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.
3. There will be no significant difference between the
raeaa scores on the above Rorschach variables for the elemen-
tary student teacher group and the normative population.
4. There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores on the above Rorschach variables for the secondary
student teacher group and the normative population.
5. There will be no significant difference between the
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
6. There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores on the above SORT attributes for the elementary
student teacher group and the secondary student teacher
group.
7. There will be no significant difference between the
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.
9. There will be no significant difference between the
mean grade-point averages in student teaching for the sec-
ondary student teachers and the elementary student teachers.
10. There will be no significant difference between the
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
correlation between the following attributes of personality
and success in student teaching when the grade-point average
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
18. There will be a statistically significant negative
correlation between the above personality attributes and
success in student teaching w h e n the college coordinator's
ratings of the student teachers were used as a criterion of
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.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
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
than the normative population.
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)
than the normative population.
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
than the normative population.
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 normative population.
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 ,
One must conclude that the secondary student teachers
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
than the normative population.
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
Statement Number One
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
Statement Number Two
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
student teachers rated as possessing statement two as their
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
rated as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.
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
student teachers rated as possessing statement two as their
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
Statement Number Four
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
rated as possessing that statement as their greatest weakness.
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
Statement Number Five
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
mean difference was significant at the .01 level.
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
Statement Number One
i Level SOHT
Attribute Strength (N = 30)
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.
Statement Number Two
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
Statement Number Two
1 Level SOST
Attribute Strength (N = 32)
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.
Statement Number Four
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
Statement Number Four
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.
Statement Number Five
Hypothesis 12e stated that there would be a significant
difference between the mean scores on the twenty-five SORT
attributes for those student teachers rating themselves as
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
attributes for those student teachers rating themselves as
possessing statement six as their greatest strength and those
student teachers rating themselves as possessing that state-
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.
Those student teachers rating themselves as possessing
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
mean difference was significant at the .05 level.
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
attributes for those student teachers rating themselves as
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
student teachers rating themselves as possessing that state-
ment as their greatest weakness. The mean difference was
significant at the .05 level.
Those student teachers rating themselves as possessing
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
According to original hypothesis 14, there would 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 (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
and success in student teaching when the grade-point average
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.
According to original hypothesis 16, there would be a
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.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
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
1. There will be no significant difference between the
®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.
2. There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores on the fifteen basic Korschaeh score variables
for the elementary and the secondary student teacher group.
3. There will be no significant difference between the
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.
5. There will be no significant difference between the
mean scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes
for the student teachers and the normative population.
6. There will be no significant difference between the
taeaa scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes
for the elementary and the secondary student teacher group.
7. There will be no significant difference between the
nean scores on the twenty-five SORT personality attributes
for the elementary student teacher group and the normative
population.
8. There will be no significant difference between the
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.
10. There will be no significant difference between the
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).
13. There will be no significant difference between the
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
15. There will be a statistically significant positive
correlation between the following attributes of personality
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
16. There will be a statistically significant positive
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.
17. There will be a statistically significant negative
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. Persistence
b. Pedantic
177
c. Rigidity
d. Original
0. Anxiety
£. Moodiness
g. Impulsiveness
18. There will be a statistically significant negative
correlation between the above personality attributes and
success I si student teaching when the college coordi nators1
ratings of the student teachers were used as a criterion of
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
than the normative population.
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.
One must conclude that the secondary student teachers
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
the normative population.
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.
Name of Student Teacher
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.
Name of Student Teacher
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.