THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST AND …/67531/metadc164227/m2/1/high_res... · THE...

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ATTRIBUTES MEASURED BY

THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST

AND SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING

APPROVED:

Graduate Committees s~\

\ Major Prof lessor

/ - //yu. J Minor Professor /

Committee Member ^

Committee Member 7

—\ 'K' 'j2»

Dean of the School of Educ afcio n

Dea n of the Graduate School

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ATTRIBUTES MEASURED BY

THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST

AND SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of t h e Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

James Nolan Lewis, B. S., M. Ed,

Denton, Texas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P age LIST OF TABLES iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Significance of the Study Hypotheses Definition of Terras Limitations of the Study Basic Assumptions Sources of Data The Instrument

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 31

III. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 63

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis 11 Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 13 Hypothesis 14 Hypothesis 15 Hypothesis 16 Hypothesis 17 Hypothesis 18 Hypothesis 19 Hypothesis 20

IV. SUMMARY 173

Findings Conclusions Recommendations

APPENDICES 203

BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I, Distribution of Sample Population by Teaching Level and Sex 19

II. Means, Standard Deviations, t,, and Level of Significance Between the Student Teacher Group and the National Norms of the Basic Rorschach Scores 65

III. Means, Standard Deviations, and Level of Significance Between Elementary Student Teachers and Secondary Student Teachers on the Basic Rorschach Scores 75

IV. Means, Standard Deviations, and Level of Significance Between Elementary Student Teachers and the National Norms on the Basic Rorschach Scores. 78

V. Means, Standard Deviations, jt, and Level of Significance Between the Secondary Student Teacher Group and the National Norms on the Basic Rorschach Scores. 87

VI. Means, Standard Deviations, J,, and Level of Significance Between the Student Teacher Group and the National Norms on the SORT Personality Attributes 94

VII. Means, Standard Deviations, t,, and Level of Significance Between Elementary Student Teachers and Secondary Student Teachers on the SORT Personality Attributes 97

VIII. Means, Standard Deviations, t,, and Level of Significance Between Elementary Student Teachers and the National Norms on the SORT Personality Attributes. 100

IX. Means, Standard Deviations, and Level of Significance Between Secondary Student

1 v

Table pttge

Teachers and the National Norms on the SORT Personality Attributes 103

X. Means, Standard Deviations, t, and Level of Significance for Secondary and Elementary Student Teachers' Grade-Point Average Earned in Student Teaching 106

XI. Means, Standard Deviations, t., and Level of Significance for the College Coordinators* Eatings of the Elementary and Secondary Student Teacher s. . 107

XII. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, _t, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number One as Their Greatest Strength ana Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number One as Their Greatest Weakness 110

XIII. A Comparison of Means, Standard deviations, jt, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Two as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Two as Their Greatest Weakness 113

XIV. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, i, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Four as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Four as Their Greatest Weakness . . . . 117

XV. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, t., and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Five as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Five as Their Greatest Weakness 121

Table

XVI, Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, t., and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Six as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Six as Their Greatest Weakness

P age

123

XVII. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations jt, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Seven as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by the College Coordinators as Having Statement Number Seven as Their Greatest Weakness. . . . 125

XVIII. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, tvel of Significance of the SORT *s for Those Student Teachers by the College Coordinators as

;ateraent Number Eight as Their Strength and Those Student Perceived by the College ;ors as Havi ng Statement Number Their Greatest Weakness

XIX

XXI

jt, and Lei Attributes Percei ved Having Sti Greatest Teachers Coordi nati Eight as 128

A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, t, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number One as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number One as Their Greatest Weakness. . . . . . . . . 131

XX. A Coraparison of Means, Standard Deviations, jt, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Two as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Two as Their Greatest Weakness 134

A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, £, and Level of Significance of the SORT

vi

Table Page

Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Three as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Three as Their Greatest Weakness 137

XXII. A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, _t, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Four as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Four as Their Greatest Weakness 139

XXIII.

XXIV,

XXVI.

A Compari son of and Level

eans, Standard Deviations, t., and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Five as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Five as Their Greatest Weakness. . . . . . . . . 141

A Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations, t,, and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Six as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Six as Their Greatest Weakness 143

XXV. A Coraparison of Means, Standard Deviations, t., and Level of Significance of the SORT Attributes for Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Eight as Their Greatest Strength and Those Student Teachers Perceived by Themselves as Having Statement Number Eight as Their Greatest Weakness 146

sans, Standard Deviations, jt, and Level of Significance Between the College Coordinators' and the Student Teachers' Perceptions of the Student Teachers" Strengths 151

vi i

Table

XXVII.

XXVIII.

XXIX.

Page

Means, Standard Deviations, jt., and Level of Significance Between the College Coordinators* and the Student Teachers* Perceptions of the Student Teachers' Weaknesses 156

The Correlation of Structured-Obi ective Rorschach Test Attributes and Success in Student Teaching as Measured by Grade-Point Average Earned in Student Teaching.

The Correlation of Structured-Obiective Rorschach Test Attributes and Success in Student Teaching as Measured by College Coordinators* Ratings . . . . .

164

166

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A major problem in present-day teacher education is the

issue of what constitutes a good teacher. A critical review

of the literature on teacher effectiveness since the turn of

the century discloses that a great amount of effort has been

expended in this area. From Merriara's (37) pioneer study un-

til now, no single factor has been found to be significantly

predictive of teacher success or competence.

Hundreds of studies have been conducted and thousands of

lesser attempts have been made by supervisors, administrators

and researchers in an attempt to analyze the characteristics

of effective teaching and effective teachers. Comas and

Ti deman (16), for instance, list over one thousand titles in

their annotated bibliography on teacher effectiveness, Barr

(4, 5, 6, 7, 8) has reported extensively the summaries of nu-

merous investigations related to teacher efficiency and Ryans'

(50) complex and comprehensive analysis of teacher character-

istics is but a part of the voluminous literature on this topic,

Despite prolific research concerning this problem, very little

has emerged in the way of evidence which might be generally

useful in the selection of candidates for teacher education

and in the prediction of future performance on the job.

This would lead one to believe that the effective

teacher is hard to locate and even harder to describes

Generally speaking, this vast amount of literature reveals that there seem to be significant relation-ships between teaching success and such broad factori as intelligence, scholarship, personality, emotional stability, interest in people and teaching, drive, initiative, and quality of human relationships. Furthermore, this literature reports that no one of these factors is a reliable index to predicting s u c -cess in teaching, and no one instrument will reliably measure, to the satisfaction of any great majority of people concerned, any one of the above factors or any combination of these factors (58, pp. 166-167).

What kind of person makes a good teacher? Are there cer-

tain patterns of behavior that separate the effective teacher

from the ineffective teaeher or do good teachers have certain

traits or talents in common?

There is mounting evidence from research in the field of

teacher education that would set® to indicate that personality

is an important variable in teaching success. Most experts

would agree that personality is a significant factor in suc-

cessful teaching. Getzels states, "The personality of the

teacher is a significant variable in the classroom. Indeed,

some would agree it is the most significant variable" <23,

p. 506). At the same time, few authorities would conclude

that research has measured personality characteristics in any

refined manner.

Most studies concerning the measurement of teacher per-

sonality factors and potential suceess in teaching are incon-

clusive. Trait approaches have been inadequate, perhaps due

to the fact that traits are complex and have to be seen in

relation to the whole indiv i d u a l as perceived by others and

by the individual h i m s e l f . Also, poor external validity of

p e r s o n a l i t y m e a s u r i n g devices has tended to confound many of

the results of studies of this problem.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , further research is needed that will lead

to the discovery of specific and distinctive features of

teacher personality and effective teaching (23). Perhaps no

one personality factor will ever be found to be p r e d i c t i v e

of success in teaching but rather the discovery of certain

patterns of p e r s o n a l i t y factors will be found to be predic-

tive of success in teaching.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was the relationship of

personality attributes m e a s u r e d by the Structured-Obiactive

Rorschach Test. (SORT) and success in student teaching.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the fol-

lowing relationships:

1. The relationship of personality attributes measured

by the SORT and success in student tea c h i n g when the g r a d e -

point average earned i n student teaching was used as a

cri terion of success.

2. The relationship of SORT attributes and success in

student teaching when the college coordinator's ratings of

the student teacher were used to measure success.

Sub-Purpose

This study also attempted to determine the differences

between personality attributes and strengths and weaknesses

of the student teachers.

Significance of the Study

Teacher education in the United States i nvolves more than

1200 colleges and universities (51) and over one-half million

students each year (10). Last year, some 200,000 college sen-

iors were engaged in student teaching (51). Needless to say,

one of the most pressi ng problems in modern teacher education

is the improvement of the selection process. "Witness the

fact that NCATE teams frequently find institutions failing to

qualify on the standard relating to this subject" (20, p. 12).

Soae controversy has developed, not only as to how well these

students are being prepared, but also regarding the quality

of student selected to enter the program. To obtain good

teachers, there must be wise selection, adequate guidance, and

good preparation. The education of teachers should be predi-

cated upon discriminating selection, for there is every indi-

cation that one of the most import ant ways of improving the

quality of teachers entering the profession is through careful

selection (15, 25, 31, 33, 42, 54, 58, 60, 64).

One requirement of any profession is its right to select

or screen those individuals desiring to enter its ranks.

"The right of institutions and the profession to select per-

sons admitted to preparation for teaching and to its practice

is seldom questioned today" (31, p. 162). Furthermore,

Stinnet (54) would like to broaden the concept of selection

to include careful guidance and screening during the period

of pre-serviee preparation as well as a follow-up of the

beginning teacher on the job.

Stout (56) reported that 83 per cent of the institutions

engaged in teacher preparation in her investigation responded

that they thought there should be selective admission to

teacher education. Symonds states, w. . . the emphasis in

securing good teaching should be placed on the selection of

those who are to teach . . ." (60, p. 79). Further justifi-

cation for the high standard approach to teacher education is

given by Ohlsen (42) for he feels if candidates are carefully

screened throughout their college training, the supply of

teachers will increase and improve.

McAulay (32) reported that 80 per cent of those responding

to the question of the right of the profession to sereen ap-

plicants felt that the screening should occur prior to student

teachi ng.

Although there is a general consensus among those engaged

in preparing teachers that there should be discriminatory

selection and admission, great variances exist (1, 18, 22,

32, 34, 36, 38, 56, 5T).

Admission procedures range from automatic admission if

the student has wet some prescribed criteria (the most fre-

quently used being scholarship, completion of course require-

ments , and a health certificate) to quite exhaustive and

comprehensive criteria, such as results of examination,

review by a eoaaittee, inventories of attitudes and person-

ality, recommendation of major professor and measures of

interest in teaching (56). Stout (56) surveyed admission

requirements to student teaching and from 785 colleges found

that approximately one-fourth of those institutions gave

consideration to academic record, prerequisite courses and

physical fitness.

Magee (34), in a survey of existing procedures of admis-

sion found in programs of teacher education, reported that

most institutions require some official hurdle at the upper

division level. Of the 180 respondents, only fifteen required

no formal screening.

In Stout rs (56) survey of current admission practices,

satisfactory completion of prerequisite courses was the single

most frequently used measure of readiness for student teaching,

There was also uniform agreement among the institutions that

"emotional stability" was an important factor in the admission

process.

A somewhat different approach to this problem was

undertaken by Miller (38). k survey was conducted among

ninety colleges to discover what was beiog done in the way

of "personality evaluation" to identify the "poor risks" to

the profession. Of the thirty colleges responding, twenty-

five were conducting a personality evaluation program as

part of their screening process. Most of the respondents

felt that such a program was effective and beneficial in

terras of improved professional attitude and of the quality

of later student teaching.

The belief that personality Is of sorae importance would

suggest that college students desiring to teach should be

subjected to a personality evaluation prior to their begin-

ning student teaching. Wi1lcox and Beigel (65) wrote that

such a measure could serve as a screening process for elim-

inating those candidates obviously unfit. There are others

who propose that those institutions engaged in teacher

education are being negligent if they do not practice screen-

ing, particularly noting something in regard to the emotional

adjustment of the student teacher.

The Teacher Education and Professional Standards

Commission of the NEA has gone on record to recommend that

"Screening should include observation of personality traits

and emotional stability . . . colleges should devise and use

a measure of personality . . (40, p, 6).

8

Furthermore, Charles (13) recommends that something

specific be said about an individual with regard to th®

personality variable, either during this selection program

or upon recommendation for a job.

Although there is unanimity of opinion among those

engaged In educating teachers concerni ng the right of se-

lection, the problem of what to look for presents a chaotic

picture.

"How can we determine whether or not a student is a

good risk for survival in the profession . . » the means of

getting answers is not clear, Answers will come through

research" (14, p, 254),

This study proposed to investigate the possible rela-

t i o n s h i p of personality attributes measured by the SORT and

success in student teaching. Specifically, this study was

an attempt to identify those clusters or combinations of

personality attributes that contributed to success in student

teachi ng. If the results of thi s study are significant and

provide for an adequate identification of successful student

teachers, then the persons or c o m m i t t e e s responsible for ad-

mitting students to teacher education programs could use

this data for counseling prospective student teachers. In

summary, the data yielded by this study should facilitate

those institutions engaged in teacher education in their

admission program.

9

K n o w l e d g e gained f r o m t h i s s t u d y m a y shed store l i g h t

u p o n the matter of personality factors and s t u d e n t teacher

behavior and should provide a valuable source for pointing

out teacher character!sties which should be investigated in

further research.

Hypotheses

The following tentative generalizations were made con-

cerning the relationship of attributes measured by the

Structured-Obi eetive R o r s c h a c h Test and success in student

teachi ng.

1, There will be no significant difference between the

mean scores on the following basic R o r s c h a c h variables between

t h e s u b j e c t s and t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n .

A. W h o l e - b l e t <W)

B. Major blot-details CD)

C. Minor blot-details ( D d )

0. White-space (S)

B. Responses closely reseabling t h e f o r m of t h e

s t i m u l u s (F)

P. Responses poorly resettling t h e f o r m of the

stimulus (F«)

G . R e s p o n s e s involving h u m a n movement or p o s t u r e -

tensicn (M)

H. Responses involving animal movement or posture-

tension ( F M )

10

I. Responses involving color and closely resembling

the form of the stimulus (FC)

J, Responses involving color and poorly resembling

the form of the stimulus (€F)

K. Responses involving density of gray or shading

<Fch)

L. Responses involving whole animals or parts of

animals (A)

i. Responses involving total human figure or parts

of humans (H)

N, Modal responses (P>

0. Eare responses (0)

2. There will be no significant difference between the

mean scores on th# above Rorschach variables for the elemen-

tary student teacher group and th© secondary student teacher

group.


raeaa scores on the above Rorschach variables for the elemen-

tary student teacher group and the normative population.


mean scores on the above Rorschach variables for the secondary

student teacher group and the normative population.


wean scores on the following SORT attributes between the stu-

dent teachers and the normative population.

11

A. Theoretical

8, Practical

C. Pedantic

D. Induction

E. Deduction

F. Rigidity

G. Structuring

H. Concentration

I. Human relationships

J. Range

K. Popular

L, Original

M. Persistence

N. Aggressiveness

0. Social responsibility

P. Cooperation

Q, Tact

R. Confidence

5. Consistency of behavior

T. Anxiety

U. Moodiness

V, Activity potential

W. Impulsiveness

1. Flexibility

Y. Conformity

12


mean scores on the above SORT attributes for the elementary

student teacher group and the secondary student teacher

group.


mean scores on the above SORT attributes for the elementary

Student teacher group and the normative population,

8. There wi11 be no significant difference between the

wean scores on the above SORT attributes for the secondary

student teacher group and the normative population.


mean grade-point averages in student teaching for the sec-

ondary student teachers and the elementary student teachers.


mean ratings assigned the student teachers by the college

coordinators for the elementary and secondary student teacher

groups (Appendix A).

11, There will be a significant difference between the

mean scores of the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for those student teachers rated as possessing strengths on

each of the ten suaimary statements and those student teachers

rated as possessing weaknesses on each of the ten summary

statements (Appendix B) .

12. There wi11 be a significant difference between the

mean scores of the twenty-five SORT attributes for those stu-

dent teachers who rated themselves as possessing strengths on

13

each of the ten summary statements and those student teachers

who rated themselves as possessing weaknesses on each of the

ten summary statements ( A p p e n d i x C).

13. There will be no significant difference between

the college c o o r d i n a t o r s ' and the student teachers* percep-

tions of the student teachers* strengths and weaknesses.

14. There will be a relationship of certain clusters

of attributes measured by the SORT and success in student

teaching as measured by grade-point average and ratings by

the college c o o r d i n a t o r s .

15. There will be a statistically significant positive

correlation between the following attributes of personality

and success in student teaching when the grade-point average

earned in student teaching was used as a criterion of success

A. Practical

B. Deduction

C. H u n a n relationships

D. Range

E. Popular

F. A c t i v i t y p o t e n t i a l

G. Aggressiveness

H. Social responsibility

I. Confidence

J. Flexibility

16. There will be a statistically significant p o s i t i v e

correlation b e t w e e n the above attributes of personality and

14

success in student teaching w h e n the college coordinator's

ratings of the student teachers were used as a criterion of

success.

17. There will be a statistically significant negative



earned in student t e a c h i n g was used as a criterion of suc-

cess.

A. Persistence

B. Pedantic

C. Rigidity

D. Original

E. Anxiety

P. Moodiness

G. Impulsiveness


correlation between the above personality attributes and

success in student teaching w h e n the college coordinator's


success.

19. There will be no statistically significant corre-

lation between the following personality attributes and

success in student teaching when the student teachers* grade-

point averages earned in student teaching were used as

measures of success.

A. Theoretical

B . I n d u c t i o n

15

C. Structuring

D. Concentration

E. Cooperation

F. Consistency of behavior

G. Conform!ty

20, There will be no statistically significant cor-

relation between the above personality attributes and success

in student teaching when the college coordinator's ratings

of the student teachers were used as a criterion of success.

Definition of Terms

1. Student teachers—those students enrolled in student

teaching at North Texas State University during the fall

semester of the 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 6 6 school year.

2. Student teaching—the period of guided teaching

experience provided by the institution as part of its teacher

education program.

3. College coordinators--those full-time staff members

employed by the institution who supervise students enrolled

in student teaching.

4. The various attributes of temperament measured by

the SORT and used in this study are operationally defined in

the test saanual (55) and presented in Appendix D.

5. Grade-point average in student teaching—the six

seaester hours of credit earned in student teaching expressed

in a nunerical value with a letter grade of A worth three

16

grade-pointsj B worth two grade-points? and C worth one

grade-point for each semester hour.

Limitations

As designed and conducted, the framework of this study

possessed two l i m i t a t i o n s . They were as follows:

1. This s t u d y was l i m i t e d in that th© subjects used in

this investigation were t h o s e s t u d e n t teachers previously

admitted to the teacher education program and who completed

their student teaching during the f a l l semester of 1965 at

North Texas State University.

2, This study was also limited in that it was not with-

in th© scop© of this investigation to predict probable future

success as a t e a c h e r . This study concerned the success of the

student teacher within t h e present fraaework of the teacher

education program at North Texas State University.

Assuapti ons

1. It was assumed that success in student teaching

would be reflected by the grade earned in student teaching.

2. It was assumed that the college coordinators' ratings

of the student teachers would discriminate between those stu-

dent teachers who were «ore successful than others in their

student teaching experience.

3. It was assumed t h a t the student teachers rated their

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses realistically as they perceived them-

selves in the classroom during the student teaching experience.

17

Procedures for Collecting Data

The data for this study were collected ia the following

manner i

1. The Structured-Obiective Rorschach Test was admin-

istered on three separate occasions to the various groups of

secondary student teachers at their general orientation meet-

ings prior to their entering student teaching. Four separate

administrations of the SOET were given to the various groups

of elementary student teachers prior to their beginning student

teaching. In each of the administrations, the test manual's

(55) general instructions to the examiner were followed. The

screen projection method was used at each administration of

the instrument. Conditions that would have any adverse effect

on the test results did not occur and the administrations took

place under optical condi tions.

2. The grades earned by the subjects in student teaching

were secured from the Registrar's Office.

3. The College Coordinators* ratings of the student

teachers (Appendix A) were collected from each college coor-

dinator who supervised any student teacher.

4. The college coordinators were also asked to list

the strengths and weaknesses of their student teachers on

the evaluative instrument (Appendix B) at the time of their

last visit to the student teacher's classroom. These forms

were then secured from college coordinators.

16

5. The self-evaluative Instrument of the student

teacher'§ strengths and weaknesses (Appendix C) was adrain-

istered to the student teachers at the time of the final

conference with their respective college coordinators. These

forms in turn were collected from the college coordinators.

6. Each college coordinator assigned student teachers

was visited by the investigator several weeks in advance of

the administration of the evaluative instruments. Two weeks

prior to the final conference with their student teachers,

each college coordinator was again visited and given the forms

t© complete.

Description of the Subjects

The SORT was administered to each student enrolled in

student teaching during the Fall of 1965. There were 310

subjects tested. Of the number, fifteen subjects did not

follow the Instructions prescribed by the examiner or failed

to respond on the answer sheet. Osable SOET seores were

obtained from the remaining 295 subjects. The 295 student

teachers were seniors at North Texas State University and

were to fulfill the requirement of student teaching leading

to certification. Further description of the student teachers

serving as a sample population in this study is presented

in Table I.

TABLE I

DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE POPULATION BY TEACHING LEVEL AND SEX

19

Elementary Secondary CN = : 84) (N s 211)

Male Female Male Female

2 82 93 118

The Director of Teacher Education Indicated that the

above distribution was representative of the student teachers

enrolled during past semesters in the teacher education pro-

gram at North Texas State University.

The Instrument

T h© Structured-Obiactive Rorschach Test was designed to

provide psychologically meaningful data for the analysis of

temperament and personality. The SORT was selected as the

personality measuring instrument in this study because it

measures four types of personality attributes! mental func-

tioning? interests! responsivenessj and temperament. These

various aspects of personality, research suggests, are related

to effective teaching.

The SORT is a group or objective version of the tradi-

tional Rorschach Ink Blot device and combines the subtle

features of the widely respected, highly developed Rorschach

20

Ink B l o t P r o j e c t i v e M e t h o d o l o g y with t h e p r a c t i c a l g r o u p

m e t h o d o l o g y of t h e objective test.

The two main features of the traditional Borsehach are

p r e s e r v e d : (a) t h e t e n original s t i m u l u s b l o t s a r e u s e d ,

and (b) the same scoring system of Area, Determinants and

C o n t e n t is e m p l o y e d .

The SORT is a simple and objective procedure designed

to appraise and analyze vocationally significant temperament

traits of the i n d i v i d u a l and is designed for use in industrial

and student personnel work. The SORT can be used to supple-

ment measures of mental ability, a p t i t u d e s , skills and

m o t i v a t i o n in providing p e r s o n n e l w o r k e r s w i t h i m p o r t a n t

information about the temperament of the oounsellee (55).

With this instrument, for example, the educator without any

f o r m a l Rorschach training can profit by the experience of

R o r s c h a c h and subsequent workers because the SOET structures

the R o r s c h a c h approach in s u c h a way as to permit its broad

a p p l i c a t i o n by professionally trained workers.

The SORT offers g r o u p or self administration! objec-

tive scoring and standardization! comprehensive n o r m i n g j and

objective and simplified interpretation. Perhaps one of the

greatest advantages found in the SOET is the obviation of

transparency f o u n d in most self-report personality Measuring

i nstruments.

There are no free-responses and no inquiry in the SORT.

Instead, the response format is of a forced-choice nature

21

consisting of ten triads for eaoh of the ten stimulus blots.

The examinee is instructed to select from each triad the one

response most clearly represented by the blot or by gome

portion of the blot. This element of suggestion of response

is an integral part of the test in that each response alter-

native is keyed to yield at least two or more scores in

conformance with the accepted Rorschach systew,

law scores on each of the basic Rorschach variables are

converted to T-scores. These T-scores are normalized standard

scores with a mean of fifty and a standard deviation of ten.

In a very simple and mechanical fashion, the T-scores are con-

verted to corresponding attributes or systems of attributes

in keeping with the usual Rorschach interpretation. Thus,

the high level of skill customarily associated with the admin-

istration and interpretation of the traditional Rorschach is

not required by the SORT.

The scores obtained from the Structured-Obiective

Rorschach Test are grouped according to the standard Rorschach

scoring technique and consist of fifteen scores grouped into

four classes.

The manual (55, p. 3) presents the fifteen scores, with

their scoring symbols recorded in parentheses, and they are

as follows.

A. Responses to blot area

1. Whole-blot (W) 2. Major blot-details (D)

22

B.

3. Minor blot-details (Dd) 4. White space (S)

Determinant factors

6

T

8

9

10

11

Responses closely resembli ng the form of the stimulus (F) Responses poorly resembling the form of the stimulus (F-) Responses involving human movement or posture-tension (M) Responses involving animal movement or posture-tension (FM) Responses involving color and closely resembling the form of the stimulus (FC) Responses involving color and poorly resembling the form of the stimulus (CF) Responses involving textural density or gray or shading (Fch)

C. Content factors

12. Responses i nvolving whole animals or parts of animals (A)

13. Responses involving total human figure or parts of humans (H)

0. Statistically derived scores

14. Modal responses (P)

15. Bare responses (0)

The twenty-five attributes that the SORT purports to

measure are derived from one or a combination of two or more

of the basic Borsehach scores presented above. These attri-

butes are presented in Appendix D as they have been defined

in the manual (55, pp. 15-16).

Two test-retest studies of the reliability of the

instrument are reported in the manual (55). The coefficients

obtained in these studies ranged between .62 and .90 for col-

lege students with a median of .75, and between .61 and .84

(median of .75) for supervisors.

23

The SOKT norms are based on 0,061 adults and the dis-

tribution of the sample approximates that of the census

population with the exception of a somewhat disproportionate

number of college students (52).

The validity studies of the attribute constructs are

impressive with the demonstrated agreement of supervisors

and S0l;T ratings (55). Of 1,400 ratings by supervisors,

the supervisors' ratings and SORT scores were in reasonable

agreement 71 per cent of the time.

Two cross-validation studies ( 2 7 , 26) have reported

favorable results concerning the SORT and its validity. Sev-

eral recent studies (12, 19, 24, 29, 41, 47) have appeared

but the SORT has had limited use in studies concerning

teacher education.

The second instrument used in this study was the Profes-

sional Judgment of Student Teacher Competence Scale. The

scale is presented in Appendix A. This instrument was devel-

oped by the San Diego State College Department of Education

for use in evaluating student teachers (21). This scale con-

sists of six statements ranging from extremely unfavorable to

extremely favorable. Numerical values are assigned, from a

one for the most unfavorable statement to an eleven for the

most favorable statement, Even numbers are assigned to the

spaces in between the statements and may be used when this

option is exercised by the college coordinator.

24

This scale was used in a study by Hinely (27) and is

currently being used in the Department of Education at North

Texas State University. Therefore, it was possible to admin-

ister a test-retest for reliability. Four weeks after the

original rating, six college coordinators were asked to re-

appraise their student teachers using this scale. Forty-four

re-appraisals were collected and the correlation coefficient

between the two appraisals was .92, which would suggest high

reliability.

The third Instrument used in this investigation was the

Counseling Guide for Student Teachers and is presented In

Appendix B and Appendix C. These statements were developed

by the San Diego State College Department of Education (21)

and were slightly modified for u«e in this study. The major

purpose of this guide is to identify some of the skills,

competencies, and qualities considered'basic to effective

teaching. The instrument was built around the major areas of

developing learning experiences and the teacher's influence

on student behavior. These statements concerning teacher

behavior are applicable to this investigation and are repre-

sentative of potential student teacher behavior in the class-

room. This guide was used in this study to Identify the

strengths and weaknesses of the student teachers.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Andrews, L. 0., "Admission and Selection in a University College of Education," Teacher Education; T..fa,fi? Decade Ahead, Washington, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, NEA, 1955.

2. . Student Teachinq. New Yorks The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964.

3. Barr, A. S., "Recrui tment for Teacher Training and Prediction of Teacher Success," Reviem of Educa-tional Research. X (June, 1940), 185-190.

4. "Teaching Competencies," Encvclooedia of Educational Research. New York, iacmillan Company, 1950.

, "The Inexperienced Teachers Who Fail-~and Why/' Nation's Schools. V (February, 1930) , 30-34.

. "The Measurement of Teaching Efficiency," 6y,Q,ffjm JW.HJU lA Eese.ayph, V (December, 1949), 251-254.

"Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Education. XXX (September, 1961), 1-156.

8. Barr, A. S. and Robert E. Jones, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Efficiency," Review of Educational Research. XXVIII (June, 1958), 256-264.

9. Beecher, Dwight E.. The Evaluation of Teachino t Back-grounds and Concepts. Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1949.

10. Beggs, Walter K., The Education of Teachers. New York, The Center of Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965.

11. Burdick, Lois A., "Analysis of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and Elementary Student Teachers at Indi ana State College," Teachers College Journal. XXXV (November, 1963), 57-59.

25

26

12. Chansky, Norraan M., "Report Cards and Teacher Person-ality," Journal g& i M M U U l , LVII (May-June, 1964), 493-494.

13. Charles, Harvey, "The Use of a Projective Technique in Teacher Selection," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin. LVIII (August, 1961), 172-173.

14. Charters, W, W., Jr., "Survival in the Profession! A Criterion for Selecting Teacher Trainees,'* Journal of Teacher Education. VII (September, 1956), 253-255.

15. Denemark, George W., editor, Criteria for Curriculum Decisions 1 a Tea.c.her. Education. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington, A Report from the ASCB Commission on Teacher Education, NEA, 1963.

16. Domas, Simeon J. and David V. Tideaan, "Teacher Compe-tence » An Annotated Bibliography," Journal of Experimental Edaeatlon. XIX (December, 1950), 101-218.

17. Durflinger, Glenn W., "Recruitment and Selection of Prospective Eleoentary and Secondary School Teachers," Review, of Educational Research. XXXIII (October, 1963), 355-368.

18. Edson, William H. and Don Davies, "Selectivity in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education. XI (September, 1960), 327-334.

19. Eralaw, Rita and others, "A Method for Prediction and Evaluation," The National Elementary Principal XLIII (November, 1963), 38-49.

9

20. Engbretson, W, E., "Selective Admission and Ketention Today," Teachers College Journal. XXXIII (October, 1961), 12-13.

21• Evaluating Student Teaching. The Thirty-Ni nth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, 1960.

22. Farr, David, Evaluation and Selection Instruments in Teacher Education Programs. The American Associa-tion for Colleges of Teacher Education, Buffalo, University of New York, 1965.

27

23. Getzels, J. W. and P. W. Jackson, "The Teacher's Per-sonality and Characteristics," Handbook of Research, on Teacht.RO, edited by N. L. Gage, Chicago, Rand McNally and Company, 1963.

24. Hampton, Peter J., "Use of the Rorschach Test in Select-ing Factory Supervisors," Personnel Journal, XXXIX (June, 1960), 46-48.

25. Haskew, L. D., "America's Design for Good Teacher Preparation," National Education Assoc!atlon Journal. XLIII (April, 1959), 16-17.

26. Hicks, John A. and Joics B. Stone, "The Identification of Traits Related to Managerial Success," Journal of Applied Psychology. XLVI (December, 1962) , 428-432.

27. Hinely, Seginal Terry, "Prediction of Readiness for Teaching as Measured by Performance in Internship,'* unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, 1962.

28. Khan, Lilian, "Factor Analysis of Certain Aptitude and Personality Variables," Indian Journal of Psychology. XXXVII (May, 1962), 27-38.

29. Langer, Philip, "Social Desirability and Acquiescence on the SORT," Psychological Reports, XI (October, 1962), 531-534.

30. Lewis, Edwin C., "An Investigati on of Student-Teacher Interaction as a Determiner of Effective Teaching," Journal of Educational Research.. LVII (larch, 1964), 360-363.

31. Lindsey, iargaret, editor, New Horizons fo.r the Teaching Profession. National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, Washington, 0. C., National Education Association, 1961.

32. McAulay, J. D., "The Screening of Teachers," Peabodv Journal of Education. XXXIV (September, 1956), 93-97.

33. MacLean, Malcon S. and others, "A Teacher Selection and Counseling Service," Journal of Educational Research. XLVIII (Bay, 1955), 669-677.

26

34. Magee, Eobert M., "Adsaission-Retention in Teacher Education," Journal of Tea,cfaer Education. XII (March, 1961), 81-85.

35. lathis, Claude and Young Horn Park, "Some Factors Relating to Success 1 n Student Teaching,'* Journal of Educational Research, LVIII (May-June, 1965), 420-422,

36. Siauth, Leslie J., "Selection and Admission Practices in Teacher EducationTeachers Cpll^.qe Journal. XXXII (October, 1960), 5-6.

37. Merriam, J. L., "Normal School Education and Teaching Efficiency," Teacher,? Q W . y l l m U M , M Education. No. 1, Columbia, 1905.

38. Miller, Lebern N., "Evaluating Teaching Personality Before Student Teaching Begins," Journal of Educational Research. LVI (March, 1963), 382-384.

39. Montross, Harold Wesley, "Temperament and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (September, 1954), 73-97.

40. National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, The Education of Tench.era: Consider-ations 1n Planning Institutional Programs. Washington, Regional TEPS Conference Report, I960.

41. Norton, Joseph L., "The SORT as a Differentiator Between High and Low Achievers," Journal of Coanseli na Psychology . IX (Summer, 1962), 184.

42. Ohlsen, Merle, "Teacher Selection," Edueatio rial Summary. May, 1955, p. 20.

43. Ort, Vergil K., "A Study of Some Techniques Used for Predicting the Success of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education. XV (March, 1964), 67-71.

44. Babinowitz, William and Harold E. Mitzel, "Some Obser-vations on the Selection of Students for Teacher Education Programs," Joaynal of Teacher Education. XII (June, 1961) , 157-164.

45. Rabinowitz, William and Robert M. W, Travers, "Problems of Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness," Educational Theory. Ill (July, 1953), 212-219.

29

46. Redden, Joseph Eugene, "The Relationship Between Principals' Evaluations of Professional Behavior Characteristics of Secondary School Teachers and These Teachers' Self-Descriptions,** unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1963,

47. Bobbins, Melvyn Paul, "A Test for Certain Psychological Differences Between Groups of Over-Achievers, Under-Achievers, and Normal Achievers," unpublished master's thesis, Departnent of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1960.

48. iuediger, William Carl and George D. Strayer, "The Qualities of Merit in Teachers," Journal &f Educational Psychology. I (1910), 272-278.

49. Rugg, Earle 0., "Who Shall Be Educated for Teaching?" Journal of Teacher Educat to n. XVI (June, 1965), 221-225.

50. Ryans, David G., Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D. C., American Council of Education, I960.

51. Sharpe, Donald M., "Threshold to the Profession," National Education Association JMJLBJA, L I ¥

(Apri1, 1965).

52. Siegel, Laurence, "Test Reviews," Journal of Counseling Psychology. VI (November, 1959), 72-73.

53. Sorenson, A. Garth, "The Selection of Teacher Candidates," Journal q1 Teacher M a s M l M , VII (September, 1956) , 250-252.

54. Stinnett, T. M., "Selection in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education. V (December, 1954), 262.

55. Stone, Joies B., Structured-Objective Rorschach Test . Los Angeles, California Test Bureau, l9S8.

56. Stout, Ruth A., "Admission and Retention Practices in College Programs of Teacher Education," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXIV (Decewber, 1955), 208 -212 .

57. . "Practices for Selection in Teacher Education," Teacher Educations The Decade Ahead. The National Commission on Teacher Education and

30

Professional Standards, Washington, D, C., National Education Association, 1955.

58. Stripling, Robert 0., "A Program of Admission to Teacher Education Utilizing the Technique of Observation," Teacher Education; Decade Ahead. National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, Washington, D. C., National Education Association, 1955.

59. Stripling, Robert 0 . arid Thomas B. Horton, "Selective Admission to Teacher Education,** Journal sti. Teacher Education. ¥ (March, 1954), 74-76.

60. Syraonds, Percival M., "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Personality," Journal Tffjcte M M m r tlon. V (March, 1954), 79-83.

61. Tate, James Oliver, "A Field Follow-Up Study of Beginning Elementary Teachers," unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1961.

62. Tomli nson, Loren 8., "Recent Studies in the Evaluation of TeachingEducational Res.ear.ch Bulletin. XXXIV (October, 1955), 172-186.

63. Vander Werf, Lester S., Ho& E v a ^ t e Teaffh^ys M Teaching. New York, Rinehart and Company, 1958.

64. Von Baden, II. E., "We're Hurting Ourselves in Teacher Recruitment," Ohio Schools. XLIII (April, 1965), 22-23.

65. Sillcox, Isabel and H. G. Beigel, "Motivations in the Choice of Teaching," Journal &£ Teacher Education. IV (June, 1953), 106-109.

CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF T H E LITERATURE

An abiding faith in the importance of understanding the principles which govern human behavior underlies all psychological investigation and study. The study of personality, like the study of any other psychological discipline, is pursued with the thought that it will ultimately lead to the greater understanding of the force* that contro l human behavior (43, p. I).

Ferguson (43) then pointed out that there are three

main objectives to be gained by the measurement of person-

ality. They ar© the better understanding of individual

behaviorj the better understanding of group behavior, and

the better understanding of the interactions between indi-

vidual and group behavior.

Psychologists differ in their conceptualization of

personality. These distinctions are exewplified in the work

of many contemporary leaders in personality theory. To some*

the behavior of the individual in his immediate environment

is all important? whereas, to others, the immediate environ-

ment is secondary to the effects of early life experiences.

Another difference consists in stressing relative static

units like trait and habit, on the one hand, or dynamic ones

like need and drive on the other. Closely related to each

of these differences in the theoretical approach to

31

32

understanding personality is a further, more g e n e r a l approach

concerned with c h o o s i n g for emphasis between the conscious

aspects of behavior and the unconscious implicit and s o m e -

t i m e s irrational parts of personality (4, 66, 76).

Abt (1) wrote that one nay discern several significant

trends in personality conceptualization, (a) Personality is

increasingly being viewed as a process; (b) There is an

increasing interest in the f o r m u l a t i o n of a picture of the

"personality as a whole"} (c) Personality, being a process,

is constantly influenced by the individual^ interaction with

his physical and social environment, on the one hand, and by

the state and intensity of his needs, on the other.

A b t (1) a l s o proposed s e v e r a l postulates c o n c e r n i n g per-

sonality. Personality may be seen as a system w h i c h functions

in the individual as an organisation between stimuli and

responses leading to behavior. As an organization, the

personality is dynamic and motivational in character, and

may be seen as a configuration, finally, personality in its

growth and development is greatly influenced by e n v i r o n m e n t a l

factors.

The definition of personality, as distinguished from

other areas of psychological interest, has c o m e to involve

at least two basic ideas s integration and uniqueness.

Allport (3) pointed out that individuality is a p r i m e char-

acteristic of human nature and to develop a science of

personality, psychologists must accept this fact. "The best

33

hope for discovering coherence would seem to lie in approach-

ing personality as a total functioni ng structure, 1. e., as

a system . . (3, p. 567). He further incorporated the

two indispensable ideas of integration and uniqueness when

he defined personality as ". . . the dynamic organization

within the individual of those psychophysical systems that

determine his characteristic behavior and thought" (3, p. 20).

Sahakian (93), while not necessarily disagreeing with

Allport, defined personality as . that which enables

us to predict what he (the individual) will do in a given

situation" (93, p. 389).

In studying personality, the goal of the psychologist

is to improve the ability to assess personality beyond the

level of accuracy usually reached by unaided common sense.

The psychologist is interested in knowing how the individual

in the expression of his behavior functions as a recognisable

unit that possesses certain distinctive traits, drives, atti-

tudes, and habits, and attains or fails to attain an adjust-

ment to himself and to his environment.

Psychology is moving into educational, occupational,

clinical, and other applied fields at a rapid pace. Psychol-

ogists are being called upon to an increasing extent for

purposes of fitting the education to the child, and the person

to the job. Thus a considerable proportion of their activ-

ities consists of personality evaluation for purposes of

selection and/or guidance for vocational choices.

34

A wealth of research suggests that the teaching act is

a manifestation of personality and the teacher's personality

is linked to successful teaching. Getzels (40) stated that

teacher personality is a significant variable in the class-

room and says that some would agree that it is the most

significant variable.

The problem of determining the personal qualities neces-

sary for success in teaching is a persistent one is the field

of teacher education. Although research In this problem area

indicates that personality is an important variable in teaching

success, the identification and definition of this variable has

not been made.

Barr (13), after exami ni ng representative studies on

teaching effectiveness, concluded that the results of research

in this area to date have been disappointing. There are

several explanations that could be offered: the teaching

act itself is too complex? lack of objective criteria to

measure "success"; faulty or inadequate personality measuring

devices? or the lack of good, critical, evaluative research

on student teaching success and teaching effectiveness. Per-

haps the best explanation was offered by Combs when he stated,

. . the research on good teaching is unable to isolate

any eomiaon trait or practices of good teachers . . . The very

failure of research to define cotnraon factors is, itself, a

demonstration that a good teacher is primarily a personality"

(27, p. 372). Finally, another major problem in research of

35

teaching has been the development of instruments that measure

personality patterns or traits that night be correlated with

teaching effectiveness.

One of the major obstacles faced by those persons iin-

terested in the problem of the effective teacher concerns

the criteria used in measuring "success." The problem of

evaluating teaching is a broad topic encompassing a number

of issues. Steeves (90) pointed out that this is quite evi-

dent as evidenced by the fact that for the last twenty

meetings of the Association for Student Teaching at least

half of the programs were devoted to the issue of evaluation

of teaching.

A survey of the literature revealed that evaluative pro-

cedures vary considerably and may range from detailed check

lists to long essay and other unstructured forms of statements.

Hale (53) reported that objective Measures of factors such as

mental ability, interest, personality and space relations were

most frequently used. Ryan® (92) and Fattu (42), in reporting

on the criteria of teaching efficiency, found that teacher

rati ng devices were the most frequently used aieans of as-

sessing teacher behavior and efficiency.

Barr (9) mentioned four approaches that sight be con-

sidered as guides to research designed to assess teacher

effectiveness. First, evaluation of the teacher*s performance

by observing behavior; evaluation of the degree to which a

teacher possesses the mental prerequisites necessary for

36

effective teaching? evaluation of the degree to which the

teacher possesses the necessary personality characteristics?

and evaluation of pupil change.

Ryan* (92) contended that there are two general empirical

approaches to the criterion problem in teaching. The first

is through observation of the teacher and the second, through

observation of the teacher's effect upon the student. Two

possible criteria of teacher effectiveness» then, are ratings

of teacher ability and measurements of student change. Of

the two methods, ratings of teachers have been the most fre-

quently used. The writer further pointed out that ratings,

to be effective, should be made by trained and experienced

observers.

Other findings would tend to substantiate these claims

(39, 54, 88). Evans (39) reported that no highly satis-

factory criteria of teacher effectiveness have emerged but

considered that the most suitable opinions for general use

were those of experts. Conversely, there have ©Merged no

suitable criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness based

on student change. Rolfe (88) found that rating scales used

by experienced and competent supervisors for the purpose of

evaluating teacher effectiveness showed a significant corre-

lation wi thin teaching abi1i ty. Hampton (54) also reported

that it was possible to develop rati ng scales which contained

relatively few iterns, yet accurately Measured teacher effec-

tiveness .

37

Another possible measure of potential teacher success

is the performance of the student teachers during the time of

their practical laboratory experience. Research Indicates

that success as a student teacher generally leads to success

as a professional teacher (22, 77, 96),

It is quite true that there is no universally accepted

measure of teacher effectiveness and more than half a cen-

tury of investigation has not yielded meaningful, neaiurable

criteria of teacher effectiveness. Osaon (81) wrote that

instead of trying to develop a foolproof scheme to rate

teachers, the major consideration* for determining effective-

ness should be given to the teacher's actual performance.

This will be the focus of the study. The student teacher

will be evaluated on his performance in student teaching by

competent, professional supervisors. The criteria of success

in student teaching will be the professional judgment of the

college coordinators supervising student teachers and the

grade-point averages of the student teachers earned in stu-

dent teaching.

The issue of teacher personality presents a perplexing

problem to those persons concerned with selection in teacher

education, A review of research on teacher personality and

"success" since the turn of the century discloses that a

great amount of effort has been expended in this direction,

Despite the long history of efforts to identify the personality

38

characteristics of the effective toucher, little reliable

information is now available.

There are two major schools of thought concerning the

relationship of personality characteristics and successful

teaching. On one side there are those critics of teacher

education who believe that "good teachers are born, not

made." Then there are others who feel that *\ . . expert

opinion emphasizes the importance of teacher personality as

a faetor contributing to teacher success** (50, p, 25), If

the latter contention is true, then the institutions pre-

paring young people have an obligation to the children in

our society to adequately select, guide and prepare those

students who will stake effective teacher®.

While most authorities agree that the personality of the

teacher is a significant factor in teacher success there is

lack of agreement about which characteristics are important

and why they are important. Lieberman pointed out, "Sweeping

j udgments about what teachers are like or should be like with-

out much evidence to support the® seem to be the rule rather

than the exception" (68, p. 238).

What snakes a good teacher? Those who think in terms of

the good teacher do not always specify the characteristics

that differentiate the good fro® the average or the mediocre.

Teacher effectiveness does not consist of any single, fixed

pattern of behavior, nor is it a function of the teacher's

personality only. Teaching is a very complex and multifaceted

39

behavioral act with a multiplicity of variables entering

the interaction between the teaeher and the student. What

is "teacher personality"? Cook and Leeds have best defined

this nebulous concept as . . those characteristics of the

teacher's behavior related to the emotional responses of

pupi1s and the ability to establish intimate and harmonious

working relationships with thera" (31, p. 409).

Teaching is a very personal thing. Success as a teacher

apparently hinges upon personality and Robinson (8?) wrote

that personality defies objective measurement, Despite the

abundance of studies available as the result of research, very

little useful information has emerged in the way of evidence

which might be of benefit in the selection of candidates for

teacher education and for prediction of future performance

in the profession, i\t the same time, the results of many

of these studies imply or suggest that the teaching act is a

manifestation of personality and the classroom atmosphere is

created by the interaction of personalities and is either

conducive or detrimental to desirable behavior and optimum

development of the students.

Cooper and Lewis (33), Ruediger and Strayer (89), Syraonds

(102, 103), Symond® and Dudek (104), and Vander Werf (106)

are but a few of the many researchers who concluded their

studies concerning teacher effectiveness by stating the im-

portant part personality plays in teacher success. These

studies pointed out that teaching is essentially an expression

40

of personality and personality Is an important factor in the

effectiveness of the teacher.

Montross (74) reported certain temperamental pattering

of behavior that distinguished between good and poor teachers,

and Symonds and Budek (104) reported in their study that four

of the five better teachers showed superior personality

organization while four of the five poorer teachers were

characterized by inferior personality organization.

Stoat (99) distinguished the following characteristics

as requirements for good teachers? emotional maturity, jaoral

and ethical fitness, general intelligence, demonstrated abil-

ity to work with children, and professional interests and

motivation.

The following differentiations between superior and

Inferior teachers were reported by Syaonds (100) . Superior

teachers 1 iked children; were personally secure and self-

assured) and were well integrated and possessed good person-

ality organization. Inferior teachers, on the other hand,

were those who disliked childrenj were personally insecurej

had feelings of inferiority and inadequacy? and tended to be

personally disorganized.

In predicting teaching success, Kemp (64) found the

general trend showed that the better teachers tended to be

self-confident, tolerant and dominant, while the poorer

teachers tended to be uncooperative, over-critical and

socially passive.

41

However, Barr (13) summarized investigations of the

measurement and prediction of teaching efficiency and con-

cluded that more information is needed about how traits,

competenci es, and behavior controls function to make a good

teacher.

What is a good teacher? Montross (74) wrote:

The "good" teacher would seem to be characterized as possessing a particular type of fluency. He has the ability to associate ideas and things. He would seem to be able to maintain a definite mental set, that is, he can better concentrate over a period of time, upon an assigned task, . . . he would seem to have a desire to work near the upper limits of his ability most of the time in accompli shi ng that task. In somewhat the same vei n he may be characterized as having more of what can be termed "drive" or determination to succeed (74, p. 96).

Sytaonds (102) , a prolific writer concern!ng teacher

effectiveness, proposed the following essentials necessary

for an individual to succeed as a teachers (a) every teacher

should life© teaching; (b) a good teacher should be personally

secure and should have solf-respect, dignity and courage,

as opposed to feelings of inferiority and inadequacy) (c) a

good teacher must be able to identify herself with children?

(d) the good teacher is emotionally stablej (©) the good

teacher should be free from anxiety} and (f) the good teacher

should be other-centered rather than self-centered.

Prom the results of a number of factor-analytic studies,

a partial basis for inferring characteristics necessary for

success in teaching has emerged. One such study, Cook,

Li nden, and McKay (29) analyzed the Edwards Perso nal i*ref erenci

42

Schedule and the GuiIford-Ziamerman Temper latent Survey and

identified six factors apparently related to successful

teaching: docility, dependency authoritarianism, compulsive

conformity, introversion-extroversion, and avoidance.

The quest for identifying teacher characteristics re-

lated to success in teaching has gone in many directions and

has utilized many instruments. One such instrument that has

received considerable attention has been the Mlnnesota Teacher

fortitude Inventory (MTAI). More than fifty research studies

u s i n g this instrument are reported in the literature.

Although the MTAI measures only a limited number of teacher

attitudes, a few studies conclude that there is some hope for

this instrument as an identifying device for teacher selec-

tion (30, 84).

Among personality inventories, the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI) has been widely used in the

study of teacher personality. The results from such studies

report conflicting findings (36, 51, 69, 83).

Moore and Cole (75) reported that the results of the

relation of MMPI scores to practice teaching ratings showed

a higher mean T score for each of the clinical scales on that

instrument for the "poorest" student teachers.

Flanagan (45) found that superior teachers ranked higher

on the MMPI scales of hypochondriasis, depression, and mas-

culinity than did teachers not considered superior. Another

report favoring the MMPI was a study by Fielstra (44). This

43

study c o n c l u d e d that the p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s of f o r c e f u l n e s s ,

e m o t i o n a l b a l a n c e , and w h o l e s o m e p h i l o s o p h y of life were the

only ones rated in s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g w h i c h discriminated

between excellent and g o o d f i r s t - y e a r secondary school

teachers.

On the other hand, L o u g h c o n c l u d e d , " . . . the M M P I has

little or no value in e d u c a t i o n a l s e l e c t i o n ; it is not a use-

ful instrument for differentiating between those who are m o r e

suited for one o c c u p a t i o n than another" (69, p. 444).

Another p s y c h o l o g i c a l instrument t h a t h a s created

noticeable a c t i v i t y a m o n g researchers in teacher personality

is *1, 14 P...-P. Test. The h o p e for t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of

this i n s t r u m e n t was m a d e clear by Cattell w h e n he stateds

I have b e e n interested now for years in the descrip-tion, measurement, a n d e v a l u a t i o n of personality factors. On the basis of this work I w o u l d suggest that e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n s now being planned in teacher personnel research s h o u l d include measures of at least six of the ten or twelve personality f a c t o r s we already find to be reasonably confirmed by two or m o r e researchers (24, pp. 7 1 8 - 7 1 9 ) .

Lamke ( 6 5 ) w a s o n e of several researchers to follow

Cattell*s s u g g e s t i o n . In this s t u d y , t w o criteria were u s e d ;

expert o p i n i o n of teaching performance and acceptability of

the t e a c h e r to his principal. W i t h a small sample of 18

teachers, he compared t h e 16 P.T. Test scores of the " g o o d "

teachers w i t h t h o s e of the " p o o r " teachers. He f o u n d that

the g o o d teachers were above average on Shrewdness-versus —

N a i v e t e , while his p o o r t e a c h e r s w e r e far b e l o w on this trait.

44

The investigator concluded his study by saying the results of

the study Implied that good teachers were good for different

reasons and that poor teachers were poor for varying reasons.

"In general, it is clear that the problem of associating

personality and teaching success is a challenging one. He-

search should be continued by any and all means . . ." (65,

p. 254).

Grickson (37) used the 16 P.P. Test with nine different

measures of teaching effectiveness and found four factors that

yielded significant correlations. Hadley's (52) investigation

partially confirmed and partly contradicted the above results.

By comparing the test scores of those teacher candidates of

the graduating class at a state college in Pennsylvnia who

received a practice-teaching grade of "AM with those who made

a "C", three of the 16 factor scores discriminated between the

two groups at the .05 level or better. Tarpey (105) also

reports that the mark given in student teaching was found to

be related to personality factors measured by the 16 P.F.

Test.

Montross (74) reported quite different results concerning

personality factors related to success in teaching. By using

two composite ratings of success in teaching he found no

significant correlation coefficients between scores on the

16 P.F. Test and the first measure of success and only one

of the 16 factor scores (Cyclothymi a-versus-Schi zothymi a)

reached statistical significance on the second measure.

45

Other researchers (11, 90, 113) have taken different

approaches in attempting to discover the various personality

factors related to success in teaching. Barr (11) suaraarized

the following seventeen definitions of personal factors rela-

tive to teacher effectiveness*

1. Knowledge of subject

2. Intelligence

3. Socio-economic status

4. Skill in expression

5. Personal fitness

6. Social adjustment

7. Emotional stability

8. Teacher-pupi1 relations

9. Leadership

10. Interest in teaching

11. Attitude for teaching

12. Health

13. Energy

14. Motivation

15. Self-concept

16. Cultural attainment

17. Empathy

Barr's (11) sources of opinion were amassed from magazine

articles on the teaching of social studies and each article

was carefully studied for expert statements of purposes of

education.

46

Witty (113) presented some characteristics of effective

teachers is a study based on a contest where the students

were asked to indicate which had been the most help to them.

A summary of the positive qualities followsJ

1. Cooperative, democratic attitude *

2. Kindliness and consideration for the individual.

3. Patience.

4. Wide interests.

5. Pleasing personal appearance and manner.

6. Fairness and impartiality.

7. Sense of humor.

8. Good disposition and consistent behavior.

9. Interest in pupiIs 1 problems.

10. Flexibility.

11. Use of recognition and praise.

12. Unusual proficiency in teaching a particular subject.

Byans (90) found that the criteria used as predictors of

teaching success consisted of several dimensions which may be

associated as a constellation for prediction. By using a

factorial analytic method, five major categories emerged as

follows:

1. Originality, adaptability, and tolerance.

2. Businesslike, organized approach.

3. Understanding, kindly, fair and tendency to be

composed, steady, and easygoing.

47

4. Approachable, friendly, tactful, and gregarious.

5. Physique, voice, and expressive movements.

Ryans* findings suggested that the effective teacher may

be described ia terns of several dimensions, or clusters,

of qualities of behaviors. The dimensions suggested by

his study tended to overlap and intercorrelate positively.

Perhaps the most significant result from this study was that

potential teachers who were high on one of these factors

tended to be high on the others.

Perhaps the most exhaustive and searching study of

teacher characteristics was reported by Ryans (91). Getzels

and Jackson state that this study '*. . . is the single «©st

extensive study of teachers to date" (49, p. 566). By

stating the notable differences between the teachers assessed

generally high and those teachers assessed generally las*,

Ryans reports?

There was a general tendency for high teachers to J be extremely generous in appraisals of the behavior and motives of other persons; possess strong interests in reading and literary affairs; be interested in music, painting, and the arts in general? participate in social groups? enjoy pupil relationships| prefer nondireetive (permissive) classroom procedures? manifest superior verbal in-telligence? and be superior with respect to emotional adjustment. On the other hand, low teachers tended generally to: be restrictive and critical in their appraisals of other persons? prefer activities which did not involve close personal contacts? express less favorable opinions of pupils? manifest less high verbal Intelligence? show less satisfactory emotional adjustment? and represent older age groups (91, pp. 397-398).

48

Syaonds (101), in discussing the various criteria de-

sirable for use in predicting teacher effectiveness, main-

tains that teacher selection should be done by competent

psychologists. He also feels that a real estimate of per-

sonality demands a detailed and extensive interview along

with repeated observations of the prospective teacher in

practical situations. To effectively size up a prospective

teacher requires time and expense but it is important to

select the right persons to teach children. Therefore, it

is worth the expenditure of time and money necessary to

accomplish this obj ective.

A comprehensive perusal of the literature suggests that

much is known concerning personality characteristics of good

or effective teachers. This survey has revealed a dearth of

clear-cut results in research which may be attributed to many

factors. There is also lack of empirical data to support the

justification for the use of any one personality measuring

instrument to identify successful or superior teachers (40).

If such an instrument can be developed, the use of such an

identifying device will be i nvaluable to those persons

assigned the responsibility of administering an admission or

guidance program in teacher education.

One of the most promising approaches in appraising emo-

tional maturity has been the use of the Rorschach projective

method of assessing personality. "Although the Rorschach

stands foremost among the clinician's diagnostic devices,

49

i t s u s e i n s t u d i e s of t e a c h e r s and student t e a c h e r s has been

limited" (49 , p . 5 3 4 ) .

A t r e m e n d o u s quantity of work h a s e v o l v e d d u r i n g t h e

last three d e c a d e s of this century concerning personality

theory and t e s t i n g . I n v e s t i g a t i o n by F r e u d i a n and o t h e r

"depth" psychologists and p s y c h i a t r i s t s h a s an e v e n longer

h i s t o r y . Many do not r e a l i z e t h a t t h e s t u d y of p e r s o n a l i t y ,

per se, i s s t i l l i n i t s i n f a n c y . P a r t of t h i s i n t e r e s t i s

t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e p r o j e c t i v e a p p r o a c h i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g

p e r s o n a l i t y .

The p r o j e c t i v e method of p e r s o n a l i t y a s s e s s n e n t a t t e m p t s

t o a c h i e v e o b j e c t i v i t y i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e n s e by i n v i t i n g

the person under observation to be as " s u b j e c t i v e " as possible

( 7 ) . P r o j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s are not o b j e c t i v e but a r e i n t e n d e d

t© r e v e a l t h e u n d e r l y i n g t r a i t s , moods, a t t i t u d e s and f a n -

t a s i e s that d e t e r m i n e the b e h a v i o r of t h e I n d i v i d u a l i n actual

s i t u a t i o n s and a r e h e l d to be v a l i d and more truly o b j e c t i v e

i n t h e i r r e s u l t s than t h e obj ecti ve me thods of p e r s o n a l i t y

m e a s u r e m e n t .

P r o j e c t i v e techniques h a v e the following characteristics

i n common: ( a ) t h e s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l i s a l w a y s n e u t r a l and

t h e s u b j e c t i s expected t o s u p p l y m e a n i n g , s i g n i f i c a n c e and

o r g a n i z a t i o n t o t h a t s t i m u l u s ? (b ) i m p l i c i t o r u n c o n s c i o u s

a s p e c t s of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y a r e r e v e a l e d ? and ( c ) t h e p s y c h o -

l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of t h e s u b j e c t ' s wor ld i s implied.

50

The Korschach Ink Blot method of personality diagnosis

is undoubtedly the best known and the most widely used of

all the projective procedures (16). Si nee the introduction

of this method in 1921, the Ror schach has continued to gain

adherence and has beers extended with certain modifications

for group use.

The research literature has been quite optimistic (26,

33, 61, 104) concerning the relationship between personality

aspects, as measured by the traditional Rorschach Test, and

effective teaching.

Johnson (61) used the Rorschach with thirteen secondary

teachers to discover the presence or absence of adjustment

signs to be used as a measure of potentiality for adjustment.

A correlation of .61 between adjustment signs and teaching

effectiveness was found and the investigator concluded that

the Korschach was valuable in that it gave an indication of

the teacher1 $ adjustment potential.

Cooper and Lewis (33) used student evaluation as a cri-

terion of teaching efficiency and identified two groups of

teachers and student teachers? those most favorably rated

and those least favorably rated. >» tetrachoric correlation

of .52 between fiorschacn variables (the absence of neurotic

signs) and teaching effectiveness was reported. Teachers

rated as having good relations with the students possessed

tli© following quail ties $

1. Sense of humor.

2. Fairness.

3. Courtesy.

4. Tact.

5. Flexibility.

6. Self-control.

1. Ability to create interest.

8. Sympathy.

9. Friendliness.

10. Originality.

11. Enthusiasm.

12. Self-expression.

13. Discipline.

The researchers concluded their study by saying, "There is

agreement that personality is an important component of suc-

cessful teaching" (33, p. 703).

Perhaps the most optimistic findings were reported by

Syraonds and Dudek (104). By using total personality descrip-

tions written from the Rorschach, Syreonds ranked nineteen

teachers in order of teaching effectiveness, "according to

his judgment." Dudek scored and interpreted the Rorschach

protocols of the subjects and ranked the teachers on effec-

tiveness using "blind" Rorschach interpretations. There was

a .60 coefficient of correlation between these two sets of

ranks. The authors concluded, " . . . a person who knows the

Horschach and also the qualities that make for successful

52

teaching s h o u l d be able to predict teaching s u c c e s s corre-

spondingly to a correlation of well over .60" (104, p. 234).

However, the technical difficulties of administering

and scoring the traditional Rorschach would be quit© imprac-

tical to use in teacher education programs involving hundreds

of teacher candidates. Therefore, the Structured-Obi active

Rorschach Test was utilized in this study of personality

factors related to student teacher success.


1. Abt, Lawrence Edwin and Leopold Bellack, Proiective Psychology, New fork, Alfred A. Knopf, 1950.

2. Allen, Robert M., Introduction to the Rorschach Technique. New York, International Universities Press , Inc., 1953.

3. Allport, Gordon W., Pjt,t^« jyyj, G$qM%k la. New York, Holt, Einehart and Winston, 1961.

. 4. £S£ISMiilZ$ 1 Psychological Interpretation. New York, Henry Holt, 1937.

5. Anderson, Harold H. and Gladys L. Anderson, editors, M IffUHlfiUq,,1* M PXttJUftUYf Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1951.

6. Andrews, Leonard 0., Student Teaching, New York, The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964.

7. Andrews, T. 6., editor, Methods of Psychology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1948.

8. Barr, A. S., "Inexperienced Teachers Mho Fail—And Why," Nation's Schools. V (February, 1930), 30-34.

9. . "Measurement of Teaching Efficiency," M j t g in Educational Research. V

(December, 1949).

10. "Merit Pay for Teachers," P&l Delta Kappan. XXXI (September, 1949) , 5-7.

11. "Pupil Changes and Teacher Ability," M . Experimental Education. XIV (September,

1955), 52-74.

12. » "Teaching Competencies," Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York, Macmillan Conpany, 1950.

53

54

13. . "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency? A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education. XVI (June, 1948), 203-283.

14. . "Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Education. XXX (September, 1961) , 1-156.

15. Barr, A. S. and Robert E. Jones, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Efficiency," teyj.ew of Educational Research. XXVIII (June,1958), 256-264.

16. Beck, Sanuel J., Rorschach * s Test. Volume I, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1944.

IT, Blair, Glenn Myers, "Personality Adjustments of Teachers as Measured by the Multiple-Choice Rorschach Test,"

Ml Educational Reffjj.sh, XXXIX (May, 1946) .

18. Brickman, William W., "The Essentials in Teacher EducationSchool and Society. LXXXII (lay, 1956) , 190-192.

Brookover, W. B., "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability," Journal of Exp^rIcental Education. XII (June, 1947), 191-205.

19.

E ^ ' a U M

20. Callaway, Rolland and Gerald Gleasoa, "The Teacher and Teacher Effectiveness," Review of Educational Research. XXXIII (June, 1963), 295-296.

21. Callis, R. and others, "Studies in the Effectiveness of Teaching," p i f M J L UUL MftXS. Effective Teachers : A Summary Report of Njne Studies. edited by f . P. Frutchey, Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1953.

22. Carlile, A. B., "Predicting Performance in the Teaching Profession," JftM.ftll, JtX. Educational Research. XLVII (May, 1954), 641-658.

23. Cassel, Russell N. and Lloyd W. Johns, "Basic Principles of Effective Teaching Based on Adjectives Used by School Principals in Teachers* Efficiency Reports," Journal of Education. XXXIX (Noveiaber, 1961), 169-173.

24. Cattell, R. B., "Clinical Versus Statistical Measures of Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational XLI (May, 1948), 718-719.

55

25. Chaltas, -John G. , "Student Teachings Assignment and Hi s-Assignraent ," Journal of. Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965), 311-318,

26. Cole, David L., "The Prediction of Teaching Performance/' Journal of Educational Research. LIV (May, 1961), 345-348.

27. Combs, Arthur W., "The Personal Approach to Good Teaching," Educational Leadership. XXI (March, 1964) , 269-377.

28. Cook, Desmond L., "The Personal Data Form as a Predictor of Success in a Teacher Education Program and Entry into Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XV (March, 1964), 61-66.

29. Cook, Desmond L., and others, "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educational &..a..ri Psychological Measurement. XXI (Winter, 1961), 865*872.

30. Cook, Walter W., and others, "Studies of Predietiv© Validity of the M T A I J o u r n a l of Teacher Education. ¥11 (June, 1956), 167-170.

31. Cook, Walter W. and C. B. Leeds, "Measuring the Teaching Personality," Educational and Psychological Measure-ment. Ill (Autumn, 1947), 299-410.

32. Cooper, James G. and HaroId i. Elsbree, "A Comparison of Two Plans of Teacher Education," Journal of Educational Research. LI (Say, 1958), 643-658.

33. Cooper, James C. and Roland B, Lewis, "Quantitative Rorschach Factors in the Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research. XLIV (May, 1951), 703-707.

34. Dixon, W. 1. and W. C. Morse, "The Prediction of Teaching Performance Through Eropatic Potential," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961), 322-329.

35. Dugan, Buth R., "Persoaallty and the Effective Teacher," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961).

36. Edson, William H., "Selecting Students for the College of Education at the University of Minnesota." Journal of Teacher Education. XIV (March, 1963), 51-56.

56

37. Erickson, H. E., "A Factorial Study of Teaching Ability,"

Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (September, 1954), 1-39.

38. Evaluati na Student Teaching. Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Washington, D. C., National Education Association, i960.

39. Evans, K. M., "A Critical Survey of Methods of Assessing Teacher Ability/ British Journal g & Educational Psychology. XXI (June, 1951), 89-95.

40. Farr, David S., Evaluation Selection Instruments jj» Teacher Education Programs. Ameri can Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Buffalo, University of New York at Buffalo, 1965.

41. Fattu, Nicholas A., " Ef f ecti veness—An Elusive Quality," The Education Digest. XXVII (January, 1962), 24-26.

42. . "What Research Says About Teacher Effectiveness," National Education Association, L (October, 1961), 55-56.

43. Ferguson, Leonard W., Personality Measurement. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952.

44. Fielstra, Clarence, "Discriminative and Predictive Values of Ratings Given to UCLA Student Teachers on the Secondary School Level," California Journal of Educational Research. XIV (January, 1963), 11-18.

45. Flanagan, Carroll E., "A Study of the Relationship of Scores of the MMPI to Success in Teaching as Indicated by Supervisory Ratings," Journal of Experimental Education. XXXIX (June, 1961), 329-354.

46. Frank, Lawrence K., "Projective Methods for the Study of Personality," Journal of Psychology. VIII (1939), 389-413.

47. Gage, N. L., "Guiding Principles in the Study of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Teacher Education. Ill (December, 1952), 294-298.

48. editor, Handbook of Research on Teachl ng, Chicago, Rand McNally and Company, 19*51.

57

4 9 . Getzels, J. W., and P. W. Jackson, "The Teacher's Personality and Characteristics," Handbook o£ Research on Teaching, edited by N. L. Gage, Chicago, Rand McNally and Company, 1963.

50. Goodenough, Eva, "Personality as a Contributing Factor to Teacher S u c c e s s J o u r n a l of Educational Research. LI (September, 195?), 25-31.

51. Gough, Harrison G. and William H, Pemberton, "Person-ality Characteristics Belated to Success in Practice Teaching," Journal sJL Applied Psychology. XXXVI (September, 1952), 307-309.

52. Hadley, S. T., "A Study of the Predictive Value of Several Variables to Student Teaching Success As Measured by Student Teaching Marks," Teachers College Bulletin. LX (1954), 1-10.

53. Hale, Peter P., "Isolating Objective Factors for the Teaching Profession," Journal of Educational Research. XLVIII (March, 1955), 497-507.

54. Hampton, N. D,„ "An Analysis of Supervisory Ratings of Elementary Teachers Graduated from Iowa State Teachers Col lege," Journal &£ Expe.ri.i)|.eM..al Education. XX (December, 1951), 180-215.

55. narrower, M. R. and M. E. Steiner, La^rae Scale Rorschach Techniaues. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas, 1951.

56. Harsh, C. H, and H. G. Schrickel, Personality Develop-ment and Assessment« New York, Ronald Press, 1959.

57. Hoover, Kenneth H. and others, "A Comparison of Expressed Teaching Strengths Before and After Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965), 324-328.

58. Houston, William Robert and others, Professlonal Growth Through Student Teaching. Colursbu®, Ohio, Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965.

59. Issacson, Robert L. and others, "Correlation of Teacher Personality Variables and Student Ratings," Jouma^ S»L Educational Pf.yfily^qjy, LIV (April, 1963), 110-117.

60. James, Grace Robbing, "The Melationship of Teacher Characteristics and Pupil Creativity," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1965.

58

61. Johnson, Granville B., "An Evaluation Instrument for the Analysis of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Educatlon. XXIII (June, 1955), 331-344.

62. Jones, John 0,, "Comparisons Between Most and Least Effective Cooperating Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Education, University of California at Berkeley, 1963.

63. Jones, Margaret Lois, "Analysis of Certain Aspects of Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education. XXV (December, 1956), 152-180.

64. Kemp, L. C. D., "The Prediction of Teaching Success," I M £i V 1 (August, 1947), 14.

65. Lanke, Tom Arthur, "Personality and Teaching Success," .J.oifjW,! si Experimental Education. XX (December, 1951), 217-259.

66. Lewin, Kurt, A Dynamic Xfrg.ojy of Personalityt New York, King's Crown Press, 1942.

67. Lewis, Edwin "An Investigation of Student-Teacher Interaction as a Determiner of Effective Teaching,** Journal sJL Educational Research. LVII (March, 1964).

68. Lieberaan, Myron, Education, as a Profession. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956.

69. Lough, Orpha M., "Women Students in Liberal Arts, Nursing, and Teacher Training Curricula and the MHPI," &JL tellM Psychology. XXXI (August, 1947), 437-445.

70. Martin, Lycia 0., The Prediction of Success for Student Teachers in, Teacher Education. New York, Columbia University, 1944.

71. Merriman, P. H. and 8. V. Grim, Student Teaching. The Twenty-Eighth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Washington, 0. C. National Education Association, 1948.

72. Michaelis, John U., "Teacher Education--Student Teaching and Internship," Encyclopedia of Educational les.ea.rch. New York, The Macmillan Company, i960.

59

73. Mitzel, Harold E. , "Teacher Effectiveness/* Encvolopedi a of Educational Research. Mew fork, The Macmi11 an Company, 1960.

74. Montross, Harold Wesley, "Temperament and Teaching Success/* Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (September, 1954), 73-97.

75. Moore, Clark H. and David Cole, "The Relation of MMPI Scores to Practice Teaching Rates," Journal of Educational Research. L (May, 1957), 711-716.

76. Murray, ti. A. and others, Explorations in Personality New York, Oxford University Press, 1938.

77. Nash, Harold W., "A Comparison of Supervisory Ratings and Personalities of Student Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1963.

78. National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, The Education of Teachers t Considera-tion la fJE&fiUU* Washington, I). C. , National Education Association, Regional TEPS Conference, 1960.

79. National Coramission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, New Horizons: The Becomino Journey. Washington, D. C., National Education Association, Official Report of the Pennsylvania Conference, 1962.

00- National Education Association Research Bulletin. "Why Few School Systems Use Merit Bating®," Washington, National Education Association, XXXIX (Say, 1961), 61-63.

81. Osmon, Robert Vance, The Improvement of Secondarv Teachino. St. Louis, Education Publishers, 1962.

82. Page, Martha and R. M. W. Travers, "Relationship Between Rorschach Performance and Student Teaching," Exploratory Studies in Teacher Personality.'New York, New York City College, Division of Teacher Education, 1953.

83. Peaiberton, W. H,, "Test Characteristics of Student Teachers Rated at the Extremes of Teaching Abi1i ty, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Departiaent of Education, University of California at Berkeley, 1950.

ft

60

84. Pophara, W. James and Robert R. Trimble, "The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as an Index of General Teaching Competence," Educational 41$. Psychological Measurement. XX (Autumn, 1960), 509-512.

85. Rabinowltz, William and R, §. W. Travers, "Problems of Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness Educational Theory. Ill (July, 1953), 212-219.

86. Bigness, Thomas Alexander, "Relationships Between Certain Attitudes Towards Teaching and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education. XXI (September, 1952), 1-50.

87. Robinson, Ronald W., "Who is a Good Teacher?" The Clearing House. XXXV (February, 1961) , 323-325.

88. Rolf®, J. F., "The Measurement of Teaching Ability,"

Journal of Experimental Education. XIV (September, 1945), 52-74.

89. Ruediger, William Carl and George 0. Strayer, "The Qualities of Merit in Teachers," Journal of Educational Psychology. I (1910), 272-278.

90. Ryans, David G., "A Study of Criterion Data," Educational and Psychological Measurement.. XII (Autumn, 1952).

91. Characteristics of Teachers * Washington, 0. C., American Council on Education, i960.

92. , "The Criteria of Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research. XLII (May, 1949).

93. Sahakian, William S.s editor, Psychology of Personality: ieadinos ia Theory. Chicago, land McMally and Company, 1965.

94. Scates, Douglas E., "The Good Teacher; Establishing Criteria for Identification," Journal of Teacher Education. I (June, 1950), 137-141.

95. Sheldon, Stephen M., "Conditions Affecting the Fakability of Teacher-Selection Inventories," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XIX (Summer, 1959), 207-219.

96. Sowers, 6. T., "The Relationship Between Student Teaching Marks and Ratings of Teacher Effectiveness," Columbia Teachers Colleae Contributions to Education. New York, Columbia University, 1923.

61

97. Sorenson, Garth and others, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Bole: An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher Effectiveness/' Journal of Educational Psvcholoov. LIV (December, 1963), 287-294.

98. Steeves, Frank L., "Crucial Issues in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965) , 307-310.

99. Stout, Ruth A., "Practices for Selection in Teacher Education," Teaeher Education: The Peca.de. Ahq.ad.. Washington, D. C., National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, NEA, 1955.

100. Symonds, Percival M., "Characteristics of the Effective Teacher Based on Pupil Evaluations," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (June, 1955), 209-310.

101. » "Evaluation of Teaching Per-sonality," Education Digest. XII (January, 1947), 10-14.

102. . "Personality of the Teacher ," Journal of Educational Research. XL (May, 1947), 652-661.

103. . "Teaching as the Function of the Teacher*s Personality," Journal of Teacher Education. V (March, 1954), 79-83.

104. Symonds, Percival M. and Stephanie Oudek, "Use of the Rorschach in the Diagnosis of Teacher Effectiveness,' Journal of Projective Techwiquet. XX (June, 1956),

105. Tarpey, Sister M, Simeon, "Personality Factors in Teacher Trainee Selection," British Journal of Educational Psychology. XXXV (June, 1965), 140-149.

106. Vander Werf, Lester S., How to Evaluate Teachers and Teachina. New York, Rinehart, 1958.

107. Veldaan, Donald J. and Robert F. Peck, "The Influence of Teacher and Pupil Sex on Pupil Evaluations of Student Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education. XV (December, 1964), 393-396.

108. Vernon, Philip E., Personality Assessment t A Crltical Survey. New York, John tfiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

62

109. Von Haden, Herbert, "An Evaluation of Certain Types of Personal Data Employed in the Prediction of Teacher Efficiency," Journal of Experimental Education. XV (September, 1946), 61-84.

110. Woodri ng, Paul, "Century of Teacher Education," School and Society. XM (May, 1962), 236-242.

H i . . New Directions i n Teachi no Education. New York, The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1957.

112. Woodruff, Asabel, "Success in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. IX (September, 1958), 243»247.

113. Witty, Paul, "Some Characteristics of the Effective Teachers," Educational Ada!nlstration and Super-vliion. XXXVI (April, 1950), 193-208.

CHAPTER III

TREATMENT OF THE DATA AND RESULTS

All statistical computations necessary to test the ten-

ability of the various hypotheses in this study were computed

by the IBM Computer Centers at North Texas State University

and Southern Methodist University.

The decision as to the level of significance below which

a hypothesis would be accepted or rejected was arbitrarily

designated at the five per cent level of significance and the

one per cent level was considered highly significant.

The tenability of the first eight hypotheses concerning

the significance of the differences between the mean scores

of the various groups was tested by examining the data and

treating them statistically in the following manner.

The raw scores for each of the Struetured~0b1active

qfrEMfiHl, 3L&H. attributes were obtained by scoring the answer

sheets on an IBM 80S Test Scoring Machine. These raw scores

were converted to T scores according to the test manual's

table of standard score norms for the SORT (9). Utilizing

the North Texas State University's IBM 1620 Computer, means,

standard deviations, and J, values for each of the attributes

were found. Fisher's £ for finding the significance of the

63

64

difference between the means of two groups was computed and

an appropriate Jt table was consulted to determine the level

of significance necessary for acceptance or rejection (10).

The standard formulas utilized for the computation of

the mean and standard deviation were taken from Guilford (3,

pp. 29, 57).

Mean = H

N = number of cases,

X = sum of the scores.

N X = number of eases times sum of the scores.

Standard deviation = i ^ N x 2 _ ^ T X)

The standard formula for the Fisher*s £ technique was

given by Smith (8, p. 89), and is as follows:

«1 - M 2

£ = y N1 S0j2 + n 2 SD 22

N + N - 2 (l + l) \ N N /

N ss number of oases.

N1 = number i n group 1.

N2 X number i n group 2.

M SB mean.

M1 rr mean of group 1.

M 2 s mean of group 2 .

SB 3! standard de?iation •

SD j ST standard deviation of group 1.

sc2 JK standard deviat ion of group 2.

65

Following the M a t h e m a t i c a l computations, t h e data were

entered into tables for clarity of presentation.

Hypothesis 1

According to hypothesis one, there would be no signifi-

cant difference between the mean scores on the fifteen basic

Rorschach variables for the student teaehers and the normative

population used in the standardization of the SORT. Table II

presents the means, standard deviations, 1, values and levels

of significance for each of the fifteen Rorschach scores for

each group.

TABLE II

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE STUDENT TEACHER

GROUP AND THE NATIONAL NORMS OF THE BASIC RORSCHACH SCORES

Student National Rorschach Teachers Norms

Scores (N s 295) <N = 8,061) 1 Level

M SD M 50 1

Whole-Blot (W) 45.76 10.69 50 10 19.31 .001 Major-Blot (D) 51.22 9.33 50 10 - 5.80 .001 Mi nor-Blot (Dd) 52.60 10.93 50 10 -11.77 .001 White-Space (S) 44.42 11.64 50 10 24.75 .001 Good-Form (F) 55.87 12.85 50 10 -25.20 .001 Poor-Form (F-) 49.62 8.50 50 10 1.83 NS» Human Movement (M) 53.13 9.63 50 10 -14.72 .001 Animal Movement (FM) 51.36 9.44 50 10 - 6.45 .001 Form-Co lor (FC) 47.93 7.73 50 10 10.13 .001 Color-Form (CF) 42.61 8.70 50 10 35.51 .001 Shading (Fch) 44.52 10.01 50 10 25.43 .001 Animal (A) 47.49 10.58 50 10 11.45 .001 Human (H) 51.38 9.19 50 10 - 6.59 .001 Modal (P) 45.43 9.94 50 10 20.73 .001 Original (0) 38.61 10.89 50 10 51.65 .001

*Not significant.

66

An examination of Table II will show that there were

statistically significant differences among the mean scores

on fourteen of the basic Rorschach score variables. The only

score that failed to reach significance at the designated

five per cent level was responses that poorly resembled the

form of the stimulus (F-).

Further examination of Table II indicates that the stu-

dent teacher group had a higher wean score than the normative

population on the following Rorschach responses: Major-blot

details (0)j Minor-blot details (Dd) j Responses involving

human movement or posture-tension (M)j Responses involving

animal novesient or posture-tension (FM) j Responses involving

total human figure or parts of humans (H); and Responses

closely resembling the form of the stimulus (F).

The highest mean score reported for the student teacher

group on the basic Rorschach responses was the Good-form or

F variable. These are associations closely resembling the

form of the stimulus. Rorschach's F responses are determined

by the subject's responses to the ink blots on the basis of

contour, outline, or form alone. According to Beck, "The

principal test factor through which the individual shows his

ability to direct his thinking from his higher centers, K e.,

with conscious attention and discriminating Judgment, is the

accurate or 'good' form responses . . ." (1, p. 19). The

psychologic requisites for the Rorschach Good-form responses

are (a) Ability to center the attention, (b) Possession of

67

c l e a r n e n t « l p i c t u r e s , ( c ) Power to bring t h e s e c l e a r memory

p i c t u r e s i n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and (d) A b i l i t y t o s e l e c t , f rom

among t h e memory p i c t u r e s t h a t p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s , t h a t one

which most n e a r l y r e s e m b l e s t h e s t i m u l u s . A mean of 5 5 . 8 7

f or the s tudent t eacher group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher than

the mean of 50 f o r t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n .

The s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ' Rorschach r e s p o n s e s i n v o l v i n g

human movement or p o s t u r e - t e n s i o n CM) were found t o have a

mean s c o r e of 5 3 . 1 3 compared t o t h e sample mean of 50 , T h i s

mean d i f f e r e n c e was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Accord ing t o Beck

( 1 ) , a response t h a t i n c l u d e s any f i g u r e i n human-l ike a c t i o n

or w i th m u s c u l a r t e n s i o n i m p l i e d , as i n p o s t u r e or a c t i v e

f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , i s s c o r e d M. The fiorschach movement s c o r e

i s i n d i c a t i v e of i n t e l l i g e n c e and f a n t a s y a c t i v i t y . Beck

h o l d s t h a t " P r o d u c i n g M i s , g e n e r i c a l l y , the c r e a t i v e a c t "

( 1 , p . 2 5 ) .

The t h i r d h i g h e s t mean s c o r e f o r t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r

group, 5 2 . 6 0 , was reported f o r the Mi n o r - b l o t d e t a i l or the

Rorschach Dd v a r i a b l e . To d e r i v e a Dd s c o r e , t h e s u b j e c t

must r e spond to r a r e , u n u s u a l , or a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d a r e a s

of t h e b l o t . Beck s t a t e s , **. . . s e l e c t i o n of Dd ( r a r e d e -

t a i l ) r e f l e c t s i n t e r e s t i n t h e m i n u t e , t h e u s u a l l y o v e r l o o k e d

eleraents" ( 1 , p . 1 3 ) . The mean s c o r e on t h e Dd v a r i a b l e was

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f rom t h e mean of the noriaativ© popu-

l a t i o n .

68

The student teacher group also had a significantly

higher mean score on the Rorschach H variable. This partic-

ular score is derived from the subject seeing a living human

being. Rorschach students contend that good II scores in a

protocol indicate intelligence. "The more intelligent indi-

viduals, if in good health, produce many H . . . conversely,

as we go down along the intelligence curve, H decreases in

quantity" (1, p. 42). Beck (1) also indicated that the

content of H reflects the breadth and cultivation of the

subject. A mean score of 51.38 on this variable for the

student teachers was significantly different from the sample

mean of 50. The £ value of -6.59 would indicate that this

mean difference was highly significant at the .001 level.

A significantly higher mean score was also found for

the student teacher group on responses involving animal move-

ment or posture-tension. This Rorschach response is scored

FM and involves animals in aniraal-like movement. Beck (1)

contends that movement in animal content lies not in what the

subject sees but in what he does not see or avoids seeing,

"M in A is a repressed or a heavily disguised iM (1, pp. 24-

25). The individual is seeing a human activity but he at-

tributes it to a nonhuman form. Thus these associations of

FM may stand very near to the dream and may be representative

of needs very far removed from the conscious thinking. A

mean score of 51.36 for the student teacher group was found

69

to be significantly different from the sample mean of 50 at

the .001 level.

The results in Table II also show that the student

teacher group had a higher mean score on the Major-blot

Rorschach variable (u) when compared to the normative popu-

lation. The difference between the mean score of 51.22 for

the student teachers and 50 for the norm showed a £ value

significant at the .001 level. Rorschach scorers derive the

D variable from the subject's response to the major part of

the blot or to some large detai1 within the blot. Beck (1)

holds that the generic psychologic value of D lies in

exposing the subject's attention to the obvious and is in-

dicative of common, practical, down-to-earth responses.

The results in Table II depict a significantly lower

mean score for the student teachers on the following re-

sponses* Whole-blot (W)j White-space (S)j Responses involving

color and closely resembling the form of the stimulus (FC)j

Responses involving color and poorly resembling the form of

the stimulus (CF)j Responses involving whole animals or parts

of animals (A)j Responses involving textural density of gray

or shading (Fch)j Modal responses (P)j and Original responses

(0) .

The lowest mean score for the student teacher group was

found ior Original responses (0). The mean for the student

teachers on this variable was 38.61 compared to the mean of

50 lor the normative population. The 0 score in the Rorschach

70

i s based on the t h e o r e t i c a l f r e q u e n c y of a r e s p o n s e not

a p p e a r i n g more than once i n a hundred r e c o r d s ( 6 ) . Beck CD

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e h i g h l y endowed i n d i v i d u a l produces O r i g i n a l

a s s o c i a t i o n s i n l a r g e s t q u a n t i t i e s and the 0 r e s p o n s e r e f l e c t s

a h i g h l y o b l i q u e v i s i o n , or i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

t h e n e u t r a l stimuli. Klopfer s u p p o r t s t h i s s c o r i n g rationale:

. . . our e x p e r i e n c e a g r e e s well w i t h Rorschach*s s u g g e s t i o n that t h e h i g h e r average i n t e l l i g e n c e w i t h predomi nately p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t produces up to 10 p e r c e n t origi nal r e s p o n s e s * r e a l l y s u p e r i o r intel-ligence , up to 30 per cent j and only intelligent people with a rich imagi nati on or d e f i n i t e artistic gifts, more than 30 p e r c e n t o r i g i n a l r e s p o n s e s on an accurate form level (6, p . 271).

The r e s u l t s i n T a b l e II show a n o t h e r ex t r eme low mean

score for the student teacher group. Responses i n v o l v i n g

color and poorly r e s e m b l i n g the form of the stimulus (CF)

were found to have a mean score of 4 2 . 6 1 . This mean was sig-

nificantly d i f f e r e n t f rom t h e mean s c o r e of 50 f o r the no rma-

t i v e population. The rationale f o r s c o r i n g a r e s p o n s e CF

i n v o l v e s color b e i n g the d e t e r m i n i n g factor i n r e s p o n d i n g to

the i n k blot and d o m i n a t i n g the form of the percept. "The

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature of a CF response i s the fact that the

color i s the d e t e r m i n i n g factor . . . the color is d e f i n i t e ,

the form is indefinite" ( 6 , p . 1 4 8 ) . Beck ( 1 ) contends that

the CF r e s p o n s e i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for a l e s s i m p u l s i v e reac-

tivity , and represents a step above a pure i n f a n t i l e r e a c t i o n

trend. There is an element of emotionality but with control.

The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means was found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 level.

71

T h e White-space ( S ) response for the student teacher

g r o u p was f o u n d to have a significantly lower mean score,

44.42, w h e n compared to the standardization sample mean of

50. ". . . the personality significance of white space

selection includes always a nucleus of contrariness. Gen-

erically it consists f u n d a m e n t a l l y of self-will. Given

a generally strong total personality, it will reinforce a

strong ego and so be equivalent to determi nation, will power"

(1, p. 47), The difference between the means of the student

teachers and the s t a n d a r d ! z a t i o n sample was found to be sig-

nificant at the .001 level.

The results in Table II also depict a gignificantly

lower m e a n score, 44.52, f o r t h e student teacher g r o u p on

responses involving t e x t u r a l density of gray and shading

(Feb). T h e jt v a l u e of 25.43 w o u l d indicate t h a t t h i * d i f f e r -

e n c e was h i g h l y significant. R o r s c h a c h researchers report

t h a t shading e f f e c t s are significant in t h e subject's c o n c e p t

f o r m a t i o n s . Beck (1) contends the gray or shading response

stems from an anergic state, or one in w h i c h the vigor has

apparently been drawn out of the organism. It has also been

noted that too much attention to the gray or shaded areas of

the ink blots is indicative of a disquieting, oppressive

effect on the part of the subject. In general, responses to

shaded areas of the ink blots may range in significance from

a lack of emotional energy or strength to feelings of general

apprehensiveness or uneasiness.

72

Student teacher responses to the Whole-blot areas (W)

showed a significantly lower mean score than the standard-

ization sample. The mean of the student teacher group was

45.76 compared to a mean W score of 50 for the normative

population used in the SORT and the difference between these

two means was found to be significant at the .001 level. The

Rorschach W score is derived from the subject's response to

the whole ink blot. Responses to whole percepts are a pro-

jection of the subject's degree or height of intelligence

and the higher the intelligence potential of an individual,

the more W he can produce i n a record (1).

The results presented in Table II also depict a signifi-

cantly lower mean score on Modal responses for the student

teacher group. This Rorschach response Is usually scored

P, or Popular, and refers to one extreme of a theoretical

frequency distribution of all possible responses. The mean

score for the student teacher group was 45.54 and was signif-

icantly different from the mean of 50 for the sample used i n

the standardization of the SORT, Modal responses (F) measure

how an individual falls within his culture and his ability

to get along with people (1>. This awareness of others as

measured by the Popular score is used by Stone (9) to denote

conformity.

The student teachers were also found to have a signifi-

cantly lower mean score for responses involving whole animals

73

or parts of animals (A). A mean of 50 for the normative

population was significantly different from the mean of

47,49 for the student teacher group. The t, value indicated

that this difference was highly significant. Animal responses

(A) are measures of regression and immaturity (1). The

Rorschach A is considered by some to be an index to one's

thinking at a peripheral level. wln general, the animal

association tells how closely the subject adheres to his

percept to the most palpable form. The blot configurations

easily take on animal shapes. These are therefore the most

* stereotyped ' percepts" (1, p.15),

The mean scores for responses involving color and

closely resembling the form of the stimulus were found to be

significantly different between the two groups. The student

teacher group had a mean FC score of 47.93 corapared to a

mean score of 50 for the standardization sample. The reported

jt value of 10.13 would indicate that the difference between

these two means was significant at the .001 level. Since

this means that one could expect this kind of difference to

occur by chance in one case out of one thousand, a mean dif-

ference this large may be considered highly significant. The

Rorschach's FC, or Form-color response, is one of definite

form with chroraatic color. This indicates the person is one

activated by emotional feelings but has mastery of control

over the®. Good form-color responses also depict a person

who is sensitive to others Cl).

74

From the data presented in Table II, the following

conclusions are warranted.

The student teachers used in this study were signifi-

cantly different from the subjects used in the standardisa-

tion of the SORT on fourteen of the fifteen basic Rorschach

score variables. The student teachers had a mean score on

the Rorschach Poor-form (F-) response variable that was not

significantly different from the mean of the normative

populati on.

One must conclude that the student teachers used in

this study were more practical (D), more pedantic (Dd), more

perceptive of reality (F), more intellectually creative <M),

greater in need repression (FM), and more intelligent (U)

than the normative population.

One must also conclude that the student teachers used

in this study were less theoretical in their thinking (IV),

less stubborn or contrary (S), less sensitive to others (FC),

less &no t i o n a 1 (Ofr), less anxious (f c h), less i mm a t ure (A),

less conforming (P), and less eccentric in their behavior

(0) than the normative population.

One must conclude from the quantitative date presented

that there was a statistically significant difference between

the student teachers in this study and the standardization

•ample. It follows that hypothesis if must be accepted and

the remainder of hypothesis 1 be rejected at a high level of

co nf i dance.

T5

Hypothesis 2

Table III presents information relative to a comparison

of mean scores for the elementary and secondary student

teachers.

TABLE III

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS , t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS AND SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

ON THE BASIC RORSCHACH SCORES

Rorschach Scores

Blew. Student Teachers (N « 84)

SD

Sec. Student Teachers ( N = 2 1 1 )

SD

Level

Whole Maj or Minor Whi t© Good Poor-Human Aniraa

m Form-Co lor Shadi Anima Human Modal Origi

Blot (W) Blot (D) Blot (Dd) Space (S)

Form (F) Form ( F-) Movement 1 Move-ent <FM) Color (FC) -Form (CF) nq (Fch) 1 ( A ) (ID (P)

nal (0)

C M )

44 54 53 39 55 50

70 57 05 80 61 92

52.86

11 9

11 10 13 T

51 47 42 44 48 50 43 40

.73

.86

.48

.38

.55

.67

.02

.46

8 10 10 8 9

10

56 04 29 63 90 31 53

90 29 20 61 27 46 27 90

46 49 52 46 55 49 53

51 47 42 44 47 51 46 37

18 89 41 26 90 09 24

22 96 65 58 07 67 54 87

10 9

10 11 12 8

10

9 7 6 9

10 9

10 10

29 11 78 51 40 88 03

25 49 09 75 66 46 01 79

-1 3

-4

07 97 45 42 21 66 30

42 09 15 15 00 83 77 84

NS* .001 NS*

.001 NS* NS*

NS*

MS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* 01

Not significant.

An investigation of Table III reveals that the elementary

and secondary student teacher* are similar with respect to

most of the Eorschach scores. Significant differences between

the mean scores of the two groups were found on the following

76

basic Rorschach variables! Major-blot (D) ; White-space (S);

and Modal or P responses.

The elementary student teacher group had a significantly

higher Major-blot (i>) mean score than the secondary student

teacher group. The mean for the elementary group of 54.57

on this variable was higher than the mean of 49.89 for the

secondary group and the £ value for the difference between

these two means indicates that this difference was highly

significant. This would lead one to conclude that the ele-

mentary student teachers are more aware of the obvious, the

practical, and mainly concerned with down-to-earth or very

definite details in their environment (1) compared to the

secondary group.

The elementary student teacher group was significantly

lower on the mean score responses for the White-space CS)

and Modal (P) Rorschach variables. The lowest mean score of

the elementary group was found to be involving responses

concerned with Shite-space (S). The elementary group mean

score of 39.80 was significantly different from the secondary

wean score of 46.26. This result would indicate that the

element ary student teachers, as a group, are less contrary

than the secondary student teachers (1).

The third significant difference noted between the means

of the two groups concerned the Modal, or P, score. The

elementary group's mean of 43.02 was significantly lower than

the mean of 46,54 for the secondary group. A ^ value of -2.77

77

reveals that one could expect a difference in mean scores

like this in one case out of one hundred due to chance;

therefore, this difference may be considered highly signifi-

cant. According to Beck (1), the conclusion must be drawn

that the elementary group is not as other-oriented or con-

forming as the secondary group.

The elementary student teacher group also had a higher

wean score on the Original response variable than the

secondary group and the t. value of 1.84 appro ached but failed

to reach the arbitrary level of five per cent significance

required in this study.

From the results presented in Table III, one must con-

clude that the elementary student teachers ar® significantly

different from the secondary student teachers on the following

basic Rorschach variables? Major-blot (D)j White-space (S);

and Modal (P) responses. It also follows that the elementary

student teachers in this study were more practical (D), less

stubborn (S) and less conforming (P) when compared to the

secondary student teacher group.

These differences between the two groups were highly

significant and it follows that hypotheses 2b, 2d, and 2n of

no difference must be rejected and the remainder of hypothesis 2

be accepted at a high level of confidence.

76

Hypothesis 3

According to hypothesis 3, there would be no difference

between the mean scores on the fifteen basic Rorschach vari-

ables for the elementary teacher group and the normative

population used in the standardization of the SORT. Table IV

presents the means, standard deviations, J. values, and levels

of significance necessary to test this hypothesis.

TABLE IV

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, J., AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN ELEMENTARY STUDENT

TEACHERS AND THE NATIONAL NORMS ON THE BASIC RORSCHACH SCORES

Rorschach Scores

Elera. Student Teacher £ N = 84)

Sec. Student Teacher

(N = 8,061) I Level Rorschach Scores

M Sl> M Si)

I Level

Whole-Blot (W) 44.70 11.58 50 10 14.38 .001 Major-Blot (D) 54.57 9.04 50 10 -12.71 .001 Minor-Blot (Dd) 53.05 11.29 50 10 - 8.32 .001 White-Space (S3 39.80 10.63 50 10 27.93 .001 Good-Form (F) 55 .61 13.90 50 10 -14.05 .001 Poor-Form (F-) 50.92 7.31 50 10 - 2.61 .01 Human Movement (M) 52.86 ©.S3 50 10 - 8.01 .001 Animal Move-

ment (FM) 51.73 9.90 50 10 - 4.79 .001 Form-Color (FC) 47.86 8.29 50 10 5.96 .001 Color-Form (CF) 42.48 8.20 50 10 21.04 .001 Shading (Fch) 44.38 10.61 50 10 15.40 .001 Animal Response (A) 48.55 10.27 50 10 3.96 .001 Human Response (H) 50.67 8.46 50 10 - 1.89 NS* Modal Response (P) 43.02 9.27 50 10 19.36 .001 Origi nal

Response (0) 40.46 10.90 50 10 26.06 .001

Not significant.

79

The results presented in Table IV d e p i c t a significant

difference between the elementary student teacher group and

the standardization sample used in the SORT. Of the fifteen

basic Rorschach scores, the differences between the mean

scores for the two groups were found to be significantly

different with the exception of the Human response (il) score.

The R o r s c h a c h H includes responses involving total human

figures or p a r t s of h u m a n s and is indicative of the intel-

lectual functioning of the subject (1). The m e a n H score

for the elementary student teachers of 50.67 was not signifi-

cantly different from the mean of 50 for the n o r m a t i v e popu-

lation. This leads to the obvious conclusion of no differ-

ence between the two groups on this a t t r i b u t e and acceptance

of hypothesis 3ra.

Further examination of Table IV reveals that the elemen-

tary student teachers had a significantly higher mean score

than t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n on t h e following R o r s c h a c h

variables: lajor-blot (U)j Minor-blot (0d)j Good-form ( F ) ,

Poor-form ( F - ) j Human movement <M); and Animal movement (Fi) .

The h i g h e s t mean score f o u n d for t h e elementary teachers

i n v o l v e d r e s p o n s e s c l o s e l y resembling t h e f o r m of t h e s t i m u l u s

(F), or g o o d - f o r m . The m e a n for the elementary g r o u p of 55.61

was significantly higher than the mean of SO for the n o r m a t i v e

population. The K o r s c h a c h F score is derived from the sub-

ject's responses to the i nk blots in terms of contour, outline,

or form alone and closely resembling the f o r m of the stimulus.

00

This would indicate that the elementary group has facility

for mental alertness and precision in perceiving reality.

The second highest mean score reported in Table IV for

the elementary group was the Rorschach Major-blot CD) vari-

able. The mean score of 54.57 was statistically significant

compared to the mean score of 50 for the national norms.

The Rorschach D score is derived from the subject's response

to some major part of the blot or to some large detail within

the blot. The Major-blot score is indicative of concreteness

and practicality C D on the part of the subject. One must

conclude that the elementary teachers are more practical than

the normative sample.

The results in Table IV also depict a significantly

higher mean score for the elementary student teachers on

responses to Minor-blot details (Dd). A mean score of 53.05

for the elementary group was significantly different from the

mean of 50 for the standardization sample. Responses to rare,

unusual, or arbitrarily selected areas of the ink blot are

scored Dd. These responses are Indicative of a tendency to

be perfectionistic. The data would suggest that this i $ true

of the elementary student teachers and, as a group, they are

somewhat more perfectionistic and interested in trivial details


A mean score for the elementary student teacher group of

.*>2.06 on responses involving huraan moveraent or posture—tension

CM) was significantly higher than the mean score of 50 for the

01

standardization sample. Rorschach's M is derived from a re-

sponse that i n c l u d e s any figure in human-like action or w i t h

muscular tension implied, as in posture or active facial

expression. This response is indicative of fantasy activity

and i n t e l l i g e n c e (1) and from the d a t a presented in Table I V ,

one must conclude the elementary student teachers are higher

on this response than the sample used in the standardization

of the SORT.

k significantly higher mean score for the elementary

group was also reported in Table IV for responses involving

animal Movement or posture-tension (F). lorschach's FM is

derived from the subject's response to animals in animal-like

movement. The results indicate that a raean score of 51.73

for the elementary group was significantly different from a

mean score of 50 for the normative population. Beck Cl)

points out that movement in animal responses is repressed or

heavily disguised M and may be representative of needs very

far removed from the subject*s conscious t h i n k i n g . One must

conclude that the elementary student teachers are significantly

above the standardization sample on this variable.

The elementary group also had a slightly higher mean

score, 50.92, on responses poorly resembling the form of the

stimulus (F-). The elementary student teacher mean was s i g -

n i f i c a n t l y di fferent from the mean score of 50 for the n o r m a -

tive population. This difference was significant at the .01

level,which would indicate that a difference between the two

82

means for the two groups could occur by chance one out of

one hundred times. The Rorschach F- score is one accorded

responses that are inaccurate or of "poor" form. Beck

contends that there is a distortion of reality or vision

due to emotional states resulting from personal needs of

the individual. ". . , the weaker the ego, the more F-

percepts appear" (1, p. 21). Thus the results in Table IV

indicate that the elementary group's F- score is somewhat

above the norm and the difference between the mean scores

is highly significant.

Table IV also depicts significantly lower mean scores

for the elementary student teacher group on the following

attributes: Whole-blot; White-spaces Form-color; Color-

forraj Shading; Animal responses? Modal responses? and

Original responses. The various l values indicated that

these differences between the mean scores for the two groups

were significant at the .001 level and may be considered

highly significant.

The lowest mean score reported for the e1 ernentary group

was found for White-space responses (S). The mean of 39.60

for the elementary student teachers was significantly dif-

ferent from the mean of 50 for the standardization sample.

Selection of responses from the white space areas of the ink

blots indicates a nucleus of contrariness and stubbornness

<1). Compared to the normative population, the elementary

83

group was well below the normative mean of 50 and would

indicate less contrariness.

The second lowest mean score reported for the elementary

group concerned rare or Original responses (0). The mean for

the elementary teachers, 49.46, was significantly different

from the normative mean of 50. The 0 score is a good measure

of intelligence and one's ability to perceive the unique and

different (6). Beck (1) suggests that the highly endowed

individual produces these rare responses in largest quantities

and these original responses are representative of an indi-

vidualized interpretation of neutral stimuli. There is a

hint at non-conformity, eceentricism, or emphasis on individ-

ualism of actions. One must conclude from the results pre-

sented in Table IV that the elementary teachers are substan-

tially below the normative population on this measure.

Table IV also portrays a significantly lower mean score

for the elementary ^rottp on responses involving color and

poorly resembling the form of the stimulus (CF). The mean

of 42.48 for the elementary student teachers was considerably

lower than the normative mean of 50. The Rorschach CF score

indicates emotionality and may range from purely infantile

reaction trends to a less impulsive reactivity of emotionality

with control. In this respect, the low me a n score for the

elementary group would indicate controlled emotionality.

A mean score significantly lower than the normative group

was also found for the student teacher group on Modal

84

responses (P). These popular percepts are based on statis-

tical frequency and measure the degree to which a person

conforms and gets along with others (1). The low mean score

of 43.02 for the elementary group would suggest that the

elementary student teachers do not perceive the same features

as others do and they would tend to be less conforming.

Responses involving textural density of gray or shading

(Fch) , was found to have a mean score of 44.38 for the ele-

mentary group. This mean score was significantly different

frora the mean score of SO for the sample used in the standard-

ization of the SORT. The Fch score is indicative of feelings

of anxiety, or generalized apprehensiveness. A low score

would signify composure. The obvious conclusion drawn from

the results in Table IV is that the elementary teachers are

less anxious and more composed compared to the norms for the

SORT.

A mean score of 44.70 for the elementary student teacher

group oa responses involving Whole-blot associations was also

reported. This mean was significantly different from the

mean of 50 for the standardization sample. The Rorschach W is a

measure of the subject's degree of intellectual functioning

at an abstract and theoretical level (1). According to the

results presented in Table IV, the elementary teacher group

was somewhat below the laean of the normative population.

Table IV also depicts a significantly lower oean score

for the element ary group on responses i nvolvi ng color and

8 r

closely resembli ng the form of the stimulus (FC). The mean

of 47.86 was significantly different from the mean of 50 for

the SORT norm. Good FC responses depict a person who is wise,

tolerant and humane, with sensitivity to others and to his

environment (1). The elementary student teacher group was

somewhat below the norra on this variable.

A mean score of 48.55 was reported for the elementary

group on responses involving whole animals or parts of animals

(A). The difference was highly significant and would indicate

that the elementary student teacher group was somewhat less

immature and regressed than the normative population.

From the statistical analysis of the data presented in

Table IV, the following conclusions are warranted. The

elementary student teachers were significantly different

from the normative population on fourteen of the fifteen

basic Rorschach score variables. There was no significant

difference between the two means on the Human response (H)

score. The elementary student teachers were more practical

(D), more pedantic (Dd), more structured (F), had less ego

strength (F-) , were more i ntelligent (M), and were greater

in need repression (FM), than the normative population.

One must also conclude that the elementary student

teachers used as subjects in this study were less theoretical

(W), less emotional (CF), less contrary (S), less sensitive

to others (FC), less anxious (Fch), less immature (A), less

86

conform!ng CP), and less eccentric in their behavior (0)


The results depict significant differences between the

elementary student teacher group and the standardization

sample. It follows that one must accept hypothesis 3m of

no difference between the mean scores for the two groups on

responses involving humans or parts of huaans (H). It also

follows that the remainder of the hypotheses in hypothesis 3

be rejected. There was a difference between the mean scores

for the two groups on fourteen of the SORT attributes and

these differences were highly significant.

Hypothesis 4

Table V contains information relevant to a comparison

of the mean scores necessary to test the teaability of

hypothesis 4. This hypothesis stated that there would be

no significant difference between the mean scores on the

fifteen basic Rorschach variables for the secondary student

teacher group and the standardization sample used in the

SORT. The quantified data and the statistical results are

presented in Table V.

The results in Table V indicate that the secondary stu-

dent teachers used in this study were significantly different

from the subjects used in the standardization of the SORT.

The secondary group had a significantly higher mean Rorschach

score than the normative population on the following variable!

87

Mi nor-blot\ Good-form j Human movement; Animal movement} and

Human responses.

TABLE V

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, i, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHER GROUP AND THE NATIONAL NORMS ON

THE BASIC RORSCHACH SCORES

Rorschach Scores

Sec. Student Teacher (N =• 211)

National Norms

(N s 8,061) 1 Level Rorschach Scores

M SD M SD

1 Level

Whole-Blot (W) 46.18 10.29 50 10 -15.50 .001 Major-Blot (D) 49.89 9.11 50 10 - .43 NS* Minor-Blot (Dd) 52.41 10.78 50 10 9.71 .001 White-Space (S) 46. 26 11.51 50 10 -14.79 .001 Good-Form (F) 55.98 12.40 50 10 23.19 .001 Poor-Form (F-) 49.09 8.88 50 10 - 3.76 .001 Human Movement (M) 53.24 10.03 50 10 13.26 .001 Animal Move-

ment <FM) 51.22 9.25 50 10 5.07 .001 Form-Color (FC) 47.96 7.49 50 10 - 8.71 .001 Color-Form (CF) 42.65 8.89 50 10 -30.69 .001 Shading (Fch) 44.58 9.75 50 10 -22.25 .001 Animal Responses (A) 47.07 10.66 50 10 -11.80 .001 Human Responses (H) 51.67 9.46 50 10 6.91 .001 Modal Response (P) 46.54 10.01 50 10 -14.10 .001 Original

Response (0) 37.87 10.79 50 10 -48.75 .001

Not significant.

The highest mean score for the secondary student teacher

group was reported for responses that closely resemble the

form of the stimulus (F). The secondary student teacher mean

score of 55.98 was significantly different from the mean of

50 for the normative population. This result would indicate

88

that t h e s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s u s e d in t h i s s t u d y h a v e

facility for mental alertness and precision in perceiving

r e a l i t y (1). They possess t h i s quality to some degree above

t h a t of the n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n as evinced by the m e a n

score of 55.98.

The second highest mean score for the secondary g r o u p

concerned responses involving human m o v e m e n t or posture-

tension (M). The m e a n for the secondary student teachers,

53.24, was significantly different from the m e a n of 50 for

the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sample. T h e R o r s c h a c h N is a measure

of f a n t a s y a c t i v i t y in i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning (1) and o n e

must c o n c l u d e t h a t the secondary group was somewhat above

t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n on t h i s vari a b l e .

Results in Table V also depict a significant difference

between a roe an of 52.41 for the secondary group on responses

to Minor-blot d e t a i l s (Dd) c o m p a r e d to a m e a n of 50 for

these responses for the standardization sample. The data

would s u g g e s t t h a t the secondary g r o u p is s o m e w h a t m o r e per-

fectionistic and interested in trivial details than the

normative p o p u l a t i o n .

The secondary g r o u p also scored significantly higher on

r e s p o n s e s involving t o t a l h u m a n f i g u r e s or p a r t s o f h u m a n s

Crf). A mean score of 51.67 for the secondary student teachers

was significantly different f r o m a mean score of 50 for the

S 0 R T n o r ® o n t h i s response. T h e Eorschach H variable measures,

to a d e g r e e , t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning of t h e individual {1)

89

and the data would indicate that the secondary group was

somewhat above the mean no this attribute.

Besponses involving animal movement or posture-tension

(FM) , were found to have a mean score of 51.22 for the

secondary group. The difference between the means was

statistically significant at the .001 level. This would

indicate that the secondary student teacher group was some-

what above the normative sample on this variable and would

suggest that there are some repressed needs that the subjects

do not wish to admit (1).

According to the various t values presented in Table V,

these differences between the means for the two groups were

statistically significant at the .001 level. This indicates

that one would expect differences between the two means on

the variables of Minor-blot details, Good-form, Human move-

ment, Animal movement, and Human responses to occur in one

case out of one thousand by chance alone. It follows that

these mean differences are highly significant and secondary

student teachers are somewhat above the mean on intelligence

(H) , mental alertness (F), perfectionism (Dd) , intellectual

creativity (M), and need repression (FM).

The data in Table V also depict significantly lower

scores for the secondary student teacher group on the fol-

lowing Rorschach variables: Whole-blot} White-space? Poor-

form; Form-color; Color-form; Shading; Animal responses;

Modal responses; and Original responses.

90

The lowest mean score reported in Table V concerned the

responses of an original nature CO). The mean of 37.87 was

significantly different from the mean of 50 for the sample

used in the standardization of the SORT. The results would

portray a distinctive difference for the secondary group on

this attribute. One must conclude that the secondary student

teachers are not dominated by unique and different percep-

tions of stimuli. This low mean score would also suggest

that the secondary group is not dominated by eccentricity

nor individualism of actions.

Another low mean score was reported for the secondary

group on associations dependent upon color and poorly

resembli ng the form of the stimulus (CF). The mean of 42.65

was significantly different from the mean of 50 for the

standardization sample. This low score would indicate

controlled emotionality on the part of the secondary student

teachers used in this study.

A mean score of 44.58 for the secondary student teacher

group was also reported for responses involvi ng textural

density of gray or shading (Fch). This mean score was

significantly different from the mean of 50 for the norma-

tive population. This low mean score for anxiety would

indicate composure as a dominant feature of the secondary

student teachers used in this study.

The Rorschach W concerning responses i nvolvi ng the

whole blot was found to have a mean of 46.18 for the secondary

91

student teacher group and was significantly different from

the normative mean of 50 for this variable. The Rorschach W

is a measure of the subject*® degree of abstract or theoret-

ical intellectual functioning (1) and the obvious conclusion

is that the secondary group is somewhat below the norm on

this attribute.

Results in Table V also show a mean score of 46.26 for

the secondary group on responses involving white-space asso-

ciations (S). The difference between the mean scores on this

attribute was significant at the .001 level and would suggest

that the secondary student teachers are somewhat less contrary

than the standardization sample.

A mean score of 46.54 was reported for Modal or P re-

sponses. This mean was significantly different from the mean

of 50 for the standardization sample. This result would

indicate that the secondary group were less conforming than

the normative population.

Responses involving whole animals or parts of animals

(A) were found to have a mean of 47.07 for the secondary stu-

dent teacher group and this mean was significantly lower than

the mean of 50 for the standardization sample. One must con-

clude that the secondary teachers are somewhat more mature


Table V also depicts a significantly lower mean score on

responses involving color and closely resembling the form of

92

the stimulus (PC). The mean of 47.96 for the secondary stu-

dent teachers was significantly different from the normative

mean of 50, FC responses indicate wiseness, tolerance, and

humaneness with sensitivity to others (1). la this respect,

one mast conclude that the secondary group falls somewhat

short on these characteristics as measured by the FC responses.

A mean score of 49.09 for the secondary student teacher

group on responses poorly resembling the form of the stimulus

(F-) was found to be significantly different from the mean

of 50 for the normative group. This would indicate that the

secondary group had good ego strength. According to Beck,

M. . . the weaker the ego, the more F- . , (1, p. 21).

One must conclude that the secondary student teachers

are lower than the normative population on eccentricity (0),

emotionality (CF), anxiety (Fch), abstractness (W), contrari-

ness (S) , conformity (I') , immaturity (A), sensitiveness to

others (FC), and ego weakness (F-) .

The results presented in Table V indicated that the

secondary student teachers used in this study were signifi-

cantly different from the subjects used in the standardization

of the SORT. According to the various & values in Table V,

these differences were statistically significant at the .001

level. Of the fifteen Rorschach scores, the Major-blot (D),

a measure of practical mi ndedness, was the only one that

failed to reach the specified level of significance necessary

for rejection.

93

From the data presented in Table V, the following con-

clusions are warranted. The secondary student teachers used

in this study were significantly different from the subjects

used in the standardisation of the SORT on fourteen of the

fifteen basic Borschach score variables. The secondary stu-

dent teachers had a mean score on the Rorschach Major-blot

(D) variable that was not significantly different from the

mean of the normative population. One must conclude that

the secondary subjects were more intelligent (H); more

perceptive of reality (F); more perfeetionistic (Ud) ; more

intellectually creative (M); and had greater need repression

(Fl) than the normative population. One must also conclude

that the secondary group used in this study were less

eccentric (0)5 emotional (CF), anxious (Fch)j abstract in

their thinking (W)j contrary (S)j conforming (P)5 immature

(A)j sensitive to others (FX)j and stronger in ego strength

(F-) than the normative population.

The consequence of the statistical evidence presented in

Table V dictates that hypothesis 4b of no difference be

accepted and the remainder of hypothesis 4 be rejected at

a high level of confidence.

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 stated that there would be no significant

difference between the Mean scores on the twenty-five SORT

personality attributes for the student teacher group and the

94

normative population. Table VI presents the evidence neces-

sary to test that hypothesis.

TABLE VI

i M S , STANDARD DEVIATIONS, £,» A N D LEVEL Of SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE STUDENT TEACHER

CROUP AND THE NATIONAL NORMS ON THE • SORT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES

Student National Teachers Norms

SORT I T~ 295) (N = 6,061) k Level •ittr i but© X SO M Sft

Theoreti cal 45.76 10.69 50 10 19,31 .001 Practical 51.22 9.33 50 10 - 5.80 .001 Pedantic 52.60 10.93 50 10 -11.77 .001 Induct!on 49.14 8.05 50 10 4.17 .001 Deduction 51.85 6.46 SO 10 - 9.37 .001 Rigidity 44.42 11.64 50 10 24.75 .001 Strwcturi ng 55.8? 12.65 50 10 •25.20 .001 Concentration 52.41 7.63 50 10 -11.91 .001 Human Relationship 51.38 , , 9.19 50 10 - 6.59 .001 Range 47.66 5.07 SO 10 10.91 .001 Popular 45.54 9.94 SO 10 20.73 .001 Urigi nal 38.61 10.89 50 10 ' 51.65 .001 Per si stence 44,42 11.64 50 10 24.75 .001 Aggretsi venets 54.10 7.06 50 10 —20.48 .001 Social Responsi-

bility 50.28 6.23 50 10 - 1.46 MS®

Cooperation 45.02 5.23 50 10 25.70 .001 Tact 50.63 5.81 50 • 10 - 3.26 .01 Confidence 52.00 7.24 50 10 - 9.90 .001 Consistency of

Behavior 49.37 7.61 50 • 10 3.07 .01 Anxiety 44.52 10.01 50 10 25.43 .001 Moodinets 51.60 4.14 50 10 - 9.51 .001 Activity Potential 53.13 9.6a 50 10 -14.72 .001 lapttlsiveness 52.29 7.62 50 10 -11.31 .001 Flexibility 48.67 7.62 50 10 6.77 .001 Cooforai ty 42.05 4.95 50 10 41.35 .001

lot significaut

95

A brief study of Table VI will show that the mean scores

of the student teachers on the SORT attributes were signifi-

cantly different from the sample used in the standardization

of that instrument. The only exception was the mean score

for the Social Responsibility attribute. The t, value of

1.46 indicated that the difference between the two means

failed to reach the level of significance designated in this

study.

According to Table VI, the student teachers were signif-

icantly higher than the standardization sample on the following

SORT attributes s Practical$ Pedantic ? Deduction} Structuring;

Concentration? Human Relationships ? Aggressiveness? Tact;

Confidence? Moodiness? Activity Potential? and Impulsiveness.

These attributes are presented in Appendix D as they have been

defined by the SORT manual.

Scrutiny of Table VI also reveals that the student

teachers had significantly lower mean scores than the noraa-

tive population on the Theoretical, Induction, Rigidity,

Range, Popular, Original, Persistence, Cooperation, Consistency

of Behavior, Anxiety, Flexibility, and Conformity attributes.

(Appendix 0).

A brief study of Table VI will show that the student

teachers used in this study were significantly different from

the population used in the standardization of the SORT on

twenty-four of the twenty-five personality attributes. The

difference between the means of the two groups on the Social

96

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t e f a i l e d t o r e a c h t h e l e v e l of s i g -

n i f i c a n c e d e s i g n a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y .

One must conclude that the student teachers were more

practical, more pedantic , more deductive, more structured,

more concentrated, more i n t e r e s t e d i n p e o p l e , more aggres-

sive, more t a c t f u l , more confident, moodier, possessed

greater activity p o t e n t i a l and w e r e more i m p u l s i v e than the

n o r m a t i v e population.

One m u s t also conclude that the student teachers used

i n this s t u d y were less theoretical, less inductive, less

rigid, p o s s e s s e d smaller range o f i n t e r e s t s , were l e s s popular,

o r i g i n a l , per si stent, cooperative, a n x i o u s , flexible, were

l e s s conform!ng and l e s s c o n s i s t e n t i n their b e h a v i o r than


The highest mean score reported for the student teachers

was the Structuri ng a t t r i b u t e , w w h i e h would i n d i c a t e that the

s u b j e c t s were qui te a c c u r a t e i ri their perception of r e a l i t y ,

and the low mean score on the O r i g i n a l attribute would i n d i -

c a t e that the student teachers were not overly eccentric nor

i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c i n their actions.

The obvious conclusion d r a w n from t h e r e s u l t s presented

i n Table VI i s that t h e two groups are significantly d i f f e r e n t

as measured by the SORT. It f o l l o w s that the hypothesis

S t a t i n g no difference between the mean scores on the S o c i a l

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y attribute ( h y p o t h e s i s Go) must be accepted and

the r e m a i n d e r of hypothesis 5 rej ected at the .001 level of

significance.

97

Hypothesis 6

A c o m p a r i s o n of the quantified data necessary to test

the hypothesis of no difference between the means is pre-

sented in Table VII.

TABLE VII

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS AND SECONDARY STUDENT

TEACHERS ON THE SORT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES

SORT Attribute

Elena, Student Teacher (N = 84)

Sec. Student Teacher (N = 211) 1 Level SORT

Attribute M SD 1 SD

1 Level

Theoretical 44.70 11.58 46.18 10.29 -1.07 NS*

Practical 54.57 9.04 49.89 9.11 3,97 .001

Pedantic 53.05 11.29 52.41 10.78 ,45 NS*

Induction 40.61 7.73 49.35 8.17 - .70 NS* Deduct!on 53.33 6.23 51.26 6.49 2.48 .02 Rigidity 39.80 10.63 46.26 11.51 -4.42 .001 Structuri ng 55.61 13.90 55.98 12.40 .21 NS*

Concentration 53. 19 7.77 52.10 7 .55 1.09 NS®

Human Relationship 50.67 8.46 51.67 9.46 .83 NS*

Range 47.34 5,66 46.07 5.94 - .96 MS* Popular '43.02 9.27 46.54 10.01 -2 .77 .01 Origi nal 40.46 10.90 37.87 10.79 1.84 NS** Per si stence 39.80 10.63 46.26 11.51 -4.42 .001 Aggressiveness 53.84 7.27 54.20 6.97 - .39 MS® Social Responsi-

bility 50.04 5.73 50.38 6.42 - .41 NS* Cooperatio n 44.96 5.30 45.05 5.34 - .12 NS* Tact 50.75 5.96 50.59 5.75 .20 NS* Confidence 52.05 7.17 51.98 7.26 .07 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 48.22 7 .78 49.83 7 .50 -1.63 NS* Anxiety 44.38 10.61 44.58 9.75 - .15 NS® Moodiness 51.95 3.73 51.74 4.29 .37 NS* Activity Potential 52.86 8.53 53.24 10.03 - .30 NS* Irapulsiveness 53.19 7.77 51.93 7.53 1.27 NS* Flexibility 48.60 5.08 48.70 6.11 - .13 NS® Conformi ty 41.88 5.02 42.11 4.92 - .37 NS*

Not signi ficant. j*. ^

Not significant but approached five per cent level.

98

According to hypothesis 6, there would be no significant

difference between the mean scores for the twenty-five SORT

personality attributes for the elementary and the secondary

student teacher groups used in this study.

The results in Table VII indicated that the elementary

and secondary student teachers were somewhat alike when com-

pared by their performance on the SORT. Significant differ-

ences were reported between the raean scores for five attributes:

Practical} Deduction; Rigidity* Popularity! and Persistence.

According to Table VII, the eleaentary student teachers had

significantly higher raean scores than the secondary student

teachers on the Practical and Deduction attributes. The mean

score on the former variable for the elementary group was

54.57 compared to a mean score of 49.89 for the secondary

group and the i value of 3.97 indicated that this difference

was significant at the .001 level. There was also a signifi-

cantly higher raean score for the elementary student teacher

group on the Deduction attribute. A mean score of 53.33 for

the elementary group was significantly different from the

raean of 51.26 for the secondary group. The £ value of 2.48

would indicate a significant difference at the .02 1 eve 1,

which means a difference this large between the means of two

groups could occur by chance alone only two times out of one

hundred.

The elementary group had significantly lower scores than

the secondary group on the following attributes; Rigidity)

99

Popularity* and Persistence. The elementary student teacher

group was f o u n d to h a v e a mean of 39.80 for the Rigidity and

Persistence a t t r i b u t e s and these m e a n scores were signifi-

cantly lower than the mean score of 46.26 for the secondary

student teacher group on the same attributes. The c o m p u t e d

t values of -4.42 indicated that these differences between

the mean scores on these two attributes were significant at

the .001 level. A lower mean score was also r e p o r t e d for

the elementary g r o u p on the Popular a t t r i b u t e . The elementary

group mean of 43.02 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the mean of

46.54 for the secondary group and the £ value of 2.77 indi-

cated that this difference was significant at the .01 level.

F r o m the results depicted in Table ¥11, one roust c o n c l u d e

that the elementary student teachers u s e d in this s t u d y were

more practical, wore deductive, less r i g i d , less persistent,

and less p o p u l a r t h a n the secondary teachers. It follows

that the various h y p o t h e s e s in hypothesis 6 stating no signif-

icant difference between the mean scores for the personality

attributes of Practical, Deduction, Rigidity, Popularity, and

Persistence were rejected and the remainder of h y p o t h e s i s 6

w a s accepted.

H y p o t h e s i s 7

According to hypothesis 7, t h e r e w o u l d b e no s i g n i f i c a n t

difference b e t w e e n the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT

personality a t t r i b u t e s for t h e e l e m e n t a r y g r o u p and t h e

ioo

normative population. The data necessary to test the tens

bi111 y of this hypothesis is presented i n Table VIII.

TABLE VIII

MEANS, STANDAEl) DEVIATIONS, £. AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN ELEMENTARY STUDENT

TEACHERS AND THE NATIONAL NORMS ON THE SORT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES

SORT Attri butes

Elem. Student Teacher (N = 84)

National Norms

(N s8,061) t Level SORT Attri butes

M SO 1 SD

t Level

Theoretical 44.70 11.58 50 10 14.38 .001 Practical 54.57 9.04 50 10 -12.71 .001 Pedant!c 53.05 11.29 50 10 - 8.32 .001 Induction 48.61 7.73 50 10 3.88 .001 Deduction 53.33 6.23 50 10 - 9.46 .001 Rigidity 39.80 10.63 50 10 27.93 .001 Structuri ng 55.61 13.90 50 10 -14.85 .001 Concentration 53.19 7.77 50 10 - 8.96 .001 Human Relationship 50.67 8.46 50 10 - 1.89 HS* Raage 47.34 5.66 50 10 7.56 .001 Popular 43.02 9.27 50 10 19.36 .001 Origi nal 40.46 10.90 50 10 26.06 .001 Persistence 39.80 10.63 50 10 27.93 .001 Aggressiveness 53.84 7.27 50 10 -10.84 .001 Social Responsi-

bility 50.04 5.73 50 10 ~ . 13 NS* Cooperation 44.96 5.30 50 10 14.30 .001 Tact 50.75 5.96 50 10 - 2.13 .05 Confidence 52.05 7.17 50 10 - 5.81 .001 Consistency of

Behavi or 48.22 7.78 50 10 4.98 .001 Anxiety 44.36 10.61 50 10 15.40 .001 Moodiness 51.95 3.73 50 10 - 5.61 .001 Activity Potential 52.86 8.53 50 10 - 8.01 .001 Impulsiveness 53.19 7.77 50 10 - 8.96 .001 Flexibility 48.60 5.08 50 10 3.98 .001 Co nformi ty

i.. 1 ' : : . • ""

41.88 ,,

5.02 50 10 23.22 .001

Not significant.

101

The results of the statistical treatment presented in

Table VIII indicate that the elementary student teacher group

was significantly different from the standardization sample

used in the SORT. There was no significant difference between

the mean scores for the two groups on the Human Relationships

and Social Responsibility attributes. The differences between

the mean scores on the remaining twenty-three personality

attributes for the two groups were found to be statistically

significant. This would indicate that the elementary student

teacher group was substantially different from the normative

population used in the standard!zation of the SORT.

According to Table VIII, the elementary student teachers

were significantly higher than the normative population on

the following SORT attributes : Practical; Pedantic j Deduc-

t i on} Structuring; Concentration j Aggressiveness; Tact;

Confidence; Moodiness; Activity Potential! and Impulsiveness.

These attributes are presented i n Appendix D as they have been

defined by the SORT manual.

Scrutiny of Table VIII also reveals that the elementary

student teachers used in this study had significantly lower

mean scores than the normative population on the following

attributes: Theoretical; Inductive; Rigidity; Range; Popular;

Original; Persistence; Cooperation; Consistency of Behavior;

Anxiety; Flexibility; and Conformity. These attributes are

presented in Appendix D as they have been def i ned in the SORT

manual.

102

O n e must conclude that the e l e m e n t a r y student teachers

used in this study were more p r a c t i c a l , m o r e pedantic, more

deductive in their thinking, more accurate in their percep-

tion of reality, possessed more concentration, were more

aggressive, tactful, c o n f i d e n t , moody, i m p u l s i v e and pos-

sessed m o r e activity potential t h a n the normative p o p u l a t i o n .

One m u s t also conclude that the e l e m e n t a r y s t u d e n t

t e a c h e r s u s e d in this s t u d y w e r e l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l and induc-

tive in their thinking, less rigid, p o p u l a r , original,

p e r s i s t e n t , c o o p e r a t i v e , a n x i o u s , f l e x i b l e and conforming

in their b e h a v i o r and possessed fewer interests and were

less consistent in their b e h a v i o r t h a n the normative popula-

tion.

Consequently, the prediction that there would be no

significant difference between the mean score# for the two

groups on the Human Relationships and Social H e s p o a s i b i l i t y

w a« accepted and t h e remainder of hypothesis 7 was rejected.

Hypothesis 8

Table IX contains i n f o r m a t i o n relevant to a comparison

of wean scores necessary to test the tenability of hypoth-

esis 8. This hypothesis stated that there would be no

significant difference between the t w e n t y - f i v e SORT person-

ality attribute mean scores for the secondary student teacher

group and the standardization sample used in the SORT. The

data and the statistical results are presented in Table IX,

103

TABLE IX

MEANS f STANDARD DEVIATIONS} t , AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN SECONDARY STUDENT

TEACHERS AND THE NATIONAL NORMS ON THE SORT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES

SORT Attribute

Sec. Student Teacher (N =• 211)

SD

National Norms

(N = 8,061)

SD

Level

Theoretical Practical Pedantic Induction Deducti on Rigidity Structuring Co ncentratio n Human Relationship Range Popular Origi na1 Persi stence Aggressiveness Social Responsi-

bility Cooperation Taet

Confidence Consistency of

Behavior Anxi ety Moodiness Activity Potential Impulsiveness Flexibility Conformity

46 49 52 4<? 51 46 55 52 51 48 46 37 46 f» 4

50 45 50 51

49 44 51 53 51 48 42

18 69 41 35 26 26 98 10 67 07 54 67 26 20

38 05 59 98

83 83 74 24 93 70 11

10 9

10 8 6 11 12 7 9 5

10 10 11

6

5 7

7 9 4

10 7 6 4

29 11 78 17 49 51 40 55 46 94 01 79 51 97

42 34 75 26

50 75 29 03 53 11 92

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

50 50 50 50

50 50 50 50 50 50 50

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

15.50 .001 .43 NS*

- 9.71 .001 2.73 .01

- 5.51 .001 14.79 .001

-23.19 .001 - 9.03 .001 - 6.91 .001

8.45 .001 14.10 .001 48.75 .001 14.79 .001

-18.18 .001

- 1.67 NS* 21.92 .001

- 2.61 .01 — 8.54 .001

.71 NS* 22.25 .001

- 7 . 8 4 .001 -13.26 .001 - 8 . 3 0 .001

5.67 .001 35,10 .001

Not significant.

The results of the data presented in Table IX indicated

that the secondary student teachers used in this study were

significantly different from the standardization sample used

104

in the SORT. There was no significant difference between

the mean scores for the two groups on the Practical, Social

Kesponsibility and Consistency of Behavior attributes. The

differences between the mean scores on the remaining twenty-

two personality attributes f o r t h e t w o groups w e r e f o u n d to

b© statistically s i g n i f i c a n t . This would indicate that the

secondary student teacher group was substantially different

from the normative population used in the standardization of

the S O R T ,


were a o r e p e d a n t i c, m o r e deductive in their thinking, more

structured, possessed more concentration, were more inter-

ested in h u m a n s , were more aggressive, tactful, c o n f i d e n t ,

moodier, impulsive and possessed greater activity p o t e n t i a l


One must also conclude t h a t the secondary student

teachers were less t h e o r e t i c a l and deduetive in their think-

ing, less rigid, p o p u l a r , original, persistent, cooperative,

anxious, flexible, had narrower range of interests, and were

less consistent in their b e h a v i o r t h a n the normative popula-

tion.

The above attributes are presented in Appendix D as

t h e y h a v e b e e n d e f i n e d in t h e S O R T m a n u a l .

The r e s u l t s in Table IX Indicate that the secondary s t u -

dent t e a c h e r s and the standardization saaple were not signifi-

cantly different on three attributes: Practicality, Social

105

Responsibility, and Consistency of Behavior. The i values

necessary for rejection did not reach the necessary level

of five per cent designated in this study. It follows that

the various hypotheses predicting no significant differences

between the mean scores on the attributes of Practical,

Social Responsibility, and Consistency of Behavior for the

two groups were accepted. It must also follow that the

remainder of the hypotheses in hypothesis 8 predicting no

significant difference between the aean scores for the two

groups must be rejected. Scruti ny of the t. values reported

in Table IX would indicate that these differences were highly

significant and the various hypotheses of no difference were

rejected with a high level of confidence.

To test the tenabili ty of hypotheses 9 through 13,

concerning the significance of the difference between the

means of the two groups, Guilford's (3) standard formula

was utilized for the computation of the mean and standard

deviation. Fisher's t technique by Smith (8) was used to

find the £ values necessary to test the various hypotheses.

An appropriate X. table was consulted to determine the level

of significance necessary for acceptance or rejection (10),

The results are presented in tables for clarity of presenta-

tion. From the original sample of 295 student teachers,

twelve withdrew from student teaching. It was possible to

include the remaining 203 subjects in this treatment.

106

Hypothesis 9

Hypothesis 9 stated that there would be no significant

difference between the mean grade-point averages earned in

student teaching for the secondary student teachers and the

elementary student teachers. Table X presents a comparison

of mean grade-point averages for these two groups.

TABLE X

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY

STUDENT TEACHERS * GRADE-POINT AVERAGE EARNED IN STUDENT TEACHING

Secondary Student Teachers (N - 200)

Elementary Student Teachers (N = 83) t Level

Mean SD Mean SD

t Level

2.43 .52 2.37 .52 -.64 NS*

$ Not significant.

An examination of Table X will show that the mean grade-

point average of 2.43 for the secondary student teacher group

was not significantly different from the mean grade-point

average of 2.37 for the elementary student teacher group.

The difference of .06 grade-point between the two groups

failed to reach the arbitrary level of five per cent desig-

nated in this study. It follows that hypothesis 9 was

accepted.

10?

Hypothesis 10

According to hypothesis 10, there would be no signifi-

cant difference between the college coordi nators' ratings

for the secondary and elementary student teachers (Appendix

A). Table XI presents data for a comparison of mean ratings

assigned the elementary and secondary student teacher groups

by the college coordinators.

TABLE XI

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, J. , AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS' RATINGS OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

STUDENT TEACHERS

Secondary Student Teachers (N = 200)

Elementary Student Teachers (N = 83) 1 Level

Mean SD Mean SD

6.76 2.36 6.67 2.33 -.28 NS*

"Wot significant

The information presented in Table XI shows that the

slight difference of .31 between the mean ratings of the two

groups failed to reach the designated level of five per cent

necessary for rej ection. Although the secondary student

teachers had a slightly higher mean rati ng than the elemen-

tary student teacher s, the difference between the mean ratings

was not significant and hypothesis 10 was accepted.

108

To test the tenability of hypotheses 11 and 12 concern-

ing the significance of the difference between the mean scores

of the twenty-five SORT attributes for those student teachers

perceived as possessing strengths and those student teachers

perceived as possessing weaknesses on each of the tea summary

statements (Appendix A and B), the following treatment ensued.

The standard formulas for finding means, standard devia-

tions, and level of significance were utilized. The

college coordinators were instructed to us© the evaluative

form (Appendix B) to indicate the student teachers* greatest

strengths and weaknesses, their second greatest strengths and

weaknesses, and their third greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The sarae instructions were given to the student teachers

completing their self-evaluation (Appendix C). It was then

possible to make a list of the student teachers rated as

possessing one of the ten statements as their greatest strength,

Ten such lists were made. The same procedure followed for

listing the student teachers under the ten statements of

weaknesses. The student teachers' scores on the SORT attri-

butes were then computed and the mean scores on each attribute

were compared. The same procedure was followed in the treat-

went of hypothesis 12. In order to insure an adequate and

representative sample, ten per cent of the subjects were

arbitrarily required to be rated on each statement number for

strengths and weaknesses. In the event ten per cent of the

109

subjects were not rated as having a particular statement as

their greatest strength or weakness, those student teachers

rated as having that particular statement as their second

greatest strength or weakness were included. If the ten per

cent designation was still not reached, those student teachers

rated as possessing that statement as their third greatest

strength or weakness were included. Due to this restriction,

statements three, nine and ten (Appendix B) in hypothesis 11

and statements seven, nine, and ten (Appendix C) in hypothesis

12 were not treated.

Hypothesis 11

Statement Number One

Hypothesis 11a originally-stated that there would be a

significant difference between the mean scores on the twenty-

five SORT attributes for those student teachers rated as

possessing statement one as their greatest strength and those

student teachers rated as possessing that statement as their

greatest weakness. For ty-five student teachers were perceived

by the college coordinators (Appendix B) as possessing state-

ment one as their greatest strength and forty-four student

teachers were perceived by the college coordinators as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest weakness. A compari-

son of the mean scores on the SORT attributes is presented in

Table XII.

110

TABLE XII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, X> AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SOHT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER ONE AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PEHCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER ONE AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute


1 Level SORT

Attribute Strength (N = 45)

Weakness (N = 44) 1 Level

SORT Attribute

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Level

Theoretical 4 4 . 0 9 9 . 3 8 4 7 . 7 3 11.06 -1.65 NS* Practical 54.07 8.90 47.59 10.45 3.11 .01 Pedantic 51.15 1 0 . 4 2 5 0 . 9 5 1 1 . 1 4 .08 NS* Induction 4 9 . 1 1 6 . 3 4 51.11 8.60 - 1 . 2 3 NS* Deduction 5 4 . 3 3 6 .05 5 1 . 0 9 6.99 2 . 3 1 .05 Rigidity 4 3 . 2 0 11.60 4 5 . 7 0 1 1 . 3 9 -1.01 NS* Structuring 5 7 . 4 4 1 2 . 0 8 53.68 1 2 . 1 3 1.45 NS* Concentration 53.51 6 . 6 4 50.27 7 . 9 4 2 . 0 6 .05 II a age 4 6 . 7 3 5.97 4 8 . 7 0 6 . 1 9 .02 NS® Human Relation-

ships 54.22 7 . 8 6 53.86 9.58 . 19 NS* Popular 4 6 . 3 3 7.90 4 6 . 9 5 10.92 - .30 NS* Original 37.13 1 0 . 7 4 3 6 . 4 8 10.93 .28 NS* Persi stence 4 3 . 20 1 1 . 6 0 4 5 . 7 0 11.39 -1.01 NS* Aggressiveness 55.89 6 . 9 4 54.41 6 . 3 9 1.03 NS* Social iesponsl-

bility 51.47 5.54 51.50 6.32 - .03 NS* Cooperation 44.75 5 . 2 7 45.48 5 . 3 1 - .63 NS* Tact 5 0 . 9 8 5 . 3 8 5 1 . 0 0 5 . 6 6 - .02 NS* Confidence 52.62 6 . 3 9 52.50 7,09 .08 NS* Consistency of

Behavi or 4 9 . 2 7 6 . 3 0 4 9 . 2 3 8.26 . 02 NS* Anxiety 4 3 . 5 3 1 0 . 6 9 45.45 10.35 - .85 NS* Moodiness 5 2 . 4 4 3.51 51.16 4.68 1 . 4 5 NS* Activi ty Potential 55 . 0 9 8.16 55 . 0 4 9 . 1 2 .02 NS* Impulsiveness 5 3 . 4 0 6 . 7 4 5 0 . 5 0 7 . 4 0 1 . 9 1 NS * Flexibility 4 9 . 6 2 4 . 6 7 4 9 . 86 6.27 - .20 NS* Conformity 4 1 . 6 7 5 . 0 3 4 1 . 6 1 4.82 . 05 NS*

Not significant.

Ill

The results in Table XII show that there were three

significantly different SORT mean scores between the two

groups on the Practical, Deduction, and Concentration at-

tributes.

A mean score of 54.07 on the Practical attribute for the

student teachers rated by their college coordinators as pos-

sessing statement one as their greatest strength was found to

be significantly different from the mean score of 47.59 for

those student teachers rated as possessing statement number

one as their greatest weakness. A j, value of 3.11 would in-

dicate that the difference between the two means was signifi-

cant at the .01 level. The results would indicate that the

student teachers rated as having statement one as their

greatest strength were more practical than those student

teachers rated as being weak on that statement.

Table XII shows that a mean score of 54.33 on the Deduc-

tion attribute for those student teachers rated as possessing

statement one as their greatest strength was significantly

different from a wean score of 51.09 on that same attribute

for those student teachers possessing statement one as their

weakness. This mean difference was significant at the .05

level. This would indicate that those student teachers rated

as possessing stateoent number one as their greatest strength

were ®ore deductive than those student teachers rated as weak

on that statement.

112

A third significant difference between the means was

reported for the Concentration attribute. Those student

teachers rated as possessing statement on© as their strength

were found to have a mean score of 53.51 compared to a mean

score of 50.27 for those student teachers rated as possessing

that statement as their greatest weakness. This mean differ-

ence was significant at the .05 level.

There were no significant differences between the re-

maining twenty-two SORT attributes for those student teachers

rated as possessing statement one as their greatest strength

and those student teachers rated as possessing that statement

as their greatest weakness.

Those student teachers rated by the college coordinators

as possessing statement one, "Demonstrates effectiveness and

resourcefulness in planning and organizing'* (Appendix B) as

their greatest strength, were snore practical, more deductive,

and possessed more concentration that did those student

teachers rated as possessing that statement as their greatest

weakness. One must accept the hypothesis of a difference

between the mean scores on the Practical, Deduction and Con-

centration attributes and reject the remainder of hypothesis 11a,

Statement Number Two

A comparison of the mean scores for the twenty-five SORT

attributes for those student teachers possessing statement two,

"Organizes and manages the classroom as an effective environ-

ment for learning" (appendix B) as their greatest strength or

weakness, is presented in Table XIII.

113

TABLE XIII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OP THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOE THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER TWO AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER TWO AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute


Strength (N - 32)

lean su

Weak ness (N = 38)

Mean SD

Level

Theoretical Practical Pedantic Induction Deducti on Rigidity Struct ur i isg Coneentratio rt Kange Human Relation-

ships Popular Origi nal Persi stence Aggressiveness Social Begponsi-

bili ty Cooperation Tact Confidence Consistency of

Behavior Anxiety ioocli ness Activity Potential laipul si veness Flexibility Conform!ty

41 52 53 45 51 46 58 54 47

49 43 38 46 54

48

49

51 43 51 49 53 46 40

86 61 75 32 57 78 96 00 03

53 10 68 78 21

61 21 36 18

18 50 21 69 21 68 82

12 9

13 9 6 11 12 9

7 12 10 11 6

7 5 6 6

7 9 4 9 9 6

13 60 81 16 46 70 71 54 69

39 55 17 70 18

25 84 02 81

00 76 13 62 99 75 84

42 54 54 49 54 41 56 53 47

54 43 41 41

51 43 52 54

47 40 53 55 53 48 42

82 71 11 11 36 78 10 64 50

07 18 21 78 61

43 93 46 21

71 53 50 75 60 93 32

10 9

12 8 6

12 13 6

9 11 12 8

6 6

7 9 3

10 6 5

97 79 01 23 96 44 51 83 91

56 52 54 44 14

75 21 85 28

16 99 95 82 85 93 23

- 2

31 80 10 60 52 52 80 16 29

06 00 86 52 71

48 17 54 62

80 10 08 10 17 30 08

NS® NS* NS* NS* NS® NS* NS* NS* NS*

.05 NS* NS* NS* NS*

NS* NS*

.02

NS* NS*

.05

.05 NS * NS* US*

Not significant.

114

Thirty-two student teachers were rated as having state-

ment two as their greatest strength. Seventeen student

teachers were rated by the college coordinators as possessing

that statement as their greatest weakness. In order to arrive

at the designated ten per cent necessary for treatment, those

student teachers rated as having statement two as their second

greatest weakness were included.

The results in Table XIII indicate that there were five

significantly different SORT attribute mean scores between the

two groups. Further study of the results showed that those

student teachers rated as possessing statement number two as

their greatest weakness had significantly higher mean scores

on the five SORT attributes of Human Relationships, Tact,

Confidence, Moodiness and Activity Potential than did those

student teachers rated as possessing statement two as their

greatest strength. The SORT attribute of Human Relationships

was found to have a mean score of 49.53 for those student

teachers possessing statement two as their greatest strength

compared to a raean score of 54.07 for those student teachers

rated as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

The difference between these two means was found to be signif-

icant at the .05 level.

A mean score of 48.36 on the Tact attribute was reported

for those student teachers rated as possessing statement two

as their greatest strength. This raean was significantly dif-

ferent from the raean of 52.46 on that same attribute for those

115


greatest weakness. The t. value of -2.62 indicated that this

jaean difference was significant at the .02 level.

a mean score of 49.18 on the Confidence attribute for those

student teachers rated as possessing statement number two as

their greatest strength was significantly different from the

mean of 54.21 on that attribute for those student teachers


This mean difference was significant at the .02 level.

There was a slight Mean difference on the SORT attribute

of Moodiness between the two groups of student teachers. Those


greatest strength were found to have a mean score of 51.21

compared to a mean score of 53.05 for those student teachers

possessing that statement as their greatest weakness. This

mean difference was signi ficant at the .05 level.

A mean score of 49.89 on the Activity Potential attribute

was found for those student teachers rated as possessing state-

ment two as their greatest strength, and that mean was signif-

icantly lower than the mean score of 55.75 for the student

teacher® possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

The mean difference was significant at the .05 level.

There were no significant differences between the mean

scores on the remaining twenty SOKT attributes for the two

groups. The evidence presented would dictate that there were

116

significant differences between the mean scores of Human

Relationships, Tact, Confidence, Moodiness, and Activity

Potential. It follows that the student teachers rated by

the college coordinators as possessing statement number two

as their greatest strength were less tactful, less confident,

had fewer fluctuations in moods, were less interested in

other people, and had less activity potential than did those

student teachers rated as being weak on statement two.

It follows that the hypotheses stating a significant

difference on the above SORT attributes be accepted and the

remainder of the hypothesis be rejected.

Statement Number Four

Eleven student teachers were rated as possessing this

statement as their greatest strength. It was necessary to

include those student teachers rated as possessing statement

number four as their second greatest strength to reach the

designated ten per cent necessary for treatment. On the

other hand, thirty-four of the student teachers were rated

as possessing this statement as their greatest weakness.

A compari son of the mean scores of the SORT attributes

for those student teachers perceived by the college coordi-

nators as having statement four as their greatest and second

greatest strength and those student teachers perceived by

the college coordinators as having statement four as their

greatest weakness is presented in Table XIV.

X 17

TABLE XI'/

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t , AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STDDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER FOUR AS THEIK GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER FOUR AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS


SORT Strength Weakness Attribute <N s 28) (N s 34) 1 Level

lean SD Sean SD

Theoretical 46 25 9.86 42.62 10.24 1.33 NS® Practical 53 86 6.60 2. 41 9.48 .65 NS® Pedantic 50 89 T. 96 53.93 11.14 -1.16 NS* Induction 59 68 6.73 46.69 8.30 1.46 NS® Deduction 52 86 6.03 51.45 7.32 .78 NS* Rigidity 39 39 10.12 49.03 10.92 -3.39 .01 Structuri tig 51 60 14.76 60.14 9.26 -2.55 .02 Concentration 51 39 7.54 53.55 6.26 -1.16 NS® Range 49 14 4.87 45.21 4.82 3.01 .01 Human Relation-

3.01

ships 49 64 9.00 50.38 10.39 - .28 NS* Popular 44 82 9.79 44.24 8.87 .23 NS* Original 40 96 9.17 37.83 10.02 1.21 NS* Per»i stence 39 39 10.12 49.03 10.92 -3.39 .01 Aggressiveness 51 93 8.48 55.48 4.34 -1.96 NS® Social Responsi-

4.34 NS®

bility 50 46 5.17 49.00 5.80 .99 NS* Cooperation 45 53 5.13 45. 31 5.39 .16 NS* Tact 51 96 4.93 48.48 5.18 2.55 .05 Confidence 53 18 7.14 49.48 6.99 1.94 NS® Consistency of

NS®

Behavior 46 07 8.S3 53.21 6.31 -3.54 .001 Anxiety 46 00 10.08 45.07 6.68 .40 NS* Moodi ness 51 89 4.59 51.31 3.65 .52 NS* Activity Potential 53 21 10.09 51.31 10.11 .70 NS* Impul$i veness 51 39 7.54 52.59 6.49 — .63 NS* Flexibility 48 96 5.86 47.86 6.53 .66 NS® Co nformi ty

*M - . ,

43 S3 5.30 41.14 5.53 1.64 NS*

significant.

118

A study of Table XIV will show that there were signif-

icant d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups on six SORT attribute

aeaii scores; R i g i d i t y ; Structuring? Range; Persistence; Tact;

and Consistency of Behavior. The m e a n scores on the R i g i d i t y ,

Structuring, Persistence and Consistency of Behavior attri-

butes w e r e significantly l o w e r for the student teachers rated

as h a v i n g as their greatest strength "Shows an understanding

of students through influencing desirable pupil attitudes and

behavior" (Appendix B) when compared to those student teachers


A significantly h i g h e r mean score on t h e Tact attribute was

reported for those student teachers rated as possessing s t a t e -

m e n t four as their greatest strength.

Further study of Table XIV s h o w s that those student

teachers rated as possessing statement four as their greatest

strength had a mean score of 39.39 for the Rigidity and Per-

sistence attributes. I'hese mean scores for that group were

significantly lower than the mean score of 49,03 for the

student teachers rated as possessing statement four as their

greatest weakness. The t, v a l u e of -3.39 revealed that this

mean difference was significant at the .01 level.

A raean score of 49.14 on the Range attribute was found

tor those student teachers rated as possessing statement four

as their greatest strength. This mean score was significantly

higher than the wean of 45.21 for those student teachers rated

as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness. A

119

t, value of 3.01 indicated that the difference between the

means was significant at the .01 level.

The mean score on the Structuring attribute for those

student teachers rated as possessing statement number four

as their greatest strength was found to be 51.68 and was

significantly lower than the mean of 60.14 reported for the

student teachers rated as possessing stateaent four as their

greatest weakness. The difference was found to be signifi-

cant at the .02 level.

The Tact attribute had a raean score of 51.96 for the

student teacher group rated as possessing statement four as

their greatest strength and was significantly higher than

the mean of 48.48 for those student teachers rated as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest weakness. The mean

difference was significant at the .05 level.

Those student teachers rated as possessing stateaent

number four as their greatest weakness had a mean score of

53.21 on the Consistency of Behavior attribute. That mean

was found to b© significantly higher than the mean of 46.07

reported for those student teachers rated by the college

coordinators as possessing that statement as their greatest

strength. The mean difference had a t, value of -3.45 which

was significant at the .001 level and highly signifleant.

The results in Table XIV show that the remainder of the

SORT attribute mean scores for the two groups were found not

to be significantly different. It follows that the statistical

120

evidence decrees that there were significant differences

between the mean SORT scores on the Rigidity, Structuring,

Range, Persistence, Tact, and Consistency of Behavior at-

tributes. The various hypotheses stating that there would

be a significant difference between the above SORT attribute

scores for those student teachers perceived by the college

coordinators as possessing statement number four as their

greatest strength and those student teachers possessing

statement number four as their greatest weakness were accepted.

The remainder of the nineteen hypotheses stating that there

would be difference between the means of the SORT attributes

were rejected. It follows that the student teachers rated fay

the college coordinators as possessing statement number four

as their greatest strength were less rigid, legs structured,

interested in wany activities (Range), less persistent, wore

tactful, and less consistent in their behavior, than those

student teachers rated as possessing statement number four

as their greatest weakness.

Statement Number Five

Evidence necessary to test the significance of the

difference between the means for those student teachers rated

strong on "Uses effective democratic procedures to i nfluence

behavior" (Appendix B) and those student teachers rated weak

on that statement is presented in Table XV.

121

TABLE XV

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER FIVE AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER FIVE AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute


Strength (N = 30)

lean SD

Weakness (N = 35)

Mean SD

Level

Theoretical Practical Pedanti c Induction Deduction Rigidity Structuring Concentration Range Human Relation-

ships Popular Origi nal Persi stence Aggressiveness Social Responsi

bility Cooperatio n Tact Confidence Consistency of

Behavior Anxiety Moodiness Activity Potent lapulsiveness Flexibility Conformity

i al

46 49 54 48 50 42 51 49 47

48 43 41 42 51

50 45 51 52

46 43 51 51 50 46 41

36 23 09 86 23 04 04 73 00

82 64 86 04 14

50 86 77 41

27 23 00 82 16 68 91

11 10 10

7 7

13 12

7 8

9 8

12 13 6

6 4 7 7

9 9 5 7 7 5 4

31 74 00 16 49 37 66 33 40

32 85 31 37 49

73 41 22 86

60 50 02 78 14 10 14

48 .57 48 .86 51.26 5 0 . 3 2 5 1 . 0 7 46.89 5 5 . 4 3 52.96 48.50

53.53 47.43 38.86 46.89 53.96

50.96 45 .36 50.43 51.46

50.03 4 6 . 0 3 52.32 53.00 5 2 . 6 1 49. 18 43.57

12 9

11 9 5

14 15

. 58

. 51

. 6 9

.07

.68

.00

.20

.29

.65

6..71 9 . 9 6 8

14 7

6 S 5 6

8 11

3 9 9

59 00 30

36 16 33 23

05 94 31 69 10 84 83

-1

63 13 88 60 44 2 1 07 41 78

80 37 99 21 40

24 46 74 46

48 88 09 46 00 31 11

NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS*

NS* NS* NS* NS* NS®

NS* NS* NS* NS*

NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS* NS*

Not significant

122

The original hypothesis stated that there would be a

significant difference between each of the twenty-five SORT

Mean scores for those student teachers rated by the college

coordinators as possessing statement number five as their

greatest strength and those student teachers rated as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest weakness. Thirty-

five student teachers were rated as possessing that statement

as their greatest weakness. On the other hand, to reach the

designated ten per cent of the sample necessary for treat-

ment, those student teachers rated as possessing statement

number five as their second greatest and third greatest

strength had to be included in the treatment.

The inclusion of those student teachers rated as having

statement number five as their greatest, their second greatest

and third greatest strength in this comparison may have

affected the results. A survey of Table X V will show that

there were no significant differences between the twenty-

five SORT attributes for the two groups. On the basis of

the statistical quantification, hypothesis lid was rejected

in its entirety.

Stateraent Number Six

In treating hypothesis lie, ten per cent of the sample

was not rated as having statement number six as their greatest

strength or weakness j therefore, the student teachers' second

greatest strength and weakness was included. The results of

this comparison are presented in Table XVI.

123

TABLE XVI

A COMPARISON OF MEANS t STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOB THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER SIX AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED fi¥ THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER SIX AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute

Statement Number Six

• 1 Level

SORT Attribute

Strength (N = 31)

Weakness (N = 29) • 1 Level

SORT Attribute

Mean SD Mean SD

• 1 Level

Theoretical 46.92 9.64 46 74 9.93 06 NS* Practical 52.16 8.15 51 59 10.74 20 NS* Pedantic 49.20 10.99 51 11 9.77 65 NS* Induction 48.28 7.99 51 63 5.46 -1 74 NS* Deduction 51.64 6.80 53 22 6.27 86 NS* Rigidity 42.88 9.99 42 33 9.67 19 NS* Structuri ng 55.08 12.27 56 44 12.49 W* 39 NS* Concentration 52.84 7.78 51 92 6.07 46 NS* Rang© 48.44 5.75 47 07 7.65 71 NS* Human Relation-

ships 49.84 9.08 55 00 6.10 -2 37 .05 Popular 45.92 10.56 46 55 0.72 **• 23 NS* Origi nal 38.00 8.09 36 29 11.55 60 NS* Per si stency 42.86 9.99 42 33 9.67 19 NS* Aggressiveness 52.64 6.55 55 78 8.03 -1 51 NS* Social Responsi-

8.03 51 NS*

bility 49.16 6.64 51 59 4.78 -1 49 NS* Cooperation 45.12 5.44 45 96 4.36 61 NS* Tact 49.32 6.28 50 63 5.09 — 81 NS* Confidence 50.16 7.49 53.07 5.86 -1 54 NS* Consistency of

54

Behavior 48.56 6.19 47 67 6.67 49 NS* Anxiety 45.64 11.10 41 85 7.47 1 42 NS* Moodiness 51.12 5.36 51 52 3.45 31 NS* Activity Potential 50.88 10.43 56 59 6.99 -2 29 .05 Impulsiveness 52.88 7.71 51 92 6.07 49 NS* Flexibility 47.44 5.69 50 59 3.52 -2 37 .05 Conformity

# M _ ^ . . . .

41.52 4.32 41 41 5.44 08 NS*

significant.

124

Those student teachers rated strong on the statement,

"Proraotes growth in pupi 1 knowledge, skills, and attitudes"

(Appendix B), had significantly lower mean scores on the

Human Relationships, Activity Potential, and Flexibility

attributes compared to those student teachers rated as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest isesfcness. A mean

score of 49,84 for the Human Relationships attribute was

significantly lower than the mean of 55,00 on that attribute.

The reported mean in Table XVI for the Activity Potential

attribute of 50,88 was significantly lower than the mean of

56.59. The mean score on the Flexibility attribute of 47.44

for the student teachers rated as possessing statement six

us their greatest strength was significantly lower than the

mean of 50.50 for those students rated weak on that statement.

It follows that those student teachers rated strong on

statement six were less interested in others, possessed less

activity potential and were less flexible than those student

teacher s rated weak on that statement. One must conclude

that there were significant differences between the two

groups of student teachers on the SORT mean scores of Human

Kelationships, Activity Potential and Flexibility. Those

three hypotheses were accepted, the remainder rejected.

Statement Number Seven

Table XVII presents the evidence to test hypothesis

llf.

125

TABLE XVII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER SEVEN AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER SEVEN AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute

Statement Number Seven

1 Level

SORT Attribute

Strength (N s 29)

Weakness (N = 30) 1 Level

SORT Attribute

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Level

Theoretical 44.61 8.98 40.55 11.39 -1.25 NS* Practical 50.38 0.58 48.09 0.96 . 54 NS* Pedantic 54.50 9.53 53.61 9.00 .29 NS* Induction 48.00 8.19 50.83 7.62 -1.13 NS* Deduction 50.54 6.25 49.70 6.45 .30 NS* Rigidity 49.26 10.38 40.94 10.78 2.51 .02 Structuring 60.81 10.98 50.70 12.24 2.77 .01 Concentration 54.42 7.21 50.44 7.18 1.76 NS* Range 46.65 5.52 46.70 4.25 - .08 NS* Hunan Relation-

ships 50.50 7.86 50.11 6.42 .17 NS* Popular 44.73 8.35 46.22 10.92 - .50 NS* Origi nal 41.73 9.04 37.44 7.94 1.50 NS* Per si stence 49.26 10.38 40.94 10.70 2.51 .02 Aggressiveness 54.54 6.23 51.55 5.85 1.56 NS* Social Responsi-

1.56 NS*

bility 49.00 5.61 50.11 5.65 - .63 NS* Cooperation 44.46 4.00 46.55 . 44 — 1,44 NS* Tact 48.85 5.62 51.33 5.30 — 1.44 NS* Confidence 50.08 7.03 52.83 7.17 -1.24 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 53.11 6.91 46.72 8.33 2.71 .01 Anxiety 45.81 9.51 46.22 13.03 - .11 NS* Moodiness 51.73 3.83 51.39 3.61 .29 NS* Activity Potential 51.69 9.75 52.89 9.25 — * 40 NS* Impulsiveness 53.31 7.42 50.44 7.18 1.24 NS* Flexibility 47.74 5.63 49.55 6.25 - .99 NS* Conformity 42.92 4.61 41.61 4.51 .91 NS*

Not significant.

126

Hypothesis 1If stated that there would be a significant

difference between the mean scores of the twenty-five SORT

attributes for those student teachers rated as possessing

statement number seven as their greatest strength and those

student teachers rated as possessing that statement as their

greatest weakness.

A study of Table XVII will show there were significant

differences found for four of the twenty-five SORT attribute

mean scores. A mean score on the Rigidity and Persistence

attributes of 49.26 for those student teachers rated as pos-

sessing statement number seven as their greatest strength

was found to be significantly higher than the mean of 40.94

on that attribute for those student teachers rated as being

weak on the statement^ "Demonstrates requisite knowledge of

subject matter" (Appendix B). This difference between the

means was found to be significant at the .02 level. This

would indicate that those student teachers rated as possessing

statement seven as their greatest strength were more rigid

and persistent than those student teachers rated as being

weak on that stateraent.

A mean score of 60.01 on the Structuring attribute was

reported for the student teachers rated as possessing state-

ment seven as their greatest strength and that mean score was

significantly higher than the mean score of 50.78 reported

for those student teachers rated as possessing that statement

127

as their greatest weakness. The jt value of 2.77 would make

that mean difference significant at the .01 level.

A significantly higher mean score was reported for those

student teachers rated as possessing statement seven as their

greatest strength compared to those student teachers rated as

possessing that statement as their greatest weakness on the

Consistency of Behavior attribute. A mean score of 53.11 was

reported for the former group and a mean score of 46.72 for

the latter group. The difference between the means was found

to be significant at the .01 level.

The results indicate that those student teachers rated as

strong on statement seven were more rigid, more structured,

more persistent, and more consistent in their behavior than

those student teachers rated as being weak on that statement.

It follows that the hypotheses stating there would be a signif-

icant difference between the two groups on the SORT attributes

of Rigidity, Structuring, Persistence and Consistency of

Behavior were accepted and the remainder of hypothesis llf

was rejected.

Number Eight

Thirty-eight student teachers were rated as possessing

statement eight as their greatest weakness. Seven student

teachers were rated as having that statement as their greatest

strength! so the treatment included all of the student teachers

rated as possessing statement number eight as their greatest,

second greatest or third greatest weakness. The data are

presented in Table XVIII.

128

TABLE XVIII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t., AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOB THOSE STUDENT

TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER EIGHT AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS AS HAVING STATE-MENT NUMBER EIGHT AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

Statement Number Eight

SORT Strength Weakness Attribute (N 3 29) (N s 38) £ Level

Mean SD Mean SD

Theoretical 41.11 10.29 51.50 9.45 -3.32 .01 Practical 56.19 7.24 47.28 8.07 3.74 .001 Pedantic 53.65 12.39 47.78 10.46 1.61 NS®

Induction 46.88 8.49 52.22 7.34 -2.11 .05 Deduction 55.15 7.33 50.17 5.48 2.39 .02 Rigidity 41.04 11.07 46.39 10.83 -1.53 NS* Structuri ng 58.34 11.89 52.67 13.24 1.45 NS* Concentration 53.54 8.18 49.50 7.61 1.62 NS* Range 51.04 6.96 50.22 4.90 .42 NS* Human Relation-

ships 50.42 7.01 52.89 8.20 -1.04 NS* Popular 41.85 8.29 46.28 9.55 -2.68 .01 Original 40.38 11.59 37.00 10.15 .97 NS® Persi stence 41.04 11.07 46.39 10.83 -1.55 NS* Aggressiveness 54.19 7.96 54.00 6.67 .08 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 50.69 6.68 52.00 5.81 - . 66 NS* Cooperation 44.19 7.65 46.94 5.25 -1.29 NS* Tact 49.50 5.35 51.44 4.68 -1.21 NS* Confidence 51.11 6.15 52.61 6.06 - .78 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 48.08 6.88 50.44 7.92 -1.03 NS* Anxlety 44.61 11.03 48.78 8.72 -1.31 NS*" Moodi ness 50.73 5.30 50.89 3.68 - .11 NS* Activity Potential 51.46 9.98 53.61 8.16 - .74 NS* Impulsiveness 53.46 7.10 50.05 7.40 1.50 NS* Flexibility 48.11 7.35 49.61 5.78 - .70 NS* Conformity 39.46 6.19 42.67 3.74 -1.92 NS*

Not significant.

129

The results in Table XVIII depict those student teachers

rated possessing the statement, "Displays satisfactory com-

munication skills" (Appendix B) as their greatest strength,

as significantly different from those student teachers rated

as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness on

the SORT attributes of Theoretical, Practical, Induction,

Deduction and Popular. Further study of Table XVIII will

show that those student teachers possessing statement eight

as their greatest strength were more practical, more deduc-

tive, less theoretical, less inductive, and less popular than

those student teachers rated as possessing statement eight as

their greatest weakness.

Those student teachers rated as possessing statement eight

as their greatest strength had a mean score on the Theoretical

attribute of 41.11. This mean score was significantly lower

than the mean of 51.50 found for those student teachers rated

as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness. This


A mean score of 56.19 on the Practical attribute was found

for those student teachers possessing statement eight as their

greatest strength and was significantly higher than the mean

of 47.28 reported for those student teachers rated as having

that statement as their weakness. The Jt, value of 3.74 would

indicate that this mean difference was significant at the .001

level. Those student teachers rated as possessing statement

number eight as their greatest strength had a mean score of

ISO

46.88 on the Induction attribute and that mean was signifi-

cantly lower than the mean of 52.22 for those student teachers

rated «s possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

The difference between the two means was found to be signifi-

cant at the .05 level. A mean score of 55.15 was reported on

the Deduction attribute for those student teachers strong on

statement eight compared to a mean score of 50.17 for those

student teachers rated weak on that statement. The difference

between the two means was significant at the .01 level.

The results in Table XVIII depict a significantly lower

mean score for those student teachers rated as possessing

statement number eight as their greatest strength on the

Popular attribute. A mean score of 41.85 for that group was

significantly different from the mean of 46.28 for those stu-

dent teachers rated as possessing that statement as their

greatest weakness and the difference between the two means

was significant at the .01 level.

It follows that the hypotheses stating there would be a

significant difference between the weans of the two groups on

the SORT attributes of Theoretical, Practical, Induction,

Deduction, and Popular were accepted and the remainder of

hypothesis 1 lg was rejected.

Hypothesis 12

The statistical treatment of the data to test the

tenability of hypothesis 12 is presented in Table XIX.

131

T A B L E X I X

A COMP Alt ISON O F M EAN S, STANDARD D E V I A T I O N S , t , A N D L E V E L O F

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOB THOSE STUDENT T E A C H E R S PERCEIVED BY T H E M S E L V E S A S H A V I N G S T A T E M E N T

N U M B E R O N E A S T H E I B G R E A T E S T S T R E N G T H A N D T H O S E

S T U D E N T T E A C H E R S P E R C E I V E D B Y T H E M S E L V E S A S

H A V I N G S T A T E M E N T NUMBER O N E A S THEIR G R E A T E S T W E A K N E S S

SOHT Attribute


i Level SOHT


Weakness (N = 31) i Level

SOHT Attribute

Mean SO Mean SD

i Level

Theoretical 43.93 11.57 45.93 11.03 - . 68 NS* Practical 53.07 8.27 51.48 9.83 .67 NS® Pedantic 53.67 9.69 50.29 9.82 1.33 NS* Induction 47.90 7.78 49.35 8.17 - .79 ns• Deduct!o n 52.40 5.38 52.55 7.50 - .09 NS* Ilgidity 42.13 11.99 42.84 12.23 - .22 NS* Stracturi ng 59.10 11.97 52.64 11.57 2.11 .05 Concentration Range 48.13 5.99 48.45 6.34 - . 20 ' NS® Human Relation-

ship* 51.33 10.62 54.77 7.25 -1.46 NS* Popular 45.73 11.44 45.77 11.45 - .01 NS* Original 42.03 13.93 35.87 9.53 1.66 NS* Persi stence 42.13 11.99 42.84 12.23 - .22 NS* Aggress si veness 55.50 6.68 52.71 6 .00 1.68 NS* Social lesponsi-

bility 50.10 5.42 50.22 7.33 - .07 NS* Cooperation 45.97 5.76 44.32 4.26 1.25 NS* Tact 49.63 5.48 50.84 6.58 - .76 NS* Confidence 50.73 6.66 52.55 8.03 - .94 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 50.07 7.09 47.84 8.15 11.12 N S ®

Anxiety 42.03 9.83 46.22 10.91 -1.55 M S * Moodi ness 52.47 3.35 50.77 4.32 1.68 NS* Activity Potential 52.33 6.47 53.61 10.56 - .51 N S * Iopulslveness 53.70 9.07 50.97 7.65 1.25 NS* Flexibility 48.57 5.14 48.68 6.48 - .07 NS* Conformity 43.50 5.50 42 .03 5.75 1.00 NS*

Not significant.

132

Statement Nuaber One

According to original hypothesis 12, there would be a

significant difference between the mean scores of the twenty-

five SORT attributes for those student teachers rating them-

selves as possessing strengths on each of the ten summary

statements and those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing weaknesses on each of the ten summary statements

(Appendix C). Table XIX presented the results necessary to

test hypothesis 12a, concerning the strengths and weaknesses

on statement number one. Thirty-one student teachers rated

themselves as having statement number one as their greatest

weakness. Nine student teachers rated themselves as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest strength. To reach

ten per cent of the sample necessary for treatment, those

student teachers' SORT scores were included who rated them-

selves as possessing statement number one as their second

greatest strength. In this manner, thirty student teachers

were included as possessing statement number one as their

greatest and second greatest strength.

Significant differences between the mean scores on

the Structuring and Concentration attributes were found for

those student teachers rating themselves as possessing the

statement, "Demonstrates effectiveness and resourcefulness

in planning and organizing" (Appendix C) as their greatest

strength and those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing the statement as their greatest weakness. A

133

mean score of 59.10 was reported on the Structuring attri-

bute for the former group and a mean score of 52.64 for the

latter group of student teachers. The difference between

the two means was significant at the .05 level. Those stu-

dent teachers rating themselves as possessing statement one

as their greatest strength also had a significantly higher

mean score on the Concentration attribute than did those stu-

dent teachers rating themselves as possessing that statement

as their greatest weakness. A mean score was found for the

former group of 54.80 and compared to a mean score of 50.48

for the latter group, would result in a i value of 2.04.

This difference between the two means was found to be sig-

nificant at the .05 level.

The results in Table XIX indicate that those student

teachers rating themselves as being strong on statement one

are more structured and have more concentration than those

student teachers rating themselves as possessing that state-

ment as their greatest weakness. There were significant

differences between the mean scores on the Concentration and

Structuring attributes and those hypotheses are accepted.

There were no significant differences between the mean scores

on the remaining twenty-three SORT attributes and those parts

of the hypotheses were rejected.


Table XX presents the statistical evidence necessary to

test the tenability of hypothesi s 12b.

134

TABLE X X

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, £, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT

NUMBER TWO AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS

HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER TWO AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

SOST Attribute


1 Level SOST


Weakness (N B 26) 1 Level

SOST Attribute

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Level

Theoretical 46 .15 8.29 47.39 8.52 - .50 NS* Practical 50.68 7.89 49.65 9.51 .48 NS* Pedantic 52.B5 10.77 51.61 12.97 .36 NS* Induction 47.46 6.77 51.39 6.91 -1.97 NS® Deduction 49.73 4.96 52 *09 6.70 -1.38 NS* Rigidity 44.15 12.21 48.39 11.54 -1.22 NS® Structuri ng 56.42 15.79 58.78 12 i 94 - . 55 NS* Concentration 53.65 8.40 53.00 7.86 .27 NS* Range 47.04 5.17 48.47 5.43 - .93 NS* Human Relation-

ships 48.65 8.34 52.43 8.61 -1.53 NS* Popular 43.08 7.73 50.22 7.92 -3.12 .01 Origi rial 39.50 7.48 37.52 11.55 .70 NS* Persistence 44.15 12.21 48.39 11.54 -1.22 NS* Aggressiveness 52.58 7.84 55.04 7.51 -1.09 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 48.11 4.75 51.60 6.17 -2.24 .05 Cooperation 45.38 4.93 44.56 5.95 .52 NS* Tact 49.46 4.77 49.60 6.13 - .09 NS* Confidence 49.81 5.93 51.35 7.51 - .78 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 50 .00 7.75 51.13 7,52 - .51 NS* Anxiety 46.31 8.84 45.22 10.98 .38 NS* Moodiness 51.15 4.40 51.59 4.10 - .43 NS* Activity Potential 49.31 8.49 55.56 9.39 -2.39 .02 Impulsiveness 53.69 8.34 51.74 7.85 .82 NS* Flexibili ty 47.04 5.11 49.08 5.87 -1.28 .01 Conformity 41.08 3.42 44 .04 4.17 -2.68 .01

Not significant

135

The results presented in Table XX indicated that there

were significant differences between the means of four SORT

attributes for those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing statement two as their greatest strength and those

student teachers rating themselves as having that statement

as their greatest weakness. Those student teachers rating

themselves strong on the statement, "Organizes and manages

the classroom as an effective environment for learning"

(Appendix C), had significantly lower mean scores on the

following SORT attributes J Popular, Social Responsibility ,

Activity Potential, and Conformity when compared to those

student teachers rating themselves as weak on that statement.

A mean score of 43.08 for those student teachers rating

themselves as strong on statement two w a s found on the Popular

attribute. That mean was significantly lower than the mean

of 50.22 for those student teachers rating themselves as pos-

sessing that statement as their greatest weakness. The dif-

ference between the two means was significant at the .01 level.

Those student teachers rating themselves as strong on state-

ment two had a mean score of 48.11 on the Social Mesponsibility

attribute and that mean score was significantly lower than the

mean of 51.60 for those student teachers rating themselves as

weak on that statement. The difference between the mean scores

had a reported t. value of -2.24 and would make this difference

significant at the . 0 5 level.

136

A mean score of 49.31 on the Activity Potential attribute

was found for those student teachers strong on statement two.

Compared to a mean of 5S.56 on the same variable for those

student teachers rating themselves as weak on that statement,

the X value indicated that the mean difference was signifi-

cant at the .02 level.

A significant difference was also found between the means

of the two groups on the Conformity attribute. Those student

teachers rating themselves as possessing statement two as

their greatest strength had a wean score of 41.06 and that

mean was significantly lower than the mean of 44.04 for those

student teachers stating number two as their greatest weak-

ness. The difference between the two means was significant

at the .01 level.

The results in Table XX indicated that there were sig-

nificant differences between the mean scores on the Popular,

Social Responsibility, Activity Potential, and Conformity

attributes between the two groups. It follows that those

various hypotheses were accepted. It also follows that the

remainder of hypothesis 12b was rejected.

Statement Number Three

The data necessary to test the tenability of hypothesis

12c are presented in Table XXI.

137

TABLE XXI

COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, £ , AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES F08 THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER THREE AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE

STUDENT TEACHE1S PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER THREE AS

THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

Statement Number Three

SORT Strength Weakness Attribute (N = 29) (N = 37) 1 Level

Mean SD Mean SD

Theoretical 49.3? 11.29 46.43 10.66 .93 NS* Practical 48.10 8.40 51.86 9.93 -1.38 NS* Pedantic 53.95 9. 20 52.27 11.04 .56 NS* Induction 50.95 7.60 50.38 7.82 .26' NS* Deduction 50.53 5.92 52.84 7.61 -1.13 NS* Rigidity 46.26 11.53 40.97 11.71 1.58 NS* Structuri ng 53.21 12.14 55.92 13.48 - .72 NS* Concentration 52. ST 7.13 51.97 7.74 .18 NS* Range 46.05 6 .04 48.03 5.34 -1.23 NS* Human Helation-

ships 50.47 9.67 52.62 8.26 - .85 NS* Popular 45.16 9.40 46.57 9.22 - .53 NS* Original 30.00 8.96 37.97 10.75 .01 NS* Persistence 46.26 11.53 40.97 11.71 1.58 NS* Aggressiveness 53.68 6.27 54.78 6.69 - .58 NS* Social Besponsi-

bility 49.58 4.29 51.84 5.86 -1.46 NS* Cooperation 45.74 4.37 45.54 6.65 .11 NS* Tact 48.95 5.19 51.22 6.45 -1.30 NS* Confidence 50.79 6.92 52.49 8.53 - .73 NS* Consistency of

NS*

Behavior 49.21 7.69 48.59 7.64 .28 NS* Anxiety 45.42 9.63 43.32 10.62 .71 NS* Moodi ness 51.68 4.14 51.94 4.34 - .21 NS* Activity Potential 53.42 7.84 54.62 9.97 - .45 NS* Impulsiveness 52.89 6.70 51.97 7.73 .43 NS* Flexibility 50.21 5.24 49.78 5.39 .28 NS* Conforalty 41.52 3.01 42.40 4,, 88 - .70 NS*

*Not significant.

130

The results presented in Table XXI concerning the sig-

nificance of the difference between the means on the twenty-

five SORT attributes for those student teachers rating

themselves as possessing statement three as their greatest

strength and those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing that statement as their greatest weakness Indicate

that the differences between the means for the two groups on

the SOHT attributes were not significant, From the evidence

presented, one must conclude that there were no significant

personality differences between those student teachers rati ng

their greatest strength as "Demonstrates ability to evaluate

and diagnose desirable learning effectively" (Appendix C)

and those student teachers rating themselves as weak on that

statement. It follows that hypothesis 12c was rej ected in

its entirety.


Hypothesis 12d stated that there would be a significant

difference between the mean scores of the twenty-five SORT

attri butes for those student teachers rati ng themselves as

possessing statement number four as their greatest strength

and those student teachers rati ng themselves as possessing

that statement as their greatest weakness. The evidence

relative to the testing of that hypothesis is presented in

Table XXII.

139

TABLE XXII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOE THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT

NUMBER FOUR AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS

HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER FOUR AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS


SORT Strength Weakness Attribute (N s 49) (N = 44) i. Level

Mean SD Mean SD

Theoretical 44.68 13.14 49.80 10.88 -1.43 N$* Practical 52.77 10.84 49.04 10.21 1. 18 NS* Pedantic 54.27 11.88 50.88 9.66 1.05 NS* Induction 50.64 8.05 50.80 9.46 - .06 NS* Deduction 53.49 7.07 50.64 6.57 1.45 NS* Rigidity 45.14 13.23 40.84 11.49 1.16 Structuriag 54.59 14.79 51.28 14.58 .75 NS* Concentration 52.50 9.73 51.16 9.00 . 48 NS* Eange 47.91 4.43 48.08 6.66 - .10 NS* Human Relation-

ships 53.91 7.66 49.96 8.77 1.59 NS* Popular 46.09 12.29 44.84 10.10 .97 NS* Original 36.04 12.69 34.76 7.60 1.07 NS* Persistence 45.14 13.23 40.84 11.49 1.16 NS* Aggressiveness 55.45 8.27 52.16 7.38 1.41 NS* Social Responsi-

1.41

bility 51.00 7.72 51.40 5.57 - .20 NS* Cooperation 44.04 7.66 45.76 5.35 - .88 NS* Tact 51.04 7.02 52.04 5.06 - .55 NS* Confidence 53.02 9.08 53.56 6 .69 .53 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 48.68 9.06 46.12 8.20 .99 NS* Anxiety 42.32 9.74 45.88 11.13 -1.13 NS* Moodiness 52.36 4.41 51.04 4.94 .94 NS* Acti vi ty Potential 56.64 11.49 52.52 9.79 1.30 NS* Impulsiveness 52.50 9.73 50.76 9.77 .60 NS* Flexibili ty 49.77 7.17 48.48 5.51 .68 NS* Conformity 43.23 5.27 40. 16 5.36 1.93 NS*

Not significant.

140

A brief study of Table XXII will show that there were

no significant differences between the mean scores on the

twenty-five SORT attributes for those student teachers per-

ceiving themselves as being strong on the statement, "Shows

an understanding of students through Influencing desirable

pupil attitudes and behavior" (Appendix C), and those student

teachers perceiving themselves as being weak on that state-

ment .

On the basis of the data presented in Table X aI I, one

must reject hypothesis 12d in its entirety.


Hypothesis 12e stated that there would be a significant

difference between the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT


possessing statement number five as their greatest strength

and those student teachers rating themselves as possessing

that statement as their greatest weakness.

Thirty-three student teachers rated statement five as

their greatest weakness. Nine student teachers rated them-

selves as having that statement as their greatest strength.

It was necessary to include all the student teachers who rated

themselves as possessing statement five as their second or

third greatest strength in order to reach the designated ten

per cent of the saraple. Table XXIII presents the results.

141

TABLE XXIII

A COMPARISON OF MEANS , STANDARD DEVIATIONS , t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOE THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT

NUMBER FIVE AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS

HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER FIVE AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

St at ©stent Number : F i ve

SORT Strength Weakness Attribute CM = 29) (N = 33) 1 Level

Mean SO Mean SD

Theoretical 44.74 9.43 45.09 10.42 - .12 NS* Practical 50.22 8.60 48.77 8.96 .54 NS* Pedantic 53.78 10.06 53.32 12.50 . 13 NS* Induction 46.43 6.64 47.41 9.96 - .38 NS* Deducti on 49.30 7.39 48.95 6.44 .16 NS® Rigidity 42.26 9.17 55.73 12.14 1.06 NS* Structuri ng 58.48 10.61 55.64 12.91 .79 NS* Concentration 52.69 7.02 52.27 8.84 . 17 NS* Range 47.87 6.05 44.91 5.23 1.71 NS* Human Relation-

ships 49.65 9.18 49.95 9.94 - .10 NS® Popular 44.65 9.37 41.14 9.95 I. 19 NS* Original 37.74 10.57 39.18 10.01 - .46 NS® Persistence 42.26 9.17 55.73 12.14 1.06 NS* Aggressiveness 52.65 7.13 52.73 6 .66 - .03 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 48.52 5.25 47.77 6.56 .41 NS* Cooperation 45.48 4.32 43.59 5.44 1.26 NS* Tact 49.91 5.68 48.04 6.28 1.02 NS* Confidence- 49.65 6.56 48.91 8.34 .32 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 50 .22 5.14 50.73 7.00 - .27 NS* Anxiety 45.56 8.22 45.54 6.63 .01 NS* Soodi ness 50.35 '3.24 50.45 4.71 - .09 NS* Activity Potential 49.00 10.22 50.23 12.27 - .36 NS* Impulsiveaess 51.74 7.46 52.77 8.54 - .42 NS* Flexibility 46.26 5.68 46.45 6.87 - .10 NS* Conformity 41.13 4.02 40.09 5.19 .73 NS*

Not significant.

142

The results presented in Table XXIII depict that there

were no significant differences between the means on the

twenty-five SORT attributes for those student teachers pos-

sessing statement five as their strength and those student

teachers possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

On the basis of the evidence presented, one must conclude that

there were no significant differences between the mean scores

on the SORT attribute for those student teachers strong on the

statement "Uses effective democratic procedures to influence

behavior" (Appendix C) and those student teachers weak on

that statement. Hypothesis 12e was rejected in its entirety.

Statement Number Six

According to hypothesis 12f, there would be a significant

difference between the wean scores on the twenty-five SORT


possessing statement six as their greatest strength and those


went as their greatest weakness. Forty student teachers rated

themselves as having that statement as their greatest strength.

Five student teachers rated themselves as possessing that

statement as their greatest weakness. By including the SORT

attribute scores for those student teachers rating themselves

as possessing statement six as their second and third greatest

weakness, the ten per cent requirement was met. Table XXIV

presents the results.

143

TABLE XXIV

COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOB THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PEHCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT

NUMBER SIX AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS

HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER SIX AS THEIR GREATEST WEAKNESS

Statement Number six

SORT Strength Weak ness Attribute (N = 40) (N s 27) Level

lean SD Mean SD

Theoretical 45.19 12.12 46.86 10.26 - .47 NS* Practical 51.00 10.62 50.62 10.89 .11 NS* Pedantic 51.62 10.76 49.81 10.24 .54 MS* ' Induction 48.67 8.24 50.38 4.64 - .81 NS* Deduction 51.33 6.65 54.05 7.07 -1.25 NS* Rigidity 50.05 10.30 43.95 11.99 1.72 NS* Structuri ng 58.86 12.43 51.90 9.34 1.99 NS* Concentration 54.33 6.73 50.05 4.40 2.38 .05 ian§® 50.19 5.84 48.67 5.19 .87 MS* Human Relation-

ships 54.67 6.53 54,00 6.77 - . 14 NS* Popular 46.33 10.36 47.47 8.54 - .38 NS* Origi nal 40.38 12.41 36.28 10.87 1.11 NS® Persistence 50.05 10.30 43.95 11.99 1.72 NS* Aggressiveness 54.67 6.80 53.38 5.70 .'65 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 49.95 6.25 50.90 5.86 - .50 NS* Cooperation 43.62 4.73 46.81 3.76 -2.36 .05 Tact 48.57 5.33 51.43 5.26 -1.70 NS* Confidence 49.24 5.99 53.86 6.36 -2.36 .05 Consistency of

Behavior 52.52 7.19 47.95 7.55 1.96 NS* Anxiety 44.81 9.29 47.62 11.14 - .87 NS* Moodiness 51.48 3.85 51.62 3.36 - .12 NS* Activity Potential 52.52 7.92 55.43 7.60 -1.18 NS* Xmpttlsi veness 54.33 6.73 50.05 4.40 -1.18 NS* Flexibility 47.52 5.28 51.09 5.16 2.38 .05 Conformity 43.19 5.43 41.86 3.43 .93 NS*

Not significant.

144

The results presented in Table XXIV indicate that there

was a significant difference between the mean scores on four

SOHT attributes: Concentration! Cooperation} Confidence? and

Flexibllity.

A mean score of 54.33 on the Concentration attribute was

found for those student teachers rating themselves as possess-

ing statement six as their greatest strength. That mean score

was significantly higher than the mean of 50.05 for those stu-

dent teachers possessing that statement as their greatest

weakness, A £ value of 2.38 would make the mean difference

significant at the .05 level.

Those student teachers rating themselves as possessing

the statement "Promotes growth in pupil knowledge, skills, and

attitudes" (Appendix C) as their greatest strength had signifi-

cantly higher mean scores on the Cooperation, Confidence and

Flexibility attributes when compared to those student teachers

rating themselves as possessing that statement as their

greatest weakness.

A mean score of 43.62 for the former group was significantly

lower than the mean of 53.86 for the latter group on the Coopera-

tion attribute and the jt value of 2.36 indicated that the dif-

ference between these two weans was significant at the .05 level.


statement six as their greatest strength also had a signifi-

cantly lower score on the Confidence attribute. Their raean

score of 49.24 was s ig ni fleantly different f r om the mean score

145

of 53.66 for those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing that statement as their greatest weakness. The

difference between the means was significant at the .05 level.

The Flexibility attribute mean score for those student

teachers rating themselves as possessing statement six as

their greatest strength was significantly lower than the mean

score on that attribute for those student teachers rating

themselves as being weak on that statement, A mean of 47.52

for the former group was significantly different than the

mean of 51.09 for the latter group of student teachers. The


The results in Table XXIV indicate that there were sig-

nificant differences between the mean scores on the Concentra-

tion, Confidence, Cooperation and Flexibility attributes for

those student teachers rating themselves as strong on statement

six and those student teachers rating themselves weak on that

statement. It follows that those various hypotheses are

accepted and the remainder of hypothesis 12f rejected.

Statement Namber Eight

According to hypothesis 12g there would be significant

difference between the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT

attributes for those student teachers rating themselves as pos-

sessing statement eight as their greatest strength and those

student teachers rating themselves as possessing that statement

as their greatest weakness. Table XXV presents the results.

146

TABLE XX/

A COMPARISON OF MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL Of SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SORT ATTRIBUTES FOR THOSE STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER EIGHT AS THEIR GREATEST STRENGTH AND THOSE

STUDENT TEACHERS PERCEIVED BY THEMSELVES AS HAVING STATEMENT NUMBER EIGHT AS THEIR

GREATEST WEAKNESS

SORT Attribute

Statement Number Eight

JL Level SORT

Attribute Strength <N = 32)

Weakness (N = 30) JL Level

SORT Attribute

Mean SO Mean SO

JL Level

Theoretical 44.81 9.72 45.76 6.71 - .31 NS* Practical 6.76 49.88 0.36 2 .24 .05 Pedanti c 49.19 11.10 53.53 13.01 -1.08 NS* Induction 49.09 7.08 46.94 5.01 1.02 NS* Deduction 54.86 4.74 49.06 5.06 3.54 .001 Rigidity 46.09 9.87 41.65 12.44 1.20 NS* Structuri ng 57.71 9.34 51.35 14.63 1.58 NS* Concentration 53.30 4.17 50.65 7.64 1 * 36 NS* Range 48.14 5,32 48.00 7.09 .07 NS* Human delation-

ships 52.76 9.54 48.18 6.51 1.64 NS* Popular 47.67 7.75 43.00 4.44 2.15 .05 Original 37.61 10.54 41.35 7.54 -1.13 NS* Persi stence 46.09 9.87 41.65 12.44 1.20 NS* Aggressiveness 55.90 5.49 48.82 6.88 3.43 .01 Social Responsi-

bility 51.00 4.28 49.29 3.89 1.24 NS* Cooperation 45.90 4.20 46.41 3.76 - .38 NS* Tact 51.24 5.00 52.35 4.61 - .69 NS* Confidence 53.19 6.54 52.06 4.38 .59 NS* Consistency of

Behavior 49.33 5.18 45.23 7.94 1.86 NS* Anxiety 42.57 10.28 45.23 8.03 - .85 NS® Moodiness 53.09 3.17 50.35 3.58 2.43 .02 Activity Potential 54.81 7.61 48.76 4.52 2.01 .01 Impulsiveness 53.38 4.17 50.65 7.64 1.36 NS* Flexibility 50.19 3.68 47.53 3.50 2.20 .05 Conformity 42.57 4.49 42 .00 4.76 .37 NS*

i ot significant

147

The results in Table XXV indicated that there were sig-

nificant differences between the mean scores for the two

groups on seven SORT attributes} Practicalj Deduction;

Popular 5 Agressiveness| Moodiness; Activity Potential? and

Flexibility. Further scrutiny of Table XXV" revealed that the

means on the above attributes were significantly higher for

those student teachers rating themselves as possessing state-

meat eight as their greatest strength than the means on those


possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

A mean of 55.52 on the Practical attribute was reported

for the student teachers rating themselves as possessing the

statement "Displays satisfactory communication skills"

(Appendix C) as their greatest strength. That mean score

was significantly higher than the mean of 49.88 for those


ment as their greatest weakness. The mean difference was

significant at the .05 level.


statement eight as their greatest strength had a mean score

of 54.86 on the Deduction attribute and that mean score was

significantly higher than the mean of 49.06 for those student

teachers rating themselves as weak on that statement. The t.

value ©f 3.54 would indicate that the mean difference was

highly significant at the .001 level.

148

Those student teachers rated as strong on statement eight

had a mean score of 47.67 on the Popular attribute compared to

a mean score of 43.00 on that attribute for the other group of

student teachers. The difference between the two means was

significant at the .05 level of confidence.

Those student teachers rated as possessing statement

eight as their greatest strength had a mean score of 55.90 on

the Aggressiveness attribute and that mean score was signifi-

cantly higher than the mean score of 48.82 on that attribute

for those student teachers rated as weak on that statement.

A mean score of 53.09 on the Moodiness attribute was

reported for those student teachers selecting statement eight

as their greatest strength. That mean was significantly

higher than the mean score of SO.35 reported on that attribute

for the other group of student teachers. The mean difference

was statistically significant at the .02 level of confidence.

A significantly higher mean score was found on the

Activity Potential attribute for those student teachers rating

statement eight as their greatest strength. A mean score of

54.81 on that attribute was significantly different from the

mean of 48.76 for those student teachers weak on that state-

ment.

A mean score of 50.19 on the Flexibility attribute was

reported for those student teachers selecting statement eight

as their greatest strength. That saean was significantly higher

149

than the mean of 47.53 on that attribute for the other group.

The mean difference was significant at the .05 level.

There were significant differences between the mean

scores of the two groups on the Practical, Deduction, Popular,

Aggressiveness, Moodiness, Activity Potential, and Flexibility

attributes and these hypotheses were accepted? the remainder

were rejected.

Hypothesis 13

Hypothesis 13 originally stated that there would be no

significant difference between the college coordinators' and

the student teachers* perceptions of the student teachers'

strengths and weaknesses. To test the tenability of this

hypothesis it was necessary to arbitrarily designate a numer-

ical value of three points for the greatest strength, two

points for the second greatest strength, and one point for

the third greatest strength on each of the evaluative forms

(Appendix B and C). To derive a wean assessment for each of

the ten weaknesses, an arbitrary designation of minus three

points for the greatest weakness, minus two points for the

second greatest weakness, and minus one point for the third .

greatest weakness was made. It followed that each of the

ten summary statements concerning the student teachers'

strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the college coordi-

nators (Appendix B) and the student teachers (Appendix C) had

a derived mean score that could, theoretically, range from a

150

value of 3.00 for the greatest strength to -3.00 for the

greatest weakness.

The treatment first consisted of a comparison of the

derived mean scores for the student teachers and the college

coordinators on each of the ten summary strengths concerning

the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the student teachers.

Further treatment included utilization of the Rank Order

Correlation method. From the derived mean scores on each of

the ten summary statements concerning the student teachers'

strengths, the mean scores on the ten statements were ranked

for the co1 lege coordinators and the student teachers. This

same treatment ensued for each of the derived mean scores on

each of the ten summary statements concerni ng the student

teachers' weaknesses. The standard formula for Bank Order

Correlation was given by Underwood (10) and is as follows:

p = 1 6, d 2 „

NCN2 - J)

j> ~ Rank Order Coefficient.

d = Difference in rank for the scores.

N s Number of ranks.

Following the statistical computations, the data were

entered into tables for clarity of presentation.

Of the original 295 student teachers used as subjects in

this study, 261 completed the Counseling Guide for Student

Teaching (Appendix c) . Fifteen of the original samp 1 e

151

withdrew from student teaching and nineteen student teachers

£<ti 1 ed to complete the evaluative form. The college coordi-

nators evaluated 280 student teachers (Appendix B) who com-

pleted student teaching.

The results of a comparison between the college coordi-

nators' and student teachers' perceptions of the student

teachers' strengths are presented in Table XXVI.

TABLE XXVI

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS' AND THE STUDENT TEACHERS* PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT TEACHERS' STRENGTHS

State-went

Number

College aators*

(N =

Coordi-Rat i ngs 280)

Student Teachers' Rati ngs

(N ~ 261) 1 Level

State-went

Number Mean SD Mean SD

1 .77 1.17 .67 1,09 1.03 NS®

. 2 .70 1.09 .55 .97 1.63 NS*

3 .13 .46 .33 .82 -3.55 .001

4 .60 1.03 .98 1.21 -4.02 .001

5 .24 .71 .31 .75 -1.07 NS*

6 .32 .70 .49 .93 -2.32 .02

7 .82 1.10 .49 1.00 2.56 .01

8 .39 .79 .39 .79 .03 NS*

9 .92 1.16 .42 .84 5.68 .001

10 1.08 1.20 1.26 1.24 -1.63 NS*

Not significant

152

An examination of Table XXVI indicates that there

were some significant differences in the perceptions of the

strengths of the student teachers as perceived by the college

coordinators and the student teachers. The greatest strength

of the student teachers, according to the derived mean scores,

was statement number ten, "Demonstrates a desirable attitude

toward teaching and supervision** (Appendices B and C) , A

computed meant score of 1.08 was found for the college co-

ordinators* perceptions of the student teachers, This mean

rating was not significantly different from the mean rating

of 1.25 for the student teachers* self-evaluation of their

greatest strength. This result would indicate that the

college coordinators and the student teachers agreed that

statement number ten was the greatest strength of the stu-

dent teachers.

The reported weans, standard deviations and t, values in

Table X X V I indicate agreement in the perceptions of the stu-

dent teachers' strengths on statements number one, two, five,

eight, in addition to statement number ten. This would

indicate that the student teachers and the college coordi-

nators perceived those strengths of the student teachers in

much the same way.

Differences in the perceptions of the student teachers*

strengths were found for statements three, four, six, seven,

and nine (Appendices B and C) . A computed «ean score of .92

for the college coordinators' assessment of the student

153

teachers' strength on statement number ni ne would indicate

that this was the second greatest strength of the student

teachers as perceived by the college coordinators. The stu-

dent teachers' derived mean score of .42 for this same state-

ment was found to be significantly different at the ,001

level. This result would indicate that there was a differ-

ence in perceptions OH statement number nine, "Exhibits

desirable personal qualities" (Appendices B and C), between

the college coordinators and the student teachers. The dif-

ference between the derived mean scores for the two groups

would also indicate that the college coordinators perceived

the student teachers as being somewhat stronger on that

statement than did the student teachers,

A statistically significant difference was also reported

between the two groups concerning their perceptions of state-

ment number seven, "Demonstrates requisite knowledge of sub-

ject matter" (Appendices B and C). A mean value of .82 was

reported on that statement for the college coordinators and

that mean score was significantly different from the mean of

.59 given by the student teachers. The t. value of 2.56 would

indicate that this difference was significant at the ,01

level. Ihe derived mean score would also Indicate that the

college coordinators perceived the student teachers as being

stronger on statement number seven than the student teachers

perceived themselves.

154

A third significant difference was reported between the

college coordinators* and student teachers' perceptions of

the strengths of the student teachers on statement number

four, "Shows an understanding of students through influencing

desirable pupil attitudes and behavior" {Appendices B and C).

The student teachers' derived mean score of .98 would make

that statement their second greatest strength. However, the

mean assessment of the college coordinators, .60, would indi-

cate that they see this differently. The difference between

the means would indicate that the college coordinators do not

perceive the student teachers as having statement number four

as one of their greatest strengths. The reported jt value

wouId indicate that the difference in perceptions as evidenced

by the derived mean scores, was highly significant.

There was also a mean difference between the college

coordinators and the student teachers on statement number

three, "Demonstrates ability to evaluate and diagnose desir-

able learning effectively" (Appendices B and C). The college

coordinators' derived mean score of .13 was significantly

different fro® the student teachers* mean score of .33 on

that statement. The t. value of -3.55 was found for the dif-

ference between the means which would indicate that the dif-

ference was highly significant. The derived mean score values

would indicate that the college coordinators perceived the

student teachers as being somewhat weaker on this aspect of

student teacher behavior than did the student teachers.

155

Statement number six, "Promotes growth in pupil knowl-

edge, skills, and attitudes" (Appendices B and C), was assigned

a mean rating of .32 by the college coordinators and was sig-

nificantly lower than the oean of .49 for the student teachers.

The t value of -2.32 would make this mean difference statis-

tically significant at the .02 level. The student teachers,

according to this result, considered themselves as being

stronger on statement six than did the college coordinators.

The reported means, standard deviations, and t. values in

Table XXV indicated that there was no difference in the two

groups' perceptions of the student teacher strengths on state-

ment one, two, five, eight and ten (Appendices B and C). This

would indicate that the student teachers and the college co-

ordinators perceived those strengths of the student teachers

in the same way. It follows that hypotheses 12a, 13b, 13e, 13h,

and 13k (Statements one, two, five, eight and ten) are accepted

and hypotheses 13c, 13d, I3f, 13g, 13i, and 13j (Statements

three, four, six, seven, and nine) are rejected.

However, when the data were treated by the Rank Order

Correlation Method, a j> coefficient of .TO was found. This

result would indicate that the student teachers' and the

college coordinators' perceptions of the student teachers'

strengths were similar with respect to the rank order assigned

the ten statements according to the derived mean scores.

156

Table XXVII presents the results concerning the student

teachers' and the college coordinators' perceptions of the

student teachers' weaknesses.

TABLE XXVII

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, t, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN THE COLLEGE COORDINATORS' AND THE STUDENT

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT TEACHERS' WEAKNESSES

State-ment

Number

College nators *

(N s

Coordi-Kati ngs 280)

Student Teachers' Rati ngs (N = 261)

i. Level State-ment

Number Mean SD Mean SD

i. Level

1 - .77 1.15 - .93 1.16 1.56 NS*

2 - . 66 1.02 - .64 1.03 - .15 NS®

3 -1.30 1.22 -1.59 1.25 2.78 .01

4 - .37 .ei - .40 .84 .38 MS*

5 - .76 1.08 - .85 1.08 1.01 NS*

6 - .44 .83 - .29 .71 -2.32 .05

7 - .47 .92 - .43 .85 - .50 NS*

8 - .85 1.15 - .69 1.04 -1.65 NS*

9 - .23 .70 - .09 .43 -2.71 .01

10 - .13 .52 - .08 .39 -1.30 NS*

""Not significant.

The results in Table XXVII depict a significant differ-

ence between the derived mean scores for three of the ten

statements. Statement number three, "Demonstrates ability

157

to evaluate and diagnose desirable learning effectively"

(Appendices B and C), was found to be the greatest weakness

of the student teachers as perceived by the college coordi-

nators and the student teachers. A mean assessment by the

college coordinators of -1.30 compared to the student teacher

rating of -1.59 on statement three resulted i n a J, value of

2.78 which made the difference between the two means signifi-

cantly different at the .01 level. On the other hand, the

derived mean values ranked stateraent three as the greatest

weakness of the student teachers as seen by the college co-

ordinators and the student teachers theaselves. The differ-

ence between the two means would indicate that the student

teachers viewed themselves as being weaker on that particular

statement than did the college coordinators.

There was a second significant difference reported

between the mean perceptions of the student teachers' weak-

nesses on statement six, "Promotes growth in pupil knowledge,

skills, and attitudes" (Appendices B and C). A derived mean

score of -.44 was found for the college coordinators' per-

ceptions of that statement compared to a derived mean score

of -. 29 for the student teachers' perceptions. A value of

-2.32 would indicate that the difference between the means

was significant at the .05 level. This result would indicate

that the col lege coordinators perceived the student teachers

as being somewhat weaker on that statement than did the

student teachers themselves.

150

Table XXVII also shows a third significant difference

between the derived wean scores concerning the difference of

perceptions of the student teachers' weaknesses. The state-

ment , "Exhibits desirable personal qualities" (Appendices B

and C), was found to have a derived mean score of -.23 for

the college coordinators' perceptions and a mean score of

-.09 for the student teachers' perceptions. The t. value of

2.70 would make the difference between these two mean scores

significant at the .01 level. This would indicate that the

college coordinators percei ved the student teachers as some-

what weaker on this statement than did the student teachers.

Further examination of Table XXVII shows that there was

no significant difference between the college coordinators'

and the student teachers' perceptions of the student

teachers' weaknesses on the remaining seven statements. This

result would indicate that the college coordinators* and the

student teachers' perceptions of the student teachers* weak-

nesses were in agreement concerning the various statements.

There were significant differences between the college

coordinators* and the student teachers* perceptions of the

student teachers' weaknesses on three of the ten statements

(Statements three, six and nine). It follows that hypotheses

13IH, 13p, and 13s (Statements three, six and nine) were

rejected and the remainder of hypothesis accepted.

Further treatment to test the tenabi1i ty of the hypoth-

esis that there was no significant difference between the

159

college coordinators' and the student teachers' perceptions

of the student teachers' weaknesses included a comparison of

the ranks assigned the ten statements by those two groups.

A p coefficient of .95 was found between the college coordina-

tors' and the student teachers* perceptions of the student

teachers' weaknesses when the tea statements were placed in

rank order accordi ng to their derived mean scores. This

result would indicate that there was close agreement between

the college coordinators and the student teachers concerning

the relative order of the student teachers' weaknesses.

Hypothesis 14


relationship of certain clusters of attributes Measured by

the SORT and success in student teaching as measured by

grade-point average and ratings (Appendix A) by the college

coordinators.

To test the tenabili ty of that hypothesis, a cluster

analysis was used (2) . Cluster analysis is a simple forts of

correlational analysis and consists of identifying clusters

or "types" by locating, through the size of the various cor-

relations, the variables most highly related or most closely

clustered together (2, 5). In cluster analysis, it is best

to list the correlations for each variable in order of size

into a table. A cluster is started with the two variables

which correlate highest and variables are added until the B

160

coefficient shows a marked drop. The 8 coefficient is a

simple ratio of the average intercorrelations of the vari-

ables in a cluster to their average correlation with the

variables not included in the cluster. One then builds up

clusters of variables that "belong" together. "The so-called

B coefficient is used as a criterion of 'belong!ngness.' The

method is fairly simple, dependable, and useful" (5, p. 660).

Fruchter's (2) procedure was f ollowed and the treatment

first concerned those correlations related to the grade-point

variable. The same procedure was used for identifying those

SORT attributes related to success in student teaching as

measured by the college coordinators' ratings of the student

teachers.

An arbitrary designation was made in this study that

when the R coefficient failed to reach a value of 1.50, the

cluster process would cease.

The highest correlation reported was between the Prac-

tical attribute and grade-point average earned in student

teaching (iab1e XXVIII, page 164). The cluster analysis

began with those two variables. A B coefficient of 1.65 was

reported and was acceptable as being related to success in

student teaching as measured by grade-point average. The

third variable added to the cluster was the Deduction attri-

bute. The result of the analysis showed a B coefficient of

2.16 and was very significant. A fourth variable. Moodiness,

161

was added and the B coefficient dropped to 1.71 but was

acceptable. The Concentration variable wag added and the B

coefficient rose to 2.03 and was significant. The fifth

highest correlation, on the Aggressiveness variable, was

added and the B coefficient decreased to 1.51 and was

slightly above the arbitrarily designated value of 1.50

acceptable in this study. The addition of other variables

to the cluster failed to reach the B coefficient of 1.50.

from the results of the treatment by the cluster analytic

method, one must conclude that there was a cluster of SORT

attributes (Practical, Deduction, Moodiness, Concentration

and Aggressiveness) related to success in student teaching

as Measured by grade-point average earned in student teaching.

Further treatment of the data included a cluster analysis

of the SORT attributes and success in student teaching as

measured by the college coordinators* ratings (Appendix A).

The highest correlation between a SORT attribute and ratings

was the Practical variable (Table XXIX, page 166). The

cluster analysis began with those two variables and produced

a 8 coefficient of 1.37. That value did not reach the

designated level of 1.50 required for this study. However,

when the next highest variable, Deduction, was added to the

cluster, the b coefficient rose to 2.01. The third highest

correlation, between Moodiness and college coordinators'

ratings, was added to the cluster and produced a B coefficient

162

of 1.71, which would indicate a significant relationship.

When the Concentration variable was added to the cluster,

the B coefficient dropped drastically to a value of .91,

considerably below the designated value of 1.50 necessary

in this study. Other variables added to the cluster resulted

in B coefficients less than the 1.50 designated in this study.

From the results presented, a cluster of attributes was

identified (Practical, Deduction, and Moodiness) that was

related to success in student teaching as measured by the

ratings of the student teachers by the college coordinators.

To test the tenability of hypotheses 15 through 20, the

data in this study were processed using Pearson*® Product

Moment Correlation techni que. The standard formula for simple

correlation was taken from McNemar (7, p. 112).

M 1 - M2

> / I. N«X 2 - (*X)2 i [N*Y2 - « Y ) 2 ]

r = correlation between groups.

i a mean score of one group.

N ss number of cases or scores.

X = individual raw score on any specified test.

¥ ss another group of scores.

Utilising the IBM 1620 program of correlational analysis,

correlations and intercorrelatlons of the variables were

obtained. The program also revealed the values necessary for

finding the significance of the correlations as needed by the

various hypotheses. The statistical data were analyzed and

were presented in tables for clarity of presentation.

163

Hypothesis 15

According to t h e o r i g i n a l hypothesis, t h e r e would b e a

significant positive correlation between ten SORT attributes


earned i n student teaching was used as a criterion of suc-

cess. Table XXVIII presents evidence relative to testing

the t e n a b i l i t y of that hypothesis,

Table XXVIII presents the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s of

the twenty-five SORT attributes and success in student

teaching as measured by grade-point average e a r n e d in student

teaching. It was hypothesized that there was a statistically

significant positive correlation between the Practical,

Deduction, Human R e l a t i o n s h i p s , Range, Popular, Activity

P o t e n t i a l , Aggressiveness, Social Besponsibility, Confidence,

and Flexibility SORT attributes and success in student

teaching as measured by grade-point average earned in student

t e a c h i n g .

The results in Table XXVIII depict small but significant

positive correlations between two SORT attributes, Practical

and Deduction, and success in student teaching. The SORT

score on the Practical attribute was found to be positively

related to success in student teaching. The correlation

coefficient of .21 was found to be statistically significant

beyond the .01 level. This would indieat© a small but sig-

nificant relationship between practicality and success in

student teaching.

164

TABLE XXVIII

THE CORRELATION OF STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST ATTRIBUTES AND SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING AS

MEASURED BY GRADE-POINT AVERAGE EARNED IN STUDENT TEACHING

SORT Attri bate

Student Teachers ' 11

Correla-tion Co-

efficient Level SORT

Attri bate SORT

Scores Grade-

Aver Poi nt age

' 11

Correla-tion Co-

efficient Level SORT

Attri bate

Mean SD Mean SD

' 11

Correla-tion Co-

efficient Level

Theoretical 45.72 10.82 2.41 .52 -.07 NS* Practical 51.33 9.40 2.41 .52 .21 .01 Pedantic 52.71 11.02 2.41 .52 -.09 MS* Induction 49.09 8.02 2.41 .52 -.06 MS® Deduction 51.88 6.48 2.41 .52 .15 .05 Rigidity 44.62 11.70 2.41 .52 -.09 NS* Structuring 56.11 12.75 2.41 .52 .06 NS* Concentration 52.56 7.59 2.41 .52 .08 NS* Range 47.83 5.84 2.41 .52 .04 MS* Human Relation-

ships 51.41 9.00 2.41 .52 -.04 NS* Popular 45.48 9.90 2.41 .52 .03 NS* Origi nal 38.65 10.99 2.41 .52 -.02 NS* Persi stence 44.62 11.70 2.41 .52 -.09 NS* Aggressi veness 54.18 6.90 2.41 .52 .07 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 50.32 6.16 2.41 .52 .02 NS* Cooperation 45.11 5.34 2.41 .52 -.02 NS* Tact 50.54 5.72 2.41 .52 .05 NS* Confidence 51.85 7.10 2.41 .52 .04 NS® Consistency of

Behavior 49.55 7.63 2.41 .52 .06 NS* Anxiety 44.60 10.11 2.41 .52 .00 NS* Moodinets 51.82 4.02 2.41 .52 .14 .05 Activity Potential 53.09 9.49 2.41 .52 -.00 NS* Impulsiveness 52.43 7.59 2.41 .52 .05 NS* Flexibility 48.72 5.75 2.41 .52 .01 NS* Conforrai ty 42.04 4.98 2.41 .52 .02 NS*

Not significant.

165

Another significant and positive correlation was reported

for the Deduction attribute. A correlation coefficient of

.15 would indicate a relationship between Deduction and suc-

cess in student teaching that was significant beyond the .05

level of confidence. One must conclude t h a t there was a

positive relationship between the Deduction attribute and

success in student teaching as measured by grade-point aver-

a g e earned in student teaching.

The data presented in Table XXVIII show that the

remaining SORT attributes—Human Relationships, Kange,

Popular, Activity Potential, A g g r e s s i v e n e s s , Social Respon-

sibility, Confidence, and F l e x i b i l i t y — w e r e not significantly

related to success in student teaching as measured by grades

e a r n e d in student teaching. The results further depict small,

but i n s i g n i f i c a n t , correlation coefficients and all are in a

positive direction except the correlation coefficient of the

Human Relationships attribute.

On the basis of the eapirical evidence presented,

hypotheses 15a and 15b were accepted and the r e m a i n d e r of

hypothesis 15 was rejected.

Hypothesis 16

T h e statistical evidence n e c e s s a r y to test the tena-

bility of hypothesis 16 is presented in Table XXIX.

166

TABLE XXIX

THE CORRELATION OF STRUCT UK BD-OBJECTIV E RORSCHACH TEST ATTRIBUTES AND SUCCESS IN STUDENT TEACHING AS

MEASURED BY COLLEGE COORDINATORS* RATINGS

Student Co liege Teacher Coordi nator Correla-

SORT Scores Ratings tion Co-Attri bute (N ss 263) ( N e 236) efficient Level

Mean SB Mean SO

Theoretical 45.72 10.82 6.73 2.35 -.06 NS* Practical 51.33 9.40 6.73 2.35 . 18 .01 Pedanti c 52.71 11.03 6.73 2.35 -.06 NS* Induction 49.09 8.02 6.73 2.35 -.02 NS* Deduction 51.88 6.40 6.73 2.35 . 14 .05 Rigidity 44.62 11.70 6.73 2.35 -.05 NS® Structuri ng 56.11 12.75 6.73 2.35 .06 NS* Coneentration 52.56 7.59 6.73 2.35 .07 NS* Range 47.63 5.84 6.73 2.35 .06 NS* Human Relation-

ships 51.41 9.00 6.73 2.35 -.03 NS* Popular 45.48 9.90 6.73 2.35 .04 NS* Origi nal 38.65 10.99 6.73 2.35 -.03 NS* Persistence 44.62 11.70 6.73 2.35 —. 05 NS* Aggressiveness 54.18 6.90 6.73 2.35 .06 NS* Social Responsi-

bility 50.32 6.16 6.73 2.35 -.00 NS* Cooperation 45.11 5.34 6.73 2.35 -.05 NS* Tact 50.54 5.72 6.73 2.35 .06 NS* Confidence 51.85 7.10 6.73 2.35 .07 NS® Consistency of

Behavior 49.55 7.63 6.73 2.35 .05 NS* Anxiety 44.60 10.11 6.73 2.35 -.00 NS* Moodiness 51.82 4.02 6.73 2.35 . 13 .05 Activity Potenti al 53.09 9.49 6.73 2.35 .02 NS* Impulsiveness 52.43 7.59 6.73 2.35 .05 NS* Flexibllity 46.72 5.75 6.73 2.35 .00 NS* Conform!ty 42.04 4.98 6.73 2.35 .02 NS*

*Not significant.


statistically significant positive correlation between the

Practical, Deduction, Human Relationships, Range, Popular,

167

Activity Potential, Aggress!venoss, Social Responslblli ty,

Confidence, and Flexibility attributes and success in student

teaching when the college coordinators' ratings (Appendix A)

of the student teachers were used as a criterion of success.

The results presented in Table XXIX depict statistically

significant and positive correlations between the Practical

and Deduction SOKT attributes and success in student teaching

as measured by the ratings of the college coordinators

(Appendix A),

The Practical attribute was found to have a correlation

coefficient of .18 and was significant beyond the .05 level

of confidence. There was a positive correlation between the

Deduction attribute on the SORT and success in student teach-

ing as measured by the college coordinators* ratings, and

the si ze of the correlation, .14, made it significant beyond

the .05 level of confidence.

Correlation coefficients for the remaining SORT attributes.

Human Relationships, Range, Popular, Activity Potential,

Aggressiveness, Social Besponsibility, Confidence, and Flexi-

bility were small and failed to reach the designated level of

significance specified for acceptance. It follows that

hypotheses 16a and 16b, stating that there was a significant

positive correlation between the Practical and Deduction at-

tributes and success in student teaching as measured by the

college coordinators* ratings of the student teachers were

168

accepted. One must also reject the remainder of the

hypotheses in hypothesis 16.

Hypothesis 17

According to original hypothesis IT, there would be a

significant negative correlation between the Persistence,

Pedantic, Rigidity, Original, Anxiety, Moodiness, and

Impulsiveness attributes and success in student teaching as

measured by grade-point average earned in student teaching.

The statistical quantification of the data necessary to

test the tenability of that hypothesis is presented in

Table XXVIII,

One SORT attribute, Moodiness, was found to be signifi-

cantly related to success in student teaching as measured by

grade-point average earned in student teaching. A correla-

tion coefficient of .14, although small, was significant at

the .05 level of confidence. However, the direction hypoth-

esized would dictate that hypothesis 17f be rejected. Table

XXVIII shows that the correlation coefficients of the remain-

ing attributes in hypothesis 17 failed to reach the .05

level designated for acceptance. Frora the results presented

in Table XXVIII, one must reject the original hypothesis 17

in its entirety. However, one must accept the statistical

result of a positive and significant relationship between

the Moodiness attribute and success in student teaching as

Measured by grade-point average earned in student teaching.

169

Hypothesis IB

Hypothesis 18 stated that there would be a significant

negative correlation between the SORT attributes of Persist-

ence, Pedantic, Rigidity, Original, Anxiety, Moodiness, and

Itapalsiv@ne$s and success in student teaching when the col-

lege coordinators' ratings of the student teachers were used

to measure success.

Evidence relative to the testing of hypothesis 18 was

presented in Table XXIX. A statistically significant cor-

relation coefficient was reported between the score on the

Moodiness attribute and success in student teaching, A cor-

relation coefficient of .13 would indicate significance at

the five per cent level of confidence. The correlations

for the remaining SORT attributes failed to reach signifi-

cance. The evidence indicates that hypothesis 18 was

rejected and that there was no negative significant rela-

tionship between the SORT attributes of Persistence, Pedantic,

Rigidity, Original, Anxiety, Moodiness, and Impulsiveness and

success in student teaching. In reviewing the results

leading to the rejection of the original hypothesis, on©

must conelude that there was a significant positive rela-

tionship between moodiness and success in student teaching

as measured by the college coordinators* ratings of the

student teachers.

170

Hypothesis 19

According to original hypothesis 19, there would be no

statistically significant correlation between the SORT attri-

butes of Theoretical, Induction, Structuring, Concentration,

Consistency of Behavior and Conformity and success in student

teaching as measured by the grade-point average earned in

student teaching. Table XXVIII presented the statistical

quantification necessary to test the tenability of that

hypothesis. According to the results in Table XXVIII, there

were no significant correlations between any of the above

named SORT attributes and grade-point average. This would

indicate that there was no relationship between those at-

tributes and success in student teaching as measured by

grade-point average earned in student teaching,and hypothesis

19 was rejected.

Hypothesis 20

Hypothesis 20 stated that there would be no statistically

significant correlation between the Theoretical, Induction,

Structuring, Concentration, Cooperation, Consistency of

Behavior and Conformity attributes and success in student

teaching as measured by the college coordinators' ratings of

the student teachers. The results presented in Table XXIX

show that the seven correlation coefficients failed to reach

the designated five per cent level of significance necessary

for acceptance or rejection. The results would indicate

171

that there was no relationship between those seven SORT

attributes and success in student teaching as measured by

the ratings of the college coordinators. It follows that

hypothesis 20 was rejected.


1. Beck, Samuel J., Rorschach's Test. Volume II, New York, Grune & Stratton, 1947.

2. Frucbter, Benjamin, Introduction to Factor Analysis. Princeton, New Jersey, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1954.

3. Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, Ness York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1942,

4. narrower, Holly R. and Matilda E. Steiaer, Large Scale Rorschach Techniques. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thoasas, 1951.

5. Kerli nger, Fred N., Foundations of Befaavioral Research . New York, Holt, Ri nehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

6. Klopfer, Bruno and D. M. Kelley, The Rorschach Technique. New York, World Book Company, 1946,

7. McNeraar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962,

8. Srai th, G. Milton, A Simplified Guide to Statlstici. 3rd ed., New York, Holt, Ri nehart and Winston, Inc., 1962.

9. Stone, Joict B. , Structured-Objective Rorschach Test. :

Los Angeles, California Test Bureau, 1958.

10. Underwood, Benton J. and others, Elementary Statistics. New York, Appleton-Century-Creft«, Inc., 1954.

172

CHAPTER IF

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to analyse the relation-

ship of personality attributes measured by the Structured-

fto r g c hac| Te.g.t and success in student teaching.

More specifically, this study focused on the differences

existing between those student teachers rated as pos$essitig

strengths in certain behavioral aspects of student teaching

and those student teachers rated as possessing weaknesses

in those same areas.

The student teachers involved is this study were those

students enrolled in student teaching at North Texas State

University during the fall semester of 1965. The SORT was

administered to all of the student teachers prior to their

entering student teaching. The grade-point averages earned

in student teaching were obtained from the Registrar and the

evaluative forms necessary for this study were obtained from

the college coordinators.

The study was limited to the testing of the following

twenty snajor hypotheses t


®ean scores on the fifteen basic Rorschach score variables

173

174

for the student teachers and the normative population used in

the standardization of the SORT.


mean scores on the fifteen basic Korschaeh score variables

for the elementary and the secondary student teacher group.


wean scores on the fifteen basic Rorschach score variables

for the elementary teacher group and the normative population.

4. There wi11 be no significant difference between the

mean scores on the fifteen basic Rorschach score variables

for the secondary student teacher group and the normative

population.


mean scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for the student teachers and the normative population.


taeaa scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for the elementary and the secondary student teacher group.


nean scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for the elementary student teacher group and the normative

population.


mean scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for the secondary student teacher group and the normative

population.

175

9, There will be no significant difference between the

wean grade-point averages earned in student teaching for the

secondary student teachers and the elementary student

teachers.


mean ratings assigned the student teachers by the college

coordinators for the elementary and secondary groups.

11. There will be a significant difference between the

mean scores of the twenty-five SORT personality attributes

for those student teachers rated as possessing strengths on

each of the ten summary statements and those student teachers

rated as possessing weaknesses on each of the ten summary

statements (appendix if) .

12. There will be a significant difference between the

mean scores on the twenty-five SORT attributes for those

student teachers rating themselves as possessing strengths

on each of the ten summary statements and those student

teachers rating theaselves as possessing weaknesses on each

of the ten statements (Appendix C).


college coordinators' and the student teachers* perceptions

of the student teachers' strengths and weaknesses.

14. There will be a relationship of a certain cluster

of attributes measured by the SORT and success in student

teachi ng.

176



and success in student teaching when the grade-point aver-

age earned in student teaching was used as a criterion of

success,

a. Practical

b. Deduction

c. Human Relationships

d. Hange

e. Popular

f. Activity Potential

g. Aggressiveness

h. Social Responsibility

i. Confidence

j. Flexibility


correlation between the above attributes of personality and

success in student teaching when the college coordinators'

ratings (Appendix A) of the student teachers were used as

a raeasure of success.




earned in student teaching was used as a criterion of success

a. Persistence

b. Pedantic

177

c. Rigidity

d. Original

0. Anxiety

£. Moodiness

g. Impulsiveness


correlation between the above personality attributes and

success I si student teaching when the college coordi nators1


success (Appendix A).

19. There will be no statistically significant correla-

tion between the following attributes and success in student

teaching when the student teachers' grade-poi nt averages

earned in student teaching were used as measures of success.

a. Theoretical

b. Induction

c. Structuring

d. Concentration

e. Cooperation

f. Consistency of Behavior

g. Conformity

20. There will be no statistically significant corre-

lation between the above personality attributes and success

in student t e ac h i ng when the college coordinators' ratings

of the student teachers were used as measures oI success

(Appendix A).

l i e

Fi ndi ng*

The data analyzed In this study produced the f o l l o w i n g

f i ndi ngs :

1. The student teachers used in this study were sig-

nificantly different f r o m the normative p o p u l a t i o a o n fourteen

of the f i f t e e n basic R o r s c h a c h variables. There was no

significant difference between the m e a n scores for the two

groups on the F - , or P o o r - f o r m variable. Significantly higher

mean scores were reported for the student teachers otx the

f o l l o w i n g variables in the order of their magnitude f r o m t h e

S O R T m e a n of 50; R e s p o n s e s c l o s e l y resembling t h e f o r m of

t h e s t i m u l u s (F) , a m e a n s c o r e of 5 5 . 0 7 ; Responses i n v o l v i n g

h u m a n m o v e m e n t or posture-tension < M ) , a aeaa of 5 3 . 1 3 ;

Minor-blot details (l>d) , a m e a n of 5 2 . 6 0 } Responses involving

t o t a l h u m a n f i g u r e s or parts of h u m a n s (II) , a mean score of

5 1 . 3 8 j R e s p o n s e s involving animal movement or posture-tension

(FS), a m e a n of 51.36? and Major-blot details (0), a mean of

51,22. It follows that the student teachers as a group were

more accurate in their perception and interpretation of

reality ( F ) , more intellectually creative ( M ) , more pedantic

( D d ) , m o r e intellectual (H), more repressed in their thoughts

(FM) , and m o r e practical (I)} than the normative population

used in the s t a nd ard i zat i o n of the S O R T .

Significantly lower mean scores were found for the stu-

dent teachers on the following Rorschach variables in the

order of their Magnitude from the SORT mean of 501 Original

179

(0), a mean score of 38.61? Responses involving color and

poorly resembling the form of the stimulus (CF) , with a mean

of 42.61j White-space (S), a mean of 44.52? Responses in-

volving textural density of gray or shading (Fch), a mean

of 44.52? Whole-blot responses (W), a mean of 45.76? Modal

re onses (P), a mean of 45.54? Responses involving whole

animals or parts of animals (A), a mean of 47.49? and

Responses involvi ng color and closely resembling the form

of the stimulus (FC) , a mean of 47.93. It follows that the

student teachers as a group were less eccentric (0), less

emotional (CF), less contrary (S), less anxious (Fch), less

theoretical (Iff), less conforming (P), less immature (A), and

less sensitive to others (FC) than the normative population

used in the standardization of the SORT. One must conclude

that there was a difference between the two groups on four-

teen of the basic Rorschach variables and the mean differences

were highly significant beyond the .001 level of confidence.

2. The elementary and secondary student teachers used

as subjects in this study were similar with respect to a

comparison of mean scores on the basic Rorschach score var-

iables. The elementary student teacher group had a signifi-

cantly higher mean score, 54.57, on the Major-blot detail

(D) variable than the mean of 49.89 for the secondary student

teacher group. The value of 3.97 indicated that the mean

difference was significantly different beyond the .001 level

of confidence.

180

The elementary student teacher group was significantly

lower than the secondary group on the White-space (S) mean.

A mean score of 39.80 for the elementary group was signifi~

cantly different from the mean of 46.26 found for the

secondary group and the t. value of -4.42 was found to be

significant beyond the .001 level of confidence.

The third significant difference reported between the

mean scores of the two groups was the Modal (P) score. The

mean of 43.02 for the elementary student teacher group was

significantly different from the mean score of 46.54 for

the secondary group and the t, value indicated that this dif-

ference was significant beyond the .01 level.

The elementary student teacher group also had a higher

mean score on the Original (0) responses variable than the

secondary group, but the £ value of 1.84 failed to reach the

arbitrary level of five per cent significance required in

this study.

The obvious conclusions were drawn: the eleaentary

student teachers were more practical (D)j less stubborn (S);

and less conforming (P) than the secondary student teachers

tested in this study.

3. The elementary student teacher group was signifi-

cantly different from the normative population used in the

standardization of the SORT. Of the fifteen basic Rorschach

scores, the differences between the mean scores for the two

groups were found to be significantly different with the

181

exception of the Human response (H) score. Significantly

higher mean scores were reported for the student teachers on

the following variables in the order of their magnitude from

the SORT mean T scores of 50: Eesponses closely resembling

the form of the stimulus (F), with a mean of 55.61} Major-

blot detail (D), a mean of 54.57j Responses to Mi nor-blot

details (Od), a mean of 53.05; Responses involving human

movement or posture-tension (M), a mean of 52.86; Responses

involving animal movement or posture-tension (FM), a mean

of 51.73; and Responses poorly resembling the form of the

stimulus (F-) , a mean of 50.92. The reported jt values

indicated that these differences between the means of the

two groups were highly significant. It follows that the

elementary student teachers used in this study were more

accurate in their perception and interpretation of reality

(F), more practical <D), more pedantic (Dd), more intel-

lectually creative (M), more repressed in their thoughts

(FM), and had less ego strength (F-) than the normative

population used in the standardization of the SORT.

Significantly lower mean scores were found for the

elementary student teachers on the following Rorschach vari-

ables in the order of their magnitude from the SORT mean T

scores of 50: White-space responses (S), a mean of 39.80;

Original (0), a mean of 40.46; Responses involving color and

poorly resembling the form of the stimulus (CF), a mean of

42.48; Modal responses (P), a mean of 43.02j Eesponses

102

involving textural density of gray or shading (Fch), a mean

of 44.38; Whole-blot responses (v.'), a mean of 44.70; Responses

involving color and closely resembling the form of the stim-

ulus (FC), a mean of 47.86; and Responses involving whole

animals or parts of animals (a), u mean of 48.55. These dif-

ferences were highly significant according to the reported t,

values. It follows that the elementary student teachers used

as subjects in this study were less contra ry (S) , less

eccentric (0), less emotional (CF), less conforming (P), less

anxious (Fch), less theoretical (W), less sensitive to others

(FC), and less immature (A) than the normative population

used in the standardization of the SORT.

4. The secondary student teachers used in this study

were significantly different from the subjects used in the

standardization of the SORT on fourteen of the fifteen basic

Rorschach score variables. The difference between the mean

scores on the Major-blot detail failed to reach the arbitrary

level of significance required in this study. The results

reported significantly higher mean scores for the secondary

student group on the following variables in the order of their

magnitude from the mean T scores of 50 for the normative popu-

lation: Responses that closely resemble the form of the

stimulus (F), a mean score of 55.98\ Responses involving

human movement or posture-tension (M), a mean of 53.24; Mi nor-

blo t details (Dd), a mean of 52.41; Responses involving human

figures or parts of humans (H), a mean of 51.67 j and Hesponses

183

involving animal m o v e m e n t or posture-tension (Fi), a m e a n of

51.22. The differences b e t w e e n the means were significant

at t h e .001 l e v e l w h i c h w o u l d indicate t h a t t h e s e differences

were highly significant. It follows that the secondary stu-

dent teachers tested in this study were more accurate in

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of r e a l i t y ( F ) , m o r e i n t e l l e c t u a l l y c r e a t i v e

(M) , m o r e p e d a n t i c ( l i d ) , m o r e i n t e l l e c t u a l (H) , and m o r e

repressed in their thoughts (FM) when compared to the

normative p o p u l a t i o n used in t h e standardisation of the S O R T .

Significantly lower mean scores for the secondary student

teacher group were r e p o r t e d on the following basic R o r s c h a c h

score variables in t h e order of t h e i r magnitude from the SORT

mean T scores of 50: Original (0), a mean of 37.87j R e s p o n s e s

i n v o l v i n g c o l o r and p o o r l y resembling the form of the stimulus

(CF), a mean of 42.65; Responses involving textural density of

gray or shading (Fch), a mean of 44.58j Whole-blot responses

(W), a mean of 4 6 . 1 8 ; White-space ($), a m e a n of 46.26; Modal

responses (P), a mean of 46.54; Responses i n v o l v i n g w h o l e

animals or parts of a n i m a l s (A), a mean of 47.07; Responses

involving color and closely resembling the form of the stim-

ulus (PC), a mean of 47.96; and Responses poorly resembling

the form of the stimulus (F-). The reported ± values indicated

that these differences were significant at the .001 level.

One must c o n c l u d e t h a t the secondary s t u d e n t teachers used

in this study were less e c c e n t r i c (0), less emotional ( C F ) ,

less anxious (Fch), less contrary (S), less conforming (P),

184

less immature (A), less sensitive to others (F€), and had

greater ego strength than the normative population used in

the standardization of the SORT.

5. The student teachers used in this study were signif-

icantly different from the sample used in the standardization

of the SORT on twenty-four of the twenty-five SORT personality

attributes. One attribute, Social Responsibility, was found

not to be significantly different for the student teachers

and the normative population.

The student teachers scored significantly higher mean

scores than the standardization sample on the following SORT

attributes in the order of their magnitude from the SOET mean

of 50: Structuring, a mean of 55.87; Aggressiveness, 54.10;

Activity Potential, 53.13; Pedantic, 52.60; Concentration,

52.41; Impulsiveness, 52.29; Confidence, 52.00; Deduction,

51.85; Moodiness, 51.80; Human Relationships,51.38; Practical,

51.22; and Tact, 50.63. The _t values for the difference

between the means indicated that these differences were

highly significant. One must conclude that the student

teachers used in this study possessed these attributes to a

larger degree than the normative population used in the

standardization of the SORT.

The student teachers used in this study had significantly

lower mean scores on the following attributes than did the

normative population : Origi nal, a mean of 38.61; Conform!ty,

a mean of 42.05; Persistence, a mean of 44.42; Rigidity, a

185

m e a n of 44.42; Anxiety, a m e a n of 44.52} C o o p e r a t i o n , a mean

of 45.02; P o p u l a r , a mean of 45.54; Theoretical, a mean of

45.76? Range, a mean of 47.86; Flexibility, a mean of 48.67;

I n d u c t i o n , a m e a n of 49.14; and Consistency of B e h a v i o r , a

m e a n of 49.37. The differences between the means on the

above twelve SORT attributes were found to be highly signifi-

cant w h e n compared to the m e a n of 50 on those a t t r i b u t e s for

t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n ,

O n e m u s t c o n c l u d e that the s t u d e n t teachers w e r e m o r e

p r a c t i c a l , m o r e pedantic, m o r e deductive in their thinking,

more structured, able to concentrate to a greater degree,

more interested in people, raore aggressive, more t a c t f u l ,

m o r e c o n f i d e n t , m o o d i e r , more i m p u l s i v e , and possessed greater

a c t i v i t y potential t h a n t h e normative p o p u l a t i o n .

It also follows t h a t the s t u d e n t teachers were less

theoretical, less i n d u c t i v e , less rigid, less p o p u l a r , less

original, less persistent, less c o o p e r a t i v e , less a n x i o u s ,

less flexible, less conforming, had fewer interests and were

l e s s c o n s i s t e n t in t h e i r b e h a v i o r t h a n t h e n o r m a t i v e p o p u l a -

t i o n .

6. The elementary and secondary student teachers were

s o m e w h a t alike w h e n compared by their performance on the

SORT. A significant difference between the mean scores of

the t w e n t y - f i v e S O R T attributes was f o u n d for five a t t r i b u t e s :

Rigidity; Practical; Deduction; Popular; and Persistence.

The elementary student teachers had a higher mean score t h a n

186

the secondary student teachers on the Practice! and Deduction

attributes. The mean score on the former variable for the

elementary group was 54.57 compared to a mean score of 49.89

for the secondary group. A t, value of 3.97 would sake this

difference between the means of the two groups highly signif-

icant. There was also u significantly higher mean score for

the elementary student teacher group on the Deduction attri-

bute. A mean score of 53.33 for the elementary group compared

to a 51.26 mean score for the secondary group was statistically

significant beyond the .02 level of confidence, which means a

difference this large between the means of two groups could

occur by chance alone only two times out of one hundred.

The elementary group was found to have a significantly

lower mean score than the secondary group on the following

attributes s Kigidity; Popular; and Persistence, h mean

score of 39.80 was found for the elementary group on the

Rigidity attribute and a mean of 46.26 on this attribute for

the secondary group. The t, value of 4.42 indicated that this

difference was significant beyond the .001 level. The ele-

mentary student teacher group also had a lower mean score,

43.02, for the Popular attribute than the mean score of 46.54

for the secondary group on the same attribute. The t, value

of 2,77 indicated that this difference was significant beyond

the .01 level of confidence. The elementary group had a mean

score of 39.80 for the Persistence attribute and this mean

score was significantly different from the mean score of 46.26

187

for the secondary group. This difference was considered

significant beyond the .OOi level.

One Must conclude that the elementary student teachers

tested in this study were more practical, more deductive,

less rigid, less popular and less persistent when compared

to the secondary student teachers used in the study.

7. The elementary student teacher group was signifi-

cantly different from the standardization sample used in the

SORT. There was no significant difference between the wean

scores for the two groups on the personality attributes of

Human Relationships and Social Responsibility. The differ-

ences between the mean scores on the remaining twenty-three

personality attributes for the two groups were statistically

significant. The following attributes were found to have a

higher mean score for the elementary student teacher group

compared to the normative me an of 50s Structur i ng, a mean

of 55.61j Practical, a mean of 54.57$ Aggressiveness, a mean

of 53.84| Deduction, a mean of 53.33; Concentration, a mean

of 53.19; Impulsiveness, a mean of 53.19 5 Pedantic, a mean of

53.05; Activity Potential, a mean of 52.86? Confidence, a

mean of 52.05 j Moodiness, 51.95? and Tact, & mean of 50.75.

The t, values disclosed that the differences between the means

of the above attributes were significant beyond the .001

level with the exception of the Tact attribute, and a £ value

of 2.13 would indicate that difference was significant beyond

the .05 level.

186

Lower mean scores were reported for the elementary group

on the following attributes! Persistence, a mean of 39.80 j

Rigidity, a mean of 39.00j Original, a mean of 40,46;

Cooperation, a wean of 41.885 Popular, a mean of 43.02j

Anxiety, a mean of 44.38; Theoretical, a mean of 44.70;

Cooperation, a mean of 44.96 j Cooperation, a raean of 45.05;

Range, a mean of 47.34; Consistency of Behavior, a mean of

48.22; Flexibility, a mean of 48 . 60 and Induction, a mean of

48.61. These differences were significantly different from

the normative mean of 50 at the .001 level.

One must conclude that the elementary student teachers

used in this study were more practical, pedantic, deductive

in their thinking, accurate in their perception of reality,

aggressive, tactful, confident, moodier, impulsive, possessed

more activity potential, and had greater ability to concentrate


One must also conclude that the elementary student

teachers used in this study were less theoretical and induc-

tive in their thinking, less rigid, popular, original,

persistent, cooperative, anxious, flexible and conforming in

their behavior, possessed fewer interests, and were less

consistent in their behavior than the normative population,

8. The secondary student teachers used in this study

were significantly different from the standardization sample

on twenty-two of the twenty-five SORT attributes. The dif-

ferences between the means for the Practical, Social

189

Responsibility, and Consistency of Behavior attributes did

not reach the specified level of five per cent designated for

this study. Significantly higher mean scores were reported

on the following attributes for the secondary student teacher

groups Structuring, a mean of 55.98} Aggressiveness, a oean

of 54.20; Activity Potential, a mean of 53.24; Pedantic, a

mean of 52.41j Concentration, a mean of 52.10; Confidence, a

mean of 51.98; Impulsiveness, a mean of 51.93; Moodiness, a

mean of 51.14; Human Relationships, a mean of 51.67; Deduction,

a mean of 51.26 and Tact, a mean of 50.59. These differences

between the mean scores of the two groups were highly signifi-

cant according to the reported £ values.

Significantly lower mean scores were found for the sec-

ondary student teacher group on the following SORT attributes i

Original, a mean of 37.67; Conformity, a mean of 42.11;

Anxiety, a mean of 44.83; Cooperation, a mean of 45.05;

Theoretical, a mean of 46.16; Rigidity, a aean of 46.26;

Persistence, a mean of 46.26; Popular, a mean of 46.54;

Range, a mean of 48.07; Flexibility, a mean of 40.70 and

Induction, a aean of 49.35. These mean scores were signifi-

cantly different from the mean of 50 for the SORT attributes

and the various values disclosed that these differences

were highly significant.


serving as subjects in this study were nor® structured, more

aggressive, possessed greater activity potential, were »ore

190

pedantic, had greater concentration, more confidence, were

more impulsive, woodier, more interested in humans, more

deductive in their thinking and more tactful than the norma-

tive population.

One must also conclude that the secondary student

teachers were less eccentric, less conforming, less anxious,

less cooperative, less theoretical in their thinking, less

rigid, less persistent, less popular, possessed fewer interests

were less flexible, and less inductive in their thinking than


9. The mean grade-point average earned in student

teaching by the elementary student teachers was 2.37 based

on a three point scale. That nean score was .06 grade-points

lower than the mean grade-point average of 2.43 for the sec-

ondary student teachers. This slight difference between the

two means for the two groups was found not to be significantly

different.

10. There was no significant difference between the mean

ratings (Appendix A) of the elementary and secondary teachers

used in this study. The rating scale (Appendix A) had a

numerical value ranging from one to eleven. A mean rati ng

of 6.67 was reported for the eleraentary group and a slightly

higher mean rating of 6.76 was found for the secondary student

teacher group. The difference between the two means of .09

points favoring the secondary student teacher group failed

to reach statistical significance.

191

11. The following findings are presented as a result of

testing hypothesis lis

a. Three significant differences were found on the

SOBT mean scores between those student teachers rated by the

college coordinators (Appendix B) as possessing statement one,

"Demonstrates effectiveness and resourcefulness in planning

and organizing" (Appendix B), as their greatest strength and

those student teachers rated as possessing that statement as

their greatest weakness. Those student teachers rated as

strong on the above statement were more practical, more deduc-

tive and had more concentration than did those student teachers

rated as weak on that statement.

b. Those student teachers rated as possessing

statement two, "Organizes and manages the classroom as an

effective environment for learning" (appendix B), as their

greatest weakness, had significantly higher mean scores on

the five SORT attributes of Human Relationships, Tact, Confi-

dence , Moodiness and Activity Potential than did those student

teachers rated as possessing that statment as their greatest

strength.

c. Significant differences were found for six SORT

attribute mean scores between those student teachers rated as

possessing statement four as their greatest strength, "Shows

an understanding of students through influencing desirable

pupil attitudes and behavior" (Appendix B), and those student

teachers rated weak on that ftatement. The raean scores on the

192

Rigidity, Structuring, Persistence and Consistency of Behav-

ior attributes were significantly lower for those student

teachers rated strong on statement four compared to those

student teachers rated weak on that statement, A signifi-

cantly higher mean score on the Tact and Range attributes

was found for those student teachers rated as possessing

Statement four as their greatest strength compared to the

other group.

d. Those student teachers rated as possessing

statement five, "Uses effective democratic procedures to

influence behavior" (Appendix B) , as a strength were not

significantly different from those student teachers rated

as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

The findings showed that there were no significant differ-

ences between the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT at-

tributes for the two groups.

e. Significant differences were found between the

mean scores on three SORT attributes for those student teach-

ers rated as possessing statement six as their greatest

strength and those student teachers rated as possession that

statement as their greatest weakness. Those student teachers

rated strong on the statement, "Promotes growth in pupil

knowledge, skills and attitudes" (Appendix B), had signifi-

cantly lower mean scores on the Human Relationships, Activity

Potential, and Flexibility attributes than those student

teachers rated weak on that statement.

193

f, Those student teachers rated as possessing

statement seven, "Demonstrates requisite knowledge of subject

matter" ( A p p e n d i x B), as their greatest strength, h a d signif-

icantly higher mean scores on the Rigidity, Per$istence,

Structuring, and Consistency of Behavior attributes than did

those student teachers rated as possessing t h a t statement as

their greatest weakness. This would indicate that those stu-

dent teachers possessing strength on statement seven were

more rigid, more persistent, more structured and more con-

sistent in their behavior than those student teachers rated

as being weak on that statement.

g. Those student teachers rated as possessing

strength on the statement, "Displays satisfactory communica-

tion skill" (Appendix B), were found to be more practical,

more deductive, less theoretical, le$s inductive and less

popular than those student teachers rated as possessing that

statement as their greatest weakness.

12. The following findings are presented as a result of

the testing of hypothesis 12:

a. Significant differences between the mean scores

on the Structuring and Concentration attributes were found

for those student teachers rating them«elves as possessing

the statement, "Demonstrates effectiveness and resourceful-

ness in planning and organizing" (Appendix C), as their

greatest strength and those student teachers rating themselves

as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.

194

Those student teachers rating themselves as strong on state-

ment one were more structured and had a higher mean score on

the Concentration attribute than those student teachers

rating themselves as weak on that statement.

b. Significant differences between the means of

four SORT attributes were found for those student teachers

rating themselves as possessing statement two as their

greatest strength and those student teachers rating themselves

as having that statement as their greatest weakness. Those

student teachers rating themselves strong on the statement,

"Organizes and manages the classroom as an effective environ-

ment for learning" (Appendix C), had significantly lower mean

scores on the Popular, Social Responsibility, activity

Potential, and Conformity SORT attributes when compared to

those student teachers rating themselves weak on that state-

ment .

c. Those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing statement three, "Deraonstrates ability to evaluate

and diagnose desirable learning effectively" (Appendix C), as

their greatest strength, were found not to be significantly

different from those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing that statement as their greatest weakness. The

results showed that the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT

attributes for the two groups were not statistically signif-

icant .

195

d. The findings showed t h a t there were no signifi-

cant differences b e t w e e n t h e mean scores on t h e twenty-five

SORT attributes for t h o s e s t u d e n t teachers rating themselves

as being strong on the statement, "Shows an understanding of

students through influencing desirable pupil attitudes and

behavior" ( A p p e n d i x C ) , and those student teachers perceiving

t h e m s e l v e s as b e i n g w e a k on t h a t statement.

e. A comparison of the m e a n scores on the twenty-

five SORT attributes for those student teachers r iti ng them-

selves as possessing statement five as their greatest strength

and those student teachers rating t h e m s e l v e s as possessing

that statement as their greatest weakness showed that there

were no significant differences between the mean scores for

t h e two g r o u p s .

f. Those student teachers rating themselves as

possessing statement six, "Promotes g r o w t h in p u p i 1 knowl-

edge, skills, and attitudes** (Appendix C) as their greatest

strength, had a significantly higher m e a n score on t h e

Concentration attribute than those student teachers rating

themselves as weak on that statement. Those student teachers

perceiving themselves as weak on statement six had signifi-

cantly higher mean scores on the Confidence, Cooperation and

Flexibility attributes than did those student teachers per-

ceiving themselves as being strong on that statement.

g. Those student teachers rating themselves as

being strong on statement eight, " d i s p l a y s satisfactory

.196

communication skills" (Appendix C), were found to have signif-

i c a n t l y higher me an scores on s even SORT attributes when com-

pared to those student t e a c h e r s rati ng themselves as p o s s e s s i n g

that statement as their greatest weakness. The former group

of student teachers h a d higher mean scores on t h e Practical,

Deduction, Popular, Aggressiveness, Moodiness* Activity

Potential, and F l e x i b i l i t y attributes than did the latter

group.

13. Findings relative to the testing of the hypothesis

that there would be no significant difference between the

college coordinators' and the student teachers* perceptions

of the student teachers* strengths and weaknesses are pre-

sented below;

a. Differences in the perceptions of the student

teachers' strengths were found for statements three,, four,

six, seven and nine. The college coor d i n a t o r s * and student

teachers' perceptions of the student teachers' strengths

were similar on statements one, two, five, and eight.

The greatest strength of the student teachers as seen

by the college coordinators and the student teachers was the

demonstration of a desirable attitude toward teaching and

supervision (Appendices f> and C) . There was no difference

between the two groups* perceptions of that strength.

The college coordinators rated statement two, "Organizes

and manages the classroom as an effective environment for

learning" (Appendices B and C), as the student teachers*

197

second greatest strength. The student teachers rated them-

selves as having as their second greatest strength, "Show®

an understanding of students through influencing desirable

pupil attitudes and behavior" (Appendices B and C).

Although there were significant differences between the

perceptions of the student teachers' strengths on six of the

ten statements, when the same data were treated by the Rank

Order Correlation method, a J> coefficient of .70 was found,

which would indicate agreement between the college coordina-

tors and the student teachers concerning the relative rank

of the ten statements of the student teachers* strengths.

b. The greatest weakness of the student teachers

as perceived by the college coordinators and the student

teachers was the statement, "Demonstrates ability to evaluate

and diagnose desirable learning effectively" (Appendix C).

The second greatest weakness of the student teachers as per-

ceived by the college coordinators was statement eight,

"Displays satisfactory communication skills" (Appendices B

and C). However, the student teachers perceived statement

five as their second greatest weakness.

The findings showed that there were significant differ-

ences between the college coordinators' and the student

teachers* perceptions of the student teachers' weaknesses

on statements three, six and ;<i ne. The two groups* perccp —

tions of the student teachers' weaknesses were similar on

statements one, two, four, five, seven, eight, and ten. When

198

the data were treated by the Rank Order Correlation method,

a y> coefficient of .95 was found, which indicated there was

a high level of agreement between the college coordinators'

and the student teachers* perception® of the student teachers'

weaknes $es,

14, The findings show that the Practical, Deduction,

Moodiness, Concentration and Aggressiveness attributes formed

a cluster related to success in student teaching as measured

by grade-point average earned in student teaching. The B

coefficient of 1.51 produced in that cluster analysis was

acceptable.

a. Three SORT attributes, Practical, Deduction,

and Moodiness, formed a cluster of attributes related to suc-

cess in student teaching as measured by the college coordi-

nators' ratings of the student teachers. The B coefficient

of 1.71 produced in that cluster analysis was acceptable.

15. a. Three small, but significant, correlations were

found between the SORT attributes and success in student

teaching as measured by grade-point average earned in student

teaching. The highest correlation coefficient reported, .21,

was found between the Practical attribute and success in

student teaching. The size of the correlation made it sig-

nificant beyond the .01 level of confidence. A correlation

coefficient of .15 was reported between the Deduction attribute

and success in student teaching and the size of the correlation

made it significant beyond the .05 level of confidence. The

199

data indicated a positive but small correlation of .14 between

Moodiness and success in student teaching as measured by

grade-point average earned in student teaching.

b. By using the college coordinators' ratings of

the student teachers as measures of success, three small but

significant correlation coefficients were found. rtn obtained

r, between the Practical attribute and coordinators* ratings,

of ,16 was found to be significant beyond the .01 level of

confidence. The data further indicated a positive but small

correlation of .14 between the Deduction attribute and ratings

by the college coordinators. The size of the correlation made

it significant beyond the .05 level of confidence, h third

significant positive correlation was found between Moodiness

and the coordinators' ratings. The size of the correlation,

.13, made it significant beyond the .05 level of confidence.

Conclusions

The conclusions derived from this study are not claimed

for population groups other than those student teachers rep-

resented in this study. It must be pointed out that the data

for this investigation were secured entirely at North Texas

State University, Denton, Texas, and similar conclusions for

other groups cannot be inferred on the basis of this study

alone. The following conclusions were formulated from the

data obtained in this study.

200

1. Although the SORT is not a clinical device, there

are certain temperamental factors indicative of adjustment

potential. On those measures, the student teacher population

studied was better adjusted than the normative population.

2. Student teachers who scored above the mean en the

Practical, Deduction, or Moodiness attributes on the SORT

were more successful in student teaching than were the other

student teachers.

3. The student teachers' personality was of some

significance i n observable strengths and weaknesses in the

classroom.

4. The positive findings of this study warrant the

conclusion that selected sections of the SORT can be of

value in identifying successful student teachers.

Implications

Certain implication® pertaining to the selective ad-

mission of students to teacher education may be drawn from

the data gathered and the findings presented in this study.

1. Success in student teachi ng apparently defies

obj ective measurement. There was every indication that

"success," in the estimation of one college coordinator, was

not the same as "success" to other college coordinators. It

follows that efforts should be roade to obtain evaluations of

student teachers from more than one college coordinator.

2. This study indicated that there are certain needs

in the preparation of student teachers. This was emphasized

201

in the perception of the greatest weakness of the student

teachers as lacking demonstrated ability to evaluate and

diagnose desirable learning effectively. This apparent need

may be attributed to the lack of professional preparation in

that area,

3. The major difficulty in attempting to discover

specific and distinctive relationships of teacher personality

and effective teaching may be due to lack of an adequate

theory of teaching.

Heeomraendatio ns

From the analysis and interpretation of the data pre-

sented, the following recommendations are made:

1. The SORT should be used for counseling purposes in

admitting students to programs of teacher education.

2. A longitudinal study should be made of those student

teachers in this study to follow-up their teaching activities

as a first year teacher.

3. A longitudinal study should be made to discover if

the student teachers differ significantly from the normative

population on the SORT at the tine of their admission to

teacher education and at the conclusion of their first year

on the job.

4. Further investigation is warranted concerning the

personality differences identified by this study between

elementary and secondary student teachers.

202

5. There should be a continued search for those per-

sonality characteristics related to successful student

teaching. This might best be done by locating those student

teachers at the extremes of the rating scale (Appendix A)

and comparing the two groups for personality differences.

6. It is recommended that an in-depth study be made

of the college coordinator, the cooperating teacher, and

the student teacher to determine if personality is a signif-

icant factor in the coll ege coordinator's evaluation of the

student teacher,

7. It is suggested that a search be made of the student

teachers' observable behavior in the classroom to determine

if there is a relationship between observable student teacher

strengths and "success" in student teaching.

APPENDIX A

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF STUDENT TEACHER COMPETENCE

Name of Student Teacher

Instructionss Please indicate your professional judg-ment of the competence of your student teacher by placing a check mark before the description below which, in your opinion, most nearly describes bis prospects. If you find it impossible to choose between two adjacent descriptions, feel free to indicate this fact by checking thera both. This information is for the Department of Education only and will not be used for Placement Office purposes.

Student teacher still falls short of bei ng ready to take on a regular teaching position? needs further improve-ment before I could honestly predict for his success in the teaching profession.

Student teacher is making progress and shows promise? for his own good, however, it would probably be best if in his first position he could continue to receive close supervision and support for a while longer.

Student teacher has done a reasonably good job and I feel he is now competent to handle a classroom of his own satisfactorily.

Student teacher has done a very good jobj I am convinced he wi11 be an asset to whatever school system nay hire him and may even become outstanding in time.

Student teacher has done an unusually good job; with a little more opportunity for professional growth that wi11 come from having a job on his own, he is almost certain to become an outstanding teacher.

_____ Student teacher has done such an outs tandi ng job that I believe that right now he could step into any school in this area and be considered an outstanding teacher.

203

APPENDIX B

COUNSELING GUIDE FOE STUDENT TEACHING

Instructions: Below are ten statements concerning student teacher behavior. Select the three descriptive statements that you think best describe the strengths of the student teacher and the three statements that you think best describe the weaknesses of the student teacher. Place the number of the statement in the appropriate box below.

1. Demonstrates effectiveness and resourcefulness in planning and organizing.

2. Organizes and manages the classroom as an effective environment for learning.

3. Demonstrates ability to evaluate and diagnose desirable environment for learning.

4. Shows an understanding of students through influencing desirable pupil attitudes and behaviors,

5. Uses effective democratic procedures to influence behavior.

6. Promotes growth in pupil knowledge, ski lis, and attitudes

7. Demonstrates requisite knowledge of subject matter.

8. Displays satisfactory communication skills.

9. Exhibits desirable personal qualities.

10. Demonstrates a desirable attitude toward teaching and supervision.


204

205

Statement Number

Statement Number

The greatest strength of this student teacher

The second greatest strength X observed

The third greatest strength I observed

The greatest weakness of this student teacher

The second weakest aspect I observed

The third greatest weakness I observed

APPENDIX €

COUNSELING GUIDE FOR STUDENT TEACHING

I n s t r u c t i o n s s Below are ten statements concerning aspects of s t u d e n t teacher behavior. Select the three descriptive statements that you think best describe your strengths as a s t u d e n t teacher and the three statements that you think best describe your weaknesses as a student teacher. Place the n u m b e r of the statement in t h e appro-priate b o x b e l o w .

1. Demonstrates effectiveness and resourcefulness in planning and organizing.

2. Organizes and manages the classroom as an effective environment f o r learning.

3. Demonstrates ability to evaluate and diagnose desirable learning effectively.

4. S h o w s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of s t u d e n t s t h r o u g h i n f l u e n c i n g d e s i r a b l e p u p i l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r .

5. Uses effective democratic procedures to influence behavior.

6. Promotes growth in pupil knowledge, skills, and attitudes

7. D e m o n s t r a t e s requisite k n o w l e d g e of subject m a t t e r .

8. Displays satisfactory c o m m u n i c a t i o n skills.

9. Exhibits desirable personal qualities.

10 Demonstrates a desirable attitude toward teaching and supervi slon.


206

507

Statement Statement Number Number

My greatest My greatest strength weakness

My second greatest My second greatest strength weakness

My third greatest My third greatest strength _____ weakness

APPENDIX D

S T R U C T U R E D - O B J E C T I V E RORSCHACH TEST ATTRIBUTES

A. Theoretical: Facility for thinking in broad, general, or abstract terms* facility for getting perspective, visualizing the overall picture, and seeing relationships between the parts.

B. Practical: Tendency for thinking or attacking problems on the b a s i s of practical, concrete, or very definite detaiIs.

C. Pedantic: Preference for thinking and attacking problems from the s t a n d p o i n t of fine, m i n u t e detaiIs; tendency to be perfectionistic and to focus on precise, sometimes trivial details.

D. Induction: Facility for logical thinking based upon inferences from elements; utilization of their accumula-tive synthesis to lead to conclusions, principles, or generalizationsj ability to organize details into a meaningful whole.

E. Deduction: Readiness to employ the logical approach in which established or speculative theories, principles, or generalizations are applied to data or details for the purpose of analyzing their relationships to one another (and to the pri nciple probably involved). A balance between facilities for inductive and deductive t h i n k i n g , especially when both are high, w o u l d point toward a mental adaptiveness or "efficiency" wherein such intellectual potential as the individual has is the more effective because of versatility in logical processes.

F. Rigidity: Tendency toward the dogmatic or toward fixed ideas. Higher scores suggest an unwillingness to change a poi nt of view in s p i t e of evidence to the contrary; low scores succest an uncritical acceptance of o t h e r s ' viewpoi nts.

208

209

G. Structuring: Facility for mental alertness and precision and exactitude in perception of reality. Occasionally this relates to a somewhat rigid and formalistic way of solving problems, but usually indicates an awareness of and conformity to the environment and its demands.

II. Concentration: Capacity for attending to the task at hand or for avoiding distractions from one's environment or from one's own extraneous thoughts.

I. Range: Tendency of interests to be either expansive or to be narrow and confined.

J. Human Relationships: Disposition toward the perception of and attention to elements having human connotations.

K. Popular; Tendency to perceive the same features in the same way as othersj to see things as other persons do j empathic tendencies.

L. Originals Disposition to perceive the unique, the dif-ferent, and the non-conforming, perhaps even the eccentric j emphasis on i ndividuali sra of actions.

M. Persistences The determination not to deviate from a set course. It may appear as doggedneas or stlck-to-itiveness, It can range from inability to stick to or complete a task along to the further extreme of stubbornness, defiance, or contentiousness.

N. Aggressivenessi The aspiration toward goals by means of well-accepted and morally developed procedures; willing-ness and desire to work; sense of a mature self-control with social co nforrai ty.

0. Soci al Responsibility: Willingness to subserve oneself, even though no personal gains are evident; energetic acceptance of one's obligations to himself, to his family and to society.

P. Cooperation: Willingness to use a teamwork approach; sensitivity toward others in combination with apprecia-tion and responsiveness in human relationships. Willing-ness to submerge one's immediate needs to the long range Interests of other persons is implied.

Q. Tacts Control of impulses and biases} maturity expressed in the abili ty to maintain a stable relationship with superiors, peers, and inferiors. There is balance between inner impulses, conscious self-control, and demands of the social environment.

210

R. Confidence: Ego-strength, self-confidence, m o r a l e ; inner feelings of prestige or personal worth, ranging from feelings of inferiority to strong feelings of self-assurance. It implies ability to withstand stresses and strains and to maintain feelings of self w o r t h (prestige) in the face of adversity.

S. Consistency of Behavior: Predictability of a c t i o n s ; t e n d e n c y f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s to be s t a b l e and well established.

T. Anxiety: Generalized apprehensiveness, uneasiness, or internal d i s q u i e t u d e ; s e l f - c o n c e r n and p r e o c c u p a t i o n with personal well-being, feelings, emotions, and sen-sations, resulting f r o m a feeling of insecurity. A low anxiety score i n d i c a t e s c o m p o s u r e j however, excessive c o m p o s u r e , or almost c o m p l e t e absence of anxiety, way i n d i c a t e a t e n d e n c y to s m o t h e r feelings to t h e point of seeming cold and insensitive. Anxiety may reflect itself in feelings of insecurity, expressions of inadequacy, or c o n s t r i c t i o n of b e h a v i o r j it m a y a l s o r e f l e c t i t s e l f in erratic b e h a v i o r .

U. M o o d i n e s s : S h a r p f l u c t u a t i o n s in m o o d , ranging f r o m e l a t i o n to depression. T h e i n t e n s i t y and duration of either phase m a y vary g r e a t l y .

V. Activity P o t e n t i a l : C o n t r o l of e m o t i o n a l e n e r g y j e n e r g y e n d o w m e n t ; capacity to f o l l o w through on a p l a n n e d course of a c t i o n ; c o n c e n t r a t i o n of e n e r g i e s in a g i v e n d i r e c t i o n , as opposed to dissipation of strength in n o n p r o d u c t i v e c h a n n e l s .

W. I m p u l s i v e n e s s : T e n d e n c y to act u p o n i m p u l s e r a t h e r t h a n on the basis of a c o n s i d e r e d plan; reflected in spur-of-the-moment d e c i s i o n s .

X. Flexibility: Adaptability; faculty for accepting and handling m o s t l i f e s i t u a t i o n s in a m a t u r e m a n n e r ; c a p a c i t y to adjust readily f r o m o n e t y p e of s i t u a t i o n to a n o t h e r .

¥. C o n f o r m i t y : T e n d e n c y to a c c e p t and be d i r e c t e d by t h e socially accepted c o d e s , customs, and mores.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

&bt, Lawrence Edwin and Leopold Bel lack, Pro!ective Psychology. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1950,

Allen, Robert M., Introduction to the Rorschach Technique. New York, International Universities Press, Inc., 1953.

Allport, Gordon W., Pattern MM. Growth la Personality. New York, Holt, Ri nehart and Winston, 1961.

, Personalityt & Psychological Interpre-tation. New York, Henry Holt, 1937.

Anderson, Harold H. and Gladys L. Anderson, editors, An Introduction to Prolective Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1951.

Andrews, T. G., editor, Methods of Psychology, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1948,

Beck, Samuel J., Rorschach's Test. Volume I, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1944.

% Rorschachf s Test. Volume II, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1947.

Beecher, Dwight E., The Evaluation of Teaching: Backgrounds and Concepts. Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1949.

Ferguson, Leonard W., Personalitv Measurement. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952.

Fruchter, Benjamin, Introduction to Factor Analysis. Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1954.

Gage, N. L., editor, Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago, R and McNally and Company, 1963.

Guilford, J. P. , Fundamental, StatistUf in P|y<?^oloflY Education. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1942.

211

212

narrower, 1. n. and M. E. Stei ner, Large Scale Rorschach Tech nlcues. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas, 1951.

Marsh, C. M. and U. G. Schrickel, Personality Development and Assessment. New York, Bonald Press, 1959.

Houston, William Eobert and others, Professional Growth Through Student Teaching. Columbus, Ohio, Charles E. Merri11 Books, Inc., 1965.

Kerlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Res.ear.e.fa, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Klopfer, Bruno and I). M. Kelley, The Rorschach Tech,«ique. New York, World Book Company, 1946.

Lewin, Kurt, A Dynamic Theory of Personal!ty. New York, King's Crown Press, 1942.

Lieberman, Myron, education as j, Profession. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. , Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956.

McNemar, Qui nn, Psychological Statistics. 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962.

Martin, Lycia 0., The Predict!on of Success for Student Teachers i n Teacher Education. New York, Columbia University, 1944.

Murray, H. A. and others, Explorations i n Personality. New York, Oxford University Press, 1930.

Osrao n, Robert Vance, The Improvement of Secondary Teaching. St. Louis, Education Publishers, 1962.

Smith, G. Milton, A Simplified Guide to Stati sties. 3rd ed., New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962.

Sahakian, William S., editor, Psychology of Personality: Readinos in Theory. Chicago, Band McNally and Company, 1965.

Underwood, Benton J. and others, Elementary Statistics. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954.

Vander Werf, Lester S., How to Evaluate Teachers and Teaching, New York, Rinehart and Company, 1958.

Vernon, Philip £., Personality Assessmentt A Critical Survey, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

213

Articles

Barr, A. S. , "Inexperienced Teachers Who Fail—And Why/' Nation's Schools. V (February, 1930), 30-34.

, "Measurement of Teaching Efficiency," Growing

Points in Educational Research. V (December, 1949), 251-2547"

*1 "Merit. Pay for Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXI

(September, 1949), 5-7.

"Pupil Changes and Teacher Ability," Journal of Experimental Education. XIV (September, 1945), 52-74.

M *9

Recruitment for Teacher Training and Prediction of Teacher Success," Review of Educational Research. X (June, 1940), 185-190.

"The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency; A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education. XXX (September, 1961), 1-156.

, "Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Pre* diction of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Exper imental Education. XXX (September, 1961) , 1-156.

Barr, A. S. and Robert E. Jones, "The Measurement and Predic-tion of Teacher Efficiency," fieview of Educational Research. XXVIII (June, 1958), 256-264.

Blair, Glenn Myers, "Personality Adjustments of Teachers as Measured by the Multiple-Choice Rorschach Test," Journal of Educational Research, XXXIX (May, 1946), 652-657.

Brickman, William IV. , "The Essentials in Teacher Education," School and Society. LXXXII (flay, 1956), 190-192.

Brookover, W. B., "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education. XII (June, 1947), i9l-205.

Burdick, Lois A., "Analysis of the Sixteen Personality factor Questionnaire and Elementary Student Teachers at Indiana State College," Teachers College Journal. XXXV (November 1963), 57-59.

Callaway, Holland and Gerald Gleason, "The Teacher and Teacher Effectiveness," Revi ew of Educational Research. XXXIII (June, 1963), 295-296.

2 1 4

Carlile, A. B. , "Predicting Performance in the Teaching Profession," Journal of Educational Research. XLV11 (May, 1954), 641-650.

Cassel, Russell N. and Lloyd W. Johns, "Basic Principles of Effective Teaching Based on Adjectives Used by School Principals in Teachers' Efficiency Reports," Journal of Education. A X X I X (November, 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 6 9 - 1 7 3 .

Cattel1, R. B., "Clinical Versus Statistical Measures of Teaching Ability," Journal of Educational Research. XLI (May, 1948), 718-719.

Chaltas, John (i., "Student Teachings Assignment and Assignment," Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965), 311-318.

Chansky, Norman M., "Report Cards and Teacher Personality Journal of Educational Research. LVII (May-June, 1964), 493-494.

Charles, Harvey, "The Use of a Projective Techni que in Teacher Selection," National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin. LVIII (August, 1961), 172-173.

Charters, W. W., Jr., "Survival in the Profession: A Criterion for Selecting Teacher Trainees," Journal of Teacher Education. VII (September, 1956).

Cole, David L., "The Prediction of Teaching Performance," Journal of Educational Research. LI V (May, 1961) , 345-348.

Combs, Arthur If., "The Personal Approach to Good Teaching," Educational Leadership. XXI (March, 1964), 269-377.

Cook, Desmond L., "The Personal Data Form as a Predictor of Success in a Teacher Education Program and Entry into Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XV (March, 1964), 61-66.

Cook, Desmond L. and others, "A Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses to Selected Personality Inventories," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXI (Sinter, 1961), 865-872.

Cook, Walter tf. and others, "Studies of Predictive Validity of the MTAI»" Journal of Teacher Education. VII (June. 1956), 167-170.

215

Cook, Walter W., and C. H. Leeds, "Measuring the Teaching Personality," Educational and Psychological Measurement. Ill (Autumn, 1947), 299-410.

Cooper, James G. and Harold M. Elsbree, "A Comparison of Two Plans of Teacher Education," Journal of Educational Research. LI (May, 1958), 643-658.

Cooper, James G, and Roland B. Lewis, "Quantitative Rorschach Factors in the Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness Journal of Educational Research. XLIV (May, 1951), 703-707.

Dixon, I, R. and W. C. Morse, "The Prediction of Teaching Performance Through Erapatic Potential," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961), 322-329.

Domas, Simeon J. and David V. Tideraan, "Teacher Competences An Annotated Bibliography," Journal of fixp.e.ri mental Education. XIX (December, 1950) , 101-218.

Dugan, Ruth R., "Personality and the Effective Teacher Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September, 1961).

Durflinger, Glenn W., "Recruitment and Selection of Prospec-tive Elementary and Secondary School Teachers," Beview of Educational Research. XXXIII (October, 1963), 355-368.

Edson, Wi1li am H., "Selecting Students for the College of Education at the University of Minnesota," Journal of Teacher Education. XIV (March, 1963), 51-56.

Edson, William B. and Don Davies, "Selectivity in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education. XI (Septeiaber, 1960), 327-334.

Effllaw, Rita and others, "A Method for Prediction and Evaluation," The National Elementary Principal. XLI11 (November, 1963), 38-49.

Engbretson, W. E., "Selective Admission and Retention Today," Teachers College Journal. XXXIII (October, 1961) , 12-13.

Erickson, H. E., "A F actori al Study of Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (September, 1954), 1-39.

Evans, K. M., "A Critical Survey of Methods of Assessing Teacher Ability," British Journal of Educational

• - XXI (June, 1951), 89-95.

216

Fattu, Nicholas A., "Effectiveness—An Elusive Quality," The Education Digest, XXVII (January, 1962), 24-26.

. "What Research Says About Teacher Effectiveness," National Education Association, L (October, 1961), 55-56.

Fielstra, Clarence, "bi scrimi native and Predictive Values of Ratings Given to UCLA Student Teachers on the Secondary School Level," California Journal of Educa-tional Research, XIV (January, 1963), 11-18.

Flanagan, Carroll E., "A Study of the Relationship of Scores of the MMPI to Success in Teaching as Indicated by Supervisory Ratings," Journal of Experimental Education. XXXIX (June, 1961), 329-354.

Frank, Lawrence K., "Projective Methods for the Study of Personality," Journal of Psychology. VIII (1939), 389-413.

Gage, N. L., "Guiding Principles in the Study of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Teacher Education. Ill (December, 1952), 294-298.

Goodenough, Eva, "Personality as a Contributing Factor to Teacher Success," Journal of Rducatio nal Be t e a r c.h» LI (September, 195?), 25-31.

Gough, Harrison G. and William H. Peoiberton, "Personality Characteristics Related to Success in Practice Teaching," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVI (September, 1952), 307-309.

Hadley, S. T., "A Study of the Predictive Value of Several Variables to Student Teaching Success as Measured by Student Teaching Marks," Teachers Co 1lege Bulletin. LX (1954), 1-10.

Hale, Peter P., "Isolating Objective Factors for the Teaching Profession," Journal of Educational Research. XLVI11 (March, 1955), 497-507.

Hampton, N. L)., "An Analysis of Supervisory Ratings of Elementary Teachers Graduated from Iowa State Teachers College," Journal of Exoerimental Education. XX (December, 1951), 180-215.

Hampton, Peter J., "Use of the Rorschach Test in Selecting Factor Supervisors," Personnel Journal. XXXIX (June, 1960), 46-48.

2 1 7

Haskew, L. 0., "America's Design for Good Teacher Prepara-tion," National Education Association Jomrn,a.,i» XLIII (April, 1959), 16-17.

Hicks, John A. and Joics B. Stone, "The Identification of Traits Related to Managerial Success," Jour.naJ, of. implied Psychology. XLVI (December, 1962), 420-432.

Hoover Kenneth H. and others, "A Comparison of Expressed ^ Teaching Strengths Before and After Student Teaching, Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965),

Isaacson, Robert L. and others, "Correlation of Teacher Personality Variables and Student Ratings, Jo/Wftl. M . Educational Psychology. LIV (April, 1963), 110-117.

Johnson. Granville B., "An Evaluation Instrument for the Analy.l. of Teacher K f f e c t i v e n e . . J o u r n a l of EXPerimental Education» X X I I I (June, 1 9 5 5 ) , 3 3 1 - 3 4 4 .

Jones, Margaret Lois, "Analysis of Certain Aspects of

Teaching Ability," Journal £ i Experimental Education, XXV (December, 1956), 152-180.

Kemp, L. C. D., "The Prediction of Teaching Success," The Forum of Education. VI (August, 1947), 14.

Khan, Lilian, "Factor Analysis of Certain Aptitude and Personality Variables," Indian Journal ,&£ P,3¥cM|qfly„, X X X V I I (May, 1962), 27-38.

Lamke, Tom Arthur, "Personality and Teaching Success,"

Journal of Experimental Education, XX (December, 1951),

217-259.

Langer, Philip, "Social Desirability and Acquiescence on

the SORT," Psychological Reports. XI (October, 1962),

531-534.

Lewis, Edwin C., "An Investigation of Student-Teacher Interaction as a Determiner of Effective Teaching," Journal of Educational Re s earch. LVII (March, 1964).

Lough, Orpha M., "Women Students in Liberal Arts, Nursing, and Teacher Training Curricula and the M M P I , " JojLLMl of A P P I I e d Psvchology. X X X I (August, 1947), 437-445.

McAulay, J. D., "The Screening of Teachers," Peabody Journal of Education. XXXIV (September, 1956), 93-97.

218

MacLean, Malcora S. and others, "A Teacher Selection and Counsel!ng Service," Journal of Educational Research. XLVI11 (May, 1955), 669-677.

Magee, Robert M. , "Admission-Retention in teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (March, 1961), 61-85.

Mat hi s, Claude and You ng Ilorn Park, "Some Factors Relating to Success in Student Teaching," Journal of Educational Research, LVIII (May-June, 1965), 420-422.

Mauth, Leslie J., "Selection and Admission Practices in Teacher Education," Teachers College Journal. XXXII (October, 1960), 5-6.

Merriam, J. L., "Normal School Education and Teaching Efficiency," Teac.h.,ers College Contribution! to Education No. 1, Columbia, 1905.

Miller, Lefaern N., "Evaluating Teaching Personality Before Student Teaching Begins," Journal of Educational Research, LVI (March, 1963), 382-384.

Montross, Harold Wesley, "Temperament and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIII (September, 1954), 73-97.

Moore, Clark H. and David Cole, "The Relation of MMPI Scores to Practice Teaching Ratings," Journal of Educational Research. L (May, 1957), 711-716.

Norton, Joseph L., "The SORT as a Differentiator Between High and Low Achievers," Journal of Counseling Psychology. IX (Summer, 1962), 184.

Ort, Vergil K. , "A Study of Some Techniques Used for Pre-dicting the Success of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education. XV (March, 1964), 67-71.

Popham, W. James and Robert B. Trimble, "The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as an Index of General Teaching Competence," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XX (Autumn, 1960), 509-512.

Rabinowitz, William and Harold E. Hitzel, "Some Observations on the Selection of Students for Teacher Education Programs," Journal of Teacher Education. XII (June, 1961), 157-164.

219

Rabinowitz, William and Robert M. W. Travers, "Problems of Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness," Educational Theory. Ill (July, 1953), 212-219.

Rigness, Thomas Alexander, "Relationships Between Certain Attitudes Towards Teaching and Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education. XXI (September, 1952), 1-50.

Robinson, Ronald W., "Who is a Good Teacher?" The Clearlng House. XXXV (February, 1961), 323-325.

Rolfe, J. F., "The Measurement of Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education. XIV (September, 1945), 52-T4.

Huediger, William Carl and George D. Strayer, "The Qualities of Merit in Teachers," Journal of Educational Psychology. I (1910), 272-278.

Rugg, Earle W., "Who Shall Be Educated for Teaching?" Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (June, 1965), 221-225.

Ryans, David G., "A Study of Criterion Data," Educational and Psvchological Measurement. XII (Autumn, 1952).

'The Criteria of Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research. XLII (May, 1949).

Scates, Douglas E., "The Good Teachert Establishing Criteria for Identification," Journal of Teacher Education. I (June, 1950), 137-141.

Sharpe, Donald M., "Threshold to the Profession," National Education Association Journal. LIV (April, 1965).

Sheldon, Stephen M., "Conditions Affecting the Fakability of Teacher-Selection Inventories," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XIX (Summer, 1959), 207-219.

Siegel, Laurence, "Test Reviews," Journal of Counsel!ncs Psvcholoav. VI (November, 1959), 72-73.

Somt rs, G. T., Columbia Teachers Co Ilege Contribut ions to Education. New York, Columbia University, 1923.

Soremon, A. Garth, "The Selection of Teacher Candidates," Journal of Teacher Education. VII (September, 1956), 250-252.

Sorenson, Farth and others, "Divergent Concepts of Teacher Role: An Approach to the Measurement of Teacher

220

Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Psycho logy. LIV (December, 1963), 287-294.

Steeves, Frank L., "Crucial Issues in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XVI (September, 1965), 307-310."

Stinnett, T. M., "Selection in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education« V (December, 1954), 262.

Stout, Ruth A,, "Admission and Retention Practices in College Programs of Teacher E d u c a t i o n P e r so nnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIV (December, 1955), 200-212.

Stripli ng, Robert 0. and Thomas K. Morton, "Selective Admission to Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education. V (March, 1954), 74-78.

Syroonds, Percival 84., "Characteristics of the Effective Teacher Based on Pupil Evaluations," Jour nal of Experimental Education. XXIII (June, 1955) , 289-310.

., "Evaluation of Teaching Personality," Educ at io n Digest. XII (January, 1947), 10-14.

., "Personality of the Teacher," Journal of Educational Research. XL (May, 1947) , 652-661.

"Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Personality," Journal of Teacher Education. V (March, 1954), 79-83.

Symonds, Percival M. and Stephanie Dudek, "Use of the Rorschach in the Diagnosis of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Protective Techniques. X X (June, 1956), 227-234.

Tarpey, Sister M. Simeon, "Personality Factors in Teacher Trainee Selection," British Journal of Educational Psychology. XXXV (June, 1965), 140-149.

T o m1i n s o a, Lor en R., "Recent Studies in the Evaluation of Teaching," Educational Research Bulletin. XXXIV (October, 1955), 172-186.

Veldman, Donald J. and Robert F. Peck, "The Inf1uence of Teacher and Pupi1 Sex on Pupil Evaluations of Student T e a c h e r s J o u r n a l of Teacher Education. X V (December, 1964), 393-396.

221

Von Haden, H. £., "An Evaluation of Certain Types of Personal Data Employed in the Prediction of Teacher Efficiency," Journal of Experimental Education. XV (September, 1946), 61-04.

» f "We're Hurting Ourselves in Teacher

If

Recruitment," Ohio Schools. XLIII (April, 1965), 22-23.

Wi llcox, Isabel and II. G. Beigel, "Motivations in the Choice of Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. IV (Jane, 1953), 106-109.

Woodring, Paul, "Century of Teacher Education," School and Society. XM (May, 1962), 236-242.

Woodruff, Asabel, "Success in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. IX (September, 1958), 243-247.

Witty, Paul, "Some Characteristics of the Effective Teachers, Educational Administration and Supervision. XXXVI (April, 1950), 193-208.

Reports

Andrews, L, 0., "Admission and Selection in a University College of Education," Teacher Education: The Decade Ahead. Washington, I). C., National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1955.

Callis, R. and others, "Studies in the Effectiveness of Teaching," Differential Character!sties of the More Ef£ec.t.lve Teachers: A Summary Report of Njne Studies, edited by F. P. Frutchey, Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1953.

Denemark, George W., editor, Criteria for Curriculum Decisions l a T.e^her Education, a Report from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Commission on Teacher Education, Washington, D. C., National Education Association, 1963.

Farr, David, Evaluation .and Selection Instruments £n Teacher Edycat^ion Programs. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Buffalo, University of New York, 196 5 •

Li ndsey, Margaret, editor, NevjL Horizons £o£ U u , Teaching LX2JL£SJLion, National Commission on Teacher Education and

222

Professional Standards, Washington, D. C., National Education Association, 1961.

National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, The Education of Teachers t Consideration jj, Planning Institutional Programs. Washington, 0. C., National Education Association, 1960.

Page, Martha and R. M. W. Travers, "Relatio nship Between Rorschach Performance and Student Teaching," Exploratory Studies la Teacher Personality. New York, New York City Co 1lege, Division of Teacher Education, 1953.

Stout, Ruth A., "Practices for Selection in Teacher Education," Teacher Education; The Decade Ahead. Washington, D. C., National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards of the National Education Association, 1955,

Stripling, Hobert 0,, "A Program of Admission to Teacher Education Utilizing the Technique of Observation," Teaeher Education: The, D.e.cad,e Ahead. Washington, b. C., National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards of the National Education Association, 1955.

Publications of Learned Organizations

Andrews, Leonard 0., Student Teaching. New York, The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964.

Beggs, Walter K., The Education of Teachers. New York, The Center of Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965.

Evaluati nq Student Teachi no. The Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of The Association for Student Teaching, Washington, D. C., national Education Association, 1960.

Merriman, P. H. and K. V. Grim, Student Teachi nq. The Twenty-Eighth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Washington, 0. C., National Education Association, 1948.

National Educational Associ ati on Research Buileti n. "Why Few School Systems Use Merit Ratings," XXXIX (May, 1961), 61-63.

Ryans, David G., Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, 0. C., American Council on Education, 1960.

Woodri ng, Paul, New Directions in Teachi no Educatlon. New York, The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1957.

!23

Test

Stone, Joics B., Structured-Objective Rorschach Test. Los Angeles, California Test Bureau, 1958,

Encyclopedia Articles

Barr, a. S., "Teaching Competencies," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New York, Macraillan Company, 1950.

Michaelis, John U., "Teacher Education—Student Teaching and Internship," Encvclooedia of Educational Research. New York, The Macrai1lan Company, 1960.

Mitzel, Harold E. , "Teacher Effectiveness," Encvclopedia of Educational Research. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1960.

Unpublished Materials

Hinely, Reginald Terry, "Prediction of Readiness for Teaching as Measured by Performance in Internship," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, 1962.

James, Grace Bobbins, "The Relationship of Teacher Char-acteristics and Pupil Creativity," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1965.

Jones, John 0., "Comparisons Between Most and Least Effec-tive Cooperating T e a c h e r s u n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of California at Berkeley, 1963.

Nash, Harold M., "A Comparison of Supervisory Ratings and Personalities of Student Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1963.

Pemberton, 1. H., "Test Characteristics of Student Teachers Bated at the Extremes of Teaching Ability," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of California at Berkeley, 1950.

Redden, Joseph Eugene, "The Relationship Between Principals* Evaluations of Professional Behavior Characteristics

224

of Secondary School Teachers and These Teachers* Self-Descriptions," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Uenton, Texas, 1963.

Bobbins, Melvyn Paul, "A Test for Certain Psychological Differences Between Groups of Over-Achievers, Under-Achievers, and Normal Achievers," unpublished master's thesis, Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1960.

Tate, James Oliver, "A Field Follow-Up Study of Beginning Elementary T e a c h e r s u n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1961.

THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST AND …/67531/metadc164227/m2/1/high_res... · THE...

Documents

Transcript of THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST AND …/67531/metadc164227/m2/1/high_res... · THE...