A Study of Value-Preferences Held by Experienced Elementary Teachers Toward Teacher Evaluation of Children

71 - 17,964

BOWEN, Larry Sylvester, 1935- A STUDY OF VALUE-PREFERENCES HELD BY EXPERIENCED ELEMENTARY TEACHERS TOWARD TEACHER EVALUATION OF CHILDREN.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, theory and practice

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan A STUDY OF VALUE-PREFERENCES HELD BY

EXPERIENCED ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

TOWARD TEACHER EVALUATION

OF CHILDREN

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Larry Sylvester Bowen, A. B. , M. S. (Ed.)

$ Sjc 5{c & # jfc

The Ohio State University 1970

Approved by A STUDY OF VALUE-PREFERENCES HELD BY EXPERIENCED ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

TOWARD TEACHER EVALUATION OF CHILDREN By

Larry Sylvester Bowen, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1970

Professor Jack R. Frymier, Adviser

The purpose of this study was to conceptualize a framework for

teacher evaluation of children, to construct a valid and reliable value-

preference inventory based on the framework, and to apply the instrument

in a national study of elementary teachers.

The conceptual framework was derived from the theoretical state

ments of Philip Jackson's naturalistic study reported in Life in Class

rooms . The forced-choice instrument, the Teacher Professional Preference

Inventory (TePPIn), reflects the set of constructs of the framework. The

constructs have the dimensions of praise and punishment (positive and

negative reward), public and private conditions for evaluation, and per

sonal qualities and institutional referrents of evaluation. Each con

struct was matched with every other construct where there was but one

differing variable in the two. For example, the praise-public-personal

construct was matched with the praise-private-personal and the praise-

public-institutional constructs. Five items of each of the twelve con-

struct-coraparisons created a total of sixty items in the original instru

ment; four items of eight construct-comparisons on the modified final

form made up the thirty-two item instrument employed in the main study. The instrument building and testing involved developing items which reflected the specifics of Jackson and the literature on "disci pline". Experts' opinions were obtained as to the clarity and explicit ness of the items' statements. The instrument was administered in two pretests for purposes of modification through item analysis. Test-

retest reliability was determined (r=.83). The final instrument was used in conducting a study of five hundred forty-seven subjects in eight major colleges and universities throughout the country. The results were analyzed as to sub-group performance by geographical region, sex grade level taught, and years of teaching experience. The descriptions of the characteristics and facts were statistically and non-statistically analyzed. Chi square and t statistics were applied to the data.

The following were the main findings:

1. Subjects from the Midwest and East, and the Midwest and West, differed at the .01 level on the total TePPIn scores. No other statisti cally significant differences were found on the subgroups' total scores.

2. Males and females differed significantly on the eight subtests of TePPIn only in their preferences between the praise-public-personal and punish-public-personal constructs.

3. Teachers of the four geographical regions differed significantly only on the two construct-comparisons of praise-private-personal versus punish-private-institutional, and punish-private-institutional versus praise-private-institutional. This is the area of difference responsible for the t statistic reported in number one. Teachers of the Midwest preferred the punitive teacher behavior significantly less than did the

Eastern teachers. h. Only in choosing between praise-private-personal and punish- private-personal did any significant differences appear between teachers of primary and intermediate grade levels. No differences were revealed according to years of teaching experience.

5. A near-normal distribution was derived from the scores. On two of the subtests the items were revealed to be particularly "easy”: the number of subjects who scored high on the praise-public or private- personal over the punish-public or private-personal items were high.

6. The thirty-two items revealed varying degrees of power on the final study's item analysis. A breakdown of the subdivisions by their items permitted an analysis of their order of power. About one-fourth of the items appeared as weak and are judged to need re-consideration as to their inclusion in future versions of TePPIn.

7. In general, subjects revealed a high preference for praise over punishment in public, but a divided opinion on praise and punishment in private. Stated differently, the teachers studied felt punitive mea sures were preferable to praising measures performed in private.

8. The majority of teachers valued praising children for their institutional adaptation to their personal qualities.

9. The majority of teachers valued praising children in public over private. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indeed grateful to many faculty members and students

(graduate and undergraduate) who have helped make this study possible.

Primary recipients of thanks, however, are the three men on my reading committee who, for the past two years, have continually provided example, inspiration, responsive guidance, and empathy. No man could ask for a better team with which to study and learn than the trio of

Professors Jack Frymier, James Duncan, and Paul Klohr. To Professor

George Thompson I also wish to express special thanks.

My fellow graduate students, too, deserve much credit for whatever contribution this work might make. Donald Uhlenberg stands as best critic, helper, and friend. Of great help, also, was

Bruce Gansneder.

A debt of gratitude is owed to the hundreds of subjects who

took the time in their summer school classes to respond to the in ventory. And to their professors and assistants who administered

the inventory I am most appreciative.

Those persons responsible for arranging to have the inventory

administered in their institutions are as follows: Professors George

Joseph, Karl Openshaw, Paul Burns, Horace Hawn, David Tucker, Robert

Duffey, L. 0. Andrews, and Gus Plessas. Their excellent cooperation made possible the fine return of scoring sheets.

The Ohio State University's Evaluation Center is to be given

credit for their assistance. Jack Deem deserves special mention. ii But of most help, and deserving of the greatest credit, was my family. The understanding, patience, and support of my wife

Catherine, my parents, and daughters Deborah, Brenda; and Jennifer, made the completion of this study possible.

iii VITA

November 19, 1935 . . . Born— Davenport, Iowa

1954 ...... Graduated, Roosevelt High School, Des Moines, Iowa

1959 ...... A.B., San Francisco State College, San Francisco, California

1959-66 ...... Teacher, San Lorenzo and San Ramon Unified School Districts, San Lorenzo and Alamo, California

1965 ...... Principal of Rancho Romero Elementary and Stone Valley Intermediate Summer Schools, Alamo, California

1966-68 ...... General Curriculum Consultant, El Dorado County Office of Education, Placerville, California

196 7 . . Coordinator and Co-Director, El Dorado County/University of California at Davis Sxmimer Demonstration School and Teacher Institute, Shingle Springs, California

1968 ...... M.S. (Education), California State College, Hayward, California

1968 .... Coordinator and Director, El Dorado County Head Start Centers

1968 ...... Instructor, University of California at Davis, Extension

1968-70 ...... Teaching and Research Associate, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1969-70 ...... Coordinator, Ohio State University/Alamance County Schools Inservice Project, Graham, North Carolina VITA (continued)

PUBLICATIONS

"Sub-Club," California Journal for Instructional Improvement, December, 1967.

"El Dorado County Demonstration School/Institute," Implementing Science Programs in California, January, 1968.

Feedback as a Way of Changing Teacher Attitudes, unpublished Master's thesis; California State College, Hayward, 1968.

"Micro-Interaction Analysis," California Journal for Instructional Improvement, October, 1969.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Studies in Curriculum and Instruction. Professors Jack R. Frymier, James K. Duncan, Paul R. Klohr, John B. Hough, and Charles M. Galloway

Studies in Developmental Psychology. Professor George G. Thompson

v CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iv

TABLES ...... vii

FIGURES...... viii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION...... 1 Background Objectives of the study Questions to be answered Assumptions Definition of terms Justification

II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY ...... 15

III METHODOLOGY AND TEST DEVELOPMENT...... 24 Research process model Methodology Design and procedures Conditions for administration The TePPIn instrument defined The subdivisions of TePPIn Validity of TePPIn Reliability of TePPIn

IV THE RESULTS: VALUE-PREFERENCES OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS TOWARD TEACHER EVALUATION OF CHILDREN ...... 40

V SUMMARY AND DI S C U S S I O N...... 52

APPENDIX A ...... 65 B ...... 71 C ...... 72 ...... 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 74 vi TABLES Table Page

I Statistical summary for pretests of TePPIn ...... 39

II Summary of subjects taking TePPIn ...... 41

III Summary statistics on final test ...... 42

IV Test score distribution for TePPIn ...... 43

V Summary of means and standard deviations on the eight subtests...... 44

VI Teacher preferences on total TePPIn scores, by geographical region ...... 44

VII Teacher preferences on total TePPIn scores, by sex . . . 45

VIII Teacher preference on total TePPIn scores, by grade l e v e l ...... 45

IX Teacher preferences on total TePPIn scores, by years of teaching experience...... 45

X Summary of chi squares for preferences by teachers of four geographical regions ...... 47

XI Summary of chi squares for preferences of males and f e m a l e s ...... 47

XII Summary of chi squares for preferences of kindergarten- second grade and third-sixth grade teachers .... 48

XIII Summary of chi squares for preferences by teachers having one-three and four or more years of teaching experience ...... 48

XIV Crossbreak of subjects' raw-score frequencies on the eight subtests of TePPIn ...... 49

XV Analysis of items in the eight subdivisions of TePPIn . 51

vii FIGURES Figure Page

1 Classroom evaluation model ...... 17

2 Teacher evaluation model ...... 18

3 Teacher evaluation of children: three-dimensional m o d e l ...... 19

4 Process model for educational research ...... 26

5 Conceptual framework matrix of TePPIn: item numbers' construct-location ...... 33

6 Tally sheet for classroom evaluation category system . . 61

viii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In Education the 1960's have been a kind of "plague season", as Samuel McCracken has named the period. The season is likely to continue into the seventies if one heeds the writings of Holt, Good man, Kozol, Kohl, Friedenberg, and Postman and Weingarten. These romantic critics of education have been vividly describing this season of plague, alerting their readers to the disturbing fact that much of

the educational process carried on in schools is in imperative need of improvement. The criticisms are of many kinds; but the observable

effect of such critical blasts on schools has been minimal.

One of their major criticisms is of the preoccupation schools hold for controlling students. James McConnell's comment below is

indicative of "respectable" current interest in the use of praise and

punishment in achieving better control of people. That goal is quite

contrary to the plea of the romantics for a more humanistic and

facilitating school environment. McConnell states:

1 believe that the day has come when we can combine sensory deprivation with drugs, hypnosis and astute manipulation of reward and punishment to gain almost absolute control over an individual's behavior. It should be possible then to achieve a very rapid and highly effective type of positive brainwashing that would allow us to make dramatic changes in a person's behavior and personality. I foresee the day when we could convert the worst criminal (or deviant child) into a decent, respectable citizen in a matter of a few months— or perhaps even less time than that. The danger

1 2

is, of course, that we could also do the opposite: we could change any decent, respectable citizen into a criminal. [James V.McConnell, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan; Co-Director of the Family and School Consultation project in Ann Arbor; and editor and publisher of The Journal of Biological Psychology and Worm Runner's Digest.! (22:74, Parenthetical comments mine)

A need exists both for criticism of the problem of dehumanizing and restrictive teacher behavior and for rigorous analysis of the parts of that whole problem. Both activities are essential if the school is to improve significantly. The latter must receive increased attention, however.

One such a part stands as important for study: teacher evalu ation of children. This descriptive study focuses cn that "fact of classroom life," as Philip Jackson calls it (17:19).

Behavioral psychologists, a group widely looked upon with awe by many for their successes in controlling animals, are becoming more

involved in helping educators to control pupils. The control- potential of teachers is a concern which motivates this study.

Background. A particular suspected villain of this evaluation-for- control potential is punishment— punishment, a practice of concern to

the larger American society as it struggles to think through such phenomena as penal policy, institutional repression, police brutality, and campus rebellion and disorder. Increasingly, persons concerned with the phenomenon of campus rebellion evidenced in recent years are

looking to society for clues to the sources of unrest. Rudolf Dreikurs, noted psychiatrist and author, has pointed to a return to authoritari

anism in American education, such methods resulting from adults1 "... disillusionfment) with ultra-permissiveness and increasingly . . . (being) . . . frustrated in their inability to deal effectively with

their children" (8:18). Dreikurs' plea is for teachers (and parents)

to replace the "traditional autocratic approach of motivating children

through pressure from without" with "stimulation from within" (8:42).

Educators such as Frymier (11) outline the same direction for action.

Such a relationship is not the direct focus of this study; however,

the overarching framework that places students and teachers working

together in a democratic classroom in a cooperative, mutually re

specting, equal way, is the goal sought by many educators and laymen

alike. Such a goal is antithetical to the "return to authoritarianism"

and is thereby relevant to this inquiry.

Is there an authoritarian-teacher problem in elementary schools?

From this study may come some insights on this difficult question. It

is somewhat natural for the social institution of school to reflect the

controversies of society; and as in society, the problems found in

classroom practice are not easily or quickly identified. Even when

problems are recognized, however, they may not be dealt with early or

strongly enough. It is still early enough to deal with the "villain"

of punishment. To ignore it much longer, however, is perhaps to

invite catastrophe in education and society.

The quote from the article by the psychologist McConnell re

veals a growing concern with, increasing interest in, and perhaps even

a fascination for the potential use of punishment. This development

represents a questionable direction in education's overall scheme to

facilitate the ego development and personal development of the child.

Praise, too, is used "successfully" in controlling people, but it has the larger potential of facilitating and encouraging personal growth.

Punishment serves only to control and restrict people's freedom to grow.

McConnell goes on in his article to describe the significant research being conducted with flatworms using highly aversive stimuli such as electrical shock to control animals' behavior. His reference to the use of such techniques with aphasic children and his proposal that it be used to extinguish the "bad" behavior of criminals creates for the investigator some fear. The fear is of the oft-occurring and observed phenomena of "backdoor" entries into schools of those practices designed for special populations and purposes (e.g., the mentally ill). The fear is also of the frequent difficulty in warning educators of such insidious entries. And, this fear is founded firmly on past experience of the ways and means in which other movements such as "ability grouping" have occurred in school practice. Finally, schools--reflecting society— have an increasingly punitive law-and- order parent body demanding that the school find more efficient and effective means of controlling pupils; and those popular (as well as efficient and effective) techniques of social control employed in the behavioral psychologists' laboratories with animals (and some children) could appear to many persons as highly desirable means of socializing pupils. Works on the use of aversive stimuli, such as the monumental contribution by Aronfreed (3), and the efforts by B. F. Skinner and his disciples concerning the principles of "behavior modification", give credence to the increasing importance and use of ways of shaping children's behavior to a priori determined habits. The review on punishment in the 1969 Encyclopedia of Edu cational Research occupies a sizable section in the larger review on

"Learning" (12:715-17). The reviewer advances the point that "... it is inappropriate to consider punishment as a method of teaching new behavior; punishment is rather a method for suppressing behavior, and in this sense is an antithetical process to reinforcement" (12:

715). In spite of this statement, the reviewer is quite successful in explaining the notion and how it works for the teacher. How dif ferent is this from the broad dissemination of other expedient means man has developed for controlling his fellow man?

Man, most persons would agree, has always found the topic of punishment of interest and importance in the discipline of his societies and institutions. The beliefs held by teachers toward the place and use of punishment "as a device used to deter the development of bad habits and to encourage the building of good ones" (16:469) has been manifested by diverse practices in schools. These practices are under sharp attack by some psychologists such as Art Combs (5) and

George Thompson (30).

Objectives of the study. The general objective of this study is to inquire into some of the value-preferences of elementary teachers through conceptualizing, developing, and administering a value- preference inventory in a national study, the first step in a series of validation studies. The study is based on a conceptual model drawn from the seminal work of Jackson. His anthropological field-study approach has offered the beginning of a kind of naturalistic research 6

that is providing initial evidence of the real world of the complex

classroom.

The study and its instrument are concerned with the value-

preferences teachers hold toward their role as evaluator of children.

The construct of "value" is defined by English and English as the

"degree of worth ascribed to an object of activity (or class thereof)"

(10:576). Shaw and Wright report that "Generally, this degree of

worth is ascribed by the possessor of the attitude on the basis of the

instrumentality of the object for the facilitation or inhibition of

goal achievement" (25:5). Goal achievement varies greatly amongst

teachers; such a melange of goals in a given school helps contribute

to a most complex social institution, one where the complexities of

the classroom are also great. The evaluation complex is ordered here

into a scheme that represents observed reality of the phenomenon of

student evaluation.

In this study the writer conceptualizes, develops, and vali

dates the Teacher Professional Preference Inventory instrument. A

national study of experienced elementary teachers is conducted. The

findings are descriptive; thus the investigator reports the facts,

patterns, and trends as found in the main study. The objective is not

to attempt any systematic conclusions about those facts, but to describe

general characteristics as revealed through the value-preference in

ventory developed for the study.

The primary function of the Teacher Professional Preference

Inventory (TePPIn) is to yield data on the value-preferences held by

elementary school teachers toward teacher evaluation of children. 7

These data provide quantitative measure of twelve construet-comparisons, the constructs having been taken from the conceptual models developed in Chapter II. TePPIn provides data that is drawn from a large group of subjects and is subjected to statistical analysis. From this analysis a descriptive analysis is offered of a more qualitative type.

Questions to be answered. The nature of the primary problem investi gated is associated with the framework and models of Chapter II.

Given the model of the reality of teacher evaluation of students, what value-preferences are held toward the evaluation process by a large

sample of American elementary school teachers? Through use of the

instrument developed for this study, the following specific questions are pursued:

1. Is there a significant difference between the responses of

elementary teachers representing two levels of years of teaching ex

perience, to the questions in TePPIn asking the subjects to make

preference decisions between:

(a) praising children in public for personal-quality behavior

and praising children in public for institutional-adaptation behavior?

(b) praising children in private for personal-quality behavior

and praising children in private for institutional-adaptation behavior?

and praising children in private for personal-quality behavior?

(d) praising children in public for institutional-adaptation

behavior, and praising children in private for institutional-

adaptation behavior? 8

(e) praising children in public for personal-quality behavior, and punishing children in public for personal-quality behavior?

(f) praising children in public for institutional-adaptation behavior, and punishing children in public for institutional- adaptation behavior?

(g) praising children in private for personal-quality behavior, and punishing children in private for personal-quality behavior?

(h) praising children in private for institutional-adaptation behavior, and punishing in private for institutional-adaptation behavior?

2. Is there a significant difference between the responses of elementary teachers representing two teaching grade levels, to the preference decisions stated in number one?

3. Is there a significant difference between the responses of elementary teachers representing four geographical regions of the

United States, to the preference decisions stated in number one?

4. Is there a significant difference between the responses of elementary teachers of the two sexes, to the preference decisions stated in number one?

5. What trends and patterns of relationships exist in the study's data?

Assumptions. This study of value-preferences held by experienced elementary teachers toward the evaluation of children is based on these assumptions:

1. that the teacher is the primary source of evaluation of children in the classroom; 9

2. that this teacher-evaluator source is of profound importance in the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children;

3. that the values teachers hold toward their role(s) as teachers influence their attitudinal affective responses; these responses, in turn, serve as predispositions to the overt responses to children;

4. that the value-preferences of teachers are logically related to their decision-making behavior;

5. that the real value preferences of teachers, furthermore, are also logically related to their success and satisfaction with that decision-making behavior.

Definition of terms. The following terms are crucial to this study and are defined as follows:

Value-preference as used in the investigation refers to the choice a person makes between two alternative teacher judgments of children's behavior.

Praise is a quality of judgment exhibited in behavior, and for the recipient is a positive reward.

Punishment is defined as a quality of judgment exhibited in behavior, and for the recipient is a negative reward.

Public and Private conditions for praise and punishment are those situations where children receive evaluation in the presence of other children (public) or in the presence of no others (private).

Institutional adjustment in this study refers to the expectations of teachers for children in adapting to the institutional requirements necessary for the maintenance of the institution. 10

Personal Qualities are non-institutional-adjustment referrents such as integrity and ambition.

Justification. The naturalistic study by Jackson, the results reported in his Life in Classrooms, includes "praise" as one of the three "facts of life" of the classroom "to which students must adapt" (17:19-28).

The other two facts are "crowds" and "power". It is on this character istic of praise in the elementary school life of the child that this study focuses. The praise to which Jackson refers is the phenomenon of evaluation, which includes both praise and punishment, or positive and negative reward. Jackson's theoretical statements on American elementary school classrooms are drawn from his two years of classroom observation.

The fact of praise, referring to the "continued and pervasive spirit of evaluation" (17:19), is in need of better understanding.

Manifested by such common practices in school as grades, marking systems, report cards— in short, praise and punishment— these evalu ation practices are being questioned by some educators and professional organizations such as ASCD as highly dehumanizing (5:A11). The controversy over the evaluation of a child is one the education pro fession needs to study with care. It may very well serve as a priority of educational concern in the 1970's. Such a look at the phenomenon, as was begun by Jackson, is of definite importance. Educators have for too long lacked valid descriptions of "the way it is" in classrooms.

Methodologically, greater attention must be paid to the anthropological-field-study-type of research conducted by Jackson and Smith and Geoffrey (28:14). Goodlad emphasizes this in the latest

Review of Educational Research on "Curriculum" (13). Such descriptions and analyses of classroom processes can provide data on the interde pendence and patterns of the social system of the classroom. The propositions which are generated through the ordering of the voluminous chaos of data compiled by the field investigator can be represented in a theoretical form which can in turn be researched in a variety of ways.

The hope of this investigator is that this study and subsequent related studies can scientifically contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon of teacher evaluation of students. This study is restricted to the one theoretical form— Jackson, as well as to one research process model— Smith and Geoffrey. Adherence to these two is judged as crucial to this educational inquiry.

The belief by some such as McConnell that schools should seek to shape students into the people society demands aids such behaviorists of psychology as B. F. Skinner, Robert Glaser, Patrick Suppes and Robert Gagnfe to respond to such interests both in and out of edu cation. These men are contributing highly efficient and effective means of reaching such a goal— teaching machines, program learning, behavior modification, social reinforcement techniques, computer- assisted-instruction, individually-prescribed-instruction, and others.

In fact, the shaping-means of instruction are becoming most effective and efficient. The morality of such procedures is in question here.

Education journals, further, are the abundant sources of tips on how, through better shaping techniques and controlling procedures, children's "inappropriate" behavior may be turned into "appropriate" 12 and controlled (even "self-controlled") behavior that will conform to the American value system. Which American value system is not dis cussed usually, but William Douglas' accusation that "The university

. . . (has) . . . become a collection of technicians in a service station, trying to turn out better technocrats for the technological society" (7:26), probably characterizes well that value system the public schools perpetuate. There are some dissenting voices of edu cational organizations, as reflected in their journals and yearbooks.

As such a voice Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

(ASCD) is outstanding. For the last twenty-five years its message has been that the development of the unique individual is primary. The humanizing efforts of a school, they maintain, will result in more human people who can rationally and sensitively assess the society they have and can work toward reconstructing that society. This process involves trusting people to improve a society that is increasingly being denounced as inhuman, insane, and technologically-controlled and dominated. Punishment is certainly of no part in that process.

Some persons may be disturbed that a concern over punishment should motivate the research of this writer. They may have come to believe that the topic is a closed one. Such a belief seems at first quite valid, for the frequently-heard and read descriptions of the system by which children are shaped in schools reflect increasingly- democratic practices, and not coercive methods and punishment. But others, such as the romantics mentioned earlier, describe schools quite differently, accusing the school and its teachers of running children through a highly punitive and coercive day-by-day curriculum. 13

Such accusations question the belief that schools are becoming more humane and less repressive. Additionally, the current problems of dissent, violence, punitive treatment, and repressive measures, seen on secondary school and college campuses throughout chis nation, suggests that the topic of "praise" is far from being settled.

Writers such as Madsen and Madsen (21), for example, are representative of increasing interest in the educational literature on discipline. This interest is reflected more succinctly by B. 0.

Smith in his recent review in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research

(27). "Discipline," that is, "The procedures, including rules, by which order is maintained in a school" (27:292), is similar to what

Jackson refers to as "institutional adjustment" and is thus crucial to

this inquiry.

Finally, the decision-making of a teacher in the complex- classroom is also complex, and not simple and reflective the way some maintain. The values a teacher holds determine, to a great extent,

the hundreds of decisions he makes throughout the school day. A better understanding of some of the value-preferences held by teachers-in-

practice can provide the profession with the kind of data it needs to know to "see" the reality of the world of the teacher and his daily

classroom behavior. To continue to deal only with that behavior of

teachers and not their values is choosing to ignore che underlying

causes of practice. 14

Organization of the study. The remainder of the dissertation consists of four chapters, a bibliography, and appendices.

Chapter II presents a conceptual framework for the teacher evaluation of children and an elaboration of the dimensions of the framework's model.

Chapter III explains the methodology, design, and procedures of the entire study, and gives an account of the development of

TePPIn from the conceptual framework.

In Chapter IV the main study and its results are presented.

Chapter V consists of summary, implications, and recommendations for further thought and study. CHAPTER II

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY

Philip Jackson names "praise" as the fact of classroom life which refers to the evaluation process. The unique and complex evalu ation process of the school can be studied objectively, the process being where (l) judgment is derived from more than one source, (2) conditions of evaluation vary, (3) one or more of several referrents exist, and (4) the quality of evaluations ranges from intensely positive to intensely negative (17:19).

The present chapter restricts its conceptual framework to the

Jackson source. The relevant and related literature that normally

finds its place in a conceptual framework is unnecessary and inap propriate here. Theoretical notions were used by the psychologist- educator Jackson as co-inputs with his classroom experience, to be seen

through a kind of lens which facilitated his field study. The con ceptual models this writer has constructed to represent Jackson's writings must be accurately reflective of that theory and its con

structs as reported in Life in Classrooms (17).

The only exception to this exclusiveness-of-source is in the description of the referrents for teacher evaluation. Jackson is some what short on reporting many specific referrents which are needed by

this investigator for the items of the instrument developed for the

15 16

study. Verified specific referrents are obtained from the literature on "discipline." The review by Smith in the recent Encyclopedia of

Educational Research (27) provides this needed assistance. The major referrents of Jackson remain as the main topics of this study's constructs, however.

The evaluation process of the classroom is represented in the model in Figure 1. The model is drawn from the investigator's reading of Jackson's theoretical statements resulting from his two-year naturalistic field study in Figure 1: teacher-derived praise and punishment of children for purposes of institutional adjustment and

the attainment of personal qualities, under public and private con ditions. In other words, the conceptual framework for the study is limited to that focus. The omission of "academic attainment" is for reasons of practicality. Jackson remarks that most of the "official evaluations are directed to the child's success in achieving edu cational objectives, but that "even when the student's mastery of certain knowledge or skills is allegedly the object of evaluation, other aspects of his behavior commonly are being judged at the same

time" (17:22). Furthermore, Jackson observes, the vexations of

teachers are not concerned with academic deficits, but rather to personal and institutional referrents (particularly the latter).

Figure 2 depicts this study's delimitation.

The focus of this study is also represented in the eight cells of the three-dimensional model of Figure 3. Each cube in the model is a construct consisting of three concepts. In addition to portrayal of the usual two major aspects of content and its validity— topic and Sources of Judgment

Teacher Classmates Self-evaluation

Positive (praise) Negative (punishment)

Public Private Secret

Personal qualities Institutional adjustment Academic attainment

Fig. 1. Classroom evaluation model. Teacher

Positive Negative

Public Private

Personal Qualities Institutional Adjustment

Fig. 2. Teacher evaluation model. IB2

I. Personal IA1 IB1

II. Institutional IIA1 IIB1

A. Public B. Private Note: Concealed, residing below IA2 and behind IA1, is IIA2. Fig. 3. Teacher evaluation of children: three-dimensional model.

vO 20 process validity, a third aspect is necessary: context, or condition validity. In Figure 3 the model reflects the topics, processes, and conditions of student evaluation. The eight cells are labelled and explained below and should be thought of as the component of a finite set of the constructs of teacher judgment of children.

The models could also be expanded to include the other two sources of judgment portrayed in the classroom evaluation model

(Fig. l): peer and self-evaluation; the "secret" condition similarly could be included. Likewise, the referrent of "academic achievement" could be added to the other two referrents of personal and institu tional. That change would fulfill the dimensions of a teacher-as- source conceptual framework as seen in Figure 1. The present study, however, must be remembered as being concerned only with (l) the teacher as a source, (2) the conditions of public and private, and (3) the two kinds of judgment: praise and punishment, or positive and negative reward.

The following constructs are thereby the foundations of the conceptual models of Figures 2 and 3:

IA1. Positive (praise), public, personal. Example: Praising a child in front of his peers for a personal quality such as his creativity.

IA2. Praise, public, institutional. Example: Praising a child in

public for an institutional adjustment such as being on time to class.

IB1. Praise, private, personal. Example: Praising a child when

alone with him for his creativity. 21

IB2. Praise, private. Institutional. Example: Complimenting a child by means of a note for his good attendance record.

IIA1. Negative (punish), public, personal. Example: Punishing a child in public for his laziness.

IIB1. Punish, private, personal. Example: Criticizing a child at the recess break for his messy appearance.

IIB2. Punish, private, institutional. Example: Talking to a child in private about his difficulty in learning to wait his turn.

I1A2. Punish, public, institutional. Example: Posting the names of those persons who have been disobeying too many classroom rules.

The above eight constructs, then, are the theoretical dimen sions of teacher evaluation of children from which the Teacher Pro fessional Preference Inventory (TePPIn) is developed.

Each construct is discussed further in Chapter III as to topics, processes, and conditions in the items of TePPIn. The specific pro cesses and conditions are drawn from the author’s reading of Jackson; the topics come from Jackson and the research on discipline.

The Teacher Professional Preference Inventory is based on the matching of each construct against another where there is but one variable in the two constructs. This permits the matching of constructs as follows:

1. IA1 (Praise, Public, Personal), IB1 (Praise, Private, Personal);

2. IA2 (Praise, Public, Institutional), IB2 (Praise, Public,

Institutional);

3. IA1 (Praise, Public, Personal), IA2 (Praise, Public,

Institutional); 4. IB1 (Praise, Private, Personal), IB 2 (Praise, Private,

Institutional);

5. IIA1 (Punish, Public, Personal), IIA2 (Punish, Public,

Institutional);

6. IIB1 (Punish, Private, Personal), IIB2 (Punish, Private,

Institutional);

7. IIA1 (Punish, Public, Personal), IIB1 (Punish, Private,

Personal);

8. IIA2 (Punish, Public, Institutional), IIB2 (Punish, Private,

Institutional);

9. IA1 (Praise, Public, Personal), IIA1 (Punish, Public,

Personal);

10. IB1 (Praise, Private, Personal), IIB1 (Punish, Private,

Personal);

11. IA2 (Praise, Public, Institutional), IIA2 (Punish, Public,

Institutional); and

12. IB2 (Praise, Private, Institutional), IIB2 (Punish, Private,

Institutional).

These twelve comparisons are represented in the original form of TePPIn. A specific example of a comparison is:

IA1. Compliment a child in front of his classmates for his

creative work, and

IA2. Compliment a child in front of his classmates for his

outstanding record of punctuality.

The process (praise) and condition (public) remain constant in this example, whereas the topic (personal quality/institutional adjust 23 ment) is the variable. A test item reflecting that comparison forces the testee to choose between those two alternatives; his decision reflects the value-preference he holds toward the two. Choosing IA1 over IA2 suggests the testee prizes the rewarding of a personal development of a child over the child's conformity to institutional expectations.

The modified instrument is based on eight of the above twelve construet-comparisons. Numbers five through eight are unrepresented as a consequence of item analyses on the pilot tests. Elaboration of the dimensions described above is found in Chapter Ill's description on test development. CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND TEST DEVELOPMENT

Theory construction and research in education has in the past been developed primarily from a mixture of psychological-sociological- philosophical theory which virtually ignored much of the real world of educational practice. The increasing awareness of the complexities of the classroom makes the use of both educational practice and edu cational theory as inputs in conducting field research a necessity.

The process model for research referred to briefly in Chapter I represents to this writer one sound way for educational researchers to proceed. That model consists of "seeing" educational practice and theory through a kind of lens. The view permits the field researcher to conduct naturalistic studies of a different type than historically known to education.

Field research, as demonstrated by Jackson (17) and Smith and

Geoffrey (28) in their work, can in turn be ordered into a theoretical form; from this form can come verification research, as this study is conducting. Jackson's narrative is of a theoretical nature that made the conceptual work of Chapter II possible.

This study bases its theoretical constructs on the field re search of Jackson on classroom evaluation. It is a descriptive- heuristic inquiry focusing on some of those constructs.

24 25

The reader is reminded that the large classroom evaluation model's three sources of judgment are reflective of the total evaluation-of-student reality. The model reflects Jackson's observations that evaluation is derived from more than one source, that the con ditions of the communication of evaluation vary (public, private, and secret), and that a range exists in quality from intensely positive to intensely negative evaluation (17:20).

That model contains two sources and one referrent which this study does not pursue, however: classmates' evaluation and self- ovaluation, and academic achievement. Likewise, the condition of

"secret" judgment is not included in the inquiry. Omission of the

"secret" referrent is due to the study's exclusive concern with the evaluation process as the direct, teacher-to-pupil dimension. Missing from the study, then, are "secret" practices, such as communicating to parents judgments which are unknown to the child.

Research process model. The process model for educational research in

Figure 4, as conceived by Smith and Geoffrey (28:249), represents that to which this study follows. From the theory construction of Jackson

(T3, Fig. 4) comes verification research (T4), which includes instrument building and testing. This study focused on the activity of building and testing Teacher Professional Preference Inventory instrument.

Methodology. The methodology of this research study is eclectic in kind, consisting of the following three phases:

1. Conceptual. The theoretical framework (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3) of the classroom "fact of life" known as evaluation, or judgment is the Educational Revision theory Verificational of research theory 1. Laboratory experiment Field research: 2. Classroom Theory classroom experiment construe micro-ethno- 3. Correlational tion analyses graphy Revision of educa tional Educational practice practice

Fig. 4. Process model for educational research (28:249).

K> O' 27 first phase. It provides the basis for the next two phases. Formu lation of the conceptual framework, as portrayed in Chapter II, is foundational to phase two.

2. Development of a new instrument. Information about the value- preferences held by teachers toward the evaluation "fact of life" in the classroom is important in better understanding the characteristics of that phenomenon. An instrument constructed from the conceptual model of this study permits such an inquiry. The second phase of this study, then, was the construction of a valid and reliable value- preference, professional preference inventory. Much of this chapter is concerned with the development of that instrument, the Teacher

Professional Preference Inventory, hereafter referred to as TePPIn.

3. Main study. The last phase of this study was a large-scale descriptive inquiry into the value-preferences held by a large sample of elementary teachers. The five hundred forty-seven subjects were not randomly selected, but instead were selected incidentally according

to the circumstances of the situation. Cooperation was sought of university faculty known to the investigator and his adviser.

In summary, the fundamental method in this study was "descrip

tive". The conceptual framework of Chapter II was employed to provide

the constructs for the development of TePPIn. That instrument was the means for conducting the main research study. It sought to collect

data to determine general facts and characteristics about elementary

teachers' value-preferences toward teacher evaluation of children.

The questions stated in Chapter I were both general and specific

enough to facilitate such determination of characteristics from the

data. 28

The writer makes three assumptions about such an approach to inquiry. They are:

1. that a valid and reliable preference inventory measures those value-preferences which the instrument purports to measure;

2. that such an indirect measure of teachers' preferences toward the worth of teachers' behavior decisions can minimize subjects' social-desirability response set, thereby theoretically increasing the honesty of responses; and

3. that the data obtained through use of the instrument can help contribute to a better understanding of why teachers evaluate children as they are reported to do.

Design and procedures. The design and procedures followed, and general plan for the study were:

1. The statements on the "fact" of classroom life Jackson calls

"praise" were conceptualized in a model. Praise, or evaluation (in

cluding punishment), was represented as a complexity of constructs.

These constructs provided the theoretical basis for the main study.

2. Specific pupil behavior referrents to which teachers give

their greatest personal attention were drawn from the literature on

"discipline" to supplement the few referrents Jackson mentions in his

narrative.

3. A large number of statements of teacher behavior which re

flected the constructs of the above model were constructed. These

statements of teacher evaluation of children formed the basis for

TePPIn. 29

4. A sixty-item, forced-choice instrument was constructed from the statements (above). Care was taken to include the different referrents, conditions, and kinds of evaluation.

5. The items were analyzed for their explicitness and clarity by a panel of experts. The panel consisted of five judges--one a pro fessor of education, another an educator-writer, a third a doctoral student experienced in test writing, a fourth the director of a major curriculum project in England, and a fifth a sociologist working in the fevaluation team of the above curriculum project. Content validity was determined in this manner.

6. The items were ordered randomly; a cover sheet was developed explaining the purpose and directions for taking the instrument.

7. The instrument was administered to a group cf one hundred twenty-one preservice teachers taking methods courses at The Ohio

State University. This in-class pretesting was for purposes of item analysis. The Ohio State University Evaluation Center's computer service provided a complete item analysis. Item validity was obtained by means of the point biserial correlation.

8. The instrument was modified, using the item analysis (above).

Items were eliminated that failed to discriminate, v/ere excessively easy or difficult, or lacked item validity. Questionable items were restructured as to vocabulary and sentence construction and were re tained where needed to make up a particular construct group of four items.

9. The modified instrument was reduced to thirty-two items (four items of eight constructs) and was administered in a second pretest \ 30

to a different group of teacher subjects (N=92). Subjects were a mixture of preservice and inservice teachers.

10. The instrument was revised again from the second item analysis.

This modified test became the final instrument.

11. A test-retest administration of the final instrument was con ducted with classes of preservice elementary teachers in Ohio State

University methods classes. The fifty-six subjects were different

from any of the prior testees. The Pearson r was determined to

estimate the stability of TePPIn. r=.83.

12. Approximately 1,000 inventories, scoring sheets, and examiner directions (Appendix D) were sent to eleven cooperating colleges and universities throughout the nation who had agreed to participate in

the large validation study. A letter was included giving final in

structions, along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Appendix

C is a sample of that letter.

13. All those scoring sheets having arrived by August 2, 1970,

were scored. The computer services were used again. Scoring was done

by items and by sub-groups on the eight construet-comparison sub

divisions. The sub-groups are: sex, years of teaching experience,

grade level taught, and geographical region.

14. The results were placed in a series of graphic displays, indi

cating responses toward each construet-comparison by sub-groups.

15. The findings were analyzed and interpreted. The Chi Square

statistical technique was utilized to answer the five questions stated

in Chapter I. Interpretation involved both statistical and non-

statistical evaluation criteria. Significance at the .05 and .01 levels 31 were recognized as acceptable for the former; trends and patterns were noted and discussed.

16. A breakdown of the eight subdivisions of TePPIn was performed.

Each item was analyzed for its order of difficulty and discriminatory ability. Table XV indicates the items of the subdivisions and the appropriate item analysis data. The order of the items' power can be seen from this display.

17. The findings were analyzed and discussed for their implications for (a) future thinking about the "fact" of teacher evaluation of children, and (b) recommendations for future research.

Conditions for administration. The two conditions under which the main study'8 data were collected follows:

1. The instrument was administered in college classrooms to ex perienced elementary teachers (and preparatory teachers in the pre tests) by the investigator at The Ohio State University, and by the college instructors of classes in the other schools. Examiners were given explicit written directions (Appendix D).

The conditions under which the pretests were administered were the same as those of the final study. In the pretest, subjects who were uncomfortable in making a choice between alternatives in some

items were reminded they were to make a preference in spite of their discomfort. Examiners in the final study were directed to give the

same directions to testees.

2. In both the pretests and final study, subjects were given no

time limits. The TePPIn instrument defined. The final Teacher Professional Prefer ence Inventory is an instrument which obtains from the testee his value-preference between paired statements about teacher evaluation of children. The testee is forced to make a decision between the two teacher behaviors stated in each of thirty-two items. The statements in each item are matched so that one variable in each is manipulated.

That variable is either (a) praise/punishment, (b) public/private condition, or (c) personal/institutional referrent. The responses are converted into total and sub-scores to reflect the varying degrees of preference for that construct-comparison being measured.

The subdivisions of TePPIn. The content of the items of TePPIn is determined by the conceptual model's constructs (Fig. 2), the liter ature available on teacher's referrents for praise and punishment, and Jackson's general categories of the conditions under which student evaluation does in fact occur. The constructs compared in the in ventory's divisions are thought of as representing the real world of teacher evaluation of children as reflected in the theoretical state ments of Jackson. The subdivisions, or constructs, are depicted in the three-dimensional model of Figure 3 and the elaborations of

Chapter II. That conceptual framework was utilized for developing and classifying the specific items of the test. The following matrix

(Fig. 5) shows the location of the test items of the construct- comparison.

The final form of TePPIn consists of thirty-two items. This includes four items each of eight construct-comparisons. The instru ment is presented in Appendix A with instructions to subjects. This construet-location. Conditions for Evaluation A Public (A) B Private (B) Fig. 5. Conceptual framework matrix of TePPIn: item numbers' item TePPIn: of matrix framework Conceptual 5. Fig. 3 2, 5 2, 29, 26, 25, 24, 23, 31 , , , 6 1, 21, 18, 16, 5, 4,1, 32 , , , , 6 17, 16, 9, 8, 3, 1, 0 2, 6 2, 0 7 2, 2 2, 30, 28, 22, 20, 17, 30, 27, 26, 24, 10,

1 Proa () Institutional (2) Personal (1)

n=12 c

H CM Referrents of Evaluation of Referrents 29 , , , 0 1, 13, 12, 10, 6, 5, 2, 5 2, 1 2, 23, 22, 21, 20, 15, , , , 1 1, 14, 12, 11, 7, 6,3, 32 n=12 n=12 33 34

final form is printed just as it was presented to the five hundred forty-seven subjects in the main study. The remainder of this chapter explains the process through which that inventory evolved.

Construction of TePPIn items. The original sixty items for the Teacher

Professional Preference Inventory were constructed from the set of

topics, judgments, and conditions of Jackson and the literature on discipline. The matrix of Figure 5 reflects the specific content of

each item. The three dimensions of each statement in the items

portray particular action of praise of punishment, a specific condition under which the evaluation occurs, and the referrent (topic) the act

is focused upon. Personal quality referrents of cleverness, creativity,

ambition, physical ability, humor, intelligent behavior, and appearance,

as well as the institutional adjustments of punctuality, conformity to

classroom or school rules, attentiveness, orderliness in line or class

room, and cooperation are the topics for the statements. The topics,

or referrents, in TePPIn are supplemented by the "serious misbehaviors"

found in three major studies identified by Smith (27:292). Those

referrents rated in common to the studies as "serious" are "violations

of standards of morality and integrity, transgressions against

authority, violations of general school regulations, violations of

classroom rules, violations of schoolwork regulations, and difficulty

with other children" (27:292). Specific referrents for the items serve

as both positive and negative objects, e.g., praising a child for up

holding a general school regulation (positive), and punishing a child

for a violation of a general school regulation (negative). Each item

has two construct-sentences (a. and b.). Only one concept is varied 35 in each pair of sentences. The items, then, keep two of the dimensions of judgment, condition, and referrent constant, while one is varied.

Items are randomly-ordered.

The eight constructs are from the three-dimension conceptual model of Figure 3. All of the twelve theoretically possible construct-comparisons represented by five items each, made up the original sixty-item inventory.

The final form of TePPIn has thirty-two items. The statements represent eight of the twelve construct-comparisons in the original instrument. Item analysis on the larger form provided data that led to the elimination of twenty-eight items. Twenty of them constituted the entire set of Punish-versus-Punish items; the other eight were one of each of the other eight construct-comparisons. This action, then, resulted in an instrument with eight subdivisions of four items each.

The answer key to the final instrument is found in Appendix B.

Validity of TePPIn. Validity is the most important criterion in the assessment of TePPIn's quality and adequacy as an instrument (15:35).

The author has taken steps to establish the validity of TePPIn. The researcher is aware, however, that the meaning of validity is mis understood by many and is responsible for the current validity gap in the test-development activities of educators.

The reader is first reminded of the different kinds of validity and how these criteria are met by TePPIn. Following is a description of each. In order to answer the validity question, that is, "Is the instrument measuring what it claims to measure?", three types of 36 validity are basic: content validity, criterion-related validity,

and construct validity (29:12-14).

The first, content validity, is concerned with the question of how well the content the instrument samples represents the definition-

population (29:12). Explicit content validity of TePPIn was obtained

through the determinations of five judges. The adequacy of the definition of teacher evaluation of children was determined from the universe of statements portrayed by Jackson. The assumed universe of

teacher behaviors comprise the definition of the teacher-evaluation-

of-children process. Content validity was established, then, by the

development of items which explicitly (as determined by the judges)

represented the constructs.

The second type, criterion-related validity, asks the question

of how well the instrument compares "with external variables con

sidered to be direct measures of the characteristic or behavior in

question?" (15:56). Future research with TePPIn should be correlated

with observational research studies focusing on the variables examined

here. Subsequent investigation with the instrument must also focus on

research comparing test results of TePPIn with other such criteria-

vartables of flexibility, openness, tolerance of ambiguity, and

creativity. There is no attempt in this study to establish criterion-

related validity; it must be determined in later efforts.

The third kind of validity is construct validity. This type

is crucial to any instrument used in descriptive and scientific inquiry,

for it is concerned with the "extent . . . certain explanatory concepts

of qualities account for performance on the test" (15:56). Value- 37 preferences cannot be observed directly, but the employment of an instrument to describe them is desirable if_ the constructs are re flected in the proposed interpretation. Such is the case here, for

the theory of Jackson obtains its evidence of construct validity

through his field-study approach. The construct validity of TePPIn

is thus determined logically.

The primary variable investigated in this study is the "value- preference". That object is based on what Kluckhohn describes as

"value": "A value is a conception, explicit, or implicit, distinctive cf an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which

influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action" (19:396). The value preference construct-comparison requires

the subject to choose the more desirable of two conceptions of means, modes, and ends of teacher evaluative-action.

Reliability. The second fundamental question of importance to the development of TePPIn is: Is the instrument reliable, that is— is it

consistent and stable?

The instrument's stability was obtained by a comparison of

individuals' scores on test-retest administrations on the same form

of the Instrument. The subjects, fifty-six preservice elementary

teachers at The Ohio State University, were given the final form of

the instrument twice two weeks apart, "long enough to minimize the

effects of memory, but short enough to minimize effects of other

variables" (25:17), e.g., changing one's opinion as a result of the

inventory, or having experiences during the interval that might change 38 his mind. The Pearson r coefficient provided the reliability estimate.

The estimate was computed to be .83.

The internal consistency of TePPIn was determined from the item analyses of the two pretests. The estimated reliability coef ficient obtained from the two administrations were computed through use of the Kuder-Richardson formulas and are as follows:

Test Situation 1

Kuder-Richardson 20=.74

Kuder-Richardson 21=.63

Test Situation 2

Kuder-Richardson 20=.73

Kuder-Richardson 21=.63

Test Situation 3 and 4 (Test-Retest)

Kuder-Richardson 20=.85; .82

Kuder-Richardson 21=.79; .76

The mean average of the two estimated reliability coefficients on test situations 3 and 4 is .78 (K-R 20) and .71 (K-R 21). Both are high reliability estimates. The reliability and related statistical properties of TePPIn are presented in Table I’s Statistical Summaryj

Statistical Summary for Pilot Tests One (Sixty Items) and Two (Thirty-

Two Items).

Based on TePPIn's high stability and inner consistency coef

ficients, the instrument is judged to have a high degree of reliability.

The beginning steps in gaining validity for the instrument have taken

place. The item analysis on the final test is reported in Chapter IV. 39

TABLE I STATISTICAL SUMMARY FOR PRETESTS OF TePPIn

One Two

Number of subjects 121 92

Mean test score 36.69 18.33

Standard deviation 6.14 4.45

Median 37 18

Mode 32 22

Maximum 49 29

Minimum 17 7

Range 32 22

Skewness -0.79 -0.05

Kurtosis -0.24 0.50

Mean item difficulty .388 .427

Mean item discrimination .242 .338 CHAPTER IV

THE RESULTS: VALUE-PREFERENCES OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS TOWARD TEACHER EVALUATION OF CHILDREN

The major question in the main study has to do with the value- preferences held by elementary teachers toward the evaluation of children by teachers. Five hundred forty-seven teachers from eight colleges in four geographical regions in the nation were studied by means of the administration of the Teacher Professional Preference

Inventory, developed for this study. The subjects were students in the 1970 college summer school sessions. A selective method of sampling was employed in obtaining the subjects. All subjects were experienced teachers. A summary of personal characteristics of the

subjects is presented in Table II.

Shown are the number of subjects for each of the sub-groups:

sex, years of teaching experience, grade level taught the prior year,

and geographical region. Over five times as many females completed

TePPIn as did males. One-half again as many intermediate teachers

(third-sixth grades) as primary teachers (grades Kindergarten-second)

participated. Representation from the West and South were similar in

number, as was the case with the Midwest and East. Practically the

same number of subjects with one-three years of teaching experience

took TePPIn as did the group with four or more years of experience.

40 41

TABLE II SUMMARY OF SUBJECTS TAKING TePPIn

Sex: M a l e ...... (N=86) Female ...... (N=452) Values not entered . .(N=9) Grade Level K - 2 ...... (N-205) 3 - 6 ...... ,(N=329) Values not entered . .(N=ll) Geographical Region West ...... ,(N=90) South ...... (N=95) East ...... (N=198) Midwest ...... (N=160) Values not entered . .(N=4) Years of Teaching Experience 1 - 3 ...... (N=276) 4 + ...... ,(N=259) \-/ CSI 5 2 r-1 II Values not entered . •

The total b-ores obtained on TePPIn are shown in Table III.

The mean and standard deviation for all teachers are 18.31 and 4.53, respectively. The median and mode are the same (18) with a skewness of 0.31 and kurtosis of -0.37. Maximum and minimum scores are 31 and

7, respectively, making a range of 24. The scores of the population resemble a normal distribution. The actual test score distribution is given in Table IV.

Table V displays the means and standard deviations for the eight construet-comparison subdivisions of TePPIn. Subdivisions E 42

TABLE III SUMMARY STATISTICS ON FINAL TEST

Number of subjects 547 Mean 18.31 Standard deviation 4.53 Median 18 Mode 18 Skewness 0.31 Kurtosis -0.37 Maximum 31 Minimum 7 Range 24

and F have relatively high means and small standard deviations, re flecting a definite preference of the subjects for selecting the praising in public of personal qualities and institutional adaptations over the punishing in public of those two referrents. The subjects were approximately divided in their choice between items praising and punishing in private for the same two referrents. The majority of teacher responses to the choices of praising in public and private were for the institutional adjustments over the personal qualities.

The population reflects a majority preference for praising the personal and institutional referrents in public over private conditions. The standard deviations for both subdivisions are large (1.31 and 1.23), spreading the scores considerably.

The t-ratio for uncorrelated samples is employed here to de termine the significance between the dependent samples in the subgroups.

Using that version of the t statistic, differences between the dis continuous variables of geographical region, sex, grade level, and years 43

TABLE IV TEST SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR TePPIn

Raw Cumulative Percentile Standard Score Frequency Frequency Rank Score

31 3 547 99.7 780.0 30 1 544 99.4 758.0 29 3 543 99.0 735.9 28 8 540 98.0 713.8 27 10 532 96.3 691.8 26 17 522 93.9 669.7 25 19 505 90.6 647.7 24 16 486 87.4 625.6 23 21 470 84.0 603.6 22 38 449 78.6 581.5 21 34 411 72.0 559.4 20 34 377 65.8 537.4 19 32 343 59.8 515.3 18 63 311 51.1 493.3 17 42 248 41.5 471.2 16 49 206 33.2 499.1 15 35 157 25.5 427.1 14 44 122 18.3 405.0 13 25 78 12.0 383.0 12 25 53 7.4 360.9 11 18 28 3.5 338.9 10 5 10 1.4 316.8 9 2 5 0.7 294.7 8 2 3 0.4 272.7 7 1 1 0.1 250.6

of teaching experience are displayed in Tables VI, VII, VIII, and IX and reveal the following:

1. A statistically significant difference exists between the sub jects from the Midwest (Ohio State University and Ball State University) and the subjects from the East (State College at Worcester, Massachu setts; University of Maryland; and Farmington State College), and between the subjects from the South (Universities of Tennessee and

Georgia) and the East. Significance is at the .01 level. Significant 44 differences exist between the West and Midwest groups at the .05 level. No other significant differences are revealed.

TABLE V SUMMARY OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS (N=547)

Test Correct Sub-Division Mean* S.D.

C IA1 vs. IA2 A 1.85 1.03 » IB1 vs. IA1 B 1.84 1.31 g. IB2 vs. IA2 C 1.63 1.23 J IB1vs. IB2 D 1.81 0.88 tJ IA1 vs. IIA1 E 3.69 0.62 i ia2 vs. IIA2 F 3.59 0.67 § 1B1 vs. IIB1 G 2.05 1.44 o IB2 vs. IIB2 H 1.85 1.16

Maximum 4, Minimum 0,

TABLE VI TEACHER PREFERENCES ON TOTAL TePPIn SCORES, BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION (N=543)

N Mean S.D.

West 90 18.09 4.29 .62 n.s, 1.54 n.s. South 95 18.98 41 ^ X >2.23* East 198 17.24 4.64* • • • • 3 • 28** ’ *y N » .84 O A n.s. • — Midwest 160 19.36 4.50^ '"*'>* 4.42**

** p .05. p < .01. Key: West------, South - - - East...... Midwest 2. No significant difference on the total scores exist in Tables

VII, VIII, and IX between males and females, grade levels (K-2 and

3-6), and years of teaching experience C1—3 and 4 or more).

TABLE VII TEACHER PREFERENCES ON TOTAL TePPIn SCORES, BY SEX (N=538)

Sex N Mean S.D. t

Male 86 17.78 5.05 1.03 N.S. Female 452 18.39 4.44

TABLE VIII TEACHER PREFERENCE ON TOTAL TePPIn SCORES, BY GRADE LEVEL (N=536)

Grade Level N Mean S.D. t

Kindergarten 205 18.21 4.58 Second Grade .51 N.S. Third through 329 18.42 4.51 Sixth Grade

TABLE IX TEACHER PREFERENCES ON TOTAL TePPIn SCORES, BY YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE (N=535)

Years Taught N Mean S.D. t

1-3 276 18.04 4.58 1.22 N.S. 4 or more 259 18.53 4.54 46

The summary Tables X, XI, XII, and XIII portray the chi squares for teacher preferences on the eight subtests of TePPIn. The following findings assist the reader in seeing whether the frequencies observed (actual responses) in the sample deviate significantly from theoretical (expected) population frequencies:

1. There are significant deviations between geographical regions' responses on subtests seven and eight, both at the .05 level;

2. There is a significant deviation at the .05 level between males and females on subtest five;

3. There is a significant deviation (.05) on subtest seven between grade levels taught; and

4. There are no significant deviations at the different levels of years of teaching experience.

Stated differently, whatever differences appear to exist in the variables of number 4 (above) are probably due to chance. The differ ences appearing in the others, however, are statistically significant

and probably would not have occurred only by chance.

Table XIV graphically describes subjects’ raw-score frequencies

on the eight subtests. For example, thirty-four subjects chose the

"correct" answer programmed for the computer on subtest A. A, repre

senting the IA1, IA2 construet-comparison, was answered correctly (IAl)

by thirty-four out of the five hundred forty-seven subjects. One

hundred sixteen subjects selected three of the four items correctly;

one hundred seventy chose two correctly; one hundred eighty-nine de

cided on one; and thirty-eight answered IA2 four times and IAl none.

The other seven subtests are read the same way. 47

TABLE X SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARES FOR PREFERENCES BY TEACHERS OF FOUR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF TePPIn

Subtest Construet-Comparison Chi Square

1 IAl, IA2 17.73 n.s. 2 IAl, IB1 14.83 n.s. 3 IA2, IB2 21.01 n.s. 4 IB1, IB2 15.36 n.s. 5 IAl, IIA1 11.02 n.s. 6 IA2, IIA2 14.46 n.s. 7 IB1, IIB1 35.75** 8 IB2, IIB2 44.15**

** P < .01.

TABLE XI SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARES FOR PREFERENCES OF MALES AND FEMALES ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF TePPIn

Subject Construct-Compar1son Chi Square

1 IAl, IA2 1.34 n.s. 2 IAl, IB1 2.95 n.s. 3 IA2, IB2 2.59 n.s. 4 IB1, IB2 1.65 n.s. 5 IAl, IIAl 11.45* 6 IA2, IIA2 6.33 n.s. 7 IB1, IIB1 1.81 n.s. 8 IB2, IIB2 4.37 n.s.

*p < . 0 5 . 48

TABLE XII SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARES FOR PREFERENCES OF KINDERGARTEN-SECOND GRADE AND THIRD-SIXTH GRADE TEACHERS ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF TePPIn

Subtest Construet-Comparison Chi Square

1 IAl, IA2 2.78 n.s. 2 IAl, IBI 4.80 n.s. 3 IA2, IB2 3.69 n.s. 4 IB1, IB2 5.60 n.s. 5 IAl, IIAl 3.65 n.s. 6 IA2, IIA2 .73 n.s. 7 IB1, IIB1 12.77* 8 IB2, IIB2 3.76 n.s.

* P < .05.

TABLE XIII SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARES FOR PREFERENCES BY TEACHERS HAVING ONE-THREE AND FOUR OR MORE YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE, ON THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF TePPIn

Subtest Cons true t-Compar i son Chi Square

1 IAl, IA2 .54 n.s. 2 IAl, IB1 5.82 n.s. 3 IA2, IB2 6.60 n.s. 4 IB1, IB2 5.71 n.s. 5 IAl, IIAl 1.34 n.s. 6 IA2, IIA2 .39 n.s. 7 IB1, IIB1 1.65 n.s. 8 IB2, IIB2 3.57 n.s. Totals Raw Scores 3 6 4 2 42 7 16 4 1147 64 126 375 412 21 46 69 34 4 10 2 13 3 2 4 15 3 955 137 105 40 24 837 230 91 98 123 126 126 170 105 2 87 97 117 116 3 3 10 1 2 1 13 7 433 47 103 0 1 22 112 110 38 0 19 2 19 8 5 15 0 1004 208 115 6 5 187 169 125 189 1 CROSSBREAK OK SUBJECTS* RAW-SCORE FREQUENCIES ON ON FREQUENCIES RAW-SCORE SUBJECTS* OK CROSSBREAK 4 57 4 57 4 57 4 57 4376 547 547 547 547 547 547 547 547 E G Totals H G F E D C B A THE EIGHT SUBTESTS OF TePPIn OF SUBTESTS EIGHT THE TABLE XIV TABLE 49 50

On slightly more than one-fourth of the total responses

(N=4,376), the subjects selected all four "correct" responses in one of the eight subtests.

The high number of four corrects on subtests E and F suggests the low relative difficulty of the eight items, as well as the sig nificantly high preference for praising in public to punishing in public. The high frequencies in these two cells create a somewhat distorted picture of the four-correct-choice total.

Finally, Table XV shows the item analysis statistics for all thirty-two items, grouped in subtests. The display raises some questions about the worth of a few items. Furthermore, the power of the items can be seen to vary greatly. The order of power is judged by the investigator and is numbered. In the first subtest, for example, the order is judged to be as follows: Item twenty-one is the best item, item five is next best, item twenty-nine is third best, and item twenty-three is judged least effective. The other seven can be read similarly. 51

TABLE XV ANALYSIS OF ITEMS IN THE EIGHT SUBDIVISIONS OF TePPIn (N=547)

Conatruct- Teat Relative Corrected Phi Order of Comparison Item # Difficulty RBIS Coefficient Item Power

IAl, IA2 5 .751 .319 .562 2 IAl, IA2 21 .519 .359 .625 1 IAl, IA2 23 .152 .187 .339 4 IAl, IA2 29 .726 .145 .233 3 IAl, IB1 1 .580 .221 .411 4 IAl, IB1 16 .527 .299 .549 2 IAl, IB1 24 .501 .402 .718 1 IAl, IB1 26 .558 .277 .509 3 IA2, IB2 6 .744 .387 .685 4 IA2, IB 2 12 .484 .487 .836 1 IA2, IB2 20 .664 .428 .750 3 IA2, IB2 22 .481 .402 .718 2 IB1, IB2 3 .102 .208 .426 3 IB1, IB2 17 .484 .074 .110 4 IB1, IB2 30 .879 .333 .495 2 IB1, IB2 32 .720 .431 .760 1 IAl, I IAl 4 .110 .181 .339 1 IAl, I IAl 18 .029 .091 .233 4 IAl, I IAl 25 .115 .166 .309 2 IAl, I IAl 31 .060 .195 .324 3 IA2, IIA2 2 .062 .113 .172 4 IA2, IIA2 10 .088 .121 .233 3 IA2, IIA2 13 .143 .197 .353 2 IA2, IIA2 15 .117 .257 .426 1 IB1, IIB1 8 .554 .444 .760 4 IB1, IIB1 9 .532 .555 .918 2 IB1, IIB1 19 .439 .545 .861 3 IB1, IIB1 27 .422 .623 .965 1 IB2, IIB2 7 .567 .521 .869 1 IB2, IIB2 11 .665 .503 .818 2 IB2, IIB2 14 .761 .506 .780 3 IB2, IIB2 28 .159 .232 .426 4 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to conceptualize a framework for teacher evaluation of children, to construct a valid and reliable value-preference inventory based on the framework, and to apply the instrument in a national study of elementary teachers.

The conceptual framework was derived from the theoretical statements of Philip Jackson's naturalistic study reported in Life in

Classrooms. The forced-choice instrument, the Teacher Professional

Preference Inventory (TePPIn), reflects the set of constructs of the framework. The selected constructs have the dimensions of praise and punishment (positive and negative reward), public and private conditions for evaluation, and personal qualities and institutional referrents of evaluation. Each construct was matched with every other construct where there was but one differing variable in the two. For example, the praise-public-personal construct was matched with the praise- private-personal and the praise-public-institutional constructs. Five items of each of the twelve construet-comparisons created a total of sixty items in the original instrument; four items of eight construct- comparisons on the modified final form made up the thirty-two item instrument employed in the main study.

The instrument building and testing involved developing items which reflected the specifics of Jackson and the literature on

52 53

"discipline". Experts* opinions were obtained as to the clarity and

explicitness of the statements of each item. The instrument was ad ministered in pretests for purposes of modification through item

analysis. Test-retest reliability was determined. The final instru ment was used in conducting a study of five hundred forty-seven sub

jects in eight major colleges and universities throughout the country.

The results were analyzed as to sub-group performance by geographical

region, sex, grade level taught, and years of teaching experience.

The descriptions of the characteristics and facts discovered were

statistically and non-statistically analyzed. Chi square and t

statistics were applied to the data.

The following are the main findings:

1. Subjects from the Midwest and East, and the Midwest and West,

differed at the .01 level on the total TePPIn scores. No other

statistically significant differences were shown on the subgroups'

total scores.

2. Males and females differed significantly on the eight subtests

of TePPIn only in their preferences between the praise-public-personal

and punish-public-personal constructs.

3. Teachers of the four geographical regions differed signifi

cantly only on the two construct-comparisons of praise-private-

personal versus punish-private-institutional, and punish-private-

institutional versus praise-private-institutional. This is the area

of difference responsible for the t statistic reported in number one

above. Teachers of the Midwest preferred the punitive teacher behavior

significantly less than did the Eastern teachers. 54

4. Only in choosing between praise-private-personal and punish- private-personal did any significant differences appear between teachers of primary and intermediate grade levels. No differences were revealed according to years of teaching experience.

5. A near-normal distribution was derived from the scores. On two of the subtests the items were revealed to be particularly "easy” : the number of subjects who scored high on the Praise-Public or Private-

Personal over the Punish-Public or Private-Personal items were high.

6. The thirty-two items revealed varying degrees of power on the final study's item analysis. A breakdown of the subdivisions by their items in Table XV permitted an analysis of their order of power. About one-fourth of the items appeared as weak and are judged to need re consideration as to their inclusion in future versions of TePPIn.

7. In general, subjects revealed a high preference for praise over punishment in public, but a divided opinion on praise and punish ment in private. Stated differently, the teachers studied felt punitive measures were more preferable than praising measures when performed on a child in private.

8. The majority of teachers valued praising children for their institutional adaptation to their personal qualities.

9. The majority of teachers valued praising children in public over private.

Discussion. Where does this dissertation belong in the total picture in educational inquiry? And what steps are to follow this investigation?

The answer to the first question forms the basis for planning the solutions to the second. To have no idea of where teacher value- 55 preferences toward evaluation fits in the search for "truth-in- teaching" is to admit the complexity of the topic. Consider the following.

First, the writer is a curriculum specialist and is thus con cerned with the objectives of education. The following assumptions are believed to be fundamental to approaching curricular objectives and those learnings that result. These assumptions can be considered as essential to curriculum Inquiry:

1. that the objectives of education are derived from "the values which help distinguish good educational behavior from bad." (14:91);

2. that praise and punishment of students by teachers is em ployed only to promote "that learning which results in development related to or moving toward educational objectives which constitute

•education1" (14:91);

3. that "learning and thus those accompanying acts of praise and punishment which results in development opposed to or moving away from educational objectives constitutes •miseducation1" (14:91) and is antithetical to the proper function of the curriculum; such mis education has no place in the objectives of children. Primum non nocerel;

4. that objectives are values, then, and have "characteristics which can always be incorporated into the behavior of children to some degree" (14:91);

5. that the values held by teachers regarding the three sources for curriculum objectives, that is— the society, the learner, and the

subject matter specialists, determine both their objectives for, and

their interactions with, children; and 56

6. that the values held by teachers about those three sources for curriculum objectives are held differently by different teachers at differing levels of intensity; such variation is fundamental to the specific style of teaching a teacher demonstrates in helping children to be "educated."

The behavior value-preferences revealed in this study may indicate values the subjects hold toward "good educational behavior" and educational objectives constituting a "good" education. What miseducation is suggested by the preferences stated by the population?

Those values (objectives) that are impressed in students are of what source? Is the priority of teachers on the needs of the learner

(personal qualities) or the society? And what behaviors are demon strated by teachers reflecting their priorities? Several types of research efforts can follow from these questions.

Before recommending any specific research directions, some educational implications that have arisen out of the investigator's research activity are discussed.

Paul Allen has written, "Evaluation is inevitable, exasperating, frustrating, and extremely humbling" (1:48). The two factors ex plaining why this is so, according to Allen, are (l) "teachers find themselves in an intellectual tug-of-war between the internal and external causation theories of human behavior," and (2) ". . . the existing evaluation programs require teachers to play a role they either don't understand or can't accept" (ibid.). The predominate theory directing much of student evaluation is external;" the Taba-

Tyler rationale of curriculum development, and the behaviorists of 57 psychology have been the driving forces in the perpetuation of this theory.

Five years ago Walcott Beatty wrote an article about that theory. It touched upon this investigator's concern that was ex pressed in Chapter I— that shaping of people through sophisticated reinforcement (shaping) techniques (4). His treatment of the operant techniques advanced by behaviorists included the advancement of eight hypotheses about the effects of such shaping. All eight hypothesized consequences were judged implicitly as inhumane (4:118); they require rigorous testing,

Crary asks, "Within limits, of what use are these things (the contributions of the behaviorists) to the teacher? The conditioned response is economical in terms of response to school bells, disci plinary cure, reinforcing conformity to arbitrary rules and procedures.

This is not exactly new knowledge for teachers, however. The con ditioned response is useful in keeping small children or animals from danger, but parents or animal trainers would not regard this as a bombshell of new insight" (6:397).

The disturbing question, then, is not whether teachers can

learn to be better shapers, but rather, should the teacher become any more effective and efficient in shaping than he is? The current be havioral objective fad is indication that schools are likely going to get more effective and efficient in defining in advance the precise goals of the teacher, goals which require overt operants for the re

inforcing teacher or teaching machine. 58

The internal causation theory involves self-evaluation, based on rich feedback, and is fundamental to the development of the autonomous learner. Schools are inexperienced in fostering this kind of evaluation, unfortunately. The reason, in part, has to do with the question of the importance and function of the school's accent on institutional adjustment for children. The logical positivism found in schools is described by McMahon (23). "The school," he states,

". . . is externally oriented, objectively sensitive to the pragmatic expectations of a corporate, technological society which rewards ef ficiency and economic expedience, not self-definition and the reali zation of identity— the school's empirical, external, or objective approach to truth and life quite naturally prompts it to look to the outside world, to society for definitions of such concepts as education, fulfillment, and success" (23:516).

The two factors presented above as contribution to the con fusion in evaluation may be responsible for that which is sensed by the writer as urgent. The urgency is in the return-to-authoritarianism trend alluded to in Chapter I.

The need for praise must be thought of in terms of the de velopmental stages of the human organism. The eight stages in the life of man, as described by Erik Erikson, represent a milestone in understanding the child's ego developmental needs. David Elkind has summarized the theory of Erikson succinctly (9). Erickson's fourth stage is the age group of most children in the elementary school— six to eleven. This is the phase Freud described as the "latency phase", but one in which Erikson sees not as a quiescent period. It is rather 59 a period with two psychological dimensions, industry and inferiority.

It is a time in which children may be "encouraged in their efforts to make, do, or build practical things, . . . are allowed to finish their products, and are praised and rewarded for the results (and) then the sense of industry is enhanced" (9:89). Or it is a time when children experience failure, thereby assisting the child in developing his sense of inferiority. The latter cannot be tolerated as a goal.

Teacher evaluation of students thus continues to be an issue of significance. In the advance from a forthcoming book, Charles

Silberman states in this resulting work of a three-and-a-half-year study supported by the Carnegie Corporation that "a major source of the underlying hostility (in schools) is the pre-occupation with evaluation. Almost anything and everything the student does is likely to be evaluated, and the teacher, of course, is the chief source of evaluation" (26:89). Silberman contends that the evaluating of children is important, but that the school's obsession for rating them— so as to better label them— is where the problem lies. He attempts to sort out the components of the complexities of evaluation. What he refers to as "evaluation" includes the principle of feedback as well as judgment. The labelling takes place as a result of the judgment, not the feedback. The judging and the subsequent labelling of students are interrelated and deserve careful attention as such. Silberman does not unlock evaluation as Jackson has. Nevertheless, he presents a perceptive description of the area of concern to the writer of this

study, and is perhaps articulating the concern held by a sizable

segment of society. One can hope so. Implications for research. Robert Anderson has remarked that although

little is known about teachers' values, "It is increasingly evident

that the values held by teachers, as reflected in the decisions they make in curriculum and classroom management, have great implications

for the development of the success of children" (2:1058). Future

inquiries with TePPIn might include:

1. Some comparisons need to be made between the scores a subject

makes on TePPIn and his observed behavior. The investigator has

created a simple tally sheet (Fig. 6) that could be used to do the

latter, that is, record the actual evaluative actions— verbal and/or

nonverbal— of the subject. Such correlational research could also

have use as a reality-testing procedure for a preservice or inservice

teacher. The value-preference inventory would serve as a kind of

"ideal" for the subject. Matching his "real" with that ideal could

serve as the means for self-analysis and discussion.

2. A 3eries of predictive studies could relate subjects' scores

with actual performance. For example, how valid are TePPIn's eight

construct-comparison scores when compared with some future teaching

performance? Such studies can establish necessary criterion-related

validity for TePPIn.

3. How do the preparation programs affect prospective teachers?

TePPIn may serve usefully as a tool for experimental research. The

programs and instructors emphasizing strong external causation

philosophies may be reflected through evidence of significant TePPIn

score changes. A behavior-modification zealot may be surprised to

find the changes occurring (or not occurring) in the "right" direction. 61

Judgment: Source:

Code Quality Condition Referrent Teacher (T) Pupil (P)

1. IAl Praise Public Personal

2. IA2 Praise Public Institutional

3. IB1 Praise Private Personal

4. IB2 Praise Private Institutional

5. I IAl Punish Public Personal

6. IIA2 Punish Public Institutional

7. IIB1 Punish Private Personal

8. IIB2 Punish Private Institutional

n(T+P) n= n=

Totals: IAl 1= % (IAl, IA2, IA2_ IB1, IB2) IB1. II 7. (IIA1, IB2 IIA2, IIB1, I IAl IIB2)

IIA2_ Teacher_

IIB1_ Date

IIB2

Fig. 6. Tally sheet for classroom evaluation category system. 62

4. Longitudinal studies of teachers may find TePPIn valuable in seeing changes occurring in subjects as they "progress" from the teacher training institution through the process of becoming socialized in the 8chool(s) they teach.

5. The value-preferences of the urban and rural teacher may differ significantly. The instrument may have value in some comparative studies.

6. Studies of children's self-concepts, confidence, and attitudes can be compared with teachers' value-preference scores on TePPIn. The instrument may indicate evidence of a cause-effect relationship between the values a teacher holds toward teacher evaluation of children and the resulting learnings (cognitive and affective) of the teacher'8 students.

Perhaps the best use to be made of TePPIn is similar to that

John Radcliffe remarks about the research-prolific "Edwards Personal

Preference Schedule". In his review of EPPS in the latest Buros

Mental Measurements Yearbook (24:195-200), he states "There is nothing

to suggest (from the research on EPPS) that the counselor will find

the Eduards Personal Preference Schedule particularly useful, except possibly to 'stimulate discussion'" (24:200). The value of a testee discussing his results on TePPIn with a faculty value-clarifier is

one to be empirically determined as to its worth. Hypotheses for

testing would be in the realm of determining the effects of a program

placing professors with teacher-trainees wherein the former helps the

testee to use the TePPIn data as feedback, and to permit the self-

evaluation process to occur. Such an arrangement, conducted in an 63 inquiry-oriented program as currently suggested to be the desirable direction for The Ohio State University College of Education might be explored.

Certainly educators must know by now that changes in values and attitudes occur best when the client is allowed to make the decision for himself as to who he is and what he should do. Klohr emphasizes that any attention to the preactive realm of curriculum theorizing must take the values of the client into consideration.

"We are dependent on him, the client— this is in sharp contrast to typical operations research which puts the client in the dependent role, with the expert cast as one who has the answers" (18:202). The values of the teacher are the "answers" to rational progress in the value and value-preference realm. No mentor can ignore those things that Maslow has remarked as keeping the person from becoming ill: the individual's values.

Part of the dilemma Allen refers to above may only be re solved, then, if teachers are brought to greater awareness and under standing of what they do value, know, feel, and believe about evalu ation, and are then helped to live a role that is consistent with those values, knowledges, attitudes, and beliefs. Teacher preparation institutions must confront themselves with the challenge of getting at the value questions of teachers that also confront them. They must realize that if an essentially internal-causation theory is to prevail as the ultimate kind of evaluation employed by their prospective teachers— self-evaluation— then they are going to have to provide a more responsive, data-providing-feedback approach to the training of 64 those teachers. Through experience with an essentially self-evaluation process the teachers can come to know the primary reason for it.

Finally, teacher preparation institutions must focus upon the teacher value domain in some rational ways. They cannot continue to send out certificated persons as teachers who hold values and value preferences that reflect the authoritarian personality who sees punitive measures and control as "good" roles. Further, school systems and assisting colleges and universities face the same responsibility with inservice teachers. This responsibility will go far toward meeting the current demands for accountability. APPENDIX A

TePPIn*

The purpose of this inventory is to gain information about your opinions and beliefs concerning teacher judgments in the classroom.

The teacher is the chief source for judgments in the classroom, these judgments being made for different reasons under differing con ditions. This inventory is concerned with obtaining teachers' pro fessional preferences between judgments that an elementary school teacher might make in his classroom.

Each pair of items should be thought of by you as being com prised of two options of teacher judgment. You are to select one of the two as a judgment-preference and blacken the corresponding

letter's answer space on the scoring sheet with pencil.

There are no "right" or "best" answers. Reply as honestly and objectively as you can, based on your professional preference.

Ignore those blanks lettered c, d, and e. Be certain to mark an

answer for each of all thirty-two pairs.

Before beginning, please do the following:

1. Indicate your name by following the directions at the top of the scoring sheet, printing your name in the boxes and then darkening the matching space below each number.

2. Indicate the number of years of college education you have had by darkening the appropriate space under "Section Number". Use only the far right column.

Teacher Professional Preference Inventory. 65 3. Indicate your sex by darkening M for male, F for female.

4. Under "Test Form" darken the space corresponding to the grade which you were teaching this past year. Kindergarten corresponds to A; Grades 1-2 to B; Grades 3-4 to C; and Grades 5-6 to D.

5. Under the "DATE" Section use the "YR" column to darken that space which indicates the number of years of teaching experience you have had. Let space 1 represent 1 year; 2, 2 years; 3, 3 years 4, 4 years; 5, 5 years; 6, 6 years; 7, 7 years; 8, 8 years; and 9, 9 years or more.

Thank you for your assistance. 67

I BELIEVE IT IS PREFERABLE TO:

1. (a) When other’s are not listening, recognize a pupil for his superior physical ability.

(b) Recognize a pupil's exceptional physical ability so that other pupils overhear.

2. (a) Cite a pupil who has demonstrated exceptional ability to comply with the rules of the classroom.

(b) Mention a pupil's violation of a classroom rule to him in the presence of his fellows.

3. (a) When plone with him, compliment a student for his creative work.

(b) When alone with him, compliment a student for his good attendance record.

4. (a) In the presence of other students, recognize a pupil for his sense of humor.

(b) Mention in the class those students who have become excessively humorous.

5. (a) Mention in class the names of those pupils who have demon strated exceptional ability to comply with the rules of the classroom.

(b) Within hearing distance of his fellow pupils, mention a pupil's clever behavior.

6. (a) Give a note to a child commending him for his co-operativeness in the classroom.

(b) Mention to the class the willingness of a pupil to behave cooperatively in the classroom.

7. (a) Mention to a student, when alone with him, how very orderly he has been moving around the classroom.

(b) When alone with him, point out to a pupil his difficulty in moving orderly about the classroom.

8. (a) Point out a pupil's annoying personal mannerisms by talking to him after school.

(b) When others are not listening, recognize a pupil for his different point of view presented in a classroom discussion. 68

9. (a) When a pupil and the teacher can be alone, commend a pupil's true twor th ine as.

(b) When alone with a pupil, discuss the personal consequences created by his untrustworthiness.

10. (a) Post on the bulletin board the names of those pupils who are having difficulty in waiting their turn.

(b) Post on the bulletin board the names of those pupils who have learned to ask permission before leaving their seats.

11. (a) After school, emphasize to a pupil who repeatedly refused to wait quietly in line without pushing, the danger of such behavior.

(b) Praise a pupil in private for his ability to stand in line without pushing.

12. (a) Post on a notice board the names of pupils who have been behaving well when standing in line.

(b) Compliment a pupil when alone with him for his orderly way of moving in line.

13. (a) Call attention to a pupil in front of the class at the time of his outburst of laughter.

(b) Call attention to the ability of a pupil to remain orderly in the classroom.

14. (a) Talk to a pupil in private about his uncooperative behavior in class.

(b) Give a note to a pupil commending him for his cooperation.

15. (a) Withhold from recess those pupils who have repeatedly violated a number of teacher directions.

(b) Mention to the class their demonstrated ability to remain orderly when unsupervised.

16. (a) Praise a pupil for his cleverness so that other children will overhear.

(b) Praise a pupil's cleverness when he and the teacher are alone.

17. (a) When others are not listening, compliment a pupil for his superior athletic skill.

(b) Compliment a pupil when alone with him for his orderly way of moving about the classroom. 69

18. (a) Recognize a pupil for his honesty in a way that other pupils will hear.

(b) Reveal to the class those pupils who are having difficulty resisting the temptation to borrow others' materials.

19. (a) Mention a pupil's keen sense of humor to him in private.

(b) When alone with him, inform a pupil of his poor taste in humor.

20. (a) Praise a pupil in private for his ability to pay attention,

(b) Praise publicly the attentive behavior of a pupil.

21. (a) In the presence of other pupils, compliment a student for his sense of humor.

(b) In the presence of his peers, compliment a student for remaining orderly in the classroom.

22. (a) Whisper to a pupil how pleased the teacher is with his improved punctuality.

(b) Announce to the class how well a certain pupil has improved in his punctuality.

23. (a) When other children may overhear, praise a pupil for an act of honest behavior.

(b) Announce to the class how well a certain pupil has learned to ask permission before leaving the room.

24. (a) Commend a pupil's ambition in the presence of his peers.

(b) Commend a pupil for his ambition when he and the teacher are alone.

25. (a) Mention to the class the teacher's concern over a pupil who is having difficulty staying awake in school.

(b) Within the hearing distance of his fellows mention a pupil's alertness.

26. (a) In the presence of other students, compliment a child for his sense of humor.

(b) Compliment a pupil for his sense of humor in private. 70

27. (a) Mention a p u p i l s high ambitions when ,he and the teacher are alone.

(b) After school, describe the seriousness of a pupil's laziness to him.

28. (a) Write a note to a student who has difficulty in getting to school on time.

(b) Whisper to a student how pleased the teacher is with his Improved punctuality.

29. (a) In front of his classmates, mention a pupil’s interest in maintaining a good physical appearance.

(b) In front of his classmates,mention a pupil's willingness to remain orderly when unsupervised.

30. (a) Praise a student for his cooperativeness in the classroom.

(b) Praise a student at the teacher's desk for his sense of humor.

31. (a) Point out to the students those pupils in the classroom who, because of their laziness, are having difficulty in school.

(b) Recognize a pupil's ambition so that other students may overhear.

32. (a) Tell a pupil how pleased the teacher is with his improved punctuality.

(b) Mention a pupil's cleverness to him when he and the teacher are alone. APPENDIX B

KEY FOR FINAL TePPIn INSTRUMENT

1. A 9. A 17. A 25. B 2. A 10. B 18. A 26. B 3. A 11. B 19. A 27. A 4. A 12. B 20. A 28. B 5. B 13. B 21. A 29. A 6. A 14. B 22. A 30. B 7. A 15. B 23. A 31. B 8. B 16. B 24. B 32. B

71 APPENDIX C

D r . ______University City, State

Dear Dr. ______:

Enclosed are ___ inventories, scoring sheets, and several direction sheets for examiners. Each examiner should be given a direction sheet and enough of each of the other two as they need. The inventories can be shared by the different classes as we discussed on the phone.

After you have collected all inventories and scoring sheets, please destroy the inventories and return only the scoring sheets in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope.

The press of time makes it important that I receive the scoring sheets by the end of July. I hope that deadline will present no problems to the administration of the tests.

I am most grateful to you and the cooperating professors and subjects at ______University. The dissertation will be completed by September, 1970. Shortly thereafter I shall send a brief report of it to you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Larry S. Bowen Teaching Associate

72 APPENDIX D

TO: Examiner of Teacher Professional Preference Inventory (TePPIn)

FRCM: Larry S. Bowen, Author of TePPIn

DATE July 9, 1970

SUBJECT: Directions for Examiner

First, thank you for your cooperation. Your assistance in my doctoral dissertation is indeed appreciated.

The instrument you are about to administer is the final test form re sulting from preliminary item analyses on an originally much longer test. The value-preference inventory measures experienced elementary school teachers1 professional preferences toward teacher evaluation of children.

The testees need to be told:

1. there is no time limit, although 15 minutes has been quite enough for those persons who have taken the test.

2. to use number 2 pencils only (since most will be without the proper pencil, the examiner should provide some).

3. to read the cover page carefully before beginning (reading the page aloud to them while they follow is an aid in insuring their careful attention to the preliminaries).

Testees sometimes become uncomfortable in making a decision between two choices. Please respond in such a way as to help them realize they must make a decision in spite of their discomfort.

Only experienced elementary teachers should be included in the administration of the instrument.

Your prompt attention is needed in administering the inventory and then returning the scoring sheets to the person who gave them to you. This will be of definite help to me, as the time dimension becomes of in creasing importance to the dissertation.

Thank you very much. 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Allen, Paul M. "Student Evaluation Dilemma," Today's Education, February, 1969, pp. 48-50.

2. Anderson, Robert H. "Pupil Progress," Encyclopedia of Edu cational Research, fourth edition, edited by Robert L. Ebel (London: The Macmillan Company, Collier-Macmillan Limited), 1969, pp. 1050-62.

3. Aronfreed, Justin. Conduct and Conscience: The Socialization of Internalized Control Over Behavior (New York: Academic Press), 1968.

4. Beatty, Walcott H. "Theories of Instruction For What?— A Pro jection" Theories of Instruction, edited by James B. Macdonald and Robert R. Leeper (Washington, D. C. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), 1965, pp. 114-18.

5. Combs, Arthur W. "An Educational Imperative: The Humane Dimension." To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's, edited by Mary-Margaret Scobey and Grace Graham (Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA), 1970, pp. 173-88.

6. Crary, Ryland W. Humanizing the School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), 1969, p. 397.

7. Douglas, Justice William 0. The Times Saturday Review (London), May 16, 1970, pp. 21, 26. Extract taken from The American Way of Protest.

8. Dreikurs, Rudolf and Loren Grey. Logical Consequences: A Hand book of Discipline (New York: Meredith Press), 1968.

9. Elkind, David. "Erik Erlkson's Eight Ages of Man," The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, pp. 25-27; 84; 87; 89-92; 110; 112; 114; 117; 119.

10. English, Horace B. and Ava C. English. Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (New York: David McKay Company, Inc.), 1966, p. 576.

74 75

11. Frymier, Jack R. "Authoritarianism and the Phenomena of Rebellion." Curriculum Decisions— Social Realities, edited by Robert L. Leeper (Washington, D. C . : A s s o c i a t i o n for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA), 1968, pp. 57-78; and "Working Toward Democratic Behavior," Chapter 2, The Nature of Edu cational Method (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill), 1965, pp. 8-34.

12. Glaser, Robert. "Learning." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, fourth edition, edited by Robert L. Ebel (London: The M ac millan Company, Collier-Macmillan Limited), 1969, pp.706-33.

13. Goodlad, John I. "Curriculum: State of the Field," Review of Educational Research. Curriculum Issue, June, 1969, pp. 367- 375.

14. Herrick, Virgil E. "The Function of General Objectives," Strategies of Curriculum Development, edited by James B. Macdonald, Dan W. Anderson, and Frank B. May (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books), 1965, pp. 91-6.

15. Isaac, Stephen. Handbook in Research and Evaluation (San Diego, California: Superintendent of Schools, Department of Edu cation, San Diego County), 1966.

16. Hughes, James Monroe. Education in America, third edition (New York: Harper & Row), 1970.

17. Jackson, Philip W. Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.TJ 1968.

18. Klohr, Paul R. "Problems in Curriculum Theory Development," Theory into Practice. October, 1967, pp. 200-3.

19. Kluckhohn, Clyde et al. "Value and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action" in Toward a General Theory of Action, pp. 388-433, eds. Talcott C. Parsons and Edward A. Shils (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row,Publishers), 1962, p. 396.

20. Lindeman, Richard H. Educational Measurement (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company^, 1967.

21. Madsen, Charles H., Jr. and Clifford K. Madsen. Teaching/ Discipline: Behavioral Principles Toward a Positive Approach (Boston:Allyn and Bacon, Inc.), 1970.

22. McConnell, James V. "Criminals Can Be Brainwashed--Now." Psychology Today. March, 1970, pp. 14, 16, 18, 74. 76

23. McMahon, Michael B. "Positivism and the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1970, pp. 515-17.

24. Radcliffe, John A. The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. edited by Oscar K. Buros (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press), 1965, pp. 87-200.

' 25. Shaw, Marvin E. and Jack M. Wright. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company), 1967.

26. Silberman, Charles E. "How the Public Schools Kill Dreams and Mutilate Minds," Atlantic. June, 1970, pp.83-95.

27. Smith, B. 0. "Discipline," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, fourth edition, edited by Robert L. Ebel (London: The Mac millan Company, Collier-Macmillan Limited), 1969, pp. 292-6.

28. Smith, Louis M. and William Geoffrey. The Complexities of an Urban Classroom: An Analysis Toward a General Theory of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.), 1968.

29. Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals. American Psychological Joint Committee, APA, AERA, NCME: John W. French and William B. Michael, revised (Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, Inc.), 1966.

30. Thompson, George. In a conversation with Professor Thompson, he informed the investigator of his deep concern over such practices.