Characteristics and Relationships of Various Criteria of Teaching

Citation preview

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION

BY

DOWAID MORRIS ELLIOTT

ENTITLED

CHARACTERISTICS AMD RELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS CRITERIA

OF TEACHING

COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES

AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS EULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

PROFESSOR IN CHAROE OF THESIS

H

e AH

OF S

chool or

D epartm ent

19

TO THE LIBRARIAN; THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

11^—

'

GBAZ>» SCBOOXi FORM 9—3 -4B — IM

f

PHO PH0 FS68

^

0 B nr oaABoza

J

OHARAGTERISTIGS AITD RELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS CRITERIA OF TEACHING

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

Donald N. Elliott

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 1949

ProQuest Number: 27712222

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 27712222 Published by ProQuest LLO (2019). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

AOKNOWLEDGMENT To Professor H. H. Remmers the writer is indebted for guidance and assistance in his graduate work, for suggesting the topic of this investigation, and for overseeing its study. The writer is grateful to Professor F. D. Martin for his ^olehearted cooperation, assistance, and suggestions for the Chemistry 1 study.

Mr. James A. Norton was always available

for statistical advice.

Professor S. E. Wirt assisted mater­

ially in the statistical analysis.

Mrs. D. E. Rheinheimer

spent untold hours in the necessary statistical computations; without her help much of the analysis could not have been ac­ complished. The writer also wishes to express his appreciation to the many persons, too numerous to mention, who have discussed the subject with him and >ho have made many valuable suggestions vftilch have been incorporated in the study.

ABSTRAOT Elliott, Donald N.

Qharacteristics and relationships

of various criteria of teaching, August, 1949,

pages,

26 tables, 39 figures, and 12 titles in the bibliography. A very large number of criteria have been used to evalu­ ate teachers and teaching; since they are so numerous and bear upon so many different aspects of teaching it was judged that if the characteristics and relationships of certain of these criteria were determined they could be used to better advantage in evaluation.

To this end two studies of the

characteristics and relationships of various criteria of teach­ ing were reported upon. The first study consisted of the statistical analysis of data obtained in the Indiana College and University Staff Evaluation Program in which fourteen institutions of higher learning in Indiana cooperated.

These institutions furnished

two instruments for evaluating teaching to all of their staff members desiring them.

These instruments were a rating scale

on which students rated teachers on various traits and a test of knowledge of correct teaching practices involving mental hygiene principles.

They were investigated in terms of l)

various characteristies of students, 2) various character­ istics of teachers, and 3) of their interrelationships. It was found that of the characteristics of the students investigated (sex, veteran or non-veteran status, class, and scholastic success), the only characteristic which was re-

ii

fleeted in ratings to a degree requiring practical consider­ ation was whether the student was a graduate or an under­ graduate:

graduate students tended to give higher ratings.

Of the characteristics of the teachers investigated (sex, teaching experience, academic training, and teaching rank), it was found that very low academic rank (in terms of teach­ ing experience, teaching rank, or academic training) was ac­ companied by relatively low ratings, but that with increasing academic rank there was no systematic increase in the level of the ratings.

Of these same characteristics, it was found

that female teachers and teachers with training beyond a bachelor’s degree possessed better knowledge of correct teach­ ing practices than did male teachers and teanhers with no ad­ vanced training; the other characteristics, however, were not related systematically to such knowledge.

The relationship

of the two measures was investigated but none was found, though each measure was reasonably reliable. The second study consisted of the investigation of the relationships of four criteria of teaching in a specific teach­ ing situât ion (introductory general chemistry course for engineering freshmen).

The four criteria, investigated were

student ratings of teachers, teacher knowledge of correct: teaching procedures involving mental hygiene principles, teacher knowledge of the subject matter ts.ught, and student achievement after ability had been partialled out. It was found that teachers most willing to express strong opinions concerning correct teaching practices were poorer in

ill

terms of student achievement; it was suggested that such teachers might tend to be less '*student-centered” than those less willing to express strong opinions.

It was also found

that subject-matter knowledge was negatively related to student achievement; this relationship was explained by the essentially non-social nature of the subject matter and by the research goals rather than the teaching goals of most of the teachers investigated.

It was found that teachers whose students

achieved more received higher ratings, and further, that teaphers relatively more effective with high-a^bility than with low-ability students were rated higher by the type of student with whom they were most effective.

It was pointed out that

the data supported the conclusion that grades per se were not related to ratings given instructors but tha.t achievement, after ability had been partialled out, wa.s; in addition, it was pointed out that teachers appeared to be differentially effective with different levels of student ability, and that such differential effectiveness was reflected in ratings given by students of different ability.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................

1

INTRODUCTION...............

1

PLAN OF INVESTIGATION...................................

5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE INDIANA COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STAFFEVALUATION P R O G R A M .........

l6

Relationships between oharaoteristics of the students who rated their instructors and the ratings they gave ...............

17

Relationships between characteristics of teachers and the ratings they r e c e i v e .......

25

Relationships between characteristics of teachers and scores obtained on the How Teach and Learn in College test .....

31

Relationship between student ratings and How Teach and Learn in College scores .......

34

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE CHEMISTRY I S T U D Y .......

40

Relationships among four criteria of l e a r n i n g ......

42

Student achievement related to other c r i t e r i a ......

50

Student achievement (average discrepancy score) vs. student ratings ........................ Student achievement vs. subject matter knowledge . Student achievement vs. How Teach and Learn in College scores ............................ How Teach and Learn in College scores related to other criteria .................................... How Teach and Learn in College scores vs. subject matter knowledge ........... How Teach and Learn in College scores vs. ratings by students ...........................

50 54 59 65 65 66

Subject matter knowledge related to other criteria ..

69

Ratings by students related to other criteria ......

70

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Determination of teachers differentially effective with high-ability and low-ability s t u d e n t s ......

73

Student achievement .............................. Subject matter knowledge ......................... Ratings by students ................... How Teach and Learn in College scores ......

75 75 77 85

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................

86

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER R E S E A R C H .......................

89

Reliability research .................................

89

Development of a test of willingness to express strong opinions ...................................

92

Differentiating H-instmotors and L-instructors

93

Continuing the Chemistry 1 s t u d y .........

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................... APPENDIX A:

97

Instruments used in measuring various

aspects of t e a c h i n g ...................

98

Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors .................

99

How Teach and Learn in College ......................

100

Purdue Rating Scale for Laboratory and Recitation Instructors in General C h e m i s t r y ..............

101

APPENDIX B:

Comparisons of ratings given by students

categorized in terms of various characteristics ....

102

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

2.

Page Mean Trait Ratings Given by Graduate and Under­ graduate Students, Differences and their Critical Ratios .........................

21

Mean Trait Ratings Given by Upper-half and Lowerhalf Students, Differences and their Critical Ratios ................

22

3 . Mean How Teach and Learn in College Scores Ob­

tained by Teachers Categorized in Terms of Rank 4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

...

32

Mean How Teach and Learn in College Scores Ob­ tained by Teachers Categorized in Terms of Experience ......................................

33

Mean How Teach and Learn in College Scores Ob­ tained by Teachers Categorized in Terms of Academic Degree H e l d ..............................

33

Mean How Teach and Learn in College Scores Ob­ tained by Teachers Categorized in Terms of Sex....

33

Correlations between Ratings Received on the Various Traits of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors and Scores Obtained on the How Teach and Learn inCollege Test ....................

34

Equivalent Values of Davis* Discrimination Index, z-values, and r*s ................................

36

Average Discrimination Index for all Items of the How Teach and Learn in College Test in Terms of Ratings on the various Traits of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors ......................

37

Reliability Coefficients for Ratings on each of the Traits of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors and for How Teach and Learn in College Scores .......

38

Estimates of the Reliabilities of Ratings on the Purdue Rating Scale for Laboratory and Recita­ tion Instructors in General C h e m i s t r y ........

4l

Correlational Matrix of Freshman Placement Test Scores and First Semester Chemistry1 Grades ......

44

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 13*

14.

15. 16 . 17.

18. 19-

Page Interrelationships among the four Criteria of Teaching: Student Achievement, Subject Matter Knowledge, Knowledge of Teaching Procedures, and Ratings by Students ...........................

49

Correlations between the Average Discrepancy Scores and Ratings on the Purdue Rating Scale for ....... Laboratory and Recitation Instructors

51

Correlations between Ratings of Instructors and the Average Grade Obtained by their Students ......

55

Correlations between Average Discrepancy Scores and Subject Matter Knowledge .....................

57

Comparison of Item Analysis Correlations for Items whose Correct Response was ”2” or **4'* and Items Tfdiose Correct Response was "l” or ”5** on the How Teach and Learn in College Test ............ Correlations between Subject Matter Test Scores and How Teach and Learn in College Scores ........ Correlations between Ratings of Instructors and their How Teach and Learn in College S c o r e s ........

62 66 67

20.

Correlations between Subject Matter Knowledge and Ratings by S t u d e n t s .....................

21.

Average Discrepancy Scores, Based upon all Students, for L-instructors and for H-instructors ........ 75^

22.

Subject Matter Test Scores, Differences, and Con­ fidence Levels forL-instructors and for Hinstructors.........................

23*

Comparison of Ratings Given by Low- and by Highability Students to L-instructors ..................

78

Comparison of Ratings Given by Low- and by Highability Students to H-instructors .................

80

24. 25* 26.

Comparison of Ratings Given by all Students to L-instructors and to H-instructors .........

83

Mean How Teach and Learn in College Scores, their Difference and its Critical Ratio for L-instructors and H-instructors........................ .........

85

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

2.

5.

4.

5.

Page

Comparison of ratings reoeived on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male and female teachers ....................................

24

Comparison of ratings received on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by teachers having ......... varying lengths of teaching experience

25

Comparison of ratings received on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by teachers having different teaching ranks ..............

26

Comparison of ratings received on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by teachers possessing different academic degrees ........................

27

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being veterans .........................

103

6.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all stucents being non-veterans .......... -............ 104

7.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being male ...............................

105

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being female .............................

106

8.

9*

10.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being f r e s h m e n ..................................... 107 Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being sophomores ...................

108

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 11.

12.

Page

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being juniors ............................

109

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being s e n i o r s .........

110

13.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being graduates .......................... Ill

14.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by all students in the upper half of their elsss scholastically and all students in the lower half of their class scholastically ... 112

15*

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being f r e s h m e n ........................

113

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being sop h omores.......

114

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and i:b y “non-veterahc studentëI-:&11^students being juniors ..................................

115

16.

17*

1 8 . Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being seniors ................. «......... *..............

II 6

1 9 * Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being graduates ........

II7

LIST OP FIGURES (Continued) Figure

Page

20.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being in the upper half of their class scholastically ... 118

21.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being in the lower half of their class scholastically ... 119

22.

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being male ........................................

120

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being female ...........................................

121

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes all students being veterans ......

122

23*

24.

2 5 . Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes a,ll students being non-veterans

. 123

2 6 . Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes all students being male .......... 27 .

28.

124

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes - all students being female ............... 125 Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes - all students being in the upper half of their class scholastically ........................

126

29 . Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by students in the various classes - all students being in the lower half of their class scholastically...............

127

3 0 . Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by graduate students and by under graduate students .....................

128

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Page

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being in the upper half of their class scholastically ......

129

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being in the lower half of their class scholastically...... .

130

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being freshmen ..

131

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being sophomores

132

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being juniors ...

133

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being seniors ...

134

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rat ing Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being graduates •

135

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being veterans

136

39. Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rating

Scale for Instructors by male students and by female students - all students being non-veterans

137

CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS CRITERIA OF TEACHING

INTRODUCTION One of the more onerous and trying tasks of school ad­ ministrators arises in the necessity for somehow or other evaluating the services of their teachers.

This became a

particularly difficult job in most institutions of higher learning after the war, when it became necessary to increase teaching staffs quite markedly within a relatively short period of time.

Many departments found it necessary to double or

treble their teaching staffs, and they were required to do so very rapidly.

As a result of these increases, school adminis­

trators have had an exceedingly difficult time in securing, in all cases, satisfactory teachers.

The problem of the

evaluation of teaching has therefore assumed increased impor­ tance.

This should not imply, however, that prior to the

post-war increase in size of college and university staffs the problem of determining who were the good and poor teachers was not recognized.

It was, and a good many studies were con­

ducted in this area before and during World War II.

Never­

theless, the sharply increased size of faculties tended to bring the problem into sharper focus than it had ever been before, and as a result, the number of investigations of teaching effectiveness has been Increasing at an accelerating rate.

In this connection it is interesting to note in a

summary of investigations of teaching efficiency by Barr (2), made in 1948, that of the 138 studies listed since 1905, 30, or over 20%, were reported upon in the years 1945 through early 1948.

Since then, of course, a great number more have

been undertaken and reported upon. It will serve no purpose here to attempt any sort of summary of such studies, since Barr did it so well.

However,

as an introduction to the present investigation it will be well to list, in terms of the criteria which have been used, the types of studies that have been undertaken. pertinent for two reasons.

This is

In the first place, the studies

to be reported upon are concerned with the characteristics of certain of the criteria and their Interrelationships; and in the second place, the difficulties involved in determining adequate criteria of teachers probably present as many if not more difficulties than any other phase of the problem of the study of teaching. Prom Barr’s summary, therefore, a list of the various criteria which have been used in studying and evaluating teachers has been compiled.

They are listed below:

Academic grades Practice teaching grades Ratings by critic teachers Ratings by supervisors Pupil ratings Ratings by other teachers Scores on personality factors Personal history data Interest evidenced in teaching as indicated by a choice of career Subject matter knowledge Pupil achievement Mutual judgments of teachers themselves

Rated pupil reactions Intelligence Grades of students in subsequent courses Tests of teaching ability Dismissal or continued employment at end of school term Responses on a Teaching Situations Test Emotionality and adjustment Ability to control students Professional interest and growth Teacher’s knowledge of conduct and personality of children Continuance in profession of teaching Self-evaluat ion Performance on National Teachers Examination Some of these criteria overlap and some of them would be exceedingly difficult to measure reliably.

Nevertheless, the

list is indicative of the diversity of measures which have been used in evaluating teaching and it also serves to point up the fact that there is by no means any universal agreement upon the criteria of good teaching.

In this connection,

Thorndike’s discussion of criteria is relevant (12).

HS

points out that there are two types of criteria, ultimate and intermediate.

The ultimate criterion, of course, refers to

the final goal(s ) of the training.

In terms of higher

education, the ultimate criterion of teaching might be stated as ’’the earning of a decent livelihood in satisfying and mentally healthy competition and cooperation with others”. As Thorndike points out, an ultimate criterion (such as the one just stated)

will probably be multiple and complex, and

will rarely, if ever, be available for use in research.

What

one is forced to do is to use substitute (intermediate) criteria which are judged or known to be rels,ted to the ultimate criterion.

Some intermediate criteria are logically

more closely associated with the ultimate criterion than are others, and it is usually on a priori grounds only that the intermediate criteria are justified.

Since this is the case,

the diversity of the criteria listed above is understandable. In each study using one or more of these criteria, the re­ searcher has evidently judged them to be related to an ultimate criterion which, in many cases, may not have been mentioned. Nevertheless, it should be understood that in any study in­ volving criteria of teaching, the criteria examined are only intermediate ones and they should be so considered. The purpose of the studies to be reported upon here was to obtain information concerning various aspects of certain criteria of teaching effectiveness and to determine the inter­ relationships of these criteria.

Such information will make

it possible to evaluate these criteria more scientifically and to use them more validly in studying teachers and teaching. Four teacher criteria have been investigated. l)

These are:

student ratings of teachers; 2 ) teacher knowledge of

correct teaching procedures; 3) subject matter taught ; and 4)

teacher knowledge of the student achievement.

have been investigated in two ways.

These

First, an examination

has been made to determine how these criteria vary as certain characteristics of teachers and students vary.

Secondly,

interrelationships among the four criteria have been determined, Whether these various criteria are related to each other or not— and if so how— is obviously an important question.

It

is entirely possible that some of the criteria are negatively

related; if this is the situation, then a "poor” teacher in terms of one or more criteria could be expected to be a "good” teacher in terms of other criteria.

On the other hand, if

the various criteria all are found to be positively related, then knowledge of a teacher’s standing in relation to a single criterion can be used to infer similar standings in relation to the other criteria.

And finally, if no relationship appears,

those persons interested in the evaluation of teaching will be forced to obtain measures of teaching effectiveness in terms of ea.ch of the various criteria or determine which criterion is most closely related to their ultimate criterion and then use it to evaluate their teachers and teaching pro­ cedures. PLAN OF INVESTIGATION This report is concerned with two separate studies in the field of teacher evaluation.

These studies differ in

many respects but in so doing complement each other. The first of these studies was based upon data obtained in the Indiana Oollege and University Staff Evaluation Program Wiich was initiated in the fall of 1946 under the auspices of the Indiana Oonference on Higher Education (made up of the presidents of the institutions of higher learning in Indiana or their representatives).

This conference, realizing that

the problem of staff selection and evaluation was a vexatious one, decided to institute a program of staff evaluation among its several members.

To this end, various instruments for

measuring staff functioning were selected; of these, the Purdue Rating; Scale for Instructors and a test. How Teach and Learn in College, were used for obtaining measures of teacher functioning, and it is with these and the results obtained from them that the first study is concerned. A brief description of these two Instruments, copies of which appear in Appendix A, is in order: 1. The Purdue Ratine Scale for Instructors consists of ten graphic rating scales on vhich a teacher* s students are asked to rate him anonymously. The ten scales cover the following traits: 1. Interest in subject 2. Sympathetic attitude 3. Fairness in grading 4. Liberal and progressive attitude 5. Presentation of subject matter 6. Sense of proportion and humor 7. Self-reliance and confidence 8. Personal peculiarities 9. Personal appearance 10. Stimulating intellectual curiosity In addition to these traits, provision is made for rating the teacher in relation to others. By means of a ”Quintile Placement” appearing on the scale the student places the teacher, as compared to others, anywhere from the highest to the lowest fifth. Total administration time of the scale is about five minutes and percentile norms for the ratings on each trait and the Quint lie Placement are availa,ble. 2. How Teach and Learn in College. This is a test for teachers which appraises for them their attitudes toward various teaching practices. It requires an expression of opinion by means of a five-point scale (Strongly dis­ agree; Disagree ; Undecided; Agree; Strongly Agree) con­ cerning various teaching practices, particularly those involving mental hygiene principles. It consists of 162 items and requires approximately 30 minutes of testing time. The keying of the test was based upon the opinions of nine experts in the fields of mental hygiene, psychiatry, adolescent psychology, abnormal psychology, clinical psychology or college teaching. Seven of these nine ex­ perts had to agree upon the response to an item before it was considered as usable, the agreed-upon response being keyed as correct. The test was developed experi­ mentally from a much larger number of items and as it

was used in this study, all of the 162 items hut three were agreed upon by at least seven of the experts. These three items were not scored, so the total possible score was 159* Fourteen of the institutions making up the Indiana Oon­ ference on Higher Education participated in the Indiana Oollege and University Staff Evaluation Program^.

Since it was judged

1. These institutions were: Anderson Oollege, Canterbury Oollege, Earlham Oollege, Evansville Oollege, Goshen College, Hanover Oollege, Huntington Oollege, Indiana Central Oollege, Indiana Technical Oollege, Manchester Oollege, Marian Oollege, Marion Oollege, Purdue University, and St. Joseph’s Oollege. that the two staff evaluation instruments could be used most effectively by providing the teaching staffs with information for self-improvement, the institutions participating agreed that participation by their teachers would be voluntary and that each teacher’s results would remain confidential, known only to himself. In all, 342 teachers answered the How Teach and Learn in Oollege test and 460 teachers had themselves rated by a total of 26,014 raters. (This is an average of about 57 student raters per teacher.)

From the scores obtained on the How

Teach and Learn in Oollege test and from the ratings received on the rating scale a number of statistical analyses were made of the relationships between:

l)

the two instruments; 2)

certain characteristics of the student raters and the ratings they gave; 3) certain characteristics of the teachers and the ratings they received; and 4)

certain characteristics of the

teachers and the scores they made on the How Teach and Learn

8

in College test. The second study to be reported upon was conducted at Purdue University the first

semester of the 1948-1949

scholastic year and consisted of investigating various criteria of teaching as they applied to the teachers of Chemistry 1, an introductory course of general chemistry for engineering freshmen.

Specifically, four criteria of teaching were in­

vestigated.

These were:

1. Student ratings of instructors. These ratings were obtained on a scale designed specifically for use with Chemistry 1 instructors and a copy appears in Appendix A. It consisted of two parts, each part being made up of twelve traits. The twelve traits making up the first part applied to laboratory teaching and those in the second part applied to the teaching of recitation sessions. The traits included in each part were: 1. 2. 3* 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. 2. 3. 4. 56. 78. 9. 10.

Laboratory Interest in chemistry Knowledge of chemistry Effectiveness as a teacher Fairness Attitude (narrow-minded vs. liberal) Helpfulness during laboratory session Grading of experiments and reports Return of tests and explanation of mistakes Care of laboratory apparatus Supervision during tests Rating as compared to other teachers Should this instructor be retained as a teacher? Recitation Interest in subject Knowledge of subject Effectiveness as a teacher Fairness Attitude (narrow-minded vs. liberal) Clarity of presentation of subject matter Ease of understanding Coverage of assigned work Method of instruction (does all of talking vs. having students do blackboard work with his help Educa.tional effectiveness of recitation

11. 12.

Rating as compared to other teachers Should this Instructor be retained as a teacher?

2. How Teach and Learn in Oollege scores. This test is described above in connection with the Indiana College and University Staff Evaluation Program. 3- Subject matter knowledge. An indication of each instructor’s subject matter knowledge was obtained from scores obtained on four achievement tests taken by the instructors nrior to the start of the semester’s teach­ ing and from the scores obtained on one test taken after the completion of the semester. 4. Average achievement of each instructor* s students. This average achievement took into consideration the scholastic abilities of each instructor’s students as measured by scores on the tests administered to all new students during the Orientation Period at the beginning of the fall semester. These tests are as follows: l) American Council on Education Psvcholop;ical Examinâtion for College Freshmen, by L. L. Thurstone and Thelma G. Thurstone, New York: Educational Testing Service, 1948; 2) The Purdue Placement Test in English. Form A, by G. 8. Wykoff, J. W. McKee, and H. H. Remmers, Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931; 3) Purdue Physical Science Test, Form Am, by a Committee of the Department of Physios and the Division of Educational Reference, Pur­ due University, Chicago: World Book Co., 1943; and 4) Purdue Mathematics Training Test. Form XM2, by M. W. Keller, H. F. S. Jonah, H. H. Remmers, and N. L. Gage, 1948. The Chemistry 1 instructors and course material differ in certain respects from vdiat might be thought of as an "average” college course; these differences should be noted at the outset since they had a bearing upon the design and execution of the study, and upon the interpretation of the results.

A description of the course is therefore given be­

low. Chemistry 1 is a required course for all engineering freshmen, with the exception of a few who have unusual ability and interest in chemistry and who are therefore placed in an

10

advanced course.

(Such sectioning is also contingent upon

the student's desire to be placed in the advanced course.) Abour 10^ of the freshmen are so placed each semester.

This,

in effect, skims off the cream of the crop and reduces to a certain extent the range of ability of the students in the Ohemistry 1 course.

Even after this sectioning, however, the

range of ability of the students is very great. The course is designed to give freshmen students sufficient knowledge of those laws and principles of chemistry which will be most useful to them as engineers or scientists.

The course

is more thorough than the average introductory freshman chem­ istry course, as is shown by the fact that the average score of second semester students from this course places them in the highest quartile of college students taking the "Cooper­ ative G-eneral Chemistry Test" published by the Educational Testing Service, New York. The course is taught by one 1e cture-demonstrat ion, two one-hour recitations, and one three-hour laboratory session per week.

The lecture can be considered the start of each

week* s work since it is here that the work to be covered in the two subsequent recitation periods and the one subsequent laboratory period is introduced, discussed, and demonstrated. In charge of this lecture is a chemist with advanced training vAio is devoting full-time to chemistry teaching.

For the

recitation and laboratory periods the large lecture sections are divided into smaller sections, each of vhich is under the direction of a graduate student in chemistry who is devoting

11

part of his time to teaching.

It is with these teachers that

this study is concerned. In general, each part-time teacher (to be hereafter re­ ferred to as an instructor) was in charge of two chemistry sections, each consisting of approximately 23 students.

He

w a ^ h u s in charge of four hours of recitation and six hours of laboratory work per week.

In addition he assisted in the

pooled grading of examinations and quizzes, and was supposed to spend sufficient time outside of the classroom to prepare himself adequately for each recitation and laboratory period. In all, the instructor who was in charge of two chemistry sections was expected to spend 20 hours per week on this work. A few instructors were in charge of only one section, and one instructor was in charge of three sections. The grading of tests and quizzes in the course was depart ment-wide, thereby making possible the comparison of grades obtained in the various sections.

A description of the

grading procedure is extracted from the Lecture Notebook for the Chemistry 1 course : G-rades in this course are based mainly upon the student’s knowledge of the work as shown by his grades on tests, dailies, and examinations:A. Four examinations are given at times given in the schedule. These tests are called lecture tests and are graded on the basis of 130 for perfect, 120 for a grade of 6**, a-zid 70 for passing. B. Fourteen *laboratory dailies* will be given cover­ ing the laboratory work, and fourteen *lecture dailies* will be given covering the recitation assignments. These dailies will be graded on the basis of 13 for perfect and 7 for passing. Three of these dailies will be minimum essential dailies on which a grade of 7 or more must be scored in

12

order to be eligible for a passing grade at the end of the term. Three trials will be allowed on each minimum essential daily. 0. To get the final score for the semester the follow­ ing items are added:(1) One-half the sum of the four lecture tests (or six-tenths of the sum of three tests if one of the first three tests is missed because of illnessTI Absence from Test 4 will make the student eligible for a grade of *0*, *1*, or *2', depending on his previous record. (2 ) The sum of ten lecture dailies (3 ) The sum of ten laboratory dailies (4) The sum of the net scores on the lecture and laboratory notebooks,after these have been completed and accepted. (5 ) Extra bonusi points awarded to students who demon­ strate on the four tests mastery of over 3 0 % of the assigned material. This bonus is calculated in the following manner: Bonus

Sum of four lecture tests __ =-------------- 2-------------- T 130

Thus it is evident that a student whose grade on each test is over 50% (65 points out of 130) will be eligible for extra bonus points in determining his final score. (5» P l) In addition to the above explanation in which, incidental­ ly, it will be seen that the grades were based in the main upon objective tests, the following note should be made con­ cerning the grading of these tests:

The tests were scored

on a pooled basis, each instructor grading the same portion of each test to insure uniformity of marking between classes. Very often an instructor had nothing to do with the grading of tests from his own sections, and if he did, it was only in the grading of one or two items on these tests.

It should

also be pointed out that the only place in the grading system that allowed for variation in grading among the instructors was in the grading of the lecture and laboratory notebooks and the grading of laboratory work, and the number of points possible from these sources, relative to the total possible

13

number of points, was small enough, to mask very largely the effect of any variation in instructor grading.

Only one point

per week was allowed for the recitation notebook and four points per week were allowed for the laboratory notebook and laboratory work combined, the grading of these latter two items being objectified so far as was possible: Each week* s assignment in the laboratory will be graded on the following basis: - 1 point for reporting on time and staying on the job, 1 point for the satisfactory performance of the experimental work, including the proper care of looker equipment, ringstand and burner, reagents, sink, and desk-top, 1 point for the completion of a satisfactory written report on the experiment before the end of the period, and 1 point bonus for superior experimental work and an exceptionally good and complete report. (5, P* l) It is seen that grades obtained by the students in the different sections were in large measure based upon objective tests scored on a pooled basis and that a relatively small portion of each student *s grades was based upon the grading of his own instructor.

It appears to be a safe assumption,

therefore, that differences in grades did not in any large measure reflect differences in instructor grading and that grades in different sections could be legitimately compared. In addition to the grading system used in the Ohemistry 1 course, several points should be noted concerning the instructors. 1.

The instructors were only part-time teachers, carry­

ing on graduate studies in addition to their teaching.

Pre­

sumably they were teaching in order to be able to continue in school, and it is probably true that for some of them at least, the teaching was only a sideline, something which had

14

to be done In order that they might continue their studies and research. 2.

Only 9% of the instructors had had teaching exper­

ience or teacher training. 3.

The subject matter taught by the various instructors

was very similar.

The material to be covered each week was

the same for each instructor and the tests their classes took covered identical material. 4.

The instructors were very closely supervised by the

professor in charge of the course.

The material to be covered

each weék was discussed in meetings of all instructors, and the process for handing back and discussing examinations and quizzes was outlined in detail; each instructor was in a sense required by the highly developed procedural instructions to operate in a manner similar to other instructors.

The

mechanical features of the course, then, were very similar from section to section, and differences in instruction arose in large part, it would appear, from differences in instructional ability, interest, and knowledge of the subject on the part of the various instructors. 5.

Generally speaking, the teaching of the introductory

chemistry courses has been the first part-time work of most graduate students in chemistry.

Very rarely does a graduate

student spend two years in teaching Chemistry 1.

While no

detailed study has been made of vAiat the Chemistry 1 instructors do subsequent to their stint of teaching in that course, it appears that most of them try to obtain other part-time jobs.

15

either of a research nature or as teaching assistants to chemistry professors whose field of study is similar to their (the graduate students*) own field of interest.

There is

therefore probably little motivation on the part of many of the Chemistry 1 instructors for doing an outstanding job of teaching, since they plan to obtain research positions or teach­ ing positions of a more advanced nature.

Probably it is felt

that research ability and subject matter knowledge are better stepping stones toward the more "desirable" jobs than is excellence in teaching, and the major portion of their effort is therefore in those directions. What do these particular conditions suggest so far as the present study is concerned?

Since the factors of what was

taught, who was taught, and the conditions under which the teaching took place were essentially the same for the different Chemistry 1 instructors, it appears legitimate to compare the effectiveness of the various instructors in terms of the achievement of their students.

Our fourth criterion which is

listed above, "Average achievement of each instructor*s students", therefore appears to be a justifiable measure of teaching.

It should be noted, however, that the very conditions

which make it legitimate to compare the various instructors in terms of their students* achievement are such as to make generalizations to other teaching situations rather hazardous. As previously pointed out, these instructors are not neces­ sarily interested in teaching as a career and have had little previous teaching experience of training for teaching.

They

16

therefore very probably differ in some respects from the general teaching population^.

The results to be reported

2. Within such a population, however, extremely wide differ­ ences are to be found, and such a term as "general teaching population" is probably a misnomer insofar as it connotes a population possessing relatively homogeneous personality characteristics, interests, and abilities. upon will therefore have to be interpreted strictly in terms of the situation in which they arose, and generalization to other teaching situations can only be made when it appears l) that the unusual conditions applying here are not reflected in the results, or 2) the unusual conditions applying here also ^PPly to other teaching situations. The results of the two studies will be reported upon separately, after which the relationships between the two studies will be noted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE INDIANA COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STAFF EVALUATION PROGRAM The results of this program were analyzed in four ways. Relationships were determined between:

(l)

Certain character­

istics of the students who rated their instructors on the Purdue Ratine Scale for Instructors and the ratings they gave; (2)

Certain characteristics of the teachers who were rated

and the ratings they received; (3 )

dertain characteristics of

the instructors who took the How Teach and Learn in College test and the scores they obtained; and (4)

"the scores ob­

tained by the instructors on the How Teach and Learn in College

17

test and the ratings they were given by their students.

The

results obtained in these four analyses will be listed and discussed in turn. Relationshins between characteristics of the students who rated their instructors and the ratings they gave. Rare indeed would be any person who was reasonably well acquainted with teaching who believed that ratings of instructors on the various traits of the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors were ultimate measures of the extent to vdiich the various traits were exhibited.

It is realized that numerous factors

other than the actual teaching may affect the sort of ratings a teacher receives.

If some of these factors could be iso­

lated and examined to find out just how they operate, then the evaluation of the ratings could be greatly improved.

One

group of factors which may affect the ratings are the character­ istics of the students giving the ratings.

In order to examine

this group of factors, the teachers from Purdue University who had themselves ra.ted requested their students, after the ratings had been completed but before they had been turned in, to place certain information on the rating scale.

This informa­

tion included four characteristics of the students:

Whether

the student was a veteran or a non-veteran; whether he was a freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student; his sex; and the half of the class he fell in scholastically.^ 3 . The scholastic status of the student wasfebtained as follows: Before the time the teacher asked his students to rate him, he made a list of the top 50% of his students with respect to

18

the grades they had earned to date. After they had completed their ratings, he read this list with the request that those students place an "X" on the rating scales. (Students were told, however, that if they feared their anonymity would be endangered, not to place the information on the scale.) By means of this information, the rating scales were divided into the finest categories possible (i.e., in terms of all four factors at once, as, for example, freshman, veteran, male, upper-half scholastically; or, sophomore, female, non­ veteran, upper-half scholastically, etc.).

Average trait

ratings were then computed for each group of rating scales and comparisons of these average ratings were made by means of graphic profiles between each possible pair of mutually ex­ clusive categories(veteran vs. non-veteran, class in school, male vs. female, and upper-half scholastically vs. lowerhalf scholastically) holding, in turn, each of the other factors constant (Figures 5 through 39# Appendix- B).

In all,

3786 rating sheets were included in this analysis, this being the number of rating sheets that contained complete information concerning the four factors with which we were concerned. Some of the categories of raters, such as female veterans, had very small N*s, and the ratings of these categories are of little value because of the small sampling.

Most, however,

had N* s large enough to insure that their ratings were reason­ ably reliable. Since the number of comparisons of ratings given by the various categories is large, a brief summary of what they indicate will be given:

19

Soholastically upper-half raters compared with lowerhalf raters:

Successive comparisons were made between these

two categories of raters holding constant, in turn, the following factors— veteran or non-veteran status, sex, and class in school (Figures 5 through 13^ Appendix B).

Through­

out all of these comparisons but one, upper- and lower-half graduate students, the upper-half raters gave slightly higher ratings.

While the differences are not great, a comparison

was made between all upper-half and lower-half students (Figure 14, Appendix B). Veteran raters compared with non-veteran raters:

Suc­

cessive comparisons were made between these two categories of raters, holding constant, in turn, the following factors— class in school, upper- or lower-half status, and sex (Figures 15 through 23» Appendix B).

No systematic differences in

rating appear between these two categories. Comparison of raters in terms of their year in school: Five categories are here involved, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate.

Successive comparisons were made among

these five categories, holding in turn the following factors constant— veteran or non-veteran status, sex, and upper- or lower-half status (Figures 24 through 29> Appendix B). Throughout all of these comparisons, a distinct tendency is observed for graduate students to give higher ratings than undergraduates, though no systematic differences are noted among the undergraduates.

A comparison was therefore made

between all graduate and undergraduate students (Figure 30,

20

Appendix B ). Male raters compared with female raters:

These two

categories were successively compared, holding constant in turn the following factors— upper- or lower-half status, year in school, and veteran or non-veteran status (Figures 31 through 39» Appendix B),

There appears to be a tendency for

the female raters to give slightly higher ratings on traits 5 through 10.

The tendency is not consistent, however,

though it does show up on most of the comparisons. It was decided to investigate the statistical significance of the differences in the ratings given by graduate and under­ graduate students and the differences in ratings given by upper-half and lower-half students.

The differences between

the mean ratings given by the categories on each of the traits were therefore tested for statistical significance; the results are given in Tables 1 and 2.

In Table 1 it will be

noted that the differences on every trait but Number 9» "Personal Appearance" (which is the only reversal), are statistically significant.

In Table 2 are given the differences

and their critical ratios in ratings given by upper-half and lower-half students.

Here it will be noted that all of the

differences but two (Trait 7» "Self-reliance and Confidence", and Trait 9, "Personal Appearance") are statistically significant at 8,t least the 5% level of confidence.

It therefore appears

that graduate students as a group tend to rate teachers higher than do undergraduates an ca

9 9 A "d d d 4»

â 4» F»4» to
2, & 1, but was the total number of points obtained during the semester’s work, the points being calculated as described on pages 11 and 12.

44

The University grade is arrived at from these points, but for our purposes it was judged that using the total number of points would give a finer measure of achievement than would be possible by use of the six-point University grading system. The actual range of points ran from 139 to 6 5 8 .

Table 12.

Correlational matrix of freshman placement test scores and first semester Chemistry 1 grades 1

1.

English PI. Test

2.

Psych Exam 0,-8core

3.

Psych Exam L-Score

4.

Math Train. Test

5.

Phys. Sci. Test

6.

1st Sem. Ghem 1 Grade

2 .454

4

3

6

5

.684

.289

.491

.339

.478

.373

.493

.312

.172 : .520

.280

.541

.510

•523

test selection was used for this purpose (11). The next step was the prediction of each student’s grade on the basis of his placement test scores; after this had been done, the discrepancy between his predicted grade and his obtained grade (his discrepancy score) was determined by the formula:

Obtained grade minus predicted grade.

If the dis­

crepancy score were positive, one would know that the student had obtained a higher grade than had been predicted on the basis of his freshman placement test scores, while if the discrepancy score were minus, one would know that he had obtained a lower grade than had been predicted.

After ob­

45

taining the discrepancy scores of all of the students, they were averaged for the students of each Instructor, this average being called the "average discrepancy score".

It was this

average discrepancy score which was used as a meaaure of student achievement. It will be well to discuss the rationale lying behind this criterion.

A number of factors, some known and some

unknown, affect a student’s "achievement". or surmised are the following:

Among those known

scholastic ability, motivation,

study conditions, emotional stability, and, of course, the teaching vhich the student receives.

There are obviously

others, but this list is sufficient for our purpose.

"Scho­

lastic ability" is a catch-all phrase, and is undoubtedly a misnomer since it indicates a general ability to achieve in all scholastic subjects; this, we know, is not the case. Nevertheless, in this particular study one might posit a "scholastic ability in general chemistry" which could be tapped by our freshman achievement tests; by means of the procedure described above, this factor could be held constant to a reasonably large extent.

The second item, motivation,

can not b^h o u g h t of as a, single, unitary item either.

It is

made up of many parts, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the student, and it varies from time to time and place to place. Nevertheless, in our particular situation, one part of our "motivational factor" could conceivably be isolated.

This

is the particular school in •which our embryo engineer planned to enroll his sophomore year.

To be able to enter the

46

Ghemical Engineering School or the Metallurgical Engineering School, the student must have received a grade of 4 or better in the Chemistry 1 course; it therefore appears quite i.......................... 9 7 ____

98.

D aydream s t h a t s tim u la te a person to c o n stru ctiv e activity are w holesom e.................

99.

W o rk is a highly satisfac to ry o u tl e t for p e n t - u p em otional e n e rg y ............................................... 9 9 -------

9 8 -------

100.

O verbearing behavior is fre q u e n tly a m ask for feelings of in ferio rity................

1 0 0 ____

101.

It is well to have ideals so high t h a t one has no possibility of achieving t h e m ....................... 1 0 1 _____

102.

T h e h e a lth y -m in d e d individual tries to b eco m e aware of th e " u n c o n s c io u s " a t tit u d e s t h a t m o tiv ate his b eh av io r..................................................................................................................................... 1 0 2 ____

103.

It is desirable to reco gnize t h a t in c ertain abilities one is inferior to o th e r p eo p le................ 1 0 3 ____

104.

T h e h a b it of fe a r is in som e cases d u e to feelings of insecurity developed in infancy and childh oo d ...............................................................................................................................................1 0 4 ____

105.

A ny typ e of overwork (even as m u ch as eig h ty -fo u r hours per w eek) in an d of itself could never be th e cau se of a " m e n ta l b re a k -d o w n ." .......................... 1 0 5 ____

106.

A desire to believe or disbelieve m a k es clear th in k in g d if f ic u lt.....................................................1 0 6 ____

107.

T h e a t t i t u d e one ta k e s tow ard on e's abilities and em otio ns is m u ch m ore im p o rta n t for m en tal h e a lth th a n th e abilities and em o tio ns in and of th e m s e lv e s .......................................... 1 0 7 ------

108.

Education should provide th e o p p o rtu n ity for every individual to m a k e th e b e s t use of w h atever p o te n tia litie s he h a s .................................................. 1 0 8 -------

109.

"C o m m o n s e n s e " on th e p a rt of th e in stru c to r or counselor is a d e q u a te for handling m o s t difficulties of college s t u d e n t s .......................... .............................. ........................................................... 1 0 9 -------

110.

M any college s tu d e n ts are unable to choose courses wisely b ecause th e y have n o t chosen a cultural or professional g o al................................................................ 1 1 0 -------

111.

Probably m ore in stru c to rs fail becau se of inability to u n d e rs ta n d behavior of s tu d e n ts th a n because of inability to te a c h s u b je c t m a t t e r 1 11 -------

112. A n ex p erien ced in s tru c to r does n o t n eed ex am in ation s to classify his s tu d e n ts as to th e ir abilities and a c h ie v e m e n t................ 112113.

T h e good in stru c to r em p h a siz e s th e sim plicity of his s u b je c t m a tte r ra th e r th a n its d iffic u lty ...................................... ...................................... ................................................................................. 1 1 3.„

114.

In stru cto rs should assign specific topics for th e m e s and oral rep orts ra th e r th a n allow th e s t u d e n t to s e lec t his o w n ................................................................................................................................1 14..

115.

A s tu d e n t should be requ ired to give reasons for any u ndesirable b eh av io r.............................1 15,.

116.

A s t u d e n t 's perso nality traits are as m u ch th e concern of th e college as is his know ledge of English................................................................ .............................................................................................. 116-

1 17.

College f r e s h m e n , including th o se who have d e f in ite vocational plans, could b e n e f i t from vocational g u id a n c e .................................. -............................................................... -........................................ 1 ^ 1 ------

118.

A college girl w ho is " b o y -c r a z y " is m ore m a la d ju s te d th a n on e who is very tim id an d sh y ......................................................................................1 1 8 ------

1 19.

E xtrem e sh yness and fe a rfu ln e ss ind icate m a la d ju s tm e n ts w hich a re a t le ast as serious as th o s e indicated by stealin g and lying.. 1

------

120.

A n in s tru c to r who clearly u n d e rs ta n d s th e w eak n esses of his s t u d e n t s will be disliked by t h e m ........................................................... ^2.0------

1 21.

G rades assigned on th e basis of " o b je c tiv e " te sts are fairer to th e s tu d e n t s th a n are grad es assigned on th e basis of essay te s t s ........................................................................................................... 1 2 . 1 -------

122.

T h e in s tru c to r has no responsibility to m o tiv ate a s tu d e n t who shows little in te r e s t in a s u b je c t............................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 2 -------

123.

A n in a tte n tiv e s tu d e n t should be given a lecture, in private, on paying a t t e n t i o n ................ 1 2 3 ------

124.

If a s tu d e n t is u n ab le to g e t along w ith o th e rs, he should be given a place to s tu d y and kinds of work which will help him avoid c o n ta c t w ith o th e r s -------------------------------------------- 1 2 4 ------

125.

Only a few s tu d e n ts are m a lad ju sted enou gh to b e n e fit fro m h e lp in solving th e ir pro b lem s......................................................................................................................................-.........................1 2 5 ------

126.

Emotional control is le a rn e d ----------

127.

T h e good te a c h e r m akes him self as un obtrusiv e as possible in th e learning process of each s t u d e n t ........................................................................................................................................................1 2 7 ------

128.

College s tu d e n ts should be given th e ir scores on te s ts of ability and a p t itu d e to g e th e r w ith an in te rp re ta tio n of th o se sco res...................................................................................................... 1 2 8 ------

129.

T h e college s tu d e n t should te n d to th e business of learning his su b jects, an d n o t pay a tte n tio n to his personality d e v elo p m en t until he has g r a d u a t e d -------------------------------------- 1 2 9 ------

130.

In th e classroom s itu a tio n , an in stru c to r can observe m u ch a b o u t a s t u d e n t 's personal ad ju stm en t __ ____ ___________________ _________ ___________ ______ _______________ 1 3 0 ------

131.

A n in stru c to r should d evo te his a tte n tio n to th e intellectual d e v e lo p m e n t of his s tu d e n ts , and let o th e r persons te n d to th e ir em otional d e v e lo p m e n t.............. ...............................................1 3 1 ------

1 32.

A n in s tru c to r who feels t h a t s tu d e n ts criticize him too m u ch should realize t h a t s tu d e n t s are a d o lesc en t and t h a t th e ir criticism am o u n ts to little .............. 1 3 2 ____

133.

All m a lad ju sted s tu d e n ts are discouraged s tu d e n t s

1 34.

M o st m a lad ju sted s tu d e n ts are able to solve th e ir problem s ad eq u a te ly w ith o u t h e l p

135.

T h e te s t of th e " c o r re c tn e s s " of a solution to a s tu d e n t 's personality problem is w h e th e r or n o t th e s tu d e n t is satisfied w ith th e so lu tio n ............................................. 1 3 5 ____ _

136.

M o st s tu d e n ts who ta k e p a rt in ex tra cu rricu lar activities would be b e t t e r off if th e y d ev oted all th e ir a tte n tio n to s u b je c t - m a t te r ........................................................................................ 1 3 6 ___ _

1 37.

A w ell-con ducted " d a t e b u r e a u " is an asset to a college................................................................... 1 3 7 ___

138.

T h e average s tu d e n t 's religious beliefs are likely to be a ltered by a college e d u c a tio n

1 39.

M any of an individual's personality traits are established in th e firs t few y ears of his life...! 3 9 ____

1 2 6 ------

__

1 3 3 ____ 1 3 4 ____

1 3 8 ____

140.

A n in s tru c to r can do a b e t t e r job of teach in g if he does no t know his s tu d e n ts personally... 1 4 0 -------

141.

Before a s t u d e n t can improve a sh o rtco m in g , he m u s t ex p erience an x iety co n ce rn in g i t

142.

It w ould be well for each in s tru c to r to m ake him self available for counseling w ith his s t u d e n t s .................................................................................................................................................................1 4 2 ____

143.

M a n y college s tu d e n t s seriously seek a "p hiloso phy of life ."

144.

It has b een proved t h a t poor a d ju s tm e n t to college work is so seldom cau sed by physical ill-health t h a t an in stru c to r does n o t need to consider th e possibility w hen dealing w ith s tu d e n t s ......................................................................... ................................................ ......................................1 4 4 ____

145.

It is highly im p o rta n t for an in stru c to r to realize th a t som e s tu d e n ts may fear h im ............. 1 4 5 -------

146.

A " h a p p y -g o -lu c k y " a t tit u d e is a safe indicator of freedo m from serious p ro b lem s............. 146.—

14 1 -------

.......................................... 1 4 3 -------

147. In any specified period of tim e, th e average college-age s tu d e n t can be ex p e c te d , as p a rt of his normal search for a m arriage p a rtn e r, to spend a large sh are of his free hours with one friend of th e opp osite s e x ........................................ 1 4 7 ____ 148.

Religion is im p o rta n t b ecau se it provides a scale of values and a system of e th ic s ................ 1 4 8 -------

149.

Reading fiction m ay be an escape from reality which is similar to d a y d re a m in g ..................... 1 4 9 -------

150.

A n in stru c to r should n o t use tim e a t th e b eginning of a class period to explain w h at is to b e d o n e in t h a t period an d how it relates to th e e n tire c o u rse ...................................................1 5 0 — __

151.

If a te a c h e r knows how his s tu d e n ts rate him on his personality and te ach in g effectiven ess, he is likely to becom e too self-conscious for effectiv e te a c h in g ...... 15 1

_

152.

A s tro n g fear is so m e tim e s a disguise for a desire which th e person c a n n o t consciously fa c e.............................................. ......................................................................... ................................................ 1 5 2 -------

153.

A s tu d e n t 's am b itio n s should n o t ch a n g e from tim e to ti m e

154.

O fte n a p erso n's b e s t a d ju s tm e n t to an inadequacy is th e c o m p lete recognition of its e x iste n c e ............................................................................. .......................................... ...................................... 1 5 4 -------

155.

Every em o tio n a b o u t a s u b je c t affe c ts in some m easure our ability to th in k rationally a b o u t t h a t s u b je c t............................................................................................................................................15 5 —___

156.

A person who is tru ly a d u lt is em otionally s ta b le

157.

An in stru c to r who u n d e rs ta n d s his own behavior can more effectively help s tu d e n ts w ith th e ir personality p ro b lem s ................................................... -............... -................. 1 5 7 ——

158.

In th e first class period of a course, an instructor should explain th e objectives of th e course to th e s t u d e n t s ............................... ....................................................................................................1 5 8 -------

159.

"L earn in g by d o in g " is a principle which ca n n o t be applied to instructio n in m any college co urses...................................................................... 15 9 ------

160.

If a college w ere to em ploy train ed persons in a psychological clinic, it would n o t be im p o rta n t for every in stru c to r to know some m ental h y g ie n e ................................................... 1 6 0 -------

161.

A good s tu d e n t is n o t han d icap p ed by poor instruction so long as th e in stru c to r knows his s u b je c t w ell ............................................................... .......................-........................................... - 1 6 1 -------

162.

If an in s tru c to r is " w ra p p e d u p " in his s u b ject, he will be able to te ach it w ell...................1 6 2 -------

............................................ 1 5 3 .__ _

1 5 6 ------

PERSONAL DATA SHEET N a m e _________________________________________ Col lege------ ---------------------------------A ge------------Sex— C h e c k th e following courses t h a t you have ta k e n or are ta k in g : Psychology: G en eral______ Educational______ Child______ A d o le s c e n t--------- A b n o rm a l----------Clinical. M e n ta l H y g ien e_ _

Social______ Individual D ifferen ce s-------- - O th e r s ------------------------------------------

Education:Principles of T e a c h in g

Principles of Secondary E ducation

Junior H igh School--------

G uidance______ E x tracurricular_A ctivities—____ T e s ts and M e a s u r e m e n ts tion______ C u rric u lu m ______ Supervision

H igh School A d m in istra­

O th e rs-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Instructor's Section

A re you single?_______ M arried?

W idow ed?

A ges of ch ildren

Have you any ch ild ren ?-----------N u m b e r----------

N u m b e r of years of te a c h in g e x p e rie n c e --------------------------------

N u m b e r of years of train in g __________ M ajor_su b je c ts__________________ M in o r su b jects. _______________ D egrees________________________ D ates of p o s tg r a d u a te tra in in g ----------List th e specific te ach in g positions th a t you have held, including th e p re s e n t: C ollege

Subjects T aught

Years

F ull-tim e s ta f f __________ P a r t-tim e s ta f f __________

P resen t acad em ic rank P resen t cred it hours of te ach in g :

S em ester hours_____________ _____ Q u a rte r ho u rs___________________

Laboratory supervision (Hrs. per w e e k ) __________________________ Student's Section F ath e r living?----------- M o th e r living?------------P arents divorced or se p a ra te d ? _______ N u m b e r o f children in family----------- T ype of g rad e school a t te n d e d : public______ parochial_______ private (n o t p a r o c h ia l) ______ Type of high school a t te n d e d : public—

------ —parochial___________ private (n o t p a r o c h ia l) __________

Size of high school___________ A re you a veteran?.____________ Is th e re a fireplace in your hom e?______________________ Yes______ N o ________ Does your family have an autom obile?__________________ Yes______ No________ Do you have in your h o m e : a vacu u m cleaner?

Yes

No

an electric or gas refrigerator?

Yes -

No

a cen tral h eatin g system (fu rn ace h eat) ?

Yes

No

a teleph on e?

Yes

No

Have you had paid lessons In dancing, dram atics, expression, elocution, a rt or music ou tside of school?

Yes_______ No.

How m any ch ec k m ark s do you have in th e first colum n above? College cu rricu lum in which you are enrolled-----------------------------halls

fra te rn ity or sorority

co-operative

— at hom e

________ Type of living q u a r te r s a t college:

w ith relatives

private hom e_____ W h a t is your ap prox im ate grade average th u s far in college?_______ _______ Years in college (encircle) :

1,

2,

3,

4,

5-j-

w ith frien d s____

Make no mark bn this sheet# RATING SCALE FOB LABORATORY AND RECITATIŒj INSTRUCTORS CHmiSTRf F. D. Martin, A. A. Alberts, H. H. Rammers,, and R, L. .Hobson ^

#

#

s h e e t. '

#

#

A

the special pencil,

#

#

&

^

.. .. Rating of Laboratory Instructor

,

“ “sïï„“L ' s s s ’i . 5 ï . ' 2 . r î r . & knowledge of .chanistry and its applications. 3. EFÎ3CTIVBŒSS AS A TEACIffiB (l) canpletely disinterested

= .teaching, pemits

.™w,

2

(5) shows a lively interest in teaching and stimulates his students,

all students impartially but fairly. ! w ™ f l l Ü % I % 2^ W l o ; %vSlge° (3) % d i f L % n t I accepts com^a^^^but makes no effort to see if theyare justified, (4) above average,.(51 liberal and progressive, welcomes constr’ictive criticism and questions. 6. COi.!DUCT DURIliG UBQRATORY P3RX0D (l) frequently tardy and/or leaves section un-

7.GRADIHG OF EXPERIiXHTS Ai>iD REPORTS (i; never checks lab. notebooks or checks incorrect anscrs, (2) below average, (3) grades repofts only inspection is called for by the supervisor, (41 above average, (51 keeps all work graded, discusses improvement of reports with poor stuuents. 8, EETUailllG-DAILIES AliD TESTS (l) does not return- dailies and tests, (2) below

standing's, etc. 9, CARE OF Cœ£:UΫi APPARATUS, -ETC.

(ll makes no attempt ^o-see that app^atus and

his attention to conditions, (k) above average, (5) secures understanding operation of students in keeping sinks, desks, reagents, etc. in iirs « a 10, SUPERVISION DURING TESTS AND DAILIES (l) leaves class unattended, (2) below ^ average, (3) usually on the job, (4) above average, (5) efficient but unobtrusive, no "Gestapo" attitude. 11. RfiTING AS C0I3flRED TO OTHER INSTRUCTORS AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY (l) lowest-fifth, (2) next to lowest fifth, (3 ) middle fifth, (4) next to highest fifth, (5) highest iifth. 12 é IÎÎ CASE SUITABLE REPLACEE3NTS ARE AVAILABLE NEXT SEtŒSTER THIS INSTRUCTOR SHOULD BE (1^ replaced, (2) retained, under careful supervision, (3) retained, (4) pro­ moted for good teaching, ($) given special recognition as an outstanding teacher. (over)

Rating-, of'.Recitation Instructor (Print his name, course, -and. division on back of ..answer sheet to left of the word "Scores").. 151. Interest in subject:-^ 1, Shows no interest* 2 Below average *■■■ 3. Shows some interest * •4 , Above average. . 5,. Displays great interest §nd enthusiasm*152* Knowledge of subject 1. Inadequate for teaching others* 2. Below average, y . 3 . Knows only material cpveréd in . assignment* ,.4* Above average. 5 . Possesses broad and up-to-date knowledge of chemistry and its applications, 153* Effectiveness as a teacher:1. Completely disinterested, permits class to do as it pleases* 2. Below average. 3* Gives impression his main interest is elsewhere but fulfills minimum requirements* 4* Above average, 5 * Shows a lively interest in teaching, stimulates his students* 154» Fairness: 1. Unfair,- favors "apple-polishers" and personal friends. 2. Below average. 3* Sometimes partial to certain students*. 4 . Above average*. 5.'Treats all students ,impartially but fairly, 1 55. Attitude:1, Narrow-minded, Makes no attempt to ascertain or remedy causes for students failures'. 2, Below average, 3* Indifferent, accepts complaints but makes no effort to see if they are justified* 4, Above average, 3* Liberal and progressive,-welcomes criticism and questions* 156,' Clarity of presentation 1'* Very poor, reads off answers with little or no explanation, 2* Below average, 3^ Good but nob exceptional, 4» Above average._____ ___ __ 3, Excellent,, an outstanding recitation instructor* 1 3 7 . Voice and mannerisms 1, Hard to understand because of poor voice or distracting mannerisms * 2, Below average, 3,.Diction, voice, and delivery fair,4 , Above average*. 3, Very easy to hear, no distracting mannerisms *v

158* 'Coverage of assigned work:1 * Does not cover assigned tork satisfactorily, 2, Below average, 3 * -Covers assigned work satisfactorilyo 4, Above averageo 5., Is able to cover assigned questions satisfacuorily and discuss now ideas suggested by them, 159, Method, of instruction: .1, Does all the talking in. recita-tb weak students have no chance,for individual help., 2, Below averagec 3* Calls on only one student at a time, but lets other ask . questions about the subject, 4o Above average, 3. Uses recitation ,period, when possible', for individual help by sending class to the blackboard and extending aid to those who need it* 160* Educational effectiveness of recitation 1. Learn nothihg, all lectures and no recitations would be better,. 2, Learn very little from recitat.cr 3. Learn enough in recitation to justify continuance on present basis, 4 , Learn more than in lecture or laboratory, 3* Believe recitation is most effective way to learn chemistry; 161* Rating as compared to other instructors at Purdue University^"1.. Lovrest fifth, 2, Next to lowest fifth, 3 , Middle fifth* 4, Next to highest fifth, 3, Highest fifth* 162*. In case suitable replacements are available next semester this instructor whould be:1, Replaced* 2, Retained, under careful super­ vision.3* Retained* , 4* Promoted for good teaching, 3, Given special recognition as ~ outstanding teacher*. ,^ ^

APPENDIX B

Comparisons of ratings given by students categorized in terms of various ciiaraoteristics

103 Scale Traits *

u CD

o

*r4 +»

\N \%

• 70 65 60

Key ■ '

T VJpper half

(N«43S)

^ower half

(Na457)

55 50

__J ___

--------------------—,

0 Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rat ing Scale for Ins true t or a by students In the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being freshmen. Figure 9

108

Rating Scale Traits

+* to4» 0 O P4 (D Q)**~3 M CO

100

o iH •f» @) Q) 59 1.5

CO

65 Key 60

Upper half

(N.408)

Lower half

(Ns4El)

55 50

Comparison ratings Purdue Rating Gompa r iso n of _ ____ __given on the ___ _________ _ Scale for Ins tractors by students in the upper half of their class scholastically and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being juniors. Figure 11

110

0 fH

ri

fH

43

d

4 3

© 4 3 © 0 d © © «r^ +2 •£ ri d -\^co

© © 5

d

Sii 0 4» P»43 CO

fH

TO TO to s a d *©

fH ©

© d Iki 0

Rating Scale Traits d m © (k 4* d O © « +3 O 03 (Ù © fH A 0 43 d rH d Ph © © % § © ©

\ y \ \ y \

70 65 Key 60

-- TuÎpper half (N-385) ------ L ower half (N*331)

55 50

T

T ■■

1

■ 1

1 ■■

Comparison of ratings given on the Purdue Rat ing Scale for Instruct ors by students in the upper half of the ir c ïa ss scîiolast ica 11 y and in the lower half of their class scholastically - all students being seniors. Figure 12

Ill

Rating Scale Traits d o

bO

•H

43 4» © © «0 4 3 © O d © © "r?

s |

itt

P >>4»

CO «aî

&k © C © S’ ^ d 4* •f H g *© rO 43 © ©

gg

•H 43 .stf

© 4» ri

S'

43 0

d (k

S

d Vh 0 0 g

rH 0

« fH S 43 ©

43 43 0 ri

© © -TD ©

5 2 CO Pk

© W ©

ri "ri

© • 0

© © d *0 1

5 %

© ri

CO ©

© 0 CO 0

\ \ NN,

i

X

o

43

fH rH d

© 0

rH rH © ^ 43

0 H © d d 0 © ©

3 8

ri 4> H fH © • 0 0 *»H

Pk Pk

Pk +» n +» o •P (0 •p o fl D < « '§ £ CO p4

*

ncJ

A4

O

d

& O

g

d 0 Ï33 © a f©

©

d

C O©

© 0 • o #H d ©© 1 •H 4-« rH d

© o

C Oo

s

A

*

a 8 Is*

Ss, CO J o

6^

s i

p © 0 fH d> •H g P © G o •H cd 0M cyph

100 95 90 ©

05

o o

CO

0 © O

80

rH

CO

tîÛ a •H p s

75 70 65 Key-

60

Upper half (U=1906) Lower half (Nsl30O)

55 50

Comparison iven on the t he Purdnee Rat ing ison of ratings given Scale for Instruot ors by all students in the upper iiaTf oF their class scholastically and all students in the lower half of their class scholastically. Figure 14

113

Rating Scale Traits • A 0 p d P

• O

d •H p 0 0 A 0

•H p O 0 "*-3

P 0 0

S'S 0 P

PfO

as

d d 100

CO^

•H 0 0 0 d A •r-l

o © *rH

w o

d

OD d *H *d dj

as 1-4 O

a

& 0

P

o

•a'S

p • »H

0

Xi P

P 0

P

d 0

rO 0

•H P

d A C OCi

Hi
> 0 •de a 0 p 0 a -3 d o •H cO COo

95

90

0 A o 0

85 N

C O

•? § CO w a p « 0 tjO 0

1 u

N

' N

y

y — — —

> / \ / \ ^ -/ /

80

\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ /

1/

fj

75

70

65 * 60

Key ------— — --- ^

\reterans

îon-veterans

(N-308) (N-560)

55

50

Comparison of ratings given on the P y d u e Rating Scale for Instructors by veteran students and by non-veteran students - all students being freshmen. Figure 15

114

Rating Scale Traits u o

c4 •H CO > 4 3 a a

fH

0 • 0 fH

d

4 3d

CO 0

Q) d 43 o d o tH OCJ d rH cyo


43 C O

CO ^

0 43 q 43 0 Q j «H

•

0

*r4 0

0 % 0 q 0^

Td A as s

8 P-, 0

Pi 0 q P4

s 43

0

43

0 0 **~3 C O

43

0 q q

*«H ^ 43

>-A^

C OPh

q 0 y A p 0 ra

Oi

q Td 0 q CO 0

q

0

0

*Ü :— > q 43

rH q 0 0 q q

M t-i

0 0 0 q 0 Pi

&

Pi

0

• 0

iCO l0

cyfii

i

)

so o

CO

0 f—I 0 o CO

\

)

■s. \\ v\

/ /V

yX XX

/\ /\ / \ / / V'\ h / / \\ f / \\ // \ \ \ // \ \ // \ >//

S’ •H 43 &

8)

“ Key ------ Veteran

>

O A © 60 fd -4 4> © fH (A o © ♦ fH Ü A IS 4* A m r H © A Q d © 60 Ph f©© 4> 4> AOn S © 0 © © o d d f H © •d A d d rH 1 *r4 O ^ © © 4 » © W e m •*H f-3 % ViVi © d *tH as .O © d *d rH d A o f H 4 » © © © A d A © d © o P«4O »~3^ (A fA CO PA CO © CO o

• »—1 rH © Ü 4©> >9 rH d d 4» 0 0 M fH d A © •o o 0 to © fH B *H A A A © PA 4» d PA < CO o

"S cy (A

100

© 5 o CO § CO 60 a 4» s §) © Ï

Freshmen

» C O

• G O

d •H

o

m oa ^

©d d *H d "P •H © C Od

cî>

d hi © p (td P • *H »H +> t-P West Mansfield, Ohio Education Elementary school in Angola, Indiana High School in Angola, Indiana; graduated In 1937 B. S. at Purdue University, June, 1946 M. S. in Psychology at Purdue University, February, 1948 Continued in graduate study of psychology at Purdue University Exnerience Assistant 8-2 and Survey Officer, Field Artillery Battalion, U. S. Army, 1943 to 1945 Graduate assistant, laboratory psychology course, Sep­ tember, 1946 to February, 1947 and September, 1947 to February, 1948 Guidance Counselor, Veterans Guidance Center, Purdue University, February, 1947 to September, 1947 Assistant to the Director, Division of Educational Reference, Purdue University, February, 1948-1949