close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

The prognostic value of certain prerequisites to student teaching

код для вставкиСкачать
THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF CERTAIN
PREREQUISITES TO STUDENT TEACHING
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
The University
of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Education
by
Matthias John Lipartiti
June
19^1
UMI Number: EP54063
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP54063
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
T h i s the sis, w r i t t e n u n d e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e
C h a i r m a n o f th e c a n d id a t e fs G u i d a n c e C o m m i t t e e
a n d a p p r o v e d hy a l l m e m b e rs o f th e C o m m i t t e e ,
has been p r e s e n t e d to a n d a c c e p te d b y th e F a c u l t y
o f th e S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f th e r e q u ir e m e n t s f o r th e d e g re e o f M a s t e r o f
S c ie n c e in E d u c a t i o n .
D a te
J)^e„7t„1941 .......
D ean
Guidance Com m ittee
Irving R. Melbo
C hairm an
Osman R. Hull
1. S. Wagner
TABUS*Gi?' CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I.
PAGE
I N T R O D U C T I O N ............. ................
.
1
Purpose of this i nvestigation.......... ..
1
.............
2
Importance of the study . .
Limitation of the study and basic
assumption
..............................
Sources of data and method of procedure
2
• •
3
Organisation of the thesis .................
7
II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................
Denison University study
6
.................
,University of Minnesota study •
7
.........
10
Ontario College of Education study. . . .
Cleveland School of Education study . .
University of Michigan study
III.
11
* .
18
.............
20
Other s t u d i e s ..........................
21
THE F I N D I N G S ................. - ........
26
The critic teacher rating sheet ...........
27
The comprehensive master t a b l e ........ ..
32
iii
CHAPTER
PAGE
Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the scholastic grade point
a v e r a g e .........................
Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the professional reading test .
59
Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the psychological test. . . .
67
Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the general culture test
...
The summary of the f i n d i n g s .........
75
83
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . .
90
S u m m a r y ...............................
Conclusions
90
................................
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ........................
91
92
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ..................................
93
A P P E N D I X .......................................
97
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I. Correlation table of the relation between the
percentile rank on the Ohio University
psychological test and the composite work
on student teaching of Denison University
•.
9
II. Coefficients of Correlation between judgments,
of student teaching performance and
conditioning factors
. ...................
12
III. Coefficient oof correlation between judgments
of teaching success for various departmental
groups and conditioning factors ...............
13
IV. Comparison between coefficients of correlation
with the general criteria for all secondary
school groups for 1932-33 and 1933-34 . . . .
14
V. Correlation bftAverage teaching marks with
test s c o r e s ........................
VI. Correlation between effectiveness in teaching
and various f a c t o r s ......................
19
VII. Correlation between teaching success and
certain factors related to teaching success
as given in six s t u d i e s ..................
22
V
TABLE
VIII.
PAGE
The guintile distribution of the student
teacher rating sheet score
. . . . . . . .
28
IX. Frequency distribution of quintile ratings
of student teachers by critic teachers
• •
29
X. Quintile ratings of. the 234 cases on the
professional, aptitude tests, the
scholastic achievement, and the critic
teacher r a t i n g ..........
XI.
33
The distribution of grade point averages
• •
50
XII. Frequency distribution of quintile ratings
of student teachers on the grade point
average . . . :
51 .
XIII. The coefficient of correlation for teacher
rating and grade point average
XIV.
...........
55
The coefficient of correlation for women
teacher rating
and grade point average
. •
57
. .
58
XV. The coefficient of correlation for men
teacher rating
XVI.
and grade point average
Frequency distribution of quintile ratings
of student teachers on the professional
reading t e s t ..............
60
vi
TABLE
PAGE
XVII. The coefficient'of correlation for teacher
rating and professional reading test . . .
63
XVIII. The coefficient of correlation for women
teacher racing and professional reading
tes t
...............................
64
XIX. The coefficient of correlation for men
teacher rating and professional reading
t e s t .......................
66
XX. Frequency distribution of quintile ratings
of student teachers on the psychological
t e s t .......... .......... . ...............
68
XXI. The coefficient of correlation for teacher
rating and psychological t e s t ...........
71
XXII. The coefficient of correlation for women
teacher rating and psychological test
. .
72
.
74
XXIII. The coefficient of correlation for men
teacher rating and psychological test .
XXIV. Frequency distribution of quintile ratings
of student teachers on the general
culture t e s t .....................
76
XXV The coefficient of correlation for teacher
rating and general culture test . . . .
.
79
vii
'.TABLE
PAGE
XXVI. The coefficient of correlation for women
teacher rating and general culture
test
. . . . . . . . . . .
................
81
XXVII. The coefficient of correlation for men
teacher rating and general culture
t e s t ...................................
82
XXVIII. Correlation of student teacher rating with
test
data and grade pointaverage
• • • •
85
LIST OF-FIGURES
FIGURES
_
PAGE
1. Distribution of scores on the critic teacher
rating sheet ...........
. . . . .
.........
2. Quintile averages of all the c a s e s ........... ..
31
47
3* Comparison of quintile rank of student
teacher rating and grade point average
...
53
4. Comparison of quintile rank of student
teacher rating and professional reading
tea t .............
61
I
5. Comparison of quintile rank of student
teacher rating and psychological test
...
69
. •
77
6. Comparison' of quintile rank of student
teacher rating and general culture test
7. Comparison of quintile rank of student
teacher rating with professional reading
test, psychological test, general culture
test, and grade point a v e r a g e .......
89
CHAPTER I
IMTRODUCTIOM
This investigation is a critical study of the re­
liability of certain means for prognosticating the success
of student teachers in the School of Education of the
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
The Purpose of this Investigation.
The purpose of
this investigation was to determine the relationship that
exists between success in student teaching, as indicated by
reports of the coordinators and critic teachers, and various
measures that are used by the School of Education at the
University of Southern California as a prerequisite to ad­
mission to directed teaching.
The critic teacher and the
coordinator submit (1) an analytical report of the student
teacher, (2) a follow-up rating sheet, and (5) a general
recommendation for the student teacher.
The measures for
admission to student teaching as followed by the School of
Education are as follows: (1) the scholastic record in all
previous collegiate studies; (2) the record in postgraduate
study; (3) the score on the professional aptitude test; (4)
the health certificate;
(5) the personal qualifications;
2
and (6) the adequate mastery of teaching fields.1
In this
study the observer was primarily concerned with the profes­
sional aptitude test record, the scholastic record, and the
recommendations and records submitted by the critic teacher.
Importance of the study.
The School of Education
has employed the above criteria since September 1939 as
part of the guidance procedure applicable to applicants for
student teaching.
The above appears to be a satisfactory
guidance procedure and the probability -is that the practical
value of this procedure could be.great3.y increased if objec­
tive evidence indicated a high degree of relationship be­
tween the professional aptitude test records, the scholastic
record, and success in student teaching.
Limitation of the study and, basic assumption.
In
order to proceed with this study several limitations had to
be fixed.
The study was limited to the following: (1) to
students without any teaching experience, (2) to graduate
students who have had no directed teaching in any teacher
training institution, (3) to students who are meeting the
requirements for the general secondary credential, and (4)
1 Bulletin. The School of Education, The University
of Southern California, Vol. 35, May 1940. p. 43.
to the students for the school year 1939-1940, numbering
two hundred thirty-four cases.
It was assumed in this study
that the ratings by the critic teachers are valid criterion
for success in directed teaching.
Sources of data and method of procedure.
The files
of the School of Education were used In order to examine the
following data; (1) the analytical report on the work of the
student teacher, (2) the follow-up rating sheet of the stu­
dent teacher, and (3) the general recommendation for the
student teacher, these being the reports of the critic
teachers and coordinators.-
A copy of each form is include-
ed In the appendix of this thesis. • In addition to the above,
the scholastic record (cumulative grade point average) and
the professional aptitude test scores (for form see the ap­
pendix) were obtained from the personal data record of the
student teacher.
The professional aptitude test record con­
sists of the cumulative score made on (A) the Professional
Reading (a locally made test), (B) the psychological exam­
ination (the Thurstone Psychological Examination for College
Freshmen), and (C) the General Culture (the American Council
General Culture, Revised yearly, Form for College Students).
i
Upon examination.of the critic teacher*s and the co­
ordinator’s reports of each student, it was found that in
4
order to evaluate these reports accurately, the Follow-up
Hating Sheet should be used.
This device consists of eight
.specified skills or traits, for which the critic teacher
and the coordinator encircles the apiDropriate number for
each skill or trait, there being four evaluations, namely:
(1) outstanding, (2) very good, (3) average, and (4) poor.
To facilitate the evaluation of each sheet for each student
certain assumed values were given to the items specified
herein as follows: (1) outstanding, a value of three; (2)
very good, a value of two; (3) average, a value of one; and
(4) poor, a value of zero.
From these values, the number
of points for each skill.or trait was totaled, and the
rating sheet given a score.
These scores were tabulated
and recorded in a frequency distribution chart.
Tabulation
and frequency distribution charts were also constructed for
all grade point averages and professional test scores, and
a quintile placement rating established.
A comprehensive master chart was made to include each
case ranked in quintile placement rating.
This procedure
was followed by the establishment of the relationship of the
v
scholastic record to the student teacher rating, of the
professional reading test to the student teacher rating, of
the psychological examination to the student teacher rating,
5
and of the general culture test to the student teacher rat­
ing.
In finding the coefficient of correlation’, the Pear2
son produet-moment method and formula was used as shown
below.
N
r a s --------
y ')
£--------- ----
In finding the coefficient of alienation, the suggestformula 3 as shown below was used.
k = - J 1 - rz
2 Karl J . Holzinger, Statistical Methods for Students
in Education (New York: Ginn and Company, 1929), p. 249.
3 Truman J. Kelley, Statistical Method (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1923), p. 353.
6
' OPgQ-ttization of the the sis in'presenting the problem.
A survey of the literature relative to the problem of pre­
dicting student teaching success and related studies of re­
search is presented in Chapter II.
Chapter III consist of
the results of the study in seven parts, including the tab­
ulations, graphs, and an analysis of the statistical material
and compilations.
The final chapter, Chapter IV, gives the
summary and. conclusions of the study with suggested recom­
mendations •
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Studies determining the success of student teaching
with various measurement factors are by no means new.
Ed­
ucators and psychologists have for the past several decades
worked on similiar experiments in this related field in eduation.
However, no exact type of research as this one has
yet been accomplished, to the knowledge, of the .observer..
This chapter will be devoted to a review of studies thus"
far made dealing with the relationship of student teaching
success, examinations, tests, and other factors.
In the
limited space available, it is impossible to discuss all of
the related investigations in this field, however, an
attempt was made to select a limited sampling that will fulfull the purpose.
Denison University Study. According to the Denison
4
University study, for a number of years the Ohio State Psy­
chological Test has been administered to all students at
Denison University.
This study was made in order to deter-
4 C • L. Major, !lThe Percentile Ranking on the Ohio
State University Psychological Test as a Factor in Forecast­
ing the Success of Teachers in Training,11 School and Society,
47:582-584, April 30, 1938.
mine the value of the percentile ranking as a factor in
forecasting the success of students in the work of stud­
ent-teaching.
The University of Minnesota rating scale
was chosen to be used by the critic teachers, the two
supervisors from the University, the head of the depart­
ment of education, the superintendent of the town schools
and the student*s major professor, to rate each student,
teacher at the end of his teaching period.
More thari a hundred students had successfully com­
pleted their student teaching u n der the system of giving
such marks A, superior work, value of 91-100; B, good work,
value of 81-90; and g, satisfactory work, value of 71-80.
Upon this basis, the correlation table on the next page
constructed.
In computing by the Pearson’s Product Moment Method
the coefficient of correlation was computed to be only .14
with a probable error of .06.
The writer attributes this
low correlation to be due to the fact that numerous selective
factors have operated so well that those of less than enough
intelligence to teach have been eliminated, and concludes
that it would seem that a percentile rank of 30 on this test
is representative of sufficient intelligence for successful
teaching, or that the test itself is invalid as a test of
TABLE I
CORRELATION TABLE SHOWING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PERCENTILE RANK ON THE OHIO
UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST AND THE COMPOSITE WORK ON STUDENT TEACHING OP M2
SENIORS OF DENISON UNIVERSITY*
Percentile Rankings on
the Ohio State Univ.
Psych. Text (x)
100Student A =
91
17“ 2450
25
5157
58 —
44,
4551
52 — 5958
65
6672
7579
8086
8795
4
7
9
45
94100
f
0
2
0
6
2
5
1
4
Teaching B = ^°“8l
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
7
.4
1
4
10
52
Marks
Rn(y) C +-•
71
0
1
2
5
4
0
4
0
1
5
’6
1
25
5
7
7
12
10
7
8
11
12
8
17
20
f
7 '
r » .14
Median percentile rank = 70.45
P.E. = ,06
Median mark in point scores for Student Teachers = 8 5 . 8 5
122
* Adopted from C. L. Major, ’’The Percentile Ranking on the Ohio University Psychological
Test as a Factor In Forecasting the Success of Teachers in Training,11 School and Society,
47:585, April 50, 1958.
.
10
the kind of intelligence most used by the teacher, or that
the present method of measuring teaching ability are in­
adequate .
5
University of Minnesota Study. The subjects of this
study were 597 juniors in the College of Education, University
of Minnesota, during the school year 1931-32, who were
seniors and did student teaching during the year 1932-33;
and 487 juniors for the following year who did student teach­
ing in 1933-34.
The total number of cases for the two year
period was 1084 and represented 30 major subject groups.
During their junior years they had written qualifying exam­
inations covering the fields of English, Education and the
major teaching subject.
In addition, data regarding hours
1
of credit in subjects, general honor point’ratio, etc. were
compiled.
The 1934 group were rated by the critic teachers
f
on the ten items of the University High School Rating Scale
which ineluded such factors as personal grooming, personality,
loyalty, vitality, knowledge of subject matter, organization
of subject matter, skill in method, achievement of pupils,
discipline, and potentiality.
5 Rudyard K. Bent, ,fRelationship Between Qualifying
Examinations, Various Other Factors, and Student Teaching
Performance at the Uhiversibta,tt Journal of Experimental
Education, 5:251-255, March 1937.
11
The tables on the following pages give a composite
picture of the correlation results.
Bent derived the following conclusions from his study:
1. Coefficients of correlation between the condition­
ing factors and the criteria were not high enough to pre­
dict the performance of individuals with any great im­
provement over the chance.
The highes predictors were
honor point raticnand hours of credit, (r -.45 and .46).
2. The majority of the coefficients of correlation
between the conditioning factors and the criteria were
positive.
in some departments the relationships were
close to zero.
3.. Of the two methods used as measures of student
teaching performance, rank and order, and the University
High School Rating Scale, the rank order lists, made by
all critic teachers who knew the student teachers, had a
higher degree of relationship with the conditioning factors.
4. Qualifying examinations seem to be less valuable
than honor point ratio in predicting teaching performance,
and add very little to accuracy in predicting teaching
success from honor point ratio alone.
5. The coefficients of correlation for all large
departmental-groups between the major A examinations and
student teaching rank were less than those of the major
B examinations, the average of the former being .19 and
of the latter .25.
—
rj
Ontario College of Education Study,
in 1934, because
of a great influx of prospective teachers into the Canadian
6 Ibid., p. 255.
7 Peter Sandiford, M. A. Cameron, C. B. Conway, and
J. A. Long, "Forecasting Teaching Ability," Bulletin N o . 8
of the Department of Educational Research ( Toronto 5: Univ­
ersity of Toronto, 1937), 93* pp.
12
TABLE II
COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN CONDITIONING FACTORS
AND-JUDGMENTS OF STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE*
(1932-2:3 Group)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Conditioning Factor
Hours of credit in all subjects
General honor point ratio
Honor point ratio in the major
Composite score (qualifying exam)
Credits in education
r
**
.46
.46
.45
.32
.30
6
7
8
9
10
Honor point ratio in English
College aptitude test scores
Honor point ratio in Education
Total education scores (qualifying exam.)
Minnesota Reading test scores
.29
.27
11.
12
13
Total English scores (qualifying exam.)
High School Rank
Miller Analogies Tests scores
.22
.21
.20
.27
.26
.25
* Adapted from Rudyard K. Bent, 11Relationship Between Qualifying
Examinations, Various other Factors, and Student Teaching
Performance at the University of Minnesota,n Journal of Experi­
mental Education, 5:253 , March 1937.
** The Probable errors of these coefficients were all low,
ranging from .03 to .05.
13
t a b u ; iii
COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN GO ID ITIONING FACTORS
AND JUDGMENTS OF TEACHING SUCCESS FOR VARIOUS DEPARTpENTAL*
GROUPS (1932-33)
Department
Number Composite Honor College
Miller
score
of
point aptitude analogies
cases (Qualifv
ratio
test
test
Exam)
(Major) scores
scores
Commercial education
English
History
Home economics
Kindergarten &
nursery
Music
Physical education
Men
Physical education
Women
35
64
48
60
.25
.17
.33
.32
.32
.31
.50
.50
.26
.29
.46
.06
.50
.08
.27
.02
38
48
.30
.44
.04
.51
.20
.12
.14
.30
32
.30
.07
.24
.10
30
.30
.41
.17
.10
* Adapted from Rudyard K. Bent, "Relationship Between Qualifying
Examinations, Various Other Factors, and Student Teaching Per­
formance at the University of Minnesota," Journal of Expprimentd
Education, 5:254, March 1937.
14
TABLE IV
COMPARISON -BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION WITH THE
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ALL SECONDARY SCHOOL GROUPS FOR
THE 1932-33 GROUP AND THE 1933-34 GROUP*
Conditioning Factor
Education (qualifying exam.)
English (qualifying exam.)
Miller Analogies Test Scores
College Aptitude Test Scores
Honor Point Ratio all subjects
1932-1933
Student
Teaching
Rank
.26
.22
.20
.27
.46
1933-1934
University
High School
Rating Scale
.05
.14
.19
.03
.12
* Adapted from Rudyard K. Bent, "Relationship Between Qualifying
Examinations, Various other Factors, and Student Teaching
Performance at the University of Minnesota," Journal of
Experimental Education, 5:255* March 1937.
15
provincial •teacher-training institutions and because of the
continuous increase of unemployment among certified teachers
in the Province, .the Department of Educational Research was
requested to study this problem with the end in view of es­
tablishing some fair and adequate method of restricting the
number of student teachers in attendance at the training
institutions.
sandiford.
Thus this study was made and directed by Peter
The subjects comprised 420 students of the
Ontario College of Education in residence during 1954-35,
and consisting of in the main graduates of the universities
of Ontario, along with a small number of cfcher Canadian un­
iversities. and of British or American universities. A
9
'■
<
battery of ten npaper tests” consisting of eight objective
examinations, namely; (1) general information, (2) vocab­
ulary, (3) completion, (4) paragraph reading, (5) general
science, (6) social studies, (7) foreign literature, (8)
fine arts and also the Bernreuter Personality Inventory Test.
In order not to base the selection of teachers solely on the
above test scores, the correlation method was used to determine the relationship between the objective test scores and
the practice-teaching mark.
On the following page, Table V
illustrates by the small size, of the correlation coefficients
that the selection of a teacher by means of this test score
16
TABLE V
CORRELATION OF AVERAGE TEACHING MARKS WITH TEST SCORES*
Test
General information
Vocabulary
Completion
Paragraph Reading
General Science
Fine Arts
Foreign Literature
Social Studies
**Bernreuter Personality Scores
***Psychology Test
r
.164
.276
.262
.259
.150
+
+
T
+
+
.055
.052
.0152
.052
.055
.278 + .052
.248 ± .055
. 0 7 1 + .056
.142 + .055
.548 + .049
* Adapted from Peter Sandiford, M. A, Cameron, C. B. Conway, and
J. A. Long, “Forecasting Teaching Ability,11 Bulletin No, 8
of the Department of Educational Research (Toronto 5i University
of Toronto, 1957), p. 46,
** Algebraic sum of 4S, +D, -N and -I
*** This was an objective term test in Educational Psychology
given by the senior author.
17
on any of the tests wbuld be little better than sheer guess­
ing.
A few of the other findings of the study were:
1. Ability of students in teaching is not closely
related to intelligence above that necessary for college
graduation.
2. Ability of students in teaching is not closely
related to achievement in special subjects.
3. Ability in practice teaching is not measured by
^personality w tests.
4. The teaching averages obtained in the first term
are only a fair index of the final teaching average.
5. Improvement during the period of training is not
closely related to intelligence as measured by group tests.
6. If a student starts out well, he has a slightly
better chance of improvement than if he starts poorly.
7. Certain items of informations as determined by a
questionnaire appear, to be of value in selecting, success­
ful teachers.
8. Ratings of students based on interviews of short
duration, even when conducted by a number of raters are
not sufficiently reliable to be used for prognosis*
9. Experienced instructors at the Ontario College of
Education are unable, early in the term, to segregate
effectively those who will prove successful teachers from
those who will not.
10. It is easier to select the better students than it
is to eliminate the poorer ones.
11. The averages given by critic teachers concentrate
in a narrow range of six marks from 65 to 70 per cent in­
clusive .
12. These marks given by the critic teachers appear
to be heavil# weighted by chance, and are being investi-
18
gated further* 8
9
Cleveland School of Education Study.
Another recent
authoritative study is the one by Odenweller,' in which he
studied 560 teachers in the city of Cleveland, all graduates
of the Cleveland School of Education, constituting a .homo­
geneous group in training and experience.
Each teacher was
ranked by principals, vice-principals, supervisors and fellow
teachers on the basis of effectiveness in teaching and per­
sonality.
These ranks were converted into scores correspond­
ing to their percentage positions along the base line of a
normal eurve.
Then the median score of each teacher was
taken as a measure of the trait concerned.. From the correla­
tions as discovered by Odenweller (as shown in Table VI on
the following page), he was able to conclude that anything
like accuracy of prediction is impossible, and secondly, the
personality of the teacher apparently contributes more to
her effectiveness than anything else, and thirdly that in­
telligence has about the same relationship to teaching effect
iveness as weight or the number of letters In the teacher's
signature.
The remainder of Dr. Odenweller*s study deals with
8
, p. 60.
9 a.L. Odenweller, Bredicting the Quality of Teaching
(Teachers College Contribution to Education, No. W?6. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956), 158 pp.
19
TABLE VI
CORRELATION BETWEEN EFFECTIVENESS IN TEACHING AND
VARIOUS FACTORS*
Factors
Personality (judged by principals and superintendents)
Personality (judged by three fellow teachers)
personality (judged by training college staff and
critic teachers
College marks
Subject-marks (including Education courses)
personality (by training college staff)
Education marks (exclusive student, teaching)
personality (by critic teaGhers)
Education and student-teaching marks
Theory marks in student teaching
Technique marks in student teaching
Practical Arts marks
Student-teaching marks (theory, personality and
technique)
Psychology marks
Age
Experience
Handwriting (suitability to teaching)
Height
High school marks
Handwriting (quality)
Number of letters in signature
Weight
Intelligence (highest score obtained)
Height-weight ratio
Intelligence (median score obtained)
r
.825
.533
.307
.293
.281
.2 6 5
.2 5 6
.249
.233
.215
.210
.209 .193
.155
.148
.146
.083
.076
.0 7 6
.056
.0 5 6
.018
- .035
- .019
- .004
* A. L. Odenweller, Predicting the Quality of Teaching
(Teacher College Contribution to Education, No, 6 7 b. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 193o), p. 3 8 .
20
with the analysis and interpretation of the findings.
While
the problem dealt with teachers in service, it has helped to
give further relative information.
10
University of Michigan Study. In a study by Ullman
to investigate the relationship between teaching success as
judged by superintendents and principals and the following
factors:
(1) social intelligence,
(2) general knowledge,- (3)
knowledge of teaching functions and attributes,'(4) knowledge
of principles of teaching, (5) socio-economic status, (6)
interest in teaching, (7) self-rating of teaching ability,
(8) academic marks, (9) professional marks, (10) major sub­
ject marks, and (11) practice teaching success, involving
116 graduates from the University of Michigan in 1927-28, he
found the following:
1. When several factors found to be related to teach­
ing success are combined in a regression equation, pre­
dictions of teaching success which are quite accurate may
be m ade•
2. Success In practice teaching is the best single
measure of teaching success.
3. Factors other than practice teaching which have
predictive value are: socio-economic status, academic and
10 R . h T Ullman, The Prognostic Value of Certain Factors
Related to Teaching Success (Ashland, Ohio: A. L. Garber
Company, 1931), 133 pp.
21
professional marks, social intelligence, general intell­
igence, interest in teaching, and knowledge of principles
of teaching.
4. The factors studied are not the only ones contri­
buting to teaching success and others must be studied
before highly accurate predictions can be made.
5. It is not denied that a
ledge ih the subject taught is
after this minimum is attained
subject seems to be a constant
certian amount of know­
essential‘to success, but
the mark in the major
value.
6. Personality, health, vitality, and general con­
ditions existing in the school were found to contribute
to the success or failure of the teacher.
Ullman in a graphic presentation (Table VII on the
following page) shows the correlation between teaching suc­
cess as given in five studies and a sixth study by Miss
12
Morris
included in the table •
Other Studies.
The ?$fhitney
13
study reported in 1924
was concerned with 725 graduates of twelve state normal
schools.
His criterion of effectiveness was the judgments
of principals, superintendents and supervisors.
The cor­
relations are shown in Table VII.
11
P* 97 •
12 E. H. Morris, Personnel Traits and Teaching Success
(Hew York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University , 1929), 75 pp.
13 P.F. Whitney, The Prediction of Teaching Success
(Journal of Education Research Monograph, No. 6. Blooming­
ton, Illinois: Public School Publishing Company), 1923, 85 pp.
TABLE VII
CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHING SUCCESS AND CERTAIN FACTORS
RELATED TO TEACHING SUCCESS AS GIVEN IN' SIX STUDIES*
Whitney1s
study
Somer1s
study
Intelligence
.025
.425
Practice teaching
.25 8
.700
Academic marks2
.073
•707
Teaching success
correlated with:
Knight1s Jones1
study . study
.164
Professional tests
•15
Morris
study
.233
.36
.147
Social intelligence
Personality
.22
Ullman1s
study
•36
•30
•32
.1 8
.615
•545
.512
.608
.14
*Adopted from Roy R. Ullman, The Prognostic Value of Certain Factors Rrlated to Teaching
Success (Ashland, Ohio: A.L.Barber Company, 193177 pT~B8
to
to
14
The Somers
study, which appeared in 1923' attracted
much attention because of the high correlations obtained. He
drew his conclusions from a study of 156 graduates of the
normal School at Farmville, Virginia, during the years of
1919 to 1921..
His ratings for teaching success of teachers
of one year of experience were obtained from principals and
supervisors .
The correlations are shown in Table VII.
The Knight 15 study, which appeared in 1922, was an
effort to measure objectively factors significant in ele­
mentary and high school teaching ability.
One hundred fifty-
six grade and high school teachers were rated for general
teaching ability in three towns in Massachusetts during the
school year of 1918-1919.
Each teacher was rated by five
groups of teachers, and by the supervisors and pupils; the
rank order method being used.
It is of interest to note
that later studies have tended to disprove his belief that
ability to pass a professional test is a reliable indication
~
14 G. T. Somers, Pedagogical Prognosis, predicting,
the Success of Prospective Teachers (Contributions to
Education, No. 140. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1923), 129 pp.
15 p. B. Knight, Qualities Related to Success in
Teaching (Contribution to Education, No. 120. New York;
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1922), 67 pp.
24
of success in teaching.
The correlations are stihwn in
Table VII.
16
Miss Morris
’
in 1929 tried to find if there exist­
ed a group of traits which might be designated as signifi­
cant factors of the teaching personality, and to find too
how these traits might be estimated.
For the purpose of
studying leadership, she constructed a trait index composed
of such specific items as resourcefulness, insight, tact,
degree of positiveness, and certain emotional attitudes.
Her findings of the correlations are to be found in Table
VII.
17
Bossing made a study in which he secured from super­
intendents and principals of 165 graduates of education de­
partment of the University of Oregon.
He found that the
correlation of success in teaching in the field with the
teaching grades (cadet grades) in the training college was
.69 with a probable error of .07; with professional grades
in education .19 with a probable error of .06; and with academic grades .17 with a probable error of .09 •
He con-
16 'Em H. Morris, ojo. cit. 75pp.
IV Nelson 1. Bossing, “Aptitude Tests and Teacher
Selection," Research In Higher Education Bulletin 1951,
No. 12 Washington; U. S. Office of Education, 1931, pp. 117133.
25
eludes that we can place confidence on directed teaching as
a factor for prediction of success in teaching.
Conclusion.
In this survey not a single study re­
viewed is in itself conclusive.
one point or another.
Many could be critized from
However, when compared, the correlat­
ions and findings of teaching success to scholarship, intell­
igence, and practice teaching marks, although positive are
extremely low.
Research to date has not as yet produced
evidence which justifies the use of these factors for pre­
dicting teaching ability.
CHAPTER III
THE
FIRDIEGS
The aim of this chapter is to present and analyze
the statistical and tabulated presentations of the find­
ings in the following divisions:
1. The critic teacher rating sheet.'
2. The comprehensive master table.
3. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the scholastic grade point average.
4. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the professional reading test.
5. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the psychological test.
6. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the general culture test.
7. The summary of the findings.
27
1. THE- CRITIC TEACHER RATING SHEET OP THE STUDENT
TEACHER
a * Analysis.
Table VIII indicates the distribution
of scores as obtained from the student teacher rating sheet
described in the method of procedure in Chapter I.
The
scores on these rating sheets for the 234 cases ranged from
0 to 24.
The scores were arranged in a quintile placement
with the first quintile representing the top group or high­
est gninjfcile, on down to the fifth quintile or the lowest
group.
Of these cases approximately 48 percent or practi­
cally half of them were in the first and second quintile.
Upon a closer examination of this situation, it is possible
that the cause is due to the subjective element of the per­
sonal opinion on the part of the critic teacher in her re­
port of the student teacher.
It was observed while examin­
ing the critic teacher rating sheets that there was a tend­
ency on the part of the critic teacher to rate the student
teacher as outstanding or very good in a great number of
the cases.
This resulted in grouping most of the cases in
top grouping.
In only thirteen cases of the entire group
did the cumulative score fall below a score of 12.
Table IX indicates that of the 234 cases, approximate­
ly 27 percent were in the first quintile, 21 percent were in
28
TABLE VIII
THE QUINTILE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDENT TEACHER
RATING SHEET SCORE '
Score
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
f
cum. f
Quintile Rating*
24
15
22
27
22
16
17
19
23
13
13
4
6
4
3
2
2
234
210
195
173
146
124
108
91
72
49
36
23
19
13
9
6
4
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
5
D
4
3
2
1
0
N = 234
| = *17
Median = 18.93
Mode = 2 1
Mean = 17.08
* In this column, the number 1, represents the first quintile or
the highest quintile, down to number 5 the fifth quintile or the
lowest quintile.
29
TABLE IX
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF QUINTILE RATINGS
OF STUDENT TEACHERS BY CRITIC TEACHERS
Quintile Hating
f
Glam, f
1
64
234
2
49
173
3
33
124
4
55
91
5
36
36
N = 23k
Median =3.71
Mode = 1
Mean =2.82
30
the second quintile, 14 percent were in the third, quintile,
23 percent were in the.fourth quintile, and 15 percent were
in the fifth quintile.
It was reasonable to assume that
t h e .fluctation of the various number of cases in each quin­
tile was a result of the large number of cases which were
given such high scores on the teacher rating sheet.
Graph I makes, a further attempt to point out the
skewness and top-heaviness of the distribution of the scores
as were obtained from the critic teacher rating sheet.
In
a normal distribution of all these cases, the frequency on
each score would have been from a possible seven to a poss­
ible eleven scores.
When this is compared with the find­
ings as on this graph, it is noted that the scores above
12 have almost twice as many frequencies as in a normal
distribution and those below the 12 do not have sufficient
frequencies•
k • Conclusion.
Prom Table VIII, it can be concluded
that the grouping of approximately 48 percent of the 234
cases in the first and second quintile is caused by the
subjective element or personal opinion on the part of the
critic teacher in her report of the student teacher.
The fluctuations as noted in Table IX are a result
of the unequal distribution of the frequencies as obtained
31
i*
ii
U
t
j JL -*1
jl!
r
it
L
i
_
L
j-i
L
ii
it
n
iL j!1
£
\
J.
Jd
J
j
*
V
' 2.1 SI -• "»
131 J
LJ2 i i j
( r? t
te#
>r
-*
i
4
4> 2 i
4
...
... ....
...
-
-
...
-
..
..
...
.... _
j
i
i
S t
f
2
0
I
1
Q
LJ7
1
1
L JU
p
i
L'/
I
1
T-.R-
Lr
-
A
-
i
L«
(
L<
.
.
JLW
T
L_
r
V
—p -
'| ’ 1 iX b
* J1
.fi L3. lL. n
l
N o. 6103, U n iv e r s ity B o o k sto re , L o s A n g e le s
i
y
3
-
SJ',
V
c?
u
j , ii J. Ci !
)
52
from the teacher rating scores.
It is evident by the ob­
servations and findings on the teacher rating sheet that
as an instrument of evaluation, the validity of this device
is questionable.
2. THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER TABLE
Table X is a comprehensive table showing inaa system­
atic arrangement all of the 234 cases considered in this
study.
Under the following respective headings, (1) Pro­
fessional reading test, (2) the psychological test, (3) the
General Culture test, (4) the scholastic grade point aver­
age, (5) the critic teacher rating, and (6) the cumulative
average of the quintiles, was placed the quintile rating
for each case.
The capital letter **¥” represents the women
students and the capital letter ’V *
represents the men
students.
Graph II illustrates the quintile averages of the
234 cases.
It appears from this graph that the majority
of the cases were grouped in the second, third, and fourth
quintile.
It was conjectured that there were several poss­
ible reasons for this skewed distribution of the quintile
ratings.
The influence of the subjective element or person­
al opinion of the critic teacher has grouped a majority of
32
TABUS X
QUINTILE RATINGS OP THE 23k OASES ON THE PROFESSIONAL
APTITUDE TESTS, THE SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT,
AND THE CRITIC TEACHER RATING
Teacher .Average #
Quintile
Rating
Prof.
Reading
•Psych,
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
1M
3
1
4
4
5
3.4
2¥
-
3
5
5
4
4.2
3M
4
2
3
3
5
3.4
4W
2
1
1
1
4
2.0
5 ¥
3
3
2
4
4
3.2
5
3
5
3
1
3.4
7M
4
5
5
5
4
4.6
8W
5
3
3
4
5
4.0
9M
3
4
3
3
4
3.4
10M
2
5
4
3
5
3.8
11M
2
5
4
5
1
3.4
12M
5
5
5
-3
3
5.0
13¥
3
2
3
4
2
4.0
14M
2
. *2
*. 4
3
2
2.6
15¥
3
4
4
3
2
3.2
Case
#
Note; W. represents Women M represents Men
#Average Quintile represents average of all factors for each
34
TABIiE X (continued)
Grade
General
Cult u r e . Ft. Av.
Teacher
Rating
Average#.
Qintile
Case
Prof.
Heading
Psych.
Test
16W
2
3
2
1
1
1.8
17W
5
1
4
1.
4
3.0
18W
2
1
3
4
1
2.2
19M
5
5
3
5
5
5.0
20M
2
1
1
3
1
1.6
21M
2
4
4
4
4
%.6
22M
2
1
1
4
3
2.2
23M
2
4
3
4
3
3.2
2m
1
3
1
3
3
,2.6
25W
5
2
1
1
4
2.6
26 M
1
3
1
5
1
2.2
27W
3
5
3
3
3
3.4
28M
1
5
5
3
4
3.6
29W
4
3
2
4
2
3.0
30M
3
3
5
4
1
3.2
31M
4
4
4
4
5
Z
32M
4
2
3
5
5
3.6
55
TABLE X (continued)
Psych.,
Prof.
Case ^ Beading . Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
Average
Qintile
33¥
2
1
1
2
1
1.4
34M
2
5
2
4
2
3.0
35¥
■5
4
3
3
3
3.8
3?M
4
1
4
5
4
3.6
37¥
1
1
1
4
4
2.2
38M
2
3
1
2
2
2.0
39M
1
3
2
3
4
2.6
4o¥
2
3
2
1
2
2.0
4l¥
2
1
3
1
2
1.2
42M
2
3
2
1
1
1.8
43M
2
3
3
1
2
2.2
44¥
4
1
3
3
4
3.4
45W
2
4
3
1
1
2.2
46¥
4
1
5
1
2
2.6
47¥
4
1
3
3
1
2.4
48M
2
2
1
1
1
1.4
49¥
1
1
5
1
3
2.2
36
TABUS X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Beading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Bating
Average
Quintile
50M
1
4
2
3
3
2.6
51M
1
5
2
2
4
2.8
52M
4
3
3
5
2
4.2
53M
3
3
3
5
4
3*6
54M
2
1
1
5
5
2.8
55M
3
1
2
4
5
3*0
56 M
2
2
1
3
5
2.6
57¥
2
1
1
1
2
1.4
58¥
3
5
5
1
4
4.0
59M
3
2
5
5
3
3.6
60W
1
2
2
3
5
2.6
6lW
1
1
1
3
4
2.G
62 M
3
3
3
5
1
2.4
63¥
5
5.
4
3
1
3.6
64¥
■2
3
1
3
4
2.6
65¥
5
2
1
3
2
2.8
66m
3
5
5
4
4
4.6
37
SABLE X (c ont Inue d )
Case
Prof,
Reading
Psych,
Test •
General
Culture
Grade
'Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
Average
Quintile
67W
1
1
3
3
2
2.0 .
68M
1
.2
2
3
4
2.4
69M
1
1
1
4
1
1.6
70M
1
2
3
5
5
9 .2
71M
2
2
2
5
5
3.2
72M
2
4
4
4
1
3.0
73M
2
4
4
4
4
3.6
74M
1
1‘
1
1
1
1.0
75W
4
2
2
2
5
3.0
76¥
.3
B
3
1
1
2.0
77M
2
1
1
2
3
1.8
78M
2
4
5
4
5
4.0
79W
4
2
5
5
3
3.8
80 M
‘1
5
3
5
3
3.8
81M
3
2
3
1
3
2.4
82M
4
3
4
5
4
4.0
83M
2
2
5
1
1
1.8
38
TABLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Heading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
8ftM
5
4
4
5
1
3.8
85M
3
5
5
4
2
3.8
86W
1
1
3
2
1
1.6
87W
2
1
1
3
2
1.8
88M
4
5
3
4
2
3.6
89M
1
2
3
4
1
2.2
90M
3
1
1
3
5
2.6
91M
5
5
3
4
4
4.6
92¥
4
2
2
2
4
2.8
93 M
3
3
3
2
1
2.4
94W
2
5
4
4
3
4.0
95M
5
5
5
4
5
4.4
96W
2
1
5
3
3
2.8
97M
4
4
2
4
, 3
3.4
98M
4
5
5
3
2
3.8
99W
5
4
3
2
1
2.6
Average
Quintile
39
SABLE X (c ont inued)
Case
Prof.
Beading
Psych.
Test
Grade
Pt Av.
General
Culture
Teacher
Rating
Average
Quintile
100W
1
4
5
4
3
3.4
101W
3
1
4
4
3
3.0
102M
1
3
2
5
3
2.8
103M
3
4
4
5
2
3.6
4
4
5
1
4.4
104M
105W
1
4
4
3
1
2.6
106 W
3
1
4
3
2
2.6
10 7M
1
3
3
4
4
3.0
108M
1
2
1
3
5
1.8
109W
4
3
4
4
2
3.4
110M
4.
4
4
3
4
3.8
HIM
1
5
5
5
2
3 .6
112W
3
4
4
2
4
3.4
113M
■4
4
3
4
4
3.8
llifV
2
4
2
3
1
2.4
115M
5
2
2
4
1
2.8
116W
3
4
3
5
1
4.0
.
.
40
TABLE X (continued)
Prof,
Case Reading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt.Av.
Teacher
'Rating
Average
Quintile
117W
3
5
2
3
2
3.0
118M
4
5
4
4
5
4.4
119M
3
2
2
1
4
2.4
12 OM
1
3
3
2
1
2.0
121M
1
1
1 •
3
3
1.8
122W
1
1
1
3
4
2.0
123M
2
1
2
2
1
1.6
124M
5
3
5
5
4
4.8
12 5M
2
2
2
5
4
3.0
126M
3
2
1
3
5
2.8
12 7M
5
5
3
2
1
3.2
128W
1
4
2
2
2
2.2
129M
3
1
1
2
1
1.6
13 OW
4
3
4
4
3
3.6
131M
5
2
2
1
1
2.2
13 2M
5
4
5
2
4
4.0
41
(continued)
Prof.
Reading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
Average
Quintile
133M
1
2
2
5
4
2.8
134M
5
5
4
2
3
3.8
13 5M
5
4
3
1
4
3.4
136m
2
2
2
1
%
1.6
13 TW
4
3
4
4
3
3.6
138M
5
5
5
5
5
5.0
13 9M
1
1
1
1
2
1.2
140M
1
2
3
2
3
2.0
141M
1
1
2
1
4
1.8
14 2M
1
1
1
1
2
143M
5
5
5.
5
2
2.2
144M
5
3.
2
'2
1
’ 3.0
145W
5
5
3
3
2
3.8
146W
3
2
2
3
3
2.6
5
4
3
2
4
3.2
148W
3
2
1
3
1
2.0
149M
4
5
3
4 ■
2
3.6
14 7M
.
:
?0
Case
H
TABLE X
42
TABLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Reading
Psych.
Tdst
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
i50w
5
5
5
1
2
3.6
151 W
5
5
5
1
4
4.0
152 M
3
5
3
4
2
3.4
153M
5
2
2
1
4
2 .8
154W
1
1
1
2
l
1.3
155M
3
3
5
4
1
4.0
156 M
5
3
4
3
4
3.8
157W
4
3
3
3
1
3 .8
158M
5
3
3
3
5
4 .0
159M
5
5
5
4
3
4 .4
160M
3
2
1
3
2
2.2
161M
2
2
1
3
3
2.6
162W
2
2
1
2
3
2.4
16§M
5-
4
4
2
4
3.8
164W
3
5
5
3
1
3.4
165M
5
4
5
3
.3
4.0
166¥
4
3
1
3
1
2.4
Average
Quintile
43
TEBLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Reading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Rating
Average
Quintile
16 7M
4
4
5
5
2
4.0.
168M
5
4
3
5
5
4.4
169M
3
1
2
5
3
2 .8
170M
3
4
4
4
3.6
171M
1
1
3
1
3
1 .8
172M
5
3
4
4
4
4.0
173M
4
5
5
3
3
4.0
17 W
2
3
3
2
1
2 .6
175W
4
2
2
5
4
3.4
I76 M
5
4
3
3
5
4.0
177M
1
1
1
1
2
1 .2
178 M
2
2
3
3
3
2.6
179W
4
1
3
3
3
2.8
180M
2
1
1
3
2
1.8
181W
2
3
1
5
3
2.8
182M
4
2
4
1
2
2 .6
183M
4
5
5
4
2
3.2
3
44
TABLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Beading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av.
Teacher
Bating
Average
Quintile
184W
2
3
3
3
1
2.4
185W
1
1
1
1
2
1.2
186 M
3
3
3
3
1
2.6
187W
4
5
4
3
2
3.6
188 M
4
4
2
1
1
2.4
189M
3
3
5
£
5
4.2
190W
1
1
3
4
5
3.4
1 9 1W
3
2
3
4
5
3.4
192M
3
5
3
4
5
4*0
193W
5
5
3
4
2
3.8
194W
4
5
3
1
4
3.4
194W
1
5
3
1
4
3.4
195W
4
1
2
1
4
1.8
196 M
4
5
5
5
4
4.6
197W
4
2
3
5
1
3.0
198m
1
3
4
4
3
3.0
199M
2
1
1
5
1
2.0
45
TABLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Beading
Psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Ft. Av.
Teacher
Bating
Average
Quintih
200M
1
1
1
1
4
1.6
201M
2
3
4
5
5
3.8
202W
1
1
1
1
1
1.0
203W
4
2
1
1
1
1.8
204¥
5
5
4
1
2
3.4
205W
2
5
3
4
3
3.4
206M
2
2
1
3
5
2.6
20J¥
4
2
3
3
2
2.8
208¥
4
3
1
4
3
3.0
209¥
5
5
5
3
4
4.4
210M
1
2
2
4
2
2.2
211M
3
5
2
4
2
3.2
212M
4
2
4
3
2
3.0
213¥
3
2
2
1
1
1.8
2l4¥
5
1
1
4
1
2.4
215¥
3
2
3
1
1
2.0
216M
5
4
5
5
4
4.6
46
TABLE X (continued)
Case
Prof.
Heading
psych.
Test
General
Culture
Grade
Pt. Av,
Teacher
Rating
Average
Quintile
&1^W
3
3
4
4
1
3.0
218V
5
4
3
5
2
3.8
219W
3
2
3
3
4
3.0
220V
2
2
3
2
1
2.0
221®
1
4
1
5
5
3.2
222V
5
5
4
3
4
4.2
223V
3
2
1
1
1
1.6
224M
2
2
1
1
1
1.4
225V
2
2
3
2
3
2.4
226 W
3
4
2
4
2
3.0
227W
2
1
1
4
4
2.4
228M
1
2
2
3
2
2.0
229M
4
5
3
4
1
3.4
23 OM
2
3
4
5
1
3.0
231 W
3
3
2
3
4
3.0
232V
2
2
3
4
5
3.2
233M
1
3
3
3
4
2.8
234M
3
3
3
5
1
3.2
47
3 i i.
LL
t N V. L J. it -V / ] ili j \ \ J.it 3
i
j
i
JI
.
j
T
u u
tt'j d,
ji
•ki3, i
-*•
-jJ \ (XJ
vi V L LANV
r r
r
.(
j
A
X •
hi
• Ij
t?
i
"m •
1
•
i
■
L • (j
j
(
t
j
<
1
L< J
i«1JiW
.J ill 1
N o . 6103, U n i v e r s i t y B o o k s to r e , L o s A n g e le s
(J.
i
J
( k./ till5
'i
j
l< ✓
*1
48
the cases in the second and third quintile.
The equal -major­
ity of the cases found in the fourth quintile, it was con­
jectured, might have been due to .the lack of a general ed­
ucation of the part of the average student teacher, in so
18
far as grades were any indication.
3. COEFFICIENTS OF- CORRELATION OF CRITIC TEACHER
RATING- AND TEE SCHOLASTIC GRADE POINT AVERAGE
a- Analysis.
Table XI shows the distribution of the
scholastic grade point averages of the 234 cases.
grade point average ranged from 1.00 to 2.89.
The
Of the total
number of cases, approximately 177 fell below 1.945 the mid­
point of the total grade point range and caused approximately
50 percent of the cases being ranked below the third quintile.
Prom this data, it was indicative that the student teachers
in this group were below the general average in scholastic
intelligence of that of the average college, student.
Table XII indicates the frequency distribution of
the scholastic grade point average.
Of the 234 cases,
18 William s. Learned, and Ben D* Wood, The Student
and His Knowledge Bulletin No. 29. The Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, 1938 New York.
(Boston:
D. P. Updike, The Merrymount Press, 1938), 340 pp.
50
TABLE XI
THE DISTRIBUTION OF-GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Grad© Point
3.00
2.90 2 .8 0 2.70 2 .6 0 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 1.90 1 .8 0 1.70 1 .6 0 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 -
2.99
2.89
2.79
2.69
2.59
2.49
2.39
2.29
2.19
2.09
1.99
1.89
1.79
1.69
1.59
1.49
1.39
1.29
1219
1.09
Median.= 1.68
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
3.00
2.03
1.87
1.55
1.36
-
2.04,
1.88,
1.56,
1.37,
1.00,
1st
2nd
3rd
4 th
5th
Quintile
Quintile
Quintile
Quintile
Quintile
F
Cum.f
3
2
1
2
7
5
15
5
17
13
12
14
24
32
29
22
15
9
7
234
231
229
228
226
219
214
199
194
177
164
152
138
114
82
53
31
16
7
51
TABIE XII
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION* OF QUINTILE RATINGS OF
STUDENT TEACHERS ON THE GRADE POINT AVERAGE
Quintile rating
f
Cum.f
1
46
234
2
25
188
3
64
163
4
54
99
5
45
45
N = 234
Median = 4,21
Mode = 3
Mean = 3.11
approximately 18 percent were in the first quintile, 10 per­
cent were in the second quintile, 29 percent were in the
third quintile, 22 percent were in the fourth quintile, and
19 percent were in the fifth quintile.
It was apparent that
the distribution of the cases, shows a noticeable fluctuation
in the quintile ratings.
Since the scholastic grade require­
ment for admission to student teaching is 1.5, there was a
tendency for a greater majority of the cases to hover about
this central point and thereby tending to lower the quintile
distribution of all the eases.
It was possible that this
group showed a lack of general education, if the scholastic
average was used as a criterion of scholastic achievement.
Graph III shows the comparison in fluctuation of the
student teacher rating and the grade point average.
Sixty-
four or 27 27 percent of the cases on the student teacher
rating were in the first quintile as compared with 46 or 18
percent of the cases on the grade point average.
Forty-
nine or 21 percent of the cases on the student teacher rat­
ing were in the second quintile as compared to the 25 or 10
percent of the cases on the grade point average.
Thirty-
three or 14 percent of the cases on the student teacher rat­
ing were in the third quintile as compared with 64 or 29
percent of the cases on the grade point average.
Fifty-five
53
BA
N o . 6103, U n i v e r s i t y B o o k s to r e , L o s A n g e le s
54
or 23 percent of the cases on the student teacher rating are
in the fourth quintile as compared with 54 or 22 percent of
the cases on the grade point average.
Thirty-six or 15 per­
cent of the cases on the student teacher rating were in the.
fifth quintile as compared with 45 or 19 percent of the cases
on the grade point average.
The above comparisons show the
great variance between the factors of teacher rating and
grade point average.
The variation was probably due to the
element of subjectivity or personal opinion on the part of
the teachers in rating the student teachers.
Table XIII is a sc&tterdiagram and it was constructed
from the data in Table X for the purpose of determining the
coefficient of correlation of the entire group.
From this
table, the coefficient of correlation was found to be .232
with a probable error of .040.
It appears from this positive
coefficient that there was a degree of relationship between
these factors sufficiently small to be ineffective as a
means, of success in predicting student teaching.
It was of -
interest to note that by means of the formula for finding
the coefficient of alienation, the error resulting from a
prediction of success in student teaching by the use of the
scholastic grade point average is 97.7 percent as large as
the error of a guess.
55
TABLE XIII
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
TEACHER RATING AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
X
III
IV
V
y'
fy’
fy2
45
2
100
180.
16
9
54
1
54
54
-5
16
12
64
0
0
3
6
2
25
-1
-25
25
16
12
4
12
1
46
-2
-92
184
64
61
49
33
55
36
234
27
443
91
-2
-1
0
1
2
tx 1-122
-49
0
55
72
-44
f x 12244
49
55 144
492
I
II
V
10
7
5
11
12
IV
10
13
12
10
III
12
15
9
II
12
2
I
IT
tx
£x»y»
Y
X = Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Grade Point Average Variable
r = .232 +- .040
56
Table XlV shows the coefficient of correlation for
the women to be .06 with a probable error of .07 as compared
with that of the men .21 with a probable error of .05 as
shown in Table XV.
This may be explained in part that the
achievement of the men may be superior to that of the women.
19
The error resulting from a prediction 6f success in student
teaching by the use of the scholastic grade point average
for the women was 99.8 percent as large as the error of a
guess as compared with 97.7 percent as large as the error of
a guess for the men.
b. Conclusion.
The coefficients of correlation of
the critic teacher rating and the scholastic grade point
average were found to be .252 with a probable error of .040
for the entire group, .06 witha probable error of .QU for
the women, and .21 with a probable error of .05 for the men.
It appeared from these positive coefficients that there was
to a certain degree a relationship between these two faetors,
but not significant enough to be effective as a means of pre­
dicting success in student teaching.
It was concluded that
the relationship that does exist may be due to the fact that
both of the factors are subjective in nature.
19 Ibid. , pp. 335-334.
57
TABLE XIV
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR.
WOMEN TEACHER RATING AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
I
II
III
IV
V
fy
J1
fyf
fy2
V
2
3
2
2
0
9
2
18
36
-26
IV
3
4
6
3
4
22
1
22
22
2
III
8
10
4
9
1
32
0
0
II
6
1
1
2
2
12
-1
-12
12
7
I
7
8
1
7
0
23
-2
-46
92
30
26
27
14
23
8
98
-18
162
13
1
2
Y
f*
X*
-2
-1
0
-52
-27
0
fx ,2 104
27
fa *
23
16
-40
32
186
X = Women Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Women Grade point Average
r =» .06 + .07
58
TABLE XV
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
MEN TEACHER RATING AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
I
II
X
-III
IV
V
fy
y*
fy'
fy t2
v
8
4
3
9
12
36
2
72
144
26
XV
7
8
6
7
4
32
1
32
32
-7
III
4
5
5
7
11
32
0
0
II
6
1
2
4
0
13
-1
-13
13
9
I
10
4
3
5
23
-2
-46
92
34
22
19
32
45
281
62
-2
-1
0
1
2
fx 1 -70
-22
0
32
56
fx 12 140
22
32
112
Y
fx
X1
1
28
X = Men Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Men Grade Point Average
r » .21 + .05
136
-4
306
4. COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION OF CRITIC TEACHER
RATING AND THE PROFESSIONAL READING TEST
a# Analysis.
From the comprehensive master table,
the 233 cases were ‘tabulated and a frequency distribution
table number XVI was arranged.
This table of the profess­
ional reading test shows that of these cases, approximately
20 percent were ranked in the first quintile, 23 percent
were ranked In the second quintile, 18 percent were ranked
in the third quintile, 17 percent were ranked in the fourth
quintile, and 20 percent were ranked in the fifth quintile.
This distribution of the cases showed a fairly normal group­
ing throughout all the cases and was an indication of the
validity and the reliability o f ^ h e professional ifceading
test.
The following comparisons of interest to note were
made from Graph IV.
Sixty-three or 27 percent of the cases
on the student teacher rating were in the first quintile as
compared with 49 or 21 percent of the cases on the profess­
ional reading test.
Forty-nine or 21 percent of the cases
on the student teacher rating were in the second quintile as
compared with 54 or 23 percent of the cases on the profess­
ional reading test.
Thirty-three or 14 percent of the cases
on the student teacher rating were in the third quintile as
60
TABUS XVI
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF QUENTILE RATINGS
OF STUDENT TEACHERS ON THE PROFESSIONAL READING TEST
Quintile rating
f
1
47
233
2
54
186
3
43
132
4
42
89
3
47
47
N = 233
Median = 3.85
Mode = 2
Mean =2.87
Cum. f
61
Hifi:
m
:ma.
TiL"dT;
N o . 6103, U n i v e r s i t y B o o k s to r e , L o s A n g e le s
62
compared with 43 or 18 percent of the cases on the profess­
ional reading test.
Fifty-five or 23 percent of the cases
on the student teacher rating were in the fourth quintile
as compared with 42 or 17 percent of the cases on the pro­
fessional reading test.
Thirty-six or 15 percent of the
cases on the student teacher rating were in the fifth quint­
ile as compared with 47 or 20 percent of the cases.
These
comparisons indicated that the variation from the normal
of the 47 or 20 percent of the cases is so slight as to be
almost a negligible factor.
From the data in Table X, Table XVII was derived for
the purpose of determining the coefficient of correlation of
the entire group.
From this table, it was found to be .038
with a probable error of .044.
This low coefficient indicated
practically no relationship exists between the two factors
and therefore the professional reading test is not an effect­
ive measure in predicting success in student teaching.
The
error as found by the formula of coefficient of alienation
resulting from a prediction of success in student teaching
from the professional reading test scores is 99.9 percent
as large as the error of a guess.
Table XVIII shows the coefficient of correlation for
the women to be .01 with a probable error of .07 as compared
63
TABLE XVII
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
TEACHER RATING AND PROFESSIONAL READING TEST
I
II
III
IV
V
fy
y!
fy’
fy *2
2
94
188
6
42
-11
'y
I
11
7
4
18
7
47
II
8
13
7
10
4
42
1
42
III
12
10
8
8
7
43
0
0
IV
21
9
8
5
11
54
-1
-54
54
78
V
9
10
8
13
7
47
-2
-94
188
110
fx
61
49
33
54
36
233
-12
472
21
xf
-2
-1
0
1
2
f x « -122
-49
0
54
72
-45
54 144
491
.
Y
fx *2
244
49
X = Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Professional Reading
r = .038 + .044
64
TABLE XVIII
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
WOMEN TEACHER RATING AND PROFESSIONAL READING TEST
£x «y»
I
II
III
IV
V
fj
y’
fy'
V
4
6
0
7
1
18
2
36
72
-10
IV
4
6
5
4
1
20
1
20
20
- 8
III
7
5
5
4
1
20
0
0
IV
9
4
4
3
3
23
-1
-23
23
13
I
2
5
5
4
2
16
-2
-32
64
2
fx
26
26
15
22
8
97
1
179
-3
x«
02
-1
0
1
2
fx 1 -52
-2 6
0
fy'2
Y
o
H
fx ’2
26
22 16
-40
22 32
184
-
X = Women Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Women Professional Reading Variable
r = .01 + .07
65
with that of the men .18 with a probable error of .05 as
shown in Table XIX.
Thererror of a guess for the women was
found to be 99.9 percent and for the men to be 98.1 percent.
It was possible that the wide difference between the coeffic­
ients of the men and women may be due to the fact that only
40 percent of the cases are women.
However, this suggestion
is not an attempt to answer why the difference exists.
b. Conclusions.
The coefficients- of correlation of
the critic teacher rating and the professional reading test
were found to be .038 with a probable error of .044 for the
entire group,
.01 with a probable error of .07 for the women,
and .18 with a probable error of .05 for the men.
From th ese
extremely low coefficients it was concluded that although
each shows a positive relationship, the professional reading
test is not an effective measure for predicting success in
student teaching.
66
TABLE XIX
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
MEN TEACHER RATING AND.PROFESSIONAL READING.TEST
I
II
X
III
V
7
1
4
11
6
. IV
4
7
2
6
III
5
5
3
II
.12
5
I
7
fx
y1
fy1
29
2
58
116
41
3
22
i
22
22
- 2
4
6
23
0
0
4
2
8
31
-1
-31
31
11
5
5
.9
5
31
-2
-62
124
0
35
23
18
32
28
136
-13
293
49
x1
-2
-1
0
2
2
fx ‘
-70
-23
0
32
56
-5
fx *2
140
23
32
112
307
IV
V
x = Men Teacher rating variable
Y = Men Professional Reading Variable
r » .18 + .05
y
67
5
* COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION OF CRITIC TEACnER
RATING AND ThE PSYCnGIiOGICAL TEST
b* Analaysxs.■
From the comprehensive master table,
the 234 cases were, tabulated and a frequency distribution
table number XX was arranged.
This table of the psychologi­
cal test scores showed that of these cases, approximately
21 percent were ranked in the first quintile, 23 percent
were ranked in the second quintile, 17 percent were ranked
in the third- quintile, 15 percent were ranked in the fourth,
quintile, and 22 percent were ranked in the firth quintile.
Here, ,as in the professional reading test, there is a fairly
even and normal grouping throughout all the quintiles.
The
median quintile ratins of the professional test scores and
the psychological test scores are practically the same. This
indicates that the group of 234 samples seems to be fairly
synonomous with a normal distribution of students.
In the comparative graph (Graph V), the following com­
parisons are noted.
Sixty-three or 27 percent of the cases
on the student teacher rating areiin the first quintile as
compared with 51 or 21 percent of the cases on the psycholog­
ical test.
Forty-nine or 21 percent of the cases on the
student teacher rating were in the second quintile as com-
68
TABLE XX
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF QUINTILE RATINGS.
OF STUDENT TEACHERS ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST
Quintile rating
f
Cum. f
1
51
234
2
55
183
3
41
128
4
55
87
5
52
52
N = 234
Median =3*76
Mode = 2
Mean = 2,88
69
ife
[M L
W
s
-20
W
teitoaiErit
N o . 6103, U n i v e r s i t y B o o k s to r e , L o s A n g e le s
JUX
70
pared with 55 or 23 percent of the cases on the psychological
test.
Thirty-three or 14 percent of the cases on the'stud­
ent teacher rating were in the third quintile as compared
with 41 or 17 percent of the cases on the psychological test.
Fifty-five or 23 percent of the cases on the student teacher
rating were in the fourth quintile as compared with 35 or
16 percent of the cases.
Thirty-six or 15 percent of the
cases on the student teacher rating were in the fifth quin­
tile as compared with 52 or 22 percent of the cases on the
psychological test.
While there was a variation of six
points from the normal distribution it was not large to
skew the distribution of the eases.
Table XXI was derived from the data in Table X for
the puspose of determining the coefficient of correlation
of the entire group.
From this table it was found to be
.019 with a probable error of .042.
This low coefficient
indicates practically no relationship exists between the
two factors.
The error resulting from a prediction of suc­
cess in student -teaching from the psychological test scores
is 99.9 percent as large as the error of a guess.
Table XXII shows the coefficient of correlation for
the women to be .07 with a probable error of .07 as compared
with that of the men .021 with a probable error of .054 as
71
TABLE XXI
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
TEACHER RATING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST
2
I
II
III
IV
V
FY
Y»
V
9
17
6
12
8
52
2
104
208
-14
IV
9
6
5
11
4
35
1
35
70
- 5
III
13
5
6
12
5
41
0
0
II
16
9
7
9
14
55
-1
-55
110
4
I
14
12
9
11
5
51
-2
-102
204
38
fx
61
49
33
55
36
234
-73
592
23
-2
-1
0
1
2
fix' -122
-49
0
55
72
-44
244
49
55
144
492
Y
x1
f x 12
X = Teachers rating variable
Y = Psychological test- variable
r = .019 + .042
fy*
fy'
i x *y«
TABLE XXII
72
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
WOMEN TEACHER SATING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST
y1
fy1
f y ‘2
18
2
36
72
2
13
1
13
4
1
.16
0
0
3
4
5
25
-1
>25
25
8
8
4
8
0
.26
-2
-52
104
24
2?
26
14
22
9
98
-2
-1
0
1
2
0
22
18
I
II
III
IV
.v
V
3
7
2
5
1
IV
5
4
1
1
III
4
3
4
II
9
4
I
6
fx
x‘
fx ‘
fx 12
-54 -26
108
26
22
36
-40
192
X = Women Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Women Psychological Tests Variable
r = .07 + .07.
13
1 ^ ‘y
- 7
- 9
73
shown in Table XXIII*
The error resulting from a predict­
ion of success' in student teaching by the use of the psy­
chological test scores for the women is 99.7 percent as
large as the error of a guess, as compared with 99.9 per­
cent as large as the error of a guess for the men.
b. Conclusion.
The coefficients of correlation of
the critic teacher rating and the psychological test were
found to be .019 with a probable error of .042 for the
entire group,
.07 with a probable error of .07 for the wo­
men, and *021 with a probable error of .054 for the men.
Prom the above findings of practically a zero or no corre­
lation.^ bit was concluded that although each coefficient
shows a positive relationship, the psychological test was
not an effective measure for the predicting success in
student teaching.
74
TABLE XXIII
THE COEFFICIENT OF .CORRELATION FOR
MEN TEACHER RATING AND PSYCOLOGICAL TESTS
Y
Y
A
fy « 2
i x 'y *
I
II
III
IV
V
fy
y'
V
6
10
4
7
7
34
2
68
136
- 2
IV
4
2
4
10
2
22
1
22
22
4
III
9
2
2
8
4
25
0
11
7
5
4
5
9
30
-1
-30
30
- 4
1
8
4
5
3
5
25
-2
-50
100
14
fx
34
23
19
33
27
136
10
288
12
*
-2
-1
0
1
fx «
-34
-23
33
54
30
68
23
33
108
232
X
fx '2
2 -
X= Men Teacher Rating Vairables
Y= Men Psychological Test Variable
r= .021 + .054
fy’
75
6. COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION OF CRITIC TEACHER
RATI m
AND THE GENERAL CULTURE TEST
a * Analysis.
From the comprehensive master table,
the 234 cases were tabulated and a frequency distribution
table number XXIV was arranged.
This table of the general
culture test shows that of these cases, approximately 21 per­
cent were ranked in the first quintile, 17 percent of the
cases were ranked in the second quintile, 27 percent were
ranked in the third quintile, 16 percent v/ere ranked in the
fourth and fifth q\3,intile.
The greatest percentage of the
cases were found in the third qtiintile
which may be caused
by the lack of the part of this group of the mastery and of
the understanding of those things worth learning and know­
ing.
This table compared with the table of the professional
reading test and the p s y c ho lo g ic al test, shows a noticeable
variance in the distribution of the cases.
This variance
was probably due to the lack of general knowledge by this
group of prospective teachers.
In the comparative graph (Graph VI), the following
comparisons were worth noting.
Sixty-three of 27 percent of
the cases on the student teacher rating are in the first quin
tile as compared with 51 or 21 percent of the cases on the
general culture test.
Forty-nine of 21 percent of the cases
76
TABUS xxrv
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF QUINTILE RATINGS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS ON THE. GENERAL CULTURE TEST
Quintile rating
f
Cum. f
51
234
2
42
183
3
63
141
4
39
78
39
39
— **1
1
5
\
.
N = '234
Median =3.88
Mode = 3
Mean = 2.90
77
r-tt
m-
m
fit
N o . 6103, U n i v e r s i t y B o o k s to r e , L o s A n g e le s
:zv
78
on the student teacher rating were in the second quintile as
compared with 42 or 17 percent of the cases on the general
culture test.
Thirty-three or 14 percent of the cases on the
student teacher rating were in the third quintile as compared
with 63 or 27 percent of the cases on the general culture
test.
Fifty-five or 23. percent of the cases on the student
teacher rating were in the fourth quantile as compared with
39 or 16 percent of the cases on the general culture test.
Thirty-six or 15 percent of the cases on the student teacher
rating were in the.fifth quintile as compared with 39 or 16
percent of the cases on the general culture test.
From these
comparisons, it was noted that the percentage of the cases
in the general culture test were much lower than those in
the student teacher rating.
There are probably two implica­
tions which can be drawn from this datq, namely, that the
subjective element has tended to place the number of score's
on the teacher rating in the higher quintile, while the lack
of a general knowledge has tended to place the scores on the
general culture test in the lower quintiles.
The data of Table XXV was derived for the purpose of
determining the coefficient of correlation for the entire
group from Table X.
The coefficient for the entire group
was found to be .146 with a probable error of .043.
In the
79
TABLE XXV
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
TEACHER RATING. AND GENERAL CULTURE TEST
fy*
f y «2 i*'y
2
86
172
12
35
1
35
35
-1
9
63
0
0
13
4
42
-1
-42
42
10
5
8
11
51
-2
102
204
28
49
33
55
36
23ft
-23
453
49
-2
-1
0
1
2
fx *
-122
-4 9
0
55
72
-44
fx’2
244
49
55
144
492
I
II
III
IV
V
V
5
9
10
13
6
43
IV
7
9
3
10
6
III
21
12
10
11
II
11
9
5
I
17
10
fx
61
X*
X = Teacher Rating Variable
Y = General Culture Test Variable
r = .146 + .043
y1
80
20
study of Ullman
obtained.
a similar coefficient as the above was
Of the three test, the general culture test seemed
to correlate the highest, however, the coefficient is not
large enough to warrant the use of this as an effective mea­
sure in the prediction of student teaching success.
The
error, as found by the coefficient of alienation formala,
resulting from a prediction of success in student teaching
from the general cultural test scores is 98.9 percent as
large as the error of a guess.
Table XXVI shows the coefficient of correlation for
the women to be .03 with a probable error of .06 as compared
with that of the meti .31 with a probable error of .06 as
shown in Table XXVII.
The;/ error resulting from a predict­
ion of success in student teaching by the use of the general
culture test scores for the women is 99.9 percent as large as
large as the error of a guess, as compared with 95.2 percent
as large as the error of a guess for the men.
The difference
in the coefficient of correlation for the men and women is
unexplainable.
Conclusion.
The coefficient of correlation of the
critic teacher rating and the general culture test were found
20 R. R. Ullman, loc. cit.
81
TABLE XXVI
fy’
H,
2
32
64
12
1
12
24
3
32
0
0
5
2
16
-1
-16
16
2
2
7
2
22
-2
-44
88
14
98
-16
192
0
I
II
III
IV
V
V
3
3
5
5
0
16
IV
2
6
1 • 2
1
III
12
8
5
4
II
3
5
1
7.
4
1
y’
fx
27
26
14
23
8
x1
-2
-1
0
1
2
fx'
-54
-26
23
16
-41
fX'2
108
26
23
32
189
X = Women Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Women General Culture Test
r = .03 + .06
ro
THE GO EFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
WOMEN TEACHER RATING AND GENERAL CULTURE TEST
t x ’y
-8
82
TABLE XXVII
THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR
, MEN TEACHER RATING AND GENERAL CULTURE TEST
I
II
III
rv
V
fy
yf
fy1
V
2
6
5
8
6
27
2
54
108
20
IV
5
3
2
8
5
23
1
23
23
5
III
9
4
5
7
6
31
0
II
8
4
4
8
2
.26
-1
-2 6
-2 6
8
I
10
6
3
1
9
29
-2
-58
116
14
fx
34
23
19
32
28
136
-7
273
47
X1
-2
-1
0
1
2
fx»
-68
-23
0 32
56
136
23
32 112
303
Y
fx *2
X = Men Teacher Rating Variable
Y = Men General Culture Test
r = .31 + .06
-3
fy,a £x *y1
85
to be .146 with a probable error of .043 for the entire
group,
.03 with a probable error of .06 for the women, and
.31 with a probable error of .06 for the men.
From these
low it was concluded that although each factor shows a pos­
itive relationship, the general culture test is not an eff­
ective measure for predicting success in student teaching.
7. OPS SUMMARY OF ThF FINDINGS
In this chapter, the various statistical relation­
ships were tabulated, reported and interpreted.
The following divisions were used to interprete the
findings:
1. The critic teacher rating sheet.
2. The comprehensive master table.
5. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the scholastic grade point average.
4. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the professional reading test.
5. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the psychological test.
6. Coefficients of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the general culture test.
V. The summary of the findings.
84
i:i ;
Table XXVIII illustrates the correlations of the stud­
ent teacher rating sheet W i t h the various other factors, in
this study, namely:
(1) the scholastic grade point average,
(2) the professional reading test, (3) the psychological test,
and (4) the general culture test.
In the first division of this chapter, it was found
that scores on the critic teacher rating sheet ranged from 0
to 24 points and that approximately 48 percent of the cases
were distributed in the first and second quintiles.
There
were only 13 cases of the entire group below the mid-point
score of 12.
It appears that skewed distribution of almost
half of the 234 cases is due to the subjective element in
the critic teacher rating.
It is evident that the teacher
rating sheet as an instrument of evaluation, its validity is
questionable.
•
The second division of this chapter explained the com­
prehensive master table (Table X) which contains the tabulated
data of this study.
It was found from this data and the
graphical presentation (Graph II) that the majority of the
cases were grouped in the second, third, and fourth quintile.
It was concluded that the skewness of the distribution of the
cases may be due to the subjective element of the critic
teacher rating pulling the cases into the second and third
85
TABLE XXVIII
CORRELATION OF STUDENT TEACHER RATING SHEET WITH
TEST DATA AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
r
Professional Reading Test
.038 ± .044
Psychological Test
.019 ± .042
General Culture Test
.146 ± .043
Grade Point Average
.232 + .040
professional Reading Test - Women
.01
±
.07
Professional Reading Test - Men
.1 8
+
.05
Psychological Test - Women
.07
±
.07
Psychological Test - Men
.02
±
.05
General Culture Test - Women
.03
±
.0 6
General Culture Test - Men
.ja
+
.06
Grade Point Average - Women
.0 6
±
.07
Grade Point Average - Men
.21
+
.05
86
quintile.
It may dlso be stated that the lack of a general
education on the part of the average student teacher, in so
far as the grades are any indication, had the opposite effect
and tended to pull the cases into the third and fourth quin­
tile .
The third division of this chapter dealt with the
finding of the coefficient of correlation between the critic
teacher rating and the scholastic grade point average.
The
coefficient correlation of the entire group was found to be
.252 with a probable error of .040, for the women .06 with
a probable error of .07, and .21 with a probable error of
.05 for the men.
For the three groups, respectively, the
coefficients of alienation were found to be 97.3 for the en­
tire group, 99.8 for the women, ana 97.7 for the men.
These
large coefficients show much absence of relationship, conse­
quently scholastic average has no value as a means of pre­
dicting success in student teaching.
The fourth division of this chapter dealt with the
finding of the coefficient of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the professional reading test.
The correlation
coefficient bf the entire group was found to be .038 with
a
probable error of .044, for the women it was found to be .01
with a probable error of .07, and for the men it was found to
87
be .18 with a probable error of .05.
The coefficients of
alienation were found to be for the entire group 99.9, for
thw women 99.9 and for the men 98.1.
The low correlation
coefficients indicate that there is a positive relationship,
however, the professional reading test is not an effective
measure for predicting student teaching success.
The fifth division of this chapter dealt with the
finding of the coefficient of correlation of critic teacher
rating and the psychological test.
The correlation coeffic­
ient of the entire group was found to be .019 with a probable
error of .042, for the women it was found to be .07 with a
probable error of .07, for the men it was found to be .02
with a probable error of .05.
The coefficients of alienation
were found to be for the entire group 99.9, for the women
99.7, and for the men 99.9.
It can foe concluded from the
near zero or no correlation, that the psychological test is
not an effective measure for the prediction of student teach­
ing success.
The sixth division of this chapter dealt with the find­
ing of the coefficient of correlation of critic teacher rat­
ing ana the general culture test.
The correlation coefficient
of the entire group was found to be .146 with a probable error
of .040, for the women .05 with a probable error of .06, and
88
for the men .31 with a probable error of .06.
The coeffic­
ients of alienation were found to be for the entire group
as 98.9, for the women 99.9, and for the men 95.2.
It can
be concluded that although each correlation coefficient shows
a positive relationship, the general culture test is not
an effective measure for predicting student teaching success.
To supplement the study, Graph VI has been included.
It summarizes all the other graphs.
Of all the factors, the
professional reading test shows the least amount of fluctation
in the distribution of the cases.
This normal distribution
may be due in part to the reliability of the professional
reading test.
The noticeable fluctuations In the grade point
average scores and the student teacher rating may be explain­
ed by the subjective element or personal opinion of the critic
teacher in the ratings.
89
PCI
'E&CijKR-.WitiNO-.Si'ii:
.OdlCAL TBSTtizzjljzjz
*-f^e-i-NT4&V:E RAds—
HUMBER
_]]QQ,
80-
-x-4.
*XT
40
-ix-
20
^ S ftlD R E T p fE jtC h . - E K E O T a I p p
^feo-gtebisiffai
-tkfahRkkjprob^itetP
^ggSBSEodFdg
Vjul—trijTjTp
nin:u,rkn.
-fbirkjr
NO .
6103 .
JESSE
RAY
MILLER.
LOS
ANGELES
CHAPTER IV
SUMittiiRY
CQMCLUSIGM, A M D REQ O k M E M D A T l O M S
1. SukMiiRY
In briefly summarizing the findings of this study to
determine the relationship that exists between success in
student teaching as indicated by reports of the coordinators
and critic teachers and the professional reading test, the
psychological test, the general culture test and the schol­
astic grade point average, it may be said that:
a. Since there exists a relatively low correlation in
all the factors envolved, it would indicate that the tests
are very limited in their usefulness for predicting suc­
cess in student teaching.
b. It is quite evident that the critic teacher rating
- report is colored with the element of subjectivity.
c. The grade point average had the highest correlation
to the critic teacher rating.
This may be caused by the
subjective element or personal opinion of the teacher rat­
ing in both cases.
d. The cumulative quintile averages indicate that 14.9
percent of the cases were in the first quintile, 33.2 per­
cent of the cases were in the second quintile, 36.7 per-
91
o
cent of the cases in the third quintile, 13.6 percent of
eases in the fourth quintile, and 1.6 percent of the cases
in the fifth quintile.
The above percentages tend to in­
dicate the greatest number of cases are found in the
third quintile.
This variance may be aneimplication of
the lack of general knowledge on the part of this group
of student teachers.e. It is of interest to note.that out of 234 cases,
136, or 58 percent of the cases were men as compared with
98 or 42 percent of the cases of women and that in the
comparative findings of the correlations between the wo­
men and m e n , .the men show higher correlations.
2.
CONCLUSION
Since there is such a small coefficient of correlation
between the aptitude tests, the scholastic grade point aver­
age and the student teacher rating, the results of this study
tend toward certain conclusions.
a. The aptitude tests seem to be relatively less
valuable than the scholastic grade point average in pre­
dicting performance in directed teaching.
b. The scholastic grade point averages indicate that
generally speaking the student enrolled in directed teach-
92
ing is below the average college student in scholastic
achievement.
3
.
Rj&OOtoMJ&iuDATlGAi
From the conclusions in this study, the following
suggestions are offered':
a. Schools of education, normal schools and teacher
training institutions should maintain their present test­
ing program in view of the lack of a better instrument of
measurement as a factor- in the requirements to directed
teaching with certain limitations.
b. The above policy should be followed with the chief
motive of discovering the best equipped students v/ishing
to enter the teaching profession and not as a means of re­
ducing the supply of certificated teachers or of refusing
students of outstanding abilities as indicated by past
records and accomplishments.
c. The present testing program should be maintained
and. the results should be used only for guidance purposes
and not for purposes of selection to directed teaching.
d. It appears that there is a need for improvement in
the method of rating student teachers, through a more un­
iform- and less subjective device.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
93
A.
BOOKS
Enlow, Elmer, R., Statistics in Education and psychology*
New York; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1937. 180 pp.
This book represents an attempt to compile in one concise
volume the fundamental principles of statistical inter­
pretations need in statistical research.
Garrett, H. E . , Statistics in Psychology and Education.
York: Longmans, Green ana Company, 1937. 493 pp.
New
This book has .been a constant source of reference in this
study.
Gray, Clarence T. and David F. V o taw, Statistics. New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 1939. 278 pp.
A fine book coupling application and interpretation tech­
niques.
Gregory, Chester A., Pundementals of Educational Measurement.
New York; D. Appleton and Company, 1923.
382 pp.
A good treatment in non-technical language.
, and Omer W. Renfrow, Statistical Method in Education
and Psychology. Cincinnati, Ohio: C. A. Gregory Company,
1929. ^288pp.
The basic concepts of statistical measurement treated in
non-mathematical language.
Holzinger, Karl J., Statistical Methods for Students of Educa­
tion. New York: Ginn and Company, 1929.
372 pp.
This book has excellent complete model problems and a
complete list of important formulas.
Kelly, Truman J., Statistical Method.
Company, 19231 47B pp.
New York: The Macmillan
The chapter on ’’Measures of Relationship’1 was helpful in
thi s s tudy.
94
Kramer, Edna E ., A First Course in Educational Statistics.
New York; John Wiley and Sons, Ind.,
1935. 212 pp.
An elementary treatment of educational and statistical
facts.
*
Lindquist, E. P., Statistical Analysis in Educational Research.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940. 398 pp.
An attempt to translate Dr. Fisher’s methods in educational
research into a language and notation familiar to students
of education.
McCall, William, A«, How To Measure in Education.
The Macmillan Company, 1922. 416 pp.
New York:
An attempt to bring together in one volume the field of
measurement.
Measurement. New York; The Macmillan Company, 1939.
512 pp.
A revision of the above book, with a great deal of
additional material.
Monroe, DeVoss K . , Educational Tests and Measurements.
Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1924. 521 pp.
Boston:
A good basic text in the field of measurements.
Otis, Arthur S., Statistical Method in Educational Measurement.
New York; World Book Company, 19^5. 337 pp.
Still a good book dealing with simple statistical methods.
Sorenson, Herbert, statistics for Students of Psychology and
Education. New' York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1936. 373 pp.
The book contains essentially all the elemenfss of
statistics actually used by most graduate students.
Tiegs, Ernest W. and Claude C. Crawford, Statistics for
Teachers. Boston; Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1930. 212 pp.
An excellent treatise on the methods of statistical pro­
cedure in thesis writing.
95
L.
PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Bennett, George K . , "Correlation Between Scores Expressed as
Percentiles," Journal of Educational Psychology, 30:470472, September, 193^7
Bent, Rudyard K., "Relationships Between Qualifying Examina­
tions, Various other Factors, and Student Teaching Per­
formance at the University of Minnesota," Journal of
Experimental Education, 5:251-255, March 1937*
Broom, M. &•, "Predictive Value of Three Specified Factors
for Success in Practice Teaching,"Educational Administra­
tion and Supervision, 15:25-29, January 1929,
Cooper, Hazel E . , "Correlation of Practice-Teaching Grades of
Teachers College Seniors with 'Thurstone Group Intelligence
Scores," Pedagogical Seminary, 31:176-180, 1924,
Hull, Clark L . , "The Correlation Coefficient and Its Prognostic
Significance," The Journal of Educational Research, 15:327338, May 1927.
Lawton, J. A . , "A Study of Factors Useful in Choosing Candid­
ates for the Teaching Profession," British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 9:131-144, June 1939.
Major, C. L . , "The Percentile Ranking of the Ohio State
University Psychological Test as a Factor in Forecasting
the Success of Teachers in Training," School and Society,
47:582-584, April 30, 1938.
Monroe, W.
and Dewey B. Stuit, "The Interpretation of the
Coefficient of Correlation," Journal of Experimental
Education, 1:186-203, March 1933.
96
C. PUBLICATIONS OF LEARNED ORGANIZATIONS
Bossing, Nelson L., 11Aptitude Tests and Teacher Selection,11
Resea.rch In ‘Higher Education, Bulletin No, 12, 1931
(Washington, B.C.: U. S. Office of Education), pp. 117-133.
Knight, F. B . , Qualities Related to Success in Teaching,
(Contribution to Education, No. 120. New York; Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1922), 67 pp.
Learned, William S. and Ben B. Wood, The Student and His
Knowledge Bulletin No. 29. The c&rnegie Foundation for
Advancement of Teaching, 1938 New York. (Boston: D. P.
Updike, The Merrymount Press, 1938), 340 pp.
Morris, E. H., Personnel Traits and Teaching Success. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1929.
75 pp.
Odenweller, A. L*., Predicting the Quality of Teaching.
Teachers College Congribution to Education, No. 676. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. 158 pp.
Sandiford, Peter and Others, lfForecasting Teaching Ability,11
Bulletin N o . 8 of the Department of Educational Research.
Toronto 5: University of Toronto, 1937. 93 pp.
Somers, G. T.., Pedagogical Prognosis, predictin, the Success
of Prospective Teachers. Contributions to Education,
N o . I40T New$br£; Teachers College, Columbia University,
1923.
129 pp.
Ullman, R. R ., The Prognostic Value of Certain Factors Related
to Teaching Success. AshXand, Ohio: A. L. Garber Company,
X931. 133 pp.
Whitney, F. I*., The Prediction of Teaching Success. Journal
of Education Research Monograph, No. 6. Bloomington,
Illinois: Public School Publishing Company, 1924. 85 pp.
APPENDIX
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
FOLLOW-UP RATING SHEET
Name of Student
97
School
Subject Taught_________________________
Full Periods Taught
____________________
,
___Grade Taught_____
Partial Periods Taught__________ Semester______Year
Periods Present______________ Periods Absent______________ Periods Tardy_________
Training Teacher_____________________________ Units Credit
Final_Rating__
Directions: Encircle the amoropriate number for each skill or trait.
Explanation: 1. Outstanding. 2. Very good. 3* Average.
Poor. The
for 100 teachers should be as follows: 10 outstanding, ^0 very good, 30
10 poor.
OutVery
Aver­
SKILL OR TRAIT
standing
Good
age
10
50
3.0 _____
distribution
average,
Poor
10
1. Grasp of subject matter.
1
2
3
U
2 . Organization of curricular materials 3
lesson planning, daily preparation.
1
2
3
U
3 . Technique of teaching: Skill in
presentation, questioning, making
assignments, motivating pupils' work,
evaluating it, recognizing individual
differences and meeting them.
1
2
3
k
H. Class organization and control: Dis­
cipline, securing pupil response.
1
2
3
h
5 . Care of room, supplies, keeping
records, fulfilling administrative
requirements, reports.
1
2
3
u
6 . Personality: dress, manners, posture,
vitality, emotional stability, poise.
1
2
3
H
7 . English: quality and choice of usage,
quality and use of voice, writing on
the blackboard.
1
2
3
h
1
2
3
u
S. Professional attitudes:
capacity and
desire for growth, open-mindedness,
co-operation, social philosophy.
FINAL RATING FOR THE SEMESTER
(Check only one (
).)
Not
Recommended
Recommended
(
)
(
)
Remarks: (These are to be brief and descriptive*)Please include the type of posi
tion for which the student teacher is suited.
DATE_
'
_______________________________________________
Signature
Please fill out and return as soon as -possible to the Director of Student Teaching,
School of Education, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR STUDENT TEACHER
GRADE TAUGHT_________ PREVIOUS GRADES TAUGHT____________ NAME
SUBJECTS TAUGHT_______________________________ CRITIC TEACHER
TERM OF TEACHING
SUPERVISOR
The recommendation you give will he valuable to the student who has just
completed his work under your direction in direct p'roportion to the thoroughness
with which it is written* May we suggest that you eliminate generalities and
cover the following specific points: Knowledge of subject matter; evidence of
liberal culture; evidence of professional growth? daily preparation; enthusiasm;
sympathy; discretion; professional loyalty; co-operation with colleagues; skill
in discipline; success in teaching; tact; character; standing in the community;
willingness to take suggestions; weakest points; length of time applicant taught
under your supervision; willingness to employ applicant in your school.
It is entirely possible that several of these items may be included in one
sentencei but we rather hope you will make mention of all of them by direct ref­
erence.
99
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ANALYTICAL REPORT ON WORK OF STUDENT TEACHER
Name of S t u d e n t _____________
Subject Taught.
Grade Taught
Full Periods Taught
Periods Present_________
Training Teacher
School
jPartial Periods Taught.
P eriods Absent____________
PeriodsTardy..
_________________________________________ Date_________
I. GRASP OF SUBJECT MATTER:
a* To what degree
has the
student teacher attained mastery of
the
subject ma
in his own and related fields?________________ ________________________________
b.
H.
To what extent
does he
show familiarity and proficiency in
the
terminolog
the field in which he is teaching?____________________________________________
ORGANIZATION QF CURRICULAR MATERIALS :
a. What is the general nature, quality, and extent of the lesson plans prepared
by the student teacher?_______________________________________________________
b. What evidence does he show of thorough daily preparation?
c. What comment can you make upon his general notebook as to;
ization, and usefulness of content?
neatness, organ­
TECHNIQUE OF TEACHING:
a. With what degree of skill does the student teacher -present new work?
b. What types of questioning does he employ?
c. What would you commend or criticize in his method of making assignments?
d. What means has he used to arouse and stimulate pupil interest and activity?
e. What criteria does he employ for the evaluation of the pupils' work?
f. What provision has he made for the recognition of individual differences?
What instructional aids or devices has he used with particular success?
h. In what phases of the instructional process does he show especial progress?
i . In what phases does he need further intensive training?
CLASS ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL:
cl* What methods has the student teacher used to sustain interest and attention?
b. With what success has he met occurrences requiring disciplinary measures?
c. What has been the general response of the pupils to his leadership?
d. What results does he get from them in terms of educational outcomes?
2.
V.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. GARB OF BOOM. SUPPLIES. RECORDS, SIC.:
a. How has the student teacher carried out administrative instructions?.
b.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
NOTE:
Date .
What degree of thoroughness has he displayed in the care of the classroom
handling of supplies, keeping records, making reports, etc. ? _________
PERSONALITY:
a. To what extent does the student teacher’s personality appeal to the pupils
b,
What comment would you care to make upon his dress, manners, posture, use
of cosmetics, and social qualities?_________ .
_______________
.
_________^
c.
What evidence has he given of adequate vitality, emotional stability, and
poise, to become a successful teacher?
___________ _
d.
Can you give specific instances of his presence of mind or confusion and
bewilderment in emergencies or critical situations?
___________________
LANGUAGE:
a. In what respects would you criticize or commend the student teacher’s
quality and choice of English usage?
b.
What are the outstanding qualities of his use of his voice?
c.
What is the effect of his voice upon the pupils?
d.
How well does his writing on the blackboard serve as a model for his
pupils?
_____________________ _________
PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES:
a. What evidence leads you to feel that the- student teacher has both the ca­
pacity and desire for professional growth? .
_____
b.
What is his reaction to criticism or suggestion?
does he receive it? How does he act upon it?
Does he seek it? How
______________ ________
.
c.
What instances have you noted of loyalty and cooperation?______ __________
d.
What is the type of relationship between him and his pupils? Between him
and the training teacher?
■
„
e.
What were the causes of his absences or tardiness?.
f.
How does he spend himself in seeking the success of his pupils, generously
or reluctantly?_______ ________________________________ _
______________ _
g_.
Has he an adequate philosophy basic to his work? Does he perceive the
social significance of education?______________ .
_______ _______________ _
The training; teacher does not need to answer all of these questions, especially
if there has been no impression with reference to a given point, but it is de­
sired to have a full account of the student teacher’s progress. A general
statement may be written here and continued on the back. Please write fully
whatever you care to say^_______________________ i
___________,
_____
.
..
Signature of Training Teacher
Please fill out and return as soon as possible to the Director of Student Teaching,
School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
100
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Personal Data Record of Students
Taking Professional Aptitude Test Date______ _____________ 19._____
l.NAMB
______________ ,
__________ ________ ____________
(PrintT (Last)
(First)
(Middle) (Mr.,Mrs.,Miss)
2* University_____
^ ____
Residenee ( N u m b e r ) (Street)
(City)
3* Permanent_________________ >________
.
___________ ^
_______
Address
(Number) (Street)
(City)
(State)
U-» Have you attended U.S*CU "before? ________.Jear____Degree_______
5» Other colleges )l
•
_____
Y ear
Degree_____ ___
6 . or universities)2_______________
Y ear____Degree_______
7- Present classification Circle one) Jr., Sr., Grad,, *Adv.Grad.
8 * Candidate for
__________
degree. Date
-________________
9 . Applicant for________ _________ credential. Date
_ _ ______ _
10 . Undergraduate major_____________________ Minor__________
11. Teaching major_______________
^_______ ^Minor, _______ ______ ___
* Students having more than 28 units of graduate work*
Test
Form
TEST
A. Prof. Read.
B. Psych. Exam.
C. Gen..Cult.
B. Arith.
Analogies.
Num. Series
Q—SCORE .
Complotion
■Artif. Lang.
Same—Opp.
L-SCO&E
C. Soc. Stud.
For. Lit.
Fine Arts
Science
Math
1
j.
-
i_ j
J *
Possible Test
Placesment Med. Mean
Score Score Quint? $-ile .Score. Score S.D.
85
198
600 '
.
20
.TO
30
. 80
30
38
50
118
150
150
150
,9°
60
.
~
....
.
'
-
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
4 429 Кб
Теги
sdewsdweddes
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа