Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
(USC Thesis Other)
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-19,402 SHORE, Alfred Lewis, 1934- CONFIRMATION OF EXPECTANCY AND CHANGES IN TEACHERS' EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT BEHAVIORS. University of Southern California, Ph.D.r 1969 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan CONFIRMATION OF EXPECTANCY AND CHANGES IN TEACHERS' EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT BEHAVIORS by Alfred Lewis Shore A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Educational Psychology) June 1969 UNIVERSITY O F SOU TH ERN CALIFORNIA T H E GRADUATE SCHOOL. UNIVERSITY PARK L O S A NGELES. C A L IF O R N IA B0007 This dissertation, written by Alired-JLewis-JShore.......................................... under the direction of h)f. Dissertation C o m mittee, and a pproved by all its mejnbers, has been presented to and accepted by T he G ra d u ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y * 7 7 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS X wish to express my immense gratitude to my mentor and chairman, Dr. Robert B. McIntyre, for his support, tute lage and understanding throughout my graduate school years and his invaluable contribution to the realization of this dissertation. For their lnteriest, cooperation, and helpful direc tion, instrumental in the completion of this paper, I am sincerely grateful to my other committee members, Drs. Laurence J. Peter and Henry Sluckl. I should also like to express my great appreciation to Dr. Arthur Silverstein and Mr. Earl Owens of Pacific State Hospital! for their time, patience and knowledge when these were most needed. Very special thanks goes to Dr. Edward Beaubier, Milo Bibelheimer, all the BELs and sixth-grade teachers from Fountain Valley School District for their cooperation and participation in this study. Finally, I owe an indescribable debt of gratitude to my wife Mary for her patience, encouragement, Bupport and optimism, combined with loving understanding throughout these recent years. With love to my sons Robert and Adam, who make my life and work so much more worthwhile. ThiB investigation was supported by Public Health Service Research Grant No. MH-O8667 from the National Insti tute of Mental Health, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Public Health Service General Research Support Grant No. 1-S01-FR-05632-02, from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ II LIST OF TABLES........................................ v Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND................... 1 Introduction ............................. 1 Background and Review of Pertinent Literature ............................. 4 Statement of the Problem................. 27 II. METHOD........................................ 33 Experimental Hypotheses ................... 33 The Sample............................... 34 The School District ■ . 35 Variables............................... . 36 Instruments............................... 37 Research Design.............. 39 Statistical Analysis ..................... 43 Scope and Limitations.............. 44 III. RESULTS ................................ 46 Results of the Factor Analytic Study . . . 46 Significant Findings of the Independent Variables and Testing of the Hypotheses............................. 50 General Observations of Changes In Teachers' Behavioral Evaluations ................. 57 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................... 68 Hypotheses.......... 68 "Pygmalion" Revisited ..................... 72 Testing Theoretical Implications ........ 73 Conclusion............................... 76 ill Chapter Page V. SUMMARY...................................... 79 APPENDIXES Appendix A: Tables of Summaries of Analysis-of Variance Difference Scores of Behavioral Variables ................. 85 Appendix B: Pretest Behavioral Rating Scale . . . 104 Appendix C: Posttest Behavioral Rating Scale . . . 107 REFERENCES............................................ 110 iv LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. 2 x 2 model of research design showing Interaction of variables of teacher expectancy and confirmation ................. 40 2. Intercorrelations among classroom behaviors rated by teachers............................. 47 3- Principle-Pactor analysis rotated to Varlmax criterion ............................ 49 4. Mean difference scores per group per measure with levels of significance of the independent variables ....................... 52 5. Summary of changes in teacher's behavioral evaluations per group per variable ........... 53 6. Mean group I-Q. scores and standard deviations . 58 7 . Mean prestest and posttest scores per group per variable....................... 60 8. J z score differences between group means on pretest and posttest......................... 62 9. Frequencies of individual posttest ratings "equal to" or "less than' vs those "greater than" preteBt ratings per group per variable.................................. 64 10. Summary of significant Chi Square intergroup comparisons.................................. 65 11.. Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Careful with Schoolwork".............................. 85 12. Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Honest" .... 86 13. Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Reliable" . . . 87 v Page Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Persistent" . . 88 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Independent1 1 . . 89 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Attentive in Class"...................................... 90 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable ''Academ ically Motivated"............................. 91 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Not Easily Dlstractible" ......................... 92 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Happy" ........ 93 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Appealing" . . . 94 Summary of-analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Well- Adjusted" .............. 95 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Affectionate" . 96 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Friendly" . . . 97 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Interesting" . . 98 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Successful in Future" . . ; ............................. 99 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Curious" .... 100 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Takes Initiative" .................................... 101 Summary of analysis of variance difference scores of behavioral variable "Need for for Approval" ........................... 102 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND Introduction Education has focused primarily on the development of the Intellectual capacities of the Individual and his acquisition of knowledge. In addition to this basic empha sis on Instructional content, there must be concern for the equally Important human relations aspects of the learning process. The home and the classroom are two of the most Important and Influential environments for the child. How he'"Views these environments, and- the self-image that he develops, can become Important determinants in the social and emotional adjustments he will make throughout his life (Lippltt and Gold, 1959)* v- Emerging from a deep concern with the social and emotional development of the child, an objective of the present Investigation was to explore facets of the teacher's role as an effective agent in this development. In spite of the enormous amount of literature that has been published, there is still a wide gap between what 1 vre know about the child as student, and the adult as teacher, in the close two-person interaction that is known as learn ing. Par less is known about the teacher, as an autonomous, warm-blooded, need-driven, human animal, as a dispenser and receiver of gratifications (which are referred to herein after as reinforcements), than is known about the student. Generally, teachers are judged by their contemporaries and evaluated by their supervisors on their effectiveness in the classroom, which generally is gauged in terms of the achieve ment of the students based on the acquisition and repetition of some preestablished level of knowledge or performance of some skill. But teaching is Burely not just the transmis sion of quantitative chunks of facts and figures. If this were true, then it may be possible to argue that the entire educational process eou-l-d be more successfully accomplished by machine. Trow, Zander, Morse and Jenkins (1950) feel the teacher has not one but three main roles: (l) the instruc tional role, (2) the role as democratic strategist, and (3) the therapist's role. These theoretical roles seem to correspond to the Sears and Hilgard (1964) definitions of the teacher's role as (l) cognitive lnteractionist, (2) evaluative lnteractionist and (3) affective lnteractionist. Conceding that all phases of the teacher-student interaction affect the social and emotional development of the child, the Interest in the teacher as 1 1 therapist" or "affective lnteractionist" is the primary concern of this paper. One of the main functions of teaching is the vital role it plays in the socialization of the child. Probably more than anyone, the teacher helps perpetuate the culture. (Consider, for example, the public school's role In the acculturation and assimilation of the European minority groups into American society during the first part of this century.) In addition, the teacher often serves as parent surrogate. The teacher's behavior typically serves as a model in the child's development of self-control, character traits, values and work habits. But the teacher as dis penser of success and failure 1b virtually omnipotent, and aB such, occupies the role students find the most impressive and threatening. It Is also a role which can provide the most anxiety for the teacher. The passing or falling of a student can bring tremendous conflict, with Btrong overtones of guilt and frustration. The goals, expectations and aspirations of the teacher, as well as the student, must be kept in proper balance. Recently a California public school teacher was fired from his position for failing between 60 and 80 per cent of his high school class. In other cases, standards and expectations are too low (as seen in the apathy and cynicism of some teachers in ghetto schools). In both instances very serious personal and social difficulties may develop. It Is of the greatest importance, therefore, to learn as much as we can about these goals, aspirations and expectancies of the teacher and how they are reinforced in the educational milieu. The purpose of this paper was to explore the dynam ics of the hypothesis that, during the teacher-student Interaction, the teacher (although himself an agent of rein forcements) Is also Implicitly reinforced for attitudes, perceptions or expectations he holds for the student. The major concepts related to the latter area will be delimited and discussed below in the review of the literature dealing with vicarious reinforcement, expectancy theory, and cogni tive dissonance theory. Background and Review of Pertinent Literature Following the theoretical framework of Miller and Dollard (19^1) employing the concepts of drive, cue, re sponse and reinforcement to explain behavior, Gage (1958) proposed that "teaching, like other behavior, can be analyzed into a process consisting of motive, perception, action and consequence. First, people want something; then they notice something, do something and finally get some thing [p. 97]•" This framework Is a useful concept in terms of which to review much of the empirical data pertaining to the teacher's role In the teacher-pupil relationship. In order to present an adequate theoretical position as to the "get something" portion of the above paradigm, it is neces sary to look at the three components that precede it. Although much conceptual overlap exists, each component has stood relatively intact as a separate body of Investigation. This first section of the review of literature will be devoted to these three areas of teacher motivation, teacher perception, and teacher response, and conclude with a brief overview. Teacher Motivation In attempting to define the motives of teachers many educational researchers have confined their exploration to personality factors. This is not surprising, since motiva tion problems are deeply enmeshed with problems of person ality; Sears and Hllgard (1964) note "that an adequate account of motivation in relation to learning cannot rest solely on the findings of the learning laboratory [p. 208]" and point out that "the teacher is both model and relnforcer and, in ways not fully understood, a releaser of intrinsic motives [p. 208]." The Interest that has been generated in this area can be seen in the fact that over a thousand studies analyz ing teacher personality factors were reported in bibliogra phies by Domas and Tledman (1950) and Barr (1961). Ryans 6 (I960) contributed a mammoth study of teacher characteris tics, However, the results are not definitive. In a more recent analysis, Getzels and Jackson (1963) concluded: Despite the critical importance of the problem and a half-century of prodigious research effort, very little is known for certain about the nature and measurement of teacher personality or about the relation between teacher personality and teacher effectiveness. The regrettable fact is that many of the studies so far have not produced significant results. Many others have pro duced only pedestrian findings. For example, it is said after the usual inventory tabulation, that good teachers are friendly, cheerful, sympathetic and morally virtuous rather than cruel, depressed, unsympathetic and morally depraved. But when this has been said, not very much that is especially useful has been revealed. For what conceivable human interaction--and teaching implies first and foremost human lnteraction--is not the better if people Involved are friendly, cheerful, sympathetic and virtuous rather than the opposite? What is needed is not research leading to the reiteration of the self- evident, but the discovery of specific and distinctive features of teacher personality and of the effective teacher [p. 57^]. The needs of teachers were explored by Travers, et al. (1961) attempting to relate the measured needs of ele mentary school teachers to their behavior in the classroom. Four needs were identified and isolated for study: the achievement need, the affiliation need, the need for con trol and the need for recognition. A specific purpose of the investigation was to attempt to discover the relation ship between the four identified needs of teachers and the related categories of behavior In a classroom. The most frequently occurring behaviors were, in order of frequency: (l) telling the pupil what to do; (2) the questioning proc ess; and (3) providing information. 7 Trow et al. (1950) found teachers In general tend toward being moralists, policemen or punitive agents expect ing good character to emerge by decree. They suggest that this may occur because the teacher tends to exploit the situation to satisfy his personal needs, such as the need to be loved, the desire to avoid conflict, the demands of latent hostility. The authors find a very common attitude is the desire for dependency, where the teacher is happy if the students remain attached and dependent. Teacher Perception Perception has been an important area of investiga tion in the field of social psychology. Deeply entrenched in the psychology of perception Is the whole field of atti tudes and opinions, of judgments and beliefs. Social per ception concerns Itself with the ways people perceive, appraise, evaluate, classify, predict, anticipate, "feel for," and understand their fellow man (Toch and Smith, 1968). The study of factors which influence how one person perceives another person has both practical and theoretical Importance. Theoretically, the topic of perception occupies an Important position, not only in theories of social psy chology, but also in current approaches to the study of personality. Teachers, counselors, psychologists, etc.', are all professionally concerned with the practical problems of assisting individuals and groups of Individuals in improving their accuracy in perceiving other individuals. Smith {1966) points out that we tend to see people as instant wholes. He emphasizes that everyone has, and inevitably uses, theories about people. These theories determine one's perception of wholes and of the parts that one fits into the wholes. Consequently, the ultimate impression we have of a person is intimately related to our first one. Even a single word can change our whole perception of an Individual. In a well-known study, Asch (19^6) read lists of adjectives to two different groups. One list con tained the words Intelligent, skillful, industrious, cold, determined, practical, and cautious. The second list con tained the same adjectives Interchanging warm for cold. The two groups were asked to write an imaginative sketch of the kind of person who would have such a combination of traits. The substitution of warm for cold markedly influenced the way the other traits were viewed. A typical sketch for the cold group was: "A very ambitious and talented person who would not let anyone or anything stand in the way of achiev ing his goal. Wants his own way, he is determined not to give in, no matter what happens [p. 263]-" A warm group sketch read: "A person who believes certain things to be right, wants others to see his point, would be sincere in an argument, and would like to see his point won [p. 2633•" The groups were also given a list of additional traits and aBked to check those which fitted their impres sion of the person. The warm person was more often checked 9 as generous* wise* happy, sociable, popular and humorous. The cold person was more often checked as shrewd, irritable, ruthless and self-centered. Asch concluded: The moment we see that two or more characteristics belong to the same person they enter into dynamic Inter action. We cannot see one quality and another in the same person without their affecting each other. . . . From its inception the impression has structure even if rudimentary. The various characteristics do not possess the same weight. Some become central, providing the main direction; others become peripheral and dependent. Until we have found the center--that part of the person which wants to live and act in a certain way, which wants not to break or disappear--we feel we have not succeeded in reaching an understanding [p. 284]. The term social perception is widely used at present in connection with the study of individual differences in ability to infer from observable cues what other persons may be thinking or feeling or what other persons may be about to do. From Thelen's (1961) work it would appear that I.Q. or achievement status are by no means the most significant determinants of the teacher's perception of ’ ’teachability." Thelen states that, in general, "teachers recognize four kinds of students: the good, the bad, the indifferent and the sick. But the problem is that each teacher places different students in these categories, so that whatever is being Judged is not primarily some characteristic of the student [p. 226]." He argues that "the teachable Btudents for one teacher may be quite different than [sic] for another, that the fit between teacher and teachable students 10 * primarily results In better meeting the teacher's most dominant needs [p. 220]." In discussing the problem of "teachable groups" Thelen (1961) points out that despite great Individual differences in teachers' perception of who is teachable, there are some pupils— from 10 to 25 percent of the average school--whom no teacher includes among the teachable. In discussing the "process" of social perception, Gage and Cronbach (1955) refer to the Judge's (perceiver's) "implicit personality theory," stating: ♦ . . this consists of 'built-in' correlations that the Judge consciously or unconsciously Imposes on traits, characteristics, or behaviors of Others. . . . Judges have been found to differ in the closeness and direction of the associations they Implicitly assume between traits. Hence, in the bulk of research to date, social perception as measured is a process dominated far more by what the Judge brings to it than by what he takes during it. His favorability toward the Other, before or after he observes the Other, and his implicit person ality theory, formed by his experiences prior to his interaction with the Other, Beem to determine his per ceptions. . - . the process of perception is so laden with affect, and so highly over-learned in the course of socialization, that the dominant role of global dis position might well be expected [p. 420]. Gage and Cronbach thus concluded that Investigators would be likely to find social perceptions determined more by the perceiver than by the Bocial situation. General traits or response sets probably were at work in social per ception; It probably was better to study the perceiver first and the interpersonal .relation sometime later. 11 There are some studies In social perception that indicate attitudes toward another (usually stereotyped on limited information) are formed early and are rather resist ant to change. According to Asch's study, when a Judge has strong negative or positive expectancies of another, his rigidity is increased; that is, he brings fewer alternative patterns of perception to bear upon the stimulus pattern. Thus when he'has strong positive expectancies regarding the Other, he will perceive specific aspects of the Other in a way which is congruent with these expectancies. When the Judge {J) has strong negative expectancies regarding Other (0), he will perceive specific aspects of 0 in a way which is equally congruent. The extent to which his own needs relat ing to 0 are satisfied by this perception will determine the J's willingness to review his Judgments regarding 0, or to perceive information which disrupts these perceptions. One recurring theme that seems to emerge from these studies is the need to determine the perception of the per ceiver before trying to account for it in the interpersonal relationship. Teacher Response The purpose of this present section 1b to shed some light on the ways In which teachers respond toward the pupils in their classrooms. 12 Mention was made above of the frequently threaten ing role teachers must assume aB agents of reward and punishment. It goes without saying that the teacher has a responsibility for maintaining discipline In the classroom which brings to the fore the affective consequences of various reward and punishment techniques. Still, there is considerable agreement among psychologists that the use of approval by the teacher results in better learning and prob ably in better overall adjustment. However, in a study by deGroat and Thompson (19^9)> In addition to reporting Inequities In teacher approval and disapproval, they also found that teachers accord more pralse*_to the youngBters who are brighter, better adjusted and higher achievers. The poorly adjusted and the duller children were observed by these investigators to receive more disapproval from their teachers. In a study by Kounln, Gump, and Ryan (1961) three pairs of punitive vs. nonpunitive first-grade teachers were selected from three elementary schools. The authors, in analyzing their results, concluded that children who have punitive teachers, as compared with children who have non punitive teachers, manifest more aggression in their mis conducts; are more unsettled and conflicted about misconduct In school; are less concerned with learning and school values; and show some, but not consistent, Indication of a reduction in rationality pertaining to school misconduct. A theory that children with punitive teachers develop less trust of school than do children with nonpunitlve teachers was also presented to explain some of the findings. A study by Lippitt and Gold (1959) concerned with the social structure of the classroom, found this structure forms rapidly at the beginning of the school year, and is maintained with a "high degree of stability throughout the school year. The same children remain in positions of low power and isolation or dislike throughout the year, and the same children stay at the top of the totem pole [p. 41]." In regard to the teacher's responses Lippitt and Gold found that social as opposed to performance behavior was attended to more for the low status children than the high status ones, stating: "Evidently this aspect of their behavior leads to social evaluation and response more fre quently on the teacher's part. . . . How the teacher responds depends on whether she is interacting with a low status girl or boy [p. 46]." Rosenfeld and Zander (1961) were concerned with how social power is effected by the teacher. Two forms of coer cion by the teachers were discriminated by the students: disapproval of Inadequate performance, and disapproval of performance the student considered the highest he could attain. The first type had little effect on aspiration or performance, while the second had a deleterious effect on both aspiration and future performance. Two forms of reward 14 were also discriminated by students. When rewards were showered indiscriminately, tendencies to accept the teach er's influence were lowered; when rewards were limited to adequate performances, the teacher’s influence was Increased. Summary of Preceding Component Areas Attempting a gestalt on the many empirical fragments that have been presented, we arrive at a general picture of the dynamics of motivation, perception and response within the teacher-pupil relationship, and begin to recognize cer tain inauspicious patterns of teacher behavior. The teacher may be viewed as involved in social interaction with his students, serving as both model and reinforcer, and assuming responsibility for discipline and the dispensing of praise and disapprobation. His individual motivation is intertwined with numerous personality vari ables, such as need for love, avoidance of conflict, desire for others' dependency, and the search for achievement, affiliation and recognition. Although concerned with help ing students develop accurate social perception, the teacher probably haB-hlB own "implicit personality theory" and his attitude toward and treatment of others are dependent on this theoretical image. If teacher expectancies are unusu ally strong, in either a positive or negative direction, there may be only slight probability of change in the teacher’s mode of perception and evaluation of students' capacities and behavior. Exploring teachers' reactions, we find bright chil dren are generally praised, while dull children must ordin arily encounter disapproval; that punitive teachers induce aggression, apathy, distrust and restiveness in their stu dents; and that the classroom social structure typically remains rigid, with teachers critical of social rather than performance behaviors of lower status children. This picture by no means reflects all the empirical data garnered from the classroom, and is not specifically meant as an indictment of the classroom Instructor. Rather its purpose has been to outline the dynamics of and the pit falls inherent in a situation in which normally the teacher must at once instruct, evaluate and discipline his students, and in addition play an important long-term role in the socialization process. In the following review of pertinent learning theories we may gaIn..aome. insight into the behavior of teachers under these disparate pressures, with specific emphasis on teacher expectancy, its determinants, and Its effect on students' achievement. Teacher Reinforcement and Teacher Expectancy Impetus for this study grew out of the work by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) from their publication enti tled "Pygmalion In the Classroom." Their Interest lay in 16 the phenomenon of "the self-fulfilling prophecy." The essence of their concept was that one person's expectancy of another's behavior might serve as a determinant of that other's behavior. To teBt this hypothesis the experimenters pretested (at the end of a school year) a San Francisco elementary school population on a "special" I.Q. test that was supposed to determine which students would experience an Intellectual growth spurt during the coming year. Randomly selecting 20 percent of the children as "spurters" the children's new teachers were Informed by note, at the beginning of the new school year, which of their children would "spurt" during that year. The study itBelf was well-conceived and carefully accounted for many intervening variables. In addition, the study was replicated (concurrently) in other schools in different parts of the country. The results in the various schools were consistent. When children were expected to gain Intellectually they did gain, and were benefited in other ways as well. The teachers' descriptions of these children's personalities became more favorable.The opposite was true of the children who were not expected to gain, but did. The teachers rated these children as exhibiting unde sirable behavior. This latter phenomenon was most striking in the case of children in the low-ability claBBes who gained intellectually although no gain was expected from them. Not 17 only were they rated even more unfavorably by their teacherB than students in normal classes: the more they gained, the more unfavorably they were rated. Rosenthal and Jacobson suggest the explanation of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" in their study lies in the subtle interactions of teacher and student. The way the teacher addresses the student--facial expression, voice, posture and touch— may all communicate teacher expectancy. The findings from the "Pygmalion" study seem con sistent with those of certain previously mentioned studies: Thelen's (1961) four levels of "teachable" children and the numerous "unteachables"; deGroat and Thompson's (19^9) observation that bright children elicited praise while dull ones faced arbitrary disapproval; and Lippitt and Gold's (1959) findings that lower status children faced exceptional criticism in regard to their social behaviors. Two additional studies seem to add support to this general area of Investigation. Beez (1968) manipulated teachers' expectancies for performance of sixty-six Head start children on symbol learning tasks. Half of the teach ers were led to believe the students they were teaching were good symbol learners, the other teachers thought they had poor learners. Of the children who enjoyed positive expect ancy, 77 percent learned five or more symbols. When there was negative expectancy only 13 percent learned that many. The actual performances were observed by experimenters not 18 aware of teachers' expectancies. In analyzing the experi menters' reports, Beez found that teachers who held positive expectancies actually tried to teach more symbols to their students. In fact, 87 percent of the teacherB expecting positive performance taught eight or more symbols while only 13 percent of the teachers holding negative expectancies attempted that many. McNeil (1964), concerned with the many studies demonstrating the superiority of girls over boys in language use and development (which was demonstrated In reading as early as the first grade), hypothesized that reading differ ence may be a function of the differential treatment and expectations by the classroom teacher. A group of ninety- three Kindergarten children were given an autolnstructional program in reading and tested on word recognition. A read ing readiness test Indicated no Bex differences; however, the boys earned significantly higher scores on word recogni tion. The following year, while in first grade, the chil dren were tested again. McNeil found the boys made signifi cantly less progress in reading. The first grade teachers (all females) were given a questionnaire about each child's readiness and motivation for reading. Questionnaire results and Interview data Indicated that teachers indeed treat boys and girls differently. McNeil suggested that teacher behav ior may be the significant variable in beginning reading. 19 Rosenthal (1966) reviewed ten years of his empirical findings in the area of experimenter's influence in scienti fic experimentation. While recognizing that theories of expectancy may account for an individual's own behavior, he felt they do not account for interpersonal expectancies. Rosenthal pragmatically worked on an empirical basis to account for situation variables such aB age, I.Q., sex, experimenter bias, etc. With this as well as the suggested explanation for the "self-fulfilling prophecy" in mind, the present writer formulated alternate hypotheses, based on learning theory and attltudinal theory, to account for the type of results obtained in the above studies. Introduction to Vicarious Rein forcement Expectancy Theory, and Cognitive Dissonance Theory As various learning and personality theories have evolved, the concern of theorists with the problem of change has led to an increasing emphasiB on the concepts of rein forcement and expectancy. In the most general of terms, the assumption underlying the former concept has been that an individual is much more likely to repeat acquired behavior or learn new behavior if such behavior is positively rein forced and more likely to discard the behavior if it is negatively reinforced. Although language and terminology vary, such a view is to be found among most researchers Interested in predicting or understanding human behavior and particularly in the writings of theorists concerned with 20 learning. Other theorists have either explicitly or implic itly subscribed to some sort of expectancy concept, i.e., they view the anticipation or expectation of reinforcements as an important determinant of behavior, or have attempted to synthesize reinforcement and expectancy theories. Both of these areaB of investigation will be explored in an attempt to resolve the perplexing question of teacher reward in the learning situation. In recent years educators in general and special educators in particular have paid much attention to the clinical and experimental studies attempting to alter devi ant social and emotional growth by behavior modification techniques using primary (i.e., food) and secondary (i.e., social approval) reinforcers. Another area of study which has not attracted nearly as much interest, but which offers much potential, is that of vicarious reinforcement. Hill (i960) finds that vicarious reinforcement is not as respected a concept in learning theory as are primary and secondary reinforcement; but he feels that inquiry into such a process may be needed to explain important aspects of human and animal learning. Berger (1961) defines vicarious reinforcement "as a change in the strength of an observer's response following his exposure to the presentation of a reinforcing stimulus to a performer, in the absence of direct reinforcement of the observer [p. 477]." Operationally, the vicarious situation is one in which there are at least two subjects— one or more models % 21 and one or more observers. The model performs and is rewarded or punished for his behavior while the observer does nothing but watch the procedure (thereby participating vicariously, since he is not directly involved in the reinforcement). The hypothesis that the teacher was vicariously reinforced for the success or failure of his students was initially conceived on an intuitive basis. After reviewing pertinent literature In this area, another question was raised. Was the teacher being vicariously reinforced for student performance, or was his own expectancy for student success or failure being confirmed or disconfIrmed? The form of the question should not be taken to imply that vicarious reinforcement and expectancy are to be regarded as mutually exclusive occurrences; we are, however, con cerned with a situation in which, for example, success of a student expected to fall might, as disconflrmation of teacher's expectancy, elicit a clearly negative teacher response. This latter hypothesis would be somewhat akin to cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)> and would also be In keeping with the "Pygmalion" study. Before continuing the present discussion it is necessary to mention interaction theories and their specific bearing on this study. It has been well argued that we can understand individual and Bocial behavior only in terms of dyadic (mutual, Involving two or more persons) rather than monadic (singular) units. In certain respects the present study has encouraged thinking of the teacher-student rela tionship in dyadic terms by reviewing the components of 22 motivations, cue and response in terms of the results of Interaction. For example, in discussing teacher motivation, certain personality and need factors were presented then discussed in terms of how the student was affected. Sears (1951) indicated the need to combine Individual and social behavior into a single theoretical system. He felt the reasons were obvious in that the two were reciprocal in their influence. As he explained: A dyadic unit is essential if there is to be any con ceptualization of the relationships between people, as in the parent-child, teacher-pupil, husband-wlfe or leader-follower instances. To have a science of inter active events, one must have variables and units of action that refer to such events. While it is possible to systematize some observations about individuals by using monadic units, the fact Is that a large proportion of the properties of a person that compose his person ality are originally formed in dyadic situations and are measurable only by reference to dyadic situations or symbolic representations of them [p. 479]. Three educational researchers (Smith, 1959; Hughes, 1959; and Bellack, 1963) have developed some well-conceived teacher-student interaction paradigms to explain classroom behavior. While acknowledging the cogency of the above argu ment, the present writer has chosen to justify this study in terms of Gage and Cronbach's (1955) previously mentioned counterargument, with Its insistence upon the need to under stand a great deal more about the individual before focusing on Interpersonal dynamics. Vicarious Reinforcement It Is Important to note that many terms have been used to Identify the concept of vicarious learning. Most experimental literature concerned with vicarious processes has been devoted to vicarious learning experiences. Whether subsumed under the label "imitation," "observational lea-rning," "copying," "vicarious learning," "contagion," "identification" or "role-playing," the main purpose was to account for the learning of social responses. Experimentally this has been attempted by exposing an observer to a real- life or symbolic model. Effects of vicarious reinforcement can be viewed when the behavior of an observer is modified as a function of witnessing reinforcing stimuli administered to a live or symbolic performer. Relatively infrequent in the writings of investiga tors in this area are examples of adults' behavior being modified or reinforced when a child is the model. Although numerous writers (Hartup, 1965; Stevenson, 1965; Wodtke and Brown, 1967) have called attention to the need for research in this area, Berger (1961) is one of the only investigators who even makes reference to its occurrence, using the exam ple of a father who takes his son to the child's first base ball game and perceives him enjoying the game, then makes an effort to return many more times, when in fact the son did not care for the game at all. 24 It la quite important to understand what can happen In a vicarious reinforcement event. Bandura (1965) lists some of the occurrences: "(l) information concerning prob able reinforcement contingencies, (2) knowledge about the controlling environmental stimuli, and (3) displays of Incentives possessing activating properties ..." Crucial to the present paper Is the fourth point, indicating the event may elicit "affective expressions of the rewarded or punished performer." Bandura adds: . . . the pleasure and pain cues emitted by a model generally elicit corresponding affective responses In the viewer. These vicariously aroused emotional responses can readily become conditioned, through repeated contiguous association, either to the modeled responses themselves, or to environmental stimuli (Bandura and Rosenthal, 1965; Berger, 1962) that are regularly correlated with the performer's affective reactions. As a consequence, the subsequent initiation of matching responses by the observer or the occurrence of the correlated environmental stimuli is likely to generate Borne degree of emotional reactivity. It is therefore possible that the facllitatlve or suppressive effects of observing the affective consequences accruing to a performer are partly mediated by the arouBal of vicariously acquired emotional responses [p. 31]. Conceding that the adult probably does not imitate a child's response (although this often occurs in a parent- child verbal learning situation), this writer will borrow Bandura's (1965) term "stimulus enhancement effect" to denote an observer's behavior bearing "little or no resem blance to the model's activities [p. 34]." Expectancy and Cognitive Dissonance Theories The concept of expectancy has been of central Importance for many psychological theorists (e.g., Allport, 1950; Kelly, 1955; Hotter, 1954; Tolman, 1932). Although the formulations which encompass the concepts of these authors vary in their details, they all emphasize the role of expectation or subjective probability; more specifically, the emphasis has been upon: (l) the role that expectancy of success (or failure) plays in determining an individual's goal-setting behavior, (2) the consequences of such expecta tions for motivated action, and (3) the factors which affect such expectations. Rotter (1954) defines expectancy as the "probability held by an individual that a particular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on his part in a specific situation or situations [p. 1071 •" He avoids the use of the term ''subjective" because of its connotation of introspection; the emphasis is upon the "internal expectancy as its major intervening variable or construct [p. 107]-" One problem in introducing expectancy theory to answer some of the findings of this present study lies in a statement by Rosenthal (1966) who noted, "Expectancy as a determinant of behavior has most often been investigated with an eye to learning the extent to which an individual's expectancy might determine his own subsequent behavior [p. 407J • " In order to provide a viable approach to 26 investigating teachers' expectancies for classroom students, as opposed to teachers' expectancy in respect to their own achievement goals, the author has decided to base general hypotheses and the discussion of outcomes of the present study on cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger (1957) bases the development of his cogni tive dissonance theory on cognitive elements. These ele ments are "knowledges" about various objects, facts, circum stances, behaviors, etc. In using the term "knowledges" Festinger includes beliefs, opinions, and attitudes, making this a very global concept (Insko, 1967)- Festinger posits the prime motivator in decision-making Is a drive toward cognitive balance. When simultaneous cognitive elements exist that do not fit, the result Is dissonance. To reduce dissonance the individual attempts a better fit for the ele ments. For example, prior to making a decision an individual evaluates various aspects of the problem. A decision is reached based on certain expectations. After acting on the decision, if the expectations are not met a dissonant reac tion occurB, which the individual tries to reduce by alter ing hiB cognitions to agree with the new situation. Brehm and Cohen (1962) note that while the theory is quite simple it can be used to predict a wide variety of human behaviors providing the conditions under which disso nance exists and means of reducing dissonance are specified. Insko (1967) finds that "much of the appeal of dis sonance theory undoubtedly relates to its ability to gener ate non-obvious predictions that frequently can be empir ically supported [p. 282]." Thus It has already been implicitly suggested above (see p. 26) that confirmation of teacher expectancy for student performance would not create a dissonant condition (and subsequently no threat or discomfort would exist in evaluating these students), but that disconfirmation would create a dissonant condition. In the latter event the teacher could reduce dissonance by altering her behavioral evaluation of the student. The writer has proposed in the present study to observe such attempts at reduction of dis sonance in teacher ratings of student behavior, made before and after she has encountered disconflrmatory information. Statement of the Problem Teachers vary in degree of effectiveness depending upon many variables— among others, the personalities of the pupils they confront, and the accessibility of opportunities to fulfill their expectations for themselves and for their class. Given that teacher and student in some ways are Involved in potential confrontation and conflict, how does the teacher react to a given performance by the child? Does she reject or accept it? Are there different modes of reaction towards different students? And most important— 28 can we determine how these reactions are based? Does the teacher empathize positively with successful and negatively with unsuccessful student performance whenever it appears, or do previous expectancies control how she will deal with the child in the present or future? The initial thinking for this study was rooted in the premise that the teacher was vicariously reinforced, either positively or negatively, by the child's success or failure in school. In attempting to bring into focus the many variables involved, an alternate hypothesis emerged. This hypothesis concerned the possible, if not probable, occurrence of implicit reinforcement of the teacher's expectancy for stu dent success. Thus, in exploring the complex problem of teacher's reward in the learning situation, the writer found himself dealing with two distinct concepts, involving vicarious reinforcement on the one hand, teacher's expect ancy and confirmation and disconfirmation on the other: one relating to a positive and salutary teacher-pupil interac tion, in which learning takes place in an empathic frame of reference; the other to a situation rendered socially and to a considerable extent intellectually static by specific and rigidified teacher's expectancies. The vicariously rein forced teacher is responding openly, with no preJudgment, to an overt environmental act; the teacher dependent on subjec tive probabilities within a given group will react to the 29 same environmental act primarily in terms of the conditions implicit in her expectations. A further problem encountered was that of attempting to bring forth a meaningful statement concerning an inter action process using theories accounting for individual behavior. Subsequently, in attempting to deal with a con glomerate of theories which could hopefully be turned into some reBearchable hypotheses, it was necessary to bring into focus these various areas. If all children were neutral stimuli for the teacher, we would expect to arrive at fairly consistent results. When a child succeeds, that should cause positive affect feelings or responses from the teacher. If a child fails, the opposite should hold true. Noting that there are vary ing degrees of success or failure and that the scale cannot be a static one because of Individual differences, there Is still ample evidence that all children are not perceived as neutral stimuli; Indeed it would seem difficult not to regard apparent absence of affect aB implicitly negative. Thelen's (1961) teachers who rated some of their "teachable" children as "Indifferent" were not themselves responding without some feeling tone. It was recognized that the necessary empirical test of vicarious reinforcement and expectancy would need to be so designed as to clearly elicit any particularly revealing (In this case, toward success) negative responses to diBconfirmatory information, specifically as opposed to the observer's success-oriented responses due to vicarious reinforcement. The selected basic research design has been graphically presented below in Chapter II as a two-by-two contingency table with con firmation or disconfirmation of the anticipated level of student success as one parameter and teacher's expectancy for Buccess (either positive or negative on a criterion task) as the other. The dependent variable will be the change in the teacher's evaluation of her students following the treatment which, in this case, is knowledge of results of the criterion task. In the vicarious reinforcement paradigm the teacher is making a contiguous response to the child's affective response to success or failure in some cognitive task or social situation. In this situation, whether the teacher views the child either positively or negatively, the child's success should bring positive reactions (e.g., praise) from the teacher and failure should bring negative reactions (e.g., disappointment). In the expectancy situation, the hypothesis is that confirmation or disconfirmation of the teacher's expectancy will manifest Itself mostly with the child who is viewed negatively (i.e., held In low esteem). In such an Instance success of the child will be viewed negatively (it is hypothesized) because the expectancy was disconfirmed, whereas failure will be received positively (a disturbing 31 but perhaps not tenuouB hypothesis) as confirmation of teacher's expectancy. The "Pygmalion" study would suggest that the latter types of reaction are not in fact exceed ingly uncommon. Using a cognitive dissonance theory the basic hypothesis was that confirmation or disconfirmation of teacher's expectancy would manifest itself in quite differ ent ways. For example, if (l) teacher expectancy for stu dent performance on a criterion task is positive and the expectancy is confirmed, the teacher will most probably con tinue to view the child in a favorable light, and may indeed develop higher expectations for the child than those origi nally held. If (2) the positive expectancy is disconfirmed the child may be seen negatively as compared with the origi nal ratingB by the teacher. The above two situations theo retically overlap with the vicarious reinforcement hypothe sis just stated. However, when (3) teacher expectancy for student performance on a criterion task is negative, and the expectancy is confirmed, the teacher may then view this low- performing child more positively (i.e., since the teacher's prediction is validated, no cognitive dissonance hinders future evaluation). Moreover, if (4) the negative expect ancy was disconfirmed and the student, in fact, was more successful on the criterion task than the teacher predicted, the resultant dissonance will cause the teacher to view the child less favorably in order to resolve this conflict. 32 In sum, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of confirmatory and disconfirmatory information on the teacher's expectancies for her students: specifically, it will be noted whether this information alters prestated teacher ratings of various student behaviors, and if so, whether in certain cases teacher responses to a given stu dent's achievement gains are nonconducive to reinforcement of further gains. CHAPTER II METHOD Experimental Hypotheses It has been suggested In Chapter I that teacher behavior and evaluations could be usefully Interpreted in terms of either vicarious reinforcement or cognitive disso nance theory. In order to test the two general hypotheses outlined above under "statement of the problem" and based on these two related theories, the writer has selected the following operational hypotheses, stated in termB derived from cognitive dissonance theory. 1. Hypothesis I examines the prediction that con firmation of positive teacher expectancy for student per formance on an Intelligence test will cast the student in a more favorable light. It Btates: Confirmation of posi tive teacher expectancy for student success will cause posi tive changes in teacher evaluation of student behavior. 2. Hypothesis II examines the prediction that dis confirmation of positive teacher expectancy for student per formance on an intelligence test will cause dissonance, which will be resolved by means of a more clearly negative evaluation of the student. It states: Disconfirmation of 33 34 positive teacher expectancy for student success will cause negative changes In teacher evaluation of student behavior. 3. Hypothesis III examines the prediction that con firmation of negative teacher expectancy for student success on an intelligence test should result in no dissonance and will cause either no change or positive change in teacher reaction. It 3tates : Confirmation of negative teacher expectancy for student success will result in positive or no change in teacher evaluation of student behavior. 4. Hypothesis IV examines the prediction that dis confirmation of negative teacher expectancy for student per formance on an Intelligence test will result In cognitive dissonance followed by still more negative evaluation of student behavior. It states: Disconfirmation of negative teacher expectancy will result in a lowering in teacher evaluation of student performance. The Sample The total population of sixth-grade female teachers (N = 26) in the Fountain Valley School District was selected for study. Each teacher rated all the male students in her own class. A female group was selected for two reasons. First, the number of male teachers was too small to constitute a comparable subgroup. Second, research evidence has shown that male teachers attend to and value different types of 35 behaviors than do female teachers (Beilin, 1959)• Based on these considerations, selection from a homogeneous popula tion seemed important to remove this potentially confound ing variable. There is ample research evidence that female stu dents are rated differently (usually in a more positive affective vein) than male students (e.g., McNeil, 1964, and Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968). The selection of an all-male student population (N = 312) was felt to be Justified in attempting to remove this confounding variable. The School District Fountain Valley School District is located south of Los Angeles in Orange County. An outstanding school program based on educational innovation has won the district numer ous awards including the California Psychologists Associa tion's award for "educational excellence.1 1 The district has grown in size from one school with 234 students Just seven years ago to twelve schools with over 8,000 students, and 25,000 students are anticipated by 1975* Fountain Valley is strictly a middle-class residen tial community consisting of large tract developments with homes ranging between twenty-five and thirty-five thousand dollars. The tract units are self-contained, walled from the through traffic, each unit containing its own elementary school (K through 8). In spite of the tremendous growth 36 problems, the main educational emphasis has been on giving the child individual help. Educational aids and materials have been extensively employed to free the teacher for closer, more personal involvement with her students. These many points are offered to illustrate that Fountain Valley 1b quite atypical. In addition, less than 3 percent of the school's population derives from minority groups (primarily Mexlcan-American). Fountain Valley is far removed culturally from the lower-class San Franciscan com munity in which the "Pygmalion" study was conducted, where Mexican-Americans comprised one-sixth of the population. The desire to present a study supportive but dis tinctly contrasting with the "Pygmalion" study was one fac tor in the choice of Fountain Valley for this study. Variables The dependent variable in this Btudy was the change in teachers' evaluations of student behaviors. This change was determined by subtracting posttest from pretest ratings. The independent variables were: (1) the teachers1 expectancy (either positive or negative) for student per formance on the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test; and (2) the performances of the students on that test. Since the major emphasis of this study was on teachers' responses to student performance, this second independent variable was included in the research design as an experimental variable called "confirmation or disconfirmation of teachers' 37 expectancy. " Technically, It is somewhat incorrect to call this variable an independent variable since it is dependent, to a degree, on the teachers' expectancy. On the other hand, it is not the dependent variable under investigation, and was manifestly indispensable in testing the hypothesis that confirmation or disconfirmation of expectancy affects teachers' evaluations of their students. The experimental treatment was the reporting of the actual I.Q. scores of all subjects to their teachers. Instruments The classroom behavioral scale, an Instrument devised and used by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) in their "Pygmalion" study, was designed for the teachers to make nine Judgments about the general classroom behavior of their students. Since the "Pygmalion" study was conducted, Rosen thal has added nine new variables to the scale, making a total of eighteen. Inclusion of this scale in this study was based on the decision to investigate and possibly reinterpret some of the Rosenthal and Jacobson conclusions drawn from their findings. In the original scale the teacher was asked to estimate how successful her student would be in the future, the degree to which his behavior reflected intellectual curiosity, and the extent to which the child could be described as interesting, happy, appealing, well-adjusted, 38 affectionate, hostile, and motivated by a need for approval. The nine additional behavioral characteristics are: careful with schoolwork; honest; reliable; persistent; independent; attentive in class; not easily distractible; takes initia tive; and academically motivated. The revised Rosenthal scale was altered to include a nine-point scale for each of the bipolar points. For example, the bipolar points on the variable "happy" would be "happy" and "unhappy," each point having its own nine-point scale running from "extremely" to "not-at-all." In order to conform to the original "Pygmalion" study only one of the bipolar points employing Just the one scale was presented (see Appendix). In an attempt to relieve an overloading at the mid-point, the nine-point scale was increased to ten. Descriptive points on the scale were maintained and run from "very" (l) to "not-at-all" (10). In revising the scale an Inverse order was used with the positive end of the scale Indicated by the smaller number. Thus, positive changes from pre- to posttest will be expressed in negative numbers (e.g., a pretest score of "4" if changed to a posttest score of "2" would have a difference score of "minus 2"). This, of course, will not affect the results; only the presenta tion of the data will differ from that in the "Pygmalion" study where the larger scores were the better scores. 39 Research Design Just prior to the beginning of this investigation the subjects took the California State-Required Lorge- Thorndike Verbal Intelligence teBt. Since the experimental treatment was the actual reporting of the I.Q. scores to the teacher it was necessary, for experimental purposes, to arrive at some estimation of teachers' expectancy for stu dent performances on the criterion measure. The most simple and direct method was to ask the teacher how she expected each of her students would perform. To accomplish this the teacher waB presented with a one-item ten-point scale run ning from "very well" (l) to "not at all" (10) for expected performance. Although this single Item was included on the behavioral rating scale (described above under "Instru ments"), in presenting the scale to the teacher the impor tance of this Item was minimized; It was hoped thereby to preclude any conscious or unconscious distortion of responses to the behavioral items which followed. This Initial process was referred to as the pretest. An interim period of one month followed the pretest. The second phase of the study, following the Interim period, entailed reporting the I.Q. score and the class percentile ranking accompanied by the eighteen-variable behavioral scale where the only difference between this scale and the pretest Beale was the inverse ordering of the Items (e.g., item 1 on the pretest became Item 20 on the posttest, etc.). * 4 40 This second phase constituted the posttest. To establish what will be called "positive" teacher expectancy It was decided that any Btudent rated In the top 5 deciles (1 to 5) for expected performance would be deemed to have earned positive teacher expectancy. Those who fell In the lower 5 deciles (6 to 10) were considered to have been assigned "negative" expectancy. To aid In visualizing how the experimental vari ables Interact a two-by-two factorial model is shown in Table I. TABLE I 2 x 2 MODEL OF RESEARCH DESIGN SHOWING INTERACTION OF VARIABLES OF TEACHER EXPECTANCY AND CONFIRMATION Teacher Expectancy Confirmed Disconfirmed Positive I II Negative III IV Before exploring the second independent variable, it must be noted that the I.Q. scores were converted to measur able units In the analysis using the percentile ranking, which in turn was converted to a decile number. For example, if all students with I.Q. scores above 130 fell in the 90th to 99th percentile this would be equivalent to a decile score of 1 (one). Conversely, I.Q. scores of 70 or below 41 falling in the 1st to 10th percentiles would be assigned a decile score of 10 (ten)j etc. Based on the above explanation, assignment to a group according to the second Independent variable depended on the following four criteria: Placement in Group I. If teacher expectancy was positive and student decile score is actually equal to or one or more deciles above that expectancy, this was considered confirmatory of positive expectation. II. If teacher expectancy was positive and student decile score was actually one or more deciles below that expectancy, this was considered disconfirmatory of positive expectation. III. If teacher expectancy was negative and student decile score was equal to or one or more deciles below expectancy, this was considered confirmatory of negative expectancy. IV. If teacher expectancy was negative and student decile score Is actually one or more deciles above that expectancy this waB considered dis conf Irmatory of negative expectancy. Hypothetical examples for each of the preceding con ditions are as follows: I. If the teacher gave student _A a decile rating of "5" for expectancy of performance on the I.Q. test, this would indicate a positive expectancy. If student £ actually scored 130, this would place him in the 90th percentile which is equivalent to a decile rating of ”l." Since this score was equal to or greater than the teacher's rating of "5" this was consid ered confirmation of positive expectancy and student £ was placed In group I. II. Student B was also rated "5" (positive expect ancy); his actual I.Q. score was 90, placing him in the 40th percentile with a decile rat ing of "6." Since this was 1 decile below teacher's expectancy, this was considered a disconfirmation of positive expectancy and student B was placed in Group II. III. Student £ was rated "6" (negative expectancy) and attained an I.Q. score of 80, placing him in the 30th percentile with a decile equiva lent of "7*" Being equal to or below teacher's expectancy, this confirmed expectancy for negative performance, thereby placing student £ in Group III. IV. Student £ was rated "6" (negative expectancy) and Bcored 110 on the I.Q. test, placing him in the 60th percentile with a decile equiva lent of "4." Since this exceeded the teacher's expectancy by 1 or more deciles her expectancy for negative performance was dls- conflrmed and student D was placed in group IV. Statistical Analysis In an attempt to reduce the eighteen original vari ables to more meaningful constructs, a factor analytic study was undertaken for both pretest and posttest scores on the behavioral rating Beale. The decision to factor analyze both pre- and posttest scores was made In an effort to determine consistency between the tests. In addition, a comparison was made between these results and the Intercor- relational analysis performed by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) in their "Pygmalion" study. Rather than borrow those factors for use in this analysis, an independent analysis with a more powerful tool was considered desirable. Since It could be assumed that pretest scores were uncontaminated by the experimental treatment, further analy sis of the data employed the pretest factors as referent points for discussion. A two-by-two factorial analysis of variance using the least squares solution (Winer, 1962) for unequal cell frequencies was then performed for each of the eighteen variables using the mean difference scores for each group as the dependent measure. 44 In addition, general observations were made of the mean difference scores for each group on both pre- and post- teBt measures in an effort to establish directional trends. Scope and Limitations Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) "Pygmalion" study has raised some critical questions for educators. Mainly, do teachers' expectancies for student achievement control the academic destiny of their students? Although little over a year has passed since its publication, the study is becoming a classic in the field of education. Thorndike (1968) has severely criticized some of the statistical find ings and Interpretations, calling into question the entire validity of the study. The present study circumvented cer tain ethical considerations and other problems raised by Thorndike by using standard I.Q. tests, by not manipulating I.Q. scores, and by not creating false expectancies for stu dent performance. The writer hypothesized that certain of the "Pygmalion" findings might have been yielded In any classroom without experimental manipulation: particularly teachers’ views of the behavior of different students and susceptibility of these views to change. While Rosenthal and Jacobson used all students in all six grades of their study, this study was confined to male students of female teachers In one grade level, from a very homogeneous socioeconomic population. Although the generalizabllity of the findings will thereby be restricted, it was hoped that by reducing the number of extraneous vari ables some further insights might be gained. Any further comparison between this study and "Pyg malion” must take into account the relative restrictedness of the present research design. CHAPTER III RESULTS The results of this investigation were organized and presented in the following sections : 1. Results of the factor analytic study 2. Significant findings of the independent variables 3- General observatiors of changes in teachers' behavioral evaluations. Results of the Factor Analytic Study Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) developed a rating scale for teachers' evaluation of various student behaviors. By meanB of an intercorrelational analysis they found three clusters for their nine variables (Table 2). One aspect of the present study was an attempt at cross-validation, for the purpose of generalization, to the Rosenthal and Jacobson study. In the present analysis the intercorrelations among the items, for both the pretest and poBttest scores, were analyzed by the principle-factor method; factors with eigen values equal to of* greater than one (Factor IV with an 46 47 TABLE 2 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS RATED B Y TEACHERS CLUSTER I CLUSTER II a B o U l Z3 o a Interesting F uture Success Adjusted*3 Appealing*3 b Happy Affectionate*3 £ Interesting .64 - a„ Future Success .63 .60 Adjusted .32 .45 .61 ^Appealing .36 .55 .58 . 66 ^Happy .35 .44 .48 .69 .59 ^Affectionate .28 .37 .23 .39 .40 .51 ^Nonhostile .02 .09 .22 .50 .46 .41 .27 £ Needs approval -.0 3 .02 -.2 0 -.29 -.0 4 -.20 .05 j U 4 - i VJ O o Z -.15 Source: Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968, p. 198). Cluster I Intercorrelations. j j Cluster II Intercorrelations. 'Cluster III (single variable), minimum N = 347. . 48 eigenvalue of .986 was included) were rotated to the varimax criterion. 'The results are given in Table 3. Only nine variables were used and analyzed in the "Pygmalion" study, deriving three clusters which were dupli cated in the present study by Factors II, III, and IV. Factor I was composed of all nine new variables (except item 17 on the pretest) added by Rosenthal in his most recent revision of the scale. Factor I was defined by items 10 (careful with schoolwork), 11 (honest), 12 (reliable), 13 (persistent), 14 (independent), 15 (attentive in class), 16 (not easily dlstractible), and 18 (academically motivated). Item 17 (takes Initiative) was weighted more heavily on Factor III in the pretest but more heavily on Factor I in the posttest. However, based on an earlier decision Item 17 was assigned to Factor III. These items seem most.directly related to behaviors that are valued in the class and important for school achievement; Factor I was consequently termed "School Conformity." Factor II was defined by Items 3 (happy), 4 (appeal ing), 6 (well-adjusted), 7 (affectionate), and 8 (friendly). These same Items appeared in both the Rosenthal and Jacobson study and the posttest analysis. These behaviors seem to be describing personality correlates exhibited in Interpersonal relations which denote a student's ability to adjust to 49 TABLE 3 PRINCIPLE-FACTOR ANALYSIS ROTATED TO VARIMAX CRITERION (Factor structure of the eighteen behavioral measures for pre- and posttest ratings) PRETEST POSTTEST I 1 1 III IV I II III IV 1 .12 .59 :66* -.03 .29 .55 .65* .01 2 .41 .29 .74* .17 .45 .30 .69* .25 3 .23 .81* .25 . 11 .22 .80* .26 .12 4 .18 .80* .31 .04 .23 .71* .43 -.01 5 .26 .31 .79* -.09 .29 .46 .70* -.06 6 . 46 .66* .27 .23 .46 .70* .24 .22 7 .18 .76* .10 -.28 .12 .81* .05 -.12 8 .12 .82* .19 -.15 .06 .82* .17 -.15 9 .11 -.11 .02 .94* .11 -.11 .06 .97* 10 .72* .10 .29 .02 .79* .23 .18 .07 U .71* .47 -.01 -.12 .59* .56 .10 -.04 12 .83* .35 .22 .01 .76* .45 .23 .05 13 .57* .16 .56 -.11 .64* .18 .59 -.001 14 .62* .23 .57 .16 .68* .13 .58 .04 15 .77* .17 .41 .13 .84* .11 .37 .06 16 .80* .09 .26 .15 .81* .15 .20 .08 17 .57 .26 .68* .08 .66* .21 .61 .10 18 .65* .21 .64 .05 .68* .15 .60 .05 * Highest loading of item in sample. 50 these relationships. Rosenthal and Jacobson's definition of this factor as "Adjustment1 1 will be retained in the present study. Factor III was defined by items 1 (interesting), 2 (successful in the future), 5 (curious), and 17 (takes initiative). It was identified with Rosenthal and Jacob son's first cluster, "Intellectual Curiosity,1 1 wh-lch-~also included Items 1, 2, and 5* For convenience in comparison the factor title will be retained. Factor IV was defined by the single Item 9 (need for approval). It replicated Rosenthal and Jacobson's third cluster and was verified in the posttest analysis of the present study. One unique feature of this factor was that In all the analyses there was very little relationship with any other variable. This factor was given the item title, "Need for Approval." In summary, Rosenthal and Jacobson's lntercorrela- tion analysis was replicated in this study with an inde pendent population, employing the more powerful factor analytic approach, on both pretest and posttest analyses. Nine additional variables added by Rosenthal were grouped as one new factor. * Significant Findings of the Independent Variables and Testing of the Hypotheses The main concern of this investigation was to deter mine how, and in what circumstances, change in teachers' > 51 evaluation of student behavior occurred. Thus the analyti cal portion of this study focuses upon change in teachers1 ratings as seen in the difference in scores from pre- to posttest. The difference scores assigned to each student, on each behavioral variable, were determined by subtracting the teacher's pretest ratings from her posttest ratings. These Individual difference scores were then assigned to the appropriate group based on the criterion outlined in Chapter XI. Mean difference scores of each group were then analyzed for each variable. In order to discover any significant difference between the established groups on the two Independent vari ables, a 2 x 2 analysis-of-variance procedure, utilizing the "least squares" solution for unequal cell frequencies (Winer, 1962), was employed. When a significant difference was found on one of the independent variables the groups were examined to determine In which direction the difference moved. Table 4 summarizes the mean difference scores for each group on each of the behavioral variables with the appropriate F ratio for each of the Independent variables. ^Tables 11-28 In the Appendix present the summaries of each of the analyses of variance. Table 5 may be used as an aid In visualizing the trends of the analysis of variance tables. TABLE 4 52 MEAN DIFFERENCE SCORES PER GROUP PER MEASURE WITH LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Groups Independent Variable I II III IV A B Factor I (School Conformity) Care with schoolwork -.15 -.3 3 -.59 -.1 9 .69 .14 Honest -.28 .38 -.08 .46 .43 11.06** Reliable .16 .51 -.14 .49 .75 6.91** Persistent .26 .41 -.08 .09 2.52 .51 Independent .35 .42 -.38 .25 5. 08* 2.50 Attentive in class .50 .31 -.13 -.2 0 9.39** .46 Not distractible .19 .37 -.28 -.1 8 6.39** .20 Academ. motivated .09 .40 -.30 -.2 2 9.03** 2.16 Factor II (Adjustment) Happy -.26 .28 .00 .10 .84 6.96** Appealing -.23 .18 .09 .21 1.43 3.25 Well-adjusted -.09 . 12 -.09 .05 .02 1.02 Friendly -.16 .14 -.33 .22 .13 4.80* Affectionate -.63 -.1 6 -.78 -.3 6 1.21 7.05** Factor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting -.50 .23 -.08 .03 .03 8.26** Success in future -.14 .42 -.06 -.71 17.67** .58 Curious .01 .27 -.50 -.2 0 5.57* 1.72 Takes initiative .31 .30 -.20 -.4 8 9.45** .85 Factor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval -.28 .07 -.02 -.1 5 .01 2.00 Note: Negative numbers indicate group is moving up the scale in a positive direction. Positive numbers indicate a downward movement. cl Independent variable A = Positive expectancy vs Negative expectancy; Independent variable B= Confirmation vs Disconfirmation. * p < . 05. **p<.01. TABLE 5 53 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN TEACHERS' BEHAVIORAL EVALUATIONS PER GROUP PER VARIABLE Group 1 Group II Group III Group IV Direction of Positive Change P Table No. Factor I (School Conformity) Care with schoolwork More Less More More NS 11 Honest More Less More Less Con > Disa .01 12 Reliable Less Less More Less Con > Dis .01 13 Persistent Less Less More Less Pos < Negk NS 14 Independent Less Less More More .05 15 Attentive in class Less Less More More Pos < Neg .01 16 Academ. motivated Less Less More More Pos < Neg .01 17 Not distractible Less Less More More Pos <Neg .05 18 Factor II (Adjustment) Happy More Less Same Less Con >Dis .01 19 Appealing More Less Less Less NS 20 Well -adjusted More Less More Less NS 21 Affectionate More More More More Con > Dis .01 22 Friendly More Less More Less Con > Dis .05 23 Factor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting More Less More Less Con > Dis .01 24 Success in future More Less More More Pos <Neg .01 25 Curious Same Less More More Pos < Neg .01 26 Takes initiative Less Less More More Pos <Neg .05 27 Factor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval More Less More More NS 28 Indicates the independent variable “confirmation” vs “disconfirmation.” Indicates the independent variable “positive” vs “negative” expectancy. 54 The following subsections contain the significant findings after submitting the two independent variables to the 2 x 2 analysis of variance. The mean difference scores (posttest minus pretest findings for each group) were put under scrutiny. The results are meaningful only In terms of actual directional change (whether the ratings are moving up or down the ten-point scale). The quality of the scores (i.e., their positiveness) will be explored in the following section under "General Observations." Together these sec tions add different dimensions to the overall picture, following which the acceptance or rejection of the experi mental hypotheses will be explored in Chapter IV. Hypothesis I This hypothesis was based on the prediction that confirmation of positive teacher expectancy would result in either an unchanged or more positive teacher-evaluation of these students. The results indicate that the student who was expected to perform well, and who did perform well, was judged significantly more Interesting, happy, affectionate, friendly, honest, and reliable. On the other hand, although there was no change on curiousness and rating on the likeli hood of being successful in the future was more positive, the changes on these items and the behaviors "independent," "attentive in class," "not easily distractible," and "aca demically motivated" (which were negatively rated) were less significant than those recorded where there was negative expectancy. On the posttest this group was generally more highly rated on adjustment and Intellectual curiosity, but received lower ratings as to school conformity (this suggestive find ing will be explored further under "General Observations"). Changes on the factor "Need for Approval" were not signifi cant for any of the groups. Hypothesis II This hypothesis examined the prediction that discon- firmation of positive teacher expectancy would result in negative changes in teacher evaluation of student perform ance. Results generally indicate that when a student did not perform at the higher level of achievement expected of him, he was subsequently viewed as significantly less interesting, happy, friendly, honest, and reliable. Although there was a positive change as to how affectionate he was, the change was less positive than in the case of peers who confirmed their teachers' expectancy. In addi tion, his teacher's initial positive expectancy worked against him in the respect that he was also viewed now as less likely'to be successful in the future or to take the Initiative, less curious, less independent, less attentive In class, less academically motivated, and more easily distractlble. 56 Regarding the factors involved, this group was viewed on the posttest as exhibiting less intellectual curi osity and being poorer in adjustment and school conformity. This negative diagnosis will be further explored in the last section of the chapter. Hypothesis III This hypothesis was based on the prediction that when a student who was not expected to perform well did not perform well, there would be either no change or positive change in teacher evaluation of his behavior. The posttest results indicate he was finally viewed as more likely to be successful in the future, more independent, more attentive in clasB, less easily distractible, more academically moti vated, and more likely to assume Initiative. In terms of the factors, he was viewed as more Intellectually curious, better adjusted, and conforming more positively to school. This most favorable prognostication for poorly achieving students will be further explored in this chapter. Hypothesis IV This hypothesis examined the prediction that discon- firmation of negative teacher expectancy would result in unfavorable changes in evaluation. The results indicate that when a student performed well although his teacher expected him to do poorly, he was rated significantly less 57 Interesting, happy, friendly, honest, and reliable than «» those students who confirmed their teacher's expectancy. As with the other disconfirmatory group, the positive increase in "affectionate" was not as great as with the confirming groups. The successful performance did have some effect, however, since this student was now viewed as more curious, more likely to take the initiative and to be successful in the future, more independent, more attentive in class, less distractible and more academically motivated. The larger picture indicates this student was seen finally as more intellectually curious with variable (both positive and negative) changes on school conformity, yet less well-adjusted. These results along with some addi tional insights as to the overall evaluations are considered in the following section. General Observations of Changes in Teachers' Behavioral Evaluations' The preceding section was concerned entirely with the degree and area of change in teachers' evaluations of the various groups and how the changes conformed to the pre dictions set forth in the experimental hypotheses. This section will explore more fully some basic differences between the groups, the actual number of students whose rat ings were changed, and comparisons between groups as to con tent and direction of their scores. 58 It was of interest to determine in what ways the various groups posited in the research design differed. Sex, age, grade-level, race, and socioeconomic level were all fairly well-controlled in the choice of research popula tion. The one variable not accounted for and the one exploited in this investigation was that of the I.Q. scores of the children. Table 6 demonstrates how successful the study was in distinguishing different groups among the total population (whose mean Lorge-Thorndike I.Q. score was 100.2). The z tests of significance between groups were all significant (p < .01). TABLE 6 MEAN GROUP I.Q. SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Group N Mean I.Q. SD I 82 114.28 12.40 II 107 101.45 9-04 III 64 84.45 6.81 IV 59 95*66 9*87 Groups I and III confirmed the teachers 1 positive or negative expectation for test performance, and it Is quite easy to see why: the groups are relatively homogeneous on intelligence test scores, standing on opposite ends of the normal curve. Not surprisingly the very bright and the dull children appear to be easily distinguished. However, groups II and IV, whose performance dlsconflrmed their teachers' expectations, are much less clear-cut. Although a _z test of significance between these two groups was significant at the .01 level, the standard error on the Lorge-Thorndike (5.1) and the groups' own deviation scores Indicate these two groups are not too dissimilar on measured intelligence. It appears that something other than intelligence distinguishes these two groups. A hint at how teachers do distinguish between these groups may be seen in the quality of the scores assigned to the groups. With a score of 1 as the most superior rating on the scale and 10 the most inferior, a glance at Table 7 will demonstrate how the teachers distinguish between those for whom they have positive expectancy (groups I and II) and those for whom there is negative expectancy (groups III and IV). Including both pre- and posttest scores groups I and II ranged between 2.76 and 4.07 on "intellectual curiosity,1 1 2.77 and 4.51 on "adjustment," 2.80 and 4.67 on "school con formity," and 3-88 and 4.16 on "need for approval" (these higher scores indicating less need for approval). On the other hand, groups III and IV ranged between 5*02 and 7*24 on "intellectual curiosity," 3-56 and 5-46 on "adjustment," 4.05 and 7*20 on "school conformity," and 3.07 and 3.36 on "need for approval." 60 TABLE 7 MEAN PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES PER GROUP PER VARIABLE Group I Group II Group III Group IV _______________________ Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Factor I (School Conformity) Care w schoolwork 4.50 4.35 4.30 3.97 6.53 5.94 6.75 6.56 Honest 2.80 2.52 2.76 3.14 4.52 4.44 4.05 4.51 Reliable 3.18 3.34 3.12 3.63 5.75 5.61 5.37 5.86 Persistent 3.62 3.88 3.43 3.84 6.39 6.31 6.37 6.46 Independent 3.13 3.48 3.33 3.75 6.86 6.48 6.24 6.49 Attentive in class 3.65 4.15 3.68 3.99 6.19 6.06 6. 93 6.73 Not distractible 4.39 4.58 4.30 4.67 6. 86 6.58 7.20 7.02 Academ. motivated 3.54 3.63 3.41 3.81 6.89 6.59 6.93 6.71 Factor II (Adjustment) Happy 3.16 2.90 2.90 3.18 4.47 4.47 4.44 4.54 Appeal ing 3.05 2.82 3.04 3.22 4.55 4.64 4.71 4.92 Well -adjusted 3.22 3.13 3.26 3.38 5.33 5.24 5.44 5.46 Affectionate 4.51 3,88 4.18 4.02 5.42 4.64 5.24 4.88 Friendly 2.93 2.77 2.80 2.94 4.22 3.89 3.56 3.78 ctor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting 3.26 2,76 3.01 3.24 5.17 5.09 5.02 5.05 Success in future 3.20 3.06 2.88 3.30 6.17 6.11 6.59 5.88 Curious 2.77 2.78 2.80 3.07 5.52 5.02 5.54 5.34 Takes initiative 3.48 3.79 3.77 4.07 7.06 6. 86 7.24 6.76 :ctor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval 4.16 3.88 3.90 3.97 3.36 3. 34 3.22 3.07 61 Table 8 indicates the significant differences of scores between groups, using a _z test for unc or re lasted means (Guilford, 1965)* Significant differences between groups I and IX were found on only two variables ("interesting" and "honest") on the posttest; there were none on the pretest. Likewise, there was no significant difference between scores for groups III and IV. However, the significant differences between the positive expectancy groups (I and II), and the negative expectancy groups (III and IV), were all greater than .01 (except for one variable on the pretest and one on the posttest which were at the .05 level). These results Indicate that the teachers are indeed making- some clear qualitative distinctions on the basiB of unchanging expectancies among the students they confront, and that teacher evaluations are distinctly influenced by such expectancies. This observation will be explored fur ther in Chapter IV. One additional set of observations will conclude this section: these involve the actual number of individu als In each group whose posttest scores were either "equal to" or "less than" ("less than" Indicating a more positive rating) on the one hand and "more than" on the other. Table 9 indicates the actual number of Individuals In each group making a shift in the stated directions on each variable. Table 10 lists Chi-square tests of signifi cance between the various groups on the variables. The most TABLE 8 z SCORE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS ON PRETEST AND POSTTEST r < 2s r<3 r <4 2 < 3 2 < 4 3 < 4 _________ Pre Post Pre_____ Post Pre_____ Post Pre_____ Post Pre Post Pre Post Factor I (School Conformity) Care with schoolwork .57 1.25 5.65** 4.95** 6.15** 6.59** 6.55** 6.68** 7.04** 8.35** .61 1.89 Honest .16 2.78** 4.98** 6.40** 3.26** 6.29** 5.25** 4.12** 3.58** 4.12** 1.06 .18 Reliable .21 1.11 7.04** 7.37** 5.63** 7.77** 7.31** 6.49** 5.84** 6.95** 1.11 .69 Persistent .62 .15 8.94** 7.41** 7.62** 7.82** 9.77** 8.23** 8.27** 8.73** .05 .42 Independent .75 .99 11.80** ia 00** 9.78** 9.52** 11.28** 9.38** 8.84** 8.89** 1.68 .03 Attentive in class .10 .55 7.21** 6.04** 8.86** 7.77** 7.68** 7.09** 9.39** 8.89** 1.93 2.19 Not distractible .26 .28 7.14** 5.51** 6.82** 7.39** 7.93** 5.44** 7.40** 7.08** .88 1.17 Academ. motivated .50 .74 11.55** 10.17** 11.37** 10.88** 12.00** 9.96** 11.81** 10.74** .12 .48 Factor II (Adjustment) Happy 1.02 1.21 4.32** 5.54** 3.88** 5.59** 5.38** 4.78** 4.24** 4.83** .08 .21 Appealing .04 1.56 4.79** 5.48** 4.38** 6.42** 4.76** 4.46** 4.36** 5.43** .37 .74 Well-Adjusted .15 1.02 6.66** 7.73** 7.07** 7.37** 6.72** 6.82** 6.21** 6.58** .20 .65 Affectionate 1.13 .48 2.82** 2.31* 2.58** 3.12** 3.58** 1.96* 2.89** 2.79** .43 .67 Friendly .54 .70 3.24** 4.08** 1.98* 3.23** 4.96** 3.75** 2.55* 2.82** 1.86 .34 Factor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting 1.02 2.19* 6.04** 8.05** 5.09** 8.48** 7.50** 7.42** 6.26** 6.83** .40 .09 Success in future 1.43 1.11 11.00** 11.91** 11.98** 11.23** 13.10** 11.19** 14.00** 10.52** 1.38 .82 Curious .13 1.32 9,38** 7.65** 9.20** 8.74** 9.31** 7.17** 9.13** 8.34** .06 .96 Takes Initiative 1.02 .95 11.66** 10.51** 12.20** 10.31** 10.75** 9.27** 11.34** 9.02** .54 .34 TABLE 8--Continued * 1 < 2 Pre Post 1 < 3 Pre Post 1 < 4 2 < 3 Pre Post Pre Post 2 <4 3 < 4 Pre Post Pre Post Factor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval .87 .34 2.53* 1.89 2.61** 2.56* 1.80 2.37* 1.96* 3.07** .39 .87 0 < indicates the “less than” group having the more positive scores, p < .05. * * p<.01. cr\ co TABLE 9 64 FREQUENCIES OF INDIVIDUAL POSTTEST RATINGS “EQUAL TO” OR “LESS THAN” VS THOSE “GREATER THAN” PRETEST RATINGS PER GROUP PER VARIABLE Variables GROUP I Post =sPre Yes No GROUP II Post £ Pre Yes No GROUP III Post s Pre Yes No GROUP IV Post £ Pre Yes No f* f f f f f f f Factor 1 (School Conformity) Care with schoolwork 62 20 78 29 51 13 44 15 Honest 59 23 61 46 47 17 34 25 Reliable 48 34 48 59 44 20 31 28 Persistent 48 34 59 48 41 23 33 ■ 26 Independent 55 27 55 52 47 17 34 25 Attentive in class 45 37 59 48 43 21 42 17 Not distractible 51 31 65 42 45 19 43 16 Academ, motivated 54 28 55 52 46 18 42 17 Factor 1 1 (Adjustment) Happy 67 15 61 46 40 24 39 20 Appealing 68 14 71 36 40 24 35 24 Well-adjusted 62 20 66 41 44 20 38 21 Affectionate 67 15 79 28 50 14 44 15 Friendly 65 17 70 37 47 17 37 22 Factor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting 68 14 69 38 44 20 36 23 Success in future 65 17 54 53 44 20 49 10 Curious 62 20 67 40 50 14 41 18 Takes initiative 48 34 60 47 46 18 45 14 Factor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval 61 21 76 31 45 19 40 19 £ f indicates frequency of individuals falling “equal to” or “ less than” (yes) or “more than” (no) for each designated variable. 65 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHI SQUARE INTERGROUP COMPARISONS 1 < 2a 1 < 3 1 < 4 2 > 3 2 > 4 3 < 4 Factor I (School Conformity) Care with schoolwork .18 .34 .02 1.00 .04 .46 Honest 4.47* .04 3, 14 4.64* .01 3.41 Reliable 3.47 1.61 .50 9.20** .90 3.39 Persistent .22 .46 . 10 1.31 .01 .85 Independent 4.69* .69 1.32 8.08** .59 3.41 Attentive in class .01 2.28 3.86* 2.42 4.11* .23 Not distracttble .04 1.05 1.76 1.60 2.46 .10 Academically motivated 3.97* .60 .45 6.94** 6.13* .01 Factor II (Adjustment) Happy 12.96** 6.77** 4.48* .50 1.31 .17 Appealing 6.55* 7.79** 9.71** .26 .82 . 13 Well-adjusted 4.12* .85 2.09 .65 .12 ,26 Affectionate 1.64 .29 1.04 .40 .01 .22 Friendly 4.36* .68 8.33** 1.19 . 12 1.63 Factor III (Intellectual Curiosity) Interesting 7.92** 4.04* 8.51** .33 .20 .81 Success in future 16.51** 2.10 .32 5.47* 17.15** 3.41 Curious 3.62 .13 .65 4,46* .79 1.19 Takes initiative .12 2.79 * H Q O 4.24* 6.67** .31 Factor IV (Need for Approval) Need for approval .26 .30 .73 .01 .19 .09 Indicates in each set which group had the greater or lesser frequency of negative change. *p < .05. **p < .01. Interesting finding here concerns the significant differ ences between groups I and II. It appears disconfirmation of positive teacher expectancy causes a good deal of activity in the changing of students' scores. Although the distribution of scores, as seen above in this section, is not significantly different, disconfirmation does seem to have its effect, as noted In the testing of the hypotheses. With nine of the eighteen variables showing significant frequency changes, the most Interesting fact is that four of the five variables on the factor "adjustment" were signi ficantly different, followed by two of the four "intellec tual curiosity" variables. This picture changed only some what when group II was compared with group III (negative expectancy confirmed group) where seven of the eighteen variables were significantly different In favor of group III Three of the four variables on "Intellectual curiosity" and half of the "school conformity" variables, however, more frequently remained the same or In a positive direction than was true for group II. To a lesser degree this also held true when the disconfirmed groups were compared. Four of the eighteen variables, two on "Intellectual curiosity" and two on "school conformity," showed significantly more negative change for group II. These results seem to indi cate that teachers' positive expectancy haB a certain degree of value for the teacher, and when It is disconfirmed there Is a definite reaction. With the negative expectancy groups (III and IV) showing no significant difference in frequency changes, the only remaining significant differences are found between groups I and IV, Examining these two groups where I.Q. attainment was positive but teacher expectancy was positive and negative respectively, we find that on six of the eighteen variables group I students (for whom teacher expectancy was confirmed) were more frequently rated more positively. This was most obvious on three of the five "adjustment" variables and two of the four "Intellectual curiosity" variables. The following chapter will Incorporate these many findings into a more systematic overview of their possible meanings and implications. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The findings of the analysiB of data are summarized below In terms of acceptance or rejection of the experi mental hypotheses. This will be followed by some compari sons between these results and those of the "Pygmalion" study, and by a discussion of the theoretical issues raised in the.first chapter. Hypotheses The propositions stated in the hypotheses presented in Chapter II seem to have been either totally or partially confirmed. Hypothesis I The prediction that confirmation of positive teacher expectancy for student performance on an I.Q. test would result in no change or positive changes in teacher evalua tion of these students' behavior was confirmed on every level. Not only were group I children bright (mean group I.Q. 114.28), but their teachers evaluated their behaviors In the most favorable terms on all measures. Their 68 69 confirmation of teachers' expectancy was reflected In signi ficantly positive individual movement on many of the vari ables, particularly for the "adjustment" and "intellectual curiosity" factors. This hypothesis was unequivocally accepted. Hypothesis II The statement that dlsconflrmation of positive teacher expectancy for student performance on an I.Q. test would result in negative changes in teachers' evaluations of student behavior was confirmed at every level and the hypothesis will be accepted but with some qualification. When a teacher expects positive performance and the student does not fulfill such expectation, the likely con sequence would be a lowering of teacher's esteem for the child. Although the experience of the group II students demonstrated this, and although the changes were signifi cantly more negative in a number of situations than those of other groups, the general level of scores was not signi ficantly different from that of their peers who also enjoyed positive expectancy but who confirmed that expectancy. Their overall scores, furthermore, were significantly higher on all variables than those of their peers who experienced negative expectancy. Hypothesis III The statement that confirmation of negative teacher expectancy would result in no change or positive change in teachers' evaluation was confirmed at every level and the hypothesis is accepted with some qualification. A student who performs quite low (mean group I.Q. 84.45) on measured intelligence and thereby confirms his teacher's expectancy for such a performance presumably offers little threat to the teacher. He was not a bright student nor was he expected to be. In terms of reduction of dissonance, this would seem to explain, for the most part, results indicating confirmation induced positive changes in teachers' behav ioral evaluations, particularly on factors relating to adjustment; the theoretical possibility, however, obviously is not bein^ offered here as precise or complete definition of what 1b taking place. While the group III student was evaluated signifi cantly below his peers who enjoyed positive teacher expect ancy (groups I and II) there were no significant differences between his ratings and those for other negative expectancy group (IV) members, despite the fact there were very signi ficant differences between their I.Q. performances. Hypothesis IV The statement that disconfirmation of teachers' negative expectancy for student I.Q. performance would be followed by negative changes In teachers1 behavioral 71 evaluations was only somewhat validated; therefore the hypothesis is partially accepted. After disconfirmation of the group IV children, teachers tended to perceive the stu dent more favorably in terms of "Intellectual curiosity" and certain behaviors relating to "school conformity" (specifically those variables connected with school tasks, e.g., "academically motivated"). However, disconfIrmation was accompanied by a significant negative thrust on vari ables dealing with "adjustment" and on other personality- related variables ("Interesting," "honest," and "reliable"). One very Interesting result was that, although the scores were not significant, group IV members were rated lower on the posttest than group III members on thirteen of eighteen variables with the positive direction on the eighteenth indicating more "need for approval"j on the pre test group IV subjects were rated lower than those of group III on only eight on the eighteen. The overview suggests that students in this fourth group, representing approximately 20 percent of the total population, are perceived quite negatively by their teachers. Though falling within the normal range of intelligence, they were Initially not expected to score that well. When given the I.Q. results, their teachers raised their evalua tion on school and Intellectual variables (presumably to conform to the unforeseen results), but reduced their evaluations of the child's personality and adjustment. "Pygmalion" Revisited Some of the Interesting patterns In the results of thl3 Investigation warrant a comparison to Rosenthal and Jacobson's "Pygmalion" study. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) did a one-time, end- of-the-year, post hoc rating of student behaviors, having manipulated teachers’ expectancies at the beginning of the year. Correlating the students' I.Q. gains with their teachers' behavioral ratings, they found the upper track experimental group receiving the more positive ratings on "interesting," "successful in the future,1 1 "adjusted," "appealing," and "affectionate."- This group was comprised of the brighter students who enjoyed positive teacher expectancy and had greater I.Q. gains. This group and group I in the present study are clearly comparable in these respects, and the results in the two studies are very- similar. No results were presented in the "Pygmalion" study for groups corresponding to groups II and III in the present study. Such groups did exist— thoBe In the fast track experimental group who had decreases in I.Q. scores (corre sponding in this respect to group II), and those in the slow track control group who had no increase In I.Q. scores (as in the present study's III)--but their behavioral ratings were not reported. 73 The most revealing results occurred in Rosenthal and Jacobson's slow track control group I.Q. gainers. This group consisted of children whose academic performance was questionable enough for placement in a track where little performance expectancy existed and where no experimental manipulation increased that expectancy. When in fact these children made substantial I.Q. gains, they were rated lowest of any children in the entire population on "need for approval," "interesting," "curious," "adjusted," "appeal ing," "happy,1 1 and "affectionate." This group corresponds to group IV in the present study, and the patterns of teachers' behavioral ratings are remarkably similar (espe cially in view of the very disparate social milieux involved in the two studies). Rosenthal and Jacobson's response to their findings seems apropos to both studies: If a child is to show intellectual gains, it may be better for his Intellectual vitality and for hiB mental health as seen by his teacher, if hiB teacher has been expecting him to grow intellectually. It appears that there may be psychological hazards to unexpected intellectual growth [1968, p. 1181. Testing Theoretical Implications In Chapter I it was proposed that, whatever results emerged from this investigation, one of two possible theo retical alternatives existed to account for the findings. While vicarious reinforcement theory adequately accounts for resultB obtained with groupB I and II it Is 74 hardly applicable to the positive direction of ratings for negatively performing students in group III and the partial negative direction of ratings for achieving students in group IV. There Is nothing In learning theory to explain such unusual findings. Of the two theories, cognitive dis sonance does seem to be the more tenable. Positive changes following confirmed positive expectancy and negative changes following dlsconfirmed positive expectancy are not unusual, and may readily be viewed as cases of vicarious reinforcement. But positive changes after confirmation of negative expectancy, and negative changes attendant on dis- conflrmatlon of negative expectancy, are not as readily explained. Since cognitive dissonance Is an attltudinal theory it may be well to consider what attitudes are being changed. Expectancy may be defined as an attitude one holds In regards to the outcome of some situation. In this study expectancy for another's performance was established by having a teacher describe her expectancies for her students through a score on a rating 3cale. A further look was taken as to how this expectancy or attitude manifested Itself by asking the teacher to rate a number of types of behavior to accompany this expectancy. Different expectancies were categorized in terms of four possible outcomes. 1. When positive expectancy was confirmed, teachers' expectancies were not challenged and no dissonance existed. 75 Since the teacher was already favorably inclined towards these students it was easy for her to elevate her ratings when she learned how accurate her initial perception was. 2. When teachers' positive expectancy was discon- firmed the opposite took place; lowered ratings followed information concerning an inaccurate perception. Cognitive dissonance appears to be at work: inaccuracy breeds dis sonance, dissonance can be reduced by altering perceptions, both to conform to new information on the one hand and to protect and perpetuate the original and apparently discon- firmed attitudes on the other. Thus ratings on personality and adjustment were lowered. It is quite interesting to note that the ratings were never lowered to the level of those students who were assigned negative expectancy. This can be partially explained by employing the concept of magnitude of dissonance. Apparently these students did not fall far enough below the original expectancy to warrant an entire qualitative downgrading of performance (magnitude of dissonance would not have justified that response). ThiB can be substantiated by the fact that there were signifi cant differences between group I and II posttest scores on only two variables ("Interesting" and "honest"). 3. Cognitive dissonance theory is chiefly relevant to the results for the negative expectancy groups. Confir mation of negative expectancy provides no dissonance. The results show the teachers tend not to rate these poorly 76 achieving students as severely as they did initially. While many changes were significant the level of the scores never approached the ratings of their more favored peers in groups I and II. 4. When negative expectancy is disconfirmed the results are somewhat cloudy. That cognitive dissonance exists Is accepted but how thiB dissonance is reduced provides some interesting speculation. The results indicate that when a student achieved when he was not exptected to, this dissonance was resolved in two distinctly different ways. The behavioral ratings on Intellectual performance were raised; yet ratings on those behaviors not connected with achievement, and more closely identified with the child's personality, were significantly lowered. Conclusion The present Investigation supports several other recent studies demonstrating that teachers' attitudes and expectancies may not only alter the way the child is per ceived but how well he actually performs both academically and Intellectually. Manipulation of teachers1 expectancies is not the only means of uncovering their existence and effects. The difficult ethical decision to manipulate teachers1 expect ancies In a negative direction (a possibility considered by Rosenthal and Jacobson in their "Pygmalion" study but finally not attempted) was not faced in this study, since it could 77 hardly be thought unethical to uncover expectancies (and effects of expectancies) which actually exist. It has been found that teachers' attitudes about their students cannot only be elicited without manipulation, but can be observed as changing whenever new information about the students con firms or disconfirms previously held expectations. Appar ently the type and degree of change or adjustment in expect ancies are contingent (in part) upon whether a positive or negative expectancy was originally held by the teacher. The most striking and educationally relevant finding of this present investigation concerned teachers' reactions to positive student performance when negative expectancy existed. In such cases, while the teacher acknowledged the student's improved performance in terms related to intellec tual curiosity and conformity to school, the teacher lowered her ratings of the child's personality and adjustment. This trend existed for 20 percent of the male sixth-grade popula tion. Was this trend established as early as the first grade, as apparently indicated in Beez' (1968) study (described in Chapter I)? Will these children eventually become dropoutB or be turned over to the special educators (which often happens to nonconforming students)? This pres ent study demonstrated (complementing in this respect the "Pygmalion" Btudy) that Buch patterns of teacher-pupil rela tions may be found In middle-class educational milieux as well as at lower social and cultural levels. 78 In conclusion, the following questions can be asked: How resistant are teachers1 attitudes and expectancies to change? How have these attitudes been formed? Can teachers be trained who are free from such emotional rigidity? While it is important to recognize that putting new data into the educational system alone can alter teachers' attitudes towards their students, the more basic problem relates to teachers' attitudes toward the disparate proc esses of classroom learning and socialization, within the context of demands connected with evaluation, testing and handling of relatively opaque data; thus the implications discussed above would seem especially pertinent in the area of training of teacherB, whose conception of the nature of change, and of the relation of freedom and conformity, derives as crucially from their own educative backgrounds as from the often distorting pressures attendant on the teacher's role In most public school environments. CHAPTER V SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of confirmatory and disconfIrmatory information on teachers' expectancies for students : specif Ically, whether such information alters prestated teacher ratings of various stu dent behaviors, and if so, whether teacher responses to a student's achievement gains may be nonconducive to rein forcement of further gains. Impetus for this study grew out of the work of Rosenthal and JacobBon (1968), who found that when teachers expected their students to experience intellectual gains, they did, benefiting additionally in that teachers' descrip tions of their personalities became more favorable. The opposite was true of children who were not expected to gain but did: their personalities and-behaviors were rated as undesirable. Rosenthal and Jacobson's "Pygmalion" study raised some critical questions for educators. Mainly, do teachers' expectancies for student achievement control the academic destiny of their students? Certain of the "Pygmalion" find ings might have been observed In any classroom without experimental manipulation of teachers' expectancies: 79 80 particularly teachers' views of student behavior and suscep tibility of these views to change. To determine teachers' expectancy all female sixth- grade teachers (N = 26) of the Fountain Valley, California School District were asked to rate each of their male stu dents (N = 312) on a ten-point scale as to how well they thought the student had performed on a previously admini stered, state-required, intelligence test. This was accom panied by an eighteen-variable behavioral rating scale. This procedure constituted the pretest. After a one-month interim period teachers were informed of the actual I.Q. score received by the student with his percentile ranking and asked to again evaluate the child's behavior; thlB final evaluation was the posttest. Changes in teachers' evalua tions were measured by subtracting pretest scores from post test scores on each variable. The primary experimental variables were: (l) teach ers' expectancy for student I.Q. performance; and (2) con firmation or disconfirmation of that positive or negative expectancy, in terms of four criterion measures set forth in the study. The experimental treatment was the reporting of the actual I.Q. scores of the students to their teachers. The dependent variable was the change In teacherB' behavioral evaluations. Based on cognitive dissonance theory and possible outcomes, four experimental hypotheses were posited: (1) Confirmation of positive teacher expectancy for student achievement will cause positive changes in teacher evalua tion of students; (2) disconfirmation of positive teacher expectancy for student achievement will cause negative changes in teacher evaluation of students; (3) confirmation of negative teacher expectancy for student achievement will result in positive or no change in teacher evaluation of students; and (4) disconfirmation of negative teacher expectancy will result in a lowering in teacher evaluation of students. The results completely supported the first three hypotheses and partially supported the fourth. In this latter situation positive student- performance on the I.Q. instrument disconfirmed the teacher's negative expectancy. In such cases, while the teacher acknowledged the student's Improved performance in terms related to intellectual curi osity and conformity to school, the ratings of the child's personality and adjustment were lowered. These findings were discussed in terms of cognitive dissonance theory and were compared to the similar findings of Rosenthal and Jacobson. The study demonstrated that teachers' attitudes about their students cannot only be elicited without manipulation but can be observed as chang ing or undergoing adjustment whenever new information about the student confirms or disconfirms previously held expectations. Additionally, the type and degree of change or adjustment in expectancies are contingent (in part) upon whether a positive or negative expectancy was originally held hy the teacher. APPENDIXES 83 APPENDIX A TABLES OF SUMMARIES OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLES 84 85 TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE-SC-ORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "CAREFUL WITH SCHOOL WORK" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Positive vs Negative 1 Confirmation vs Disconfirmation1 Expectancy vs Confirmation' Within Cells' Total' 1 1.70 1.70 •69 1 .35 *35 . 14 1 6.22 6.22 2.55 308 750.22 2.44 311 758.59 1(prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. 86 TABLE 12 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DIPPERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "HONEST" SOURCE df SS MS P Expectancy: Negative' Positive vs 1 • 78 • 78 • 33 Confirmation vb Disconfirmation1 1 25.88 25.88 10.91** Expectancy vs Confirmation' 1 .26 .26 .11 Within Cells' 308 731-04 2-37 Total1 311 757-96 - 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used In least squares solution. ** p < .01. 87 TABLE 13 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "RELIABLE" SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs 7(_ Negative1 1 L ' u Confirmation vs Disconfirmation' 1 16.38 16.38 6.91** Expectancy vs Confirmation' - ~ 1 1.45 1.45 .61 Within Cells' 308 731*04 2.37 Total' 311 750.64 1 (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. ** p < .01. 88 TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "PERSISTENT" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Negative1 Positive vs 1 7.40 7-40 2.52 Confirmation vs DisconfIrmation1 1 1.51 1*51 -51 Expectancy vs Confirmation1 1 .05 .05 .02 Within Cells' 308 906.10 2.9^ Total' 311 915-06 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used In least squares solution. 89 TABLE 15 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "INDEPENDENT” . SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Positive vs , i? m m e Negative' 1 13’91 13'91 5'°8* Confirmation vs Disconfirmation1 1 6.85 6.85 2-50 Expectancy vb Confirmation1 1 5-59 5*59 2.04 Within Cells' 308 842.70 2.74 Total1 311 869.05 1 (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. * P < .05. 90 TABLE 16 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OP BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "ATTENTIVE IN CLASS" SOURCE df ss MS F Expectancy: Negative1 Positive vs 1 23.28 23.28 9* 39** Confirmation vs Disconfirmation1 1 1.14 1.14 .46 Expectancy vs Confirmation' 1 .27 .27 .11 Within Cells' 308 762.37 2.48 Total' 311 787•06 ' (prime) Indicates adjusted score used In least squares solution. ** p < .01. 91 TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "ACADEMICALLY MOTIVATED" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Positive and Negative' 1 17.43 17-43 8.71** Confirmation vs Disconfirmation1 1 3-69 3.69 1 • 85 Expectancy vs Confirmation1 1 • 97 • 97 .47 Within Cells' 308 614.05 2.00 Total1 311 636.14 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. ** p < .01. 92 TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "NOT EASILY DISTRACTIBLE" SOURCE df SS MS F 1 1 21.09 21.09 6.39* 1 .67 .67 .20 1 1.08 1.08 •33 308 1015.82 3.3 311 1038.66 Expectancy: Positive vs Negative' Confirmation vs Disconfirmation* Expectancy vs Confirmation* Within Cells' Total * ' (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. — * P < .05. 93 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "HAPPY” SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs , , , -,Q Negative' 1 1*38 1*38 .84 Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation' 1 11.49 11.49 6.96** Expectancy vs Confirmation' 1 2.14 2.14 I.30 Within Cells' 308 506.65 1.65 Total' 311 521.66 ' (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. ** p < .01. 94 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "APPEALING" SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs Negative' Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation' Expectancy vs Confirmation' Within Cells' Total’ 1 2.08 2.08 1.24 1 5.13 5.13 3.07 1 1.55 1.55 •93 308 514.67 1.67 311 523.43 1 (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. 95 TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "WELL-ADJUSTED" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Negative' Positive vs 1 .05 .05 .02 Confirmation vs Disconfirmatlon' 1 2.24 2.24 1.02 Expectancy vs Confirmation' 1 .09 ■09 .04 Within Cells' 308 676-51 2.2 Total1 311 678.89 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. 96 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "AFFECTIONATE" SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs Negative 1 Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation' Expectancy vs Confirmation1 Within Cells' Total1 1 3-16 3.16 1.20 1 18.52 18.52 7.04** 1 • 07 .07 .03 308 809.71 2.63 311 831.46 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. ** p < .01. 97 TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "FRIENDLY" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Negative' Positive vs 1 .90 .90 .41 Confirmation vs Disconfirmation' 1 10.98 IO.98 5.03* Expectancy vs Confirmation' 1 1.15 1.15 -53 Within Cells' 308 671.18 2.18 Total' 311 684.21 1 (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. * p < .05- 98 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "INTERESTING” SOURCE df ss MS F Expectancy: Positive vs Negative' 1 .40 .40 .21 Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation1 1 15-96 15.96 8.26** Expectancy vs Confirmation1 1 5.59 5.59 2.90 Within Cells1 308 595.73 1.93 Total1 311 617.68 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used In least squares solution. ** p < .01. 99 TABLE 25 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "SUCCESSFUL IN FUTURE" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Negative 1 Positive vs 1 22.79 22.79 17..67** Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation' 1 •75 ■75 .58 Expectancy vs Confirmation1 1 26.98 26.98 20. .92** Within Cells' 308 397.59 1.29 Total' 311 448.11 ' (prime) Indicates adjusted score used In least squares solution. ** p < .01. 100 TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "CURIOUS" SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs Negative 1 Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation1 Expectancy vs Confirmation' Within Cells' Total1 1 10.60 10.60 4.97* 1 2.39 2.39 1.12 1 3.42 3.42 1.00 308 656.87 2.13 311 673.28 1 (prime) indicates adjusted score uBed in least squares solution. < .05- 101 TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "TAKES INITIATIVE" SOURCE df SS MS Expectancy: Positive vs Negative' Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation1 Expectancy vs Confirmation' Within Cells’ Total1 1 26.29 26.29 9-52** 1 2.54 2.54 .92 1 1.35 1-35 .49 308 850.14 2.76 3X1 880.32 ' (prime) indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. ** p < .01. 102 TABLE 28 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DIFFERENCE SCORES OF BEHAVIORAL VARIABLE "NEED FOR APPROVAL" SOURCE df SS MS F Expectancy: Positive vs Negative 1 1 .04 .04 .01 Confirmation vs Dlsconfirmation1 1 2.00 '2.00 .62 Expectancy vb Confirmation' 1 4.44 4.44 1*39 Within Cells' 308 981.56 3-19 Total' 311 988.04 1 (prime) Indicates adjusted score used in least squares solution. APPENDIX B PRETEST BEHAVIORAL RATING SCALES 103 104 CALIFORNIA TEST OF INFLECTED ACQUISITION STUDY -- FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Student*s name Teacher School __________________________________ Grade _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sex _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ago Please try to estimate on the scale below how woll you know tho child. Circle tho appropriate number. YES I______2______3_____ A______3______6______7______8______9______ Vory well Quito woll Somewhat vaguely Not at all In tho moat recent battory of achievement and reading testa how woll do you anticipate this child did compared to the other chlldron7 Circle appropriate number. ACHIEVEMENT 1______2______3______A______5______6______7______a______9_____12 Very well Quito well Somewhat Vaguely Not at all INSTRUCTIONS! Using tho scale below as a guide, rate tho child in your Class according to tho word that most adequately describes him. Don't hesitate to mako a guoss slnco this nay bo all you can do. Bo accurate but work as rapidly as posslblo. Half of tho Itona are in invarso order. Circle aonroorlate number. I. INTERESTING 10 9 8 7 „ 6 5 A 3 2 1 Mot at all Voguoly Somewhat Quite Vory 2. LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE FUTURE 1 2 3 A _3 6 _JL_ J S _ 9 10 Vary Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 3. HAPPY 10 9 B 7 6 3 A 3 2 1 Not at all Vaguely Somowhat Quito Very A. APPEALING 10 9 B 7 6 5 A 3 2 1 Not at all Vaguely Somewhat Quito \Tery 3. CURIOUS 1 2 3 A 3 6 7 8 9 10 Very Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 6. WELL-ADJUSTED - - 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all NO 10 105 7. AFFECTIONATE IQ 9_______ 0________7________6_______ 3_______ 4_______ 3_______ 2________I B. Not at nil FRIENDLY 1 2 Vaguely 3 4 Somewhat 3 6 Quite 7 8 Very 9 10 Vc-'-y Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 9. NEEDS APPROVAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 Vory Quito Soaowhat Vaguely Not at all 10. CAREFUL WITH SCH00LV10RK I 7 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quite Somewhat Voguoly Not at oil 11. HONEST 10 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 1 Not at all Vaguely Somewhat Quite Very 12. RELIABLE I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quite Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 13. PERSISTENT 10 9 8 7 6 3 _ 4 _ 1 . 2 1 Not nt nil Vaguely Somewhat Quite Very 14. INDEPENDENT 10 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 I Not at oil Vaguely Somewhat Quito Very 13. ATTENTIVE IN CLASS 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 B 9 10 Vory Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 16. NOT EASILY DISTRACTIBLE 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 Very Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 17. TAKES INITIATIVE 10 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 1 Not at all Vaguely Somewhat Quite Vory 18. ACADEMICALLY MOTIVATED 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Hot at oil Vaguely Somewhat Quite Very APPENDIX C - POSTTEST BEHAVIORAL RATING SCALE 106 CALIFORNIA TEST OF INFLECTED ACQUISITION STUDY -- FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA On Che rucunt ndninI strut I on of tho LurKe-Tliormll he had n Verbal Tost ocoro of ______ placing hln In the _____ percent 11o, His Crndo I'loconunt depending on his chronological age In yra. nos. This results In n Mental Age Grade Placement of yrs. _ _ _ nos, is this score on accurate dlucriptlon of this studunt's ability? (chock one) Yos _____ No _____ Soricvhat _____ . Would o ooro accurnco dlscrlptlon bin Hlghur Lower _ _ _ _ _ About Che some_____ , (chock one). On Che bnttory of nchlovunont and reading tests to ba adnlnlstored this coning year hov well do you anticipate this studont will do compared to Cho othor children? Circle appropriate nunbor. I_______ 2_______ 3_______A_______ 5______ 6_______ 7_______ n_______ 9______ 10_ Vory uoll Quito woll Somewhat Vaguely Not oc nil On the following I tons rnto thin child according to Lhc word that nost adequately describes hln. Don't hosltnco to m k o a guess slnco this nay bo all you can do. Bo occurnto but work as rnpldly an possible. Circle appropriate nunber. 1. A CA DEM I CALLY HOT I VATrlD 10________9_______ !i________7 0________5 _ A________3________2________I riot at oil Vaguely Somcvha t Quito Vory 2. TAKES INITIATIVE 10 9 fl 7 A 5 A 3 2 1 Hot at alt Vnguoly S or.au ha C Quito Vory 3. NOT EASILY DISTRACT lllLs 2 3 A 5 A 7 n 9 10 Vory Quite Sonaubat Vogue 1y Not at nil ATTENTIVE III CLASS 1 2 1 A 3 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quito Sonowhnt Voguoly Not nt all 5. INDEPENDENT 10 9 fl 7 fi 5 A 3 2 1 Not tie nil Vaguely Sorjcwhnt Quito Vory 6, PERSISTENT 10 9 I) 7 6 5 A 3 __ 1 Hot nt all Vaguely Somewhat Quito Vory 108 7. RELIABLE L 2_______3______ 4_______5_______6______ 7_______0_______9_______10 Vary Quito Somewhat Vaguely Hot at all 8. HOHEST 10 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 I Hoc at all Vaguely Somewhat Quite Very 9. CAREFUL WITH SCHOOL WORK I 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 Vary Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 10. NEEDS APPROVAL 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 Vary Quito Sonawhat Voguoly Not at all U. FRIENDLY I 2 3 4 3 6 7 0 9 10 Vory Quito Somewhat Voguoly Not at all 12. AFFECTIONATE 10 9 8 7 6 3 i t 3 2 1 Not at all Vnguoly Somewhat Quite Very 13. WELL-ADJUSTED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quite Somewhat Vaguoly Not at all 14. CURIOUS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vary Quite Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 13. APPEALING 10 9 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not at oil Vaguoly Sonawhat Quite Very 16. HAPPY 10 9 0 7 6 3 4 3 2 I Not at all Vaguoly Somewhat Quito Very 17. LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE FUTURE I 2 3 i t 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vory Quito Somewhat Vaguely Not at all 18. INTERESTING 10 .9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 1 Not at oil Vaguely Somewhat Quito Vory REFERENCES 109 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. The role of expectancy. In H. Cantrll (Ed.), Tensions that cause wars. Urbana, 111.: Univ. of Illi nois Press, 1950. Pp. 43-78. Anderson, H., and Brewer, E. Studies of teachers' class room personalities. Vol. I: Domlnatlve and socially Integrative behavior of kindergarten teachers. Applied Psychology Monographs, No. 6, 1945* Anderson, H., and Brewer, E. Studies of teachers' class room personalities. Vol. II: Effects of teachers' domlnatlve and Integrative contacts on children's class room behavior. Applied Psychology Monographs, No. 8, 19^6. Asch, S. E. Forming Impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 258-290. Barr, A. S. Teacher effectiveness: A summary of Investiga tions . Madison, Wls. : Dembar Publications, 1963^ Bandura, A. Vicarious processes: No-trial learning. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances In experimental, social psychology. Vol. III! New York: Academic Press^, 1965* Bandura, A., and Rosenthal, T. L. Vicarious classical con ditioning as a function of arousal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965; 1, 54-62. Beez, W. V. Influence of biased psychological reports on teacher behavior and pupil performance. 76th Annual A.P.A. Convention proceedings, San Francisco, Calif., Sept., 1968. Bellack, A. A., and Davitz, J. R. The language of the classroom: Meanings communicated' In' high-schooT Feach- Tng. New York: TeacHers College,' Columbia University (UTs. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 1497), 1963. Berger, S. M. Incidental learning through vicarious rein forcement. Psychological Reports, 1961, 9* 477-491* 110 Berger, S. M. - Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychological Review, 1952, 69, 450-466. Brehm, J. W., and Cohen, A. R. Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley, 19627 deGroat, A. F., and Thompson, G. G. A study of the distri bution of teacher approval and disapproval among sixth- grade pupils. Journal of Experimental Education, 1949, 18, 57-75. Domas, S. J., and Tledman, D. V. Teacher competence: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Experimental Educa tion, 1950, 10, 99-218. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonances. Stanford: Stanford University PressT 1957* Gage, N. L. Exploration of teachers' perceptions of pupils. Journal of Teacher Education, 1958, 9, 97-101. Gage, N. L., and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodo logical problems in interpersonal perception. Psycho logical Review, 1955, 62, 411-422. Gage, N. L., Leavitt, G. S., and Stone, G. C. Teachers’ understanding of their pupils and pupils' ratings of their teachers. Psychological Monographs, 1955, 69 (21, Whole No. 406). Getzels, J. W., and Jackson, P. W. The teacher's person ality and characteristics. In N. X. Gage (Ed.;, Hand book oT* research on teaching. American Educational Research Association. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963* Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. ("4th" ed.'J New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965• Hartup, W. W. Social behavior of children. Review of Edu cational Research, April 1965, 35, 122-129. "Hill, W. F. Learning theory and the acquisition of values. Psychological Review, i960, 67, 317-331* Hughes, M. Development of the means for the assessment of the quality of teaching in elementary schools*! Salt Lake Ci’ ty: University of Utah Press, 1959* InBko, C. A. Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967 • 112 Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton, 1955- Kounln, J. S., and Gump, P. V. The comparative influence of punitive and nonpunitive teachers upon children's concepts of school misconduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 44-49. Lippitt, R., and Gold, M. Classroom social structure as a mental health problem. Journal of Social Issues, 1959, 15 (1), 40-49- McNeil, J. D. Programed instruction versus usual classroom procedures in teaching boys to read. American Education Research Journal, 1964, 1, 113-119- Miller, N. E., and Dollard, J. Social Learning and Imita tion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Rosenfeld, H., and Zander, A. The Influence of teachers on aspiration of students. Journal of Educational Psychol ogy, 1961, 52, 1-11. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: App 1 eton-Century-Cro'fts, 1966. Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the class room. New York: Holt, Rinehart-anT17Inst6n7~T95H7 Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Clif'f s : Prentlce-Hall, 1954. Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1962. Sears, R. R. A theoretical framework for personality and social behavior. American Psychologist, 1951, 476-483. Sears, P. S., and Hilgard, E. R. The teacher's role In the motivation of the learner. In Theories of learning and instruction. Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, 1964, 182-209. Smith, C. Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. --------------- Stevenson, H. W. Social reinforcement of children's behav ior. In L. P. Lipsltt and C. C. Spiker (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965, 97-126. 113 Thelen, H. A. Teachab111ty grouping. Chicago: Dept, of Education, University of Chicago (U.S. Office of Educa tion Cooperative Research Project No. 428), 1961. Thorndike, R. L. Review of "Pygmalion in the classroom." American Education Research Journal, November, 1968, 5 T 4), 70B-711. Toch, H., and Smith, C. (Eds.). Social perception. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1968. Tolman, E. C. Purposive behavior in'animals and man. New York: Norton, 1955• Travers, R. M. W., Wallen, N. E., Reid, I., and Wodtke, K. H. Measured needs of teachers and their behavior in the cl a s s'r o'om. Sa 1 fcLake City: University of Utah. Pinal report on Office of Education Contract No. 444 (8029), 1961. Trow, W. C., Zander, A. F., Morse, W. C., and Jenkins, D. H. Psychology of group behavior: The class as a group. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1950.41, 322-338. White, W. F., and Deklo, 0. T. Effect of teacher's motiva tional cues on achievement level in elementary grades. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 351-356. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: ~~ftcGraw-Hill7 19b2T Wodtke, K. H., and Brown, B. R. Social learning and imita tion. Review of Educational Research, 1967, 37 (5), 514-538":
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References
PDF
Prescriptive Teaching As A Supplement To Behavior Modification In The Remediation Of Learning Disorders
PDF
Ethnicity And Measures Of Educability: Differences Among Navajo, Pueblo And Rural Spanish-American First Graders On Measures Of Learning Style, Hearing Vocabulary, Entry Skills, Motivation And H...
PDF
The Modification Of Maladaptive Behavior Of A Class Of Educationally Handicapped Children By Operant Conditioning Techniques
PDF
The Relative Efficiency Of Prompting And Confirmation Learning Paradigms
PDF
Dynamics Of Creative Behavior Applied To The Classroom
PDF
Use Of College Students In A Social Therapy Program With Chronic Schizophrenics To Produce Changes In Mood And Social Responsiveness
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Two Moral Responses Of Two Socioeconomic Groups Based On Four Paradigms
PDF
Interpersonal Perception Between Physically Handicapped 'Problem' And 'Non-Problem' Adolescents And Their Mothers
PDF
Maternal Child-Rearing Attitudes And Developmental Growth Of Rubella Deaf-Blind Children
PDF
Effects Of A Clinical Educational And Behavior Modification Program On The Classroom Behavior Of A Disturbed Adolescent
PDF
Selected Characteristics Of A Children'S Individual Test Of Creativity
PDF
The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students
PDF
Reading Achievement And In-Grade Retention Rate Differentials For Mexican-American And Black Students In Selected States Of The Southwest
PDF
An Application Of A Two-Stage 'Attention' Model To Concept Formation In The Mentally Retarded
PDF
Correlates Of College Choice Satisfaction
PDF
Behavior Therapy For Self-Direction
PDF
Relationship Of Teacher Aides And Teacher Behavior In Selected Areas
PDF
Development And Evaluation Of An Auto-Instructional Media Package For Teacher Education
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
Asset Metadata
Creator
Shore, Alfred Lewis
(author)
Core Title
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Educational Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
McIntrye, Robert B. (
committee chair
), Peter, Laurence J. (
committee member
), Slucki, Henry (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-372836
Unique identifier
UC11361329
Identifier
6919402.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-372836 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6919402.pdf
Dmrecord
372836
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Shore, Alfred Lewis
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
Tags
education, educational psychology