AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN FACTORS LEADING TO
THE PREDICTIBILITY 0F SUCCESS AND FAILURE
IN ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D.

MICHIGAN STATE umvmsm

GARTH EDWARD ERRINGTON
1970

......

w‘~—.q~«--«-.

-<~

«95-.-

LIBRARY :

YHESH:

 
 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN FACTORS LEADING TO
THE PREDICTIBILITY OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE
IN ELEMENTARY STUIENT TEACHERS

presented by

GARTH EDWARD ERRINGTON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for ‘

Ed.D. degree in Education

/ Major professor/

Date February 26, 1970

 

0-169

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN FACTORS LEADING

TO THE PREDICTIBILITY OF SUCCESS AND
FAILURE IN ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

by
Garth Edward Errington

Engngse of the §tudxt
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of certain

predictive factors and instruments which would allow for the prediction

of the degree of success or failure in student teaching.

Eonnlation and Testing Instruments:
The population involved in this study consisted of two hundred

elementary education.majors who completed their professional education
courses and their student teaching at Michigan State university.

The study sample in this investigation completed the §tudent

Begonnel Inventon, the Eersonn]I awning Manon, and the Enwags
Eggnonn; Engfengnce §cnednlg at the beginning of their professional
education courses. The study sample repeated the Eersonn; leaching

E:nlnn§ign,and the nganns Personal Eneference Schedule near the end
of their student teaching experience. Each student in the sample was

tested with the Michignn fitate Universitx Orientation Iests upon their
admittance to the University.

findings:
1.

3.

5.

A correlation coefficient of .327 between college grade-
point averages and the degree of success or failure in

student teaching is significant.

A student teacher's scores on the Freshman Orientation Tests
were not statistically significant relating to Vecabulary,
Information, and Arithmetic. However, the portions of the
tests devoted to English and Reading were significant to the

degree of success or failure in student teaching.

There is statistical significance between the socio-economic
status of the parents of college students and their*degree

of success or failure in student teaching.

There is no statistical significance between those students
who graduated from a non-public secondary school and the

degree of success or failure in student teaching.

There is no statistical significance between the transfer
student and the student who has completed undergraduate
work at Michigan State University and their degree of

success or failure in student teaching.

There is statistical significance between the self evalu-
ations of the student teacher both preceding and during

student teaching and the degree of their success or failure.

7.

There is a statistical significance between some of the
fifteen personality need items of the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule and the degree of success or failure

in student teaching. Hypothesis 1-0 is disproved at the
.05 level of significance by such needs as "Achievement,"
"Order," and "Heterosexuality". "Deference," ”Exhibition,"
"Affiliation," ”Intraception," "Succorance," "Abasement,"
"Nurturance," and "Change" are significant at the .01 level

of significance.

AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN FACTORS LEADING TO
THE PREDICTIBILITY OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE
IN ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

by
Garth Edward Errington

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1970

19527.77
7~/~70

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Dr. George Hyers, Dr. Orden Smucker, Dr. Vernon Hicks, and
Dr. Charles Blackman who gave me the encouragement to continue and

guidance to pursue.

To Ann Glmstead, Bernard Carmen, and Al Elwell who contributed

so greatly to my research design.

To my family and friends who persevered without question.

ii

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE . . . . . . . .

Background of Theory . . . . . . .

Procedures Used in the Study . . .

Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . .

Organization of the Study . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

Personality Factors as Predictor of
in Student Teaching e e e e e e e

Achievement and Academic Ability as

Success

Predictors

of Success in Teacher Education . . . . . .

Socio-Economic Factors as Predictors

of

Success in Teacher Education . . . . . . .

The Junior College Transfer and His Relation

to the Degree of Success and Failure in
StudentTeaching.............

Sumary..............

III. THE SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Basis for Hypotheses . . . . . . .

Summary.............

iii

Page
ii
iii

Page

10

ll

11

20

26

29

32

33

33
41

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
CHAPTER

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . e e . 42
HypothesisI-A ...............1+3
Hypothesis I-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Hypothesis I-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Hypothesis I-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H6
Hypothesis I-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Hypothesis I-F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

HypOtheSiSI-G.............o.49

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. . e e e e e e e e 58
Summary e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 59
Implications e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6?

Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . 68

APPWDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 69

A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRESHMAN
ORIENTATION TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

B. STUDENT PERSONNEL INVENTORY . . . . . . . . 80
C. PERSONAL TEACHING EVALUATION . . . . . . . 85

D. EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE . . . 9N

BEImRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll“

iv

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

This study seeks to discover the degree of validity of certain
factors and instruments which might relate to the prediction of
success or failure in student teaching. Relationships between such
factors as; academic ability, personality needs, socio-economic
status, high school experience, higher education transfer data, and
student teacher self-perception, will be explored. The availability
of more objective data in teacher preparation pragrams would enable
colleges and universities to be better able to screen, counsel and
place elementary education majors prior to student teaching. College
faculty members, student teaching co-ordinators, and supervising
teachers are continually searching for information and evidence
'vhich would permit the identification of potential strengths and
‘weaknesses in elementary teaching conditions. If objective data
proved to be significant in its predictability, it might be possible
to counsel prospective teaching candidates into those experiences
that could enhance and develop their professional competencies before
and during their student teaching.

-2...

BACKGROUND OF THEORY

The process of student teaching has been perceived as the "cap-
stone” experience of undergraduate preparation in teacher education
by the large majority of teacher education institutions. Though the
structure of this experience differs greatly from institution to
institution, the basic objectives are primarily the same. The objec-
tives1 of student teaching might be listed as follows:

1. Provision of an opportunity to develop and refine

teaching'skills.

2. Provision of an opportunity to learn the role

expectations of teaching.
3. Provision of an experience to cushion against the
”reality-shock" of teaching.

4. Provision of an opportunity to relate theory to

practice.

5. Provision of an opportunity to eliminate the unfit.

6. Provision of an opportunity to identify those

factors that lead to the development of excellence
in student teachers.

Although the last two points on this list will receive the primary
emphasis in this study, the other items will receive perfunctory atten-
tion.

Student teaching has indeed become the clinical experience within
the framework of the teacher preparation pragram. If the student teach-
ing experience as ”capstone" concept is to reach its greatest potential,
then it is imperative that the college faculty members who are respon-
sible for the undergraduate programs in teacher preparation have as

much valid information as possible concerning the student. ‘With climbing

 

1These objectives were extracted from comments of supervising
teachers in a seminar for supervising teachers in Flint, Michigan,
January 19, 1964.

college enrollments, it is becoming much more difficult to rely on
totally subjective recommendations based on personal interaction
between undergraduate students and faculty members. The ability to
counsel, place, and evaluate student teachers properly is of grave
concern to many who perceive the problem of insufficient information
as being the key to a richer program in teacher education.

In this study, student teaching will be considered that part
of the teacher preparation program designed to give prospective
teachers an opportunity to examine their attitudes, expectations,
and practices with regard to the many roles of the teacher. This
functional definition can best be illustrated by selected passages .
from a Michigan State University, college of Education bulletin
entitled, sec 1 tic o ic a tate's - e Student

eac 0 am.

One of the most important advantages of the resident program

is that students can see first-hand and have a part in the

development of a continuous teaching program for pupils.

They can observe from a good vantage-ground how different

phases of the curriculum are related, what kinds of emphases

are important in a sequential program of teaching, and the
inter-relationships of one classroom to the total program of
the school.

Student teachers get to know their pupils better by being

'with the group a longer time. They study the backgrounds

of their pupils, they have more time for understanding and

helping to diagnose difficulties of children, and they are

able to offer more effective guidance and counseling since
they are with their groups full-time during the term.

Problems of teaching and methods of solution become immedi-

ately more realistic as (the) student teacher .... tackle(s)
these .... in a real public school setting.

.907

‘-

a

O

3‘-

He finds out, by living the life of a teacher, just what the
job of a teacher is.

In summary, the student teaching experience will be defined in
this study as a life-like, on-the-job experience, as well as an ideal
laboratory for observation of performance which will reveal the atti-
tudes, the skills, the natural and the learned traits which are con-
sidered essential in the make-up and function of a qualified teacher.
The need for preper guidance, placement, and evaluation of college
students in any field is usually considered accepted policy. "The
right of institutions and the profession to identify, select, or re-
tain persons for teacher preparation and for its practice is also sel-
dom questioned today."3 In 1967 these factors were phrased in a slightly
different way by the Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student
Teaching while developing the rationale for their establishment.

1. Student teaching is almost universally accepted as the
most important segment of teacher preparation.

2. Student teaching is the one part of professional preparation
which is shared by the public schools and institutions of
higher education without clear-cut lines of responsibility.

 

2AZQescription of_Michigan State's Full-Time Student Teaching
Program,Michigan State University, College of Education, (September,

1963): PP. 1’ 29 “'0

3MargaretLindsey, Editor, "Report of the Task Force on New
Horizons in Teacher Education," Newgflorizons for the‘Teaching Pro-
fession, Washington, D. C., (1961), pp. 162.

Note: The Michigan State University, College of Education Elementary
Education Program is utilized as a primary source of reference since
it is within this setting and according to its formal requirements
that this investigation is being conducted.

3. The new concept of student teaching is much more dynamic
and inclusive than the old one. It includes not only
practice, but diagnosis, analysis, and synthesis in new,
complex clinical situations.“

However, the factors upon which guidance, placement, and evalua-
tion have been based, in teacher preparation programs, have been
largely supposition, generalization and guesswork in terms of their
validity.

The guidance and placement of student teachers is an area which
has been notably lax in its unstructured approach toward identification
of those factors which may give some assistance in predicting potential
failure and success in its phase of the total teacher preparation pro-
gram. Factors, such as academic ability, personality needs, socio-
economic status, and accuracy of self-perception need considerable
probing and research as keys to selecting, guiding, placing and eval-
uating the degree of success and failure in teacher education.

Educators and layman have, for many years, asked teacher education
institutions to accept more and more responsibility in all phases of
their preparation programs. various recommendations, such as the ones
coming from organizations like the National Commission on Teacher Educa-
tion and Professional Standards in their meetings at Bowling Green (1958),
Kansas (1959) and San Diego (1960) have differed little from those coming
from the l9h6 meeting of the American Council on Education. The Council
on Education professional and lay committee of the mid-forties impressed

their challenge of reSponsibility to teacher education institutions in

the following manner:

 

u.
Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching, 5

NEW Order in Student Ieaching, National Commission on Teacher Education
and Professional Standards, National Education Association, (1967), p. l.

1. Each institution engaged in teacher education has there-
fore the responsibility of selecting from among students
who wish to prepare for the profession only those who
show reasonable promise of developing into satisfactory
teachers.

2. Selective judgements need to be guided by a clear and
broad concept of the characteristics of good teacher
with.due allowance for individual differences and the
advantages of variety by a careful consideration of
what college is capable of contributing to the develop-
ment of such characteristics, and by a wide spread of
information regarding each candidate, his history, his
present status, and his promise.

3. In judging a candidate, various factors need to be taken
into account, including physical and mental health,
vitality, intelligence, academic accomplishments, other
abilities, breadth and character of interest, human
qualities . . . .

h. The selective process should be a continuous one, with a
wide range of reliable evidence available when the candi-
date is first admitted to teacher education. However,
cases should be reconsidered periodically in the light of
accumulated facts and insights.5

Other educators have become even more specific in their charges to
colleges and departments of education in the area of identification and
screening in teacher education. Determining a person's readiness for
student teaching should involve much more than checking credits to see
if he has successfully completed the prerequisite courses. A careful
assessment of his personal qualifications should be made.

His success in student teaching -- his deve10pment of pro-
fessional competence -- depends as much on his emotional
maturity, personality, empathy level, sub-cultural toler-
ance, and skill in interpersonal relations as it does on the
quality of the program. The profession must begin to
struggle with the difficult problem of describing the teach-
ing act and identifying those personal qualities, technical

 

5American Council on Education, The Improvement of Teacher Education
Washington, D. C., (19%), pp. 71+.

skills, and foundational concepts needed by a teacher.

Only when this is done will anyone be able go evaluate

a student's readiness for student teaching.

PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY
. This study is concerned with the discovery and degree of validity
of certain predictive factors and instruments which.might give further
sustenance to the search for factors related to predicting success and
failure in student teaching.

The population used in this study consists of two hundred elemen-
tary education majors who took their professional education courses
and their student teaching at Michigan State University between January,
1962 and March, 1963.

The study sample in this investigation was given the Student Eer-

sonnel Inventogy,7 the Personal Teaching Evaluation,8 and the Edwards
Eggggngl Ezefegence Schgdule9 at the beginning of their professional
education courses. The study sample repeated the Personal Teaching

‘Eyglggtignhand the Edwaggs Reasonal Pgeference Schedule near the end

 

6Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching,

9.20 L199 P0 10

7A three page questionnaire containing twenty-eight questions

concerning personal information such as name, age, educational
history, parents occupation, etc. Each student in the sample com-
pleted this form. .A copy may be found in the Appendix.

8An eight page evaluation form designed to help discover the
student's self-perception of his potential effectiveness as a teach-
er. Each student in the sample completed this form twice. A copy
may be found in the Appendix.

9A two hundred twenty-rive item schedule designed to provide
quick and convenient.measures of a number of relatively independent
normal personality variables. Each student in the sample completed
this ferm twice. This schedule was developed by the Psychological
Corporation, New York. A copy may be found in the Appendix.

of their student teaching experience. Each student in the sample was
given the Michigan State University Orientation Tests10 upon admit-
tance to the University. Student teaching at Michigan State Univer-
sity is usually scheduled either at the end of the junior year, the
first quarter or the second quarter of the senior year, for a period

of ten to fourteen weeks on a full time basis.
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

This study has been designed to test the following:

Hypothesis I-A There is no significant relationship between
college grade-point average and the degree of
success or failure in student teaching.

Hypothesis 1-8 There is no significant relationship between
freshman orientation scores at.Michigan State
University and the degree of success or fail-
ure in student teaching.

Hypothesis I-C There is no significant relationship between
the socio-economic status of the parents of
college students and the degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

Hypothesis I-D There is no significant relationship between
those students who graduated from a non-public
secondary school and the degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

Hypothesis I-E There is no significant relationship between
the transfer student, and the student who has
completed undergraduate work at Michigan State
University and their degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

Hypothesis I-F There is no significant relationship between
. the self evaluations of the student teacher's
potential befOre and after the student teach-
ing experience and the degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

 

10The three tests from the University Qgiegtation Tests used in

this study are the HST Placement Tesg, the MSU Agithmetic Erofiggigngy
Test and the MSU Reading Tes . A.description of the use of these

tests may be found in the Appendix.

Hypothesis 1-6 There is no significant relationship between
certain personality factors as measured by the

Edwgggs Personal Preference Schedg g and the

degree of success or failure in student teaching.

 

A null construct for each hypothesis is used in this study in an
attempt to control any preconceived prejudices on the part of the
researcher. However, if any of the hypotheses in this study prove to
be statistically significant, than it would be the responsibility of
teacher educators to take into consideration in the validity of the
instruments and the information for use in identifying, selecting,
retaining, placing, and evaluating their teacher education candidates.

T. M. Stinnett emphasized this need fifteen years ago when he

‘wrote:

The next decade ahead will provide a favorable setting for
the validation of instruments and techniques of selection.
'With steadily increasing enrollments and demands for new
teachers, placement will generally equal the total product
of an institution - good, bad, or indifferent. Here is the
opportunity to subject what we know about selection and re-
tention, or think we know, to the acid test of trial and
error. In the near future then, we should be in a position
to apply universally with effectiveness and fairness, the
results of a decade of patient and thorough research. Added
to the considerable body of knowledge we have already, any
new information should enable us to apply the quality
approach to teacher education.11

However, little has changed. The same needs Stinnett wrote of in
l95fl are present today. As Stinnett and his co-author G. K. Holdenfield
expressed it in 1963:

There must be early identification of prospective teachers,

selective recruitment and admission standards, and effective
guidance policies---this means weeding out the incompetent

 

11T. M. Stinnett, "Selection in Teacher Education," Journal of
Teacheg Education, Velume 5, (December, 1954), pp. 262.

 

{\

.1} ‘A‘

.
v' ‘
J
4

.
'.

I
pee.“

4.

.10-

as well as attracting the most able.12

There is a level of competence bBIOW‘Wthh no one should be
allowed in a classroom. There are incompetents in every
field. An incompetent plumber may flood your basement. An
incompetent mechanic may ruin your car. But, an incompetent
teacher can ruin the education of thousands of children. The
guidance process has the obligation to recognize students who
are improperly or wrongly motivated or who have no motivation
at.a11; such.students might be called from the ranks before
they get to their senior year.

'we find these concerns voiced by Arthur Combs who suggests that....
Some of the improvements we seek in education can be brought
aboutbe spending more money, by building better schools, by
introducing new courses of study, new standards, or new equip-
ment. But the really important changes will only come about

as teachers change. Institutions are made up of people, and

it is the behavior of teachers in classrooms that will finally
determine whether or not our schools need or fail to meet the
challenges of our times. It is at the source of supply»- in

our teacher education programs-- that review and innovation

are most critically called fer if we are to bring about im-
provements we need in education.14

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Chapter I is concerned with the rationale of the study and a state-
ment of hypotheses. Chapter II contains a review of the literature re-
lating to this study. In Chapter III a fuller description of the study
will be presented as well as an examination of its scope and limitations.
Chapter IV is devoted to presentation and analysis of the data. Chapter
V contains the interpretation of the data and its specific implications

fer teacher education.

 

126. K. Holdenfield - T. M. Stinnett, he Education 0 eachers,
anglict gag Consensus, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19635, pp. 43.

13Ibid., pp. 52

14

Arthur W. Combs, Ihe Professional Education of Teachers, (Boston,
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. v.

CHAPTEII

mm 0? LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature relating
to the process of identification, selection, and predictability of
the degree of success of candidates in teacher education. Included
in this review are several studies dealing with academic ability,
personality, socio-econoeic factors, an! transfer data contributing
to the degree of success or failure in student reaching.

Criteria for identification, selection, and predictability are
law. In total, they present a nesaic of the individual personality,
ability, preparation, and uvirouental experiences. therefore,
realising the importance of these factors, law institutions of higher
learning have lat their support to considerable research in many of
these areas.

PERSONALITY FACTORS AS PREICNRS OF
SUCCESS DI STUDENT TEACHDB

an. importance of personality in teaching goes almost unquestioned
today. Therefore if better teachers are to be trained and employed in
our schools, lore attantien must be paid to personality factors in
their selection.1

 

1
Sister Mary Anatora, 08F, “Similarity in Teachers' and Pupils'

P-nomlitar-" W. (Jammy. 196“). mm, 9- 75-

.11 -

.
i
"'
.
I
.
'V"
I
.c

' .

1 "
.
.-—4'
-o
. '4
. I
.' ’
.
p.
f.
a

.V

.

..

,
e. ..a
h" ' h
,_ -~.

' - ' .

~ ‘I (

. ‘
‘.
J' ,- r ’ "VI
1' h
t “"
f ' O '
-.I,. --
e '- .‘
l’ I
I
.' I.
L 2.1. b“
O . .
‘_ .1 A
. ‘ s.‘ ‘
'I‘ I'a .e'
.
A ‘ r ‘
‘1 M
v '
1:. if ' 1
~ .-~ , ..
. .
J! I I
. ’ 'n
a l r ‘
. I. ‘ i ‘ . 7‘
D
.o n . t
i
_\
Ck ‘
..

.. a nu. '-

_ .
J"
.
.
s
("
‘ O
O
'H‘QJ
e,.
-'.‘ '
. \

Nearly all other professions and industrial complexes of our
modern world, as well as education, have been vitally interested in
personality factors as they relate to success in one's vocational
choice and to development and use of reliable personality instruments
to aeasure these factors.

Investigations by a. c. Hunt2 in industrial plants in 1935, led
him to report that personality factors affecting personal qualities
were the causes of 90 per cent of the Job separations in 76 corpora-
tion. Watson,3 su—arising the educational implications of studies
reported by Roethlisberger and Dickson in their book, 'nanagenent and
the Worker,” Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Wanted
that acceptance and application of some of the principles relating to
the development of good interpersonal relations (personality factors)
would result in marked improvement in the teacher-learner situation.

In his summary of investigations dealing with the measurement
and prediction of teaching efficiency, Barr“ reported more than 200
references to positive relations between personality characteristics
and sue criterion of teaching success. lo negative correlations
were found, an! all but 29 were significantly different from zero.

 

21!. C. Hunt, “Why People Lose Their Jobs or Aren't Preacted,‘
W. (1935-1936). Vol. 11+. p. 230.

36. Hatson, ”The Surprising Dugout-y of Mora... W
Eu (19%). m p. 39.

“A. s. Barr, on. Measurement and Prediction of Teaching

Efficiency. A Summary of Investigations ," W
We (1%)9 XVI, PP- 2034830

. ‘

it . ‘ .
. V '? \ ‘ ‘ . 1 - "‘ k. ' 5 ‘ ‘« "-‘l
‘ . . . .. . , . . .
§ .
n. . ‘ a . . e , " ‘ — ’ .
a; ‘ « . , . fl . .. a
- D
,.A \ ‘ I\ ~ e . . -
. , “u . f. «. 7 ‘ _ -‘ , ' m '.
‘ k W'-
. a
I
'n t 4f x- , ‘ r; . . A A _
- ‘ a . a A A ‘ . . '
e , i . .
.. _ . ‘ \ g ,, I . C t I \ ‘ ' .' I‘
,g ‘ £ a -' . (' . . I ,, _ . , _- J
.
. n
r g.‘ I. . V- p . , n. ‘ ‘ ~-
. , _ J . H .a .‘ at ,_ . -. g . (,,.
‘
1 r '
' 'I‘ ~ ‘. ‘ '3 '
e '. . , - " t 1‘ 1
A . . . A .
a ‘. .‘ 0‘ . {0" . 4 ‘4 v t ' .-
' - ~ .. ‘ e ‘ \ A '

 

~ \
F a
A . ~'~
.~, _...- ‘ , I q , _ ‘ . 3, .. . - .. .l r
‘ . 1 -— e t. . K s - . , l , . 5’- ‘ - .
4
p a y . .o , ”r.“ . . p ,. f H a .
' . ' . .‘ ‘ ,, ‘ ‘,. .I '
I‘ or _.-.'- . ‘J 4, :‘a ' ‘, .I _ Q _ . _ ‘ ., ‘ J .‘s'.¢ r . .‘
‘ A . g .,5 . o ‘. ‘ ‘ I. o'
. . . .
- a ,. q . « ". ..
. . ‘ e .‘ e
...~. --. oi." ‘.. .- ‘. . ' .w -. -- § ‘ .-
“ s .
, , \ r ,~. 0 ' a- . “ ' -- - ve. ‘.e ‘e‘ a
'v. ;'« _ ’ . ,r -' _ ‘ . « .a ,'1 r k
. 1" . ~'
4 , . , ,. .
‘5. . ,t- J , ’~ , . ‘ 5 ~, of ‘
, . . - a .
. ' a 70' ~
I .s .,.‘~: l-’ " ‘yst’ A T' -' ‘ ’ " ' 1’
.... __, ._ e‘ -. __, . . -. uk‘fi‘. . .
. . ‘5
. I » . . \A -
, ., . . A . p. A . .
., ‘ ' ' ,. 1. _, . . ‘2 , ‘ ' - 1-x I; Q
o . c ,‘ a . . n ¢‘~el.ea.-" one
P ' ' v ' . ' ' I ‘ '5 ‘. '. ‘
. - _ - - v, \ e
‘ J 'es _. ‘ [LII A I . . . 1‘ ). . . _ ., ‘ .
'. I ~ ..
' x. . '_ . t -‘ '.-.~{ ‘
l .- . . ‘ . ., ' “
. _ . q . ' ' ‘ .eo v .e ' e ‘
a, e'.
. ‘7, ‘ . . V a . A u ’v _ - a " 'e '
. ’_ ' ',‘ .. e ‘ . - . ,. ."‘ :iw 'D’".
.
. I
e e . . ' g -
. . ’ ' ‘ a “c
‘ A _ ‘ v a'-’- ' . ‘ ‘ ‘O ‘
"n ) _ . ‘ \ . . . - . . ~ 9 . ‘ .
r
'l. - I . s

e Q

I

‘e
~
‘v

-1 _
.I "
\. -.‘»‘

‘1

. a
.0

N.
. ‘e

as
I." . .

.13-

However, many of the significant correlations were very small. Des-
pite the small significance, Barr felt that this could be easily
explained by his use of a small population.

Barr also listed in this summary some 80 correlations between
commercially prepared personality tests and various criteria of teach-
ing efficiency, many exceeding .40. He concluded that "by and large,
the overall picture and future for the measurement and prediction of
teaching efficiency and its prerequisites seems promising.'5

Martin's6 study at the University of Texas using the Califoygia
Personality Inventoyy pointed out the fact that the Elementary Educa-
tion Student Teachers in his experimental group revealed significant
relationships between students labeled.with a sense of well being and
responsibility and the fact that they behaved in a predictable fashion
as teachers. The pattern of these persons in the classroom was des-
cribed as warm, outgoing, intelligent, effective, and creative.

Gough and Pemberton agree in part with what Barr's studies seem
to indicate,

The importance of personality characteristics for tasks in-

volving personal interaction, leadership, and social under-

standing is uncontestable. The difficulty in utilizing a

principle such as this lies more in devising techniques and

methods for its adequate application than in proving the

truth of the basic assumption. Advances in the methodolgy

of personality assessment and evaluation have yielded various

instruments yhich show promise of overcoming this technologi-
031 barrier.

 

529131., p, 226.

6Clyde Martin, "Emotional, Social and Pscyhological Make-up of the
Teacher and Its Relationship to Teaching,” Childhood Education, V01. 44,
(December, 1967), pp. 235-238.

7Harrison Gough and William Pemberton, ”Personality Characteristics

Related to Success in Student Teaching," gogypal of Applied Psychology.
XXXVI, (October, 1952), p. 309.

 

.
.
.
.
. .
.
a. '1 .
l V‘ . I
.
. ..
I ' ~
,.
. . v
, a '
‘ .
l .A . .
I
I
‘ .
4 I ‘
. ‘ ‘ ‘. s‘
g _ . ‘ s A '
p l. ‘, ' ' '7 -'
. C ' ‘
'1 . ‘ 1' , .
l - 1
. -. a
. ~ 3 e . ,i .
v . ‘ 1
e ' L
. . 1
s A,,. .
r
. a
!
. .
.. u r ' - ' "
0 .
. .
» A . .‘
‘ . | r
+ .
' n i h
. V
-v. .' ‘1 ‘ ‘ " "'r’
' 4 I

-Ap

A
:I
’-
.
-'I

w_.—.-r .-

e ’ -
, .
v . 2
I ‘ . I
v- -4 A V l

.1u-

One of the instruments of personality measurement is the Edwards

Porsche; Erefeygnce Schedule. Sheldon8 in his validity study recom-
mends the use of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule with teach-
ers and student teachers on the assumptions that: ”good teachers
possess a particular personality structure and that many of these
facets can be measured."

He also found in his study that those who were high in warmth or
friendliness, as compared with those who were low, not only were signi-
ficantly higher in intelligence and lower in authoritarianism but also
expressed a significantly higher need for ”Affiliation" and a lower
need for ”Succorance".

Another study completed in 1957. which supported Sheldon's assump-
tion concerning the use of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule,
was that of Jackson and Guba which concludes

...that a high score on any of the fifteen needs measured

by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, indicated that

the subject tended to choose activities associated with

that need in preference to activities designed to reflect

other needs. The format of the instrument requires the

respondent to choose between two activities in each item.

Thus, from the standpoint of need structure, the quality

which seems to characterize teachers as a group is their

high deference, orderliness, e urance, and their low
exhibition and heterosexuality.

 

8Stephen M. Sheldon, Jack M. Cole, and Rockne Cepple, ”Concurrent
validity of the warm Teacher Scales". Journal 0 ucatio s c 01-
2319 La N00 19 (1959), PP. 3740-

9

Philip W. Jackson and Egon G. Guba, ”The Need Structure of In-
Service Teacher and Occupational Analysis,“ School geview, LXV, (April,
1957). pp. 176-191.

_._m

 

.15-

Lumeborg - Lunneborg found that academic achievement for college
students appeared to be associated with needs for “Achievement“ and
”Intraception" and low need for 'Abasement".10

(Quotation marks are used around the personality needs whenever

they are used in this study to remind the reader that they are

representative words and not run explanations. Complete
descriptions can be found in the Appendix.)

Further studies dealing with personality measurement of teachers
reveal varying degrees of acceptance and rejection of the degree of
validity of these instruments. Getsels and Jacksenn for example,
published a review which indicated that studies using the m
fienoggl mpg-313cc Sghedge with teachers were too few as yet to
justify arm conclusions concerning the ultimate usefulness of the
instrument. However, they felt that one obvious advantage of this
instrument over other personality instruments is that it is derived
from a well known conceptual formulation (Murray's lead System) to

which empirical findings may readily be related.

 

1° mums Lunneborg and Patricia Lunneborg, 'EPPS Patterns
in the Predictien of Academic Achievement“.
We V01. 1“. .(July. 1967). PP. 389-390.

11.1. w. Getsels and Philip w. Jackson, "The Teacher Personality

and Characteristics.“ W. mm
fleoational Rum Association, (1959): PPO '51”.

-16-

Long12 in his study concerning motives of students deciding upon
teaching at the secondary or elementary level concluded that “nurtur-
aace" is significant in the choice of elementary teaching: preferences
all! that “achievement” is relatively less important. For students
choosing to teach in secernlary schools, the order ef inportance is
reversed. minim th- W. South-
worth13 nade a breakdown of elenentary teacher preparation into upper
and lower levels. He discovered that those students preparing for the
lewer elementary grades (Ii-3) were characterised by a greater need for
“abasuentfl Paffiliation,” 'succorance,“ and 'nurturancez' whereas
those selecting upper elenentary grades (W6) revealed the need for
“achieve-ant,” ”aggression,“ and "exhibition". I

Garrison and Scott'slu study analysed the personal needs of
students who were preparing to teach at one or nore levels within
the span fren kindergarten through high school. The students were
then classified into five teaching areas: (1) lower elementary,

(2) upper elementary, (3) general secouiary, (u) nengeneral secondary,
and (5) special education. Those studuts planning to teach at the
general and nomeneral secondary level were further divided according

 

12t3erhard Lang, “Motives in Selecting momentary and Secondary
School Teaching ," 10mg; of gnu-mm Educatien, XXIX
(Septenber, 1960), pp. 101-104.

13 Horton C. Soutrntorth, “A Study of Certain Personality and
Value Differences in Teacher Education Majors Prefer-ring Early and
Later Elementary Teaching Levels ," (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1962).

luKarl C. Garrison and Mary B. Scott, “The Relationships of
Selected Personal Characteristics to the Needs at College Students
Preparing to Tuch'o WW.
XXII, (Winter, 1962), pp. 753-758.

 

 

 

 

 

 

v s e o
' r 'o .‘ ' .1 - e O 3 v ‘
. .A _ ‘ .. _.. y‘ _ . .. g”
. - , . . _
. ‘ . . _ 5 . , ‘ .. ‘1 _ ' .' , . . ‘ . ‘ fl . 'u‘ .’ ‘ . 2‘ . . -v .5
. -. . v .- .-‘ _ - - . . s _ . 1‘ .
’ \ ' ‘1 V4]. . ~ . .- . o .- .rp 5 .fl . ‘. -.- .-
' , i - . .~ ~ '.~ ‘ ‘ o . . '
, .. . . . v
. J_ "‘ . I ' ' a ~
. , . . .
‘ . n . .l . ’ 1 .. . ( h ‘ a J! ' "’ ‘ ‘ h . . 's l
V. I a
_ . u, .A e ' .' . 3. . . , \‘r K .' us .. n i ' a
' -.’~ e ‘ 3 ~‘ ' _ _o ..s ’ ‘. . . ‘ . ' o- . . . e in R's-us I ‘ -
‘ . . p‘; ‘v' -,- , . -,¢e ' ‘. . . _ ‘ ‘ '_, ‘ o
a. I . . 7 ‘r’ . 3 . r . 7 'G "
.,. u- v. . - . - a o - e». .~ .. D 0 a...“
I
. I I
'. 3 r- . r r e . ~ , . .. ‘ - . ~ .' ‘ . v ‘ . ‘
yo I v , _ 7 ‘l . t l
. ' - . «.1 .. \ .5 ‘. I .. \ ‘ . -' ‘ ' ‘1' vi - 4‘
. .. . . . _ K . ‘ '
. A . ‘ . , . .' , I
a m a} ‘ 1 . \a-e I - I ' '0 . fl . ' ~ v. I. .. .'.~ '-(:\ ‘fl .4
‘ - -. A- .-H r '- '« . an" .' S ‘ r ins ~ -
. . ‘ . r , ‘ . . . ‘ . - . - . ‘ .
6v I .a " - I, - ' ’ I' ' \ Q J ' 1" . .a ‘ ~-’(. L
. ‘ ~ .,
. 1 ‘-I . to ; ; 0 .. . ,' ..‘ -; “I .4 , ‘ ) . _, , ., V'
" v‘ 1 .‘ ' . ‘ Q c. Q ( .v 4
u n . .
, . . ~ - . . ‘ ,
‘ , s . '.< . . . - . ' ~. .
’ ‘v v ' A 7‘ . _ . ’ .‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . v I . ‘f ,‘ ‘3‘ '0. 1..
:0 .s '.- _' ' '- _""Ia , , . . I!
. . . ‘ . ‘ ‘ g . -\.- O . ' ‘
~ ‘ II‘ .. ‘4; 0! s_ w” '- ‘ ' J ; a,‘ v 'V.‘ I ' .‘rv
. . ‘ y . 1' ' . ’ " . .r. ..
. ye , .
' " "a ' u“ . . . ,. - . ... , ,o . l. . \‘ “S
n ‘ e ‘ ~s . ‘ a s .‘ ’J ' ‘ 3: ,‘J '. _ 2| ‘ ‘ ' 1‘ '¢
- .
. '\ ‘ ' ' _ . r . ‘ ‘ l ’ ‘ V. ‘ .- .‘a. I"? 4! 7
\e .‘ . .‘a e. > ' , _ ‘ , t .h‘ ‘. . ..AAJ- . I ‘-
“ ¢ . . . ,
. ' ‘ _, . '4, K. , r' ‘w;‘ . t f. I. I! I. . ' "J .’ ’ v. ‘ ,
', . . Q
~ . - Q 9
O . .~.', _ . ‘A‘. . ,‘ _ . '. . _‘ . . e ‘ . ' .' '
.‘3 - . l ‘ - 1 A‘ 'J ‘. ' rd \-‘ ' I ‘ ' ‘«‘* ‘a .' as . ,
.-. .. _ . ,, , r‘ ‘ . ,. v ' . c \ ‘ . f
3‘ ' l ‘ ' u ' , x ‘
. A g iv. .3 5 I. ,. ..- A L ' . ~ ‘ ' — . ‘ ’ m. . I. 'v ~' .‘ . i .1 ‘ . .. ' A I . J ",’ . . a I _ .
_ ('.I‘ . ~_ . .' ‘- . U v I . V. .‘ -. , A .. .n _...P. p. 7‘
' \ ~ -p. - .‘ a a, . .-, l .. "5’ .‘l , ‘ t ’ \.. 'a . -'.1
w - ‘ .‘Qfico - . .e a
I
' 1 m \
° . - e I :0 p ~\ . , e\ - s -.. .u
" _r ' .‘-’ . ‘v I , ‘ ‘ a , I ’g . L _' 5'! a
'~ a. - -
,. ‘v' ‘ s y .fi - ' I
. .1 Q ‘ .x . - .- _ ‘ ‘ t 5 .,. . _ 1.
v . ‘ . I 7 u a a . u l ‘ . a e - - .
. .. "v ..
. ‘ . q ‘ : na 1
‘ . . . .
. ‘. | ‘ - I - .a . -‘ ..
v ‘ 1 , \. ' . . a . . . 4‘- .
‘ " a. V: ‘ . a f '
. ~ . a - e . I ‘
a ' . .
‘, A . ' . , . n, .
'1 l . C s D J . t. . Q . J- . t ' .
l 7 if ~ '
a ‘ a ‘ V
. . 1 ‘ .. p a . . .1 . ls -‘
.
b ' .
l ' ‘ ., 1 ~ e ‘- a- I . ‘
.'~ ’ . e ‘ ‘ D W . . , ~
‘ g | 1 0. _ " ‘ v I - , - " g . ' p
. ' '. v. . - ‘ i v .3 . ‘u
‘ . s as v. ‘, a c
. \ ‘ . C
. . . v — a 4 . - . g g
\ t
C

.17-

to the subject areas in which they were going to teach. The find-
ings of this study were: (1) the general secondary women did
exhibit a significantly greater need for ”achievement” than did
women in either the elementary or nongeneral secondary group.

(2) the prospective teacher of lower elementary grades did manifest
a significantly greater degree of need for ”nurturance" than did

the representative of any of the other four categories. Also elemen-
tary teachers in general exhibited a significantly greater need for
"nurturance,"."succorance,' ”affiliation,” "change,” and "abasement'
than did high school teachers.

Stating a different position, Mageel5 indicated that the educa-
tion profession has no pencil-and-paper test of personality traits
which gives promise of usefulness in screening candidates and is prac-
tical with large numbers of applicants to colleges of education. A
classic study which appears to support this thesis was conducted by
Miohaolisl6 at the University of California in 1956. The object of his
study was to determine the degree of accuracy with which the success of
elementary student teaching could be predicted by objective measures of
personality and attitudes of student teachers. The four inventories he

used were the (1) Minnesota Multiphasic Eersonalitx Inventogy; (2)

s e so d ustment vento 3 (3) Minnesota Personality Scale;
(u) Minnesota Teacher Attitude gnvongggx. Using a combination

 

 

15Ro'berth. Magee, ”Selection of Candidates for Teacher Education,"
igugngl of Teacher Education, III, (September, 1953), pp. 168-172.

16John E. Michaelis, ”The Prediction of Success in Student Teaching
from Personality and Attitude Inventories,” University of Qaligornia

Egglications in Education, XI, (1956), pp. “15-481.

of Supervising Teacher and Coordinator ratings to form a single
criteria he found that none of these four scales have a signifi-
cant relation to student teaching success.

Goodstein and Heilbrun17 used the W
M in their study and correlated it with intellectual ability
(grade-point average). They obtained a positive correlation with
"achievement“ and college grade-point average (p. 01) for students
of a variety of academic ability. However, when the researchers
divided their students into three ability groups... “(1) low ability;
(2) middle ability; (3) high ability,“ it was found that for the low
ability f-ales, 'abasement' and ”nurturance' are negatively correlated
with grade-point average; for the high ability females, 'intraception'
is positively correlated with grade-point average, but none of the
partial correlations for the middle ability female group is statisti-
cally reliable.

Vineyard et al,18 compared the responses of third year pharmacy
stmients with that of teacher education students on the fifteen items

of the W at South-venom state
College, Rutherford, Oklahoma. The results of this study are

 

17Leenard D. Goodstein and Alfred B. Hielbrun Jr., ”Prediction
of College Achievement from the wa s e e c

at Th". Levels of Intellocml Ability,”
W! IVLs (“tours 1962’s PPO 317-3200

18Edwin Vineyard et al., Teacher Education and Pharmacy Students:

A Converter: of Their Need Structures.“ We.
XIII, (Dec-her, 1962), pp. #09413.

\
‘ \
n
d
s
4 ‘~'

fl

 

< a 1, A ' ,‘ A
> ‘ _.n’ -a ? ,' _
.
d ' ~
I . .4 I. . '1 '
‘ - < I > ' K
.
,. . - l s ' I ' , _v' ' ‘ 7. - H.
. ' .
l‘.‘ I I I
' It . I " v . . O O
,. . .
a ,' '
' ' ..‘l' - v _ 5 o' \ ..
. . . . A i , _ . _ . ' . - .
. ‘ ' O O h -
v ‘ i. , . -. ,, . V.. . v “ . .R‘d '1
. .g — - o . ' ~ ‘ u ' L J 1
' I‘ ‘. . ‘ . ' ‘ x " t'q e. ' /\ ' a a
. I ..' . . '. " DI . ‘ 0 ' A L. J _ . | q_ ' ‘
., x ' ’ t ‘ .‘
t ’ I; ' . . -‘\. . A . . ‘ ,v | -
. . . . . .
- I. (I. g, ‘ ' ( ‘ \ ~~_. . A 7. - . a-
. .
. . ‘- i‘ - - i ‘ 1 ,., » i ‘ c
e A _ - s
' . , . . . r . - (
. , .A ‘ l '
.
. ‘ - a ' . . 4”". ‘ " 'V a. ' ‘ f ‘ ‘. .IA '
- " ~-~ ' I“ ' -' 't o . . . . -...~..~.:..
.. ’ . n .1
‘ . ,a . P '- q. "I . ., , .. .. , . ,, . ..‘
- _ u ~ .. . ‘ ‘ a ,l u- .‘. '~ - ..‘ .0 I ‘ -'
1

 

.‘.."-" ”

 

v
. ‘a. “ ‘ ~r‘. '-‘ '.
I. v ‘m' . \ -'- V I ‘Iets
. ‘ . ‘o
' - I 3‘ - ‘ . ' ‘.
' ' "N ‘ " ‘ ' - . - ( \. " . . I . a
l v. ‘ fi'
.. a . ,
V e, . Q
' " ’ ' ' N" be .r' :. 'o§ —--
-’ ‘- ‘. - I I .5 ‘ - p . v ) I 'r‘.
- e y, ., . .". _. , , . _ . A .s. -
- ...J ', t .A .. ‘ e‘ ‘ ° ,. ' . , F '. ' .. 4. . 4 .
r
'e v‘ ‘ - ‘A f - ' .“ V ‘f‘ti" ‘ a ‘ ‘ d, ' "."
e" . 4 ‘ ~ I' - a ' p . - an O
. . ._ o.. g - u. - . g e s v- n m
(' - " - n. ' c- ' 'n ."'.D.. .‘ 1' ' ' . .
V‘ m. .4- . . , o s Lt _. M, Q \~ .
. e - . a.... -.s a ’ -. v e e- Own-‘4-
... .‘ - a . . _. aa . I .q ‘ . v
“ - .' . fl- 1 ‘ . 1 ’ . ..I a. -a-‘ a, . ,. {f
— ‘a ‘1 - , | ' , . ' ~ ‘
-. ‘ A a . 1 - - ., . c, ‘ u - f ' e n. .
. . i . .. . ,
. . - - e
.. '. , ' . .. . " I
‘ , o o. ; ‘ '1 . \ .
“ a! |I eb- - . I . .1. — a -.' . .- . .. ' __ - a v 3
I ' '
I ‘r o . .
O . | q a v
D. , ’ .. .. . ’_ , Q J
' Q ‘- Q “' - Q ' '3. .. . . . ..
4 d ~ . I
' - e. . ‘1. -_4' .- .. - . . ’1'. .
~‘ ‘ - ' ' ' .- e ~ ’5 - f. " - .-- ' --.
. - I C .
,'.' . I , 0‘ I‘ _ . als _ u} e" 'II' I‘) ..n\' r. _" o
‘ Q ~o . .., ~ 4 ~ . r .
- .
e "' C

constructed on the following table.

A Comparison Betueen the Basic or Mmifest Needs of Third-Year
Male Pharmacy and Teacher Education Students at South-
western State College, Weatherford, Oklahoma

 

 

Manifest Need

 

 

Pharmacy Teacher Educ. Diff. in S.E. Diff.

M m. J in. Jew
“Achievement” 13.52 2.92 13.6“ 4.56 .12 .77
"Deference' 12.54 3.02 12.70 3.7u .16 .68
”Order” 11.“ “.64 10e78 3031 .66 e85
”Mibiuon" 14.166 3e06 13e72 3e16 e7“ e6?
“Autonomy” 13.52 3.65 13.2b h.h8 .28 .82
“Affiliation" 18.66 2.1-‘8 15e32 ue6“ e86 e7“
“Intraception' 15.2“ “.00 17.02 “.30 1.78 .77
'Succorance' 10.04 4.08 9.50 h.h3 .54 .85
W0.“ 14.36 “135 14.08 “$86 e28 e92
'Abasement' 16.67 3.69 15.16 “.64 1.51 .83
”nurturmCC. 1“ e 0“ 3 ens 15 e08 5 e75 e % 0 95
”MO. 15e30 2e62 15.28 “.60 e02 e80
“Endurance“ 15.08 5.26 18.62 4.71 .46 .99
”Heterosexuality' 16.96 5.53 15.62 5.58 1.3“ 1.11
”Mgflaaion' 1“ .152 Be 9? 13e a“ u e1“ 1 e08 e81

 

The only significant difference in mean score was found to be in
'intraception’.‘ which favored the teacher education group. These
teacher education students wen lore variable in need for "achievement,“
need for ”affiliation,” need to give 'nurturance,“ and need for
“change". The researchers concluded that differences in variability
were interpreted as being supportive of premise that "different persons
may expect to find different needs satisfied in the same occupation".19

Goody and Hinely20 discovered that 2n students who scored high on
81! futur- 01 the W (EPPS) had both

 

19mm, p. 1n.
203»: Cow and Reginald Hindu, “Validity Study of Selected EPPS
Subscales for Determining Need Structure of Doninating and Submissive

student roach-rs.“ WWW. Vol. 61.. (October.
1%7)’ PP. 59.614

., .y.. .1 ..u e .e e '_ - -. . .,.. -. .. -» . '-—. . .
1. A
A .4 . ~ . , . 4.. . ~ 1‘ .
.. ‘ A n
‘ e . - a e . . .
.\ - v ,
'. - ‘ 'c . ‘ . .

 

".- , ' .. ‘. ;.w 1
‘ ‘ I l . h .
; ' '
‘ v 0 ns' . ‘ .
.‘
ll ‘ . '
.
‘. A . . \ - ‘ ‘I 1 ' ‘
. . .
v . P v
. w .7 H e
~ ‘ I . .‘
. .. ..
-‘e ‘ e . b
.1
- l‘ e ‘
.
, I . ‘,
1
. I, . J r a
- . s
v . a u I J ‘ '5 v . 1
.
. e 1: . e
' ‘
a\4" I ‘e . I ‘.7- '

-20-

a lower college grade-point average and a lower student teaching grade
than 118 other students in a sample from North Texas State University.
The six areas the twenty-four students scored exceptionally high on
were “aggression,” "autonomy," "dominance,” ”abasement,” "deference,"

and ”succorance".

ACHIEVEMENT AND ACADEMIC ABILITY AS PREDICTORS
OF SUCCESS IN TEACHER EDUCATION

The writings and research in the area of academic and intellectual
achievements and their relationship to success in student teaching are
varied and numerous. Carlile's study in this area led him to conclude,

The frequencies of high grades in student teaching reveals a
tendenqy toward high intelligence scores as measured by the
Detroit Intelligence Test. The co-efficients of correlation
are positive; statistically significant but.1ow with its fore-
casting efficiency at four per cent. The correlation with
scores of the Hinman-Nelson Test of nental Ability is too low
to be significant. 'Whereas, relationships between grades in
student teaching and the measures of schelastic achievement
as represented by the college grade-point has a fairly high
positive fiflationship with a forecasting efficiency of twelve
per cent.

Brothers supports this in his research,

A correlation of .02 exists between grade-point in the major
field and success in student teaching, and a correlation .30
exists between grade-point in all University work prior to
student teaching and student teaching effectiveness.22

 

21A. B. Carlile, ”Predicting Performance in the Teaching Pro-

fession," gournal of Educational Research, XLVII (may, 1954).
PP. 642-652.

22W} L. Brothers, ”The Relationship of Certain Factors to
Effectiveness in Student Teaching in the Secondary Schools, "
(Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1950).

-21-_

Other research supporting a similar thesis is that of Perry23
who found the accumulative college grade-point average to be the
single most significant item out of forty-three predictor variables
at the five per cent level with a significance of .51. Similar
support comes fromMartin24 whose work with over a hundred college
seniors at Columbia University indicated that the most predictable
criterion of success in student teaching was the average of the
students four year grades.

Several researchers report studies which are quite different in
regard to their conclusions. Darrow makes the point quite definite
in the conclusions of her study;

Point hour ratio for all college work, up until student

teaching, shows a correlation of .28 with the criterion

of student teacher effectiveness as determined by the

supervising teachers rating. Thus, student teaching

effectiveness cannot be predicted for single cases with

any degree of accuracy when based only on college grade-
point. 5

Shaw26

in his study examined the effectiveness of certain vari-
ables as predictors of success in student teaching. He feund that

high school percentile mark and junior college honor point ratio

 

23James 0. Perry, ”A Study of a Selective Set of Criteria for
Determining Success in Secondary Student Teachers at Texas Southern
University," (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Texas,
1962).
2“Lycia Martin, "The Prediction of Success for Students in
Teacher Education,” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University, l9u4).

25Harriet D. Darrow, ”The Relationship of Certain Factors to
Performance of Elementary Student Teachers with Contrasting Success
Records in Student Teaching," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1961).

26Jack Shaw, ”Function of Interview in Determining Fitness for

Teacher Training,“ gouggal of Educational Research, VL (May, 1952),
pp. 667-681.

.22-

were not statistically significant as predictors. Strong support for
this position is given by Major” whose population of two hundred
secondary teaching majors in ten different fields discovered that
academic ratings above a certain critical point have no significance
when used as a criterion for forecasting teaching success.

Robert I‘Iagee's‘c':8

study gives strong indication that the practices
of the Colleges of Teacher Education in the United States support the
findings of the last three researchers. This study done on a national
survey basis discovered that a”C" average (2.8) scholarship in college
work already completed is generally considered adequate for considera-
tion of eligibility for adnission to or continuance in student teach-
ing prograns in over 80$ of our institutions of higher learning.
Lins,29 several years ago, concerned himself with the prediction
of teaching efficiency of prospective school of education graduates
using data collected during their undergraduate preparation. This
study hoped to contribute useful infornation to: (l) ”the evaluation
of the educative experiences col-only employed in the education of
teachers and” (2) ”provide direction for the deulopnent of a more
constructive program of selecting and guiding prospective teacher

candidates”.30 ,

 

27c. 1.. Major, mm. Influence of Academic Standing Upon Success
in Student6geaohingfl Educational Research Bulletin, XXXII (March,
1953 9 Po e

28Robert M. Magoo, “Admission-Retention in Teacher Education,”
12235; g; Teachg; Eucation, XII (March, 1961), p. 85.

29L” J. Line, “The Prediction of Teaching Efficiency,“
WM. XV (Sept. 19%). pp- 2-60.

30111.1. PO 30

. ‘ Uh ‘ . » - r‘ ‘\ . :7 I r _' 5 ‘_ .
. - ‘7‘.) ' . . ‘. . l ‘
a . ‘ rw'..x'r . ‘ _ '. ,-
. . -e . , ' .. 9 )

I .g c . e‘ ' ' A l '4
.N " ‘ f v ‘I I 6 ~ . ’ e, .
. 1 : 1 L .J .~ v - ‘ ._ 1 . f. -
~ . . .
'. . ’ A ' 0 ~ .‘\~ .~ A
e .1" , . 0- . _- f‘ { ' ‘, .. . , e
U
r4 -. s. t;- I ,. ‘ § u. ‘» . ~. » |
. - - . I" e. .' ..' S , . ’ \t ..

f. ;‘.w9.-.‘ .1 .. . . _ - '. ."~ In
.‘ r e ‘ t. ‘ '

 

e . . ,
.c g‘,~q..’-,~ ' '1 - g F} x. 9r 91" _ - _ v ‘ . . w , v .
,,~.I.5.-. ‘, A, AA, . {— (“fl ~ ‘ ‘ .g ., t A
l 1‘. . . .;
- . ' > r‘l - . ._
I :. I.) ,. '. ,' ‘s (J . e .
u e ,
. . ,n- ,‘~‘- ,. g -I . ..e ale 74..

 

 

 

 

"‘fa -\ I I ‘0 ‘ . "r‘ 7 ~-’. e ' \ f~
.v _
e . , .
,' e ‘. « ‘ 1 g . _ > '«
i . ,,“0 v_ - .e _ A . 'a ‘3 \
.
g i 'V v ,- e e V . u , . g u -' “\-
I e I
' e ( r. - -" -, '~.. .‘v. .- ' a l ’[ _.~‘ . (.‘v’ 0|.
e
' I'a ' r A '- a \ .s’. 4 t‘ l . . a
,. . ‘ ... t a .’ te‘ '7’
' » . I
L" ' ‘ ,‘fr ‘ or F' .1 . ' .‘ " -
' . A; . ' .-‘ a' - ' 'I , ,
\
e'?’ ‘ I " f. , I f
'A it I A ‘ . » - II. : D ‘ ‘ ‘ . . ‘7
'
u. . —-‘ - - n- e.. .
K4. .
‘ ‘- r - -. e
’ I . ' " ‘ ' .
e ' .
. ' _. . ‘
. . 1 .‘ ~ .. .e ,’ g, .
. .
.‘ - .1 < ‘ _ . . 0'
. AI " ‘1‘,' ‘ “ . .
' v
. . r . P » ’f‘
. Q ‘ ..' '. e
‘ a - - " 9 C
’ 8 Q v
, . . ‘ . \ ' ‘ ,l r _ - r -
. ‘ .‘. .1 . _ , t . ’ .~ .
. ‘ _ ,,
fl 7 .
. . . - .-

-23-

The criteria employed in this study were a composite of five
ratings by persons who visited teachers in their classrooms using
W. The correlations for five of the items
studied seemed to be significantly reliable to warrant further
stuiy. These were (1) high school rank; (2) Migh Qooperatin
m: (3) W (a) Wra-
W (5) College grade-point average.31

Bach32 in his study involving secondary student teachers
agreed with.Lins work in some respects but.elso found points of
disagreement. In this study a "a high relationship (.615) was
found between the evaluation of the student teacher and multiple
variebles measured before student teaching,‘ while ”the academic
grade-point average was correlated very low (.194b' and near zero
(.002) for the WWWNB

Dove?" studied the relationship between selected variables and
student teaching success. The criterion, student teaching success,
was determined by a cooperative eveluation of student teaching per-

fonnance by supervising teacher and college coordinator. The results

 

31%" P0 59.

32Jacob 0. Bach, "Practice Teaching Success in Relation to
other'Measures of Teaching Ability,“ of imen u a-
gas. XXI (Sept-abet. 1952)e PP. 57-78-

BBMe , D. 77s

3“Peas-Elie C. Dove, "A Study of the Relationships of Certain
Selected Criteria and Success in the Student Teaching Progrea at
Clark College, Atlanta Georgia," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Celoredo, 1959).

   

 

 

 

 

'v ,\'/ - 1' , , A . . ‘
. _ _' lg . ‘ _ . A ‘ a k ‘ '
4 . ' v .
e. _ a_ - 4- ‘ . Q» .' "A R' “g . t,‘\ 'x ,r J _' _- - 1g- '- e - «a
. - . J I x7 -7 . "... -’-.g L. ll ' a
.'.4~' ‘ ‘~ r . r. _, . - . . - ‘ * . x .
A.. . 4; ‘ . . ,,A Q . '
- o C e -5, .e C h I O
' u e e - ,
e v .1 . II r ‘ , e c - ' < . F- r '
' . ’ ..' ‘ i. _ '- H 3“ ' " VI 2,. . if; ’H' .‘ '0 .3. ' ‘
O ’ .
‘ .A .
s. ,' ~ 1 I ' ' ‘ ‘ -- . ‘ I ’ ‘5 , f ' A: II.
A La. .. A - v a .. a A . ‘9 .. - - .A,. . s . ,
- ‘1 st v n . 4 . ,
' I
~ _ . . .‘ Jr... e ., ,,. . . fil- ‘ .‘f I g - '
' - g‘ . . ' ' I . . e~ , e f. ‘..t.. "
-- fi ' ‘ ' ~'- I ~ ,. - D ‘ s V » b . ~ e. - ‘ ~ . 2 l ’ . - .1
e a 2' ‘ A ‘
' ~ e . - v ..v r If ‘ ~ - > V ; '
e : . - - ' A“; ‘- ‘ ' - - . y 1- ‘ . ‘,
‘ An I e I- ' '
he
. ~ 0 .a
. , ‘ ‘.' ..- - .r _ . e D. - . q
A.. 0-“ ’\l 3 ' .. . I '~‘ ." . . (" e ' ‘ --..‘- “ -‘.’ .
.
. v ,
> . . .l . of: ' ‘. ‘ y w A . ~.—'3 5 -. -4- < .-."-fl", I
. . - c -~, .~ ‘. ,. I. . ' " s A . .-}. _, “v.5." . .w...-‘a
e e ‘
» . . , , - . . . _ : , . .- , a , s -. _.
. . I ‘ L! I. sJA ‘. ,I , - A e e . _ a Q l .
, ' ' g . . .A“ '. ' '- 1' s s . y ‘ ‘ .4 ~ ‘- J . |
J ’ l ‘4 'e 1... ' . , - ‘_ . '
~ .., . 7. b - t A .. . .. ' A ,. ’ A 3”,! A. _— r , . , n -
I .
, .. . . ,1 . .. 3 . I, . .1 _A M ,
~~ . Y . ‘ O ,l ..\' . I 9 .'- - ‘ - ‘ ' , i . - ‘
. .
. , (' A .' I-v_< Q w,- , ' .,‘ ' - . ..._.r ...l ’u -_ . ,. "
‘ . A‘ .g 5e.) . '- ‘ _I . |_ . _ - . r \ H p ._ , ..
I r ‘ . _- .
. . , ._ c " . . ' 4 ’ . a . a ‘2' 9
. J. . ' , ' . e , .1 ' ‘I . . . '. u . .
I» . . ’a.‘ e .. e e s e h
.
A .‘ ' -. \ .
- ‘ .., -‘ - . . . :‘|- _ ' ."l . ru' V‘ ,
t- '~ ' - , r « , - l v J. p 1‘ 4 , a.
l . . I
‘ . ' ' . . . . .- r _. . .- V... ‘ . ., o... . " ,., o ~- (‘ .A ~ .-.w .-.
i -. . A y .a . c. s j e l ' ; s'. e
.
O ' . e .
‘ . r . r A ,.. _ . ,,‘A -. r .' . ' ,.¢,. * ,
. - _ . . t) . . - . ,. , in: A
" e f ’b
‘ ,. . . , > .\‘ ‘ . 4'. ’ ..p" . - 3. , « .. s .'c
. O - a _. D \ . s A ° “0-.-. .. ‘ " ‘ ‘ ..
‘ A e —e - -‘OI . .1 .
«
.. . J,.
‘o
a e _ g e . .
. v.
. 7 . s. I .. ‘ .4' .
V e l '3 - i I I 9
‘ , .-. .1 . 9, q , ., \w . , e
, .
I u. ‘. b D
‘ .§ .05 v #
.—

. . i 1 , e . - . ‘
, . - .
., ' 0 ~‘, ' . .
' a ‘ fl . .
.' ' e I ' . e 1' ...a L,
y , ‘ O «
e ' é . \- e . u e ‘s
. . -
. a. e, . , ‘ e A -_ .. A:
-’ .V , x ‘ .. .. -
.

-24..

of this study indicated that there was "a statistically significant
relationship between rating of student teachers and their scholarship
as measured by all college grade-point average".

The study also reported "no significant relationships were found
between rating and personal adjustment as measured by the g§§393_
Reasonal Adjustment Inventogy" and "attitude toward children as measured
by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Igventogz, Form AA".35

Two other studies strongly support the importance of academic
achievement as correlated with student teaching success. Ullman36 in
his work with first.year teachers attempted to correlate their super-
visor's ratings with a number of other variables. The following are

some of the findings pertinent to this study!

 

 

EAQIQE§_QQBEELAIED. CO 0
Intelligence and supervisor's rating .15
Socio-economic status and supervisor's

rating 01 9
Academic scho1astic average and

supervisor's rating .30
Professional education scholastic

average and supervisor's rating .3037

The second study in this category of the importance of academic

achievement is Madsen's38 investigation. This study points out that

 

35Ib1d., p. 116.

36R. R. Ulman, "The Prediction of Teaching Success," Educational
Administration and Supervision, XVI, (November, 1930), pp. 608-612.
37:91.51... p. 6090

381. N. Madsen, "The Predicting of Teaching Success,” ucation
Administration and §upervision, XIII, (January, 1928), pp. 39-h7.

.25-

out of thirty-one failures in teaching, thirty were among the lowest
10% in intelligence and achievement as measured by tests given on
their entrance to teacher education institutions.

Cornett39 in his study at Texas Technological College fouu'l that

the present program of selecting prospective teachers on the basis of
a 2.0 average at the time of application a 'C" or better in second
semester freshman Ehzglish, an overall gradeepoint average of 'C"
(2.0) at the time of application, and a grade of "C" in the intro-
ductory course in education was ineffective in predicting teaching
performance as measured by the first year teaching evaluations by
their building principal.

Daltoneo in her work with junior high school teachers, found that
there was marked superiority in the academic achievement of the effec-
tive over the ineffective teachers as measured by uniergreduate grade-
point averages. This study indicated, however, that teachers in both
the high and low groups had grade-point averages in all five of the
categories from ”honors“ to the “Just-getting-by' classifications.
Establishing a cutoff at a high '0” average would have meant a loss of
25% of the effective teachers and the elimination of 50$ of the ineffec-
tive teachers.

 

39Joe D. Cornett, ”Effectiveness of Three Selective Admissions
Criteria in Predicting Performance of First Year Teachers ,"

1mg;
of mutual Besemh, Vol. 62, No. 6, (February, 1969). PPo 2b7-250.

”Elizabeth L. Dalton, t akes r e tive eachers o o
W? ,(Nashville, Tennessee: Department of Education, George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1962), Chapter III, pp. 13-28.

. r
r
I
.
~ 2.
l 1
.‘ .1
y ., ,
.
, 1
I ' ‘
.
e “ e
i ‘ I '
. « ‘v
v
‘ a ".
. .
A
.— V -‘
w A

5‘

. .

 

 

A
a
o
f. '
‘-
- e

 

'l.

f.

-26-

In this study the researcher said:

...regardless of the cautions that must be observed in using
undergraduate grades as a predictor of probable teaching
success, there was a significant difference at the .01 level
between the undergraduate averages of the two samples in

this study, with the high teachers earning, as a group, con-
sistently better grades .“1

SOCIO-ECONCMIC FACTORS AS PREDICTORS OF
SUCCESS IN TEACHER EDUCATION

The relationship of the socio-economic background of the student
teacher and the degree of effect it has on teaching performance is an
area that has received little attention from researchers in education
and sociology. The few studies um. have been developed in this area
have given strong indication that there is certain relevance betwun
this background factor and the performance of the classroom teacher.

Sinai“2

used a questionnaire with 726 public school teachers who
attesaied super school at the University of Alabama. He asked them
to classify themselves “in various social classes and socio-econonic
strata that they feel they represent“. None of these teachers classi-
fied th-aelves as upper-upper ani only 2i as upper-class; 13% affili-
ated themselves with the upper-lower working class; the remaining 8 5%
divided themselves bebteen the middle and upper-middle classes in a

nu. C: m ‘0 ”Ce

 

“1M0. p. 15e

“ZVerner )4. Sims, “The Social Class Affiliations of a Group of
Public School Teachers ," School fieviow, CIX (September, 1951),
pp- 331-338.

g.

.e‘
z
e
.
..
e
v' 3.’

f

‘4

FE. .,

a p
.2
f"

v r '
I f ‘0.
l ' ' - ..
‘ ‘ ’- I. . ~
5
. _ .
O
‘ I d
._ '
‘ w \a . . .
' 1 e‘ a“ ’ u
. . .
_ .. ' . ~
. l
s ' An .J 7‘
‘ ' s
. .
. g ‘ 4.\' . ..
- ‘. o ‘ .-- . . .‘
.' 0T 9' .
0P , A v
V ‘ i <nfle re ,"A ~
i “ ‘ a f- ' ~— ' .
.. ‘ '. . " s ,' g. '3 9.1-" ‘9
, . v
' .. ’ u f. . m f
' ‘. v e. A ‘-
. .. ...
- . I‘ .
.3 - .
‘ a
. ‘_ . . .
..C. .\ A Q _' k ,1 - . , “-3
“ ’ 0‘ ,., _. . .
‘.-;’\ p“ . la '. , .
‘ ’ e In‘.’ I w I z.
\ ' \
.. ‘
' i :4); 3 __ I
I . l
4‘ ~ _. _ . ~ ’ “g. I
‘ ' u. . , 1. .
I ‘ W"" L ,a‘
I" ‘ (' ' - 5- . a
Y ‘ .
“ ~ I 3! vs» II, », . --, _‘ r v .-
.u , .. .. V. ,1 ‘ . : ' ‘ h
I’ .
r " .. 3"?“ Ix ‘
. a . ' .. .
‘1‘
. . 1,. e _ ’l‘ O. r . . _ ~ .
. ‘. ‘ { ., . .C x.
' ‘
O ‘ up. . ... ‘ .-
A» ' , e I .
o ‘. . ‘ ,1 " i. .._l ‘
f. n in ‘. '. '
4 . , . .
C
. . , ’
i , ._,
‘ .
. e v v , '. -

 

I

.

.
v

F.‘

M.‘
It.
e

 

‘
I I .
-. -0
er.
O Q ,
s u _
' ' : . Os_ ‘
. .J . '
5"c' ' ..t ‘
. -
I
. - .
,.
' ' I —‘ e
I .
" s J *4 ':
.
«e " 1‘ , #0 ? ‘l'f‘
.9
A. .
. v,. e '
9" ,. ',_,e 0‘ g as
'rl’ ‘ e v
0 ° 1. ,- S, ,‘ ‘,(a‘,. \
’ J ’\
- 2‘ 1- , ' )4”
a
. ‘ a . . ‘ ,
‘ ’5 . so; -
\‘H . r‘ .
I " 'e‘ a . .
'3 . ' - at .
‘A - a
q‘ - .
-- . - -9 l.
u ‘a ’ .
,.. . . , ‘ q.
0
.- .. v i- ., >
y . “It. ' ‘s ”I 1
A :.v a ..Y .,.!',.‘
. e . -1 .
an?“ _. ‘
e ." ‘ . . ; l,
J c ' s ' ,7; O
- ' ' "“' 'Comwu,’
. Q . * J?
v 0
l
' e
t v "
i Cl.

-27-

Ten years earlier than Sims' work, Greenhoe's43 study of 9000
public school teachers, selected as a national sample, showed 38%
whose fathers were farmers, 26% whose fathers were engaged in small
businesses, 18% whose fathers were dayelaborers, and only 4% whose
fathers were professional men. In contrast, in l9u8, a study at the
University of Michigan conducted byBestm+ showed a bare majority
coming from white-collar families.

In the last few years, there seems to have been even a more
pronounced change in the socio-economic background of teachers.

In a recent study of Detroit Public School teachers,‘Wattenbergu5
_found in his research that there was not only an extremely wide range
of social origins, but that the number who came from working class
families is greater than the number who came from'white-collar
families. The shift that has occurred can be seen further by com-

paring the younger teachers in the sample with the older teachers.

 

“BFlorence Greenhoe, Community;Contacts and Participation of
Ieachers,'Washington, D. C., American Council on Public Affairs,
(1941), PP. 1'5“.

-u4John Wesley Best, ”A Study of Certain Selected Factors
Underlying the Choice of Teaching,” Journal of Ex erimental Education,
XVII, (March, 1948). pp. 201-259.

45WilliamHWattenberg, et al., "Social Origins of Teachers-Facts
from a Northern Industrial City,” ThegTeachers_Role in American
Society. John Dewey Society, Fourteenth‘Yearbook, Lindley Stiles, ed.
(1957)s PP. 31‘580

--‘- "

I r.
. A.
n
--

n

I e
l.

..

,.

‘V.

-23-

The table below illustrates Wattenberg's point.

[athers' Occupations of a 811er of Detroit Teachers

(Age of Teachers)
Father's Occupation Under 1+0 Over 1+0 Total
umbe 9 cent Number e ent umbe e cent

 

 

 

mf08810ndeeeeeeeee 18 9% 2 1% 20 10%
Business , managerial. 21 11% 10 5% 31 16%
Other white-collar. . . 20 10% 5 2. 5% 2 5 12.5%
Farmer............... 3 1e5$ 8 u% 11 5e5%
Skill“ Weeeeeeee 21 11% 6 3% 27 1%
Othor'L‘bOreeeeeeeeee 5“ 27% 3 1e5$ 57 28.5%
Retired , unemployed ,

dCOOCJdeeeeeeeeeee-zg 10% _Z 3e5¢ £246 13e5¢

TOTAL 157 1+1. 198

 

The strong trend, in an industrial city, to have a large percentage
of, teachers whose social origins are derived from the laboring class is
not necessarily true for other communities in our nation. Warner,
Havighuret, and Leela“? in their study found that in some parts of the
country, teachers are predominately upper-middle: in others, predom-
inantly lower-middle, as illustrated in the followingtaue based upon
studies of public school teachers in “hometown" (a small midwestern
town), in "Iankee City” (a town in New England), and in "Old City”

(a town in the deep south).

 

 

 

WWM

one kee d
Upper-upper.............u..u... O 2 205
Lewer~upper...................... 0 1 2e5
Upp'fifliddlCeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 26 76 7205
L“.r‘n1ddl.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 72 21 20.0
Upperdlower...................... 2 0 2e “8
LWQr‘lWGre on eejeesy 014110.1ij o 0 040 w

 

 

Igid" 9. Ike

“711m W. Warner, Robert J. Havighurst, and martin B. Loeb,
Win (New York: Harper and Brosu 19+“). pp- 1-232-

uszgide’ p. 101.

" ‘ '- o-u-o

« . -.
‘ 'fl ‘ - 7‘0'0 ‘ ~ - "' ‘~"“"'e~— 4 lm‘~.'..d‘l"

. .
. . . . .. . -
. \ ' . " ' ._ I
L, - ~ ‘ . - -'- ‘t 1 f
. . . . .
’ . - I In ‘ -' e' "
U _ 0 3 ~— ‘ ~ 0 O - .. "' -I .. v- o , A.” v.
w I ‘ ' I ‘I’ D I" :I'fu'.‘
0 ‘- . e. eeeeeeeeeeeeeee,... 1,
. ‘ v u ‘ _ -
‘ . ‘ 5"" ‘ ' P. 3 [‘o'. ‘ . .
' ‘ I” ' ‘ » 3 0 O O I... a'-'*‘--- .. -.~ . - .

‘ . .-p-\(‘n ._~-
a ' 0 , - - eeeeea-eeee ..... ‘

 

\ e . .‘a' \,.c ' I ’ ' H
I- ' " e. ‘ .0 ¢ “‘1‘ ...I
.
. . 4 . ‘ .O’
. 1 1 , - k u
‘ ’ '~ '. s-oaeeeeeeexhw‘m
i - -" §r
. .
‘ i
, - ,‘, ‘4 o» ‘. e - , . ._ . . . ..n . . p .7 -- ".‘."U".. >IDV.. ,. .‘ - a ‘ u. xe- .~-\.,. ”I'M‘H'a' .‘fi‘fice
.- I . e . g .-.
_ ' ’1 .. ,. :, , - .. _ ‘. ‘v‘ ~ .. l ‘ v, .- , y, .- - I'.‘..f“‘ . .
. . ' '1' A 9 so .' . ." . - 9 ,. \ u A h
c l
. . . . .
1.1, ~ . " -.-» ' A , ~ , ’vr. « . ' .:.~ ."
, ‘ u '. .. e. . a I .4 - ‘ ’ ' ‘ M "
. , ‘ -0: e.
"O‘I r' ' - ‘ , ,.. . . .r' ‘L _ A ‘ ~‘ ..1 A, ‘f '4\ _r .‘.‘ J‘ . “ ~1- ‘ .A ‘s ‘ 8. gr;
t a. . ‘ ... - . I *3. c _J . O .e' , .L \ ' ' \ - “ s , .4 4 .I a. L I
I- ‘
. a . . . . .7 e e
W e ,! . ~ - j .l. , e : ..- , 1‘s . u’ " '5.) : ‘ .\ .n " ‘~":' I- 3
a v , I .. . . ~. , - I L. . a a * I r ‘ ~79 ' ‘a
, w ’ ‘ ‘ .
.r.. h . .4 ~ H . ‘ . < .‘ ‘ . ‘ A . . . - . ~- .. 1
,a-J ., , .. e- . .‘ ‘ . _; . . ~ I - . v. , .-
,. ‘ I? f _\ .‘u. ._. , - , _ , ," , .‘ . , ' ' ,7 . "- “ v ?3: . Q ‘ . '>‘
,r - I , . » ., “_ r ,9 v
." i ." - 'fl ' ’ . .\ ._p . I ‘ . . .. . '(, . .3
.o‘ , r-' ,. ?‘ " " . \ H _ so ’ -,., j l‘ h h ' I - .' a t. -
a
l I ‘ l r ‘ i I ,
‘ . . » _ t r» . a P. , . . . , . ~ ‘ , . w ~ r " .~
‘ J ' . .- . . ,.: . W .t . . i U -¢3 ' ’ , a .
I A '
,. . ‘ K .
A ' . m'. m! «we I”!
. . . I, a ~- . .. ... . » 7 - >_I . _ ‘ .p - '
' e g '.
. ..' I . ‘ f‘ , ,.
. ' I
' n l I
. ‘
.. ' ' .. . ‘Q . a . 'c i I f .
| i — ‘ . . ‘
,‘ A. . - g - ,. .p ‘ ', . . - . . . a . a n . - . . .
~ ' - . a n\. -~ ' . « ‘ e r e I-OC o l n r 9 . '1. e . .— --. . -1 ,o ..p e a o -
. V, l . u". . .~ \
.. .‘ . .1. . . 1.... .4, A. . ‘. -._. a .7 ’. ' .. . ,4- . 7.... .a... ...-. .- . .- . .v.. . - h-.o-«-.~.\~.e. . au. .0 cu . ...- a as-
'; ,~ 3 e."Pb ”'1"
., , v CID-OIOCOOQDOOOOOOOOOO“ .- ‘ -
. . , , .,
. ‘ '. ~l' e-
: ...'. . O I 9 0......‘00 O O. O 0.... -' ‘ - .. . H 4
. ,- a -
I I I ‘ I .I ..l
_.,.‘ -- eeaeeeeeeoeeeeeeooeee
. a - O 4'

e A , ee-eeoeeeoeeeeeeeeeeolé

0‘ ' eeeees---eeeeteeeeeeeee- -’ _

- . ~. 0
. .eee Oueoeeeeeeoeeeeee
u .7 n O—'.r 'e,....-.,<.. ,,_,‘ ,. ‘ . . ‘ ~ a .- . . o.‘
. «a e‘.- -. ..v e- w . ~. . ;,
It 1 -
e -- 0 no
-,
‘\
to ‘ . , *. r. . .e/ ’
p O . .- u . i . 0‘ 2' ., v ° I
- ‘ ’ ‘ ed." ’ " 4 . . .
3 - O O 79 - . e . ‘ ‘ ~ -
‘ ‘ ’1‘ L’

-29-

Havighurst and Neugartenu9 explained in one of their writings that
it is very important to know something of the social origin of any
given teacher in trying to understand his performance in the classroom.
He feels, however, that educators must look at the socio-economic origin
in relation to personality. 'With this in mind, Havighurst states that
"although a given teacher's social origin may have had an important
influence upon his or her personality, it is virtually impossible to
cite generalized effects that would be true for allteachers of any
single origin".50

THE JUNIOR COLLEGE TRANSFER AND HIS RELATION TO THE
DEGREE OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN STUDENT TEACHING

There seems to be a total absence of’studies directly related to
the junior college student and his success in teacher education. How-
ever, there have been two or three significant studies done in relation
to the junior college transfer student and academic achievement in his
junior and senior years. Since many researchers have found a high
correlation between college grade-point average and success in teaching
it may be quite appropriate to examine these few key studies.

Martorana and Wflliamsfl conducted a study with 155 students who

had previously attended a junior college for two years of study and who

 

ungbert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, Society and
Education, (Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957) pp. 355-375.

SOIbide 9 p. 36““

518. V. Martorana and L. L. Williams, ”Academic Success of Junior
College Transfers at the State College of Washington," Junior College

£22151. XXIV. (March. 195“). pp- 402415.

-30-

transferred to the State College of‘washington in the l9u7-l9h8
academic year. These students were matched with a random.sample
of nonstransfer students with comparable majors. In the area of
Elementary Education, 21 of the transfer students were matched
‘with 21 nonstransfer students. One important variable that the
researchers attempted to take into consideration was the fact that
the high school grade-point average of the transfer students
(2.468) was lower than that of the non-transfer student (2.690).

The researchers concluded that when they examined the results
of um:- study, and took into consideration the mm... in high
school academic achievement, there was no significant difference
between the academic success of the student‘who came from a junior
college from that of the nonptransfer student.52

Hilliway53 in his work indicates that the scores received by
freshmen in four-year colleges on the Psychological Examination
of the American Council on Mucation test was 107.2% The average
raw score for junior college freshmen was 101.80. Hillway points
out, however, that the raw score for students in teachers colleges
that same year was only 92.83. At the same time the researcher
indicated that variation.among the different institutions illustrates
the point that Junior college, as well as other four year institutions,

by no means have the same standards. In some Junior colleges the

 

52112—1309 P- 41“

53Tyrus Hillway, The Amegican Two-leer Collage, (New York,
Harper and Brothers, 1968), pp. 84-93.

I . ;
e
_ -‘ -. . . V
- . " " . e v .
. . - 1.
Q , » ’ ; x O .
, I ‘- I 'v \ ’ ' t . ,
,. ~ ~ . .. “ .J 3" .,.‘ _~ , . . . ' .‘ A- i '1 I
l
,. , .

V 1 ' ‘ ~ , e e_ . ‘.'
' v - ‘ ' . I
e
< - . I
. ' ' . v ‘ ‘ ‘ . ' .' ’ '0 ‘ ..
' a '- ‘J ’ n -' . -.,\ i I ‘ I
I‘
\
v e - , .‘ ' l" '

, . . ( . . . .. .,
-. ' I. .‘ , ,- .. ‘ . ‘ , 9. ‘ ’
I ' e . ,
' P ’ -’ . . ~ I I.
( . \.. u ‘ _' I I
. . . n . . ,-.'

- ,. .‘ K ' . e .- z .
- I ' J V . I d" _ , . - I I x _>‘. . ,a,
e - V » ' ‘ ~ - u
h ‘, ‘ 'l . ' V . 3‘ _rl‘.. . 3'
. . . , .' .. . ‘ ,
I , , or I...- . _ t ‘ “ g‘ p ,- e
. o O ‘ l I. a ‘ ’
. 0- . ~ ,
.
.
‘ l . ' . ,, ' a , -
' l
-’ u t‘ I o‘ . ' s -. g
- - » . ‘, » . -.

   

r ‘ e ‘
‘ 'l ' 5 ~ "" " ‘ ' . ’ a . - ‘ .
' a 1 . 5 . ' : - - a - a e
l_‘ .-
» ’ l ‘ v - a , ' I
3‘ 7 a ’ . I ' v "
‘. I '- 4 ‘< ‘ 7.3 -- ., ‘ ‘. t -
s
A . ..., . <r ' , ' ’V .
.. . 0 t I . A
. . ~ . - ....
-~ I Q 0 ...
. .a
i ‘ . - \ .
\ . g . , ' e I
. . . . I
. - .

average score was as low as 77.09. The scores for all four-year
colleges in which the tests were given ranged from a high of
129.58 to a low of 32.55; while scores in the teachers colleges
ranged from 115.46 to l+0.86. The author concluded that:

...scores on this examination tended to show that the

scholastic aptitude as measured by the American Council

on Education Psychological Examination, is not much ,

lower for Junior college freshmen than it is for freshmen

in standard four-year colleges and universities. Further-

more, vast varia ens exist among individual institutions

in this respect.

De Ridder55 gives further evidence in his study that junior college
students are not academically inferior to other college students. He
examined the records of those who transfer to four-year colleges as
Juniors after graduation from a two-year institution and discovered that
these students actually demonstrate marked superiority over comparable
groups of students who have entered four-year colleges and universities
as freshmen. De Ridder also found that even the student who had grad-
uated fru ”terminal courses“ (supposedly nontransferable) in junior
colleges did well in later college and university work. 01' 1,17? stu-
dents transferring from terminal courses, “6% succeeded in obtaining
better than average grades in colleges and universities, and only 16%

received grades below average.

 

SLIM" P0 860

”Lawrence H. De Kidder, ”Comparative Scholastic Achievement
of Native and Transfer Students," Junior nggo gmng, XXII,
(October, 1951), p. 83.

a.

I‘

 

e
-o
.-
,?
,.

\. .-‘

 

 

 

-32-

Cratty56 found, in a study of physical education majors at the
University of California, a difference of .50 in grade-point average
between non-transfer (5.22) and transfer students from junior colleges
(“.83). This difference is not statistically significant enough to
make any definite recommendations concerning the presence or lack of

academic preparation during the freshman and sophomore years.

SUMMARY

This chapter has dealt with a presentation and review of studies
that relate various factors to the degree of success and failure in
student teaching. The first group of studies cited was concerned with
personality factors as predictors of success in teacher education.

The second group of studies was concerned with achievement and aca-
demic ability as predictors of success in teacher education. The

third group reviewed the literature concerned with socio-economic
factors as predictors of success in teacher education. The fourth

group of studies was concerned with the junior college transfer stud-
ent as a predictive factor in the student's success in teacher education.

One may conclude from this survey of related research that consid-
erable investigations have taken place concerning nearly all isolated
factors of the hypotheses of this study. However, little has been done
to determine the possible strengths of inter-correlations as potential

predictors of success in student teaching.

 

56Bryant J. Cratty, "A Comparison of Selected Pre-Teaching Compen-
tencies of Transfer and Non-Transfer Students," Junior Colle e Journal,
XXXI, (October, 1960), pp. 78-81.

CHAPTER III

THE SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The lack of concrete evidence for the process whereby teachers
are adequately prepared in institutions of higher learning has
prompted this analysis of factors affecting the degree of success
and failure in student teaching.

At present there seem to be few universally accepted methods
to identify, screen, and place teacher education candidates preceding
their admission to a program of student teaching. ‘With the exception
of college grade—point average, there is little continuity in the use
of objective or subjective data, interview, or personality inventories
in connection with the entrance of a student into his student teaching

experience and eventually into the teaching profession.

BASIS FOR HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses of this study were derived from an examination of
selected cases of elementary education majors being studied by the
College of Education at.Michigan State University.

Hypothesis IsA stated, in the null form, that there would be no
relationship between college grade-point average and the degree of
success or failure in student teaching. The college grade-point
average was obtained from the folders of the students which are
located in the Student Affairs Office, College of Education, Michigan

State University.
-33-

Hypothesis I-B stated, in the null form, that there would be no
relationship betweu Freshman Orientation scores at Michigan State
University and the degree of success or failure in student teaching.
The Freshman Orientation scores were obtained from the folders of
the students in the Student Affairs Office, College of Education.

The Freshman Orientation Tests used in this study were the w

W: the {LS9 lAgithmetig Exoticieggx Test, and the
W- ’

The my Wish flacemgnt Test consists of thirty objective
test items representing many aspects of English usage. Included are
11:- en spelling, capitalisation, grammar, punctuation, sentence
straeture, and organisation. The test is primarily designed to iden-
tify students who may require assistance in the area of remedial

mh COMO“ e1

The W is also designed to detect
stints whe are deficient in a basic skill. Students who score
below the minimum standards are required to take a basic course in
asthmatics. The test, consisting of 1+5 problems in basic arithmetic,
has proved to be relatively effective for this purpose.2

The W is a 97 item test which yields a Vocabulary
Score, a Comprehension Score, and a Total Reading Score. The vocabu-

lary portion consists of 50 test items while the comprehension portion

 

1 , The Use of Orientation Test Data, The Office of
Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, (February, 1957),
p. 2. (Mimeographed).

2
Igme ’ p. 2e

-35-

portion is based on the student's ability to answer #7 questions con-
cerning several reading passages involving concepts typicel of several
academic areas at Michigan State University. Although the basic pur-
pose of the test is to measure the reading ability of students, no
attempt is made to restrict the measure to the simple mechanics of
reading. Instead, many factors involved in critical thought are un-
doubtedly assessed in this measure of reading proficiency.3

Hypothesis I-C stated, in the null form, that there would be no
relationship between the secio-economic status of the parents and the
degree of success or failure in student teaching. The socio-economic
status of the family is a rough categorization of the parents' occupa-
tion. This informationnwas obtained from the Eggggpgl_pgtg_§hggtg
which were completed by the subjects before the end of the term in

'which they'were student teaching.
Hollingshead'su :32 zsgto; mg; 33 Sogigl Pgsiticn was utilized

and adapted to allow placement of students into socio-economic classes.
The single factor of occupationnwas the index to social position used
in this studyt The occupational scale of the 1!g_£§gtgz_znggg_tg
§ggigl_zggitigg, was used to classify students into five socio-economic

 

3Ibid., p. 3

“August a. Hollinsshud. WW.
(New Haven: Yale University, 1957). p. 1-26.

I .
‘ .
m , . ' g: 0-,
? . « . . A . s‘ r I: -si .3
. .
‘ r"- . ‘ . ‘ H ‘ ‘ i‘ -
*. ‘ ‘ . A’ ' .' A a ' v
. - ~ ‘ ’ ' t. ' x; . \ 4
, ..
1‘ - t‘ ‘, ls " . 4‘ .‘ -" '
. , | . a .J' . .
. - , r I ~ -
-6. A' . a . ‘ 'o s .'
‘ . ' ' .' ’ ‘5 , r. A ( f ‘ . . «
. ,,e' . ' . 9-» . Joe‘ .d. i" '
' O
— ' . ‘v - a
1 s . . .' ‘ ‘ , . ‘ e > r *‘
. . ‘ ' I‘ A9 ‘~’. ‘.- -- I '7
o , . — ,7 1 .. -
, - “a ‘ . I. v
s e ' ' .. l
t ..- _ . , . ,- , _
. . y '. T , . n f .a- .-‘Ik.4 ‘- ~l
.
e
‘ ‘~ .. . I ' A - .
y . ~ . I ‘1 ‘$ . ‘. , '1. --'.‘
.t" .' ."
. .
.‘ I . . ‘ ,
, r. - a
. , . e . . , a - s
. . v .e .1. | 'e :1 -
v - m I-‘.- ‘ ' §
' I . ' IN I
‘ (J ' _ r _ t . A f,’ ' I . "a
. 'V . .
- ' A . ‘ - I. v * ..‘ J‘
‘ I 4' d
I ‘ ‘ .l .
~ | l.'. . . ‘
’-.' V . . \Ov_ .. . . . ,
. I I . e ‘
. ' ' U a

 

(a.

e

e

. I

..e'
..

I
.»e
-'~
‘ e
. ‘_
I
..q
t .
‘e
r
J
.
, .
¢
w
A
e
-'
. .
e.‘-.t
l

31.8809e

1.

2.

3.

b.

5.
6.

7.

The seven point occupational scale is listed below.

The Occupational Scale5

Higher executives of larger concerns, proprietors, and 6
major professionals. (established doctors and lawyers).

Business managers, proprietors of mediumpsised businesses,
and minor professionals. (college and public school
administratorS)

Administrative personnel, owners of’small businesses,
and minor professionals. (college faculty'members)

Clerical and sales workers, technicians, and owners of
little businesses. (value under $6,000) - (public
school teachers)

Skilled manual employees.

Machine operators and semi-skilled employees.

Unskilled employees.

For the purpose of’division this seven.point Occupational Scale

was divided under the five fOIIowing socio-econcmic headings:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(‘4)
(5)

Low Socio-Economic Class

Number 7 of the Occupational Scale
MiddleéLow Socio-Economic Class

Number 6 of the Occupational Scale
Middle Socio-Economic Class _

Numbers u and 5 of the Occupational Scale
Middle-High Socio-Economic Class

Numbers 2 and 3 of the Occupational Scale
High Socio-Economic Class

Number’l of the Occupational Scale

Hypothesis I-D stated, in the null form, that there'would be no

significant relationship between those students who graduated from

nonepublic high schools and the degree of success or failure in

 

51b1de, p. 17o

6

The information in parenthesis was added to Ballingshead's

Occupational Scale by the author so as to create broader categories
‘within each class.

1
l
.,
‘.
3
0‘
..‘
‘e.

lv(
‘I
'
or.,~
a
e
.
s
‘ .
I.
..

'_ I .
.
.
V ' I Q
“~ > ) ‘
..
’ O
‘ > . ...
. .' I
.. ’ ‘ . u v
. | 1 ‘ .
V. . u a . '
. ' I I
I a
u ‘ . ‘ ‘
'l 4 . ‘ w i -
. J “ . -‘ ’
. _ - Pr I . ‘ 3 '
. ‘ I
. ‘ x " .
o
‘ ' ,a, . — , l» V 4
. - I h ‘1‘“. ‘ ‘ 0‘
‘ h
. t ‘1.
,
V . ‘ r '
, 1 r
I a ‘_ . : . l
H l . .—
.
. .
.. . A
a ’ ‘ A ‘
.
‘ D
. ' I
. ‘ ‘
r . “K
r .
‘ .
..
. . . . ‘I .
' O
l r 'f ' ' f. ‘ I ',
‘ me ,
.V . i
. . I
u ‘ l ‘
.
. , . . ‘ n
D
- I . U f .'l .
. . o '
a ‘ .
C 4 ‘. ‘ ‘ ii. '
‘ i .
.- " . - I v 1 ‘
. ‘ l ‘
l.< , .. a .
. . f A l '
v ‘ > I
. , ‘ V! ‘1 k. .- \J;
'77 - . . ”-u . .
. ‘ .
r ’ ' ' - a.
I I

..
.
.
.
Q
.
a.
g
e"
p.
, .

I
.
‘ .. .
.
a' 1
e
3,
1 ‘ ‘
w.
.‘
a
v
..

 

I‘.

 

.
' n
l -‘I
‘e
.r
..
b

‘J

student teaching. The information, concerning the type of high school
attended, was obtained from the Eersonal Data Sheet which was com-
pleted by the subjects before the end of the term in which they were
student teaching.

Hypothesis I-E stated, in the null form, that there would be no
significant relationship between the junior college transfer student,
the four year institution transfer, and the student who has completed
all his work at this institution and the degree ofsuccess or failure
in student teaching. This hypothesis was derived from frequent criti-
cism of the past preparation of transfer students, particularly junior
college students. ‘Whether there is any foundation for criticism of
transfer students in teacher education is a question this study may
hopefully'explore.

Hypothesis I-F stated, in the null form, that there would be no
significant relationship between the self evaluation of the student
teacher's potential before and during the student teaching experience
and the degree of success or failure in student teaching. This hypo-
thesis was included in this study so that the author may attempt to
examine the ability of the student teacher to examine his classroom
teaching potential both prior to and immediately following student
teaching. The instrument used with the student teacher for their

self evaluation was the Confidence Level Inventory for Icaghegs,7 an
eight major item check list which was a slight modification of the

 

7This is a modified version of the Michigan State University
Student Teacher Evaluation Form, altered so it may be used as a
self-evaluative device. A copy of this instrument may be found
in the Appendix.

ichi tate ivei i ent eac e uatio o .8

The CLIT (Confidence Level Inventory for Teachers) is so constructed
so as to have the student teacher respomi to eight major categories
with seven of these having numerous sub-categories. The student
teacher has a choice of ten numbered responses to each major and sub-
category. This self evaluation provided the students with the follow-
ing choices as descriptive of their efforts, prior to and near the
conclusion of, their student teaching experience:
l-2 I feel extreme concern about my abilities in this area.
34+ I feel greater than average concern about my abilities
in this area.
5-6 I feel average concern about and have average confidence
in my abilities in this area.
7-8 I feel relatively confident about aw abilities in this area.
9-10 I feel extremely confident about my abilities in this area.
Hypothesis I-G stated, in the null form, that there would be no
significant relationship between certain personality factors as measured
by the mags Eersongl mgeregce Schedule and the degree of success or

failure in student teaching.

The Egg (gums Beam fingeregcg Sghedule) was given to the
population of this study just prior to their student teaching experi-
ence. The mg was designed primarily as an instrument for research
and counseling purposes, to provide quick and convenient measures of a
number of relatively independent normal personality variables. The
m differs from many inventories in one key aspect. A number of

personality inventories purport to measure such traits as emotional

 

8This is a seven aajor iten evaluation device used by supervi-

sing teachers and college coordinators at Michigan State University.
A copy of this may be found in the Appendix.

stability, anxiety, adjustment, neuroticism. Still other inventories
purport to measure such clinical and psychiatric syndromes as schizo-
phrenia, paranoia, or hysteria. High and/or’low scores on these in-
ventories have associated maladjustive or clinical connotations. For
research and counseling purposes, where it is often desirable to
report back scores to subjects, such inventories present definite
problems. These connotations are less likely to be attached to vari-
ables in the §E2§, The fifteen personality needs produced by the
§£§§,and correlated with the degree of success or failure in student
teaching in this study are:

1. ”Achievement”

2. ”Deference'

3e "Order"

b. "Exhibition"

5. "Autonomy”

6. "Affiliation"

7. ”Intraception”

8. ”Succorance'

9. "Dominance"
10. "Abasement"
ll. "Nurturence"
12. ”Change"
13. ”Endurance”
14. "Heterosexuality"
15. "Aggression"9

Simple correlations for twenty-seven items are constructed for this

study. Each item has been set up so that both a correlation and an

explained variance can be derived. The twenty-seven items are as follows:

 

9Allen L. Edwards, Edwards Eersonal Ereference Schedule figual,
(New'York: The Psychological Corporation, 1959), p. 5 .

-#O-

l. Socio-economic class
2. Transfer data
3. Type of high school attended (public or non-public)
4. College grade-point average
5.-9. Freshman Orientation Scores

10. Pre-student teaching Confidence Level inventory for

Teachers
11. Post student teaching Confidence Level Lgventogz for
Teachers

12. Combined ratings of supervising teacher and college
coordinator on a one to twenty scale with.l-8 low;
9-10 middle, and 15-20 high.

13.-27. The fifteen item Edwards Personal Preference §chedule

The productemoment correlation coefficient was used in this study
to calculate a simple correlation between each of the variables listed
above and the criteria for the degree of success and failure as eval-
uated by'a combined student teacher evaluation, developed by the stud-
ent teaching office at.Michigan State University and completed by each
supervising teacher and coordinator. The method of obtaining the
correlation was obtained from the following formula:

ZXY - (SIX) (SI)

r= n

xx? - (2292 m2 - (avg
n n

 

The mean, as calculated by the productdmoment correlation coeffi-
cient formula, for each of the fifteen items on the Edwards Persona;
Ezgfggence Schedule was compared with the EEE§,normative college sample.

To examine in more detail this researcher also selected fifty stu-
dents receiving the highest combined supervising teacher and college
coordinator rating, (15-20), the fifty student teachers receiving the

lowest.(l-9) combined ratings, and the one hundred student teachers

.41-

receiving the middle ratings (lo-14). A separate analysis was made

to supplement each twpothesis stated in this study.

SUMMARY

This chapter has provided a description of the basis for the
hypotheses, a description of the population, a survey of the instru-
ments used, and a review of the statistical analysis that is to be

employed in this study.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the
analysis of the data obtained for each of the hypotheses listed
in Chapter I. The data are arranged in such a way as to indicate
(1) the statistical process of a Simple Correlation Analysis,
(2) the percent of variance that can be explained, (3) and the
statistical significance of the correlation as it relates to suc-

cess in student teaching and the seven hypotheses being tested.1

 

lln this study a statistically significant figure at the .05
level is .138 and will be indicated by'a single asterisk * in the
tables, a statistically significant figure at the .01 level is
.181 and will be indicated by a double asterisk **, and N S will
indicate no significant correlation.

-h2-

4+3-

Hypothesis I-A
Hypothesis I-A postulates that there is no significant relation-
ship between college grade-point average and the degree of success or

failure in student teaching.

Table 1

Simple Correlation Between College Grade-Point Average
and the Degree of Success or Failure in Student Teach-
ing as Measured by Combined Student Teacher Evaluation

 

 

 

Degree of Percent of Vari-
Yariable Sggcess or Faiiure ance Exnlained Siggifiicince
College Grade-Point .327 11% **

 

The computed analysis of data in Table l disproves the null posi-
tion of Hypothesis I-A. Table 1 indicates that there is a statistical
significant relationship between a students college grade-point average
and the degree of his success or failure in student teaching. However,
considering that only 11% of the relationship between grade-point and
success or failure in student teaching can be explained as related
directly to one another, this still leaves 89% of this relationship in
the area of the_unknown. Thus, the reliability of totally disproving

‘ Hypothesis 12A is cpen to considerable question.

Hypothesis I-B
Hypothesis I-B postulates that there is no significant relation-
ship between freshman orientation scores at Michigan State University

and the degree of success or failure in student teaching.

Table 2

Simple Correlation Between Freshman Orientation Test Scores
and the Degree of Success or Failure in Student Teaching as
Measured by Combined Student Teacher Evaluation.

 

 

 

 

Degree of Percent of Vari- Significance
Iariable §3ccess or Failure ance lained
Freshman Orientation
Tests

English .178 3% ‘
Reading .145 2% *
Vecabulary .069 1% NS
Information .01“ % NS
Arithmetic .106 1% NS

 

The computed analysis of data in Table 2 supports Hypothesis cI-B
in three of the five test categories. Freshman Orientation Tests in
English and Reading, however, were proven to have a significant correla-
tion with the degree of success or failure in student teaching at the
.05 level and thus disprove a portion of the hypothesis. English with
a significant correlation of only .178 and reading with a correlation
of .145, though statistically significant, are so low in explained
variance the writer is extremely hesitant to negate the position of

HyPOthes 13 I'B e

45-

Hypothesis I-C
Hypothesis I-C postulates that there is no significant relationship
between the socio-economic status of the parents of college students and

the degree of success or failure in student teaching.

Table 3

Simple Correlation Between the Socio-Economic Status of the
Parents of the College Student and the Degree of His Success
or Failure in Student Teaching.

 

 

 

 

Degree of Percent of Vari-
Variable Success or_Failure ance lained Si ificance
Socio-Economic Status .214 b% **

 

The computed analysis of data in Table 3 disproves the null position
of Hypothesis I-C. Table 3 illustrates that the socio-economic status of
the college student's parents correlates statistically at a .01 signifi-
cance level. However, the correlation of .214 leaves too many unexplain-
ed factors. This writer is very reluctant to support the Hypothesis on

the basis of this significance factor.

.47-

Hypothesis I-E
Hypothesis I-E postulates that there is no significant relation-
ship between the transfer student and the student who has completed
his undergraduate work at.Michigan State University and the degree of

success or failure in student teaching.

Table 5

Simple Correlation Between the Transfer Student and the
Student Who Has Completed His Undergraduate Work at
Michigan State University an% Their Degree of Success or
Failure in Student Teaching.

 

 

 

Degree of Percent of Vari-
Vaziabie Success or failure ance Eiplained Significance
Transfer and Non-
Transfer Student .084 1% NS

 

The computed analysis of data in Table 5 proves the null position
of Hypothesis I-E. A correlation of .08# is not statistically signifi-
cant thus, supporting the statement that there is no significant rela-
tionship between the transfer student and the student who has completed
his undergraduate work at Michigan State University and their degree of

success or failure in student teaching.

 

2To the statistical formula of a simple correlation there was

added the Pearson analysis which from its score comes data that
automatically yields point biserial between continuous and dichoto-
mized variables.

 

 

 

' ‘ r ‘ O c . ' i
I » ' . , A': . .’ .
'1 A i
. , t
. 1.. - 1 . . . . , _ - .
.,
4 i
N , ‘c. - v , '
v I .
Q ‘ Ia
‘ ‘ l -5 ‘ - . '
I A
.1 I . » » ‘. 4 - a
. ' 4
. .
e ‘ v-r. . ' - "‘ . ‘ .\
.
‘ j v i
I , .c
. ( ..\ .e . . . ..~ . e _. . . - . I. . g . -v-e-o- ..
e r . . p-.- ~ , -.
. .
.-
- 4
'. " - .
.. . . -e - - a g - - - n - .. ww- - C u .. . s
o
I 9 .
- v , . . ,. . , . . . - ._- . . .
- .7 .
F . .
)
n '. V . -,
A ‘ ' e ._ . . ,
v‘ , ' ' ‘ u‘ .
\ ' ‘ s ‘
_ ,.. .
... .

5 . 7
. . . i - e alesm-o . -~9 ...e-r.
s i ‘ .
.~ A y
. . _
, . _ .

.ua-

Hypothesis I-F
Hypothesis I-F postulates that there is no significant relation-
ship between the self evaluations of the student teachers before and
during the student teaching experience and the degree of success or

failure in student teaching.

Table 6

Simple Correlation Between the Self Evaluations of the
Student Teachers Potential Before and During the Student
Teaching Experience and the Degree of Success or Failure
in Student Teaching

 

 

 

Degree of Percent of Vari-
Vagiable Success or Faiiure ance Explained Significance
Ego-Confidence gavel
Qventogz .307 10% **
Post-Confidence Level
Inventogz .332 10% **

 

The computed analysis of data in Table 6 disproves the null posi-
tion of Hypothesis I-F. Table 6 shows that there is a statistical
significant relationship between the self evaluation of the student
teachers on both the Ere:§on£idegge Levei Igventogz and the Post-Confi-
dence Level Inventogy and the degree of success or failure in student
teaching. However, with both gonfidence Level igventories having only
a 10% level of explained variance one must be very careful in over

emphasizing the strength of the refutation of the hypothesis.

 

a-..

’ ~~.

 

ow.

Hypothesis I'G
Hypothesis-I-G postulates that there is no significant relationship
between certain personality factors as measured by the W
£1:{g:gggg_§ghg§glg and the degree of success or failure in student
teaching. Table 7 examines statistically each of the fifteen needs of
the m as they relate to this basic I'vpothesis.

Table 7
Simple Correlation Babies!) Certain Personality Factors as

Measured by tbs Ed:2Is:_Ea:a2na1_222£:::nss_§2hs§sls.and
the Degree of Success or Failure in Student Teaching.

‘4 __-__

 

 

 

 

Viriahle Degree of Percent of Vhri- Significance
S ccess o ail a
e e hed

”Achieve-ent“ .1hh 2% ‘

“Deference' .217 A 5% "
“Order' .104 2% t

“Exhibition” .289 8% ee
“Autonomy“ .062 ii us
”Affiliation“ .3h8 12$ “
"Intraception' .237 61 **
'Sueccrence' .203 #1 *0
'Doninance* .108 1% NS
“these-ent! .220 5% “
'lurturance' .255 7% **
“Change“ .306 10$ "
"Endurance“ .122 1% NS
“Heterosexuality' .179 Bi ‘

”Aggression" .050 0% NS

The conputed analysis of data in Table 7 disproves the null position
of Hypothesis I-G. Table 7 indicates that thereto statistically signi-
ficant rdlationships betueen e1even of the fifteen need items on the

l!!!:d¢.£::22nal_2:2£22:nsn_§2h2§212. The fear itcns that tend to support

 

 

 

. a ‘ ‘ a ' '
‘ . \ -.‘ ' * , . .. a '
. I. I i. ‘ e ' I . ) V A. "' A ‘v' v V
\ .‘ I x . ‘J-‘Iu' Iv - - ,- . _, ' ‘ . \ ; .. -
w 4 -4 . . - a ., . , w j . -
v v I - -‘-- I
‘ . , ' 4
o ' '_ ' r... 4 . , l . \ I ' . , . .
- - , . s ., . . .
. | 4, _ . V ‘ . . _ F . ' 7* ‘7
' -‘ 0' ' ' a e “ fi 4 5
.V 9‘ y 0‘ s a. ‘
t ‘ ' - r. . u ‘,. = - 1‘ a _ ~ . , ’gj '\ e . - . , r . “
. p .‘ ‘ . n, . _ I ‘l .0 , I ' _. ’ . . '
. . .
- » I) . , . . ‘ ‘ r .
,. . .
OK ' - - ~ ‘ fl
. . ,
. . . . _ , . ‘
. . . l . .- ‘ . .
‘ -- . t . 2 P - A . r - . r
. . , 1
. t' . ’. ‘ ' ‘ . - a ., . . . . 'f’ , . -.1 V
I . ‘ < , ' . . . ,. g f . o. P ..>_ ‘_
- , _., . - . - g. . v. . . , . r . . '
o _ ' a ‘ I. . . l“ ‘ , ‘ . . ’ Ir _ ' ‘
. - v . .4 : o‘ - J»- . ( . ' .. . g
" """‘ ' l'va" ‘W‘ 9 - - - t -- . e . .~~e« --1 \u o ‘ .eA a. . . ... .7 -.- r-eu
. . (. V . - ' . e.' u . . ._. r “m -- .-. . ,1 .. 4 . g u . . .. . .‘ . . ._~
. . _ .
~ ‘ * '. \
n 5‘ x‘ .1 . e .. a ,
. . - a. . . -A v .5 . . \ .>
.
.~ -- _ - >- _. n ‘ 1." ~ ’
’ .. ‘ a ‘ i . . . ,
.. ew.‘ .mw». a «a 'u- a - a ‘4‘..- - -e r 1 - I" a . -. e't \ 9 e . . . . e. .-. .. . . - . a - Ac“-‘- . .4 . ‘4 p A- - u
.‘ . , .-
fi '1' M. a-) -» . ‘ -3 - ' '
1 . ‘ '-'-.'. . , . y ‘
...‘v ' u--‘» .. .p Q a- - ‘ w 9 - no :7 e- -
. '.« -.
' I - . ' v ‘ .v .' '
. . . e \ “I _

   

i,—‘- V . ,r ." ..‘ 3".
h" ‘0 " 'i.‘.fv-..."e t-k

 

. f ‘ .
~ ~ . o . n rvo I e ' \
l 'n :n‘ .~" "! ‘z '
‘ l" ‘-‘ ...u' '
. . . I‘ ‘l ‘ "h e
~.-| ' A
a. ' -. ' -

 

vI
s ' ' ' . . i
u ‘ ‘ l‘
.‘ 5 pl ’ e.:' t .
3 -' ' " m . ..- ~39 «y 4‘. ‘

 

   

I . ' v' ' . .'-e
» . '4 .5 t
' 4' < - «K.. e! . * -c‘. ,. , 'l - --"- '~ r , ,_ 'e , - ‘ P V. . ~D I .‘ sea. \ .. - - . - A t . «g A," ‘H'Am‘,* e g .-
‘ ' v . - p. . .-
Y ' .~_- Q .r . '. - - ‘ . ,1 ‘ r . ‘ ~ . '7.‘ _- . e .
. .. I . -u -' . - _ . - w ,
e " O
' ‘ . . . . I
1 v , . ‘ ' ‘ ‘- '.- " ' v ' >. - . ’5‘ 5
‘ ~ . 1 .0 .' , - ‘ , (I ‘ v ' . .r . ' . .-"" i. ‘ - ~» - .' ‘-
' - l. .‘ -.,p O 1 e H I
r " 2:0 , ' ’ - . , ' , — - .- ' -. . . . y”, . .,
. V" V’ L 1 v - a 7‘ .‘ ' - fl 7 ‘ ,-- i C '«- ., , . ,
_ - V .. '. 'v - . .. -'
, ' l .‘ . ' ' ,' I; ‘l e 1 t . a. ‘ ‘ '
. ‘ . . .‘ . ‘ _ t

the Wthesis are "Autonomy", ”Dominance", “Endurance”, and "Aggmssion".
"Achievement”, 'Order", and "Heterosexuality" are needs that were
significant at the .05 level. “Deference', "Ekhibition", "Affiliation“,
”Intraception', 'Succorance', “Abasenent”, "Nuturance", and ”Change” were
significant at the .01 level of significance. From the .01 significance
it is interesting to mte that three of the needs have a considerably
higher percent of variance explained then the others, these being
”Affiliation", "Change", and ”Exhibition".

In order to look more closely at the predictability of certain
factors as they relate to success or failure in student teaching the
shady population is divided into three groups. Group I is composed of
fifty students receiving the highest combined supervision teacher and
college coordinator final evaluation. Those assigned to the first
group have a nunerical score on their evaluation between fifteen and
blenty. Group II is composed of fifty students receiving the lowest
combined rating. Those shadents assigned to this group have a numerical
score en their student teaching evaluation betieen one and nine. Group
III is ouposed of the one hundred students who lie within the middle
rage of their evaluation. Those students in this group have numerical
scores that fall between ten and fourteen on their student teaching
evaluations.

The following tables have taken nest of the factors that we have
been examining for correlative significance and broken then down into
the three groups indicating a degree of success and failure in student
teaching. The data in these tables have been analyzed and presented
in terns of both percentages and number of students falling into each

““8017.

‘3’! ’

 

..a

.‘J‘

\‘

, I

p.
.3

...‘g

I
i
.‘.

.

.
‘1’,
.
.

\ e

.

.
v
r
A‘s.
e.'.
.

... .
N ‘e' " ‘9 a.
1 . . ‘
‘a;s$ ” . n
‘* r. ' - ..
. . '3. ~_) ‘ ‘. ‘ . ' ..‘a
,_ .
:1 e ‘ .1 ‘ . I ‘ ’1
l’ ‘ Q a ' .
a ‘ ‘
I . a q
. . e r ‘ .
u , .
. . 4
, .. \ . . . . . .
1.! ‘fi' .‘ 1 .' - ' . 1 .‘
.
at ' . .I , - .- ' .
'a u L ‘ l. : P .

#1.,» ‘ ,e

a ' '. .
' ‘ 9‘. . 3
~' ‘.. a. a
. . ~ , -v 5‘- . ‘ '4 j .
. . l
as 4‘ a . -
‘1
-r l' _. .p v ..-
.‘ --- - a. ,. ' ~. sa’.’
,.
. .v e. g‘ , v ‘r " ~ 1
q T 1.3. .- g)”; ~e I ‘.e "V ‘

 

 

I '. If ’
,. -.‘l‘. .. . .,_, ’. u. __ 4'3,
-I.'.v£‘ .. ~ ’. L.-.~a ‘-‘ 4 ' .1 i.‘--"-"‘
V. ‘ ' i >
5 .0 ' "I u- 'v ‘I
. c . ,, , t ) ( . . . u . .
C
I " * ‘ 'A- . . . _ .
e\ .. .t : .6 . u _ :‘r
. - ' .
.. .. h 1‘ _° ..U‘, . a . A.
.l
1' -,' .
. . x
5 - ll.)
. I ' - ‘e
3!
W ' . '. ,v. ' ”In“ .‘ L . ‘ ‘ a
; -~- 7 I4 ' ~~- - ‘, a v 0 rl
. . .- I,»
--v I' . - .‘ u. e. ,o, "
4.. - ' I ‘ ”EPA“ _
' 7,.“ ' . Inn
. 9 ‘ '5 ~ ' x | i. Q ‘ ,
t l .1 * \ . . Ia. ei-O
’ a

Table 8

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and Their College Grade-
Point Average

 

 

College Grade-Point

 

 

ude t ea hin uatio Aggggge
High Rating (15-20) 2.72
LOW'Rating (1-9) 2.61
Average Rating (lo-1h) 2.h6

 

EXamination of the data indicates that both the high and low ranked
groups have a higher college grade-point average than the middle group
despite the fact that all three categories are very close in the over-

all grade-point.

-52-

Table 9

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and Their Socio-Economic

 

 

 

Class
Socio-Economic Class
Student Teaching Evaluation _Low Middle fiigh
High Rating (15-20) 20% (10) 60% (30) 20% (10)
L0" Rating (1-9) 3“? (17) 36% (18) 30% (15)
Average Rating (lO-lh) 26% (26) 52% (52) 22% (22)

 

This table reveals that there is a larger percentage of low rated
student teachers in the low and high socio-economic class categories
than either the high rated students classified in the middle socio-

economic class categories than either the low or average rated students.

Table 10

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and Whether They Transferred
from a Junior College, from another Four Year Institution,
or Completed all Their Course Work at Michigan State Univ.

 

 

 

Transfer Information Other 4 yr.
Student TeachingrEval. H years at MSU Junior College Colleges
High Rating (15) 66% (33) 1% (7) 20% (10)
LOW Rating (1-9) 58% (20) 34% (17) 8% (4)
Average Rating (lO-lh) 61% (61) 14% (la) 25% (25)
Total Number 123 38 39

 

This table reveals that a larger percentage of’low rated students
transferred from a junior college than in either the high or average
group. There are also fewer junior college students (7) in the high
rated group than transfer students from other four year institutions,

though the groups are approximately the same size.

Table 11

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and the Type of High School
They Graduated From

 

 

Type of High School

 

 

Student Teaching muauon magic non-Egblic
High Rating (15-20) 98% (49) 2% (1)
Low Rating (1-9) 64% (32) 36% (18)
Average Rating (lo-11+) 78% (78) 22% (11)

v.—

This table reveals that a considerably greater percentage of high
ranked students were located in the public high school category. Table
4 also reveals that the highest percentage of non-public students are

found in the low rating category.

-56-

Table 13

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and the Student's Evaluation

of Himself on the Post-Confidence Level Igventogg for Teachers

 

 

 

 

Student Teaching Post~Confidence Level vento
Evaluation Areas I I; ll; IY V VI 21; EILI

High Rating 8.51 8.43 8.h2 8.20 8.52 9.11 8.94 8.111
(15-20)

Low Rating 7.51 7.29 7.40 7.07 7.37 7.91 7.75 7.21
(1-9)

Average Rating 7.9“ 7.57 7.75 7.61 7.63 8.54 8.31 7.71
(10-14)

 

This table reveals that the gap between high rated students and low
rated students has widened considerably more at the end of student teach-
ing than before student teaching, as indicated by Table 4. The reader

may check the Appendix for a description of the areas in this table.

Table 14

Assignment of Students in Three Categories Based on Their
Evaluation in Student Teaching and the Means on the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule and the Normative College

 

 

 

 

Sample Means

College Normative Student Teaching Evaluation

EEES Needs :Sample High Low Avegage
"Achievement" 13.08 11.48 13.63 11.71
'Deference” 12.40 11.85 11.75 12.65
”Order" 10.24 10.60 8.47 10.21
”Exhibition” 14.28 15.12 14.85 14.76
”Autonomy” 12.29 10.73 12.89 11.21
”Affiliation" 17.40 18.00 16.52 17.45
"Intraception" 17.32 18.75 18.60 18.40
'Succorance" 12.53 11.71 12.00 12.51
"Dominance" 14.18 12.84 13.60 13.40
”Abasement" 15.11 14.45 14.45 14.88
"Nurturance" 16.42 17.65 17.18 16.85
”Change” 17.20 19e12 18e91 18 e10
”Endurance” 12.63 12.00 12.55 11.75
”Heterosexuality" 14.34 15.27 13.21 14.40
"Aggression” 10.59 10.34 14.85 10.01

 

This table reveals that the means are considerably higher for the
high rated group on ”Orderg'"Affiliation," and ”Heterosexuality' as
compared to the low rated group. Table 14 also reveals that the means
are considerably higher for the low rated group on ”Achievement,"
”Autonomy," and "Aggression” as compared to those of the high rated

group e

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Chapter Five is organized in three sections. First is the review
of purpose, analysis of population and the procedures of the study;
second, the conclusions and implications of the study; and third is an
exploration of this studies recommendations.

This study is an attempt to discover the degree of validity of
certain predictive factors and instruments which would help clarify the
predictability of the degree of success or failure of student teachers
prior to their internship experience.

The sample for the study consists of two hundred elementary educa-
tion majors who completed their professional education courses and
their student teaching at Michigan State University. (The students in
this study completed four basic instruments.) The reSpondents were
given the Student Personnel Lgventogy, the Personal Teaching Evaluation,
and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedulg_at the beginning of their
professional education courses. The students repeated the Personal
Teachigg Evaluation and the Edwards Personal reference Schedule near
the end of their student teaching experience. The students were also

given the Michigan State University Orientation Test Battegg upon their
admittance to the University.

 

 

c-r a

 

 

   

 

‘ .
A .
e . '
, ..
.. .
.
J
.
A.--“ .
‘
'l
. ..‘ea-
. .,.

 

 

 

 

 

4‘
...
.
.m
.
o
.
.
.-
..
I ?
.1 ,\
$
3-: a
. _.

 

 

 

.
. 1"
.
..
' e
l
. .-
.
;.-
a .
H.
.
..
a ‘1'
\
‘ .
. .
. ‘
hue-A ~"~¢e
.‘ .
a""
J A.‘

.
-
-3-
f‘“
’v

Specifically the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

I-A

I-B

I-C

I-E

I-F

I-G

There is no significant relationship between college
grade-point average and the degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

There is no significant relationship between freshman
orientation scores at Michigan State University and
the degree of success or failure in student teaching.

There is no significant relationship between the
socio-economic status of parents of college students
and the degree of success or failure in student
teaching.

There is no significant relationship between these
students who graduated from a non-public secondary
school and the degree of success or failure in
student teaching.

There is no significant relationship between the
transfer student and the student who has completed
his undergraduate work at Michigan State University
and their degree of success or failure in student

teaching.

There is no significant relationship between the
self evaluations of the student teachers potential
before and after the student teaching experience
and the degree of success or failure in student
teaching e

There is no significant relationship between certain
personality factors as measured by the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedglg and the degree of success or fail-
ure in student teaching.

SUMMARY

The second section of the chapter examines the conclusions and impli-

cations related to each of the assumptions presented and analyzed them

in terms of the educational prdblems to which the writer is relating the

findings of this particular study. This section also explores implications

for future study relating to programs of teacher education.

The final section is a re-exploration of the plan, the procedures,

and conclusions of this dissertation.

-60-

Hypothesis IeA postulated that there would be no significant re-
lationship between college grade-point average and the degree of suc-
cess or failure in student teaching. Despite the fact that the signi-
ficance of the correlation is only .327,the 11% of explained variance
is high enough for this writer to accept the fact that there are mean-
ingful relationships between a student's academic success, as measured
by grades, and his degree of success or failure in student teaching.
Table 8 in Chapter Four gives us some additional data by breaking the
student teachers into three groups, using the criterion of their student
teaching evaluations. Using this method we find that the students who
are evaluated as most successful and least successful in student teach-'
ing have the highest grade-point average, while those rated more nearly
average in performance have the lowest college grade-point. This factor
may possibly be explained by the supposition that high grades themselves
must not be assumed to be the one relevant factor in determining teach-
ing potential. Occasionally it is possible to discover that the most
academically able student finds the structure of the school environment
to be at odds with his or her intellectual performance and thus finds
it.difficu1t to adjust to the ability level of the younger children with
whom he or she must relate.

Hypothesis I-B postulated that there would be no significant re-
1ationship between freshman orientation scores at Michigan State Univer-
sity and the degree of success or failure in student teaching. This
hypothesis was quite strongly supported by Table 2 of Chapter Four,

particularly with regard to the student teachers' scores in Vocabulary,

-61-

Information, and Arithmetic. However, there was some small significant
correlation between scores in English and Reading and the degree of
success or failure in student teaching. The correlations in English
and Reading were very low but certainly this was not surprising. It
would be difficult indeed to comprehend any measure of success or fail-
ure in elementary teaching without finding a certain degree of impor-
tance relating to the skills of English and Reading as essential tools
in communication.

Hypothesis I-C postulated that there would be no significant rela-
tionship between the socio-economic status of the parents of college
students and the degree of success or failure in student teaching.
Table 3 in Chapter Four indicates a correlation of .214 which is statis-
tically significant; however, the significance is low enough to leave
many unexplained variances. Table 9 which divides the student teachers
into three levels of evaluation, high, low, and average and into three
socio-economic levels, offers little to enlighten the meaningfulness
of this factor and permits the acceptance of the null hypothesis as
stated.

Hypothesis I-D postulated that there is no significant relationship
between those students who graduated from a non-public secondary school
and the degree of success or failure in student teaching. Table 4 in
Chapter Four statistically supports the null hypotheses; however, Table
10 in Chapter Four gives us a slightly different perspective where it
structures those student teachers who graduated from either a public or

non-public high school into three levels of success in student teaching.

-62-

This second view of Hypothesis I-D reveals that a greater percentage of
high evaluated student teachers were located in the public school cate-
gory and that a somewhat higher percentage of non-public school graduates
are found in the low rated category. Table 10 might be explained by the
fact that the public school graduate finds hiseiudent teaching experience
in a public elementary school more familiar to him than to the graduate
of a non-public school. Despite the fact that Table 10 uses some inter-
esting questions regarding Hypothesis I-D the statistical analysis of
Table u indicates that the null expression should be supported.

Hypothesis I-E postulated that there would be no significant rela-
tionship between the transfer student and the student who has completed
his undergraduate work at,Michigan State University and their degree of
success or failure in student teaching. Table 5 in Chapter Four statis-
tically supports this null hypothesis. Deepite the fact that this writer
fully accepts Hypothesis I-E as stated, Table 10 in Chapter Four does
raise some interesting speculation, particularly when one notices the
large percentage of low evaluated student teachers who transferred from
a junior college and the very few junior college transfers who are
rated in the high evaluation group.

Hypothesis I-F postulated that there would be no significant rela-
tionship between the self evaluation of the student teachers before and
after the student teaching experience and the degree of success or fail-
ure in student teaching. An analysis of the data in Table 6 of Chapter
Four refutes the contention as stated in the null hypothesis. The

student teacher's evaluation of himself both before and during student

-63-

teaching correlates significantly at the .01 level with his success

or failure in student teaching. Table 10 also supports this conten-
tion, particularly in the fact that the high evaluated student teach-
ers definitely see themselves as better able than the other two eval-
uated groups. Colleges of education could well accept a student's
evaluation of his own teaching potential with a great deal more credence
if we could accept the rejection of this hypothesis.

Hypothesis I-G postulated that there would be no significant re-
lationship between certain personality factors as measured by the
ngaggs Eersonal Preferenge Schedule and the degree of success or fail-
ure in student teaching. An analysis of the data in Tables 7 and 10
of Chapter Four refutes the null hypothesis as stated in most of the
fifteen needs. The basic hypothesis is only supported in the areas of
"Autonomy,” "Dominance," "Endurance," and ”Aggression". The hypothesis
is disproved at the .05 level of significance by such needs as "Achieve-
ment," "Order," and "Heterosexuality". "Deference," "Exhibition,”
"Affiliation," "Intraception," "Succorance," "Abasement," "Nurturance,"
and "Change" are significant at the .01 level.

It is also apparent from looking at Table 7 in Chapter Four that
a large number of the needs that can be categorized as statistically
significant have such a low percent of explained variance that it is
somewhatldifficult to point to them all as personality keys that could
unlock the door of predictive success or failure in student teachers.
However, three of these needs stand statistically high enough to allow

one to draw certain conclusions as to their use in identifying traits

-64-

in elementary education majors prior to their student teaching eXperi-
ence. ”Affiliation” at the .3#8 degree of significance, "Change" at
the .306 degree of significance, and "Exhibition” at the .289 degree
of significance are worthy of deeper contemplation, analysis, and ex-
ploration.

Table 14 in Chapter Four also points out particularly that
"Change” and "Affiliation” deviate considerably from the national

college norms for the EPPS and the means established by this popula-

 

tion. Table 14 also illustrates that students who were evaluated in
the low category for their student teaching experience have consider-
ably higher scores in such needs as ”Achievement,” "Autonomy," and
"Aggression". Two of these three needs, "Aggression" and ”Autonomy,"
were found, in Table 7, to support the null position of Hypothesis I-G.

Through the use of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule it is
possible to identify the basic personality needs of individuals. The
EEE§ projects fifteen basic items that may be considered as basic to
one's personality. Tables 7 and 14 present a picture of the members
of this studies sample as they relate to specific personality needs
that are statistically relevant to an individual's success in student
teaching. The following personality needs, as described by the Eggg,
are important to one's success in the student teaching experience.
Based on the §£§§ instrument a student ....

Needs to be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly

groups, to do things for friends, to fem new friendships,

to make as many friends as possible, to share things with

friends, to do things with friends rather than alone, to

form strong attachments, to write letters to friends.
(Affiliation)

-65

and eeee

To say witty and clever things, to tell amusing jokes and

stories, to talk about personal adventures and experiences,

to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance,

to say things just to see what effect it will have on

others, to talk about personal achievements, to be the

center of attention, to use words that others do not know

the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer.
(Exhibition)

and ....

To do new and different things, to travel, to meet new
people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine,
to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and diff-
erent places, to try new and different jobs, to move about
the country and live different places, to participate in
new fads and fashions. (Change)

Continued analysis of Tables 7 and 14 produces further personality

needs based on the EPPS. However, these are needs that seem to be the

 

least significant factors of personality that.lead to success in student
teaching and thus support Hypothesis I-G. These four needs are:

“Autonomyz” To be able to come and go as desired, to say
what one thinks about things, to be independent of others
in making decisions, to feel free to do what one wants,
to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations
where one is expected to conform, to do things without
regard to what others may think, to criticize those in
positions of authority, to avoid responsibility and obli-
gations e

and .000

"Dominancex' To argue for one's point of view, to be a
leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by
others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman

of committees, to make group decisions, to settle argu-
ments and disputes between others, to persuade and influ-
ence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct
the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs.

and ....

 

1
EdwaldS, fie me, p. 11

acne

-66-

”Endurancex' To keep at a job until it is finished, to
complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, to
keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved, to work
at a single job before taking on others, to stay up late
working in order to get a job done, to put in long hours
of work without.distraction, to stick at a problem even
though it may seem as if no progra is being made, to
avoid being interrupted while at work.

3rd 0000

"Aggressionz' To attack contrary points of view, to tell
others what one thinks about them,to criticize others
publicly, to make fun of others, to tell others of when
disagreeing with them, to get revenge for insults, to
become angry, to blame others when things go wrong, to
read newspaper accounts of violence.

Four of the areas that this study has encompassed have been
identified as being significantly correlated to the degree of success
or failure in student teaching. They are as follows:

1. There is a significant relationship between college
grade-point average and the degree of success or
failure in student teaching.

2. There is a significant relationship between the socio-
economic status of parents of college students and the
degree of success or failure in student teaching.

3. There is a significant relationship between the self
evaluations of the student teacher's potential before
and after the student teaching experience and the
degree of success or failure in student teaching.

4. There are significant relationships between certain
personality factors as measured by the Edwards Begsogg;
Preference Schedule and the degree of success in student
teaching.
An analysis of the findings in this study may well assist educators,
particularly those involved in the preparation of teachers, in an attempt
to perfect the professions ability to screen, counsel, and place elemen-

tary education majors prior to student teaching. The results of this

 

2pm., P. 1

study seem to indicate that there are specific factors that play, to

some degree, upon the hierarchy of excellence as related to class-

room performance by student teachers.

1.

3.

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of this study are as follows:
College students should be allowed to evaluate themselves in a
number of situations during their pre-student teaching experi-
ences. Educators, both public school and university personnel,

must take more credence in the process of self-evaluation.

Those personnel who evaluate students should be continually
alerted to the problem of their own personalities being injected
into the evaluation process of student teachers. An evaluator
must seek ways to maintain his objectivity while in an observa-

tional capacity.

The personality needs of a student should be carerlly scrutinized
during the pre-student teaching counseling process. This study
points out certain needs that gives some direction to those
factors that affect the degree of success or failure in student

teaching.

l.

3.

5.

6.

-68-

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Research should be conducted to follow-up the students in this
study to determine the degree of their success or failure as

they commenced teaching.

A vital need exists for expanding this study to include student
teachers and their degree of success or failure while teaching

in specific subject matter areas at the secondary school.

A wider range of variables, then those encompassed by this study,
needs to be researched. Such items as pro-student teaching con-
tact with children and levels of telerance for deviant behavior

are just two of many possibilities.

Research should be conducted regarding the perceptions of what is
success and what is failure as it is viewed by the evaluators of

student teachers.

Research should be undertaken to examine personality characteris-
tics of college personnel who supervise student teaching programs

and public school teachers who evaluate student teachers.

Research needs to be conducted to determine the relevancy of all
aspects of a colleges planned experiences in their teacher prep-
aration-programs and its relationship to a student's performance

in student teaching.

APPENDIX A
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESHMAN ORIENTATION TESTS

.70-

Testing Bulletin No. 3

THE USE OF ORIENTATION TEST DATA

Prepared by

The Office of Evaluation Services
The Basic College
Michigan State University

February, 1957

THE USE OF ORIENTATION TEST DATA

All new students who enter Michigan State University take a set
of examinations which are generally known as "Orientation Tests."
The results from these tests are distributed annually to all depart-
ments in two reports: Test Scores by Entering Students; and Compare-
tive Standings of Various College and Curriculum Groups on the
Orientation-Week Examinations. While the scores on the Orientation
Tests are used regularly by Admissions Officers, Counselors, Improve-
ment Services, and others who work with students, the major purpose
of this bulletin is to acquaint faculty members with the availability
of these data and to suggest ways in which the data can be used.

Brief Description of the Tests

The MSU English Placement Test consists of thirty objective test
items representing many aspects of English usage. Included are items
on spelling, capitalization, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure,
and organization. The test is primarily designed to identify students
who may require assistance from the Writing Improvement Service, but
assignment to the Honor Sections of Communication Skills is also depen-
dent, in part, upon scores on the test.

The HBO Arithmetic Proficiency Test is also designed to detect
students who are deficient in a basic skill. Students who score below
the minimum standard are referred to the Arithmetic Improvement Service.
The test, consisting of #5 problems in basic arithmetic, has proved to
be relatively effective for this purpose.

The ACE Psychological Examination seeks to measure echelastic
aptitude, i.e., the mental alertness component in college success.
The test yields three scores: Quantitative (Q), Language (1), and
Total Score (PT). When this test was designed, it was hoped that the
L-Score would measure mental abilities which are closely related to
tasks which involve language, while the Q-Score would assess mental
factors which are more closely related to areas in which language is
not as important. Experience with the test, however, has shown that
the Q-Score is sometimes more closely related to success in selected
technical subjects than the L-Score, but the L-Score is usually the
more predictive of the two scores for the large majority of curricula.
As a consequence, counselors place more reliance upon the L-Score and
the Total Score as an index of mental ability.

The MSU Reading Test is a 97-item test which yields a Vbcabulary
Score (V), a Comprehension Score (C), and a Total Reading Score (RT).
The vocabulary portion consists of 50 test items, while the Compre-
hension Score is based on the student's ability to answer 47 questions
concerning several reading passages involving concepts typical of
several academic areas at MSU. Although the basic purpose of the
test is to measure the reading ability of students, no attempt is
made to restrict the measure to the simple mechanics of reading.

.72-

Instead, many factors involved in critical thought are undoubtedly
assessed in this measure of reading proficiency. Recommendations
to the Reading Improvement Service are often made on the basis of
this test.

Brief_Description of the Reports

The standings of individual students on all tests are reported
in Test Scores by;Entering_Students. The scores listed are derived
scores which range from the lowest possible score of l to the high-
est possible value of 10. These ggg ngt deciles. The approximate
percentage of students who receive each score is presented below
along with the percentage of students who score higher or lower
than each derived score.

 

 

Percentage Percentage Percentage
of Students of Students of Students
Derived Who Score Who Receive Who Score
Score Higher the Score Lower
10 O l 99
9 l 3 96
8 4 8 88
7 12 16 72
6 28 22 5O
5 50 22 28
u 72 16 12
3 88 8 u
2 96 3 1
23L, _99 ;_ 0

 

Under this system, extreme scores are much more significant in
indicating superior or inferior ability. For example, scores of 10
or 1 are assigned to but one per cent of all entering students. A
score of 9 means that a student scores among the highest four per
cent of the students, while a score of 2 means that 96 per cent of
all entering students secure scores which are higher.

In locating students in Test Scores by EnteripgTStudents, the
alphabetic arrangement is sufficient when the year that the student
entered MSU is known. If the student entered MSU as a freshman, the
year can usually be determined from the student's present class in
college. The annual report for that year will then provide his
scores. The inclusion of scores on transfer students makes this
problem more complex. However, since all students are assigned
sequential student numbers on entrance, a particular student's
number will indicate the approximate year of enrollment.

Comparative Standings of Various College and Curriculum Groups
on the Orientation-Week Examinations presents summary data for
students in different academic areas. Data are presented for fresh-
man and transfer students, independently. The basic purpose of this

o.-.

 

-_'-..—

e --o

report is to enable comparisons to be made between scores for a
given student and ”typical" performance by fellow students within
his own curricular group. In addition to the usual normative
material, data are also provided on the prOportionate number of
students of high and low ability to be found in different curricula.

The Predictive value of the Tests

Each of the Orientation Tests has been constructed for a differ-
ent purpose. Each test must, therefore, satisfy different criteria
in order to be considered a valid measure. Nevertheless, to be use-
ful for many problems in the diagnosis of individuals or groups, each
test must measure abilities important in collegiate work. A common
method for evaluating the effectiveness of tests of this kind has been
to compare the standings of students on the tests to the later academic
attainment of the students as reflected in their grade point average.

Results from studies of this kind have demonstrated that all of
the tests are of some value in the prediction of grades. The degree
of relationship does vary, however. The Total Score on the MSU Reading
Test has usually proved to be the best predictor of freshman GPA. The
Total Score on the Psychological Exam and the English Test, followed
closely by the Psychological L-Score and the Comprehension Score on
the Reading Test, are usually next in predictive value. 'While this
same pattern holds for both sexes, predictions made from test scores
are usually more accurate for women.

The meaningfulness of prediction as a factor in evaluating tests
can be better visualized by reference to Table I, which portrays the
academic attainment of women at the end of the freshman year relative
to scores secured on the Reading Test given the previous fall. Here
students who maintained a GPA of 1.75 or lower were arbitrarily des-
cribed as having an "unsatisfactory GPA" while students with an average
higher than 1.75 were considered to have a "satisfactory GPA". The
figures opposite each derived score represent the percentage of students
with a given score on the Reading Test who fell into either of these
two categories.

TABLE I

Percentage of WOmen with Indicated Derived Score Standing on

the Reading Examination Securing Satisfactory or Unsatisfac-
tory Grade Point Averages

 

 

Derived Score Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Reading GPA GPA
10 0.0 100.0
9 2.7 97-3
8 1.0 99.0
7 4-3 95-7
6 6.9 93.1
5 19.1 80.9
h 24.3 75.7
3 l+8.0 52.0
2 63.3 36.7
1 57.1 22.0

.74-

Table I shows that over 90% of the students with scores ranging
from 6 to 10 made satisfactory progress in terms of the grade point
standard, while approximately one-half of the students with scores of
3 and below failed to secure the 1.75 GPA.

Data of this kind enable us to comment with some accuracy on the
likelihood of students of any ability level succeeding in college.
Furthermore, our knowledge about the nature of the tests and what
the measure enables us to identify possible reasons for a student's
succeeding or not succeeding as we study his pattern of test scores.

Possible Applications (Illustrative Examples)

The discussion to this point has been concerned with general in-
formation about the Orientation Tests. In this section specific
applications will be suggested. For convenience, the presentations
will be under three headings: In the Classroom, In Student Advising,
and Other Values.

A. In the Classroom

Example 1. You have two students in class who seem to be outstand-
ing students. You feel they should be encouraged to carry on independent
work and to plan a long-range program. The profiles for Orientation
Scores are:

E A. Q. L. 211 ML .9 Bl

StudentA 10 8 9 9 9 9 10 9
StudentB 6 6 8 1+ 5 5 4 5

The scores for Student A confirm your initial hypothesis. His perfor-
mance on the tests is outstanding. He may have even more ability than
he has show in class. The test data for Student B, to the contrary,
are not consistent with your beliefs. When the data from several
sources lead to the conclusion, as in the case of Student A, one can
feel more confident in executing a proposed plan of action. Where
contradictions are found, as with Student B, additional study is
necessary before a satisfactory decision can be made.

Example 2. One of your classes seems lackadaisical. Techniques
and procedures which have worked well with previous classes seem to
"fall flat". You tabulate the scores from Test Scores by Entering

Students and secure the following pattern:

 

Psych. Total Reading Total
10 IO
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
u 4
3 3
2 2
l 1
Average = 3.94 Average = 3.70

Both distributions show the same pattern. The students, as a group,
score unusually low on the two tests. The data certainly point to
this group being a typical, and suggest that the procedures used
might be "over the heads" of the class. Had the analysis showed the
group to be "very superior," a related hypothesis could be suggested.
Lethargy can also accompany instructions which is keyed below the
general level of the class. Reference to Comparative Standings of
Yarious College and Curriculum Grogps on the Orientation Week filam-
inations could make a class analysis of this type even more penetra-
ting.

Example 3. Additional actions which might be suggested by refer-
ence to the Orientation Tests include:

a. Special aid to students deficient in specific areas.

b. Referral to remedial services, i.e., Reading Improvement
Service, or English Improvement Service.

0. A search for special programs for students who seem not to
be working up to their abilities.

B. lg Student Advising

Advising or counseling is always a complex process where ability,
interest, emotions, and other personality factors must be considered.
The suggestions which follow must be considered only as clues coming
from one source, and must not be followed mechanically.

gase l. A student comes in to plan his next quarter's program.
Grades from previous quarters have been on the C-D borderline. His
Orientation Test Scores are:

E A Q L 13.1 X .C. 3.1

2 5 6 1 3 2 1 2

-75-

The scores, with the exception of Arithmetic and the Psychological
Qchore, are uniformly low. This is consistent with his performance
in college. The verbal areas, which are most indicative of general
academic attainment, are especially low. The scores do not suggest
any special need for specialized remedial programs since no specific
disability is suggested. A complete re-evaluation of his educational
and vocational plan would seem advisable. Referral to the Counseling
Center, where facilities for service of this kind are available,
should certainly be considered. Until a more intensive analysis is
made, temporary provisions such as reducing class or extra-class
activities might be suggested.

Case II. A student has exhibited borderline work in courses
which place a heavy demand upon reading skills. Marks in other
courses are adequate. His test profile is:

E. A 9. 1.». ET. I 9 ET.
5 6 6 u 5 3 1 2

Both his academic record and the test profile suggest a possible dis-
ability in reading. Other test scores are consistently about average.
From the limited information presented here, referral to the Improve-
ment Services should be considered. If retesting or further diagnosis
is considered advisable, the testing facilities of the Counseling
Center are available for services of this kind. A similar analysis

is possible in other basic areas such as English and arithmetic, but
the large majority of deficient students are routinely referred to
these remedial services during Orientation Week.

Case III. A student is very submissive and seems to lack self-
confidence. He looks upon his inferior past achievement as a major
calamity and considers himself to be worthless in a number of ways.
He seems to have withdrawn within himself and participates in no
college activities. His test scores are as follows:

E. A 9. L 2.1: Y. 9.. El
6 u .5 8 7 u 5 6

The symptoms presented above suggest a general problem in adjustment.
In cases of this type a simple diagnosis or solution is usually un-
likely. While test scores may yield some clues on the problem, they
can seldom be used in a simple prescribed manner. Instead, several
interviews conducted in a very permissive atmosphere may yield fur-
ther clues and likewise provide an Opportunity for the student to
begin working out his problem. In cases of this kind referral to the
Counseling Center is always advisable, but an understanding faculty
member working in cooperation with experienced counselors can be
doubly effective.

C. Other Posslble yglues

The data from the Orientation Tests are available for individual
or departmental research projects. The scores have been used widely
as control data in learning experiments and for inquiries into the
nature of students found in a given curriculum. When desirable,
members of the Office of Evaluation Services are available for consul-
tation on evaluation methodology or research design.

A Counseling Note

Scores on tests are often interpreted by students in erroneous
ways. Scores should never be given to students without a careful
explanation of their significance. Furthermore, test results should
be introduced only when you feel the student is ready for this infor-
mation and may benefit from it. If a student seems defensive and
highly emotional, the giving of information from the tests might well
be postponed to a more appropriate time. Too many students have had
disturbing experiences with bad test usage prior to coming to college.

A Note of Caution

Test scores must never be considered infallible. Errors of one
derived score point in either direction are quite common, and errors
of several derived score points are possible for a given student.
While the scores are much more dependable than impressions secured
from casual classroom eXperiences or individual conferences, any one
test score must be regarded only as suggestive and never final. In
this regard, it is usually advisable to view a score as a possible
range of scores, i.e., a derived score of 4 is considered as possibly
being a score of 3, h, or 5. Furthermore, when inconsistencies are
found or when major decision are to be made on the basis of test
scores, retesting is often advisable.

A Few Qpick Guides

Routine procedures which others who work with students have found
to be fruitful include the following:

 

l. The scores of advisees are recorded on a convenient record
sheet. This sheet can also include other easily summarized
background information, such as previous grades. Sometimes
information of this kind is secured for small classes where
individualized instruction is possible.

2. Indices of ability are compared to actual scholastic attain-
ment. Students with marked discrepancies in the two sets
of measures are noted for further study when the opportunity
arises.

3.

-78-

Before beginning a conference with a student, a moment
spent in scanning the record.sheet provides a useful
orientation for the conference.

The average scores for students in a class are used to
help determine the relative number of extreme grades
(A's and D's and F's) to be assigned to a class. How-
ever, grades for an individual student should never be
influenced by these scores.

APPENDIX B
STUDENT PERSONNEL INVENTORY

NAME
DATE STUDENT NUMBER

ACADEMIC ADVISORH

1.
2.

3.
5.

7.

9.

-80-

STUDENT PERSONNEL INVENTORY

 

(last) ' (firs t) (middle)

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENT ADDRESS PHONE
HOME ADDRESS PHONE
SEX: MALE FEMALE 4. AGE LAST BIRTHDAY

 

 

Where were you born?

 

(City)

 

(State or Country)

If foreign born, are you a U. S. citizen? Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your marital status? 8. Do you have children?
Single Yes No
Married If yes, how mam?
Separated Their ages?
Divorced
Widowed

 

List all of the schools you have attended from the time you first
entered school to present.

 

Parochial
Grades or
. Name of School City Attended Private jpblic

Me of School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
.
. . , -
. n
, . - . ,
' 1
‘ 0
v . .
a , . ‘r .
O Q .r I ‘
h n ‘ .
. I' ' . f . . I
. _, - 7 .. . . . . I”
I.
f v. ., ‘
y --‘.n“ . ' ‘ v -A v , 5
D
u
.. -4 , f
..
* .- s ‘ ‘
r' ' ’ ‘
V ( I
- ~ .- . C
.
A ., - ,- - .f‘ ‘ . "
' . a ' 1‘ ' a
, - < ..‘xa' ~ -I. a. - ' --o-->-- 4‘
C
L
.
i I
1
A " b
I .
‘ I
I l _ . . . - . > .
l . ' >" ‘ ' ' " T
.
S
O
. .. . a ' - . . a 1 . ~ ,‘ . v , —-... . ~
I ,
I
-
~ V . , A u . . .
.
‘ U
. . — t ‘ ' ' ‘ ' ‘
O
l
V w l' h.-. 7 ‘A e ‘
‘ .
.

10.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.

-81-

In what year did you graduate from high school?

 

What was the size of your high school graduating class?

 

 

 

 

 

Under 25 200-399
25-99 400-999
100-199 Over 1000

 

 

In what year did you first enter college?

 

What is your present college grade point average?

 

How many MSU credits do you have prior to this term?

 

Have you transferred to MSU from another institution? No_Yes__

If answer to above question is. ”Yes,” give names and dates of
attendance at previous institutions.

NAME DATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicate for each of the following courses whether you have taken
it or its equivalent, whether you have yet to take it, or whether
you are not required to take it:

Completed
or Presently Not Yet‘ Not

Emlled Taken figgplped

 

ED 200: Child and the School

 

ED 301: School and Society

 

ED 322: momentary Curriculum

 

ED 325: Reading

 

ED 325b: Language Arts

 

ED 3250: Children's Literature

 

ED 325d: Social Studies

 

 

 

ED 325e: Mathematics

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

     

   

 

   

   

 

 

. ‘_, . v u .. _ 'V
. r a » . . . u . , .
I. , . 4‘ . . .. ~ -.
. ~ v. r
. . . .. .
I ‘nf
. . .— -— .. .. 2...-.-—..- .. ..-_ a a. .- ,,
l y - .77 v . . 5 . . ' %~~.~.-¢..h 5 --fl.-“-"‘ ' h.-
. .. . > r
, ‘ I
A .ar .~-" * - A ~10“- ' - or-” - -— u.. g-o— . ~-
.
' ' l v . 1 f “' - .
. g, - ,. , ‘ . 3‘: .
...v.».« v ‘.-‘a - ve v‘ n. , .-.n-— , a... . '
. . .
- . _ - . ,7 , .
- x .1 A I-
‘ - . '. ' - , . . ' ‘ ‘. A v - 0
> , < ww" . . . u . ,. ' .
, . . ~ v - -' . . - ‘.' ‘ . ,\ ‘ 't, " ‘ '
. ‘- , . .‘ - - x \ - ' . N ' ‘.x‘ 9
. n . ,. .. , .
I . ( « .
, ' ' 'OI 1 ”I” 4 " I. ‘ . ' -4 I! l "
r - , - . . . ._
. t . a . - ' - » K ‘ ~ .l‘ 1 .-
. ..
\ . . .._ ..
. ‘ I . , 0 1.. .. . ‘. . ‘9 t b-\ 1"? . f:
. - I A Q '. L“ I l | ‘rx . c4 . \
k 1 '
.3, ‘r. w ‘ e J\r f, -. ‘ r -
7 . . .
. ‘ . i f > \) . . 1 I
. , 1
n, ,_ . .- - - L“. - a .~-.v . . - . 7,. . ... ..- -- a... hh ---o~-.-.- .-.ta- grunt. h’t wm~aM-y a...“ -
-;-- -. l . _, .n - . . . .. a . . , . ..r .-.-, ...n.. ..n, y" ,_ y. -..,- -.wc ‘ ‘Q-'.»’---‘-~« u -Ghob.~eou U 4-....—
‘ v ' . ' ‘- , r<. v I- e » a. w. . m - -ID.".I\.I.'- we.” ‘I- .1 e. y-h-w- a-au-I- -- .... —v u 3:. ..I‘1 q n-n.’“. mt. -r
, . .- ’
. . - I . . . a f , . I I a - ‘ , I, - .— . .. ..-. r
. '. .. , . ‘ \
. . . a . . . . - . a . t . r -. n . 4 -. -
.1 .
. . ,
,\ . I . v I.I I . . '. I '.. e . : .I ;II. ' . . ~ . ,-‘ .I r q I G"
.A' a ’ ‘ . . , _ ' a }_ - In- . . n y -r. ‘ l .~> . . _ . L
l
v ,, _ a . .u s, . , .' "1 - -<fl' O ' -"'
.. . ~ . -... .
v . ‘ , F. . ~. . \. _' _ 4 ‘
AI ‘
' - v . g. t'
.
-' ‘ .- : I-Axu-‘ ..- U. - .— »~ in...“ 6- : \ 4 ~ a
.. , _ .
, . . . ,. '. ~05“ . . .
w J . I . I >1 _ I) r
~"'~ -.\II ...V..‘ A «‘ U “" ‘ ‘..-.- I- 9'— Q I _ i O
‘ 7,. -_ . ‘ . . . ch - ,
r / _I r
a J > I D J- . -af
~ua<~~ -\e‘~ o d-»--—-.<,aw I... .-> \ r . , a.- _ o ..-v-.. .m- a. ‘
. -~
,~ . ' .~ I .. V ' '. . ' -
_ I _U_.p a . . . \ v ‘. .. ~‘u .- O -' ~
-. , “ah-hr '1 .- o , ‘W, — . .3. '>... a - ,n. »
wx. ' v I! ,. '
' ~ ' -' I. - \ -7
. >-
r... "--‘u s qu- grv .. ..~.v. .z .-~ A- e ‘ . - s n _ e .‘
. I -
L , « . .I an , .
._ I; ~ .- 5 . -, 3 . . . , .
y , . ..-o:-'r masss~n r gnu .‘-o¢» r~ .. - * a e -..1e..- -. >r‘v-v ~
. , . ,7
A - ‘ ‘ “ N .‘ .-‘ z . \. a (.1
. ' . . \ - a ,’- .\~ g 7' l
...u - .4..9.—~¢- .s - a ”9.. . ~ o .- DIV-u” n-hen-s'-'-' . "-1-
A A .‘n , .. . . " a .d
4,..- -“~JI..~.v-ls. o a-.-o-—-. . .-. .. o a..- .—»—. ‘
nI ‘ .
" .P n ‘ ‘ 4' It
. f , ,_.A .2 . v '

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

21+.

25.

-82-

Completed
or Presently Not Yet Not
Enrolled Taken Required

 

 

ED 325f: Science

 

ED 321a, b, c: Elementary Block

 

Art 201

 

Art 202

 

Music 145

 

 

 

Music 245

 

What is your father's present occupation? (Specify as farm
manager, carpenter, dentist, etc.) If your father is not living,
list his last occupation and then write deceased.

 

By whom is your father employed? (Name of company, self, etc.)

 

How long has your father been employed at the present occupation?

 

What is your mother's present occupation? If your mother is not
gainfully employed, write housewife. If she is not living, list
her last occupation then write deceased.

 

By whom is your mother employed? (Name of company, self, etc.)

 

How long has your mother been employed in her present occupation?

 

If your mother is not gainfully employed at present or if she was
not gainfully employed at the time of death, was she ever gain-
fully employed? Yes No

 

If yes, what.did she do?

 

l
.
I
.
l
b
~a g ‘4: a -
I
v 4 b
a > m . v — .. C l
,. , . _ _._ i.
.
..
:- I. v
.
.
. ., _
. .
. < I ‘

-83-

IF YOU ARE MARRIED:

26. What is your spouse's occupation?

 

27. By whom is your spouse employed? (Name of company, self, etc.)

 

28. How long has your spouse been employed at the present occupa-
tion?

 

_. v.

o .

 

|_.

.0

s . ~er‘”~;_-¢-‘l

   

(-‘Q-V-" axiu- ,,.,. - --

)‘A.

o_-u.cn. a

APPENDIX C
PERSONAL TEACHING EVALUATION

-85-

PERSONAL TEACHING EVALUATION

nichigan State University Colle e o ucation

Student

 

(Last name) (First)

Subject and/or grade level desired

 

Term , 19L__

Sex College Class

 

The following scale is designed to help us discover some of your
feelings about a number of teaching areas in order that the Profession-
al Block may be planned more effectively. The instrument also intro-
duces the beginning student to the many facets of classroom teaching.
This questionnaire is very lengthy. We earnestly request your cooper-
ation in answering faithfully all items.

Check each item.below on the numerical scale. 1 is the low and 10 is
the high end.

1 - 2 I feel extreme concern about my abilities in this area.

3 - 4 I feel greater than average concern about my abilities
in this area.

5 - 6 I feel average concern about and have average confidence
in my abilities in this area.

7 - 8 I feel relatively confident about my abilities in this
area 0

9 - 10 I feel extremely confident about my abilities in this
3’98 0

A-o

 

 

.
, .
. .
.
w
. .
t .
J
I.
.
...1
c
3
v .n
. u
.
f
he a,
.
.
,

 

 

 

-86-

 

I. WORKlNG WITH PEOPLE

A._,Teacher-pupil relationships
1. Maintaining reasonable
levels of expectations from
pppils
2. Retaining adult status
phlle working_at pupil's level_
3. Gaining confidence and
respect of pppils
4. Working successfully with
pupils of various backgrounds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Teacher-staff relationships

 

 

l. Relating with staff members 1 J
in a comfortable manner

2. Seeking and using sugges-

tions from staff and adminis-

tration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Teacher-papent pelationships
l. Seeking opportunities to

meet and talk with parents at
BIA; 233° 9

2. Meeting parents at mature
and peressionalllevel

3. Communicating effectively
Ellh‘parents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. woaggmc wgm zgozps I I [[ l L I I l
(GENERALL OVER-ALLMTING) _ _ - _ _ - - - .

 

 

 

TING CLASSROOM CLIM:TE

   

A. Cooperative Participation
l. Assisting pupils in deveIOpT
ing habits of democratic livin
.2. Handling discipline problems
aflagtivaly
3. Adjusting appropriately be-
tween a permissive and authori-
tative manner in classroom
situations
4. Demonstrating judiciousness

and faippess with all pupils

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It}:

p¢»od

“V

w
,

 

.
..N

Pf

-87-

 

10

 

 

 

l1l2l3|~|stéivl8l9
5. Providing for group dis-

cussion and pupil participationI
Involving pupils in appropriate
decision-making situations

 

6. Working in such a manner
that individual pupils seek
help with personal Droplems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Well-directed, Pupppseful Activities

 

1. Moving to specific learning
activities as group show readi-
ness

 

2. Pacing activities so that
interest lag among pupils is
minimized,

 

3. Using methods designed to
reach and maintain attention
of all pupils ._.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Attention to sical acilities
1. Arranging and providing for
facilities in the classroom
conductive to cptium learning
(chairs, tables, library, cor-
ners, bullep;n_board§4petc.)

 

 

2. Adjusting pupil activity
(neatness, orderliness and
quietness) to the instruction-
al situation

 

3. Attending to factor of
ventilation, temperature, and
lightipg_in the classroom

 

4. Considering and attending
to factors related to pupil
safetz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W 1 1m r ]l

 

 

l‘}..$

t.q§.

' ...Q

. O
i
.
.
-
~
.
O 1 . . y... u .tb
. .
_ u q
u < .
ln‘ 06...}! . -. . ..
,.
. -. . .11: .3 .r .. ..
4
a ..
.
*.l..ll.| or. “I I... .0 J,‘ .l t I.
. .
. .
e - u
w'|.. all--. '1'. . I. '.'O.‘.'... ..tl
. ‘
u H .
.
. o n
in. .ll..'.ol'.. “ .o.’. D. ...I . I

..v-..-

.4—fi..

v

rm..- .

O

...l . {,Ilfiétérk .. ’5'". II: .;\. o a
h
‘

Pu...

..-f.

at. ..lJ. o. ....rl..!.~0.‘ll..‘. .‘i.

.

_

b
o

A..--

u- ‘- to...-

~

W! CI... Os. ‘--

~§"-. -

.1 IA....-—-...-

mfl".‘¢—‘—.. qmows. ..... .. -.-.

w..—.¢~_.-.n . ‘ .“.‘.._ ,.

 

..--. r‘

0.-

unto-~43

.. -..- ..

.~¢—4-,...._. _-

i'.‘ O

9......

’r‘ ‘0‘

I.‘!I.

. .I.l I."- l.‘.’..

'I

t
.4". ‘I.J|L: .1- ..u. ..(I‘l
-

0'

a. C ..
.
.
.
4
I‘
.
.
a .
b
. .
p l
v \
_ e
I.
1
fl. a
9 .. , .
o
.. a . .
v . . .. .
. . .
. .
. b
.
t
r
I ‘
r
.a . -. \. n.4'l.inulb
. .
.
.
. . .' ...uohl... 0!. ya
-
v ..
.
. .
u... 3‘... f. »I.I.1F. .1300“
c
g g
.
.

n
In I .IIL. ‘.

.-l ..i

O
'1 ‘04’3‘ \ ‘. i...

a

.11. '1’. ..‘u 5.10,.

v ._
.06 I‘.’I‘l+’ 0 ‘0‘ 'o. til...+‘".i+“i.z.

 

o
. I
. 1T.
1‘....AO' 5“. '0‘ t a. O ‘0 :0,
c
T a
a
. .
. t
0
l...l-ln. a.l\l ll. .. n.9,! ‘.... u.
m
s
. .
.
. a I u . 5.}.- v ..f 1

o

.i! .v I ..:. f

.
1-04 .I‘... u
.

L 4.-
«I .
n .

m...n—.

v."5~ u .- -vmw u

‘r‘ _p_

.bv v

at. ...

I¢---- ..

.Ho'

..x.. o

III.

-88-

 

PLANNIN§_EOR INSTRUCTICN

A.

B.

Teaching Planning

.1143

 

T

“I

4448

“d

 

 

 

1. Consistently reading, studyI
ing, and gathering information
for teaching plans

 

2. Making appropriate use of
textbook in planning_

 

3. Selecting appropriate teach.
ing materials and having them
immediately available for use
when needed

 

4. Planning thoroughly for
short-term (daily) and long-
term (unit orpproject) work

 

5. Considering sequence and
continuity of pupil experi-
ences as key factors in learn-

 

i

3. ‘When suitable, planning for
a field trip and/or use of com-
munity resources in teaching

 

7. Planning a wide variety of

 

teaching techniqpes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gygluagion Iechnigues

l. Studying individual pupil
and school records carefully
as a basis for evaluating

pupil_prpgress

 

2. Rec0gnizing individual diffd
erences in evaluating pupil
pprformgnce

 

3. Using a wide variety of proI
cedures for appraising pupil
achievement

 

4. Grading fairly and relating
appropriately to acceptable

 

criteria of good evaluation

 

5. ReCOgnizing the importance of

parent-teacher conferences in
evaluation

 

6. Evaluating in terms of the
purposes of the subject or
grade taught

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘-

 

III.

ELANNIEG INSIEQCIION

163mm. OVER-ALL RATINGL

 

l T

 

 

u . ~ 0:!

-. ._.-

n "O.. ' . ;

‘
—
knit I . ... .u
.
.
blip. L a.
.
l
.
d ‘0. c
.
. . . a. ....
v o. lllflut
<
. i I . ......'A
.
u
. .
. . ... .1. _-

Q
. 3%.. l ‘u.{§‘.o‘ ._
.
o
a
a

o. «A. I, 0|
.

. . 016.013.)?

.
.
O
.
.l v... ‘.I. I...
.
. '1. I“.
.J ... .1
. ..
a
.
.O

..f a.

G. ‘l

IV.

-89-

 

l1|2|3|4J516|7|8|9I1°|

MAEAGING INSIRUQTIOE

A.

B.

TeachingpPerformance

1. Making assignments so that
pupils clearly understand what
is to be done, and why it is
to be done

v

 

2. Introducing and implementing
daily plans meaningfully

 

3. Using a variety of teaching
techniques

 

4. Using a variety of audio-
visual aids and supplementary
materials

 

5. Teaching planned units effec-

tively

 

6. Directing and managing dail
instruction so that pupils are

interested, motivated, and show
a desire to learn

 

7. EXplaining logically; using
types of reasoning appropriate
to pupil level

 

8. Developing a questioning
attitude and intellectual curi-

 

osity inJupils

 

9. Developing effective process
es of problem solving and criti
cal thinking on the part of

Egpils

Understanding Children,
1. Working effectively with
pupils of small groups

 

 

 

 

 

2. Working effectively with
pupils in large grouping (entire
class)‘

 

3. Being aware of interest and
attention span of pupils

 

b. Recognizing the need for re-
teaching_at appropriate interval

 

U5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. _ l .. .. . . .

A

I!..I cl... ¢ .. cult-...“. I. '25... ...1 .03.... llllt... 1-....vor: ....4: 9" $94.3; -. ... u.... ... ..
.
‘

u . .. .
O .. . . W
x.
‘ V
., .
.
t
(
.
l
.
. .
J. . .. w p s. I I ..l.
I. . . . .. . ...
.. n . .. . _ . .... . .-. . ... .... J . ~
. c i . u I n a . I p Q .
. . . ... . .u . .. . . . .. I. . .. ..
7 a . . . a . . i . ..-
.h . . u I . .
a a . w . a . . a I . v
. . . .
J .. r . w 1. . . .u . ... ... .. 1.
r .1 .u . ... l. . . ..
. .. ... . r v d. . u s . . . ..
. . . . ,
. f . . . _. . - . . l . l. .
m .... t (..a. o _ .. . flu . . 3 | .
. .... v . 3 . w p _ w ..t
. .1 H . _ . «I . ~ - . . r
. . . s f. v -.
a . .. a ,. . .. .
a * , ... . ... v I
u . . ,. .
.. I- y x r ‘ l . . m . . .- .... . . Y .
u . . . a v a n . . . I}. a
. . .\.. a . f , -.. L. . .
a . . . . . . . Y. .
.. a . l. .. , . _ - . . ....
O .
. u . u ..
. . . .
. . . . . v . . . .
a . . .. .- . cl. “- t w . o.
‘1’..- C I! I... .. Isn‘t-‘1. )v V. III p- N a .4 I llnmln... .\ ..... ‘ l‘.‘!.o Q. .1 I. . A .V . . .
. u a w . o . . _
. .
. a .. u r n p .
I i o C A ... I C .1... I 4. . u . v. ‘ I 1" ...'. I a .. .II'- . . . . .. I..Iv.ftla.. . .1 a I I... .| Ir ll . . . , .
u u n _ 1 «I. .... I ..v. . . . . . . u I Cl .
. . . .
a a . o o . x
. . - . . .
J c. . . > . .
1.1. ... ..I I, ‘.II ...; .1 .‘n ¢‘.l‘.-p I . .. i. .. Iif I o . on u t I II o +.. . 10"...+"|I. t 41¢ .4. ' O . I’v' II...)}. .I . ..i .I t I . . I I C I It
. .
. . _ . . . .
. a l. n . . . ..
e .
_ . . . ..m . w _ . . . . .
I ‘1 .. I IH . I !il.f. . v .u .-. I? ‘1: it ...... 0. .....c... t’..‘.'... .u'~.+‘u . . 10.!- 20.0.., -. . .C .. .. I I... ‘0 v. ..II.
c .
. . . .
p O t . r 4 a .
. .. . n . .
. . n . w ... u m . . .
I . l 1%... flu. A!!! . 1“...sz ...... . 9.. .... . ... .‘V. ....I...t‘.o..‘ .93.}...[11 Illil'i4v ....I. 13.4.21. ,. H . . ... I .L «I. .... 6 III. .I
. . . a. . . ..
. . a . . .
— “ a. . . . .
v
a

l! f . ...IJ. v.1..l..' '
_ .

.

.’..- ...-... .~Iv

.. 19.. I. .. ..-... if k. » I II... ..I .' til}. .

D
'.
«bu e
s
.

.

’.

I
.

I

I
I.

....
I

rt‘l......l. . .. ... I»... 3-..... .l .I .. It! 1.-.. .. . ,I . . v

--
+1. H

...‘1 n

t

I
.‘nc-ru .

3

i

l

I

“Mt*.w-'

‘ccu-

I

I 6-. .... as!

.. . ..
_
s
w. 3..-}... ’1'5 + ’45I‘3‘r'zi‘lb
w
7 m i .
a . .

..Ikl ... lull. .. p| 9.... .... .-Il‘v: g *‘).l .. ..

i
3
I
”I“
.3 .-..
.-.,.-..-.'I_..

P—«w

I

I

i
L.....I.......

I

I

I

'I

 

 

..L..-.-..§...--
.
w.
m

«4—.vI-d
7‘: can"

‘a..._’

I

(I. ”.1.“ 1’. .‘I' .1 AI. ,

C.

 

Flexibility

1. Dealing appropriately with
unexpected situations as they
develop

 

1H“ Mat .0]

 

2. Having the ability to use
smoothly spontaneous situations

 

to achieve aims

 

3. Adapting instruction to char?-

ing needs of pupils and class

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iv. kimono 1;:51‘3UCT10N
_______L§§E§EAL4_OVER-ALL RATING)

A.

gnowledge of §ubject (sl

 

LHLJHIII

 

 

1. Being prepared in the sub-
jects and/or grades assigned
to teach

 

2. Showing persistence in seek-
ing added information and know-

ledge from many sources in teach
ggggsubjects

T

 

3. Seeking help and suggestions
from specialists and consultants
in subject areas where needed

 

u, Having knowledge of a variefir

of teaching materials in subject
aaaL22_g£aQe

 

 

5. Relating an area of knowledg1
to othe: ageas of knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. ' D 0 ‘ ' “ " =
(GENQM . oven-ALL RATING) J

   
 

. ".

 

I
'.
I 4
v 3 f
'
v v
x
- z

 

 

VI. PERSONAL QUgLITIES

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Physical Health

it

 

~H4tk

 

d

 

1. Being rarely absent because
of illness

 

2. Having stamina adequate for
the job 0; teaching

 

3. Showing physical vitality and
enthusiasm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mental Health

 

1. Being emotionally stable

 

27“T§fidifig‘tvward'TIEiibiIity’
rather than rigidity in thought
and behaviop_patterns

 

3. Having an appropriate sense
of humor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personal Appearance .

 

l1_¥Dressing appropriately

 

J l
2. Always being neat and well 1 [

groomed

 

...J...

,——J_#+

.L—IJ—P

 

LA...

 

4r;

 

e endabilit

 

l, Beipg seldom. iiiever1_late

 

 

2. Carrying out all tasks effec-
tively and on_time

 

3. Being trustworthy in all I
respects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mudes

 

1. Accepting and profiting fro
constructive criticism

 

self-evaluation

 

3. Revealing genuine interest
pupils

 

h. Being sensitive to feelings

2. Demonstrating ability for 1-
fix
I
and needs of others I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I
. - a ‘4
I
A.

I I
e
c

,.

~ .
I

I

e

.

. .

i v

a‘. ~..

‘

b

8

...-.

V I. nu.
a
Y
I I
. .
a
--. “..-—... I
u

I Q

' 1
l

r ‘rt'. '
‘

OL+H . ~'.Oc
I I

, -
E
I
- - . ' . -
.
D
.9 v . . l
’ I
. _ I
l r
a
a a I
I 1
.
. ~ -
. . .
v0 .- 1“-.- _..--
v ‘ ‘
l
.. z ‘
t 1 I

‘
.-.—...-o-w- 4,,‘-9-.‘- .
‘ .

I a
- t
|

..
“a .-.-l " -- ..-. - O -- -. - p .
- o o --- *4 4
, n
. . J. ,'. ,
i I
I g .
' I" ~ ’ I a y I '
I . .
- ‘ J a - « c -
.
I ' .
‘ I ' I
. . o— - fl ... 4 5 o '
- ‘ I
. . ' ~
2 I ' .
I
I
l . . . .
a . . I . . .
. “a ~ - . -,, . . v. I . - --
I
V
. 1 r - '
- s , .
. - I . , . .. 4. . -

; t ‘
' ':
... .‘ .’u
A
. i

9

¢
I
l
c...-.
.1

. .. -..—~< ..--

.,.y

F.

-92-

Voice and Language

 

 

 

 

 

l. Adjusting voice appropri-
ately to the instructional
situation

 

2. Using spoken language
correctly and effectively

 

3. Writing effectively and
legibly

 

4. Spelling correctly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI.

PERSONAL QUALIIIES

KGENEBéLa.£flEfl:ALL_EAIING)

 

VII.

PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES

A.

B.

Initiative

JJI JlJllll.

 

 

l. Participating willingly in

school and faculty activities

 

2. Seeking opportunity to
assume responsibility

 

3. Showing interest in and
helping supervise pupils in
extra-class activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest

 

1. Showing persistence in com-‘

pletion of tasks

 

2. Behaving in ethical and p
fessional manner

’j

 

3. Having a sincere enthusiasml

for the job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII.

PROFESSIOT U IES

(035.»sz OVER-ALL RM‘ING)

JIJLILTJIlJ

 

H 7?: WC A

Hill]

 

 

| J

 

.
o I
, I
.
— l (
‘ n --
.
.
I
... a I
I O
l I

 

-,,

or...

APPENDIX D
EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE

EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE
Allen L. Edwards
University of Washington
DIRECTIONS
This schedule consists of a number of pairs of statements about
things that you may or may not like; about ways in which you may or
may not feel. Look at the example below.

I like to talk about myself to others.
I like to work toward some goal that I have set for myself.

RUW>

Which of these two statements is more characteristic of what you
like? If you like "talking about yourself to others" more than you
like "working toward some goal that you have set for yourself," then
you should choose A over B. If you like "working toward some goal
that you have set for yourself" more than you like "talking about
yourself to others," then you should choose B over A.

You may like both A and B. In this case, you would have to choose
between the two and you should choose the one that you like better. If
you dislike A and B, then you should choose the one that you dislike
less.

Some of the pairs of statements in the schedule have to do with
your likes, such as A and B above. Other pairs of statements have to
do with how you feel. Look at the example below.

g, I feel depressed when I fail at something.
B, I feel nervous when giving a talk before a group.

Which of these two statements is more characteristic of how you
feel? If "being depressed when you fail at something" is more character-
istic of you than "being nervous when giving a talk before a group,"
then you should choose A over B. If B is more characteristic of you
than A, then you should choose B over A.

If both statements describe how you feel, then you should choose
the one which you think is more characteristic. If neither statement
accurately describes how you feel, then you should choose the one
which you consider to be less inaccurate.

Your choice, in each instance, should be in terms of what you like
and how you feel at the present time, and not in terms of what you
think you should like or how you think you should feel. This is not a
test. There are no right or wrong answers. Your choices should be a
description of your own personal likes and feelings. Make a choice
for eveny pair of statements; do not skip any.

”I‘ve

The pairs of statements on the following pages are similar to the
examples given above. Read each pair of statements and pick out the
one statement that better describes what you like or how you feel.

Make no marks in the booklet. On the separate answer sheet are numbers
corresponding to the numbers of the pairs of statements. Check to be
sure you are marking for the same item number as the item you are read-
ing in the booklet.

 

If you answer sheet is printed If your answer sheet is printed
in BLACK ink: in BLUE ink:
For each numbered item draw a circle For each numbered item fill in
around the A or B to indicate the the space under A or B as shown
statement you have chosen. in the Directions on the answer
Sheet.

 

DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL THE EXAMINER TELLS YOU TO START.

Copyright 1953. All rights reserved.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION

New York, New York

....

r. mil-

10

12

13

1H

m>m>m>

on»

(11> (I) {D U13>

w>m>w>w>w>w>m>

-96-

I like to help my friends when they are in trouble.
I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake.

I like to find out what great men have thought about various
problems in which I am interested.
I would like to accomplish something of great significance.

Any written work that I do I like to have precise, neat, and
well organized.

I would like to be a recognized authority in some job, pro-
fession, or field of specialization.

I like to tell amusing stories and jokes at parties.
I would like to write a great novel or play.

I like to be able to come and go as I want to.
I like to be able to say that I have done a difficult job well.

I like to solve puzzles and problems that other people have
difficulty with.
I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me.

I like to eXperience novelty and change in my daily routine.
I like to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on
something, when I think they have.

I like to plan and organize the details of any work that I have
to undertake.
I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me.

I like people to notice and to comment upon my appearance when
I am out in public.
I like to read about the lives of great men.

I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in
a conventional way.
I like to read about the lives of great men.

I would like to be a recognized authority in some job, profession,
or field of specialization.
I like to have my work organized and planned before beginning it.

I like to find out what great men have thought about various
problems in which I am interested.
If I have to take a trip, I like to have things planned in advance.

I like to finish any job or task that I begin.
I like to keep my things neat and orderly on my desk or workspace.

I like to tell other people about adventures and strange things
that have happened to me.

I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside
for eating.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

2?

29

tr: > (11> (13>

(Db

CI!

(11> Gib on» so {P w»

an» (I! b (11>

I like to be independent of others in deciding what I want to do.
I like to keep my things neat and orderly on my desk or workspace.

I like to be able to do things better than other people can.
I like to tell amusing stories and jokes at parties.

I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people
I respect might consider unconventional.
I like to talk about my achievements.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in my plans.

I like to tell other people about adventures and strange things
that have happened to me.

I like to read books and plays in which sex plays a major part.
I like to be the center of attention in a group.

I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority.
I like to use words which other people often do not know the
meaning of.

I like to accomplish tasks that others recognize as requiring
skill and effort.
I like to be able to come and go as I want to.

I like to praise someone I admire.
I like to feel free to do what I want to do.

I like to keep my letters, bills, and other papers neatly arranged
and filed according to some system.
I like to be independent of others in deciding what I want to do.

I like to ask questions which I know no one will be able to answer.
I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority.

I get so angry that I feel like throwing and breaking things.
I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

I like to be successful in things undertaken.
I like to form new friendships.

I like to follow instructions and to do what is expected of me.
I like to have strong attachments with my friends.

Any written work that I do I like to have precise, neat, and well
organized.
I like to make as many friends as I can.

I like to tell amusing stories and jokes at parties.
I like to write letters to my friends.

 

L...

30

31

32

33

35

36

37

39

MO

bl

42

m > tn > on» EU 3> (11>

CUP

w>w>w>

g»

I like to be able to come and go as I want to.
I like to share things with my friends.

I like to solve puzz1es and problems that other people have
difficulty with.

I like to judge people by why they do something--not by what
they actually do.

I like to accept the leadership of peOple I admire.
I like to understand how my friends feel about various prob-
lems they have to face.

I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside
for eating.
I like to study and to analyze the behavior of others.

I like to say things that are regarded as witty and clever by
other people.

I like to put myself in someone else's place and to imagine how
I would feel in the same situation.

I like to feel free to do what I want to do.
I like to observe how another individual feels in a given
situation.

I like to accomplish tasks that others recognize as requiring
skill and effort.
I like my friends to encourage me when I meet with failure.

When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other
people whose opinions I respect.
I like my friends to treat me kindly.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in my plans.
I like my friends to feel sorry for me when I am sick.

I like to be the center of attention in a group.
I like my friends to make a fuss OVer me when I am hurt or sick.

I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in
a conventional way.

I like my friends to sympathize with me and to cheer me up
when I am depressed.

I would like to write a great novel or play.
When serving on a committee, I like to be appointed or elected
chairman.

When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of someone
else in deciding what the group is going to do.

I like to supervise and to direct the actions of other people
whenever I can.

1+3

“5

Q6

47

49

50

52

53

> 03> (I! > CD?»

(13>

>w>w>

:p

I like to keep my letters, bills, and other papers neatly
arranged and filed according to some system.

I like to be one of the leaders in the organization and
groups to which I belong.

I like to ask questions which I know no one will be able to
answer.
I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.

I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.
I like to be called upon to settle arguments and disputes
between others.

I would like to be a recognized authority in some job, pro-
fession, or field of specialization.
I feel guilty whenever I have done something I know is wrong.

I like to read about the lives of great men.
I feel that I should confess the flhings that I have done that
I regard as wrong.

I like to plan and organize the details of any work that I have
to undertake.

When things go wrong for me, I feel that I am more to blame
than anyone else.

I like to use words which other people often do not know the
meaning of.
I feel that I am inferior to others in most respects.

I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority.
I feel timid in the presence of other people I regard as my
superiors.

I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake.
I like to help other people who are less fortunate than I am.

I like to find out what great men have thought about various
problems in which I am interested.
I like to be generous with my friends.

I like to make a plan before starting in to do something diffi-
CUlto
I like to do small favors for my friends.

I like to tell other people about adventures and strange
things that have happened to me.
I like my friends to confide in me and to tell me their troubles.

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

65

66

67

68

03>

poo»

m>

CD > m > > (11> (Db w >

CD3> (13> (20>

{13>

-100-

I like to say what I think about things.
I like to forgive my friends who may sometimes hurt me.

I like to be able to do things better than other people can.
I like to eat in new and strange restaurants.

I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that
people I respect might consider unconventional.
I like to participate in new fads and fashions.

I like to have my work organized and planned before beginning
it.
I like to travel and to see the country.

I like people to notice and to comment upon my appearance
when I am out in public.

I like to move about the country and to live in different
places.

I like to be independent of others in deciding what I want to do.
I like to do new and different things.

I like to be able to say that I have done a difficult job well.
I like to work hard at any job I undertake.

I like to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on
something, when I think they have.

I like to complete a single job or task at a time before taking
on others.

If I have to take a trip, I like to have things planned in
advance.
I like to keep working at a puzzle or problem until it is solved.

I sometimes like to do things just to see what effect it will
have on others.

I like to stick at a job or problem even when it may seem as
if I am not getting anywhere with it.

I like to do things that other people regard as unconventional.
I like to put in long hours of work without being distracted.

I would like to accomplish something of great significance.
I like to kiss attractive persons of the opposite sex.

I like to praise someone I admire.
I like to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the
opposite sex.

I like to keep my things neat and orderly on my desk or workspace.
I like to be in love with someone of the opposite sex.

69

7O

72

73

7Q

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

{11> II! > [13> (11> CD > w > CD > (11>

>

CO

-101-

I like to talk about my achievements.
I like to listen to or to tell jokes in which sex plays a
major part.

I like to do things in my own way and without regard to what
others may think.

I like to read books and plays in which sex plays a major
part.

I would like to write a great novel or play.
I like to attack points of view that are contrary to mine.

When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of
someone else in deciding what the group is going to do.
I feel like criticizing someone publicly if he deserves it.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in mv plans.
I get so angry that I feel like throwing and breaking things.

I like to ask questions which I know no one will be able to
answer a
I like to tell other people what I think of them.

I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.
I feel like making fun of people who do things that I regard
as stupid.

I like to be loyal to my friends.
I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake.

I like to observe how another individual feels in a given
situation.
I like to be able to say that I have done a difficult job well.

I like my friends to encourage me when I meet with failure.
I like to be successful in things undertaken.

I like to be one of the leaders in the organizations and groups
to which I belong.
I like to be able to do things better than other people can.

‘When things go wrong for me, I feel that I am more to blame
than anyone else.

I like to solve puzzles and problems that other people have
difficulty‘with.

I like to do things for my friends.
When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other
people whose opinions I respect.

82

83

85

86

87

88

89

91

92

w>w>

b

-102-

I like to put myself in someone else's place and to imagine
how I would feel in the same situation.

I like to tell my superiors that they have done a good job
on something, when I think they have.

I like my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when
I have problems.
I like to accept the leadership of people I admire.

When serving on a committee, I like to be appointed or elec-
ted chairman.

When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of
someone else in deciding what the group is going to do.

If I do something that is wrong, I feel that I should be
punished for it.

I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that
people I respect might consider unconventional.

I like to share things with my friends.
I like to make a plan before starting in to do something
difficult.

I like to understand how my friends feel about various prob-
lems they have to face.

If I have to take a trip, I like to have things planned in
advance.

I like my friends to treat me kindly.
I like to have my work organized and planned before beginning
it.

I like to be regarded by others as a leader.
I like to keep my letters, bills, and other papers neatly
arranged and filed according to some system.

I feel that the pain and misery that I have suffered has done
me more good than harm.

I like to have IQ'Iife so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in my plans.

I like to think about the personalities of my friends and to
try to figure out what makes them as they are.

I sometimes like to do things just to see what effect it will
have on others.

I like to have strong attachments with my friends.
I like to say things that are regarded as witty and clever by
other peOple.

93

95

96

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

{P {11> [11> CD> w P [13> CD >

(11>

w» (13> so» I'D > UJ> (11> (13>

.103-

I like my friends to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or
510k.
I like to talk about my achievements.

I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.
I like to be the center of attention in a group.

I feel timid in the preence of other peOple I regard as my
superiors.

I like to use words which other people often do not know
the meaning of.

I like to do things with my friends rather than by myself.
I like to say what I think about things.

I like to study and to analyze the behavior of others.
I like to do things that other people regard as unconventional.

I like my friends to feel sorry for me when I am sick.
I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in
a conventional way.

I like to supervise and to direct the actions of other people
whenever I can.

I like to do things in my own way withoutregard to what others
may think. -

I feel that I am inferior to others in most respects.
I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

I like to be successful in things undertaken.
I like to form new friendships.

I like to analyze my own motives and feelings.
I like to make as many friends as I can.

I like my friends to help me when I am in trouble.
I like to do things for my friends.

I like to argue for my point of view when it is attacked by
others.
I like to write letters to my friends.

I feel guilty whenever I have done something I know is wrong.
I like to have strong attachments with my friends.

I like to share things with my friends.
I like to analyze my own motives and feelings.

I like to accept the leadership of people I admire.
I like to understand how my friends feel about various prob-
lems they have to face.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

w»

w>w>m>w>w>m>m>

no»

.104-

I like my friends to do many small favors for me cheerfully.
I like to judge people by why' they do something--not by what
they actually do.

When with a group of people, I like to make the decisions
about what we are going to do.
I like to predict how my friends will act in various situations.

I feel better when I give in and avoid a fight, than I would if
I tried to have my own way.
I like to analyze the feelings and motives of others.

I like to form new friendships.
I like my friends to help me when I am in trouble.

I like to judge people by why they do something---not by what
they actually do.
I like my friends to show a great deal of affection toward me.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in my plans.
I like my friends to feel sorry for me when I am sick.

I like to be called upon to settle arguments and disputes
between others.
I like my friends to do many small favors for me cheerfully.

I feel that I should confess the things that I have done that
I regard as wrong.

I like my friends to sympathize with me and to cheer me up
when I am depressed.

I like to do things with my friends rather than by myself.
I like to argue for my point of View when it is attacked by
Others 0

I like to think about the personalities of my friends and to
try to figure out what makes them as they are.

I like to be able to persuade and influence others to do what
I want to do.

I like my friends to sympathize with me and to cheer me up
when I am depressed.

When with a group of people, I like to make the decisions about
what we are going to do.

I like to ask questions which I know no one will be able to
..nswere
I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

00>

CD > CD> CD > CD :> (13> {13> w >

.10 5-

I feel timid in the presence of other people I regard as my
superiors.

I like to supervise and to direct the actions of other people
whenever I can.

I like to participate in groups in which the members have
warm and friendly feelings toward one another.
I feel guilty whenever I have done something I know is wrong.

I like to analyze the feelings and motives of others.
I feel depressed by my own inability to handle various situa-
tions 0

I like my friends to feel sorry for me when I am sick.
I feel better when I give in and avoid a fight, then I would
if I tried to have my own way.

I like to be able to persuade and influence others to do what
I want.
I feel depressed by my own inability to handle various situa-
tions.

I like to criticize people who are in a position of authority.
I feel timid in the presence of other people I regard as my
superiors.

I like to participate in groups in which the members have
warm and friendly feelings toward one another.
I like to help my friends when they are in trouble.

I like to analyze my own motives and feelings.
I like to sympathize with my friends when they are hurt or sick.

I like my friends to help me when I am in trouble.
I like toireat other people with kindness and sympathy.

I like to be one of the leaders in the organizations and groups
to which I belong.
I like to sympathize with my friends when they are hurt or sick.

I feel that the pain and misery that I have suffered has done
me more good than harm.
I like to show a great deal of affection toward my friends.

I like to do things with my friends rather than by myself.
I like to experiment and to try new things.

I like to think about the personalities of my friends and to
try to figure out what makes them as they are.

I like to try new and different jobs---rather than to continue
doing the same old things.

1%

1%

1%

136

1W

1%

In

140

141

142

143

144

145

an» w>w>w>

w > w» w» m»

w > w» w> w»

on»

4%-

I like my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when I
have problems.
I like to meet new people.

I like to argue for my point of view when it is attacked by
others.
I like to experience novelty and change in my daily routine.

I feel better when I give in and avoid a fight, than I would
if I tried to have my own way.

I like to move about the country and to live in different
places.

I like to do things for my friends.
When I have some assignment to do, I like to start in and
keep working on it until it is completed.

I like to analyze the feelings and motives of others.
I like to avoid being interrupted while at my work.

I like my friends to do many small favors for me cheerfully.
I like to stay up late working in order to get a job done.

I like to be regarded by others as a leader.
I like to put in long hours of work without being distracted.

If I do something that is wrong, I feel that I should be
punished for it.

I like to stick at a job or problem even when it may seem as
if I am not getting anywhere with it.

I like to be loyal to my friends.
I like to go out with attractive persons of the opposite sex.

I like to predict how my friends will act in various situations.
I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual
activities.

I like my friends to show a great deal of attention toward me.
I like to become sexually excited.

When with a group of peOple, I like to make the decisions about
what we are going to do.

I like to engage in social activities with persons of the
opposite sex.

I feel depressed by my own inability to handle various situations.
I like to read books and plays in which sex plays a major part.

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

1%

1%

1%

1%

19

158

1”

1w

(DP

w> m» w» w» m» m»

tnP w P CDP [’13P

w» m»

CUP {UP

.107 -

I like to write letters to my friends.
I like to read newspaper accounts of murders and other forms
of vidlence.

I like to predict how my friends will act in various situations.
I like to attack points of view that are contrary to mine.

I like my friends to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or sick.
I feel like blaming others when things go wrong for me.

I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.
I feel like getting revenge when someone has insulted me.

I feel that I an inferior to others in most respects.
I feel like telling other people off when I disagree with them.

I like to help my friends when they are in trouble.
I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake.

I like to travel and to see the country.
I like to accomplish tasks that others recognize as requiring
skill and effort.

I like to work hard at any job I undertake.
I would like to accomplish something of great significance.

I like to go outnwith attractive persons of the opposite sex.
I like to be successful in things undertaken.

I like to read newspaper accounts of nrders and other forms
of violence.
I would like to write a great novel or play.

I like to do small favors for my friends.
‘When planning something, I like to get suggestions from other
people whose opinions I respect.

I.like to experience novelw'and change in my daily routine.
I like to tell my superiors that they have done a good job on
something, when I think they have.

I like to stay up late working in order to get a job done.
I like to praise someone I admire.

I like to become sexually excited.
I like to accept the leadership of people I admire.

I feel like getting revenge when someone has insulted me.
When I am in a group, I like to accept the leadership of some-
one else in deciding what the group is going to do.

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

EDP (DP w

>- air» air-

~108-

I like to be generous with my friends.
I like to make a plan before starting in to do something
difficult.

I like to meet new people.
Any written work that I do I like to have precise, neat, and
well organized.

I like to finish any job or task that I begin.
I like to keep my things neat and orderly on my desk or work-
space.

I like to be regarded as physically attractive by those of
the opposite sex.
I like to plan and organize the details of any work that I
have to undertake.

I like to tell other people what I think of them.
I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set
aside for eating.

I like to show a great deal of affection toward my friends.
I like to say things that are regarded as witty and clever
by other people.

I like to try new and different jobs--rather than to continue
doing the same old things.

I sometimes like to do things just to wee what effect it will
have on others.

I like to stick at a job or problem even when it may seem as
if I am not getting anywhere with it.

I like people to notice and to comment upon my appearance
when I am out in public.

I like to read books and plays in which sex plays a major part.
I like to be the center of attention in a group.

I feel like blaming others when things go wrong for me.
I like to ask questions which I know no one will be able to
arlswere

I like to sympathize with my friends when they are hurt or sick.
I like to say what I think about things.

I like to eat in new and strange restaurants.

I like to do things that other people regard as unconventional.

I like to complete a single job or task at a time before taking
on others.
I like to feel free to do what I want to do.

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

W

WP WP WP W P WP WP WP

WP

WP

WP WP W P WP

.109-

I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual
activities.

I like to do things in my own way without regard to what
others may think.

I get so angry that I feel like throwing and breaking things.
I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

I like to help my friends when they are in trouble.
I like to be loyal to my friends.

I like to do new and different things.
I like to form new friendships.

When I have some assignment to do, I like to start in and
keep working on it until it is completed.

I like to participate in groups in which the members have
warm and friendly feelings toward one another.

I like to go out with attractive persons of the opposite sex.
I like to make as many friends as I can.

I like to attack points of view that are contrary to mine.
I like to write letters to my friends.

I like to be generous with my friends.
I like to observe how another individual feels in a given
situation.

I like to eat in new and strange restaurants.
I like to put myself in someone else's place and to imagine
how I would feel in the same situation.

I like to stay up late working in order to get a job done.
I like to understand how my friends feel about various prob-
lems they have to face.

I like to become sexually excited.
I like to study and to analyze the behavior of others.

I feel like making fun of people who do things that I regard
as stupid.
I like to predict how my friends will act in various situations.

I like to forgive my friends who may sometimes hurt me.
I like my friends to encourage me when I meet with failure.

I like to experiment and to try new things.
I like my friends to be sympathetic and understanding when I
have problems.

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

W WP W P WP WP W P W P

WP WP

>.

.110-

I like to keep working at a puzzle or problem until it is
solved e
I like my friends to treat me kindly}

I like to be regarded as physically attractive by those of
the opposite sex.

I like my friends to show a great deal of affection toward
me.

I feel like criticizing someone publicly if he deserves it.
I like my friends to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or
SiCke

I like to show a great.deal of affection toward my friends.
I like to be regarded by others as a leader.

I like to try new and different jobs-~rather than to contin-
ue doing the same old things.

When serving on a committee, I like to be appointed or elected
chairman.

I like to finish any job or task that I begin.
I like to be able to persuade and influence others to do what
I want“

I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual
activities.

I like to be called upon to settle arguments and disputes
between others.

I get so angry that I feel like throwing and breaking things.
I like to tell other people how to do their jobs.

I like to show a great deal of affection toward my friends.
When things go wrong for me, I feel that I am more to blame
than anyone else.

I like to move about the country and to live in different
places.

If I do something that is wrong, I feel that I should be
punished for it.

I like to stick at a job or problem even when it may seem as
if I am not getting anywhere with it.

I feel that the pain and misery that I have suffered has done
me more good than harm.

I like to read books and plays in which sex plays a major part.
I feel that I should confess the things that I have done that
I regard as wrong.

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

WP WP

WP W P W P WP

W P W P WP W P WP WP W P WP

I feel like blaming others when things go wrong for me.
I feel that I am inferior to others in most respects.

I like to do my very best in whatever I undertake.
I like to help other peOple who are less fortunate than I am.

I like to do new and different things.
I like to treat other people with kindness and sympathy.

When I have some assignment to do, I like to start in and
keep working on it until it is completed.
I like to help other people who are less fortunate than I am.

I like to engage in social activities with persons of the
opposite sex.
I like to forgive my friends who may sometimes hurt me.

I like to attack points of view that are contrary to mine.
I like my friends to confide in me and to tell me their
troubles.

I like to treat other people with kindness and sympathy.
I like to travel and to see the country.

I like to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that
people I respect might consider unconventional.
I like to participate in new fads and fashions.

I like to work hard at any job I undertake.
I like to experience novelty and change in my daily routine.

I like to kiss attractive persons of the opposite sex.
I like to experiment and to try new things.

I feel like telling other people off when I disagree with
them.
I like to participate in new fads and fashions.

I like to help other peOple who are less fortunate than I am.
I like to finish any job or task that I begin.

I like to move about the country and to live in different
places.
I like to put in long hours of work without being distracted.

If I have to take a trip, I like to have things planned in
advance.

I like to keep working at a puzzle or problem until it is
solved.

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

22 5

uas- tn a> nus»

P

WP

WP W P WP WP

.112-

I like to be in love with someone of the opposite sex.
I like to complete a single job or task before taking on
others.

I like to be in love with someone of the opposite sex.
I like to avoid being interrupted while at my work.

I like to do small favors for my friends.

I like to engage in social activities with persons of the
opposite sex.

I like to meet new people.
I like to kiss attractive persons of the opposite sex.

I like to keep working at a puzzle or prOblem until it is
solved.
I like to be in love with someone of the Opposite sex.

I like to talk about my achievements.
I like to listen to or to tell jokes in which sex plays a
major part.

I feel like making fun of people who do things that I regard
as stupid.

I like to listen to or to tell jokes in which sex plays a

major part.

I like my friends to confide in me and to tell me their troubles.
I like to read newspaper accounts of murders and other forms
of violence.

I like to participate in new fads and fashions.
I feel like criticizing someone publicly if he deserves it.

I like to avoid being interrupted while at my work.
I feel like telling other peOple off when I disagree with them.

I like to listen to or to tell jokes in which sex plays a major
par to
I feel like getting revenge when someone has insulted me.

I like to avoid responsibilities and obligations.
I feel like making fun of people who do things that I regard
as stupid.

The Manifest Needs Associated With Each Of The 15 EPPS Variables Are:

1. ach Achievement: To do one's best, to be successful, to
accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized
authority, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a
difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be
able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play.

2. def Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out
what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected,
to praise others, to tell others they they have done a good job, to
accept the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform
to custom and avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions.

3. ord Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make
plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized,
to keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a
trip, to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according
to some system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating,
to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change.

4. exh Exhibition: Tb say witty and clever things, to tell
amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal adventures and ex-
periences, to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance,
to say things just to see what effect it will have on others, to talk
about personal achievements, to be the center of attention, to use
words that others do not know the meaning of, to ask questions others
cannot answer.

5. ant Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say
what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making
decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are
unconventional, to avoid SituatiOns where one is expected to conform,
to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize
those in positions of authority, to avoid reSponsibilities and obli-
gations.

6. aff Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to participate in
friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships,
to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends,
to do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments,
to write letters to friends.

7. int Intraception: To analyze one's motives and feelings, to
observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put
one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things
rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to
analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act.

8. suc Succorance: To have others provide help when in trouble,
to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have
others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to
receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors
cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel
sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt.

9. dom Dominance: TO argue for one's point of view, to be a
leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a
leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make
group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to
persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and
direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs.

10. aba Abasement: TO feel guilty when one does something wrong,
to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain
and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for
punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding
a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession
of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel
timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most
respects.

ll. nur Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble,
to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with kindness and sym-
pathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to be generous
with others, to sympathize with others who are hurt or sick, to show a
great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in one
about personal problems.

12. chg Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to
meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to
experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to
try new and different jobs, to ,move about the country and live in
different places, to participate in new fads and fashions.

13. end Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to com-
plete any jOb undertaken, to work hard at a task, to keep at a puzz1e
or problem until it is selved, to work at a single job before taking on
others, to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in
long hours of work without.distraction, to stick at a problem even
though it may seem as if no progress is being made, to avoid being
interrupted while at work.

14. het Heterosexuality: TO go out with members of the Opposite
sex, to engage in social activities with the Opposite sex, to be in love
with someone of the Opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to
be regarded as physically attractive by those Of the Opposite sex, to
participate in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving
sex, to become sexually excited.

 

15. agg Aggression: TO attack contrary points of view, to tell
others what one thinks about them, to criticize others publicly, to
make fun Of others, to tell others off when disagreeing with them, to
get revenge for insults, to become angry, to blame others when things
go wrong, to read newspaper accounts of violence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-11u-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OOKS

Combs, Arthur W. Ihe Pr0fessional_Education of Teachers. Boston:
Allyn ”d Bacon, Ines, 1965.

Dalton, Elizabeth L. What Makes Effective Teachers for Yoggg
Adolescents? George Peabody College for Teachers Press.
Nashville, Tennessee, 1962.

Getzels, J. W. and Jackson, Philip W. ”The Teacher Personality and
Characteristics," Handbook of Researghfon Tagghing.
American Educational Research Association, 1959.

Havighurst, Rebert J. and Neugarten, Bernice L. Society and Education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957.

Hillway, Tyrus The American Igo-fiear College. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1958.

Holdenfield, G. K. and Stinnett, T. M. 1h. Education of Ieachers,
gonglict and Qonsensus. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

Hollingshead, August B. TwOlFactorfIndex ofg§ocial Position.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.

Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching. A New
Order in Student Teaching. Commission on Teacher Education
and Professional Standards. National Education Association,

1967.

warnery Lloyd N., Havighurst, Hebert J., and Loeb, Martin B. ‘Whg
Shall be Educated. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944.

Wattenberg, William, et a1. Ihe Ieachers Role in Amerigani§ociety.
John Dewey Society, Fourteenth Yearbook, 1957.

\1 a

.115-

ER 0 I S

Amatora, Sister Mary ”Similarity in Teachers' and Pupils' Person-
ality,“ Joupnal of Psychology, XXXVIL, (January, 1954).

Barr, A. S. ”The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency.
A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental
Education, XVI, 1948.

Bach, JacOb 0. "Practice Teaching Success in Relation to Other

Measures of Teaching Ability,” {pprppl_pz_£;pppipgptpl,
Educatiop, XXI, (September, 1952).

Best, John Wesley ”A Study of Certain Selected Factors Underlying

the Choice of Teaching,“ Journal of Egpgpimentgl Edpcatiop,
XVII, (March, 1948).

Brooker, T. W. "Selective Admission to Elementary Education,”
Peabody Jopppgl of Education, XXXII, (September, 1964).

Carlile, A. B. "Predicting Performance in the Teaching Profession,”
102525; of Educational Research, XLVII, (May, 1954).

Coody, Ben and Hinely, Reginald “validity Study of Selected EPPS
Subscales for Determining Need Structure of Dominating and
Submissive Student Teachers," Journal of Educatioppl
Research, LXI, (OctOber, 1967).

Cratty, Bryant J. ”A Comparison of Selected Pre-Teaching Competen-
cies of Transfer and Non-Transfer Students,” Junior College
Jpppppl, XXXI, (October, 1960).

DeRidder, Lawrence M. “Comparative Scholastic Achievement of
Native and Transfer Students," Junior Qollgge Journal,
XXII, (October, 1951).

Garrison, Karl C. and Scott, Mary H. ”The Relationships of Selected
Personal Characteristics to the Needs of College Students

Preparing to Teach," Egucationgl and Psychologies; Measupgment,
XXII, (Winter, 1962).

Goodstein, Leonard D. and Hielbrun, Alfred B. Jr. "Prediction of
College Achievement from the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule at Three Levels of Intellectual Ability," gournal

of Applied Psychology, IVL, (October, 1962).

 

 

04

 

.
h ‘ ’1 v '
l a
‘ 7 s
, . I. I‘
. . 4 I .
‘ l ' ‘ e ,
. V ’ .. . e
e. I, ,. .. I
n I | , . .
. v I' . ’ .
... .V
. .A I. “'4' "x
a I ‘ . I
. e

, ~ .
‘ 5 -, . .
’ r
v. ' ' I . ’ '
I I ‘ ' ‘ : .
.
l _ ‘ . u .
. I) ’
., .
l . v
. ‘ ' ' a - . .
h l a A‘.
. . - o » a I K
‘ . q ,a ' I ' .
r P. . -.—~ ' ‘ I
' ' I
7 ~ ‘ v. ‘ . « L‘ ‘ . .
( f ' l a . . .' .
.
I7 z I
.
D . I I
‘ ' v ... _,. .
fi - .. "o
" N I) .
.
l a
‘ ‘ ‘ a , a
‘ i
- ‘ ‘ ‘ | e .
O A v
I "I .
‘ ‘ . a- I II
7 ’ " ' ‘ - ' . ‘r
.‘ . ‘ . I~‘
‘1
V i
a . I, I I. II
4 . ..
. . . l‘ .
,’ , . . . I
o
I . .
. ’ O .
r I
I . I. I
. J . ‘ a
.
.. .
. -
. . . _ I i
. . .. _, _ . I
' v
.. .
‘ s
v 9 . .
. . . ,,
‘ ' v . s ‘ I
‘ l
‘ . ‘- i . ‘ '
. . .
. . - t I
,I.
I O
l

.116-

Harrison, Gough and Pemberton, William "Personality Characteristics
Related to Success in Student Teaching,” gournal of Applied
Ps cholo , XXXVI, (October, 1952).

Hunt, N. C. "Why People Lose Their Job or Aren't Promoted,"
Eegponnel godzpdl, XIV, (193541936).

Jackson, Philip H. and Guba, Egon G. "The Need Structure of In-
Service Teacher and Occupational Analysis,” Echpol Bezdew,
LXV: (April 9 1957) o

Lang, Gerhard "Motives in Selecting Elementary and Secondary School
Teaching," gournal o; Egpepidenpg; Education, XXIX,
(September, 1 0).

Lins, Leo J. "The Prediction Teaching Efficiency,” godgnal of
Edpepimedtal Eddcatiop, XV, (September, 1946).

Lunneborg, Clifford and Lunneborg, Patricia "EPPS Patterns in the
Prediction of Academic Achievement,” ournal o ounse
Ps cholo , XIV, (July, 1967).

Magee, Robert.M. 'AdmissionéRetention in Teacher Education,"
dodgdpl of Teachpg Education, XII, (March, 1961).

Magee, Robert.M. "Selection of Candidates for Teacher Education,”
goprpal o; Teacder Education, III, (September, 1953).

Major, C. L. ”The Influence of Academic Standing Upon Success in

Student Teaching," Educat10pé; fiesearch Eplletdp, XXXII,

Martin, Clyde "Emotional Social and Psychological Makedup of the
Teacher and Its Relationship to Teaching,” deldhood
Education, XLIV, (December, 1967).

Michaelis, John E. ”The Prediction of Success in Student Teaching
from.Personality and Attitude Inventories," Univezsity o;

ledgornia fidblications in Education, XI, (1956).

Sheldon, Stephen, Cole, Jack M. and Copple, Rockne ”Concurrent
validity of the'warm Teacher Scales," gournal of Educational
Ps cholo , L, (1959).

Sims, Werner M. ”The Social Class Affiliations of a Group of Public
School Teachers," School Eeview, CIX, (September, 1951).

Stinnett, T. M. "Selection in Teacher Education,” 0 of
Ieachep Education, V, (December, 195“).

i

.1

.117-

Ullman, R. R. "The Prediction of Teaching Success,“ Educational
Administration and Supervision, XVI, (November, 1930).

Vineyard, Edwin, et a1. "Teacher Education and Pharmacy Students:
A Comparison of Their Need Structure," gournal of Teacher
Education, XIII, (December, 1962).

‘Watson, G. ”The Surprising Discovery of Morale," firogzessive
Education, XIX, (l9h2).

.118 -

U S T

A three page questionnaire containing twenty-eight questions concern-
ing personal information.

An eight page evaluation form designed to help discover the student's
self perception of his potential effectiveness as a teacher.

Brothers, W. L. "The Relationship of Certain Factors to Effectiveness
in Student Teaching in the Secondary Schools,” Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, (1950).

Darrow, Harriet D. ”The Relationship of Certain Factors to Perfor-
mance of Elementary Student Teachers with Contrasting Success
Records in Student Teaching,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Indiana University, (1961).

Dove, Pearlie C. ”A Study of the Relationships of Certain Selected
Criteria and Success in the Student Teaching Program at Clark
College, Atlanta, Georgia," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Colorado, 1959.

Lindsey, Margaret Editor, ”Report of the Task Force on New Horizons
in Teacher Education,” New Rorizons in the Teacher Erofession,
Washington De Co. (1961) ’ p. 1620

Martin, Lycia ”The Prediction of Success for Students in Teacher
Education,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University, (190“).

Michigan State University Orientation Tests inclusive of the areas of
English, Arithmetic, Reading, and vocabulary, The Office of
Evaluation Services.

Perry, James O. ”A Study of a Selective Set of Criteria for Deter-
mining Success in Secondary Student Teachers at Texas Southern
University,” Unpublished ED.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas, (1962).

Southworth, Horton C. ”A Study of Certain Personality and Value
Differences in Teacher Education Majors Preferring Early and
Later Elementary Teaching Levels,” Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, (1962).

Use of_Orientatiod Test pdta, The Office of Evaluation Services.
Michigan State University, (February, 1957).

 

-119-

OIEEE SOURCES

A Description of Michigan State's_Eu;;-Time Student Teaching_Program,
Michigan State University, College of Education, (September,
1963).

American Council on Educations, The Improvement of Teacher Education,
Washington D. C., (19“6).

Edwards, Allen L. Eanud; Edwardgifersonal Ppegepgnce Schedule,
New York: The Psychological Corporation, (1959).

Greenhoe, Florence Qommunity Contacts and Earticipation o; Ieachers,
American Council on Public Affairs, washington D. C., (1991).

 

 

Michigan State University; Etudent Teacher Evaluation Eorm, College of
Education, Michigan State University, (196“).

‘7'1111!?IIEITM‘I’M’IMMIITN