.00F F 00 u 0F 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0 0F u 0 0.5F $0.00 0.00 $0.F0 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.F0 0F 0 s F mgem> 0 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ 2 cum: 0 sea: H gem: 0 cemz z gom mecmgmmmg5 mecmgmmog5 mecmgmmog5 mecmgmmmg5 5.3 90 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.00 $0.00F 0 0F u 0 0.0F $0.00 0.0F $0.05 0.5F $0.00 0.5F $0.00 00 0 n F mgmmF H 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0F $0.00F F 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.00 $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0 0F a 0 0.0 $0.00 0.F0 $0.F5 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.50 5 0 n F mgemF 1 400100 0.0 $0.0 0.50 $0.00F 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.50 $0.00F 0.5 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0 0F . 0 0.0 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0.0F $0.F0 F.00 $0.00 0F 0 n F mgmmF 0 400100 wgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ wgeem $ 5 new: 0 new: 5 :55: F :55: 5 gem mecmgemwg5 mecogmmmg5 mecmgmmmg5 mecmgmmwg5 91 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 F 00 u 0F 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0 0F u 0 0.00 $0.00 F.00 $0.00 0.00 $F.00 0.F0 $0.05 0F 0 n F mgeo> 1 400100 0.0 $0.00 0.F $0.00 0.5F $0.00 0.50 $0.00 F 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.00F 0.0F $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 0F u 0 0.F0 $0.00 0.0 $0.05 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.05 0 0 n F mgemF 0 400100 mgeem $ ogeem $ mgeem $ ogeem $ 2 cum: 0 cemz H new: 0 new: 0 gem mecmgmmmg5 wecmgmmmg5 meemgmmmg5 mecmgmmmg5 92 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $0.0 0.0F $0.00F F 00 . 0F 0.F0 $0.00 0.F0 $0.00 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 0F u 0 0.0F $0.00 0.00 $0.00 F.00 $0.00 0.0F $0.00 0F 0 n F mgem> 1 400100 0 00 u 0F 0.0 $0.0 0.50 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0.F0 $0.00F 0 0F n 0 0.00 $0.00 0.F0 $0.05 0.00 $0.00F 0.0 $0.0 0 0 n F mgem> 0 400100 mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ mgeem $ 5 gem: 0 gem: 5 gem: F gem: 5 gem 0 gem 5 gem F gem megmgmmmg5 megmgmmmg5 megmgmmmg5 megmgmmmg5 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN PERSONALITY TYPES AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 93 Original Corrected Significance Persona1ity Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Leve1 SCHOOL A Tota1 N=8 Higher Effective N=4 Lesser Effective N=4 Extrovert-Introvert 2.00000 0.50000 .50 Sensing-Intuition 0.53333 0.00000 -- Fee1ing-Thinking 0.00000 0.00000 -- Judgment-Perception 0.00000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL B Tota1 N=8 Higher Effective N=5 Lesser Effective N=3 Extrovert-Introvert 0.53333 0.00000 -- Sensing-Intuition 0.53333 0.00000 .-- Fee1ing-Thinking 0.03556 0.32000 .70 Judgment-Perception 1.90476 0.07619 .80 SCHOOL C Tota1 N=14 Higher Effective =7 Lesser Effective N=7 Extrovert-Introvert 0.31111 0.00000 -- Sensing—Intuition 0.42424 0.00000 -- Fee1ing-Thinking 1.16667 0.29167 .70 Judgment-Perception 0.42424 0.00000 -- SCHOOL 0 Tota1 N=6 Higher Effective N=3 Lesser Effective N=3 Extrovert-Introvert 0.00000 0.00000 -- Sensing-Intuition 1.20000 0.00000 -- Fee1ing-Thinking 0.00000 0.00000 -- Judgment-Perception 1.20000 0.00000 -- SCHOOL E Tota1 N=9 Higher Effective N=5 Lesser Effective N=4 Extrovert-Introvert 0.09000 0.14063 .80 Sensing-Intuition 0.03214 0.39375 .70 Fee1ing-Thinking 0.22500 0.05625 .90 Judgment-Perception 0.09000 0.14063 .80 One degree of freedom Corrected chi-square by Yates correction formu1a ‘* Denotes .05 Leve1 of Significance 94 Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level SCHOOL F Total N=10 Higher Effective N=4 Lesser Effective N=6 Extrovert-Introvert 4.44444 2.10069 .20 Sensing-Intuition 0.74074 0.04630 .90 Feeling-Thinking 0.27778 0.01736 .90 Judgment-Perception 0.27778 0.01736 .90 SCHOOL 0 Total N=8 Higher Effective N=4 Lesser Effective N=4 Extrovert-Introvert 2.00000 0.50000 .50 Sensing-Intuition 2.66667 0.66667 .50 Feeling-Thinking 0.00000 0.00000 .-- Judgment-Percention 0.00000 0.00000 .-- SCHOOL H Total N=8 Higher Effective N=4 Lesser Effective N=4 Extrovert-Introvert. 2.00000 0.50000 .50 Sensing-Intuition 0.00000 0.00000 .-- Feeling-Thinking 0.53333 0.00000 .-- Judgment-Perception 0.00000 0.00000 .-- SCHOOL I Total N=10 Higher Effective N=5 Lesser Effective N=5 Extrovert-Introvert 3.60000 1.60000 .30 Sensing-Intuition 6.66667 3.75000 .10 Feeling-Thinking 0.40000 0.00000 .-- Judgment-Perception 0.00000 0.00000 .-- SCHOOL J Total N=6 Higher Effective N=3 Lesser Effective N=3 Extrovert-Introvert 0.66667 0.00000 .-- Sensing-Intuition 0.00000 0.00000 .-- Feeling-Thinking 0.00000 0.00000 .-- Judgment-Perception 0.00000 0.00000 .-- 95 Corrected Chi-Square Significance Leve1 Original Personality Types Chi-Square SCHOOL K Total N=10 Higher Effective N=5 Extrovert-Introvert 0.00000 Sensing-Intuition 0.00000 Feeling-Thinking 3.60000 Judgment-Perception 2.00000 Lesser Effective 0.00000 ' 0.00000 1.60000 0.41600 .30 N 5 Jun .3. .7... '1 J 1 t APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF CHI—SQUARE TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN PERSONALITY TYPES AND LEVELS OF TEACHER SATISFACTION J 11..-;nt -04 ._ -_ 96 Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level SCHOOL A Total N=14 More Satisfied N=5 Less Satisfied N=9 Extrovert-Introvert 0.06222 0.11062 .30 Sensing-Intuition 0.02593 0.16204 .70 Feeling-Thinking 0.93333 0.16204 .70 Judgment-Perception 0.00943 0.33939 .70 SCHOOL B Total N=30 More Satisfied N=14 Less Satisfied N=l6 Extrovert-Introvert 0.74077 0.23133 .70 Sensing-Intuition 0.02551 0.05740 .90 Feeling-Thinking 1.26515 0.57576 .50 Judgment-Perception 3.84649 2.33668 .20 SCHOOL C Total N=28 More Satisfied N=14 Less Satisfied N=14 Extrovert-Introvert 0.00000 0.00000 -- Sensing-Intuition 0.14973 0.00000 ~- Feeling-Thinking 0.16374 0.00000 .-- Judgment-Perception 3.74331 2.39572 .20 SCHOOL D Total N=19 More Satisfied N=11 Less Satisfied N=8 Extrovert-Introvert 0.03838 0.07257 .80 Sensing-Intuition 2.17016 0.94737 .80 Feeling-Thinking 0.03838 0.07257 .80 Judgment-Perception 2.17016 0.94737 .80 SCHOOL E Total N=12 More Satisfied N=8 Less Satisfied N=4 Extrovert-Introvert 0.68571 0.04286 .70 Sensing-Intuition 0.18750 0.04687 .90 Feeling-Thinking 0.00000 0.02976 .90 Judgment-Perception 0.00000 0.00000 .-- Die degree of freedom Corrected chi-square by Yates correction fermula 1* Denotes .05 Level of Significance 97 Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level SCHOOL F Tota1 N=l7 More Satisfied N=9 Less Satisfied N=8 Extrovert-Introvert 8.24242 5.58170 .02* Sensing-Intuition 0.56217 0.01265 .80 Feeling-Thinking 0.48517 0.04132 .90 Judgment-Perception 0.03220 0.10822 .80 SCHOOL G Total N=16 More Satisfied N=5 Less Satisfied N=ll Extrovert-Introvert 2.61818 1.16364 .30 Sensing-Intuition 0.29091 0.00000 .-- Feeling-Thinking 0.78038 0.11544 .80 Judgment-Perception 0.00746 0.36550 .70 SCHOOL H Tota1 N=13 More Satisfied N=6 Less Satisfied N=7 Extrovert-Introvert 0.12381 0.04836 .90 Sensing-Intuition 1.26389 0.00645 .95 Feeling-Thinking 1.88662 0.66511 .50 Judgment-Perception 0.03439 0.17411 .70 SCHOOL I ‘Total N=34 More Satisfied N=16 Less Satisfied N=18 Extrovert-Introvert 0.53684 0.14954 .70 Sensing-Intuition 0.36583 0.05646 .90 Feeling-Thinking 1.88889 1.06250 .50 Judgment-Perception 0.02530 0.08503 .80 SCHOOL J 'Total N=12 Mbre Satisfied N=5 Less Satisfied N=7 Extrovert-Introvert 0.34286 0.00000 .-- Sensing-Intuition 0.68571 0.04286 .90 Feeling-Thinking 0.34286 0.00000 Judgment-Perception 1.71429 0.27429 :50 98 Original Corrected Significance Personality Types Chi-Square Chi-Square Level SCHOOL K Tota1 N=18 More Satisfied N=9 Less Satisfied N=9 I“; Extrovert-Introvert 1.00000 0.25000 .70 T Sensing-Intuition 2.00000 0.88889 .50 Feeling-Thinking 0.90000 0.22500 .70 Judgment-Perception 0.22222 0.00000 . - ‘35 APPENDIX F PRINCIPAL RATING SCALE 4,... . Sch 001 99 Teacher Rating Form Teacher Characteristics Teacher as a person mth-‘OOCDNONU'I-DOON—J -—|I-l.—l-—l-—l_| 1. 2. 3. 4. Physical, mental, and emotional stability Inherent interest in students and teaching Awareness of personal limitations Able to absorb and accept negative behavior Teacher as a guide to learning process 1. 2. 3. Has working knowledge of modes of living of different social and cultural groups Establishes specific and meaningful goals within the range of the learner's potential Tailors learning situation in accordance with major needs of individual children Evaluates in terms of individual differences School Highly 100 Teacher Effectiveness Form Effective Groups Least Effective Groups APPENDIX G SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE 101 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Education: Name of Building less than B.A. , B.A. Code # B.A.+ , M.A. Years in Teaching M.A.+ , Ph.D. Grade Level Sex Age: 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50+ Student Population Data How many children are in this building? Fewer than 50 50 to 100 200 to 300 300 to 400 400 to 500 More than 500 Approximately how many children are there per room in this building? Under 20 per room 20 to 25 per room 26 to 30 per room 31 to 35 per room 36 to 40 per room Over 40 per room What is the approximate rate of attrition per year (turnover of children) in the building? Less than 10% per year 10 to 20% per year 20 to 40% per year 40 to 60% per year 60 to 75¢ per year More than 75% per year \Hlll 102 Approximately what percentage of the children in this building come from complete families (Homes in which both the mother and father are pres- ent ? 75 to 100% of the children 50 to 75% of the children 25 to 50% of the children 0 to 25% of the children What is the grade range within this building? K-2 To what extent is this school located in a changing neighborhood? Yes, neighborhood changing rapidly; transition area school. Yes, to some extent; neighborhood is in early stages of change. No real change; neighborhood has had its present character - either high or low - some time. Of what racial composition are the children in this building? All children are Caucasian (white) At least 90% of the children are Caucasian 75 to 90% of the children are Caucasian 60 to 75% of the children are Caucasian 40 to 60% of the children are Caucasian 25 to 40% of the children are Caucasian 10 to 25% of the children are Caucasian Less than 10% of the children are Caucasian What percent of the families represented in your classroom would be classified in the fbllowing income levels. Below 3,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 7,000 7,-00 - 9,000 9,000 - 12,000 Over 12,000 l 103 Buildinngata When was this building constructed? 1930 Before 1900 1940 - 1950 1900 - 1910 1950 - 1960 1910 - 1920 Since 1960 1920 - 1930 - 1940 What chan s have been made in this building since it was first con- structed excluding routine painting, repair, etc.)? > 03 C70 rn Have additions been made (rooms or wing or wings added)? Yes No If yes, has more than one addition been made to this building? Yes No If yes, in what year or years was (were) the addition(s) made? Has this building been remodeled (new lighting, ceilings, different type floors, plumbing, wiring, changes in interior walls, etc.)? Yes No If yes, what major changes have been made? (Please specify) If yes, in what year or years was this building remodeled? 104 Please answer Question A for each of the items feund below. In answer- ing this question, write in the number which best represents your answer. Question A How do you feel about the following items? . . . 4 = Very satisfied 2 = Slightly dissatisfied 3 = Satisfied 1 = Dissatisfied ITEMS: 1. The state of teaching as a "profession." 2. The amount of recognition which teachers are given by society for their efforts and contributions. 3. The capabilities of most of the people who are in teaching. 4. The effect of a teacher's job on his social life. 5. The level of professional standards maintained by most teach- ers. 6. The amount of recognition which noneducators give to teachers as compared to what they give to other professionals. 7. The amount of time for leisure activities which teaching af- fords. 8. The level of competence of most of the other teachers in this school. 9. The method employed in this school for making decisions on curriculum matters. 10. The method employed in this school for making decisions on pupil discipline matters. 11. The attitude of the students toward the faculty in this school. 12. The manner in which the teachers and the administrative staff work together in this school. 13. The cooperation and help which I receive from my superiors. 14. The educational philosophy which seems to prevail in this school. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 105 The level of competence of my superiors. The adequacy of the supplies available for me to use in my teaching in this school. The amount of time which is available to me while I am at school for my personal professional growth. The extent to which I am infbrmed by my superiors about school matters affecting me. The academic performance of the students in this school. The role of the Teacher is a varied one, involving many different tasks and calling for the application of many different skills. Most teachers find that they enjoy these different skills of their role to varying degrees. Please answer Question B below fer each aspect of the teacher's role listed. In answering this question, write in the number which best rep- resents your answer. Question B: To what degree do you enjoy each of the following aspects of a teacher's role? 4 = A great deal 2 = Very little 3 = Somewhat l = Not at all _____ 1. Attending teachers' meetings. _____ 2. Working with pupils in extracurricular activities. _____ 3. Talking with individual parents about a problem concerning their child. _____ 4. Talking with a group of parents about a mutual problem. _____ 5. Working with youngsters who are having a hard time adjusting to a school situation. _____ 6. Working primarily with children rather than adults. _____ 7. Working with "exceptionally able“ pupils. 8. Working with "average" pupils. 106 9. Working with "slow" pupils. 10. Handling administrative paper work. 11. Evaluating pupil progress. 12. Working with guidance personnel. 13. Working with curriculum specialists. 14. Having a different group of pupils to work with each year. 15. Having a different group of pupils to work with periodically during the day. 16. Having to discipline problem children. 17. Having to follow specified curricula. 18. Working with a committee of teachers on a common problem. Excluding school district administrative personnel, in your judgment, who is from most to least influential in the decision-making process in this building? Principal most; parents (PTA) second; teachers least Principal most; teachers second; parents least Teachers most; parents second; principal least Teachers most; principal second; parents least All three groups would be equally influential How well do you feel most teachers like this building as a place to work? Very well, most would not choose to leave this building. Pretty well, there are some other buildings which provide as good work situations. Not too well, most would prefer to teach elsewhere in the system, but few are actively seeking transfer. Not at all well; I plan to leave this building as soon as I can. As you see it, what are the assets of this building? Staff is understanding and helpful to each other. Principal sympathetic and helpful. Not too much pressure on you. More pressure felt in other build- ings. Teaching is very challenging in this kind of school. Children are grateful for any interest shown them. More autonomy--children have so many and varied needs, a strict curriculum can't be adhered to. 107 Feel real sense of being needed and serving a useful function. See no assets in building. Other If you could change one thing about this building (students, colleagues, organization, etc.), what would you change? If you had your choice of any building in this system, in which type would you choose to teach? (Middle class, working class, low economic class, etc.) Why this one? In your opinion, what are major sources of dissatisfaction fer teachers in this building? See so little change in children's behavior or knowledge (low moti- vation). Children hard to control. Children have so many problems, it is difficult to know where to start or find time to work on them. Physical condition of children (dirty, sleepless, hungry, etc.). °sychologica1 strain due to inability to accomplish all that needs to be done. Apathetic, hostile, or non-existent parents. Children arrogant, aggressive, noisy, fbul-mouthed, etc. Chgldren slow, irresponsive, and lacking in ability. 0t er In general, how satisfied are you with teaching in an urban center school? Very satisfied, liking nearly everything about it. Satisfied, liking more things about it than I dislike. Somewhat dissatisfied, but desiring quite a few changes. Not at all satisfied, feeling disadvantages outweigh the advantages. To what extent do you feel your attitude toward teaching has been af- fected by your assignment in a culturally disadvantaged school? 108 Positively affected, very much so. Made me come to appreciate the importance of teaching. Positively affected, to some extent. Feel I would have liked it anyway, but it increased my satisfaction with teaching. Not affected at all; don't see it as important. Somewhat negatively affected. Feel I would have liked teaching better had I worked in a different kind of school. Negatively greatly affected. Feel I would have a completely dif- ferent view of teaching had I been in a different kind of school. APPENDIX H DESCRIPTION OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR Purpose The purpose of the Indicator is to implement Jung's theory to type (1923). The gist of the theory is that much apparently random variation in human behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to certain basic differences in the way people prefer to use perception and judgment. "Perception" is here understood to include the processes of be- coming aware, of things or people or occurrences or ideas. "Judgment" is understood to include the processes of coming-to-conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive and the conclusions they come to, they may as a result show corresponding differences in their reactions, in their interests, values, need and motivations, in what they do best and in what they like best to do. Adopting this working hypothesis, the Indicator aims to ascer- tain, from self-report of easily reported reactions, the people's basic preferences in regard to perception and judgment, so that the effects of the preferences and their combinations may be established by research and put to practical use. 109 110 The Four Preferences The Indicator contains separate indices for determining each of the fOur basic preferences which, under this theory, structure the indi- vidual's personality. Index Preference a§_between Affects individual's choice a§_tg_ EI Extraversion or Whether to direct perception and judg- Introversion ment upon environment or world of ideas SN Sensing or Intuition Which of these two kinds of perception to rely on TF Thinking or Feeling Which of these two kinds of judgment to rely on JP Judgment or Perception Whether to use judging or perceptive .attitude fbr dealing with environment The EI index is designed to reflect whether the person is an ex— trovert or an introvert in the sense intended by Jung, who coined the terms. The extrovert is oriented primarily to the outer world, and thus tends to focus his perception and judgment upon people and things. The introvert is oriented primarily to the inner world postulated in Jungian theory, and thus tends to fbcus his perception and judgment upon con- cepts and ideas. The SN index is designed to reflect the person's preference as between two opposite ways of perceiving, i.e., whether he relies primar- ily on the familiar process of sensing, by which he is made aware of things directly through one or another of his five senses, or primarily on the less obvious process of intuition, which is understood as indi- rect perception by way of the unconscious, with the emphasis on ideas or 111 associations which the unconscious tacks on to the outside things per- ceived. The TF index is designed to reflect the person's preference as between two opposite ways of judging, i.e., whether he relies primarily upon thinking, which discriminates impersonally between true and false, or primarily upon feeling, which discriminates between valued and not- valued. The JP index is designed to reflect whether the person relies primarily upon a judging process (T or F) or upon a perceptive process (S or N) in his dealings with the outer world, that is, in the extro- verted part of his life. In terms of the theory, a person may reasonably be expected to develop most skill with the processes he prefers to use and in the areas where he prefers to use them. If he prefers E, he should be more adult and effective in dealing with his environment than with ideas. If he prefers S, he should be more effective in perceiving facts than possi- bilities. If he prefers T, he should be more adult in his thinking judgments than in his feeling judgments. If he prefers J, he should be more skillful at ordering his environment than in adapting to it and conversely.1 11. B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. (Prince- ton, New Jersey: EducationalTesting Service,1962). APPENDIX I COVER LETTER TO TEACHERS j.l‘ I F" .._.I; 11,..— 112 MIAMI UNIVERSITY Oxford, Ohio TO THE TEACHERS: Your assistance is needed to supply some crucial information for a re- search project which is being conducted by Gene Franks, College of Edu- cation, Michigan State University and Miami University. This project was initiated in April, 1970, with the objective of improving the selec- tion and retention of teachers in urban schools. The population of the study consists of approximately two hundred twenty teachers and principals of Cincinnati primary target schools. Because we need information regarding teacher satisfaction and attitudes relating to urban teaching, we are asking for a few moments of your time in completing the following questionnaires. The accuracy of the ques- tionnaires depends upon each individual responding independently. Com- plete involvement should require less than two hours. Upon completion, the questionnaires should be returned to your school office. Each respondent's information will be treated confidentially and will be coded to preserve anonymity. Participation is voluntary. Your assistance and cooperation in this research project is essential to its success. We will send each participating school a sunmary of the results of the project. Thank you for your cooperation. APPENDIX J POPULATION DATA 113 POPULATION DATA N Percent N Percent A. Caucasian 111 51% B. Male 23 10.8% Negroid 88 41% Female 190 89.2% NR* 16 8% TOTAL 213 Caucasion Negroid School N Percent N Percent . NR* C. A 6 46% 7 54% 0 5 20% 20 80% 3 C 17 68% 8 32% 3 D 6 33% 12 67% 1 E 8 67% 4 33% 0 F 13 88% 3 12% 1 G 11 73% 4 27% l H 3 25% 1 75% l I 24 67% 12 33% 3 6 60% 4 40% 2 K 12 71% 5 29% 1 TOTAL 111 56% 88 44% 16 *No response on questionnaire MICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES ll111111111111W1)ll)W11111111111 31293100576515