UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some personality characteristics of student teachers of guidance Thompson, Sheilah Doreen 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A2 T46.pdf [ 8.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104335.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104335-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104335-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104335-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104335-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104335-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104335-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104335-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104335.ris

Full Text

SOME PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OP STUDENT TEACHERS OP.GUIDANCE by SHEILAH DOREEN THOMPSON B.A., M. Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 2  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OP DOCTOR OP EDUCATION  i n the F a c u l t y  Education We a c c e p t t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OP BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1 9 6 8  In p r e s e n t i n g  for  that  this  thesis  fulfilment  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f  t h e L i b r a r y sha.l 1 make i t  Study.  thesis  I further  o r b y hits  or p u b l i c a t i o n  without  agree  that  of  British  the  requirements  Columbia,  I agree  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and  permission  for extensive copying of  this  f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d b y t h e Head o f my  Department  of  representatives.  this  my w r i t t e n  Department of  thesis  June 4,  It  is understood  for financial  gain  permission.  Graduate Studies  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Date  in p a r t i a l  1968.  Columbia  £*b<wU*~  shall  that  n o t be  copying  allowed  ABSTRACT Thompson, S.D.  Some p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s of Guidance. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. Problem  The  problem of t h i s s t u d y was  t o a s c e r t a i n whether  s e l e c t e d p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions t h a t can be h y p o t h e s i z e d from a model s t r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e h e a l t h r e l a t e t o s u c c e s s i n p r a c t i c e teaching  i n Guidance.  Prom c l i n i c a l l y  observed b e h a v i o u r s of  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d p e o p l e , t h r e e were s e l e c t e d as flexibility, general  self-acceptance,  and  relevant:  concern f o r others.  h y p o t h e s i s o f the study v/as:  The  t h e r e w i l l be a p o s i t i v e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i n g s of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s and  their  s c o r e s on s e l e c t e d measures. Methods of The  Investigation  s e l e c t e d p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions were measured by  s c a l e s of t h e P e r s o n a l  O r i e n t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y and  California Psychological  I n v e n t o r y , and  supplementary measures:  the H a i g h - B u t l e r  by s c o r e s on  the five  Q s o r t , the Dyraond  Adjustment s c a l e , a case s t u d y , a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , plan.  of  and a  lesson  These c o n s t i t u t e d the independent v a r i a b l e s of the Two  types of c r i t e r i a  r a t i n g of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ,  were u s e d :  the  study.  a F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n  and r a t i n g s based on the  teaching  iii  of a demonstration lesson. The sample of this study was l i m i t e d to student of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, winter session  teachers 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 ,  enrolled i n Education l\.0l\. (Curriculum and Instruction i n the Teaching of Guidance) i n the professional year of t r a i n i n g for teaching i n secondary  schools.  Simple c o r r e l a t i o n , multiple regression,  the discriminant  function, and image analysis were used i n the analysis of relationships between the independent variables and the criteria. General Conclusions Pour research questions were asked.  The f i r s t was:  how  strong a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l exist between the scores on the independent variables and the University ratings?  Significant  correlations were found between this c r i t e r i o n and the following v a r i a b l e s :  Capacity for status (CPI),  (POI), the Q, sort, and the case study.  Existentiality  Correlations i n the POI  measure and the Q sort were negative. The second question:  how strong a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l  exist between ratings given by students and by adult judge3 to student teachers, on the basis of demonstration lessons and their scores on the instruments used?  The c r i t e r i o n of s t u d e n t s «  ratings proved to be non-discriminating, and therefore was not formally analyzed.  On the adult judges.' r a t i n g s ,  significant  c o r r e l a t i o n s , a l l i n the negative d i r e c t i o n , were found between  iv t h i 3 c r i t e r i o n and t h e f o l l o w i n g :  Self-actualization total  ( P O I ) , Tirae competence ( P O I ) , Inner d i r e c t e d n e s s (.POI), S.e.li> a c t u a l i z i n g v a l u e s ( P O I ) , and E x i s t e n t i a l i t y To ansvjer t h e t h i r d q u e s t i o n :  will  (P0I)  o  s c o r e s on t h e  independent v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e a n y t h i n g t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s o f Guidance as s u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r  on  e i t h e r c r i t e r i o n , t t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e between means were p e r f o r m e d on f o u r d i f f e r e n t g r o u p i n g s , and t h e g e n e r a l r e s u l t s were i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s , i . e . a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h a t hypothesized,, The f o u r t h q u e s t i o n :  w i l l d e a l i n g w i t h patterns of  s c o r e s t h r o u g h m u l t i v a r i a t e procedures  y i e l d more i n f o r m a t i o n  about the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s t h a n u n i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s ?  The  r e s u l t s were i n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f u n i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s , v i z . , s c a l e s the model i n d i c a t e d s h o u l d s e l e c t good c r i t e r i o n people  i n f a c t d i d n o t ; i n d e e d , the  r e v e r s e tended t o be t r u e . The use o f image a n a l y s i s on t h e Q-3ort answers f u r t h e r corroborated these f i n d i n g s .  F o u r i n t e r p r e t a b l e f a c t o r s were  i s o l a t e d , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h o s e people l o a d i n g h e a v i l y on one f a c t o r a p p e a r i n g t o be s i m i l a r t o t h o s e h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the model.  G e n e r a l l y , however, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h c r i t e r i a  was a n e g a t i v e one. The major c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e study i s q u i t e clear.: the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s r a t e d as s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d and  • v  w e l l - a d j u s t e d as measured on the s c a l e s of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h i s s t u d y would be judged as s u p e r i o r i n performance was supported.  I n f a c t , the c o r r e l a t i o n was  negative.  not.  Examination  o f t h e d a t a from t h e i n s t r u m e n t s gave no e v i d e n c e t h a t these f i n d i n g s c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o the uniqueness  o f t h e sample.  TABLE OP CONTENTS  ABSTRACT. . . •  •.  LIST OF TABLES  • ••  LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGMENT. CHAPTER I .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  THE PROBLEM Background o f t h e Problem  <  The Problem CHAPTER I I .  A SUMMARY OF STUDIES IN THE LITERATURE. . , S t u d i e s Having G e n e r a l R e l e v a n c e to- t h e Problem. S t u d i e s Having P a r t i c u l a r R e l e v a n c e t o the Problem . .,  CHAPTER I I I .  THE DESIGN. The T h e o r e t i c a l Framework and Model Building . .. , Paradigm  . ..  The Sample  •  The C r i t e r i o n Problem. The Measures  . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  C r i t e r i o n measures . . F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n r a t i n g s Demonstration lesson r a t i n g s  , . . . . . .  Predictors S t a n d a r d i z e d paper and p e n c i l inventories. . . . . . . . . . .  vii Page P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory. . . C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory Non-standardized measures . . . . . . Q sort  •  •  •  •  4  «  *  «  *  Other measures, . . . P l a n of the Research.  >  3  »  f  t  *  ^  . > . > > >  52  -^3 5456  . • .  57  . . . . .  59  D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Research Questions  CHAPTER IV.  «  I4.3 I4.7  S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures. . . . . . . . .  6l  Limitations  6l  of t h i s Study  PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OP DATA . . .  6I|. 64,  A n a l y s i s of Data U n i v a r i a t e procedures 1. C r i t e r i o n of U n i v e r s i t y  70  composite r a t i n g 2.  . .  71  3. C r i t e r i o n of judges' r a t i n g s . . . 4.. Dichotomized c r i t e r i a ( U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g and judges' ratings). .  76  C r i t e r i o n o f student r a t i n g s .  Multivariate  88  procedures Instruments.  95  C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory.- . P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory. . . . Q Sort  95 102 107  Data Regarding  Data Regarding C r i t e r i a The Sample.  . . . . . . . .  108 110  viii  Page CHAPTER V.  SUMMARY, .FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . Statement of t h e Problem  llf?  T h e o r e t i c a l Framework and Model  115  Procedures  11$  Findings  . . . . . . . . .  APPENDICES  116 120  Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY  11$  122  . . . . .  I3I4.  ix LIST OP TABLES TABLE  .  .  1.  I n f o r m a t i o n about Sample Members  2.  C o r r e l a t i o n s between C r i t e r i o n 37 ( U n i v e r s i t y Composite R a t i n g ) and S c o r e s on t h e C P I  3.  6. 7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  12.  .  35> 67  C o r r e l a t i o n s between C r i t e r i o n 37 ( U n i v e r s i t y Composite R a t i n g ) and Scores on t h e POI . . • • •  \\>c C o r r e l a t i o n s , between C r i t e r i o n 37 ( U n i v e r s i t y Composite R a t i n g ) and S c o r e s on t h e Nons t a n d a r d i z e d Measures 5>.  PAGE  o 0 >  « •  °9  C o r r e l a t i o n s between C r i t e r i o n 1|0 (Judges' R a t i n g s on D e m o n s t r a t i o n Lesson) and S c o r e s on t h e C P I . .  72  C o r r e l a t i o n s between C r i t e r i o n 4.O (Judges' R a t i n g s on D e m o n s t r a t i o n Lesson) and S c o r e s on t h e POI.-..  73  C o r r e l a t i o n s between C r i t e r i o n lj.0 (Judges' R a t i n g s on D e m o n s t r a t i o n Lesson) and S c o r e s on tho Nons t a n d a r d i z e d Measures . . . . . . . 7  h  R e s u l t s o f t Test f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s between Means o f t h e Two Groups, S u p e r i o r and N o n - 3 u p e r i o r , on C r i t e r i o n 37, on S c o r e s on 36 Independent V a r i a b l e s * • • »  77  R e s u l t s o f t Test f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s between Means o f t h e Two Groups, S u p e r i o r and N o n - s u p e r i o r , on C r i t e r i o n 4.0, on S c o r e s on 36 Independent V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . , : . .  79  R e s u l t s of t Test f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s between Means o f Men and Women on 36 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . R e s u l t s of t Test f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s between Means o f O l d and Young on 36 Independent Variables , R e s u l t s o f t Test f o r S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s between Means o f Top F i v e S t u d e n t s and Bottom Seven on C r i t e r i a 37 and 4.0 on 36 Independent Variables „  8  0  ol  82  X  TABLE 13,  PAGE C e l l F r e q u e n c i e s and C a t e g o r y Means on C r i t e r i a 37  lli..  l5»  and  lj.0  .  .  .  a  .  .  .  .  ,  ,  ,  ,  .  .  .  .  ,  .  .  .  Q$  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e (Method o f E x p e c t e d C e l l F r e q u e n c i e s ) f o r Age, Sex, and I n t e r a c t i o n on C r i t e r i o n 37  ,  86  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e (Method o f E x p e c t e d C e l l F r e q u e n c i e s ) f o r Age, Sex, and I n t e r a c t i o n on C r i t e r i o n Ij.0.  8?  16,  Some Data on People L o a d i n g on F a c t o r 1  <?[}.  17,  C o r r e l a t i o n among S e l f - a c c e p t a n c e Measures.  . . . .  96  18,  S c a l e I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l Matrix f o r the CPI of the Sample o f Student T e a c h e r s . . . , » , . , , • • .  97  19, 20,  A Comparison of Student Teachers and Norm Groups of t h e C P I , . .  100  S c a l e I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l M a t r i x f o r the POI o f the Sample o f Student T e a c h e r s . »  ILO3  21,  POI S c a l e Means i n Raw Scores f o r Student T e a c h e r s , S e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , Normal, and N o n - s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d Groups 10$:  22*  C o r r e l a t i o n among C r i t e r i a . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23.  C o r r e l a t i o n among Judges' R a t i n g s  109  I l l  xi  LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE 1.  •"  .  . ' PAGE  Three plottings on the C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory: class mean, top five students, bottom seven students. . . » » . . . • Three plottings on the Personal Orientation Inventory: class mean, top five students, bottom seven students. . • • • • . . «  106  3.  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sample by sex and age.  112  ij..  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sample by sex on C r i t e r i o n 37* the University composite r a t i n g . . . . . . . . .  112  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of men by age and achievement on C r i t e r i o n 37> University composite r a t i n g . . . .  H2  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of women by age and achievement on C r i t e r i o n 37* University composite r a t i n g . . . . .  H2  2.  5. 6.  101  xii  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  The w r i t e r wishes t o e x p r e s s h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n  t o the  members o f her committee, and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o Dr. M.B. N e v i s on, and t o Dr. D. McKie.  CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background of t h e Problem C o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n has been devoted  t o t h e study o f  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers g e n e r a l l y (Barr, 1 9 5 5 ; Peck, I 9 6 0 ; Ryans,  1960a)  counsellors (Allen, 1 9 6 7 ;  Combs, 1 9 6 5 ;  and t o t h e study o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f  Cottle, 1 9 5 3 ;  Mosher, & S p r i n t h a l l , I 9 6 7 ) .  W h i t e l e y , Donaghy,  Thought has been g i v e n , a l s o , t o  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t h e guidance the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r (Cottingham,  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e s o f  1 9 6 2 ) . Here  t h e guidance  f u n c t i o n has been e n v i s a g e d as embracing those a c t i v i t i e s and e x p e r i e n c e s d e s i g n e d t o a s s i s t s t u d e n t s i n making d e c i s i o n s , s o l v i n g problems, and c h o o s i n g g o a l s , whereas t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e has been seen as p r i m a r i l y emphasizing  the a c q u i s i t i o n of  knowledge, s k i l l s , f a c t s , and a t t i t u d e s c o n s i d e r e d t o be socially  necessary.  L i t t l e r e s e a r c h appears t o have been devoted, however, t o the q u e s t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t e a c h e r s o f Guidance.  This  l a c k may be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by t h e absence o f any c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s Guidance t e a c h i n g .  I n some  a r e a s , home-room p e r i o d s a r e devoted t o a Guidance program; i n o t h e r p l a c e s , s p e c i f i c courses  on t o p i c s such as v o c a t i o n a l  i n f o r m a t i o n or p e r s o n a l development a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n t e g r a l t o the Guidance program.  2 I n B r i t i s h Columbia, however, a Guidance c u r r i c u l u m has e x i s t e d f o r a number o f y e a r s , a c u r r i c u l u m c o n s i s t i n g of an o u t l i n e o f r e q u i r e d courses grades 8 t o 1 1 .  i n the p u b l i c s c h o o l system f r o m  N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n the p a s t , no s p e c i f i c  or p r e p a r a t i o n e x i s t e d f o r t e a c h e r s i n t h i s c u r r i c u l a r  training area.  V a r i o u s p r a c t i c e s i n c h o o s i n g people to t e a c h the Guidance course had e v o l v e d .  I n some s c h o o l s , c o u n s e l l o r s or home-room  t e a c h e r s were the Guidance i n s t r u c t o r s ; i n other s c h o o l s , any a v a i l a b l e t e a c h e r was One  asked t o assume t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  a s p e c t of t h i s s i t u a t i o n changed i n 1 9 6 5 when the  F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia i n t r o d u c e d a t e a c h i n g major i n the f i e l d o f Guidance.  From t h a t  p o i n t on, student t e a c h e r s began t o s e l e c t Guidance as a t e a c h i n g major, and a group of t e a c h e r s began t o e n t e r the s c h o o l system r e q u e s t i n g Guidance as one of t h e i r two  teaching  majors. The  Problem  Once t r a i n i n g f o r Guidance t e a c h e r s became a v a i l a b l e , a number of q u e s t i o n s became p e r t i n e n t , q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o a d m i s s i o n and s e l e c t i o n , and to e v a l u a t i o n of performance. i n i t i a l g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n w h i c h formed the b a s i s f o r t h i s was:  what p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions  study  t h a t can be h y p o t h e s i z e d f r o m  a model s t r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e h e a l t h r e l a t e to s u c c e s s t e a c h i n g i n Guidance'.''  The  i n practice  3 The q u e s t i o n s on which t h e d e s i g n was based a r e t h e following: 1. A r e t h e r e measures t h a t w i l l c o r r e l a t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h s u p e r i o r performance i n t h e p r a c t i c e  teaching  of Guidance? 2. Among v a r i o u s  k i n d s o f m e a s u r e s — s t a n d a r d i z e d and  situational—which  kind w i l l  c o r r e l a t e most h i g h l y .  w i t h performance i n t h e p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g o f Guidance? 3. Among p e r s o n a l i t y measures, c a n any be s e l e c t e d on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds t h a t c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o correlate with superior teaching  performance i n the p r a c t i c e  o f Guidance?  4.. Can a d d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l i t y  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s o f Guidance who a r e r a t e d as superior  i n performance be i d e n t i f i e d ?  Of t h e measures s e l e c t e d on t h e o r e t i c a l o r a p r i o r i grounds, w h i c h ones s i n g l y o r i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i l l best p r e d i c t superior criterion  measures?  performances on t h e  CHAPTER I I A SUMMARY OP STUDIES IN THE  LITERATURE  This chapter w i l l review s t u d i e s having g e n e r a l r e l e v a n c e to  the problem, and t h o s e concerned  instruments  p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h the  used.  S t u d i e s Having  G e n e r a l Relevance  t o the Problem  L i t t l e r e s e a r c h appears t o e x i s t d i r e c t l y p e r t i n e n t to the a r e a of t h i s s t u d y - - t h e p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t e a c h e r s i n the c u r r i c u l a r a r e a of Guidance.  As a consequence  of t h i s l a c k , most s t u d i e s a r e somewhat p e r i p h e r a l , r e l a t e d teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g., Burkard, 1962;  Combs,  19&5;  G i l l i s , I96I4.; I s a a c s o n , McKeachie, & M i l h o l l a n d , 1 9 6 3 ; I 9 6 0 ; Reed, 1961;  I 9 6 0 ; Guba & G e t z e l s , 1 9 5 5 ) >  and  c o u n s e l l o r s ( e . g . , A l l e n , 196?;  1966;  Peck,  Ryans, 1 9 6 0 a ) , t o c r i t e r i a and p r e d i c t i o n of  teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s (e.g., B a r r , 1955;  C o t t l e , 1953;  to  Gruberg,  Van B u r e n , 1 9 6 3 ;  Cogan, 1 9 5 8 ;  Gowan,  t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  A s t i n , 1967;  B e n o i t , I96I4.;  1961].; S p r i n t h a l l , Mosher, & W h i t e l e y , W h i t e l e y e t a l . , 1967).  H e l e n D r i v e r ( 1 9 5 8 ) * however, p r e s e n t e d summaries of p r o j e c t s i n which c o u n s e l l o r s used group methods i n c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n s , and though she r e c o g n i z e d the problems of a c o u n s e l l o r i n a t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n , she p r e s e n t e d no data.  experimental  Kemp (I96I4.) and L i f t o n (1962) a l s o d i s c u s s e d the q u e s t i o n  of the r o l e of t h e t e a c h e r i n group d i s c u s s i o n s i t u a t i o n s ,  but  again without research  evidencei  A l t h o u g h most of t h e p e r i p h e r a l t o the  s t u d i e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e  c o n c e r n of t h i s s t u d y — c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a  t e a c h e r u s i n g a c u r r i c u l a r a r e a and nevertheless, interest.  Two  are  group d i s c u s s i o n method--  some of the p e r i p h e r a l s t u d i e s are of  considerable  s t u d i e s examining the problem of p r e d i c t i n g from  p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s t o t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s are those of Michaelis  (1954-)  a n d  were d i s a p p o i n t i n g ,  Tyler  (19£li);  r e s u l t s i n b o t h , however,  i n t h a t no s c a l e s on the  i n s t r u m e n t s used  were found t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n t o r a t e d s u c c e s s i n student teaching.  Michaelis  c o n c l u d e d h i s study t h u s :  There i s a need f o r a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s of t e a c h e r p e r s o n a l i t y . One drawback i n p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y i s the l a c k of b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n about p e r s o n a l t r a i t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of normal persons who choose t e a c h i n g as a p r o f e s s i o n . An a n a l y s i s of t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s oriented toward t e a c h i n g may g i v e c l u e s t o the development o f p r e d i c t o r s t h a t w i l l prove more v a l u a b l e t h a n the approaches t h a t have been employed i n the p a s t ( M i c h a e l i s , 195J+, p. 4-77). Durflinger  (1963) conducted a s t u d y u s i n g a sample of  4.64.  college students e n r o l l e d i n education courses.  two  purposes i n mind:  He  the assessment of the v a l i d i t y  had  of  c e r t a i n i n s t r u m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o measure the p e r s o n a l i t y s t u d e n t s as p r e d i c t o r s of s u c c e s s i n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ; d e t e r m i n a t i o n of those p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s most h i g h l y  of and  correlated  w i t h s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . f i v e c r i t e r i a of t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s : grades i n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ,  the  He  a teacher-rating  grades i n methods c o u r s e s , the  used scale, grade  p o i n t average, four.  and p a r t s and c o m b i n a t i o n s  of the preceding  The p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s used were t h e C a l i f o r n i a  P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y , t h e H e s t o n P e r s o n a l Adjustment I n v e n t o r y , and t h e Minnesota developed  Teacher A t t i t u d e I n v e n t o r y .  a m u l t i p l e R, from h i s f o u r h i g h e s t p r e d i c t o r s , o f  . 3 7 w i t h t h e r a t i n g s c a l e , and . 6 7 w i t h s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g The  He  three s c a l e s of the CPI of i n t e r e s t i n the present  grades.  study—  f l e x i b i l i t y , s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l - m i n d e d n e s s — a l l c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y , from -.27 t o the . 0 1 l e v e l , w i t h s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g  -.li7>  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t  grades.  Another p e r t i n e n t study i s t h a t o f Dunteman, A n d e r s o n , and B a r r y  (1966).  an e x a m i n a t i o n  T h e i r r e s e a r c h program had two g e n e r a l a r e a s :  o f the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h might  d i s c r i m i n a t e among s t u d e n t s e n t e r i n g s e v e r a l o f t h e h e a l t h r e l a t e d p r o f e s s i o n s , and an e x a m i n a t i o n o f those p e r s o n a l i t y and o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h might d i f f e r e n t i a t e between s u c c e s s f u l and n o n - s u c c e s s f u l s t u d e n t s i n these h e a l t h - r e l a t e d professions.  T h i s study was concerned,  therefore, with  d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e d i c t i o n o f success f o r d i f f e r e n t major a r e a s , and t h e t e c h n i q u e  of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was used t o  develop e q u a t i o n s f o r p r e d i c t i n g academic and c l i n i c a l for  t h e t h r e e c u r r i c u l a r areas under s t u d y .  success  Then, from t h e  d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s e s o f t h e same p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s ,  equations  p r e d i c t i n g t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f a p r o s p e c t i v e s t u d e n t t o each o f the t h r e e groups were o b t a i n e d .  Thus, t h e r e g r e s s i o n and d i s -  c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d f o r each student h i s s i m i l a r i t y  to,  and p r e d i c t e d s u c c e s s i n , each o f t h e t h r e e  curricula.  The measures used were t h e F l o r i d a Placement E x a m i n a t i o n , t h e S c h o o l and C o l l e g e A b i l i t y T e s t , t h e A t t i t u d e toward D i s a b l e d Persons  Test, the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y  Inventory  (MMPI), and t h e S t r o n g V o c a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t B l a n k ( S V I B ) .  The  c r i t e r i o n was t h e s t a t e d o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e o f t h e s t u d e n t s . The  f i n d i n g s t o date i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e F l o r i d a Placement  E x a m i n a t i o n and t h e SVIB d i s c r i m i n a t e d among t h e g r o u p s , t h e o t h e r measures d i d n o t . most e f f i c i e n t l y .  while  The SVIB p r e d i c t e d group membership  One o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s i n t h i s  r e s e a r c h was the l o w c o r r e l a t i o n between c l i n i c a l and academic success.  I t v/as f e l t t h a t these areas demanded s e p a r a t e  a b i l i t i e s , each n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n o f t r a i n i n g . A study by F l a n a g a n to  ( 1 9 6 1 ) used t h e MMPI i n an attempt  e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c o r e s on i t s s c a l e s and  success i n p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g .  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t  p r o f i l e s o f h i g h l y r a t e d t e a c h e r s would d i f f e r from those r a t e d lower. f e m a l e s , 20 m a l e s .  significantly  The s t u d y i n v o l v e d 167 freshmen—L'4.7  The a u t h o r s t a t e d h i s b e l i e f i n t h e v a l u e o f  s t u d y i n g the s t u d e n t s i n t h e i r chosen major f i e l d s , but conc l u d e d t h a t h i s sub-groups would be t o o s m a l l .  However, t h e  most i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g v/as t h e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r women, a t a s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond t h e . 0 2 l e v e l , o f a h i g h c o d i n g on s c a l e 3 (Hy) w i t h a s u p e r v i s o r y r a t i n g of o u t s t a n d i n g efficiency i n practice teaching. appears t o i n d i c a t e l a c k o f s o c i a l  H i g h c o d i n g on t h i s s c a l e problems.  8 Cogan (1958) i n a s t u d y . o f 33 g r a d e - e i g h t t e a c h e r s and 987 p u p i l s f o u n d a c o r r e l a t i o n o f .28,  s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01  l e v e l , between t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r d e s c r i b e d as i n c l u s i v e n e s s — d e f i n e d as b e h a v i o u r e x p r e s s i v e o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s  integrative,  a f f i l i a t i v e , and n u r t u r a n t n e e d s — a n d p u p i l s ' s c o r e s on r e q u i r e d work.  T h i s s t u d y made use o f a p r o d u c t type o f dependent .  v a r i a b l e r a t h e r t h a n the more common p r o c e s s  type.  Two s t u d i e s h a v i n g t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n i n R o g e r i a n r e s e a r c h a r e those o f S c h e e r e r (1962)*  (19)+9) and Ganther  Both h y p o t h e s i z e d on the b a s i s o f Rogers'  pre-  s u p p o s i t i o n s t h a t a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would e x i s t between acceptance  o f s e l f and acceptance  o f o t h e r s , and they  found  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f J | 0 t o .I4I}. between measures o f s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e and i n d i c a t i o n s o f t h e acceptance  of others.  A s t u d y by Wrightsman, Noble, and R i c h a r d (1966) a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t measures of s e l f - c o n c e p t and o f a t t i t u d e human n a t u r e a r e s e n s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  toward which  a r e p r e s e n t i n the h i g h l y - r a t e d c o u n s e l l o r . D i x o n and Morse (1961), u s i n g empathic p o t e n t i a l  a3  a  p r e d i c t o r c o r r e l a t e , found o n l y one c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l :  an r . o f .I4.2 between the  Teacher S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y and t h e empathy r a t i n g o b t a i n e d from s t u d e n t s .  The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s do have  d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s a b i l i t y t o develop good interpersonal relationships.  Those s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s who  developed p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward  t h e i r s t u d e n t s were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s t a b l e i n t h e i r a p p r a i s a l of t h e m s e l v e s . Other s t u d i e s c i t e d r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o the used i n t h i s Studies  design. Having P a r t i c u l a r Relevance t o the Personal  Orientation  A l t h o u g h the P e r s o n a l  Problem  Inventory  O r i e n t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y (POI)  o n l y been a v a i l a b l e f o r r e s e a r c h use have been  instruments  has  since I963, several  studies  reported.  The  (I96I4.)  a u t h o r of the  I n v e n t o r y , Shostrum, conducted a s t u d y  w h i c h demonstrated the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e POI  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between two  groups, one  in  composed of i n d i v i d u a l s  nominated by q u a l i f i e d t h e r a p i s t s as f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g , w e l l adjusted  i n d i v i d u a l s , and  the o t h e r composed of  nominated as l e s s f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g . by him  w i t h Knapp  (1966),  Individuals  A second s t u d y , conducted  i n v o l v i n g two groups of p a t i e n t s  p s y c h o t h e r a p y — o n e a b e g i n n i n g and one  in  an advanced g r o u p — g a v e  s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t as t h e r a p y p r o g r e s s e s , p a t h o l o g y as measured by the MMPI d e c r e a s e s , and h e a l t h , as measured by the POI,  increases.  r e l a t i o n s h i p of POI measured by  A study by Knapp to n e u r o t i c i s m  and  (1965)  examined the  to extraversion  the Eysenck P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y .  The  d e s i g n e d t o examine the c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y of the i n t h a t b o t h had  as  study  was  instruments,  been shown t o be v a l i d i n terms of d i f f e r -  e n t i a t i n g between groups nominated by c l i n i c i a n s as b e i n g  zo representative hypothesized  of p o l e s o f t h e dimensions s p e c i f i e d .  t h a t mean s c o r e s  on t h e POI would be lower f o r a  h i g h l y n e u r o t i c group t h a n f o r a group c o m p a r a t i v e l y n e u r o t i c i s m , . and h i s d a t a s u p p o r t e d h i s h y p o t h e s i s scale.  A l l obtained  the . 0 5  level.  Knapp  l o w on on e v e r y  d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t or beyond  One o b s e r v a t i o n  t h a t Knapp makes i s p e r t i n e n t  to the present study: The mean POI s c o r e s o f t h e p r e s e n t t o t a l group a r e below t h o s e of t h e mean p r o f i l e f o r t h e a d u l t norm sample p r e s e n t e d by Shostrum. The b a s i s o f t h i s appears t o be t h a t the p r e s e n t d a t a a r e based on a c o l l e g e undergraduate sample. Shostrum ( 1 9 6 3 ) a l s o found h i s c o l l e g e n o r m a t i v e sample ( o b t a i n e d i n a s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n ) t o be lower on a l l s c a l e s t h a n t h e mean a d u l t normative sample p r e s e n t e d . w n o T h i s f i n d i n g would be p r e d i c t e d by Maslow ( 1 9 5 4 ) * » i n s e a r c h i n g a c o l l e g e campus f o r s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d s u b j e c t s , s t a t e d , " I had t o c o n c l u d e t h a t s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f t h e s o r t I had found i n my o l d e r s u b j e c t s was not p o s s i b l e i n our s o c i e t y f o r young d e v e l o p i n g people ( p . 2 0 0 ) . " . . . I t may be t h a t i t i s t h e p e c u l i a r s i t u a t i o n o f t h e young a d u l t a t t e n d i n g c o l l e g e i n our s o c i e t y t h a t r e s u l t s i n scores s u g g e s t i v e o f a " s e a r c h i n g f o r i d e n t i t y " r a t h e r t h a n t h e age p e r s e . The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f an o b j e c t i v e measure of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n makes t h i s a r e l a t i v e l y easy h v o o t h e s i s t o t e s t (Knapp, 1 9 6 5 , p. 1 7 1 ) . Other s t u d i e s  (Pox,  19&5;  Weir, 1 9 & 5 )  non-normal groups demonstrated t h e u s e f u l n e s s  conducted w i t h o f t h e POI i n  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between t h e s e samples and.the o r i g i n a l c l i n i c a l l y - n o m i n a t e d , s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , v a l i d a t i o n sample. A l l but  one s c a l e showed these e x p e r i m e n t a l  groups t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  lower t h a n t h e normal a d u l t sample r e p o r t e d by Shostrum.  11 A s t u d y u s i n g t h e POI i n an i n d u s t r i a l (Margulies, 1 9 6 5 )  setting  r e v e a l e d marked mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n v a l u e s  measured by t h e POI between v a r i o u s departments o f an e l e c t r o n i c s manufacturing  company.  The d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d  t o be r e l a t e d t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e w i t h i n departments, thus l e a d i n g t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between l e v e l s o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f department members, and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f work« Three s t u d i e s ( L e i b & Snyder, 1 9 6 ? ; Pearson,  1966)  Murray,  1966;  r e l a t e more d i r e c t l y t o an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g .  Murray's s t u d y , based on a sample o f 2 6 t e a c h e r s and 2333 s t u d e n t s , h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d t e a c h e r  would  be p e r c e i v e d as "more c o n c e r n e d , " as measured by t h e S t u d e n t s ' E s t i m a t e Of Teacher Concern (SETC). hypothesis.  Data s u p p o r t e d  However, the sample was o f an u n u s u a l  this population  comprised o f t e a c h e r s a l l r a t e d as " s u c c e s s f u l " ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e mean on the t o t a l s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n s c o r e ,  I 4 . O . 3 , appears  h i g h , and the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , 1 3 . 5 , r e s t r i c t e d .  This  study  was t h e f i r s t , a p p a r e n t l y , t o use t h e t o t a l s c o r e o f t h e t i m e competence and i n n e r - d i r e c t e d n e s s scales,; and t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e use of t h i s t o t a l score w o u l d be as e f f e c t i v e i n r a n k i n g t e a c h e r s as t h e use o f r a t i o or s c a l e s c o r e s , K e n d a l l ' s concordance c o e f f i c i e n t was u s e d . The  The r e s u l t i n g v a l u e was  F r a t i o o b t a i n e d was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 0 1 l e v e l .  .31,  In  t h i s s t u d y t h e r a n k i n g o f t e a c h e r s was d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t o t a l POI  score.  !2  Pearson's (1966) study attempted to assess the effectiveness of a group guidance program for 15>I}. freshmen at the Kentucky State College, and to evaluate the usefulness of other methods of o r i e n t a t i o n .  The problem was stated thus:  does group guidance contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to college adjustment?  students'  S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n as measured by the POI  was considered to be the dependent v a r i a b l e , and the design involved the use of four groups:  one using small-group i n t e r -  a c t i o n , one using large-group p a r t i c i p a t i o n , one using lectures,  and the fourth being considered a control group.  The  F r a t i o for the analysis of variance of different scores of the scales (using the r a t i o scales for time competence and Innerdirectedness)  showed only one scale,  significant.  Differences were found between means, however,  using t r a t i o s of differences, other-directedness,  existentiality,  to be  for the following scales:  existentiality,  self-acceptance,  and synergy.  Leib and Snyder (1967) examined the effects of group discussion on underachievement and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the problem was:  would group discussion r e s u l t  i n greater gains i n s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n (as measured by the POI) for underachievers than would the lecture method?  As i n  Pearson's study the POI was regarded as the dependent v a r i a b l e ; a single scale, however—that of inner-directedness —was used. No s i g n i f i c a n t betwsen-groups  effect was found i n this  study,  though both groups showed an increase i n s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , measured by this scale, between i n i t i a l and f i n a l t e s t i n g .  as The  13 a u t h o r s a t t r i b u t e the  increment t o the Hawthorne e f f e c t of  s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o b o t h groups.  the  They c o n c l u d e t h e i r s t u d y by  s t a t i n g the need f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n between the concepts of  self-  a c t u a l i z a t i o n and under-achievement, recommending a c o r r e l a t i o n s t u d y between s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and  academic achievement t o  c l a r i f y the c o n n e c t i o n between t h e s e two C a l i f o r n i a Psychological  concepts. Inventory  A l t h o u g h the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l published use  as r e c e n t l y as 1957,  have been r e p o r t e d .  categories:  hundreds of s t u d i e s b a s e d on i t s  Those r e v i e w e d here f a l l i n t o  s e t r e s p o n s e , and  three  those r e l a t e d t o f a c t o r  studies.  I n a s t u d y on the use  of the CPI  in a university  c o u n s e l l i n g service (Goodstein, C r i t e s , Heilbrun, & 1961)  was  those r e l a t e d t o c o u n s e l l i n g or p r e d i c t i o n , those  r e l a t e d t o f a k i n g and analytic  Inventory  Reropel,  the o v e r - a l l e l e v a t i o n of the CPI p r o f i l e s f o r males  f o u n d t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t the and n o n - c l i e n t g r o u p s .  The  l e v e l between c l i e n t  sample c o n s i s t e d of 88  A Model Type 1 a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e blocks,  .01  was  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t h r e e groups of the d e s i g n : f o r c o u n s e l l i n g services concerning personal  A s t u d y by H o l l a n d  (1959) was  f u l n e s s of the CPI a l o n e and  and  students.  performed i n w h i c h the  columns, and rows e f f e c t s c o r r e s p o n d e d t o  concerned w i t h v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n ,  was  the  those  asking  a d j u s t m e n t , those  a c o n t r o l group.  d e s i g n e d t o t e s t the u s e -  i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h the  Scholastic  IllAptitude  Test  as a p r e d i c t o r of s c h o l a s t i c achievement f o r a  sample of e x c e p t i o n a l l y regression  talented  equations were d e r i v e d  t o c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n samples, and the use  of the  Holland  says:  CPI  c o l l e g e freshmen.  Multiple  f o r the sample and  applied  the r e s u l t s tended to  confirm  i n p r e d i c t i n g s c h o l a s t i c , achievement.  In s c a l e terms, these f i n d i n g s suggest that the high achiever lacks capacity f o r status, i s u n s o c i a b l e , l a c k s p o i s e and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , i s s e l f - d e p r e c a t i n g and i n f l e x i b l e , minimizes worries and complaints, i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s and r e s p o n s i b l e , i s w e l l c o n t r o l l e d , and creates a f a v o r a b l e i m p r e s s i o n , does w e l l a c a d e m i c a l l y under d i r e c t i o n but i s not as adept i n s i t u a t i o n s demanding independent judgment, i s i n t e r e s t e d i n and r e s p o n s i v e to the f e e l i n g s of o t h e r s , and has feminine i n t e r e s t s . In c o n t r a s t , the low a c h i e v e r i s p o i s e d and s o c i a l l y s k i l l f u l , has p o s i t i v e s e l f - a t t i t u d e s , i s f l e x i b l e , admits w o r r i e s and complaints, has l e s s intense superego q u a l i t i e s , i s i m p u l s i v e , creates a l e s s f a v o r a b l e impression, possesses l e s s m o t i v a t i o n f o r academic achievement, and has more e x t r a c e p t i v e and masculine i n t e r e s t s . Although i n d i v i d u a l c o l l e g e s f o l l o w t h i s g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , the e i g h t c o l l e g e s show a wide range of d i f f e r e n c e s on a more l i m i t e d number of s c a l e s . These f i n d i n g s suggest that achievement i n the m a j o r i t y of c o l l e g e s r e s u l t s from a g e n e r a l c l u s t e r of p e r s o n a l i t y and a p t i t u d e v a r i a b l e s , but that a g i v e n c o l l e g e may demand, i n a d d i t i o n , a l i m i t e d number of s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( H o l l a n d , 1 9 5 9 , p. 1 ^ ) . . The however.  unusual p o p u l a t i o n A l l the  of t h i s sample must be  remembered,  students were e x c e p t i o n a l l y t a l e n t e d ,  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the h i g h and group might have few  low  achiever  and  i n such a  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r other groups.  Neverthe-  less,, the f i n d i n g of the unexpected p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of the f l e x i b i l i t y  scale i s i n t e r e s t i n g .  The  negative c o r r e l a t i o n  15 i s i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t o t h a t h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the present study.  One  explanation  may  l i e i n the u n i q u e n e s s of  the group; a n o t h e r , i n the d i f f e r e n c e s A n d e r s o n , and settings.  Barry i n effectiveness  i n d i c a t e d by Dunteman,  i n academic and  More i m p o r t a n t , however, i s the  H o l l a n d that  clinical  conclusion  c o m b i n a t i o n s of p e r s o n a l i t y and  by  scholastic  aptitude  measures are more e f f i c i e n t i n p r e d i c t i n g s c h o l a s t i c achievement than e i t h e r used  separately.  A s t u d y by A l l e n (1966) was  designed to i n v e s t i g a t e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n s c o r e s on two and L e a r y ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l successful  Check L i s t , and  student teaching  U n i v e r s i t y of M a r y l a n d . f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s , and r e t a i n e d as p r e d i c t o r s .  The  measures—the  the CPI  the c r i t e r i o n of  f o r a group of s t u d e n t s a t t e c h n i q u e used was  the  the  discriminant  t h r e e of the independent v a r i a b l e s were Two  of the CPI  s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the  s c a l e s were f o u n d t o  c r i t e r i o n a t the  dominance and achievement v i a c o n f o r m i t y .  .01  be  level:  I n an i n t e r e s t i n g  passage w i t h i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y , A l l e n s t a t e s : A c c o r d i n g t o the s c a l e d e s c r i p t i o n s i n the CPI manual, the "most s u c c e s s f u l " s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s t e n d t o be seen as b e i n g more a s c e n d a n t , s e l f - c e n t e r e d , persuasive, p l a n f u l , p e r s i s t e n t , conforming, v a l u i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s , and h a v i n g p o s i t i v e r e g a r d f o r a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s . Many i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f s u c h a composite d e f i n i t i o n are p o s s i b l e . One o f t h e s e r e c o g n i z e s the presence i n t h i s composite of elements which p a r t i a l l y support a tendency t o w a r d . . . . " c r e e p i n g dogmatism among b e g i n n i n g teachers. I f . . . t h e p r e s e n c e of d i r e c t i v e , conf o r m i s t i c t e n d e n c i e s f a v o r s such a dogmatic o r i e n t a t i o n , and p r o v i d e d such a c o n d i t i o n i s judged t o be a f u n c t i o n of p r e s e n t t r a i n i n g 11  16  p r o c e d u r e s , e x a m i n a t i o n of the success c r i t e r i a t h e s e programs should be c o n s i d e r e d . Further r e s e a r c h of t h i s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n might prove worthwhile.  in  The CPI s c a l e s were judged, t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o m i s i n g t o be w o r t h f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I f t h i s i s a t t e m p t e d , i t i s suggested t h a t a g r e a t e r e f f o r t be made t o i n c r e a s e the u n i f o r m i t y of t h e b a s i s f o r a s s i g n i n g grades and r a n k s t o student teachers. Having a l l s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s r a t e d by t h e same p a n e l of r a t e r s might be one way of a c h i e v i n g such improvement ( A l l e n , 1966, pp. 15,16). In D u r f l i n g e r ' 3  (1963) r e s e a r c h , a l r e a d y a l l u d e d t o ,  i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the sample was school student teachers  only.  The  comprised of e l e m e n t a r y -  a u t h o r ' s d i s c u s s i o n of h i s  f i n d i n g s i s c e r t a i n l y not e n c o u r a g i n g i n terms of t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n taken i n t h i s  the  study.  There i s i n d i c a t i o n f r o m the grade i n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g t h a t the more s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h e r shows a lower degree of s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e — - a f i n d i n g w h i c h suggests t h a t he tends to be c o n v e n t i o n a l and q u i e t and g i v e n n e i t h e r t o s e l f centeredness. nor aggressive behavior...he e x h i b i t s a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency t o be l e s s f l e x i b l e t h a n those members o f the s t a n d a r d i z e d sample.... The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Mindedness s c a l e determines t h e degree to which the i n d i v i d u a l i s i n t e r e s t e d i n and r e s p o n s i v e t o the needs and m o t i v e s and e x p e r i e n c e s o f o t h e r s . Of a l l the v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d , s t a n d i n g on t h i s s c a l e shows the h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h grades i n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ( D u r f l i n g e r , 1963, p. 390). One  o f the major problems d i s c u s s e d  c o n c e r n i n g the CPI a c q u i e s c e n c e and  i n the  literature  i s the r o l e of response s t y l e s o f  desirability.  Messick stated:  I n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d i n v e n t o r y s c a l e s , items are s e l e c t e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e among c r i t e r i o n groups. The most w i d e l y known examples are s c a l e s from the M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y (MMPI). and from the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory (CPI)....  17 Because of t h e w i d e s p r e a d use o f t h e s e inventories i n the c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g s , considerable a t t e n t i o n has been g i v e n t o t h e problem o f f a k i n g . . . . A major problem on t h e MMPI and C P I i s t h e p r e dominant r o l e o f t h e response s t y l e s o f a c q u i e s c e n c e and d e s i r a b i l i t y . . . . Presumably, t h e s e r e s p o n s e s t y l e s are correlated with the c r i t e r i o n d i s t i n c t i o n u t i l i z e d i n the empirical scale construction...but t h e i r massive i n f l u e n c e on t h e s e i n v e n t o r i e s d r a s t i c a l l y i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e attempted measurement o f o t h e r c o n t e n t t r a i t s and l i m i t s t h e i r possible discriminant v a l i d i t y (Hessick, 1966,  pp. 561,562)'.  J a c k s o n (I960) c a l l e d  a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t that the  response-evoking p r o p e r t i e s of a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s i s t e n t l y t o the variance variance  item may c o n t r i b u t e  o f a t e s t above and beyond the  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o content.  With regard  to social  d e s i r a b i l i t y , he c o n c l u d e d t h a t those s c a l e s w h i c h showed t h e largest susceptibility s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d  t o f a k i n g (as reported  t o r e f l e c t greater social  He found t h a t t h e i n d e x o f s o c i a l  desirability  i n t h e manual) desirability. correlated  n e g a t i v e l y w i t h t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f items keyed " t r u e , " an r o f -.36.  H i s study supported h i s hypothesis  a major s o u r c e o f v a r i a n c e  that acquiescence i s  i n t h e CPI, and i n d i c a t e d t h a t a  r e s p o n s e s e t was an i m p o r t a n t s c o r e  determinant.  D i c k e n (I960) a l s o f o u n d t h a t some s c a l e s a r e v u l n e r a b l e to a c q u i e s c e n c e b i a s b u t he n e v e r t h e l e s s  c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e CPI  i s r e l a t i v e l y r e s i s t a n t t o d i f f e r e n t i a l b i a s and t h a t is  simulation  detectable. A number of s t u d i e s have been conducted t o answer"the  question:  what p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s a r e a s s e s s e d b y t h e  13 CPI?  According  to  characteristics, of  (196)4.),  Gcugh  but evidence  has  there  were  been g i v e n that  eighteen  these  aspects  p e r s o n a l i t y m i g h t be d e s c r i b e d more p a r s i m o n i o u s l y .  (1959) four  that  asserted  fail  to  Mitchell  correlate  that  of  the  (1964.).  Gough  of  the at  would h e l p scales  18  least  and P i e r c e - J o n e s  o b t a i n evidence justification  that  of  of t h e  (i960) to  Thorndike  CPI there  . 5 - 0 w i t h some o t h e r  25>8  on t h e  groupings c a s e s was  offered employed,  1 ^ 3 CPI s c a l e  by the  Prom t h i s  c e n t r o i d method,  T f o , and 1 2 $ o f the four  factors  social (if.)  poise  as:  total  contrast  ( 1 ) adjustment  independent  two b y G o u g h ' s . their results,  by s o c i a l  in this  described  of  into  \5%  3  the  strength,  and a c t i o n .  fell  2^%,  conformity, ( 2 )  ( 3 ) super-ego  study  extracted  These  Gough. three  four  The t h r e e  separate  by the M i t c h e l l — P i e r c e - J o n e s n o m e n c l a t u r e , The a u t h o r s individual  based  on o n l y a few  poise  by the  thought  The a u t h o r s  thought  were  accounting for  c o n s i d e r a b l y with those  scales r e f e r r e d to scale groupings  factors  con-  product-moment  matrix four factors  variance.  or e x t r o v e r s i o n ,  capacity for  factors  these  to  enrollees  s t r u c t e d which consisted intercorrelations.  scale.  by  A c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x was  the  stated,  further,  personality profiles  s e l e c t e d CPI s c a l e s ;  self-acceptance  and. a c t i o n b y t h e  that  scale,  for  j u d g i n g by  might w e l l  example:  and c a p a c i t y f o r  flexibility  scale.  onl  empirical  a teacher-training curriculum. of  are  undertook a study  shed l i g h t  and s c a l e  A total  scales  differe  be  social independent  The s e l e c t i o n  of  in  19  these two scales was of p a r t i c u l a r interest  to the w r i t e r .  Spring oh and Struening (I96I4.) also indicated that a large percentage  of the r e l i a b l e variance of the sub-scales of the  Inventory could be predicted by five or six reference  dimensions  or scales. They emphasized the need to reconsider what i s being measured by the scales and the d e s i r a b i l i t y of reducing the number of scales.  Kelly (1965) i n a review agreed that most  of,  the information obtained i n the 18 scores could be r e f l e c t e d i n ' four or f i v e scores,  and he also suggested that some of Gough's  scales might be i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d  into the basic four  groupings. Dicken (1963) reported a study on the convergent and d i s criminant v a l i d i t y of five CPI v a r i a b l e s , according to the c r i t e r i a proposed by Campbell and Piske ( 1 9 5 9 ) .  Their concern  was similar to that expressed by Springob and Struening: assessment i s to be e f f i c i e n t ,  if  scores of presumably different  t r a i t s should have a low c o r r e l a t i o n .  Measurement of f i v e  personality dimensions by CPI and by composite ratings of observers were compared i n regard to the four c r i t e r i a of convergent and discriminate v a l i d a t i o n proposed by Campbell and Piske ( 1 9 5 9 ) .  Pour of the five CPI variables met the c r i t e r i o n  of convergent v a l i d i t y , two only minimally; two s a t i s f i e d c r i t e r i o n of discriminant v a l i d i t y .  the  The d i f f i c u l t y may r e s t ,  Dicken suggested, either In the inadequacy of the ratings used or i n the r e s t r i c t e d v a r i a b i l i t y and high average scores on the CPI.  20 Q Sort A number of studies such as those of Wittenborn (1961) and Sheldon (I960) have been conducted using Stephenson's Q technique.  (1953)  Only two.of the most comprehensive of these are  alluded to i n this review:  those of Rogers and Dymond (1954)  and of Block ( 1 9 6 1 ) , The book by Rogers and Dymond described a large-scale research program on psychotherapy conducted over a period of years at the Counselling Centre of the University of Chicago. Their associates, Butler and Haigh, described one part of the research i n Chapter IV of Psychotherapy and Personality Change. The authors began by stating two assumptions:  first,  that tho i n d i v i d u a l i s able to make types of judgment about his self-perception and to order them along a continuum; second, he i s able to order his self-perceptions  along a continuum of  value, from "unlike my ideal" to "like my i d e a l . "  The d i s -  ci epancy between placements on these two scales y i e l d s an 1  i n d i c a t i o n of self-esteem. The instrument was composed of one hundred  self-referent  statements selected, as the author says, on an accidental rather than on a t r u l y random sampling basis from available therapeutic protocols.  The major hypothesis  centered counselling r e s u l t s s e l f and i d e a l - s e l f  of the study was that  client-  i n an increase i n congruence between  concepts i n the c l i e n t .  The relationship  approached a zero c o r r e l a t i o n at the outset; by the end of counselling, the mean c o r r e l a t i o n was . 3 4 . , a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t change.  The control group exhibited a c o r r e l a t i o n  between sorts at the out-set of . 5 8 , and at the follow-up point, of . 5 9 .  The authors concluded:  In our opinion the r e s u l t s discussed here indicate that low correlations between s e l f and i d e a l are based on a low l e v e l of self-esteem r e l a t e d to a r e l a t i v e l y low adjustment l e v e l and that a con-, sequence of client-centered counseling for the c l i e n t s i n this study was, on the average, a r i s e i n the l e v e l of self-esteem and of adjustment. (Rogers & Dymond, 195l|, -p. 75)» Wylie ( I 9 6 I ) ,  i n her comprehensive review of the  l i t e r a t u r e concerning the self-concept,  gave a detailed account  of this instrument, voicing many of the reservations  expressed  by Cronbach and Gleser (195U-)  (1965),  a  n  d  others.  Kerlinger  however, supported the use of the Q, sort when ipsative measures are d e s i r e d .  Thu fact that Q, methodology s a c r i f i c e s l e v e l and  spread f o r shape i s . o f concern; discrepancy scores and g l o b a l indices tend to have an obscuring effect with regard to i n d i v i d u a l differences.  Wylie questioned whether the i d e a l  sort contributes s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the data, since the major changes i n therapy appear to occur with the s e l f s o r t .  The  question of the meaning of any given size of discrepancy between the sorts was not r e a l l y dealt with i n the study by Butler and Haigh. In the present design, the writer used the Q, sort as one measure of s e l f - r e g a r d , hoping to discover some kind of  22 r e l a t i o n s h i p between i t and t h e o t h e r measures o f s e l f - r e g a r d u s e d i n t h e POI and the C P I . Because o f t h e c r i t i c i s m by W y l i e , i t was d e c i d e d t h a t , s h o u l d t h e Q s o r t c o n t r i b u t e  anything to  the problem o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t h e i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s , a n a l y s i s would be c o n f i n e d  further  t o the s e l f s o r t .  No s i n g l e s t u d y o f t h e s e v e r a l r e p o r t e d  by B l o c k  i s r e f e r r e d t o , because o f t h e g r e a t e x t e n t o f h i s  (1961)  research*  R a t h e r , h i s d i f f e r e n t use o f t h e Q, s o r t i s o f i n t e r e s t , because , the s o r t i s used c h i e f l y f o r purposes o f r a t i n g s by o b s e r v e r s , r a t h e r t h a n as an i p s a t i v e measure.  One o f t h e modes suggested  by B l o c k i s t h a t o f t h e s o r t and c r i t e r i o n s o r t , s i m i l a r t o t h e s e l f - i d e a l s o r t s o f H a i g h and B u t l e r . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o t h e w r i t e r i s t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t i t may be d e s i r a b l e t o go beyond t h e s i m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n of Q,. s o r t s t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f m a t r i c e s o f 0,-sort c o r r e l a t i o n s . Block says: R a t h e r t h a n g r o u p i n g p e o p l e on some independent b a s i s o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and then a n a l y z i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Q - s o r t s t h a t come out o f each g r o u p , we may r e v e r s e t h e sequence and group I n d i v i d u a l s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r Q - s o r t s , t h e n a n a l y z i n g independent s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the c o r r e l a t e s o f group membership ( B l o c k , 1 9 6 l , p.  Out  107).  o f t h i s g r o u p i n g , some answers may be found t o t h e q u e s t i o n  of what members o f any sub-groups i n t h e p r e s e n t sample a r e like.  CHAPTER  III  THE DESIGN •  . .  The T h e o r e t i c a l F r a m e w o r k a n d M o d e l The t h e o r e t i c a l  framework  p r o v i d e d by the proponents personality. identified are not  J u s t as the  single  of  humanistic psychology, psychology  the present  study  is  "Third Force" theory  of  two c o m p r e h e n s i v e  theories,  p s y c h o a n a l y t i c and b e h a v i o r i s t i c ,  cohesive theories,  d e s c r i b e d as a f a m i l y  rational  of the other  b r o a d l y as t h e  for  Buildigg  so the  theories  embracing ego p s y c h o l o g y ,  existentialism,  (Hall,  phenomenology,  p . 5).  1965,  " T h i r d F o r c e * * may be  The g r o u p  and  includes  the  J u n g i a n s , R a n k i a n 3 , a n d A d l e r i a n s , a s w e l l as n e o - a n d  post-  Freudians  Gestalt  s u c n as S z a s z and M a r c u s e .  The i n f l u e n c e  and L e w i n i a n p s y c h o l o g y and o f p e r s o n a l i t y that  of G . Murphy, G. A l l p o r t ,  Murray,  s u b s t a n t i a l w i t n i n t h e movement. T h i r d F o r c e movement characterize this The p r i m a r y conditions but  of  for  healthy  It  i s d i v e r s e , but  s c h o o l of  p s y c h o l o g y s u c h as  and Moreno has b e e n  would appear that a few c e n t r a l  the development  on h e a l t h , not  only of h e a l t h y  Maslow m a i n t a i n s  v i e w i n no way d e n i e s t h e  Freudian picture,  o f man, h i s l o w e r  concepts  and on the  societies.  it  the  thought.  emphasis i s  adds t o and supplements  of  (1962).  and h i s h i g h e r  that but  necessary  personalities  this  point  he c l a i m s  He a d m i t s t h e  twofold  s e l v e s , b u t he s e e k s , l i k e  of it  nature tho  ... existentialists,  to  b o t h a r e ways o f  defining  nature.  side is rejected,  for  Neither  integrative  i n the broader tragedy,  of  avoid dichotomizing,  or d e s c r i b i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  techniques, sense,  play,  of  that  of  but Maslow s t r e s s e s the  techniques  of l o v e ,  of a r t  stressing rather  of  "insight,  of  human need  intellect  c r e a t i v e n e s s , o f humor  (1962, P» H ) » "  2h  and  He q u e s t i o n e d :  How c a n we e n c o u r a g e f r e e d e v e l o p m e n t ? What a r e the b e s t e d u c a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s f o r i t ? Sexual? Economic? P o l i t i c a l ? What k i n d o f w o r l d do we n e e d f o r s u c h p e o p l e t o g r o w i n ? What k i n d o f world w i l l such people create? S i c k people are made b y a s i c k c u l t u r e ; h e a l t h y p e o p l e a r e made p o s s i b l e by a h e a l t h y c u l t u r e . But i t i s j u s t as t r u e t h a t s i c k i n d i v i d u a l s make t h e i r culture more s i c k a n d t h a t h e a l t h y i n d i v i d u a l s make t h e i r c u l t u r e more h e a l t h y . Improving i n d i v i d u a l h e a l t h i s one a p p r o a c h t o m a k i n g a b e t t e r w o r l d . To e x p r e s s i t i n a n o t h e r way, encouragement of p e r s o n a l growth i s a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y ; cure of a c t u a l n e u r o t i c symptoms i s f a r l e s s p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t o u t s i d e h e l p ( M a s l o w , 1962, P ' 5)« A second c e n t r a l position  is a positive  man's b a s i c d r i v e o f w h i c h he I s  is  point  ality"  is  (1963) s p e a k s o f  able to r e l a t e  harmony w i t h a u n i f y i n g phrase " a f u l l y  Third Force  the  to a t t a i n  in  the  warmly  potential terms term  "full-humanness"; or mature  who l i v e s to  which  use d i f f e r e n t  "Integrated  philosophy.  functioning  growth  M a s l o w (1962) use3 t h e  of v i e w ,  i n d e s c r i b i n g an i n d i v i d u a l  himself,  the  Various theorists  " s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n " b y w h i c h he means G.. A l l p o r t  of  approach to p e r s o n a l i t y  s e e n as a s t r i v i n g  capable.  to d e s c r i b e t h i s  characteristic  others,  person-  comfortably and l i v e s  in  R o g e r s (1959) u s e s  person"; Bugental  (1965),  with  the  the  25 " a u t h e n t i c p e r s o n a l i t y . " A l l agree i n t h e i r emphasis on growth and  developments I n t h i s p o s i t i v e a p p r o a c h t o p e r s o n a l i t y components,  e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s seen, not as an absence o f p a t h o l o g y the p o s s e s s i o n o f p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s o f good h e a l t h . support  (1962)  o f t h i s p o s i t i o n , Maslow  ha3  b u t as In  postulated a  h i e r a r c h y o f human needs, s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d a " h i g h e r " need w h i c h c a n be met o n l y a f t e r "lower" needs — p h y s i o l o g i c a l needs, s a f e t y needs, a f f e c t i o n needs, and esteem n e e d s — a r e met.  He has l i s t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e o p l e  d e s c r i b e d as s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , based on c l i n i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l studyo  Though t h e i n i t i a l s e l e c t i o n was made on t h e b a s i s o f a  g l o b a l o r h o l i s t i c a p p r o a c h , he d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e s e l e c t e d group e x h i b i t e d many t r a i t s i n common such a s :  superior  p e r c e p t i o n of r e a l i t y ; i n c r e a s e d s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , acceptance of o t h e r s , and o f n a t u r e ; i n c r e a s e d s p o n t a n e i t y ; emphasis on problem c e n t e r i n g ; i n c r e a s e d autonomy and r e s i s t a n c e t o e n c u l t u r a t i o n ; I d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e human s p e c i e s ; and improved i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . T h i r d F o r c e t h e o r y was c o n s i d e r e d l o g i c a l l y t o t h i s study f o r two r e a s o n s :  appropriate  i t s emphasis on t h e development  of p o t e n t i a l i s i n agreement w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Guidance program ( P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , h e a l t h r a t h e r t h a n on p a t h o l o g y  1965);  i t s s t r e s s on  brings i t i n t o the area of  e d u c a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n i n t o areas o f treatment  and p s y c h o t h e r a p y .  ;  2 6  F u r t h e r , i t would seem r e a s o n a b l e  t o assume t h a t the  more a p e r s o n d i s p l a y e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s actualized  person,  of Maslow's s e l f -  t h e g r e a t e r would be the l i k e l i h o o d of h i s  b e i n g e f f e c t i v e i n h i s v o c a t i o n a l performance. t h e r e f o r e becomes:  The  question  are some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of t h e  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d p e r s o n p a r t i c u l a r l y p e r t i n e n t t o the of a Guidance  teacher?  S i n c e t h e Guidance t e a c h e r at a half-way  vocation  i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as b e i n g  p o i n t on a continuum o f s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l ,  itfith the c o u n s e l l o r a t one  sharing  end the o b j e c t i v e s o f a t t e m p t i n g  p r o v i d e the s t u d e n t w i t h o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p e r s o n a l  understanding  of o t h e r s , and p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d e c i s i o n making; sharing w i t h classroom  teachers  to  growth  t h r o u g h the development of s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  a t the o t h e r end,  .'•  a  and,  classroom  environment and a c u r r i c u l u m , are t h e r e t h e n p a r t i c u l a r characteristics  of b o t h c o u n s e l l o r s and t e a c h e r s  c o n s i d e r e d as a p p l i c a b l e t o the Guidance S t u d i e s of g e n e r a l t e a c h e r Barr  (1955)  proficiency,  that could  be  teacher?  e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e p o r t e d -by  u n d e r l i n e the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of t e a c h i n g and  characteristics  indicate  t h a t t h e r e are many k i n d s c f  e f f e c t i v e f o r d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s , programs,  and s u b j e c t a r e a s .  Combs'  (1965)  s t u d y , hox-;ever, p o i n t s out  the  inadequacy of r e s e a r c h on competency t h a t has a t t e m p t e d t o i s o l a t e common t r a i t s or p r a c t i c e s of good t e a c h e r s .  He  claimed  t h a t the good t e a c h e r i s not one x-jho behaves i n a g i v e n way one who  achieves  d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t s , whatever t h e way  but  (p. 7 ) »  He d e f i n e d the e f f e c t i v e t e a c h e r as "a u n i q u e human b e i n g  who  27 has learned to use himself e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y to carry out h i s own and society's purposes i n the education of others (p. 9)-."  He l i s t e d f i v e areas he considered c r u c i a l for a l l  teachers, areas that have been defined as a consequence of his research: 1.  Rich, extensive, and available perceptions about one's subject f i e l d .  2. Accurate perceptions about what people are l i k e * 3. Perceptions of s e l f leading to adequacy. ij.. Accurate perceptions about the purpose and process of learning. 5. Personal perceptions about appropriate methods f o r carrying out one's purposes (p. 20). In a study concerned with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of counsellors, Wrenn addressed himself to the question of personality dimensions of the counsellor: It seems that a counselor must have considerable .strength to handle the ego-involved counseling r e l a t i o n s h i p , that he must be a s o c i a l l y perceptive (sensitive) person, and that he must have a f i r m sense of purpose and an a r t i c u l a t e value structure (Wrenn, 1957, p. 1 8 2 ) . Though the writings of Combs and of Wrenn have implications for this study, the concern i s not with general teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , nor with counsellor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers of Guidance, and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , of student teachers of Guidance.  In order to  determine those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s germane to a Guidance teacher, It was  considered advisable to indicate the behavioural outcomes.  expected In a Guidance class and to attempt to r e l a t e these to  28 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t e a c h e r s and o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s o f Guidance t h a t might be e x p e c t e d  t o evoke o r f a c i l i t a t e such outcomes.  The p r o c e s s of guidance  1962J  Bordin,  Tiedeman,  1955;  1966;  Tyler,  has been d e f i n e d (G. A l l p o r t ,  Gelatt,  I96I4.)  19&2;  Katz,  I963;  Sprinthall &  as t h e p r o c e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g w i t h i n  the s t u d e n t t h e a b i l i t y t o make wise c h o i c e s .  I t would seem t o  f o l l o w t h a t a Guidance c l a s s s h o u l d o f f e r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s t u d e n t s t o e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t i v e s , t o compare p o i n t s o f v i e w , and t o e v a l u a t e consequences o f d i f f e r e n t c h o i c e s . question:  Thus, t h e major  what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n t h e Guidance t e a c h e r would  seem most n e c e s s a r y t o f a c i l i t a t e t h i s p r o c e s s ?  What model o f  an e f f e c t i v e Guidance t e a c h e r would appear most a p p r o p r i a t e ? A. survey o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g b o t h t e a c h i n g and c o u n s e l l i n g r e v e a l s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a number o f models.  Some  s t u d i e s ( A l l e n , 1 9 6 7 ; A s t i n , 1 9 6 7 ; D i x o n & Morse, 1 9 6 1 ; Murray, 1 9 6 6 ; Reed, 1 9 6 1 ) have been based on a u n i v a r i a t e approach t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , on v a r i a b l e s such as u n d e r s t a n d i n g k i n d n e s s , s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , acceptance potential.  of others,  o f o t h e r s , and empathic  The d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered  i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the  r e s u l t s have a r i s e n , i n many i n s t a n c e s , f r o m t h e s i n g l e n e s s o f t h e p r e d i c t o r c o r r e l a t e and t h e m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f t h e criterion.  I n S t e r n , Bloom, and S t e i n , i t i s s a i d , " I n d i v i d u a l s  do n o t behave as a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f s i n g l e v a r i a b l e s .  They a r e  b e t t e r d e s c r i b e d as p o s s e s s i n g a c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f i n t e r a c t i n g variables  (1956,  p. l j . 7 ) . "  Other s t u d i e s (Combs,  29  1 9 6 5 ; C o t t l e , 1 9 5 3 ; Ryans, 1 9 6 0 a )  have l i s t e d many d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s of teachers, but these l i s t s are so i n c l u s i v e i n nature that t h e i r relevance i s questionable. The model f o r an e f f e c t i v e Guidance teacher s e l e c t e d i n t h i s study was based on Maslow's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s e l f a c t u a l i z e d person.  However, because of the g l o b a l nature of  the concept of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , the approach by S p r i n t h a l l ( S p r i n t h a l l et a l , , 1966) was f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study.  The  approach was t o s h i f t from general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a s e l e c t i o n of those considered most s a l i e n t to the model of an e f f e c t i v e Guidance teacher who i s attempting t o encourage a f r e e exchange of ideas, an e x p l o r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e behaviours, and a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of o b j e c t i v e s and goals of both immediate and ultimate  concern.  Prom among the q u a l i t i e s of the s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d  person,  then, which could be s e l e c t e d as p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o the Guidance teacher? Model b u i l d i n g i n v o l v i n g t h i s s e l e c t i o n r e l i e d p r i m a r i l y on research done i n three areas:  that of Combs  (1965) con-  cerning the perceptual view of h e l p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; that of Whiteley, Donaghy, Mosher, and S p r i n t h a l l (1967) i n the area of c o g n i t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y ; and that of Rogers  ( 1 9 6 1 ) i n the area of  self-acceptance and acceptance of others. Combs' p o s i t i o n underlines the n e c e s s i t y of the s h i f t from the possession of given t r a i t s t o the possession of higher-  •30  order concepts, or of value o r i e n t a t i o n s , as Buhler it.  (19&2) put  S t e r n , Bloom, and S t e i n (195"6, p. l|9) c a l l e d such character-  i s t i c s o r g a n i z i n g f a c t o r s In behaviour, because they enable the i n d i v i d u a l t o s h i f t and adapt to changes i n the environment. Evaluations by others serve as "feedback" on the b a s i s of which the' i n d i v i d u a l may  e i t h e r reorganize or r e i n f o r c e h i s behaviour.  The b u i l d i n g of a model, t h e r e f o r e , revolved around the question:  what are the c r u c i a l organizing f a c t o r s i n the  behaviour of e f f e c t i v e Guidance teachers? Whiteley, Donaghy, Mosher, and S p r i n t h a l l ( i n press) i n t h e i r studies on both teacher and c o u n s e l l o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , have s e l e c t e d the area of c o g n i t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y f o r research, s t a t i n g that t h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension represents f o r them a most r e l e v a n t t h e o r e t i c a l statement f o r d e r i v i n g o p e r a t i o n a l judgments about e f f e c t i v e behaviour.  They a l s o r e j e c t tho idea  of the t r a i t approach to f l e x i b i l i t y , c l a i m i n g r a t h e r that I t s o p e r a t i o n i s dependent on s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s .  Their p o s i t i o n  that complexity of perception makes p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e behaviours,  and that such complexity v/ould be an antecedent  f a c t o r i n making p o s s i b l e f l e x i b i l i t y of reponse, i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the perceptual point of view advocated by Combs (1965). P a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to Guidance teaching i s the d i s c u s s i o n of p a t h o l o g i c a l openness, defined as the tendency t o seem so f l e x i b l e that e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g i s not p o s s i b l e .  As they  pursue t h i s dimension, they s t r e s s the need f o r p r o v i d i n g , s t r u c t u r e when i t i s appropriate.  In t h e i r words:  F l e x i b i l i t y i s r e f l e c t e d i n the capacity f o r and implementation of alternative behaviors when j u s t i f i e d by changing circumstance. Pathologically open individuals cannot respond to the requirements of altered circumstance (Ch. 11, p. i l l ) . Whiteley and his associates examined conditions which tend to produce r i g i d behaviours, and concluded that situations of stress and anxiety may r e s u l t In r i g i d behaviour.  Trans-  lated to a s i t u a t i o n of student teaching, t h i s would imply the need f o r student teachers' learning to understand  situations  that tend to mobilize r i g i d behaviours i n themselves.  "Open-  ness to learning about oneself and capacity f o r s e l f - i n s i g h t woul'd become c r i t i c a l q u a l i t i e s i n individuals who. ..seem to have some r i g i d q u a l i t i e s (Ch. 11, p. 20)»  M  The work of Rogers i s primarily oriented to counselling, and his client-centered philosophy i s considered relevant to the f i e l d of Guidance with i t s emphasis on student needs.  In  discussing the f a c i l i t a t i o n of personal growth, he stated: If. I can create a r e l a t i o n s h i p characterized on my part: by a genuiness and transparency i n which I am ray real feelings; by a warm acceptance of and p r i z i n g of the other person as a separate i n d i v i d u a l ; by a sensitive a b i l i t y to see h i s world and hims e l f as he sees them; Then the other individual i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p : w i l l experience and understand aspects of hims e l f which previously he has repressed; w i l l f i n d himself becoming better integrated, more able to function e f f e c t i v e l y ; w i l l become more similar to the person he would l i k e to be; w i l l be more s e l f - d i r e c t i n g and self-confident; w i l l become more of a person, more unique and more self-expressive;  32 w i l l be more u n d e r s t a n d i n g , more a c c e p t a n t o f others; w i l l be a b l e t o cope w i t h t h e p r o b l e m s o f l i f e more a d e q u a t e l y and more c o m f o r t a b l y ( R o g e r s , .  1961, p p . 3 7 , 3 8 ) . On t h e b a s i s o f  associates,  t h e w o r k o f Combs, o f W h i t e l e y a n d h i s  a n d o f R o g e r s , and f r o m M a s l o w s c l i n i c a l l y  cribed behaviours  of  the  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d p e r s o n , a model  G u i d a n c e t e a c h e r s has b e e n h y p o t h e s i z e d b a s e d on t h e of  personality  factors  as c r u c i a l , o n t h e  dimensions s e l e c t e d are primary, will  or  ineffective  s t a n d h i g h on a l l organizing factors the are:  belief  effective  The t h r e e  from Maslow's d e s c r i p t i o n s  subjects  as h a v i n g s u p e r i o r  teacher  to an absence of g u i l t , acceptance of t h i n g s  model of  of  Guidance  others.  of h i s  dimension  is  self-actualized resistance spontaneity;  time. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  s h a m e , and a n x i e t y ,  as t h e y a r e .  colouration  would  follows:  increase i n problem-centering;  i n the use of  as  or  this  p e r c e p t i o n of r e a l i t y ;  2. S e l f - a c c e p t a n c e .  protective  for  This personality  inferred  efficiency  the  rating  s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and c o n c e r n f o r  may be d e s c r i b e d a s  to e n c u l t u r a t i o n ;  that  attributes  s e l e c t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t  1. F l e x i b i l i t y .  postulation  The " m o d e l " t e a c h e r  Guidance t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t  flexibility,  These f a c t o r s  teachers.  dimensions.  for  and t h a t G u i d a n c e t e a c h e r s  v a r y on t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r  effective  des-  r  is  and t o a  related healthy  L a c k of d e f e n s i v e n e s s and  c h a r a c t e r i z e s the  self-actualized  p e r s o n , who, b e c a u s e he c a n a c c e p t h i m s e l f ,  finds  it  easier  to  accept others.  Accompanying this v;illingness  limitations and strengths  to accept one's  is an increased autonomy, an indepen-  dence of culture and environment, a q u a l i t y of being "selfcontained."  1  3. Concern f o r others.  Maslow describes the  actualized person as tending to be kind and patient, very r e a l sense having compassion for mankind.  self-  and i n a  There is a  tendency to give respect to every human being, just because he i s a human i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s , then, became the hypothetical model for this a student teacher of Guidance standing high on the of f l e x i b i l i t y ,  self-acceptance,  study:  dimensions  and concern for others.  On  t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical grounds, t h i s model seemed appropriate, and the major instruments of the study were selected i n accordance with this model. Paradigm The form of the paradigm is as 1. Select a set  follows:  of c r i t e r i a of teacher  effectiveness.  These c r i t e r i a become the dependent v a r i a b l e s . 2. Measure the c r i t e r i a . 3. Measure potential correlates or the predictors of these c r i t e r i a , selected i n accordance with the model. • I4... Determine the relationships between the c r i t e r i a and the p o t e n t i a l  correlates.  3k The S a m p l e This  s t u d y was l i m i t e d  i n Education  to  the  a t The U n i v e r s i t y  1966~67.  M o s t o f t h e members o f t h e  at  of  British  one-year p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g  The U n i v e r s i t y  enrolled  the  Columbia, winter  c l a s s were  class  Data r e g a r d i n g  completing  having received  A n y g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s made f r o m t h i s  r e g a r d e d as v a l i d  o n l y i n so f a r  as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  of  teachers  (for  matter  of B r i t i s h  a p p l y i n g the g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s  of  this  The C r i t e r i o n the major  problems  Columbia)  o f more t h a n f i f t y  agreed-upon c r i t e r i a the l i t e r a t u r e  considered  student actual in  w o u l d be a  testing rather  study to  another  sample.  q u e s t i o n of  concerning the  criterion.  y e a r s of r e s e a r c h i n t h i s  field,  have been e s t a b l i s h e d ( M i t z e l , i 9 6 0 )  pertaining  to  than  Problem  i n experiments  t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s has b e e n . t h e In s p i t e  of  G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o any  of a d v a n c i n g s p e c i f i c hypotheses f o r  One o f  s t u d y c o u l d be  e x a m p l e , f u t u r e E d u c a t i o n i^Olj. c l a s s e s  G u i d a n c e a t The U n i v e r s i t y  the  (Tyler,  g r o u p may be  a conceptualized population  i n the Guidance f i e l d .  population  as t h i s  the  1.  T h i s s a m p l e s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as a n " i n t a c t " 1954) s a m p l e .  Education  the background of  are presented i n Table  of  session  i n the F a c u l t y of  of B r i t i s h Columbia a f t e r  baccalaureate degree. members o f  teachers  ( C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n i n the Teaching  Guidance)  their  student  studies  on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  no  and between  35 TABLE 1 INFORMATION ABOUT SAMPLE MEMBERS (N = hi}.) 1.  P r e v i o u s F a c u l t i e s o f Members o f G u i d a n c e C l a s s S.cience  Arts  6  (Other) Humanities  Science  Physical Education  25  6  1  27  Average- R e p o r t e d Mark i n G r a d u a t i n g Y e a r  1  2  P  Missing  3  35  k  2  l...lst  2..•2nd  .. P . . . p a s s Ij.. T e a c h i n g M a j o r s  *  3  Majors i n Undergraduate Courses  Psychology  3.  Other  2  33 2.  Education  class class  i n Education  Guid.  Phy. Ed.  En.  Soc. Stu.  Sci.  36  6  21  5  k  These s t u d e n t s  d i d not  Math.  3  -  Others  5  t a k e E d . 14.024. ( G u i d a n c e )  Guid. Audits  8"  for credit.  •36 5. M a r i t a l Status Married  Engaged  Single  6  27  11 6. Place i n Family  Eldest  Only  18  8  Youngest  6  Age, Sex, and Rating i n F i n a l Practicum  Male  Female  Old  Young  Old  * Superior  9  2  2  12  25  Non Superior  10  1  2  3  16  Total  19  Young Total  15 N = kl'  * 3 women, 2 o l d , 1 young, were not rated because they held Elementary Teaching C e r t i f i c a t e s , and thus were not e l i g i b l e f o r evaluation. Old Young Sup er ior Non Superior  over 23 23 or under 1 s t or 2 n d class (as below superior  defined)  predictor select  v a r i a b l e s and c r i t e r i a ,  probable, c o r r e l a t e s  ( I 9 6 0 , p . I4.I3) v o i c e d t h e (1954)*  when he  studies  sophisticated  naive his  in analysis  of  o p i n i o n o f many,  that  analysis  factor  i n the  type  teacher  of  institutions,  t h i s method a r e a p p a r e n t : r a t e r s bias  observations the  ^ g l o b a l " nature of  rated  as  rating spite is  effective  which i s of  the  problem i s is  Some o f differ  teacher  supposed t o  weaknesses o f  ^  but n  believed  Nevertheless,  of  the  in  student-teacher inadequacies  of  i n competency and i n into  rating;  this  so  that  a  teacher  a r e a may be g i v e n a " g l o b a l " other  criterion  common k i n d i n  One method f o r  dependent  on t y p e s  sponsor  teachers,  by i n s t r u c t o r s o f  of  subject  areas.  effectiveness,  In it  use.  l i t e r a t u r e of  that  institution,  (1954)*  commonly u s e d  effectiveness  p e r t a i n to  d i s c u s s i o n i n the extensive.  find  s p a c e d ; a s s u m p t i o n s a r e made a b o u t  i n one s u b j e c t  c e r t a i n l y t h e most The  type  and s u b j e c t i v i t y e n t e r  a r e not always  results.  namely r a t i n g  In p r a c t i c e teaching.  experience;  Tyler  research,  negative  c r i t e r i o n he u s e d was t h e  performance  to  c r i t e r i o n might.have been a  p r o d u c t i o n of h i s  training  is  Tyler  of p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s  c r i t e r i o n parameters.  the  to  Gowan  including  the u s u a l e x p e r i e n c e  i n the  the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of  fails  of teacher' e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  concluding discussion concerning his  that  the  stated  though e x t e n s i v e ,  the  criterion  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  criteria  of r a t i n g s - - r a t i n g s by students, the  or by s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s .  teacher Other  by  training  approaches  involve  3&  c o n s i d e r i n g c r i t e r i a as e i t h e r u l t i m a t e or p r o x i m a t e , or a s process or product c r i t e r i a .  Some r e s e a r c h e r s argue t h a t  u l t i m a t e and p r o d u c t c r i t e r i a a r e t h e . o n l y t r u l y  meaningful  ones, but the d i f f i c u l t y o f i s o l a t i n g v a r i a b l e s i n l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s has so f a r r e s u l t e d i n few d e s i g n s based on t h i s of c r i t e r i a .  Teacher r e s e a r c h i s c u r r e n t l y moving toward t h e  use o f p r o c e s s and p r o x i m a t e c r i t e r i a I960),  type  (Howsam, 1 9 6 3 ; M i t z e l ,  emphasizing t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r s and c l a s s r o o m c o n d i t i o n s ,  c l i m a t e s , and t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n s .  I n any s t u d y based on work  w i t h student t e a c h e r s , t h e c r i t e r i o n must be p r o x i m a t e , and some assumption  i s made t h a t t h e r e w i l l be a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o demon-  s t r a t e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n t h e l a t e r t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n , though the l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e s no such e v i d e n c e . In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , an attempt was made t o d i v e r s i f y t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s , by i n c l u d i n g not o n l y t h e u s u a l r a t i n g s g i v e n by t h e F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n f o r s u i t a b i l i t y and f o r performance  f o r teaching  i npractice teaching, but also ratings  from  judges, based on a s t a n d a r d i z e d l e s s o n s i t u a t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n s from s t u d e n t s i n t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d l e s s o n s i t u a t i o n . The  Measures  C r i t e r i o n Measures Two types o f c r i t e r i a were u s e d :  the f i r s t a F a c u l t y of  E d u c a t i o n composite r a t i n g o f student t e a c h i n g ; t h e second, r a t i n g s based on t h e t e a c h i n g o f a d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n .  • 39  .Faculty  of Education  ratings  The r a t i n g u s e d b a s e d on t h r e e  in this  study  k i n d s of r a t i n g s :  was  composite  two g r o u p s  F e b r u a r y a n d May p r a c t i c a ) , f r o m t e a c h e r  of  in  form,  ratings  sponsors  (from  i n the  schools  where p r a c t i c e  t e a c h i n g was p e r f o r m e d ; tvjo g r o u p s o f r a t i n g s  members o f t h e  Faculty  practice the  teaching;  student  a five  eighteen one  scale of  seminar.  of g e n e r a l  practice  This  t h i r d r a t i n g was b a s e d  s u i t a b i l i t y for  teaching.  teaching used f o r r a t i n g ,  at  In  each time,  each student  teacher  and a t  least  one  sponsor  contributed evaluations  for  practicum.  The f a c u l t y members r a t i n g i n t h e F e b r u a r y p r a c t i c u m w e r e , most  instances,  faculty most in  seminar a d v i s e r s  members r a t i n g i n t h e  instances,  some  fields the  the  cases,  not  the  other t h a n the  to  students  which formed the by t h e  was  entered  of  a possible  superior  into  Faculty the  the  students'  two p r a c t i c u m p e r i o d s  rating,  May p r a c t i c u m ,  students'  strangers  were basis  of the  of  the  in  Those were,  In  and were,  and s p e c i a l i s t s  combined f o r the  Ratings final  in for  composite  s t a n d i n g awarded t h e s e  of E d u c a t i o n .  This  composite  rating  a numerical r a t i n g  and a t w o - c a t e g o r y  and n o n - s u p e r i o r .  however-,  teaching majors.  d a t a i n two f o r m s :  5>0 p o i n t s ,  students.  seminar a d v i s e r s ,  students,  the  forty-  teacher  each  on  least  f a c u l t y members p a r t i c i p a t e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e  students  while  and a r a t i n g b y a s e m i n a r a d v i s e r who met  i n a weekly  point  two p e r i o d s  o f E d u c a t i o n who o b s e r v e d s t u d e n t s  by  d i v i s i o n of  out  Demonstration l e s s o n r a t i n g s The  student  teachers  i n t h i s sample group were r e q u i r e d  t o t e a c h a l e s s o n a t a s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l , a l e s s o n p r e p a r e d by t h e w r i t e r .  The same l e s s o n o u t l i n e was g i v e n t o  each s t u d e n t  t e a c h e r , a l e s s o n c o n s i s t i n g o f f o u r case  situations.  One case study was chosen f o r a l e s s o n b y each  student  teacher.  The s t u d e n t s ,  study  i n p a i r s , t o o k charge o f a  f i f t y - m i n u t e p e r i o d i n r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d Guidance c l a s s e s i n Grades 9 t o 11, the p e r i o d .  each s t u d e n t  Each s t u d e n t  t a k i n g charge o f t h e c l a s s f o r h a l f  teacher  was g i v e n a s t a n d a r d  intro-  d u c t i o n , and a c o n c l u s i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n t o s t u d e n t s of a r a t i n g form. i n Appendix A.  C o p i e s of t h e l e s s o n o u t l i n e and forms a r e  A l l l e s s o n s were t a p e  recorded.  Two r a t i n g s r e s u l t e d from t h e s e l e s s o n s : 1.  An average of s t u d e n t s ' p o s s i b l e t o t a l of 16,  r a t i n g s , based on a  d e r i v e d from f o u r f o u r -  point scales. 2. An average o f t h e r a t i n g s o f t h r e e (a) two judges, e x p e r i e n c e d who l i s t e n e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y  judges:  Guidance  teachers,  t o the tapes a t the  c o n c l u s i o n of t h e year o f t r a i n i n g  (May, I 9 6 7 ) .  A l l d i r e c t i o n s t o them were conveyed i n w r i t t e n form t o a s s u r e  independence o f judgment.  r a t i n g s were out of a p o s s i b l e 10  points.  These  hi (b) of  the  writer  a possible  the  lessons  evaluated 10 p o i n t s ,  taught.  t a m i n a t i o n on t h e balanced against opportunity having,  of  to  the  the  w r i t e r at  ratings of Copies form g i v e n to reliability It based time  of  be  of the  a basis  the  the  directions  to  students are  judges  s h o u l d be  are  i n the  noted that  y e a r t h a n was  p r e d i c t o r measures. thirty-six  measures—the  measure.  However,  secondary  school  this  program.  of  the  known t o  judges  instruments.  and the  rating  Data c o n c e r n i n g  of d a t a ,  Chapter  c r i t e r i o n measure,  was p e r f o r m e d a t In t h i s  of  the  ratings  the  the of  the  criterion  available  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  IV.  an e a r l i e r  instance,  i n t i m e most  t i m e b l o c k was  the  measurement  one p r e d i c t o r m e a s u r e  the  and  theoretical  c l a i m e d f o r the the  the  comparison  b a s e d on t h e  case s t u d y - - f o l l o w e d  no o t h e r  because  for  from  N e i t h e r c o u l d any of  analysis  closely  In f a c t ,  lessons,  p r e d i c t o r d a t a was  desirable.  c r i t e r i o n measured f o l l o v / e d  w r i t e r may be  i n Appendix A .  on a d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n , i n the  c r i t e r i o n con-  c o n c e r n i n g the  c o n s t r u e d as  out  seeing  F u r t h e r m o r e , though  time.  self-actualization  of  of  reliability resulting  judges.  that  teachers  basis  o b s e r v i n g a l l the  few  none  on t h e  p a r t . o f the  w r i t e r may have a b i a s approach,  student  Any p o s s i b l e  consequently,  available  the  its  in  the  Guidance  k-2 Predictors The measures used as p o t e n t i a l correlates or predictors to the c r i t e r i o n measures were suggested i n part by a statement by T y l e r : A, p r a c t i c a l program for the selection of student teachers and ultimately of teachers, is highly desirable.... Paper and p e n c i l inventories should be supplemented with other types of measurement and evaluation, such as projective techniques and s i t u a t i o n a l tests prepared for the s p e c i f i c problem of predicting teaching efficiency (Tyler, 19$l\., p. 3 O 8 ) . The two general types of measurement used as p o t e n t i a l correlates were,  therefore:  1. Standardized paper-and-pencil inventories which contained c e r t a i n scales considered appropriate to the t h e o r e t i c a l model. 2. Other instruments of the type suggested by Tyler to supplement the data from the standardized inventories, A. Standardized Paper and Pencil  Inventories  The two paper-and-pencil inventories were selected for t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y i n terms of the t h e o r e t i c a l model postulated. Both are oriented to a positive growth approach to personality.  43 Personal O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory The P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y (Shostrum,  1966) was  c r e a t e d t o meet t h e need f o r a comprehensive measure o f v a l u e s and b e h a v i o u r seen t o be o f importance self-actualization.  i n t h e development o f  I t was s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s study because i t  was t h e one known i n v e n t o r y based on the t h e o r y o f s e l f actualization.  Shostrum s t a t e d :  I n r e c e n t y e a r s , Maslow ( 1 9 5 4 * 1962) has d e v e l o p e d t h e i d e a o f the s e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g person--a p e r s o n who i s more f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g and l i v e s a more e n r i c h e d l i f e than does t h e average p e r s o n . Such an i n d i v i d u a l i s seen as d e v e l o p i n g and u t i l i z i n g a l l o f h i s unique c a p a b i l i t i e s , or p o t e n t i a l i t i e s , f r e e o f t h e i n h i b i t i o n s and e m o t i o n a l t u r m o i l of those l e s s s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , Rogers' ( 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 6 1 ) w r i t i n g s as w e l l as those o f t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r (Bramner and Shostrum, I960) r e f l e c t t h e same i d e a and a l l o f t h © 3 e a u t h o r s suggest t h a t such a p e r s o n might be seen as t h e g o a l o f t h e psychot h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s . Many counselors and t h e r a p i s t s have f e l t t h e need f o r a comprehensiv/e measure o f v a l u e s and behaviour- seen t o be o f importance i n the development o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . The P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y (POI) was c r e a t e d t o meet t h i s need (Shostrum, 1966, p. 5 ) . The  POI i s s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g and not speeded.  It  c o n s i s t s of 1 5 0 - t w o - c h o i c e ( p a i r e d opposites) comparative judgments.  value  The items a r e s c o r e d twice:, f i r s t , f o r two b a s i c  s c a l e s o f p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n , i n n e r - d i r e c t e d s u p p o r t (127 i t e m s ) and time competence (23 Items); and second,  f o r t e n sub-  s c a l e s , each o f which measures a c o n c e p t u a l l y i m p o r t a n t of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . self-actualizing  element,  The t e n s c a l e s a r e d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s :  v a l u e s (SAV), e x i s t e n t i a l i t y ( E x ) , f e e l i n g  r e a c t i v i t y ( P r ) , spontaneity (S), self-regard ( S r ) , s e l f -  acceptance  ( S a ) , n a t u r e o f man ( N c ) , synergy  ( S y ) , acceptance o f  aggression (A),•capacity f o r intimate contact ( C ) . In a d d i t i o n to  t h e s e t e n s c a l e s , a t o t a l e s t i m a t e o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n can  be g a i n e d by summing t h e f i r s t  two b a s i c s c a l e s (Shostrum, 1966,  p. 7 ) , and r a t i o s c a l e s based on time competence and inner™ o u t e r d i r e c t e d n e s s may be c a l c u l a t e d f o r p r o f i l e  purposes.  The s c a l e s which appear t o r e l a t e most c l o s e l y t o t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d model a r e : 1. The summed s c o r e o f t h e f i r s t  tv/o b a s i c s c a l e s :  a  g l o b a l score of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , 2. E x i s t e n t i a l i t y :  a measure o f a b i l i t y t o r e a c t  s i t u a t i o n a l l y or e x i s t e n t i a l l y w i t h o u t  rigid  adherence t o p r i n c i p l e s . 3. S e l f - r e g a r d :  a measure o f a f f i r m a t i o n o f s e l f i n  terms of w o r t h and s t r e n g t h . lj.. S e l f - a c c e p t a n c e : acceptance  a measure o f a f f i r m a t i o n o r  o f s e l f i n s p i t e o f weaknesses o r  deficiencies. 3>. C a p a c i t y f o r i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t : a b i l i t y t o develop  a measure o f  c o n t a c t f u l [sic") i n t i m a t e  r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r human b e i n g s . Norms a r e g i v e n i n t h e manual f o r d i f f e r e n t groups — c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , s e l e c t e d o c c u p a t i o n a l groups, and c l i n i c a l g r o u p s , t h e l a r g e s t of w h i c h i s a c o l l e g e freshmen sample o f 2,607.  A p r o f i l e sheet i s p r o v i d e d on which raw s c o r e s can  automatically be converted into standardized scores,  but the  manual gives no information about the group on which the standardized scores are based except to state that the p r o f i l e sheet was constituted from adult norms. Test-rotest r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients  have been obtained  by the authors for POI scales based on a sample of I4.8 undergraduate college students. twice,  The Inventory was administered  a week apart, to the same group with instructions  that  i t was part of the experiment to take the inventory twice. manual reports the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients  f o r the  two major scales of time competence and inner directedness .71 and 08I4. r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  and coefficients  ranging from .55 to . 8 5 .  These coefficients  The  as  for the subscales are reported as  being as high as those reported for most personality measures. However, more data about r e l i a b i l i t y are obviously required. Evidence for v a l i d i t y rests on examples of c l i n i c a l l y selected groups nominated by experts.  Results of one study  (Shostrum, 196ij.) indicated that the Inventory discriminates at the .01 l e v e l between c l i n i c a l l y judged s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d and n o n - 3 e l f - a c t u a l i z e d groups on 11 of the 12 s c a l e s . studies c i t e d i n the manual (Shostrum, 1966,  Other  p. 27) give support  to the claim f o r concurrent v a l i d i t y , i n that the instrument successfully  differentiates  between two groups of  outpatients  i n therapy, one i n the beginning stage and one i n the advanced stage; between two groups, one of h o s p i t a l i z e d p s y c h i a t r i c  p a t i e n t s , t h e o t h e r from t h e nominated s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d sample; and between a group o f seventy a l c o h o l i c s and t h e o r i g i n a l nominated s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d sample. An i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i x (Knapp, 1 9 6 5 ) r e v e a l s t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p among t h e s c a l e s .  The time competence and  i n n e r - d i r e c t e d s c a l e s a r e t h e o n l y s c a l e s t h a t do not have overlapping items.  The c o r r e l a t i o n between them i s i n d i c a t e d  as . ! | 9 . A l l o t h e r s c a l e s c o n t a i n items which c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e measurement o f more t h a n one s c a l e .  The h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s  i n the m a t r i x a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i n n e r - d i r e c t e d s c a l e , . 3 7 t o . 7 1 , a s c a l e w h i c h would appear t o r e p r e s e n t a g e n e r a l in the Inventory. follows:  factor  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e s c a l e s a r e as  Time competence, r ' s o f  . 1 7 to . ! r 9 ; .  Inner d i r e c t e d n e s s ,  r's of . 3 7 t o . 7 1 ; S e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g v a l u e s , r ' s of . 1 5 t o . 5 3 ; E x i s t e n t i a l i t y , r ' s of . 2 l t o . 7 0 ; P e e l i n g r e a c t i v i t y , r ' s of  - . 0 3 to . 6 l { . ;  Spontaneity, r ' s of  . 1 7 to . 7 1 ; Self  regard, r's  o f . 2 1 t o . 6 2 ; S e l f a c c e p t a n c e , r ' s o f . 0 3 t o . 6 3 ; Nature o f man, r ' s o f -.Olj. t o . 5 3 ; Synergy, r ' s o f . 1 2 t o . 5 8 ; A c c e p t a n c e of a g g r e s s i o n , r ' s of -. 0I4: t o r's of  ..6lj.;  Capacity f o r intimate contact  - . 0 2 to . 5 5 . E f f o r t s have been made t o e s t i m a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f f a k i n g  on t h e I n v e n t o r y .  P r o f i l e s o f c o l l e g e samples r e s p o n d i n g  t o the  i n s t r u c t i o n ^Make a good i m p r e s s i o n " a r e g i v e n , and r e v e a l s c o r e s much lower t h a n those o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d Copies  individuals.  of sample q u e s t i o n s from t h e I n v e n t o r y and o f t h e p r o f i l e  sheet a r e i n Appendix B.  hi California  Psychological  Since stage,  the  oriented rather with  the  use  favourable  than to  the  considerable Like  speeded.  of the  C P I was a l s o  to  It  the  Inventory  and p o s i t i v e  this  in  aspects  research associated  consists  CPI is  of  categories of  as  an  and as  with  an  poise,  instrument  it.  organized into as  instrument  personality  self-administering  o f I4.8O i t e m s  Measures  the-exploratory  study  m o r b i d and p a t h o l o g i c a l ,  POI, the  I:  still  selected for  scales w i t h i n four broad Class  POI was  and not eighteen  follows:  ascendancy,  and  self-  assurance. 1. 2. . . 5. 6. Class  II:  Dominance Capacity for status Sociability S o c i a l pre3enco S e l f acceptance Sense of w e l l - b e i n g  Measures  of  (Do) (Cs) (Sy) (Sp) (Sa) (Wb)  socialization,  maturity and  responsibility. 1. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 2. S o c i a l i z a t i o n .Self-control . Tolerance 5>. Good i m p r e s s i o n 6. C orcmunality Class intellectual  III:  Measures  of achievement  (Re) (So) (Sc) (To) (Gi) (Cm) potential  efficiency. 1. A c h i e v e m e n t 2. A c h i e v e m e n t 3. I n t e l l e c t u a l  by c o n f o r m i t y by independence efficiency  (Ac) (Ai) (le)  and  C l a s s IV:  Measures of i n t e l l e c t u a l and 1. Psychological-mindedness 2<> F l e x i b i l i t y 3. F e m i n i n i t y  interest.modes.  (Py) (Fx) (Fe) (Gough,  1961}.,  Three s c a l e s were of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h i s selected f o r t h e i r appropriateness  t o the h y p o t h e s i z e d  p.  study, model.  These t h r e e a r e : 1. S e l f - a c c e p t a n c e : an assessment of f a c t o r s such as sense of p e r s o n a l w o r t h , s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and c a p a c i t y f o r independent t h i n k i n g , and a c t i o n . H i g h . s c o r e r s , s e l e c t e d from c r i t e r i o n groups, a r e d e s c r i b e d a s : i n t e l l i g e n t , outspoken, s h a r p w i t t e d , demanding, a g g r e s s i v e , s e l f - c e n t e r e d ; as b e i n g p e r s u a s i v e and v e r b a l l y f l u e n t ; as p o s s e s s i n g s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and s e i f - a s s u r a n c e . Low s c o r e r s a r e d e s c r i b e d a s : m e t h o d i c a l , cons e r v a t i v e , dependable, c o n v e n t i o n a l , e a s y g o i n g , and q u i e t ; as s e l f - a b a s i n g and g i v e n t o f e e l i n g s of g u i l t and s e l f - b l a m e ; as b e i n g p a s s i v e i n a c t i o n and narrow i n i n t e r e s t s . 2. P s y c h o l o g i c a l - m i n d e d n e a s : a measure of t h e degree, to which the i n d i v i d u a l i s i n t e r e s t e d i n , and r e s p o n s i v e t o , the i n n e r needs, m o t i v e s , and e x p e r i e n c e s of o t h e r s . H i g h s c o r e r s are d e s c r i b e d a s : observant, spontaneous, q u i c k , p e r c e p t i v e , t a l k a t i v e , r e s o u r c e f u l , and changeable; as b e i n g v e r b a l l y f l u e n t and s o c i a l l y a s c e n d a n t , and as b e i n g r e b e l l i o u s toward r u l e s , r e s t r i c t i o n s , and constraints. Low s c o r e r s a r e d e s c r i b e d a s : a p a t h e t i c , p e a c e a b l e , s e r i o u s , c a u t i o u s , and unassuming; as b e i n g slow and d e l i b e r a t e i n tempo; as b e i n g o v e r l y conforming and c o n v e n t i o n a l . 3. F l e x i b i l i t y : an i n d i c a t i o n of the degree of f l e x i b i l i t y and a d a p t a b i l i t y of a p e r s o n ' s t h i n k i n g and s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r .  $)  K9  High s c o r e r s a r e d e s c r i b e d a s : i n s i g h t f u l , i n f o r m a l , adventurous, c o n f i d e n t , humorous, r e b e l l i o u s , i d e a l i s t i c , a s s e r t i v e , and e g o i s t i c ; as b e i n g s a r c a s t i c and c y n i c a l ; and a s h i g h l y concerned w i t h p e r s o n a l p l e a s u r e and d i v e r s i o n . Low s c o r e r s a r e d e s c r i b e d a s : d e l i b e r a t e , c a u t i o u s , , w o r r y i n g , i n d u s t r i o u s , guarded, mannerly, m e t h o d i c a l , and r i g i d ; as b e i n g f o r m a l and p e d a n t i c i n t h o u g h t , and as b e i n g o v e r l y d e f e r e n t i a l t o a u t h o r i t y , custom, and t r a d i t i o n (Gough, 19&4-, PP» 10,11). The C P I c o n t a i n s t h r e e s c a l e s t o a s s i s t i n d e t e c t i n g those s u b j e c t s who d e l i b e r a t e l y exaggerate responses:  or d i s t o r t  their  t h e good i m p r e s s i o n s c a l e , on w h i c h v e r y h i g h s c o r e s  r a i s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f a k i n g or o f an undue concern w i t h making a good i m p r e s s i o n ; the w e l l - b e i n g s c a l e on w h i c h e x c e p t i o n a l l y l o w s c o r e s a r e found among persons  attempting t o  f a k e t h e t e s t ; and t h e communality s c a l e on which v e r y low s c o r e s i n d i c a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t answers have been g i v e n i n some random or u n m e a n i n g f u l way. Though t h e C P I has much i n common w i t h t h e POI i n terms of i t s o r i e n t a t i o n and purpose, t h e development o f i t s s c a l e s has been q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .  The b a s i c method f o r 11 o f t h e s c a l e s  was " e m p i r i c a l k e y i n g " where a p o o l o f items w h i c h seems t o bear p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l e v a n c e t o a c r i t e r i o n d i m e n s i o n a r e assembled i n a p r e l i m i n a r y s c a l e and then a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a group demonstrated i n d e p e n d e n t l y t o possess dimension. retained.  the t r a i t or  Only items which d i s c r i m i n a t e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y were The p s y c h o l o g i c a l - m i n d e d n e s s  t h i s technique.  s c a l e was c o n s t r u c t e d by  The o t h e r two s c a l e s a l l u d e d . t o , self-acc'eptanc  and f l e x i b i l i t y , were c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e t e c h n i q u e o f i n t e r n a l  c o n s i s t e n c y a n a l y s i s , b y which the experimenter  s e l e c t s items  and a s s i g n s w e i g h t s on t h e b a s i s o f a p r e d i c t e d r e l e v a n c e t o the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t  or d i m e n s i o n .  Norms were based on a somewhat heterogeneous sample o f over 13,000.  Though t h e s e numbers were l a r g e and i n c l u d e a wide  range o f ages, s o c i o - e c o n o m i c g r o u p s , and g e o g r a p h i c a l  areas,  no c l a i m was made t h a t t h i s was a random sample of t h e g e n e r a l population.  S e p a r a t e male and f e m a l e norms a r e g i v e n .  S e p a r a t e mean p r o f i l e s f o r s e l e c t e d groups were p r e s e n t e d i n the manual. automatic  The p r o f i l e s h e e t , l i k e t h a t of t h e POI, y i e l d s an  c o n v e r s i o n o f raw s c o r e s i n t o s t a n d a r d i z e d  scores,  based on t h e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m the sample o f 13,000,  Con-  s i d e r a b l e emphasis v/as g i v e n t o p r o f i l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the manual, i t b e i n g made c l e a r t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n among t h e s c a l e s influences p r o f i l e interpretation.  The manual p r e s e n t e d two  s c a l e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i c e s , based on samples t o t a l i n g lj.,098 men and 5*083 women, samples compounded from f i v e samples (Gough, • I96I4., p. I4.O).  These m a t r i c e s  smaller  show l o w i n t e r -  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f from -.13 t o .12, between t h e s c a l e s a l l u d e d t o i n t h i s study.  Evidence f o r r e l i a b i l i t y  o f t h e s c a l e s o f the  CPI was based on two s t u d i e s u s i n g t h e t e s t - r e t e s t method. I n the f i r s t ,  226 h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s , boys and g i r l s , were  t e s t e d t w i c e w i t h an i n t e r v a l o f one year between t e s t i n g . The c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .38 t o *7h> the t h r e e s c a l e s o f  .51 p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t having the f o l l o w i n g  Boys Girls . 6 ? . 7 1 . I i 8 .lj.9 .60 . 6 7 (Gough, 1 9 6 k , p. 1 9 )  1 . Self-acceptance 2 « Psychological-mindedness 3. Flexibility The  lowness o f the r ' s may  correlations:  have r e f l e c t e d i n p a r t the  r a t e s of m a t u r a t i o n among a d o l e s c e n t s .  The  differing  i n t e r v a l of  one  y e a r appears l o n g f o r t e s t e r e t e s t p u r p o s e s . The  second sample c o n s i s t e d of 2 0 0 male p r i s o n e r s r e -  t e s t e d a f t e r one t o t h r e e weeks, w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n s r a n g i n g from .4,9 to . 8 7 ,  w i t h a median o f . 8 0 .  i n t e r e s t had the f o l l o w i n g  The  t h r e e s c a l e s of p a r t i c u l a r  correlations:  1 . Self-acceptance  , 7 1  2 . Psychological-mindedness  . £ 3  3. Flexibility  .4.9 (Gough, 1 9 6 4 ,  E v i d e n c e f o r v a l i d i t y was  p.  o b t a i n e d from c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o . n a l  s t u d i e s c o m p r i s i n g d a t a on c o r r e l a t i o n s between s c a l e s and performance c r i t e r i a . s t u d i e s were r e p o r t e d :  19)  life-  On the s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e s c a l e , t h r e e the f i r s t , o f 7 0 . m e d i c a l s c h o o l  a p p l i c a n t s whose s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d « 3 2  with  s t a f f ' s r a t i n g of s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e ; the second, of 4 . 0 g r a d u a t i n g s e n i o r s i n e n g i n e e r i n g whose s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d - . 5 7 w i t h the s t a f f ' s Q, s o r t i n g of the p h r a s e , "Has  a readiness  t o f e e l g u i l t y " ; the t h i r d , o f 2 O 4 . h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s nominated by p r i n c i p a l s as "highest'' and " l o w e s t " on s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e whose s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e s c o r e s showed d i f f e r e n c e s i n means between the nominated groups s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the . 0 1  level.  52 Studies  on the psychological-mindedness s c a l e r e p o r t e d  sample of 70 U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a medical school whose scores  c o r r e l a t e d .Jjlj. w i t h the P s y c h o l o g i s t  Strong Vocational males whose scores  a  applicants  key on the  I n t e r e s t Blank, and a sample of 152  adult  showed a ,lj.0 c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the same  Strong s c a l e . The  flexibility  s c a l e was shown t o c o r r e l a t e - . 3 6 and  -.•4.8 i n two assessment samples of 1|0 U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a students w i t h s t a f f 3 r a t i n g s o f r i g i d i t y .  In a c o l l e g e  class  of 180 s t u d e n t s , t h i s s c a l e c o r r e l a t e d -=,58 w i t h t h e C a l i f o r n i a P  scale. Y/ith r e g a r d  t h a t there  t o general  Is c o n v i n c i n g  v a l i d i t y of the CPI, K e l l y  evidence t h a t  some v a l i d i t y when judged a g a i n s t Kelly  life  stated.  each o f t h e s c a l e s has performance  criteria,  continues:  A l l i n a l l , the CPI i n t h i s reviewer's o p i n i o n i s one of the best, i f not the b e s t , a v a i l a b l e instrument o f i t s k i n d . I t was developed on the b a s i s of a s e r i e s o f e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s and the evidence f o r the v a l i d i t y of i t s s e v e r a l s c a l e s i s extensive ( K e l l y , 19b5> P« 1 6 9 ) , Copies o f sample q u e s t i o n s from the i n v e n t o r y profile  and o f  sheets are i n Appendix B,  Non-standardized Measures . F i v e measures of a more p r o j e c t i v e or i d i o g r a p h i c and situational  type, as recommended by T y l e r  supplement the data of the s t a n d a r d i z e d  (1954)*  were'used t o  paper-and-pencil  53 inventories, Q, s o r t Q, t e c h n i q u e , developed  by Stephenson  (19i>3), u s e s  the  symbol Q t o d i s t i n g u i s h between-person c o r r e l a t i o n s f r o m r , the symbol f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s , over  persons•  I n t h i s t e c h n i q u e , the s u b j e c t i s p r o v i d e d w i t h a number o f items p l a c e d on c a r d s , w h i c h he s o r t s i n t o a s p e c i f i e d number o f p i l e s a l o n g a continuum r a n g i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e , from s t a t e ments " l e a s t l i k e me s o r t i n g may  n  t o statements  "most l i k e me,"  A second  be performed by the s u b j e c t , by another . s u b j e c t , or  by a judge t o p r o v i d e a c r i t e r i o n or a b a s i s f o r comparison, a c o r r e l a t i o n obtained.  S o r t s may  normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , or f r e e .  be e i t h e r " f o r c e d  and  into a  7 1  I n the p r e s e n t study a " f o r c e d "  normal d i s t r i b u t i o n x^as u s e d , 0,. s o r t s have been used e x t e n s i v e l y i n r e c e n t r e s e a r c h , but some q u e s t i o n s have been r a i s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o the g e n e r a l methodology.  The t e c h n i q u e appears r e l e v a n t t o p e r s o n a l i t y  t h e o r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o the p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l (I96I)  c o n s i d e r s the p r o c e d u r e  approach.  Block  a p p r o p r i a t e f o r complex  p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t i o n s i n a form s u i t a b l e f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a  n  a  l  y  s  i  s  .  .  .  The Q, s o r t of the p r e s e n t s t u d y was  the H a i g h - B u t l e r Q,. .  s o r t , u s e d by C a r l Rogers and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Rogers & Dymond, 1954)  t h e i r r e s e a r c h a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago  Counseling  54 Center.  The Q s o r t c o n s i s t s of 100 i t e m s , and the s t u d e n t was  asked t o s o r t t h e Items t w i c e , a t one s i t t i n g :  the f i r s t  t o d e s c r i b e h i s a c t u a l s e l f ; t h e second t i m e , h i s i d e a l Examples o f items a r e : " I am w o r t h l e s s . "  time  self.  " I am i n t e l l i g e n t " ; "T am s u b m i s s i v e " ;  A c c o r d i n g t o Rogers (Rogers & Dymond, 1954)*  the c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e two s o r t s may be i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n of adjustment.  O r d i n a r i l y , the higher the cor-  r e l a t i o n , the g r e a t e r t h e degree o f adjustment,  but a v e r y h i g h  c o r r e l a t i o n may i n d i c a t e f a k i n g or d e f e n s i v e b e h a v i o u r . p r e s e n t s t u d y , the procedure  In the  used f o l l o w e d t h a t of H a i g h and  B u t l e r (Rogers & Dymond, 1954)-"=conversion of a l l r ' s t o F i s h e r ' s Z s c o r e s and treatment  o f t h e Z s c o r e s as raw s c o r e s  f o r purposes of a n a l y s i s , A f u r t h e r measure o f adjustment  was p r o v i d e d i n t h e  Rogers and Dymond study by a s o r t s e l e c t e d by s i x t h e r a p i s t s as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e s e l e c t i o n of a d j u s t e d persons pp. 76-81}.).  (1954*  The measure was s c o r e d out o f a p o s s i b l e 74> t h e  number o f d i s c r i m i n a t i n g items nominated by t h e t h e r a p i s t s . A c c o r d i n g l y t h e r e a r e two Q-sort measures i n t h i s s t u d y : Q - s o r t r , and t h e adjustment  the  Q, s c o r e .  Copies of t h e items and I n s t r u c t i o n s a r e i n Appendix B. Other measures Three o t h e r measures, d e v i s e d by t h e w r i t e r ,  attempted  t o s i m u l a t e i n seme way d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n t h e Guidance c l a s s r o o m .  These measures were p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e  i n s t r u c t i o n i n classroom methods had commenced i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l year o f t r a i n i n g .  They were:  55  A s e r i e s of c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n a l t e s t s j d e c i s i o n s as t o p r o c e d u r e s  and r e a s o n s  requiring  f o r choice.  T h i s measure was d e s i g n e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e degree of f l e x i b i l i t y  possessed by the student  The r e q u e s t f o r r e a s o n s was e x p e c t e d  teachers.  to give  o p p o r t u n i t y t o student teachers t o d i s p l a y a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d t o t h e o t h e r two dimensions  of  the m o d e l - - 3 e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and c o n c e r n f o r others.  Each q u e s t i o n was marked out o f a p o s s i b l e  f i v e marks, e v a l u a t i o n b e i n g based on e v i d e n c e o f flexibility, others.  s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and c o n c e r n f o r  T h i s measure i s denoted as " Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  A lengthy classroom s i t u a t i o n a l t e s t , decision-making teacher.  requiring  on t h e p a r t of t h e s t u d e n t  T h i s s i t u a t i o n was d e v i s e d t o e s t i m a t e  the same b e h a v i o u r s  as t h e p r e v i o u s measure, b u t  a more d e t a i l e d problem was p r e s e n t e d .  Evaluations  were based on t h e same c r i t e r i a as were used i n t h e questionnaire.  T h i s measure i s denoted as "Case  study." An assignment t o the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s a s k i n g them to  p r e s e n t t h e i r i d e a of a good Guidance l e s s o n .  They were asked  t o g i v e reasons  f o r t h e i r answers.  E v a l u a t i o n s were based on the w r i t e r ' s and knowledge i n t h e a r e a . as "Lesson p l a n . "  experience  T h i s measure i s denoted  56 . Copies o f t h e above measures a r e i n Appendix B. e s t i m a t e as t o r e l i a b i l i t y  o r v a l i d i t y of t h e s e  No  situational  t e s t s was f e a s i b l e , but some c l a i m t o content v a l i d i t y may be made s i n c e t h e s i t u a t i o n s d e p i c t e d were s e l e c t e d from t h e u n i v e r s e o f t a s k s c o n f r o n t i n g t h e Guidance t e a c h e r .  I n a sense  these t e s t s were a m i n i a t u r e o f t h e u n i v e r s e c r i t e r i o n . to  That i s  say, v a l i d i t y e x i s t e d t o tho e x t e n t t h a t t h e t e s t t a s k s  d u p l i c a t e d u l t i m a t e - c r i t e r i o n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g b e h a v i o u r s , and hence they formed a type o f p r o x i m a t e  criterion.  P l a n o f the Research The p l a n of r e s e a r c h was as f o l l o w s : 1. P r e d i c t o r measures. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of paper and p e n c i l i n v e n t o r i e s and t h e o t h e r measures was c a r r i e d out i n t h e f i r s t term o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y y e a r , from September t o November, 1966, a l l measures from a givexi i n s t r u m e n t b e i n g o b t a i n e d a t t h e same t i m e . . 2. C r i t e r i o n measures. (a) The d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s were h e l d i n November, 1 9 6 6 — t h e most c o n v e n i e n t time i n t h e s c h o o l year for  t h e secondary  school involved i n the research  to have s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s t a k e over two weeks of i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e Guidance c l a s s e s .  The r a t i n g s  by t h e w r i t e r were, c a r r i e d out a t t h e time t h e l e s s o n s were taught.; t h e r a t i n g s o f t h e tapes by  the  judges were made i n May, 1967o  (b) The composite t o t a l s and c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s f o r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r performance f r o m t h e F a c u l t y o f i n May, 1 9 6 7 , a t t h e  E d u c a t i o n were o b t a i n e d  close of the p r o f e s s i o n a l year of t r a i n i n g . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms For  t h e purpose o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g  d e f i n i t i o n s were employed throughout t h i s Guidance:  r e f e r s t o the subject  study:  as p r e s c r i b e d by t h e  D i v i s i o n of Curriculum  o f t h e Department o f  E d u c a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Grades 8 t h r o u g h 11. guidance:  a. term i n g e n e r a l  use i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e u s u a l l y  meant t o r e f e r t o a group o f s t u d e n t  services  such as s e r v i c e s t o s t u d e n t s i n g r o u p s ; s e r v i c e s t o s t u d e n t s as i n d i v i d u a l s ; s e r v i c e s to teachers, research  parents,  services  and t h e community; and  ( F r o e h l i c h , 1958).  services are delineated  Guidance  i n contrast t o  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e r v i c e s .  This  i s n o t t h e sense i n which t h e term "Guidance" h a 3 been used i n t h i 3 self-actualization:  defined  study. o p e r a t i o n a l l y as t h e sum o f  the s c o r e s r e c e i v e d  on t h e time competence and  58 i n n e r d i r e c t e d n e s s s c a l e s on the P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory. s t u d e n t t e a c h e r of Guidance:  a term u s e d t o d e s c r i b e  s t u d e n t s i n the F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n e n r o l l e d i n the one-year p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g e l e c t i n g a major i n the f i e l d of superior:  course, Guidance.  d e f i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y as t h o s e s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g a f i r s t - or s e c o n d - c l a s s r a t i n g on the F a c u l t y o f Education's f i n a l for  composite  rating.  The  s e l e c t i n g t h i s c u t - o f f p o i n t i s as (a) c o n c e r n i n t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g  rationale  follows:  institutions  i s t o produce b e t t e r t h a n m i n i m a l l y competen teachers. (b) many of those e l e c t i n g Guidance majors i n t e n d t o pursue p o s t graduate counselling.  work i n  Admission to graduate  school  requires a reasonably high second-class standing. non-superior:  d e f i n e d i n t h i s study as those  students  r e c e i v i n g a f i n a l r a t i n g from the F a c u l t y Of E d u c a t i o n f o r p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g below a  second-  class standing. old:  d e f i n e d as d e s c r i b i n g any s t u d e n t t e a c h e r who 23 y e a r s o f age.  The r e a s o n f o r t h i s  i s over  arbitrary  c h o i c e i s t h a t 2 3 y e a r s of age  i s the t y p i c a l  of  through  s t u d e n t s who  have proceeded  their  age  e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o u t any i n t e r r u p t i o n s . S t u d e n t s over 23 have had o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e s  inter-  spersed w i t h t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l experiences. young;  d e f i n e d as d e s c r i b i n g any s t u d e n t t e a c h e r who i s 23 y e a r s o f age o r younger.  independent  variables:  d e f i n e d as those 36 s c o r e s o b t a i n e d  from t h e C P I ( 1 t o 1 8 ) , t h e POI ( 1 9 t o 3 1 ) , t h e Q - s o r t r and adjustment  s c o r e s ( 3 2 , 33)* t h e  q u e s t i o n n a i r e (3I4.), t h e case s t u d y (3!?), t h e lesson p l a n (36). dependent v a r i a b l e s :  d e f i n e d as those c r i t e r i o n measures  p r o v i d e d by the U n i v e r s i t y r a t i n g s and by t h e demonstration l e s s o n s : rating  University  composite  ( 3 7 ) , U n i v e r s i t y r a t i n g i n c l a s s form  (38),  s t u d e n t r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s ( 3 9 ) , judges' r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s (4.O), U n i v e r s i t y composite  r a t i n g s f o r extreme  groups (I4.I), s t u d e n t r a t i n g s f o r extreme groups 0\2),  judges' r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s f o r  extreme groups (4.3). Research  Questions  The q u e s t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n Chapter categories:  I fall  i n t o two  questions concerning c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of student .  t e a c h e r s o f Guidance,  and q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  these s t u d e n t s i n t o s u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r , on t h e b a s i s o f  s c o r e s on c r i t e r i a . instruments specific  These q u e s t i o n s when r e l a t e d t o t h e  formed t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g  form. 1.  How s t r o n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t betide en t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by student t e a c h e r s and t h e i r s c o r e s on each o f t h e independent variables?  2» How s t r o n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t between t h e r a t i n g s g i v e n b y judges and s t u d e n t s t o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s on the b a s i s o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s and s c o r e s on each o f t h e independent v a r i a b l e s ? 3„ W i l l t h e s c o r e s on t h e independent v a r i a b l e s cont r i b u t e anything t o the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s u p e r i o r s t u d e n t s o f Guidance, on e i t h e r c r i t e r i o n , U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g or d e m o n s t r a t i o n  lesson  performance? W i l l d e a l i n g w i t h p r o f i l e s through procedures  multivariate  y i e l d more i n f o r m a t i o n about the s t u d e n t  t e a c h e r s o f t h i s sample t h a n u n i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s ? In a d d i t i o n , t h e s c a l e s which p u r p o r t t o measure s e l f acceptance  w i l l be examined t o a s c e r t a i n whether any s u b s t a n t i a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p among or between them e x i s t s . r e v i e w e d a l s o i n an attempt  The d a t a w i l l be  t o d i s c o v e r whether c l u s t e r s o f  " l i k e " p e o p l e w i t h r e g a r d t o p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions  are revealed.  61 Statistical The  Procodure-s  s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s used were b o t h u n i v a r i a t e and  m u l t i v a r i a t e i n nature.  A l l d a t a were p r o c e s s e d a t The  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computing C e n t r e , and t h e i n i t i a l p r o c e d u r e s were s i m p l e c o r r e l a t i o n , m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , , and m u l t i p l e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s .  Decisions with regard to  subsequent a n a l y s i s f o l l o w e d e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e d a t a ; t h o s e used • were t h e t t e s t f o r means, a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , and image analysis. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study L i m i t a t i o n s i n t h i s study f a l l  i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s :  t h o s e r e c o g n i z e d a t t h e o u t s e t as i n h e r e n t i n t h e d e s i g n and methodology, and those t h a t became apparent p r o g r e s s e d and wa3 completed. Chapter  as t h e s t u d y  The l a t t e r group i s d i s c u s s e d i n  V. Among t h o most s e r i o u s o f the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s  was  the s i z e and n a t u r e of the sample.  r e s e a r c h e r s (Ryans, of  1960a;  Tyler,  study  A l t h o u g h a number o f  195^)  have advocated s t u d i e s  student t e a c h e r s i n s p e c i f i e d major f i e l d s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e  s m a l l sample s i z e makes s t a t i s t i c a l i n f e r e n c e s i n such s t u d i e s difficult.  Furthermore,  i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , s i n c e the sample  c o n s i s t e d o f a l l t h e students i n t h e major f i e l d i n 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 , no evidence about r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f t h e sample e x i s t e d , and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s would need t o be made v e r y c a u t i o u s l y .  In  a d d i t i o n , the homogeneous n a t u r e of such a p r o f e s s i o n a l group makes i t more d i f f i c u l t  t o see r e l a t i o n s h i p s c l e a r l y .  Some  s t u d i e s suggested t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l groups i n t r a i n i n g courses such as the one  s t u d i e d h e r e , i^rhen examined w i t h r e s p e c t  to  e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n performance, are l i k e l y t o d i s p l a y a skewed c u r v e , w i t h more s u c c e s s f u l t h a n u n s u c c e s s f u l members. p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s may  A  r e s t i n the f a c t t h a t d r o p - o u t s  from a t r a i n i n g c o u r s e are not u s u a l l y i n c l u d e d i n the because of absence of c r i t e r i o n  data.  Some l i m i t a t i o n s e x i s t e d i n terms of t h e used.  Though the CPI p r o v i d e s  study  instruments  s e p a r a t e norms f o r males  and  f e m a l e s , the s m a l l s i z e of t h i s sample group made i t i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o d i v i d e i t i n t o such sub-groups. POI,  i t was  recognized  Also, with  the  t h a t Maslow's r e s e r v a t i o n s about the  use  of such i n s t r u m e n t s w i t h a c o l l e g e group might r e s u l t i n d a t a t h a t would not be m e a n i n g f u l i n terms of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or selection. The  l a c k of d a t a c o n c e r n i n g r e l i a b i l i t y of the  instruments, was  other  which were s u b j e c t a l s o t o the b i a s of t h e w r i t e r ,  of concern. With regard  t o c r i t e r i a , the g e n e r a l l a c k of  standardized  p r o c e d u r e s among judges and r a t e r s g i v e s r i s e t o many c o n c e r n i n g r e l i a b i l i t y of the c r i t e r i a . made t o s t a n d a r d i z e was  questions  Though e f f o r t s were  procedures i n the d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n , i t  not p o s s i b l e to b r i n g t o g e t h e r  e v a l u a t i n g Guidance l e s s o n s  t h o s e F a c u l t y members  i n p r a c t i c e teaching  i n order  to  have agreement on o b j e c t i v e s and p r o c e d u r e s .  Even w i t h t h e  d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s , i t v/as n o t p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e t h e i n f l u e n c e of o t h e r f a c t o r s such as grade l e v e l , p r e v i o u s t e a c h e r , s e x , and t h e time o f t h e day t h e l e s s o n was t a u g h t . Throughout t h e c r i t e r i o n . p r o c e s s , r e l i a n c e was p l a c e d on t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment o f r a t e r s , but l i t t l e  e x t e r n a l ' evidence  of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of these k i n d s o f r a t i n g s appears t o e x i s t . In s p i t e o f t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t was cons i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e t o conduct' t h i s s t u d y on an e x p l o r a t o r y b a s i s s i m p l y t o attempt t o d i s c o v e r some answers t o some i m p o r t a n t questions—answers  which are n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  f u t u r e a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s , and, t o some e x t e n t , t o d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o c o u r s e c o n t e n t and p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s i n training.  Though i t was f e l t t h a t any d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a would  be h e l p f u l , i t was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t any d a t a w i t h p r e d i c t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s would need t o be checked validational  studies.  i n future cross-  CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND  INTERPRETATION OP DATA  A n a l y s i s _of Data The purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s and t h e s e l e c t e d criteria. I n i t i a l processing  of d a t a was p e r f o r m e d by the computer  program (UBC-TRIP) which y i e l d e d means, s t a n d a r d  deviations,  and c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r a l l t h e independent and dependent organized  variables  as f o l l o w s : (a) T h i r t y - 3 i x independent v a r i a b l e s , o r g a n i z e d  as  follows: 1-18:  Scales  o f t h e C P I , Dominance,  Capacity f o r  s t a t u s , S o c i a b i l i t y , S o c i a l presence, S e l f a c c e p t a n c e , Sense of w e l l - b e i n g , R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , S o c i a l i z a t i o n , S e l f - c o n t r o l , T o l e r a n c e , Good impression,  Communality, Achievement v i a  conformance, Achievement v i a independence, Intellectual efficiency, Psychologicalmindedness, F l e x i b i l i t y , I 9 - 3 I : Scales  Femininity.  o f t h e POI, S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n t o t a l ,  Time competence,  Inner d i r e c t e d n e s s ,  Self-  a c t u a l i z i n g values, E x i s t e n t i a l i t y , Peeling • r e a c t i v i t y , Spontaneity, Self-regard, S e l f -  a c c e p t a n c e , Nature  of man,  Synergy,  Acceptance  of a g g r e s s i o n , C a p a c i t y f o r i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t .  32,33J  Q.. s o r t and adjustment  3I4.:  Questionnaire.  3^J  Case s t u d y .  36:  Lesson p l a n ,  scale.  (b) Pour dependent v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t i n g o f : 37:  Composite s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s from the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n as a f i n a l s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g mark.  38:  A two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s t u d e n t i n t o s u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r based on the composite University.  (as d e f i n e d )  r a t i n g from  the  Those r a t e d as s u p e r i o r were  a s s i g n e d v a l u e s of  -I.O7I4.3,  teachers  .5570;  those  non-superior,  f o l l o w i n g a p r o c e d u r e f o r a k i n d of  d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s suggested by Wert, Ahmann, and Neidt 39:  (1951+) •  A score o b t a i n e d by s t u d e n t  teachers.from  student r a t i n g s of d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s . I4.O:  A s c o r e o b t a i n e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s from judges' r a t i n g s o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s .  In a d d i t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s f o r each of the c r i t e r i a on t h a t s e t of two or t h r e e of t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  to  .66 the p r e d i c t i o n  of  criterion  The t o t a l n d u r i n g variables student  was  but  variance.  the a n a l y s i s of the  i n each of  the  composite r a t i n g s  demonstration lessons. criterion  was  situations,  were e x c l u d e d f r o m  because they a l r e a d y  elementary teaching c e r t i f i c a t e s ;  the  the  held  t h r e e were a b s e n t f r o m  As a r e s u l t ,  three  total n for  the  each  I4.I.  (c) to  criterion  t e a c h e r s were n o t r a t e d — t h r e e  University  independent  Dummy d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  (+.5  a  ^d  -.5) w e r e u s e d  i n d i c a t e m e m b e r s h i p i n two e x t r e m e g r o u p s on e a c h o f  variables 4.4,6).  37,  a n d I4.O ( J o h n s o n & J a c k s o n ,  39,  1959,  p p . kh$>  T h i s was done t o alloi>j t h e u s e o f a s t e p w i s e  multiple  r e g r e s s i o n program t o perform a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t The v a r i a b l e s  so c r e a t e d w e r e :  Ij.1:'  Based on p e r s o n s s c o r i n g i n the top 27'-/o o n  4.2:  criterion  c  The f i n d i n g s  of t h i s  bottom  t o p and  bottom  39.  Based on p e r s o n s s c o r i n g i n t h e 27% o n c r i t e r i o n  and  37.  Based on p e r s o n s s c o r i n g i n the 27 /° on c r i t e r i o n  4.3:  analysis.  top. and b o t t o m  4.0.  study are presented i n the  following  way: 1.  The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n i s  2.  The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s  3.  The c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d on t h e  U n i v a r i a t e procedures w i l l  stated. are  stated, findings  be r e v i e w e d f i r s t ;  then,  are presented. multivariate.  67  TABLE 2 CORRELATIONS BETOKEN CRITERION 37 (UNIVERSITY COMPOSITE RATING) AND SCORES ON THE C P I SCALES  CPI S c a l e s  r  CPI S c a l e s  CPI S c a l e s  r  r  1  Do  .lli.76  7  Re  .1712  13  Ac  -.llii7  2  C-3  .3266  8  So  -.061+8  llj.  Ai  -.Ul+8  3  Sy  .1082  9  Sc  -.1270  15  Ie  -.0773  k  Sp  -.0089  10  To  • 3O6O  16  Py  -.0534  5  Sa  -.0839  11  Gi  .0258  17  Fx  -.0020  6  Wb  -.I369  12  Cm  -.Olj.31}.  18  Pe  • 2$2k  N = i|l * p  ^  .05  TABLE 3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERION 3 7 (UNIVERSITY COMPOSITE RATING) AND SCORES ON THE POI SCALES  POI S c a l e s  r  19  Self  20  TC  21  I  22  SAV  23  Ex  2k  Pr  = .0785"  2$  S  .0653  actualization total -  P  {  .05  r  .0821 .O3I4.8  26  Sr  .I38O  27  Sa  -.I663  -.1088  28  Nc  29  sy  .0751 .2210  30  A  -.1050  31  C  ».2667  •1 2 2 6  N = kl  POI S c a l e s  69  TABLE lj. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERION 37 (UNIVERSITY COMPOSITE RATING) AND SCORES ON THE NON-STANDARDIZED MEASURES  32  Q sort  33  Q adjustment  3J4.  Questionnaire  35  Case study  36  Lesson p l a n  N = I4.I * P P  {  .05  "\ .01  ~.l+55l' score  —•12^7 -.Oij.96 .3776^  -.1189  70  Research Question 1 How s t r o n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t between t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s and t h e i r s c o r e s on: 1.  The s c a l e s o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory.  2 . The s c a l e s o f the P e r s o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y . 3. The Q s o r t and t h e adjustment Q s c a l e . I4.. The t h r e e  non-3tandardized  instruments.  The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s a r e as f o l l o w s :  the CPI  s c a l e s i n Table 2> t h e POI s c a l e s i n Table 3 , t h e o t h e r measures i n Table 4 . . As i n d i c a t e d , r e l a t i o n s h i p s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l were found between t h i s c r i t e r i o n and t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : 1.  ( # 2 ) Capacity f o r status (CPI).  2.  ( 7 ^ 2 3 ) E x i s t e n t i a l i t y ( P O I ) — a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p .  3.  ( # 3 2 ) Q s o r t - - a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p .  k-' ( # 3 5 ) Tolerance  (#10,  Case s t u d y .  CPI) was b o r d e r l i n e .  The n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s .revealed I s i n t e r e s t i n g . Only two o f t h e f o u r measures, C a p a c i t y f o r s t a t u s — a s c a l e which c l a i m s t o measure the p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s and a t t r i b u t e s t y p i c a l o f those d e s i r i n g s t a t u s - - a n d t h e case s t u d y , have positive significant relationships.  E x i s t e n t i a l i t y — - a scale  which p u r p o r t s t o measure a b i l i t y t o r e a c t w i t h o u t  rigid.  71 adherence t o p r i n c i p l e s , and which was flexibility—and  h y p o t h e s i z e d t o measure  the Q, s o r t — - h y p o t h e s i z e d t o be a measure of  adjustment—-have n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h i s I t may  criterion.  be noted a l s o t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n .between the  a c t u a l i z i o n s c a l e (#19) and t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s near  self-  zero.  These f i n d i n g s , t h e r e f o r e , appear t o be I n a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h a t h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the model. on t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite an a b i l i t y  Student  r a t i n g showed d e s i r e f o r s t a t u s ,  and  t o p e r f o r m w e l l i n w r i t i n g a case s t u d y a n a l y s i s . Research Question  How  teachers r a t e d high  2  s t r o n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t between the r a t i n g s  g i v e n by s t u d e n t s and by a d u l t judges t o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s  on  the b a s i s of d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s , and t h e i r s c o r e s on t h e selected  instruments?  The l e s s o n s was  c r i t e r i o n of s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s of not pursued  s e p a r a t i o n of s t u d e n t s .  demonstration  because i t 3 i m p l y d i d not There may  Hawthorne . e f f e c t — n e w f a c e s , new  permit  have been some k i n d of  i d e a s , new p r e s e n t a t i o n s — - b u t  f o r whatever r e a s o n , t h e s t u d e n t s ' r a t i n g s were almost u n i f o r m l y v e r y h i g h and t h e r e f o r e of no use The  i n this  study.  r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s between the  judges' r a t i n g s of. d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s ( C r i t e r i o n 1+0) and 36  independent  v a r i a b l e s a r e p r e s e n t e d as f o l l o w s :  s c a l e s i n Table $, the POI s c a l e s i n Table 6, measures i n Table 1,  the  the  CPI  the o t h e r  As i n d i c a t e d , r e l a t i o n s h i p s s i g n i f i c a n t .  72  TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS* BETWEEN CRITERION 4.O ( JUDGES' RATINGS ON DEMONSTRATION LESSON) AND SCORES ON THE C P I SCALES  CPI Scales  r  CPI S c a l e s  r  CPI Scales  r  1  Do  .0585  7  Re  -.0852  13  Ac  -.I845  2  Cs  -.1327  8  So  -.0602  ik  Ai  -,201k  3  Sy  -.1399  9  Sc  -.234.1  15  le  -.2459  k  Sp  -.174-7  10  To  -.I837  16  Py  -.2268  5  Sa  .1207  11  Gi  -.lltflj.  17  Fx  -.2OO3  6  Wb  -.1156  12  Cm  .0703  18  Fe  • 21+39  N = J4.I *P  )  .05 f o r each of t h e s e ; not  significant.  .73  TABLE 6 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CRITERION i+O (JUDGES' RATINGS ON DEMONSTRATION LESSON) AND SCORES ON THE POI SCALES  POI S c a l e s  r  POI  Scales  r  19  Self actualization total -.3671*"'  26  Sr  .0066  20  TC  -379/  27  Sa  -.1996  21  I  -O3I3*  28  Nc  -.1820  22  SAV  -.3883"  29  Sy.  -.3000  23  Ex  -.3165'"'  30  A  -.1933  2k  Fe  -.01+01  31  C  -.1189  25  S  -.O3OI  N = 1+1 «- p  <  .05  TABLE 7 CORRELATIONS'"' BETWEEN CRITERION I}.0 (JUDGES' RATINGS ON DEMONSTRATION LESSON) AND SCORES ON THE NON-STANDARDIZED MEASURES  32  Q sort  -.1139  33  0, adjustment s c o r e  -•O2O3  34  Questionnaire  .0855  35  Case s t u d y  .0719  36  Lesson p l a n  .1422  N = 4l *- p  7  .05 f o r each o f t h e s e ; n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  75 a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l were found between t h i s c r i t e r i o n and the following  variables: 1. (#19) S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n ( P O I ) — a n e g a t i v e relationship. 2»  (#20)  Time competence (POI)--a n e g a t i v e relationship.  3«  (#21)  Inner d i r e c t e d n e s s ( P O I ) — a n e g a t i v e relationship.  I|. ( # 2 2 )  S e l f - a c t u a l - z i n g v a l u e s (POI)--a n e g a t i v e relationship.  5.  (#23)  Existentiality  (POI)--a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n -  ship. I t i s w o r t h r e c a l l i n g t h a t o f these f i v e s c a l e s , f o u r were t h e o r e t i c a l l y b a s i c t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e model, and the f i f t h — t h e h o l d i n g o f v a l u e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s e l f a c t u a l i z e d people — c o u l d viell have been s e l e c t e d f o r s p e c i a l attention.  Y e t , each o f these s c a l e s had a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n .  The c o n c l u s i o n :  t h a t on the c r i t e r i o n of judges' r a t i n g s o f a  d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n , those s t u d e n t s r a t e d s u c c e s s f u l t e n d e d t o score p o o r l y on s c a l e s p u r p o r t i n g t o measure the d i m e n s i o n of self-actualization.  A g a i n , the d i r e c t i o n of t h e s e f i n d i n g s was  o p p o s i t e t o t h a t h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n of the p r e s e n t s t u d y .  Research Question 3 W i l l the s c o r e s on t h e independent  variables contribute  a n y t h i n g t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s of Guidance on e i t h e r c r i t e r i o n , t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite  r a t i n g or t h e  demonstration l e s s o n r a t i n g ? I n o r d e r t o determine  whether any d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d  between the mean s c o r e s on t h e i n s t r u m e n t s of t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two groups as. d e f i n e d ( s u p e r i o r b e i n g those s t u d e n t s w i t h second c l a s s r a t i n g s or b e t t e r ) a t t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e between means was performed,  the r e s u l t s of  x-jhich a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table 8 . , As i n d i c a t e d , t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e means o f the two groups as t e s t e d by t . However, i t may be noted t h a t the s u p e r i o r group had lower s c o r e s  than  t h e n o n - s u p e r i o r group on l l j o f 1 8 CPI s c a l e s , on  s i x of I 3  POI s c a l e s and on one of t h e o t h e r f i v e measures.  In total,  t h e n , the n o n - s u p e r i o r group on t h e c r i t e r i o n had h i g h e r s c o r e s on 2 1 °f 3 6 measures.  T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n was i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f  the p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s of n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the c r i t e r i a and measures s e l e c t e d as a p p r o p r i a t e t o t e s t the model. Because t h i s t r e n d was unexpected  on t h e b a s i s of t h e o r y , i t  was d e c i d e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s between means, u s i n g f o u r bases o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 1.  S u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r on c r i t e r i o n -ij.0, r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s .  judges'  77  TABLE 8 RESULTS OF t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF THE TWO GROUPS, SUPERIOR AND NON-SUPERIOR ON CRITERION 37, ON SCORES ON 36 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES'''"  Variable  t Value  Do  1  1  - .0260  Variable  19 20 21 22  Sa  2  Cs  •21+39  3  Sy  .0375  k  Sp  -  5  Sa  - .6209  2  6  Wb  7  Re  8  So  Total  t Value  - .8106  Tc  .1137  I  -  .9990  SAV  -  .0515  3  Ex  -1.6712  -1.3165  21+  Fr  - .1+665  - .0928 -1.2726 - .1+177  25  S  .7522  26  Sr  27  Sa  .7235 .I835  28  Nc  29  sy  Cm  - .0192 - .3968  30  A  Ac  - .6812  C  A'i  - .81+81  31 32  15  Ie  -  16  Py  - .1+276  17 . 18  Fx Fe  9 10  Sc  11 12  Gi  To  .7751  I.I4.28I  .911+1+ .28I3 .1890 - .6359  Q, s o r t  33 3l+  questionnaire  -1.0569  35  ease s t u d y  1.0508  36  lesson  .3529  adjustment  plan  N' = hi df = *- p  39 /  .05 f o r each o f t h e s e ; not  significant.  .4513 -1.0868 .1067 1.8072 .6518  78 2« Male and f e m a l e . 3. O l d and young (as d e f i n e d ) . 4.. The f i v e s t u d e n t s s u p e r i o r on two c r i t e r i a ,  37 and  I4.O, and t h e seven s t u d e n t s n o n - s u p e r i o r on these two  criteria.  The r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 9 t o l2»  As  I n d i c a t e d I n Table 9 , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r groups on c r i t e r i o n 4.O were found on t h e f o l l o w i n g CPI v a r i a b l e s : Socialization,  S o c i a l p r e s e n c e , Sense o f w e l l - b e i n g ,  and I n t e l l e c t u a l e f f i c i e n c y .  I t i s noteworthy  t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were a l l i n t h e n e g a t i v e d i r e c t i o n , I . e . , the means o f t h e group judged s u p e r i o r on c r i t e r i o n lj.0 were lower t h a n those of the group judged n o n - s u p e r i o r , on t h e s c a l e s mentioned.  I n a d d i t i o n , i t may be observed t h a t on t h i s  c r i t e r i o n , the n o n - s u p e r i o r group s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n t h e s u p e r i o r group on 1.6 of "18 C P I s c a l e s , on n i n e o f 13 POI s c a l e s , and on t h r e e of t h e other f i v e m e a s u r e s — a t o t a l of 28 o f 36 scales.  Though not a l l o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t ,  they a r e , n e v e r t h e l e s s , a l l i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n — o p p o s i t e t o that hypothesized i n the present  study.  As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 1 0 , i n a comparison  of d i f f e r e n c e s  between means o f men and women, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d , but a g a i n t h e r e was an o b s e r v a b l e t r e n d , though not so definite  a one i n t h i s i n s t a n c e .  Men s c o r e d h i g h e r on n i n e o f  18 CPI s c a l e s , on t e n . of 13 POI s c a l e s and on t h r e e o f t h e  TABLE 9 RESULTS OP t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF THE TWO GROUPS, SUPERIOR AND NON-SUPERIOR ON CRITERION 1+0, ON SCORES ON 36 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES  Variable  t Value  19  Sa t o t a l  -1.2097  - .11+57  20  Tc  sy  -lJ+780  21  I  k.  Sp  -3.1311**  22  SAV  5  Sa  -  23  Ex  - . 1134.  6  Wb  -2o2082*'  2i+  Fr  .51+81  7  Re  25  S  • 381+8  8  So  -2.0800 '' V  26  Sr  - .3191  9  Sc  - .0326  27  Sa  -I.683I  10  To  -1.9766  28  Nc  - .6193  11  Gi  -1.5633  29  sy  -1.7101+  12  Cm  - .5206  30  A  - .3681  13  Ac  -1.7875  31  C  -  14  Ai  -1.7578  32  Q, s o r t  -1.7957  15  le  -2.6288*  33  adjustment  -I.7667  16  Py  -1.21+78  31+  questionnaire  17  Fx  -I.524.7  35  case s t u d y  18  Fe  1.9710  36  lesson plan  Variable  t Value  1  Do  - .51+98  2  C3  3  *• P *>- p  <N  .05  ^ .01  N = 1+1 df - 39  .1+225 >  .7003  . 224.0 -1.1067 J+O36  .7633  0921+ 1.6159 - .6325  80 TABLE 1 0 RESULTS OP t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OP MEN AND WOMEN ON 3 6 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES**  Variable  t Value  Variable  t Value  19 20 21  Sa  I  • 01!J,9 - .9755 .2676  22  SAV  -  23 2k 25 26  Ex  •2333 -1.4.64.5  Sr  •9 3 3 7 I.0819  - .0787 ' 28 -.0071  Sa  1.1+96?  Nc  1.132)+ 1.1I+26 .3631  .1598  1  Do  2  Cs  - .5551+  3  sy  k  Sp  - .8636 .6567  •$>  Sa  .8661  6  Wb  7  Re  .7592 -1.1608  8  So  1.3396  9  Sc  10  To  11 12 13  Gi Cm  .4570 1.8501  Ac  .4.150  Ai  - .3322 - .7029 1.1268 - .1+852 - .5328  15  le  16  Py  17  Fx  18  Pe  total  Tc  Fr S  29  sy  30  A  31 32 33  C Q, s o r t  3k  questionnaire  3$  case s t u d y  36  lesson plan  adjustment  N = kk df = p  7  .05  f o r each o f t h e s e ; not s i g n i f i c a n t .  .951+3  • 9kA-  1.1781 .7263 - .2237 - 1.0569 .6878  •81 TABLE 11 RESULTS OF t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES . BETWEEN MEANS OF OLD AND YOUNG ON 36 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES  Variable  Variable 0  t Value  t Value  1  Do  .836I+  19  Sa  2  Cs  1.221+2  20  Tc  3  sy  .4924  21  I  4  Sp  .5112  22  SAV  1.2354  5  Sa  1,2113  23  Ex  I.I63O  6  Wb  1.6880  24  Fr  1.1780  7  Re  2.1727*"  25  S  -  .6032  8  So  - .11+28  26  Sr  -  .5919  9  Sc  1.4102  27  Sa  -  .6240  10  To  .7325  28  Nc  -  .81+78  11  GI  .0935  29  Sy  -  .9453  12  Cm  -I.O3I8  30  A  -I.I3I2  13  Ac  •1.5462  31  C  -  ll+  Ai '  .9259  32  Qi s o r t  -1.0124  15  Ie  .3065  33  adjustment  16  Py  2.2575*  34  questionnaire  -1.8726  17  Fx  .0328  35  case s t u d y  -1.5890  18  Fe  .7535  36  lesson  -I.3940  * p  K  N = l|i+ d f = 1+2  .05  -  total  1.0577 1.6810 .9707  plan  .I+826  .3239  82 TABLE 1 2 RESULTS OP. t TEST FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OP TOP FIVE AND BOTTOM SEVEN ON CRITERIA 3 7 AND 1+0 ON 3 6 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES  Variable  Mean D i f f e r e n c e  1  Do  .6861).  2 3  Cs  -1.0501  Sy  k  Sp  5  Sa  6  Wb  - .3582 - .6275 - .5692 -2.9538*  7  Re  - .561+5  8  So  9  Sc  Variable 19  Sa t o t a l  20 21 22 23  Tc  -1.8955 -1.0511  I  -2.0206  SAV  -1.0625  Ex  -2.7802*  Fr  -1.01+51+  25  S  - .97^2  26  Sr  27  Sa  - .1939 - .8168  28  Nc  . 2h  10  To  -3«257l+ ~'" -2.5610* -1,0881  11  Gi  -1.51+68  29  Sy  12 13  Cra  .5513  A  Ac  -1.9761  ll+.  Ai  15  Ie  -I.I309 -1.9190  30 31 32  16  Py  17 18  Fx  - .4139 .0507  Fe  2.01+79  *- p p  .05 \. 0 1  (  v  Mean D i f f e r e n t  33 3V 35 36  - .Olj.00 -1*8!|.02  C  - .507V -3.5701**  Q sort  -1.7785  adjustment  -1.1891+  questionnaire  - .2230 .5785 .7352  case s t u d y lesson plan  8 other five measures—a t o t a l of 22 of 3& scales.  3  Though these  results are not- s i g n i f i c a n t l y different from chance, they did suggest possible avenues of further enquiry. As indicated i n Table 11, In a comparison of between old and young (as defined), differences  differences  s i g n i f i c a n t at  the .05 l e v e l were found on the CPI variables R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and Psychological-mindedness.  These two variables are  interesting i n that they are quite frequently thought of as aspects of maturity—the a b i l i t y to be responsible, and to consider others—and as one might expect,  older people scored  more highly on these 3 c a l e s than did the young student  teachers.  The same general trend was observable on the other scales, though the differences were not  significant.  Table 12 shows a comparison of differences between means of the f i v e students i n the class who were judged superior on C r i t e r i a 37 and i+0, and the seven students judged non-superior on these c r i t e r i a .  These groupings suggested themselves from  inspection of scores on the c r i t e r i a , and the coincidence of the top five being women and the bottom seven being men, prompted further i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  Significant differences at the  ,01 l e v e l on the S o c i a l i z a t i o n scale (CPI) and on the Capacity for intimate contact (POI) and at the .05 l e v e l on the Sense of well-being scale (CPI), Self control (CPI), and the E x i s t e n t i a l i t y scale (POI) were revealed.  A l l the values were  i n the negative d i r e c t i o n , indicating that the top five students  81+ scored lower students.  on t h e f i v e s c a l e s t h a n d i d t h e bottom seven  The same t r e n d was o b s e r v a b l e by i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e  o t h e r means on which t h e t o p group s c o r e d h i g h e r on o n l y f i v e o f 36 s c a l e s .  As t h e t o p f i v e s t u d e n t s were women and  c l a s s i f i e d as young, and of t h e bottom seven men, s i x were o l d e r , the q u e s t i o n was r a i s e d :  was t h e r e some I n t e r a c t i o n  e f f e c t between sex and age? In an attempt t o • answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e f u l l sample was c a r r i e d out t o a s c e r t a i n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e main e f f e c t s , sex and age, and t h e i r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e c r i t e r i a 37 and 1+0.  interThe  c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s were d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 13, w h i c h a l s o shows the c a t e g o r y means. approximate method o f expected (Myers,  1966,  i n Tables  p. 10)4.}.  II4. and 1$,  Therefore, the  c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s v/as used  The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s a r e shown They i n d i c a t e t h a t on b o t h c r i t e r i a , t h e  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between sex and age were s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .001 however.  level.  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  the3e  d a t a was n o t easy,  Though t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were l a r g e , and on  b o t h c r i t e r i a a l l women s c o r e d h i g h e r .than a l l men, n e v e r t h e l e s s , on c r i t e r i o n 37, young men s c o r e d h i g h e r than o l d men, whereas on c r i t e r i o n 1+0, t h e t r e n d was r e v e r s e d . t h e r e f o r e , was not complete.  The c r o s s - o v e r ,  N e v e r t h e l e s s , some k i n d o f i n t e r -  a c t i o n c e r t a i n l y appeared t o be o p e r a t i n g .  In a d d i t i o n , the  main e f f e c t of sex was s i g n i f i c a n t , a t t h e . 05> l e v e l on c r i t e r i o n 37,  a t t h e .01 l e v e l on c r i t e r i o n 1+0.  85  TABLE 13 MEANS ON CRITERIA 37 AND I4.O WHEN SUBJECTS ARE CLASSIFIED BY SEX AND AGE  Criterion 37  Criterion  X = 35  X  36.I4.  M X = 60I  n =" 3  n  15  n = 2  X = 3I.9  X = 37.25  n = 19  n =  M  Ij.  X =  6.6  n = 18  N = I4.I  Key:  X" = 6 . 9 n = 15 X ~  6.7  n =  6 N = 1+1  C r i t e r i o n 37  U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g  C r i t e r i o n I4.0  judges' r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n  Y 0  M  E  X n  young old male female c e l l mean c e l l frequency  TABLE llj. ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE (METHOD OP EXPECTED CELL FREQUENCIES) FOR AGE, SEX, AND INTER-• ACTION ON CRITERION 37  Sources of Variance  df  A  (Age)  1  B  16.26  (Sex)  1  I33.3I  1  50,083.83  AB (Age x Sex) S/AB w i t h i n c e l l s " w  P  MS  l,37 ~ 4»H  f  o  r  P  <  .05  P  <  .001  *°5  37  level  25.3  .6i|.  5.26*  1979.6****  .87  TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (METHOD OF EXPECTED CELLFREQUENCIES) FOR AGE, SEX, AND INTERACTION ON CRITERION 1+0  Sources o f Variance (Age)  1  B  (Sex)  1  2.65 17.83  1 37  171+9.32 1.21  S/AB  if  MS  A  AB  F  df  Ji  (Age x Sex) " w i t h i n c e l l a"  = 7 . 3 7 for .01  p  \ .01  p  < .001  level  F  2.19 ll+.7l|** 11+1+5.61+***  88 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n Ij. W i l l dealing with p r o f i l e s , i . e . patterns  of scores,  t h r o u g h m u l t i v a r i a t e p r o c e d u r e s y i e l d more i n f o r m a t i o n the  s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s o f t h i s sample t h a n u n i v a r i a t e  about  techniques?  Though the s m a l l n e s s o f the sample i n t h i s s t u d y made r e l i a n c e on m u l t i v a r i a t e p r o c e d u r e s u n w i s e , n e v e r t h e l e s s i t was c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e t o see whether such p r o c e d u r e s would support o r f a i l t o support the f i n d i n g s o f the u n i v a r i a t e procedures. A p p l i c a t i o n of stepwise r e g r e s s i o n  techniques r e s u l t e d  i n t h e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s t h a t combined t o p r e d i c t each c r i t e r i o n . contrary  However, t h e y u s u a l l y had a weight  t o t h a t h y p o t h e s i z e d , and o c c a s i o n a l l y t h e r e were  contradictions.  The s c a l e s which w e i g h t e d p o s i t i v e l y were:  S o c i a l i z a t i o n ( C P I ) , Nature o f man ( P O I ) , and t h e Q s o r t . Those w e i g h t i n g n e g a t i v e l y were: Existentiality  (POI).  Synergy (POI) and  On the whole, however, t h e t r e n d would  appear t o have been i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n as that- I n d i c a t e d by the use of u n i v a r i a t e p r o c e d u r e s , namely t h a t s c a l e s the model says s h o u l d s e l e c t good c r i t e r i o n people i n f a c t d i d n o t : i n d e e d , t h e r e v e r s e tended t o be t r u e .  that  The e q u a t i o n s appear i n  Appendix C. Two t e c h n i q u e s -were used i n a t t e m p t i n g t o p r e d i c t group membership, where t h i s i s d e f i n e d  as b e l o n g i n g t o the t o p or  bottom 21% o f t h e group, on each o f t h e c r i t e r i a , t h e U n i v e r s i t y  89  composite r a t i n g and t h e r a t i n g of t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n : the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n , one t e c h n i q u e f o r m a x i m i z i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between means, and image a n a l y s i s of t h e Q-sort answers. The e q u a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from t h e use of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s supported t h e c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d throughout t h i s  study--  the appearance o f a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and t h e c r i t e r i a .  The s c a l e s w e i g h t i n g  n e g a t i v e l y were E x i s t e n t i a l i t y ( P O I ) , S o c i a l i z a t i o n ( G P I ) , S e l f - a c t u a l i z e d v a l u e s ( P O I ) , Synergy  (POI), and t h e L e s s o n  p l a n ; those w e i g h t i n g p o s i t i v e l y were Communal i t y  (CPI), a  .measure o f t h e tendency t o f o l l o w a mode, and t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The  e q u a t i o n s a r e i n Appendix  C.  F o l l o w i n g the s u g g e s t i o n made by B l o c k -(1961) o f g r o u p i n g i n d i v i d u a l s on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r ' Q - s o r t and t h e n a n a l y z i n g independent  responses,  sources of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the  c o r r e l a t e s of group membership, image a n a l y s i s was performed  on  the d a t a o f t h e Q s o r t t o a s c e r t a i n whether c l u s t e r s o f people c o u l d be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h e answers they had g i v e n t o t h e 100 items o f t h e Q s o r t .  (Only t h e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n items were  used.) Image a n a l y s i s i s c o n s i d e r e d s u i t e d t o t h e problem o f i t e m - a n a l y s i s , when t h e major f a c t o r s are r e p r e s e n t e d by more t h a n one i t e m .  The concern i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .was t o d i s c o v e r  common a s p e c t s of the persons measured..  90  Veldman c i t e s Guttman's image t h e o r y as a s o l u t i o n t o the "communality" problem.  He s t a t e d :  , , . o i m a g e theory defines a matrix c a l l e d G s o l e l y i n terms of the R m a t r i x . T h i s G m a t r i x c o n t a i n s image c o v a r i a n c e s w h i c h r e p r e s e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o n l y t h e common p o r t i o n s of the o r i g i n a l v a r i a t i o n s , where "common" means "shared by two or more v a r i a b l e s . " The t o t a l amount o f common v a r i a t i o n f o r an o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e i s t h e square o f the m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n a t t a i n e d by p r e d i c t i n g i t f r o m a l l o t h e r v a r i a b l e s I n the set....When some of t h e v a r i a t i o n i s unique t o s i n g l e v a r i a b l e s , t h e number o f factor's e x t r a c t e d under the u s u a l c r i t e r i o n of an e i g e n v a l u e o f 1.0 w i l l y i e l d fewer f a c t o r s t h a n w i l l a n a l y s i s of t h e R m a t r i x . K a i s e r (I963) has suggested e x t r a c t i n g and r o t a t i n g a number o f f a c t o r s e q u a l t o one h a l f t h e number of o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s (Veldman, 196?, pp. 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 ) . In t h i s i n s t a n c e , persons were r e g a r d e d as v a r i a b l e s , and 'with an n o f I4.3, t h e number o f f a c t o r s c a l l e d f o r was 2 l . K a i s e r r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h i s number o f f a c t o r s i s almost bound to  be more t h a n can be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h any c o n f i d e n c e , b u t h i s  r e s e a r c h has c o n v i n c e d him t h a t i n image a n a l y s i s r o t a t i n g t o o many f a c t o r s does no harm, and p e r m i t s the i n v e s t i g a t o r t o i n t e r p r e t as many f a c t o r s as he f e e l s a b l e t o . In t h i s a n a l y s i s , common v a r i a n c e i s t h a t p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i a n c e o f a p e r s o n , over a l l 100 i t e m s , t h a t can be p r e d i c t e d from the o t h e r p e r s o n s '  scores..  I f i t can be p r e d i c t e d  from them., t h e n i t must share something i n common with. them. Any f a c t o r i s o l a t e d by the a n a l y s i s must have a t l e a s t two persons  l o a d i n g on i t , a l t h o u g h , when t h e t o t a l amount of  v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d g e t s down t o v e r y s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e s ,  the  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e persons viho " i d e n t i f y " the f a c t o r  may  91  become d i f f i c u l t . The  c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i x r e s u l t i n g from t h e a n a l y s i s o f  t h e r e p l i e s o f t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s was c o n v e r t e d t o a m a t r i x o f image c o v a r i a n c e s r e v e a l i n g a common v a r i a n c e o f 7402$« degree o f " s h a r e d " v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s t u d e n t  This  teachers  had a g r e a t d e a l i n common i n t h e i r way o f r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e Q, sort.  ( T h i s f i n d i n g would appear t o . a g r e e w i t h t h e p o s i t i v e  x^eighting o f t h e Communality s c a l e i n t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s . ) A s u b - c l u s t e r o f t h r e e p e r s o n s , however, d i d not appear t o belong t o t h e s e t , as t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s and image c o v a r i a n c e s f o r them were l a r g e l y n e g a t i v e , A p r i n c i p a l a x i s a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d , e x t r a c t i n g 21 f a c t o r s , i n accordance w i t h K a i s e r ' s (1963) recommendation t o e x t r a c t about h a l f as many.factors f a c t o r s accounted (97«l6/0«. attempt  f o r almost  interpretation.  t h e e n t i r e common v a r i a n c e  or f a c t o r s t h a t had a r e a s o n a b l y  clear  Only l o a d i n g s above .30 were n o t e d , and t h i s  i s o l a t e d f o u r f a c t o r s vrhich appeared t o r e p r e s e n t  interpretable "clusters' answers.  These 21  A varimax r o a t i o n a n a l y s i s was performed i n an  t o g e t dimensions  procedure  as v a r i a b l e s .  5  of p e o p l e  i n terms o f t h e i r  Q-sort  Twelve other f a c t o r s each had o n l y one p e r s o n w i t h a  l o a d i n g o f over  ,3O, and s i n c e each o f these f a c t o r s  represented  about 2$ o f the v a r i a n c e , no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f them was attempted. . F a c t o r 1, r e p r e s e n t i n g 30..29'^ o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e , appeared t o c l u s t e r 10 people " s t r o n g l y , " 19 p e o p l e l e s s " s t r o n g l y , " and  92 t h r e e people I n an a n t i - f a c t o r 1 group.  At t h i s p o i n t , the  responses o f t h e s e I n d i v i d u a l s were i n s p e c t e d , and t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h were r a n k e d s i m i l a r l y by t h e whole group were isolated.  I n a d d i t i o n , persons l o a d i n g h i g h on one o f t h e  f o u r f a c t o r s and low on another were i d e n t i f i e d ; t h e n t h e i r most d i s c r i m i n a t i n g r e s p o n s e s viere s t u d i e d , i , e . o n l y t h o s e answers w e i g h t e d as "most l i k e me" o r " l e a s t l i k e me,"  i n the  t h r e e extreme p o s i t i o n s a t each end o f t h e n i n e c a t e g o r y Q s o r t , were r e v i e v i e d .  I n t h i s wa.j i t was p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h  among t h e f a c t o r s . I t t h e n appeared t h a t F a c t o r 1 c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way.  People l o a d i n g h e a v i l y on i t c o n s i d e r e d s e l f -  c o n t r o l no problem, l i k e d people and l i v e d c o m f o r t a b l y w i t h those around them- coped e f f e c t i v e l y , were o p t i m i s t i c , made t h e i r own d e c i s i o n s , were not a t a l l h o s t i l e , f e l t c o n t e n t e d , c o n s i d e r e d themselves r a t i o n a l and t o l e r a n t , l i k e d and were s a t i s f i e d with  themselves  t h e m s e l v e s , and thought t h e y u n d e r s t o o d  themselves. People l o a d i n g h e a v i l y on F a c t o r 2 had a sense of f a i l u r e , f e l t unworthy, had doubts about s e x u a l powers,.and tended t o be p o i s e d . People l o a d i n g h e a v i l y on Factor  1  3 seemed t o possess a  s t r o n g " m a s c u l i n e " q u a l i t y , were r e s p o n s i b l e but s t u b b o r n , had a f e e l i n g of a l o n e n e s s i n crowds, f e l t t h e i r h a r d e s t b a t t l e was w i t h t h e m s e l v e s , c o n s i d e r e d themselves as i n t e l l i g e n t .  The  o n l y persons l o a d i n g s t r o n g l y on F a c t o r 10  negative loadings.  had  These p e r s o n s c h a r a c t e r i z e d themselves as  ambitious, hard-working,  a b l e t o make t h e i r own  decisions.  So  F a c t o r 10 would appear to be a l a i s s e z - f a i r e s o r t of f a c t o r . Because the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those people by F a c t o r 1 appeared to be r e a s o n a b l y hypothesized  s i m i l a r to  identified those  i n the model of t h i s s t u d y , t h e i r s c o r e s on  three  s c a l e s , the s e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g t o t a l and the two Q measures, and on f o u r c r i t e r i a are p r e s e n t e d t h e 19 people  i n Table 16.  A l s o i n c l u d e d are  h i g h on F a c t o r 1, but n o t . s o h i g h as the  group of t e n .  first  I n s p e c t i o n of the c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h r e e  o f t h i s t o t a l group o f 29 were r a t e d i n the top 12 on c r i t e r i a ; f i v e were r a t e d i n the top 12 on one  two  criterion,  and  not i n the lowest 12 on the o t h e r ; t h r e e were r a t e d i n the 12 on one  c r i t e r i o n and  top  i n the bottom 12 on t h e o t h e r ; and s i x  were r a t e d i n the bottom 12 on b o t h c r i t e r i a .  I t would seem,  t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y i n the d i r e c t i o n , of n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between measures of a c t u a l i z a t i o n and c r i t e r i a are f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d  by  self-  image  a n a l y s i s o f answers on the Q s o r t . An i n t e r e s t i n g thought f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a r i s e s from this analysis.  S i n c e F a c t o r 1 people  appear t o be  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d , i t might be u s e f u l t o d e v i s e an  relatively instrument  u s i n g o n l y the items t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e the F a c t o r 1  people.  Such a measure would need t o be s u b j e c t e d t o a good d e a l of  TABLE 1 6 SOME DATA ON PEOPLE LOADING ON FACTOR 1  Criteria  C l a s s means  # 3 2  #19  #33 1+5.7  108.8  .9837  98 96 116 101+ 127 5 6 117 7 115 8 99 9 126 10 112 1 118 2 122 3 121 77 k 1 1 1 5 6 115 7 105 8 99 9 108 1 0 111+ 11 113 12 117 13 111 ll+ 1 0 5 15 7 9 16 1 1 9 17 1 2 2 18 118 19 1 0 5  1.1+365 1.7736 3.800 1.081+9 1.0098  55 50 50  1.5725 1.1979  1+8  1 2 3 4  Not  1+9  I.I+828  57 50  1.6734I.6O89  51 56 53  .8611+ .8973 .9118 .1^999 1.0505 1.1+171 1,0082 .1+722 .9681+ 1,11+1+7 .'24-90 1.21+19 .2038 .6117 .701+2 1.1070 I.I+828  .9591+  I.OO82  rated.  1+7 44 4-9 1+6 1+8 1+8 1+9 1+5  50  1+9 1+1+ 1+5  1+6 1+8 1+1+ 44 51 50  1+9  #37  Total possible  50 29 27 18 31 36 29 1+0 3423 36 36 36 36 31 28 38 28 36 1+2 36 1+0 36 34 30 36 31  #1+0  Total possible  10 6.3 5.2 6.8 1+.8 6.6 5.3 7.9 6.7 6.1  5.7 7.5 7.7 8.6 6.9 7.2 5.1 7.2 8.8 5.7 6.9 6. 0 6.0 6.1 7.7 7.1 6.2 1+.8 5.1  „ #^1  #lt-3 -  [Extreme groups [Upper & Lower  L L L L  L L  L  L  U  U  L  L U U  U  L L  L  U  U  L  L  U  L L L  U U  U  L L  L L  95 construct v a l i d a t i o n , but i t could provide a promising approach to the assessment of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . One other procedure was used i n the examination of the data.  Those scales which purported to measure the dimension  of self-acceptance were reviewed t o discover whether any r e l a t i o n s h i p among them e x i s t e d .  The c o r r e l a t i o n s between  measures are shown i n Table 17. Three of these were over ,5>0, namely the Self-acceptance and S e l f - r e g a r d scales of the POI, the S e l f - r e g a r d s c a l e of the POI and the adjustment Q, s c a l e , and the Q, sort and the adjustment Q, s c a l e . acceptance  The CPI S e l f -  scale c o r r e l a t e d w i t h no other " s e l f " measure a t a  s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l , and the Q sort only with the adjustment Q, scale.  Therefore, not too much i n common was r e v e a l e d among  the f i v e measures purporting to measure self-acceptance. Data Regarding  Instruments  In a study such as t h i s where one i s attempting to i n t e r pret data, a t t e n t i o n i s focussed on three areas of the study: the instruments, the c r i t e r i a , the sample. An examination of the instruments was necessary to supplement the assumption of the v a l i d i t y o f the instruments, C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory An i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l matrix f o r the CPI based on t h i s sample i s found i n Table 18. I t may be observed that the  96  TABLE 1 7 CORRELATION AMONG SELF-ACCEPTANCE MEASURES  Sr(POI) S e l f a c c e p t a n c e (POI) S e l f r e g a r d (POI) S e l f a c c e p t a n c e (CPI) Q, s o r t  #«• p  .52*'*  Sa(CPI)  . 1 2  Q. s o r t  0, a d j .  . 1 8  - . 0 6 . 1 6  . 1 9 .52*"'"'  . 0 8 . 0 2 . 5 3 " "  <  . 0 1  TABLE 13" CPI SCALE INTERCORRELATIONAL MATRIX FOR THE SAMPLE OF STUDENT TEACHERS  Cs  Do  Sy  . 13  .32 .3?  Cs  Sy J.  Sa V/b Re So 'OC  To Gi Cm  Ac  Sp  To  Gi  Cm  .01 .27 .02. -.25 .11 .02 .23 .02 -.17 .33* .17 .3? .02 .12 .18 .32 - . 0 2 .29 —. 12 - . 0 1 - . 0 4 - . 0 3 - . 0 2 - • 9.1- • ? 2 --Q2 .19 .46 •II •) .21 .3o .12 • 35  .02 .01 .01 .04  .02 .07 .31 .21 .05 .15 .18  Sa  V/b  Re  So  Sc  -M  •92 .52  Ai  le  .25 -.22  .12  Ac  le Pv  -.02 .19 .13 .12 .05 .01 .34  Fe  .02 .02 ..11,. .3d"  .01 •26  .26 .01  M  .39  .43  .56  •91  -.25  •• 9.1  .60  .41  .42  •55  .4^>  .13  .32  .28  .01  .10 .40  .25;  .45  .02 -.34" .01 .23  .19  •°2 -.16  .31 .4§ -.01  - /.ci  .33  M  .50  . 0 8  .16  .60  -.11 -.01  .32  .02 .12 .30 . 54  •3§  .24  .36  .35  .02  - . 3 2 .02 •3.1 •3? .17 - . 2 6 .01 .55 - - I i .52 . 3 ! .02 .30 _ i 'i .05  .19  Ai  Fx  Py  _  .21  00  — * j (~ -.08^  •°1  — • — 1  P  < .01  98 i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among s c a l e s i s g e n e r a l l y n o t h i g h ,  although  t h e r e a r e 23 c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y non-zero a t t h e .05 l e v e l , 31 a t t h e 01 6  l e v e l , out o f a p o s s i b l e t o t a l number o f  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f 15>3«  S c a l e s which do o v e r l a p o t h e r s  consider-  ably a r e the f o l l o w i n g : (Wb), h a v i n g r ' s from .I4.I t o ,68  1, W e l l - b e i n g  with  nine s c a l e s . 2,  Tolerance  ( T o ) , h a v i n g r ' s from ,32  t o .54 w i t h  eight scales. 3, Achievement by c o n f o r m i t y •32 li.  The  t o 060 with t e n s c a l e s ,  Intellectual •32  ( A c ) , h a v i n g r ' s from  t o ,56  e f f i c i e n c y ( l e ) , h a v i n g r ' s from  with eight scales.  s c a l e s a l l u d e d t o i n t h e model c o r r e l a t e w i t h  other  s c a l e s as f o l l o w s : 1.  Self-acceptance an r o f ,33  ( S a ) , an r o f ,39  with s o c i a b i l i t y *  2. P s y c h o l o g i c a l - m i n d e d n e s s .31  t o ,55  3. F l e x i b i l i t y  w i t h dominance,  (Py) h a v i n g r ' s f r o m  with eight scales. ( F x ) , h a v i n g r ' s from ,32  t o .63  with f i v e scales. The  Sa s c a l e would appear t o t a p a r e l a t i v e l y independent  d i m e n s i o n on t h i s i n s t r u m e n t  as I t c o r r e l a t e s w i t h r ' s o f over  .30. w i t h o n l y two o t h e r s c a l e s .  I t has been p o i n t e d o u t ,  however, t h a t i t does not c o r r e l a t e w i t h o t h e r s c a l e s p u r p o r t i n g to measure s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e  of other instruments  (see T a b l e  15).  .99 . I t i s worth n o t i n g t h a t i n the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i x p r e s e n t e d i n t h e manual, even w i t h a v e r y l a r g e sample, t h e r e i s much more o v e r l a p p i n g among s c a l e s t h a n i s apparent m a t r i x i n Table How  i n the  18.  d i d t h e members of t h i s sample compare w i t h the norm  groups p r e s e n t e d i n the manual? i n Table 19.  Two  Data c o n c e r n i n g t h i s a r e  norm comparison g r o u p s — p s y c h o l o g y  work graduates—--were  and  found social  s e l e c t e d as b e i n g most s i m i l a r i n  o r i e n t a t i o n t o the sample of the p r e s e n t s t u d y . c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s a r e shown a l s o .  Norms f o r male  The f e m i n i n i t y . s c a l e was  not  i n c l u d e d f o r s t u d y s i n c e the sexes were not s e p a r a t e d f o r purposes  of a n a l y s i s .  I t w i l l be noted t h a t the means and  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of the p r e s e n t sample t e n d t o resemble c l o s e l y those of t h e s e l e c t e d comparison F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s the p r o f i l e d  quite  groups.  c l a s s mean on t h e CPI.  I n a d d i t i o n t h e p r o f i l e s a t t h e top f i v e s t u d e n t s and bottom seven s t u d e n t s are shown.  The e l e v a t i o n of t h e p r o f i l e i s  g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r t h a n those p r e s e n t e d i n the manual as of a c o l l e g e group. C l a s s I I may  typical  The g e n e r a l l y lower l e v e l of t h e s c o r e s in-  be observed, however.  These a r e . c o n s i d e r e d t o be  measures of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , m a t u r i t y , and  responsibility.  I n s p e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s c o r e s i n the t h r e e s c a l e s f o r d e t e c t i o n of f a k i n g a l r e a d y a l l u d e d t o gave no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s had not responded h o n e s t l y t o the  inventories.  100  TABLE 19 A COMPARISON OP STUDENT TEACHERS AND NORM GROUPS ON THE SCALES OP THE C P I *  Scale  Raw S c o r e Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s Student Male P s y c h . Male S o c i a l Male C o l l e g e Teachers Grads Work Grads Students M  M  SD  SD  M  SD  SD  M  1  Do  29.1  5.3  30.1  5.4  30.9  5.1  28.3  6,3  2  Cs  22.3  2.9  24-4  2.6  22.6  3«2  20,9  3.8  3  S  27.2  3.1  26.4  4.6  27.0  4.I  25.4  5.0  k  Sp  1+0.9  6.6  42  4.6  4Q.5  5.8  37.3  5.8  5  Sa  23»6  2.9  23*7  3.1  23.0  3.1  22.3  3.8  6  Wb  36.6  •4-7  36.9  3.5  38.9  3.8  36.6  4,6  7  Re  3O.6  3.4.  3I.6  3.6  32.2  3.8  30.8  4«5  8  So  35'. 7  5.5  34-*.  4-2  36.4  4.6  36.8  5.2  9  Sc  27.0  6.6  27.8  5.5  31.1  5»7  27.6  7.5  10  To  25.0  2.7  27.0  2.7  26.3  4.0  23.3  4.8  11  Gi  17.5  5.2  15.4  5.0  19.6  5.7  17.2  6.2  12  Cr;i  25.5  1.4  25.1  1.7  25.5  1.9  z5.5  2.0  13  Ac  27.8  3.7  29.3  3»9  30.1  3-7  27.4  11+  Ai  24.. 0  3.2  27.1 ' 2 . 8  24.2  3.5  20.9  4*2  15  le  1+1.I+  3-3  44.9  3.2  42.8  4.1  39.3  5.0  16  Py  13.0  2.5  16.9  2.6  I4..3  2.8  11 J ;  3.0  17.  Fx  15.6  3.1  16.5  2.9  13.7  3-9  11.1  3.8  0  5  ~i\~r\  N =  1+4  •«• Gough, I96I+, p. 3I+. 3.8, F e , o m i t t e d .  117  187  1133  P R O F I L E  S H E E T  FOR  < T H E  Sa^ornla $tydofogita£^wtv/torf—m  Name  ...Class .Mean .and Mean o f Top F i v e Students and  Other  Informuti  Do  Cs  Sy  Bottom  Sp  Sa .  Wb  Re  Age  Date T e s t e d .  Seven  So  Sc  To  Gi  Cm  Ac  Ai  le '  Py  Fx  Notes  Fe  MALE NORMS 90  -55"  80  -50-  90  -40 -SO  _.  80  Top 70  !  70  60  u  Class  60  50  -so  40  40  s  Bottom  -20 -25  30 "  riO  M  — =  30  5-  20  -20  10  10  L0 Do  Cs  Sy  Sp  So  Re  So  Sc  1+8 1+8 1+6 1+3  To  Gi  Class  55 57 56  Bottom  56 58 68 62 51',- 1+8 52 1+9 55'5o 60 51 57 65-59 1+3 1+6 l+i 1+1 52 l+i  Top  65 62  Wb  55 1+5  Cm  Ac  Ai  le  50 50 63 55  Py  Fx  Fe  58 69 51+  7iTT  52 57 61+ 58 57 53 1+9 59 1+9- 55 71 55  o  Figure 1 R e p r o d u c e d from M o n u a l for T h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y , by M o r r i s o n G . G o u g h , P h . D. C o p y r i g h t by C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s , I n c . , P o l o A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a .  A l l rights  reserved.  Personal O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory An i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i x f o r t h e POI i s f o u n d i n Table 2 0 .  The v e r y h i g h i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s c a l e s i s  a p p a r e n t , t h e r e b e i n g I4.2 c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e l e v e l , 1 1 a t the . 0 5 l e v e l , of a p o s s i b l e t o t a l o f 7 8 .  .01 The  o n l y s c a l e s which do not have s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s v i i t h more t h a n h a l f the s c a l e s a r e Nature o f man ( N c ) , Synergy (Sy) and Capacity f o r intimate contact the e s t i m a t e d the  3cale3  (C).  I t i s worthy of note t h a t  l e v e l o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n y i e l d e d by summing  of Time competence (Tc) and Inner d i r e c t e d n e s s ( I )  c o r r e l a t e s w i t h r ' s from . 4 4 t o . 9 8 w i t h a l l s c a l e s , except Nature o f man.  The I s c a l e c o r r e l a t e s s i m i l a r l y , w i t h r ' s from  . 3 9 t o . 9 8 w i t h 1 1 of 1 2 s c a l e s .  The s c a l e s s e l e c t e d as  a p p r o p r i a t e t o the model c o r r e l a t e as f o l l o w s . : 1 . E x i s t e n t i a l i t y , w i t h r ' s from . 3 3 t o . 7 5  with  nine s c a l e s . 2 . S e l f - r e g a r d , w i t h r ' s from . 3 1 t o . 6 8  with  eight scales. 3 . S e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , w i t h r ' s from . 3 3 t o . 8 0  with  ten scales. 4.. C a p a c i t y f o r i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t , w i t h r ' s from .4.7 t o . 5 9 w i t h s i x s c a l e s . T h i s a n a l y s i s of t h e . m a t r i x would l e n d support  t o the  statement i n the manual t h a t i n t h e l o g i c a l development of t h e s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s , they .were not c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as r e p r e s e n t i n g  lo  CO  X.  o  EH  Q  OA  4  CO  E-< CO  fe  -4-  to  O  a -  to  O  -4"  o  H  ON CV  !>O  CV O  r-i  to  OA ON,  ON  c  ON. O  UA  CV  ON CV  vO CV  -4-4"  UA  to  \£>  to  o  so  vO  UA  -4  UN  CV vO  rH  CV  UN  ON  rH  UA  ' CV  to  UA  UA  ON  CV  rH  OA  rH  CV ON  UA  rH  OH •<  oo  O CV  o fe X H  ttj co  O  vO  to  00 co  CV  -4"  £>  CV  vO  ON  CV UA  oS -4  UA OA  EH  ON UN  «  o H EH  UA  OA  *  o o  0^  UA UA  ON  to  UA  OA  •  OA  •  UA  EH H  ci  ON UA  CO  O  t-i  o a.  to  CO  o  E-  o EH  IH  CO  X  co  5H  00  . C3 CO  o  co  rH O  3  ic4 independent dimensions  (Shostrum, 1966,  p. 2 1 ) .  Though t h e I38  c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h e m a t r i x i n the manual based on an n of  are not so h i g h as those f o r the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r sample, t h e t r e n d s appear t o be How  similar*  d i d the members of t h i s sample compare w i t h the. norm  groups p r e s e n t e d  i n the manual?  Data c o n c e r n i n g t h i s a r e  i n Table 21 which compares means f o r the s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r  found sample,  a " s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d ' ' sample, a "normal a d u l t " group, and a 1  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d " group.  The  "non-  t a b l e i n the manual i n d i c a t e d  c r i t i c a l r a t i o s between the s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d and n o n - s e l f a c t u a l i z e d groups s i g n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 1 l e v e l f o r e v e r y s c a l e except  Nature of man.  I t appears t h a t the  student-teacher  sample might not be c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the normal a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n as p o r t r a y e d i n t h i s t a b l e .  T h e i r mean i s  above t h a t of the normal a d u l t group on every s c a l e except Acceptance of a g g r e s s i o n and C a p a c i t y f o r i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t , and i s above t h a t oi' the s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d sample on S e l f - a c t u a l i z e d v a l u e s , F e e l i n g r e a c t i v i t y , S e l f - r e g a r d , Nature of man,  and  Synergy. F i g u r e 2 p r e s e n t s the p r o f i l e d c l a s s mean on the I n a d d i t i o n , the p r o f i l e s of the top f i v e s t u d e n t s and seven s t u d e n t s  ( p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d ) are i n c l u d e d .  POI.. bottom  The  e l e v a t i o n of the c l a s s p r o f i l e i s c e r t a i n l y h i g h e r t h a n t h a t o f the norm mean as shown i n the p r o f i l e s h e e t — a s c o r e of 5 0 .  standardized  The p r o f i l e more c l o s e l y resembles t h a t of the  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d group except  on the E x i s t e n t i a l i t y s c a l e .  It  10$  TABLE 21 POI SCALE MEANS IN RAW SCORES FOR STUDENT TEACHERS, SELF-ACTUALIZED, NORMAL, AND NON-SELF-ACTUALIZED -GROUPS*  Comparison POI S c a l e 1. Time Competence  Student Teachers  o f T o t a l Mean S c o r e s  SelfActualized  Normal Adult  Non-Self Actualized  18.54  18.93  17.7  15.82  90.24.  92.86  87.25  75.76  3« S e l f A c t . V a l u e s  20.85  20.69  20.17  4- E x i s t e n t i a l i t y  22.27  24-76  21.80  18.85  5. F e e l i n g  I6.39  I6.28  15.74  l4»26  6. S p o n t a n e i t y  12.24  12.66  11.65  9.79  7. S e l f  1302  12.90  11.97  10.21  8. S e l f A c c e p t .  18.61  18.93  17.09  14.21  9. Nature  12.44  12.34  12.37  11.29  7.32  6.18  2.  Inner  Direct.  React.  Regard  o f Man  7.756  10. Synergy 11.  Accept, of Aggression  12. C a p a c i t y f o r Love N ^Shostrum,  1966, p. 26  7.62  . 18.00  16.1+6  17.62  16.63  14.74  18.05  20.21  18.80  16.47  44  29  158  34  N  A  • A G E " .  M  Class Mean and Mean o f Ton Piva  E  Students  "OtewAflON  s  .p  y  and  D  A  T  E  iT.-TctTimojRaiioi}..3:18.5  :|HV.  Self-Actualizing Average: T,: T = 1:8 c  Bottom Seven  Your Rutio: T | : T = 1! C  II O - I (Support) Ratio: 3 6 . 27  TIME COMPETENT Lives in the present  INNERDIRECTED Independent, selfsupportive  SELFACTUALIZING VALUE Holds values of s e l f actualizing people  SAV  EXISTENTIALITY F l e x i b l e in application of v a l u e s  FEELING REACTIVITY S e n s i t i v e to own needs and f e e l i n g s  SELF-PERCEPTION  SPONTANEITY F r e e l y expresses feelings bchaviorally  SELF-REGARD Has h i g h self-worth  SELFACCEPTANCE A c c e p t i n g of s e l f in spite of weaknesses  Ex  :  Mi  S  T  E  D  106  _  Normal  ftpjvij:-!-:^:' mMuMlj£  V  FEELING  E  111 Normal  to  Self-Actualizing Average: <X|-j= Your Ratio: 0 : 1 = 1 : ' ' j 7  VALUING  T  5 6  7  8  9  10  9  10  SYNERGISTIC  AWARENESS  I N T E R P E R S O N A L SENSITIVITY  N A T U R E OF M A N , CONSTRUCTIVE • S e e s m a n as essentially good  SYNERGY Sees oppos i t e s of l i f e as m e a n i n g fully related  ACCEPTANCE OF  lie  So  AGGRESSION Accepts f e e l i n g s of a n g e r or aggression  CAPACITY FOR INTIMATE CONTACT Has w a r m interpersonal relationships  Sy  80 ADULT  NORMS  — 25  -115  70  — 25  - 25  — 30 — 25  — 105  • 20 — 15  60  "S a  -100  Bottom  50  —7 -ii  — 15  -10 -10  40  — 15  -75  -65 —5  30  — 10  20 -45  - 5 -10  TIME INCOMPETENT L i v e s in the past or future  OTHER DIRECTED Dependent, s e e k s support cf others' views  Rejects v a l u e s of self-actualizing people  Bottom 13.9 91 21.7 C l a s s 18.5 9 0 . 2 20.9 Top 1 7 . 4 . 8 1 . 6'20 4  Figure 2 R i g i d in application of v a l u e s  Insensitive to own n e e d s and feelings  F e a r f u l of expressing feelings behaviorally  Has l o w self-worth  — 3 U n a b l e to accept self  S e e s m a n as essentially  with weaknesses  evil  Sees o p p o s i t e s of l i f e as antagonistic  Denies f e e l i n g s of a n g e r or aggression  8 . I 4 16.6  Has d i f f i culty with warm interpersonal relations  19.1 22.3 16.1+ 1 ? . 2 13-3 18.6 1 2 4 7.76 16.5 18.1 184. 15 1 1 . 2 . 1 3 . 2 ' '17.6 12.)+ 7 . 2 61 515.a. . 23.6 16.1  12.2  1 3 . ! + 19.1  I2.ii  107  is interesting  t o n o t e , however, t h a t t h e r a t i o s c o r e s ( n o t  i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s t u d y , because they a r e n o t amenable t o s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ) on t h e p r o f i l e — o b t a i n e d by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f time incompetence t o time competence, and by t h e relationship  of outer-directedness t o inner directedness—•  these r a t i o s f a l l q u e s t i o n , however.  i n t h e normal range.  One i s l e f t w i t h a  On the b a s i s o f t h e POI norms as p r e s e n t e d  i n t h e manual, t h i s s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r sample cannot be c o n s i d e r e d , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e normal a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n . expect, b u t t h e sample does appear t o be more  T h i s one c o u l d s^lf-actualized  t h a n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s of Knapp  (1965)  would have l e d one t o e x p e c t .  However, when one compares t h e  c o n c e r n i n g c o l l e g e groups  mean s c o r e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of t h i s sample w i t h o t h e r norm groups p r e s e n t e d Peace Corps V o l u n t e e r s differences.  i n t h e manual, e.g. c o l l e g e s e n i o r s and (Shostrum,  1966,  pp.  11,12)  one sees few  A p p a r e n t l y , the p r o f i l e sheet i s based on a sample  o f a normal a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n .  Compared t o t h i s group t h e  s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r sample may appear s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d ; pared w i t h r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r  when com-  e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l groups,  however, i t i s not d i s s i m i l a r . Q Sort Data on Q s o r t s can be m i s l e a d i n g because t h e l e v e l o f development i s not t a k e n i n t o account. Q scale p a r t l y avoids t h i s d i f f i c u l t y measure o f growth o r adjustment.  However, t h e adjustment i n p r o v i d i n g some e x t e r n a l  The adjustment Q s c o r e was  108 d e r i v e d f r o m t h e Dymond Adjustment S c a l e , i t e m s s e l e c t e d by s i x t h e r a p i s t s (Rogers & Dymond, 1954)• The d a t a on the Q s o r t as used by Haigh and B u t l e r a r e h a r d l y comparable because of t h e i r s m a l l e r n, . ( 2 5 ) . the comparisons f a v o u r the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r sample.  Certainly, T h e i r mean  r was . 7 5 4 5 , whereas t h e mean r o f t h e c o n t r o l group i n t h e H a i g h - B u t l e r s t u d y was . 5 8 .  Prom t h i s i t seems t h a t t h e  s t u d e n t t e a c h e r sample was b e t t e r a d j u s t e d (by t h e d e f i n i t i o n u s e d i n t h e i r s t u d y ) t h a n the c o n t r o l group of t h e H a i g h - B u t l e r study.  But t h i s statement i s n o t v e r y m e a n i n g f u l , because i f  one l o o k s a t t h e adjustment Q, s c a l e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s a r i s e . The mean o f t h e c o n t r o l group was 1+6; t h e mean s c o r e of t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r group, 1+5.73«  By u s i n g an e x t e r n a l , c r i t e r i o n ,  the d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups appear v e r y s m a l l . I t would appear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e unexpected f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f t h e sample i n comparison w i t h t h e norm groups on which t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s was based.  No such u n i q u e n e s s i s e v i d e n t .  Data R e g a r d i n g C r i t e r i a I n an e f f o r t t o d i v e r s i f y t h e types o f c r i t e r i a , forms o f r a t i n g were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h i s s t u d y .  several  The d a t a  c o n c e r n i n g i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the c r i t e r i a a r e p r e s e n t e d I n T a b l e 22.  I t i s apparent t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e  two major forms of e v a l u a t i o n — t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g and t h e r a t i n g of d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s — w a s v e r y s l i g h t .  1 0 9  TABLE 22 CORRELATIONS AMONG CRITERIA  38 37 38  .83**'  ho  4i  .10  .87** .11  .16  .82** .21+'**  1+0  .29  1+1  -»p  k3  .65** .31  <^ .01  N-= 38, t o t a l number f o r whom a l l c r i t e r i a a v a i l a b l e . Key;  37 = U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g 38 = U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g dichotomized 1+0 = Demonstration l e s s o n 1+1 = Extreme groups on C r i t e r i o n 37 1+3 = Extreme groups on C r i t e r i o n 1+0  110 A l t h o u g h b o t h c r i t e r i a were p e r f o r m a n c e r a t i n g s , is  small.  The a t t e m p t  r e g a r d e d as lesson are situation obtained  to d i v e r s i f y  successful. of  the  The j u d g e s '  low r e l i a b i l i t y  (see  i n the  U n i v e r s i t y composite  correlation  c r i t e r i a cannot  ratings  on t h e  T a b l e 23)  a f f o r d e d more p o s s i b i l i t i e s  the  for  be  demonstration  e.ven .though  the  standardization  than  ratings.  The Sample  The d a t a f r o m t h e indicate  that  this  sample  different  i n mean s c o r e s  groups  the  the  at  pool  apparent  of  To d e s c r i b e  of  student  the  data  on the  g r o u p was  teachers  of  them.  group i n comparison w i t h younger  scores  that  to r e f l e c t  and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . appears  to u n d e r l i e  illustrated  i n the  the  This study.  following  degrees  This figures.  essentially  Yet,  when  it  becomes  i n many ways,.  some  features  proportion of women m a y  o l d e r men  explain  of m a t u r i t y ,  imbalance  would  from comparable  reviewed,  may o b s c u r e  The l a r g e r  not  training.  group i s  i n the  appear  is  f a r f r o m homogeneous  them b y u s i n g means  rather, than elucidate  POI a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d  and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s  same or s i m i l a r l e v e l s  personal  that  C P I and the  i n category  adjustment, membership  disproportionality  is  TABLE 23 CORRELATIONS'FOR RATINGS OF THREE JUDGES  1  2  3  .3152  4198  2  Mean r = .1+257  .5422  112' C r i t e r i o n 37 S NS  Age  Sex  0  Y  M  19  '3  M  11  11  F  7  15  F  ll}.  5 • N =  N = I[J| Figure  3  Figure  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s e x a n d age  in wnien  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f sample b y s e x on C r i t e r i o n 3 7 , U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g  S =  M  male  F  female  0  old  Y  young  In t h i 3  NS =  The f o l l o w i n g  in a different  NS  non-superior  figures  illustrate  superior, this  way. Female  Male 0  superior  s a m p l e , $0fo o f t h e men w e r e r a t e d a s  7 l $ o f t h e women. analysis  s a m p l e by-  0  Y  S  2  12  NS  2  Y  10  N = 22  N = 19 Figure 6  Figure 5 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f men b y age a n d achievement on C r i t e r i o n 37, U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g  T h r e e women, two y o u n g ,  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f women b y age a n d a c h i e v e m e n t o n C r i t e r i o n 37 > U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g  one. o l d , w e r e n o t  rated.  113 As  i n d i c a t e d , 10 of 19 o l d e r men were r a t e d  non-superior,  £ 2 . 6 $ ; 12 o f 15 younger women were r a t e d s u p e r i o r , .80$. put  To  i t d i f f e r e n t l y , an o l d e r man's p r o b a b i l i t y o f a s u p e r i o r  r a t i n g was a l i t t l e b e t t e r t h a n one i n t h r e e  (.36$).; a younger  woman's p r o b a b i l i t y was almost one I n two (4.8$). B e f o r e any c o n c l u s i o n s more d a t a -would be r e q u i r e d .  c o u l d be drawn f r o m t h e s e f i g u r e s , Possible explanations  1. Young p e o p l e who c o n t i n u e  are:  (  through u n i v e r s i t y w i t h - •  out i n t e r r u p t i o n know what i s e x p e c t e d o f thein i n performance, and hence c a n p r o c u r e  superior  ratings. 2. Women who e n r o l l i n t h e Guidance major i n t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g a r e s u p e r i o r , on t h e ;-/hole, t o men who enroll. 3« Younger persons make a more f a v o u r a b l e  impression  on r a t e r s . 4,.  Older people r e t u r n i n g t o u n i v e r s i t y f i n d t h e adjustment d i f f i c u l t .  5. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f age and sex t o r a t i n g s o c c u r s by chance. However, i n view o f t h e c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d toward  higher  mean s c o r e s f o r o l d e r men r e v e a l e d by t h e t t e s t s f o r differ™ ences between means, i t would appear . . u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p has o c c u r r e d  by chance.  One i s f o r c e d t o conclude  t h a t t h e g r o u p i n g s i n c a t e g o r y membership may have had unexpected  r e s u l t s , both i n ratings.  term3  of the s c a l e s c o r e s and the  criterion  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t Maslow's c o n c e r n about t h e  c o l l e g e - a g e group and t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a c h i e v i n g s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n has concerned  some f o u n d a t i o n .  w i t h the problem  C o l l e g e s t u d e n t s may  of i d e n t i t y and achievement  be  so  and  s t a t u s t h a t any degree of the k i n d of m a t u r i t y i m p l i e d w i t h i n t h e concept  o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n may  be d i f f i c u l t t o a t t a i n .  The f a c t t h a t o l d e r members of t h e c l a s s d i s p l a y e d a d e f i n i t e t r e n d toward h i g h e r s c o r e s would o f f e r support t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t Mas low makes, as q u o t e d i n Knapp's s t u d y (-Knapp,. 1965)*  I t i s t r u e t h a t i f one were t o judge t h i s sample by the  c l a s s means, they might be c o n s i d e r e d r e l a t i v e l y  self-  a c t u a l i z e d , but the f a c t t h a t the younger members of the c l a s s s c o r e d l o w e r , on the whole, t h a n d i d the o l d e r members of t h e c l a s s , l e n d s support t o Maslow's p o s i t i o n . The  n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p r e v e a l e d i n t h i s study between  measures of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and c r i t e r i o n r a t i n g s l e a d s  one  t o ask whether the s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g m i l i e u i s such t h a t behaviours  consonant w i t h s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n a r e encouraged.  W h i t e l e y and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (19&7) suggest t h a t t h e a n x i e t i e s and p r e s s u r e s of t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e a r e t o the development of r i g i d b e h a v i o u r s . n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s s h o u l d not be  conducive  I f t h i s be t r u e , the  surprising.  CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND Statement The  problem  of t h i s  p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions  o f t h e Problem  s t u d y was  there w i l l  The  t o a s c e r t a i n what  t h a t c a n be h y p o t h e s i z e d f r o m  stressing positive health relate i n Guidance.  CONCLUSIONS  to success  a model,  i n practice teaching  general hypothesis u n d e r l y i n g the study  be a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r a t i n g s  t e a c h e r s and  their  s c o r e s on s e l e c t e d  Model  o f t h e s t u d y was:  d i s p l a y e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  student  measures.  T h e o r e t i c a l F r a m e w o r k and A b a s i c assumption  of  was:  of Maslow's  t h e more a  person  self-actualized  person, the g r e a t e r the l i k e l i h o o d of h i s b e i n g e f f e c t i v e  in  his  of  v o c a t i o n a l performance.  From t h e o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o u r s  s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d p e o p l e , t h r e e w e r e s e l e c t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a model of an e f f e c t i v e dimensions  student teacher of Guidance:  of f l e x i b i l i t y ,  s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , and  the  concern f o r  others. Procedures The  sample o f t h i s  teachers enrolled in  the Teaching  s t u d y was  l i m i t e d t o the  i n E d u c a t i o n i+Oij. ( C u r r i c u l u m and  student Instruction  .of G u i d a n c e ) i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l y e a r  of  116 t r a i n i n g f o r secondary t e a c h i n g a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, w i n t e r s e s s i o n , 1966-67* Two types o f c r i t e r i a were-used.:  the f i r s t , a F a c u l t y of  E d u c a t i o n composite r a t i n g , ,use.d.Xo;r„„gKS.ddng.^p„ur,p^a.SAS.; .the second, r a t i n g s based on t h e t e a c h i n g o f .a d e m o n s t r a t i o n ' l e s s o n . ' Simple c o r r e l a t i o n , m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n , and image a n a l y s i s were the p r i n c i p a l t e c h n i q u e s  used  i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e independent v a r i a b l e s - - s c a l e s of the Personal O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory, s c a l e s o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y , and s c o r e s on t h e f i v e supplementary measures, two Q-sort measures, a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a case s t u d y , and a l e s s o n p l a n — a n d  the c r i t e r i a .  Findings The  f i n d i n g s o f t h i s .study a r e .pr.es.ented i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  F o r c l a r i t y , t h e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r each r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner: 1.  The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n i s s t a t e d .  2. The s i g n i f i c a n t  s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s are s t a t e d .  3. "The c o n c l u s i o n s based on t h e f i n d i n g s a r e p r e s e n t e d , • Other g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s - a r e - a l s o - p r e s e n t e d f o l l o w i n g . the d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h  questions.  R e s e a r c h Que3jbion 1 .How s t r o n g . a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t between the U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d - b y  student  t e a c h e r s and  .117 t h e i r s c o r e s on measures s e l e c t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e model? C o r r e l a t i o n s as i n d i c a t e d were found between t h i s c r i t e r i o n and t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : (r =  .3266);  E x i s t e n t i a l i t y , POI ( r =  C a p a c i t y f o r s t a t u s , CPI  - . 3 3 7 5 ) ; . . - f t .sort ( r =  -.4551); Case s t u d y ( r = . 3 7 7 6 ) . The  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f these f i n d i n g s a r e t h a t i n terms o f  the measures u s e d , h i g h s c o r e r s  on t h i s c r i t e r i o n d i s p l a y e d t h e  f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : d e s i r e f o r s t a t u s and achievement, tendency t o r e a c t w i t h r i g i d adherence t o p r i n c i p l e s ; low sense of s e l f - e s t e e m ;  a b i l i t y to analyze,  s i t u a t i o n s r e l e v a n t t o Guidance  i n w r i t i n g , problem  teaching.  Research Question 2 How s t r o n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e x i s t between t h e r a t i n g s g i v e n by s t u d e n t s and by a d u l t  judges t o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s on t h e  b a s i s o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s , and t h e i r s c o r e s on t h e s e l e c t e d measures? The lessons  c r i t e r i o n of students'  r a t i n g s on d e m o n s t r a t i o n  p r o v e d , on i n s p e c t i o n , t o be n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g ,  t h e r e f o r e was not f o r m a l l y a n a l y z e d i n t h i s T  On t h e c r i t e r i o n o f a d u l t lessons,  (r =  c o r r e l a t i o n s as i n d i c a t e d were found between t h i s  -.3671);  directedness, (r =  study.  judges' r a t i n g s of demonstration  c r i t e r i o n and t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : POI  and  Time competence,POI ( r =  POI ( r = - . 3 3 I 3 ) ;  -.3883);  Self-actualization total,  -.3793);  Inner  S e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g v a l u e s , POI  E x i s t e n t i a l i t y , POI ( r =  -.3165,).  118 The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of these f i n d i n g s a r e t h a t h i g h s c o r e r s  on t h i s c r i t e r i o n d i s p l a y e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as •measured by t h e -instruments u s e d : ...ajctu.aM  - v a l u e s - a t y p i c a l of the - s e l f -  p f .,ejom.petencein„;lJ,nicing...jbh.e. .past and w  t h e f u t u r e t o t h e p r e s e n t i n m e a n i n g f u l c o n t i n u i t y , tendency t o be u n d u l y I n f l u e n c e d b y a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e peer  group*  Research Question 3 W i l l the  3corea  on t h e independent  variables contribute  a n y t h i n g t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s of Guidance, e i t h e r c r i t e r i o n , t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite  on  r a t i n g or t h e  demonstration l e s s o n r a t i n g ? In o r d e r t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , t t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e between means were performed based on t h e f o l l o w i n g cations:  classifi-  s u p e r i o r and n o n - s u p e r i o r on two . c r i t e r i a ; male .and  f e m a l e ; o l d and young; and f i v e s t u d e n t s s u p e r i o r on b o t h c r i t e r i a , seven s t u d e n t s n o n - s u p e r i o r on b o t h c r i t e r i a .  The  g e n e r a l r e s u l t s o f t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were i n agreement w i t h those a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d , namely i n a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e t o t h a t hypothesized i n the study.  However, t h e r e was evidence o f l a r g e  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between sex and age, and a l s o a main e f f e c t of s e x . R_e_s^arch Q u e s t i o n Jj. W i l l dealing w i t h p r o f i l e s , i . e . patterns of scores, t h r o u g h m u l t i v a r i a t e p r o c e d u r e s , y i e l d more i n f o r m a t i o n about  the student  teachers  The p r o c e d u r e s analysis did find  than u n i v a r i a t e techniques? of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n and d i s c r i m i n a n t  c e r t a i n s c a l e s e n t e r i n g i n t o equations, but  u s u a l l y w i t h a weight  o p p o s i t e t o t h a t h y p o t h e s i z e d , and  o c c a s i o n a l l y t h e r e were c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . The s c a l e s w h i c h weighted  p o s i t i v e l y were:  C o m m u n a l i t y ( C P I ) , N a t u r e o f man  (POI), t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and t h e Q s o r t . n e g a t i v e l y were:  Synergy  a c t u a l i z e d values  (POI), and t h e Lesson  Those  (POI), E x i s t e n t i a l i t y plan.  weighting (POI),  Self-  On t h e w h o l e ,  t h e t r e n d was i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h a t i n d i c a t e d b y t h e u s e of u n i v a r i a t e techniques,  namely t h a t s c a l e s t h e model i n d i c a t e s  s h o u l d s e l e c t good c r i t e r i o n people indeed,  the r e v e r s e tended  i n fact d i d not; that,  t o be t r u e .  Two o t h e r q u e s t i o n s w e r e a s k e d . r e v e a l clusters o f " l i k e " people dimensions?  d i d the data  with regard to p e r s o n a l i t y  Image a n a l y s i s was u s e d i n a n a t t e m p t  whether t h e method o f a n s w e r i n g s o r t had r e v e a l e d c l u s t e r s isolated,  First,  q u e s t i o n s about s e l f  of " l i k e  n  people.  accounting f o r approximately  f a c t o r s . w h i c h appeared t o present of t h e i r Q-sort  answers.  t o discover  Four f a c t o r s  4,6/0 o f t o t a l  clusters  o n t h e Q,  variance,  of people  people similar  i n t h e model o f t h e s t u d y .  Second, d i d those dimension  i n terms  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h o s e  l o a d i n g h e a v i l y on F a c t o r 1 a p p e a r e d t o be r e a s o n a b l y to those hypothesized  were  s c a l e s w h i c h p u r p o r t e d t o measure t h e  o f s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e show a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p ?  i n s p e c t i o n of these c o r r e l a t i o n s  An  i n d i c a t e d t h a t n o t t o o much i n  120 common was r e v e a l e d among the f i v e measures so d e s i g n a t e d . Conclusions The major c o n c l u s i o n o f t h i s s t u d y i s q u i t e c l e a r : s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s r a t e d as s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d and w e l l - a d j u s t e d as measured on t h e s c a l e s o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h i s s t u d y were not judged as s u p e r i o r i n performance o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g . f a c t , the r e v e r s e tended t o be t r u e :  In  t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was a  n e g a t i v e one. An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d a t a from t h e i n s t r u m e n t s was c a r r i e d out i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e unexpected f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o the uniqueness o f the sample.  Such d i d not prove t o be t h e case, however.  When  compared with' r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l g r o u p s , t h e members o f t h i s sample showed few d i f f e r e n c e s . Two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s may be made. criteria.  One concerns t h e  R a t i n g s o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g as a p r o x i m a t e  criterion  may n o t be a v a l i d t e s t o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h i s s t u d y , t h a t t h e more a p e r s o n d i s p l a y e d t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Maslow's s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d p e r s o n , t h e g r e a t e r the l i k e l i h o o d o f h i s b e i n g e f f e c t i v e I n h i s v o c a t i o n a l performance. Another  e x p l a n a t i o n may l i e i n t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r  i n t h e model t h e c l u s t e r o f b e h a v i o u r s t h a t might be d e s c r i b e d as c l a s s management--preparation, e f f i c i e n c y and o r g a n i z a t i o n . Ryans (1960a) i d e n t i f i e d t h e two major c l u s t e r s i n e f f e c t i v e teaching:  one embraced these b e h a v i o u r s , and t h e o t h e r embraced  121 p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions.  The f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r the management  c l u s t e r may be an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the t r e n d t o n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between h y p o t h e s i z e d d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions  and performance.  Because behaviours  a s s o c i a t e d with  the management c l u s t e r are more e a s i l y observed and i d e n t i f i e d , they may enter i n t o judgments about r a t i n g s more than do behaviours  a s s o c i a t e d with p e r s o n a l i t y  Holland's  (1959)  dimensions.  f i n d i n g s about h i g h a c h i e v e r s and low  a c h i e v e r s appear v e r y s i m i l a r t o the f i n d i n g s of t h i s A l l e n (1966)  and D u r f l i n g e r (I.963) a l s o both found  study.  tendencies  toward conformity, low l e v e l of s e l f - a c c e p t a n c e , l a c k o f a g g r e s s i v e n e s s and i n i t i a t i v e among " s u c c e s s f u l  1,7  student  t e a c h e r s — f i n d i n g s which appear t o be supported by the data o f this  study.  122 BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l e n , T.K. P e r s o n a l i t y as a p r e d i c t o r o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g success. J o u r n a l _of t h e S t u d e n t P e r s o n n e l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Treacher E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 5 o " 7 ^, 1 2 - 1 6 • A l l e n , T.W. E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o u n s e l o r t r a i n e e s as a f u n c t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l openness. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g Pathology, 1 9 6 7 , l i t , 3 5 ~ l + 0 . A . l l p o r t , G.W. Becoming. Press, 1 9 5 5 T " ~ *  New Haven, Conn.:  Yale U n i v e r s i t y  A l l p o r t , G.W, P s y c h o l o g i c a l models f o r g u i d a n c e . E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1 9 6 2 * 32, 3 7 3 - 3 8 1 . -  Harvard  A l l p o r t , G.W. P a t t e r n and growth in p e r s o n a l i t y . H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston, 1 9 * 6 3 .  Nex-j Y o r k :  A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e s f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , Committee on S t u d i e s and S t a n d a r d s . Needed r e s e a r c h in teacher education. Oneonta, New Y o r k : AACTE, 1 9 5 ? T » * A s t i n , A.W. Criterion-centered research. Journal of E d u c-a t i o_ n _ a l _and P s y c h o l o g i c a l _Measurement, 196Ti, 2h» _ _ _ ^ H  g  ?  H  A s t i n , H.S. Assessment o f empathic a b i l i t y by means o f a situational test. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1 9 6 7 , llfc, 5 7 - 6 0 . — — ~ — ^ B a r r , A.S. The measurement and p r e d i c t i o n of t e a c h i n g e f f i c i e n c y . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1 9 5 5 , ? 5 >  261-270.  — —  — — — - -  —  3 a r r y , R., & Wolf, B. Modern i s s u e s i n g u i d a n c e and £ersjomol work. New Y o r k : Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , Teachers C o l l e g e , Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 5 7 . • B e n n e t t , M.E.  Guidance and c o u n s e l i n g i n g r o u p s .  Mc Gr aw-H i 1 l T * T ^ 5 F T "  New Y o r k :  B e n o i t , R.B. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f changes i n knowledge and a t t i t u d e s o f c o u n s e l o r - t r a i n e e s d u r i n g the course o f an N.D.E.A. Guidance I n s t i t u t e and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o c o u n s e l i n g competence. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 6 L .  1.23 B e r e i t e r , C , & Freedman, M.B. F i e l d s o f s t u d y and t h e people i n them. I n N. S a n f o r d ( E d . ) , The A m e r i c a n c o l l e g e . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 9 6 1 , Pp. 5 6 3 - 5 9 6 . B e r g e r , E.M. R e l a t i o n s h i p s among a c c e p t a n c e o f s e l f , a c c e p t a n c e o f o t h e r s , and MMPI s c o r e s . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 5 5 , 2, 2 5 3 - 2 5 7 . B l o c h e r , D.H. A m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n approach t o p r e d i c t i n g s u c c e s s i n a c o u n s e l o r e d u c a t i o n program. C o u n s e l o r E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1 9 6 3 , J*, 1 9 - 2 2 . B l o c h e r , D.H.  Developmental c o u n s e l i n g .  Pres3, 1 9 6 6 .  New Y o r k :  Ronald  B l o c k , J . The Q,°sort method i n p e r s o n a l i t y and p s y c h i a t r i c rj?search. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C. Thomas, *~ 196"1.  B l o c k , J . , L e v i n e , L., & McNemar, Q. T e s t i n g f o r t h e existence of psychometric p a t t e r n s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and . S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 5 l , ]fe6, 3 5 6 - ^ 5 9 7 " B o r d i n , E.S. Century-Crofts,  1955T~"  counseling.  Bower, E.M. M e n t a l h e a l t h i n e d u c a t i o n . Research., 1 9 6 2 , J£, l\l\.2-k$k'  New Y o r k :  Appleton-  Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l  B r y a n , J.G. The g e n e r a l i z e d d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n : Mathematical f o u n d a t i o n and computational r o u t i n e . H a r v a r d Educational Review, i 9 6 0 , 2 l , 9 0 - 9 5 . B u g e n t a l , J.F.T. The s e a r c h f o r a u t h e n t i c i t y : An e x i s t e n t i a l - a n a l y t i c approach t o p s y c h o t h e r a p y . H o l t , Rinehart, & Winston, 1 9 6 5 7 -—B u h l e r , C. ]/a3^ue3 i n p s y c h o t h e r a p y .  GI e nc o e , ~ T 9 o * 2 T  New Y o r k :  New Y o r k :  Free Press of  B u r k a r d , M.I. Discernment o f t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by TAT sequence a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  1 9 6 2 , 5 3 279-287.  ™  ~ "~  -  L  C a m p b e l l , D.T., & F i s k e , D.W. Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n by t h e m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d m a t r i x . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1959, j £ 6 , 8 1 - 1 0 5 . Cogan, M.L. The b e h a v i o r o f t e a c h e r s and t h e p r o d u c t i v e b e h a v i o r of t h e i r p u p i l s : 1 . P e r c e p t i o n a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of ^<^eTA i®SiL£i. E d u c a t i o n , 1 9 5 8 , 27, 8 9 - 1 0 5 . —— r  124  Combs, A.W. -(Ed.) P e r c e i v i n g , b e h a v i n g , becoming. A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Development Yearbook, Washington, D.C: A.S.C.D., 1 9 6 2 . Combs, A.W. The p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n of t e a c h e r s : p e r c e p t u a l v i e w of t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n . - B o s t o n :  A Allyn &  B&conJ T955«  Combs, A.W., & S n y g g , D. approach t o b e h a v i o r .  Ind i v i d u a l beha v i o.r: A £erce£tual New Y o r k : Harper & B r o s , , 193-9.  Combs, A.W.,- & S t a f f o r d , K.R. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y a s p e c t s and s e l e c t i o n o f u n i v e r s i t y major. (Research i n p r o g r e s s ) , I 9 6 4 . I n C.J. Daane,.C.P. Combs, C.G. Wrenn ( E d s . ) , Developments i n c o u n s e l i n g . R e s e a r c h and S e r v i c e s B u l l e t i n , no. 1 8 , 1965, A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C o o l e y , W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. M u l t i v a r i a t e procedures f o r _thg b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1962. C o t t i n g h a m , H.P. Implementing two v i t a l t e a c h e r f u n c t i o n s : Guidance and i n s t r u c t i o n . Counselor Edjjc^Jbion and S u p e r v i s i o n , I962, 1, 166-169; C o t t l e , W.C. Personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of counselors: A review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e . P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1 9 5 3 , Cronbach,. L. J . , & G l e s e r , G.C. Reviev; of W. Stephenson, The £tudy, o f b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o m e t r i k a , 1 9 5 4 , 19, 3 2 7 - 3 3 1 . C u l b e r t , S.A., C l a r k , J.V.,. & B o b e l e , H.K. Measures o f change toward s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n i n two s e n s i t i v i t y t r a i n i n g g r o u p s , j o u r n a l o f Cjojan^elin^ P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 8 , I T , , 53°57.  D i c k e n , C P . S i m u l a t e d p a t t e r n s on t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l ing; P s y c h o l o g y , I960, 2» 2k" 31.  D i c k e n , C P . Note on b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n and t h e v a l i d i t y o f the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y . Journal of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 1 , 8, 185-186. — — D i c k e n , C P . Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, I 9 6 3 , j g j , 1x1^9^,9, D i x o n , W.R., & Morse, W.C. The p r e d i c t i o n o f t e a c h i n g p e r formance: Ernpathic p o t e n t i a l . J o u r n a l o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n ,  1 9 6 1 , 12, 322-329.  ~~  _____  125  1  D r i v e r , H.I.  C o u n s e l i n g and jLe^rnin£ t h r o u g h s m a l l - g r o u p  discussionT~^ ia'cITs'on,"T7Tscons 1 n: Ifonona PuTSTTcations, 1958. Dugan, R. P e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e e f f e c t i v e t e a c h e r , j o u r n a l o f Teacher ^ u c a t i o n , 1961, Ig, 335-337. Dunteman, G.H., Anderson, H.E., & B a r r y , P.R. Characteristics of s t u d e n t s i n the h e a l t h r e l a t e d p r o f e s s i o n s . University of F l o r i d a R e h a b i l i t a t i o n R e s e a r c h Monograph Series", ±9h%? No. 2. ,;  D u r f l i n g e r , G.W. P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s o f success i n s t u d e n t teaching. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, I963, n> 383-390. F e d d e r , R. The h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l and s t a f f de^elop^ jgroup_ ^u^ldance. New Y o r k : Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , Teachers C o l l e g e , Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s , 19o2. F l a n a g a n , C.E. A s t u d y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s c o r e s on t h e MMPI t o s u c c e s s i n t e a c h i n g as i n d i c a t e d by s u p e r v i s o r y r a t i n g s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l E d u c a t i o n , 1961, ? 9 , 329-35)+. ' . Fox,  J . Sex, age, h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . Mimeographed r e p o r t , 1965.  Froehlich, C P . Guidance s e r v i c e s i n s c h o o l s . McGraw-Hill, 19^7— _  New Y o r k :  Gage, N.L. (Ed.) Handbook o f r e s e a r c h on j^ea-cMrig: A p r o j e c t of t h e A m e r i c a n Mucational R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . Chicago: Han7 Hc¥ally, lyVJl ==  Ganther, R.L. Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a measure of s e l f acceptance and i n d i c a t i o n s of t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f o t h e r s i n a n u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n program. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of A m e r i c a , 1962. G e l a t t , H.B. Decision-Making. 1962, 9 , 21+0-21+5.  Journal  of Counseling Psycholpay,  G i l l i s , J . P e r s o n a l i t y needs of f u t u r e t e a c h e r s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l arid P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 196l+7™*2a7° " 3Hgi^JoT~~" ~~ — — =  Goldstein, 1939.  K.  The o r g a n i s m .  New Y o r k :  American Book Co.,  G o o d s t e i n , L.D., C r i t e s , J.O., H e i l b r u n , A.3., J r . , & Rempel, P.P. The use of the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y I n a u n i v e r s i t y c o u n s e l i n g s e r v i c e . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g PSISJJplosE, 1961, 8, 11+7-153. - —  126 Gordon, T. G r o u p - c e n t e r e d l e a d e r s h i p : A wa^ o f r e l e a s i n g the c r e a t i v e power o f groups. B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 19l?5>. Gough,. H.G. C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y . (Rev. ed.) Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1961+. Gowan, J.C. S e l f - r e p o r t t e s t s i n the p r e d i c t i o n o f t e a c h i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The S c h o o l Review, I960, 6 8 , 1L09~1|.17. G r i b b o n s , W . D o , H a l p e r i n , S., & Lohnes, P.P.. A p p l i c a t i o n s o f s t o c h a s t i c models i n r e s e a r c h on c a r e e r development. J o u r n a l o f CjDungeling P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 6 , l j , 4 , 0 3 - 4 , 0 8 . G r u b e r g , R.R. A study o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f c o u n s e l o r t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o u n s e l o r response. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b a n y , 1964,.-. . Guba, E.G., & G e t z e l s , J.W, P e r s o n a l i t y and t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s : A problem i n t h e o r e t i c a l r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f Educational Psychology, 1 9 5 5 * M , » 3 3 O - 3 4 J 4 . . G u i l f o r d , J.P. Fundamental' s t a t i s t i c s i n p s y c h o l o g y and e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : " M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 9 6 5 . " H a l l , C. P e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y r e v i s i t e d and r e - e v a l u a t e d . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the A m e r i c a n P e r s o n n e l and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n Convention, Minneapolis, A p r i l , 1 9 6 5 . H e i l b r u n , A.B., J r . , C r i t e s , J.O., D a n i e l l , J . L . , G o o d s t e i n , L . D . , & Stephenson, R.R. The v a l i d i t y o f t w o - s c a l e p a t t e r n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y . J o u r n a l of A j i p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , I 9 6 2 , I 4 . 6 . , Jj.09-lj.l6.  _  "  •  ~~  H i l l , G.E. The s e l e c t i o n o f s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r s . £ £ S guidance J o u r n a l , 1 9 6 1 , 3 5 5 - 3 6 0 .  Personnel  H i l l , G.E., & G r e e n , D . H . The s e l e c t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n o f guidance and p e r s o n n e l w o r k e r s . Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , I 9 6 0 , J O , H 5 - I 3 O . H o l l a n d , J.L. The p r e d i c t i o n o f c o l l e g e grades from t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y and t h e S c h o l a s t i c A p t i t u d e T e s t . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology., 1 9 5 9 . Homey, K. The n e u r o t i c p e r s o n a l i t y o f our — t i m e . Norton, T 9 3 7 T " " " * ~ " ~ ~~ " ™ " " Horney, K,  Our Inner C_or£lict_s.  New Y o r k :  New Y o r k :  N o r t o n , 191+5.  Howsam, R.B. Teacher e v a l u a t i o n ; P a c t s and f o l k l o r e . N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , 1 9 6 3 , i j ^ , 7~l8* I s a a c s o n , R.L., McKeachie, W.J., & M i l h o l l a n d , J . E C o r r e l a t i o n o f t e a c h e r p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s and s t u d e n t ratings. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psycho]jagy^ 1 9 6 3 , j^j., S  1  110-117.  J a c k s o n , D.N. S t y l i s t i c response d e t e r m i n a n t s i n the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 19o"I), £ 0 , 3 3 9 " Johnson, B.C. Guidance and c o u n s e l i n g : A s e r i o u s e r r o r i n n o m e n c l a t u r e . Counselor E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1 9 6 3 , 198-201}..  Johnson, P.O., &-.Jackson, R.W.B. Modern s , b a t i ^ i o a l msthods. New Y o r k : Rand M c N a l l y , 1 9 5 9 . J o s l i n , P.L.C. Knowledge and. c o u n s e l i n g competence: An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f two outcomes o f a c o u n s e l o r e d u c a t i o n program. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1 9 6 2 . Kaback, G.R. C o u n s e l o r s examine guidance c o u r s e s , Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 6 3 , 1 1 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 .  yjpjgati^jnal  K a i s e r , H.K. Image a n a l y s i s . I n C.W. H a r r i s ( E d . ) , ProbJ.emg JLrx i ^ j a s j j r i n g j^hange. Madison, W i s c o n s i n : U n i v e r s i t y of"" Wisconsin"Press, "I963. K a t z , M.  D e c i s i o n s -and v a l u e s : A r a t i o n a l e , f o r se£on^&r^ EHi4ill££,',' P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : College"" E n t r a n c e "Examination B o a r d , 1 9 6 3 .  3Sh2.92u  K a z i e n k o , L.W., & N e i d t , C. S e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f good and poor c o u n s e l o r t r a i n e e s . Counselor E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1962,  1,  IO6-I23.  —  Kazmier, L . J . C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n g r o u p s , extreme g r o u p s , and t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f academic achievement. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psyjcjiolog^, 1 9 6 1 , j£2, 195-198. — - — -— ~ Kehas, C D . T h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s and r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h . .Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1 9 6 6 , J 6 , 2 0 7 - 2 1 8 . K e l l e y , T.L. The s e l e c t i o n o f upper and l o w e r groups f o r t h e v a l i d a t i o n of t e s t items. Journal of Educational  128 K e l l y , E.L. C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y . I n O.K. Buros ( E d . ) , The s i x t h m e n t a l measurements yearbook. Highland P a r k , New J e r s e y : Gryphon P r e s s , 1965, 168-170. Kemp, C.G. P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h g £rou£ p r o c e s s : A foundation f o r c o u n s e l i n g w i t h g r o u p s . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, T9oV  ~ — "  K e r l i n g e r , P.N. F o u n d a t i o n s o f b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . H o l t , R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n , 1965.  New Y o r k :  Knapp, R.R. R e l a t i o n s h i p o f a measure o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n t o n e u r o t i c i s m and e x t r a v e r s i o n . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology,, 1965,  .22, 168-172.  Korn, K.A. C o u n s e l i n g and t e a c h i n g : A n i n t e g r a t e d v i e w . J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l , 1966, 6, I37-I4.O. Landy, E., & P e r r y , P. (Eds.) B^ok^o^n^  University  &^ ^os^jec^  a  Press7"*T ^™~~ r  Guidance i n xlmerican E d u c a t i o n : Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard  Lehman, I . J . C u r r i c u l a r d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l e c t e d c o g n i t i v e and e f f e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . _J_ournaI of E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 1965, £ , IO3-IIO. L e l b , J.W., & Snyder, W.U. E f f e c t s o f group d i s c u s s i o n s on underachievement and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . Journal of £2EES£iiSg P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, i l l , 283-285. L i f t o n * W.M. Working; w i t h group_s: Groju£ p r o c e s s and i^ndivi^dual ^ r o v f t h . New York: W i l e y , 1962. Maaske, R . J . Needed r e s e a r c h i n t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n . American A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g e s f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n S t u d y S e r i e s 2. Committee on S t u d i e s and S t u d e n t s , AACTE, 1951+. M c C a l l , W. Measu_rement _of ^ e a c h e r m e r i t . R a l e i g h , N o r t h C a r o l i n a : North C a r o l i n a S t a t e Superintendent of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , 1952. McCreary, W.H. Who s h o u l d be a guidance s p e c i a l i s t ? C a l i f o r n i a J o u r n a l o f Secondary E d u c a t i o n , 1957, J2,, T+1?B^IJ32T~™ M a r g u l i e s , N. A study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e and t h e s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g process. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s , 1965. Maslow, A.H. I ^ t i v a t i o n and perjojialjU;:/.  Row 195U.. 5  New Y o r k :  Harper &  V  129  Maslow, A.H« (Ed.) New knowledge i n human values. Harper & Row, 195>9. Mas 1 oi-j, A . H . Toward a. psychology of being. & Row, 1962.  New York:  New York:  Harper  Maslow, A . H . Eupsychlan management: A jojurjaal. Horaewood, I l l i n o i s : "ITTcharoTTJ. Irwin & The Dorsey Press, 1 9 6 5 . Maslow, A . H . The psychology o_f science. Row, 1 9 6 6 .  New York:  Harper &  Messick, S. Personality measurement and college performance. In A . Anastasi ( E d . ) , Testing prjjblems _in perspective. Washington, D . C : American Council on Education, 19t>6. M i c h a e l i s , J . R . The p r e d i c t i o n of success i n student teaching from personality and attitude inventories. University of C a l i f o r n i a Publications jLn Education,  3J.,  Ip3"3£ol.  1954s  M i t c h e l l , J . V . , J r . , & Pierce-Jones, J . A factor analysis of Gough's C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory. Journal of Consulting Psychology , I960, 2^, 453-456. M i t z e l , H . E . Teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s . . In C.W. Harris (Ed.) Encylopedia of jgjucational research. (3rd ed.) New York:  Macmillan, 19o*0,  Moore, C H . , ' & Cole, D. The r e l a t i o n of MMPI scores to practice teaching r a t i n g . Journal of Educational Research, 1 9 5 7 , 5 0 ,  711-716.  — • ~  '  —  ^  Murray, M . E . An exploration of the relationship of s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n to teacher success. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y , i 9 6 0 , Myers, J . L . Fundamentals of experimental design. A l l y n & Bacon, 19~S6T~ Nunnally, J . The analysis of o r o f l i e data. B u l l e t i n , 1962, £2> 3 I I - 3 I 9 .  Boston:  Psychological  Pearson, 0 . Effects of group guidance upon college adjustment. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Kentucky, 1966. Peck, R . F . Personality patterns of prospective teachers. •Journal of • -Experimental Education, i 9 6 0 , _ 2 3 , 1 6  9-175.  130  P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Department o f E d u c a t i o n , of C u r r i c u l u m . Guidance 8 , 9> 1QJL..11> 1965* Reed, H.B. The e f f e c t s o f t e a c h e r warmth. E d u c a t i o n , 1961, 1 2 , 3 3 0 - 3 3 ! + . Riesman, D.  The l o n e l y crowd.  New Y o r k :  R o g e r s , C R . C l l e n t - c e n t e r e d t h erapy. R i v e r s i d e P r e s s , 19i?l.  Division  J o u r n a l o f Teacher Doubleday, 19$0.  Cambridge, Mass.:  R o g e r s , C R . The n e c e s s a r y and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e r a p e u t i c p e r s o n a l i t y change, Joxirnal o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 1957,.^1, 9 5 - 1 0 3 * R o g e r s , C R . Toward a t h e o r y o f c r e a t i v i t y . I n H.H. Anderson (Ed.) ££eativifc:£ and i t s ^ c u l t i v a t i o n . . New Y o r k : Harper & B r o s . , 1959T~" Rogers, C R . 1961.  On becoming a p e r s o n . ~~~  Boston:  Houghton-Mifflin,  R o g e r s , C R . , & Dymond, R.F. (Eds.) P s y c h o t h e r a p y and p e r s o n a l i t y change» C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i * t y " o f Chicago _  Press,  R u l o n , P . J . D i s t i n c t i o n s between d i s c r i m i n a n t and r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s and a g e o m e t r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n . Hg£vard E d u c a t i o n a l Review, I 9 6 0 , _2l, 8 0 - 9 0 . Ryans, D.G. C h a r a c t e r i ^ s j i c s o f t e a c h e r s — t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n , comparison, and a p p r a i s a 1. Washington, D.C: A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n , 196°0a. Ryans, D.G. P r e d i c t i o n o f t e a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . I n CW. H a r r i s (Ed.) ^ ^ c j ^ p ^ e d i a _of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . ( 3 r d ed.) New Y o r k : MacmTlIan7*T9o0b. ~° S a n f o r d , N. 1966.  S e l f and s o c i e t y .  ~  ~  —  —  New Y o r k :  Atherton Press,  S c h e e r e r , E.T. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between acceptance o f and r e s p e c t f o r s e l f and acceptance o f and respect f o r others i n t e n counseling cases. Journal of £2S3!iiti£S Z s y ^ l o g j r , 191+9, 169-175. S h e l d o n , M.S., & Sorenson, A.G. On t h e use o f Q, t e c h n i q u e i n e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n and r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Education, I960, 2 9 , l l ^ - T T l . """**  .131 Shostrum, E . L . An i n v e n t o r y f o r t h e measurement o f s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement,  1961+, .gk, 2 0 7 - 2 1 7 .  -  •  Shostrum, E . L . JPersonal Or i e n t a t i 0 1 1 j L ^ e n t o r j ; . San D i e g o , California: E d u c a t i o n a l and i n d u s t r i a l " T e s t i n g S e r v i c e ,  1966*  Shostrum, E . L * , & Knapp, R.R. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a measure o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n (POI) t o a measure o f p a t h o l o g y (MMPI) and t o t h e r a p e u t i c growth. A m e r i c a n _Jjjurnal o f Psy^cho-  therapy, 1 9 6 6 , 2 0 , 1 9 3 - 2 0 2 .  S p e c i a l Committee f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e APGA p o l i c y statement on c o u n s e l o r e d u c a t i o n . The p o l i c y statement on c o u n s e l o r e d u c a t i o n . Pjarsormel and Guidance J o u r n a l ,  1 9 6 1 , 4 0 1 - 4 0 7 .  —  —  S p r i n g o b , H.K., & S t r u e n i n g , E . L . A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y on a h i g h s c h o o l population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1 9 6 4 ? 2  173-179*  ,  S p r i n t h a l l , N.A., Mosher, R.L., & W h i t e l e y , J.M. C o g n i t i v e . flexibility: A f o c u s f o r r e s e a r c h on c o u n s e l o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . C o u n s e l o r E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1 9 6 6 , k, S p r i n t h a l l , N.A., & Tiedeman, D.V. Guidance and t h e p u p i l . I n J . I . Goodlad ( E d . ) , The j^ajoj^mg; A m e r i c a n s c j i o o l : Sixtyt^S^L yearbook o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i ^ ^ * ^ r t h e Study_ oT" Edju£ation. C h i c a g o ; U n i v e r s T t y of C h i c a g o ^ P r e s T 7 l 9 o T , Pp. $9^3. S t e i n , M.I. P e r s o n a l i t y measures i n a d m i t s i o n : Antetg^dent and p e r s o n a l i t y f j a c t o r s as £r^^^tors o f c o l l i e success-. New Y o r k : C o f l e g e ' E n t r a n c e E x a m i n a t i o n B o a r d , 1.90*3. Stephenson, W. The __tudv_ of b e h a v i o r : A ^tjejDjini^aue and i t s methodology. "Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o ~ P r e s s , 1 9 5 3 . ' S t e r n , G.G., Bloora, B.S., & S t e i n , M.I. Methods -in p e r s o n a l i t y assessment. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The F r e e P r e s s , 19§bZ S t r e i t f e l d , J.W. E x p r e s s e d a c c e p t a n c e o f s e l f and o t h e r s by psychotherapists. Jour rial o f £c^sjolting_ Psychology,. 1959,  2 J , 435-44L  S t r o n g , D.J., & F e d e r , D.D, Measurement of t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t : A c r i t i q u e o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e . _Jpujrn -l o f Counseling P^sychjologj, 1 9 6 1 , 8, 1 7 0 - 1 7 8 . 8  T h o r n d i k e , R.L. Reviev; of the C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory. In O.K Buros ( E d . ) , F i f t h M e n t a l Measurements Yearbook. H i g h l a n d P a r k , New J e r s e y : "Gryphon P r e s s , 1959*  Trwr"  Tiedeman, D.V. The u t i l i t y of the d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l and guidance i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . H a r v a r d j S d u c a ^ i o n a l Review, I960, j?L 71-80. t  Tiedeman, D.V., & F i e l d , F.L. Guidance: The p o s e f u l a c t i o n a p p l i e d through education. E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1962, j}2* 4.83-501.  s c i e n c e of p u r Harvard  Trov;, W.C R o l e f u n c t i o n s of the t e a c h e r i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l group. In N.B, Henry ( E d . ) , The dynamics of i n s t r u c t i o n a l ou p s - - 3 o c i o - p s y c h o 1 o g 1 c a 1 a^oejsts of t e a c h i n g and Zi£tS"i2iS! Jl yearbook of t h o N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study of E d u c a t i o n . C h i c a g o , U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , I960. G  T y l e r , F.T. The p r e d i c t i o n of s t u d e n t - t e a c h i n g success f r o m p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s . T^niverjsjU^r of C _ ^ i f q r n . i a P u b l i c a t i o n s jhi E d u c a t i o n , 19F5°> Z* 233-jlEfT""""" T y l e r , L-E. The counseling. (mimoo.).  methods and p r o c e s s e s of a p p r a i s a l and Paper p r e s e n t e d at G r e y s t o n e C o n f e r e n c e ,  1961].,  Van B u r e n , J.D. An assessment of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c a p a c i t y t o empathize and t h e e m o t i o n a l m a t u r i t y of a group of c o u n s e l o r - t r a i n e e s . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Veldman, D.J, New Y o r k :  F o r t r a n programming^ f o r the b e h a v i o r a l ^ci^ejnce^s. H o l t , R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n , 19VT7~~~  W e i r , W.R. The use of a measure of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n i n the t r e a t m e n t of a l c o h o l i c s and t h e i r spouses i n an o u t p a t i e n t agency. U n p u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of N o r t h Dakota, 1965. W e i t z , H. C o u n s e l i n g as a f u n c t i o n of the c o u n s e l o r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y . P^r£onnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1957* 276-280.  Wert, J.E., Ahraann, J.S., & N e i d t , C O . S _ t a ^ i ^ t l j ; a l methods i n e d u c a t i o n a l and £sycJioJ^Q^£al r e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n Century-"Crofts, • W h i t e l e y , J.M., Donaghy, R.T., Mosher, R.L., & S p r i n t h a l l , S e l e c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of c o u n s e l o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . J o u r n a l of £ou_ns^Jn,7 Pj3£ch£l^£, 1967, l ) ^ , 226-234..  N.A.  133 Whiteley, J.M., Donaghy, R.T., Mosher, R.L., & S p r i n t h a l l , N.A. E x p l o r a t i o n s in counseling : Theory and r e s e a r c h on the s e l e c t i o n of, c_pun^^ors and clj..e*nts, i n p r e s s . Wittenborn, J.R. methodology.  C o n t r i b u t i o n s and  current s t a t u s of 0,  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Buj-letin,  1 9 6 1 , £ 8 , 132-142.  Wrenn, C.G. The s e l e c t i o n and education of student p e r s o n n e l workers. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1 9 5 2 , J l , 9 - l i l - . Wrenn, C.G. Status and r o l e of the s c h o o l Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1 9 5 7 ,  counselor. I75-I83.  Wrenn, C.G. The s e l f - c o n c e p t i n c o u n s e l i n g . Counseling Psychology, 1 9 5 8 , 10li.-109.  J o u r n a l of  Wrenn, C.G. C u l t u r a l and time changes i n our concepts of c o u n s e l i n g . Canadian Counse 1 1 o r / C o n s e i l l e r Canadian,.  1968,  Wrightsraan,' L.S., Noble, P.C., & R i c h a r d , W.C. A t t i t u d e changes of guidance i n s t i t u t e p a r t i c i p a n t s . Counselor E d u c a t i o n i_Si_ §^SJ£llBlSR* 1966, 212-220. Wylie, R.C. The s^elf concept: A c r i t i c a l survey of p e r t i n e n t jpejj^earoh 1 i^e?ature'. L i n c o l n , Nebraska": U n i v e r s i t y of" Nebraska P r e s s , 19*61.  '"References i n t e x t are g i v e n as pages of c h a p t e r s , as t h i s Is the n o t a t i o n i n the mimeographed form.  APPENDICES  APPENDICES Demonstration Lesson 1. 2. 3. \. 5«  I n t r o d u ct i o n Case s t u d i e s Student r a t i n g s c a l e Instructions to raters U n i v e r s i t y of 3«C r a t i n g f o r m D  Instruments le 2. 3. h.. 5.  Sample q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e POI Sample q u e s t i o n s from t h e C P I Sample Q-sort items I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e 'Q, s o r t Other measures (a) (b) (c) (d)  qu e s t i o rma i r e case s t u d y lesson plan examples o f answers  M u l t i v a r i a t e Equations  APPENDIX A Demonstration  Lesson  1. I n t r o d u c t i o n My name i s  ________________ * i d my p a r t n e r ' s name i s  _•  a  We a r e student t e a c h e r s i n t h e F i f t h y e a r o f our program a t U.B.C., and we a r e p l a n n i n g t o be t e a c h e r s o f Guidance.  In t h i s  p e r i o d we a r e spending w i t h you t o - d a y we hoped we c o u l d g e t your i d e a s on some problem  s i t u a t i o n s t h a t we know have o c c u r r e d  i n some h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ' l i v e s .  We've w r i t t e n t h e s e  i n c i d e n t s up as case h i s t o r i e s , and we'd l i k e t o g i v e you a chance t o t a l k about a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n .  We're g o i n g  t o tape r e c o r d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , so t h a t our i n s t r u c t o r s may be able t o l i s t e n t o the ideas expressed here.  Cur time i s up - would you mind, b e f o r e we f i n i s h , f i l l i n g out the r a t i n g s c a l e . you'd l i k e t o make.  Please f i l l  i n any comments t h a t you. f e e l  Thank you v e r y much.  2. Cas£ SJbudies (a) A student i n your c l a s s has o b t a i n e d a copy o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n paper and i s s e l l i n g i t t o o t h e r s i n t h e c l a s s . The exam r e s u l t s w i l l be e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t I n r e l a t i o n t o t h e y e a r ' s work. would you do:  The t e a c h e r i s unaware o f t h e s i t u a t i o n .  What  (1) Get a copy o f the exam, (2) T e l l the t e a c h e r I n an anonymous note what I s g o i n g on. (3) T a l k the m a t t e r over w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s i n t h e c l a s s , and get t h e i r o p i n i o n as t o what t o do. (1+) T a l k t h e m a t t e r over w i t h your p a r e n t s and g e t t h e i r o p i n i o n s as t o i^hat you s h o u l d do. (j?) T e l l t h e t e a c h e r p r i v a t e l y . (6) (b) Two articles  Other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . of your c l o s e f r i e n d s have been s t e a l i n g  small  from a neighbourhood drug s t o r e d u r i n g l u n c h h o u r .  You have h e a r d , i n a f a m i l y c o n v e r s a t i o n a t home, t h a t t h e d r u g g i s t has l a i d a t r a p f o r y o u r f r i e n d s , so t h a t the n e x t time t h e y attempt t o s t e a l a n y t h i n g , t h e y are c e r t a i n t o be caught.  Your f a m i l y has always s t r e s s e d h o n e s t y , and y o u r  p a r e n t s have complete t r u s t i n you.  What would you  do:  (1) Warn your f r i e n d s of the t r a p . (2) Try t o persuade your f r i e n d s that, what t h e y a r e d o i n g i s wrong ( w i t h o u t t e l l i n g them of t h e t r a p ) . (3) Speak t o some a d u l t i n whom you have c o n f i d e n c e who c o u l d approach y o u r f r i e n d s ( m i n i s t e r , a d u l t friend, counsellor, etc.). (I|.)  T e l l your o t h e r f r i e n d s about t h e t r a p , h o p i n g the group w i l l I n f l u e n c e the two i n v o l v e d /  (5)  T e l l your two f r i e n d s t o be more c a r e f u l i f t h e y are going t o continue to s t e a l .  (6)  Do n o t h i n g .  (7) Other p o s s i b i l i t i e s .  13b (c) You a r e a t t e n d i n g a p r i v a t e p a r t y .  Both y o u r p a r e n t s  and your d a t e ' s p a r e n t s have s p e c i f i e d t h e time when you s h o u l d be home.  I t i s a good p a r t y , and h a l f an hour b e f o r e y o u r  curfew, i t i s s t i l l going s t r o n g .  What would you do:  (1) Leave t h e p a r t y a t t h e s p e c i f i e d t i m e . (2) Phone home t o your p a r e n t s and your d a t e ' s parents f o r permission t o stay l a t e r . (3) Take a chance on your p a r e n t s ' a p p r o v a l and remain u n t i l the party i s over. (Ij.)  A s k your host or h i s p a r e n t s t o phone your parents, asking permission t o stay.  ( 5 ) T a l k t h e s i t u a t i o n over w i t h your date and come t o a mutual d e c i s i o n . (6) Other  possibilities*  (d) One o f your b e s t f r i e n d s has been a c o n s i s t e n t l y reckless driver.  One day you w i t n e s s an a c c i d e n t i n w h i c h he i s  d r i v i n g t o o f a s t , and, as a r e s u l t , two people a r e s e r i o u s l y injured.  You know, he p l a n s t o l i e about what has happened,  What would you do: (1) R e p o r t t o t h e p o l i c e as a w i t n e s s . (2) Warn your f r i e n d t h a t you - w i l l , t e s t i f y -against him u n l e s s he t e l l s t h e t r u t h . (3) T a l k over t h e m a t t e r w i t h your p a r e n t s . T a l k over t h e m a t t e r w i t h an a d u l t i n whom you have c o n f i d e n c e . ( 5 ) Do n o t h i n g . (6)  Other  possibilities.  .137 3"  Student R a t i n g S c a l e  Please f i l l  i n the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e , g i v i n g your a p p r a i s a l of the  l e s s o n you have had, and of the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r .  C i r c l e the  most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e . 1.  D i d you f e e l encouraged by t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n ?  1.  2.  3.  V e r y encouraged  Encouraged  Neither r e a l l y encouraged nor discouraged  2.  1. 3.  1. V e r y much so if.  3«  Usually  Seldom  Not a t a l l  2.  3.  If.  Somewhat  Seldom  Not a t a l l  Would you l i k e t o have t h i s t e a c h e r f o r a Guidance teacher?  2.  V e r y much  Satisfactory  3.  C i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e number. second l e s s o n .  Comments:  If,  D i d you f e e l t h a t t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r was p r e p a r e d t o l e t the c l a s s d i s c u s s t h e i r i d e a s , even though i t meant d e p a r t i n g from a p r e - a r r a n g e d l e s s o n p l a n ?  1.  Date  Discouraged (No a c t i v e encouragement)  D i d you f e e l y o u r i d e a s and those of t h e r e s t of the c l a s s were a p p r e c i a t e d and l i s t e n e d t o by the student teacher?  2.  V e r y much  4.0  Time  Indifferent  Student  if. No  teacher i n f i r s t ,  18 3  K* I n s t r u c t i o n s to Raters Thank you f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s project.,  You  are asked to r a t e the student-teachers you hear on these tapes i n terras of your e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r performances teachers.  as -guidance  The case studies they use i n the lessons were  s e l e c t e d by them from the accompanying sheet. to the class i s a l s o attached.  Their i n t r o d u c t i o n  Their only i n s t r u c t i o n s were to '  use the case studies as the b a s i s f o r a l e s s o n .  On most of the  tapes two students shared a guidance p e r i o d , agreeing between themselves how to d i v i d e the p e r i o d .  In one or two instances  (marked on tapes) one student took a whole p e r i o d .  (You may, i n  t h i s i n s t a n c e , s e l e c t from the tape—-beginning, middle and'end-to get as close an approximation to the general s i t u a t i o n as possible.  Having a longer p e r i o d of time i s u s u a l l y an  advantage, and i f p o s s i b l e you should take t h i s i n t o consideration.  The most u s e f u l part of the l e s s o n to base any com-  p a r i s o n on, w i l l be the f i r s t f i f t e e n minutes.) On the tape boxes, I have included t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n : name of student-teacher (s)., time of day, date, grade l e v e l . You are asked to make a " g l o b a l " e v a l u a t i o n , that i s - - a general o v e r a l l r a t i n g of the student teacher i n terms of h i s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . - You are asked to use the f o l l o w i n g r a t i n g scale in'two ways:  (a) decide on a mark  (using halves also) (b) i n d i c a t e the category. thes.e'ratings on the r a t i n g sheet.  1-10  Please place  Should the tape be so poor  139  t h a t you cannot hear t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r , or i f f o r any r e a s o n you a r e u n a b l e t o r a t e a p a r t i c u l a r performance, p l e a s e so i n d i c a t e i n column c<> Category  I  Category  Very good  Good  The  II  Category  III  ^^iM^MlS^L  C a t e g o r y IV Not s a t i s f a c t o r y .  f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s of i n f o r m a t i o n a r e r e l e v a n t t o y o u r  p o s i t i o n as r a t e r : (1) t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r d i d n o t know t h e s e s t u d e n t s , and i n most i n s t a n c e s the s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f t o t h e c l a s s . The c l a s s e s knew n o t h i n g o f t h e p r o j e c t or i t s purpose, (2) i n many i n s t a n c e s , t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r had t h o c l a s s form i n t o s m a l l groups f o r d i s c u s s i o n . When t h i s occurred, the other student-teacher u s u a l l y t u r n e d o f f t h e tape r e c o r d e r d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . I f t h i s d i d not happen, you can p i c k up t h e r e t u r n t o g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n by speeding up t h e tape. (3) each s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r asked t h e s t u d e n t s t o f i l l out a r a t i n g sheet a t t h e end o f t h e l e s s o n . These i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l be i n c l u d e d on t h e t a p e s , i n some i n s t a n c e s . (If) t h e time a l l o t m e n t t o each s t u d e n t was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20-25 m i n u t e s . (5) enclosed charts are a r e c o r d of the c l a s s participation.  I f s m a l l groups used so i n d i c a t e d .  Some c l u e s t h a t may a s s i s t you i n r e a c h i n g a g l o b a l e v a l u a t i o n a r e l i s t e d below.  This l i s t  i s b y no means i n c l u s i v e ,  but i s i n t e n d e d t o s u p p l y some g u i d e l i n e s o n l y .  The q u e s t i o n s  a r e based on areas o f g e n e r a l agreement as t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of good guidance Bennett  l e s s o n s , as i n d i c a t e d by Margaret  i n "Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g i n Groups" and on t h e items  ll+O i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r r a t i n g sheet used i n t h e F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia  6  1. D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r have a s a t i s f a c t o r y i n t r o d u c t i o n ? D i d he make c l e a r h i s purpose (goals) t o the students? I f n o t , was h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f h i s presence s a t i s f a c t o r y ? 2* D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r attempt t o e s t a b l i s h a c l i m a t e I n t h e c l a s s conducive t o d i s c u s s i o n ? Was he " l i s t e n i n g * t o responses? D i d he p i c k up cues from t h e s t u d e n t s and pursue them i n d i s c u s s i o n ? 1  3. D i d t h e student t e a c h e r use t h e p e r s o n a l pronoun I " e x t e n s i v e l y ? D i d he attempt t o e l i c i t from the s t u d e n t s t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s ? H  1+c What p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e time d i d the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r t a l k ? Was he a b l e t o g e t much response from t h e s t u d e n t s ? D i d many s t u d e n t s appear t o p a r t i c i p a t e , o r d i d a few s t u d e n t s monopolise t h e d i s c u s s i o n ? D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r do a n y t h i n g to avoid monopolization? D i d he appear t o " p i n p o i n t " s t u d e n t s , or d i d s t u d e n t s v o l u n t e e r ? $0 Was s u f f i c i e n t care t a k e n i n terms o f " c l a s s management"? D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r seem t o . know "where he was g o i n g " and "what he was d o i n g " and d i d the c l a s s appear t o u n d e r s t a n d and f o l l o w the g u i d e l i n e s ( e i t h e r e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t ) ? 6. Was the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r ' s v o i c e and d i c t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r the s i t u a t i o n ? 7» D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r appear t o d e v e l o p i n t e r e s t i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n and i n t h e l e s s o n ? D i d he u s e methods t o encourage t h e development of i n t e r e s t ? 8, D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r t e n d t o make judgemental or e v a l u a t i v e comments? I f s o , what was t h e r e a c t i o n t o these? 9» D i d t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r appear t o have an o r g a n i z e d p l a n f o r h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n ? D i d he appear t o have thought about t h e l e s s o n beforehand?  T H E UNIVERSITY OF bHITISH COLUMBIA  FACULTY Or EDUCATION — REPORT ON TEACHING PRACTICE . SCHOOl  : GRADE (S)  SUBJECT (S)  ,  TO SUPERVISORS: I T E M S AS  ARC  PLEASE  COMMENT  DATE FREELY  OESiUE  AS  •MANY  OF  THE  FOLLOWING  AFrROPniATE.  APPEARANCE, POISE. PERSONALITY,  VOICE.  DUALITY O F E N G L I S H (wniTTErAND  SrOKEN > .  KNOWLEDGE OF THE 6UC1JECT A R E A . CLARITY OF "OBJECTIVES. ORGANIZATION, CLARITY OF PRESENTATION GUESTIONING AMP INVOLVEMENT O F PUPILS USE OF BLACKBOARD, MATERIALS a EQUIP'T. SUMMARIZING THE  LESSON.  ASSIGNMENTS, SUPERVISION. INOIV. A S S I S T A N C E . PACE, CONTROL AND CLASS MANAGEMENT. RELATIONSHIPS WITH PUPILS.  RELATIONSHIPS WITH O T H E R S . BEST FEATUHES—  OVERALLS VALUATION PLEASE CHECK ONE CLASS I  •  CLASS II  •  PASS  O  FAILURE  O  (OUTSTANDING)  CHIEF  WEAKNESS—  (GOOD )  (AVERAGE)  (UNSU1TED)  SUPPLEMENTAL FORM NO.  •  (RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL PRACTICE)  SIGNED.  323  ll[.2 APPENDIX B Instruments Sample q u e s t i o n s  f r o m POI  Mark t h e statement "mostly t r u e " about y o u . 1. a. I am bound b y t h e p r i n c i p l e of f a i r n e s s . b.  I am n o t a b s o l u t e l y bound by t h e p r i n c i p l e o f fairness.  2. a. When a f r i e n d does me a f a v o r , I f e e l t h a t I - must r e t u r n i t . b. When a f r i e n d does me a f a v o r , I do n o t f e e l t h a t I must r e t u r n i t . 3. a. I f e e l I must always t e l l t h e t r u t h . b.  I do not always t e l l t h e t r u t h .  i).. a. No matter how hard I t r y , my f e e l i n g s a r e o f t e n hurt. b. I f I manage t h e s i t u a t i o n r i g h t , I c a n a v o i d being hurt. 5>. a. I f e e l I must s t r i v e f o r p e r f e c t i o n i n e v e r y thing I undertake. b.  I do not f e e l t h a t I must s t r i v e f o r p e r f e c t i o n i n everything that I undertake.  Sample q u e 3 t i o n s from C P I I f you agree w i t h a s t a t e m e n t , mark True; d i s a g r e e , 1. I enjoy s o c i a l g a t h e r i n g s  False.  j u s t t o be w i t h p e o p l e .  2. The o n l y i n t e r e s t i n g p a r t o f t h e newspaper i s the "funnies." 3.  I l o o k e d up t o my f a t h e r as an i d e a l man.  i+. A p e r s o n needs t o "show o f f " a l i t t l e now 5*  and  Our t h i n k i n g would be a l o t b e t t e r o f f i f we j u s t f o r g e t about words l i k e " p r o b a b l y , " " a p p r o x i m a t e l y , " and "perhaps."  then, would  3 . Sample Q,—.S o r t Items 1.  I f e e l u n c o m f o r t a b l e w h i l e t a l k i n g w i t h someone.  2«  I put on a f a l s e  3.  I am a c o m p e t i t i v e  front. person,  [j.. I make s t r o n g demands on  myself.,  5.  I o f t e n k i c k m y s e l f f o r the t h i n g s I do.  6.  I often feel humiliated.  7.  I doubt my  8.  I am much l i k e the o p p o s i t e  9.  I have a warm e m o t i o n a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p with others,  I am an a l o o f r e s e r v e d  person.  10.  s e x u a l powers, sex.  h* ' I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e Q S o r t A. S e l f S o r t S o r t these d e s c r i p t i o n s ( 1 0 0 as you  items) to d e s c r i b e y o u r s e l f  see y o u r s e l f t o - d a y , from those t h a t are l e a s t l i k e -you  to those t h a t are most l i k e  you.  "Least l i k e P i l e numbe Number of  cards  2  me  3 4 5  "Most l i k e  0  1  6  1  \\. 1 1 2 1 2 6 2 1 1 1  7  8  l\.  1  me"  144 Instructions 1 . B e g i n w i t h your p i l e o f 1 0 0 , and t r y t o d i v i d e i t into thirds, l e f t p i l e approximately 3 3 - l e a s t l i k e me-=right p i l e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 3 - m o s t l i k e me, and . rest i n middle. 2 « From your l e f t ' " l e a s t " p i l e , s e l e c t t h e 1 i t e m l e a s t l i k e you ( P i l e number 0 ) . 3 . Then from y o u r b i g l e f t p i l e (nov; approx. 3 2 items) s e l e c t the next 4 items l e a s t l i k e you and p l a c e them i n p i l e number 1 . i+. Then c o n t i n u e t o s e l e c t t h e next 1 1 items, l e a s t l i k e you, and p l a c e them i n p i l e number 2 - (You w i l l have approx. 1 7 l e f t i n o r i g i n a l l e f t p i l e . ) 5. F o l l o w same procedure w i t h your r i g h t up p i l e s number 8 , 7 , 6 .  pile,  setting  6 . You now have. approx« 6 8 items l e f t ( 1 7 from l e f t , 1 7 from r i g h t , 3 4 i n o r i g i n a l m i d d l e p i l e ) . F o r c e t h i s group i n t o 3 p i l e s , l e a s t l i k e me - 2 1 i t e m s , p i l e number 3 , most l i k e me - 2 l i t e m s , p i l e number 5 n d i n between - 2 6 i t e m s , p i l e number 4 . a  7. E n t e r numbers o f items on chart.. Do not t r y t o r a n k items w i t h i n groups. I n o t h e r words, the o r d e r of items i n the p i l e s i s of no Importance. B . .Ideal S o r t Nov; s o r t the 1 0 0 items a g a i n , t h i s t i m e t o d e s c r i b e your i d e a l p e r s o n - - t h e p e r s o n you would most l i k e w i t h i n y o u r s e l f t o be.  F o l l o w the same p r o c e d u r e s -as above.  5* Other Measures ( ) Questionnaire a  Directions:  You a r e asked t o imagine y o u r s e l f i n the  following situations.  Choose t h e r e s p o n s e you t h i n k you would  make, g i v i n g r e a s o n s f o r your c h o i c e .  C i r c l e the appropriate  number. 1. Your Guidance 9 c l a s s i s making o r a l r e p o r t s on a u n i t on -Vocations..  J u s t as one committee i s about to-make i t s  r e p o r t , a student puts up h e r hand and s a y s : supposed t o be making these  n  I know we're  r e p o r t s , but c o u l d we stop f o r a  few minutes and d i s c u s s t h e a r t i c l e i n t h e paper l a s t about teen-age m o r a l s . o t h e r s t h i n k about i t . "  night  I ' d l i k e t o know what you and t h e Would you:  (1) A s k the c l a s s f o r t h e i r o p i n i o n s and w i s h e s . (2)  I n d i c a t e you t h i n k t h e t o p i c i n t e r e s t i n g , b u t suggest you would l i k e t o r e a d t h e a r t i c l e y o u r s e l f f i r s t , and then take i t up d u r i n g t h e appropriate u n i t .  (3)  I n d i c a t e you do not t h i n k t h i s an a p p r o p r i a t e t o p i c f o r Guidance 9.  (4.) B e g i n a d i s c u s s i o n r i g h t t h e n , w i t h a q u e s t i o n such a s : '-'What was i t t h a t you were p a r t i c u l a r l y interested in?" (5)  A l t e r n a t i v e suggestions.  Reasons f o r your c h o i c e . 2. A boys' Guidance c l a s s i n Grade 10 i s d i s c u s s i n g how t o g e t a l o n g w i t h p e o p l e , when one boy s a y s : always p i c k on k i d s ? "  "Why do t e a c h e r s  Would y o u :  (1) A s k him t o e l a b o r a t e on what he has s a i d . (2)  E x p l a i n t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e human and have t o be a l l o w e d t o have f e e l i n g s t o o .  (3)  A s k the c l a s s f o r t h e i r i d e a s on t h i s  topic.  (4.) I n d i c a t e you t h i n k t h i s i s an u n f a i r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .  (5)  Alternative  suggestions.  Reasons f o r your c h o i c e . A group o f boys i n a Grade 12 c l a s s a r e a r g u i n g n o i s i l y as t h e y come i n t o the Guidance c l a s s r o o m , and you r e a l i z e i t has something t o do w i t h one of t h e boys b e i n g on p r o b a t i o n . Would you: (1) Lead i n t o a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n about the lav/, hoping t h a t the i n c i d e n t might be mentioned. (2) Ignore the s i t u a t i o n and b e g i n your lesson. (3)  planned  D i r e c t a l i g h t " k i d d i n g " query t o the b o y s — s u c h a s , "What's up? Is t h i s a g e n e r a l f i g h t we can a l l get I n t o ? " •  (ii) Attempt t o speak t o the boys concerned p r i v a t e l y b e f o r e the c l a s s b e g i n s , i n d i c a t i n g there a r e some p r i v a t e m a t t e r s t h a t don't need t o be discussed i n public. (5)  Alternative  Reasons f o r your A girls'  suggestions.  choice,  Guidance c l a s s i n Grade 10 i s d i s c u s s i n g p e r s o n a l  r e l a t i o n s when one g i r l s a y s , " I know t h i s i s n ' t r i g h t  on  the t o p i c , but c o u l d you t e l l me what m a s t u r b a t i o n means?" Would you: (1) I n d i c a t e you'd l i k e t o t a l k w i t h h e r about the q u e s t i o n .  privately  (2) Ask the c l a s s how many had heard of the word. (3)  Ask  i f someone i n the c l a s s can answer the q u e s t i o n  (ii) I n d i c a t e you t h i n k i t a d i g r e s s i o n , and not a s u i t a b l e q u e s t i o n a t t h i s time, (5)  Alternative  Reasons f o r your  suggestions.  choice.  The boys i n your Guidance c l a s s come i n n o i s i l y , and a r e h a r d l y s e a t e d b e f o r e someone b u r s t s out w i t h , "That s t u p i d t e a c h e r , Mr. Brown.  He's t o o dumb t o r e a l i z e t h a t h a l f t h e  c l a s s had seen a copy o f t h a t exam. stupid!"  He makes me s i c k he's so  Would y o u :  (1) Remonstrate w i t h him f o r t a l k i n g l i k e t h a t about a teacher,, ( 2 ) Appear s y m p a t h e t i c or/and i n t e r e s t e d , b u t i n d i c a t e e t h i c s do n o t p e r m i t you t o l i s t e n t o c o m p l a i n t s against a teacher. (3) Make use o f t h e s i t u a t i o n t o d i s c u s s t h e m a t t e r of cheating. (1+) Suggest t h e s t u d e n t t a l k t o you about t h e m a t t e r after class. (5)  Alternative  suggestions.  Reasons f o r y o u r c h o i c e . A Grade 8 g i r l complains i n c l a s s because h e r mother doesn't t r u s t h e r . ' She won't l e t h e r b r i n g h e r b o y f r i e n d home a f t e r s c h o o l , because t h e y a r e a l o n e i n t h e house.  Would y o u :  (1) I n d i c a t e t h e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h e mother's behaviour. (2) A s k t h e c l a s s f o r o p i n i o n s . (3) Suggest a p a n e l o f o l d e r g i r l s (Grade 11 o r 12) be asked t o t a l k over problems l i k e t h i s w i t h t h e class. (If) Suggest r o l e - p l a y i n g o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . (5)  Alternative  suggestions.  Reasons f o r y o u r c h o i c e .  (b) Case Stuch£ A. Answer / e i t h e r Q u e s t i o n I o r I I Subjects:  Bob, a 16 y e a r o l d boy i n Grade 1 0 . L a s t y e a r he w a s ' r a t h e r s m a l l , a q u i e t boy who s t u d i e d c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y and c o o p e r a t e d w e l l w i t h the teachers,. He d i d n ' t b o t h e r much w i t h the o t h e r s t u d e n t s i n the s c h o o l . T h i s y e a r , one might d e s c r i b e Bob as t a l l , w e l l - b u i l t , a t t r a c t i v e i n a manly way, and conf i d e n t i n h i s manner w i t h b o t h t e a c h e r s and f e l l o w s t u d e n t s . l£jBj3yj3 i n the same c l a s s as Bob, range i n age f r o m l i ; 1/2 t o 15> l / 2 y e a r s . R e c e n t l y t h e y have been i n v o l v e d i n v a r i o u s k i n d s of t r o u b l e from j o s t l i n g c e r t a i n p e o p l e i n the h a l l s t o p i c k i n g fight3  on  the  playgrounds.  On  two  o c c a s i o n s these boys had t o v i s i t principal for discipline.  Situation:  the  Through y o u r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w i n g i t has become apparent t o yOu as t h e c o u n s e l l o r of Gr. 10 boys t h a t the f i f t e e n boys (above) were i ^ n d ^ i ^ ^ I l y most concerned about t h e i r r e c e n t b e h a v i o u r i n and out of s c h o o l . You have l e a r n e d f r o m each one t h a t he f e l t he was under r e a l p r e s s u r e f o r a l o n g t i m e . Each boy f e e l s f r e e t o c o n f i d e i n you, knowing t h a t you w i l l keep h i s secret. I n each case the p r e s s u r e i n v o l v e d the power t h a t each thought Bob had over them. They each s a i d t h a t Bob i s the one who t e l l s us t o p i c k on someone. One -such case i n v o l v e d 'the p e r s e c u t i o n o f a q u i e t , ll}. year b i d I n d i a n boy. R a t h e r t h a n bear the brunt o f being c a l l e d " c h i c k e n " they f o l l o w e d orders. Your judgment i s t h a t the f i f t e e n boys were a c t u a l l y concerned and were s u f f e r i n g f r o m b o t h £uilt and f e a r , but c o u l d n ' t summon enough courage t o b r e a k away." lT  lJ',-9 Upon f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n you f i n d that while the f i f t e e n boys i n v o l v e d have been d i s c i p l i n e d s e v e r a l times, Bob was never among them* Asjsjjme t h a t y_ou have Bob and the f i f t e e n boj^s i n v our Guidance c l a s s . a  1 1  •  ^EkJ®£££  :  Mary i s a s i x t e e n y e a r o l d g i r l i n Grade 9» Mary i s "glamorous" w i t h her long h a i r s t y l e and her m i n i - 3 k i r t . A t l e a s t the other g i r l s i n her c l a s s t h i n k so. She i s w i t t y , p r e t t y , and confident. The other g i r l s swarm around her even though she i s c a u s t i c a t times. She has not a c t u a l l y been i n t r o u b l e i n s c h o o l , b u t she has been "on the f r i n g e . 0  ^ _ _ G i r l s who a r e i n the same c l a s s as Mary, range i n age from I 3 1 / 2 t o 15 years. R e c e n t l y these g i r l s have been i n v o l v e d i n v a r i o u s scrapes which seemed to b e g i n f o r no reason a t a l l . These g i r l s seemed i n t e n t on making trouble,, Situation:  Through i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w i n g i t has come t o your a t t e n t i o n as the c o u n s e l l o r . of Grade 9 g i r l s t h a t the f i f t e e n g i r l s were v e r y worried about the types o f .things they were d o i n g . Each i n d i c a t e d some concern about h e r p a r t i n t h e p e r s e c u t i o n of one p a r t i c u l a r g i r l . The g i r l t h a t was b e i n g "picked on" was not too a t t r a c t i v e , was q u i e t and p o o r l y d r e s s e d . T h i s g i r l seemed t o move t o and from c l a s s i n a q u i e t , almost f e a r f u l way. You have l e a r n e d from each g i r l that she doesn't know why she does such t h i n g s e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e she f e e l s so g u i l t y about i t afterwards. Some i n d i c a t e d t h a t they "were i n too deep" now' t o do anything. Others i n d i c a t e d that they wanted t o be f r i e n d s w i t h Mary. Mary, wasn't a p p a r e n t l y i n v o l v e d a t a l l , £2^ i l £i£tg_gn ^ i r l s xn your Guidance c l a s s . 1 9  are  l£0 Directions:  I n d i s c u s s i n g one o f t h e above s i t u a t i o n s , i n c l u d e answers t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :  1. What i s t h e problem as you see i t ? 2. What s t e p s , i f any, would you t a k e t o p r e p a r e y o u r s e l f f o r h a n d l i n g t h i s problem i n a group situation? 3.  What d e v e l o p m e n t a l t a s k ( s ) i s ( a r e ) i n v o l v e d here?  if. 'What would you'use as your t o p i c and how would you i n t r o d u c e i t t o your c l a s s ? Illustrate.. 5>. What group guidance t e c h n i q u e s be most e f f e c t i v e ? 'Why?  do you t h i n k would  (c) L e s s o n F l a n W r i t e a s h o r t essay Guidance l e s s o n . " method.  on your i d e a s about "an i d e a l  Be concerned about o b j e c t i v e s , c o n t e n t and  S p e c i f y grade l e v e l and type o f group you a r e p l a n n i n g  t o t e a c h such a l e s s o n t o . (d) Examples o f Answers Examples of answers t o t h e Questionnaire-: 1. I f c h o i c e (2) was marked, and r e a s o n g i v e n concerned t h e t e a c h e r ' 3 need f p r p r e p a r a t i o n and t h e c l a s s ' 3 s i m i l a r need, a mark o f t h r e e was g i v e n (out of a p o s s i b l e f i v e ) . No r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' concern.for the importance o f t i m e l i n e s s i n l e s s o n s was g i v e n . I f c h o i c e (I4.) was made, and r e a s o n g i v e n was r e l a t e d t o t h e importance o f t a k i n g up those t h i n g s t h a t c o n c e r n s t u d e n t s , -a-mark o f f o u r -was g i v e n . No c o n c e r n f o r t h e s t u d e n t s who had p r e pared a r e p o r t was i n d i c a t e d . F i v e marks w e r e . g i v e n f o r any answer t h a t i n d i c a t e d a need t o c o n s i d e r t h e whole c l a s s , t h e s t u d e n t s who had p r e p a r e d t h e r e p o r t , the s t u d e n t who asked the q u e s t i o n , .and t h e teacher•' s preparedness-.  151  I n t h i s q u e s t i o n , no answer was c o n s i d e r e d i n c o r r e c t , because the r e a s o n .given d e t e r m i n e d the r e l e v a n c e of the answer. However., ( 3 ) was the poorest choice. 2. A f i v e p o i n t answer i n v o l v e d a c o m b i n a t i o n of s e v e r a l answers, In'most cases. The f o u r t h answer was• c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e -a-s i t s t a n d s , -but as p a r t of a q u e s t i o n on g e n e r a l i z i n g , i t v/as worth .three marks. Bases f o r r a t i n g answers t o the Case study and the -Lesson p l a n . G-ood answers i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s i n d i c a t e d an awareness of the l i m i t a t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n the Guidance classroom  situation,  but a s e n s i t i v i t y t o the v a r y i n g needs of s t u d e n t s was  expected  A l s o , good answers r e v e a l e d an awareness t h a t s i t u a t i o n s l i k e t h i s were not u n u s u a l i n s c h o o l s , but t h a t no s i n g l e approach i n or out of a c l a s s r o o m  would " s o l v e " the problem.  d e f i n i t i o n of the problem was answer.  an important  The  p a r t of a good  Good answers i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were a number of  problems:  r e l a t i o n s h i p with peers,  understanding  concept of l e a d e r s h i p ,  of o n e s e l f and of o t h e r s .  Poor answers tended t o f o c u s on the i n d i v i d u a l , Bob  or  Mary., and r e g a r d the o t h e r f i f t e e n s t u d e n t s as a homogeneous ••''mass."  Those a n g e r s t h a t t e n d e d t o be  type were regarded The  as  ending"  unrealistic.  l e s s o n p l a n was  appropriateness  of the "happy  judged f o r i t s c o n t e n t  to developmental l e v e l s .  and  A good answer  i n d i c a t e d an awareness of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l t a s k s a t v a r i o u s ages and g r a d e s .  For example, a l e s s o n p l a n on a u t h o r i t y  f i g u r e s ( p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s , p o l i c e m e n , e t c . ) was u s u a l l y more s u i t a b l e f o r t h e j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l age group.  Problems  con-  c e r n i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l v a l u e s were u s u a l l y more a p p r o p r i a t e to the s e n i o r secondary l e v e l .  APPENDIX C Multivariate The procedures  Equations  equations r e s u l t i n g from the use are presented i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  t r a d i c t i o n s are apparent,  of m u l t i v a r i a t e Though odd  con-  there i s g e n e r a l l y agreement with the  e s s e n t i a l l y n e g a t i v e t r e n d evident through a l l of the a n a l y s e s . Pour r e g r e s s i o n equations f o r the f o u r dependent v a r i a b l e s were obtained by stepwise d e l e t i o n Equation 1.  Y^  = 2O.3O + . 2 9 X  1  0  - .74  X  £  procedures. + 3«,65  9  i n which Y ~ = p r e d i c t e d U n i v e r s i t y composite student t e a c h i n g X-J_Q = score on T o l e r a n c e s c a l e  E q u a t i o n 2.  ^"29 ~  s  X^2  score.on Q, s o r t  =  Y^Q  c  o  r  e  o  n  Synergy s c a l e  .7835 +  =  .03  XQ  -  .01+  rating  on  (CPI)  (POI)  X  1  +  0  .13  X .  Q  -  .2  X  i n which A  Y o = p r e d i c t e d U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g 3 converted t o a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of s u p e r i o r and non-superior (Wert et a l . , 19-54) X-^Q = score on Tolerance s c a l e X^Q - score on Nature of man ^29  ^u^ion j .  =  s  c  o  r  e  o  n  Synergy s c a l e  (CPI)  scale  (POI)  (POI)  The e q u a t i o n f o r Y , Q was not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s , s i n c e students' r a t i n g s were not used i n the study.  2  9  Y.  •Equation L.  = 9 . 1 2- - . 1 1 X  0  2 3  l+o  ^  0  i n which A  Yi  = p r e d i c t e d r a t i n g s .of .judges on d e m o n s t r a t i o n lessons  4 X^^  =  s c o r e on E x i s t e n t i a l i t . y s c a l e (POI)  Those v a r i a b l e s t h a t w e i g h t e d p o s i t i v e l y i n t h e above e q u a t i o n s were: (a) S o c i a l i z a t i o n ( C P I , # 8 ) , t h e degree o f s o c i a l m a t u r i t y , i n t e g r i t y , and r e c t i t u d e w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l has a t t a i n e d . (b) Nature of man (POI, # 2 8 ) , t h e degree o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e view of t h e n a t u r e o f man. (c) Q s o r t  (#32),  a measure o f a d j u s t m e n t .  Those v a r i a b l e s t h a t w e i g h t e d n e g a t i v e l y were: (a) Synergy (POI, # 2 9 ) , a b i l i t y t o t r a n s c e n d dichotomies. (b) E x i s t e n t i a l i t y (POI, # 2 3 ) , a b i l i t y t o r e a c t w i t h o u t r i g i d adherence t o p r i n c i p l e s . The for  Tolerance score  (CPI, # 1 0 ) was p o s i t i v e l y w e i g h t e d  p r e d i c t i n g c r i t e r i o n 3 7 , t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g ,  but n e g a t i v e l y weighted when t h e same c r i t e r i o n was d i c h o t omized t o form c r i t e r i o n 3 8 ,  T h i s k i n d o f i n c o n s i s t e n c y may  •well be a-tt-ri but a b l e t o sampling p e c u l i a r i t i e s . explanation,  -Whatever t h e  I t i s h a r d t o a t t a c h p r e d i c t i v e meaning t o X - ^ Q .  I n a d d i t i o n t o these e q u a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from t h e use o f m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , two o t h e r s were o b t a i n e d  by -maximizing any  p r e d i c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t might e x i s t by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on people i n t h e t o p and bottom 21% ( K e l l e y , 1 9 3 9 )  on two  only  155 c r i t e r i a , t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g , c r i t e r i o n 37, and the r a t i n g o f t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n  lesson,  c r i t e r i o n 4O.  These  dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e n d e s c r i b e d as v a r i a b l e s 1+1 and 1+3; the s e l e c t e d groups were a s s i g n e d v a l u e s o f +.5 and - . 5 (Johnson & J a c k s o n , 1959, processed  pp. 1+1+5* l+lj.6) and t h e d a t a were  i n a s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n program u s i n g a l l 36  variables.  T h i s procedure  e f f e c t i v e l y performs a stepwise  discriminant  a n a l y s i s . The f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n s r e s u l t e d , A E q u a t i o n 1. Y ] ^ = .6010 + .0073 X l 2 -.011+1+ X ^ i n which Yi1+1 A  p r e d i c t e d dependent v a r i a b l e b a s e d on t h e U n i v e r s i t y composite r a t i n g  12 ~ s c o r e on Communality s c a l e ( C P I )  X _ = s c o r e on E x i s t e n t i a l i t y s c a l e (POI)  23  k  .1+931 -.011 x -.0183 x  2 9  8  + .0089 x  10  -.009!+ x  + .001+9 X ^ - .0296 x  2 2  3 6  i n which Y,  p r e d i c t e d dependent v a r i a b l e b a s e d on r a t i n g s o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n l e s s o n s by judges  k3  A  X  8  12 22  X 29  " s c o r e on S o c i a l i z a t i o n s c a l e ( C P I ) =  s c o r e on Communality-s-cale  score on S e l f - a c t u a l i z e d v a l u e s s c a l e (POI) s c o r e on Synergy s c a l e (POI)  3h  s c o r e on Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  36  s c o r e on L e s s o n p l a n  :  :  (CPI)  l£6 Those v a r i a b l e s that weighted p o s i t i v e l y i n the above equations were:. (a) Communality (CPI, #12), the degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l ' s responses and r e a c t i o n correspond to the modal p a t t e r n . (b) The  Questionnaire.  Those v a r i a b l e s t h a t weighted n e g a t i v e l y  i n the above  equations were: (a) E x i s t e n t i a l i t y (POI, # 2 3 ) , a b i l i t y to r e a c t without r i g i d adherence to p r i n c i p l e s . (b) S o c i a l i z a t i o n (CPI, #8), degree of s o c i a l m a t u r i t y , i n t e g r i t y , and r e c t i t u d e which the i n d i v i d u a l has a t t a i n e d , (c) S e l f - a c t u a l i z e d v a l u e s (POI, #22), those c h a r a c t e r i z i n g s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d people.  values  (d) Synergy (POI, omies.  dichot-  (e) Lesson p l a n .  #29),  a b i l i t y t o transcend  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104335/manifest

Comment

Related Items