An Analysis Of Selected Presage Criteria Of Reciprocal Student And Teacher Ratings In Beginning College Speech Classes

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content 71-12,385
FLOCKLE> Joyce Mary, 1939-
At: ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRESAGE CRITERIA
OF RECIPROCAL STUDENT AMD TEACHER EATINGS
IE EECIEE IEG COLLEGE SI EEC!I CLASSES.
University of Southern California, F h . D . ,
117 0
Speech
University Microfilms, A X ERO X C om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Copyright © by
JOYCE MARY FLOCKEN
1971
m trr nT nnrni’A fT 'T n x T uao m-T’v t uTnDAPTr u rn rvA ^T tv Ao Dmr'Twrn
AN ANALYSIS OP SELECTED PRESAGE CRITERIA OF
RECIPROCAL STUDENT AND TEACHER RATINGS
IN BEGINNING COLLEGE SPEECH CLASSES
by
Joyce Mary Flocken
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Speech Communication)
August 1970
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Joyce Mary Flocken
under the direction of h.QX... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D ate A u g u st,...1.970.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
.........
i Chaipnan
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM.................................. 1
Introduction
Nature of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
The Sample
Preview of Remaining Chapters
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................. 18
Introduction
The Development and Use of
Student Rating Instruments
The Purdue Instructor Performance
Indicator
Personality as a Variable in
the Classroom
The Sixteen Personality Factor
Q,ue st 1 onnai re
Attitudes, Values, and Temperament
as Classroom Variables
Teaching Effectiveness Research in
the Field of Speech Communication
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY.......................... 8l
Introduction
Samples
Materials
Procedures
Rationale for the Design
IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY....................... 95
General Statement of the Problem
Procedures
Findings
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .... 121
Summary
Conclusions
Implications
ii
PAGE
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 144
APPENDIX A .......................................... 160
APPENDIX B .......................................... 169
APPENDIX C .......................................... 187
ill
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
| Logan Wilson asserts that "it Is not exaggeration to
say that the most critical problem confronted in the social
organization of any university is the proper evaluation of
faculty services. . . . "^ The most difficult, and most
important, faculty service demanding evaluation is teach
ing. The evaluation of teaching is necessary and useful
for several reasons, among them (l) to provide a basis for
the general improvement of the quality of instruction, (2)
to provide evidence relevant to decisions about retention,
!tenure, and promotion, (3) to provide information to assist
'the teacher in self-improvement, and (4) to provide infor
mation for research into the nature of teaching.
In other words, "A college exists that youth may be
instructed. Its chief function is teaching. Its value is
|in direct proportion to the instruction given." If
I
| ^The Academic Man (New York, 1942), p. 9-
2
H. L. Donovan, "A Faculty Effort in the Improvement
of College Teaching," Peabody Journal of Education, VII
i(March 1930), 259.
| the most general objective of education Is that It culti-
1vate excellence, then the teacher who helps the student
|achieve his optimum Intellectual development Is fulfilling
!this objective.
I
! Evaluation of teaching is concerned with how well the
I teacher does his job. John W. Gustad put it simply: "The
|
| evaluation of teaching consists of finding out what con-
! 4
; tribution the teacher makes to what the student learns.
1 Obviously some teachers are more successful than others in
achieving this general objective as well as those specific
i objectives which may be dictated by the special demands of
different subject matters and educational levels.
j The principal problem confronting the researcher who
I
seeks to develop instruments for the evaluation of teaching
j is defining the term "teaching effectiveness." A dilemma
arises in any attempt to define the term because a general
; definition assumes that teaching is the same in all situa-
!
: tlons, while an operational definition stresses the unique-
i
ness of each teaching situation. At present there are no
1 adequate, concrete, objective criteria for measuring teach-
i
j ing in the classroom that respects the similarities and
i
! ^Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (New York,
| 1959), P. 9.
| 4 it
"Evaluation of Teaching Performance: Issues and Pos
sibilities," in Improving College Teaching, ed. Calvin
B. T. Lee (Washington, d7 C., 1§67), p. 2o0.
i 5
I differences that exist among teaching assignments. If one
I
'uses the classroom situation as the basic unit of study In
i
!an examination of teaching effectiveness, then It appears
i
that the operational definition would be more appropriate.
! The problem is to try to discover which variables influence
|
i the learning situation In terms of the results produced in
any particular classroom.
One method of investigation is concerned with develop-
j
I
, Ing criteria for evaluating teaching effectiveness by meas-
1uring pupil change. Pupil change may take the form of in
creased retention, recall improvement, development of cog
nitive and affective abilities, and any number of other
6
differences of behavior and/or attitude. Differences
j
arise with this method stemming from the inability of the
researcher to Isolate the various types of possible change
; which may take place, the degrees of change, the levels of
i
j subject matter difficulty in terms of heterogeneous student
5
, ^Daniel Solomon, William E. Bezdek, and Larry Rosen-
j berg, Teaching Styles and Learning (Chicago, 1 9 6 3), p. 164.
! 6
I For studies dealing with pupil change see: Robert S.
I Soar, "Methodological Problems in Predicting Teacher Effec-
| tiveness," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXII (Spring
1964), 287-291; Ronald D. Jones, "The Prediction of Teach
ing Efficiency from Objective Measures," Journal of Experi
mental Education, XV (1946), 85-99; William H. Lancelot^
i Arvil S. fearr, Theodore L. Torgerson, Carl E. Johnson,
■ Virgil E. Lyon, Anthony C. Walvoord, and Gilbert Lee Betts,
The Measurement of Teaching Efficiency (New York, 1935);
W. J. McKeachie, Kathryn Loenig, and Roland Tharp, The Ap-
praisal of Teaching in Large Universities (Ann ArboFj 1959).
(grouping, and student ability.
A second method of Investigation of teaching effective
ness is the development of tests of teaching ability. Two
|
;early Instruments of this type were the Knight Aptitude
l 7
|Tests for Elementary and High School Teachers' and the
i
' 8
iMorris Index L. These instruments were developed for use
; i
jprimarily on the elementary and secondary levels. The j
1 limited success of such instruments is probably due to
I
|problems involved in establishing the congruent, concurrent,
and predictive validity of the tests.
! A third method of evaluating teacher effectiveness is
through the use of rating scales administered to supervi
sors, peers, student, and teachers. E. C. Elliott (1910)
;and Arthur C. Boyce (1915) developed two of the earliest
Q
scales for the evaluation of teaching efficiency. A more
recent rating instrument is the Miami Instructor Rating
o
^J. E. Bathurst, F. B. Knight, G. M. Ruch, and Fred
I Telford, Attitude Tests for Elementary and High School
;Teachers (Washington, D. C., 1927).
1 R
i Elizabeth H. Morris, Morris Trait Index L (Blooming-
iton, Illinois, 1 9 2 9).
^J. P. Gordy, Rise and Growth of the Normal School
I Idea in the United States (Washington, D. C., 1B91); E. C.
|Elliott, "A Tentative Scale for the Measurement of Teaching
i Efficiency," Teachers 1 Yearbook of Educational Investlga-
i tlons (New York, 1915)j Arthur C. Boyce, "Methods for Meas-
urlng Teachers 1 Efficiency," Fourteenth Yearbook of the Na-
tlonal Society for the Study of Education (Bloomington,
Illinois, 1915).
! 5
I Sheet which is representative of current scales.^ Rating
i
scales are comprised of a list of general traits supposedly
|desirable for teachers upon which raters pass Judgments.
j
These scales represent a subjective evaluation which is
reliable only when the qualifications of the raters is held
(constant. Establishing the qualifications of the observer/
rater is the most important requisite for use of this type
iof instrument.
A fourth and more recent method of evaluating teaching
effectiveness is through the use of objective personality
measures which attempt to categorize dominant personality
traits. The Minnesota Multlphasic Personality Inventory
11 12
j (MMPI), the Guilford Personality Inventory, and the
! * 1 Q
| Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (l6 P. F.) 0 are
tests of this type. There always has been a concern with
the personal qualities of teachers, and this concern has
| contributed to a growing body of research which makes use
| of the most recent instruments developed in the field of
j 1(^A. W. Bendig, "A Statistical Report on the Revision
i of the Miami Instructor Rating Sheet/' Journal of Educa-
; tlonal Psychology, 43 (November 1952), 423-429.
i ^Grant W. Dahlstrom and George Schalager Welsh, An
MMPI Handbook, A Guide to Use in Clinical Practice and Re
search (Minneapolis, i9b0).
12J. P. Guilford, Personality (New York, 1959).
I
"^Raymond B. Cattell and Herbert W. Eber, Handbook
for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire' (Champalgn,
Illinois, 1952).
|psychology. The results of this research have been encourag
ing though Inconclusive.
I
| More and more research Into teaching effectiveness has
j combined a variety of different instruments in an examina
tion of teaching in a specific situation. The advantage of
{this approach is that one may consider many important vari-
j
Sables which influence the instructional situation. This
j
|method anticipates the possibility that different require
ments might be in operation for teaching success in differ-
■ent subject matter disciplines, at different educational
■ levels, and given different interpersonal communication
I
| situations in education.
! Thus far the results of research into teaching effec-
i
, tiveness are still fragmentary and inconclusive. This out-
I
| come should not be misconstrued as meaning that there has
i
j not been widespread interest in the problems of evaluating
I teacher effectiveness. It is a commentary on the complex-
| ity of the problem.
i
Evaluation of teaching in higher education has grown
i in recent years as a research area. Domas and Tiedman's
i
j annotated bibliography of teacher competences listed 1006
| 1 i i
studies published from 1890 to 1950. A. S. Barr compiled
a summary of 150 of these studies dealing specifically with
- ^Simon J. Domas and David V. Tiedman, "Teacher Com-
! petence: An Annotated Bibliography," Journal of Experimen
tal Education, XIX (December 1950;, 101-218.
jthe measurement and prediction of teaching efficiency.^
I
1 Virtually every major university in America has established
;a research program in this area. Probably the most well
I
jknown center of teaching research has been the University
!of Wisconsin. In 1961 Professor Barr, as project director,
'published the Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Pre-
1 ‘ r 1 ' 1 . - _ . _ r
I
j diction of Teacher Effectiveness, which included a summary
!of 83 studies done at that institution under his direc
tion. ^
As early as 1925 Barr suggested that, "There Is a
strong and growing feeling among those interested in the
improvement of teaching that teaching usually thought of
1 en masse must be analyzed and carefully studied bit by
! 17
bit." ' In the years following he set about doing Just
I i Q i n
jthat. Students and professors from English, mathematics, ^
j ^"The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficien-
j cy: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental
; Education, XVI (June 1948), 16.
16
A. S. Barr and others, The Wisconsin Studies of the
Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness: A Sum
mary of Investigations (Madison, Wisconsin, 1961).
| ■'"^A. S. Barr, "Scientific Analysis of Teaching Proce-
idures," Journal of Educational Methods, IV (1 9 2 5), 360-371.
| n O
Herman A. Estrin and L. Ruth Godwin, "Evaluating
English Teaching," Improving College and University Teach-
1 lng, X (Autumn 1 9 6 2), 193-195.
j "^Martin David Godgart, "The Arithmetic Problem-Solv-
I ing Ability of Teachers as Related to Their Effectiveness
| in Teaching," unpublished dissertation (The University of
I Connecticut, 1964).
I 8
i
1 20 21 22
engineering, speech, government, educational psychol
ogy, to name but a few, began researching teaching effec
tiveness In their various fields of specific Interest. The
| Interest In college teaching was so widespread by the 1950' £ *
I
|that a journal, Improving College and University Teaching,
|was Introduced to provide a medium for exchange of informa-
j
j tlon.
| Researchers In the field of speech communication have
I for sometime concerned themselves with what part speech
24
plays in successful classroom teaching. The emphasis,
!was, and probably is, upon the speech of the teacher rather
1 than on the teacher of speech. The most immediate problem
| ^Herman A. Estrin, "Effective and Ineffective Engine-
! erlng Instructors," Improving College and University Teach-
| lng, XIII (Summer 19 6 5), 137-139.
| ^Leroy Laase, "The Measurement of Instruction in
! Speech," Speech Teacher, VII (January 1958), 47-53-
j 22
| Daniel Soloman, Larry Rosenberg, and William E.
i Bezdek, "Teacher Behavior and Student Learning," Journal of
Educational Psychology, LV (1964), 23-30.
2^Vernon Chadwick Hall, "The Identification and Evalu-
i ation of Teachers in Varying Levels of Teaching Success,"
1 unpublished dissertation (The Ohio State University, 1964).
i 24
I For studies dealing with speech competency and teach
ing effectiveness see: Seth A. Fessenden, The Relation be
tween the Success in Teaching and the Speech Competency of
the Secondary-School Teacher," unpublished dissertation
(New York University, 1941); Ernest H. Henrikson, "Some Re-
1 latlons between Personality, Speech Characteristics and
j Teaching Effectiveness of College Teachers," Speech Mono
graphs (August 1949)> 221-226; and William B. McCoard,
Speech Factors as Related to Teaching Efficiency," Speech
Monographs, XI (1 9 4 4), 63-64.
facing supervisors, students, and teachers of speech commu-
'nication, as well as other disciplines, is the improvement
i
I of the quality of Instruction. In order to bring about
i
[more efficient instruction the researcher is confronted
with the problem of evaluation of present teaching in
speech communication classrooms.
In 1952 the field of speech communication concentrated
|attention on the relationship between its discipline and
I
that of education with the publication of The Speech Teach
er. Though speech teachers share problems in common with
;teachers of other subjects, they have problems which are
| peculiar to their field and classroom situation. Unlike
| the history, psychology, or biology course, the speech
course is more likely to be composed of a small intimate
group of students who share a good deal of their personal
j experience with each other and the teacher.
i
j The beginning public speaking class provides a some-
^ what unique teaching situation. A performance course com
posed of a small group, engaged in continuous dialogue, re-
i veals more personal information than a large lecture class.
1
j It has a fairly consistent format from school to school:
| students choose their own speech subjects and share their
opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and overall personality while
developing their communication skills. This exposure of
j the student draws the teacher Into an intimate relationship
with students.
10
I
| The beginning public speaking course serves more stu
dents than any other speech communication class. At the
|University of Southern California, for Instance, this
I
course enrolls approximately seven hundred students per
year. The course has drawn more attention In professional
|speech communication Journals than any other, because it
i
represents the single most important influence on the col
lege population made by departments of speech communication.
I
,It appears to be the most obvious course requiring research
'study in the field.
In summary, there is considerable concern today with
[the evaluation of university teaching. For better quality
i
|of instruction and improved promotional policies, the de-
I
;velopment of more objective criteria for evaluation of
teaching is imperative. One of the most commonly employed
sources of information about teaching effectiveness has
I
I
!been research into pupil change. Using this method re-
i
| searchers have had considerable difficulty in isolating the
,types and degrees of change, and in controlling the homo-
i geneity of actual classroom samples. A second method of
i
j evaluating teaching has employed the criterion of tests of
teaching ability. These tests are usually of a very gener
al nature, spanning educational levels and subject matter
areas, and the results have been so general as to not dis
criminate efficiently. A third source of information about
teaching effectiveness has been in the form of rating in-
.
11
jstruments. These types of evaluation Instruments, espe-
i
I
; daily those which use student opinions, have produced sub-
i stantial information about what the consumers of education
I
jfeel concerning the quality of their instruction. A fourth
source of information about teaching which holds promise is
the use of personality measures. The establishment of
norms for professional teachers has provided a guideline
for assessing personality traits of teachers as well as
i
! providing a basis for discriminating between influential
■ and non-influential personality types. The last source of
J information about teaching effectiveness has come from re-
I
search done using combined measures. This approach seeks
; those variables which might influence the progress of
i
classroom activities under different circumstances, and
i
then, uses a variety of measurement techniques in order to
j find relationships.
j The combined measures approach to teaching effective-
i ness research appears to be the most promising method. It
i
provides a research design which includes student rating
i instruments, personality measures, and value scales. These
I
I factors appear to be in operation in the speech communica-
| tion classroom situation. The rating scale information
will provide a picture of how the student perceived the in
structor. The personality measures will provide informa-
i
tion which might indicate the influence of factor traits on
rated teaching effectiveness. Measures of values will pro-
12
vide Information which might indicate the influence of
value frames of reference on the attitudes of teachers and
!students. Rating scale opinions, personality measures,
I and value surveys of speech communication teachers can be
i
'compared to the norms established for teachers in general,
i
and for teachers in specific subject matter areas or educa
tional levels. It is also possible to compare the various
measures in terms of the ability to predict one rating in
'terms of another.
As the Interest in research into teaching effective-
!ness developed, the necessity for scientifically controlled
;specialized study became obvious. The province of effi-
!clent teaching has become the domain of each department
concerned with the instruction of college students. The
| field of speech communication is concerned with the quality
jof instruction it provides for its students.
I Nature of the Problem
The two primary sources of Information in an examina-
; tion of teaching effectiveness in classroom situations are
i
jthe students enrolled in the class and the teacher. Astin
I
! and Lee conducted a survey of 1,110 academic deans in which
they found that even though deans, department chairmen, and
professional colleagues have the final say about a profes-
I
sor's teaching ability, their evaluations must be based,
for the most part, on informal opinions from various
. _
1 25
(sources. ^ They concluded that,
i
If the ultimate measure of the teacher's effectiveness
Is his Impact on the student— a view which few educators
! would dispute— It Is unfortunate that those sources of
| information most likely to yield information about this
i influence are least likely to be used. Carefully plan-
| ned systematic student questionnaires offer an insight
| into the impact on the l e a r n e r . 26
|Judging from this and other testimony by researchers in
j the field, it seems important to attempt to use student
i
!evaluations as a source of information about teaching effec-
27
(tiveness.
There is a growing body of information which tends to
i Justify research into the influence of personality on the
I , ,
classroom situation. The personality of the teacher is a
isignificant variable in the classroom. Indeed, some would
(argue it is the most significant variable," said Getzels
! 28
jand Jackson. The teacher's personality does not operate
I in isolation, however, and any consideration of personality
^Alexander W. Astin and Calvin B. T. Lee, "Current
iPractices in the Evaluation and Training of College Teach
ers," in Improving College Teaching (Washington, D. C.,
,1967), pp. 296-311.
26Ibid., p. 2 9 9.
! 2^See James A. Johnson, "Instruction: From the Con-
|sumers' View," in Improving College Teaching (Washington,
D. C., 1 9 6 7), p. 290; and N. L. Gage, "fends and Means in
Appraising College Teaching," in The Appraisal of Teaching
in Large Universities, ed. W. J. Mcfeeachie (Ann Arbor,
!1959), P. 24.
pQ
1 J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, "The Teacher's Per
sonality and Characteristics," in Handbook of Research on
j Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage (Chicago, 1963), p. 506.
I 14
i
i
|should Include both the teacher and the students In an ex
amination of their interpersonal relationships in the
|classroom.
Another variable which is worth consideration in re
searching the nature of the teacher-student relationship
jand teacher effectiveness is attitude. One prominent test
I of values which influence attitude is Gordon's Survey of
! 29
iPersonal Values. ° This test, in conjunction with Gordon's
J s o
Survey of Interpersonal Values, provides a measure of the
motivational patterns in various personal and interpersonal
situations such as in the classroom.
i
The multivariate type approach to research into teach-
|ing effectiveness is based on the premise that each teach-
i
' ing situation has unique qualities. At the 1950 annual
I
I meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association
|
! a committee was established to study the problems involved
! in the identification of the effective teacher. One of
I
■ the initial decisions made by the Committee on the Criteria
of Teacher Effectiveness was "that to define the effective
j teacher as a unitary concept was impossible and that we had
1
I better forget the concept of the 'ideal1 teacher."0 Arvil
i
I
^Leonard V. Gordon, Survey of Personal Values Manual
(Chicago, 1 9 6 7).
■ ^ L e o n a r d y# Gordon, Manual for the Survey of Inter-
| personal Values (Chicago, I960).
•^David G. Ryan and others, "Supplement: Report of the
Barr suggested a reason for this decision; he said that,
; Teaching does not take place in a vacuum; it takes
i place in a very definite tangible situation. This aspect
j of teacher effectiveness is so persuasive that it needs
i more attention than it has yet received. Effectiveness
| does not reside in the teacher per se but in the inter-
! relationship among a number of vital aspects of a learn-
| ing-teaching situation and a teacher. It is common prac
tice to characterize the effective teacher in terms of
qualities of the person; time has seen the emphasis shift
from the teacher per se to the teacher in relation to the
more important aspects of a situation: needs, purposes,
pupils, available means, and the socio-physical environ
ment for learning and teaching. This needs careful con
sideration.32
;By using a combination of objective measuring instruments,
I researchers can focus on those elements which distinguish
|
their teaching situation from others as well as compare
similarities which may exist.
i
j The problem is, then, to examine actual teaching sit-
I
uations in a subject matter discipline by consulting two
sources of information, the students and the teachers. The
types of information the sources provide will be in the
forms of student ratings, teachers' grades, personality fac-
!tors, and attitude measurements of both teachers and stu-
j dents.
Statement of the Problem
The problem for this study was to find what, if any,
relationships exist between personality and attitude vari-
j Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Review
j of Educational Research, XXII (June 1952), 240.
^2Barr and others, The Wisconsin Studies, p. l4l.
jables of teachers and their students which affect their
evaluations of each other.
| The following specific questions were tested in this
I
i study:
; 1. What relationships exist between personality
!
j factors as measured by the Sixteen Personality
! Factor Questionnaire (16 P. F.) and student
1 ratings of teacher effectiveness?
2. What relationships exist between personality
factors as measured by the Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire (l6 P. F.) and teacher
i
j grade ratings of students?
3. What relationships exist between attitude
factors as measured by the Study of Personal
and Interpersonal Values and student ratings
of teacher effectiveness?
4. What relationships exist between attitude fac
tors as measured by the Study of Personal and
Interpersonal Values and teacher grade ratings
of students?
5. What relationships exist between combined at
titude and personality factor measures and
student ratings of teaching effectiveness?
6. What relationships exist between combined
attitude and personality factor measures and
teacher grade ratings of students?
The Sample
The subjects for this study were forty-five beginning
I
public speaking students reporting on nine teaching assis-
I
jtants who were responsible for a course meeting four hours
ja week for sixteen weeks at the University of Southern
j California.
I
Preview of Remaining Chapters
Chapter II of this study will be a review of the lit
erature concerning research into teaching effectiveness.
i
I This chapter will focus on those measuring instruments
!
i pertinent to the design of this study, and will serve as a
I
j Justification for the selection of instruments and proce-
dures.
j Chapter III will review the design of the study and
will provide a detailed description of the sample, materi
als, procedures, and rationale for the design.
Chapter IV will report the results of the study and
!present the tables relating to these findings,
j Chapter V will present the conclusions and implica-
itions of the research.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The presage criteria selected for use In this study
were an outgrowth of a review of the literature on teaching
effectiveness. The general areas of‘ cronsideration In this
|review were divided into the following categories: (l) the
;development and use of student rating instruments, (2) the
Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator, (3) personality as
ja variable in the classroom, (4) the Sixteen Personality
Factor Questlonnalre in teacher effectiveness research,
!
(5) attitudes, values, and temperament as variables in the
classroom, and (6) research into teaching effectiveness in
the field of speech communication.
i
Despite an extensive research campaign into the predic
ation and assessment of teaching effectiveness, researchers
I agree that very limited progress has been made.'1 ' The num-
"^See Question: Who's A Good Teacher? (Washington,
D. C., 1961)j H. A. Levin, "New Perspective on Teacher Com
petence Research," Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (1954),
98-105j H. E. Mitzel, ''Teacher Effectiveness," Encyclopedia
of Educational Research. 3rd ed. (New York, i9 6 0), 1481-
148E; H. H. Remmers e~t~al. . "Second Report of the Committee
|on Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educa-
!tional Research, XLVI (l953)i 641-658; and D. V. Tiedeman
I '
18
!ber of studies in which objective procedures for evaluation
i
have been used represent only a small fraction of the to-
2
■tal, and of these, only recently have subject matter dis
ciplines been taken into account.
As in most other areas of research, one of the major
problems in researching teaching effectiveness has been the
definition of terms. In this instance, one must begin with
the question: "What is good teaching?" It involves a value
Judgment, not a scientific one.^ Professor H. A. Levin
warns that "Science can tell us how to get there, but not
where to go."^ There are two questions implied in asking
what is good teaching. The first question is concerned
]
with the goals of education. The second question is con
cerned with how well a teacher meets the goals of educa
tion. It seems equally true that what is good teaching in
one field or level of education may not be considered good
teaching in another. Until each field and level of educa-
|and M. Cogan, "New Horizons in Educational Research," Phi
Delta Kappan, XXIX (1958), 286-291.
2J. E. Morsh and Eleanor W. Wilder, "Identifying the
Effective Instructor-: A Review of the Quantitative Studies,
1900-1952," Research Bulletin, AFPTRC-TR-54-44 (San Anto
nio, Texas, 1954).
^Robert S. Soar, "Methodological Problems in Predict
ing Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Educa
tion, 32 (Spring 1964), 2 8 7.
^"New Perspective on Teacher Competence Research,"
Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (1954), 99.
|tion has been thoroughly researched there is no way to make
such a judgment.
This review of the literature is focused on research
I
that involved the variables selected for use in this study.
It is intended to serve as a Justification for the selec
tion of the criteria to be tested. Representative samples
of research are presented in each of the major areas of
consideration in order to provide a basis for that selec
tion. A complete description of the test instruments dis
cussed in this chapter is provided in the following chapter
!
which discusses the design of the study.
I
j The Development and Use of
Student Rating Instruments
A very good case can be made for the use of student
ratings of instructors as part of the criteria for evaluat
ing teaching effectiveness. Students make value Judgments
about their teachers whether or not they are formally tabu
lated. These Judgments are, often as not, passed around in
i
|the form of gossip from one student to another in terms of
|positive or negative recommendations. This type of hear
say evidence often reaches the ears of colleagues and ad
ministrators, and even though it may have questionable va
lidity, if often becomes the basis of their opinions about
5
a teacher's instructional efficiency. According to H. R.
i
|
i ^See Roy C. Bryan, "A Study of Student Ratings of Col-
!lege and Secondary-School Teachers," Educational Admlnls-
21
Douglass,
' It also seems reasonable that it Is much more scien
tific and reliable to collect the opinions of a large
and representative number of students, rather than to
place reliance upon the few chance remarks upon occasions
which may in themselves color these remarks.°
As consumers of the teachers' efforts the students
seem to be In the best position to judge the effectiveness
7
of their instruction.1 Students alone observe the teacher
at work day after day. Students are competent to Judge the
interest and value, to them, that an instructor is able to
I
I generate toward a course of instruction. They may also
provide valuable insight for the teacher which he might not
become aware of without their assistance. It Is also en
couraging to note that the collection of systematic student
ratings of instructors may be carried on easily and at no
8
great expense.
Ellisworth Barnard asked the question, "If those who
are being taught do not know the good teachers from the poor
Itration and Supervision. 19 (1933)> 290: E. R. Guthrie,
^'Measuring Student Opinion of Teachers, School and Society,
25 (1 9 2 7), 175; and W. J. McKeachie and D. Solomon, "Stu-
dent Ratings of Instructors: A Validity Study," Journal of
Educational Research, 51 (1958), 379.
£
"Rating and Teaching Effectiveness of College In
structors," School and Society, 28 (1 9 2 8), 1 9 6.
^Richard R. Renner, "A Successful Rating Scale," Im-
provlng College and University Teaching, XV (Winter 195T) >
12.
Q
Lloyd E. Blauch, Teaching in College and Universities
(Indianapolis, 19^5), p. 325.
| 22
I
ones, then who does?"^ There are those who would object to
student ratings on the grounds that they are Immature and
I
I prejudiced; that such things as grades, emotional attitudes,
!
;degree of difficulty of the course, and amount of work re
quired distort a student's Judgment.'1 '® Many of these ob
jections appear to accrue from the fear that sbudent rat
ings might become the only criterion for evaluation of
teachers. This would appear to be an unwarranted fear.
A. W. Bendig answered this objection by saying,
I It is not, nor is it now, proposed that student rat
ings of instructors should constitute the single crlte-
I rion of teaching effectiveness. However, if we view the
j student in introductory psychology as part of the con-
j suming public for our teaching efforts then the students'
| appreciation of the characteristics of the teacher should
partially influence our evaluation.H
; In answer to some of the other previously cited objec-
I
tions to the use of student ratings of instructors, which
are primarily concerned with the reliability and validity
of such instruments, there is considerable reassuring evi
dence. John Riley and his associates reported that they
j found that the ratings given college instructors by their
^"M ore Thoughts on the Grading of Professors," Ameri
can Association of University Professors, 31 (Summer 1945)*
2W .
■^See Blauch, p. 325; and M. L. Pretzman, "Student
Rating of College Teachers," School and Society, 29 (1929)*
514.
■^A. W. Bendig, "The Use of Student-Rating Scales in
the Evaluation of Instructors in Introductory Psychology,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, 43 (March 1952), 172.
|students were consistent with those made by trained, experi
enced observers, and that the quality of work done by a stu-
jdent in the course did not significantly affect his rating
! ip
of the instructor. A study conducted by Ward, Remmers,
1 *3 14
and Smalzeid J and one by Boardman yielded results which
tend to confirm the findings of Riley.
H. H. Remmers conducted a study at Purdue University
in which he concluded that grades do not influence the rat-
15
ings students give to their instructors. The results of
|a study by Morris1^ and another by Heilman and Armentrout1^
; - l Q
|confirmed the findings of Remmers. Each of these studies
j "^John W. Riley Jr., Bruce F. Ryan, and Martha Lif-
|shitz, The Student Looks at His Teacher (New Brunswick,
|1950), p. 47.
^w. D. Ward, H. H. Remmers, and N. T. Smalzeid, ! , The
Training of Teaching Personality by Means of Student Rat
ings," School and Society, 53 (l94l), 189-192.
1^Charles Boardman, "An Analysis of Pupil Ratings of
High School Teachers," Educational Administration and Su
pervision, 16 (1930), 440-446.
j 1^H. H. Remmers, "The College Professor as the Student
| Sees Him," Studies in Higher Education, No. XI Purdue Unl-
! verslty, XXIX (LafayetteJ Indiana, 1929), 294-298.
i 1 c
J. L. V. Morris, "Student Ratings of Teachers,"
Northwestern State Teachers College (Alva, Oklahoma, 1 9 2 8),
unpublished paper, 7.
■^J. D. Heilman and W. D. Armentrout, "The Rating of
College Teachers on Ten Traits by Their Students," Journal
of Educational Psychology, 27 (1936), 197-216.
^®H. H. Remmers and D. N. Elliott, "The Indiana Col-
! lege and University Staff-Evaluation Program," School and
I Society, 70 (1949); 168-171.
jreported no significant results in samples drawn from secon
dary and college level students.
Some critics of student ratings of instructors were
concerned with the possibility that students rate popular
professors high and disliked professors low on all traits.
Remmers and Stalnaker reported that,
The halo effect is unimportant when viewed from the
standpoint of reliability of a single trait. Each trait
adds to the total picture of the instructor as Judged by
students. . . . The technique for determining the amount
of this factor of halo effect is that of inter-correla-
tion of all the traits, i.e., the correlation of each
: trait with each of the other traits. The average of
forty-five inter-correlations based on the ratings of
ninety-four students was found to be plus 0.3666.
Clearly this indicated a gratifying absence of the halo
effect. One would expect some positive correlation
among these traits if there were no halo effect whatso
ever. 19
J. A. Starrak reported results which paralleled those
of Remmers and Stalnaker; he concluded that "while halo ef
fect may be operative in the case of the scale used in this
investigation, it does not prohibit the student from exer
cising considerable discrimination between the different
20
|traits on the scale." Thus Starrak maintains that though
!
jhe found no halo effect it might, in fact, exist but had
relatively little effect on the final outcome.
^H. H. Remmers and J. M. Stalnaker, "Can Students
Discriminate Traits Associated with Success in Teaching,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 12 (December 1928), 602-610.
2®"Student Rating of Instruction," Journal of Higher
Education, 5 (1934), 8 9.
j 25
j Even though there is still a tendency by some academi
cians to question the use of student evaluations as a cri-
jterion for evaluating teaching effectiveness, most of the
i
j specific objections by critics have been sufficiently re-
!
searched to justify the validity and reliability of such
21 i
measures. !
Many advocates of student ratings believe that the
real value of these measures is that they provide informa
tion about student attitudes. "We know, for example, that
1 I
iin connection with one of the fundamental laws of learning,
i
the law of effect, the attitude of the pupil is fundamen-
22
tal." This assumption goes beyond the problem of teacher
effectiveness research though it is obviously applicable.
Thorndike's assumption that an attitude of satisfaction or
annoyance is conducive to all learning applies directly to
the arguments in favor of using student opinions as one
part of a teaching effectiveness criterion. J
I
i
j 0*1
See Winfield D. Armentrout, "Relation of Class Size
and Other Factors to Student Ratings of Teachers," Journal
of Teacher Education, 1 (June 1950), 102; Guthrie, pT 176;
J. D. McComas, "'Profiles of Teachers," Improving College
and University Teaching, XIII (Summer 1$65), 13°J Wilbert
J. McKeachie, "Student Ratings of Faculty: A Research Re
view. " Improving College and University Teaching, 5 (Winter
1957/9 6; and a7 R. ftoot, "Student Ratings of Teachers,"
Journal of Higher Education, 2 (1931)* 315.
I 22
Bryan, p. 299.
l. Detchen, "Shall the Student Rate the Teacher,"
Journal of Higher Education, II (19^0), 146.
26
The popularity of student ratings is undeniable. The
!use of student rating instruments began in the 1 9 2 0's and
progressed to the point that by 1950 Francis J. Mueller
reported that approximately forty percent of all American
colleges and universities had used student evaluations as
oil
one of the criteria for judging teaching effectiveness.
Many rating forms carry the names of the institutions where
they were developed. The most well known, thoroughly re
searched, and frequently used student rating form is the
Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors developed in 1927.
From an initial study conducted by E. R. Guthrie in 1925 at
the University of Washington, another widely used rating
scale was developed. The University of Washington has
had one of the longest histories of use of student rating
instruments. Other well known university rating scales
27
were developed at Miami University, 1 the University
i
J "Trends in Student Ratings of Faculty," American
Association of University Professors' Bulletin, 37 (l95l)j
3 2 0.
25r. H. Remmers and G. C. Brandenburg, "Experimental
Data on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," Educa
tional Administration and Supervision, 13 (1 9 2 7), 519-527.
26Guthrie, pp. 175-176.
2?C. W. Crannel, "An Experiment in the Rating of In
structors by Their Students," College and University, 23
(1948), 5-11 and A. W. Bendig, "A Statistical Report on the
Revision of the Miami Instructor Rating Sheet," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 43 (November 1952), 423-429.
25
Even though there is still a tendency by some academi
cians to question the use of student evaluations as a cri
terion for evaluating teaching effectiveness, most of the
specific objections by critics have been sufficiently re
searched to Justify the validity and reliability of such
21
measures.
Many advocates of student ratings believe that the
real value of these measures is that they provide informa
tion about student attitudes. "We know, for example, that
in connection with one of the fundamental laws of learning,
the law of effect, the attitude of the pupil is fundamen-
22
tal." This assumption goes beyond the problem of teacher
effectiveness research though it is obviously applicable.
Thorndike's assumption that an attitude of satisfaction or
annoyance is conducive to all learning applies directly to
the arguments in favor of using student opinions as one
23
part of a teaching effectiveness criterion. J
21See Winfield D. Armentrout, "Relation of Class Size
and Other Factors to Student Ratings of Teachers," Journal
of Teacher Education, 1 (June 1950), 102j Guthrie, p. 176;
J. D. McComas, "'Profiles of Teachers," Improving College
and University Teaching, XIII (Summer 1905)> 13&J Wilbert
J. McKeachie, "Student Ratings of Faculty: A Research Re
view." Improving College and University Teaching, 5 (Winter
1957J* Bj and AT R. Root, "Student Ratings of Teachers,"
Journal of Higher Education, 2 (l93l)j 315.
22
Bryan, p. 299.
23L. Detcnen, "Shall the Student Rate the Teacher,"
Journal of Higher Education, II (194-0), 146.
26
The popularity of student ratings Is undeniable. The
use of student rating Instruments began In the 1 9 2 0's and
I progressed to the point that by 1950 Francis J. Mueller
reported that approximately forty percent of all American
colleges and universities had used student evaluations as
Oil
one of the criteria for Judging teaching effectiveness.
Many rating forms carry the names of the institutions where
they were developed. The most well known, thoroughly re
searched, and frequently used student rating form is the
1 25
Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors developed in 1927.
From an initial study conducted by E. R. Guthrie in 1925 at
the University of Washington, another widely used rating
26
scale was developed. The University of Washington has
had one of the longest histories of use of student rating
instruments. Other well known university rating scales
27
were developed at Miami University, 1 the University
i P i l
; "Trends in Student Ratings of Faculty," American
jAssociation of University Professors' Bulletin, 37 (1951)>
3 2 0.
25H. H. Remmers and G. C. Brandenburg, "Experimental
Data on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," Educa
tional Administration and Supervision, 13 (1 9 2 7), 519-527.
2^Guthrie, pp. 175-176.
2?C. W. Crannel, "An Experiment in the Rating of In
structors by Their Students," College and University, 23
(1948), 5-11 and A. W. Bendig, "A Statistical Report on the
Revision of the Miami Instructor Rating Sheet," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 43 (November 1 9 5 2), 423-429-
27
qQ q q
of Pittsburgh, and Grinnell College ~ to name Just a few.
Carl L. Anderson provided a typical report of university
experience with student rating instruments when he said,
Appraisal of teaching by students on a campus-wide
basis has existed at Oregon State College since 1948.
While objections have been expressed, chiefly by faculty
members who have not used the form, the plan of appraisal
of teaching is regarded as useful thus far, and likely to
continue so.30
Estrin and Godwin stated that, from their examination
of over seventeen years of experience with student evalua-
i tlons at Neward College of Engineering, faculty members
'
j usually preferred evaluation by students to those of other
SI
faculty members.
The popularity of student evaluations of instructors
has not been confined to faculty members or institutional
investigating teams alone. James A. Johnson, an officer
of the National Student Association's Student Government
Information Service, reported that in the academic year of
1965-66 alone, that office received over a hundred requests
28Bendig, p. 423.
29G. D. Lovell and C. P. Haner, "Forced-Choice Applied
to College Faculty Ratings," Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 15 (1955)* 291-304.
3®"The Student Looks at His Learning," Improving Col
lege and University Teaching, 64 (August 1954J, 6 3.
^Herman A. Estrin and L. Ruth Godwin, "Evaluating
English Teaching," Improving College and University Teach
ing, 10 (Autumn 1 9 6 2), 193•
28
82
for information about course and teacher evaluation.
Student organizations across the country have taken it upon
themselves to conduct programs of faculty evaluation using
student questionnaires. Often the results of this research
has been presented in student published handbooks which have
served as a guide for course and instructor selection.
The most obviously important question about the value
of student ratings of instructors is concerned with what
kind of information they provide. In the fall of 1928 an
I extensive investigation carried on at Iowa State College
i
concluded that substantial improvement in the personal fit
ness and teaching ability of college teachers may be brought
I
about by using systematic and orderly data gathering. In
seventy-five percent of the cases studied student opinions
88
agreed with those of expert judges. J
Many very early studies of student ratings had their
primary value purely as an accumulation of opinions without
raising the issue of the validity of those opinions. A
|1929 study of 960 classes at the University of Washington
j conducted by A. W. Wilson was one of these early studies.
| This non-standardized instrument consisted of a rating
blank containing five topics. Wilson commented on this
■^"Instruction: Prom the Consumer's View," in Calvin
B. T. Lee (ed.), Improving College Teaching (Washington,
D. C., 1967), P. 290.
•^Starrak, p. 8 9.
29
study.
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.34-
Preliminary to the construction and testing of student
rating Instruments some researchers asked groups of students
to enumerate qualities which they desired in their instruc
tors. R. J. Clinton conducted a study of desirable in
structor qualities in 1930 by using 177 reporting students.
I
|Counting the frequency of occurrence of the listed qualities
!he constructed a list of seventeen instructor qualities,
the first five of which were: (l) thorough knowledge of the
i
jsubject, (2) pleasing personality, (3) neatness of appear
ance and in work, (4) fairness to all students, and (5) kind
•3(5
and sympathetic. ^ Another study based on the findings of
Clinton was completed in 1940 by W. A. Bousfield.^ This
researcher began with the same basic format as did Clinton
and then expanded it to include an administered scale.
Bousfield's findings substantiated those of Clinton, though
i
jhis five most frequently reported qualities were: (l) in
terest in students, (2) fairness, (3) pleasing personality,
! oil
J A. W. Wilson, "Students Rating Teachers," Journal of
Higher Education, 3 (1932), 79.
^"Qualities College Students Desire in College In
structors," School and Society, 32 (1930), 702.
•^"Student Ratings of Qualities Considered Desirable
in College Professors," School and Society, 51 (1940), 253-
256.
30
(4) sense of humor, and (5) mastery of subject. Bousfield
then constructed a scale of nineteen qualities which he ad-
i
ministered to 507 students from Tufts and the University of
Connecticut. The most frequently selected qualities, from
the original nineteen, were: (l) fairness, (2) mastery of
subject, (3) interesting presentation of material, (4) well-
organized, and (5) clearness of exposition.^ From these
data it would appear that the student is concerned with the
teacher's response as well as about the teacher's subject.
I The student looks for a teacher who can stir him as well as
1
q Q
inform him. This type of research was initial in the de
velopment of the "ideal" teacher concept. Quick and Wolfe
at the University of Oregon arrived at ten popular ratings
of the ideal professor and developed a questionnaire from
these data. This questionnaire was administered to 307
students, 46.4 percent of the student population at Phil
ander Smith College; the result was these five most impor
tant requirements for effective teaching: (l) has a good
| knowledge of his subject, (2) is a careful evaluator— his
tests are fair, sound, and complete and his grading is im
partial, (3) has the ability to explain clearly, (4) has
the subject matter and the course well-organized, and ( 5)
^^Bousfield, p. 255.
3®Richard K. Morton, "Students' Views of Teaching,"
Improving College and University Teaching, XIII (Summer
1965), 140.
31
likes college-age youth and is interested in them as in-
•aq
dividuals. ^ The agreement of students on these various
rating instruments has been undeniably established and has
served as a basis for the development of standardized stu
dent opinion questionnaires.
Research into demographic characteristics as they per
tain to student ratings has been somewhat contradictory.
4.0 4i
Remmers found that such variables as age and sex of
raters had no significant influence on their ratings. Mor-
j ton found that the age and sex of students had an influence
I 4 2
on the hierarchies of their ratings. The experience of
students seems to have an influence on their ratings. Rem
mers and Elliott found that graduate students rate their
43
teachers higher than do undergraduates.
No substantial agreement has been found in research
into questions about the influence of teacher characteris
tics and their rated effectiveness by students. Remmers
and Elliott found that the sex of the instructor had no
|
G. Pogue Jr., "Students' Ratings on the Ideal
Teacher," Improving College and University Teaching, XV
(Spring 1967;> 133-135.
4o
Remmers, 1930, pp. 27-35.
^Remmers and Elliott, pp. 168-171.
ho
Morton, 1965* p. l4l.
^Remmers and Elliott, pp. 168-171.
32
2ili
influence on the ratings given them by their students.
However, Brown found that students seemed to be signifi
cantly more favorable in their attitudes toward the female
teacher. Pupil ratings of behavioral characteristics of
teachers were found to be related to the teacher's sex,
teaching experience, teaching field, and to the interaction
effect of sex by teaching field. According to Brown, from
the students' viewpoint, the experienced teacher was sig
nificantly more knowledgeable and poised than the beginning
teacher. Brown's findings in regard to an instructor's
rank, complemented those of Elliott. Elliott found that
instructors with Bachelor's degrees rated lower than those
with Master's and Doctorates, and that older teachers
46
tended to be rated lower by younger students.
The relationship of student ability and their rating
of teacher effectiveness was researched by Elliott and his
47
findings were confirmed by Russell several years later. 1
^Ibid., pp. 168-171.
j ^Iva Dinkins Brown, "Role Perceptions of Secondary
Teachers as Related to Pupils' Perceptions of Teacher Be-
I havior Characteristics," unpublished dissertation (Univer
sity of Georgia, 1 9 6 5).
4 f?
D. N. Elliott, "Characteristics and Relationships of
Various Criteria of Teaching," unpublished dissertation
(Purdue University, 1949).
^H. E. Russell, "Inter-relations of Some Indices of
Instructor Effectiveness: An Exploratory Study," unpub
lished dissertation (University of Pittsburg, 1951).
33
Elliott found that certain instructors were relatively more
effective in stimulating achievement in low-ability stu
dents than in high-ability students, while other instruc
tors were more effective with high-ability students. In
structors who were more effective with low-ability students
48
were rated higher by those students and vice versa. Fol
lowing these findings one researcher at Columbia University
constructed a study of rating instruments that discriminated
the individualizing versus the non-individualizing teacher,
jIn this study the author concluded that an important image
i
of the superior teacher is that he is an individualizing
teacher, and that appropriate instruments should be con-
4q
structed to gather this kind of information. 7
The development of a forced-choice type of rating
instrument seems to have had successful results. Patton
and Meyer completed a study at the University of Akron
which was based on a forced-choice type of measuring in
strument in which they concluded,
| A scale of the forced choice type shows ability to
discriminate good and poor teachers with very little
overlapping. It is believed that such a scale, con
sisting of favorable items describing specific teacher
behavior, can answer faculty complaints that student
ratings are too general, too carelessly made, or too
embarrassing. The forced choice scale shows greater
^Elliott, 1949, p. 114.
^Charles e. Danwski, "An Analysis of Some Character
istics of Teachers of Small Classes," unpublished disserta
tion (Columbia University, 1964).
34
resistance to faking than other t y p e s . 5 0
I The development of rating Instruments has been an out
growth of the commitment to the Idea that the quality of the
teaching Is the measure of the success of the college. The
Official Group Reports of the Fifth Annual National Confer
ence on Higher Education reports In 1950 that,
It Is generally believed that student rating Is valu
able In any comprehensive evaluation program. The fact
that by one operation It Is possible to gather many opin
ions, arrived at over a long period of observation by the
subjects of the Instruction, minimizes, to some extent,
the danger of unqualified or careless o b s e r v a t i o n .51
One conclusion from research Into the development and use
of student rating instruments Is unavoidable, that more in
formation about teaching is gained by using student evalua-
I
tions than by Ignoring them.
The Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator
pro
The Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator (PIPI)
has been in use for over thirty years and is a forced-
choice type of rating instrument. There is an abundance of
| normative data available for this instrument and its almost
I Rollin M. Patton and Priscilla R. Meyer, "A Forced
Choice Rating Form for College Teachers," Journal of Educa-
! tlonal Psychology, 46 (December 1955)> 502.
51
Donald F. Drummond, "Evaluating the Services of the
Faculty Members," Current Issues in Higher Education (Wash
ington, D. C., 1950), 150.
(50
This instrument has undergone several name changes.
The most popular name was the Purdue Instructor Rating
Scale.
35
continuous revising has made it a standard in teaching ef-
jfectiveness research.
In the early stages of the development of the Purdue
Instructor Performance Indicator Remmers and Brandenburg
provided initial justification for their development of the
research instrument with this reasoning:
In many cases it will be granted that the students'
interest in, and attitude toward a given course is con
ditioned largely by his personal reactions to the in
structor. Whether the students' Judgment is correct or
not is another matter. The point is that his Judgment
of his instructor is a factor in itself in the total
| learning situation. Moreover it is a most vital factor.
J Probably aside from the learner's general intelligence
it is the most important element in the situation.53
Some of the early questions to be tested with the PIPI
were concerned with what student variables influence their
ratings of instructors. Remmers (1 9 2 8) found that there
was no noticeable tendency for students to vary their rat
ings of an instructor with the kind of marks they received
from that instructor. Also there was no appreciable tend
ency for students to vary their ratings for any single
trait for all instructors, which was in general agreement
54
with an earlier study by Remmers and Stalnaker. Finally,
Remmers found that there was no tendency for students to be
indiscriminate among the various traits for a given instruc-
55
'^Remmers and Brandenburg, p. 527.
C |l
3 Remmers and Stalnaker, pp. 602-610.
36
f c o r . 5 5
During the spring of 1935 teachers at Colorado State
College of Education engaged in a campus-wide investigation
of teaching effectiveness using the PIPI. Forty-six teach
ers were rated by some fifty classes ranging in size from
seventeen to one hundred and twenty-one. The total number
of ratings completed were 1,115. The results of this study
indicated that the factors of class size, severity of grad
ing, traits measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inven-
i
jtory, the student's interest in the course, the sex of the
|
jteacher, and the maturity of the rater had no significant
]influence on the ratings given the instructor by his stu
dents. The reliability of the PIPI in this study was esti-
56
mated to be 0.75 by its authors.
Remmers and Elliott conducted a study of fourteen in-
57
stitutions of higher learning^' in which they administered
j t Q
the PIPI to 26,014 students reporting on 460 instructors.
They collected data concerning the student raters' class in
I
-^H. H. Remmers, "The Relationship between Marks and
Student Attitude Toward Instructor," School and Society, 28
(1928) , 760.
-^Heilman and Armentrout, pp. 197-216.
-^These were: Anderson College, Canterbury College,
Earlham College, Evansville College, Goshen College, Han
over College, Huntington College, Indiana Central College,
Indiana Technical College, Manchester College, Marian Col
lege, Marion College, Purdue University, and St. Joseph's
College.
-^Remmers and Elliott, pp. 168-171.
37
school, sex, veteran or nonveteran status, and scholastic
achievement Information as to whether each student was In
the upper or lower portion of the class they rated. These
factors were found to have no general effect upon the stu
dent ratings, the only exception being that graduate stu
dents tended to rate their Instructors higher than did
undergraduate students. One of the most Interesting con
clusions made by the authors of this study was that "the
ratings given a teacher must be evaluated In terms of the
|peculiar teaching situation In which the ratings are made,
It Is hazardous to evaluate any teacher's ratings In an
absolute fashion. ^
The ten items of the PIPI have had the benefit, fortu
nately, of continued factor analysis and revision. The
first study was conducted by Smalzreid and Remmers in 19^-3
60
using student ratings of forty high school teachers. The
second study analyzed sixty-five Instructors at Purdue Uni-
fin
versity in 1950, while the third study was done at the
1
| University of Pittsburgh using eleven instructors in 195^
|
t
59Ibld., p. 170.
A
N. T. Smalzeid and H. H. Remmers, "A Factor Analysis
of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 3^ (193^)* 363-367*
* 1
J. A. Creager, "A Multiple Factor Analysis of the
Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," unpublished thesis
(Purdue University, 1950).
33
62
by A. W. Bendig. These studies all found agreement on
two major factors of the PIPI. One of these Items was con
cerned with the sympathetic attitude of the instructor to
ward the students and his fairness in grading. The other
items was concerned with the teacher's self-reliance and
confidence, presentation of subject matter, and interest in
his subject.
One necessity In using student scales as a diagnostic
tool is normative data. A single score on any test has no
jmeaning unless there Is a standard for comparison. Scores
I
i
are high or low in comparison to other scores on the same
test. Normative data Is collected by grouping scores on
tests according to the characteristics of the test takers.
The PIPI has normative data for instructors in many differ-
■
ent subject matter areas. Remmers and Baker provided some
normative data for instructors based on a sample of mean
ratings from two hundred Purdue University students In
1952.^ Further studies in different subject matter areas
| will aid in establishing percentile norms for even more
!fields.
i
Over the years some objections have been raised with
6 2
"A Factor Analysis of Student Ratings of Psychology
Instructors on the Purdue Scale," Journal of Educational
Psychology, 45 (1954), 385-393.
■^H. H. Remmers and P. C. Baker, Manual of Instruc
tions for the Purdue Rating Scale for Instruction (La-
feyette, Indiana, 1952).
39
regard to the permanence and maturity of student ratings.
I
Studies have previously been reported which dealt with the
relationship of student ages to their ratings; however,
these studies used samples of students who were still en
rolled in school. In 1951 Drucker and Remmers conducted a
study using the PIPI in which they sought to compare the
ratings of students with those of alumni who were removed
64
from the academic situation. The sample was composed of
one hundred and thirty-eight alumni of at least ten years'
I
jstanding and two hundred and fifty-one then current under
graduates. The investigators found that there was substan-
i
tial agreement between the ratings of instructors from these
two groups. Undergraduates tended to rate the instructors
slightly higher than did the alumni; however, the differ
ences were not practically significant. This study pre
sented evidence to substantiate the claim that student
raters using the PIPI make valid evaluations of their in
structors in terms of permanence and maturity.
| Probably the most fundamental question about a testing
i 65
instrument is its validity. Prom studies of Remmers,
A. J. Drucker and H. H. Remmers, "Do Alumni and Stu
dents Differ in Their Attitudes Toward Instructors?" Jour
nal of Educational Psychology, 42 (March 1951), 129-143.
^R. H. Remmers, The Purdue Rating Scale for Instruc
tion (Lafeyette, Indiana^ 1930), p. 5•
40
Cronbach,^ Davenport, ^ and Remmers and Gage^® there ap
pears to be little doubt that the PIPI does, in fact, meas
ure what it purports to measure. Snedeker and Remmers sum
marize the PIPI's validity and reliability:
Granting full cognizance to the extensive pre-valida
tion procedures used in the construction of the Purdue
Instructor Performance Indicator, plus the absence of any
pure independent criterion measure, led to the adoption
of the idea that for the purposes contemplated in the use
of this scale the statistically determined evidences of
reliability presented would be equivalent to the scale's
validity. Hence, validity and reliability for the pur
poses of this scale are synonymous.69
t
i In the final analysis, the Purdue Instructor Perform-
j
ance Indicator is the most reliable and valid measure of
student opinion of college instructors now available for
use in research and was, accordingly, selected for use in
this study.
Personality as a Variable in the Classroom
The idea that the best way to send an idea is to wrap
it in a person probably did not originate with Phillip
iBrooks when he described preaching as "truth through per-
L. J. Cronbach, Essentials of Psychological Testing
(New York, 1949).
^ K. Davenport, Purdue University Studies in Higher
Education (Purdue University, 1944).
H. H. Remmers and N. L. Gage, Educational Measure
ment and Evaluation (New York, 1955)> pp. 124-125.
6 q
^John H. Snedeker and H. H. Remmers, Manual for the
Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator (West Lafeyette,
Indiana, I960), p. b.
41
sonality"; however, his concern for personality as a vari
able in the learning situation was not long in finding its
way into the minds of educational researchers. At approxi
mately the same time as the initial interest in student
rating instruments became widespread among educational re
searchers, concern with the impact of student and teacher
personality on the learning situation began to appear in
the literature. C. C. Crawford, in an article on defects
and difficulties in college teaching, cited personality as
one area of concern in 1928.^® A. R. Root did a study of
student-teacher rapport in 1934 in which he cited personal
ity factors as being instrumental in establishing a posl-
71
tive or negative classroom atmosphere.1 A landmark study,
The Measurement of Teaching Efficiency, published in 1935
by Lancelot, Barr, Torgerson, Johnson, Lyon, Walvoord, and
Betts theorized that pupil change might be affected by the
72
influence of the teacher's personality. As Torgeson put
it two years later, "the fundamental importance of the
jteacher-pupil relationship is self-evident because it is
j
(essential to the promotion of optimum conditions for learn-
^"Defects and Difficulties in College Teaching, "
School and Society, 23 (1 9 2 8), 497-502.
"^"Student-Teacher Rapport," Journal of Higher Educa
tion, 5 (1934), 133-135.
"^William H. Lancelot, et al., The Measurement of
Teaching Efficiency (New York, 1935).
42
ing."^ In one of the earliest of the Wisconsin studies of
teaching effectiveness, Avril S. Barr stated:
Personality is an important factor in teaching success.
Teaching is or should be a very human undertaking. The
emotional stability of the teacher; her social adjustment;
her energy, vitality, and enthusiasm; her personal appear
ance and habits; the richess of her experience and back
ground; skill in expression; and ability to work with
others effectively all bear directly upon the effective
ness of the teacher. This is probably Just another way of
saying that the teacher brings her whole self to teach
ing. 74
Supporting the claims of Torgeson and Barr, Robert Bush
!hypothesized that in any given student-teacher relation-
!ship, a positive feeling by the pupil for his teacher is
i
probably more significant in promoting learning than is a
positive personal feeling by the teacher toward the pupil.^
Much related literature was concerned with the analy
sis of the personality traits of an effective teacher.
Witty found that effective teachers possessed more than an
tjC
average amount of emotional stability traits.' Tiedman
surmised as a result of his research that if pupils and
their teacher work in harmony with a mutual feeling of
i
|
j ^T. S. Torgeson, "The Measurement and Prediction of
Teaching Ability," Review of Education Research, 7 (1937).
246.
^"The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability," Journal
of Educational Research, 33 (May 1940), 6 8 3.
^ The Teacher-Pupll Relationship (New York, 1954), 186-'
187.
^Paul A. Witty, "Some Characteristics of the Effec
tive Teacher," Educational Administration and Supervision,
36 (April 1950), 193-208.
43
understanding and cooperation, a friendly atmosphere will
77
result which is conducive to effective learning.1'
Thus it appears that a class of students Is not an
Inert force, but a collection of individuals each of whom
has an influence on the basic nature of the group. During
each class meeting the influence of each personality, espe
cially that of the teacher, plays a part in the learning
situation which takes place.
Various measuring instruments have been constructed
for the purpose of studying personality. These may be
grouped broadly in three main categories; namely, objective
tests, biographical and life-record data, and the so-called
self-rating scales and inventories. Cattell maintains that
any sufficiently broad and Important personality trait will
70
show Itself almost equally well in any of these media.1 ^
For the purposes of educational research, the objective
test of personality seems to be the best form in terms of
economy of time and finance. A second reason for selecting
^Stuart C. Tiedman, "A Study of Pupil-Teacher Rela
tionships," Journal of Educational Research, 35 (May 1942),
657-664.
"^Russell M. Cooper, et al., Portfolio of College
Teaching Techniques (New York, 1951)> p. bl.
^R. B. Cattell, "The Main Personality Factors in
Questionnaire, Self-Rating Material," Journal of Social
Psychology, 31 (1950), 3-38 and R. B. Cattell and D. R.
Sanders, The Matching of Personality Factors in Objective
Rating, Questionnaires, and Objective Test Media," Journal
of Social Psychology, 31 (1950), 243-260.
44
objective tests is that they have been subjected to statis
tical procedures for measuring their reliability and valid
ity.
The number of objective personality instruments being
used in educational research into the nature of teaching
effectiveness has been steadily growing in recent years.
One of the most widely used personality instruments in ed
ucational research has been the Minnesota Multlphaslc Per
sonality Inventory (MMPI). Since its development in 19^0
I the MMPI has steadily widened its circle of influence until
j in the early 1960's the instrument was reported being used
RO
in over a hundred research studies a year. The MMPI was
j constructed to give a measure which would discriminate be-
j tween "normal" subjects and various types of psychiatric
patients. It was developed as a clinical Instrument for
the prediction of mental disorder and was not intended to
be used with groups of psychologically adjusted subjects
I
I
i for the purposes of predicting professional success. How-
i
: ever, in order to be able to predict cases of mental malad-
i justment, norms had to be established for "normal" subjects
1
j for the purposes of comparison. The idea that psychologi-
| cal adjustment might be requisite to professional success
made the MMPI appealing to educational researchers. One of
1
|
Ro
N. L. Gage, ed.. Handbook of Research on Teaching
(Chicago, 1 9 6 7), p. 534.
I 45
!
(the early studies conducted In the field of education was
Q-i
! done by Lough In 1946. She attempted to examine the po-
i
itential value of the MMPI In distinguishing between women
preparing for careers In music and those preparing them
selves for careers In elementary education. Both of these
groups were then compared to the general norms of the MMPI.
When no relationship could be found between these two
groups, the researcher engaged In a second Investigation
!comparing women from four curriculum groups. Lough con
cluded that the MMPI could not be used to discriminate
1 82
!among those most suited for different professions. Blum
I
jconducted a similar study to that of Lough and his findings
! g o
substantiated those of Lough. 2
! When researchers were unsuccessful in distinguishing
between teachers and nonteachers, they began to examine the
possibility of using the MMPI to Identify effective teach-
84
jers. A series of studies conducted by Gough and Pemberton,
I
j Q-i
Orpha M. Lough, "Teachers, College Students and the
!Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory," Journal of
i Applied Psychology, 30 (1946), 241-246.
Q n
! Orpha M. Lough, "Women Students In Liberal Arts,
j Nursing, and Teacher Training Curricula and the Minnesota
IMultiphasic Personality Inventory," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 31 (1947), 437-445.
^L. P. Blum, "A Comparative Study of Students Prepar
ing for Five Selected Professions Including Teaching,"
I Journal of Experimental Education, 16 (1947), 31-65.
H. G. Gough and W. H. Pemberton, "Personality Char
acteristics Related to Success in Practice Teaching,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 36 (1952), 307-309.
46
LaBue,®'’ Schmid,®® Singer,®"^ and Nagle®® all examined the
jMMPI's value in predicting teaching effectiveness. Their
findings were, for the most part, insignificant, contradic
tory, and/or ambiguous.
One of the most interesting findings which came to
light through research into the value of the MMPI in pre
dicting teaching effectiveness was the importance of the K
JScale. The MMPI is made up of nine separate scales and
!four control scales. The K Scale is a correction score
|device which was not originally designed to be of psychiat-
' 89
!ric significance. ^ In almost all the studies using the
!MMPI the K Scale was found to be more discriminating than
jany other. Gowen found that persons making high scores
ion the K Scale showed a tendency to enter into empathetic
! ^A. C. LaBue, "Personality Traits and Persistence of
I Interest in Teaching as a Vocational Choice," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 39 (1955), 362-365.
I Q^r
j J. Schmid, "Factor Analyses of Prospective Teachers'
Differences," Journal of Educational Research, 18 (1950),
;287-319.
' 87
j ‘A. Singer, "Social Competence and Success In Teach
ing," Journal of Experimental Education, 23 (1954), 99-131.
QQ
L. M. Nagle, "Effect Is of an Internship upon Se
lected Goals of the Program," Journal of Educational Re
search, 48 (1955), 711-714.
®^J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, "The Teacher's Per
sonality and Characteristics," in N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook
of Research on Teaching (Chicago, 1 9 6 7), p. 540.
47
90
relationships and to make good teachers and counselors.
In addition, teacher identified as well-adjusted were
|thought to be the better teachers. The most salient char-
I
acteristic of both male and female education students was
the K score, which indicated defensiveness, according to
91
MacLean, Gowen and Gowen.^
Tanner's study indicated that the K score could dis-
jtlnguish superior and inferior male teachers, and both of
I Q2
;these groups from the MMPI norms for that scale. Moore
and Cole's findings, while studying a female population,
9"?
were in agreement with those reported for males. J Gowen
synthesized the meaning of the K Scale when he said,
These facts argue for a picture of the high K in
dividual as tending to be responsible, conscientious,
conforming, controlled and friendly, with strong ego and
good performance in interpersonal relations. He thinks
well of others, as he tends to see the best in everyone,
himself included. Rather than pointing to an absence of
basic problems, this delineation indicates some degree
i of social anxiety overlaid with a reaction formation in
i which emphasis is directed toward control of self and
•^J. C. Gowen, "Relation of the 'K' Scale on the MMPI
! to Teaching Personality," California Journal of Educational
1 Research, 6 (1955), 208-212.
| ^M. S. MacLean, S. M. Gowen, and J. C. Gowen, "A
i Teacher Selection and Counseling Service," Journal of Edu-
j catlonal Research, 48 (1955)* 669-677.
I 92
j 7 W. C. Tanner, "Personality Bases in Teacher Selec-
| tion," Phi Delta Kappan, 35 (1954), 271-277.
^J. C. Moore and D. Cole, "The Relation of MMPI
Scores to Practice Teaching Ratings," Journal of Educa
tional Research, 50 (1957)* 711-716.
48
q4
adaption to the needs and demands of others.
The key caution which should be articulated about the
meaning of the K Scale is that it is a sign which indicated
teaching "potential” and not necessarily success.
Taking the original scales of the MMPI and modifying
them, using those factors which had been shown to be more
discriminating in teacher success prediction, Cook and
Medley's scale^ produced contradictory results in experi-
I q6
; mental use by Chappell and Callis. Gowen and Gowen’s
jscale established validity in discriminating between teach-
97
jers Judged effective and ineffective. 1 Their results were
|substantiated by Seagoe when she applied it to the problem
q8
of predicting teaching fitness. However, other research
ers have found these kinds of scales of questionable value.
Tyler maintained that few researchers carry their investi
gation to the point of real prediction. He said, "The fact
I q4
| “ Gowen, p. 210.
! 95w. Cook and D. M. Medley, "Proposed Hostility and
| Pharisaic Virtue Scales for the MMPI," Journal of Applied
i Psychology, 18 (1954), 4l4-4l8.
^T. L. Chappell and R. Callis, The Efflclence of the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Inter
personal Relations in a Naval School (Columbia, Missouri,
1954).
C. Gowen and M. S. Gowen, "A Teacher Prognosis
Scale for the MMPI," Journal of Educational Research, 49
(1955)* 1-12.
9®May V. Seagoe, "A Follow-up of 314 Students Whose
Fitness for Teaching Was Questioned, 1942-1953*" Journal of
Educational Research. 50 (1955)* 641-653.___________________
49
of a significant difference between two groups or the exis-
[tence of a positive correlation between the criterion and a
series of variables gives no evidence on accuracy of clas
sification or prediction. Following Tyler's suggestions,
Michaelis also did a multivariate analysis finding disap
pointing results, confirming Tyler's findings.^® Michaelis
concluded his analysis with the following commentary:
| There is need for a theoretical analysis of teacher
j personality. One drawback in personality theory is the
j lack of basic Information about personal traits and char
acteristics of normal persons who choose teaching as a
profession. An analysis of theoretical considerations
oriented toward teaching may give clues to the develop-
! ment of predictors that will prove more valuable than
! the approaches that have been employed in the past.101
| Other personality adjustment type of measuring instru
ments have been rather infrequently used in comparison to
the MMPI. Some of the older and decreasingly used instru
ments are the Bell, the Bernreuter, the Washburne, the
102
Thurstone, and Mooney.
i
!
j
i 99p> Tyler, "The Prediction of Student-Teaching
Success from Personality Inventories," University of Call-
1fornla Publications on Education, 11 (1954), 233-313.
i 1®®J. V. Michaelis, "The Prediction of Success in Stu
dent Teaching from Personality and Attitude Inventories,"
University of California Publication on Education, 11
(1954), 415-481.
101MIchaelis, p. 477-
102
For studies using these instruments see: A. B. Car-
ilile, "Predicting Performance in the Teaching Profession,"
Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1954), 641-658; W. H.
Jarecke, "Evaluating Teaching Success through the Use of
the Teaching Judgment Test," Journal of Educational Re-
50
A relatively new and interesting forced-choice type of
personality inventory is the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (EPPS) developed in 1959. Several recent stu
dies -have been conducted using this instrument] however,
there is insufficient data at this time for assessing the
usefulness of this test in predicting teaching effective-
i A slightly different approach to personality testing
i
| comes from tests which attempt to measure personality fac-
' tors through the construction of inventories. Unlike the
i MMPI and similar clinical instruments, these tests are used
: to establish norms for different factors and do not at-
i tempt to classify the psychological adjustment of subjects.
| The two most promising of these instruments are the Gull-
1
| ford Personality Inventory and the Sixteen Personality Fac-
i
i
j search, 45 (1952), 683-694] D. G. Ryans, "A Study of the
i Extent of Association of Certain Professional and Personal
| Data with Judged Effectiveness of Teacher Behavior," Jour-
! nal of Experimental Education, 20 (1951)* 67-77* J. Schmid,
' "Factor Analysis of Prospective Teachers' Differences,"
; Journal of Experimental Education, 18 (1950), 287-319.
! ^®^A. L. Edwards, Edwards Personal Preference Sched
ule: Manual (New York, 1959)•
1 0 4
For studies using the EPPS sees P. W. Jackson and
E. G. Guba, "The Need Structure of In-Service Teachers: An
Occupational Analysis," School Review, 65 (1957)* 176-192]
E. G. Guba, P. W. Jackson, and C. E. Bidwell, "Occupational
: Choice and the Teaching Career," Educational Research Bul-
j letln, 38 (1959)* 1-12] and M. S. Sheldon, J. M. Cole, and
j R. Copple, "Current Validity of the 'Warm Teacher Scales,'"
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 (1959)* 37-^0.
51
tor Questionnaire. The purpose of these tests was to pro-
jvlde scores for separate factors on primary traits of per
sonality. The research of Guilford and his associates has
led to the development of several forms of the instrument,
the most recent of which is the Gullford-Zimmerman Tempera-
10R
ment Survey. ^ This instrument is composed of ten person
ality traits: (l) G— General Activity, (2) R— Restraint,
(3) A— Ascendance, (4) S— Sociability, (5) E— Emotional
J Stability, (6) 0— Objectivity, (7) F— Friendliness, (8) T—
I Thoughtfulness, (9) 0— Personal Relations, and (10) M—
jMasculinity.
i
1 Gowen and Gowen used the Gullford-Zimmerman Tempera-
1
ment Survey on 337 teaching credential candidates and found
that these subjects scored significantly higher on seven of
the ten traits than the established norms. These seven
traits included: Restraint, Ascendance, Sociability, Emo-
!tional Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness, and Personal
i 1
| Relations. Another study conducted by Leeds, using 300
; public school teachers, reported significantly higher scores
! than the norms of Restraint, Objectivity, Friendliness,
|
"^^J. P. Guilford and W. S. Zimmerman, The Gullford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey: Manual of Instructions and
Interpretation (Beverly Hills, 1949).
j C. Gowen and May S. Gowen, "The Guilford-Zimmer-
man and the California Psychological Inventory in the Meas
urement of Teaching Candidates," California Journal of Edu
cational Research, 6 (1955)* 330-344.
52
Personal Relations, and Emotional Stability.Leeds' re
sults were strikingly similar to those of Gowen and Gowen
with the exception that Leeds' subjects were below average
on ascendence. While these two studies concentrated on es
tablishing norms for teachers for comparison with the gen
eral norms of the Gullford-Zimmerman test, other research
ers sought to establish norms for effective versus Ineffec
tive teachers.
j Jones measured 46 secondary school teachers UBing
i
jfive traits of the Gullford-Zimmerman tests. She found that
l
General Activity was the single discriminating score be-
T Oft
jtween "good" and "average" teachers. Bendlg did a
l
study similar to that of Jones; however, his sample was
drawn from college psychology Instructors. This study In
cluded the use of the Purdue Instructor Rating Instrument.
There were no significant correlations between the Purdue
land the Guilford tests.
| The Guilford test has been shown to be more consistent
i
i
!
107C. H. Leeds, "Teacher Attitude and Temperament as a
Measure of Teacher-Pupll Rapport," Journal of Applied Psy
chology, 40 (1956), 333-337.
■ j a O
Margaret L. Jones, "Analysis of Certain Aspects of
Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, 25
(1956), 152-180.
1(^A. w. Bendlg, "Ability and Personality Characteris
tics of Introductory Psychology Instructors Rated Competent
and Empathetlc by Their Students," Journal of Educational
Research, 48 (1955), 705-709.
53
than the MMPI in terms of the agreement researchers have
found in study results. However, there has not been as
much research using the Guilford as there has been using
the MMPI, which might account for less contradictory re
sults. If one interprets from the face value of the test,
aside from statistical evidence of validity, there is con
siderable reason to be hopeful about the value of this type
'of test.
, A second personality factor test that is presently re-
i
;ceiving considerable attention from educational researchers
I is the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (l6 P. P.).
iUnlike the Guilford test, this instrument does not carry
I
obvious value laden factor trait titles. This instrument
!will be discussed in greater detail in a following sub-
i
j
jchapter. The 16 P. P. test is one of the newest instru
ments to be tested by researchers concerned with teaching
!effectiveness. Its value is yet to be proved.
' Projective techniques have been applied to the prob-
(
;lems in predicting teaching effectiveness. Such well known
jtests as the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test
t
have received attention from researcher, though the results
of this research has not been encouraging. These instru
ments are among those which were developed for clinical
diagnosis and, possibly the most discouraging characteris-
j tic of these tests is that they require considerable time
for administration and scoring. There has been consider
54
able disagreement among researchers about the value of these
tests and the results, taken as a whole, are contradlc-
tory.110
In examining the results of research Into the Influence
of personality factors on the teaching situation, there has
been some general agreement on desirable teacher character
istics. Bowers and Soar found that the most critical dimen-
jsions of the teacher's personality were maturity, respon
sibility, depth of and ability to feel personal and social
| loyalities.These findings seem consistent with those
I of Gowen, who reported that teachers who are psychologi-
! 112
!cally and socially well adjusted are more effective.
|
Though there is some diversity in the adjectives used
;to describe the more important personality variables, there
is considerable agreement in the overall qualities. Cooper
and his associates reported that teachers who show respect
for their students and who do not attempt to manipulate
j them are Judged more effective.It would appear that
friendly personal instruction is desirable, according to
!
I
I
110Gage, p. 559.
11^Norman D. Bowers and Robert S. Soar, "The Influence
of Teacher Personality on Classroom Interaction," Journal
of Experimental Education, 30 (June 1 9 6 2), 309-312.
! tip
Gowen, pp. 208-212.
11^Cooper and others, p. 66.
55
114
the findings of Dick. Brookover substantiated these
(findings when he concluded that closer personal relations
I with students is requisite to establishing a healthy Class
ing
room atmosphere. J Ryans described the effective teacher
as being emotionally stable, friendly, cooperative, agree-
able, objective, and possessed of restraint. Symonds
and Dudek found that superior personal organization, good
|adjustment and reasoning, capacity to relate to others,
|and less aggressive responses characterized the effective
i 117
;teacher. 1 Tiedman summarized these desirable teacher
i characteristics when he said, "Teachers who are aloof, un^
!friendly, and otherwise irritate and anatagonize their pu-
I
pils destroy interest and incentives for learning and pro
mote resentment, unwholesome attitudes, and personality
J disorders."11®
The most extensive study of teachers yet completed was
■^^R. Dale Dick, "Personalized Teaching," Improving
! College and University Teaching, XIV (Autumn 195b), 2427
| ^ ' ■ 1 '^Wilbur B. Brookover, "The Relations of Social Fac-
! tors to Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Educa-
ition, XII (June 1945), 191-205.
j 116
I D. C. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers: Their
I Description, Comparison, and Appraisal (Washington, D. C.,
I
| M. Symonds and S. Dudek, "Use of Rorschach in
j Diagnosis of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Projective
I Techniques, 20 (1956), 227-234.
^"'■^Tiedman, p. 664.
56
conducted by Ryans. It was done over a six year period and
included approximately one hundred separate research proj
ects, involving over 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools.
Ryans summarized his findings as follows:
There was a general tendency for high teachers to:
be extremely generous in appraisals of the behavior and
motives of other persons; possess strong interest in
reading and literary affairs; be interested in music,
painting, and the arts in general; participate in social
groups; enjoy pupil relationships; prefer non-directive
(permissive) classroom procedures; manifest superior
| verbal intelligence; and be superior with respect to
emotional adjustment. On the other hand, low teachers
tended generally to: be restrictive and critical in
their appraisals of other persons; prefer activities
which did not involve close personal contacts; express
I less favorable opinions of pupils; manifest less high
| verbal intelligence; show less satisfactory emotional
j adjustment; and represent older age groups.H9
j Research into the influence of the teacher's personal
ity on the interpersonal relationships in the classroom and
the influence of these relationships on the learning situa
tion is growing rapidly. There is little doubt that the
! teacher's personality does affect the learning process.
i
! Researchers have attempted to find the most efficient in-
; strument for gathering personality data. Their findings
I tend to indicate that the objective personality factor
i
j questionnaire is the most promising instrument for this
! type of research. The Sixteen Personality Factor Question
naire is one such instrument and requires closer considera
tion.
119Ryans, pp. 397-398.
57
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
j Under the direction of R. B. Cattell, the Laboratory
of Personality Assessment and Group Behavior at the Univer-
' sity of Illinois developed the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (l6 P. F.) in 19^6. This particular measur
ing instrument is of more than usual interest to education
al researchers for several reasons. In order to avoid
value-laden factor titles that are common to this type of
personality instrument, Cattell used neologisms. The em-
iphasls in this test is on the "normal" as opposed to the
("abnormal," with no corresponding "goodness" or "badness"
I
|attached to each factor or groups of factors. A second
s
|reason for this instrument to be of interest to educational
I researchers is that its author editorialized its relevance
to educational research in a 19^-8 article. He stated:
I have been interested now for years in the descrip
tion, measurement, and evaluation of personality factors,
j On the basis of this work I would suggest that experi
mental designs now being planned in teacher personnel
! research should include measures of at least six of the
I ten or twelve personality factors we already find to be
reasonably confirmed by two or more researchers. . . .
i The general clinical knowledge of Cyclothyme-Schizo-
| thyme tendencies suggests that the Cyclothyme tendency
i would be favorable to teaching success. Surgency almost
certainly would contribute to the ability to deal quick
ly with the behavior and other problems of children. . . .
However, these hypotheses are at present somewhat specu
lative and the important thing is that researchers get
together with an experimental design large enough to
satisfy these statistical criteria and objective enough
to provide enough real measures of personality. Upon
such a foundation, studies leading to cumulative in-
58
120
creases In knowledge could be built up.
There has not been as extensive use of the 16 P. P.
test In the field of educational research as there has been
of some of the other tests such as the MMPI; however, col
lected data from educational research Is steadily Increas
ing.
Schwartz conducted an Investigation concerned with the
measurement of primary source traits, as originally defined
;and developed by Cattell, to determine their value as a
ipredictor of teacher effectiveness. The sample was com-
j posed of seniors at the University of Wisconsin who were
I
I enrolled in the teacher education program. The criteria
i
t
for selection of the thirty-four subjects were student
total grade point, student teaching grade, and professional
grade point.
Schwartz's adapted version of Cattell's test of pri
mary source traits did not appear to be helpful In the se
lection of candidates using this particular criteria. How-
i
ever, the measure of Tempo and Reaction Time were discrete
1 enough to warrant further consideration. Schwartz did find
i
positive correlations between clusters of Items and the
criteria. As Schwartz put it, "A sense of humor does have
a significant relationship to success in the teaching pro-
|
j 120R. B. Cattell, "Clinical Versus Statistical Meas-
i ures of Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational Research,
| 41 (19^8), 718-719.____________________________ _____________
59
npi
fession. A second interesting finding was that the
i "colorless" personality was seldom selected as a promising
! prospect for the teaching profession. Schwartz concluded
j from his data that a good teacher possesses at least one
superior characteristic and does not fall below average on
122
any quality deemed necessary.
Lamke conducted a study using ten "good" and eight
"poor" teachers selected on the basis of a composite rating
J made by school principals and two observers. He found that
' good and poor teachers differed on three scales of the
; 16 P. F. test. The good rated teachers were above average
j
J on source traits F (Surgency-Desurgency) and H (Parmia-
Threctia), and were found to be average or slightly below
! on source trait N (Shrewdness-Na'ivete).
Lamke concluded that a factor analysis of the data in
dicated that several patterns seemed to exist for good and
poor teachers. Good teachers are more likely to be gregar-
i ious, adventurous, frivolous, to have abundant emotional
I
; responses, strong artistic or sentimental interest, to be
! interested in the opposite sex, to be polished, and fastid-
i
jlous. Poor teachers are more likely than good teachers to
j
lOl
j Anthony N. Schwartz, "A Study of the Discriminatory
! Efficiency of Certain Tests of the Primary Source Personal-
jity Traits of Teachers," Journal of Experimental Education,
jXIX (September 1950), 102.
I * 1 p O
Schwartz, pp. 63-93.
be shy, cautious, conscientious, to lack emotional re
sponses and artistic or sentimental interests, to have a
comparatively slight interest in the opposite sex, to be
clumsy, easily pleased and more attentive to people than
12^
good teachers. J
Using another research design on the 16 P.P. data,
Lamke concluded that good teachers are more likely to be
talkative, cheerful, placid, frank, and quick, while poor
teachers are likely to be silent, depressed, anxious, un-
I communicative, and languid. He was cautious about the im-
! plications of his findings; he concluded, "certain elements
I
j of some response patterns have been identified, but com-
I
plete patterns have not been identified. A given subject
i could not be categorized as a good or poor teacher on the
I
basis of his responses to the 16 P. F. test on the basis of
i the information so far available,"12^
i
Erickson conducted a study of sixty teachers using
four different measures of teaching effectiveness. The
i
| four measures were composed of forty-two total factors.
| These factors included: (l) nine estimates of teaching suc-
i
| cess made on the basis of ratings by the principal, a state
i
supervisor, peers, pupils, and self-ratings; (2) seven
12^Tom A. Lamke, "Personality and Teaching Success,"
Journal of Experimental Education, 20 (December 1951)> 217-
12^Ibid., p. 247.
61
measures of temperament from the Thurstone Temperament
Schedule] (3) sixteen measures of personality based on Cat
tell's 16 P. P. test; and (4) ten measures of preservice
achievement. Among the 144 correlation coefficients there
were fourteen which were significant at the .05 level. Fac
tor G (Super-Ego Strength) was positively correlated with
supervisors’ ratings. Factor M (Autia-Praxernia) correlated
negatively with principals; and pupils' evaluation. Factor
|0 (Guilt Proneness-Confidence) correlated negatively with
jteacher's self-ratings. Factor (Self Sentiment Control)
correlated positively with acceptability to principal, with
principal's rating during the second year of teaching, and
with teacher's self-evaluations.
; After factor analyzing the data, Erickson concluded
that the generally low intercorrelations among the several
temperament, personality, and achievement measures estab
lished doubt about the usefulness of these measures. He
finally concluded that there was no general factor, but
i
;three separate measures, each of which might be used sepa-
I 12^
Irately in a program of differential prediction. J
\
j Hadley administered the 16 P. F. test to the entire
:graduating class of a Pennsylvania state college. His
findings confirmed some previous findings, but also contra-
I
|
| "^^Harley E. Erickson, "A Factorial Study of Teaching
I Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII (Septem
ber 1954), 1-39.
62
dieted some others. Using practice teaching grades, he
found that students’ receiving an "A" grade, as compared
with those receiving a "C" grade were more likely to be low
on Factor F (Surgency-Desurgency) and high on Factor G
126
(Super Ego-Strength). The Factor G significance confirms
the findings of Lamke, while the findings on Factor F con
tradict those of Lamke. Both Hadley and Erickson found
good teachers to be low on Factor N (Shrewdness-Naivlte).
Cattell, himself, modified his early prediction that
j the Surgency-Desurgency Factor would be a strong predictor
I
; of teaching effectiveness. The many sociometric votes
[ which the F (high surgency) person gets in group dynamics
situation, his being voted a good speaker, and his tendency
i to get elected as a leader, should apparently not be taken
127
as evidence of actual effectiveness in leadership."
Cattell further commented: "The association of surgency
| with sociometric popularity and success in an immediate
I group, but with lower performance in long-term 'serious'
^ 128
; undertakings, is consistently found."
I A study conducted by Montross in 195^ investigated the
I
i 128S. T. Hadley, "A Study of the Predictive Value of
Several Variables to Student Teaching Success as Measured
by Student Teaching Marks," Teachers' College Bulletin,
State Teachers College, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 60 (195*0*
j 1-10.
j 12?r. B. Cattell, Personality and Motivation, Struc
ture and Measurement (New York, 1957)# p. 187*
128Ibld., p. 113.
63
relationship between scores of the 16 P. P. test and two
composite ratings of teaching success for thirty-five high
school teachers.The composite ratings were composed of
a summation of four ratings by the principal and two out
side raters during the subjects' first year of teaching,
and the second composite was the addition of another second
year rating by the principal of the teacher. One factor,
A (Cyclothymia-Schizothymia), correlated with the second
composite rating at the .05 level.
In one of the most interesting research projects using
|the 16 P. P. Questionnaire, Cattell and Drevdahl adminis-
1tered the test to 294 eminent scientists. The original
I
i
ithree groups of subjects included biologists, physicists,
j
■and psychologists who were then divided into three more
groups Including administrators, teachers, and researchers
130
for the purposes of comparison. J
I The most significant difference among the three groups
i
|was found to be between teachers and administrators on Pac-
1
tor H (Adventurous Cyclothymia). Teachers were signifi
cant ly lower than administrators on this scale. Cattell
i
I described this scale as follows:
I
12^H. W. Montross, "Temperament and Teaching Success,"
Journal of Experimental Education, 23 (1954), 73-97.
i ^ 0 r . B. Cattell and J. C. Drevdahl, "A Comparison of
!the Personality Profile of Eminent Researchers with that of
!Eminent Teachers and Administrators," British Journal of
Psychology, 46 (1955)> 248-261.
64
Low H . . . His greater conscientiousness, applica
tion to school work and regard for authority are part
of the tendency to more fearful reactivity, i.e., of the
belief that "life is serious," so lacking in the H (+)
person.131
High H . . . is not bothered socially by self-con
scious shyness; has no difficulty starting up conversa
tions with people; prefers spouse who will command ad
miration, rather than religious person . . . , thinks
people like to see him coming; is not troubled by a
sense of inferiority. 132
The other four factors which differentiated the teach
ers from the administrators were Factor L (Paranoia), Fac
tor M (Bohemian Unconcern), Factor 0 (Free Anxiety), and
^Factor (Radicalism). Teachers were significantly higher
jin their scores on all four scales.
J Teachers as compared to researchers were significantly
jhigher on Factor A (Cyclothymia-Schizothymia) and signifi
cantly lower on Factor Qg (Self-Sufficiency). Cattell com
pared his Factor A with the Thurstone Schedule F (Friendly)
which was a combination of Guilford's Objectivity, Agree-
ableness, and Cooperativeness Scales. Teachers who were
lower than researchers on Factor Qg possess the following
i
characteristics according to Cattell's description:
j An individual who would rather work with one or two
j assistants than with a committee, prefers reading to
j classes, does not avoid doing things that might make him
I seem odd, would rather be an artist than a secretary, is
not afraid of his own ideas just because they are odd . ..
j (The Q 2 Individual avoids society because it wastes time,
not because of any emotional rejection, and because ex-
^3^Cattell, Personality and Motivation, . . . ,
p. 130.
132Ibld., p. 193. 133Ibld., p. 178.
65
perience has told him his thinking is well enough organ
ized to solve problems for himself).134
i
I The overall results of Cattell and Drevdahl*s research
tends to reinforce studies done with the Gullford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey and other similar instruments. These
studies are not conclusive in and of themselves; however,
they are important in that they contribute to the growing
body of data concerned with personality factors and teach
ing success.
Isaacson, McKeachie, and Milholland conducted a study
:at the University of Michigan in 1963 using a revised ver-
1
jsion of Cattell's 16 P. F. Questionnaire. Their technique
i
!was developed from a study done by Norman in which he used
I
I peer group nomination on twenty individual bipolar scales
which were combined to yield scores on five personality
factors.13- ^ The factors defined by the peer nomination
procedures were labeled:
j 1. Surgency (assertive, frank, energetic, talka-
1 tive, etc.).
i 2. Agreeableness (cooperative, attentive, mild-
mannered, not iealous, etc.).
3. Dependability (responsible, conscientious,
i orderly, etc.).
1 4. Emotional Stability (calm, poised, in control
i of emotions, etc.).
! 5. Culture (artistic, polished, Imaginative, effec-
! tively intelligent, etc.).
1 3 V b i d . , pp. 2 1 0 - 2 1 1 .
■'"^Robert L. Isaacson, Wilbert J. McKeachie, and John
E. Milholland, "Correlation of Teacher Personality Vari
ables and Student Ratings," Journal of Educational Psychol
ogy, 54 (1963), 110-117.
The teacher sample was composed of teaching fellows in
basic psychology courses at the University of Michigan.
There were some thirty-six teaching fellows who were evalu
ated by approximately 35 to 40 students each.
The teacher personality variable most consistently
correlated with high ratings by students was the peer group
evaluation of the teaching fellows' "general cultural at
tainment." The researchers concluded that teachers high on
|Surgency, Culture, and Emotional Stability, as judged by
| their peers and not by themselves, were most likely to be
-1
jrated high by their students.
j
j Another study which investigated the interaction of
| teacher-pupil personality variables in the classroom was
; conducted by Raiche. The verbal communication of the par
ticipants was measured by Flanders' Interaction Analysis
Schedule (IAS). These scores were compared to those of the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) and the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (l6 P. F.). The sample
i
was composed of 89 sister and lay teachers of upper ele-
! mentary grades in 48 parochial schools.
1
j Raiche concluded that the MTAI and 16 P. F. were not
1
j significantly correlated to the scores on the IAS. How
ever, two of the 16 P. F. scores in combination with IAS
I
| ratios placed the null hypothesis in doubt. Teachers with
136Ibid., p. 117.
67
high Factor A (Cyclothymia-Schizothymia) scores had lower
proportions of pupil-initiated talk in their classes. High
Factor H (Parmia-Threctia) teachers had a lower proportion
137
of indirect influences in their classrooms.
The 16 P. F. has gone through many revisions commen
surate with the finest factor analytic research procedures
available. By 1962 profiles had been established for over
|fifty different occupations and professions. The collec-
!tion of data is presently accelerating and more refined
profiles are in the offing. At present, the collected data
;on the 16 P. F. test provides a less than complete picture
I
!of its usefulness as a predictor of teaching effectiveness.
)
Certainly the test is promising enough to continue the col-
jlection of data in order to define more clearly the in
fluence of personality variables on the classroom inter
action.
j
i
j Attitudes, Values, and Temperament
1 as Classroom Variables'
I
; There appears to be at least two components of person
ality which a researcher should take into account. One
1
j element of personality concerns itself with individual acts
of behavior. The other element of personality is the basic
motivational pattern, based on values, which influences a
"'■^Sister Aloise Raiche, "Selected Teacher Character
istics and Verbal Behavior of the Classroom," unpublished
dissertation (University of Minnesota, 1 9 6 5).
68
person's behavior. Cattell suggests that his 16 P. P. test
elicited responses which are specimens of behavior. Other
types of tests have been devised in order to measure atti
tudes, values, and temperament as predeterminers of be
havior.
Researchers in education have been concerned with the
5 study of personal and interpersonal values and their impact
on classroom situations for sometime. Brubaker,Fried-
1"3Q l4l
man, Childs, Corey, and others have suggested that
values held by the teacher and the student exert a strong
influence on the success of educational enterprises. Bowie
and Morgan assert that "Values are a part of an individ
ual ' s inner life, expressed through behavior. From the
■ point of view of the behaver, his behavior represents the
j best and most effective judgment he is capable of at the
! 142
; time of the immediate situation."
| One aspect of the personality is referred to as "tem-
■'■■^John Brubaker, ed., The Public Schools and Spirit-
: ual Values (New York, 1944).
^•^B. b. Friedman, Teachers College Contributions to
J Education (New York, 1946).
L. Childs, Education and Morals (New York,
| 1950).
; l 4 i ,
Fay L. Corey, Values of Future Teachers (New York,
1955).
142
B. Lucile Bowie and H. Gerthon Morgan, "Personal
; Values and Verbal Behavior of Teachers," Journal of Experl-
j mental Education, 30 (June 1 9 6 2), 337.
69
perament." Cattell describes it as the "constitutional fac-
140
tors" of personality that are least likely to change. J
Allport suggests that temperament is the raw material from
144
which personality is fashioned. Temperament, then, is
revealed through the susceptibility and intensity of emo
tional reaction.
Attitudes seem to be an outgrowth of temperament and
values in the forms of mental and emotional sets toward
certain phenomena. Probably the most widely used and well
known attitude test is the Minnesota Teacher Attitude In
ventory. This test was designed to find out how well the
teacher gets along with pupils In interpersonal situations.
Well over fifty research projects have been conducted using
the MTAI test and the resulting data has produced contra-
j dictory results in terms of its ability to predict teaching
i
1 effectiveness.
The Gullford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, which was
i
discussed under the personality section of this review, is
probably the most popular temperament research instrument.
The Study of Values (SV) developed in 1931 by Allport,
jVernon, and Lindzey is representative of a group of tests
J 1^R. B. Cattell, Personality: A Systematic Theoretl-
; cal and Factual Study (New York, 1950).
144
G. W. Allport, Personality: A Psychological Inter-
| pretatlon (New York, 1937).
1 14^
-'Gage, Handbook . . . , p. 511.
UfT
|designed to study basic motives in personality. There
are six scales (basic values) in the SV: (l) the Theoreti
cal, (2) the Economic, (3) the Social, (4) the Political,
(5) the Aesthetic, and (6) the Religious. This test was
!revised in 1951* and following this revision a rebirth of
i
iinterest took place in this and similar tests. One re-
!
I search results from the SV that is of particular interest
is that there appears to be significant differences in
147
,values among teachers of different subject matters. 1
There is also some evidence to suggest that teachers may be
!distinguished from the general population in the Social and
148
Economic scales. There has been no substantial evidence
ifrom the use of this test to establish differences in
i
I
lvalues of "good" or "poor" teachers at this time.
The Kuder Preference Record and the Strong Vocational
Interest Blank are similar tests of personal interest.
1
iThese tests have not produced any significant information
about the quality of teaching; however, they do provide an
index of different value orientations with regards to occu-
j
i 1^^G. W. Allport, P. E. Vernon, and G. Lindzey, Study
I of Values: A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests in
I Personality (New York, 1951)•
! 1^^McLean, Gowen, and Gowen, pp. 669-677.
! -1 n o
j May V. Seagoe, "Predication of In-Service Success
| in Teaching," Journal of Educational Research, 39 (19^6),
j 6 5 8-6 6 3.
! 71
lliQ
pational and professional choices.
I
A set of tests, which are somewhat similar to Allport,
Vernon, and Lindzey's, are Leonard V. Gordon's Survey of
Personal Values (SPV) and Survey of Interpersonal Values
(SIV).1^^ The following scales are included In the two
i tests:
SPV SIV
p) Practical Mindedness (S Support
A) Achievement (c) Conformity
V) Variety (R) Recognition
D) Decisiveness (I) Independence
°)
Orderliness (b ) Benevolence
G)
Goal Orientation
(l )
Leadership
Gordon, himself, has completed over thirty research
!studies using these two value measuring instruments. Norms
have been established for over twenty-five occupations,
iThese norms provide profiles which help to distinguish
i
priorities for values for individuals and groups of in
dividuals. The SIV was developed in i9 6 0, seven years
after the introduction of the SPV, and therefore, there are
fewer norms established for it.
The SPV and SIV are of particular Interest to re-
i ^See G. G. Kuder, Examiner Manual for the Kuder
I Preference Record, Vocational Form C, 5th ed. (Chicago,
1953) and E. K. Strong Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and
Women (Stanford, California, 19^3).
i ^ ^ Survey of Personal Values Manual (Chicago, 1967)
!and Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values (Chicago,
196Q-J-
72
j searchers concerned with predicting teaching effectiveness
for several reasons. First, if the two tests are taken to
gether, they provide a broad picture of the value systems
:which are in operation in the classroom. A profile of the
i
intrapersonal values provides a measure of intrinsic moti-
|vation, while a profile of interpersonal values provides a
!measure of extrinsic motivation. The classroom is a give-
1and-take type of interchange between teacher and student;
therefore, readings from both scales would provide more in
formation than another measure which examines only one set
of values. Second, the Gordon tests are contemporary meas-
151
,ure3 which have cross-cultural validity. And third, the
SPV and SIV are forced-choice type of instruments which can
be administered with the assurance that they have met
j standards of reliability and validity.
| The value of the SPV and SIV to teaching effectiveness
: prediction is yet to be established by researchers. There
is not, at this time, enough normative data on teachers to
be able to gauge the importance of the instrument to educa-
:tional research.
"^^See s. B. Kakkar and L. V. Gordon, "A Cross-Cultur-
j al Study of Teacher's Values," Educational Psychology Re-
J view, 6 (1 9 6 6), 1 7 2-1 7 7; A. Kikuchi and L. V. Gordon,
; "Evaluation and Cross-Cultural Application of a Japanese
' Form of the Survey of Interpersonal Values," Journal of So-
i olal Psychology, 69 (1 9 6 6), 185-195> and A. Kikuchi and
I L. V. Gordon, American Personality Tests in Cross-Cultural
I Research— A Caution," Journal of Psychology, 69 (1 9 6 6),
[179-183.
73
| Teaching Effectiveness Research In the Field
of Speech Communication
Research Into the nature of teaching effectiveness has
been directed, in the field of speech communication, more
[toward what Influence speech has on effective teaching than
■toward what constitutes effective teaching In the speech
I
[communication classroom. These types of studies were in
tended to demonstrate the relationship of "good" speech to
!ngood" teaching, regardless of the subject matter of the
classes.
One of the earliest studies of speech competency and
I
its influence on success in teaching was conducted by Seth
A. Fessenden at New York University in 1 9 4 1 . The teacher
;sample was composed of 404 high school teachers in eighty
|schools from twelve states. The three measuring instruments
i
in the study were: (l) The Speech Inventory--which was a
!self-administered general speech test given to the teach-
Ier3j (2) The Speech Rating Scale--which was rated by twenty
Judges for each teacher according to his voice, enunciation,
flexibility, language, and mannerj and the (3) Teaching
Rating Scale— a test composed of six major scales (Attitude,
l
[Leadership, Tact, Sense of Humor, Relation to Pupils, and
jInfluence on Pupils) administered to the school principals.
i
152"The Relation between the Success in Teaching and
!the Speech Competency of the Secondary-School Teacher,"
|unpublished dissertation (New York University, 1941).
| 7 4 j
i i
Fessenden concluded that though teachers with greater j
speech competency were judged higher in their teaching per- j
formance, this difference was not statistically significant.
!
One prediction made by the researcher, after a thorough
I
'examination of all the data, was that teachers with a high
!
[degree of speech competency will not be rated as inferior
j teachers.
One of the series of Wisconsin studies of teaching ef
fectiveness was conducted by William B. McCoard in 1944.
This study was a follow-up of Fessenden's pioneer study.
The pupil gain criteria were used to measure teaching effec-
j
tiveness along with supervisors' ratings of the forty
I teachers in the study. Each teacher was administered five
I
I
I tests: Almy-Sorenson Rating Scale for Teachers, the Michigan
|Education Association Teacher Rating Card, the Torgerson
jDiagnostic Teacher Rating Scale for Instructional Activi
ties, the Personality Rating Scale, and the Personal Fitness
:Scale. A composite standard score of these tests was com-
i
pared with the pupil gain criteria and the supervisors'
I ratings.
i
j McCoard found a statistically significant positive
|correlation between speech ability and teaching effective
ness. He concluded that,
|
"'"'^"Speech Factors as Related to Teaching Efficiency,"
Speech Monographs, XI (1944), 63-64.
75
The study of the data in terms of percentages indi
cated clearly that good teachers as a group tend to have
better speech than the average or poor teachers. In
fact, the figures suggest that a good teacher is likely
to be a good teacher partially because she possesses bet
ter speech.154
McCoard cautioned that speech factors alone cannot be used
as a criterion for judging teaching effectiveness.
Ernest H. Henrikson conducted a study at the Univer-
I
sity of Minnesota in 1949 which was concerned with the re
lationship between voice, personality, and teaching abil- -
155
ity. ^ In an earlier study, Henrikson had found a posl-
156
tive relationship between voice and teaching, ^ which con-
157
firmed the findings of Wagner.
The sample was composed of 150 college students, each
of whom was asked to rate their instructors of the present
; and past quarter according to the following criteria: Sex;
; Pitch of Voice; Rate of Speaking; Quality of Voice; Person-
' ality; Voice; and Effectiveness as a Teacher. Henrikson
admits that there was considerable overlapping of teachers
rated in this manner; however, most of the college faculty
15Vbid., p. 64.
i ■'■-^"Some Relations between Personality, Speech Charac
teristics and Teaching Effectiveness of College Teachers,"
, Speech Monographs, XVI (September 1949)* 221-226.
I 156
1 5 Ernest H. Henrikson, "Comparisons of Ratings of
; Voice and Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational Psy-
; chology, XXXIV (1943), 121-123.
157
^'Loretta Wagner, "A Diagnosis of the Speech Needs
and Abilities of Prospective Teachers," University of Iowa
I Studies of Education, X (March 1939).
7 6
was represented in the ratings.
Henrikson concluded that men and women tend to agree
in both the personality ratings and teaching effectiveness
:ratings of teachers of both sexes. The data revealed a
'positive relationship between personality, voice, and teach-
'ing ability ratings. Commenting on sexual differences, he
' said,
Various phases of voice have different relationships
to teaching success. Rate of speaking, quality of voice,
and pitch correlate with teaching success in that order.
There is some variation in this order among the men stu
dents, depending on whether they are rating women or men
teachers.158
Whereas Fessenden did not speak to the question of the
teacher's personality directly, McCoard administered a per-
i sonality scale, and Henrikson made personality a major con-
! sideration in his study. Loren Reid, in the first issue of
| the Speech Teacher journal, focused his attention on the
! pressing problem of determining the role of personality in
! the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. He said,
Those who try to Interpret the art of teaching are
often baffled by the relationship between the teachers'
personality and his effectiveness as a teacher. The
problem is complex, since good teachers have different
kinds of personalities. Some succeed because they are
t gentle, kind, and patient; others because they are
; stern, strict, and commanding. The major contribution
| may be made in the classroom, or outside of it; through
the specific subject matter field, or by a sort of gen
eral wisdom; by a broad coverage of the subject, or in
tensive drill on salient points; by directing instruc
tion to average and superior students, or to average and
■^^Henrikson, pp. 255-256.
i
I _____________________________________
; 77
' inferior* students. A good teacher may be aloof in the
classroom and informal in personal conversation, or the
opposite.
Can the personality aspects of classroom management
be put more positively and significantly? I think they
can. I do not associate the promising young teachers of
my acquaintance with any such rigmarole of rules and
' regulations. Holding in mind the vast individual differ
ences among teachers, I believe the following four char
acteristics tend to be prevalent: Good teaching is alert
. . . Good teaching draws heavily upon the teacher's own
experience . . . Good teaching reflects enthusiasm for
! the subject . . . Good teaching starts with an interest
I in students.159
James N. Holm seemed to be in complete accord with the
sentiments of Reid when he suggested that "Speech reveals
our personality and background. Teachers of speech face a
■ challenge to teach effective speaking in interpersonal face
'to face situations." Neither of these researchers sug-
!gest direct ways of uncovering the role of personality in
i the teaching situation; however, they point out the impor-
j
Itance of the variable to teaching, and to teaching speech
1
\
I in particular.
; Evaluation of teaching in the field of speech communi
cation has not been researched thoroughly. The use of stu-
. dent opinions has been frequently sought in classroom exer
cises in speech criticism; however, there has been no sys-
i
! tematic use of student opinions in the evaluation of speech
I communication teachers until Leroy Laase published an eval-
| " O n First Teaching Speech," Speech Teacher, 1
i (January 1952), 5.
I - 1 f^o
j "Human Relations: A Challenge to the Teacher of
j Speech," Today's Speech, VIII (September i9 6 0), 17-19*
: 78
1 * i
|uation form for speech teachers in 1958. After review
ing other general, and well-known, student-rating instru
ments, Laase contended that a better choice would be a
jscale intended for use in a specific field of instruction
'which might well include items peculiar to and distinctive
of that field. The scale was first used in 1948 and under
went several revisions during the eight years of its initial
testing. Almost 1700 students were administered the scale
from 19^8 to 1955. Although this instrument has its limi
tations in terms of factor discreteness, it does provide a
beginning point for researchers in the field of speech com-
I
municatlon who are concerned with evaluating instruction.
i
Wesley Wiksell suggests that the wise instructor uses
I
I
a variety of methods to evaluate the work his students do,
jand that, students can help provide the answers to questions
I
!concerning the quality of their teaching. He said that the
Iteacher "knows that his students' attitudes toward the class
and toward himself have a direct bearing on the kind and
amount of work they do; so he asks his students to answer
a questionnaire or check a rating scale about the
1 1 P
jcourse." His views are reinforced by Gregg Phifer when
i
ihe wrote,
I
i
| ^^"The Measurement of Instruction in Speech," Speech
:Teacher, VII (January 1958), 47-53.
j - r - .
' ^8^"New Methods of Evaluating Instruction and Student
jAchievement in a Speech Class," Speech Teacher, IX (January
11960). 16-19._________________ _______________________________ _
79
j It is often instructive and sometimes rewarding to see
! ourselves as others see us. We do not often try to do
so. Even those of us who work in departments or schools
of speech and who should be sensitive to the quality of
oral communication with students do not often solicit
i objective, impersonal, or anonymous evaluation from our
I students. 163
Phifer goes on to recommend that student evaluations of
I
faculty are indispensible to the educational researcher.
| Claims are made that speech communication teachers are
superior to other teachers for several reasons:
Teachers of speech are among the best in our public
school system. This is not because they are better
trained. They share equally with other teachers— teach
ers of physics, of English, of history— a good collegiate
education. There are superb teachers in every field; and
every field, including speech, has its duds. But teach-
j ers of speech are likely to possess characteristics that
contribute heavily to success in teaching. They tend to
! be more extroverted than introverted; more often than
I not, they possess the physical attribute of voice, car
riage, and manner so useful in teaching; and, for the
most part, they are practitioners of their own
art....
The problem with these kinds of claims is that there simply
is no body of scientifically tested data that substantiate
: them. Extroversion, in and of itself, may or may not con-
; tribute to excellence in teaching, let alone, be a quality
; more likely to be possessed by speech communication teach-
j ers.
1
I
The need for further research in the field of speech
students Evaluate Faculty Lecturing," Chicago
I Circle Studies, III, No. 2 (June 1 9 6 8), 19.
•j Ji
Frederick W. Haberman, "Toward the Ideal Teacher of
Speech," Speech Teacher, X (January 1 9 6 1), 1.
! 80
jcommunication into the nature of teaching effectiveness is
obvious. Researchers in speech communication are more and
more beginning to isolate the variables which operate in the
;classroom situation in order to provide a basis for predic
ations about teaching success. Teaching excellence is not
■only the concern of researchers in departments of education,
I but it is also the concern of all educators, regardless of
their department or school affiliation. After reviewing re
search into the nature of the teacher's personality and
characteristics, Getzels and Jackson caution the researcher
■ that,
There is the limitation of treating teachers— male and
female, young and old, primary grade and intermediate
grade, teachers of English and of science— as a single
! group. Often this is done even though differences within
the teaching profession may obscure the very differences
that need to be revealed. Or, to mention just one other
j obvious but serious limitation, there is a problem of
I varied teaching situations.165
i
| If one assumed that teaching speech communication is
I not the same as teaching, any or all, other disciplines,
then it is the responsibility of professional speech com
munication people to research their own field.
l6E
-^Getzels and Jackson, p. 575.
CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
i
I
Introduction
I
This chapter Is divided into four main sections: Sub
jects, Materials, Procedures, and Rationale for the Design.
The section on the sample will include a description of the
teacher and students used in the study. The section on ma
terials will be composed of the instruments administered to
the students and their teachers. The section on procedures
will discuss the construction of the testing procedures and
!the statistical methodology employed. The final section of
:the chapter will present the justification for the design
|of the study.
i Samples
The teacher sample was composed of nine teaching as
sistants in the beginning speech communication program at
:the University of Southern California during the spring
I semester of 1969. The variables which were considered in
I order to insure the homogeneity of the sample were age,
I
jgeneral ability, teaching experience, and professional
!preparation of the teachers.
I
81
82
I
! The teaching assistants ranged in age from 23 to 38
years and were each responsible for two four unit beginning
public speaking classes, with an approximate enrollment of
'twenty students. All the teachers were similar in general
ability, teaching experience, and professional preparation.
-They were all engaged in doctoral studies and had less than
; 1
!five years teaching experience. There were four women and
five men in the teacher sample. One of each teacher's two
classes was randomly selected for use in the study.
From the nine classes chosen to represent each teacher
a random sample of six students was selected from those
students enrolled in the spring semester of 1969. The to-
1
tal student sample consisted of fifty-four students, most
of whom were engaged in lower division college work. There
jwere ten females and forty-four males in the student sample.
| Materials
I
! Test materials in the study were the Sixteen Personal
ity Factor Questionnaire, the Survey of Personal Values,
the Survey of Interpersonal Values, and the Purdue Instruc-
!tor Performance Indicator. Semester grades given to the
i
students by the teachers served as the teachers' evaluation
iof the students' performance for the semester.
I
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 P. F.)
is described by its author as a comprehensive psychological
I
instrument. He says,
83
The 16 P. F. is the psychologist's answer in the ques
tionnaire realm, to the demand for a test giving fullest
information in the shortest time about most personality
traits. It is not merely concerned with some narrow con
cept of neuroticism or "adjustment," or some special kind
of ability, but sets out to cover planfully and precisely
all the main dimensions along which people can differ,
; according to basic factor analytic research.1
The sixteen factors of Cattell's test are constructed
I by use of bipolar descriptions of the source traits. A
high score on the test corresponds to the description at
the left, while low scores correspond to the description on
the right. A complete description of the factors will be
presented in Appendix A; the following descriptions include
1 the factor titles only.
Factor A
Cyclothymia versus
(Warm, Sociable)
Factor B
General Intelligence versus
(Bright)
Factor C
Emotional Stability versus
(Mature, Calm)
Factor E
Dominance or versus
Ascendance
Raymond B. Cattell and Herbert W. Eber, Handbook for
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign,
Illinois, 1982), p. 1.
Schizothymia
(Aloof, Stiff)
Mental Defect
(Dull)
Dissatisfied Emotion-
allty
(Emotional, Immature,
Unstable)
Submission
84"
Surgency
(Enthusiastic,
Happy-go-Lucky)
Character of Super
Ego Strength
(Conscientious,
Persistent)
Parmla
(Adventurous.
Effeminate)
Premsia
(Sensitive, Effemi
nate)
Protenslon, Para-
noid Tendency ~
(Suspecting, Jeal
ous )
Autla
(Bohemian Intro
verted, Absent-
minded)
Shrewdness
(Sophisticated,
Polished)
Factor F
versus Desurgency
(Glum, Sober, Serious)
Factor G
versus Lack of Rigid Internal
Standards
(Casual, Undependable)
Factor H
versus Threctia
(Shy, Realistic)
Factor I
versus Harria
(Tough, Realistic)
Factor L
Relaxed Security
(Accepting, Adaptable)
Factor M
versus Praxernia
(Practical, Concerned
with Facts)
Factor N
versus Naivete
(Simple, Unpretentious)
85
Factor 0
Guilt Proneness
(Timid, Insecure)
versus Confident Adequacy
(Confident, Self-
Secure)
Radicalism
Self-Sufficiency
(Self-Sufficient,
Resourceful)
High Self-Sentiment
Formation
(Controlled, Exact
ing Will Power)
High Ergic Tension
(Tense, Excitable)
Factor Q]_
versus Conservatism of Tem-
perament
Factor Q2
versus Group Dependency
(Sociably Group Depend-
ent)
Factor Q3
versus Poor Self-Sentiment
Formation
(Uncontrolled, Lax)
Factor Q4
versus Low Erglc Tension 2
(Phlegmatic, Composed)
J The raw scores from the 16 P. F. test were converted
to sten scores. The range of average Is between score 5
.and 6, with any scores of 4 and below and 7 and above being
definite departures from the average.
I There are three forms of the 16 P. F. test: (l) Form
! A, consisting of 187 Items, (2) Form B, consisting of 187
I
!Items, and (3) Form C, consisting of 106 items. The test
'Ibid., pp. 11-19.
86 I
i
: i
can be given with any combination of these forms. For this j
study Form A and B, consisting of 37^ items, was adminis- i
tered to each of the subjects. The combined Form A and B
:is most commonly used in research and good routine work.
1 Leonard V. Gordon's Survey of Personal Values (SPV) is
a forced-choice scale consisting of thirty sets of three
!statements or triads. The scales are defined by high-scor
ing individual values. There are no descriptions for low
scoring individuals. There are six scales which are:
P - Practical Mindedness: To always get one1s money's
worth, to take good care of one's property, to get
full use out of one's possessions, to do things
that will pay off, to be very careful with one's
money.
A - Achievement: To work on difficult problems, to have
I a challenging job to tackle, to strive to accomplish
something significant, to set the highest standards
i of accomplishment for oneself, to do an outstanding
| job in anything one tries.
V - Variety: To do things that are new and different,
to have a variety of experiences, to be able to
travel a great deal, to go to strange or unusual
! places, to experience an element of danger.
D - Decisiveness: To have strong and firm convictions,
to make decisions quickly, to always come directly
to the point, to make one's position on matters
very clear, to come to a decision and stick to it.
j 0 - Orderliness: To have well-organized work habits,
| to keep things in their proper place, to be very
orderly personally, to follow a systematic approach
in doing things, to do things according to a sched-
i ule.
^Ibid., p. 3.
85
lullt Proneness
'Timid, Insecure)
Factor 0
versus
Factor Q]_
Confident Adequacy
(Confident, Self-
Secure)
Radicalism versus Conservatism of Tem-
perament
Factor 0,2
e 1 f - S u f flciencv
(Self'-Suf f icient,
Resourceful)
High Self-Sentiment
d>rmation
(Controlled, Exac t - •
ing *111 lower;
Ugh Ergic Tension
( Sense, .".xcitatie;
versus Group Dependency
(Sociably Group Depend-
ent)
Factor
versus Poor Self-Sentiment
Formation
(Uncontrolled, Lax)
Factor Q4
versus Low Ergic Tension ^
(Phlegmatic, Composed)
The raw scores from the 16 P. F. test were converted
to sten scores. The range of average is between score 5
and 6, with any scores of 4 and below and 7 and above being
definite departures from the average.
There are three forms of the 16 P. F. test: (l) Form
A. consisting of 187 items, (2) Form B, consisting of 187
it^ms, and (3) Form C, consisting of 106 items. The test
°Zbid., pp. 11-19.
can be given with any combination of these forms. For this
!study Form A and B, consisting of 37^ items, was adminis
tered to each of the subjects. The combined Form A and B
•5
is most commonly used in research and good routine work.
; Leonard V. Gordon's Survey of Personal Values (SPV) is
ia forced-choice scale consisting of thirty sets of three
statements or triads. The scales are defined by high-scor-
I
ling individual values. There are no descriptions for low
i
;scoring individuals. There are six scales which are:
P - Practical Mindedness: To always get one's money's
worth, to take good care of one's property, to get
full use out of one's possessions, to do things
that will pay off, to be very careful with one's
money.
A - Achievement: To work on difficult problems, to have
| a challenging Job to tackle, to strive to accomplish
I something significant, to set the highest standards
of accomplishment for oneself, to do an outstanding
Job in anything one tries.
V - Variety: To do things that are new and different,
| to have a variety of experiences, to be able to
i travel a great deal, to go to strange or unusual
i places, to experience an element of danger.
I
i D - Decisiveness: To have strong and firm convictions,
to make decisions quickly, to always come directly
to the point, to make one's position on matters
i very clear, to come to a decision and stick to it.
i
0 - Orderliness: To have well-organized work habits,
to keep things in their proper place, to be very
orderly personally, to follow a systematic approach
! in doing things, to do things according to a sched-
I ule.
^Ibid., p. 3.
87
G - Goal Orientation: To have a definite goal toward
which to work, to stick to a problem until it is
solved, to direct one's efforts toward clear-cut
j objectives, to know precisely where one is headed,
j to keep one's goals clearly in mind.^
Scores for this test are interpreted in terms of per
centile norms established for different groups. The range
jof scores is divided into five levels of equal standard
scores.
! Very High - 9^th to 99th percentile
! High - 70th to 93rd percentile
Average - 32nd to 69th percentile
| Low - 8th to 31st percentile
' Very Low - 1st to 7th percentile5
|
The 31st and 70th percentiles can be used to determine
jabove and below average scores of each factor. Score de-
I
1
Iscriptions and cut-off points are the same for the SPV as
they are for Gordon's Survey of Interpersonal Values.
The Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV) was designed
to measure certain critical values which involve a person's
relationships to others and/or their relationship to him.
Gordon suggests that these values are important in the per-
i
,son's personal, social, martial and occupational adjust-
f
jment. The six scales are:
i
1
!
I 4
j Leonard V. Gordon, Survey of Personal Values Manual
(Chicago, 1967)* p. 1.
5Ibid., p. 2.
£
Leonard V. Gordon, Manual for Survey of Interpersonal
Values (Chicago, i960), p. 3.
I
! S -
i
R -
I -
1 B -
L -
! The SIV and SPV are basically the same test in terms
jof scoring and administration procedures. Used in conjunc-
ition with each other they provide a picture of dominant
interests from a personal and interpersonal point of view.
Both tests were developed through the use of factor analy-
jsis. A research brief, which accompanies the test manual
;for the SIV, Includes normative data for many professional
8
groups.
The Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator (PIPI) is
{a refinement of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instruction
i
I
7Ibid.
i Q
Leonard V. Gordon, "Research Briefs on Survey of In
terpersonal Values: Manual Supplement," Mimeographed (Chi
cago, 1963).
Support: Being treated with understanding, receiving
encouragement from other people, being treated with
kindness and consideration.
Conformity: Doing what is socially correct, following
regulations closely, doing what is accepted and prop
er, being a conformist.
Recognition: Being looked up to and admired, being
considered important, attracting favorable notice,
achieving recognition.
Independence: Having the right to do whatever one
wants to do, being free to make one's own decisions,
being able to do things in one's own way.
Benevolence: Doing things for other people, sharing
with others, helping the unfortunate, being generous.
Leadership: Being in charge of other people, having
authority over others, being in a position of leader
ship or power.^
! 89
;which was revised through three decades of use in educa
tional research. The test consists of twelve tetrads which
included 24 items characteristic of effective college in
structors and another 24 items which do not discriminate
between effective and noneffective college instructors.
The maximum score possible is 24 which would indicate that
the instructor possesses all the behavioral traits of ef
fective college teachers. The PIPI scales are based on the
ten broad categories of teaching behavior developed by
Q
H. H. Remmers and D. N. Elliott. These categories in
cluded:
1. Interest in Subject
2. Sympathetic Attitude toward Students
3. Fairness of Grading
4. Liberal and Progressive Attitude
5* Presentation of Subject Matter
6. Sense of Proportion and Humor
7. Self-reliance and Confidence
1 8. Personal Peculiarities
9* Personal Appearance
10. Stimulating Intellectual Curiosity
The normative sample that was used for comparison of
the test results consisted of 16,014 student ratings of 112
instructors. Table I presents the percentile norms which
were used.
! %i. H. Remmers and D. N. Elliott, "The Indiana Col-
, lege and University Staff-Evaluation Program," School and
Society, 70 (19^9), 169.
■^John H. Snedeker and H. H. Remmers, Manual for the
, Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator (West Lafayette,
jIndiana, I960), p. 12.
TABLE 111
Percentile Norms Based on 112 Teachers on the PIPI
Mean Raw Score
Percentile Form A Form B
99
17.8
18.5
95 16.5 17.5
90 15.7 16.3
80 14.9 15.3
75 14.5
14.9
70 14.1 14.5
60
13.7 13.9
50
13.1
13.4
40 12.7
12.9
30 12.1
12.3
25 11.9 11.9
20 11.5 11.5
10
10.5 10.5
5 9.9 9.7
1
8.5 8.5
I The remaining measure used in the study was the stu-
I
dent semester grades. They were used as a measure of the
student's academic progress from the teacher's point of
view. They were also compared to student scores on the
i
I
|other tests as a measure of possible teacher prejudice.
I
Procedures
| The random sample of students was established by use
: of the official roll sheets for each class and a random
I
i table of numbers. Each student on the roll was assigned
j a number starting with one and finishing with the last
| name on the list (usually twenty) according to their alpha-
| betical listing. A random table of numbers was then used
11Ibid.
i
jto select the five students for the sample and the two al
ternates (in case there were "no-show" subjects).
i
I A form letter was then given to each teacher for dis
tribution to the students selected for use in the study.
The letter included each student's name in order that sub
stitutions, by the teacher or the student, could not be
made. The contents of the letter were simple and directs
! Dear (Student's name)
I would like to ask for your assistance in order to
complete a dissertation research project. The research
: is concerned with student attitudes and opinions. I
sincerely hope that you will be able to assist me in
| this research by giving me two hours of your time.
! Below you will find a sign-up column which presents
j three days and three sets of hours from which you may
choose. It is imperative that you keep the appointment
| once you have committed yourself.
| The remainder of the letter contained the column of
j days and times from which the student could choose and the
i signature of the researcher. These sheets were collected
j
| by the teacher and returned to the researcher for tabula-
|
tion. In the case where a student could not participate
in the study one of the alternates was selected.
i
A regular classroom was used for the testing period
i for the students with the researcher explaining each of the
I
| test instruments according to the instructions suggested by
t
| the test's authors for best results. The order of test
| taking was: (l) the Survey of Personal Values; (2) the Sur-
| vey of Interpersonal Values; and (3) the Sixteen Personal-
| lty Factor Questionnaire. The tests were administered to
I 92
I
| the students one week prior to the end of the semester. At
! the last meeting of the class it was normal procedure to
:ask all the students in the class to fill out a teacher
!
! evaluation form devised by the department. The Purdue In-
| structor Performance Indicator was substituted for the
!regular evaluation form normally used. Those students who
I
| composed the sample for the study were told to put their
1 identification number, given to them at the previous test
ing session, on their forms of the PIPI which were other
wise anonymous rating sheets.
The teachers in the study were given the same tests,
in the same order as were the students, at a separate time.
I Individual appointments were made for the teachers' con-
i
ivenience. The grades given to the students, at the end of
the semester, were collected from the official grade forms
submitted to the Office of Records at the university by the
!teachers.
With all the pertinent data collected, the researcher
:scored the tests and prepared them for submission to the
;University of Southern California Computer Science Labora-
jtory. The procedure used in the analysis of the data was
;a stepwise regression program (BMD 02R) devised for com-
i
!puter use at the Health Sciences Computing Facility at the
I
|University of California at Los Angeles and revised in July
of 1968. The level of significance was established from
j 93
12
the Fisher and Yates' Standard Tables.
I
Rationale for the Design
I The beginning public speaking classes were selected
! for use In this study for several reasons. First, this Is
| the most frequently offered speech course, with the largest
i
| overall enrollment, available to college students In de-
l
partments of speech communication across the nation. Sec-
i
ond, the course is made up of predominantly non-speech ma
jors. Third, this course is more frequently required or
suggested as a general education requirement than any other
speech communication course. Fourth, there are more col
lege speech communication teachers teaching this course
; than any other. Fifth, and last, this course was readily
available and provided a homogeneous sample of teachers.
i The instruments selected for use in the study were
I
| chosen because they appeared to be the most reliable, val
id, well-researched, appropriate, expedient, and authorita
tive tests available for this type of research.
The procedures used for collecting and processing the
data were determined with the following cautions in mind.
I First, a random sample of students helps alleviate the pos
sibility of prejudicing the results of the study. Second,
|
| 12R. A. Fisher and F. Yates, Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research (London,
|193M)T
i 94
students were given no more information than was necessary
to complete the test instruments in order to insure their
I unbiased reaction to the overall research situation.
Third, the administration of the PIPI was reserved for a
later date in order to separate the mental set established
jby the first test period, and also, to provide a reaction
|situation in which all students were rating the teacher.
!
iAnd finally, the statistical procedures used were deemed
|most appropriate to the research problem, and the use of
:the computer assisted accuracy in tabulation of the data.
CHAPTER IV
i
RESULTS OP THE STUDY
I
General Statement of the Problem
The problem for this study was to find what relation-
j ships exist between personality and attitude variables of
I teachers of beginning speech communication and their stu-
;dents which affect their evaluations of each other. The
;specific questions to be answered in the study are reported
|in the section on Findings.
i
I
| Procedures
I
; The treatment procedures included a multiple correla
tion and stepwise regression analysis of the data. There
were a total of thirty variables in the study. The inde
pendent variables included sixteen personality factors,
six measures of personal attitudes, and six measures of
i
1 interpersonal attitudes. The dependent variables were
| Purdue Instructors Performance Indicator scores and student
i
j course grades.
!
t
| Findings
| Central tendency information is provided in Table 1
which reports the students' mean, standard deviation, and
95
96
TABLE 1
STUDENTS' MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
(N=54)
Variable Mean S.D.
A Reserved— Outgoing 21.70
5.99
B Bright— Dull 17.83 2.37
C Easily Upset— Calm 31.46 6.9 6
E Humble — Assertive
27.39
7.32
F Sober— Happy-go-lucky
35.63
7 .8 0
G Expedient— Conscientious 23.11 5 .6 1
H Shy— Venturesome 30.63 10.62
I Tough-minded— Tender-minded 20.52 6.30
L Trusting— Suspicious 18.31 6.10
M Practical— Imaginative
25.07 6 .8 0
N Forthright — Shrewd 19.96 4.23
0 Self-assured— Apprehensive
21.67 7.50
Ql
Conservative— Experimenting 21.78 4.08
0.2
Group-dependency— Self-sufficient 19.96 5.24
Qo
0,4
Undisciplined— Controlled
19.43
4.24
Relaxed— Tense 25.98 8.5 8
P Practical Mindedness 11.94 5.49
A Achievement 18.67 5 .1 8
V Variety 17.67 7.07
D Decisiveness 15.50
4.99
0 Orderliness 11.46
5.95
G Goal Orientation
15.31 5.91
S Support 16.26 5.84
C Conformity 6.54 5.72
R Recognition 12.78 5.86
I Independence 20.43 6.68
B Benevolence 16.54 6.8 3
L Leadership 17.46 6.70
GR
PIPI
3.20
14.74
.68
2.67
I " 97
i
i
jstandard error scores on each of the variables. Student
!scores on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire are
!relatively consistent with the norms established for some
I
j2,000 college age subjects.
!
! Student scores on the Survey of Personal Values were
i I
I within the normal range when compared to the norms for col-j
liege students established by (Jordon from a sample of 2064
1
- subjects.
i
; Student scores on the Survey of Interpersonal Values
iwere within the normal range with the exception of Factor C
(Conformity). Factor C was lower (12th percentile) than
ithe average range of scores when compared to the norms for
college students established by Gordon from a sample of
j1821 subjects.2
I Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for
the teacher sample in the study. Using the mean scores of
I
!the teacher subjects, the profile in Figure 1 was con-
!
: structed.
1 Scores which were substantially higher than the normal
I range of scores for the general population were: (l) Factor
!b (Bright) at the 96th percentile; (2) Factor E (Assertive)
i
I at the 96th percentile; (3) Factor M (imaginative) at the
j
I
I
i 1Leonard V. Gordon, Survey of Personal Values (Chica
go, 1967), P. 4.
p
Leonard V. Gordon, Survey of Interpersonal Values
(Chicago, i960), p. 5.
98
TABLE 2
TEACHERS' MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
(N=9)
Variable
Mean S.D.
r
• A Reserved— Outgoing 16.44 5.81
i B Bright— Dull 18.89 2.89
C Easily Upset— Calm 28.56 4.82
E Humble — Assertive 31.78 7.23
F Sober— Happy-go-lucky 30.56 6.27
a Expedient— Conscientious 17.89 5.53
H Shy— Venturesome 25.56 7.52
I Tough-minded— Tender-minded 21.11 3.22
L Trusting— Suspicious 18.22 5.76
M Practical— Imaginative 32.56 5.27
N Forthright— Shrewd 18.67
3.46
0 Self-assured— Apprehensive 24.44
4.93
Ql
Conservative— Experimenting 24.56 3.75
0,2
Group-dependency— Self-sufficient
27.33 3.91
Q?
Undisciplined— Controlled 18.00 6 .1 6
04 Relaxed— Tense 27.44
5.77
P Practical Mindedne3S 10.44 3.94
A Achievement 22.33 3.94
V Variety 17.89 5.13
D Decisiveness 15.44
4.53
0 Orderliness 9.44
3.17
a Goal Orientation 14.44
5.25
s Support 16.11 4.34
c Conformity
5.H
2.26
R Recognition 10.44 3.40
I Independence 26.44
3.57
B Benevolence 14.67
5.02
L Leadership 17.22 5.14
GR 3.20 .38
PIPI 14.74 1.54
99
j
s a B B B a B m M B a H a B S s s n M E B B H B B s s B B B a a B B B a B a B n H a a n ^ B B a a B a B
Sten A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 #ile
9 8 .8
9 6.O
89.4
_ 170_
59.9
?2.7
10.6
4.0
10
~ -6 ~ ~
- q : -
Fig. 1. Sixteen P. F. profile of speech communication
teachers compared to the general population.
! 96th percentile; (4) Factor (Experimenting) at the 90th
!percentile; and (5) Factor Q2 (Self-Sufficient) at the 89th
percentile. The only score which was substantially lower
than the general population norm was Factor G (Expedient)
at the 1st percentile.
Teacher scores on the Survey of Personal Values were
!within the normal range with the exceptions of Factor A
(Achievement) being substantially higher and Factor 0 (Or
derliness) being substantially lower than the norms for
;college students.
| Teacher scores on the Survey of Interpersonal Values
I were within the normal range with the exceptions of Factor
]
jl (independence) being substantially higher and Factor C
|
|(Conformity) being substantially lower than the norm aver
age established for college students.
I 100
| The correlation coefficients produced by a comparison
]
jof student scores on the 16 P. P., SPV, and SIV with course
I
j grades for the semester are presented in Table 3. These
I
j correlation coefficients are reported for each group in the
I
|study. Each group was composed of six students resulting
|in a total student sample of fifty-four. Significant cor-
I relation coefficients at the .05 level of significance were
1 indicated with asterisks. When the total student sample
’ was considered Factor Q,^ (High Ergic Tension versus Low
:Ergic Tension) resulted in a significant correlation of
I - .318. This result tends to indicate that the scale which
i
I measured tenseness and excitability versus composure dis-
|criminated between the students who receive high and low
|
; grades for the semester. The minus correlation indicated
j that students who were composed and lacked tenseness were
1
|more likely to be graded higher.
i The comparison of student scores on the 16 P. V., SPV,
1
i
I and SIV with their ratings of instructors on the PIPI re-
i
: suited in the correlation coefficients presented on Table
4. Significant correlation coefficients at the .05 level
I of significance were indicated with asterisks. When the
;total student sample was considered, Factor A (Sizothymia
j versus Cyclothymia) resulted in a significant correlation
|of .322. This result tends to indicate that the scale
;which measured aloofness versus warm sociability discrimi-
!
nated between students who tend to rate high and those who
TABLE 3
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
16 P.F., SPY, AND SIV VERSUS GRADE
SPV
SIV
Test Var. Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Total
1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 N=54
_____
A .568
-.4 9 3 .609
.0^4 .382 -.018 .614
•353
.078
.135
B -.000 - .6 3 2 - .6 2 3 .800* -.000
.273
.850*
-.131
- .7 0 2 .021
C .219 .514
.389
. 761* .147
.139
.626
- .5 6 5 .077 .285
E
- .0 5 7
.201 -.071 -.631 - .037 .705
.052 -.124 - .3 8 8 - .0 7 6
F -.444 .474
-.057 -.913* .817* .120 -.050 .312
-.207 -.042
G .470 .441
.337 .859* -.179
- .6 3 8 - .0 9 6 -.642 .438 .147
H .632 .261 - .696
.553
.086 .652 .200 .246
.185
I
.095
.141 .056 .062
-.379
-.469 .084
•53.7 .187 .023
L -.528
.209
- .2 0 8
-.453
.652 .023 -.417 . .697 - .681 -.120
M -.000 - .4 3 5 .626
.293 -.699
.096 .104 .504 - .02? .013
N -.552 .665 .8^9* .299
.476 -.336 .646
.035 .019 .237
0 -.858* .144 -.000
.035
.162 -.348
- .5 6 3 •753* - .0 6 7 -.204
Ql
-.322
-.715
-.0 8 0
.659 .113 .495
.502 - .6 8 0 -.764*
.017
Q2
Q3
-.409 -.453 -.1 1 5 -.293
- .2 3 0 -.410 -.504 -.544
-.251 -.129
.318 -.510 - .0 8 8 .118 -.212 - .792* .107 -.819* .518 .054
04
- .6 9 8 .015 - .3 2 1 -.580 .160 .005 -.945*
.226 -.481 -.318-
p .094 .671
.653
.945* -.295
.227
-.749* • 533 .409 .189
A .058 .804* -.188 -.778" -.548 - .0 8 9 .823* -.510 -.076 -.002
V - .3 6 6
-.171 - .1 2 8 .414 .403 .360 -.288
• 279
-.102
-.029
D
-.323 .171 -.427 -.801* -.000 -.446 .790* .106 -.786* -.208
0 -.194 .407 .625
.247
.017 - .733* -.311 .774* .111
G .466 -.412 - .3 2 8 -.718*
•397
-.2 9 6
.259
- .444 -.144 -.058
S -.3 0 2 -.316 .781*
.279 .573
- .0 8 3 -.350
.413
• 395 • .053
c -.000
-.279 .017 .377
-.000 - .6 6 9 -.188
-.155 .127 .065
R .051 .8 5 6*
.515
.184 .066 -.415 -.648
.717*
.546
.073
I -.123 .168 - .2 2 5 .071 .201 .884* .428
- .717*
-.465
.113
B .186 - • 752*
-.424 -.141
-.255
- .1 1 6 - .1 1 6 .068 -.510 - .2 3 0
L .174 .600 -.218
- .3 8 9 -.201 -.104
.493
-.5 2 0 -.346 -.042
♦Significant at the .05 level.
101
TABLE 4
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
16 P.F., SFV, AND SIV VERSUS PIPI
Test Var. Group Group Group Group Grouo Grcuo Group Group Group Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N=54
16 P. F. A .433 -.0 3 6 .035 -.156 .114 .290 -.4 5 7 . 672 .779* .332*
B .508 .143 .632 -.135 .405 - .1 1 8 - .2 3 2 - .4 8 2 .564 .071
C .018 - .6 7 0 - .4 9 6 .270 - .1 7 8 .287 .115 .704 .757 .020
E .536 - .0 0 0 .198 -.042 - .4 7 0 - .6 0 7 .296 .397 - .4 9 8 -.005
F -.2 7 2 . 7 8 7* .550 .577 .493 .086 .075 0 1 8 - .3 7 2 .243
G .187 - .6 3 0 -.379 - .1 7 8 .057 .824* - .102 -.315 -.464 - .0 5 2
H .608 .329 .265 .568 .140 .247 -.145 .807* .435 .331
I .193 .942* - .0 2 2 - .5 7 6 - .1 1 6 .254 - .0 1 0 .359 .022 .243
L .140 -.711* -.O83 -.045 .605 -.098 .009 -.5 8 2 -.268 .017
M .719* .230 -.911* .307 - .6 0 8 -.571 - .3 6 0 .625 - .6 0 8 .060
N .455 .495 - .4 7 8 -.548 .428 .463 .254 .614 -.205 .053
0 - .4 3 1 .673 -.427 -.875* .334 -.176 .138 - .6 7 2 -.127 - .0 3 8
Ql .209 .429 .286 -.557 .255 -.432 .254 - .0 1 0 -.217 -.2 0 3
Q2 .004 .087 -.642 .286 .089 - .0 6 9 .791* . 7 2 2* - .6 3 9 - .0 5 2
Q-x .347 - .1 7 0 .176 .289 - .0 0 0 .995* .480 .263 -.031 .140
Q4 -.155 .466 - .0 0 0 -.446 .282 -.425 .145 - .6 2 7 - .3 9 0 .011
SPV P -.490 .658 -.779* - .4 6 5 - .0 6 1 .334 .446 - .0 3 1 - .0 0 0 -.047
A .535 .117 *773* .699 -.827* .007 -.399 -.431 .440 -.055
V -.515 .953* .642 .221 .572 -.018 .357 .579 -.854* .126
D .140 .607 .447 .143 .090 -.133 -.506 -.173 -.198 .045
0 - .0 8 0 -.9 2 1* -.809* -.3 8 7 .027 - .2 2 5 - .2 4 7 - .1 0 9 .373 - .1 9 8
G .171 -.488 - .3 3 8 -.142 .187 .134 .166 - .2 3 5 .491 .040
SIV S - .2 1 6 .536 - .3 8 8 .081 .330 .120 .233 .069 -.075 .076
C - .5 5 8 -.533 -.437 - .6 2 7 - .1 5 6 .282 - .4 3 1 -.513 .385 -.146
R .370 .098 .150 - .2 9 6 -.191 .873* .028 -.394 .124 .016
1 - .1 7 0 .426 - .0 9 0 . 7 6 1* .208 -.9 6 5* .328 .418 - .2 7 6 - .0 3 8
B - .2 7 6 -.051 .453 .227 .029 -.157 -.224 .105 .129 .089
L .612 -.577 .520 .027 -.229 .178 .028 .298 -.085 - .0 0 8
♦Significant at the .05 level.
102
rate low when Judging teaching effectiveness. The positive
correlation Indicated that students who are warm and soci
able tend to rate their teachers higher than students who
are aloof.
The comparison of Instructors' scores on the 16 P. P.,
SPV, and SIV with the student ratings on the PIPI resulted
In the correlation coefficients presented in Table 5. Sig
nificant correlation coefficients at the .05 level of sig
nificance are indicated with asterisks. The comparison of
'the 16 P. F. and the PIPI scores for the instructors re
sulted in three significant correlations. The highest cor-
|relation coefficient which was significant at the .05 level
was Q2 (Group-Adherence versus Self-Sufficiency) with a
I correlation of .717. This result tends to indicate that
the scale which measured group dependence versus resource
fulness discriminated between teachers who are rated effec
tive and those rated ineffective. The positive correlation
I tends to suggest that teachers who are resourceful and in-
!
dependent, rather than socially group dependent, receive
Ihigher ratings from their students. Factor Q,^ (low Ergic
i .
Tension versus High Ergic Tension) when compared with the
PIPI resulted In a correlation coefficient of -.646. This
result tends to Indicate that the scale which measured
1
|tenseness and excitability versus composure discriminated
jbetween teachers who receive effective and ineffective rat
ings by their students. Factor Q1 (Conservatism versus
TABLE 5
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
TEACHERS' 16 P. F., SPV, AND SIV VERSUS PIPI -
AND GRADES
(N=9)
Test
Variable PIPI Grade
16 P.F. A Reserved— Outgoing -.2 7 1 .051
B Bright— Dull .015 .149
C Easily Upset— Calm
-.057
.158
E Humble— Assertive
.139
.082
F Sobe r— Happy-go-lucky -.532 -.697*
G Expedient— Conscientious -.4l4 .174
H Shy— Venture some -.594 -.449
I Tough-minded— Tende r-minded
• 057
.617*
L Trusting— Suspicious
• 377
.4l4
M Practical— Imaginative - .0 0 8 .452
N Forthright— Shrewd -.370 -.315
0 Self-assured— Apprehensive -.1 1 8 -.390
Qi
Conse rvat ive — Expe rime nt ing
.633*
.124
Qg Group-dependency— Self-sufficient
.717* .695*
03
Undisciplined— Controlled .308 .220
04
Relaxed— Tense -.646* -.046
SPV' P Practical Mindedness
-.371
.143
A Achievement
-.33^
-.614*
V Variety
.257 .57^
D Decisiveness .671* .066
0 Orderliness .227 .418
G Goal Orientation -.1 6 5 -.517
SIV S Support -.676* .008
C Conformity .116 .352
R Recognition -.0 9 8 -.2 8 3
I Independence .854* .408
B Benevolence -.510 .066
L Leadership .489
-.3 2 2
*Signifleant at the .05 level.
105
Radicalism) produced a significant correlation of .633.
(This result tends to Indicate that the scale which measured
conservatism of temperament versus radicalism of tempera
ment discriminated between effective and ineffective teach
ers.
i The comparison of the instructors1 scores on the SPV
land the PIPI resulted in a significant correlation of .671
on Factor D (Decisiveness) at the .05 level of significance.
This result tends to indicate that the attitude factor of
decisiveness discriminated between effective and ineffec
tive teachers.
i
j The comparison of the instructors' scores on the SIV
j and the PIPI resulted in two significant correlations at
!
!the .05 level of significance. The highest correlation for
I
jthis group was .85^ on Factor I (independence). This re-
J suit tends to indicate that teachers who were independent,
j
!made their own decisions, and sought strong self-determin-
i
ance were rated more effective by their students. Factor S
i
(Support) produced a significant negative correlation of
’-.6 7 6. This result tends to indicate teachers who like re-
1
j ceiving understanding, encouragement, and consideration
I from others are judged ineffective by their students.
I
I The comparison of the instructors' scores on the 16
j P. F. and student grades resulted in three significant cor-
|relations at the .05 level of significance. The highest
correlation for this group was -.697 on Factor F (Surgency
|versus Desurgency). This result tended to indicate that
i
1 the scale which measured happy-go-lucky versus sober per-
I
sonality characteristics discriminated between teachers'
high and low grading. Teachers who scored high on desur-
i gency, who were sober and serious, tended to grade their
'students lower. The second highest significant correlation
|for this group was Factor (Group Adherence versus Self-
1 Sufficiency) with a correlation of .695. This result
!tended to indicate that the scale which measured socially
group dependent versus self-sufficiency discriminated be
tween teachers who graded their students high or low.
!
Teachers who were self-sufficient and resourceful were more
| likely to grade their students high. The remaining signif-
i
Iicant correlation was on Factor I (Harria versus Premsia)
with a correlation of .617. This result tended to indicate
that the scale which measured sensitive and effeminate ver-
I
| sus tough and realistic characteristics discriminated
i
I teachers who graded high from those who graded low. Teach
ers who were more sensitive, subjective, gentle, and effem-
! inate tended to give higher grades to their students.
| The second statistical procedure applied to the data
|
| under study was a multiple regression analysis. The cor-
j relation coefficients reported in the study do not give an
i
1 estimation of the proportion of influence each independent
variable has on the dependent variables; therefore, a step
wise regression procedure was employed in order to provide
! 107
more Information for Interpreting the correlation coeffi
cients. The variable which accounted for the largest pro
portion of influence on the variance of the dependent vari-
|
jable was entered first in the stepwise regression procedure.
i
| The following stepwise regression summary tables pro
vide information on the multiple correlation (Multiple R),
|the multiple correlation squared (Multiple RSQ), the in
crease in RSQ, and the F Value for each variable. For more
|
complete tables of the analysis of variance procedure refer
i to Appendix B.
Six specific questions were posed for investigation in
i
this study. Answers to these questions were provided in
|the final phase of reporting the findings of the study.
i
I The first question was:
i
1. What relationships exist between personality fac
tors as measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques
tionnaire (l6 P. F.) and student ratings of teacher effec-
■ tiveness? Table 6 reports a summary of the stepwise re
gression procedure used in analyzing the relationships of
I student scores on the 16 P. F. and student ratings of their
i
j instructors on the PIPI. Factor A (Sizothymia versus Cy-
j
j clothymia) has an F Value of 6.4476 which was significant
j at the .05 level and accounted for 11 percent of the vari-
| ance of the dependent variable. This result indicates that
the scale which measured the warm and sociable versus the
stiff and aloof personality was a significant predictor of
! 108
i
| how students rated the effectiveness of their teachers.
j Students who were easy going, warm, and kindly tended to
rate their teachers as being effective more than did stu
dents who were critical, aloof, suspicious, and cold.
There was insufficient increase in Multiple RSQ for the re
maining variables to be predictive.
TABLE 6
STEPWISE
16
REGRESSION SUMMARY
P. F. VERSUS PIPI
(N=54)
TABLE
Step
No.
Variable
Enter Remove
Multiple
R RSQ
Increase
in RSQ F Value
1 A
0.3321 0.1103 0.1103
6.4476*
*Signifleant at the .05 level.
Table 7 reports a summary of the stepwise regression
procedure used in analyzing the relationship of teacher
!scores on the 16 P. F. and student ratings of their in-
i
|structors on the PIPI. Factor Qp (Group Adherence versus
i
!Self-Sufficiency) had an F Value of 7*4035 which was sig
nificant at the .05 level and accounted for 51 percent of
i
the variance of the dependent variable. This result indi-
|cates that the scale which measured self-sufficiency and
jresourcefulness versus sociable group dependence of person
ality was a significant predictor of teacher effectiveness.
Teachers who were self-sufficient and resourceful tended to
be rated as effective by their students. Factor Q^ (Con-
; 109
i
|servatlsm versus Radicalism) had an P Value of 7*63^8 which
I was significant at the .05 level and accounted for 27 per-
|cent of the variance of the dependent variable. This re-
I
|suit indicates that the scale which measured conservative
i
l
|versus radical temperament discriminated between the effec-
!
|tive and ineffective teachers. Teachers who scored high on
radicalism and who were more interested in leading and per-
lsuading people, in analytical thought, and who moralized
!less were rated as being more effective by their students.
Factor 0 (Untroubled Adequacy versus Guilt Proneness) had
;an P Value of 13.0323 which was significant at the .05
I
I level and accounted for 16 percent of the variance of the
|dependent variable. This result indicates that the scale
j
|which measured the timid and insecure versus the confident
and self-secure personality discriminated between the effec
tive and ineffective teacher. The teacher who was self-
j confident, cheerful, tough, and vigorous was more likely to
^ be rated as being effective by students. In combination
Factors Q2, and 0 accounted for 9^ percent of the vari-
; ance of the dependent variable.
110
TABLE 7
STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
16 P. F. VERSUS PIPI
(Teachers N=9)
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No.
i
Enter Remove R RSQ in RSQ F Value
1
q2 0.7169
0.51^0 0.51^0 7.4035*
! 2 Q1
0.8866 0.7861 0 .2 7 2 1 7.6348*
! 3
0 0.9699 0.9407 0.1546 13.0323*
I
I
*Signifleant at the .05 level.
i
f
2. What relationships exist between personality fac
tors as measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques
tionnaire (l6 P. F.) and teacher grade ratings of students?
jTable 7 reports a summary of the stepwise regression proce-
idure used in analyzing the relationships of student scores
on the 16 P. F. and teacher grade ratings of students.
Factor Q^ (low Ergic Tension versus High Ergic Tension) had
ian F Value of 5.8458 which was significant at the .05 level
!
;and accounted for 10 percent of the variance of the depend
ent variable. This result indicated that the scale which
jmeasured the tense and excitable versus the composed per-
j3onality discriminated between students receiving high and
| low course grades. Students who scored high in tenseness,
[and tended to be less orderly than more composed students,
Iwere more likely to receive low semester grades from their
instructors. There was insufficient increase in Multiple
RSQ for the remaining variables to be predictive.
Ill
STEPWISE
16
TABLE 8
REGRESSION SUMMARY
P. P. VERSUS GRADE
(n-54)
TABLE
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No. Enter Remove R RSQ in RSQ P Value
1
Q4
0 .3 1 7 9 0 .1 0 1 1 0.1011 5.8458*
■^Significant at the .05 level.
i Table 9 reports a summary of the stepwise regression
procedure used in analyzing the relationships of teacher
iscores on the 16 P. P. and their grade ratings of students,
factor F (Surgency versus Desurgency) had an P Value of
6 .6 2 9 7 which was significant at the .05 level and accounted
for 49 percent of the variance of the dependent variable.
This result indicated that the scale which measured the
enthusiastic and happy-go-lucky versus the sober and serious
personality discriminated between teachers' grade rating of
their students. Teachers who were silent, depressed, sober,
|and incommunicative tended to grade their students lower
I
jthan those who were cheerful, talkative, and happy-go-lucky.
jPactor M (Praxemia versus Autia) had an F Value of 5.1824
jwhich was significant at the .05 level and accounted for 24
percent of the variance of the dependent variable. This
result indicated that the scale which measured the absent-
minded and unconventional versus the practical and conven
tional personality discriminated between the grades which
112
teachers give to their students. Teachers who were uncon
ventional, Imaginative, absent-minded, and generally cheer
ful tended to grade their students higher. Factor B (More
Intelligent versus Less Intelligent) had an F Value of
5.7853 which was significant at the .05 level and accounted
for 15 percent of the variance of the dependent variable.
This result indicated that the scale which measured the
i
bright versus dull personality discriminated between the
grades which teachers gave to their students. Teachers who
1 TABLE 9
! STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
I 16 P. F. VERSUS GRADE
! (Teachers N=9)
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No.
Enter Remove R
RSQ in RSQ F Value
1
F 0.6974 0.4864 0.4864 6.6297*
2
M 0.8511 0.7244 0 .2 3 8 0 5.1824*
3
B
0.9339
0.8722 0.1478
5.7353*
I *Signifleant at the .05 level.
i
'were bright, conscientious, preservering, and cultured
I tended to grade their students higher than those who were
i
dull, quitting, and boorish. In combination Factors F, M,
and B accounted for 87 percent of the variance of the de
pendent variable.
3. What relationships exist between attitude factors
as measured by the Study of Personal and Interpersonal
Values and student ratings of teacher effectiveness? The
113
F Values for the SPV and SIV were insufficient for predict
ing the variance of the dependent variable.
Table 10 reports a summary of the stepwise regression
procedure used in analyzing the relationships of teachers1'
scores on the SPV and student ratings of teacher effective
ness. Factor D (Decisiveness) had an F Value of 5.7234
which was significant at the .05 level and accounted for
i
|45 percent of the variance of the dependent variable. This
|
| TABLE 10
I STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
SPV VERSUS PIPI
(Teachers N=9)
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No. Enter Remove R RSQ In RSQ F Value
1 D 0.6707 0.4498 0.4498 5.7234*
■^Significant at the .05 level.
result Indicated that the scale which measured decisiveness
of attitude discriminated between effective and ineffective
1
!teachers as rated by their students. The teacher who had
|strong convictions and came to the point quickly was more
I
likely to be rated as effective by students. The F Values
for the remaining variables were insignificant In providing
information for the prediction of the dependent variable.
Table 11 reports the summary of the stepwise regres
sion procedure used in analyzing the relationships of
teachers’ SIV scores and student ratings of teacher effec-
114
tlveness. Factor I (independence) had an F Value of 1 8 .8 5 4 9
Jwhich was significant at the .05 level and accounted for 73
percent of the variance of the dependent variable. This
result indicated that the scale which measured independence
of attitude discriminated between effective and ineffective
teachers as rated by their students. The teacher who valued
being free to make his own decisions, having the right to
Ido what he wanted, and who did things in his own way was
Lore likely to be judged an effective teacher by his stu-
jdents.
I TABLE 11
' STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
SIV VERSUS PIPI
(Teachers N=9)
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No. Enter Remove R RSQ in RSQ F Value
1 I 0.8540 0.7293 0.7293 13.8549*
^Significant at the .05 level.
i 4. What relationships exist between attitude factors
i
I as measured by the Study of Personal and Interpersonal
j Values and teacher grade ratings of students? Tne F Values
ifor the teacher and student SPV and SIV were insignificant
in providing information for the prediction of the depend
ent variable.
5. What relationships exist between combined attitude
and personality factor measures and student ratings of
I 115
I
teaching effectiveness? Table 12 reports a summary of the
stepwise regression procedure used In analyzing the rela
tionships of students' scores on combined attitude and per
sonality factors and student ratings of teacher effective
ness. Factor A (Sizothymia versus Cyclothymia) had an F
Value of 6.4476 which was significant at the .05 level and
accounted for 11 percent of the variance of the dependent
variable. This result Indicated that the scale which meas-
' TABLE 12
i STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
j 16 P. Fm SPV AND SIV VERSUS PIPI
j (N=54)
!Step Variable Multiple Increase
No. Enter Remove R RSQ, In RSQ F Value
1 A 0.3321 0.1103 0.1103 6.4476*
*Signifleant at the .05 level.
ured warmth and sociability versus aloofness and suspicion
|discriminated between students who rated their teachers high
land those who rated their teachers low. Easy-going and
jwarm students tended to rate their teachers low. The re-
!
mainlng variables had insignificant F Values.
Table 13 reports a summary of the stepwise regression
procedure used In analyzing the relationships of teachers'
scores on combined attitude and personality factors and
student ratings of teacher effectiveness. Factor I (inde
pendence) had an F Value of 18.8549 which was significant
! 116
i
jat the .05 level and accounted for 73 percent of the vari-
|ance of the dependent variable. This result Indicated that
I
jthe scale which measured Independence of attitude discrimi
nated between effective and ineffective teachers as rated
by their students. The teacher who valued being free to
make his own decisions, having the right to do what he
wanted, and who did things in his own way was more likely
;to be judged an effective teacher. Factor P (Practical
!
TABLE 13
I STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
! 16 P. F., SPV, AND SIV VERSUS PIPI
j (Teachers N=9)
Step
No.
Variable
Enter Remove
Multiple
R RSQ
Increase
in RSQ F Value
1
I (SIV) 0.8540 0.7293 0.7293 18.8549*
2 P (SPV 0.9615 0.9246 0.1953
15.5370*
*
Significant at the .05 level.
I Mindedness) had an F Value of 15.5370 which was significant
i
;at the .05 level and accounted for 20 percent of the vari-
jance of the dependent variable. This result indicated that
Jthe scale which measured practical mindedness as an atti
tude discriminated between effective and ineffective teach
ers as rated by their students. Teachers who scored high
on this scale tended to do things that would pay off and
were careful with the possessions. They were rated as more
117
effective by their students. In combination Factors I (SIV)
and Factor P (SPV) accounted for 93 percent of the vari
ance of the dependent variable.
6. What relationships exist between combined attitude
and personality factor measures and teacher grade ratings
of students? Table 14 reports a summary of the stepwise
regression procedure used in analyzing the relationships of
students' scores on combined attitude and personality fac-
i
|tors and teacher grade ratings of students. Factor Q^ had
I
TABLE 14
STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
16 P. V., SPV, AND SIV VERSUS GRADE
(Students N=54)
Step Variable Multiple Increase
No.
Enter Remove R RSQ ■ in RSQ F Value
1 0.3179 0.1011 0.1011 5.8458*
*Signifleant at the .05 level.
Ian F Value of 5.8458 which was significant at the .05 level
i
land accounted for 10 percent of the variance of the depend
ent variable. This result indicated that the scale which
measured tenseness and excitability versus composed person
ality discriminated between the grades students received.
Students who were composed and orderly tended to receive
higher grades. The remaining variables had insignificant
F Values.
118
Table 15 reports a summary of the stepwise regression
procedure used In analyzing the relationships of teachers'
scores on combined attitude and personality factors and
teacher grade ratings of students. Factor F (Surgency ver
sus Desurgency) had an F Value of 6.6297 which was signifi
cant at the .0 5 level and accounted for 49 percent of the
variance of the dependent variable. This result indicated
that the scale which measured enthusiastic versus sober
personality characteristics discriminated between teachers
l who graded their students high and low. Teachers who were
serious and glum tended to grade their students lower than
those who were enthusiastic and cheerful. Factor 0 (Order
liness) had an F Value of 17.4347 which was significant at
the .05 level and accounted for 38 percent of the variance
of the dependent variable. This result indicated that the
scale which measured orderliness discriminated between
teachers who graded their students high and low. Teachers
who demonstrated a preference for organized work habits and
|
| who followed a systematic approach to things tended to
i
I grade their students higher. Factor M (Praxernia versus
I
Autia) had an F Value of 3 7 .6 3 8 9 which was significant at
the .05 level of confidence and accounted for 12 percent
of the variance of the dependent variable.
119
TABLE 15
STEPWISE REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
16 P. P., SPV, AND SIV VERSUS GRADE
(Teachers N=9)
Step
No.
Variable
Enter Remove
Multiple
R RSQ
Increase
in RSQ F Value
1 F
0.6974
0.4864 0.4864 6.6297*
2 0 (SPV)
0.9319 O .8685 0.3821 17.4347*
3
M 0.9923
0.9846 0.1161
37.6389*
I *Signlfleant at the .05 level.
j
i
iThis result Indicated that the scale which measured absent-
I
i
jmindedness versus concerned with facts discriminated between
teachers who graded their students high and low. Teachers
who were unconventional and imaginative tended to grade
their students higher than did those who were conventional
and alert to practical needs. In combination Factors F, 0
(SPV), and M accounted for 99 percent of the variance of
the dependent variable.
Table 16 presents a comprehensive review of the find-
j
jings of the stepwise regression procedure for all treat-
j
jments. The first four columns review the comparison of the
jl6 P. F., SPV, and SIV individually with the students' PIPI
ratings, teachers' PIPI ratings, students' grade ratings,
and teachers' grade ratings. The last four columns review
the comparison of the combined personality and attitude
factors with the students' PIPI ratings, teachers' PIPI rat
ings, students' grade ratings, and teachers' grade ratings.
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF STEPWISE REGRESSION FINDINGS
S=54 T=9 S=54 t=9
PIPI PIPI Gr Gr
Combined 16 P.F.,
SPV & SIV
S=54
PIPI
T=9
PIPI
S=54
Gr
T=9
Gr
A Reserved— Outgoing
B Bright— Dull
C Easily Upset— Calm
E Humble— Assertive
F Sober— Happy-go-lucky
G Expedient— Conscientious
H Shy— Venturesome
I Tough-minded— Tender-minded
L Trusting— Suspicious
M Practical— Imaginative
N Forthright— Shrewd
0 Self-assured— Apprehensive
Conservative— Experimenting
0,2 Group-dependency— Self-sufficient
Qo Undisciplined— Controlled
05 Relaxed— Tense
11% &
l6#a
27
51
10$a
15#a
49
24
ll^a
20#a
73
10#a
49#a
12
38
I5 Practical Mindedness
A Achievement
D Decisiveness
0 Orderliness
G Goal Orientation
45
S Support
C Conformity
R Recognition
I Independence
B Benevolence
L Leadership
73
a-Percentage of variance of dependent variable.
CHAPTER V
|
I
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
j Summary
The problem for this study was to find what relation
ships exist between personality and attitude factors of
teachers of beginning speech communication and their stu-
i
dents which affect their evaluations of each other.
To obtain a sample oE* college-level instructors who
jwere relatively homogeneous in age, general ability, teach
ing experience, and instructional media, teaching fellows
in the beginning speech communication courses at the Uni
versity of Southern California were selected for use in
this study. The nine teaching fellows and six students
from each class were asked to complete one personality in
ventory, two attitude surveys, and one evaluation instru
ment. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, The
Survey of Personal Values, and The Survey of Interpersonal
|Values were completed by the instructors and students. The
students also were asked to complete evaluations of their
Instructors in the form of the Purdue Instructor Perform-
ance Indicator. The course grades assigned by the instruc-
j
jtors were used as evaluations of students' performance.
(The total number of variables under consideration were
121
122
thirty: (l) sixteen personality factors, (2) six personal
values, (3) six interpersonal values, (4) one evaluation of
effective instruction, and (5) one evaluation of student
effectiveness.
A multiple correlation and stepwise regression proce
dure produced the following results.
1. Students' scores on Factor A (Sizothymia versus
Cyclothymia) of the 16 P. F. Questionnaire were
related to students' ratings of teacher effec-
; tiveness.
| 2. Teachers' scores on Factor Q2 (Group Adherence
j versus Self-Sufficiency), Factor Q^ (Conserva
tism versus Radicalism), and Factor 0 (Untroubled
Adequacy versus Guilt Proneness) of the 16 P. F.
Questionnaire were related to teachers' effec
tiveness ratings.
3. Students' scores on Factor Q^ (Low Ergic Tension
versus High Ergic Tension) of the 16 P. F. Ques
tionnaire were related to the grades students
received from their teachers.
4. Teachers' scores on Factor F (Surgency versus
Desurgency), Factor M (Praxemia versus Autia),
and Factor B (Less Intelligent versus More Intel
ligent) of the 16 P. F. Questionnaire were related
to the grades assigned to their students.
5. Students' scores on the SPV and SIV could not be
demonstrated to have had an Influence on student
ratings of teachers' effectiveness.
6. Teachers' scores on Factor D (Decisiveness) of
the SPV were related to students' ratings of
teachers' effectiveness.
7. Teachers' scores on Factor I (independence) of
the SIV were related to students' ratings of
teachers' effectiveness.
8. Teachers' and students' scores on the SPV and
SIV could not be demonstrated to have had an In
fluence on the students' grades.
9. Students' scores on Factor A (Sizothymia versus
Cyclothymia) were related to their ratings of
teacher effectiveness when the combined factors
of the 16 P. F., SPV, and SIV were considered.
10. Teachers' scores on Factor I (independence) and
Factor P (Practical Mindedness) were related to
the students' ratings of teachers' effectiveness
when the combined factors of the 16 P. F., SPV,
and SIV were considered.
11. Students' scores on Factor (Low Ergic Tension
versus High Ergic Tension) were related to teach
er grade ratings of student when the combined
factors of the 16 P. F., SPV, and SIV were con
sidered.
124
12. Teachers' scores on Factor F (Surgency versus
Desurgency), Factor 0 (Orderliness), and Factor M
! (Praxernia versus Autla) were related to teachers'
grade ratings of students when the combined fac
tors of the 16 P. F., SPV, and SIV were consid
ered.
Conclusions
The group of speech communication teachers In this
i
| study were characterized most strongly by being self-suffl-
I
Icient. Three of Cattell's personality factors give Infor
mation regarding the Independence and self-assurance levels
i
of the subjects; the sample teachers scored high on all
three factors. They possessed strong leadership qualities
In that they were Independent minded, sometimes to the
point of being very unconventional and even obstructive.
There was a definite tendency to be participatory In group
activities, to be outspoken, and to attempt to persuade
! others rather than to go along with the group. There also
i
i appeared to have been less tendency to seek conventional
i
I
solutions to problems and to criticize openly.
A second general characteristic of the teachers was
their tendency toward a cheerful, Imaginative, and some
times frivolous personality. Imaginative rather than con
ventional solutions peeked their interest. They tended
more toward the sciences and arts than toward religion and
I 125
I
jmoral conduct. Breaking with traditions and custom was
[more in tune with their personality. They tended to have
little regard for "acceptable standards" and were more in
clined to be fickle and casual.
The third characteristic of speech communication
teachers was that they were intelligent. This intelligence
was complemented by the additional factors of conscientious-
'ness and perseverance. They tended to be well read and
|cultural rather than boorish.
The overall personality picture of the speech communi-
i cation teachers in the study seemed to have been consistent
with the types of functions these teachers are required to
perform. Teachers of speech communication train students
to be independent thinkers, to question, to criticize, to
use their powers of imagination, to persuade, and in gen
eral to use their powers of oral communication as a means
of examining and solving the problems of their environment.
I The most dominant personality factors of speech com-
!
I munication teachers, which were significant predictors of
|rated teaching effectiveness, were Q2 (Self-Sufficiency
jversus Group Dependency), (Radicalism versus Conserva
tism), and 0 (Guilt Proneness versus Confident Adequacy).
The high Q>2 teacher was self-sufficient, resourceful, and
accustomed to making his own decisions. The low Q2 teacher
was one who went along with the group, valued social ap
126
proval, and was conventional and fashionable.1 Teachers
who scored high on Qg were more likely to be rated as being
more effective by their students.
The second personality factor which tended to discrimi
nate between effective and ineffective speech communication
teachers was (Radicalism versus Conservatism). The high
Q1 teacher was one who contributed significantly more re
marks to discussion, was well informed, was more inclined
i
jto experiment with problem solutions, was less inclined to
moralize, and was interested in leading and persuading peo
ple. The low Q^ teacher had a more conservative tempera
ment, such as those of priests, nurses, psychiatric tech-
2
nicians, and semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Teachers
who were high persons were more likely to be judged as
effective by their students.
The final factors which seemed to discriminate between
effective and ineffective teachers was Factor 0. The high
0 teachers were more likely to be fatigued by exciting
i
I situations, sleepless due to worry, easily downhearted, in
clined to piety, and preferred books to people. In social
situations the high 0 person was usually shy, ineffective
as a speaker, was more conforming, and seldom felt free to
Raymond B. Cattell and Herbert W. Eber, Handbook for
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign,
Illinois, 19^2), p. IB.
2Ibid.
127
participate In group projects. The low 0 person was more
likely to be self-confident, cheerful, placid, rudely vig-
■3
orous, and often expedient. High 0 teachers tended to be
rated as Ineffective by their students.
The personality characteristics of the teachers rated
more effective by their students may be summarized as being
dominantly Independent minded, well-informed, freely com
municative and opinionated, and cheerfully self-confident.
These qualities of personality seem quite appropriate to
the teacher of speech communication. It hardly seems pos-
j sible that the teacher of speech communication could be
l
i
icharacterized as shy and uncommunicative if he were to be
i
judged effective by his students. The findings of this
study seem to confirm, for teachers of speech communication,
the qualities which Fessenden and McCoardv hypothesized as
being qualities of good teachers in general.
The most dominant personal attitude factors of teach-
! ers, which was a significant predictor of rated teaching
i
I effectiveness, was Factor D (Decisiveness) of the SPV. The
I high D teacher was more likely to have strong and firm con-
1
|
3Ibid., p. 17.
4
Seth A. Fessenden, "The Relation between Success in
Teaching and the Speech Competency of the Secondary-School
Teacher," unpublished dissertation (New York University,
1941).
^William B. McCoard, "Speech Factors as Related to
Teaching Efficiency, Speech Monographs, XI (1944), 63-64.
128
victions, to make decisions quickly, to always come directly
to the point, to make one's position on matters very clear,
g
and to come to a decision and stick to it. Students
tended to rate teachers who scored high on Factor D as
being more effective than those who scored low.
The striking similarity of the findings of personality
determinants and attitude determinants of teaching success
jin the field of speech communication was most reassuring.
i
The attitude characteristics of firmness, economical use of
jthe language, and clarity of expression are pedagogical
'principles of considerable import in the discipline of
|speech communication.
The most dominant interpersonal attitude factor of
iteachers, which was a significant predictor of rated teach
ing effectiveness, was Factor I (independence) of the SIV.
The high I person was more likely to value having the right
to do whatever he wants to do, being free to make his own
7
jdecisions, and being able to do things in his own way.
|
I When the teachers' personality factors, as measured by
i
! the 16 P. F., and the attitude factors, as measured by the
|
SPV and SIV, were combined, Factors I of the SPV and Factor
P of the SPV were the only significant predictors of teach
er effectiveness ratings. The teachers' attitudes appeared
tr
Leonard V. Gordon, Survey of Personal Values Manual
(Chicago, 1 9 6 7), p. 1.
7Ibid.
! 129
|to have been more important determinants of teachers rated
!effectiveness than did personality differences. The teach
er who was highly independent in his decision making and
who was not interested in the purely practical (doing that
Q
which will "pay off") was most likely to be highly rated
by their students.
The consistency between the personality and attitude
factors, which were significant predictors of teaching ef-
;fectiveness, would appear to suggest that personality is
'revealed through personal and interpersonal values. During
the course of discussion and.interchange of ideas in the
speech communication classroom the teacher's attitudes are
apparently revealed as he verbalizes his opinions, and
thereby, something of himself.
The most dominant personality factor of students,
which was a significant predictor of students’ ratings of
a teacher's overall effectiveness, was Factor A (Cyclothy-
!mia versus Sizothymia). Students who were high on Factor A
can be characterized as being easy-going, good natured,
!
'kindly, cooperative, trustful,, and warmhearted. High A
i
people are quite sociable and prefer occupations dealing
with people as opposed to things. Low A people prefer work
ing alone, are more dependable in precise material work,
Q
Leonard V. Gordon, Manual for the Survey of Interper
sonal Values (Chicago, I960), p. 3.
130
Q
and seek avoidance of compromise.^ Students who scored high
on Factor A tended to rate their teachers higher than did
low A students. The empathetic nature of these high Factor
A students seems to be in accord with their willingness to
"see the goodness" in others, their teachers included.
When the students' personality factors, as measured by
the 16 P. F., and the attitude factors, as measured by the
i
SPV and SIV, were combined, Factor A became the only sig
nificant predictor of teacher effectiveness ratings. The
j student who was most likely to rate the teacher highly was
|one who could be characterized as being warm and sociable.
I
jThe attitudes and values of the students did not seem to
I influence their ratings of teacher effectiveness in this
study.
The most dominant personality factors of teachers,
which were significant predictors of their grading of stu
dents, were Factor F (Surgency versus Desurgency), and Fac
tor M (Autia versus Praxernia), and Facbor B (More Intelli
gent versus Les3 Intelligent). High F people were more
j likely to be enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky, talkative, ex
pressive, and frank. One interesting aspect of surgency is
that it declines steeply between 17 and 35 yearsj it is,
therefore, related to the load of responsibilities a person
faces.^ Low F people were more likely to be sober, seri-
I
^Cattell and Eber, p. 11. ^Ibld., p. 13.
ous, depressive, incommunicative, and slow. Teachers high
on Factor F tended to grade their students lower. The
teacher who was enthusiastic and frank gave fewer high
grades to their students in the sample.
The second personality factor of teachers which ap
peared to have influence in their grading of students was
Factor M. High Factor M people tend to be cheerful, crea-
j
itive, frivolous, and unconventional. Low M persons are
more likely to be realistic, practical, earnest, steady,
' and conventional.'1 '1 Teachers who scored high on Factor M
tended to rate their students higher.
I
]
j The last personality factor of teachers which tended
to influence their grading of students was Factor B. High
Factor B people tend to be more intelligent, conscientious,
persevering, and have somewhat more morale. Low Factor B
people tend to be less intelligent, more quitting, and of
12
lower morale. Teachers who scored high on Factor B
! tended to grade their students higher. Taking the three
j
!factors together, it would appear that the teacher who is
| frank and expressive, conventional and realistic, and tends
to be less intelligent grades students lower. High student
grades are more likely to come from a teacher who is intel
ligent and conscientious, cheerful and creative, and low
student grades are more likely to come from a teacher who
11Ibld., p. 16. 12Ibid., p. 11.
j 132
j is enthusiastic, talkative, and frank.
I
! One caution that should be articulated with reference
i
jto the relationship of grades to teachers' personalities is
that the grades were not particularly discriminating in the
study sample. The mean score of students' grades was 3.20
|on a 4.0 scale; therefore, just what influence the teachers'
i
|personality might have on their grading practices is not
'clear. Another problem with using grades as an evaluation
!of students' effectiveness is that it is not clear just
iwhat they are intended to measure, and what they do measure
imight not be compatible with the real evaluation of student
!
j effectiveness.
I Teachers' attitudes, as measured by the Survey of Per-
!
i sonal Values (SPV) and Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV)j
j
j could not be demonstrated to have had any relationship to
their evaluations of their students through grades. It is
! possible that the teachers' values do not influence the way
!
1 in which they grade their students; however, the grade crl-
; teria should be considered suspect due to the aforemention-
! ed cautions.
\
j When the teachers' personality factors, as measured by
'the 16 P. F., and the attitude factors, as measured by the
SPV and SIV, were combined, Factor F (16 P. F.), 0 (SPV),
and M (16 P. F.) were the significant predictors of student
grades. The teachers who were high on F were characterized
by being more aggressive and competitive and tended to rate
133
their students lower. High 0 teachers tended to be orderly
!people who followed a systematic approach and were charac
terized by orderly work habits. High M teachers tended to
be imaginative, unconventional, and intensely subjective.
These teachers tended to grade their students higher. The
largest proportion of* influence on student grades was con
tributed by Factor F. The aggressive and competitive
|teacher seemed to have required a very high standard of ac-
!complishment for his students. The more orderly and objec
tive teacher, and at the opposite extreme, the very uncon
ventional and intensely subjective teacher tended to grade
!their students higher.
The most significant predictor of student grades from
their personality factors was Factor (Eigh Ergic Tension
versus Low Ergic Tension). The high person rarely
achieves leadership, is unimpressed by orderliness and
unity, and is more likely to be an underachieve!’. He is
characterized by tenseness and excitability which often
I'?
goes beyond his ability to control it. J The low person
I
iis more likely to be composed and subject to less general
I
anxiety than the high person. Students who scored high
on Factor were likely to be graded poorly by their
14
teachers. This finding seems to confirm those of Wright
13Ibid., p. 19.
j l4S. Wright, "Some Psychological and Physiological Cor-
! 134
I 1 R
and O'Halloran who reported that low students tend to
be overachievers and high students tend to be under
achievers given the same Intelligence. In this particular
instance the grades, though not as discriminating as one
could have hoped, tended to discriminate students with low
educational morale.
I The students' attitudes, as measured by the SPV and
i
ISIV could not be demonstrated to have had any relationship
!
*to the grades that they received. Finally, when the stu-
Idents' personality factors, as measured by the 16 P. F.,
iand the attitude factors were combined, Factor was the
|
jonly significant predictor of student grades.
!
j Implications
This study attempted to examine certain personality and
attitudinal factors of speech communication teachers and
their students in order to establish a descriptive profile
of effective teachers in the field. Limited though these
!findings may be, they do provide an initial personality
;profile and attitudinal value survey of speech communica-
i
itlon teachers. This study provides evidence which tends to
|indicate that speech communication teachers are highly
j self-assured, independent, and outspoken; that they are
relates of Certain Academic Underachievers," unpublished
dissertation (University of Chicago, 1955).
•^a . O'Halloran, "An Investigation of Personality Fac
tors Associated with Under-achievement in Arithmetic and
imaginative and inquiring; and that they tend to be well-
Iinformed, intelligent, and suasory by nature. The study
|did not concern itself with what influence the field of
speech communication had on its teachers; it is not pos
sible to say that these personality characteristics were
developed from speech training, anymore than it is possible
to say that people with these dominant personality charac
teristics selected to teach speech communication because it
^was more compatible with their personalities. The evidence
jherein merely suggests that these personality characteris
tics seem to be dominant in professional teachers of speech
|
!communication.
i
i
Appendix C provides a graphic profile of the teacher
and his students on the 16 P. F. Questionnaire along with
the corresponding scones given the teacher, by the students,
on the Purdue Instructor Performance Indicator. This visu
alization of the profiles allows the reader to see the re-
!
jlationship of the teachers personality profile to that of
I
jthe students profile along with the students assessment of
jthe teacher's effectiveness. It is a visual representation
I
I of the degree of consubstantiality between the student and
iteacher. It is interesting to note that those students
who rated the teacher highest tended to have personalities
that paralleled the teacher's most closely. This would
Reading," unpublished thesis (Purdue University, 195^).
136
tend to suggest that some element of personality is dis
played in the instructional situation which does influence
the students' ability to identify with the teacher.
The dominant elements of the speech communication
teacher's personality appear to be consistent with the
type of work he doeB. As an academician his approach is
epistemological rather than conventionalj he attempts to
|distinguish between validity and truth, truth and fiction,
j
fiction and fact. In order to teach college age students
i
;he needs to be well informed, highly literate, experiment-
[ing, and communicative. He is required, by nature of his
[position at the university, to be inquiring, confident, and
I
i
[independent. It is important to his chosen field, speech
i
[communication, and to his profession, teaching, that he be
willing to participate in group activities, that he be in
terested in leading and persuading people, and that he en-
■|gage in vigorous problem solving.
i
[ Any application of these findings should be made with
a fair degree of caution. The teacher sample of the study
irepresented a small homogeneous group of beginning speech
[communication teachers. Though the findings of the study
|are suggestive of a personality profile of speech communi
cation teacher, it does not establish them beyond doubt.
A larger sample of professional speech communication teach
ers, from many different types of higher education institu
tions, and with considerable variation in experience and
rank, will provide a much more substantial picture of the
speech communication teacher.
This study Indicates that teachers who value decisive
action, make themselves clear on issues, and come to the
point when engaging in oral discourse are most likely to
be rated as being effective by their students. This par-
Iticular finding is most encouraging considering the nature
!
j of the course under examination. These qualities, are in
jfact, the very qualities which the beginning speech teacher
!strives to instill in his students. Apparently, the stu-
;dents in a beginning speech communication course require
j
J that their teacher practice what he preaches if they are
to rate him as being effective. He must provide an example
I of clarity of expression, expeditious use of language, and
firmness of conviction in order to be Judged effective.
A second characteristic of effective speech communica
tion teachers was independence in their interpersonal rela-
! tions. This characteristic seems to be complementary to
; the self-assurance scale of the personality instrument in
| that it demonstrates a decided preference for freedom to
i
jmake one's own decisions.
j When both the personality and attitude factors were
taken together this overlapping of characteristics was re
duced to two dominant factors, independence and practical
mindedness. The teacher who displayed marked preference
for independence and considerable disdain for "doing things
I 138
jthat will pay off" or "getting one's money's worth" was
!most likely to be judged effective by his students.
!. Though a paper and pencil test did provide information
about the teachers' personality, it'seems likely that at-
!titudes and values, which accrue from personality forma
tions, are more likely to be displayed in the classroom
situation. It was, therefore, the personal and interper-
'sonal values which had the strongest influence on the rated
i
1
|effectiveness of the teacher. The strong consistencies be-
1
tween the personality characteristics and the values rein-
;forces the strength of the findings. Most of the charac
teristics which measured strength of character and inde-
!pendence of nature in the personality measure were mirrored
i
I in the findings using the value scales. This consistency
I
suggests that the instruments employed in the study do par
allel each other in the measure of temperament, attitude,
and behavior, and therefore, may be used together.
I As might have been expected, the study results indi-
| cate that students who are basically warm and kindly tend
! to grade their teacher higher than any of the other domi-
j nant personality types. These students are basically easy-
1
I going and cooperative by nature and are particularly at
tuned to the problems of others. Differences in attitudes
and values could not be established to have influenced the
grading practices of the students.
When the teachers grade their students they appear to
139
be influenced by the tenseness of the students' personality.
The student who is characterized as being highly excitable
land subject to considerable anxiety appear to have less
chance of receiving a high grade from his speech teacher.
It seems understandable that the very nature of the begin
ning speech communication classroom might provide for some
students, especially those who are basically anxiety ridden,
ja difficult adjustment. The more insecure student who is
!apt to have difficulty controlling his temper and adjusting
!to criticism would be more threatened by a class of this
‘type. The classes used in the study were fairly typical of
[
[beginning speech courses throughout the field. They con
sisted of student performances in the development and pres
entation of informative and suasory type messages. After
completion of an assignment there is, normally, a question
and answer period and a criticism session in which fellow
students and the instructor engage in a critical analysis
of each student's performance. The very excitable student
[would probably find this type of procedure more trying than
I more controlled students. Over-reaction to criticism often
j takes the form of defensiveness and hostility in such cases,
| causing an increase in tension as the process continues.
Therefore, the student who is basically tense would have
more of an adjustment to make in such a class, and would
i
have les3 possibility for success.
The remaining findings concerned with student grades
! 140
I
jand their relationship to the teachers' attitudes and per
sonalities were considerably more difficult to assess. Un-
jlike the teacher rating instrument, such as the PIPI, stu-
jdent grades measure certain qualities that are seldom pre
cisely defined. In some classes the grades are distributed
for each class using a theoretical mean. In other classes
the grades are distributed according to the mean each class
i
jestablishes. And in still other classes the grades indi-
i
cate the improvement made by an individual student during
:the course of the semester. If the grades for the sample
|under study had been more discriminating, the results might
|be taken with more credibility. Considering the grades as-
jsigned for these classes one wonders if the majority of the
;students were above average (3.20 mean) or if the meaning
|of the grades is not consistent with the traditional stand-
jards. There is also another possibility; that the sample
jwas not typical of the classes as a whole. Given these
i
!limitations on the findings regarding grades, there were
;several significant predictors of teachers' grading prac-
Itices. The highly competitive and aggressive teacher was
more likely to grade his students lower. Taken at face
value this finding appears to be reasonable. The competi
tive type person does not give any valued object away with-
I
i
j out gaining something in kind. It is characteristic of
this person to have rather high standards. The other two
predictors of student grades based on teachers' personali-
I l4l
}
jties and attitudes were almost opposites. The teacher who
jwas characterized as being orderly and systematic and the
jteacher who was subjective and unconventional both tended
to grade their students higher. One possible explanation
for these findings is that they represent opposites in the
extreme, and that, teachers who are substantially above the
norm on either scale tend to grade higher. Neither of
I
'these factors constitute the most substantial predictor of
i
'grades (competitiveness being the most discriminating);
however, they are significant predictors which are diffi
cult to interpret from the data.
In the final analysis, the results of this study are
|quite encouraging. The first professional speech teacher
I
|personality profile has been established in this study.
The results are tentative at this stage, but they provide
a starting point for further investigation of characteris
tics of speech teachers. Requisites of effective teaching
I
:in speech communication at the college level may now, at
least, be more authoritatively hypothesized based on these
findings. The role of teacher personality and attitude in
i
irelation to rated teaching effectiveness is not yet clear,
I
lyet there are now "some shadows on the cave wall."
It is suggested that further research is needed, using
ja broader sample of speech communication teachers, in order
to increase our knowledge of dominant personality factors
which characterize professionals in our field. A more de
142
tailed study of teacher and student attitude and personality
influences within individual classroom seems to be a natu-
!
ral outgrowth of these findings. There were many signifi
cant correlations within individual classrooms that were
lost when the data was pooled. The study was more concerned
with broad generalizations about the beginning speech com
munication program than with elements of identification
|
'within individual classrooms; however, there appears to be
i
;a possibility of examining the influences of personalities
land attitudes of students and their teachers in small
'groups using a similar technique.
I
| This study focused on the problem of influences of se
lected variables on the rated teaching effectiveness of
beginning speech teachers. With continued research of this
type it may be possible to establish a profile of speech
teachers, to establish a testing program that might be help-
i
!ful in predicting the future success of teaching candidates,
i
I
and to compare teachers of speech to teachers of other dis
ciplines in order to find similarities and differences in
!the requirements of their fields and educational levels.
!
I
j
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation.
New York: Henry Nolt and Company, 1937.
Allport, G. W., P. E. Vernon, and G. Llndzey. Study of
Values: A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests
In Personality" New york: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
Anderson, Carl L. "The Student Looks at His Learning,"
j Improving College and University Teaching, 64 (August
| 1954j, 63.
Armentrout, Winfield D. "Relation of Class Size and Other
Factors to Student Ratings of Teachers," Journal of
Teacher Education, 1 (June 1950), 102.
Astin, Alexander W., and Calvin B. T. Lee. "Current Prac
tices In the Evaluation and Training of College Teach-
! ers," Improving College Teaching, ed. Calvin B. T. Lee.
j Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1967.
Barnard, Ellisworth. "More Thoughts on the Grading of Pro
fessors," American Association of University Profes
sors Bulletin, 31 (Summer 1945)* 263'.
Barr, A. S. "Scientific Analysis of Teaching Procedures,"
Journal of Educational Methods, IV (1925)* 360-371.
"The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability,"
Journal of Educational Research, 33 (May 1940), 6 8 3.
__ "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching
Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of
Experimental Education, XVI (June 1948), 15^
, and others. The Wisconsin Studies of the Meas
urement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness 1 ~K
Summary of Investigations. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar
Publications, Inc., 1951.
Bathurst, J. E., F. B. Knight, G. M. Reich, and Fred Tel
ford. Attitude Tests for Elementary and High School
Teachers^ Washington, t>. C.: Personnel Administration,
w ; —
144
145
Bendig, A. W. "The Use of Student Rating Scales In the
Evaluation of Instructors in Introductory Psychology,"
1 Journal of Educational Psychology, 43 (March 1952),
I 172.
I
i ______ . "A Statistical Report on the Revision of the
Miami Instructor Rating Sheet," Journal of Educational
Psychology, 43 (November 1952), 423-429.
"A Factor Analysis of Student Ratings of
Psychology Instructors on the Purdue Scale," Journal
of Educational Psychology, 45 (1954), 385-393.
!____________. "Ability and Personality Characteristics of
; Introductory Psychology Instructors Rated Competent
: and Empathetic by Their Students," Journal of Educa-
; tlonal Research, 48 (1955), 705-709.
i
:Blauch, Lloyd E. Teaching in Colleges and Universities.
Indianapolis: American Association of bental Schools,
19^5.
|
Blum, L. P. "A Comparative Study of Students Preparing for
Five Selected Professions Including Teaching," Journal
of Experimental Education, 16 (1947), 31-65.
| Boardman, Charles. "An Analysis of Pupil Ratings of High
School Teachers," Educational Administration and Su
pervision, 16 (1 9 3 0), 440-446.
Bousfield, W. A. "Student Ratings of Qualities Considered
Desirable in College Professors," School and Society,
| 51 (1940), 253-256.
1
I Bowers, Norman D., and Robert S. Soar. "The Influence of
i Teacher Personality on Classroom Interaction," Journal
of Experimental Education, 30 (June 1 9 6 2), 309-312.
j Bowie, B. Lucile, and H. Gerthon Morgan. "Personal Values
1 and Verbal Behavior of Teachers," Journal of Experl-
j mental Education, 30 (June 1 9 6 2), 337.
Boyce, Arthur C. "Methods for Measuring Teachers' Effi
ciency," Fourteenth Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education. Bloomington, Illinois:
Public School Publishing Company, 1915.
Brookover, Wilbur B. "The Relations of Social Factors to
Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education,
XIII (June 1945), 191-205.
146
Brown, Iva Dinkins. "Role Perceptions of Secondary Teach
ers as Related to Pupils' Perceptions of Teacher Be-
! havior Characteristics." Unpublished dissertation,
i University of Georgia, 1 9 & 5 .
I
[Brubaker, John, ed. The Public Schools and Spiritual
| Values. New Yorks Harper and Brothers, 1944.
Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. New York:
Random House, 1959.
Bryan, Roy C. "A Study of Student Ratings of College and
Secondary-School Teachers." Educational Administration
I and Supervision, 19 (1933)* 290.
i
|Bush, Robert. The Teacher-Pupll Relationship. New Yorks
Macmillan and Company, 1954.
!Carlile, A. B. "Predicting Performance in the Teaching
Profession," Journal of Educational Research, 47
! (1954), 641-65BT
jCattell, R. B. "Clinical Versus Statistical Measures of
| Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational Research, 4l
! (1948), 718-719.
I . Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and
Factual Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1950.
. "The Main Personality Factors in Question-
naire, Self-Ratine Material," Journal of Social Psy
chology, 31 (1 9 5 0), 3-3 8.
. Personality and Motivation, Structure and
Measurement. New York: World Book Company, 1957.
;______________, and J. C. Drevdahl. "A Comparison of the
i Personality Profile of Eminent Researchers with that
I of Eminent Teachers," British Journal of Psychology,
j 46 (1955), 248-261.
|______________ , and H. W. Eber. Handbook for the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1 9 6 2.
, and D. R. Sanders. "The Matching of Person
ality Factors in Objective Rating, Questionnaires, and
Objective Test Media," Journal of Social Psychology,
31 (1 9 5 0), 243-260.
147
Chappell, T. L., and R. Call!s. The Efficiency of the Min
nesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Inter-
g
ersonal Relations In a Naval School. Rep. No. 5, ONR
49 (00). dolumbia, Missouri: University of Missouri,
1954.
1
Childs, J. L. Education and Morals. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1950.
Clinton, R. J. "Qualities College Students Desire in Col
lege Instructors," School and Society, 32 (1 9 3 0), 702.
Cook, W. W., and D. M. Medley. "Proposed Hostility and
Pharisaic Virtue Scales for the MMPI," Journal of Ap
plied Psychology, 18 (1954), 4l4-4l8.
Cooper, Russel M., and others. Portfolio of College Teach-
! lng Techniques. New York: Educator's Washington Dis-
I patch, 1951.
1
I Corey, Pay L. Values of Future Teachers. New York: Bureau
i of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer-
j 3ity, 1955.
Crannel, C. W. "An Experiment in the Rating of Instructors
by Their Students," College and University, 23 (1948),
5-11.
Crawford, C. C. "Defects and Difficulties in College
Teaching," School and Society, 28 (1 9 2 8), 497-502.
Creager, J. A. "A Multiple Factor Analysis of the Purdue
Rating Scale for Instructors." Unpublished disserta
tion. Purdue University, 1950.
!Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1949.
I Dahlstrom, Grant W., and George Schalager Welsh. An MMPI
j Handbook, A Guide to Use in Clinical Practice and Re-
search. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
i9 6 0.
Danwski, Charles E. "An Analysis of Some Characteristics
of Teachers of Small Classes." Unpublished disserta
tion. Columbia University, 1964.
Davenport, K. Purdue University Studies in Higher Educa-
tion. Lafeyette, Indiana: Purdue University Press,
19W.
-
j 148
jDetchen, L. "Shall the Student Rate the Teacher?" Journal
| of Higher Education, II (1940), 146.
jDick, Dale R. "Personalized Teaching," Improving College
j and University Teaching, XIV (Autumn 1966), 242.
Domas, Simon J., and David V. Tiedman. "Teacher Competence:
An Annotated Bibliography," Journal of Experimental
j Education, XIX (December 1950), 101-218.
Donovan, H. L. "A Faculty Effort in the Improvement of
College Teaching," Peabody Journal of Education, VII
(March 1930), 259.
!Douglass, H. R. "Rating the Teaching Effectiveness of Col-
; lege Instructors," School and Society, 28 (1 9 2 8), 1 9 6.
Drucker, A. J., and H. H. Remmers. "Do Alumni and Students
I Differ in Their Attitudes Toward Instructors?" Journal
I of Educational Psychology, 42 (March 1951)» 129-143.
I
'Drummond, Donald F. "Evaluating the Services of Facultv
| Members," Current Issues in Higher Education (1950),
; 1 5 0.
I Edwards, A. L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: Man
ual. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1959*
Elliott, D. N. "Characteristics and Relationships of Vari
ous Criteria of Teaching." Unpublished dissertation.
Purdue University, 1949.
i
I Elliott, E. C. "A Tentative Scale for the Measurement of
! Teaching Efficiency," Teachers1 Yearbook of Educatlon-
! al Investigation. New York: City Schools, 1915.
Erickson, Harley E. "A Factorial Study of Teaching Abil
ity," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII (Sep-
tember 1954), 1-39-
Estrin, Herman A. "Effective and Ineffective Engineering
Instructors," Improving College and University Teach
ing., XIII (Summer 1955), 137-139.
______________ , and L. Ruth Godwin. "Evaluating English
i Teaching," Improving College and University Teaching,
I X (Autumn 1962), 193-195.
149
! Fessenden, Seth A. "The Relation between Success In Teach-
! lng and the Speech Competency of the Secondary-School
i Teacher." Unpublished dissertation. New York Univer-
, slty, 1941.
jFisher, R. A., and F. Yates. Statistical Tables for Blo-
i logical, Agricultural and Medical Research. London,
j
Friedman, B. B. Teachers College Contribution to Educa
tion. New York: Bureau of Publications, TeachersCol
lege, Columbia University, 1946.
1 Gage, N. L. "Ends and Means in Appraising College Teach
ing, " The Appraisal of Teaching in Large Universities,
I ed. W. J. Mcfceachie. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
of Michigan Press, 1959•
:______- Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company, 19&7.
;Getzels, J. W., and P. W. Jackson. "The Teacher's Person
ality and Characteristics," Handbook of Research on
Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 196 7> p. 506.
Godgart, Martin David. "The Arithmetic Problem-Solving
Ability of Teacher as Related to Their Effectiveness
in Teaching." Unpublished dissertation. The Univer
sity of Connecticut, 1964.
Gordon, Leonard V. Manual for the Survey of Interpersonal
■ Values. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.,
i I 9 6 0 .
|
!__________________. "Research Briefs on Survey of Interper
sonal Values: Manual Supplement." Mimeographed.
Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1 9 6 3.
j ________ Survey of Personal Values Manual.
1 Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1 9 6 7.
iGordy, J. P. Rise and Growth of the Normal School Idea in
j the United States. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of Edu-
| cation, 1 8 9 1.
Gough, H. G., and W. H. Pemberton. "Personality Character
istics Related to Success in Practice Teaching,"
j Journal of Applied Psychology, 36 (1952), 307-309.
150
Gowen, J. C. "Relation of the 'K' Scale on the MMPI to
Teaching Personality," California Journal of Educa
tional Research, 6 (1955), 208-212.
___________ , and M. S. Gowen. "A Teacher Prognosis Scale
for the MMPI," Journal of Educational Research, 49
(1955), 1-12.
___________ , and May S. Gowen. "The Guilford-Zimmerman and
the California Psychological Inventory in the Measure
ment of Teaching Candidates," California Journal of
Educational Research, 6 (1955), 330-344.
Guba, E. G., P. W. Jackson, and C. E. Bidwell. "Occupa-
! tional Choice and the Teaching Career," Educational
j Research Bulletin, 38 (1959), 1-12.
|Guilford, J. P. Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
; Company, 1959.
I Gustad, John W. "Evaluation of Teaching Performance: Is-
! sues and Possibilities," Improving College Teaching,
! ed. Calvin B. T. Lee. WashingtonJ D. C.T American
| Council on Education, 1 9 6 7, p. 280.
I
I Guthrie, E. R. "Measuring Student Opinion of Teacher,"
| School and Society, 25 (1927), 175.
Haberman, Frederick W. "Toward the Ideal Teacher of
Speech," Speech Teacher, X (January 1 9 6 1), 1.
Hadley S. T. "A Study of the Predictive Value of Several
Variables to Student Teaching Success as Measured by
Student Teaching Marks," Teacher's College Bulletin,
State Teachers College, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 60
(1954), 1-10.
Hall, Vernon Chadwick. "The Identification and Evaluation
I of Teachers in Varying Levels of Teaching Success."
j Unpublished dissertation. The Ohio University, 1964.
Heilman, J. D., and W. D. Armentrout. "The Rating of Col
lege Teachers on Ten Traits by Their Students,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, 27 (1936), 197-216.
Henrikson, Ernest H. "Some Relations between Personality,
Speech Characteristics, and Teaching Effectiveness of
1 College Teachers," Speech Monographs (August 1949),
221-226.
! 151
jHenrikson, Ernest H. "Comparisons of Ratings of Voice and
I Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational Psychology,
: XXXIV (1943)* 1 2 1-1 2 3.
|Holm, John N. "Human Relations: A Challenge to the Teacher
of Speech," Today's Speech, VIII (September i9 6 0), 17-
19.
!Isaacson, Robert L., Wilbert J. McKeachie, and John E.
j Milholland. "Correlation of Teacher Personality Vari-
■ ables and Student Ratings," Journal of Educational
j Psychology, 5^ (1 9 6 3), 110-117.
iJackson, P. W., and E. G. Guba. "The Need Structure of In-
1 Service Teachers: An Occupational Analysis," School
| Review, 65 (1957), 176-192.
Jarecke, W. H. "Evaluating Teaching Success through the
Use of the Teaching Judgment Test," Journal of Educa-
tlonal Research, 45 (1952), 683-694.
i
I Johnson, James. "Instruction: Prom the Consumers' View,"
| Improving College Teaching, ed. Calvin B. T. Lee.
' Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,
; 1 9 6 7, p. 2 9 0.
I
I
jJones, Margaret L. "Analysis of Certain Aspects of Teach
ing Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, 25
(1956) , 152-180.
Jones, Ronald D. "The Prediction of Teaching Efficiency
from Objective Measures," Journal of Experimental Edu-
| cation, XV (1946), 85-99-
1
iKakkar, S. B., and L. V. Gordon. "A Cross-Cultural Study
of Teacher's Values," Educational Psychology Review,
6 (1 9 6 6), 172-177.
iKikuchi, A., and L. V. Gordon. "American Personality Tests
i in Cross-Cultural Research— A Caution," Journal of
j Psychology, 6 9 (1 9 6 6), 179-183.
I
: ____________ . "Evaluation and Cross-Cul-
| tural Application of a Japanese Form of the Survey of
I Interpersonal Values," Journal of Social Psychology,
! 69 (1 9 6 6), 1 8 5-1 9 5.
i
1
Ruder, G. G. Examiner Manual for the Kuder Preference
Record, Vocational Form C, 5th ed. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, 1953.
J 152
Laase, Leroy. "The Measurement of Instruction in Speech,"
Speech Teacher, VII (January 1958), 47-53.
;LaBue, A. C. "Personality Traits and Persistence of Inter-
j est in Teaching as a Vocational Choice," Journal of
j Applied Psychology, 39 (1955), 362-365.
lLamke, Tom A. "Personality and Teaching Success," Journal
of Experimental Education, 20 (December 1951), 217-260.
Lancelot, William H., Arvil S. Barr, Theodore L. Torgerson,
Carl E. Johnson, Virgil E. Lyon, Anthony C. Walvoord,
and Gilbert Lee Betts. The Measurement of Teaching
Efficiency. New York: Macmillan Company, 1 9 3 5.
1
(Leeds, C. H. "Teacher Attitude and Temperament as a Meas-
! ure of Teacher-Pupil Rapport," Journal of Applied Psy-
; chology, 40 (1 9 5 6), 333-337.
1
!Levin, H. A. "New Perspective on Teacher Competence Re
search," Harvard Education Review, XXIV (1954), 9 8-
| 105.
j
(Lough, Orpha M. "Teachers College Students and the Minne
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 30 (1946), 241-246.
Lovell, G. D., and C. F. Haner. I"Forced-Choice Applied to
College Faculty Ratings," Educational and Psychologi
cal Measurement, 15 (1955)^ 291-304.
McCoard, William B. "Speech Factors as Related to Teaching
Efficiency," Speech Monographs, XI (1944), 63-64.
McComas, J. D. "Profiles of Teachers," Improving College
and University Teaching, XIII (Summer 1965)7 136.
I
(McKeachie, W. J. "Student Ratings of Faculty: A Research
1 Review," Improving College and University Teaching, 5
j (Winter 1957), 8.
J________________, Kathryn Loenig, and Roland Tharp. The Ap-
! praisal of Teaching in Large Universities. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, 1959-
_______________ , and D. Solomon. "Student Ratings of In
structors: A Validity Study," Journal of Educational
Research, 51 (1958), 379.
153
McLean, M. S., S. M. Gowen, and J. C. Gowen. "A Teacher
Selection and Counseling Service," Journal of Educa-
• tlonal Research, 48 (1955), 669-677.
! Michaelis, J. V. "The Prediction of Success in Student
i Teaching from Personality and Attitude Inventories,"
! University of California Publications on Education, 11
j (1954), 415-4dl.
Mitzel, H. E. "Teacher Effectiveness," Encyclopedia of
Education Research, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan
Company, I960.
i Montross, H. W. "Temperament and Teaching Success," Jour
nal of Experimental Education, 23 (1954), 73-97.
| Moore, J. C., and D. Cole. "The Relation of the MMPI
Scores to Practice Teaching Ratings," Journal of Edu
cational Research, 50 (1957), 711-716.
I Morris, Elizabeth H. Morris Trait Index L. Bloomington,
i Illinois: Public School Publishing' 'Company, 1929.
I
| Morris, J. L. V. "Student Ratings of Teachers." Unpub-
| lished dissertation. Northwestern State Teachers Col-
l lege, 1 9 2 8.
Morsh, J. E., and W. Wilder. "Identifying the Effective
Instructor: A Review of the Quantitative Studies,
1900-1952," Research Bulletin, AFPTRC-TR-54-44. San
Antonio, Texas: Air Force Personnel and Training Re
search Center, 1954.
jMorton, Richard K. "Students' View of Teaching," Improving
College and University Teaching, XIII (Summer 1965),
! 140.
; Mueller, Francis. "Trends in Student Ratings of Faculty,"
American Association of University Professors Bulle-
i tin, 37 (1951), 320.
I Nagle, L. M. "Effects of an Internship upon Selected Goals
! of the Program," Journal of Educational Research, 48
j (1955), 711-714.
! O'Halloran, A. "An Investigation of Personality Factors
| Associated with Under-achievement in Arithmetic and
Reading." Unpublished thesis. Purdue University,
1954.
! 154
I
jPatton, Rollin M., and Priscilla R. Meyer. "A Forced
Choice Rating Form for College Teachers," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46 (December 1955), 502.
Phifer, Gregg. "Students Evaluate Faculty Lecturing,"
Chicago Circle Studies, III, No. 2 (June 1 9 6 8), 19.
Pogue, F. G. "Students' Ratings of the Ideal Teacher,"
Improving College and University Teaching, XV (Spring
1967), 133-135.
Pretzman, M. L. "Student Rating of College Teachers,"
School and Society, 29 (1929), 514.
I Question: Who's A Good Teacher? Washington, D. C., 1961.
IRaiche, Sister Aloise. "Selected Teacher Characteristics
and Verbal Behavior of the Classroom." Unpublished
! dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1965.
!Reid, Loren. "On First Teaching Speech," Speech Teacher, 1
1 (January 19 5 2), 5.
Remmers, H. H. "The Relationship between Marks and Student
I Attitude Toward Instructors," School and Society, 28
j (1 9 2 8), 760.
i
. "The College Professor as the Student Sees
Him," Studies in Higher Education, No. XI Purdue Uni-
verslty, XXIX (1 9 2 9J, 294-296.
The Purdue Rating Scale for Instruction.
Lafeyette, tndiana: Purdue University Press, 1930.
|_____ , and P. C. Baker. Manual of Instructions for
1 the PurcTue Rating Scale for Instruction. Lafeyette,
I Indiana: Division of Educational keference, 1952.
!_____________ , and G. C. Brandenburg. "Experimental Data
1 on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," Educa
tional Administration and Supervision, 13 (1927), 519-
527:
, and D. N. Elliott. "The Indiana College and
University Staff-Evaluation Program," School and So
ciety, 70 (1949), 168-171.
, and J. J. Stalnaker. "Can Students Discrim-
inate Iraits Associated with Success in Teaching?"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 12 (December 1928),
602-610.
i 155
Remmers, H. H., and others. "Second Report of the Commit
tee on Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of
Educational Research, XLVT (1953)# 641-658.
jRenner, Richard R. "A Successful Rating Scale," Improving
College and University Teaching, XV (Winter 19o7)# 12.
Riley, John W., Bruce P. Ryan, and Martha Lifshitz. The
Student Looks at His Teacher. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, l9$0.
Root, A. R. "Student Ratings of Teachers," Journal of
Higher Education, 2 (1931)# 315.
"Student-Teacher Rapport," Journal of Higher
Education, 4 (1934), 133-135.
Russell, H. E. "Inter-relations of Some Indices of In-
; structor Effectiveness: An Exploratory Study." Un
published dissertation. University of Pittsburgh,
! 1951.
i
| Ryans, David Q., and others. "Supplement: Report of the
Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness,"
Review of Educational Research, XXII (June 1952), 240.
_______________. "A Study of the Extent of Association of
Certain Professional and Personal Data with Judged
Effectiveness of Teacher Behavior," Journal of Experi
mental Education, 20 (1951)# 67-77*
_______________. Characteristics of Teachers: Their Des
cription, Comparison, and Appraisal. Washington,
D. C.: American Council on Education, i9 6 0.
' Schmid, J. "Factor Analyses of Prospective Teachers' Dif
ferences," Journal of Educational Research, 18 (1950),
j 287-319.
I
1 Schwartz, Anthony N. "A Study of the Discriminatory Effi-
j ciency of Certain Tests of the Primary Source Person-
| ality Traits of Teachers," Journal of Experimental
j Education, XIX (September 1950), 102.
Seagoe, May V. "Prediction of In-Service Success in Teach
ing," Journal of Educational Research, 39 (1946), 6 5 8-
6 6 3.
. "A Follow-up of 314 Students Whose Fitness
for Teaching Was Questioned, 1942-1953#" Journal of
Educational Research, 50 (1955)# 641-653.
! 156
jSheldon, M. S., J. M. Cole, and R. Copple. "Current Valid-
I lty of the 'Warm Teacher Scales,' Journal of Educa-
1 tlonal Psychology, 50 (1959)* 37-40.
Singer, A. "Social Competence and Success In Teaching,"
Journal of Experimental Education, 23 (195*0* 99-131.
Smalzeid, N. T., and H. H. Remmers. "A Factor Analysis of
the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 3** (193*0* 363-367.
Snedeker, John H., and H. H. Remmers. Manual for the Pur
due Performance Indicator. West Lafayette, Indiana:
! Purdue University Bookstore, i9 6 0.
i
|Soar, Robert S. "Methodological Problems In Predicting
! Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Educa
tion, XXXII (Spring 19647, 207-291.
Solomon, Daniel, William E. Bezdek, and Larry Rosenberg.
; Teaching Styles and Learning. Chicago: Center for the
I Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1963.
1
_________ , Larry Rosenberg, and William E. Bezdek.
j "Teacher Behavior and Student Learning," Journal of
Educational Psychology, LV (1964), 23-30.
iStarrak, J. A. "Student Rating of Instruction," Journal of
Higher Education, 5 (1934), 8 9.
Strong, E. K. Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Women.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1943.
I
jSymonds, P. M., and S. Dudek. "Use of Rorschach in Diagno-
i sis of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Projective
i Techniques, 20 (1956), 227-234.
1
;Tanner, W. C. "Personality Bases in Teacher Selection,"
! Phi Delta Kappan, 35 (1954), 271-277.
jTiedeman, D. V., and M. Cogan. "New Horizons in Education-
j al Research," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (1 9 5 8), 286-291.
I
iTiedman, Stuart C. "A Study of Pupil-Teacher Relation-
I ships," Journal of Educational Research. 35 (May 1942),
656-664.
Torgeson, T. S. "Measurement and Prediction of Teaching
Ability," Review of Education Research, 7 (1937)* 246.
: 157
|Tyler, F. T. "The Prediction of Student-Teaching Success
! from Personality Inventories," University of Callfor-
1 nla Publications on Education, 11 (195*0, 233-313-
|Wagner, Loretta. "A Diagnosis of the Speech Needs and
Abilities of Prospective Teachers, University of Iowa
Studies of Education, X (March 1939).
Ward, W. D., H. H. Remmers, and N. T. Smalzreid. "The
j Training of Teaching Personality by Means of Student
i Ratings," School and Society, 53 (19^1)> 189-192.
Wiksell, Wesley. "New Methods of Evaluating Instruction
and Student Achievement in a Speech Class," Speech
| Teacher, IX (January i9 6 0), 16-19.
1
!Wilson, A. W. "Students Rating Teachers, " Journal of High
er Education, 3 (1932), 2 9.
Wilson, Logan. The Academic Man. New York: Oxford Univer
sity Press, 19^2.
!
Witty, Paul A. "Some Characteristics of the Effective
Teacher," Educational Administration and Supervision,
| 36 (April 1950;, 193-205.
I Wright, S. "Some Psychological and Physiological Corre
lates of Certain Academic Underachievers." Unpub
lished dissertation. University of Chicago, 1955.
i
i APPENDIXES
I
158
APPENDIX A
159
CATTELL'S SIXTEEN PERSONALITY
FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE DESCRIPTIONS
The sixteen factors of Cattell's test are constructed
j
iby use of bipolar descriptions of the source traits. A
|high score on the test corresponds to the description at
i
the left, while low scores correspond to the description on
the right.
Factor A
Cyclothymia versus Schizothymia
(Warm, Sociable) (Aloof, Stiff)
Good Natured, Easy vs. Aggressive, Grasping
Going
Critical
Ready to Cooperate vs. Obstructive
Attentive to People vs. Cool, Aloof
Soft Hearted, Kindly vs. Hard, Precise
Trustful vs. Suspicious
Adaptable vs. Rigid
Warm Hearted vs. Cold
Factor B
General Intelligence versus Mental Defect
(Bright] (Dull]
Conscientious vs. Of Lower Morale
Persevering vs. Quitting
Intellectual, Cultural vs. Boorish
Emotional Stability
Factor C
versus Dissatisfied Emotionality
(Mature, Calm) (Emotional, Immature)
Emotionally Mature vs. Lacking in Frustration
Tolerance
Emotionally Stable vs. Changeable
Calm, Phlegmatic vs. Showing General Emotion
ality
Absence of Neurotic vs. Evasive
Fatigue
Placid vs. Worrying
160
161
Factor M
Autia versus
(Bohemian Intro
verted. Absent-
minded)
Unconventional,
Self-Absorbed
Interested in Art,
Theory, Basic
Beliefs
Imaginative, Creative
Frivolous, Immature
in Practical Judg
ment
Generally Cheerful,
but Occasional
Hysterical Swings
of "Giving up"
vs
vs
vs.
vs.
vs
Praxernla
(Practical, Concerned
with Facts)
Conventional, Alert to
Practical Needs
Interests Narrowed to
Immediate Issues
No Spontaneous Creativity
Sound, Realistic, Depen
dable, Practical Judg
ment
Earnest, Concerned or
Worried, but Very
Steady
Shrewdness
(Sophisticated,
Polished)
Polished, Socially
Alert
Exact, Calculating
Mind
Aloof, Emotionally
Disciplined
Esthetically Fasti
dious
Insightful Regarding
Self
Insightful Regarding
Others
Ambitious, Possibly
Insecure
Expedient. "Cuts
Corners 1
Factor N
versus Naivete
(Simple, Unpretentious)
vs . Socially Clumsy and
"Natural"
vs. Vague and Sentimental
Mind
vs. Warm, Gregarious, Spon
taneous
vs. Simple Tastes
vs. Lacking Self Insight
vs . Unskilled In Analyzing
Motives
vs. Content with What Comes
vs. Trusts in Accepted Values
162
Factor 0
Guilt Proneness versus
(Timid, Insecure)
Worrying, Anxious vs.
Depressed vs.
Sensitive, Tender,. vs.
Easily Upset
Responsive, Genial vs.
Friendly vs.
Impulsive and Frivo- vs.
lous
Emotional and Artistic vs.
Interests
Carefree, Does not See
Danger Signals vs.
Confident Adequacy
(Confident, Self-Secure)
Self-Confident
Cheerful, Resilient
Tough, Placid
Aloof, Cold, Self-Contained
Apt to Be Embittered
Restrained, Conscientious
Restricted Interests
Careful, Considerate, Quick
to See Dangers
Factor I
Premsla versus
(Sensitive, Effem
inate)
Demanding, Impatient vs.
Subjective
Dependent, Seeking vs.
Help
Kindly, Gentle vs.
Artistically Fasti
dious, Affected vs.
Imaginative in Inner
Life and Conversa- vs.
tion
Acts on Sensitive
Intuition vs.
Attention Seeking, vs.
Frivolous
Hypochondriacal, vs.
Anxious
Harria
(Tough, Realistic)
Realistic, Expects Little
Self-reliant, Taking
Responsibility
Hard (cyncisim)
Few Artistic Responses
(But not lacking taste)
Unaffected by "Fancies”
Acts on Practical, Logi
cal Evidence
Self-sufficient
Unaware of Physical Dis
abilities
163
Factor L
Protension, Para- versus
nold Tendency
(Suspecting, «Jea-
lous)
Jealous vs.
Self-Sufficient vs.
Suspicious vs.
Withdrawn, Brooding vs.
Tyrannical vs.
Hard vs.
Irritable vs.
Factor E
Dominance or versus
Ascendance
Relaxed Security
(Accepting, Adaptable)
Accepting
Outgoing
Trustful
Open, Ready to Take a
Chance
Understanding and Per
missive, Tolerant
Soft-Hearted
Composed and Cheerful
Submission
Assertive, Self- vs. Submissive
Assured
Independent Minded vs. Dependent
Hard, Stem vs. Kindly, Soft-Hearted
Solemn vs. Expressive
Unconventional vs. Conventional
Tough vs. Easily Upset
Attention Getting vs. Self-Sufficient
Factor F
Surgency
(Enthusiastic,
Happy-go-Lucky)
versus
Talkative vs.
Cheerful vs.
Serene, Happy-go-Lucky vs.
Frank, Expressive vs.
Quick and Alert vs.
pesurgency
(GlumJ Sober, Serious)
Silent, Introspective
Depressed
Concerned, Brooding
Incommunicative, Smug
Languid, Slow
164
Factor 0
Character or Super-
Ego Strength
(Conscientious,
versus Lack of Rigid Internal
Standards
(Casual, Undependable)
Persistent)
Perservering, Deter vs. Quitting, Fickle
mined
Responsible vs. Frivolous
Emotionally Mature vs. Demanding, Impatient
Consistently Ordered vs. Relaxed, Indolent
Conscientious vs. Undependable
Attentive to People vs. Obstructive
Factor H
Parmla
(Adventurous,
Effeminate)
Adventurous, Likes Meet
ing People
Active, Overt Interest In
Opposite Sex
Strong Sense of Duty
Exacting, Fussy
Hypochondriacal
Phobic Symptoms
Moody, Lonely, Brood
ing
versus Threctla
(Shy, Realistic)
vs. Shy, Withdrawn
vs. Retiring In Face of
Opposite Sex
vs. Expedient
vs. Does Not Care
vs. Rudely Vigorous
vs. No Fears
vs. Given to Simple Action
165
Factor Qi
Radicalism versus Conservatism of Tempera
ment
This factor has not appeared In behavior ratings
and must be known through the "mental interior" pre
sented by the questionnaire responses. Nevertheless,
and although it has not been clearly found as a dimen
sion elsewhere as have other factors, the evidence
points to its being more than a mere set of acquired
radical political and religious attitudes. It is
evidently rooted in broader "temperamental," or general,
personality traits which, with finer analysis, are
likely soon to appear also in behavior ratings. For
the factor certainly yields relations to external cri
teria, and, in research, there is evidence the Qi+
persons are more well-informed, more inclined to exper
iment with problem solutions, less inclined to moralize,
etc. The actual items express more interest in science
than religion, more interest in analytical thought, In
modern essays, in reading as opposed to class instruc
tion, in breaking the crust of custom and tradition,
and in leading and persuading people.
Factor Q2
Self-Sufficiency versus Group Dependency
(Self-Sufficient, (Sociably Group Dependent)
Resourceful)
This factor, as its Q designation indicates,
has also not yet been caught in ratings, but almost
certainly will be. It is one of the major factors
in introversion. The items show a person who is
resolute and accustomed to making his own decisions,
alone, while at the Qg— pole we see a person who goes
with the group, definitely values social approval
more, and is conventional and fashionable. Occupa
tionally, Q2 is very high for executive, scientists—
and criminals! In group dynamics the high Q2 person
is significantly more dissatisfied with group inte
gration, makes remarks which are more frequently
solutions than questions, and tends to be rejected.
At school Q2+ children prove commonly to have been
decidedly on the seculsive side— early developers
who tend to associate with a few older friends.
166
Factor
High Self-Sentiment
Formation
(Controlled, Exact-
Poor Self-Sentiment
Formation-
(Uncontrolled, Lax)
lng Will Power)
...According to loaded Items, the Qo+ persbn shows
socially approved character responses, self control
persistence, foresight, considerateness of others,
and conscientiousness.
In group dynamics high Q3 score especially
picks out persons who will he chosen as leaders,
hut even more so those who are effective rather
than merely popular. They make more remarks than
others, especially problem-raising and solution-
offering, receive fewer votes as hlnderers, and
fewer rejections at the end of the sessions.
High Qo is associated with success in mechanical,
mathematical, and productive organizational activi
ties. It is high in executives, policemen, elec
tricians, and psychiatric technicians, in all of
which objectivity, balance, and decisiveness are
required. It is significantly related to freedom
from automobile accidents.
167
Factor Q4
High Erglc Tension versus Low Erglc Tension
(Tense, Excitable) '(Phlegmatic, Composed)
In psychological Item content this factor can
be confused with 0+, though the factors are demon
strably distinct, despite significant positive cor
relation. It involves being irrationally worried,
tense, irritable, anxious, and in turmoil.
Group dynamics experiments show that persons
high in rarely achieve leadership (but only at
5$ > P level) and that they take a poor view of the
degree of group unity, orderliness, and the exist
ing leadership quality, and receive few soclotelic
votes (all beyond 1 $ > significance level). Occupa
tionally, waitresses, housewives, editors, and
persons in Jobs which may give little self expres
sion and much environmental demand, run high; while
executives, engineers, salesmen, and farmers are
low. 1
Raymond B. Cattell and Herbert W. Eber, Handbook for
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. 7th ed.
(Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing, 1964), pp. H - 19.
APPENDIX B
168
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F. versus PIPI
N=54
Source DF Sums of Means of F Value
Squares Squares
A Regression
Residual
1
52
41.739
356.629
41.739
6.474
6.448
Ql Regression
Residual
2
51
55.796
322.572
27.898
6.325
4.411
q2 Regression
Residual
3
50
70.808
307.561
23.603
6.151
3.837
H Regression
Residual
4
49
82.378
295.991
20.594
6.041
3.^09
B Regression
Residual
5
48
94 .930
283.438
18.986
• 5.905
3.215
L Regression
Residual
6
47
105.957
272.411
17.660
5.796
3.047
E Regression
Residual 41
116.551
261.818
16.650
5.692
2.925
*3
Regression
Residual
8
45
126.220
252.148
15.778
5.603
2.806
F Regression
Residual
9
44
144.440
233.928
16.049
5.317
3.019
I Regression
Residual
10
45
151.076
227.293
15.108
5.286
2.858
C Regression
Residual
11
42
153.307
225.061
13.937
5.359
2.601
G Regression
Residual
12
4l
15^ .379
223.989
12.865
5.463
2.355
Grade Regression
Residual 11
155.498
222.870
11.961
5.572
2.147
0 Regression
Residual
14
39
155.702
222.666
11.122
5.709
1.9^8
169
170
Multiple Regression Analysis— Continued
16 P. P. versus PIPI
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
P Value
M Regression
Residual
15
38
155.902
222 .467
10.393
5.854
1.775
N Regression
Residual
16
57
156.044
222 .254
9.755
6.009
1.623
171
Multiple Regression Analysis
SPY versus PIPI
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
0 Regression
Residual
1
52
2502.379
3333** .535
2502.379
641.049
3*904
V Regression
Residual
2
51
3152.711
32684.203
1576.355
6k 0.867
2.460
a Regression
Residual
5
50
3370.648
32466.266
1123.549
649.325
1.730
A Regression
Residual
4
49
3935.477
31901.437
983.869
651.050
1.511
p Regression
Residual
5
48
4116.953
31719.961
823.391
660.833
1.246
D Regression
Residual
6
47
4258.496
31578.418
709.749
671.881
I.O56
172
Multiple Regression Analysis
SIV versus PIPI
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
C Regression 1 8.098 8.098
1.137
Residual 52 370.270 7.121
B Regression 2 12.194
6.097
0.849
Residual
51
366.174 7.180
I Regression
5
16.367 5.456
0.75**
Residual 50 362.001 7.240
S Regression 4 17.884 4.471 0.608
Residual
49 360.485 7.557
R Regression
5
18.228 3.646 0.486
Residual 48 360.141
7.503
173
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F., SPV, and SIV versus PIPI
N*=54
Source
DF Slims of Means of F Value
Squares Squares
A Regression
Residual
1
52
41.739
33 6 .6 2 9
41.739
6.474
6.448
(SPV)Regression
Residual
2
51
38.247
320.122
29 .1 2 3
6.277
4.640
Ql
Regression
Residual
3
50
77.901
3 0 0.468
25.967
6.009
4.192
Q2
Regression
Residual
4
49
9 6 .4 7 0
2 8 1 .8 9 8
24.118
5.753
4.192
Qj
Regression
Residual
5
48
106.809
271.559
2 1 .3 6 2
5.657
3.776
L Regression
Residual
6
47
124.044
253.425
20.824
5.392
3.8 6 2
E Regression
Residual 41
135.691
242 .677
19.384
5.276
3.674
H Regression
Residual
8
45
153.476
224.892
19.185
4.998
3.839
(SIVRegression
Residual
9
44
1 61.273
217 .095
17.91?
4.934
3.632
F Regression
Residual
10
43
165.097
213.271
1 6 .5 1 0
4.960
3.329
B Regression
Residual
11
42
169.372
208.997
15.397
4.976
3.094
(SPVRegression
Residual
12
41
173.864
204.504
14 .489
4.988
2.905
G Regression
Residual
P
40
178.051
200.317
1 3 .6 9 6
5 .0 0 8
2.735
C Regression
Residual
14
39
182.334
196.034
1 3.024
5.027
2.591
174
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F. versus Grade
N=54
Source DF Sums of Means of F Value
Squares Squares
Q4
Regression 1 2.502 2.502 5.846
Residual 52 22.257 0.428
N Regression 2 3.392 I.696 4.048
Residual
51 21.367
0.419
M Regression
3
3.892
1.297 3.109
Residual 50 20.867
0.417
q2 Regression 4
4.483 1.121 2.708
Residual
49
20.276 0.414
E Regression
5 4.945 O .989 2.396
Residual 48 19.814 0.413
L Regression 6
5.451
0.908 2.211
Residual
47
19.308 0.411
I Regression
7 5.690 0.813 1.961
Residual 46 19.069 0.415
C Regression 8 6.170
0.771 I.867
Residual
45 18.590
0.413
Q3
Regression
9
6.415
0.713
1.710
Residual 44 18.344
0.417
F Regression 10 6.686 O .669
1.591
Residual 43
18.073
0.420
Q1
Regression 11 6.832 0.621
1.455
Residual 42
17.927
0.427
B Regression 12
6.963 O.58O
1.337
Residual 41
17.796
0.434
G Regression
P
7.100 0.546
1.237
Residual 40
17.659
0.441
H Regression 14
7.219 0.516 1.146
Residual
39 17.540 0.450
175
Multiple Regression Analysis— Continued
16 P. P. versus Grade
N=54
Source DF Suras of Means of F Value
Squares Squares
0 Regression
Residual
15
38
187.995
190.375
12.535
5.010
2.502
(SPV)Regres3ion
Residual
16
57
190.356
188.032
11.896
5.082
2.341
(SPV)Regression
Residual
17
56
195.743
184.623
11.3 97
5.128
2.222
(SPVRegression
Residual
18
55
200.120
178.249
11.118
5.093
2.183
(SPV)Regression
Residual
19
34
204.092
174 .277
10.742
5.126
2.096
Regression
Residual
20
55
206.575
171.796
IO.329
5.206
1.984
(SIV)Regression
Residual
21
52
210.906
167.462
10.043
5.233
1.919
I Regression
Residual
22
51
212.727
165.642
9.669
5.343
1.810
M Regression
Residual
25
50
215.005
I63.364
9.348
5.445
1.717
N Regression
Residual
24
29
216.939
161.430
9.039
5.567
1.624
(SIV)Regression
Residual
25
28
218.962
159.407
8.758
5.693
1.538
(SIV)Regression
Residual
26
27
220.950
157.419
8.498
5.830
1.458
(SIVRegression
Residual
27
26
221.269
157.100
8.195
6.042
1.356
176
Multiple Regression Analysis— Continued
16 P. P. versus Grade
N=54
Source DP Suras of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
A Regression
15
7.564 0.504 1.114
Residual
36
17.196 0.545
PIPI Regression 16 7.664
0.479 1.057
Residual
57 17.095
0.462
0 Regression
17
7.690 0.452 0.954
Residual 56
17.069 0.474
177
Multiple Regression Analysis
SPV versus Grade
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
0 Regression 1 14.801 14.801 2.117
Residual 52
363.567 6.992
A Regression 2 19.220 9.610
1.565
Residual
51 359.149
7.042
G Regression
3
22.401 7.467
1.049
Residual 50
355.967 7.119
D Regression 4
2?*597
5.877 0.811
Residual
49
554.861 7.242
P Regression
5 25.451 5.090 O.692
Residual 48 552.918 7.552
V Regression 6
28.679
4.780 0.642
Residual
47 549.689 7.440
178
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F., SPV, and SIV versus Grade
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
Q4 Regression 1 2.502 2.502 5.846
Residual
52 22.257 0.428
N Regression 2
3.392
1.696 4.048
Residual
51 21.567
0.419
L (SIV)Regression
3
4.406 1.469 5.608
Residual 50
20.553 0.407
Q-i Regression 4 5.045 1.261
3.135
Residual
49 19.714 0.402
M Regression
5 5.447 1.089 2.708
Residual 48
19.312
0.402
Q2 Regression 6
5.932 0.989
2.468
Residual
47 18.827 0.401
F Regression
7 6.756 O .965
2.466
Residual 46
18.005 0.391
B (SIV)Regression 8 7.250 0.906
2.529
Residual
45
17.510
0.589
I (SIV)Regression
9
7.792 0.866
2.245
Residual 44
16.967 O.586
I Regression 10 8.060 0.806 2.076
Residual
*3 16.699
O.588
0 (SPVRegression 11 8.668 0.788
2.057
Residual 42
16.091 O.585
D (SPVRegression 12 8.841
0.757
1.898
Residual 41 15.918 O.588
C (SIVRegression
9.089 0.699 1.785
Residual 40 15.670 0.592
P (SPV Regress ion 14 9.267 0.662 1.666
Residual
39 15.492
0.597
179
Multiple Regression Analysis— Continued
16 P. F., SPV, and SIV versus Grade
N=54
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
G (SPV)Regression
15
9.436 O .629 I.560
Residual 38
15.323
0.403
G Regression 16 9.712 0.607
1.492
Residual
37
15.048
0.407
L Regression
17
9.968 0.586 1.427
Residual 36
14.791 0.411
0 (SPV)Regression 16 9.966 O .623 1.558
Residual
37 14.793
0.400
H Regression
17
10.150
0.597 1.471
Residual 36 14.609 0.406
E Regression 18 10.451 0.581 1.420
Residual
35
14.308
0.409
A Regression
19 10.545 0.555
1.328
Residual 34 14.214 0.418
B Regression 20
IO.589 0.529 1.233
Residual
33
14.170 0.429
R (SIVRegression 21
10.607 0.505
1.142
Residual
32 14.152 0.442
Ql Regression 22
10.625 0.483
1.059
Residual
31 14.135 0.456
0 (SPV)Regression
23 10.635 0.462 0.982
Residual 30 14.124 0.471
A (SPV)Regression 24 10.646 0.444
0.9H
Residual
29
14.113 0.487
V (SPV)Regression
25
IO.678
0.427
0.849
Residual 28 14.081
0.503
G (SPV)Regression 24 IO.678 0.445 0.916
Residual
29
14.081 0.486
180
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F. versus PIPI
N=9
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
$2
Regression 1 9.707 9.707 7.403
Residual
7 9.178
1.311
Q1
Regression 2 14.846 7.423 11.028
Residual 6
4.039 0.673
0 Regression
3 17.765
5.922 26.439
Residual
5
1.120 0.224
M Regression 4 18.424 4 .606
39.983
Residual 4 0.461
0.115
H Regression
5 18.733
3.7**7 74 .039
Residual
3
0.152
0.051
G Regression 6 18.846 3.141
161.249
Residual 2
0.039 0.019
A Regression
7
18.884 2.698 1691.465
Residual 1 0.002 0.002
181
Multiple Regression Analysis
SPV versus PIPI
N=9
Source DP Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
D Regression 1 8.495
5.723
Residual
7 10.590 1.484
0 Regression 2
10.593
5.296 3.832
Residual 6
8.293
1 .3 8 2
P Regression
3
12.150 4 .0 5 0 3.0 0 6
Residual
5 6.735 1.347
A Regression 4
12.589 3-147
2.000
Residual 4 6 .2 9 6 1.574
V Regression
5 1 2 .6 8 9 2.538 1 .2 2 9
Residual
3 6 .1 9 0 2 .0 6 5
182
Multiple Regression Analysis
SIV versus PIPI
N=9
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
I Regression 1
13 -772
13.772
18.855
Residual
7 5.113
0.730
S Regression 2
15-741 7.871
15.021
Residual 6 2.144
0.534
R Regression
3
16.014
5.338 9.294
Residual
5
2.872 0.574
C Regression 4 16.250 4.087 6.449
Residual 4
2.535
0.624
183
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F., SPV, and SIV versus PIPI
N=9
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
I (SIVRegression 1 13.772 15.772 18.855
Residual
7
5.113 0.730
P (SPV)Regres3ion 2 17 M l 8.730 36.774
Residual 6 1.424
0.237
R (SIV)Regression
3 18.035
6.012
35.369
Residual
5
0.830 0.170
C Regression 4 18.383 4.596 36.596
Residual 4 0.502 0.126
N Regression
5 18.717
3.7^3
66.848
Residual
5
0.168 0.056
E Regression 6 18.876 3.146 691.427
Residual 2
0.009 0.005
Regression
7 18.885 2.698 1561237.000
Residual 1 0.000 0.000
184
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. P. versus Grade
N=9
Source DF Sums of
Squares
Means of
Squares
F Value
F Regression 1
0.555 0.555
6.650
Residual
7 O .585
0.084
M Regression 2 0.826 0.415 7.887
Residual 6 0.514 0.052
B Regression
3
0.994
0.331 11.379
Residual
5
0.146 0.029
q3 Regression 4 1.048 0.262 11.418
y
Residual 4
0.092
0.025
0 Regression
5 1.100 0.220
16.313
Residual
3
0.040 0.015
A Regression 6 1.122
0.187
20.988
Residual 2 0.018
0.009
N Regression
7 1.139
O.I65 238.688
Residual 1 0.001 0.001
185
Multiple Regression Analysis
16 P. F., SPV, and SIV versus Grade
N=9
Source DF Sums, of
Squares
Means of F Value
Squares
F Regression 1
0.555 0.555
6.630
Residual
7 O.585
0.084
0 (SPV)Pegres3lon 2 0.990
0.495 19.815
Residual 6 0.150 0.025
M Regression
3
1.122 0.37^ 106.422
Residual
5
0.018 0.004
B Regression 4
1.131
0.283 125.848
Residual 4
0.009 0.002
B (SIVRegression
5 1.139
0.228
886.443
Residual
3
0.001 0.000
C (SIVRegression 6 1.140 0.190 4342.465
Residual 2 0.000 0.000
Q4 - Regression
7
1.140 O.I63 2902740.000
Residual 1 0.000 0.000
APPENDIX C
186
Teacher 10
Sten A B C E P G H I L M N 0 Ql Q2 Q} 04 PIPI
_
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Students12 - 15
10
I
I
I
1
1
18
19
Students 14 - 15
10
§
6
I
3
2
1
Students 11-16
15
10
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
15
187
Teacher 20
188
Sten
10
9
8
1
5
4
5
2
1
A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PIPI
Students 21-22
10
Students ~ 23
18
18
10
Students 25 - 26
18
* 15
1 0
§
6
5
4
5
2
1
14-14
Teacher 30
189
Sten
10
9
8
1
5
4
5
2
1
A B C E F G H I LMNOQ 1Q2Q3Q4 PIPI
Students 51 - 32
10
9
8
I
3
2
1
— -A
16
- 16
Students 35 - 53
1 0
9
8
6
3
2
1
/V
14
15
Students 3^ - 36
Teacher 40 190
Sten A B C E F 0 H I L M N 0 Qi Q2 Qj 04 PIPI
To
9
8
1
5
4
5
2 . . .
1 . . .
Students 41-44
10 . . .
9 . . .
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students 45-46
X 17 •
;X- 16
“T
10
15-14
Students 44-42
1 0
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
/ \
14
Teacher
Sten a
50
191
B C E F G K I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 pIpI
_
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students 54-51
10
Students 52-55
1 0
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students
56-53
10
10
10
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
S- / a . L A A
V • \ V » • /
_ JL i_*\ * V
10
Teacher
is ten
60 192
A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1Q2Q3Q4 pipi
_
9
8
1
5
4
5
2
1
Students 61-65
10
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students 65-62
18
18
10
9
8
£
Students 64-66
13
15
10
9
8
£
5
4
3
2
1
/ v “S —/T
TV"
• *\ \*/ *t ^
- : ~ l \ T 7 T
10
13
Teacher 70 193
Sten A B C E P G H I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PIPI
10
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students 74-72
10
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
1?
17
Students 73-71
10
9
8
£
I
1
1
Students 75-76
/ .1 . /
• \-r
V
17
16
10
9
8
£
5
4
3
2
1
16
14
Teacher 80 194
Sten A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 pipi
_
9
8
1
5
4
5
2
1
Students 86-82
10
9
8
I
3
2
1
Students 84-8 3
10
9
8
6
20
3
2
1
Students 8 5 -8 1
15
14
10
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
_*_\i u - U - \ - _-_p *_ £
• • • / * \# • / • \ • / •
Teacher 90
195
Sten A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q2 Q5 Q4 pipi
" T o ! ~ ; ! ! 1 i ^ ] i ^ I i ; !
9
8
1
5
4
5
2
1
Students 95-91
10
9
8
1
5
4
3
2
1
Students 95-94
I8-16
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
1
Students 92-96
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
— r -t

Asset Metadata

Creator Flocken, Joyce Mary (author)

Core Title An Analysis Of Selected Presage Criteria Of Reciprocal Student And Teacher Ratings In Beginning College Speech Classes

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Speech Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication

Language English

Advisor Fisher, Walter R. (committee chair), McBath, James H. (committee member), Smith, Robert A. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-463988

Unique identifier UC11362246

Identifier 7112385.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-463988 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7112385.pdf

Dmrecord 463988

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Flocken, Joyce Mary

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses