THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SECONDARY STUDENT

TEACHER'S SOCIABILITY, TEACHING FIELD

AND METHOD OP INSTRUCTION

APPROVEDt

Graduate Committee %

Major Professor

Q./rfL. Commxrtee Memhex

Committee Meaber

U~v*a I1/-Dean of the School of Education

Dean of the Graduate School

THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SECONDARY STUDENT

TEACHER'S SOCIABILITY, TEACHING FIELD,

AMD METHOD OF INSTRUCTION

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texa« Stat© University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

Charles Crosthwait, B, S., m. 8d,

Denton, Texas

May, 1963

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Significance of the Study Related Literature Definitions of Terars Limitation® of the Study Basic Assumptions Procedures for Collecting Data Procedures for Treating Data

II. CHARACTERISTICS OP THE STUDENT TEACHERS STUDIED AMD DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED . . 28

Student Teachers Studied Instruments Eoployed

III. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE DATA . 35

Total Population Sociability Groups First Teaching Field Sociability Groups Relationship Between Extrovert

Sociability and Instructional Preference

Relationship Between Assbivert Sociability and Instructional Preference

Relationship Between Introvert Sociability and Instructional Preference

iii

Chapter Pag®

Difference in Instructional Preference of Total Extroverts, Anbiverts and Introverts

Difference in Instructional Preference ©f Extrovert#, Arabiverts and Intro* vert® within Each Teaching Field Group

Difference in Instructional Preference of Teachings Field Groups

Difference in Sociability of Teaching Field Groups

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 58

Summary conclusions Recommendations

APPENDIX 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY 72

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table

I. Study Population Divided by First Teaching Field Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

II. Division of Heston Sociability Scores into Extrovert, Ambivert and Introvert . , . 36

III. Sociability Characteristics of First Teaching Field Groups . . . . . . . . . 38

IV. Instructional Preference Characteristics of Total Population as Shown by Sociability Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 45

V. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference of Total Extroverts, Ambiverts and Introverts . . . . . . 47

VI. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference for the Language Arts Group . . 46

VII, Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference for the Social Studies Group . . 49

VIII. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference for the Industrial Arts, Hone Economics and Library Group 50

IX. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Inatructional Preference for the Health and Phyaical Education Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table p«®®

X. Sutnaary of Staple Analysis of Variances of Data ©a Instructional Preference for th« Pin© Arts Group 52

XI. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference for the Business Education Group . . . . . . 53

XII. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructions1 Preference for the Mathematics and Science Group . . . 54

XIII. Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Data on Instructional Preference for the Total teaching Field Groups . . . . 36

XIV, Summary of Simple Analysis of Variance of Sociability Data for ths Total Teaching Field Groups, 57

XV. Total Sociability and Instructional Preference Saw Scores * Grouped According to First Teaching Field . . . 66

XVI. Suns f Means and Standard Deviations ©f Heston's Sociability and Patterson*® Instructional Preference Raw Scores * Groupsd According to First Teaching Field 70

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

For nany years educators have discussed the quality

of teacher# and teaching. One question which frequently

arises in cuch discussions is the relationship between

the teacher's peraonality and his ability to select and

us© those teaching method® and techniques which produce

the beat learning situation. Paycholosy and related re-

search have shown that personality possesses many con-

stantly interacting traita and characteristic®. One of

the aoat often discussed traits ia sociability. Simply

defined, it ia a person's ability to get along with, others

in the social situation in which he finds hiiaaelf. Is a

person "ahy" or "outgoing?" It is sometimes# assumed that

the extrovert, ©r highly social individual, aeea people

differently than the introvert, or lets aocially ainded

person. The question then arises as t© whether this intro-

version - extroversion factor will influence a teacher's

choice of teaching methods and techniques, will the extro-

vert seek teaching situations which require much social

interaction between student and teacher? Will the introvert

1

2

teach toy the lecture method and maintain a minimum of social

interaction because of fear or a lack of skill in social

situations? The®® are questions which this study has in-

vestigated.

In educational literature some writers imply that

people having certain personality characteriaties aeek out

certain subject area® in which to concentrate their atudy.

Does the more socially inclined individual tend to pursue

a subject area which offers hi® a chance to indulge in so-

cial activity? Ooea the leaa aocially inclined individual

aeek a subject area in which little social interaction ia

required? What of the larger ambivalent ©roup of the so-

called normally socially adjusted individuals? Do they have

within their patterns of subject choice a relationship to

their social development?

If teachers are to be educated to use a variety of

teaching methods, it is iwportant that those who direct

the teachers* education know something of the pattern of

instructional preference of both the individual and the

group with which they work.

Statement of the Preble®

This problem involves an effort to deter®ine the

interrelationship of groups of secondery student teachers'

3

sociabilities* firat teaching field choice and preference

of lecture or group method of instruction.

the major aspects of the study are:

1. The classification of all subject# si# social

introvert#, ashiverts, or extrovert® on the basis of

sociability test scores,

2. The grouping of all subjects into classifications

which are commensurate with their choice of a first teach-

ing field and background of educational experience*

3. The determination of the student's preferences

for lecture or group instruction,

4. The determination of differences in instructional

preferences among the groups classed as introverts, ambi-

verts, or extroverts.

5. The determination of differences in instructional

preferences among the introvert, ambivert and extrovert

groups within each classification according to first teach*

ing field.

6. The determination of differences in instructional

preference among the total populations of each teaching

field classification.

7. The determination of differences in sociability

among the total populations of each teaching field classi-

fication.

4

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses have been formulated ©ltd

wear® investigated by statistical analysis of the data

collected t

1. There will be three sociability groups (intro-

verts, aastoiverts, extroverts) found within the total

population studied.

2. There will be three sociability groups {intro-

verts, a®biverts» extroverts) found within the groups as

classified by first teaching field.

3. There will be a significant positive relationship

between extrovert sociability and preference for group

instructional practices.

4. There will be a significant positive relationship

between the ambivert sociability and preference for a

variety of instructional practices.

5. There will be a significant positive relationship

between introvert sociability and preference for lecture

instructional practices.

6. There will be a significant difference In the

instructional preferences of the total population of intro-

verts, a^biverts and extroverts.

7. There will be a significant difference in instruc-

tional preference# ©f introverts, aaibiverts and extrovert®

within each group as classified by first t®a<©hing field.

8. There will be significant differences! shown in

instructional preference by students in each identifiable

group (by first teaching field) fro* students in other

identifiable groups.

9. There will be significant difference# shown in

sociability by students in each identifiable group (by

first teaching field) from student® in other identifiable

groups.

Significance of the Study

An important unresolved problem concerning teaching

is the extent to which teaching is a matter of methods,

techniques and procedures which are learned during pro-

fessional preparation and the extent to which it is a

matter of the expression of basic personality patterns.

If teaching is a matter of both personality and the learn-

ing of method® during professional preparation, it then

requires those who educate teachers to have an understand-

ing of the relation existing between personality and the

prospective teacher*s preference for the use ©f certain

instructional practices. Therefore, the relationship of

personality t© the style and manner of teaching is crucial

in deciding the way in which good teaching can be achieved.

The trained eye of the professional educator haa, per-

haps, the ability to determine the extent of social adjust-

ment of the potential teacher. Sociability may be little

more than the observable social adjustment of an individual.

After a period of observation the teacher of professional

education courses may wish to mate a classification of hie

pupils in regard to social adjustment. If he knows that

p significant preference for certain methods of teaching

is associated with certain levels of social adjustment, he

may then provide better learning experience# for each indi-

vidual within his class.

If a further relationship exists between the potential

teacher's first teaching field and his preferences for

instructional practices, this knowledge could also be used

to improve the learning situation for these individuals.

If there is n© one successful way to teach and'if the

teaching preference of an individual can be determined

early in his program of teacher education, these 'prefer-

ences could be used as criteria for grouping. This study,

therefore, better facilitates concentrated effort# toward

producing a truly effective teacher*

Research in this area nay also serve as a guide to

»@re efficient us# of secondary teaching personnel within

a school system. Job satisfaction should be more easily

attainable for the teacher who is placed in a working

situation in keeping with both hi® social adjustment and

instructional preference *

Related Literature

In recent year# a nutaber of studies relating t©

personality and teaching ability have been mail®* The

research cited here provide® the framework ©If theory for

this study.

Eva Goodenough (14) state# that although expert

opinion baa consistently emphasized the importance of

teacher personality as a factor in teacher success, most

studies which, have measured changes in pupil behavior as

a criterion for success have found little relationship

between success and Measures of teacher personality.

Several studies by Harold H. Anderson (1) also bear

upon the question of teacher personality and the extent

of its influence within the classroom, Anderson found

8

that there was a relation between dowinativ© teacher per-

sonality and dominative pupil behavior and a correaponding

positive relation between integrative teacher behavior and

more of the working together atmosphere within the class-

room.

Lewin, Lippit and Whit© (20) also found similar be-

havior among pupils. Their studies concerned dominative*

democratic and laissez-faire leadership practices. Under

each type of teacher leadership it was found that the hoys

concerned showed direct behavior changes and difference®

due to peraonality projections fro® the leaders. These

changes were all toward the behavior displayed by the

leader *

P, M. Symonds {25} concludes that teaching is essen-

tially an expression of personality and the method® courses

taught in college have little influence upon the nature of

educational experiencea offered by the classroom teacher»

nor do they greatly influence the attitude of the class-

room teacher toward teaching.

After extensive investigation, SyBonds (26) further

concludes that although it is generally believed that

teacher# with serious personality and emotional problems

will have a bad effect upon pupils, there is no conclusive

evidence to support this belief. However» he also states

that most of the very ineffective teachers whoa he studied

were emotionally disturbed and projected hostility upon

their pupils.

The field ©f total personality study shows little

relation between personality and teaching ability. When

passing from total personality study to the -study of social

adjustment and teachin® ability #©»© different results are

found,

In separate studies, Tyler and Michaeli^ (28, 22)

found that social adaptability of a student teacher was

a measure of sosse value in predicting success ©f student

teacher®. One of the recommendations »ade by both m m

was that a study should be made concerning relations of

subject major, level of teaching and personality adjust-

ment, They feel that these studies could possibly lead

to valid criteria for student teacher screening programs.

Research, in relation to sociability as a factor in

college students* total adjustment, indicates that hone

and family background (rural or urban) produces some sig-

nificant differences in college students' sociability

scores as measured by the Heston Personal Adjustment

10

Inventory (16). Gingles (12) found that college girls wis©

had affiliated with a sorority were significantly higher

in sociability (at the ,01 level of significance). She

also found that college men from urban hoses and those

affiliating with fraternities had significantly higher

sociability scores than did other college men.

Hall and Gaeddert (15) made use of a peer rating

device to examine friendship patterns among students at

the University of Nebraska. They point out that those

rated as highly friendly by their peers have considerable

ability in dealing with people. It was further found that

when peer ratings were correlated with intelligence the

resulting correlation was low. <ir ade average# were favor-

ably predicted by the peer friendship ratings. It appears

then that sociability is a better predictor of course

grades than is intelligence. Success in student teaching

was also studied. Student teaching success seems to re-

late to friendship scores with correlations as high as .40

between course grades and friendship ratings.

Research also points toward a social factor being

used in the Judgment of inferior or superior teachers.

Tanner (27) indicates that his work shows superior teacher#

to have a broad interest pattern. They belong to many

11

societies and were generally at borne in a group. The in-

ferior teaohers weir# characterised by nonaccept ance by

their own social group, had few friends and preferred

work that avoided social contacts, they prefer to deal

with thing® rather than people.

Studies concerning extroversion-introversion produce

a field of conflicting research. In the past few year®

many psychologists have become increasingly convinced that

extroversion-introversion i® an important dimension ©f

personality, yet there is little agreement as to its

nature (5). Cattell (6) hat presented evidence to indi-

cate that extroversion-introversion is largely ©f environ-

mental origin. Eysenck (8) is firmly convinced that

heredity plays a major role in a person's social adjust-

ment.

Xhe relation between total personal adjustment and

extroversion-introversion has been argued at length.

Jung (19) maintained that extroversion-introversion is

independent of total adjustment. Freud (10) expressed

a different picture through the belief that introversion

was a forerunner of neurosis.

Carrigan (5) concludes that while many gaps remain,

there is reason to believe that extroversion-introversion

12

1» a definite part of each individual's personal sake-up

and further research is recommended.

Educational attainment and the factor# of extroversion*

introversion were examined toy Furneaux (11), Broadbent (4),

and Lynn (21), These studies, carried out in England# in-

dicate that a positive association between introversion

and high educational attainment, at the university level,

doe® exist. It was also found that introverts have good

vocabularies in relation to their intelligence (17),

The relationship existing between academic achieve-

ment, teaching preference and sociability wan recently

investigated by Leslie R. Beach (2), Using college sub-

jects, he divided one group into four groups which would

be instructed in the following manners: (1) lecture *

little social interaction, (2) discussion - nuch interac-

tion, (3) autonomous small groups - set their' own instruc-

tional procedure (nuch interaction), (4) independent

study *• seldom or never aet together. The groups appeared ,

by objective Measure, to be equal in sociability and

achievement. The less social individual m m found to

achieve more than the more social individual in the lec-

ture group. In the small group situations the wore social

individual was found to have higher achievement. It

1$

appears t© Beach that in situations similar to those de-

scribed in this study a relationship exist® between

sociability and achievement.

In an unpublished doctoral dissertation at North

Texas State University, Howard R. Patterson (24) found

similar relationships between personality and instruc-

tional preference and recommended further study into the

are® of sociability and teaching preference.

Farwell and MoConnell (9) recently investigated the

relation between personality factors and college subject

majors. They made use of a group ©f 662 ®en and 259

women. Those people were given several personality meas-

ures and a composite score was derived on each of five

traits. The comparison of these scores showed no differ-

ence in personality in respect to college major except in

the ease of the male engineers. They stood out sharply

from the others. They were less original, less complex

perceptuallyt more authoritarian f rigid and power-oriented

than any other group. Majors in biological sciences ap-

proached the engineer group but were not clearly distinct

from the other groups.

Research concerning the relation existing between per-

sonality and preference for certain methods of instruction

14

has some findings of significance. Jacob (18) indicates

that student responses to a given technique of instruc-

tion will often he reflective of bis personality pattern

or attitude developed prior to the time he was introduced

to the method of instruction, He points out that nany

students feel frustrated and uneasy when faced with in-

structional procedures which require actions of the® that

are not consistent with their personality pattern,

Wilernan (30) has conducted studies which point

toward the active or passive classroom participation of

the student as a result of personality. He feels that

personality patterns allow certain people to profit fro®

group activity while others profit more fro® class pro-

cedures requiring less personal interaction with others.

Research into instructional methods employed at the

college level presents a picture which implies the best

approach would involve a wide range of learning activities*

Cook (7) believes the 1ecture-textbook method of

teaching makes its greatest contribution in iaparting

information but that retention of such information beyond

immediate recall is low.

Bloom (3) concludes that lecture is superior to dis~

cussion in developing information about a subject. On the

15

other band, the discussion method is better from the stand-

point of developing abilities and skill© of a problem-

solving nature.

In a study by Ward (29) it wets concluded that lec-

ture -demonstration teaching was better for recall of facts

and principles. .The group-study procedure was better for

understandings and implications t© be drawn fro» facts and

principles. The less capable students profited more from

lecture teaching than from group-study teaching. The

capable student profited from both types of instruction

but profited to a greater extent from the group-study

method.

The literature reviewed here presents a confused

picture of the possible relation of social adjustment,

teaching field and instructional method preference. There-

fore, after this review and soree observation of teacher

trainees, the possibility of significant relationships

between teacher sociability, teaching method preferences,

and chosen teaching field has generated the plan of this

study,

16

Definition of Terms

1. Sociability - shall be taken to mean the general

social adjustment of an individual as revealed by He®ton

Per tonal Adjustment Inventory (S) scores. Heetoii de«*

scribe® his (S) as measurement of th» following:

High degrees of this trait indicate extroversion in the social sense. A person with a high HS" score is more interested in people than in things, he makes friend# easily, converses readily and freely* feels he is a "lively* individual, enjoys social mixing, and frequently takes the lead in social participation, The low person is self-conscious, shy,'and socially timid, has only a limited number of friends, and seeks the background on social occasions. He is the "introvert" who is lacking in social skills and/ or inclinations (16).

2. Extrovert » shall be taken to mean those people

whose sociability score places them from one standard

deviation above the population sociability mean to the

highest score.

Aabivert - shall foe taken to mean those people

whose sociability score places the® from one standard

deviation below to one standard deviation above the popu*»

lation sociability »#an (13).

Introvert - shall be taken to mean those people

whose sociability score places them from the lowest score

to one standard deviation below the population sociability

mean.

17

5. Instructional Preference - shall be taken t©

mea« group or lecture preference as defined in Patterson*»

Student Instructional Preference Scale, Patterson (24)

defines lecture and group-oriented instructional method®

as followst

Group-oriented instruction method: Group-oriented instruction may include one or raore of 'the follow-ing! panel discussions, committee and individual reports, student-centered method, and the question and answer technique. Group-oriented instruction methods allow for student participation, the class decided upon its own activities, students are en-couraged to contribute personal experiences, the instructor accepts student contributions, goals are determined by the ©lass, students evaluate each other with emphasis upon affective and attltudinal change, and there is a de-emphasis of tests and trades.

Lecture-oriented instruction method! In the lecture method there is mainly instructor participation, the instructor determines the activities, discussion is kept on course Materials, there is regular use of tests and grades, student contribution is evaluated by the int&ructort goals are determined by the in-structor, and student participation is encouraged only for the purpose of seeking information froro the instructor.

6» Significant Differences - shall be taken to mean

a statistical result which is equal to or greater than that

whieh is required to reach the .05 level of significanee.

(Fisher, t table and Fisher, F table) (23).

Limitations of the Study

The subjects of this study consisted of people who

were enga9ed in student teaching in secondary education at

18

North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, during the

fall term of the 1962-63 school year. This study was con-

cerned with the overt social manifestation of personality

as measured by the Heston Personal Adjustment .Inventory*

Basic Assumptions

It is assumed that the total population of secondary

student teacher# at North T^xas Stat® University in the

fall term of the 1962-63 school year represent# a normal

population ©f such individual# as may choose teaching as

a profession. It is further assumed that the groups which

were formed by first teaching field choice are a repre-

sentative sample of students pursuing teaching career# in

these areas.

It is also assuwed that the instrument© chosen for use

in this study are valid for the purposes of the study.

Procedures for Collecting Data

The subject© included in this study consisted of indi-

viduals who were engaged in secondary student teaching

during the fall term {1962) at North Tex®© State University,

Denton, Texas. The total group studied numbered 211.

The homogeneity of the subjects was determined by

University requirements for student teaching. To qualify

19

for student teaching all students are required to have a

minimure grade average of "CH in their teaching field,

over-all average, and professional education courses com-

pleted.

North Texas State University offers several plans

under which student teaching may be taken. In order to

ascertain sociability and instructional preference® under

circumstances of relatively equal educational background

and training for all subjects, the Heatoa Personal Adjust*

went Inventory and Student Instructional Preference Scale

were administered as early in the tern as class organisa-

tion pernitted..

The Heston Personal Adjustment Inventory and Student

Instructional Preference Scale are discussed in detail in

Chapter II of this study.

These tests were administered by one individual using

both group and individual testing arrangements.

Testing sessions began on September 4, 1962 for those

people who began secondary student teaching with the open-

ing of the public schools. On September 21, 1962, another

larger group-testing session was held for those people who

began their secondary student teaching with the opening of

North Texas State University. The largest of the three

20

major testing sessions was held on September 26, 1962.

This session gathered data from those people who were

doing secondary student teaching under any other program,

These three testing sessions produced the data used in

this study.

In order to classify members of the total study

group as extroverts, introverts, or ambiverts it wa&

necessary to evolve an objective method of classifies®**

tion. The following procedure was followed, Hie mean

and standard deviation of Weston's sociability raw score#

for the total study group was computed. The mean and

standard deviation of the group was then used to compute

points of classification for social introverts and extro*

verts. The point of classification for eKtroverta was

then placed at the mean plus one standard deviation. The

point of classification for introverts was placed at the

aean minus one standard deviation. All scores falling at

©r above the ®ean plus one standard deviation to the mean

minus one standard deviation were classed as aiaiblverta and

grouped for further study. All scores falling at or below

the wean minus one standard deviation were classed as in-

troverts and grouped for further study. The criterion of

classification as established by this procedure wa® also

21

used for similar grouping within each first teaching field

area.

The following categories were used to further classi-

fy the data. These categories are based on similarity of

first teaching fields. The seven categories ares

1. Language Arts - includes English, foreign lan-

guage,. journalism, speech therapy, speech, speech-drama.

2. Mathematics and Science - includes biology,

chemistry, mathematics, physics*

3. Social Studies » includes history and social

studies.

4. Business Education.

5. Health and Physical Education - includes health,

physical education (pen), physical education (women),

health - physical education - recreation*

6. Industrial Arts and Home Economics - includes

industrial arts, library service, home economics.

7. Fine Arts - includes art, music, art education,

music education.

The subjects* instructional preference scores were

arranged within each group in accordance with the subjects*

classification as extrovert, aebivert, or introvert.

22

Procedures for Treating Data

The tenability of the hypotheses of the study was de-

ter rained by examining the data and treating it statistically

in the following Banneri

Step.I: Hyp©thesis cue was tested toy a sorting of

Heston*® (S) scores according to the division points es-

tablished. by the process of moving one standard deviation

above the population nean and one standard deviation below

the population mean.

Step lit Hypothesis two was tested by placing all

eases in the proper sub-group according to first teaching

field categories!. Three groups, extrovert, aabivert and

introvert, were then sorted within each teaching field

group. This was done by the use of the saw© division

points that were used to establish original extrovert,

affibivert or introvert classification {Step I)*

Step 111i Hypothesis three was tested by calculating

the coefficient of correlation between instructional

preference scores and sociability scores for the total

group classed as extroverts.

Step IV: Hypothesis four was tested by calculating

the coefficient of correlation between instructional

23

preference scores and sociability scores for the total

group classed as aratoiverts.

Step V: Hypothesis five was tested by calculating

the coefficient of correlation between instructional

preference scores and sociability scores for the total

group classed as introverts.

Step VIi Hypothesis six was tested by'the use of

simple analysis of variance to determine the significance

of the differences aatong the instructional preference

»e#fis of the total extroverts, arabiverts and introverts.

Where significant differences were found. the Fisher t 9

mm

test of separate group variances was used to determine

the differences between the means of individual groups.

Step VIIt Hypothesis seven was tested by the use of

simple analysis of variance to determine the significance

of the difference# among the instructional preference

means of the extroverts, aabiverts and introvert® within

each of the seven teaching field sub-groups, Where signifi-

cant differences were found, the Fisher t test of separate

group variances was used to determine the differences be-

tween the »eans of individual groups. This step required

the calculation of seven separate sirople analysis of vari*

ance procedures.

24

Step Villi Hypothesis eight was tested by the use of

simple analysis of variance to determine the significance

of the differences among the instructional preference

raeans from each teaching field group (Means computed for

each group without regard for sociability grouping).

Where significant differences were found the Fisher jfc

test of separate group variances was used to determine

the differences between the means of individual groups.

Step IX{ Hypothesis nine was tested by the use of

simple analysis of variance to determine the significance

©f the differences, among the sociability means from each

teaching field group {this was without regard for extrovert,

or other sociability classifications). Where significant

differences were found, the Fisher t test of separate group

variance® was used to determine the difference# between the

means of individual groups.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anderson, Hair old H., "Studies £» Dominative and Socially Integrative Behavior," American Jout" nal Qjf Orthopsychiatry. XV (January, 1945), 1*3*139»

2. Beach, Leslie R., "Sociability and Academic Achieve-went in Various Types of Learning Situations," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI (August, 1960), 208*212.

3. Bloom, Benjamin s., "Thought Processes in lecture and Discussion," Journal of General Education* VII (April, 1953), 160-169.

4. Broadteent, D. E., Perception and Communication, London, Pergamon, 1958.

5. Carrigan, Patricia M., "Bxtraversloai* Introversion as a Dimension of Personality, A Reappraisal#" Psychological Bulletin«. LVII (September , 1960), 329*360.

6. Catteii, R. B., Personality and Motivation Structures and Measurement. Yonkers, New York, World Book Company, 195?.

7. Cook, Lloyd A., College Programs in Intergroup Rela-tion s^ Washington, American Council on Education, 1950.

B. Bysench, H. J., "The Inheritance of Extraversion-In trover si on," Acta Psychologies« Amsterdam, XII (No. 2, 1956), 95-100.

9. Farwell, Blwin D., and MeConnell, T. R., "Student Personality Characteristics Associated with Groups of Colleges and Fields of Study," Col* lee® and University. XXXVII (Spring, 1962), 229-241.

25

26

10. Freud, S., A General In traduction to Fsychoiina lysis» New York, Liverigh t Publi shiing Coropany, 1920.

11* Furneaux, W. P., "Report t© Imperial College of Science and Technology," unpublished report to Imperial College of Science and. Technology, London, 1956.

12. Gingles, Ruby Heather, "Personality Adjustment of College Student#,11 Journal of Home Economics> L (March, 1958), 194k200. '

13. Good, Carter V., dictionary of Education, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

14. Goodenough, Eva, "The Forced Choice Techniques as a Method of Discovering Effective Teacher Person-ality," Journal of Educational Research, LI (September, 1937), 25-31.

15. Hall, William £., and Gaeddert, William, "Social Skills and Their Relationship to Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Genetic Psychology, XCVI (June, I960), 269-273.

16. Heston, Joseph C., Manual, Heston Personal Adjustwent Inventory. New York, World Book Company, 1949.

17* Himmelweit, H. T., "The Intelligence Vocabulary Ratio as a Measure of Temperamentf

w Journal of Person-ality,, XIV (December, 1945), 93-105.

18. Jacob, Philip B., Changing Values in College« Hew York, Harper and Br other sV'''1937 #

19. Jung, C. G., Psychological Types, translated by H. G. Baynes, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1923.

20. Lew in, K., Lippitt, R,, and White, R. K., "Pattern# of Aggressive Behavior in Bxperimentally Created 'Social Climates'," Journal of Social Psycholoav. (May, 1939), 271-299.

27

21. Lynn, R., "Two Personality Characteristic* Related to Academic Achievement," Britiah Journal cf Educational Psychology» XXIX (Novenber t

: 1959), 213-216.

22. Michaelis, John U., "The Predication of Success in Student Teaching fron Personality and Attitide Inventoriesf" University of California. Publica-tions in Education, II (No. 6, 1954), 415-4847**

23. McNeaar, Q., Psychological Statistics.* New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955.

24. Patterson, Howard R., "The Relationship Between Per* sonality Traits and Preferences for Instructional Methods," unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education and Psychology, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, August, 1959.

25# Syaonds, P. M., "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher*« PersonalityJournal of Teacher Education, V (March, 1954), 79-83.

26. , "Personality and the Teacher," Jour-nal of Educational Research, XL (May, 1947), 652-661.

27. Tanner, W. C., "Personality Bases in Teacher Selec-tion," Phi Pelts Kappan. XXXV (April, 1954), 271-274.

28. Tyler, Fred T., "The Predication of Student-Teaching Success fro® Personality Inventories," University of California Publications in Education, II (No. 4, 1954), 233-313.

29. Ward, John w., "Group Study Versus Leetwre-Dewsnstra* tion Method in Physical Science Instruction for General Education College Students," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIV (March, 1956), 127-210.

30. Wilerman, Ben, "The Relation of Motivation and Skill to Active and Passive Participation in the Group," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVII (October, 1953), 387-390.

CHAPTER II

CHARACTERISTICS OF HIE STUDENT TEACHERS STUDIED AND DESCRIPTION OP THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED

Student Teachers Studied

The source of data used in this study consisted of

two hundred eleven full-time secondary student teachers.

This group represented the total enrollment of full*time

secondary student teachers at North Texas State University,

Denton,. Texas for the fall term of the 1962-63 school year,

The group was composed of what has previously been assumed,

in Oiapter I , to be an adequate cross section of such indi-

viduals as atay choose secondary teaching as their profes-

sion.

Each of the individuals studied was required to toe

of senior standing, have completed at least eighteen semes-

ter hours in a proposed teaching field and have enough

professional education course credit to meet Texas Certifi-

cation requirements at the close of student teaching.

Grade averages must have been at least a C average in

education, the proposed teaching field and in all courses

taken. An additional requirement was that a minima® of

28

29

six hoars of professional education must have been taken

at North Teacas State University before student teaching.

Division of the total population into firat-teaching-

field-groups created seven populations. The number of

individuals included in each of these population® is shown

in Table I.

TABLE I

STUDY POPULATION DIVIDED BY FIRST TEACHING FIELD CATEGORIES

First Teaching Number of Field Category Student

Teachers

Language Art* . 57 Social Studies . . * . . 37 Industrial Arts, Home Economics and Library 34

Health and Physical Education . 24

Fine Arts 24 Business Education , 19 Mathematics and Science 16

Total Population . . . . . . . 211

The Language Arts group had the largest population

of all seven classifications. This group contained fifty-

seven individuals» The second largest group was Social

Studies with thirty*seven raerabers. Third in siae was the

Industrial Arts# Howe .'.Economics and Library group with

thirty-four members. Both the Health and Physical Education

30

and Fine Arts group* had twenty-four individuals each.

These group* «hared the position 4.5 in «ise, Hie sixth

group in si*e w>« the Business Education group with nine*

teen members. The Mathematics and Science group ranked

seventh in siate with sixteen members.

Instruments Employed

In order to objectively measure both sociability and

teacher preference of methods it was necessary to select

instruments to yield numerical scores for statistical

evaluation.

The measure of sociability chosen was the "S" or

sociability score from Heston Personal Adjustment Inven-

$SSZ- Th« t««t validity was checked by three method# of

validation: (1) internal consistency, (2) comparison to

independent criteria, and (3) psychological meaningful-

"••• the coaponent items. Validity coefficient* were

all high enough for use as @ group aeasure* In relation

to M$" validity* very high correlations between Heston*s

(s) other know "S" saeasureaents were found {as high a*

.71) (4).

Reliability was determined by the split half method.

All reliability coefficients were found to be'large enough

31

for satisfactory use in group testing situations. The

sociability coefficient, as corrected by the Spearmen-

Brown Prophecy Formula, was ,910 (4).

Albert Ellis (3)t writing in Buros, Fourth Mental

Measurement Yearbook, states that Heston*# test inde*»

pendently Measures traits of personal adjustment. Tbe

test is as good as wost of a similar nature and seems to

havs screening usefulness. In relation to sociability,

be feels that this is more a measurement of the effect

of a trait rather than a neasuring of the trait itself.

B. Lowell Kelly (3) states that Heston's test is

good for tbe purpose for which it was designed. He feels

that it is very valid for preliminary assessment of stu»

dents. He further feels that the sociability scores are

relatively independent of the other scores.

For the purpose of this research it seewed necessary

to us® a sociability measure which could be successfully

removed from the total personality measurement and not

lose its validity or reliability. Heston'a (S) score of*

fered such a measure.

Anaatasi states that the Heston Personal Adjustment

Inventory employs a different set of items for arriving

at each, of its siK scores. The practice of borrowing items

32

fro® previously constructed instrument# also allows the

use of research conducted with earlier tests (1).

The above cited research and opinion pointed toward

He&ton Personal Adjustment Inventory us being thor*

eughly adequate for the present investigation.

Measuresent of teacher preference of methods was

made by the use of Patterson•» Student Instructional

Preference Scale. This instrument is not a co®»«reial

test but is copyrighted by the author. The author has

granted permission for the use of the ifi«tru®©»t in this

study.

Student Instructional Preference Scale was de-

veloped by Howard Patterson as part of a doctoral study

at North Texas State University in 1959* The scale was

developed to "measure attitude toward classroom instrue*

tional methods** (5).

Reliability mas established by the testers test method.

A *««t-retest reliability coefficient of .966 was found.

A critical rati© of 7.29 established the significance of

the difference at greater than the 1 per cent level of

confidence (5).

33

Logical validity was assumed for the instrument. la

a measure of attitudes* one must assume that subject re-

sponses can be used to define a concept (5).

In scoring the scalef two scores are derived, « "G"

score and "L" score. These two score® are then added t©

produce the Student instructional Preference Scale score®

which were used in this study* A high total score shows

a preference for group-oriented instruction. A low total

score shows a preference for lecture-oriented instruction.

The highest possible score is 275. The lowest possible

score is fifty-five (5).

A recent investigation conducted at North Texas State

University shows a rho of .11 between high (group prefer-

•nee) scores on Patterson*a Student Instructional Prefer*

ence Scale and high (de.iaocratie oriented) scofes on the

Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (2).

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anastasi, Anne, Psychological Testing, New York, Macnillan Co., 1955.

2. Biggerstaff, Edwin L., "The Relationship Between Teaching Method Preference, Intelligence, and Democrat tic~Autocra tic Attitude® in Teaching," unpublished manuscript, School of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1962.

3. Bwros, Oscar K., The fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, Highland Park, New Jersey, The Gryphon Press, 19S3,

4. H«ston, Joseph C., Manual, He&ton Personal Adjustment Inventory, New York, World Book Co., 1949.

5. Patterson, Howard U., "The Relationship Between Person* ality Traits and Preference for Instructional Methods," unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, North Texas State Univer-sity, Denton, Texas, August, 1959.

34

CHAPTER III

INTER PRETAX ION AND DISCUSSION OP THE DATA

Chapter III will be devoted t© th« presentation,

interpretation «»I discussion of the teat data as they

relate to the stated hypotheses of this study*

Total population Sociability Groups

In Chapter I the first hypotheaia stated that the

total population would contain three sociability groups

which would be referred to a® introverts, aiabiver ts and

extroverts. The determination of these three group#

followed the taethod outlined in Chapter I under Procedure

for Collecting Data *

Heston's sociability raw scores were used to deter*

nine the Units of these three groups* As previously

discussed, the Unit for these classifications was deter-

mined by the taean plus or minus one standard deviation

mm computed for this population.

The mean of the 211 Heston sociability scores was

28,36, The standard deviation of the sane group of scores

was 7*99* Table II shows the score scale points which

35

36

were designated as points of classification and the number

of scares falling in each sociability group.

TABLE II

DIVISION OP HESTON SOCIABILITY SCORES INTO EXTROVERT, AMBIVERT AftD INTROVERT

Sociability Group

Raw Score Range Frequency

Per cent of Total

Population

Extrovert 37-41 33 15.64

Ambivert 21-36 145 68.72

Introvert 4*20

""" " » -t

33 15.64

The extrovert classification resulted from the mean,

28.36, plus one standard deviation, 7.99, which equaled

36.35. It was,, therefore, concluded that all ©cores, in-

cluding thirty-seven to the highest score, would be classed

as extroverts.

The a®bivert classification wa® forned by the mean*

plus one standard deviation, which wa® equal to 36.35, and

the mean, minus one standard deviation, which was equal to

20.37. Therefor®, the atabivert group ranged from scores

of twenty-one through thirty-six, inclusively.

37

The introvert classification was formed by the wean,

minus one standard deviation which was equal to 20.37*

therefore, the introvert group ranged from score® of twenty

to the lowest score inclusively.

The hypothesis that three sociability groups would be

found was retained* It should also be noted that Table II

reflect# the relatively normal distribution of these scores

around the cue an. Both the extrovert and introvert group*

contained thirty-three individuals or 15,64 per cent of the

total population. The ambivert group contained 14S indi-

viduals or 68.72 per cent of the total population.

First Teaching Field Sociability Groups

The second hypothesis, stating that three sociability

groups would be found to exist in each teaching field

group, was tested by the sorting of all student teachers*

sociability scores into the seven teaching field cate-

gories outlined in Chapter I, Procedure for Collecting

Data.

This arrangement produced seven groups, all of which

contained some individuals classed as extrovert, ambivert

and introvert; The sociability classifications within

each of these groups employed the same range of scores as

used with the total population.

38

*

The largest of these seven groups was the Language

Art# group with fifty»®even student teachers.

fable III extends the relation of the three socia-

bility groups found within the Language Arts group. It

may be seen that the ambivert group was by far the largest,

TABLE III

SOCIABILITY CHARACTER 1STICS OF FIRST TEACHING FIELD GROUPS

First Teach* ing Field Group

Frequency

Total Mean Standard Deviation

First Teach* ing Field Group

intro-vert

Ambi-vert

Intro* vert

Total Mean Standard Deviation

Language Art® 9 3© 10 57 29.30 7.74 Social Studies 11 24 2 37 30.76 6.50

Industrial Art®, Home Economics and Library 2 29 3 34 2BM9 6.68

Health and Physical Education 6 13 5 24 28.34 8.79 Fine Art® 3 17 4 24 27* m 8.58 Business Education 1 14 4 19 25.79 8.85 Mathematics and Science 1 10 5 16 23.56 8.22

39

having thirty-eight members. The introvert group was

second in size with ten members. The extrovert group

was third in sise having nine members, the mean socia-

bility score of the Language Arts group was 29.30, which

placed this group with the second highest sociability

mean. This population had the fifth largest standard

deviation with 7.74.

As shown in Table III, the Social Studies group

ranged first in mean sociability score with 30.76, With*

in this group the ambiverts were again the largest group

with twenty-four individuals. The introvert group was

the smallest of any group with only two members. The

extrovert group contained eleven members. A total Of

thirty-seven student teachers placed the Social Studies

group second in sise. This classification's standard

deviation was the smallest of the seven groups, being

only 6.SO,

As may be seen from Ts&le III, the Industrial Arts,

Howe Economics and Library group ranked third in total

sise, having thirty-four members. Within this population

the astoivert group was largest with twenty-nine meatier s.

This was followed by the introverts with three members and

the extroverts with only two members. A mean sociability

40

score of 28*09 placed this group fourth highest In mean

sociability. A standard deviation of 6,68 was sixth low-

est among the seven group®.

The Health and Physical Education group contained

twenty-four members. The Fine Arts group also contained

twenty-four use Gibers. Thereforethese two groups shared

the position 4.5 in total sis©* The mean sociability

score of the Health and Physical Education group was

28.54. This -was the third largest sociability mean.

Within the Health and Physical Education group the ambi*

vert group was largest with thirteen members, The intro-

vert classification was smallest with only five members.

The extrovert group had six members. A standard deviation

of 8.79 was second largest among the seven groups.

As previously mentioned, the Fine Art® group shared

the position 4.5 with the Health and Physical Education

group. The fine Arts group had a total population of

twenty-four members. The ambivert classification made

up the largest portion of the group'• population with

seventeen members. The introverts were second in number

with four members# and the extroverts made up the smallest

group with three members. This population's sociability

41

standard deviation was found to be 8.58 which was third

largest among the seven groups. A sociability seait of

27,88 ranked fifth lowest among all groups.

The Business Education group contained nineteen

nenbers which placed it sixth in total population. When

divided into sociability classifications the aabivert

group was largest with fourteen oeabers. The introvert

population was second in sise with four members. Only

one extrovert was found within this group. The largest

standard deviation of the seven groups was found here*

Hie sociability standard deviation was 8.85. A socia-

bility mean of 25.79 ranked sixth lowest among all groups.

The smallest sub*group was the Mathematics and Sci-

ence group. A population of sixteen people made up this

group. Ten were ambiverts, five were introverts and one

was an extrovert. A sociability mean of 23.56 placed

this group«s mean sociability score as the lowest of any

group. A standard deviation of 8.22 ranked fourth largest

among the seven reported standard deviations.

It was interesting to note the hypothesis that three

sociability groups would be found in each teaching field

category was supported by these data.

42

Examination of these data also points out that both

the Business Education and Mathematics and Science groups

contained only one extrovert each. The Language Arts and

Social Studies groups contained larger numbers of extro-

verts. The Social Studies extrovert group was the largest

with eleven.

It was also interesting to note the distribution of

introverts. The Social Studies group contained the small-

est number of introverts with only two. The Language Art#

group contained the largest number of introvert# with ten.

Relationship Between Extrovert Sociability

and Instructional Preference

The third hypothesis stated that a significant, posi-

tive relationship between extrovert sociability and prefer-

ence for group instructional practices would exist. In

order to test the tenability of this hypothesis a product

»o®ent correlation was computed between the extroverts'

sociability scores and the extroverts' instructional prefer-

ence scores. This correlation was found to b© .42* A test

of significance established the significance of this cor-

relation at greater than the .05 level. These findings

support the retention of the hypothesis that extrovert

43

sociability and preference for group instructional prac*

tiees are positively related. It would ®eesa that within

comparable groups a large number of teachers would prefer

t© teach toy group Methods as opposed to lecture method®.

Relationship Between Awfoivert Sociability and Instructional Preference

The fourth hypothesis stated that a significant,

positive relationship would be found between anbivert

sociability score® and instructional preference scores

of the same population.

The product fflooent correlational technique was used

to determine the relationship existing between the a»bi-

verta* sociability scores and instructional preference:,

scores. This correlation was found to be .12, which,

when tested for significance, was below the amount re-

quired to reach the .05 level.

This finding indicates the rejection of a signifi-

cant positive relationship between these two measures.

It is indicated by these data that student teachers who

compose the aiabivert population of this study choose in-

structional practices which are a mixture of both lecture

and group techniques. This type of instructional prefer-

ence corresponds favorably to the apparent mixture of

44

introversion and extroversion as revealed through their

sociability score®.

Relationship Between Introvert Sociability

and Instructional Preference

The fifth hypothesis stated that a significant, posi-

tive relationship between introvert sociability and a

preference for lecture instructional practices would be

found.

In order to test the tenebility of this hypothesis a

product isonent correlation was computed between introvert

sociability scores and instructional preference #eore« for

the ©awe group. This correlation was found to be ,11,

which, when tested for significance, fell below the .05

level.

These data indicate the rejection of the fifth hypoth-

esis. Low sociability scores were not aceoropanied by low

instructional preference scores in a significant amount.

According to previously cited definition# of lecture pref-

erence being indicated by low instructional preference

scores, this finding would indicate that, for the student

teachers of this population, those classed as introvert®

have no significant relation between their social adjuat-

went and preference for lecture method# of teaching.

4 S

Difference In Instructional Preference of Total Extroverts, Aoabiverta and Introverts

Table IV is designed to show the basic instructional-

preference data for the three sociability classification#

of this population.

TABLE IV

Instructional Preference Characteristics of Total population as Shown by Sociability Groups

Sociability Group Frequency

Raw Score Range Mean

Standard Deviation

Extrovert 33 258-129 188.88 24.57

Ambivert 145 236*124 180.16 23.33

Introvert 33 229-122 179.7# 26.36

As may be seen from Table IV, the extrovert group

with a mean Instructional preference score of 166.88 had

the largest of the three means. A standard deviation of

24.57 placed the extrovert group a® second largest in

thia reapect.

The ambivert group was second highest in instructional

preference with a »ean score of 180.16. The standard

deviation of this $gro»p was the smallest of the three with

23.33.

46

The introvert population bad the smallest mean in-

structional prefttcncc icote with 179.79> A standard

deviation of 26.36 placed this group with the highest

standard deviation of the three ©roups.

These aeasures would indicate that the a®bivert

group was the most homogeneous of the three groups in

instructional preferences* The introvert classification

would appear to toe the most heterogeneous of the three

groups in instructional preference.

The sixth hypothesis dealt with these Measures of

instructional preference. It was hypothesised that a

significant difference in instructional preference would

exist among the total population of introverts» ®sft»ivert#

and extroverts*

Simple analysis of variance was used to test the in-

structional preference data for significant differences

among the three sociability populations. The summary of

the findings fro® this test is presented in Table V»

page 47.

An insignificant value of F (F « 1.84) was disclosed.

A significant value of F for 2 and 208 degrees ©f freedom

at the .05 level is 3.04. The hypothesis that significant

47

TABLE V

SUMMARY OP SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OP DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE OF TOTAL EXTROVERTS,

AM8IVERTS AND INTROVERTS

Source Sum of Square# df Variance Esti«ate F

Between 2153 2 1076.50 1.84

Within 121900 208 566.05

Total 124053 210

differences in instructional preference among the three

sociability groups would exist was, therefore$ rejected.

It was concluded that instructional preference# araong

these sociability groups do not vary in a significant

amount.

Difference in Instructional Preference of Extroverts, Ambiverts and Introverts within Each

Teaching Field Group

The seventh hypothesis stated that significant differ-

ences in instructional preference would be found arson q the

extroverts, aabiverts and introverts within each teaching

field group. This hypothesis was tested by the use of

staple analysis of variance to determine the significance

of the differences among the instructional preference means

4©

of each sociability group within each of the seven teach-

ing field sub-groups * The result# of" these seven tests

are reported in the same order in which they were origi-

nally reported in fable I, Chapter II.

The first application of simple analysis ©f variance

was used to test the significance of difference# within

the Language Art# ©roup. The summary of the test results

is presented in Table VI.

TABLE VI

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF DATA OK INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

LANGUAGE ARTS GROUP

Source Sua of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between 1970 2 985.00 1.60

Within 33329 54 617.20

Total $5299 56

A value of F » 1,60 was obtained. The obtained value

wa® not large enough to be significant at the .05 level.

A significant value of V fox 2 and 54 degrees of freed©®

at the .05 level is 3.17.

49

The hypothesis that significant difference® would

exist among these measures was then rejected. It was

concluded that no significant difference in instructional

preference exists among the sociability populations of

the Language Arts group.

The next application of the simple analysis of vari-

ance was for the Social Studies group. The summary ©f

the test result® is presented in Table VII.

TABLE VII

SUMMARY OP SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OP DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

SOCIAL STUDIES GROUP

Source Sum of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between m 2 2 161.00 0*28

Within 21617 34 635.79

Total 21979 36

The value of F • 0.28, which was obtained, was much

smaller than the value required for significance at the

.05 level. A significant value of F for 2 and 34 degrees

of freedom at the .05 level is 3.28.

50

The hypothesis that significant differences in in-

structional preference exist among sociability groups

within this population was rejected. The conclusion wa«

then reached that no significant difference in instruct

tional preference exists aaong the division® of th« Social

studies group.

The test for significant difference of wan change

was then applied to the Industrial Arts, Home Economics

and Library group. The summary of the f««t results i«

presented in Table VIII.

TABLE ¥111

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS, HOME ECONOMICS AND LIBRARY GROUP

Source Sua of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between 150 2 75.00 0.12

Within 19215 31 619.84

Total 19365 S3

A value of F = 0.12 was obtained. This value was

much aoaller than needed for significance A significant

51

value of F for 2 and SI degrees of freedo» at the .05

level is 3*31*

The hypothesis that significant differences in in-

structional preference would exist among the sociability

group® of this sample was, therefore,rejected# The con-

clusion was then drawn that significant differences in

instructional preference were nonexistent within the

sociability groups of the Industrial Arts, Howe Economics

and Library group*

Simple analysis of variance was also used to analyse

the data for the Health and Physical Education group,

fhe analysis of these data, in summarised form, is pre-

sented in Table IX.

TABLE IX

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE HEALTH

AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION GROUP

Source Sum of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between 1476 2 738.00 1.80

Within 8604 21 409,71

Total 10080 2%

52

Am insignificant value of F (F * 1,80) was disclosed,

A significant value of F for 2 and 21 degrees of freedom

at the .05 level is 3.47, The hypothesis was rejected.

The conclusion reached was that no significant difference

In instructional preference existed among the sociability

groups within the Health and Physical Education group.

The instructional preferences of the Fine Art® group

were also tested by the use of simple analysis of vari-

ance. The suwoary of the test of these data is presented

in Table X.

TABLE X

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

FINE ARTS GROUP

Source Sun of Squares df Variance E£ti«ate F

Between SOS 2 151,50 0,40

Within 8033 21 382,52

Total 8336 23

A value of F * 0,40 was obtained. This value of F

was much smaller than that which is required for the ,05

S3

level of slfRlfiean.ee. As may be seen from the discus*

sio® of Table lXt a significant value of F for 2 and 21

degrees of freed®® is 3.47. It was concluded that no

significant difference existed &mmg the instructional

preferences ©f the sociability classifications within

the Fine Art# group.

A test of the Business Education group was made using

simple analysis of variance. A summary of this test result

it shown in Table XI.

TABLE XI

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

BUSINESS EDUCATION GROUP

Source Sum of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between 2428 2 1214.00 1.26

Within 15411 16 963.19

Total 17839 IS

The test of these data for the Business Education

©roup disclosed m insignificant F (F « 1.26). A signifi*

cant value of F for 2 and 16 degrees of freedom at the .OS

54

level is 3.63. The hypothesis that significant differenees

in instructional preference of the sociability classifica-

tions within the Business Education group was, therefore,

rejected. The conclusion was then drawn that instructional

preferences were not significantly different anon® the soci-

ability ©roups of this sample.

The simple analysis test for significant difference of

mean change in instructional preference was also applied to

the Mathematics and Science group. The summary for the test

of these data is presented in Table XII.

TABU: XII

SUMMARY 01? SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DATA ON INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE «?O0P

Source Sum of Squares df Variance Estimate V

Between 147 2 73. SO 0.10

Within 9483 13 729.46

Total 9430 15

A test of the Mathematics and Science group revealed

a value of F » 0,10. This value was »uch smaller than

55

needed fox significance. A significant value of F for 2

and 13 degrees of freedom at the .05 level is 3.80. The

hypothesis tested was, therefore, rejected. It was con-

cluded that no significant difference in instructional

preference existed among the sociability divisions within

the Mathematics and Science group.

The seventh hypothesis was rejected upon the basis

©f the previously reported finding®. All seven of the

obtained F's were insignificant.

the conclusion was, therefor®, reached that within

each of the seven teaching field groups no significant

difference in instructional preference existed among the

three sociability classifications of each teaching field.

Difference in Instructional Preference of teaching Field Groups

Simple analysis of variance was used to test the

eighth hypothesis. It was hypothesised that a significant

difference in instructional preference would exist among

the seven groups as identified by first teaching field

choices. The summary of the results of this test is shown

in Table XIII.

A value of F « 0.42 was revealed. This value of F

does not approach the required value for significance at

TABLE XIII

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DATA (M INSTRUCTIONAL PREFERENCE FOR THE

TOTAL TEACHING FIELD GROUPS

56

Source Sun of Squares df Variance Estivat« F

Between 1S25 6 254.1? 0.42

Within 122528 204 600,63

Total 124053 210

the ,05 level. III order to foe significant at the *05

level for 6 and 204 decrees of freedom, the value roust

be 3,.04. The hypothesis of significant difference® in

instructional preference was rejected. The conclusion

reached was that »© significant differences in instruct

tional preference existed aiaong the seven teaching fields.

Difference in Sociability ©f Teaching Field Groups

The ninth hypothesis was tested for siean differences

by the use of simple analysis ©f variance. It was hypothe-

sised that significant differences would exist aiaong the

sociability wans of the seven teaching field--groups. The

summary of the results of the simple analysis test is re-

ported in Table XIV.

TABLE XIV

SUMMARY OF SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SOCIABILITY DATA FOR THE TOTAL

TEACHING FIELD GROUPS

57

Source Sua of Squares df Variance Estimate F

Between 765 6 127.50 2.05

Within 12703 SO 4 62.26

Total 13467 210

The simple analysis test revealed a value of F s 2.05.

This valise was smaller than needed for significance at the

*05 level. A significant value of F for 6 and 204 degrees

of freedom at the .05 level it 2.14. It was, therefore,

concluded that even though the value of F a 2.05 closely

approaches the ,05 level of significance, this value was

short of the significance level required to warrant a con-

clusion in favor of a consistent significant difference.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, COKCLUSIONS AND RECOMMBNDAXIOKS

Summary

The purpose of this investigation was to determine

the in t err e lationship of ©roups of secondary student

teachers' sociabilities, first teaching field choice and

preference for lecture or group method of instruction.

The major aspects of the study were:

1. The use of Heaton*® (S) or sociability teat

scores to classify 211 secondary student teachers as

extroverts, atubiverts or introvert®. This represented

the total population of secondary student teachers at

North Texas States University, Denton, Texas, in the fall

ter® of the 1962-1963 school year.

2. The grouping of all subject® into seven teaching

field categories (Language Arts, Mathematics and Science,

Social Studies, Business Education, Health and Physical

Education, Industrial Arts, Hone Economics and Library,

and Fine Arts)• Individuals were assigned to these group#

according to their firat teaching field choice.

58

59

3. The use of Patterson'# Student Instructional

Preference Scale to deteroine the student teachers* prefer*

ence for lecture or group Instruction.

4. The use of appropriate statistical techniques to

determine the degree and significance of the numerical

relation® existing among the seven groups and within each

group of student teachers. Sociability and instructional

preference were also analysed for the entire population

without regard for subgroupings.

The data of this study indicated certain fact® rela-

tive to the hypotheses presented in Chapter I. From an

interpretation of these data, the following findings are

presented %

1. The first hypothesis was sustained. The total

population contained three sociability groups of relatively

normal distribution.

2* The second hypothesis was alto sustained. Three

sociability classifications were found to exist within

each of seven teaching field groups.

3. The third hypothesis wa® sustained. A significant

product moment .correlation was obtained between the total

extrovert sociability scores and instructional preference

60

scores. It was concluded that extrovert sociability and

preference for group instructional practices are signifi-

cantly related.

4. The fourth bypath®#!# was rejected. Ah insig-

nificant product iBowent correlation was obtained between

th« aiabivert group's sociability and instructional prefer-

ence score#. This indicated that within this group,

instructional preferences consist of a mixture of lecture

and group techniques of instruction. This pattern corre*

spoiids favorably to the mixture of sociability traits

which characterize these student teachers as ambivalent

in social adjustment.

5. The fifth hypothesis was rejected. An insig-

nificant product moment correlation was obtained between

introvert sociability and instructional preference seoires.

This finding indicates that low sociability was not always

accompanied by a definite preference for lecture methods

of instruction.

6. The sixth hypothesis was rejected. Siaple analysis

of variance revealed an insignificant value of F. The con-

clusion was reached that instructional preferences among

the three sociability groups do not vary in a significant

amount.

61

7. The seventh hypothesis was rejected. Simple

analysis of variance revealed seven separate insignifi"*

cant F's. Test* were conducted among the instructional

preference means of the three sociability groups found

within each of the seven teaching field group®. There

were no significant differences in instructional prefer-

ence found within any of these seven groups* It was

concluded that within the teaching field groups, instruc-

tional preferences were not significantly different*

8. The eighth hypothesis was also rejected* Simple

analysis of variance revealed an insignificant value of

F. No significant difference in instructional preference

existed among the total populations of the teaching field

groups.

9. The ninth hypothesis was rejected. Simple anal-

ysis of variance revealed an insignificant value of F.

This value, while approaching significance at the .05

level,, was not great enough to warrant the conclusion of

consistent significant difference# in sociability among

the populations of the seven teaching field groups# Teach*

ing field choice and social adjustment were shown by these

data to have no identifiable pattern of relationships#

62

Conclusions

It can be concluded that differences in soeial ad-

just «ent exist (extroversion, ambiversion and introversion)

within the population studied. These differences exist

within til® total population and within each, of the seven

teaching field groups.

Extrovert social adjustment was significantly corre-

lated with a preference for group oriented method® ©f

instruction. A significant positive correlation was not

maintained for the a&bivert group. There was no signifi-

cant correlation between arobivert sociability and instruc-

tional preference*. There was also no significant

correlation between introvert sociability and lecture

instructional preferences* These findings further indi-

cated that if a teacher preferring to use group methods

of instruction is desired, the extrovert will be the best

selection for this work. When m teacher preferring to

use a variety of instructional method® is desired* the

affibivert would be the proper selection* Introverts could

also be expected to prefer to us© a variety of teaching

raetbods•

It was concluded that the aean instructional pref-

erence of each of the three total sociability groups did

63

not differ significantly from one another. Data concern-

ing the extrovert instructional preference indicated that

the higher the extroversion factor the greater the prefer*

ence for group instructional practice. The mean instruct

tional preference score of the extrovert group was,

however» not large enough to differ significantly fro®

the other two sociability group preference means* This

indicated that for the total population, sociability and

instructional preference were not significantly different.

The division of the study population into first

teaching field subgroups produced populations which did

not differ significantly in instructional preference

cither within the teaching group or fro* other teaching

groups. These seven groups were also found to have no

significant differences in sociability when compared one

to the other * "the conclusion that teaching field area has

no significant relation to social adjustment or instrue*

tional preference was warranted by the data of this study.

Recommendstions

The significance of this study lies in the fact that

it has narrowed the field of investigation into the reasons

underlying the teacher's choice of instructional Methods.

64

Although most of the relationships hypothesized in this

study were not found, this investigation tends to indi-

cate that teacher instructional preference is not based

primarily upon social adjustment.

Thereforet it is recommended that additional research

be conducted t© determine the true basis of teacher in-

structional preference, study of the relationship existing

among other traits of teacher personality and instructional

preference .way produce findings of great worth.

The effect of teaching experience upon the interrela-

tionship of personality and instructional preference is an

area in need of investigation. After this interrelation-

ship has been determined, it is recommended that a further

study§ designed along the lines presented in this paper,

be conducted. Experienced teachers# rather than student

teachers should compose the study population. If it it

safe to assume that experienced teacher® are eaploying

instructional methods of their own choice, then classroo®

observation would become valuable data to aid in the de-

termination of relationships existing between verbal pref-

erences and actual practices.

APPENDIX

6 6

3

t t a m

£><

B

X! g

t *

t ;

a $*«

0 '»* « +•» ©

§ ! § $ m *H

« i '

f

SIP

S

M O t n N t < O H < o ^ r i n ) o n N i 9 0

'»* « +•» ©

§ ! § $ m *H

« i '

f

(A © N W i n f t r t h f s f N <\J Cl C ^ « * » « P 5 W f c l H ? S e e * C § H

0 '»* « +•» ©

§ ! § $ m *H

« i '

f

* 0 »3f J®* r*4 f i 9*4 H H

« § « -H ® +» i

5 £ •M « g 9 a *o CQ «

y> lut ( o i n ^ ^ w i H Q l S C o p ^ i O ^ ^

« § « -H ® +» i

5 £ •M « g 9 a *o CQ «

m M ) i x ? C J N i n V O r t n i l ' I N ' O l f l H «n « w

« § « -H ® +» i

5 £ •M « g 9 a *o CQ «

*

0 Jg H ( M f f > 1 n n < 3 t H # C k O r j « ( < ) t l r t iH W f*! f*H #™*l iH

«t +*

* 8

&

(p f*Mt H

t ^ o c o o N e e o a d o a J t H ^ ^ o v o * W f™J rtt i1*! f4 fHl CS| H H rH H r"4 rH rt

«t +*

* 8

&

«t +*

* 8

& #

0 %

H N ^ ^ W C ^ a f t O r t N W ^ ^ H pH. im,4 f i

1 * 3 8 0 «H 43. **t *» +» » «

H p>> O 1

m !

y> & M m

rtN^inxf^coooeiOhcoeN t O p f i h f f f l b l i l O t O O M p O i f f l rtNNHr-iHHHOiHOlHC'iHH

1 * 3 8 0 «H 43. **t *» +» » «

H p>> O 1

m !

w ; »OcO>0Qe>e*U , >CHt* . t f tC -%f f lv0<*«CO n W H « « N ( ( l N « ) W M e i « m

1 * 3 8 0 «H 43. **t *» +» » «

H p>> O 1

m ! •

0 25 i*"i M i™H f*4 H

: H m 0 •

*H Q : N 1 1 N . ** +* m m

« n H 9 4& ® 40 *

1 * ^ 5 M %

8 ' 1*4 m

IM H f*4 C i i*4 c*f 0*HI c*4 : H m

0 • *H Q

: N 1 1 N . ** +* m m

« n H 9 4& ® 40 *

1 * ^ 5 M %

m : N W N ^ W N W h W P J t N H M W N

: H m 0 •

*H Q : N 1 1 N . ** +* m m

« n H 9 4& ® 40 *

1 * ^ 5 M %

•

0 ; X ^ rS t**4 f**f 1*4 P"4

H # If *rt

•rt *0 g 3 i #

2 H ca

s s s s s s s ; f : s ! ; 8 g 2 & 2

H # If *rt

•rt *0 g 3 i #

y j s s j u s s s s s s s s m s

ua ^ i 0 J5 H i**4 f4 f*4 i*4 H

m

3 *

r

t £ • H

£ti

e S - f ® i i O i f l H e « ' 0 a r » H r » 0 H r l H H N N N H H H r t r t N r t N m

3 *

r

S CO S 3 3 8 8 ? a S } a 3 8 S J i a S

m

3 *

r

f**|, r* H <"*4 t*i #HI

67

4 •H

a,

© *rt fe

*9

m

& ** m u

**4

8 •H &

1 S'g i # « «Hf

« * X

s 3 £ S 3 •H 0 i IS J s 134 ea

0 **

9 a fe»

H «§ a »r* «HI •# P

s

S s l l | | j » *H o >.) 33

fM| € «H

I

*

1 5>

*$

m %

M

M

m

*

o S no n< M

J& <0

0

8 M JflL Cfl

O K

H J& y>

o s i M m

m

0 sc

H Jft. c&

0 K

w

f ^ *

0 &

a» r<

• * *

r i

g S S S : W t t H H

* * * * * * * « * * # » * *

H p*! H

v0 tO O SM ^ O tiQ • H H H H H W H f i H

m m m m n m m

h h h h w w w ^ O I • O 3 tft #J 1* CO t*. CO |% 0 Ok

€h Hi Hf H H 'H rt H H U> ri If \0

• * * *

w f i Q w a c o ^ Q a N i f i o i O w ^ o ^ i O r t * S 8 s 8 3 a 8 § s 8 5 s s s s ! 2 ? s •

s s s s s s u s u ^ s g g g s s f l s :

s s s s s a s s s s a s s s i s u s s s ! m

S g g & S S r i S i U a g S

cnwpfiweocncMc^cowcNicnf^fon N CO H «1 CO . w on W fs» cq

« N ® 0> O H N H H p(rt W H P}

•* *1 <0 w w w

g f t g 4 & * <o <o <o in >o c«i cn

H H C t H H H j t t H H H r t M H H « 5 tn <59 vQ 1 Ok •ft A (N O I/) l}k (k rt rH h h H H H

** * sj a a * cm cs fft m ^ m m m m

H t* CO <h H H r»i

8 fS 55 ?J 3 S3 8 Si 8 8 g g S 8 3 8 3

6 6

a i t

* r f

0

1

3

8

1 3

0

< *

d

Q

€ » H

« l

* 4

H C I

* r f * *

I 9

! 1

5 £

£

m m *ri 4*

m $ » m

m #

m 3 to.

« ( 0 o

U «*4

JO •» « <B

* s

fi-8 0 }

** gfe*|

9 t p

5 U

H f

H

If m $ *5

JS H u m

i - 2 £§ * H

O * 4 * * *

0 )

H Q»

* § * H * r f

i l k

# ( f t

# o *

J p Oh H

J £

£ 0

© Pw»

& m

C 0

0 s-ja* «

H <0

m

*

0

H

to y >

0

S 3

U >

0 5

0 »ar p*»

&* H ( #

o 5 j r <Kt

(ft

Jjt H I

fed

< o

• o 5 5

l >

d *

H

fc :

S i : : * • * 4

J 2 9 5 & S J ! S f l l > w c * l « w , r t * » » m « *

t » t * H H I

69

13 f

«9j **

& $ I

3 i

I

# * U

9 M

H

1

H «

f * +* »H • O ® ® 3 45 ** © +•»

o <# o <0

f (« f e m a

, k , p » a

JLA MMA XI WW* T1* 0 H <0

•H h j | M

M M ®

# i #

7©

t m m xvi

t mm mxmm DEVIATIONS or mmm*s socwtiLOT mm mrtmm^*s mmmatim&L

nraiKS mm ^cokes - ggopw© AoxmomQ w m ® t TEACHB«S

FIELD

Fiyct Tctobing H«ld Group

S t i t l i t i o i l Assure i4s»p»a®«

Mrt» Studies

IsxStxa t r ia l Art*

Home Eco. Library

• # *

S SIPS s SIPS $ SIPS

E 1,670 10,195 1 1 lift Ju £ jkimm* 6#§©4 M S 6,194

M £9.3© 17®.36 30*7# 166.59 28.09 182.18

or 7*74 34* *6 6*$0 $4*41 6.68 23.84

#s rtpr««Mti Hasten** sociability raw mmm,

••SIPS ir®pr*««iit# Patt«ra$»«» studawt Instructional raw aeore.

TABLE XVI«—Continued

71

First Teaching Field Group

Health and Physical Education

Fine Arts Business Education

' Mathematics and Science

S SIFS S SIPS S SIPS S SIPS

685 4,358 669 4,298 490 3,450 377 2,890

2®,54 181.58 27.88 179.0© 2S.79 181.58 23.56 180.63

8.79 20.52 8.58 18.67 ®. 85 30.63 8.22 24.49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Anastati# Anne, Psychological Testing. New York, Macmillan Company , 1955.

Broadbent, D. E.. Perception and Coattmunicationt London. Pergamon, 1958.

Buro«, Oscar K., the Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook* Highland Perk, New Jersey, Hie Gryphon Press, 1953.

Cattell, R• B., Personality and Motivation Structure and Yonkers, New York, World Book Company,

1957.

Cook, Lloyd A., College Programs in Intergroup Relations» Washington, American Council on Education, If50.

Freudt S., A general Introduction to Psychoanalysis, New York, Liveright Publishing Company, 1920.

Good, Carter V., Dictionary of Education, New York, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959.

Jacob, Philip E., Changing Values in College, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1957. """"""

Jung, C. G., Psychological. Types, translated by H. G» Baynes, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1923*

McNeraar» Quinn„ Psychological Statistics, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955.

Articles

Anderson, Harold H., "Studies in Dorainative and Socially Integrative Behavior," American Journal ojf Ortho-

> XV (January, 1945}, 133*139.

72

73

Beach, Leslie R., "Sociability and Academic Achievement in Various Types of Learning Situation#," Journal of Educational Psychology, LI (August, 1960), 208-212.

Bloom, Benjamin S., "Thought Processes in Lecture and Discussion," Journal of General Education. VII (April, 1953), 160-169.

Carrigan, Patricia M«, "Extraversion - Introversion aa a Dimension of Personality, a Reappraisal," Psychologi-cal Bulletin. LVII (September, 1960), 329-360.

Eyench, H* J., "The Inheritance of Extraversion-Introver-sion," Acta Psychologica, Amsterdam# XII (Mo. 2, 1956), 95-110.

Farwe11, Elwin D., and McConnell, T. R., "Student Person* ality Characteriatica Aaaociated with Groups of Colleges and Fields of Study," College and University, XXXVII (Spring, 1962), 229-241.

Gingles, Ruby Heather, "Personality Adjustment of College Students," Journal of Home Economics, L {March, 19S8), 194-200.

Goodenough, Eva, "The Forced Choice Techniques as a Method of Discovering Effective Teacher Personality," Journal of Educational Research. LI (September, 1957), 23-31.

Hall, William E.> and Goeddert, Willard, "Social Skills and Their Relationship to Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Genetic Psychology. XCVI (June, 1960), 269-273.

Himaelweit, H, T., "Hie Intelligence Vocabulary Ratio as a Measure of Temperament," Journal of Personality. XIV (December, 1945), 93-105.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. K., "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experiasen tally Created 'Social Climates',"'Journal of Social Psychology, X (May, 1939), 271-299. "

74

Lynn R., "Two Personality Characteristics Related to Aca-denic Achieveaent," British Journal ©if Educational Psychology, XXIX (Noveaiber, 1959) , 213-216.

Michaelis, John U., "The Prediction of Success in Student Teaching front Personality and Attitude Inventories," University of California, Publications in Education, II (NO. 6, 1954) , 415-484. ''

Syotonds, P. H», "Teaching a® a Function of the Teacher's Personality," Journal of Teacher Education. V (March, 1954)f 79*93,

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

Tanner, W. C., "Personality Bases in Teacher Selection," Phi Delta Kappan. XXXV (April, 1954), 271-274.

Tyler, Fred T., "The Prediction of Student-Teaching Sue-ceas fro® Personality Inventories," University of Califorals Publications in Education. II (No. 4, 19S4), 233-313.

Ward, John W., "Group Study versus Lecture-Demonstration Method in Physical Science Instruction for General Education College Students," Journal of Experimental Education. XXIV (March, 1956), 197-210.

W Herman, Ben, "The Relation of Motivation and Skill to Active @nd Passive Participation in the Group," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVII (October, 1953),$©7»390.

Unpublished Materials

Biggerstaff, Edwin L., "The Relationship Between Teaching Method Preference, Intelligence, and Democratic-Autocratic Attitude® in Teaching," unpublished manu-script, School of Education, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, November, 1962.

75

Purneaux, W„ D., "Report to Imperial College of Science and Technology," unpublished report to Imperial College of Science' and Technology, London, 1956*

Patterson, Howard K„# "The Relationship Between Personal* ity Traits and Preference for Instructional Methods," unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Educa-tion, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, August, 1959.

Test Manuals

Heston, Joseph C., Manual, Heston Personal Inventory. New York, World Book Company$ 1949.