I111. Sui-3.. .fo .. .1 .2 .. ““3... that!!! irxuli.) .. an; A: P 1....) ll! 0. I...) :17 Irv; I13... .I .1233; (1 11:7!!! n.H):pl.‘\l13.ll 2.4.5:..Ilubirl xii-2!), tr. hr... P. C. R. Mei“, I: UN VE Ema . 57: me mm "p ‘ an; 2 mm; 55 mm 1 nf Ce ‘ MC ‘ Con "Mr? E Reafiafls WW @1 a. I}. .Vr‘lnll . A .. H V A ; . a... . hrs) . . (p. 1“... li‘i‘?" tailfil‘iluo‘b..:i3 . u if} saw-2 :- "11'"”‘l’l'l‘llllllflllfllzllMI!"Willy" This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION TO PRINCIPAL-TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL-PUPIL INTERACTION IN SELECTED HIGH SCHOOLS presented by Constantine James Lafkiotes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Education Date July 12. 1 0-169 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION TO PRINCIPALeTEACHER AND.PRINCIPAL~PUPIL. INTERACTION IN SELECTED HIGH SCHOOLS by Constantine James Lafkiotes Problem This study, an outgrowth of U.S. Office of Education Project 918, was designed to test hypotheses relating the perceptual classification of principals, teachers, and pupils to the frequency with which they interact for the purpose of discussing their professional and personal problems. Sample Since Project 918 involved the study of high schools of varying design, organization and size, several methods were employed in the selection process. Numerous sources were utilized in identifying a group of 401 schools out of which 298 desired to take part in the study. Seventy-seven of the schools were visited and thirty-four selected for the project. In this group of schools, the design of the buildu ings varied from compact to campus types. The teachers and pupils in the schools were organized about traditional sub? ject areas or, as was the case in several schools, the school- within~school organization in which the larger school is divided into smaller units, each having its own staff and Constantine James Lafkiotes facilities. The present study utilized thirty of the thirty- four schools which were located throughout the United States. 212229.129. The perceptual classification of principals, teachers, and pupils was determined by K. T. Hereford's revision of the Robert Bills' gngg§,g§,Adjustment and Values. This instru- ment was employed in classifying persons into four perceptual types: ++, +-, -+, and --, in terms of their acceptance of self and others. The frequency of interaction was determined by means of a rating scale which asked teachers and pupils to indicate how frequently they discussed their professional concerns (in the case of teachers) or school and/or personal problems (in the case of pupils) with each of a number of school personnel. Each of the high schools was visited for the purpose of obtaining the data. In each case the teachers were oriented to the study and the instrumentation prior to the time of testing of pupils. Without exception, the school staff members were assured that their responses would be kept in strict confidence. Before testing the operational hypotheses, the interaction measure was tested for relationship to a group of personal and institutional variables by means of the chi-square technique. Since the size and the organization Constantine James Lafkiotes 3 chi-square technique. Since the size and the organization of schools appeared to affect the frequency of interaction, the schools were reclassified into four groups before the tests of the hypotheses were undertaken. The four groups of schools utilized were: (1) small subject organized schools, (2) large subject organized schools, (3) small school- within—school organized schools, and (4) large school~ withineschool organized schools. Conclusions The evidence found in the statistical analysis led to the conclusion that, in the selected schools, there was no evident relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the frequency ofeeither principal- teacher or principalapupil interaction. It was also con- cluded that the perceptual classification of teachers and pupils was not related to the frequency of principal-teacher or principal~pupil interaction. Since the small number of hypotheses which were statistically significant appeared in the school-within- school organized schools, it is suggested that, possibly, some variable associated with this type of personnel organization may affect the pattern of interaction in terms of the personalities involved. Thus, further investigation of these schools is warranted. Constantine James Lafkiotes Although several of the principals were classified as over-valuing individuals, there was no evidence that their interaction, for the most part, was at a lower level than that of other administrators. Further studies employing Bills' typology would do well to study only persons who demonstrate, to a greater degree, differences in the acceptance of self and others. THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION TO PRINCIPAL-TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL-PUPIL INTERACTION IN SELECTED HIGH SCHOOLS By Constantine James Lafkiotes A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1961 G; 29,; GO 5/; a ft .2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer would like to express his grateful appreciation to Professor Donald Leu, adviser and friend, for his wise counsel, his patience and encouragement. The writer's fond memories of Michigan State will center about this considerate gentleman. A special note of thanks is extended to Dr. Karl Hereford, Mr. Paul Messier, and the other members of the Project 918 research staff whose assistance and cooperation made this study possible. The writer wishes to thank the members of his graduate committee, Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Dr. Herbert Rudman, and Dr. Buford Stefflre, for their advice and assistance throughout the period of the study as well as Mr. John Patterson for his kind assistance relating to the statistical procedures. These acknowledgements would not be complete without an expression of appreciation to the writer's family. To his parents for their inspiration and assistance through the years and to his wife, Regina, for her generous understanding he is eternally indebted. ******************** ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Literature from Psychology . . . . . . . . . . 1O Termin°l°8y e e e e e o e e e e n o n e e e 10 Theory I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 I I O O I O 1 2 Personality Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . 13 studies 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O I O O D O O 15 Literature from Educational Administration . . 19 Overview of Administrative Theories . . . . 19 Studies 0 O O O C O U D O O O O O O O O U I 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 III. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY . . . . . 29 Identification of the Population and the sample 0 e o e o 0 O o O 0 o o D e I 0 O Q o 29 CHAPTER PAGE Initial Selection of Schools . . . . . . . . 29 Final Selection of Schools Included in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Determining Perceptual Classification . . . 38 Measuring the Frequency of Interaction . . . 41 The Measurement of Other Variables Possibly Related to the Frequency of Interaction . 42 Administration of the Instruments . . . . . . 44 Staff Orientation and Testing . . . . . . . 44 Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Classification of Schools After the Principals' Booklets Had Been Tabulated . 46 Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Statistical Methods to be Employed . . . . . . 51 The Phi Correlation Coefficient; Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 The Chi-Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The Student's "t“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Level of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . 54 IV. THE ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Testing for Item Correlation; Reliability . . 55 The Relationship of Personal Variables of Teachers to the Frequency of Teacher- iv . . . . . . K : . . . . n - . . . . . - I . ,. ,. . . . - . - . . . . a . i . - . . . . ~ ~ . . . -. .- . . . , ‘ . . . . . H, . . , . . . . . . . . . , . ~ . . n . . , _ . . _ . . . ~ - 4 n e . ' ., .. . r . . . . - - w ‘ — . . . ~ . i . . . - . — . . . x . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER Principal Interaction . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship of Personal Variables of Pupils to the Frequency of Principal-Pupil Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship of Organizational Variables of Teachers to the Frequency of Principal- Teacher Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship of Organizational Variables of Pupils to the Frequency of Principal-Pupil Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Tests of Related Variables . . . Classification of Schools . . . . . . . . . Tests of the Hypotheses; Teacher Data . . . Tests of the Hypotheses; Pupil Data . . . . Summary of Tests of the Hypotheses . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of High Schools Studied . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administration of the Instruments . . . . Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Methods Employed . . . . . . . Classification of Schools . . . . . . . . Results of the Tests . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE . 57 . 62 . 65 . 69 . 72 . 73 . 76 . 90 . 103 . 105 . 105 . 105 . 106 . 107 . 108 . 108 . 109 . 109 . 109 CHAPTER PAGE Pupil Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Recommendations and Implications . . . . . . . . 111 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Implications for Administration . . . . . . . 111 BIBLImeY O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 13 vi TABLE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Initial Selection of Schools . . . . . . . . . Mailings and Responses of Initially Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Utilization and Number of Initially Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools Failing to Meet Initial Criteria . . . High Schools Visited Prior to Final Selection . State and Regional Distribution of Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School Number, Principal's Perceptual Classification and Years in Present Position. Correlation of Teacher-Principal Interaction Measure with Interaction Score (Total) for Other Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Pupil-Principal Interaction With Interaction Score (Total) for Other Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi Square Test of Significance of Dis- crepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Male and Female Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii PAGE 31 32 32 33 33 37 47 56 56 57 TABLE XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. PAGE Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Married and Single Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Teachers in the Various Subject Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Inexperienced and Experienced Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Teachers of Short and Long Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of High and Low Interacting Pupils Reported by Boys and Girls . . . . . . 63 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of High and Low Interacting Pupils Reported by Pupils of Parents of Low and High Socio-Economic Levels . . . . . . . 64 viii TABLE XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Teachers in Schools Having Small and Large Enrollments . . . . . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers as Reported by Teachers in Compact and Campus Designed High School Facilities . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of Low and High Interacting Teachers Reported by Teachers in High Schools Organized as School—Within-School or Subject Oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of High and Low Interacting Pupils Reported by Pupils in Schools Having Small and Large Pupil Enrollments . . . . . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of High and Low Interacting Pupils as Reported by Pupils in Compact and Campus Designed High Schools . . . . . . . . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number of High and Low Interacting Pupils Reported by Pupils in High Schools ix PAGE 65 67 68 69 70 TABLE XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXXI. XXXII. PAGE Organized as Subject Oriented or School- Within-School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Summary of Chi Square Analysis of Variables Associated with the Frequency of Inter- action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 The Classification of ++ and +- Schools by Size and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Number of Teachers in Each Category of School Listed by Perceptual Classification. 75 The Number of Pupils in Each Category of School Listed by Perceptual Classification. 76 Results of the ”t“ Tests for the Interaction of ++ Teachers in ++ and +- Schools . . . . 78 Results of the "t“ Tests for Interaction of +— Teachers in 4+ and +- Schools . . . . . 79 Results of the "t" Tests for Interaction of -+ Teachers in ++ and +- Schools . . . . . 81 Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of +4 Teachers and Those of +- Teachers in ++ Schools . . . . . . . . . . 82 Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of ++ Teachers and Those of +- Teachers in +- Schools . . . . . . . . . . 84 Results of the "t” Tests for the Interaction I u b I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I - l I I I I I I I I I I I c . n I . v . u i I I I I ' - I I t e I l ' I l. I I I I I ' '- u I .- . I I I A I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I I I ' TABLE PAGE Levels of ++ Teachers and Those of -+ Teachers in ++ Schools . . . . . . . . . . 85 XXXIII. Results of the ”t” Tests for the Interaction Levels of ++ Teachers and Those of -+ Teachers in +- Schools . . . . . . . . . . 86 xxx1v. Results of the “t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of -+ Teachers and Those of +- Teachers in ++ Schools . . . . . . . . . . 88 xxxv. Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of -+ Teachers and Those of +- Teachers in +- Schools . . . . . . . . . . 89 XXXVI. Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction of ++ Pupils in ++ and +- Schools . . . . 91 XXXVII. Results of the “t" Tests for Interaction of +- Pupils in ++ and +- Schools . . . . . . 92 XXXVIII. Results of the ”t” Tests for Interaction of -+ Pupils in ++ and +- Schools . . . . . . 93 XXXIX. Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of ++ Pupils and Those of +- Pupils in ++ Schools . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 95 XL. Results of the "t" Tests for the Interaction Levels of ++ Pupils and Those of +- Pupils in ++ Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 XLI. Results of the "t“ Tests for the Interaction TABLE XLII. XLIII. XLIV. XLV. Levels of ++ Pupils and Those of -+ Pupils in ++ Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the ”t“ Tests for the Interaction Levels of +4 Pupils and Those of -+ Pupils in +- Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the ”t” Tests for the Interaction Levels of -+ Pupils and Those of +- Pupils in +4 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the "t“ Tests for the Interaction Levels of -+ Pupils and Those of +- Pupils in +- Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Tests of the Hypotheses . . . xii PAGE 98 99 101 102 104 - A -.—Ams——a———~—--‘_—_- 4. .. . u . . u . .a I I I I a I v D n r , O u I r I . I o . a I u . .. .. . . I u I I I . I . I . I I ,- I I I . I I . I u I I a I . I . I I I I LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A Communications Sent to Schools . . . . . . . 120 B Project 918 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 132 C Directions for Scoring the Index of Adjustment..............--155 D Robert E. Bills' Self Instruction for the Index of Adjustment and Values . . . . . . 157 x111 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Professional educators have long been able, sub- Jectively, to evaluate the effects of individual person- ality characteristics upon the interaction of school administrators, teachers, and pupils. In some schools there is, apparently, a high degree of cooperative effort while in others, the personnel appear to remain relatively isolated from one another. These differences in the frequency with which school personnel interact provided the theoretical framework for the development of the present study. The data for the study was obtained from a U. S. Office of Education project undertaken at Michigan State University.‘ Although this project focused on the effects of school design,2 it included additional instrumentation which provided data for several subsidiary inquiries. 1Karl T. Hereford, Stanley E. Becker, Rebert L. Hopper, Donald J. Leu and Floyd G. Parker, 'ProJect No. 918. Application to the Commissioner of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for Funds to Support Research Under the Provisions of Public Law 531, 83rd Congress“ (East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1960), p. 4. (Mimeographed.) 2With $1.6 billion being spent in 1958 on secondary schools alone, it became evident to staff members of the Michigan State University College of Education that an at- . 4.- _.-.—..__...... v.-._... _ ..-. r. . ~¢._- The Problem "The effectiveness of a school or school system is greatly influenced, if not fully determined, by the quality ' of its administration. The administrator is a key figure in maintaining the present educational level of the school pro- gram and in guiding its further development. His vision of needed school improvements influences the aspirations of others. His understanding and skill in human relations may affect . . . potential leadership by releasing the drive and intelligence of the faculty, the parents, and community leaders, and of children and adults attending the school."3 The process of administration is the subject of much research as those interested in this field try to develop a more adequate understanding of all aspects of this process. As the review of related literature will reveal, theorists 5 tempt should be made to objectify judgments concerning school 1 design. This concern culminated in a proposal which was sub- mitted to the U. S. Commissioner of Education by the College I of Education, Michigan State University, in April, 1960. ! This presentation was subsequently approved as Project No. ; 918 by the U. 8. Office of Education. The origin of the i present study is traceable to this project whose major ob- jective was the identification of sociometric and perceptual characteristics of personnel in selected high schools of differing design and organization. 3David H. Jenkins and Charles A. Blackman, Antecedents and Effects of Administratoerehavior (Columbus, Ohio: College of Edfioetion, 19565, p. 1. #1 in the field of educational administration have utilized theories of behavior and personality that were developed in the behavioral sciences. The fact that personality plays a part in the administrative process is supported by Coladarci and Getzels when they state that, "we do not mean to suggest that personalities do not play a part in the administrative process. On the contrary, the personalities of the role incubents are in many respects the very stuff of the administrative interaction. Nor are we suggesting that the administrative interaction can, in practice, avoid becoming, at least to some extent, effectively particularistic." Since the personality of the chief administrator centers around his attitudes towards himself and other people, the present study is founded upon the framework and conceptualization of perceptual psychology. Although other studies have related the variables of the self-concepts or r: 1r.---r-.:_:. -» personality of the principal to his effectiveness (as oper- L ationally defined), to the frequency and patterns of communi- cation in the school and to the human relations “tone" of the school, none have considered the relationship of the self-concepts of teachers and pupils, as well, to the fre- . f*.“.,._.—.‘_-.—w - quency of their interaction with the principal. 4Arthur P. Coladarci and Jacob W. Getzels, The Use 9; Theory in Educational Administration (Stanford, Cali- fornia: Stanford University Press, 1955), p. 26. . It is reasonable to expect that other variables, as well as personality, affect the dyadic pattern of interaction between the principal and the teacher and the principal and the pupils. The most apparent of these might be the size of the school in terms of the number of pupils enrolled. Be- cause of differences in the number of personnel, it does ap- pear that the principal could not possibly interact as often with the gross number of people present in the larger schools. Another factor to be considered is the design of the building or buildings. Here one could expect differences due to either the close physical proximity present in a compact building or the distance between personnel resulting from a decentralized campus plan. If the differences in the physical factors of size and design of facilities are shown to be relevant to the interactions of concern, the hypotheses relating perceptual classification to interaction will be tested in this framework. Since theory relating to inter- action in these settings is not fully directive, other personal variables such as sex, socio-economic level, sub- jects enrolled in or taught, et cetera, will be examined. The major value of this study is that it will shed light on the theory of administration which has its basis in perceptual psychology, by demonstrating if perceptual factors do indeed influence the level of interaction of teachers and pupils with the principals in the selected schools. Assumptions 1. The major assumption underlying this investigation is A that for a high level of administrative efficiency there should be free and frequent interaction of the principal with teachers and pupils in order to cooperatively find the solutions to existing problems. 2. It is assumed that the necessary perceptual types of persons will be found among the subjects to be included in the study. 3. It is assumed that the subjects will be able to dis- tinguish as to the frequency with which they interact. Hypotheses The major concern of the study is the relationship of self-other perceptions of individuals to the frequency of their dyadic interactions. This concern has resulted in the development of four major hypotheses, as follows: H 1: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the level of principal-teacher interaction. H 2: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the pggphgp and the level of principal—teacher interaction. H 3: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the level of principal-pupil interaction. 5 H 4: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the pupil and the level of principal-pupil interaction. The preceding major hypotheses will be tested in terms of a set of sub-hypotheses which are directional and which relate to each of the perceptual classifications. These will be stated and statistically tested, as well, in the analysis which will be presented in Chapter IV. Delimitations —— Certain delimitations served to define the scope of the present study. They were: 1. The investigation was limited to 3# high schools located in 23 states within the continental United States. 2. The selection of schools included only high schools having grades or classes of 150 pupils or larger. This will be done so that the schools selected will be more representative, in size, of the secondary schools to be built in the future. 3. Only principals, teachers, and pupils who had been present in the school for at least one school year prior to the date of testing were included. This criterion was established in order to control the lower - —..-v -- . a» ....s ‘-. 4...... i {1: 4 : limit of the factor of opportunity for interaction. Since all of the schools had been completed since 1955, the upper limit of the factor of opportunity to interact was set at five school years. Only full-time principals and teachers were studied since the use of part-time personnel would introduce some bias because of their restricted opportunity for interaction. This study was delimited to schools having either ++ (high valuing) or +- (over valuing) principals. This was done since it was expected that more administrators will fall into these two categories. Only senior class pupils were studied because: (1) these students have had more time to establish patterns of interaction, and (2) the adult and high school senior form of the Index 9; Adjustment and Values Was employed in the instrumentation. Definition 2; Terms The term interaction is defined by Sorokin as, "Any event by which one party tangibly influences the overt men .. actions or the state of mind of the other."5 In the present study principal-teacher interaction is operationally defined as the self reports of teachers as to the frequency with which they discuss professional problems with the principal. Principal-pupil interaction is defined as the self reports of pupils as to the frequency with which they discuss their school or personal problems with the principal. Perceptual classification is defined as consistent behavior in terms of acceptance or rejection of some im- portant aspect of reality, namely self or other people. This classification system as developed by Robert E. Bills provides four categories based upon the individual's ac- ceptance of self and others. The four categories are labeled ++ or high valuing, +— or over valuing, -+ or under valuing, and -- or low valuing. In each case the first symbol refers to one's acceptance of self and the second symbol to one's acceptance of others. A ++ person accepts himself and be- lieves that his peers are equally or more accepting of themselves; a +- person accepts himself but believes that his peers are not as accepting of themselves; a -+ person rejects himself but believes that his peers are more accept- ing of themselves; and a -- person rejects himself and 5Pitirim Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947 , p. 57. believes that his peers are equally or more rejecting of themselves.6 e+ schools were defined as that group of schools which had principals whose perceptual classification was high valuing according to their responses to the nggx p; AdjustmentngdeValues. +- schools were defined as that group of schools which had principals whose perceptual classification was over valuing according to their responses to the Index 2; Adjustment andVglues.7 Plan f the Thesis Chapter I, the statement of the problem, has pre- sented the background of the study together with a pre- sentation of the problem to be studied. A review of related literature will be presented in Chapter II. Chapter III will contain the procedure and methodology of the study, while the analysis of data will be reported in Chapter IV. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study will be presented in Chapter V. 6Robert Bills, "About People and Teaching," The Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, College of Edu- cation, University of Kentucky, XXVII (December, 1955), p. 20. 7Robert E. Bills, Manual forlthe Index .3; Adjustment and Values. Form: Adult and Higp SchoolSenior Auburn, Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1959). (Mimeographed.) CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE A selective review of literature pertaining to this study is apparently necessary before an insightful inter- pretation of the findings can be formulated. In order to achieve this insight, the pertinent writings of persons, both in psychology and educational administration will be reviewed. Consideration will be given to theory develop- ment as well as related empirical studies. Literature from_Psychology Terminology. In reviewing the works of numerous writers who concern themselves with that aspect of per- sonality called “self," one finds a great diversity in the vocabulary employed to designate this entity, the very nucleus of each person's being. Allport1 uses the word ego as its equivalent, as do Sherif and Cantrilz in referring to the subjective aspect of personality. 1Gordon W. Allport, The Natupe of Personality: Selected Papers (Cambridge: Addison-wesley Press, 1950), p. 122. 2Muzafer Sherif and Hadley Cantril, The Psychology 93,E o-Involvement (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1947;. p. 11 Lecky,3 in stressing the individual's desire for consistency and integrity, tends to be more inclusive and equates it with personality. Symonds,4 on the other hand, divides it into two elements: the ego, which refers "to that phase of personality which determines adjustment to the outside world in the interest of satisfying inner needs” and the self, which refers “to the body and mind and to bodily and mental processes as they are observed and reacted to by the individual." Other writers modify the word apparently to stress a particular aspect of the theory of self which they profess. 5 For example, in speaking of the social self, Cooley stresses his strong belief in the development and maintenance of the self through social interaction. By framing the expression 6 assign major significance . phenomenal self, Snygg and Combs to a person's own perception of this relationship to his environment. The empirical self of James7 exemplifies the 3Prescott Lecky, Self-Consistenc A Theor of Personality (New York: Island Press, 95), p. 82. 4Percival Symonds, The Ego and the Self (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1951), p. 4. 5Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social 0rdep_(New Ybrk: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922). 6Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959 . p. 2. 7William James, The Princi les 9; Psychology (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1890). 12 physiological and experiential which he identifies as the 8 fl 1‘ 0 me A more recent writer, Raimy, contributed another to this list, the self-concept, for the purpose of designating the object of man's deepest and most private feelings. He defines it as "a learned perceptual system which functions as an object in the perceptual field." Theory. The irregularities of terminology notwith- standing the pronouncements of theories and experimentation are more closely related than one might expect. The majority of scholars agree that the self is not an innate entity but a process, an interaction between the outer world and the individual, starting as an infant and changing, fluidly, as the number of contacts increases and as the symbols of society become more complex. An interesting viewpoint is held by Sullivan who fills the gap between birth and the budding of self- consciousness with the term empathy which is, he feels, an instinctive process.9 Combs and Snygg see the components of the self as 8Victor C. Raimy, “The Self Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organizations” (Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1943). 9Harry S. Sullivan, Conception 2; Modern Psychiatry (New Yerk: W. W. Norton and Company, 1953 . 13 a threefold concentric system. At the very center is the self-concept encircled by the area of the phenomenal self which, in turn, is encircled by the phenomenal field. “These three shade into each other” and are involved in varying portions at different times in behavior.10 Further- more, they hold the position that individual behavior seeks to maintain or enhance this selfaorganization. Personality typologies. The classification of per- sons into physical types is one of the oldest concerns of Psychology. Kretschmer, a German psychiatrist, was best known for associating psychological attributes with physical characteristics. In his system there were three basic physical types which he named pyknic, asthenic, and athletic. However, his attempts to classify all persons into these types ended in failure.11 His work was later carried on by an American investigator named Sheldon. He suggested that the differences in persons could be expressed as quantitative variations of three basic components which he termed endo- morphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy.12 10Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959). p. 126. 11Ernst Kretschmer, Physique and Character (Trans- lated by W. J. Sprott. New York: Harcourt, 1925). 12W. H. Sheldon, S. S. Stevens, and W. B. Tucker, The Varieties pf Human Physigue New Ybrk: Harper and Sons, Company, 1935). 14 A more recent investigator, Lloyd Humphreys, completed a logical-statistical study of Sheldon's work. He states that, "With respect to type concepts generally, it was sug- gested that types have traditionally been defined as mutu- ally exclusive ideals. Thus, two types can never be repre- sented in high degree in one person. Furthermore, types have been defined by relative measures so that no one is low in everything, i.e., a pigeonhole is provided for everyone. This tends to give type concepts a spurious degree of attractiveness.‘.‘13 The concept of psychological types is also very old. William James recognized only two types, the "tender-minded" and the "tough-minded."14 Probably the best known typology is that of Jung15 whose concdpt of "introversion-extroversion” has become common knowledge. One of the modern day typologies has been developed by Robert E. Bills who relates self-organization to the ways in which the individual views himself and others. On this basis he has roughly classified persons in terms of their 13Lloyd G. Humphreys, ”Characteristics of Type Con- cepts with Special Reference to Sheldon's Typology," .Esxahslasissl.fisllsiin. LIV (May. 1957). 227. 14William James, gzggmgpypp (New York: Longmans, Inc., 1907). 150. G. Jung, Psychological Types (New York: Harcourt and Company, 1923). their perceptions of themselves and others. This he refers to as perceptual characteristics. People who are accepting of themselves and at least equally accepting of others are symbolized (++) and termed high valuing. People who are accepting of themselves but believe others in their peer group are not as accepting of themselves are symbolized (+-) and termed over valuing. People who are rejecting of them- selves but who believe that others are more accepting of themselves are symbolized (-+) and termed under valuing. Finally, those who are rejecting of both themselves and others are symbolized (--) and termed low valuing.16 As stated in Chapter I, Bills' typology will be employed in the present study. Studies. Numerous experiments making use of various techniques have been made to test these ideas. Sullivan,17 for instance, expounds the value of the behavioristic ap- proach in working with patients. A study of behavior, as noted by the participating observer, can best determine the nature of self. He refutes the idea that the very private contents of individual existence can ever be known. For 16Roloert Bills, "About People and Teaching," The Bulletin p; the Bureau 93 School Service, College of Edu- cation, University of Kentucky, XXVII (December, 1955). P. 20. 17Sullivan, loc. cit. 16 this reason, it is better for the researcher to attempt to study what is within his reach--that is, how a person acts. Therefore, it is not the person, but the interpersonal situation which is to be probed. 18 20 Raimy, Rogers,19 and Combs and Snygg prefer an individual's own words and interpretation as the guide to a structuring of the inner core of personality. In their opinion it is vital to explore the highly personal aspects, even those beneath awareness, in order to arrive at the basic motives of behavior. Nondirective counseling stems from a conviction in the validity of self-expression as a means of clarifying personal problems and reorienting the self.21 Methods other than the use of nondirective interviews to ascertain a description of the self-image include pro- jective techniques such as used by Jersild.22 He made a survey of 2,800 elementary, high school, and college students to discover primary self-concerns of the groups. Each 18Raimy, lpg. cit. 19Carl R. Rogers, Counseling_and Psychotherapy (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942). 20Combs and Snygg, loc. cit. 21Rogers, 100. cit. 22Arthur T. Jersild, The Ps cholo g; Adolescence (New York: Macmillan Company, 1957;. 17 student wrote two compositions entitled "What I Like About Myself” and "What I Don't Like About Myself." Contents were then categorized into topics ranked in the order of maturity and frequency. Allowing students to express themselves freely and unencumbered by any restraints has great value, as he sees it, for "the language of self-evaluation helps to reveal the terms by which young people conceptualize them- selves and the standards according to which they measure themselves.“23 He found that the younger children tended to stress the physical aspects of life, their relationship to their families and sports. Older students more often mentioned the inner world of experience and interpersonal relationships. At all age levels there was some mention made of one's-character, emotions, and relationships with people. Strang24 also used compositions to get a composite of trends among adolescents with results very similar to those of Jersild. In addition to studies which aim to clarify the con- cept of self among particular groups of people, there are others which seek to discover whether there is a connection between the way a person views himself and the way he looks 23Ibid., p. 24. 24Ruth Strang, The Adolescent Viewstimself (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1957). 18 upon others. Berger administered an instrument containing references to self and to others to several groups of people. The correlations between attitude toward self and attitude toward others varied considerably: .36 for college (day session) students, .65 for college (evening session) stu- dents, .56 for prisoners, .69 for stutterers, and .45 for a group of Y.M.C.A. people.25 Thus Berger concluded that the correlation between attitude toward self and attitude toward others is significantly different for various social groups. Philips developed a questionnaire for the same purpose and administered it to students exclusively. A correlation of .74 showed up for mature college students and a correlation of .54 for college freshmen. On the supposition that age may influence the relationship between the two attitudes, he tested third term high school students and obtained a corre- lation of .67. With high school seniors the correlation was .51. From this he concluded that age was not a conclusive determinant in the relationship of the two attitudes.26 Bills' experiment was also in a nonclinical setting. He tried a different technique by asking the respondents 25E. M. Berger, "The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others," ____Journalaf ____Social W. XLVI (1953), 778-82. 26E. L. Philips, "Attitudes Toward Self and Others: A Brief Questionnaire Report," Journal pf Consulting W. XV (1951). 79-81. " '— 19 not how they felt about others, but how they thought others felt about themselves. The Eggs; 9; Adjustment gpg Values which he developed was the instrument employed. With college students the correlation was .56; with ninth graders, .28; with tenth graders, .50; and with eleventh graders, .46.?7 Literature from Educational Administration Overview pf administrative theories. Theories re- lated to administrative leadership have been many. Some have been useful but none has been comprehensive enough to be considered a true general theory of administrative leadership. An early approach was that which focused at- tention upon leader traits to explain the effectiveness of administrative leadership. Studies such as Cowley's re- vealed that leadership could, at least in part, be explained by the traits approach.28 Although the results of these studies were limited they did, in fact, point out the possibility that leaders could be made. As an outgrowth of the traits approach there have been more recent studies 27Robert E. Bills, "About People and Teaching,“ The Bulletin Lf the Bureau Lf School Service, College of Education,- University .of Kentucky, XXVII (December, 1955), 20. 28W. H. Cowley, “The Traits of Face to Face Leaders,“ Journal.p£.Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXVI (1931), 302: "1 30 20 employing theories of personality. A group of researchers at the University of Florida, working on a leadership training program for several years have included as part of their project a study into many aspects of leadership personality. Extensive research re- ported in approximately a dozen theses has revealed some striking facts. For instance, positive relationships were shown between the personality of the administrator and the frequency of democratic practices; administrator personality and best practices; administrator personality and program development; and administrator personality and the feeling of parents toward the school.29 No relationships were found between the criterion of democratic behavior and such personal factors as age, training, and experience. In the Fall of 1957, a seminar concerned with the role of theory in educational administration was held at the University of Chicago. An outgrowth of this meeting was the publication of the several papers which had been presented. 0f especial interest was the contribution of Getzels who developed a model for the study of administration as a socid. process. This model attempts to relate both the normative 29Truman N. Pierce and E. c. Merrill, Jr., “The Indi- vidual and Administrator Behavior, Administrative Behavior in Education, ed., Ronald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg ‘(New Yerk: Harper and Brothers, 1957). p. 334. 21 and personal aspects of behavior as is evident in the follow- ing statement. We may mention first a very simple derivation, that is, that the administrative relationship al- ways functions at two levels of interaction. The first level derives from the particular offices or statuses in the social system and is determined by the nature of the roles involved in the inter- action. This is, of course, the nomothetic di- mension of our model. The second level of inter- action derives from the particular people or individuals in the social system and is determined by the personalities involved in the interaction. That is, of course, the idiographic dimension of our model. You will recall that the publicly pre- scribed nomothetic relationship is enacted in two separate private idiographic situations--one by the subordinate and one by the superordinate. The functioning of the administrative process will, we said, depend on the nature of the overlap--i.e., on the relative congurence or discrepancy-~between the separate percep§$ons of the expectations in the two situations. Daniel Griffiths, professor of School Administration at Teacher's College, Columbia University, considers the foremost activity of a school administrator that of talking and listening. In a daily routine of conferences, meetings with teachers and pupils in the office or in the hall, call- ing parents, et cetera, it is apparent that the atmosphere which surrounds a school administrator is verbal.31 30Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Pro- cess,“ Administrative Theory pp Education, ed. Andrew W. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958), p. 159. 31Daniel E. Griffiths, Human Relations _i_p School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959 . P. 71. 22 Roethlisberger supports this statement when he says, “It seems obvious to me . . . that the higher the executive goes in an organization the more important it becomes for him, if he is to handle effectively one aspect of his job, to deal competently with his verbal environment.“32 It is interesting to note that earlier writers, such 33 often paralleled the frequent interaction of as Hopkins, administrators with other school personnel as "democratic administration." In the year 1941 he wrote, “Above every- thing else democratic administration is a cooperative under- taking in which everyone participates to the extent of his ability through the interactive process on the belief that those who must abide by policies should participate in making them.”34 A more recent writer, Thomas Gordon, supports this view as he states: "One of the aims of the group-centered leader is to create in the group a psychological climate pf acceptance,35 understanding, and safety. When the leader has been successful in accomplishing this aim, and members 32Fritz Roethlisberger, "The Executive's Environment is Verbal," Human Relations 1p Administration, ed. Robert Dubin (New York: Prentice—Hall, 1951), p. 306. 33L. Thomas Hopkins, Interaction The_Democratic Process (New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 19 1 . 34'noici. , p. 406. 35Emphasis supplied. 23 begin to feel and experience this unique group climate, they demonstrate remarkable changes in their participation and ;p 6 with other members."37 ppplp verbal interactions3 Another approach to understanding administrative leadership stems from the work of Bills and Hopper at the University of Kentucky during an interdisciplinary research program which was undertaken under the auspices of the Southern States C.P.E.A.38 These theorists, basing their thinking on the perceptual psychology of Bills, generalized that the successful school administrator is one who, because of his perceptions of himself and others, is able to maintain adequate and satisfying relationships with people; is a person who must make few value judgments; thinks in cooper- ative terms; makes few comparisons; and gives much thought to the things that he does. The researchers at Kentucky have set forth the following list of factors which partially determine the nature of the administrator's performance in education--physical needs of the leader, values, concepts of self, concepts of others, leadership, and group membership. 36Emphasis supplied. 37Thomas Gordon, Group-Centered Leadership: A Way of Releasing the Creative Power 9; Groups (Boston: Hougfiton —_ Mifflin Company, 1955), p. 257. 38Robert L. Hopper and Robert E. Bills, "What's a Good Administrator Made Of?" The School Executive, LXXXIV (March, 1955). 93-95. 24 Importance is given to considering these concepts in terms of the meaning they hold for the individual; they are per- sonal meanings which represent the person's own particular feelings, attitudes, and beliefs and serve to motivate his behavior. No doubt, the most fundamental concepts of an administrator are his perceptions of himself and others, since this, for the most part, sets the scene for his ”human relations behavior." The studies at Kentucky were premised on the follow- ing assumptions regarding leadership: "(1) behavior grows out of perceptions; (2) if the knowledge of a person's per- ceptions is available, it is possible to infer certain of his perceptions; (3) it is not possible for a person to per- form in a manner inconsistent with his perceptions; (4) the individual is what he performs and what he performs he is; (5) the starting point in analyzing and describing the be- havior of an administrator is the determination of his perceptions as related to himself and to his job; (6) and that changed perceptions would be expected to change be- havior."39 39John Lewis Forbes, "A Theory of Administrative Leadership for Contemporary Education" (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958). 25 Stud;es. Although no previous study has attempted to relate personality factors of principals to the frequency of their interaction with staff and students, a somewhat related study was undertaken at the University of Florida by George H. Goodwin. His research, a part of the Florida Kellogg studies was partly concerned with relating the degree of teacher participation in professional activities to the operating patterns of principals in both elementary and secondary schools. Principals were classified as authori- tarian or “democratic" by use of the Florida-Kellogg! Authoritarian (F-KA)‘§p§;g and the Florida-Kellogg Democratic (F-KD)I§p§;p. Although Goodwin was unable to find a statistically significant difference in the degree of teacher participation in professional activities in the two groups of schools, the scores were higher in both elementary and secondary schools having “democratic" principals. He con- cluded that although, undeniably, principals have an effect on teacher behavior, it would be really very apparent only with principals who might be extremely authoritarian or “democratic." He also pointed out that personal factors enter the picture and that no principal could possibly evoke the right responses in all teachers.40 40George H. Goodwin, ”A Study of Certain Teachers Activities and Human Relations with S ecial Reference to Werking Patterns of School Principals' (unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1955). p. 75. 26 Another interesting study, sponsored by the C.P.E.A. was undertaken by Jenkins and Blackman at Ohio State University. In analyzing administrative behavior it was hypothesized that the motivational-emotional make-up of the administrator affects the atmosphere he creates for the staff and that, in turn, this atmosphere is related to the frequency of communications among the staff and between the staff and the administration. The subjects were the person- nel in fifty elementary schools in a large industrial city in Ohio. The personality of the principals was measured with the Runner Personality Ana;ysis_22p3 (Tenth Revision) while the frequency of communication was tested by three direct questions in the teacher questionnaire. A significant relationship was found between the administrator's personality and the pattern of communications in the school. Other factors, such as age, sex, experience, and recency of train- ing of the principal were found to be unrelated to teachers' reactions.41 The communication pattern of the principal was also included in a study conducted by Clark who tested ten categories of behavior of high school principals: appraising effectiveness, communicating, coordinating administrative 41David H. Jenkins and Charles A. Blackman, Antecedents and Effegts pf Adm nistr vejBehgvior (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1956 . 27 functions, determining roles, involving people, making policy, setting goals, using the educational resources of the com- munity and working with community leadership and showing consideration. Co-workers ratings of these categories were compared with jury ratings of the over-all effectiveness of the principal. The principals rated as effective were found to have a higher frequency of behaviors categorized as com- municating and showing consideration than did the ineffective administrators. Clark concluded that the focus on the be- havior or activity pattern of administrators was a very fruitful approach for educational administrative practice, training, and research. Summary Literature in the fields of Psychology and Educational Administration were reviewed for the purpose of providing a background for the present study. In Psychology, the con- cepts of “self,“ the development of theories and of typo- logies illustrate the evolution of personality concepts while the studies contribute empirical evidence which tests these theories. In reviewing theories of Educational Administration, 42Dean 0. Clark, ”Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of High School Principals“ (unpublished Doctoral thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1956). 28 an attempt was made to present to view the frequent concern with aspects of personality. Finally, the studies in Educational Administration illustrate attempts to study the relationship of several variables to the personality make- up of the school administrator. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Wanafihaicnslsiisnandiheasmla The subjects of the present study were the principals, teachers, and pupils (seniors only) in a group of high schools located in various parts of the United States. The high schools, built and occupied during the years 1954-1959, were of varying design, personnel organization, and size. There was no evidence taken in the present study that makes possible the comparison of the subjects with the universe of high school principals, teachers, and pupils in the United States. It must be noted, therefore, that the population of this exploratory study is limited to the high schools in- volved, even though the nature of the data is of interest to many in the field of school administration. Initial selectign.pfrschpo;s. In order to locate representative architectural examples of both compact and campus schools of varying organization and size in various types of community settings, it was necessary to employ several methods of exploration. The initial procedure was to send a letter to state departments of educatinn, to lead- ing school building architects and to noted school building 30 consultants introducing them to the project.1 These persons were asked to cooperate by sending to the investigators lists of schools, within their respective states or areas, which they felt met the criteria, as defined in the letter. In order to obtain this data, a simple form was enclosed which provided for the listing of the name of the high school, its location, and the name of the superintendent of the local school district.2 The architects and consultants were also asked to make recommendations on a nationwide basis. In addition to the letter and reply form, the state departments were also sent a copy of the research proposal. These materials were mailed early in April, 1960, and responses were received, for the most part, by the end of the month. A second procedure was also employed for identifying schools. This consisted of a review of recent issues of pertndent-professional journals.3 A listing was compiled of schools receiving awards or citations for the quality or uniqueness of their designs. Table I depicts the number of schools obtained by the persons consulted as well as the 1See Appendix A, p. 121. 2See Appendix A, p. 122. 3Journals reviewed were: The Overview, Architectural Review, Americgn School_Board Journal, The_Nation's Schools, American School and University, and the Architectural Forum. 31 journals. TABLE I INITIAL SELECTION OF SCHOOLS Schools recommended by respondents 261 Schools identified in journals 111 Total 432 Less-schools obtained by both sources 51 Actual number of different schools obtained 401 Early in May, 1960, each of the schools thus far selected was mailed an introductory letter4 and a question- naire designed to gather basic data necessary for the pur- pose of obtaining a more refined selection.5 Following this, a letter was sent to all state departments of edu- cation which listed the schools selected and included a copy of the study proposal.6 Table II describes the pro- cess of mailings and the responses obtained by the end of May, 1960. #See Appendix.A,p. 123. 5See Appendix A, p. 124. 6See Appendix.A,p. 130. 32 TABLE II MAILINGS AND RESPONSES 0F INITIALLY SELECTED SCHOOLS W Total number of initially selected schools 401 Schools with incorrect address ___6_ Total number of schools contacted 395 Number of schools responding 298 Number of schools not desiring to take part in study 17 Number of schools desiring to take part in study 281 Per cent of schools responding 75.6 Per cent of negative returns 5.7 Per cent of positive returns 94.3 On the basis of an examination of returned question- naires, three types of buildings and utilizations were selected and reported. These are depicted in Table III. TABLE III DESIGN UTILIZATION AND NUMBER OF INITIALLY SELECTED SCHOOLS W Design Utilization Number Compact School within a school 5 Compact Grade 4 Compact Subject 125 Transitional School within a school 1 Transitional Grade 2 Transitional Subject 59 Campus School within a school 8 Campus Grade 4 Campus Subject 33 A further examination of data revealed schools which, for one reason or another, did not meet the criteria. These are described in Table IV. TABLE IV SCHOOLS FAILING TO MEET INITIAL CRITERIA _- -‘ Initially selected schools total 267 Less: 'Schools too new, too old or too small 67 Junior high schools . 10 Technical, parochial or elementary schools 8 Remaining schools 182 A detailed study of the questionnaire returned from the remaining high schools was then undertaken by the College of Education research staff. This resulted in narrowing further selection to a group of 77 high schools. Table V lists the name and location of the schools visited. TABLE V HIGH SCHOOLS VISITED PRIOR TO FINAL SELECTION Name of High School City State 1. Hueytown High School Birmingham Ala. 2. Robert E. Lee High School Montgomery Ala. 3. Catalina High School Tuscon Ariz. 4. Sunnyside High School Tuscon Ariz. Table V (continued) 34 Name of High School City State 5. Glendora High School Azura Cal. 6. Bellflower High School Bellflower Cal. 7. Mayfair High School Bellflower Cal. 8. Westmore High School Daly City Cal. 9. Narbonne High School Los Angeles Cal. 10. Hiram Johnson High School Sacramento Cal. 11. Hillsdale High School San Mateo Cal. 12. East Hartford High School East Hartford Conn. 13. Andrew Wards High School Fairfield Conn. 14. Manchester High School Manchester Conn. 15. Old Saybrook Junior-Senior High School Old Saybrook Conn. 16. Newark Senior High School Newark Del. 17. Columbus High School Columbus Ga. 18. Borah High School Boise Idaho 19. Maine Township West High School . Des Plaines Ill. 20. Niles Township High School Skokie Ill. 21. Keokuk Community High School Keokuk Iowa. 22. Shawnee-Mission East High School Merriam Kan. 23. Franklin County High School Frankfort Ky. 24. Duachita High School Monroe La. 25. N. Hagerstown High School N. Hagerstown Md. 26. S. Hagerstown High School S. Hagerstown Md. 27. Dearborn High School Dearborn Mich. 28. Kimball High School Royal Oak Mich. 29. Greenville High School Greenville Miss. 30. Van Horn High School Kansas City Mo. 31. Kennett High School Kennett Mo. 32. River View Gardens Senior High School St. Louis Mo.‘ 33. Helena High School Helena Mont. 34. Columbus High School Columbus Neb. 35. Garringer High School Charlotte N.C. 36. West Charlotte High School Charlotte N.C. 37. Fayetteville High School Fayetteville N.C. 38. Ragsdale High School Greensboro N.C. 39. Mandan High School Mandan N.D. 40. Winnacunnet High School Hampton N.H. 41. Hanover Park Regional High School Hanover N.J. Table V (continued) 35 Name of High School City State 42. River Dell Regional High School Oradell .J. 43. Passaic Senior High School Passaic .J. 44. Sandra High School Albuquerque .M. 45. Horace Greeley High School Chappaqua .Y. 46. W. Tresper Clarke High School E. Meadow, L.I. .Y. 47. Hudson Falls JunioreSenior High School Hudson Falls .Y. 48. John Jay High School Katonah .Y. 49. Massena Central High School Massena .Y. 50. Shaher Junior-Senior High School Newtonville .Y. 51. Penfield High School Penfield .Y. 52. Scarsdale High School Scarsdale .Y. 53. Linton High School Schenectady .Y. 54. Syosset High School Syosset N.Y. 55. Glenwood Senior High School Canton Ohio 56. Fairmont High School Kettering Ohio 57. Norman High School Norman Okla. 58. Northwest Classen High School Oklahoma City Okla. 59. Bend High School Bend Ore. 60. Woodrow Wilson High School Portland Ore. 61. Hempfield High School Greensburg Pa. 62. A.C. Flora High School Columbia S.C. 63. Greer High School Greenville S.C. 64. Lester High School Memphis Tenn. 65. Abilene High School Abilene Tex. 66. Bellaire Junior High School Bellaire Tex. 67. San Angelo High School San Angelo Tex. 68. George Washington High School Dansville Va. 69. Hampton High School Hampton Va. 70. Middlebury High School Middlebury Vt. 71. Mark Morris High School Longview Wash. 72. Mercer Island High School Mercer Island Wash. 73. Mt. Rainier High School Seattle Wash. 74. Seattle High School Seattle Wash. 75. Shoreline High School Seattle Wash. 76. Shadde Park High School Spokane Wash. 77. Brookfield High School Brookfield Wisc. 36 During the months of June, July, and August, 1960, Michigan State staff members visited each of the 77 schools. During their visits they accomplished several objectives. First, they verified the reported design and utilization of the building. Secondly, they interviewed available ad- ministrative officers, reviewing and discussing all responses to the questionnaire which the school had previously sub- mitted. Following this, they recorded changes in personnel and anticipated changes in the size of enrollments. Each staff member recorded his personal perceptions of the school and noted factors which might either enhance or lessen the likelihood of its presence in the finally selected sample. yppgp selection_p§ schools included pp ppg pppgy. In September, 1960, a final review was made of the data that were assembled from the visitations. It was noted that the number of campus-designed schools of varying organizational patterns were limited and so, essentially, compact schools were chosen to complement the group of campus schools. The finally selected schools numbered 34. Because of the small available number of campus schools, the selection also re- sulted in a regional bias since schools tended to cluster in the East and West coastal areas. The state and the regional distribution of schools is noted in Table VI. TABLE VI 37 STATE AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SCHOOLS Region_ North East South North Central West State Connecticut New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Vermont Total Percentage Alabama Maryland North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Texas Virginia Total Percentage Illinois Michigan Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Wisconsin Total Percentage Arizona California Oregon Washington Total Percentage No. of Schools 1 1 4 1 1 8 235 \O—smd-Im—s—s PO 0\ 0 U1 38 The Instruments Determining perceptual classification. Robert Bills' ,gpdpg_pfrAgjustm§nt gpg Vglues (adult and high school senior form), as revised by Karl T. Hereford, was used to classify personnel into the four perceptual types, ++, +-, -+, and --, in terms of their acceptance of self and others. The Index consists of a list of 49 trait words which stem from Allport's list of 17,973 traits. From it, 124 words were selected on the basis of frequency in client-centered inter- views and self-concept definitions. The final choice of the 49 words was the result of item analysis and test-retest procedures on 49 students. To assess reliability, this Index was administered to 237 Kentucky University students. The corrected split-half method applied to self-acceptance (Column II) scores provided a correlation of .91. The same method used on the self- acceptance scores (Column II) for “others" resulted in a correlation of .94. A test-retest reliability study yielded a correlation of .79 for self-acceptance of "self" and .65 7 , . for "others." The validity of the indexes have been tested in 7Robert E. Bills, Manual for the Index 9; Adjustment and Values(Auburn, Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1959). p. 54. 39 various ways. Three groups of students at the University of Kentucky completed the "self" Index and were tested with the Phi;lips Attitude Toward_§p;:jppg Others Questionnaire, yielding a correlation of .24, significantly different from zero at the .01 level; and the California Test 2; Personality, 8 yielding a correlation of .23, significant at the .05 level. Among the evidences of validity offered by Bills is the group of leadership studies in which superintendents named their most successful principals and principals named their most successful teachers. In these studies a statistic- ally significant number of ++ persons were picked in each case.9 In revising the index for use in the Project 918 instrumentation, Hereford simply revised the instructions in such a way as to make the index as self-administering as possible for use with large numbers of both teachers and students. The name of the index was changed to Personal Characteristics Check-List so that it would in no way appear threatening to the subjects.10 The fact that this revision was not formidable for 8Ibid., p. 64. 9Ibid., p. 68. 10See Appendix B, pp. 143, 152. 40 persons to handle is evidenced by the fact that the new form was administered to several college students, including a foreign student, who readily admitted that it was easy to do. A sample of the instructions for each of the two sections, Personal Characteristics and Characteristics of Others, follows. A copy of Bills' instructions appears in the 11 Appendix and may serve as a comparison for the revision presented here. Teachers and students have many personal traits. It would help us develop a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. On the next two pages are 49 words which are com- monly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. lp Column ;, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. In Column II, indicate for each of the 49 words p23 ypp feel about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. EXAMPLE: academic 4 4 . In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column I: I am an academic kind of person a good deal of the time (4); and in Column II: I like myself in this respect (4). 11See Appendix B, p. 158. 41 Characteristics pf Others Check-List.. Since a high school is made of people who work and study together, our understanding of your school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of people in your school. Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends may be some- what different in many ways, try to think of the ”average person" among your friends; or think of ”your friends in general." Then try to put your- self in the place of this "average friend" and fill out the same two-column check-list that you com- pleted for yourself. Measuring the freguency pi interaction. In order to obtain a measure of the frequency of the interaction of school personnel, a rating scale was devised which was en- titled, The Personal Contact Checklist.12 This instrument asked teachers and students to indicate how frequently they discussed either professional concerns (in the case of teachers) or school and/or personal problems (in the case of pupils) with each of a number of designated school personnel. Of interest in the present study was item one which deals with the frequency of interaction with the principal. Following the recommendations of Barr, Davis and Johnson,13 five steps were employed in order to secure the proper 12See Appendix B, p. 141, 150. 13Arvil S. Barr, Robert A. Davis, and Palmer 0. Johnson, Educational Research and Appraisal (New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1953), p. 109. 42 distinction in judgment. The steps, in decreasing order of value, were: (1) Two or three times each day, (2) nearly every day. (3) frequently, (4) occasionally, and (5) rarely. Although more refined methods could have been employed, the necessity of restricting the length and complexity of the entire Project 918 instrumentation justified the use of this approach. Another consideration was the large number of subjects which, it is said, makes for the most dependable results when using a scale of this type.14 Th3 measurement 9; pphpp variables possibly related p_1_hp frequency 2; interaction. Two groups of variables were studied in relation to the dependent variable, fre- quency of interaction. These were: (1) Variables having to do with the individual teachers and pupils, and (2) those associated with the schools themselves. The first group of variables were measured by means of the questionnaires included in the instrumentation. Teachers were asked to list the number of years on the pre- sent staff, years of teaching experience, sex, marital status, and subjects taught. Pupils were to list their grade, sex, and the socio-economic level of their parents. The socio-economic level was measured by means of the 14Ihid. 43 Duncan Socio-Economic Index.15 It included the following questions: What is your father's occupation (if deceased, what was it)? a. Does he get paid by salary? b. If yes, who does he work for? c. Does he own a business? d. Does he have any people under him? e. If yes, about how many? The second group, that is, the institutional vari- ables, included size, design and organization. Size was de- fined in terms of the number of pupils enrolled. The design of school facilities fell into two groups or categories; campus schools were those having two or more unattached buildings, while compact schools were those built on one or more levels with all areas under one roof. The physical organization of school staff and pupils also fell into two general categories, the first of which was about subject or departmental areas. A second group of schools were organized on the school-within-school plan. Basically, the school- within-school organization divided a rather large student body into smaller units which are microcosms of the larger 15Otis Dudley Duncan, "A Socio-Economic Index For All Occupations“ (Chicago: Population Research and Training Center, 1960), p. 7. (Mimeographed.) 44 pupil population. Usually, the pupils undertake the majority of their subject within the "little school" under a faculty that also remains, primarily, within the unit. Likewise, most special areas, such as, laboratories and gymnasiums are duplicated in each unit. Administrapion f the Instruments Spaff orientation and testing. In November, 1960, each of the 34 high schools in the study was visited by a Michigan State University staff member. By means of prior arrangement, each school had scheduled a faculty meeting and a two-hour block of time for the completion of the instru- ments. During the faculty meetings, which took place previous to the date of testing, the project was discussed so as to familiarize all professional staff members with its ob- jectives and thus ellicit their cooPeration and support. It was emphasized with the faculty and they, in turn, were asked to emphasize with their students the fact that all information would be kept in strict confidence and seen only by the research team. Following these directions, the faculty members were asked to complete their own instruments at the same time as the students. In most cases this took place the following morning. The actual administration of the study instruments presented no major difficulties since (1) the faculty members 45 had been familiarized with the student forms, and (2) ex- plicit instructions and explanations were published with the test. The persons supervising students during the completion of the instruments reported that all but a very few students completed the entire group of instruments in approximately 75 minutes. Treatment pf php ggpp. After the completion of test- ing, Michigan State University persons supervised the packag- ing of all booklets which were then sealed and later mailed to the East Lansing campus. Upon receipt of the material, code numbers identifying the schools and a consecutive numbering system for all teachers, students, and adminis- trators was employed and each booklet was thus stamped. At this point in the project it was determined that initial funds were lacking for the immediate tabulation of all 38,000 booklets; therefore, a 25 per cent random sample was extracted from each school. In drawing the necessary sample, the student numbers were selected by the use of a standard table of random numbers.16 The selected instruments were then hand tabulated17 16Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Intro- duction pp Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957). p. 17Detailed information concerning scoring of instru- ments may be found in Appendix:lL 9.1” by clerical assistants not otherwise involved in the study. After the completion of this procedure, the data were coded, key-punched onto IBM cards, and subsequently machine tabu- lated. In the present study both machine and hand tabu- lations were employed in the analysis of data since it was impossible to compile all the needed information by means of one technique alone. The classification 9; schools egheh hhe principals' booklets hee heeh tabulated. The high schools in the study were classified according to the perceptual classification of the chief administrator; thus, there were two groups of schools to be employed in the study. As stated in the first chapter, the principals were to have tenure in their present position for at least one year prior to the date of testing. As can be seen in Table VII, two principals did not meet the criteria of at least one year tenure and two principals fell into the -+ category. As a result, the study was further delimited to the remaining thirty schools: 13 ++ schools and 19 +- schools. 0n the basis of Bills' instrument, The ghee; e: Adjustment ehe Values, the teachers and pupils in both groups of schools were classified ++, +- or -+. The few -- indivi- duals were not included in the study. The perceptual classification of schools and personnel became the independent 47 variable in the design and the measure of the frequency of interaction for both teachers and pupils the dependent vari- able. The analysis of data for each group was undertaken separately except for the possibly related variables to be examined at the outset. Table VII lists the schools together with the classi- fication and tenure of the principal. TABLE VII SCHOOL NUMBER, PRINCIPAL'S PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION AND YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION W School Number Classification Years in Position d +4- ++ KIT-kw ++ ++ A ++ U'IKN ++ ++ 1 OKOCDNIOUlkwm d 11 +- + I UT U1 U1 U1 h) Table VII (continued) School Number Classification Years in Position 13 -+ 5 14 +- 5 15 +- 0 16 H 5 17 -+ 5 18 +- 3 19 ++ o 20 +- 1 21 +- 5 22 4,- 1 23 +- 5 24 ++ 5 25 +- 1 26 +~ 5 27 ++ 5 28 +- 5 29 +- 5 30 +* 5 31 ++ 3 32 +- 5 33 +- 3 34 +- Totals: ++ 13 5 +- 19 -+ 2 N234 49 Hypotheses Te he Tested The major hypotheses stated in Chapter I were tested by means of several operational sub-hypotheses. The hypo- theses listed below are in the research or directional form. Since the statistical procedure is concerned with the test- ing of the "null" hypothesis or the hypothesis that there is no true difference between the variables being tested, this form will be employed in the analysis chapter. The first hypothesis concerns itself with the effect of the administrator's perceptual classification on the frequency of interaction with teachers. H 1: There is a relationship between the perceptual classi- fication of the principal and the level of principal- teacher interaction. H 1a: High valuing (++) teachers interact more with high valuing (+4) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. H 1b: Over valuing (+-) teachers interact more with high valuing (++) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. H 1c: Under valuing (-+) teachers interact more with high valuing (++) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. The second hypothesis concerns itself with effect of the teachers' perceptual classifications on the frequency of their interaction with the principal. H 2: There is a relationship between the perceptual classi- fication of the teacher and the level of principal- teacher interaction. H 2a: H 2b: H 2c: H 2d: H 2e: H 2f: 50 High valuing (++) teachers interact more than over valuing (+-) teachers in schools having high valuing (++) principals. High valuing (++) teachers interact more than over valuing (+-) teachers in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. High valuing (+4) teachers interact more than under valuing (-+) teachers in schools having over valuing (++) principals. High valuing (++) teachers interact more than under valuing (-+) teachers in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. Under valuing (-+) teachers interact more than over valuing (+-) teachers in schools having high valuing (+4) principals. Under valuing (-+) teachers interact more than over valuing (+-) teachers in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. The third hypothesis concerns itself with the effect of the administrator's perceptual classification on the fre- quency of his interaction with pupils. H 3: There is a relationship between the perceptual classi- fication of the principal and the level of principal- pupil interaction. H 3a: H 3c: High valuing (++) pupils interact more with high valuing (++) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. Over valuing (+-) pupils interact more with high valuing (++) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. Under valuing (-+) pupils interact more with high valuing (++) principals than they do with over valuing (+-) principals. The fourth hypothesis concerns itself with the effect .. ‘___‘_., VT 51 of the pupils' perceptual classifications on the frequency of their interaction with the principal. H 4: There is a relationship between the perceptual classi- fication of the pupil and the level of principal-pupil interaction. H 4a: High valuing (++) pupils interact more than over valuing (+-) pupils in schools having high valuing (++) principals. H 4b: High valuing (++) pupils interact more than over valuing (+-) pupils in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. H 4c: High valuing (++) pupils interact more than under valuing (-+) pupils in schools having high valuing (++) principals. H 4d: High valuing (+*) pupils interact more than under valuing (-+) pupils in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. H 4e: Under valuing (-+) pupils interact more than over valuing (+-) pupils in schools having high valuing (++) principals. H 4f: Under valuing (-+) pupils interact more than over valuing (+-) pupils in schools having over valuing (+-) principals. Statistical,Methodsfl22_§e_Employed In order to test the hypotheses, the data must be analyzed by means of appropriate statistical techniques. The reliability of the interaction instrument will be deter- mined by a correlation technique. After determining the reliability, the interaction component will be analyzed in terms of the several possibly intervening variables by 52 means of a non-parametric technique such as the chi-square method. If any of these variables are found to affect inter- action, proper control will be made. Upon the determination and control of these variables, the hypothesized relation- ships between perceptual classification and the frequency of interaction will be tested with the student's “t" mean analysis. The_eh; correlation coefficient; reliability.r The phi coefficient and the maximal phi coefficient were selected to test the reliability of the measure of frequency of inter- action. This is, essentially, a test of item homogeneity. The phi coefficient is actually a variation of the Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation. This statistic does not require the assumption of a normal distribution. It does, however, require that the distribution be fairly symmetrical and unimodal. Because of the use of a 2 x 2 table, the phi coefficient has serious restrictions in size, thus it should be interpreted in light of the maximal phi possible. The maximal phi is often used in test-item corre- lations because it more clearly represents the intrinsic relationship between two variables when the error of measurement is removed.18 18J. P. Guilford, Fundamentel Statistics hths cholo and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1953), p. 314. 53 The'ehT-sguare. When research data consists of fre- quencies which fall into discrete categories, the x2 test may be used to determine the significance of differences between two groups. Therefore, groups of high and low inter- actors will be examined in terms of the several possibly re- lated variables. The chi-square test assumes independence among single responses, theoretical or expected frequencies of adequate size, the use of frequency data and adequate categorizing.19 The student's "h”. The data that relates to the testable hypotheses appears as mean scores for each of the classified groups. In order to employ the student's “t" test of significance a number of statistical assumptions should be met. The observations must be independent, the populations must be normally distributed and must have the same variance. This statistic will be employed in testing= the hypotheses since the data appear to meet these conditions. The "t" is noted as the most powerful test used to reject the null hypothesis when it should be rejected.20 19Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1957). Po 3 . 2°Dixon and Massey, 9p. cit., p. 123. 54 Level 93 significance. The .05 level of significance was set for the rejection of the null hypothesis. This level was chosen as appropriate for the present study be- cause of the fact that it is exploratory in nature. CHAPTER IV THE ANALYSIS OF DATA The analysis of data presented in this chapter is logically presented in five sections. First, the test of the reliability of the measure of the dependent variable; second, the tests of the relationship of the personal and organizational variables concerning teachers and pupils as they may affect the frequency of interaction; third, the re- classification of the groups of schools; fourth, the tests of the hypotheses for teacher data and for pupil data; fifth, the summary of the results of the tests of the hypotheses. Testing for Item Correlation; Reliability Two random samples of both pupils and teachers were selected with N : 50 and N = 100. The measure for the frequency of the interaction with the principal was then correlated with the sum of the scores for interaction with other school personnel. Both the phi coefficient and the phi maximal coefficient are reported in Table VIII. 56 TABLE VIII CORRELATION 0F TEACHER-PRINCIPAL INTERACTION MEASURE WITH INTERACTION SCORE (TOTAL) FOR OTHER PERSONNEL Group: N r5 rd max. Teachers 50 .30 .72 100 .26 .71 The same procedure was applied to pupils as listed in ‘ Table IX. TABLE IX CORRELATION OF PUPILFPRINCIPAL INTERACTION WITH INTERACTION SCORE (TOTAL) FOR OTHER PERSONNEL Group: N rd rd max. Pupils 50 .15 .63 100 .36 .84 Inspection Of Tables VIII and IX indicate, as ex- pected, that the maximal phi coefficient is much greater than the Observed phi coefficient. Since neither rd max. approaches .90, there is admittedly some limitation in the use of the measure. 57 The Relationship 2; Personal Variables 2; Teachers he the Frequency e; Teacher-Principal Interaction The personal variables possibly affecting the fre- quency of principal-teacher interaction will be tested by means of the chi-square technique described in Chapter IV. Each of the possible relationships will be stated in the null form. The first hypothesis used to test the relation- ship of personal variables is: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence between the proportion of male and female teachers who indicate that they are low or high interactors. Table X shows the distribution of sexes for a ran- domly selected group of very high interactors and a group of very low interactors. TABLE X CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY MALE AND FEMALE TEACHERS Teachers N Sex Total Male Female Low Interactors 95 54 (56.3) 41 (38.7) 95 High Interactors fl 2 (49.7) _}_2_ (34.3) & Totals 179 106 73 179 df = 1 x2 = 2.99 x?05 = 3.84 H6: Accepted 58 The test demonstrated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance, and the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, it is con- cluded that the group of low and high interacting teachers did not differ in the proportion of men and women. The second hypothesis relating to personal variables of teachers is: H : There is no statistically significant differ- ence between the proportion Of married and single teachers who indicate that they are low or high interactors. Table XI depicts the distribution of married and single teachers for a randomly selected group of very high interactors and a group of very low interactors. TABLE XI CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW’AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY MARRIED AND SINGLE TEACHERS Teachers N Marital Status Total Married Single Low Interactors 95 72 (73.8) 23 (21.1) 95 High Interactors _§§ _§1 (65.2) lz,(18.8) _§5 ' Totals 179 139 40 ' 179 at = 1 x? = 0.22 x?05 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted ‘— 59 The test demonstrated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance, and the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, it is con- cluded that the group of low and high interacting teachers did not differ in the proportion of married and single teachers. The third hypothesis concerning a personal variable attributed to teachers 18: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the number Of low and high interacting teachers in each of the major subject areas. The following, Table XII, lists the number of teachers in each subject area coming from the group of low and high interacting individuals. TABLE XII CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY TEACHERS IN THE VARIOUS SUBJECT AREAS Subject N Total Low Interactors High Interactors Language Arts 43 27 (22.8) 16 (20.2) 43 Homemaking & Fine Arts 13 6 ( 6.9) 7 ( 6.1) 13 Mathematics 23 15 (11.1) 6 ( 9.9) 21 Science 19 8 (10.1) 11 ( 8.9) 19 Social Studies 33 16 (17.5) 17 (15.5) 33 60 Table XII (continued) Subject N Total Low Interactors High Interactors Commercial 16 9 ( 8.5) 7 ( 7-5) 16 Vocational 11 5 ( 5.8) 6 ( 5.2) 11 Physical Edu. 12 6 ( 6.4) 5 ( 5.6) 12 Other A _2 ( 5.8) _8 ( 5.2) _1_1 Totals 179 95 84 179 df = 8 x2 = 8.76 x?05 = 15.51 Ho: Accepted This test indicated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that proportion of low and high interacting teachers in each subject area is not different. The fourth hypothesis used to test the relationship of a personal variable is: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the teaching experience of high and low inter- acting teachers. Table XIII shows the proportion of relatively ex- perienced and inexperienced teachers which are low or high interactors. 61 TABLE XIII CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW.AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY INEXPERIENCED AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS M Teachers N Years of Teaching Experience Total Less than 5 Five or more Years Years Low Interactors 95 23 (21.8) 72 (73.2) 95 High Interactors_§3 18 (19.2) _§§_(64.8) _§§ Totals 179 41 138 , 179 df = 1 x2 = 0.60 x?05 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted The preceding test indicated that the distribution of frequencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted. It is concluded, there- fore, that low and high interacting teachers have proportion- ally the same number of years of teaching experience. The fifth and final test of a personal variable associated with teachers is: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the number of years on the teaching staff for both low and high interacting teachers. Table XIV depicts the differences in tenure in the present position for both low and high interacting teachers. 62 TABLE XIV CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF Low AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY TEACHERS 0F . . . SHORT AND LONG TENURE . Teachers N Number Of Years in Present Total Position . Less than Three or More Three Low Interactors 95 55 (53.6) 40 (41.4) 95 High Interactors_§fi ‘_fl§ (47.4) 3Q (36.6) .éfl Totals 179 101 78 179 df = 1 x2 = 0.07 XIOS = 3.84 Ho: Accepted This test indicated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted. It is concluded, therefore, that low and high interacting teachers have proportionally the same number of years on the staff. The Relationship e; Personal Variables p; Pupils p_ t e A Freguehcy e; Przncipal—Pupil Interaction The personal variables possibly affecting the fre- quency Of principal-pupil interaction will also be tested, as above, by the chi square technique. The first hypo- thesis relating to a personal variable of students is: 63 Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence between the proportion Of male and female pupils who indicate that they are low or high interactors. In Table XV one can see the distribution of sexes for a randomly selected group Of very high and a group of very low interactors. TABLE XV CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF HIGH AND LOW INTERACTING PUPILS REPORTED BY BOYS AND GIRLS N Sex Total Pupils Male Female Low Interactors 136 55 (58.3) 81 (22.7) 136 High Interactors _51_ _gg (22.7) _gz (30.3) _51 Totals 189 8? 108 189 df = 1 x2 = 0.84 x?05 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted This test demonstrated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance, and the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, it is con- cluded that the group of low and high interacting pupils did not differ in the prOportion of boys and girls. The second hypothesis relating to a personal variable is: 64 H : There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the sociO-economic level of low and high interacting pupils. Table XVI lists the number of low and high interact- ing pupils that are either above or below the mean socio- economic index score for all pupils in the sample of schools. TABLE XVI CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF HIGH AND LOW INTERACTING PUPILS REPORTED BY PUPILS OF PARENTS OF LOW AND HIGH SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVELS SociO-Economic Levels Below the _Mean Above the Pupils N (x = 44) Mean Total Low Interactors 136 72 (69.8) 64 (66.2) 136 High Interactors _5:, pp (27.2) Th (25.8) _§fi Totals 189 97 92 189 2 _ 2 - . df = 1 x — .30 1.05 - 3.84 Ho. Accepted The test indicated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance, and the null hypothesis was accepted. It was concluded, therefore, that the group of low and high interacting pupils did not differ in the proportion Of pupils above and below the mean socio-economic level score. ' “"\f-""' 65 The gelatiensh;p_e; Organizational Variables e; Teachers pe,the Freguehcy e; PrihcipeT-Teecher InperectTpn Since none of the personal variables appeared to af- fect the interaction measure, the next procedure undertaken was to test the possible relationship of the organizational variables of size, design, and organization as described in Chapter III. The first hypothesis concerning the relationship of an organizational variable is: HO: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the proportion of low and high interacting teachers coming from small and large high schools. Table XVII depicts the distribution of low and high interacting teachers by size of school. In this study, the schools were dichotomized into those having less than 1200 pupils and those having 1200 or more pupils. TABLE XVII CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW’AND.HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS HAVING SMALL AND LARGE ENROLLMENTS . . Teachers N Size of School Total less than 1206 or A . 1200 More Enrolled Enrolled Low Interactors 95 24 (34-0) 71 (61.0) 95 66 Table.XVII (continued) Teachers N Size Of School Total Less than 1200 or a 1200 More Enrolled Enrolled High Interactors _§£ 59,(30.0) _55 (54.0) l_§g ' Totals 179 64‘ ' 115 179 df = 1 x2 = 9.76 x?05 = 3.84 Ho: Rejected The test indicated that there are significantly more Of the high interactors in the smaller schools and signifi- cantly more of the low interactors in the large schools. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference was rejected. It is concluded that the frequency of principal-teacher interaction is related to the size of the school in terms of the number Of pupils. The second hypothesis relating principal-teacher interaction to the school itself, is: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the proportion of low and high interacting teachers coming from compact and campus designed schools. In Table XVIII the distribution Of low and high interacting teachers coming from compact and campus designed schools is shown. 67 TABLE XVIII CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF LOW AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS IN COMPACT AND CAMPUS DESIGNED HIGH SCHOOL FACILITIES Teachers N Design of High School Total Compact Campus Facilities Facilities Low Interactors 95 39 (37.2) 56 (57.8) 95 High Interactors _§fi 11 (32.8) _51 (51.2) .éfl Totals 179 70 109 179 df = 1 x2 = 1.58 2605 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted The test indicated that the distribution Of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted. It was concluded that the proportion of low and high interacting teachers coming from compact and campus type schools was not different. The third hypothesis relating principal-teacher interaction to the differences in the schools is: Ho: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the proportion of low and high interacting teachers coming from schools organized as schools- within-schools and those organized by subject areas. Table XIX indicates the distribution of low and high interacting teachers coming from schools organized as school- within-school or by subject areas. 68 TABLE XIX CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF Low AND HIGH INTERACTING TEACHERS REPORTED BY TEACHERS IN HIGH SCHOOLS ORGANIZED AS SCHOOL-WITHIN-SCHOOL OR SUBJECT . ORIENTED . Teachers N Organization of School Total School- ' within- Subject school Oriented Low Interactors 95 52 (44-5) 45 (50.4) 95 High Interactors _§4 32 (39.4) 5g (44.6) _§g Totals 179 84 95 179 df 2 = 4.29 x505 = 3.84 Ho: Rejected 11 ‘ The test indicates that there are significantly more of the high interactors in the subject oriented schools and significantly more of the low interactors in the schools organized as school-within-school. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference was rejected. It is concluded that the frequency of principal-teacher interaction is re- lated to the physical organization of the teachers within the school. 69 The ReTationship 2; Organizational Variables eT,Pupi;s pp the Frequency e; PrTncipgl—Pupil Interaction The final group of variables that could affect the interaction Of principal and pupils has to do with the schools themselves in terms of size, design, and organi- zation. The first hypothesis concerning the relationship of an organizational variable is: 1 Ho : There is no statistically significant differ- ence °in the proportion of low and high interacting pupils coming from small and large high schools. Table XX depicts the distribution Of low and high interacting pupils by size of school. As with teachers, the schools were dichotomized into those having less than 1200 pupils and those having 1200 or more pupils. TABLE XX CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF HIGH AND LOW INTERACTING PUPILS.REPORTED BY.PUPILS IN SCHOOLS HAVING.SMALL AND LARGE PUPIL.ENROLLMENTS . Pupils N Size of School Total Less Than More Than 1200 Pupils 1200 Pupils Low Interactors 136 41 (47.5) 95 (88.5) 136 High Interactors _§1 g5 (18.5) _g§ (34.5) _51 ' Totals 189 66 I 123 f 189 df = 1 x2 = 4.16 x?05 = 3.84 Ho: Rejected 70 The test indicated that there are significantly more of the high interactors in the smaller schools and signifi- cantly more of the low interactors in the large schools. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference was rejected. It is concluded that the frequency of principal-pupil inter- action is related to the size of the school in terms of the number of pupils. The second hypothesis relating principal-pupil inter- action to the school, itself, is: H : There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the proportion of low and high interacting pupils coming from compact and campus designed schools. In Table XXI is shown the distribution of low and high interacting pupils coming from compact and campus designed schools. TABLE XXI CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF HIGH AND LOW INTERACTING PUPILS AS REPORTED BY PUPILS IN COMPACT AND CAMPUS DESIGNED HIGH SCHOOLS Pupils N Design of School Total Compact High Campus High Schools Schools Low Interactors 136 ‘ 49 (47.5) 87 (88.5) 136 High Interactors _§3 11 (18.5) _3§ (34.5) __53 Totals 189 66 123 189 df = 1 x2 = 0.11 £05 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted 71 The test indicated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted. It was concluded that the proportion of low and high interacting pupils coming from compact and campus-type schools was not different. The third hypothesis relating principal-pupil inter- action to the differences in the schools is: H6: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the proportion of low and high interacting pupils coming from schools organized as school-within- school and those organized by sUbject areas. Table XXII indicates the distribution or low and high interacting teachers coming from schools organized as school-within-school or by subject areas. TABLE XXII CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF HIGH AND LOW INTERACTING PUPILS REPORTED BY PUPILS IN HIGH SCHOOLS ORGANIZED AS SUBJECT ORIENTED OR SCHOOL- WITHIN-SCHOOL Pupils N Organization of School Total School- Subject within- oriented school Low Interactors 136 60 (54.7) 76 (81.3) 136 High Interactors _§3’ 1e (21.3) _fi1 (31.7) 53 Totals 189 76 113 189 df - 1 x2 - 2 51 x2 - 3 84 H - Acce ted — '- O .05 - O o. p 72 The test indicated that the distribution of fre- quencies was not significantly different from chance and the null hypothesis was accepted.- It was concluded that the proportion of low and high interacting pupils coming from school-within-school and subject oriented schools was not different. Summery e; Tesps‘eg Related Variables It was found that none of the identified personal variables for teachers or pupils affected the measure of interaction. However, the size of the school was signifi- cantly related forboth teachers and pupils and the organi- zation of personnel was shown to be significantly related for the teacher group. A summary of all tests is shown in Table XXIII. TABLE XXIII SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION Obtained Decision Chi 2 Concerning Group: Variable d.f. Square x.05 the Ho Teachers Sex 1 2.99 3.84 Accepted Pupils Sex 1 0.84 3.84 Accepted Teachers Marriage 1 0.22 3.84 Accepted Table XXIII (continued) 73 Obtained Decision Chi Concerning Group: Variable Square x?05 the Ho Teachers Subject area 8.76 15.51 Accepted Teachers Teaching ‘ experience 0.60 3.84 Accepted Teachers Years on 1 staff 0.0% 3.84 Accepted Pupils SociO-economic level 0.30 3.84_ Accepted Teachers Size of school 9.76 3.84 Rejepted Pupils Size of school 4.16 3.84 Rejected . Teachers Design of school 1.58 3.84 Accepted Pupils Design Of school 0.11 3.84 Accepted Teachers Organization of school 4.29 3.84 Rejected Pupils Organization of school 2.51 3.84 Accepted CTassifiTcetion e; Sehools Since it was found that the size and the organi- zation of the school does, indeed, affect the frequency of principal-teacher and principal-pupil interaction, the groups of ++ and +- schools were reclassified to account for these 74 variables. The tests of the hypotheses were then carried out for each of the four groups of both ++ and +- schools. Table XXIV lists the number of schools in each category. TABLE XXIV THE CLASSIFICATION OF ++ AND +- SCHOOLS BY SIZE AND ORGANIZATION W Group by Size and Number Of Number of Organization ++ Schools +- Schools Total Small subject 2 6 8 Large subject 3 5 I 8 Small school- ‘withinsschool 2 2 4 Large school- within-school 6 4 10 Totals 13 17 30 The following table, Table XXV, lists the number of teachers by perceptual classification in each of the cats- gories of schools. 75 TABLE XXV THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS IN EACH CATEGORY OF SCHOOL LISTED BY PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION School Category Number of Teachers wuss— Size, Organization and Classification ++ +- -+ Total Small subject ++ 34 22 7 63 Small subject +- 68 57 7 132 Large subject ++ 86 72 17 175 Large subject +- 155 124 13 292 Small school-within- school ++ 18 22 3 43 Small school-within- school +- 46 29 5 80 Large school-within- school ++ 154 129 19 302 Large school-within- school +- 135 108 16 252 Totals 696 563 87 11346 The distribution of pupils for each category of schools is shown in Table XXVI. 76 TABLE XXVI THE NUMBER.OF PUPILS IN EACH CATEGORY OF SCHOOL LISTED BY PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION W School Category Number of Pupils Cetegories Size, Organization and Classification ++ +- ~+ Total Small subject ++ 34 32 12 78 Small subject +- 65 74 25 164 Large subject ++ 115 124 54 293 Large subject +- 162 139 48 349 Small schoolewithin— school ++ 23 23 3 49 Small school-within- school +- 36 34 9 79 Large school-within- school ++ 149 157 75 411 Large school-within- school +~ T16 115 55 406 Totals 790 758 281 1829 Tests Of t e Hypotheses; Teacher Deta Each of the operational hypotheses relating to teachers which were formulated, directionally, in Chapter IV will now be stated in the null form. The student's "t" test for significance is shown as the statistical technique. The 1' '1 r . U _..- .- - . -- . “-'L l ‘,'_ "1 ' _ 1.. r —. u f.- l' ,. - 77 hypotheses concerning principal-teacher interaction were executed first, followed by those concerning principal-pupil interaction. H 1a: There is no significant difference in the frequency of interaction of high valuing (+4) teachers with high valuing (+4) principals or with over valuing (+-) principals. Table XXVII lists the perceptual classification for the administrators, the number of subjects, the mean, the ‘variance, the value of "t" (.05 level) that must be exceeded in order to reject the hypothesis, the Obtained "t” and the decision regarding the null hypothesis. This is shown for each group of schools. 78 TABLE XXVII RESULTS OF THE "t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION OF ++ TEACHERS IN ++ AND +- SCHOOLS Principals' _ 2 (one-tailed) Classification N x Sx t.05 t H6 Small Subject Organized Schools ++ 34 1.41 7 0.73 Accept_ +- 68 1075 0e80 Large Subject Organized Schools ++ 86 0.97 0.81 Accept +- 155 1.05 0.66 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 18 1.94 0.53 1.67 2.33 Reject +- 46 1035 0094 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 154 1.01 0.68 1.65 2.32 Reject *n 135 0079 0065 The tests demonstrated that there were significant differences in the values of the means, as predicted, in schools organized as school-within-school. There were no significant differences in the means, as predicted, in sab- ject organized schools and the null hypotheses were accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that high valuing (++) teachers do interact more frequently with the principal when he is 79 also high valuing (4+) than when he is (4-) or over valuing. This was found to be true only in schools organized as school- within-school. H 1b: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of over valuing (4-) teachers with high valuing (4+) principals or with over valuing (4- principals. The results of the ”t” tests for each group of schooha are shown in Table XXVIII.' TABLE XXVIII RESULTS OF THE 4t" TESTS FOR INTERACTION 0F +- TEACHERS IN - +4 AND +- SCHOOLS o 0- Principals' ( ne - 2 telled) Classification N x Sx .05 t Ho Small Subject Organized Schools 44 22 1.50 0.83 Accept +" 57.1.65 0e91 Large Subject Organized Schools +- 124 1.02 0.72 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools +4 22 1.09 0.66 Accept +"' 29 1.10 Oe‘7h> Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 129 1.02 0.68 1.65 1.45 Accept +1- 108 0086 0e77 80 The tests demonstrated that the means were not significantly different in the predicted direction and the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded, therefore, that over valuing (+-) teachers do not interact more fre- quently with the principal when he is high valuing (44) rather than over valuing (4-). H 10: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-4) teachers with high valuing (4+) principals or with over valuing (4- principals. The results of the ”t" tests for each group of schools is shown in Table XXIX. 81 TABLE XXIX RESULTS OF THE “t" TESTS FOR INTERACTION OF —+ TEACHERS IN ++ AND +_ SCHOOLS ============================================================= ' (One- Principals 2 tailed) Classification N i Sx t.05 t Ho Small SUbject-Organized Schools +* 7 1029 1024 1e78 0e24 Accept +— 7 1014 1e48 . Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 17 0.76 0.57 Accept +- 13 1023 1053 Small School-Hithin-School Organized Schools 44 3 0.67 1.34 Accept +— 5 1920 0e70 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 19 0.89 0.66 Accept .- . 16 0.94 1.00 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. “It was concluded that under valuing (-4) teachers do not interact more frequently with high valuing (4+) Principals than they do with over valuing (4-) principals. 82 H 2a: There is no significant difference in the frequency of interaction of high valuing (44) teachers or over valuing (4-) teachers in 44 schools. - The results of the "t“ tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XXX. TABLE XXX RESULTS OF THE “t“ TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF +4 TEACHERS AND’THOSE OF +-.TEACHERS IN.++ SCHOOLS -:‘—‘ (One- Teachers' 2. tailed) Classification N i Sx 1 t.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools +4 34 1.41 0.73 Accept Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 86 0.97 0.81 Accept +- 72 1e07 0e80 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools +4 18 9.94 0.53 1.68 26.56 Reject +- 22 1.09 0.66 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 154 1.01 0.68 Accept +- 129 1.02 0.68 The tests demonstrated that there were significant differences in the values of the means, as predicted, in 83 small schools organized as sch001231th1n-80h001. The means were not significantly different, however, in the predicted direction, in the other sizes, and types of schools. As a result, the null hypothesis was accepted in each case. It is concluded, therefore, that in small school-within-schOOl organized schools with high valuing (4+) principals, high valuing (+4) teachers do, indeed, interact more frequently with the principal than do over valuing (4-) teachers. ‘ H 2b: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of high valuing (44) teachers or over valuing (4-) teachers in 4- schools. In Table XXXI are shown the results of the “t" tests for this hypothesis. 84 TABLE XXXI RESULTS OF THE ”t“ TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF +4 .TEACHERS AND THOSE 0F 4- TEACHERS IN.+- SCHOOLS —— — *-»—' —— -— _..— ..- — - »,_-,i._ A _,,_,, — .2- _.__.‘..___.‘__,— ‘ _ . __.,_ .._._.___.._ Teachers' (One- ) - tailed Classification N x Si t.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools +4 68‘ 1.75 0.80 1.65 0.60 Accept Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 155 1.05 0.66 1.65 0.30 Accept +- 124 1.02 0.72 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 46 1.35 0.94 1.67 1.14 Accept 4- 29 1.10 0.74 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 135 0.79 0.65 Accept The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 4- schools, high valuing (44) teachers do not interact more Often with the principal than over valuing (4-) teachers do. 85 H 2c: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction Of high valuing (44) teachers or under valuing (-4) teachers in 44 schools. The results of the “t" tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XXXII. TABLE XXXII RESULTS OF THE ”t“ TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF 44 TEACHERS AND THOSE OF -4 TEACHERS IN 44 SCHOOLS ' (One- Classification N x Sx -.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools +4 34 1.41 0.73 1.68 0.77 Accept Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 86 0.97 0.81 1.66 0.90 Accept -+ 17 0076 0e57 —— Small School-Within-School Organized Schools +4 18 1.94 0.53 1.73 1.49 Accept -+ 3 0e67 1034' Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 154 1.01 0.68 1.65 0.61 Accept ‘* ‘9 0089 0066 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null 86 hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 44 schools, high valuing (44) teachers do not interact more often with the principal than under valuing (-4) teachers do. H 2d: There is no significant difference in the frequency Of the interaction Of high valuing (44) teachers or under valuing (-4) teachers in 4- schools. The results of the "t" tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XXXIII. TABLE XXXIII RESULTS OF THE "t“ TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF 4+ TEACHERS AND THOSE OF -+ TEACHERS IN 4- SCHOOLS Teachers' (one- - 2 t iled Classification N x Sx 3'05 ) t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools 44 68 1.75 0.80 1.67 1.66 Accept -4 7 1.14 1.48 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 I 155 1.05 0.66 Accept Small School-Within-School Organized Schools .. 46 1.35 0.94 41.68 0.33 Accept -+ 5 1e20 0070 Large School-Within School Organized Schools ++ 135 0.79 0.55 Accept .+ 16 0094 1.00 87 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 4- schools high valuing (44) teachers do not interact more often with the principal than under valuing (-4) teachers do. H 2e: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-4) teachers or over valuing (4-) teachers in 44 schools. The results of the “t“ tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XXXIV. TABLE XXXIV 88 RESULTS OF THE "t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF -+ TEACHERS AND-THOSE 0F 4- TEACHERS INV+4 SCHOOLS ' (One- Teachers 1 N _ $2 teiled) t H lassificat on x x .05 0 Small Subject-Organized Schools -+ 7 1.29 1.24 Accept +- 22 1.50 0.83 Large Subject-Organized Schools -4 17 0.76 0.57 Accept 4- 72 1.07 0.80 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools -+ 3 0.67 1.34 Accept +- 22 1.09 0.66 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools -4 19 0.89 0.66 Accept 4— 129 1.02 0.68 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 44 schools, under valuing (-+) teachers do not interact more often with the principal than over valuing (4-) teachers do. H 2f: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-4) teachers or over valuing (4-) teachers in 4- schools. 89 Table XXXV lists the results concerning this hypo- thesis. TABLE XXXV RESULTS OF THE ”t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF -4 -TEACHERS.AND'THOSE OF.+- TEACHERS.IN 4- SCHOOLS. _.—.———_ _ , _-__..____ ‘._ _ -.——.-....¢-—_- - _._.. _. _..s-—- --- —- —— ———.._l-_..._. __A._-. _ . —_.. ._ _-.__.. ..._‘_. ' (OHe- Teachers' 2 tailed) Classification N i S t H .05 0 Small Subject-Organized Schools -4 7 1.14 1.48 Accept *‘ 57 1.65 0.91 Large Subject-Organized Schools +- 124 1.02 0.72 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools 4- 29 1.10 0.74 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools -4 16 0.94 1.00 1.65 0.27 Accept +1. 108 0.86 0077 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 4- schools, under valuing (-4) teachers do not interact more Often with the principal than over valuing (+-) teachers do. 90 Tests f he Hypotheses; PUpil Data Each of the hypotheses relating to pupils was also tested by means of the student's “t” test for significance. H 3a: There is no significant difference in the frequency of interaction of high valuing (44) pupils with high valuing (4+) principals or with over valuing (4-) principals. Table XXXVI lists the perceptual classification for the administrators, the number of subjects, the mean, the variance, the value of the “t" (.05 level) that must be exceeded in order to reject the hypothesis, the Obtained "t” and the decision regarding the null hypothesis. This is shown for each group of schools. 91 TABLE XXXVI RESULTS OF THE “t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION 0F 44 PUPILS IN . 44 AND 4- SCHOOLS One- Principals' _ 2 Iailed) Classification N x Sx t 05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools 44 34 0.68 1.07 Accept +1- 65 0.80 1016 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 115 0.19 0.31 Accept +- 162 0.22 0.34 Small School-Within-School Organized School 44 23 0.52 0.62 1.67 0.10 Accept +- 36 0.50 Oe49 Large School-Within-School Organized School 44 179 0.27 0.44 Accept +1- 176 Oe38 0e55 The tests demonstrated that the means were not significantly different in the predicted direction and the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded, therefore, that high valuing (44) pupils do not interact more fre- quently with the principal when he is high valuing (44) rather than over valuing (+-). 92 H 3b: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of over valuing (+-) pupils with high valuing (++) principals or with. over valuing (+-) principals. The results of the “t” tests for each group are shown in Table XXXVII. TABLE XXXVII RESULTS OF THE "t" TESTS FOR INTERACTION 0F +- PUPILS IN ++ - . .AND +— SCHOOLS Principals' (One- - t 11 d Classification N x Si %.O; ) t HO Small Subject-Organized Schools ++ 32 0.38 0.44 Accept in. 74 0.89 1022 Large Subject-Organized Schools +4 124 0.33 0.55 1.65 0.90 Accept Small School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 23 0.22 0.27 Accept +- 34 0065 1.45 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 157 0.27 0.35 1.65 0.16 Accept +- 175 0.26 0.32 _ The tests demonstrated that the means were not significantly different in the predicted direction and the 93 null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded, therefore, that over valuing (+-) pupils do not interact more fre- quently with the principal when he is high valuing (++) rather than over valuing (+-). H 3c: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-+) pupils with high valuing (++) principals or with over valuing (+-) principals. The results of the”t“ tests for each group of schools‘is shown in Table xxxvxn. TABLE XXXVIII RESULTS OF THE "t" TESTS FOR INTERACTION OF -+ PUPILS IN ++ ' . AND +~ SCHOOLS Classification N x Sx .05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools 4+ 12 0.25 0.39 1.69 0.04 Accept +— 25 0.24 0.44 Large Subject-Organized Schools ++ 54 0.26 0.61 Accept Small School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 3 0.00 0.00 Accept +u. 9 0000 0000 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools ++ 75 0.17 0.31 Accept ‘94 The tests indicated that there were no significantly clifferent means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that under 'valuing (-4) pupils do not interact more frequently with Ixigh valuing (44) principals than they do with over valuing (4-) principals. I ‘ H 4a: There is no significant difference in the frequency of interaction of high valuing (44) pupils or over valuing (4-) pupils in 44 schools. The results of the ”t” tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XXXIX. 95 TABLE XXXIX RESULTS OF THE ”t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF 44 PUPILS AND THOSE OF 4- PUPILS IN +4 SCHOOLS Pupila' 2 (ggigd) Classification N i Sx t 05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools 44 34 0.68 1.07 1.67 1.40 Accept +- 32 0.38 0.44 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 115 0.19 0.31 Accept +1- 124 0033 0055 Small School-Within—School Organized Schools 44 23 0.52 0.62 1.68 1.52 Accept 4- 23 0.22 0.27 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 179 0.27 0.44 Accept .- 157 0.27 0.35 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 44 schools, high valuing (44) pupils do not interact more fre- quently with the principal than over valuing (4-) pupils do. H 4b: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of high valuing (44) pupils or over valuing (4-) pupils in 4- schools. 96 In Table XL are shown the results of the “t” tests for this hypothesis. 1 TABLE XL RESULTS OF THE ”t” TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF ++ PUPILS AND THOSE 0F 4. PUPILS IN.+9 SCHOOLS (One- Pupils' _ $2 tailed) Classification N x x t.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools 44 65 0.80 1.16 Accept +- g 74 0.89 1.22 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 162 0.22 0.34 Accept *1. '39 0.25 0052 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools +4 36 0.50 0.49 Accept +- 34 0.65 1045 Large School-Within—School Organized Schools 44 176 0238 0.55 1.65 1.71 Reject +" 175 0026 0032 The tests demonstrated that there were significant differences in the values of the means, as predicted, in large schools organized as school-within-school. The means were not significantly different, however, in the other 7 97 sizes and types of schools. As a result, the null hypo- thesis was accepted in each case. It is concluded, there- fore, that in large school-within-school organized schools with over valuing (4-) principals, high valuing (44) pupils do indeed interact more frequently with the principal than do over valuing (4-) pupils. H 4c: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of high valuing (44) pupils or under valuing (-4) pupils in 44 schools. The results of the “t” tests concerning this hypo- thesis are fOund in Table XLI. 98 TABLE XLI RESULTS OF THE "t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF 44 PUPILS AND THOSE OF -+ PUPILS IN 44 SCHOOLS ‘ (One- Pupils ' - 2 tailed) Classification N x Sx t.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools +4 34 0.68 1.07 1.68 1.35 Accept -+ 12 0925 0.39 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 115 0.19 0.31 Accept Small School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 23 0.52 0.62 Not tested Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 179 0.27 0.44 1.65 1.15 Accept -+ 75 0.17 0.31 The test was not undertaken in small school-within- school organized schools because of insufficient data. Tests were completed for the other sizes and types of schools with the result that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 44 schools, high valuing (44) pupils do not interact more often with the principal 99 than do under valuing (-4) pupils. H 4d: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of high valuing (44) pupils or under valuing (-4) pupils in 4- schools. The results of the "t" tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XLII. TABLE XLII RESULTS OF THE ”t" TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF 44 PUPILS AND THOSE OF -+ PUPILS IN 4- SCHOOLS W Pupils' 2 (2?:2d) Classification, N x Sx .05 . t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools ++ 65 0.80 1.16 1.67 2.42 Reject -+ 25 0.24 0.44 Large Subject-Organized Schools 44 162 0.22 0.34 Accept -+ 48 0029 0.47 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools* +4 36 0050 0.49 Reject -+ 9 0.00 0000 Large School-Within-School Organized Schools 44 176 0.38 0.55 1.65 1.31 Accept -+ 55 0.24 0.26 *Since there was no observed variance for the -4 group, the hypothesis was tested by means of the Fisher exact proba- bility test. P = .022 which was less than the set signifi- cance level, .05, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. 100 The tests demonstrated that there were significant differences in the values of the means, as predicted, in small schools organized as sohool-within—school. The means were not significantly different, however, in the Other sizes and types of schools. As a result, the null hypo- thesis was accepted in each instance. It is concluded, therefore, that in small school-within-School organized schools with over valuing (4-) principals, high valuing (44) pupils do indeed interact mOre frequently with the principal than under valuing (-4) pupils do. . H 4e: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-4) pupils or over valuing (4-) pupils in 44 schools. The results of the "t” tests concerning this hypo- thesis are found in Table XLIII. 101 TABLE XLIII RESULTS OF THE ”t” TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF -+ PUPILS AND THOSE 0F +- PUPILS IN 4+ SCHOOLS , (One- Pupils - S2 tailed) Classification N x x .05 Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools -4 12 0.25 0.39 Accept 4- 32 0.38 0.44 Large Subject-Organized Schools -4 54 0.26 0.61 Accept +- 124 0.33 0.55 Small School-Within-School Organized Schools -4 3 0.00 0.00 Accept 4- 23 0.22 0.27 . Large School-Within-School Organized Schools -4 75 0.17 0.31 Accept +- 24 0.25 0.28 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means, in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 44 schools, under valuing (-4) pupils do not interact more often with the principal than over valuing (4-) teachers do. H 4f: There is no significant difference in the frequency of the interaction of under valuing (-4) pupils or over valuing (4-) pupils in +-f schools. 102 Table XLIV lists the results concerning this hypo- thesis. TABLE XLIV RESULTS OF THE "L” TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION LEVELS OF -4 PUPILS AND THOSE OF +- PUPILS IN +- SCHOOLS L.“ ‘—’ 1 (One- Pupila _ 2 tailed) Classification N x Sx t.05 t Ho Small Subject-Organized Schools -4 25 0.24 0.44 Accept +- 74 0.89 1.22 Large Subject-Organized Schools Small School-Within—School Organized Schools -4 9 0.00 0.00 Accept Large School-Within-School Organized Schools -4 55 0.24 0.26 Accept 4- 175 0.26 0.32 The tests indicated that there were no significantly different means in the predicted direction, thus, the null hypotheses were accepted. It was concluded that in 4- schools, under valuing (-+) pupils do not interact more 103 often with the principal than over valuing (4-) teachers do. Summary _§ Tests 2; the Hypotheses In Table XLV appears a summary of the results of the tests of the hypotheses. Although the null hypothesis was accepted in most cases, five of the null hypotheses were rejected in the schools organized as school-within-school. 104 TABLE XLV SUMMARY OF THE TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES Test H : Small H : Large Ho: Small Ho: Large Hypothesis* Used bject ubject SeUBS. sewes 1a "t" Accepted Accepted Rejected Rejected 1b “t" Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 1c “t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 2a “t4 Accepted Accepted Rejected Accepted 2b “t" Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 20 4t" Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 2d fit“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 2e At“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 2f "t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 3a “t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 3b “t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 30 "t" Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 4a “t4 Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 4b “t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted R ected 4c Ct" Accepted Accepted -- Accepted 4d "t" Rejected Accepted Rejected** Accepted 49 “t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted 4f "t“ Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted * See pp. 49-51 for a listing of the hypotheses. ** Tested with the Fisher exact probability test. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study is an outgrowth of U. S. Office of Edu- cation Project 918 which focused on the effects of school design on the patterns of interaction of school personnel. The present study was designed to test hypotheses relating the perceptual classification of principals, teachers, and pupils to the frequency with which they interact for the purpose of discussing their professional and personal problems. A number of directional sub-hypotheses were con- structed in order to test the four major hypotheses which H 1: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the level of pripcipal-teachpr interaction. H 2: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the teacher and the level of principal-teacher interaction. H 3: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the level of principal-pupil interaction. H 4: There is a relationship between the perceptual classification of the pupil and the level of principal-pupil interaction. Selection 2; higp schools studied. Since Project 918 involved the study of high schools of varying design, 106 organization and size, several methods were employed in the selection process. The initial procedure was that of inquiry. Several sources wereutilized in identifying a group of 401 schools. Of this group, 298 desired to take part in the study and thus furnished further information describing their high schools. After examining this information, 77 schools were visited out of which 34 were chosen for the project. The present study utilized 30 of the schools which met the criteria set forth in the delimitations. Although the schools were distributed throughout the United States, further examination revealed that they tended to cluster in the East and west coastal areas. Instrumentatipn. The instruments utilized in this study included a measure for determining perceptual classifi- cation, a measure of the frequency of interaction, and a questionnaire portion for the measurement of personal vari- ables. The institutional variables of design, organization, and size were determined in the school selection process. The perceptual classification of personnel was deter- mined by K. T. Hereford's revision of the Robert Bills' _I_n_q_e_x_ p; Agjpptmept ppg Valup . This was used to classify perSon- nel into four perceptual types 44, 4-, -4, and ~-, in terms of their acceptance of self and others. The frequency of interaction was measured by means of 107 a rating scale. This instrument asked teachers and students to indicate how frequently they discussed professional con- cerns (in the case of teachers) or school and/or personal problems (in the case of pupils) with each of a number of school personnel. Five steps were employed in order to secure the proper distinction in judgment. The steps, in decreasing order of value, were: (1) two or three times each day, (2) nearly everyday, (3) frequently, (4) occasion- .ally, and (5) rarely. The personal variables were determined by means of the‘ questionnaire portion of the instrumentation. The infor- mation obtained from teachers included: years on the pre- sent staff, years of teaching experience, sex, marital status, and subjects taught. Pupils were to list their grade and sex. The socio-economic level of pupils was also determined by use of the Duncan method. Administratipn pf ppp instruments. Each of the high schools included in the study was visited by a Michigan State University staff member. This person oriented the staff to the project and instruments. The teachers completed their instruments while supervising the testing of pupils. After the testing period, all materials were returned to the Michigan State University staff member for packaging and mailing to the campus. School staff members were assured, 108 in each school, that their responses would be kept in strict confidence. Tregpmppt‘_f data. Upon receipt of the booklets at the university, each.booklet was stamped with a code number which enabled the investigators to identify both the school and the administrator, teacher, or pupil within the school. All administrator and teacher instruments were coded for IBM machine tabulation. In the case of pupils, a.29 per cent random sample was extracted from each school utilizing a table of random numbers. Statistical mephods emplpye . The interaction mea- sure was first analyzed for item homogeneity. The statistical methods employed were the phi coefficient of correlation and the maximal phi coefficient of correlation. The interaction measure was then tested for relationship to the personal and institutional variables by means of the chi-square technique after which the hypotheses were tested by means of the Student's ”t“ mean analysis. The chi-square technique was employed in testing the personal and institutional variables because the data fell into discrete categories. Other assumptions that were met are independence among single responses and theoretical frequencies of adequate size. 109 The Student's “t" test of differences in the means was used to test the Operational hypotheses. The assumptions which were considered met are: independent observations, a normally distributed population and equal population vari- ances 0 Classification p; schools. Since the size and the organization of schools appeared to affect the frequency of interaction, the schools were reclassified into four groups of +4 and 4- schools before the tests of the hypotheses were undertaken. The four groups of schools utilized were: (1) small subject organized schools, (2) large subject organized schools, (3) small school-within-school organized schools, and (4) large school—within-school organized schools. Results p§,ppgqppppp. 0f the 72 "t" tests employed to test the hypotheses, 66 of the null hypotheses were ac- cepted. Of the six null hypotheses rejected, five were found to be tests relating to the group of schools organized as school-within-school. Teacher gppp. The tests revealed, in both small and large school-within-school organized schools, that high valuing (44) teachers interacted more frequently with high valuing (44) principals than they did with over valuing (4-) principals. 110 The tests also revealed, in small school-within- school organized schools with high valuing (44) principals, that high valuing (44) teachers did interact with the principal more often than over valuing (4-) teachers. Eppi;,gppp. The tests revealed, in large school- within-school organized schools with over valuing (4-) principals, that high valuing (44) pupils did interact with the principal more frequently than over valuing (4-) pupils. Finally, the tests demonstrated, in all small schools (both subject organized and of sohool-within—school organization) having over valuing (4-) principals, that high valuing (44) pupils did interact with the principal more often than the under valuing (-4) pupils. Conclusipns The evidence found in the statistical analysis led to the conclusion that, in the selected schools, there was no evident relationship between the perceptual classification of the principal and the frequency of either principal- teacher or principal-pupil interaction. It was also concluded that the perceptual classifi- cation of teachers and pupils .was not related to the fre- quency of principal-teacher or principal-pupil interaction. 111 fipcommendations and Implicatipns Reppmmendatipns. The results of this exploratory study point out several avenues for further research. These include: 1. A similar study should be conducted employing a sample of schools which are homogeneous in terms of size and organization. 2. Future studies employing Bills' typology would do well to study only personnel who demonstrate, to a greater degree, differences in the acceptance of self and others. 3. Other studies concerned with the nature of principal- teacher or principal-pupil interaction should employ or develop instruments which measure the specific concerns of the interactions and the initiator as well as the frequency of interaction. 4. The fact that the small number of null hypotheses that could be rejected appeared in the school-within-school organized schools suggests that, possibly, some vari- able associated with this type of personnel organi- zation may effect the pattern of interaction in terms of the personalities involved. Thus, further investi- gation of these schools is warranted. Implications for administration. The limitations of the precent study, notwithstanding, it appears that the findings are in conflict with a long held tenet in the field of educational administration. For example, it is professed that the principal should value the competencies, interests, 1It should be noted that, in Bills' scale, one score point results in a different perceptual classification for an individual. 112 and recommendations of the staff members no less than he does his own. It is further extolled that if he does this, in good faith, the pattern of principal-staff communication and mutual involvement in decision making will flow smoothly and beneficially, to the satisfaction of all concerned. Al- though several of the principals, in the present study, were classified as over valuing individuals, there was no evidence that their interaction, for the most part, was at a lower level than that of other administrators. In fact, it often appeared higher although, perhaps, not significantly so. A second observation is warranted concerning the very low interaction scores of pupils. If the principal is in- dded isolated from his pupils, it would appear that the image of the principal held by patrons would be obtained, chiefly, through the communication of other school personnel. On the other hand, the principal's perceptions of pupils must come from teachers and other school personnel, alone. The implications of this isolation are apparent in terms of staff evaluation, public relations, et cetera. Since the size of schools affects the interaction of principal and pupil, it is apparent that the nature of leadership is somehow more impersonal in the larger schools. Whether or not the leadership within the formal structure of large schools is significantly different, in terms of effectiveness, from that evidenced in the smaller schools is a question which remains unanswered. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W. The Nature 3; Personality: Selected Papers. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1950. Bailey, Benjamin H. “Personality Rigidity, Patterns of Operation, and Leadership Effectiveness of Secondary School Principals.” Unpublished Doctor's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1959. Barr, Arvil 8., Robert A. Davis, and Palmer 0. Johnson. Educapional Research and Appraisal. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1953. Berger, E. M. ”The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others,” Journal pi Abnormal gpg Spcial Psychplpgy, XLVII (1952). 778-82. Bills, Robert E. "About People and Teaching,” The Bulletin ‘2; the Bureau pf Schopl Service, College 9; Education, Univepsipy pi Kentucky, XXVIII (December, 1955 . . “Attributes of Successful Educational Leaders,” The Bpiietin pi the Bureau pi Schpol Serv cc, College E%E£§Ll291 22$12£§l21.2£.§2232221: XXVI December, 1953 1 1 -3 . . Manual for the Index of Adjustment and Values Form: Adult and Higp Sghool Senipr. Auburn, Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1959. . E. L. Vance, and O. S. MacLean. ”An Index of Adjustment and Values,“ JOurnal pi Consplting Psychplogy, xv (1951), 257—61. Campbell, R. F. and R. T. Gregg (eds.). Administrative Behavior ip Edupgtipn. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Carroll. ”Role-Concept Development in Future Administrators, Edpcational Administration and Supervision, XLII (1956), 96-5010 11 Clark, Dean 0. "Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of High School Principals.“ Unpublished Doctor's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 1956. 115 Coladarci, Arthur P. and Jacob W. Getzels. Tpp Upp pi Theory ‘ip Educatiopal Administration. Stanford University School of Education, Educational Administration Mono- graph, No. 5. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1955. Combs, A. W. "New Horizons in Field Research: The Self Concept,” Educptional Leadership, xv (1958), 315-19. and Donald Snygg. Individual Behpvipr. New Yerk: Harper and Brothers, 1959. and R. S. Fisk. ”Research Problems and Research Needs in Administration,” qupnpl pi Sopipi Issues, X (1954). 49-58. Cooley, Charles Horton. _pp§_ Nappre and the Social lOrder. New Yerk: Charles Scribner' s Sons, 1922. Cowley, H. H. ”The Traits of Face to Face Leaders,“ Jo a1 pi Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXVI (1931), 304E13. Cronbach, Lee J. Esseppipis pi Psycholpgical Testipg. New 19 9. York: Harper and Brothers, Diehl, H. ”The Ritual of Science,” Jqprnpl of Psychology, XII (1941), 13-19. - Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introductipn pp Stptisiical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Duncan, Otis Dudley. “A Socio-Economic Index For All Occupations.” Chicago: Population Research and Training Center, 1960. (Mimeographed.) Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behaviorpl Spipnces. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957. Fey, W. F. "Acceptance by Others and its Relation to Acceptance of Self and Others: A Revaluation," Jou nal .sf._hsasasl sas.§22isl P8 cholo . L (1955). 27 7 . Forbes, John Lewis. "A Theory of Administrative Leadership for Contemporary Education." Unpublished Doctor' s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958. Gage, N. L. "Explorations in the Understanding of Others," Eippgpipppi_ and Psychological Measuppments, XIII (1953), 2 . 116 Goodwin, George H. ”A Study of Certain Teacher Activities and Human Relations With Special Reference To WOrking Patterns of School Principals.” Unpublished Doctor's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1955. Gordon, Thomas. Group-Centeped Leadership: thay pi Reiea - ipg the Creative Power p; Gppup . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. Griffiths, Daniel. Administrative Thpogy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959. . Humpp Relatipps ip Schpoi Adm stration. New YOrk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 195 . Cuba, E. G. and C. E. Bidwell. Administrative Relatippships: Teacher Effectiveness, Tpacher Satisfactipn.ppp Administrative Behavior. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1957. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Stapistics ip Psychplogy and Edpcation. New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrgpive Theory ip Epucgtiop. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958. Barnes, Harold Hyron. ”Personality Rigidity Patterns of Operation, and Leadership Effectiveness of Elementary School Principals.” UnpUblished Doctor's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1959. Hereford, Karl T., Stanley Hecker, Robert Hopper, Donald Lou, and Floyd Parker. "Project No. 918. Application to the Commissioner of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for Funds to Support Research Under the Provisions of Public Law 531, 83rd Congress." East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1960. (Mimeographed.) Hopkins, L. Thomas. Interappion the D m r tic Prpces . New York: D. 0. Heath and Company, 19_1. Hopper, Robert L. and Hebert E. Bills. ”What's a Good Administrator Made Of?" The Schppl Execupive, LXXXIV (March. 1955). 93-95. "'— 117 Humphreys, Lloyd G. “Characteristics of Type Concepts With Special Reference to Sheldon's Typology,” Ps cholo al §E;;2E;£J LIV (1957). 218-28. James, William. Ppagpptigm. New York: Longmans, Inc., 1907. . The Prippiples p; Psycppiogy (Vol. I). New York: . Henry Holt and Company, 1 90. Jenkins, David H. and Charles A. Blackman. Appecpgenpp ppp Epipcps pngipinistrapive B vior. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 195 . Jersild, Arthur T. Tpe Ppychoiogy p; Adpiepcence. New YOrk: Macmillan Company, 1957. Jung, C. G. Psyphplpgicpi Type . New York: Harcourt and Company, 1923. I Kretschmer Ernst. Physique and Cpprppper (trans. by W. J. Srpott). New York: Harcourt, 1925. Lecky, Prescott. Seif-Cpnsistency: A,Thepry p; Perspnpiity. New York: Island Press, 1945. Lavanway, R. W. ”The Effect of Stress on Expressed Attitude Toward Self and Others,” Jpgpngi p; Abpormpi ppd Social W1. L (1955). 225-2 . Maslow, A. H. ”Dynamics of Personality Organization,” Psypppipgipal Review, L (1943), 514-58. Morphet, Edgar L., R. L. John, and Theodore L. Roller. Edppational Appipistrapion: Conce ts, Pra tices, anp Isspes. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Onwake, Katherine T. ”The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories,” qurnpi p; Cpnppiting Psychoipgy, XVIII (1954), 443-45. Phillips, E. L. ”Attitudes Toward Self and Others: A Brief Questionnaire Report,” qurnal p; Cppsuiting Psyphoipgy, XV (1951), 79-81. Raimy, Victor Charles. ”The Self Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organization." Unpublished Doctor's Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1943. ( \ , , . .. . . . u . . t . . s . s . v1 ‘ v 9 e .. . r . . . .. . . s . . . e . . - . . , 118 Resnick, Jeseph. ”The Administrator and Teacher Adjustment" %%g%§pipppi Aipinistrapion and Supervision, XLIII (1957), Roberts, Glen. “A Study of the Validity of the Index of Adjustment and Values," Journal pi Consulting Psychoipgy, XVI (1952) . 302-4. , Roethlisberger, Fritz. ”The Executive's Environment is Verbal, Humpp Relatipps ip Adminisprptipn, Robert Dubin, editor. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951, pp. 305- 18. Rogers, Carl R. Counpeling and Pa hothera . New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19 2. Sarokin, Pitirim. Society, C ture, and Personality. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 19 7. Sheldon, W. H., S. S. Stevens, and W. B. Tucker. The Varieties pi Human Physipue. New York: Harper and Sons Company, 1955. Sherif, Muzafer, and Hadley Cantril. ihp‘ipypppipgy _i_§g%f Involyements. New Yerk: John Wiley and one, Inc., 19 7. Stephenson, T. E. "The Leader-Follower Relationship,“ Spcioipgical Review, VII (1959), 179-95. Snygg, D. ”The Need for a Phenomenological System of Psychology." Pa h ical Review, XLVIII (1941), 404- 24. . Stock, D. “An Investigation Into the Interrelations Between the Self-Concept and Feelings Directed Toward Other Persons and Groups,“ qupnal‘pi Cpnsulting Psycholpgy, XIII (1949). 176-80. Strang, Ruth. The Adolescent Views Himself. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1957. Sullivan, Harry Stack. Conppptions‘pi Mpdern Psychiptry. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1953. Symonds, Percival M. The Ego and the Self. New Yonk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951. 119 Wiles, Kimball. Supervisipn Fbr Better Schoois. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1956. ‘Wylie, Ruth C. The Splf Cpncept. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. APPENDIX A COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO SCHOOLS 121 With a grant from the U.S. Office of Education, members of the Michigan State University staff are conduct- ing a study of new high school buildings in the United States. Specifically we are interested in determining the effects of school building design and utilization upon the people who use the buildings. During the year, approximately thirty high schools will be selected throughout the country for study. These buildings will have been completed and occu- pied during the four year period of 1955-1958. Examples will be selected from among conventional compact buildings and among those which are decentralized in a campus arrange- ment. Within the compact and campus types, we will seek those which are organized along a "School-within-School“ pattern and those which are organized along more conventional lines. All buildings should be ”outstanding examples" of school architecture regardless of basic design scheme or pattern of organization. Comparisons will then be made in the patterns of interaction of school personnel and students among the extreme types. As a person with recognized ability and judgment in the school plant field, you can assist us greatly in the selection of schools to be studied. WOuld you compile a list of not more than six high schools completed and occu- pied between 1955 and 1958 which you believe to be among the best buildings in your state? It would racilitate our ef- forts if you could also identify the superintendent of the school districts involved. We should like to forward you a copy of the final report of our study for your files. Very cordially yours, 122 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ref.: U.S. Office of Education March, 1960 Project No. 918 No. Name of High School Location Superintendent of District 1. 5. 6. Signature: Please return to: 123 May 79 1960 Dear Mr. The United States Office of Education is supporting a study to determine the effects, if any, of school building design and utilization upon the interactions and attitudes of the staff and students of thirty of the nation's outstanding high schools. The study will be conducted by a research team from Michigan State University during the Fall of 1960. Many non- building factors obviously affect patterns of interaction, therefore, schools will be chosen from every region of the country and from each major type of school-community in order to obtain the necessary representation in our sample. Earlier this year, each state department of public instruction gave us a list of the six most outstanding new high schools in its state. The high school of your district was so recommended to us as a possible example for study; hence, our letter to you. The study would involve approximately two hours of testing among staff and students spread over a two day period in the Fall of 1960. In addi- tion, the study team would conduct a complete survey of the building itself. The district will of course, share in the results and attendant publicity associated with the study. If you would like to discuss the possibilities of participat- ing in the study, we would like to have a member of our staff visit with you personally at your convenience in May. The staff member will be prepared to discuss all details of the study with you at that time, and to make final selection of the schools for our sample of thirty. Meantime, our initial selection of schools to be visited would be greatly facilitated if you could direct a member of your staff to complete the following inventory of your school district and of the characteristics of the new high school. We should appreciate very much your early reply. Very cordially yours, 124 Name of District 1. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Study of Effects of Building Design and Utilization Upon High School Staff and Student Personnel Financed Under Public Law 531 U. S. Office of Education, Project No. 918 SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION The high schools selected for study should be representative of the diverse school districts found in the United States. WOuld you please provide the following information concerning your school district? A. What grades are taught in the school district? (Check) ( ) K-18 ( ) 7-12 ( ) 9-12 ( ) 10-12 ( ) Other Specify B. What is the total enrollment of the school district? C. What was the approximate per pupil current expenditure excluding capital outlay of the school district during 1958-59? (Check) ( ) less than #250 ( ) 3250-299 ( ) 3300-349 ( ) 8350-399 ( ) 3400-499 ( ) 500 or more D. In what general type of community or area is the school district located? (Check) 5 urban center 2 ) village E industrial suburb "bedroom" suburb non-farm rural farm . rural ( ) Other (specify) II. 125 E. How many public high schools are located in the district? (Check) ( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 or more F. Approximately how many square miles are enclosed by the school district? (Check) ( ) less than five ( ) 5-10 ( ) 11-15 ( ) 16-20 ( ) 21-25 ( ) 26-30 ( ) more than thirty INFORMATION ABOUT THE HIGH SCHOOL. The high schools selected for study should be representative of the diverse types of schools found in the United States. WOuld you please provide the following information concerning the high school. A. YB. D. E. What grades are included in the high school? (Check) ( ) 7-12 ( ) 8-12 ( ) 9-12 ( ) 10-12 ( ) 10-15 What is the current enrollment per grade? From approximatel what radius does the school draw its students? (Check) ( ) less than 1 mile ( ) 1-3 miles ( ) 4-6 miles ( ) 7-9 miles ( ) 10-15 miles ( ) more than 15 miles Approximately what proportion of the student body is transported by school buses? (Check) ( none ( ) less than 10% ( ) 10-25% ( ) 26-40% ( 41-70% ( ) more than 70% How many full time non-teaching certificated personnel (e.g. librarian, administrators, counselors) are employed in the high school? (Include combination teacher-counselors, etc. under F. below III. 126 F. wa many full time classroom teachers are employed in the high school? G. Approximately what number of the professional staff are males? INFORMATION CONCERNING HIGH SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM The high schools selected for study should be representative of the diverse patterns of organization and variety of school programs of high schools within the United States. To assist us in the selection of high schools for study would you please provide us with the following information. A. Approximately what proportion of the high school's graduates attend college? (Check) ( ) less than 25% ( ) 25-49% ( ) 50-74% ( ) 75% or more B. Into how many class periods is the typical school day divided? A.M. P.M. Total C. How many minutes are allotted to the typical class period? (Check) ( ) 45 ( ) 50 ( ) 55 ( ) 6o ( ) 70 Other: (Spedify) D. How many minutes are typically allotted to period changes? (Check) ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5 ( ) 6 ( ) 7 Other: (Specify) E. Approximately how many students are currently enrolled in each of the following types of high school programs? Type of Program Number Enrolled 1. College Preparatory: 2. Commercial: F. G. 127 3. General: 4. Other (Specify): Is a copy of the course schedule for the current semester available? If so, would you please attach a copy to this questionnaire? If not, would you answer the following questions? 1. How many one-semester courses are currently taught? 2. How many two-semester courses are currently taught? 3. Is there a ”homeroom" provided each student? If so, how frequently does “homeroom“ meet each week? 4. Is there a-study hall provided? 5. Is there an “activity” or "extra-curricular” period scheduled at some time during the regular school week? Which of the following two statements most closely describes your high school plan of operation? If neither, please describe briefly how your plan operates. ( ) 1. Students move each 45-70 minutes from class to class in order to pursue a course of 4-6 subjects with different teachers. Teachers normally remain in their sdbject area classrooms. ( ) 2. Students remain" in one area of the building for "blocks of time" (longer than one period) with the same teacher or team of teachers in order to pursue their ”basic” or "general education“ sub- jects. - ( ) 3. Other: (Please describe briefly) 128 IV. INFORMATION CONCERNING THE HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE A. B. D. Approximately how many acres are contained in the school site? (Check) ( less than :0 ( ) 11-20 ( ) 21-30 ( ) 31-40 ( 41-60 ( ) more than 60 How many stories are rovided in the classroom sections of the building? (Check ( 1 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 or more When was the building first occupied? (Check) ( 1954 ( ) 1955 ( ) 1956 ( ) 1957 ( ) 1958 ( 1959 ‘ Is a descriptive brochure (e.g. dedication program) which contains a rough floor plan of the building available? If so, please attach a copy to the questionnaire. If not, please provide the following information. 1. Building Spaces: (Please indicate the number of each of the following types of spaces provided in your building) Type of Space No. of Rooms a. Auditorium b. Administrative offices c. Business education d. Art e. Library f. General classrooms g. Science h. Food service 1. Physical education J. n. 129 Type of Space No. of Rooms Health services Teachers lounge Guidance Music Shop E. .Which of the following statements most closely describes the manner in which pupils are distributed within your building? Please recognize that some portions of the building (e.g. gym or lunchroom) may be used by all pupils. ( ) 1. ( ) 2- ( ) 3. ( ) 4. “Grade Level Distribution": pupils are grouped on separate floors, in separate wings, or in separate "little schools' according to separate grade levels (i.e. each grade has its own floor, wing, or "littb school.") "School-Within-School Distribution": pupils in groups from all grade levels (e.g. 100 pupils from each grade 10, 11, 12) are housed on separate floors, in separate wings, or in separate "little schools” for substantial portions of the total school pro- gram. “Subject Area Distribution“: each floor, wing or ”little school" houses a different subject area or combination of subject areas. Pupils normally move from area to area throughout the building. Other: (Please describe briefly) Please Return to: K. T. HEREFORD, PROJECT 918 COORDINATOR 404 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 130 We are now sending questionnaires to the superintendents of the schools that you recommended. It is possible that these superintendents will ask questions of you concerning this study. Therefore, for your own information and in order to answer such questions, we are sending you a copy of the study proposal that has been approved by the U. S. Office of Education. Should you find time to study our proposal, we would appreci- ate comments that would assist us in obtaining the most valid results possible. YOur cooperation is extremely gratifying. Research Staff U.S. Project 918 School Building Design Study 131 May 16, 1960 Dear Mr. we are presently visiting the following high schools in your state which you have recommended for our nationwide study of school building design and utilization. School Location Superintendent Our staff will be obtaining various information concerning the school buildings and districts. Very cordially yours, APPENDIX B PROJECT 918 INSTRUMENTATION Administrator Booklet '33 U. S. Office Project 918 College of Education Michigan State University ...About Project 918 Your school has been chosen as one of 30 representative new high schools in the United States. Each of these schools will be studied by a research team from Michigan State university. Funds for the project are provided by the Congress of the United States through the U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of Project 918 is to see if there are any real differences in the way teachers and students work and study together in different kinds of high school buildings. If such differences can be found, it will point the way to the design of better high school buildings, and consequently better high school teaching and learning. In the next hour would you please help in this important study by carefully and honestly completing each of the following questionnaires and inventories. Each questionnaire is self-explanatory. You should proceed from one to the other ‘without waiting for additional directions. All information will be kept in strictest confidence. Your responses will be seen only by a research team at Michigan State University. Thank you for your cooperation. K. T. Hereford Project Coordinator Michigan State university. GENERAL INFORMATION Name (Please Print) Last First Name of school a. Title of your position b. Number of years in this position How many years of professional experience have you had? (check one) less than 1 ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5-9 ___ 10-15 ___ 16-20 ___ 21 or more ___ What is your age? (check one) 20-24 _ 25-29 _ 30-34 _ 35-39 _ 40-44 _ 45-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60 or more a. What is your sex? Male Female b. Are you married? Yes No ___ ) What is the highest academic degree that you hold? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Others (specify) SCHOOL BUILDING AESTHETIC SCALE 134 Iknv would you describe the aesthetics of your high school building? Check (x) the one word in each of the following 19 pairs of adjectives which you believe ‘best describes your building? Please do not leave out any 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. uninviting ..................... warm adultlike .................. youthful comfortable ........... uncomfortable interesting ........... uninteresting unfriendly ................. friendly factorylike ............. residential weak ......................... strong good ............................ bad dim .......................... bright colorful ....................... drab clean ......................... dirty different ......... indistinguishable artistic ..................... clumsy active ...................... passive soft ........................... hard tiring ...................... restful inconvenient ............. convenient institutional ........... residential considerate ............. indifferent of the 19 choices. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST Teachers and students have many different personal traits. It would help us develop a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. On the next two pages are 49 words which are commonly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. In Column 1, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. In Column II, indicate for each of the 49 words how ZEB.£EEl about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column I: I am an academic kind of person a good deal of the Elms (4); and in Column II: I like myself in this respect. (4) Please proceed to complete Columns I and II for each trait word ‘ 135 L LITS: Column _I_ Column I; How much of the time How do I feel about being am I this kind of person? this kind of person? :SPONSES: 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2 . Occasionally 2 . Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like KAMPLE: academic L __4__ 1. acceptable _ _ 2. accurate __ __ 3. alert _ _ 4. ambitious __ __ 5. annoying __ _— 6. busy _ — 7. calm __ _— 8. charming _ __ 9. clever __ — 10. competent __ _ 11. confident __ __ 12. considerate _ __ 13. cruel __ __ 14 . democratic _ __ 15 . dependable __ __ 16 . economical __ _ 17. efficient _ _ l8. fearful __ __ 19. friendly _ __ 20. fashionable __ __ 21. helpful __ _ 22. intellectual 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST 136 :ince a high school is made of people who work and study together, our understanding of 'our school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of .eople in your school. Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends may be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the "average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general." Then try to put yourself in the place >f tints "average friend" and fill out the same two column check-list that you completed Lor yourself . ERAITS: Column I Column II How much of the time do your How do your "friends "friends in general" believe in general" feel about themselves to be this kind themselves in this fig of person? respect. 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like i 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like 1. acceptable 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying 6. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent 11. confident 12. considerate l3. cruel _ l4. democratic 15. dependable 16. economical ___- 17. efficient 18. fearful 19. friendly 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. fashionable helpful intellectual kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 137 HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST First, in Column I, describe how your high school appears to be at this time in terms of each of the 16 characteristics. To do so, decide how much of the time each of the characteristics appears to be adequate in your high school. At the t0p of Column I is a list of five possible responses. Choose the response which best describes how much of the time each characteristic is adequate in your high school. Second, in Column II, describe how you feel about your high school as it appears to be at this time. To do so, decide how you feel about each of the characteristics which you have described in Column I. At the top of Column II is a list of five possible responses. Choose the one response which best describes how you feel about each characteristic. Column I Column II How much of the time How do you feel do you believe each about the adequacy Characteristic of the High School of the following of each of the characteristics of characteristics of your high school is your high school? adequate? l. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor 4. Good deal of the time dislike 5. Most of the time 4. Like 5. Very much like EXAMPLE: Academic Freedom 4 4 l. Homework 2. Library services 3. Discipline 4. Cooperation among teachers 5. Quality of instruction 6. Teacher-Student relations 7. Administrator-Teacher relations 3. Counseling and guidance services 9. Quality of student body 10. Quality of student leadership 11. Quality of student organizations 12. Cooperation of parents 13. Quality of building and facilities 14. Academic standing of high school 15. Relationships with other high schools 16. Relationship with the local community KNOWING STAFF PERSONNEL One of the most difficult tasks for the administrator usually is learning to know his staff members. As a simple challenge to your knowledge of the staff, would you please choose the three (3) teachers that you feel you know best, from all of those on your staff. Please limit your to those who teach in grades 9, 10, 11 or 12. Please try to supply the requested information about each of the three (3) teachers from memory. Please do not consult your records or other sources for help. The questions are so designed that it will be impossible for most administrators to supply all requested information accurately. Please, therefore, do not feel embarrassed if you cannot answer all questions to your satisfaction from memory. Teacher NUmber One Name of Teacher: Last First 1. How many years of teaching experience has he or she had? (check one) less than 1 l 2 3 4 5-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more 2. What is the age of this teacher? (check one) 20-24 25-29 30—34 ___ 35-39 ___ 40-44 45-49 50-59 60 or more 3. a. Sex of teacher. Male Female b. Is he or she married? Yes No 4. If he or she is married, what is spouse's occupation? 5. How many years has he or she been employed on this high school staff? less than 1 l 2 3 4 5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more __ 6. What is the highest academic degree he or she holds? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Others (specify) 7. List subjects and grade levels that he or she is presently teaching. Subject Grade Level 8. What is his or her father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it?) 9. Which of the following teaching tasks do you believe he or she finds most difficult? (check one) 1. preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performance 5. being accepted by student body 3. introducing new teaching techniques 6. relating himself to the staff L. 138 “filich of the following teaching tasks does he or she find to be easiest? (check one) 1. preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performances 5. being accepted by student body 3. introducing new teaching techniques 6 relating yourself to the staff Where is his or her birthplace? State Teacher Number Two flame of Teacher: 1. ll. Last First How many years .of teaching experience has he or she had? (check one) 'less than 1 l 2 3 4 5-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more that is the age of this teacher: (check one) 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-59 60 or more a. Sex of teacher. Male Female b. Is he or she married? Yes No If he or she is married, what is spouse's occupation? iHQW'many years has he or she been employed on this high school staff? less than 1 l 2 3 4 5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more lflhat is the highest academic degree he or she holds? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Others (specify) List subjects and grade levels that he or she is presently teaching. Subject Grade Level ‘What is his or her father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it?) ‘Which of the following teaching tasks do you believe he or she finds most difficult? (check one) l. preparing lesson plans 2. evaluating student performance 3. introducing new teaching techniques 4. working on faculty committees 5. being accepted by student body 6 relating himself to the staff Which of the following teaching tasks does he or she find to be easiest? (check one) 1. preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performances 5. being accepted by student body 3. introducing new teaching techniques 6. relating yourself to the staff Where is his or her birthplace? State Teacher Number Three Name of Teacher: Last First 1. How many years of teaching experience has he or she had? (check one) less than 1 l 2 3 4 5-9 10-15 l6-20 21 or more 2. What is the age of this teacher: (check one) 20-24 25-29 30-34 ___ 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-59 60 or more 3. a. Sex of teacher. Male Female b. Is he or She married? Yes __ No 4. If he or she is married, what is Spouse's occupation? 5. How many years has he or she been employed on this high school staff? less than 1 1 2 3 4 5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more 6. What is the highest academic degree he or she holds? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Others (specify) 7. List subjects and grade levels that he or she is presently teaching. Sub ect Grade Level 8. What is his or her father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it?) 9. Which of the following teaching tasks do you believe he or she finds most difficult? (check one) preparing lesson plans 2 evaluating student performance 3. introducing new teaching techniques ___. 4. working on faculty committees 5. being accepted by student body 6 relating himself to the staff 10. Which of the following teaching tasks does he or she find to be easiest? (check one) 1. preparing lesson plans 2. evaluating student performances 3. introducing new teaching techniques 4. working on faculty committees 5. being accepted by student body 6 relating yourself to the staff 11. Where is his or her birthplace? State Teacher Booklet 139 U. S. Office Project 918 College of Education Michigan State University ...About Project 918 Your school has been chosen as one of 30 representative new high schools in the United States. Each of these schools will be studied by a research team from Michigan State University. Funds for the project are provided by the Congress of the United States through the U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of Project 918 is to see if there are any real differences in the way teachers and students work and Study together in different kinds of high school buildings. If such differences can be found, it will point the way to the design of better high school buildings, and consequently better high school teaching and learning. In the next two-hour period, would you please help in this important study by carefully and honestly completing each of the following questionnaires and inventories. Each questionnaire is self-explanatory. You should proceed from one to the other without waiting for additional directions. All information will be kept in strictest confidence. Your responses will be seen only by a research team at Michigan State University. Thank you for your cooperation. K. T. Hereford Project Coordinator Michigan State University Name (Please Print) 10. ll. 12 GENERAL INFORMATION Last First How many years of teaching experiences have you had? (check one) less than 1 __ l __ 2 __ 3 __4 __ 5-9 __ 10-15 __ 16-20 __ 21 or more __ What is your age? (check one) 20-24 ___ 25-29 ____30-34 ____35-39 ___ 40-44 ___ 45-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60 or more ___ A. What is your sex? Male ___ Female ____ B. Are you married? Yes ___ No How many years have you been employed on this high school staff? less then 1 l 2 3 4 5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more ___ What is the highest academic degree that you hold? Bachelors Masters Doctorate Others (specify) If you teach: List those subjects and grade levels that you are now teaching; Subject Grade Level What is your father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it? Please be precise.) If you are married: What is your spouse's occupation? Which of the following tasks involved in teaching do you find most difficult? (check as 1. preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performance 5. being accepted by student body introducing new teaching techniques 6. relating yourself to the staff Which of the following tasks do you find to be easiest? (check one) 1- Preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performance being accepted by student body 3. introducing new teaching techniques 6. relating yourself to the staff U1 In what state were you born? What is your best estimate of the total number of different students which you now have enrolled in all of your classes? different students (number) CLASSROOM AESTHETIC SCALE low annald you describe the classroom in which you are now located? 19 pairs of adjectives which you believe best describes word in each of the following :his classroom. Please do not 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. Before turning the page, write in the number of this leave out any of the 19 choices. dim. ........................... bright colorful ......................... drab unfriendly ............ . ...... friendly clean ........................... dirty inconvenient ............... convenient factorylike ............... residential interesting ............. uninteresting good .............................. bad different ........... indistinguishable artistic ....................... clumsy active ........................ passive uninviting ....................... warm weak ........................... strong adultlike .................... youthful soft ............................. hard tiring ........................ restful institutional ............. residential comfortable ............. uncomfortable considerate ............... indifferent classroom, and the subject taught here. Room Number: Subject Taught: 140 Check (x) the one SCHOOL BUILDING AESTHETIC SCALE You have already described the aesthetics of your classroom. Think now in terms of you high school building as a whole. - How would you describe the aesthetics of your high school building? Check (x) the one word in each of the following 19 pairs of adjectives which you believe best describes your building? Please do not leave out any of the 19 choices. 1. ____ uninviting .................. warm. ____ 2. ____ adultlike ............... youthful _____ .3. _____ comfortable ........ uncomfortable _____ 4. ____ interesting ........ uninteresting ____ 5 . __ unfriendly .............. friendly __ 6. ____ factorylike .......... residential _____ 7. _____weak ...................... strong _____ 8. ____ good ....................... ..bad _____ 9 . __ dim ....................... bright __ 10. ____ colorful .................... drab ____ ll. _____ clean ...................... dirty _____ 12. '____ indistinguishable ..... .different '____ 13. ____ artistic ............ . ...... clumsy ____. 14. _____active ................... passive _____ 15. ____ soft ........................ hard ____ 16. _____tiring ................... restful _____ 17. ____ inconvenient .......... convenient I____ 18. institutional ........ residential l9. considerate .......... indifferent 141 ACTIVITY SCOPE SCALE hachers:are consulted about a variety of professional issues. Below are nine hypothetical lituations in which teachers may be consulted by administrators in a high school. TO 'hat extent do you believe that you would be consulted professionally by your administrators .n earn: of the nine situations if they were to occur in your school. Check the response 'hich most closely matches your belief about each situation. ALWAYS FREQUENTLY SELDOM NEVER :XAMPLE: When the evaluation of the school curriculum is undertaken X ‘When.a task such as the selection of a new textbook for a course you are teaching is undertaken 1. ‘When a problem such as determining the responsibilities of the high school teacher in/COmmunity affairs is being considered. 1. ‘When a problem such as adding a new unit into a course outline that you are teaching is being considered. 1. In deciding whether or not your class should take a field trip. 5. In deciding such an issue as keeping a student from.participating in special activities for uncooperative behavior. 5. When a question concerning the adequacy of a course outline that you use in teaching is brought up. 1. When a problem such as determining either the maximum or minimum homework load for students is brought up. L When a problem such as determining the grading standards to be employed by the high school staff is brought up. L When a problem such as determining the kinds of instructional materials needed by teachers is considered. Teachers, like other professional persons, SOURCES OF HELP INVENTORY frequently turn to other qualified persons for assistance on professional and personal concerns. In each of the following hypothetical problem situations, would you indicate the one person to whom you would most likely turn for assistance. the Michigan State University research team. 1. Remember that your response will not be seen by any persons other than another teacher teaching the same subjec house administrative leader 1 other (identify) 1 another teacher teaching the same subject house administrative leader another teacher teaching the same subject house administrative leader If you were having difficulty in preparing a lesson plan, to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance? (check one) 1. principal 6 2. vice-principal 7 out-of-school friend 3. teacher-friend 8 4. student-group 9 5. department head If you were having difficulty evaluating a student's performance, to whom would you most? likely turn for advice or assistance? (check one) 1. principal 6 2. vice-principal _‘__] out-of-school friend 3. teacher-friend 8 4. student-group 9 other (identify) 5. department head If you were having difficulty introducing a new teachingftechnic, to whom would you most, likely turn for advice or assistance? (check one) 1. principal 6. 2. vice-principal out-of-school friend 3. teacher-friend 8 4. student-group 9 other (identify) 5. department head If you were having difficulty working on a faculty committee, to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance? (check one) 1. principal 6 2. vice-principal 7 out-of-school friend 3. teacher friend 8 4. student-group 9 other (identify) 5. department head another teacher teaching the same subject house administrative leader If you were having difficulty feeling accepted by some of your students, to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance? 1. principal vice-principal teacher-friend student-group department head (check one) another teacher teaching the same subject out-of—school friend house administrative leader other (identify) If you were having difficulty with your relationships with another staff member, to whmn would you most likely turn for advice or assistance? (check one) 1. principal 6. 2 vice-principal 7 3 teacher-friend 8. 4 student-group 9 5 department head another teacher teaching the same subjax out-Of-school friend house administrative leader other (identify) 142 HOW WELL DO WE KNOW STUDENTS? (One of the difficult tasks of the high school teacher who has as many as 90 to 120 1different students each day is to get to know these students. As a simple challenge to your own knowledge of your students, would you please choose ithe one (1) student from all of those you are now teaching in grades 9, 10, 11, or 12 whom you feel you know best. Please try to supply the requested information about this student from memory. Please Jdo fl consult your cumulative records or other sources for help. The questions are so designed that it will be impossible for most teachers to supply all requested information accurately. Please, therefore, do not feel embarrassed if you cannot answer all questions to your satisfaction from memory. 1. Name of student Last First Middle 2. How long have you known this student? (check) less than 1 year 1 to 3 years more than 3 years 3. Do you know this student from out-of-school contacts? Yes No If yes, through family? neighborhood? other? 4. Age of student (check) 14 15 l6 17 18; Grade of student (check) 9 10 ll 12; Sex (check) Male Female 5. Occupation of student's father 6. Number of children in student's family. Boys Girls 7. Do the parents hope this student will go to college? Yes No 8. Does this student plan to go to college? Yes No 9. Which of the following subjects does this student find easiest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art 10. Which of the following subjects does this student find hardest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art 11. Does this student have a hobby? Yes No If yes, what is it? If there are several, give the one in which he or she is most interested. 12. Is this student "going steady" at the present time? Yes No 13. How would you classify this student? (check the one response closest to your own opinion) a. one of the top students in the school b. about an average student c. a below-average student STAFF PERSONNEL 1. How many teachers are there on your high school staff? number 2. How many of these teachers do you really think of as a good friend? number 3. Of the remaining teachers, how many do you really enjoy working with? number PERSONAL CONTACT CHECKLIST How frequently do you get to discuss your professional concerns with each of the following persons? (check one response for each person) 2 or 3 Times Nearly Frequently Occasionally Rarely Each Day Everyday 1. Principal 2. Vice-Principal 3. Guidance Counselor 4. "House" Administrator (if any) 5. Department Head (if any) 6. Teacher of same subject ~7. Teacher of other subjects What do you consider to be three chief or major problems which teachers have in your school? 1. 143 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST Teachers and students have many different personal traits. It would help us develop a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. On the next two pages are 49 words which are commonly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. IE Column I, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. IE Column II, indicate for each of the 49 words Egg X22.£29l about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column I: I am an academic kind of person a gggd deal of Ehg Elms (4); and in Column II: I like myself in this respect. (4) Please proceed to complete Columns I and II for each trait word TRAITS: Column _I_ M I; How much of the time How do I feel about being am I this kind of person? this kind Of person? RESPONSES: l . Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2 . Occasionally 2 Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor disliké 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like EXAMPLE: academic __4_ _4__ l. acceptable __ __ 2. accurate __ __ 3. alert __ _ 4. ambitious __ ___... 5 . annoying __ __ 6 . busy __ __ 7. calm __ ___. 8. charming __ __ 9 . clever __ __ 10. competent __ __ ll. confident __ __ 12 . considerate __ __ l3. cruel __ _— 14 . democratic ___ __ 15 . dependable __ __ l6 . economical _ __ l7 . efficient __ __ 18. fearful __ __ l9 . friendly __ __ 20 . fashionable _ __ 21. helpful __ __ “2 intellectual 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 144 CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST Since a high school is made of people who work and study together, our understanding of your school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of people in your school. Please think abOut the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends may be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the "average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general." Then try to put yourself in the place of this "average friend" and fill out the same two column check-list that you completed f2; yourself. TRAITS: Column I Column II How much of the time do your How do'yfifi?‘"f?1ends "friends in general" believe in general" feel about themselves to be this kind themselves in this of persgp? respect. 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislih 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like l. acceptable ____ ____ 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying 6. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent 11. confident 12. considerate 13. cruel l4. democratic 15. dependable l6. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful 19. friendly 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. fashionable helpful intellectual kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 145 HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST First, in Column 1, describe how your high school appears to be at this time in terms of each of the 16 characteristics. To do so, decide how much of the time each of the characteristics appears to be adequate in your high school. At the top of Column I is a list of five possible responses. Choose the response which best describes how much of the time each characteristic is adequate in your high school. ' Second, in Column II, describe how you feel about your high school as it appears to be at this time. TO do so, decide how you feel about each of the characteristics which you have described in Column I. At the top of Column II is a list of five possible responses. Choose the one response which best describes how you feel about each characteristic. Column I Column II How much of the time How do you feel do you believe each about the adequacy Characteristic Of the High School of the following of each of the characteristics of characteristics of your high school is your high school? adequate? ‘ 1. Seldom 1. very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor 4. Good deal of the time dislike 5. Most of the time 4. Like 5. Very much like EXAMPLE: Academic Freedom g 4 4 l. Homework 2. Library services 3. Discipline 4. Cooperation among teachers 5. Quality of instruction 6. Teacher-Student relations 7. Administrator-Teacher relations 8. Counseling and guidance services 9. Quality of student body 10. Quality of student leadership 11. Quality of student organizations 12. Cooperation of parents 13. Quality of building and facilities 14. Academic standing of high school 15. Relationships with other high schools 16. Relationship with the local community 146 This completes your part in the U. S. Office Project 918. The information will be coded on IBM cards and tabulated along with those of nearly 50,000 other students and teachers in the United States. Thank you again for your splendid cooperation. Michigan State University Research Staff Student Booklet 147 U. S. Office Project 918 College of Education Michigan State University ...About Project 918 Your school has been chosen as one of 30 representative new high schools in the United States. Each of these schools will be studied by a research team from Michigan State University. Funds for the project are provided by the Congress of the United States through the U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of Project 918 is to see if there are any real differences in the way teachers and students work and study together in different kinds of high school buildings. If such differences can be found, it will point the way to the design of better high school buildings, and consequently better high school teaching and learning. In the next two-hour period, would you please help in this important study by carefully and honestly completing each of the following questionnaires and inventories. Each questionnaire is self-explanatory. You should proceed from one to_the other without waiting for additional directions. All information will be kept in strictest confidence. Your responses will be seen only by a research team at Michigan State University. Thank you for your cooperation. K. T. Hereford Project Coordinator Michigan State University 10. 11. GENERAL INFORMATION Name Last First Middle Number of years in this school (count present year as one) (check) 1 2 4 Age Grade (check) 9 10 11 12 (Check one) Male Female Number of brothers sisters What is your father's occupation (if deceased, what was it)? a. Does he get paid by salary? Yes NO b. If yes, who does he work for? c. Does he own a business? Yes No d. Does he have any people under him? Yes No e. If yes, about how many? Do you plan to go to college? (check) Yes No Do your parents hope you will go to college? (check) Yes No Of the following subjects, which do you find easiest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art Of the following subjects, which do you find hardest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art DO you have a hobby? Yes No If yes, what is it? If you have more than one, give the one in which you are most interested. Name the teacher whom you feel knows you best. (Please Print) 1 48 CLASSROOM AESTHETIC SCALE How would you. describe the classroom in which you are now located? Check (x) the one word in each of the following 19 pairs of adjectives which you believe best describes this classroom. Please do not leave out any of the 19 choices. 1. ___dim..... ...... ............ bright— 2. _ colorful ......................... drab __ 3. ____ unfriendly ................... friendly _____ 4. ____ clean. .......................... dirty ____ 5. _____inconvenient ............... convenient _____ 6. _____factorylike ............... residential _____ 7. ____ interesting ............. uninteresting ____ 8. _____good. ............................. bad _____ 9. .____ different ........... indistinguishable 10. ‘____ artistic ....................... clumsy ____ ll. ____ active ........................ passive _____ 12. __ uninviting ....................... Warm __ l3. _____weak ........................... strong _____ l4. __ adultlike .................... youthful __ 15. ____ soft ............................. hard _____ l6. ____ tiring ....................... .restful _____ 17. ____ institutional ............. residential ____ l8. ____ comfortable ............. uncomfortable ____ 19. considerate... ...... . ..... indifferent Before turning the page, write in the number of this classroom, and the subject taught here. Room Number: Subject Taught: SCHOOL BUILDING AESTHETIC SCALE You have already described the aesthetics of your classroom. Think now in terms of your high school building as a whole. How would you describe the aesthetics of your high school building? Check (x) the one word in each of the following 19 pairs of adjectives which you believe best describes your building? Please do not leave out any of the 19 choices. 1. ____ uninviting .................. warm ____ 2. _____adultlike ............... youthful ____ 3. ____ comfortable ........ uncomfortable ____' 4. ____ interesting ........ uninteresting ____ 5. ____ unfriendly .............. friendly ____ 6. _____factorylike .......... residential ____ 7. _____weak ...................... strong .____ 8. _____good ......................... bad .____ 9. ____ dim ....................... bright _____ 10. ____ colorful .................... drab I____ ll. _____clean ...................... dirty ____ 12. ____ indistinguishable ...... different ____ l3. _____artistic .................. clumsy _____ 14. ____ active ............ . ...... passive _____ 15. ____ soft ........................ hard _____ l6. _____tiring ............. . ..... restful _____ l7. ____ inconvenient .......... convenient ____' l8. institutional ........ residential l9. considerate .......... indifferent 149 SOURCES OF H_ELP INVENTORY nudents, like everyone else, frequently turn to other persons for assistance on problems md personal concerns. In each of the following imaginary problem situations, would you mdicate the one person to whom you would most likely turn for assistance. Remember that pur responses will not be seen by any persons other than the Michigan State University msearch team. u If you were having difficulty with your studies, to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance. (check one) 1. house or homeroom teacher 6. a friend from out of school 2. student friend 7. student organization 3. principal 8. parents 4 vice-principal 9 other (please identify) 5. counselor L If you were having difficulty in getting teacher understanding to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance. (check one) 1. house or homeroom teacher 6. a friend from out of school 2. student friend 7. student organization 3. principal 8. parents 4. vice-principal 9. other (please identify) 5. counselor . If you were having difficulty in getting along with other students, to whom would you most likely turn for advice or assistance. (check one) 1 house or homeroom teacher 6. a friend from out of school 2 student friend 7. Student organization 3 principal 8. parents 4 vice-principal 9. other (please identify) 5 counselor If you were having difficulty in participating in student activities, to whom would you turn for advice or assistance. (check one) 1. house or homeroom teacher 6 a friend from out of school 2. student friend 7 a student organization 3. principal 8 parents 4. vice-principal 9 other (please identify) 5. counselor . If you were having difficulty decidin on a hi h school course to take, to whom would you turn for advice or assistance. Zcheck one; 1. house or homeroom teacher 6. a friend from out of school 2. student friend 7. student organization 3. principal 8. parents 4. vice-principal 9. other (please identify) 5. counselor If you were having difficulty in selecting a college or vocation to whom would you turn for advice or assistance. (check one) 1. house or homeroom teacher 6, a friend from out of school 2. student friend 7. student organization 3. principal 8. parents 4. vice-principal 9. other (please identify) 5. counselor I __- THIS SET OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS YOUR INTEREST IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF JOBS. QUESTIONS. READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY. OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION SCALE THERE ARE EIGHT EACH ONE ASKS YOU TO CHOOSE ONE JOB OUT OF TEN PRESENTED. DON'T OMIT ANY. 1. Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 1.1 Lawyer 1.2 Welfare worker for a city government 1.3 United States representative in Congress 1.4 Corporal in the Army 1.5 United States Supreme Court Justice 1.6 Night watchman 1.7 Sociologist 1.8 Policeman 1.9 County agricultural agent 1.10 Filling station attendant 2. N THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. ANSWER EACH ONE THE BEST YOU CAN. 0f the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them you wished when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 2.1 Member of the board of directors of a large corporation 2.2 Undertaker 2.3 Banker 2.4 Machine operator in a factory 2.5 Physician (doctor) 2.6 Clothes presser in a laundry 2.7 Accountant for a large busines 2.8 Railroad conductor 2.9 Railroad engineer 10 Singer in a night club . Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? Nuclear physicist County judge Barber State governor Soda fountain clerk Biologist Mail carrier Official of an international labor union Farm hand wwwwwwwww \DOJNO‘U'l-DUONH .10 Reporter for a daily newspaper 4. Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them you wished when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 4.1 Psychologist 4 2 Manager of a small store in a city 4.3 Head of a department in state government 4.4 Clerk in a store 4.5 Cabinet member in the federal government 4.6 Janitor 4.7 Musician in a symphony orchestra 4.8 Carpenter 4.9 Radio announcer 4.10 Coal miner .Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD? 5.1 Civil engineer 5.2 Bookkeeper 5.3 Minister or priest 5.4 Streetcar motorman or city bus driver 5.5 Diplomat in the United States Foreign Service Sharecropper (one who owns no livestock or farm machinery, and does not manage the farm) Author of novels Plumber Newspaper columnist Taxi driver . Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAVE by the time yOu are 30 YEARS OLD? 7.1 Artist who paints pictures that are exhibited in galleries 7.2 Traveling salesman for a ' wholesale concern 7.3 Chemist 7.4 Truck driver 7.5 College professor 7.6 Street sweeper 7.7 Building contractor 7.8 Local official of a labor union 7.9 Electrician 7.10 Restaurant waiter (X) 150 . Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you wished? Airline pilot Insurance agent Architect Milk route man Mayor of a large city Garbage collector Captain in the army Garage mechanic Owner-operator of a printing shop @0‘0‘0‘0‘000‘0’1 l 2 3 .4 .5 6 7 8 9 6.10 Railroad section hand . Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you wished? 8.1 Owner of a factory that employs about 100 people Playground director Dentist Lumberjack Scientist Shoeshiner Public School teacher Owner-operator of a lunch stand Trained machinist Dock worker ooooooocoooooooa Ho... 00 OQmNO‘UI-bWN The occupations which I have thought about going into are: l. 2. 3. 4. The occupation that I plan to follow: (Indicate a kind of job) If I Were absolutely free to go into any kind of work I wanted, my choice would be: The type of work I would like to be doing when I am 30 years old is: Copyright 1957 by Archie 0. Haller SOCIAL SCALE List the names of your two best friends that are of your own age group. (Please Print) 1. Where did you get to know this friend? (check one) Last name First name Classes together Live in my neighborhood Church School club or activities Out-of-school club Other (name) 7p 2. Where did you get to know this friend? (check one) Last name First name Classes together Live in my neighborhood Church School club or activities Out-of-school Other (name) Information concerning the class in which you are presently located. 1. How many students are there in the class you are taking this hour? number 2. How many of these students do you generally think of as a good friend? number 3. Of the remaining students, how many would you be willing to have as a good friend? number List the names of two adults you like best. Not parents or relatives. (Please Print) 1. Where did you get to know this person? (check one) Last name First name In-school activities Out-of-school activities What does this person do for a living? 2. Where did you get to know this person? (check one) Last name First name In-school activities Out-of-school activities What does this person do for a living? List the names of the two outstanding student leaders in your school. (Please Print) Check the grade in which each student leader is enrolled. 1. Sex M F 9 10 ll 12 Last name First name (Circle one) Grade (Circle one) 2. Sex M F 9 10 11 12 Last name First name (Circle one) Grade (Circle one) How frequently do you get to talk with each of the following persons about your school work or personal problems? (check one response for each person) __ _ #J Principal Assistant Principal Homeroom Teacher Your Guidance Counselor Librarian F. G. 151 2 or 3 Times Nearly Frequently Occasionally Rarely Each Day Everyday Building Information How many different subjects would you normally have today? (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In how many different classrooms would you normally have classes today? Note: include study hall and gym. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If your high school building is more than one story high, how many classes would you normally have today on the: a) first floor b) second floor c) third floor If your school has two or more buildings, how many classes would you normally have today in each of the different buildings? Name of Building Number of Classes What do you believe are the three chief or major problems which students have in school? PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST Teachers and students have many different personal traits. It would help us develop a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. On the next two pages are 49 words which are commonly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. lg Column 1, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. IE Column II, indicate for each of the 49 words Egg ygg £231 about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column 1: I am an academic kind of person 3 ggpd'dggl 2f Ehg pigs (4); and in Column II: I like myself in this respect. (4) Please proceed to complete Columns I and II for each trait word 152 IRAITS : M I Column I_ How much of the time How do I feel about being am I this kind of person? this kind of person? RESPONSES: l. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2 Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like EXAMPLE: academic __4__ _£_;_ 1. acceptable __ __ 2. accurate __ __ 3. alert __ __ 4. ambitious __ __ 5. annoying _ __ 6. busy __ ___. 7. calm _ __ 8. charming _ _— 9. clever __ __ 10. competent __ __ ll. confident __ __ 12 . considerate __ __ 13. cruel __ __ l4 . democratic __ __ 15 . dependable __ __ l6 . economical __ __ 17. efficient __ __ 18. fearful __ __ l9. friendly __ __ 20 . fashionable __ __ 21. helpful __ __ 22. intellectual 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST 153 Biruce a.high school is made of people who work and study together, our understanding of rcnar: school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of people in your school. Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends nayr be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the "average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general." Then try to put yourself in the place of Iihis "average friend" and fill out the same two column check-list that you completed for yourself . TRAITS: Column I Column II How much of tEe time do your How do your "friends "friends in general" believe in general" feel about themselves to be this kind themselves in this of person? respect. 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like 1. acceptable 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying 6. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent ll. confident 12. considerate 13. cruel 14. democratic 15. dependable l6. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful l9. friendly 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. fashionable helpful intellectual kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 154 HIGH SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST First, in Colunm I, describe how your high school appears to be at this time in terms of eacdi of the 16 characteristics. To do so, decide how much of the time each of the characteristics appears to be adequate in your high school. At the tOp of Column I is a listz