University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Correlates Of Sex And Anxiety To Divergent Production, Convergent Production And Self-Concept In Rural Disadvantaged Children

(USC Thesis Other)

Correlates Of Sex And Anxiety To Divergent Production, Convergent Production And Self-Concept In Rural Disadvantaged Children

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for p ages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some p ages may have indistinct print. Filmed a s received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Ze*b Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 75-1080 RUSSELL, Dale Marl and, 1941- CORRELATES OF SEX AND ANXIETY TO DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, CONVERGENT PRODUCTION AND SELF-CONCEPT IN RURAL DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1974 Education, psychology Xerox University Microfilms t Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 © Copyright by bale '.'arland Russell 1971; THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. CORRELATES OF SEX AND ANXIETY TO DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, CONVERGENT PRODUCTION AND SELF-CONCEPT IN RURAL DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION by Dale Marland Russell June 1974 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. D ate 1974..................... Gmdance Committee ]ean ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this study was only possible because of the effort and support of many people. Unfortunately, I do not have command of words which adequately convey my feelings of gratitude to them. To my wife, Julie, I am grateful because she shared the sacrifices and peak times that came with the project in a way that demonstrated the beauty of being with someone because of wanting to be there. To my sons, Jay and Jesse, I owe thanks because they retained that capacity to share some fun, and to do something else. I have appreciated Dr. Metfessel's support which greatly influenced my decision to continue the study when I would begin to question my stamina. He was a tremendous source of knowledge and a loyal friend. One friend, Lillian Kishaba, who also was my sec retary, has been very special. She has probably invested herself in this project as much as anyone in my family and I am indebted to her. Rarely are there people as genuinely good as she. Other members of my family and close friends have also been highly encouraging, and to them I am grateful. Finally, I am grateful to the students and school personnel who cooperated to make the study possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... ii LIST OF TABLES............................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................xxii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 Anxiety ............................................ 1 Self-Concept ..................................... 4 Divergent Production ............................. 11 The Present Study.................................. 18 Purpose of the S t u d y ..............................19 Delineation of the Problem.......................19 Hypotheses......................................... 20 Anxiety and Divergent Production .......... 20 Grade Level and Divergent Production . . . 21 Sex and Divergent Production................23 Interaction of Anxiety, Grade Level, Sex and Divergent Production............. 24 Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade F o u r .................................. 26 Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Four .................. 27 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Anxiety and IQ: Grade Four.................. 29 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Four . 30 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Four..............30 Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Four . . . 31 Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade F o u r ...............................32 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Fou r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade F i v e ...............................34 Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Five .................. 35 iii Chapter Page 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 43 44 . 45 . 46 • 47 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Fxve * ••••••••••••• Anxiety and IQ: Grade Five ........... Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Five Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Five .... Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Five . Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade Five .............................. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Pivq • • • # • • • • • • • • • • • • Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Sxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Six .............. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Sxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anxiety and IQ: Grade Six ........... Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Six Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Six ......... Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Six- • Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade Sxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Garde Six Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Seven .. .............51 Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Seven................... 52 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Seven ....... ........53 Anxiety and IQ: Grade Seven.................54 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Seven . . . .... ... ...... ..55 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Seven............ 56 Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Seven. • .56 Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Seven • 58 iv . 47 . 48 . 49 . 50 Chapter Page Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Eight................................. 60 Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Eight ................ 61 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Eight..................................62 Anxiety and IQ: Grade E i g h t ............... 63 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Eight ••••••••••••«••••* 64 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade E i g h t ............64 Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Eight . . 65 Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade Eight..................................66 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Eight.........................................67 Questions to be Explored........................ 68 Assumptions.........................................69 Operational Definitions ......................... 70 Limitations and Delimitations................... 73 Organization of the Remaining Chapters .... 73 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.............................75 Anxiety and Convergent Production .............. 76 Anxiety and Divergent Production .............. 80 SES And Divergent Production....................81 Divergent Production and Convergent Production...................................... 83 Self-Concept, Divergent Production and Convergent Production ......................... 85 III. PROCEDURES........................................ 89 The S a m p l e .........................................89 Sampling Procedures .............................. 91 The Assessment Instruments...................... 92 Anxiety.........................................92 Divergent Production ....................... 94 Convergent Production ....................... 95 Self-Concept ................................ 95 v Chapter Page Test Administration.............................. 96 Test Scoring...................................96 Statistical Methods ....................... 97 IV. R E S U L T S .......................................... 101 Findings......................................... 101 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .217 S u m m a r y ......................................... 217 Summary of Experimental Design and Operational Procedures .................. 217 Summary of Hypotheses.....................219 Summary of the Findgins.................. 220 Conclusions.....................................224 Recommendations................................224 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................228 APPENDICES................................................24 0 A. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORIZATION OF RESEARCH STUDY........................................... 241 B. DATA COLLECTION F O R M ............................ 243 C. REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION .......... 24 5 D. ADMINISTRATION MANUAL: GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY.................................... 24 8 GTOC PROTOCOL RECORD F O R M .....................276 E. PROJECT POTENTIAL.................................285 FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL TEST .................... 285 F. PROJECT POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDE: SELF-PERCEPTION RATING SCALE .............. 290 Vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES.......................... 92 2. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON REDEFINITION A ............. 106 3. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON REDEFINITION B ............... 107 4. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON REDEFINITION A ..................................108 5. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON REDEFINITION B ............. 109 6 . ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON REDEFINITION B .............. 110 7. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON REDEFINITION B ..................................112 8.. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS . 113 9. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS . . . 114 10. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS ....................... 115 11. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON FLUENCY....................116 12. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON FLUENCY ....................... 117 13. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON FLUENCY...........................................118 14. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON FLUENCY....................119 vii Table Page 15. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON FLEXIBILITY .................. 120 16. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON FLEXIBILITY...................................... 121 17. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON ORIGINALITY .... 122 18. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON ORIGINALITY .................. 123 19. TUKEY’S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON ORIGINALITY...................................... 124 20. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON ELABORATION . . . .125 21. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON ELABORATION .................. 126 22. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON ELABORATION...................................... 127 23. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: GRADE LEVEL, ANXIETY AND SEX ON TOTAL GTOC...........128 24. ANOVA: GRADE LEVELS, ANXIETY, SEX AND INTERACTIONS ON TOTAL GTOC...................... 129 25. TUKEY'S HSD: MEANS BY GRADE LEVEL ON TOTAL GTOC ....................................130 26. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON READING VOCABULARY ......................... 131 27. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 131 28. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON READING COMPREHENSION ....................... 132 viii Table Page 29. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 132 30. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL READING....................................133 31. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL READING . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 32. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ............................ 134 33. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS.........................................134 34. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ..................... 135 35. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION...................................... 135 36. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC............................... 136 37. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC...................................... 136 38. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON VERBAL I Q .........................................137 39. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON VERBAL IQ . . . 137 40. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON NON-VERBAL I Q ....................................138 ix Table Page 41. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON NON-VERBAL IQ .138 42. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL IQ .««.«.«•• • •••••• ..139 43. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL IQ . . 139 44. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON BY S E L F ..............................................140 45. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON BY SELF .... 140 46. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON AT H O M E ..............................................141 47. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON AT HOME .... 141 48. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON WITH P E E R S .......................................142 49. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON WITH PEERS . . . 142 50. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON IN READING........................................... 143 51. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON IN READING . . . 143 52. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON IN M A T H ..............................................144 53. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON IN MATH .... 144 x Table Page 54. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION......................... 14 5 55. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FOUR ON TOTAL SELF PERCEPTION .....................................14 5 56. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON READING VOCABULARY ............................ 146 57. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON READING VOCABULARY...................................... 146 58. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 147 59. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON READING COM PREHENSION ...................................... 147 60. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL READING.................................... 148 61. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL READING • 148 62. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ............................ 149 63. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS.........................................149 64. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ....................... 150 65. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION...................................... 150 xi Table Page 66. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC ............................ 151 67. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC . . . . I ........................... 151 68. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON VERBAL I Q .................................... 152 69. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON VERBAL IQ . . . 152 70. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON NON-VERBAL I Q .................................... 153 71. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON NON-VERBAL IQ . . . . . .. .. ..... ......*153 72. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL I Q .........................................154 73. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL IQ . . . . 154 74. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON BY SELF ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 1 5 5 75. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON BY SELF . . . . 155 76. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON AT HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6 77. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON AT HOME .... 156 78. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON WITH PEERS ....,,...........................157 xxi Table Page 79. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON WITH PEERS.................... 157 80. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON IN R E A D I N G ...................................... 158 81. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANKIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON IN READING . . .158 82. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON IN M A T H ...................................... 159 83. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON IN MATH . . . .159 84. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION ..................... 160 85. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE FIVE ON TOTAL SELF PERCEPTION ...................................... 160 86. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGHNTTPRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON READING VOCABULARY ............................ 161 87. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON READING VOCABULARY...................................... 161 88. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 182 89. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON READING COMPREHENSION .................................. 162 9 0 . MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL READING....................................163 xiii Table Page 91. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL READ ING ..............................................16 3 92. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ....................... 164 93. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS.........................................164 94. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ...................... 165 95. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION.......................................165 96. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC.......................................166 97. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC.......................................166 98. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON VERBAL I Q ................................................ 167 99. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON VERBAL IQ . . . . 167 100. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON NON-VERBAL IQ ................................ 168 101. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON NON-VERBAL IQ . . 168 102. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL I Q ................................................ 169 xiv Table Page 103. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL IQ .... 169 104. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON BY SELF 170 105. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON BY SELF........170 106. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON AT HOME 171 107. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON AT HOME........171 108. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON WITH P E E R S ...................................172 109. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON WITH PEERS . . . 172 110. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON IN READING 173 1 • • • • • • • 111. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON IN READING . . . 173 112. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON IN MATH........................................... 174 113. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON IN MATH........... 174 114. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION........................... 175 115. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SIX ON TOTAL SELF PERCEPTION .......................................175 xv Table Page 116. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON READING VOCABULARY ......................... 176 117. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON READING VOCABULARY.........................................176 118. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 177 119. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON READING COMPREHENSION .................................. 177 120. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL READING....................................178 121. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL READING...........................................178 122. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ............................ 179 123. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ............................ 179 124. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ....................... 180 125. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ....................... 180 126. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC............................... 181 127. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC...................................... 181 xyi Table Page 128. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON VERBAL I Q .................................... 182 129. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON VERBAL IQ . . . 182 130. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON NON-VERBAL I Q .................................. 18 3 131. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON NON-VERBAL I Q ................................................183 132. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL I Q ......................................... 184 133. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL IQ . . . 184 134. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON BY SELF........................................... 185 135. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON BY SELF . . . . 18 5 136. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON AT HOME........................................... 186 137. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON AT HOME . . . . 186 138. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON WITH P E E R S .......................................187 139. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON WITH PEERS . . 187 140. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON IN READING.......................................188 xvii Table Page 141. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON IN READING . . 188 142. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON IN MATH........................................... 189 143. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON IN MATH .... 189 144. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION........................... 190 145. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE SEVEN ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION ................................ 190 146. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON READING VOCABULARY ............................ 191 147. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON READING VOCABULARY.......................................191 148. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON READING COMPREHENSION ......................... 192 149. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON READING COMPREHENSION ................................... 192 150. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL READING.................................... 193 151. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL READING........................................... 193 152. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS ............................ 194 xviii Table Page 153. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON ARITHMETIC CONCEPTS.........................................194 154. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION ....................... 195 155. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON ARITHMETIC COMPUTATION...................................... 195 156. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC............................... 196 157. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL ARITHMETIC...................................... 196 158. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON VERBAL I Q .........................................197 159. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON VERBAL IQ . . . 197 160. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON NON-VERBAL I Q ....................................198 161. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON NON-VERBAL I Q ............................................... 198 162. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL I Q ........................................ 199 163. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL IQ . . . 199 164. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON S E L F ............................................. 200 xix Table Page 165. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON BY SELF .... 200 166. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON AT HOME 201 167. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON AT HOME .... 201 168. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON WITH P E E R S .................................... 202 169. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON WITH PEERS . . 202 170. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON IN READING.................................... 20 3 171. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT'ON IN READING . . 203 172. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON IN MATH .........................................204 173. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON IN MATH .... 204 174. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ANXIETY AND DIVERGENT PRODUCTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION........................... 205 175. ANOVA: DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, ANXIETY AND INTERACTION AT GRADE EIGHT ON TOTAL SELF-PERCEPTION ................................ 205 176. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 3 WAY ANOVA..............................................206 177. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE FOUR.................................... 207 xx Table Page 178. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE F I V E ......................209 179. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE SIX ......................211 180. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE SEVEN............................ 213 181. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE EIGHT............................ 215 xxi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. STATISTICAL MODEL FOR A 2 x 2 FACTORIAL DESIGN ....................... 99 2. STATISTICAL MODEL FOR A 2x2x5 FACTORIAL DESIGN .................. 100 3. INTERACTION: GRADE X ANXIETY ON SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS ....................... Ill xxii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The broad problem of finding relationships between human potential and competence long has been of central concern to psychologists and educators. Among the con structs that have been investigated in an effort to un cover the kind and strength of relationships which result in varied performances by persons possessing apparently similar abilities have been anxiety, self-concept, diver gent production and convergent production. Explication of these constructs has been confounded by variables such as economic, social, cultural, developmental, sex and ethnic differences of the samples studied. Anxiety The concept of anxiety was introduced into psycho analytic literature by Freud (1936; Phillips, 1966). Since then it has been studied from several theoretical positions. Anxiety has been related to birth trauma, produc tion of abnormal children (Davids, et al, 1961), reduced cognitive functioning (Hawkes and Furst, 1971; Sarason, 1 2 et al, 1960; Sieber, et al, 1969; Neville, et al, 1967; Sieber and Crockenberg, 1970) low self-esteem (Sinha, 1968; Coopersmith, 1967) and impaired divergent production (White, 1968). Evidence of the negative effects of anxi ety have been consistent regardless of ethnic extractions of the subjects (Entwisle, 1972). As applied to learning, research on the effects of anxiety primarily have resulted from the work of Spence and his colleagues at the University of Iowa, and Mandler and Sarason at Yale (Levitt, 1967). Spence (1960) con ceived of anxiety as a general, energizing drive that was individually acquired. Anxiety was believed to facilitate performance on simple tasks. On complex tasks, anxiety was believed to impede initial learning but to strengthen the probability of learning, when, as a result of prac tice, correct habits move up in the hierarchy of response. Sarason, et al, (1960) hypothesized that anxiety was an individually learned drive which disrupted or fa cilitated performance depending upon the person and the situation. By understanding how anxiety affected per formance in particular situations, Sarason and his asso ciates believed they might improve theoretical explana tions of anxiety which might guide future research of anxiety in general. Test anxiety was judged to be of suf ficient specifity of scope and universality of experience 3 to satisfy constraints outlined by the Yale investigators. Studies done at Yale tended to show that children having high test-anxiety levels also had greater anxiety in non-test situations than did children of low test-anxi ety. The high test-anxious child performed more poorly on conventional tests containing cues which signaled to the child that he was in a situation where his performance was likely to be judged as below his aspired level than was the low test-anxious child. On tests not containing cues to the high test-anxious child which signaled that his performance might be inadequate, he performed as near his measured potential as did the low- test-anxious child. Sarason, et al, also found several sex differences related to test anxiety. Girls consistently got higher anxiety scores than boys. Perhaps this occurred because girls more openly expressed their feelings than did boys. Girls also obtained consistently lower lie scores. The Yale studies indicated that low-anxious boys achieved bet ter in school learning than high-anxious boys, but that high and low test-anxious girls had no differences in aca demic achievement. Sarason, et al, believed that sex-re lated differences derived from culturally established roll expectancies and reinforcement patterns which systematic ally produced psychological "boyness" and "girlness" in sex role identification. 4 Studies by Ruebush (1963) related high anxiety to low socioeconomic status (SES) at a significantly higher rate of occurrence than with persons of high SES. Urban students usually scored higher on anxiety measures than their peers from predominantly suburban environments (Hawkes and Furst, 1971). Anxiety has been shown occa sionally to facilitate performance in children below age 14, but consistently to impede performance in youngsters above 14 years of age (Leith and Davis, 1972). Phillips (1966) has postulated a three phase de velopmental progression of anxiety similar to the theories of cognitive development advanced by Bruner and Piaget. Anxiety as a component of a mode of experiencing is con ceived by Phillips to begin with an early sensori-motor type bodily response. The intermediate phase is repre sented in perceptual, preconceptual responses infused with idiosyncratic meanings. The third type is characterized by worries, negative evaluations and the like, usually communicated through language. Self-Concept The construct of self-concept has been advanced by personality theorists to explain discrepancies between po tential and performance (Coopersmith, 1967). William 5 James introduced the idea of self as a personality con struct in 1890 (Metfessel, 1973; Gillman, 1969). Many authorities have discussed the concept of self within the context of a developing pattern of behaviors and percep tions (Allport, 1955, 1961; Baughman and Welsh, 1962; Wilson, et al, 1969; Munsinger, 1971; Bandura and Walters, 1963; Erickson, 1950, 1968; Lewin, 1951). Allport (1961) holds that the concept of self de velops in four stages: Stage 1. The early self (age birth - 6 years). The child first develops a sense of bodily awareness. He gains a capacity to experience pride and self esteem. He observes and gains a sensitivity to and an appreciation for the people about him and the scenario in which he lives. Stage 2. Self as doer (ages 6 - 12). The child gains confidence in himself as an active cause agent. Stage 3. Adolescent self (ages 12 - adult). The self of emerging capacity to plan, implement, and con trol his life is developed. Stage 4. Adult self (age of fruition). All previous ly experienced wanting, striving, willing and planning functions come together in the adult self. One comes to realize the balance of being simulta 6 neously comfortable with ones existence and finds relevance in his experiences and those of others. Erickson (1950; 1968) delineated eight stages of emotional growth that persons encounter as they grow from infancy to maturity. Each stage is characterized by a "crisis" which the individual must resolve before he pro gresses to the next higher stage of development. Erickson is optimistic about human growth potential and asserts that most persons develop in a healthy pattern provided they live in an environment of trust and support. Erick son's eight stages are summarized in the following state ments : Stage one (birth to eighteen months): The child must first develop a sense of trust and avoid the po larity of mistrust. Stage two (eighteen months to four years): The child develops a sense of control over himself and a limited scope of his environment; he must overcome a sense of self-doubt in establishing competence. Stage three (four to five years): The child seeks a balance between being outgoing and explorative and being guilt-ridden when he is reprimanded for ex ceeding his limits. Stage four (six to eleven or twelve years); The child 7 resolves a polarity crisis between feelings of worth or inferiority. As he perceives himself to succeed, the child strengthens his self-accep tance; as he perceives himself to fail, the child develops feelings of inferiority and seeks to re turn to an earlier less threatening stage of de velopment. Stage five (early adolescence): This stage of devel opment is characterized by several "crises" with which the person must cope to establish an identi ty. Erickson summarizes these "crises" as fol lows : 1. temporal perspective vs. time confusion 2 . self-certainty vs. self-consciousness 3. role experimentation vs. role fixation 4. apprenticeship vs. work paralysis 5. sexual polarization vs. bisexual confusion 6. leader and fellowership vs. authority con fusion 7. ideological commitment vs. confusion of values 8. task identification vs. sense of futility 9. anticipation of roles vs. role inhibition 10. will to be oneself vs. self-doubt 11. mutual recognition vs. autistic isolation (1968, p. 94). Stage six (later adolescence): The individual ac quires a sense of intimacy and avoids a sense of isolation as he progresses through this stage. It is usually in stage six that the person selects a 8 mate and an occupation. Stage seven (young married): The young married adult acquires a sense of generality and avoids a sense of stagnation. The person moves toward actions of responsibility and social benefit and away from self-centered living. Stage eight (adult): During this last stage of Erick son' s scheme, the individual acquires a sense of dignity and avoids a sense of despair. Part of acquiring a sense of dignity is developed through a continuing emergence of the awareness of the needs of others. Lewin (1951) describes the self as occupying an area of the environment in life space which becomes pro gressively more differentiated as the person utilizes his personal processes. Lewin does not specify developmental stages but holds that the integration of self is continu ous. Sullivan (in Perry, et al, eds., 1953) describes the emerging self as arising out of anxiety to become a conceptionalized "good me” or "bad me." There are three phases through which Sullivan states people will grow, i.e., protaxis, parataxis and syntaxis. These three phases are subdivided in Sullivan's theory and labelled as 9 infancy, childhood, juvenile, preadolescence, early ado lescence, late adolescence and adulthood. According to Sullivan, an inflated or dissociated self system which interferes with constructive social living is a direct re sult of too much anxiety. Buaghman and Welsh (1962, p. 178) state that prop er development of all areas of ones development is contin gent upon adequate stimulation and appropriate reward for desired behaviors. In a recent seminar on motivation, a position taken by the participants elucidates the role of self- concept in learning as follows: Learning and motivation are influenced not only by things as they are, but also by these conditions as each person perceives and values them, as well as by the way he sees himself. People are motivated in various ways as a result of their self-concepts, values, time perspectives, and personality structures. For example, positively motivated students tend to have a more positive concept of self, and nega tively motivated students tend to have a more negative concept of self. Self-concept is learned behavior. An individual's concept of self is learned in part on the basis of feedback he re ceives from other individuals important in his life. (Seminar proceedings, 1971, p. 4). It has been observed that the middle-class child lives in an environment which is condusive to development of posi tive self-esteem. The middle-class child typically has 10 supportive parents who encourage him to interact confi dently with his social mileau and who reward success (Coopersmith, 1967). The disadvantaged child does not have these middle-class amenities. The need to build re inforcements into the experiences of the disadvantaged is exemplified in the following statement: In order to compensate for the impoverished intel lectual environment of the unmotivated, deprived student, one group of proponents contend that the implementation of a basic system of rewards simi lar to that experienced by the middle-class child may be necessary. (Seminar proceedings, 1971, p. 6) As pervasive as self-concept is in the theoretical literature, it would seem to be a variable of wide empiri cal verification. Such is not the case. Gillman (1969) , reported that very few controlled studies have been con ducted to confirm or deny theoretical assertions regarding self-concept. Coopersmith (1967) also commented on a need for more research on the construct of self-concept. He summarized his view of the sparsity of studies on self- concept as follows: In light of the potential significance of self esteem and the wide belief that it is a theoreti cally central variable, it is surprising to note that the topic has been barely investigated.(p. 19) Part of the reason that self-concept has not been 11 more widely studied has been due to the lack of agreement on operational definitions of the construct (Metfessel, 1973). Operationalization of self-concept could make pos sible needed study of the effects of education in perspec tive of the child's view of himself in the school setting (Sarason, 1960). Coopersmith (1967, p. 2) suggests that self-esteem should be studied in terms of one's evaluative attitudes toward the self. Divergent Production Low anxiety and high self-esteem are considered necessary for divergent production (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 59). In summarizing inferences from his studies Coo persmith (1967) stated: An essential component of the creative process, whether it be analysis, synthesis or the develop ment of a new perspective or a more comprehensive theory, is the conviction that one's judgement in interpreting the events is to be trusted (p. 59) groups high in subjective self-esteem, per form in the most creative fashion Groups low in self-esteem, on the other hand are consistently less original and innovating.(pp. 61-62) Creativity originally was discussed in psychology and education as an attribute of high intelligence, re ferred to as being gifted (Getzels and Dillon, in Travers, ed., 1973; Metfessel, in Magary, ed. 1967, p. 629). 12 The potential benefit of developing human creative behavior has been said to be analogous for the 1970's and 1980's to what the development of atomic energy was in the 1950's (Parness, n.d., p. 6). The question of how psy chologists and educators might enhance the understanding and development of creativity was brought to focus largely as a result of work done by J. P. Guilford (1950, pp. 444- 454) . "The first systematic attack of significance on the problem of creativity was inaugurated in 1950 by J. P. Guilford" (Metfessel in Magary, ed., 1967). Facilitated by Guilford's (1959) conceptualization of the structure of intellect, research on creativity has become one of the most widely explored topics of recent attention (Stauts, 1973). Other factors stimulating creativity research have been despair at current testing programs (Bloom, 1968; Sarason, 1960; Metfessel and Michael, 1967; Metfessel and Hammond, 1972; Guilford, 1968, pp. 80-83) and the growing awareness that social evolution must be guided by imagina tive, conscious design to meet human needs (Toffler, 1970; Barron, 1968). During the first decade of study of creativity, attention was given to seeking fundamental information to define the parameters of the creative process, describe creative individuals and identify conditions which facili- 13 tate or impede creativity. More recently, development of measures to identify creative individuals and to find pos sible relationships of divergent production with intelli gence, achievement or other personal characteristics have become more frequent (Getzels and Dillon in Travers, Eds. 1973, pp. 689-731). Several researchers have contributed to a better understanding of the creative process and of persons whose behavior has been characterized by divergent production. Parness and Harding (1962) provided a comprehensive com pendium of research on divergent production that had been completed or was underway at the time A source book for creative thinking was published. Razik (1965) reviewed the literature on creativity and related areas dating from 1744 to 1964. He identified 4,176 references on the topic. Roweton (1970) and Warren (1971) at the University of Wisconsin recently reviewed research on creativity and classified the existing literature into highly similar categories. Roweton (1970) used five categories to summa rize creativity research. He discusses them in the follow ing statement: various theoretical interpretations or "expla nations" of creative thinking are classified into five major categories: (1) definitional approaches, primarily introspective opinions regarding the nature of creativity; (2) dispositional or per sonality-based theories, focusing largely on the 14 traits of creative individuals; (3) psychoanalytic viewpoints, consisting mainly of Freudian, neo- Freudian, and humanistic approaches; (4) behavior istic theories, drawing from traditional S-R psy- chology; and (5) operational approaches; which primarily are concerned with specifying conditions for increasing creative behavior Existing ex planations have relied upon larger, established systems such as S-R or Freudian psychology.(1970, p. 1) Warren (1971) outlined six orientations and ap proaches similar to Roweton's classifications to the study of creativity: To identify traits, abilities and person alities of creative individuals, to examine the introspec tions of innovative people, multivariate methods of factor analysis, psychanalytic, behavioristic and operational methods. Regardless of the approaches taken to study cre ativity, the identified characteristics of creative think ing and the creative process have been remarkably similar (Torrance, 1972; Clark, 1958; Metfessel in Magary, ed., 1967; Kagen, 1967; Jackson and Messick, in Kagen 1967; Guilford, 1968). Lowenfeld (in Parness and Harding, eds., 1962) identified the following characteristics of creative art ists and art students: The most creative ones have these qualities: flexibility; fluency; sensitivity to problems; originality; and the ability to analyze, syn- 15 theslze, and redefine materials and problems and organize them coherently.(p. 12) Osborn (in Parness and Harding, eds., 1962, p. 20) outlined the creative problem solving process in three phases. Creative production requires the abilities to take in, retain and recall knowledge and to think logical ly and creatively. During the first phase, one must de fine the problem,gather and analyze pertinent data. The second phase consists of deriving tentative solutions to the problems, selecting the more tenable ideas, testing, modifying, combining them, et cetera, to identify a plau sible solution to the problem. During the final phase, the most plausible tentative solution is implemented. According to Torrance: Creative behavior occurs in the process of be coming sensitive to or aware of problems, defi ciencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; bringing together in new relationships available information; defining the difficulty or identifying the missing ele ments; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulation hypotheses about the problems or deficiencies; testing and retresting them; per fecting them and finally communicating the re sults. This is a natural, healthy human process. Strong human motivations are at work at each stage.(1969, p. vii) Recently, Torrance (1972, pp. 3-10) has been con ducting workshops to develop creative potential in the disadvantaged. He asserts that any adequate program for 16 the education of disadvantaged children must be built upon creative positives. Creative positives are characteris tics which are of frequent occurrences in high creative children, i.e.: 1. Ability to express feelings and emotions. 2. Ability to improvise with commonplace mate rials. 3. Articulateness in role-playing and story telling. 4. Enjoyment of and ability in visual art, drawing, painting, sculpture, etc. 5. Enjoyment of an ability in creative movement, dance, dramatics, etc. 6. Enjoyment of and ability in music, rhythm, etc. 7. Expressive speech. 8. Fluency and flexibility in non-verbal media. 9. Enjoyment of and skills in group activities, problem solving, etc. 10. Responsiveness to the concrete. 11. Responsiveness to the kinesthetic. 12. Expressiveness of gestures, "body language," etc. 13. Humor 14. Richness of imagery in informal language. 15. Originality of ideas in problem-solving. 16. Problem-centeredness. 17. Emotional responsiveness. 18. Quickness of warm-up (1972, p. 9). Application of the knowledge of creativity to edu- cational planning has been slow to occur. Guilford (1968, p. 8) stated that "most of our problem solving in everyday life involves divergent thinking, but our educational practices still emphasize convergent thinking." He ap pealed to educators who give more attention to development of the skills of divergent thinking and to show more tol- 17 erance of the outcomes of divergent thinking. Bloom (1968) has observed that a society measures those features of its' educational system it prizes and wishes to retain. But introduction of divergent produc tion into curricula and educational evaluation has been markedly limited. Sarason, et al (I960, p. 270) criti cized the narrowness of the usual testing programs of schools when he studied anxiety in elementary school chil dren. Sarason and his associates indicated that more im portance should be placed on the child's attitude toward himself in relation to school and on identifying students with creative potential. Several tests have been developed and are avail able to investigators exploring the construct of creativi ty (Isaac and Michael, 1971, pp. 106-108). Some of the more widely used tests were developed by Wallach and Kogan (1965), Metfessel and his staff at Project Potential (Met fessel, et al, 1965; Risser and Metfessel, 1965a, 1965b), Torrance (1966), Guilford (1967), Mednick and Mednick (1967) and Starkweather (1971). These tests of creativity developed by Metfessel, et al, were intended particularly for use in identifying creative potential in disadvantaged children. Studies done on the developmental pattern of cre ativity of the dominant white culture in the United States 18 (Torrance, 1962, 1967, 1968; Khatena, 1972), indicate that development of creative behavior follows a generalized progression with decrements in creative thinking just pri or to entry into grade 1 and in about grades 4, 7 and 12. In the dominant white culture, growth in creativity peaks between grades 3 and 4 and again in about grade eleven. The Present Study Generalization of research findings to the rural disadvantaged is difficult because studies on these popu lations has been sparce (Getzels and Dillon in Travers, ed., 1973). Studies in rural disadvantaged Mexican-Ameri- can populations are particularly needed (Gillman, 1969). The research to be reported in this dissertation concerns relationships of sex and anxiety to creativity, academic achievement, intelligence and self-concept in rural disadvantaged children. The subjects of the present study were fourth through eighth grade students from a rural community having 83% Mexican-American population. Constructs of anxiety, creativity and self-concept were operationalized through use of group administered measures developed by Newton Metfessel, professor of educational psychology at the University of Southern California and his staff at Project Potential, a federally funded re- 19 search project. Standardized group achievement and intel ligence tests were used. Socioeconomic status was deter mined by use of an occupation classification scheme de veloped by Warner, Meeker and Eells (1949) . Purpose of the Study This study proposed to investigate possible pat terns and relationships between anxiety, sex, divergent production, convergent production, and self-concept char acteristics of rural disadvantaged upper elementary and middle school children. Delineation of the Problem The overall intent of the study was threefold: 1. to determine whether divergent production, conver gent production or self-concept characteristics exist differently among rural disadvantaged, fourth through eighth grade students of different sex and different anxiety levels. 2. to investigate the relationships between sex and anxiety and divergent production, convergent pro duction and self-concept characteristics of rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students. 20 3. to explore the patterns of divergent production, convergent production, anxiety and self-concept characteristics evidenced by students of different grade levels among rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students. Hypotheses The study was operationalized through use of the following 257 hypotheses: Anxiety and Divergent Production Hypothesis 1. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition A. Hypothesis 2. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition B. Hypothesis 3. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Sensitivity to Problems. Hypothesis 4. There are no significant mean dif- 21 ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Fluency. Hypothesis 5. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Flexibility. Hypothesis 6. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Originality. Hypothesis 7. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the divergent production characteristic of Elaboration. Hypothesis 8. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of divergent production. Grade Level and Divergent Production Hypothesis 9. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition A. 22 Hypothesis 10. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition B. Hypothesis 11. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Sensitivity to Problems. Hypothesis 12. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Fluency. Hypothesis 13. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Flexibility. Hypothesis 14. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Originality. Hypothesis 15. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the divergent production characteristic of Elaboration. Hypothesis 16. There are no significant mean dif- 23 ferences between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade students on the total measure of divergent produc tion. Sex and Divergent Production Hypothesis 17. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition A. Hypothesis 18. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Redefinition fi. Hypothesis 19. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic on Sensitivity to Problems. Hypothesis 20. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Fluency. Hypothesis 21. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Flexibility. Hypothesis 22. There are no significant mean dif- 24 ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Originality. Hypothesis 23. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the divergent production characteristic of Elaboration. Hypothesis 24. There are no significant mean dif ferences between rural disadvantaged boy and girl students on the total measure of divergent production. Interaction of Anxiety, Grade Level, Sex and Divergent Production Hypothesis 25. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Re definition A. Hypothesis 26. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Re definition B. Hypothesis 27. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu- 25 dents on the divergent production characteristic of Sensi tivity to Problems. Hypothesis 28. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Flu ency. Hypothesis 29. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Flexi bility. Hypothesis 30. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Origi nality. Hypothesis 31. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu dents on the divergent production characteristic of Elabo ration. Hypothesis 32. There is no significant inter action between sex, anxiety or grade level or any combina tion of independent variables in rural disadvantaged stu 26 dents on the total measure of divergent production. Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Four Hypothesis 33. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 34. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 35. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 36. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 37. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Computation. 27 Hypothesis 38. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total arithmetic. Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Four Hypothesis 39; There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 40. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 41. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 42. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 43. There is no significant mean dif- 28 ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 44. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production; Grade Four Hypothesis 45. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 46. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 47. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 48. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural 29 disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 49. There is no significant interaction between anxiety and divergent production in rural disad vantaged fourth grade students on the convergent produc tion characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 50. There is no significant interaction between anxiety and divergent production in rural disad vantaged fourth grade students on the convergent produc tion characteristic of total arithmetic. Anxiety and IQ: Grade Four Hypothesis 51. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 52. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 53. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total IQ. 30 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Four Hypothesis 54. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 55. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 56. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Four Hypothesis 57. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 58. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro- 31 duction characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 59. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total IQ. Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Four Hypothesis 60. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of by Self. Hypothesis 6-1. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 62. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 63. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 64. There is no significant mean dif- 32 ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 65. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of self-per ception. Divergent Production and Self-Concept; Grade Four Hypothesis 66. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of By Self. Hypothesis 67. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of At Home. Hypothesis 68. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of With Peers. Hypothesis 69. Tnere is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character 33 istic of In Reading. Hypothesis 70. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Math. Hypothesis 71. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fourth grade students of high or low creativity on the total measure of self perception. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Four Hypothesis 72. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 73. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 74. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. 34 Hypothesis 75. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 76. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 77. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fourth grade students on the total measure of self-perception. Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Five Hypothesis 78. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production character istic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 79. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production character istic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 80. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of 35 high or low anxiety on the convergent production charac teristic of total reading. Hypothesis 81. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 82. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 83. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total arithmetic. Divergent Production and Convergent Production; Grade Five Hypothesis 84. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 85. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production 36 characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 86. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 87. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 88. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 89. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Five Hypothesis 90. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. 37 Hypothesis 91. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 92. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 93. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 94. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 95. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total arithmetic. Anxiety and IQ: Grade Five Hypothesis 96. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students 38 of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 97. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 98. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Total IQ. Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Five Hypothesis 99. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 100. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 101. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. 39 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ; Grade Five Hypothesis 102. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 103. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 104. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total IQ. Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Five Hypothesis 105. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 106. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic 40 of At Home. Hypothesis 107. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 108. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 109. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 110. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of self-per ception. Divergent Production and Self-Concept; Grade Five Hypothesis 111. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of By Self. Hypothesis 112. There is no significant mean dif- 41 ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of At Home. Hypothesis 113. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of With Peers. Hypothesis 114. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Reading. Hypothesis 115. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Math. Hypothesis 116. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged fifth grade students of high or low creativity on the total measure of self-per ception. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Five Hypothesis 117. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural 42 disadvantaged fifth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 118. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 119. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 120. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 121. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 122. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged fifth grade students on the total measure of self-perception. 43 Anxiety and Convergent Production; Grade six Hypothesis 123. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 124. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 125. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 126. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 127. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 128. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char- 44 acteristic of total arithmetic. Divergent Production and Convergent Production! Grade Six Hypothesis 129. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 130. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 131. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 132. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 133. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. 45 Hypothesis 134. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production; Grade Six Hypothesis 135. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 136. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 137. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 138. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 139. There is no significant Inter- 46 action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 140. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total arithmetic. Anxiety and IQ: Grade Six Hypothesis 141. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 142. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 143. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total IQ. 47 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Six Hypothesis 144. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 145. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 14 6. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Six Hypothesis 147. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 148. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro- 48 duction characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 149. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total IQ. Anxiety and Self-Concept; Grade Six Hypothesis 150. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 151. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 152. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 153. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 154. There is no significant mean dif- 49 ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 155. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of self-per ception. Divergent Production and Self-Cencept: Grade Six Hypothesis 156. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of By Self. Hypothesis 157. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of At Home. Hypothesis 158. There is no significant mean dif ference betweenrrural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of With Peers. Hypothesis 159. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept characteristic 50 of In Reading. Hypothesis 160. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Math. Hypothesis 161. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged sixth grade students of high or low creativity on the total measure of self perception. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Six Hypothesis 162. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 163. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 164. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. 51 Hypothesis 165. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 166. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 167. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged sixth grade students on the total measure of self-perception. Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Seven Hypothesis 168. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 169. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 170. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students 52 of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 171. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 172. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 173. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total arithmetic. Divergent Production and Convergent Production: Grade Seven Hypothesis 174. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 175. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production 53 characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 176. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 177. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 178. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 179. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production; Grade Seven Hypothesis 180. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. 54 Hypothesis 181. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 182. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 183. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 184. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 185. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Anxiety and IQ: Grade Seven Hypothesis 186. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 187. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 188. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total IQ. Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Seven Hypothesis 189. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 190. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 191. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. 56 Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Seven Hypothesis 192. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 193. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 194. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Seven Hypothesis 195. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 196. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic 57 of At Home. Hypothesis 197. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 198. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 199. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 200. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of self-percep tion. Divergent Production and Self-Concept: Grade Seven Hypothesis 201. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of By Self. Hypothesis 202. There is no significant mean dif- 58 ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of At Home. Hypothesis 203. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of With Peers. Hypothesis 204. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Reading. Hypothesis 205. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Math. Hypothesis 206. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged seventh grade students of high or low creativity on the total measure of self-per ception. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Seven Hypothesis 207. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural 59 disadvantaged seventh grade students on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 208. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 209. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 210. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 211. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 212. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged seventh grade students on the total measure of self-perception. 60 Anxiety and Convergent Production: Grade Eight Hypothesis 213. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 214. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 215. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 216. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Concept. Hypothesis 217. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 218. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char- 61 acteristic of total arithmetic. Divergent Production and Convergent Production; Grade Eight Hypothesis 219. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 220. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 221. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 222. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 223. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. 62 Hypothesis 224. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total arithmetic. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Convergent Production: Grade Eight Hypothesis 225. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Vocabulary. Hypothesis 226. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Reading Comprehension. Hypothesis 227. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total reading. Hypothesis 228. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Concepts. Hypothesis 229. There is no significant inter- 63 action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Arithmetic Computation. Hypothesis 230. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total arithmetic. Anxiety and IQ: Grade Eight Hypothesis 231. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 232. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 233. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the convergent production char acteristic of total IQ. 64 Divergent Production and IQ: Grade Eight Hypothesis 234. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 235. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 236. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the convergent production characteristic of total IQ. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on IQ: Grade Eight Hypothesis 237. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Verbal IQ. Hypothesis 238. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of Non-Verbal IQ. 65 Hypothesis 239. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the convergent pro duction characteristic of total IQ. Anxiety and Self-Concept: Grade Eight Hypothesis 24 0. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 241. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 242. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 243. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 244. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students 66 of high or low anxiety on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 245. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low anxiety on the total measure of self-percep tion. Divergent Production and Self-Concept; Grade Eight Hypothesis 246. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of By Self. Hypothesis 247. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of At Home. Hypothesis 248. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of With Peers. Hypothesis 249. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Reading. 67 Hypothesis 250. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the self-concept character istic of In Math. Hypothesis 251. There is no significant mean dif ference between rural disadvantaged eighth grade students of high or low creativity on the total measure of self perception. Interaction of Anxiety and Divergent Production on Self-Concept: Grade Eight Hypothesis 252. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of By Self. Hypothesis 253. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of At Home. Hypothesis 254. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of With Peers. Hypothesis 255. There is no significant inter- 68 action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Reading. Hypothesis 256. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the self-concept characteristic of In Math. Hypothesis 257. There is no significant inter action between anxiety and divergent production in rural disadvantaged eighth grade students on the total measure of self-perception. Questions to be Explored The study attempted to answer the following ques tions : 1. Do differences exist between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade boys and girls or be tween students of different anxiety levels on the divergent production characteristics measured? 2. Do differences exist between rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade boys and girls or be tween students of different anxiety levels on the convergent production characteristics measured? 3. Do differences exist between rural disadvantaged 69 fourth through eighth grade boys and girls or be tween students of different anxiety levels on the self-concept characteristics measured? 4. Do relationships exist between divergent produc tion and self-concept characteristics of rural disadvantaged fourth through eighth grade boys and girls? 5. Do any of the variables measured exist in varying amounts at specific grade levels sufficiently to create an interaction effect? Assumptions This study made the following assumptions: 1. It was assumed that the teachers assigned to the students of this study were comparable to teachers of any rural student population. 2. It was assumed that the GTOC was a valid measure of divergent production for the population under study. 3. It was assumed that the TASC— modified was a valid measure of anxiety in the school setting for the population under study. 4. It was assumed that the L-T was a valid measure of convergent production for the population under 70 study. 5. It was assumed that the CAT and CTBS were valid measures of convergent production for the popula tion under study. 6. It is assumed that the physical structure, organi zation and facilities of the school setting did not negatively affect student performance on any of the measures taken. 7. It was assumed that the SPRS was a valid measure of self-concept as it relates to the school set ting for the population under study. 8. It was assumed that the population of this study possessed the characteristics being measured in sufficient amounts that valid measurement of the characteristics occurred. 9. It was assumed that the population of this study was representative of a rural disadvantaged popu lation based on the prima facie description of the sample. Operational Definitions Anxiety; Operationally defined as a characteris tic represented by scores obtained on the Text Anxiety Scale for Children— modified. 71 Convergent Production; Generation of information from given information, where the emphasis is on achieving unique or conventionally accepted best outcomes (Meeker, 1969, p. 195) . Operationally defined as a characteristic represented by scale scores obtained on the Lorge-Thorn- dike Intelligence Tests and by raw scores obtained on the California Achievement Tests - 1970 Edition. Creativity: While there is some concern about the appropriateness of synonymous use of the terms divergent production and creativity (Van Mondfrans, et al, 1971, p. 65; Karsten, 1969, p. 13) for purposes of this study, both terms shall refer to those characteristics measured by the Group Test of Creativity. Disadvantaged: Persons residing in unfavorable circumstances and conditions where discrimination, poverty or apathy on the part of the more affluent produces a life style characterized by language, mores and attitudes pre occupied with survival (Frost and Hawkes, In Frost and Hawkes (eds)., 1970, pp. 1-4). Operationally defined as persons in categories 6 and 7 of Warner's Revised Scale for Rating Occupations (Warner, et al, 1949). Divergent Production: See Creativity. Flexibility of Thinking; The facility with which a person can go from one class to another in order to de velop new meanings, designs, interpretations, or uses of 72 something (Guilford, 1968, p. 102). Operationally defined as the characteristic represented by the score obtained on the Flexibility of Thinking Test of the Group Test of Cre ativity. Fluency of Thinking: The ability to produce ideas that fit into a specified class when quantity, not quality, is emphasized (Guilford, 1968, p. 116). Operationally de fined as the characteristic represented by the score ob tained on the Fluency of Thinking subset of the Group Test of Creativity. Propensity for Elaboration: The facility to pro duce varied implications (Guilford, 1959, p. 211). Opera tionally defined as the characteristic represented by the score obtained on the Propensity for Elaboration subtest on the Group Test of Creativity. Redefinition Ability; The ability to label the drawing of objects in different ways (Guilford, 1968, p. 102). Operationally defined as the score obtained on the Redefinition tests A and B of the Group Test of Creativity. Sensitivity to Problems: The ability to recognize implications imperfections or errors (Guilford, 1968, pp. 32, 102). Operationally defined as the characteristic represented by the score obtained on the Sensitivity to Problems test of the Group Test of Creativity. 73 Limitations and Delimitations The study was limited to students of a single com munity in a unified school district in southern California. The sample was restricted to those students for whom all data was available. The study included students from fourth through eighth grade only. It was not longitudinal in nature and was concerned with finding relationships not with estab lishing causality. Only tests of intelligence and creativity were used as indicators of children's intelligence and creativ ity in this study. Three of the basic instruments used in the study, the Group Tests of Creativity, the Self-Percep tion Rating Scale and Test Anxiety Scale for Children— modified, were in the experimental stages of development and findings from them should be cautiously interpreted. Neither of the schools in which the study was done had programs designed to facilitate creative behavior in children. Therefore, the existence of creativity in the subjects was considered to be innate to the population. Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II shall present a review of recent liter ature that relates to the present study. The review will 74 be organized around the five broad constructs of: dis advantaged, anxiety, convergent production, divergent pro duction and self-concept. Chapter III shall provide a description of the sample, the assessment instruments, the research method ology and the treatment of the data. Chapter IV shall present the data and findings. Chapter V shall summarize the study, present the major findings, conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have not learned in school, at the rate of their more advantaged peers, those skills which are most often measured on stan dardized achievement tests. The early experiences of dis advantaged children have not developed a motivation for present school learning. Often the parents of the disad vantaged children model goals for the future which handi cap their children in school work. Unlike the middle or upper class child who has enjoyed adequate nutrition, liv ing conditions, clothing, medical care and sensory stimu lation, the disadvantaged child displays symptoms of one lacking such basic satisfactions. Disadvantaged children have a relatively high incidence of gross organ deficien cies, hunger, parasitic invasions, inadequate linquistic development, low level of cognitive functioning and a lag in perceptual development. Disadvantaged children have difficulty attending to others and engaging in purposeful activity that will bring delayed gratification or adult approval (Bloom, et al, 1965, pp. 1-40; Riessman, 1962; McCarthy and Metfessel, 1966 program booklet 41; Jensen in 75 76 Bracht, et al (eds.), 1972, p. 193 Guilford L967 Chapter 16) . Because ethical standards of educational and psy chological research prevent experimental control over social, economic and psyiological conditions concomitant to low SES, inference about the resulting effects of such variables must be obtained indirectly (Fox, 1969, p. 388). Anxiety and Convergent Production There is conflicting data regarding the nature of the relation between anxiety and educational achievement, but the consensus seems to indicate a negative relation (Mulroy, 1968, pp. 32-33). There are circumstances where anxiety has been found to motivate higher achievement. Among middle class anglos (Hall, 1971) and in certain math studies (Degnan, 1967, pp. 49-62 for example, anxiety fa cilitated, rather than impeded progress. Hawkes and Furst (1971, pp. 333-350) found strong negative relationships between anxiety and IQ, anxiety and achievement, and anxiety and teachers' ratings of pupil behavior. Their study included a sample of 1,201 fifth and sixth grade students attending eight schools from ur ban and suburban locations and from public and private sectors. The inner city youngsters, i.e., the disadvan taged, scored significantly higher on measures of anxiety 77 (p<.001) than their peers from suburban environments. In a study conducted by Neville, et al (1967), anxiety was found to have a negative effect on general academic performance. The investigators hypothesized that high anxiety would relate negatively to vocabulary and comprehension gains in reading. Subjects were fifty-four 7-14 year old boys in grades three through nine. Using the Sarason's Test Anxiety Scale for Children, the sub jects were stratified into high, medium or low anxiety levels. The investigators also used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form B; The Lorge-Thorndike Group Intelli gence Test, Form A; and the Gates Basic or Advanced Pri mary Reading Tests. The study was conducted during a six weeks summer reading program. Although six weeks is a relatively short period of time for significant change to occur, and the authors found no significant difference in vocabulary gains among the three anxiety groups, signifi* cant differences in comprehension gains favoring the middle anxiety group were found. The effects of anxiety have been found to be even more debilitating among low IQ persons than among higher IQ persons. Goulet and Mazzei (1969, pp. 247-252) reported a study on the effects of anxiety on paired-associate learning. They divided ninety-six undergraduates into four groups of twenty-four subjects each, varying in levels 78 of anxiety and intelligence as defined by performances on the Test Anxiety Questionnaire and the American College Testing program. Subjects were to learn a list of paired associates having high and low stimulus similarity. The lists were learned more slowly by high anxious subjects, independent of level of associate's similarity. Highly anxious subjects apparently withheld responses until con- ficent in the correctness of the stimulus-response pairing. Low IQ subjects of high anxiety did most poorly of all in the study. The deleterious effects of anxiety was thus considered to be most pronounced in the low IQ--high anxiety group. High anxious persons have demonstrated higher im pulsiveness (Barratt and White, 1969, pp. 604-607); higher school dropout rate (Barratt, 1971); a tendency to per ceive time events relatively more in terms of the past than in terms of the present or future (Krauss and Ruiz, 1967, pp. 340-342); set minimal goals for themselves (Niland and Hansen, 1970, pp. 432-433) and do more poorly on timed tasks than less anxious persons (Morris and Llebert, 1969, pp. 240-244). Some school practices increase anxiety in learners and impede their progress while others show promise of as sisting high-anxious students reduce the debilitating ef fects of anxiety. 79 Ducette and Wolk (1971) found that ability grouping caused a lower need for achievement, a higher need to avoid failure and a higher level of anxiety in lower track stu dents. Two-hundred sixty 9-12 grade female students were administered a variety of personality instruments. The ef fects of ability grouping interacted with grade level. As students became older, lower track students increasingly lowered their level of aspiration relative to upper track students. Joan Sieber, et al, (1969) at Stanford University have conceptualized a method of providing memory support to offset the negative effects of anxiety on cognitive functions involving memory. Memory support is a process of providing "sets of information which must be held in short term memory while the individual determines how any of them could be used to solve a problem." One might pro vide a mnemonic table, outline or process model which per mits the high anxious person to refer to the interrela tionships of the determining variables while solving a problem. In a series of experiments using matched pairs of high and low anxious, comparably able subjects, as identified by the Test Anxiety Scale for Children and the California Test of Mental Maturity, Sieber, et al, demon strated that memory support reduced differences between performance of high-and low-anxious subjects (p<.05). 80 Anxiety and Divergent Production Anxiety has been most often studied in context of convergent production (Ruebush, 1963). In reviewing the literature on the relationship between anxiety convergent and divergent productions, Rosenblum, Treffinger and Feldhusen (1970) found that past studies show a moderate, negative relationship between anxiety and both intelligence and academic achievement, but results of studies of the relationship between anxiety and divergent thinking were not conclusive. In separate studies by Rosenblum, et al (1970), Pleh (1970) and Evans and Frederikson (1972), the possi bility was advanced of a curvilinear relationship between anxiety and divergent thinking. Rosenblum, et al (1970), administered four psychological tests to one-hundred nine ty-four high school students to study the relationship be tween anxiety and need for approval to divergent thinking. Need for approval was measured using the Social Desirabil ity Scale developed by Marlowe and Crowne. Sarason's General Anxiety Scale was used to measure anxiety. Guil ford's Consequences Test and Alternate Uses Test were used to measure divergent thinking. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between children with high or low anxiety with regard to their fluency, flexibility, originality, or combined divergent thinking 81 scores. It was also hypothesized that no significant in teraction between anxiety and need for approval would occur on any of the dependent variables. The results indicated that need for approval and anxiety were significantly re lated to originality but not to flexibility and fluency. On post hoc analysis, the authors speculated that original ity might be the most strongly defensible criterion of creativity. The authors stated that: ...originality was hypothesized to be in direct opposition to the more stereotypic, conventional, or conforming behavior typical of the person with high need for approval or a high level of anxiety. Of the three divergent thinking abilities studied, originality (the production of unusual or remotely connected consequences to an event) seems most to coincide with a broader definition of creativity. Central to both is the stress on responses (wheth er verbal or behavioral) that are in some way unique and different rather than common or conven tional. Fluency isconcerned only with the re sponses a person makes, while flexibility consid ers only how varied the responses are. (1970 p. 38) SES and Divergent Production Studie.3 on differences in divergent production be tween socioeconomic groups suggest that lower SES persons score higher on measures of creativity in non-verbal tasks but score lower on verbal tasks (Richmond, 1968; Gould, 1972). Gezi (1969) found that twenty-seven lower class subjects scored higher on the Torrance Test of Creative 82 Thinking, Figural Form A, than thirteen middle class peers. The lower class subjects also scored higher on a self-con cept measure. In a study of fifth grade children, Smith (1965) found the middle SES Caucasian students performed signifi cantly better on verbal creativity tests than did lower SES students, but lower SES students performed significant ly better than did higher SES students on non-verbal cre ativity test. Originality was the only variable to de viate from this relationship. The relationship was con sistent for the factors of fluency, flexibility, elabora tion and penetration. Anita Solomon (1967) investigated creative thinking of first, third and fifth grade children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Results of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, the Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test were ana lyzed by means of multiple linear regression analysis and t tests. Solomon found that more confidence could be placed in identification of creative children on the cri terion tasks at the first and third than at the fifth grade level. There were significant relationships between socioeconomic status and creativity when other variables (sex, intelligence and socioeconomic background) were held constant. These relationships were not consistent, i.e., 83 on the figural tests at the first grade level, culturally advantaged children performed better than the disadvantaged children on the dimensions of fluency, flexibility, origin ality, elaboration and composite scores. This pattern was identical except for the composite score, but favoring the culturally disadvantaged at the third grade level. Solomon holds that creativity is a separate dimension of thinking from intelligence and should be considered in educational program planning. Divergent Production and Convergent Production Gould (1972) studied relationships among verbal and non-verbal creative thinking, literal reading compre hension, intelligence and creative oral response to a literature stimulus. The Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking, California Short Form of Mental Maturity and the Gates-MacGinities Reading Comprehension Test, Survey D, were the criterion measures. They were administered to 74 black fourth grade boys and girls in an inner city school. A significant relationship was found between ver bal creative thinking and reading comprehension. Signi ficant relationships were also noted between intelligence, verbal creativity, non-verbal creativity and reading com 84 prehension. A significant relationship, favoring girls, was f6und between sex and verbal creativity. Boxhaw and White (1971) used the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking to operationalize a study of the relationship between readiness and creativity in 227 culturally disadvantaged kindergarten children. They found that, while the children generally performed at a low level of readiness, some fig ural creativity skills were not adversely affected by pov erty conditions. The authors suggest that perceptual motor and elaborative skills need to be developed in disadvan taged children if creativity is to be enhanced. Thomas (1973) reviewed the literature on creativity in young children and concluded that, in general, studies show children from disadvantaged backgrounds to do rela tively better on tasks of figural creativity than their more advantaged peers. The findings of Amram and Giese (1968) in their work with an Upward Bound Project found that creativity training produced large gains in develop ment of creative thinking skills and self-concepts of dis advantaged youth. Amram and Giese hold that creativity training should be included in curriculum, particularly for the disadvantaged. 85 Self Concept Divergent and Convergent Production Many authorities hold that a positive self concept is essential to convergent or divergent production (Jordon, in Allen and Siefman, 1971; Campbell, 1967; Rogers, 1969). Coopersmith (1967) maintains that persons of high self-esteem achieve better on convergent and divergent tasks. Some empirical support for this position was found by Felker and Treffinger (1971). Felker and Treffinger (1971) studied the relationship between self-concept and divergent thinking among 23 boys and 26 girls in the fourth grade. High self-concept students, as measured by the Piers-Harris Self Concept Scale, scored significantly better on creative abilities of verbal fluency, flexibility and originality. Girls did better than boys within the high-low self-concept pattern. The divergent thinking measures used were the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Covington's Attitude Inventory for Problem Solving and the Piers-Harris Self Concept Scale. Bledsoe and Garrison (1962) found that the self- concept of 270 fourth and sixth grade students had an im portant relationship to their academic achievement. Morse (1964) used a semantic differential technique to measure relationships between self-concept and achieve ment over a wide grade span. He administered the Semantic 86 Differential to over 600 students in alternate grades from grade three to eleven in a metropolitan school system. Morse found that, in the school setting, students have the most positive concept of self at the third grade. The greatest decline in self-concept was noted from grade five- six with a slight recovery by grade eleven. He concluded that older pupils who remain in school came to feel that they were not receiving personal gratification from their school work and perceived their achievements as inadequate. Morse maintains that, even though the upper grades retain the most able students from drop out, the school communica ted a sense of personal failure to students. Soars and Soars (1971) accepted that research evi dence supports low achievement among low self-concept stu dents and explored the relationship between low self-con cept and expectancy of success in advantaged and disadvan taged youths. Samples of 100 boys, each from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds attending an integrated urban high school were asked to state the grades they thought they would get at the end of the semester in English and science. In comparison to advantaged youths, the disad vantaged youths showed higher course-grade predictions, more positive self-concepts and lower achievement. In a study of the relationship of achievement pat tern and perceived self, Gill (1969) found a significant 87 relationship between high self-concept and high achieve ment. Teacher attitudes were found to be highly influen tial in the development of positive, or negative, self- concepts. Gill administered the Perceived-Self Scale, The Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability and The Canadian Academic Aptitude Test to 1,424 ninth grade students who were stratified as under-achievers, average achievers and over-achievers. Gill summarized the findings of his study as follows: The present investigation has shown that the pat tern of achievement, defined in terms of discrep ancies between predicted and actual levels of achievement, is significantly related to perceived self as inferred from the Perceived-Self Scale. The results of the study support this conclusion with such convincing uniformity that the impor tance of the self-concept in the educational pro cess need more emphasis than is presently given to it (1969 p. 14). Jorden (in Allen and Siefman, 1971) stated that if a student's self-concept is low, the student will lack mo tivation, have low expectations of self and engage a fail ure oriented self-fulfilling prophesy. Jorden holds that it is the plight of disadvantaged youngsters in school to fail. He states that the disadvantaged come to school with a language mode different from the teachers from whom they will learn. They also have inadequate cognitive skills to compete with their more advantaged peers on academic tasks, as they usually are structured in a school setting. 88 Carolyn Massad (1968) used factor analytic methods to study relationships among creativity, language apti tudes and intelligence, in middle and low socioeconomic groups. The study involved 132 sixth-grade students. Massad found that the middle socioeconomic group performed at a significantly higher level on creativity, language, aptitude and intelligence than did the low socioeconomic group. But a change in the type of problem solving re quiring use of language in divergent thinking, produced improvement in the thought processes of the low SES group where it had no effect on the thought processes of middle SES children. Massad holds that disadvantaged children usually operate in two languages, one "public" and one "formal," when they are of school age. She concludes that disadvantaged students, like bilinguals might confuse the sets of referential meanings of language in school and thus impede their school achievement and development of their creative potential. Findings similar to those re ported by Massad were reported by Lichman (1971) and Brown, (1970). CHAPTER III PROCEDURES In this chapter, characteristics of the sample and the community from which the sample was drawn are discussed. The instruments employed and data analysis procedures used in this study are described. The Sample All subjects of the present study were selected from a small rural community in the Coachella Valley of Southern California. According to 1970 census data, 27.3% of the families in the community were judged to be below the poverty level. The 1970 median family income was $6,583.00. Slightly more than 22% of the families then were receiving public assistance. An ethnic survey, completed by school personnel, indicated that 8 3.6% of the community was of Mexican-Ameri- can descent. The 1970 census data and a language dominance survey, conducted in October, 1973, by school personnel, indicated that Spanish was the dominant language of nearly 70% of the community residents.1 Census data also stated ,------- School District Needs Assessment, 1973. 89 90 that only half of the community housing units were owner occupied. The median value of owner occupied housing was $14,241.00. The median value of rent was $90.00 per month. Younger adult members of the community tended to have had more years of education than older residents. Persons be tween the ages 25— 4 4 had a median educational level of 8.5 years. Persons from 4 5 years of age and up had a median educational level of 8.5 years. Persons from 45 years of age and up had a median education level of from 6.7 to 6.8 years. For this study, students were selected from an elementary and middle school located in the described com munity. The elementary school was receiving federal funds from E.S.E.A.— Title I sources and state funds from S.B. 90 sources. Title I monies were awarded on the basis of severity of economic need, S.B. 90 monies were awarded on the basis of severity of educational need. The middle school was receiving S.B. 90 monies but did not qualify for Title I monies because the structuring of the program re quired use of the money to provide educational intervention for younger students. Data gathered by school personnel to support the need for the obtaining of federal and state funding indicated that 42% of the students in the sample were from families receiving aid for dependent children. Eighty-seven percent of the students qualified for free or 91 reduced price lunches. Eighty-five percent of the students historically had scored below the second quartile, compared to the publisher's reference group, on standardized group 2 IQ and achievement tests. Sampling Procedures The Group Test of Creativity, the Self-Perception Rating Scale, the Test Anxiety Scale for Children— modified and the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test, were administer ed to 581 fourth through eighth grade students. Results from the California Achievement Test for students of grades 4, 5, 7 and 8 and from the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills for sixth grade students were obtained from records of the District testing program. Only students for whom all test data was available were included in the study. All students who were not from disadvantaged backgrounds, as defined by a rating of 6 or 7 on the Revised Scale for Occupations (Warner, et al, 1949), were removed from the study. Of 581 students tested, only 367 met the criteria of low SES and complete data. A summary of data sources is present in Table 1 below. 2 School District Needs Assessment, 1973. 92 TABLE 1 Summary of Data Sources Grade Number of Students Tested Incomplete Data Middle SES and Higher Final Subjects 4 110 28 13 69 5 101 38 8 55 6 107 15 9 83 7 133 25 18 90 8 130 39 21 70 Totals 581 145 69 367 The Assessment Instruments Anxiety Sarason and his associates (1960) hypothesized that anxieties having etiology in self-attitudes, parent-child relationships or other unconscious self-deprecatory tenden cies result in an anticipation of failure by the child which he experiences as a negative affective state in a situation. Sarason (1960) stated: in the test situation such a child is more aware of his own covert responses than he is of 93 the nature of the external stimulus situation, which includes,.......the stimulus task and ac companying instructions (p. 20). The effect of anxiety on students in test situations is to narrow the perception of the anxious student and to prevent objective assessment of the task to be solved. To explore their hypotheses, Sarason, et al (1960), developed a test to measure test situational anxiety. This instrument, the Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC), re ceived some criticisms and was later revised by Bloom (1963). Tulley (1967) used Bloom's (1963) modified version of the TASC to study the relationships of sex and anxiety to several characteristics of seventh grade students. Val idity studies of the TASC— modified have not been done ex tensively. The Bloom and Tulley studies both accepted the rationale advanced by Sarason, et al, (1960) for validating tests of anxiety which held that a test of anxiety should have a low correlation to IQ measures. Bloom and Tulley obtained supportive correlational data when relating the TASC— modified with standardized correlational data when relating the TASC— modified with standardized group IQ measures, i.e., r = -.21 and r = .39 respectively. Tulley reported that test-retest reliability coefficients for the TASC— modified has been in the .54 to .75 range. 94 Divergent Production Newton Metfessel (Risser and Metfessel, 1965b), professor of educational psychology at the University of Southern California, and his staff at Project Potential, a federally funded research project, constructed the Group Tests of Creativity (GTOC). The GTOC contains seven sub tests, measuring six areas of divergent production identi fied by Guilford (1959), through factor analysis. The sub tests are as follows: 1. Redefinition A 2. Redefinition B 3. Sensitivity to Problems 4. Fluency of Thinking 5. Flexibility of Thinking 6. Originality 7. Elaboration Nivette (1966) and Fox (1967) have done reliability and validity studies on the GTOC. Scorer reliability was found to be .88 (Fox, 1967). Most validity statements from the Nivette and Fox studies were inferentially drawn from work done by Guilford on the structure of intellect model, and from the previously validated Individual Test of Crea tivity developed by Risser and Metfessel (1965a). The 95 Group Test of Creativity (Risser and Metfessel, 1965b) es sentially is an adaptation of the Individual Test of Crea tivity, therefore, some transfer of validity can be assumed. Convergent Production Two measures of convergent production were used. They were the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test and the California Achievement Test, 1970 edition. Both tests have extensive verification of validity and reliability contained in technical manuals accompanying the tests. Self-Concept Self-concept is a term that continues to be used in a variety of ways with little operational uniformity (Gordon, 1969). Metfessel (1965) developed a measure of self-concept that would meet the following criteria: 1. provide a measure of a student's perception of him self. 2. be easily administered 3. be easily scored 4. be essentially non-verbal 5. be amenable to statistical interpretation and 6. be flexible enough to measure many areas without 96 changing the essential format and instruction of the instrument. Metfessel (1973) holds that reliable and valid self-esti mates can be obtained from individuals provided the test administrator has rapport with, and is perceived by the subjects as one worthy of trust. Metfessel (197 3) reports a validity coefficient of .44 with teacher ratings and a reliability coefficient of .87 on four week test-retest. Test Administration All tests were administered by the investigator. Proctors were provided at a ratio of 1 proctor for each 20 students. All proctors were employed as instructional aides at the time of the study and all were given instruc tion by the investigator regarding the purpose of the pro ject and how to proctor in a standardized group testing situation. Test Scoring The investigator scored all TASC— modified proto cols using the weighting method presented by Tulley (1967). Scores for each student were reported as TASC— modified total raw scores. 97 Criteria and procedures stated in the "Group Test of Creativity; Administration Manual; Scoring Guide; Record Booklet," First Revision 1972, by Metfessel and Hammond, were followed to score the tests of creativity. Interjudge reliability using the criteria stated in the manual has been reported at .96 and .98 (Cantey, 1973). The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test and the Cali fornia Achievement Test, 1970 edition were machine scored by the Regional Data Processing Center, Riverside, Califor nia. Answer sheets provided by the center were used to facilitate scoring. The self-concept test was scored by the investiga tor using the procedure outlined in the "Interpretive Guide: Self-Perception Rating Scale" authored by N. S. Metfessel (1973). Statistical Methods Statistical procedures required for analysis of the data included means, standard deviations and F ratios. When significant F ratios were found in an ANOVA, post hoc analysis for significance of differences among means was done using the Tukey HSD test (Kirk, 1968, pp. 88-90). Two way and three way factor analysis procedures utilizing random reduction to achieve equal cell sizes were employed. To achieve equal cell sizes, subjects first were 98 rank ordered on each independent variable by grade. Second, they were divided at the median or the dependent variable under study and assigned to an appropriate cell, i.e., high anxious boys were boys above the median on the TASC— modi fied, at a particular grade level. Third, after all S's were assigned to a cell, the cell with the smallest n was identified. Finally, S's were randomly excluded from cells having n's larger than the smallest cell size, until all cell n's were equal to the n of the identified smallest cell. Analysis of variance and multiple comparison pro cedures using Tukey's HSD were used for data analysis, as outlined by Kirk (1968, chapter 4 and pp. 88-90). The data was statistically analyzed through a biomedical program (BMD08V), by the Computer Science Laboratory, at the Uni versity of Southern California on an IBM 370 - 158 computer. Independent variables for the two way and three way ANOVA's were the same except for the variable of creativity. Creativity was an independent variable on two way ANOVA's but not on three way ANOVA's. All variables were analyzed in context of the null hypotheses stated prior to conduct ing the study. All null hypotheses were expected to have been rejected at the .05 level of confidence. The 23 dependent variables are itemized by cate gory below. Divergent Production Characteristics Redefinition A Redefinition B Sensitivity to Problems Fluency of Thinking Flexibility of Thinking Originality Propensity for Elaboration Total GTOC Self-Concept Characteristics By Self At Home With Peers In Reading In Math The two way ANOVA utilized was of a 2 x 2 factorial design illustrated in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1 Statistical Model for 2 x 2 Factorial Design High Low High Low Divergent Production A N X I E T Y Convergent Production Characteristics Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Total Reading Arithmetic Concepts Arithmetic Computation Total Arithmetic Verbal IQ Non-Verbal IQ Total IQ 100 The three way ANOVA utilized was a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial de sign illustrated in Figure 2 below. FIGURE 2 Statistical Model for 2x2x5 Factorial Design S Boy E X Girl Grade Level The independent variables were: Sex: Boys Girls Anxiety: High Low Creativity: High Low Grade Level: Four Five Six Seven Eight CHAPTER IV RESULTS In this chapter the research hypotheses are restat ed with the findings from the results of the study for each hypothesis. Tables containing information bearing directly on the rejection of or failure to reject each hypothesis are presented to make interpretation of the findings more manageable. To test hypotheses 1— 32, data for 367 S's was cast to a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial design and randomly reduced to N = 200 with cells of n = 10 each. The procedure used to randomly reduce data to accomplish equal cell sizes was described on pages 99 and 100 in Chapter III. Findings Of the main effects analyzed in the three wayANOVA, only differences by grade varied significantly across all characters of divergent production. Significant differ ences were found between high and low anxious subjects favoring the high anxious on the divergent production char acteristics of Redefinition A, Redefinition B, Sensitivity to Problems, Flexibility and Total GTOC. Significant dif- 101 102 ferences were found between male and female subjects, favor ing females, on the divergent production characteristics of Redefinition B, Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency, Flexibil ity and Total GTOC. The only significant interaction was between grade and anxiety on the divergent production char acteristic of Sensitivity to Problems. Tables 2 to 25 sum marize the data for hypotheses 1— 32 showing means, stand ard deviations, F ratios and results of Tukey's HSD analy sis. Each set of analyzed data is interpreted as it is presented. Whether the data supported rejection of the null hypothesis or failure to reject the null hypothesis is noted in the interpretation following presentation of the data, and in summarizing tables on pages 206 through 216 near the end of this chapter. Hypotheses 33— 272 were concerned with the rela tionships of anxiety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept by grade for students in grades four through eight. At grade four, data for 69 S's was cast to a 2 x 2 factorial design and randomly reduced to N = 52 with cells of n = 13 each. The procedure used to randomly reduce cell sizes was described on pages 98 and 99 in Chapter III. The same procedure that was used in grade four to achieve equal cell sizes when analysing data in 2 x 2 fac- 103 torial design was also used in grades five, six, seven and eight. At grade five, reduction of data from 55 S's re sulted in use of data for 52 S's with cell sizes of n ■ 13 each. At grade six, reduction of data from 83 S's resulted in use of data from 48 S's with cell sizes of n = 12 each. At grade seven, reduction of data from 90 S's resulted in use of data for 68 S's with cell sizes of n = 17 each. At grade eight, reduction of data from 70 S's resulted in use of data from 48 S's with cell sizes of n = 12 each. The findings from these analyses are summarized by grade level in the following paragraphs. Significant differences were found among fourth grade students, favoring the high creative, on all areas of convergent production measured. High anxious fourth grade students performed better them low anxious students on the self-concept measure "By Self." No other significant dif ferences were observed between groups of fourth grade stu dents . Fifth grade students of higher anxiety performed better them their lower anxious peers on the convergent production areas of verbal IQ and total IQ. High anxious fifth grade students demonstrated significantly better self- concepts than their low anxious peers on all areas of self- concept measured. Students high in divergent production ability performed significantly better on all areas of 104 arithmetic skills measured than their peers who were lower in divergent production ability. At the sixth grade, students high in divergent pro duction ability achieved significantly better scores on all areas of convergent production measured than their peers of lower divergent production ability. No other significant relationships were found among any of the variables that were analyzed. Students of high divergent production ability per formed better on all convergent production variables mea sured except arithmetic concepts and non-verbal IQ than their peers of lower divergent production ability. There was no significant difference between the groups on those two variables. Eighth grade students of high divergent production ability also demonstrated significantly higher self-concepts as measured on the self-concept subtest of "In Reading Class." Both anxiety and divergent production were signifi cantly related to most areas of convergent production measured among eighth grade students. Students high in anxiety scored higher on all measures of convergent produc tion taken except arithmetic concepts and non-verbal IQ, than their lower anxious peers. Students of high divergent production ability scored significantly better on all con vergent production measures administered than their peers 105 of lower divergent production ability. No differences were observed in self-concept scores among students of high or low anxiety or divergent production ability. 106 TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Redefinition A Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 5.80 2.34 4.80 2.78 6.42 H Anx. 8.00 4.13 7.10 3.98 q L Anx. 8.90 2.18 9.30 3.46 9.72 H Anx. 11.70 4.52 9.00 3.59 c . L Anx. 7.70 3.68 6.90 3.60 9.32 H Anx. 11.80 4.29 10.90 5.48 7 L Anx. 15.40 6.63 9.40 4.64 11.77 H Anx. 9.80 5.16 12.50 6.72 8 H Anx. 13.90 4.28 12.70 5.59 14.07 L Anx. 14.90 5.17 14.80 4.02 107 TABLE 3 ANOVA: Grade Level, Anxiety, Sex and Interactions on Redefinition A Source df SS MS Grade Level (G) 4 1308.68 327.16 16.29* Anxiety (A) 1 123.24 123.24 6.14* Sex (S) 1 55.12 55.12 2.74 G X A 4 146.68 36.67 1.82 G X S 4 5.80 1.45 0.07 A X S 1 22.44 22.44 1.11 G X A X S 4 193.87 48.46 2.41 Within 180 3612.96 20.07 *p < .05 108 TABLE 4 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Redefinition A Source Grade Level Mean 4 6 5 7 8 6.42 9.32 9.72 a 11.77 14.07 Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4-6, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8 5-7, 00 i in 6-7, 6 - 8 i CO Interpretation: High anxious students and students of higher grade levels did better on redefinition, as measur ed by Redefinition A, than low anxious students or stu dents of lower grade levels respectively. No significant interaction between grade level and anxiety was evidenced. aConunon line indicates no significant difference. 109 TABLE 5 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Redefinition B Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 8.30 2.45 5.60 4.16 7.40 H Anx. 9.50 4.62 6.20 4.96 C L Anx. 12.10 4.67 10.50 5.10 11.60 H Anx. 13.20 4.23 10.90 3.10 £ L Anx. 13. 30 6.44 8.30 6.00 13.25 0 H Anx. 18.20 4.73 13.20 6.42 7 L Anx. 18.40 3.23 10.40 5.62 14.57 / H Anx. 13.00 4.76 16.50 9.82 Q L Anx. 16.10 6.35 14.60 4.90 15.80 O H Anx. 17.40 6.18 15.10 5.89 110 TABLE 6 ANOVA: Grade Level, Anxiety Sex and Interactions on Redefinition B Source df SS MS F Grade Level (Q) 4 1697.63 424.40 14.51* Anxiety (A) 1 121.68 121.68 4.16* Sex (S) 1 397.61 397.61 13.59* G X A 4 141.47 35.36 1.20 G X S 4 67.13 16.78 0.57 A X S 1 44.17 44.17 1.51 G X A X S 4 290.16 72.54 2.40 Within 180 5263.48 29.24 *p < .05 FIGURE 3 111 Interaction: Grade X Anxiety on Sensitivity to Problems Score 7.50 7.25 7.00 6. 75 6.50 6.25 6.00 5.75 5.50 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 4.25 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 4 5 A = High Anxious 0 = Low Anxious Grade 112 TABLE 7 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Redefinition B Source Mean 4 5 6 7 8 7.40 11.67 13.25 14.57 a 15.80 Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8 5-8 Interpretation: Higher anxious female and higher grade level students did better on redefinition as measured by Redefinition B them lower anxious males or lower grade level students, respectively. No significant interactions were found. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 113 TABLE 8 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Sensitivity to Problems Source Sex Total Grade Mean Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. 4 L Anx. 3.30 2.21 2.10 2.42 2.75 H Anx. 3.30 4.27 2.30 2.21 5 L Anx. 3.40 1.50 3.50 1.78 3.92 H Anx. 5.90 3.66 2.90 1.91 6 L Anx. 3.90 3.54 3.80 4.10 5.65 H Anx. 7.60 4.24 7.30 2.83 7 L Anx. 4.54 1.78 3.00 2.90 3.72 H Anx. 4.10 2.23 3.30 2.71 8 L Anx. 4.50 1.90 3.70 2.35 4.80 H Anx. 4.30 1.82 3.50 2.71 114 TABLE 9 ANOVA: Grade Level, Anxiety, Sex and Interactions on Sensitivity to Problems Source df SS MS F Grade Level (G) 4 174.62 43.65 5.60* Anxiety (A) 1 38.71 38. 71 4.97* Sex (S) 1 44.17 44.17 5.67* G X A 4 100.42 25.10 3.22* G X S 4 8.97 2.24 0,28 A X S 1 2.88 2.88 0.36 G X A X S 4 22.57 5.64 0.72 Within 180 1401.56 7.78 *p < .05 115 TABLE 10 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Sensitivity to Problems Source Grade Level Mean 4 2.75 7 3.72 5 3.92 8 4.80 6 5.65 Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4 - 8, 4 - 6 5 - 6 6 - 7 Interpretation: Higher anxious and female students demon strated significantly more sensitivity to problems than lower anxious or male students. Significant differences were found among grade levels but in a high sporadic pattern. Sensitivity to problems may be relatively inde pendent of age influence. The significant interaction be tween anxiety and grade level would support speculating that sensitivity to problems may be more anxiety related than age related. The possibility of "random noise" must also be considered. Since this was the only significant interaction of the study. The investigator chose to risk a type I error and interpret the interaction as a chance occurance (Fox 1969, pp. 256-265). aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 116 TABLE 11 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Fluency Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 5.60 3.40 4.60 2.67 5.12 H Anx. 6.90 4.17 3.40 2.50 c L Anx. 12.30 4.59 9.40 5.71 10.55 D H Anx. 13.10 5.54 7.40 4.74 L Anx. 7.00 2.40 6.40 2. 31 8.47 O H Anx. 11.20 3.29 9.30 3.56 7 L Anx. 9.00 1.82 6.30 3.62 8.07 H Anx. 8.20 3.93 8.80 6.97 8 L Anx. 12.00 3.52 12.30 5.27 12.05 H Anx. 12.20 1.75 11.70 5.48 117 TABLE 12 ANOVA: Grade Levels, Anxiety Sex and Interactios on Fluency Source df SS MS F Grade level (G) 4 1109.87 277.46 16.41* Anxiety (A) 1 26.64 26.64 1.57 Sex (S) 1 160.20 160.20 9.47* G X A 4 110.63 27.65 1.63 G X S 4 102.07 25.51 1.50 A X S 1 8.40 8.40 0.49 G X A X S 4 59.86 14.96 0.88 Within 180 3042.98 16.90 *p < .05 118 TABLE 13 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Fluency Grade Level Source Mean 12.05 8.07 8.47 10.55 5.12 Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4 - 8 6-8 7 - 8 Interpretation: Differences in fluency were observed favoring females. Few significant differences among grade levels were found with fifth grade scoring higher, and seventh grade scoring lower than age relationships would indicate they might. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 119 TABLE 14 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Fluency Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 2.40 2.87 1.90 3.07 * k H Anx. 6.50 7.83 2.10 1.72 c L Anx. 4.00 2.49 2.00 1.88 3.67 0 H Anx. 6.50 4.00 2. 20 2.04 a L Anx. 6.20 4.41 3.60 3.27 7.30 o H Anx. 12.00 5.31 7.40 5.83 n L Anx. 8.70 5.05 4.80 5.49 6.47 t H Anx. 6.10 3.60 6.30 4.78 8 L Anx. 5.50 3. 53 6.60 3.06 6.20 H Anx. 7.20 3. 39 5.50 4.79 120 TABLE 15 ANOVA: Grade Levels, Anxiety Sex and Interactions on Flexibility Source Grade Level (G) Anxiety (A) Sex (S) G X A G X S A X S G X A X S Within df SS 4 524.34 1 129.60 1 257.64 4 169.16 4 66.33 1 23.80 4 99.06 180 3172.77 MS F 131.08 7.43* 129.60 7.35* 257.64 14.61* 42.29 2.39 16.58 0.94 23.80 1.35 24.76 1.40 17.62 *p < .05 121 TABLE 16 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Flexibility Source Grade Level Means 4 5 8 7 6 3.22 3.67 6.20 6.47 7.30 Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4-6, 4-7, 4-8 5-6, 5-7, 5-8 Interpretation: Higher anxious and female students per formed better than lower anxious and male students respec tively, in flexibility. Significant grade level differ ences were noted. Fourth grade students scored lowest and sixth grade students highest, indicating an inconsistant grade level performance relationship. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 122 TABLE 17 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Originality Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 14.80 5.30 15.00 4.26 14.80 H Anx. 15.80 4.78 13.60 3.16 c L Anx. 14.50 3.20 13.40 4.35 13.50 D H Anx. 14. 80 3. 32 11.30 2.21 6 L Anx. 15.20 3.49 13.70 3.80 14.90 H Anx. 15.10 2.68 15.60 1.43 7 L Anx. 15.60 3.74 12.80 3.39 14.45 H Anx. 14.20 2.93 15.20 4.02 8 H Anx. 15.30 2.62 16.20 3.64 16.04 H Anx. 15.60 3.40 17.10 2.92 123 TABLE 18 ANOVAs Grade Levels, Anxiety Sex and Interactions on Originality Source df SS MS F Grade Level (G) 4 134.67 33.66 2.68* Anxiety (A) 1 1.62 1.62 0.12 Sex (S) 4 24.5 24.5 1.95 G X A 4 21.08 5.27 0.41 G X S 1 63.40 15.85 1.26 A X S 1 1.27 1.27 0.10 G X A X S 4 74.51 18.62 1.48 Within 180 2259.35 12.55 *p < .05 124 TABLE 19 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Originality Source Grade Level Mean 5 7 4 6 8 13.50 14.45 14.80 14.90 16.04 a Significant differences (p < .05) were noted only between grades 5 and 8 on Originality. Interpretation: Significant differences in performance on the Originality subtest were found among grade levels only. The pattern established by grade level means was sporadic. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 125 TABLE 20 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Elaboration Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean 4 L Anx. 5.80 5.47 5.50 2.41 5.30 H Anx. 4.80 2.25 5.10 2.55 5 L Anx. 6.90 3.07 4.70 3.94 5.55 H Anx. 4.90 2.28 5.70 3.88 6 L Anx. 4.30 1.63 5.50 1.95 4.55 H Anx. 4.10 1.91 4.30 2.05 7 L Anx. 9.00 5.09 9.10 4.95 8.95 H Anx. 10.40 7.30 3.86 8 L Anx. 6.50 2.67 8.40 5.21 7.25 H Anx. 7.10 2.51 7.00 3.09 126 TABLE 21 ANOVA: Grade Levels, Anxiety, Sex and Interactions on Elaboration Source df SS MS F Grade Level(G) 4 501.91 125.47 8.97* Anxiety (A) 1 12.50 12.50 0.89 Sex (S) 4 .72 .72 0.05 G X A 4 1.79 .44 0.03 G X S 1 39.67 9.91 0.70 A X S 1 3.37 3.37 0.24 G X A X S 4 58.11 14.52 1.03 Within 180 2515.35 13.97 *p < .05 127 TABLE 22 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Elaboration Source Grade Level 6 4 5 8 7 Mean 4.55 5. 30 5.55 7.25 8. 95 a Significant differences (p « *05) were found between the following grade levels: 4 - 7 5 - 7 6 - 7, 6 - 8 Interpretation: Significant differences in performance on the Elaboration subtest were found among grade levels only. The pattern established by grade level means was highly sporadic. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 128 TABLE 23 Means and Standard Deviations: Grade Level, Anxiety and Sex on Total GTOC Source Sex Total Grade Grade Low or High Anxiety Female Mean S.D. Male Mean S.D. Mean A L Anx. 46. 00 11.88 38. 50 9.80 44.77 H Anx. 54.80 20. 35 39. 80 16.22 c L Anx. 62.10 11.83 52.80 19.10 58.84 D H Anx. 71.10 19.90 49.40 12.51 L Anx. 56.60 14.18 47.50 15.89 62.79 0 H Anx. 79.10 19.74 68.00 21.06 7 L Anx. 80.60 15.02 55. 80 18.40 67.77 H Anx. 65.80 21.54 68.90 29.82 8 L Anx. 68.80 21.81 74.50 21.08 73.59 H Anx. 77.50 11.49 73.60 20.75 129 TABLE 24 ANOVA: Grade Levels, Anxiety, Sex and Interactions on Total GTOC Source df SS MS Grade Level (G) 4 18968.23 4742.05 14.23* Anxiety (A) 2099.52 2099.52 6.30* Sex (S) 4380.47 4380.47 13.15* G X A 3015.76 753.94 2.26 G X S 1493.11 373.27 1.12 A X S 6.47 6.47 0.01 G X A X S 2704.87 676.21 2.30 Within 180 59947.27 333.04 *p < .05 130 TABLE 25 Tukey's HSD: Means by Grade Level on Total GTOC Source 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 44.77 58.84 62.79 67.77 73.59 a Significant differences (p < .05) were found between the following grade levels: 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8 5-8 Interpretation: Higher grade level students, generally scored higher than lower grade level students on divergent production, as measured by total GTOC. Results favor higher anxious and female students. Also, lower grade level students scored lower and higher grade level students scored higher on total GTOC. Grade four students scored significantly below all other grade levels. aCommon line indicates no significant difference. 131 TABLE 26 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Reading Vocabulary Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 21.73 23.07 6.46 20.38 8.98 Mean High S.D. 30.53 5.31 31.53 8.52 31.03 Total Means 26.80 25.96 TABLE 27 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction at Grade Four on Reading Vocabulary Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1126.23 1126.23 20.16* Anxiety (A) 1 9.30 9.30 0.16 D X A 1 44.30 44.30 0.79 Within *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading vocabulary sub test. 132 TABLE 28 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Reading Comprehension Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 13.93 12.92 8.79 14.92 9.51 Mean High S.D. 28.92 6.84 32.53 9.97 30.73 Total Means 20.92 23.73 TABLE 29 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Reading Comprehension Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 3672.48 3672.48 46.73* Anxiety (A) 1 102.48 102.48 1.30 D X A 1 8.48 8.48 0.10 Within 8 3771.94 78.58 *p < .05 Interpretation; High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading comprehension subtest. 133 TABLE 30 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Total Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 35.65 36.00 13.82 35.30 16.86 Mean 59.46 64.07 Production High 61.76 S.D. 11.46 18.25 Total Means 47.73 49.69 TABLE 31 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Total Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 8866.17 8866.17 37.71* Anxiety (A) 1 50.01 50.01 0.21 D X A 1 91.56 91.56 0.38 Within 48 11284.80 235.10 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total reading. 134 TABLE 32 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Arithmetic Concepts Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 17.26 18.53 4.99 16.00 6.25 Mean High S.D. 23.07 3.22 23.61 4.80 22.84 Total Means 20.80 19.30 TABLE 33 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Arithmetic Concepts Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 404.32 404.32 16.57* Anxiety (A) 1 29.25 29.25 1.19 D X A 1 14.01 14.01 0.57 Within 48 1171.22 24.40 *p < .05 Interpretation: High Creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic concept's subtest. 135 TABLE 34 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Arithmetic Computation Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 39.73 40.84 14.27 38.61 17.39 Mean High S.D. 52.23 10.91 51.92 12.70 52.07 Total Means 46.53 45.26 TABLE 35 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Arithmetic Computation Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1981.55 1981.55 10.07* Anxiety (A) 1 20. 94 20.94 0.10 D X A 1 12.02 12.02 0.06 Within 48 9439.85 196.66 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic computation subtest. 136 TABLE 36 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Total Arithmetic Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 65.07 19.21 60.23 24.89 62.65 Production High Mean S.D. 84.61 13.15 84.15 17.75 84.38 Total Means 74.84 72.19 TABLE 37 ANOVA: Divergent At Grade Production, Anxiety and Interaction Four on Total Arithmetic Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 6138.94 6138.94 16.62* Anxiety (A) 1 91.55 91.55 0.24 D X A 1 62.48 62.48 0.16 Within 48 17723.86 369.24 *p < .05 Interpretation: High Creative students performed better than low creative students on total arithmetic. 137 TABLE 38 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total T Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 71.15 70.15 10.22 72.15 11.18 Mean High S.D. 83.00 10.22 87.92 8.11 85.46 Total Means 76. 57 80.03 TABLE 39 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 2661.23 2661.23 26.60* Anxiety (A) 1 155.76 155.76 1.66 D X A 1 27.77 27.77 0.27 Within 4802.22 100.00 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the measure of verbal IQ. 138 TABLE 40 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Non-Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 77.03 77.76 10.26 76.30 9.17 Mean High S.D. 93.23 10.38 91.15 9.72 92.19 Total Means 85.50 83.73 TABLE 41 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Non-Verbal IQ df Source SS MS Divergent Production (D) 1 2985.30 2985.30 30.46* Anxiety (A) 1 40.69 40.69 0.41 D X A 1 1.23 1.23 0.01 Within 48 4703.00 97.97 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the measure of non-verbal IQ. 139 TABLE 42 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Total IQ Source » • 4. Total Anltieti’ Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 73.88 73.76 8.58 74.00 9.43 Mean High S.D. 87.69 9.10 89.23 7.70 88.46 Total Means 80.73 81.61 TABLE 43 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Total IQ Source df SS SM F Divergent Production (D) 1 2762.32 2762.32 36.23* Anxiety (A) 1 10.17 10.17 0.13 D X A 1 5.55 5.55 0.07 Within 3659.31 76.23 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better them low creative students on total IQ. 14 0 TABLE 44 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on By Self Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 3. 38 1.12 3.76 1.09 3.57 Production High Mean S.D. 3.30 0.63 4.07 0.49 3.69 Total Means 3.34 3.92 TABLE 45 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on By Self Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .17 .17 0.22 Anxiety (A) 1 4.32 4.32 5.60* D X A 1 .48 .48 0.62 Within 48 37.07 .77 *p < .05 Interpretation: Higher anxious students performed better than low anxious students on self-perception as measured on the By Self subtest. 141 TABLE 46 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on At Home Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.30 4.23 0.92 4.38 1.19 Mean 4.30 4.53 Production High 4.42 S.D. 0.94 0.77 Total Means 4.26 4.46 TABLE 47 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on At Home Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .17 .17 0.18 Anxiety (A) 1 .48 .48 0.50 D X A 1 .01 .01 0.02 Within 48 45.38 .94 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 142 TABLE 4 8 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on With Peers Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 3.92 0.95 3.61 1.38 3.76 Production Mean High S.D. 3.76 1. 36 4.23 0.72 4.0 Total Means 3.84 3.92 TABLE 49 ANOVA: Divergent Production, At Grade Four on Anxiety and Interaction With Peers Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .69 .69 0.53 Anxiety (A) 1 .076 .076 0.05 D X A 1 1.92 1.92 1.47 Within 48 62.61 1.30 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. TABLE 50 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on In Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4.15 0.89 5.15 1.21 4.15 Production High Mean S.D. 3.61 1.19 4.00 0.81 3.80 Total Means 3.88 4.07 TABLE 51 ANOVA: Divergent Production, At Grade Four on Anxiety and Interaction In Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.55 1.55 1.42 Anxiety (A) 1 .48 .48 0.43 D X A 1 .48 .48 0.43 Within 48 52.46 1.09 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 144 TABLE 52 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on In Math Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 3.65 4.00 0.70 3.30 1.84 Mean High S.D. 3.84 1.06 4.00 0.81 3.92 Total Means 3.$2 3.65 TABLE 5 3 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on In Math Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .94 .94 0.66 Anxiety (A) 1 .94 .94 0.66 D X A 1 2. 32 2.32 1.63 Within 48 68.46 1.42 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 14 5 TABLE 54 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Four on Total Self-Perception Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 19.46 19.69 1.97 19.23 4.36 Mean 18.84 20.84 Production High 19.84 S.D. 2.34 1.90 Total Means 17.60 20.03 TABLE 55 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Four on Total Self-Perception Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.92 1.92 0.24 Anxiety (A) 1 7.69 7.69 0.96 D X A 1 19.69 19.69 2.45 Within 48 384.45 8.00 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 146 TABLE 56 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Reading Vocabulary Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 13.34 12.38 4.59 14. 30 5.04 Mean High S.D. 13.76 3.65 17.84 8.29 15.80 Total Means 13.07 16.07 TABLE 57 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Reading Vocabulary Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 78.76 78.76 2.44 Anxiety (A) 1 117.00 117.00 3.63 D X A 1 15.07 15.07 0.46 Within 48 1543.83 32.16 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 147 TABLE 58 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Reading Comprehension Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 14 .46 13.76 4.12 15.15 3. 84 Mean High S.D. 14.23 4.30 20. 38 7.48 17 .30 Total Means 14 .00 17.76 TABLE 59 ANOVAj Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Reading Comprehension Source df SS MS F Divergent Production(D) 1 105.30 105.30 3.95 Anxiety (A) 1 184.69 184.69 6.94* D X A 1 73.92 73.92 2.77 Within 48 1277.37 26.61 *p < .05 Interpretation: Students of high anxiety performed signif icantly better on the reading comprehension subtest. 148 TABLE 60 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Total Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 27.80 26.15 7.26 29.46 6.91 Mean High S.D. 28.00 7.33 38.23 14.75 33.11 Total Means 27.07 33.84 TABLE 61 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Total Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 366.23 366.23 3.93 Anxiety (A) 1 595.69 595.69 6.40* D X A 1 155.76 155.76 1.67 Within 48 4465.19 93.02 *p < .05 Interpretation: Students of high anxiety performed signif icantly better on total reading. 149 TABLE 62 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Arithmetic Concepts Sources Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 17.69 5.61 20.30 6.51 19.00 Production Mean High S.D. 19.84 5.16 27.07 7.94 23.46 Total Means 18.76 23.69 TABLE 63 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Arithmetic Concepts Source df Divergent Production (D) 1 258.76 258.76 6.32* Anxiety (A) 1 315.07 315.07 7.69* D X A 1 69.23 69.23 1.69 Within 48 1964.14 40.91 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed signifi cantly better on the arithmetic concept's subtest. High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on the arithmetic concept's subtest. 150 TABLE 64 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Arithmetic Computation Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 24.15 22.69 6.43 25.61 6.98 Mean High S.D. 29.53 4.46 30.30 6.81 29.92 Total Means 26.11 27.96 TABLE 65 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Arithmetic Computation Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 432.69 432.69 11.06* Anxiety (A) 1 44.30 44.30 1.13 D X A 1 15.07 15.07 0.38 Within 48 1877.83 39.12 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic computation subtest. 151 TABLE 66 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Total Arithmetic Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 42.19 38.46 12.29 45.92 11.15 Mean High S.D. 49.38 7.71 57.38 14.21 53.38 Total Means 43.92 51.65 TABLE 67 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Total Arithmetic Source df ss MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1628.48 1628.48 12.12* Anxiety (A) 1 776.94 776.94 5.78* D X A 1 .94 .94 0.007 Within 48 6444.21 134.25 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total arithmetic. High anxious students performed better than low anxious creative students on total arithmetic. 152 TABLE 68 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 82.19 81.15 9.17 83.23 7.60 Mean High S.D. 80.46 8.33 92.46 11.67 86.46 Total Means 80.80 87.84 TABLE 69 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 236.94 236.94 2.72 Anxiety (A) 1 644.01 644.01 7.40* D X A 1 320.01 320.01 3.68 Within 48 4172.42 86.92 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on the measure of verbal IQ. 153 TABLE 70 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Non-Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 87.50 85.84 12.54 89.15 11.69 Mean 88. 38 97.07 Production High 92.73 S.D. 14.25 17.81 Total Means 87.11 93.11 TABLE 71 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Non-Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 355.69 355.69 1.74 Anxiety (A) 1 468.00 468.00 2.29 D X A 1 94.23 94.23 0.46 Within 48 9773.30 203.61 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. TABLE 72 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Total IQ Source AnxjLety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 84.57 84.57 83.15 10.47 86.00 8.88 Mean High S.D. 84.15 10.14 94.46 14.18 89.30 Total Means 83.65 90.23 TABLE 7 3 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Total IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 290.94 290.94 2.36 Anxiety (A) 1 562.32 562.32 4.56* D X A 1 180.94 180.94 1.46 Within 48 5910.57 123.13 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on total IQ. 155 TABLE 74 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on By Self Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 3.61 0.96 .23 0.72 3.67 Production Mean High S.D. 3.69 0.75 4.23 0.59 3.96 Total Means 3.65 4.23 TABLE 75 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on By Self Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .019 .019 0.03 Anxiety (A) 1 4.32 4. 32 7.29* D X A 1 .019 .019 0.03 Within 48 28.46 .59 *p < .05 Interpretation; High anxious students scored significantly better on the self-concept measure of By Self. 156 TABLE 76 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on At Home Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4.15 0.68 5.56 0.87 4.30 Production High Mean S.D. 4 .30 0.75 4.84 0.37 4.57 Total Means 4.23 4.65 TABLE 77 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on At Home Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .94 .94 1.93 Anxiety (A) 1 2. 32 2.32 4.77* D X A 1 .17 .17 0.35 Within 48 23. 38 .48 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better them low anxious students on the self-concept measure of At Home. TABLE 78 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on With Peers Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.07 3.69 1.18 4 .46 0.51 Mean 4.46 4.76 Production High 4.61 S.D. 0.77 0.43 Total Means 4.07 4.61 TABLE 79 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on With Peers Source df Divergent Production (D) 1 3.76 3.76 6.12* Anxiety (A) 1 3.76 3.76 6 .12* D X A 1 .69 .69 1.12 Within 48 29.53 .61 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the self-concept measure of With Peers. High anxious students performed better than low anx ious students on the self-concept measure of With Peers. 158 TABLE 80 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on In Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 3.92 3.69 1.25 4.15 0.68 Mean 3.69 4.76 Production High 4.23 S.D. 0.75 0.43 Total Means 3. 69 4.46 TABLE 81 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on In Heading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.23 1.23 1.76 Anxiety (A) 1 7.69 7.69 11.00* D X A 1 1.23 1.23 1.76 Within 48 33.53 .69 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on the self-concept measure of In Reading. 159 TABLE 82 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on In Math Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 3.84 1.28 4.46 0.66 4.15 Production High Mean S.D. 3.46 1.33 4.30 0.63 3.88 Total Means 3.65 4.38 TABLE 8 3 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on In Math Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .94 .94 0.88 Anxiety (A) 1 6.94 6.94 6.54* D X A 1 .17 .17 0.16 Within 48 50.92 1.06 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on the self-concept measure of In Math. 160 TABLE 84 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Five on Total Self-Perception Source Anxiety Total ~ Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 20.30 19.00 3.67 21.76 2.04 Mean 19.69 22.92 Production High 21.30 S.D. 2.56 1.18 Total Means 19.34 22. 34 TABLE 85 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Five on Total Self-Perception Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 11.07 11.07 1.72 Anxiety (A) 1 117.00 117.00 18.23* D X A 1 .69 .69 0.10 Within 48 307.99 6.41 *p < .05 Interpretation: High anxious students performed better on the total measure of Self-Perception. 161 TABLE 86 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Reading Vocabulary Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 14.12 14.75 4. 30 13.50 5.79 Mean High S.D. 19.91 8.22 23.41 6.17 21.66 Total Means 17.33 18.45 TABLE 87 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Reading Vocabulary Source df SS MS F 682.52 17.28* 15.18 0.38 67.68 1.71 39.47 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading vocabulary sub test. Divergent Production (D) 1 682.52 Anxiety (A) 1 15.18 D X A 1 67.68 Within 44 1737.07 162 TABLE 88 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Reading Comprehension Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 17.00 17.58 6.90 16.41 8.38 Mean High S.D. 22.16 7.46 25.50 8.48 23.83 Total Means 19.87 20.96 TABLE 89 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Reading Comprehension Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 560.33 560.33 9.12* Anxiety (A) 1 14.08 14.08 0.22 D X A 1 60.74 60.74 0.98 Within 44 2702.49 61.42 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading comprehension subtest. 163 TABLE 90 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Total Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 32. 33 10.36 29.91 13.76 31.12 Production High Mean S.D. 42.08 14.84 48.91 12.71 45.50 Total Means 37.20 39.41 TABLE 91 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Total Reading Source df SS SM F Divergent Production (D) 1 2479.68 2479.68 14.61* Anxiety (A) 1 58.52 58.52 0.34 D X A 1 256.68 256.68 1.51 Within 44 7465.32 169.66 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total reading. 164 TABLE 92 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Arithmetic Concepts Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 10.08 4.79 13.08 6.21 11.58 Production High Mean S.D. 16.83 5.89 19.50 5.03 18.16 Total Means 13.45 16.29 TABLE 93 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Arithmetic Concepts Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 520.08 520.08 17.09* Anxiety (A) 1 96.33 96.33 3.16 D X A 1 .33 .33 0.01 Within 44 1338.49 30.42 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic concept's sub test. 165 TABLE 94 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Arithmetic Computation Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 24.33 9.45 24.25 8.17 24.29 Production High Mean S.D. 31.25 9.45 35.33 8.17 33.29 Total Means 27.79 29.79 TABLE 95. ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade. Six on Arithmetic Computation Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 972.00 972.00 11.22* Anxiety (A) 1 48.00 48.00 0.55 D X A 1 52.04 52.04 0.66 Within 44 3809.79 86.58 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic computation subtest. 166 TABLE 96 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Total Arithmetic Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Mean 43.91 48.00 Divergent Low 45.95 S.D. 10.80 21.33 Mean 57.16 65.75 Production High 61.45 S.D. 17.48 16.44 Total Means 50.54 56.78 TABLE 97 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Total Arithmetic Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 2883.00 2883.00 10.04* Anxiety (A) 1 481.33 481.33 1.67 D X A 1 60.75 60.75 0.21 Within 44 12626.73 286.97 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total arithmetic. 167 TABLE 98 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 73.08 9.50 79.41 8.25 76.25 Production Mean High S.D. 85.33 10.90 88.00 10.14 86.66 Total Means 79.20 83.70 TABLE 99 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1302.08 1302.08 13.69* Anxiety (A) 1 243.00 243.00 2.55 D X A 1 40.33 40.33 0.42 Within 44 4182.46 95.05 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the measure of verbal IQ. 168 TABLE 100 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Non-Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 79.29 83.16 11.01 75.41 35.59 Mean High S.D. 92.66 11.75 98.41 12.19 95.54 Total Means 87.91 86.91 TABLE 101 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Non-Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 3168.75 3168.75 7.56* Anxiety (A) 1 12.00 12.00 0.02 D X A 1 546.75 546.75 1.30 Within 44 18428.04 418.81 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better them low creative students on the measure of non-verbal IQ. 169 TABLE 102 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Total IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 80.83 77.83 8.56 83.83 9.25 Mean High S.D. 88.66 10.31 92.91 10.39 90.79 Total Means 83.25 88.37 TABLE 103 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Total IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1190.02 1190.02 12.74* Anxiety (A) 1 315.18 315.18 3.37 D X A 1 9.18 9.18 0.09 Within 44 4108.87 93.38 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better them low creative students on total IQ. 170 TABLE 104 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on By Self Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 3.83 0.71 3.58 1.31 3.70 Production High Mean S.D. 3.60 0.49 4.16 0.57 3.91 Total Means 3.75 3.86 TABLE 105 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on By Self Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .52 .52 0.74 Anxiety (A) 1 .18 .18 0.26 D X A 1 1.68 1.68 2.40 Within 44 30.91 .70 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. TABLE 106 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on At Home Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4.50 0.67 4.75 0.45 4.62 Production High Mean S.D. 4.08 1. 37 4.56 0.51 4.33 Total Means 4.29 4.66 TABLE 107 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on At Home Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.02 1.02 1.44 Anxiety (A) 1 1.68 1.68 2.38 D X A 1 .18 .18 0.26 Within 44 31.08 .70 Interpretation; No significant differences were noted. 172 TABLE 108 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on With Peers Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4. 50 0.67 4.58 0.66 4.54 Production High Mean S.D. 4. 33 .98 4 .66 0.49 4.50 Total Means 4.41 4.62 TABLE 109 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on With Peers Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .02 .02 0.03 Anxiety (A) 1 .52 . 52 0.98 D X A 1 .18 .18 0.35 Within 44 23.24 .52 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 173 TABLE 110 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on In Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 3.83 3.66 0.98 4.00 1.12 Mean High S.D. 4.16 0.83 4.33 0.77 4.25 Total Means 3.91 4.16 TABLE 111 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on In Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 2.08 2.08 2.35 Anxiety (A) 1 .75 .75 0.84 D X A 1 .08 .08 0.09 Within 44 38.99 .88 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 174 TABLE 112 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on In Math Source Anxiety " "Total”' Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.16 4.25 0.95 5.08 0.99 Mean High S.D. 4.00 0.95 4 .16 0.71 4.08 Total Means 4.12 4.12 TABLE 113 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on In Math Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .83 .83 0.11 Anxiety (A) 1 .00 .00 0.0 D X A 1 .33 . 33 0.44 Within 44 32.83 .74 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 175 TABLE 114 Means and Standard Deviations Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Six on Total Self-Perception Source Anxiety M°tal 1 Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 20.87 20.75 1.86 21.00 3.13 Mean High S.D. 20.41 2. 39 21.91 2.06 21.16 Total Means 20.58 21.45 TABLE 115 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Six on Total Self-Perception Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.02 1.02 0.17 Anxiety (A) 1 9.18 9.18 1.57 D X A 1 4.68 4.68 0.80 Within 44 256.08 5.82 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 176 TABLE 116 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Reading Vocabulary Source Anx iety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 9.70 6.55 10.82 6.20 10.26 Production High Mean S.D. 14.23 7.57 15.11 7.05 14.67 Total Means 11.97 12.97 TABLE 117 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Reading Vocabulary Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 330.88 330.88 7.01* Anxiety (A) 1 17.00 17.00 0.36 D X A 1 .23 .23 0.005 Within 64 3018.80 47.16 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading vocabulary sub test. 177 TABLE 118 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Reading Comprehension Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 12.29 11.52 6.55 13.05 6.04 Mean 15.94 15.70 Production High 15.82 S.D. 8.56 5.97 Total Means 13.73 14.38 TABLE 119 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Reading Comprehension Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 211.76 211.76 4.49* Anxiety (A) 1 7.11 7.11 0.1 5 D X A 1 13.23 13.23 0.28 Within 64 3017.63 47.15 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading comprehension subtest. 178 TABLE 120 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Total Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 21.23 12.20 23.88 11.78 22.55 Production High Mean S.D. 30.47 15.87 30.82 11.79 30.64 Total Means 25.85 27.35 TABLE 121 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Total Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1112.13 1112.13 6.55* Anxiety (A) 1 38.25 38.25 0.22 D X A 1 22.36 22.36 0.13 Within 64 ^0863.37 169.74 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total reading. 179 TABLE 122 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Arithmetic Concepts Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 11.11 6.85 12.52 6.42 11.82 Production Mean High S.D. 14.23 7.77 15.41 4.67 14.82 Total Means 12.67 13.97 TABLE 123 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Arithmetic SS Concepts Source df MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 153.00 153.00 3.58 Anxiety (A) 1 28.47 28.47 0.66 D X A 1 .23 .23 0.005 Within 64 2729.16 42.64 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 180 TABLE 124 Means and Standard Deviations Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Arithmetic Computation Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 13.14 12.29 5.09 14.00 6.67 Mean High S.D. 16.70 9.41 17.52 5.23 17.11 Total Means 14.49 15.76 TABLE 125 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Arithmetic Computation Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 268.01 268.01 5.74* Anxiety (A) 1 27.19 27.19 0.58 D X A 1 3.30 3.30 0.07 Within 64 2985.20 46.64 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the arithmetic computation subtest. 181 TABLE 126 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Total Arithmetic Source Anxiety ^ota^ J Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 24.91 23.29 10.76 26.52 12.26 Mean High S.D. 30.94 15. 35 32.94 8.45 31.94 Total Means 27.11 29.73 TABLE 127 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Total Arithmetic Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 840.01 840.01 5.85* Anxiety (A) 1 116.48 116.48 0.81 D X A 1 6.48 6.48 Within 64 9175.48 143.36 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on total arithmetic. 182 TABLE 128 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 75.41 9.53 80.35 6.81 77.88 Production Mean High S.D. 86.76 10.89 86.47 10.90 88.61 Total Means 81.08 83.41 TABLE 129 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1297.19 1297.19 13.83* Anxiety (A) 1 91.77 91.77 0.97 D X A 1 116.49 116.49 1.24 Within 64 5999.20 93.73 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better them low creative students on the measure of verbal IQ. 183 TABLE 130 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven cJn Non-Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 85.05 84.47 11.09 85.64 11.64 Mean 90.05 89.76 Production High 89.91 S.D. 11.97 13.65 Total Means 87.26 87.70 TABLE 131 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Non-Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 400.36 400.36 2.72 Anxiety (A) 1 3.30 3.30 0.02 D X A 1 9.19 9.19 0.06 Within 64 9415.97 147.12 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 184 TABLE 132 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Total IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Mean 79.76 82.82 Divergent Low 81.29 S.D. 9.06 8.10 Mean 88.17 87.94 Production High 85.38 S.D. 10.92 11.21 Total Means 83.97 85.38 TABLE 133 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Total IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 777.94 777.94 7.91* Anxiety (A) 1 33. 88 33.88 0.34 D X A 1 46.12 46.12 0.46 Within 64 6288.85 98.26 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students 185 TABLE 134 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on By Self Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 3.58 1.00 3.64 0.86 3.61 Production High Mean S.D. 3.02 0. 39 3.82 0.88 3.82 Total Means 3.70 3.73 TABLE 135 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on By Self Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .72 .72 1.07 Anxiety (A) 1 .01 .01 0.02 D X A 1 .01 .01 0.02 Within 64 42.94 .67 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 186 TABLE 136 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on At Home Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.17 4.17 0. 95 4.17 0.72 Mean 4.47 4.11 Production High 4.29 S.D. 1.06 1. 36 Total Means 4.32 4.14 TABLE 137 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on At Home Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .23 .23 0.21 Anxiety (A) 1 .52 .52 0.47 D X A 1 .52 .52 0.47 Within 64 70.94 1.10 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 187 TABLE 138 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on With Peers Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.17 4.35 1.05 4 .00 1.17 Mean 4.47 4.76 Production High 4.61 S.D. 0.62 0.43 Total Means 4.41 4.38 TABLE 139 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on With Peers Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 3.30 3.30 4^30* Anxiety (A) 1 .014 .014 0.01 D X A 1 1.77 1.77 2.31 Within 64 49.17 .76 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the self-concept measure of With Peers. 188 TABLE 140 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on In Reading Source Anxiety Total Means bow High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4.00 1.06 3.52 1.12 3.76 Production High Mean S.D. 4.00 0.70 4.35 0.49 4.17 Total Means 4.00 3.94 TABLE 141 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on In Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 2.88 2.88 3.68 Anxiety (A) 1 .05 .05 0.07 D X A 1 2.88 2.88 3.68 Within 64 50.11 .78 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 189 TABLE 142 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on In Math Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Mean Low S.D. 4.05 1.08 4.17 1.01 4.11 Production Mean High S.D. 3.82 0.52 4.05 1.02 3.94 Total Means 3.94 4.11 TABLE 143 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on In Math Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .52 .52 0.59 Anxiety (A) 1 .52 .52 0.59 D X A 1 .58 .58 0.06 Within 64 56.82 .88 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. TABLE 144 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Seven on Total Self-Perception Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 20.00 20.47 2.57 19.52 3.06 Mean High S.D. 20.58 1.97 21.41 2.18 21.00 20.52 20.47 TABLE 145 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Seven on Total Self-Perception Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 17.00 17.00 2.75 Anxiety (A) 1 .05 .05 0.0009 D X A 1 13.23 13.23 2.14 Within 64 394.69 6.16 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 191 TABLE 146 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Reading Vocabulary Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 12.62 9.75 7.26 15.50 6.80 Mean High S.D. 16.75 7.46 20.00 7.55 18.37 Total Means 13.25 17.75 TABLE 147 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Reading Vocabulary Divergent Production (D) 1 396.75 396.75 7.49* Anxiety (A) 1 243.00 243.00 4.58* D X A 1 18.75 18.75 0.35 Within 44 2329.49 52.94 --------------------------------------------------------- Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading vocabulary sub test. High anxious students performed better than low creative students on the reading vocabulary subtest. 192 TABLE 148 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Reading Comprehension Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Mean 13.00 15.66 Divergent Low 14.33 S.D. 4.74 5.75 Mean 16.91 23.00 Production High 19.95 S.D. 5.21 6.71 Total Means 14.95 ( 19.33 TABLE 149 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Reading Comprehension Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 379.68 379.68 11.86* Anxiety (A) 1 229.68 229.68 7.17* D X A 1 35.02 35.02 1.09 Within 44 1407.57 31.99 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the reading comprehension subtest. High anxious students performed better than low anxious students on the reading comprehension subtest. 193 TABLE 150 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Total Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 26.95 22.75 10.55 31.16 11.91 Mean High S.D. 33.66 11.79 43.00 13.53 38.33 Total Means 28.20 37. 68 TABLE 151 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Total Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1552.68 1552.68 10.78* Anxiety (A) 1 945.18 945.18 6.56* D X A 1 2.52 2.52 0.01 Within 44 6332.50 143.92 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative and high anxious students scored better them low creative and low anxious students respectively on total reading. 194 TABLE 152 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Arithmetic Concepts Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 13.45 11.50 4.75 15.41 6.00 Mean High S.D. 17.00 5.41 23.08 4.52 20.04 Total Means 14.25 19.25 TABLE 15 3 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Arithmetic Concepts Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 520.08 520.08 19.18* Anxiety (A) 1 300.00 300.00 11.06* D X A 1 14.08 14.08 0.51 Within 44 1192.82 27.10 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative and high anxious students performed better on the arithmetic concept's subtest than the low creative and low anxious students respectively. 195 TABLE 154 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Arithmetic Computation Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 15.58 5.43 17. 33 3.60 16.45 Production High Mean S.D. 20.00 5.29 24.00 7.13 22.00 Total Means 17.79 20.66 TABLE 155 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Arithmetic Computation Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 368.52 368.52 12.14* Anxiety (A) 1 99.18 99.18 3.26 D X A 1 15.18 15.18 0.50 Within 44 1335.56 30.35 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the subtest of arithmetic computation. 196 TABLE 156 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Total Arithmetic Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 27.08 9.15 31.91 8.61 29.50 Production High Mean S.D. 37.00 9.78 47.08 10.45 42.04 Total Means 32.04 39.50 TABLE 157 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Total Arithmetic Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1887.52 1887.52 20.79* Anxiety (A) 1 667.52 667.52 7.35* D X A 1 82.69 82.69 0.91 Within 44 3994.69 90.78 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative and high anxious students performed better than low creative and low anxious students respectively, on total arithmetic. TABLE 158 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 71.25 8.42 78.08 8.88 74.66 Production High Mean S.D. 81.33 7.22 91.25 7.33 86.29 Total Means 76.29 84.66 TABLE 159 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Verbal IQ Source df SS MS Divergent Production (D) 1 1621.68 1621.68 25.33* Anxiety (A) 1 841.68 841.68 13.15* D X A 1 28.52 28.52 0.44 Within 44 2816.05 64.00 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative and high anxious students performed better than low creative and low anxious respec tively on the measure of verbal IQ. 198 TABLE 160 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Non-Verbal IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 82.29 81.83 12.34 82.75 12.82 Mean High S.D. 93.83 7.76 105.75 11.25 99.79 Total Means 87.83 94.25 TABLE 161 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Non-Verbal IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 3675.00 3675.00 29.17* Anxiety (A) 1 494.08 494.08 3.92 D X A 1 363.00 363.00 2.88 Within 44 5541.74 125.94 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative students performed better than low creative students on the measure of non-verbal IQ. 199 TABLE 162 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Total IQ Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 78.29 76. 33 9.48 80.25 10. 31 Mean High S.D. 87.41 5.69 98.16 8.11 92.79 Total Means 81.87 89.20 TABLE 163 ANOVA: Divergent Production Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Total IQ Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 2523.00 2523.00 34.26* Anxiety (A) 1 645.33 645.33 8.76* D X A 1 140.08 140.08 1.90 Within 44 3239.47 73.62 *p < .05 Interpretation: High creative and high anxious students performed better than low creative and low anxious students respectively on total IQ. 200 TABLE 164 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on By Self Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 3.70 3.66 0.77 3.75 1.13 Mean High S.D. 3.50 1.31 4.08 0.51 3.79 Total Means 3.58 3.91 TABLE 165 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on By Self Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .08 .08 0.08 Anxiety (A) 1 1. 33 1.33 1.36 D X A 1 .74 .74 0.77 Within 44 42.83 .97 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 201 TABLE 166 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on At Home Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4. 33 1.43 4.08 1. 31 4.20 Production High Mean S.D. 4.08 1.24 4.58 0.51 4.33 Total Means 4.20 4.33 TABLE 167 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on At Home Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .18 .18 0.13 Anxiety (A) 1 .18 .18 0.13 D X A 1 1.68 1.68 1.20 Within 44 61.41 1.39 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 202 TABLE 168 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on With Peers Source Anxiety Total Means Low High Divergent Low Mean S.D. 4.50 0.52 4.16 1.11 4.33 Production High Mean S.D. 4.41 1.16 4.41 0.51 4.41 Total Means 4.45 4.29 TABLE 169 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on With Peers Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 .08 .08 0.10 Anxiety (A) 1 .33 .33 0.42 D X A 1 .33 .33 0.42 Within 44 34.49 .78 Interpretation: No significant differences were noted. 203 TABLE 170 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on In Reading Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 3.75 3.58 0.9 3.91 1.16 Mean High S.D. 3.83 0.83 4.25 0.75 4 .04 Total Means 3.70 4.08 TABLE 171 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on In Reading Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 1.02 1.02 1.13 Anxiety (A) 1 1.68 1.68 1.86 D X A 1 .02 .02 0.02 Within 44 39.74 .90 Interpretation: No ;significant differences were noted. 204 TABLE 172 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on In Math Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 4.25 4.41 0.51 4.08 1.24 Mean High S.D. 3.50 1.38 3.75 1.05 3.62 Total Means 3.95 3.91 j TABLE 173 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on In Math Source df SS MS F Divergent Production (D) 1 4.68 4.68 3.88 Anxiety (A) 1 .02 .02 0.01 D X A 1 1.02 1.02 0.84 Within 44 53.08 1.20 Interpretation: NO significant differences were noted. 205 TABLE 174 Means and Standard Deviations: Anxiety and Divergent Production at Grade Eight on Total Sdlf-Perception Source Anxiety Total Means Divergent Production Mean Low S.D. Low High 20.04 20.50 1.97 19.58 5.40 Mean High S.D. 19.33 2.27 21.08 1.78 20.20 Total Means 19.91 20.33 TABLE 175 ANOVA: Divergent Production, Anxiety and Interaction At Grade Eight on Total Self-Perception Source df SS MS E Divergent Production (D) 1 .33 .33 0.03 Anxiety (A) 1 2.08 2.08 0.20 D X A 1 21.33 21.33 2.06 Within 44 455.49 10.35 Interpretation: No significance differences were noted. TABLE 176 SUMMARY Of HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 3 HAY ANOVA Hull Supportive DEPENDENT VARIABLES Findings Favor Convergent Production Divergent Production Data Self-Concept c Anx ious •HI c o. 2 X 8 85 X X J 4 5 6 7 8 ~9~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 T7- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 31 32 11 14 17 20 23 26 87 90 92 94 96 98 Relationships be tween Anxiety and divergent produc tion 5/5 53785 8/9 86/86 11/12 87/88 14/15 17/18 20/21 23/24 26/27 ” ~ 5 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 85 87 90 92 96 98 83 85 87 90 92 94 96 98 6 5 6 8/6 Relationships be tween Grade Level and divergent pro duction II 14 If 20 23 26 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 6 (Interaction: Anxiety X Grade) Relationships be tween S e x and di vergent production Interaction be tween main ef fects and depen dent variables to -O C J I TABLE 177 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES) SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 NAY ANOVA AT GRADE 4 — 5JSTT-- Hypotheses t J i : Supportive Data rindInga ravor Convergent Production EPENDENT Divergent Production V1 A R I A B L E S e 3 ( 4 9 Anx ious Cres- S«x tivs >• u 2 3 • I - ^ l f l l o. 9 e1 o o 2i HI I Cl H i dl h | S i Si 0 M 1 o 4J S 5 s >. e 4 J « + J 0 • H g ■ H ■ a ■ a A > • « H » H 4 - 1 > 4 • H H 1 9 • < P J O 0 a c 1 4 • H 0 c ■ H ■ H 0 • « i d 4 1 X t r •O Tl C A * 9 « ■ H a t ) « . H U r - 4 A W f t u u . o U Self-Concept 8 9 C • e 4 • o « & * > 0 , o o i d « a. > 4 A * » < 33 X 9 101 4 X 34 X 1 102 4 X 35 X 3 103 4 X Relationships between anxiety and the academic achievement 34 X 5 104 4 X variables of convergent production among fourth grade stu 37 X 7 105 4 X dents. 38 X 9 106 4 X -3f 40 X 1 102 X 4 X 41 X 3 103 X 4 X 42 X 5 104 X 4 X Relationships between divergent production and the academic 43 X 7 105 X 4 X achievement variables of convergent production among fourth 44 41 X X 9 106 X 4 X grade students. 46 X 1 102 4 X 47 X 3 103 4 X Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on the 48 X 5 104 4 X academic achievement variables of convergent production 49 X 7 105 4 X among fourth grade students. SO X 9 106 4 X “sT X " — 52 X 3 108 4 Relationships between anxiety and IQ among fourth 53 X 5 109 4 x grade students. 54 X 1 107 X 4 X Relationships between divergent production and IQ 55 X 3 108 X 4 X among fourth grade students. S6 X 5 109 X 4 X 207 TABLE 177 SUMMARY Or HYPOTHESIS, SUPPORTIVE DATA AMD DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 3 NAY ANOVA (Continued) Hull lupportlve DEPENDENT VARIABLES Hypotheses Data Findings Favor Convergent Production Divergent Production Self-Concept Crea- Sex tive Anx ious 57 X 41 107 4 X 51 X 43 108 4 X Interaction between anxiety and divergent production 59 X 45 109 4 X on 10 among fourth grade students. “ C T T — ~ ---* ~ - ~ ~ ” X 01 X 49 111 4 Relationships between anxiety and X 62 X 51 112 4 self-concept among fourth grade X 63 X 53 113 4 students. X 64 X 55 114 4 X X 57 115 4 66 X ~ 4 T 110 4 X 67 X 49 111 4 X 68 X 51 112 4 Relationships between divergent X 69 X S3 113 4 production and self-concept among X 70 X 55 114 4 fourth grade students. X 71 X 57 115 4 -fl X ' "4 f 110 4 X 73 X 49 111 4 X 74 X 51 112 4 Interaction between anxiety and X 75 X 53 113 4 divergent production on self- X 76 X 55 114 4 concept among fourth grade students. X 77 X 57 115 4 X 208 TABLE 178 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES. SUPPORTIVE DATA AMD DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 HAY ANOVA AT GRADE 5 — HOT-- Hypotheses Supportive Data * > o e ■n C l ac -re- 79 80 81 82 81 -n 85 86 87 88 89 “9TJ 91 92 93 94 95 97 98 ~9l 100 101 Findings Favor DEPENDENT VARIABLES Convergent Production Divergent Production Self-Concept o > e a. tr 61 63 65 67 69 Anx ious o > > TTT 117 X 118 x 119 X 120 121 JJ Crea tive o> •H X Sex I • I o* - I el «i H | HI a §• §• o o C J u A A •H -H a x J=! <1 •-*1 Si Si O +J > • > 9 > 1 ■H £ -vi -f4 « > O *H vl h >i H e w «n o ja c <M H o C -H *H • » 1 4 t > x C f « CO. 9 « H O 0 «H <H f c d K W fc. U. O e 2 8 + > H * I? £ e e v • h O u t * e U) >. A 0> c £ *1 0. C l 2 e a . e u ’ f t 61 63 65 67 69 IfS 117 118 119 120 121 5 5 5 5 5 £ X Relationships between anxiety and the academic achievement X variables of convergent production among fifth grade students. X X X X X X X X ■ft • 61 63 65 67 69 irs 117 118 119 120 121 5 5 5 5 5 £ Relationships between divergent production and the academic X achievement variables of convergent production among fifth X grade students. X X •n~ in' 73 123 75 124 5 5 5 5 5 £ Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on tha X academic achievement variables of convergent production among X fifth grade students. X X 1\~ 121' 73 123 75 124 Relationships between anxiety and IQ among fifth grade students. 5 5 £ Relationships between divergent production and IQ among fifth grade students. 602? TABU! 178 SUMMARY or HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 MAY ANOVA AT GRADE S — SuTT--- Hypotheses Supportive Data Findings Favor Convergent Production D E P E N t a a . Anx ious Crea tive a O * Sex TGI T ~7T T72 5 103 X 73 123 5 104 X 75 124 5 105 X 77 125 X 5 106 X 79 126 X 5 107 X 81 127 X 5 108 X 83 128 X 5 109 X 85 129 X 5 110 X 87 130 X _ _______________5 Til “X" “77 _ 12? - 112 X 79 126 5 113 X 81 127 5 114 X 83 128 5 115 X 85 129 5 116 X 87 130 5 Tl7 — ~ ~x "77 ~ T2F _ _ ^ 118 X 79 126 5 119 X 81 127 5 120 X 83 128 5 121 X 85 129 5 122 X 87 130 5 c 0 u el *1 • “* 1 S\ Si V a. c 0 o a a .cl i i - « i M <1 • h| S\ H I DENT V A R I A B Divergent Production > i sa > e L E (Continued) 1------- Self-Concept * i . 0 •H o • U C CU « u > 3 & c 0 • e d >, >» c a ■U 0 u a 0* e - 4 •H -w o u c o H H H a •H u • * 4 a o 9 a TJ £ a ja c u | Ou a iJ A. •H •H O H • 0 a a i X tr A « CO a J3 a 2 •M a a 4 J H H U H 0 > , 4J c e a o U H a < M M (A Interaction between anxiety and divergent produc tion on IQ among fifth grade students. Relationships between anxiety and self-concept among fifth grade students. Relationships between divergent production and self-concept among fifth grade students. Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on self-concept among fifth grade students. t o l - > o TABLE 179 Null HypotlitiM SUMMARY Or HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AMD DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 HAY ANOVA AT GRADE 6 VARIABLES Supportive Data Findings Favor DEPENDENT Convergent Production Divergent Production Self-Concept Sex c a. 123 89 131 6 X X 124 125 126 127 128 T2? 130 131 132 133 X x x X X 91 93 95 97 99 ’ 59" 91 93 95 97 99 ‘ 59" 91 93 95 97 99 "151" 103 105 "lfll" 103 105 132 133 134 135 136 "111" 132 133 134 135 136 " 111" 132 133 134 135 136 "1T7~ 138 139 _1?7“ 138 139 X Relationships between anxiety and academic achievement variables of X convergent production among sixth grade students. X X 5 "x" 6 6 6 6 6 134 ] { T35 “ 136 137 138 139 140 T4T - - 142 14 3 T4T " X 145 X 146 X Relations between divergent production and academic achievement variables of convergent production among sixth grade students. 6 X 6 6 6 6 6 Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on academic X achievement variables of convergent production among sixth grade X students. X _________ X ___________________________________________ X X Relationships between anxiety and IQ among ___________ _X _6i_xth_grade_students_______ _ X ~ X Relationships between divergent production and X IQ among sixth grade students. 6 6 6 I 6 6 211 TABLE 179 SUMMARY OP HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 NAY ANOVA AT GRADE 6 (Continued) — HuTT--- Hypotheses Supportive Date Findings Favor Convergent Production D E PENDENT VARIABLES Divergent Production Self-Concept Anx ious Crea- Sex tive * > J3 HI X 101 117 147 6 X 148 149 150 151 152 151 154 155 15? 157 158 159 160 161 T67 161 164 165 166 167 101 105 107 109 111 111 115 117 X" To7 X 109 X 111 X 111 X 115 X 117 TOT 109 111 111 115 117 118 119 140 141 142 141 144 145 'lTo" 141 142 141 144 145 ’ 1T0“ 141 142 141 144 145 X Interaction between anxiety and divergent X production on IQ among sixth grade students. X Relationships between anxiety and self-concept X among sixth grade students. x X X Relationships between divergent production and self-concept among sixth grade-students. Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on self-concept among sixth grade students. 212 TABUS 180 SUMMARY OP HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 NAY ANOVA AT GRADE 7 Null Hypotheses Supportive Data Findings Favor DEPENDENT V ARIABLES Convergent Production Divergent Production Self-Concept u u • * 3 Z J 3 e h o o* e a. Anx ious I I Crea- Sex tive < 3 a • i - ' ' ‘ I «i Si i «! hi 3 a c o o a a £1 4 J Hi u <1 2t H I P C o ♦i >» 4J « • h e > « ■H H <M J > H O « M c a , * o (A >* * 1 >1 4J > i * h e e 0 A c u C -H o e x t * X k s e - h « o» c 0* >» A a +1 C o • H a e o 0 a. 1 • e i C * M 168 X 119 146 7 X 169 X 121 147 7 X Relationships between anxiety and the academic achievement 170 X 123 148 7 X variables of convergent production among seventh grade 171 X 125 149 7 X students. 172 X 127 15C 7 X 173 X 129 151 7 X T7T " X Il5 it 6 ■ ■ X 7 X 175 X 121 147 X 7 X Relationships between divergent production and the 176 X 123 148 X 7 X academic achievement variables of convergent production 177 X 125 149 7 X among seventh grade students. 178 X 127 150 X 7 X 179 X 129 151 X 7 X T8ff " ~ f Tl? ~lt6 7 X 181 X 121 147 7 X Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on 182 X 123 148 7 X the academic achievement variables of convergent produc 183 X 125 149 7 X tion among seventh grade students. 184 X 127 150 7 X 185 X 129 151 7 X Te* X 131 _1?2----- 7 X 187 X 133 153 7 X Relationships between anxiety and IQ among 188 X 135 154 7 X seventh grade students. 213 TABLE 180 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 WAY ANOVA AT GRADE £ (Continued) Null Hypotheses Supportive Data D E P £ N Findings Favor Convergent Production DENT VARIABL Divergent Production E S Self-Concept 3 Z £ t • 9 H 0 O' < 9 0* Anx ious Cre«' tive I 1 Sox a B 0 u • I - ^ l el Si 3 C, 6 0 o ^1 J 3 HI I <1 - < l H I > 0 • O O c >. S > o ■ u -Q • h C o c o 3 c J 3 189 190 191 X y 131 133 135 152 153 154 X Relationships between divergent production and IQ X A among seventh grade students. T9I 193 194 X V 131 133 135 152 “ 153 154 Interaction between anxiety and divergent produc- A X ' „ tion on IQ among seventh grade students 195 X 137 155 7 Relationships between X 196 X 139 156 7 anxiety and self-concept X 197 X 141 157 7 among seventh grade students. X 198 X 143 158 7 X 199 X 145 159 7 X 200 X 147 160 7 X 7 o T —‘ “ X 1 3 7 1*55 7 X 202 X 139 156 7 Relationships between divergent production and X 203 X 141 157 X 7 self-concept amcng seventh grade students. X 204 X 143 158 7 X 205 X 145 159 7 X 206 X 147 160 7 X lo T X 137 155“ 7 X 203 X 139 156 7 X 209 X 141 157 7 X 21 0 X 14 3 158 7 X 2 1 1 X 145 159 7 X 212 X 147 160 7 X 214 TABLE 181 — HOT--- Hypotheses SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 HAY ANOVA AT GRADE 8 D E P E N D~E NT VARIABLES Supportive Data Findings Favor Convergent Production DENT V A R I A B Divergent Production Self-Concept Anx- Crea- Sex ious tive . e l u n ■ H 0 « u c a . 213 X 149 161 X 8 X 214 X 151 162 X 8 X 215 X 153 163 X 8 X 216 X 155 164 X 8 X 217 X 157 165 8 218 7l? X X 159 149 166 161 X X 8 -----1 X 223 X 151 162 X 8 X 221 X 153 163 X 8 X 222 X 155 164 X 8 X 223 X 157 165 X 8 224 727 ~ X “X” 159 T i l 166 -1?1~ ___X___ 8 -------I - X - 226 X 151 162 8 X 227 X 153 163 8 X 228 X 155 164 8 X 229 X 157 165 8 2 30 73T “ X _x_ 159 T6T 166 ~1?7 X ■ ----- 8 -------I ~ - — - 2 32 X 163 168 8 233 73? " X X 165 TeT 169 1?7~ X _ X 8 -----f f “ - - 235 X 163 168 X 8 236 X 165 169 X 8 Relationships between anxiety and the academic achievement vari ables of convergent production among eighth grade students. X Relationships between divergent production and the academic achievement variables of convergent production among eighth grade students. X Interaction between anxiety and divergent production on the academic achievement variables of convergent production among eighth grade students. X _ _ _ X- " “ ~ X Relationships between anxiety and IQ among eighth X grade students^ _ _ _ _______ _______ X ~ ~ - - - - - X Relationships between divergent production and 10 _______ _X__ among eighth_grade_students._____________________ 215 TABLE 181 — BuTT— Hypotheses SUMMARY OP HYPOTHESES, SUPPORTIVE DATA AMD DEPENDENT VARIABLES TREATED IN 2 MAY ANOVA AT GRADE 8 (Continued) Supportive DEPENDENT VARIABLES Data Findings Favor Convergent Production Divergent Production Self-Concept * * 1 * u s X3 e «- Anx ious Crea tive I I - Sox m r - t > • u 8 o t u *1 «l «l 2i h i 9 a e o u u < - H i 3, 2 H I > s3 >1 • 4J .Q •M • « - » O o n h 3 S* C B M 4J * * * J3 C U o X O' 15 « * e I d -4 k o u 0 o. o* c ■ e d 1 5 « 0 as a 0 0 u 0 c c 2 M M 237 238 X X 161 163 167 168 8 8 X „ Interaction between anxiety and divergent | production 239 X 165 169 8 xon IQ among eighth grade students. 240 X 167 170 8 X 241 242 X X 169 171 171 172 8 8 Relationships between anxiety and self-concept among X y 243 X 173 173 8 eighth grade students A X 244 X 175 174 8 X 245 X 177 175 8 X 74? ‘ X 170 X 247 ‘ 248 X X 169 171 171 172 8 8 Relationships between divergent production and X 249 X 173 173 8 self-concept among eighth grade students. X 250 X 175 174 8 X 251 X 177 175 8 X l5l " X X 253 X 169 171 8 Interaction between anxiety and divergent X 254 X 171 172 8 production on self-concept among eighth X 255 X 173 173 8 grade students. X 255 X 175 174 8 X 257 X 177 175 8 X 216 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A review of the literature revealed that the con structs of anxiety, self-concept, divergent production and convergent production were repeatedly presented in psycho logical and educational writings. The literature also re vealed that little empirical evidence was available upon which a parsimonious explanation of the effects of these variables on rural disadvantaged children could be confirm ed. The present study proposed to investigate possible re lationships between anxiety, sex, divergent production, convergent production and self-concept characteristics of rural disadvantaged upper elementary and middle school children. Summary of Experimental Design and Operational Procedures The study was structured in two basic parts. One part utilized a 2 x 2 x 5 configuration with sex and anx iety bifurcated across five grade levels as the indepen dent variables. The second part utilized a 2 x 2 config- 217 218 uratlon with sex as an independent variable on one side and high or low anxiety, or creativity, the independent varia bles on the other side. The subjects were 367 lower SES fourth through eighth grade students taken from a small rural community. Using a random reduction procedure to achieve equal cell sizes, a 2 x 2 x 5 factorial design with N = 200 and cell n = 10 was employed to analyze relationships between the main effects of sex, grade level and anxiety and the de pendent variables of divergent production, convergent pro duction and self-concept. To explore the relationships between anxiety, di vergent production, convergent production and self-concept, a 2 x 2 factorial design was employed to explore the re lationships between anxiety, divergent production, conver gent production and self-concept, a 2 x 2 factorial design was employed with N and cell size varying for each grade level treated. At grades four and five, data from 69 S's was randomly reduced to N = 52 with cell sizes of n = 13 each at each grade level. At grades six and eight, data from 83 S's was randomly reduced to N = 48 with cell sizes of n = 12 each at each grade level. At grade seven, data from 90 S's was randomly reduced to N « 68 with cell sizes of n = 17 each. Only S 's from lower SES backgrounds were included 219 in the study. No attempt to compensate for the possible confounding effect of ethnic differences was made because the schools from which the samples were drawn were approxi mately 83% Mexican-American. All students from high and low SES were tested at the same time and data for students not meeting the criteria of low SES were eliminated from the study. The uniform administration of the tests to high and low SES students was done to control for a possible "Hawthorne Effect." Summary of the Hypotheses The study was structured through the use of 257 hy potheses. Hypotheses 1-32 concerned relationships between sex and anxiety and divergent production abilities of stu dents across grades four through eight. Hypotheses 33-76 concerned relationships of anxiety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept among fourth grade students. Hypotheses 77-122 concerned relationships of anx iety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept among fifth grade students. Hypotheses 123-167 concerned relationships of anx iety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept among sixth grade students. 220 Hypotheses 168-212 concerned relationships of anx iety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept among seventh grade students. Hypotheses 213-257 concerned relationships of anx iety and divergent production to convergent production and self-concept among eighth grade students. Summary of the Findings Of the 257 hypotheses tested in the study, 180 failed to be rejected at the .05 level of confidence. It was found that high anxious students did better on the divergent production subtests of Redefinition A, Redefini tion B, Sensitivity to Problems, Flexibility and Total GTOC. Higher grade level students generally did better than lower grade level students on all areas of divergent production measured. On the three GTOC subtests of Sensi tivity to Problems, Flexibility and Originality, sixth grade students performed much better than some higher grade level students. Fourth grade students performed better than some higher grade level students on the Originality subtest of the GTOC. Seventh grade students scored lower on the Originality subtest than fourth, sixth or eighth grade students. Girls scored significantly better than boys on the subtest of Redefinition B, Sensitivity to Prob- 221 lems, Fluency, Flexibility of Thinking and on the Total GTOC. One interaction was found in the study. The inter action was between anxiety and grade level on the Sensitiv ity to Problems subtest of the GTOC among sixth grade stu dents. Since it was the only interaction of the study, the investigator chose to risk a Type I error and interpreted the interaction as a chance occurence. At the fourth grade level, students high in diver gent production ability performed significantly better on the convergent production measures of reading and math than students of lower divergent production ability. High crea tive fourth grade students performed significantly better on verbal, non-verbal and total IQ than their low creative peers. High anxious fourth grade students demonstrated a significantly better self-concept in the area of their per ceptions of themselves as measured by the "By Self" subtest of the Self-Perception Rating Scale. At the fifth grade level, high anxious students performed significantly better than their low anxious peers in the convergent production areas of reading com prehension, total reading, arithmetic computation, total arithmetic, verbal IQ and total IQ. High creative fifth grade students performed significantly better than low creative fifth grade students on arithmetic concepts, 222 arithmetic computation and total arithmetic. High creative sixth grade students scored signi ficantly better than their low creative peers on all areas of convergent production measured. High creative seventh grade students scored sig nificantly higher than their low creative peers on all areas of convergent production measured except arithmetic concepts and non-verbal IQ. Eighth grade students who scored high in divergent production scored significantly better than low creative eighth grade students on all areas of convergent production measured. Similarly, high anxious eighth grade students scored significantly better than their low anxious peers on all areas of convergent production measured except arithmetic computation and non-verbal IQ. No other hypothesized relationships were found to be present. Inspection of the data revealed that students who scored higher on measures of anxiety and divergent production tended to have more positive self-concepts. The relationships of high anxiety and high creativity to highly positive self-concept, however, did not reach sig nificance. During the administration of the GTOC, the TASC— modified, the SPRS and the L-T, the investigator observed that many students who had lower recorded achievement test 223 results appeared to minimize the importance of performing well on the battery used in the present study. Conclusions Findings from the present study indicate that among the rural disadvantaged, (1) students of high ability in divergent production had a greater propensity for success in academic pursuits than their peers of lower divergent production ability; (2) students of higher anxiety achieved better in academic studies than their less anxious peers; (3) self-concept was relatively independent of anxiety, sex, grade level or divergent production ability; and (4) among lower IQ students, there was a high positive rela tionship between divergent production and intelligence. Recommendations Several recommendations seem appropriate based on the findings and conclusions of the present study. These recommendations are that (1) consideration be given to introducing training for creativity into the curriculum of the rural disadvantaged as a possible means of improv ing academic abhievement; (2) longitudinal studies be undertaken to ascertain the trend of specific divergent production abilities as they emerge and their interrela- 224 tionships over time with global measures of divergent pro duction; (3) studies be undertaken to ascertain the role of sex differences in divergent production; (4) studies be undertaken to ascertain the relationships of various IQ ranges to divergent production abilities; (5) similar studies should be undertaken to clarify the elusive rela tionships between anxiety and divergent and convergent ■ . abilities, and (6) further investigations of the dependent variables of the present study be undertaken with younger students, particularly, to ascertain the role and impor tance of self-concept, which this study would indicate is highly independent of the other dependent and independent variables. At least three of the above recommendations may be more clearly understood in context of the following brief explanations. With regard to the first recommendation, there is growing evidence to indicate that training for creativity effectively increases divergent production skills in chil dren (Torrance, 1962, 1972; Amram, 1968). Stauts (1973) found that teachers can be trained to recognize creative potential in students. By systematically training teach ers to recognize creative potential in their students and implementing training for creativity in the curriculum of the rural disadvantaged, it may be possible to improve 225 academic gains of students concomitantly with anticipated improvement in their divergent production ability. The second recommendation was made, because in the present study, the pattern of GTOC scores observed on the subtests varied at nearly all grade levels from the in crease in overall progression of creativity from the fourth through eighth grades. Longitudinal studies may provide needed information about the development of specific crea tive skills and general creative ability. Longitudinal studies have also been suggested by Getzels and Dillon (in Travers, ed., 1974), Torrance (1961) and Solomon (1967), for the purpose of clarifying the development of specific divergent production abilities and their rela tionships to overall creativity. The fifth recommendation also appears to need am plification. A major reason for undertaking the present study was to attempt to clarify the relationships of anx iety and academic achievement in the school setting (Sarason, et al, 1960). The finding of the present study that anxiety appears to have a positive effect on academic achievement among rural disadvantaged students would tend to support a drive theory position of anxiety (Spence, 1958, 1960). This finding does little to clarify the point at which, and under what conditions, anxiety be comes debilitating to students. Studies more similar to 226 those being carried out by Sieber, et al (1969, 1970) at the Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teach ing may better explicate the role of anxiety on youngsters in the school setting. BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W. Becoming. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Allport, Gordon W. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Amram, Fred M. and Giese, David I. Creativity training— a tool for motivating disadvantaged students. In ERIC, 1968, ed. 018210. Bandura, Albert and Walters, Richard H. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Barratt, Ernest S. Impulse control and anxiety related to school adjustment and academic achievement among high school males. (Final report: office of educa tion project S-484, ed. 056354) Galveston, Texas: Texas University Medical Branch, 1971. Barratt, Ernest S. and White, Robert. Impulsiveness and anxiety related to medical students' performance and attitudes. Journal of Medical Education, July, 1969, 44(7), 604-607. Barron, Frank. Creativity and Personal Freedom. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1968. Baughman, E. Earl and Welsh, George S. Personality: A Behavioral Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,"T?ffi:-------- Bledsoe, Joseph C. and Garrison, Karl C. The self-concept of elementary school children in relation to their academic achievement, intelligence, interests and manifest anxiety. In ERIC, 1962, ed. 003004. Bloom, Benjamin S. Toward a theory of testing which in cludes measurement-evaluation-assessment. (CSEIP Occasional Report No. 9) Los Angeles: University of California, 1968. 228 229 Bloom, B. S., Allison, Davis and Hass, Robert. Compensa tory Education for Cultural Deprivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1$65. Bloom, R. D. Some correlates of test anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Boshaw, W. L. and White, William F. Figural creativity and convergent thinking among culturally deprived kindergarten children. In ERIC, 1971, ed. 047346. Broahover, W. B., Patternson, A. and Thomas, S. Self- concept of ability and school achievement. Sociol ogy of Bducation, 1964, 37, 271-278. Brown, Donna J. B. Toward a methodology for improving vocabulary development of low-income children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, In ERIC, 1970, ed. 060015. Campbell, P. B. School and self-concept. Educational Leadership, 1967, 24, 510-515. Cantey, Richard. Correlates of creativity among father- absent children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1973. Clark, C. H. Brainstorming. New York: Doubleday, 1958. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967. Davids, Anthony, DeVault, Spencer and Talmadge, Max. Anxiety pregnancy, and childbirth abnormalities. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25(1), Davis, Shirlee Dunn. An investigation of selected corre lates of academic achievement among seventh-grade pupils. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1966. Degnan, Joseph A. General anxiety and attitudes toward mathematics in achievers and under-achievers in mathematics. Graduate Research in Education and Related Discipline, 1967, 3 (1) , 49-62. 230 DuCette, Joseph and Wolk, Stephen. The limitations of the interaction hypothesis in regard to ability group ing. In ERIC, 1971, ed. 056330. Entwisle, D. R. Questions about social class, internality- externality, and test anxiety. Developmental Psy chology, 1972, 7(2) 218. Erickson, Erik H. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 196$"I Erickson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. New York: Nor ton , 1950. Evans, Franklin R. and Frederiksen, Norman. The effects of models on creative performance in relation to sex, ability and anxiety. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associa tion ,~ T972, 7fpt; 1), '*91-492.-------------- Felker, Donald W. and Treffinger, Donald J. Self-concept, divergent thinking abilities and attitudes about creativity and problem solving. In ERIC, 1971, ed. 047347. Fox, David J. The Research Process in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Fox, L. J. A study of relationships between grades and measures of scholastic aptitude, creativity, and attitudes in junior college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967. Freud, Sigmund. The Problem of Anxiety. New York: W. W. Norton, 1936. Frost, Joe L. and Hawkes, Glenn R. The disadvantaged: euphemism for the poor. In Frost, J. L. and Hawkes, G. R. (Eds.), The Pisadvantaged Child: Issues and Innovations,gecond Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970. Gener, Benson E. Failure and learning disability. Reading Teacher, January, 1970, 23(4), 311-317. Getzels, J. W. and Dillon, J. T. The nature of giftedness and the education of the gifted. In Travers, Robert M. W. (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally, 19*73, 689-731. 231 Gezi, Kal I. Analysis of certain measures of creativity and self-floncept and their relationships to social class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, March, 1969, ed. 031533. Gill, Mohindra P. Pattern of achievement as related to the perceived self. In ERIC, 1969, ed. 029336. Gillman, Geneva B. The relationship between self-concept, intellectual ability, achievement, and manifest anxiety among select groups of Spanish-surname migrant students in New Mexico. Unpublished doc toral dissertation, the University of New Mexico, Ifl BRIC, 1969, ed. 029723. Gjesme, Targrim. Six differences in the relationship be tween anxiety and school performance. Psychologi cal Reports, 1972, 30(3), 907-914. Gordon, W. J. J. The Metaphorical Way of Learning and Knowing. Cambridge: Tony Poze, 1$(S9. Gould, Kathryn Lewis. Relationships of creativity, reading comprehension, intelligence and response to a lit erature selection for fourth grade inner-city children. In ERIC, 1972, ed. 072434. Goulet, L. R. and Mazzei, Joseph. Verbal learning and confidence thresholds as a function of test anxiety, intelligence, and stimulus similarity. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 3(4) , 247-252. --------- ----------------- Guilford, J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 1950, 5, 444-454. Guilford, J. P. The Structure of Intellect and its Educa- tional Implications. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, T5ZT. --------- Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American Psy chologist, 1959, 14, 469-479. 232 Hall, Eleanor R. Motivation and Achievement in Negro and White Students: Final Report, ed. 060157, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Hawkes, Thomas H. and Furst, Norma F. Race, socio-economic situation, achievement, IQ and teacher ratings of students' behavior as factors relating to anxiety in upper elementary school children. Sociology of Education, 1971, 44(3). Hill, K. T. and Sarason S. The relation of test anxiety and defensiveness to test and school performance over the elementary school years: a further long itudinal study. Society for Research in Child De velopment, 1966, 3l. Institute for Development of Educational Activities. Seminar Proceedings: Motivation for Learning, Dayton: Institute for Development o£ Educational Activities, 1971. Isaac, S. and Michael, W. B. Handbook in Research and Eval uation . San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 19*71. Jackson, P. W. and Messick, Samuel. The person, the pro duct, and the response. In Kagen, Jerome (Ed.), Creativity and Learning, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Jensen, Arthur R. The nature of intelligence. In Bracht, Glen H., Hopkins, Kenneth D. and Stanley, Julian C. Perspectives in Educational and Psychological Measurement, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, rm,~r§-3. Jordan, Daniel C. The disadvantaged child. In Allen, D. W. and Seifman, Eli The Teachers Handbook, Glen view, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1971, 673-683. Karsten, Mary O'Keefe, The relationship of test of crea tive abilities and selected factors of academic achievement, intelligence and socio-economic status and pupil attitudes. Unpublished doctoral disser tation, University of Southern California, 1967. Kagen, Jerome. Personality and the learning process. In Kagen, J. (Ed.), Creativity and Learning, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961 ?. 233 Khatena, J. Developmental patterns in production by children aged 9 to 19 of original verbal images as measured by sounds and images. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 649-650. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, Ca.: Brooks Cole, T56W.---------------- Krauss, Herbert H. and Ruiz, Rene A. Anxiety and temporal perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 23(3) . Leith, G. 0. and Davis, T. N. Age changes in the relation ship between neurotocism and achievement. Research in Education, 1972, 8 , 61-70. Levitt, Eugene E. The Psychology of Anxiety. Indiana polis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967. Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951. Lichtman, Marilyn. An investigation of the relationship of three variables— intelligence, creativity, and language— in disadvantaged, preschool negroes. In ERIC, 1971, ed. 047049. Lowenfeld, Viktor. Creativity: education's stepchild. In Parness, S. J. and Harding, H. F. (Eds.), A Source Book for Creative Thinking, New York: Charles Scribners' sons, 1962, 9^16. Massad, Carolyn Emrick. Language— thought processes in children from differing socio-economic levels. In ERIC, 1968, ed. 022636. McCarthy, John R. and Metfessel, Newton S. A Manual Pro- 8 rammed Instruction on Learning, Evaluation and evelopment. Vol. I. Los Angeles: Universityof Southern California, 1966. Mednick, S. A. and Mednick, M. T. Examiner's Manual: Re mote Associates Test: College and Adult Forms T ~ and 2 . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967. Meeker, M. N. The Structure of Intellect: its Interpreta- tion and Uses. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, Tfsr.--------- 234 Metfessel, N. S. et. al. Group Test of Creativity. Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research, Univer- sity of Southern California Press, 1965. Metfessel, N. S. The school psychologist's role in devel oping creativity. In Magary, James F. (Ed.), School Psychological Services, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1967. Metfessel, N. S. and Michael, Wm. B. A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1967, 27"^ 931-^43. Metfessel, N. S. and Hammond, M. D. Everything you've always wanted to know about behavioral objectives but were afraid to ask or how to develop accounta bility programs in the affective domain. Califor nia School Psychology, 1972 19(3), 32-40. Metfessel, N. S. and Hammond, M. D. Group test of creativ ity: administration manual, scoring guide and re cord booklet. Unpublished manuscript, first revi sion, University of Southern California, 1972. Metfessel, N. S. Interpretive guide: Self-perception rating scale, revised. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, 197 3. Morris, Larry W. and Liebert, Robert M. Effects of anxiety on timed and untimed intelligence tests: another look. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol ogy, 19*9, 35(2).----------- ----------------------- Morse, William C. Self-concept in the school setting. Childhood Education, 1964, 41(4), 195-198. Mulroy, Irene. The relationship between anxiety and scholastic success in junior school children. Papers in Psychology, 1968, 2(1). Munsinger, Harry. Fundamentals of Child Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1071, 403- 410. Neville, Donald, Pfost, Philip and Dobbs, Virginia. The relationship between test anxiety and silent read ing gain. American Educational Research Journal, 1967, 4 (1),“45-5(T 235 Niland, Thomas M. and Hansen, James C. The relationship of minimal goal discrepancy to adjustment and anxiety in elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, October, 1970, 26(4). Nivette, J. D. An investigation into some critical factors in a group test of creativity. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1966. Osborn, Alex. Developments in creative education. In Parness, S. J. and Harding, H. F. (Eds.), A Source Book for Creative Thinking, New York: Charles Scribners' sons, 1962 , 20. Parness, S. J. and Harding, H. F. A Source Book for Crea- tive Thinkinq. New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1962. Parness, S. J. Creative potential and the educational ex perience. In Seminar Report: Creativity: The State of the Art, Dayton: Institute for Develop ment of Educational Activities, n.d. Phillips, Beeman N. An Analysis of Causes of Anxiety Among Children in School. U.S. Department o£ Health, Education and Welfare, Austin: Division of Re search, Texas University, 1966. Pleh, Csaba. Effects of anxiety, success and failure on some factors of creative thinking. Magyar Pszecho- logiai Szemle, (English Summary), 1970, 27 (2), 242-255. Razik, T. A. Bibliography of Creativity Studies and Re lated Areas. Buffalo, N.Y.: State Universityof New York, 1965. Richmond, Bert O. Creative and cognitive abilities of white and negro children. In ERIC, 1968, ed. 030922. Risser, J. J. and Metfessel, N. S. Individual test of creativity. Project Potential, Los Angeles: Uni versity of Southern California, 1965. (a) Risser, J. J. and Metfessel, N. S. Group test of creativ ity. Project Potential, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1965. (b) 236 Riessman, Frank. The Culturally Deprived Child. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Rogers, Carl. Freedom to Learn. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill^ 1969. Rosenblum, Neil D., Treffinger, D. J. and Feldhusen, J. F. The effects of need for approval and general anx iety on divergent thinking scores. American Edu cational Research Association, Washington, D.C.: Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, March, 1970, ed. 038662. Roweton, W. E. Creativity: a review of theory and re search. ERIC, 1970, ed. 044012. Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety. In Stevenson H. W. (Ed.), Child Psychology: The Sixty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, T60-516. Sarason, et. al. Anxiety in Elementary School Children. New York: John Wiley and sons, 1960. Sieber, Joan and Crockenberg, S. B. The anxious child. Today1s Education, October, 1970, 76-77. Sieber, Joan, Kameya, L. I. and Paulson, F. L. The effect of memory support on the problem-solving ability of test-anxious children.Stanford Center for Re search and Development in Teaching Research and Development Memorandum, Stanford: Stanford Univer sity, 1969, 537 Sinha, Joi B. A test of dependence proneness. Journal of Psychological Researches, 1968, 12(2), 66-70. Smith, Robert M. The relationship of Creativity to social class. In ERIC, 1965, ed. 003343. Soars, Anthony and Soars, Louise M. Expectancy, achieve ment and self-concept correlates in disadvantaged and advantaged youths. In ERIC, 197.1, ed. 056134. Solomon, Anita. A comparative analysis of creative and in telligent behavior of elementary school children with different socio-economic backgrounds. Final progress report. In ERIC, 1967, ed. 017022. 237 Spence, K. W. A theory of emotionally based drive (D) and its' relation to performance in simple learning situations. American Psychologist, 1958, 13, 131- 141. Spence, K. W. Behavior Theory and Learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1566. Spillberger, C. D. (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 196(>7 Starkweather, E. K. Creativity research instruments de signed for use with preschool children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1971, 5, 245-254. Stauts, D. M. Teacher assessment of creative potential in fifth grade students. Unpublished doctoral disser tation, University of Southern California, 197 3. Sullivan, Harry S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. In Perry, H. S., et. al., (Eds.), The Collected Works of Harry Stack Sullivan, New York: W. W. Norton, 1953. Thomas, Susan B. Creativity: a positive of young children. In ERIC, 1973, ed. 076264. Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Torrance, E. P. Training teachers and leaders to recognize and acknowledge creative behavior among disadvan taged children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1972, 16, 3-10. Torrance, E. P. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Torrance, E. P. A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1968, 12, 195-199. Torrance, E. P. Non-test ways of identifying the creative ly gifted. In J. C. Gowan, G. D. Demos and E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its Educational Im- plications. New York: Wiley and sons, 1967, 238 Torrance, E. P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms, Technical Manual. Princeton: Personnel Press, 1966. Tulley, J. E. An investigation of the relationship of sex and anxiety to intellectual, achievement and per sonal characteristics of seventh grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967. Van Mond Frans, A. P., Felhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D. J. and Ferris, D. R. The effects of instructions and response time on divergent thinking test scores. Psychology in the School, 1971, 8, 65-71. Waite, R. R. Test performance as a function of anxiety and type of task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1959. Wallach, M. A. and Kogan, N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children. New Yorks Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Warner, Lloyd W., et. al. Social Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1$49. Warren, T. F. Creative Thinking Techniques: Four Methods of Stimulating Original Ideas in Sixth Grade Stu dents. Technical Report No. 1(5$, Madison: Univer sity of Wisconsin, 1971. White, Kinnard. Anxiety, extraversion-intraversion, and divergent thinking ability. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1968, 2(2), 119-127. Wilson, J. A. R., Robeck, M. C. and Michael, W. B. Psy chological Foundations of Learning and Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. APPENDICES 239 APPENDIX A MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORIZATION OF RESEARCH STUDY 240 /CO*CNtt 241 ^ U N » fp0 #.,V.c£ \ COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POST O FFICE BOX 847 TH ER M AL. C ALIFO RNIA 92274 (7141399 5137 Mr. Bobby G. Duke, Principal, Dateland School Mr. Bernie Coyne, Prioripal. Valley View School Mr. Bob Killian, Principal, Peter Pendleton School Mr. Dale Russell, Coordinator, R-D-C Mr. Chuck Pryor, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Eugene Tucker, Superintendent Authorization of Research Study Dale Russell requested permission to conduct a research study as part of his requirement fur the fulfillment ot a doctoral degree. The Cabinet reviewed the proposal and has concurred that the findings could be significant in future instructional decisions of the District. Approval for proceeding has been granted. Principals and staff members at each school identified as a study site are encouraged to cooperate with the researcher. Results, findings and recommendations will be disseminateo to all participants. TO: FROM: RE: ET/p 12/13/73 APPENDIX B DATA COLLECTION FORM 242 243 APPENDIX B CORRELATES OF SEX AND ANXIETY TO DIVERGENT PRODUCTION, CONVERGENT PRODUCTION AND SELF-CONCEPT...DATA COLLECTION FORM Female 1 _ _ _ Male 2 4 5 6 7 8 Name (Last, First) I.D. Sex Grade (Circle One) (Circle One) Anxiety Score >i >i s X X X o ■H •H * i H •H > i —1 > —1 X ■H >1 •H id id < f f l X o XI 3 p •H s •H P 0 * —i • • C O C D X t j i X) id T3 3 3 0) •H id x C D C D C D r - \ P P rH o OS OS C / J C m C m o w E - i Divergent Production c • o o H •H - 3 >i C O •a O X! Ip p c i d •H X a i d i d 0) < u C O PI i d H X • —i x os X id s p 3 < u a ) x i —1 0) X p i —i 0. 3 ip i d > i d a i d o a i d X i 0 e x s E X P 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 0) 0 > u o u E h > z Convergent Production tn 3 C O •H ip l * H C D p *0 X i d f —1 6 d ) i d X X c u 0 0) i d 0 CO s a os JB Eh Self-Perception Total IQ APPENDIX C REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION 244 APPENDIX C REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPATION RATING ASSIGNED TO PROFESSIONALS OCCUPATION PROPRIETORS AND MANAGERS BUSINESS MEN CLERKS AND KINDRED WORKERS MANUAL PROTECTIVE AND WORKERS SERVICE WORKERS FARMERS 1 Lawyers, doctors, dentists, engin eers, judges, high- school superin tendents, veterin arians, ministers (graduated from divinity school), chemists, etc. with post-graduate training archi tects Businesses val ued at 575,000 and ever Regional and divisional managers of large financial and industrial enterprises Certified Public Accountants Gentlemen farmers 2 Hich-school teach ers, trained nurses, chiropodists, chiro practors, undertak ers, ministers, (some training), newspaper editors, librarians, (grad uate) Businesses val ued at 520,000 to 575,000 Assistant mana gers ar.d office and department managers of large businesses assistants to executives, etc. Accountants, sales men of real estate, of insurance, post masters Large farm owners, farm owners 3 Social workers, Businesses val- grade-school teach- ued at 55,000 ers, optometrists, to $20,000 librarians (not graduate), under taker's assistants, ministers (no train ing) All minor offi cials of busi nesses Auto salesmen, bank clerks and cashiers, postal clerks, sec retaries to execu tives, supervisors of railroad, tele phone, etc. justices c£ the oeace Contractors Businesses val- Stenographers, book- Factory Dry cleaners, ued at $2,000 keepers, rural mail foremen,CVn butchers, to 55,000 clerks, railroad business: sheriffs, rail- tickct agents, sales electricians road engineers people in dry goods plumbers and conductors store, etc. carpenters wa tchnakers 245 REVISED SCALE FOR RATING OCCUPRATION (Continued) RATING ASSIGNED TO PROFESSIONALS OCCUPATION PROPRIETORS BUSINESS MEN AND MANAGERS CLERX3 AND KINDRED WORKERS MANUAL PROTECTIVE AND WORKERS SERVICE WORKERS FARMERS 5 Businesses val ued at $500 to $2,000 Dine store clerks, hardware salesmen, beauty operators, telephone crorn- tors Carpenters, Barbers, firenen, plumbers, butcher's appren- electricianstices, practical (apprentice), nurses, policemen timekeepers, seamstresses, cooks linemen, te in restaurant, telephone or bartenders te iegraph, radio repair men, medium- skill workers Tenant farmers 6 Businesses val ued at less than $500 Moulders, Baggage men, night seru-skilledpoiictmen and workers, as-watchmen, taxi and sistants to truck drivers, gas carpenter, station attendants, etc. waitresses in res taurants Small ten* ant far.rej 7 Heavy labor. Janitors, scrub- migrant women, newsboys wcrk, cdd- job ren, miners Migrant farm laborers ♦Warner, Meeker end Eelle Revised Occupation Scale (1949) 246 APPENDIX D 247 PROJECT POTENTIAL N B ffa i Sji. ftTFESSEL' P k D ., PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR director, C enter for the Study of E ducationally (Culturally) Disadvantaged Y outh U n iv e r s it y of Southern C a lifo r n ia 6 T 0 C GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY these materials may be reproduced only with permission of the director. 248 GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY Administration Manual 249 General Instructions for Examiners Establish rapport with the subjects by taking time to explain that this is a test of creativity in which he or she will be asked to make different or unusual re sponses to a wide variety of questions. Help the subjects understand how a creativity test dif fers from other achievement or intelligence tests they may have taken where there is only one correct answer. Urge the subjects to listen to the directions carefully, but to feel free to give unusual or different responses that may occur to them. Stress that there is no one correct answer. Watch individual subjects in the group for test anxiety and give the examinee encouragement by reminding him or her that there can be no wrong answer in a test of creativity. Materials to be used in administering this test will be found in the GTOC Record Blank. In the directions for administration, instructions that are to be read to the examinee will appear in capital letters. 251 Directions for Administering the Test REDEFINITION ABILITY Materials: Doodle A Directions Turn to doodle A and say to the subjects: I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THIS DRAW ING MIGHT BE. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS DRAWING MIGHT BE A SUNRISE (pause) OR IT MIGHT BE A HAT. NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT BE? The subject may turn the drawing in any way he chooses, al though no instructions are given that he may do this. If he should ask if it is permissible for him to turn the drawing, say: YES, YOU MAY IF YOU WISH. REDEFINITION ABILITY Materials: Doodle B Directions Turn to doodle B and say to the subjects: I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THIS DRAW ING MIGHT BE. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. 252 FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING Directions Say to the subjects: YOU CAN DO MANY THINGS WITH A SHOESTRING. FOR ONE THING, YOU CAN USE A SHOESTRING TO KEEP YOUR SHOES ON YOUR FEET OR YOU COULD ALSO USE IT TO FLY A BALLOON. TELL ME ALL THE KINDS OF DIFFER ENT AND USEFUL THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE WITH A SHOESTRING. ORIGINALITY Directions Say to the subjects: IF I TOLD YOU THAT I WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE WALK HOME, HOW COULD YOU SAY THE SAME THING BY DRAWING ON A PIECE OF PAPER? WELL, ONE WAY WOULD BE LIKE THIS (show sample response in record booklet). HERE ARE MORE THINGS THAT PEOPLE CAN DO, AND I WANT YOU TO SAY THE SAME THINGS BY DRAW ING IN THE SQUARES ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER. THE ONLY THINGS YOU MAY NOT DO IS TO DRAW PEOPLE DOING THE THINGS, OR USE LETTERS OR NUMBERS DIG A HOLE CLIMB A TREE 253 SING A SONG JUST WANT TO SEE HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU. SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS Directions I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO TELL ME SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH SOMETHING. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SHOULD ASK YOU WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH A PENCIL, YOU MIGHT SAY THAT YOU MIGHT JAB YOURSELF WITH THE SHARP POINT, THE LEAD MIGHT BREAK, OR YOU MIGHT LOSE THE PENCIL. (1) NOW, NAME ALL THE PROBLEMS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH A BROOM. YOU MIGHT GET A SPLINTER IN YOUR HAND FROM A WOODEN HANDLE, OR THE BRISTLES MIGHT MISS SOME OF THE DIRT. NOW CAN YOU THINK OF OTHER PROBLEMS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH A BROOM? FLUENCY OF THINKING Directions NOW I WANT TO SEE HOW MANY THINGS YOU CAN DRAW IN FOUR MINUTES. EACH DRAWING MUST HAVE A CIRCLE IN IT. YOU MAY ADD ANY OTHER LINES YOU NEED TO. 254 DRAWING ABILITY IS NOT IMPORTANT. I AM JUST IN TERESTED IN HOW MANY THINGS YOU CAN DRAW. YOU HAVE ONLY FOUR MINUTES. REMEMBER, EACH DRAWINGS MUST HAVE A CIRCLE. DUMP A FENCE FALL DOWN STAIRS If a subject should draw a person, or use numbers or let ters, say: REMEMBER, YOU SHOULD NOT DRAW PEOPLE DOING THE THINGS OR USE LETTERS OR NUMBERS. This reminder is given only once. PROPENSITY FOR ELABORATION Directions Have subjects turn to stimulus sheet in the record booklet and say: THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A DRAWING. IT COULD BE A DRAWING OF ALMOST ANYTHING. WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS FINISH THE DRAWING. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT DRAWING. YOU MAY DRAW ANYTHING YOU LIKE. PLEASE MAKE YOUR DRAWING AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE. GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY Scoring Guide 255 256 Directions for Scoring the Test A test of creativity may be expected to present some new, surprising, and intriguing tacks. While these tacks may be bewildering to some subjects, they will be challenging to others. The scoring for a test of creativ ity also presents certain perplexities. No scoring guide for a creativity test can be absolutely definitive as it is impossible to anticipate all creative responses. There are no specific, exclusive, and exhaustive right answers— only appropriate ones. This scoring guide, then, is primarily a manual of scoring principles. Many examples are included to illustrate the principles involved. Once the principles are grasped, the scoring becomes relatively simple and re liable. REDEFINITION ABILITY One point is given for each response. The wide variation of the objects that have been identified may be seen from the sample of responses listed below: 1. Ant hill 2. Archway 3. Ash tray attached to a wall 4. Bake Alaska 5. Bald man sinking in quick sand 6. Ball floating in water 7. Basketball hoop seen from above 8. Beehive 9. Bowl with a plate on top 10. Bowl upside down on plate 11. Bridge arch 257 12. Bubble of plaster/water 13. Cat glowering through lowered lids 14. Ceiling light 15. Coin stuck in the sand 16. Cross section of guillotine 17. Cross section of stream and ground level 18. Door bell 19. Door stop 20. Dome of observatory/pavilion/stadium 21. Drop candy on a board 22. Drop of water about to drip from faucet 23. Fat man in telephone booth 24. Footlight 25. Fried egg 26. Fringe on a skirt 27. Half grapefruit/orange on a plate 28. Halo 29. Handle on a suitcase 30. Hat 31. Hill in the distance 32. Ice cream on a plate 33. Igloo 34. Inch worm 35. Irrigation ditch 36. Letter D/P 37. Light on an instrument panel 38. Loop on the back of a dress 39. Magnet 40. Man (bald) walking on other side of fence 41. Man coming out of manhole 42. Marble stuck half way in cement 43. Moon setting on lake 44. Mouse hole in wall 45. 180 degree geometric symbol 46. Person/man/woman bending over, seen from behind 47. Pregnant lady coming around the corner 48. Skill saw blade sticking through wood 49. Snake that has just swallowed something 50. Snail 51. Soap bubble 52. Stomach of fat person behind wall 53. Sun coming over wall 54. Sun dial 55. Sun peeking over cloud 56. Sunset 57. Sword handle 58. Tail light on a car 59. Teeter-totter 258 Doodle B 60. Tire well 61. Tongue sticking out of wide mouth 62. Tunnel 63. Turtle 64. Wart/pimple/bump on skin seen under magni fying glass 1. Acoustic tile 2. Amoebe 3. Air bubbles rising to surface of water 4. Bumps on a metal plate 5. Burners on a stove 6. Button holes 7. Car with four headlights, turning 8. Cars/planes/birds/blimpe/airships/tanks in formation 9. Clouds and horizon 10. Cobblestones beside fence 11. Cookies on cookie sheet 12. Dents in metal 13. Diagram of a dance step 14. Fish swimming near surface of water 15. Flying saucers 16. Footprints 17. Fried egg on a griddle 18. Giraffe's neck 19. Holes in sheet metal/ground/tree trunk 20. Inner tubes on a lake 21. Insulating board 22. Islands in a lake 23. Jelly beans 24. Knotholes in a tree/board 25. Knotty pine 26. Lace 27. Lakes 28. Leopard's back 29. Light fixture in ceiling 30. Pancakes on a griddle 31. Paramecium 32. Pennies bouncing up after someone has pounded on the table 33. Planeria, squashed 34. Polka dot material 35. Skin pores seen through magnifying glass 36. Snake holes 37. Space ships 38. Splatters of paint 39. Stepping stones 40. Stones in a pond 259 41. Swiss cheese 42. Surface of the moon 43. Tiddly-winks 44. Toy (put pegs in the holes) 45. Two people on other side of sofa blowing smoke rings 46. Tracks in snow (elephant, bear, abdominable snow man) 47. Tufts on shenille bedspread SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS One point is given for each appropriate response. The only difficulty likely to be encountered in scoring this subtest is in deciding when there are duplications of responses. A response is considered a duplicate when the problem identified is the same as previously stated but de scribed by different adjectives. A sample of appropriate responses and examples showing duplications of responses are listed below: Broom: 1. I may get tired using the broom 2. May lose broom 3. Broom may not fit in closet 4. Broom may not stand upright/keep falling down (Duplicate: The broom keeps falling) 5. Broom may be too heavy 6. Broom may be too expensive to replace 7. May trip over broom (Duplicate: Slip on it) 8. May not have adequate technique (Duplicate: Leave dust) 9. The surface to be swept may be wet 10. I may forget to put back broom and get spanked 11. Carrying it home from store— it's awkward 12. Finding suitable place to keep broom 13. Bristles (straws) may break 14. Bristles (straws) may fall out 260 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Bristles (straws) may wear down Bristles (straws) may wear unevenly Bristles (straws) may be too short Bristles (straws) may be too long Bristles (straws) may be too flexible Bristles (straws) may be too stiff Bristles (straws) may get wet (straws) may get (Duplicates: Bristles Bristles contain dirt Bristles (straws) Bristles muddy Bristles (straws) may get sticky Bristles dirty) (straws) may get bent (straws) may not pick up and (straws) may get may scatter dirt may not get into corner may not get into small Bristles (straws) Bristles (straws) places Bristles (straws) may not be shaped right to get under places Bristles (straws) may not be shaped right to get into corners Bristles (straws) may be too coarse for find dust Bristles (straws) may catch fire such as sweeping hot ashes into fireplace Handle may break (Duplicate: Handle may split; Handle may crack) Handle may get lost Handle may yield splinters Handle may warp Handle may be too long Handle may be too short Handle may knock things over Handle may get caught in door Paint may chip off handle FLUENCY OF THINKING One point is given for each drawing of something round that the subject identifies. It is not necessary that the drawing be recognized in and of itself, but rather 261 that the drawing be consistent with the name given for it by the subject. This subtest is to measure Ideational Fluency, or the number of ideas involving a circle that the subject can convey. Artistic ability is not important. For this rea son, credit has been given for drawings of anything round, even though the actual drawings may be more oval than cir cular. Credit is given for the drawing the subject is working on at the end of the time limit, providing the sub ject names the appropriate object. (See the following page for examples of credit responses.) 262 o- Ball o — 1 Marble 0 - Cup Face 1 Mouth n , Half dollar - € E Z ± > Salt shaker Rolling pin Golf cup 263 FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING Points are assigned in the Flexibility subtest for the number of different kinds of uses specified. Those different kinds of major classifications are shown in capi tal letters in the example below, with those considered to be in a similar class listed in small letters. Uses for a shoelace: 1. BOOKMARK 2. BUNDLE, BIND, TIE LIKE THINGS TOGETHER Tie sticks/papers/keys/page^ of a book; Hair band 3. COLLAGE MATERIAL 4. DRAWSTRING Drawstring for trunks/bag/purse 5. FUSE 6. HANDLE FOR BASKET 7. HANG OR SUSPEND Pictures/toy for a child/pendant/broom/ mobile/skirts on a hanger/ball from a bird cage 8. HARNESS OR LEASH Leash for toy rat/cat 9. HOLD CLOSED Hold closed a door/box/suitcase/drawer; Tie up a package 10. HOLD OPEN Tie curtains back; Tie door open 11. HOLD DOWN Tie cushions in chair; Tie knife against leg; Tie holster against leg 12. HOLD TOGETHER Tie up chicken/roast for cooking/barbe cuing 13. KILL 14. LINE (horizontal, from which to hang things) 15. PLUMB LINE 16. PULL Pull for a window shade; Pull a toy wagon 17. PULLEY BELT 18. SEWING/LACING Lace football; Sew/mend with it 264 19. STRING BEADS 20. USE IT TO TEACH CHILDREN TO TIE BOWS 21. TIE ONE THING ONTO ANOTHER Tie a tag on a package; Stake up a flower 22. TOURNIQUET TO STOP BLEEDING 23. TIE UMBILICAL CORD 24. WEAVE No credit is given for responses that have no util ity or for those which are extremely implausible, such as "lose it," "break it," "fly a kite." One point is given for each response in a different major classifications from the preceding response. Scoring Example Hold close a door; tie up a package................ 1 point Bookmark; hang a picture........................ , . 2 points Tie up shrub cuttings; use as a key ring; hold door open; hang up a mobile................................ 3 points ORIGINALITY In general, two points are given for each static concept communicated, and two points are given for the im plied activity. One point is given for a symbol that might result in the specified activity. Six points are possible for each of the five problems, making a total maximum of thirty points. (See the following pages for examples.) 265 Scoring Examples Dig a Hole A shovel, tool, machine, or animal associated with digging ..................................... 2 points A hole with dirt piled nearby......................2 points A hole without any indication of dirt...............1 point Arrows, lines, or inverted shovel indicating activity.......................................2 points 3 points 4 points 6 points 6 points 6 points 266 Scoring Bxaaples— - Continued Climb a Tree Tree...............................................2 points Ladder, steps, cleats, which could be used to get into a tree.............................. 1 point Arrows or lines indicating movement upward .... 2 points Animal associated with climbing, such as a bear, cat, snake, or squirrel 2 points Tree with hand prints or footprints or a climbing animal on the trunk..................4 points Footprints leading to a tree and disappearing points 3 points 3 points 5 points 6 points .11 t O .*b • O 6 points 4 points S points 4 points 267 Scoring Examples— Continued Sing a Song Musical notes or musical notes on a staff......... 2 points Animal or bird that could be associated with singing 2 points An open mouth.......................................1 point Lines indicating sound ........................... 2 points Mechanical source which may relay sound, such as a radio, television, adcrophone............1 point Source of music that could accompany singing, such as a piano or guitar ...............1 point 4 points 1 6 points 5 points 3 3 points 3 points 2 points n a h 4 points 3 points 268 I Scoring Examples— Continued Jump a Fence Fence 2 points Animal associated with jumping ................... 2 points Animal or human tracks .......................... 2 points Arrows or lines indicating jumping movement. . . . 2 points Animal or human tracks that come to a fence and then continue on the other side..........5 points Animal over fence in act of jumping................5 points Animal over fence in act of jumping with lines indicating movement ......................... 6 points 4 points 6 points 6 points 269 Scoring Example*— Continued Fall Down Stairs Stairs 2 points Something that might causo ono to fall, such as skates, marble a, banana peel. 1 point Lines or arrows indicating downward movement . . . 2 points Lines or arrows indicating tumbling or erratic movement.......................................3 points Stairs with waterfall at the bottom. ............4 points Ball on stairs with lines indicating movement downward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 pointa Ball unstably positioned on stairs .............. 4 points 3 points 4 points 6 points 4 points 4 points 270 ELABORATION This subtest is difficult to score accurately, but when one understands the psychological principles involved, scoring reliability is high. For the person who possesses a high propensity for elaboration, the production of one idea just naturally leads to another. This subtest mea sures how many ideas the subject expresses. The special concern is with the number of ideas which are not absolute ly necessary, but which elaborate the basic concept. The following steps are suggested. 1. The scorer should decide what is the basic idea the subject is trying to express. What is the sim plest, unelaborated idea which incorporates the stimulus line? One point is given for this idea. 2. Next, one point is assigned for each additional idea that is expressed in the drawing. Some ideas consist of more than one part even in their sim plest form. For example, it is difficult to deter mine how many ideas are involved in a drawing of a person. It has been our practice to give only one point for the drawing of a person that contains the simple representations of the head, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, body, arms, hands, legs, and feet. An additional point is given, however, for each of the following elaborations. 271 A. Hair, eyelashes, eyebrows, pupil or iris in eyes, nostrils in addition to the outline of the nose, lips, teeth, tongue, fingers. B. Each detail that is shaded. C. Each detail that is given extra lines to ex press wrinkles or convolutions. Clothes on the person present another problem. Again we have followed the principle that one point is to be assigned for each additional detail. Examples of details for which we award one point each are as follows: A horizontal line representing a waist or belt Belt buckle Pocket Buttons down the front of the shitt Buttons on the cuff Collar Button on the collar Patches Tie Design on any detail Heel on a shoe Shoelaces on shoes Shoelace eyelets on shoes Hair bow An additional problem arises in regard to the scoring of objects that are repeated. Some subjects draw several people, trees, birds, ships, and so on. The practice has been to award one point, but only one point, for each scorable detail that is duplicated, no matter 272 how many times it may have been repeated. For the drawing of a boat, it has been the practice to assign one point for the simple hall structure. An additional point is awarded for each added idea such as a mast, sail, cab in, deck, stacks, rigging, anchor, and so on. An additional point is given for each elabora tion such as a ball on the mast, crow's nest, man in the crow's nest, decoration or designa tion on the sail, portholes in the cabin, de tail showing the hocks on the anchor or the ring where the anchor has been attached to the rope. An additional point is given, of course, to each object that is shaded, detailed, or given extra lines to represent an additional ideal or elaboration. (See the following page for a scoring example.) 273 Scoring Examples \ ' I / Shade .......... Table........ .. . 1 point Fringe.......... . 1 point Three dimensional Folds in shade. . . 1 point top. ..... . 1 point Shading (shade) . . 1 point Shading (table). . 1 point Full chain. ... . 1 point Folds in table Laap............ cloth........ . 1 point Laap base .... Table legs . . . . 1 point Light from laap . . 1 point 13 points 274 Scoring Examples— Continued Pig Pig mouth and face. . 1 point Tie knot .... . 1 point Eye detail. .... . 1 point Buttons........ . 1 point Nostrils.......... . 1 point Roles in buttons . 1 point Chin. ....... . 1 point Collar ........ . 1 point Ear convolutions. . . 1 point Body.......... . 1 point Bow tie ...... • 1 point 11 points GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY Pupil Response Record Booklet 276 Name G T 0 C Group Test of Creativity Sex Grade Date tfonth Day Year Address Descent Born Month Day Year Father’s Occupation Mother's Occupation FACTORS SCORES RS SS Redefinition Redefinition Sensitivity to Problems Fluency of Thinkinq Flexibility of Thinking Orlqlnallty Elaboration Total Remarks Examiner 277 REDEFINITION List all the things this picture could be 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 278 REDEFINITION List all the things this picture could be. 1, ________________________ 2j________ 3 . _________________________________________ 4 . _____________________________________ 5 .________________________________________________ 6 .__________________________■ ________ 7 . _______________________________ _ 8 . ______________________________________________ 9. 10. ___________________________________________ 11.______________________________________ 12. 13. ___________________________________ __ 14 .______________________________________ 15 .______________________________________ 16. ______________________________________ 17 .______________________________________ 18. _____________________________________________ 19. 20. SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS Problems you might have with a broom: A. Might get a splinter 1n your hand. B. Bristles might miss some of the dirt. 280 FLUENCY Draw as many things as you can using a circle. Label each drawing. 281 flexibility How many different kinds of things can you do with a shoestring? а. Use It to keep shoes on your feet. 1 — ____________________ 2. _ __________________________________ 3._____________________ _____________________ 4.__________________________________________ 5.___________________________________________ б . __________________________________________ 7. ■ _____________________________________ _ 8 . _________________________________ 9.__________________________________________ 10. _____________________________________ 11. 12. . __________________________________________ 13. ___________________________________________ 14. __________________________________________ 15. „___________________________________________ 16. _________________________________________ 17. ___________________________________________ 18. ___________________________________________ 19 . __________________________________________ 20. ; _______________ 21. ; ; _________________ 22. __________________________________________ 23. 24. 25. 282 ORIGINALITY Walk Home | ________________ d? Dig a Hole CUmb a Tree Sing a Song Jump a Fence Fall Down Stairs 283 PROPENSITY FOR ELABORATION In five minutes, using the wavy lines, draw a large detailed picture. APPENDIX E PROJECT POTENTIAL FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL TEST 284 285 PROJECT POTENTIAL FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL Name_____________________ Grade 4 5 6 7 8 ( Circle one ) I am going to be asking you some questions--questions different from the usual school questions, for these are about how you feel and so there are no right or wrong answers. These questions are about how you think and feel. People differ in how they think and feel about certain things. The person next to you might answer a question in one way. You might answer the same question in another way but both would be right because you feel differently about the matter. We are trying to see how students feel about school. Please respond to the ques tions in a truthful manner. This is something extra and does not have anything to do with your grades in class. I am the only person who will see your answers. I will read each question including the kinds of answers you can give. Wait until I finish each question and then answer by filling in the number on the answer card that corresponds with the number of your answer. Give only one answer for each question. 1. Do you worry when the teacher says that he is going to ask you questions to find out how much you know about the lesson? (1) Worry a lot (2) Worry some (3) Worry little (4) Never worry 2. Do you worry about being promoted, that 1s, passing from the grade you are now in to the next higher grade? (1) Worry a lot (2) Worry some (3) Worry a little (4) Never worry 3. When the teacher asks you to get up in front of the class and read aloud, are you afraid that you are going to make some bad mistakes? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 4. When the teacher says that he is going to call upon some students to do math problems, do you hope that he will call on someone else? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 5. Do you sometimes dream at night that you are in school and cannot answer the teacher's questions? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 286 -2- PROJECT POTENTIAL / FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL 6. When you think that you are going to be called on by the teacher, does your heart begin to beat faster? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 7. When the teacher is explaining a difficult subject, do you feel that others in the class understand it better than you do? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 8. When you are out of school, do you worry about how well you are going to do in class the next day? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 9. When the teacher asks you to write on the chalkboard in front of the class, does the hand you write with shake? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 10. Do you think that you worry more about school than other students? (1) A lot more than others (3) More than others (2) A little more than others (4) About the same as others 11. When you are at home and you are thinking about your school work for the next day, do you become afraid that you will get the answers wrong when the tea cher calls on you? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 12. If you are sick and miss school, do you worry about being way behind the other students when you return to school? (1) Very much (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 13. Do you dream at night that others in your class can do things you cannot do? (1) Very much (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 14. When you are home and thinking about your classwork for the next day, do you worry that you will do poorly on the classwork? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) A little (4) Never 15. When you think you are going to be called on by the teacher, do you get a funny feeling in your stomach? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 287 -3- PROJECT POTENTIAL / FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL 16. If you did very poorly when the teacher called on you, did it bother you and make you feel unhappy? (1) Very much (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 17. Do you dream at night that the teacher is angry because you do not know your lessons? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 18. Are you afraid of school tests? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 19. Do you worry before you take a test? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 20. Do you worry while you are taking a test? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 21. After you have taken a test, do you worry about how well you did on the test? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) Once in a while (4) Never 22. Do you dream at night that you did poorly on a test you had in school that day? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 23. When you are taking a test does the hand you write with shake? (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 24. When the teacher says that he is going to give the class a test, do you become afraid that you will do poorly? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 25. Uhen you are taking a difficult test, do you forget some things you knew well before you started taking the test? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 26. Do you ever wish that you didn't worry so much about tests? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 288 PROJECT POTENTIAL / FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL 27. When the teacher says that he Is going to give the class a test, do you get a nervous feeling? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 28. While you are taking a test, do you usually think you are doing poorly? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 29. While you are on your way to school, do you worry that you night have a test? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never ****** Please check to see that you have answered each question. ****** APPENDIX F PROJECT POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDE: SELF-PERCEPTION RATING SCALE 289 PLEASE NOTE: Pages 290-292, "Project Potential Interpretive Guide: Self-Perception" copyright 1965 by N. S. Metfessel not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Univ ersity of Southern Californis Library UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Effects Of Types Of Reinforcement, Color Prompting, And Image Size Upon Programmed Instruction With Deaf Learners

PDF

An Analysis Of The Tasks And Roles Of The School Psychologist In The State Of California

PDF

Attitudes Of Selected Groups Toward Utilization Of Instructional Aides Incalifornia Community Colleges

PDF

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

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

An Empirical Investigation Of F-Test Bias, Disproportionality, And Mode Of Analysis Of Variance

PDF

Principles For The Use Of Resource Persons In High School Classrooms

PDF

Environmental Presses Within An Academic Community Of An Evolving Canadian Community College

PDF

A Study Of Middle School Programs In California

PDF

Model For Evaluation Of The Superintendent

PDF

Interrelationships Between School Districts And Vendors In The State Of California

PDF

Comparative Effects Of Seven Verbal-Visual Presentation Modes Upon Learning Tasks

PDF

A Study Of The Effects Of High School Students Acting As Instructional Aides In Elementary Classrooms On The Development Of Positive Self-Concepts In Children With Whom They Work

PDF

The Effect Of Selected Musical Studies On Growth In General Creative Potential

PDF

Interrelationships Between Executive Secretaries Of Taxpayer'S Associations And School District Superintendents

PDF

Bonding Versus Pay-As-You-Go In Public Junior Colleges Of California

PDF

The Effects Of Cross-Age Tutoring On The Reading Achievement And Behaviorof Selected Elementary Grade Children

PDF

The Role Of The Building-Level Administrator In The Negotiations Of The Certificated Employee Council

PDF

The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence

PDF

The Interrelationship Between County Superintendents Of Schools And Unified School District Superintendents

Asset Metadata

Creator Russell, Dale Marland (author)

Core Title Correlates Of Sex And Anxiety To Divergent Production, Convergent Production And Self-Concept In Rural Disadvantaged Children

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), DeSilva, Lionel (committee member), Magary, James F. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-743113

Unique identifier UC11356681

Identifier 7501080.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-743113 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7501080.pdf

Dmrecord 743113

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Russell, Dale Marland

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