University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Classroom Climate And Pupil Characteristics In Special Classes For The Educationally Handicapped

(USC Thesis Other)

Classroom Climate And Pupil Characteristics In Special Classes For The Educationally Handicapped

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 8 -1 2 ,0 3 8 HUNTER, Carol Pitschner, 1931- CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND PUPIL CHARACTER ISTICS IN SPECIAL CLASSES FOR THE EDUCATIONALLY HANDICAPPED. U n iversity of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ^ C opyright by C arol P its c h n e r H un ter 1968 CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND PUPIL CHARACTERISTICS IN SPECIAL CLASSES FOR THE EDUCATIONALLY HANDICAPPED by Carol Pitschner Hunter A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Educational Psychology) February 1968 UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Carol___JPits_chner under the direction of Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y D ean Da t e Februarj_> _16_,____1968 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE / C ' •" - / f ................. — ( ■' C hairm an ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere apprecia tion to the members of the Dissertation Committee for their guidance during the planning, execution, and writing of the present dissertation. The consultation received from Dr. C. E. Meyers and Dr. R. Wolf is gratefully acknowledged. Special recognition goes to the principals, and teachers of the special classes for the educationally handicapped in the Torrance Unified School District. Without their active support and participation, this study would not have been possible. The writer is much indebted to the psychologists, Paul Needels and Eloise Shields, for their involvement in gathering the observational data following long hours of training. The support and sug gestions of Eloise Shields during the data collection is gratefully appreciated. The writer also feels especially indebted to her husband, Tom, for his encouragement, sustained patience, and understanding during the various phases of this investigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... ii LIST OF TABLES......................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES...................................... xi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE S T U D Y ................................ 1 Need for the S t u d y ....................... 2 History of the Educationally Handicapped Program in California . . 5 Educationally Handicapped Children . . 7 A Paradigm for Research .................. 11 A Paradigm for Teacher Effectiveness . 12 A Paradigm for Classroom Interaction . 13 Classroom Climate as a Frame of Reference.................................. 16 Historical Influences Shaping Research on Classroom Climate .... 16 Measuring Classroom Climate ........... 17 Research on the Effect of Different Types of Classroom Climate......... 21 Summary of Research on the Effect of Different Climates ................ 48 Theoretical Framework for the Present Study ............................. 54 Accepting and Rejecting Climates . . . 56 Problem-centered (Democratic) and Directive (Authoritarian) Climates . 62 Control (Order) versus Lax Control (Disorder) ........................... 70 Sex of Teacher......................... 76 iii Model for the Present Study.............. 77 Predicted Relation of Classroom Climate to Pupil Effects ............ 79 Organization of the Remaining Chapters................................... 81 II. THE PROBLEM................................... 83 The Purpose................................. 83 Independent Variables: The Dimensions of Classroom Climate ................ 84 Dependent Variables: Effects on P u p i l s ................................. 85 Effective and Ineffective Classroom Climates............................... 86 A Field Experiment ..................... 87 Questions to be Answered................ 88 Hypotheses................................. 89 Assumptions................................. 90 Limitations................................. 91 Delimitations ............................... 91 Definition of Terms........................ 92 III. METHODOLOGY................................... 96 The Subjects............................... 96 Pupil Characteristics................... 98 Description of the Subjects............ 108 Research Tools Used to Analyze Classroom Climate ........................ 110 Withall's Climate Index .............. 110 Pupil Disruptive Behavior Check L i s t ............................ 119 Recording Classroom Teacher and Pupil Behavior........................ 121 Measurement of Pupil Effects ............ 124 iv Task-oriented Behavior .................. 124 The Measurement of Pupil Attitudes . . 125 The Pupil Attitude Inventory .......... 127 Peer Attractiveness . 132 Pupil Academic Performance ............ 135 Absence ......................... ..... 135 The Research Design and Procedures . . . 135 Overview.................................. 135 The Field Experiment ................... 136 Classifying the Classroom Climate . . . 138 Classifying Effective or Ineffective Classroom Climates . . . 146 Statistical Treatment of the Data .... 151 IV. FINDINGS....................................... 153 Hypothesis I--Relation of Acceptance to Teacher, School and Class, and Peer Attractiveness ............................. 153 Ia--Teacher Attractiveness and Acceptance............................. 153 Ib--School and Class Attractiveness and Acceptance........................ 154 Ic--Peer Attractiveness and Acceptance............................. 155 Hypothesis II--Relation, of Rejection to Teacher, School and Class, and Peer Attractiveness ............................. 155 Ila--Teacher Attractiveness and Rejection............................... 156 IIb--School and Class Attractive ness and Rejection................... 157 IIc--Peer Attractiveness and Rejection.............. 158 Hypothesis III--Relation of Problem Centeredness to Work Attractiveness . . . 158 Hypothesis IV--Relation of Directive ness to Work Attractiveness.............. 160 v Hypothesis V--Relation of Control to Task-oriented Behavior Academic Performance...................................161 Va--Task-oriented Behavior and Control . 162 Vb--Academic Performance and Control . . 162 Hypothesis VI--Relation of High Control and Low Acceptance Versus Low Control and Low Acceptance to Absence............. 170 Hypothesis VII--Relation of Sex for Teachers Not High in Control and Acceptance and Not Low in Rejection to Pupil Task-oriented Behavior and Attitude.................................170 Vila--Task-oriented Behavior and Sex of Te a c h e r............................. 173 VIlb--Teacher Attractiveness and Sex of T e a ch er............................. 173 VIIc--School and Class Attractive ness and Sex of Teacher....................173 VIId--Work Attractiveness and Sex of T e a c h e r............................. 175 VIIe--Peer Attractiveness and Sex of T e a c h e r.......................... 176 Hypothesis VIII--Classroom Climates High in Acceptance, Low in Rejection, High in Problem Centeredness, Low in Directiveness, and High in Control are the Most Effective........................ 176 Hypothesis IX--Classroom Climates Low in Acceptance, High in Rejection, Low in Problem Centeredness, High in Directiveness, and Low in Control are the Least Effective..................... 178 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................180 Summary........................................ 18 0 The Problem.................................... 180 The Purpose................................. 181 The Hypotheses............................181 M e t h o d ......................................183 vi Findings.................................... 185 Major Findings.......................... 185 Conclusions................................. 189 Implications for Increasing the Effectiveness of Special Classes for Educationally Handicapped ............ 191 Recommendations for Future Studies . . . 193 REFERENCES............................................. 197 APPENDIX A ............................................. 223 APPENDIX B ............................................. 227 APPENDIX C ............................................. 233 APPENDIX D . . . ......................................... 239 APPENDIX E ............................................. 242 APPENDIX F ............................................. 243 APPENDIX G ............................................. 244 APPENDIX H ............................................... 248 APPENDIX I ............................................. 2 50 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The Effect of Different Classroom Climates.................................... 50 2. The Effect of Different Climates on Pupil Attitude (Feeling), Behavior and Productivity or Academic Achieve ment ......................................... 51 3. Interrater Reliability Coefficients for Factor Scores ............................. 106 4. Two-Week Test-Retest Correlations for Factor Scores, Present Study (N = 33) . . . 107 5. Intercorrelations of Factor Scores, Present Study (N = 33).................... 108 6. Peterson Problem Check List Scores for All Educationally Handicapped Pupils (N = 117) 109 7. Two-Week Test-Retest Correlations for Pupil Attitude Scales (N = 33) ...... 133 8. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance .... 140 9. Intercorrelations for Categories and Dimensions.................................. 141 10. Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Accepting Statements.................................. 142 11. Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Rejecting Statements.................................. 143 12. Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Problem- Centered Statements...................... 144 viii 145 147 149 150 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 163 Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Direct State ments ......................................... Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behavior ....................................... Distribution of Positive Pupil Effects . . . Distribution of Negative Pupil Effects . . . Hypothesis Ia--Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on Teacher Attractiveness ................. Hypotheses lb--Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on School and Class Attractiveness . . . . Hypothesis Ic--Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on Peer Attractiveness ...................... Hypothesis Ila--Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on Teacher Attractiveness ...................... Hypothesis IIb--Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on School and Class Attractiveness .......... Hypothesis IIc--Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on Peer Attractiveness ......................... Hypothesis III--Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Problem Centered Class room on Work Attractiveness ............... Hypothesis IV--Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Directive Classrooms on Work Attractiveness ......................... Mean Task-oriented Behavior in High and Low Control Climates and Comparison by t Ratio ....................................... ix 25. Mean Scores on Academic Subjects for High and Low Control G r o u p s ............... 165 26. Covariance Analysis for Reading ............. 166 27. Covariance Analysis for Spelling ............. 166 28. Covariance Analysis for Arithmetic .......... 167 29. Mean Observed Gain on Wide Range Achieve ment Test for High and Low Control Groups.......................................... 169 30. Total Mean Observed G a i n ....................... 171 31. Difference between Means of Low and High Control Group in Achievement ............... 171 32. Hypothesis VI--Planned Comparison for A b s e n c e ........................................ 172 33. Hypothesis VIlb--Planned Comparison of Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type Climate on Teacher Attractiveness . . 174 34. Hypothesis VIIc--Planned Comparison of Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on School and Class Attractive ness ............................................. 175 35. Hypothesis VIId-- Planned Comparison for Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on Work Attractiveness............... 176 36. Hypothesis VIIe--Planned Comparison for Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on Peer Attractiveness............... 177 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The "Criterion-of -effectiveness” paradigm...................................... 12 2. Paradigm for classroom interaction .......... 14 3. Schaefer's (1959) hypothetical circum- plex mode for maternal behavior......... 38 4. The accepting cli ma te........................ 58 5. The rejecting c l i m a t e........................ 60 6. The effect of a rejecting climate with high and low control........................ 63 7. The problem-centered climate ................. 69 8. Different types of control (order) .......... 74 9. Classroom climate factors predicted to be related to positive and negative pupil effects............................... 78 10. Classroom climate factors predicted to be related to positive pupil effects . . . 80 11. Adjusted posttest means for high control and low control g r o u p ..................... 167 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY In recent years schools in the State of California have been setting up more and more special classes for educationally handicapped pupils under the provisions of recent legislation. Educationally handicapped pupils are minors . . . who, by reason of marked learning or behavioral problems or a combination thereof, cannot receive the reasonable benefit of ordinary education facilities; • • • but who are not also handicapped by mental retardation or obvious physical disabilities for which special programs are already provided elsewhere in the code. (Education Code, 1965, Section 6750, p. 336.) An educationally handicapped pupil is further de fined as . . . a minor described in Education Code 6750 whose learning problems are associated with a behavioral disorder or a neurological handicap or a combination thereof, and who exhibits a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement. (Title 5, Califor nia Administrative Code, Section 221, p. 118.15.) Yet with the added benefit of these special classes some of these children still do not learn. Some even feel persecuted by being placed in these classes. The contagion of this feeling seemed to spread throughout some groups; so that the entire socio-emotional climate was one of rejec tion, hostility, and anger toward the school and each other. Schorer (1960) reported that emotionally disturbed children view their teachers as adults who do not under stand or help them even though this is not actually the case. Is this negative viewpoint present in all special classrooms, or are some environments more successful than others? To date much research on the effectiveness of teachers and group climate is available, but few studies involved educationally handicapped children. This study was focused upon the problem of what type of classroom climate is associated with the educa tionally handicapped pupil's productivity, academic per formance, and favorable attitude toward school, teacher, peers, and work. This chapter discusses the importance of the study, reviews previous research on classroom climate, and provides a theoretical framework for the present study. Need for the Study Many California public schools are now faced with assuming the responsibility of providing special classes for educationally handicapped pupils with emotional and/or neurological handicaps in a program of prevention and reme dial treatment. The all-day special class design upon which this study focuses is just one of several ways in which the schools are attempting to help these children. Special school classes for children of normal intelligence with emotional or learning disorders are a relatively recent development in most states. Neverthe less, in some states a number of these children have been receiving attention for a long time under other labels as delinquent or socially maladjusted. However, attention given to other types such as the mentally retarded far exceeds special services to the educationally handicapped child of normal intelligence. Dunn (1963) stated that about 33 per cent of the mentally retarded were reported in special classes, but only about eight per cent of the emo tionally disturbed had received special services. Morse, Cutler, and Fink (1964) reported that the most typical estimate of emotionally handicapped children needing special service is 10-15 per cent. Bower, et al. (1961) reported that 10 per cent of the pupils in grades 4-6 have learning problems and between 5 and 10 per cent of the total enrollment in school is made up of children handicapped by behavior or learning problems that are caused by emotional disturbance. The reciprocal relation ship between school failure and emotional disorders is pointed out. 4 Earlier reports by Hunter (1964a, 1964b) reviewed in detail the problems dealing with the nature of emotional disturbance, the manner of identification, and the special educational needs of the educationally handicapped child. In California, provision for the educationally handicapped child is the most recent in the total spectrum of special services. This program is optional rather than mandatory as are the programs for the physically handi capped and the mentally retarded. Methods must be found to provide a program appro priate to the needs of educationally handicapped children. The method of the special class is rapidly increasing, and thus deserves special attention. A publication by the Joint Committee on Educationally Handicapped Children (California Association of School Psychologists and Psy- chometrists and the State Psychological Association, 1965) states that projections by the California State Department of Education indicate a probable enrollment of 88,000 pupils in the Educationally Handicapped Program by 1974-75. There is little common conceptualization underlying preferred teaching methods for these special classes. In one district alone, teacher behavior styles range from loosely permissive, relaxed approaches to rigidly con trolled traditional educational programs. Are the same types of teacher behavior that are advocated as effective in producing pupil productivity and favorable attitude in regular classrooms best for most educationally handicapped pupils? What teacher behavior styles and group climate are currently found in educationally handicapped classes? How do these different climates affect the pupil's atti tude and achievement? History of the Educationally Handicapped Program in California In California attention was focused on problems of educating children with emotional handicaps by the Senate Interim Committee on the Education and Rehabilita tion of Handicapped Children and Adults. Hearings were held in 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, and 1958, in which school administrators, teachers, and parents presented their concern for emotionally disturbed children. The first legislation recommended by the committee (Senate Bill 1031) to enable the study of the problem was defeated. Nevertheless, the first comprehensive study related to the inception of special programs for educationally handi capped children in California public schools was under taken by the State Department of Education in 1954. This study, under the direction of Bower (1958), demonstrated that emotionally disturbed children can be identified early by the use of information ordinarily available to teachers. By 1956 about a dozen school districts in Califor nia had begun providing special programs for emotionally disturbed children. One of these projects began in Visalia School District in 1956. It was found that behavior and academic achievement of emotionally handicapped elementary school children improved with a special class and parent counseling (Jackson, 1962). Then Senate Bill 62 was passed in 1957 to provide for a three-year study by the State Department of Education on the problems of identifying and educating emotionally handicapped children. The findings of this study were submitted to the California legislature in 1961 by Simpson (Bower et al., 1961), and a variety of educational provi sions including the special class had worked successfully with some children. Information was supplied regarding the overall effectiveness of each type of special provi sion. It was recommended that the state should encourage early identification and educational assistance for emo tionally handicapped children. Following this report, S. B. 616, providing for identification and education of children with learning and behavior problems which do not respond to ordinary educational procedures, was defeated. Meantime, interested educators and parents in Los Angeles County had been focusing on the needs of neuro- logically handicapped children. The Los Angeles County School Office coordinated an exploratory study of the education of children with neurological handicaps. The study increased from one pilot class in 1955 to 13 classes. This study was reported by Howe (1963). It was concluded that children with neurological handicaps and severe learn ing problems could be identified and early placement in special classes resulted in good prognosis for early return to the regular classroom. Finally the efforts of the parents and educators interested in establishing suitable programs in the public schools for both emotionally handicapped and neurologically handicapped children were combined in the development and passage of A. B. 464, which was signed into law on July 23, 1963. This bill provides for children with educational handicaps associated with either emotional disturbance or neurological handicap. Educationally Handicapped Children The concept "educationally handicapped children" is essentially multiverse. The term "educationally handi capped" does not refer to a specific diagnostic classifi cation. Rather, it is a concept descriptive of an educa tional condition. The etiology for this educational state of affairs is multiple. The prior medical, psychological, sociological, or educational label may have been anything from neurotic, psychotic, neurologically impaired, behavior disorder, learning disability, acting-out, withdrawn, un motivated, slow learner, pseudo mentally retarded, mini mally brain damaged, or school phobic. All of these children are assembled together under the one hat of educa tionally handicapped in the California public schools. Emotionally Disturbed or Neurologically Handicapped Actually there are two major groups into which the educationally handicapped could be divided, those primarily emotionally disturbed and those primarily organically im paired. A California State Department of Mental Hygiene survey (1964) found 72 California programs for the educa tionally handicapped containing 2,309 children. Approxi mately 20 per cent were diagnosed as neurologically handi capped, and it was assumed that the remaining 1,840 (80 per cent) were emotionally handicapped. Authorities disagree on whether these emotionally disturbed and minimally brain damaged children should be mixed together in the same special classroom or segregated on the basis of medical or psychiatric etiologies. Bower (1965) argues against segregation, stating that there is probably as much heterogeneity in the personalities and educational needs of children diagnosed as "brain damaged" as those diagnosed "neurotic." Hours spent in diagnostic sessions with neurologists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and so on, trying to decide whether or not a child was neurologically handicapped, have persuaded the investigator that Bower is correct. (What does it prove if a five to three vote decides the child is or is not brain damaged? I( f drugs are indicated for hyperactivity, does the vote affect this prescription?) A study of Lambert (1964), in which the writer participated, illustrates that the focus of the diagnos tician accounts for labeling the same children as belonging to different etiological classifications. Twenty pupils had been identified as having serious learn ing and behavior problems. Two independent diagnostic teams consisting of a pediatrician, neurologist, and clinical psychologist classified the pupils. One team classified two-thirds of the pupils as neurologically handicapped; the other team diagnosed these same pupils as having emotional and social handicaps and found only one to have even a questionable diagnosis of neurological handicap. It appears that the diagnostic label may tell us more about the personal bias of the diagnostician than it does about the child with the major symptoms of emo tional disturbance and minor neurological handicap often strikingly similar. A Learning Disorder The California definition is noteworthy as it focuses on learning problems in which ”a significant dis crepancy between ability and achievement" is "associated with [rather than caused by] a behavioral disorder or a neurological handicap or a combination thereof." 10 Remedial measures can be effective in treating the symptcm of learning disorder or learning retardation in spite of the absence of thorough and systematic knowledge of the etiology of the problem. Lambert (1963) reported evidence that sound educational planning for educationally handicapped children doesn't depend on the etiological classification. Cruickshank, Bentzen, Ratzburg, and Tannhauser (1961) found that hyperactive emotionally dis turbed children without a neurological handicap diagnosis profited from an education program designed for neurologi cally handicapped children. Therefore, many psychologists advocate that educa tional measures for children with special educational needs should not be based upon these traditional labels but upon the specific psychological needs of each child. However, it is interesting to note the discrepancies in philosophy regarding the type of remedial procedure to be used even after an individual diagnostic psychological study. Some educators (e.g., Frostig, 1965; Kirk § McCarthy, 1961) have advocated teaching to the pupil's dif ficulty in an attempt to train the lagging function. Ap parently in direct conflict, other educators (e.g., Cohn, 1964; de Hirsch, Jansky, 5 Langford, 1965) advocate teach ing to the pupil's strengths. There is little evidence as to whether the teaching method should be geared to the pupil's area of strength or weakness. Bateman (1966) 11 reported investigation under way on this question of match ing teaching technique to individual patterns of cognitive strengths and weakness. So far her study indicates that there is no interaction between pupil aptitude (pattern of cognitive abilities) and the method of remediation. With no agreement on how to diagnose and group the educationally handicapped child nor how to plan remedi ation, it seemed perhaps wiser for this research to focus on a new idea--which type of teacher behaviors and class room climate is most effective in producing pupil produc tivity, learning gain, and favorable pupil attitudes for the majority of the educationally handicapped children, regardless of diagnosis. A workable conceptual framework which is successful for most educationally handicapped children still needs to be developed. A Paradigm for Research The idea of investigating which teacher behaviors and classroom climates produce better pupil effects has been presented. The question is raised regarding a para digm to provide a framework for the research. First, the kind of paradigm that has been most prominent in past re search on teacher effectiveness is presented. Then an original paradigm which takes classroom interaction into account is examined. This second paradigm was used in developing the theory and hypotheses for the study. 12 A Paradigm for Teacher Effectiveness According to Gage (1963) , the most dominant "cri terion of effectiveness" paradigm has taken the following form: Identify or select a criterion of teacher effective ness (dependent variable). Then measure this criterion; measure potential correlates of this criterion; and deter mine the actual correlation between the criterion and its potential correlates. Figure 1 schematizes this paradigm. Potential Correlates Criterion of Teacher Effectiveness Fig. l.--The "criterion-of-effectiveness" paradigm. Perhaps the most extended employment of this para digm was by Barr (1961) , who led voluminous studies of this kind over several decades. Research by this paradigm which jumps directly from predictor variables to criterion vari ables has been abundant. Interest was focused not on find ing out what effective behavior is, but on rating whether the teacher was behaving effectively on a priori dimen sions. The predictor variables often were measured long before the measurement of the criteria. Hundreds of studies yielded thousands of correlation coefficients which were disappointingly inconsistent from one study to another. Consequently, Ryans (1963) pointed out that there has been a lessening of attention to the topic of teacher effectiveness. This study follows this trend 13 and centers its attention on the fundamental problem of the description of the actual teacher and pupil behaviors (classroom climate) and the conditions with which the var ious behaviors are correlated. A Paradigm for Classroom Interaction The above paradigm for teacher effectiveness lacks psychological meaning and an understanding of interaction. It neglects to take into account that learning is an inter vening variable and the complex of pupil-teacher interac tions that take place in the classroom. A socio- psychological paradigm drawing from the psychological theory of Tolman (1952) seems to offer more promise for future research. To Tolman learning involves changes in cognitions resulting from experience with external stimuli, e.g., teacher behavior or peer behavior. These cognitions were seen as intervening variables. Unfortunately, this theory was not carried through to include postulates about the ways that changes in stimuli produce changes in the phenomenal field and it was not applied to classroom inter action. Figure 2 shows how his theory might be adapted to classroom interaction. In the model the teacher's behavior (independent variable) is of prime importance, but its effect on the pupil varies with the pupil's perception or cognition, which are intervening variables. These variables consist 14 I Independent Variables Classroom Behaviors or Classroom Climate Teacher 1. Verbal behavior 2. Non-verbal behavior Peers 1. Verbal behavior 2. Non-verbal behavior Fig. 2.- II Intervening Variables Perception-- Interpretation of environmental stimuli, e.g., classroom behavior III Dependent Variables Effects of teacher and peer behavior Perception of pupil behavior Teacher Perception of pupil behavior Peer 1. Verbal behavior 2. Non-verbal behavior Pupil Pupil 1. Perception of teacher behavior 2. Perception of peer behavior -Paradigm for classroom interaction. 15 of postulated psychological processes, such as attitudes, feelings, needs, and other mediating processes. These pro cesses are then connected to the behavior of the pupil (dependent variable). This is the major cycle pertinent to the problem (see unbroken line); however, there is also the behavior by peers indicated by the broken line moving right from peers to the pupil. Peer behavior is also per ceived by the pupil who may act upon his perception. For the purposes of the present problem this is where the paradigm would end, but to complete the cycle of interaction as transactions usually occur in the classroom it is necessary to go two steps further. As the pupil acts his behavior is perceived by the teacher or peers, who then may react according to their perception. This feedback has necessitated the addition of teacher and peers under the intervening variables. The broken arrows moving left from pupil behavior indicate this process. This model is not concerned with the historical reasons why the teacher behaves as he does. It is irrele vant whether his behavior is the result of teaching tradi tion, philosophical tradition, school and community condi tions, social or cultural learnings, research on teaching method, or his own needs. These prediction sources which were so important to the old paradigm of teacher effective ness are not relevant to the present model which focuses on the actual classroom interaction. 16 Classroom Climate as a Frame of Reference There are two major types of classification for teacher and pupil behaviors that current research in the analysis of classroom interaction has studied. This paradigm might be used for either frame of reference. One categorizes the cognitive aspects of teacher and pupil behavior and the logical processes or intellectual skills used in conceptual teaching. This approach is being used by B. 0. Smith (1960) and Bellack (1965) in their research on pedagogical meaning. The other frame of reference, which is used in this study, focuses on the non-cognitive aspects of teacher and pupil behavior. Of particular importance are the social skills used by the teacher to control or manage the class rather than the intellectual skills. The term "classroom climate" is merely a shorthand reference to those non-cognitive social skill behaviors that consis tently predominate in most teacher-pupil contacts. This approach is being used by Flanders (1960) and Withall (1949). Research by both models is important to a better understanding of teaching, but to do research in both areas simultaneously would be impossible without added resources. Historical Influences Shaping Research on Classroom Climate 17 Historically, research on classroom climate seems to have arisen from four areas of influence: Education with an interest in teacher traits and child development, learning theory, mental health, and social psychology with studies of interaction and group processes. The first edu cational studies had to do with the interest of supervisors in rating teacher qualities and traits related to pupil achievement. Studies of the 1930's compared progressive schools versus the more traditional type. Many studies re lated to the authoritarian teacher type followed the well- known study of Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939). The studies based on the teacher effectiveness paradigm mentioned earlier began appearing in this era. A review of the framework of early research is covered by Withall and Lewis (1963) . After many unrewarding studies, it soon became ap parent that it was impossible to predict the outcomes of the teaching process by measuring some condition or trait which the teacher brought to the teaching act. The learners and the interaction between the learners and the teacher could not be taken for granted. Research moved into the classroom to measure behaviors. Measuring Classroom Climate Social psychologists, whose fundamental interest was in classroom interaction, began investigating classroom 18 climate. Thomas and her associates (1929) were among the first to make a definite break with ratings and use obser vation in describing interactions between individuals in a nursery classroom. Some of the earliest systematic studies of sponta neous pupil and teacher behavior were those of H. H. Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson, 1939; Anderson § Brewer, 1945, 1946; Anderson, Brewer, 8 , Reed, 1946) on the measurement of dominative and integrative behavior. Their studies involved only four or five teachers over several years. The researchers found that teachers who used domi native techniques produced in their pupils aggressive and antagonistic behaviors which were expressed toward both teachers and peers. When teachers used a higher proportion of integra tive contacts, pupils showed more initiative and voluntary contributions socially and in problem solving. Further more, when teachers worked with new groups they maintained the same patterns of behavior and the new pupils reacted in a similar manner. They concluded that the behavior of the teacher sets the classroom climate. A dimension quite similar to Anderson's Integrative-Dominant Index was named Social-Emotional Cli mate by Withall (1949) . This investigator suggested that it was possible to measure it by teacher verbal behavior alone. He developed a set of seven categories into which 19 teacher statements were classified along a continuum from "learner-centered” to "teacher-centered.” In a later study Withall (1952) observed a group of seventh-grade pupils as they went to different teachers. He concluded that different teachers produce a different climate with the same group of pupils; so teacher behavior appears the important parameter in producing socio- emotional climate. Another study (Fowler, 1962), utilizing systematic classroom observation instruments (Observation Schedule and Record and Interaction Analysis), noted pupil behavior is related to teacher behavior in the elementary classroom. Cunningham (1951) supports this finding with evidence that the same child's behavior changes radically with different teachers as did Anderson above, with the conclusion that the behavior of the teacher is most impor tant in setting the climate. Many other authorities sup port this (e.g., Baxter, 1944; Flanders, 1960; White f j Lippitt, 1960). Hughes (1959) collected 129 specimen records of a number of teachers, each interacting in sequence with a child during a 30-minute period in which the teachers were asked to present a lesson in their most usual way. Speci men records were then analyzed in terms of 33 teaching functions subsumed under seven major categories. Hughes concluded that teachers' behavior patterns are stable through time, as did Anderson. Perkins (1951) found that 20 group climate, which was determined by the feeling and re lations set up by initial relations of teacher and learners (in this case other teachers), was relatively stable, as did Flanders (1960). Their findings are inconsistent with findings of Medley and Mitzel (1958a) and Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953), which are discussed in the next chapter. Cornell, Lindvall and Saupe (1952) attempted to measure classroom climate based on teacher and pupil behav ior along with various other types of behaviors found in a classroom. Medley and Mitzel (1958b) utilized the prior work of Withall and Cornell and his co-workers when they devel oped their instrument called OScAR (Observation Schedule and Record), which also-covers multiple behavior dimensions besides socio-emotional climate. Their climate scale uses both Withall1s categories and revised sign items from Cornell's work.^ In addition, non-verbal expressive behav ior of the teacher (smiles, frowns, and so on) is also coded. Flanders (1960) also developed a systematic observa tional technique to assess the spontaneous behavior of the ^A sign item is different from a category in that it refers only to a single incident of behavior. For example, a typical sign item might be "teacher uses sar casm." However, in a category system sarcasm would be only one type of statement that would be classified within the category of "Reproof or Disapproving Comments." 21 teacher. His technique emphasized a system by which an observer classifies verbal statements of both teacher and pupil into one of 10 categories once every three seconds. The major innovation of this system was that it permitted assaying sequence of behavior and gave attention to the factor of time in observation. The teacher-characteristics study directed by Ryans (1960) attempted to overcome the difficulties of getting a reliable record of the teacher's classroom behavior. This study employed trained observers using a seven-point rating scale with bipolar traits much like the semantic differential (Osgood, Suci, 6 Tannenbaum, (1957). Each term was carefully defined in the instruc tions, but global judgment is required. Ryans also illus trated the importance of performing the statistical analysis necessary to determine that items would discrim inate among teachers. He arranged his behaviors under three independent dimensions: (1) friendly, understanding, sympathetic versus aloof, egocentric, restricted; (2) responsible, systematic, business-like versus unplanned, slipshod; and (3) stimulating, imaginative versus dull, routine. Research on the Effect of Different Types of Classroom Climate The greatest amount of studies on the effect of different types of classroom climate or leadership behavior 22 seem to center on the autocratic versus democratic dimen sion, This may be covered by various other names such as non-directive versus directive, teacher centered versus learner centered, or dominative versus integrative, but the major difference is in the degree of teacher authority. In the one method more responsibility is given to the pu pils and in the other the teacher does most of the talking and directing. Unfortunately, in the majority of the studies autocratic and democratic were confounded with warm (accepting) and hostile (rejecting), although other studies which are discussed in the next section suggest these factors are independent. Therefore, the second group of studies focus on the effect of acceptance and rejection. These studies are more limited than the autocratic and democratic studies. Then the last group of studies to be reviewed are those on orderliness (control) versus disorderliness, a concept of growing interest in the management of neurologi- cally handicapped and/or emotionally disturbed children. Authoritarian (Directive) and Democratic (Problem Centered) Climates Investigations on the merits of the democratic teacher over the authoritarian teacher reached their peak in volume in the late 1930's and early 1940's. The classic Lewinian studies and the acceptance of Rogerian theory of 23 nondirective counseling laid the groundwork in a move toward greater permissiveness in relations with children. The "Activity" Schools The first research which seems related was that of comparing "activity" or progressive schools with more tra ditional schools. The experimental group were pupils in the activity-type school in which the teacher acted less authoritatively and allowed children a greater choice of content and procedures. They were compared with pupils in the traditional school who served as the control group. Findings on the effect of these two types of ap proaches were questioned by Wallen and Travers (1963, p. 473). Criticisms included the fact that students were not assigned to treatment randomly. In addition, the Hawthorne effect may have confounded the variables as well as other criticisms. They summarize the findings of the activity versus traditional studies, concluding that in early grades students in progressive classes tend to be average or supe rior in language usage but perform somewhat below expectan cy in reading and arithmetic. However, this inferiority is overcome by about sixth grade, and they suffer no handi cap in junior high school. By high school they tend to be rated higher in such qualities as initiative, work spirit, and critical thinking and to be better informed on current affairs. Their final conclusion is that "students can and 24 do achieve academically in less authoritarian schools." Furthermore, the dimension "progressive" versus "tradition al" was more complex than just the dimension of authoritar ianism. The Lewin Study Lewin, Lippitt, and White's classic experiment (1939) was the earliest successful attempt to manipulate and observe the effect of the group climate variable under autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire leadership. Each of the leaders played both the democratic and autocratic roles. The significant differences among the three types of environment were as follows: The incidence of aggres sive behavior under autocratic procedures was either ex tremely high and "rebellious" or extremely low and appar ently "inhibited" due to fear of reprisal. Aggressive be havior was highest of all in the laissez faire groups and intermediate in the democratic. Time spent in productivity was highest in the "inhibited" autocratic groups when the leader was present. The "rebellious" autocratic groups and the democratic were intermediate and the laissez faire showed the least. When the leader left the room, time spent in productivity dropped decidedly in both types of autocratic groups, dropped very slightly in the democratic groups, and increased in the laissez faire. The investigators concluded that leader behavior 25 styles which produced differing social climate and differ ing group and individual behavior were the important param eters to which the children reacted. Group members in the democratic social climate were more friendly to each other, showed more group spirit, were more work minded, showed greater initiative, and had a higher level of frustration tolerance than members in the autocratic or laissez faire groups. An army officer's son was one of the few children to prefer the autocratic climate. It might be noted, however, that the authoritarian role appeared to be not only authoritarian as we have de fined it, but also unfriendly or rejecting; yet such be haviors need not necessarily accompany authoritarianism. Studies Comparing Authoritarian and Democratic Leadership The majority of studies on authoritarian versus democratic leadership have been conducted at the adult level; so age and other organismic variables must be con sidered in applying these findings to children. Conse quently, instead of reviewing individual studies, only summaries and problems contributing to the non-significant and inconsistent findings will be discussed. One summary and critical evaluation (R. C. Anderson, 1959) of 49 experimental studies in which authoritarian leadership was compared with democratic leadership conclud ed that the authoritarian-democratic dimension did not 26 provide an adequate conceptualization of leadership behav ior. Some of the 49 studies, primarily at the adult level, reported contradictory observations about the effects of the two different types of leadership on production and morale. Eleven of them found greater learning in learner- centered groups, 13 reported no difference, and 8 concluded that teacher-centered methods were superior. The analysis noted additionally that these studies all compressed the complexity of group life into a single dimension. The fact is, however, that group relations include many other vari ables such as acceptance and rejection, which was pointed out earlier. Furthermore, the concept had many different operational definitions from study to study, which makes it next to impossible to compare them, and many of these studies based their classification of leader type and their criterion of effectiveness on the subjective global rating of some expert. Studies on Nondirective versus Directive The studies on nondirective versus directive or discussion versus lecture also seem related to the problem of more or less authoritarianism. These studies advocating non-directiveness or permissiveness usually measure the amount of pupil learning regarding a certain subject such as college psychology presented in two different manners, one utilizing group discussion with student participation 27 to some degree and the other where the teacher does most of the talking and directing. In actual practice what consti tutes the student-centered discussion method may vary from a largely unstructured situation in which the teacher plays a noncommittal, permissive or leaderless role to one in which the teacher asks and answers questions and actively guides the group in reaching group goals. Varying degrees of student responsibility for class decisions and problems are also found. In the studies reviewed there appears to be just as much variance as to what constitutes a teacher- centered, directive, or lecture approach. Another analysis of the effect of nondirectiveness versus directiveness on student attitude and achievement gain is presented by Stern (1963, p. 427). (For other reviews comparing lecture and discussion methods see Stovall, 1958, and Lorge et al., 1958. Many studies over lap, being presented under authoritarian versus democratic in one resume, then under nondirective versus directive, or discussion versus lecture in another.) In measuring dif ferences in achievement gain, two studies favored nondirec tiveness, five did not, and the rest showed no difference. It appears in general that the amount of cognitive gain is largely unaffected by the autocratic or democratic climate, but the results do favor nondirectiveness in facil itating a shift toward a more favorable acceptant attitude. In addition, most of the studies reporting a favorable 28 attitude change were also accompanied by positive student reactions to the nondirective climate. However, there are many reasons why these studies may not have found a signi ficant difference in achievement gain, which will now be discussed. Critique of the Studies Problems in M e t h o d -Methodology may be a problem affecting outcome. Often the studies were conducted to compare the effect of authoritarian (directive) versus demo cratic (nondirective) in classrooms or schools differing only by "reputation." The negative results of these studies may be due to the teachers not actually behaving in the prescribed manner rather than failure of the method to produce superior results. Another common method of research was to use the classic Lewinian design in which patterns are imposed, and the teacher must change roles, first behaving in one man ner, then the other. Even if the teacher is skillful in modifying his behavior to play both roles, there is a good chance that he is biased in favoring one of the methods and might perform that role better. In addition, in real life it appears that these patterns are not manifested in an "either-or" basis with one being incompatible with the other. Thus, planning the research to measure these variables as one single bipolar 29 dimension rather than allowing them to emerge as separate factors confounded the findings. This point is discussed in greater detail in a critique at the end of this section (see p. 39). Furthermore, other dimensions such as accep tance and rejection were also compressed into this single dimension. Different Operational Definitions.--Among the 34 studies cited by Stern, most have the dimension of non directive far removed from our definition of "problem centered." Asch (1951), for instance, compared test scores of students told that no preparation was required since they would grade themselves with students who took the test as a final exam. Evidently the first group was classified "student centered" or "nondirective" because the decision to study was "permissive." One would question whether the student-centered group did more poorly simply because they had an inappropriate set and saw no value in the education al goal chosen by the experimenter, rather than the failure of the nondirective method to result in superior outcomes. Considering the Goal.--Goal is of utmost importance in choosing a method. If one is interested in promoting knowledge of facts, the lecture method may be advantageous. If one is interested in higher cognitive objectives, such as recall and interpretation, critical thinking, favorable attitude, developing concepts, and ability to solve 30 problems, the democratic discussion method would probably be favored. However, many of the studies used different types of outcomes in evaluating effectiveness of a method. Taking goal into consideration, McKeachie (1963, p. 1140) analyzed 11 studies in which the use of higher level cognitive outcomes would predict superiority by the discussion method. Typical is a study by Bloom (1953) , which supported the postulate that the discussion method stimulated more active thinking. In 10 of these 11 studies, differences did favor the student-centered method. The eleventh had mixed results. Group processes and discussion provide a real advantage in bringing out changes in motivation and atti tude. Lewin (1952) showed that it is sometimes easier to change the decision of a group than of an individual. McKeachie (1963) suggests that the popularity of the more autocratic recitation method in his study is related to student anxiety about grades, which is most easily handled when students are in a familiar, highly structured situation. (It might be mentioned that a follow-up study favored the discussion method for favorable attitude toward the course.) However, a problem-centered approach need not remain unstructured and ambiguous. In a study by Maier and Maier (1957), college students were placed in "permissive" and "developmental" group problem solving situations. In the developmental group the leader 31 helped the group analyze the problem. There was a signi ficant difference in the amount of high quality decisions obtained favoring the developmental group. Two other studies substantiate the belief that some instructor guidance may be useful if the goals are the learning of relationships and the ability to apply this learning. In comparing groups given more versus less in structor guidance in discovering the basis of solutions of verbal problems, Craig (1956) found that the group given teacher guidance learned faster and retained their learning better. Corman's (1957) research on guidance in problem solving also supports this. McKeachie (1963, p. 1141) cited research on business conferences by Heyns (1952) , concluding that the leader should make most procedural de cisions, leaving the class time for problems related to the content of the course. Conference members were dissatisfied when they did not understand the purpose of the conference. Skill in Group Processes.--Another important factor may be that discussion or problem-centered method requires greater teacher skill in order to fully utilize the group resources available. Hare (1955) emphasizes that the leader is even more important in smaller groups, as the leader or teacher has more influence. Bany (1960) found that most teachers do not know how to take advantage of these group resources. 32 Weakness in Statistical Design-Medley and Mitzel (1963, p. 310) point out that the use of weak statistics also prevents many studies from finding significant differ ences. Error estimates are often inflated by failure to take account of known sources of variance such as individ ual differences in previous ability or intelligence. Summary.- -Thus, what some writers feel is consid erable empirical evidence supporting the use of lecture as against student centered methods seems to be confounded by many factors. Small wonder that no conclusive evidence or consistent findings have been found. Beyond the basic dif ficulty of having much variation within the dimensions, there is the variance in the learning tasks, measuring tools, procedures, student characteristics, and the problem of not relating expected outcome to method, as well as questionable methodology, weak statistics, untrained teachers, and confounding with other variables such as acceptance and rejection. Many of the above studies were conducted at the college level where attendance is often voluntary and not compulsory, in lecture groups of over 100 and so-called "small" discussion groups of 35 to 40. The present study involves not only an elementary classroom, but a special class for 10 or 11 educationally handicapped pupils. Therefore, it is impossible to generalize findings from the 33 above studies without further research. According to Watson (1953) , educationally handicapped groups are just the right size for good group interaction, but not groups of 40. Now we will turn to the research in the classroom which is more directly pertinent to our study, but in which the same difficulties are encountered. Studies Based on Supervisory Teacher Ratings Ackerman (1954) and Mitzel and Gross (1956) re viewed studies in which ratings of teacher effectiveness have been compared with criteria of teacher effectiveness based on pupil learning gain. Using pupil gain criteria for research purposes has conceptual and practical diffi culties. Some studies did not make adequate allowance for factors affecting pupils other than the behavior of the teacher. (Medley and Mitzel, 1963, recommend use of anal ysis of variance.) It was impossible to measure growth toward all objectives of education, and again the measuring device often was not. an adequate measure for the desired outcome or goal. Reviewing these studies revealed uniform ly negative results from the attempt to correlate supervi sory ratings of teachers with pupil gain. Consequently, researchers moved into the classroom, as pointed out earlier. Teacher behavior patterns in pro cess which discriminate effective teachers need to be 34 identified, rather than to use a global subjective judgment of a supervisor to classify teacher type. More research using systematic classroom observation of the socio- emotional climate, in which the observer plays no role in the quantification process except to record the frequency of behaviors which fall into certain pre-determined cate gories, was recommended by Medley and Mitzel (1963). The observer should not be required to combine behaviors to arrive at some global rating on a dimension. Some studies of this type (e.g., Flanders, 1960; Wilk 5 Edson, 1962) followed and seem to be arriving at a clearer understanding of how certain teacher behaviors and climate affect pupils. Other studies also contributing to this are reviewed. Studies of Teacher Behavior in the Classroom Most studies following the research design proposed above relied on the prior contributions (H. H. Anderson et al., 1945; Cornell et al., 1952; Flanders, 1960; Medley § Mitzel, 1958; Withall, 1949) mentioned earlier. These investigators developed instruments to use in objectively measuring classroom climate. The labels ’’integrative," "learner-centered," "indirect," "inclusive," all refer to teacher behaviors which are supporting, accepting of pupil feeling and opinion, and facilitating the pupil's problem solving. Teacher behaviors labeled "dominative," "teacher- centered," "direct," "preclusive," etc., are contacts in 35 which the teacher tries to make pupils act in accordance with his own relatively unalterable designs or values. In doing so the teacher employs commands, threats, and reproof. Thus the variable includes not only the dimensions of authoritarian (directive) and democratic (problem centered) but also acceptance and rejection. One of the earliest studies on the effect of author itarian (dominative) versus democratic (integrative) teach er behavior in vivo was that by H. II. Anderson and his co-workers (1939, 1945, 1946a, 1946b). Dominative teacher behavior produced aggressive and antagonistic pupil behav ior, while integrative teacher behavior produced more ini tiative and more voluntary contributions both socially and in problem solving. Withall (1949) found that teacher-centered behavior caused negative feelings in pupils. His finding was sup ported by a following study by Flanders (1951). Flanders, like Lewin, had teachers manifest imposed patterns of behavior. He concluded the teacher-centered (authoritar ian) climate created more negative feelings, greater con cern with interpersonal as opposed to learning problems, higher physiological indices of anxiety, and reduced abili ty to recall material studied. Again it is important to note that teacher-centered behavior is defined as reproving as well as highly authoritarian. Furthermore, the use of only two teachers restricted generalization. 36 Perkins (1950), using Withall's instrument, inves tigated the influence of group climate at the adult level. In-service training groups for teachers in which the leader was learner centered made markedly greater progress in learning about child growth and development. Rehage (1951) investigated the effect of having teachers and learners jointly plan the instructional process and identify goals versus teacher control. No significant differences were found in terms of content mastery; however, the more democratic problem-centered group performed better on measures of problem solving. Rehage's study was limited to a single teacher with two matched eighth-grade social studies classes. Cogan (1958) used student perception rather than trained systematic observers. He concluded that the extent to which eighth-grade students perceived 33 teachers as warm and friendly and integrative (inclusive) was signifi cantly related to the amount of volunteer work and amount of required work performed. The dimension of authoritarian-rejection (preclusive) was not significantly negatively related to amount of work. An order or organi zation dimension was highly related to the inclusive dimen sion and also positively related to amount of work. Flanders (1960) concluded that teachers who were more indirect were predicted successfully from the con trasting directive group according to more constructive 37 pupil attitudes toward teacher and toward school work, and higher content achievement in which gain scores were ad justed for initial ability. Independence of the Dimensions Throughout the research just reviewed on authori tarian and democratic leadership, authoritarianism was assumed to be also rejecting, although this assumption is questionable in the light of other research. Over the years various studies on typological concepts of parent behavior empirically arrived at the importance of two independent constructs--rejection versus acceptance and control versus autonomy--in the relation between the parent and the child. One of the first formally proposed models of par ent behavior was devised by Symonds (1939). Following a review of the research literature to that time, he proposed the dimensions of acceptance versus rejection and dominance versus submission. A model presented in Figure 3 was devel oped by Schaefer (1959, 1961) to summarize a number of studies in this field. He concluded that most of the con cepts developed over the past two decades still describe types of parents reduced to a combination of these two or thogonal dimensional concepts. Schaefer (1967, personal communication), since he has been working in the schools, feels that these same factors are applicable to teacher 38 LOVE Over Indulgent. Protective Indulgent. Over Protective. Possess ive. CONTROL- Authoritarian Dictatorial’ Demanding Antagonistic * Accepting .Cooperative .Democratic .Freedom -AUTONOMY .Detached .Indifferent .Neglecting Re j ecting HOSTILITY Fig. 3 Schaefer's (1959) hypothetical circumplex Model for maternal behavior. behavior. Independent research also utilizing factor analysis in the area of parent behavior by Becker (1964) substan tiated the discovery that warmth (acceptance) versus hostility (rejection) and control (restrictiveness) versus autonomy (permissiveness) were actually two orthogonal (independent or uncorrelated) dimensions. In other words, a parent who is warm could also be either autonomy granting or controlling. Or said in other words, on the average directive (or democratic problem-centered) parents are neither predominantly hostile nor warm, but can show all degrees of acceptance or rejection. Both Becker and Schaefer based their data on factor analysis of psychologists' ratings of parental behavior. Schaefer recently (1965) derived data from children's reports of parental behavior and discovered an organization of perceptions of parental behavior which was similar to the psychologists' perceptions. Meanwhile, other research indicates that the rela tionship between these factors is even more complex. Kerlinger (1958, 1961, 1963) has done several studies which substantiate that authoritarian (traditional) and demo cratic (progressive) are really two independent dimensions rather than a single bipolar dimension. Medley, another researcher with extensive experience in this field, sup ports that acceptance and rejection are also independent 40 factors, as follows: I am inclined to agree with you that warmth vs. rejection and democracy-authoritarianism (as usually defined) are different things. In fact, I am inclined to suspect that supportiveness and hostility are not necessarily opposite extremes on a bipolar trait. Some teachers use a good deal of support or praise and crit icism or surface hostility both in their behavior. (Medley, personal communication, 1-17-67) Kerlinger (1961) stated that the above factors emerge as orthogonal factors whenever the form of the mea suring instrument allows it. Unfortunately, most previous research was not planned with this in mind. Usually all four factors were combined into a single dichotomous dimension. However, it appears that this single dimension actually included four independent factors important to classroom climate--acceptance, rejection, democratic (problem-centered), and authoritarian (directive). In other words, one cannot determine that if one is directive he is automatically anti-problem-centered and anti acceptance and vice versa. These factors do not appear incompatible. The next section reviews studies on acceptance and rej ection. Accepting and Rejecting Climates Clinical psychologists, with the belief in the basic need of everyone for acceptance or love and belonging (Maslow, 1943) , precipitated research in this area. Psy chotherapists added further support with the belief that 41 expressing how one feels in a supportive, nonthreatening situation is the first step in the process of change. Research in the classroom on socio-emotional cli mate which separates the acceptance-rejection dimension from the authoritarian-democratic dimension is scarce, and no studies were noted which defined them as independent factors rather than opposite ends of a continuum. ’’Emotional climate" was defined by Medley and Mitzel (1958) as the amount of hostility observable in a classroom. Their sign items seemed to measure this; how ever, the category part included problem-structuring and directive teacher verbal statements, which again are related to the authoritarian-democratic dimension. These researchers, Medley and Mitzel (1959), found that emotional climate was related to teacher rapport with pupils but not to achievement. Research on the effects of praise and blame (Forlano § Axelrod, 1937; G. G. Thompson 5 Hunnicutt, (1944) suggested that praise in most cases is a better reinforcer to facilitate learning a response. However, Levin and Simmons (1962) pointed out that with some severe ly disturbed preadolescents it may not be effective. Wilk and Edson (1962) discovered that when the cli mate was characterized by supportive teacher behavior there ^See Footnote 1, p. 20. 42 were fewer pupil disruptive behaviors. Ryans (1960) also found that teacher warmth and friendliness was positively correlated with productive elementary pupil behavior (e.g., pupil alertness, partici pation, confidence, responsibility and self-control, initiating behavior, etc.). Six researches were reviewed that depended on pupil perception to measure teacher warmth (independent variable) and pupil effects as the criterion. Out of these, Brookover (1955) was the only investigator who concluded that teacher domination was necessary for academic produc tivity and that warmth hindered learning. The sample included 66 male teachers and 1,275 eleventh graders. A moderate negative correlation (r = -.22, p <.05) was found between pupils’ ratings of teacher warmth in their rela tionship with pupils and informational achievement gain in U. S. history. McCall (1952) found warmth ("kindness") a moder ately strong predictor of student growth. His sample included 73 sixth-grade teachers and 2,164 urban and rural, negro and white pupils. Cogan (1958a, 1958b), whose research was also men tioned under autocratic-democratic because the variables were not measured independently, sampled the perception of 987 eighth-grade pupils of their 33 teachers. He found significant (p <.01) within-group correlations for 43 inclusiveness and pupils' scores on self-initiated work (r = .35) and for inclusiveness and pupils' scores on required work (r = .28). Christensen (I960) had fourth-grade pupils rate their ten fourth-grade teachers in warmth. Then growth in achievement was derived from the previous year's fourth- grade pupils who were now in the fifth grade and analyzed according to their fourth-grade teachers. Warmth of teachers was significantly (p <.05) related to vocabulary and arithmetic achievement. Dixon and Morse (1961) concluded that, as far as over 2,000 secondary pupils were concerned, student teachers who had "good" empathy were significantly (p.c.01) better teachers. Reed (1961a) sampled perception of 1,045 ninth- graders of their 38 science teachers. He found that the within-class positive correlation between teacher warmth and pupil interest in science was very significant (p<.001) for boys (.20) and girls (.28). He also found there was not a significant correlation between warmth and demand for high standards. In other words, he concluded that these two variables were independent. Reed (1961b) explained that Brookover's findings were negative because the criteria were informative in nature, they were school goals that were rewarded by marks (not intrinsically motivated) and pupil age was greater. 44 The other studies used more comprehensive and/or attitu- dinal criteria and pupil age was decreased. Thus, warmth appears related to pupil attitude and productivity, and there is some evidence that it is also related to achievement. We turn now to the studies inves tigating order, the third and final dimension which is reviewed. Order (Control) versus Disorder (Lax Control) Studies investigating the effect of order versus disorder were discussed according to two types--those involving regular children and those involving emotionally disturbed or neurologically handicapped children. Research with Regular Children Heil and Washburne (1962) categorized children and distinguished among types of teachers in an effort to determine what kinds of teachers had what kinds of effect on what kinds of children. On the basis of their re sponses to a feelings test, children were classified as "conformers," "opposers," "waverers," and "strivers." Although teachers were classified on the basis of classroom observations, Responses to an interest inventory, role- playing test, and scores on the Teacher Educational Exami nation, only the interest schedule yielded clear-cut results. On the basis of scores made in response to these 45 instruments, teachers were classified as (a) "turbulent," (b) "self-controlling, orderly," and (c) "fearful." They concluded that the self-controlling, orderly, teacher type developed more positive feelings, greater perception of the authority figure as accepting, and less anxiety, particularly with children on the negative and hostile side. Also children under this type of teacher became markedly and significantly more friendly toward each other than did children under the other type of teachers. This was true for all four types of children. In a study mentioned earlier, Cogan (1958) found that structure through organization and orderly progress (conjunctive teacher behavior) was significantly positively related to pupil productivity. However, this dimension included teachers' ability to communicate with children, classroom management, command, and creativity in dealing with subject matter, and level of demands on children which may have been too broad to be informative. Flanders (1960) also gave nice indirect support by his statement that flexibility is what counts. In other words, when the goal is clear the teacher then becomes more directive or structuring to insure that progress occurs toward learning goals. Ryans (1961) reported that in the elementary school there was a high positive correlation between organized, systematic, business-like teacher behavior and productive 46 pupil behavior. In a study mentioned earlier in which teacher ratings were done by fourth graders, Christensen (1961) concluded that permissiveness is unrelated to pupil aca demic achievement. Research with Emotionally Disturbed and Neurologically Handicapped Children Support for the positive benefits of a structured, orderly environment also comes directly from studies on the education of emotionally disturbed and neurologically handicapped children. Strauss and Lehtinen (1947) were the first to emphasize order and structure in the education of neurologically handicapped children or hyperactive chil dren. Cruickshank, and others (1961), carried research in this area further, applying a highly structured program and reduced environmental stimuli to both brain injured and hyperactive emotionally disturbed children. They felt that sufficient progress was demonstrated to warrant continua tion of the program, but no significant difference in achievement or social growth was found between the experi mental and control group. Kounin, Friesen, and Norton (1966) discovered that order in managing transitions (low anti-resolution tech niques) is related to lower pupil disruptive behavior and higher task-oriented behavior. This study focused on 47 emotionally disturbed children in regular classrooms in the elementary school. The effect of a structured situation on the achieve ment of randomly chosen third graders high in compulsivity and anxiety was investigated by Grimes and Allensmith (1961). Structure in this case was used in the more tradi tional sense as "referring to the clarity of procedure to be followed in a given task and the explicitness of the connections between one task and the next." They concluded that children who are high in both anxiety and compulsivity overachieve strikingly in the structured environment, and the unstructured setting impedes academic performance for highly anxious children. Rothman (1964) presented broadly descriptive evidence to support the importance of structure. Structure was a prime factor in assisting socially malad justed girls in the development of inner controls at a day school for normally intelligent girls 12 years and older in New York City. Hay (1959) concluded from further experience with troubled children in New York Schools that the impor tance of the setting of firm and reasonable limits should be borne in mind. Morse (1958, p. 586) also supports this advice by stating, "It is now recognized that a pattern with implicit limits is necessary for the security of normal children, and even more so for disturbed children." Newman (1956) reported a series of two-year studies at the National Institute of Mental Health with acting-out 48 boys aged nine to 13 years. One of the first principles developed was: . . . the establishment of appropriate limits is an essential part of setting the stage for learning. (p. 190) The acting-out boy needs limits set for his behav ior in order that he may avoid disorganizing experi ences and may eventually build inner controls. The timing of the limit-setting process is a delicate and important factor in its effectiveness. (p. 215) Dubnoff (1961) , another authority in educating the emotionally disturbed child, also advocates that the pro gram must be highly structured. Haring and Phillips (1962) , among the few investi gators to back up their statements with experimental research rather than subjective opinion based on extensive observation, concluded that children aged seven to 11 who were exposed for two years to a structured situation showed significant academic, social, and emotional gains over those in a less structured situation. The above studies and expert opinions all support the importance of a structured, orderly environment for normal children, and especially indicate its necessity in the case of emotionally disturbed and neurologically handi capped children. Summary of Research on the Effect of Different Climates The preceding sections reviewed research done in the areas of the dimensions of classroom climate which were important to the present study. Table 1 classifies the results of 24 of these studies (plus 34 reviewed by Stern) designed to measure the effect of an autocratic, democrat- ic, accepting, rejecting, permissive, or structured climate. Table 2 summarizes the preceding studies according to how the climate affects pupil attitude, behavior, pro ductivity, or academic achievement. These studies vary con siderably; nevertheless, some general trends seem evident. In general, it would appear that the democratic problem-centered climate facilitates more favorable accept ing pupil attitudes; however, it is difficult to knoiv whether this is due to negative results with the authori tarian role, for it was confounded with rejection. The democratic climate would also be expected to have higher group spirit, initiative, and friendliness and less anxi ety, as well as more work mindedness, but again, is this due to the democratic climate or acceptance? The autocratic rejecting climate would have either very high aggression with the children rebelling or very low aggression inhibited due to fear. Productivity might be high if aggression is inhibited (controlled) with achievement of facts higher or not significantly different from the democratic climate. However, achievement of higher cognitive processes as problem solving, concept development, and critical thinking would be lower, and recall would be reduced, as well as initiative. Studies 49 important to the present study. Table 1 classifies the results of 24 of these studies (plus 34 reviewed by Stern) designed to measure the effect of an autocratic, democrat ic, accepting, rejecting, permissive, or structured climate. Table 2 summarizes the preceding studies according to how the climate affects pupil attitude, behavior, pro ductivity, or academic achievement. These studies vary con siderably; nevertheless, some general trends seem evident. In general, it would appear that the democratic problem-centered climate facilitates more favorable accept ing pupil attitudes; however, it is difficult to know whether this is due to negative results with the authori tarian role, for it was confounded with rejection. The democratic climate would also be expected to have higher group spirit, initiative, and friendliness and less anxi ety, as well as more work mindedness, but again, is this due to the democratic climate or acceptance? The autocratic rejecting climate would have either very high aggression with the children rebelling or very low aggression inhibited due to fear. Productivity might be high if aggression is inhibited (controlled) with achievement of facts higher or not significantly different from the democratic climate. However, achievement of higher cognitive processes as problem solving, concept development, and critical thinking would be lower, and recall would be reduced, as well as initiative. Studies The Effect: of Different: Classroom Climates SO o l l 0 rl > > P P P P I/) ft ft X P r, 0 0 ft • 3 0> W 3 3 3P n o "t ft XX X 3 H oo D O 0)0 H 0 0 p i/l 3 H'H 0 ft ft HX 01 P P 6 ftft S3 rl fj »P 0 G 3 H 3 P fl ( } OX - H 0 3 P p P (00 3 X 3 f t 0 X Pu 33 X X OP 0 03 603 P 3 3 3 P ftX 0 'HUP p®0 ft 0 Ull S 3'H OX'H «p w> u o p MX p irl 3P : 'HU t i * X3 XH 3 3X6 P ^ P i/i P ft 3 P P 'H u . OSH 0ft® X® > P o •H -H > H 'H 3 P P ‘H *H bOX 3 X f t H O G f t X P M © M 3 P 3 HP'H 23 U3rt 3 3 U ft 0 bO 3 3 oi P U X ft 3 t)UH X UPU 0X3 ftft OP 3 P'HH ft 0 o UU P 0 j> ■ h oxx : p p ox ft6« IP 6 3 P M 3 M l 31 P P XX O'H rl P 0 1 X XOP M'rirl OX P O P 3 3 3 ' H X 0 ftX P 3 3 0 333 P - 3 0 • PX hu u i/i p,Gw ® ® X b! *P g fi<t 3 3 P l/l H r\G 0 OPOl 3 P 3 (D . O l U H P H K P 3 U g p . 10 Px • : 'H ftH U 3 P 01 bOOnT) U * p P U 3rl PHUPOl P U 3 PP U * ft© P P (0 3 MU « 3 * 3 0) 3P01 30 OX 0 ' MMHH BH H P 3 3 P H 3 S 03 •H OX ■ p 3 ft3 'H'H "ftp * ft> OnO H 3 3 g > 3 3 P o p : pp up p x o h ft ft© >>3 U 0 08 0HX 3 o 0 ) 3 ©tj p o x p : ® > X h X P G 3 H 3 3 P H 0 3 O'H O'H o- 3 3X0 XX 3 "XXrlS>OrtUP 3 3 3 'H 0 > H P ft 'H 'H 3 p MftOXXXP '-'ip i o PX 3 0 > OpwflTj .p w 3 OPXpp'H MOH 3 3 p 0 3 3 3 3: S 0 3HM0U X P ft 3 3 -3 0 3 'H p X G 3 H 0 2 X X ftU 33) 3 3 P 0 f t P 0 P P 0 f t U H<5 3 3 HVMH<H'H p 0 p p p u 0 3 M o OX XU 4 s zo 6 I 0 + 1 p p h a 3 P X « X ' HOg 0 3 P 0 > "OTj M ft > ■ 'H OHO P OH P POX® 3 3 'HO "1 3 6 3 0 'H X > P P P 3 X (JO 0 T33&3 3 P 3H f t OP p 3 0 * 0 6®X® P 3 On 0 PX HH 0 p 'rlMO U 0 6 0 0 P 0 IH3 ■ P O J P 0 X OHOinX 3 6 6 u H H to 3 ■ H 0 3 P 3 0 13 3 ftp 0 0 ■ 3 0 0 "01 X3 0P > r \ J 3 p 3 rl x P 0 gP OO ®XS H ' 'HP 3 P® * PH'H ""d >U "P XCl X PPX6SX •ri PP OHp P II) ft 0 0 © P 'H 3 3 0 XOOOP<3 U • P 3 *P gPP H P 01 3 3 'HP P 3 3 O u flPrl X 0 ftp 0 P 3 p « HI Oft® XOg 3 3 0 * P 3 P OX P pPH p 3 ft 0 ftO 3 3 P 3 OP 0 OX H 3 0 3 3 XU3 ft6* Orl PH 0 |/l d 0 01 ' p p 0 ftp « 3H PH 0 0 Mft O'PB OX 0 PX 0 H 0 XflX OX * 3 3 0 rt XOU 3 P MU© P O P PX PXPOGtf X H 0 ft X 3 fl P 0 J H 0 01 0 gO 0 PP P i Pprl 63 X HP P J p 0 ft 0 • M p p 0 ' 3'H 3 0 0 " OX P P PUrv >0 >01 P2 ® X "rtSHOogppto 3 X ■ P 0 ©H ft ftB PO) P XP *nUH Poix 0 3H HOOOIOPOHGdlHMft PP ft © ft ftft ft 0 d ) G M * 0 X X P 01 p 3ft "O'H ftp 0 ■ P MU PHX ftp 0 >X 0 3 PH ftp 3 3 3 XM3 3XPG3 3H OP *P P 3 ftp jjlp| X 3 P< OPX 3P0 p 0 O'HHXXSOO ftH X 0 XXP SGPMG«ft*0 p H P PH O 'H 0(0 U 0p rj ® 3 X ft 2XP 6 3 ft 2 0 ftOHft® f t « fi0P 3 P 3 1 ) 3 ^ P fl Oft UP dp 3 3 B P 3 0 H 3 P P 0 00 BftOGPftPMft f l f t c a f t i X 0 OP 0 2X 3'HHPPO X 3 ft ft ft ft OH 3 3 Oft 3 P Op5 MX f t MX PU 3 P bOp p,pu ™ r3 0 X 0 OX < U Z t f l mgu X 0 P f t S P o bo 0 P X 3 « ft a i o o 3 p h M 3 3 P P r P > 0 P P 0 PHD H 3 X 3 3 > POP P P 3 3 P ft 3P f t X O X O O P G S 5 3 H 3 13 3 g f t p 3 OP rvri P 0 0 u3 P H P riHHM HH 0 ft P 0 X X X 0 XXX P 3 0 ft BOlSP 3 0 0 ft ft 0 0 H 0 3 PPH X • in 3 P P P 0 ftX P n 3 p * p | > ® 60 3 0 0 ft 3ftX 3X2 ft©0 g g 3 p f t g u 301H 3 0 X 3 X P 3 J P H 3 3 X 3 2 0 n O X 3 Ph 3 PPM P *> X ^ X 3 3 0 3 3 3 P X X® X OP X OX 3 H .pX PX P g > 0 3 X S n g p g 3 6®H 3 3 P P N P 3 P 3 P > o 0 0 3 P© 3 P 3 0 3 0 3 PPO P OftiBSft S'H 3 6 0 oh 0 3 X 6 ftp 0 0 P ft gft 0 ft 0 0 OPM P 0 *0 0 0 0 0 3 H X 3 0 ft 3 H X ftCJP ft BSftOftX ft M 0 piHft . 3 P OP P P P 3 P X OnP 0 6 X 3 X 6 XP ft 3 0 UNO p g 3 P 3 P 3 X S'HftXP Pft 33 B3X OPOO) 310 0 3 0 2 OOP P 0 HP 3 p p P P p H P 6 X 0 iffPOPP P 2 3 X 3 *P 0 BP 3 3 3 P H P B B P > 3 H>HX POX OP 0 0 PP o 3 O'H 03 0 P P P 3 X P P P X P P X 3 PX 00 0 * P3 0 0W3 OX OX OX 0 3 3 >X ft 0 ft'-'> >p >x 0 P 3 ftlO 3 ft P O P P P ft P 3 3 3 ■ o 3 P > P > p » 3 P 3X 0^3 O P P P P "H P o 3 X H t N p p 3 P 3 P r , 3 0 U OPMPPrt XOOOOXOX ftO 32 301 OH ft3 ftftx ftOX H P V 0 H X P X XCi 3 P P 3 3 g X P O P O H P O g 3 X 3 P *XU 3 P 3 P 3 P P 33 0 3X 3 3 ftO ft *3 3 0 0 3 P P 0 gX 0 0 3 OX 2 ■ P 0 P P P OP HPH 3*H p r y ft > 0 3 OH o x f t p ft p Mft 3 P 0 1 P x X 3 0 3 P P ftp ft 0 p 2 3 1 0 fi S U OP XP 3 S 3 3 3U S oxoi MP 3 X 3 < 3 P M ft M ft'-' bjp wh •H 0 p p P P p m H ft ft w w to n N X X X X 0 X 3 i oi P 3 P 0 3 2C P H H 0 0 3 P 3 0 0 3 " 3 X P 3 P P X X 0 • P «P 3 0 3 0 X 3X 00 H 3 * X 00 M n X 1)3 O P 3 3 0 0 *3 3 P X 0 3 3 3Uft® 6PG B P X P - P B B O 0 3 PP P ft® P P 3 3 X n 3 H 0 P P PX3P 0 OP 3> 3 x 3 XN 3 P PO X 0 MO HU MX PX 3 6 P P H p P f t 3 OS HN 3 ft POl’H U ' 3 > P 3 X P 10 P 3 P 2 H f t P r v B O XX 0 2 o 301 S 2 P P H P H B X n U d O 0 X 6 gH 0 > p * o h 3 X P 0 X 3 3 3 X 0 0 • guffp 0 3 P 3 gOiPXXX 0 in GH H»r> 0 P ft ftp H OH OlOgPO PX XBO >HU PO 0 P MO H X 3 3 2 P 0 0 3© 0 P 3 PHX 0 3 «B> PPXP 3 SP P 6 O i POX BH 3 ft 3 P P * 3 M 0- 0 3ft ftp H XX 0 OP ft 3 3 MP • P 0 "Xr* X 0 U^P 6XH 3 ft3 ftH 3 P 3 H P 3 MU * 3 ft OftP P "ft 3 3 BP ft OX© 2 3 3 0 > 3 X n'B p © Ppoi 30 P •* 0 HOP Ooff 3 3 0 6®P X P 2H 3X >©3 P G P P 0 H Mft P Oft® 30 0 HioS ft3 ft X MP 0 P P B X H P 3 P * PX ooi® 3 P 3 0 3ft P GBP GH3dM> > 33 OH ft ftftft BP P 'P 3 P HP GPP H P PO 3 0 PGr\G MG rvH 3 3 U PP3 P OP 3 *P ft Oft ft 3 MHO P 0 3 f t 3 0 3 B3 0 ox PMP 0 0 0 OS'H© 0 0 6 0 3 0'HPO'HP 3 X PX 3 ^ 3 01 0 3 f t X P P 0 0 0 X ft 0 3 U f t f t f t HP 3 H ft u o # 0 0 ft3 UP'-' P H P P PO 0 OOPP g POX P PO GU XGX X ® > * 3 0 SOP OX 3 3 ft P P B'-'P 3 P 3 3 X 0 X 3 3 3 X 2 0 M3P3 HM X 3 GOB S P P P P P P O OP OP POX * 3 PPO 0 0 0 OOXP 0 OH > >X P 3 P 2X 3 0 6 P O P rl 0 g ft X P P GP 3PX 3 XO MP 0 P P PX 3 3 0 0 0X P 3 230 0 ft ft> 3 X 3 33 3 S P B P O U OP X XH POO H BH H 3 3 0 P * 0 !> 0 X 3 3 Og3 M MO OXP 0 3 0 0 0 H 3 riP 3 P X PPPOP P PX X X P P P 3 PH OXPXPOX 0 >U X X UX 0 » ®X< 6© 3 0 3 P 0 ftOPOvn P 3 0 3 0 3 0 OPH ftOlHXH 3P X3HP P PO 03 >M> >XPnrOHO OH 3 X 0 3X ft 0 OX PPH P G P PHX H P H 3 0 0 PgU3 P 2 3 OP ft P P PP 0 3 0 "P P 0 pPX MP30 > 00 OPft P H P 'PX 0 > 3 0 ftp P 3 0 ft P 3 H H ' P O G 3 0 3 n 3 0 S6 0 3 U 3'H XO 3 P 33M X n O P f t OOOWO P P X g ftPH ft P 0 XO^ 6 ftft fti/| ft 0 3 P X® GftXX H H X PPM XO O i > gU 3ft P 0 3 3 3 Oft 300 POOiSGft P OPHPPP'-'P OP > 3 3 P 3 P 0 P 0 BXH 03 GH G 3 ft P t f f t P 2 Uft3 ®GSft > 32 > X GX 3 *3 0 ftMP'-'P POP tyHOOS P «U *PPO 0 3 030 3 3 3 3 0HftPG06PO 3 nP ft P M 0 P P p P 3 P P 3 ' r i 3 3 0 3 UP 0 p P G®0 3 Gift 3 0 P 3 ftOftMft®3PPPftX GX ftOft OMPOPftBH P >P OP ftOP P P OPMMftftPftX P013P3330 3 3 3 U 3 X'H 0 OPX P OPPP 3 PP 3 Mh MM2 | Oft P Mft M'HbOX X; 3 ftMMftX 3X 3 3 >X3 M P P G H p p 3 6 p P P < M u d w m w < h j ; o « •rl H u f t 0 0 f t X h O X n P 0 0 3 bO P i P> 0 G 3 P OPXP P OPP 3P OX 3 OH 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 P 3UP d'n 3 0 PH 0 n 0 M 0 X > 3 3 POP 0 p P i P P P XX P 3 P 0 3 0 H 3 f t POPP OHH 0 U 3 3 MP 3 0 0 0 P 0 OP 3 3 0 6 G U P X 3 P < 0 0 3 33 Q X HHU 0 P P P 0 3 P XP 0 3 0 P U P 0 ft > 0 3 0 0 3 'rl U p p 3 HI/) W -M 0 3 XP 0 I/) l/l P P ft t/1 'H «r| P 0 6 0 3 g X P 0 3 P U P p 0 0 X P 3 0 3 0 3 PP X ft X QW Table 2 The Effect of Different Climates on Pupil Attitude (Feeling), Behavior and Productivity or Academic Achievement Attitude Productivity Type of Climate . . Behavior Task-oriented Behavior (FeelingsJ Academic Achievement Autocrat ic Teacher- centered Directive CIncludes Rej ecting) Democratic Learner- centered Integrative (Usually includes Accepting) Acceptance Warmth Less des irable attitude (Lewin et al . , 1939 ; Withall, 1949 ; Flanders, 1951, 1960) Positive atti tude toward teacher (Flanders, 1960) More positive attitude in 15 studies reviewed by Stern, 19 6 3 Aggressive behavior very high or very low (Lewin et al., 1939) High physiological anxiety (Flanders, 1951; Withall, 1949) Aggressive and antag onistic pupil behav ior (Anderson et al . 1939, 1945, 1946a, 1946b) Greater concern with interpersonal as opposed to learning problems (Flanders, 19 51) Aggressive behavior intermediate (Lewin et al., 1939) More friendly to each other More group spirit Higher level of frus tration tolerance Lewin et al., 1939) More friendly and co operative (Anderson et al., 1939, 1945, 1946a, 1946b) More positive att itude toward teacher (Medley § Mitzel, 1959) but con founded with problem s o1ving Less pupil disruptive behavior when teacher supportive and encouraging (Wilk § Edson, 1962) If aggressive behavior inhibited, high pro ductivity (Lewin et al. 1939) Restricted learning Flanders, 1960; Withall, 1949) Not related to produc tivity (Cogan, 195S) Reduced recall (Flanders 1951) Achievement highest when teacher flexible (shifts to directive when goal clear) (Flanders, 1960) More work minded, greater initiative (Lewin et al., 1939) No significant difference in content mastery, but higher problem solving (Rehage, 1951) More active thinking (Bloom, 1953) Better concept development (Perkins, 1950) More initiative, more volun tary contributions (Anderson et al., 1939, 1945, 1946a, 1946b) Significantly related to pupil productivity in elementary school (Ryan, 19 61) Significantly related to pupil productivity (Cogan, 1958) but con founded with integrative Significantly related to vocabulary and arithmetic gah (Christensen, 1960) Not related to reading achievement (Medley § Mitzel, 1959) Attitude Table 2 — Continued Productivity T.-mt-nri ented Behavior < _ r* t^o Table 2— Continued Type of Climate Attitude (Feelings) Behavior Product ivity Task-oriented Behavior Academic Achievement Laissez faixe Permissive Lacking -order or structure Highest pupil disrup tive behavior (Lewin et al., 19 39) Order or Structure Positive pupil Positive social accep- feelings (ii sil tance (Heil ^ Wash- § Washburne, burne, 1962) 1962) Important in develop ment of inner con trols (Ro tinman, 1964) Lower pupil disruptive behavior if teacher orderly in managing transitions (low aatiresolution tech niques) (Kounin et al. , 1.966) Lowest productivity (Lewin et al., 1939) Lower quality decisions (Maier 6 Maier, 19 5 7) Unrelated to achievement (Christensen, 1960) Slower problem solving and less retention than group receiving more teacher guidance (Corman, 1957, Craig, 1956) Significantly related to achievement (Hell § Washburne, 1962) Significantly related to pupil productivity (Cogan, 19 58; Ryans, 1962, for elementary s chool) Significantly higher achievement if teacher shifts to direct when goal is clear (Flanders, 1960) Higher task-oriented behav ior if teacher manages transitions in an orderly manner (low antiresolu tion techniques) (Kounin, 1966) Anxious children achieve better in structured setting (Grimes § Allensmitli, 1961) Significantly higher acnievement for witn- drawn and hyperactive children (Haring § Phillips, 1961) High structured program and reduced environ mental stimulation bring good results for brain injured and hyper active emotionally dis turbed children (Cruickshank et al. , 1961) 53 having higher cognitive processes as outcomes of the problem-centered environment need to be replicated with children, for it is impossible to generalize from past studies with adults. Teacher warmth or acceptance also appears related to favorable pupil attitude, but again this dimension was confounded with the problem-centered and directive dimen sions. Some studies found it related to pupil productivity and achievement. One study did not find it related to achievement, and it would be interesting if they had also used lower-level process criteria as productivity or task- oriented behavior as well. The permissive climate has the highest amount of pupil disruptive behavior and lowest productivity, as well as lower quality decisions, problem solving, and retention, than climates with more teacher guidance or structure \\diich need not mean authoritarian, but could just as well be a problem-centered environment in which the teacher facili tates problem solving. Order or structure appear essential, particularly for children with problems. Anxious and withdrawn chil dren feel more secure; hostile, aggressive, socially mal adjusted children may never have learned limits and need them to develop inner controls; hyperactive or brain injured children need order to reduce unessential stimuli, both auditory and visual. Lower pupil disruptive behavior 54 which was found in orderly environments would help reduce distracting stimuli. Positive pupil feelings and social acceptance are related to an orderly environment. Order or structure appears positively correlated to achievement and the lower-level goals of task-oriented behavior and productivity for most neurologically handicapped and emo tionally disturbed children. Thus, order appears highly supported as an important dimension in the classroom cli mate of emotionally handicapped children. Theoretical Framework for the Present Study When an observer comes into a group for the first time, he is able to sense a feeling about the group which we might call an atmosphere or a climate. As a result of this climate, pupils soon develop common attitudes about how they like their class, the kind of person their teacher is, and how he will act in certain typical situations. The development of these generalized attitudes toward the teacher and the class that pupils share in common despite individual differences is. a. result of the classroom climate. Because the teacher or leader is such a critical member of the group, his behavior is most important in setting the climate (H. H. Anderson et al., 1945; Cunningham, 1951; Flanders, 1960; Fowler, 1962; White 5 Lippitt, 1960; Withall, 1952). We are interested in how classroom climate affects the majority of the group in their attitude, 55 productivity, and achievement. Even a highly sensitive observer may have difficulty in describing these feelings. Any person tends to select certain aspects of the social environment when perceiving it. Perception is a selective process, so a theoretical frame of reference must serve as a guide to systematic observation. From reviewing the past research on the effect of classroom climate, it appeared that certain processes are related to the pupil effects. Thus, there is evidence that a supportive, non-threatening climate aids attitude and learning and a rejecting climate hinders learning. Some studies support the theory that including group members in problem solving and decision making increases initiative and productivity, creates a more favorable attitude, and improves cognitive learning. Directiveness created negative attitude. There is also evidence that most neurologically handicapped and emotion ally disturbed children learn better in an orderly struc tured environment. Although our present knowledge of the relationships between classroom climate and pupil effects is limited, evidence suggests that these aspects of process are signif icant; so this study used a theoretical five-dimensional frame of reference which helped the observers select as pects of classroom climate which previous investigations found related to the learning potential of the 56 group. As the group climate emerged, the development of structure along these five dimensions--accepting, reject ing, problem centered, directive, and order (control) was noted. Accepting and Rejecting Climates There is a great deal of evidence that an accepting climate maximizes the learning in the classroom (II. H. Anderson et al., 1939, 1945, 1946a, 1946b; Christensen, i960; Cogan, 1958; Flanders, 1951, 1960; Ryans, 1961; Wilk § Edson, 1962; Withall, 1949). Since educationally handi capped children usually carry their own free-floating anxiety with them, they were hypothesized to need a learn ing situation not perceived as threatening. A milieu that also tends to satisfy their psychological needs is required to provide support necessary to enable them to marshal their resources for attacking learning tasks. Jensen (1960) stated that the acceptance relation has a direct effect upon a group member's sense of freedom to participate. If he does not perceive and feel that he is accepted and valued, his emotional responses may lead to the restriction of his participation in the group activi ties. This dimension is grounded in a basic psychological need of all human beings to be approved and valued. This need is so central to human life that whenever it is denied to a person, he experiences some degree of emotional 57 disturbance in the form of fear or aggression and tries to rectify the situation or to defend himself against further loss. As emotion is highly contagious in a group, the aggression or fear produced in a group member, because of loss of esteem or acceptability, spreads through the group and influences the kind and degree of emo tional tension present. Productive, effective work being carried on by an instructional group can be quickly terminated whenever some group member's posi tion of social acceptability is threatened and he re acts to defend himself. This kind of event, with its accompanying fight or flight emotions, tends to upset the emotional conditions that are necessary for effec tive work. (Jensen, 1960, p. 96) If the teacher demonstrates an acceptance and understanding of the educationally handicapped child's feelings and needs, the child's perception of the learning climate is favorable, and he is free to utilize his cogni tive and affective resources in learning problems that satisfy his achievement needs. Accepting Climate Certain kinds of behavior on the part of the teacher and pupils in a classroom produce this first dimen sion of classroom climate--supportive or accepting cli mate. However, as mentioned previously, the teacher's behavior is most important in setting the climate. The teacher's behavior is vital in determining norms of accep tance of a wide range of student attitudes; the teacher's supportive statements even influence and improve the social status of children (Flanders, 1960). 58 As indicated in Figure 4, the kind of behaviors that lead to one's feeling that he is in a supportive or accepting climate are commending, supporting, and agreeing with the ideas, actions, or opinions of the learner and showing acceptance and understanding of the learner's feelings. Operationally, acceptance was defined as the frequency of these type statements made by each teacher. These verbal acts would require the non-verbal behaviors of feelings of acceptance, empathy toward others, listening to the ideas and feelings of others. Behaviors leading to an accepting climate Effects of an accepting climate Encouragement and Commendation Acceptance of feeling statements Listening and communicating understanding ACCEPTING CLIMATE Decreased Defensiveness Increased initiating behavior ^ Increased Growth _ Increased Catharsis Increased Perceptiveness Increased Peer acceptance and empathy Increased Attitude Fig. 4.--The accepting climate. 59 On the right-hand side of Figure 4 are listed some of the effects of such a climate in the classroom. When such a climate exists, according to Gibb (1960), pupils and teacher feel less need to defend themselves from others, to protect their own attitude and ideas from attack. Self-initiated activity occurs more readily under supportive climates. Members grow and develop as autono mous persons. When people listen to others, the individ uals who are speaking get a chance to achieve a kind of catharsis or purging of their own emotions and feelings. Gibb feels this release is probably a necessary step in the reduction of the normal tensions that occur in all inter personal relations. When people feel supported and accepted, they have a more favorable attitude, are comfort able, and perceive better. Gibb also advocates the "benign" circle, which was observed by H. II. Anderson et al. (1945), that, when people sense they are accepted and under stood they tend to reach out in counteracceptance toward the other group members. Thus it was hypothesized that an accepting climate is associated with more favorable pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers. Rejecting Climate A contrasting rejecting climate, which was our second dimension, is described in Figure 5. As indicated in the figure, certain behaviors tend to make one feel that 60 Behaviors leading to a rejecting climate Reproof Sarcasm and belittling remarks Hostile commands Threats __ Disapproving comments Defending self Asserting and justifying self _____; ___ REJECTING CLIMATE Effects of a rejecting climate Increased Defensiveness Decreased Growth Decreased Perceptiveness Decreased Empathy Increased Aggressive feelings - 3b Increased Fear ^Increased Anxiety Decreased Attitude Fig. 5.--The rejecting climate. he is in a rejecting climate. The teacher may try to guide the behavior of the pupils by helping them focus on the problem, using reason, or using praise to reinforce desired behavior. When these more positive means of control fail, or if the teacher does not know how to utilize these skills, the teacher may turn to reproof, negative evalua tion, and disparaging remarks to keep the pupil in line. The teacher's internalized societal values largely enter into these responses. When the teacher is unable to con trol the pupils, he may feel the need to further defend 61 himself and assert his authority. Rejection was defined as the frequency of these rejecting statements made by each teacher. These behaviors tend to produce similar hostile behaviors in the pupils, which results in a rejecting climate. As Gibb (1960) comments, many of the strains of the classroom tend to promote a defensive climate. The teacher is usually under strong pressure from within him self and from those administratively above him to cover a certain amount of ground, and to mold the pupils in certain prescribed patterns. The right-hand side of the figure indicates the kinds of behavior which may result within a rejecting climate. Again this kind of behavior tends to reproduce itself. Defensive behavior produces counter-self-preserving feelings in others according to Gibb. As pupils become threatened by loss of acceptance, negative criticism, hostile commands or threats, there is an increased feeling of necessity to defend themselves. If a person's accep tance can be easily lost, as with a teacher who easily becomes upset and reproving, a pervading fear tends to underlie the emotional life of the pupils. Rejection and Control The resulting pupil behavior depends upon our fifth dimension, control. If there is a high degree of control 62 the behavior will probably be fear, anxiety, internalized aggression, and projection of the hostility; however, if there is a low degree of control, the behavior will prob ably result in externalized aggression and antagonistic or uncooperative behavior. In this hind of a threatening climate it is less possible for pupils to grow and devote their energies to learning problems. When teacher rejection is combined with lax con trol, most pupil energies are spent in pupil disruptive behaviors with low task-oriented behavior, and low achievement gain as well as a high amount of absence. However, when the rejecting climate is combined with high control, fear is present and task-oriented behavior is high when the teacher is present. Hence achievement gain in academic facts was expected to be fairly high, but the inhibition and fear created by this restrictive, rejecting climate is not conducive to growth in problem solving, creativity, and other higher cognitive learnings. In this type of environment it was also expected that absence is low due to fear. Figure 6 points out the hypothetical effects of these two types of climates. It was hypothe sized that a climate low in rejection is associated with a more favorable pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers. Problem-Centered (Democratic) and Directive (Authoritarian) Climates 63 Effects Rejecting climate with lax control Negative pupil attitude High pupil disruptive behavior Externalized aggression Low task-oriented behavior Low achievement High absence Low peer acceptance unless peers cooperatively rebell against teacher Negative pupil attitude Fear and anxiety Internalized aggression Low pupil disruptive behavior High task-oriented behavior High achievement in facts Low absence Low peer acceptance Fig. 6.--The effect of a rejecting climate with high and low control. Rejecting climate with high control 64 Thus, once the learner is freed by high acceptance and support combined with low rejection, he is able to utilize his cognitive and affective resources more fully. In addition, it was hypothesized that he needs a class climate that tends to facilitate problem-solving activities and not limit his freedom excessively with a high degree / of directives. The way in which a classroom usually solves problems and makes decisions is affected by this third dimension of the group climate--directiveness -- which previous research found related to pupil effects. Directive or Authoritarian Teacher Behavior It was postulated that a structure of authority exists in the classroom. Authority, according to Jenkins (1960) , is the ability to make decisions which affect other people. In a manner used by many authorities, Wallen and Travers (1963, p. 470) define authoritarianism as the degree to which the teacher exercises control over the behavior of the students. Operationally, for this study which observed teacher verbal behavior, it was essential to separate authoritarian or directive teacher behavior from control, for it seemed impossible to predict degree of classroom control or order from the teacher's verbal behavior. Therefore, directive or authoritarian was defined in this study as the degree to which the teacher attempted to control the behavior of the students by the 65 use of direct teacher authority, i.e., commands and direc tives. Unfortunately, this dimension is not really pure either, for if directives were hostile or negative in emo tional tone they overlapped with the rejection dimension, being both directives and rejecting, although for the purposes of this study they were classified only as rej ecting. Whether the teacher actually accomplished a high degree of control or order in this study was a separate dimension. (In this study control was defined as the degree to which group order is enforced and maintained.) In other words, how the teacher attempted to use his authority to enhance learning can be partly determined from teacher verbal behavior, but whether he actually en forced what he said (order or control) cannot. Nor can the many other non-verbal types of teacher control which are discussed in the next section. The teacher gets his authority from the school as an organization. It is unrealistic to deny the nature of authority in the school; no organization can exist long without authority of this kind. How the teacher uses this authority is the issue for consideration, or how the learn ing task is imposed on the group or individual. If the class is to be allowed to make any decisions or solve any problems the teacher has to give it that responsibility, for the pattern of authority established 66 by an instructional group depends on the extent to which the teacher desires to exercise his authority to make decisions and solve problems himself or to delegate them to the group. Daily numerous decisions have to be made about such things as the best procedure to follow, general guides for behavior, or learning problems that must be solved. The tasks that must be accomplished by the prob lem solving are classified by Jensen (1960, p. 97) into the following five subdivisions: problem formation, idea-getting, idea-testing, choosing among ideas, and planning action. When the teacher retains his authority the instructional group will be a truncated problem solving group and will not be allowed to carry out all of these functions. In its common form, the directive or teacher-centered lecture pattern is largely an idea- getting and idea-testing process with little emphasis upon the other three functions of problem solving. The idea giver, the lecturer, serves as the primary role taker, and in its extreme form no other roles are taken by other members of the group. Ideas and advice are handed down by the teacher. The teacher has all the answers. r Problem-centered Teacher Behavior Perhaps the key determiner of the fourth dimension-- problem-centered type of behavior--is a teacher who is 67 willing to share in the problems of the group members and enter with the other pupils into a relation in which they jointly explore the problem. By his talk and actions the pupils can "read" whether they are permitted to share in the problem solving or whether the teacher desires to retain his authority himself. A teacher interested in developing a group problem-solving climate would probably also use support to reinforce and encourage students' expression of their ideas and opinions. Permissiveness may or may not be found with the problem-centered or democratic approach, for in this study it was a separate dimension defined as low or lax control. However, ideally permissiveness in accepting any pupil behavior would not be found in a classroom. This concept becomes confused because of the misconception of accepting children's behavior instead of accepting their feelings and ideas and guiding their behavior. Many educators assumed guiding behavior had to be done in a harsh, irra tional, authoritarian manner and the alternative was letting children "do what they want because they will see I accept them, then they will love me." Many did not see this third alternative of cooperating with the group or individual in setting limits which is necessary to gain children's respect and make them feel secure. The purpose of the problem-centered teacher is to facilitate the problem-solving abilities of the learner. 68 He may offer facts and ideas to the learner in an objective manner without advising and recommending the adoption of certain ideas and procedures. The learner should be free to accept or reject the facts as he begins to solve learn ing and behavior problems and make decisions for himself. However, rather than being non-directive, the teacher actively guides the learner by raising problem-oriented questions and making problem-oriented statements to assist the learners to focus on the task. The teacher encourages the learners to set behavior limits, make decisions, iden tify and define goals. Figure 7 attempts to indicate the kinds of teacher behaviors that produce a problem-centered climate. Problem-centered was operationally defined as the frequency of these statements made by each teacher. On the right- hand side of the figure are listed some of the effects of such a climate. Pupils are expected to have a more favor able attitude toward work, become more involved in tasks, and grow more in their ability to solve problems, evaluate, and make decisions. The severest criticism of democratic education has occurred when the climate has really been laissez faire or permissive and group and individual limits were not set, much less enforced. A democratic or problem-centered climate needs to be combined with order or structure in management techniques as well as structured, systematic 69 Behaviors leading to a Effects of a problem-centered problem-centered climate climate Accepts pupil s r Growth in ideas and ^problem-solving opinions--------- ability Raises problem- -----> Growth in ability oriented to express questions-------- > opinions and ideas Makes problem- oriented PROBLEM- ---- > Growth in ability s tatemen t s------- > to evaluate CENTERED -----> Growth in ability CLIMATE to make decisions ---- > More favorable attitude toward work More involvement, motivation, initiative, and participation Fig. 7 . - - The Problem-centered Climate. 70 programming to provide good learning opportunities. The pattern of authority for decision making and problem solving has an immediate and strong influence on the kind and amount of involvement and participation which emerges from members of a class. A number of studies have shown clearly that different degrees of motivation or involvement can be produced by different patterns of authority relations, especially as they center about the teacher (H. H. Anderson et al., 1945; Cogan, 1958; Flanders, 1951, 1960; Lewin, Lippitt, 8 White, 1939). It was hypothesized that educationally handicapped children need a highly problem-centered environment with low direc tiveness to help them have a more favorable attitude toward their work. Control (Order) versus Lax Control (Disorder) The permissive era has passed. Once again educators realize that order performs a fundamental service to soci ety and is not simply something to be used in a derogatory sense. Conformity to the norms of the group meets impor tant individual needs and is a basis of our laws, customs, and standards of conduct. Group consensus can be qsed as a basis for the attainment of group goals with teacher guidance. Conformity to group rules does not necessitate giving up one’s individuality or creativity. As Olson (1960, p. 271) stated, ’’Good practice requires control for 71 both the short-range goal of order and the long-range goal of internal growth." Murrary as early as 1938 pointed out the need of the individual for order, including it in his list of needs. Children need order or control. Having a support ive and problem-centered environment is not enough, parti cularly for most educationally handicapped pupils. They have not learned to assume responsibility themselves, becoming confused and fearful, and easily distracted from their learning activities when disruptions occur. They need an environment in which there is structure and order (Cruickshank et al., 1961; Haring 8 Phillips, 1962; and others reviewed in preceding review of research). They need to feel safe and secure in knowing what to expect, which is achieved through control and setting clearly defined limits. Types of Control Many previous investigators have taken the unso phisticated position that a teacher who says to the class, "Open your book and read page 12," is exercising control over the pupils, but a teacher who says, "Good," commending a student for telling another student to be quiet, is not. Educational psychologists know this is not valid, for the latter type of positive verbal reinforcement may have even more prolonged controlling effect on the child's behavior. 72 Or a non-verbal affectionate squeeze, caress, or smile may control the pupil's behavior by reinforcing what the child lvas doing more than extensive negative reproof and criti cism. So teacher control achieved by positive power means may be even more effective than directives or negative power techniques. Control by Teacher Power There are at least four ways through which order may be achieved. The first is by the simple use of direc tives in which the teacher makes the rules and gives the orders, having the learner take up the teacher's point of view. In this case control would be primarily authoritar ian or directive. Teacher directiveness may be combined with either acceptance or rejection. In the first case the teacher would give an order and then praise the child for carrying out the order to shape his behavior in the manner of the benevolent autocrat. In the second case directiveness would be combined with rejection, and negative power techniques would be used. In both these cases control is brought about by teacher power. Jenkins (1960, p. 167) defined power as "the capability of aug menting or impeding need satisfaction." One person has power over another when he can control the rewards and punishments which that person receives. When the teacher exercises his power over the student in a punishing manner, 73 the dimension of control is combined with authoritarian climate and rejection. The most obvious use of power to punish would be through physical force to beat the child. Fortunately this is not usually found in schools today, but other methods are, such as threats to lower grades, sending pupils to the office or home, threatening to tell the par ents, or other punishments designed to force children to accept decisions of the teacher. Control Delegated to the Group In the other two cases the power is partially dele gated to the group, The teacher and individual or group cooperatively solve problems, set limits, and plan natural consequences. However, in order to achieve control the teacher must guide the pupils one step further to see that the group decisions and consequences are objectively enforced and maintained. In addition to the problem- centered democratic climate which is also low in directive ness and the orderly climate, the teacher .behavior may hopefully be accepting (plus low in rejection), showing understanding of the pupil's thoughts and feelings. This was theoretically the ideal climate in which the best pupil effects were expected. A fourth way theoretically possible combines problem-centeredness with rejection. Figure 8 illustrates these four different types of control. Lax Control 74 Directive. (Teacher power ) plus Acceptance ( Positive power techniques ) { as reward or praise ) Directive ( Teacher power ) plus Re j ection ( Negative power techniques ) ( as punishment and reproof ) Problem-centered ( Pupil and Teacher ) ( cooperatively plan ) plus Acceptance ( Positive power techniques ) Problem-centered ( Pupil and Teacher ) ( cooperatively plan ) plus Rej ection (Negative power techniques ) Fig. 8 -Different types of control (order). 75 At the other end of the continuum we have lax con trol or disorder in which the teacher attempts to keep power, but uses lax, ineffective control techniques. Or, relinquishing power, the teacher is permissive or sub missive, which is defined as giving the child a great deal or freedom, acceding to the child's demands, lax ineffective and inconsistent discipline. Again, these may be performed in the manner of a warm, overindulgent teacher, or in a rejecting, neglecting manner. A Definition of Control Which techniques the teacher uses to try to achieve control--negative or positive power techniques combined with teacher directives or democratic delegation of responsibility--can be partly determined from teacher ver bal behavior. Whether or not the teacher actually achieves order or control in the classroom cannot; so pupil behavior was observed to measure this dimension. Order or control was defined as a low degree of pupil disruptive behavior during observations. A lack of order or lax control was defined as a high degree of pupil disruptive behavior. If the pattern of control has been established by the teacher in interaction with the group, the frequent testing of boundaries done by pupils early in classroom life should disappear. This global dimension might be thought of as reflecting the degree of control 76 exerted within the classroom without specifying the way in which such control is achieved. In an orderly classroom climate with low pupil disruptive behavior there are less behavioral distractions; therefore it was hypothesized that task-oriented behavior and achievement of facts are higher. As mentioned earlier, when order is combined with rejec tion fear is created, and it was hypothesized that absence is lower. Sex of Teacher During the past 15 years, as this researcher observed reactions of elementary educationally handicapped pupils to teacher behavior, it appeared that the sex of the teacher was an important variable. Although male teachers have low control and are not highly accepting, or make rejecting remarks, the children still seem to have a more favorable attitude toward their teacher, work, school and class, and peers, and have higher productivity than they do when they have a female teacher with the same type of climate. Perhaps the fact that the majority of educa tionally handicapped pupils are boys who strongly desire to identify with a male affects the pupil reaction. How ever, how individual pupil's personality, sex, and needs affect the classroom interaction was not a part of this study. For the purposes of this study it was predicted that maleness of the teacher is related to a more favorable 77 pupil attitude and higher productivity. The reasons under lying this differential reaction to teacher sex were not investigated. In other words, it was hypothesized that pupil attitude toward the teacher, school and class, work, and peers and pupil productivity (task-oriented behavior) are more favorable in classroom climates low in control, and not high in acceptance plus low in rejection with a male teacher than with a female teacher. Model for the Present Study The results of this analysis suggested that it was important to consider at least five independent dimens ions--acceptance, rejection, problem-centered, direc tive, and control--in formulating hypotheses for classroom climate. Therefore, these factors characterize the highest scale values on five separate scales of measurement. Acceptance and rejection as well as problem centeredness and directiveness were not considered as bipolar variables representing opposite ends of two continuums, for such a representation would have precluded the possibility that any person could evidence some degree of each variable. Rather, they were considered as four separate qualities which could be assessed independently. Thus the relation ship between acceptance and rejection and between problem centered and directive was considered only moderately negatively correlated at best. Figure 9 shows these five 78 Climate factors related to positive pupil effects Climate factors related to negative pupil effects High acceptance Low acceptance Low rejection High rejection High problem centered Low problem centered Low directive High directive High control Low control Fig.--9. Classroom climate factors predicted to be related to positive and negative pupil effects. factors and their predicted relation to positive or nega tive pupil effects. Acceptance was defined as the degree of presence of the following teacher verbal behaviors: commending and encouraging statements and making state ments indicating acceptance and understanding of feelings. Rejection was defined as the degree of reproof, sarcasm, threats, hostile commands, and self-defensive comments. Problem centered was defined as the degree of teacher behavior which accepts pupil ideas and opinions, raises problem-oriented questions, or makes problem-oriented statements. Directive was the degree of teacher directives or commands to have the learner take up the teacher's point of view. The control versus lax control dimension 79 was defined at the high control end as a low degree of pupil disruptive behavior with low control being a high degree of pupil disruptive behavior. Predicted Relation of Classroom Climate to Pupil Effects Figure 10 shows the predicted relationship of dif ferent types of classroom climate to certain pupil effects by integrating the previous research. High acceptance and low rejection were expected to be related to high teacher attractiveness (TA), high-school class attractiveness (SCA), and high peer attractiveness (PA), unless the group sympa thizes or rebels against the teacher. High problem centered and low directive were expected to be related to high work attractiveness (WA) (and higher learning in crea tivity and higher cognitive process which was not a part of this study). High control or order was expected to be related to high task-oriented behavior (TOB) when teacher was present and high factual academics; although, if it was not combined with high problem-centered climate, growth in creativity and the higher cognitive processes was not expected to be as great. High control and low acceptance was predicted to result in lower absence due to inhibition of aggression and fear of reprisal. Higher absence was predicted to be related to rejection with lax control. Male sex of teacher was predicted to be related to higher pupil attitude and productivity scores in climates which 80 Classroom Predicted Climate Pupil Factors Effects High acceptance High teacher attractiveness Low rejection High school and class attractiveness High peer attractiveness High problem centered High work attractiveness Low directiveness High control High task-oriented behavior High academic performance High control and Low absence Low acceptance Low control and Low acceptance High absence Male teacher High task-oriented (compared to behavior female with same High teacher, school and type climate) class, work, and peer attractiveness Fig. 1 0 -Classroom climate factors predicted to be related to positive pupil effects. 81 are not high in control, high in acceptance, and low in rej ection. Two more inclusive predictions were made. Class room climates high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem centeredness, low in directiveness, and high in control are predicted to be the most effective. Class room climates low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in problem centeredness, high in directiveness, and low in control are predicted to be the least effective. The method of evaluating effectiveness is presented in the next chapter. Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II presents the purpose and hypotheses for the present study, describes the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations,and defines terms used throughout the study. Chapter III describes the subjects, the research tools used to analyze the dependent and independent vari ables, the research design and procedures, method of classifying estimates, and the statistical treatment of the data. Chapter IV presents the finding of this investiga tion with an evaluation in terms of the research hypothe ses . Chapter V summarizes the study. Then conclusions 82 and recommendations are formulated which are based upon the findings. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM Classroom climate has been conceived as a set of dimensions of behavior derived from interaction in the classroom. The theoretical basis for treating classroom climate as composed of five dimensions was discussed in Chapter 1. This chapter presents the purpose and hypotheses for the present study, describes the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, and defines terms which are used throughout the study. The Purpose It was the purpose of this study to investigate the role of classroom climate based on five dimensions of classroom climate--acceptance, rejection, problem centered, directive, and order--in the success of special classes for the educationally handicapped. Previous research had inves tigated the effect of these dimensions on adults, college students, and normal children. The previous studies had also confounded the variables (e.g., combined directive plus accepting into one single bipolar dimension, etc.). The independent variables needed to be operationally defined so that if significant differences emerged one 83 84 would be able to determine to which source to attribute any significant differences found. Therefore, it remained to be investigated whether a classroom climate of high accepting, low rejecting, high problem-centered, and low directive teacher behaviors accompanied by high control (order) was most successful in producing a favorable atti tude and high productivity with educationally handicapped pupils. It was hoped the present study would cast some light on which kind of classroom climate is most advanta geous for most educationally handicapped children. Independent Variables: The Dimensions of Classroom Climate Classroom climate was defined operationally as the teacher and pupil behavior measured in the following five dimensions: (1) accepting teacher statements; (2) reject ing teacher statements; (3) problem-centered teacher statements; (4) directive teacher statements; and (5) order or control (amount of pupil disruptive behavior). These five dimensions constituted the independent variables for analysis. Reliance was placed on psychologists to system atically observe teacher and pupil behavior. It was postulated that classrooms differed in these five factors and that these differences were indi cators of general uniformities. Thus the goal was not to evaluate classrooms along these five dimensions, but to describe how differences among classrooms on the five 85 variables were related to the pupil effects (dependent vari ables). This means that a classroom was perceived as located at some position on all five scalable factors. This combination was referred to as the classroom climate, e.g., a class was characterized as low in acceptance, high in rejection, high in problem centered, low in directive ness, and high in order (control) or any other combination of positions on the five factors. Dependent Variables: Effects on Pupils The nine pupil effects viewed as related to the type of classroom climate constituted the dependent vari ables of the study. These were: (1) task-oriented behav ior; (2) teacher attractiveness; (3) school and class attractiveness; (4) work attractiveness; (5) peer attrac tiveness; (6) pupil performance in reading; (7) pupil per formance in spelling; (8) pupil performance in arithmetic; and (9) amount of absence. These were only some of the more observable or measurable effects and omitted many other possible effects, such as improvement in problem solving, creativity, and values which may have been even more important. Task-oriented Behavior Task-oriented behavior was the number of pupils engaged in the expected classroom activity during each observation. 86 Attractiveness to Pupil Attractiveness to pupil was the degree of satisfac tion expressed by the pupil with selected objects of the class or school situation. Four dimensions were defined to specify pupil feelings or attitude: teacher, school and class, work, and peer. These four dimensions covered both cognitive and affective processes. Measures of attractive ness were taken in the spring. Academic Performance Academic performance was measured by adjusting pupils' posttest scores in achievement for differences in age and initial ability. The individual reading, spelling, and arithmetic achievement tests were administered in October 1966 and again in May 1967. Absence Absence was the amount of times pupils were absent during the first nine school months. Effective and Ineffective Classroom Climates According to the theoretical framework developed in the first chapter, it was conceived that classrooms high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem centered- ness, low in directiveness, and high in control would be the most effective. It was predicted that classroom climates low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in 87 problem centeredness, high in directiveness, and low in control would be the least effective. An effective classroom climate is defined as one in which the greatest degree of the following positive pupil effects occurred: (1) high task-oriented behavior; (2) high teacher attractiveness; (3) high school and class attractiveness; (4) high work attractiveness; (5) high peer attractiveness; (6) high reading performance; (7) high spelling performance; (8) high arithmetic performance. In addition, few or no negative pupil effects occurred. An ineffective classroom climate is one in which the greatest degree of the following negative pupil effects occurred: (1) low task-oriented behavior; (2) low teacher attractive ness; (3) low school and class attractiveness; (4) low work attractiveness; (5) low peer attractiveness; (6) low read ing performance; (7) low spelling performance; (8) low arithmetic performance; (9) highest or lowest absence. In addition, few or no positive pupil effects occurred. In bringing about this effect the behavior of the teacher was considered of prime importance, although peer behavior was also involved. A Field Experiment An evaluative study between classrooms was impos sible as it was not feasible to assign the children to classrooms randomly. Hence, this was a survey 88 investigation in which, instead of artificially varying conditions, the research studied in vivo the natural varia tion of the variables of interest. Then the relation of these five variables to selected pupil effects was deter mined. It was felt that spontaneous teacher roles were better to observe than imposed ad hoc experimental teacher roles to get an unbiased description of the educationally handicapped classrooms as they actually were. Questions to be Answered 1. Is acceptance in classrooms related to pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers? 2. Is rejection in classrooms related to pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers? 3. Is problem centeredness in classrooms related to pupil attitude toward work? 4. Is directiveness in classrooms related to pupil attitude toward work? 5. Is control in classrooms related to task- oriented behavior, and reading, spelling, and arithmetic performance? 6. Is absence low in classrooms high in rejection and high in control? 7. Is absence high in classrooms high in rejection 89 and low in control? 8. Is sex of teacher related to better pupil atti tude and higher task-oriented behavior in classrooms which do not have effective class room climates? 9. Which classroom climates are most effective? 10. Which classroom climates are least effective? Hypothes es 1. Pupils in classrooms high in acceptance have significantly higher scores on teacher, school and class, and peer attractiveness than those in classrooms low in acceptance. 2. Pupils in classrooms low in rejection have significantly higher scores on teacher, school and class, and peer attractiveness than those in classrooms high in rejection. 3. Pupils in classrooms high in problem centered- ness have significantly higher scores in work attractiveness than pupils in classrooms low in problem centeredness. 4. Pupils in classrooms low in directiveness have significantly higher scores on work attractiveness than pupils in classrooms high in directiveness. 5. Pupils in classrooms high in control have significantly higher scores in task-oriented behavior and in reading, spelling, and arith metic than pupils in classrooms low in control. Pupils in classrooms low in control and low in acceptance have significantly greater absence than pupils in classrooms high in control and low in acceptance. Pupils in classrooms which are not high in control and high in acceptance (plus low in rejection] with male teachers have significant ly higher scores in task-oriented behavior and teacher, school and class, work, and peer attractiveness than pupils with female teachers. Classroom climates high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem centeredness, low in directiveness, and high in control are the most effective. Classroom climates low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in problem centeredness, high in directiveness and low in control are the least effective. Assumptions Observation by psychologists is an effective means of obtaining data about classroom behavior. 91 2. Teacher behavior has an effect on pupil behavior. 3. Teacher verbal behavior is a representative sample of total teacher behavior. 4. An average score is a good estimate of the teacher’s true score in verbal behavior in the classroom. 5. The instruments used to measure pupil attitude reflect true pupil attitude toward the teacher, school and class, work, and peers. Limitations In an exploratory study of this type the major limitation was the selectivity factor, as it was not pos sible to assign children randomly to special classrooms. Therefore, results and conclusions from this study are limited in generalizability to other samples. All that can be done is to give a picture of each of the educationally handicapped classrooms as they were. It is further limited to the categorization and assessment of the verbal behavior of eleven teachers and the categorization of pupil disrup tive behavior in this definition of classroom climate. Furthermore, a sample this small may have limited the range of variability on some of the variables. Del imitations This study was delimited to the pupils and teachers 92 in the oldest primary group and all the intermediate and upper groups in the elementary educationally handicapped classes in Torrance Unified School District. Definition of Terms Educationally handicapped.--California Education Code, Section 6750, defines an educationally handicapped pupil as someone . . . who, by reason of marked learning or behavioral problems or a combination thereof, cannot receive the reasonable benefit of ordinary education facilities; • • • but who are not also handicapped by mental retardation or obvious physical disabilities for which special programs are already provided elsewhere in the code. Title 5, California Administrative Code, Section 221, further defines an educationally handicapped pupil as . . . a minor described in Education Code 6750 whose learning problems are associated with a behavioral disorder or a neurological handicap or a combination thereof, and who exhibits a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement. Classroom climate-The emotional atmosphere cre ated by those non-cognitive social skill behaviors that consistently predominate in most teacher-pupil contacts. Operationally in this study it refers to the teacher and pupil behavior measured in the following five dimensions: (1) accepting teacher statements; (2) rejecting teacher statements; (3) problem-centered teacher statements; 93 (4) directive teacher statements; and (5) high control (amount of pupil disruptive behavior). Verbal behavior.--The oral statements of the teacher as he participates in and influences classroom act ivity. Systematic classroom observation.--Observation in which the observer plays no role in the quantification process except to record the frequency of behaviors which fall into certain pre-determined categories. He is not required to combine behaviors to arrive at some global rating on a dimension. Learner-centered behavior.--Teacher behavior which reassures, commends, accepts, or structures problems for the learner with the intent of sustaining the pupil and increasing the amount of freedom among the learners. Teacher-centered behavior.--Directive, reproving, or teacher-supporting behavior practiced by the teacher with the intent of limiting the amount of freedom among the learners. Acceptance.- -Commending and encouraging statements and making statements indicating acceptance and under standing of feelings. Rejection.--Reproof, sarcasm, threats, hostile 94 commands, and self-defensive remarks. Problem-centered behavior.--Teacher behavior which raises problem-oriented questions, accepts pupils ideas or opinions, or makes problem-oriented statements. Directive behavior.--Teacher directives or commands to have the learner take up the teacher's point of view. Permissive.--Permissive refers to lax, ineffective, and inconsistent control in which the teacher is submissive or relinquishes his control and accedes to the child's demands. Low control (disorder).--A high degree of pupil disruptive behavior present during observations. High control (order).--A low degree of pupil dis ruptive behavior present during observations. "Effective" educationally handicapped classroom climate.--Climates in which the greatest degree of the following positive pupil effects occurred: (1) high task- oriented behavior; (2) high teacher attractiveness; (3) high school and class attractiveness; (4) high work attrac tiveness; (5) high peer attractiveness; (6) high reading performance; (7) high spelling performance; (8) high arithmetic performance. In addition, a few or no negative pupil effects occurred. 95 "Ineffective" educationally handicapped classroom climate.--Climates in which the greatest degree of the the following negative pupil effects occurred: (1) low task-oriented behavior; (2) low teacher attractiveness; (3) low school and class attractiveness; (4) low work attractiveness; (5) low peer attractiveness; (6) low read ing performance; (7) low spelling performance; (8) low arithmetic performance; (9) highest or lowest absence. In addition, few or no positive pupil effects occurred. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter deals with the methodology of the investigation. The purpose of this chapter is to present a description of the subjects, the research tools used to analyze classroom climate (independent variables), then the research tools used to analyze the pupil effects (dependent variables), and the research design and proce dures . The Subjects Torrance Unified School District has 34 elementary schools. The population which these schools serve is more homogeneous than in many large communities, for there are fewer lower class and less minority races. For example, the Negro population in Torrance was only .024 per cent inthe 1960 census, and most of these families live in the strip served by Los Angeles City Schools. The average value for housing was $22,875. and the median income was about $7,500. in 1960 (Torrance Chamber of Com merce, n.d., mimeographed). Following a smaller pilot study, six centers for the educationally handicapped program were chosen on the basis of which schools had empty classrooms available. 96 97 Each center had upper and intermediate classrooms and five centers also had primary groups. Pupils were identified from a population of about 28,000 elementary school chil dren. After being identified and tested by the child's regular school of attendance, those children who met the criteria for educationally handicapped were placed in one of the six centers. Placement was according to a bus schedule and whether space was available, not according to the child's behavioral or diagnostic type. In other words, if a child lived in the north end of town he would more likely be placed in a center on the north side or central Torrance rather than one further south. The sample initially consisted of all six upper educationally handicapped classes (approximate grade level 6th to 8th), all six intermediate educationally handicapped classes (grade level about 4th through 6th), and only the oldest primary group, which had some children with a one year earlier birthdate than the intermediate groups.^" After the first observation for this study was completed, one upper and one intermediate class at the same ^The other four primary groups were not included, as they contained children several years younger. It was doubtful whether some of these younger children could com prehend the Pupil Attitude Inventory. Also, with such an immense age difference it was questionable whether the semantics would mean the same to a five- or six-year-old as they would to the older children in the study. It seemed the age variability had already been greatly stretched in order to obtain a sample of adequate size. school refused to participate. This left an upper and intermediate educationally handicapped class at four ele mentary centers and an upper, intermediate, and primary class at the fifth center, for a total of 11 classrooms. There were 11 teachers and a total of 117 educationally handicapped pupils (94 boys and 23 girls) with 10 or 11 pupils per classroom. In October 1966 the age range of the primary class was 7 years 10 months to 9 years 4 months, the intermediate classes were 9 years 1 month to 12 years 2 months, and the upper classes were 11 years to 14 years 7 months (only one child was over 13 years 8 months). Pupil Characteristics In order to objectively describe the characteris tics of the subjects, previous methods of classifying children according to type of disturbance or behavior were reviewed. Two methods of classification have been prevalent-- those based on concrete observable behavioral traits and labels requiring clinical judgments by a spe cialist which usually refer to etiology of a disorder. Classifying Children by Behavior One of the earlier research studies (Hewitt § Jenkins, 1946) began by analyzing case studies from the Michigan Child Guidance Institute. Three behavioral types were identified: (a) unsocialized aggressive behavior, 99 (b) socialized delinquency behavior, and (c) overinhibited behavior. More recently Jenkins (1966) used computer clustering to re-examine the behavioral symptoms of 500 of these same child guidance cases. The computer techniques established the existence of five symptomatic groups: shy-seclusive, over-anxious-neurotic, hyperactive, undomes ticated, and socialized delinquent. The behavior symptoms most characteristic of each of these groups was described, as well as the characteristic family backgrounds. Over the past decade Peterson and Quay with various co-workers have studied a wide range of discrete problem behaviors of children. Data in the studies' were collected from three sources: (1) personality questionnaires were administered to groups of juvenile delinquents and non delinquents for self-reported behavior. (2) Children's present behavior was rated by teachers and correctional officers on the Peterson Problem Check List. This check list was devised by Peterson (1961) by tabulating the 58 most common problems at a guidance clinic. (3) Case- history data on juvenile delinquents wererated on a Behavior Check List devised by Quay (1964a) from the syn dromes found by Hewitt and Jenkins (1946), plus a further group of items designed by Quay to tap a factor of "Inade quate Delinquency." Then, subjecting these data to factor- analytic techniques, they have shown that these behaviors represent three basic underlying dimensions of behavior 100 along which all children will vary. The first investigations attempted to find the personality factors in juvenile delinquency as inferred from personality questionnaires (Peterson, Quay, § Cameron, 1959; Quay § Peterson, 1960; Quay, Peterson, § Consalvi, 1960; Peterson, Quay, § Tiffany, 1961; Tiffany, Peterson, § Quay, 1961). Later research on juvenile delinquents used direct ratings of behavior (Quay, 1964b), and all three methods were used to collect data on younger delin quents (Quay, 1966). The studies were next extended to regular school children from kindergarten to 8th grade. Analysis of direct ratings by teachers of problem behaviors were made (Peterson, 1961; Quay § Quay, 1965). Later research (Quay, Morse, 8 Cutler, 1966) demonstrated that emotionally disturbed children in spe cial classes in the public school have the same problem behaviors which cluster along three dimens ions--conduct problem, personality problem, and inadequate-immature. In addition a fourth dimension, socialized delinquency, had been found by Quay (1964a) in studies which had ana lyzed case-history data. The failure of this syndrome to emerge in the other studies using the Peterson Problem Check List items was perhaps due to the scale not ade quately tapping this factor. Consequently, Quay has now added six items which measure this fourth factor. 101 Thus, according to Quay, the. majority of the vari ance of ratings of children’s behavior problems can be subsumed by these four independent dimensions. The first dimensional cluster of behaviors is called unsocialized aggression, psychopathy, or conduct disorder, and is com posed of such behaviors as aggression, overactivity, defi ance, irresponsibility, and other such disrupting behav iors. The second dimension represents anxious, withdrawn, introvertive behavior and has been labeled personality problem or neuroticism. The immaturity-inadequacy dimen sion contains such behaviors as daydreaming, lethargy, suggestibility, and laziness. The dimension called social ized delinquency is made up of behaviors most closely associated with the young delinquent of the urban deterio rated area where deviant rather than deficient socializa tion is characteristic. This prolific stream of research by Quay and Peterson has one major weakness--a theoretical framework to sharpen the research objectives and coordinate the studies is lacking. Other investigators (Schaefer, Aaronson, § Burgoon, 1965, mimeographed) have been developing a method to sys tematically collect ratings on children’s social, emotional, and task-oriented behavior in the classroom. They have developed scales for 17 traits on the Classroom Behavior Inventory. This rating scale contains 320 specific, observ able behavior items. Factor analysis yielded two major 102 factors, Extraversion versus Introversion, and Adjustment versus Maladjustment in the classroom. A third factor subdivides the scales that have loadings on Maladjustment into a sector of hostile behaviors defined by irritability, suspiciousness, dominance, cruelty, covert hostility, and resentfulness; and a sector of hyperkinetic, distractible behaviors defined by distractibility, work fluctuation, hyperactivity, inappropriate talkativeness, as well as not conscientious, not calm, and not obedient. This second sector is negative task-oriented behavior while the first is negative social behavior. Research with this check list has been extended to children in the Netherlands (Schaefer, Droppleman, § Kalverboer, 1966, mimeographed), as well as American pre school headstart children and regular primary children. The length of the scale at its present stage of develop ment is too unwieldy, but further attention is warranted. Schaefer has not only carefully developed specific, con crete, observable behavioral items which should increase objectivity, but also based the research on a conceptual model. The California State Department of Education (Bower 5 Lambert, 1962a, 1962b; Lambert, 1963) has devel oped three methods of identifying children with an emo tional handicap; however, the purpose of their instrument is to screen or identify children, not diagnosis. These 103 instruments collect three different perceptions of the child in a classroom: the teacher's perception of the child's day-to-day behavior, classmates' perceptions of the child's classroom and school behavior, and the child's self-perception. These instruments are an effective method of screening children with emotional handicaps, particu larly when they are used in unison. Classifying Children by Clinical Judgment At least two systems have been used to classify children in special classes for emotionally disturbed. In Wyandotte, Michigan (Rubin § Simpson, 1960), children were categorized as one of the following types: (1) those with a "neurotic" type of disturbance, displaying such symptoms as inattentiveness, daydreaming, fearfulness, and overcom pliance; (2) children who have personality disturbances with immaturity, demandingness, aggressiveness, defiance, and stubbornness; (3) those with emotional disturbances with a possible organic component, but without clear-cut evidence of organic brain damage, who demonstrate restless ness, hyperactivity, and poor impulse control; (4) those with symptoms of withdrawal and weak reality contact. In a later progress report concerning the same project (Simpson, Betwee, 5 Rubin, 1962, mimeographed) the four diagnostic types were shortened to anxiety, organic brain damage, immaturity, or withdrawn. A 40-item Behavior 104 Check List to be performed by the classroom teacher was added later in the study to evaluate change. The items were grouped to produce seven categories. Some categories were measured by only one item, and no mention was made of any reliability or validity studies with this check list. Combinations such as immaturity with aggressiveness and defiance, and underachievement with overachievement, seemed inappropriate to this investigator. In a larger scale study (Morse, Cutler, § Fink, 1964), 442 emotionally disturbed children were classified according to a system of Rabinovitch (1963). (These same children were also rated on the Peterson Behavior Check List in a study discussed above.) Rabinovitch proposed five basic categories of disturbance--neurotic, encephalo- pathic, schizophrenic, primitive-neglected, and affection- less personality. A sixth category, undifferentiated academic, was added. Thus some labels designate the medi cal or psychiatric etiologies as in the case of "encephalo- pathic" or "schizophrenic." Other labels emphasize a non medical causation as "neglect" as well as a label seemingly related to the effect of a disability, "undif ferentiated academic." As pointed out earlier (p. 9), assignment to psychiatric categories requires subjective clinical judgment which is impractical for school purposes. Even experts are often unable to reach agreement. The labeling of a dimensions such as "encephalopathic" does 105 not seem warranted unless the dimension loads items having to do with neurological status as well as behavior. The Instrument Used to Describe Pupils The Quay revision of the Peterson Problem Check List was used for this study (see Appendix A). It was decided that direct ratings of actual classroom behavioral items which had been analyzed into basic dimensions through factor analysis was the most objective method, and Schaefer's instrument is presently too cumbersome. How ever, one must be aware that pupil behaviors in just the present classroom environment are being described. Behav ior may vary in other situations. Only the 45 items loading on the four dimensions are used in describing the subjects, although 10 additional items are included by Quay "which are related to things such as psychoticism in the Devereaux studies by Spivack et al." (Quay, personal communication, 9-30-66). In addition, the investigator added eight items to give fur ther information regarding a conduct problem who displays hyperactive and distractible behavior, but not hostile behavior. It appears Quay's dimensions do not take into account this type of child with hyperactive and distract ible behavior and perceptual problems which affect learn ing, but not socially negative behavior. 106 Reliability of the Peterson Problem Check List The reliability coefficient of observer agreement was examined by Peterson (1961) for only the kindergarten group, since only that group had dual ratings available. Interjudge correlations of .77 and .75 were found for Factors 1 and 2, respectively. The correlation between the two factors was .18. The interrater reliability coef ficients for the factor scores in the later study (Quay § Quay, 1965) were not as encouraging. The reliability coefficients which range from .22 to .71 are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Interrater Reliability Coefficients for Factor Scores (From Quay § Quay, 1965) Factors Seventh Grade Eighth Personality .31 . 22 Conduct . 58 .71 Immaturity • • .31 Test-retest reliability was obtained for ratings of the children in the present study. ..Each teacher was asked to re-rate a random sample of three pupils from his 107 classroom (Total N = 33) two weeks after the original ratings. No dual teacher ratings were possible, for all children were in self-contained classrooms. The test- retest reliability coefficients for the four factors which are presented in Table 4 were quite high. Table 4 Two-Week Test-Retest Correlations for Factor Scores, Present Study (N = 33) Factor Reliability Coefficient Conduct .95 Personality .80 Inadequate-Immature . 79 Socialized Delinquency .81 The above data seem to support earlier statements that pupil behavioral traits may be situational and that teacher behavior has an important influence on pupil behavior. The correlation between these four factors for this same sample of 33 randomly selected pupils was low except for the relation between conduct problem and socialized delinquency which was moderate (.43). The correlations 108 are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Intercorrelations of Factor Scores, Present Study (N = 33) p I SD c .09 .24 .43 p ■ • .36 - . 01 I • « ■ ■ .17 Description of the Subjects All 117 of the subjects were Caucasian except two who were Mexican-American and one who was of Japanese descent. As discussed earlier, the Quay revision of the Peterson Problem Check List was used to describe the behavioral characteristics of these educationally handi capped pupils. The total means and standard deviations for the entire population on each of the four factors--conduct problem, personality problem, inadequate immature, and socialized del inquency- - are shoivn in Table 6. Since no appropriate norms were provided for regular class pupils beyond grade 2 and the special class norms received from Quay were based only on a sample of 12 chil dren, an arbitrary standard was selected. Thus, Table 6 109 Table 6 Peterson Problem Check List Scores for All Educationally Handicapped Pupils (N = 117) Factor No. of items iMean Standard Deviation Score if rated mild on all items Score if rated severe on all items Conduct problem 17 5.98 4.94 9.67 19.34 Personality problem 14 5.61 2.72 6. 59 13.18 Inadequate immature 8 1.81 1. 29 3.08 6.16 Socialized delinquency 6 .69 1.09 2.99 5.98 also shows the average factor-loading score a pupil received if he had been rated on all items measuring each factor to a mild degree. Then the next column presents these scores doubled as a child would score if rated on all items to a severe degree. This would be the highest score obtainable on each factor. This particular popula tion scores higher on the personality-problem type of behavior; however, none of the means approached the maxi mum positive score so it appears these behavior types are not significant problems to this educationally handicapped population as a whole. As mentioned above, conclusions 110 cannot be made as appropriate norm data are not available. Research Tools Used to Analyze Classroom Climate Data for this study were collected iri situ. The Withall Climate Index, as revised by this researcher, was used to categorize teacher accepting, rejecting, problem- centered, and directive verbal statements. The Pupil Disruptive Behavior Check List was designed for the mea surement of the fifth dimension, order or control. Withall’s Climate Index Through the use of Withall’s (1949) Social- Emotional Climate Index, teacher verbalizations were ana lyzed to assess the classroom learning climate. Employing this technique, it is possible to assign each statement made by a teacher to one of seven categories as follows: 1. Learner-supportive statements that have the intent of reassuring or commending the pupil. 2. Acceptant and clarifying statements having the intent to convey to the pupil the feeling that he is understood and to help him elucidate his ideas and feelings. 3. Problem-structuring statements or questions which proffer information or raise questions about the problem in an objective manner with the intent of facilitating the learner’s Ill problem solving. 4. Neutral statements which comprise polite for malities, administrative comments, verbatim repetition of something that has already been said. No intent is inferable. 5. Directive or hortative statements with the intent to have the pupil follow a recommended course of action. 6. Reproving or deprecating remarks intended to deter the pupil from continued indulgence in his present "unacceptable” behavior. 7. Teacher self-supporting remarks intended to sustain or justify the teacher’s position or course of action. (Withall, 1948, pp. 40-43) These seven categories were seen by Withall as lying along a continuum from "learner centeredness" to "teacher centeredness," categories 1, 2, and 3 being learner centered and 5, 6, and 7 teacher centered. Starting with an original list of 25 categories of teacher verbal behavior, Withall was able to reduce this number to the seven stated above. They seemed to cover all teacher statements in a psychologically meaningful fashion. (See the frame of reference and criteria for Withall's original seven categories in Appendix B.) If a majority of a teacher's statements fell into categories 1 through 3, the climate was described as learner centered; if more fell 112 in categories 5 through 7, it was called teacher centered. The ratio of the numbers of 1, 2, 3 statements to the total, excluding category 4, was called the "Climate Index." Research Using the Climate Index Thelen and Withall (1949) studied the objectivity and inter-rater reliability. Median correlations (tetra- choric) of .84, .76, and .93 were obtained between four judges and the researcher on three typescripts. Further measures of the objectivity of the index were found by computing correlations (tetrachoric) between categoriza tions of each of the five judges on three transcripts. The degree of association between each judge with one another on each category was ascertained by computing 210 tetra choric correlations. Contingency coefficients computed on the same data ranged between .76 and .89. Further check on the consistency of the index was made by comparing day-to-day variations. There was only one case in which the teacher behavior varied significant ly, and that was while giving an unusual project which the class rejected. Withall (1951) concluded that 200 state ments offered an adequate sample of a given teacher's statements. Validity was also studied in terms of the relation ship to Anderson's (1946) Integrative-Dominance Ratio secured on the same data, ratings by experts, and pupil 113 reactions to experimentally varied learner-centered and teacher-centered social-emotional climates (Thelen § Withall, 1949). Withall (1951) reported that the pattern on 200 teacher statements does not change appreciably as size of the sample increased. As few as 50 statements differen tiate between climates of two specific activities, although generalization to other situations would probably not be warranted. Inter-judge correlation (tetrachoric) averaged .84. Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953) carried Withall's work further in New York. They visited two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade teachers eight times each. They cate gorized teacher statements at the time of observation in the classroom, rather than from transcripts of sound recordings, which they felt contained too much extraneous noise. They found that self-trained observers, working independently and observing the same behavior, could closely agree on the classification of teachers' statements. They found that categories 2 and 7 were rarely used, so they did not analyze them separately. They found that teachers showed marked fluctuations in their verbal behav ior, but "real” differences among teachers were still apparent. However, it was not until the second series of observations that the teacher differences were clearly manifested. 114 Mitzel and Rabinowitz estimated the reliability of the Climate Index (coefficient of stability) at .47 and the coefficient of observer agreement at .96. They con cluded that it was wasteful to send two observers into a classroom at the same time since observer agreement is typically much higher than the reliability coefficient of a category. A later study by Medley and Mitzel (1958b) helped resolve the question of the reliability and validity of Withall’s Climate Index. Observations were made during twelve visits to 49 public elementary teachers in New York City. Reliabilities of four of the categories were established (calculated from analysis of variance data as described by Medley § Mitzel, 1963, p. 310), as follows: Problem-structuring (Category 3) .79 Directive (Category 5) .51 Reproving (Category 6) .87 Supportive (Category 1) .71 Following considerable experience measuring class room behavior by systematic observation Medley and Mitzel advise, "The total length of a visit to an elementary-school classroom is generally between 20 minutes and a half-hour" (Medley § Mitzel, 1963, p. 305). In another study, Brown (1960, 1961) used the Climate Index to measure the classroom climate of 15 third- grade teachers and found scores on the Index ranging from 115 34.0 to 78.5 for the teachers observed. (A higher score indicated a more pupil-centered climate.) Brown reported that his findings indicated that the pupils who were underachievers and overachievers and who had teachers with high scores on the Climate Index made higher achievement scores than similar pupils who were in more teacher- centered classrooms. However, Medley and Mitzel (1963, p. 297) point out that Brown made an error which resulted in underestimation of his partial correlations. Conse quently, they conclude that it is impossible to tell from the published data what the correct correlational values would be. One finding in a study by Terwilliger (1965) was of interest. While observing classrooms to determine if student teacher behavior was influenced by their cooperat ing teacher, he noted a variable which had not been con trolled, a significant difference between the scores of teachers as they taught different subjects. Teachers were more learner centered when teaching social studies and science than when teaching reading, arithmetic, and spelling. Obtaining Observer Agreement on Categorizing Teacher Verbal Behavior Training sessions were held at least weekly through September and October 1966 in order to establish satis factory inter-rater agreement between the three psychologist 116 observers. Preliminary training sessions used films and transcripts with individual practice in classrooms between sessions until inter-rater agreement using the Withall Climate Index with the innovations described below was above 90 per cent. During these training sessions, in which each teacher statement was discussed in terms of intent, observer disagreement was noted regarding category 2, acceptance of pupil's feelings and ideas (see Appendix B for original Withall categories and Appendix C for follow ing revisions by the investigator and examples). To improve agreement it was decided to code only statements reacting to the learner's feelings under this category. Those remarks having to do with the ideational content of the learner's statement were placed under category 3, problem centered. (These remarks were extremely rare.) One other change was made. The majority of cate gory 6 remarks were made when the teacher found the pupil's present behavior unacceptable, with the teacher intent being to change the pupil’s present behavior or attitude to a more desirable one. If a command, advice, etc., was given in a neutral or non-hostile tone the remark was coded 6a. If a negative, hostile tone or content was used, it was coded 6b, as was sarcasm, threats, ridicule, etc. Thus teachers who attempted to change unacceptable pupil behavior in a neutral, non-hostile manner were 117 differentiated from those teachers employing a negative, hostile manner or tone of voice. Example: Child was wandering aimlessly about room. If teacher stated, "Please sit down," in a neutral tone of voice, it was coded 6a. If teacher stated, "Get in your seat!" in a negative, hostile tone of voice, it was coded 6b. Category 5 remained for all directives, commands, or orders to which a student was expected to comply. How ever, if the directive was given because the teacher dis approved of the pupil's present behavior with the intent to change the pupil’s behavior it was classified in category 6a or 6b depending upon whether the content or tone was negative (hostile). Another major way teachers seemed to handle pupil behavior which was undesirable was through probing or factually restating a group rule in a positive non threatening way in order to have the learner try to solve the problem himself, rather than using direct teacher authority to change it. This type of teacher statement or question was coded 3b to differentiate it from other 3 statements which primarily seemed to focus on curriculum work type problems. This did not change Withall's coding method for statistical purposes as 3b comments were still classified as 3’s, but it did offer more analytical infor mation regarding how the teacher used his authority in 118 handling behavior problems. Example: (1) Teacher ashed child about a reading word, "Is it long e or short e?" This was coded 3 as the problem-centered question referred to the teacher's attempt to help the pupil solve a curriculum or academic type of problem. (2) If two children were fighting and the teacher, in an objective, non-emotional manner, asked, "What happened?" This was coded 3b as the problem-centered question referred to the teacher's attempt to help the pupils solve a behavior problem. Using this procedure, statements were categorized in terms of their intent, not their content. (A complete description of the categories used and examples of each are found in Appendix C.) Finally on October 24, 1966, all three observers coded 100 teacher verbal statements from a primary educa tionally handicapped classroom. The statements were recorded on tape. The percentages of agreement were believed to represent a high measure of observer agreement. The percentage of agreement between observer one and the researcher was 90 per cent, and the percentage of agreement between observer two and the researcher was 93 per cent. The field experiment was begun with the researcher making the first round of observations during that week. The method is described later in the section on research design. 119 In order to maintain reliability throughout the school year, the observers continued to get together weekly at lunch after the initial training ended, to discuss ground rules and special problems of classification. At these meetings any unusual classification problems were discussed and a policy established so all observers could react consistently if the same problems occurred again. Reduction of the Halo Effect The halo effect is defined as "the tendency, in making an estimate or rating of one characteristic of a person, to be influenced by another characteristic or by one’s general impression of that person" (English § English, 1958). In this study, the observer merely recorded the behavior of each teacher on a record sheet described below and gave it to the researcher, who filed the sheets until the series of observations was complete. By postponing analysis, i.t was hoped to avoid any general impressions of the behavioral characteristics of teachers which would tend to influence the subsequent observations. Pupil Disruptive Behavior Check List In the first stages of attempting to measure the amount of order or control, the third dimension of classroom climate, two scales were developed by the researcher to classify pupil behavior--one for disruptive behavior and another for supportive behavior. However, it 120 was not possible to code both pupil-behavior scales and teacher behavior simultaneously. Therefore, rather than limit the pupil-behavior scales to a separate time sam pling, the Supportive Scale was dropped and only pupil disruptive behavior was coded. When coding pupil disruptive behavior each act is assigned to one of 10 categories as follows: 1. Communicative activity. 2. Pupil displays apathy. 3. Pupil is restless. 4. Pupil plays with foreign object or doodling. 5. Pupil interrupts teacher. 6. Pupil ignores teacher's question. 7. Pupil shows hostility toward teacher. 8. Pupil shows verbal hostility toward another pupil. 9. Pupil shows physical hostility toward another pupil. 10. Other behavior not listed above that tends to disrupt the class. These 10 categories are intended to be all inclu sive for any disruptive act. (Categories of disruptive behavior and definitions are found in Appendix D.) These disruptive acts were classified as they occurred during the entire 30-minute observation periods, with the score 121 being the total number of disruptive acts for each class room. The thinking of a number of individuals contributed to this scale. Previous scales used by Cornell et al. (1952), Kowatrakul (1959), Medley and Mitzel (1958), Patterson and co-workers (1965) , and Wilk and Edson (1962) were reviewed before the present original scale was formulated. Observer Agreement on the Pupil Disruptive Behavior Check List Inter-rater reliability on the scale was not believed high enough for the data to be used until the second round of observations. At that time the percentage of agreement between researcher and observer one was 86, and between researcher and observer two was 94. The rela tively greater observer disagreement earlier was between the researcher and observer one because this observer consistently noted more category 3 and 4 behaviors which were not coded by the researcher. Recording Classroom Teacher and Pupil Behavior The verbal behavior of the teacher was recorded as well as the disruptive pupil behavior. Each time upon entering the classroom the observer first quickly sketched the seating, placing a number to represent each pupil. The drawing was made on the back of the Pupil Behavior Record 122 Card (see Appendix E). Then the drawing was placed where each child's number could be seen easily for recording pupil behavior. The time and activity were noted, and the 30-minute observation period began. The observer listened to teacher statements, decided into which category each statement belonged, and recorded the category numbers on plain 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper. Numbers were placed in sequence down the left side, so the original sequence of events was preserved. Comments or actual teacher state ments were freely added for questions on coding and later clinical analysis. (Previous researchers had merely recorded the frequency of statements falling into each category.) There were several classifications of verbal behav ior which were not categorized because the patterns were not typical. In administering a spelling test, for instance, the entire observation might have consisted of the pronunciation of words from a list followed by illus trative sentences. These verbal statements, being quite homogeneous, would obviously not be truly representative of the total verbal behavior of the teacher. Accordingly, the observers did not include stereotyped patterns such as reading a story, dictating spelling words, roll calls, etc. When this occurred the time interval was noted during which coding did not occur, and this amount of time was added at the end of the 30-minute observation period. Thus 123 an observer may have been in a classroom more than 30 minutes, but only 30 minutes of interaction was coded. (This length of observation followed the advice of Medley and Mitzel, 1963, which was discussed earlier.) Meanwhile, pupil disruptive behavior was also being recorded for each 30-minute observation period on the righthand margin of the same 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. It was placed at the right of whatever the teacher was saying at that time in order to give a better picture of the total teacher-pupil interaction pattern. For example, "1-4" placed at the right margin meant pupil num ber 1 was committing the fourth type of disruptive act, which is fiddling with a foreign object. After the obser vation was completed the pupil disruptive acts were trans ferred to the front of the Pupil Behavior Record Card by the observer (see Appendix D). Then the record card and the 8 1/2 c 11 sheets numbered in sequence for this obser vation were given to the researcher to file away until the data were analyzed at the conclusion of all observations. Questions regarding how to code something were discussed, but the frequency of comments in categories etc. was not completed in order to eliminate the halo effect discussed earlier. This same Pupil Behavior Record Card was also used for recording task-oriented behavior, the first of the dependent variables which is now discussed. 124 Measurement of Pupil Effects Pupil effects include task-oriented behavior, pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, work and peers, academic achievement, and absence. Each of these dependent variables is discussed in this section along with the instruments used to measure each of them. Task-oriented Behavior Research reviewed by Ryans (1961) and Sears (1963) showed the importance of the relationship of such a process criterion to teacher behavior. Task-oriented behavior is operationally defined as when the child is working on his school-assigned task at the end of every 30-minute obser vation period. Each child was observed according to the seating chart mentioned above which had been quickly draivn when the observer entered. Each child was given a number; then after each number on the back of the Record Card the proper mark was made. A check (/) indicated the child was task-oriented, a "WM indicated the child was waiting for the teacher, and an "X" indicated the child was non-task- oriented. (See Appendix F for directions given observer and a copy of the back of a record card on which the observer made appropriate checks after the number of each child.) The proportion of pupils present that were task- oriented was obtained at four different times for each classroom. The average of these four was taken to be the 125 best estimate of the value of Task-Oriented Behavior for that classroom. The Measurement of Pupil Attitudes Previous student attitude inventories were reviewed before constructing the Pupil Attitude Inventory described below. One chain of research which was followed began with the work of Grim, Hoyt, and Peitiersen (1954) on the Hoyt-Grim Pupil Attitude Inventory, which was used in the 1955-56 Minnesota studies by Flanders (1960). Linnes (1956) carried out an item analysis to identify those items which best discriminated between students who scored in the top and bottom groups. These items were then used by Flanders (1960) in New Zealand. Then the best of these items was used in developing the Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory which was used to select teachers for Flanders' (1960) later study. The total inventory relia bility for a random sample of students was .28--"quite low" Flanders, 1960, p. 45). Reliability of the Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory long form varies from class to class and with the sample chosen, the range is from .68 to .93, with the median reliability at .85. The validity of these scales is clearly established, according to Flanders, as they identified classroom situations in which patterns of teacher influence were significantly different. Medley and Klein (1957) developed a Pupil-Reaction 126 Inventory, "My Class," which was administered to 1,289 pupils in New York City to yield actual information about the teacher and pupil classroom behavior rather than just pupil feeling. The reliability of the Climate Scale was so low that the scale is not useful in its present form according to Medley (personal communication, 1-17-67). An objective measure of environmental press, which is a new way of looking at how school environments differ at the college level, is offered by Pace and Stern (1958). Amatora (1952, 1954) published a five-point Diagnostic Teacher Rating Scale for elementary pupils to rate their teachers on specific traits in seven areas. Dixon and Morse (1961) had pupils respond to questionnaires to obtain an "empathic potential" which was used to predict teacher performance. Gage, Leavitt, and Stone (1955) had nearly 3,000 pupils in grades 4, 5, and 6 rate their 103 teachers. Pupils' perceptions of the appropriateness of the teacher's behavior in meeting pupils' cognitive, social, and emo tional needs was measured by two rating scales employing the same 12 items. Morse, Bloom, and Dunn (1961) included pupil ques tionnaire data in their study of school classroom behavior. Their purpose was to compare the perceptions of teacher, pupil, and observers in diverse evaluative frameworks which included measures of anxiety and acceptance. Due to Sarason's warning that defensiveness toward emotionally 127 focused scales increases when time interval separates administration, they did not attempt to check retest relia bility. Sarason reported the test-retest correlation on the Test Anxiety Scale for Children ranged from .55 to . 78 (1960, p. 297) . Morse, Cutler, and Fink (1964) assessed how emo tionally disturbed pupils throughout the United States perceived conditions in their present special class and how they remembered these conditions to be in their pre vious school. Gordon and Adler (1963) used pupil perception to measure the effect of different types of teacher leader ship on 2,700 pupils in grades 6-7, 7, and 8 of the Torrance Unified School District. Items \^ere first tried out in a pilot study in which they pretested the items for comprehensibility and validity. The pupil responses were treated according to Guttman Scaling procedures and all of the resulting scales had coefficients of reproduci bility of at least 88 per cent. All items were found to be scalable. Several studies (e.g., Bush, 1954; Davidson, 1960) support the high positive relationship of pupil attitude, a process criterion, to product criteria such as academic achievement. The Pupil Attitude Inventory 128 The Pupil Attitude Inventory used in this study consists of 44 items divided into three sub-scales: 25 items on teacher attractiveness, 11 items on school and class attractiveness, and 8 items on work attractive ness. (See Appendix G.) Each of these sub-scales is dis cussed in the following section. Teacher Attractiveness The 25 items to measure teacher attractiveness came from three sources. The majority of them (1-20) were from the 48-item questionnaire, "My Teacher," by Leeds (1946) which has not been published. "My Teacher" was administered to 200 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade groups of approximately 25 N. The reliability was .83 for 10 raters. Then using the Spearman-Brown formula, the reliability coefficient .93 was obtained as the estimate of reliability of the instrument for 25 raters (Leeds § Cook, 1947). The odd items were correlated with the even items for a random sample of 200 children, obtaining a reliability coefficient of .94 (Cook § Leeds, 1947). In a later study (Leeds, 1954), "My Teacher" was administered to 200 groups of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Actually this was two separate identical investi gations of 100 teachers in Pennsylvania and 100 teachers in South Carolina. An intensive study of the 10 highest and lowest teachers was made to determine which items 129 discriminated better. Two later studies cast further light on the relia bility and validity of this instrument. Della Piana and Gage (1955) and Mazzitelli (1957) also reported the relia bility of the mean of about 20 pupil ratings using this inventory to be typically about .90, and the means were significantly correlated with other variables as the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The present study was like these studies in employ ing the pupils' reaction to their teachers as a measure of over-all liking or disliking for a teacher, "pupil-teacher rapport," or "halo." Inferences regarding actual teacher behavior were not made, so the procedure did not seem open to question for this purpose. Items 23 and 25 were from scales used in the Gordon and Adler research described above. The remaining three items were original. School and Class Attractiveness Items 26-31 on school attractiveness were also from the aforementioned research done by Gordon and Adler in Torrance. Those on the special class (32-36) were original items. Work Attractiveness Items in this section were formulated after review ing research by Cogan (1956, 1958a, 1958b) and Gordon and 130 Adler (1963). Cogan used a "Pupil Survey" to measure junior-high-school pupil productivity in required work and in self-initiated work. The items in both of these studies seemed too sophisticated for some of the educa tionally handicapped population; so again these items are original, but influenced by the previous researchers. Comprehensibility of the Pupil Attitude Inventory The items were first tried out for comprehensi bility on the twin of one of the children in the study. This twrin was in a primary educationally handicapped class which was not included in the study. These children were more retarded in verbal areas on an individual intelligence test than other children in the study. Each question was read by the researcher to the child in a small room away from the classroom. The examiner questioned the child whether she knew what each item meant as she answered each question "Yes" or "No.” Words which she did not understand were underlined. Then some of her more verbal classmates were invited to help explain the questions "so other kids would know exactly what it means." coop eratively this group devised the words in parentheses following the items which seemed understandable to all. For example, after reading item number one aloud, the examiner added, "I mean does your teacher reward you or tell you when you do a good job?" 131 These children also pointed out that some of the questions could not be answered simply "Yes’1 or "No.11 Upon their encouragement an "In between" or "Sometimes" category was added. The responses were weighted 3 for a positive response, 2 for "in between," and 1 for a negative response. Thus the higher the score, the more attractive was the teacher, school and class, and work. The ques tionnaire was then tried out on five more educationally handicapped boys, and they stated that they understood the questions. During the actual administration if the chil dren did not understand they were to tell the examiner. The inventory was administered orally to only one to three children at a time. After the six interview questions were asked, an individual interview followed in which all items answered negatively were clarified to determine if the pupil understood the question. The entire adminis tration takes about 45 minutes, and the attention span of all but two of these primary educationally handicapped pupils held throughout. The other two were able to handle it easily with one break. Administration of the Pupil Attitude Inventory The Pupil Attitude Inventory was administered oral ly in a small room away from the teacher during April 1967. Only one to three children were present at a time. Each child was assured his responses would be held in 132 confidence. (The teacher was given only a general group report which did not disclose any information given by any individual child.) Test-Retest Reliability of the Pupil Attitude Inventory The 45-item inventory was readministered two weeks later to three boys from each classroom selected by a table of random numbers. The child of the chosen number was taken from the alphabetical class list for the boys. If one child was absent that day, the next child on the list alphabetically was substituted. The test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained for the teacher, school and class, and work attractiveness scales of the questionnaire. The data are presented in Table 7. The reliabilities on the last two scales, which are based on only 11 and 8 items, are lower. The first scale contained 25 items. Peer Attractiveness Much credit must go to Moreno and his followers (1934) for the development and use of the sociometric "test" today. Cunningham (1951) commented about 15 years ago that extensive use of these sociometric techniques has begun only recently. With regard to reliability and valid ity of sociometric procedures, Lindzey and Borgatta point out that neither term is particularly applicable to this 133 Table 7 Two-Week Test-Retest Correlations for Pupil Attitude Scales (N = 33) Scale Test-Retest Correlation Teacher Attractiveness .90 School and Class Attractiveness . 77 Work Attractiveness .67 kind of measure. They conceive of sociometric measures as rating scales, stating: On the other hand, there is no need to train raters to engage in sociometric ratings. . . . The rater is asked to apply exactly those particular, unique, and sometimes irrational criteria he has spent a lifetime developing. (Lindzey § Borgatta, 1954, p. 406) Specifically with regard to validity they say, "if the investigator limits his interest to measurement of interpersonal choice, it is clear that the somewhat dubious concept of 'face validity’ is applicable here” (p. 422). They indicate further that with such a limitation (to inter personal choice) there is virtually no need to attempt to demonstrate either validity or reliability, Remmers (1963) reports that several authors point out that the concepts of test-retest reliability and internal consistency can be relatively meaningless and 134 even misleading when applied to sociometric data. The principal difficulty involved in test-retest coefficients lies in the problem of distinguishing between effects of memory and those of real change. The Ohio Social Acceptance Scale was the instru ment used in this study (see Appendix H). Developed at Ohio State University's Bureau of Educational Research, this instrument asks children in a classroom to rate all the other group members on a scale from 1 to 6. Each rating carries with it a paragraph of description of vary ing degrees of like, dislike, or indifference. A rating of "1," for instance, is accompanied by a description involving the highest degree of liking: 1 would like this person for my very best friend." A rating of 6, which is at the other end of the continuum, reads, "I dislike this person." On the Ohio Social Acceptance Scale each pupil received a rating weighted in the following manner: 15 points for a first choice, 10 points for a second, 5 for a third, 1 for a fourth, 0 for a fifth, and -1 (minus one) for a sixth. Then these weighted ratings were totaled for each individual's "social acceptance" score. Because of the usual differences in friendship patterns by sex lines, each student received a same sex score, an opposite sex score, and a total score. This scale was administered in April 1967. 135 Pupil Academic Performance The Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak, 1946) was administered in October and again between May 1st and 15th in all classrooms. Scores were obtained for each student in reading, spelling, and arithmetic. The Wide Range Achievement Test posttest scores were used as the dependent variable; however, the means of the posttest scores were adjusted in accordance with covariation of this dependent variable with age and pretest score (initial ability). Consequently the student population for this variable is smaller (N = 96), as only those pupils who were present during both the pre- and posttest could be used. Absence Classroom absence is defined as the number of days each of the 117 pupils was absent. If a pupil was not enrolled nine months, then the estimated number of days absent for the nine-month period was obtained by multi plying the number of absences by an appropriate corrective. The Research Design and Procedures Overview The hypotheses offered in this study (see p. 89) are predictions of higher or lower student attitude, pro ductivity, and absence according to different types of classroom climate which are based mainly on teacher 136 behavior. In order to test these hypotheses, the research design arranged a comparison of teacher behavior or class room climate as the independent variable, with student effects as the dependent variables, or' outcomes. In a field experiment in which the independent variable is the spontaneous behavior of regular teachers, the greatest limitation is probably that the teachers were not trained to manifest particular patterns of behavior. Further limiting the study to only the educationally handicapped classrooms did not provide as wide a range of variability in teacher behaviors as would be ideally desirable to test the hypotheses. If the teachers had been trained to pro vide more dramatic differences in their behavior, there might have been greater differences in the outcomes, but then one would not have a true picture of what the educa tionally handicapped classrooms were really like. There fore, it was decided to observe classroom climate by measuring spontaneous classroom interaction patterns. The Field Experiment The purpose of the study was explained to all Torrance Unified School District principals who had educa tionally handicapped classes in their buildings. Then all educationally handicapped intermediate and upper teachers were contacted, as well as one primary teacher whose pupil population was only one year younger than the intermediate 137 groups. The other four primary classrooms were not in cluded as the pupils were younger, making the age variance too great for some of the instruments such as the Pupil Attendance Inventory. Following the observer training sessions described earlier, a schedule of observations was decided. The researcher observed all classrooms in late October, with the other observer, who was the psychologist assigned to each school, folloitfing in November. The two observers did not observe at the same time due to the findings of Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953), mentioned earlier, that the con sistency of the teacher behavior is much loxver than the consistency of agreement between observers once they have been properly trained. During this first observation round reading was to be observed. (Research reviewed earlier [Terwiliger, 1965] had warned that teacher behavior changes significantly with the subject being taught.) Then to arrange for as wide a behavior sample as possible, different subjects were observed in the next observation rounds. It was felt that it was preferable to obtain a wider picture even though it would loiter the consistency of teacher behavior. During round two arithmetic was to be observed whenever possible. The researcher made his observations in January, with the other observer following as soon as he could schedule it. Then during the next round of observations begun by the researcher in March, 138 social study group work was observed if it was included in the class schedule. Several classrooms did not have social studies; so, if other group projects were scheduled, such as a science project, that was observed. Another round of observations was planned in the design by the researcher for May, but the psychologist observers were not able to fit it into their schedule. Each observation lasted for 30 minutes of inter action, during which the observers coded both teacher and pupil behaviors as explained above. Then these data from these six 30-minute classroom observations of the eleven teachers were analyzed in order to classify the climate for each classroom. The method used to classify climate is presented in the next section. Classifying the Classroom Climate In Chapter I five factors were considered theoreti cally important to classroom climate--acceptance, rejec tion, problem centeredness, directiveness, and control. Classrooms were classified on the first four dimensions by analyzing the teacher verbal behavior data collected by using the Withall instrument as revised by the researcher. Acceptance was operationally defined as the amount of cate gory 1 and 2 statements. Rejection was defined as the amount of category 6b and 7 statements. Problem centered ness was the amount of category 3 statements, and 139 directiveness was the amount of category 5 statements. The fifth dimension, control, was classified from the amount of pupil disruptive behavior which was observed. Those classrooms low in pupil disruptive behavior were consid ered high in control; those classrooms high in pupil disruptive behavior were considered low in control. Classifying Teacher Verbal Behavior Each teacher verbal statement was classified into one of the seven categories described in detail earlier. (See Appendix C.) Each teacher was ranked according to the frequency of statements made in each category during six observations. (The frequency of responses by teachers for each category is presented in Appendix I.) Consistency of Teacher Behavior.--The observer agreement or concordance in ranking teachers on the amount of statements made in each category during the six obser vations was established by applying Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (see Hays, 1963, p. 656). Table 8 shows the variance of the rank sums for observer 1 (the research er) and observer 2 (the school psychologist), and the total concordance for categories 1, 3, 5, and 6 (a + b). Categories 2 and 7 were so rare that they were not com puted. The low agreement is not surprising considering that the research design was purposely planned to observe as much variation in teacher behavior as was possible. 140 Table 8 Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance Category or Index Observer 1 W Observer 2 W W for total Observations 1 .56 . 22 .41 3 .52 .22 .24 5 .54 . 58 .37 6a + 6b .88 .63 .49 Intercorrelations for Categories-The correlations between the categories are presented in Table 9. Cate gories 1 and 2, which were defined as measuring acceptance, were highly correlated (.77). Categories 6b and 7, which were defined as measuring rejection, were also highly cor related (.86); however, they did not correlate highly with each other (-.27). Thus it appears that these are two separate factors rather than one single bipolar dimension. Category 3, which was defined as problem centeredness, and category 5, which was defined as directiveness, had a moderate correlation (.41). Classifying Teachers in Acceptance and Rejection In Tables 10 and 11 teachers were rank ordered according to the mean frequency of accepting (category 1 and 2) and rejecting (category 6b and 7) statements made Table 9 Intercorrelations for Categories and Dimensions 1 2 3 5 Category 6a 6b 6 7 1 + 2 6b + 7 Category 1 It 2 .77 1 1 3 .61 .17 IT 5 .18 - .42 .41 It 6a .17 .00 -.03 .32 II 6b -.18 - .42 .11 .64 .00 1 1 6 - .15 - .41 .11 .68 .16 .99 II 7 - .28 - .34 -.04 .38 -.33 .86 .79 It 1 + 2 .51 .00 .13 -.26 - .23 - .32 1 ! 6b + 7 -.19 -.41 .09 .62 .04 .99 .98 .89 -.27 PDBa -.48 -.25 -.42 -.10 .44 .39 .46 .30 -.43 .39 aPDB = Pupil disruptive behavior. 141 Table 10 Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Accepting Statements Acceptance Classification Mean Accepting Statements per 30-Minute Observation Class Code Number High 12.42 11 7. 33 7 7.17 8 Medium 5. 58 6 4.17 4 4.08 3 3. 50 1 2.83 9 Low 2 .25 5 2.17 10 2.00 2 per observation. The three highest and the three lowest teachers were classified as high and low, respectively, in acceptance. In rejection only the two highest and the two lowest teachers were classified as high and low, as they seemed considerably higher or lower than the other teachers. Classifying Teachers in Problem Centeredness and Directiveness The mean frequency of problem-centered (category 3) and directive (category 5) statements made by each teacher per observation is shown in Tables 12 and 13. The three highest and lowest teachers were classified as high 143 Table 11 Classification of Teachers According to the • Mean Frequency of Rejecting Statements Rej ection Classification Mean Rejecting Statements per 30-Minute Observation Class Code Number Low .17 11 .17 8 Medium 2.33 3 3. 33 5 4.67 2 S.83 4 8.00 1 8.17 6 12.00 9 High 22.50 7 28. 33 10 144 Table 12 Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Problem-Centered Statements Problem- Mean Problem- Class Code Centeredness Centered Statements Classification per 30-Minute Observation Number Low 32.50 4 33.67 2 35.16 10 Medium 35.83 5 36.33 3 § 9 40.67 1 § 11 High 50.00 8 53.16 7 54.50 6 145 Table 13 Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Direct Statements Directiveness Classification Mean Directive Statements per 30-Minute Observation Class Code Number Low 5.17 4 8.83 11 9.00 6 Medium 10.33 2 11.17 5 11. 50 3 12.17 1 12.83 8 High 13.83 10 14.67 9 21.50 7 and low, respectively, in these factors. Some teachers seem inconsistent and mixed up in how they behave. Note how teacher 7 is high in acceptance (Table 10), high in rejection (Table 11), high in problem centeredness (Table 12), and high in directiveness (Table 13). Consequently, acceptance and rejection as well as problem centeredness and directiveness are not dependent bipolars (opposite ends of single dimensions on a continu um). If one is high on one, he is not automatically low on the other; hence they are not incompatible. So acceptance and rejection and problem centeredness and directiveness were treated as four separate main factors 146 and not two bipolar factors. As explained in Chapter I, most previous research not only combined acceptance and rejection, but also problem centeredness and directiveness into one single dichotomous dimension called learner centered-teacher centered, integrative-dominative, or indirect-direct. However, one is unable to determine if a teacher is direc tive, then he is not problem centered and accepting, for some teachers seem inconsistent and mixed up in how they behave during teaching. Classifying Teachers in Control Teachers were classified on the control dimension according to the mean frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors demonstrated in their classroom. A natural arbitrary cut-off was found between classrooms 6 and 5. Those classrooms averaging less than 17 pupil disruptive acts per observation were considered high in control. Those classrooms which had more than 30 pupil disruptive acts per observation were considered low in control. The classification rank orders and means for pupil disruptive behavior are shown for each classroom in Table 14. Classifying Effective or Ineffective Classroom Climates An effective classroom climate was defined earlier 147 Table 14 Classification of Teachers According to the Mean Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behavior Control Classification Mean Pupil Disruptive Acts per 30-Minute Observation Classroom Code Number 6.75 11 8. 50 1 High 9. 75 9 Control 10. 50 8 16. 25 6 30.75 5 31. 75 7 Low 33. 25 7 Control 33. 75 2 45. 50 10 53.00 4 (see p. 92) as one where the greatest degree of pupil effects was demonstrated as well as few or no negative effects. An ineffective climate was defined as one where the greatest degree of negative pupil effects was shown along with few or no positive pupil effects. Determining Degree of Positive Pupil Effects Each classroom was ranked according to scores from first place to last place on each of the nine pupil effects except absence. In determining the greatest amount of positive pupil effects the following weights were arbi trarily assigned: 4 points were given for each first place (highest) 148 3 points were given for second from highest 2 points were given for third from highest 1 point was given for fourth from highest In case of two classrooms ranking the same, both were given the points. Thus, if the same classroom scored highest on all eight pupil effects the highest score obtainable was 32 points. Table 15 shows the number of variables on which each classroom scored in the top four positions and the total number of positive points ob tained. Classrooms 8 and 11 scored highest. Classrooms receiving the fewest or zero points were considered lowest on positive pupil effects. Class rooms 10 and 3 were lowest; 2, 4, and 6 were next lowest. Determining Degree of Negative Pupil Effects Then this same method was reversed to determine which classrooms were highest in negative pupil effects. Classrooms had already been ranked according to their scores on each of the nine pupil effects except absence. Then scores in the last four positions were arbitrarily weighed in the same manner as follows: 4 points were given for the last place (lowest) 3 points were given for the next to last 2 points were given for scoring third from last 1 point was given for scoring fourth from last 149 Table 15 Distribution of Positive Pupil Effects Classroom Code Numb e r Number of Variables in Highest Four Positions Number of Positive Points 1 4 8 2 2 4 3 1 1 4 2 4 5 4 8 6 2 4 7 3 5 8 7 28 9 3 6 10 0 0 11 5 14 On absence 4 points were given to classrooms 10 and 6, scoring highest and lowest in amount of absence. Those scoring second from highest (classroom 2) and second from lowest (classroom 7) in absence were given 3 points. Thus the highest negative score possible was 36 points. The classrooms receiving the fewest or zero nega tive points were lowest on negative pupil effects. Table 16 shows the number of variables on which each classroom 150 Table 16 Distribution of Negative Pupil Effects Classroom Code Number Number of Variables in Lowest Four Positions Number of Negative Points 1 1 1 2 4 13 + 3 3 4 4 4 5 13 5 2 5 6 5 16 + 4 7 4 8 + 3 8 0 0 9 3 5 10 7 21 + 4 11 0 0 scored in the last four positions and the total number of negative points obtained. Classrooms 10 and 6 obtained the most negative points, then 2, then 4, Classrooms 8 and 11 had no negative points. Effective Classroom Climate Only classrooms 8 and 11 were highest on positive points and received no negative points; hence their class room climate was considered effective or successful. 151 Ineffective Classroom Climate Classroom 10 had the least effective climate, scoring highest on negative pupil effects and receiving no positive points. Classrooms 2, 4, and 6 were next lowest as far as receiving several negative points and few positive points. Classroom 3 received even fewer positive points than 2, 4, and 6; however, this climate did not receive a high degree of negative points; so it does not qualify as ineffective by the definition which was used. Statistical Treatment of the Data The data were punched on IBM cards and submitted to the Western Data Processing Center, University of California, Los Angeles, for computer processing. The programs presently available through Biomedical Computer Programs (Dixon, 1964), were used whenever they were appropriate. The technique of planned comparisons (see Hays, 1963, p. 465) was used to answer the particular questions tested by Hypothesis I through Hypothesis VII except for Hypothesis V, which required covariance analysis. These techniques were applied to treatment group (classroom) means representing fixed level factors. Group means were combined for each hypothesis in a particular way to test the relation of the independent variables--acceptance, rejection, problem centeredness, directiveness, and 152 control--to the pupil effects (dependent variables). To test each of the research hypotheses (see p.183), 14 planned comparisons were necessary and three covariance analyses. A probability level of .05 was selected for rejection of the null hypotheses. Two additional hypotheses were considered but were not tested by a statistical test. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents the findings and evaluates the research hypotheses relative to these data. A dis cussion of the findings and conclusions is presented in the final chapter. Hypothesis I--Relation of Acceptance to Teacher, School and Class, and Peer Attractiveness In order to test the hypothesis that acceptance is related to more favorable attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers, the teachers were first classified as high or low in acceptance (see Table 10). Ia--Teacher Attractiveness and Acceptance The three highest classes on acceptance (cate gories 1 and 2) were classrooms 7, 8, and 11. The scores on Teacher Attractiveness for these classrooms high in acceptance were compared with the scores for classrooms 2, 5, and 10, which were low in acceptance. The technique of planned comparisons was used (see Hays, 1963, p. 465). (The data are presented in Table 17.) This yielded a highly significant F statistic. The three classes highest 153 154 in accepting climate were significantly higher in Teacher Attractiveness than the three classrooms lowest in accep tance . Table 17 Hypothesis la Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on Teacher Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 7852.48 10 • • • • • • Comparison 1 1563.45 1 1563.45 20.71* Remainder 6289.03 9 6289.03 • • • Error (within groups) 7775.32 103 75.49 • « • Totals 15627.80 113 Sum of Means, high acceptance group = 210.01 Sum of Means, low acceptance group = 179.50 *Significant at .001 level. Ib--School and Class Attractiveness and Acceptance The same three highest classrooms on acceptance had significantly higher scores on School and Class Attractiveness than the same three lowest classrooms on acceptance. The planned comparison yielded a highly significant difference (see Table 17a). 155 Table 17a Hypotheses lb Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on School and Class Attractiveness Soutce SS df MS F Between groups 711.42 10 * • • • Comparison 1 151.36 1 151.36 9. 28* Remainder 560.06 9 560.06 • • Error (within groups) 1681.05 103 Totals 2392.47 113 Sum of Means, high acceptance group = 79.98 Sum of Means, low acceptance group = 70 .49 *Significant at .005 level. Ic--Peer Attractiveness and Acceptance A planned comparison was performed between the same three classrooms high in acceptance and the same three classrooms low in acceptance. The difference was clearly not significant (see Table 18) . Hypothesis II--Relation of Rejection to Teacher, School and Class7 and Peer Attractiveness In order to test the hypothesis that rejection is related to teacher, school and class, and peer 156 attractiveness, the teachers were first classified as high or low in rejection (see Table 11). Table 18 Hypothesis Ic Planned Comparison of High vs. Low Acceptance Classrooms on Peer Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 9238.93 10 • • * • Comparison 1 451.36 1 451.36 * 0.85 Remainder 8787.57 9 8787.57 • » Error (within groups) 52526.86 103 509.97 * • Totals 61765.78 113 Sum of Means, high acceptance group = 168.59 Sum of Means, low acceptance group = 185.00 Not significant. IIa--Teacher Attractiveness and Rejection The ti^o lowest classrooms on rejection (categories 6b and 7) were classrooms 8 and 11. These classrooms were compared with classrooms 7 and 10, which were the two highest classrooms in rejection. The two classrooms lowest in rejection had significantly higher scores on Teacher Attractiveness. The planned comparison yielded 157 a highly significant F statistic (see Table 19). Table 19 Hypothesis Ila Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on Teacher Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 7852.48 10 • • • • Comparison 1 2205.77 1 2205.77 29.22* Remainder 5646.71 9 5646.71 • • Error (within groups) 7775.32 103 75.49 • • Totals 15627.80 113 Sum of Means, high rej ection group = 112.51 Sum of Means, low rej ection group = 141.83 *Significant at .001 level. IIb--School and Class Attractiveness and Rejection A planned comparison was used to compare the same two classrooms low on rejection with the same two class rooms high on rejection. The F statistic was highly sig nificant (see Table 20). The conclusion is that class rooms low on rejection have a more favorable attitude toward school and class. 158 Table 20 Hypothesis lib Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on School and Class Attractiveness Source SS. df MS . F Between groups 711.42 10 . . • • Comparison 1 204.49 1 204.49 12.53* Remainder 506.93 9 506.93 • * Error (within groups) 1681.05 103 16.32 • ■ Totals 2392.47 113 Sum of Means, high rej ection group = 4 5.69 Sum of Means, low rejection group = 54.62 Significant at .001 level. IIc--Peer Attractiveness and Rejection The same two classrooms low on rejection were com pared with the same two classrooms highest on rejection. A planned comparison was not significant (see Table 21). Hypothesis III--Relation of Problem Centeredness to Work Attractiveness' In order to test this hypothesis teachers were classified as high or low in problem centeredness (see 159 Table 21 Hypothesis lie Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Rejection Classrooms on Peer Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 9238.93 10 • • • • Comparison 1 49.64 1 49.64 i t <1.0 Remainder 9189.29 9 9189.29 • • Error (within groups) 52526.86 103 509.97 * • Totals 61765.79 113 Sum of Means, high rej ection group = 113.09 Sum of Means, low rej ection group = 117.50 *Not significant. 160 Table 12). Then classrooms 6, 7, and 8, which were highest on problem centeredness, were compared with classrooms 2, 4, and 10, which were the lowest in problem centeredness. The planned comparison yielded a significant F statistic (see Table 22). Table 22 Hypothesis III Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Problem Centered Classroom on Work Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 550.62 10 • • • • Comparison 1 77.71 1 77. 71 5.35* Remainder 472.91 9 472.91 • • Error (within groups) 1497.79 103 14. 54 « • Totals 2048.42 113 Sum of Means, high problem-centered group = 54.80 Sum of Means, low problem-centered group = 48.00 ^Significant at .025 level. Hypothesis IV--Relation of Directiveness to Work Attractiveness In order to test this hypothesis teachers were classified as high or low in directiveness (see Table 13). The three classrooms which were lowest on directiveness 161 were 4, 11, and 6. These classrooms were compared with classrooms 7, 9, and 10, which were highest in directive ness. The planned comparison was not significant (see Table 23). Table 23 Hypothesis IV Planned Comparison of Low vs. High Directive Classrooms on Work Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 550.62 10 * • • • Comparison 1 27.59 1 27.59 * 1.90 Remainder 523.03 9 523.03 • • Error (within groups 1497.79 103 14. 54 « • Totals 2048.42 113 Sum of Means, high directive group = Sum of Means, low directive group = i t Not significant. Hypothesis V--Relation of Control to Task-oriented Behavior Academic Performance In order to test this hypothesis teachers were classified as high or low in control (see Table 14). Classrooms 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11, containing 52 pupils, were 162 classified high in control (low pupil disruptive behavior). Classrooms 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10, containing 62 pupils, were classified in low control (high pupil disruptive behavior). Va--Task-oriented Behavior and Control Table 24 shows the data related to this hypothesis, giving the means on task-oriented behavior for each class room. The t test procedure as described by Guilford (1956, p. 220) was used to determine the significance of the difference between uncorrelated means in small samples. For a directional test the result was highly significant (see Table 24). It was concluded that there is reliable evidence of a differential between the amount of task-oriented behavior found in classroom climates with high and low control. As predicted, the pupils in classrooms with high control spent significantly more time on activities related to their learning tasks. A high negative corre lation (-.90) was found between pupil disruptive behavior and task-oriented behavior. Vb--Academic Performance and Control Analyses of covariance were performed for each of the three achievement scores--reading, spelling, and arithmetic. The dependent variable in each case was the end of the year achievement score. Two covariates were 163 used: age and initial achievement score from the beginning of the year. Two levels of the independent variable Table 24 Mean Task-oriented Behavior in High and Low Control Climates and Comparison by t Ratio High Control Climates Low Control Climates Classroom Code Number Mean Percentage of Task-oriented Behavior Classroom Code Number Mean Percentage of Task-oriente* Behavior 8 97.5 7 71.4 11 95.0 5 68.0 9 91. 7 3 70. 2 6 89.0 10 58 . 7 1 78.4 2 4 60.3 59.2 Total 451. 6 Total 387.8 Mx 90. 32 t = 6. m 2 11* 64. 63 *Significant at .001 level. (pupil disruptive behavior) were selected. One group was high on pupil disruptive behavior (low control) and included the following classrooms: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10. There were 55 pupils in this group. The second group was low on pupil disruptive behavior (high control) and included the following classrooms: 1, 6, 8, 9, and 11. There were 41 pupils in this group. As explained earlier the number was smaller for this variable, as some pupils were not present for the pretest. The mean scores includ ing the adjusted posttest mean for the low and high con trol groups on reading, spelling, and arithmetic are presented in Table 25. Relation of Reading to Control Analysis of covariance indicates that the effect of control on reading scores was not quite sufficient at the .05 level (see Table 26). Judgment must be suspended pending more evidence. Relation of Spelling to Control The difference between the high and low control groups in spelling is not significant (see Table 27). Judgment must be suspended pending more evidence. Relation of Arithmetic to Control The difference between the high and low control groups in arithmetic is significant (see Table 28). The high control classrooms had significantly higher scores than the low control classrooms in arithmetic. Table 25 Mean Scores on Academic Subjects for High and Low Control Groups Subj ect Group Pretest Mean Treatment (Postest) Mean Adj us ted Mean Low Controla 3.61 4. 26 4 .21 Reading High Control0 3.50 4.34 4.41 Low Control 2. 74 3.09 3.05 Spelling High Control 2. 64 3.09 3.15 Arith Low Control 3.88 4.19 4.03 metic High Control 3.50 4.08 4. 29 aAge = 12.08 bAge = 11.52 Summary The adjusted treatment mean scores are plotted in Figure 11. The high control group is consistently better than the low control group on all three subjects. Thus, even though reading and spelling were not significantly different, there is a trend for the high control group to be consistently higher than the low control group on all 166 academics. Table 26 Covariance Analysis for Reading Source SS Adj usted df M S F Treatment (between) Low Control versus High Control 0 .89 1 0.89 ■ • Error (within) 28.88 92 0.31 it 2.83 Treatment + Error (Total) 29.77 93 *Not significant. Table 27 Covariance Analysis for Spelling Source SS Adj usted df MS F Treatment (between) Low Control versus High Control 0.22 1 0.22 Error (within) 23.25 92 0.25 * . 87 Treatment + Error (Total) 23.47 93 A Not significant. 167 Table 28 Covariance Analysis for Arithmetic Source SS Adj us ted df MS F Treatment (between) Low Control versus High Control 1.50 1 1.50 Error (within) 30 .03 92 .33 * 4.60 Treatment + Error (Total) 31. 53 93 *Significant at .05 level. High Control Low Control . 5 .0 . 5 3.0 5\ .0 Reading Spelling Arithmetic Fig. 1:1. --Adjusted posttest means for high control and low control group. 168 Mean Observed Change In Table 29 the observed mean achievement gain in reading, spelling, and arithmetic for the five classrooms high in control is compared with the six classrooms low in control. A somewhat different picture is provided by comparing the mean observed change. The gain in reading which was not significant using the analysis of covariance procedure is even greater than the gain in arithmetic which was significant. However, Lord (1963) points out that the natural procedure of comparing mean observed change for different treatments is likely because of regression effects to give a distorted view of the situa tion. In general, the analysis of the observed gains results in a built-in bias in favor of whatever treatments happen to be assigned to initially low scoring groups. In this case the high control group mean was initially lower; however, they were also younger. The mean age for the high control group was 11.52, and the mean age for the low control group was 12.08, in May 1967. Consequently, the adjusted posttest mean was increased for this group and decreased for the low control group. The total mean observed gain for all eleven classes is presented in Table 30. In reading, four out of five classrooms classified high in control were above the total mean observed gain for all eleven classrooms (.74), while only t\tfo classroom means out of the six classified low in Table 29 Mean Observed Gain on Wide Range Achievement Test for High and Low Control Groups HIGH CONTROL GROUPS LOW CONTROL GROUPS Class Code Number Reading Gain Spell ing Gain Arith metic Gain Class Code Number Reading Gain Spell ing Gain Arith metic Gain 8 1,40 .86 .80 10 .47 .06 .30 11 .75 .64 .56 7 .85 .32 .23 1 .90 .59 .31 2 .27 .69 .23 9 .85 .50 .47 5 .38 .22 .33 6 .62 .03 .72 4 1.10 .32 .25 3 .58 .39 .55 Total 4.52 2.62 2.86 Total 3.65 2.00 1.89 Mx .904 .524 .572 M2 .608 .333 .315 170 control were above the total group mean (see Table 29). In spelling, again the same four out of five classrooms high in control were above the total group gain mean (.42), and only one out of six low in control rooms was above the total group gain mean (.43), and only one of the six low in control classrooms was above the mean. There seems to be a trend for those classrooms high in control to gain more in reading, spelling, and arithmetic than classrooms low in control. The amount of the difference observed between the high control and low control group means is presented in Table 31. Hypothesis VI--Relation of High Control and Low Acceptance Versus Low Control- and Low Acceptance to Absence This hypothesis was tested by determining which classrooms were low in acceptance (categories 1 and 2) and high in control (low pupil disruptive behavior) (see Tables 10 and 14). Only classroom 9 met these qualifica tions. Then classroom 9 was compared with classrooms 2 and 10, which were also low in acceptance but low in control. This planned comparison yielded a highly sig nificant difference (see Table 32). Hypothesis VII--Relation of Sex for Teachers Not High in Control and Acceptance~"~and Not LdW in Rejection to Pupil Task-oriented Behavior and AttitucTe To test this hypothesis, male teachers 5 and 7 who 171 Table 30 Total Mean Observed Gain Subj ect Total Mean Observed Gain for All 11 Classrooms Reading . 74 Spelling .42 Arithmetic .43 Table 31 Difference Between Means of High and Low Control Group in Achievement Subj ect Difference Between Means (M-l - m2) Reading .296 Spelling . 191 Arithmetic . 257 172 Table 32 Hypothes is VI Planned Comparison for Absence Source SS df MS F Between groups 1689.14 10 • • t i Comparison 1 515.06 1 515.06 10.50* Remainder 1174.08 9 1174.08 . . Error (within groups) 5051.87 103 49.05 . . Totals 6741.00 113 Means for comparison: Sum of Means, high control and low acceptance groups= 13.80 Sum of Means, low control and low acceptance group = 31.67 *Significant at .005 level. 173 were not high in control plus not high in acceptance and not low in rejection were compared with female teachers 2, 3, 4, and 10. These female teachers were also not high in control plus not high in acceptance and not low in rejection. Separate tests were made for each of the dependent variables. VIIa--Task-oriented Behavior and Sex of Teacher A planned comparison was performed for the above male versus female teachers on task-oriented behavior. The difference between the mean score for male teachers and female teachers was so small (.076) that this hypothe sis was not tested as it was clearly not significant. Vllb--Teacher Attractiveness and Sex of Teacher The above male and female groups were compared on teacher attractiveness. Pupils in classrooms with male teachers scored the male teachers very significantly higher in attractiveness than pupils with female teachers (see Table 33). VIIc--School and Class Attractiveness and Sex of Teacher The above male and female teachers were next com pared on school and class attractiveness. Pupils in classrooms with male teachers had significantly higher scores on school and class attractiveness than pupils 174 Table 33 Hypothesis VI lb Planned Comparison of Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type Climate on Teacher Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 7852.48 10 • • • * Comparison 1 1291.78 1 1291.78 A 4.45 Remainder 6560.70 9 6560. 70 • » Error (within groups) 7775.32 103 75.49 • • Totals 15627.80 113 Sum of Means, male group = 271 . 82 Sum of Means, female group = 233.54 ^Significant at .05 level. 175 with the female teachers (see Table 34). VIId--Work Attractiveness and Sex of Teacher The above male and female groups were compared on work attractiveness scores. Pupils in classrooms with male teachers had significantly higher scores on school and class attractiveness than pupils with the female teachers (see Table 35). Table 34 Hypothesis VIIc Planned Comparison of Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on School and Class Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 711.42 10 • • • * Comparison 1 66. 75 1 66. 75 A 4.09 Remainder 644.67 9 644.67 • • Error (within groups) 1681.05 103 16.32 • • Totals 2392.47 112 Sum of Means, male group = 101.27 Sum of Means, female group = 92.57 Significant at ,05 level. 176 Table 35 Hypothesis VIId Planned Comparison for Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on Work Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 550.62 10 » * • • Comparison 1 64.67 1 64.67 4. 09* Remainder 485.95 9 485.95 ■ • Error (within groups) 1497.79 103 14. 54 • * Totals 2048.42 113 Sum of Means, male group = 74.36 Sum of Means, female group = 65.80 A Significant at the .05 level. Peer Attractiveness and Sex of Teacher The same male and female teachers were compared on peer attractiveness scores. The difference between the groups was not significant (see Table 36). Hypothesis VIII--Classroom Climates High in Acceptance, Low in Rejection, High m Problem Centeredness, Low in Directiveness, and High in Control are the Most Effective Classroom 8 had the most effective climate as far as producing the highest degree of positive pupil effects 177 Table 36 Hypothesis Vile Planned Comparison for Male vs. Female Teachers of the Same Type on Peer Attractiveness Source SS df MS F Between groups 9238.93 10 • • * • Comparison 1 129.43 1 129.43 A 2. 54 Remainder 9109.50 9 9109.50 » • Error (within groups) 52526.86 103 509.97 • • Totals 61765.79 113 Sum of Means, male group = 248.18 Sum of Means, female group = 236.07 A Not significant. 178 (28 positive points) and no negative points (see Tables 15 and 16). The type of climate in this classroom was as predicted except directiveness was only medium rather than low. (See Table 13.) In other words, the climate was high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem- centeredness, medium in directiveness, and high in control Classroom 11, which had the second most successful climate (14 positive points) , was similar to classroom 8 on all climate dimensions except being next lowest in problem centeredness; it was the first classroom climate classified as medium rather than high. (See Table 12.) Also, this climate was low in directiveness as hypothe sized. Hypothesis IX--Classroom Climates Low in Acceptance, High in Rejection, Low in Problem Centeredness, High in Directiveness, and Low in Con- trol are the Least Effective Classroom 10 had the least effective climate (see Table 16) as far as producing the highest number of neg ative points (25) and no positive points (see Table 15). The type of climate in this classroom was, as predicted, low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in problem centeredness, high in directiveness, and low in control. (See Tables 10-14.) Classrooms 6, 2, and 4 were next least successful. Their climates were similar in that none was high in 179 acceptance and. none was low in rejection as predicted. All were low in control except classroom 6. In problem centeredness and directiveness, climates were classified high, medium, and low; so there was no agreement on these two dimensions. (See Tables 10-14). CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The Problem In recent years schools in the State of California have been setting up more and more special classes for educationally handicapped pupils under the provisions of recent legislation. Yet with the added benefit of these special classes some of these children still do not learn. Some even feel persecuted by being placed in these classes. The contagion of this feeling seemed to spread throughout some groups; so that the entire social- emotional climate.was one of rejection, hostility, and anger toward the school and each other. Is this nega tive viewpoint present in all classrooms, or are some environments more effective than others? Which dimensions of classroom climate are related to better effects with educationally handicapped pupils? To date much research 180 181 on the effectiveness of teachers and group climate is available, but few studies involved educationally handi capped children. Also, most studies combined variables so that it was impossible to determine to which source to attribute any significant differences found. The Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore the problem of what type of classroom climate was associated ivith greater pooductivity and achievement, medium absence, and more favorable attitude toward teacher, school and class, work, and peers for the majority of the education ally handicapped pupils. A theoretical frame\tfork was developed for reference in order to investigate what type of classroom climate was most advantageous for most educationally handicapped pupils. Certain dimensions were found to be related to pupil effects in past empirical studies. Evidence suggested that five dimensions-- acceptance, rejection, problem centeredness, directiveness, and control--were important to pupil attitude, productiv ity, achievement, and absence. The Hypotheses The hypotheses offered in this study are predic tions of higher or lower pupil attitude, productivity, achievement, and absence, according to different types of 182 classroom climate which are based mainly on teacher behav ior. It was hypothesized that climates high in acceptance and low in rejection would produce more favorable pupil attitude toward teacher, school and class, and peers than those low in acceptance and high in rejection. It was also hypothesized that those climates high in problem centeredness and low in directiveness would have more favorable pupil scores on work attractiveness. Other hypotheses were concerned with control. It was predicted that high control was related to higher task-oriented behavior and higher academic performance. It was also predicted that high control plus low acceptance would produce lower absence than low control plus low acceptance. It was hypothesized that pupils in classrooms low in control, not high in acceptance, and not low in rejection would have higher task-oriented behavior and more favorable attitude with male teachers than with female teachers. The last two hypotheses were more inclusive. Classrooms high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem centeredness, low in directiveness, and high in control were predicted to be most effective. Classrooms low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in problem centeredness, high in directiveness, and low in control were predicted to be least effective. Method 183 Subj ects Subjects were initially all educationally handi capped intermediate and upper classrooms plus the oldest primary group in Torrance Unified School District in the 1966-1967 school year. Then one intermediate and one upper classroom at the same school refused to participate after the first observation round. This left five upper classrooms, five intermediate classrooms, and only the oldest primary class. There were 117 pupils (94 boys and 23 girls) from 34 elementary schools in these 11 classrooms. Each of the 11 teachers was responsible for ten or 11 pupils. The age range was from 7 years 10 months to 13 years 8 months except for one boy 14 years 7 months. Measurement of Classroom Climate: dependent Variables' Nine pupil effects were selected for this study. Task-oriented behavior was measured by observing the number of pupils engaged in school-assigned tasks at the end of the 30-minute observations scheduled during the school year. A Pupil Attitude Inventory was designed to measure teacher attractiveness, school and class attractiveness, and work attractiveness. The Ohio Social Acceptance Scale \^as used to measure peer attractiveness. These 184 scales were administered in.April 1967. The Wide Range Achievement Test was used to measure academic performance. The posttest scores (administered May 1967) were adjusted in accordance with age and initial ability on the pretest administered in October 1966. Absence was based upon the number of days of absence during a 9-month period. Research Design and Procedures This was a survey investigation in which instead of artificially varying conditions, the research studied in vivo the natural variation of the climate variables. Then the relation of these five variables to selected pupil effects was determined. Observations began late in October 1966 with six 30-minute observations scheduled throughout the school year. Each teacher was observed by two psychologists. These observations were purposely planned to obtain as wide a variation of teacher behavior as possible. Therefore, different subjects were observed during each observation round, and observers did not observe at the same time. In June 1967 the observational data were used to classify classrooms on acceptance, rejection, problem centeredness, directiveness, and control. Meantime, the data for the nine pupil effects had been collected by the researcher, as described above. Statistical Treatment of the Data Planned comparisons were applied to treatment group (classroom) means to ascertain the relation of the climate variables to all pupil effects except academic subjects. Analysis of covariance was used to compare high and low control groups on academic subjects. Finally, the climates were evaluated to determine which types were most and least effective. Findings This section summarizes the findings of the research hypotheses in the order in which they were pre sented in Chapter IV. Major Findings Hypothesis I--Relation of Acceptance to Teacher, School and Class, and Peer Attractiveness" The results sustained the first hypothesis that pupils in classrooms high in acceptance and low in rejec tion show very significantly more positive attitude toward teacher and school and class than those in classrooms low in acceptance and high in rejection. The findings did not support the positive effect of high acceptance on peer attractiveness. In fact, the mean peer attractiveness score of the low acceptance group was higher than that of 186 the high acceptance group. This seems to suggest that peer attractiveness in classrooms with low acceptance and high rejection may become high if the group rebels or sympathizes against the teacher. However, this was the only dependent variable on which the variance within classrooms was actually greater than the variance among classrooms. Hypothesis II--Relation of Reje'ction to Teacher, School and Class, and Peer Attractiveness Pupils in classrooms low in rejection showed very significantly more positive attitude toward teacher and school and class than those in classrooms high in rejec tion. The findings did not support the positive effect of low rejection on peer attractiveness. Hypothesis III--Relation of Problem Centeredness to Work Attractiveness The third hypothesis that pupils in classrooms high in problem centeredness would score significantly higher in work attractiveness than pupils in classrooms low in problem centeredness was also supported. Hypothesis IV--Relation of Directiveness to Work Attractiveness Pupils in classrooms low in directiveness were not significantly higher in work attractiveness than those in classrooms high in directiveness. Absence of a significant relationship for directiveness may be related to the low variability on this dimension among teachers. Or it may be affected by the fact that low directiveness is actually a detriment to educationally handicapped pupils, for there are times when direction is necessary and the flexible teacher who is medium in directiveness may be the more desirable for better pupil effects. Judgment must await further evidence from a larger sample having more variance among teachers. Hypothesis V--Relation of Control to Task-oriented Beha.vior and Academic: Performance The hypothesis that high control produces greater pupil productivity and academic performance was partially supported. Pupils in classrooms with high control were very significantly higher in task-oriented behavior and significantly higher in arithmetic performance than pupils in classrooms low in control. There were no significant differences in reading and spelling. Nevertheless, the high control classrooms were consistently higher than the low control classroom groups in these subjects as well (see Figure 11). Again judgment must await further evidence. 188 Hypothesis VI--Relation of High Control and Low Acceptance versus Low Control and Low Acceptance to Absence Those classrooms high in control and low in accept ance were absent significantly fewer times than those low in control and low in acceptance. Other classrooms appeared as a whole to have an average amount of absence Cabout 10 days per year). This supports the postulate that rejection plus high control produces fear and inhibition while rejection plus low control results in acting-out. Hypothesis VII--Relation of Sex for Teachers Not High in Control and Acceptance ancf Low in Rejection to Pupil Task-oriented Behavior and Att itucfe Pupils in classrooms in which control was not high, acceptance was not high, and rejection was not low, had significantly higher scores on attitude toward teacher, school and class, and work with male teachers than with female teachers. In other words, it appears that when a classroom climate is not ideal, pupils respond better to a male teacher than a female teacher. Perhaps because most of the children are boys their desire to identify with a male teacher is so strong that they overlook many of his faults. 189 Hypothesis VIII--Classroom Climates High in Acceptance, Low in Rejection, High in Problem Centeredness, Low in Directiveness, and High in Control Are the Most Effective As hypothesized, pupil effects were highest in climates with high acceptance, low rejection, high prob lem centeredness, low to medium directiveness, and high control. Hypothesis IX--Classroom Climates Low m Acceptance, High in Rejection, Low in Problem Centeredness, High in Directiveness, and Low in Control Are the Least Effective As predicted, pupil effects were lowest in class rooms with low acceptance, high rejection, low problem centeredness, high directiveness and low control. Conclusions Within the limitations of the evidence which was collected and interpreted in this one exploratory study, the following conclusions are formulated for elementary educationally handicapped children: (1) Teacher attractiveness and school and class attractiveness are significantly enhanced by a climate high in acceptance and low in rejection. (2) Work attractiveness is significantly higher in climates high in problem centeredness. (3) Task-oriented behavior and academic perfor mance in arithmetic are significantly higher in classrooms where control is high. (4) Absence is significantly less in climates high in control and low in acceptance than in climates low in control and low in acceptance. Pupils in classrooms low in control and low in acceptance seem free to act out their hostility whereas pupils in classrooms high in control and low in acceptance must inhibit it. (5) In climates which are not high in control, not high in acceptance, and not low in rejection, pupils have significantly more favorable attitude toward teacher, school and class, and work when the teacher is male rather than female. (6) The most effective climate (one with greatest positive and least negative pupil effects) is high in acceptance, low in rejection, high in problem centeredness, medium to low in directiveness, and high in control. (7) The least effective climate (one with greatest negative and least positive pupil effects) is low in acceptance, high in rejection, low in problem centeredness, high in directiveness, and low in control. A final note of caution is in order. This study was designed to be exploratory in nature and not defini tive. It was not an experiment in which variables were manipulated and controlled, but a study of relationships between selected teacher behaviors and pupil character istics. The school system was entered intact, and it was 191 not possible to assign pupils to teachers randomly. Implications for Increasing the Effective ness of Special Classes for- Educationally Handicapped- The results support the contention that affective responses of the teacher are important to the attitude of educationally handicapped children. In addition, a problem-centered approach in which student opinions are encouraged appears important to their attitude toward work. Furthermore, control was related to higher task-oriented behavior and academic performance. These findings were in agreement with many previous empirical studies with normal children. If the importance of these dimensions continues to be substantiated by additional research, there are implications for teacher training. Undoubtedly develop ment of teacher behaviors which praise and support pupils as well as accept and clarify pupil feelings would require different techniques than those now generally employed in teacher training institutions. According to Bany (1960, p. 402), out of 263 teachers studied a large majority did not recognize the importance of a receptive climate. From the present study it was learned that most teachers do not use acceptance and clarification of pupil feeling. Per haps this skill must be taught. Also, development of teacher problem-centered behavior to the point that it becomes more than teacher 192 pursual of the solution of a teacher-imposed problem is not an easy task. The use of probing and aiding the pupil in self-evaluation of academic and behavior problems takes skill. Even greater skill is required in utilizing group techniques with these children. Group dynamics including how to handle group planning discussions are often not part of teacher training programs and if they are, it is usually theoretical rather than actual field work experi ence. Bany (1960, p. 404) pointed out less than 10 per cent of the same 263 teachers would use the group decision process to attempt to bring about change in group percep tion and to get a group commitment upon a new standard for behavior. Instead, they felt dominative or punitive methods were preferable. Her evidence indicated that teachers generally lacked the understanding and knowledge necessary to help group members acquire a knowledge of ways of working together in groups. Length of experience in working with classroom groups did not contribute to understanding of affective practices or group procedures which generally achieve changes in group behavior. Other studies (Flanders, 1963; Flanders £ Amidon, 1963; Gage, Runkel, § Chatterjee, 1960; Kirk, 1964) have demonstrated that teachers can be helped to change their behavior. By giving the teacher feedback and training in understanding his behavior, the teacher was able to modify and improve his behavior. The present study supported the 193 hypothesis that there are certain teacher behaviors that are conducive to a more effective classroom climate for educationally handicapped pupils. Therefore, it is recom mended that inservice training move into the classroom and help teachers evaluate how they are actually behaving and how their pupils perceive their actions. If a district has funds to obtain a video tape to use in teacher training it should produce an even greater impact as well as a more objective picture for the teacher. Other researchers (Allen § Young, n.d.; Cooper § Stroud, 1966; Schueler 5 Gold, 1964) are investigating the use of video tapes in teacher training. Tapes should be viewed under the guidance of someone skilled in systematic obser vation techniques and knowledgable in the social skills which contribute to an effective classroom climate. Recommendations for Future Studies Because this study of classroom climate and pupil characteristics ivas exploratory in nature, further research is needed to discover the universality and valid ity of the findings. The following recommendations are made regarding future research needs: (1) A larger scale study is needed to see if this type climate is best for all types of children. In the present study it appeared that the children were higher in the personality type of behaviors. Would the same 194 climate, which emphasizes verbal reinforcement, be most effective with children high in conduct problems? Some authorities feel it would not be (Johns f i Quay, 1962 ; Lewin $ Simmons, 1962; Quay § Hunt, 1965). Heil and Washburne (1962) have attempted to find some answers to this question by studying different types of children in the regular classroom. Others (DeVault et al., 1964; Thelen, 1963) have found that children respond differently. Some want more directiveness and some less. DeVault et al. found a difference related to grade with primary describing the ideal teacher as more directive. Intermediate children preferred indirective. But there was much variation tvithin classrooms and sex differences. There may have been sex differences in the present study as several teachers (i.e., teachers 4, 7, § 9) had diffi culty relating with girls; however, the female population was too small to analyze this data separately. Both DeVault et al. and Thelen advocate grouping children according to their desire. It appears it would be wiser to see hoitf these different types of climates are related to pupil effects (rather than just pupil desire) for different types of children. (2) The Quay behavior problem data would be more useful if appropriate norms were available. Therefore, it is recommended that norms be obtained on a large group of regular class children at each age level. These should be 195 useful for screening children for educationally handicapped classes, classifying children according to behavior type in carrying out the first recommendation, provide a stan dard to obtain better balance among groups (e.g., to determine if some groups are very high in conduct problem behaviors and others are very low), and to study whether behavior improves with treatment. (3) The measurement of task-oriented behavior and pupil disruptive behavior should be planned for greater independence. It would probably be wise to observe them during different observation periods. (4) The results on directiveness were inconclu sive. A study needs to be planned with a larger group of teachers who include a greater variance among teachers. In addition, the effect of directiveness should be studied for high, low, and medium levels as the medium level may actually be more desirable. Some directiveness is neces sary or a laissez faire situation is created. A measure of flexibility might also be worthwhile adding. (5) The results on the relation of control to academic subjects need to be replicated with larger sub samples. There was a consistent trend for the high control group to score higher than the low control group on read ing and spelling as well, but the difference was not significant. It was felt the small subsamples (e.g., class 11, N = 5) affected the findings. 196 (6) Teacher responses which accept or clarify pupils' ideas and opinions should be measured separately from other problem centered responses. This may be the key teacher behavior in discriminating a democratic cli mate. Many teachers (e.g., teacher 7) scored high on problem centeredness simply because they asked a large number of teacher imposed drill questions. Expression of pupil opinion or ideas other than the factual answer of the question was not encouraged. Or the teacher may push doggedly toward having the pupil solve a. teacher imposed problem. Teacher statements offering objective facts about the problem are coded as problem centered; yet the pupil may never be allowed to participate in the selection of goals. REFERENCES REFERENCES Ackerman, W.I. Teacher competence and pupil change. Harvard Educational Review, 1954, 24, 273-289. Allen, D.W. f , Young, D.B. Television recordings: A new di mension in teacher education. Stanford University, School of Education, n.d. (Mimeographed) Amatora, Sister Mary. A diagnotic teacher rating scale. Journal of Psychology, 1950, 30, 395-399. Amatora, Sister Mary. Can elementary children discriminate certain traits in their teachers? Child Develop ment , 1952, 23, 75-80. Anderson, H.H. The measurement of domination and socially integrative behavior in teachers' contacts with children. Child Development, 1939, 10, 73-89. Anderson, H.H., § Brewer, Helen M. Studies of teachers' classroom personalities. I. Dominative and so cially integrative behavior of kindergarten teach- ers. Applied Psychological Monographs, 1945, No. 6. Anderson, H.H., § Brewer, J.E. Studies of teachers' classroom personalities. II. Effects of teachers' 19 8 199 dominative and integrative contacts on children's classroom behavior. Applied Psychological Mono graphs , 1946, No. 8. (a) Anderson, H.II. Brewer, J.E., § Reed, Mary F. Studies of teachers' classroom personalities. III. Follow-up of studies of the effects of dominative and inte grative contacts on children's behavior. Applied Psychological Monographs, 1946, No. 11. (b) Anderson, R.C. Learning in Discussion: A resume of au thoritarian-democratic studies. Harvard Education al Review, 1959, 29, 337-347. Asch, M.J. Nondirective teaching in psychology: An exper imental study. Psychological Monographs, 1951, 65, No. 4 (Whole No. 321). Barr, A.S. (Ed.) Wisconsin studies of the measurement and prediction of teacher effectiveness: a summary of investigations. Journal of Experimental Education, 1961, 30, 5-156. Bateman, Barbara. Learning disorders. Review of Educa tional Research, 1966, 36, 93-119. Baxter, Bernice. Teacher-pupil relationships. New York: Macmillan, 1941. Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman ^ Lois W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child Development Research. Vol. I. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. pp. 200 169-208. Bellack, A.A. The language of the classroom: Meanings communicated in high school teaching. Part II. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965. Institute of Psychological Research, Co operative Research Project No. 2023. Bloom, B.S. Thought-processes in lectures and discussions. Journal of General Education, 1953, 7, 160-169. Bower, E.M. A process for early identification of emotion ally disturbed children. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1958. Bower, E.M., et al. The education of emotionally handi capped children. Sacramento: California State De partment of Education, 1961. Bower, E.M. Emotionally disturbed and brain damaged chil- dren--Should we mix them? A reaction. Exceptional Children, 1965, 32, 238-239. Bower, E.M. § Lambert, Nadine. A process for in-school screening of children with emotional handicaps: Manual for school administrators and teachers. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1962. (a) Bower, E.M. 8 Lambert, Nadine. A process for in-school screening of children with emotional handicaps: Technical report for school administrators and teachers. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing 201 Service, 1962. (b) Brookover, W.B. A sociology of education. New York: American Book Co., 1955. Brown, G.I. Which pupil to which classroom climate? Ele mentary School Journal, 1960, 60, 265-269. Brown, G.I. The relationships between categories of behav ior of third grade teachers. Journal Educational Research, 1961, 54, 338-344. Bush, R.N. The teacher-pupil relationship. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954. California Association of School Psychologists and Psychom- etrists and California State Psychological Associa tion, Joint Committee on Educationally Handicapped Children. The role of the psychologist in the edu cationally handicapped program. Author, 1965. California, Administrative Code, Title 5, Section 211, p. 118.15. California, Education Code, 1965, Section 6750, p. 336. California State Department of Education. Problems in de termining the etiology of learning and behavior handicaps: Report of a study. Sacramento: Author, 1964. California State Department of Mental Hygiene. The educa tionally handicapped child in California school districts: A survey of programs for the emotionally disturbed and neurologically handicapped. Sacra- 202 mento: Author, 1964. Christensen, C.M. Relations between pupil achievement, pu pil affect-need, teacher warmth and permissiveness. Journal Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 169-174. Cogan, M.L. Theory and design of a study of teacher-pupil interaction. Harvard Educational Review, 1956, 26, 315-342. Cogan, M.L. The behavior of teachers and the productive behavior of their pupils: I. Perception analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 1958, 27, 89-105. (a) Cogan, M.L. The behavior of teachers and the productive behavior of their pupils: II. "Trait" analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 1958, 27, 107-124. (b) Cohn, R. Neurological concepts pertaining to the brain damaged child. In W.T. Daley (Ed.), Speech and language therapy with the brain-damaged child. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1962, pp. 13-36. Cook, W.W. 8 Leeds, C.H. Measuring teacher personality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1947, 7, 399-410. Cooper, J.M. § Stroud, T. The Stanford summer micro teaching clinic, 1966. Stanford University, School of Education, 1966. (Mimeographed) 203 Corman, B.R. The effect of varying amounts and kinds of information as guidance in problem solving. Psy chological Monographs, 1957, 71, No. 2 (Whole No. 431) . Cornell, F.G., Lindvall, C.M., § Saupe, J.L. An explor atory measurement of individualities of schools and classrooms. Urbana: University of Illinois, Bureau of Educational Research, 1952. Craig, R.C. Directed vs. independent discovery of estab lished relations. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 1956, 47, 223-234. Cruickshank, W.M., Bentzen, Frances A., Ratzeburg, F.H., § Tannhauser, Miriam T. A teaching method for brain-injured and hyperactive children. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University, 1961. Cunningham, Ruth, § Associates. Understanding group be havior of boys and girls. New York: Bureau of Pub lications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951. Davidson, Helen H., § Lang, G. Children's perceptions of their teachers' feelings toward them related to self-perception^ school achievement, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 1960, 29, 107- 118. de Hirsch, Katrina, Jansky, Jeanette J., § Langford, W.S. The prediction of reading, spelling, and writing 204 disabilities in children: A preliminary study. Final report to the Health Research Council of the City of New York, Contract U-1270. New York: Co lumbia University, 1965. Della Piana, G.M., 6 Gage, N.L. Pupils' values and the va lidity of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1955, 46, 167- 178. De Vault, M. V., Anderson, D., Swain, D., § Cautley, P. Teacher education and the study of teacher class room behavior. Theory into Practice, 1964, 2, 21- 25. Dixon, W.J. (Ed.). BMP Biomedical Computer Programs. Health Sciences Computing Facility, School of Med icine. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 1964, revised 1965. Dixon, W.R. 5 Morse, W.C. The prediction of teaching per formance: Empathic potential. Journal of Teacher Education, 1961, 12, 322-329. Dubnoff, Belle, et al. Aspects of perceptual training with brain-injured and emotionally disturbed children as related to reading. Claremont College Reading Con ference Yearbook, 1961, pp. 109-121. Dunn, L.M. (Ed.) Exceptional children in the schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, 1963. English, H.B., § English, Ava C. A comprehensive dictio 205 nary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green, 1958. Flanders, N.A. Personal-social anxiety as a factor in ex perimental learning situations. Journal of Educa tional Research, 1951, 45, 100-110. Flanders, N.A. Teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 397. Flanders, N. Helping teachers change their behavior. Min neapolis: University of Minnesota, 1963. Cooper ative Research Project, Title VII, No. 033. Flanders, N. § Amidon, E.J. The role of the teacher in the classroom: A manual for understanding and improving teachers* classroom behavior. Minneapolis: Amidon 8 Associates, 1963. Flanders, N.A. § Havumake, S. The effect of teacher-pupil contacts involving praise on the sociometric choices of students. Journal of Educational Psy chology , 1960, 51, 65-68. Forlano, G., 3 Axelrod, II.C. The effect of repeated praise or blame on the performance of introverts and ex troverts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1937, 28, 92-100. Fowler, Beverly D. Relation of teacher personality charac- Frostig Gage, N Gage , N Gage, N Gibb, J Gordon, 206 teristics and attitudes to teacher-pupil rapport and emotional climate in the elementary classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1962. Marianne. Teaching reading to children with per ceptual disturbances. In R.M. Flower, Helen F. Gofman, § Lucie I. Lawson (Eds.), Reading Disorders.. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co., 1965, pp. 113-127. L. Paradigms for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chi cago: Rand McNally Co., 1963, pp. 94-141. L., Leavitt, G.S., Stone, G.C. Teachers' under standing of their pupils and pupils' ratings of their teachers. Psychological Monographs, 1955, 69, No. 21 (Whole No. 406). L., Runkel, P.J., § Chatterjee, B.B. Equilibrium theory and behavior change: An experiment in feed back from pupils to teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois, Bureau of Educational Research, 1960. (Mimeographed) .R. Sociopsychological processes of group instruc tion. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education, 1960, 59, Part II, 115-135. C.W. § Adler, Leta M. Dimensions of teacher lead ership in classroom social systems. Los Angeles: 207 University of California, Los Angeles, 1963. Co operative Research Program of Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Project No. 1084, Department of Education. Grim, P.R., Hoyt, C.J., 8 Peitiersen, D.N. An appraisal of student teacher competencies. Journal of Teacher Education, n.d. 5,2, 129-133. Grimes, J.W. § Allinsmith, W. Compulsivity, anxiety, and school achievement. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 7, 247-271. Guetzkow, H., Kelly, E.L., § McKeachie, W.J. An experimen tal comparison of recitation, discussion, and tuto rial methods in college teaching. Journal of Edu cational Psychology, 1954, 45, 193-209. Guilford, J.P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Hare, A.P. A study of interaction and consensus in differ ent sized groups. American Sociological Review, 1952, 17, 261-267. Hay, Louis. How the classroom teacher can help the trou bled child. Nervous Child, 1954, 10, 391-399. Hays, W.L. Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart § Winston, 1963. Haring, N.C., 8 Phillips, E.L. Educating emotionally dis turbed children. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Heil, L Hewett, Hewitt, Heyns, Howe, J Hughes, 208 .M. § Washburne, C. Brooklyn College research in teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Re search , 1962, 55, 347-351. Frank M. A hierarchy of educational tasks for children with learning disorders. Exceptional Children, 1964, 31, 207-214. L. f i Jenkins, R.L. Fundamental patterns of malad justment: The dynamics of their origin. State of Illinois, 1946. R.W. Conference leadership which stimulates team work. Michigan Business Review, 1952, 4, 16-23. Cited by W.J. McKeachie research on teaching at the college and university level. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally § Co., 1963, p. 1141. .W. An exploratory study of children with neuro logical handicaps in school districts of Los Ange les county. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Super intendent of Schools Office, 1963. Marie M., Development of the means for the assess ment of the quality of teaching in elementary schools. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1959. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 353. 209 Hunter, Carol P. . Educating the emotionally disturbed child, 1964. (a) (Mimeographed) Hunter, Carol P. Identifying the emotionally handicapped child in the elementary school, 1964. (b) (Mim eographed) Jackson, E.H. A four-year project in the elementary school for emotionally handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Cal ifornia, 1962. Jastak, J.F. Manual. Wide range achievement test. Wil mington, Delaware: C.L. Story Co., 1936. Revised, 1946. Jenkins, D.H. Characteristics and functions of leadership in instructional groups. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1960, 59, Part II, 164-184. Jenkins, R.L. Psychiatric syndromes in children and their relation to family background. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1966, 36, 450-457. Jensen, G.E. The sociopsychological structure of the in structional group. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1960, 59, Part II, 83-114. Johns, J.H. 6 Quay, H.C. The effect of social reward on verbal conditioning in psychopathic and neurotic military offenders. Journal of Consulting Psy- 210 chology, 1962, 26, 217-220. Kirk, J. Effects of teaching the Minnesota system of in- teracter analysis to intermediate grade student teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tem ple University, Philadelphia, 1964. Kirk, A., f * McCarthy, J.J. The Illinois test of psycho- linguistic abilities--an approach to differential diagnosis. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 399-412. Kounin, J.S., Friesen, W.V., § Norton, A. Evangeline. Managing emotionally disturbed children in regular classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 1-13. Kowatrakul, S. Some behaviors of elementary school chil dren related to classroom activities and subject areas. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 50, 121-128. Lambert, Nadine. The development and validation of a pro cess for screening emotionally handicapped children in school. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1963. Leeds, C.H. The construction and differential value of a scale for determining teacher-pupil attitudes. Un published doctoral dissertation, University of Min nesota, 1946. Leeds, C.H. Teacher behavior liked and disliked by pupils. Leeds, Levin, Lewin, Lewin, Lindzey Linnes, Lorge, 211 Education, 1954, 75, 29-37. .H., § Cook, W.W. The construction and differen tial value of a scale for determining teacher-pupil attitudes. Journal of Experimental Education, 1947, 16, 149-159. .R., ^ Simmons, J.J. Response to praise by emo tionally disturbed boys. Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 10. '. Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swan son, T.M. Newcomb, § E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, 1952. Pp. 330-344. :., Lippitt, R. , § White, R. Patterns of aggres sive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 1939, 10, 279-299. G., ^ Borgatta, E.F. Sociometric measurement. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954, pp. 405- 448. L. An item analysis of a scale for measuring classroom climate. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Minnesota, 1956. !., Fox, D., Davitz, J., § Brenner, M. A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group perfor mance and individual performance, 1920-1957. Psy- 212 chological Bulletin, 1958, 44, 327-372. McCall, W. Measurement of teacher merit. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State Superintendent of Public In struction, 1952 . McKeachie, W.J. Research on teaching at the college and university level. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally § Co., 1963. Pp. 1118-1172. Maier, N.R.F., § Maier, R.A. An experimental test of the effects of "developmental" vs. "free" discussions on the quality of group decisions. Journal of Ap plied Psychology, 1957, 41, 320-323. Maslow, A.M. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 370-396. Mazzitelli, D. A forced-choice approach to the measurement of teacher attitudes. Unpublished doctoral disser tation, University of Illinois, 1957. Medley, D.M., 6 Klein, Alix A. Measuring classroom behav ior with a pupil-reaction inventory. Elementary School Journal, 1957, 57, 315-319. Medley, D.M., 6 Mitzel, II.E. Application of analysis of variance to the estimation of the reliability of observations of teachers; classroom behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 1958, 27, 23-25. (a) Medley, D.M., 6 Mitzel, H.E. A technique for measuring Medley, Medley, Mitzel, Mitzel, Moreno, Morse, Morse, 213 classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Psy chology, 1958, 49, 86-92. (b) D.M. § Mitzel, H.E. Some behavioral correlates of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psy chology , 1959, 50, 239-246. D.M., 6 Mitzel, H.E. Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally 5 Co., 1963, pp. 247-328. H.E., 6 Gross, Cecily F. The development of pupil- grovvth criteria in studies of teacher effective ness. Educational Research Bulletin, 1958, 37, 178-187, 205-275. H. E., 6 Rabinowitz, W. Assessing social-emotional climate in the classroom by Withall's technique. Psychological Monographs, 1953, 67, No. 18 (Whole No. 368). J.L. Who shall survive? Washington, D.C.: Ner vous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1934. W.C. The education of socially maladjusted and emo tionally disturbed children. In Cruikshank, W.M., 6 Johnson, G.O. (Ed.), The education of exception al children and youth. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1958, pp. 557-608. W.C., Bloom, R., 6 Dunn, J. School classroom behav ior. A study of school classroom behavior from di- 214 verse evaluative frameworks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education, 1961. Morse, W.C., Cutler, R.L., § Fink, A.H. Public school classes for the emotionally handicapped: A research analysis. Washington, D.C.: Council for Exception al Children, National Education Association, 1964. Murray, H.A. Explorations in personality. New York: Ox ford University Press, 1938. Newman, Ruth. The acting-out boy. Exceptional Children, 1956, 22, 186-190; 204-206; 215-216. Olson, W.C. Implications of the dynamics of instructional groups. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), Yearbook of the Na tional Society for the Study of Education, 1960, 59, Part II, 268-280. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. , f * Tannenbaum, P.H. The measure ment of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Pace, C.R. 8 Stern, G.G. An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environ ments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 269-277. Patterson, G.R., et al. A behavior modification technique for the hyperactive child. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1965, 2, 217-226. Perkins, H.V. The effects of climate and curriculum on group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 215 1950, 41, 268-286. Peterson, D.R. Behavior problems of middle childhood. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 205- 209. Peterson, D.R., Quay, H.C. 8 Cameron, G.R. Personality and background factors in juvenile delinquency as in ferred from questionnaire responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 395-399. Peterson, D.R., Quay, H.C. § Tiffany, T.L. Personality factors related to juvenile delinquency. Child De velopment , 1961, 32, 355-372. Quay, H.C. Dimensions of personality in delinquent boys as inferred from the factor analysis of case history data. Child Development, 1964, 35, 479-484. (a) Quay, H.C. Personality dimensions in delinquent males as inferred from the factor analysis of behavior rat ings . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquen- C£, 1964, 1, 33-37. (b) Quay, H.C. Personality patterns in preadolescent delin quent boys. Educational and Psychological Measure ment , 1966, 26, 99-110. Quay, H.C. § Hunt, IV.A. Psychopathy, neuroticism, and ver bal conditioning: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19 65, 29, 28 3. Quay, H.C., Morse, W.C. $ Cutler, R.L. Personality pat terns of pupils in special classes for the emotion 216 ally disturbed. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 297-301. Quay, H.C. § Peterson, D.R. Personality factors in the study of juvenile delinquency. Exceptional Chil dren , 1960, 26, 472-476. Quay, H.C., Peterson, D.R. § Consalvi, C. The interpreta tion of three personality factors in juvenile de linquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 555. Quay, H.C. § Quay, Lorene C. Behavior problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 1965, 36, 215-220. Rabinovitch, R.D. Cited by Morse, Cutler § Fink in Public school classes for the emotionally handicapped: A research analysis. Washington, D.C.: Council for Exceptional Children, National Education Associa tion, 1964^ p. 39. Reed, H.B. Teacher variables of warmth, demand, and utili zation of intrinsic motivation related to pupils' science interests: A study illustrating several po tentials of analysis of variance and analysis of covariance. Journal of Experimental Education, 1961, 29, 205-229. (a) Reed, H.B. Effects of teacher warmth. Journal of Teacher Education, 1961, 12, 330-334. (b) Rehage, K.J. A comparison of pupil-teacher planning and teacher directed procedures in eighth grade social studies classes. Journal of Educational Research, 1951, 45, 111-114. Remmers, H.H. Rating methods in research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally 8 Co., 1963. Rothman, Esther P. Teaching for a positive concept of au thority in a school for emotionally disturbed girls Federal Probation, 1964, 28, 36-39. Rubin, E.Z., § Simson, C.B. A special class program for the emotionally disturbed child in school: A pro posal. American Journal of Orthopsychiatrics, 1960, 30, 144-153. Ryans, D.G. Characteristics of teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Ryans, D.G. Somerelationships between pupil behavior and certain teacher characteristics. Journal of Edu cational Psychology, 1961, 52, 82-90. Ryans, D.G. Assessment of teacher behavior and instruc tion. Review of Educational Research, 1963, 33, 415-441. Sarason, S.B., et al. Anxiety in elementary school chil dren. New York: Wiley f T Sons, 1960. Schaefer, E.S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 226-235. Schaefer, E.S. Converging conceptual models for maternal 218 behavior and for child behavior. In J.C. Glidewell (Ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Schaefer, E.S. A configurational analysis of children's reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 552-557. Schaefer, E.S., Aaronson, May R., 8 Burgoon, Betty R. Classroom Behavior Inventory. National Institute of Mental Health, 1965. (Pre-standardization mim eographed copy) Schaefer, E.S., Droppleman, L.F., 6 Kalverboer, A.F. Development of a classroom behavior check list and factor analyses of children's school behavior in the United States and the Netherlands. National Institute of Mental Health, 1966. (Mimeographed) Schorer, C.E. How emotionally disturbed children view the school. Exceptional Children, 1960, 27, 191-195. Schueler, H. § Gold, M.J. Video recordings of student teachers: A report of the Hunter College research project evaluating the use of kinescopes in pre paring student teachers. Journal of Teacher Edu cation, 1964, 15, 358-364. Sears, Pauline. The effect of classroom conditions on strength of achievement motive and work output on elementary school children. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1963. U.S. Department of 219 Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Educa tion, Cooperative Research Project No. OE 873. Simson, C.B., Betwee, M.C. § Rubin, E.Z. A special class for emotionally disturbed children: Progress re port. Lafayette Clinic, 951 E. Lafayette, Detroit, Mich., 1962. (Mimeographed copy) Smith, B.O. A concept of teaching. Teachers College Rec ord, 1960, 61, 229-241. Stern, G.G. Measuring noncognitive variables in research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook of re search on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally § Co., 1963. Pp. 398-447. Stovall, T.F. Lecture vs. discussion. Phi Delta Kappan, 1958, 39, 255-258. Strauss, A., § Lehtinen, Laura. Psychopathology and edu cation of the brain-injured child. Vol. I. Neiv York: Grune and Stratton, 1947. Symonds, P.M. The psychology of parent-child relation ships . New York: Appleton-Century, 1939. Terwilliger, R.I. Assessing the cooperating teacher's influence on the student teacher using Withall's technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, 1965. Thelen, H.A. Grouping for teachability. Theory into Practice, 1963, 4, 81-89. Thelen, H.A., $ Withall, J. Three frames of reference: 220 The description of climate. Human Relations, 1949, 2, 159-176. Thomas, Dorothy S., et al. Some new techniques for study ing social behavior. Child Development Monographs, 19 29, 1. Thompson, G.G., § Hunnicutt, C.W. The effect of praise or blame on the work achievement of ’'introverts" and "extroverts." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1944, 34, 257-266. Tiffany, T.L., Peterson, D.R. § Quay, H.C. Types and traits in the study of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1961, 17, (3) 19-24. Tolman, B.C. A psychological model. In T. Parsons 6 E.A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of so cial action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952. Torrance Chamber of Commerce. Torrance, California: Eco nomic Base Study. Torrance, Calif., n.d. (Mimeo graphed) Wallen, N.E., 6 Travers, R.M.W. Analysis and investigation of teaching methods. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally 6 Co., 1963. Pp. 448-505. Watson, G. An evaluation of small group work in a large class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1953, White, Wilk, R Withall Withall Withall Withall Withall 221 44, 385-408. .K., £ Lippitt, R. Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inquiry. New York: Harper, 1960. E., 8 Edson, W.H. A study of the relationships be tween observed classroom behaviors of elementary student teachers, predictors of those behaviors, and ratings by supervisors. Minneapolis: Universi ty of Minnesota, College of Education, 1962. J. The development of a technique for the mea surement of social-emotional climate in classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1948. J. Development of a technique for the measurement of socio-emotional climate in classrooms. Journal of Experimental Education, 1949. J. The development of a climate index. Journal of Educational Research, 1951, 45, 93-99. J. Assessment of the social-emotional climates experienced by a group of seventh graders as they moved from class to class. Educational and Psycho logical Measurement, 1952, 12, 440-451. J., ^ Lewis, W.W.. Social interaction in the classroom. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Re search on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally 6 Co., 1963. Pp. 683-714. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 223 BEHAVIOR PROBLEM CHECKLIST Teacher____________________ Nome of Child________________ Please indicate which of the following constitute problems, as far as this child is concerned. If an item does not constitute a problem, encircle the zero; if an item constitutes a mild problem, encircle the one; if an item constitutes a severe problem, encircle the two. Please complete every item. 0 1 2 1. Oddness, bizarre behavior 0 1 2 2. Restlessness, inability to sit still 0 1 2 3c Attention-seeking, "show-off" behavior 0 1 2 h. Stays out late at night 0 1 2 5. Doesn't know how to have fun; behaves like a little adult o 1 2 6. Self-consciousnesa; easily embarrassed 0 1 2 7. Fixed expression, lack of emotional reactivity 0 1 2 8. Disruptiveness; tendency to annoy and bother others 0 1 2 9. Feelings of inferiority 0 1 2 10. Steals in company with others 0 1 2 11. Boisterousness, rowdiness 0 1 2 12. Crying over minor annoyances and hurts 0 1 2 13. Preoccupation; "in a world of his own" 0 1 2 lU. Shyness, bashfulness 0 1 2 15. Social withdrawal, preference for solitary activities 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 224 16. Dislike for school 17. Jealousy over attention paid other children 18. Belongs to a gang 19. Repetitive speech (stuttering) 20. Short attention span 21. Lack of self-confidence 22. Inattentiveness to x-jhat others say 23. Easily flustered and confused 2I 4. Incoherent speech 25. lighting 26. Loyal to delinquent friends 27. Temper tantrums 28. Reticence, secretiveness 29- Truancy from school 30. Hypersensitivity; feelings easily hurt 31. Laziness in school and in performance of other tasks 32. Anxiety, chronic general fearfulness 33. Irresponsibility, undependability 3h. Excessive daydreaming 35. Masturbation 36. Has bad companions 37. Tension, inability to relax, easily upset by pressure 33. Disobedience, difficulty in disciplinary control 39. Depression, chronic sadness i|0. Uncooperativeness in group situations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 225 2 Itl. Aloofness, social reserve 2 Lt2. Passivity, suggestibility; easily led by others 2 b3. Clumsiness, awkwardness, poor muscular coordination 2 Ljl|* Hyperactivity; "always on the go" 2 U5. Distractibility, lacks concentration 2 U6. Destructiveness in regard to his own and/or other's property 2 U7. Negativism, tendency to do the opposite of what is requested 2 L;3. Impertinence, sauciness 2 )\9. Sluggishness, lethargy 2 50. Drowsiness 2 51. Profane language, swearing, cursing 2 52. Nervousnessj jitteriness, jumpiness; easily startled 2 53. Irritability; hot-tempered, easily aroused to anger 2 5L. Enuresis, bed-wetting 2 55* Often has physical complaints, e.g., headaches, stoinacha.ches 2 56. Cruelty, ridicules, and makes cruel remarks to others 2 57» Work fluctuation, sometities works well, other times easily distracted 2 58* Resentfulness, sulks when reproved, slow to forgive, tries to get even 2 59. Inappropriate talk, even when not allowed, often talks ou t or chats 226 0 1 2 60. Overdependent, asks for help whether or not he needs it 0 1 2 6l. Inability to get along with other children 0 1 2 62. Dominance, often bosses classmates around and tries to have own way 0 1 2 63. Poor impulse control APPENDIX B 227 A FRAME OF REFERENCE AND PROCEDURE TO FACILITATE CATEGORIZATION OF TEACHER-3TATEMENTS Each teacher-statement contains one of two dominant kinds of intent. These are: either a) intent to sustain the teacher and his behavior (teacher-centered statements) or b) intent to sustain the learner and his behavior (learner-centered statements and issue-centered statements are included under this intent). By analysis of both the CONTEXT and the CONTENT of a teacher state ment it may be possible to determine whether the dominant intent of a statement is to sustain the teacher or the learner. Once the dominant intent of a teacher-statement has been ascertained, one can proceed to determine the technique by which the support is conveyed. 1. If the statement is intended primarily to sustain the teacher, one or possibly a combination of the two following techniques may be used: a) reproof of the learner (category 6) b) directing or advising the learner (category 5). Frequently the intent of the statement is to sustain the teacher yet neither of the above techniques is used. In that event the statement is simply a self-supportive 228 remark which defends the teacher or evidences perseveration In support of the teacher’s position or ideas (category ?)• 2. If the intent of a statenant is to sustain the learner Lhen one or possibly a combination of the two following tech-' niques 'nay be used: a) clarification and acceptance of the learner's feelings or ideas (category 2), b) problem-structuring statements (category 3)« Frequently the intent of a statement is to sustain the learner yet neither of the above techniques is used. In that event the statement is simply one that reassures, commends, agrees with or otherwise sustains the learner (category l)» Infrequently a teacher-statement may have no dominant intent to sus tain either the teacher or the learner. If the statement represents neither of the techniques in the two intent areas nor gives evidence of being one of the more general kinds of supporting statements, then tbo statement can be considered to have no intent to support and should be placed in category ).u Recourse to the learner-statement or behavior before and after a teacher response, particularly when one encounters a statement in Withall, John. "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms," Journal of Exper imental Education, Jol. XVIII, No. 3, March l?l<9» . "Impact on Learners of Climate Created by the Teacher" \iilm), bureau of Audio-Visual Instruction, University of Wis consin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1963* 229 which the intent is difficult to ascertain, is sometimes helpful in categorizing the teacher's statements. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Social-Emotional Jlirnate Index by John Withall, Ph. T). Criteria of Teacher-Statement Categories 1. LTARI'iER SUPPQRTI•/£ statements or questions These are teacher-statements or questions that express agree ment with the ideas, actions or opinions of the learner, or that com mend or reassure the learner. Agreement is frequently expressed by a monosyllabic response such as "Yes," "Right," "Eh huh," and the like. Commendation or reassurance may be stated in terms of: a, class-accepted criteria or goals or b. the private goals and subjective critei’ia of the teacher. The dominant intent of these statements or questions is to praise, encourage or bolster the learner. 2. ACGEPTAfJT or CLARIFYING statements or questions These are teacher-statements or questions which either: a. accept, that is, evidence considerable understanding by the teacher of, or b. clarify, that is, restate clearly and succinctly in the teacher's words 230 the ideational or the feeling content of the learner's statement. The dominant intent of these teacher-responses is to help the learner to gain insight into his problem, that is, define his "real" problem and its solution in more operational terms. 3. PROBLEM STRUCTURING statements or questions Problem-structuring responses by the teacher offer facts or ideas or opinions to the learner about a. phenonema b. procedures in a non-threatening and objective manner. These responses contain NO element of advising or recommending the adoption of certain ideas or procedures. Problem-structuring responses are frequently posed as questions which seek further information from the learner about the problem confronting him; or they may be statements which offer infor mation to the learner about his problem. The learner is free to ac cept or to reject in part or in entirety the facts or opinions tha.t are presented to him. Problem-structuring responses may be questions which the teacher asks (1) to further increase her own understanding of what the learner has said, or (2) to increase the precision of the learner's statement of the problem. Problem-structuring responses are probiem-centered rather than either teacher or learner-centered; nevertheless, they do tend to sustain the learner by facilitating his problem-solving activities. U. NEUTRAL statements evidencing no supportive intent These statements are neither teacher-sustaining, nor learner- sustaining nor problem-centered. They constitute a small percentage of the total teacher-responses. These responses include statements in which the teacher: (l) questions herself aloud; (2) repeats verbatim a statement that the learner just made; (3) uses a. polite formality, et cetera. Statements having to do with administrative procedure— the room in which the class will meet, the hour at which a conference will occur— (especially after consensus has been achieved), fall into this category. 3'. DIRECTIVE statements or questions Theae are teacher-statements or questions which advise the learner regarding a course of action or his future- behavior and which narrowly limit his choice or offer no choice. These statements rec ommend to the learner the facts or procedures that the teacher prof fers him. These statements or ouestions convey the impression to the learner that the teacher expects and hopes that be will, follow her prompting and that she will approve if he does. The Intent of these responses is to have the learner take up the teacher's point of view and pursue a. course of action that she advocates. 6. REPROVING, DISAPPROVING or DISPARAGING statements or questions By means of these statements a teacher may express complete or partial disapproval of t’ ne Ideas, behavior, and, to her, person ality weaknesses of the learner. The teacher's 'internalized societal values largely enter into these responses, by means of these state ments some teachers believe they are fulfilling their responsibility of inculcating in young people society's standards of acceptable and desirable behavior and achievement. The intent of these statements is 232 a. to represent to the learner societal values as the teacher sees them; b. to admonish the learner for unacceptable behavior and to de ter him from repeating it in the future; c. to impress on the learner the fact that he has not met the criteria for successful achievement which the teacher ac cepts . 7. TEACHSR-SUP^ORTIVE statements or questions These are statements or questions in which the teacher refers to herself and expresses a defensive attitude, or refers to her pre sent or past interest, activities or possessions 'with the purpose of reassuring herself and of confirming her position or her ideas in the eyes of those around her. The dominant intent of these teacher- responses is to assert, to defend or to .justify the teacher. State ments in which the teacher perseverates on an idea, a belief or a suggestion would fall in this category. By "perseveration" is meant a persisting in, a reiteration of, and a r-igid advocacy of an idea or opinion by the teacher despite additional data being presented to her which calls for a re-examination of the original idea or opinion. APPENDIX C 233 A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION 0? THE REVISED WITHALL CATEGORIES EXAMPLES Category 1. Learner Supportive Statements or Questions These are teacher-statements or questions that express agreement with the ideas, actions, or opinions of the learner, or that commend or reassure the learner. Agreement is frequently expressed by a monosyllabic re sponse such as "Yes," "Right," "Uh huh," and the like. Commendation or reassurance may be stated in terms of: a. Class-accepted criteria or goals or b. The private goals and subjective criteria of the teacher. The dominant intent of these statements or questions is to praise, encourage, or bolster the learn er. Examples of Category 1 statements or questions: (1) You've certainly improved your handwriting, Dan. (2) Eery good, Debbie, that was a hard problem. Keep up the good work. (3) Good. No\* you're really thinking. (L) Don't you think that looks good? I do0 Category 2. Accepting or Clarifying Feeling Statements or Questions These are teacher-statements or questions which either: a. Accept, that is, evidence considerable understanding by the teacher of, or b. Clarify, that is, restate clearly and succinctly in the teacher's words 234 the feeling content of the learner's statement. The dominant intent of these teacher-responses is to help the learner to gain insight into his problem, that is, define his "real" problem and its solution in more operational terms. Examples of Category 2 statements or questions: (1) Pupil: Teacher, I can't get this. I worked on it for a long time last night. Teacher: I know how you must feel. I get frus trated, too, when I I'jork hard and can't get something. (2) Pupil: Why do we have to do this? It's so boring. Teacher: Sometimes you can't see any reason why we have to learn this, and you wish we didn't have to. (3) Teacher: How do you think Joan felt when you laugh ed at her? (ii) Teacher: ’ ’ lost of you feel disappointed about your grades on this test. Category 3. Problem-centered Statements or Questions a. Probiem-structuring responses by the teacher to offer facts or ideas or opinions to the learner about phe nomena or procedures pertaining directly to learning activities of a curi-iculum (subject-matter) type. Remarks are made in a. non-threatening and object ive manner. These responses contain hO element of advis ing or recommending the adoption of certain ideas or pro cedures, The learner is free to accept or reject in part or in entirety the facts or opinions that are presented to him. These responses may also be posed as questions which seek further information from the learner about the curriculum problem confronting him. The intent of these questions is (1) to further increase the teacher's under standing of what the learner has said, or (2) to increase the precision of the learner's understanding of the prob lem. Problem structuring responses are problem-centered rather than either teacher or learner-centered; neverthe less, they do tend to sustain the learner by facilitating his problem-solving activities. The dominant intent is 235 to elucidate the problem and therefore facilitate the learner's problem-solving activities. Examples of Category 3a: (1) Sound travels at about 700 miles per hour in the air. (?) Would it be short e or long e? (3) how did you answer it, Lee? (U) Do you agree with Lee? Category 3 statements or questions often may be preceded by a teacher statement to impose a problem upon the pupil. Teacher responses that follow con still fall into Category 3 as illustrated below*. (1) Teacher: David, open your book to p. 8# (Category 5) Read the first problem there. (Category $) Pupil: I don't know how to do it. Teacher: Do you remember what we did yesterday? (Category 3) Pupil: Yes. Teacher: Is this problem the S3me kind? (Category 3) Etc. b. Problem-centered questions or statements by the teacher to offer facts or ideas or opinions to the learner about Individual or group problems or proce dures related to overt behavior of the learners in a non-threatening and objective manner. These re sponses may also be posed as questions which seek further information from the learner about behavior which has occurred. The intent of these questions is (1) to further increase the teacher's understanding of what occurred, and (2) to iticv,ease the learner's understanding of the behavior problem and help him see alternate ways he may choose to cope with the problem. Thus the learner can achieve better cogni tive control over his behavior. Examples of Category 3b: 236 (1) Remember we decided not to use clay today. (2) What happened? What else might you have done? (3) How can X help you without interrupting John? c, 'Teacher reactions to student ideas which accept or use the ideas of student. This is much the same a? Category 2 except it pertains to ideational content rather than feeling content. Clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggestedhy a student. Examples of Category 3c: (1) If I understood you correctly we should do it in a color rather than blacky so it will show up better. (2) You mean we should divide it rather than multiply. Category U. Neutral Statements Evidencing No Supportive Intent These statements are neither teacher-sustaining, nor learner-sustaining nor problem-centered. They con stitute a small percentage of the total teacher responses. These responses include statements in which the teacher: (l) questions herself aloud; (2) repeats verbatim a statement that the learner just made; (3) uses a polite formality, et cetera. Statements having to do with ad ministrative procedure--the room in which the class will meet, the hour at which a conference will occur— (espe cially after consensus has been achieved), fall into this category. Examples of Category U: (1) How many are eating in the cafeteria? (2) There is an assembly at eleven o’clock today. (3) I'm sorry, I didn’t quite hear what you said. (It) Let’s meet at recess tomorrow. Category 5* Directive Statements or Questions These are teacher-statements or questions which advise the learner regarding a coui'se of action or his future behavior and which narrowly limit his choice or offer no choice. These statements recommend to the learner the facts or procedures that the teacher proffers him. These statements or questions convey the impression 237 Category 6. Category 6a Category 6b to the learuer that the teacher expects and hopes that he will follow her prompting and that she will approve if he docs. The intent of these responses is to have the learner take up the teacher's point of view and pur sue a course of action that she advocates. Examples of Category statements or questions: (1) Do page ?U of your text. (2) That's to be done tomorrow. (3) Why not do it the way I recommended? (U) Don't do those other questions. Do these. If the teacher's directive pertains to disap proval of present behavior of the learner in order to stop it or change it, Category 6 is used. These A.re Statements or Questions by 'Which the Teacher Indicates the Pupil's Present Behavior is Unacceptable. The intent of these teacher responses is: a. To stop the unacceptable behavior of the learner and deter him from repeating it in the future. b. To represent to the learner societal values as t'ne teacher sees them. c. To impress upon the learner that lie has not met the teacher's criteria for successful achievement. These three types of remarks are based upon the teacher's standards of acceptable and desirable behavior or achievement. Remarks Indicating Disapproval of Pupil's Behavior Which are Neutral in Tone or Content. Examples of Category 6a: (l) I don't think you should repeat that if you're not sure it's true. (?) You are out of your seat (neutral tone). Remarks Indicating Disapproval of the Learner's Behavior Which are Negative or Hostile in Tone or Content. (This 238 Category 7. includes sarcasm, scorn, ridicule, and other negative criticism.) lxam.ples of Category 6b: (1) That's a. stupid question. (2) Really, is that the best you can do? (Sarcastic) (3) Get in your seat and stay thereI (Negative tone) Teacher-Supportive Statements or Questions. These are statements or questions in which the teacher refers to herself and expresses a defensive at titude, or refers to her present or past interests, activities or possessions with the purpose of reassuring herself and of confirming her position or her ideas in the eyes of those around her. The dominant intent of these teacher-responses is to assert,, to defend or to justify the teacher. .Statements in which the teacher perseverates on an idea, a belief or a suggestion would fall in this category. By "perseveration" is meant a persisting in, a reiteration of, and a rigid advocacy of an idea or opinion ’ ey the teacher despite additional data being presented to her which calls for a re-exami nation of the original idea or opinion. Examples of Category 7 statements or questions: (1) I've been teaching 15> years and you're not going to tell me what to do. (2) You know as well as I that I don't make unreason able demands. appendix d 239 APATH DISRUPTIVE PUPIL REHA7IQR JOfT'IUK 1. Communicative activity. Pupil whispers, laughs,-talks, or tries to attract the attention of another classmate when attention to assigned task or teacher is expected. Pupil displays apathy (passive) e.g. stares into space or out window, yawns, slumps, dozes or daydreams for an ex- tended period of time when attention to work or teacher is expected. Pupil is restless (hyperactive) to point it actually dis tracts others or interferes with his work e.g. roaming REST (HUM) FOR Or J about room which is unrelated to task or unapproved by teacher, kicking at seat, humming, undirected talk. Sim ple squirming or wiggling that bothers no one would not be included. Li. Pupil plays with foreign object or doodling. Activities of the hand- that interfere with assigned task e.g., fin gering box of colors, running toy car back and forth on desk, drawing pictures unrelated to work. INTKPT 5• Pupil interrupts teacher. When the pupil speaks while the teacher is speaking regardless of the reason for the interruption, e.g., for clarification, additional infor mation, change of topic, or correction. If hostility definitely seems intended, check category 7 instead. 6. Pupil ignores teachers question. Whenever the pupil, cither deliberately or inadvertently ignores, or does not ION HOST 7 T V HOST 8 ? 240 answer or comment on* a question of the teacher provided that the teacher expects an answer to the question and the question is asked in such a way that it is, in all prob ability, audible to the pupil. This category is checked regardless of the occasion during which the question is asked, for example during a test or a play period, . Pupil shows hostility toward teacher. This behavior may be either verbal or non-verbal, hut it must be such as to clearly indicate, not merely imply, hostility. The hos tility may be in the form of a direct refusal, a definite resistance, or a distinct reluctance on the part of the pupil to perform some task or to take some particular course of action; it may be a specific comment of a derog atory or derisive nature made to the teacher or to another pupil about the teacher, or it may take the form of an ex pression or gesture made byp.ipil to the teacher or behind the teacher’s back, e.g., to stick out his tongue or to "make a face" at the teacher. This category would also be checked should the pupil hit, or strike at, or throw some object at the teacher, . Pupil shows verbal hostility toward another pupil. When a pupil directly threatens or warns another pupil, i.e., "If X (behavior) continues or occurs then Y will happen (as a result of his action), "or when the threat or warn ing is explicit in the action of the pupil, e.g., shaking a fist at a pupil; or whenever a pupil, uses words which, 241 in their context, indicate anger, bitterness, scorn, ridi cule, sarcasm, rebuff, or derision of, or for, toward, or about, another pupil. Thus the hostility may be either verbal, or non-verbal, or both. It may be direct or in direct, i.e., it may be to or about the pupil concerned, (tattling, blaming). However, it must be clearly indi cated hostility by the action, the expression, the con text or by all three. P HOST ?. Pupil shows physical hostility toward another pupil. P When a pupil performs a physically hostile aggressive act toward another pupil, e.g., hits, pricks, kicks, slaps, or throws something at another. This category is checked only when force or contact is present. OTHER 10. Other behavior not listed above that tends to disrupt the class. (Note.) Examples which might occur: aggressive act against self or objects, horseplay (good natured ag gressive acts) e.g. wrestling for fun. 242 APPENDIX E (Front of card) PUPIL BEHAVIOR Date: Teacher: Activity: 1. Common 2. Apathy 3- Rest (Hum) k. For Ob.i 5. Intrpt 6 . Ign 7. Host T 8. V. Host P 9. P. Host P 10. Other 243 APPENDIX P (Back of card) TASK ORIENTED BEHAVIOR Is each child working on school assigned task or not? Place a v/ mark for yes and a x mark for no on the back of the DISORDERLY PUPIL BEHAVIOR CARD at the end of every 30 minute observation period. If the child has finished his assignment and has to wait, a w will replace the A" or x sign. Just quickly make one check for each pupil in classroom. TASK ORIENTED EEHAVIOR (V X w) Example: -2. task oriented 11 pupils present 1. A 2. A 3- x , 4. x ' 5- A 6. a 7. a 8. A 9. / 10. A 11. / P.D.B. #1 (talking) 3- Seating Li m e l LVj no] I T 244 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes APPENDIX G PUPIL ATTITUDE INVENTORY YOUR TEACHER 1. Does your teacher usually praise you for doing good work? (reward you, tell you when you do a good job) 2. Is your teacher usually cross? (mad or angry) 3. Does your teacher usually explain the school work so that you can understand it? Does your teacher usually make the school work interesting? (so you like it, fun) 5. Is your teacher often "bossy?" (shoving you around and getting after you about things) 6. Is it easy for you to talk to your teacher if you want to when you have a problem? (Is she the kind of person you can talk to easily?) 7. Is your teacher usually kind to you? (nice) 8. Does your teacher keep her promises? (Can you count on her to keep her word?) 9. Does your teacher think she is always right and you are always wrong? 10. Is your teacher easily annoyed or bother? (easily get upset or mad about little things) 11. Is your teacher usually fair with the boys and girls? (Treat the pupils equally so you feel you are being treated as well as another?) 12. Does your teacher usually pay attention to you when you raise your hand? 13. Do most of the pupils like this teacher? 245 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 14. Does your teacher usually laugh with the pupils when something funny happens? (enjoy a good joke not laugh at another1 person) 15. Does your teacher get mad when you don't understand something? 16. Does your teacher scold you when you make a mistake? (Holler or yell at you) 17. Does your teacher let you ask her questions? 18. Does your teacher let you help someone else? 19. Does your teacher explain what you don't understand? (If you don't know what something means, will she explain it to you?) 20. Do you like your teacher? 21. Does your teacher make you feel like she likes you? (Do you think she likes you?) 22. Does your teacher listen to you? 23. Would It be all right with you if your class had a different teacher? (not a substitute for a day) 24. When you leave the class you are now in, would you like to see your teacher again? (Enjoy seeing her out somewhere to talk to her. ) 25. Do you wish your class could have the same teacher next year? (wherever you happen to be) YOUR SCHOOL AND CLASS 26. Do you feel good about coming to school? 27. Do you like to miss school? 28. Do you have a better time at school than you do at home? 246 Yes 29. Do you like school better this year than you did. last year? No 30. Would you like to drop out of school now? (If you could, would you stop going to school?) No 31* After a vacation is over, do you wish you did not have to go back to school? No 32. Do children make fun of you because you're in a special class? Yes 33. Do most of the boys and girls in your class like the class? No 3^- Would you rather be back in a regular class? (In the kind of class you used to be in with a bunch more children, but the way you are now if you are behind in your school work?) Yes 35- Can you succeed in your work since you came in the special class? (Is your work easy enough for you now?) Yes 36. Do you have fun in this class? YOUR WORK Yes 37* Do you ever bring something from home to show to the class? Yes 38. Do you often like to talk about what you did at school when you get home? Yes 39* Can you do something nice when you finish your work? (fun) Yes Ao. Do you sometimes do more school work than you have to do? Yes 4l. Do you sometimes read more about what you are studying just because you want to? (You like it so much you want to read more about it.) Yes ^2. Do you like to answer in class? (If you know the answer do you like to talk about it?) 247 Yes Yes 43. Do you feel like you are getting better in your work? ^4. Are you often so interested, in your school work that you want more to do at home? INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Why are you in a special class? 2. Do you feel it is helping you? 3. Do you go to regular class for any subject? Do you want to return to a regular class? V i hen? 5. What can you suggest that would make the special class better? Is there anything you would like to change? 6. What things did you enjoy in your special class this year? APPENDIX H 248 OHIO SOCIAL AODEPTANOE SCALE DIRECTIONS: On a separate sheet, you will find the name of every student in your class, We want you to put a number in front of every name. The number you put down should be the number of one of the fol lowing paragraphs. "My very, very best friends." A I would like to have this person as one of my very, very best friends. I would like to spend a lot of time with this person and would enjoy going places with this person. I would tell some of my troubles and secrets to this person and would do everything I could to help this person out of trouble. I will give a MUMPER ONE to my very very best friends. "My other friends" "Not friends, but Okay." I would enjoy working with this person, I would invite this person to a party, and would enjoy going on picnics with this person and our friends. I would like to talk and make and do things with this person. I would like to work with this person and would like to be with this person often. I want this person to be one of my friends, I will give a NUMPEA T/JO to every person who is my friend. IvDuld be willing to be on a committee with this person or to be in the same club. It would be all 249 7 h right for this person to be on the same team with me or to live in my neighborhood. I would be in a play with this person. I would just as soon work with this person in school.This person is not one of my friends, but I think this person is all right, I will put s MUMhER TMREE in front of the name of every person I think is all right. "Don't know them." "Don't care for them." ) I do not know this person very well. Maybe I would like this person, maybe I would not, I don't know if I would like to be with this person. I will put a MUMPER FOUR in front of the name of every person I don't know very well. I say "hello" whenever I meet this person around school or on the street, but I do not enjoy being with this person. I might spend some time with this person, if I didn't have anything else to do, but I would rather be with somebody else. I don't care for this person very much. I will give a NUMBER FIVE to people I don't care for very much. "Dislike them." T will speak to this person only when it is neces sary. I do not like to work with this person and would rather not talk to this person. I will give a DUMBER SIX to every person I do not like. 250 APPENDIX I TOTAL FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR SIX OBSERVATIONS T O TEACHERS ON REVISED 'VITHALL CATEGORIES Teacher Code Humber 1 2 3 Category 5 5 6a 6b 7 Total 1 5o 2 2hh 26 73 7 53 5 55o 2 25 0 202 35 62 26 27 1 377 3 55 5 218 5l 69 23 15 0 515 5 33 17 195 50 31 22 0 381 5- 26 1 215 55 67 23 18 2 397 6 57 10 327 55 55 8 55 5 55 9 7 83 5 319 35 129 - 3 3 . . . 128 7 738 R 71 15 300 59 77 20 1 0 533 9 35 0 218 5o 03 15 6? 5 576 10 25 2 211 h9 83 12 156 25 551 11 111 38 255 39 53 18 1 0 5o5

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Predicting Success In The Study Of Descriptive Linguistics

PDF

Delay Of Feedback And The Acquisition And Retention Of Verbal Material Inthe Classroom

PDF

A Problem-Centered Approach To Introductory Psychology

PDF

Anxiety, Physiologically And Psychologically Measured, And Its Consequences On Mental Test Performance

PDF

A Study Of The Relationship Of Temperament Variables To The Ability To Make Certain Judgments Of Emotional Behavior

PDF

Effects Of Success And Failure On Impulsivity And Distractibility Of Three Types Of Educationally Handicapped Children

PDF

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

PDF

The Modification Of Maladaptive Behavior Of A Class Of Educationally Handicapped Children By Operant Conditioning Techniques

PDF

Prediction Of Therapeutic And Intellectual Potential In Mentally Retardedchildren

PDF

The Effects Of Pretraining In Auditory And Visual Discrimination On Texting In First Grade Boys

PDF

The Relationship Of Dependency To Verbal Learning Without Awareness

PDF

Reversal And Nonreversal Shift Performance Of Retardates Under Various Motivational And Stimulus Conditions

PDF

An Investigation Of The Response To Stress Of Patients Hospitalized For Anxiety State And Peptic Ulcer Patients

PDF

Maternal Child-Rearing Attitudes And Developmental Growth Of Rubella Deaf-Blind Children

PDF

Ethnic Group Differences In Certain Personal, Intellectual, Achievement, And Motivational Characteristics

PDF

Use Of College Students In A Social Therapy Program With Chronic Schizophrenics To Produce Changes In Mood And Social Responsiveness

PDF

Human Gsr Classical Conditioning And Awareness Of The Cs-Ucs Relation

PDF

Treatment Effects On Physical Growth And Mental Development Among Phenylketonuric Children

PDF

The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Critical Factors Related To Achievement And Underachievement Of High School Students

Asset Metadata

Creator Hunter, Carol Pitschner (author)

Core Title Classroom Climate And Pupil Characteristics In Special Classes For The Educationally Handicapped

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

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 Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Jacobs, Alfred (committee member), Wolf, Richard M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-618713

Unique identifier UC11359887

Identifier 6812038.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-618713 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6812038.pdf

Dmrecord 618713

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hunter, Carol Pitschner

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