THE" Date This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATION OF THE VARIABLE 0F OPEN MINDEDNESS IN SPECIAL AND REGULAR EDUCATION FEMALE UNDERGRADUATES presented by MARY ELIZABETH SCOTT has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Elementary E. Spec. Ed. \QIVM/éfl (I . yams/p Major professor . 5-10-79 0-7 639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ pER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. AN EXPLORATION OF THE VARIABLE OF OPEN- MINDEDNESS IN SPECIAL AND REGULAR EDUCATION FEMALE UNDERGRADUATES BY Mary Elizabeth Scott A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1979 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATION OF THE VARIABLE OF OPEN- MINDEDNESS IN SPECIAL AND REGULAR EDUCATION FEMALE UNDERGRADUATES BY Mary Elizabeth Scott It was believed by the writer and supported by previous research that knowledge of a student's level of Open-mindedness could be a helpful tool in screening, educating, and evaluating for future professional effectiveness. It was hOped this study might help give a better understanding of how to begin to identify traits of effective teaching which could help produce more effective teachers. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether certain dimensions of open-mindedness could be observed and teacher trainees ranked on these traits while in undergraduate college courses. Initially, two dimensions of open-mindedness were examined: 1) problem-solving ability, a willingness to accept and try new ideas and work to overcome problems, and 2) interpersonal skills, an openness in communications with others. However, on the basis of their similarity, these two dimensions were combined into a single variable labeled open-mindedness. Mary Elizabeth Scott The questions explored in this study may be summarized as: 1) Do Rankings on Open-Mindedness (ROM) correlate with scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) for Special Education students? 2) Do ROM correlate with any of the fifteen mani- fest needs on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) for Special Education students? 3) What is the relationship of the RDS to the EPPS? 4) What is the relationship of Special Education and Regular Education students' scores on the EPPS and the RDS? The subjects in this study were fifty-seven female Special and Regular Education junior and senior level students. They were enrolled in education courses at Michigan State University during winter-summer terms 1978. All the subjects volunteered to take the RDS and EPPS. Twelve of the Special Education group of twenty-nine students were further observed in class and in the field. The information gained was used to help design the ranking instruments on the dimensions of open-mindedness being studied. This study set out to design a ranking measure for open-mindedness. The ranking measures devised were to be used by l) the course instructors and 2) field supervisors. The two ranking measures used by the course instructors were of paragraph design. They required forced choice placements of students into three levels of either high, Mary Elizabeth Scott medium, or low rankings on the two dimensions of open- mindedness explored. The rankings used by the field supervisors assumed a checklist form and required yes and no responses to the same Open-mindedness dimensions being ranked by the paragraph rankings. The two formal instruments used were the RDS and the EPPS. The RDS purports to measure open- or closed- mindedness by having subjects answer how strongly they agree or disagree with forty statements. The EPPS purports to measure fifteen manifest needs, such as the need for Affiliation, Nurturance and Aggression. The Special Education students in this study were divided into three groups, each having a different instructor. All instructors ranked the students in their respective classes. The first group of subjects used for preliminary observations were also ranked by their field supervisors. After these data were gathered, the results were compared to the results on the RDS and the EPPS. The Regular Education students' scores were also correlated with the scores of the Special Education students. The results of all this were analyzed for information pertain- ing to the questions of the study. The findings of the study were: 1) The RDS scores and the ROM were related to a statistically significant degree (P=.OO8) for Special Education students. Persons character- ized as open-minded by their RDS scores tended to be ranked as open-minded, while those with 2) 3) 4) 5) Mary Elizabeth Scott with "closed-minded" RDS scores were not con- sistently ranked as closed-minded. The ROM were significantly negatively related only to need of Aggression as measured by the EPPS (P=.001) for Special Education students. The RDS scores of Special Education students were significantly correlated with three sub- scales of the EPPS: a) need for Autonomy was associated with open-mindedness (P=.048), b) need for Abasement was associated with closed-mindedness (P=.02), and c) need for Aggression was associated with closed-mindedness (P=.02). Special Education students, when compared on the EPPS to Regular Education students, were found to have a stronger need for Affiliation (P=.077) and Intraception (P=.076), while Regular Education students had a significantly higher need for Achievement (P=.042). There were no differences in RDS scores between Regular and Special Education students. DEDICATION To my father, Myron Kingsbury Scott III, who died on August 19, 1978. His encourage- ment, support and gentle kindness will always be appreciated and remembered. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Expression of sincere appreciation is in order for the many peOple who extended much assistance and encourage- ment throughout this endeavor. My guidance committee has been very understanding and helpful during the past three years. Dr. Donald Burke has guided me and enthusiastically offered his assistance not only as the chairman of my committee but also through my undergraduate study at Michigan State University. He has been an important influence in my life. Dr. J. Ed Keller's expertise, kindness and under- standing have been a great help to me throughout these years of study. Dr. Stephen Yelon and Dr. George Sherman offered much appreciated expertise, encouragement and enthusiasm. And Dr. Don Hamachek helped me gain many insights and much perspective about so many areas. I will always appreciate and benefit from all that the peOple on my committee have given me. My family has helped me through all I have ever tried to accomplish. I sincerely appreciate the accept- ance, assistance and encouragement always available to me from them. Without their help I would have found this endeavor much more difficult. Individual thank you's iii are gratefully given to my mother, Edith, and to Mike, Ruth, Gretchen, Chip and Beverly Scott. Also, many peOple at Northern Michigan University helped and encouraged the completion of the dissertation. Special thanks to Dr. James Hendricks, Dr. Lorraine Jakubielski and all my students. iv Chapter 1 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. Need for the Research REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. General Traits of Effective Teachers. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). . Teacher Effectiveness and the Choice of Special or Regular Education. Personality Differences Between Special and Regular Education Teachers. Effective Teacher Training. METHODOLOGY Purposes. Objectives. Relevant Terminology. Research Questions. Study Design. Subjects. . Special Education Students Regular Education Students Selection of Subjects Instruments . . . The ROM Instruments. . Rationale for Rankings . . The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS). Scoring the Dogmatism Scale. . Rationale for Use in This Study. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). . . . . . Testing Procedures . . Analysis of the Data FINDINGS. The Relationship of the ROM and the RDS Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page §0\l 12 13 14 15 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 23 24 24 26 26 34 34 35 36 43 44 44 Chapter Page The Relationship of the RDS Scores to the EPPS Subscale Scores. . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Special and Regular Education Groups on the EPPS Subscales and the RDS. . 51 49 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . 56 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 vi Table 10 11 LIST OF TABLES Special and Regular Education Subject Selection in Regards to N and Term in Which Selected. Open-Mindedness Ranking of Two Traits Separately and Combined for Special Edu- cation Students . . . . . . . . . Sequence of Events, Winter l978-Summer 1978 Summary of Subject Participation in the Different Procedures. Distribution of Special Education Subjects According to RDS Scores Correlations of ROM with EPPS Subscale Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Special Education Subjects According to EPPS Aggression Score and ROM Level . . . . . . . . . Correlation of the RDS Scores with the EPPS Subscales for the Regular and Special Education Groups. . . . . . . . . . Percentile Means, Standard Deviations and t-Tests Comparing Regular and Special Education Groups on Subscales of the EPPS Distribution of Regular and Special Educa- tion Subjects According to Their Percentile Scores on the EPPS Subscales Achievement, Affiliation and Intraception. Percentile Means on RDS of Regular Educa- tion and Special Education Subjects vii Page 26 33 41 42 46 47 48 50 53 54 SS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION From experience as an elementary school teacher, a consultant and a college instructor, the writer had observed that some teachers exhibited an interest in trying new ideas, working hard to overcome problems arising as the result of adapting new ideas and, finally, incorporating the new ideas into their teaching. These traits seemed to be related to open-mindedness. Conversely, some teachers seemed reluctant to try new ideas and quickly abandoned them when problems arose. The old ways were returned to, even if they were ineffective. There were other observable manifestations of what might be considered closed-mindedness. These will be discussed in later chapters. It was felt by the writer that this open-mindedness trait could be an important dimension in the selection, preparation and evaluation of teachers. Special Education teachers were of particular interest for this study because the children they teach pose problems which often cannot be dealt with on the basis of sterotypic thinking or approaches. Such problems as hyperactivity, dyslexia and auditory problems need unique approaches if the child is to learn. 2 This study represents an exploratory attempt to find out whether this open-mindedness dimension is observable and measurable. Need for the Research Open-mindedness has been found to be characteristic of effective teachers (Rogers, 1969). This information might be used to screen prospective teachers and provide training that would enable teachers to become more effective. Along these lines Mouly (1968) wrote: "It is generally agreed that the basic ingre- dients of effectiveness in dealing with children are certain personality characteristics and Specific training along lines that will enable the teacher to make efficacious use of his capacities in directing pupil growth." (p. 15) Teacher effectiveness has been heavily researched for the past seventy years, but the following conslusion summarized the findings: "Research on teacher effectiveness has not added much to our systematic knowledge and it is difficult to see how another seventy can do any more if the same procedures are followed." (Turner and Fattu, 1960) Some of the problems in measurement of teacher effectiveness stem from difficulties in defining traits (Barr, 1961; Getzels and Jackson, 1963). These problems will be discussed in more depth in the related literature section to follow. One reason for the difficulties is that words describing teacher effectiveness, such as cheerful, friendly and sympathetic, are not stated behaviorally and therefore cannot be observed, identified 3 and agreed upon by all peOple. Also, there are just too many traits being researched at one time. So methods of observing and identifying the specific traits behaviorally need to be found, and the number of traits needs to be limited. If this can come about, then perhaps a useful system for defining and describing teacher effectivness can be developed. Screening potential teachers is one possible step toward producing effective teachers. Many colleges, Michigan State included, have begun screening and limiting their incoming enrollments in an effort to identify poten- tially effective teachers. Alternative options for screening need to be explored; these Options include observation, testing, interviews and other teachniques. Mouly (1968) states: "It is a matter of first selecting students of high ability and sound personality orientation who have an interest in children, then of providing for them, through course work and practice." (p. 15) The screening process should identify students who possess traits known to be characteristic of effective teachers, such as Openness, interpersonal skill, problem- solving skill and genuine concern (Hamachek, 1974). Once a student is accepted into a program, these kinds of traits need to be further assessed and strengths and weaknesses evaluated. Screening is just a preliminary step since even the most promising students will have weaknesses. Effectiveness should not be equated with perfection. 4 Using this information, a program could be designed that would adequately prepare each student to be more effective as a teacher (Van Tassel, 1972). Research has indicated that skills necessary for effective teaching, such as open-minded thinking and problem-solving skills, can be identified and improved via courses and active experience (Quashu, 1968; Watson, 1972; Lee, 1967). College-level students preparing for a career in any area of education could probably benefit from such skills as open-minded thinking and problem-solving skills (Hill, 1971; Mohan, 1973). It is known that teachers who exemplify effective thinking in the classroom more often produce students who possess the same thinking skill (Schafer, 1975). By the same token, teachers who lack thinking skills tend to produce students lacking these skills. Therefore, it would seem important that teachers have these skills. Teachers are often taught how to teach their students to think, but seldom are taught to think more effectively themselves (Flanders, 1970; Wallen and Shirts, 1966; Landa, 1976). For example, in one college course on thinking skills, many of the prospective teachers felt it was unfair that they should be judged on how well they could think, instead of what they knew (Richards and Shaver, 1971). It is known that thinking skills are vital if a teacher is to function open-mindedly and effectively. Still, many colleges and educational institutions have 5 done little to deve10p these skills (Richards and Shaver, 1971). At the time of Sputnik, teachers were trained en masse to try to keep up with the demand for numbers. The goal was not so much to produce effective teachers as it was to produce large numbers of teachers. Some of the ineffective selection and training procedures used during the post-war years were still being used in teacher- training programs (Sarason, Davidson and Blatt, 1962). Today, population growth has declined and there is no longer a demand for great numbers of teachers. This is an ideal time for colleges to improve methods of selecting prospective teachers and then to train those students to become effective, open-minded teachers. The need for such effective, open-minded teachers is particularly vital in the various fields of special edu- cation. A child of normal intelligence and development finds learning to be difficult. Children with special needs arising from blindness, emotional problems or low intelligence have an even more difficult time learning. Obviously, special education presents unique problems that must be considered and dealt with by the teacher. And now, with new laws mandating mainstreaming of Special children into regular classrooms, Regular Education teachers are required to deal with these unique problems. Unfortunately, not all teachers work effectively with special education children (Hewett, Quay, Taylor and Watson, 1973). Therefore, it is vital that we identify 6 those traits which might enable the Regular Education teacher to meet the demands mainstreaming present. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE General Traits of Effective Teachers Effective functioning requires both knowledge of facts and openness to feelings (Branden, 1971; May, 1975). Meeting these two requirements enables pe0ple to be open and to solve problems, and as a result they function well (DeBono, 1967; Adams, 1974). This general effective- ness is also part of what helps to make teachers effective, researchers have found. Research into the specific area of teacher effectiveness has led to some general consensus as to which traits tend to be part of the effective teacher. However, for purposes of research, the isola- tion and identification of these traits remains a problem. Effective teachers most often are able to act on new data, see the moment, adapt, and change to meet new situa- tions (Hamacheck, 1974). Good teachers also feel adequate and able to deal with problems (Combs, 1965). And they respect themselves and others (Ryans, 1963). Flexibility seems to be a key word in effective teaching (Hamachek, 1974). The effective teacher is also spontaneous and is not playing a role, but is totally him/her real self (Harris, 1972; Monstakas, 1966; Combs, 1965). 8 Traits of teacher effectiveness have been widely researched. Getzels and Jackson (1963) cited bibliogra- phies containing over 1,000 studies dealing with charac- teristics of effective teachers. They concluded that many of the studies were of little practical use, for most tended to give characteristics in general, non- behavioral terms. The traits are well known, but much research is needed in measuring specific traits, such as open-mindedness. Ryans (1963) stated that the scope of future research should aim in the direction of twenty possibilities. Two of these possibilities were: 1) the exploration of how teacher traits vary and how these traits relate to observable, operationally defined behaviors and 2) investigation of the problems of imple- menting innovations and new ideas into the teachers' repertoire of behavior. Smith (1971) wrote: "There can be little doubt that personality in the attitudinal sense is a factor in teaching behavior. The question is what elements of personality make the difference in such behavior and how these elements can be modi- fied in directions that increase student growth." (p. 8) Past research indicates that observing and identify- ing traits, and then using this information for selection, counseling and designing programs, seems to be a logical goal. The traits of an effective teacher are known, but this information has not been carried back to the college classroom. This is pointed out in research done by Zohorik (1975). When he asked college students how they 9 would ideally teach, they listed traits of the less effective teacher. Zohorik concluded that unless teachers possess a detailed perception of what ideal or effective teaching is, little progress will be made in the improve- ment of the teaching act. Indeed, if research is merely done for the sake of doing it and is not put to practical use, why do it? The Rokeach Dggmatism Scale (RDS) This study selected the specific personality trait of open-mindedness. This trait, if found to be identi- fiable, could be useful to help students become more self-aware of skills needed by them for improvement in teaching. As stated before, one of the traits of an effective teacher appears to be Open-mindedness. Rokeach (1960), using a Dogmatism Scale, identified particular personality characteristics which he.associated with open- and closed-minded persons. These included traits such as resistance to new ideas, anxiousness, tolerance, self- reliance, feelings of self-worth, and others. These traits will be detailed more in Chapter 4. From his studies Rokeach concluded that closed-minded pe0ple had anxious childhoods: they were not allowed to express feelings in their own family and little or no outside influence was allowed. As a result, he felt closed-minded pe0p1e's beliefs were formed to reject ideas and people they perceived as threatening to the 10 only ideas they were allowed to know. This was an attempt to find and keep security in a world full Of insecurity and ever-occurring problems. Although Rokeach found patterns in beliefs to be tending toward Open- or closed-mindedness, he also believed that people could be open in some areas and closed in others. Studies have been done using the RDS. One study found students with a lower dogmatism score, Open-minded persons, showed more trust in human beings, themselves, and the world than those with high scores (Johnson, 1969). This particular study was one on incoming medical students; however, the researcher concluded that educa- tion and all fields might be well advised to consider the open-mindedness Of applicants when determining whether or not to admit them into programs of study. The RDS was used in another study conducted to determine if differences existed in the ability of college students to improve in skills being taught (Bieter, 1970). This study found the Open and flexible students gained significantly more than their Opposites on post-test scores. Closed-minded students were especially low in their ability to recognize assumptions, interpret ideas and evaluate the validity Of arguments. Also, the students who were closed-minded were less effective overall as critical thinkers. Hill (1971) did a study using the RDS and found that before a training program, to aid in the development of adaptive skills, the Open-minded students were better 11 able to adapt in hypothetical situations. After training, though, both groups were able to improve their adapta- bility scores. Hill concluded that the findings were encouraging because the ability of prospective teachers to adapt improved with training, regardless Of whether they were Open- or closed-minded. One study compared the RDS with the level Of moral reasoning according to KOhlberg's theory (McCullough, 1969). It was found that the Open-minded dimension was related to the stages of moral development. Subjects in the Stage 5 level Of moral develOpment had more Open belief systems than those in lower levels Of moral development. Also, those subjects at lower stages in moral develOpment and closed-minded generally showed greater instability and flux in moral reasoning. Open-.and closed-mindedness have been found to play a role in overall student perceptions. It is felt that perhaps Open-minded students are more able to think critically and overall are at a higher and more stable moral stage Of development. Perhaps through screening and Observation Of whether or not a student is Open- Or closed-minded this information can be Of use in designing training programs that can enable students to reach their highest level Of potential. The RDS has been used in the research studies mentioned above and has been found to be a useful index Of student attitudes and skills in these and similar studies. 12 The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) The EPPS has been used in many research studies, some Of which focused on identifying personality traits char- acteristic Of special education subjects. In one study, Van Tassel (1972) used a variety Of self-report instru- ments, including the Gordon Personal Inventory (GPI), Gorden Personal Profile (GPP), EPPS, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) and the Allport—Vernon-Lindsey Study Of Values (AVL) and suggested that information on teacher traits be used not to help select but rather to help teacher education students know how tO be more effective teachers by making them aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and how to improve the weaknesses. Jones and Gottfried (1966) studied students from twelve special education teaching areas and found signifi- cant differences between Deference, Exhibition and Dominance scores. Smith (1968) studied graduate students' scores on the EPPS before and after a one year program in Special Education and found needs on the EPPS remained stable. In a study done in 1961 Garrison and Scott studied the scores on the EPPS of 530 female education majors from five different teaching areas. They found Special Education majors displayed a significantly stronger need for Achievement than elementary physical education or business education students. The Special Education students were lowest Of all areas in the need for Succorrance. 13 Teacher Effectiveness and the Choice Of SpeciaITOr ReguTar Education It is known that some regular education teachers do not work well with Special education children (Hewett, Quay, Taylor, and Watson, 1973), but specific traits Of a teacher who will work well with children having Special needs are not well known. Within the field Of Special education itself, it was found that teachers who were effective in working with emotionally impaired students showed widely varied personality traits. But the teachers who were both effective and remained in the teaching profession for more than a year or two did have different traits (Bruno, 1968). Separate studies on specific traits needed for specialization areas within Special education have also been carried out, but little is known about differences between regular and Special education teachers. There do seem tO be some indications that differences might exist between students who go into Special educa— tion and are effective compared to those who chose regular education. Jones (1966) found research pointing to some reasons why Students decided on Special education as a career choice. They were as follows: 1) Experience - past work with exceptional children led them to decide on the career. 2) Preference - some area Of special education was more attractive than another area. 14 3) Personality ~ most Studies looked at differ- ences within special education and found differing traits in students who chose certain areas, such as the deaf or mentally impaired. 4) Prestige - higher prestige than regular education. Jones found that these were the reasons given for choosing a career in Special education. He also found differences among peOple selecting different areas within special education. However, these and other Studies failed to include a comparison of Special education students and students who chose regular education as a career. As a Starting point, merely trying to identify dif- ferent traits in special and regular education Students would be helpful and useful for guidance. If a person were trying to choose a career and decided on special education because of its prestige value but lacked all other traits known to be needed by an effective special education teacher, it would be helpful to counsel this student in other directions. Ineffectiveness and dissatis- faction with teaching are certainly consequences that no one wants to happen. Research into what motivates people to select a particular career is still in its infancy. Personality Differences Between Special and Regular EducatiOn Teachers Roberts (1962) did a study comparing the differences between special and regular education teachers. He 15 hypothesized there would be differences between the two groups in needs, interests and values. The EPPS, the Thurstone Interest Schedule, and the Allport-Vernon-Lindsey Study of Values were the instruments used. Roberts found Special education teachers differed from regular educa- tion teachers on six of the thirty-one personality variables studied. Another study by Gamison and Scott (1961) was already discussed in an earlier section. These researchers found that Special education majors who took the EPPS had a Significantly higher need for Achievement than did majors from two regular education areas, and the Special educa- tion students were lowest of all areas Studied in the need for Succorrance. These two studies indicate that differences have been found between special and regular education teachers or majors. Effective Teacher Training AS is true of the research on teacher effectiveness traits, there has also been much study done on designing effective courses and programs to help teachers teach better (Usher, 1961). Unfortunately, much of the research that has been done often has not been implemented into active programs. AS a result, most colleges still teach in outdated ways (Resnick, 1972). These programs continue to teach to the masses, overlooking the research on effective teaching and teacher traits. Research indicates 16 it is important that teachers learn to think, yet this knowledge has been neglected in most college programs (Sarason, Davidson and Blatt, 1963). Most textbooks and courses still look at educational psychology as something which has to do with how children learn and not how teachers learn (Sarason, Davidson and Blatt, 1963). AS a result of this, Sarason et a1. conclude: ". . .one of the major reasons so many teachers are dissatisfied with themselves in their work is that their training did not illuminate the nature of their learning process and how this relates to and affects the learning process of their pupils. They teach, but in the process they tend neither to give expression to their own experiences as a learner or to perceive the identity between themselves and their pupils." (p. 118) They further conclude that this leads teachers to function as technicians who apply rules which are contradicted both by their own learning experiences and by their student's lack of learning. They also wrote: ”It is revealing, but not surprising, how many teachers cogently criticize their professional preparation only to manifest these same Shortcomings in their own practice." (p. 118) As is so often the case, one teaches as one was taught. Education needs innovations that will free the system and the students from rigidity and authoritarianism. Torrance (1963) found the drop-out rate in college to be 60%. The primary reasons were that college programs do not expect Students to think and do not allow them to participate. He says education will one day teach more effectively, and as students are encouraged to think, more 17 of them will continue in school. Torrance feels that many students sacrifice their ability to think for the sake of getting along. At the same time, they also sacri- fice their interest in learning and the potential. Due to this "going along", Fritz Perls (1974) said peOple only reach 5-15% of their potential. Educational programs Should help people to be open, to be able to solve problems by becoming "thinking beings.” People need to learn to see alternatives rather than rigidly adhering to theories which keep them from looking at a situation and thinking about it (Chamberline, 1965). This is what education needs to teach, but without teachers who can think this way, it will probably never happen. Some research is being carried on to help college students learn to think and solve problems creatively. The State University at Buffalo, New York, has been carry- ing on vast and extremely complex research which it hOpes other colleges will try to replicate. The university has developed extensive programs to train problem-solving Skills in Students. They have found their programs to be beneficial and well received (Parnes and Noller, 1974). Other universities are individualizing their programs to meet students' needs. Some of these schools include Harvard's School of Education, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and the New School at the University of North Dakota (Resnick, 1972). The Univer- Sith of North Carolina at Charlotte believes that in order 18 for peOpIe in the "Helping Professions" to be effective, they must first learn to know themselves and to become autonomous learners. The University of North Carolina works with individual students to plan and evaluate curricula that focus on individual strengths and weak- nesses. These schools are attempting to develop programs that will produce teachers who are Open and able to think. One study compared two types of college programs. In the first, the undergraduate teacher candidates were in an individualized program and also participated in encounter groups; in the second they participated in a traditional program. The study found that Students in the first group were significantly less rigid in adherence to accepted principles and were more sensitive to their own needs and feelings (Watson, 1972). A study by Quashu (1968) found that teachers who had experienced more field based work tended to be more creative. He also found that open-minded teachers were able to establish better and more effective relationships with children than the closed-minded teachers. He con- cluded that experience and Open-mindedness aided in teach- ing more effectively. Other studies found evidence that programs need to place greater emphasis on the process involved in teacher training activities rather than the content. One study recommended that students be observed and evaluated for growth throughout their programs (Gregorich, 1971). Training in human relations was also found to be important. 19 Such training helped teachers to be more effective in many areas (Lippitt, 1971). Inservices, especially those on processes such as sensitivity and observational Skills, were found to be effective in reducing student absenteeism and in aiding the growth of self-esteem and positive feelings (Lee, 1967). Mini-courses were found to be effective in improving teachers' effectiveness in dealing with problem situations (GalaSSi, Gall, Dunning and Banks, 1975). Research indicates that individualized programs and training in processes rather than just content can help students to develop traits that are characteristic of effective teachers. Also, many ways of teaching this effectiveness may be appropriate: field work, inservice, mini—courses, encounter groups, and others. All these play important roles in insuring teacher effectiveness. McKeachie (1967) found that more and more evidence Shows that different teaching methods work well for different types of students and Situations. A direct implication is that a variety of methods must be used in teaching. Research is also Showing that, in general, discussions are better than lectures and Student-centered discussions are more effective than instructor-centered discussions. At least this is so for attaining such goals as retention, application, problem-solving, attitude change and moti- vation for further learning (McKeachie, 1967). CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purposes On the basis of the writer's experience, it was felt that it Should be possible to categorize teacher trainees, with some degree of reliability, as to their relative degree of open-mindedness. Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to deve10p a procedure for ranking teachers-in-training in regard to open-mindedness. The second major purpose was to determine the rela- tionship between these Rankings of Open-Mindedness (ROM) and the RDS. This second purpose would represent an attempted validation of the ROM. The third major purpose was to explore the extent to which the ROM are related to various personality charac- teristics as measured by the EPPS. Obviously, open- mindedness is a complex variable which represents a confluence of several personality tendencies. Therefore, correlations between ROM and the EPPS could help define Open-mindedness. Although the basic purposes of the study were as have been described above, it was further decided to take advantage of this Opportunity to compare the teacher trainees being studied from Special education with regular 20 21 education teacher trainees. It was hOped some more insight could be gleaned into differences that might exist between those two groups of teachers. Objectives The general intent of this study was to explore the variable of open-mindedness. The study attempted to find out if this trait could be observed and identified at the undergraduate college level via observation in the classroom and in field placements, through standardized tests and informal descriptive instruments. The study also explored whether or not this trait and other per- sonality variables varied in Special education majors as compared to regular education majors. It was not assumed that this trait alone would measure or predict future teaching effectiveness. This study was a first step towards identifying one trait of teacher effectivness in an attempt to help Students improve their potential toward more effective teaching. Relevant Terminology Certain words were used throughout this Study. For the purpose of this study, some of these words have Specific meanings. In order to help facilitate a common reference base, the definitions are as follows: 1) Special Education Major - Students of junior or senior standing who have selected and been accepted into a Special education program of Study; those offered at Michigan State include 2) 3) 22 the Mentally Impaired, Emotionally Impaired, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, or Blind and Visually Imparied. Regular Education Elementary Major - students of junior or senior standing who have chosen and been accepted into a program that will certify them to teach in regular education classrooms. Open-mindedness will be discussed operationally aS the ranking system is develOped later on. Research Questions The following brief descriptions are the questions that were explored and/or compared in an attempt to gain the information needed for this study: 1) Z) 4) 5) What is the correlation of the RDS scores and ROM? What is the relationship of the EPPS scores to the ROM? What is the correlation of the RDS scores and the EPPS scores? What is the relationship of Special Education students' scores on the EPPS and the scores of the Regular Education students? What is the relationship of Special Education student's scores on the RDS and the scores of Regular Education students? 23 Study Design This study was exploratory in nature. From Observa- tions of Special Education teacher trainees in the class- room and theory, two instruments were designed to attempt to measure two components of Open-mindedness. These rankings were ultimately combined into one measure. The ROM were then correlated with the RDS as a form of vali- dation. In addition, Regular Education and Special Educa- tion teacher trainees' results on the RDS and EPPS were compared to identify any differences that might be shown. Subjects The design of this Study required a group of Special Education students and an equal number of Regular Educa- tion students. Students enrolled in Michigan State University education courses during the winter, Spring, and summer terms of 1978 were invited to participate. Special Education Students The Special Education Students in this Study were enrolled in the CORE program during the winter term of 1978. The CORE program consists of courses, seminars and field work (with emphasis on the knowledge common to all areas of Special Education). During the junior or senior year, all Special Educa- tion majors are required to complete the CORE program. Students participate in course work that covers three areas: 1) Learning Disabilities, 2) Measurement and Evaluation, and 3) The Role of Administration. A weekly 24 seminar was also part of the program, and in this seminar students centered in on the areas of l) The Affective or Feeling Domain, 2) Classroom Management, 3) Parents of Special Education Students. And for the field work component, each student received a placement in the area of specialization differing from his/her own major area. For example, a Student majoring in the Mentally Impaired might be placed in a classroom for the Emotionally Impaired. This was intended to help the college student realize that methods, theories and issues can be common to all types of students with some adaptation. Regular Education Students The Regular Education Students in this Study were enrolled in the Elementary Methods Block during spring and summer terms of 1978. All Regular Education elementary majors are required to complete course work in the methods of social studies, science, math, language arts, reading and other areas. The students in this study were enrolled in reading methods sections of the Block. Selection of Subjects The group of Special Education majors enrolled in CORE winter 1979 were divided into three groups for place- ment in the seminar sections. Each seminar had a different instructor. All forty Special Education majors in the CORE program volunteered to participate in the study. Selection criteria included: 25 1) The student be admitted to the upper school and hold junior or senior class standing. 2) The student be a Special Education major. 3) The Student complete all required testing. 4) The student be female. This was found to be necessary because the norms for test analysis differed for males and females. Only six of the total N were male, so with this limited number, it was decided male subjects would not be included in this study. Of the forty volunteers, ultimately twenty-nine students qualified to be subjects. Six of the students did not complete the testing requirement. Two students had special student Status and did not meet criterion one. And the remaining three were male and were ruled out as subjects. The design of the Study required a comparison group of Regular Education majors of approximately the same number. Sixty-five Regular Education majors volunteered from four sections of Reading Methods, each with an average of approximately thirty-five students. The total number of volunteers represents only about half of the total group. This may indicate greater motivation on the part of those who did volunteer. Therefore, it may be anticipated that this sample might be biased and prove to yield results characteristic of a high achievement oriented group of Regular Education students. 26 Criteria for selection required only that the student be a regular elementary education major and not be in special areas of study, such as physical education, Speech, foreign language Study or seeking secondary certification. The first thirty qualified female students to complete the testing were accepted as subjects. The following table (Table 1) details the selection in time and numbers. TABLE 1 Special and Regular Education Subject Selection in Regards to N and Term in Which Selected _-._....____.-._———.-— _._.—_. _._-__— _.__.____.._.___-—_—__._.—_-_-— --— c.-_.—_-—-_ ____-_ ._..__-——_—=._--.-_=l.-.—__==._.—._a—g...‘__-_._-————————_—-—--==—n——=—.—.——.-__ Special Educa- Regular Educa- tion Subjects Seminar N tion Subjects N Winter A 12 Spring 10 1978 1978 B 9 Summer 20 C 8 1978 Instruments The ROM Instruments These ranking instruments were prepared for this study to try to ascertain whether the Open-mindedness trait can be identified and rated. The development of the open- mindedness ranking instruments followed these steps: Step 1: Students from the Special Education subgroup A were observed by the writer in their seminar and out in 27 field placements. This was done to help gain information on what behaviors could be observed in actuality as com- pared to Rokeach's traits derived from his theory on open-mindedness. Some of the behaviors that could be observed in this group of students were as follows: 1) An overall positive reaction to having to do assignments, about field place- ments and subjects covered in seminar. 2) An overall negative reaction toward having to do assignments about field placements and seminar. 3) A willingness to Share ideas, feelings and questions with others. 4) Observed to smile, laugh, and joke often, and saw humor even in their own mistakes. 5) Expressed desire to mull over ideas, feelings and other input, even those previously discussed. 6) Expressed a dislike of examining ideas or feelings in more depth. Often the reaction was, ”I've seen that before so I know it. Can I leave?" 7) Asked for feedback, clarification and input from others. 8) Were willing to try a new method. 9) Felt they had too much to do already, and would not volunteer to try out anything more. 10) Seemed to be uninvolved or to be "somewhere else." 11) Had an ability to change plans and actions in "midstream" if the Situation warranted. 12) Some students carried on with plans they had made in spite of what evolved in the situation at hand. 13) Were willing to examine and explore many plans of action. 14) Had an ability to relate papers, discussions and their teaching to their own past experience. 15) Had an ability 28 to look outside of themselves to notice the needs of others. These were some of the behaviors that were observed in everyday interactions. These traits were observable by the writer over a period of four weeks while working with this group Of students. Step 2: Using the student observations gathered in Step 1, the next step was to compile a list of traits using Rokeach's theory on open-mindedness as a reference. So the observed traits were compared with Rokeach's and a list was made of those that were common to both. The list was as follows: 1) had positive feelings about self, 2) Shared feelings and ideas, 3) listened to others, 4) searched for alternative ways to solve problems, 5) persisted in an effort to solve problems, 6) were happy with solutions reached, 7) would take own initiative to explore and solve problems, and 8) would take notice of needs Of others. Step 3: The students in subgroup A next were classi- fied according to traits into either the Open-minded group or the closed-minded group. Step 4: After this initial clustering of students into categories, a paragraph description was developed to describe the traits of the open-minded person, and a second paragraph description was develOped to describe the opposite traits of the closed-minded person. In order to facilitate understanding, the traits had to be classified into two groups: 1) those which related to problem- 29 solving and 2) traits that demonstrated interpersonal skills. Two instruments were designed to measure problem-solving and interpersonal Skills. Both instruments assumed a paragraph form which gave statements of characteristics of either open- or closed- minded tendencies. Each instrument was divided into three sections: 1) Open-minded, 2) closed-minded, and 3) a middle section for those who fit into neither extreme. The Interpersonal skills form was as follows: PLEASE CONSIDER EACH STUDENT AND PLACE EQUAL NUMBERS IN EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES (1), (2). (3)- From observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this student is a teacher he/She will tend to be perceptive and sensitive in interactions with peOple. Will be aware of people's needs to be accepted, approved and noticed. Will overall have positive feelings about self and other. (1) (2) Mixture of 1 and 3 From Observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this Student is a teacher he/she will tend to not notice others' feelings and needs. Will not be Sharing of own feelings and ideas and will not be ready to listen to the ideas of others. Will have overall nega- tive feelings about self and others. (3) The problem-solving approaches ranking was prepared with the same design and was as follows: PLEASE CONSIDER EACH STUDENT AND PLACE EQUAL NUMBERS IN EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES (1). (2), (3)- 30 From observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this student is a teacher he/she will tend to work hard to solve encountered problems or difficulties. Will be self-directed and when a problem is difficult he/she will persist in defining and seeking solutions for the problem. Will be Open to ideas and will consider suggestions from others. Will explore alternatives. Will set goals and the goals will be reached. (1) (2) Mixture of both 1 and 3 From observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this student is a teacher he/she will tend to show little initiative to solve encountered problems or difficulties. In these Situations will not seek out alternative ways and will fall back on sterotyped or standard answers. Will not be able to act constructively on suggestions from others. Will not set goals and will often not reach any solution. (3) Step 5: After approximately five weeks of instruc- tion (15 contact hours), the two paragraph descriptions described in Step 4 were used by each of the three seminar leaders to categorize the students in their groups. They were to place approximately equal numbers of students into each of the three categories for both traits. A check of agreement in rankings was possible because one of the seminar leaders observed students in her group as well as those in another group. She was asked to rate both groups, and comparisons were made of her rankings and those of the other seminar leader. The two leaders agreed on four of the seven students in the group. Their ratings of the three remaining students never disagreed by more than one level on the three-level scale. 31 Step 6: A checklist rating form was designed to measure, on an individual basis, essentially the same dimensions of open-mindedness as those measured by the paragraph form used for groups. This checklist was to be employed by the field supervisors of subgroup A. The supervisors used the checklist to rate each student in their classrooms and the writer used it to rate all the students. This information was used to check rater agreement. The two checklists were: Interpgrsonal Skills Checklist From observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this student is a teacher he/She (when interacting with others) answer yes or no 1) will notice the needs of individuals, 2) will take notice Of the needs of the group as a whole, 3) will take active steps to help others feel accepted and ok, 4) will share own feelings and ideas, 5) will listen to feelings and ideas of Others, 6) will use information has gained on others to help create a positive climate for growth, 7) will overall have positive feelings about self and others. Overall I feel this Student's skills in interpersonal Skills at this point-right now-are l. —EXCellent 2. Good 3. Adequate 4. Need Improvement 5. Unacceptable Problem-Solving Approaches Checklist From observations and indications I have seen this term, I would predict that when this student iS a teacher he/she will (when encountering or con- fronted by a problem) answer yeS or no 1) will deal with the problem, 2) will deal with a problem until it has a solution, 3) will deal with it-- taking own initiative, 4) will also ask Others about problem, 5) will look for many possible solutions, 6) will have positive feelings about solution, 7) will try something else if first solution was not adequate. Overall I feel this 32 student's skills in problem-solving at this point-right now-are . Exce ent l 2. Good 3. Adequate 4. Need Improvement 5. Unacceptable Step 7: The two measures of both dimensions of open- mindedness were rated as separate traits. After analysis of the data (Table 2) it was found that two measures were apparently measuring a similar dimension, as the majority of Students (72%) were rated the same on both instruments. Therefore, it was decided to combine the two dimensions for analysis purposes. Each student's two rankings were noted and, if the ranking category levels were not the same (3-3, l-l, or 2-2), then the student was assigned the lower ranking of the two. For example, a Student with a ranking of 1 and 2 was assigned a 2 for analysis. Rationale for Rankingg AS stated in the Review of the Literature, much is known about traits of teacher effectiveness but very little of what is known is stated in observable and practical ways. These rankings attempted to break the trait of open-mindedness into small enough descriptions that could be observed. With the information gained from these rankings it would be possible, for example, for a teacher, advisor or other persons to gain insight on the skills a Student does have and to be able to help the Student seek means of improvement. 33 TABLE 2 Open-Mindedness Ranking of Two Traits Separately and Combined for Special Education Students '._d-——_-.-_-—_——_—_—-—-———-—_————-.——_.—_.-__——.-——.-——.-———_—.——_“-—‘_ Group A B c Trait PSa Ib Eifléd psa 1b Eifléd PSa 1b Eifléd Student 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 3 3 3 10 2 1 2 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 aProblem-solving approaches. bInterpersonal Skills. 34 The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) While Milton Rokeach was on the faculty at Michigan State University, he develOped the RDS as a measure of individual differences in openness and closedness of belief systems. The test also indicated how tolerant or intolerant people tend to be. The test was develOped as a more general test of the F (Fascism) Test, which measured authoritarianism. Rokeach found the F Test only measured dogmatism to the right and not to the left. So he develOped the RDS to measure general authoritarian- ism as a pattern of thinking. It has been found to be a useful measure of individual differences in personality structure. The RDS went through five editions in an attempt to make it as reliable as possible. The general reliability has ranged from .70 to .93. It has also had test-retest reliability of .71 after a five to Six month period between testings. The validity of the test has been tested in several studies. At this point, it appears the test is valid for certain groups of people and not for others. For example, when given several tests similar to the RDS and also the RDS, Rokeach found the test to be valid for judges and professions but not for certain religious groups. Scoring the Dogmatism Scale The RDS form E contains forty items. Individuals indicate disagreement with +3, +2, +1 or agreement with 35 -3, -2, -1. To determine an individual's Dogmatism Scale score, a constant of +4 is added to each item score and those scores are then totaled. The Score for each item can range between 1 and 7. The total test scores can range between 40 and 280. A high score identifies a dogmatic or closed-minded person. A low score identifies a non-dogmatic or open-minded person. Rokeach, in study- ing mostly college Students, found the means of the test to range from a low of 141.3 to a high of 143.8, with the standard deviation range being a low of 22.1 to a high of 28.2. Many students in education and other fields have used the RDS as one means of evaluation. Rationale for Use in This Study The RDS was selected for use in this study as the criterion measure against which to validate the ROM. Rokeach felt the scale could distinguish people who were Open-minded from those who were closed-minded. He found particular traits to be associated with open- and closed- mindedness. This study was interested in many of the traits Rokeach found to be associated with his theory. Some of these traits included the following: 36 Open-Minded Not resistant to new ideas Not threatened by new ideas Less anxious Willing to go along with new ideas Liberal Tolerant Democratic Concerned with the present Positive feelings about self Ideas and belief tied together and organized Find creative solutions to problems Able to synthesize new information Able to recall facts Enjoy things overall Learn in all Situations, but learn best when able to think through new ideas Rely on self most Closed-Minded Resistant to new ideas Threatened by new ideas More anxious Unwilling to go along with new ideas Conservative Intolerant Authoritarian Concerned with the future Negative feelings about self Ideas and beliefs isolated and scattered Stick to even unsuccessful solutions to problems Less able to synthesize new information Less able to recall facts Do not enjoy most things Learn more if lectured to and does not have to think about ideas presented Rely on others more The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) Allen L. Edwards designed the EPPS primarily as an instrument for research and counseling purposes. It pro- vides a quick and convenient measure of a number of rela- tively independent normal personality variables. The 15 manifest needs have their origin in the work of H. A. Murray and others. The EPPS is an instrument which yields scores which can be reported back to subjects because they are all normal and socially desirable needs. measured are: The needs 1) achievement, 2) deference, 3) order, 4) exhibition, 5) autonomy, 6) affiliation, 7) intraception, 8) succorrance, 9) dominance, 10) abasement, ll) nurturance, 12) change, 13) endurance, l4) heterosexuality, and 15) aggression. related to the Open-mindedness traits of Rokeach. It was felt some of these needs might be These 37 needs are included in the manual as follows (1959, p. 11): 1. ach Achievement: To do one'S best, to be suc- cessful, to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized authority, to accomplish something of great Significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play. def Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out what others think to follow instructions and do what is expected, to praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to custom and avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions. ord Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip, to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change. exh Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, to tell amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal adventures and experiences, to have others notice and comment upon one'S appearance, to say things just to see what effect it will have on others, to talk about personal achievements, to be the center of attention, to use words that others do not know the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer. aut Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say what one things about things, to be independent of others in making decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in positions of authority to avoid responsibili- ties and obligations. 10. 11. 38 aff Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to make as many friends as possible, to Share things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write letters to friends. int Intraception: To analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act. suc Succorrance: To have others provide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have others do favors cheer- fully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt. dom Dominance: To argue for one's point of view, to be a leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of com- mittees, to make group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs. aba Abasement: To feel guilty when one does something wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects. nur Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble, to assist others less fortunate, to treat Others with kindness and sympathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to be generous with others, to sympa- thize with others who are hurt or sick, to Show a great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in one about personal problems. 39 12. chg Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to meet new peOple, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new and different jobs, to move about the country and live in different places, to participate in new fads and fashions. 13. end Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, to keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved, to work at a Single job before taking on others, to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in long hours of work without dis- traction, to Stick at a problem even though it may seem as if no progress is being made, to avoid being interrupted while at work. 14. het Heterosexuality: To go out with members of the opposite sex, to engage in social activities with the opposite sex, to be in love with someone of the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex, to participate in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving sex, to listen to or to tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually excited. 15. agg Aggression: To attack contrary points of view, to tell others what one thinks about them, to criticize others publicly, to make fun of others, to tell others off when dis- agreeing with them, to get revenge for insults, to become angry, to blame others when things go wrong, to read newspaper accounts of violence. The EPPS is easy and convenient to administer and may be either hand scored or scored by machine. The relia- bility coefficients were found to be in the range of .70-.87. The validity of the test was tested by two means: 1) Students self-ranked themselves on the 15 needs and then were given the EPPS. This method found either nearly perfect validity or none at all. 2) Student scores on the EPPS were compared to the same Student's scores on 40 tests Similar to the EPPS. The two tests used to check the validity of the EPPS were the Guilford Martin Personnel Inventory and Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. Thirteen needs on the EPPS were found to correlate significantly at the .05 level with items on these two tests. The EPPS has been used in many research studies. Most of these studies have attempted to use the EPPS as a screening device and as a predictor of success in dif- ferent fields of study (Stevens, 1970; Van Tassel, 1972; Peterson, 1971). One review of studies that used the EPPS concluded that the EPPS might provide one means of differentiating between good and poor prospects in the field of Special Education (Van Tassel, 1972). Testing Procedures All of the Students in this Study were informed that this study was attempting to find ways to observe and identify traits of teacher effectiveness at the under- graduate level. This was being done in order to find strengths and weaknesses that might eventually be used to help provide more individualized and productive programs of study for each Student. They were also told that a comparison was being made of the scores of Special and regular education majors to find if the two groups had differing traits that could be identified. The Students who agreed to participate were then asked to Sign a consent form which assured them that the test results would remain confidential and would be used 41 only for the purposes of this study (see Appendix A). They were invited to return to review their test profiles with a psychologist. All students from both groups were administered the RDS and the EPPS. The Special Education students took the tests in their seminar class during winter 1978. The Regular Education students signed up to take the tests on an individual basis in the CORE office under the super- vision of the secretary. The testing time for both tests was approximately one hour. The following tables summarize the time sequence of the procedure detailed above and which students partici- pated in which procedures (Tables 3 and 4). TABLE 3 Sequence of Events, Winter 1978-Summer 1978 .—-.___ W”—_—-————-‘—“‘_fl-—-“—d——‘———-—“-__—’fl——-W _._--—._.___.—_—-.—.—_-._.—_—n.—_-— ——.--—____.———o— --—-_————_-—7-.—_.—.——.-——.—.._—-_-_——‘-_._-.— Winter 1978 Special Education students selected as subjects for study. Special Education students divided into subgroups A, B, C. Subgroup A observed in class and field. All Special Education Students take the Rokeach and Edwards Schedule. Predictors thus clustered made of subgroup A on open- mindedness and problem-solving. Paragraph instrument designed. Paragraph instrument administered by seminar leaders. Checklist instrument designed. Checklist instrument filled in by subgroup A field supervisors. Spripngummer 1978 Regular Education students selected as subjects for study. Regular Education students take Rokeach and EPPS. 42 .< asoumnsm cowumusem Hmwoomm :o mHOmw>uomzm wflowm >2 wow: mm: mow>oe umflaxoogo may .mucowsum newumozwm Hmwomam mo museum mossy Ham mums on whouosuumafl onu kn pom: mphzmmoe mawxcmh mmocwmecwe-:oao on» cmfimov aHm: on com: mm: newumEHomcfl cowum>pomno mace .mp:mEoomHQ wfimwm swung :fl use EooummmHo ecu :H eo>homno ouoz mucowzum :Owumozem Hmflomam < mochmnsm .mumou eonwepmecmum 03p ecu xOOH muomnnsm :ofiumosem Hmwuomm paw :owumosmm umfismom Ham umgu wave: on Hafiz pH x :OMumuncm hmfismom x x u x x m x x x x x < msocwnsm :Owumuswm Hmwoomm mHOmfi>pOmsm mpOOOSAOmcH wHOflm Eooummmfiu mpmmb muOOnnsm eHoue so men: as :H eaNHeuaeeaum kn OOOOHQEOU mmcmxcmm wo>pomno wo>pomno 039 xooe umflfixooau megawOOOHQ pcosowmwm ecu :fl newummfiOwuhmm v mqm