A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHSP GETWEEN TEACHER MORALE AND STUDENT AT'I‘I'WDES TOWARD THEER SCHOGL ENVERUNMEN'E Thesis far the Degree of Ed. D MICHIGAN STAT E UNIVERSHY JACK D. MINZEY 1967 fixmmwwm' mm V 3.0.1? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0394 5741 ‘ ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STTTDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BE"; IEEN TEACHER MORALE AND STUDENT A'ITITUDES TOWARD THEIR SCHOOL ENVIRONL’IENT presented by Jack D. Minzey has been accepted towards fulfflltnent of the requirements for ‘ ' ‘ Doctor's degree in Education Date __APL11_ 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER HORALE AND STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT by Jadk D. Hinzey Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to examine the atti- tudes of high school students toward their school environment and to investigate the relation of these attitudes to teacher morale. Since knowledge of the attitudes of groups within any organization is important to the successful operation of that organization, knowledge of student attitudes is impor- tant to the successful operation of a school. The signifi- cance of this study lay in the lack of other student attitude studies and the question of the effect of teachers' feelings about school on student attitudes. The Sample The hypotheses were tested in six Michigan high schools selected from a total of sixty high schools. The sixty schools were reduced to twenty-two on the basis of school organization and experience of the school principal. Jack D. Minzey The twentybtwo schools thus chosen were representative to the following degree: 1. The schools represented every region in the lower peninsula of Michigan. 2. The schools represented 7 per cent of all schools in Michigan organized on a 9 to 12 grade basis. 3. The schools represented 9.2 per cent of all Michigan high schools on the basis of student population. The twentybtwo sample high schools were administered Suehr's “Teacher Morale Form,“ and the three schools with the highest teacher morale and the three schools with the lowest teacher morale were selected for the study. A random sampling of the student body of the six high schools was used to gather the student data. One hundred eighty students from each set of schools were used, matched on the basis of grade and sex. Instrumentation Student attitudes were measured, using an incomplete sentence blank technique. The validity of the instrument was developed by means of experts in the field of education and by pre-testing with high school students. The reliability of the instrument was checked by the split-half method, and the reliability of scoring was substantiated by correlating the results of different scorers. Jack D. Minzey Procedures and Testing of Hypotheses This was an ex post facto study, and cause and effect relationships were not explored. Teachers‘ morale was meas- ured by means of the “Teacher Morale Form.“ Student atti- tudes were measured by a specially designed instrument based on the same incomplete sentence method as the “Teacher Morale Form.“ Both instruments were judged by the same person using the following ranking: O--highly positive, l--slightly positive, 2--neutral, 3--slightly negative, and 4--highly negative. Students were also asked to rate sixteen personal variables. In addition, teachers were asked to rate their students' attitudes as they perceived them. The hypotheses for the study were: 1. Teachers from high teacher morale schools will differ from teachers in low teacher morale schools in the areas of the school environment which they rate as most favorable and most unfavorable. 2. Students from schools with high teacher morale have more positive attitudes toward school than do students from schools with low teacher morale. 3. Student concern over various areas of the school environment in schools with high teacher morale will differ from student concerns in schools with low teacher morale. 4. Student attitudes in certain areas of the school environment will correspond with teachers' attitudes in the Jack D. Minzey same areas. Consequently, students from schools with high teacher morale will perceive selected items in the same way as do their teachers. This will also be true of the students and teachers from schools with low teacher morale. 5. Students from schools in which teachers have high morale will differ significantly in selected perceived vari- ables from students who come from schools where teachers have low morale. 6. The teachers' perception of the students' actual atti— tude toward the school environment will be more accurate for teachers from high teacher morale schools than for teachers from low teacher morale schools. Hypotheses l, 3, 4, and 5 were analyzed primarily by means of chi-square. Analysis of variance was the main meth- od of investigating hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 6 was analyzed by using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Findings 1. Teacher morale does differ significantly between schools. The difference seems to be primarily one of inten- sity of rating rather than differences in areas of positive and negative feelings. 2. Students do not show the same degree of difference in their attitudes as do their teachers in their morale. Stu- dents are less extreme in their attitudes as a group and Jack D. Minzey appear to be little affected by the morale of their teachers. There are more similarities in the feelings of students than there are differences. The differences seem to be based more on the degree of feeling than on areas of disagreement. 3. Teachers and students differ significantly in their compared attitudes about the school environment. 4. Students have a very accurate perception of their teachers' morale. 5. On measured variables, students from low teacher morale schools and high teacher morale schools are very much alike as they perceive the following things about themselves: parental influence, intelligence, attendance, potential, grades, personal appearance, self-confidence, school involve- ment, and peer acceptance. They differ on their perception of fulfilling parental expectations and the socio-economic level of their family. 6. Teachers are not able to accurately predict student attitudes. Implications 1. There is a great deal of valuable information availa- ble to teachers and administrators through the measurement of student attitudes. A knowledge of student feelings will make it possible to build better school programs and resolve many school issues. The use of this instrument gives Jack D. Minzey diagnostic information which reveals problem areas not appar- ent with the use of other attitude scales. 2. School administrators have been predominantly inter- ested in checking staff attitudes as a means of improving the school climate. There is a need to include student attitudes in their concern over school environment. The measurement of teacher morale is not a satisfactory way of evaluating stu- dent feelings about school. High or low staff morale does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the students. 3. Students have very accurate perceptions of the morale of their teachers. This makes the relationship between student attitudes and teacher morale even more interesting. If students were unaware of teacher morale, the lack of similarity of student attitudes to teacher morale could be explained on the basis of lack of student knowledge of teach- ers’ feelings. However, since student perception of teacher morale is extremely accurate, the fact that student attitudes do not correlate with teacher morale is greater proof of the independence of student attitudes from teacher influence. 4. Many studies have supported student ratings of teach— ers as the most accurate way of evaluating teaching effec- tiveness. The accurate assessment of teacher morale by stu- dents would seem to confirm student ability to correctly perceive an even more subtle teacher characteristic. Jack D. Minzey 5. The difference in student perception of variables between students from high teacher morale schools and stu- dents from low teacher morale schools might be explained on the basis of the socio-economic conditions of the community. This socio-economic factor should be investigated in further research. 6. Although teachers are very inaccurate in their percep- tion of student attitudes, it is quite likely that they feel they know their students very well. There is a need to know the criteria on which teachers make their evaluations about their students. Questions for Further Study 1. Is there a significant difference in student attitudes from various schools? 2. What relationships are there between attitudes of teachers, administrators, students, and members of the community? 3. What are the relationships between student attitudes and the morale of their specific classroom teacher? 4. Are there certain clusters of items which would give greater meaning to student attitudes? 5. Would an analysis of student attitudes according to variables such as sex, age, grade, or socio-economic level, reveal certain patterns of student attitudes? Jack D. Minzey 6. Which teachers are best able to perceive their stum dents' attitudes? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is difficult, through acknowledgments, to express gratitude to all those persons who have so generously contributed their time, advice and other forms of assistance to me. The completion of the requirements for an advanced degree is possible only through the efforts of many people of whom I am recognizing only a few. I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. John Suehr and the members of my committee, Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr. William Durr, Dr. Sheldon Lowry, and Dr. Fred Vescolani for their guidance during the pursuance of my academic program and the development of this dissertation. To Mrs. Mildred Joslin and Mrs. Nadine Fred, I would like to extend my thanks for their professional assistance with the style and mechanics of this study. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the important contributions of my wife, Esther, and my children, David, Daniel, Debra, and John who sacrificed many personal pleas- ures and provided the encouragement which is necessary for any successful doctoral candidate. Jack D. Minzey A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER MORALE AND STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT A Thesis Submitted to the College of Education Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by \ j IL’ Jack D; Minzey 1967 kt." TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Importance of Attitude Studies . . . . . . . . 1 Importance to Education . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Attitude Studies in Education . . . . . . . . 6 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Morale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Teacher Attitude Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Student Attitude Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Student Attitudes and Learning . . . . . . . . 42 Student Attitudes and School Climate . . . . . 48 Student Attitudes and Teachers . . . . . . . . 50 Student Attitudes and the School Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O O G O O O 68 CHAPTER III. IV. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Selecting the Sample Schools . . . . . The Teacher Instrument . . . . . . . . Scoring the Teacher Instrument . . . . Rationale for the Student Instrument . Development of the Student Instrument . Secondary School Student Attitude . . . Administration of the Student Instrument Scoring the Student Instrument . . . . Statistical Methodology . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Teacher Morale Schools . . . . . . High Teacher Morale Schools . . . . . . Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE 72 72 78 78 82 85 87 9O 96 100 103 104 106 106 117 120 133 134 140 148 151 153 CHAPTER PAGE V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . 156 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Relation to Other Studies . . . . . . . . . . 161 Questions for Further Study . . . . . . . . . 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 178 TABLE 3.4 3.8 LIST OF TABLES Size, “Teacher Morale Form” scores, and rank of sample schools . . . . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation difference between sample schools . . . . . . . . . . Reliability of the ”Teacher Morale Form” by the Spearman-Brown method . . . . . . . Comparison of scores on the “Teacher Morale Form“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation coefficients of three different scorers of the “Teacher Morale Form” . . . Selection of items from the pre—test instrument of student attitudes toward schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability of the school instrument by the Spearman—Brown method . . . . . . . . Comparison of scores on the student attitude instrument . . . . . . . . . . . Coefficient of correlation of three different scorers of the student attitude instrument Rank order of teachers' items . . . . . . . PAGE 76 78 82 84 84 93 97 101 102 107 vii TABLE PAGE 4.2 Significance of difference of items for teachers from high teacher morale schools as compared with teachers from low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3 Highest and lowest rated items in high teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.4 Highest and lowest rated items in low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.5 Similarities in items rated highest by sample schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.6 Similarities in items rated lowest by sample schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.7 Comparison of mean teacher morale scores and mean student attitude scores . . . . . . 118 4.8 Significance of difference of items for students from high teacher morale schools as compared with students from low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.9 Comparison of significant student attitudes in high and low teacher morale schools . . . 125 4.10 Rank order of student items . . . . . . . . . 126 4.11 Range of student items for ten most positive and ten most negative items . . . . 129 viii TABLE PAGE 4.12 Similarities in the most positive attitudes of students from high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools . . . 130 4.13 Similarities in the least positive attitudes of students from high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools . . . 130 4.14 Differences in most positive and least positive attitudes of students in high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 4.15 Comparison of student and teacher items in low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . 134 4.16 Comparison of significant selected items between teachers and students in low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4.17 Rank order of agreement according to mean differences Of students and teachers on compared items for low teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 4.18 Comparison of teacher morale and teacher opinions with student morale and student opinions in low teacher morale schools . . . 140 ix TABLE PAGE 4.19 Comparison of student and teacher items in high teacher morale schools . . . . . . . 141 4.20 Comparison of significant selected items between teachers and students in high teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . 142 4.21 Rank order of agreement according to mean differences of students and teachers on compared items for high teacher morale schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 4.22 Comparison of teacher morale and teacher opinions with student morale and student opinions in high teacher morale schools . . 146 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A Teacher Morale Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 8 Secondary School Student Attitude Form . . . . 181 C Instructions for Scoring the Teacher Morale Form and the Student Attitude Form . . . . . 185 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Pur se The purpose of this study is to examine high school student attitudes toward school and the relationship of these attitudes to teacher morale, teacher perception of student attitudes, and selected characteristics about these students as perceived by the students themselves. Importance of Attitude Studies In general, there is consensus in the literature that good attitudes are necessary to the successful operation of any organization and that good attitudes are more readily achieved when there is group participation in the formula- tion of goals, policies and programs. There are a number of writers who have related group attitudes to various aspects of organizational success. Morphet, Johns, and Reller, for example, claim that a leader acquires leadership status by developing a capacity to assess the attitudes of the group.1 Stogdill stated the same thing in the following 1Edgar Morphet, Roe Johns, and Theodore Reller, Educational Administration (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PIEntIce-Hall, Inc., 19607, p. 197. way: The pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and attitudes of the followers.2 John Dewey wrote that: . . . it is not the will or desire of any one person which establishes order but the moving spirit of the whole group . . . and what is even more important, the authority in question, when exercised in a well regulated household or other community group, is not a manifestation of merely personal will; the parent or teacher exercises it as the representative and agent of the ingerests and attitudes of the group as a whole. Ellsworth and Bogardus not only pointed out the value of group attitudes with leadership but felt that these attitudes were also inextricably related to interpersonal relation and group structure.4 Metcalf and Urwick stated that it is important to create the right attitudes in people or to at least understand peoples' attitudes so one could work more effectively with them. By understanding attitudes, it then becomes possible 2Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership, A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychol- ogy, XXV (1948), p. 63. 3John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), pp. 62-70. 4A. S. Ellsworth and E. S. BOgardus, "Measurement in Group WOrk,“ Sociology and Social Research, XXIII (1938), pp. 62-70. to involve and relate to all the members of the organiza- tion; this results in “success of organizational engineer- ing.“5 Importance 33 Education A basic motivating factor for this study, then,was a feeling, gathered from the literature, that attitudes are important to the understanding of feelings, interpersonal relations, and productivity, all of which are important to the successful operation of any organization. This feeling of concern for the group and the attitudes of members within the group should apply to educational organizations as well as to other organizational structures and to students as well as to other members of the organizational system of the school. Traditionally, education was an endless and personal affair. Endless efforts were expended to prevent groups from forming in the classroom. Instead, students were expected to study, to prepare their lessons, and to recite as individuals. The discovery of the important part played by groups in all social living led to the consideration of the principles of group process. 5Henry Metcalf and L. Urwick, Dynamic Administration-- The Collected Papers 2: Mary Parker Follet (New York: Harper and Row, 1940). 6N. L. Gage (ed.), American Educational Research (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 362. It is no longer enough for education to be just an acquisi- tion of knowledge by the individual. It must be integrated with other group processes. The teacher's role should be that-of a ”store manager" who provides a suitable situation which facilitates growth in attitudes, habits and knowledge, and a situation in which all individuals participate in the learning process.7 Recent research has abandoned the search for characteristics of teachers or administrators which dan be credited as the cause for good learning, and has instead sought to look at school as a social phenomenon which must be considered from the standpoint of the social structure and interaction. In order to satisfy both mastery of subject matter and the personal needs of students, the teacher's responsibility has now become one of: l. Accepting full responsibility for the class because of power and authority given by the school and community. 2. Defining, with the class, the authority and behavioral limits that will guide both his and the learner's activities. 3. Permitting decision making by students within pre~defined limits. 7Earl Kelley and Marie Rosey, Education and the . Nature gf Man (New Ybrkx Harper and Brothers, 1952), p. 21. 4. Being open to influence by the students in order to be amenable to the students' points of view. These new concepts toward group needs and individual needs within the group have caused educators to take a new look at the school system as a social entity. It is not the image of a social system in equilibrium. It is rather the image of a system in motion, or, if you will, in dynamic disequilib- rium. It is the image of a group continually facing emergent complexity and conflict (if not confusion) and dealing with these realities, not in terms of sentiment, but in terms of what the complexity and conflict suggest about the modifications that have to be made in the goals, expectations, needs, and selective perceptions of the teachers and learners. It is through this experience of recognizing and dealing with complexity, conflict and change in the classroom situation that we can educate children to take their places as creative autonomous participants in the other social systems that constitute the larger social order.9 I In respect, then, to this feeling that group needs are prevalent in schools, as well as in other organiza— tions, and that a knowledge of individual attitudes is important to the well-being of any organization in order to deal with these needs, it would seem that an investigation 8D. H. Jenkins, ”Characteristics and Functions of Leadership in Instructional Groups," Yearbook 2: National Social Studies Education, Part II (1960), p. 53. 9J. W. Getzels and H. A. Thelen, “The Classroom Group as a Unique Social System," Yearbook g2 National Social Studies Educatigg, Part II (1960), p. 53. of student attitudes would be a worth-while project. A manufacturer does a survey of the market to see what the public wants and expects. We are salesmen of learning, and if we expect to enjoy an enthusiastic popular demand: if we expect to have pupils accept our igucational offering: we must do a market survey, too. Attitude Studies $2 Education Concern for involvement of the group as a dimension for the successful operation of an organization and the need to view group needs in terms of individual attitudes has instituted interest in studies of individual and group perceptions of the many aspects of their organization or portions of it. In some of these studies, attitudes were rated as to degree of positive or negative feelings, and the term morale was used to describe the level of group feeling. There have been many such studies of attitudes in the school setting. The criterion most frequently used in these studies . . . is the judgment of persons in the field such as superintendents, principals, departmental supervisors and teaching colleagues.11 10T. H. Ewmes, “Attitude and Opinions of Adolescents,” Journal ngEducation, CXLVII (April, 1965), pp. 3-43. 11Walter S. Monroe (ed.). Encyclopedia of Educational Research (rev. ed. ), (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956), p. 1391. The following statements represent summary conclusions of some of the typical studies in the field of education; 1. Teacher morale and satisfaction are related to participaifion in planning and formulation of policies. 2. Teachers are most satisfied with administratirs who fulfill the expectations of their staff. 3 3. The more alike the principal and teacher are, the greater is the satisfaction derived from their work.14 4. The greatest concern of teachers and adminis— trators has to do with their interpersonal relations.15 5. There is a significant difference between the attitudes toward leadership by elementary principals as compared with elementary supervisors. 6 12Francis S. Chase, "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching, “ Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIII (1951), pp. 127-32. 13Charles E. Bidwell, ”The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching,” Journal pf Educational Sociology, XXIX (1955), pp. 41-47. 14Donald C. Mayer, ”Teachers' Attitudes Toward Leadership as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1954). 15Vernon McAllister, ”A Study of Leadership Role, Percepts as Viewed by Teachers, School Administrators, and School Board Members“ (Unpublished Doctoral disserta— tion, University of Oklahoma, 1965). 16Nicholas Vigilanti, "A Role Perception Study of Elementary Principals and Elementary Supervisors in the State of Ohio“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964). 6. The morale of teachers differ between schools. The difference is in the way the teachers feel their personal needs are being met.17 7. There is no relation between behavior of the principal and teacher attitude toward other teachers.18 8. There is no significant relationship between the principals' and teachers' perceived roles of the teacher and ob satisfaction on the part of the teachers. 9. There are marked differences in the attitudes of the counselor and the principal toward school counseling. 10. Superintendents and principals have similar attitudes toward general responsibilities, instructional improvement and public relations, but disagree significantly on responsibilities to faculty and student personnel.21 l7Jarvis C. WOtring, "Teacher Morale and Evaluation of Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 18Jay Gold, "The Effect of Administrative Atmosphere on the Role of the School Teacher ” (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1964). 19Geraldine Hastings, "The Relationship of Role Perception to Teaching Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State Uni- versity, 1964). 20Stanton D. Plattor, "An Inquiry into the Relation- ship Between Perception Congruence of School Counselors and Principals and the Expressed Job Satisfaction of School Counselors“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1965). 21Muttoniyil Idiculla, “A Comparative Study of the Role Expectations of High School Principals in Selected Western States“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Brigham YOung University, 1965). 11. Beginning and experienced teachers have many of the same work-oriented attitudes which include a desire to control tasks of their work, good work relations with supervisors and adequate salaries. 12. Open minded student teachers have more favorable attitages toward teaching than do closed minded ones. 13. Teacher-principal relations are significantly related to their attitudes toward the factors of achievement drive, super—ego integration, conjunctivity, deference, sentience, sex and years in the school system. 14. Attitudes in a community toward education are significantly related to sex, age, religion and length of residence.25 15. Elementary teachers have more favorablg school attitudes than do secondary teachers. 22Jerry J. Bellon, ”A Study of the WOrk Goals of Selected Beginning and Experienced Secondary Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Calif— ornia, 1965)° 23Mohammed E. Takauri, "Closed Mindedness and Achieve- ment Motivation in Attitude Change" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1964). 24Donald C. Francke, “Perceptual Accuracy and Personal Variables" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1965). 25Thelma L. Sandmeier, "A Study of the Differences in Aims for Public Elementary Education as Related to Selected Sociological Factors" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1964). 26Edwin WOndt, ”Comparison of the Attitudes of Con- trasting Groups of Teachers,“ Educational Psychological Measurement, XIV (1954), pp. 418~22o 10 These studies point up an interest in attitude studies toward the school environment by various groups connected with the educational program. There has been, however, a noticeable lack of studies of school environment which in- volve the feelings and attitudes of students. The direction of school studies would seem to suggest that there is an implied feeling that if teachers, administrators, and parents are satisfied with school, the learning atmosphere is a good one. Failure to include some studies of student attitudes leaves out a most valuable aspect of the school environment. Any meaningful significant program of education for children must emerge from their felt needs or concensus. Their felt needs must serve as the focus of organization for the child, since his educational program cannot exist outside of his experience and his perception of it.27 Suehr stated the need for an evaluation of student 28 feelings in his teacher morale study, and Miller supports the idea that student-centered education requires a measure- ment of student feelings.29 27N. L. Gage, 92. cit., p. 435. 28John H. Suehr, ”A Study of Morale in Education“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961). 29Paul Miller, (Address: Leadership Conference, Kellogg Center, Michigan State University, February, 1966). ll Listed below are some other corroborating examples; Since students have a different concept of the “good” teacher than principals have, teachers should seek evaluations by students and bring this infor- mation to principals and supervisors for Joint evaluation . . . . Teachers and principals who ignore the importance of the conditions of learning as perceived by students are contributing to the disintegration of the learning environment.3 Studies suggested on student attitudes toward teachers and school have not been forthcoming.31 Attempts to predict teaching success have generally failed because they ignore relationships between teachers and students.32 Our own negative results should cause us to look more closely at what we mean by “understanding of pupils.” Such understanding is a basic objective of teacher-education curricula . . . . Yet, up to now, in our own . . . and in other's research, support for this proposition has been hard to come by.33 Studying only the teacher's feelings in the class— room situation ignores the feelings of the students, an undoubtedly significant source of influence on the teacher.3 3OJ. C. WOtring, op. cit., p. 112. 31Frederick L. Redefer, “Teacher Morale and Quality Education," Nation's Schools, LIX (February, 1957), p. 53. 32Melvin E. Haggerty, “The Crux of the Teaching Prognosis Problem," School Society, XXXV (1932), pp. 545-49. 33N. L. Gage, “Explorations in Teachers' Perceptions of Pupils,“ Journal of Teacher Education, IX (1958), pp. 97-100. ' 34W. S. Monroe, 92. cit., p. 1484. 12 There are some writers who support the value of stu- dent attitudes even to the point of using them for teacher evaluation. As it becomes more and more evident that superintendents', principals', supervisors', and board members' ratings of teachers showed very little reliability and little relationship to one another's assessments, the research on teachers' behavior in the classroom began assiggously to collect student ratings of teachers. More and more attention has been turned to the student, as the one person who views the teacher in his day-to-day teaching activities, for Judgments concerning teaching ability.36 The views of the students may be prejudiced, mistaken, superficial, immature; but whatever their validity, they exist and exert a powerful influence on the effectiveness of the course.37 Of the studies which are available involving students, most of them relate the student and one specific area of the total school environment. Davis and Dollard, for example, examined students and their socio—economic situation, and how it influenced teacher attitudes toward these students.38 35N. L. Gage, 22- cit., p. 690. 36Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educa- tional Research (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 2870 37R. C. Bryan, "A Study of Student Ratings of College and Secondary School Teachers,“ Educational Administrative Supervision, xxx (1933), pp. 290—307. 38A. Davis and J. Dollard, Children of Bondage (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940). 13 Bills and McGhee examined student attitudes toward subject matter and student success with that subject.39 Some attitude studies have looked at only the relationship between students40 while others have looked at relationships on both a student-to-student basis and on a teacher-to student basis.41 The majority of the studies involving student attitudes, however, have been primarily concerned with relationships between students and teachers. In this category, the following studies are typical: 1. Trager and Radke-Yarrow studied the classroom teachers' effect on student attitudes.4 2. Baxter identified teacher traits which students preferred.43 39R. E. Bills and C. R. McGhee, "The Effect of Attitude Toward Psychology in a Learning Experiment," Journal pg Personality, XXIII (1955), pp. 499-506. O . 4 Jose Danitz, "Social Perception and Sociometric Choice of Children,” Journal of Abnormal Social Esygbglggy, L (1955), pp. 173-76. 41W. S. Monroe, 92. cit., p. 745. 42Helen C. Trager and Marion J. RadkemYarrow, The Learn What They Live (New York: Harper and Row, 1952 . 43Bernice Baxter, Pupil-Teacher Relationship (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941). 14 3. Brookover studied pupil-teacher relations in regard to teaching effectiveness.44 4. Maier and Schnierla traced liberal and conservative tendencies of teachers and their effect on students' attitudes.45 5. Lewin, Lippitt, and White checked the degrees of freedom in the classroom with the attitudes of the students.46 6. Bush studied teachers' perceptions of their relationship with students and students' perceptions of the same relationship.47 The studies of student attitudes which appear to be missing are those dealing with student attitudes toward the entire school setting rather than just the classroom. Stu- dent attitudes should involve a holistic approach rather than just measurements dealing with classroom relations. It is important that we look at "process criteria" or those things 44'W. B. Brookover, “Person—Person Interaction Between Teachers and Pupils and Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research, XXXIV (1940), pp. 272~87. 45N. R. F. Maier and T. C. Schnierla, ”Mechanisms in Conditioning,” Psychological Review, XLIV (1942), pp. 117- 34. 46Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and R. K. White, “Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal 2: Social Psychology, X (1939), pp. 271-99. 47R. N. Bush, ”A Study of Student-Teacher Relation- ships,“ Journal 9: Educational Research, XXXV (1942), pp. 645-56. 15 which affect the operation of the social system of a school environment as well as ”product criteria“ or the achievement aspect of the school program.48 Many educators act on the assumption that if we stimulate students with teachers who can show good achievement results, we have carried out the necessary functions of an educational institution. We must, however, be as concerned with other institutional factors as 49 Concern with achievement or we are with achievement. teacher-pupil relations shows only a limited aspect of the student educational life. Student attitude studies, to date, leave unanswered many vital questions about students and their attitudes toward school. When teachers are satisfied with their Jobs,are students similarly satisfied? Do stu- dents view the school personnel and environment as teachers view them? When teacher needs are perceived as being met, do students perceive their needs as being met? We have looked at perception of schools by adminis— trators, teachers, and various lay groups. We have looked at student perceptions of teachers, self, and the classroom environment. If there is value in these studies-~if there 48W. S. Monroe, gp. cit., p. 1483. 49William Robenowitz and R. M. W. Travers, ”Problems of Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness,” Education- 21 Theor , III (1953), pp. 212-19. 16 is worthwhile information to be gained by knowing how adults perceive school, or how students perceive teachers, class- mates or the classroom environment, there should be valuable information available from a study of how students perceive their total school environment. Hypotheses The following hypotheses will be investigated in this study: Hypothesis I - Teachers from high teacher morale schools will differ from teachers in low teacher morale schools in the areas of the school environment which they rate as most favorable and most unfavorable. Hypothesis I; - Students from schools with high teacher morale have more positive attitudes toward school than do students from schools with low teacher morale. Hypothesis III - Student concern over various areas of the school environment in schools with high teacher morale will differ from student concerns in schools with low teacher morale. Hypothesis I! - Student attitudes in certain areas of the school environment will correspond with teachers' responses on similar items. Consequently, students from 17 schools with high teacher morale will perceive selected items in the same way as do their teachers. This will also be true of the students and teachers from schools with low teacher morale. Hypothesis y - Students from schools in which teachers have high morale will differ significantly in selected per- ceived variables from students who come from schools whose teachers have low morale. Hypothesis 2; - The teachers' perception of the students' actual attitude toward the school environment will be more accurate for teachers from high teacher morale schools than for teachers from low teacher morale schools. Definition 9; Terms There are certain terms which will be used in this study. These terms need to be defined so that their use will carry consistent meaning for the reader. Morale - Morale is a feeling of participants in an organization stemming from a combination of (a) perceived productivity or progress toward the achievement of tasks of the organization, and (b) perceived Job satisfaction of 18 individual needs through interaction of the participant in 50 his role within the group. It is a result of attitudes. If satisfaction outweighs dissatisfaction, morale is high.51 Attitude - An attitude is a psychological construct, inferred from observable responses to stimuli . . . it may be inferred from expressive or symbolic behavior in which overt choice is implied or indirectly expressed, as in ques- tionnaires, in interviews, and in responses to projective techniques . . . .52 It is generalized reaction for or against a specific psychological object.53 Perception - Perception is acquiring, through the senses, a mental impression derived from the presented data which has been modified by attention, interest, and previous experience. 50Richard C. Lonsdale, “Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equalibrium,“ Behavioral Science and Education Administration, The Sixpy-Third Yearbook pf the National Society for the Study 9; Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 164. 51Arthur Whitehill, Jr., Personnel Relations (New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 329. 52C. W. Harris, 92. cit., p. 103. 53L. L. Thurstone, ”Theory of Attitude Measurement,“ Psychological Review, XXXVI (1929), pp. 222-41. 19 Social Interaction - Social interaction defines a relation between persons such that the behavior of either one is stimulus to the behavior of the other.54 School Climate - School climate is general atmosphere of the school environment. Overview It has been the purpose of Chapter I to introduce the problem and discuss it in terms of significance, need for the study, hypotheses and definitions. In Chapter II, the liter- ature related to the study will be explored for its perti- nence to the study. In Chapter III, the procedure will be discussed. In that chapter, the sample, instrumentation, limitations, and techniques of analysis will be reviewed. Chapter IV will contain the analysis of the results and re- late these results to the hypotheses. In Chapter V, the study will be summarized and conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study will be listed. Summary To this point, an attempt has been made to introduce the preposed study. The abbreviated purpose of this study is 54H. B. English and Ava C. English,.A Com rehensive Dictionary 9; Psychological and Psychoanalygical Terms (New York: Longmans, Green, 1958), p. 270. 20 to examine high school student attitudes toward school and the relation of these attitudes to teacher morale. The need for the study has been defended on the basis of the writings and studies of several authors and researchers. There have been many studies involving attitudes of teachers, adminis- trators, and supervisors, but few studies of attitudes have involved students, and those that have been done, have been restricted to attitudes in the classroom. The point is that we are not certain that when teachers and administrators are satisfied, there is a mutual satisfaction among the students. In Chapter I, six hypotheses were suggested dealing with student attitudes, perception of attitudes, relations between student attitudes, and relations between teachers' and students' attitudes. Terms were also defined, and an overview was given of what to expect in the following chapters. The problem has been introduced, and the need for the study has been established. It is now time to pro- ceed to a review of the literature as it relates to the prob- lem of student attitudes toward school. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In reviewing the literature for this study, it is necessary to look at previous research in both morale and attitude studies. Morale studies will be reviewed in order to provide a background for the use of the teacher-morale information which is to be used as a basis for the selection of the sample. The attitude studies are to be reviewed in an effort to provide a background for the information which is to be collected and analyzed about the students. In general, it is intended that the literature will provide a conceptual framework for looking at the importance of human relations in an organization and specifically at student feelings in the school environment. In the past, we have been primarily concerned with choosing goals and allo- cating resources in the public schools. We know how to organize for material efficiency: we do not know how to insure spontaneity of co- operation, that is, teamwork. We are committed to a degree of human adaptability not characterized by any human society in the past, and it is our present failure in this respect that finds reflection in our social description. 1Elton Mayo, The Social Problems 2; 23 Industrial Civilizatign (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1945 ' P. 1500 22 Thus, in any organization, the crucial factor is the nature of the human relations involved. These relations will deter- mine the amount of cooperation, and the degree of cooperation will determine the degree to which the organization will attain its goals. The procedure will be to look first at morale studies, then at several attitude studies pertaining to schools and school personnel, and finally, to those studies which are primarily oriented toward students. Morale The first interest in morale began in the early 1900's. The beginning of systematic inquiry into the subject of morale began with WOrld War I or shortly thereafter. Findings discovered at this time have since become fundamental in personnel management . . . . By the fall of 1919 there appeared in this country and abroad no fewer than thirteen books on the subject of morale. A great deal of the first morale information was oriented toward the military. The first of these checked on the military aspects of health, gregariousness, humor, pug- nacity, adventure, work, cooperation, and justice as they pertained to military morale.3 2John H. Suehr, “A Study of Morale in Education” (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961). 3Harold C. Goddard, Morale (New York: J. H. Doran Company, 1918). 23 There were similar military works by Hocking,4 Hall,5 and Munson.6 It was not long before emphasis on morale switched over to civilian life. In 1933, Mayo explored the relation of morale to fatigue, boredom and social maladjustment.7 8 In 1942, Nash wrote on civilian morale during war time. One of the most famous studies of morale was that done at the Hawthorne Plant. This study was carried on for twelve years and was widely acclaimed as an outstanding study of industrial 9 relations. At the culmination of this study, Roethlisberger wrote: It is our thesis that what physical health is to a physical organism, morale is to a cooperative system. Lack of morale, like lack of health, cannot often be reduced to some one simple cause. Just as problems 4William E. Hocking, Morale and Its Enemies (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1918). 5G. Stanley Hall, Morale, The Su reme Standard 2: Life (New Ybrk: D. Appleton and Company, 1920). 6Edward L. Munson, The Ranagement 9f Man (New Yerk: Henry Holt and Company, 1921). 7Elton Mayo, The Human Problems 23 an Industrial Civilization (New YOrk: Macmillan Company, 1933). 8Jay 8. Nash, Building Morale (New YOrk: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1942). 9. F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard university Press, 1939). 24 relating to health require a simple and useful way of thinking about the physical organism as a physio-chemical system, so an understanding of problems relating to morale require a simple and useful way of thinking about human beings in their associations with one another as a social system. It was only a matter of time until morale studies were applied to education. Griffiths stated the problem for edu- cation: If anyone needs more evidence that we have not faced up to the problem of morale, let him remember that some 350,000 teachers left the profession during the war years. If was their first opportunity to get out and they did. 1 The interest in morale and education resulted in many studies. The following list does not include all the studies, but it does reflect the morale areas covered by school studies: 12 1. School morale and the community. 2. Admin stration and its effect on work satisfac- tion. 10F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1941), p. 192. 11Daniel E. Griffiths, Human Relations i9 School 5g- ministration (New Yerk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956), p. 145. 12Harold Hand, What People Think About Their Schools (New Ybrk: WOrld Book Company, 1948). l3W’il‘bur Brookover,'§ Sociology 2; Education (New Ybrk: American Book Company, 1955). 25 3. The relation of teacher morale to stamina, efficiency, happiness, possessions, beliefs, loyalties and education. 4 4. The relation of teacher morale to teacher turn- over. 5 5. The relation of teacher morale to job efficiency.16 6. The relation of teacher morale to production.17 7. The development of a teacher morale measuring device. 8. Factors affecting the morale of elementary and secondary teachers. 9. The relation 8f student achievement to the morale of teachers.2 14Henry W. Holmes, The Road pg Courage (New Ybrk: Alfred A. Knopf, 1943). 15L. E. Leapold and Joseph Yarborough, “What 1600 SchooltPeople Think About Teacher Morale,“ American School Board Journal, CXIX (December, 1944), p. 29. 16Ralph E. Plant, “An Investigation of Some Correlates of Teacher Job Satisfaction“ (Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, Cornell University, 1966). 17John M. Crothers, “An Analysis of Joint Variations in Morale and Productivity“ (Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Tennessee, 1965). 18Averno Rempel and Ralph Bentley, “The Measurement of Teacher Morale: A Factor Analysis Approach,“ Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXIV (Fall, 1964), pp. 631-41. 19Ida Bell Monford, “Factors Influencing the work of Teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia"(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956). 20D. E. Griffiths, gp. cit. 26 10. The identification of factors which affect teacher morale.21 11. The effect of inEegration and interaction on teacher morale.2 12. The relgtion of leadership qualities to teacher morale. 3 13. The relation of teacher morale to curriculum development.24 14. The relation of teacher morale to democratic and autocratic schools operation.25 15. The relation of teacher morale to salary.26 16. The relation between teacher morale and quality education.27 21Frederick Redefer, “Factors That Affect Teacher Morale,” Nation‘s Schools, LXIII (February, 1959), p. 59. 22Robert E. Cralle and William H. Burton, ”An Exam- ination of Factors Stimulating or Depressing Teacher Morale,“ California Journal 9; Elementary Education, VII (August, 1938), pp. 7-14. 23Edson L. Smith, “Leadership Attitudes of Teachers and Administrators in Minnesota Schools“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1953). 24William E. Coffman, “Teacher Morale and Curriculum Development,“ Journal gf Experimental Education, XIX (June, 1951), pp. 305-31. 25Francis S. Chase, "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching,“ Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIII (1951), p. 128. 26Clement Thompson, "The Morale of Senior High School Teachers in the New Yerk City Public School System and Attitude Toward the Single Salary Schedule"(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New YOrk University, 1957). 27William Stosberg, “A Study of the Relation Between Quality of Education and the Morale Status of the Faculty” (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New Yerk University, 1957). 27 17. The relation of teacher morale to the socio- economic status of the community. At New Ybrk University, over a seven year period, twenty doctoral theses were carried on by fifty graduate students. These studies involved fifty school systems and over ten thousand teachers.29 Such a number and scope of school morale studies points up the intense interest in the area by school people. In an army, school system, or an industrial plant, there is no substitute for good morale. The main difference between men and machines is that the productivity of a man is determined largely by the way he feels about his job and the other employees with whom he works, and by his attitude toward the company that employs him. Morale cannot be legislated or induced by logical argument; neither can it be bought for a price. The morale study having the greatest influence on this study was the one done by Suehr. The influence was effective in two ways. First, Suehr's “Teacher Morale Form" was used as the device for selecting the sample schools in this study, and second, Suehr suggested the need for a study to look at 28Gloria J. Cohen, "A Study of the Socio-Economic Status of the School Community and the Morale of the Teaching Personnel in New Ybrk City"(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New Yerk University, 1959). 29Frederick L. Redefer, “Studies of Teacher Morale,“ Schoolyggg Societ , XCII (February 22, 1964), pp. 63-64. 30Joseph Tiffin, Industrial Psychology (New Ybrk: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952), p. 459. 28 the attitudes of students. Through the use of his imcomplete sentence blank, Suehr found twenty-six factors which relate significantly to morale at the 5 per cent level. He conclud- ed that: 1. The childhood background of teachers is highly important to their teaching morale. 2. Personality differences exist among teachers. 3. Cause-and-effect relationships are evident in the area of morale. 4. The incomplete sentence method seems to be the best method yet devised for measuring teacher morale. 5. Communication is probably the most vital area in the morale area. 6. Little is known about teacher motivation. 7. Human relations seem to be the key concept to morale. 8. Low or high morale is the result of a holistic situation. 9. The mental health of the teacher is important. Suehr makes many recommendations for future studies. Among these is a suggestion for studies of student morale.31 As an outgrowth of Suehr's study, Wotring, using the ”Teacher Morale Form“, conducted a study of teacher morale and administrative evaluation. Of significance to this study was a discovery by Wetring that students do not view the good 31J. H. Suehr, gp. cit. 29 teacher in the same way as do other teachers or the adminis- trators e The findings showed principals' estimates of teacher effectiveness in the areas of teachers' knowledge of subject matter, ability to explain, efficiency, ability to get students to think for themselves, ability to help students know why they were learning, and general teaching ability were significantly related to teachers' satisfactions with their tasks. Teachers' self evalua- tions and student evaluations of teachers were not generally related to the factors of teacher morale . . . . Students have a different concept of the “good“ teacher from that of either principals or teachers. While students rank sympathy and under- standing, a sense of humor, fairness, and interesting- ness highest on their list of qualities of a “good“ teacher, principals and Seachers tend to emphasize techniques and methods.3 Through these two studies have come the ideas for the instru- mentation of this study and the direction of the investiga- tion. Teacher Attitude Studies In studies relating attitudes to educational institu- tions, a number have been concerned with teacher attitudes. The assumption has been that good attitudes promote high production and poor attitudes result in low production. By paying more attention to attitudes, we can accomplish high 32Jarvis C. Wetring, “Teacher Morale and Evaluation of Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 30 production and release the creative capacity of the staff.33 A number of the attitude studies concerning teachers dealt with job satisfaction. One study collected an attitude sampling of 971 secondary school teachers of home economics. This study concluded: 1. There is greater job satisfaction among those who taught both junior and senior high than among those who taught at just one level. 2. Satisfaction was independent of length of teaching experience. 3. Satisfied teachers felt that the climate of the school was most important. 4. Satisfaction is related to adequacy of equipment and finance, proper adjustment of class loads, and assistance from administrators. 5. Teachers who were going to return the next year were more satisfied than those not coming back or those undecided. 6. Community aspects which satisfied teachers were a pleasant social life, acceptance by the community, and a cooperative attitude. 7. Married teachers were more satisfied than single teachers. Another job-satisfaction study related teachers needs with how they felt these needs were being met. They were then 33Danie1 E. Griffiths, Human Relations i2 School Administration (New Ybrk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956 . 34"Factors Affecting the Job Satisfaction of Home Economics Teachers,“ Research Bulletin No. 3 (Washington, D.C.3 -American Vocational Home Economics Research Committee, 1948 . 31 asked to rate their satisfaction with their job. The results of both ratings were then compared. Those who felt their personal needs were being met were most satisfied with their jobs.35 Happock did a study involving 500 teachers from fifty- one urban and rural communities in the northeastern United States. By the use of attitude scales, he was able to show that both satisfied and dissatisfied teachers like children, but they differ widely in their desire to be of service. Satisfied teachers not only are more readily available for service to the community, but they are much more adept at recognizing the opportunity for doing service.36 Still another study involved 5,602 teachers who completed an instrument which measured their attitudes toward teaching. In this study, the teachers who held the most positive attitudes toward teaching were the older teachers and those who taught edpmentary school. This study stated that teachers' attitudes were much more positive than they had been in a similar study in 1944.37 35Boris Blair, Jr., “A Job Satisfaction Predictor,“ Personnel Journal, XLII, No. 9 (October, 1963), p. 453. 36Robert Happock, Job §atisfaction (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935). 37‘The Status of the American Public School Teachers, “ Research Bulletin, XXXV, No. 1 (Washington, D.C., February, 1957,. Pp. 1-63. 32 Another set of studies related teachers' attitudes to administrators and their procedures. Bidwell's study showed that teachers are happy when they can predict the administra- 38 tors' behavior. Michelfelder stated that "the attitudes of the faculty toward policies and plans have a greater impact on community attitudes than any other single factor.“39 Wondt found that teachers with the most favorable attitudes toward administrators get the best ratings from these administrators.4o Blocker and Richardson had findings similar to Bidwell's and concluded that since teachers tend to be satisfied with administration when their expectations of administration are carried out, then democratic schools may not be the best in all situations.41 In a study of 323 teachers from nineteen administra- tive units in three districts, teachers were asked to rank 105 different policies and practices on a five-point scale. From this study, it was concluded: 380. E. Bidwell, “Administration and Teacher Satis- faction,“ Phi Delta Kappan, XXVII, No. 7 (1956), p. 287. 39Phyllis Michelfelder, "Internal Relations With Faculty and Staff,” Pride, II (December, 1958), p. 14. 40E. O. Wendt, “A Comparison of the Attitudes of Contrasting Groups of Teachers,” Educational PsycholOgical Measurement, XIV (1954), pp. 418-22. 41Clyde E. Blocker and Richard C. Richardson, ”Twenty- Five Years.of Morale Research: A Critical Review,“ JOurnal g; Educational Sociology, XXXVI, No. 5 (January, 1963 , p. 201. 33 1. There is a significant positive relation between a teacher's perception of adminis- trative policies and procedures and his attitudes toward his job. 2. Administrative policies and procedures have their only important existence in the way teachers perceive them. One of the really exciting studies to come along in recent years was one conducted by Halpin and Croft. It was their intention to investigate the “organizational climate“ of the school through teachers' perceptions about that school. They developed the “Organizational Climate Descrip- tion Questionnaire“ (OCDQ). This instrument contained sixty- four items by means of which a teacher could describe how she perceived the school. This instrument was given to 1,151 teachers in seventy-one elementary schools in six regions of the country. By factor analysis, they were able to develop subtests as follows: Teacher's Behavior 1. Disengagement - Teachers do not work well together. 2. Hindrance - Teachers are burdened by routine duties. 3. Esprit - Teachers have good morale. 4. Intimacy - Teachers have strong social relations with other faculty members. 42Guy Clark Pryor, “The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions of Administrative Dimensions and the Morale Status of Teachers in Certain Texas Schools“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, 1964). 34 Principal's Behavior 5. Aloofness - Principals are formal and impersonal. 6. Production Emphasis - Principals conduct close supervision of the staff: they are highly task oriented. 7. Thrust - Principals attempt to motivate by personal example. 8. Consideration - Principals are inclined to treat the teacher humanly. By another factor analysis of the teachers' attitudes on these subtests, Halpin and Croft were able to discriminate six organizational climates: 1. The Open Climate - This climate describes an energetic and lively organization which gives its members satisfaction and provides for their social needs. The Autonomous Climate - In this climate leader- ship emerges primarily from the group. The Controlled Climate - This climate is impersonal and highly task oriented. The Familiar Climate - This climate is highly personal but under control. The Paternal Climate - In this climate leader- ship from the group is constrained and most acts initiate from the administrator. The Closed Climate - In this climate there is a high degree of apathy on the part of all members of the organization. 3 43Daniel E. Griffiths and Daniel R. Davies, “The Organizational Climate of Schools,“ Executive Action Letter III, No. 2 (September, 1963). 35 Using the OCDQ, a personal data sheet, and a scale to rank teachers, Slocum conducted a study using ninety-seven teachers from six elementary schools. He found that: 1. Teachers and principals have similar judgments on rating teacher effectiveness. 2. There is no significant difference in the way the staff perceives openness of climate and the congruency of rating between the principal and teachers. 3. There is no significant difference between congruency of teacher and principal ratings and age or teaching experience.4 There have also been studies of teacher attitudes as they relate to other matters in education. A study by Jones attempted to measure secondary teacher attitudes toward evaluation. In Jones' study, eight schools in four districts were used. He concluded that most teachers favor evaluation programs that: 1. are organized with the help of teachers. 2. have agreed on criteria. 3. are carried on at least once a year. 4. are explained and discussed with teachers.45 44Clyde W. Slocum, “An Exploration of the Perceptual Relationship Between Peer and Principal Ranking of Teachers,“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965). 45Richard D. Jones, “The Attitude of Permanent Second- ary School Teachers Toward Evaluation, " (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1963). 36 The majority of studies on teacher attitudes, however, have dealt with teacher effectiveness, particularly with the classroom, and the effect on students. In most of these studies, the emphasis has been on the teacher and his express- ed feelings. The student involvement has been primarily on achievement as a yardstick for measuring teacher effective- ness. In one such study, it was found that learning takes place most completely when both the needs of the students and of the teachers are being met.46 Another study of a six year duration ranked the attitudes of 6,000 teachers from 1,700 schools and 450 school systems on various things such as friendliness, motivation of students, attitudes toward ad- ministration, verbal understanding and emotional stability. They found that teachers from small schools and small commun- ities scored highest on these scales.47 Kaura did a study to determine the probable influence that satisfaction or dissatisfaction of teachers may have on the academic success of students. In his study, he used twelve Dearborn, Michigan, public secondary schools. One hundred fifty-seven teachers gave responses on their 46D. H. Jenkins, “Interdependence in the Classroom," Journal 2; Educational Research, XLIV (1951), pp. 137-44. 47D. G. Ryons, Characteristics 92 Teachers (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960 . 37 attitudes toward teaching. Thirty-one of these teachers were selected and compared to the achievement scores of their students. These thirty-one teachers were separated into two groups--those who ranked high and--those who ranked low on the attitude scale. The students of these two groups of teachers were equated on intelligence, socio-economic level, and reading ability. This study found that: 1. A partial correlation (-.54) exists between teacher attitudes and student achievement. 2. There are significant differences in students' achievement between teachers of high attitude scores and those of low attitude scores. 3. When students of teachers with low attitude scores score low on standardized tests, the teacher's attitude goes even lower. 4. Teacher attitude toward school is a key glement in achieving good educational outcomes.4 In a project by Heil, Powell and Feifer, an attempt was made to relate achievement to teacher personalities. Through attitude scales, three teacher personality types were identified and related to achievement groups. 1. Well integrated personality - most effective with all types of students. 43 Hussein Soliman Kaura, “An Experimental Study of Students' Achievement in Relation to the Morale of Selected Secondary School Teachers" (Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Michigan, 1963). 38 2. Weakly integrated - ineffective with all types of students except strivers. 3. Turbulent - effective with conformers or strivers; ineffective with opposers and waverers. Still another study, by Oliver, showed that teacher attitudes toward educational beliefs were consistent with modern educational philosophy. In the classroom, however, the beliefs were not implemented into the program. Where attitudes were closest to implementation, student achievement levels were the greatest.50 Not all teacher attitude studies relating to students have been related to achievement. Some of these studies have attempted to relate teacher attitudes to student behavior. It is claimed that 50 per cent of teacher annoyance comes from the behavior of the student.51 In fact, teachers are more annoyed by student behavior which upsets the smooth operation of the class than by that behavior which affects 49L. M. Heil, M. Powell and J. Feifer, "Characteris- tics of Teacher Behavior and Competency Related to the Achievement of Different Kinds of Children in Several Elemen- tary Grades,” (New Yerk: Office of Testing and Research, Brooklyn College, 1960). 50W. A. Oliver, “Teacher Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices,“ Journal 92 ggucational Research, XLVII (1953), pp. 47-55. 51Louis Kaplan, ”The Annoyance of Elementary School Teachers,“. Journal 22 Educational Research, XLV (1952), Pp. 649-65. 39 them directly as individuals.52 Teachers feel that overt behavior (stealing and cheating) is most threatening to them. Withdrawing tendencies are perceived as least serious. Teachers seem more interested in classroom decorum than in mental health.53 Teachers underestimate student desire for self improvement and perceive fewer differences between stu- dents than do psychologists. Members of a group whose teacher possesses better knowledge and better attitudes toward them will make greater gains in achievement, have better school attitudes, enjoy school more, have fewer feel- ings of inferiority, have fewer maladjustments, and have more motivation toward school work.54 Student Attitude Studies The importance of student attitudes, though of a more recent vintage, has been acknowledged as being of at least equal and perhaps greater importance than those of teachers. In general, it might be suggested that some findings related 52Elmer J. Clark, "Teacher Reactions Toward Objection- able Pupil Behavior,“ Elementary School Journal, LI (1951), PP. 446-49 e 53E. C. Hunter, “Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior Over the Last Thirty Years,” Mental 54Ralph Ojeman and F. R. Wilkinson, “The Effect on Pupil Growth of an Increase in Teacher Understanding of Pupil Behavior,“ Journal g£,Expgrimenta1 Education, VIII (1939), pp. 143-47. 40 to group structure within other organizations might apply to students in the educational organization as well. For example, Newcomb discovered that there is little evidence that rewards furnished by the company are related to energy devoted to the productivity of the individual. Those who were most critical of company policy were high producers. Thnspoints to "group belongingness“ and “ego needs" rather than to reward systems to account for productivity.55 Another example which might apply is found in the works of Roethlisberger. He states that any organization involves two major considerations: 1. The daily problem of maintaining internal equilibrium within the organization, that is, maintaining that kind of social organization in which individuals and groups, through working together, can obtain human satisfac- tions that will make them willing to contribute their services to the objective of cooperation. 2. The daily problems of diagnosing possible sources of interference, of locating sore spots, of liquidating human tensions and strains among individuals and groups, of helping people to orient themselves to their work group, of spotting blockages in the channels of communication.56 55Theodore M. Newcomb, “Social Psychology and Group Process,“ Annual Review gf Ps cholo , IV (1953), pp. 183-214. 56F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1941), p. 192. 41 One last study to cite here would be that of Marpel. His study presented research evidence to show that the atti- tudes held by an individual would be largely dependent on who communicated them to him. In this respect, the attitudes of the majority will have quite an influence on the individual, and the most influential attitudes will be those perceived to be held by the peer group.57 These studies cite findings which might be implied about students in the educational setting but which need to be researched in order to substantiate the findings suggest- ed. We need to know more about what is done in the total school environment and how this is perceived by students. There is a need to develop a taxonomy of school characteris- tics. Through this taxonomy should be developed a method of looking at the characteristics of the academic plant and related facilities as well as programs and relations of per- sons in the social structure.58 There is a need for recognition of the importance of student attitudes in the school climate. Such an awareness 57C. H. Marpel, “The Comparative Susceptibility of Three Age Levels to the Suggestion of Group Versus Expert Opinion,“ Journal g; Abnormal Psychology (1933), pp. 176-86. 58David Riesman, ”Student Culture and Faculty Values,“ Spgtlight 93 the College Student (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959), pp. 8-24. 42 is not meant to detract from the importance of other segments of the school social structure, but is meant to provide impe- tus to studies which are cognizant of the need for considera- tion of all of the social groups of the school environment. Such statements as the following suggest the power of student perception: There are no better judges for predicting school drop outs or those who will make the honor roll than other students. No superintendent or staff . . . could possibly awaken the community to the living force of the school as much as a few score children. With this power in mind, it might now be appropriate to look at research studies on student attitudes. Student Attitudes and Learning One group of such studies pertain to student attitudes as they relate to learning. Hedges and MacDougall were con- cerned with the lack of student involvement in appraising the learning situation in school. 59C. A. Ullman, "Teachers, Peers, and Tests as Predictors of Adjustment," Journal 9: Educational Psy- cholo , XLVIII (1957), pp. 257-67. 60R. H. Anderson, “The Teacher in Public Relations,“ Phi Delta Kappan, XXVIII (1947), p. 284. 43 In attempting to circumvent the measurement of the complex variables inherent in the learning process, researchers have frequently fallen back on: 1. opinion and judgment by observers 2. correlation studies between ratings of teachers' attributes and: a) student teacher rating b) inservice rating c) college grades d) pupil growth in achievement e) judgment of panels of experts. . . . there has been the tendency of researchers to examine the learning process only through the eyes of teachers or observers or both or through the measurable effects on students. Seldom has there been a more multi-faceted approach which includes the student's perception of the situation.61 In their study, they developed a device for collecting data on the teaching-learning process. By use of electric type- writers, students were able to respond to their activities. Responses were printed on a standard form according to a pre-arranged code. Responses were listed as: (1) bored, (2) interested, (3) understood a point, (4) did not under- stand. Forty students made recordings at thirty second intervals for a period of sixty minutes. The stated purpose of the study was to: 1. provide feed-back to the teacher of student responses to teacher's actions. 61William D. Hedges and Mary Ann MacDougall, ”Record- ing Student Perceptions of Teacher Behavior by Means of a Student Response Monitor,“ 223 Journal g; Educational Research, LVIII (December, 1964), p. 164. 44 2. analyze correlation between observer's reactions and teacher's reactions. 3. look at student reactions in terms of certain student variables. 4. analyze interaction in the classroom. The outcome of the study was the recommendation that this technique would provide a method of knowing what happens to students in certain situations, with particular teachers, with certain techniques and under what conditions. Research- ers would thus be provided with a means of looking at the learning situation in numerous ways.62 Another study related to learning dealt with affective and coqnitive attitudes of teachers and students. The author used the work of Thelen and Jenkins to advance the premise that greater learning will occur in the classroom where pupils are able to satisfy their emotional needs. Further, if the students' needs are met, so are the teachers; and consequently, there is a condition of interdependence. The students' first interest is in being accepted either by the teachers or the peer groups or both. Because of this need, it is possible to have power over each other by the threat of withholding need satisfactions. This study was to look at the question: Does the classroom mean the same thing to teachers and pupils as 62Ibid. 45 expressed through their attitudes toward each other? The study was to look at two kinds of instruction: 1. coqnitive - one in which the classroom goals are abstract, intellectual, and aimed at imparting knowledge. 2. affective - one in which the classroom goals are aimed at the emotional adjustment of the student and effective interaction in class. Instruments used were Farquhar's "Preferred Instructor Char- acteristic Scale“ and a scale developed by Nelson called the “Preferred Student Characteristic Scale.“ Both scales meas- ured cognitive and affective characteristics of those being measured. The student scale was given to 692 eighth grade students on two occasions, six weeks apart. The teacher instrument was given to sixty-one junior high teachers. The reliability of the instruments was checked in two ways: split half Teacher/.91 Student/.88 test-re-test Teacher/.63 Student/.55 As a result of the study, it was concluded that teachers and pupils in junior high schools deviate significantly in terms of attitudes toward each other. Teachers are coqnitively oriented toward pupils, and pupils are affectively oriented toward teachers. It was also suggested that: 1. Teachers tend to reject students not cognitively oriented. 2. Learning is not as efficient as it should be. 3. Students' emotional needs are not being met. 46 4. Since the teacher is in a power position, she should work in affective ways, and this will eventually give her the cognitive results which she wants. A third study was designed to look at teacher behavior which promotes learning. Student attitudes were a critical part of this study. The sample consisted of 229 students. The student evaluation was done by questionnaire. This study was a replication of a previous study. From the previous study, it had already been determined that a questionnaire was as valid and reliable as a multi-technique approach which used observations and tape recordings. The questionnaire used had sixty-nine descriptive items and three items of student evaluation. Rating was done on a five point scale based on the frequency or intensity of teacher behavior. The questionnaires were given at the end of the first semester. The items on the instrument were obtained from the low and high instruments of the previous instrument plus items which the author added. Each of the sixty-nine items was averaged for each teacher's class and that average became the teacher's score. From an analysis of the items, ten factors were iden- tified which accounted for 68 per cent of the total variance 63C. C. Nelson, “Affective and Cognitive Attitudes of Junior High School Teachers and Pupils,“ Journal 9; Educa- tional Research, LVIII (October, 1964), pp. 81-83. 47 of teachers' ratings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. There was Lecturing versus broad participation by students. Facility of communication versus lethargy and vagueness. Criticism and hostility versus tolerance. Control versus permissiveness. Warmth and approval versus coldness. Difficulty of presentation versus clarity. Dryness versus flamboyance. Precision versus informality. Nervousness versus relaxation. Impersonality versus personal expression. a significant relationship between how students rated teachers and: (1) encouragement of student parti- cipation, were: 1. 2. 3. 4. and (2) facility of communication. Other findings There is no difference in students' answers in large versus small classes. Teachers in basic classes tend to be more nervous, more critical, and more inclined to lecture. Teachers in elective classes tend to be relaxed, more tolerant, and to encourage more student participation. This study supported the findings of the previous study.6 64Daniel Solomon, “Teacher Behavior Dimensions, Course Characteristics, and Student Evaluation of Teachers,“ American Educational Research Journal, III, No. 1 (January, 1966). pp. 35—47. 48 Student Attitudes and School Climate Some of the attitude studies have been concerned with climate in the school. When the aims of education are conceived to include social learning as an important outcome of education, then teaching method must reflect and express the values associated with the democratic process as it is commonly understood. The social climate of the classroom is the single most potent influence on the kind of social learning which occurs. The social climate of the classroom is a product of the behavior of the group, which includes the teacher. The influ- ence of the teacher, as it is reflected in his relation with students and the way in which he organizes the activities of the classroom, is a powerful factor in determining the character of the group climate. Productive work or academic achievement in school seems to be related to group climate.65 Lewin, Lippitt, and White stressed the importance of climate in a study on student behavior. They found that students have greater satisfaction in a climate of dominating adults who are friendly than in a climate of complete freedom. Relationship with others is more important than the climate of an organization.66 65Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New Yerk: The Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 850. 66Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and R. K. White, “Pattern of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates,“ Journal 9; Social Ps cholo , X (1939), pp. 271-99. 49 Cunningham felt that good group climate is the out- growth of the interaction between students and teachers.67 Whithall found that teachers communicate their own problems 68 and another of social relations to the classroom climate, study agreed by stating that dominative or integrative behavior of the students will reflect the characteristics of the teacher.69 Crispin conducted a study to discover how the behavior of the teacher might affect the behavior of students. The teacher and the students were rated on authority, criticism, discipline, feelings, subject matter, and values. Three kinds of climates were identified: (1) direct, (2) variable, and (3) indirect. It was found that students in an indirect climate were more supportive of the teacher, expressed their feelings more, talked to the teacher more, talked with each other more, discussed more controversial issues, and needed 67Ruth Cunningham, “A Group Creates Its Climate,” Educational Leadership, V (March, 1948), pp. 358-62. 68John Whithall, "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms,“ Journal of Experimental Education, XVII (1949), pp. 347-61. 69Harold H. Anderson and J. E. Brewer, Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities, II: Effect of Teachers nominative and Integrative Contacts— on ChildrenTs Classroom Behavior (Stanford University, 1946), p. 127. 50 less discipline. The implication of this study was that it is easier to control students in an indirect climate. Class- es where subject matter is stressed are not as supportive of the teacher as in classes where less emphasis is placed on subject matter. It appears, then, that additional training for teachers in subject matter is not the answer to improving the classroom climate.7O Student Attitudes and Teachers There have been numerous studies relating student attitudes to the classroom teacher. Before reviewing specific studies in detail, a summary of some of the conclusions by various writers will be given: 1. When a student dislikes school, it is largely because of the teacher.71 2. Students, in rating their high school teachers, listed as most important: sincerity, fairness, appreciativeness, friendliness, industry, good judgment, and ability to explain clearly.7 70David Bower Crispin, ”Student Behavior in Three Different Climates"(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1963). 71Samuel Tenenbaum, “Attitudes of Elementary School Children to School, Teachers, and Classmates,” Journal 9: Applied Psychology, XXVIII (1944), pp. 134-41. 72Roy C. Bryan, Pupil Rating pp Secondary School Teach- ing (Columbia, New Ybrk: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 1937), pp. 32-34. 51 3. The greatest problem for a teacher is relating discipline to the desire to be liked.7 4. When the teacher is unaware of the feelings of her students, her ability to solve problems with the group is impaired.74 5. The principals' ratings of teacher-pupil rapport 9g not agree with the pupils' ratings. 6. Students dislike teachers who are domineering and authoritarian. The older the student, the greater the dislike. 7. There is a great inconsistency between the rapport which the teacher thinks he has with a student and what that student thinks of the teacher. The pupil-teacher relationship appears to be held as a vital aspect of the school setting. Haggerty feels that the 73T. Alexander, "Certain Characteristics of the Self as Related to Affection," Child Development, XXII (1951), pp. 285-90. 74Paul Eberman, "Personal Relationships: One Key to Instructional Improvements,“ Educational Leadership, IX (March, 1952), p. 389. 75R. Collis, “The Efficiency of the Minnesota Atti- tude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom," Journal pf Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), pp. 82-85. 76Stuart C. Tiedeman, "A Study of Pupil-Teacher Relationships," Journal 9; ggucational Research, XXXV (1942), pp. 657—64. 77R. N. Bush, "A Study of Student-Teacher Relation- ships, Journal gp Educational Research, XXXV (1942), pp. 52 failure of many researchers to include this dimension in their studies has accounted for the failure of these studies to obtain significant results in predicting teacher success.78 In attempting to look at teacher merit, a study by McCall and Krause established a method of rating teacher efficiency. In a comparison of the degree of efficiency with ratings by peers, principals, supervisors and students, it was found that a teacher's pupils are far better judges of a teacher's ability than are the professionally trained adults.79 These studies tend to support the importance of student ratings of teachers. In one study involving thirty-three teachers and 987 pupils in eighth grade from five junior high schools, teachers were rated on "inclusive” and "preclusive" behavior. These terms were related to amount of involvement of students in the classroom activities. A thirty item check list was given to rate the amount of required work and a twenty-five item check list was given to measure self initiated work. In addition, an eighty item check list was administered which 78M. E. Haggerty, “The Crux of the Prognosis Problem,” School and Society, XXXV (1932), pp. 545-49. 79William A. McCall and Gertrude B. Krause, “Measure- ment of Merit for Salary Purposes,“ Journal 2; Educational Research, LIII, No. 2 (October, 1959), p. 74. 53 was to describe the teacher's behavior. It was concluded that in the perception of students, "inclusive“ behavior of teachers is positively related to self-initiated work by the students.80 In a rather simple investigation, students were asked to rank the things which they expected from their teacher. The following list was compiled. Students want teachers who: 1. are sympathetic. 2. are tolerant. 3. will be firm and keep order in the room. 4. have a sense of humor. 5. are honest. 6. are well groomed and properly dressed. 7. follow the same rules that are set for students. 8. explain subject clearly and interestingly. 9. let all students participate. 10. are impartial and fair. 11. will not betray a confidence. 12. do not hold a grudge.81 80M. L. Cogan, “The Behavior of Teachers and the Productive Behavior of Their Pupils,“ Journal 92 Experiment- 31 Education, XXVII (1958), pp. 89-105. 81George Yeany, ”An Exchange of Expectations,” The Clearing House, XXXIX (January, 1965), p. 299. 54 A more scientific study was conducted by Hudson. It was his purpose to test the theoretical model which depicts teacher effectiveness rating as a function of the relation- ship between the rater's expectations and the rater's per- ception of the behavior of the teacher. Two hundred thirty- three senior high school students rated teacher effective- ness. Each student described his ideal teacher and four of his real teachers. He also rated the effectiveness of his four real teachers. From his work, Hudson found that: 1. Students describe the behavior of the same teacher in the same way. Most members of the class hold the same image of that teacher. 2. Teachers' effectiveness ratings reflect a "halo effect" brought on by how well the student likes the teacher, likes the subject, and has extracurricular contact with the teacher. 3. Groups differed on what they thought to be most important about the teacher. (a) boys and college bound - thought knowledge and organization of subject matter to be most important. (b) girls - thought relations with students in class to be most important. (c) highly academic - thought enthusiasm for working with students to be most important. 4. The students' ideal teacher was more concerned with teacher-pupil relations than with knowl- edge and presentation of subject. 5. The teachers judged most effective were those who most nearly resembled the rater's per- ceived ideal teacher. 55 6. Differences in teaCher's effectiveness as rated by students can be attributed to differences in rater expectations as well as actual differences in teacher behavior. 7. Ratings of teacher effectiveness are more meaningful $f the expectations of the rater are known.8 Bryan attempted to investigate three aspects of pupil ratings of secondary school teachers. 1. To determine the effect of such factors as intelligence, school marks, and sex on stu- dent ratings of teachers. 2. To determine the degree of correlation among student's ratings of teachers. 3. To determine the degree of agreement between pupils' and administrators' ratings of teachers. The sample consisted of nine hundred eighth- and ninth-grade students and six hundred tenth- and eleventh-grade students. These pupils each rated four teachers. Regarding the relationship between student and administrator ratings, it was found that the correlation between the junior high school students' ratings (eighth- and ninth-grade) and the adminis- trators' ratings was .68 while the correlation between the senior high school students (tenth- and eleventh-grade) and the administrators' ratings was .69. 82Keith C. Hudson, "Pupil Expectations of Teacher Behavior as a Possible Influence Upon Pupil Ratings of Teacher Effectiveness" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1964). 56 Bryan found that there is no significant difference between the ratings by pupils of teachers and whether they have high or low intelligence. Girls and students with high grades tend to rate teachers higher. The ratings of a random sample of thirty pupils had a correlation of .90 or above. There was also a great deal of consistency within the ratings of each student. Bryan felt that his study showed that pupil ratings are highly reliable.83 Bryan continued his work in high school students' per- ceptions of their teachers, and in his position as Director of the Student Reaction Center at Western Michigan Univer- sity, he fostered the use of “image reports“ based upon the use of a “Student-Opinion Questionnaire." This instrument has reliability coefficients for the different scaled tests ranging from .86 to .92. The questionnaire consists of nine items rated on a five-point scale ranging from "below average“ to ”the very best.” The nine items are concerned with knowledge of the subject, ability to explain, fairness, discipline, sympathy, ability to make classes interesting, efficiency, skill in getting students to think, and ability to help students learn. In addition, students are asked to make comments on work required by the teacher, two things they liked about the teacher, two things that would improve 83R. C. Bryan, pp. cit. 57 the teacher, two things liked about the course, and two things which would improve the course. During the year'l964-65, 643 teachers in seventy high schools used these reports which covered a total of 1,033 classes. This was an increase of 118 teachers over the previous year. Bryan explains that this increase is due to the fact that: 1. Image reports cause image improvement. Gains by teachers using image reports on the various segments of the questionnaire were 57 per cent as compared with 24 per cent of the group not using image reports. 2. Image improvement means improved teaching effectiveness. 3. Image improvement means improved prestige with administrators. This is due to increasing evidence that administrators are beginning to evaluate teachers more on pupil attitudes about their teachers. 4. Image improvement means improved effective- ness in the public relations program. This is a result of the fact that parents' opinions of teachers are greatly influenced by students' opinions of teachers. This entire work by the “Student Reaction Center" has served to focus attention on the value of student attitudes toward teachers. By knowing how students view their teachers, teachers are able to make improvements in areas 84Why High School Teachers Use Image Repgrts (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Student Reaction Center, School of Education, Western Michigan University). 58 rated low by students and consequently improve relations with students and subsequently with administrators and parents. Gage found that since 1927 there have been many stud- ies using the “Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors.“ This research has demonstrated that student evaluation is useful, convenient, reliable, and a valid means of self-supervision and self-improve- ment for the teacher. 85 The major findings from studies on pupil ratings over the years have been: 1. Reliability of ratings is a function of the number of raters. If twenty-five or more student ratings are averaged, they are as reliable as the better educational and mental tests. Grades of students have little relationship to the ratings students give instructors. Alumni, ten years after graduation, agree closely with those still in school on the characteristics of a good teacher. Alumni, ten years after graduation, agree with students still in school on ratings of the same teachers. The “halo effect” is not greatly in evidence. Students discriminate reliably well between characteristics of teachers. There is little relationship between rating and the difficulty of the course. 85 (Chicago: N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook p£_Research pp Teaching The American Educational Research Association, Rand McNally and Company), 1963, p. 367. 59 7. The sex of the rater has little or no relationship to their ratings of teachers. 8. Popularity in extra class activities of the teacher is not appreciably related to student ratings of teachers. 9. Teachers with less than five years of teaching experience tend to be rated lower than those with more than eight years of experience. 10. The sex of the teacher is generally unrelated to the findings. 11. Students are more favorable than instructors toward student ratings, but more instructors have noticed improvements in teaching after student ratings.86 These findings point up not only the inconsistency in student rating studies but the degree of interest which has been generated for the gathering of such student attitudes. Student Attitudes and the School Environment Studies reviewed so far have related student attitudes to various segments of the school environment. Since this study is intended to be more comprehensive, studies whose investigation of student attitudes are on a wider basis have more pertinence to this particular investigation. What are the attitudes of high school students toward the needs of youth as decided on by the professional educa- tors? This question was explored in a metropolitan Detroit 86Ibid. 60 study. Ten high schools were selected with 1,020 students involved. These students were given a questionnaire based on the "Ten Imperative Needs of Ybuth.“ Their selections, in rank order, were communication, citizenship, critical think- ing, understanding others, health, economics, science, and getting along with others. It is interesting to note that they selected vocational education last.87 School environment in relation to whether or not a high school had guidance services was the direction of work by Kasper, Munger, and Myers. The sample was drawn from high schools in North Dakota ranging in size from 150 to 300 students and matched on the basis of number of students, number of teachers, student-teacher ratio and location in the state. The variable factor was a guidance program in the high school which implied a counselor with an M. A. degree in guidance and at least three years of counseling experi- ence. The instrument used was ”The High School Characteris- tics Index,“ which was administered to 826 junior and senior high school students. It was concluded from the study that high schools with a guidance program have students with high- er scores on adaptability, aggressiveness, willingness to 87Mohamad Salah El-Din Ali Mogower, ”A Study of the Opinion of Selected High School Students Toward the Ten Imperative Needs of Youth“ (Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Michigan, 1963). 61 change, dominance, scientism, individualism, initiative and integration. Non-guidance high school students rate higher on affiliation, deference, humanism, group centeredness, and conformity.88 Attitude toward school related to socio-economic factors was investigated in the elementary grades in a 1965 study. Twelve schools from three districts were used to obtain a sample of 450 students in the fifth and sixth grades. These students were separated into three socio-economic groups and matched on sex, race, and intelligence. It was found that students' attitudes vary, according to their socio- economic background, toward authority, morality, postpone- ment of self gratification, and personality.89 An interesting study based on present attitudes con- cerning past educational experiences was conducted with 375 junior high school students. These students, selected from eighteen states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., were 88Eugene A. Kasper, Paul F. Munger, and Rodger Myers, "Student Perceptions.of the Environment in Guidance and Non- Guidance Schools,“ Peppgnnel and Guidance Journal, XLIII (March, 1965), pp. 674-77. 89Arthur L. Aikman, ”An Analytical Study of Atti- tudes and Other Selected Measures of Economically Depressed Children in Grades Five and Six" (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1965). 62 asked to appraise their fifth grade educational experiences. Of the 375 students, all of them could recall the name of the school and 355 could remember the teacher. One hundred ninety-nine had positive memories of fifth grade, ninety- five neutral, and fifty-two had negative memories. Both positive and negative memories were concerned with the teacher's personality. Neutral remarks were concerned with the school environment or group activities.90 In describing the educational environment, WOrmell included the home, parents, teachers, peers, and self. Her ninth-grade students were matched in sex, age, intelligence, and socio-economic factors. She identified her students as high utilizers of intellectual ability and low utilizers. She found that: 1. Low utilizers feel that home is less supportive. 2. Low utilizers feel less communication with parents and teachers. 3. Low utilizers feel teachers are more threatening. 4. Low utilizers have poorer feelings toward themselves. They do feel that they can succeed, however. 90Ann Kirtland Healy, “I‘ll Remember You Always,“ National Education épsociation Journal, LIII (December, 1964), p. 66. 63 5. Low utilizers feel that they have more support from opposite sexed parents than do high utilizers. 6. Low utilizers see their teachers as they do their parents.91 Antes looked at the same areas with the exception of parents and the home. He used attitude scores based on the “My Teacher" instrument. His findings were similar to those of Wormell. High achievers were more able to relate to teachers than low achievers. They also had a better self concept. High achievers also related better to the group than did low achievers. Pupils who had the best attitude toward school saw their teachers as interested, interpersonal, and relatable while those who rated school low saw only nega- tive characteristics of the teacher. In relation to their peer attitudes, there was found to be a positive relation between self evaluations and peer evaluations in the areas of aggressiveness, social acceptability and withdrawn tenden- cies. Students who were seen by peers as socially acceptable had good school attitudes. Aggressive and withdrawn students had negative attitudes toward school.92 91Helen E. Wormell, “A Comparative Study of Percep- tions Related to Self, Home, and School Among Selected Ninth Grade Students“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Michigan, 1963). 92John Manning Antes, "Children's Perceptions of Teachers, Self, Peers, and School"(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964). 64 Jackson and Getzels attempted to relate student satis- faction to student variables. Their sample was a high socio- economic school which was private and whose student body had a mean intelligence quotient of 130 on the Stanford-Binet test. They developed an instrument called the “Student Opinion Poll.“ From the 500 students in the school they selected forty-five students who were the extremes of satis- faction. They related these “most” and “least" satisfied students to various self rating variables. They concluded that psychological health data (mental health) are better determiners of school satisfaction than is scholastic achievement.93 Using Jackson and Getzels' instrument, Brodie dupli- cated much of their study. He used high schools from the midwest with a minimum enrollment of 2,300 students in grades nine through twelve. From a sample of 505 eleventh graders, he selected forty-four satisfied students and forty-eight dissatisfied ones. He then used the “Iowa Test of Education- al Development“ to measure student achievement. He found that satisfied students score higher on every part of the 93F. W. Jackson and J. W. Getzels, ”Psychological Health and Classroom Functioning: A Study of Dissatisfaction with School Among Adolescents,“ Journal pp Educational Egy- cholo , L (1959), pp. 295-300. 65 achievement test than do dissatisfied students with both the highest and lowest scores going to the girls. Two other studies on student attitudes toward school are extremely relevant to this study not only because of their findings but because of the techniques which they used. Both studies collected student attitudes by use of an in- complete sentence blank method. By using this technique, Costin and Eiserer found that students tend to identify with each other more than they identify with any other aspect of school life. Students do have a stereotyped opposition to school, but this does not show up when specific things are measured. Of all the negative attitudes expressed, more are expressed toward the teacher than toward any other segment of school life.94 Using the same technique, though perhaps a little less scientifically, Eames collected the attitudes of sixty-five students (35 per cent girls and 65 per cent boys) from the New England area. These students were invited to air their views on various segments of the school environment. Their answers were analyzed and compiled into a consensus report according to the responses in different areas. 94F. Costin and P. Eiserer, “Student Attitudes Toward School Life as Revealed by a Sentence Completion Test,“ American Psychologist, IV (1949), p. 289. 66 Curriculum - Students wanted more science and more electives. They like classes that teachers seem to like. No group of classes seemed to be liked better than others. Homework - Students felt this was mostly busy work. They had poor study conditions at home. They preferred to work under the direction of the teacher. Exams - Students preferred essay exams. Most of them had cheated though they regarded it as wrong. They are more concerned with knowledge, but their parents stress grades. piscipline - Boys seem to be more fearful of it than girls. All felt it should be firm and fair. Punishment should be against the individual rather than the class. Limits should be established and then the school should stick by them. There is much resentment against those who disturb the class and the teachers who let them get away with it. Principals - Students equated the term administrator with principal. Few students realize what they do other than maintain discipline. Students feel they have little contact with them. Teachers - Students feel teachers should set the example for the students. They dislike bad dress, vacilla- tion, abuse, and favoritism. They like good order, dress, 67 friendliness and good attitude toward the subject. They feel most teachers try to do a good job. Guidance Counselors - In general, students do not understand their function. Students see them as vocational persons or educational planners. Most students prefer to take their problems to parents or teachers. Dropputs - They leave because of school dissatisfac- tion and attractiveness of life outside of school. Delinquency - Students feel that only a few are delin- quent. No one felt that he was one. Students talk openly of smoking but hesitate to speak of drinking. Friends - Students feel they should select their own friends without adult intervention. Boys are more concerned about their relations with girls than vice versa. Students feel that personality is very important. Their friends tend to view school as they do. Sex Education - Most students prefer to get their information from parents but generally learned from peers and “sexy" books. Parents - Students ranked relations with parents as being very important. They liked parents who did not nag, gave them certain rights, respected their views and were 68 willing to discuss problems. They disliked strictness, reaction to poor marks, disapproval of friends, lack of under- standing, and controversy with other members of the family.95 The picture of the adolescent . . . is that of a thoughtful, helpful young person who is ready and often anxious to cooperate with teachers in whom he has confidence and who like him . . . we can help 96 him by giving him an understanding hearing . . . . Summary It has been the intent of this chapter to review stu- dies relevant to this particular investigation. The review has been concerned with two areas, morale and attitudes. Although it might easily be shown that these two words,by definition, are very similar and interdependent, they have not been combined but treated separately. The review of the literature on morale was done for the purpose of substantiating the use of the “Teacher Morale Form“ as a device for selecting the sample schools. The history of morals studies was traced from its development by the military to its adaptation to the educational setting. Suehr's study was cited to provide the final basis for the use of his instrument. 95T. H. Eames, ”Attitude and Opinion of Adolescents,“ JOurnal 2: Education, CXLVII (April, 1965), pp. 3-16. 96Ibid., p. 15. 69 The literature on attitude studies was intended to provide a background for the worth of attitude studies as a technique for looking at the educational environment. Since many of the previous attitude studies dealt primarily with teacher attitudes, these were reviewed first. Studies which related teacher attitudes to job satisfaction, perception of teaching, administrative practices, school climate, teacher evaluation, student achievement, student behavior, and edu- cational philosophy were described. Next, student attitude studies were reviewed. An attempt was made to make an application of findings concern- ing attitudes in non-academic situations to studies of stu- dent attitudes. Then an investigation into student attitude studies was made with emphasis on the following categories: 1. Student attitude studies related to learning. 2. Student attitude studies related to classroom Climates 3. Student attitude studies related to teachers. 4. Student attitude studies related to school environment. In this investigation, it was possible to arrive at certain conclusions based on summary findings from the various studies. 7O £22233 1. 2. Teachers and students differ greatly in their attitudes toward each other. Teachers are oriented toward subject matter while students are oriented toward personal relations. Student attitudes are improved by participation in class. Student attitudes are not affected by the size of the class. glasses 1. Students like a domineering and friendly atmosphere rather than a laissez-faire situation. The social climate of the classroom is more important than subject matter. Teacher 1. 2. 4. 5. Students dislike school primarily because of a teacher. Students like teachers who are fair, friendly, industrious, capable, well dressed, who keep order, and involve students. Teachers need to know attitudes of students in order to do a more effective job. Principals and teachers do not have perceptions similar to student perceptions. Pupil rating of teachers is one of the most reliable measures of teacher effectiveness. Pupils agree in their attitudes toward most teachers. Student attitudes are influenced by their expectations. 71 Past school ratings by former students are very similar to ratings of students still in school. Teachers are generally unfavorable to ratings by students. School Environment 1. 2. 3. Student attitudes are affected by socio- economic factors. Students who have good school attitudes have good relationships with peers. Psychological health is more important for measuring school satisfaction than is scholastic achievement. Students with good school attitudes have higher achievement scores on standardized tests. There were also areas on which there was disagreement in the conclusions of some of the studies. The points of disagree- ment discovered were: 1. 2. 3. 4. The rank order of the characteristics of a good teacher. The influence of student intelligence and student grades on his attitudes. The importance of the “halo effect“ in student ratings. The student rating of the teacher as related to the nature of the course being taught. The effect of sex (both student and teacher) on student ratings. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE Design 9; the Study In order to get at the problem, it was decided to use an incomplete sentence blank approach based on Suehr's “Teacher Morale Form" (TMF).l This instrument was to be used as a basis for selecting the sample schools which in turn were to be used for measuring student attitudes. The plan of. operation was to select schools which were significantly different in teacher morale. These schools would then be administered a student attitude scale. An analysis of the findings should provide insight into the proposed hypotheses. Selecting the Sample Schools The problem in selecting sample schools centered around the degree of cooperation which these schools would give. If a controversial measurement involving teacher morale and student attitudes was to be made, the question arose as to how willingly schools might allow such informa- tion to be gathered. To circumvent this problem, it was 1John H. Suehr, ”A Study of Morale in Education“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961). 73 decided to take the sample from practicing administrators in a university graduate class. It was felt that by using such a sample, maximum participation could be achieved. The sample started with sixty schools whose adminis- trators were all enrolled in the same university class. A screening of the sixty schools reduced the sample to twenty- two. This was done on the basis of school organization and longevity of the principal. This resulted in a sample made up of high schools with an organizational pattern of grades nine through twelve with administrators who had been at their. present school at least one year as the building principal. Although no specific attempt was made to make this a representative sample, the selected schools were quite diver- sified, and the following information is submitted to show the degree to which they are representative. Using divisions of the state based on the same region- al pattern as that used by Michigan State University for designating regional areas of operation, the schools in the sample were located in the following regions: Northeast region - three Southeast region - six Northwest region - two Southwest region - three Central region - three Western region - five 74 Using the Michigan Education Directory,2 it was possi- ble to tabulate information about Michigan high schools. There are 526 high school buildings in Michigan, excluding the city of Detroit. Of this number, there are 313 which are organized on a ninth through twelfth grade basis or 59.5 per cent of the total high schools. Since twenty-two of the schools within this range are in the sample, then this sample represents 7 per cent of the schools in this organizational pattern. The twenty-two sample schools represent an enrollment range from 200 students to 1500. Of all 313 schools organ- ized on a ninth through twelfth grade basis, 240 fell within this range on a population basis. In terms of student popu- lation, the sample was taken from schools which made up 76.7 per cent of the ninth through twelfth grade schools. Thus, to the extent of being representative of the high schools in Michigan, it can be seen that the sample had the following characteristics: 1. All schools had principals who had been in their positions at least one year. 2. The schools were spread widely over the lower peninsula of Michigan. 3. The schools all included a maximum of the top four grades. 2Michigan Education Directory (Lansing, Michigan), 1965-66. 75 4. The sample was 7 per cent of all schools organized on a ninth through twelfth grade pattern. 5. The sample is within the student population range of 76.7 per cent of the high schools organized on a ninth through twelfth grade pattern. 6. The sample represents 9.2 per cent of those Michigan high schools, grades nine through twelve, with a student population range of 200-1500 students. The sample schools were not controlled for socio- economic level nor was size more limited since it has been shown that these factors play no significant part in the morale of a school.3 The main limitation which might be attributed to the choice of the sample is that the varying size of staff and student body does grant greater weight to the smaller schools than their size would warrant. The twenty-two sample schools were administered the “Teacher Morale Form." Table 3.1 shows the pertinent infor- mation about these sample schools. 3Gerald Denneilein, “Factors Related to the Measure- ment of Teacher Morale” (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958). 76 Table 3.1 Size, “Teacher Morale Form" scores, and rank of sample schools. Students Teachers “—"RIEE ~Ti'1‘dfi TMF School Grades Total School Total School Mean Rank 1 10-12 3300 720 130 29 2.24 20 2 9-12 2087 350 87 17 1.79 6 3 9-12 5345 1130 198 47 2.02 15 4 9-12 1623 715 58 28 1.84 9 5 9-12 4473 1162 188 59 1.86 10 6 9-12 1675 704 62 32 2.09 18 7 9-12 4450 1175 161 48 2.03 16 8 9-12 849 466 38 24 1.94 13 9 9-12 2655 735 101 32 1.63 3 10 9-12 2160 650 85 29 1.92 12 11 9-12 1470 650 54 27 1.76 4 12 9-12 2250 610 88 31 1.89 11 13 9-12 1050 440 40 20 1.78 5 14 9-12 1860 699 620 21 1.82 8 15 10-12 1163 405 59 29 1.57 1 16 9-12 1725 550 64 22 2.32 21 17 9-12 5148 570 195 26 2.10 19 18 9-12 1058 289 40 13 2.35 22 77 Table 3.1 (continued) Students Teachers High High TMF School Grades Total School Total School Mean Rank 19 9-12 1490 490 64 23 2.04 17 20 10-12 3250 650 125 31 1.61 2 21 9-12 5656 1500 230 61 1.96 14 22 9-12 4900 1050 211 58 1.80 7 From the results of the "Teacher Morale Form", six schools (three high and three low) were selected to be used in the study. These schools were selected because they differed significantly from the other schools in several ways. 1. The schools selected as high and low morale schools were the three highest and three lowest of the twenty-two schools according to the "Teacher Morale Form." 2. All three high morale schools had a mean score below 2.00 which is the neutral point of the "Teacher Morale Form." 3. All three low morale schools had a mean score above 2.00 which is the neutral point of the “Teacher Morale Form." 4. There is at least one-half standard deviation between the last selected school for both the high and low morale schools and the next ranked school not selected. 78 5. All selected schools are more than one standard deviation from the mean for both high and low morale schools. 6. The range for both the high and low morale schools is less than one-half a standard deviation (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Mean and standard deviation difference between sample schools. TMF Standard School Rank Mean Deviation 9 3 1.63 -1.0 Standard Deviation = .29 l 20 2.24 +1.1 16 21 2.32 +1.3 18 22 2.35 +1.4 The Teacher Instrument Suehr's "Teacher Morale Form" (TMF) was the instru- ment used to select schools with high and low teacher morale. Suehr had investigated, extensively, types of instruments which might help him get at the problem of teacher morale. The instruments involving check lists, interviews and ques- tionnaires did not allow him to adequately look at the 79 respondent's personality nor the basis of the problems. As a result of his investigation, he concluded that the sentence completion method of approaching the problem was probably best. The incomplete sentence method, incorporating as it does many of the advantages of the economical so called objective personality tests and also of the projective techniques, appears to be a promising instrument for a variety of purposes. Research underway indicates its promise for the study of social attitudes. Advantages: 1. 2. There is freedom of response. That is, the subject is not forced to answer "yes“ or ”no" to the examiner's question. He may respond, instead, in any way he desires. Some disguise in the purpose of the test is present. Although the subject may be aware of the general intent, what contributes a good or bad answer is not readily apparent to most subjects. Group administration is relatively efficient. Most incomplete sentence tests can be given to a group of any size without apparent loss of validity. No special training is ordinarily necessary for administration. Interpre- tation depends on the examiner's general clinical experience, although the examiner does not need specific training in the use of this method. The sentence completion method lends itself easily to objective scoring for screening or experimental purposes . . . . 80 6. The time of administration tends to be shorter than for most tests, and the time of scoring or analysis tends to be shorter than for most projective techniques. 7. The method is extremely flexible in that new sentence beginnings can be constructed or “tailor made“ for a variety of clinical, applied and experimental purposes. The “Teacher Morale Form" is comprised of forty items which are initiating stems to stimulate sentence completion responses. The instrument was developed using construct validity because of the lack of known objective criteria of morale in education. Through evidence accumulated from a review of previous work with the incomplete sentence blank, Suehr developed the follOwing guidelines for developing his instrument. 1. It is not necessary to have a large number of items since in a sentence completion instru- ment, problem areas are exposed. 2. It is better to use first person or neutral statements than to use third person items. 3. Sentence stems should be kept as short as possible. 4. It is better to allow ample time for the respondent to complete the instrument. 4Julian B. Rotter and Janet E. Rafferty, The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1950), p. 4. 81 5. There is economy of time with no depreciation in reliability when group administration is used. 6. There is no evidence to show that 5 oral method is better than written. The “Teacher Morale Form“ was not checked again for validity since the validity technique used by Suehr still seemed applicable. The instrument was checked for relia- bility. The method for doing this was taken from Ross, using the coefficient of correlation as a basis. A second use of the coefficient of correlation is for determining the reliability of a test. Since reliability is the degree of consistency with which the test measures whatever it does measure, a convenient way to determine reliability is by computing the coefficient between two forms of the same test, two halves of a test, or two applications of the same test. The product-moment method is generally employed for this purpose. When the scores on one half of the test are correlated with the scores on the other half, the reliability of the half test is, of course, obtained. From this coefficient, the reliability of the entire test can be estimated by the Spearman-Brown prOphecy formula.6 The reliability for the “Teacher Morale Form” was obtained by randomly selecting two teacher tests from each of the six sample schools. These twelve tests were separated internally into odd- and even-numbered items so that twelve matched pairs of scores were obtained. The reliability of the instru- ment by this method was .95 (Table 3.3). 5J. H. Suehr, pp. cit., pp. 94-99. 6C. C. Ross, Measurement pp Today's Schools (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947), p. 244. 82 Table 3.3 Reliability of the "Teacher Morale Form“ by the Spearman-Brown method. £293.62 Odd Even Number Number 43 44 M (odd number) = 33.8 42 36 38 35 M (even number) = 33.8 37 42 35 37 r = .903 35 36 33 34 reliability = .95 33 31 30 35 29 28 26 25 24 23 Scoring the Teacher Instrument The problem of objectively scoring an incomplete sentence blank instrument appears more difficult than it really is. This fact is evident in most of the literature, and Suehr summarized his findings when he stated that: 83 . . . once a manual is worked out, intelligent people with school experience should consistently score near unity. He discovered an interscorer reliability with selected scorers which had a correlation of .98. His scoring proce- dure is to read each item and assign a rating from the following scale: 0 - very positive statement - slightly positive statement - neutral statement - slightly negative statement - very negative statement waI-J In order to check the reliability of scoring in this study, five teachers' tests were selected from each of the six sample schools. This gave a sample of thirty teachers or 19 per cent of the total number of teachers being tested. Three raters were asked to score the instruments. One rater was a public school administrator. The second person was a member of the College of Education staff at Michigan State University, and the third was a public school teacher. In all, each rater scored 1200 items. In no case did any rater disagree with any other rater by more than one interval, and no item was rated positive by one scorer and negative by another (Table 3.4). 7J. H. Suehr, pp. cit., p. 112. 84 Table 3.4 Comparison of scores on the ”Teacher Morale Form.“ Comparison Items of Per Cent of Per Cent of of Raters Disagreement Agreement Disagreement 1 and 2 1 and 3 2 and 3 20 98.3% 1.7% 26 97.9% 2.1% 7 99.4% .6% The scores assigned by the three raters were computed for the correlation coefficient. The interscorer relation- ship was found to have correlation coefficients of .996, .963 and .97 (Table 3.5). Table 3.5 Correlation coefficients of three different scorers of the "Teacher Morale Form." ¥§cores Rater l Raterl2 Ratef’3 92 92 92 M (rater 1) = 67.9 92 92 92 M (rater 2) = 68.2 87 86 86 M (rater 3) = 65 79 77 77 84a Table 3.5 (continued) Scores Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater—3' 78 78 76 78 78 78 75 74 74 73 74 72 r (rater l and 2) a .996 72 72 74 r (rater l and 3) = .963 72 74 72 r (rater 2 and 3) = .97 71 71 73 70 71 71 69 69 70 68 68 68 67 67 68 66 67 68 66 66 67 65 64 64 64 65 66 63 63 66 63 66 64 63 65 63 61 62 62 60 60 60 85 Table 3.5 (continued) 4 Scores Rater l Rater 2 Rater 3 60 59 59 57 57 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 51 53 53 47 46 46 Rationale for the Student Instrument Remmers and Gage cited the value of student attitudes as valid in as much as there is no better way to know how students feel about school than to ask for their judgments.8 These judgments may be collected in varying ways. Subjective techniques such as questionnaires, observations, interviews and expressive cues may be used, or it is possible to use more objective methods such as opinion statements (agree or disagree), multiple choice, action-attitude items (what would you do?) or Lickert-type scales. 8H. H. Remmers and N. L. Gage, Educational Measure- ment and Evaluation (New Ybrk: Harper & Brothers, 1955). 86 In order to obtain possible instruments for measuring student attitudes, a survey was made of the mental measure- ment yearbooks. Attitude tests were found, but they all had limitations which made them inapprOpriate for this study. 1. “Group Cohesiveness: A Study of Group Morale“ This instrument dealt mainly with intergroup relations and was primarily for adults. 2. ”Summary of Attitudes and Beliefs" I‘Diagnostic Teacher Rating Scale“ “A Pupils Rating Scale of An Instructor" "The Wilson Teacher Appraisal Scale" ”The Purdue anstructor Performance Indicator“1 These instruments do not measure the total school environment but only attitudes toward the teacher. 3. “The School Inventory“ “The Purdue Master Attitude Scales"ll These instruments came the closest to covering the student universe. However, Bernreuter and Maller reviewed the first instrument and indicated that they had grave reservations about its use. Corey and Campbell conveyed similar feelings about the second instrument. 9C.W. Harris, pp. cit., p. 110. 10Oscar K. Burros (ed.), The Fifth Mental Measurement Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1959). 11Oscar K. Burros (ed.), The Fourth Mental Measure- ment Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1953). 12Oscar K. Burros (ed.), The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965). 87 In light of the apparent lack of an instrument to measure the desired student attitudes, it appeared that the development of an instrument would be necessary. Although an objective rating scale might appear to have more value for a statistical approach to the problem of student attitudes, the incomplete sentence blank technique was decided upon. This decision was made on the basis of the values of this tech- nique as reported by Suehr, the possibility of giving objec- tive scores to subjective responses, and the weaknesses that are present in the graphic rating scales themselves. The graphic rating scale is quite possibly the most susceptible to the Egnds of experimental error inherent in all ratings. The graphic rating scale has a tendency to encourage raters to select center scores rather than to make any extreme judg- ments. It also encourages the development of the ”halo effect.“l4 Development pg the Student Instrument In constructing any instrument, the problems of valid- ity and reliability arise. It was decided to develop this instrument using construct validity, much as Suehr had done. 13C. W. Harris, pp. cit., p. 809. 14J. P. Guilford, Ps chometric Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954). 88 Standardized tests are usually validated by correlating test scores with some outside criteria. These criteria may be scores on similar tests of known validity, successful performance or behavioi or the expert judgment of recognized authorities. A review of the literature and measurement yearbooks had uncovered no satisfactory instruments for correlation. The literature had also revealed studies which cast doubt on the ability of teachers or administrators to correctly identify student attitudes.16 It seemed plausible, then, to follow Gage's suggestion that an attitude scale may be developed on the basis of selecting a number of statements designed to measure a certain thing and then keeping or re- jecting these statements according to the decision of a jury of experts. To begin with, a set of forty items was used as the nucleus of the instrument. These items were the result of Suehr's efforts to develop a student instrument similar to the teacher instrument. The items were an adaptation of items from the "Teacher Morale Form“ plus suggested items 15John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 252. 16C. Jarvis Wotring, "Teacher Morale and Evaluation of Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 17N. L. Gage (ed. ), Handbook of Research on Teaching, American Educational Research Association (Chicago: Rand, McNally and Company), p. 331. 89 from graduate students in school administration. This list of items was added to by soliciting items from student teachers, supervising teachers, students, other student instruments and various authors. The resultant device was a fifty-two item instrument of incomplete sentences. This instrument was then submitted to fifteen high school students (five each from grades ten, eleven, and twelve). It was also given to four high school principals and nine supervising teachers. None of these persons had participated in the preparation of this instrument to this point. These people were given the following instructions: The attached sheets represent an instrument to be used in the study of student attitudes toward school. I am soliciting your assistance in helping to make the use of this instrument more meaningful. I have used items which I feel cover all the areas of concern to a student related to school. I would like to have you do the following: 1. Read each item and accept it or reject it on the basis of: a) Does it significantly relate to a student attitude about school? b) Does it concern an area that a student could effectively react to in light of his contact and information? 2. Add any number of items to the instrument which you feel are necessary to measure student attitudes toward school. 90 SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT ATTITUDE Complete the following in order to make each one a complete sentence. Take your time and show your true feelings about your situation as you feel most of the time. Do every one. All responses will be confidential. 1. Parents 2. My principal __ 3. My classmates 4. Counselors Teachers Assemblies Athletics Clerical help \O a) \l 0‘ U" 0 Student Council 10. My learning ability 11. 'Channels of communication 12. Children today 13. School activities 14. Student morale __ 15. Students 16. The cafeteria l7. COOperation among students 18. The library 19. Student opinions 20. Opportunities at this school Secondary School Student Attitude 91 (continued) 21. Grades __ 22. My future 23. This school 24. Opportunities to study _g 25. My classes 26. American education 27. Lunch time 28. The class schedule 29. Homework 30. Discipline 31. The curriculum 32. Student conduct 33. Custodians 34. This community __ 35. School policies 36. Teaching school 37. Teacher‘s salaries 38. Attitude of teachers in this school 39. Faculty meetings 40. The people of this community 41. The teaching environment 42. Teamwork among teachers 92 Secondary School Student Attitude (continued) 43. The school board 44. Evaluation of teachers 45. Opportunity to help make policy 46. The P. T. A. 47. Teaching materials and supplies 48. The superintendent 49. The assignment of our teachers 50. Class size 51. Teacher opinions 52. Teaching abilities 53. Education at this school 54. Cooperation between students and teachers The results of this request were tabulated. Since there were no instances of added items, the instrument was pre-tested with a group of thirty high school students (ten each from grades ten, eleven, and twelve) evenly separated as to sex. These students were selected from two high schools by a random selection from study halls. The results of the test administration were tabulated along with the remarks of the teachers, students and administrators. From this tabulation, items were rejected, and the final form of the instrument was arrived at. Rejections were made on the 93 basis of rejection by two of the solicited groups or failure of the instrument to show satisfactory discrimination in the pre-test. A satisfactory discrimination was interpreted to mean some symbolance of a normal curve. A skewness was accepted but only to the degree that only one of the extreme categories might have no tabulations (Table 3.6). Table 3.6 Selection of items from the pre-test instrument on student attitudes toward school. Raters Rpjection Ippp’ Rating (30) Teacher Student Admin. ‘fipjpgp 0 l 2 3 4 (9) (15) (4) Yes No 1 3 7 10 7 3 0 2 0 X 2 2 11 10 6 2 1 3 0 X 3 1 10 12 5 2 1 4 0 X 4 2 ll 8 7 2 0 3 0 X S l 6 10 12 l 0 3 0 X 6 l 5 12 9 3 1 6 0 X 7 l 10 10 9 0 l l 0 X 8‘ 2 3 18 6 1 2 6 1 X 9 1 4 12 12 l 2 4 l X 10 1 6 14 8 1 0 3 0 X 11 0 1 21 8 0 8 10 2 X 12 0 0 25 5 0 5 8 3 X Table 3.6 (continued) Raters Rejection gppp Rating 30) Teacher Student Admin. Epjpgp 0 1 2 3 4 (9) (15) (4) Yes 13 1 6 l4 9 0 0 l 0 X 14 2 4 l4 9 0 1 1 0 X 15 2 3 19 6 0 0 4 0 X 16 2 6 9 10 3 2 8 1 X 17 1 6 15 8 0 l 3 0 X 18 2 5 13 9 1 0 4 0 X 19 1 4 l6 9 0 0 3 0 X 20 2 11 13 5 1 2 4 2 X 21 2 4 18 6 0 0 l 0 X 22 1 7 15 5 2 0 4 0 X 23 5 4 12 8 1 0 3 0 X 24 l 6 11 12 0 0 3 O X 25 1 5 16 7 1 0 4 O X 26 4 6 13 6 l 3 6 1 X 27 l 5 l4 9 1 1 6 0 X 28 1 5 20 3 1 1 6 0 X 29 2 4 17 6 l 0 4 0 X 30 1 4 13 ll 1 0 4 0 X 31 2 8 15 5 0 2 5 0 X 95 Table 3.6 (continued) Raters Rejection Eppp_ Rating 30) Teacher Student Admin. figjggg 0 1 7 2 3 4 (9) (15) (4) Yes NO 32 1 5 14 8 2 0 4 0 X 33 1 6 l4 6 3 3 6 1 X 34 1 6 15 7 1 0 4 0 X 35 2 4 l6 7 1 0 l 0 X 36 0 0 25 4 1 6 2 3 X 37 0 0 23 7 0 8 8 4 X 38 2 6 16 5 l 2 3 0 X 39 0 0 23 7 0 7 9 4 X 40 2 5 15 7 1 0 2 0 X 41 0 6 15 10 0 6 1 3 X 42 0 0 24 6 0 5 8 3 X 43 o 1 17 9 3 5 4 4 x 44 0 5 20 4 1 8 3 4 X 45 1 3 15 9 2 l 3 0 X 46 2 4 13 5 6 3 4 0 X 47 0 7 15 8 0 6 5 4 X 48 0 2 26 2 0 4 11 3 X 49 0 O 28 2 0 5 4 3 X 50 0 0 24 6 0 4 3 2 X 96 Table 3.6 (continued) Raters Rejection Item Ratin (30) Teacher Student Admin. fipjppp 0 l 3 4 (9) (15) (4) Yes No 51 0 0 21 9 0 5 3 3 X 52 l 6 16 6 1 1 2 0 X 53 1 7 14 6 2 0 2 0 54 2 9 11 7 1 2 1 0 The reliability of the student instrument was checked at this point. The revised instrument was given to twelve students randomly selected from two high schools. In each high school, two students were selected from grades ten, eleven, and twelve. The split-half technique used on the "Teacher Morale Form" was used on the student instrument. The sample instruments were divided between even- and odd- numbered items. The student instrument showed a reliability of .96 (Table 3.7). Administration pp the Student Instrument The revised instrument was administered to the sample schools within four months of the time when the “Teacher Morale Form“ was given. Although the lapse of time between 97 Table 3.7 Reliability of the school instrument by the Spearman-Brown method. Scores Odd Even Numbered Numbered 45 37 M (odd number) = 33 43 43 41 48 M (even number) = 33.8 41 44 36 37 r = .93 36 4O 33 34 reliability = .96 32 32 28 29 24 25 l9 19 18 17 the administration of the two instruments might be viewed as a limitation on the study, it was felt that the time lag was not significantly long enough to have any serious effect on a change in school attitudes. In addition, the sample schools 98 were examined for any adverse circumstances such as failure of bond issues, community-school problems or changes in personnel before they were retained as a sample school. Further precautions were taken by stressing to those students chosen in the sample that their reactions were to be as they felt most of the time. It was hoped that these instructions would make them conscious of a difference between ”moods“ and more enduring feelings. A random sampling of students was taken from the sample schools. From each of the six schools, ten boys and ten girls were selected from grades ten, eleven, and twelve. This sample ranged from 8 per cent to 20 per cent of the total school population being examined. This gave a sampling of thirty boys and thirty girls in each school and thirty boys and thirty girls at each grade level for both high and low teacher morale schools. Thus each set of schools (high and low morale) had a sample of 180 students. In the case of the high morale schools (1790 students) this represented a sample of 10 per cent while for the low morale schools (1559) the sample was 11.5 per cent of the total student population. The student sample was selected in the following way. The class list for each grade was separated into boys and girls. These class lists were then divided by ten. This number was used to select the students for the sample once 99. the starting point was selected. The starting point was determined by using the day of the month. This was done so that the first student in each class would have an equal Opportunity for selection along with the other class members. Thus, if there were one hundred girls in a class, every tenth girl would be selected. If the selection was to be done on the twelfth of the month, then the sample would be every tenth girl starting with girl number twelve. The administration of the instrument was done by this writer. It was felt that he would thus eliminate the prob- lems that might arise if the administration had been carried out by some one from the school involved. Furthermore, consistency in the directions and procedures could be carried out in the administration of the instrument. Contact was made with the school principal, and permission was secured to work in the school. The selected students at each school were brought together at an appointed time. The purpose of the study was explained and students were given permission to withdraw if they so desired. One student withdrew, and there were times when students selected were not in school. In these instances, the next student on the class list was selected according to the previously discussed procedure. There was no time limit for students rating the instrument. Students were asked to insure anonymity by not placing names 100 on their papers. Through a prearranged coding, however, it was possible to identify the students with their instruments. In addition to the rating of the instrument, students were asked to give responses to sixteen items of personal information. With the exception of the first two items, all of the answers were dependent on the student's perception of his own situation. These statements were to form the basis for a comparison of personal variables about the students from high and low teacher morale schools. One other item of information was collected about each of the students in the sample. The teachers of each student were asked to rate each of their students on how they, the teacher, perceived the student's school attitude. This was done to compare the relationship between student attitudes and teachers' ratings of these same attitudes. Scoring the Student Instrument The original scoring of the student instruments was all done by this writer. In order to avoid bias, all the tests were placed together with only an identifying mark on the back so that they could be separated again after scoring. The scoring method used for the student attitude instrument was the same as that used on the “Teacher Morale Form.“ Each item was rated according to the following scale: 101 highly positive statement slightly positive statement neutral statement slightly negative statement highly negative statement. uwal-‘O lllll In order to check the reliability of scoring the stu- dent instrument, three raters were compared on the scoring of the thirty randomly selected student instruments. The three raters were: (1) one public school administrator, (2) one member of the college of education staff, and (3) one public school teacher. The student sample was made up of five stu- dents' scores from each of the six sample schools. This gave a selected scoring sample of 8 per cent. Each scorer rated forty items per student or 1200 items. In no case did a rater differ by more than one inter- fval, and no item was rated positive by one rater and negative by another (Table 3.8). The percentage of agreement ranged ”from 96.3 per cent to 98 per cent, and the correlation be- tween scorers ranged from .995 to .999 (Table 3.9). Table 3.8 Comparison of scores on the student attitude instrument. Comparison Items of Per Cent of Per Cent of of Raters Disagreement Agreement Disagreement 1 and 2 32 97.3 2.7 1 and 3 44 96.3 3.7 2 and 3 25 98.0 2.0 102 Table 3.9 Coefficient of correlation of three different scorers of the student attitude instrument. Scores Rater 1 Rater Rater 3‘ 106 106 106 91 90 91 89 89 89 89 89 90 M (rater l) = 65.3 86 84 86 M (rater 2) = 65.0 85 82 84 M (rater 3) - 65.4 83 81 83 82 82 82 82 80 81 r (rater l and 2) = .997 81 81 81 r (rater l and 3) = .999 76 78 78 r (rater 2 and 3) = .995 73 74 73 67 66 66 64 65 65 64 65 66 64 62 64 62 62 63 62 61 61 103 Table 3.9 (continued) Scores Rater 1 —Rater Rater 3 62 62 62 57 57 57 56 57 56 56 56 57 49 50 51 45 44 43 45 44 44 42 42 42 38 38 38 35 33 34 35 37 36 32 33 34 Statistical Methodology Hypotheses 1, of chi square. variance, mean scores and standard deviation. 3. 4. and 5 will be investigated by use Hypothesis 2 will be analyzed by analysis of Hypothesis 6 will be developed through the use of the correlation coef- ficient. 104 Summary This chapter has been concerned with the procedure to be used in carrying out the objectives of this study. Start- ing with sixty high schools, twenty-two schools were selected on the basis of pattern of organization (grades 9-12) and experience of the school principal (at least one year in his present position). Using Suehr's “Teacher Morale Form," six schools were found to be significantly different from the others. The “Teacher Morale Form” was found to have a reliability of .95 on the basis of the Spearman-Brown technique. The interscorer correlation for the teacher instrument, using three different scorers, was .996, .963, and .97. A Student attitude instrument was developed, using construct validity. Original items for this instrument were obtained from a student morale instrument developed by Suehr. Additional items were solicited from seleCted students, teachers and administrators and from a review of the litera- ture of other student attitude instruments. The instrument was checked for reliability (Spearman-Brown) with a resultant index of .96. A random technique of sampling was used to select sixty students from each of the six sample schools. In addition to the instrument of forty items, the students 105 were administered sixteen variable items. Teacher responses to perceived student attitudes were also collected. Reliability of scoring of the student instrument was obtained by comparing the ratings of three scorers on thirty tests. Percentage of agreement ranged from 96.3 per cent to 98 per cent. Correlation between the scorers results range from .995 to .999. The data collected were analyzed primarily by means of chi square and analysis of variance. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The problem of looking at student school attitudes and their relation to teacher morale was specified in six hypotheses. Each of these hypotheses was analyzed separately, and the data obtained is presented in this chapter. Hngthesis 1 Teachers from high teacher morale schools will differ from teachers in low teacher morale schools in the areas of school environment which they rate as most favorable and most unfavorable. The information analyzed in this hypothesis was based on data collected from the administration of the “Teacher Morale Form“ in the six sample schools. The sample was 148 teachers (ninety from high morale schools and fifty-eight from low morale schools) who were compared on forty items of response by analysis of contingency tables (chi-square). The mean score of the high teacher morale schools was 1.66 while that of the low teacher morale schools was 2.24. This was based on a five point scale in which 2.00 was neutral, 0 was very positive, and 4 was very negative. both sets of schools. 107 The mean score for each of the items was obtained for In the high teacher morale schools, only five items had a mean score of 2.00 or higher while in the low teacher morale schools there were thirty-two items which had a mean score of 2.00 or higher (higher scores represent lower teacher morale). negative items in The items rated Table 4.1 Rank Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item 18 - 35 - 12 - 13 - 1 - 7 - 40 - 26 - 9 - 39 -' a - 10 - order of teachers' The items which ranked as the high morale schools (Table 4.1) were: The P.T.A. Professional Organizations The In-Service Program Parents Fringe benefits in teaching positive by low teacher morale schools were: Teaching school My working environment Teaching again My pupils My principal My teaching ability Teachers Teamwork among teachers items. High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 1 9 .89 1 1.40 2 7 1.08 7 1.57 3 4 1.66 1.10 40 108 Table 4.1 (continued) High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 4 1 1.18 26 1.76 5 6 1.19 9 1.83 6 28 1.22 39 1.83 7 33 1.24 8 1.84 8 26 1.32 10 1.95 9 40 1.34 24 2.05 10 39 1.38 28 2.09 11 16 1.38 4 2.10 12 24 1.41 27 2.12 13 10 1.53 30 2.16 14 27 1.53 6 2.16 15 32 1.57 17 2.17 16 17 1.58 32 2.17 17 5 1.60 34 2.17 18 30 1.60 3 2.21 19 23 1.61 19 2.21 20 3 1.71 21 2.21 21 38 1.72 38 2.22 22 8 1.74 25 2.31 109 Table 4.1 (continued) High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 23 14 1.74 18 2.33 24 21 1.78 20 2.34 25 25 1.81 33 2.34 26 29 1.81 15 2.36 27 19 1.82 23 2.36 28 20 1.82 16 2.38 29 34 1.82 11 2.40 30 31 1.83 31 2.41 31 37 1.87 36 2.41 32 2 1.91 14 2.45 33 11 1.91 29 2.50 34 36 1.91 5 2.52 35 15 1.92 12 2.57 36 22 2.00 37 2.60 37 18 2.11 35 2.67 38 35 2.29 2 2.86 39 12 2.36 22 2.90 40 13 2.39 13 3.09 110 The chi-square comparison showed thirtybfour items which differed significantly at the .05 level between the two sets of teachers (Table 4.2). The six items which were not signif- icantly different between the two sets of schools were: Item 1 - Teaching school Item 8 - Teachers Item 10 - Teamwork among teachers Item 12 - Parents Item 18 — Professional Organizations Item 40 - Teaching again Items 1, 8, 10, and 40 were rated positively by both sets of schools while items 12 and 18 were rated negatively. Table 4.2 Significance of difference of items for teachers from high teacher morale schools as compared with teachers from low teacher morale schools. Mean Standard Deviation High ‘ Low High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- It Schools Schools Schools Schools icance Teaching school 1.18 1.40 .84 .84 My salary 1.91 2.86 .87 .78 .001 My future in teaching 1.71 2.21 .84 1.02 .01 Morale of teachers in this school 1.10 2.10 .92 .91 .001 Faculty meetings 1.60 2.52 1.00 1.05 .001 111 Table 4.2 (continued) Mean Standard Deviation High 53w High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Item Schools Schools Schools Schools icance The people of this community 1.19 2.16 .96 .93 .001 My working environment 1.08 1.57 .88 1.22 .02 Teachers 1.74 1.84 .92 .87 My’principal .89 1.83 .90 .94 .001 Teamwork among teachers 1.53 1.95 .96 1.11 Children today 1.91 2.40 .94 .77 .05 Parents 2.36 2.57 .83 .75 Fringe benefits in teaching 2.39 3.09 .93 .78 .001 Channels of communication 1.74 2.45 1.07 1.05 .001 Clerical help 1.92 2.36 1.03 .79 .02 The school board 1.38 2.38 .86 .89 .001 Administrative policies 1.58 2.17 .89 .70 .001 Professional organizations 2.11 2.33 .88 .94 Evaluation of my work 1.82 2.21 670 .69 .02 112 Table 4.2 (continued) Mean Standard Deviation High Low High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Item Schools Schools Schools Schools icance American education 1.82 2.34 .92 .85 .01 Opportunity to help make policy 1.78 2.21 .91 .74 .05 The P.T.A. 2.00 2.90 .64 .83 .001 Teaching materials and supplies 1.61 2.36 .94 .85 .001 Custodians 1.41 2.05 1.05 1.10 .01 Professional standards 1.81 2.31 .71 .85 .02 My pupils 1.32 1.76 .83 1.05 .02 This community 1.53 2.12 .95 .94 .01 The superintena dent 1.22 2.09 .78 1.06 .001 Discipline 1.81 2.50 .91 .80 .001 Teaching assignments 1.60 2.16 .80 .67 .001 Personnel policies 1.83 2.41 .80 .80 .001 School administrators 1.57 2.17 .82 .80 .001 113 Table 4.2 (continued) Mean Standard Deviation High Low High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Item Schools Schools Schools Schools icance This school 1.24 2.34 1.04 1.05 .001 My class size 1.82 2.17 .86 .78 .02 The in-service program 2.29 2.67 .78 .80 .02 Teacher welfare 1.91 2.41 .47 .73 .001 The curriculum 1.87 2.60 .94 .62 .001 Teacher opinions 1.72 2.22 .76 .70 .01 My teaching ability 1.38 1.83 .68 .75 .01 Teaching again 1.34 1.66 .85 .78 TOtal M = 1966 2024 Although the degree of rating was different regarding the mean scores. the ranking of the highest and lowest rated items for each set of schools was interesting (Table 4.3 and Table 404) e 114 Table 4.3 Highest and lowest rated items in high teacher Highest Rated Items morale schools. _: High Teacher Morale Schools Lowest Rated Items 28 33 26 40 39 My principal My working environment Morale of teachers in this school Teaching school The people of this community The superintendent This school My pupils Teaching again My teaching ability 37 11 36 15 22 18 35 12 13 The curriculum My salary Children today Teacher welfare Clerical help The P.T.A. Professional organizations The in-service program Parents Fringe benefits in teaching The mean scores of the highest rated items for the high morale schools ranged from .89 to 1.38 or a range of .49. For the lowest rated items, the range was 1.87 to 2.39 or a range of .52. In the low morale schools, the range for the highest 10 items was 1.40 to 2.09 or a range of .69, while for the lowest rated items it was 2.41 to 3.09 or a range of .68. 115 Table 4.4 Highest and lowest rated items in low teacher morale schools. Low Teacher Morale Schools Highest Rated Items Lowest Rated Items 40 26 39 10 24 28 Teaching school My working environment Teaching again My pupils My principal My teaching ability Teachers Teamwork among teachers Custodians The superintendent 36 14 29 12 35 22 13 Teacher welfare Channels of communication Discipline Faculty'meetings Parents The curriculum The in-service program My salary The P.T.A. Fringe benefits in teaching There were similarities in the items rated highest by the two sets of schools as well as those rated lowest. (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). 116 Table 4.5 Similarities in items rated highest by sample schools. Rankr, Item High Morale Low Morale Schools Schools 9 My principal I 5 7 My working environment 2 2 1 Teaching school 4 l 28 The superintendent 6 10 26 My pupils 8 4 40 Teaching again 9 3 39 My teaching ability 10 8 Table 4.6 Similarities in items rated lowest by sample schools. Rank Item High Morale Low Morale Schools Schools 37 The curriculum 31 36 2 My salary 32 38 36 Teacher welfare 34 31 22 The P.T.A. 36 39 35 The in-service program 38 37 12 Parents 39 35 13 Fringe benefits in teaching 40 40 117 Teachers appear more positive about those people and things which touch them daily and are a more intimate part of their occupation such as the superintendent, the principal, and the pupils. They also feel good about their profession and rate working conditions, teaching, teaching ability, and teaching again more positively than other items. The negative feelings of teachers seem to center around two areas, professional improvement and parents. Their feelings about professional improvement are reflected in their ratings of curriculum, in-service training, salary, teacher welfare and fringe benefits for teachers while their attitude toward parents is shown in their rating of parents and the P.T.A. Although the two sets of schools are significantly different on nearly all of the items compared, it is inter- esting to note that when items are ranked, the two sets of teachers agree on seven of their ten most positive choices and on seven of their ten most negative choices. These teachers appear to be very similar in their areas of main concern with the primary difference being one of intensity of rating. Hypothesis 2_ Students from schools with high teacher morale have more positive attitudes toward school than do students from schools with low teacher morale. 118 The question involved in this hypothesis was whether or not the student attitudes would show any relationship to teacher morale. It was presumed that since the two groups of schools differed significantly in regards to teacher morale, there would be a significant difference in student responses. The student responses were much more typical of the median responses of the teachers in the sixteen schools which did not show significant differences (Table 4.7). Table 4.7 Comparison of mean teacher morale scores and mean student attitude scores. School Teacher Student Teacher Student Mean Mean Range Range 1 1.57 1.80 .61 - 2.28 1.00 - 2.93 2 1.68 1.81 .34 - 2.72 .85 - 2.80 3 1.70 1.61 .91 — 2.19 .50 - 2.90 7 Total 1.66 1.75 2.3?- 4f 2.43 ;= 4 2.14 1.82 1.22 - 2.80 .88 — 2.65 5 2.32 1.90 1.21 - 3.42 .88 - 2.80 6 2.35 1.91 .83 - 3.67 .63 — 2.85 ¥ Total 72:27 1.88 2.84 2.22 119 Although two different instruments are being compared, the use of the same scoring technique and the measurement of many similar areas do make certain comparisons possible. It is interesting to note certain differences in the scores of teachers and students: 1. While half of the sample schools (all those with low teacher morale) had a mean teacher score greater than 2.00 (indicating low teacher morale), no school had a mean student score as high as 2.00. 2. No student had a mean score as low or as high as did the teachers. 3. The range of all teachers scores was far greater than the range of the students' scores. 4. The mean score of the students from high teacher morale schools was‘hnflxm(more negative attitude) than the mean teacher morale score from the same schools. 5. The mean score of the students from low teacher morale schools was lower (more positive) than the teacher morale score from the same schools. 6. The mean score of the students from high teacher morale schools was lower (more positive) than was the mean score of the students from low teacher morale schools (1.74 to 1.88). . 7. With the exception of school 3, the rank order of the student scores corresponded with the rank order of the teachers' scores. 120 An analysis of variance was computed to discover the degree of significance between student scores in high teacher morale schools as compared with student scores from low teacher morale schools. One hundred-eighty students from each set of schools were compared on forty items. Based on the probability of the F statistic, no significant difference was evidenced in this comparison between the two sets of schools. Hypothesis‘g Student concern over various areas of the school environment in schools with high teacher morale will differ from student concerns in schools with low teacher morale. The items ranked as highest by students from schools with high teacher morale will differ from those ranked highest by students from schools with low teacher morale. The items ranked as lowest by students from schools with high teacher morale will differ from those ranked lowest by students from schools with low teacher morale. This hypothesis was analyzed by means of contingency tables (chi—square). Three hundred-sixty students (180 from each set of schools)were compared on forty items. The mean score for the high teacher morale schools was 1.75 while that for the low teacher morale schools was 1.88. The high teacher morale schools rated ten items negatively and thirty positively. items negatively and twentyhthree positively. 121 The low teacher morale schools rated seventeen Items were checked at the .05 level of significance. Although a similar comparison of the teachers' items showed a significant difference on thirty-four of forty items rated, the students were significantly different on only fifteen of forty items (Table 4.8). Table 4.8 Significance of difference of items for students from high teacher morale schools as compared with students from low teacher morale schools. Mean Standard Deviation High Low High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Itgm Schools Schools Schools Schools icance Parents 1.57 1.37 1.11 1.02 My principal 1.78 1.22 1.26 1.23 .001 My classmates 1.25 1.52 .96 1.03 Counselors 1.59 1.26 1.36 1.10 .01 Teachers 1.66 1.77 1.11 1.08 Assemblies 2.01 1.68 1.22 1.15 Athletics 1.37 1.43 1.12 1.13 Clerical help 1.70 1.50 1.02 1.13 .02 Student council 1.91 1.80 1.32 1.21 122 Table 4.8 (continued) W Mean Standard Deviation High Low High w Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- jtgg, Schools Schools Schools Schools _iggg§g_ My learning ability 1.91 1.98 .98 .96 Education at this school 1.25 1.78 1.10 1.17 .001 Cooperation be- tween students and teachers 1.42 2.08 1.10 1.22 .001 School activities 1.81 1.68 1.14 1.18 .01 Student morale 1.87 2.07 1.36 1.29 Students 1.68 1.99 1.09 1.09 .05 The cafeteria 2.28 2.10 1.24 1.29 Cooperation among students 1.55 1.78 1.17 1.25 The library 1.85 2.07 1.21 1.27 Student opinions 2.11 2.26 .96 .99 Opportunities at this school 1.62 2.30 1.26 1.22 .001 Grades 2.26 2.09 .99 .96 My future 1.54 1.58 .85 .82 This school 1.49 1.79 1.39 1.36 123 Table 4.8 (continued) Mean Standard Deviation High Low H gh Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Item Schools Schools Schools Schools cance Opportunities to study 1.92 2.01 1.28 1.21 My classes 1.92 1.77 1.21 1.19 American education 1.41 1.39 1.15 1.17 Lunch time 2.17 2.02 1.09 1.05 The class schedule 1.34 1.30 1.13 1.09 Homework 2.28 2.21 .97 .98 Discipline 2.14 2.38 1.21 1.02 .01 The curriculum 1.64 1.97 1.15 1.14 .05 Student conduct 2.11 2.31 1.22 1.23 Custodians 1.16 1.57 1.06 1.24 .001 This community 1.58 2.14 1.38 1.27 .001 School policies 1.82 1.90 1.13 1.15 The attitude of teachers in this school 1.66 2.15 1.26 1.28 .001 The people of this community 1.59 2.11 1.17 1.15 .001 124 Table 4.8 (continued) Mean Standard Deviation High Low High Low Level of Morale Morale Morale Morale Signif- Item Schools Schools Schools Schools icance Opportunity to help make policy 2.38 2.51 1.22 1.11 The P.T.A. 2.29 2.38 1.14 1.12 Teaching abilities 1.31 1.83 1.14 1.23 .001 Total M e 1.75 1.88 A further analysis of the fifteen items which were significantly different showed some interesting results (Table 4.9). When the individual items were placed in rank order, every item for the high teacher morale schools had a lower mean score (more positive attitude) than did similar items from the low teacher morale schools (Table 4.10). Table 4.9 Comparison of significant student attitudes in high and low teacher morale schools. Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Score Positive Ne ative High Low High Low High Low Morale Morale Morale Morale Morale Morale Item Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools My Principal 1.78 1.22 50.6 68.9 40.0 21.1 Counselors 1.59 1.26 57.6 67.8 31.7 17.2 Clerical help 1.70 1.50 46.7 59.4 23.9 20.0 Education at this school 1.25 1.78 72.3 47.8 20.0 34.5 Cooperation between stup dents and teachers 1.42 2.08 62.7 38.3 18.9 41.1 School activities 1.81 1.68 52.7 51.6 38.8 31.7 Students 1.68 1.99 55.6 39.4 31.1 41.1 'Opportunities at this school 1.62 2.30 56.1 31.1 33.3 56.7 Discipline 2.14 2.38 37.2 23.3 51.1 54.4 The curriculum 1.64 1.97 55.0 40.6 31.1 39.4 Custodians 1.16 1.57 76.1 57.3 16.7 26.6 This community 1.58 2.14 60.6 38.3 35.0 50.5 126 Table 4.9 (continued) Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Score __. Positive Negative High Low High Low High Low Morale Morale Morale Morale Morale Morale Item Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools The attitudes of teachers in this school 1.66 2.15 57.8 38.3 30.6 41.7 The people of this community 1.59 2.11 63.3 37.8 30.0 46.1 Teaching abilities 1.31 1.83 63.3 47.2 19.4 32.2 Table 4.10 Rank order of student items =— , W High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 1 33 1.16 2 1.22 2 3 1.25 4 1.26 3 11 1.25 28 1.30 4 40 1.31 1 1.37 127 Table 4.10 (continued) High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 5 28 1.34 26 1.39 6 7 1.37 7 1.43 7 26 1.41 8 1.50 8 12 1.42 3 1.52 9 23 1.49 33 1.57 10 22 1.54 22 1.58 11 17 1.55 6 1.68 12 1 1.57 13 1.68 13 34 1.58 5 1.77 14 4 1.59 25 1.77 15 37 1.59 11 1.78 16 20 1.62 17 1.78 17 31 1.64 23 1.79 18 36 1.66 9 1.80 19 5 1.66 40 1.83 20 15 1.68 35 1.90 21 8 1.70 31 1.97 22 2 1.78 10 1.98 23 13 1.81 15 1.99 24 35 1.82 24 2.01 128 Table 4.10 (continued) High Morale School Low Morale School Rank Item Mean Score Item Mean Score 25 18 1.85 27 2.02 26 14 1.87 14 2.07 27 9 1.91 18 2.07 28 10 1.91 12 2.08 29 24 1.92 21 2.09 30 25 1.92 16 2.10 31 6 2.01 37 2.11 32 19 2.11 34 2.14 33 32 2.11 36 2.15 34 30 2.14 29 2.21 35 27 2.17 19 2.26 36 21 2.26 20 2.30 37 16 2.28 32 2.31 38 29 2.28 30 2.38 39 39 2.29 39 2.38 40 38 2.38 38 2.51 students from high teacher morale schools had a composite Consequently, the ten items rated most positively by 129 rating lower (more positive attitude) than did the ten items rated most positively by students from low teacher morale schools. Conversely, the ten items rated lowest by students had a higher (more negative) composite score for students from low teacher morale schools than they did from high teacher morale schools. The range of the items, however, was relatively the same for both sets of schools (Table 4.11). Table 4.11 Range of student items for ten most positive and ten most negative items. Mean Scores Sghools Rank 1] Rank 10 IRange Rank 31 Rank Range High Teacher Morale 1.16 1.54 .38 2.01 2.38 .37 Schools Low Teacher Morale 1.22 1.58 .36 2.11 2.51 .40 Schools There are certain similarities and certain differences which may be observed from the two sets of schools by scrutinizing the ranked data in Table 4.10. These results are summarized in Tables 4.12 and 4.13. 130 Table 4.12 Similarities in the most positive attitudes of students from high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools. Rank Ittm High Morale Low Morale School School 33 Custodians 1 9 3 My classmates 2 8 28 The class schedule 5 3 7 Athletics 6 6 26 American education 7 5 22 My future 10 10 Table 4.13 Similarities in the least positive attitudes of students from high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools. Rank Itgm High Morale Low Morale School School 19 Student opinions 32 35 32 Student conduct 33 37 3O Discipline 34 38 29 Homework 38 34 39 The P.T.A. ' 39 39 38 Opportunity to make 40 40 policy 131 It can then be deduced from this information that the students from these two sets of schools also have differences in the things they rate most positively and most negatively. These differences are listed in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Differences in most positive and least positive attitudes of students in high teacher morale schools and low teacher morale schools. High Morale School Low Morale School Item Most Least Most Least Positive Positive Positive Positive 11 Education at this X school 40 Teaching abilities X 12 COOperation be- tween students and teachers X 23 This school X 6 Assemblies X 27 Lunch time X 21 Grades X 16 The cafeteria X 2 My principal X 4 Counselors x 1 Parents X 8 X Clerical help 132 Table 4.14 (continued) High Morale School Low Morale School Item Most Least Most Least Positive Positive Positive Positive 20 Opportunity at this school X 36 The attitude of teachers in this school X 37 The people of this community X Students from both sets of schools appear to be more alike than different. They differ on only 38 per cent of the items compared: and in regards to their ten most positive and ten most negative ratings, they agree on 60 per cent of their choices. Their difference seems to be more one of intensity of rating than of areas of disagreement. There does not appear to be a pattern in the areas of agreement between the two sets of schools, but certain marked differences do appear in the areas of disagreement. Students from high teacher morale schools have concern for conditions at the school. They rate education at their school, teaching abilities, student-teacher cooperation, and their school positively while rating assemblies, lunch time, grades, and 133 the cafeteria negatively. In the low teacher morale schools, students seem more concerned with the people in their environ; ment. They rate the principal, counselors, parents, and clerical help as positive and give people in the community and teacher attitudes a negative rating. There is other information available from student reactions which demonstrates the value of the incomplete sentence blank technique. Not only is it possible to observe negative and positive reactions of students to the various areas of the school environment, but it is also possible to explore the reasons for such negative and positive responses. This information provides not only a statistical but a diagnostic tool. It is interesting to note, for example, that discipline was rated negatively by both sets of schools ranking 34th in high teacher morale schools and 38th in low teacher morale schools. On a typical 5 point rating scale, one might assume that students are opposed to discipline in school. However, an analysis of student responses shows that in both sets of schools, student objection to discipline is based on their feeling that violators of school regulations are not being disciplined severely enough. Hypothesis‘g Student attitudes in certain areas of the school environment will correspond with teachers' responses on 134 similar items. Consequently, students from schools with high teacher morale will perceive selected items in the same way as do their teachers. This will also be true of the students and teachers from schools with low teacher morale. To analyze the data in this problem, identical items between the teacher instrument and the student instrument were identified. There were fifteen such items which were compared by use of chi-square. These comparisons were made separately for the two sets of schools. Low Teacher Morale Schools According to the distribution of teacher scores compared with student scores in low teacher morale schools, fourteen of the compared items were significantly different at the .05 level of significance (Table 4.15). Table 4.15 Comparison of student and teacher items in low teacher morale schools. .Standard Stu- Mean M Deviation Level of dent Teacher Stu~ Teacher Stu- Teacher Signif- Item No2 No. dent dent icance Parents 1 12 1.37 2.57 1.02 .75 .001 My principal 2 9 1.22 1.83 1.23 .94 .001 Teachers 6 8 1.68 1.84 1.15 .87 .001 135 Table 4.15 (continued) Standard Stu— Mean Deviation Level of dent Teacher Stu- Teacher Signif- $25!. No. No2 dent icance Clerical help 8 15 1.50 2.36 1.13 .79 .001 Students 15 26 1.99 1.76 1.09 1.05 .02 American education 26 20 1.39 2.34 1.17 .85 .001 Discipline 30 29 2.38 2.50 1.02 .80 .02 The curriculum 31 37 1.97 2.60 1.14 .62 .001 Custodians 33 24 1.57 2.05 1.24 1.10 .001 The community 34 27 2.14 2.12 1.27 .94 .001 School policies 35 17 1.90 2.17 1.15 .70 .001 The people of this community 37 6 2.11 2.16 1.15 .93 Opportunity to help make policy 38 21 2.51 2.21 1.11 .74 .001 The 9.9.4. 39 22 2.38 2.90 1.12 .83 .01 Teaching abilities 4O 40 1.83 1.66 1.23 .78 .001 1.0th M = 1075 1094 A.breakdown of this distribution in Table 4.16 shows a better perspective of the relationship. Table 4.16 Comparison of significant selected items between teachers and students in low teacher .morale schools. 136 Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Scores _ Positive Negative tem Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Parents 2.57 1.37 8.6 67.2 63.8 21.2 My principal 1.83 1.22 46.5 68.9 27.6 21.1 Teachers 1.84 1.68 40.0 55.0 24.1 31.1 Clerical help 2.36 1.50 12.0 59.4 46.6 20.0 Students 1.76 1.99 39.7 39.4 22.4 41.1 American education 2.34 1.39 12.1 62.8 50.0 25.0 Discipline 2.50 2.38 8.6 23.3 48.2 54.4 The curriculum 2.60 1.97 5.2 40.6 63.8 39.4 Custodians 2.05 1.57 27.5 57.3 34.5 26.6 The community 2.12 2.14 24.2 38.3 38.0 50.5 School policies 2.17 1.90 17.2 46.6 34.5 37.2 137 Table 4.16 (continued) Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Scores _ Positive .1 Negative Item Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Opportunity to help make policy 2.21 2.51 15.5 21.1 32.8 52.2 The P.T.A. 2.90 2.38 1.7 22.2 63.8 51.2 Teaching abilities 1.66 1.83 32.7 47.2 8.6 32.2 The mean scores of the items indicated that on similar items, teachers held negative attitudes on eleven of the fifteen items. Students, on five of the fifteen. on similar items, held negative attitudes Student and teacher items for low teacher morale schools were also compared by rank order of agreement according to differences in the mean (Table 4.17). An additional comparison was made on ranking of items. In the ten items selected by students and teachers as.most positive, both groups selected the principal, the pupils (classmates for students), and custodians. Items which were rated lowest by groups included discipline and the P.T.A. Table 4.17 Rank order of agreement according to mean students and teachers on differences of compared items for low teacher morale schools. 138 Teacher Student Difference Student Teacher Bank Item Item Item in Mean Score Scots 1 27 34 The community .02 2.14 2.12 2 6 37 The people of this community .05 2.11 2.16 3 29 30 Discipline .12 2.38 2.50 4 8 6 Teachers .16 1.68 1.84 5 40 40 Teaching abilities .17 1.83 1.66 6 26 15 Students .23 1.99 1.76 7 17 35 School policies .27 1.90 2.17 8 21 38 Opportunity to help make policy .30 2.51 2.21 9 24 33 Custodians .48 1.57 2.05 10 22 39 The P.T.A. .52 2.38 2.90 11 9 2 My principal .61 1.22 1.83 12 37 31 The curriculum .63 1.97 2.60 13 15 8 Clerical help .86 1.50 2.36 139 Table 4.17 (continued) Teacher Student Difference Student Teacher Rink Item Item Item _In Mean ._Score Score 14 20 26 American .95 1.39 2.34 education 15 12 1 Parents 1.20 1.37 2.57 One additional set of comparisons was made with items which, although not identical, were similar enough to warrant the comparison. These comparisons are shown in Table 4.18. An attempt was made to compare the attitudes of teachers concerning school and how students perceived their teachers' attitudes. This was done by comparing student ratings of item 36 “attitude of teachers,“ with the mean score of the teachers of low teacher morale schools in the TMF. The mean score for the students was 2.15 while the mean score for the teachers was 2.24. 140 Table 4.18 Comparison of teacher morale and teacher opinions with student morale and student opinions in low teacher morale schools. Per Cent Per Cent Item Mean Score Positive N ative Stup Tiacher Stu— Teacher Stup Teacher Stup Teacher dent dent dent dent Morale 2.07 2.10 37.2 27.6 40.6 34.5 Opinions 2.26 2.22 27.2 15.5 47.2 37.9 High Teacher Morale Schools The comparison of the fifteen items between teachers and students from high teacher morale schools showed a significant difference at the .05 level in all fifteen items (Table 4.19). 141 Table 4.19 Comparison of student and teacher items in high teacher morale schools. % ? Standard Stu- Mean , Level of dent Teacher Stu- Teacher Signif- Itgg NoI Nol dent icance Parents 1 12 1.57 2.36 1.11 .83 .001 My principal 2 9 1.78 .89 1.26 .90 .001 Teachers 6 8 2.01 1.74 1.22 .92 .001 Clerical help 8 15 1.70 1.92 1.02 1.03 .02 Students 15 26 1.68 1.32 1.09 .83 .001 American education 26 20 1.41 1.82 1.15 .92 .001 Discipline 30 29 2.14 1.81 1.21 .91 .001 The curriculum 31 37 1.64 1.87 1.15 .94 .001 Custodians 33 24 1.16 1.41 1.06 1.05 °001 The community 34 27 1.58 1.53 1.38 .95 .001 School policies 35 17 1.82 1.58 1.13 .89 .001 The people of this community 37 6 1.59 1.19 1.17 .96 .001 142 Table 4.19 (continued) Standard Stu- Mean Deviation Level of dent Teacher Stu- Teacher Stu- Teacher Signif- Itg; NoI No. dent dent icggce Opportunity- to help make policy 38 21 2.38 1.78 1.22 .91 .001 The P.T.A. 39 22 2.29 2.00 1.14 .65 .001 Teaching . abilities 4O 40 1.31 1.34 1.14 .85 .001 Total M a 1.37 1.29 Table 4.20 shows the comparison in relation to the mean scores as well as the negative and positive distribution of responses. Table 4.20 Comparison of significant selected items between teachers and students in high teacher morale schools. :5 “7* Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Score __ Positive _ Negative IEEE. Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Parents 2.36 1.57 16.6 57.8 53.3 30.0 My principal .89 1.78 77.8 50.6 6.7 40.0 143 Table 4.20 (continued) Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating , __ Mean Score Positive Nagative Item - Teacher Student Teacher Student Teac er Student Teachers 1.74 2.01 41.1 41.1 22.2 -43.8 Clerical help 1.92 1.70 33.4 46.7 37.8 23.9 Students 1.32 1.68 55.6 55.6 5.6 31.1 American education 1.82 1.41 35.6 64.4 24.4 26.1 Discipline 1.81 2.14 34.5 37.2 21.1 -51.1 The curriculum 1.87 1.64 35.6 55.0 30.0 31.1 Custodians 1.41 1.16 57.8 76.1 15.5 16.7 The community 1.53 1.58 46.7 60.6 14.4 35.0 School policies 1.58 1.82 51.1 53.3 17.8 32.7 The people of this community 1.19 1.59 68.8 63.3 11.1 30.0 Opportunity to help make policy 1.78 2.38 33.3 28.4 20.0 48.9 144 Table 4.20 (continued) *7 . ”w Per Cent Rating Per Cent Rating Mean Score _ Positive N ative Item Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student The P.T.A. 2.00 2.29 16.6 27.2 18.9 43.4 Teaching abilities 1.34 1.31 50.0 63.3 4.4 19.4 Teachers have a negative mean score on only one item of the fifteen while students have a negative attitude on four items. Teachers and students were ranked in order of the differences between mean scores on the compared items (Table 4.21). Table 4.21 Rank order of agreement according to mean differences of students and teachers on compared items for high teacher morale schools. ”v“ Teacher Student Difference Student Teacher Rank Item Item Item in Mean Score Score 1 40 40 Teaching .03 1.31 1.34 abilities 2 27 34 The community .05 1.58 1.53 145 Table 4.21 (continued) ====f=======fi;======T===========: ========= ‘1,” Teacher Student Difference Student Teacher 5555, Item Item £222. in Mean Score Score 3 15 8 Clerical help .22 1.70 1.92 4 37 31 The curriculum .23 1.64 1.87 5 17 35 School policies .24 1.82 1.58 6 24 33 Custodians .25 1.16 1.41 7 8 6 Teachers .27 2.01 1.74 8 22 39 The P.T.A. .29 2.29 2.00 9 29 3O Discipline .33 2.14 1.81 10 26 15 Students .36 ’ 1.68 1.32 11 6 37 The people of 1 this community .40 1.59 1.19 12 20 26 American education .41 1.41 1.82 13 21 38 Opportunity to .60 2.38 1.78 help make policy 14 12 1 Parents .79 1.57 2.36 15 9 2 My principal .89 1.78 .89 146 In the ten items selected as most positive on the basis of mean item scores, both teachers and students selected “this school“ and “teaching ability.“ In the least positive category, they both selected "the P.T.A." To continue with the comparison, items which were not identical but which had certain similarity were compared. Table 4.22 Comparison of teacher morale and teacher opinions with student morale and student opinions in high teacher morale schools. Per Cent Per Cent Item Mean Score Positive _. Negative Stu— Stu- Stu— Stu- dent Teacher dent Teacher dent Teacher dent Teacher Morale 1.87 1.10 47.2 73.4 36.7 8.9 Opinions 2.11 1.72 31.1 37.7 39.4 14.4 The last comparison for the hypothesis was between teacher attitudes and how students perceived teacher attitudes. Following the same method used in low teacher morale schools, it was found that the mean score of student attitudes on the item "attitude of teachers“ was 1.66. The mean score for teachers on the "Teacher Morale Form“ was also 1.66. 147 The evidence collected regarding this hypothesis points out the almost complete disagreement between teachers and students in the same schools. On the basis of thirty comparisons of similar items, there is a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence on twenty-nine of these items. Students in high teacher morale schools are slightly more negative than their teachers while students in low teacher morale schools are slightly more positive than their teachers. In low teacher morale schools, students have a poorer- attitude than their teachers toward students, the community, opportunities to make policy, and teaching abilities. They were more positive than their teachers concerning parents, the principal, teachers, clerical help, American education, discipline, curriculum, custodians, school policies, and the P.T.A. Both teachers and students had negative feelings toward their own group's morale and opinions. In high teacher morale schools, students had a poorer attitude than their teachers toward the principal, teachers, students, discipline, the community, school policies, peeple of the community, opportunity to make policy, and the P.T.A. They were more positive than their teachers in their ratings of parents, clerical help, American education, curriculum, custodians, and teaching abilities. The students viewed their own morale and opinions much lower than did their 148 teachers in the rating of teacher morale and opinions. Both sets of students were extremely accurate in predicting their teachers' attitudes. Hypothesis I Students from schools in which teachers have high morale will differ significantly on selected perceived variables from students who come from schools whose teachers have low morale. Eleven variables were tabulated for each student. The‘ information collected was not factual data but was based on the student's perception of his own situation. This is in keeping with the theme of the study that how an individual perceives a certain situation is what is real to that person. The two sets of schools, high teacher morale and low teacher morale, were compared on student responses (180 students from each set of schools) using chi-square. Of the eleven items, only two were found to differ significantly between sets of schools. A break down of the items and the data collected follows: 1. ‘Which parent influenced you most? F th th r High Teacher Morale Schools 39,2; “30.3% Low Teacher Morale Schools 41.1%. 58.9% 3. 4. 5. 149 What do you estimate your level of intelligence to be? High Average Low High Teacher Morale Schools 3 % 6 . % 3:§% Low Teacher Morale Schools 30.6% 63.3% 6.1% How many days of school have you missed this year? Da 8 Absent . ng 7-13 14-19 20-25 26+ High Teacher Morale Schools 62.7% 24.9% 6.8%» 3.4% 2.3% Low Teacher Morale Schools 62.8% 18.9% 9.4% 5.0% 3.9% Do you feel you are realizing your fullest potential? Yes No High Teacher Morale Schools 27.8%» 72.2% Low Teacher Morale Schools 29.4% 70.6% In comparison with other students, how would you rate your grades? Higher Lower Same High Teacher Morale Schools 28.9% 19.4% 51.7% Low Teacher Morale Schools 35.0% 11.1% 53.9% Do you feel that you are fulfilling your parents' fullest expectations? Est .152 High Teacher Morale Schools 31.7% 68.3% Low Teacher Morale Schools 50.0% 50.0% (These responses were significant at the .001 level) What is your feeling in regard to your personal appearance? Above Below Average Average Average High Teacher Morale Schools 24.4% 71.1% 4.4% Low Teacher Morale Schools 20.0% 77.2% 2.8% 150 8. ‘Where would you classify the socio-economic status of your family? Upper Upper Lower Class Middle Middle Middle Lower High Teacher Morale Schools 7.2% 37.8% 51.1% 2.8% 1.1% Low Teacher Morale Schools 7.2% 31.1% 48.9% 12.2% .o% (These responses were significant at the .02 level) 9. How would you rate your degree of self confidence? More Than Less Than Average Average Average High Teacher Morale Schools 20.6% 59.4% 20.0% Low Teacher Morale Schools' 17.8% 65.6% 16.7% 10. How active are you in school activities? More Than About the Less Than Most Same Most High Teacher Morale Schools 27.5% 36.9% 35.6% Low Teacher Morale Schools 31.8% 33.8%» 34.4% 11. How do you rate your acceptance by other students? Accepted Accepted Accepted Better Same Less High Teacher Morale Schools 24.4% 48.3% 27.2% Low Teacher Morale Schools 23.9% 46.7% 29.4% In this comparison of perceived student variables, students from the two sets of schools were again found to be more similar than different. In the areas of similarity, students were found to feel they are most influenced by their mother (60 per cent), average in intelligence (62 per cent), 151 miss fewer than seven days of school per year (63 per cent), not realizing their greatest potential (71 per cent), earning about the same grades as others (52 per cent), about average in appearance (75 per cent), have average self confidence (62 per cent), are about the same or more active in school activities than others (65 per cent), and are accepted by other students as well or better than others (71 per cent). Students from the two sets of schools differed significantly on only two items. Fewer students from high teacher morale schools feel they are fulfilling their parents' expectations while more students from low teacher morale schools feel they come from a lower socio—economic family. Hypothesis g The teacher's perception of the student's attitude toward the school environment will be more accurate for teachers from high teacher morale schools than for teachers from low teacher morale schools. Data for this hypothesis were gathered by averaging the perceived attitude ratings of each student's teachers. Teachers were asked to rate each student on a five-point scale (the same scale used by the students in rating the student attitude form). These ratings were matched with the student's actual score and calculated by means of the Pearson correlation coefficient. 152 There was practically no relationship between teachers' ratings and students' actual scores. The high teacher morale schools had a correlation coefficient of -.05 and the low teacher morale schools had a coefficient of .07. In the high teacher morale schools, only fifty-one of 180 items were identical to the student scores. Sixty students were perceived as having poorer school attitudes than they actually had - forty by one point, nineteen by two points and one by three points. Sixtybnine students were perceived by teachers to have more positive attitudes than they actually had. Fortybfive of these were errors of one point, twenty-three were errors of two points and one was an error of three points. In the low teacher morale schools, there were forty- six cases in which the teachers perceived the student's attitude accurately. Forty students were perceived by teachers as having poorer attitudes than they actually had, thirtybthree by one point, six by two points and one by three points. There were ninety-four students whom teachers per- ceived as having more positive attitudes than they actually had. Fiftybfive were missed by one point, thirtybsix by two points and three by three points. 153 Summaty In this chapter, the hypotheses suggested in Chapter 1 have been analyzed. Restating these hypotheses in a question form, it is now possible to answer the question on the basis of the statistical data collected. Question 1 - Do teachers from high teacher morale schools differ from teachers in low teacher morale schools on their ratings of different areas in the school environment? There seems to be more areas of similarity than of disagreement. The main difference between the two sets of schools was one of intensity of rating rather than of different concerns. Question 2 - Will differences in teacher morale be reflected in similar differences in student attitudes? Students seem to be less extreme than teachers in both group scores and individual scores. Consequently, students from high teacher morale schools had more negative attitudes than did their teachers, and students from low teacher morale schools had more positive attitudes than did their teachers. Although the students from high teacher morale schools had better attitudes than did the students from low teacher morale schools and the rank order between teacher and student scores were the same, an analysis of variance showed no significant difference between the students from the two sets of schools. 154 Question 3 - Will the areas of greatest concern by the students in high teacher morale schools differ from the areas of greatest concern of students in low teacher morale schools? As was the case with the teachers, there were more similarities than differences between the two sets of stu- dents. In fact, there were more similarities between the two sets of students than between the two sets of teachers. Again, the differences appear to be more one of intensity of rating rather than one of varying items of interest. Question 4 - Will student responses to certain areas of the school environment be similar to the responses of their teachers? In fifteen selected items of similarity, the responses were significantly different on fourteen of the fifteen in low teacher morale schools and fifteen of fifteen in high teacher morale schools. In low teacher morale schools, student responses were more positive than the teachers while in high teacher morale schools the student responses were more negative than the teachers'. In cases where mean scores of students were close to teachers' mean scores, the distri- bution of scores was not in agreement. The differences between students and teachers far exceeded the similarities. Students from both sets of schools perceived their teachers attitudes very accurately. Question 5 - Will students from different sets of schools be different on selected variables? 155 Eleven perceived variables were used. In only two of these variables was there a significant difference. In the fulfillment of parents' expectations, more students from high teacher morale schools felt they were not living up to parents' wishes. In responding to the perceived socio- economic level of their family, more students from low teacher morale schools felt their family was in the category of either “lowemiddle” or “lower“ than did students from high teacher morale schools Question 6 - Will teachers from high teacher morale schools be more accurate in their perception of student attitudes than teachers from low teacher morale schools? There was no significant correlation for either set of schools. Teachers from both sets of schools seem unable to perceive how their students actually feel. It is now time to proceed to the final chapter where the results of this study can be succinctly brought together in the form of findings, implications and suggestions for further study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary It was the stated purpose of this study to examine high school student attitudes toward their school environ- ment and the relation of these attitudes to teacher morale. In the past, attitude studies in the schools have been primarily concerned with adult attitudes, and those attitude studies which did involve student feelings, had dealt mostly- with student attitudes about teachers and the classroom. The need for this study was based on the concept that the well—being of a group increases its production. This well-being is dependent on the satisfaction of the group with their environment as perceived by the group. Consequently, there is value in knowing the attitudes of the groups within any institution and the relationship of the attitudes of one group to the attitudes of other groups within the same insti- tution. Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions are presented: Conclusions 1. Teacher morale does differ significantly between schools. The difference seems to be primarily one of 157 intensity of rating rather than in areas of positive and negative feelings. 2. Students do not show the same degree of difference as do their teachers. Students are less extreme in their attitudes as a group and appear to be little affected by the morale of their teachers. There are more similarities in the feelings of students than there are differences. The differ- ences seem to be based more on the degree of feeling than in the areas of disagreement. 3. Teachers and students differ significantly in their attitudes about school. 4. Students have a very accurate perception of their teachers' morale. 5. On measured variables, as perceived by the stu— dents themselves, students from low teacher morale schools and high teacher morale schools are very much alike. 6. Teachers are not able to accurately predict stu- dent attitudes. Implications 1. There is a great deal of valuable information available to teachers and administrators through the measure- ment of student attitudes. A knowledge of student feelings will make it possible to build better school programs and resolve many school issues. 158 2. School administrators have been predominantly interested in checking staff attitudes as a means of improv- ing the school climate. There is a need to include student attitudes in their concern over school climate. The measure- ment of teacher morale is not a satisfactory way of evalua— ting student feelings about school. High or low staff morale does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the students. 3. Students have a very accurate perception of the morale of their teachers. This makes the relationship between student attitudes and teacher morale even more inter- esting. If students were unaware of teacher morale, then their lack of similarity in school attitudes in relation to teacher morale could be explained on the basis of lack of knowledge of teachers' feelings. However, since their per- ception of teacher morale is extremely accurate, the fact that student attitudes do not correlate with teacher morale is greater proof of the independence of student feelings from teacher influence. A further implication of student perception of teacher morale has meaning for teacher evaluation. Many studies have supported student ratings of teachers as the most accurate way of evaluating teachers. The accurate assessment of teacher morale would seem to confirm student ability to cor- rectly perceive a very difficult area of teacher evaluation. 159 4. Of the eleven variables pertaining to the stu- dents, only two were significantly different. Students from low teacher morale schools perceived their economic status as lower and also felt less concerned about their parents' expectations. These items may reflect a basic problem which ties teacher morale, economic concern, and parent expectations together. A low socio-economic condition in a school district could account for all three factors. Most obvious would be that the increased student perception of a lower socio- economic level may actually reflect a true situation. Per- haps less obvious is the student feeling about meeting parental expectations. However, this too has an economic implication. In a lower socio-economic community, the accom- plishments of the parents and the financial means for achiev- ing result in less pressure on the student to succeed. In a high socio—economic community, the reverse is true. The parents place financial and educational success high in the value system. This results in a greater parental pressure on the student to succeed and a greater awareness of this parental pressure on the part of the student. The third factor, low teacher morale, may also be related to the socio-economic factor. Teachers from these low teacher morale schools ranked.most areas of their school 160 environment low. The things which they rated lowest, however, included salaries, teacher welfare, parents and fringe bene- fits. A negative feeling toward these things could be the result of community inability to provide adequate financial support to the school program. 5. Teacher perceptions of student attitudes are extremely inaccurate. Yet, it is likely that teachers feel they know their students. The criteria used by teachers to judge their students' feelings need closer scrutiny. It would be interesting to know what factors (grades, attendance, class conduct, etc.) influence teachers to make their evalua- tions of student attitude. At any rate, teachers need to be made aware of their inability to judge student feelings. An awareness and compassion for student feelings should improve both the Classroom and school climate. 6. The “Teacher Morale Form“ and the student attitude instrument can provide valuable assistance to the practicing school administrator. The results obtained can be used on an individual basis to assist in counseling and in placing both students and teachers. The group results can be used to compare classes, schools and even school districts. In addition, both instruments have great diagnostic value. An analysis of the results will show areas of strength and weakness. In this respect, the incomplete 161 sentence blank offers an advantage over other devices. The use of this device gives some insights which might not be otherwise apparent. For example, it was possible in this study not only to evaluate positive and negative feelings but to identify those things which were causing these feelings. Relation 22 Other Studies There were a number of instances in which the results of this study either corroborated or disagreed with previous research. The fact that teacher morale does differ from school to school supported the findings of Wbtring.1 This study also supported Wbtring's conclusion that teachers have similar concerns and that their differences are mainly ones of degree of negative or positive feelings toward these common areas. In relation to student attitudes, this study had find- ings similar to the study of Costin and Eiserer.2. Both studies show that students tend to identify more with their 1Jarvis C. Wetring, “Teacher Morale and Evaluation of Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). 2T. Costin and P. Eiserer, ”Student Attitudes Toward SchooliLife as.Revealed by a Sentence Completion Test,“ American Psyghologist IV (1949), p. 289. 162 peer group than with other groups in the school. Costin and Eiserer also observed that there is a stereotyped student opposition to school which does not show up when specific things are measured. Student attitudes for both sets of schools showed a positive tendency on the part of students in their feelings toward school. A comparison of this study and one by Eames3 showed similarities in student attitudes toward homework (mostly busy work), discipline (resentment against offenders and those who let them get away without punishment), and parents (ranked very high by students in both studies). There was disagreement with Eames in that this study found students to be more familiar with and supportive of the principal. This study found that teachers and students differ significantly in their attitudes about school. This is some- what contrary to the findings of Whithall,4 Anderson and Brewer,5 and Kaura.6 Their studies claim that students 3T. H. Eames, "Attitude and Opinion of Adolescents," Journal 22 Education, CXLVII (April, 1965), pp. 3-43. 4John C. Whithall, “The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social Emotional Climate in Classrooms,“ Journal 23 Experimental Education, XVII (1949), pp. 347-61. 5Harold H. Anderson and J. E. Brewer, Studies of Teachers' Classroom_§ersonalities, II, Stanford University, 46 . 6Hussein Sohman Kaura, ”An Experimental Study of Stu- dents' Achievement in the Relation to the Morale of Selected Secondary School Teachers“ (Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Michigan, 1963). 163 reflect the feelings of their teachers regarding achievement and social relation. Marpel claims, as does this study, that the peer group is the most influential on student attitudes. He states that the attitudes held by the individual are 7 This largely dependent on who communicates them to him. apparent difference in findings suggests that either teachers do not convey their feelings to the students and consequently students are not aware of teacher attitudes toward the various aspects of school, or that teachers do not greatly influence student attitudes even though students are aware of~ such attitudes. The findings of this study regarding comparative per- ception of students and teachers about each other is also supportive of other studies. McCall and Krause,8 9 10 Bryan, and Gage all agree that students have accurate perceptions 7C. H. Marpel, “The Comparative Susceptibility of Three Age Levels to the Suggestion of Group Versus Expert Opinion,“ Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, IV (1933), pp. l76~86. 8William A. McCall and Gertrude B. Krause, "Measure— ment of Teacher Merit for Salary Purposes," Journal of Educational Research, LIII, No. 2 (October, 1959), .-74. 9R. C. Bryan, "A Study of Student Ratings of College and Secondary School Teachers,“ Educational Administratiye Supervision, XIX (1933), pp. 290~307. 10M. L. Gage (ed.), American Educational Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), p. 4. ‘ 164 12 11 Gage, concerning teachers; while Ojeman and Wilkinson, 13 Harris, andiBryan14 also found that teachers' perceptions about students are not very accurate. Questions for Further Study In the process of carrying out this study, a number of other questions developed which might warrant further inves- tigation. 1. Is there a significant difference between student attitudes from various schools? 2. What relationships are there between attitudes of teachers, administrators, students and members of the community? 3. What are the relationships between student attitudes and the morale of their specific classroom teacher? 11Ralph Ojeman and T. R. Wilkinson, ”The Effect on Pupil GrOwth of an Increase in Teacher Understanding of Pupil Behavior,“ Journal of Experimental Education, VIII (1939), pp. 143-47. 12N. L. Gage, op. cit., p. 690. 13Chester W. Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New YOrka The Macmillan Company, 1965), p. 850. 14R. C. Bryan, 22. cit. 165 4. Are there certain clusters of items which would give greater meaning to student attitudes? 5. WOuld an analysis of student attitudes according to variables, such as sex, age, grade or socio—economic level, reveal certain patterns of student attitudes? 6. Which teachers are best able to perceive their students' attitudes? 7. How would student perceptions of the various factors on the “Teacher Morale Form" compare with the teacher's scores on these items? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aikman, Arthur L. ”An Analytical Study of Attitudes and Other Selected Measures of Economically Depressed Children in Grades Five and Six.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1965. Alexander, T. “Certain Characteristics of the Self as Related to Affection," Child Development, XXII (1951), 285-90. Anderson, Harold H. and J. E. Brewer. Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities, II: Effect 9: Teachers Dominative and Integrative Contacts 23 ChiIdren's Classroom Behavior. Stanford University, 1946. Anderson, R. H. “The Teacher in Public Relations,” Phi Delta Kappan, XXVIII (1947), 284. Antes, John Manning. "Children's Perceptions of Teachers, Self, Peers, and School.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964. Baxter, Bernice. Pupil-Teacher Relationships. New YOrk: The Macmillan Company, 1941. Bellon, Jerry J. “A Study of the Wbrk Goals of Selected Beginning and Experienced Secondary Teachers.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1965. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Bidwell, C. E. “Administration and Teacher Satisfaction,” Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVII (1956), 287. . “The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching,“ Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (1955 ) ' 41-47 0 Bills, R. E. and C. R. McGhee. "The Effect of Attitude Toward Psychology in a Learning Experiment,“ Journal of Personality, XXIII (1935), 499-506. Blair, Boris, Jr. “A Job Satisfaction Predictor," Personnel Journal, XLII, No. 9 (October, 1963), 453. 168 Blocker, Clyde E. and Richard C. Richardson. "Twenty-Five Years of Morale Research: A Critical Review," 'Journal 93 Educational Sociology, XXXVI, No. 5 (January, 1963), 201. Brookover, W. B. "Person-Person Interaction Between Teachers and Pupils and Teaching Effectiveness,“ Journal 2E Educa- tional Research, XXXIV (1940), 272-87. . A Sociology 9: Education. New Ybrk: American Book Company, 1955. Bryan, R. C. ”A Study of Student Ratings of College and Secondary School Teachers,“ Educational Administration Supervision, XIX (1933), 290-357. . Pupil Rating 2f Secondary School Teaching. Columbia, New YOrk: Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, 1937. Burros, Oscar K. (ed.). The Fifth Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, I959. . The Fourth Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1953. . The Sixth Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965. Bush, R. N. “A Study of Student-Teacher Relationships,“ Journal 2: Educational Research, XXXV (1942), 645-56. Callis, R. "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom,“ Journal gf Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 82-85. Chase, Francis S. “Factors for Satisfactions in Teaching,“ Phi Delta Kappan, XLIII (1951), 128. Clark, Elmer J. “Teacher Reactions Toward Objectionable Pupil Behavior," Elementary School Journal, LI (1951), 446-49. Coffman, William E. ”Teacher Morale and Curriculum Develop- ment,“ Journal 9; Experimental Education, XIX (June, 169 Cogan, M. L. “The Behavior of Teachers and the Productive Behavior of Their Pupils,“ Journal 2; Experimental Education, XXVII (1958), 89—105. Cohen, Gloria J. "A Study of the Socio-Economic Status of the School Community and the Morale of the Teaching Personnel in New York City." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1959. Costin, F. and P. Eiserer. "Student Attitudes Toward School Life as Revealed by a Sentence Completion Test,“ American Psychologist, IV (1949), 289. Cralle, Robert E. and William H. Burton. ”An Examination of Factors Stimulating or Depressing Teacher Morale,“ California Journal 2; Elementary Education, VII (August, 1938), 7-14. Crispin, David Bower. “Student Behavior in Three Different Climates.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1963. Crothers, John M. “An Analysis of Joint Variations in Morale and Productivity.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1965. Cunningham, Ruth. ”A.Group Creates Its Climates,” Educa~ tional Leadership, V (March, 1948), 358-62. Danitz, Jose. ”Social Perception and Sociometric Choice of Children,“ Journal 9; Abnormal Social Psychology, L (1955), 173-76. Davis, A. and J. Dollard. Children 23 Bondage. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940. Denneilein, Gerald. "Factors Related to the Measurement of Teacher Morale.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New YOrk: The Macmillan Company, 1959. Eames, T. H. "Attitude and Opinions of Adolescents,“ Journal g£_Education, CXLVII (April, 1965), 3-43. Eberman, Paul. ”Personal Relationships: One Key to Instruc- tional Improvement,“ Educational Leadership, IX (March, 1952), 389. 170 Ellsworth, A. S. and E. S. Bogardus. "Measurement in Group WCrk," Sociology and Social Research, XXIII (1938), 62-70. English, H. B. and Ava C. English. A Comprehensive Diction- ary 9; Psychological and Psychoanalyticai Terms. New YOrk: Langmens, Green, 1958. "Factors Affecting the Job Satisfaction of Home Economics Teachers,” American Vocational Association Home Economics Research Committee, Research Bulletin, No. 3, waShingtOn, D.COI 1948e Francke, Donald C. “Perceptual Accuracy and Personal Variables.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Wisconsin, 1965. Gage, N. L. (ed.). American Educational Research. Chicago: American Education Research Association, Rand McNally, 1963. . “Explorations in Teachers' Perceptions of Pupils,” Journal 93 Teacher Education, IX (1958), 97-100. Getzels, J. W. and H. A. Thelen. “The Classroom Group As A Unique Social System,” Yearbook gf National Social Studies Education, Part I; (I965), 53. Goddard, Harold C. Morale. New York: G. H. Doran Company, 1918. Gold, Jay. “The Effect of Administrative Atmosphere on the Role of the School Teachers.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1964. Griffiths, Daniel E. Human Relations i3 School Administra- tion. New YOrk: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. and Daniel R. Davies. ”The Organizational Climate of Schools,“ Executive Action, Letter III, No. 2 (September, 1963). Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1954. Haggerty, Melvin E. "The Crux of the Teaching Prognosis Problem,“ School Society, XXXV (1932), 545-49. 171 Hall, G. Stanley. Morale, The Supreme Standard pf Life. New YOrk: D. AppIeton and Company, 20. Hand, Harold. What People Think About Their Schools. New YOrk: WOrld Book Company, 1948. Happock, Robert. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935. Harris, Chester W. (ed.). Encyclopedia pf Educational Research. New YOrk: The Macmillan Company, 1960. Hastings, Geraldine. “The Relationship of Role Perceptions to Teaching Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1964. Healy, Ann Kirtland. "I'll Remember Ybu Always,” National Education Association Journal, LIII (December, 19 4 , 66. Hedges, William D. and Mary Ann MacDougall. "Recording Student Perceptions of Teacher Behavior by Means of A Student Response Monitor,“ The Journal 9: Educational Research, LVIII (December, 196377 164. Heil, L. M., M. Powell and J. Feifer. Characteristics of ' Teacher Behavior and Com etenC Related to the Achieve- ment of Different Kinds of Children in Several Elementa_y Grades. New YOrk: Office of Testing and Research, Brooklyn College, 1960. Hocking, William E. Morale and Its Enemies. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1918. Holmes, Henry W. The Road 32 Courage. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1943. Hudson, Keith C. "Pupil Expectations of Teacher Behavior As A Possible Influence Upon Pupil Ratings of Teacher Effectiveness." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1964. Hunter, E. C. “Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior Over the Last Thirty Years," Mental Hygiene, XLI (1957), 3-11. 172 Idiculla, Muttoniyil. “A Comparative Study of the Role Expectations of High School Principals in Selected Western States.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Brigham YOung University, 1965. Jackson, P. W. and J. W. Getzels. "Psychological Health and Classroom Functioning: A Study of Dissatisfaction With School Among Adolescents," Journal 9; Educational Psychology, L (1959), 295-30 . Jenkins, D. H. “Characteristics and Functions of Leadership in Instructional Groups,“ Yearbook 9g National Social Studies Education, Part II_(I965), 53. : ”Interdependence in the ClassroOm,“ Journal pf Educational Research, XLV (1951), 137-44. Jones, Richard D. “The Attitude of Permanent Secondary School Teachers Toward Evaluation,” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1963. Kaplan, Louis. “The Annoyances of Elementary School TeaChers,“ Journal pf Educational Research, XLV (1952), 649-65. Kasper, Eugene, Paul F. Munger and Roger Myers. “Student Perceptions of the Environment in Guidance and Non- Guidance Schools,“ Personnel 22g Guidance Journal, XLIII (March, 1965), 674-77. Kaura, Hussein Soliman. ”An Experimental Study of Students' Achievement in Relation to the Morale of Selected Secondary School Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Keeley, Earl and Marie Rasey. Education and the Nature pf Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. Leapold, L. E. and Joseph Yarborough. “What 1600 School People Think About Teacher Morale,“ American School Board Journal, CXIX (December, 1949), 29. Lewin, Kurt, Ronald Lippit and R. K. White. “Pattern of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates,“ Journal pf Social Psychology, X (1939), 271-99. 173 Lonsdale, Richard C. "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium," Behavioral Science and Educa- tion Administration. The Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Stud of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago_ Press, 964. Maier, N. R. F. and T. C. Schnierla. “Mechanisms in Condi— tioning,“ Psychological Review, XLIX (1942), 117-34. Marpel, C. H. “The Comparative Susceptibility of Three Age Levels to the Suggestion of Group Versus Expert Opinion,“ Journal 93 Abnormal Social Psychology, IV (1933), 176-86. Mayer, Donald C. “Teachers' Attitudes Toward Leadership as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1954. Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of An Industrial Civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933. . The Social Problems g£_ An Industrial Civilization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1945. McAllister, Vernon. "A Study of Leadership Role, Percepts as Viewed by Teachers, School Administrators, and School Board Members." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1965. McCall, William A. and Gertrude R. Krause. “Measurement of Teacher Merit for Salary Purposes,“ Journal of Educa- tional Research, LIII, No. 2 (October, 1959), 74. Metcalf, Henry and L. Urwick. Dynamic Administration--The Collected Papers pf Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper and Row, 1940. Michelfelder, Phyllis. “Internal Relations With Faculty and Staff,“ Pride, I; (December, 1958), 14. Michigan Education Directogy. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Directory, 1965. Miller, Paul. An Address Delivered at the ”Leadership Conference“ at Kellogg Center, Michigan State University, February, 1966. 174 Mogower, Mohamed Salah El-Din Ali. “A Study of the Opinion of Selected High School Students Toward the Ten Impera- tive Needs of Youth.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Monford, Ida Bell. “Factors Influencing the work of Teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. Morphet, Edgar, Roe Johns and Theodore Reller. Educational Administration. ,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- HaIl, Inc., 1960. Munson, Edward L. The Management 92 Men. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1 2 . Nash, Jay B. Building Morale. New YOrk: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1 42. _ Nelson, C. C. "Affective and Cognitive Attitudes of Junior High School Teachers and Pupils,“ Journal 9; Educa- tional Research, LVIII (October, 1964}, 51-83. Newcomb, Theodore M. "Social Psychology and Group Process,“ Annual Review g£_Psychology, IV (1953), 183-214. Ojeman, Ralph and F. R. Wilkinson. “The Effect on Pupil Growth of An Increase in Teacher Understanding of Pupil Behavior,“ 'Journal 2: Experimental Education, VIII (1939), 143-47. Oliver, W. A. “Teacher Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices,“ Journal 9: Educational Research, XLVII (1953), 47-55. Plant, Ralph E. ”An Investigation of Some Correlates of Teacher Job Satisfaction.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1966. Plattor, Stanton D. “An Inquiry into the Relationship Between Perception Congruence of School Counselors and Principals and the Expressed Job Satisfaction of School ' Counselors.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Rochester, 1965. Pryor, Guy Clark. “The Relationship Between Teachers' Per- ceptions of Administrative Dimensions and the Morale Status of Teachers in Certain Texas Schools,“ unpublished Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State university, 1964. 175 Rabenowitz, William and R. M. W. William. “Problems of Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness," Educa- tional Theory, III (1953), 212-19. Redefer, Frederick. ”Factors That Affect Teacher Morale," Nation's Schools, LXII (February, 1959), 59. . "Studies of Teacher Morale,“ School and Society, XCII (February, 1964), 63-64. “Teacher Morale and Quality Education,” Nation's Schools, LIX (February, 1957), 53. Remmers, H. H. Introduction 39 Opinion and Attitude Measure- ment. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 1 54. and N. L. Gage. Educational Measurement and Eval- uation. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Rempel, Averno and Ralph Bentley. “The Measurement of Teacher Morale: A Factor Analysis Approach,“ Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, XXIV (Fall, 1964), 631:2I. Riesman, David. “Student Culture and Faculty Values,“ Spgt- light 92 the College Student. Washington, D.C.: American Counci on Education, 1959. Roethlisberger, F. J. Management and Morale. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 194 . ~and William J. Dickson. Management and the WOrker. , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1939. Ross, C. C. Measurement in Today's Schools. New YOrk: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1944. Rotter, Julian B. and Janet E. Rafferty. The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank. New YOrk: The Psycho- logical Corporation, I955. Ryons, D. C. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Councilwon Education, 1960. Sandmeier, Thelma L. “A Study of the Differences in Aims for Public Elementary Education as Related to Selected Socio- .lOgical Factors.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1964. 176 Slocum, Clyde W. "An Exploration of the Perceptual Relation- ship Between Peer and Principal Ranking of Teachers.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965. Smith, Edson L. "Leadership Attitudes of Teachers and Administrators in Minnesota Schools." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1953. Solomon, Daniel. "Teacher Behavior Dimensions, Course Characteristics, and Student Evaluations of Teachers,“ American Educational Research Journal, III, No. 1 (January, 1966,, 35-4 . “Status of the American Public School Teacher, The," The National Education Association Research Bulletin, XXXV, No. 1, Washington, D.C.: (February, 1957), 1-63. Stogdill, Ralph M. “Personal Factors Associated with Leader-' ship: A Survey of the Literature,“ Journal pf Psychol- pgy, XXV (1948), 63. Stosberg, William. "A Study of the Relation Between Quality of Education and the Morale Status of the Faculty.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New YOrk University, 1957. Suehr, John H. ”A Study of Morale in Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1961. Takouri, Mohammed E. ”Closed Mindedness and Achievement Motivation in Attitude Change.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1964. Tenenbaum, Samuel. “Attitudes of Elementary School Children to School, Teachers, and Classmates," Journal pf Applied Psychology, XXVIII (1944), 134-41. Thompson, Clement. “The Morale of Senior High School Teachers in the New York City Public School System and Attitude Toward the Single Salary Schedule.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New YOrk University, 1958. Thurstone, L. L. "Theory of Attitude Measurement,“ Psycho- logical Review, XXXVI (1929), 222-41. Tiedeman, Stuart C. "A Study of Pupil-Teacher Relationships,“ Journal pf Educational Research, XXXV (1942), 657-64. 177 Tiffin, Joseph. Industrial Psycholggy. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1 . Trager, Helen G. and Marion J. Radke-Yarrow. They Learn What They Live. New YOrk: Harper and Row, 1952. Ullman, C. A. “Teachers, Peers, and Tests as Predictors of Adjustment,” Journal p£_Educational Psychology, XLVIII, (1957), 257—671 Vigilanti, Nicholas. "A Role Perception Study of Elementary Principals and Elementary Supervisors in the State of Ohio." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964. ‘Whitehill, Arthur Jr. Personnel Relations. New York: McGrawbHill Book Company, 1955. Whithall, John C. "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms,“ Journal pg Experimental Education, XVII (1949), 347-61. Why Hi h School Teachers Use Image Repprts. Kalamazoo, c igan: Student Reaction Center, School of Education, Western Michigan University. WOndt, Edwin. “Comparison of the Attitudes of Contrasting Groups of Teachers,“ Educational Psychological Measure- ment, XIV (1954), 418-55. ' WOrmell, Helen E. "A Comparative Study of Perceptions Related to Self, Home, and School Among Selected Ninth Grade Students." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Wotring, Jarvis C. ”Teacher Morale and Evaluation of Teachers.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Yeany, George. "An Exchange of Expectations,“ The Clearing House, XXXIX (January, 1965), 299. APPENDICES 179 APPENDIX A TEACHER MORALE FORM Complete the following in order to make each one a complete sentence. Take your time and show your true feelings about your situation. Make complete sentences. Try to do every one. 1. 2. 3. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18., 19. All responses will be confidential. Teaching school My Salary My future in teaching Morale of teachers in this school Faculty’meetings The people of this community My working environment Teachers My principal Teamwork among teachers Children today Parents Fringe benefits in teaching Channels of communication Clerical help The school board Administrative policies Professional organizations Evaluation of my work 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 3o. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 3s. 39, 40. American education 180 Opportunity to help make policy The PTA Teaching materials and supplies Custodians Professional standards My pupils This community The superintendent Discipline Teaching assignments Personnel policies School administrators This school My class size The in-service program Teacher welfare The curriculum Teacher opinions My teaching ability Teaching again Copyright 1961. All rights reserved College of Education MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY John H. Suehr, Author 181 APPENDIX B SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT ATTITUDE FORM PART I Complete the following in order to make each one a complete sentence. Take your time and show your true feelings about your situation as you feel most of the time. Do every one. All responses will be confidential. 1. 2. 3. \O (D \l 0'3 e e o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Parents My principal My classmates Counselors Teachers Assemblies Athletics Clerical help Student Council My learning ability Education at this school Cooperation between students and teachers School activities Student morale Students The cafeteria Cooperation among students 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. The library 182 Student opinions Opportunities at this school Grades My future This school Opportunities to study My classes American education Lunch time The class schedule Homework Discipline The curriculum Student conduct Custodians This community School policies The attitude of teachers in this school The people of this community Opportunity to help make policy The P.T.A. Teaching abilities 2. 3. 4. 10. 11. 12. 183 PART II - PERSONAL INFORMATION Male Female Grade 9 10 11 12 Which one of your parents influences you the most? Father Mother What do you estimate your level of intelligence to be? High Medium Low How many days of school have you missed this year? (since September) Do you feel that you are realizing your fullest potential? Yes No In comparison to other students howwwould you rate your grades? Higher _____ Lower _____ Same What is your age in years? Do you feel that you are fulfilling your parents' fullest expectations? Yes No What is your feeling in regard to your personal appear- ance? Above average _____ Average Below average Where would you classify the socio-economic status of your family? Upper class _____ Upper middle Middle _____ Lower middle _____ Lower How would you rate your degree of self-confidence? More than average Average Less than average 13. 14. 15. 16. 184 How would you rate your attitude toward school? Highly positive _____ Slightly positive Average _____ Slightly negative Very negative HOw active are you in school activities? More active than most students About the same as most students Less active than most students How do you rate your acceptance by other students? Usually accepted better than most students Accepted about the same as most students Not accepted as well as are most other students What are your future plans? Plan to quit school Plan to get a high school diploma Plan to attend a community college or trade school Plan to complete a four year college program Other (explain) 185 APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING THE TEACHER MORALE FORM AND THE SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT ATTITUDE FORM 1. Read each statement over carefully. 2. Assign each statement a point value based on the scale below. 0 - Highly positive statements -- denoting high morale or good attitude. 1 - Slightly positive statements. 2 - Neutral statements. 3 - Slightly negative statements. 4 - Highly negative statements -- denoting low morale or bad attitude. 3. If a statement is both positive and negative, weigh the two, and decide if one is stronger than the other. If one does not predominate, score the statement as neutral. 4. Score blanks as neutral.