ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS BY Howard Shuirman Teitelbaum, Jr. The subjects who participated in this study were teachers from the Michigan public schools. The unit of selection, however, was the school rather than the indi- vidual teacher. The schools were stratified on two variables: (1) the size of the school district in which it was located; and (2) whether it was elementary, junior high or senior high school. The items used in this survey were developed through the cooperative efforts of educational psychologists, cur- riculum specialists and experienced teachers. The analysis estimated missing data for the re- spondents and made appropriate adjustments in the final analysis. The design from which the analysis was performed was a two-way analysis of variance—~repeated measures design. The dissertation identifies the most frequently occurring discipline situations and their associated Howard Shuirman Teitelbaum, Jr. degree of seriousness. The frequency scale ranges from hourly to never and the seriousness scale ranges from positive to extremely serious. The study also shows how each of these behaviors were perceived when teachers were grouped according to selected demographic variables. The findings indicate teachers perceive the most serious and most frequently occurring disruptive be- haviors involve students' relationships to other students, followed by violations of school authority. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS BY Howard Shuirman Teitelbaum, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1970 f ,6 7/74/ ©Copyright by HOWARD SHUIRMAN TEITELBAUM, JR. 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to certain individuals who have shared their time and efforts with me during this period of formal academic training and want at this time to pub— licly thank them. Many times acknowledgments are included for stylistic reasons and I want it understood that in this dissertation such is not the case. It is rather a sincere gesture on my part to convey to them my feelings. Dr. Keith Anderson has given me the freedom of choice and yet the guidance I needed and is to be recognized for his patience and understanding in my behalf. I am sure that had I had any other advisor I would not have con- sidered matriculating at M.S.U. Dr. George Ferree has changed my thinking on many issues and is in my opinion a master teacher. There is no man who has had such a profound influence on me and I can only hope my actions will be respected in the way that I respect his. Two colleagues must also be mentioned for it was the conversations with them that helped me identify the role and techniques adopted in this dissertation as well as enhance my thinking about statistics: Mr. John Draper contributed his time in discussing theoretical concepts which were necessary for me to ii understand in order to justify many statements in this paper. He also reawakened heretofore dormant considera- tions I had harbored in the area of data analysis and for that alone I will always be grateful. Mr. David Wright gave willingly of his effort and I can truly say that without this effort I could not have completed this dissertation. He has been an invaluable source of ideas and talent and it was an honor and privi- ledge for me to be associated with him. I hope that some- day I may be able to repay him for his efforts in my be- half. Drs. Ted Ward, Judith Henderson, and Carol Beere and the Learning Systems Institute are to be thanked for giving me permission to use the data for this study. I am also indebted to Scott Vaughn, Arthur Dell Orto and Ken La Fleur for their encouragement and patience dur- ing the writing of this paper. To Jane Ann, Florrie, and Diane for their secre— tarial skills throughout the year, I will always be thank- ful. To M.T., who has given to me more than I had a right to receive. Lastly, to Cara Vaughn who had to endure sloppy footnoting, inaccurate citations and poor spelling-- thank you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 12 Introduction . . . . _. . . . . . 12 Basic Approaches for Examining Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . .‘ . . . 12 The Case Study Method . . . . . . 13 The Observation Method. . . . . . 14 The Experimental Method . . . . . 16 The Survey: Questionnaire . . . . 17 The Wickman Study . . . . . . . . 17 Specific Areas and Findings . . . . . 24 Degree of Teacher and Experience . . 25 Race. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lower Ranges of Intelligence. . . . 26 Grade Levels . . . . . . . . . 27 Sex of the Teacher . . . . . . . 30 Sex of the Student . . . . . . . 31 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Major Findings Summarized. . . . . 33 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Population and Sample . . Instrument Development. . . . . . . 41 Final Instrument. . . . . . . . . 44 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 45 Computer Programs . . . . . . . . 47 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION . . . . . . 58 iv Chapter ' Page V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 65 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 76 A. MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS O O O O O O O O O C O O 7 7 B. DEMOGRAPHIC RANKINGS OF DISRUPTIVE BE- IIAVIORS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 O C. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 D. SIMULATED INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Table 1. 2. 3. B1. B2. B3. B4. B5. B6. B7. B8. 39. B10. B11. BIZ. B13. LIST OF TABLES Perceived seriousness of selected behaviors. Differential patterns of behavior by grade . Number of schools in original and final sample (breakdown by stratum and level) . . Number and per cent of teachers in original and final samples (breakdown by stratum and level). . . . . . . . . . . . Showing disrespect for another student's opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . Drawing picture to poke fun at another stu- dent O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Making noise in the halls. . . . . . . Whispering, or nonverbally communicating at inappropriate times. . . . . . . . . Smoking on school prOperty . . . . . . Failing to follow directions for assignment. Turning in messy papers . . . . . . . Possessing brass knuckles, molotov cock- tails, etc. on school property . . . . . Slouching or otherwise sitting inappro- priately in seat. . . . . . . . . . Holding hands outside of class on school property . . . . . . . . . . . . Making allusions to sex (written or verbal). Chewing gum in class . . . . . . . . Spitting . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 23 28 48 49 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 Table B14 O 815. B16. 817. B18. 819. BZO O 321. C1.1. C1.2. C1.3. C1.4. Cl.5. C1.6. Cl.7. C108. C1.9. C1.10. C2.1. Verbally interrupting a student while he talking to teacher or class . . . . . . Possessing alcohol on school property. . . Sleeping in class . . . . . . . . . Clicking pens or making other similar noises in class . . . . . . . . . . Reading, writing, etc. while teacher is talking. . . . . . . . . . . . . Combing hair in class . . . . . . . . Wearing clothes too tight. . . . . . . Doing wrong assignment. . . . . . . . Analysis of variance—-sex (frequency--red form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--socio-economic status (frequency--red form) . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--educational level (frequency--red form) . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--age (frequency--red fom) I O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Analysis of variance-~years of teaching experience (frequency--red form) . . . . Analysis of variance--teaching the same group all day (frequency--red form) . . . Analysis of variance--c1ass size (fre- quency--red form) . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--team teaching (fre- quency--red form) . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--specia1 class (fre- quency--red form) . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance--teacher classifica- tion (frequency--red form) . . . . . . Analysis of variance--sex (seriousness-- red form) . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 Table C2.2. C203. C2.4. C2.5. C2.6. C2.7. C2.8. C2.9. C2.10 C3.1. C3.2. C3.3. C3.4. C3.5. C3.6. C3.7. C3.8. Page Analysis of variance--socio-economic class (seriousness--red form) . . . . . . . 156 Analysis of variance-~educational level (seriousness--red form) . . . . . . . 157 Analysis of variance--age (seriousness--red fom) O O O O O O O O O O O O O 158 Analysis of variance--years teaching ex- perience (seriousness--red form) . . . . 159 Analysis of variance--teaching the same group all day (seriousness--red form). . . 160 Analysis of variance--c1ass size (serious- ness--red form) . . . . . . . . . . 161 Analysis of variance--team teaching (seriousness--red form) . . . . . . . 162 Analysis of variance—-special education class (seriousness--red form) . . . . . 163 Analysis of variance--teacher classifica- tion (seriousness--red form). . . . . . 164 Analysis of variance--sex (frequency-- green form) . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Analysis of variance--socio-economic status (frequency--green form) . . . . . . . 166 Analysis of variance--educational level (frequency--green form) . . . . . . . 167 Analysis of variance--age (frequency-- green form) . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Analysis of variance-~years teaching ex- perience (frequency--green form) . . . . 169 Analysis of variance--teaching the same group all day (frequency--green form). . . 170 Analysis of variance--class size (fre- quency--green form). . . . . . . . . 171 Analysis of variance--team teaching (frequency--green form) . . . . . . . 172 viii Table Page 3.9. Analysis of variance--Specia1 education class (frequency--green form) . . . . . 173 3.10. Analysis of variance--teacher classifica- tion code (frequency--green form) . . . . 174 4.1. Analysis of variance--sex (seriousness- green form) . . . . . . . . . . . 175 4.2. Analysis of variance-~socio-economic status (seriousness--green form). . . . . . . 176 4.3. Analysis of variance--educationa1 level (seriousness—-green form). . . . . . . 177 4.4. Analysis of variance--age (seriousness-- green form) . . . . . . . . . . . 178 4.5. Analysis of variance--years teaching ex- perience (seriousness--green form). . . . 179 4.6. Analysis of variance--teaching the same group all day (seriousness--green form) . . 180 4.7. Analysis of variance--c1ass size (serious- ness--green form) . . . . . . . . . 181 4.8. Analysis of variance--team teaching (seriousness--green form). . . . . . . 182 4.9. Analysis of variance--special education (seriousness--green form). . . . . . . 183 4.10. Analysis of variance--teacher classifica- tion code (seriousness--green form) . . . 184 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Teaching practitioners and education researchers have long had difficulty in effectively communicating with one another. _However, some notable efforts have been under- taken to bridge this gap. One such effort began twenty years ago under the influence of Stephen Corey.1 This ef- fort was functionally labeled "action research" and its basic thrust was to improve teaching behaviors by training teachers to be mini-researchers. It was also designed to help teachers appreciate and learn how to structure objec- tive inquiry. This orientation has received criticism from Cookingham,2 Corman,3 and Hodgkinson4 as it did not necessarily fulfill its two primary missions. If anything, it tended to foster poor research practices. The action research movement lost its impetus because little data was accumulated to show that it actually improved teacher in- structional behavior. Ward5 hypothesizes that the failure of action re- search to fulfill its primary missions was essentially due to the lack of planned integration of the following groups of people: practitioners, researchers, and practitioner trainers. Ward further stated that the integration of the l above people can be realized through clinical research studies of instruction. This can be achieved through the . . . efforts of highly trained behavioral sci- entists to research with practitioners--first to develop descriptions of the real world in which their client-contact tasks exist, then to describe the variables the practitioners manipu- late and the effects these manipulations pro- duce, and finally, to so precisely define the vocabulary of the descriptions that corollary statements from basic research can be reliably identified and constructively related to ap- plied problems.5 In the clinical research model the results of the joint efforts of the practitioners and researchers would be consciously integrated by teacher trainers into teacher education courses. The added integrative emphasis of the teacher trainer in the clinical research model could over- come the serious shortcoming of action research. At this point a clarification of the term "clinical research" is in order. The use of this term throughout this paper will be in accordance with a stipulated defini- tion. Let us agree that the use of this term will mean the exploration Of a diagnosis-treatment-evaluation process in a particular setting. The setting will be the school, the problem explored will be discipline. This is to emphasize the difference between laboratory and clinic. The labora- tory connotes a restricted controlling aspect of variables as in a "controlled experiment." The clinic's capacity for dissemination of new procedures and equipment supple- ments the laboratory's prior explorations and safety veri- fications. Recent efforts to bridge the research-to-practice gap have been increased by application of the clinical research approach to all the related educational workers. The supporters of clinical research usually contend that decision-making is basic to teaching, and therefore emphasis ought to focus upon that process. Past teacher education efforts have hoped to "indirectly" improve a teacher's decision-making as was the case of the action re- search movement. The value of clinical research, directly amalgamated into teacher education programs, is that it presently focuses upon the teacher as a decision-maker. The benefit of this orientation as presented by Ward is that: . . . if a student can learn to seek and select environmental data and to base his instruc- tional decisions on the important characteris- tics of the problem situation, he will develop a versatile and useful teaching skill. He will begin to adopt a systematic habit of using ob- servations about what is in planning his teach- ing moves and evaluating the outcomes of his actions. Thus, he can profit from success and failure. Exciting possibilities are opened up to us once we commit ourselves to a crisp defi- nition of the basic behaviors we want in pro- fessional practices.7 Henderson8 has described the phases that Ward9 iden- tifies as being the essential parts of the clinical re- search cycle. Arriving at the commitment level that Ward describes is a task that requires a carefully integrated research program. Clinical research activities explicating in- structional behaviors can be furthered in a much more meaningful and systematic manner when they incorporate 10 Henderson's dimensions of clinical research. Henderson'sll conceptualization of the components of clinical research initially identified by Ward (Chart 1) furthers the manner in which clinical research should be developed in actual practice. She recommends that a syste- matic yet broad development of clinical research programs be undertaken. This is necessary because of the highly integrated nature of each phase of clinical research. The Problem Discipline has long been recognized by many educators as the most frequent and serious problem which will likely confront a student teacher during his field experience. 12 Wingo,13 and Iannaccone,14 who have written Batchelder, books dealing with the topic of student teaching, indicate that a student teacher will undoubtedly face his most serious problems in this area. The usual remedy for such tribulations is a few statements that explicate rules or guidelines for the student teacher to follow. The student may receive such warnings as, "Be consistent," "Don't threaten pupils unless you can fulfill the threat," "Good planning and classroom organization are the key to disci- pline in the classroom," "Treat each pupil as an indi- vidual," and "Treat the causes and not the symptoms." Yet, despite all the advice from textbooks and other related media, student teachers continue to cite discipline as their greatest problem. .ooumowamxo mum noummmwu Osman 3oz can ancOMu uaoom uow mwzao .H noncommm .ommon>oo mum memumoum mow>uwm law How mowmoumnum can mandamus: .N .omumowamxo mum muow>mnmn umGOAuwu Iowan MOM momcmno H0\ocm cowumeuamcoo .H oowuomum .owmon>mo mum mfimumoum mofl>uom noun How moamoumuum can mamwumumz .N .omumofiamxo mum 9:0fiumsuwm mswnomou Hnwoomm can Hmuosom ou ouowumoummn uuow>mnwm«mH cowumosom Honomma .m noncommu owmmn Sufi: .~ mmwmoHocnoma .o meowpwccoo Huofimmnm .n coquchmmuo .m usoflmcmawo Hmucmecouw>cm .m mucosamcw Hogomwa .0 mumEAHo msouo .n mowumwumu locumno umcuqu .m wcowmsmeo mampoe Hmuow>mnmm .N Hmowmommwmm can audavcw you moamoumuum .n wosum mo ucoucoo .m meaducmewo 0>Hucmumbdm .H mcowumsuww Eooummwau HavanmomoHHnd buss .m mamooe mamoos cowumufiuwu uomumno Hmowumem omum>am mun: .H mmwufi>muo< GOmemmEoo Hoooz .m momman magnumpqu .v moans .cowumNficmmHo .m ucwsmwsvo mcofiumeuom .ucmam Hmowmanm .~ umcmuu mmmamsmq .N maumeE nxmmu oaumwmcd .H afleosoooIOHOOm .H mofiufi>muo< muxousou mcwoawsm amooz .4 wwwcsaeou can Hoonom .m .4 Awmam oucfi oEoo mosam> £0fl£3 um unwomv mafia ca mmooosm can usmfim>mfl£om Hanan .m mswaoonom ucmsvomBSm mo acmeo>mfi£om Hausa .N mo>auowwno mo ucwEm>mw£om Hanan .H mwumufiuo m>fiuumflno .m mucoumm .m mawmzm .v muOmw>Homsm .m muoumuumwcwsc< .N mumnomma .H usumufluo o>nuoowasm .4 cowumoflamm< GOAumcwmem can \cowumowflmsu unaum H0002 coaumwuonoo oHnMflHm> cowuomamm sowumanmom >H chasm HHH manna HH mango H manna .sofluosuuusw no nowonuullsouuomou HmowcHHUII.H uuccu Research studies related to the student teaching ex- perience support what many authors have intuitively iden- tified as being the most serious problem in student teach- 15 17 and ing--discip1ine. Sharp, Deiulio,16 Bouchard, Travers18 through studies which ascertain the main prob- lems which confront student teachers during their field experience have arrived at similar conclusions--that discipline continues to be the most urgent and pressing problem during student teaching. Thus, the general litera- ture and research are mutually supportive: however, it still remains that student teachers continue to be plagued by the anxiety connected with not being able to control a classroom of pupils. The problem, more specifically stated, is that many educators recognize that student teachers have major prob- lems with discipline. Few educators get beyond the level of globally recognizing the problem to that of identifying the specific kinds of disciplinary problems which confront a student teacher. Moreover, the problem of pupil disrup- tive behaviors is further compounded by the almost total lack of data about the student teacher and variables which include class size, academic subject matter taught, grade levels, socio-economic level of the school, and school organization schemes. In a recent study (1969) by Frances Fuller, it is pointed out that no study supports the notion that begin- ning teachers are basically concerned with "instructional design, methods of presenting subject matter, assessment of pupil learning, or with tailoring content to individual pupils, the areas often presented before student teaching 19 Instead, the findings indicate in education courses." much agreement: they conclude that the student teacher's basic anxiety is related to "fear of inability to gain con- trol of classes and fear of inability to gain pupils' emo- tional support."20 Arriving at the stage where teacher education will directly attack the problem that student teachers face with pupil disruptivebehaviors will not be easily accomplished. Because of the complexity of pupil disruptive behaviors it becomes extremely important that research be conceived and carried out in a thorough and systematic manner that fits into a broad developmental research program. The School of Teacher Education in cooperation with the Learning Systems Institute at Michigan State University is attempting to develop training strategies which will en- able student teachers to deal with discipline problems. In order to be more effectual to this end, the School of Edu- cation needs to know what the discipline situations are. The major purpose of this dissertation will be to report accurately the findings of a survey conducted on a representative sample of experienced teachers in the state of Michigan. The survey asked the teachers to respond to selected discipline problems on two dimensions: frequency of occurrence and seriousness of occurrence. More formally stated, the purposes of the dissertation are: A. To identify empirically which selected disci- pline problems experienced teachers perceive as occurring most frequently in their classrooms and, of these, what is the seriousness of these behaviors. B. To examine along specified demographic char- acteristics the reSponses made in "A." The demographic characteristics are: 1. 2. sex of the teacher socio-economic status of the school as perceived by the teacher educational level of the teacher age of the teacher years of teaching experience whether or not the teacher teaches fie same group all day class size team teacher special education teacher classification as to the area and subject matter taught. The major importance of this study is that it will contribute to teacher education by providing data about the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive be- haviors as perceived by experienced teachers. This study will provide the data necessary to move to Phase III of Henderson's model of Clinical Research--Studies of In- struction.21 This particular phase emphasizes the build- ing of instructional models which will later have their application in teacher education, classroom practice, and further research efforts. Let it be carefully noted that no attempt has been made to formally define the word discipline. No appeal has been made to employ an ordinary use of the term or arrive at a normative definition. Rather, the list of pupil disruptive behaviors which are in Appendix A is used to illustrate instances of discipline problems and in this way show what is meant by the term "discipline." The limitations of this dissertation should be noted carefully. First, the list of behavior problems appearing on the questionnaire is not to be considered jointly ex- haustive or necessarily mutually exclusive. Secondly, the ranking of the categories within each demographic characteristic apply, at this point in time, only to the sample of teachers who participated in the study. Thirdly, the disruptive behaviors are a fixed factor in the study, and generalization beyond these behaviors is not justified. Furthermore, this dissertation is not inferential in nature, but is descriptive. It is hypotheses-generating 22 rather than hypotheses-testing in its intent. Conse- quently, no formal hypotheses are stated. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER I 1Stephen Corey, Action Research to Improve School Practices (New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1953). 2Frank Cookingham, "Critical Research: A Two-Way Street Between Research and Practice," Papers of the Insti- tute No. 52, Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, June, 1967. 3Bernard R. Corman, "Action Research: A Teaching or a Research Method?" Review of Education Research, XXVII (1957), 544-547. 4Harold L. Hodgkinson, "Advantages and Limitations of Informal Classroom Investigations," American Business Education Yearbook (1961), 17-27. 5Ted W. Ward, "Professional Integration and Clini- cal Research,” Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966. 6 Ibid. 7Ibid. 8Judith Henderson, "An Investigation of Practi- tioner Evaluation and Agreement Regarding Effective Language Arts Instruction" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 16. 9Ward, op. cit. 10Henderson, op. cit., p. 21. llIbid., pp. 15-23. 12Howard T. Batchelder, Maurice McGlasson, and Raleigh Schorling, Student Teaching in Secondary Schools (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956). 13Max G. Wingo and Raleigh Schorling, Elementary School Student Teaching (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1960757 10 11 14Lawrence Iannaccone and H. Warren Button, Func- tions of Student Teaching (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Health, Education and Welfare Research Project 1026, 1964). 15Jack Sharp, Off Campus Student Tgaching, Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1951), p. 118. 16Anthony Deiulio, "Problems of Student Teachers," American Teacher, XLVI (December, 1961), 9-10. 17John B. Bouchard and Ronald E. Hull, "A Pilot Study of Problems and Practices in the Instruction of Beginning Teachers" (paper presented at 1969 Meeting of Educational Research Association of New York State, Concord Hotel, Kiamesha Lake, New York, November 6, 1969). 18Robert Travers, et al., "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision (October, 1952), 368-375. 19Frances Fuller, "Concerns of Teachers: A Develop- mental Conceptualization," American Edugation Research Journal, Vol. VI, No. 2 (MarCh, 1969), 210. 20 Ibid., p. 215. 21Henderson, op. cit., p. 16. 22See Chapter V, page 73. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Gnagey1 strongly supports the point that there has been little scientific research completed about the sub- ject of discipline since the 1930's and early 1940's. Sci- entific research which relates specifically to the class- room teacher and pupil disruptive behavior is skimpy as is scientific research relating specifically to the student teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors. Because of this problem it was decided to incorporate four dimensions in the development of this chapter: (1) approaches used by researchers in analyzing the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors; (2) an examination of the research done by Wickman2 in 1927, a survey study which has particular rele- vance to this study; (3) an examination of findings of sur- vey studies which have used Wickman as a basis; and finally, (4) a summary of findings regarding pupil disruptive be- haviors. Basic Approaches for Examining Pupii Disruptive Behaviors Approaches which have been used by researchers in attacking the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors fall 12 13 into one of the following modes: the case study, the obser- vation, the experiment, and the survey. The Case Study Method Berelson and Steiner state, The case study intensively examines many char- acteristics of one "unit" (person, work group, company, community, culture), usually over a long period of time. The goal of such investi- gation is to learn "all" about the area of interest for the one case involved.3 The work of Fritz Redl4 best typifies this approach. Redl's contribution to the area of pupil disruptive behaviors is a result of his experiences with severe cases of anti- social children. Information gathered from case histories has provided Redl with a vast abundance of knowledge from which he was able to suggest practical techniques for handl- ing anti-social children. Many of these techniques have been applied to behavior problems of pupils in public school classrooms. The chief criticism of Redl's work as it applies to regular classes of pupils is that his views have been drawn from an extremely narrow and biased sample of pupils--those of severely anti-social children. A practical application of the case study approach to pupil disruptive behaviors is the use of "critical inci- dents." An example of this approach is Corsini and Howard's belief that ". . . teachers can learn general principles of classroom leadership through the case approach and through discussions of cases by people who have special knowledge 14 and special interest in good teaching."5 While Corsini and Howard's case approach has much to commend it, it has limi- tations. They have made the assumption that critical inci- dents give teachers the greatest difficulty. However, there is the possibility that a variety of minor pupil dis- ruptive behavior incidents may be more bothersome to a teacher than one critical incident. Another shortcoming of the case approach is the limited and perhaps biased sampling of cases of pupil disruptive behaviors selected by Corsini and Howard to act as a representative sample of all critical incidents. The Observation Method Medley and Mitzel refer to observational technique as ". . . procedures which use systematic observations of classroom behavior to obtain reliable and valid measurements of differences in the typical behaviors which occur in dif- ferent classrooms, or in different situations in the same classroom."6 Kounin and Gump7 in a 1958 study about the effect of teacher control techniques used a data gathering system and observers. It was in this study that the "rip- ple effect" (effect of a disciplinary action upon the children who are on-lookers) was investigated. Preliminary findings indicated that a teacher's control technique in- fluenced the behavior of both the deviant and other pupils who were audience to the technique. Kounin and Gump also noticed that pupils who were strongly affiliated with the O 15 deviant and/or the disciplinary action taken by the teacher were more affected by the sequence of action than those pupils who had little or no relationship with the deviant or the control technique. In one observation study, using video tapes, Kounin, Friesen, and Norton8 concentrated upon the disruptive be- haviors of emotionally disturbed children as they partici- pated in "regular" classrooms. Their research concern emphasized two areas: work involvement and deviancy rate. Because of the importance of this study the major findings are reported: 1. The highest degree of school-appropriate be- havior for both emotionally disturbed pupils and non-emotionally disturbed pupils occurred in sub-group recitation periods (e.g., reading groups) and the lowest degree of school- appropriate behavior occurred in seatwork situ- ations. 2. Emotionally disturbed children show less school— appropriate behavior than non-emotionally dis- turbed children. 3. Teachers who were successful in handling the behavior of non-emotionally disturbed children are relatively successful with emotionally dis- turbed children. 4. Teacher "with-it-ness" techniques of handling group movement and programing for variety 16 change in learning activities correlated highly with the behavior of children. 5. Programing for variety change is a significant dimension of classroom management. The implications of this study, drawn by Kounin, are also of importance and include the following: 1. That analysis of teacher behavior according to personality factors may not be as valuable as that of analyzing concrete techniques of pro- graming activities and initiating and maintain- ing movement within a program. 2. That a higher priority ought to be placed on training for group management rather than study- ing individual children. This is usually the emphasis of many educational psychology classes. The Experimental Method Berelson and Steiner define experiment as ". . . any investigation that includes: systematic manipulation and/ or control of some variable by the investigator."9 The ex- periment in pupil disruptive behaviors is found in William Gnagey's10 study of Kounin, Friesen and Norton's11 pre- liminary findings with regard to the "ripple effect." Specifically, Gnagey was interested in the social power of a deviant and its effect upon a class when he was punished. Four classes of fifth graders were measured before and after a ten-minute showing of a film. A male classmate 17 was selected and trained in secret to misbehave and have an altercation with the teacher. He, in effect, became the target for a control technique by the teacher. He was directed to react in a deviant but submissive manner. The main finding of this study supported Kounin and Gump's initial observation: that "the overt reaction of the male student does have some measurable effects on the perceptual behavior and learning performances of his classmates and that these effects are influenced by the social power of the deviant."12 The Survey: Questionnaire 13 . as being one The survey is identified by Kerlinger of the most important means and/or tools for assessing characteristics of whole populations of people. The sur- vey method identified by Hilway14 usually includes one of or a combination of the following: interviews, questionnaires, and tests. The emphasis of this section is the question- naire, a research method very pOpular with educators. Wickman's questionnaire study regarding pupil disruptive behavior, because of its relevance to this study, is pre- sented in greater breadth. The Wickman Study 16 The Wickman study, using a questionnaire approach, examined the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors. In the study (1927), 511 elementary teachers were asked to respond to fifty specific acts of pupil disruptive behavior. 18 To obtain the information regarding the above, Wickman sought data about: 1. The basic findings of Wickman's The teacher's awareness of the various kinds of behavior problems. (This is similar to the "fre- quency" dimension of this study.) The distinguishing characteristics which identify a problem child to a teacher. This was obtained by analyzing behavior reports of children iden- tified by teachers as behavior cases. The personal feelings of teachers to specific forms of behavior problems. This was obtained by asking teachers to judge the seriousness of specific behavior problems. (This is similar to the "seriousness" dimension of this study.) 17 study related to the frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors were: 1. Child behavior problems which were responded to the most frequently were those that relate to the school situation (e.g., infraction of class- room rules and routine, failing to submit school work promptly). That personal problems of the child seem to be subordinated to the problems which were more recognizable. Behavior problems of boys characterized by their aggressiveness were recognized more frequently 19 than problem behaviors of girls which were iden- tified as being more sublimated. Chart 2 clarifies Wickman's study.18 In summary, Wickman's findings suggest: . . . that teachers' reactions to the behavior problems of children are determined in direct relation to the immediate effect of behavior upon the teachers themselves. Those problems which transgress the teachers' moral sensitivities and authority or which frustrate their immediate teaching purposes are regarded as relatively more serious than problems which affect for the most part only the welfare of the individual child.19 The Wickman study has been cited as classic by Stouffer,20 Schrupp and Gjerde,21 and Hunter.22 However, 23 Goodwin Watson noted limitations in Wickman's type of research. One of the most serious cited by Watson is item ambiguity (e.g., "stubbornness"--sometimes stubborn- ness is a form of independence). The second criticism is directed at a phase of the Wickman study which compared the teacher attitudes to mental hygienists. In order to accomplish this, each group was asked a different ques- tion. Watson states: The teachers were asked what offenses cause seri- ous upset in the school situation. Quite rightly, they noted sex offenses, which would bring a whole community up in arms; stealing, which is likewise socially dangerous; truancy, which defeats every objective of school work; and give larger weight to other disturbances in the organized life of the group. The mental-hygienist, free from any obli ation to think about class and community mora e, was asked only to pick the symptoms that point toward probable mental disorders in adult life . . . After we made allowances for the un- reliability of the answers within each group, and 20 mufimuu muflmuu xuo3 Hoonom muwnosusm How>mnwn pom How>mnmn can on noaumoflammm umnwmmm mumecomHmQ wuflamsomuom Eooummmao msowmmwummcmue m>amnoomn m>ammmnmmm ca mmmcflaumpuo mmflumwsogmwo .mcfizmupnuwz .usmmm>muuxm “mo mGOAumH0H> mowuHHMHOEEH smsa none none moowumm who: mDOflumm 0H0: msowumm who: ”mofioowa sow» ImHDEHom m>onm can .mamanonm mo masonm m3» m0 soaumoflmammmao m>fluonmumucw hm wonmsua mmmcmonm moswooumfiH mmmcflfimouo unusnuso nomads msflwa mmmcmanmwamuso oocmwmmo o>flumsflmmEH mmocmeommaopmz mumsflnmq wocmsfluHmQEH mmosmoowowmmom mcwumsunmpsH mmmsmmoamnwu moswwoonomwo xno3 ca mmmsasmhmmm mumsmaasm ummnmucw mo Moog mfioanoum xom mmmGHMHoomsD GOflusouum mswuomwuud mmmso>wusmuumnH mswummnu soonmmmao mmmcmnm mswnmmswsoo cw mmmawauoouomflo mmmcasmnusnuqs mswammpm none none none mDORHmm who: msowumm ouoz msownwm who: .mnow>mnmb w>flum5Hmwo Hanan mo mmmcmoowuwmln.m vnmno 21 take account of the difference in form of the questions set, there remains very little dis- agreement to be accounted for.24 Regardless of the cited weaknesses in the Wickman study, it is still regarded as an excellent questionnaire study. From the research undertaken since Wickman's study, similar studies have attempted to find whether there has been a change in teacher attitudes toward the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. George Stouffer25 in 1953 replicated the Wickman study by testing 481 male and female elementary school teachers. His major findings indicated that (1) problems related to sex, honesty, truancy, and classroom order and application to school tasks were rated as most serious of the fifty Wickman pupil disruptive behaviors. This was consistent with the original Wickman study; (2) problems related to withdrawal behavior, recessive personality traits (depression, unhappiness, unsociability and with- drawing) were progressively becoming more important to teachers. 26 in a similar study found that Schrupp and Gjerde elementary and secondary teachers tested in 1952 were more aware of and concerned over recessive pupil disruptive be- haviors. Their major findings were in agreement with Stouffer. They found elementary and secondary teachers as a group were still mostly concerned with pupil disrup- tive behaviors that were anti-orderliness and morality; 22 they were less concerned with traits that were related to withdrawal behaviors. Hunter (1955)27 revealed that the ten problems rated most serious in his study were also rated as most serious by Wickman teachers. Hunter concluded that teachers still believed that frequent and serious pupil disruptive be- haviors were characterized by annoying, aggressive, and irresponsible behavioral patterns. His findings also showed that teachers were moving closer to fuller aware- ness of withdrawing or recessive behaviors as being of greater or of equal importance as aggressive pupil be- haviors. Hunter's remarks summarize the general tenden- cies of teachers'perceiving pupil behaviors identified as recessive (not aggressive): . . . it appears that today's teachers are defi- nitely showing more concern about non-aggressive traits and behavior suggesting mental health problems than did the teachers in 1926.28 Stouffer29 identified the serious pupil disruptive behaviors of masturbation, smoking, and profanity as hav- ing taken a significant drop from their original ranking in the Wickman study. Studies by Schrupp and Gjerde,3o and Hunter31 also provide support for this observation. Table 1 below shows the decrease in perceived seriousness of masturba- tion, smoking, and profanity. 23 TABLE l.--Perceived seriousness of selected behaviors. Year Behavior Rank Masturbation 1927 Wickman 3 1952 Schrupp and Gjerde 23 1953 Stouffer 26 1955 Hunter 28 Smoking 1927 Wickman 18 1952 Schrupp and Gjerde 41 1953 Stouffer 37 1955 Hunter 49 Profanity 1927 Wickman 15 1952 Schrupp and Gjerde 40 1953 Stouffer 32.5 1955 Hunter 29 Wickman's classification system of pupil disruptive behaviors places masturbation, smoking, and profanity in the area of "Violations of General Standards of Morality and Integrity." The change of these behaviors to a lesser degree of seriousness is most difficult to affix to any 24 one reason; however, greater educational emphasis and understanding about the nature of these problems may have contributed to their decrease in importance to a teacher. In summary, the general findings of studies based upon the Wickman study in 1927 have been consistently supportive of the following statements: Pupil disruptive behaviors perceived as most frequent and most serious to teachers are: l. . . . those relating to school requirements, infractions of classroom rules and routine and failure to meet school requirements. The personality problems of the children are sub- ordinated to problems of classroom management. 2. . . . that behavior which offends the teacher's moral standards and challenges their authority and which interferes with classroom routine is regarded as relatively more serious than per- sonality problems which affect the general welfare of the child, and that aggressive be- havior is considered more serious than regres- sive behavior. Another significant point is that teachers are becom- ing more cognizant of the frequency and seriousness of non-aggressive pupil disruptive behavior. Specific Areas and Findings The reviewed studies which relate to pupil disrup- tive behaviors recognize the following areas as areas which may have relationship to the frequency and serious- ness of pupil disruptive behaviors. The identified areas are: degree and teaching experience of the teacher, sex of the teacher, sex of the pupil, race, low-achieving pupils, and grade levels. 25 Degree of Teacher and Experience One study, Sparks,34 addresses the point of teaching experience, degree held, and its relationship to pupil disruptive behavior. Sparks' main finding was that amounts of experience had little or no effect upon the attitudes of teachers toward pupil behavior problems; however, the amount of education did affect their ratings. Teachers with education beyond the bachelor's degree tended to per- ceive pupil disruptive behaviors as being highly related to non-aggressive, withdrawing behaviors. Teachers of lesser education tended to look at pupil disruptive be- haviors as annoying, aggressive and generally irresponsible. Race 35 tested the James E. Greene and Frances Gatesky hypothesis that black and white high school teachers and pupils would not differ significantly in their percep- tions about aspects of school discipline and morale. One of the major findings was that teacher-pupil differences occurred with much greater frequency among whites than among blacks. The determination of specific types of pupil disruptive behaviors showed that black teachers re- ported greater frequency of the following behaviors: working unsatisfactorily, talking, cutting class, chewing gum and tardiness. White teachers' primary identification of pupil disruptive behaviors were: carelessness, dis- obedience, impertinence and over-activity. It should be 26 noted that both white and black teachers in this study did not consider pupil withdrawal or recessive behaviors as important. Greene and Gatesky's study, then, is supportive of Wickman, Stouffer, Schrupp and Gjerde, and Hunter's premise that aggressive pupil disruptive behaviors occur more frequently and are perceived as being more important than recessive, non-aggressive pupil behaviors. One major limitation of using Greene and Gatesky's study for this purpose is the small sample of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors and vague pupil disruptive behavior categories. Perhaps racial and ethnic factors should be given further consideration as it may provide another area of information that at present is most limited. Lower Ranges of Intelligence Research studies to date have indirectly pursued low I.Q. pupils (70 and below) and pupil disruptive behaviors. Those that have are, indeed, few in number. Two studies, 36 37 used Wickman's behaviors Julius Yourman and John Levy as the basis for their studies. Yourman's conclusion was: "seventy per cent of the problem children were retarded as against twenty-four per cent of the non-problem child- ren."38 Yourman summarizes his findings with a rather sweep- ing and negativistic list of behaviors identifiable with problem children. He states that problem children 27 were identified as: ". . . less intelligent, inattentive, indifferent, lazy, over-active, and over-talkative, self- assertive, rude, defiant, dishonest, impatient, excitable, negatiViStiC, and moody."39 John Levy4o in another study specifically directed at intelligence and pupil disruptive behaviors found that a marked tendency existed for children's behavior problems to shift with increased intelligence. Conduct problems identified as aggressive forms of anti-social behaviors were characteristic of the lower ranges of I.Q. (75 and below). Levy also points out that personality problems of withdrawing and evasive misbehaviors were character- istic of higher ranges of I.Q. pupils. Grade Levels A recent study (1967) by Eaton gp_§l.,4l examined grade levels and occurrences of pupil disruptive be- haviors. The basic concerns of the study were: types of problem behavior from grade level to grade level, types of problem behavior that occur most frequently among boys and girls. From Eaton's study it was found that pupil disruptive behaviors in school increased from grades one to six and ten to twelve. Another revealing, although not too surprising finding was that problem be- havior in out-of-school situations increased the greatest between grades seven and nine and ten to twelve. In 28 reviewing the entire study by grades, 1-6, 7-9, and 10- 12, the following major behaviors were descriptive of each general grade level. TABLE 2.--Differential patterns of behavior by grade. Grades 1-6 Grades 7-9 Grades 10-12 Carelessness in Carelessness in Carelessness in work work work (-) (decreased in fre- quency) (-) Inattention Inattention (-) Cheating (-) Cheating Restlessness (+) Smoking (-) Whispering, note— Stealing (+) writing (+) Unexcused Unexcused absences (+) absences (+) Interrupting (+) Swearing (+) Drinking (+) Each major pupil disruptive behavior is marked with a plus or a minus to indicate whether a behavior has in— creased or decreased from the preceding grade level group- ings. In a study undertaken by Dorothy Mutimer and Robert Rosemier (1967)42 455 boys and 456 girls in grades 7-12 and their fourteen female and twenty-six male teachers were asked to complete Wickman's questionnaire. The major findings were: 29 1. Violations of classroom work and behavior re- quirements constituted seventy-three per cent of the problem behaviors occurring in grades one to six. 2. Violations of classroom work and behavior re- quirements constituted seventy-seven per cent of the problem behaviors occurring in grades seven to nine. 3. Violations of classroom work and behavior re- quirements constituted twenty-eight per cent of the problem behaviors occurring in grades ten to twelve. Another major finding summarized by Mutimer is: . . . data indicates that most types of problem behavior varied in frequency from grade level to grade level. Such problem behavior as careless- ness in work, inattention, lying, and vandalism decreased in frequency from grades one to six to ten to twelve. Other problem behaviors such as smoking, unexcused absences, stealing, swearing, drinking, and illicit sex activities increased in frequency from grades one to six to ten to twelve. Still other problem behaviors such as restless- .ness, interrupting, smartness, whispering and notewriting, and disorderliness occurred most fre- quently in grades seven to nine.4 44 study of secondary school George Stouffer's teachers and pupil disruptive behaviors treated grade lines in a more global manner: Grades 7-12 were called secondary; grades 1-6 were labeled elementary. Stouffer's findings showed behavior problems considered most serious by secondary teachers to be more extroversive in nature. Specific forms of extroversive behaviors are: 30 impertinence, destroying school material, interest in oppo- site sex, disobedience, profanity, and inquisitiveness. These behavioral problems are related to maintaining class- room order. Withdrawing tendencies (shyness, sensitive- ness, suspiciousness) were not noted by secondary teachers to be most serious. It is interesting to note that ele- mentary and secondary teachers agree on all but one of the serious behaviors--destroying school materials. In this case, secondary teachers rated this more serious than ele- mentary teachers. To summarize Stouffer's study, the agreement by ele- mentary and secondary teachers over pupil disruptive be- haviors was likely due to their moral sensitivities being collectively violated and that maintaining an orderly classroom was necessary for establishing an environment for learning. Sex of the Teacher Stouffer's45 finding, although limited, may provide preliminary information regarding sex of the teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors. Seriousness of pupil disrup- tive behaviors identified by male teachers were compared to the total pOpulation used for his study. Stouffer believes that finding forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that groups of teachers consider "less serious" may pro- vide a measure of a sex difference. The following "less serious pupil disruptive behaviors" were identified by male teachers: 31 l. Heterosexual activities 2. Masturbation 3. Physical cowardice 4. Smoking 5. Impertinence, defiance 6. Unreliableness 7. Disobedience 8. Temper tantrums In reviewing the less serious pupil disruptive be- haviors it can be found that they fall into three of Wickman's pupil disruptive behavior classifications--vio- lations of general standards of morality and integrity, transgressions against authority, and violations of school work requirements. Although the data is limited, the cited pupil disruptive behaviors may not be important or serious to male teachers. Sex of the Student 46 Eaton, D'Amico, and Phillips' findings about sex of the student and occurrence of disruptive behaviors are 47 48 There is in agreement with Wickman and Epstein. agreement about the following findings: (1) more boys than girls were involved in every type of pupil disrup- tive behavior. Exceptions to this statement are high in- creases of frequency in smoking and illicit sex activities of girls; (2) the difference between boys and girls (in favor of boys) was greatest at the senior high level 32 (lo-12); the least amount of difference between boys and girls was at the junior high level; (3) disruptive be- haviors equally distributed between boys and girls were carelessness in work, inattention, restlessness, and in- terruption; (4) disruptive behavior reached its peak for girls in grades 7-9 and for boys in grades 10-12. One study, however, contradicts Eaton gp_§l., and 49 data indicates a de- Epstein's findings. Hildreth's crease in the percentage of male disruptive behaviors at the senior high level. This contradiction may be suspect as Hildreth's findings were based upon thirty-nine high school pupils of superior intelligence and economic back- ground. Summary Reviewing the literature and research regarding pupil disruptive behaviors, four points become apparent. First, little research about this topic has been under- taken since the l950's. Second, the research on pupil disruptive behaviors completed to date has in a very limited way concerned itself with sex of the teacher, sex of the student, socio-economic levels, years of teaching experience, subject matter areas, grade levels, school organizational patterns, community types, class size, and time Spent with students. Third, research using the Wickman instrument of fifty pupil disruptive behaviors may be limited as the instrument was constructed and field 33 tested in 1926. Fourth, research about the student teacher and specific pupil disruptive behaviors is most limited. Major Findings Summarized 1. Control technique exerted by the teacher does affect learning performances of classmates to the degree of the social power of the deviant being punished. 2. That teachers tend to be more concerned about controlling pupil disruptive behaviors that are related to the classroom work situation. 3. Aggressive pupil disruptive behaviors were re- ported more frequently. Inner directed behavior prob- lems of students were subordinated by teachers to con- trolling pupil disruptive behaviors related to classwork. 4. The seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors was largely viewed in the light of transgressions of the following types: immoralities, dishonesty, and acts against authority. Violations against classroom order and school work were also viewed as being very serious. On the other hand, pupil disruptive behaviors that consti- tuted withdrawal or recessive personality and behavior traits were considered by teachers the least serious. 5. Limited research shows: Teachers with educa- tion beyond the bachelor's degree tend to look at pupil disruptive behaviors as being highly related to recessive personality behavior traits and withdrawal behaviors. 34 6. Black teachers were primarily concerned with pupil disruptive behaviors that are related to violations of orderliness in the classroom. White teachers tended to be primarily concerned with pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to immoraltiy, dishonesty and acts against authority. 7. Pupil disruptive behaviors in the lower ranges of intelligence (70 I.Q.) tend to be physical and aggres- sive in nature. The pupil disruptive behaviors in the upper ranges of intelligence tend to be reflective of withdrawal and recessive behaviors. 8. Disruptive pupil behaviors which would be vio- lations of classroom work increased at each grade level until grades 10-12 at which time these misbehaviors noticeably changed. 9. Grades 1-6 tend to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of carelessness in work, lying, in- attention, vandalism (these behaviors are violations of honesty and orderliness in classroom work). Grades 7-9 tend to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of restlessness, interruptions, smartness, whispering and notewriting, and disorderliness (behaviors are authority directed). Grades 10-12 tend to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of smoking, unexcused absences, stealing, swearing, drinking, and illicit sex activities (behaviors are violations of moral codes). 35 10. Limited data indicates that male teachers are lgggp concerned with violations against general standards of morality and integrity, transgressions against authority, and violations of school work requirements. 11. Male students are more involved in every type of pupil disruptive behaviors than girls. Girls signifi- cantly gain in the area of smoking and illicit sex activi- ties. 12. Pupil disruptive behaviors reach the peak for girls in grades 7-9; boys reach their peak in grades 10-, 12. It might be pointed out that the "peaks" coincide with the periods of rapid physical growth and development of girls and boys. FOOTNOTES-~CHAPTER II 1William J. Gnagey, Controlling Classroom Mis- behavior (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1965). 2E. K. Wickman, Children's Behayior and Teachers' Attitudes (New York: The Commonweaith Fund, 1932). 3Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Be- havior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964), p. 27. 4Fritz Redl and D. Wineman, Controls From Within (New York: The Free Press, 1952); Fritz Redl, When We Qeal with Childggp (New York: The Free Press, 1966); Fritz Redl and D. Wineman, The Aggressive Child (New York: The Free Press, 1957). 5R. J. Corsini and D. D. Howard, Critical Inci- dents in Teachin (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe HaII, Inc., 1964;, p. v. 6Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation," in Hand- book of Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963), p. 250. 7J. S. Kounin and P. V. Gump, "The Ripple Effect in Discipline," Elementary School Journal, Vol. 59 8J. S. Kounin, Wallace V. Friesen, and A. Evangeline Norton, "Managing Emotionally Disturbed Child- ren in Regular Classrooms," Journal of Educational Psy- chology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February, 1966), 1-13. 9Berelson and Steiner, op. cit. 10William J. Gnagey, "Effects of a Deviant Student's Response to Discipline," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 51 (February, 1960). 11Kounin, Friesen and Norton, op. cit., pp. 1-13. 12 IP- 8. Gnagey, "Effect of a Deviant Student's . . . , 36 37 13Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Re- search (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967). 14Tyrus Hillway, Handbook of Educational Research: A Guide to Methods and Material (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969). 15Wickman, op. cit. lGIbid. l7 Ibido I pp. 26-50. laIbid., p. 115. 19Ibid., p. 116. 20George A. Stouffer, "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Mental Hygienists: A study of Present Attitudes as Compared with those Reported by E. K. Wickman," Mental Hygiene, 36 (1952), 271-285. 21Manfred H. Schrupp and Clayton M. Gjerde, "Teacher Growth in Attitudes of Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 44 (1953), 203-214. 22E. C. Hunter, "Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior over the Last Thirty Years," Mental Hygiene, Vol. 41 (January, 1957), 3-11. 23Goodwin Watson, "A Critical Note on Two Attitude Studies," Mental Hygiene, Vol. 17 (January, 1933), 59- 64. 24Ibid., p. 62. 258touffer, op. cit., pp. 271-285. 26Schrupp and Gjerde, op. cit., pp. 203-214. 27Hunter, op. cit., pp. 3-11. 281bid., p. 11. 29Stouffer, op. cit., pp. 271-285. 3oSchrupp and Gjerde, op. cit., pp. 203-214. 31Hunter, op. cit., pp. 3-11. 32Leigh Peck, "Teachers' Reports of the Problems of Unadjusted School Children," Journal of Educational Psy- chology, Vol. 26 (January-December, 1935), 123. 38 331bid., p. 124. 34J. N. Sparks, "Teacher Attitudes Toward the Be- havior Problems of Children," Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 43 (1952), 284-291. 35James E. Greene and Frances Gatesky, "Discipline and Morale," Journal of Teacher Education, vo1. XII, No. 4 (December, 1961), 437-447. 36Julius Yourman, "Children Identified by Their Teachers as Problems," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 5 (September, 1931-May, 1932), 334-343. 37John Levy, "Quantitative Study of Relationship Between Intelligence and Economic Factors in the Etiology of Children's Behavior Problems," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, I, 2 (January, 193i). 38Yourman, 0p. cit., p. 337. 39Ibid. 40 Levy, op. cit. 41Merrill T. Eaton, Louis D'Amico, and Beeman N. Phillips, "Problem Behavior in School," Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, Vol. 47 (October, 1956), 350-357. 42Dorothy Mutimer and Robert Rosemier, "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Children Themselves," Journaliof gonsulting Psychology, Vol. 31, 6 (December, 1967), 583-587. 431616., p. 354. 44Stouffer, op. cit., pp. 271-285. 451bid. 46 Eaton, op. cit., pp. 350-357. 47Wickman, op. cit. 48Leon Epstein, "An Analysis of Teachers' Judgments of Problem Children," The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 59 (1941), 101-107. 49Gertrude Hildreth, "A Survey of Problem Pupils," Journal of Educational Research, vol. XVII (June, 1928), 1-14. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Population and Sample The subjects who participated in this study were teachers from the Michigan public schools. Since it was impossible to obtain a list of all the public school teachers within the state, the unit of selection was the school rather than the individual teacher. Using the Michigan Education Directory for 1967-68, each school within the state was placed into one of five strata based on the enrollment of the school district in which it was located. The criteria for the strata were as follows: stratum 1, all schools in districts with an en- rollment of 19,000 or more; stratum 2, all schools in dis- tricts with an enrollment of 5,000 to 18,999; stratum 3 consisted of those in districts with enrollments from 2,500 to 4,999; stratum 4, those in districts with enroll- ments from 1,000 to 2,499; and finally, stratum 5, all schools in districts with enrollments below 1,000. The schools in each stratum were then divided into elementary, junior high and high schools. Thus, each school in the state was stratified on two variables: (1) the size of the school district in which it was located; and (2) whether it was an elementary, junior high or senior high school. 39 40 Using a table of random numbers, 5 per cent of the schools were selected from each sub-stratum. This pro- cedure led to the selection of 194 schools from 132 dif- ferent school districts in Michigan. Following selection of the schools, a letter request- ing permission to conduct the survey in the sampled schools was sent to the superintendent of each of the 132 school systems. A response blank and a self-addressed envelope were included to facilitate prompt return. If no reply was received, a follow-up card was sent approximately one month after the letter. If the follow-up card failed to produce a response within two weeks, a telephone call was made to the superintendent. If permission was not granted by the superintendent, the district was dropped from the sample with no replacement. Supervisory permission was granted for 188 schools, indicating that only six schools were eliminated at this stage. The next step was to obtain permission from the principals in the sample schools. A letter, similar to the one sent to the superintendents, was sent to the principals involved. The letter indicated that super- visory approval had been obtained, and requested the principal's approval and cooperation in collecting the data. In order to facilitate the principal's decision, a sample copy, similar to the final copy, of the survey was included with the letter. And again, a response blank and a self-addressed envelope was included. The response 41 blank provided space for the principal to indicate the number of teachers in his school. To avoid problems due to ambiguity in the term "teachers," the response blank defined teacher as: "A teacher is anyone who is assigned responsibility for classroom instruction of a group or scheduled set of groups of children, and who has contact with each of the said children two or more times a week." If no reply was received within six weeks, a follow-up post card was mailed to the school. If after another two weeks, there was still no reply, a duplicate set of mate- rials was mailed. This included a new letter, a sample copy of the survey, and another response form. Finally, after another two weeks, a telephone call was made to those principals who still had not responded. Of the 188 schools receiving supervisory approval, 35 were eliminated from the sample because their principals did not wish to have their schools participate. This left 153 schools remaining in the sample. As shown in Table 4, the facul- ties of these schools totaled 3,806 teachers. Of these. teachers, 3,149 (82.7%) actually participated in the study by responding to the survey. Instrument Development The items used in this survey were developed through the c00perative efforts of educational psychologists, cur- riculum specialists and experienced teachers. 6As a first step, each member of the team submitted a list of behaviors 42 which he perceived as possible discipline problems in the classroom. Approximately 180 items were obtained by this method. The second step in preparing the survey involved eliminating overlapping statements and rewriting ambiguous items. In addition, if the majority of the team felt that a behavior was unlikely to ever be exhibited in the class- room, the item was eliminated. This stage in the selec- tion process resulted in a list of 140 items; thus, ap- proximately 40 items were eliminated by the team of specialists. Following selection of the behavioral statements for the first version of the survey, the team agreed upon four questions that would be asked about each statement. The questions for the first version were: (1) How often do you encounter this behavior?--to be rated on a six- point scale ranging from hourly to never; (2) How do you perceive this behavior?--to be rated on a five-point scale ranging from extremely serious to harmless; (3) How much attention should teacher training programs designed for your type of teaching situation devote to preparing teachers to deal with this behavior?--to be rated on a three-point scale ranging from great emphasis to no atten- tion; and (4) To what extent would you like to know alternative techniques for dealing with this behavior?-- to be rated on a four-point scale. 43 Finally, one member of the group wrote a set of in- structions for the survey. A c0py was given to each of the other members for revision. The first version of the survey was assembled, in- cluding 140 behavioral statements and four questions about each statement; it required 560 (140 x 4) choices from the respondents. The assembled first version was submitted to the team of specialists and each member made specific recommendations as to changes in the wording of the direc- tions or items. When these changes had been incorporated, a second version was drawn up and administered to a group of graduate assistants, who were former teachers, at Michigan State University. First, they were asked to respond to the survey as though they were part of the sample; then, they were individually interviewed to de- termine where there was ambiguity in the instrument. Changes were made in the survey based on the graduate assistants' suggestions. This resulted in the third ver- sion of the survey, which, because of the above pilot testing, now consisted of 129 behavioral statements. The third version of the questionnaire was admin- istered to 180 teachers from the Lansing Public Schools.’ Also administered was a lS-item background data sheet prepared by the team of specialists. As a result of this administration, three major changes were made in the sur- vey: (1) it was decided to split the survey into two forms because the time required to respond to the whole 44 survey was likely to discourage cooperation; (2) the direc- tions were revised to eliminate newly detected sources of ambiguity; and (3) the number of questions asked about each behavioral item was reduced from four to two and the response choices for the first question were revised. The two questions retained were: (1) How often do you en- counter this behavior? and (2) How do you perceive this behavior? This latter change was made because it was found that questions three and four were not functioning to discriminate between items nor between respondents. The response choices for question one were reduced from six to five. Omitting the option "monthly," the choices for the fourth version included: hourly, daily, weekly, seldom, and never. Final Instrument The final version of the survey was based on the results of all of the pilot testing discussed above. Each form of the survey consisted of three pages--the first page containing 11 demographic items, and the second and third pages consisting of a total of 66 behavioral statements about which the teachers were asked two ques- tions. Thus, in addition to providing demographic data, the teachers were each asked to make 132 responses (66 items x 2 questions per item). There were two different forms of the instrument, with only five items identical on both forms. 45 The questionnaire was overprinted with non-reflective ink onto standard IBM 551 answer sheets. This facilitated scoring by the IBM 1230 optical scanner. Since all the personal data sheets were alike, they were printed on the same color answer sheet--red. For form A, pages two and three were printed on red answer sheets; for form B, green answer sheets were used. Use of different colors for dif- ferent forms expedited handling. This final form of the survey represented the fourth version developed. Data Collection After a principal had agreed to cooperate, the sur- vey materials for all the teachers in the school were mailed to the principal. The mailing envelope included: (1) a letter to the principal explaining the envelope's contents and suggesting a procedure for within-school dis- tribution and collection of the surveys; (2) a return en- velope(s) with first class postage affixed; and (3) one survey packet for each teacher in the school. A survey packet included all the materials a teacher needed to participate in the study--a letter of explanation, two pages of directions, and a three-page questionnaire. In preparing the mailing envelope, half of the packets were form A and half were form B. In an attempt at random assignment, the two forms were alternated within a given mailing envelope. The outside of each packet was numbered sequentially within any given school. For example, a 46 school with 28 teachers would receive packets numbered on the outside from 1 to 28. The odd numbered packets would contain form A of the survey and the even numbered packets would contain form B. The numbers on the outside of the packets were designed to facilitate data collection within a school. Since anonymity was to be protected, the school principal would be unable to look inside the packets to determine who had not returned a completed survey. How- ever, by having the outside of the packets numbered, the principal would be able to post the numbers of the un- returned packets. It should be pointed out that the coding system used on the actual survey pages was quite different from the numbering system used on the outside of the packets. Each survey sheet was marked with a five-character (4 numbers and 1 letter) identification number. The numbers 1000- 3200 were used for form A; the numbers 5000-7200 were used for form B. All three survey pages in one packet were marked with the same four-digit number. The letter (A, B, or C) indicated whether the data represented responses to page 1 or 2 of the survey or the background data sheet. This coding system was designed to facilitate data pro- cessing and analysis. Once the surveys were returned to Michigan State University, they were prepared for reading by the optical scanner. Each page was individually checked: stray marks Ivere erased; answers incorrectly placed were adjusted; 47 and pages with less than 33 per cent of the items responded to were withheld from analysis. The IBM 1230 optical scanner "read" each survey page and automatically punched a computer data card with all the information contained 6 on the survey sheet. Computer Programs The Agricultural Experiment Station operating through Michigan State University has developed a package program which will calculate basic statistics for a set of data. This study makes use of two segments of such a package; namely, the mean score of each block of variables and their associated standard deviations. Because of the large amount of missing data en- countered in analyzing the study, a modification of the basic package needed to be employed. By missing data one is referring to the situation in which, for a given ob- servation, the values of some variables are known, but the values for other variables are unknown. The unknown values are the missing data. The modification of the basic statistics package provides that in calculating all statistics for an individual variable (such as mean and standard deviation), only the observations with non- missing values for that variable are used. This program enabled the researcher to calculate the average frequency of occurrence of each behavior problem and its associated seriousness. 48 mmH vma mm mm mm mm woa vma Hmpoa II II I .l I I II I 88; “86ch OH ea v m H m m b m Eoumupm mm me as as m 5 am pm 1mm6.~-ooo.av v Esumnum Ammm.qucom.mv mm mm v m m m wm mm m Esumuum Ammm.mau ooo.mv he um v m m m pm we N Enumnum Aooo.ma Hm>ov mm 04 m m m m ma mm H Enumnum mamfimm onEmm mamfimm mamfimm mHmEmm mHQEmm mamfimm wamfimm Hmcflm Hmswmwuo Hmcwm Hmswmfiuo Hmcwm Hmsflmwuo Hmsflm Hmcflmfluo Hmuoa swam howcom now: moansh mumucoemam Aam>ma pom Esumuum an n3ooxmmHanHmEMm Hmswm can Hmcflmwuo cw mHoonom mo HoQEsZII.m names 49 6.66 6.66 666.6 666.6 666.6 66606 62460 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 66606 6.66 6.66 66 66 666 6666 606666 u- u- 6 6 6 6666 606666 6.66 6.66 66 66 66 6666666666 6 6666666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 66606 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666 606606 6.66 6.66 66 66 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666606066 6 6666666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 66606 6.66 6.66 66 666 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666666666 6 6666666 6.66 6.66 666.6 666.6 666.6 66606 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666666666 6 6666666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666.6 66606 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 666: 606666 6.66 6.66 666 666 666 6666606066 6 6666666 mmmcommmu uoo ucmm Hmc6m6uo mmwwmwwu Hmmwocwum can mHQEmm mmonu mo 6 mo 6 no 603852 ucwocoucwummsm 66:60660 606mm mamamm .AHO>06 ocm Edumnum xn CBOUxmmunv moamfimm HMCHM paw Hmc6mfluo :6 mumnommu mo ucmo Mom new HonESZII.v mqm mo m6mmamQ o>6un>ucnaouu .. -- -- .3666. 662.666 6666636666 6.595 2666.63-66.83..." x «in 66666.. 1:66; 66666.6 66666.. 2: 8666.666 668.6 6 6.386 866.. 8.6.. 6266.666. 6663.666 66 6666666666 6636 -- -- -- 66666.6 666666 66666.6666 66666666 6666... .666.6 66.66.: 66666.66 6 6686.6: 6568 «SJ. ~66 .6.- .. 6: $3 2.2.366 66 nun-66 .AEHom vmuulmocmsvmumv msumum oaaocoomlowoOmllmonmaum> mo mamaam:<1|.~.ao mqmda 147 sou-600v :6 qua-acumqv on 6666.. .6.66.. a 366.56.. -- -- -- 66666. 668.666 66.66.6866 66698 6.366-686266 6 66.6.... 688.. 688.. 6.6666 66666.. 666 8666.6... 66...... 6 6669.6 6666.. 8.6.. 6686.666. 6663.666 66 666666.666 6E... .. -- -- 6.63.6 666. 6.666.662 6.86656 66.6.6 6.66.6 66666.6 66.6646 6 66666.66 6.638 a6J6 666.66 6 6: 663366366 66 8.636 .AEHOM ammunmoqmsvmumv Hm>mH HMGOHumuscmllmUQM6Hm> mo mflmhamq mo mammamnflul.v.au mqm mo wwwhamadnl.m.ao mqmde 150 .. -- .. .6666. 66.6.63 66666.66666 666666 6656-6866666 6 65.66 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.6 66661.6 66 66666.26. 6...... 6 66668 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.66: 3666.666 66 666666.666 6.66.. -- -- -- 66666.6 666. 66..6.6666 66.66266 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.66 66666.66. . 66666.66. 666666 6.1646 4636 6 6: 66366666666 66 66566 .AEHom vmulnmocmsvmumv any 666 @5060 mama may mawnommgnnmocmfium> mo mfimhamnmul.m.ao mnmde 151 -- 2. .: .6666. 6666.6: 6666666666 66698 6.66.63-66.666666 u 6.66.... 6666.. 6666.. 66666.6 6.666.. 666 66666666 an... a 66668 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.86. 66.66.666 66 6..66.66.66 6.66.6 .. 2. -- 66666 .6 666. .6.66 .6666 6.866.666 66.6 .6 .6.6.6 6.666.6 63.6.6. 6 .6666.66 6.5666 m646 4661.66 6 6.6 663 3666666 66 66566 .AEHOM wmunumocmsvmumv muwm mmMHoulmUGMHHm> mo mam»a¢:¢uu.h.ao mqmda 152 -- 66666. 66.6.63 6666666666 6666.66 566.66.656.66 6 6.66.... 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.. 66666. 66 6666..66 6:66.. 6 6666-6 6666.. 66.6.. 666666.66. 66666.666 66 .6666.6.666 666.... . - .. - .. - 6666. .6 666. 66666 ..6.6 6.866.666 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.6 66666.66 . 66666.66 6.568 6.646 666 66 6 V 6.. 66366666666 66 66866 .AEHOM nmunumozmsvwnmv mnflgommu Emmullmo:66um> mo mwmwamndll.m.au mamas 153 -- -- -- 66666. 66.6.63 ..666.66666 666666 6.66.66-65.26... 6 6:66.. 6666.. 66.6.. 6.666.6 66666.. 66 6.666.66. 6:66.. 6 6666.66 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.66: 66666 .666 66 66666.6.666 6.6.6.. -- -- -- 6666..6 666. .666..66.6 66666666 6666.6 6.66.6 66.6.. 66666. . 66666. 66668 1646 666.66 6 66. 6636666366 66 66866 .AEHom amullmocmswmumv mmmao coaumosvm 6660mmm||006666m> mo mammamnmun.m.ao mqmde 154 -- -- 2. 66666. 6666.666 6626.656... 6.598 56.53-66.328 u 6.6.... 88 .n 88 2— oanco .a can: .9 n: mucus .nnnn an N «.508 oooc.~ ocun.~ unsuc.nooa onuno.o¢o no samaa636n¢o .nxfiha .- u. no ocauo.¢ owns nn~an.-- whonnnam no¢~.~ osnn.d on~o~.~ «Noun.nn an ncnna.oan «mania G6 .66 4661.66 6 6: 66666666366 66 8-36 .AEHom owullmoamsvmumv nowumowmwmmmao HwnommuIIGUCMflHm> mo mammamnmnl.ofl.ao mqm mo mammaquuu.a.~u mamas 156 -- -- 66666. 6666.666 6666636666 6669.6 3366-6666266 6 6.6.6.6 6666.. 6.66.. 66666.6 6.666.6 66. 6:66.666 . 6.66.... 6 66668 6666.. 66.6.. 6666666.. 66666.62 66 6636.386 6.66.... -- -- -- 6.666.6 666. 6666. .66.6. 6.666266 6666.6 6666.6 66666.6 ..666.66 6 66666.66 666666 36 J6 66.j6 6 6: 33.666366 66 66366 .AEMom cwullmmocmsowummv mmmao oweocoomIOMOOmnlmocmwum> mo mammamqmun.~.mo mqmds 157 -- -- .. 66666. 6666.666 6666. .66666 666666 666.666-66.336 6 65.... 6666.. 6666.. 66666.6 66666.6 666 6866.666 65.66 6 66668 6666.. 66.6.. 66666..6.. 66666.6: 66 666......6666 6.6.... -- .. -- .6366 666. 66666.6.66. 6.86366 66.6 .6 6.66.6 66666.6 66666 .66 6 6.666 .66. 666666 6.646 6636 6 6: 6666666636.. 66 66.566 .Aeuom cmunnmmm:6506ummv Hm>ma quowumoskuumocmwum> mo mflmwamnfinl.m.~0 wands #361113: ‘ .. ‘1...) Km 158 .. -- -- 66666. 6661666 66666.66666 666666 2666.66-66.66266 6 65.66 6666.. 6666.. 666.6.6 66666.6 666 6.666.666. 6.6.6.6 6 6666.66 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.6: 66666666 66 66666.666.6 66.6.... - .. -- 2. 6.666 .6 666. 66666 .6666. 6.866.666 6666.6 6666.6 6666 .6 6.86.66 6 .6666.66. 666666 36.66 666.66 6 6: 6636666366 66 66306 .AEHom vmnnnmmwc63066mmv mmmunmoamanm> mo mammama<||.6.mo mqmda 159 .. -- -- 66666. 6666.666 6666666666 66666 666663-6866666 6 6.6.6.6 0000.6 0900.6 maomc.n sunn6.n o0~ ann0n.o~o «luau u mmuaflu 0900.6 oo~n.~ 06000.0066 0N0n~.«oh n0 «0000.00060 nxuhu :u an a- 00906.0 0006 uN0¢N.¢Nuo~ «Bonn-9m «oun.n o-n.~ N0nuc.~ ~0n0a.nd 0 00600.n0 muaaiu 36 J6 6636 6 6: 66366666666 66 66566 .Aeuom cmunlmmmamso66mmv mocmflnmmxm mcflnommu 666w611moq66um> mo mwmmHmc¢n|.m.Nu mqmde 160 -- .. .6666. 6666.666 66666 .66666 6669.6 6666.66-66.83... 6 656.6 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.6 66666.66 66 6.66.6666 6.6.66 6 666666 6666.. 66.6.. 6666666.. 66666 .666 66 66666.666.6 6:666 -- -- -- 63.6.6 666. 66... .6666. 6.6666666 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.6. 66.8.66 . 66.8.66 666666 3666 ~66 .6 6 6.. 6633666666 66 66366 .Aeuom @mu nummmc6506ummv 660 666 95060 @866 ms» mnfinommunumoq66nm> mo mammamcdnn.w.mo mqmda 161 -- -- -- 66666. 6666.666 6.666.66666 666666 666666-66666666 6 6:66. 6666.. 6666.. 66666.6 66666.. 666 6.666.666 6:66. 6 666666 6666.. 66.6 .. 66666 .66.. 66666666 66 .6.6. .666.6 6.6.... -- -- -- 666.6.6 666. 66666.66.6. 66666666 66.6.6 .6.6.6 666...6 66666.6. 6 66666.66 666666 6.6666 666.66 6 6: 666666666666 66 666666 . CFHOM @QHIImmmgmfioflHmmv mflflm mMMHOIIGOQMflHMNr HO 6666.6q6uu.6.6o 66666 162 .. -- -- 66666. 626.666 66.666.66.666 6669.6 266.663-66.823 u 6.6.... 6666.. 66.6.. 66.66.. 66666.. 66 66666 .66 66.6.... 6 6.368 6666.. 66.6.. 66666 .66.. 6663.666 66 66666.666.6 66.6.66 -- .. .. 66666.6 666. 666666666. 66.66266 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.6 66666.6. . 66666.6. 659.6 6.6.6.. ~63. 6 6... 66366666666 66 66366 .AEHOM vmuulmmmcmsowummv mafinommu Emmullwonmwum> mo mammamqmlu.w.mo Manda 163 -- -- 2. 66666. 626.666 6666666666 666666 6.666.666.5623 6 6.6.66 6666.. 66.6.. .66.6.6 66666.6 66 66666.66. 66.6.66 6 6.66.8 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.66.. 66666.66. 66 66666.666.6 66.66.. -- -- -. 66666.6 666. 66666.6666. 66.66266 6666.6 6.66.6 66666. 66666.6 . 66666.6 6.59.6 #6 .6... 666 .66 6 66. 663 66666666 66 66366 . AEOM UGHIlwmmGwSOHHmmV mmMHU GOflHMODUm HMflUGQWIlmugMHmer NO me%ngll.m.NU mun—”EB 164 -- .. -- 66666. 266.666 6666666666 66666 6.66.63.66.66266 6 6E... oooo.~ 0000.6 co~o~.n~ nooecxa nus anscc.ooou «luau u mung-u 000*.u oo~n.~ «caou.nn- noooo.uon no nunn¢.canun «tuna u- nu nu neunu.o Gama nuc-.o¢~a «Bonn-am ~O¢N.N anus.” acano.n unuse.~¢ AA monao.nun mm=cau 63¢» 666i... 6 6: 2.3 6666666.. 66 66566 .AEHom Umuulmmwcmsowummv coaumowmwmmmao Hmsomwullmonmwum> mo wwwhamndnu.oa.mu mqmda 165 -- -- 2. .6666. 6.66.666 .6666..6666 66695 6.6662656266 6 6:66.. 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.66 66666.6. 66 6.666.666 65.6. 6 66668 6666.. 66.6.. .6666 .666. 6.666.666 66 666666666 656.. .. -- -- 66666 .6 .66. 66666 .6666 66.666666 6666.6 6.66.6 66.66.66 6666 .666 . 66666 .666 6669.6 #6 46 4636 6 6.. .63 366-66.. 66 66.566 .AEHOM cwwumnlmonmswmnmv xmmnnmUGM6um> mo mammamqmll.a.mu mamma 166 -- -- -- 666.6. 6666.666 66666.66666 666666 6.663-666.6266 6 6.6.6.. 6666.. 6.66.. 66666.6 66666.. 66. 66666.66. 6i... 6 666666 6666.. 66.6.. .6666.666. 66666 .666 66 .6666.66666 6i... 2. -- -- 6.666 .6 666. 66666 .6666 66.666666 6666.6 6666.6 6666. .6 6666.6. 6 66666.66 666666 3646 d66|J6 6 6: 66666666366 66 66966 .AEHom cmmumlnhocmswmumv msumum afleonoowlowoomtnmonmwum> mo mam»am:¢un.m.mu mamma 167 -- -- .: 666.6. 6666.666 66666..6666 666666 6.66.63-65.23 6 6.6.6.. oooo.~ oooo.~ «vana.n onauc.u con cansn.~no MINHH N manaflu coo¢.~ cann.~ anomo.omnn human.nno no cnsac.an¢an manna nn nn nu muonn.n wand coon¢.uuno mHonH-Dm ~a~n.n aasn.u cacon.ca «Hena.o~ 6 uoo~c.~on mmaaau 6.6 46 ~66 .66 6 66. 2.3 366666.. 66 62566 .AEHOM ammumuumocmsvwnmv Hm>ma Hmcoflumosnwunmocmwum> mo 666MHMC mo mwmmHmcmnn.6.mo wands 169 66.66. 6666.66. 6668.66.66 66666.6 6.66.63-66.66266 6 669... 6666.. 6666.. .6666 .6 66666.6 666 66666..66 6i... 6 666666 6666.. 66.6.. 6626.666. 6662.666 66 6666666666 65... -- -- .. 66666.6 666. 666666666 6.86266 66.6.6 6.66.6 66666.6 6.6.6.66 6 66666.66. 666666 4.6.66 6661.6 6 66. 6633666666 66 66566 .AEuom cmmumuumocmswmnmv mucmwnmmxm mcwsommu mummmuumocmwum> mo mammamzmuu.m.mo mamma 170 2. 2. .3 66666. 6.66.666 .6666...666 666666 66.—663-66.663.66 u 65.... oooc.~ oo~n.~ oo~on.o¢ onu¢u.- no uncou.o~wu mzflhu u mmDQuu oooo.n co~n.~ ~o-~.ooom Naoou.oso no anonn.onaon mxflHH nn un nn onnnn.n mood ~05N~.nnno «Bonn-aw nono.o nuoo.n oncoo.o~ NNonn.On~ u «Nonn.o~d mmaasu 36 .66 666 .66 6 6.. 33 666.636.. 66 62566 .AEHOM nmmnm nnmocmsmmnmv >66 666 @5060 mEMm map mcflnommunnmoc66um> mo mammamn mo mamaamcfiuu.h.mo mqm¢9 172 -- 666.6. 6.66.666 6.666.66666 6666.66 6.66.66-66.83... 6 65.... 6666.. 66.6.. 666.6.. 66666. 66 66666.66 . 65.... 666666 6666.. 66.6.. 6662.6.6. 66.66.63 66 6666666666 6:6... .. -- - - 66666 .6 .66. 666.6 ..666 66.666666 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.6 6666..66 . 6666. .66 6669.6 d.666 ~66 66 6 66 666666666666 66 62566 .AEHOM ammumnnmocmswmnmv mqwnommu EmmanumOGM6Hm> mo mflmhamn mo mammHmcdnu.m.mo mqmda 174 .. -- 2. 66666. 6.66.666 666.6.66666 6.59.6 2.53-686266 6 65.... 0900.6 0000.6 «enun.o~ ~¢a~0.0 nun cunn~.¢one mxflhu N manque 834 San .n 0633" .33 «Ram .06» no 336 .nooon «an o- nu n- eeon~.n dang onn~o.oo~w «Bonn-am no¢~.N o~a~.~ seno¢.n aansn.oc nu samu~.oce «macaw d.64... ~66 .66 6 6.. .63 2.2.366 66 66.566 .AEHOM cmmnmnuaonmsvmnmv wwoo GOHHMUHMHmmMHo umnommulnwocmflum> mo mammamqmll.oa.mu mqmda 175 .. .. .. 66666. 6666.666 6666666666 66666 6.66.66.56.23 6 6.6.... 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.66 6..66..6 66 66666.66. 65.... 6 666666 6666.. 66.6.. 6.6.6.666. 66666 .666 66 66666.6666 6E... -- .. -- .6666 .6 .66. .6666 .66: 6.86266 6666.6 6.66.6 66666.: 666.6666 . 6662.666 666666 «SJ... 66.3.. 6 6x Goa-666366 66 66.506 .Ashom cmmumuummmCmsowummv xmmllmocmwnm> mo mam»am¢ma 66:066m050m22m0:6666> mo mflmmamn mo mflmmawcmnu.v.6u Manda 179 an... .6666. 6.66.666 6666666666 66695 6666666686666 6 6.6.6.6 866.. 6666.. 66666.6 66.66.6 666 6662.666 666.... 6 6666.8 6666.. 66.6.. 66666.63. 6686.666 66 666.6.66666 656.6 -- -- 2. 66666 .6 666. 66666 .6666 66.666666 66.6.6 6.66.6 8666.6 66666.66 6 66666.66. 666666 6.6.66 666.66 6 6... 6636666366 66 666666 .AEMOM somumlnmmmcmzowummv mocmflnmmxm maflsommu mummmllmocmwum> mo mfimaamcmun.m.6o mamma 180 66666. 6666.666 66666.66666 66666 263.636.8623 6 65.66 6666.6 6666.6 66666.66 66666.66 66 666666666 65.66 6 6.59! 6666.6 6666.6 66666.66: 66666.666 66 6666666666 6.5.6 to In In mawuflon «GOA cancnoaonw «Bonn-9m 6666.6 6666.6 66666.66 6866.666 6 8666.666 6.598 £646 6636 6 6: 2.3366366 66 62566 .AEHOM :wmnm InmmmcmSOHHmmv haw Ham msoum mEMm man mcflnommu1|00266um> mo mammamc4||.6.vu wands 18]. .. -- 2. 66:6. 6666.666 236.6636 6.5666 666.666-66.323 6 6566 6666.6 6666.. 66666.6 66666.6 666 6626.666 6.8.6 6 6666.8 6666.6 6666.6 6266.663 66666 .666 66 6266.66666 63.: -- -- .. 66666 .6 6666 66666 .6666 6.666366 626.6 6666.6 66666... 66666.3 6 66666 .66 666666 3646 466.66 6 6: 6633666666 66 66.566 .AEuom ammumnlmmmamsowummv muwm mmmHonumucmwnm> mo mammamndnl.h.vo mamas 182 .. s. 2. 66666. 6666.666 6666666666 6.66666 666—6.63-66.86.86 6 66666.6 83..— 003 :— onaoo .6 830 . no 060.: .Nc «EH N 938 80.6 :— 8: .6 huge .«36 0300 .ono no usucfioawc «an 3. 2. .3 eggs .n .33 «an: .663 gun-am acne .o 33 .n 89% .a 938 .Nn a n38 .«n «53 ~66 4.6 663.6 .6 6: $3 666 63 66. 66 666566 .Afiuom :mmumllmmmcm506ummv mawnommu Emmullmocmwum> mo mammamn¢||.m.vo mqmda 183 -- -- -- 66666. 6666.666 6666666666 666666 266.666-66.828 6 65.6.6 80.6.6 8: .u «nuns .N «do: :— na matic an N 938 80¢ .6 8.2.. :— 0360 .03.— 33 .ano no inn .oouuc «EH6 nu us an camon.n good macsn.oaco «Bonn-am acne .0 new .n 36am .6 39.3 .3 a 8‘3 .3 9589 :6 .66 ~66 .66 6 6: 663 366366 66 666666 .Aeuom ammumnlmmmcmsowummv coaumosvm HMflowmmnlmocmwum> mo mammamn<||.m.6o mqm¢a 184 .3 -- .. 66666. 6666.666 66666.66666 666666 6666.63.66.66266 6 6.5.6.6 coco .6 80¢ :— znua .3 «one .a n: 02.: .ausn an N macs wood." co~n.a hawam.-~a nccan.oo¢ no «nooo.¢noac mnfihH uu nu un ~nn~0.n “can sooon.o~oh mHonH-Dm noon." anwm.a «mama.o oucso.on 66 muono.onn mmaaiu Q6 .66 6661.66 6 6x 663.666.6666 66 666666 .Aauom ammum uummmcmSOHHmmv mwoo sowumowmwmmmHo uwnomwuuumo:6666> mo mflmmaqunu.oa.vu mamma APPENDIX D SIMULATED INSTRUMENTS 185 What What BACKGROUND DATA is your sex? Male Female is the highest educational level you have com- pleted? What Doctoral Degree Educational Specialist Master's Degree Some College High School Degree is your age? 21 or under 22-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60 As of June 1969, what will be the total number of years of teaching experience you will have had? 0-1 years 2-4 years 5-10 years 11-20 years Over 20 years Do you teach to the same group of students all day? (Exclude extra-curricular activities) What Yes No is the average student enrollment in the classes you now teach? 10 and under 11-16 186 10. 11. 187 17-20 21-27 28-34 Over 34 Are you presently team teaching? Yes No From what socio-economic class are the majority of students you teach? Lower Middle Upper Do you teach special education classes? Yes No What grade(s) are you presently teaching? If non- graded, what level? \OQQO‘U‘luwal-‘N HFJF' wrac> In which subject matter area(s) do you now teach classes? (Elementary teachers: be sure to mark all that apply) Art Business Education Foreign Language Health and Physical Education Home and Family Living Home Economics Humanities Industrial Arts Language Arts (including English) 188 Library Mathematics Music Safety/Driver Education Science Social Studies Vocational/Distributive Education \OGJNlmUIuwaH H O O 11. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE--RED FORM Showing disrespect for another student's opinions. Naively asking teacher personal questions. Failing to follow directions for assignment. Leaving desks or lockers messy. Playing with toys, yo-yo's, etc. in class. Leaving room before dismissal. Throwing temper tantrums. Girls wearing skirts too short. Making allusions to sex (written or verbal). Carrying cigarettes. Pulling a student's hair. Swearing at teacher. Cheating on in—class assignment. Failing to put away materials after use. Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc. in class. Refusing to participate in class activities or assignments. Gossiping among students. Combing hair in class. Having arms around each other outside of class on school pr0perty. Possessing alcohol on school property. Destroying or defacing another student's property. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete homework. Misusing class materials (e.g. turning Bunsen burner too high). Talking out while class is working quietly. Daydreaming in class. Always asking to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water. Wearing clothes too tight. Holding hands in class. Possessing firecrackers on school property. Calling another student names. Complaining about grades. Turning in messy papers. Forgetting notebooks, textbooks, or other classroom materials. Whispering, or nonverbally communicating at inap- propriate times. Cutting classes or skipping school. 189 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 190 Displaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to be adequately clean. Looking up girl's skirt. Reading or possessing obscene books or pornographic materials in class. Verbally interrupting a student while he is talking to teacher or class. Making passes at teacher or getting fresh with teacher. Cheating on tests. Throwing water. Answering questions in humorous, disruptive way. Sitting in wrong seat. Using slang in class. Chewing gum in class. Kissing outside of class on school pr0perty. Throwing things out window. Stealing from another student. Questioning teacher's opinion. Under the influence of narcotics in class. Deliberately dropping books or other objects in class. Drawing pictures to poke fun at teacher. Excessive belching in class. Turning in false fire alarms or bomb scares. Calling teacher by first name. Writing on walls. Slouching or otherwise sitting inapprOpriately in seat. Making noise in the halls. Soiling pants. Possessing guns on school property. Caring for fingernails in class. Verbally interrupting teacher while she is talking. Stealing materials from school. 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE--GREEN FORM Drawing picture to poke fun at another student. Asking teacher personal questions to purposely make her uncomfortable. Doing wrong assignment. Failing to hang up coats, boots, etc. Clicking pens, or making other similar noises in class. Refusing to take lecture notes. Crying in class. Wearing inappropriate clothing (e.g. low cut dresses, ripped, etc.). Discussing sexual matters. Smoking on school property. Swearing at another student. Arguing with teacher. Cheating on homework. Carelessly using materials (e.g. spilling paints). Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc. in class. Complaining about class activities or assignments. Spitting. Putting on make-up in class. Hugging or having arms around each other in class. Under the influence of alcohol in class. Throwing things at another student. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete in-class assignment. Misusing bathrooms (e.g. stuffing up toilets, throw- ing paper around). Asking irrelevant questions (not pertaining to content being discussed). Sleeping in class. Excessive complaining about feeling ill (hypo- chondriac). Boys wearing shirts out. Holding hands outside of class on school property. Possessing brass knuckles, molotov cocktails, etc. on school property. Making fun of another student. Sassing or speaking rudely to teacher. Plagiarizing. Forgetting lunch money, permission slips or other non-academic materials. Writing and passing personal notes in class. 191 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 192 Coming to class tardy. DiSplaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to have hair cut properly. Making obscene gestures. Possessing stolen goods (not stolen from school, teacher or students). Laughing at another student's mistakes. Inappropriate display of affection towards teacher. Cheating on tests. Throwing refuse on floor. Whispering or nonverbally communicating after teacher's request to stop. Reading, writing, etc. while teacher is talking. Pulling pranks (e.g. hiding things). Chewing gum in class. Petting outside of class on school property. Starting fires. Hitting, shoving, or tripping another student. Pointing out teacher's mistakes. Possessing narcotics on school property. Putting notes on the blackboard when teacher isn't there. Making fun of teacher. Expelling gas in class. Failing to leave buiding during fire drill. Lying to teacher with the intent to deceive (not fantasy). Writing on desk tops. Putting books or papers away too soon. Tattling. Soiling pants Possessing knives on school prOperty. Eating in class. Stealing from teacher. Stealing materials from school. BIBLIOGRAPHY 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY "Activities and Arrangements for the 1969-70 Michigan Assessment of Education." Assessment Report Number Two, Michigan Department of Education, 1969. Backstrom, Charles H., and Hurst, Gerald D. Survey Re- search. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, Batchhelder, Howard T.; McGlasson, Maurice; and Schorling, Raleigh. Student Teaching in Secondary Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findin s. New York: Harcourt, Brace and WOrld, Inc., 1964. Betts, George H. "Teacher's Diagnosis of Classroom Dif- ficulties." Elementary#School Journal (April, 1927), GOO-Gog. Bond, Jesse. "Analysis of Observed Traits of Who were Rated Superior in School Discipline." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 45 (March, 1955), 507- 516. Bounchard, John B., and Hull, Ronald E. "A Pilot Study of Problems and Practices in the Induction of Beginning Teachers." Paper presented at 1969 Meeting of Educational Research Association of New York State, Concord Hotel Kiamesha Laice, New York, November 6, 1969. Buck, S. F. "A Method of Estimation of Missing Values in Multivariate Data Suitable for Use with an Electronic Computer." Royal Statistical Society Journal, Series B, Vol. 22 (1960), 302. Cochran, William G., and Cox, Gertrude M. Ex erimental Design. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. 194 195 Cookingham, Frank. "Critical Research: A Two-Way Street Between Research and Practice." Papers of the Institute No. 52, Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, June, 1967. Corey, Stephen. Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: TeacHErs College, Columbia University, 1953. Corman, Bernard R. "Action Research: A Teaching or a Research Method?" Review_of Education Research, Vol. XXVII (December, 1957), 544-547. Corsini, R. J., and Howard, D. D. Critical Incidents in Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964. Cox, D. R. Planninggof Egperiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Deiulio, Anthony. "Problems of Student Teachers." American Teacher, Vol. XLVI (December, 1961), 9-10, 19-20. Eaton, Merrill T.; D'Amico, Louis; and Phillips, Beeman N. "Problem Behavior in School." The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 47 (October, 1956), 350-357. Ellis, D. B., and Miller, L. W. "A Study of the Attitudes of Teachers Toward Behavior Problems." Journal of Educational Psychology, 27 (1936), 501-511. Epstein, Leon. "An Analysis of Teachers' Judgments of Problem Children." The Journal of Genetic Psy- chology, Vol. 59 (September, 1941), 101-107. Fuller, Frances. "Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization." American Education Research Journal, Vol. VI (March, 1969), 207-226. Galvin, John P., and Quay, Herbert C. "Behavior Dis— orders." Review of Educational Research, Vol. XXXIX (February, 1969), 33-162. Gnagey, William J. Controlling Classroom Misbehavior. Washington, D.C. National Education Association, 1965. . "Effects of a Deviant Student's Responses to Discipline." The Journal of Educational Psy- chology, Vol. 5T (February, 1960), 1-8. 196 Greene, James E., and Gatesky, Francis. "Discipline and Morale." The Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XII, No. 4 (December, 1961), 437-447. Haggerty, M. E. "The Incidence of Undesirable Behavior in Public School Children." Journal of Educa- tional Research, Vol. 12 (September, 1925), 102- 112. Hays, William. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963. Henderson, Judith. "An Investigation of Practitioner Evaluation and Agreement Regarding Effective Language Arts Instruction." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Hildreth, Gertrude. "A Survey of Problem Pupils." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XVII (June, I928 , 1-14. Hillway, Tyrus. Handbook of Educational Research: A Guide to Methods and Material. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Advantages and Limitations of Informal Classroom Investigations." American Business Education Yearbook, 1961. Hugo, David J., ed. Handbook for Student Teachers, Michigan State University. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Book Company, 1964. Hunter, E. C. "Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior over the Last Thirty Years." Mental Hygiene, Vol. 41 (January, 1957), 3-11. Hyman, Herbert. Survey Design and Analysis: Princi- ples, Casegand Procedures. New York: The Free Press, 1955. Iannaccone, Lawrence, and Button, H. Warren. Functions of Student Teaching. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Health, Education and Welfare Research, Project 1026, 1964. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. 197 Kirk, Roger. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968. Kool, Beverly Y., and Schultz, Richard E. "A Factor Analysis of Classroom Disturbance Intercorrela- tions." American Education Research Journal, Vol. 57 (1965), 37-46. Kounin, J. 5.; Friesen, Wallace V.; and Norton, A. Evangeline. "Managing Emotionally Disturbed Children in Regular Classrooms." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February, 1966), 1-13. Kounin, J. S., and Gump, P. V. "The Ripple Effect in Discipline." Elementary School Journal, Vol. 59 (December, 1958), 158-162. Levy, John. "Quantitative Study of Relationship Be- tween Intelligence and Economic Factors in the Etiology of Children's Behavior Problems." American Journal of OrthoPsychiatry, Vol. 1 (January, 1931), 152-162. Mitzel, Harold E., and Medley, Donald M. "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation." Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Mutimer, Dorothy D., and Rosemier, Robert A. "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Children Themselves." Journal of Consulting Psy— chology, Vol. 31 (December, 1967), 583-587. Myers, Jerome L. Fundamentals of fiExperimental Design. New York: Allyn andfi Bacon Inc., 1966. Peck, Leigh. "Teachers' Reports of the Problems of Un- adjusted School Children." The Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, Vol. 26 T1935), 123-138. Redl, Fritz. When We Deal with Children. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Redl, Fritz, and Wineman, D. Controls from Within. New York: The Free Press, 1952. . The Aggressive Child. New York: The Free Press, 1957. 198 Schrupp, Manfred H., and Gjerde, Clayton M. "Teacher Growth in Attitudes of Children." The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 44 (1953), 203-214. Sharp, Jack. Off Campus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1951. Sparks, J. N. "Teacher Attitudes Toward the Behavior Problems of Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 43, No.45 (May, 1952), 264-291. Stouffer, George A. "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Mental Hygienists: A Study of Present Attitudes as Compared with those Reported by E. K. Wickman." Mental Hygiene, 35 (1952), 271-285. Stuart, A. Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1968. Student Teaching: Questions and Answers for Prospective Student Teachers. East Lansing, Michigan: Michi: gan State University, College of Education, Student Teaching Office. Thompson, Michael L. "Identifying Anxieties Experienced by Student Teachers." Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, Vol. 14 (December, 1963),6435-439. Tolar, A; Scarpetti, W. L.; and Lane, P.A. "Teachers' Attitudes toward Children's Behavior Revisited." Jogrnal o£_Educationa1 Psychology, Vol. 58 (1967), 175-180. Travers, Robert M.W.; Rabinowitz, William; and Nemovicher, Elinor. "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers." Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVIII (October, 1952), 368-375. Ward, Ted W. "Professional Integration and Clinical Re- search." Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966. Watson, Goodwin. "A Critical Note on Two Attitude Studies." Mental Hygiene, Vol. 17 (January, 1933), 59-64. Wickman, E. R. Children's Behavior and Teachers' Atti- tudes. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1932. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. 199 Wingo, Max G., and Schorling, Raleigh. Elementary School Student Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960. Yourman, Julius. "Children Identified by Their Teachers as Problems." Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 5 (February, 1932), 334-343. "mmm