University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Exploratory Study Of The Relationship Between Laboratory Sensitivity Training And The Self-Perceptions And Success Of Student Teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

An Exploratory Study Of The Relationship Between Laboratory Sensitivity Training And The Self-Perceptions And Success Of Student Teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly aa received 6 6 -1 0 ,5 5 6
WHITCOMB, D avid B u rro w s, 1927—
A N EXPLO RATO RY STUDY O F THE RELATIONSHIP
BETW EEN LABORATORY SENSITIVITY TRAINING
AND THE SE L F -P E R C E P T IO N S AND SUCCESS OF
STUDENT TEACHERS.
U n iv e r sity of Southern C a lifo rn ia , P h .D ., 1966
E d ucation , p sy ch o lo g y
University Microfilms, Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan
Cy Copyright by
David Burrows Whitcomb
1966
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN LABORATORY SENSITIVITY TRAINING
AND THE SELF-PERCEPTIONS AND SUCCESS
OF STUDENT TEACHERS
by
David Burrows Whitcomb
A D issertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1966
UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
....... David -Burxotfa-Hhiicomb.............
under the direction of h..^...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 OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
—
' " , ^ i Chairman
. . . f ....
DEDICATION
To five people: to Susanne, my wife; patient, encouraging,
typing, and retyping for hours and hours--yet still able to succeed as
mother of four while professionally employed;
to Jon, my son, who has been too patient, perhaps;
to Cindy, Wendy, and Laurie, my daughters, who tried to
be patient;
to these unusual and wonderful people whom I intend to
come to know better in the months and years ahead, this dissertation
is affectionately dedicated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to:
R. T. and Marianne W illiams, whose initial inspiration
and counsel provided the courage to innovate; whose long hours as
facilitators made the study possible;
Jack Gibb, of the W estern Behavioral Sciences Institute,
who gave freely of his tim e as consultant in the formative stages of
this study;
Chip Anderson, Betty E arle, Phil Kukuruza, Ray Smith, and
Ray Valentine--good friends--graduate students who served as
observers in the T-Group sessions; and
Don Hall, who made numerous helpful suggestions; the
adm inistrators of Pasadena College, who allowed this experimental
study; and the thirty-seven individuals of the study who were subjected
to hours of testing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF THE
PROBLEM...............................................................
Basic Difficulty
Statement of the Problem
Definition of Term s
T-Group
Facilitator
Self-concept
Ideal self
Self-acceptance
Student teacher
Successful T-Group members
Less successful T-Group members
Student teaching success
Questions to Be Answered
Hypotheses
Limitations of the Study
Importance of the Study
Procedures of the Study
Organization of the Study
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................
Review of the L iterature on T-Group Method
and Sensitivity Training
The Self-Concept Theory of Personality
Personality C haracteristics and the
Assessm ent of Teaching Success
Chapter Page
Teacher Education
Summary of Chapter
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES.............. 44
Overview of the R esearch Design
A Description of the Program of
Student Teaching
Sensitivity training procedures
C riterion Instrum ents
Semantic differential
Q Sort
Success in sensitivity training
Success in student teaching
Summary of Chapter
IV. SENSITIVITY TRAINING--FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS........................................................ 68
Reliability of C riterion M easures of
Success in Sensitivity Training
Summary of Chapter
V. STUDENT TEACHING SUCCESS
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................... 74
Reliability of M easures of Success in
Student Teaching
Summary of Chapter
VI. FINDINGS ....................................................................... 82
Outline of Hypotheses with C riterion
Instrum ents
v
Hypothesis #1
Hypothesis #2
Hypothesis #3
Hypothesis #4
Hypothesis # 1 --Student T eachers with
Sensitivity Training Will Develop
G reater Self-Acceptance Than Those
Without It
Self-acceptance ascertained from the
Q Sort device
Self-acceptance ascertained from the
Word Meaning T est
Hypothesis # 2 --Successful T-Group
M embers Will Achieve G reater Self-
Acceptance Than Will Less Successful
T-Group
Results using Q Sort scores
Results for Hypothesis #2 using
Word Meaning Test scores
Hypothesis #3--Student T eachers with
Sensitivity Training Will Achieve G reater
Success in Student Teaching Than Those
without It
Hypothesis # 4 --Successful T-Group
M embers Will Achieve G reater Success
in Student Teaching Than Will Those Who
Are Less Successful T-Group M embers
M iscellaneous Findings
Summary of Chapter
C hapter Page
VII. SUMMARY, SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 110
Summary
Purpose of the study
Procedure
The instrum ents
Statistical procedure
Results
Incidental findings
Conclusions
Miscellaneous conclusions
Recommendations
APPENDIXES ................................................................................. 120
Appendix A ........................................................................... 121
Appendix B ........................................................................... 128
Appendix C ........................................................................... 132
Appendix D ........................................................................... 134
Appendix E ........................................................................... 136
Appendix F ........................................................................... 139
Appendix G ........................................................................... 149
Appendix H ........................................................................... 152
Appendix I ........................................................................... 175
Appendix J ........................................................................... 196
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................. 199
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparative Data for the Experim ental and
Control Groups Including Intelligence Index,
Grade Point Average, and Chronological Age. . . 46
2. R esearch Time T a b le ...................................................... 48
3. Comparative Supplementary Data on the Four
G roups............................................................................ 49
4. Ratings of Success in Sensitivity Training for
Subjects of the Experim ental G r o u p .................... 70
5. Mean Ratings of Sensitivity Training Success by
Each Group of R aters ............................................. 71
6. A Comparison of the Variability of Peer Ratings
and Facilitator R atin g s............................................. 71
7. Pearson Product-Moment C orrelations Between
Various Ratings of Success in Sensitivity
Training ....................................................................... 72
8. Ratings of Success in Student Teaching
(Experim ental G roup)................................................ 76
9. Ratings of Success in Student Teaching
(Control G roup)........................................................... 77
10. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings of
Student Teachers .................................................... * . 78
11. Ratings of Success in Student Teaching
Pasadena College Students (N=37)
(C orrelation M atrix) ................................................ 79
viii
T able Page
12. Mean Discrepancy Scores on Q Sort
Experimental and Control G ro u p s......................... 86
13. Mean Discrepancy Scores on Q Sort for
Reference G r o u p s ...................................................... 87
14. Correlations of the Self-Acceptance Scores for
the Q Sort and Word Meaning T e s t ....................... 88
15. Means and Standard Deviations of D Scores on
the Word Meaning T est for the Experim ental
and Control G ro u p s ................................................... 89
16. A Comparison of Q Sort Discrepancy Scores of
Those Successful and Those Less Successful
in Sensitivity Training (O bserver Ratings) . ... 91
17. A Comparison of Q Sort Discrepancy Scores of
Those Rated Successful in Sensitivity Training
and Those Rated Less Successful (Final
Facilitator R a tin g s)................................................... 92
18. A Comparison of Q Sort Discrepancy Scores of
Those Rated Successful in Sensitivity Training
and Those Rated Less Successful Using Ratings
of Peers at the Conclusion of T ra in in g ................. 93
19. A Comparison of Q Sort Discrepancy Scores of
Those Rated Successful in Sensitivity Training
and Those Rated Less Successful Using
Composite R atin g s...................................................... 94
20. Mean Q Sort Scores of Those Successful and Those
L ess Successful in Sensitivity Training, Using
Five C riteria F or Success (Q Sort Scores) . . . . 95
21. A Comparison of Word Meaning T est Discrepancy
Scores of Those Successful and Those Less
Successful in Sensitivity Training
(O bserver R atings)..................................................... 96
ix
T able Page
22. A Comparison of Word Meaning T est Discrepancy
Scores of Those Successful and Those Less
Successful in Sensitivity Training Based on
Final Peer E v alu atio n s.................................................. 97
23. A Comparison of Word Meaning T est Discrepancy
Scores of Those Successful and Those Less
Successful in Sensitivity Training Based on
Final Facilitator Ratings ....................................... 98
24. A Comparison of Word Meaning T est Discrepancy
Scores of Those Successful and Those Less
Successful in Sensitivity Training Based on
Composite R atin g s...................................................... 99
25. Trained O bserver Ratings of Success in Student
Teaching of the Experimental and Control
G roups............................................................................ 101
26. M aster Teacher Ratings of Success in Student
Teaching of the Experim ental and Control
G roups............................................................................ 102
27. College Supervisor Ratings of Success in Student
Teaching of the Experim ental and Control
G roups............................................................................ 103
28. An Analysis of the Student Teaching Ratings of
Those Successful in Sensitivity Training
Compared to Those Less S u c c e ssfu l.................... 104
29. Summary of Findings Relative to Hypotheses .... 106
30. A Comparison of Q Sort Discrepancy Scores of
Those Rated High on Student Teaching Success
with Those Rated L o w e r.......................................... 107
31. A Comparison of Word Meaning T est Discrepancy
Scores of Those Rated as Successful with Those
Rated as Less Successful in Student Teaching . . 108
x
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. C orrelation Summary, Akeret S tu d y ........................... 31
2. Classroom Observation R e c o r d ................................... 37
3. The Scales of the Word Meaning T e s t ........................ 57
4. A Facsim ile of the Sorting Board Used in Q Sort . . 61
xi
4
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION
OF THE PROBLEM
Basic Difficulty
Personality organization is one of the important elements
determining the behavior of the teacher in the classroom (Gage, 1963).
It is an im portant assumption of this study that critical determinants
of success o r failure in teaching are contained in the area of the
teacher's sensitivity and self-aw areness.
Some teachers who have experienced adequate success in
professional education sequences fail to achieve practical teaching
success (Barr, 1948). Nor does there appear to be high correlation
between the knowledge a new teacher possesses and his ability to
apply this knowledge to his pupils' needs (Gage, 1963).
Considerable research has been directed toward revealing
what effective teachers do in the classroom . Most studies have
proved to be somewhat fruitless. The underlying difficulty in most
1
2
cases is a weakness of the prim ary data with which the researchers
are dealing.
Most of the data amount to superficial rootless verbal
ism s about the events of the classroom s . . . these data
are so attenuated, they are so remote from the sights,
sounds, the sm ell, the feel and the sense of the classroom
that the reality escapes us . . . we are like m ineralogists
without specim ens--our data have escaped us. (Cogan, 1963)
Despite the difficulty relative to the identification and
measurement of relevant teacher behavior and characteristics,
educators are suggesting increased attention to personality dimen
sions in the preparation of teachers. A recent conference of the
National Education Association considered the topic, "Imperatives
for Preparation of Teachers for the Elem entary Schools." Listed
among the most important characteristics elementary teachers
should have w ere the following:
1. A realistic inner security that gives a positive
concept of self and sensitivity to the self-concepts
of others.
2. Creativity in thinking and behaving.
3. Confidence and flexibility to know when and where
to get help in understanding and dealing with change
and the unknown.
4. A broad cultural background that makes it possible
to relate to and communicate with people of differ
ing ages, races, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds.
5. Ability to locate and focus upon problems and
issues and evaluate alternatives as a basis for
making decisions. (1964)
It would appear that many college graduates fail to achieve
these objectives. The college student is often dependent, expecting
his college instructors to tell him what he is to do, the method he
should use, and, upon completion, how well he did. The blame for
lack of confidence and initiative in many of our college students
cannot be laid at the door of the school alone. There a re currently
tremendous p ressu res--cu ltu ral and political--w hich tend to move
people toward conformity, docility, and rigidity.
In the face of these current problems there is ever in creas
ing need for educational experience that will inculcate in students
qualities which will help them achieve a m easure of inner freedom.
In 1962, John Suehr made a plea for schools of education to begin to
offer courses conducted in the manner of sensitivity training. It is
the purpose of this study to explore this innovation in teacher
training.
Statement of the Problem
This study sought to explore the changes in the self-
perceptions of student teachers during and following a period of
sensitivity training. Sensitivity training is a device for improving
the human relations competence of leaders through firsthand
experience in analysis of group and individual behavior. This
educational program is designed to increase social sensitivity and
behavioral flexibility. It was the hypothesis of this study that such
training would be an approach, until now little used in the field of
teacher-education, offering a fruitful means for participants to
achieve personal development which may be virtually im possible to
achieve in the traditional preparatory courses and experiences.
Some of the benefits which may result from the special
training in groups include the following:
1. An increase in the student teacher's "self-
acceptance” (Burke and Bennis, 1958).
2. An increase in sim ilarity between an individual's
self-concept" and image of the "average other"
(Bass, 1962).
3. An increased understanding of dem ocratic leader
ship (G assner, Gold, and Snadowsky, 1964).
4. An increase in the student teacher's aw areness of
the effect of his behavior on others (Bass, 1962).
5. Attitudinal changes relative to the dynamics of
group m em bership and leadership (Bass, 1962).
6. Increased authenticity in interpersonal relations.
7. An increase in the "sp irito f inquiry."
This study did not attempt to m easure all of these possible
changes. Attention was focused on the anticipated changes in the
self-perceptions of the subjects, and consideration of the relationship
between such changes and "success in student teaching."
Definition of Term s
In this study, sensitivity training refers to a forty-four-hour
laboratory experience in analysis of group and individual behavior,
with em phasis on understanding the effects of group dynamics on
learning. Patterned after the training techniques developed at the
National Training Laboratory in Bethel, Maine, sensitivity training
is a device for improving the human relations competence of lead e rs.
In the early stages of the training, participants hear lectures and see
film s. These devices are dropped as m ore tim e is devoted to basic
interaction in sm all, somewhat unstructured groups, called
"T -G roups." A m ajor purpose of sensitivity training is to help
participants learn about them selves, about interpersonal relations,
and about groups through the data that they them selves generate. The
data (or content of discussion) are the interactions among the
m em bers. A m ajor portion of the total tim e in sensitivity training is
spent in the T-Group.
T-Group
The T (training)-Group is a relatively unstructured
group in which individuals participate as learn ers. The data
(content) for learning are not outside these individuals or
6
rem ote from their immediate experience within the T-Group.
The data are in the transactions among m em bers, their own
behavior in the group. (Bradford, 1964)
The sm all group techniques utilized in this study are also
patterned after those developed at the National Training Laboratory
at Bethel, Maine. Each T-Group had involved a maximum of ten
persons.
W hereas sensitivity training refers to the total set of
coordinated efforts to improve the participants’ human relations
competence including the "theory input" or instructional phase to the
total experimental group, the T-Group refers only to that portion of
the sensitivity training in which the participants interact in sm all
groups of nine o r ten participants and a facilitator in each group.
(See Appendix 1 for excerpts from one of the T-Group sessions.
Appendix J presents a brief analysis of the facilitator’s role in this
T-Group se ssio n .)
F acilitator
In this study this term is used in a way which is nearly
synonomous with the term "tra in e r," found in the literature on
sensitivity training. In group sessions the facilitator's role is that
of a consultant to the group m em bers to assist them in creating an
effective learning environment which supports common learnings as
well as individual learning. His special function is to help m em bers
7
to collect, interpret, and use the behavioral data which occur during
group sessions.
Self-concept
In this study, the term "self-concept" is used in the way
Rogers used the term when he defined it . . as an organized,
fluid but consistent, conceptual pattern of the characteristics of the
’I1 o r the 'm e .' " (Rogers, 1951) It includes the reported way the
individual perceives himself; unconscious conceptions which are not
reportable are excluded from this definition. Operationally, self-
concept is here indicated by response to the statement on the Q Sort
when subjects are asked to do a self-sort.
Ideal self
This study used this term in a way which is consistent with
the definition of Rogers and Dymond who defined it as ". . . the
organized conceptual pattern of characteristics and the emotional
states which the individual consciously holds as desirable (and
undesirable) for himself. " (Rogers, 1954) Operationally, ideal self
is here indicated by the responses to the Q Sort statem ents when
subjects are asked to arrange them as they, them selves, would like
to be.
8
Self-acceptance
This term is used to refer to the discrepancy between the
way the individual perceives him self and the way he would like to be.
When the discrepancy is sm all the person is considered to be self-
accepting, to value him self (Jourard, 1963, and Combs, 1958). A
large discrepancy between the self-concept and the ideal self is
considered an indication that the individual holds him self in low
esteem , lacks self-confidence, and in general has a low estim ation
of his personal worth and his acceptance by his social group.
Operationally, self-acceptance in this study is the discrepancy score
between the self-concept so rt and the self-ideal sort.
Student teacher
In this study the term "student teacher" refers to a college
student who is receiving actual experience in the public schools,
working with children under the guidance of an experienced teacher.
The student teachers involved in this study included seniors and first
year graduate students.
Successful T-Group m em bers
For the purpose of this study, those in a T-Group who
receive composite ratings (T-Group m ember ratings, observer
ratings, and facilitator ratings) above the median rating of their
group are referred to as successful T-Group m em bers.
Less successful T-Group members
For the purposes of this study, those in a T-Group who
receive composite ratings (T-Group member ratings, observer
ratings, and facilitator ratings) below the median rating of their
group are referred to as less successful T-Group members.
Student teaching success
In this study the criterion of success is the composite
ratings of two trained observers through the use of Ryans' "Class
room Observation Schedule." (Ryans, 1960)
Questions to Be Answered
1. Do the "self-concepts" and the "ideal self-concepts”
of student teachers become m ore congruent after
involvement in a program of sensitivity training?
2. Do the student teachers who are perceived as
successful m em bers of a T-Group achieve more
congruence in "self* and "ideal" concepts than those
who are perceived as less successful members of a
T-Group?
3. Does involvement in sensitivity training result in
10
greater success in student teaching?
4. Is success as a T-Group member related to success
in student teaching?
Hypotheses
Because of the expected benefits of sensitivity training and
because of the results with other groups, it is anticipated that the
student teachers will have effects indicated by certain operational
criteria, leading to hypotheses as follows:
1. Student teachers involved in sensitivity training
will develop greater "self-acceptance” than will
student teachers without this experience.
Null hypothesis: There will be no difference
in the discrepancy of the self-concepts and
the self-ideals on the Q Sort and Word
Meaning Test between the experimental and
the control groups.
2. Student teachers who are "successful T-Group
m embers" will achieve greater self-acceptance
than will the "less successful T-Group m em bers."
Null hypothesis: There will be no difference
in the discrepancy of the self-concepts and
the self-ideal on the Q Sort and Word Meaning
Test between the "successful T-Group
m em bers" and the "less successful T-Group
m em bers. " Success in the T-Group is
determined by composite ratings of facilitators,
observer ratings, and ratings by the other
11
T-Group m em bers.
3. Student teachers involved in sensitivity training will
achieve greater success in student teaching than
will student teachers without this experience. This
hypothesis is made with less confidence than the
first two, since there are multiple variables re la t
ing to success in student teaching. Some of these
variables will not be affected by sensitivity training.
Null hypothesis: There will be no difference
in the degree of success in student teaching
as rated by trained observers using Ryans'
rating schedule, between the experimental
group and the control group.
4. Student teachers who are "successful T-Group m em
bers" will achieve greater success in student teach
ing than will the "less successful T-Group m em bers. "
Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in
success in student teaching between the "success
ful T-Group m em bers" and the "less successful
T-Group m em bers. " Success in the T-Group is
determined by composite ratings of facilitator,
observer ratings, and ratings by the other
T-Group members.
Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study can be defined further in term s of
its limitations.
12
1. The investigator chose to explore the change in
self-acceptance, which is one dimension of the
personality dynamics of the teacher. All other
factors were thereby excluded from consideration,
yet they may have been involved.
2. The investigator proposed to consider relation
ships between sensitivity training and success in
student teaching, realizing that adequate criterion
m easures of teaching competence are not yet
available.
3. This study did not attempt to compare the student
teachers utilized with student teachers of other
colleges. T est score data of such students from
other institutions are m erely presented for re fe r
ence purposes; it was not feasible to conduct the
special training in these institutions.
4. It was not possible in this study to present a ca re
fully prescribed set of experiences as the change
agent. Sensitivity training is probably impossible
to describe, since the experience is different for
each group which is conducted.
13
Importance of the Study
Education in America is currently in a state of flux. In
recent years considerable criticism has been directed at the pro
grams of teacher preparation. As in every other aspect of education ,
numerous changes in teacher education curricula are advocated. The
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1965) has
presented a proposal for extensive revision in preservice profes
sional teacher education. Considerable research is needed to insure
that the changes, which appear to be inevitable, will be in the
direction of improving the product: teachers for the schools of the
nation.
At the risk of appearing presumptuous, since currently
numerous proposals are being presented by well qualified research
ers, nevertheless, this investigation is appropriate at this time for
the following reasons:
1. The literature continues to contain supplications
for better integrated teachers.
2. This educational experience, sensitivity training,
has been used with success in improving the in ter
personal competence of managerial personnel in
business and industry.
3. The research, though limited, suggests that
certain attitudinal and behavioral changes result
from participation in this innovation. These
changes are consistent with those desired for
teacher education students.
4. The efficacy of utilizing this procedure in teacher
education has not been em pirically studied.
Procedures of the Study
Thirty-seven student teachers of a liberal a rts college were
divided at random into two groups. The nineteen m em bers of the
experim ental group experienced forty-four hours of sensitivity
training during the week preceding and during the first five weeks of
the sem ester in which they w ere doing student teaching.
The control group experienced the traditional student
teaching program only. Both w ere given a sem antic differential
device and a Q Sort before the training and student teaching began, at
the middle of the sem ester, and during the final two weeks of the
sem ester.
The relative success in sensitivity training of the experi
mental group m em bers was determ ined by five ratings including
peer ratings by m em bers of the T-G roups, and facilitator ratings
15
at the midpoint and end of the training period, and the ratings of pairs
of nonparticipating observers.
The prim ary criterion of success in student teaching was the
independent ratings of a pair of trained observers using Ryans’
Classroom Observation Record (p. 21). Additional criteria included
routine evaluations secured regularly on all student teachers:
m aster teacher ratings and college supervisor ratings.
Organization of the Study
Chapter II presents a review of the research in three general
areas which relate to this study; namely, (1) T-Group method and
sensitivity training, (2) the self-concept theory of personality,
(3) personality characteristics and the assessm ent of teaching
success, and (4) teacher education.
An explanation of the research design and procedures is
presented in Chapter III. Included is a discussion of the in stru
ments used in this study, their development, and the procedures used
in their administration.
Chapter IV presents the various ratings of success in
sensitivity training with their intercorrelations. Chapter V presents
sim ilar information for the various ratings of success in student
teaching.
16
Findings and conclusions of the study are presented in
Chapter VI, including miscellaneous findings which do not pertain
directly to the hypotheses of this study.
Chapter VII presents a summary of the study as well as
implications for further research.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Since the research bearing upon this topic comes from
numerous areas and the quantity of research published on teacher
characteristics is so extensive, it was necessary to be discriminating
in the choice of literature to be reviewed in this chapter. The most
relevant reports of recent research were included in the areas of
(1) the T-Group method and theory, (2) the self-concept theory of
personality, (3) studies on teacher characteristics, and (4) teacher
education.
Review of the L iterature on T-Group
Method and Sensitivity Training
In a recent publication, T-Group Theory and Laboratory
Method, Bradford, Gibb, and Benne (1964) discussed this innovation
in the technology of education. They believe the T-Group to be m ore
than an educational technology. They maintain that:
It has its roots in a system of values relative to mature,
productive and right relationships among people. It is
grounded in assumptions about human nature, human
17
18
learning, and human change. Part of its meaning stems
from the commitment of its practitioners and participants to a
set of educational goals--both personal and social. (Bradford,
Gibb, and Benne, 1964, p. 1)
A T-Group is a relatively unstructured group where m em
bers have the opportunity to learn about them selves, about inter
personal relations and about groups through data that they themselves
generate in the group process. The data are the transactions among
the m em bers.
In the development of this innovation, as in most human
endeavors, practice has outstripped theory. In the publication
mentioned above, eight behavioral scientists present their individual
views of the T-Group. It appears that although the theories of the
process of learning through group interaction are in their infancy,
considerable agreem ent is evident. The eight w riters have borrowed
from their backgrounds in the disciplines of sociology, psychology,
anthropology, group behavior, and learning behavior.
The behavioral scientists' papers reveal some assumptions
about the content of T-Group theory. Four constellations of subject
m atter seem to be evinced: (1) the process of interpersonal relation
ship and influence, (2) the dynamics of intrapersonal change, (3) the
processes of group development, and (4) the dynamics of intergroup
and community processes.
19
In order to appreciate the problems inherent in the develop
ment of a theory for T-Group processes, one need only consider the
numerous difficulties of current behavioral science theory. As yet
there has been no concerted attem pt to synthesize the implications of
all of behavioral science theory for the T-Group processes (Bradford,
Gibb, and Benne, 1964).
Stock (1964) points out that early research done on T-Groups
was generated largely by concerns coming from interests in
psychology, sociology--interests in perception theory, role theory,
learning theory, and sociom etry theory.
Recent changes have taken place in theorizing. R esearch is
increasingly done on issues generated by essentially T-Group
concerns. These concerns include (1) how a T-Group develops;
(2) the composition of groups and relationship to group atm osphere
and level of anxiety, sub-group structure and m em ber satisfaction;
(3) the effects of "induced polarization" on defensive behavior and
perceptual accuracy; and (4) the amount of structure in a group.
There appears to be rath er general agreem ent as to the
objectives of the T-Group. In most cases self-insight or some
variation of learning related to increased self-knowledge are listed
as important objectives. Other objectives include these: (1) under
standing the conditions which inhibit or facilitate effective group
20
functioning; (2) understanding interpersonal operations in groups; and
(3) developing skills for diagnosing individual, group, and organiza
tional behavior.
Recent experiments have reported that human relations
training leads to changes in the phenomenal self. Burke and Bennis
(1964), using an adaptation of Osgood's Semantic Differential,
reported a significant reduction in the discrepancy between the
participants' self-im age and ideal image during a three-week human
relations training program at the Bethel Summer Laboratory. The
eighty-four participants in the study came from heterogeneous back
grounds, representing a wide variety of occupations and geographic
sections of the country. The training was conducted in T-Groups of
thirteen to fifteen in a group. The D m easure was used to determine
the linear distance between the concepts of "me” and "my ideal s e lf."
Unfortunately, no control group was available.
More recently Gassner, Gold, and Snadowsky (1964) found
sim ilar results from a three-day human relations training program
with two sets of undergraduate students (Ns of seventy-two and sixty-
seven) at City College of New York. It was the purpose of G assner's
study to test the hypothesis that there is an increase in the sim ilarity
between a person’s self-concept and ideal self-concept as a result of
the three-day training program . In both experiments changes in the
21
experimental groups were in the direction of prediction; consistent
with our definition of movement toward self-acceptance. Similar
changes were found, however, in the two control groups and the
differences were not significant. A modified form of the "Bill's
Index of Adjustment and Values" served as a criterion m easure in
these two experiments.
In a third and sim ilar experiment, Gassner (1964) found
that with 122 undergraduates the human relations training resulted in
teaching certain leadership principles and in developing particular
attitudes toward dem ocratic methods. On a scale, devised to assess
dem ocratic leadership attitudes, the experimental group had an
increase in understanding of dem ocratic leadership concepts which
was significantly (.001 level) above that of the control group. Judges'
responses were used as criterion.
A m ajority of the research on sensitivity training appears to
have been conducted at the National Training Laboratory in Bethel,
Maine. This national organization, a part of the National Education
Association, has a program of training, consultation, research, and
publication designed to help participants function m ore effectively in
sm all groups. Educators, business and industrial executives,
organization leaders, and others attend two-week workshops at the
National Training Laboratory to improve their human relations
22
skills. In recent years, interest in the innovation in other sections
of the country has been evinced.
Carl Rogers and Jack Gibb, of the W estern Behavioral
Sciences Institute at La Jolla, California, have embarked on a series
of studies of the intensive sm all group experience as it is related to
personal and organizational change.
This training innovation has had limited use in educational
settings. Soar and Bowers (1961), in an evaluative study of
sensitivity training for classroom teachers, found that special
training was shown to be a highly effective procedure for increasing
teaching skill for some teachers but not for others. The training
procedure tended to maximize teacher potential and increase
individual differences in the population of twenty-five elementary
teachers of the experimental group. "A 'good' teacher is made a
better teacher as a result of the training procedure," they concluded.
The training procedures utilized by Soar and Bowers (1961)
paralleled those of the National Training Laboratory, except the
training was not conducted in a "cultural island," or twenty-four-
hour live-in situation.
Soar and Bowers (1961) utilized experimental and control
groups. In analyzing post-training data they found that when changes
in the scores of the experimental teachers were tested, significant
23
changes toward more accepting attitudes, revealed by the Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory, were found. When changes in the
experimental group were compared with changes in the control group,
no significant differences were found.
In surveying the research on T-Groups, Stock concludes
that:
All of the following have been shown to be influenced by
laboratory training: various perceptions of the self, affective
behavior, congruity between self-percept and ideal self,
self-insight, sensitivity to the feelings or behavior of others,
role flexibility. (Stock, 1964, p. 434)
These factors and others not included here have been shown
to change for some people, under certain conditions. The extent to
which sensitivity training will affect the self-acceptance of those in
student teaching assignm ents, and the relationship between these
changes and (rated) success in student teaching are the foci of this
study.
The following sum m ary can be made relative to the lite ra
ture and studies of T-Group method and sensitivity training:
1. Practice has outstripped theory in this innovation.
2. There appears to be general agreement as to the
objectives of sensitivity training.
3. Some studies have reported that this training leads
to changes in the phenomenal self. In most cases
where experiments were conducted at the National
Training Laboratories, no control groups were
utilized. In studies employing control groups
(Gassner, Gold, and Snadowsky, 1964, and Soar
and Bowers, 1961)--when movement toward accept
ance was considered, no significant differences
between groups w ere found. Since sim ilar changes
were observed in control groups, it may be that
self-rating scales interfere with attempt to assess
the changes in the self. Subjects may attempt to
"look good" on the device rather than to reveal
certain information about themselves.
This innovation has had limited use in educational
settings.
Some indication was found that changes other than
changes in the phenomenal self may be fruitful
areas of investigation.
The concept of the "cultural island" and its
relative effect on the success of sensitivity train
ing is an area of investigation not yet explored.
Is it possible to provide a "cultural island" for a
portion of the training period, as has been attempted
25
in this study, thereby capitalizing on some of the
assum ed benefits of the twenty-four-hour live-in
situation of the training laboratory?
The Self-Concept Theory of Personality
The position of this paper is that the task of seeking to
understand human behavior is greatly aided by the use of a self-
concept theory of personality. The literature in this area often
im presses some scholars as being " a iry ,” nebulous, and unscientific.
The present study sought to employ some of the key concepts with
operational definitions.
Combs and Snygg believe that all aspects of one's behavior
are determined by the concept he has of him self and his abilities
(Combs and Snygg, 1959). According to this self-concept theory of
personality, it is the behaver's perceptual field that forms the basis
for genuine understanding. Some of the most productive w riters in
the field of psychology have utilized this fram e of reference.
Mowrer, Lecky, Maslow, Kluckhohn, Rogers, and Gardner Murphy
are among those claimed to be adherents to this theory.
From this phenomonological orientation the only factors
that determine the behavior of the organism are those that are
experienced by the individual at the tim e of his behavior. The sum
26
of all of the individual’s perceptions at a given moment com prises
the "phenomenal field" for that individual.
In considering the question of the development of the " s e lf,"
Rogers (1951) maintained a portion of the total "field" gradually
becomes differentiated as the "se lf." This self-concept is "an
organized, fluid, but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of
characteristics and relationships of the 'I' or the 'm e ,1 together with
values attached to these concepts." (Rogers, 1951, p. 498)
The self-theorist states that the self-concept gives continu
ity and consistency to an individual's behavior; one tends to behave
in ways which are consistent with his self-perceptions.
The beliefs which com prise the self-concept are not all
based on the individual's direct observation of his own behavior.
Most of one's beliefs have been acquired from other people--
especially from "significant o th ers," as Sullivan (1947) called them.
The concept of the self is relatively stable and changes in
the external environment do not ordinarily alter it markedly. Most
authorities agree that positive changes do occur, but these changes in
the self-concept occur slowly and in a non-threatening environment
(Lantz, 1964).
Secord and Backman (1961) maintained that the locus of
stability and change in personality is in the interaction process
27
rather than in intrapersonal structures. They emphasize the in ter
personal environment as a means of personality change.
The area of psychology which has utilized the self-concept
approach extensively is that of psychotherapy. Most therapists seem
to agree that self-acceptance is a necessary characteristic for
adequate mental health. Snygg and Combs claim that one of the
criteria for effective therapy is a change in a client's meanings,
especially in relation to the phenomenal self (Combs, 1959).
Before considering em pirical studies relative to the self-
concept, consideration should be given to the m atter of how investi
gators typically attempt to assess one’s self-concept. Most
controlled studies on this topic rely heavily on verbal statem ents to
which the subject is asked to respond. Recently, a popular technique
for quantifying answers to these self-referant statem ents is a
methodology called Q sorting by William Stephenson (1953). Carl
Rogers (1951) and other self-theorists have utilized this technique to
ascertain the self-acceptance of subjects.
In a Q Sort, the subject is given a package of cards with a
different statem ent printed on each card. The subject is asked to
read the statem ents, sorting the cards into piles according to how
well the statem ents characterize him. The piles (usually about
eight or nine in number) range from one, which is to contain state
28
ments he feels are "most like" him, to a pile of those "least like"
him. The number of cards to be placed in each stack is p re
determined so as to approximate a normal distribution.
An often asked question of researchers in self-theory is, to
what extent does a person accept or reject himself? By the use of Q
Sort self-acceptance is characteristically quantified by measuring the
degree to which a person's "self-sort" agrees with his "self-ideal
so rt." A considerable amount of congruence between the "perceived
se lf' and the "ideal s e l f is indicative of a high acceptance of oneself.
Congruence between an individual's self-concept and his
ideal self is considered to be an indication of good adjustment (Butler,
et a l. , 1954; Rogers, 1951; and T urner and Vanderlippe, 1958).
Also, it has been found that an individual's acceptance of himself is
positively and significantly correlated with acceptance of others
(Berger, 1952; McIntyre, 1952; Sheerer, 1949; Reed, 1951; and
Turner and Vanderlippe, 1958).
Suinn (1961) in a study of the perceptions of eighty-two male
high school seniors, found that self-acceptance is significantly
correlated with acceptance of father and with acceptance of a male
teacher. He used the Q Sort technique and operationally defined
"acceptance" just as it has been defined in this study. An additional
finding was that perceived sim ilarity is a significant variable
29
influencing the generalization of self-acceptance.
According to Sheerer, the self-accepting person:
1. Relies prim arily on internalized values and
standards rather than on external pressures as
a guide for his behavior.
2. Has faith in his capacity to cope with life.
3. Assumes responsibility for and accepts the con
sequences of his own behavior.
4. Accepts praise and criticism from others
objectively.
5. Does not attempt to deny or distort any feelings,
motives, lim itations, abilities, or favorable
qualities.
6. Considers himself a person of worth on an equal
plane with others. (1949)
Akeret (1959) in an attempt to discover whether the individual
accepts or rejects himself totally or whether the individual accepts or
rejects him self in some areas and not in others, found that the indi
vidual's self-concept does not seem to be a unified gestalt but "it
consists of characteristics or dimensions which he values differ
entially." He thus questions the advisability of judging one’s degree
of psychological adjustment on the basis of the score of the total
discrepancy between the self-concept and the ideal concept.
In A keret's study, eighty-one college freshm en were first
requested to describe themselves anonymously in four general areas
which were: (1) academic values, feelings about intelligence,
motivation study habits, e tc .; (2) interpersonal relations, feelings
about social skills and social sensitivity; (3) sexual adjustment,
30
feelings about sexual p ractices, dating, courtship, m asturbation,
sexual adequacy; and (4) emotional adjustm ent, depression, anxiety,
happiness, tenseness, etc.
Three judges w ere asked to sort the total list of statem ents
thus collected into the four given dimensions of the self-concept.
The three judges had to agree on the placement of a statem ent for it
to be accepted. One hundred item s were thus selected.
The sam e subjects who presented the statem ents were then
asked to do two Q Sorts, one a self-so rt and then a self-ideal so rt of
these statem ents. Discrepancy scores w ere computed for each
student in much the sam e manner as in this study.
The self-acceptance scores of the eighty-one subjects w ere
then used to intercorrelate different areas of the self-concept.
Figure 1 reports the correlations obtained. These correlations are
significant at the . 01 level by a one-tailed test when r = . 260.
Although all self-concept areas correlated significantly and
positively with the "total" of the other self-concept areas, not all of
the areas of self inter cor related at a significant positive level. If
one were to elim inate the area called "academ ic values" from
consideration, the remaining three areas appear to inter correlate
significantly.
31
A I S E Total
A (Academic values .... .173 .250 .296 .325
I (Interpersonal relations) .... ..............337 .603 .565
S (Sexual adjustment) ....
....................
.480 .535
E (Emotional adjustment) .... * « * • • • • • • • • « .609
Fig. 1 .--C orrelation Summary, Akeret Study
Hatfield (1959) in a study of the relationship between "self-
acceptance" (m easured by a Q Sort) and success in student teaching,
found that those who were rated by m aster teachers and college
supervisors as "more successful" had significantly greater self
acceptance than those rated as "less successful." In this study of
thirty-eight student teachers, ratings of college supervisors and
m aster teachers were used as criteria of success.
T urner and Vanderlippe (1958), in a study of the adequacy of
self-ideal congruence as an index of adjustment found that the college
student high in self-ideal congruence (as contrasted with the student
low in self-ideal congruence) is that of one who "participates more in
extracurricular activities, has a higher scholastic average, is given
higher sociom etric ratings by his peer fellow students, and receives
higher adjustment ratings on both the Q adjustment score and certain
32
traits m easured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.”
There appears to be considerable evidence in studies of
psychotherapy and group psychotherapy that participants tend to
show improvement in self-acceptance (Lohman, 1964; and McIntyre,
1952). Raimy (1948), in evaluating outcomes of therapeutic counsel
ing, found shifts of attitude in the successfully counseled cases to
that of self-acceptance. The underlying theory of treatm ent is that
as one changes his self-concept, his behavior also is altered.
A study by Burke and Bennis (1964), mentioned earlier,
indicated that human relations training leads to changes in the
phenomenal self. They used the Group Semantic Differential Test,
constructed to m easure changes occurring to members of sensitivity
training groups. Changes were found in the self-concept discrepancy
revealed by the relationship between the perceived actual self and
the perceived ideal self. The test was adm inistered at the beginning
and end of the training. Unfortunately, no control groups were
utilized in the study. A follow-up test some weeks after the end of
training would have provided data as to the duration of the affects.
Stock (1964), after a recent survey of the research on
T-Groups, concluded that there is research evidence to support the
contention that perceptual changes occur as a result of training. She
found evidence not only of changes in self-concept, but also of
33
increased congruity between self-percept and ideal self, which is
"self-acceptance" by our operational definition.
This study is not concerned m erely with the potential of our
special innovation for effecting self changes, but the ultimate concern
is with teaching behavior; does sensitivity training result in greater
success in teaching?
McClain (1962), in a study of the relationship between
student teachers' self-reported perceptions and pupil evaluations of
their teachers' effectiveness found a significant correlation. His
study demonstrated the feasibility of using pupils' evaluations of
teacher effectiveness. The present "climate" among educators and
their publics in California seemed to rule out the practice of having
students evaluate their teachers or student teachers.
The following sum m ary can be made relative to the
literature and studies revealed in this section:
1. Productive w riters in the field of psychology have
utilized the self-concept theory as a fram e of
reference.
2. Although there are few definitive studies, most of
the adherents to this theory concur on the following
points:
a. The only factors that determine the behavior
34
of an individual are those that a re experienced
by the individual at the time of his behavior.
b. The self-concept gives consistency to behavior.
c. The self-concept is relatively stable.
3. Many psychotherapists have utilized this theory.
4. Numerous w riters believe that congruence between
an individual's self-concept and his ideal self-
concept is an indication of good adjustment and that
acceptance of self is positively and significantly
correlated with acceptance of others.
5. Considerable evidence suggests that participation in
psychotherapy and group therapy results in move
ment toward greater self-acceptance.
6. The research relative to sensitivity training and its
effects on self-perceptions is limited.
• Personality C haracteristics and the
Assessm ent of Teaching Success
Numerous approaches to the study of teacher character
istics are found in a review of the literature. Though the past decade
brought a significant increase in the number of research studies in
this area, little that might be considered conclusive has been
reported.
35
David Ryans' (1960) Teacher C haracteristics Study is the
most extensive and productive study to date. This six-year study
involving 6,000 teachers in about 450 different school system s
included approximately 100 separate research projects. The m ajor
objectives which guided the study were: (1) the discovery of patterns
of classroom behavior, attitudes, and beliefs which characterize
teachers; (2) the development of paper and pencil devices for
estim ation of certain patterns of classroom behavior and personal
qualities of teachers; and (3) a comparison of various groups of
teachers (Getzels and Jackson, 1963).
Among the other considerations, Ryans and his group
became involved in system atic classroom observation and a sse ss
ment which was directed at the identification of significant patterns
of effective teacher behavior. Work on the development of self-
report inventories of the individual’s preferences, experiences, and
judgments w ere conducted to ascertain any predictive relationships
which these might have with teacher effectiveness.
Ryans' work demonstrated that effective and ineffective
teachers generally can be differentiated on the basis of three in ter
dependent patterns of behavior:
Pattern X --w arm understanding, friendly, versus
aloof, egocentric, restricted teacher
behavior
36
Pattern Y --responsible, businesslike, system atic,
versus evading, unplanned, slipshod
teacher behavior
Pattern Z --stim ulating, imaginative, surgent, versus
dull, routine teacher behavior
Subsequently, sample comparisons of groups of teachers in
regard to these patterns indicated that among elem entary school
teachers, these three patterns were highly correlated with pupil
behavior in the teachers’ classroom s. Among secondary school
teachers, much lower correlations were found between the teachers'
and pupils' behavior.
One phase of Ryans' study resulted in the development of an
experimentally refined numerical rating scale, the Classroom
Observation Record shown in Figure 2 (Ryans, 1960). This scale
was developed through extensive investigation and revision. It
resem bles the semantic differential in that there are seven points in
each scale between bipolar traits.
Each of the term s in this scale was defined and the raters
were given specific training in its use. Rem m ers, in discussing
rating methods in research on teaching (1963), maintained the
measuring instrument in the rating method is not so much "the paper
device itself as it is the rater, judge, or observer." (Rem mers,
1963) In keeping with this principle, Ryans provided his raters with
Teacher__________No.____ Sex____ Class or____________ Date
Subject
PUPIL BEHAVIOR
1. Apathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N
REMARKS
Alert
2. Obstructive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Responsible
3. Uncertain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Confident
4. Dependent 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 N Initiating
TEACHER BEHAVIOR
5. Partial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N F air
6. Autocratic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Democratic
7. Aloof 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Responsive
8. Restricted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Understanding
9. Harsh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Kindly
10. Dull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Stimulating
11. Stereotyped 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Original
12. Apathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Alert
13. Unimpressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Attractive
14. Evading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Responsible
15. E rratic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Steady
16. Excitable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Poised
17. Uncertain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Confident
18. Disorganized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Systematic
19. Inflexible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Adaptable
20. Pessim istic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Optimistic
21. Immature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Integrated
22. Narrow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N Broad
Fig. 2. - -Classroom Observation Record
38
considerable training which he subsequently outlined in his 1960
publication.
Initially, separate rating scales w ere used for elem entary
and secondary teachers. Data seemed to indicate the feasibility of
using a single assessm ent form for both groups. Ryans concluded
that while teacher behaviors differ in setting, apparently they do not
differ greatly in kind (Ryans, 1960).
Ryans' rating and training procedures seem to be a closer
approximation to the ideal than has usually been found in studies
utilizing the rating method (Rem m ers, 1963).
Although some progress has been achieved in the study of
teacher characteristics, the problem of predicting teacher success
rem ains for the most part unsolved; no m easurable criteria have
been found with which the m ajority of educators can agree. Getzels
and Jackson (1963) concluded that although this problem is of critical
im portance and despite considerable research effort in the past half-
century, "very little is known for certain about the nature of teacher
personality, or about the relation between teacher personality and
teaching effectiveness" (Getzels and Jackson, 1963, p. 574).
The following sum m ary can be made relative to the
literature and studies revealed in this section on personality
characteristics and the assessm ent of teaching success:
39
1. Although the literatu re is extensive, nothing
conclusive is available.
2. Ryans' study seem s to indicate that three in ter
dependent patterns of behavior differentiate
effective and ineffective teachers.
3. Ryans1 "C lassroom Observation Record" and his
procedure for training observers in its use appear
useful for this study.
4. The problem of predicting teaching success rem ains
unsolved; no m easurable criteria have been found.
Teacher Education
T here continues to be a dearth of research concerning the
effectiveness of teacher-education program s. Those reported have
been confined largely to questionnaire or opinion surveys. V ariables
which are difficult to control and m easure include aspects of
personality, curriculum , and methods. These problems partially
explain the reluctance of experim entation in teacher education.
R esearch attem pts to m easure the change in students as
they a re subjected to a new treatm ent, course, or laboratory
experience are difficult. When the product of a process is change in
persons, the criterion problem is a m ajor one. Statement of the
40
goals of the program , in behavioral and m easurable term s is very
difficult. The special class o r experience is hard to describe
accurately enough for replication.
Most of the efforts reported as teacher education research
by The Encyclopedia of Educational Research, and The Review of
Educational Research w ere of either the norm ative survey type or
com parisons of program s, methods, and practices. This research
has apparently served as the prim ary knowledge base for the
practice of teacher education.
K arl Oppenshaw (1965), Research Editor of the Journal of
T eacher Education, suggested there is both a static dimension and a
dynamic dimension in teacher education. He explained:
The statics com prise its constraints--the way persons
and groups react with respect to teacher preparation; the
ch aracteristics, values, and attitudes of teachers; the
source and organization of program s of preparation; and
the setting in which education is carried on. The dynamics
of teacher education focus upon teacher behaviors, group
interaction, teaching perform ance tasks and skills, and the
complex processes of teaching and learning. (Oppenshaw,
1965, p. 234)
The focus of research on teacher education has been on the
statics dimension, and such knowledge gathered has been organized
into content blocks for the preparation of teachers. Little research
knowledge has been gathered regarding the dynamics dimension.
During the past two decades a few research ers have
41
attempted to develop knowledge of a m ore dynamic nature by focusing
their attention on teaching as it is observed or recorded in the class
room. Among these, Anderson and Brewer (1945) developed defini
tions of classroom climate expressed in term s of the acts of teachers
as dominative or integrative. Since this tim e, various techniques for
quantifying the verbal behavior of teachers have been developed--the
m ost notable of which are those of Whithall (1963) and Flanders
(1961). These techniques provide a means for the description of
behavior as observed in classroom s. Some useful approaches to the
study of the dynamics of teaching might well result. It would appear
that such work might contribute to the development of a comprehen
sive theory of teaching. Such a theoretical base would greatly
facilitate subsequent research on teacher education.
Research relative to the place of human relations training
in teacher education is alm ost nonexistent.
The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, Subcommittee on Human Relations in the Classroom (1962),
in a study of human relations in the classroom , reported minimal
concern by college and university staff mem bers in 336 institutions
in the North Central region. The data from questionnaires returned
from 1,108 professors from several disciplines revealed no
organized effort for preparation of teachers for successful human
42
relations with students, parents, and the community. The comments
of respondees indicated that they valued this aspect of teacher
preparation; however, they placed little emphasis on it in their
courses. A year later the sam e committee (North Central A ssocia
tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1963) surveyed 1,075 second
year secondary school teachers to determ ine the problems teachers
have in interpersonal and inter group relations and also their p e r
ceptions of the curriculum experiences provided in their preservice
program s which they felt were helpful in the understanding of human
relations. Utilizing the questionnaire method again, the responses
indicated that one-half of the teachers considered college courses of
little aid in their preparation for dealing with human relations
problem s. The courses which they considered helpful were in the
area of psychology, student teaching, and the social sciences.
Summary of Chapter
In this chapter the most relevant reports of recent research
have been sum m arized and compared. The areas considered w ere
(1) the T-Group method and theory, (2) the self-concept theory of
personality, (3) studies on teacher ch aracteristics, and (4) teacher
education.
Regarding the issue of changes in the self-stru ctu re of
43
participants in sensitivity training, the research is quite limited.
Some recent experiments reported that training leads to changes in
the phenomenological self. It is not clear whether the changes
reported are directly related to sensitivity training since in some
cases control groups were not available.
It is difficult to compare meaningfully the results of studies
since the training program s vary in length from a three-day training
period (Gassner, Gold, and Snadowski, 1964) to a three-month
period (Soar and Bowers, 1961). In addition, Ns were sm all in most
studies and the treatm ent populations were often biased through self
selection.
Since the quantity of research on teacher characteristics is
so extensive, only studies directly pertinent to this investigation
were reviewed in this chapter. Because of the extensive work of
Ryans in developing and using the "Classroom Observation Record"
special attention was given to the rating sheet and the procedures
used by him in training his observers.
A brief discussion of the problem of research in teacher
education was also presented.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
This chapter presents, initially, an overview of the design
of the research. Next is a discussion of the sam ples used in this
study, followed by an explanation of the sensitivity training pro
cedures .
The criterion instrum ents developed from the techniques of
Q Sort and sem antic differential are discussed. The c riteria for
success in sensitivity training and success in student teaching are
also explained.
Overview of the R esearch Design
This experim ental study attem pted to ascertain the effects
of sensitivity training on student teachers by comparing an experi
mental group who had the training with a control group who had no
training. The focus was m ore specifically on changes in self
acceptance and in success in student teaching.
Since the groups w ere sm all, two reference populations
w ere tested on the prim ary criterion instrum ents, the Q Sort and
44
45
sem antic differential devices, to ascertain whether control and
experim ental groups' responses w ere somewhat typical of college
students in general.
Except for one group, the subjects w ere tested at the
beginning of the spring sem ester at about the end of the sixth week
and near the end of the sem ester. M embers of the reference group
at the University of Southern California w ere not given the pretest
because of scheduling difficulties.
Trained observers rated the success of each of the student
teachers of the control and experim ental groups twice during the
sem ester: near the midpoint and end of the sem ester.
Comparison of the two groups in respect to their overall
grade point averages in college was computed. The basis of compu
tation of such a grade point average is: C is equal to two points per
unit; B, to three points; and A is equal to four points per unit.
Table 1 indicates no significant difference in college grades
or in chronological age between the two groups.
In addition to the thirty-seven students of the two groups
described above, two reference groups of student teachers w ere used
from two other institutions. One of these reference groups was an
intact group of thirteen student teachers of Azusa College (now
"Azusa Pacific College").
46
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE DATA FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL AND
CONTROL GROUPS INCLUDING INTELLIGENCE
INDEX, GRADE POINT AVERAGE, AND
CHRONOLOGICAL AGES
Intelligence3
Index
Grade
Point
Average
Chronological
Ages
(Years)
Experim ental Mean 67.32 2.51 24.53
Group SD 21.16 .383 5. 65
(N=19)
Control Mean 70. 83 2.68 26. 11
Group SD 24. 67 .450 7.76
(N=18)
b b b
ns ns ns
£
The Henmon Nelson Tests of Mental Ability, College Level,
w ere used. Sores a re expressed as percentiles.
Not significant.
The other reference group was from an intact group of
student teachers of the University of Southern California assigned to
work under the supervision of one faculty m em ber. The Q Sort and
Word Meaning T ests w ere adm inistered to this latter reference group
at the posttest and follow-up test periods only; no pretest scores w ere
47
given in February as in the other groups. The seventeen people, for
whom complete test results w ere secured, represent a m ajority of
the total number in this particular class.
The nineteen students of the control group experienced the
traditional program for student teachers. The experimental group
(eighteen students) had the traditional program , and, in addition,
w ere involved in a class consisting of forty-four hours of sensitivity
training. A m ajor portion of this time was utilized in T-Groups of
nine and ten m em bers.
The forty-four-hour training program was initiated by ten
hours of training in a cultural island setting. During the week p re
ceding the beginning of the sem ester the students stayed at a re so rt
hotel in the foothills above San Bernardino from F riday afternoon
until Saturday evening.
The remaining hours of sensitivity training w ere distributed
over the five weeks which followed--with training sessions conducted
one or two nights per week from 5:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M. Table 2
indicates the sequence of the research.
Table 3 provides com parative data on the four groups
relative to sex, age, and grade.-point-average.
A
48
TABLE 2
RESEARCH TIME TABLE
Month Week Exp. Gr. Cont. Gr. Ref. Gr. 1 Ref. Gr. 2
February
March
April
May
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
Sensitivity
Pretest on
Test
Q Sort and Word Meanihg
Training
Post Test 9n Q Sort a^d Word Meajning
Test
Ratings of
in Student
Success
Teaching
Follow-up
Test
Second Ra
in Student
Test on Q $ort and Worjd Meaning
;ess ings of Sue
Peaching
49
TABLE 3
COMPARATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY DATA ON
THE FOUR GROUPS
Sex _Age _G 1PL _ A .
Male Fem ale Mean (SD) Mean TSD)
Pas. Exper. 4 15 24.53 (5. 65) 2.51 (.38)
Pas. Control 3 15 26.11 (7.78) 2. 68 (-45)
Azusa Group 2 11 26. 69 (7.77) 2.75 (.55)
U. S. C. Group 2 15 22.89 (5.46) 2.40 (22)
A Description of the Program of Student Teaching
The elem entary student teaching program of the m em bers of
the experim ental and control subjects was a one-sem ester experience
in which each person had two eight-week assignm ents. Student
teachers w ere on duty five mornings per week and one afternoon per
week. One night per week all students met on the campus for a
sem inar with the director of student teaching. Sixteen of the nine
teen m em bers of the experimental group w ere in the elem entary
program . Fourteen of the eighteen m em bers of the control group
w ere at the elem entary level.
The program of student teaching at the secondary level was
a one-sem ester experience with two hours of teaching per day for the
50
sem ester. One hour per week from 7:00 A.M. until 8:00 A.M. the
secondary student teachers met for a sem inar with the director of
secondary education.
Sensitivity training procedures
All m em bers of the experimental group were enrolled in a
three-unit course entitled "Group and Interpersonal R elations," a
course offered at Pasadena College for either undergraduate or
graduate credit. The early spring section of this course had an
enrollm ent of nineteen; it was lim ited to the m em bers of the experi
mental group. The catalog description of the course is as follows:
A laboratory experience in group process, theory, and
procedures including theory and practice of group and self
development, group evaluation, and group work in educational
settings.
The process of training. - -The process of sensitivity training
in this study had two aspects. Slightly m ore than one-half of the total
training time was spent in the sm all T-Group, or training group.
The rem ainder of the tim e was spent in the large group where a
series of lessons of a cognitive nature w ere presented, including the
following topics: (1) effective group m em bership, (2) the process of
change, (3) problems of communication in group settings, (4) the
leader function, and (5) the technique of T-Group training. The
method of presentation of this developing body of knowledge was
51
largely lecture-discussion; often the instructors dialogued informally.
In connection with the content area of the training, p artici
pants w ere asked to read two of the following textbooks:
Benne, Kenneth, W arren Bennis, and Robert Chin. The
Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, 19ol
Kemp, C. Gratton. Perspectives on the Group P rocess.
Boston: Houghton Miflin C o ., 1964.
M iles, Matthew. Learning to Work in Groups. New York:
Columbia University P ress, 1959. (Paperback)
Potter, David, and M artin P. Anderson. Discussion: A
Guide to Effective P ractice. Belmont, California;
Wadsworth Publishing C o ., 1964. (Paperback)
Since a m ajor portion of the sensitivity training tim e was
spent in T-G roups, a brief explanation of this process of training is
appropriate here. The groups in this study were composed of ten
and nine m em bers. Prior to initiating the T-Group work, the
facilitators presented a brief discussion of the purposes of these
groups. The suggestion was made that the T-Group functions m ore
effectively when the discussion is lim ited to "here and now feelings
and attitudes." The two groups were then convened.
When the T-Group m em bers entered the rooms the chairs
w ere already arranged in a circle. Name cards for each individual
w ere placed on the table so that each person's name was easily
visible to all others in the group. The facilitator began the session
52
by saying simply "1 am here to help you understand this group."
Except for brief answ ers to direct questions, the facilitators said
nothing else during most of the first two-hour session.
As tim e progressed, the facilitators (one for each group)
began to participate to a greater extent. They seemed not to take the
role of leaders but their function seem ed to be one of clarifying or
asking questions and occasionally reinforcing the behavior of various
m em bers. Often they reinforced behavior characterized by honesty
and "openness."
They seemed consistently to avoid giving direction to the
group or making suggestions to the group.
The average length of the T-Group session was about two
hours.
The T-Group is a method which is initially quite unstructured
with the usual group controls conspicuously absent. The group
m em bers develop group norm s, standards, power and friendship
structures, patterns of communication, and shared problems which
they attem pt to solve. As they progress they analyze their own
behavior and that of others in the group, sharing these observations
with each other. New insights, personal learnings, and new under
standings of group functioning a re expected outcomes of the T-Group
experience.
53
This new and anxiety-arousing situation creates an atm o
sphere in which individuals can ascertain the group problems which
em erge. Deeper understandings of their own reactions to these
situations invariably are concommitant learnings. One's reactions to
authority figures, colleagues, needs for control, belonging, and
intimacy are among the personal learnings which reportedly result.
Burke and Bennis pointed out two distinguishing ch aracter
istics of the T-Group:
. . . first, an ambiguous, inchoate milieu in which m em bers
must form a group with the usual controls initially m issing;
and second, an increasing tendency, encouraged by the pro
fessional train er, to use the ongoing experiences of the group
and its m em bers as case m aterial from which to learn about
groups and about the functioning of individuals, including one
self as a group m em ber. (Burke and Bennis, 1958)
Appendix 1 presents excerpts from one of the T-Group
sessions followed by a brief analysis of the session in Appendix J.
The training schedule. - -It is generally believed that
laboratory sensitivity training tends to be m ore effective when
lim ited to a period of from two to four or five weeks. For this
reason, the experim ental situation was conducted during the week
prior to and during the first four weeks of the initial assignment to
student teaching. Except for the initial week-end training off campus
(discussed above), the class met for five hours each Monday evening
and on one additional Wednesday from 5:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M.
54
They ate together in the college dining room on these evenings. A
typical evening schedule went approximately as follows:
5:00 to 6:20 Lecture and discussion of cognitive data
6:20 to 6:30 Announcements and plans for the even
ings activities
6:30 to 7:00 Dinner
7:00 to 8:00 Lecture-discussion of additional content
m aterial
8:05 to 10:00 T-Group participation
The initial week-end schedule was also characterized by
this general plan of having content sessions of about one hour and
T-Group sessions of approximately two hours.
The facilitators. - -The instructors or facilitators of this
course were Drs. R. T. and Marianne W illiams. This husband-wife
team have been involved in basic interaction group work for the past
four years.
Since receiving an Ed. D. at Boston University in 1963,
Dr. Marianne Williams has served as A ssistant Professor of Educa
tion at Pasadena College. Dr. R. T. Williams earned doctoral
degrees at Harvard and Boston University and returned to Pasadena
College where he currently serves as Professor of Education,
Chairman, Division of Adult Learning, and General Consultant to the
college in Adult Education.
C riterion Instruments
55
Criterion instruments to determine changes in self
perceptions, m ore specifically changes in self-acceptance, included
adaptations of Q Sort technique and semantic differential. These two
techniques were selected because of their complementary strengths.
The forced distribution of Q technique avoids response sets--tenden-
*
cies toward extrem es of the scale or tendencies toward neutrality--
which a re possible in the semantic differential. These tendencies
often introduce irrelevant variance (Rem m ers, 1963). On the other
hand, in the semantic differential, one advantage is the single set of
scales which a re responded to in relation to each of the concepts
selected for use.
An important part of this study will be the consideration of
differences between a subject's self-concept and his self-ideal
concept. In the Q Sort technique, such comparisons are often
m easured by Pearson correlations--w hereas with the semantic
differential comparisons of the "me" and the "my ideal s e l f concepts
are made with D (distance) m easure. Remmers (1963) considered
the latter to have some advantage over the Pearson correlations
m easure. The D statistic, or generalized distance formula, d is
cussed by Osgood and Suci (1952), takes both mean differences and
covariances into account.
56
Semantic differential
Although the Q technique has face validity superior to that
of Semantic Differential, research evidence indicates that the latter
technique is sensitive to some rather critical changes in the meaning
of "m e." In the subject's evaluative location of the "me" concept in
the semantic space, he is revealing information about his self-
concept (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957).
Development of the Word Meaning T est. - - Although the
concepts "me" and "my ideal self" are of prim ary consideration to
this study, the semantic differential instrument includes a total of
eight concepts: "God," "m e," "leader," "my ideal se lf," "honesty,"
"m ost people," "the ideal teacher," and "group." A majority of
these concepts were selected from instrum ents used in other studies.
Additional concepts, "ideal teacher" and "group," were added be
cause of their possible relationship to the self and self-ideal concepts
of student teachers.
The scales used in the semantic differential were adapted
from a device used in a study of high school dropouts (Hickman, 1964).
These scales w ere devised by Kenneth Hopkins, form erly of the
University of Southern California. Each scale has seven points
between bipolar adjectives (Figure 3). Both the order of the scales
and the direction of the "good" responses discourage response set or
57
cursory responses,
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
Weak 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Strong
Active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Passive
Unpleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant
Large 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Small
Dull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sharp
Sweet 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sour
Light 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Heavy
F ast 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Slow
Fig. 3. - -The Scales of the Word Meaning T est
With the sem antic differential, one's meanings of the various
concepts under consideration may be plotted in an Euclidean, three-
dimensional space. Through factor analysis, the three most
prevalent dimensions of meaning have been "evaluation," "potency,"
and "activity" (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). In this study
our prim ary focus with this technique will be upon the sim ilarity
between the "me" and "my ideal se lf' concepts. The linear distance
in the sem antic space will be determ ined by Osgood's formula:
D
mi
=\[f
mi
58
where "D is the linear distance between the points in the semantic
mi
space representing concepts "m ” (me) and "i" (my ideal self) and
"d is the algebraic difference between the coordinates of "m" and
"i" on the sam e dimension.
The larg er the "D" the greater the distance or dissim ilarity
between one's self-concept ("me”) and one's ideal concept ("my ideal
s e lf’). In this study, the sm aller the ”D" the greater is the degree
of self-acceptance.
Administration procedure of the Word Meaning T est. - -The
Word Meaning T est (WMT) was adm inistered to the subjects in groups
of twenty or fewer. A copy of the WMT may be found in Appendix B.
The first page, containing the instructions to the students, was read
with the students. The subjects w ere then asked if they had questions
relative to the test marking procedure. They w ere then asked to
work at fairly high speed through the test. The average length of time
to complete this test was ten m inutes.
Q Sort
The Q Sort device utilized in this study is an adaptation of an
instrum ent used by Agnes Hatfield (1959) in her experim ental study of
the self-concept of student teachers. In the development of the list of
descriptive statem ents for Hatfield’s study, the author chose to lim it
them to social relationships since teaching is a social relationship
59
between teacher and pupils. A canvas was made of available
standardized tests which m easure some aspect of social relationships;
statem ents were gleaned from discussions of social psychology and
personality books; excerpts were selected from recordings of counsel
ing interviews; a few m iscellaneous item s from lists of character
traits w ere included; these sources provided an initial list of 1, 200
item s. This number was reduced by eliminating ambiguous state
m ents, duplications, and behavior not easily observable. Three
college professors were involved in the final selection of the ninety
statem ents used by Hatfield.
The rationale for the selection of this particular Q Sort
device should be stated. F irst of all, this instrum ent was found to
be useful with college student teachers. Hatfield (1959) found that
student teachers who were rated by m aster teachers and college
supervisors as "m ore successful," had significantly greater "se lf
acceptance" (as defined in this study) than those rated as "less
successful." The difference was significant at the .01 level of
confidence.
Secondly, extensive effort went into the selection of the
sam ple of item s. The sources of the behavior descriptions were
numerous and varied, some of which have been mentioned above.
The third reason for the selection of this device was that an
60
acceptable degree of reliability had been dem onstrated. The self-so rt
re -s o rt coefficient of reliability, with one week interval between, was
determ ined to be . 73. A sim ilar check on the reliability of the self
ideal so rt resulted in an r of . 88.
A pilot study of these two criterion instrum ents was con
ducted on a population of tw enty-three student teachers in the fall of
1964. Implications for changes in the number of item s in the Q Sort
resulted. Some fatigue and possible cursory consideration of latter
statem ents was suspected.
The ninety Q Sort item s from Hatfield, used in the pilot
study, w ere analyzed to determ ine fifty item s which showed the
greatest differentiation or discrepancy between "actual se lf' and
"ideal s e lf' so rts. The fifty item s thus selected are listed in
Appendix B.
In this study, subjects were asked to so rt the fifty s ta te
ments into a prearranged frequency where each array had a mean of
four and a standard deviation of two. To provide a convenient
procedure for the sorting, a poster board twenty inches by twenty-
four inches was provided each subject. A facsim ile of this sorting
board is presented in Figure 4.
61
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L east like Most like
Fig. 4. --A Facsim ile of the Sorting Board Used in Q Sort
Adm inistration procedure for the Q S ort. - -In each testing
situation subjects were asked to do first the self-so rt and next the
Word Meaning T est, a sem antic differential device. Then they were
asked to so rt the same fifty statem ents based on an ideal person, or
"a person whom they would like to be lik e .,f The directions for the
"self-so rt" and the "ideal sort" are listed in Appendix C. After the
subjects had finished the self-so rt they were asked to record the
fifty scores (one score for each statem ent) on a "Tally Score Sheet"
(see Appendix D). Each subject was given individual instructions on
scoring the statem ents. The score for each statem ent was indicated
62
by the number of the column in which it was placed.
Scoring procedure for the Q Sort. - -The total score for each
individual was computed on the Q Sort by the following formula
D = \ |S dsi2
where D is the discrepancy score and dgi is the actual difference
between the score of an item on the self-so rt and the ideal sort.
This provided the discrepancy (D) score upon which the
operational definition of self-acceptance was based: the higher the
score the less self-accepting the student teacher was presumed to be.
Conversely, the lower the distance between "self" and "ideal" the
m ore self-accepting was the student teacher.
Success in sensitivity training
In order to ascertain the success of the members of the
experimental group in sensitivity training, it was advisable to use
multiple criteria. A rating sheet, "T-Group Membership Rating"
(see Appendix E) was developed. This rating sheet, developed
jointly by the researcher and the facilitators, incorporated the more
commonly accepted purposes of sensitivity training. The participants
were asked to rate each member of the T-Group on a five-point scale
which forced their ratings into a somewhat normal distribution.
The directions from the rating sheet were as follows:
63
On each page you will find a statem ent related to some
aspect of T-Group operation, and below, a list of all m em
bers of our group. Please select the three m em bers for
whom the statem ent is most true; put a "+" in front of these
three nam es. Bek the one of these three for whom the state
ment is most true and place an additional "+" by this name.
Similarly, select the three for whom the statem ent is least
true, place a before each, and an additional before
the one person for whom the statem ent is the very least true.
These ratings w ere quantified and their distribution som e
what normalized by assigning fifteen points for each "++," twelve
points for "+," ten points for those left blank, eight points for
and five points for The mean of the ratings of the eight items
was used as the rating for each subject.
This evaluation of the student's success in sensitivity train
ing was rated by the subject’s peers, the facilitator, and by a pair of
observers. The observers were graduate students enrolled in a
course entitled "Human Interaction in Education. "
In connection with assignments for this course, the
observers were present for all sessions of the sensitivity training of
the experimental group. Independent ratings were secured from
these observers at the close of the final sensitivity training session.
Participants w ere asked to rate the progress of the other
members of the T-Group at the fourth and at the final meetings of
sensitivity training. Facilitator ratings were secured at the conclu
sion of the fourth and final sessions also.
64
A composite score for each participant was derived by
summing the five ratings.
Success in student teaching
Ratings of trained o b serv ers. - -The prim ary criteria for
success in student teaching w ere ratings by trained observers using
Ryans’ (1960) "C lassroom Observation Record" (Figure 1). The
training of the observers was conducted in connection with a graduate
course at Pasadena College entitled "Supervision of Instruction."
The students of this class (referred to below as student
observers) w ere involved in six hours of training in the use of Ryans’
Classroom Observation Record (COR). T heir training initially
involved a brief study of some of the problems involved in direct
observation and assessm ent and a study of the COR and the Glossary
(see Appendix F). With David Ryans' perm ission, this study utilized
his G lossary--w hich was developed in his study of the characteristics
of teachers. The G lossary provided definitions for each of the
twenty-two scales of the COR. The student observers studied the
G lossary and Record at length in preparation for the next phase of
training.
The student observers then simultaneously observed a
teacher for one class period and made independent assessm ents on
copies of the COR. L ater the sam e evening the mean ratings of the
65
student observers were presented back to them. The last period of
the evening was utilized in discussion of the scales. The meanings of
the bipolar term s were reviewed to clarify the bases for assessm ents
as given in the Glossary.
Two additional simultaneous observations and assessm ents
were made by the student observers. As before, the mean ratings
were computed and discussion further clarified misunderstandings.
Of the four observers who rated student teachers for this
study, two were selected prior to the beginning of the course in which
training was conducted. These two graduate students w ere asked to
attend the course in supervision during the hours in which the training
was to be conducted. Two additional observers were recruited from
the class to rate seven of the lessons at which ra te r B could not be
present. Rater A was present for each of the seventy-three rated
lessons. R ater B rated sixty-six of the total, ra te r C rated four
lessons, and ra te r D rated three lessons.
The combined number of lessons that were rated by raters
A and B represented more than 90 per cent of the total. The inter
ra te r correlation of ra te rs A and B , computed by Spearman’s formula
was rho = . 862.
The correlation between ra te r A and the pooled ratings of
ra te rs B, C, and D was rho = .766. In the rem ainder of the paper,
66
these ra te rs are referred to as trained observers.
M aster teacher and college supervisor ratings. - -As this
study intended to explore the various relationships which may exist
between self-acceptance and teaching success, and since no m easur
able criteria have been found with which the m ajority of educators
agree, multiple criteria appeared desirable. As a part of the ongoing
program of evaluating student teachers, ratings from m aster teachers
and college supervisors are secured routinely.
The rating sheet used for this purpose (see Appendix G)
served as the basis for the ratings of the two m aster teachers and
for one rating for each student teacher by a college supervisor. The
checks on the rating sheet were quantified by scoring a "6" for each
check in the "Excellent” column, a "5" for each check in the "Very
Good” column, a "4" for each check in the "Above Average" column,
a "3" for each check placed in the "Below Average" column, a "2"
for each check made in the "F air" column, and a "1" for each check
made in the "Poor" column.
Summary of Chapter
This chapter has presented an overview of the design of the
research, including a description of the sam ples employed. An
explanation of the procedures utilized in sensivitity training was
67
presented--follow ed by a discussion of the criterion instrum ents
developed from the techniques of Q Sort and Semantic Differential.
The chapter concluded with a discussion of the criteria of "success"
in sensitivity training and student-teaching.
CHAPTER IV
SENSITIVITY TRAINING SUCCESS--
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents the findings and conclusions revealed
in the analysis of the various ratings of success in sensitivity tra in
ing. Chapter V will offer the findings from the m easures of student
teaching success.
The investigator was prim arily concerned with the possible
effects of sensitivity training on one dimension of personality, self
acceptance. In addition, the relationship between success in sen si
tivity training and success in student teaching was of special concern.
Reliability of C riterion M easures of
Success in Sensitivity Training
The criterion m easures for determining the degrees of
success in sensitivity training consisted of student-teacher peer
ratings, ratings of the two facilitators, and ratings of pairs of
observers as discussed in Chapter III.
68
69
The ratings, including peer ratings, facilitator ratin g s, and
observer ratings for each of the nineteen subjects of the experimental
group are listed in Table 4.
Initial peer ratings and facilitator ratings, designated "#1"
on Table 4, were obtained near the midpoint of the five-week training
period. Ratings obtained at the final session of training are desig
nated as "Peer Rating #2," "F acilitator Rating #2," and "O bserver
Rating." Column six of Table 4 lists the composite ratings; a sum
mation of the other five ratin g s.
Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of each
of the five ratin g s.
The data suggest that although the means of the five ratings
are quite sim ilar, the extent of the variability of the ratings of
facilitators appears to be m arked. A check of the significance of the
differences in standard deviations of the facilitator ratings and the
peer ratings is shown in Table 6.
The initial plan of using the composite ratings as the sole
criterion of success in sensitivity training appeared inadvisable
because of the lack of correlation among some of the ratings.
The highest of the intercorrelations between ratings was
that of the first and second ratings by peers: r = .850. Contrasted
to this is the correlation between the facilitators1 first and second
3je
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
TABLE 4
RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING FOR
SUBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Peer Facilitator Peer Facilitator n .
Rating Rating Rating Rating n ^ 61
#1 #1 #2 #2 * aang
104 78 104 73 93
92 93 101 108 96
105 91 103 84 100
70 65 75 77 72
94 95 91 83 94
94 110 96 116 110
110 133 108 133 131
95 64 90 65 75
76 105 86 94 86
105 90 98 80 91
98 85 99 95 92
106 131 101 121 103
87 90 92 116 104
95 104 93 91 100
132 136 127 133 135
111 114 106 116 84
100 83 111 60 86
100 103 113 105 108
120 122 114 113 111
71
TABLE 5
MEAN RATINGS OF SENSITIVITY TRAINING
SUCCESS BY EACH GROUP OF RATERS
Means St. Deviations
Peer Rating #1 99. 68 14.10
F acilitator Rating #1 99.58 21.14
Peer Rating #2 100.42 11.73
F acilitator Rating #2 98.05 22.04
O bserver Rating 98.47 16.25
TABLE 6
A COMPARISON OF THE VARIABILITY OF PEER
RATINGS AND FACILITATOR RATINGS
Peer Facilitator Difference
F irs t Ratings SD = 14.10 SD = 21.14 7.04 (n. s . )
Second Ratings SD = 11.73 SD = 22.04 10.31 (n .s .)
ratings: r - . 664. These data appear in Table 7.
The correlation between peer ratings and observer ratings
was significant. The observer ratings also seemed to be in some
agreem ent with facilitator ratings. Only the correlation between
72
TABLE 7
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN VARIOUS RATINGS OF SUCCESS
IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING
1
Peer
Rating
#1
2
Facilitator
Rating
#1
3
Peer
Rating
#2
4
Facilitator
Rating
#2
5
O bserver
Rating
i ----- .066 . 850a -.263 . 573a
2
--------
. 136 . 664a . 762a
3
--------
.336 . 511a
4
--------
. 475a
5
--------
Significant at . 05 level or better.
peers and facilitators was low. Undoubtedly the m em bers of the
experim ental group viewed success in sensitivity training differently
than did the facilitators; their judgments reflected different weight
ings.
It appeared advisable to present multiple c riteria for success
in sensitivity training in the testing of the experimental hypotheses.
Since ratings secured at the end of sensitivity training w ere assumed
to be preferable to ratings secured midway in the training program ,
the three criteria utilized in the testing of hypotheses were the peer,
73
facilitator, and the observer ratings secured at the end of the training
period.
Summary of Chapter
This chapter has presented the findings and conclusions
revealed in the analysis of the five ratings of success in sensitivity
training. Chapter V offers the findings from the m easures of
student-teaching success.
CHAPTER V
STUDENT TEACHING SUCCESS
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents the findings and conclusions revealed
in the analysis of the various ratings of success in student teaching.
Multiple criteria are presented even though not all of them are
utilized in the testing of hypotheses.
The operational definition of "teaching success" was success
as rated by trained observers using Ryans' "Classroom Observation
Record" (Figure 2). The training of the observers was discussed in
Chapter III. Additional criteria of success in student teaching,
routine evaluations in the college's teacher education program , are
presented in this chapter for comparative purposes.
Reliability of M easures of Success
in Student Teaching
In addition to the criterion m easures for determining the
degree of success in student teaching, additional assessm ents were
available to the researcher. These included two ratings of the
74
75
student teacher by m aster teachers (or training teachers), obtained
at the midpoint and at the end of the sem ester. One rating by the
college supervisor was obtained at the end of the sem ester. These
three ratings w ere taken from the rating sheets (see Appendix G)
currently used by the Department of Education at Pasadena College.
In order to quantify these data, the ratings were given the
following point values: six points were given for each check in the
"Excellent" column, five points were given for each check in the
"Very Good" column, four points were given for each check in the
"Above Average" column, three points w ere given for each check
in the "Below Average" column, two points were given for each check
in the "F air" column, and one point was given for each check in the
"Poor" column.
The ratings, including two ratings by the trained observers,
two ratings by m aster teachers, and one rating by a college su per
v iso r--fo r each of the thirty-seven subjects of the experimental and
control groups--are listed in Tables 8 and 9.
The raw score ratings of the trained observers cannot be
meaningfully compared with the other three ratings since the rating
sheet (COR) utilized by the trained observers has a seven-point
rating scale, whereas the rating sheets used in the other ratings had
a six-point scale.
> je <
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
TABLE 8
RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING
(Experimental Group)
Observer O bserver
Rating Rating
#1 #2
46 50
53 60
61 61
50 52
56 63
46 58
41 43
64 59
48 53
58 62
62 58
52 52
44 53
49 50
58 60
56 51
52 53
55 59
66 57
M aster M aster
Teacher Teacher
R. #1 R. #2
46 53
53 51
49 45
50 49
59 60
58 42
43 50
35' 50
51 51
58 55
55 56
44 40
51 51
48 47
58 56
49 60
49 58
47 59
59 51
)je<
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
TABLE 9
RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING
(Control Group)
O bserver O bserver M aster M aster
Rating Rating Teacher Teacher
#1 #2 R. #1 R. #2
52 52 55 60
53 57 55 57
59 61 52 49
52 46 54 49
54 51 42 52
51 60 47 53
61 67 52 51
56 57 47 53
56 55 49 47
47 52 50 48
52 61 48 50
48 48 52 42
52 55 55 48
58 55 50 58
48 53 58 51
61 54 41 48
49 43 52 52
63 60 57 50
78
Initial observer ratings and m aster teacher ratings, desig
nated as ’’Observer Rating #1" and ’’M aster Teacher Rating #1" were
secured within a three-week period near the middle of the sem ester.
’’Observer Ratings #2” were secured during the final three weeks of
the sem ester. ’’M aster Teacher Rating #2’’ and the College Super
visor Rating were secured during the final week of the sem ester.
Table 10 presents the means and standard deviations of each
of the five ratings.
TABLE 10
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF
RATINGS OF STUDENT TEACHERS
Means
Standard
Deviations
Trained O bserver Ratings #1 53.76 5.96
Trained O bserver Ratings #2a 55.16 5.47
M aster Teacher Ratings #1 50.76 5.52
M aster Teacher Ratings #2 51.41 5.02
College Supervisor Rating 52.46 4.55
£
As stated above, the raw score ratings of the trained
observers cannot be meaningfully compared with the other three,
since these ratings were made with the Classroom Observation
R ecord--a rating sheet which has a seven-point rating scale. The
m aster teacher ratings employed the six-point rating scale shown in
Appendix G.
79
TABLE 11
RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING
PASADENA COLLEGE STUDENTS (N=37)
(Correlation Matrix)
Trained
Observer
Rating #1
M aster
Teacher
Rating #1
T rained
O bserver
Rating #2
M aster
Teacher
Rating #2
College
Supervisor
Rating
1 ----- .055 . 616a . 197 . 166
2 ----- .253 . 187 . 400a
3
--------
. 168 . 356a
4
-------
. 339a
5
-------
g
Significant at the .05 level.
The relationship between the five ratings of student teaching
success can be seen in the correlation m atrix of Table 11.
The following conclusions can be drawn from these inter
correlations:
1. The college supervisor ratings, secured at the end
of the sem ester, appear to be related to each of the
other criteria except the initial trained observer
ratings. The unreliability between evaluators is
partially a function cf their differing perceptions;
each person observes and rates with differing
weightings.
The highest correlation, that obtained between
trained o bservers’ first and second rating, is
also significantly related to college supervisor
ratings. The fact that trained o bservers’ first
and second ratings correlated . 616 can be p ar
tially explained on the basis that in most instances
the trained observers for the first ratings also
observed and made the second ratings. The initial
observation and the judgments formed may have
affected later ratings.
T here was little consistency between the first and
second m aster teacher ratings: it would appear that
the m aster teachers might be evaluating these
student teachers according to different standards.
Another reason for the lack of correlation between
first and second m aster teacher ratings is that in
m ost cases the student teachers had a prim ary
grade assignm ent during one of the ratings and an
interm ediate grade assignm ent for the other half of
the sem ester. It is commonly held that certain
81
personalities a re better suited for young children.
They thus might be rated higher while assigned to
teach at that level. It was advisable to use multiple
criteria for success in student teaching in testing
the hypotheses.
Summary of Chapter
This chapter has presented the findings and conclusions
revealed in the analysis of the five ratings of success in student
teaching. Intercorrelations of these ratings w ere presented.
Chapter VI presents the findings relative to the hypotheses of this
study.
CHAPTER VI
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings relative to the four
hypotheses discussed in Chapter I. Comparisons a re made of the Q
Sort and Word Meaning T est (WMT) scores of the experimental and
control groups and of various subsam ples of the experim ental group.
Since the four hypotheses furnish the organizing principle of
this chapter, an outline of these hypotheses with the criterion in stru
ments used to test each one is presented here.
Outline of Hypotheses with
C riterion Instruments
Hypothesis #1
Student teachers with sensitivity training will develop
greater self-acceptance than those without it.
C riterion instrum ents:
1, Q Sort, using degree of congruity between self
sort and ideal self-sort as a definition of "self-
acceptance."
82
83
2. "Word Meaning T est," a Semantic Differential
device.
Hypothesis #2
Successful T-Group m em bers will achieve greater self-
acceptance than will less successful T-Group m em bers.
1. C riterion instrum ent for m easuring success in
T-Group.
a. Mean ratings of all other m em bers of the
T-Group.
b. Ratings by a pair of experienced observers.
c. Facilitator ratings.
d. A composite rating of the three ratings above.
Hypothesis #3
Student teachers with sensitivity training will achieve
greater success in student teaching than those without it.
C riterion instrum ents for success in student teaching:
1. Rating by a pair of trained observers using Ryans'
"C lassroom O bservation Schedule" was utilized as
the prim ary criterion of success.
2. Other criteria of success which a re available in the
traditional student-teaching program w ere also
84
considered. These included ratings by two m aster
teachers and one college supervisor.
Hypothesis #4
Successful T-Group m em bers will achieve greater
success in student teaching than will those who a re less
successful T-Group m em bers.
C riterion instrum ents w ere those listed above in
hypotheses two and three.
The purpose of the Q Sort and the Word Meaning T est was to
m easure the subject’s attitude of self-acceptance, a dimension of
personality organization. Self-acceptance was operationally defined
as the degree to which the perceived self is congruent with the ideal
self on the Q Sort device. However, for comparative purposes, the
Word Meaning T est was also used as an additional criterion of "se lf
acceptance. "
Hypothesis # 1 --Student Teachers with
Sensitivity Training Will Develop
G reater Self-Acceptance
Than Those Without It
«
Self-acceptance ascertained
from the Q Sort device
Self-acceptance was quantified by computing the discrepancy
85
between the self-so rt and the ideal sort for each subject. A discus
sion of the scoring procedure was presented in Chapter III. The
lower the discrepancy (D) score, the greater was the degree of self
acceptance.
Table 12 presents the mean discrepancy Q Sort scores for
the experimental and control groups for the pretest, posttest, and
follow-up test.
The differences between groups as shown by the data on
Table 12 w ere subjected to an analysis of variance test. No signifi
cant differences were found.
For comparative purposes, the Q Sort discrepancy scores
for the two reference groups are presented in Table 13.
On the basis of the results of the Q Sort device, comparisons
of the self-acceptance of the experimental group and control groups
reveal no significant differences before sensitivity training, after
sensitivity training, and in a follow-up test at the end of the
sem ester. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no difference
in the discrepancy of the perceived self and the ideal self between the
experimental and control groups is accepted.
It was initially assumed that self-acceptance, as operation
ally defined in this study as the extent of congruity of the self-concept
and the ideal concept on the Q Sort, might correlate highly with "self-
86
TABLE 12
MEAN DISCREPANCY SCORES ON Q SORT
EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS
Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Experimental Mean 12.39 10.73 10.34
Group S.D. 1.66 2.58 3.14
No. 19 19 19
Control Mean 12.40 10.75 9.69
Group S.D. 4.94 5.40 4.76
No. 15 14 14
acceptance” as m easured by the Word Meaning Test. Table 14
presents the correlations between the two criterion instrum ents for
each of the groups.
Self-acceptance ascertained from
the Word Meaning Test
At each of the three testing periods subjects were asked to
respond to the Word Meaning Test. In order to quantify "self
acceptance" on this device, a discrepancy score was computed for
each subject based on the differences between their responses to the
concept "me" and "my ideal s e lf."
87
TABLE 13
MEAN DISCREPANCY SCORES ON Q SORT
FOR REFERENCE GROUPS
Group Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Azusa Mean 10. 25 10. 69 11.80
Group S. D. 1.89 3.58 4. 68
No. 13 13 13
U .S.C . Mean (Not tested) 11.72 10.93
Group S. D. 2.41 4.46
No. 16 16
Table 15 presents the means and standard deviations of the
discrepancy scores on the Word Meaning T est for the experimental
and control groups.
The difference in pretest mean discrepancy scores between
the two groups, though not significant at the 5 per cent level,
appeared to be great enough to have some differential effects on
movement toward self-acceptance. For this reason, it was advisable
to employ analysis of covariance using pretest scores as the
covariate.
88
TABLE 14
CORRELATIONS OF THE SELF-ACCEPTANCE SCORES
FOR THE Q SORT AND WORD MEANING TEST
Experimental
Group
Control
Group
T otal3
Group
Pretest . 18 .06 . 18
(19) (14) (46)
Posttest .29 . 18 .19
(19) (13) (62)
Follow-up .02 -.34 .04
(19) (14) (62)
The total group includes the experimental group, the
control group, and the two reference groups.
The data of Table 15 from the Word Meaning T est reveal
that the differences in self-acceptance between the two groups are
not significant. It is noted, however, that the differences in posttest
scores are in the predicted direction.
89
TABLE 15
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF D SCORES ON
THE WORD MEANING TEST FOR THE
EXPERIMENTAL AND
CONTROL GROUPS
Group Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Experim ental Mean 3. 688 3.172 3.471
Group S. D. 1.896 2.107 1. 546
No. 19 19 19
Control Mean 3.141 3.275 3.375
Group S. D. 1.371 1.073 1.444
No. 16 15 15
The following F scores resulted from an analysis of
covariance:
Pretes t - Pos ttes t F = 1.000 (n. s . )
Pretest-Follow -up Test F = .169 (n. s . )
Posttest-Follow-up Test F = 1.399 (n. s . )
90
Hypothesis #2--Successful T-Group Members
Will Achieve G reater Self-Acceptance
Than Will Less Successful T-Group
Results using Q Sort scores
A basic expectation of this study was that an individual may
become m ore self-accepting during an experience in sensitivity
training. Also it was assumed that some students would benefit from
the training experience m ore than would others. For this reason,
hypothesis number two was presented in which it was predicted that
successful T-Group members would achieve m ore congruence
between perceived self and ideal self than would less successful
T-Group m em bers.
Multiple criteria were used for success in sensitivity
training. Table 16 presents the mean Q Sort discrepancy scores of
the students rated by observers to be more successful T-Group
m em bers compared with those rated less successful. Those at or
above the median are included in the "Successful" group.
An analysis of covariance test on the data of Table 16, using
the pretest scores as a covariate, revealed no significant differences
between the two groups.
Tables 17, 18, and 19 present sim ilar data using other
criteria for success in sensitivity training. In each case the group
91
TABLE 16
A COMPARISON ON Q SORT DISCREPANCY SCORES OF
THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND THOSE LESS SUCCESSFUL
IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING
(O bserver Ratings)
Group P retest Posttest Follow-up T est
Successful in
Sensitivity
Training
(N=10)
12.823 10.462 9.892
L ess Successful
in Sensitivity
T raining 11.905 11.029 10.830
(N=9)
P retest-P osttest F = .555 (n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up T est F = .858 (n .s .)
Posttest-Follow -up T est F = . 244 (n .s .)
designated "Successful" includes the ten rated highest; the "L ess
Successful" group in each case includes those below the median
rating.
The various criteria for success in these tables are:
Table 17, final facilitator ratings; Table 18, final peer ratings; and
Table 19, composite ratings of each of the five ratings discussed in
Chapter V.
92
TABLE 17
A COMPARISON OF Q SORT DISCREPANCY SCORES OF
THOSE RATED SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY
TRAINING AND THOSE RATED
LESS SUCCESSFUL
(Final F acilitator Ratings)
Pretest Posttest Follow-up T est
Successful in
Sensitivity
Training 12.572 10.295 9.259
Less Successful
in Sensitivity
Training 12.183 11.215 11.542
Pretest-Posttest F = .463 (n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up Test F = 3.251 (p < .0 5 )a
Posttest-Follow -up Test F = 2.053 (n .s .)
A one-tailed test was employed to determ ine significance.
Although the data of Tables 17, 18, and 19 seem to indicate
movement toward self-acceptance among student teachers who w ere
m ore successful in sensitivity training, no conclusions regarding
this m atter can be made for in most cases the differences w ere not
significant.
In order to com pare self-acceptance on all of the criteria of
success in sensitivity training additional com parisons are needed.
93
TABLE 18
A COMPARISON OF Q SORT DISCREPANCY SCORES OF THOSE
RATED SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING AND
THOSE RATED LESS SUCCESSFUL USING RATINGS
OF PEERS AT THE CONCLUSION OF TRAINING
Pretest Posttest Follow-up T est
Successful
Group 12.762
(N=10)
10.430 8.943
Less Successful
Group 11.972
(N=9)
11.065 11.685
An analysis of covariance revealed the following:
P retest-P osttest F = .105 (n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up T est F = 7.306 (p < . 005)
Posttest-Follow -up T est F =4.548 (p < .0 2 5 )
Table 20 presents the mean Q Sort scores of the sensitivity
training successful groups compared with groups of those less
successful using each of the five criteria of success. Only the pretest
to follow-up test differences a re used in this table.
When Q Sort scores w ere used, three of the criteria of
sensitivity training differentiated significantly on the dimension of
self-acceptance, and differences w ere found in the predicted
94
TABLE 19
A COMPARISON OF Q SORT DISCREPANCY SCORES OF THOSE
RATED SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING AND
THOSE RATED LESS SUCCESSFUL USING
COMPOSITE RATINGS
Pretest Posttest Follow-up T est
Successful
Group 12.768
(N=10)
9.979 9.347
Less Successful
Group 11.966
(N=9)
11.567 11.436
An analysis of covariance revealed the following:
Pretest-Posttest F = 1.355 ( n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up T est F = 3.313 (p < . 05)
Posttest-Follow -up T est F = 1.160 ( n .s .)
direction for the other two. Those rated m ore successful in sensitiv
ity training tended to achieve greater self-acceptance as m easured by
Q Sort.
Results for Hypothesis #2 using
Word Meaning T est scores
Sim ilar data are presented for the sam e groups using the
Word Meaning T est as the criterion of self-acceptance.
95
TABLE 20
MEAN Q SORT SCORES OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND
THOSE LESS SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY
TRAINING, USING FIVE CRITERIA
FOR SUCCESS
(Q Sort Scores)
Ratings Pretest
Follow-
up Test
F
Initial
Peer
Ratings
High in Sens.
Training
Low in Sens.
T raining
12.49
12.27
8.94
11.88 5.529 p < .0 5 a
Initial
Facilitator
Ratings
High in Sens.
Training
Low in Sens.
T raining
12.54
12.22
10.17
10.53 . 107 (n. s . )
Final
Peer
Ratings
High in Sens.
Training
Low in Sens.
T raining
12. 76
11.97
8.94
11.88 7.306 p < .0 0 5 a
Final
Facilitator
Ratings
High in Sens.
T raining
Low in Sens.
Training
12.57
12.18
9.25
11.54 3.521 p < .0 5 a
O bserver
Ratings
High in Sens.
Training
Low in Sens.
Training
12.82
11.90
9.89
10.83 . 858 (n. s . )
3
A one-tailed test was employed to determine significance.
96
TABLE 21
A COMPARISON OF WORD MEANING TEST DISCREPANCY
SCORES OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND THOSE LESS
SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING
(O bserver Ratings)
Pretest Posttest Follow-up T est
Successful 3.970
Group
3.960 3.713
Less Successful 3.374
Group
2.296 3.202
Analysis of covariance using pretest as covariate:
Pretes t - Pos ttes t F = 2.849 ( n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up Test F = .103 (n .s .)
Posttest-Follow -up T est F = .015 ( n .s .)
Table 21 presents the mean discrepancy scores from the
Word Meaning Test, grouped on the basis of the observer ratings of
success in sensitivity training, with the ten student teachers rated
highest compared to the nine rated lowest.
Tables 22, 23, and 24 present sim ilar data using other
criteria for success in sensitivity training. Table 22 presents the
mean discrepancy scores from the Word Meaning T est with the
97
TABLE 22
A COMPARISON OF WORD MEANING TEST DISCREPANCY
SCORES OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND THOSE LESS
SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING
BASED ON FINAL PEER RATINGS
Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Successful 3.604
Less Successful 3. 781
3.250
3.084
3.888
3.008
Analysis of covariance:
Pretest-Posttest F = . 115 (n .s .)
Pretest-Follow -up Test F = 4.227 (n .s .)
Posttest-Follow-up Test F = 1.712 (n.s.)
comparison of student teachers grouped on the basis of final peer
ratings. The ten subjects who were rated highest are compared with
those nine who rated lowest on success in the special training.
Table 24 presents sim ilar data using the composite ratings
as the criterion for success in sensitivity training. The five ratings
discussed in Chapter V were summed to provide the composite
rating.
98
TABLE 23
A COMPARISON OF WORD MEANING TEST DISCREPANCY
SCORES OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND THOSE LESS
SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING BASED
ON FINAL FACILITATOR RATINGS
Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Successful
Group 4.357 3.595 3.589
Less Successful
Group 2.944 2.701 3.340
An analysis of covariance revealed the following:
Pretest-Posttest F = .001 (n. s . )
Pretest-Follow -up Test F - 1.407 (n.s.)
Posttest-Follow-up Test F = .010 (n.s.)
99
TABLE 24
A COMPARISON OF WORD MEANING TEST DISCREPANCY
SCORES OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND THOSE LESS
SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY TRAINING BASED
ON COMPOSITE RATINGS
Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Successful
Group 3.970 3.760 3.589
Less Successful
Group 3.374 2.518 3.340
An analysis of covariance revealed the following:
Pr etes t - Posttes t F = 1.161 (n .s .)
Pretest-Follow-up Test F = .031 (n .s .)
Posttest to Follow-up Test F = .089 (n. s . )
100
Hypothesis #3--Student Teachers with Sensitivity
Training Will Achieve G reater Success In
Student Teaching Than Those without It
In hypothesis number three it was predicted that student
teachers involved in sensitivity training would achieve greater success
in student teaching than would student teachers without this experi
ence. This hypothesis, it was stated, was made with less confidence
than the first two hypotheses, since there are multiple variables
relating to success in student teaching. Some of these variables
undoubtedly would not be affected by sensitivity training.
The ratings of trained observers w ere used as the prim ary
criterion for success in student teaching as stated in Chapter V.
Table 25 presents the mean ratings of trained observers at two points
in time; near the midpoint and near the end of the sem ester with
com parisons of the experim ental and control groups.
Table 26 presents sim ilar com parisons, utilizing m aster
teacher ratings as the criterion for dividing the experim ental group
for comparative purposes.
One further comparison of the relative student teaching
success of the experim ental and control groups is presented in Table
27--using mean ratings of the college supervisors. These ratings
w ere secured at the end of the sem ester.
101
TABLE 25
TRAINED OBSERVER RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN STUDENT
TEACHING OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND
CONTROL GROUPS
Groups
R a t i n g s
M id-Sem ester Sem ester End
Ratings Ratings
Experimental
Group Mean 5.35 Mean 5.55
Control
SD 698 SD .521
Group Mean 5.40 Mean 5.48
SD .485 SD .587
Differences between means are not significant.
The null hypothesis (number three), that there would be no
difference in the student teaching success of those who experience
sensitivity training and those who do not, cannot be rejected.
Sensitivity training appeared to have no m easurable effect on student
teaching success as defined in this study.
102
TABLE 26
MASTER TEACHER RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN STUDENT
TEACHING OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL GROUPS
Group
M id-Semester Sem ester End
Ratings Ratings
Experimental Mean 5.06 Mean 5.18
Group SD .634 SD .574
Control Mean 5.09 Mean 5.10
Group SD .469 SD .427
Differences between means are not significant.
Hypothesis #4--Successful T-Group Members Will
Achieve G reater Success In Student Teaching
Than Will Those Who Are Less Successful
T-Group Members
As with the previous hypothesis the fourth hypothesis was
made with less confidence than the first two, since there are
multiple variables related to success in student teaching. The vari
ables accompanying success in sensitivity training may not be related
causally to the variables contributing to success in student teaching
as defined in this study.
103
TABLE 27
COLLEGE SUPERVISOR RATINGS OF SUCCESS IN
STUDENT TEACHING OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL GROUPS
Experim ental Group
Control Group
Difference Between Means
Mean 5.33
Mean 5.16
Dx - x, = .17
1 2
SD . 448
SD . 459
( n .s .)
The ratings of trained observers were used as the prim ary
criterion for success in student teaching as stated in Chapter V. The
final ratings of the trained observers, which correlated m ore highly
with other m easures of success in student teaching, w ere utilized in
the testing of this hypothesis.
Table 28 presents the trained o b serv ers’ mean ratings of
student teaching success showing various subsamples of the experi
mental group divided at the median or above in sensitivity training
ratings designated as "Successful in Sensitivity Training" and those
below the median as "L ess Successful in Sensitivity T raining." As
before, in each case the successful group has ten student teachers;
the less successful group, nine. The three bases for division of the
subsam ples w ere the composite ratings of success in sensitivity
training, the peer ratings, and the ratings of observers.
104
TABLE 28
AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENT TEACHING RATINGS a
OF THOSE SUCCESSFUL IN SENSITIVITY
TRAINING COMPARED TO THOSE
LESS SUCCESSFUL
Basis for Grouping
Successful
Group
Less Successful
Group
Composite Ratings Mean 55. 4 Mean 55. 6 (n. s . )
SD 5.6 SD 5.0
Peer Ratings Mean 54. 6 Mean 56.4 ( n .s .)
SD 5. 6 SD 4.3
O bserver Ratings Mean 55. 3 Mean 55. 6 (n .s .)
SD 5.5 SD 4. 6
Student teaching ratings used were by trained observers
secured near the end of the sem ester.
In each of the three com parative groupings in Table 28,
the difference in mean ratings of student teaching success was not
significant. The null hypothesis that there would be no difference in
success in student teaching between the "successful T-Group m em
bers" and the "less successful T-Group m em bers" cannot be
rejected. Success in student teaching and success in sensitivity
training as defined above did not appear to be related.
105
Table 29 presents a sum m ary of the findings related to the
four hypotheses.
M iscellaneous Findings
In the survey of research on the self-concept, it was noted
that Hatfield (1959) found that student teachers who were rated by
m aster teachers and college supervisors as "M ore Successful" had
significantly greater self-acceptance (defined as in this study) than
those rated as "L ess Successful." Although not germane to the
prim ary focus of this study, data Were available sim ilar to the data
of Hatfield's study.
Table 30 presents the Q Sort discrepancy scores of those
rated m ore successful in student teaching compared to those rated
less successful using end of the sem ester ratings by trained
observers.
A sim ilar comparison of the relationship between self-
acceptance and success in student teaching using Word Meaning T est
scores as the predictive m easure is presented in Table 31.
The differences between the two groups in Table 31 w ere not
significant. In this study, success in student teaching did not appear
to be related to self-acceptance as defined.
Unexpectedly, additional data regarding the perceptions of
106
TABLE 29
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATIVE
TO HYPOTHESES
Pretest Pretest Posttest
Basis of Instrument to to to
Grouping Used Posttest Follow-up Follow-up
Hypothesis #1
Exp. vs.
Control Q Sort ( n .s .) (n .s .) (n .s .)
Exp. vs.
Control W.M. Test (n .s .) (n .s .) ( n .s .)
Hypothesis #2
Success in
Sensitivity
T r. vs.
Less Succ.
Observer Q Sort (n. s . ) (n .s .) (n .s .)
Ratings W .M .T. (n.s.) (n .s .) (n .s .)
Peer Q Sort (n.s.) p < . 005 p < .0 2 5
Ratings W .M .T. ( n .s .) (n .s .) ( n .s .)
Facilitator Q Sort ( n .s .) P < -05 (n .s .)
Ratings W .M .T. ( n .s .) (n .s .) (n .s.)
Exp. vs.
Control
Succ. in
Sensitivity
Training vs.
Less Succ.
Hypothesis #3
Trained Midterm
Observer (n.s.)
Ratings
M aster
Teacher (n.s.)
Ratings
College
Supervisor (n.s.)
Ratings
Hypothesis #4
T rained Midterm
Observer
Ratings of (n.s.)
Succ. St. T
Sem ester End
(n .s.)
(n. s . )
(n .s .)
Sem ester End
(n .s .)
107
TABLE 30
A COMPARISON OF Q SORT DISCREPANCY SCORES
OF THOSE RATED HIGH ON STUDENT TEACHING
SUCCESS WITH THOSE RATED LOWERa
Group Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
Successful in
Student Teaching 12.395 11.551 10.943
Less Successful in
Student Teaching 12.379 9.820 9.663
The differences were not significant.
g
Using trained observer ratings made near the end of the
sem ester.
m em bers of the experimental group were available to the researcher.
Though outside the province of the research design, this information
had considerable interest for the researcher. The trainers in this
study secured anonymous information from participants of the special
training class, herein referred to as "sensitivity training," through
the use of a six-question "Final Evaluation Questionnaire." The
questionnaire and the responses of each member of the experimental
group are included in Appendix H. Although the written evaluations
of the training experience w ere anonymous, they were coded so that
108
TABLE 31
A COMPARISON OF MEAN WORD MEANING TEST
DISCREPANCY SCORES OF THOSE RATEDa
AS SUCCESSFUL WITH THOSE RATED
AS LESS SUCCESSFUL IN
STUDENT TEACHING
Group Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test
More Successful in
Student Teaching 4.162 4. 162 3. 614
Less Successful in
Student Teaching 3.161 2.071 3.312
£
Ratings of success in student teaching were end of year
ratings by trained observers.
each participant’s response to each question would be numbered
consistently; i. e . , the response of person number one for question
number one was numbered 1.1, his response to question number two
was 2.1, etc. Following the questionnaire, the responses are
analyzed briefly.
109
Sum m ary of C hapter
This chapter has presented the findings relative to the four
hypotheses presented in Chapter I. On both instruments the differ
ence in mean scores between the experimental and control groups was
not significant. In regard to the comparisons of Q Sort scores
between those rated successful in sensitivity training and those rated
less successful, significant differences were found when peer ratings
and final facilitator ratings were used as the criterion of sensitivity
training success. Other criteria showed generally positive but
statistically insignificant relationships.
In comparing the teaching success of the experimental and
control groups, no significant differences resulted. Nor did success
in sensitivity training relate to success in student teaching as rated in
this study.
Miscellaneous findings, relative to the relationship between
"self-acceptance" and success in student teaching, were presented
also. These findings failed to reveal significant differences between
those rated more successful and those rated less successful in
student teaching.
Chapter VII will present a sum m ary of the investigation
including implications for further research.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to present a general review of
the study and its im plications. The findings are sum m arized in the
first section. The conclusions relating to the four hypotheses upon
which the study was based are presented next, followed by some
conclusions which derive from other aspects of the research.
Finally, recommendations a re offered with reference to the findings
and conclusions of this study.
Summary
Purpose of the study
Educators recently have suggested increased attention to
personality dimensions in the preparation of teachers. Important
characteristics of teachers include (1) positive concept of self and
sensitivity to the self-concepts of others, (2) a degree of self-
knowledge and self-acceptance which make it possible to relate to and
110
I l l
communicate with people of differing ages, races, cultures, and
ethnic groups. Many college students fail to achieve these objectives
during their preprofessional education. It appears that there is ever
increasing need for educational experience that will make it possible
for the student to develop a realistic inner security; a healthy accept
ance of self and others.
There appears to be little doubt now that self-acceptance is
correlated with acceptance of others.
It was the purpose of this study to explore the changes in the
self-perceptions of teacher education students during and following a
period of sensitivity training. More specifically, the study sought to
explore the effectiveness of this training program as a means of
fostering increased self-acceptance in student teachers. The study
also sought to study the relationships between sensitivity training and
success in student teaching. Assuming that students would profit
differentially from this special training, the relation between
"success" in sensitivity training and "success" in student teaching
was also studied.
The following hypotheses were subjected to experimental
investigation:
1. Student teachers involved in sensitivity training will
develop greater self-acceptance than will students
112
without this experience.
2. Student teachers who are "successful T-Group
m em bers” will achieve greater self-acceptance
than will the less successful T-Group m em bers.
3. Student teachers involved in sensitivity training
will achieve greater success in student teaching
than will student teachers without this experience.
It was stated initially that hypotheses three and
four were made with less confidence than the first
two hypotheses, since there are multiple variables
related to success in student teaching. Some of
these variables would not be affected by sensitivity
training.
4. Student teachers who are "successful T-Group
m em bers” will achieve greater success in student
teaching than will the "less successful T-Group
m em bers."
Procedure
Thirty-seven student teachers attending a liberal arts
college during the spring of 1965 were divided at random into two
groups. The control group experienced only the traditional program
for student teachers. The experimental group experienced the
113
traditional program and, in addition, were involved in a forty-four -
hour program of sensitivity training. A m ajor portion of these hours
was spent in T(training)-G roups of nine and ten m em bers.
The sensitivity training program was initiated by ten hours
of training in a so-called "cultural island" setting at a hotel in the
foothills sixty m iles from the campus. The remaining hours of the
training program w ere conducted on the campus during the five weeks
following.
The instrum ents
Two instrum ents were used to m easure self-acceptance. The
device used as the prim ary criterion instrum ent was a fifty-item Q
Sort which was adapted from a ninety-item Q Sort used by Hatfield
(1959). The other instrum ent was a sem antic differential device
called the "Word Meaning Test" (WMT). This test, developed
especially for this study, utilized eight concepts which the subjects
w ere asked to rate against a uniform series of bipolar traits. Self-
acceptance, on the Q sort, was defined as the degree to which one's
"self-so rt" agreed with his "self-ideal so rt." On the WMT self
acceptance was determined by the lack of discrepancy between the
way the subject responded to the concepts of "me" and "my ideal se lf'
on the nine scales.
114
Statistical procedure
In the treatm ent of the data the self-acceptance scores,
together with all of the other variables used, were key-punched on
IBM cards. Means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients,
analysis of covariance, F ratios, and t-tests w ere the statistical
tools used in this study.
Results
This study produced three groups of findings: (1) a com pari
son of the self-acceptance scores of the experimental and control
groups, (2) the relation between success in sensitivity training and
self-acceptance, and (3) the relation between sensitivity training and
success in student teaching. On both instrum ents the experim ental
group showed movement toward greater self-acceptance from the
pretest to the posttest. Using Q Sort scores, the control group also
moved toward greater self-acceptance. The difference between the
two groups was not significant at the .05 level of confidence.
In analyzing the relation between success in sensitivity
training and self-acceptance, Q Sort differences in the predicted
direction were found between those successful and those less su ccess
ful using each of the three criteria, observer ratings, facilitator
ratings, and peer group ratings. The differences w ere significant
115
(.025) only for the groups divided on the basis of peer ratings. Using
WMT scores, no significant differences w ere found.
An analysis of the relation between sensitivity training and
success in student teaching revealed no significant differences, nor
did success in sensitivity training relate significantly to any of the
criteria of success in student teaching.
Incidental findings
As a resu lt of the application of the m easures of self
acceptance, additional com parisons of these m easures with various
ratings of success in sensitivity training were made. Contrary to the
findings of an e a rlie r study by Hatfield (1959), success in student
teaching was not related to self-acceptance.
Conclusions
The conclusions presented here deal exclusively with the
four hypotheses of this study.
Hypothesis 1. - -Student teachers involved in sensitivity
training will develop greater "self-acceptance” than will
students without this experience. The hypothesis could
not be accepted. Although the experim ental subjects
moved toward greater self-acceptance, no difference
between the two groups was significant at the .05 level.
116
Hypothesis 2. - -Successful T-Group members will
achieve greater self-acceptance than will less success
ful T-Group m em bers. This hypothesis could not be
accepted. The Q Sort differences between groups were
all in the predicted direction, however. When peer
ratings were used as the criterion of success the
differences were significant at the . 05 level of confidence.
Hypothesis 3. - -Student teachers with sensitivity training
will achieve greater success in student teaching than
those without it. This hypothesis could not be accepted.
Hypothesis 4. - -Successful T-Group members will
achieve greater success in student teaching than will
those who are less successful T-Group m em bers. This
hypothesis could not be accepted.
Miscellaneous conclusions
Contrary to the finding of an earlier study (Hatfield, 1959)
that successful student teachers w ere significantly m ore self-
accepting than less successful student teachers, in this study success
in student teaching did not appear to be related to self-acceptance.
Additional data regarding the perceptions of the experimental
group subjects, though outside the province of this study, were
available. Anonymous responses to a six-question ’’Final Evaluation
117
Questionnaire" for each of the nineteen participants are presented
in Appendix H. Almost without exception the responses indicated the
students' beliefs that this special training was a valuable experience.
There were suggestions that such training should precede the
sem ester of student teaching; the heavy load of preparation for
student teaching caused a fatigue factor and also made it difficult to
give adequate tim e to the suggested reading for the sensitivity train
ing course.
Recommendations
In this section, recommendations based on the findings and
conclusions of this research are discussed.
1. No significant differences were found between the
means of experim ental and control groups on two
m easures of self-acceptance. Changes other than
changes in the phenomenal self may be m ore fru it
ful areas of investigation. Sensitivity training may
provide a means of fostering skills in teaching
methods supportive of the personal and social
growth of pupils.
Since attem pts to establish relationships between
dimensions of personality and teacher effectiveness
118
have been largely fruitless, research studies should
focus on the effects of sensitivity training on the
interactional patterns of teachers in the instructional
setting. Flanders' (1961) new technique, "Interaction
A nalysis," may prove useful in this regard.
2. No clear relationship was established between the
relative success in sensitivity training experienced
by the subjects and the degree of self-acceptance
developed during the study. The prim ary instrum ent,
the Q Sort, indicated a definite trend for the m ore
successful to also be m ore self-accepting. Such
differences were not found with the sem antic differ
ential instrum ent. More extensive comparative
studies of these two techniques with larg er sam ples
should provide m ore definitive conclusions reg ard
ing their relative efficacy for m easuring self
acceptance.
3. No significant relationship was established between
sensitivity training and success in student teaching.
This may well reflect the e a rlie r statem ent that
there a re numerous variables which affect success
in teaching. It was not expected that sensitivity
119
training would affect many of these.
Since the criteria of teaching effectiveness continues
to be a major problem for research ers, it may be
that an evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching
might be profitably based on some m easure of the
effectiveness of the interaction between pupil and
teacher in the classroom .
4. It was the expressed opinion of facilitators and
observers that one training experience of this
nature may not be enough to bring about desired
results. Subsequent research of this type might
well include an initial training period followed by
periodic refresher sessions.
5. There are indications that some of the positive out
comes of sensitivity training are not discerned nor
reported by participants until some months after the
training period. Such delayed effects suggest evalu
ation of such training earlier in the teacher educa
tion program. Considerable concern was expressed
by facilitators and participants relative to the fatigue
factor after student teaching had begun.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
WORD MEANING TEST
122
WORD MEANING TEST
Name
Date "
The purpose of this test is to m easure the meanings of certain things
to various people by having them judge them against a series of
descriptive scales. In taking this test, please make your judgments
on the basis of what these things mean to you. On each page of this
booklet you will find a different concept to be judged and beneath it a
set of scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in
order.
Here is how you are to use these scales:
If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is very closely
related to one end of the scale, you should place your response as
follows:
F air (jp 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
or
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 Q y Unfair
If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one or the other
end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your response
as follows:
F air 3 @ 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
or
F air 3 2 1 0 1 {2J 3 Unfair
If the concept seem s only slightly related to one side as opposed to
the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should m ark as
follows:
Fair 3 2 © 0 1 2 3 Unfair
or
F air 3 2 1 0 © 2 3 Unfair
123
The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which
of the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic of the thing
you're judging.
If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides of
the scale equally associated with the concept, or if the scale is
completely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should
place your response in the middle space:
F air 3 2 1 1 2 3 Unfair
Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Work at
fairly high speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over
individual item s. It is your first im pressions, the immediate
"feelings" about the item s, that we want. On the other hand, please
do not be careless, because we want your true im pressions.
THE IDEAL TEACHER
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 U nfair
Weak 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Strong
Unpleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant
Active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Passive
Large 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Small
Dull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sharp
Sweet 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sour
Light 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Heavy
Fast 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Slow
124
MOST PEOPLE
Sour 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sweet
Heavy 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Light
Slow 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fast
Pleasant 3 2 1 0 1
2 3 Unpleasant
Small 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Large
Sharp 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Dull
Unfair 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 F air
Strong 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Weak
Passive 3 2 1 0 1
GROUP
2 3 Active
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
Weak 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Strong
Unpleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant
Active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Passive
Large 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Small
Dull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sharp
Sweet 3 2 1 0 1
2 3 Sour
Light 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Heavy
Fast 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Slow
125
GOD
Sour 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sweet
Heavy 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Light
Slow 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 F ast
Pleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unpleasant
Small 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Large
Sharp 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Dull
Unfair 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 F air
Strong 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Weak
Passive 3 2 1 0 1
HONESTY
2 3 Active
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
Weak 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Strong
Unpleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant
Active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Passive
Large 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Small
Dull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sharp
Sweet 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sour
Light 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Heavy
F ast 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Slow
126
MY IDEAL SELF
Sour 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sweet
Heavy 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Light
Slow 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fast
Pleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unpleasant
Small 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Large
Sharp 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Dull
Unfair 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 F air
Strong 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Weak
Passive 3 2 1 0 1
LEADER
2 3 Active
F air 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfair
Weak 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Strong
Unpleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Pleasant
Active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Passive
Large 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Small
Dull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sharp
Sweet 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sour
Light 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Heavy
F ast 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Slow
127
ME
Sour 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Sweet
Heavy 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Light
Slow 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fast
Pleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unpleasant
Small 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Large
Sharp 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Dull
Unfair 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fair
Strong 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Weak
Passive 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Active
APPENDIX B
Q SORT STATEMENTS
129
Q SORT STATEMENTS
1. Lacks experience in working with groups.
2. Is alert to classm ates' needs for personal help.
3. Lacks leadership skills.
4. Hurts other people's feelings without meaning to do so.
5. Has ample confidence in him self/herself and h is/h er ideas.
6. Is rarely well-pleased by the behavior of others.
7. Enjoys work that puts him /her in contact with a lot of people.
8. T reats everyone as her/his equal.
9. Is frequently annoyed and disgusted with associates.
10. Feels it isn't worthwhile to help most people.
11. Is unconfortable when working with other people.
12. Prefers friends of high social prestige.
13. Flies off the handle when feeling bad.
14. Feels sm artly and suitably dressed.
15. Shows leadership in social situations.
16. W orries a great deal about possible misfortune.
17. Views her/his strengths and weaknesses objectively.
18. M easures his/her successes in term s of their contribution to
the welfare of others.
19. Lacks attractive clothing.
130
20. Finds it difficult to find things to say in a group situation.
21. Is frequently sleepless at night.
22. Feelings are easily hurt by the criticism s of others.
23. Possesses a variety of abilities and interests.
24. Frequently w orries about his/her ability to succeed.
25. Ordinarily gives up plans in the face of objections from others.
26. Uses extrem e care in what he/she says so as to spare the
feelings of others.
27. Gets a kick out of doing things for others.
28. Sometimes lets down people who are counting on him /her.
29. Enjoys being with other people.
30. Tends to overrate his/her own abilities.
31. Sometimes uses other people to gain his/h er own ends.
32. Has difficulty resisting temptation; is easily led.
33. Keeps his/h er word even at personal inconvenience.
34. Tends to make excuses or "pass the buck" when in e rro r.
35. Finds humiliations and social blunders hard to forget.
36. Takes criticism s without hurt feelings.
37. Often expresses joy, satisfaction, pleasure.
38. Expects that others a re judging h is/h er behavior unfavorably.
39. Is making little progress toward achieving h is/h er most
important goals in life.
40. Is untidy a good share of the time.
131
41. Gets into difficulty by telling confidential information.
42. Maintains an even, agreeable disposition.
43. Is m issing the fun of dating.
44. Neither gives nor seeks much companionship.
45. Deals openly and above board with all h is/h er associates.
46. Dates as often as most m em bers of h is/h er class.
47. Is unsure of him self/herself and h is/h er ideas.
48. Refrains from making personal gains at the expense of others.
49. F its easily into most groups.
50. Is indifferent to the opposite sex.
APPENDIX C
SELF SORT
133
SELF SORT
Directions
These cards contain statem ents that have been used by various people
to describe them selves. You are to indicate by your placement of
these cards on the board the extent to which the statem ent describes
behavior that is like o r unlike you.
Proceed as follows:
1. Make a prelim inary sorting of the statem ents into
three piles: (a) those most like you, (b) those
somewhat like you, and (c) those most unlike you.
2. Arrange the cards on the board, placing those most
like you on the right hand side or in Column 8;
those next most like you in Column 7. Continue thus
across the board until you have placed the statem ents
least descriptive of you on the extrem e left.
3. The number of spaces in each column indicates the
number of statem ents that may be placed in that
column.
4. You may rearrange the item s on the board until you
are satisfied that you have made the m ost accurate
description of yourself that you can.
5. When you are through, the exam iner will show you
how to record your scores.
APPENDIX D
FACSIMILE OF THE SCORE SHEET
135
FACSIMILE OF THE SCORE SHEET
Name
Card Score Card Score Card
No. No. No.
1 26 62
2 27 63
3 28 65
4
29 66
5 31 69
6 34 72
9 35 76
11 37 77
12 43 78
13 47 79
15 48 80
17 51 81
18 53 83
19 54 86
22 55 88
23 59 89
25 60
Sort
Score
APPENDIX E
A FACSIMILE OF THE T-GROUP
MEMBERSHIP RATING SHEET
A FACSIMILE OF THE T- GROUP
MEMBERSHIP RATING SHEET3
137
On each page you will find a statem ent related to some aspect of
T-Group operation, and below, a list of all m em bers of our group.
Please select the three m em bers for whom the statem ent is most
true; put a "+" in front of these three names. Pick the one of these
three for whom the statem ent is m ost true and place an additional
"+" by this name. Sim ilarly, select the three for whom the state
ment is least true, place a before each and an additional
before the one person for whom the statem ent is the very least true.
1. The m em ber has insight into his own attitudes and
behavior toward other people.
_______ John Doe
_______ Jane Doe
_______ etc.
2. The m em ber seem s to have insight into the effect of
his attitudes and behavior on others in the group.
The original rating sheet was an eight-page device with the
names of the T-Group participants printed on each page. The order
of the names w ere rotated system atically from page to page. Each
statem ent appeared on a separate page with the list of the names for
that particular T-Group directly below.
The m em ber seem s to have insight into the effect other
m em bers' attitudes and behavior a re having on him.
The m em ber seem s to recognize the dynamics in
operation in the group.
The m em ber seem s to be involved in the T-Group
experience.
The m em ber communicates effectively with others in
the group.
The m em ber listens well to others in the group.
Overall, the individual is a very effective T-Group
m em ber.
APPENDIX F
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
(To Be Used with Classroom Observation Record)
140
PUPIL BEHAVIORS
1. A pathetic--A lert Pupil Behavior
Apathetic Alert
1. L istless 1. Appeared anxious to recite
2. Bored-acting and participate
3. Entered into activities 2. Watched teacher attentively
half-heartedly 3. Worked concentratedly
4. Restless 4. Seemed to respond eagerly
5. Attention wandered 5. Prompt and ready to take part
6. Slow in getting under way in activities when they begin
2. Obstructive--Responsible Pupil Behavior
Obstructive Responsible
1 . Rude to one another and/ 1. Courteous, cooperative,
or to teacher friendly with each other and
2. Interrupting; demanding with teacher
attention; disturbing 2. Completed assignments without
3. Obstinate; sullen complaining or unhappiness
4. Refusal to participate 3. Controlled voices
5. Quarrelsom e; irritable 4. Received help and criticism
6. Engaged in name-calling attentively
and/or tattling 5. Asked for help when needed
7. Unprepared 6 . Orderly without specific
directions from teacher
7. Prepared
3. Uncertain--Confident Pupil Behavior
Uncertain Confident
1. Seemed afraid to try; 1. Seemed anxious to try new
unsure problems or activities
141
2. Hesitant; restrained 2. Undisturbed by m istakes
3. Appeared em barrassed 3. Volunteered to recite
4. Frequent display of n er 4. Entered freely into activities
vous habits, nail- 5. Appeared relaxed
biting, etc. 6. Spoke with assurance
5. Appeared shy and timid
6. Hesitant and/or stam m er-
ing speech
4. Dependent--Initiating Pupil Behavior
Dependent Initiating
1. Relied on teacher for
explicit directions
2. Showed little ability to
work things out
for selves
3. Unable to proceed when
initiative called for
4. Appeared reluctant to take
lead or to accept
responsibility
1. Volunteered ideas and
suggestions
2. Showed resourcefulness
3. Took lead willingly
4. Assumed responsibilities
without evasion
TEACHER BEHAVIORS
5. P a rtial--F air Teacher Behavior
Partial F air
1. Repeatedly slighted a pupil 1.
2. C orrected o r criticized
certain pupils repeatedly 2.
3. Repeatedly gave a pupil
special advantages 3.
4. Gave most attention to one
or a few pupils 4.
5. Showed prejudice (favor- 5.
able o r unfavorable)
toward some social, racial
or religious group
Treated all pupils approxi
mately equally
In case of controversy pupil
allowed to explain his side
Distributed attention to many
pupils
Rotated leadership im partially
Based criticism or praise on
factual evidence, not
hearsay
142
6. Expressed suspicion of
motives of a pupil
6. Autocratic--Dem ocratic Teacher Behavior
Autocratic Democratic
1. Told pupils each step to 1. Guided pupils without being
take mandatory
2. Intolerant of pupils' ideas 2. Exchanged ideas with pupils
3. Mandatory in giving d ir 3. Encouraged (asked for) pupil
ections; orders to be opinion
obeyed at once 4. Encouraged pupils to make
4. Interrupted pupils although own decisions
their discussion was 5. Entered into activities withou
5. Always directed rather
than participated
domination
7. Aloof--Responsive Teacher Behavior
Aloof Responsive
1. Stiff and formal in re la 1. Approachable to all pupils
tions with pupils 2. Participated in class activity
2. Apart; removed from 3. Responded to reasonable
class activity requests and/or questions
3. Condescending to pupils 4. Spoke to pupils as equals
4. Routine and subject m atter 5. Commended effort
only concern; pupils 6. Gave encouragement
as persons ignored 7. Recognized individual
5. Referred to pupil as "this
child" or "that child"
differences
8. Restricted--Understanding Teacher Behavior
R estricted Understanding
1. Recognized only academic 1. Showed awareness of a pupil's
accomplishments of personal emotional
pupils; no concern for problems and needs
personal problems
143
2. Completely unsympathetic
with a pupil’s failure
at a task
3. Called attention only to
very good or very
poor work
4. Was impatient with a pupil
2. Was tolerant of e rro r on part
of pupil
3. Patient with a pupil beyond
ordinary lim its of patience
4. Showed what appeared to be
sincere sympathy with a
pupil’ s viewpoint
9. Harsh--Kindly Teacher Behavior
Harsh Kindly
1 . H ypercritical; fault-finding 1 .
2. C ross; curt
3. Depreciated pupil's efforts;
was sarcastic 2.
4. Scolded a great deal
5. Lost tem per 3.
6. Used threats
7. Perm itted pupils to laugh 4.
at m istakes of others
5.
Went out of way to be pleasant
and/or to help pupils;
friendly
Gave a pupil a deserved
compliment
Found good things in pupils to
call attention to
Seemed to show sincere con
cern for a pupil’s personal
problem
Showed affection without being
dem onstrative
Disengaged self from a pupil
without bluntness
10. Dull--Stimulating Teacher Behavior
Dull Stimulating
1 . Uninteresting, monotonous 1 . Highly interesting presenta
explanations tion; got and held attention
2. Assignments provided without being flashy
little or no motivation 2. Clever and witty, though not
3. Failed to provide challenge sm art-alecky o r w ise
4. Lacked animation cracking
5. Failed to capitalize on 3. Enthusiastic; animated
pupil interests 4. Assignments challenging
6. Pedantic, boring 5. Took advantage of pupil
7. Lacked enthusiasm; bored- interests
acting
144
6. Brought lesson successfully
to a climax
7. Seemed to provoke thinking
11. Stereotyped--O riginal Teacher Behavior
1. Used routine procedures 1.
without variation
2. Would not depart from
procedure to take 2.
advantage o r a relevant
question o r situation 3.
3. Presentation seemed uni
maginative 4.
4. Not resourceful in answ er
ing questions or
providing explanations
Used what seem ed to be o rig i
nal and relatively unique
devices to aid instruction
T ried new m aterials or
methods
Seemed imaginative and able
to develop presentation
Resourceful in answering
questions; had many p e rti
nent illustrations available
12. A pathetic--A lert Teacher Behavior
Apathetic A lert
1. Seemed listless; languid;
lacked enthusiasm
2. Seemed bored by pupils
3. Passive in response to
pupils
4. Seemed preoccupied
5. Attention seem ed to wander
6. Sat in chair most of time;
took no active part in
class activities
1. Appeared buoyant; wide-awake;
enthusiastic about activity of
the moment
2. Kept constructively busy
3. Gave attention to, and seem ed
interested in, what was
going on in class
4. Prompt to "pick up" class when
pupils' attention showed
signs of lagging
13. U nim pressive--A ttractive Teacher Behavior
Unim pressive A ttractive
1. Untidy or sloppily dressed 1. Clean and neat
2. Inappropriately dressed 2. W ell-groomed; dress showed
3. Drab, colorless good taste
145
4. Posture and bearing un
attractive
5. Possesses distracting
personal habits
6. Mumbled, inaudible speech;
limited expression;
disagreeable voice tone;
poor inflection
3. Posture and bearing attractive
4. F ree from distracting personal
habits
5. Plainly audible speech; good
expression; agreeable voice
tone; good inflection
14. Evading--Responsible Teacher Behavior
Evading Responsible
1 . Avoided responsibility; 1 . Assumed responsibility; made
disinclined to make decisions as required
decisions 2. Conscientious
2. "Passed the buck" to class, 3. Punctual
to other teachers, etc. 4. Painstaking; careful
3. Left learning to pupil, 5. Suggested aids to learning
failure to give adequate 6. Controlled a difficult situation
help 7. Gave definite directions
4. Let a difficult situation get 8. Called attention to standards
out of control of quality
5. Assignments and directions 9. Attentive to class
indefinite 10. Thorough
6. No insistence on either
individual or group
standards
7. Inattentive with pupils
8. Cursory
15. E rratic--Steady Teacher Behavior
E rratic Steady
1. Impulsive; uncontrolled;
tem peram ental;
2. Course of action easily
swayed by circumstance
of the moment
1. Calm; controlled
2. Maintained progress toward
objective
3. Stable, consistent, predictable
146
16. Excitable--Poised Teacher Behavior
Excitable Poised
1. Easily disturbed and upset
flustered by classroom
situation
2. H urried in class activities;
spoke rapidly using many
words and gestures
3. Was "jumpy"; nervous
1. Seemed at ease at all times
2. Unruffled by situation that
developed in classroom ;
dignified without being staff
or formal
3. Unhurried in class activities;
spoke quietly and slowly
4. Successfully diverted attention
from a stre ss situation in
classroom
17. Uncertain--Confident Teacher Behavior
Uncertain Confident
1. Seemed unsure of self;
faltering, hesitant
2. Appeared timid and shy
3. Appeared artificial
4. Disturbed and em barrassed
by m istakes and/or
criticism
1. Seemed sure of self; self-
confident in relations with
pupils
3. Undisturbed and unem bar
rassed by m istakes and/or
criticism
18. D isorganized--System atic Teacher Behavior
Disorganized Systematic
1 . No plan for classw ork 1 .
2. Unprepared
3. Objectives not apparent; 2.
undecided as to next step 3.
4. Wasted time 4.
5. Explanations not to the 5.
point 6.
6. Easily distracted from
m atter at hand 7.
Evidence of a planned thorough
flexible procedure
Well prepared
Careful in planning with pupils
System atic about procedure
Had anticipated needs
Provided reasonable explana
tions
Held discussion together;
objectives apparent
147
19. Inflexible--Adaptable Teacher Behavior
Inflexible Adaptable
1. Rigid in conforming to 1.
routine
2. Made no attem pt to adapt 2.
m aterials to individual
pupils
3. Appeared incapable of 3.
modifying explanation or
activities to m eet p a r
ticular classroom 4.
situations
Flexible in adapting explana
tions
Individualized m aterials for
pupils as required; adapted
activities to pupils
Took advantage of pupils'
questions to further clarify
ideas
Met an unusual classroom
situation competently
20. Pessim istic--O ptim istic Teacher Behavior
Pessim istic Optimistic
1 . Depressed; unhappy 1 . Cheerful; good-natured
2. Skeptical 2. Genial
3. Called attention to 3. Joked with pupils on occasion
potential "bad" 4. Emphasized potential "good"
4. Expressed hopelessness of 5. Looked on bright side; spoke
"education today," the optim istically of the future
school system , or 6. Called attention to good points;
fellow educators emphasized the positive
5. Noted m istakes; ignored
good points
6. Frowned a great deal;
had unpleasant facial
expression
21. Im m ature--Integrated Teacher Behavior
Im m ature Integrated
1. Appeared naive in approach
to classroom situations
2. Self-pitying; complaining;
demanding
3. Boastful; conceited 2 .
Maintained class as center of
activity; kept self out of
spotlight; referred to class's
activities, not own
Emotionally well controlled
22. Narrow--Broad Teacher Behavior
Narrow
Presentation strongly
suggested limited back
ground in subject or
m aterial; lack of
scholarship
Did not depart from text
Failed to enrich discussion
with illustrations from
related areas
Showed little evidence of
breadth of cultural back
ground in such areas as
science, arts, lite ra
ture, and history
Answers to pupils’ ques
tions incomplete or
inaccurate
Noncritical approach to
subject
Broad
1. Presentation suggested good
background in subject; good
scholarship suggested
2. Drew examples and explana
tions from various sources
and related fields
3. Showed evidence of broad
cultural background in
science, a rt, literature,
history, etc.
4. Gave satisfying, complete, and
accurate answers to
questions
5. Was constructively critical in
approach to subject m atter
APPENDIX G
STUDENT-TEACHER RATING SHEET
150
PASADENA COLLEGE
Howard at Bresee
Pasadena, California
Dear_______________________
According to our records, _______________________________
has been a STUDENT TEACHER under your direction. We will
appreciate it very much if you will carefully and conscientiously give
your estim ate of the individual's qualifications as an elem entary
school teacher. Any comment that can be made relative to any
characteristic that is considered requisite to successful teaching will
be appreciated.
Thank you for your cooperation.
E. Boyd Shannon, Chairman
Division of Education and
Psychology
151
___________Your Ra t ings __
Poor F air Average Very
Below Above Good
1. Health
2. Personality
Appearance ____ ____ ____________ ____
Poise ____ ____ ____________ ____
Social Qualities ____ ____ ____________ ____
General Culture ____ ____ _____________ _____
3. Scholarship and
Classroom Atti
tudes
Ability to work
intelligently______ ____ ____ ____________ ____
Industry ____ ____ ____________ ____
Enthusiasm ____ ____ ____________ ____
Daily preparation ____ ____ ____________ ____
Cooperation ____ ____ ____________ ____
4. Professional
Training
Discipline ____ ____ ____________ ____
Knowledge of
subject m atter ____ ________________________
Understanding of
children______________ ____ ____________ ____
Supervision of
playground ____ ____ ____________ ____
Care of school
room_________________ ____ ____________ ____
Interest in general
school activities ____ ____ ____________ ____
5. Leadership
Initiative ____ ___________________ _____
Tact _____________________________
Resourcefulness ____ ____ ____________ ____
6. C haracter
Statement of Recommendation: (Use reverse sid e .)
Signature________________________________ Date___
Excellent
Position School Grade Level
APPENDIX H
FINAL EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
FINAL EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
(Anonymously Submitted)
Education 195a: GROUP AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
(Red Group)
D escribe what experienced) stand out most vividly in this
sem inar. Please be as detailed as you wish in describing the
experienced) and your reaction.
1.1 I will always rem em ber most vividly when the group
gave me back my ''feedback.” R. T. said that it wasn’t
necessary to be like anyone else. "I accept you just as
you a r e ." From that moment when I sta rt to feel out of
place or uncomfortable I rem em ber what he said. I
feel I now accept m yself objectively and rem em bering
what the group said, Stan telling the group about his
relationships in a group hit me hard. I want to always
take people on their own m erits and as individuals--not
as a part of a race, etc.
1. 2 The experience which stands out most vividly in this
experience was the morning session at Arrowhead
Springs Hotel. I rem em ber this session mostly because
I was helped. When I felt like the group wanted to
include me, I was m ore free to express m yself and I
also felt m ore free to join in. I think it is very
necessary for each m em ber to feel a part of the group,
although there needs to be tact when bringing or includ
ing them in the group.
1. 3 The experience that stands out the most vividly to me
happened up at the reso rt. I felt we really became a
group when we had that whole day on Saturday. When I
left the group I was mentally exhausted and I felt that
I knew everyone a little bit better. The m ost un
pleasant experience was having to fill the questionnaires
right at the height of our evening. I feel that it would
be better to fill them out at the sta rt of the next
session. It would relax everyone and bring us back on
the subject.
154
1.4 I suppose it was the morning T session at Arrowhead
Springs when we really seemed to be digging. It was a
new experience to see people open up so. It was good to
be in a situation where I felt it was legitimate to give
your reactions to people and the awareness that people
really do want you to tell them how they perceive you.
1.5 My first reaction to the emotional response of some of
the individuals--and how involved and intricate the
emotions were. Also when the outburst occurred, the
group seemed at times to border on sympathy and
em pathy--possibly m ore on the first stage rather than
the second. The group matured somewhat and it
became m ore empathy oriented.
1. 6 When Laura opened up and told Sue what she thought,
then Sue didn’t say anything. I felt m ore distrust toward
Sue than I had ever felt before.
1. 7 The most vivid experience was during our retreat at
Arrowhead Springs. The "clim ate” was very relaxed,
informal, without any pressures. The atmosphere was
free and easy which made it easier to converse.
1.8 The night I opened up to the group, I don't think I will
ever forget it. I was trembling. I enjoyed the time we
sat out on the grass in the mountains. We w eren't
digging, but we were a tune [sic] to each other.
1.9 The weekend retreat, Saturday morning. Everyone
seemed concerned with "digging" and helping others
gain insights. F irst session when Bunny expressed her
deep faith that works for her from day to day.
1.10 I feel the experience that stands out vividly is when
Laura told me that she thought I was cheating. I
didn't realize that anyone would think such a thing or
that I had given them reason to feel or suspect som e
thing like this. My first reaction wasn't m e--I wanted
to scream and call her a liar (among other things), but
I didn't know how to do it so that the group would
believe me. I left the group--hurt, rejected, and
hating them for doing such a thing to me. I thought
about it all week and thought about how I would tell
155
Kelly off next week. Strong feeling concerning revenge
in most cases don't last for a long period of time. I
tried to defend myself and in doing so 1 guess shut
m yself off from the group in case of any future en
counters like that. If I had to go through it again, I
would have reacted differently.
2. What experience(s) do you now feel was most helpful to you--
why?
2.1 a. Dalene's honesty, "I really don't need you.” I
liked her honesty and independence. She said it
in a nice way.
b. Learning to take people for what they are.
c. Learning to accept myself and work from there.
d. Being able to give my opinion and listen to another's
and not worry about hurting another's feelings or
feel I was misunderstood.
2. 2 The experience at Arrowhead Springs as I have said
was one of the most helpful. However, I think that
R. T. helped me quite a bit tonight when he mentioned
that M arsha and I could communicate quite well with
the group. This was encouraging because 1 didn't know
how well I was communicating with the group.
2. 3 When I was directly confronted by some act in my
behavioral pattern. I feel this helped me because it
showed me what I was doing and what it appeared to
others that I was doing. I feel that by remembering
the experience that I will be able to be broadened by
personality and strengthen my character.
2. 4 The times when we were trying to find out why the
group was having difficulty in "digging” made me think
m ore about my own attitude and concern in the group.
2. 5 When I was made to feel like an individual who had just
received an invitation from the members to be a part
of the group. Sue helped me most in becoming an
integral part. She did this in a negative way--which
amounted to me reacting to her statem ents.
156
2. 6 The T-group was the m ost helpful. However, I gained
m ore before Student Teaching began. I have gained
new insights to my personality with the feedback from
the ones in the group. Through this feedback I can see
why 1 get feelings that I do when I really want som e
thing else. I tell m yself I want something but com
municate something entirely different to the group.
2. 7 The very first time that one of the m em bers of the T-
group mentioned my name--showing interest not only
in me but in the group since 1 am a part and can con
tribute to the group. Being able to hear and listen to
certain individuals was quite beneficial, and there were
many chances to identify and share concepts, ideas,
and feelings.
2.8 I felt that when 1 told Susie how I felt I got things out
of my mind. Then 1 was able to open up to a certain
extent. I liked the trip to the mountains because just
getting away from P. C. was good for me. A new
environment helped me relate m ore to myself.
2.9 Those related to Bunny--her fears, feelings, emotions.
She was ready to express them --be honest, open. I
was encouraged to see this.
2.10. In a way the experience of rejection. I’ve never felt it
quite so clearly and strongly than I did within the T-
group. But I wonder now if maybe it hasn't been felt
and not communicated to me. I also am glad for the
insight given to me concerning the rejection I give to
another’s opinion. I had been trying to see this before.
The experience of seeing a group try to work toward
understanding self and member was at times quite
rewarding and also disappointing. I wish as a group
we had made m ore strides.
3. On what problem of concern to you did you receive the most
help during the sem inar?
3.1 Being able to be at ease in expressing myself. Better
understanding of conflict (or difference of ideas).
157
3.2 I felt that the problem "that everyone wanted to be
accepted" was quite helpful. I had somewhat the
feeling that several m em bers felt that they were
always accepted and when I found that they had the
feeling of non-acceptance at tim es, it helped me. I
also found that being "open" is very helpful and this
problem seem ed to be questioned at tim es in our
sessions.
3. 3 My problem of not being able to talk. When confronted
in this sem inar, I was actually forced to open up and
when I w asn't laughed at felt maybe I had some good
ideas. I feel that now I won't be so quiet, but will
present my ideas confidently in a group.
3.4 How people perceived my attem pt to be open in relation
to my perception of my attempt to be open.
3. 5 How others perceive me as an individual; or better yet,
whether or not they see me as an individual or as a
race. It was m ost gratifying to know that some can
perceive people as individuals rather than involving
the racial issue.
3 .6 I can see that I need to be more firm in what I believe.
I thought I was helping others just to be helping--but
now I feel I was very self-centered. I didn't want to
take the chance of getting hurt so I lost m yself in others
so I personally wouldn’t get hurt. I see m yself m ore
self-centered and not as helping as I thought I was. I
realize to have my needs met I am going to have to give
m yself to whatever group situation I am in. I have to
accept myself before others can accept me.
3.7 The problem of feeling accepted and being able to feel
that what I had to say was effective and if I wanted to
say it I would without constantly thinking about what
everyone would think of me. One of my concerns is to
relate my ideas effectively. Through this group
process I have become aware of this need and can
honestly say that I am trying very hard to be m yself
and not always think that people a re thinking negatively
of me and to relate m ore effectively.
158
3. 8 I thought a lot about my reaction to others. I decided
that it w asn't the fact that I didn't like a person, but
the fact that I didn't like what they said.
3.9 My problem of communication; I received insight
(feedback, perceptions) into the fact that I did not
communicate well. I received suggestions as to ways
and methods to improve.
3.10 I appreciated the opinion of Stanley concerning the race
situation. I don't think I was sensitive to how he as a
negro perceived this problem --but only 1 as a very
idealistic white person. I saw friends as complex
personalities--ones that I no longer classified as
m em bers of a unit, group, etc. I realized that their
opinions of me w eren’t quite as nice and sweet as I
had thought--which is alright. I feel that through their
eyes and how they perceive me has been profitable and
will be m ore so as time goes on.
4. What do you now propose to do with your learning when you are
back on-the-job?
4.1 Remember everyday that I can m eet my needs and
others best by not wasting my time feeling uneasy but
by being interested in others and trying to be objective.
I will work on my problems that the group pointed out.
4.2 I plan to continue to be open in my relationships with
others regardless of what I am doing. 1 do not mean
to say that I will be careless in what I say, but I plan to
be open and helpful and ready to accept others
criticism o r evaluation.
4.3 I plan to speak up, but still try to listen. In teaching
it will help me very much to feel out the attitude of the
class and aid in my communication in parent-teacher,
teacher-teacher, and student-teacher relationships.
4.4 Probably in evaluating my own reactions honestly and
really trying to see why 1 react as I do. Also to try to
be the type of person that people see as welcoming
their opinions and perception of me. Hope that I don’t
scare them away from being honest with me.
159
4. 5 Attempt to move down from the intellectualizing into
the realm of action. It is too easy to assum e that
talking about strengths and weaknesses is sufficient.
The m ost difficult phase is yet to com e--and that
consists of making a concerted effort to be what we say
we hope to become.
4. 6 Give m ore of m yself and express my feelings about
different things. Not avoiding problems by helping
others but face it squarely. Although I will still help
others if 1 can but not for the sam e selfish reason as
before.
4.7 I plan to be m ore open with my family, associates, and
p e e rs. I plan to try and have m ore of a feeling of
rapport and understanding and to be honest; and to
contribute to conversations and groups whenever I feel
the need to.
4.8 I hope that I will look m ore objectively at my own
behavior and realize my own short comings. Also I
hope I can stop m yself from myself. Stop m yself from
hurting m yself as well as others.
4.9 Try out these new insights, so if they fail, that's O.K. --
I'm hard headed, I'll try again.
4.10 Through this experience in a group 1 feel a better
understanding of how a group operates and the attitudes
they acquire from other personalities in the group.
When talking to others I think I will be more sensitive
to them and how they might react to my given attitudes
and how I relate them.
5. In what areas do you feel you would like to have gotten more
help in the sem inar program?
5.1 I feel you met my needs as I realize them. Another
year perhaps would be better for me so I would be at
another point in my life I could be helped to take other
step s.
160
5.2 I would like to have seen our T-group advance to the
stage of forming a group with some goals to which all
of us would have been interested. However, I do think
we accomplished better relationships among the
m embers of the group.
5.3 When we fell silent I would like to have known what to
do. At first I felt really at a loss; I could not sta rt on
a topic because 1 would feel insecure.
5.4 I feel I would like to have had m ore feedback on how
people perceive me. And perhaps more insight as to
why people feel I don't need them. Also would like
m ore help in group procedure, but this was my lack in
reading on the subject m ore than the total group
problem.
5. 5 Learning to accept the faults of others--too often one
states that they accept the person, but immediately
begin to depict the shortcomings of the individual. Think
less about how you perceive others, and concentrate
on improving one's own insights about himself.
5.6 I would have liked m ore feedback and yet I didn’t know
how to open myself up so that the group could give me
feedback.
5.7 I wish that I could have opened up m ore so that I could
have received m ore feedback as to my interaction with
the group. Although I can say I am not dissatisfied
with the group. I cannot put my finger on it but it has
been a most meaningful experience. For one thing, I
didn’t feel I really needed to open up a whole lot to
realize that people would say I am quiet. One of the
aspects of this situation most helpful was filling out the
evaluation papers each session. These questions
really caused me to reflect upon many aspects in my
own personality, things that I have never thought of
before. In fact, if I had of [sic] answered many of
these questions without taking this class, I would never
be writing so openly. This, I feel, has carried over
into my interpersonal relations with people.
161
5.8 I would like to have gotten more feedback regarding
my participation. 1 want to know whether I offended
anyone by my over-willingness to talk and contribute.
I wish I could have gotten m ore insight into others'
perceptions of my reactions to criticism .
5.9 In ways that others see me as a whole person--not
just one phase. In how I do relate to a person--do 1
bore them, antagnoize them, encourage them, confuse
them.
5.10 In being sensitive and aware of others’ needs. This
is very important to me for I have a tendency to be
self-centered and it’s difficult for me to get out of
my own situation and into someone else’s.
6. As you know, this type of workshop or sem inar experience is
still somewhat novel to many organizations, agencies, and
churches. What recommendations would you make concerning
future educational experiences of this kind?
6.1 I think a group of this type would be good earlier in
the school year for student teachers. This would be
good for young people, m arried people, etc. I wished
you could offer this to our churches for sm all groups.
Your weekend trips would be a start. Perhaps family
groups would also be a good start so families could
better understand all ages.
6.2 I have enjoyed this type of an experience and it has
been very helpful to me. 1 believe this type of an
experience can be helpful in organizations, agencies,
and churches. I believe this type of experience helps
to improve relationships among and in these groups.
6. 3 That when we would meet in the large group that we
could become m ore free. To do this the atmosphere
has to be the sam e as in the T-groups. To help
achieve this I feel the two instructors should split up
plus the two T-groups should intermingle m ore.
162
6.4 More group discussion on dynamics of group in
operation. Know what to look for in the procedure
and relationships of people. If everyone w ere made
aware of types of "ro le s” we might be m ore conscious
of what we a re doing and the way we are reacting in
the group.
6.5 Perhaps, to educate the students prior to taking the
class. Some individuals feel they have not accomplished
anything, because of the lack of structure. A form at is
not obvious o r stated; therefore, many feel that the
situation has proved inelevant [sic]. The way we p e r
ceive others is not necessarily the way they a re l
6.6 I think the sem ester before Student Teaching would be
better. The last eight weeks of the sem ester or som e
thing like this. T here wouldn't be the other p ressure
that all of us have felt.
6. 7 For this type of situation it is m ost im portant to have a
well-qualified and insightful leader. This type of situa
tion is so beneficial in that you are actually finding out
how you react to others and how others react to you in
a group and why or why not you are accepted and how
and why you can contribute effectively to the group.
6.8 I think that if you ever use this with student teachers
again, do it when they are not so involved with student
teaching. Maybe a sem ester before, would be easier
for them. I felt like the next day 1 w asn't rested enough,
especially when I was so involved the night before. More
time in the T sessions. I really don't know, som e
times we needed m ore tim e and som etim es we didn't.
6.9 I don't see too much value in spending as much time in
the whole group. I believe this could be shortened by
one-half hour to forty-five minutes. Eat your meal
and move into the T-group sessions.
6.10 I think it's g re a t--1 want to take another! I definitely
feel though, that it should be lim ited to graduate
students and some seniors o r all seniors that a re truly
interested. More time should be spent in background
reading!
Education 195a: GROUP AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
(Blue Group)
Describe what experience(s) stand out most vividly in this
sem inar. Please be as detailed as you wish in describing the
experience(s) and your reaction.
1.1 One of the greatest experiences of my life was found
in the T-Group, and that was when I came to the
realization that a sincere concern for people is neces
sary for a really complete life. Closely related was
an event in this last session. One member of the
group let her b arriers down and told of her cynical
thoughts on life. I wanted to help her very badly, but
it would have been inappropriate to the group so I did
not say anything. I wish there would be something I
could do for her in the future.
1.2 The thing that stands out most in my mind about the
experience in the T-Group is the way we got so
personal and feelings were hurt. I don't feel that this
was what the group was to accomplish.
1. 3 The feeling that others have sim ilar experiences and
feelings has helped me to gain self-confidence in
myself. The feelings of like and dislike changed from
meeting to meeting and it was interesting to see and
analyze these feelings. A closeness and an empathy
with others helped my understandings of those with
opposing viewpoints.
1.4 The idea of being open and truthful as to how another's
behavior effects a person. The experience of hearing
views of different mem bers has been very interesting.
The experience of trying to understand why a person
feels such and such and accepting this person--this
idea has been brought out to me and I'm trying to be
m ore accepting and understanding. The freedom in
this experience has brought us as a group closer and
m ore aware of people as individuals.
164
1. 5 When in our T-Group, Marianne and Georgine forced
Joyce to come out and also preceding this when
Georgine was aggressive towards Joyce. I felt hostile
or angry towards them, felt they were pushing too far.
Felt if person is ready, okay. If not, let ALONE!
1. 6 The experience that will stand out most in my mind is
the trip to the mountains. I liked seeing people up
there, relaxed and in an informal setting. In the
sessions on Saturday it was helpful to hear what they
had to say and find out that they had much the same
feelings as you did.
1.7 a. Watching a group develop with feelings of care
and empathy was a total outstanding experience.
I was glad to see this development. I came in a
very defensive, critical attitude--I ended with
the realization of the value of a group learning
such as we had.
b. My strong emotional feelings were given to the
group. I discovered how intolerable I am of
conflict. Perhaps revealing myself to myself
was a vivid experience.
c. During group development, the warm feelings
toward others was expressed. I gained confi
dence in myself because of openness and gained
confidence in others.
1. 8 Hurt feelings twice--once when I was cross in trying
to help a shy girl get involved in the group--once
because my honest feedback made another even m ore
hostile than she had been, and she admitted she
never liked me. I wondered why--though I think I
know. She was unable to tell me. I think the differ
ence between us is as fundamental as worldliness and
spirituality and really is not personal, but right now
I can’t help taking it personally. I feel crushed, as
though I really don’t belong out among the world of
people which I have loved, for I might register as
negatively there as I do here. Perhaps this hurt
tonight will be helpful in the long run. Right now it
seems to have shaken my confidence in my ability
ever to relate to people.
165
1.9 The experience of when one gets to know someone
better, they like the person m ore than they thought
they did. The experience of being able to be myself.
The experience of our T-Group setting our own
climate and how it works now, but in another situa
tion, I’m doubtful! (Time will tell. )
2. What experience(s) do you now feel was most helpful to you--
why?
2.1 No one experience has been m ore helpful to me than
another. All of the experiences encounterd in the
class and T-Group have combined to assist me tr e
mendously. They have made me feel accepted by the
group, and I feel that 1 have been an important member.
2.2 The most helpful experiences to me were when
Marianne probed and made me talk or gave me the
opportunity to express myself when I felt under
"w rap s."
2.3 Basically, the experience that others' viewpoints were
no better than mine and that what I had to say was
worthwhile after all. Basically, I gained a self-
confidence I have needed for a long time.
2. 4 Freedom to express some things as to how I feel and
having them accepted. 1 feel m ore confident of
myself. The experience of getting to know others
and like them.
2.5 I don’t know if it was so helpful at tim es, but hearing
feedback actually learning or knowing HOW someone
really precures me or know me.
2.6 In one of the sessions I gave a great deal of inform a
tion about myself and got a lot of good feedback. Also
there were things said during sessions, while we were
eating and other things that were said when we were
together that have helped me see that I am thought well
of and 1 was shown how I could improve to become a
better person.
166
2.7 a. When the group reacted to one another in the
group, it was helpful.
b. When the group m em bers perceived character
traits which were NOT desirable in myself, I
tended at first to reject them, then to accept
their reactions.
c. The group helped me to see myself a little
clearer.
2.8 I feel the need of watching my words m ore than I ever
have in my life. This experience has shown me that
that is the area where I offend most.
2.9 I enjoyed being in a group where I became acquainted
with m ore people. I enjoyed being myself and finding
that others like this quality in others.
3. On what problem of concern to you did you receive the most
help during the sem inar?
3.1 I received most help on two problems that 1 was not
consciously concerned with: (1) a love for people,
(2) confidence in myself. On a problem which I
consciously entered with, I received most help in
being able to accept each individual person as they
are, and not trying to improve them but to adjust to
them.
3.2 I was considered quiet by the group, and it made me
feel better when ones who knew me better said that
they didn’t perceive me this way. They felt I would
speak if I had anything to say.
3.3 a. I gained a feeling of being able to take charge in
a group.
b. I learned to be m ore tolerant of others' viewpoints
and to be more understanding of them.
c. I learned to be m ore tolerant toward conflict and
antagonism in a group.
d. I learned that others perceived me as cold at first
but then learned that 1 was really a warm person.
1 was just afraid or lacked self-confidence.
e. Most important gain-- self-confidence.
167
3. 4 The problem I had of not having my ideas and self-
accepted.
3.5 In my feelings of communication with others I learned
I could be effective in a group, my ideas accepted and
myself as an individual and a member accepted. I
learned I had worthwhile information to share, that I
was not inferior.
3.6 I feel that I have had a negative attitude about life that
was slowly building up and I did not realize it. This
group helped me find it for myself and it helped me
see people m ore positively.
3. 7 The problem of trusting people and liking people even
if I know their faults. Basically I distrusted people,
even persons who expressed a deep concern. I've felt
unworthy of this care. I've always felt and still do to
a certain extent if I open myself up completely I will
not be liked. I know of no other reason for this other
than insecurity and inferiority feelings. I've stopped
expecting people to be perfect. I want to accept
everyone for them selves.
3. 8 Seeing myself as others see me. I had thought I was
better than I was rated by the others. So it is helpful
to have an honest, bird's-eye view of me. I had
thought my personal relations were fine--maybe they
need more work than I had thought. I mean, I see that
they do. I feel carried back to gram m ar school days
when, as a rowdy, only child I was always knocking
someone down in some hilarious game and had no
friends at all. Later, there seemed to be many real
friends. Now, I doubt everything. Oh, I know people
like m e--they have shown they do--even said right out
they do before this happened, but right now I hurt too
much to see clearly.
3.9 At first I wondered just what all this was about. Never
having a class like this, it was different. I also had
mixed emotions about the reality of these T-Group
sessions. As I look back, I see there are areas where
this type of learning is good for some areas. In these
168
areas I was helped. I was given m ore self-confidence
in a "strange" group.
4. What do you now propose to do with your learning when you are
back on-the-job?
4.1 The things which I have learned are extrem ely valuable
to me and I will be able to use them throughout the re st
of my life. (1) My real love for people is a necessary
part of every C hristian's life. (2) My self-confidence
has enabled me to look at others and m yself m ore
objectively, and my relations with others a re better
as a result.
4.2 I don’t really feel I learned anything that would help me
because I am completely different in other group
situations. I don't feel I have to talk if I don't want it,
as I felt in this class.
4 .3 I hope to be able to use it and continue to grow in the
areas I found I needed to grow in.
4.4 To be m yself as best 1 can and to continue to become
m ore aware of others' needs and to try to understand
why people feel as they do. To analyze my own
behavior as to why 1 act certain ways and to improve
bad behavior I feel I have.
4. 5 T ry to apply that feedback that was helpful. To be
m ore perceptive of others, understand them better
and perhaps tru st them m ore.
4 .6 I plan to use this class as a starting point to help me
be a better person and relate better with other people.
I feel I have a better concept of m yself and can depend
on m yself as being a m ore helpful person.
4.7 a. T ry to be m ore acceptive and perceptive toward
o th ers.
b. T ry to "feel" with other people.
c. Look at m yself--before I judge others.
d. 1 hope to be a better, m ore understanding
individual because of this experience.
Each child, each persion 1 would like to treat them
169
like they (each one) w ere real important to me [sic].
4.8 I feel like crawling back into my shell into my home
where I have a family who loves me (at least 1 think
they do). One feels totally alone in a hostile universe,
a lost, existential feeling at a moment like this. The
necessity for studying has forced me to neglect any
meaningful relationships outside of school. All I have
are my family and the casual school relationships. If
they are so poor, where do I belong? Among people
or home where 1 can forget about those who hurt; where
I can allow in only the beautiful people--the ra re ones
who care (probably not out in the world as a career
teacher).
4.9 I have m ore confidence in being a member of any
group. I am at ease in any group whether as a p artic
ipator or observer.
5. In what areas do you feel you would like to have gotten m ore
help in the sem inar program?
5.1 I feel that I received adequate help in every needed
area. The re st is up to me.
5.2 I would have liked to had help in the area of getting
m ore self-confidence, getting over feelings of
inferiority.
5.3 I feel that the rating sheet was not consistent with the
general feedback I got from the T-Group.
5.4 I would like to know m ore about a program like we’ve
experienced--to know m ore about the tactics in
changing behavior and being open in a good way to
people. I would have liked to have heard more
information from our instructors. I enjoyed very
much what the instructors said and would have liked
to hear m ore from them.
5.5 In my m annerism s and learning to evaluate my negative
feelings about myself. To learn if others perceive me
in the same light.
170
5. 6 The one point I feel weak in is my dating life. I felt
1 should not bring this problem up because it did not
relate to the whole group, at least not everyone in the
group. Now that I have finished this class I want to
start dating m ore and I think I will be happier if I
can date m ore.
5.7 a. Was mentioned in the T-Group. A tally of the
opinions of others would be helpful.
b. I would have liked m ore people to react to m e--
slow ly--I don't feel I could take a great deal of
criticism gracefully.
c. I feel I was helped as much as possible--as far
as the group developed.
5.8 In the area of the literature on the subject. . . .
If all had read the books we might have had m ore
meaningful experiences in the T-Groups. Also, all
this business of evaluation should have been fed back
to us at each meeting (the personal scoring by other
members]T It would have helped us, I think. O ther
wise, why did we have to do it, except to benefit the
leaders (and observers) so they would know how to
guide the total group better? It didn’t seem very
helpful to us.
5.9 -------
6. As you know, this type of workshop or sem inar experience is
still somewhat novel to many organizations, agencies, and
churches. What recommendations would you make concerning
future educational experiences of this kind?
6.1 This type of experience should be required of every
college student somewhere along the line, either on
the undergraduate o r graduate level.
6. 2 I would suggest that the leaders keep subjects from
becoming so personal. Group experiences could be
discussed without hurting feelings and making people
feel like they aren 't being them selves.
171
6. 3 I would like to have a complete analysis of the T-
Group m em bership Progress rating sheet. The one
we have was not sufficient.
6.4 A little m ore knowledge as to this type of experience--
how it has worked and what to be aware of in this type
of experience.
6. 5 Have a poll sheet. Evaluation sheet at beginning and
at the end so there could be a com parison--a so rt of
basis of ground or concrete information to see how we
agreed.
6. 6 The only comment 1 can think of is that I would like
m ore T-Group tim e. I felt that this class has helped
me a great deal. When possible I would like to try
this type of experience in school or church.
6. 7 a. Ask the group to establish somewhat valid reasons
for being.
b. Goals should be established.
c. More definite learning in mind.
d. A planned life is m ore valuable than a haphazard
life--learning applies to this III
6.8 The above is my best suggestion. Let each person
know the feedback (on the w ritten evaluations) of each
other m em ber. Make them read the books. I don’t
know how you can do this, but the books give the real
purpose of the experience.
6.9 I think constant feedback on the m aterials we filled out
after each session would help the group, at least our
group.
172
A Summary of Responses to the
"Final Evaluation Questionnaire"
The words "accept" o r "acceptance" were used often in the
responses of the participants. Since "self-acceptance” was an
expected outcome of this training, an enumeration of the responses
using these term s is of interest.
"I feel I now accept myself. . . . "
"I was 'learning to accept m yself' (in this experience). It
was quite helpful to learn ’that everyone wanted to be accepted. ’"
"I have to accept m yself before others can accept m e."
"I received the most help on 'the problem of being
accepted.1"
"Learning to accept the faults of others. "
". . . i n this type of situation you find why you are or a re
not accepted."
" . . . the experience of trying to understand . . . a
person . . . and accepting this person" (was helpful).
"I'm trying to be m ore accepting."
"It was helpful to 'express things and have them accepted.'"
"It was helpful to accept their reactions."
"I received most help in being able to accept each individual
person as they are. " [sic]
173
I was helped on the "problem of not having my ideas and
self accepted."
"I learned I could be effective in a group, my ideas
accepted, and myself . . . accepted."
"I want to accept everyone for themselves [sic]. "
"I propose to be m ore accepting. "
Other comments which appear to be indications of increased
self-acceptance were:
This new "environment helped me relate m ore to myself. "
This experience "has helped me gain self-confidence."
I received most help in "confidence in m yself.”
"1 was given m ore self-confidence."
"1 feel I have a better concept of myself and can depend on
myself as being a m ore helpful person."
"I gained confidence in myself because of openness. "
From responses to questions "5" and "6" the following
suggestions relative to suggestions and recommendations w ere
gleaned:
1. Two participants desired m ore time in T-Groups.
2. Four comments w ere related to the desire for m ore
discussion and presentation of knowledge on group
dynamics with one student suggesting a "pre-education"
173
I was helped on the "problem of not having my ideas and
self accepted."
"I learned I could be effective in a group, my ideas
accepted, and m yself . . . accepted."
"1 want to accept everyone for them selves [sic]."
"I propose to be m ore accepting. "
Other comments which appear to be indications of increased
self-acceptance were:
This new "environment helped me relate m ore to m yself."
This experience "has helped me gain self-confidence."
I received most help in "confidence in m yself."
"I was given m ore self-confidence."
"I feel I have a better concept of m yself and can depend on
m yself as being a m ore helpful p erso n ."
"1 gained confidence in m yself because of openness. "
From responses to questions "5" and "6" the following
suggestions relative to suggestions and recommendations were
gleaned:
1. Two participants desired m ore time in T-Groups.
2. Four comments w ere related to the d esire for m ore
discussion and presentation of knowledge on group
dynamics with one student suggesting a "pre-education"
174
experience.
3. Four or five comments were related to a desire for
m ore structure: "More goals should have been
established."
4. Some suggested that this experience should have
preceded student teaching for optimal benefit.
5. Two comments indicated some displeasure that the
discussion had been too personal, yet two or three
others suggested they desired m ore "personal
feedback."
6. Two people expressed the desire for m ore consistent
feedback from questionnaires, while one student
seemed to resent having to fill them out.
7. Many expressed the desire for m ore opportunities in
this type of experience.
8. It would appear that only two of the participants were
negative toward sensitivity training (blue group
respondees numbers two and eight). However, the
six respondees of these two people indicate consider
able ambivalence.
APPENDIX I
EXCERPTS OF T-GROUP SESSION R3
176
EXCERPTS OF T-GROUP SESSION R3
The following excerpts of a T-Group session were recorded
in shorthand by one of the observers of the "Red" group without the
participants' knowledge. This was the third session of the group: it
took place Saturday morning of the week-end training experience.
The m em bers, as usual, were seated around a square group of
tables. Numbers are used in place of names to provide anonymity.
Horizontal lines indicate a lapse of tim e. The research trainer, or
facilitator, is referred to as R .T .
2. (Talking to R. T . , quietly).
8. What do you think of discussing our conversations in the T-Group
outside the T-Group? I heard someone discussing what we do in
T-Group sessions to someone in another T-Group. I felt 1 don't
want to tell what 1 say because these things are confidential.
5. I was not aware that it was that confidential.
9. Being unsure myself, I might be more apt to talk to 16 since she
is a friend of mine. I felt she could tell me about my reactions,
and we are all involved in T-Groups up here.
8. 1 do it myself, but I happened to hear someone. Now I'm being
defensive. I wonder if I was the only one.
10. It was in relation to our own reactions.
1. In playing cards last night we were rather open too, but they
w ere, again, different people than our T-Group.
4. It was almost half and half.
1. Sometimes we did discuss the T-Group situation.
5. How does the situation outside the T-Group differ? Our c riti
cism s are both positive and negative, and we feel no pain; but in
the rather social situation do you tend to pat people on the back?
177
1. We were completely relaxed in the card game, and it didn't
m atter what we said. When we are in the T-Group we just
withdraw a little.
3. When you are playing cards it is so relaxing. I'm afraid that
I'm going to be analyzed, and there it wasn't the same type
of session. We were m ore relaxed.
5. How can we involve all the m em bers in the group (said while
referring to notes written some time previous)? I do a lot of
talking and maybe monopolizing; and if this is the case, then it
is not a favorable situation because we all do not express our
viewpoints. And we want to learn about everyone.
7. I feel you are speaking directly to me. There isn't too much
form ality but situations like this, to me, are threatening.
4. The first night 1 couldn't find a place to break through. When
you start to say something someone else will start.
1. You don't have to worry about whether it's right or wrong.
7. I'm finding this out and it is reassuring. It's really enjoyable
if I can once let down the b arrier.
2. Sometimes you wait too long and they are on a different subject.
RT Are you m ore at ease now, 7?
7. Yes, I feel more accepted and comfortable.
RT Did you welcome 5's rem ark?
7. It was helpful to me.
4. It has helped me to be with our group. Out of this situation we
talk to them. I think we don't know a lot of kids like we should.
This helps us create communication.
RT 4 is saying "Don't you think? . . . This is what I think."
5. Yes, "I want you to be on my side, to substantiate."
178
RT "Don't you think I'm right when I tell you that? . . . " It's
normal to do this. You are saying that we are all in the same
boat.
3. 1 can't express it too well. 5 started; then 7; then 4. It made
it easier for all of us when 5 said what he did. I'm afraid of 7
and 6 because I know they are thinking and not m issing a thing
but they don't say anything. I'm curious to know. It helps just
to hear people say something. I appreciate 5 making the
opportunity.
6. The other night I had something to say. I always wait until
somebody finishes.
4. You almost have to be rude sometimes.
9. A group situation is very helpful. You need to know other
people your own age better. Perhaps by being in this group we
will be better in our own social groups.
RT Are you saying that after this experience, perhaps you will have
a different relationship with all people?
9. 1 think so.
2. What main points have we covered?
4. Last night we realized that listening to what is being said is very
important.
RT To answer your question: I heard you ask two things. (1) What
has been happening? When I go back home, how can I tell them?
2. I don't feel it has been a waste.
RT And (2) In a sense are they different from us? Are they (the
other T-Group had just been discussed) getting ahead faster
than we are? If they know something we don't know, fine, but
we may be ahead of them. We are not quite sure. 5 brought 7
in. 3 brought 6 in. . So here is one thing that has happened.
Somebody became aware that someone was not talking. We
tested it to see if she liked it and she said "Y es." So 3 did it
179
to 6. So we found it became easier for them to come in after
they felt invited in.
1. I felt before this group that we could never have asked anyone
why they have not spoken. We have learned.
All Yes, oh yes.
9. 5 has a tactful way of communicating with people.
5. You don't know!
Others Yes (Group encouragement to 5).
RT What happened the last thirty seconds?
1. We complimented 5. He was glad for the compliment but he
didn't want to show it. Sometimes people are afraid to accept
a compliment.
3. (Not heard).
5. When compliments came, all I had to do is look at one person
and I felt this person can see through me and he sees that this
is a front. This is a feeling 1 get. Suppose 1 come out and
make a criticism that hurts someone, this person might say
this is the true 5 coming out.
9. 1 didn't suspect. I wouldn't suspect that anyhow. Your overall
picture is one of kindness and tact, but you are honest. 1 feel
if you hurt it would be inadvertently.
10. When we are in a situation where we are not in this group and
associating socially if we have all along thought that he was
hurting, it would carry over. If he is in his other situations,
he would carry over too.
RT (Asked 9 about 5's reaction--not heard by recorder). Often
when we a re complimenting people you get this: If you think
I am this way, then I have got to live up to it.
2. You do feel this way. You build up a reserv e that you can fall
back on.
180
RT Are you saying that compliments do not always do what we think
they do?
9. We ought to be m ore aware. (Example: compliments from
husband). We should be m ore careful when people are
genuinely sincere and we should give a genuine response.
2. Sometimes we get overm odest. 1 don't know why. Sometimes
you think people dislike you but if you in return show that you
realize this in yourself then maybe they think "big head!"
3. Sometimes compliments are not really compliments. (Example:
party where she came in with newly done hair style). I felt that
they w ere saying, "Your hair doesn’t always look good and now
it d o es."
1. We read into people's statem ents a lot of what they don’t mean.
2. Some days you are m ore sensitive to people than other days.
I’m not so concerned with m yself today and so I can see m ore
in someone else.
9. . . . I genuinely like you, 3; you are in a habit of underrating
yourself. Take a compliment for what it is. Everything is a
m atter of habit in business. And m arriage is like this. You
need to do these things in your m arriage and in everyday life.
7. If you take compliments negatively and always have a negative
attitude, you find people won’t even want to give you any. It
makes a person feel good if you graciously accept it. Many
tim es they really honestly mean it. Have faith and tru st. If
you are sensitive, you can tell if they don’t mean it.
RT Are you saying som etim es when we depreciate ourselves,
really what we are saying is "Say something nice about me,
disagree with me. ” So this is one style of fishing for
compliments?
4. Isn’t it a defense mechanism? The way we accept a compli
ment. Sometimes we will be defending ourselves because we
know we a re not that way all the tim e. We really appreciate
it, but we accept it in a negative way. . . . (pause)
RT Are you uncomfortable?
181
4. I'm clear in my thoughts.
1. Communication!
3. It isn 't the area of compliments but how you communicate. I'm
afraid they are thinking the same way and I know how they are
going to react. So I don’t want to say the sam e thing to them.
So I'm afraid of the way they are going to react. They may
take me as insincere. When I write my sister a letter and say
I'm so proud of what she is doing I wonder if maybe she is
thinking I am envious.
4. Do you go through this? I don't.
3. I have a hard time trusting people.
8. (Questioning 3 --not heard).
3. I do this with every guy I date.
8. Is there a background?
3. Part of it is feeling so rry for myself. I have been stomped on.
I have been hurt by friends or boys o r parents. I’m always
cautious--I don't trust. I'll have them doing things over and
over again until I can believe it.
5. When you approach someone, do you approach them with: "I am
going to see what they will be lik e ." You are saying the sam e
way I look at it. I'm apprehensive. I am testing a lot to see
their reaction.
RT If we could follow th is, maybe the reason some people react to
us the way they do is because they know they are being trusted.
When people say, "I don't trust you,” I wonder if this, in
itself, would tend to cause a certain type of behavior. When
people do not trust us we tend not to be trustworthy. Maybe, 3,
the reason people behave toward you the way they do is because
you don't trust them so they act the way you expect.
3. I haven't lived as a herm it and Don is the only person who
called me that. I have known 2 and she caught it. I don’t open
myself too freely to people. I don't know what they are going
to do with it once they have it.
182
9. I've never thought of people thinking that way because I'm
honest in my relationships to everyone. I've never thought of
this myself.
4. I don't either.
9. I don’t mean to be criticizing but I would be so upset all the
time.
4. And I would be afraid to be myself.
3. But if you don't know a person is doing it . . . (pause).
RT I hear all of us saying we don't fool people much.
2. We all do a little bit of it rath er unconsciously. Some people
I wouldn't say some things to. T here has been tenseness and
no m atter how honest you are they. . . . T here are many
things I would not say to my Freshm en in the dorm (she is in
charge of a dorm). I communicate another way with my
Freshm en. If I would throw out to Freshm en what I think,
they would be flabbergasted and I would not have the rapport.
You are not really testing them.
RT Could it be that our attitude toward people is part of the control
factor as to how they react to us. People really see when we
don’t tru st them. . . .
10. But you still have this feeling. You just can't pull the b a rrie rs
down. Previous experience enters into it so much. T hat's
what I am really having trouble with.
1. Up to a year ago I wouldn't communicate. Maybe when I was a
child they laughed at me. I used to stay anonymous.
2. Sometimes you have to take things alm ost on faith. This is
something I have a strong problem with. Saying of course I
believe you and really believeing them. If you can’t do that,
you are fighting yourself.
3. It is easier in your situation. There are not that many people
that I really d istrust, because I am not that much involved. I
think you will realize it happens to all of us. When something
happens and it has happened before. Don may be just kidding
183
and . . . 1 have a hard time if it is a sim ilar situation to one
before. I have a hard tim e believing that this time it will be
different. I'll just wait and see. You see the sam e thing
building up again. Like a salad dressing that went sour--you
don't buy that kind again.
2. But you can't keep continuing.
1. But just one good experience is not enough to break it down.
2. If you are somewhat distrustful, you read things into a situation
when it may be very honest. You can build up so much in your
mind.
10. I don't think it is so much they don’t like you as it is their
actions a re different from what they say. You still feel a
positive elem ent but the negative kind of topples you over. One
end is too heavy.
2. 1 believe certain people are against you. I don't mean you
should be stupid, but I mean you should develop m ore of a
trusting attitude.
9. Sometimes you have to use a little bit of tact in a group
situation. It wouldn’t bother me a bit to sit down with two or
three and have lunch, but I wouldn't intrude m yself on 8 because
I don't know 8. I would feel I am an outsider coming in. Our
situation is completely different so I think you need tact. But I
guess I don't have enough on the ball. But it would never enter
my head to have anybody think I was not honest o r it would not
occur to me not to be over and over again friendly even if I have
been hurt.
6. I was always friendly at home. If you say "Hi" to a boy here,
they think you are chasing him. In New Mexico it was
different. I was used to exchanging at home. So this has
caused me to curl back into my shell.
RT We are working on trust. I hear 6 say the society in which you
moved was free and easy and you could relate girl-boy, girl-
girl without people thinking you had a long-range goal in mind
and now here things are different. Maybe the process of
growing up forces work on us and it is a pressu re that works
on all of us.
184
8. 9, why wouldn't you have lunch with me?
9. I would want you to ask me first. 3 gave me some kind of
communication that 1 felt from the beginning. Maybe because
I know her m ore. I feel older than you and I feel we don"t have
much in common. I like you as a person, but I feel like you
are not very interesting to me and you feel I am not interesting
to you. I would never seek out someone else. But when I was
in school I used to sit at the table with anybody. I just like
people very much. But I wouldn’t want to intrude.
RT I hear 9 saying "1 feel easy to relate to people who have the
sam e problems I have." So she is closer to 3 who talks about
the same things she felt but that she hadn't felt this in 8.
10. When we all laughed it made everyone feel so much more at
ease.
RT What makes groups laugh?
3. When the first session started we laughed at almost everything
because we were nervous. Sometimes 1 feel that I’m just not
going to laugh and everyone else does and so I find myself doing
it too.
10. You try to explain what was so humorous and it doesn't go over.
2. If you say it was funny at the time. . . .
3. 1 tell Don. . . .
7. When we were laughing it was a good feeling. As soon as we
stopped I felt uneasy, because you have to get started all over.
10. When you start talking about something and you have all had
sim ilar happenings it brings people closer. You feel a real
kinship.
RT Laughing is a unifying force.
10. Afterwards you wonder what they are thinking and who is going
to talk next. Should I?
185
3. Would you hand me some feedback, 5? You have been very
objective. I am putting you on the spot I realize. Do you think
we are rambling?
5. I was relating everything to one question: It is a pretty big one:
Am I what other people think I am o r am I what_I_ think I am?
Do I need other people to tell me o r can I say to m yself I am a
great guy o r a lousy guy? Is it necessary for others to give
you an evaluation? And I gather that it is im portant. Man has
to have a feedback.
9. It is good for me to say it to you, and it is good for you to hear
it.
1. I like people to tell me I have done a good job once in a while.
RT One of our problems is all of us need confirmation from our
friends that we are what we think we are. It reinforces the
image we have of ourselves.
3. Sometimes to change the image. Sometimes I like to think I am
better than I am. I purposely do things to get a positive
reaction.
1. When I was at the academy my m aster teacher told me I did a
good job. This helps me to go all out for this sem ester of
teaching.
RT R eferring to 9 and 5 interaction on com plim ents. Compliments
a re quite difficult to handle. Most of us have trouble with
them. We all have defense m echanism s. Maybe the thing
about a compliment that is not helpful is that it is not specific
enough. Perhaps compliments would be m ore helpful if we were
m ore specific. Example: Trying to praise people not with a
globular compliment but with a specific thing. The other day a
speaker in chapel finished with a sense of failure. I said to
him, "I feel you believe what you said ." In this way I was
congruent. He and I both knew he didn't do a good job of
communicating. Maybe the reaction we get will be different
from the defensiveness if we can do this.
8. Sometimes when someone compliments me I appreciate it. Don
didn’t compliment me and it bothered me. One day I said,
"Why don't you compliment me m ore?" He said, "Sometimes
186
I think you're used to being complimented and 1 don't think it
means as much to you." But when someone compliments me I
don't feel it is enough to say "thank you." I want them to see
how much it means to me. That to me is a problem. How do
1 let them know that I mean, "Thank you, it meant a lo t."
5 gets em barrassed, but 1 really meant it.
RT What if 5 had said to you, "I really need that" and not come
back with "I don't think you really meant that?"
8. Do people expect that?
RT Try to say next time you go to church, "Say, that was a great
serm on" and watch them squirm . Then instead say, "The
illustration you used . . . such and such . . . really helped
me this morning and 1 want to thank you for it ." Different
reaction!
8. I'll try it.
9. Sometimes it is a way to get acquainted too. It was easy for
me to say I liked her sw eater (8's), and I do it often to people I
don't know. I felt more at ease.
8. L ast night on the evaluation sheet I put you down as being most
friendly too. I thought I understood you better. I felt I had
gotten through a b arrier that I had built up. At first I didn't
think you were really real. 1 thought you were so idealistic.
Then after you talked we communicated on how you got uneasy
and I have had the sam e feelings and felt w arm er toward you. I
felt good. When I feel uneasy about someone, 1 don't like it.
I feel better when I break through. I have a tendency to be too
critical. I expect too much from people and when they don"t
give it, it bothers me.
1. (Very interested).
6. There is a way you say "thank you,” which to me means
something. 8 shows she feels it.
8. Do I strike you as being cold? That really bothers me.
10. You seemed so self-contained and self-assured.
187
1. Overconfident almost.
10. In my freshm an year when I first met you.
9. I felt you didn't need me.
8. I do. To exist and be happy I need people. They a re vital to
me. I want people to enjoy me. What do I do to give you this
self-contained superior type person? Don't you like anyone to
be self-contained?
9. No. I like them to feel confident.
10. If they don't show they need my friendship, I don't like it.
6. At first I would say that too but now I know different.
10. That threatens me.
8. 9, did I threaten you at first?
9. Oh, man!
8. 5, what do you think about me? Am I the person you were
talking about?
5. (Starting . . . pause).
10. He's trying to think of a way to tell her.
5. Was I referring to you in the very beginning?
3. You looked at someone. Who was it?
5. Well, it was you.
2. It was quite obvious.
5. You seem to have a great deal of control, and I try to have this
kind of control and I like to observe people, not to criticize
but maybe to gain insight into my own behavior. I know many
of the things that have prevailed in this session I have felt the
sam e things and have felt awkward, and I was happy to hear this
expressed because I was afraid to express it myself. I felt as
though whether you have this control or not it was expressed
to me.
8. How did I express it?
5. Unfortunately, you remind me of myself.
6. Sometimes you are envious of people you want to be like. You
say you don't like them but you really do.
2. Are you saying you would like to be m ore like 8?
6. Yes.
1. It seemed every girl took home a bad feeling. (Referring to the
previous T-Group session).
3. I was just sick. 1 was a nervous wreck.
8. Have you been holding something against me?
3. No, I am afraid of what is happening.
8. Did you resent me?
3. Not as a person but what you did to 9. The thing that killed me
inside was when you accused 9.
2. Don't you think it was 9's reaction m ore than 8's talking. If
9 had said, "You’ re wrong, 8."
9. But that's not my way.
3. I was glad 9 spoke back.
8. Why?
5. Just then 8 did the the thing that is indicative of her personality.
"I don't understand you." You have to come in on different
channels. But you have to be concise, 8. Don’t beat around the
bush. W e're not accustomed to it.
189
3. 9 had just made a comment to me about the business man. 8
said, ”9 you are living in the clouds. " 1 just about went
through the ceiling.
1. When 8 rejected 9's ideas and 3 was feeling rejection of her
own ideas.
RT Not only do we react to people and their ideas but there may be
another level. Some of us may have a lower pain threshold.
9 says conflict makes her nervous. And 3 was saying she was
sick. Other people say they like to sta rt things to see what
will happen. If this is so, then we should be aw are of it. If
somebody we work with is sensitive to conflict, we have to be
cautious of using conflict as a device to create interpersonal
relationships.
9. T here are a lot of things wrong with me that could be definitely
helped.
8. I didn't give you a chance to develop it.
9. But we didn’t know each other.
8. I was too fast.
9. We need to be loved and show our love in everything we do,
before we can be any help.
8. I really like everyone in this group. Sometimes I take it for
granted that people see this.
6. You don't want to tell people that you want them but you want
them to tell you they want you.
8. I felt left out at the beginning of this discussion. That I was not
needed. I want to know why I felt that way. Did I bring this
on myself? Maybe I identify with 5. I felt his communication.
Was it my own fault that I felt left out? Did I bring it on myself
with 9 and 3, m ostly with 3 because I felt a lack of warmth.
3. I was afraid to tru st you. I put up a little thing, because I
didn't know what you w ere going to do next. I was going to
watch and then I'd do it.
190
8. 1 didn't really have confidence in what you w ere saying. It is
not that I didn’t trust you, but I didn't know if you had completely
thought out what you w ere saying. I'm referrin g to that about
the honor system and even to last night.
3. It's frustrating to me. I know as clear as a bell what I'm
thinking, but I can't get it acro ss. (Recalled 5's stopping group
when 3 and 8 were lacking communication). I think something
in my mind, and when I say it everybody looks at me and says
sta rt over again. Don and I have gone round and round on this.
Somehow something breaks down between my mind and what I
say. I don't think it's much a b a rrie r between persons as
b a rrie r within myself.
RT I feel 3 is afraid to quit. 3, the first thirty seconds you talk
you communicate very well. If you would quit, then I'd know;
but then you are so circular that I get way out in left field.
5. Yes.
All Yes.
2. Sometimes she tends to throw m ore in and it loses me.
RT Maybe we should say to 3, as soon as we get the m essage,
"Got itl" (Raised hand). I hear her very well at first.
10 and 4 You jump around, 3.
2. I think 8 is saying, "Do you really know what you a re saying?"
RT 1 heard 8 say, "Tell me concisely and then quit."
9. It would be well if we could be well-organized. If I thought I
had to be w ell-organized before I could speak, I would never
speak.
1. I feel 9's w orst problem is lack of self-confidence.
5. (To 9) Don't be so sorry.
10. She apologizes.
2 and 8. (Chatting).
191
5. The main thing I like about you is that you are honest. Don't
apologize.
RT I see 9 coming to grips with herself. Doing a very honest
thing. Being willing to be herself. When you a re yourself
I like you.
8. (To 9) 1 think you a re a very charm ing person- 1 wish I w ere
m ore idealistic. It's nice to have that honest sincere faith that
you possess. I have to work toward this. You try to please and
make people comfortable. We a re all different. I'd hate to
think everyone was like me. And 5, we need each other.
RT One of the strengths of a group is that we don't try to be like
one another but be like ourselves and realign our roles, and
where you are strong you lead and where I am strong I’ll lead.
L et's learn where each person is strong.
8. T hat's good.
1. The things we make out. . . .
5. (Not heard).
10. We compared them last night. It was interesting.
5, We made tremendous advancements today.
9. What you said is real im portant to me. I think part of my
outgoing friendliness was because Daddy was top at USC and
my brother too. I never studied that much. I was always
extrem ely asham ed about the fact that I didn't give my best. I
always felt that I couldn't quite make it.
RT (To 9) If I can't do that, I can be 9 (name). I can have
strength of my own. Quit trying to be like your father and
brother. If you a re yourself, you a re worthy personally.
2. Four people: 3, 5, 9, and 8 --we have talked about. The re st
have not become involved.
5. It is up to you as an individual to draw yourself into it. You
have to give.
192
RT If you want to swim, you have to put your suit on.
8. I was not in during al1 -He first part. I have to say, "Come on,
let me in ."
5. If you say nothing, we say, "T hat's a nice person," but we feel
kind of different.
RT Why is this much m ore valuable than "Why don't we have m ore
school spirit at PC? Why don’t the re st of you have some
spirit?" (A topic proposed at first).
6. 9 told me last night "I am glad you listen," but 5 said, "you
will have to talk m ore." I felt if 5 is still in his shell, then I
can come out a little too.
10. I feel I have things within m yself to cope with before I can
interact with someone else.
3. You have to take the chance.
RT (Hand up--device group uses to tell 3 she is understood and
can stop).
5. You came through.
3. I was just getting ready to go again.
5. May I say something?
2. I’m opening m yself up.
5. 1 and 2 can listen too because they a re coming up with logic.
What you said seem s to be reflected upon and shows insight
rather than just what has been happening with the four of us. I
don't think we are wrong, but 2’s emotions are underplayed
(he has turned now to the group) and reflecting. It's a
cognitive thing. More sympathy rather than empathy.
RT I heard 2 say she had a certain relationship with Freshm an
girls, and a different relationship with her peer group. 1
alm ost feel as if you've got us in a separate group. Almost
everything you said is about other people. I haven't seen
anything of you. Now you ask, "Why haven't you talked about
193
m e?” 5 said, '1 haven't seen what you look like yet. Come
out of your shell. ”
5. I accept her for what she said, but she has to come out of her
shell if she wants the other.
2. I thought I have been giving my opinions. Evidently they have
been removed from me.
5. Not necessarily.
3. (Not heard).
2. Maybe it’s my fault.
RT They are not placing any value judgment. But you said, "Why
haven't you said anything about m e?” The "here and now
behavior." Everything you said has been outside the group and
little reference to the "here and now."
7. I've always had the fear that I am going to appear self-centered.
It's hard to open up.
RT Is it religion? The "I" has been preached against so much.
We feel guilty when we say "I have a need."
1. You can't break it overnight.
6. I've always been told things in a religious context.
8. I don't understand.
6. Where I grew up (begins to cry) everything we did wrong was
wrong and it might be right to others.
8. They judged you.
6. For what we did, not for what we were.
8. They didn't let you have the freedom you wanted.
6. Y es.
194
10. Inevitably somebody will say if you have a problem, C hrist
will take care of it. They think you don't have to adjust to
people.
8. I feel bad, 6. I like you. The people that could do this! That
frightens me. To me that would turn me bitter.
10. I've always lived under it and it is very hard. There was
somebody looking in and saying, "You do th is." We were so
threatened that we would do it. T here is so much I do now that
I didn't do then. People told me, "You just don't do right. "
8. Are you afraid to talk because you will be judged?
10. I'm not afraid of you guys. . . . People tear me up so much.
I go back into my shell and don’t care whether I say a word
or not.
RT Do you feel that you could say anything now and people would
accept it?
10. Our whole religious aspect is getting into it. One uncle is
pastor in Bethany; he causes conflict. I got jumped on even
about having my hair short. I try to conform because it is so
threatening not to.
RT Y ou feel m ore comfortable where people allow you to be
yourself.
10. Where I don't have to feel I am competing.
RT We have to fight our way through to where something is real
to us. Follow the path to becoming real 24-carat, 10. The
rew ards a re high.
2. People don't have to approve and it doesn't bother me. (Helpful).
10. I’m quite emotional; I won't say things. I get so involved that
I am afraid I'll cry.
1. It's alm ost looked on as a crim e nowadays. Especially in a
man.
195
9. I wouldn't want you to think you hurt my feelings.
RT But don't people also cry when they are happy?
(Someone noticed it was time for lunch to be served; the group
adjourned itse lf.)
APPENDIX J
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF T-GROUP SESSION R3
197
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF T-GROUP SESSION R3
Some explanation of the facilitator's participation in T-Group
Session R3 may help to further clarify this training method.
In this, as in most T-Group sessions, the facilitator did not
participate in the discussion during the first few minutes. By refusing
to be a "le a d e r," that is, one who might specify agenda and procedure,
e tc ., the facilitator deliberately attempts to create a kind of vacuum.
The bafflement and frustration which result are a part of the learning
process in a T-Group. In their efforts to fill the vacuum in their
T-Group, mem bers expose for examination their characteristic ways
of doing and seeing things.
The facilitator’s first participation in this group was a
question, "Are you more at ease now, 7?" It appears to have been
asked for the purpose of accepting the feelings of 7, who has just
entered into the discussion for the first time in this group. Later he
asks, "A re you comfortable?"
Often the facilitator m erely reflects, or rewords for clarifi
cation, comments made by group m em bers. For example, R .T.:
"A re you saying, . . . " and "I hear 6 saying, . . . " o r "I hear
all of us saying. . . . "
At times the facilitator restates the question asked of him,
198
adding also the implied but not expressed question as well as the one
which was verbalized. For instance: "To answer you: 1 heard you
ask two things. . . . "
Occasionally the facilitator asks the group to analyze the
group dynamics in retrospect: "What happened the last thirty se c
onds?"
In this session the facilitator points out principles of inter
personal relations in a tentative way: "Could it be that. . . . "
As this group began to discuss their own behavior and their
feelings about one another, the facilitator refrained from participat
ing for some period of time. At one point there were thirty-three
verbal interactions involving eight of the ten members of the group
during which time the facilitator made no verbal comments.
Rather consistently this T-Group complied with the
suggestion made at the beginning session that the discussion should
deal with "hear and now behavior and feelings."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRA PHY
1. Akeret, Robert U. "Interrelationships Among Various
Dimensions of the Self-Concept," Journal of Counseling
Psychology, VI, No. 3, 1959.
2. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
"A Proposal for the Revision of the Preservice Profes
sional Component of a Program of Teacher Education."
A project report. Washington, D. C ., September, 1965.
3. Anderson, Harold H. , and Brewer, Helen M. "Studies of
T eachers' Classroom Personalities 1: Dominative and
Socially Integrative Behavior of Kind T eachers." Applied
Psychology Monographs 6. Stanford California:
Stanford University P re ss, 1945.
4. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA.
Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, Yearbook, 1962.
Washington, D. C. ,1962.
5. Barr, Arvil S. "M easurement and Prediction of Teacher
Efficiency: Summary of Investigations, " Journal of
Experimental Education, XVI (June, 1948), pp. 20&-283.
6. Bass, B. "Reactions to 'Twelve Angry Men' as a M easure of
Sensitivity Training," Journal of Applied Psychology
(1962), 46:120-124.
7. Bennis, W arren G. , Schein, Edgar H ., Berlew, David W. , and
Steele, Fred I. Interpersonal Dynamics. Homewood,
Illinois: The Dorsey P ress, 1964.
8. Berger, E. M. "The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance
of Self and Expressed Acceptance of O thers," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology (1952), 47:778-782.
200
201
9. Block, J. , and Thomas, H. "Is Satisfaction with Self a
M easure of Adjustment?" Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology (1955), 51:254-259.
10. Bradford, Leland P ., Gibb, Jack R ., and Benne, Kenneth D.
(eds.). T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
11. Bowers, Norman D ., and Soar, Robert S. "Studies of Human
Relations in the Teaching-Learning P rocess."
U. S. Office of Education Project of the Cooperative
Research Program , 1961,
12. Burke, Richard L . , and Bennis, W arren G. "Changes in
Perception of Self and Others During Human Relations
T raining." Human Relations C enter, Boston University,
1958. (M imeographed.)
13. Butler, John J . , and Haigh, G erard. "Changes in the Relation
Between Self-Concepts and Ideal Concepts Consequent on
Client-Centered Counseling, " Psychotherapy and
Personality Change. Edited by C arl Rogers and Rosalind
F. Dymond. Chicago: University of Chicago, University
of Chicago Press (1954), pp. 55-76
14. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin. Group Dynamics:
R esearch and Theory. White Plains, New York: Row
Peterson, and Company, 1953.
15. Cogan, M orris L. "R esearch for the Behavior of Teachers:
A New Phase," Journal of T eacher Education, XIV
(September, 19o3), pp. 242-243.
16. Combs, A. W ., and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior. 2nd ed.
New York: H arper, 1959.
17. Combs, A. W. "New Horizons in Field Research: The Self-
Concept, " Educational Leadership (February, 1958),
15:315-317.
18. Cook, Desmond L. , LeBold, W illiam, and Linden, James D.
"A Comparison of Factor Analyses of Education and
Engineering Responses to Selected Personality Inven
to rie s," The Journal of Teacher Education, XIV, No. 2
202
(June, 1963), pp. 137-141.
19. Delp, Harold A. "Mental Health of Teachers: Still a Problem?"
The Journal of Teacher Education, XIV, No. 2 (June,
1963), pp. 142-150.
20. Endler, N. S. "Changes in Meaning During Psychotherapy as
M easured by Semantic D ifferential," Journal of
Counseling Psychology, VIII. Toronto, Canada: York
U niversity, 1961, pp. 105-111.
21. Flanders, Ned A. "Interaction Analysis: A Technique for
Quantifying Teacher Influences." A paper delivered at
the AERA Convention, Chicago, Illinois, February, 1961.
22. Fogg, William Edwin. "The Development of Teacher Sensi
tivity to Pupil R eaction." Unpublished dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1956.
23. G assner, Suzanne, Gold, Jerom e, and Snadowsky, Alvin M.
"Changes in the Phenomenal Field as a Result of Human
Relations T raining," Journal of Psychology (1964),
58:33-41.
24. Getzels, J. W ., and Jackson, P. W. "The T eacher's
Personality and C h aracteristics," Handbook of R esearch
on Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago, Illinois:
AERA, NEA, Rand-McNally and C o ., 1963.
25. Gibb, Jack R. "The Present Status of T-Group T heory,"
T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method. Edited by
Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Beene.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
26. Gordon, Thomas. "Evaluation Through Self-Evaluation, "
Perspectives on the Group P rocess. Edited by C. G.
Kemp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin C o ., 1964, pp. 272-278.
27. Hatfield, Agnes B. "An Experim ental Study of the Self-Concept
of Student Teachers. " Unpublished dissertation,
University of Denver, August, 1959, 133 pages.
28. Hickman, Ralph. A dropout study currently in process.
(M im eographed.)
203
29. Huff, George R. "The Use of Q Sort Technique in Investigating
Changes in Self-Concept and Self-Adjustment During a
General Psychology C ourse." Unpublished dissertation,
University of Southern California, January, 1960.
30. Jourard, Sydney. Personal Adjustment: An Approach Through
the Study of Healthy Personality. 2nd ed. New York:
MacMillan C o ., 1963.
31. Kipnis, Dorothy M. "Changes in Self-Concepts in Relation
to Perceptions of Others, " Perspectives on the Group
Process. Edited by C. Graton Kemp. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin C o ., 1964, pp. 336-350.
32. Kvaraceus, W. C. "Mental Health Hazards Facing T each ers,"
Phi Delta Kappan (April, 1951, 32:349-350.
33. Lantz, Donald L. "Changes in Student Teachers' Concepts of
Self and O thers," Journal of Teacher Education (June,
1964), 15:200-203.
34. Lecky, Prescott. Self Consistency: A Theory of Personality.
New York: Island Press, 1945.
35. Levy, L. "The Meaning and Generality of Percieved and
Actual-Ideal Discrepancy," Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XX (1956), pp. 396-398.
36. Livson, Norman H ., and Nichols, Thomas F. "Discrimination
and Reliability in Q Sort Personality Descriptions, "
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1956),
52:159-165.
37. Lohman, Kaj, Zenger, John H. , and W eschler, Irving R.
"Some Perceptual Changes During Sensitivity Training,"
Journal of Educational Research, LIII (1959), pp. 28-31.
38. Maslow, H. H. Motivation and Personality. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1954.
39. M atterson, Richard Lewis. "An Exploratory Study of P reserv
ice Teachers in Human Development Education." Unpub
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,
1962.
204
40. McClain, Edwin Wayne. "The Relationship Between Student
T eachers' Self-Reported Perceptions and Pupil Evalua
tions." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Texas, 1962.
41. McIntyre, C. J. "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation to
Acceptance of Self and O thers," Journal of Abnormal and
and Social Psychology (1952), 47:624-625.
42. M ourer, O. H. (ed.). Psychotherapy: Theory and Research.
New York: Ronald, 1953.
43. National Education Association Elem entary Instructional
Service. "Im peratives for Preparation of Teachers for
the Elem entary Schools. " Report of a conference of the
NEA, May, 1964.
44. North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
Subcommittee on Human Relations in the Classroom .
"Teacher Education for Human Relations in the C lass
room ," North_CentralAssocmtion_Quarterly, 36.
Winter, 1962, pp. 277-304.
45. . "Human Relations in the Classroom: A Study
of Problems and Situations Reported by 1075 Second-Year
Secondary School T each ers," North Central Association
Q uarterly, 37. W inter, 1963, 259-279.
46. Oppenshaw, Karl. "The Corkscrew Path, " The Journal of
Teacher Education, 16:233-237.
47. Osgood, E. E . , and Suci, G. J. "A M easure of Relation
Determined by Both Mean Differences and Profile
Information," Psychological Bulletin (1952), 49:251-262.
48. Osgood, Charles E ., Suci, George J . , and Tannenbaum, Percy
H. The M easurem ent of Meaning. Urbana: University
of Illinois P ress, 1957.
49. Raimy, V. "Self Reference in Counseling Interviews, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, XII (April, 1948),
pp. 153-165.
204
40. McClain, Edwin Wayne. "The Relationship Between Student
T eachers' Self-Reported Perceptions and Pupil Evalua
tions." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Texas, 1962.
41. McIntyre, C. J. "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation to
Acceptance of Self and O thers," Journal of Abnormal and
and Social Psychology (1952), 47:624-625.
42. M ourer, O. H. (e d .). Psychotherapy: Theory and Research.
New York: Ronald, 1953.
43. National Education Association Elem entary Instructional
Service. "Im peratives for Preparation of Teachers for
the Elem entary Schools. " Report of a conference of the
NEA, May, 1964.
44. North C entral Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
Subcommittee on Human Relations in the Classroom .
"T eacher Education for Human Relations in the C lass
room, ” North_Central_Association_Qua^ 36.
W inter, 1962, pp. 277-304.
45. . "Human Relations in the Classroom : A Study
of Problems and Situations Reported by 1075 Second-Year
Secondary School T e a c h e rs," North Central Association
Q uarterly, 37. W inter, 1963, 259-279.
46. Oppenshaw, Karl. "The Corkscrew Path," The Journal of
T eacher Education, 16:233-237.
47. Osgood, E. E . , and Suci, G. J. "A M easure of Relation
Determined by Both Mean Differences and Profile
Inform ation," Psychological Bulletin (1952), 49:251-262.
48. Osgood, C harles E . , Suci, George J . , and Tannenbaum, Percy
H. The M easurem ent of Meaning. Urbana: University
of Illinois P re ss, 1957.
49. Raimy, V. "Self Reference in Counseling Interviews, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, XII (April, 1948),
pp. 153-165.
205
50. Reed, Harold. "An Investigation of the Relationship Between
Teaching Effectiveness and the T eacher's Attitude of
A cceptance," The Journal of Experim ental Education
(June, 1953), 21:277-325.
51. R em m ers, H. H. "Rating Methods in R esearch on Teaching,"
Handbook of R esearch on Teaching. Edited by N. L.
Gage. AERA, NEA. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. ,
1963.
52. Reynard, Harold E. "Pre-Service and In-Service Education
of T each ers," Review of Educational R esearch, No. 4
(October, 1963), 33:369-380.
53. Rogers, C arl R. Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin C o ., 1951.
54. Rogers, C. R ., and Dymond, R. F. (eds.). Psychotherapy
and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago
P ress, 1954.
55. Ryans, David G. C haracteristics of T eachers, Their
Description, Comparison, and A ppraisal. American
Council on Education, Washington, D. C. , 1960.
56. . __________. "Teacher Behavior Theory and Research:
Implications for Teacher Education," The Journal of
Teacher Education (September, 1963), 14:274-293.
57. Schachter, Stanley. "Affiliation Motivation, Anxiety Reduction
and Self-Evaluation, " Interpersonal Dynamics. Edited by
W arren G. Gennis, et a l. Homewood, Illinois: The
Dorsey P ress.
58. Secord, Paul F . , and Backman, C arl W. "Personality Theory
and the Problem of Stability and Change in Individual
Behavior," Psychology Review (1961), 68:21-32.
59. Sheerer, E. T. "An Analysis of the Relationship Between
Acceptance of and Respect for Self and Acceptance of and
Respect for Others in Ten Counseling C ases," Journal of
Consulting Psychology (1949), 13:169-175.
206
60. Soar, Robert S ., and Bowers, Norman C. "Evaluation of
Laboratory Human Relations Training for Classroom
T eachers." Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennes
see (U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research
Porject No. 469), 1961.
61. Stein, M. R ., Vidich, A. J . , and White, D. M. (eds.).
Identity and Anxiety; Survival of the Person in Mass
Society. Glencoe, Illinois: F ree Press, 1960.
62. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior: Q. Technique and Its
Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
63. Stock, Dorothy. "A Survey of Research on T-G roups," T-Group
Theory and Laboratory Method. Edited by L. P.
Bradford, J. R. Gibb, andK. D. Benne. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1964.
64. Suehr, John H. "Awareness Training for School People?"
Phi Delta Kappan, XLIII (March, 1962), 6:263-265.
65. Suinn, Richard M. "The Relationship Between Self-Acceptance
and Acceptance of Others: A Learning Theory Analysis,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIII
(July, 1961), pp. 37-42.
66. Sullivan, H. S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. Washing
ton, D. C .: William Alanson White Psychiatric
Foundation, 1947.
67. Taylor, D. M. "Consistency of the Self-Concept. "
D issertation A bstracts, 13:1267.
68. T urner, Ralph H ., and Vanderlippe, Richard H. "Self-Ideal
Congruence As an Index of Adjustment," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVII, No. 2,
September, 1958.
69. Whithall, John. "Mental Health-Teacher Education Research
Project," The Journal of Teacher Education (September,
1963), 14:318-325.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Predicting Success In The Study Of Descriptive Linguistics

PDF

The Relationship Between The Self Image And The Report Card Achievement Of Eleventh Year English Students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Relationships Between Difficulty Levels Of Assigned Texts And Reading Ability Of Elementary School Pupils

PDF

Testing Attitudes Toward Physical Handicap: Stereotyping And Objectivityin A Partially Integrated Elementary Program

PDF

A Study Of Team Teaching In The Senior High Schools Of California

PDF

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

PDF

The Relationship Of Self-Actualization Levels Of Counseled And Non-Counseled Parents To Perceptions Of Behavioral Characteristics In Their Children Previously Diagnosed As Disordered

PDF

Self-Worth, Future Goals, Mood And Time Perception

PDF

The Relationship Among Differentiated Cognitive Abilities, Field Dependency, Achievement, And Rated Classroom Behavior Of Ninth Grade Junior High School Students

PDF

Creativity And Alienation: An Exploration Of Their Relationship In Adolescence

PDF

An Empirical Study Comparing Various Methods Of Achievement Expectancy Bymeans Of Mental Ability

PDF

Relationship Of Teacher Aides And Teacher Behavior In Selected Areas

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Anxiety And Stress On The Group Intelligence Test Performance Of Elementary School Children

PDF

Auditory Perceptual Si Factors As Non-Predictors Of Reading Achievement In An Upper-Class And Upper-Middle-Class Population

PDF

An Investigation Of Selected Ability, Aptitude, Interest, And Personalitycharacteristics Relevant To Success In High School Geometry

PDF

Effects Of Labeling As Emr On Teachers' Expectancies For Change In A Student'S Performance

PDF

Sound Blending: The Relationship Of Inter-Letter Interval, Consonant Category, And Stimulus Word Frequency To Word Identification

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

Asset Metadata

Creator Whitcomb, David Burrows (author)

Core Title An Exploratory Study Of The Relationship Between Laboratory Sensitivity Training And The Self-Perceptions And Success Of Student Teachers

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Cannon, Wendell E. (committee member), Lasswell, Thomas E. (committee member), Naslund, Robert A. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-215819

Unique identifier UC11359978

Identifier 6610556.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-215819 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6610556.pdf

Dmrecord 215819

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Whitcomb, David Burrows

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