University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher Assessment Of Creative Potential In Fifth-Grade Students

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher Assessment Of Creative Potential In Fifth-Grade Students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T E A C H E R A S S E S S M E N T O F C R E A T IV E PO T E N T IA L IN FIFTH -G R A D E S T U D E N T S by Diane Martin Stauts A D issertation Presented to the F A C U L T Y O F T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV ER SITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IFO R N IA In p a rtia l Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree D O C T O R O F PH IL O SO PH Y (Education) January 1973 INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original docum ent. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, th e quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of th e original subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings o r patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign o r "target" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, th ey are spliced into th e film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th at the copy m ay have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of th e page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g rap h ed th e photographer followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a som ewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing th e Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Za«b Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 73-9324 STAUTS, Diane M artin, 1936- TEA C H ER ASSESSM ENT O F CREATIVE POTENTIAL IN FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS. U n iv ersity o f Southern C a lifo r n ia , Ph.D., 1973 E ducation, psychology University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by DIANE M A R TIN STAUTS 1973 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A LIFO R N IA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ....................... under the direction of h&r — Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF P H ILO SO P H Y .......................................................t / .........' ia ' tM Date...!? ? ™ 1 7 1» 1 9 7 3 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have in d istin c t p rin t. Filmed as received. University Microfilm s, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS M uch appreciation is due Dr. Newton Metfessel of the University of Southern C alifornia, who encouraged per severance over an unusually lengthy period of doctoral study. Dr. Barbara Peterson, of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School D istric t, was most generous with her time and her in tere st; her kind and very highly organized cooperation made i t a pleasure to be associated with th at d is tr ic t in the research for th is study. M y personal thanks must include m y very p atient and understanding husband and our three very understanding (though not so patient) children, who a ll helped so un- stin tin g ly in what became a prolonged and sometimes d i f f i cult family e ffo rt. Grateful appreciation is extended to m y father, whose professional and paternal assistance were both highly valued. But in every family there is one person whose faith is unflagging, whose aid is most cru cial. M y appreciation, most of a ll, to m y mother. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................................ ii LIST O F TABLES................................................................................................................ V LIST O F FIG U R ES ................................................................................................................v ii Chapter I . T H E PROBLEM.................................................................................................... 1 Introduction Area of Concern Purpose of the Study Delineation of the Problem Questions to Be Explored Hypotheses for the Study Assumptions Definitions of Terms Limitations and Delimitations Organization of the Remainder of the Study I I . R E V IE W O F T H E LITERATURE........................................................... 17 The Nature of C reativity C riteria for C reativity Assessment Teachers' Predictive A bilities C haracteristics of the Highly Creative Child A Compilation of Terms from Selected Research Used to Describe the Person a lity C haracteristics of the Highly Creat ive i i i Chapter I I I . P U R P O S E A N D O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F T H E S T U D Y Page 57 The Nature of the Study Description of the Sample Description of Evaluative Instruments Collection of the Data Scoring Procedures Inter-Judge R eliab ility S ta tis tic a l Treatment of Data IV. FIN D IN G S .......................................................................................................... 84 Descriptive Empirical Findings Hypotheses and Pertinent Findings Summary of Findings V. S U M M A R Y A N D CONCLUSIONS........................................................................143 Purpose of the Study Nature of the Study Proced vires Findings Implications Recommendations A PPE N D IX E S Appendix A: Master Table of All Raw D a ta ............................159 Appendix B: Individual Class Intercorrelation Matrices and Descriptive S ta tistic s . . 192 Appendix C: The Group Test of C reativity: Administration Manual, Test Booklet, Scoring G u i d e .....................................................................223 Appendix D: Instructional M aterial for Teachers . . 254 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................261 i v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Composition of the Student Sample P o p u latio n .................................................................................................... 61 2 . Class Enrollment Data for the Nine Participating Schools ................................................................. 62 3. Group Test of C reativity (1972 Revision) Scaled Score Equivalents ........................................................... 67 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Scaled Scores by Age G roups....................................................................... 7 3 5. Composition of Data C o lle c te d ................................................ 76 6. Correlation Matrix of Total Group Scores on G T O C and Reading Achievement T e s t ........................ 86 7. G T O C R aw Score Data: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges ............................................................................. 90 8. Teacher Rankings (Rating 1) Correlated with Total G T O C S c o re s ................................................................. 94 9. Teacher-Assigned Ranks and Actual Earned Ranks for Subjects Scoring +2o, G T O C , Rating 1 .......................................................................................................... 97 10. Correlations of Teacher Ratings 1 and 2 with G T O C Scores and Percentage of Variance Accounted f o r ........................................................................101 v Table Page 11. Teacher^Assigned Ranks and Actual Earned Ranks for Subjects Scoring +2a, G T O C , Rating 2 .................................................................................................................107 12. Rank-Difference Correlations between Teacher Ratings and G T O C S u b t e s t s .............................................................109 13. Significant and Positive Correlations between Teacher Ratings and G T O C S c o r e s ...........................................114 14. Correlations between G T O C Total Scores and Reading Achievement Scores for Each Class . . 120 15. Correlations between G T O C Subtests and Reading Scores for All C la s s e s ...................................................123 16. Correlations between Teacher Ranks and G T O C Scores Compared with Correlations between Teacher Ranks and Reading Scores . . . 126 17. Dependence of Teacher Rating upon Reading Achievement: Comparison between Ratings 1 and 2 .................................................................................................................129 18. Highest Positive Correlation Obtained by Each Teacher for A ll Variables, Both R a t i n g s .................................................................................................................132 19. Teacher-Assigned Ranks of C reativity and Actual Earned Ranks of C reativity for "Superior Creatives" and "Superior Readers" .................................................................................................................136 v i LIST O F FIG U R E S Figure Page 1. The "Superior Creatives": Subjects with G T O C Scores +2a and Comparison with Their Reading Achievement ........................................................................... 134 v i i " 1 C H A P T E R I T H E P R O B L E M Introduction Although the subject of creativ ity has long fa sc i nated the student of human behavior, i t is only recently th at a serious in terest and its resu ltant research has made the topic one of the most p ro lific areas of study on the educational scene. This resurgent in tere st in the area of creativ ity has taken some interesting turns . The em piricists convince us th at the tr a i t of creative potential varies in individ uals to the extent that w e can identify the "high creatives" in our society and in our schools. The e x is te n tia lis ts, on the other hand, convince us th at since in each person there is creative p otential, and since an "open-tended" tr a it can not tru ly be quantified, there is greater necessity for focusing on conditions th at w ill nurture creativ ity in a ll men. I t is argued that an open-ended t r a i t such as 1 2 creativ ity cannot be enclosed within the confines of empiri cal measvirement. The pragmatics of the situ atio n , however, remain the most convincing of the arguments—if w e are ever to know and understand the facet of personality th at w e refer to as creative potential, measurement within the framework of currently-known models must take place. Razik (1967) makes note of th is: What fin ally controls an in stitu tio n are the values i t holds for its e lf and the means which are used to determine whether or not the values are being attained through the effo rts of the in stitu tio n . This boils down, in the concrete world, to the specifica tion of observables . . . in baldest terms, the meas urements which are used, for i t is measurement which supplies the concrete specifications of the behaviors desired and also the means by which to judge th eir attainm ent. Schools are controlled, fin ally , by the measures they want to make, can make and do, in fact, make. . . . The basic measurements on which schools have come to depend are not measurements which include the new dimensions of c re a tiv ity . . . . The develop ment of the student as a growing creative creature has been neglected [p. 155]. At present, the assessment of creative potential is not nearly so ubiquitous as is the assessment of in te lle c tu al p o ten tial. This, added to the fact th at the topic of creativ ity is of wide primacy in educational circle s, might well be construed to be likely to resu lt in informal assess ment of creative potential by teachers. That is , if teach ers are interested in the concept of cre ativ ity , or if th eir in terest is jogged by the public, the adm inistrators, the consultants or psychologists, and if they have no "quo tie n ts" on the te s t file s or cumulative records, i t appears quite likely th at they might then make th eir ow n informal assessments. Assuming th at th is would be a natural follow ing event to the possession of no information or inadequate information, the question becomes crucial: how well are teachers prepared to predict t r a i t v a ria b ility on the part of th eir students, and sp ecifically , how well are they able to predict the tr a i t of high creative potential? Area of Concern C ritics of the testing movement have enumerated the "sins" of standardized te s ts ; there is no question that te sts do not do a ll th at is asked of them. The larger ques tio n , however, is one of whether th at failu re is the fau lt of the te s ts or the fau lt of the system which sets these expectations for the te s ts . Because the te sts do not meet the needs of the system, the blame is frequently placed on the t e s t —rarely the reverse. Again, to use the IQ te s t as an example: the IQ te s t has been effectively demonstrated year a fter year to serve as a relativ ely accurate predictor of academic success, p articularly in the school geared to 1 4 the white, middle-class student. I t does not appear, how ever, to have demonstrated successfully th is same accuracy of prediction of in tellec tu a l potential for children outside th is population; the question again, then, is one of te s t inadequacy as opposed to system inadequacy. The te s t does what i t is expected to do relativ ely effectively; i t does not compensate for the system's fau lts or inconsistencies in setting expectations for students. If i t underrates the I disadvantaged child, for instance, is this not a weakness of the system that employs the te s t, rather than a deficiency inherent in the test? The same defense m ay be u tilized in assessing the efficacy of measurements of creative p o ten tial. These measurements are not perfect, nor perhaps even close to th at level, but at th is stage of assessing creative potential, they appear to be the best of the c rite ria available. To complete the analogy, as Gardner (1961) has so effectively stated in his defense of the IQ metric: Before the rise of objective te sts American teachers were susceptible—at least in some degree—to . . . social d istortion of judgment. Against th is back ground, modern methods of mental measurement h it the educational system like a fresh breeze. The te sts couldn't see whether the youngster was in rags or in tweeds, and they couldn't hear the accents of the slum. The te sts revealed in tellectu al g ifts a t every level of the population [p. 48] ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ So, too, i t is hoped, the te s t of creative potential w ill not hear the accents of the slum. I t can be said, with some assurance, that the te s t of creative potential does come at the assessment problem from another angle—a re la tiv ely objective standardized measure as opposed to yet another subjective measure by school personnel. I t should be noted th at if the cumulative record is examined closely, the data contained may be roughly grouped in three categories: v ita l s ta tis tic s , sta ff judgment, and objective te s t data. Without the te s t data, the child would be judged almost solely on a subjective basis by school personnel. This, then, would mean that very likely a simi lar number of youngsters who have been under- and over estimated in the past in the area of in tellectu al p otential would be likely to suffer the same discrepancies if th eir creative potential were assessed by subjective means. That is , if the IQ te s t "saved" some youngsters in the past from being misjudged (that is, particularly in the area of under estimation) , i t would appear logical th at a comparable underestimation might well occur in a teacher’s a b ility to assess creative potential in an informal manner. Indeed, in light of Torrance's (1962) comments on the "psychological estrangement [p. 124] " of the high creatives with th e ir divergent behavior, and the rather imposing replication of studies finding that the divergent child is less likely to be "liked" by his teacher because of his "different-ness," the underestimation of creative potential through subjective informal assessment may well be assumed to be even more severe than those underestimations occurring in in te lle c tu a l judgments made on a subjective basis . Thus, i t appears th at there is a need to estab lish whether teachers are able to make accurate judgments of such creative potential; the resu lts of such study could then add to the present knowledge regarding the need for em pirical evaluation of creative p otential, or the need for assistance to teachers in helping them refine th e ir estimations of creative potential. Purpose of the Study This study proposed to examine the extent to which teachers were able informally to assess th eir students in the area of creative p o ten tial, and to compare the informal, nonempirical assessments of teachers with that of a measured assessment of creative p o ten tial. 7 Delineation of the Problem This study addressed its e lf only to the a b ility of teachers to assess creative potential on a judgment or r a t ing b asis. There was no attempt to determine teacher a t t i tude toward creativ ity , creative potential, or the attitu des toward the subjects involved in the study, but instead merely provided a view of how accurately the teacher was able to identify the child with high creative p o ten tial. The population for the study was taken from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School D istric t, Palos Verdes Peninsula, C alifornia. The subjects for study of creative potential were taken from the fifth-grade classes in 9 of the 13 e le mentary schools within the d is tr ic t. Teachers selected for study were those teachers who regularly taught the classes that were designated the student population for th is study. The research was conducted in the late spring of the year to take fu ll advantage of the opportunity for teacher-pupil interaction over the preceding eight months. Questions to Be Explored 1. Are teachers able to estimate creative potential in th e ir students? 2. Regardless of the level of teacher predictive a b ility for creative potential, could th is level be improved by further instruction regarding methods of estimation of creative p otential through the knowledge of personality characteristics of the highly creative child? 3. Are teachers predicting a factor within crea tiv ity — th at is , do teacher predictions more accurately estimate a factor (s) within the sphere of creativ ity such as F lex ib ility of Thinking or S ensitivity to Problems, as Jopposed to a prediction of a more global creativ ity score? j 4. H ow sig nificantly does the reading achievement te s t score correlate with the creativ ity te s t score? Could the u tiliz a tio n of such an academic achievement score a ssist in the prediction of creative potential? 5. D o specific subtest scores on the Group Test of C reativity (G T O C ) correlate more sig n ifican tly with reading achievement than do others? Could a teacher depend upon predicting a specific factor of creativ ity sampled by the G T O C ? Further, do specific factors sampled by the G T O C correlate sig nifican tly with reading achievement scores? If any of the six factors sampled in the G T O C did relate closely to reading achievement, could the teacher predict reading achievement when asked to predict cre ativ ity , and could these factor(s) which relate to reading then produce "correct" creativ ity predictions? 6. If the reading score is not predictive of crea tiv e p o ten tial, does i t , conversely, mislead the teacher in her predictions? Is the teacher in fact mistakenly p redict ing academic success when she is asked to predict high crea tive potential? Hypotheses for the Study The following hypotheses were tested: H0l There is no significan t correlation between teacher rankings of creative p otential and an empirically measured ranking of creative p o ten tial. H q ^ There is no significan t correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and an empirically measured ranking of creative p otential after information has been given the teachers regarding the identification of the highly creative child through the use of personality char a c te ristic s . H q3 There is no sig nifican t correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and specific empiri cally measured factors of c re a tiv ity . H (j There is no significant correlation between 4 reading achievement scores and to ta l scores on the te s t of 10 c re a tiv ity . H n There is no sig nifican t correlation between 5 specific em pirically measured factors of creativ ity and reading achievement scores. H 0 There is no sig nifican t correlation between 6 teacher rankings of creative potential and reading achieve ment scores . Assumptions This study was conducted under the following assump tions : 1. The population selected represented a reasonable sample of those students enrolled in the fifth-grade classes of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School D is tric t. The en tire fifth-grade population for the d is tr ic t at the close of the 1971-72 school year was 1,348. Of these, 874 were included in the original student sample population. 2. The teachers assigned to the schools selected represented a reasonable sample of those teachers assigned to teach fifth-grade classes in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School D is tric t. Of the 13 elementary schools in the d is tr ic t, 9 were included in the study, and in each of the 9 schools the en tire fifth-grade faculty was included, to taling 30 teachers. 3. Creative potential was adequately assessed through the use of the instrument selected, the G T O C . 4. The instrument selected for measuring creative potential (the G T O C ) is a valid and reliab le measure. Since the G T O C is s t i l l undergoing norming and standardization procedures, th is assumption was based on four facts: (a) the te s t represents a venture into an area th at does not contain s tr ic t theo retical formulations as yet, and cross- comparisons and in te rte st correlations are hazardous at best; (b) the te s t has construct v alid ity ; (c) thousands of subjects have been tested to date on the various subtests of the G T O C ; and (d) the 1972 revision of the G T O C represents refinements based on considerable experimental evidence. 5. Reading achievement was adequately assessed through the use of the Stanford Achievement Test, Form X, Primary II administered to most of the subjects during M ay 1970 when the students were in th ird grade. This assumption is also made for those who were administered the Stanford Achievement Test, Form W , Primary II during second grade in April 1969. 6. Students m ay be categorized in the extremes as possessors of "high creative potential" and "low creative potential" based on th eir scores on the G T O C . 12 7. The rating instrument u tiliz ed in th is study (Ranking Sheet No. 1, Ranking Sheet N o 2) adequately meas ured the informal assessment by teachers of th eir students' creative p o ten tial. Definitions of Terms For the purposes of c la rity , the following terms have the meaning indicated in the te x t of the study: Informal assessment.—Informal assessment is that subjective mental process through which a teacher arrives at a judgment about a p articular t r a i t in a student. Teacher ra tin g .— Teacher rating is that rank as signed to a student subject by his teacher on the ranking forms ranging from high creative potential to low creative p o te n tia l. High creative p o te n tia l. — High creative potential refers to a score on the G T O C one standard deviation or more above the to ta l sample mean. L ow creative p o te n tia l. —L ow creative potential refers to a score on the G T O C one standard deviation or more below the to ta l sample mean. Moderate creative p o te n tia l. — Moderate creative p otential refers to a score on the G T O C not exceeding one standard deviation above or below the to ta l sample mean. High reading achievement. — High reading achievement refers to a score on the Stanford Achievement Test, Total Reading Score, at or above the 77th p ercentile. Moderate reading achievement. — Moderate reading achievement refers to a score on the Stanford Achievement Test, Total Reading Score, between the 76th percentile and the 23rd percentile, inclusive. L ow reading achievement.—L ow reading achievement refers to a score on the Stanford Achievement Test, Total Reading Score, at or below the 22nd percentile. G T O C . — G T O C refers to the Group Test of C reativity, 1972 revised edition, containing seven subtests, which are Redefinition A, Redefinition B, S ensitivity to Problems, Fluency of Thinking, F lex ib ility of Thinking, O riginality, and Elaboration. In addition, these six factors which make up a major part of divergent thinking a b ility are herein referred to upon occasion as redefinition, sen sitiv ity , fluency, fle x ib ility , o rig in ality , and elaboration, in the 14 generic form. For the purposes of labeling tabular data, the six subtests are referred to on tables as R E D A, R E D B, SEN, FLU, FIX, ELA B. (Data from the subtest O riginality were not included in the study because of th e ir lack of d ifferen tiatio n between subjects, as noted in Chapter I I I .) Teacher gender. —Teachers in th is study w ill be re ferred to in the masculine gender. Superior C reatives.— Superior Creatives refers to those students who scored two or more standard deviations above the sample mean on the G T O C . Superior Readers. — Superior Readers refers to those students who scored two or more standard deviations above the median (50th percentile) on the national norms of the reading achievement te s t. For purposes of th is study, th is group included only those students scoring at the 98th and 99th percentiles . Limitations and Delimitations The resu lts and findings of th is research may be interpreted only within the confines of the following lim i tations and delim itations: 1. The sample population (both for teachers and 15 students) was drawn from and limited to a single school d is tr ic t. Further, the d is tric t is composed prim arily of upper-middle-class children and above on the socioeconomic scale, and was representative of only the fifth-grade popu lation of the d is tr ic t. 2. The basic instrument used in the research, the G T O C , is a research tool which is s t i l l in the experimental stages of norming and standardization. Results coming from the G T O C should be interpreted with the caution that would ordinarily be used with a research instrument. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II presents a review of the lite ra tu re in four selected areas: the nature of c re ativ ity , c rite ria for creativ ity assessment, teachers' predictive a b ilitie s , and ch aracteristics of the highly creative child. Chapter III provides an account of the nature of the study, including a review of the basic s ta tis tic a l model; a description of the sample population of teachers and students; the data gathered, including a description of the ranking and intervening variable treatm ent; a descrip tion of the G T O C ; and s ta tis tic a l treatment of the data. Chapter IV reviews the findings of the research within the structure of the major variable investigated, including analyses and discussions of the findings. Chapter V offers the summary, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the research. Following the Bibliography, the appendices contain the master table of a ll raw data collected, tabular tr e a t ment of ancillary data, and m aterials u tilized in assess ments and rankings. r C H A P T E R II R E V IE W O F T H E L IT E R A T U R E The Nature of C reativity T raditionally, creativ ity has been viewed as product rather than process (Anderson, 1959, p. 243) . For many decades, only hindsight in terest was given to the creator, I once having created; th at is , retrospective views were made, studying the kind of persons who gave b irth to ideas, in ventions, theories, and a r tis tic products. The process by which the creator arrived at the product was not under d is cussion, and the "how" of creativ ity was largely ignored. Society has long valued the product of the creative person, but because of the supposed or assumed elusiveness of the quality of creativ ity and the factors within the creative process, l i t t l e or no attempt was made to identify the process before the product. In the la s t two decades, however, much attention has been focused on th is facet of personality. I t would appear, 17 18 in retrospect, th at many factors influenced th is surge of in terest in the process of c re ativ ity . These factors in cluded: national concern following the launching of Sputnik in 1957 by the Soviet Union, an a llie d concern for u tiliz in g the talents of the "gifted," and the factor that Guilford (1959) refers to as "states of boredom [p. 1 4 3 ] He ac knowledges the postwar forces as spurring on in te re st in creativ ity , and agrees that our struggle for the survival of our way of life and resu ltant m ilitary needs calls for a stepped-up rate of invention, but he adds also th at the time available to channel effo rts creatively has, in p art, ac counted for the surge. This same theme is echoed by others, notably Hudson (1970) . Others, including Snow (1960) and Barron (1959), have assessed the reasons behind the current sta te of in te re st in the fie ld of creativ ity and have added to the suggested l is t of causative factors, but Metfessel (1968) has probably best summarized the primary causes, calling them the 10 major "god parents [p. 618]" of the conception and b irth of the forces causing the upsurge in research in the area. H e includes: 1. The international struggle for the sustain ment of our democratic way of l i f e . 2 . Heavy p o litica l-m ilita ry demands for innova tive weapons and weapon systems. 19 3. Economic pressures for new processes and markets. 4. Social changes, in that creative expressions formerly minimized by class and caste protocols are be ing re leased by the avant garde of minor ity groups. 5. Ind ustrial discoveries of the in du strial revolution in modern technology. 6. Increased automation . . . often causing boredom th at seeks creative o u tle ts. 7. Creative release from boredom caused by in creased leisure time off the job. 8. The personal recognition th at innovation, in vention, and discovery have value in increasing one's m aterial well-being. 9. Rebellion against demands for conformity and social adjustment. 10. The broad emphasis on the "good life " stem ming in part from democratic ideals which hold that every man is en title d to an opportunity to express himself freely and be his most individual se lf [pp. 618-619] . Vernon (1970), while underscoring the effect of Sputnik and technological needs, credits the turning point to Guilford himself, whose 1950 address to the American Psychological Association directed concern to the then- overlooked area of the nation's creative p o ten tials. Most experts in the fie ld share the view of Vernon in crediting Guilford as the cataly tic force for what Metfessel (1968) refers to as the " firs t systematic attack [p. 619]" on creativ ity research. Hudson (1970) expresses a less generous p o litic a l view, in which he postulates two rather negative American motivations for in terest in c re ativ ity . H e notes:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 The causes of th is s h ift [in thinking] are not fully understood. But two factors, at least, one can d is tinguish: a diffuse cu ltu ral ground-swell, elevating the sc ie n tist from the status of technician to that of culture hero; and a more specific concern on the part of the American nation with the state of th eir armaments industry. The f i r s t , though real enough, w e can only guess about. The second factor can be traced to some extent to Sputnik [p. 218] . Vernon (1970), however, argues th at the work of Roe (1951) and much of the work of Guilford (1950) preceded the Sputnik launch, and i t might be added th at the work of C attell (1960) and others displayed in terest in creativ ity prior to 1 th at t ime. Whatever the causes for the surge of research in the area of creative potential, the recency of in terest is pointed up by Getzels and Jackson (1962), who cite the fact that in the years from 1927 to 1959, of the 240 a rtic le s cited in Psychological Abstracts which related to creativity, the (then) most recent 20 per cent were published within the years of 1957 to 1959. Covington (1968) and others under score th is in te re st. Guilford (1950) also decried the dearth of research prior to that time, citin g as tangible evidence the fact th at from the origin of the publishing of Psychological A bstracts. less than 2/10 of 1 per cent of the a rtic le s abstracted for a quarter century had touched upon the area of c re a tiv ity . I 21 Although research has been p ro lific in the 20 years following G uilford's reproof to his colleagues, problems in studying creativ ity remain extant. One of the major prob lems in the study of th is facet of personality is the wide d isparity among principal investigators and theorists re garding acceptable definitions of c re ativ ity . The Latin creare is "to bring forth, to create, to cause to grow," but Fromm (1959) has postulated a dichotomy in the concept of cre ativ ity with two broad meanings— both to the production of something new, and to a type of attitu d e which m ay be present even though nothing may be created. I t has been argued that the two are inextricably intertwined. Others (Roch, Evans, & Klein, 1969) have increased the dichotomy to embrace a th ird th eo retical construct, including the creative process, the creative person, and the creative product. Barron (1969), regarded by many as one of the most eminent researchers in the fie ld , perhaps overly sim plifies the question with his statement th at creativ ity in its sim p lest form may be defined as "the a b ility to bring something new into existence [p. 10]." M ay (1959) and others who share what has come to be known as the self-actu alizatio n explanation for the creative 22 process hinge much of th e ir th eo retical position on th is idea of "bringing something new into b irth ." Rogers (1965) points out that creativ ity may only be e lic ite d and can neither be produced nor predicted. This e x iste n tia l, open-ended view is shared by Allport (1937), M as low (1962), M ay (1959), and others, vfao essen tially view the creative process as present in a ll men, but which need not necessarily resu lt in a product. M as low (1962) distinguishes between sp ecial-talen t creativeness of the productive type and self-actu alizatio n creativeness. According to M ay (1959), Adler a t one time b riefly touched upon what he termed a "compensatory theory of crea tiv ity ." May, for one, decries th is postulate—that people create because of a need to compensate for th eir ow n in adequacies—though agreeing th at A dler's theory has merit in th at need forces possibly do shape the direction th at the creative form or degree takes. This "compensatory theory" is akin to the reductionistic theory attribu ted to Freud (1914) and others in which creative or cu ltu ral advancements or products are seen as tens ion-reduction processes, or motivated by the unconscious need to make re stitu tio n for destructive urges. Terman (1947) noted th a t: 23 Lange-Eichbaum, a German p sy ch iatrist, has emphasized the importance of inner conflicts and tensions of whatever kind as stimulants to great achievement. H e believes th at without such irrita n ts no one ever puts forth his maximum e ffo rt, th at the personality happily adjusted to his environment and never stirre d to action by opposition or fru stratio n is foredoomed to obscur ity [p. 34] . Parnes (1971) points out th at the early view of the relationship between creativ ity and insanity fostered by Lange-Eichbaum and others has been largely contradicted by the more recent views of Maslow (1962), Rogers (1965), and others of the self-actu alizatio n school. Gutman (1967) likewise refutes Freud's lib id in al energy position, arguing th at while creative and lib id in al energies m ay "spring from the same source [p. 25]" they lead to overt expression on differing levels, and adds further th at creative activ ity cannot be explained merely as a product of sublimation. I t would appear th at though a ll persons may well have the capacity or p otential for creative production, certainly a t least of the self-actualizatio n type, th is theo retical construct is unsuited for the task a t hand, wherein the in tere st lies in the sp ecial-talen t type of creativ ity , in which i t is assumed an eventual productive a b ility lies dormant only in the early stages of l i f e . Maslow, May, Rogers, and those who are especially concerned 24 with the self-actu alizatio n type of creativ ity have theor ized some interesting, intriguing, and useful constructs of creativ ity , p articu larly from the psychological and person a lity development standpoints. As unique and appealing as this facet of personality m ay be, i t is not the creative process which was attended to here. This study, rather, focused on the type of special-talent cre ativ ity , and the searching out of th is talen t in its dormant or semi-dormant (pre-productive) s ta te s ; that is, where the product has not been accomplished, but the potential for product accomplish ment m ay be measured and quantified. To c ite an example of this more pragmatic view of creative p otential, Anderson's (1965) view is th at: Business and industry are interested in discover ing and identifying creative persons. Child psycholo g is ts , educators, and psychiatrists are interested in finding out how to grow them [p. 60] . Starkweather (1964), citing distinctions raised between creative fa c ility and creative a b ility , noted one point of view th at at the early stages of development only the former is id en tifiab le. She concluded th at a "question remains as to vfcether creative potential can be identified before there has been creative achievement [p. 2]." Despite concerns such as Starkweather's, others, 25 | including the most eminent researchers in the fie ld , such as Torrance (1962), Getzels and Jackson (1962), and Guilford (1959) feel th at there are measurable tr a its present in the highly creative individual. Guilford (1963) underscores th is measurement of tr a its as being essen tial, citin g a t tempts at factor analytic measurement of t r a i t p otential as crucial to further understanding and development of these tr a its . I t appears obvious th at in order to be fully devel oped, creative p otential must f ir s t be ascertained through some form of assessment, if w e are not to wait the many years that longitudinal studies w ill require. Criteria for Creativity Assessment The most c r itic a l problem in the study of creativ ity is the question of c rite ria which are acceptable for assess ment and id en tificatio n of the highly creative. Taylor (1964) points out th at "... the c rite ria problem demands the highest p rio rity and . . . the most serious considera tion for research support should be given to any proposals for worthwhile work on c rite ria [p. 9]." W ing (1967) echoes th is view, and adds th at the c rite ria must be developed for early assessment: 26 I t follows th at the d iffic u lty of developing creativ ity to its fu lle s t potential increases with the age of the individual at the time his a b ility is id en ti fied . Means for identifying creativ ity at an early age need to be developed and u tilized in the selec tion process [p. 183]. Not a ll the eminent theoreticians in the fie ld of creativ ity research are in to ta l agreement, however, on the necessity for empirical assessment. Torrance (1967), one of the major contributors to the fie ld and the principal author of one of the best-known and most widely-used creativ ity assessment instruments, sta te s: Educators need not be dependent upon te sts for identifying creative p otential among students, even though te sts m ay make them aware of p o te n tialities th at would otherwise be missed. Non-test indicators m ay be obtained both in regular classroom a c tiv itie s and by creating classroom situations especially de signed to evoke creative behavior [p. 84]. Despite Torrance's somewhat limited endorsement of identifying techniques other than te s ts , Shapiro (1970) con tends th at the establishment of empirical c rite ria is of f ir s t concern, implying th at without the la tte r, the former may never be validated: The problem of the criterio n , in essence, is simply the problem of how to identify the creative person or how to identify the creative worth of the products of an individual. This represents the most challenging aspect of a l l research into cre ativ ity . Without establishing objective c rite ria , a l l endeavours at devising predictors, investigating personality and cognitive ch aracteristics, and ven turing hypotheses about the creative process are of questionable value [p. 257]. If there are "conditions" under which creativ ity can more successfully be nurtured, as M . Stein (1962) suggests, then i t follows that these conditions would be especially beneficial for those who possess th is creative potential in abundance, which in turn strengthens the case for early iden tificatio n of "high creatives ." In order to ensure th at these "high creatives" are nurtured in the conditions th at foster creative production, i t is obvious that some type of measurement is necessary to identify the most likely candi- j dates. Stein (1962) indicates th at there are three major c rite ria in studies of personality factors associated with creativ ity : productive measures, psychometric definitions, and expert judgments. H e notes th at researchers such as C attell (1960) and Roe (1951) and his ow n work of 1953 have a l l u tiliz ed the "expert judgment" approach: In contemporary research, one finds i t more com m on th at investigators have obtained judgments from in dividuals who are experts in th e ir fie ld and who are qualified to make judgments about others [p. 6]. H istorically, w e have used the f ir s t of the c rite ria Stein mentions (productive measures) to judge our creatives: 28 we have inferred process from product. It is certainly a useful and reliable method of judging creativity, but of course its chief drawback is that it is retroactive in direction and possesses no predictive assistance when at tempts are being made to nurture creative potential in its emerging form. Roch and his associates (1969) modify th is theor e tic a l construct slig h tly , indicating three types of meas urements: (1) the creative process measurement (the Guil ford and Torrance types of empirical assessment); (2) the creative person measurement; and (3) the creative product measurement. The la tte r two are "expert-judgment" ap proaches to measurement. In the person approach, in v esti gations are carried out on the tr a its and ch aracteristics of those known to possess high creative a b ility ; the product measurement, as the name implies, is an assessment of an individual's level of creativ ity measured in terms of his accomplishment. T w o of the c rite ria mentioned by Stein w ill be u t i lized in th is study. Psychometric assessment of creativ ity w ill be obtained, and "reliable expert judgment" w ill be attempted. Certainly, both of these c rite ria have th eir drawbacks, especially the la tte r . Shapiro (1970) warns of 29 these drawbacks: At the outset there are two problems to consider which affect ratings by others. F irs t, there is the obvious risk of personal bias distorting the ratin g s. Bloom (1963) suggests th at descriptive rating ques tionnaires, based on findings from previous studies, should be used in order to minimize bias on the part of the raters . A second problem was suggested to the author by an investigation by Taylor, Smith and Ghiselin (1963), who found th at scores obtained from differen t sources (immediate supervisors, laboratory chiefs, peer ratin g s, subjective scoring, o ffic ia l records) bore l i t t l e relationship to each other. This means th at some external c rite ria may be more accurate than others, or th at different areas of information are contributed by d ifferen t sources [p. 263]. Teachers 1 Predictive A bilities Although product judgment has tra d itio n ally been used to assess cre ativ ity , and although psychometric judg ment of creativ ity has recently come into prominence, very l i t t l e has been accomplished in the fie ld of expert judgment of creative p o ten tial. This is not surprising, for judgment in an open-ended system such as the creative process is not at best simple, and expertise in th is relativ ely young fie ld is not widely available, nor in fact is the expertise claimed by many. In the fie ld of human behavior, however, i t is im portant to note th at in the absence of information, or with inadequate information, the pragmatic practice is th at of 30 offhand judgment, unsupported by data. Thus, "He's a bright boy," "She's not as sharp as her s is te r," "H e h asn 't got i t," ad infinitum . As teachers become more aware of the work in the area of creative p otential, and as stress con tinues to be placed in th is area, i t is not surprising that new comments are following in the paths of old: "He's really a creative child," "She's one of m y most creative students," and so on. This in terest in developing creative potential would appear to lead naturally to teacher predic tion, and the unfortunate following logic is that i t m ay well lead to incorrect identifications of th at elusive qual ity known as "creative p o ten tial”—ju st as expert judgment has, in the past, led to incorrect assessments of in te lle c - tu a1 pote nt ia 1. Teachers, th e ir predictive a b ilitie s , and the circu lar relationship between student achievement and teacher regard have long been a subject of investigation. Particu larly allied to the research at hand are the findings on teacher prediction in the area of student giftedness.* Early studies by Terman and his associates (1925) confirmed th at teacher prediction was not "pure"; that is , teachers' ^ ■ T h e terms "creativity" and "giftedness" are not equivalent and should not be so equated in the context of th is S t u d y - ______________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ _1 ratings were biased by external variables. I t w ill be re called th at in Terman’s e a rlie s t selection proceedings dur ing the 1920s for his classic longitudinal studies with the g ifted , teachers did not predict well the tr a its labeled "genius." O ne of the primary d efic its of using teacher predictions for screening was th at of contamination by the variable of chronological age; th at is , teachers tended to select older students as brighter students. This finding apparently has not been much altered in the intervening I years since the Terman studies. Samuel Kirk points out in his 1972 discussion of gifted id en tificatio n th at: The man on the stre e t expects th at of course the teacher w ill spot these children and do something for them, but various studies have shown that teachers do not do a very good job of recognizing the g ifted child; in fact they f a il to identify from 10 to 50 percent of th eir g ifted [p. Ill] . Kirk underscores the need for subjective predictions ( i.e ., teacher ratings) to be validated by objective meas ures . T w o of the studies cited by Kirk are of particular in terest here. The f ir s t, by Winifred Kirk (1966), found th at 70 per cent of the kindergarten children in her study screened by teachers and reported by the teachers as being bright (gifted) were mistakenly id en tified and had a mean IQ 32 of only 102.5. In addition, the teachers failed to identify more than two-thirds of the subjects with IQs in excess of 116 points. Given assistance in screening procedures, the teachers ' predictive a b ilitie s improved markedly; they made twice as many correct predictions as they had previously (pp. 235-241) . An e a rlie r study cited by Kirk was th at done by Pegnato and Birch (1959) working with secondary-school-age students. The authors, in attempting to establish a more I e ffic ie n t and effective method of locating the gifted ado lescent, u tiliz ed teacher judgment as one of seven methods for finding the g ifted . Their findings concluded th at: Teachers do not locate gifted children effectively or e ffic ie n tly enough to place much reliance on them for screening . . . only 45.1 percent of the gifted children actually present were included in the teach ers 1 l is ts . Not only were more than half of the gifted missed, but a breakdown of those children referred as gifted by the teachers revealed th at almost a th ird (31.4 percent) of those chosen by the teachers were not in the g ifted or superior range but in the average intelligence range on the Binet [p. 303]. I t was found by Pegnato and Birch th at of the seven screening methods employed, group testing for intelligence was best (though s t i l l far from efficien t) and teacher pre diction was one of the two weakest methods u tiliz e d . In addition, teachers' predictions have come under tangential attack of implied bias arising out of the Rosen th al and Jacobsen (1968) findings th at there is a circular relationship between te s t scores, achievement, and teacher perception. I t would appear that the problems inherent in the "expectation phenomenon" could be applied here; th at is, a teacher must know a student fa irly well and for a re la tiv ely long period of the school year before she is capable of an accurate prediction, but conversely, the knowledge she gains (test scores, achievement, e tc .) m ay bias her predic- i tions and contaminate them in the same way that Terman's teachers' predictions were contaminated by external vari ables . Despite severe and rather widespread criticism of the methodology u tilized , Rosenthal and Jacobsen's (1968) now-famous expectation studies established a relationship {between pupil performance and teacher expectancy, and the methodological criticism notwithstanding, there has been l i t t l e argument on th eir major hypothesis: that teacher expectation influences pupils' te s t scores, and conversely, p u p ils' te s t scores affect teacher expectations. If th is is carried on to its logical extension in the arena of predic tion for creativ ity , i t might well be that teachers w ill be contaminated by the circular "expectation-test score 34 phenomenon" and w ill predict creativ ity according to achievement (or IQ) te s t performance. The data suggested in the area of prediction for giftedness are quite probably closely allie d to prediction for creativ ity , but probably because of even greater im p lic it hazards, there is a dearth of research in the area of teacher estimation of creative p o ten tial. I t has com e under direct study only within the past year; prior to th is time there existed l i t t l e evidence as to whether teachers were capable of this kind of judgment of tr a i t v aria b ility among students. Except for a very few tangential comments in studies whose major research is in a llie d areas, the question has not been a major topic of investigation. These early findings are mixed. Am ong the e a rlie st findings were those of Yamamoto (1963), who stated th at: . . . i t is observed th at in no case the Non-Nominated Group [chosen by teachers as being less creative] ob tained a mean creativ ity score higher than th at of the Nominated Group. The differences are highly s ig n ifi cant (p < .01) in Fluency and Total C reativity; sig n i ficant (p < .05) in F lex ib ility and O riginality; and almost significant (p < .10) in Elaboration. I t might, therefore, be said th at the te s ts of creative thinking used in the present study did d ifferen tiate among the specific subjects those judged creative by th eir teach ers from those not judged to a s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ifi cant degree [p. 5]. More recently, Yamamoto (1967) found teachers' 35 predictions to be reliab le indicators of creativ ity when gathered on a sep arate-criteria basis (fluency, fle x ib ility , etc.)* The author points out, however, th at past research has been quite mixed on the major question a t hand. Another study by Gallagher and Crowder (1957) indi cated th at teachers' estimates of creative potential in a group of gifted children were accurate to a useful level, but the investigators expressed concern about the "vested in terest" of teacher ratings in general. I t is interesting to note, however, that the teachers in th is study rated the subjects "very favorably on p ractically a ll variables except creativ ity and leadership," giving rise to the speculation th at the vested in terest factor was not operating in the area of cre ativ ity assessment. Torrance (1970) has indicated th at i t is within the realm of teacher expertise to make these judgments, and that these estimations would be accurate to a useful level. There are corroborating studies involving the a b ility of supervisors to rate cre ativ ity , notably those by Jex (1963) and Buel (1960). Conversely, Jacobson (1966) indicated th at his find ings did not show teacher estimates of creative potential to be highly successful. 36 Walkup (1971), among others, has stated the need for assessment-by-judgment, suggesting in the case of adults th at the simplest solution is to ask the person vdiether he is creat iv e. Getzels and Jackson's now-classic study (1962) re garding teacher perception of the high-creatives as "unde sirable" to teach has been regarded by some as an unques tioned proposition. Wallach and Kogan (1965) agree with th is hypothesis, indicating th at teacher perception of creative pupils makes th e ir ratings "next to worthless [p. 169]" in the prediction of divergent thinking. Biggs and his associates (Biggs, Fitzgerald, & Atkinson, 1971), however, argue strenuously with the two preceding studies, and in th eir careful and thorough re search on A ustralian teacher ratings of competence in d i vergent thinking maintain th at teachers were able to per ceive high-divergent children re a lis tic a lly , and that teachers were not blinded by th eir ow n value systems regard ing "nice" behavior in the classroom settin g . Their study of teacher rating systems and the question of whether teachers tended to underestimate children of high a b ility concluded that teachers were re a lis tic a lly and positively evaluating the highly creative child. 37 The most recent study on the question was conducted by Merz and Rutherford (1972) studying teacher perception of creative students versus achieving students. Three of th eir primary findings were th at: . . . teacher ratings and scholastic attainment are more clearly related to each other than they are to performance on the creativ ity tasks . . . [and] that performance on creativ ity tasks and achievement te s t performance show low positive relationships, [as do] teacher judgment and performance on creativ ity tasks [p. 89]. The authors also concluded that creativ ity "does not seem to be included to any significant extent eith er in achievement te s t measurement or in teacher rating evaluation [p. 89] I t may be concluded th at at the present time the research evidence regarding the question of teacher predic tive a b ilitie s is extremely varied. The slig h t preponder ance of findings suggests th at while such prediction is often considered to be within the realm of teacher exper tis e , there exists considerable doubt as to the v alid ity of teacher prediction for c re a tiv ity . There is , however, ev i dence that teachers' predictions improve when they are given guidelines to u tiliz e , or when making judgments based on separate creativ ity c rite ria such as fluency and 38 o rigin ality (Merz & Rutherford, 1972; Yamamoto, 1963; W . Kirk, 1966). As Fox (1967) points out in his review of Taylor's (1964) pos i t ion: The science of psychology is not yet able to de fine cre ativ ity operationally, effectively measure i t , or provide an adequate th eoretical formulation of i t [p. 40] . Although some would argue th at th is position is somewhat over-stated, i t would seem th at when predictions of th eir students' creative potentials are sought from teach ers, i t m ay well be asking more of them than should be asked. Characteristics of the Highly Creative Child If teachers are to make useful predictions, i t seems clear th at they would be likely to benefit from some a s s is t ance in making these predictions. I t appears th at one of the most likely forms of assistance in improving these pre dictions might well be in establishing a noncognitive se t of personality ch aracteristics to help make identifications . Considerable attention has been focused on the a s pects of judging the creative potential of a child on the basis of personality or work-style v ariab les. Both Guilford 39 (1963) and Torrance (1962) have devoted much attention to isolating the factors or fragmentary cognitive and affective behaviors that could be considered ch aracteristic of what could be termed the "creative personality." Torrance's work is p articularly comprehensive in the affective areas; he has compiled more than 80 tr a its mentioned in studies of the personality variables of the highly creative. H e points out that there is general agreement th at personality factors contribute to creative achievement; beyond th is importance, there is ample evidence to suggest that if a child can be assessed by th is type of measure (a check l i s t of person a lity factors com m on to the creative), th is w ill give ob jective te sts of creativ ity a measurement against which to be validated. Guilford, through his e a rlie r studies, has likewise expressed in terest in relating temperament tr a its to creative performance (1959). Dewing (1970) points out th at: . . . research into creativity has heavily underlined the interaction between cognitive abilities— e.g., fluency, flexibility, etc.— and certain personality and environmental factors. As knowledge about crea tive people was accumulated, it became apparent that persons from completely different spheres— artists, chemists, writers, physicists, psychologists, biolo gists— showed some similar personality traits . . . Broadly speaking, these traits culminated in tenden cies to interact with the environment in particular ways, to be open to ar>d anxious for new experiences, * > 4 0 to employ internal frames of evaluation, to be able to to lerate uncertainty, and to rejec t the security of established attitu d es, preconceived notions, major ity opinions, and accepted norms [p. 399] . What is needed for the research at hand, then, is a succinct compilation of tr a its generally agreed upon in the available evidence. I t was decided to compile th is ev i dence, categorize i t into a workable frame of reference, and then either locate or devise a compilation of the tr a its for use in instructing teachers as they made predictions of c re ativ ity . There were found to be at least five major problems in the attempt at a delineation of a l i s t of characteristics of the highly creative child, and these problems made syn thesis d iffic u lt. The problems included: 1. A veritable flood of creativ ity research in the period since 1950. 2. Differences in age ch aracteristics, or the application, for instance, of characteristics found in the mature creative producer as opposed to the ch aracteristics found in the child demonstrating high creative potential. 3. Inadequate validation, in part because of the simple problem that there has not, as yet, been time enough for "hindsight evaluation"— that is , i t w ill not be known 4 1 with certainty i f the ch aracteristics of the highly crea tive child are actually characteristics of the eventual highly creative producer or merely the child who appears to have early potential but does not f u l f i l l his promise. That question w ill remain unanswered u n til such time as those who have been singled out as having p otential have had "production time" available to them in th eir mature years. 4. Semantics: for example, what one terms "fle x i b ility [Cropley, 1967, p. 34]," another calls "openness [Barron, 1969, p. 47]." S till others use the terms "lack of rig id ity [Torrance, 1962, p. 128]," "tolerance for ambi guity [Williams, 1971, p. 42]," "more openness to irra tio n a lity [Taylor, 1964, pp. 27-28]," "relaxation [Thurstone, 1961, p. 416]," and "suggestibility [McHenry & Shouksmith, 1970, p. 154]." While i t may be argued th at each of these terms is a separate e n tity and a ju stifia b le semantic d iffe re n tia tion, i t is also apparent th at there is a core of common a lity in these eight terms used as an example . 5. D irect contradictions: "sta b ility [Taylor, 1964, p. 27]" is one term used to describe a personality ch aracteristic of the creative, but Wagner (1968) uses 42 "inconsistency [p. 146]" in descriptions of the high- I creatives in his research. Again, perhaps the two terms are not complete semantic opposites, nor are they perhaps mutu ally exclusive, but they do seem to tend toward opposite poles. Perhaps more clearly, the terms "extroversion [Hitt & Stock, 1967, p. 265] " and "introversion [Taylor & Barron, 1963]" m ay be used as an example; both terms have been u tiliz ed to describe the highly creative personality, and they are unquestionably contradictory. The attempt th at follows is threefold: (1) to give a listin g of the major terms u tilized in describing the personality of highly creative persons; (2) to give the relativ e frequency of the terms by citing individual re fe r ences to each term; and (3) to suggest a reduction to more general categorization, again with frequency of use in a collected format, in which sim ilar terms might be placed in order to put the terminology into a more manageable frame of reference. This was u tilized to establish the type of sum mation th at needed to be constructed or located to provide the short-term instruction necessary for the research study. A discussion follows the tabulation of reference data. 4 3 A Compilation of Terms from Selected Research Used to Describe the personality Characteristics of the Highly Creative Resourcefulness Risk-taking Roe (1963, p. 170) McClelland (1963, p. 184) Cropley (1967, p. 124) Kagan (1971, p. 114) Williams (1971, p. 42) Resourceful Williams (1971, p. 42) Judges by in tuition Williams (1971, p. 42) Imaginative Barron (1952, p. 219) Razik (1967, p. 308) Williams (1971, p. 42) Curious Williams (1971, p. 42) Undertakes d iffic u lt and dangerous tasks Torrance (1962, p. 117) Not easily frustrated Williams (1971, p. 42) Original Barron (1952, p. 219) Torrance (1962, p. 128) Razik (1967, p. 308) Wild, s illy , naughty ideas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Torrance (1962, p. 78)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Complexity Taylor (1964, p. 27) Barron (1952, p. 219) Williams (1971, p. 42) Puzzled Wagner (1968, p. 146) Prefers to learn on his ow n Torrance (1962, p. 114) Williams (1971, p. 42) Autonomy Autonomy Taylor (1964, p. 27) Independence of judgment Taylor (1964, p. 27) S elf-su fficien t Taylor (1964, p. 27) Tries to be d ifferen t Torrance (1962, p. 120) Unconventional Barron (1969, p. 47) D ifferent values Torrance (1962, p. 120) Internal frames of evaluation Dewing (1970, p. 399) Independence and inner-directedness Barron (1955, p. 285) Not well-rounded Torrance (1962, p. 109) Often limits interests to a particular subject Wagner (1968, p. 146) Independence Razik (1967, p. 308) Mackinnon and Barron (1952, p. 219) Prefers to learn on his own Torrance (1962, p. 114) Williams (1971, p. 42) Rejects security of established attitudes Dewing (1970, p. 399) Williams (1971, p. 42) Judges by intuition Williams (1971, p. 42) Non-conforming Torrance (1962, p. 120) Wagner (1968, p. 146) Future -oriented Wagner (1968, p. 146) Self-critical Williams (1971, p. 42) Openness More openness to irra tio n a lity Taylor (1964, pp. 27-28) Openness Rogers (1954, p. 143) 46 Flexible Cropley (1967, p. 34) Torrance (1962, p . 124) Barron (1969, p. 47) Openness to new experiences Barron (1969, p. 47) Dewing (1970, p. 399) Thurstone (1951, p. 416) G u llib ility Thurstone (in McHenry & Shouksmith, 1970, p. 134) S ugges t ib i 1ity McHenry and Shouksmith (1970, p. 154) Tolerates uncertainty Dewing (1970, p. 399) Tolerates ambiguity Williams (1971, p. 42) Tolerates disturbance Williams (1971, p. 42) Relative lack of rig id ity Torrance (1962, p. 128) Relaxation Torrance (1962, p. 128) Thurstone (1961, p. 416) Drive High energy level Barron (1952, p. 219) Williams (1971, p. 42) 47 Drive Taylor (1964, p. 28) Can't stop working Torrance (1962, p. 120) Psvchosocial adjustment problems Aloofness Williams (1971, p. 42) "Loner" Wagner (1968, p. 146) Torrance (1962, p. 104) Williams (1971, p. 42) Appears to have psychological problems Williams (1971, p. 42) Oedipal anxieties Weisberg and Springer (1967, p. 132) Wild, s illy , naughty ideas Torrance (1962, p. 78) Seems immature and impulsive Williams (1971, p. 42) Introversion, linked with o rigin ality Taylor and Barron (1963) Alienates friends Torrance (1962, p. 108) Not well-rounded Torrance (1962, p. 109) r 4 8 Unhappy childhood Roe (1952, p. 51) Poor impulse control Barron (1963) Unevenness of ego development Weisberg and Springer (1967, p. 132) Hum or H um or Torrance (1962, p. 128) Getzels and Jackson (1962, p. 102) Weisberg and Springer (1967, p. 131) Williams (1971, p. 42) Playfulness Barron (1969, p. 47) Torrance (1962, p. 128) Sens itiv ity Femininity of in terests Taylor (1964, p. 28) Diverges from usual sex role in terests Torrance (1962, p. 112) Sens itiv ity Barron (1952, p. 219) Razik (1967, p. 308) Appreciates beauty Williams (1971, p. 42) 4 9 Imaginative Barron (1952, p. 219) Razik (1967, p. 308) Williams (1971, p. 42) Puzzled Wagner (1968, p. 146) Cur ious Williams (1971, p. 42) Indulges in fantasy Williams (1971, p. 42) Dominance Strong self-image Weisberg and Springer (1967, p. 131) Dominating Williams (1971, p. 42) Taylor (1964, p. 27) Assertiveness Taylor (1964, p. 27) Barron (1952, p. 219) Aggression Barron (1969, p. 47) Weisberg and Springer (1967, p. 132) H itt and Stock (1967, p. 265) Extroversion H itt and Stock (1967, p. 265) Aloof Williams (1971, p. 42) 50 Certain cautions are warranted in assessing the preceding data regarding personality variables; of primary importance are the understandings th at the foregoing is not an all-in clu siv e statement of tr a its , and more p articularly th at there is disagreement on some of the tr a its lis te d . Also, the caution should be reitera ted th at the personality variables noted m ay be in variance with differing age groups. I t also is obvious that there are d irectly contra dictory tr a its liste d , and Razik's (1967) admonition should I be heeded when he terms the creative person "many faceted [p. 308]" and warns of the complexity of the task of a s signing personality variables indiscrim inately. Specific arguments in the lite ra tu re are worth not ing in relatio n to some of the tr a its mentioned. Although references to autonomy of thought and behavior are mentioned in the research surveyed, an interesting argument was raised in th is area by McHenry and Shouksmith (1970). A notably d ifferen t view of the t r a i t "suggestibility" or "g u llib il ity" was postulated in th eir recent work, in vdiich they made note of the fact th at suggestib ility and its accompanying inherent relationship to conformity would be less expected as a t r a i t of the creative, divergent child; they nonethe less concluded th at a t least in the 10-year-old (and 51 further, probably because the child is_ 10) suggestib ility was a t r a i t th at was found sig nifican t in th e ir study of 147 subjects. They c ite Piaget's work as supportive evidence that sug gestib ility (conformity) is at a peak during the immediate pre-adolescent years. I t is interesting to note that the hallmarks of the 10-year-old child as seen by developmentslists Ilg and Am es (1955) are obedience and fle x ib ility during th is period and effo rts to please every one—to conform. I t seems paradoxical to say th at a t r a i t of creativ ity at th is tenth year is su g gestib ility , for divergency is the essence of c re a tiv ity . I t may be hypothe sized, too, th at these evidences of conformity and sugges tib ility do lend support to findings by Torrance (1967b) of the "fourth-grade slump" in c re a tiv ity . To what extent suggestib ility may continue into the eleventh year, as a resurgence of creative productivity is witnessed, is hard to determine from the evidence at hand. McHenry and Shouk smith note th at the creative child probably is much less suggestible by his mid-adolescence, while Ilg and Am es in dicate th at conformity begins to dissipate a fte r the tenth year, and i t is thus not an illo g ic a l assumption th at the break away from suggestible behavior begins to be accom plished during the beginning of the eleventh year for many 52 children. Costanzo and Shaw (1966) extend the period into the tw elfth year, claiming a continued uncertainty of judg ment in which the child "mirrors [p. 973]" the judgment of his peers. The highly sig nifican t correlations between measures of creativ ity and su g gestib ility found by McHenry and Shouksmith (1970) m ay also account for another factor in volved in the expression of creative potential, as they noted: The present finding has implications for the edu cational system. The same t r a i t th at makes the crea tiv e child suggestible gives him the a b ility to pick up a new idea . . . Just as the creative child picked up the suggested ideas, he has undoubtedly picked up others and probably has a store of such ideas ready to be tapped when the occas ion demands. I t is this store which marks the superiority of such a child in the situ ation requiring creativ ity [p. 159]. Another tr a i t that should come under scrutiny here is th at of playfulness or sense of humor. Wilson (1968), in his comprehensive study of the relationship of creativ ity and sense of humor, noted th at the findings were extremely lim ited prior to his study in support of the contention that the two variables were related . His ow n findings, added to the Weisberg and Springer (1967) data in the same time period, lend added support to the contention of Torrance 53 (1962) and Getzels and Jackson (1962) th at sense of humor is a personality variable th at must be included in any com p ilatio n . Probably the most debatable of the categories men tioned is "psychosocial adjustment differences," because in the fin al analysis some of the tr a its th at are regarded as problems must re st on value judgments— what is a "problem" in one view m ay not be so regarded in another frame of r e f erence (and in fact m ay be seen as an a s s e t). Perhaps the best description of the inherent d iffic u lty m ay be seen in the writings of MacKinnon (1967), who describes what he calls the "briefcase syndrome" of creativ ity in his adult su b jects: One of the most strik ing observations w e have made is th at the creative person seldom f its the layman's stereotype of him. In our experience, he is not the emotionally unstable, sloppy, loose-jointed Bohemian. More often, i t is the unoriginal and uncreative person who appears to be a r tis tic , clever, emotional, whereas w e discover ourselves using such adjectives as d elib erate, reserved, industrious, and thorough to describe the truly original and creative persons. A m ong our selves, w e have jokingly described th is cluster of tr a its ch aracteristic of the creative person as "the briefcase syndrome of c re a tiv ity "—closer, if you w ill, to the notion of professional responsibility than to the Greenwich Village Bohemian or the North Beach Beatnik [p. 65] . Mention should be made, too, of the link being 54 established between sound mental health and c re ativ ity . As McGuire (1967) notes in his study on cre ativ ity and em otionality, the "effective person often is characterized by a creative imagination and the a b ility to display his or her emotions [p. 83]." With th is evidence gathering ever- greater support, how can th is be reconciled with the find ings th at the creative child is often a "loner," is "aloof," tends to alienate his peers, and is considered "naughty" by his teachers? If he is in b etter mental health and is more se lf-su ffic ie n t than his peers, why is he regarded in a negative frame of reference, p articu larly in the educational setting? Getzels and Jackson (1962) have given only part of the answer when they reported th at the high-creative child was valued less as a student by his teacher than was the high-intelligence child. I t may have been best stated by Margaret Mead (1967), who points out th at the teacher . . . is unprepared to cope with the child who uses his creativ ity to defeat her: the child who constructs questions th at w ill arouse the boys to raucous laugh te r , whose raised hand she must therefore d istru st . . . the child who invents secret clubs and ciphers and signals and ceremonies th at turn the classroom into something strange and unpredictable . . . [p. 169] . I t is apparent th at what in one frame of reference to one viewer m ay be negative, m ay in another context be seen as a positive asset. Surely those children who are aroused to "raucous laughter" by th e ir creative peer do not hold such a negative view of his creative productions. I t also should not be assumed th at the teacher is the major g u ilt-c a rrie r here. Wherever and whenever people are as sessed, value judgment is placed. There must be, of neces s ity , rig h t and wrong answers or b etter and worse tr a its . I t is not a question of evaluating those judgments of oth ers; i t is merely necessary to warn th at those judgments are necessary and do ex ist when w e begin to characterize c h il dren, and to caution th at characterizations of tr a its be recognized for what they are--essen tially value judgments — p articu larly in the affective areas. The primary goal in undertaking th is review of r e search on personality characteristics of the creative child was to establish a d efin itiv e l i s t of characteristics th at could be given to teachers to help them in th eir search for highly creative children. The eight categories noted in the preceding section, namely Resourcefulness, Autonomy, Open ness, Drive, Humor, S en sitiv ity , Dominance, and Psychosocial Adjustment Differences, would a l l have to be accounted for in any listin g of ch aracteristics given to teachers to a s s is t them in making predictions. There are, most certainly, 56 more comprehensive listin g s of the characteristics noted in the research. Torrance (1962), among others, has thoroughly delineated those ch aracteristics noted in research findings. Valuable summations of listin g s have been offered by Met- fessel (1968) and Williams (1971). For th is study, i t was decided to u tiliz e the Wil liams listin g of ch aracteristics for the following reasons: i t is brief and compact, i t is the most recent summation, and i t includes a l l eight of the categories noted. The complete Williams l i s t of ch aracteristics of the highly creative child which was used for instructional purposes in th is study may be found in the Appendix. C H A P T E R III P U R P O S E A N D O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F T H E S T U D Y The Nature of the Study As was indicated in the Introduction, th is study proposed to examine the extent to which teachers were able to assess th eir students accurately in the area of creative potential, and to compare the informal, nonempirical assess ments of teachers with those of a measured assessment of creative p o ten tial. Further, i t was thought th at teachers' judgments of creative p otential might be improved to some extent with a limited amount of instruction or in-service training regarding the ch aracteristics of the highly crea tive child. Accordingly, two ratings were asked of teachers, and between the two ratings instruction was given to the teachers on the use of personality characteristics in iden tify ing the highly creative ch ild . In th is chapter, the methodology u tilized in the study describing sample selec tio n, collection of data, and instrtunentation w ill be 57 58 discussed; a description of the s ta tis tic a l treatment of the data is included. Description of the Sample The school d is tric t selected for the study is a suburban, upper-income, "bedroom" community near a major metropolitan center. The area is divided into three in corporated c itie s and an unincorporated county section. The pupil population is decidedly re stric te d to the "advan taged"; the bulk of the sample would f a ll into Warner's classificatio n s (Bogue, 1969) of upper-upper to upper- I middle class. Assessed valuation per unit of A ,D .A. (aver age daily attendance) was estimated by the d is tr ic t for 1971-72 in excess of $36,000 (S ta tis tic a l Report. 1971). Median annual income for three of the four sections com prising the d is tr ic t varied from a low of $21,080 to a high of $23,760 in 1969, and the fourth area, which is the high est socioeconomic level in the d is tr ic t, possessed a median income of $26,431 in 1959. In comparison, the median income for the county in which the d is tr ic t is located was $10,970 in 1969 (Los Angeles Times. July 20, 1972). Included in the school d is tr ic t are 13 elementary schools, housing in excess of 17,000 students. Of these, 59 1,348 were enrolled in the fifth grade a t the time of the closing d is tr ic t s ta tis tic a l report in June 1972. F ifth graders were selected for the study in an e ffo rt to avoid what Torrance (1967b) refers to as the "fourth-grade slump." Of the 13 d is tr ic t elementary schools, nine were u tilized in th is study, and in each school the to ta l f if th - grade population was included. The original sample desired was 800 students, a necessarily large sample because of the accompanying need for a teacher sample population of at least 25. The actual population of fifth graders in the nine schools volunteering for the project was 876, and 30 teachers were assigned to th is original sample. Considera tion was given the relativ ely low absentee rate encountered in schools of th is socioeconomic level, and the original sample size was considered large enough to allow for loss of data. Actual losses incurred were 56 subjects, about a 6 per cent loss (55 from absence, 1 from loss of data), leav ing a sample student population of 820. One teacher was absent on the day the research team v isited th at school, leaving a sample teacher population of 29 for predictive data purposes. That teacher's group of students, however, was u tilized for a ll other data analyses, exclusive of pre dictive data purposes. 60 A series of conferences and communications with d is tric t adm inistrators was u tilized , and the nine schools in the study were on a voluntary inclusion b asis. P rinci pals who volunteered th eir fifth-grade student and teacher populations did so a fter concerns were allayed regarding the amount of student and teacher time necessary to accomplish the instrumentation and data collection. Actual time u ti lized was approximately 65 minutes for each school's fifth graders to be administered the G T O C in single groups, the largest of which at the nine schools was 135 students. In addition, teacher rankings and instruction u tilized approxi mately 40 minutes, on the average. All other data were collected by the research team, composed of the author and graduate colleague. Preparations of ro sters, data gathering from the cumulative records and permanent record cards, adm inistration, and scoring of the G T O C were a l l accom plished by the research team. Other members of the research team were the scorers who assisted in the scoring of the G T O C . Scoring procedures are detailed more fu lly in th is chapter, including information on the establishment of inter-judge r e lia b ility . Principals of the schools volunteering for p a rtic i pation in the study agreed to participate because in general 61 TABLE 1 COMPOSITION OF THE STUDENT SAMPLE POPUIATION School Fifth-Grade Boys Fifth-Grade Girls Total Students Teachers 1 28 38 66 2 2 17 20 37 2 3 59 65 124 4 4 32 35 67 2 5 26 43 69 3 6 58 55 113 4 7 70 56 126 5 8 37 46 83 3 ' 9 79 56 135 5 9 406 414 820 30 (29)b aOne teacher in each of these schools was teaching a fourth-fifth grade combination class, which accounts for the disparity in teacher-pupil ratio. bOne teacher did not participate in pupil rankings because of absence. The teacher's pupils are included in the statistical treatment relating to all parts of the study except in the section dealing with teacher rankings of pu pils . 1 ■ ' ■ 1 " ' 1 " ■ T A B L E C L A S S E N R O L M E N T D A T A F O R T H E 62 2 N IN E PARTICIPA TIN G S C H O O Ifi School Teacher Boys Included Gir Is Included Total Pupils Included 1 1 12 21 33 2 16 17 33 2 3 13 12 25 4 4 8 12 3 5 15 15 30 6 14 17 31 7 14 17 31 8 16 16 32 4 9 17 17 34 10 15 18 33 5 11 12 18 30 12 10 18 28 13 4 7 11 6 14 14 14 28 15 17 11 28 16 10 18 28 17 17 12 29 7 18 16 13 29 19 13 8 21 20 14 11 25 21 13 13 26 22 14 11 25 8 23 16 18 34 24 7 10 17 25 14 18 32 9 26 16 11 27 27 13 11 24 28 16 12 28 29 18 11 29 30 16 11 27 Totals 30 406 414 820 they characterized th e ir teachers as being p articu larly interested in the area of c re a tiv ity . Subsequent contacts by the researchers with these teachers bore out the s ta te ments of the p rin cip als. Description of Evaluative Instruments Three evaluative instruments yielded the data for the research; a l l were administered in group s e ttin g s . The three instruments were: the Group Test of C reativity (GTOC); the Stanford Achievement Test. Reading. Forms X and W from the Primary II battery; and teacher ranking sheets designed by the w riter. The ranking sheets were in two forms: pre-rankings before instruction in the character is tic s of the creative child (Rating 1) and post-rankings used a fte r instruction (Rating 2). The G T O C was adminis tered by the w riter and the research asso ciate. The reading achievement te s t had been given previously by the d is tric t to the student population. The ranking sheets and in te r vening instructions were administered by the w riter. The Group Test of C reativity The G T O C is a shortened and revised form of a re search instrument devised by Metfessel (1965) and his s ta ff at Project Potential, a federally funded research project 64 at the University of Southern C alifornia. The te s t, based upon the research of Guilford (1959), measures six areas of divergent production. The six areas, originally id en tified and defined by Guilford through factor analysis, are represented by one subtest each on the G T O C , except for the f ir s t factor, which is represented by two separate sub tests. The subtests are as follow s: 1. Redefinition A 2 . Redefinition B 3. S ensitivity to Problems 4 . Fluency of Thinking 5. F lex ib ility of Thinking 6. O riginality 7 . Elaboration Each subject was given the complete nine-page G T O C booklet in a group setting (the to ta l fifth-grade population of each school) and the directions were given by one member of the research team. Because school schedules differed in respect to when teachers could meet with the w riter, in actual practice 246 of the student sample were given the te s t by the research associate and 574 were given the te s t by the w riter. The same verbal and w ritten instructions 65 were given to a l l subjects, following the standardized pro cedures outlined in the Group Test of C reativity Adminis tratio n Manual. 1972 Revision. The O riginality subtest on the revised G T O C was found not to discrim inate adequately between subjects. Of the 820 subjects taking the te s t, only 4 per cent had a score other than 2 or 3 points out of a possible 0-6 point range. For th is reason, the data gathered on the O riginal ity subtest were excluded from a ll analyses in the study. A copy of the te s t and the manual is included in the Appen dix . The to ta l creativ ity score was the sum of each sub je c t's raw scores on the six subtests . Tabular data were compiled using standard score values comparable in format to th at of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (W ISC ) (1949), using a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3 for each sub test. These data, for conversion of raw scores to scaled scores, w ill be u tilized for future research with the G T O C for the age ranges encompassed in th is study. The one significan t difference between the G T O C scaled score format and that of the W IS C is th at the W ISC specifies four-month age groups (e.g., 11-0 through 11-3) as opposed to the G T O C format, which u tiliz es three-month intervals for greater bb specificity (e.g ., 11-0 through 11-2). Scaled scores estab lished for each chronological age group are included in Table 3, and the means and standard deviations for each set of scaled scores are given in Table 4. The Stanford Achievement Test. teadwK£ The Stanford Achievement Test. Reading, is a widely- known and widely-used group te s t of reading achievement, and i t is not necessary to describe i t further here. Since i t MSB a state-mandated te s t ( i.e ., required by C alifornia sta te law) during the school years of 1968-1969 and 1969-1970, the bulk of the student sample population had taken the te s t during th eir second and/or th ird grade year. Transfer s tu dents from within the sta te who came into the d is tr ic t since 1970 also carried th at te s t on th eir records. During the spring of 1970, about 78 per cent of the student sample had been given the Stanford Achievement Test in Reading. Primary II, Form X. In addition, approximately 4 per cent had been given the Stanford Achievement Test in Reading. Primary II, Form W , during the previous spring semester. Also included in the analyses of the data on reading achievement were approximately 3 per cent of the student sample who had com parable achievement te s t scores on th e ir records. Although 67 TABLE 3 G R O U P T EST O F C R EA TIV ITY (1972 REVISION) S C A L E D S C O R E E Q U IV A L E N T S Chronological Age (N Group: = 34) 10-3 to 10-5 Scaled Score R E D A R E D B R aw S E N Scoresa FL U FIX E L A B Scaled Score 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 0 4 5 5 2 5 6 5 6 2 10-11 3-4 6 6 7 6 7-8 3 13 5 8-10 7 8 7 9 4 14-16 6 11-13 8 9 8-9 10-11 5 17-18 7 14-16 9 10 10 12 6 19-20 8 17-19 10 11 11 13 7 21-22 20-21 11 12 15 8 23-24 11 24 12 13 13 16-17 9 26-27 12 27 13 14 14 18 10 28 13 28 14 15 15 19-20 14-15 15 16 1 2 33-34 16 36 16 17 17 14 17 18 18 19 19 20 46 20 aOnly six of the seven subtest scores are included here. The subtest O riginality was found not to discriminate between subjects adequately, and was dropped from the scaled scores. T A B L E 3- Chronological Age (N — Continued Group: 10-6 = 171) to 10-8 68 Scaled R aw Scores Scaled Score R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Score 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 3 4 4 3 1 0 4 5 5 4-5 3-5 1 2-4 5 6 6 6 2 6-8 2 5-6 6 7 7 7 3 9-10 3-4 7-8 7 8 8 8-9 4 11-13 5 9-11 8 9 9 10 5 14-16 6 12-13 9 10 10 11 17-19 7 14-15 10 11 11 12-13 6 20-21 8 16-18 11 12 12 14 7 22-24 9 19-2 0 12 13 13 15 8 25-27 10-11 21-22 13 14 14 16-17 12 23-25 14 15 15 18 9 30-32 13 26-27 15 16 16 19 10 33-35 14 28-30 16 17 20 15 31 17 18 18 12 40 16 18 19 19 37 19 20 13 20 21 40 21 22 51 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 68 29 T A B U S 3 Chronological Age (N — Cont in vied Group: 10-9 = 204) to 10-11 69 Scaled R aw Scores Scaled Score Score R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3 4 3 3-4 5 1 0 4 5 4 5 1 6-7 2 3-4 5 6 5 6 2 8-10 3 5-6 6 7 6 7-8 3 11-12 4 7-9 7 8 7 9 4 13-15 5 10-11 8 1 9 8-9 10 5 16-17 6 12-14 9 10 10 11-12 6 18-19 7 15-16 10 H 11 13 7 20-22 8 17-18 11 12 12 14 8 23-24 9 19-21 12 13 13 15-16 9 25-27 10 22-23 13 14 14 17 10 28-29 11 24-25 14 15 15 18-19 30-31 12 26-28 15 16 16 20 32-34 13 30 16 17 17-18 12 36 14 32 17 18 19 13 37 15 34-35 18 19 16-17 37 19 20 15 20 21 16 45 21 22 22 23 18 49 23 24 24 25 20 25 70 T A B L E 3 Chronological Age (N — Continued Group: 11-0 = 194) to 11-2 Scaled R aw Scores Scaled Score Score R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3-4 0 3 4 5 4 5 1 5-6 1-2 0-2 5 6 5 6-7 2 8-10 3 3-5 6 7 6 8 3 11-12 4 6-8 7 8 7-8 9-10 4 13-15 5 9-11 8 9 9 11 5 16-17 6 12-14 9 10 10 12-13 6 18-20 7-8 15-17 10 11 11-12 14 7 21-23 9 18-20 11 12 13 15-16 8 24-25 10 21-2 3 12 13 14 17 9 26-28 11 24-26 13 14 15-16 18-19 10 29-30 12 27-29 14 15 17 20 11 31-33 13-14 30-32 15 16 18 12 34-36 15 33-35 16 17 19-20 13 37-38 16 36-37 17 18 40 18 19 15 18 19 20 45 19 20 21 17 21 22 50 22 22 23 19 54 23 24 56 24 T A B L E 3- Chronological Age (N — Continued Group: 11-3 to 11-5 = 149) 71 Scaled R aw Scores Scaled Score Score R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 3 4 3 3 1 1 4 5 4 4-5 2 5-7 2 2 5 6 5 6 8-9 3 3-5 6 7 6-7 7-8 3 10-11-12 4 6-8 7 8 8 9 4 13-14 5 9-11 8 9 9 10-11 5 15-17 6 12-13 9 10 10 12 6 18-19 7 14-16 10 11 11 13-14 7 20-22 8 17-19 11 12 12 15-16 8 23-25 9 20-21 12 13 13 17 9 26-27 10-11 22-24 13 14 14 18-19 28-30 12 25-27 14 15 16 20 10 31-32 13 28-30 15 16 17 21 11 34 14 31 16 17 18 12 36 19 33 17 18 19 13 38 18 19 27 14 42 40 19 20 44 20 21 47 46 21 22 49 22 23 23 24 52 24 72 T A B L E 3- Chronological Age (N — Continued Group: 11-6 = 37) to 11-8 Scaled R aw Scores Scaled Score Score R E D A R E D B SE N FL U F L X EIA B 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 4 5 3 1 5 6 4 4-5 6-8 2 3 6 7 5-6 6 2 10 3 5-7 7 8 7 7-8 3 11-13 4 10 8 9 8 9 4 14 5-6 11-13 9 10 9 10-11 5 16-18 7 14-15 10 11 10 12 6 19 8 18 11 12 12 13-14 7 21-23 9 19-21 12 13 13 15-16 8 10 22-24 13 14 14 9 26-27 25-26 14 15 15 18-19 28 12 28 15 16 20 32 16 17 18 17 18 12 15 18 19 39 16 19 20 20 21 47 21 TABLE 4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SCAI£D SCORES BY AGE GROUPS Age R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X EIA B Total 10-3 to 9.88 10.00 10.00 10.06 10.09 10.00 10.00 X N = 34 10-5 2 .83 2 .90 3 .17 2 .99 3.01 2 .95 3.02 S D 10-6 to 9.63 9.91 9.94 9.99 10.07 9.98 10.02 X N = 171 10-8 3 .01 3 .07 3.00 2 .97 3.03 3.04 3.03 S D 10-9 to 9.99 10.04 9.74 10.02 9.94 10.00 9.99 X N = 204 10-11 2 .99 3.01 3.01 3.03 3.16 2 .97 3.03 S D 11-0 to 10.00 9.97 9.92 10.01 10.06 9.92 10.04 X N = 194 11-2 3.01 3.06 3.08 3.02 3.01 3.03 3 .01 S D 11-3 to 9.95 9.99 10.04 10.05 10.03 9.98 10.01 X N - 149 11-5 3 .01 3.00 2 .91 2 .98 3.02 3 .03 3.00 S D 11-6 to 10.05 10.03 10.00 9.97 10.14 10.00 10.03 X N = 37 11-8 3.02 3.00 2 .87 3.07 2 .91 3.06 3.10 S D 74 i t was not wholly desirable to use percentiles as an ex pression of these scores, the raw scores of the several te sts could not be equated, and of the expressions of te s t scores available, percentiles were the most advantageous for the design of the study. Thus the to ta l sample population which was treated in the data analyses concerned with reading achievement was 697 pupils, or 85 per cent of the sample N of 820. The remaining 15 per cent of the sample was removed from that part of the data analysis which was dependent upon reading achievement te s t scores . The to ta l student sample popula- i tion, then, for these analyses was reduced from 820 to 697. j Teacher rating sheets Rating sheets were devised for use by the teachers of the students included in the sample population. Teachers were asked to s p lit th eir class rosters in half alphabeti cally . In actual practice the d is tr ic t s p lits students by sex on each class ro ster, so these rosters had to be f ir s t integrated with both sexes appearing together in one alpha b etical lis tin g . Teachers then regarded only the f i r s t half of the class (alphabetically) for the f ir s t (pre-) rating, and were asked to rank the "most creative c h ild ," in the 75 teacher's judgment, in the f ir s t half of the class. Teach ers were instructed to rank the student according to th eir ow n understanding of the term "creative p o ten tial." They were then asked to rank the second and th ird most creative child in succeeding sections, and fin ally were asked to l is t the remainder of the students in the f i r s t h alf of the class in rank order "from the more creative to the least creative ch ild ." Som e teachers stopped a fte r listin g only five or six students in the f ir s t half of the class, while most teachers ranked a ll of the f ir s t half of th eir class. Of the 820 students in the sample, 703 were ranked by the teachers. W hen th is f ir s t set of rankings was complete, teachers were then given information, both verbal and w rit ten, on the personality characteristics of the highly crea tive child. The second (post-) ranking was then administered. The directions were changed to include the statement, "In lig h t of the discussion and informational m aterials you have received from the investigator regarding the id en tificatio n of the creative child, would you please answer the following questions," and the ranking sheet for the second h alf of the class, sim ilar in format to the f i r s t ranking sheet, was then administered. In the second (post-) ranking, only the 76 second half of the class was regarded. Copies of both rank ing sheets and the instructional data on personality char a c te ristic s are included in the Appendix. T A B L E 5 C O M PO SIT IO N O F D A T A C O L L E C T E D Data Scores Obtained N Achievement: SAT, Reading Percentiles 697 Group Test of C reativity Raw scores 820 Teacher rankings Ranks 1 (High) 703 to 18 (Low ) Collection of the Data Before collection of the data was begun, the en tire research p ro ject—including instruments, data collection m aterials, and ranking sheets— was submitted to the d is tr ic t offices for evaluation. The m aterials were then discussed with the d is tr ic t board of education and permission was ob tained to pursue the study, but only on the condition th at parental approval was obtained. Explanatory m aterial was then sent home via each potential subject seeking parental permission, and in no case was a child removed from the 77 student sample. Data were collected during a period of 11 school days during the la st week of April and the f ir s t two weeks in M ay 1972. The late spring semester timing was desirable because i t was f e lt th at the teachers would have optimum opportunity for interpersonal reaction to th eir students and would be more capable of well-informed evaluations of crea tive p o ten tial. In each school the en tire fifth-grade population was tested in a single 65-minute s ittin g in the school's m ulti purpose room. Teachers were contacted by the w riter eith er prior to the beginning of school each day of testin g , or after school, or during the period of time when the students were being given the G T O C by the research associate. The teachers of fifth-grade classes were dealt with as a group a t each school, with the groups ranging in size from two to fiv e. They were given the ranking sheets, instructions, and the intervening variable instruction on the characteristics of the highly creative child as a group. All teachers in a l l schools received the same instructions, directions, and information. The Stanford Reading Achievement Test scores for the second- and third-grade years were collected from permanent record cards. Other data collected included sex, chrono logical age, and reading scores from other te sts for those students without Stanford Reading Achievement scores. Not a l l of the other reading scores were u tiliz ed because of d iffic u ltie s encountered in establishing equivalencies for a number of te sts u tiliz ed on only a few of the student subjects. A further discussion of the treatment of reading achievement data follows in the Findings of the study. Scoring Procedures O ne of the most d iffic u lt aspects of the measurement of creativ ity is th at of scoring. B y the very nature of the measurement, scoring is of necessity open-ended and is at least partly subjective in n ature. This is true of the G T O C , as well as the Guilford and Torrance b a tte rie s. I t is d iffic u lt to score cre ativ ity measures because of the sub je c tiv ity and the fact that they must be hand-scored as opposed to machine-scored. The procedure is further com plicated by the fact th at the task is not c le ric a l, but r e quires instead trained judgment. These problems also com p licate the question of equating scores given by any two scorers—the establishment of inter-judge re lia b ility . The f ir s t problem, th at of time consumption, was 79 dealt with by sp littin g the 820 te s ts among three separate scorers: the w riter, the co-author of the scoring standards manual, and the research associate. A ll booklets were hand- scored by th is research team. All scorers then fam iliarized themselves with the scoring standards as outlined in the Group Test of C reativity Scoring Guide. 1972 Revision. T w o training sessions were then held in which sample te s t items were scored and compared, questions raised and c la rifie d , and fin a l extensions of the guide were collated and agreed upon by the three scorers . Both the w riter and the co author of the scoring guide had had previous experience with the scoring of creativ ity te s ts (the la tte r had a great deal of experience compared to the w rite r's limited experience); the research associate had not previously had experience with a te s t of this type. The research associate then trained three persons to score the te sts assigned to him. These three persons scored only selected items ( i.e ., two subtests each) so th at each of the persons could "special ize" and thus reduce the p o ssib ility of error by task size reduction. This approach also lessened training problems and i t was f e lt i t would enhance inter-judge re lia b ility . The persons trained by the research associate scored sample items, and th eir work was submitted to the examination of 80 the other two scorers during the training session. While i t is clear th at th is approach to scoring solves the time consumption problem, i t is equally clear th at i t increases and compounds the problem of inter-judge r e lia b ility , because the scorers must be consistent and they must score "alike" for a ll p ractical purposes. Inter-Judge R eliab ility Inter-judge re lia b ility was accomplished through the use of a three-way "blind" system. All 820 subjects' te sts were numbered, and 30 of these were selected through the use of a table of random numbers. Each te s t was then hand- copied (traced) by the w riter and the research associate to give two exact duplicates of the o rig in al. The use of a duplicating machine was eschewed because th is would signal to the scorers that they were scoring a "special" te s t or a "different" te s t. These 60 extra copies were then included in the te sts given to each scorer, distributed so that each of the three scorers had obtained one copy (either an o rig i nal or a duplicate) of each te s t selected for blind scoring. These te sts were then u tiliz ed to make comparisons for inter-judge r e lia b ility . The 90 tests (30 originals, two copies of each 81 original) and th eir corresponding scores from each of the three scorers were then subjected to s ta tis tic a l analysis, using the Spearman-Brown formula, and applying i t to the pooling of scores (Winer, 1962, p. 124). Inter-judge re lia b ility was found to be .96, more than adequate for estab lishment of inter-scorer commonality. S ta tis tic a l Treatment of Data The data were treated prim arily through the use of correlation coefficients. Pearson product-moment co rrela tions were calculated for the correlations between subtests of the creativ ity te s ts , and between the subtests and to ta l creativ ity scores. Spearman rho rank correlations were used in treatin g a ll rank comparisons with N s below 30, and Ken d a ll's tau rank-difference correlations were used in the treatment of a l l rank comparisons with large Ns. An IB M computer 370-155 was u tilized for s ta tis tic a l computations, using the S ta tis tic a l Package for Social S ci ences developed by Nie, Bent, and Hull (1970). A word of caution is appropriate at th is point in the discussion of s ta tis tic a l treatm ent. The Spearman rho is generally f e lt to be a less-than-ideal correlation method, but under certain conditions i t is an effective 82 approximation of a Pearson product-moment correlation. The fact that there is no universally acceptable method of establishing a standard error for rho. and the fact that its theoretical construct is somewhat faulty, however, are both reasons for caution in in terp retatio n . Major premises th at are founded on such correlations should be interpreted with caution, but as Guilford (1965) points out, "... there are many circumstances which m ay give rise to a somewhat aty p i cal estimate of correlation . . . [p. 304]" and he continues his discussion of special correlation methods by noting th a t Spearman's rank-difference method is a com m on procedure when samples are small. He points out: . . . there is reason to believe th at rho is almost as reliable as a Pearson r_ of the same size in a sam ple of the same siz e . Consequently rho is almost as good an estimation of correlation as the Pearson r_. . . . In view of the fact th at rho w ill ordinarily be computed only in small samples, in which low correla tions cannot accurately be determined, [the chief use of rho] would be to te s t the hypothesis of zero corre latio n. W hen correlations are high, w e may have almost as much confidence in rho for indicating the amount of correlation as w e have in r_ applied to samples of the same size [pp. 308-309] . Thus there are two important factors in dealing with the data in the study: f i r s t , the emphasis should be upon establishment of "no correlation or some correlation" as opposed to correlation levels (low, moderate, high), and second, hypotheses u tiliz in g rho probably ought best to be stated in the null form. These two factors were taken into account in the Findings . In addition to the three types of correlation used in s ta tis tic a l treatm ent, the usual descriptive s ta tis tic s were obtained and are reported in the Findings. r C H A P T E R IV FIN D IN G S The research findings are presented in seven sec tio n s. The f ir s t of these deals with the major findings and descriptive s ta tis tic s obtained from the measurements, most specifically the G T O C . The next six sections deal with each of the questions and the six respective hypotheses, the s ta tis tic a l treatment used, and the findings. Each set of empirical findings is followed by its respective discussion and in terp retatio n . Three subsidiary nonempirical findings and discussion are included at the close of the chapter. To make comparisons more meaningful and to f a c ili tate understanding of the obtained findings, tabular data pertinent only to the questions, hypotheses, and findings are presented in th is chapter. All raw data for the indi vidual subjects and coefficient of correlation matrices for each of the classes are presented in the Appendix. 84 85 Descriptive Empirical Findings The complete coefficient of correlation matrix is presented in Table 6. The data summarized here include the coefficients of correlation between each of the G T O C sub- te s ts , between each subtest and the to ta l te s t, between the subtests and the reading achievement scores, between the to ta l G T O C score and the reading achievement score, the correlations between teacher rankings and the subtest scores, between teacher rankings and the to ta l G T O C score, and between teacher rankings for creativ ity and reading achievement. The subtest-subtest correlations and the subtest- to ta l G T O C correlations were computed using the Pearson product-moment correlations; the reading achievement corre lations were computed using Kendall tau rank coefficients of correlations; the teacher rating correlations were computed using Spearman rho rank-difference correlations, averaged through the use of F isher's z _ coefficients. Conditions dictating the use of each of these s ta tis tic a l methods are discussed with the rationale behind each te s t of the six hypotheses in th is chapter. TABLE 6 C O R R E IA T IO N M A T R IX O F T O T A L G R O U P S C O R E S O N G T O C A N D R E A D IN G A C H IE V E M E N T T E ST R E D A R E D B S E N FL U FIX EIA B T O T A L N R E D A 1.00 .6 3^ .4 3^ .4 1 ^ •41^ .06* .6 4^ 820 R E D B .6 3^ 1.00 .4 8^ .44** .4 5 ^ .14** .11** 820 S E N •43^ .4 8 ^ 1.00 .36** .48^ .12** .60** 820 FL U Al** .44 ♦♦ .3 6^ 1.00 .44** .20** .11** 820 FIX Al** •45^ .4 8^ .44** 1.00 .14** .65** 820 EIA B .06* . 14 ♦♦ . 12 ♦♦ .20** .14** 1.00 .56** 820 T O T A L G T O C .64** .7 !♦♦ .60^ .11** .65** .56** 1.00 820 R E A D IN G A C H .06** .0 9^ .16** .01** .16** .14** . 14 ♦♦ 697 T E A C H E R R A T IN G 1 .03 -.01 .20 .11 .09 .10 .17 12a T E A C H E R R A T IN G 2 -.03 .11 .02 .04 -.04 .13 .04 12 aThe N of 12 represents the average number of students rated by each of 29 teachers on each of two ratin g s. The to ta l N for Rating 1 is 362; for Rating 2, 341. ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦♦Significant at the .01 level of confidence. C D < x » 87 Findings The data summarized in Table 6 indicate th at the subtext intercorrelations are sig n ifican t, positive, and for the most part moderate. The single exception is for the subtest Elaboration, in which the intercorrelations are sig n ifican t, positive, and low. The subtests correlate with the to ta l G T O C at a significant and marked level. For the purposes of th is study, the most significant of the intercorrelations are those between the G T O C and the reading subtests and between the G T O C and the rankings of the teachers. The reading-creativity te s t correlations are sig n ifican t, positive, and low. The correlations for teacher rankings are also very low, three are negative in direction, and none are significan t a t the .05 level of conf idence. Discussion Appropriate caution should be utilized in interpre tation of certain of these correlations in Table 6. It should be noted that with such a sizable N for the test of creativity (N = 820) and for reading achievement (N = 697), it is not difficult to obtain high levels of confidence. A second caution that is necessary to point out is 88 th a t the su b test-to tal correlations represent part-to-whole correlations, and as Guilford (1965) points out, Since the variance of the to ta l is in part made up of the variance of the component, th at fact alone introduces some degree of positive correlation . . . a part-whole correlation is in part a correlation of a variable with its e lf [p. 350] . Although the correlations represented in the "Total G T O C " column are far from being spurious s ta tis tic s , they nonetheless contain a spurious element and should be so regarded in any in terp retatio n. A th ird cautionary note should be sounded regarding the correlations given for teacher rankings. These corre lations represent, in each c e ll on the matrix, an average coefficient obtained through use of F isher's z. correlations . The correlations were obtained from the rankings of 362 and 341 students by th eir teachers, respectively, in Ratings 1 and 2. But in each of the cases, 29. separate correlations representing each teacher and each class were obtained, and the average N per class was 12 students. Som e of the teachers rated few students, and the actual N s ranged from 4 to 18. In effe ct, because of the size of the N in such small samples gives a dubious correlation at best, added to the fact that accuracy is lo st in averaging correlations, 69 and with the use of an average "N, " the correlations shown for Teacher Rating 1 and 2 must be regarded only as general indicators. These "average correlations" for Teacher Rating 1 and 2 were computed only to give a complete picture of the findings encompassed in the study and to relate a number of negative correlations in the most meaningful manner; they may be interpreted only in most general term s. The to ta l effect of the matrix, then, indicates th at if one were to select a reliab le indicator of how ably a student would perform on the G T O C , the most usable indicator for predictive purposes would not be a reading achievement score or a teacher prediction, but would be any of the f ir s t five subtests of the G T O C instead. This is, of course, not surprising, but gives a fa irly clear picture of the over-all findings in the study. Additional descriptive findings Additional empirical descriptive findings from the assessment of the 820 subjects with the G T O C are given in Table 7, with the mean, standard deviation, range, and maximum and minimum scores given for each of the G T O C sub te s ts and for the complete t e s t . Reading achievement scores were expressed in 9 0 TABLE 7 G T O C R A W S C O R E D A T A : M E A N S , S T A N D A R D D EV IA TIO N S, R A N G E S (N = 820) Mean a M ax Min Range R E D A 9.77 3.48 20 0 20 R E D B 11.75 4.39 27 0 27 SE N 5.70 2 .79 20 0 20 FLU 18 .45 7 .65 68 3 65 FL X 7 .17 3.43 22 0 22 EIAB 15 .25 7 .86 56 0 56 T O T A L 70.32 19.59 135 24 111 percentiles, and necessitated the ranking of a ll data re lated to reading. The median percentile for the 697 s tu dents who had reading achievement scores on th e ir records was the 62nd percentile. Teacher rankings, assigned by each of 29 teachers on the two rating sheets, ranged from 1 to 18, but not a ll teachers ranked a l l students in each c la s s . Discussion The population dealt with in the study was assumed to be "above average" in academic achievement in comparison with national norms, in view of the general knowledge of past d is tric t evaluations of th eir student population. This general feeling was borne out by the finding of the 62nd percentile as a median reading achievement percentile for the sample population. Teacher ranks should also be mentioned, because in a number of cases "short ranking" occurred. This was caused by two factors: in some cases few ranks were given simply because the teacher was teaching a combination fo u rth -fifth grade class and was ranking only five or six fifth-graders on each of the two rating sheets. In the remainder of the cases where few students were ranked, "short ranking" 92 occurred because the teacher involved apparently did not regard a l l students as possessing creative p o ten tial, even in minimum amounts . in two cases this was expressed d i rectly , with one teacher commenting, "The re st of these just are n 't creative." In three other cases i t was assumed; Teacher 6, for instance, listed only four of the possible 18 students in his class . The significance of th is "non- empirical" finding w ill be considered again la te r in this chapter. In a ll, the 29 teachers ranked 703 of the 820 subjects included in the study. The average number of ranks assigned was 12, and thus to be in the top quarter (approxi mately) a student would have to be rated in positions 1 through 3 for most of the teachers' ra tin g s. Hypotheses and Pertinent Findings The first hypothesis The f ir s t question posed was whether teachers were able to estimate creative potential in th e ir students, and the hypothesis drawn from th is question, stated in the null form, was: H n There is no significant correlation between °1 teacher rankings of creative potential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative p o t e n t i a l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 93 The s ta tis tic a l te s t chosen was the Spearman rank- difference coefficient of correlation rho, because class samples were small and the data were expressed in terms of rank order as opposed to interval measurements. The level of confidence was set at .05, and the N s varied from four to 17. The to ta l N under consideration for the f ir s t rating was 362, approximately half of the students assigned to the teachers. Table 6 indicates that the correlation between teacher ranks and the to ta l G T O C score for Rating 1 was .17, and was not sig n ific an t. The data regarding teacher prediction a b ilitie s of th eir students' creative potential are summarized in Table 8. Of the 29 teacher predictions obtained, the correlations between teacher rankings assigned to students and the to ta l creativ ity scores of the students were significan t in only five cases. Further, one of these significant correlations (the only high correlation, in fact) was negative in d irec tio n . The other four significant correlations were moderate and positive, but the highest of these would account for no more than 36 per cent of the variance. Table 8 indicates the amount (percentage) of variance accounted for in the correlations, and an average of these amounts was 13 per 94 TABLE 8 T E A C H E R R A N K IN G S (R A T IN G 1) C O R R E L A T E D W IT H T O T A L G T O C S C O R E S (N = 362) Variance Teacher rho N Accounted for (Per Cent) 1 .36 17 16 2 .32 17 9 3 .22 13 4 4 -.60 6 36 5 .18 17 4 6 .40 4 16 7 .25 15 9 8 -.24 16 4 9 .24 16 4 10 .60** 15 36 11 -.82** 7 64 12 -.26 6 9 13 .26 6 9 14 .01 15 — 15 .63** 13 36 16 .05 14 1 17 -.03 14 — 18 .52* 16 25 19 .08 11 1 20 — — — 21 .31 13 9 22 .43 13 16 23 .62* 8 36 24 .30 5 9 25 .13 17 1 26 .15 14 4 27 .29 12 9 28 .09 14 1 29 .24 15 4 30 .12 13 1 95 cent, including the negative correlatio ns. The preponder ance of the correlations were low to negligible, indicating minimal accuracy on the part of teacher predictions. Thus, the n ull hypothesis H n was accepted, with the decision that U1 there is no significant correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and an empirically-measured ranking of creative potential. Discussion. — Again, caution should be expressed re garding the amount of confidence th at can be placed in the obtained correlations, both because of sample size and the th eo retical nature of rho ♦ This is taken into account, in part, by the column headed "Variance Accounted for," and is perhaps the most meaningful method of placing credence in rho. In the set of correlations at hand the variance which has not been accounted for is approximately 87 per cent, indicating the minimal value of teachers ' predictions in identifying th eir highly creative children. The percentage of variance also includes those correlations that are nega tive in direction. Teacher 11, for instance, has predicted very effectively, but in a negative direction. The corre lation is -.82 and the percentage of variance is approxi mately 64 per cent accounted for in his prediction. Thus, 96 i t could be said with some confidence th at those students w hom th is teacher selects as having high potential are actually his low p otential students, and i t may be stated with equal assurance th at those he regards as "low" may be identified in a l l probability as highly creative. In actual p ractical application, th is is less useful than no co rrela tion a t a ll, but nonetheless the correlation does account for 64 per cent of the variance in question. Thus the aver age percentage of variance accounted for, minimal though i t is , is even less "predictive" than i t would seem on the face of i t . A further demonstration of the problems teachers encountered in selecting th e ir highly creative children is indicated by the data summarized in Table 9. For the f i r s t h alf of the students rated by the teachers (N = 362), those students were selected whose to ta l score on the G T O C ex ceeded two standard deviations above the sample mean. The mean G T O C score for the sample was 70, and the standard deviation was 20. Thus, students scoring 110 or more to ta l G T O C raw score points were included in the group labeled "Superior C reatives." Of the 820 students, 28 f e ll into th is superior range; 14 of these were included in the Rating 1 population. 97 TABLE 9 T E A C H E R -A S SIG N E D R A N K S A N D A C T U A L E A R N E D R A N K S F O R SU B JEC TS S C O R IN G +2(J, G T O C , R A T IN G 1 ID N O . Teacher Ranks G T O C X + a Teacher Earned 2 1 1 1 126 2 40 2 9 1 122 2 70 3 12 1 12 3 2 269 10 1 1 119 2 285 10 7 2 118 2 396 15 2 1 112 2 429 16 12 2 125 2 431 16 7 1 133 3 632 23 1 1 117 2 641 24 1 1 122 2 718 27 4 2 110 2 726 27 11 1 113 2 779 29 5 1 110 2 799 30 5 1 112 2 98 A s is indicated in Table 9, four of these students were ranked with perfect accuracy, because the four ranked by the teacher as f ir s t in th eir class did hold th at position in the te s t of c re ativ ity . The remaining 10 superior scorers, however, should also have been predicted at rank 1 or 2— the second place rank occurred when six of the Superior Crea- tives came from three of the same classrooms. The ranks given these Superior Creatives ranged down to rank 12, and the average rank of the 14 was the sixth rank. For a ll teachers' rating sheets, th is average rank would have meant placement out of the f ir s t q uartile for the Superior Crea tives . A dditionally, only one student in the population for Rating 1 exceeded the mean score by three standard devia tions (ID 431) and that student was ranked seventh. These data regarding the Superior Creatives were not treated s ta tis tic a lly , and are illu s tra tiv e only of the type of problems encountered by the teachers when they were asked to make th eir f ir s t set of predictions. In summary, then, i t is concluded th at when the teachers in the sample were asked to rate th eir students "cold," th at is , without a definition of cre ativ ity and without any specific judgmental c rite ria , the predictions of the teachers were generally of negligible value in 99 determining students with high creative potential. The second hypothesis The second question considered was whether, regard less of the level of predictive a b ility of the teachers, this level could be improved with some increased knowledge of the personality characteristics of the creative child. The second hypothesis, stated in the n ull form, was: H n There is no significant correlation between 2 teacher rankings of creative p otential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative p otential a fte r information has been given the teachers regarding the id en tificatio n of the highly creative child through the use of personality c h a ra c te ristic s, Again the Spearman rank-difference correlation was the s ta tis tic a l method used. The level of significance remained at .05, and N s ranged from a high of 18 to a low of fiv e. The to ta l N considered by the 29 teachers in the second ranking was 341. I t should be reiterated at th is point that the teachers had rated the f ir s t h alf of th e ir class with no specific directions beyond the general statement th at they were to rank th e ir students from highest to lowest creative 1 0 0 p otential according to each teacher's ow n definition of c re a tiv ity . After the collection of the f ir s t ranking, the teachers were then given the instructional m aterial on the personality ch aracteristics of the creative child (see Appendix). The same type of ranking instructions was then given. Findings.--C oefficients of correlation for the second rating indicate th at not only were the teachers' ratings not improved by the knowledge of personality char a c te ris tic s , they in fact became slig h tly less effective in th e ir predictions, as indicated in Table 10. In Rating 2, only four correlations were sig nifican t with the alpha set a t .05, and of these, one was negative in d irection. The percentage of variance accounted for was reduced slig h tly , from a 13 per cent average to an 11 per cent average for the second ratin g . I t should be remembered that the percentage of variance includes both negative and positive correla tio n s, and in the second ranking there were over twice as many negative correlations as there were in Rating 1. Of the 29 comparable predictive correlations, 12 improved or increased while 17 showed a decrease or a reduction in pre d ictive efficiency. Except for the four sig nifican t corre- 1 0 1 TABI£ 10 C O R R E L A T IO N S O F T E A C H E R R A T IN G S 1 A N D 2 W IT H G T O C S C O R E S A N D P E R C E N T A G E O F V A R IA N C E A C C O U N T E D F O R Teacher Rating 1 Rating 2 Variance Accounted for rho N rho N Rating 1 (Per Cent) Rating 2 (Per Cent) 1 .36 17 .62** 15 16 36 2 .32 17 .12 16 9 1 3 .22 13 .28 12 4 9 4 -.60 6 -.49 6 36 25 5 .18 17 .10 13 4 1 6 .40 4 -.72* 6 16 49 7 .25 15 .09 15 9 1 8 -.24 16 .04 14 4 — 9 .24 16 .14 18 4 1 10 .60** 15 .57** 17 36 36 11 -.82** 7 .20 5 64 4 12 -.26 6 -.07 7 9 1 13 .26 6 -.30 5 9 9 14 .01 15 .10 13 — 1 15 .63** 13 .38 14 36 16 16 .05 14 -.33 14 1 9 17 -.03 14 .12 15 — 1 18 .52* 16 -.15 13 25 4 19 .08 11 .09 10 1 1 20 — — — — — — 21 .31 13 -.02 13 9 — 22 .43 13 -.19 12 16 4 23 .62* 8 .33 9 36 9 24 .30 5 -.49 6 9 25 25 .13 17 .00 9 1 — 26 .15 14 .36 13 4 16 27 .29 12 .39 11 9 16 28 .09 14 -.27 14 1 9 29 .24 15 -.32 14 4 9 30 .12 13 .49* 12 1 25 Mean .17 12 .04 12 13 11 102 lations obtained for Rating 2, none of the correlations may be regarded with the appropriate level of confidence. Of these four, only Teacher 1 and Teacher 30 displayed actual "predictive improvement." Of the four positive and sig n i ficant correlations from Rating 1, a l l became less adept in th eir "predictive effectiveness," most notably Teachers 15 and 18. The over-all or average correlation between ranks and to ta l G T O C for a l l 29 teachers in Rating 2 dropped to .04, and was not sig n ifican t. In summary, the second hypothesis H g^ is accepted in its null form: there is no significan t correlation between teacher rankings of creative p otential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative p o ten tial, after information has been given the teacher regarding the id en tificatio n of the highly creative child through the use of personality ch ara cteristic s. Discussion. — A number of interesting questions are suggested by the data summarized in Table 10, and some speculation as to the reasons for less predictive efficiency over-all on Rating 2 would be proper at th is juncture. The finding that teachers ' predictive a b ilitie s were reduced 103 from "low" to "negligible" correlations when provided with personality ch aracteristics of the creative child suggests f i r s t that instruction may have been too lim ited. The time u tilized with any group of teachers never exceeded 15 min utes of instruction, and th is m ay have been enough time to "confuse the issue"— th at is , the sh ifts in the correlations indicate impact from the m aterial— but i t may have been ju st enough impact to cause the teachers to abandon whatever predictive efficiency they possessed and set them off in search of other clues. A second possible in terpretation raises questions as to the v alid ity of the l i s t of charac te ris tic s presented. I t has been pointed out in Chapter III th at the characteristics in the lite ra tu re tend in many cases to be ambiguous and in some cases contradictory. In addition, any summation of characterizations of the highly creative child causes a loss of accuracy and may resu lt in "pigeonholing" th at is unwarranted. A th ird interp retatio n could be drawn from the fact th at change obviously did occur, and there appears to be considerable impact on teacher perception of c re a tiv ity . This change, which appears to be considerable from the sh ifts in the correlations, would most certainly involve such factors as receptiveness, rig id ity , assuredness of 104 th eir ow n perceptions, and sim ilar related affective fac tors . A good case in point would be th at of Teacher 10, whose two ratings showed v irtu a lly no s h ift and whose corre lations between ranks and te s t scores were among the strong e st in terms of accuracy of prediction. Teacher 10 was a "good predictor'.' in relativ e terms, and a fter confrontation with the information on personality variables, Teacher 10 remained a "good predictor." A comparison with Teacher 11 (who is in the same school) is in terestin g . This second teacher's accuracy was the highest of a l l teachers in Rating 1, but in a negative d irectio n —th at is , Teacher 11 could predict quite accurately the most creative children in his class if. the question and answer were reversed: W ho are the least creative children in your class? His answer to that question would provide a fa ir degree of accuracy in id e n ti fying the highly creative children. In actual practice, th is is of course absurd, and negative correlations, no matter how high, are certainly not desired. Teacher 11, however, changed markedly after the intervening m aterial on the creative child was presented, moving from a rho of -.82 to a positive .20. The la tte r correlation is not of a level of significance th at may be interpreted with confidence, and no premises may be based on i t , but the direction of 105 predictive accuracy obviously underwent considerable change. The converse may be noted in the case of Teacher 6. I t may be of in terest to note th at Teacher 6 was one of only two teachers to comment to the effect that the research was not designed "to te s t kids, but to te s t teachers." This comment was made a fter the f i r s t ratings were completed (Teacher 6, Rating 1, had an obtained rho of .40), and was answered by the researcher in the affirm ative. Thereupon, the teacher rated his second half and obtained a negative correlation coefficient of -.72. This gives rise to considerable specu lation as to the motivation of Teacher 6 during the second ra tin g . The most important inference that may be drawn from the data in Table 10 is th at many of the teachers who pos sessed th eir ow n th eo retical construct of "the creative child" were unsettled by the informational m aterial pre sented, and there is a d istin c t p o ssib ility th at the cog nitive dissonance introduced caused at least some of the teachers to abandon or to reconsider th eir previous concep tion of "the creative ch ild ." This is conjecture, of course, but i t merits exploration and is discussed la te r in the chapter in lig h t of the data presented regarding reading ach ievement. 106 Further speculation is generated from Table 11, which presents the Superior Creatives from the second half of each class, those who scored two or more standard devia tions above the sample G T O C mean. These 14 highest scorers among the 341 students in the second rating population were I ranked somewhat lower by th e ir teachers than were th eir counterparts in the f ir s t rating population. In only one case was one of these superior scorers rated f ir s t (ID 88), and th is finding was diluted by the fact that the same teacher then rated the next highest student in the class, also in the superior range, as eleventh highest (ID 76). The average rank for the 12 students ranked dropped to rank 7 (as compared to rank 6 for the f ir s t rating population), and two of the group were not even ranked by the teachers, indicating a perception by the teacher of no p otential on the student's p a rt. Student 436 is of p articular in terest h ere. Having obtained the highest to ta l G T O C raw score in the en tire student population of 820, th is student— who exceeded a ll others in her display of empirically-measured creative p o ten tial— was ranked tw elfth out of 14 ranks assigned by her teacher. Although no generalizations m ay be made from the data regarding the Superior Creatives in Tables 9 and 11, they nonetheless are an intriguing display 107 TABLE 11 T E A C H E R -A S SIG N E D R A N K S A N D A C T U A L E A R N E D R A N K S FO R SU B JE C T S S C O R IN G +2(7, (N =14) G T O C , R A T IN G 2 ID N O . Teacher Ranks Teacher Earned G T O C X + a 60 2 5 1 113 2 76 3 11 2 120 2 88 3 1 1 126 2 160 6 5 1 113 2 212 8 8 1 115 2 276 10 4 2 124 2 277 10 12 1 129 2 310 11 5 2 110 2 312 11 0 1 118 2 436 16 12 1 135 3 462 17 8 1 123 2 667 25 0 1 113 2 724 27 8 2 111 2 732 27 2 1 117 2 108 of teacher predictive effectiveness. The th ird hypothesis The th ird question proposed was th at if teachers are not successful (or minimally successful) in th e ir predic tions of "global" c re a tiv ity —in th is case expressed by correlations of teacher rankings with the to ta l G T O C raw score— would they be more efficien t in predictions of spe c ific creativ ity factors sampled by the G T O C ( i.e ., F lexi b ility of Thinking, S ensitivity to Problems, e tc .)? This question produced the hypothesis: H n There is no significant correlation between 3 teacher rankings of creative potential and specific empirically-measured factors of cre a tiv ity . Once again the use of ranks in the data gathered required the use of the Spearman rank-difference correla tion s ta tis tic a l method. The level of significance was set at .05, and the 703 students who were rated by the teachers as possessing at least some creative p otential were under consideration in th is phase of the research. Class N s varied from four to 18. Findings.—Tables 12 and 13 summarize the data 109 TABLE 12 R A N K -D IFFE R E N C E C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N T E A C H E R R A T IN G S A N D G T O C SU B T E S T S Rating R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B T O T A L N Teacher 1 1 .14 .06 .7 5 ^ .15 .39 .39 .36 17 2 .38 .55^ -.04 .51* .16 .51* .62** 15 Teacher 2 1 .08 .40 .27 .28 .31 .11 .32 17 2 .05 .26 -.12 .16 .46^ -.14 .12 16 Teacher 3 1 .42 .13 .19 .55^ .12 .02 .22 13 2 -.21 .01 .32 .35 -.05 .26 .28 12 Teacher 4 1 -.81* -.89** -.64 -.12* -.44 -.09 -.60 6 2 -.77 -.10 .03 .13 -.19 .84# -.49 6 Teacher 5 1 -.26 .21 .43* .47* .40 -.27 .18 17 2 -.43 .30 -.01 -.12 .01 .16 .10 13 Teacher 6 1 -.26 .21 .80 .40 .20 -.40 .40 4 2 -.49 -.20 -.71 -.46 -.79* -.49 -.72* 6 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . n o " TABLE 12 — C o n tin u e d Rating R E D A R E D B S E N FL U FIX E L A B Total N Teacher 7 1 .38 .18 .31 -.18 .10 .14 .25 15 2 .04 .08 -.07 -.38 .10 .08 .09 15 Teacher 8 1 -.39 -.22 -.10 -.24 -.08 .08 -.24 16 2 .34 -.25 -.14 -.06 -.27 .31 .04 14 Teacher 9 1 • 6 0 ^ -.17 .43^ -.08 -Al* -.01 .24 16 2 .18 .08 .11 -.20 .03 .13 .14 18 Teacher 10 1 .28 .42 .62** .59** .56** -.14 .60** 15 2 .27 Al* .53** .39 .6 6 ^ .12 .51** 17 Teacher 11 1 -.32 -.62 -.11 -.20 -.51 -.11* -.62** 7 2 .50 .70 .10 .10 -.31 .21 .20 5 Teacher 12 1 -.37 -.69** -.06 .23 -.23 -.26 -.26 6 2 -.07 -.04 .11 -.61 -.64** .12* -.01 7 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ITT1 TABLE 1 2 — C o n tin u e d Rating R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B Total N Teacher 13 1 .09 .03 -.41 .14 -.12 .31 .26 6 2 .45 .41 -.15 -.40 -.41 -.20 -.30 5 Teacher 14 1 -.28 -.22 -.04 .31 .47* .13 .01 15 2 .32 .16 -.29 -.03 -.02 .18 .10 13 Teacher 15 1 .24 .51* .44 .75** .33 .40 .63** 13 2 .11 .23 .54* .27 .11 .22 .38 14 Teacher 16 1 .10 -.15 .32 -.04 -.03 .36 .05 14 2 -.46* .00 -.04 -.05 -.01 -.25 -.33 14 Teacher 17 1 -.17 -.10 .30 -.22 .17 .42 -.03 14 2 .22 .22 .31 .14 .29 .00 .12 15 Teacher 18 1 .19 .26 .49* .42* .30 .47* .52* 16 2 -.04 -.22 -.06 -.23 -.44 .42 -.15 13 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . 112 TABLE 12 — C o n tin u e d Rating R E D A R E D B SE N FLU FIX E L A B Total N Teacher 19 1 .26 .15 -.02 .22 .14 -.40 .08 11 2 -.06 .49 .03 .15 .22 -.07 .09 10 Teacher 20 N o predictive data obtained Teacher 21 1 .07 .30 .26 .02 .23 .24 .31 13 2 -.18 -.10 .06 .53* -.28 -.24 -.02 13 Teacher 22 1 -.18 .25 .12 .60* .26 .59* .43 13 2 -.21 -.22 .01 -.16 -.08 -.12 -.19 12 Teacher 23 1 .54 .00 .18 .40 .60 .52 .62* 8 2 .20 .18 -.34 .40 .32 .10 .33 9 Teacher 24 1 -.67 -.87* .32 .30 -.30 .80* .30 5 2 -.17 -.20 -.09 -.09 .09 -.20 -.49 6 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . 113 TABLE 12 --C o n tin u e d Rating R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B Total N Teacher 25 1 .27 .30 .38 .16 .10 -.28 .13 17 2 -.38 -.57* .13 -.18 .10 .17 .00 9 Teacher 26 1 .13 .28 -.18 .16 .04 -.12 .15 14 2 -.19 .49* -.31 .19 .22 .30 .36 13 Teacher 27 1 .38 .35 -.11 .16 -.18 .20 .29 12 2 .12 .38 .51* .32 .33 .00 .39 11 Teacher 28 1 .00 .08 .04 -.23 -.12 .24 .09 14 2 -.32 .15 -.45* -.43 -.15 .06 -.27 14 Teacher 29 1 .37 .37 .54* .03 -.05 -.04 .24 15 2 -.14 -.15 .03 -.35 -.06 -.07 -.32 14 Teacher 30 1 .15 .49* -.36 .08 .16 .11 .12 13 2 .33 -.24 .47 .82** .37 .07 .49* 12 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . T M IE U SIGN IFICAN T a n d p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t io n s b e t w e e n t e a c h e r RATINGS A W GTOC SCORES R a tin g 1 R a tin g 2 T chr N RED A RED B SEE r u j FIX EIAB T o t a l B RED A RED 8 SEE FLO FIX ELAB T o t a l 1 17 .75** IS .55** .51* .5 1 * .62** 2 17 16 .4 6 * 3 13 .55* 12 4 6 6 .84* 5 17 .43* .47* 13 6 4 6 7 15 15 6 16 14 9 16 .60** .43* 18 10 15 .62** .59** .58** .60** 17 .4 7 * .53** .66** .57** IX 7 5 12 6 7 .72* 13 6 5 14 15 .4 7 * 13 15 13 .51* .75** .63** 14 .54* 16 14 14 17 14 15 18 16 .49* .42* .47* .52* 13 19 11 10 20 — _ 21 13 13 .5 3 * 22 13 .60* .5 9 * 12 23 8 .62* 9 24 5 .80* 6 25 17 9 26 14 13 .49* 27 12 11 .5 1 * 28 14 14 29 15 .54* 14 30 13 .4 9 * 12 .82** .4 9 * T o t a l 1 2 6 6 2 3 4 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 • S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h a .05 l a v a l o f c o n f i d . n c . . • • S i g n i f i c a n t a t th a .0 1 l a v a l o f c o n f id a n c a . RED A RED 8 SEE FLO FIX ELAB T o t a l R a tin g 1 1 2 6 6 2 3 4 R a tin g 2 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 T b t a l 1 5 9 9 4 6 7 114 ------- obtained. In Table 12, each teacher's coefficients of correlation for both ratings with each of the subtests and the to ta l G T O C are given. Of the 348 subtest correlations available (six subtests x two ratings x 29 teachers) only 46 were significant at the .05 level of confidence or higher, and of the 46, 12 were negative in d irection. These correlations are summarized in Table 13, in which only the sig nifican t and positive correlations are given. Of the 174 correlations available (six subtests x 29 teachers), only 20 correlations of rankings with subtests are positive and sig nifican t at or beyond the .05 level of confidence in Rating 1. Of the 174 correlations available in Rating 2, only 14 are positive and sig nifican t at or beyond the .05 level. At the bottom of Table 13, the suc cess of teacher predictions for factors is collated: of a l l subtests, S ensitivity to Problems and Fluency of Thinking are the most frequently predicted subtests to a useful level, but even these represented only nine each and were not sig nificantly b etter than the six significan t and posi tiv e predictions of to ta l or global c re a tiv ity . Addition a lly , in Table 6, the over-all or average correlations with subtests were given, and the highest correlation recorded was .20, S ensitivity to Problems, which was not significan t 116 at the .05 level. The data summarized in Tables 6, 12, and 13, taken together, substantiated the decision to accept the null hypothesis H q^ th at there is no significan t correlation be tween teacher rankings of creative potential and specific empirically-measured factors of creative p o ten tial. Discussion. — Certain of the individual teacher sum mations in Table 13 merit special note. Again, Teacher 10 is consistently the best "predictor" with three creativity factors in the sig nifican t range on both ratings, in addi tion to a to ta l score prediction in the sig nifican t range in both ratin g s. I t should be noted, however, th at th is teacher also abandoned one of his Rating 1 areas of strength in prediction (Redefinition B ) and gained in the second rating in his prediction of Fluency of Thinking. The re mainder of his sig nifican t predictions hold fa irly constant and moderate correlations in S ensitivity to Problems, F lex ib ility of Thinking, and to ta l score are consistent before and a fter the intervening variable treatm ent. Teacher 18 (Table 12) provides an interesting com parison. F actorial prediction for th is teacher was moder ately strong for Rating 1, with three predictions in the 117 significant range as well as a sig nifican t to ta l co rrela tio n . O n the second rating, however, Teacher 18 appeared to have abandoned his predictive c rite ria , and a striking downshift in predictive a b ilitie s is noted, with five of his six fa c to ria l predictions, as well as the to ta l correlation, fallin g in the low negative range. The converse is seen in the predictions of Teacher 1, whose fa c to ria l prediction in S ensitivity to Problems was one of the highest predictions in Rating 1. Again, a sh ift in conceptual thinking m ay be inferred from the marked drop in the same factor from .75 to -.04 (Table 12) between the two ratings . This drop is accompanied by a general improve ment in other fa c to ria l predictions, however, and in the two redefinition factors and Fluency of Thinking, an improvement from low positive correlations to moderate positive corre lations was seen. In addition, a gain was noted in Elabora tio n . These four improvements in predictive a b ility account for the over-a11 gain in the correlation between Teacher l 's rankings and the to ta l subtest score, which improved to a marked sig nifican t correlation. Combining both Ratings 1 and 2 in Table 13, the most frequently predicted factors of S ensitivity of Thinking and Fluency of Thinking both have nine of the possible 58 correlations available for each subtest at the level of significance required. Nine correlations, however, repre sent only about 16 per cent of the possible available corre lations, and thus th is finding is consistent with the find ings of the two previous hypotheses. In summary, teachers appear no more effective in predicting factors of creativ ity than they do in predicting global c re a tiv ity . The fourth hypothes is The fourth area of inquiry centered around the re la tionship between creativ ity scores and reading achievement. S pecifically, two questions were asked: Does the reading achievement te s t score correlate with the to ta l creativ ity te s t score? Could the u tiliz a tio n of such an academic achievement score a s s ist in the prediction of creative potentia1? These questions yielded the hypothesis: H ~ There is no significant correlation between 4 reading achievement scores and to ta l scores on the te s t of c re a tiv ity . For th is set of correlation co efficients, ranked scores (percentiles) were used, and the s ta tis tic a l te s t of choice was Kendall's coefficient of correlation, tau. Kendall's tau was selected in th is instance because of three factors: the reading scores were expressed in percentiles, so again a rank-difference correlation method was needed and th is denied the use of a product-moment correlation tech nique. Second, Spearman’s rho is satisfactory only with small N s and the N in the sample at hand is large. Third, the rho rests on a th eo retical base th at assumes a d i s t r i bution th at is rectangular, as opposed to a distribu tio n approximating th at of the normal curve. In a large sample, the faultiness of th is assumption is magnified. Tau. on the other hand, rests on no special assumptions, according to Guilford (1965). The N was 697, which included a l l students who possessed S A T reading scores on th e ir records, or comparable reading achievement scores. The level of significance was again set a t .05. Findings. —The correlation coefficient between the to ta l creativ ity score on the G T O C and the reading percen t i l e ranks was .14, sig nifican t to the .001 level of con fidence. The variation from class to class may be noted in Table 14 . C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N A C H IE V E M E N T T A B L E 14 G T O C T O T A L S C O R E S F O R 120 S C O R E S A N D R E A D IN G E A C H C L A S S Teacher N rho (Class) 1 28 .16 2 29 .14 3 24 .31 4 11 -.08 5 17 ,48^ 6 23 .04 7 24 .22 8 30 .07 9 28 .40^ 10 27 .4 8^ 11 27 .32^ 12 25 .31 13 10 - .64^ 14 26 .09 15 27 .34 16 20 .01 17 28 .11 18 25 .38* 19 20 -.04 20 23 .27 21 24 .30 22 21 .59** 23 27 .21 24 12 .19 25 31 .4 8^ 26 20 .19 27 22 .01 28 25 .08 29 25 .21 30 18 .11 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . 121 The correlation between the two variables was low, positive, and sig n ifican t, and on th is basis the null hypothesis was rejected. The finding was that there are low, positive, and sig nifican t correlations between the reading achievement score and the to ta l creativ ity score on the G T O C . Discussion. — Though the over-all coefficient of correlation between reading achievement and the to ta l crea tiv ity score is significan t and positive, its strength is minimal. A dditionally, the correlation should be in te r preted in lig ht of the large N. I t is also important to note the wide variation from class to class, as indicated in Table 14, and to be aware of the dangers of generalizing th is finding on small sample populations. For instance, in some classes, notably Classes 5, 10, 22, and 25, the corre lations between the to ta l creativ ity score and reading achievement were moderate and could conceivably aid the teacher somewhat in creativ ity predictions. However, in Classes 16 and 27, by contrast, correlation between the two was v irtu a lly nonexistent. Moreover, the use of reading achievement for predictive purposes in Class 13, where the correlation is marked and negative, would be very 122 misleading. In summary, though there is correlation between reading achievement scores and the G T O C score, the over-all level of th at correlation was so negligible that in general i t would account for l i t t l e more than 1 per cent of the variance involved in the te s t of cre ativ ity to ta l score. Clearly, th is base for predictive assistance is l i t t l e b e t te r than no base at a ll. The fifth hypothesis The fifth area of inquiry asked: regardless of the amount of correlation between the to ta l G T O C score and read ing achievement scores, did specific factors sampled by the G T O C correlate sig nifican tly with reading achievement scores? If any of the six factors sampled in the G T O C did relate closely to reading achievement, could the teacher predict reading achievement when asked to predict creativ ity , and could these factors which re la te to reading then produce "correct" creativ ity predictions? These questions were tested through the following hypothetical construct: H q5 There is no sig nifican t correlation between specific empirically-measured factors of creativ ity and reading achievement scores. 123 The s ta tis tic a l treatment chosen was again Kendall's tau because of large sample size (N = 697) and because of the assumption of normal d istribu tio n of the reading scores. Findings. —The findings are summarized in Table 15. All obtained coefficients of correlation were low to negli gible, a l l were positive, and a ll were sig nifican t at the .01 level of confidence or beyond. T A B L E 15 C O R R E IA T IO N S B E T W E E N G T O C SU B T E S T S A N D R E A D IN G S C O R E S F O R A LL CIA SSES (N = 697) R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX E L A B .06** .09** .16** .07** .16** .14** **Significant at or beyond the .01 level of confi dence . The findings for the fifth hypothesis indicate that the hypothesis must be rejected in its null form; there are low, positive, and significan t correlations between each of the factors of creativ ity and reading achievement te s t scores. 124 Discussion. — The same concerns th at apply to the low correlation obtained between the to ta l G T O C and reading scores applies to th is finding as w ell. The correlation between reading and the factors is again of l i t t l e p ra c ti cal significance; in each case the correlations are of minimal strength, and i t appears th at using reading achieve ment as a predictive tool w ill not a s s ist the teachers to any usable degree in predicting creativ ity p o ten tial. The sixth hypothesis T w o fin a l questions were suggested: If the reading score is not effectively predictive of creative potential, would i t then mislead the teacher in making cre ativ ity pre dictions? Would the teacher in fact mistakenly predict academic success (reading achievement) when he was asked to predict high creative potential? These questions led to the sixth hypothesis: Hn There is no significant correlation between 6 teacher rankings of creative p otential and reading achieve ment scores . Again, with the ranked data and small Ns, the Spearman rank-difference coefficients of correlation were used. The N s varied in size from four to 18. The level of significance was maintained at .05. Findings.— Research findings are summarized in Tables 16, 17, and 18. The f ir s t of these tables gives a comparison of correlation co efficients— how accurately teacher prediction coincided with actual creativ ity scores as compared to how accurately teacher predictions coincided with reading achievement scores. The la s t column in each of the two ratings sections (Rating 1 and Rating 2) in d i cates whether the teacher ratings designed to identify creativ ity actually had higher predictive v alid ity for read ing achievement. In Rating 1, seven of the correlation coefficients were more predictive of cre ativ ity , but 21 were more predictive of reading. Focusing only upon the pairs of correlations (in the Total G T O C column and the Total Reading column) which had a t least one correlation of an acceptable level of confidence, i t m ay be seen th at there were 13 differences between the pairs which indicated reading pre diction, while only three predicted c re ativ ity . The data shown in Table 16 for the second set of ratings were consistent with previous data obtained in the study. Again there were fewer over-all sig nifican t positive correlations between predictions and actual scores of TABLE 16 C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N T E A C H E R R A N K S A N D G T O C S C O R E S C O M P A R E D W IT H C O R R E L A T IO N S B E T W E E N T E A C H E R R A N K S A N D R E A D IN G S C O R E S Rating 1 Rating 2 rho rho Higher rho rho Higher Tchr N Total G T O C N Total Reading Predictive A bility Tchr N Total G T O C N Total Reading Predictive A bility 1 17 .36 14 .56* R a 1 15 .62** 13 .37 C 2 17 .32 15 .28 C 2 16 .12 14 .52* R 3 13 .22 13 .78** R 3 12 .28 11 -.32 C 4 6 -.60 5 -.05 - 4 6 -.49 6 .83* R 5 17 .18 10 .94** R 5 13 .10 7 .75* R 6 4 .40 4 -.40 C 6 6 -.72* 5 -.40 - 7 15 .25 11 .62* R 7 15 .09 12 -.12 C 8 16 -.24 16 .10 R 8 14 .04 13 .28 R 9 16 .24 14 .32 R 9 18 .14 14 .59* R 10 15 .60** 11 .41 C 10 17 .57** 16 .69** R 11 7 -.82** 7 .36 R 11 5 .20 5 -.21 C 12 6 -.26 6 .43 R 12 7 -.07 6 .09 R 13 6 .26 6 .35 R 13 5 -.30 4 .63 R 14 15 .01 14 .78** R 14 13 .10 12 .23 R 15 13 .63** 12 .46 C 15 14 .38 14 .56* R 16 14 .05 10 .30 R 16 14 -.33 10 .52 R 17 14 -.03 13 .54* R 17 15 .12 15 .71** R 18 16 .52* 12 .56* R 18 13 -.15 13 -.44 - ( - • ro C O ' 19 11 .08 10 -.20 C 19 10 .09 10 -.44 TABLE 1 6 — C o n tin u e d Rating 1 rho rho Higher Tchr N Total N Total Predictive G T O C Reading A bility R a tin g 2 Tchr N rho Total G T O C N rho Total Reading Higher Predictive A bility 20 - - - - - 20 - - - - - 21 13 .31 13 .6 1^ R 21 13 -.02 11 .22 R 22 13 .43 11 • 6 9^ R 22 12 -.19 10 .00 - 23 8 .62* 7 .20 C 23 9 .33 9 -.07 C 24 5 .30 5 .90^ R 24 6 -.49 4 .00 - 25 17 .13 16 .16 R 25 9 .00 9 .24 R 26 14 .15 10 .57* R 26 13 .36 10 .68^ R 27 12 .29 10 -.16 C 27 11 .39 11 -.05 C 28 14 .09 11 .43 R 28 14 -.27 14 -.01 - 29 15 .24 12 .8 6^ R 29 14 -.32 13 .10 R 30 13 .12 9 .29 P 30 12 .49^ 8 .07 C aC = Teacher's creativity rankings were more effective a t predicting creativ ity than reading. R = Teacher's creativity rankings were more effective at predicting reading than creativ ity . ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦♦Significant at the .01 level of confidence. IO v i 128 creativ ity , but the same relationship continued with read ing. Of the 10 pairs of correlations in which one of the pair was significant and positive, eight were more predic tive of reading, while two were more predictive of crea tiv ity . Reading remained the variable most frequently pre dicted when teachers were asked to predict cre ativ ity , in both Ratings 1 and 2. Table 17 adds another dimension to the question of "prediction for cre ativ ity versus prediction for reading." The data summarized in Table 17 indicated th at teachers became less dependent upon reading as a predictive criterio n in the second rating , whether only the positive and sig n i fican t members of correlation pairs were regarded or whether the to ta l number of correlation pairs was regarded. In each pair of coefficients, where one of the pair was positive, i t m ay be noted th at 11 of the predictions were more dependent upon the reading variable during the second rating and 15 of the predictions became less dependent. Regarding only the pairs of coefficients where one of the two was positive and sig n ifican t, the trend holds: seven were more dependent upon reading in th eir predictions, while 10 were less de pendent . This finding may be even more clearly delineated in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 TABLE 17 D E P E N D E N C E O F T E A C H E R R A T IN G U P O N R E A D IN G A C H IE V E M E N T : C O M P A R IS O N B E T W E E N R A T IN G S 1 A N D 2 N Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 1 Reading Rating 2 Reading Dependence on Reading Achievement: More/Less between Ratings 14 13 .56* .37 15 14 .28 .52* 13 11 .78** -.32 5 6 -.05 .83* 10 7 .94** .75* 4 5 -.40 -.40 11 12 .62* -.12 16 13 .10 .28 14 14 .32 .59* 11 16 .41 .69** 7 5 .36 -.21 6 6 .43 .09 6 4 .35 .63 14 12 .78** .23 12 14 .46 .56* 10 10 .30 .52 13 15 .54* .71** 12 13 .56* -.44 Less T A B L E 17— Continued Teacher N Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 1 Reading Rating 2 Reading Dependence on Reading Achievement: More/Less between Ratings 19 20 21 10 10 -.20 -.44 — 13 11 .61** .22 Less 22 11 10 .69** .00 Less 23 7 9 .20 -.07 Less 24 5 4 .90^ .00 Less 25 16 9 .16 .24 More 26 10 10 .57* • 68^ More 27 10 11 -.16 -.05 — 28 11 14 .43 -.01 Less 29 12 13 .86^ .10 Less 30 9 8 .29 .07 Less ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦♦Significant at the .01 level of confidence. 130 131 Table 18, in which the highest single positive prediction from each teacher for both sets of ratings is given. Table 18 gives only th is single highest positive correlation ob tained—from any of the six subtests, or the to ta l G T O C , or the reading achievement score— according to the teacher's ranking of his students . This summary indicates that in Rating 1 the highest correlations for a l l eight predictive p o ssib ilitie s were well scattered between the seven G T O C p o ssib ilitie s, and the remainder were clustered in the reading column. Of the 28 teachers obtaining any positive correlations, the highest of these 28 were s p lit, 16 in the reading column and the remaining 12 scattered fairly evenly across the G T O C subtests and to ta l. In the second rating , more teachers' highest posi tive predictions were shifted to the G T O C subtests . Of the 28 highest positive predictions, the majority now predicted creativ ity factors or creativ ity to ta l (17) while the re maining 11 teachers continued to predict reading. Taken together, the data summarized in these three tables suggest th at the null hypothesis H g be rejected, with the finding th at there appears to be sig nifican t corre latio n between teacher rankings of creative p otential and reading achievement scores. TABLE IB HIGHEST POSITIVE CORREIATION OBTAINED BY EACH TEACHER, BOTH RATINGS R a tin g 1 R a tin g 2 T c h r N RED A RED B SEN FLO FLX EIAB T o ta l GTOC R e ad in g T ch r N RED A RED 8 SEN FLO FIX EIAB T o ta l GTOC R e a d in g 1 17 .75 * * 1 15 .6 2 * * 2 17 .4 0 2 14 .5 2 * 3 13 .78** 3 12 .3 5 4 6 (No p o a i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s ) 4 6 .8 4 * 5 10 .94** 5 7 .7 5 * 6 4 o C D 6 6 (No p o s i t i v e c o r r a l a t i o n s ) 7 11 .6 2 * 7 15 .1 0 8 16 .1 0 8 14 .3 4 9 16 .60** 9 14 .5 9 * 10 15 .62 * * 10 16 .69** 11 7 .36 11 5 .7 0 12 6 .4 3 12 7 .7 2 * 13 6 .35 13 4 .63 14 14 .78** 14 13 .32 15 13 .7 5 * * 15 14 .5 6 * 16 14 .3 6 16 10 .52 17 13 .5 4 * 17 15 .7 1 * * 18 12 .5 6 * 18 13 .42 19 11 .26 19 10 .4 9 20 — 20 _ 21 13 .61** 21 13 .5 3 * 22 11 .6 9 * * 22 12 .0 1 23 8 .6 2 * 23 9 .40 24 5 .9 0 * 24 6 .09 25 17 .3 8 25 9 .24 26 10 .5 7 * 26 10 .68** 27 12 .3 8 27 11 .5 1 * 28 11 .4 3 28 14 .15 29 12 .8 6 * * 29 13 .1 0 30 13 .49* 30 12 .8 2 * * • S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . • • S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . 133 Discussion.—The findings delineated in Tables 16, 17, and 18 demonstrate th at school achievement, here ex pressed as reading achievement, was a predictive tool that was generally misleading and appeared to be depended upon too heavily by the teachers in the sample when they were asked to predict cre ativ ity . The extent to which dependence upon reading achieve ment in the prediction of creativ ity may mislead the teacher may be noted in Figure 1. The 28 Superior Creatives' G T O C scores are represented on a curve of normal distribu tio n, and the scores, of course, are plotted at the second stand ard deviation and beyond. The reading scores for the Su perior Creatives are also plotted, and although these Su perior Creatives are generally better-than-average readers, they are by no means superior readers, and th eir reading scores are well below th eir creativ ity scores. I t should be noted, too, th at there is no overlapping of the two sets of scores. The data for the Superior Creatives were not treated s ta tis tic a lly , and thus no conclusions m ay be drawn from th is group, but i t is obvious th at these high scorers in creativ ity would be markedly underrated for creative poten t i a l i f th e ir teachers were to use reading achievement as a FIGURE 1 T H E "SU PER IO R CREATIVES": SU B JE C T S W IT H G T O C S C O R E S +2a A N D C O M P A R IS O N W IT H TH EIR R E A D IN G A C H IE V E M E N T • G T O C Scores Reading Percentiles 28 G T O C 25 Reading + 2a +la +3o 0 - 2 a -la -3a G T O C Scores 30 40 50 60 70 80 -r" 90 -I— 100 - r - no — I— 120 T " 130 ■n— Reading Percentiles ' I I 16 50 84 97.7 99 135 "predictive tool" in id en tificatio n of c re ativ ity . To obtain a more meaningful description of how great a use was made of the reading score by the teacher—that is , how much he "leaned" on i t —a comparison group was selected to match with the Superior Creatives. This comparison group was selected by using the same line of demarcation that was used for the Superior Creatives (two or more standard de viations above the mean) but applying i t to reading achieve ment. In the case of reading percentiles on the curve of normal d istrib u tio n , two standard deviations above the mean fa lls at the 97.7 percentile, and thus those students scor ing in the 98th or 99th percentile on reading achievement scores composed the group referred to as Superior Readers. Of the 697 students in the sample who had available reading data, 29 obtained scores in the 98th or 99th percentile ranges. I t should be reiterated that the Superior Creatives were those 28 students in the sample population of 820 who scored a to ta l G T O C raw score of 110 points or above. Data were then compared between the two groups. These data are summarized in Table 19. Ranks were compared, and the Superior Creatives who should have actually earned rank 1, on the average, instead were ranked in sixth place, on the average, by th eir teachers. This represented an 136 TABLE 19 TEACHER-ASSIGNED RANKS OF CREATIVITY AND ACTUAL EARNED RANKS OF CREATIVITY FOR "SUPERIOR CREATIVES" AND "SUPERIOR READERS" S u p e r i o r C r e a t i v e s (N - 2 8 ) 9 8 th P e r c e n t i l e + o n GTOC 9 8 th S u p e r i o r R e a d e rs (N - 2 9 ) P e r c e n t i l e + o n R e a d in g T e s t ID NO. T c h r R ank (GTOC) E a r n e d R ank (GTOC) Rdg X ile GTOC T o t a l ID N o. T c h r R ank (GTOC) E a r n e d R ank (GTOC) Rdg * i l e GTOC T o t a l 2 1 1 64 126 12 1 7 . 0 99 85 4 0 9 1 84 122 23 2 5 .5 99 85 60 5 1 64 113 42 16 12 .0 99 73 70 12 1 74 123 4 9 6 12 .0 99 62 76 11 2 70 120 64 1 2 .0 99 105 88 1 1 44 126 104 1 6 . 0 98 59 160 5 1 50 113 109 1 4 . 5 99 85 212 8 1 82 115 122 2 3 . 0 98 86 269 1 1 80 119 2 1 1 6 2 .0 99 88 276 4 2 — 124 2 2 5 3 9 . 0 ' 98 54 277 12 1 68 129 309 6 6 .0 98 72 285 7 2 96 118 354 3 5 .0 99 4 8 310 5 2 70 110 365 9 9 .5 99 75 312 0 1 50 118 366 6 9 .5 98 75 396 2 1 — 112 367 2 3 .0 98 96 4 2 9 12 2 79 125 368 4 6 . 0 99 86 4 3 1 7 1 74 133 377 11 2 .0 98 103 436 12 1 43 135 378 6 1 .0 98 106 462 8 1 60 123 380 1 14 .0 99 55 632 1 1 97 117 381 5 1 .0 98 106 641 1 1 97 122 386 3 1 1 .0 99 72 667 0 1 96 113 3 9 0 3 3 .0 99 96 718 4 2 — 110 4 1 3 1 4 . 0 98 93 724 8 2 80 111 4 7 5 5 9 .5 98 67 726 11 1 82 113 517 3 3 .0 98 74 732 2 1 82 117 683 5 6 . 0 98 6 0 779 5 1 96 110 723 1 3 . 0 99 75 799 5 1 34 112 7 2 8 10 1 0 .0 98 70 7 8 0 1 1 5 .0 98 4 8 A v g . 6 1 74a 119 -------- 4 6 98a 78 a M e d ia n s c o r e . 137 underestim ation of creativ ity p otential by five ranks. Conversely, the Superior Readers who on the average should have actually earned rank 6 as a resu lt of th eir G T O C scores were placed by th eir teachers in fourth place on the average. This represented an overestim ation of creativ ity p otential by two ranks . All of the Superior Readers were seen by th eir teachers as having at least some potential for creativ ity ( i.e ., receiving a rank) while two of the Superior Creatives apparently were regarded as having no creative p otential anc received no rank in th eir respective classes . Taken co llectively, the empirical data and the "Superior Creative-Superior Reader" data very strongly sug gest th at the teachers rely too heavily upon reading achievement as an indicator of creative p otential and that th is reliance was misplaced and misleading. If the findings on the Superior Creatives could be generalized, the indica tions would be th at under these conditions of prediction (over-reliance upon reading achievement), a t least 50 per cent of the fifth-grade children who are superior in crea tive potential would not even be placed in the top quartile of predicted creativ ity success. 138 Summary of Findings In th is chapter, the six null hypotheses and th eir respective major findings were presented. Findings from the testing of the six hypotheses may be summarized as follows: 1. There is no significan t correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative p o ten tial. 2. There is no sig nifican t correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative potential after information has been given the teacher regarding the identification of the highly creative child through the use of personality char a c te ristic s . 3. Teachers are no more effective at predicting factors of creativ ity than they are in predicting global c re a tiv ity . There is no significant correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and specific empirically-measured factors of creative p otential. 4. There is a low, positive, and significan t cor relatio n between reading achievement scores and the scores on an empirically-measured te s t of creative p o ten tial. 5. There are low, positive, and significan t corre lations between reading achievement scores and the specific 139 empirically -measured factors of cre ativ ity . 6. There is significan t correlation between reading achievement scores and teachers 1 predictions of creative p o te n tia l. Subsidiary findings Three areas of concern suggested themselves during the investigation, p articu larly as related to teacher a t t i tudes. Though unsubstantiated by empirical data, i t is f e lt th at the three areas merit reporting. The f i r s t of these is the general attitu d e of the teachers toward the entire subject of creativity^ with the exception of one teacher, a l l were not only receptive, but many in fact asked for additional information. There ap peared to be a general feeling th at there was a d istin c t lack of knowledge about the subject and a need for a s s is t ance in th is area. The second area of concern was the confusion that seemed to overtake the teachers when they dealt with the second ratin g . Resistance was encountered in many forms: "This half is a lo t harder to ra te ," "All m y creatives were in the other h a lf ," and numerous conversations were i n i t i ated between teachers who so licited th eir colleagues' assistance as validators of th e ir ow n rankings. The most frequent comment was a variation on the basic theme of wanting to "go back and do the f ir s t rating over." Gener ally the teachers approached the f ir s t rating rather b lith ely , without much questioning or apparent concern. After the interim presentation on the personality charac te ris tic s of the creative child, the over-all attitu d e of the teachers seemed more serious and negative comments were frequent regarding whether they "could" make such a ratin g . Again, this is an "unsubstantiated finding," but i t seems indicative of the kind of prediction attack seen in the preceding data, generally without pattern or consistency. This too seems to lend credence to the feelings of uncer tain ty that seemed to pervade the teachers 1 attitu des on the subject of creativ ity when faced with "hard data." The th ird and most disturbing finding was th at on both ratings 1 and 2 about one-sixth of the teachers le f t two to 14 children unranked. There was no insistence th at a l l children be ranked, but suggestion was strongly given to th at effe ct. The statement was made during the in stru c tions to " lis t as many children as you possibly can." A rep etitio n of the same instruction appears next to the l i s t of names, with the statement th at the students should be 141 liste d from the more creative to "the least creative child." A dditionally, during the information period of intervening variable treatment (instruction on personality ch aracteristics of the highly creative ch ild ), the statement was made identically and to each group of teachers: "Creativity is normally d istrib u ted . As in in te l li gence, a ll children have some. But ju st as in the case of IQ, some kids have more, some less ..." Despite this statement, and despite the informa tio n al m aterials presented, fully one-sixth of the teachers declined to li s t up to 14 children. The question suggests its e lf : how representative a sample of teachers was th is , and is there one-sixth (or some larger fraction) of a ll teachers who simply do not believe that a ll children have potential for creativity? (These teachers in the sample at hand would probably be considered "better than average" under any circumstances—the job openings in the d is tr ic t have a large number of applicants.) Another rheto rical question is posed: what would happen if you asked teachers to rank th eir students according to which ones possessed in tellec tu a l potential? Is there simply a lack of re a liz a tion that creative p otential, like intelligence, is normally distributed across the population? 142 Williams (1967) perhaps puts i t most succinctly: Since one consistent finding in psychology is th at people behave according to th eir b e lie fs, i t is impera tiv e th at teachers recognize the basic truth th at crea tive potential is not lim ited to a few, but is pos sessed by a l l people to varying degrees. Creative potential is a normally distributed tr a it in the population. If teachers are to develop a l l there is within students, th is basic premise must be accepted. Like intelligence, in tellec tu a l creativ ity lies along a continuum, and teachers must think of children as having more or less, rather than as crea tiv e or non-creative [p. 1] . C H A P T E R V S U M M A R Y A M D C O N C L U S IO N S Purpose of the Study This study proposed to examine the extent to which teachers were able to assess th eir students in the area of creative p o ten tial, and to compare the informal nonempirical creativ ity rankings of the teachers with those of measured assessment of creative p o ten tial. Further, i t was proposed th at the assessments of the teachers be examined to d eter mine the extent to which the assessments of creativ ity were dependent upon the academic achievement of the pupils. Nature of the Study The study was correlational in nature. Coefficients of correlation were established between each of the crea tiv ity subtests, between each subtest and the to ta l te s t, between the subtests and the reading achievement scores, between the to ta l G T O C scores and the reading achievement 143 144 scores, between teacher rankings and the subtest scores, between teacher rankings and the to ta l cre ativ ity score, and between teacher rankings for creativ ity and reading achieve ment . The student sample consisted of 820 fifth-grade students from nine schools in a single d is tr ic t. The d is t r i c t is located in what could be termed a "high-rent bed room community" composed of three incorporated c itie s and a portion of unincorporated county land. The socioeconomic range could be described as upper-middle to upper-upper class. Academic achievement in the d is tr ic t is above na tio nal norms. This was borne out by the obtained finding of a median of the 62nd percentile in the student sample in reading achievement. The 30 teachers of these 820 f if th - graders constituted the teacher population for the study. I t is probably accurate to describe the teachers as "above average" as w ell, since the d is tr ic t has no shortage of applicants for available job opportunities. Procedures Each of the 820 student subjects was administered the G T O C . Reading achievement data were collected for 697 of these 820 students. A ll of the te sts were administered 145 by two examiners in large group settings a t each of the nine schools included in the study. Reading achievement te sts had been administered during the second and th ird grade state-mandated testing programs in 1969 and 1970. The creativ ity te sts were scored by three sets of scorers, and interjudge re lia b ility was established through the use of Spearman-Brown re lia b ility coefficients of corre lation technique. Interjudge re lia b ility was found to ex ceed .96, and th is was considered more than adequate to regard the scoring as equivalent between scorers. Each teacher of a fifth-grade class was asked to rank the f i r s t alphabetical half of his students from high est to lowest in creative p otential on a rating sheet. The f ir s t rating sheet was given without any instruction except for those directions concerned solely with the mechanics of ranking. These sheets were then collected and m aterial describing the personality characteristics of highly crea tive children was distributed and explained. All teachers received the same intervening variable treatm ent. The teachers were then asked to rank the second half of th eir classes in lig h t of the informational m aterials received. The data collected were treated s ta tis tic a lly through three methods of correlation: Pearson product- 146 moment coefficients of correlation, Spearman rank-difference coefficients of correlation, and Kendall tau coefficients of correlation, depending upon whether the data to be corre lated were of small or sizable N and whether the data were ranked or interval scale. Correlations were tabulated in various combinations to establish the acceptance or re je c tion of six hypotheses. The hypotheses were a l l stated in the null form: H n There is no significant correlation between 1 teacher rankings of creative p otential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative p o ten tial. H 0 There is no significan t correlation between 2 teacher rankings of creative potential and an em pirically- measured ranking of creative potential after information has been given the teachers regarding the id en tificatio n of the highly creative child through the use of personality char a c te ristic s . H q3 There is no sig nifican t correlation between teacher rankings of creative potential and specific empirically-measured factors of cre ativ ity . H n There is no significan t correlation between 4 reading achievement scores and to ta l scores on the te s t of 147 c re a tiv ity . H q^ There is no sig nifican t correlation between specific empirically-measured factors of creativ ity and reading achievement scores . H n There is no sig nifican t correlation between 6 teacher rankings of creative potential and reading achieve ment scores. Findings Summarizing the findings from the obtained data, i t was found th at the teachers did not effectively predict th e ir highly creative children as being high-creatives, and that even with the aid of personality characteristics in formation on identifying highly creative children they were s t i l l unable to predict creativ ity at a useful level. In addition, teachers were found to be no more effective at predicting factors of cre ativ ity than they were at predict ing global c re a tiv ity . The data also yielded the finding th at reading scores were minimally related to creativity factors and global cre a tiv ity , and teachers were found to depend fa irly extensively (and erroneously) upon reading achievement as a guide in identifying the highly creative child. — 148 Implications Implications were drawn not only from the obtained data but from an cillary findings during the course of re search. Major implications included the following: 1. Teachers appeared, both from th eir affective reactions and from the observable scattering of correla tio ns, to have reacted to a considerable degree to the intervening information provided on the highly creative child. Even on a short-term instruction period, rather significant sh ifts in cognitive processes were apparent (see especially Table 18). 2. Teachers appear unable to predict creativ ity to any but a minimal degree. The questions are then posed: Should teachers be given additional help in identifying the highly creative child, or is teacher prediction a faulty base that should be abandoned altogether? Should another type of id en tificatio n be sought? 3. O n the assumption th at id en tificatio n of highly creative children is necessary from the standpoint of both society and the highly creative child, some method of iden tific a tio n must then be used, and paid for, by the schools and by the society which the schools represent. 4. The best of the current methods of id en tific a- tion appears to be te sts of cre ativ ity , but i t is equally clear th at the "jury is s t i l l out" on te sts of creative p o ten tial. The research that w ill provide definitive ans wers w ill likely be longitudinal in nature— did, in effect, the identified "high-creatives" produce? 5. Some interesting questions were raised on the subject of sex difference among the students in the sample who scored highest in creative p o ten tial. Of the Superior Creatives, g irls were disproportionately represented (19 g irls , eight boys), and for the most part these Superior Creatives were underrated (average rank 7) . Also, the majority of these were "unspectacular" readers. Although no attempt was made to study the sample on a sex-based dichotomy, and the figures regarding the Supe rio r Creatives may not be generalized, they nonetheless suggest questions, particularly in three respects. F irs t, is the te s t of creativ ity another paper-and-pencil discrim i nation against elementary school age boys? Did the teachers do a b etter job of predicting boy creatives or g ir l crea tives? Is the sex of the teacher a factor, and is predic tio n related to the same-sex, different-sex teacher-pupil relationship? Is the te s t of creativ ity ju st another in a series 150 of underestimations that young boys go through u n til they mature to the point where they can compete with g irls in pencil-and-paper te sts during th eir high school years? Should not some other forms of mechanical creativ ity be included in any te s t of creativity? Regardless of solutions to the question in the form of te s t items, the question of sex differences and teacher prediction is worth pondering. I t has been touched upon by Biggs and his associates (1971) and i t appears to be worth further research. C reativity readiness? Myelinization and creativity? Maturation and creativity? Sex differences, maturation, and creativity? 6. What of the whole question of expectancy and creativity? To what extent can a child of assumed low or average a b ility in other important academic areas be "sal vaged" by a te s t of creativity? A case related to the question of expectancy oc curred in one of the schools v isited during the research. One boy had more than fille d the lines available to him on one of the f i r s t subtests and he raised his hand to ask if he were allowed to w rite in the margins. Encouraged to do so, he proceeded to outproduce, in sheer quantity, every other student in the room. Note was made of his name a fter he had been drawn to the examiner's atten tio n . W hen the 1 51 principal and one teacher inquired as to how the students had done., mention was made sp ecifically of th is boy's name and the quantity of his production. Both the teacher and the principal seemed genuinely surprised th at i t was th is boy of a l l th eir students who came to be singled out for mention. He subsequently proved to be the second highest scorer in the school, and on one of the two redefinition subtests he had attained the highest score in the en tire sample of 820 subjects. His reading percentile was 44, well below the median of 62 for the entire sample; he was ranked fifth in his class by his teacher, though he had actually placed f i r s t in the te s t for th at c la ss. But the most interesting effect was how the expec tancy level for th is boy seemed to change over the single morning of the research v i s it . B y lunchtime he was the topic of conversation in the teachers' lounge and at least three other teachers had asked the research team sp e c ifi cally about him. There appeared to be some surprise a t his new reputation. I t appeared to be a classic example of the inception of a halo effect for th is particular boy; how long the assumed effect lasted or w ill la s t is a moot point. The most meaningful aspect of th is single example is the question of its g en eralizab ility . Upon the return of the te sts to schools, w ill the teacher in terest th at became manifest in the en tire subject of creativ ity extend over to those high producers? Does th is example suggest th at the te s t of cre ativ ity , much as the IQ and achievement te s ts before i t , might open up some new avenues for success for overlooked children? Did the "teacher expectancy level" for th is boy change? Will the "teacher expectancy levels" for the three most superior g irls in the sample change? Would they s t i l l be regarded as ranks 7, 12, and 12, or might w e expect them to be regarded in a new light? Argument: a te s t of creativ ity , as well as giving an opportunity for new lights to shine, w ill discrim inate against the low sco rers. Agreed, but the children who are poor in school achievement have been "burned" already by either IQ scores or achievement scores or day-to-day pro duction and resu ltan t low grades. C reativity testing gives them another opportunity for achievement. As the old saying goes, "Everybody's good at some th in g .” Well, perhaps. But sadly, IQ correlates with school achievement, which correlates with grades, which correlates with length of time spent in school, which corre lates with socioeconomic position, which correlates with 153 success on the job, which correlates with the "good life ," which correlates . . . If cre ativ ity te sts correlate less with what is encompassed in tra d itio n a l "school achievement" categories, does i t not open a new avenue where a child has one more opportunity for success—and perhaps more importantly, where society has an opportunity to benefit from fresh ideas? If the teachers cannot identify i t , who can? And if steps are not taken to find i t —locate i t —identify i t — quantify i t —nurture i t —i t m ay well die or be squelched or smothered—or be ranked tw elfth out of a class of 14, and give up. 7. The fin a l implication that must be mentioned is the receptivity of the student subjects. A number of stu dents, either verbally or through w ritten comments on th eir te s t papers, spontaneously made remarks ("This te s t was fun!") indicating the in tere st, challenge, and sheer en ter tainment value of the G TO C . In the n ex t-to -last school v isited , the usual rapport-establishment speech was given, and the subject of cre a tiv ity was discussed. I t was pointed out that "someone invents the Hula Hoops and makes a m illion dollars" and reference was made to the kind of ideas th at "Mattel Toys is w illing to pay fo r." For the less 154 m aterialistically-oriented youngsters, mention was made of Jonas Salk and vaccines and new cures and saving babies' liv e s. There wasn't a sound. Eyes were big. The te s t was begun. There were no broken pencils. N o horsing around. Not even any questions. Eighty-three youngsters worked intently for an hour and then afterwards came up and talked about "Where could we send our ideas" and "H ow do you know if you got a neat idea th at someone wouldn't ste a l it" and "Hey, lady, can I t e l l you about th is neat-o invention m e and m y friend made?" and "H ow soon w ill we know about how this te s t came out?" In summary, the students were a highly motivated group, but p articu larly because they wanted to share th eir ideas, and the structure of the te s t its e lf reinforced the rapport-establishment statements of "There are no wrong answers, no 'weird' ideas. All of your ideas are valuable." From th e ir vantage point, here was a stranger who was in the idea business, and if they were so anxious to share these secret ideas with a stranger, and if teachers can be helped to be more attuned to the "idea business," i t bodes well for the unleashing of much laten t p o ten tial. 155 Recomroendat ions The following recommendations relate to the need for further research in a llie d areas: 1. Replication of the study at hand, vising IQ and grade point average as variables in place of reading achievement. 2 . Further inquiry into teacher prediction and a possible relationship of sex of teacher and the predictive favoring of one sex over the other. 3. Study of questions a llie d to the p o ssib ility of sex difference in creative p otential, maturation, readiness, myelinization, and expression of creative p otential. 4. Investigation into the expectancy question and c re a tiv ity — a replication of the Rosenthal-Jacobsen (1968) study, correcting the methodological errors and substituting te sts of creative p o ten tial, would be of especially i n t r i guing in te re s t. The single recommendation for school d is tric ts would be th at alternatives to teacher prediction be in stitu ted in the schools to identify creative p otential. Empirical assessment appears to be the most likely of current id en ti ficatio n techniques, but in the pragmatic view, costs of scoring m itigate against empirical assessment. D istric ts, 156 or schools within d is tr ic ts , or teachers within schools should begin to think in terms of open-ended, no-wrong- answer, "idea" forms of assessment that can be used on a local option basis u n til such time as tests of creativ ity are standardized and within fisc a l reach. 157 A P P E N D I X A M A S T E R T A B L E O F A L L R A W D A T A 158 MASTER TABLE OF ALL RAW DATA ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex R dg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 1 1 1 11-09 F 54 00 0 18 1 5 09 33 13 09 099 2 1 1 11-05 F 64 01 1 1 9 17 11 47 1 2 18 126 3 1 1 11-01 F 00 1 2 1 10 1 4 06 1 7 05 1 7 071 4 1 1 11-02 F 54 10 1 11 1 9 0 2 29 06 08 077 5 1 1 11-05 F 00 11 1 11 08 06 26 08 1 4 075 6 1 1 11-05 F 94 06 1 1 4 11 06 23 06 09 071 7 1 1 11-05 F 80 09 1 1 4 16 08 22 1 2 18 092 8 1 1 10-11 F 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 18 04 37 08 05 086 9 1 1 10-06 F 76 05 1 09 1 6 08 2 2 09 05 071 10 1 1 10-08 F 66 13 1 1 2 20 04 21 10 09 078 11 1 1 11-04 F 77 07 2 11 13 09 29 09 20 093 1 2 1 1 10-11 F 99 01 2 11 1 2 06 25 08 21 085 1 3 1 1 11-03 F 00 08 2 1 3 19 05 24 10 09 082 1 4 1 1 10-07 F 00 04 2 08 10 03 1 4 09 19 065 15 1 1 10-08 F 56 13 2 11 10 0 4 1 2 01 05 045 1 6 1 1 11-00 F 34 0 2 2 08 19 01 38 07 25 100 1 7 1 1 10-08 F 76 11 2 09 13 07 40 13 08 092 18 1 2 11-00 F 1 6 1 7 1 09 13 0 4 21 06 23 078 19 1 1 10-08 F 54 1 2 2 07 08 06 24 1 5 10 072 20 1 1 11-00 F 94 06 2 1 2 16 13 27 04 14 089 21 1 1 11-05 F 44 09 2 09 1 4 06 22 06 13 072 22 1 1 10-06 F 84 03 2 07 13 08 22 1 2 1 2 079 23 1 1 11-00 M 99 0 2 1 09 10 08 13 1 2 30 159 in 0 0 o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 24 1 1 10-08 M 90 1 5 1 06 08 04 1 2 04 11 047 25 1 1 11-06 M 23 1 6 1 10 01 05 16 10 03 047 26 1 1 10-08 M 94 04 1 1 4 1 3 07 21 10 27 094 27 1 1 10-11 M 82 03 1 08 10 06 1 7 06 1 2 061 28 1 1 11-05 M 00 08 1 06 08 05 18 05 1 2 056 29 1 1 11-02 M 86 07 1 05 11 10 21 13 30 092 30 1 1 10-09 M 68 10 2 0 7 11 04 19 10 18 071 31 1 1 11-03 M 44 05 2 1 4 1 6 05 24 09 07 077 3 2 1 1 10-10 M 74 1 5 2 07 11 07 10 07 09 053 33 1 1 11-03 M 23 16 2 05 05 05 06 01 1 7 039 3 4 1 1 11-00 M 68 1 4 2 11 11 10 24 06 21 085 35 1 2 11-02 F 84 1 3 1 10 1 6 04 18 04 1 5 069 3 6 1 2 10-07 F 42 08 1 1 5 1 2 06 11 07 1 2 065 37 1 2 11-00 F 82 10 1 08 13 10 31 09 1 4 087 38 1 2 10-08 F 48 1 4 1 1 5 1 2 0 7 19 08 13 076 39 1 2 10-07 F 00 0 2 1 1 2 20 10 3 2 1 5 18 109 40 1 2 11-01 F 84 09 1 1 4 20 08 31 22 25 122 41 1 2 10-08 F 54 11 1 1 4 1 2 04 20 05 1 3 070 42 1 2 11-04 F 99 1 6 1 1 4 1 2 05 19 10 11 073 43 1 2 10-03 F 74 08 2 11 09 0 7 33 08 1 2 082 44 1 2 10-06 F 74 10 2 1 2 1 5 08 25 11 1 4 087 45 1 2 11-02 F 88 0 2 2 10 1 4 04 24 11 1 4 079 46 1 2 11-02 F 48 1 6 2 10 11 05 16 05 1 4 063 47 1 2 11-03 F 88 1 2 2 08 09 11 29 11 13 083 48 1 2 10-07 F 96 09 2 11 1 2 08 27 08 18 087 49 1 2 11-04 F 99 06 2 09 10 07 1 9 06 08 062 £ o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X E L A B Total 50 1 2 11-04 F 80 07 2 11 1 6 06 22 09 11 077 51 1 2 10-07 M 76 06 1 06 07 03 20 07 22 067 52 1 2 10-06 M 5 4 05 1 11 1 5 05 21 0 6 22 082 53 1 2 11-11 M 00 07 1 05 10 0 4 1 7 03 10 051 54 1 2 11-08 M 68 04 1 1 4 16 09 11 08 15 076 55 1 2 11-00 M 23 1 5 1 08 13 08 29 05 20 085 56 1 2 11-02 M 34 1 2 1 10 1 4 04 16 07 36 089 57 1 2 10-04 M 90 01 1 10 20 09 28 08 28 106 58 1 2 10-10 M 96 03 1 1 2 1 2 07 29 09 19 090 59 1 2 11-04 M 60 1 7 1 0 4 0 7 07 1 7 05 31 073 60 1 2 11-07 M 64 05 2 11 19 07 22 05 47 113 61 1 2 10-10 M 00 15 2 09 07 05 1 2 06 16 057 62 1 2 10-10 M 68 13 2 1 3 1 5 06 20 05 1 7 079 63 1 2 11-01 M 70 0 4 2 11 19 09 22 1 2 07 082 64 1 2 10-11 N 99 01 2 11 19 06 22 11 34 105 65 1 2 11-10 M 00 1 7 2 09 16 06 1 5 06 28 082 66 1 2 10-09 M 86 03 2 00 00 01 1 2 06 16 037 67 2 3 10-08 F 48 1 5 1 09 11 03 1 3 07 1 5 060 68 2 3 10-05 F 77 07 1 13 18 09 19 1 4 1 7 092 69 2 3 10-06 F 50 1 4 1 05 06 04 1 5 06 13 051 70 2 3 11-05 F 74 1 2 1 10 20 10 18 10 52 123 71 2 3 10-11 F 84 02 1 1 2 1 2 10 30 06 20 092 72 2 3 10-10 F 97 03 1 11 1 4 08 18 09 21 083 73 2 3 11-03 F 53 13 1 08 1 6 09 23 08 25 091 74 2 3 11-04 F 96 13 2 1 4 16 08 19 09 1 7 085 75 2 3 10-09 F 38 1 4 2 1 3 18 05 1 7 07 18 161 o 0 0 o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 76 2 3 11-00 F 70 11 2 1 5 20 07 3 2 08 36 120 77 2 3 10-07 F 42 03 2 10 1 4 04 19 04 28 081 78 2 3 10-10 F 42 09 2 0 7 1 4 05 23 10 20 082 79 2 3 10-11 M 38 11 1 03 04 01 11 01 0 4 026 80 2 3 11-06 M 60 10 1 09 09 0 2 08 04 11 045 81 2 3 10-06 M 00 08 2 07 11 0 2 09 00 13 044 82 2 3 11-00 M 80 01 1 08 11 0 4 20 10 13 068 83 2 3 10-10 M 54 06 1 08 20 07 1 7 1 2 16 082 84 2 3 11-03 M 68 0 4 1 1 2 1 2 03 29 0 2 13 074 85 2 3 11-01 M 94 0 5 1 13 1 3 09 1 8 07 24 086 86 2 3 11-03 M 08 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 06 29 08 1 2 081 87 2 3 10-05 M 60 05 2 1 4 1 8 10 23 06 20 093 88 2 3 10-08 M 44 01 2 13 20 10 33 10 37 126 89 2 3 10-05 M 88 06 2 11 1 6 08 20 11 20 088 90 2 3 10-06 M 96 07 2 13 17 05 21 10 1 2 081 91 2 3 11-05 M 54 04 2 13 20 09 1 7 05 22 089 92 2 4 11-03 F 95 06 1 1 4 1 7 09 28 11 27 108 93 2 4 10-09 F 60 05 1 07 13 05 25 04 1 5 071 94 2 4 10-04 F 68 04 1 07 1 5 04 34 11 21 094 95 2 4 10-10 F 86 0 2 1 06 1 2 05 16 10 28 079 96 2 4 11-03 F 50 06 2 1 2 10 04 1 5 07 1 4 064 97 2 4 10-08 F 94 03 2 08 1 4 04 1 6 08 1 4 066 98 2 4 10-11 F 44 07 2 11 07 07 29 10 11 077 99 2 4 11-00 F 74 0 2 2 07 09 09 1 7 11 19 074 Number 100 excluded from study because of missing G T O C sco res. 101 2 4 11-02 M 86 01 1 0 5 07 0 2 1 2 04 10 042 £ N) ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 102 2 4 10-11 M 00 03 1 10 08 06 1 2 07 3 2 077 103 2 4 11-02 M 84 04 2 1 6 20 08 16 11 16 089 104 2 4 10-09 M 98 01 2 0 5 07 04 18 05 1 7 059 105 3 5 11-00 F 54 07 1 13 20 09 24 10 18 096 106 3 5 11-05 F 74 04 1 1 2 13 09 20 05 09 070 107 3 5 11-01 F 70 05 1 10 1 7 05 18 08 10 070 108 3 5 10-09 F 00 1 2 1 08 11 09 1 6 11 23 081 109 3 5 11-02 F 99 01 1 11 1 4 11 21 09 1 4 085 110 3 5 10-10 F 94 03 1 06 09 07 13 10 1 2 060 111 3 5 11-00 F 62 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 06 19 10 16 077 112 3 5 10-07 F 1 2 13 1 06 07 02 09 04 1 4 044 113 3 5 11-01 F 00 08 1 1 9 1 9 08 3 2 16 07 104 114 3 5 10-07 F 26 1 4 2 11 11 05 1 2 06 10 057 115 3 5 11-04 F 00 05 2 09 16 06 1 2 09 1 2 067 116 3 5 10-05 F 64 07 2 10 09 1 2 1 7 1 4 10 074 117 3 5 10-08 F 42 13 2 10 07 08 1 7 1 4 04 062 118 3 5 11-05 F 86 1 2 2 0 7 19 10 20 08 1 4 080 119 3 5 10-05 F 00 1 5 2 10 08 03 1 5 06 06 051 120 3 5 11-09 M 00 1 7 1 1 2 1 7 06 18 07 23 085 121 3 5 10-09 M 00 09 1 0 7 1 4 04 21 13 08 069 122 3 5 10-08 M 98 0 2 1 08 13 10 23 1 5 1 4 086 123 3 5 11-03 M 74 06 1 07 13 05 19 08 1 2 066 124 3 5 10-08 M 00 1 5 1 10 1 2 10 11 05 06 057 125 3 5 11-01 M 00 10 1 1 7 13 04 21 0 2 16 075 126 3 5 11-03 M 10 16 1 18 1 2 03 1 7 03 18 073 127 3 5 11-06 M 00 11 1 1 4 1 8 01 13 03 07 163 a> ID o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 128 3 5 11-09 M 00 16 2 1 2 1 5 05 10 06 26 076 129 3 5 11-05 M 97 03 2 10 20 07 15 11 16 082 130 3 5 11-00 M 00 08 2 08 13 04 10 04 22 064 131 3 5 11-02 M 00 10 2 17 16 04 18 09 15 081 132 3 5 09-10 M 00 04 2 09 09 04 1 2 03 1 5 055 133 3 5 11-02 M 56 06 2 08 1 2 0 2 0 9 05 13 051 134 3 5 11-04 M 50 11 2 10 1 2 09 16 04 21 075 135 3 6 11-03 P 82 00 0 05 07 08 09 08 09 048 136 3 6 10-09 P 00 00 0 1 7 19 13 28 13 09 102 137 3 6 10-07 P 60 03 1 09 09 07 09 08 10 055 138 3 6 11-00 F 00 00 0 10 1 5 05 09 06 07 054 139 3 6 11-01 P 88 05 1 09 09 06 14 10 1 4 064 140 3 6 10-07 P 86 01 1 09 11 13 16 1 4 08 074 141 3 6 11-03 F 00 00 0 10 1 5 09 13 11 09 069 142 3 6 10-08 F 00 00 0 09 1 4 07 22 11 11 076 143 3 6 10-09 F 44 00 0 10 1 7 09 1 7 07 10 072 144 3 6 10-07 F 74 00 0 09 08 06 06 06 1 2 050 145 3 6 10-08 F 54 00 0 10 18 10 19 07 11 078 146 3 6 10-07 F 00 00 0 08 1 4 03 08 08 02 045 147 3 6 11-00 F 77 00 0 11 13 11 22 13 11 084 148 3 6 10-10 F 88 03 2 08 09 04 11 09 11 056 149 3 6 11-04 F 00 00 0 11 1 6 06 16 09 06 066 150 3 6 10-10 F 97 06 2 10 1 2 1 2 19 10 1 2 077 151 3 6 12-05 F 48 00 0 13 16 08 1 5 08 16 079 152 3 6 10-11 M 00 00 0 07 06 07 1 2 07 16 058 153 3 6 10-09 M 34 00 0 11 16 04 1 4 09 0 7 164 S o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 154 3 6 11-03 M 56 00 0 10 18 06 09 05 15 066 155 3 6 10-09 M 1 2 00 0 1 4 09 05 05 05 03 043 156 3 6 10-07 M 84 04 1 11 1 2 05 08 09 03 050 157 3 6 11-05 M 77 00 0 08 09 05 1 2 03 09 049 158 3 6 11-07 M 00 04 2 09 16 08 1 2 10 10 068 159 3 6 11-01 M 64 00 0 18 20 03 16 04 03 066 160 3 6 11-00 M 50 05 2 16 1 7 1 7 23 1 4 24 113 161 3 6 11-03 M 30 00 0 09 09 03 11 06 08 048 162 3 6 11-00 M 86 0 2 2 11 1 2 05 23 05 1 4 072 163 3 6 11-01 M 68 01 2 08 13 07 08 09 09 056 164 3 6 11-04 M 74 00 0 1 4 18 08 1 5 09 08 075 165 3 6 11-04 M 42 00 0 08 10 09 1 7 08 19 074 166 3 7 11-01 F 00 1 2 1 07 10 04 1 2 06 07 048 167 3 7 11-00 F 82 04 1 09 13 05 14 11 1 5 069 168 3 7 11-02 F 50 08 1 05 08 06 16 08 10 055 169 3 7 11-00 F 80 0 2 1 08 1 4 08 1 4 08 11 066 170 3 7 11-02 F 00 13 1 1 4 20 03 23 10 05 077 171 3 7 10-05 F 05 1 5 1 06 11 09 16 08 09 061 172 3 7 10-07 F 54 1 4 1 08 10 02 1 4 09 10 053 173 3 7 10-07 F 16 16 1 06 09 06 20 05 08 056 174 3 7 11-05 F 00 05 1 1 4 19 08 10 07 1 2 073 175 3 7 10-07 F 74 1 4 2 09 1 5 04 16 05 19 071 176 3 7 10-09 F 77 08 2 1 9 18 03 20 05 08 075 177 3 7 11-05 F 00 1 5 2 07 06 05 1 5 05 11 051 178 3 7 10-09 F 82 01 2 06 09 05 1 5 08 11 059 179 3 7 11-01 F 95 11 2 08 13 09 13 06 1 2 063 £ in ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 180 3 7 11-03 F 30 17 2 09 16 05 18 09 03 063 181 3 7 10-08 F 84 16 2 11 1 2 10 16 06 1 5 072 182 3 7 11-00 F 10 03 2 09 1 2 0 7 11 09 28 078 183 3 7 11-01 M 26 00 0 08 1 5 07 18 10 07 067 184 3 7 10-10 M 80 01 1 11 09 08 19 06 04 059 185 3 7 10-10 M 1 2 11 1 07 10 03 11 03 08 044 186 3 7 11-02 M 3 4 07 1 1 4 18 09 14 08 05 070 187 3 7 1 2 -04 M 42 10 1 16 20 11 24 10 04 087 188 3 7 12-01 M 00 03 1 1 2 1 5 07 18 09 09 072 189 3 7 11-04 M 08 06 1 07 11 04 11 06 07 049 190 3 7 10-08 M 56 09 2 1 4 1 9 06 18 10 10 079 191 3 7 10-09 M 30 02 2 13 1 4 05 1 2 02 04 053 192 3 7 11-01 M 30 13 2 1 4 14 1 2 20 10 13 085 193 3 7 11-01 M 00 06 2 09 19 06 1 7 09 1 2 074 194 3 7 10-09 M 77 05 2 1 5 18 05 1 2 16 13 081 195 3 7 11-01 M 48 04 2 1 2 19 1 2 19 1 2 1 7 094 196 3 7 10-11 M 00 1 2 2 17 19 20 25 1 4 08 106 197 3 8 11-00 F 82 1 4 1 10 16 04 13 04 18 067 198 3 8 11-00 F 64 1 2 1 1 2 07 06 1 7 06 10 061 199 3 8 11-02 F 82 07 1 13 15 07 17 06 14 074 200 3 8 11-02 F 34 13 1 11 10 09 1 7 10 27 087 201 3 8 11-05 F 96 01 1 07 06 06 10 06 07 044 202 3 8 11-06 F 94 05 1 04 05 04 08 05 13 041 203 3 8 10-11 F 70 09 1 05 10 08 21 11 10 069 204 3 8 11-00 F 56 1 4 2 07 05 08 1 4 06 05 047 205 3 8 10-06 F 58 01 2 05 10 04 03 03 08 166 in C O O 230 4 9 11-02 F 0 0 0 7 1 0 8 1 7 1 0 1 2 0 7 1 6 072 231 4 9 10-08 F 5 6 1 2 1 0 8 1 3 0 5 1 5 1 2 0 9 064 L 91 1 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to M I-1 I-1 I-* t-» M t— 1 I - 1 t-* t-* o o o o V O 00 x l < r » U1 co to M o V O 00 X j o v in CO to t— 1 o V O 00 - J cn . 4k u > CO u> CO co u> co U) 1 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO VOOOCOODOOODCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO Ot-JHt-'l— ‘t-’OOC'Ot-'l— •MOI-'OI— '(-•OOI— 'OMOO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OQOOOOOOOOOOOOt— ‘OOI— •OOt-JOOt— ' < y » frOUU'J'fi'IOO'UUIfl'UHHHOOOWOWlflH <jv0vwov04k00'^00'^co4k00xjcol000v0vni^0000in fcOO'OOOO'OMO'OOOOO^I^slOOUNVD.MOIOOO*. OOMOOOt-'OOOl— ‘OHHt-’Ot-'OOt— ‘I— ‘t— *t— *0 ODOO'OWUl|-,WMoOfl''JU| HOOO'CO(J>fl'U| UM^ W M IO W W M W I— 'OOOI— ‘I— ‘I— ‘OOO cnooovcococncoxji^io t— 'MOMt— ‘MMt— 'MOt— 't— *Ot— 1 I— < H 1 H1 O O H 1 H ' O H ' M N> I-1 O t-1 t-> H 1 I-1 t-> H 1 H 1 H 1 H H 1 O OOOOOQMOOQOOOOOOOI-,OOOI-*OI-> I — •t-, l-, OOOt-, l-‘OI-, l-i l-, l-, l- J t-‘t-Jt-, tO|— <OOI— , t-4t-‘ kO'JO^iOWWHvJWOOvJOU^^WU'O'OOaJUl'JvJ OOOOOOt-*OpOpl— *pt-‘OOpi-‘t-,pl— ‘I— ‘Ol— 1 o t 9 9 U 9 u o o ^ < > >i^o^u«vi^ou<^u'Ma)o HOOHHMHHMHHHHOWHOUHOHHHH i^a>inNiowo'JU)Mviooa'siioooou''(ku'u,H^'J OOPpOOOOOOOOpOOOOh-'OOOOOO OJUl&tinO'vJi^UILnslvjtNlQONJUIHOOW'JOD'JvJ to ui ui >j ■ U ^ o o v o t o o v ' o v o x j u o v v n c o i n a o v o ^ i - ' ^ v o 8 C O & •-3 o E T fl > C O » 5 0 Qj vO 2 * * s o 0 > \ r+ H - to o > g o O B C O M ss * 3 S w 0 0 H 3 0 ft 0 1 t-> ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 232 4 9 10-09 F 38 13 1 05 13 04 1 2 07 17 060 233 4 9 11-05 F 94 1 4 1 07 1 7 09 27 11 16 089 234 4 9 11-04 F 80 01 1 1 6 1 4 10 26 1 2 09 090 235 4 9 10-08 F 34 16 1 11 18 0 7 21 13 06 078 236 4 9 11-03 F 56 10 1 11 1 2 06 27 10 1 5 083 237 4 9 10-10 F 84 02 2 08 1 5 10 25 10 19 089 238 4 9 11-05 F 70 17 2 09 17 09 36 1 4 11 098 239 4 9 10-11 F 44 16 2 11 14 09 20 09 19 084 240 4 9 11-03 F 76 06 2 09 1 7 05 23 13 13 084 241 4 9 10-10 F 68 09 2 07 11 05 1 4 08 26 073 242 4 9 11-06 F 54 08 2 18 1 5 09 23 10 13 090 243 4 9 10-09 F 96 01 2 1 2 11 06 10 07 1 2 060 244 4 9 11-04 F 38 18 2 10 16 07 29 10 14 088 245 4 9 10-06 F 54 13 2 11 11 04 25 10 22 085 246 4 9 11-01 M 97 0 2 1 1 2 1 7 11 24 06 08 080 247 4 9 10-07 M 08 17 1 07 1 6 04 21 10 09 069 248 4 9 11-03 M 30 05 1 10 1 4 1 2 17 09 1 5 079 249 4 9 11-01 M 94 06 1 18 1 5 06 26 09 1 7 095 250 4 9 10-08 M 23 03 1 1 2 1 4 10 1 5 03 18 074 251 4 9 11-02 M 50 11 1 1 2 10 10 1 7 03 18 072 252 4 9 11-04 M 00 09 1 09 1 2 11 22 07 30 093 253 4 9 10-03 M 77 1 5 1 11 19 1 4 27 13 21 107 254 4 9 11-02 M 48 04 2 1 4 18 11 27 04 31 107 255 4 9 11-06 M 00 1 2 2 04 04 0 2 17 0 2 28 059 256 4 9 11-04 M 00 07 2 10 16 1 2 24 11 21 096 257 4 9 10-07 M 30 1 5 2 09 13 07 21 06 15 073 £ C O ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 258 4 9 11-06 M 00 11 2 07 1 2 04 26 09 24 084 259 4 9 11-01 M 54 05 2 08 08 04 1 5 06 1 2 055 260 4 9 10-11 M 00 03 2 10 16 06 26 1 7 28 105 261 4 9 11-02 M 3 4 1 4 2 05 08 05 16 05 1 7 058 262 4 9 11-00 M 56 10 2 10 16 11 25 07 1 7 088 263 4 10 11-02 F 00 03 1 1 7 1 5 19 3 2 15 07 107 264 4 10 10-10 F 00 1 4 1 07 17 03 11 07 18 065 265 4 10 10-09 F 68 11 1 11 1 5 06 30 06 07 077 266 4 10 11-02 F 76 1 5 1 1 7 1 4 11 30 09 20 103 267 4 10 11-06 F 1 2 1 6 1 1 4 1 5 07 18 08 18 082 268 4 10 11-03 F 84 13 1 16 21 05 1 5 09 19 087 269 4 10 10-10 F 80 01 1 1 7 20 18 37 14 11 119 270 4 10 11-03 F 96 0 2 1 13 18 11 34 1 2 18 108 271 4 10 11-01 F 80 03 2 1 2 19 03 25 13 28 102 272 4 10 11-00 F 48 1 5 2 18 18 0 7 26 11 02 084 273 4 10 11-00 F 48 0 2 2 16 1 7 13 29 10 10 097 274 4 10 11-03 F 76 07 2 1 2 19 1 2 25 10 29 109 275 4 10 11-06 F 30 13 2 08 13 07 1 2 04 10 056 276 4 10 10-09 F 00 04 2 1 5 20 1 2 36 17 21 124 277 4 10 10-10 F 68 1 2 2 16 19 07 45 08 3 2 129 278 4 10 10-09 F 42 16 2 07 06 09 28 07 25 084 279 4 10 10-09 F 88 05 2 1 5 19 10 29 1 4 13 102 280 4 10 10-08 F 77 06 2 1 5 1 7 09 27 16 1 2 098 281 4 10 10-07 M 00 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 10 18 10 20 084 282 4 10 10-11 M 74 04 1 07 13 09 1 5 08 1 2 066 283 4 10 10-09 M 00 1 7 1 04 03 03 1 5 00 00 025 £ V O id •P o E h 1^00 V O o 3 C N rHo C M V O rHrH o in00 co 03 INo ino voo 00 rH 03 V O V O o 00r'' V O 1 "-00 03 I " ' - in in 03 v o V O V O in 00 00 i n o i — 1o o o o r H o o O o O o o o o o o O o o o o o 03 3 w ^■OrH^'vDfMi^HtNnr'.Hcs^'OvD^noovDHOin H ^ W r l O H M H H r l H ( M N N ( M r l N C I N H i - l ( M ( M H (NMDd'iniooooMNinMnMt^^ioiOf'^inLnd' ^HOOOOOi— lOOi— ioo»— l o o o o o o O o o o o 3 b ricoHmHinin^HvoHooNOiocDMnnOMMiod1 (NNNHPlHMIMINi-lNHNNHHNrlHNHniNH Z w 03 vocoio^coocMHfCOvoi>-aor>-cococooo*>*'in*-«>co<g; OOrHOO-HrHi-IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ffl Q g coor^>-ii-io3^*coo3i^^*r^coooinvoO(Mvoiniocoinio rlNHrlHOrlrlrIOr-liHi— I O O O C M » — IOOOOi-HO < a « * C 0 « - I C N O 0 0 ' - I C 0 C 0 l 0 C > 0 0 < N l 0 l 0 0 3 0 0 l ^ ' - I O l 0 O O i n rHiHrHrHrHOiHOOOiHOrHOOOOOrHHOrHr-IO S ' H - C * b ( N O H ( N ( N N « N ( N O H H O O O r l H O O ( N O X c id o s voi^ovr^oorHcoovo^i-ior^cooooiocNOOcoo 000<H0<H000<-HrHrH000000000000 03 •o X a) 03 coioroioOhOifidonoQOoad^d o o o co o c m vocnrMiHOr'r^r'Cor'OmovDHtmr^Ttooooonr^^H SSSSSSS SS SS S S bbbbbbbb bbbb < U rg n i— ico^nHinH^mh-koor'QOrHHoooo^O'fflr^ OOrHOOOi-HOOOOOOOOOOiHOOOOOO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rHrHOO»Hr>jO<HrHHOOO<-IOOHOOOOOOf-l M fi, U E h OOOOOOOOOOOO fi u 03 a h * in in in in in in in in in in in in rH C M co in vo r* 00 03 o rH C M CO in vo 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 o o O o O o o o C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 3 0 8 5 1 1 11-00 F 4 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 3 1 8 0 1 1 0 045 3 0 9 5 1 1 10-11 F 9 8 0 6 2 0 9 0 8 0 5 1 8 0 6 2 4 072 ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 310 5 11 11-01 F 70 05 2 1 7 1 6 13 28 1 3 21 110 311 5 11 10-07 F 42 00 0 05 06 02 16 02 18 052 312 5 11 11-00 F 50 00 0 18 17 1 5 29 1 2 24 118 313 5 11 10-06 F 82 00 0 07 10 06 19 03 16 063 314 5 11 11-00 M 34 00 0 08 09 0 2 30 05 05 061 315 5 11 11-01 M 97 01 1 05 06 02 11 01 11 038 316 5 11 11-03 M 60 00 0 06 06 07 26 03 07 057 317 5 11 11-02 M 64 05 1 08 11 02 1 4 06 25 068 318 5 11 10-11 M 20 04 1 07 07 02 05 02 1 7 043 319 5 11 11-05 M 76 00 0 06 09 05 16 05 1 2 055 320 5 11 10-09 M 50 00 0 10 1 4 02 13 01 1 4 057 321 5 11 11-05 M 1 4 00 0 09 08 02 08 0 2 22 053 322 5 11 11-04 M 30 00 0 10 1 5 07 1 5 05 09 063 323 5 11 11-06 M 00 00 0 08 11 06 17 05 11 060 324 5 11 11-02 M 1 2 04 2 07 1 4 03 1 4 0 2 24 066 325 5 11 10-09 M 94 01 2 18 1 7 07 19 06 25 094 326 5 1 2 11-02 F 76 06 1 0 7 1 7 05 1 2 06 04 053 327 5 1 2 11-04 F 10 00 0 11 09 04 09 03 05 043 328 5 1 2 10-06 F 46 00 0 08 13 06 1 7 06 11 063 329 5 1 2 10-08 F 80 00 0 1 2 20 07 18 09 20 088 330 5 1 2 10-11 F 1 6 00 0 06 1 5 04 18 04 10 059 331 5 1 2 10-10 F 54 04 1 1 3 1 2 06 28 11 17 089 332 5 1 2 10-11 F 38 00 0 11 13 05 21 10 22 084 333 5 1 2 11-00 F 88 04 2 08 1 5 05 21 06 1 2 069 334 5 1 2 10-06 F 00 00 0 09 1 2 07 16 07 09 063 335 5 1 2 11-01 F 00 00 0 1 5 16 08 05 04 08 171 0 0 IT) O ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X E L A B Total 336 5 1 2 10-11 F 76 00 0 1 5 1 4 07 27 06 09 081 337 5 1 2 10-07 F 50 05 2 10 11 04 23 07 11 068 338 5 1 2 10-05 F 26 00 0 11 1 7 06 24 04 1 2 079 339 5 1 2 11-05 F 10 00 0 1 4 06 03 1 7 05 04 051 340 5 1 2 11-03 F 26 00 0 10 1 7 05 18 08 15 075 341 5 1 2 10-09 F 16 00 0 1 4 18 06 27 03 30 100 342 5 1 2 11-02 F 44 06 2 1 2 13 03 1 7 08 1 2 067 343 5 1 2 10-11 I 94 07 2 1 6 1 4 10 34 10 13 099 344 5 1 2 10-07 M 38 03 1 1 4 13 05 16 02 1 5 067 345 5 1 2 11-04 M 80 01 1 08 10 07 18 07 16 068 346 5 1 2 11-03 M 44 07 1 1 7 18 07 16 07 26 093 347 5 1 2 10-08 M 1 2 00 0 06 10 01 07 02 20 048 348 5 1 2 10-06 M 60 02 1 10 08 05 13 05 13 056 349 5 1 2 10-10 M 84 00 0 09 1 5 10 1 7 08 13 074 350 5 1 2 11-03 M 94 03 2 08 09 07 13 03 17 060 351 5 1 2 10-08 M 00 0 2 2 10 08 05 09 03 25 062 352 5 1 2 11-03 M 76 01 2 1 9 1 7 06 18 06 33 101 353 5 1 2 10-08 M 60 00 0 1 2 10 07 15 04 14 064 354 5 13 10-06 F 99 03 1 04 04 03 11 04 19 048 355 5 13 10-07 F 94 01 1 1 5 1 7 08 20 09 1 4 085 356 5 13 11-05 F 60 05 1 09 1 2 06 1 4 07 20 070 357 5 13 11-04 F 70 0 2 2 09 1 2 08 1 5 07 1 2 065 358 5 13 10-07 F 64 05 2 09 1 2 06 18 09 21 077 359 5 13 10-06 F 94 03 2 08 08 04 17 03 13 055 360 5 13 11-04 F 00 06 2 09 07 06 13 05 18 060 361 5 13 10-11 M 94 04 1 13 10 05 06 05 05 047 S to ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 362 5 13 10-10 M 88 07 1 1 2 11 09 10 07 09 060 363 5 13 11-01 M 76 0 2 1 06 10 03 05 03 31 060 364 5 1 3 10-07 M 94 01 10 10 05 09 03 20 057 365 6 14 10-11 F 99 09 1 1 2 1 5 04 21 10 11 075 366 6 14 10-11 F 98 06 1 11 1 2 08 23 06 13 075 367 6 14 10-08 F 98 0 2 1 07 10 08 23 09 37 096 368 6 1 4 10-08 F 99 04 1 08 11 05 24 09 27 086 369 6 1 4 10-08 F 76 10 1 10 1 4 08 27 07 19 087 370 6 1 4 10-09 F 77 11 1 10 1 2 07 23 07 26 088 371 6 1 4 11-00 F 76 13 1 11 18 06 11 07 06 062 372 6 1 4 10-05 F 96 09 2 10 13 07 27 08 16 084 373 6 1 4 11-01 F 74 10 2 08 10 04 19 10 22 075 374 6 1 4 11-03 F 96 08 2 08 07 05 16 0 2 22 062 375 6 14 11-00 F 77 1 2 2 08 1 2 07 20 09 09 067 376 6 14 10-08 F 00 07 2 08 11 07 11 09 1 2 060 377 6 1 4 11-08 F 98 11 2 1 2 1 4 08 32 10 25 103 378 6 1 4 10-07 F 98 06 2 1 6 20 09 20 10 28 106 379 6 1 4 10-10 M 88 1 4 1 10 08 05 20 03 04 053 380 6 1 4 11-00 M 99 01 1 08 1 5 04 09 09 07 055 381 6 1 4 11-04 M 98 05 1 13 19 07 29 07 29 106 382 6 1 4 11-07 M 80 1 2 1 09 1 5 06 18 08 19 077 383 6 1 4 10-05 M 48 1 5 1 13 20 06 13 08 36 098 384 6 1 4 11-00 M 80 07 1 1 4 20 08 20 09 10 085 385 6 1 4 11-07 M 00 08 1 06 08 08 18 05 1 4 061 386 6 1 4 11-04 M 99 03 1 11 11 03 22 09 1 2 072 387 6 1 4 11-00 M 86 02 2 1 2 1 7 04 20 10 22 173 0 0 o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 388 6 1 4 10-11 M 93 0 5 2 10 18 04 21 06 1 9 080 389 6 1 4 10-05 M 96 01 2 09 10 04 11 03 1 4 053 390 6 1 4 11-03 M 99 03 2 11 18 09 21 1 2 21 096 391 6 1 4 11-03 M 89 13 2 07 1 2 05 05 04 08 043 392 6 1 4 10-11 M 88 04 2 04 11 01 1 6 01 11 046 393 6 1 5 11-01 F 22 1 2 1 07 08 0 2 20 07 10 056 394 6 1 5 10-02 F 68 04 1 1 2 1 5 08 26 08 16 087 395 6 15 10-09 F 48 03 1 06 10 0 2 18 05 1 4 057 396 6 15 12-03 F 00 02 1 17 20 11 30 1 4 18 112 397 6 1 5 10-02 F 30 13 2 05 09 0 2 13 04 18 053 398 6 15 11-01 F 70 1 2 2 06 10 06 03 09 07 043 399 6 1 5 11-04 F 68 11 2 08 19 07 29 09 28 102 400 6 1 5 11-02 F 76 08 2 1 6 20 06 40 09 1 2 105 401 6 1 5 10-06 F 3 4 00 0 1 5 16 07 30 07 19 096 402 6 15 10-09 F 68 03 2 11 1 5 07 28 09 1 4 086 403 6 1 5 11-03 F 3 4 10 2 05 1 5 07 25 05 1 4 073 404 6 1 5 11-04 M 94 0 2 2 11 11 04 16 04 1 2 060 405 6 1 5 10-08 M 54 11 1 13 1 5 07 22 0 7 30 096 406 6 1 5 11-02 M 50 05 1 1 2 13 04 24 03 25 084 407 6 1 5 11-07 M 23 1 5 1 09 1 2 03 06 07 03 042 408 6 15 11-00 M 1 6 1 4 1 10 1 2 04 21 08 13 070 409 6 1 5 10-09 M 77 08 1 09 13 0 2 22 0 7 26 081 410 6 1 5 11-00 M 74 06 1 1 4 1 5 05 29 07 22 094 411 6 15 10-10 M 70 09 1 13 13 07 23 04 22 084 412 6 15 10-10 M 76 13 1 06 09 01 13 0 2 1 2 045 413 6 1 5 11-01 M 98 01 1 09 13 05 34 11 18 093 £ * ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex R dg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 414 6 15 10-10 M 30 07 2 1 5 19 05 24 10 1 4 090 415 6 15 10-09 M 96 01 2 09 1 6 09 21 06 37 100 416 6 1 5 11-01 M 62 06 2 10 1 4 04 18 01 24 070 417 6 1 5 10-04 M 08 1 5 2 1 7 10 0 2 1 4 07 1 2 064 418 6 15 10-06 M 26 1 4 2 1 3 1 7 04 24 02 08 070 419 6 1 5 10-09 M 26 04 2 1 5 1 5 09 28 09 1 2 090 420 6 1 5 10-08 M 44 05 2 19 20 06 25 08 04 084 421 6 1 6 11-02 F 00 01 2 09 1 4 04 27 1 2 1 3 081 422 6 1 6 12-01 F 26 11 1 08 08 0 2 28 09 1 2 069 423 6 1 6 11-00 F 00 1 5 1 1 4 20 07 33 18 11 105 424 6 1 6 11-00 F 03 03 08 07 06 23 11 19 077 425 6 16 10-11 F 56 06 1 10 07 08 31 09 1 7 085 426 6 1 6 10-11 F 74 0 5 1 1 3 20 08 34 11 18 106 427 6 1 6 10-08 F 00 0 2 1 1 4 1 4 06 35 06 26 103 428 6 1 6 11-03 F 23 1 4 1 1 4 20 04 44 07 1 7 108 429 6 1 6 11-02 F 79 1 2 1 19 20 07 50 1 4 13 125 430 6 1 6 10-11 F 60 03 1 09 13 05 1 9 06 16 070 431 6 1 6 10-08 F 74 0 7 1 1 5 20 10 68 10 08 133 432 6 1 6 11-03 F 84 09 1 1 3 11 05 13 05 10 060 433 6 1 6 10-11 F 00 13 2 1 3 19 09 1 5 10 21 089 434 6 1 6 10-08 F 00 11 2 07 11 0 4 51 06 11 092 435 6 16 11-03 F 10 1 5 2 1 6 11 04 20 1 2 11 076 436 6 1 6 11-02 F 43 1 2 2 1 9 18 08 45 19 24 135 437 6 1 6 1 2 -01 F 94 04 2 1 2 19 04 21 06 11 075 438 6 16 10-10 F 38 1 4 2 1 3 13 06 27 05 20 086 439 6 1 6 11-05 M 68 04 1 1 4 1 2 03 09 07 06 175 n in o ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B T otal 440 6 16 10-10 M 00 08 1 09 1 2 0 4 17 05 10 060 441 6 1 6 10-09 M 00 10 1 05 1 4 03 1 2 04 07 047 442 6 1 6 11-05 M 34 16 1 07 1 2 0 2 1 5 01 0 2 041 443 6 1 6 11-05 M 54 05 2 17 18 10 18 08 17 090 444 6 16 10-10 M 44 10 2 13 1 7 10 23 07 1 4 086 445 6 16 10-10 M 54 06 2 13 1 4 05 13 05 10 062 446 6 16 10-03 M 00 07 2 11 09 05 16 1 4 08 066 447 6 1 6 10-08 M 95 0 2 2 1 2 1 5 09 24 08 1 2 083 448 6 1 6 11-03 M 42 09 2 1 7 18 10 31 1 2 16 106 449 6 1 7 11-04 F 88 02 2 07 10 07 16 10 10 062 450 6 1 7 10-02 F 86 01 2 1 2 10 05 20 09 1 7 075 451 6 17 10-11 F 74 06 1 07 07 05 17 04 1 7 059 452 6 1 7 10-05 F 56 07 1 03 06 03 19 06 16 055 453 6 17 10-05 F 54 10 1 1 5 20 10 1 9 16 17 099 454 6 1 7 10-06 F 75 08 1 13 16 08 25 07 16 087 455 6 17 10-11 F 88 04 1 11 08 08 08 06 22 065 456 6 1 7 11-02 F 82 06 2 08 10 06 18 0 4 1 6 065 457 6 1 7 10-08 F 38 1 4 2 06 08 03 13 08 1 4 054 458 6 1 7 11-02 F 43 09 2 06 1 2 04 18 06 23 071 459 6 1 7 11-05 F 34 15 2 06 07 03 1 2 07 11 048 460 6 1 7 11-04 F 42 04 2 1 2 1 4 06 19 08 11 073 461 6 17 10-07 M 00 1 5 1 18 1 5 06 26 05 21 093 462 6 1 7 11-00 M 60 08 2 17 19 11 28 13 33 123 463 6 1 7 11-08 M 34 1 3 2 11 08 05 39 05 07 078 464 6 17 10-11 M 20 09 1 09 07 05 16 03 1 2 054 465 6 1 7 11-00 M 42 1 2 1 08 08 04 09 06 07 176 s 177 < 0 •P 8 n S w fa 3 fa 2 W W m © M fr © © rH o f' © ("• C M© rH rH rH ©© r* C M rH C M©©© © © © © o © ©©© © © © r" © r » > s 1^©© © © o o o o o o rH o oo o oo o o o o oo o o o o oo cNOco©r^©©^j'0©cM'H©*t©o©rH©oo©r^©o©o O H O H H n n H n H H n H O H H O H H O O O O n OH ©or^©cN©^*^i©r'*rH©©^*cM©r'«©i^r^®cM©r^©cM O r H O O r H O r H O O O r H r H O O O O O O O O O O O O O r H cMO©©©^f©©rHvo©<rt©r^©r^©©©^'<N©Hi, ©o© r l l N N H N H f i l H N H N H r l O r l H t M N H H O l H H H H H niflH^nnflNNfliTfnn^ninNMnNNnifiMlinco O O i H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ©©©©^•r^OrHOrHo\^.t^incMOrH«^<in©©©©©©OT O H rH r) H O H rl (V ) H O rH O O H H H H rH O rH O rH rH O rH < a S3 S' C M X c (Q « O' T J « d) W < u •g t r i ts hicOH| r'ioiDH'Cor'OOOio^| H^^fvoiflifiOO'<Jir'<j O O r H i —I r H O f - H O r H O O r H O O r H r H r H r H r H O r H r H O O O r H IN N N C M (M (V I (MMNCMIMININrH ^ • r H i n C N © © O r H C M © © t ' ' © © © 0 © r H © 0 © © © r H C M t ^ rH rH O OrH O HrH rH OO O OH OrH O rHO f-IHO O HO O Mt'tvoi^r>i^rsi4<ocovorHOMt^oicoa7a)ooooovoooooo r^Ttino'r'O'TtQbr^O'ooo'OHvDcninnfoin^^crivo^to z:sz:sss;sssz:ssfafafafafafafafafafafafafaS ooocN<-HOrHoooor^T#nrHooor^rH<yiOrHOr'r^rHOrM O rH O rH rH O O rH O O O O rH O rH O O O O O O O O rH O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OOrHOOrHOOrHrHrHrHOOOOrHOrHrHrHOOOrHrH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH r— I r-H i-H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH r^f^r^i^r^r^i^r^r^i>*f'-r^©cooooocoooco®coco®a)coco X 0 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©o rHC M© © © r* © © o rHC M© © © © © 1^ r~ © © © © O' * O' ’Q * ’O ' O' ID Schl Tchr C .A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X E L A B Total 492 7 18 10-11 M 30 1 2 1 10 07 05 1 5 04 07 050 493 7 18 10-07 M 77 06 1 09 1 5 10 24 08 1 4 083 494 7 18 11-02 M 38 13 1 07 07 05 09 03 11 045 495 7 18 11-06 M 00 0 2 1 13 11 05 26 06 1 4 078 496 7 18 10-08 M 77 0 4 1 1 3 09 06 11 05 10 056 497 7 18 11-08 M 64 01 1 06 09 07 1 2 04 19 060 498 7 18 11-09 M 60 1 4 1 11 11 06 13 05 10 059 499 7 18 11-03 M 80 08 1 06 04 05 21 05 17 062 500 7 18 10-10 M 00 03 1 1 2 1 4 09 20 05 13 077 501 7 18 11-03 M 44 1 4 2 08 07 08 1 5 08 07 056 502 7 18 11-04 M 44 05 2 1 4 27 13 16 09 09 091 503 7 18 10-06 M 42 13 2 06 1 2 04 16 07 06 055 504 7 18 10-07 M 26 01 2 09 09 05 1 7 01 13 056 505 7 18 10-09 M 46 07 2 08 13 07 27 06 23 087 506 7 18 10-07 M 30 04 2 05 05 0 4 1 4 03 1 4 047 507 7 19 10-05 F 77 04 1 07 11 07 15 08 21 071 508 7 19 11-00 F 77 06 1 08 11 05 13 03 16 058 509 7 19 10-11 F 86 08 1 08 1 5 05 22 07 13 072 510 7 19 11-02 F 86 07 1 06 1 2 05 08 03 03 041 511 7 19 11-03 F 96 07 2 08 08 10 08 06 05 047 512 7 19 11-03 F 96 02 2 09 10 07 19 07 10 065 513 7 19 10-11 F 97 10 2 11 10 05 22 06 26 083 514 7 19 11-03 F 84 08 2 11 08 06 10 06 1 7 060 515 7 19 10-10 M 84 02 1 11 09 05 1 7 06 13 063 516 7 19 11-05 M 96 05 1 08 04 03 1 4 02 20 053 517 7 19 11-02 M 98 03 1 17 20 06 18 06 05 074 £ 0 0 ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 518 7 19 10-10 M 76 01 1 18 18 1 5 22 11 1 2 099 519 7 19 10-06 M 80 11 1 1 4 13 06 1 5 08 24 084 520 7 19 10-11 M 00 10 1 08 10 08 1 5 06 1 4 064 521 7 19 10-07 M 86 09 1 11 09 07 21 04 16 070 522 7 19 10-01 M 84 09 2 1 2 09 06 1 5 05 09 058 523 7 19 10-10 M 74 01 2 11 13 05 17 06 1 7 071 524 7 19 10-11 M 70 04 2 08 1 2 01 13 01 08 047 525 7 19 11-04 M 88 05 2 1 2 09 08 23 0 2 22 080 526 7 19 10-11 M 54 03 2 1 4 09 08 1 4 08 1 5 070 527 7 19 11-00 M 88 06 2 09 08 04 10 03 09 045 528 7 20 10-06 F 26 00 0 04 05 06 1 7 09 11 054 529 7 20 11-01 F 76 00 0 10 07 04 25 09 13 071 530 7 20 10-07 F 76 00 0 11 07 05 1 7 06 09 057 531 7 20 10-07 F 90 00 0 08 08 06 1 4 05 07 050 532 7 20 10-07 F 70 00 0 09 07 04 16 07 08 054 533 7 20 11-02 F 01 00 0 06 05 02 10 03 1 7 045 534 7 20 11-01 F 00 00 0 09 06 09 1 7 08 13 065 535 7 20 10-09 F 23 00 0 10 09 03 13 04 08 049 536 7 20 10-07 F 38 00 0 1 2 13 06 20 06 13 072 537 7 20 11-05 F 80 00 0 09 19 04 1 4 03 11 062 538 7 20 10-07 F 76 00 0 08 10 03 27 03 16 069 539 7 20 10-09 M 82 00 0 08 09 05 1 7 03 10 054 540 7 20 10-10 M 42 00 0 07 08 05 1 2 05 10 049 541 7 20 11-07 M 50 00 0 04 04 0 2 10 03 06 031 542 7 20 11-01 M 60 00 0 06 06 07 09 07 06 043 543 7 20 10-11 M 10 00 0 1 2 09 04 07 05 13 179 < M in o 1 0 p l 8 0 l fNiDTj-n-HOr^r^ooncNOor^--iOTfvD'H(NCOnOLnvor^cN ininvovo^vovoin^oovomvo^r^t^r^vovotninvoinooinin o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o fa w < ^ C M < H O C D t ^ < n v O V D f M i H O O O O f S H C M ^ ' V D r ^ O O > - t < H v O > - t p ^ O O 0 > H i - t r H 0 0 < N 0 > H r H f - l 0 0 r H ( N > H i - l 0 0 0 < - ) r H 0 > H 0 0 a (Minvor^fnoNn^'Or^vDfNvp’tfOOOvDOOvDin^'^'^'r'fNCN O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r H O O O O O O O O O O fa ir»ovD'-t<y>ininvDOrnvor>ir^ovoooinro^i<r«(Nf^invor^<y) S 3 W C O s r^vonnminooomincovovor'vor^voc^invovoroininco o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 03 Q oono>co<N<nc'j'-icrifNvo<r<rMCOr^r'<nnrHor'r^<TirMO iHr-lrHOOr-IOi-I^Hr-lrHOOOOrHrHOrHHlHOOrHeHlH o<DO<ncnooa>oon'(riinooLnoo(T»'^r^>Hcoooror^vooo ■ H O iH O O -H iH O O rH O O O O O O -H O -H O O rH O rH iH rH £ •H ^ P (0 fa o o o o o o o o o ( N ( N N N ( N ( N N H r l r l H *g ( 0 fa oooooooooinHmrtLnt'ufi^M’trinMnpiflOh O O O O O O O O O O O O O i —I O O H O < H O O O r H r H O O 9 fa CO^OOvOCNOO^OOvOCO^Ovom^COCOOOCOOCOvO* ^•vo^oo^ooroooor^mn^cMt^r^nmnr^in^cN^inm 9 C O S S S S S S S S S f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a f a S S E S : < u o rH CN ON o O N o o r o r ^ ON o o i n ON rH r* rH 00 ON CN <n i n rH i n rH i 0 1 0 1 O i O ■ rH I O I rH 1 pH 1 0 1 o ■ O ■ O a 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 O | 0 1 0 1 O | 0 1 0 1 O | 0 1 1 o 1 pH 1 rH 1 rH 1 o 1 o 1 pH i o i rH 1 rH i o 1 o i rH 1 rH 1 rH 1 o 1 rH o rH o O rH CN rH rH rH rH pH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH pH rH rH rH pH rH u A o 6h O O O O O O O O O i H rH i — Ii-Hi— ti— Ii— IiHi— IrHi— If— IrHrHiHi— li— I (NN(NN('IN(N(N(NNNfM(NCM(NN(N(NNfN(N(NN(N(NN ■ s CO r» f' a ^,invor'COcytOrHc<cr>^, incor^a)<r*OrHc<j<'0^‘mvor^co<r» ^•^•^•^•^•^•tninkninminintnininvovovovocovovovocoio ininioininininininininininininininininininininininin ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 570 7 21 10-11 M 16 11 1 10 08 01 16 00 07 044 571 7 21 11-10 M 20 06 1 09 14 04 10 01 0 7 048 572 7 21 10-06 M 56 10 1 10 16 08 20 08 16 080 573 7 21 11-05 M 00 1 5 2 10 08 03 09 06 1 2 050 574 7 21 11-02 M 60 08 2 07 10 04 1 7 05 03 048 575 7 21 12-04 M 88 10 2 04 06 0 2 06 02 06 028 576 7 21 10-10 M 26 05 2 09 09 04 1 5 00 13 053 577 7 21 11-04 M 00 1 2 2 07 08 03 07 03 16 046 578 7 21 11-07 M 42 04 2 04 07 03 1 7 04 05 043 579 7 22 10-07 F 54 10 1 1 2 13 08 1 4 07 23 079 580 7 22 10-10 F 86 01 1 03 06 04 17 03 16 051 581 7 22 11-02 F 00 11 1 11 13 07 18 06 05 063 582 7 22 11-04 F 0 4 1 4 1 10 03 05 08 01 05 034 583 7 22 11-01 F 82 05 1 05 08 05 16 04 10 050 584 7 22 10-09 F 50 04 1 03 05 05 13 05 1 5 048 585 7 22 10-10 F 68 07 1 04 11 03 08 03 1 2 043 586 7 22 10-10 F 50 07 2 13 09 06 1 4 07 06 058 587 7 22 10-08 F 54 04 2 09 11 06 1 7 04 04 053 588 7 22 11-03 M 00 13 2 06 08 0 2 11 0 2 1 7 049 589 7 22 11-02 F 70 10 2 10 09 0 7 16 09 11 066 590 7 22 10-08 F 74 05 2 10 09 05 13 03 11 054 591 7 22 11-05 M 70 06 1 05 07 04 19 06 16 059 592 7 22 11-01 M 94 08 1 20 11 06 1 5 06 10 071 593 7 22 10-08 M 42 1 2 1 05 04 0 2 05 03 07 028 594 7 22 11-10 M 26 13 1 03 03 05 06 01 1 2 032 595 7 22 10-10 M 00 09 1 04 06 03 09 06 10 1 8 1 o s ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 596 7 22 10-07 M 80 02 1 1 2 10 05 18 06 15 068 597 7 22 11-05 M 56 11 2 13 10 05 16 03 08 057 598 7 22 11-02 M 00 03 2 06 06 04 09 05 1 7 050 599 7 22 10-07 M 38 1 2 2 08 09 05 07 05 11 048 600 7 22 11-09 M 54 01 2 06 07 03 04 0 2 09 033 601 7 22 10-10 M 23 06 2 07 05 06 05 06 15 046 602 7 22 10-08 M 20 08 2 05 04 04 16 05 08 044 603 7 22 11-03 M 56 09 2 10 08 04 08 05 07 044 604 8 23 10-05 F 44 00 0 08 09 05 24 05 13 066 605 8 23 11-01 F 50 04 1 08 08 02 09 04 16 049 606 8 23 10-11 F 30 00 0 06 09 0 2 21 05 15 060 607 8 23 10-11 F 00 06 1 10 1 4 05 16 04 24 077 608 8 23 10-08 F 26 00 0 06 07 03 15 02 11 046 609 8 23 10-05 F 68 00 0 07 07 04 10 06 1 2 048 610 8 23 11-04 F 00 00 0 08 08 04 1 4 07 1 7 060 611 8 23 11-01 F 44 09 2 02 02 02 16 01 00 025 612 8 23 10-08 F 00 00 0 11 05 0 2 16 01 14 051 613 8 23 10-05 F 96 06 2 10 13 07 18 0 7 08 065 614 8 23 11-02 F 00 00 0 04 06 0 2 06 03 18 041 615 8 23 11-00 F 23 00 0 07 09 03 1 7 09 28 075 616 8 23 10-05 F 80 08 2 08 1 2 06 1 4 07 11 060 617 8 23 10-05 F 00 00 0 09 10 07 28 07 17 080 618 8 23 11-02 F 70 07 2 11 1 2 07 24 04 16 076 619 8 23 10-07 F 48 00 0 08 11 05 26 06 15 073 620 8 23 11-08 F 05 04 2 05 03 01 19 03 07 040 621 8 23 10-11 F 16 00 0 05 05 04 1 2 02 20 182 o in o 646 8 2 4 10-07 F 0 0 0 4 2 1 4 1 2 0 2 0 9 1 1 1 7 068 647 8 2 4 10-11 M 5 6 0 4 1 0 8 1 3 0 3 1 2 0 5 0 5 048 £81 ^i^itki^i^^UWUUUUUIWUIUlMMMMNIMNM U1^U))0HO<0(S,>J9Ui ( u NHOU>00n19UI^u M OOCDOOOOODODOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOODCO I O M I O I O M N > I O N ) I O I O K ) M N ) M ( O M I O K ) M I O I O M I O N ) ^^^^^^■tki^UUUUUUIUUUUUUklUUU) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O M O O O O O O I — 'O M O O O M O O I— 1 OOJHtHUU'Hl'J'OHU'fflUIOitHUMIOOO'HH a s s s a s s s s s s s a : ^ o<uiuiotois^oOD^^^a>oo^^Hoot^otu)« ooo<J'o>iSooo^a)ioooo>vjoo^O'ooooNOoo'ut o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Hfl'OUHWfl'OU|HUO'IHOOUUIOfflOWOM MMOWHHHOMMWOHHOOHHOHOHOW H'H'h-'OOOI— ‘OH'H-'OOOOOt— *OOt— ‘OOO OI — 1 HHH(SOOU)OOOU<OOlU*(rObU10>>JO>M^U)OOUlO OMOI— ‘t— ■H'h-'l— ‘t— ■(— ‘O O O MO l— ‘Ol— ' O O O O O t — 1 ooovo^MOJ'J^vouiuivoatO'JOvoovovovoai^o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o yiinui6N)ttmu>mHMutDAinuiMNitoijiHH^ OHMMWHWHH^OHQUWIOH^HHHHHN O t O D > J O C O a i U I U U « U 1 U I ^ I O O O U I H l O U M U 1 > I U U I M O OOOOM OOOOOOOOOOPOPOOOO O0«^>l«'>JH>J>IV0U^O00UI>IU^<^^UUIUIUI KIMMHU’MHHOOOHM^OHUMOHOMHH O^PVO(TIUU1UO«ON)VOU^O'>J|->U<HOOOOI-IU)^ ooooi-'ooooooopi-'ooooppoopo O'viooviwvimo'NjiOwm^HU'viviooti&intrii^vj MOOHAIO^^N)OsI^O<^'JQOOMO^vIUHOUO 3 C 0 s* o 3* h o > CO 8 * 0* 4 so pi ** s o 0 1 ft H - s 00 CO M z g w £ 00 ► 3 0 ft 0 1 ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E IA B Total 648 8 24 11-02 M 84 00 0 08 10 05 14 11 19 069 649 8 24 10-09 M 00 00 0 07 11 05 24 04 16 069 650 8 24 11-01 M 74 0 2 1 06 06 03 1 5 03 18 053 651 8 24 10-07 F 84 00 0 07 04 0 2 1 5 06 18 054 652 8 24 11-05 M 44 0 2 2 05 04 01 26 00 10 048 653 8 24 11-00 M 00 00 0 06 06 00 19 0 2 23 058 654 8 24 11-00 M 80 05 2 07 05 0 2 1 4 09 16 055 655 8 25 11-00 F 42 09 1 09 10 00 09 08 10 048 656 8 25 10-11 F 96 08 1 06 09 03 20 06 1 4 060 657 8 25 11-01 F 82 13 1 19 18 06 36 1 4 10 105 658 8 25 10-11 F 82 16 1 0 7 07 03 1 2 06 3 4 071 659 8 25 10-08 F 84 01 1 08 11 07 20 06 13 067 660 8 25 10-11 F 74 1 5 1 07 10 06 20 07 26 078 661 8 25 10-10 F 68 06 1 1 7 1 2 04 20 1 2 19 086 662 8 25 10-10 F 80 07 1 1 2 1 2 03 23 07 15 074 663 8 25 10-09 F 56 1 2 1 07 07 04 22 0 7 09 058 664 8 25 10-07 F 26 03 1 1 2 1 2 05 22 11 28 092 665 8 25 11-05 F 00 04 1 13 19 06 17 1 2 04 073 666 8 25 10-11 F 70 00 0 06 09 06 18 05 11 055 667 8 25 11-02 F 96 00 0 1 7 20 08 25 1 2 29 113 668 8 25 12-01 F 44 08 2 07 08 04 09 02 11 043 669 8 25 10-09 F 76 07 2 06 11 08 1 7 10 16 070 670 8 25 10-07 F 97 01 2 10 09 07 3 2 1 4 29 103 671 8 25 11-06 F 86 00 0 1 4 18 1 2 27 1 5 1 5 103 672 8 25 11-03 M 82 1 4 1 07 10 03 26 05 1 7 071 673 8 25 11-02 M 94 05 1 05 08 04 24 06 3 2 082 g ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1/2 R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total 674 8 25 10-10 M 82 0 2 1 07 05 04 20 04 07 049 675 8 25 10-10 M 54 10 1 04 11 04 20 0 5 25 071 676 8 25 11-09 M 60 17 1 06 07 03 07 06 1 5 046 677 8 25 10-07 M 80 11 1 06 05 02 11 02 40 069 678 8 25 10-05 M 77 06 2 07 07 00 18 05 18 057 679 8 25 11-00 M 82 04 2 02 0 7 04 05 05 33 058 680 8 25 10-08 M 77 03 2 06 06 06 13 06 28 065 681 8 25 11-02 M 76 02 2 02 05 0 2 03 03 1 5 030 682 8 25 11-04 M 64 00 0 04 03 04 19 05 19 056 683 8 25 11-03 M 98 05 2 07 06 03 14 06 20 060 684 8 25 10-09 M 50 00 0 06 05 04 08 04 04 033 685 8 25 11-01 M 86 09 2 1 4 20 03 22 08 3 2 101 686 8 25 11-00 M 77 00 0 06 07 04 13 04 22 056 687 9 26 10-09 F 00 07 2 1 7 18 06 30 13 1 5 101 688 9 26 10-06 F 16 1 4 1 07 09 03 10 03 08 042 689 9 26 11-00 F 42 07 1 06 09 04 28 09 04 062 690 9 26 10-11 F 00 13 1 09 06 05 22 10 13 067 691 9 26 10-06 F 00 03 1 11 10 0 2 20 10 14 069 692 9 26 10-09 F 00 1 2 1 08 11 05 28 08 18 080 693 9 26 10-07 F 54 02 1 13 11 04 27 05 16 078 694 9 26 10-11 F 48 09 2 13 10 04 20 06 1 2 067 695 9 26 11-03 F 54 05 2 07 16 06 30 07 16 084 696 9 26 10-11 F 00 06 2 1 2 13 07 21 09 19 084 697 9 26 11-00 F 80 01 2 10 1 5 04 21 09 16 077 698 9 26 10-03 M 84 05 1 0 2 05 00 03 03 10 025 699 9 26 10-09 M 48 04 1 05 07 02 1 2 06 09 044 S S I ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1 / 2 R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B Total 700 9 26 10-09 M 42 06 1 1 2 15 07 31 07 30 104 701 9 26 11-08 M 70 09 1 06 07 04 08 05 1 0 042 702 9 26 11-06 M 0 0 08 1 08 13 0 2 1 0 06 05 046 703 9 26 11-04 M 08 1 0 1 06 06 04 1 0 04 23 055 704 9 26 10-07 M 44 1 1 1 08 1 0 04 06 05 15 050 705 9 26 1 1 - 0 2 M 50 0 1 1 08 1 2 05 19 05 07 058 706 9 26 10-06 M 34 1 1 2 07 06 05 08 05 09 042 707 9 26 1 0 - 1 1 M 42 13 2 06 05 03 1 2 05 1 1 044 708 9 26 10-08 M 0 0 14 2 1 2 1 0 05 15 08 13 065 709 9 26 10-09 M 30 08 2 06 08 04 1 1 0 2 1 2 045 710 9 26 11-04 M 84 04 2 07 1 0 0 1 1 1 05 46 082 711 9 26 10-08 M 60 03 2 06 1 2 03 13 05 13 055 712 9 26 10-06 M 70 1 0 2 09 1 0 06 1 2 06 17 062 713 9 26 10-07 M 74 0 2 2 06 09 0 2 1 1 07 09 046 714 9 27 1 1 - 0 1 F 96 06 1 09 18 1 0 2 2 13 34 108 715 9 27 1 0 - 1 0 F 80 07 1 06 07 03 07 09 1 1 045 716 9 27 1 0 - 1 0 F 64 03 1 1 2 1 2 06 27 1 1 30 1 0 0 717 9 27 1 0 - 1 0 F 64 0 2 1 1 2 16 07 18 1 0 25 091 718 9 27 1 1 - 0 2 F 0 0 04 1 13 15 09 37 1 0 24 1 1 0 719 9 27 10-04 F 8 8 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 04 2 1 1 2 28 087 720 9 27 09-11 F 60 04 2 1 2 1 0 04 2 2 1 2 2 1 083 721 9 27 1 1 - 0 0 F 77 06 2 13 15 07 29 13 09 088 722 9 27 10-09 F 92 09 2 08 06 0 1 13 07 18 055 723 9 27 11-03 F 99 0 1 2 1 0 14 06 2 2 1 1 1 0 075 724 9 27 11-04 F 80 08 2 14 19 06 38 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 725 9 27 1 0 - 0 1 M 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 06 2 0 13 18 o 00 ( O 98T ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1 / 2 R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Total 726 9 27 10-05 M 82 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 08 23 1 2 46 113 727 9 27 1 1 - 0 1 M 94 05 1 09 13 05 1 2 08 35 084 728 9 27 1 1 - 0 1 M 98 1 0 1 05 07 06 15 09 26 070 729 9 27 11-04 M 70 09 1 07 13 06 2 0 17 05 071 730 9 27 10-08 M 50 08 1 09 07 07 19 09 1 0 063 731 9 27 11-05 M 8 6 1 0 2 05 03 0 2 09 0 1 14 037 732 9 27 1 1 - 0 0 M 82 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 08 2 1 1 1 54 117 733 9 27 1 0 - 1 0 M 82 0 0 0 07 07 03 2 0 05 15 059 734 9 27 10-08 M 94 05 2 1 1 1 0 04 1 2 07 18 065 735 9 27 10-08 M 64 07 2 1 1 07 03 1 2 07 1 1 054 736 9 27 1 1 - 0 0 M 8 8 1 1 2 07 09 05 17 04 15 060 737 9 27 10-06 M 77 03 2 04 06 05 14 0 1 1 2 044 738 9 28 10-09 F 76 0 1 1 09 09 05 27 05 08 066 739 9 28 1 0 - 1 1 F 82 04 1 14 1 2 05 18 1 0 08 069 740 9 28 10-06 F 70 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 06 14 1 2 08 064 741 9 28 10-06 F 42 06 1 1 0 1 1 03 14 1 0 1 1 061 742 9 28 1 0 - 1 0 F 54 13 1 04 07 0 2 2 1 04 07 047 743 9 28 1 1 - 0 0 F 80 09 1 1 0 15 04 30 1 1 2 0 092 744 9 28 1 0 - 1 0 F 70 1 1 2 07 09 05 16 06 1 2 057 745 9 28 1 1 - 0 2 F 57 13 2 08 07 08 2 2 14 28 089 746 9 28 10-05 F 42 07 2 14 13 09 18 1 1 16 083 747 9 28 1 1 - 0 0 F 2 0 09 2 07 05 06 16 09 06 051 748 9 28 10-08 F 54 05 2 07 09 07 2 0 09 19 073 749 9 28 10-08 F 34 14 2 13 14 1 2 33 1 2 07 093 750 9 28 10-09 M 84 0 2 1 09 09 03 1 1 07 1 2 053 751 9 28 1 0 - 1 0 M 0 0 08 1 1 2 09 08 16 08 05 060 £ 7 7 5 9 2 9 10-04 F 0 0 0 5 2 0 9 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 7 2 4 079 7 7 6 9 2 9 10-09 F 2 6 1 4 2 1 4 1 5 0 3 2 9 0 6 1 8 087 7 7 7 9 2 9 11-04 M 6 0 0 9 1 0 4 1 1 0 4 2 6 0 5 2 4 076 >4 v l v l v i v l v l v i -J v i -o v l v i v l v i - J v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l v l as o r < as as < n 2 as ov as U 1 U l U 1 U 1 U l U l U l U l C J to t - * o so C D v j O s U l ui to M o vo 0 0 v j a » U l U> to S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O S O C O 8 * M W N M W I O W I O W I O W M I O W I O W W I O I O M I O W W VOCOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO • - 3 % lllllllllllllllllllllll O O O O O O O O O I —' O t - ' O O I —' O O M O O O O O u i u i w ^ c p o o o m ' i w u i m w u v i w o o o N i u i i j i t k o ^OOW'^OO^OU'^^fflCOU'O'OOOfl'^'PMO o > CO a * C L iQ H M O H O O H ' O M O H O H ' O O O O O H M H O O OHWU)(Ti6 LnvJOWO01)WUHt(J''JHM*‘ WU 1 5 0 01 to to to N) t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o I—‘ t-l O ( - , t-, O O t - l l—‘ O O O M O O O O I —‘ O l —‘ O O O H W D H U l ' J O O H ' J s J U l v l O O ' J k O U l H O O H ' f i U ' L 5 0 < " ^ 1 ' iQ g o I—> f O |—‘ O l —‘ I—‘ O O I —' O O I —‘ O t —‘ I—‘ O O I —‘ O l —‘ O O O I O O H t O O ) A v D O O I O ( S O ) 0 « O U i ( D O ' 0 ' J H 9 U i ' J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o p o o (Ti^OiLa)U1UU10^iLU<(^(S^^OUIU)U1>^^IO N W I O t O U I H h ' I O I O H H I - ' I O H I - ' O H H I - ' H l O H H fruiioiOHifiu9oo\wa)uotioooo^uuiioo9 O O O O I - ' O O O O O p O O O O O O H ' M O O O M ( 0 « 0 0 D « 0 ^ > J O t 0 U > v 0 i P > 0 > U i U < v 0 N l t 0 O H * A > l 0 0 O H H H H M H H P W O H P H l O H p H l O H H O O H U)9tf90cnuiuiui«to>Jou^^piMOHW(Sio s o C D CO m a s ► * 1 s K n 5 ? C D o OO o H *o o o o O 2 o o o o 2 o p o o o 2 o 00 S O 00 vl o as Ul vl S O Ul as Os vl vl Ul vl Ul 2 Ul Ul U> S O OJ Ul 0100 vl 4k to Ul as Ul Ul I-1o to Ol as 01 U) Ul Ul H 3 o ri ot 881 ID Schl Tchr C Ji. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1 / 2 R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Total 778 9 29 10-09 M 0 0 08 1 08 14 1 0 2 1 06 23 085 779 9 29 10-08 M 96 05 1 14 16 08 24 15 31 1 1 0 780 9 29 1 0 - 1 1 M 98 0 1 1 08 08 07 05 04 13 048 781 9 29 10-08 M 23 13 1 06 03 04 06 1 0 17 052 782 9 29 10-06 M 82 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 06 1 1 1 0 15 067 783 9 29 1 0 - 1 0 M 1 2 14 1 03 06 03 16 1 1 24 065 784 9 29 11-03 M 74 03 1 1 1 1 1 05 2 1 1 1 2 0 081 785 9 29 10-07 M 34 1 1 1 08 1 2 06 16 07 1 2 063 786 9 29 11-07 M 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 06 2 1 1 2 1 1 073 787 9 29 1 1 - 0 2 M 23 07 2 05 05 03 19 0 2 24 060 788 9 29 1 1 - 0 2 M 50 06 2 1 0 07 0 1 2 0 06 14 060 789 9 29 1 0 - 1 1 M 48 03 2 09 1 0 03 1 0 06 25 065 790 9 29 1 1 - 0 0 M 6 8 1 2 2 09 09 05 2 0 04 25 074 791 9 29 10-06 M 48 09 2 06 06 03 04 06 2 1 048 792 9 29 1 0 - 1 0 M 54 08 2 07 15 05 2 0 09 09 067 793 9 29 1 0 - 1 0 M 54 04 2 14 17 04 23 07 09 076 794 9 29 11-07 M 96 0 1 2 13 08 04 1 0 07 15 060 795 9 30 10-07 F 0 0 0 1 1 08 09 04 2 1 1 0 2 2 076 796 9 30 11-05 F 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 09 05 19 09 14 068 797 9 30 1 0 - 1 1 F 82 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 06 18 08 25 079 798 9 30 10-05 F 84 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 06 26 15 27 096 799 9 30 11-06 F 34 05 1 15 2 0 05 28 16 26 1 1 2 800 9 30 10-06 F 77 03 1 1 2 14 04 16 13 05 066 801 9 30 1 0 - 1 1 F 60 0 1 2 07 05 0 2 27 08 05 056 802 9 30 10-06 F 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 09 0 2 15 1 0 13 062 803 9 30 11-03 F 54 09 2 08 1 1 03 16 07 24 071 £ to ID Schl Tchr C.A. Sex Rdg Rank Rating 1 / 2 R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total 804 9 30 1 1 - 0 2 F 14 03 2 15 07 06 28 14 17 089 805 9 30 10-05 F 0 0 06 2 1 0 15 05 26 07 27 092 806 9 30 1 0 - 1 1 M 48 09 1 1 0 15 04 17 05 17 070 807 9 30 10-09 M 80 08 1 1 2 1 0 07 2 1 1 2 23 087 808 9 30 10-07 M 60 06 1 06 08 06 09 06 23 061 809 9 30 1 1 - 0 2 M 54 04 1 05 1 1 05 1 2 06 08 049 810 9 30 1 1 - 0 2 M 26 1 0 1 08 08 04 2 2 07 37 088 811 9 30 11-04 M 80 1 1 1 1 0 06 08 23 17 13 079 812 9 30 1 1 - 0 1 M 0 0 13 1 05 08 07 14 08 17 061 813 9 30 10-09 M 0 0 07 1 1 1 09 05 08 07 23 065 814 9 30 10-06 M 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 08 26 14 29 1 0 0 815 9 30 10-09 M 0 0 04 2 08 08 06 24 06 1 1 065 816 9 30 11-03 M 44 13 2 06 09 0 1 1 1 08 07 044 817 9 30 1 0 - 1 1 M 38 05 2 05 05 03 16 07 15 053 818 9 30 11-04 M 54 07 2 08 06 04 05 04 07 036 819 9 30 10-08 M 34 1 2 2 05 07 04 1 0 04 16 048 820 9 30 10-09 M 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 09 03 08 07 15 055 ♦821 9 30 10-04 M 60 1 0 2 07 08 05 15 06 19 062 ♦Actual N = 820; ID No. 100 excluded because of missing G T O C scores. v o o APPENDIX B IN D IV ID U A L CIASS IN T E R C O R R E L A T IO N M A T R IC E S A N D DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 191 T ea ch er 1 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .4 9 ^ .30+ .5 5 ^ .24 -.15 .5 9^ 33 10.18 3.40 R E D B A9** 1 . 0 0 .03 .59^ .16 - . 0 1 .65** 33 12 .67 4.32 S E N .30* .03 1 . 0 0 . 2 1 .34^ .18 .45** 33 6 . 1 2 2 .53 F L U .55** .59** . 2 1 1 . 0 0 .42** -.03 .82** 33 22.79 8.93 FIX .24 .16 .34^ .4 2 ^ 1 . 0 0 .16 .59** 33 8.36 3.44 EIAB -.15 - . 0 1 .18 -.03 .16 1 . 0 0 .40** 33 14.15 7.30 Total .5 9^ .65^ .4 5 ^ .82 ♦♦ • 59^ .4 0^ 1.00 33 76.37 18.45 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . v o N > T ea ch er 2 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N FL U F L X EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 • 6 0 ^ .32^ .14 .35* - . 1 0 .4 5^ 33 10.27 3.22 R E D B .60** 1 . 0 0 .42 ♦♦ .34^ .45** . 30^ .79** 33 13.12 4.49 S E N .32* .4 2 ^ 1 . 0 0 .5 8 ^ .41** - . 0 1 .59** 33 6.55 2.31 FL U .14 .34^ .5 8^ 1 . 0 0 .52** . 0 2 .66** 33 21.61 6.30 F L X .35* .45^ .41** .5 2^ 1 . 0 0 -.03 .61** 33 8 . 0 0 3.65 EIA B - . 1 0 • 30^ .01 . 0 2 .03 1 . 0 0 .56** 33 18.61 8.83 Total .4 5^ .79** .59** .66** .6 1^ .56** 1 . 0 0 33 80.30 17.66 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence • ♦♦Significant a t the . 0 1 level of confidence - i - 1 VD U ) T ea ch er 3 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N FLU FIX EIA B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .6 8 ^ .6 0^ .5 5^ .31 .36^ .69** 25 10.52 3.06 R E D B .6 8 ^ 1 . 0 0 .7 0^ .42 ♦ .57** .64** .85** 25 14.48 4.44 SE N .6 0^ .70** 1 . 0 0 .50^ .57** .62** .83** 25 6.32 2.90 FL U .5 5 ^ .42* .5 0 ^ 1 . 0 0 .30 .39* .71** 25 20.04 6 . 6 6 FIX .31 .57** .57** .30 1 . 0 0 .31 .58** 25 7.36 3.40 EIA B • 36^ .64** .62** .39^ .31 1 . 0 0 .83** 25 19.96 1 0 . 0 1 Total .69** .85** .83** .71** .5 8 ^ .8 3 ^ 1 . 0 0 25 80.92 23.46 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . t T ea ch er 4 Pears on Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X EIA B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .57* • 61# . 1 1 .49^ . 1 0 .59* 1 2 9.00 3.59 R E D B .57^ 1 . 0 0 .36 .30 .51* .18 .69** 1 2 11.58 4.32 S E N .61* .36 1 . 0 0 .23 .69** .34 .69** 1 2 5.58 2 .23 FL U . 1 1 .30 .23 1 . 0 0 .39 - . 0 1 .61* 1 2 19.83 7.26 FIX .49^ .51* .69** .39 1.00 .34 .78** 1 2 8.25 2 .80 EIAB . 1 0 .18 .34 - . 0 1 .34 1 . 0 0 .57* 1 2 18.67 7.01 Total .59* .69^ .69** .6 r* .7 8 ^ .57^ 1.00 1 2 75.00 17.15 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . V O u i T e a c h e r 5 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .36* - . 1 1 .4 5^ -.09 . 0 2 .47** 30 10.70 3.47 R E D B .36* 1 . 0 0 .09 A3** .14 .18 .65** 30 13.37 3.74 S E N - . 1 1 .09 1 . 0 0 .43** .5 4 ^ - . 0 1 .54** 30 6.27 2.95 FL U .4 5^ .4 3^ AS** 1 . 0 0 .56^ -.16 .79** 30 16.60 5.12 FIX -.09 .14 .54** • 56^ 1 . 0 0 -.25 .53** 30 7.93 3.90 EIAB . 0 2 .18 - . 0 1 -.16 -.25 1 . 0 0 .33* 30 13.70 5.60 Total .47** .6 5 ^ .5 4 ^ .79** .5 3 ^ • 33^ 1 . 0 0 30 71.03 13.75 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . v o O' T e a c h e r 6 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIA B Total N Mean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .6 6 ^ .24 .44 ♦♦ .13 -.06 • 5 5 ^ 31 10.39 2.89 R E D B .66** 1 . 0 0 .23 .4 5^ .17 -.08 .5 7^ 31 13.13 3.91 S E N .24 .23 1 . 0 0 .60^ .12** .54^ .81** 31 7.39 3.28 FL U .44^ .45^ .6 0 ^ 1 . 0 0 A8** . 39 ♦ .81** 31 14.13 5.63 FIX .13 .17 . 72♦♦ .4 9^ 1 . 0 0 .23 .63** 31 8.42 2 .80 EIA B -.06 -.08 .5 4^ .39^ .23 1 . 0 0 .57** 31 10.19 4.76 Total .55^ .5 7^ .8 1 ^ .87** .6 3^ .51** 1 . 0 0 31 66.16 15.93 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . V O -J T ea ch er 7 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U F L X E L A B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .7 8^ .37* .4 4 ^ .35* -.14 .72** 31 10.45 3.71 R E D B .78** 1 . 0 0 .32* .39^ .5 !♦♦ -.06 .77** 31 14 .03 4.09 S E N .37* .32^ 1 . 0 0 .4 6^ .43^ .07 .69** 31 6.90 3.59 FL U .44 ♦♦ .39^ •46^ 1 . 0 0 • 35^ -.31* .58** 31 16.16 3.93 F L X .35* .51** .4 3^ .35^ 1 . 0 0 .18 .71** 31 8.06 2.99 E L A B -.14 -.06 .07 -.31* .18 1 . 0 0 .28 31 10.16 5.13 Total .72** .77** .69** .58** .71** .28 1 . 0 0 31 68.06 14.20 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . V O o o T ea ch er 8 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .5 3 ^ .46** .4 0 ^ .42** .23 .6 9 ^ 32 9.72 3.85 R E D B .5 3^ 1 . 0 0 .41** •41## .45** .23 .70** 32 12 .13 4.37 SE N .4 6 ^ .4 1 ^ 1 . 0 0 .55** .78** .08 .69** 32 6.06 2.65 FL U .4 0^ .4 1 ^ .5 5 ^ 1 . 0 0 .45** .33* .76** 32 13.25 4.81 FIX .42** •45^ .7 8^ .4 5^ 1 . 0 0 .07 .67** 32 7.09 3.67 EIA B .23 .23 .08 .33* .07 1 . 0 0 .60** 32 13.84 6.87 Total .6 9 ^ .70** .6 9^ .76** .6 7^ .60** 1 . 0 0 32 64.53 18.13 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . V O vo Teacher 9 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .40** .41** .27 .09 -.18 .48** 34 1 0 . 1 2 3.34 R E D B .40** 1 . 0 0 .56** .47** .50** -.25 .6 6 ** 34 14.03 3.35 S E N .41** .56** 1 . 0 0 .27 .04 .04 .58** 34 7.74 3.00 FLU .27 .47** .27 1 . 0 0 .52** .06 .80** 34 21.47 5.82 FIX .09 .50** .04 .52** 1.00 -.23 .51** 34 8.71 3.42 EIA B -.18 -.25 .04 .06 -.23 1 . 0 0 .32* 34 17.06 6.39 Total .48** .6 6 ** .58** .80** .51** .32* 1 . 0 0 34 81.26 14.11 to o o T ea ch er 10 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .65** .36* .62** .6 2^ . 1 1 .73** 33 11.76 3.79 R E D B .6 5^ 1 . 0 0 . 2 0 .44** • 53^ . 36* .73** 33 15.15 4.40 S E N .36^ . 2 0 1 . 0 0 .48** .4 6^ - . 0 1 .52** 33 9.03 3.99 FL U .62♦♦ A4** .4 8^ 1 . 0 0 .53** .26 .82** 33 23.67 8 . 0 2 FIX .62** .53** .46^ .5 3 ^ 1 . 0 0 . 1 2 .70** 33 9.06 3.77 E L A B . 1 1 .36* - . 0 1 .26 . 1 2 1 . 0 0 .59** 33 16.36 8 . 6 6 Total .73** .73** .5 2^ .82^ .70^ .59** 1 . 0 0 33 87.03 22.60 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦♦Significant at the . 0 1 level of confidence. T ea ch er 11 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U F L X EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .59** .71** .40* .67** .35* .80** 30 8.87 3.51 R E D B .59** 1 . 0 0 .62** .34* .43** .42** .77** 30 9.90 4.43 S E N .71** .62** 1 . 0 0 .60** .72** . 2 0 .83** 30 4.93 3.15 FL U .40* .34* .60** 1 . 0 0 .46** . 0 1 .67** 30 18.53 6.53 F L X .67** .43** .72** .46** 1 . 0 0 .34* .77** 30 4.87 3.18 E L A B .35* .42** . 2 0 . 0 1 .34* 1 . 0 0 .57** 30 17.53 5.96 Total .80** .77** .83** .67** .77** .57** 1 . 0 0 30 66.80 19.04 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . N > o t o Teacher 12 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIAB Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .27 .33* .32^ .17 • 35^ .6 3 ^ 28 11.25 3.35 R E D B .27 1 . 0 0 .35* .29 .28 .28 .6 1^ 28 13.21 3.59 SE N .33* .35* 1 . 0 0 .33* .36* .08 .50** 28 5.75 1.96 FL U .32* .29 .33* 1 . 0 0 .55** . 1 2 .73** 28 17.64 6.54 FIX .17 .28 .36* .55** 1.00 . 0 2 .52** 28 5.86 2 .49 E L A B .35^ .28 .08 . 1 2 . 0 2 1 . 0 0 .65** 28 14.86 7.30 Total .6 3^ • 6 1 ^ .5 0 ^ .73** .52** • 65^ 1.00 28 70.79 16.09 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence • * ♦Significant at the . 0 1 level of confidence • ro o O J T e a c h e r 13 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N F L U F L X EIAB Total N Mean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .74** .70** . 2 2 .54* -.62* .42 1 9.45 3.08 R E D B .74** 1 . 0 0 .6 6 * .42 .71** -.13 .82** 1 10.27 3.32 S E N .70** .6 6 * 1 . 0 0 .42 .76** -.52* .56* 1 5.73 2 . 0 0 FL U . 2 2 .42 .42 1 . 0 0 .62* -.14 .71** 1 12.55 4 .84 FIX .54* .71** .76** .62* 1 . 0 0 -.25 .80** 1 5.64 2.29 E L A B -.62* -.13 -.52* -.14 -.25 1 . 0 0 .19 1 16.55 7.01 Total .42 .82** .56* .71** .80** .19 1 . 0 0 1 62.18 11.55 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . 204 Teacher 14 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U F L X E L A B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .74** •40w .34^ .4 8 ^ .25 .67** 28 9.86 2 .59 R E D B .74** 1 . 0 0 .26 .08 .49** . 2 2 .57** 28 13.61 3.90 S E N .40* .26 1 . 0 0 .37* .40* .32^ .56** 28 5.96 2 . 0 1 FL U .34* .08 .37* 1 . 0 0 .33* .42** .70** 28 19.29 6 . 2 0 FIX .48** .49^ .40* .33* 1 . 0 0 .31 .64** 28 7.39 2 .75 EIA B .25 . 2 2 .32* .42** .31 1 . 0 0 .78** 28 17.82 8.81 Total .67** .57** .56** .70** .64** .78** 1.00 28 76 .43 18.22 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence . ♦♦Significant a t the .01 level of confidence • to o VI T e a c h e r 15 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .62** .40* .48** .35* -.09 .58** 28 11.14 3.95 R E D B .62** 1 . 0 0 .6 8 ** .69** .43** .16 .80** 28 14.07 3.53 SE N .40* .6 8 ** 1 . 0 0 .50** .53** .28 .73** 28 5.21 2 .53 FL U .48** .69** .50** 1 . 0 0 .39* .27 .8 6 ** 28 22 .36 8 . 0 0 FIX .35* .43** .53** .39* 1 . 0 0 -.09 .50** 28 6.75 2 .94 EIA B -.09 .16 .28 .27 -.09 1 . 0 0 .54** 28 16.57 7.96 Total .58** .80** .73** . 8 6 ** .50** .54** 1 . 0 0 28 78.11 19.74 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . K> o T ea ch er 16 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .60** .57** .33* .52** .37* .6 8 ** 28 12 .29 3.63 R E D B .60** 1 . 0 0 .50** .40* .28 .19 .63** 28 14.50 4.22 SE N .5 7 ** .50** 1.00 .34* .40* .47** .65** 28 6 . 0 0 2.54 FL U .33* .40* .34* 1 . 0 0 .39* .25 .85** 28 27.21 14.01 FIX .52** .28 .40* .39* 1 . 0 0 .30 .63** 28 8.82 4.17 E L A B .31* .19 .41** .25 .30 1 . 0 0 .56** 28 13.57 5.52 Total .6 8 ** .63** .55** .85* ~ .63** .56** 1 . 0 0 28 84.61 24.28 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence • **Signif icant at the . 0 1 level of confidence • to o T ea ch er 17 Pearson Product^Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIAB Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .6 6 ** .62** .56** .4 3^ .39* .84 ♦♦ 29 10.03 3.97 R E D B .6 6 ♦♦ 1 . 0 0 .70** .42** .5 3 ^ .27 .79** 29 11.62 4.57 SE N .62** .70** 1 . 0 0 .27 .26 .19 .62** 29 5.52 2.53 FL U .56** .42** .27 1 . 0 0 .26 .16 .69** 29 19.31 6.42 FIX .43** .5 3 ^ .26 .26 1 . 0 0 .44** .66** 29 7.93 3.39 E L A B .39* .27 .19 .16 .44 ♦♦ 1.00 .64** 29 15.97 6.71 Total .84** .79** .62** .6 9 ^ .66** .64** 1.00 29 72 .69 19.27 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to o 00 T e a c h e r 18 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N FL U F L X EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 ,S2** .19 .46** .27 -.04 .63** 29 9.97 3.34 R E D B .62** 1 . 0 0 .6 0 ^ .37* • 5 8^ . 0 2 .78** 29 10.97 4.83 S E N .19 .60** 1 . 0 0 .26 .34* .18 .61** 29 5.62 2.54 FL U •46^ .37* .26 1 . 0 0 .29 .38^ .79** 29 17.07 5.39 FIX .27 .58** .34^ .29 1 . 0 0 - . 1 2 .53** 29 5.72 2 .45 E L A B -.04 . 0 2 .18 .38* - . 1 2 1 . 0 0 .46** 29 11.59 4.61 Total .6 3 ^ .7 8 ^ .61** .79** .5 3 ^ .46** 1 . 0 0 29 63.59 15.25 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to o v o T ea ch er 19 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .52** .5 0^ .45^ .51** .09 .71** 2 1 10.52 3.19 R E D B .52** 1 . 0 0 .29 .36 .45* -.26 .50** 2 1 1 0 . 8 6 3.57 S E N .50** .29 1 . 0 0 .27 .68** -.04 .56** 2 1 6.29 2 .78 FL U .45* .36 .27 1 . 0 0 .29 .43* .80** 2 1 15.76 4.61 FIX .51** .45^ • 6 8 ^ .29 1 . 0 0 . 1 2 .66** 2 1 5.43 2.46 E L A B .09 -.26 -.04 .43* . 1 2 1 . 0 0 .55** 2 1 14.05 6.37 Total .71** .5 0 ^ .5 6^ .80** .66** .5 5 ^ 1.00 2 1 65 .48 14.51 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to » - • o Teacher 20 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .51** . 1 2 .25 .08 .17 .60^ 25 8.60 2 .06 R E D B .51** 1 . 0 0 .04 .13 -.23 .06 .46** 25 9.04 3.21 S E N . 1 2 .04 1 . 0 0 . 1 2 .5 3 ^ - . 2 1 .34* 25 4.64 2 . 0 2 FL U .25 .13 . 1 2 1 . 0 0 .34^ .18 .77** 25 14.88 4.89 FIX .08 -.23 .5 3 ^ .34^ 1 . 0 0 -.26 .36* 25 5.00 2.38 EIAB .17 .06 - . 2 1 .18 -.26 1 . 0 0 .45** 25 10.92 4.04 Total ,6 0 ^ .4 6^ .34^ .77** .36* .4 5^ 1 . 0 0 25 55.36 9.98 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence • ♦♦Significant at the . 0 1 level of confidence • to i — 1 i - * Teacher 21 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .74** .38* .37* .26 .29 .7 5^ 26 8.92 3.01 R E D B .74** 1 . 0 0 .40* .40^ .47** .19 .80^ 26 10.54 4.31 S E N .38* .40^ 1 . 0 0 .25 .6 0^ .37* .63** 26 4.92 1.87 FL U .37* .40^ .25 1.00 .47** - . 1 2 .68** 26 16.15 5.59 FIX .26 .47** .60^* .47** 1.00 .35* .72** 26 4.62 2 .62 EIA B .29 .19 • 37^ -.12 .35* 1 . 0 0 .4 6 ^ 26 9.92 4.06 Total • 75^ .8 0^ .6 3 ^ .68** .72** .4 6 ^ 1 . 0 0 26 57.46 14.44 ♦Significant at the ♦♦Significant a t the .05 . 0 1 level of confidence level of confidence m • to ► - » to T e a c h e r 22 Pears on Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .6 0^ • 5 7 ^ .32 .37* - . 2 1 .6 5^ 25 8 . 0 0 4.12 R E D B • 6 0 ^ 1 . 0 0 .4 8^ .47** .41* .04 .76** 25 7.80 2 .90 S E N .5 7 ^ .4 8 ^ 1 . 0 0 .43* .55** .03 .69** 25 4.76 1.51 FL U .32 .47** .43* 1 . 0 0 .42* .05 .73** 25 1 2 .08 4 .76 FIX .37* .41* .55** .42 ♦ 1 . 0 0 .18 .6 8 ^ 25 4.52 2 . 0 0 EIAB - . 2 1 .04 .03 .05 .18 1 . 0 0 .35* 25 1 1 . 2 0 4.65 Total • 6 5 ^ .76** .69** .73** .6 8 ^ .35* 1 . 0 0 25 50.72 12.64 ♦Significant a t the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to t - * u > T each er 23 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .67** .56** . 2 2 .41** -.05 .47** 34 7.79 3.01 R E D B .67** 1 . 0 0 .63** .34* .58** .13 .65** 34 8 . 6 8 3.39 S E N .56** .63** 1 . 0 0 .32* .46** .19 .61** 34 3.85 2 . 0 2 FL U . 2 2 .34* .32* 1 . 0 0 .49** . 1 2 .74** 34 18.35 9.69 FIX .41** .58** .46** .49** 1 . 0 0 .18 .6 6 ** 34 4.68 2 .24 EIAB -.05 .13 .19 . 1 2 .18 1 . 0 0 .61** 34 15.09 9.55 Total .47** .65** .61** .74** .6 6 ** .61** 1 . 0 0 34 60.50 19.36 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . NJ £ T eacher 24 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .46^ .33 -.28 .6 6 ^ .08 .34 17 8.47 2 .29 R E D B .46 ♦ 1 . 0 0 .51* .06 .48^ . 0 1 .45^ 17 9.82 3.86 S E N .33 .51* 1 . 0 0 .19 .46^ .50^ .71** 17 3.65 1.80 FL U -.28 .06 .19 1 . 0 0 -.33 .37 .52* 17 17 .71 6.49 FIX .66** .48^ .46^ -.33 1 . 0 0 .23 .44 ♦ 17 6.71 3.26 E L A B .08 . 0 1 .50^ .37 .23 1 . 0 0 .8 5^ 17 19.59 10.54 Total .34 .45 ♦ .71** .52^ .44 ♦ .8 5^ 1.00 17 68.18 17 .81 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to T eacher 25 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean c R E D A 1 . 0 0 .82^ .37* .62 ♦♦ .79** -.09 .75** 32 8.31 4 .28 R E D B .8 2 ^ 1 . 0 0 .49** .55^ .74** -.04 .76** 32 9.81 4 .65 S E N .37* .49** 1 . 0 0 .46** .62** -.04 .5 5 ^ 32 4 .44 2.38 FL U .62** .55** .46** 1 . 0 0 .65** . 0 1 .79** 32 17.88 7.57 FIX .79** .74** .62** .65^ 1 . 0 0 -.04 .79** 32 7.13 3.54 E L A B -.09 -.04 -.04 . 0 1 -.04 1 . 0 0 .42** 32 19.38 9.46 Total .7 5^ .76** .55^ .79** .79** .42** 1 . 0 0 32 68.84 20.99 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . 216 T eacher 26 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX EIA B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .64** .57** .62** .64** . 2 0 .76** 27 8.41 3.20 R E D B .64** 1 . 0 0 .47** .65** .51** . 2 2 .76** 27 1 0 . 1 1 3.40 S E N .57** .47** 1 . 0 0 .59** .39* .09 .61** 27 3.96 1.74 FL U .62** .65** .59** 1 . 0 0 .67** .15 .84** 27 16.63 8.27 FIX .64** .51** .39* .67** 1 . 0 0 . 0 2 .65** 27 6.41 2 .48 E L A B . 2 0 . 2 2 .09 .15 . 0 2 1 . 0 0 .58** 27 14.44 8.35 Total .76** .76** .61** .84** .65** .58** 1 . 0 0 27 62 .07 19 .46 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . io - j T eacher 27 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N F L U FIX E L A B Total N M ean a R E D A 1 . 0 0 .6 8 ** .38* .69** .56** . 2 0 .69** 24 9.42 2 .80 R E D B .6 8 ** 1 . 0 0 .71** .72** .6 8 ** .28 .80** 24 10.75 4.11 S E N .38* .71** 1 . 0 0 .60** .53** .45** .77** 24 5.46 2 . 2 1 FL U .69** .72** .60** 1 . 0 0 .53** .18 .76** 24 19.58 7 .71 FIX .56** .6 8 ** .53** .53** 1 . 0 0 . 2 1 .67** 24 9.33 3.85 E L A B . 2 0 .28 .45** .18 . 2 1 1 . 0 0 .71** 24 2 1 . 2 1 12 .03 Total .69** .80** .77** .76** .67** .71** 1 . 0 0 24 78.00 23.68 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . IS) T eacher 28 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX EIA B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .62** .58** .29 .49** -.05 .59** 28 8.57 2 .81 R E D B .62** 1 . 0 0 .39* .48** .39* .25 .73** 28 9.18 2 .79 S E N .58** .39* 1 . 0 0 .48** .43** .19 .70** 28 5.04 2 .44 FL U .29 .48** .48** 1 . 0 0 .23 . 1 1 .71** 28 17 .46 5.84 FIX .49** .39* .43** .23 1 . 0 0 .26 .63** 28 8 . 2 1 2 . 8 6 E L A B -.05 .25 .19 . 1 1 .26 1 . 0 0 .58** 28 12 .04 6 . 2 0 Total .59** .73** .70** .71** .63** .58** 1 . 0 0 28 62 .61 14 .87 ♦Significant at the .05 level of confidence. * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .01 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . N > V O Teacher 29 Pearson Product^Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B S E N F L U FIX E L A B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .53^ . 0 2 .44 ♦♦ .4 2^ -.06 • 61## 29 9.69 3.40 R E D B .5 3 ^ 1 . 0 0 .34^ .65** .31* - . 1 0 .7 5^ 29 1 0 . 8 6 3.91 S E N . 0 2 .34^ 1 . 0 0 .09 .30 . 0 0 • 33 + 29 4.69 2 . 1 1 FL U .44 ♦♦ .6 5 ^ .09 1 . 0 0 .28 .13 .84^ 29 19.59 7.80 FIX .4 2 ^ .31* .30 .28 1 . 0 0 .04 • 54^ 29 8 . 0 0 2 .90 EIA B -.06 - . 1 0 . 0 0 .13 .04 1 . 0 0 .38^ 29 18.41 5 .48 Total .6 1^ .7 5^ • 33^ • 84^ .54^ .38^ 1 . 0 0 29 73.48 15.73 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . to to O j T eacher 30 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations R E D A R E D B SE N FL U FIX E L A B Total N M ean C T R E D A 1 . 0 0 .50** .23 •45^ • 65^ .23 .66** 27 9.00 2 .80 R E D B .5 0 ^ 1 . 0 0 .06 .26 .27 .30 .54** 27 9.52 3.33 S E N .23 .06 1 . 0 0 .34^ .4 3^ • 38^ .52** 27 4 .74 1.77 F L U .45^ .26 .34^ 1 . 0 0 .64 ♦♦ .34^ .79** 27 17.81 6.83 FIX .65^ .27 .43^ • 6 4^ 1 . 0 0 .17 .70** 27 8.93 3.70 E L A B .23 .30 .38^ .34^ .17 1 . 0 0 .73** 27 17.96 8 . 1 0 Total .66** .5 4^ .5 2 ^ .79** .70** .73** 1 . 0 0 27 70.00 18.42 ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . ♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0 1 l e v e l o f c o n f id e n c e . N ) to APPENDIX C T H E G R O U P TEST O F C R EA TIV ITY A D M IN IST R A T IO N M A N U A L TEST B O O K L E T S C O R IN G G U ID E 222 G T O C G R O U P TE ST O F C R EA TIV ITY Administration Manual Scoring Guide by Newton S. Metfessel, Ph .D Mary D. H am m ond, A.B. 1st Revision 1972 -233 y G R O U P T E ST O F C R EA TIV ITY Administration Manual 224 225 j i i I | j General Instructions for Examiners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . " | ■ . jl. Establish rapport with the subjects by taking time to explain that this is a te s t of creativ ity in which he or I ! I she w ill be asked to make different or unusual responses! I i to a wide variety of questions. i i I ! 2. Help the subjects understand how a creativity te s t j ; j differs from other achievement or intelligence te sts j | ! they m ay have taken where there is only one correct ! I answer. ! ; 1 3. Urge the subjects to liste n to the directions carefully, but to feel free to give unusual or different responses th at m ay occur to them. Stress that there is no one | correct answer. i !4. Watch individual subjects in the group for te s t anxiety f I and give the examinee encouragement by reminding him or her that there can be no wrong answer in a te s t of creat i\ i t y . 5. Materials to be used in administering this te s t w ill be found in the G T O C Record Blank. 6 . In the directions for adm inistration, instructions th at | are to be read to the examinee w ill appear in capital | ! le tte r s . i i i i Directions for Administering the Test REDEFINITION ABILITY M aterials: Doodle A i I Directions Turn to doodle A and say to the subject: I W A N T Y O U T O T E L L M E W H A T Y O U T H IN K TH IS D R A W IN G ! M IG H T BE. T H E R E IS N O O N E R IG H T A N S W E R . I JUST W A N T T O SE E H O W M A N Y D IFFEREN T T H IN G S THIS M IG H T B E F O R Y O U . F O R E X A M P L E , TH IS D R A W IN G M IG H T B E A SU N R ISE (pause) O R IT M IG H T B E A H A T. N O W W H A T D O I ! Y O U T H IN K TH IS M IG H T B E ? i j The subject m ay turn the drawing in any way he chooses, I although no instructions are given that he may do th is . If I he should ask if i t is permissible for him to turn the draw- i . j mg, say: i i YES, Y O U M A Y IF Y O U W ISH. REDEFINITION ABILITY Materials: Doodle B Directions Turn t o d o o d le B and s a y t o th e s u b j e c t : I W A N T Y O U T O T E L L M E W H A T Y O U T H IN K TH IS D R A W IN G l I j M IG H T BE. T H E R E IS N O O N E R IG H T A N S W E R . I JUST I I W A N T T O SE E H O W M A N Y D IFFER EN T T H IN G S TH IS M IG H T i i B E F O R Y O U . j | SENSITIVITY T O P R O B L E M S i . Directions I A M G O IN G T O A S K Y O U T O T E L L M E S O M E O F T H E P R O B L E M S T H A T Y O U M IG H T H A V E W IT H SO M E T H IN G . F O R E X A M P L E , IF I S H O U L D A SK Y O U W H A T A R E S O M E O F T H E i P R O B L E M S Y O U M IG H T H A V E W IT H A PENCIL, Y O U M IG H T S A Y T H A T Y O U M IG H T JA B Y O U R S E L F W IT H T H E S H A R P | POINT, T H E L E A D M IG H T B R E A K , O R Y O U M IG H T L O S E ! T H E PENCIL. I 1(1) N O W , N A M E A LL T H E P R O B L E M S Y O U M IG H T H A V E W IT H A i | B R O O M . Y O U M IG H T G E T A SPLINTER IN Y O U R H A N D F R O M i 1 A W O O D E N H A N D L E , O R T H E B RISTLES M IG H T M ISS S O M E O F T H E DIRT. N O W C A N Y O U T H IN K O F O T H E R P R O B L E M S T H A T Y O U M IG H T H A V E W IT H A B R O O M ? 228 F L U E N C Y O F T H IN K IN G j j Directions I ! | ! N O W I W A N T T O SE E H O W M A N Y T H IN G S Y O U C A N D R A W IN | | | F O U R M IN U T E S . E A C H D R A W IN G M U S T H A V E A C IR C LE IN i ! j I IT. Y O U M A Y A D D A N Y O T H E R LIN ES Y O U N E E D TO . j D R A W IN G ABILITY IS N O T IM P O R T A N T . I A M JUST INTER- j I ! E S T E D IN H O W M A N Y T H IN G S Y O U C A N D R A W . Y O U H A V E j i t 1 i O N L Y F O U R M IN U T E S . R E M E M B E R , E A C H D R A W IN G M U S T H A V E A CIRCLE. j FLEXIBILITY O F T H IN K IN G i I [ Directions I Say to the su b jects: I ! Y O U C A N D O M A N Y T H IN G S W IT H A SH O ESTR IN G . F O R O N E i i TH IN G , Y O U C A N U S E A S H O E ST R IN G T O K E E P Y O U R S H O E S | O N Y O U R FEET O R Y O U C O U L D A L S O U S E IT T O F L Y A I j B A L L O O N . T E L L M E A LL T H E K IN D S O F D IFFEREN T A N D i | U S E F U L T H IN G S T H A T C O U L D B E D O N E W IT H A SH O ESTR IN G . O R IG IN A LITY Directions Turn to the cartoon and say to the subjects : L E T U S S A Y Y O U W E R E A C A R T O O N IS T A N D T H A T Y O U H A D JUST D R A W N TH IS C A R T O O N . W H A T W O U L D Y O U H A V E TH IS j 2 2 9 M A N SA Y IN G ? W H A T C O U L D H E B E SA Y IN G ? PR O PE N SIT Y F O R E L A B O R A T IO N I i [ Directions j jHave subjects turn to stimulus sheet in the record booklet j jand say: I ! | THIS IS T H E B E G IN N IN G O F A D R A W IN G . IT C O U L D B E A ' D R A W IN G O F A L M O S T A N Y T H IN G . W H A T I W O U L D LIK E Y O U T O D O IS FINISH T H E D R A W IN G . T H E R E IS N O O N E R IG H T ! D R A W IN G . Y O U M A Y D R A W A N Y T H IN G Y O U LIKE. P L E A S E I M A K E Y O U R D R A W IN G A S C O M P L E T E A S POSSIBLE. JECT TENTIQL NEWTON S. M E T F E S S E L , P h. D. , P r in c ip a l In v e stig a to r D ir e c to r , C en ter fo r the Study of E d u cation ally (C ulturally) D isad van taged Youth U n iv e r sity of Southern C aliforn ia G T O C GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY T h ese m a te r ia ls m ay be reproduced only with p e r m is s io n of the D irecto r, Bureau of Educational R e se a r c h , U n iv ersity of Southern C alifornia. No further reproduction p erm itted , without w ritten p e r m issio n from the sam e sou rce. G T 0 C Group T est o f C r e a tiv ity Name Sex G rade D a t e Year Month Day Add re s s Deseen t Born _ _ Year Month Bay F a th e r 's Occupation M other's O c c u p a t i o n ________________ FACTORS SCORES R S S S R e d e fin itio n R e d e fin itio n S e n s it iv it y to Prcbler.3 Fluency o f Thinking F l e x i b i l i t y o f Thinking O r ig in a lity E lab oration Remarks Examiner f 2 .3/ 1. L is t a l l th e th in g s t h i s p ic tu r e co u ld b e . 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 5. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. IS. L is t a l l th e th in g s th i s p ic tu re could be. 1 . 2 . 3. ________________________________________________________________ 4 . ________________________________________________________________ 5. ________________________________________________________________ 6 . 7. ; ____________________________ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1C. 19. 20. SENSITIVITY TO PRO BLEM S Problems you might have w ith a broom: A. Might g e t a s p lin t e r in your hand. B« B r i s t l e s might m iss some o f th e d i r t . FLuiriCY Jr . 1 c.3 r.-.cry thinr.n nc ycu cr.r, u - i n c a c i r c l e . L a b e l ea c h d r a u i n o . FUSIBILITY How many d if f e r e n t k in d s o f th in g s can you do w ith a sh o e strin g ? A. Use i t to keep shoes on your f e e t. 1. ______________________________________ : ___________________________ 2 . , _ 3. -___________________________________________________________ 4 . ___ _______________________________________________________________ 5._ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. ------------------------------------------------- 7. _________ ; ________________________________ _ 8. ______________________________________________________________ 9. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10. U. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12. 13. ■ , ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. _______________ _______ ___________________________________________ 15# _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16, .___________________________ 17.____________________________________________________________________ 18. - _ _ 19,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. _______________________________________________________________ 21. ____________________________________________________________ 22. .__________________________________________________________________ 23. ______________________________ __________________________________ 24. ___ _______________________________________________________________ 25. ___________________________________________________________________ 1-2 -3 & Ill THE "BALLOON LIKE" SPACE BELO W , WRITE IN SOM ETH ING FU N N Y THAT THE M A N O N THE ISLAND MIGHT BE SAYING — BE ORIGINAL! ELABORATION INSTRUCTIONS: IN FIVE MINUTES, USING THE W A V Y LINE, D R A 1 J A LARGE DETAILED PICTURE GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY Scoring Guide 239 ; 240 I Directions for Scoring the Test A te s t of creativ ity m ay be expected to present some new, surprising, and intriguing tasks. While these tasks i !m ay be bewildering to some subjects, they w ill be challeng- ! jing to others . The scoring for a te s t of creativ ity also jpresents certain perplex ities. N o scoring guide for a crea- ! tiv ity te s t can be absolutely d efinitive as i t is impossible I jto anticipate a ll creative responses. There are no speci- i I fic . exclusive, and exhaustive rig ht answers—only appro- i ! j priate ones . This scoring guide, then, is primarily a man- 1 ! i I j iual of scoring principles. M any examples are included to j i ; j . jillu stra te the principles involved. Once the principles are i grasped, the scoring becomes relativ ely simple and re lia b le . REDEFINITION ABILITY O ne point is given for each response. The wide v aria tion of the objects that have been identified may be seen ! from the sample of responses listed below: Doodle A: 1. Ant h ill 2. Archway 3. Ash tray attached to a wall 4. Baked Alaska 5. Bald man sinking in quick sand 6 . Ball floating in water 7. Basketball hoop seen from above 8 . Beehive 241 9. Bowl with a plate on top 1 0 . Bowl upside down on plate 1 1 . Bridge arch 1 2 . Bubble of plaster/w ater 13. Cat glowering through lowered lids 14. Ceiling light 15. Coin stuck in the sand 16. Cross section of g uillotin e 17. Cross section of stream and ground level 18. Door b e ll 19. Door stop 2 0 . D om e of observatory/pavilion/ stadium 2 1 . Drop candy on a board 2 2 . Drop of water about to drip from faucet 23. Fat man in telephone booth 24. Footlight 25. Fried egg 26. Fringe on a s k irt 27 . Half grapefruit/orange on a plate 28. Halo 29. Handle on a suitcase 30. Hat 31. H ill in the distance 32 . Ice cream on a plate 33. Igloo 34. Inch worm 35. Irrigatio n ditch 36. Letter D/P 37. Light on an instrument panel 38. Loop on the back of a dress 39. Magnet 40. M an (bald) walking on other side of fence 41. M an coming out of manhole 42 . Marble stuck half way in cement 43. M oon setting on lake 44. Mouse hole in wall 45. 180 degree geometric symbol 46. Person/man/woman bending over, seen from behind 47. Pregnant lady coming around the corner 48. S k ill saw blade sticking through wood 49. Snake th at has ju st swallowed something 50. Snail 51. Soap bubble on water 52 . Stomach of fa t person behind wall 53. Sun coming over wall 242 54 . Sun d ial 55. Sun peeking over cloud 56. Sunset 57 . Sword handle 58. Tail light on a car 59. T eeter-totter 60. Tire well 61. Tongue sticking out of wide mouth 62. Tunnel 63. Turtle 64. Wart/pimple/bump on skin seen under magnifying glass Doodle B: 1. Acoustical til e 2. Amoeba 3. Air bubbles risin g to surface of water 4. B um ps on a metal plate 5. Burners on a stove 6 . Button holes 7. Car with four headlights, turning 8 . Cars/planes/kirds/blim ps/airships/tanks in formation 9. Clouds and horizon 10. Cobblestones beside fence 11. Cookies on cookie sheet 12 . Dents in metal 13. Diagram of a dance step 14. Fish swimming near surface of water 15. Flying saucers 16. Footprints 17. Fried egg on a griddle 18. G iraffe's neck 19. Holes in sheet metal/ground/tree trunk 2 0. Inner tubes on a lake 21. Insulating board 22. Islands in a lake 23. Jelly beans 24. Knotholes in a tree/board 25. Knotty pine 26. Lace 27. Lakes 28. Leopard's back 29. Light fixture in ceiling r ------ 1 243 30. Pancakes on a griddle ! 31. Paramecium I 32. Pennies bouncing up after someone has pounded j on the table 33. Planaria, squashed | 34. Polka dot m aterial 35 . Skin pores seen through magnifying glass I 36. Snake holes ! 37. Space ships I 38. Splatters of paint ! 39. Stepping stones ! 40. Stones in a pond 41. Swiss cheese ! 42. Surface of the moon 43. Tiddly-winks 44. Toy (put pegs in the holes) 45. T w o people on other side of sofa blowing smoke rings 46. Tracks in snow (elephant, bear, abominable 1 snow man) 47. Tufts on chenille bedspread SENSITIVITY T O P R O B L E M S j One point is given for each appropriate response. The {only d iffic u lty likely to be encountered in scoring th is subtest is in deciding when there are duplications of re - i ;sponses . A response is considered a duplicate when the I I problem identified is the same as previously stated but described by different adjectives. A sample of appropriate responses and examples showing duplications of responses are liste d below: Broom: 1. I m ay get tire d using the broom 2. M ay lose broom 3. Broom m ay not f i t in closet 244 4. 5. 6 . 7 . 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 . 18. 19. 2 0 . 21. 2 2 . 23. 24. 25 . 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Broom may not stand upright/keep falling down (Duplicate: The broom keeps falling) Broom may be too heavy Broom may be too expensive to replace M ay tr ip over broom (Duplicate: Slip on it) M ay not have adequate technique (Duplicate: Leave dust) The surface to be swept may be wet I may forget to put back broom and get spanked Carrying i t home from sto re —i t 's awkward Finding suitable place to keep broom B ristles B ristles B risties B ristles Br is tie s Br is tie s B ristles Br is tie s B ristles (Duplicates : B ristles B ristles d irt B ristles B ristles B ristles B ristles straws) may break straws) m ay f a ll out straws) may wear down straws) may wear unevenly straws) m ay be too short straws) may be too long straws) may be too flexible straws) m ay be too s tif f straws) may get wet B ristles Br is tie s B ristles (straws) (straws) may get bent (straws) may not pick up and contain (straws) m ay get muddy (straws) m ay get sticky m ay get dirty) (straws) m ay scatter d irt (straws) may not get into corners (straws) may not get into small places (straws) may not be shaped rig ht to get under places B ristles (straws) may not be shaped right to get into corners B ristles (straws) may be too coarse for fine dust B ristles (straws) may catch fire such as sweeping hot ashes into fireplace Handle may break (Duplicates: Handle may s p lit; Handle m ay crack) Handle may get lost Handle may yield splinters Handle may warp Handle-may be too long 245 | 36. Handle may be too short j 37. Handle may knock things over j 38. Handle may get caught in door 39. Paint m ay chip off handle F L U E N C Y O F T H IN K IN G One point is given for each drawing of something round jthat the subject id e n tifie s. I t is not necessary that the j i [drawing be recognized in and of its e lf , but rather th at the i ! {drawing be consistent with the name given for i t by the j I j {subject. ! i | S This subtest is to measure Ideational Fluency, or the i j number of ideas involving a circle that the subject can convey. A rtistic a b ility is not important. For th is rea- I i I I {son, credit has been given for drawings of anything round, even though the actual drawings may be more oval than c i r cular . Credit is given for the drawing the subject is working i i jon at the end of the time lim it, providing the subject names the appropriate object. (See the following page for exam ples of credit responses.) 246H e » Ball Marble Cup Face Mouth Half dollar Salt shaker Rolling pin Golf cup ; — 24 7 | I j I FLEXIBILITY O F T H IN K IN G i I Points are assigned in the F lex ib ility subtest for the Inumber of d ifferen t kinds of uses specified. These d iffe r - ! ent kinds of major classification s are shown in capital i jletters in the example below, with those considered to be in a sim ilar class liste d in small le tte rs . i jUses for a shoelace: 1. B O O K M A R K 2. B U N D L E , BIND, TIE LIK E T H IN G S T O G E T H E R Tie sticks/papers/keys/pages of a book; Hair band 3. C O L L A G E M A T E R IA L 4 . D R A W S T R IN G Drawstring for trunks/bag/purse 5. F U SE 6 . H A N D L E F O R B A S K E T 7. H A N G O R S U S P E N D Pictures/toy for a chiId/pendant/broom/ | m obile/skirts on a hanger/laell from a bird j cage 8 . H A R N E S S O R L E A S H Leash for toy ra t/c a t 9. H O L D C L O S E D Hold closed a door/box/suitcase/drawer; * ■ - Tie up a package j 10. HOLD OPEN I Tie curtains back; Tie door open 11. HOID DOWN Tie cushions in chair; Tie knife against leg; Tie holster against leg 12. H O L D T O G E T H E R Tie up chicken/roast for cooking/barbecuing 13. KILL 14. LIN E (horizontal, from which to hang things) 15. P L U M B LIN E 16. P U L L Pull for a window shade; Pull a toy wagon 17. P U L L E Y B E L T 248 18. SE W IN G /L A C IN G Lace football; Sew/mend with i t 19. STR IN G B E A D S 20. U S E IT T O T E A C H C H IL D R E N T O TIE B O W S 21. TIE O N E T H IN G O N T O A N O T H E R Tie a tag on a package; Stake up a flower 22. T O U R N IQ U E T T O ST O P B L E E D IN G 23. TIE U M B IL IC A L C O R D 24 . W E A V E N o credit is given for responses th at have no u tility or for those which are extremely implausible, such as "lose |it," "break i t , " "fly a k ite ." i j Scoring Example | jTie up shrub cuttings; use as a key ring; hold door open; | hang up a mobile..................................................................................... 3 points i O R IG IN A LITY j Zero to six points may be assigned to the response. i The general, subjective principles that are used to award points are as follow s: N o response................................................................................... 0 points Inappropriate response that is neither funny nor clev er..................................................................................................................... 1 point Appropriate response that is neither ftinny nor clev er.......................................................................................................................2 points Appropriate response th at is slig h tly funny or clev er..................................................................................................................... 3 points Appropriate response th at is moderately funny or clev er......................................................................................................................4 points 249 [Appropriate response that is very funny or clev er......................................................................................... A n appropriate pun.................................................................... 5 pointsj 6 points Scoring Examples 1 point responses i (N o one point responses are assigned as some subjects j give "inappropriate" responses with the intention to j indicate the m an on the island has lost contact with reality ) "W hy did you have to find me?" "What must a person do to find a l i t t l e peace and quiet?" "W elcome to the land of paradise." 4 point responses I "M y wife and I thought you would never make i t ." ! "Ah, the mail boat?" "Dr. Livingston, I presume!" I "Friday 1 " j "No, m y ship is the Queen Mary!" 5 point responses "Just when I find peace and quiet, to u rists!" "Oh, no, m y wife!" " I t's about time you fellows got here. M y wife thinks she is a palm tree!" 6 point responses |2 point responses j "M y mother planted these v iolets la st spring." [ "Are you coming or going?" ! "W ho are you?" 3 point responses "Here comes m y mother-in-law. N ow I am at sea!" "W elcome to S ailo r's Heaven, where the dates are great." 250 ; I | E L A B O R A T IO N I This subtest is d iffic u lt to score accurately, but when one understands the psychological principles involved, scor- i | ling re lia b ility is high. For the person who possesses a i high propensity for elaboration, the production of one idea |ju st naturally leads to another. This subtest measures how ! im any ideas the subject expresses . The special concern is I 'with the number of ideas which are not absolutely necessary, j jbut which elaborate the basic concept. The following steps jare suggested. i I 1. The scorer should decide what is the basic idea the j i subject is trying to express . What is the sim plest, unelab-j I jorated idea which incorporates the stimulus line? O ne point I |is given for th is idea. j 2. Next, one point is assigned for each additional I idea that is expressed in the drawing. I Some ideas consist of more than one part even in th eir i |simplest form. For example, i t is d iffic u lt to determine how many ideas are involved in a drawing of a person. I t has been our practice to give only one point for the drawing of a person that contains the simple representations of the head, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, body, arms, hands, legs, and fe e t. An additional point is given, however, for each of 251 ; i i i Ithe following elaborations. i ! A. Hair, eyelashes, eyebrows, pupil or iris in eyes, n o strils in addition to the outline of the nose, lip s, (teeth, tongue, fingers. I B. Each d eta il th at is shaded. j C. Each d e ta il th at is given extra lines to express j i j (wrinkles or convolutions. Clothes on the person present | (another problem. Again w e have followed the principle th at ;one point is to be assigned for each additional d e ta il. i i Examples of d etails for which we award one point each are ; j as follow s: A horizontal line representing a waist line or b elt i j Belt buckle | Pocket Buttons down the front of the s h irt Buttons on the cuffs Collar ( Button on the collar Patches Tie ! Design on any d eta il j Heel on a shoe Shoelaces on shoes Shoelace eyelets on shoes Hair bow An additional problem arises in regard to the scoring of objects that are repeated. Som e subjects draw several people, trees, birds, ships, and so on. The practice has been to award one point, but only one point, for each 252 scorable d eta il th at is duplicated, no matter how many times i t may have been repeated. 1 For the drawing of a boat, i t has been the practice to assign one point for the simple h ull stru ctu re. An addi tio n a l point is awarded for each added idea such as a mast, i jsail, cabin, deck, stacks, rigging, anchor, and so on. A n I Additional point is given for each elaboration such as a i 'ball on the mast, crow's nest, man in the crow's nest, ! |decoration or designation on the s a il, portholes in the ! cabin, d eta il showing the hooks on the anchor or the ring i where the anchor has been attached to the rope. An addi- i jtional point is given, of course, to each object th at is i jshaded, detailed, or given extra lines to represent an ad- i d itio nal idea or elaboration. I f APPENDIX D I IN ST R U C T IO N A L M A T E R IA L F O R T E A C H E R S ! 253 To the teacher: I would like to extend to you in advance, my appreciation for your participation in this study. It is a study on the nature of the creative child, and it has been authorized by the school district, as well as by your building principal. You will be asked, as a participant, to do two things: 1) Rank the children in your class, by halves, according to your judgment of their creative potential; 2) Receive information and explanations regarding the identification of creative children. All information gathered by the investigators will be held in complete confidence. Ivio identification of any student or any teacher will be made in the study. The ranking of the children will be accomplished in two parts, and the information will be given to you by the investigator during a time period convenient to you — before scnool, after school, during recess — what ever time is most convenient to you. The investigator will go over the information with you, answer any questions you might have, and will take no more than ten or fifteen minutes of your time. The rankings themselves should take no more than five or ten minutes of your time. Please note: You will be asked to consider your students in two groups. Please establish these two groups as follows: 1) Insert the names of late enrollees in your rollbook in the proper alphabetical order - just a pencilled notation will do - so that you have one complete list of your class members in alphabetical order; 2) Then draw a pencil line at the mid-way point so that you have two groups - the first half of the class according to alphabetical order, and the second half of the class according to alphabetical order. 3) If you have an odd number of students, place the "extra" student in the first half (e.g ., 17 students from "Andrews" to “Lev/is", 16 children from "Lowman" to "Zeeman".) The twenty-five minutes or so of your time will help add to the research that is directed toward more successful development of children’s individual abilities. Your cooperation in this study is very much appreciated. Diane Stauts RANKING SHEET #1 TEACHER NAME______________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL SCHOOL______________________________________________ To th e teach er: P le a s e c a r e fu lly c o n sid e r th e n am es in th e fir st h a lf o f your a lp h a b e tic a l lis t in g o f stu d en ts in your r o ll b o o k , and an sw er th e fo llo w in g q u e stio n s from th e sta n d p o in t o f your current und erstanding o f th e term " crea tiv e p o te n tia l* " O f th e fir st h a lf o f your c l a s s , w h ich c h ild , in your ju d g m en t, h a s th e “g r e a te s t p o ten tia l for c r e a tiv ity ? 1 )______________________________ _____________________ is th e m ost c r e a tiv e c h ild , in my ju d g - (C h ild 's fu ll nam e) m en t, in th is h a lf o f th e c l a s s . W ho i s th e n ex t m ost lik e ly p erson in your judgm ent to b e la b e le d a s h a vin g th e " greatest p o te n tia l for c r e a tiv ity ? " That i s , after th e nam e lis t e d a b o v e , w ho is your se co n d c h o ic e for fu lfillin g th e requirem ent ? 2 )____________________________________________________ is th e se c o n d m o st c r e a tiv e c h ild , in my ju d gm en t, in th is h a lf o f th e c l a s s . W ho is th e third m ost lik e ly member o f th e h a lf o f the c la s s under c o n sid e r a tio n to b e term ed by you a s h avin g th e " g rea test p o te n tia l for c r e a tiv ity ? " 3 )____________________________________________________ i s th e third m ost c r e a tiv e ch ild in th is h a lf o f th e c l a s s , in my judgm en t. Are th e r e , am ong th is h a lf o f your c l a s s , oth er stu d e n ts whom y o u w ou ld la b e l a s "having h ig h p o ten tia l for c r e a tiv ity ? " L ist th e s e stu d e n ts b e lo w , in rank o r d e r from th e m ost c r e a tiv e to th o s e you regard a s le a s t c r e a tiv e . 4 )________________________________________________ 5 )________________________________________________ 6 )_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7)____________________________________ ___________ o\ T h ese ch ild ren are lis t e d in d e sc e n d in g rank order a s the 9)____________________________________________________ rem ainder o f th e ch ild ren in 10» th e fir st h a lf o f th e c la s s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- w ho sh ou ld probably b e 1 1 )____________________________________________________ la b e le d a s c r e a tiv e . 12 ) ______________________ 13 )________________________________________________ 14 )________________________________________________ 15 )________________________________________________ 16 )________________________________________________ 17 )________________________________________________ 18 )________________________________________________ I f s p a c e i s in s u ff ic ie n t , y o u m ay u s e th e b ack o f th is s h e e t or a d d itio n a l s h e e t s . Thank mnnsratinn In this stlldV. RANKING SHEET * 2 S Q M flP M H A L TEACHER NAME SCHOOL_______ To th e tea ch er: In lig h t o f th e d is c u s s io n and in form ation al m a teria ls y o u h a v e r e c e iv e d from th e in v e s t g a to r regard ing th e id e n tific a tio n o f th e c r e a tiv e c h ild , w ou ld y o u p le a s e a n sw er th e fo llo w in g q u e stio n s: O f th e se c o n d h a lf o f your c l a s s , w h ich c h ild , in your Judgm ent h a s th e g r e a te s t p oten t for c r e a tiv ity ? 1 ) i s th e m o st c r e a tiv e c h ild , in m y Judgm ent, in th is h a lf o f th e c la s s * W ho i s th e n e x t m o st lik e ly p erson in your Judgm ent to b e la b e le d a s h a vin g th e g rea tes p o te n tia l for c r e a tiv ity ? That i s , after th e nam e lis t e d a b o v e , w h o i s your se c o n d c h o i for fu lfillin g th e req u irem en t? 2) i s th e se c o n d m o st c r e a tiv e c h ild in i Judgm ent in th is h a lf o f th e c l a s s . W ho i s th e third m o st lik e ly member o f th e h a lf o f th e c l a s s under c o n sid e r a tio n to b e term ed by y o u a s th e m o st c r e a tiv e ? 3 ) i s th e third m o st c r e a tiv e c h ild in th i h a lf o f th e c l a s s , in m y ju d gm en t. Are th e r e , am ong th is h a lf o f your c l a s s , o th er stu d e n ts whom y o u w ou ld la b e l a s "havii h ig h p o te n tia l for c r e a tiv ity ?" L ist t h e s e stu d e n ts b e lo w , in rank order — from th e m e c r e a tiv e to t h o s e y o u regard a s l e a s t c r e a tiv e . 4 )___________________________________________________ 5 )__________________ - - ________________ 6 )_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7)___________________________ ; _______________________ . T h e s e ch ild ren are lis t e d in — ................. .. ■ — d e s c e n d in g rank order a s the g \ rem ainder o f th e ch ild ren in ............................. ■ ■ —■ ■ ■ ■ s e c o n d h a lf o f th e c l a s s a c - 10) cord in g to m y judgm ent o f th c r e a tiv e p o te n tia l — from 1 11) m ore c r e a tiv e to th e l e a s t ^ c r e a tiv e c h ild . C h a r a c te r istic s o f th e H igh ly C reative C hild The h ig h ly c r e a tiv e c h ild ten d s to b e s u p e r -e n e r g e tic , p la y fu l, and to h a v e a strong s e n s e o f hum or. H e fin d s it d iffic u lt to u nd erstand w hy o th ers d o n 't tak e s te p s th at h e s e e s a s d e s ir a b le . H e o fte n p u z z le s o v er th in g s or e v e n ts th at are o b v io u s to o th e r s . H e u s u a lly d em o n stra tes c o n sid e r a b le to le r a n c e for d istu rb a n ce and e v e n c o n f lic t. H e i s w illin g to r isk fa ilu r e , se ttin g h igh stan d ard s for h im s e lf and h is work and c h o o sin g th e m ost d iffic u lt t a s k s and g o a ls . H e i s s e lf - a s s e r t iv e and d o m in a tin g . H e k n ow s h e is d iffe r en t but fin d s th is r e a liz a tio n u n d istu rb ln g. H e very m uch a p p r e c ia te s b e a u ty . H e te n d s to k eep a lo o f from p e o p le , preferring n ot to bother w ith c lo s e r e la tio n s h ip s . H e i s in d e p e n d e n t, r e s o u r c e fu l, s e lf - s u f f ic ie n t . * H e is in s a tia b ly c u r io u s. * H e u s u a lly prefers to m ake judgm en ts by in tu itio n rather than a n a ly s is . * H e to le r a te s am b igu ity w e l l , fu n ction in g h a p p ily in c o n d itio n s th at la c k stru ctu re. * H e is not e a s ily fru stra ted . * H e i s s e lf - c r it i c a l , ra rely q u ite s a tis fie d w ith h im s e lf or h is w o rk , b ut on th e othei hand n o t e a s ily d is c o u r a g e d . * H e o fte n in d u lg e s in fa n ta s y and c r e a tiv e flig h ts o f im a g in a tio n . * H e is f le x ib le , sh iftin g e a s il y to m eet n ew situ a tio n s w h en req u ired . * H e o fte n a c ts in w a y s th at se e m lmmatun and o v e r ly im p u ls iv e . * H e m ay fe e l d ou b ts about h is ow n s e x id e n tity b e c a u s e o f popular id e a s o f s e x u a l c h a r a c te r is tic s ; i . e . , g ir ls sh ou ld not b e in d e p e n d e n t, b o y s sh ou ld not b e s e n s it iv e . * H e m ay sh o w s ig n s o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l m aladjustm ent but h e c a n r a lly inner r e so u r c e s to d e a l w ith h is m a la d ju st m en t. H e m ay appear lo n e ly or s o c ia lly * H e m ay learn to read or w r ite more is o la t e d , but h e d o e s n ot f e e l th a t s lo w ly than e x p e c te d , b e c a u s e o f h is w ay b e c a u s e th e situ a tio n i s h is many other in te lle c tu a l in t e r e s t s , ow n c h o ic e . H e p refers n o v e l a p p r o a c h e s, a sy m m etrica l d e s ig n s , and co m p le x s it u a t io n s . Frank E. W illia m s , "T eaching for C reativity C ontinuing P r o c e s s ." In stru cto r. LXXXI (D ecem b er, 1 9 7 1 ), 4 2 -4 4 D i r e c t T e a c h in g S tr a te g ie s I u s e c o lo r fu l, v o c a b u la r y -str e tc h in g la n g u a g e in ta lk in g w ith c h ild ren . I c h o o s e re a d -a lo u d m aterial o f m any d iffe r en t k in d s , m oods and v o c a b u la r ie s . I so m etim es s to p in m id -sto r y to ask, "What do you think h ap p en s n e x t ? " I m ake sure th at th e c h ild lea r n s w ords th a t are s ig n ific a n t to him and th at h e can u s e to e x p r e ss h is ow n f e e lin g s . I p r a ise rather than c r it ic iz e a b e g in n er's read in g and w riting e f f o r t s , le a v in g th e co rrectio n o f errors for la te r . I am p a tie n t in en cou ragin g ch ild ren to e x p r e ss th eir i d e a s , n o m atter how ten u o u s th e thought or h e s ita n t th e e x p r e s s io n . I h e lp ch ild ren lo o k a t ev ery d a y o b je c ts and e v e n ts w ith a fr e sh e y e . I a llo w ch ild ren tim e to t e ll me about n ew e x p e r ie n c e s in th e ir ow n w a y . I furnish p la c e s w h ere a ch ild can retire to r e a d , lo o k , e x p e r im en t, m a n ip u la te, c o n te m p la te , and dream; and I g iv e him tim e to do i t . I p rovide o p p o rtu n ities for p u p ils to m eet p e o p le who are d iffe r e n t from th e m s e lv e s . I ta k e my stu d e n ts o u t s id e th e c l a s s room and th e s c h o o l o n trip s o f v a rio u s n a tu r e s, d u r a tio n s, and p u r p o se s. I s e e to it th a t ch ild r e n e x p e r ie n c e b ea u ty s o th e y m ay lea rn to a p p r ecia te it and try to em u late i t in th eir s e l f - e x p r e s s io n . I a llo w o p p o rtu n ities for p u p ils to plan both curricular and extracu rricu lar e v e n t s . * I in trod u ce my p u p ils to e x a m p le s o f v a ried l i f e - s t y l e s , a d u lt o c c u p a tio n s and le is u r e a c t i v i t i e s , and adult a c c o m p lish m e n ts. * I arrange for ch ild ren to e x p e r ie n c e pro f e s s io n a l p ro d u ctio n s in a r t, m u s ic , dram a. * I furnish a c t iv it ie s o n s e v e r a l le v e l s o f d iff ic u lt y , le ttin g a c h ild c h o o s e h is l e v e l but en co u ra g in g him to s tr e tc h . * I stim u la te ch ild ren to e n g a g e in e x p e r ie n c e s in e s tim a tin g , p r e d ic tin g , m ea su r in g , d is c r im in a tin g , and c a te g o r iz in g . * I h a v e ch ild r e n e x p r e s s in other m edia th em o tio n s arou sed b y p ic tu r e s , s t o r ie s , 01 m u s ic . * I do n ot furnish a n sw e r s to c h ild r e n , thu robbing them o f lea rn in g o p p o r tu n itie s. * I sta rt s to r ie s "Just su p p o se that.. . , " and l e t th e ch ild ren str e tch th eir im agi n a tio n s in in te r e s tin g h y p o th e tic a l s it u a t io n s . * I sh o w ch ild r e n h o w to e x p r e ss them s e lv e s in a s m any w a y s a s p o s s ib le : te llin g and w ritin g s t o r i e s , p layin g role: s in g in g , d a n c in g , p a in tin g , and s o o n . * I en co u ra g e ch ild ren to lo o k a t situ a tio n from v ie w p o in ts o th er than th eir o w n . * I h e lp ch ild r e n b eco m e aw are o f a ll th eli s e n s e s . * I a llo w ch ild ren a s much tim e a s p o ssib l to fo llo w th e ir ow n in te r e s ts . * I str ik e a b a la n c e b e tw e e n fa n ta sy and r e a lity in th e m a teria l I p r e sen t to pupil: * I m ake tim e for ch ild r e n to d is c u s s prob* lem s th at con cern th e m , g iv in g them p r a c tic e in s e e k in g a lte r n a tiv e c r e a tiv e s o lu tio n s . I n d ir e c t S tr a t e g i e s I m aintain an inq u irin g m en tal a ttitu d e . I provide a p s y c h o lo g ic a l c lim a te free from e x c e s s i v e c o m p e titio n , a n x ie ty , and c o e r c io n , e ith e r p h y s ic a l, s o c ia l, or e m o tio n a l. I a llo w ch ild ren to v en tu re fr e e ly from th e s a f e en v iro n m en t, know ing th ey c a n return. I d o n 't p r o fe ss to know a ll th e a n s w e r s , and I d em on strate m y w illin g n e s s to ex p lo re m any p o s s ib le s o lu tio n s . I m ake sure my p u p ils understand th at in return for b ein g a b le to m ake c h o i c e s , th e y m ust a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility . I sh o w ch ild ren th a t fa c ts h a v e lit t le v a lu e w ith o u t th e s k i ll s to o rg a n ize and a p p ly th em . I try to understand th e v ie w p o in t o f e a c h c h ild e v e n w h en I "know" h e 's w rong. * I f e e l and a c t co n fid e n t o f e a c h child* a b ility to ta k e r e sp o n s ib le and appro p ria te a c tio n in s c h o o l s itu a tio n s . * I d em o n stra te th at I v a lu e c h ild r e n 's q u e s t io n s , id e a s , and im a g in in g s. * I u s e c o n s is t e n t and p red icta b le d is c i p lin e s o ch ild ren understand w h at b eh a v io r i s e x p e c te d o f th em . * I r e c o g n iz e th a t ch ild ren d e v e lo p at d iffe r e n t r a te s and so m etim es exp er ie n c e p erio d s o f s tr e s s ; so I do not b e c o m e a n x io u s . * I ta lk to p aren ts about g iv in g ch ild ren o p p o r tu n itie s to e x p lo re and c r e a te . * I e x p r e s s my approval w hen oth er te a c h e r s en co u ra g e c r e a tiv ity w ith th e ir c l a s s e s . * I r e s p e c t c r e a tiv ity w h erever found. I i 1 i I REFERENCES i i 260 R E F E R E N C E S iAllport, G. W . The functional autonomy of motives. Ameri- j | can Journal of Psychology. 1937, 50, 141-156. j i . I Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan, j ' 1961. j I ! i l (Anderson, H. H. C reativity and its cu ltiv atio n . N ew York: j Harper and Row, 1959. I Anderson, H. H. C reativity in childhood and adolescence. ' Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1965. j Barron, F. Personality style and perceptual choice. Jour- j nal of Personality. 1952, 20, 384-401. 'Barron, F. The disposition towards creativity. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, 1970. (Originally published: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955, 51, 478-485. Barron, F. The creative individual. Conference report, California Educational Research and Guidance Asso ciation , October, 1959. Barron, F . C reativity and psychological health: origins of personal v ita lity and creative freedom. N ew York: Van Nostrand, 1963. Barron, F. The psychology of the creative w riter. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. 261 I 262 j Barron, F. Creative person and creative process. New York:! Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. j i Biggs, J. B., Fitzgerald, D., & Atkinson, S. M. Convergent I and divergent abilities in children and teachers' j ratings of competence and certain classroom behav- | iours. British Journal of Educational Psychology. } 1971, 41, 277-286. j Bloom, B. S. Report on creativity research by the exami- j ner's office of the University of Chicago. In j C. W . Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), S cientific creativ -i ity : Its recognition and development. N ew York: j Wiley, 1963. Bogue, D. J. Principles of demography. New York: Wiley, 1969. Buel, W. D. The validity of behavioral rating scale items for the assessment of individual creativity. Jour nal of Applied Psychology. 1960, 34, 407-412. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, j . C. Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Cattell, J. McK. A statistical study of American men of science: The selection of a group of one thousand sc ie n tific men. Science. N ew Series 24, 1960, 658- 665. C irc ire lli, V. G. Form of the relationship between crea tiv ity , IQ, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1965, 56, 303-308. Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development. 1966, 37, 967-975. Covington, M . V. Promoting creative teaching in the class room. Journal of Experimental Education. 1968, 37, 22-30. Cropley, A. J . C reativ ity . London: Longmans, Green, 1967. 263 ewing, K. Family influences on c re a tiv ity . Journal of Special Education. 1970, 4, 399-404. Fox, L. M. A study of relationships between grades and measures of scholastic aptitude, creativity, and | attitudes in junior college students. Unpublished I doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Cali- j fornia, 1967. i IFreud, S. Civilized sexual morality and modern nervousness I (1908). Translated by J . Riviera, Collected Papers.i { Vol. 2. London: Hogarth Press, 1914. j | |Fromm, E. The creative a ttitu d e . In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), C reativity and its c u ltiv a tio n . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1959. jGallagher, J . J ., & Crowder, T. H. Adjustment of gifted children in the regular classroom. Exceptional | Children. 1957, 23, 306-319. jGardner, J. W. Excellence. New York: Harper and Row, j 1961. i Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. Creativity and intelli gence . New York: Wiley, 1962. Guilford, J. P. Intelligence, creativity, and educational implications. The American Psychologist. 1950, 5, i 444-454. I t jGuilford, J. P. Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed .), Creativity and its cultivation. New York: j Harper and Row, 1959. Guilford, J . P. Factors that aid and hinder cre ativ ity . Teachers College Record. 1963, 63, 380-392. Guilford, J . P. Fundamental s ta tis tic s in psychology and education. (4th ed.) N ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Gutman, H. The biological roots of cre ativ ity . In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in crea tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. 264 Hinton, B. J . Personality variables and creative p o ten tial. Journal of Creative Behavior. 1971, 4, 210-217. j |H itt, W . D., & Stock, J . R. Psychology and creative behav- ' io r . In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explora- | tions in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, j 1967. jHudson, L. The question of cre ativ ity . In P. E. Vernon I (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, i 1970. j jllg, F. L., & Ames, L. B. Child behavior. N ew York: Harper and Row, 1955. jjacobsen, M . A. The relationship of creative thinking a b ility , intelligence, and school performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern C alifornia, 1966. ;jex, F. B. Negative v a lid itie s for two d ifferen t ingenuity te s ts . In C. W . Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scien- i t i f i c c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Wiley, 1963. ! Johnson, J . 0. The relationship between science achievement S and selected student ch aracteristics. Science Edu- ! cation. 1969, 53, 307-318. ! Kagan, J . Understanding children. N ew York: Harcourt j Brace Jovanovich, 1971. ;Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston: ! Houghton-Mifflin, 1972. ! ;Kirk, W . D. A ten tativ e screening procedure for selecting | bright and slow children in kindergarten. Excep tio n al Children. 1966, 33, 2 35-241. Los Angeles Times. Thursday, June 20, 1972. Part II, p. 1. I Mackinnon, D. W . The highly effective individual. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. 265 M as low, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. N ew Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962. I { M ay , R. The nature of creativ ity . In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), ! C reativity and its cu ltiv atio n . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1959. McClelland, D. C. The calculated risk : An aspect of s c i e n tific performance. In C. W . Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), S cien tific creativ ity : Its recognition and [ development. N ew York: Wiley, 1963. I (McGuire, C. C reativity and em otionality. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. ‘ McHenry, R. E ., & Shouksmith, G. A. C reativity, visual imagination and suggestib ility : Their relationship in a group of ten-year-old children. B ritish Jour nal of Educational Psychology. 197 0, 40, 154-160. (M ead, M . Where education f its in . In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. I jMerz, W . R., & Rutherford, B. M . D ifferential teacher re gard for creative students and achieving students. ! C alifornia Journal of Educational Research. 1972, j 23(2), 83-90. j iMetfessel, N. S. Group te s t of c re a tiv ity . Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Southern C alifornia, 1965. Metfessel, N. S. The school psychologist's role in devel- | oping c re ativ ity . In J . Magary (Ed.), School psy chological services in theory and practice: A handbook. N ew York: Prentice-Ha11, 1968. Metfessel, N. S ., & Ham mond, M . D. Group te s t of creativ ity : Administration manual and scoring guide. (Rev. ed.) Los Angeles: University of Southern C alifornia, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Mooney, R. L., & Razik, T. A. (Eds.)* Explorations in | c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. j jNie, N., Bent, D., & Hull, C. H. S ta tis tic a l package for j the social sciences. N ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. ! j jpalos Verdes Peninsula Unified School D istric t. S ta tis tic s lj j report: Fiscal year 1970-1971. Rolling H ills, ! C alifornia: 1971. J ; i [parnes, S. J . C reativity: Developing human p otential, j Journal of Creative Behavior. 1971, 5(1), 19-36. ■ i (Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J . W . Locating gifted children in i ! junior high schools— a comparison of methods. Ex ceptional Children. 1959, 26, 303-304. j jRazik, T. A. Psychometric measurement of cre ativ ity . In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Harper and Row, 1967. ! iRoch, D., Evans, F. R., & Klein, S. P. Predicting multiple c rite ria of creative achievement. Journal of Edu cational Measurement. 1969, 6 , 229-2 35. | Roe, A. A psychological study of eminent b iolo gists. | Psychological Monographs. 1951, 65 (14, Whole No. 68) . Roe, A. Psychological approaches to c re ativ ity . In M . A. Coler (Ed.), Essays on creativ ity in the sciences. N ew York: University Press, 1963. Roe, A. A psychologist examines sixty-four eminent scien t i s t s . In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, 1970. (Originally pub lished: S cientific American. 1952, 187, 21-25.) Rogers, C. R. Toward a theory of c re ativ ity . In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, 1970. (Originally published: ETC: A review of general semantics. 1954 .) 'Rogers, C. R. Foreword. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Crea- i tiv ity in childhood and adolescence. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1965. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and p u p ils' in tellec tu a l devel opment . N ew York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, j 1968. j i i jshapiro, R. J. The criterio n problem. In P. E. Vernon ■ i (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, j ■ 1970. ; iSnow. C. P. The two cultures and the scien tific revolution.' > ... — — ... - — i N ew York: Cambridge University Press, 1960. iStarkweather, E. K. Conformity and non-conformity as in d i- | cators of creativ ity in pre-school design. Coopera - j tive Research Project No. 1967. United States De partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. S t i l l water, Okla.: Oklahoma State University, 1964. IStein, G. G., Stein, M . I ., & Bloom, B. S. Methods in per - sonality assessment. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, | 1956. i IStein, M . I . C reativity and culture. Journal of Psychol ogy. 1953, 36, 311-322. IStein, M . I . Survey of the psychological lite ra tu re in the area of creativ ity with a view toward needed r e search . Cooperative Research Project No. E-3. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. N ew York: Research Center for Hum an Rela tions, N ew York University, 1962. I iTaft, R., & G ilchrist, M . B. Creative attitudes and crea- | tiv e productivity: A comparison of two aspects of creativ ity among students . Journal of Educational Psychology. 1970, 61, 136-143. Taylor, C. W . (Ed.). C reativ ity . N ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1964 . 268 jTaylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (Eds.)- S cientific c re a tiv ity ; ; its recognition and development. N ew York: Wiley, I 1963. I jTaylor, C. W., Smith, W . R., & Ghiselin, B. The creative and other contributions of one sample of research s c ie n tis ts . In C. W . Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), S cientific creativ ity : Its recognition and devel opment . N ew York: Wiley, 1963. j T e r m a n , L. M . (Ed.). Genetic studies of genius. Vols. 1-5. ! Palo Alto, C a lif.: Stanford University Press, 1925- 1959. Terman, L. Psychological approaches to the biography of genius. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, 1970. (Originally pub lished: Psychological approaches to the study of genius, Papers on eugenics. No. 4, 1947.) I I ;Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, J . Creative ta le n t. In A. Anastasi, Psychological Testing. N ew York: Mac millan, 1961. (Originally published: Proceedings: 1950 Invitational conference on te s t problems, ! Educational Testing Service, 1951.) ^Torrance, E. P. Guiding creative ta le n t. Englewood C liffs, ! N. J .: Prentice-H all, 1962. I jTorrance, E. P. Education and creativ ity . In C. W . Taylor (Ed.), C reativity: Progress and p o te n tia l. N ew j York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. i jTorrance, E. P, Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967(a). Torrance, E. p . Understanding the fourth grade slump in creative thinking. United States Office of Educa tion Cooperative Research Project No. 994. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, 1967(b). Torrance, E. P. Comparative studies of creativ ity in c h il dren. Educational Leadership. 1969, 27, 146-148. iTorrance, E. P. Encouraging creativ ity in the classroom. j I Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1970. | j ! iTorrance, E. P., & Khatena, J . What kind of a person are | you? A b rief screening device for identifying j creatively-gifted adolescents and a d u lts. Gifted Children's Quarterly. 1970, 14, 71-75. jTorrance, E. P., Tan, C. A., & Allman, T. Verbal original- j j ity and teacher behavior: A predictive v alid ity j I study. Journal of Teacher Education. 1970, 21, 335 — j 1 341. ; I ' I Vernon, P. E. C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, j j 1970. j [Vernon, P. E. Effects of adm inistration and scoring on ! divergent thinking te s ts . B ritish Journal of Edu cational Psychology. 1971, 41, 245-257. Wagner, H. Fostering classroom c re ativ ity . Clearing House. j 1968, 43, 146-149. Walkup, L. E. Detecting creativ ity : Some p ractical ap proaches. Journal of Creative Behavior. 1971, 5(2), j 88-93. jWallach, M . A., & Kogan, N. M odes of thinking in young j children. N ew York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, | 1965. I 'Wallach, M . A., & Kogan, N. A new look at the creativ ity - S intelligence d istin ctio n . In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), C reativ ity . Great B ritain: Chaucer Press, 1970. jwechsler, D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children. N ew York: Psychological Corporation, 1949. Weisberg, P. S ., & Springer, K. J . Environmental factors in creative function. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds .), Exploration in c re a tiv ity . N ew York: Har- per and Row, 1967. Williams, F. E. Accent on ta le n t. National Education Association, October, 1967, 2(1), 1. 270 i [williams, F. E. Teaching for c re ativ ity . The Instructor. 1971, 81(4), 42-44. i Wilson, M . P. The relatio n of sense of humor to c re ativ ity , J intelligence, and achievement. Unpublished doctoral d issertation , University of Southern C alifornia, ! 1968. i ;Wilson, R. C. C reativity. Education for the gifted. National Society for the Study of Education, 57th i Yearbook (Pt. 2). Chicago: University of Illin o is Press, 1958. Winer, B. J . S ta tis tic a l principles in experimental design. N ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1962 . jWing, C. W. Student selection, the educational environment, and the cultivation of talent. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967 . [Yamamoto, K. Relationships between creative thinking a b ili tie s of teachers and achievement and adjustment of j pupils. Journal of Experimental Education. 1963, 32, 3-26 . I [Yamamoto, K. Validation of te sts of creative thinking: A ! review of some studies. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. ! Razik (Eds.), Explorations in creativity. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Paradigm For The Implementation Of Accountability Measures In Bilingualeducation

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Grades And Measures Of Scholastic Aptitude, Creativity, And Attitudes In Junior College Students

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

A Comparison Of Two Instructional Programs For Severely Retarded Readers At The Junior High School Level

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Significant Attitudinal Factors Related To Three Levels Of Academic Achievement Of Seventh Grade Students

PDF

Attitudinal Variables Among Teachers Of Exceptional And Non- Exceptional Children

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

A Study Of The Factorial Validity And Reliability Of The Individual Test Of Creativity

PDF

The Relationship Of Father-Absence, Socio-Economic Status, And Other Variables To Creative Abilities In Fifth-Grade Boys

PDF

An Experimental Analysis Of The Relationship Between The Reliability Of Amultiple-Choice Examination And Various Test-Scoring Procedures

PDF

A Comparison Of Degrees Of Bilingualism And Measure Of School Achievementamong Mexican-American Pupils

PDF

The relationship of selection criteria and sex to measured creativity for mentally gifted minors

PDF

Prediction Of Therapeutic And Intellectual Potential In Mentally Retardedchildren

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Group Test Of Creativity (Gtoc) Scores And Achievement Test Scores Of Students With Spanish And Non-Spanish Surnames

PDF

Selected Characteristics Of A Children'S Individual Test Of Creativity

PDF

The Effect Of Using A Listening Skills Curriculum On Reading Achievement Of Third Grade Students

PDF

Personality Variables Associated With Narcotic Addiction As Measured By The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

PDF

Delinquency As A Function Of Intrafamily Relationships

PDF

Semantic-Memory And Creative (Divergent-Production) Abilities Of Senior-High-School Students

PDF

A Study Of The Comparability Of The Wisc And The Wais And The Factors Contributing To Their Differences

Asset Metadata

Creator Stauts, Diane Martin (author)

Core Title Teacher Assessment Of Creative Potential In Fifth-Grade Students

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Lovell, Constance (committee member), Smith, Robert A. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-789687

Unique identifier UC11363150

Identifier 7309324.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-789687 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7309324

Dmrecord 789687

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Stauts, Diane Martin

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