THE ADJECTWE CHECK US? A3 AN END!CATOR
OF TEACHERS” SflREEG‘FYPES OF S‘WDENTS

A Dissertation far Hm Dogma of Ed. D.
MECHIGAN STATE UNWRSiTY
Bruce fiamas Kramer
i965

 

mm «g!umywymuuwmww”111mm

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
THE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST AS AN INDICATOR

OF TEACHERS' SL'EREOI'YPES
OF STUDENTS

presented by

Bruce James Kremer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

1 ___Ed.D._degree in Counseling, Pr'rsonnel
i Services and Educational Psychology

We

Date May 13: 1955

0-169

—‘ ‘- -"-.L1A

LIBRARY L?

l

‘ Michigan State

University
1...!”

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
THE ADJEUTIVE CHECK LIdT as A3 IKDICATUR
OE TEACHERS' STEBBDTYPES
0F STU ‘WTS
by druce James Kramer

This study investigated the nature and content of stereotypes
held by junior high school teachers regarding four types of
students: good, poor, female and male. more specifically, the
research investigated the degree to which the stereotypes of female
and male students were alike or different, and the degree to which
they correSpond to the stereotypes deveIOped to describe 300d and
poor students.

Basic theoretical assumptions were drawn from the works of
Gordon, and Krech and Lrutchfield. In essence, these theorists
hold that one's beliefs are the crucial factor which relate his
perceptions of the world to his actions and behavior. It was
therefore assumed that the beliefs teachers hold regarding their
students would be worthy of study and might prove to be an important
step in the attanpt to locate the Cause of the differential
assignment of warns to boys and to ;irls. Past research had shown
that boys consistently receive poorer marks than girls even though
there is no reason evident for this difference in marks.

a sample of 105 junior high school teachers was obtained from
the papulation of some 200 Junior high school teachers in the city
of Livonia, hichigan, for this investigation. The sample was shown
to be representative of the pepulation from which it was drawn with
regard to several demographic variables. A total usable return of

80 per cent was obtained.

Bruce James Kramer

The adjective Check List, by H. G. Gough, was employed as the
research instrument and a total of 336 ASL protocols were produced,
four each from each of the 84 teachers in the final sample. These
data were analysed with the help of the IBM 1410 Computer using an
item analysis program. observed trends in the data were further
analyzed by use of the fisher Enact Probability Test.

The major findings of the research investigation, based on the
analysis of the data, are as follows;

I. Stereotypes were established in each of the four cate;ories:
good students, poor students, female students and male students.

2. who stereotypes established were shown to differ accordhx;
to the sex of the respondent with female and male teachers selecting
somewnat different terminology to describe female and male st‘dents.

5. No signifiCant correspondence was found to exist between
the good or the poor student stereotypes and the stereotypes
develOped to describe female and male students. HoweVer, additional
analysis revealed a significant trend in the hypothesized direction .
This trend indicated a tendency towerd greater correspondeice
between good and female than between good and male adjectives and a
tendency toward greater correspOM‘ence between poor and sale than
between poor and female adjectives. It appeared that the character-
istics of good students were seen as being more like those of
females than those of males although the stereotypes of pood and

female and of poor and male do not significantl; correspond.

Bruce Jumes Kramer
from the results of this sttdy, it W45 cenoluded that no stpport
had been found for the belief tnnt te :chers are l.re‘judicet‘. uJuinst
boys. Speculation concerning the cuuse of the results revolv;d

around limitations inherent fi.st in the reseurch design and secafd

in the dUL, the dnta gathering instrument used in the study.

THE aDJBUTIVB CHEUh LIST AS AN INDICATOR
0F TEACHERS‘ STEREOTYPES

OF STUDENTS

By

Bruce James Kramer

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR 0F LLUCATION

Department of Guidance and Personnel Services

College of Education

1965

depyright by
Bruce James hremer

1966

III... .'.I I. l. !l[.[l[lnilll.["{[lllcoll[[[[u[ {IIIIEEII

 

“ChNONLBDGLhENTS

Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to the chairman of the
student's committee, Dr. Buford Stefflre, and to the other
committee members: Dr. Jalter Johnson, Dr. William hell, and Jr.
Lee dhulman.

an acknowledgement of thanks is extended to the administration
of the Livonia Public Schools, Livonia, Michigan, for permission
granted to conduct this study and to those Livonia teachers who
gave of their time and energy to complete the orperimental task.

A statement of sincere appreciation is given to the staff of
the JOmputer Center, University of Detroit, for the assistance
provided regarding the data proaramming, processing and statistical
analysis of this research investigation.

a special acnnowledgement is made to my wife whose understandhzg

and encouragerent have been most appreciated.

Finally, an expression of gratitude and appreciation is
extended to the faculty of the Department of Guidance and tersonnel
Services at hichigan State University for each Opportunity and
courtesy extended to the student during this period of academic

pursuit.

ii

TaBLE OF CONTENTS

no.3" {JLLDSEZuEN TS

GHAPTEA

I.

II.

III.

IV.

Tm; racism, him}. any scorn

Statement of the Problem

The Problem of This Study

The Importance of the Problem
Limitations and Scape of the Study
Definitions of Terms

The Plan of the Thesis

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

Literature on Marks and Marking Practices
Review of Related Research
Summary of Review of Literature

THEORETICAL.aSSUMPTIONS 4ND RESEARCH DESIGN

The Theory

Basic Theoretical Assumptions

Research.uuesticns

Design or the Research Instrument

ApprOpriateness of the Research Instrument

MethodOIOgy and krocedures

Selection and Procurement of the Sample
Treatment of the Data and Techniques of
analysis

summary of Theoretical assumptions and
Research Design

xRESENTaTION, ANALYSIS, aND DISCUSSION OF
RESULTS

Treatment and analysis of the Data Partaining
to Research.auestion I

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research cuestion II

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research Question 111

Treatment and analysis or the Data Pertaining
to Research question IV

.Discussion of nesults

Summary of Presentation, analysis and
Discussion of Results

111

ii

OtD-sltkblbl

11
22
28

31
33
34
34
34
39
4O

45

50
59

61
67

77

v. suntan, r'hDILiGS, gonomsmxs AND
immanmons son mama: .‘msnnnsa

Summary of the research Investigation
Findings
Conclusions
Implications for rurther Research
APPLNDIA
I
II

LITERATURE CITED

iv

79
81
83
85

87

89

93

.‘.C}".NO'.‘leiDG LLJSN TS

Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to the chairman of the
student's committee, Dr. Buford Stefflre, and to the other
committee members: Dr. .lalter Johnson, Dr. William hell, and Dr.
Lee dhulman.

an acknowledgement of thanks is extended to the administration
of the Livonia Eublic Schools, Livonia, Michigan, for permission
granted to conduct this study and to those Livonia teachers who
gave of their time and energy to complete the experimental task.

a statement of sincere appreciation is given to the staff of
the Jomputer Center, University of Detroit, for the assistance
provided regarding the data programming, processing and statistical
analysis of this research investigation.

a special acnnowledgement is made to my wife whose understandhzg

and encouragement have been most appreciated.

Finally, an expression of gratitude and appreciation is
extended to the faculty of the Department of Guidance and «tersonnel
Services at finichigan State University for each Opportunity and
courtesy extended to the student during this period of academic

pursuit.

11

Tn. BLE CI“ CON TEN T3

no; .30 Minna an TS

L ST or

damn

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TRBLES

’i‘ih‘ 930mm, rations any scorn

Statement of the Problem

The Problem of This Study

The Importance of the Problem
Limitations and Soaps of the Study
Definitions of Terms

The Plan of the Thesis

REVIEJ OF THE LITERnTURE AND RELaTED RESEARCH

Literature on Marks and Marking Practices
Review of Related Research
Summary of Review of Literature

THEORETICRL.nSSUMPTIONS 4ND RESEARCH DESIGN

The Theory

Basic Theoretical Assumptions

Research uuestions

Design of the Research Instrument

ApprOpriateness of the Research Instrument

MethodolOgy and lrocedures

Selection and Procurement of the Sample
Treatment of the Data and Techniques of
analysis

Summary of Theoretical assumptions and
Research Design

xRESENTaTION, ANAEXSIS, AND DISCUSSION OF
RESULTS

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research Question I

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research suestion II

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research Question III

Treatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining
to Research Question IV

‘Discussion of Results

Sumary of Presentation, analysis and
Discussion of Results

111

ii

O‘DQPUU

11
22
28

31
33
34
34
34
39
4O

43

50
59

61
67

77

v. someday, r‘IniJ‘IIQGS, JONSLU‘SIOZS AM

thLICnTIONS FOR TU-

Summary of the hesearch Investigation

Findings
Conclus i one

iTHEI’. LIES BnRCH

Implications for rurther Research

APPLND Li

I

II

LITERaTURE CITED

1?

79
81
83
85

87

89

93

TaBLE

TIIBLE

Trish;

TaBLE

TRBLE

T431533

TaBLE

TABLE

Tu BLE

T413 .143

I.

II.

‘ III.

IV.

V.

VI.

‘ VII.

VIII.

£51 I 0

LIST CE TABLES

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
"good" 3 tuden ts .

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
"poor" students.

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
female students.

per cent
describe

50
to

List of adjectives selected by
or more of tne sample subjects
male students.

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the female teachers in the
sample to describe female students.

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the female teachers in the
sample to describe male students.

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the male teachers in the

sample to describe female students.

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the male teachers in the
sample to describe male students.

List of adjectives selected by both male and
female teachers to describe female students,
showing affective tone of the adjective and

per cent of selection for each sex.

List of adjectives selected by both male and
female teachers to describe male students,
showing affective tone of the adjective and
per cent of selection by each sex.

Good student adjectives compared with female
and male student adjectives showing significance
of difference in selection.

Poor student adjectives compared with female
and male student adjectives showing significance
of difference in selectiOn.

47

48

48

49

51

52

52

56

57

60

62

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TaBLE

TAflLLE

TaBLE

TABLE

Tu BE

1.

II.

‘ III.

IV.

V.

VI.

‘ VII.

VIII.

A.

1' 1L1 I 0

LIST vi TABLES

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
"good" 3 tuden ts .

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
"poor" students.

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50
or more of the sample subjects to
female students.

per cent
describe

50
to

List of adjectives selected by
or more of the sample subjects
male students.

per cent
describe

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the female teachers in the
sample to describe female students.

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the female teachers in the
sample to describe male students.
List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the male teachers in the
sample to describe female students.
List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent
or more of the male teachers in the
sample to describe male students.

List of adjectives selected by both male and
female teachers to describe female students,
showing affective tone of the adjective and

per cent of selection for each sex.

List of adjectives selected by both male and
female teachers to describe male students,
showing affective tone of the adjective and
per cent of selection by each sex.

Good student adjectives compared with female
and male student adjectives showing significance
of difference in selection.

roor student adjectives compared with female
and male student adjectives showing significance
of difference in selection.

47

48

48

49

51

52

52

56

57

6O

62

TABLE A111. eontinaency table to determine the
significance of the observed trends of
correspondence between good and female
adjectives and between poor and male
adjectives. 63

TABLE AIV. adjectives selected more often to describe
female and male students showing the affective
tone of each. 64

TABLE AV. remale student adjectives showing the per cent
of sample subjects also selecting the given
adjective as descriptive of good and poor
students. 66

TAdLL AVI. hale student adjectives showing the per cent
of sample subjects also selecting the given
adjective as descriptive of good and poor
students. 66

TABLB.XVII. Contingency table to determine the siqniflcance

of correspondence between female ani good
adjectives and between male and poor adjectives. 67

vi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM: NATURE AND SCOPE

Evaluation is an integral part of our everyday activities. The
merchant periodically inventories his stock to see whether he
has realized a profit or loss on his transactions, in order

to evaluate the merits of his present merchandising practices.
The golfer carefully tabulates the strokes needed to play
eighteen holes of golf, then checks the results against the
listed par or perhaps his total of last daturday, and on this
basis he appraisee his game. The surgeon examines his patient
for postoperative deve10pments so that he may better assess
the success of the operation he performed and, hence, the
‘well-being of his patient.

Evaluation is also an integral part of education. It has been
defined as the process in which a teacher uses information derived
from many sources in order to arrive at s value judgment.

nuring the past several years, there has been an increasing
national effort to encourage the greatest possible deve10pment
of human talent. seosuse of this pressure, a number of the
practices of the schools of the nation have come under closer
scrutiny with one of these being school marking practices. Parents
and students alike have become increasingly concerned over marks,
in part, because of the implications they have for admission to
college.

Concern over marking practices, however, is not new among

 

l . .
J. Stanley Ahmann, and Marvin D. Glock, Evaluating iupil
Growth, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1959, p l.

2
educators. doughly as early as 1911 studies began to appear which
demonstrated widespread discrepancies in standards of marking and
research has continued to appear on this subject each year since
then.

Among the findings of the body of research on marking
practices over the years is the demonstrated fact that boys receive
poorer marks than girls. It is this fact that the present study
takes as its chief concern.

A great deal of research attention has been devoted to the
establishment of this fact of differential marking of boys and
girls, however; to date, no studies have been conducted to gain
insight into the cause of this fact. Speculation about the cause
is abundant, as for example: "Some studies have shown.a greater
incidence of failure among boys than among girls. It is probable
that differences in personality and classroom behavior also have
a marked effect on promotion, even if the nonpromotion has been
Justified as lack of achievement."1

from the large number of studies conducted to date, it seems
obvious that educators are concerned about this problem. It
seems equally obvious that an attempt can be made to locate the
possible cause of this difference in the assignment of marks to

3 tuden t. s

 

11:1de .11. Smith, Stanley .4. Krcuse, Jr., and Llark n.

Atkinson, Th9 Educator's hnoyclgpedia, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, new Jersey, 1961, p 439.

 

.IIIJIIII ,III‘IIIJ-llt It'll-[[11 [ll [III-I
Ii.

Statement of the Problgm

The very nature of the occupation of the teacher demands
that he constantly evaluate the work and the performance of his
pupils. Such evaluation eventually results in the assigmnent
of marks to the pupil. It is this mark which is intended to
let the student and his parents know how well he has achieved
the goals of the course involved.

In theory, at least, all teachers should treat each student
equally, assigning marks according to how well each has achieved
the goals of the course. If teachers tend to treat the sexes
differently, assigning better marks to one and poorer marks to
the other, then an unwarranted injustice will be committed against
at least some of the students. clearly, then, it is important
for teachers to assign marks on the basis of standards or goals
set up for the course involved and not on some sort of dual
marking standard, different for girls than boys which is related
more to personalityor classroom behavior than to the attainment
of the goals of the course.

The Problem of this Study

It is a demonstrated fact that one's beliefs influence his
behavior, and, because this is true, it is possible that teachers
hold different beliefs regarding girls and. boys as students.

Since this study is intended to attempt to locate a possible cause
for the difference in the assignment of marks to boys and to girls,
it was decided to investigate the beliefs that teachers hold

regarding them. it is assumed that if it should be found that

4
teacher held beliefs about good students are similar to the beliefs
they hold about female students and that teacher held beliefs about
poor students are similar to the beliefs they hold about male students,
that an important step would have been taken toward lOCating the
possible cause of this difference.

This investigation, therefore, examined teacher held beliefs
or stereotypes and examined specifically the stereotypes of
students held by junior high school teachers regarding "good"
students, "poor" students, female students, and male students.

More specifically, this research investigated the degree
to which teacher held stereotypes of female and male students
were alike or different, and the degree to which the stereotypes
of female and male students correSpond to those of "good” and
"poor" students.

The research also investigated whether there were any
differences between male and female teachers in their beliefs
about students.

The Importance of the froqggn

Professional educators are often fond of reminding each
other that no two pupils are exactly alike and that provisions
must be made to satisfy these individual differences. hducators
have devoted considerable effort to the planning and execution
of procedures to meet the Special needs of the gifted, the slow
learner, the retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the physically
handicapped and all of the others who have recently been grouped

together and called "exceptional”.

5

These same educators are constantly considering and recon-
sidering proposals to take into account differences in pupil's
abilities, interests, emotional maturity, vocational goals, and
a number of other variables. but, by and large, educators have
tended to overlook the one difference which underlies all of the
rest--that of the pupil's sex, according to kolesnik.

Time and again we have been advised that education is the
deve10pment of the whole man. Almost always, however, the term
mag.is used in its generic or philosOphic sense, and educators
seem to have lost sight of the biological and psychological
differences between the two species. In this preoccupation with
the education of man, we seem to have forgotten that the purpose
of education is to develop men--and women. The very use of the
words pupils and students, instead of Egy§_and irls, indicates
that educators are inclined te disregard such sex-related
differences as their interests, values, guals, temperaments,
problems, aspirations and needs.

Public schools tend to ignore sexprelated differences
seemingly almost as a matter of policy. Except for physical
education and a few special classes such as shop and home
economics, they act as if boys and girls are very much alike,
and attempt to educate them accordingly. Boys and girls are
given the same educational experiences in the same way from
kindergarten through the graduate school,.Kolosnik states.

It seems probable that most school administrators would

accept the idea that one of the basic deve10pmenta1 tasks of

6

life is that of learning an appropriate sex role. these same
administrators, however, seem unwilling or unable to accept or
to perceive that there are two different roles to be learned
and that they have to be learned in different ways.1

on the surface, this disregard for sex-differences also
extends to the practice of assigning marks to students. The
same process is used for boys as for girls, the same kinds of
marks are assigned, no differentiation between the sexes is
made.

Teachers agree that one of their most uncherished respon—
sibilities is giving and reporting marks. Some teachers lack
confidence in the marks they assign; others believe their marks
are fair but find them difficult to defend. The reason behind
these negative attitudes is that the basis for assigning marks
is often unclear.2

Teachers would, it seems, be willing to agree that there
are many differences between boys and girls and that they perceive
these differences on a conscious level. It is also possible that
these same teachers may perceive still other differences between
boys and girls but at a level below that of conscious awareness,

and that these "subconscious" perceptions or beliefs about

 

1
Walter Kolesnik, "Sex uifferences and Education," America,
vol. 108, April 20, 1963, pp 552-555.

a
“ma-1111 and 61.“, .p. Cite, PO 531.

7
students may have an effect on the overt behavior of the teachers.
Teachers must assign marks to boys and girls as if there were no
basic differences between them, but it is at the same time quite
possible that the beliefs both conscious and subconscious,
constituting a stereotype that the teacher holds of these students
may enter into the practice of assigning’marks in such a way as
to skew the results in favor of girls.

With the current emphasis being placed on marks, it is
believed to be of real importance to attempt to locate the
causitive factors which may account for the difference in the
assignment of marks to boys and to girls. The subject of the
assignment of marks to students by their teachers is deemed
to be important and worthy of study because it is a critical
teacher activity, one about which all teachers are concerned.

The study of stereotypes and the effect they have on overt
behavior of the holder is a broad and complex area of study.
it is hoped that one outcome of this research will be to draw
attention to the degree to which teacher hold stereotypes of
students may effect teacher behavior.
gimitgtiong,and:§cope of the Stggy_

The following limitations are acknowledged as inherent in
this research, and the scope of its findings is restricted
accordingly.

1. The population of Junior high school teachers was limited

to these teachers employed during the 1963-64 school year in the

8
Livonia, nichigan, Public Schools. She population consisted of all
junior high.school teachers, some 200 in number, while the sample
used in the research consisted of 105 of these teachers who agreed
to complete the eXperimental task. The sample represents an
adequate cross-section of the total pepulation and evidence to this
effect is presented in UhaPter III in the section on the selection
and procurement of the sample, however, a larger sample of wider
geographic distribution would have allowed for greater breadth of
application and generalization of the research results.

2. A review of the research literature in the area of
stereotype research revealed that a commonly used technique was
that of an adjective check list. It was therefore decided to use
such a standardized list and The adjective Check List by Harrison G.
Gough was selected. One of the disadvantages of any adjective list
is that it restricts the choice of the subject's responses. He is
provided with only a certain number of adjectives and this might
seriously affect the completeness and accuracy with which he can
describe his own particular concepts. furthermore, it can be said
that the presentation of any particular sample of adjectives may
act as a suggestion, the subject choosing from among the list some
distinguishing traits that he would not have thought of Spontan-
eously.

against these criticisms, however, it may be argued that The
Adjective Check List is purely objective, easily scorable and
relatively immune to the influence of personal and subjective

interpretations on the part of the experimenter.

9

3. Ihe time required for subjects to complete the entire
eXperimental task was without question a limiting factor and tended
to reduce the number of volunteers.
hefinitiong_of Terms

ngd Students. Those students to whom the teachers involved
in the sample would assign ”A" or "B" marks on the five letter
marking standard of A, B, G, D, and h‘. (failing).

Poor Students. Those students to whom the teachers involved
in the sample would assign "D" or “3" marks on the five letter
marking standard of a, B, 0, i), and Is (failirgi.

female students. Junior high school age girls, in general.

halo Students. Junior high school age boys, in general.

dtgrgotypg. a stable and lasting cognitive pattern, internally
consistent and logical in the sense that it is constructed from s.
set of perceived "facts". These beliefs present important social
problems because they may differ so widely from reality and thus
may lead to behavior harmful to society.

Statement of.Research hypotheses

The research hypotheses of this investigation are as follows:

 

 

Hypothesis 1. When confronted with the experimental task,
selecting words from the adjective check list to describe students,
the teachers in the sample will be unable to agree sufficiently in
their selection of adjectives to establish stereotypes.

Hypothesis 11. If stereotypes are established, they will not

differ according to the sex of the respondent, with male and female

teachers selecting different adjectives.

10

hypothesis 111. If stereotypes are established, there will be
no greater correspondence between the stereotype for good students
and that for female students than there is between the stereotype
for male students and that for good students.

Hypothesis iv. If stereotypes are established, there will be
no greater correspondence between the stereotype for poor students
and that for male students than there is between the stereotype for
poor students and that for female students.

The Flag of the Thggig

Chapter 1 has introduced the nature and scope of the problem,
a statement of the problem, the problem of this study and its
importance, limitations of the study, a definition of terms, and
the research hypotheses.

fhe plan of the thesis follows:

Chapter 11. Review of the literature and related research.

chapter 111. Theoretical assumptions, research questions,

the research instrument, methodology and
procedures, selection and procurement of the
sample, treatment of the data and techniques of
analysis.

Chapter iv. Presentation, analysis, and discussion of results.

Chapter V. Summary, findings, conclusions and implications

for further research.

GHAPTEB 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED dESEARCH

Concern over methods of evaluation of pupil progress could be
thought of as extending as far back he history as there has been
such a thing as a teacher-pupil relationship. Concern as evidenced
by educational research, however, is much more recent beginning
only with the dawn of the twentieth century.

in this chapter, the voluminous amount of literature that
refers to the broad area of marks and marking practices will be
first briefly reviewed. more attention and space will be devoted
to that research which is germane to this investigation, and lastly,
the literature related to stereotype research will be briefly
reviewed including those studies which seemed to have bearing in
terms of research design for the present study.
interature on marks and Marking Practicg;

due of the first educators to research the problems involved
in the assignment of marks to students was franklin W. Johnson.1
In 1911 he published a work in which he demonstrated a diversity
of marking standards within a school.

Later, and as a result of the research done to 1915, harold

D. hugg in an article "Teachers’ Marks and Marking Systems",

 

lr‘ranklin «. Johnson, "A Study of high School Grades", School

Review, vol. 19, (1911) pp. 13-24.

11

12
was led to generalize thit individual teachers set their own
standards with the result of variability, unreliability, and incon-

1 he also

sistency in the distribution of marks to students.
commented that teachers intend to use actual achievement in school
subjects as the basis of their marks but that many other factors
enter into their evaluations. Rugg also reported that teachers
seemed to favor the adoption of some sort of standard marking
system in the schools since there was at that time no consistent
marking practice from school to school.

at about the same time that fiugg suggested that teachers
desired a standard practice, Jaggsrd demonstrated that when
teachers agreed upon general principles which should govern their
marking, the marks of these teachers tended to form distributions
much more similar than those for marks given without such a common
standard.2

The value of setting up common standards to govern marking
was further emphasized in 1910 when the College Entrance Examination
board, which had been organized ten years earlier, set up a
committee on axamination Rating to establish standards and to train

readers to follow those standards.3

 

1
Harold 0. Bugg, "Tbachers' Marks and Marking Systems",
Educational administration and 5 ervision, vol 1, (1915) pp 117-142.

2
Guy H. Jaggsrd, "Improving the narking Systems", Educational
administration and dupgrvision, vol. 5, (1919) pp 25-35.

3
clouds M. Fuses, college Board: Its First Fifty Years,
columbis University, 1950.

13

The other major event of the early 1900's which was to have an
effect on marks and marking systems was Jorld War I and the wide-
spread use of the army Alpha and Army Beta Tests.1 The use of
these tests emphasized the idea of measurable differences in
capacity to learn and tended to destroy the former notion that any
child could learn as well as any other if only he tried hard enough.
amphasis was also placed on the need to individualize instruction.

3y 1953, Billett was able to report that the old "percentage"
system of marking had been replaced by the use of letters in 805 of
the schools he studied.2

John 5. Herron in an article "How Teacners date Their rupils",
reported on studies which demonstrated that many teachers consciously
consider effort, attitude and other factors when assigning marks and
that some other teachers are unconsciously affected by similar
factors.°

A number of other studies, too numerous to review in this
chapter, were conducted during the 1920's and 1930's and continued
to add evidence of the unreliability and variability of marks.

dosoarch attention was next directed toward methods for more

clearly defining the marking base and a number of rating scales,

 

1ahmann and Glock, op. cit., pp 18-19.

2 . -

Roy U. Billett, irovisions for Individual uifferences,
aarkinggand fromotion, L. 3. Office of Lducation Bulletin, No. 1?,
1932.

3

John 5. Herron, "How Teachers date Their Pupils", hepartment

of slementary school lrinciples Bulletin, No. 8, 1929, pp 255-239.

14

check lists, and the like were developed. It was at this point
that Thorndike and oregman proposed the use of the normal distri-
bution curve as a result of their study of intelligence at the ninth.
grade level.1

Jith the increased use of standardized intelligence tests,
more attention was given to the individualization of instruction
and to grouping of students according to ability. ‘Although
teacher Opinion during the 1930's seemed to favor the use of
achievement alone as the basis of marks with other behaviors being
rated separately, Crooks concluded, as Rugg had done earlier, that
many other factors seemed to enter in.2

Near the end of the 1930's, Heck identified the principal
difficulties involved in the improvement of marking as the
multiplicity of factors in the situation, the subjective nature
of evaluative methods, and the variability of teacher's standards.3

Since 1940, research in the area of'marks and marking
practices has turned away from concern with mechanical aspects and

toward concern with the purposes of marking and their relation

to learning. Efforts have been directed toward increasing the

 

1

QB. L. Thorndike and E. 0. Bregman, "0n the Form of the
Distribution of Intellect in the Ninth.Grade", Journal of nducstional
Research, 701 10, (1924) pp 2717278.

2
A. Buryeo Crooks, "Marks and Marking Systems: A Digest",
Journal of Educationa1.Researoh, vol. 27, (1933) pp 259-272.

qArch 0. Beck, "Contributions of Research to the Classification,
Promotion, Marking and Certification of Pupils," in The Science
Movement in Educatigg, 37th'Yesrbook, Part II, N.N.S.E., (19387_'
pp 187-199.

15
areas of student deve10pment being marked, a greater Specificity
in what is being marked and a broader involvement of all of those

concerned with marks. .Ln excellent example of this change in

emphasis is found in William L. Wrinkle's book.1

at present, according to Smith, hrouse and Atkinson, there
are two opposite schools of thought regarding marking.2 They write

as follows:

"Some educators believe that pupils should be graded or ranked
in comparison with other pupils; other educators believe that
pupils should be graded according to their own individual
achievement, without regard for the accomplishments of others.
Between these two opposite viewpoints, there are variations
that sometimes reflect both theories.

when pupils are awarded a grade based on a comparison with other
pupils within a class or grade, it is assumed that a certain
standard for all the pupils has been established. Those who
proceed beyond the standard receive above-average marks, and those
who do not reach the standard receive belowaaverage marks.
Normally, those who meet the minimum standard receive average
marks.

Jhen pupils are graded on the basis of their own achievement,
the mark is an indication of the individual pupil's progress,
without regard for a standard set up for a class or grade.
The pupil who progresses in a manner that indicates he is
proceeding at his maximum capacity would receive an above-
average mark. The pupil who is progressing in a manner
below that of which he is capable would receive below-average
marks. The pupil proceeding in a normal manner within the
confines of his capacity would receive an average mark."

Now, in theory, at least, any teacher ought to treat each

student equally, assigning marks to each on the basis of how well

 

l
dilliam L. wrinkle, improving Marképg and Reporting_:ractices
in llementary_and secondary Schools. ninehart, 1947, 120p.

aSmith, hreuse, and Atkinson, 0p. cit., pp 429-430.

16
that particular student has attained the goals of the course involved.
sunning through the vast number of studies in the field of marks and
marking practices since the early 1900's, however, are a disturbing
number which indicate that such is not the case.

U. B. Garner in 1935 was the first researcher to become
especially concerned with the problem of the differential assignment
of marks to boys and girls.1 He attempted to compare marks
assigned by men and women teachers. His data were obtained by
investigating 5,153 marks assigned to boys and 5,132 marks assigned
to girls with no attempt made to differentiate school subjects.
he concluded that both men and women teachers give high marks to
girls rather than to boys, that women especially assign low marks
to boys. His study concluded that there is a need for refining
marks to make them more meaningful.

dwenson investigated the membership of the National Honor
Society at Lindsborg, kansae, High school for the years 1932 to
1941.2 In his investhgation he found that even though boys out-
numbered girls in class attendance for the ten-year period, girls
out-numbered boys in the Honor Society by 2.75 to 1. He did not
find substantial differences in the intelligence of boys and girls,
but decided that membership was gained by inequalities in teachere'

marks. He concluded that teachers were prejudiced against boys.

 

10. Bu Garner, ”Survey of Teachers' Marks", School and

Community, vol. 21, (1935) pp 116-117.

2
Clifford Swanson, "Pack the Honor Scoeity", Clearing
House, vol. 16, (1942) pp 521-5 4.

17
Three writers, Day, Douglas and Shinnerer, in three separate
studies, for the years 1937, 1938 and 1944, concluded that boys had
more failures at the secondary—school level, and girls had a consisteit

and generally substantial advantage over boys in obtaining honor

1, 2,3

ranks. 1n the light of these investigations, however, it

seems probable that marks are determined by factors other than
achievement, especially marks assigned by women teachers, and that
these influences result in slight overrating of girls generally and
the particular underrating of boys by women teachers.

Newton, in a study in 1942, reported that women gave higher

grades than did men teachers in central High school, Indianapolis,

4

Indiana. no inspected the grades on two hundred forty-six

permanent record cards which had been assigned by twelve women
toachers and twenty-six.men teachers. The total number of grades
inspected was 4,255. He made no effort to account for the differ-
ences, nor did be state whether the differences were significant.

Edmiston added more evidence of sex differences in marks

5

assigned by teachers. In the situation which he studied, the

1L. 6. Day, "Boys and Girls and Honor Hanks”, School Bevigg,

v01. 46, (1938) pp 288-299.
2
H. 3. Douglas, "Relation of High School Marks to Sex in Four
hinnesota Senior High schools", School_§eviow, vol 45, (1937)
5m. C. Schinneror, "Failure Ratio: Ewe Boys to one Girl”,
Clearing Houag, vol. 15, (1944) pp 264-270.

4
. F. newton, "Do;Mc reache I figade Higher Than figmgn
Teachers7", School apd soc ety, vo . u , 1942) p 72.

5R. «I. Edmiston, "Do Teachers Show Partiality Toward Boys
or Girls7", roabogy Journal of Lducation, vol. 20, (1943) pp 234-238.

18
average grade fer girls was 84.4 and fer beys, 80.0. He further
peinted eat that wemen teachers gave the girls grades that
averaged 5.4 peints abeve these given to beya, while men teachers
were less partial te the girls, giving them an average ef enly
3.4 peints abeve these given te the beys.

Lebeugh, investigating the relatienship ef achievement and
marks assigned by teachers, feund that girls had a grade peint
average ef 2.19 while the beys had a grade peint average ef enly
1.97.1 Jhen he eempared the sceres made en the Myers-Ruch High
Scheel Eregress Test, the beys' median scere was 46 while the
median scere fer girls was 36. This ten-point differential was
characteristic ef all achievement tests administered during the
peried frem 1940 te 1945. burther, in 1940, the valedicterian,

a girl, ceuld de ne batter than rank number 36 en the achievement
test, while it was necessary te ge dewn te number 105 te find the
salutaterian. In 1941, the valedicterian ranked number 19 in
achievement en the test while the salutatsrian ranked number 41.

On the 1940 test, the hey whe ranked number 1 in achievement failed
te graduate and had te return te scheel fer the fifth.year in erder
te de se. The results in 1940 shewed that the tep feurteen scares
were made by beys. In 1941 and 1942 the results indicated that
enly three girls eeuld be feund ameng the tep fifteen seeres.

Lebeugh acceunted fer the difference between aehievement and marks

 

Dean Lebeugh, "Girls, Grades and 10's", Natiens Scheels,
.vel. 30, (1942) p 42.

 

19
en the basis ef evidence that girls were mere meticuleus, more
punctual, and heater abeut their werk. He alse recognized greater
maturity ameng the girls and a tendency fer the beys to compensate
fer their immaturi ty .

In 1952, Rebert Carter did a study designed to demcnstrate
whether er net teachers tend te faver one sex and whether the sex
favered tends te be determined by the sex ef the teacher.1
Specifically, the study sought an answer te the preblem: With
intelligence held censtant, what is the relationship between the
sex ef the student and the sex ef the teacher in the assignment ef
marks in beginning algebra? The study was based en 235 pupils in nhie
classes in a city in western rennsylvania. Garter feund ne
significant differences among the varieus greups with respect te
either intelligence er algebra achievement. when teachers' marks
in beginning algebra were investigated, hewever, significant
differences were found. Girls made significantly higher marks than
did the beys and.wnmen teachers tended te give higher marks than
did the men teachers. specifically, when marks were assigned, boys
were given lewer marks than were the girls, regardless of whether
the teacher was a man er a weman; but, marks assigned by men
teachers were lewer than marks assigned by wemen teachers. Garter
alse partialled eut intelligence and feund that when this was dene,

thereby helding the effects of intelligence censtant, the relatiem-

ship between teachers' mark. and achievement declined greatly.

 

l_
nebert J. Carter, "Hew Invalid are marks Assigned hy Teacheref",
Jeurnal ef Educatienal Lsychelegy, vel 43, (1952) pp 218-228.

20
Garter cencluded that this indicated that teachers' marks net only
reflected achievement but alse intelligence and that since the
relatienship was far frem perfect, seme ether fasters entered inte
the assignment cf marks by teachers in beginning algebra.

Nerthby in 1956 studied "Sex Differences in High Schcel
Schclarship in ccnnccticut" and feund that the tep ten per cent of
the class was cempesed cf 71.8 per cent girls and 28.2 per cent
beys; while the bettcm ten per cent cf the class was cempesed cf
35.8 per cent girls and 64.2 per cent bcys.1

Bcwman, alse in 1956, studied "Pupil Marking Iractices in

Les angelcs City Senier high Schcels."2

He ccmpared end-ef-semester
marks with intelligence and achievement sceres earned by 10th grade
pupils. The data were ebtained frem seven of the thirty-three
scheels in the district selected se as tc be representative cf the
tetal range. amcng the many findings cf this large study sf
impertance te the present research was the fact that girls were
feund te cut-rank beys even thcugh there was he reascn evident in
measures cf intelligence er amcunt learned why the girls shculd
receive higher marks than beyi. It was alse neted that girls

tended te receive mere n's and B's than did the beys while the

beys tended tc receive mere u's and E's than did the girls.

 

l
arwecd 3. Nerthby, "Sex Differences in High Scheel dchelar-
ship, a Study ef Gennecticut High Schcels in 1956", Sdheel and

Sgcigty, vel 70, (1956)

2
Hewsrd A. Bcwman, "Pupil Marking Practices in Les Angeles
city denier High Schecls", Bulletin Ne. 3, the Gunnittee tn
Research, Les Angeles Seheels, July, 1956.

21
it was cencluded that ether factors believed to be beyond the scepe
cf the study were probably responsible for these differences in
marks.

Hansen in 1959 wrcte en the question ”Dc Boys Get a Square seal
in Schcel?" and reported having compared three bielegy teachers'
marks with standard test scores.1 He fcund that the teachers gave
29 per cent cf the boys A and B marks while the standard test
placed 48 per cent of the boys in that mark category. Teachers
gave 9 per cent cf the bcys F's (failure) while the standard test
weuld only have assigned 4 per cent F's te bays. For girls, he
feund that teachers gave 38 per cent of them A er B marks while the
standard test weuld have given only 19 per cent cf the girls A's
er B's. Teachers assigned ne failing marks te girls whatseever
(0 per cent) while the standard test weuld have assigned 4 per cent
of the girls failing marks. Hansen said that the ccnclusiens were
clear. The advantage of girls ever the beys was clear and
"ssteunding". In ne instance, net even in their own "bailiwick",
mathematics, de beys receive better marks than girls, he wrcte.

In 1963, Naetjen, speaking befcre the ASCD, reported en twc
studies.2 In ene, it was found that when the grades ef three
thousand pupils were examined ever a twe-year period, only 31

per cent cf all the beys made "A" er "B" marks while 43 per cent

 

1E. H. Hansen, "Be Boys Get 8 Square Jeal in School?",
Educatien, vel. 79, (1959) pp 597-598.

a
Jalter B. JaetJen, "Sex Relec", Schelastic Teacher, vol. 6,
he 10, April 3, 1963, pp 3-T, 4—T.

 

22
of the girls made ”A's" or "B's". In contrast, 26 per cent of the
boys made a "u” or "E" while only 15 per cent of the girls made
similar grades. in the other study, the relationship oetween a
pupil's IQ and his report card marns was examined in a school
system which had adopted an individualized method of reporting
pupil progress. children were assigned "U“ (unsatisfactory) or
"S" (satisfactory). Regardless of the intelligence quotient
categories, 41 per cent of all the boys received "U's" and 24 per
cent of all of the girls received "U's". dsetJen proposed that
the major cause of this imbalence of marks is that boys and girls
learn differently and that "Dehools function as unsexed institutions
in a society that expects some differentiation aecerding to sex."
Review of Relgted Research

The remainder of this chapter is devoted ts a review of
stereotype research.

The term ”stereotype" was coined originally in 1798 by s
trenchman named Jidet. Indet, together with a German named herman,
announced te the world thct year a new discovery in printing which
they named "stereotype".

It was not until 1929, however, that the term was first intro-
duced into the language of psychology. in that year, Ldppmann
described the stereotype as "an ordered, more or less consistent
picture of the world to which.our habits, our capacities, our

comforts and our hopes have adjusted thanselves . . . ; it is a

form of perception which imposes a certain character on the data

23

of cur senses before the data reach intelligence."1

The concept of stereotype refers to the tendency for a given
belief to be widespread in society, according to Krech and
Urutchfield. They write: "People are almost never perceived as
isolated individuals. do perceive them as being members of this or
that aggregate, as Baptists or catholics, as Republicans or
democrats, as Egyptians or Englishmen. and when we see a person
as a member of a group, the personality we perceive is influenced
by what we believe about his group. In other words, cur perception
of a person is not enly determined by the person's own traits, but
by the larger context within which we perceive him . . . These
perceptual principles help us to understand why our judgments of
people are so frequently couched in stereotyped terms, and unjust."2

Early studies often involved the description of derogatory
images which man neld of his fellow man. The usual procedure used
in the study of stereotypes, according to Charters, has been to
elicit from a group of subjects descriptive phrases or adjectives

which they associate with the subject under study.3

 

#Besemary Gerdon, Stereotypy of Imagery and Belief as an
Ego Dgfense, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,

1962, Po 5o

gDavid Krech, and Richard S. Grutchfield, Elements of
Psychology, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1962, pp 668-669.

3

J. N. Charters, Jr., "The Social Bacnground of Teaching",
in 2pc Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand thally and Co.,
chicago, illinois, 1965, pp 715-814.

24

Krech and Crutchfield indicate that stereotypes "are stable,
enduring cognitive organizations, internally consistent and logical
in the sense that they are constructed from a set of perceived
"facts" . . . . These beliefs present specially important social
problems because they do differ so widely from the realities of the
situation and thus may eventuate in behavior inimical to the rest
of society."1

A number of stereotype studies have been conducted over the
years with regard to the beliefs students and others held about
teachers. in one such study conducted by Kenneth thill, students
were presented with ten photographs of approximately equal size
mounted on a large cardboard.2 Half were of men and half of
women. Unly three of the ten pictures were of teachers and these
were women. Two of these were selected because they were believed
to conform to the ”schoolteacher stereotype"--they looked like
teachers to the people conducting the exPeriment. The pictures were
presented to a group of students who were asked to identify them
as to occupation and to give reasons for each identification.

It was found that the teachers who were believed to conform to
the stereotype were identified as teachers more frequently than
would be expected by chance. The reasons given most frequently

for identification as teachers involved combinations of stern,

 

1David Lrech and Richard S. Grutchfield, Theorygand Lreblems

of Social Esychclogy, acGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,

2
Lenneth thill, ”The dchoolteacher Stereotype", Journal of
Educational Sociology, vol. 9, 1931, pp 642-651.

 

25
dignified, firm, reserved, determined, set, and stony facial
eXpressions.

In a study by Katz and Braly, 100 Princeton students were
asned to give five traits that they considered most characteristic
of each of the following ten groups: Germans, Italians, Negroes,
Irish, English, Jews, Americans, Chinese, Japanese, and Turks.1

The traits were to be selected from a list of 84 adjectives.
The results of the study were presented in the form of a series of
lists indicating the percentage of students assigning each
particular trait to one of the ten groups. For example, 84 per
cent of the students rated Negroes "superstitious", 75 per cent
rated them "lazy" and etc.

The Katz and Braly study was later repeated by Schoenfeld
at Columbia.2 Schoenfeld also conducted an interesting eXperiment
designed to demonstrate that at least one form of stereotype does
not require the often mentioned "kernal of truth" which many
authors believe to be an essential part of any stereotype. He
used male and female students from the college of the City of
New'York.and Hunter College and presented these students with a
list of eight common male first names and eight conmon female first

names. Together with each list of names, a list of eight human traits

 

1D. hats and K. Braly, "Racial Stereotypes of one Hundred
College Students", Journal of nbgprmal and Social rsycholggy,
vol 28, (1933) pp 280-290.

‘Nathan Jchoenfeld, "An Experimental Study of Some Lroblems
Relating to Stereotypes", Archives of rsycholggy, ho. 270,
1942, p 55o

26

was also presented. The instructions directed each subject to link
one trait in the list which he felt belonged to each name. The
results were treated as an 8 x 8 contingency table. rrom a
statistical analysis of the data using the chi-equare procedure,

it was clear that there was little probability that the deviations
of the obtained distributions from the theoretical chance dist—
ributions could have occurred by chance. He concluded that in
personal name stereotypy, there is at least one example of social
stereotyping net based on the so-called "kernal of truth".

In still another eXperiment relating to stereotypes of
nationalities, cordon employed an adjective test which consisted
of a list of adjectives from which the subjects had to select
those which appeared to them particularly appropriate for a
description of the character of certain nations.1 She selected
the adjectives test because it seemed to her to be a well estab-
lished method for assessing the type and nature of the concepts
adopted. oats were obtained from two different groups of subjects
and the differences between these groups were then assessed
statistically. as is the usual case in eXperiments of this type,
Gordon decided that where 50 per cent or more of the subjects
from a group had marked an adjective as appropriate to describe
a given nationality, this was regarded as a sufficiently high
percentage to infer agreement on that particular point. Although

no significant differences were found between the groups with

 

1cordon, op. cit., pp e7-71.

. .n..-

.4.-

III-1.?

27
regard to the number of adjectives selected to describe the four
national groups, further evidence was obtained to support the
previously held belief that the nearer the subject is to the group
being rated, that is, the more the subject knows about the object,
the more comprehensive is the concept formed sbeut it.

dough states that one of the special research uses to which an
adjective cheek list may be put is a study of social stereotypes.l
Persons may be asked, he writes, to fill in a check list for any
defined individual, or class. Ze reports a study conducted in
California in which graduate school faculty members rated graduate
students for their “research originality". The research instru-
ment used in the study was Gough's The ndjeetive Check List.
.Researehors first gathered data from faculty members by having them
check the adjective list as if they were describing an "ideally
original graduate student" and in that way they established the
stereotype.

Next, actual graduate students were located who were assessed
to have highest and lowest departmental ratings on research origin—
ality and staff adjective reports on these students were obtained
and systematically analyzed to discover if deseriptiens of real
students differed from the stereotype commonly held by the same
staff members. Results of the study indicated that the stereotypic

cluster of adjectives exemplified by "enthusiastic", "spontaneous",

 

 

_

1Harrison G. Geugh, "Th°.sdjective cheek List as a Personality

assessment Research Technique", Psychologieal Reports, vol. 6,
(1960) pp 107-122.

28

and ”versatile", was altogether lacking in the empirical list. and,
on the other hand, the empirical cluster of ”fair—minded”,
"rational", and "reliable" was overlooked in the stereotype.

o‘till more recently, Mchimon did a study to test the hypothesis
that creativeness with which a person performs in his professional
role is a function of his image of himself.1 To test his hypothesis,
he studied three groups of architects and used the Gough Adjective
Cheek List as the research instrument. He found that the architect
who is creative thinks of himself as creative, imaginative,
asthetieally sensitive, spontaneous, and self-accepting. The
uncreative architect, it was found, sees himself as being most
importantly conscientious, responsible and sincere.
Summary of Review of Literature

a review of the literature on marks and marning practices in
general was first presented, but since this research is only
indirectly related to the present study, that review was brief.
hext, a thorough review of the literature pertaining directly to
the subject of the differential assignment of marks to boys and
girls was presented. It seems clear from this review that boys do,
in fact, receive poorer marks than girls even though objective
measures may indicate that they have equal or greater potential
for learning and have in fact learned as much or more than their

female counterparts in school.

 

1Donald J. Machinnon, "Creativity and Images of the Self",
in The study of Lives, edited by Robert W. Jhite, dtherton Iross,
New York, 1963, pp 250-278.

29

It also seems feasible to conclude from this review of the
literature that the research done to date has yielded little more
than speculation with regard to the cause of this difference in
marking practice. It was seen that some of the authors attributed the
cause to ”out-and-eut prejudice" en the part of teachers in favor
of female students. Jome authors offered no guesses whatsoever
as to the possible cause, while still others stated that the cause
lies in what was called a series of "other factors".

The research revealed that both male and female teachers
assign higher marks to girls and when these two groups were com-
parod against each other, it was found that male teachers are only
slightly "less biased" against male students than are the female
teachers. again, it was found that subject matter was not a factor
of importance with regard to the differential assignment of marks.
it was pointed out that even in the area of mathematics where boys
are ”supposed" to be traditionally "better" than girls, the girls
received higher marks.

Lastly, and because it had been decided that the present
investigation should be a piece of stereotype research, a very brief
review of some of the past stereotype research was presented. It
was noted that following the introduction of the term "stereotype"
into the language of psychology in 1929, many studies were
completed which sought to reveal what man thought of his fellow man.

The usual method of stereotype research was sought out to serve
as a guide for the present study. It was learned that the typical

method involved the elicitation from subjects of descriptive phrases

30

or adjectives which they associate with the subject under study.
Traits selected in this way have been found not to be easily
amenable to statistical analysis and have been freeuently presented
simply in list form together with the per cent of subjects
selecting each trait.

In general, the authors agree that at least a "kernel of truth"
lies at the base of each stereotype held, although one experiment
cited revealed that it is possible for people to hold a stereo-
type which has no basis in truth whatsoever. Use of an adjective
list has become a well established method for the study of stereo-
types and the general rule has been that when 50 per cent or more
of the subjects selected any given adjective as apprOpriate to
describe any given category, this was regarded as sufficiently high
to infer agreement on that particular point.

It was also found that the comprehensiveness of the concept
formed through the use of an adjective list is affected by the
degree of familiarity the subjects have with the object under
study. The more familiar the subjects are with the object, the
more complete is the concept formed.

It would seem that research intended to locate the cause of
this differential assignment of marks to students is worthwhile
since it appears that students currently may be the victims of
marking practices WniCh are based on factors not related to the

purpose of the course in which they are being marked.

JHaPQER III
THEUAETIGAL ASSUMPTIONS AND KBSSAJJH JESIGN

The first section of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of
the theory and basic theoretical assumptions of the research inves—
tigation. The research questions are stated and are followed by a
description of the research instrument used in this study.

This section concludes with a description of the research design,
selection and procurement of the sample, treatment of the data and
techniques of analysis.

The Theory

The prefix "stereo" was taken from the Greek and means "solid,
hard, or firm". A stereotype, in psychological terms, then, is a
hardened or stable and lasting pattern of beliefs.

Belief may be defined as an attitude of assent that any partic-
ular proposition which the mind entertains is true, in other words
that there is a correspondence between an idea and reality, the degree

or assent remaining unspecified so that the term could cover both
knowledge and belief. it is these cognitive patterns or beliefs
which serve as the pivot which relates the incoming impressiOns and
their subsequent organization to the outgoing reactions of the
organism. soliofs can therefore be regarded as the focal point in

the stimulus-response pattern.

It should be made clear at this point that this attitude of
assent to the idea that there is a correspondence between an idea
and something in the real world does not imply the actual existence

of such a correspondence. This belief is a purely psychological

51

32

phenomenon and has no relation to the question of what is true or
false, real or unreal.

yefined in this way, belief is seen as an active mental
process determining the relationship between the thinner and his
thoughts. In this way also, belief can be seen to represent the
psychological equivalent of all of those relationships to reality
which have been called "knowledge", "faith", "opinion", "prejudice",
and the like. It is one's beliefs, above all else, which fill his
mental constructs with action since, in the majority of cases,
belief and action are closely associated.1

This mental phenomenon called a belief is produced by multiple
and complex factors; the most important of which are the objective
factors in the real world which lay the basis for the cantent of
the belief, while the subjective factors, Operating through the
mechanisms of attention and memory, select out and distort the
data of the external world.

beliefs are soon, then, as the pivot or major point which
relate perceptions and ideas to actions and behavior. It is beliefs
which fonm the bridge between thought and action.

Beliefs have been shown to tend to preserve themselves
relatively unchanged. a number of experiments have been conducted
which demonstrated that people remember better those items which are
in accord with their beliefs than those which contradict them.
aemory is seen, therefore, as a selective process. ierception, too,

is selective and because beliefs play a role in determining the

 

1
Gordon, op. cit., p 49.

33

nature of this selectivity, new data physiCslly available to an
individual but contradictory Le his beliefs may not even be per-
ceived. Not only are beliefs self-preservative, but they are also
self-reinforcing. an "anti-male student" belief, for example, which
holds that male students are "mischievous", tends to reinforce
itself in the individual helding such a belief since that individual
will perceive only the "misshieveusness" of male students, thus
previding ever fresh data thit all male students are mischievous.1

it remains at this point only te restate that a stereotype is
a ferm ef belief and that therefore all ef the foregoing applies
equally te the term stereetype as te the term belief.
Basic Theoretical assumptions

The basic theoretical assumptions of this research design are
as follewsz

1. Teachers pessess beliefs about students.

2. These teacher held beliefs, er stereotypes, abeut students
may be instrumental in producing behavioral actions teward students,
for example in the assignment of marks.

3. Te the extent that teacher held stereotypes ef male and
female students differ, it can be exPected that differences in
teacher behavier teward these groups ef students will result,
again, fer example, in the assignment ef.marks.

4. It is possible to determine what the teacher held beliefs
about students are and alse to determine whether there are

differences between the beliefs held regarding male and female

 

l
hrech and Grutchfield, Theory and Problems, 0p. cit., p 194.

.94
students.

5. The differences between teacher held beliefs regarding male
and female students, if any, may be described and analyzed.
hesearch Questions

The research questions of this investigation are stated here.
They are as follows:

guestign I. When confronted with the eXperimental task,
selecting words from the adjective check list to describe male and
female students separately as well as good and poor students, are
the teachers in the sample able to agree sufficiently in their
selection of adjectives to establish stereotypes?

guestion 11. if stereotypes are established, do they differ
according to the sex of the respondent, with.male and female teachers
selecting different adjectives?

Question III. If stereotypes are established, is there a greater

correspondence between the stereotype for good students and that for
female students than there is between the stereotype for good
students and that for male students?

Question IV. If stereotypes are established, is there a greater
correspondence between the stereotype for poor students and that for
male students than there is between the stereotype for poor students
and for female students?

Design of__t_h:e .‘;esarchinsMent

For purposes of this investigation, it was decided to use The

adjective Jheck List (AOL) , by harrison G. Gough of California,

as the research instrument. In writing about this instrument,

55

Anastasi lists it as a "self-concept" test.l She reports that the
subject is presented with a list of 300 common adjectives arranged
alphabetically from "absent minded" to ”zany", and is instructed to
check all those he would consider to be self-descriptive. Jhen
used as a measure of self-concept, the subject's responses are
analyzed on the assumption that any systematic tendencies observed
in the analysis would reveal important aspects of self-perception,
whether or not the descriptions could be accepted as objectively
true. She also notes that the “CL is suitable for obtaining ratings
of the subjects by other persons.

in writing about his own instrument, dough contends that the
«UL is the most useful descriptive system available.2 He continues
in this article to review the history of word lists which proceeded
the development of his own nCL and indicates that one of the earliest
attempts to use the adjective check list technique was by
Harthsherne and hay in 1930. Their list was used to obtain
reputation scores for students by having their teachers complete the
checking of 160 words consisting of 80 pairs of antenyms. Their
words were all related to four types of conduct, honesty, service,
persistence, and inhibition.

Gough lists the study by Allport and Odbort in 1936 dB the
second important step in the development of the adjective check

list technique. Lllport and Odbort made a survey of the English

 

l
nnne Anastasi, isychological Testing, The Macmillan Jompany,
New York, 1959, p 656.

Harrison 3. dough, op. cit., p 107-122.

36

language for all trait names end other words referring to perSJnul
behavior. Their list contained some 17,955 words, many uf which
were synonyms.

The next major development, according to Gough, wss the work
of Jattell who undertook to reduce the list of sllport and Odbort
to manageable size. dattell developed a list of 171 words which
he believed to comprise a Kind of "basic English" for the complete
description of personality.

Geugh reports that the immediate background to the development
of his «CL is found in the work of Bordin, Hawthaway and neehl in
1945 and that of Hathaway snd.Meehl in 1951 who used adjective
check list methods to study descriptions given by friends and
scqusintences of persons attaining high and low scores on tie
clinical scales of the Kinnesota hultiphasic rersonality Inventory.

dough, in the development of his 40L, turned to the language
of everyday life to compile a list of words to be used as an
instrument for recording impressions and obserVutions. The words
themselves, he contends, since they have been taken from everyday
life usage, are immediately meaningful. He also assures the reader
that the range and scope of any description obtained will be adequate
because his word list was made "long enough" to guarantee range and
scope.

The goal of the “CL has been to provide a "library of
descriptive terms", according to dough, covering the widest
possible range of behavior, self-conceptions, and personal values.

The list is organized in such a way that it can be completed by the

37

subject himself or by an observer who records his reactions to the
subject.

adjectives themselves are the natural language of description,
and are responded to easily and with approval by most persons.
Furthermore, the use of a chocxing technique, as opposed to
u-sorting, graphic rating, etc., simplifies their use. Some
analytical and statistical precision is lost in this way, but
the gain in providing the respondent with a method of reporting
his reactions much as he would in ordinary discourse, or in an
interview, seems to justiry the check list procedure.

0ne might say that, as a general principle in ratings, it would
appear sound to use techniques which minimize the concern of the
rater with the means and paraphernalia,of rating, and which
allow hhm to concentrate maximally on the descriptive and
evaluative task. .d trained respondent, such as a psychologist,
can usually adapt to almost any procedure of response recording,
but for an instrument to have wide applicability, and validity,
response mechanics should be de-emphasizod.

Parenthetisally, other response forms such as a-sorts,

descriptive ratings, etc., have been tried with adjective check

lists in the assessment programs at the Institute of Personality

assessment and Research. No superioritios sufficient to out-

woigh the virtues of the simple check list method have yet

been discovered.1

Later in the same article, dough reports that the relbability
of adjective check list reports tends to be somewhat lower than that
obtained by the use of other psychological instruments. He states
that the reliability of observer's reports has been estimated from
the phi coefficients of pairs of judges and that the typical inter-
obsorvor phi coefficient obtained has been about .60. He also
states that the estimated reliability of s composite list for 10 or

more observers would be higher than .60.

One of the reliability problems in the use of the adjective
check list technique is occasioned by stylistic variations in

 

1dough, op. cit., p 109.

38
response. Inst is, subjects tend to employ different descrip-
tive elements in arriving at similar descriptive outcomes.
neliability, in the sense of logical coherence and depend-
ability of the estimates made, would appear to be adequate,

but this fact will tend to be concealed by conventional
methods of calculating reliability from units of test behavior.

1

Gough reports that the lCL has already been used in well over
500 studies as a research instrument. The fact that the adjective
check list procedure has become a well established technique in the
study of stereotypes, together with the relative ease of administ-
ration of the check list, led to the decision to use the “CL as the
research instrument of this investigation.
appropriateness of the research instrument.

The adL was selected as the research instrument not only because
it is a well established research tool and not only because of ease
of administration, but also and most importantly because it appeared
to be an appropriate instrument to use.

The primary task facing the investigator was to determine what
beliefs or stereotypes teachers hold regarding students-~good and
poor, female and male. as was shown earlier, the best established
technique for the assessment of stereotypes is the adjective check
list technique. ‘Altheugh other adjective check lists are available
for use, Geugh's.ACL has a number of advantages over the others.

It is longer than most and can therefore be expected to yield a more
complete description. The language used in the AOL is non-technical

and is therefore easily understood. Because the device is easy to

 

l
Gough, op. cit., p 121.

understand, no special training is needed by subjects before using
it and instructions for its use may be kept simple and short.
-sstly, the sch hai become a well established research tool used for
the purpose of determining what one person thinks about anether, or
what groups of peeple thlnA about ether greups of people.

flhe most central thesreticsl assumption of this study holds
that beliefs influence behavior. more Specifically, it is assumed
that differences is marks assigned te beys and te girls, marking
constituting a form ef teacher behavier, may be traceable te differ-
ences in teacher held beliefs er stereotypes regarding the twe sexes.
It has been peinted eut that even though they may be objectively
false, ene's beliefs celer his relationships threugh the mechsnisms
ef selective perceptien and memery and thereby net only influence his
behavior but also tend to preserve and te reinforce existing
patterns.

The Gengh.AUL'was designed and constructed especially to assess
Just such beliefs as these, and it is fer this primary reason thht
it was selected as the data-gathering instrument to be used in this
study.

hethodelogy and Erecedures

 

a detailed discussion of the methodology and procedures used in
any research investigatien is mandatory to allow evidence ef scund-
ness in appresch and design and te allew for replication of the
study.

This chapter therefere includes material with regard te the

selection und procurement of the sample, the treatment of the data

40
and the techniques of analysis.
selection and irocurement of the Sample

The pepulation selected for the research study of secondary
school teachers.

The sample drawn from this poyulstion was restricted to the
geographic area of Livonia, Lichigsn, a city of about 75,000
pepulation suburban to the city of uetroit, Lichigan. The selection
of this location for the study was based on two factors;

1. The number of secondary schools located in the city of
Livonia was large enough to provide An adequate sample of secondary
school teachers.

2. The city of Livenia was the area in which the investigator
was then located.

The tetal population for this study was restricted to some 200
junior high scheol teachers employed by the Livenia, Michigan, rublic
Soheels during the 1963-64 scheol year. The tetal sample censisted
ef 105 ef these 200 teachers who cempleted the experimental task.

Of this 105, some 21 had te be eliminated frem the final sample for
a variety of reasons. demo were eliminated because of the failure
of the teacher to complete the task in its entirety, while a few
stated that they found it impossible to carry out the experimental
task. fine such teacher stated, "I cannot generalize preperly due to
my scruples about treating kids as individuals."

The final sample, then, consisted of 84 junior hi;h school
teachers and of this number 49 were male and d5 were female teachers.

The fact that more hale than female teachers are included in the

41

sample is a direct reflection of the fact that there were nuny more
male than female teachers on the faculties of the various junior
nigh schools in the sivonia Public Schools during the 1966—64
school year.

The 84 teachers included in the final sample were deemed to be
representative of the total pepulation from which they were drawn.
The sample included 29 teachers of English and/or social studies,
2h teachers of mathematics and/hr science, and the remaining 33
teachers were distributed among the "speeial areas" including
such subjects as physical education, home making, industrial arts,
art, music and etc.

In order to further substantiate the fact that the final
sample is representative of the total population from which it was
drawn, the following information is provided. rho average age of
teachers in the total population was 33.9 years, while the average
age of the teachers in the sample was 33.5 years. The average
number of years of education held by the teachers in the total
population has 16.5 while the average education held by the teachers
in the sample was 16.3 years.

Teachers in the total pOpulation consisted of 62 per cent
male teachers and 08 per cent female teachers, while the sample
drawn from this population consisted of 59 per cent male teachers
and 41 per seat female teachers. The total population included
44 per cent teachers of special area subjects, 29 per cent teachers
of anglish and/or social studies, and 27 per cent teachers of

mathematics and/or science. The sample consisted of 40 per cent

42
teachers of speciel area subjects, 64 per cent teachers cf English
end/or social studies, and 26 per cent teachers of mathematics and/
or science.

The first step in the procurement of tne sample was obteinin;
permission from the superintendent of schools to condtct tie
reseirch. Jermissioa was readily granted and the cosperetion of
the various junior high school principals was slso ebtained. hext,
a letter was addressed to teachers and distributed to them
requesting their COOperation in the research project. This letter
was distributed together with the research instrument and instructions
for its completion. {See appendix II for illustratiens of this
material.1

The data were gathered during the month er lay, 1964, se that
ne teacher in the sample had had less than one year of teaching
eXperienee. actual years of teaching exPerienee of the teachers
in the sample ranged from ene te mere than fifteen years and all
teachers were state certified.

fart I ef the research instrument was distributed te all
teachers in the sample on a mendsy and they were given the remainder
of that week to complete it. iart II was then distributed the
fellewing week to all teachers in the sample and tie; were again
given a week to Complete the task involved. Thus, each teecher
in the sample completed feur 46L protocols, one each for good,

paor, female and male students.

43

Treatment of the mats anl techniques of Analysis

 

The data were treated at times jointly znd at ti es separately
for the female and male teachers when recorded for analysis from
the subject's responses on the research instrument, the ndL.

Instructions for completion of the research task roguested
the subjects to circle those words which they believed to be
descriptive of "good", ”peer", male and female students. In
tabulating the data, it was decided that when at least 50 per cent
of the subjects had selected any given adjective as descriptive of
any of the four categories, that that was sufficient to infer
agreement on that point. any word that was selected by less than
50 per cent of the teachers in the sample was identified as a word
which is probably not generally used by these teachers to describe
good, poor, male and/er female junior high school students.

The data were analyzed with the help of the IBM 1410 Computer,
using an item analysis program patterned after a similar program
in use at the University of California, oerkley, oalifornia, to
analyze data obtained from AUL protocols.

The item analysis of the data consisted of the following three
procedures:

1. a computation showing the percentage of teachers in the
total sample selecting each of the adjectives for each of the four
categories of students-~gocd, poor, female, and male.

2. a computation according to the sex of the respondent
showing first the percentage of female teachers selecting each of

the adjectives in each of the four categories, and second, the

44
percentage of male teachers selecting each of the adjectives in
each of the four categories.

3. The third and final procedure in the item analysis was the
use of a statistical procedure to check on the significance of
differences in the selection of adjectives from the AOL comparing
first the "good student" adjectives with those selected for
description of female and male students, and second, comparing the
"poor student" adjectives with those selected for description of
female and male students.

To test for significance of differences, the stctistical
procedure to test for significance of difference between proportions
was employed. fhe formula for this procedure is presented in
Appendix I together with.an example of its execution.
summary of Theoreticalpéggumptions and RosearchfiQesign

The theory underlying the research design is based largely on
the works of Gordon and of Krech and Grutchfield. In essence,
these theorists hold that beliefs are active mental processes which
determine the relationship between the thinker and his flioughts and
which fill his mental constructs with action. Beliefs are seen as
the bridge between thought and behavior and are said to tend to
preserve themselves relatively unchanged and to be self—reinforcing.
Stereotypes are held to be nothing more than a particular kind of
belief.

The theoretical assumptions of this research design grew out of
the above theories with regard to beliefs and their effects on

behavior and from the review of the literature on marks and mdrhhig

45

practices.

The theoretical assumptions provided the basis for the research
questions of the study and these were stated.

A description of the AOL, including the history of its
develepmsnt, is provided since this device was selected as the
research instrument to be used in this study. on attempt was made
to demonstrate that the AOL is an appropriate data gathering device
for this study in light of the theory presented.

A discussion of the research methodology and procedures began
with a report on the selection and procurement of the sample. A
sample ef 84 junior high school teachers, thirty-five female and
fourty-nine male teachers, was drawn fer this investigation from
the population of junior high school teachers in the schools of the
city of Livonia, hichigan.

Procurement of the sample was accomplished by correspandence
and a total usable return of 80 per cent was obtained from these
who participated as subjects in the study.

The data consisted of a tetal of 356 AOL protocols, four each
from each of the 84 teachers in the sample. These data were
treated beth for the total sample and alse for female end mule
teachers in the sample separately. The data were analyzed with the
help of the Inn 1410 Gomputer using an item analysis program which

was described.

slur-m? 1'!
PnnSthnTloN, AhaLYJId, nNn ulquSSION ub‘RLJUnTS

This chapter presents the treatment and analysis of the research
data, followed by a discussion of the results of the resedrch study.

Treatment and analysis of the data for each of the research
questions of the study are presented first. Included in tLis section
are lists of words that the subjects selected to describe each of the
four types of students.

n discussion of the research results comprises the final section
of the chapter.
Treatment and analysis of the Jets lertuinin: to Aeseurch Question 1.

Statement of Research guestion I. Jhen confronted with the
egperimental task, (illustrations for thEHEEQEtEEEXE_3£_thé§fiffi?¥

are presented in GPPQDQE§filllwfifilgfiilflsnYOIQE~IIPW the ndiective

 

check list to describe students, are teachers in the sample able to
agree sufficiently in their selections to establish 3t°r°u§£12§2

Data were obtained from an analysis of all 336 of the protocols
obtained from the 84 teachers in the sample. The responses of both
male and female teachers were combined se that data from the total
sample was used in the attempt to answer Research Question I.

It will be recalled that it had been decided in advance that
any adjective selected by 50 per cent or more of the teachers in the
sample would, for purposes of this study, he censidered sufficient
to infer agreement on that point and thus would be eligible for
inclusion in the stereotype of the category involved. Lists of
adjectives showing those words selected by 50 per cent or more of

46

 

47

the teachers in the sample to describe each of the four catepories

are therefore Jresehted in Tables 1 2 3 and 4.
I o o o

tables,

In each

of these

the digits following euCh udjective indicate the per cent

of teachers in the total sample who selected the udjective to

describe the cateror' indicated.
s 8

TABLE 1.

active
adaptable
adventurous
alert
ambitious
appreciative
capable
clear-thinking
cooperative
curious
dependable
determined
efficient
energetic
enterprising
enthusiastic
fair-minded
friendly
helpful

honest
imaginative
individualistic
industrious
initiative
intelligent
logicai
organized
reliable
resourceful
responsible
self-confident
self-centrolled
sincere
thorough

63,3‘
70
51
79
75
so
77
7:5
70
60
75
52
63
64
51
57
52
52
50
54
64
50
50

‘53

65
52
55
72
65
68
57
58
54
60

List of sdjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
simple subjects to describe "good" students.

 

l‘llndicstes the per cent of teachers in the total sample
selecting the given adjective to describe "good” students.

48

TABLE 11. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
sample subjects to describe fipoor" students.

absent-minded 57;;9‘
apathetic 61
careless 67
confused 59
disorderly 63
forgetful 52
immature 52
indifferent 51
irresponsible 57
lazy 50
loud 52
unambitious 52
undependablc 60

 

‘Indicates the per cent of teachers in the total sample
selecting the given adjective to describe "poor" students.

TaBLB 111. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the

 

fiamplg subjects to describe femalg studegtg.
attractive 59%‘
changeable 65
cheerful 55
cooperative 60
dependhblo 52
emotional 68
excitable 52
feminine SO
flirtatious 52
friendly 72
honest 52
imaginative 50
pleasant 55
sensitive 65
sociable 54
talkative 60

 

I'Indicntes the per cent of teachers in the total sample
selecting the given adjective to describe female students.

49

TABLE IV. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
sggqle subjects to describe male students.

active 85%’
adventurous 74
aggressive 54
awkward 52
curious 53
energetic 53
friendly 67
healthy 54
imaginative 64
impatient 51
masculine 53
mischievous 7O
noisy 54
talkative 68

 

‘Indieates the per cent of teachers in the total sample
selecting the given adjective to describe male students.

From a review of these first four tables, it seems clear
that dosearch question I may be answered in the affirmative. fhe
teachers in the sample apparently had little or no difficulty in
selecting adjectives from the 300 word dQL with sufficient agree-
ment amen; them so as to develop a stereotype of some size in each
of the four student categories.

Lven a casual inspection of these tables reveals that the four
stereotypes differ from each other in length and also in csntent.
The stereotype for good students consists of 34 werds while the
stereotype for poor students is shorter in length, cansisting of
only 13 words. she stereotypes for female and male students are
about equal to each other in length, but somewhat shorter than that
fer good students, tne female stereotype consisting of 16 adjectives

and the male stereotype consisting of 14 adjectives.

50
Qggatment and analysis of the Data Pertaining to Research Question II.
§tatement of.Besearch uuestion 1;, If stereotypes are estab-
lished, do they differ according to the sex of the respondent. with
male and female teachers selecting different adjectives?

Previous research cited in the review of the literature
indicates that there are differences, even though slight, in the
assignment of marks to boys and girls according to the sex of the
teacher assigning the marks. male teachers, it appears, tend to
assign slightly better marks to boys than do female teachers.
Therefore, on the basis of this previous research, three predictions
concerning the outcomes of desearch Question II seem to recommend
themselves. fhey are:

1. It is predicted that there will be differences between the
stereotypes male and female teachers developed with regard to male
and female students.

2. It is predicted that these differences will be relatively
minor, with both male and female teachers tending to select mostly
the same terminology to describe male and female students.

3. It is predicted that if differences are found, male
teachers might be expected to tend to reflect slightly more
positive feelings toward male students in their selection of
adjectives than would.the female teachers.

In an attempt to analyze data with reference to Research
Question 11, the AOL protocols of male and female teachers were
treated separately. Lists of adjectives showing those words

selected by 50 per cent or more of the female teacrers in the

51

sample to describe female and male students are presented in tables

5 and. 6e

Lists of adjectives showing those words selected by 50

per cent of nore of the male teachers in the sample to describe

female and male students are presented in tables 7 and 8.

TABLE V.

List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the

fggglg teachers in the sample to describe fomdle students.

adaptable

affectionate

attractive
capable
changeable
cheerful
cooperative
dependable
emotional
excitable
feminine
flirtatious
friendly
healthy
helpful
honest
imaginative
pleasant
reliable
sensitive
sentimental
sociable
talkative

5176"
51
71
54
74
57
so
so
69
so
77
63
74
53
50
so
as
63
58
76
52
64
57

 

‘Indioatos the per cent of female teachers in the sample
selecting the given adjective to describe female students.

It was predicted, first of all, that there would be differences

between the stereotypes male and female teachers developed to

describe female and male students.

An analysis of the data presented

in tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 reveals that this prediction has been borne

out. PorhAps the most striking difference between the stereotypes

is that of length with the female teachers selecting many more

adjectives to describe both female and male students than did the

52

TABLE VI. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
female teachers in the sample to describe male students.

active 86%‘
adventurous 83
aggressive 69
awkward 5l
curious 65
disorderly 53
energetic 65
friendly 71
healthy 62
helpful 50
humorous 50
imaginative 66
impatient 62
masculine 56
mischievous 67
noisy 61
show-off 59
sociable 50
spontaneous 53
talkative Bl
wholesome 52

 

'Indicates the per cent of female teachers in the sample
selecting the given adjective to describe male students.

TABLE VII. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
male teachers in the sample to doscribg_femalo students.

——-—

changeable SBE‘
cheerful 53
cooperative 6O
emotional 67
feminine 81
friendly 71
honest 54
sensitive 57
talkative 54

 

‘Indicates the per cent of male teachers in the sample
selecting the given adjective to describe female students.

53

TaBLE VIII. List of adjectives selected by 50 per cent or more of the
mele_teachers in the sample to describe male students.

active 85%‘
adventurous 68
awkward 53
friendly 64
good natured 51
imaginative 65
masculine 51
mischievous 72
noisy 50
talkative 59

 

’Indicatos the per cent of male teachers in the sample
selecting the given adjective to describe male students.
male teachers.

Inspection of these tables also reveals the fact that different
percentages of female teachers selected certain adjectives to
describe female and male students than did the male teachers when
the same adjectives were selected by both for the given student
category. Lastly, it will be noted that female teachers capecielly
and male teachers also but to a far less degree, selected words not
selected by the other to describe students in each of the two
categories.

it may, therefore, be concluded that there are differences
between the stereotypes male and female teachers develOped to
describe female and male students.

decond, it was predicted that the differences between the
stereotypes would be relatively minor and that both male and female
teachers would tend to use the same terminology to describe female
and male students. In the case of the female student stereotype,

female teachers selected 14 adjectives not picked by their male

54

teacher counterparts, while the male teachers did not select any
adjectives not selected by the female teachers. a total of 25
adjectives were selected by teachers of both sexes to describe
female 3 tudents .

In the case of the male student stereotype, female teachers
selected 12 adjectives not picked by their male counterparts while
the male teachers selected only one adjective not selected by the
female teachers to describe male students. a total of 22 adjectives
were selected by teachers of both sexes to describe male students.

An analysis of the protocols obtained from the female teachers
in the sample reveals that the median number of adjectives selected
by them to describe each of the categories of students was 71 while
the median nunber of adjectives selected by the male teachers in the
sample was only 55. The female teachers, then, selected a greater
number of adjectives than did the male teachers. It appears,
therefore, that some consideration should be given to the fact that
this facet of the study tends to substantiate earlier research
which has shown that girls and women become more verbal than men
and boys. Research has shown that women deve10p this verbal
superiority over men at a very early age and that they maintain
this superiority throughout their lives. It appears, then, that
the area of agreement between teachers of both sexes can be seen
as being greater than the area of disagreement with regard to the

selection of adjectives to describe female end male students.

It also seems that the degree of agreement between the sexes on

be
this issue is somewhat clouded by the fact that the female teachers
are far more verbal than their male teacher counterparts. in
general, however, it appears as if the second prediction us; be
upheld even though with somewhat less definition.

Thirdly, it was predicted that male teachers might be expected
to reflect slightly more positive feelings toward male students in
their selection of adjectives than would the female teichers. The
reverse of the prediction might also be expected. if this pre-
diction proves to be true, it should be revealed by an examination
of the adjectives used. It would be expected, for example, that a
higher per cent of the ”BIG teachers might tend to select adjectives
with a positive affective tone (good student adjectives) to describe
male students than would the female teachers and that s lesser per
cent of the mule teachers would be expected to select udjectives
with a negative tone than would the female teud;ers. the reverse
would be expected in the selectiOn of adjectives to describe
fensle students.

seCause this infOrmntiOn is not easily seen from an inspection
of tables 5, 6, 7, and 8, additiOnal tables ere presented (tables 9
and 10) in which data are offered comparing the selections of male
and female teachers of adjectives to describe female and male
students.

in examination of these two tables provides the reader with two
Kinds of infbrufltiOn. Ihe fact which is seen first is that of the
difference in the number of negative affect tone adjectives used

to describe female and male students. Out of the total of 23

 

 

 

56

PABLE IA. List of adjectives selected by both male and female
teachers to describe female students, showing affective tone of the
adjective and#per cent of selection for eacL sex.

 

 

 

use TI v.5 M‘P‘EC TIVE 76 on F 770 OF 2.;
TONE TEACHERS TEAJHEBS
adaptable P 51 31
affectionate P 51 42
attractive P 71 49
capable P 54 36
changeable N 74 58
cheerful P 57 53
c00peretive P 60 60
dependable P 60 46
emotional N 69 67
excitable N 60 46
feminine P 77 81
flirtatious N 63 44
friendly P 74 71
healthy P 53 47
helpful P 50 42
honest P 50 54
imaginative P 68 37
pleasant P 63 49
reliable P 58 43
sensitive P 76 57
sentimental P 52 34
sociable P 64 47
talkative N 57 54

 

P indicates positive affective tone, N indicates negative
affective tone.

adjectives selected by teachers of both sexes to describe female
students, only 5 or 22 per cent had a negative affect tone while
the remaining 18 or 78 per cent had a positive affect tone.

Of the total of 22 adjectives selected by both male and femele
teachers to describe male students, 8 or 37 per cent had a negative
affect tone while the remaining 14 or 63 per cent had e positive
affect tane.

Past research had indicated that both mule and femple teachers

assigned better marks to girls than to boys. Ibis fact would lead

57

Injhfi A. List of adjectives selected by both yhle and fe;e1e
tedc.ers to describe male students, showing affective tone or the
ddjective nnd rer cent of selection for each sex.

 

«uJEJTlVE AErEJTIYE k or P 5 Or L
TONE TLUEERS TEA 317.313.}
active P 86 85
adventurous- P 83 68
aggressive N 69 43
awkward N 51 b3
curious P 65 45
disorderly N 53 34
energetic P 65 45
friendly P 71 64
healthy P 62 49
helpful P 50 21
humorous P 50 47
imaginative P 66 65
impatient N 62 43
masculine P 56 51
mischievous N 67 72
noisy N 61 5O
showaoff N 59 33
sociable P 50 38
spontaneous P 53 29
talkative N 81 59
wholesome P 52 34

 

P indicates positive affective tene, N indicates negltive
effective tone.
to the expectation that teachers of both sexes would tend to
perceive boys as students in n more "negative" way than girls as
students. The results of past research, therefore, seem to have
been supported.

secondly, it Was exPected thnt female teachers might tend to
reflect more positivefeelings tawdrd girls as students and thut mule
teachers might tend to reflect more positive feelings toward boys as

students. It was expected that these differences in feeling tane
would be Slight and that they would be eSpecially so with regard to

the feelings of male teachers regdrding boys as students. lust

58

research had revealed, it will be reeslled, that both sexes of
teachers favor girls and that male teachers assign only slightly
better marks to boys than do the female teichers.

it was believed th~t if such differences in feeling existed
that they would be reflected as differences in the selection of
adjectives. nn analysis of tables 9 and 10 would yield this LiLd
of information but would place undue emp:usis 0n the perceptions of
the female teachers. Therefore, earlier tables are exemined to
test this prediction. an inSpection of table 5 regurding female
students as perceived by female teachers reveals that 18 of the
23 words selected, or 93 per cent of them, had a positive tone,
while only 5 or 7 per cent had a negative tone. Prom table 7
regarding the perceptions of female students by male teachers,
it may be seen that six of the 9 adjectives or 67 per cent had a
positive tone and the remaining 3 or 33 per cent had a negative
tone.

Table 6 regarding the perCeptions of male students held by
female teachers indicates that 13 of the 21 adjectives or 62
per cent had a positive tone, while 8 adjectives or 38 per cent
had a negative tone. From table 8 which records the perceptions
of male teachers regarding male students, it may be seen that 6
of the 10 adjectives selected or 60 per cent of them had s positive
tone while the remaining 4 or 40 per cent hnd a negative tone.

It appears, then, that female teachers do in fact have some-

what more positive feelings toward female students than do the

male teachers but that the feelings of both sexes of teachers were

 

lilllIII'l’l'I‘lI

59

nearly identical with regard to male students.

It may be concluded, then, that research question II may
be answered, in general, in the affirmative. The stereotypes
deveIOped by the teachers in the sample for male and for female
students do differ according to the sex of the reapondent with
male and female teachers selecting somewhat different adjectives
to describe the two sexes of students. In addition, the differences
found were, in general, in the eXpected directions.
Trggtment ad Analysis of the Daggertiinigto Research
Question 111.

Statement of Research.§uestion III.__1f stereotypes are

established, is there a greater correspondence between the stereo-

type for good students and that for female students than there is

 

between the stereotype for good students and for male students?

Data were obtained from an analysis of all 336 of the protocols
obtained from the teachers in the total sample. Data are presented
in the form of tables showing the adjectives selected to describe
good students, the per cent of teachers in the total sample also
selecting the given adjective to describe female and male students
and whether or not the difference between these selections was
significant at the .05 level or beyond.

an analysis of table ll reveals that only 5 of the good student
adjectives, or 15 per cent of the total list, were also selected by
50 per cent or more of the total sample stujects to describe female
students and that only 6 of these adjectives, or 18 per cent of the

total, were also selected by 50 per cent or more of the total sample

60
subjects to describe male students. The difference between these
two percentages is not significant at the .05 level.
.A somewhat closer examination of table 11, however, reveals
that there appears to be a trend in the expected direction since 22

TABLE A1. Good Student adjectives compared with female and male
student adjectives showing aggnificance,of difference in selgctiOn.

 

 

ADJECTIVE EEHALE STUoENT hALB STUDENT SIGNIFICANCE
EBB CENT P§§_GENT
active ‘6 85 M. .01
adaptable 40 32 no
adventurous 13 74 I. .01
alert 40 28 no
ambitious 29 26 no
appreciative 44 17 F .01
capable 44 34 no
clear-thinking 16 13 no
c00perutive 60 32 k .01
curious 30 53 K .01
dependable 52 35 F .05
determined 11 24 h .05
efficient 16 9 E .05
energetic 31 53 h .01
enterprising 16 28 h .05
enthusiastic 40 40 no
fair-minded 19 30 no
friendly 72 67 no
helpful 45 53 no
honest 52 37 no
imaginative 50 64 no
individualistic 21 21 no
industrious 3 11 u .05
initiative 7 4 no
intelligent 25 16 no
logical 8 15 no
organised 16 8 no
reliable 49 26 P .01
resourceful 26 30 no
responsible 29 17 no
self-confident 13 22 no
self-controlled 13 7 no
sincere 39 33 no
thorough 13 5 P .05

 

of the good student adjectives were selected by the teachers in the

61
sample as corresponding equally or to a greater degree to female
students than male students, while some 14 adjectives from this list
were used to describe male students to an equal or greater degree
than female students.

It appears, then, that if the examination of the data regarding
Research.uuestion 111 is confined to the stereotypes presented in
tables 1, 3, and 4, that there is no significant difference in
correspondence between the stereotypes for good students and those
developed for female and for male students. However, if the
analysis of the data includes all of the good student adjectives,
then the presence of a trend is revealed indicating a greater
correspondence between the teacher perception of good students and
that of female students. Before attempting to examine the possible
significance of this trend, data pertaining to Research suestion 1?

will be presented.

Treatment anginnalysis of the flats Pertaining to Research guestion IV.

 

 

Statement of Research.3uestion IV. If stereotypes are

established, is there a greater correspondence between the stereotype

for poor students and that for male students than there is between

-m—n “blvchanu. -n-

 

 

the stereotype for poor students and for female students?

-nm—‘Qaua-O‘q‘nm.“ «w—‘uul

 

Data were obtained from an analysis of all 336 AOL protocols
obtained from the teachers in the total sample. Data are Presented
in the form of tables showing the adjectives selected to describe
poor students, the per cent or teachers in the total sample also
selecting the given adjective to describe female and male students

and whether or not the difference between these selections was

 

 

l I
llllll'llll‘ll‘. {

62
significant at the .05 level or beyond.

TABLE XII. Poor student adjectives compared with female and male
student adjectives snowing the significance of differences in

 

 

 

c
AUJECTIVE EEMALE STUDENT MALE STUDENT SIGNIFICANCE
233 CENT Pgfl CENT

absent minded 5 24 N .01
apathetic 4 13 M. .05
careless 13 37 M .01
con fused 25 31 no
disorderly lO 42 u .01
forgetful 27 47 h .01
immature 24 35 no
indifferent 13 26 .u .05
irresponsible 5 6 no

lazy 8 25 m .01
loud 20 43 h .01
unambitious 3 10 no
undependable 4 14 m .05

An analysis of table 12 reveals that none of the poor student
adjectives were also selected by 50 per cent or more of the total
sample subjects to describe either female or male students,
indicating that there is no correspondence established between these
stereotypes. A.further examination of table 12, however, reveals
the presence of a definite trend in the expected direction. This
examination reveals that each of the 13 adjectives selected to
describe poor students has also been selected to a greater degree
‘ to describe male students than to describe female students.

are the observed trends significant, that is, the trend of
greater correspondence between the teacher perceptions of good
students and that of femle students, and that of perceptions of
poor students and of male students?

In order to test for significance of the observed trends, the

63
data were considered to constitute a 2 A 2 contingency table in which
any adjective was assigned to the column headed "female" if it had
been selected by a per cent of the sample subjects greater than the
per cent which had selected the same adjective to describe male
students. The adjective was assigned to the "male" column if the
per cent of selection was greater than that for female students.
Two tie adjectives from the good student list were eliminated.
Data for the table were obtained from an inspection of tables 11
and 12 and the following is the table which resulted from this
inspection.
TaBLE.hlII. Contingency table to determine the significance of the

observed trends of correspOndence between good and female adjectives
and betweengpoor and male adjectives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEMALE HALE TOTALS

! GOOD n 20 B 12 n+3 32

1 _
1 £003 6 o D 13 c+o 13

.1 rows n+0 20 3+]: 25 N 45

p

_L_

 

 

 

The Fisher Exact rrobability Test as set forth in Nonparametric

 

§t§tistics by Siegel, was used to test for significance of the

observed trends. in this test:
(n+8): (MU): (n+0): (3+9):
P ':

 

r z 32: 133 20:32.53 : .00007
45: 20: 12: o: 13:

an examination of the specific adjectives selected more often to
describe female students and those to describe male students proves
also to be revealing. These adjectives were obtained from an

inspection of tables 3, 4, 11, and 12 and are shown below in

64
table 14 showing also the affective tone, positive or negative, of

each adjective selected.

TABLE 11V. adjectives selected more often to describe female and
male stgdents showing thg affgctive tone of each.

 

 

 

EM STUDENT abJECTIVh‘; ”LLB SiUnENT ADJEUTIVES
POSITIVE hfiQAqug POSITIVE NEG§TIVE

adaptable changeable active absent minded

alert emotional adventurous aggressive

ambitious excitable curious awkward

appreciative flirtatious determined careless

attractive energetic confused
capable enterprising disorderly
cheerful enthusiastic forgetful
clear thinking fair minded immature
c00perative healthy impatient

dependable imaginative indifferent

efficient individualistic irresponsible
enthusiastic industrious lazy

feminine lOgical loud

friendly masculine mischievous

helpful resourceful noisy

honest self-confident talkative

individualistic unambitious

initiative undependable

intelligent

organized

pleasant

reliable

responsible

self-controlled

sensitive

sincere

sociable

thorough

 

it may be seen from these columns of words that a very
different mental picture is conjured-up by their simple recitation.
The picture presented of females as students is one of nerd-working,
agreeable individuals, whereas, males as students are pictured as
being more aggressive and disorderly but less ambitious and

cosperative than their female counterparts. an inspection of this

65

table reveals that many of the adjectives applied to males as

students are indicative of behaviors which would tend to disrupt

the conduct of a class. Such adjectives as disorderly, irresponsible,
lazy and loud would fit into this category. most important, it is
the empressed belief of the teachers in the sample that these
adjectives are more associated with male students than with female
students.

The presentation of this table also raises the question of
correspondence between female student adjectives and those selected
to describe good and poor students and the correspondence between
male student adjectives and those selected to describe good and poor
students. an examination of table 3 which records teacher per-
ceptions of females as students reveals that, out of the 16 words
selected, some ll of them, or 69 per cent, have a positive affective
tone while the remaining 5, or 31 per cent, have a negative tons.

a similar inspection of table 4 regarding teacher perceptions of
males as students reveals that of the 14 adjectives selected, 8 of
them, or 57 per cent had a positive affective tone while 6, or 43
per cent have a negative tone.

Tables 15 ami 16, presented below, show the percentage of
total sample subjects which selected female and male student
adjectives also to describe good and poor students.

These data are considered to constitute further evidence
tending to support the evidence presented earlier regarding the
observed trend toward correspondence between good and female

adjectives and between poor and male adjectives.

66

TABLE XV. female student adjectives showing the per cent of sampde
subjects also selecting the given adjective as descriptive of good

ggd poor students.

 

 

 

_§§gECTIVE GOOD EOOR
attractive l6 2
changeable 16 27
cheerful 51 6
c00perative 84 2
dependable 92 l
emotional 10 27
excitable 17 23
feminine 4 2
flirtatious 2 15
friendly 63 12
honest 65 l
imaginative 77 0
pleasant 38 3
sensitive 44 15
sociable 52 8
gglkative 23 40

 

TsBLE 4V1. Male student adjectives showing the per cent of sample
subjects also selecting the given adjective as descriptive of good

ggd poor studggts.

 

 

 

 

ADJBCTIEE GOOD POOR
active 76 15
adventurous 62 4
aggressive 39 27
awkward 1 35
curious 73 2
energetic 78 4
friendly 63 12
healthy 46 4
imaginative 77 O
impatient 6 45
masculine 37 1
mischievous 20 41
noisy 5 44
tiv 23 49*

 

Ihe data presented in tables 15 and 16 above may also be
COASldered to catstitute a COntingency table and this table

folIOws.

TABLE AVII.

Contingency table to
correspondence between female and

and poor adjectives.

67

determine the significance Of
good adjectives and between male

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39g) .‘rOuR scans

2W .1 11 B 5 .-.+3 16
mm c 9 D 5 34-1) 14
moms “+0 20 3+1) 10 N so

 

 

Again the Fisher Exact Probability Test was employed to test

for significance, where:

 

 

P- LgMchunz (n+0): {3+9}:
" N.’ A: B: c: D:
P = J: 14: 20: 10: 2 .29105

30: ll: 5: 9: 5:

From the analysis of the data presented regarding Research
uuestions Ill and IV, it must be concluded that the; have been
answered negatively since no significant correspondence between the
stereotypes for good students or for poor students and those for
female and for male students was estnblished. It may also be
concluded, however, that when the stereotypes for good and poor
students were examined, that trends were established in the data
-presented and that these trends were in the eXpected directions
indicating a somewhat greater correspondence between good student
adjectives and those for female students and a somewhat greater
correspondence between poor student adjectives and those for male

students. The significance of this observed trend was tested and

found to be beyond the .001 level. It appears, therefore, that

for the teachers in this sample, the characteristics of good

68
students tend to be more like those of females than males while
the characteristics of poor students tend to be more like those
of males than females.

When the stereotypes for females and males as students were
examined, however, no significant corr08pondence was found to exist
between these and the stereotypes for good azd poor students.

It appears, therefore, that the teachers in this sample tend not
to be biased in favor or prejudiced against either sex.
Discussion of Results

The major task of this research study was to determine for a
given sample of teachers what beliefs they held with regard to
good students, poor students, female students and male students.
Data have been presented to show'that this has been done and that
the Staple subjects held differing beliefs about different types
of students.

The data presented has snown that stereotypes were established,
that they did differ according to the sex of the respondent and that
there was no greater correspondence between the stereotype of good
students and that for female students than there was between the
good student stereotype and that for male students. It was also
found that the adjectives which constituted the poor student
stereotype were not used as a part of either male or female student
stereotypes. it was also shown that a trend had been located toward

correspondence between good and female adjectives and between poor

and male adjectives. How'may these data be interpreted?

70

The writer believes that two key facts from the results
recommend themselves for discussion. These are that stereotypes were
formed and that they differed one from the other and that no
significant correspondence was found to exist between the stereotypes
of good or poor students and those of either fenale or male students
although a trend in this direction was located.

The fact that no significant correspondence was found to exist
between the stereotypes, but mly a trend in the eXpected direction,
seems to the writer to indicate that the speculations made by
earlier researchers that the cause of the difference in assignment
of harks to girls and to boys was the result of prejudice m the
part of teachers in favor of girls may now be discounted. If
teachers were truly biased, it is assumed that this bias would have
been revealed in their selection of adjectives. If these teachers
were prejudiced in favor of girls, as many previous authors had
guessed, the results of this study should have indicated a clear
and significant correspondence between the stereotypes for good
students and that for femle students. The converse should also
have occurred if teachers are biased as was assumed, that is, that
a clear and significant correspondence should have been found
between the stereotype for poor students and that for male students.

In fact, however, no such correspondence was found to exist
and it seems, therefore, as if speculation regarding teacher
prejudice should be at an end. Should it be concluded, therefore,

that the results of this study shed no light on the cause of the

71

differential assignment of marks, other than tending to eliminate
prejudice as the cause?

The writer believes that the fact that the stereotypes of
female and male students differed greatly, and more especially the
my in which they differed does seem to shed further light On a
possible cause of the difference in assignment of marks to boys
and to girls. It appears to the writer that the fact of the
difference in cultural expectations of behavior for the two sexes
has been demonstrated or reflected, perhaps more than any other,
in the data. The data seem to lend support to the notion that what
could be defined as "masculine" behavior tends not to be tolerated
or approved by the typical teacher in the secondary school chssroon.
a wealth of evidence has been accumulated to demonstrate that our
society's definitions of acceptable mle and female behavior are
divergent, for example with respect to aggression.

An example of such research is that of Radke who found that
fathers in her sample felt that aggressive, assertive behavior on
the part of boys was less undesirable than the identical behavior
in girls, and in may cases fathers deaned such behavior highly

1

desirable for boys. It my be inferred from the data presented

that the social or behavioral tendencies of typical male youngsters

tend to be in contrast to the behaviors which the teachers who

A

1h. J. Badke, "The Relation of Parental authority to Children's

Behavior and attitudes", Child Jelfare nonoggaph, No 22, Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press, 1946.

72
constituted sample subjects for this research list as characteristics
of good students.

Previous research lends support to this inference. Perhaps
this fact can best be illustrated by an examination of the study
of heyer and Thompson.1 They began with the premise that approval
by the teacher results in better learning and better over—all
adjustment among pupils. Their hypothesis was that "masculine"
behavior (described as aggressive and generally more "unmanageable"
than girls' behavior), will result in male pupils receiving a
larger number of dominative, or punitive, contacts than girls,
from their teachers. The general findings of the study supported
the hypothesis and showed that male pupils received reliably more
blame from their teachers than female pupils. It was also found
that the boys recOgnized the fact that they are the recipients of
a higher incidence of teacher disapproval.

Tney suggest that teacher initiation of punishment for
"masculine" behavior only serves to reinforce already existing
dislikes for school and further that it leads to peer group
reinforcement. They also point out that the behavioral expectations
of Our society with.regard to boys and girls differ and they
conclude: "If our interpretation of the teacher and male pupil
relationship is accurate, then the fact that boys dislike school

more than girls is understandable. The daily punishment received

 

1William J. Meyer and George G. Thompson, "Sex Differences

in the Distribution of Teacher Approval and Disapproval Among
SixthpGrade children", Journal of Educational Isychology, vol. 47,
1956, pp 385-396.

73

by the boy for behavior he really does not consider "bad" must
certainly be anxiety producing. If anxiety created in the school
situation becomes sufficiently intense, it seem reasonable that
tension reductiOn can be achieved by means of avoiding school. It
is lmown that more boys leave school at an earlier age than girls."

has the data of this study tagether with the heyer and
Thanpson study, it some that it may be concluded that the
perceptions teachers hold of their pupils, conscious or otherwise,
are different for boys and girls and that teachers approve, to a
greater degree, the behavior of girls. .Jhat is, perhaps, even
more important is the fact that this difference in teacher reaction
to students is felt and is perceived by the students who experience
it. One may mly speculate on the effects of this "felt difference"
in treatment on learning and on behavior.

It may be that there are other reasons behind the fact that
teachers tend to disapprove of behaviors which our sociew has
defined as typically male or as eXpectedimale behavior. at least
one other motivating factor seems of importance to the writer, and
this factor is reflected in the work of Beilen.1 He reviewed the
research on the differences between teachers' and clinicians'
attitudes toward the behavior problems of children.

among other important facts, Belien reports that teachers were

most aware of overt and aggressive behaviors, inattention to school

 

1

Harry Beilen, "Teachers' and Clinicians' attitudes Toward
the Behavior i’roblems of Children: A Reappraisal", Child
Mamas. vol- 30. 1959. pp 9-25-

74
tasks, and behaviors which violated the standards of morality. He
found that boys were reported more frequently than girls for behavior
problems and that teachers preferred the less active, more compliant
behavior of girls to the more aggressive behavior of boys. Desirable
conduct as far as teachers were concerned, he reports, took on the
distinguishing characteristics of girl behavior.

He states that whatever the reasons, whether biological or
social, he feels trat these differences result from different
expectations, differences, that is, in the nature of adjustment
of boys and girls in school. The reason, he contends, that girls are
considered better adjusted by teachers is that teachers have certain
expectations of what good adjustmt in school should be and the
prescription for girls' adjustment is more consistent with these
eXpectations than the prescription for bcys' good adjustment. The
most important point that Beilen makes is that the major job of the
teacher is to teach, to get across the material that he is teaching,
and that he is most likely, therefore, to value those behaviors
which facilitate his teaching Job, not those which interfere with
it. and it Just happens that the behavior of girls corresponds much
more closely than does that of boys to facilitating the Job of
teaching.

It is this emphasis on the work of the teacher and the fact
that the behavior of boys is seen as inhibiting that work which, to
the writer, explains the fact that both female and male teachers
tend to approve more highly of the behavior of girls than that of

boy’s

75

Although it appears to the writer that the foregoing is the most
likely explanation of the results of this study, some of the authors
mentioned in the section on the review of the literature who have
studied the differences in marks assigned to boys and to girls have
attributed these differences to known differences between the sexes
in areas other than behavior.

The literature on the differences between the sexes is extremely
large and somewhat outside the scape of this paper and therefore
only a very brief summary of some of the important findings will be
presented here. These studies have shown with.a high degree of
consistency that differences between boys and girls Which affect
learning are numerous and significant. host of the differences which
have been studied favor the girls.

From infancy onward, for example, girls have beat found to
exceed boys in verbal ability and in almost every aspect of
linguistic deve10pment. They have larger vocabularies than bOys,
speak with longer and more complex sentences, are ready to learn
reading earlier and continue to read better than boys.

Girls attain physical maturity at an earlier age than boys
and throughout childhood are physically more advanced than boys of
the same chronological age. They tend to exceed boys in the control
of the finger and wrist movements which are so important in such
school subjects as handwriting and art, and which affect neatness
of work in any subject. Girls have also been found to be more
advanced than boys in their ability to perceive details quickly and

accurately and to pay closer and longer attention to matters at hand.

76

Some of the reported differences do favor boys, however. They
exceed girls in physical strength and stamina; they usually surpass
girls in spatial orientation; and they do somewhat better than gir ls
in numerical reasoning and problem solving. But even in the area
of arithmetic, girls have been found to surpass boys in the mechanics
of canputation, surpassing them in both speed and accuracy.

Research.has also shown, if there was ever any doubt, that girls
differ from boys in their play activities, their vocational goals,
their reading and entertainment interests, their attitudes toward
a wide variety of things, the problems they consider pressing and
the values they hold to be important. Differences have been found
between the sexes in their social relations and maturity, in the
kinds of emotional difficulties they have, in their classroom
participation, in the kind of leadership to which they respond, and
in the manner in which they learn their apprOpriate sex role.

Although this body of research on the differences between the
sexes is large, imposing and conclusive, it does not appear to this
writer to offer an explanation for the data gathered in this study.
This is not to say that these data are without value for the present
study, however. This body of data seems to have a different
implication, it seems to this writer to raise the question of
whether or not coeducational schools are desirable.

Educators the country ever have long been aware of what is

called "individual differences" among students in such diverse areas

as mental ability, vocational goals, interests, and the like.

however, these same educators have apparently overlooked the most

77

obvious and the single most important difference amOng their students-
-that of the student's sex. This factor has simply been overlooked
and as a COnsequence, boys and girls have been pLaced together in
the same classrooms from kindergarten onward and teachers have
acted as if differences did not exist, using thC same instructional
materials and procedures with both.

from the discussion.thus far presented, it‘appears to the
writer that educators might well wonder whether the practice of
coeducation is psychOIOgically healthy for boys. if we accept the
position of Rogers,1 Snygg and dombsz, and others, that one's
slef-concept is a major factor influencing his behavior, then this
question becomes all the more important.

A child's self-concept arises and develOps as a result of the
relationships he has with significant other peeple in his life.
The child's feelings about himself are learned early in life and are
modified by his encounters with new experiences. The child's
feelings about himself with regard to such things as whether or not
he is likeable, acceptable, able, and important, are determined

primarily by the way his parents and his teachers react to him.

__"_Ӥtudi s b Jersild; d Bseder4atgggthsr with the work of_

l
o. B. nogers, client centered Therapy, Houghton hifflin,
doston, 1951.

D. Snygg and a. W. Combs, individual Behavior, harper and
brothers, New York, 1949.

3

a. T. Jersild, In Search.of Self, Bureau of Publications,
Teachers Gollege, dolumbia University, new York, 1952.

4T. a. Reeder, "A Study of Some Relationships between Level of
Self concept, Academic achievement and Classroom adjustment",
Dissertation abstracts, vol AV (1955) 2472.

78

Stevens1

, have demonstrated that positive feelings abOut one's self
are associated with good academic achievement and etc. In other
‘words, it might be stated that a psychological atmosphere which
builds a positive self-concept wetld be healthier and would lead to
better academic achdevement than would one which tends to build a
negative self concept. iron the evidence presented, it seems safe
to conclude that the psychological atmosphere of the coeducational
school tends to be healthier for girls than it is for boys. The
data of this study, however, does no more than to raise this question.
It does not in any way provide or suggest possible answers.

It will be recalled that at the outset it was stated that the
purpose of this research was to attespt to locate a cause for the
difference in the assignment of marks to boys and to girls. it was
further stated that if teacher held stereotypes regarding students
could be shown to vary in a manner similar to that found in the
assignment of marks, that this would be considered an important step
toward locating the possible cause of differences in the assignment
of marks to students.

Even though no correspondence was found to exist between the
stereotypes develOped by teachers in this sample, it may be
concluded that teacher perceptions of students do tggd_to vary
in the same way that variations in the assignments of marks occur.
Girls receive better marks than boys and teachers tend to hold
more positive stereotypes of girls as students than they do of
boys as students. Because the results of this studyiare aggh that

1P. H. stovens, "An Investigation cf the Aelaticnship Between

certain aspects of Self—Concept Behavior and Student's academic
Achievement", Dissertation abstracts, vol dVl, (1956) 2561-z532.

79
a direct cause and effect relationship cannot be established, the
actual cause of the difference in the assignment of marks to boys
and to girls must remain in doubt.

Whatever the cause may be, however, it appears as if teachers
in their role as members of society in general would be supportive
of the differences in cultural expectations for boys and for girls,
the kind of behavior that is brought to mind when one thinks of the
sayhng "Boys will be boys:“ But it also appears that when these
individuals are performing their occupational task, that is, when
they are teaching, their eXpectations of student behavior do not
vary according to sex. Teachers appear to place great positive
value on compliant, non-disruptive forms of behavior because these
behaviors facilitate the accomplishment of their work. as has been
stated, this kind of behavior is mostly characteristic of girls.
Sgggggy 0; Presentation, analysig and Discussion of Results

The presentation and analysis of the data was accomplished
separately for each of the four research questions and it was found
that stereotypes were established, that they did differ according
to the sex or the respondmt and in the eXpected directions, but
that no significant correspondence was founxibetween the stereotypes
for good and female students or for good and male students, or fcr
poor and male or for poor and female students. ‘A trend in the
expected direction was located and tested for significance.

Discussion of the research results revolved around the
differences in general cultural expectations and the expectations

of teachers in particular for male and female behavior. It was

0

(D

concluded that the results of this study may best be understood if
one considers the fact that teachers in general, both male and
female teachers, value that kind of student behavior positively
which facilitates their work as a teacher, namely the job of
teaching, and that they negatively value that kind of student
behavior which interferes with the accomplishment of their work.
it was pointed out that the behavior of boys is seen by teachers
more often as being interfering than is that of girls.

a discussion of the results of this study also led to a
raising of a question concerning the desirability of coeducational
schools for boys.

It was concluded that the results of this study first tended
to refute the notion that teacher prejudice against bcys is the
cause of the differential assignment of marks and second that
support had been added to the belief that the expectations of
society with regard to approved male behavior tend to be in
conflict with the expectations of teachers with regard to

approved student behavior.

cHAPTEB V
SUMMARY, Enznmcs, CONCLUSIONS AND mules-moms
FOR warm RESEARCH

This chapter presents a summary of the entire study including
a review of the findings and the conclusions which were drawn from
the findings. The chapter concludes with a statement of implications
for further research.

Summagy of the Research Investigation

This study took as its research problem an investigation of
the degree to which teacher held stereotypes of female and male
students were alike or different, and the degree to which the
stereotypes of female and male students correspond to those of
"good and poor" students. The research also investigated whether
there were any differences between male and female teachers in their
beliefs about students.

Interest in this problem grew out of a review of the literature
regarding the assignment of:marks to students which revealed that
boys consistently receive poorer marks than girls regardless of the
fact that objective measures indicate that they have learned as much
or more than the girls and are every bit as intelligent. None of
the authors who had researched the question of the differential
assignment of marks to boys and to girls had attempted to determine
the cause of this difference. Instead, these writers had confined
themselves to speculation regarding the cause of their findings.
This speculation, in general, took one or the other of two forms,

many of the investigators attributed the cause to bias an the part
81

 

82

of teachers in favor of girls, while others stated that they believed
the cause to be generated by the fact that girls were different

from boys in certain respects, that is, they were neater in their
work, and the like. These studies were thoroughly reviewed. host

of the writers seemed to agree on at least one point, that is, that
some factor or factors other than achievement and intellhgence

enter into the assignment of marks by teachers and whatever these
factors may be, that they seem to Operate in such.a way that boys

are the recipients of poorer marks than girls. ‘

It is a known fact that one's beliefs influence his behavior
and therefore it was decided that this study should investigate
the beliefs or stereotypes which teachers hold regarding their
students. Methods of stereotype research were therefore reviewed
in order to obtain a model for the present study. It was learned
that the most common and best established procedure for determining
the nature and content of stereotypes is to submit an adjective
check list to the subjects of the study and therefore this procedure
was selected for the present investigation.

The theory which underlies this study holds that one's beliefs
are the pivot or crucial factor which relate his perceptions of the
real world around him to his actions and his behavior. It was
therefore assumed that the beliefs which teachers hold regarding
their students would be worthy of study and that such a study
might prove to be an important step in the attempt to locate the

cause of the difference in marks assigned to boys and to girls.

 

 

I...II' l .l

85
The guiding research hypotheses of this investigation were stated.

In order to test these research hypotheses, a series of four
research questions were develOped, these questions are reviewed in
the section on findings later in this chapter.

The Adjective dheck.Ldst by H. G. Gough.was selected as the
data gathering instrument of this study and its design and
construction were reviewed. The final sanple for this investigation
consisted of 84 junior high school teachers who were representative
of the total pOpulation of junior high school teachers employed by
the Livonia, Michigan, Public Schools during the 1963-64 school
year. Each teacher in the sample was asked to complete the
eXperinental task which involved the deve10pment of four separate
.aGL protocols, one for the description of "good" students, one for
"poor" students, one for female students and one for male students.

The data gathered were treated collectively for analysis of
some of the research questions but were separated according to the
sex of the respondent for an analysis of one of those questions.
The data were analyzed with the help of the IBM 1410 Computer using
an item analysis prOgram which was explained.

Eigdiggs

The findings of this investigation were presented for each
of the four research questions.

Research.Qusstion I asked whether the teachers in the sample

would be able to agree sufficiently in their selections of adjectives

from the AOL to establish stereotypes in each of the four student

84
categories. sets were obtained frOm an analysis of all 336 nJL
protocols and revealed that nesearch Question I had been answered
in the affirmative. Stereotypes of some length were develOped in
each of the four categories.

nesearch wuestion II asked whether stereotypes differed
according to the sex of the respondent, male and female teachers
selecting different adjectives to describe students. In this case,
the ndL protocols obtained from male and female teachers were
analyzed separately. It was concluded that Research Question II
had also been answered in the affirmative and moreover that the
differences found were, in general, in the direction that was
expected.

Research duestion III asked if there was a greater corres-
pondence between the stereotype for good students and that for
female students than there was between the stereotype for good
students and that for male students. Again, data from all 336
AOL protocols were analyzed and it was found that this question
had been answered negatively. No significant difference was
found to exist, that is, the good student adjectives were not a
part of the female student stereotype to any greater extent than
they were a part of the male student stereotype.

Research.euestion IV asked if there was a greater corres-
pondence between the stereotype for poor students and that fer
male students than there was between the stereotype for poor

students and that for female students. Data from all 336 aCL

85

protocols were analyzed and it was found that this question also
had been answered negatively. The poor student adjectives had not
been included by the sample subjects as a part of either the male
or the female student stereotypes.

In the analysis of the data regarding Research questions 111 and
IV, a trend in the eXpected direction was found to exist. This
trend seemed to indicate a greater correspondence between the
300d and the female adjectives and between the poor and the hale
adjectives. To determine the importance of this observed trend,
the data were considered to constitute a 2 K 2 contingency table
and the Fisher Exact Probability Test Was ehlloyed to determine
whether the actual data differed significantly frcm wiat would be
expected to occur by chance. This analysis indicated that the
observed trend was significant beyond the .001 level.
conclusions

FrOm he analysis of the results of this study, one conclusion
seems paramount. No support was found for the former belief that
teachers are prejudiced against boys, shice no significant
correspondence Was found to exist between the good and poor student
adjectiVes and those for female and sale students.

Earlier writers, such as Garner and Swanson cited in the
review of the literature, had investigated such things as actual
marks assigned to students and the make up of the honor society

and had found both to favor girls. Swenson had concluded, it

will be resalled, that he believed his data indicated that all

86
teachers, both male and female, were prejudiced against bcys. It
was research such as this which led the present writer to predict
thut in the formation of student stereotypes, teachers would
select adjectives in such a way as to reveal a significant corres—
pondence between adjectives descriptive of good students and those
for female students and between adjectives descriptive of poor
students and those for male students. The results of this study,
however, revealed no sudh prejudice 0n the part of the sample
subjects.

dhy did prejudice fail to show up in the results of this study?
It is interesting and important to Speculate on the possible
answers to this question. The writer believes that each of the
following reasons and perhaps others may have caused the results
of this study to fail to reveal prejudice:

l. The teachers in the sample may have deve10ped an undetermined
response set as a result of the fact that the presentations of the
research task were not randomized. All teachers in the sample first
marked the AOL to describe good and poor students and second to
describe female and male students. It is possible thut different
results might have been obtained if half of the teachers had first
marked the “UL to describe female and male students and then
second marked it to describe good and poor students. It is
possible that a response set established by marking good 4nd poor
adjectives first may have carried over in some unknown way to the

marking of adjectives to describe female and mule students.

87

2. although all 200 teachers in the population had been
invited to participate in the study, some 95 of them did not do so.
It is possible that these 95 teachers might have had attitudes
or beliefs very different from those held by the study participants
and, therefore, that if 100 per cent participation could have been
obtained, the results of the study might have been different.

3. although sincere efforts were made to conceal the intent
of the marking procedures, it is likely that the sample subjects
engaged in guessing with regard to the intent. Because of this,
it is possible that the subjects may have 00ncealed their real
beliefs and the writer may have obtained little more than what
the subjects "guessed" that the writer "wanted".

4. The AOL itself may have been a seriously limiting factor
in this study.

a. First, it has a reported reliability which is low (.60)
amfl.therefore it is impossible to say with confidence that the same
results would be obtained should the Sbldy be repeated with the
same subjects.

b. Second, the sol is still an experimental instrument and
because this is so, there is no evidence available to indicate its
validity for the purpose for which it was used in this study. It
may not be said, therefore, with any degree of confidence that there
is any relationship between the way the sample subjects marked the
40L and the way in which they assign marks to real students.

5. Lastly, but not less important, the choice of 50 per cent

II III! ii. I ‘\

‘llllllll 'lllll

88
as the degree of agreement needed before any given adjective could
be included in the given student stereotype may have been unwise
and acted in such a way as to conceal agreements among the sample
subjects which may have been present in the data. The 50 per cent
level as a cut-off point was a purely arbitrary decision and as
such it is not supported by any statistical evidence as beiqg
the most apprOpriate cut-off point. It may be said that for the
data gathered in this study, the 50 per cent point represented a
figure about one-and-one-half standard deviations above the mean
per cent of selection of the adjectives in the total list. So far
as this writer has been able to determine, statistics permits
no predictions to be made in advance regarding the eXpected
distribution of selections from among the adjectives which
constitute the “CL.

Implications for Further,Besearch.

Because of the eXperimental nature of the aCL, one implication

 

for further research seems to recommend itself. It would appear
worthwhile and interesting to determine whether there is any
relationship between teachers mark? on the dCL and actual teacher
behavior, for example with regard to the assignment of marks to
students. In effect, such a research would amount to an attempt
to validate the AOL as a device to be used to make predictions
regarding teacher behavior.

Une of the problems inherent in the use of the iCL also

suggests the possibility of further research. iany of the 300

89
words contained in the «CL have meanings which are similar to
each other with the result that subjects tend to select somewhat
different adjectives to arrive at similar word descriptions of the
object under study. It would appear worthwhile, therefore, to
cut down on the size of this word list by eliminating words with
similar meanings and thereby to determine if the reliability of
the instrument would be increased. It is possible, for example,
that the subjects of this study were in agreement to a far greater
degree than the results reveal but that this fact was concealed
because the subjects selected different adjectives to arrive at

similar word pictures.

90

APPENDIA I

To test for significance of differences in the selection of
adjectives, the statistical procedure to test for significance of

differences between preportiOns as shown in Statistical Methods1

was employed. The formula is as follows:

dffacz; = 77;8(€6-1‘J:1)

 

where: : the total percentage of occurence
q 3 1-p
n1 :.number in first sample
112 :number in second sample
2- ii 8! %.82.
and: 6 - -—-—-— + T
P _
6
values for t: t 1.96 at the .05 level

t 2.56 at the .01 level
To illustrate the use of this formula as it was applied to the
data gathered in this study, the computations used to test for
significance of difference in selection of the adjective active,

the first adjective appearing in table 11, is presented below.

 

ACTIVE 80 out of the 84 teachers in the sample selected this
adjective to describe students. 46 per cent of them
selected it to describe female students and 85 per
cent of them selected it to describe male students.

 

horbert arkin, Raymond B. Colton, Statistical Methods, Barnes
and Noble, Inc., New‘York, 1961, pp 121-122.

91

let p1 2 the perenntage selected to describe female students, and

let p2 :: the percentage selected to describe male students, then:

 

 

 

 

 

 

and ql :; .54 qz : .15
and ‘1 t: 80 12 = 80
P1 Q1 P2 q2
62 " +
‘1 ‘2
Z .46 X .54 .85 x .15
e : +
80 80
52 = .0046
6 : 0068
P1 " P2 .46 — . 85 .391
now, t z z z z 5075
6 .068 .068

where values for t are: t 1.96 at the .05 level
and: t 2.58 at the .01 level

therefore, the difference in selection of the adjective
active to describe femle and male students has been found to

be significant at the .01 level.

92
APPENDIX 11

The following are 00pies of the instructions distributed to the
teachers in the sample for completion of the research task tOgether
with a complete list of the adjectives which constitute the adjective
Check List.

Instructions for completion of Part I of the research task were
as follows:

On the pages which follow, you will find two cepies of a commonly
used list of adjectives.

1. Please read through.the first cepy 0f the list and circle
each word you would consider to be descriptive of good students,
those who would be given "A" or "B" marks on their report cards.
Do not worry about duplications, contradictions, and the like on
either c0py of the list.

2. Next, please read through the second copy of the list and
circlg each word.you consider to be descriptive of poor students,
those who would be given "D" or "E" marks on their report cards, and
that's it:

The instructions for completion of Part II of the research task
were as follows:

On the pages which follow, you will find two additional cOpies
of the same list of adjectives used in Part I of this research.

1. Please read through.the first cepy of the list and circle
each word you would consider apprOpriate to complete this statement:
In general, school girls (female students) may be described by the
following words: (Circle those words which you would believe
accurately complete this statement.)

2. Next, please read through the second copy of the list and
cigclg each word you would consider appr0priate to complete this
statement: In general, school boys (male students) may be described
by the following words: (Circle those words which you believe would
accurately complete this statement.)

Again, do not worry about duplications, caitradictions, and the
like on either c0py of the list.

93

The following is a complete listing of the 300 adjectives which

constitute the.ddjective Check List.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
46.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

absent-minded
active
adaptable
adventurous
affected
affectionate
aggressive
alert

aloof
ambitious
anxious
apathetic
appreciative
argumentative
arrOgant
artistic
assertive
attractive
autocratic
awkward
bitter
blustery
boastful
bossy

calm

capable
careless
cautious
changeable
charming
cheerful
civilized
clear- thinking
clever
coarse

cold
commonplace
complaining
complicated
conceited
confident
confused
conscientious
conservative
considerate
contented
conventional
cool
cOOperative
courageous

51. cowardly

520 cruel

53. curious

54. cynical

550 daring

56. deceitful
57. defensive
58. deliberate
590 demanding
60. dependable
61. dependent
62. despondent
63. determined
64. dignified
65. discreet

66. disorderly
67. dissatisfied
68. distractible
69. distrustful
70. dominant

710 dreamy

72. dull

73. easy going
74. effeminate
75. efficient
76. egotistical
77. emotional
78. energetic
79. enterprising
80. enthusiastic
81. evasive

82. excitable
83. fair-minded
84. fault-finding
85. fearful

86. feminine

87. fickle

88. flirtatious
89. foolish

90. forceful

91. foresighted
92. forgetful
93. forgiving
94. formal

95. frank

96. friendly

97. frivolous
980 fussy

99. generous
1000 gentle

1.7;-VEE ‘glmu wu.¢flim

.31.: 4,

101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
1070
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
‘ 1340
1:550
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

gloomy

good looking
good natured
greedy
handsome
hard-headed
hard-hearted
hasty
headstrong
healthy
helpful
high—strung
honest
hostile
humorous
hurried
idealistic
imaginative
immature
impatient
impulsive
independent
indifferent
individualistic
industrious
infantile
informal
ingenious
inhibited
initiative
insightful
intelligent
interests narrow
interests wide
intellerant
inventive
irreSponsible
irritable
jolly

kind

lazy
leisurely
logical

loud

loyal
mannerly
masculine
mature

meek
methodical

94

151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
'196.
197.

198.
199.

200.

mild
miSCLievous
moderate
modest

moody
nagging
natural
nervous
noisy
obliging
obnoxious
Opinionated
Opportunistic
Optimistic
organised
original
outgoing
outspoken
painstaking
patient
peaceable
peculiar
persevering
persistent
peasimistic
planful
pleasant
pleasure-seeking
poised

1101 18h“
practical
praising
precise
prejudiced
preoccupied
progressive
prudish
quarrelsome
queer
quick

quiet
quitting
rational
rattlebrained
realistic
reasonable

rebellious
reckless
reflective

relaxed

201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208 O
209 O
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
.424 O
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.

reliable
resentful
reserved
resourceful
reaponsible
restless
retiring
rigid

robust

rude
sarcastic
self-centered
self-cenfident
self-controlled

self-denying

self-pitying
self-punishing

self-seeking
selfish
sensitive
sentimental
serious
severe

301’

shallow
sharp-witted
shirtless
showboff
shrewd

any

silent
simple
sincere
slipshod
slow

sly

smug
snobbish
sociable
soft-hearted
sOphisticated
spendthrift
Spineless
Spontaneous
spunky
stable
steady

stern

2233i?

95

251.
252.
253.
254.
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
Z82.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.

strong
stubborn
submissive
suggestible
sulky
superstitious
suspicious
sympathetic
tactful
tactless
talkative
terperamental
tense
thankless
thorough
thoughtful
thrifty

timid
tolerant
touchy

tough
truSting
unaffected
unambitious
unassuming
unconventional
undependable
understanding
unemotional
unexcitable
unfriendly
uninhibited
unintelligent
unkind
unrealistic
unscrupulous
unselfish
unstable
vindictive
versatile
warm

wary

weak

whiny
wholesome
wise
withdrawn
witty
worrying

zany

96

LITERATURE CITED

Ahmann, J. Stanley, and Glock, Marvin 0., Evaluating Pupil Growth,
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1959.

allport, G., and Odbert, H., "Trait Names: A Psycho—Lsiical Study”,
Psychological nonographs, vol. 47, Ho. 1, 1936.

anastasi, Anne, Egychological Testing. The Nachillan Company,
New York, 1959.

arkin, Norbert, Golton, Raymond 3., Statistica12§ethods, narnes
and Noble, Inc., New York, 1961.

 

Belien, Harry, "Teachers' and Clinicians' Attitudes Toward the
Behavior Problems of Children: AJReappraisal", Child DeveloDment.
v01 30, 1959.

Billett,.ROy 0., Provisions for individual Differences, marking,
and rrgmotion, U. 3. Office of Education Bulletin no 17, 1932.

Bowman, Howard 4., "Pupil harking Practices in Los Angeles City
Senior High Schools", Bulletin No. 3, the Committee on Research,
Los angeles Schools, July, 1956.

carter, Robert 3., "How Invalid are Marks assigned by Teachers?",
gggrn§119f Educational PsychOIng, vol 43, 1952.

Cattell, R. B., "The Description of Personality: 2. Basic Traits

Resolved into Clusters", Journgl of Abnormal Social Psycholggy,
vol 38, 1943.

charters, H. W. Jr., "The Social Background of Teaching", in
TQQ Handbook of agggarch on Teaching, Rand McNally and 00.,
Chicago, Illinois, 1963.

crooks, a. Buryee, "Marks and Marking Systems: A Digest",
Journal of Educational RegearCh, vol 27, 1933.

Day, 1. 0., "Boys and airls and Honor Hanks", School Review,
vol 46, 1938.

Uoug1as, H. 3., "Relation of High School marks to Sex in Four
Hinnesota denior High Schools", Schoolifieview, vol 45, 1937

Edmiston,.n. W., "Do Teachers Show Partiality inward Beys or Girls?"
leabody Journal of Education, vol 20, 1943.

Fuses, Claude h., College Board: Its First Fifty Years, Columbia
University, 1950.

97

Garner, J. 3., "Survey of Teachers' Marks”, Sghool and Communitg,

Gordon, Rosemary, Stereotyny of Imagery and Belief as an Egg_
Defense, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1962.

Cough, Harrison 0., "The Adjective Uheck.List as a Personality
Assessment Research Technique", ggychological Reports. vol 6, 1960.

Hanson, 6. H., "Do Boys Get a Square Deal in School?", education,
V01 79, 1959.

Hathaw, Se Be, and “0911]., P0 Be, "T118 “insecta BilfltIPMSIC
Personality Inventory" in Military Clinical Psychology, Department
of the army Technical manual TM 8—242, dashington.D. 0., Government
Printing Office, 1951.

Heck, arch 0., "Contributions of Research to the Classification,
Promotion, Marking and Certification of Pupils", in She Science
ggvement in Education. 37th Yearbook, Part II, N.N.S.E., 1938.

 

Herron, John 8., "How Teachers Rate Their Pupils", Department of
Elementary School Principles bulletin, No 8, 1929.

Jaggard, Guy 11., "Improving the marking o‘ystems", Educationagh
Administration and Supervision, vol.5, 1919.

Jersild, A. T., In Search of Sglf, bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia'University, New York, 1952.

Johnson, Franklin N., "a Study Of High School Grades”, School
R view, vol 19, 1911.

Katz, 0., and Braly, K., "Racial Stereotypes of One Hundred College
Students", Journal of abnormal and Social Psychology, vol 28, 1933.

holesnik, dalter, "Sex differences and education", America,
vol 108, npril 20, 1963.

hrech, navid, and Crutchfield, Richard 3., filaments of Psychology,
alfred A. Knapf, New York, 1962.

hrech, David, and Crutchfield, Richard S.,.Theo;y and Problems

of Sgcial gsychology, McCrawaHill Book Company, Inc., New York,
1948.

Lobough, Dean, "Girls, Grades and IQ's", Nations Schools, vol 30,
1942.

98

Machinnon, Donald W., "Creativity and Images of the Self",
in The Study of Lives, edited by Robert W. White, Atherton Press,
New York, 1963.

McGill, Kenneth, "The Schoolteacher Stereotype", Journal of
Edycational Sociolggy, vol 9, 1931.

Meyer, William J., and Thompson, George 6., "Sex Differences in
the Distribution of Teacher Approval and Disapproval among Sixth-
Grade Children", Joyynal of Educational Paychology, vol 47, 1956.

 

Newton, n, R., "no hen Teachers Grade Higher Than domen Teachers?",
Schgo; andjeociety. vol 56, 1942.

Northby, arwood 5., "Sex Differences in High School Scholarship,
a Study of Connecticut High Schools in 1956", School and society,
v01 70, 1956.

Radke, h. J., "The Relation of Parental Authority to Children's
Behavior and attitudes", Child Jelfarg Monograph No 22,
Minneapolis, University of Kinnesota Press, 1946.

Beeder, T. 4., "a Study of Some Relationships Between Level of
Self Concept, academic achievement and Classroom AdJustment",

Disgertgtion abgtracts, vol AV, 1955.

Rogers, Carl R., Cliggt—Centered Therapy, Houghton Hifflin,
Boston, 1951.

Rugg, Harold 0., "Teachers' Marks and Marking Systems", Educational
aggggigtration and Supervigion, vol 1, 1915.

Schinnerer, H. 0., "Failure Ratio: Two Boys to One Girl",
Misses. vol 15. 1944-

Schoenfeld, Nathan, "An Experimental Study of Some Problems
Relating to Stereotypes", Archives of Psychology, No. 270, 1942.

Smith, hdward W., and Krouse, Stanley J. Jr., and Atkinson, Mark m.,

Th9 Educgtog's Encyc10pedia, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Hnglewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1961.

Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W., Individua;:Behavio;, Harper and
Brothers, New York, 1949.

Stevens, P. H., "An Investigation of the Relationship Between
Certain aspects of Self-Concept Behavior and Student's Academic

achievement", Dissertation abstracts, vol XVI, 1956.

99

Swanson, Clifford, "Packing the Honor Society", dlearing House,
vol 16, 1942.

Thorndike, E. L. and Bregman, is. 0., "0n the Form of the
Distribution of Intellect in the Ninth Grade", Journalrof
Educational Research, vol 10, 1924.

daetjen, Jalter 3., "Sex Roles", Scholastic Teacher, vol 6, no 10,
April 5, 1965.

 

wrinkle, william 1., Improving Marking_and Reportinngracticg§_
in Elementary and Secondary Schools, dinehart, 1947.

 

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIsRnRIEs
. 1|HIIWI111111111111"W“11111111111HI
31293103518605

1» .3