255 19 8MB
English Pages 188
Sponsoring Committee: Professor Edward L. Kemp, Chairman, Professor Ernest R. Wood, and Professor J. Darrell Barnard
VARIABLES INVOLVED IN TEACHERS* MARKS
An Investigation to Determine the Effect of Some NonIntellectual Variables Involved in the Assignment of Marks by Teachers
ROBERT SCRIVEN CARTER
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education of New York University ; TJiesie aooapted
'JUL 24 19.?0'
i
1950
3
^
The student hereby guarantees that no part of the aisseration which he has submitted for publication has been heretofore published and/or copyrighted in the United States of America, except in the case of passages quoted from other published sources; that he is the sole author and proprietor of said dissertation; that the dissertation contains no matter which, if published, will be libelous or otherwise injurious, or infringe in any way the copyright of any other party; and that he. will defend, indemnify and hold harmless New York University against all suits and proceedings which may be brought and against all laims whictnmay be made against New York University by reason of /the publication of said dissertation.
May 15, 1950
PREFACE Any writer in the field of educational psychology who attempts to present a practical approach to the problem rather than a theoretical treatise naturally owes much to others.
The reader will note that the author has used
current experimental literature freely and has been influ enced by the men and women whose names appear in the references of the thesis.
Individual recognition cannot be
made to the many professional people who have made a definite contribution to the development of the manuscript. These include university professors, school administrators, and teachers. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the members of the library staffs of Westminster College, New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, Denison University, Granville, Ohio, and The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, for their unfailing helpfulness and courtesy in making readily available the libraryrs collection of educational books, psychological books, and periodicals.
The author wishes to express his
appreciation to all who have assisted in the preparation of this volume. mention:
Among these, a few are especially deserving of
the members of the committee, Dr. Edward L. Kemp,
Dr. Ernest R. Wood, and Dr. J. Darrell Barnard, for their helpful suggestions and constructive criticism in connection
with the selection of the topic and the reading of the manuscript;
the administrative officers of the school in
which the data were collected, Dr. Frank Burton, Mr. Gerald Nord, and Miss Nannie Mitcheltree, for their helpful cooperation in connection with the administration of the tests;
Mr. John Reid and Mr. Claude Eckman for their
help in the collection of the data; and, to Royce Parle Carter who edited and typed the manuscript. May, 1S50
R. S. C.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I
II
PAGETHE PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS . . .
1
Statement of the Problem . . • • • • • • . . . •
2
Delimitation of the Problem . . . . . . . . .
3
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Significance of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . .
5
Organization of the Report . . . . . .
7
........
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND............................. 8 Investigations on Reliability of Teachers1 Ma rks......................................
.
9
Normal Curve Investigations.................. . . 1 6 Sex Differences in Secondary School Mathematics;. 21 The Assignment of Marks by Teachers.
. . . . .
Summary................................. III
.27 .30
THE METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA..................... 32 Selection of School, Subjects, and Teachers. . . 32 Coding Used in this Study
............ 33
The Teachers............. . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Materials U s e d ........................ . . . . . 3 5 Otis QuickScoring Mental Ability Test. . . . 35 ColvinSchrammel Algebra T e s t ................ 36 California Test of Personality.
. . . . . . . 3 7
Sims Score Card for SocioEconomic Status . . 38
CHAPTER
PAGE GarretsonSymonds Interest Questionnaire . . .
38
Teachers1 Marks for Achievement in Algebra . . 38 Administration of the T e s t s ................. . . 3 9 IV
THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING PROGRAM............... 41 The Sample
...............
41
Results on the Individual Tests . . . . . ' • • • • 4 7 Intelligence Test Results.....................47 Age. . . . . . . .
.................
...*49
Results on the Interest Questionnaire......... 50 SocioEconomic Status. . ...................
52
Scores on the Personality T e s t ............... 53 Results of the Algebra Achievement Test. . . . 56 Teachers * Marks...................
57
Significance of the Differences of the Means. . . 58 Intelligence Test Results.....................59 Algebra Achievement Test Scores............... 61 Marks Assigned by Teachers................... 63 SocioEconomic Status.........................64 Interest Test Results.........................66 A g e . .............
69
Personality Test Results.....................70 I
I
S u m m a r y ...................................... . 7 2 V
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF STATISTICAL D A T A ............................ 75 Relationship between Teachersf Marks and Other Variables.................................... 76
vi
CHAPTER
PAGE Results Employing Partial Correlation Technique . 88 Relationship with Intelligence Scores Held Constant
..........
.90
Relationship with Personality Scores Held Constant.................................. 92 Relationship with SocioEconomic Status Held Constant . . . . .
.........................
94
Relationship with Interest HeldConstant . . . Relationship with Age
96
HeldConstant.........96
Results Employing Second Order Partial Correla tion Technique......... .... ...................96 Relationship between Teachers* Marks and Personality.
..................
. . . . 99
Relationship between Teachers* Marks and Interest ........
• • • • • • • . • • • . . 9 9
Relationship between Teachers* Marks and Age .101 Results Employing Multiple Correlation Tech nique . .........
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Multiple Regression
.103
E q u a t i o n s .............. 106
Regression Equation
forAll Students . . . .
Regression Equation
forAll Girls............. 109
Regression Equation
forAll B o y s ............. Ill
Regression Equation
forAll Students Taught
by Women . . . . . . .
.107
............... 112
Regression Equation for All Students Taught by M e n ...........
vii
.114
CHAPTER
PAGE Regression Equation for Girls Taught by Women.................................. 115 Regression Equation for Girls Taught by Men.
............................... 117
RegressionEquation
for BoysTaught by Women. 118
RegressionEquation
for BoysTaught by Men. . 120
Summary........................................ 122 VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . 124 Summary........................................ 124 Conclusions................................... 126 Recommendations forFuture Studies .............. 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY........ '......................... 132 APPENDIX . . ...
............................ 146
viii
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
TABLE
I
Pupils Taught by Men and by Women According ........... 54 to Class and Sex.
II
Age, Training, and Experience According to the Sex of the Teacher. ....................35
III
The Mean Score for Each Variable, and Fiducial Limits at the One Per Cent Level ................. 46 of Confidence
IV
Standard Deviations for Each Variable of the Sample, and Fiducial Limits at the One Per Cent Level of Confidence • • • • • ....................46
V
Intelligence Scores on the Otis QuickScoring Mental Ability Tests, Beta T e s t ............... . 4 8
VI
Ages in Months According to the Sex of the Student . . • • • • • • • • • ................ . . 4 9
VII VIII IX X
Academic Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the GarretsonSymonds Interest Questionnaire. . . . .
51
Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Sims Score Card for SocioEconomic Status. ......... 52 Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the California Test of Personality • • • • . • • • • . . . . . • 5 3 Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the SelfAdjustment SubTest of the California Test of Personality . . . . • • • • • ..................
54
XI
Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Social Adjustment SubTest of the California Test of Personality . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . 5 5
XII
Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the ColvinSchrammel Algebra Achievement Test. . . . . . . . 5 6
XIII
Marks Assigned to Boys and Girlsby Men and Women Teachers of Beginning Algebra . . . . . . .
57
TABLE
PAGE
XIV
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Tests, Beta Test . . 60
XV
Mean Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the ColvinSchrammel Algebra Achievement Test, Form A. . . . 62
XVI
Differences and Critical Ratios between Marks Assigned to Boys and Girls by Teachers of Beginning Algebra . . .......................... 64
XVII
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Sims SocioEconomic Score Card . .• . • .................... 65
XVIII
XIX
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the GarretsonSymonds Interest Questionnaire. ......................
67
Differences and Critical Ratios between Ages of Boys and Girls...................................68
XX
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the California Test of Personality................................ 69
XXI
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the SelfAdjustment SubTest of the California Test ofPersonality. . 71
XXII
Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Social Adjustment SubTest of the California Test of Personality. • 72
XXIII
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients on all Variables for all Students....................... 79
XXIV
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients Seven Variables for all Girls
among the ........... 81
XXV
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients Seven Variables for all Boys.
among the ......... 82
XXVI
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients among the Seven Variables for all Students Taught by Men. . 83
XXVII
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients among the Seven Variables for all Students Taught by Women. 84
XXVIII
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients among the Seven Variables for all Girls and all Boys x
TABLE
PAGE Taught by Men . . . . . . . ......................85
XXIX
XXX
XXXI
XXXII
XXXIII
XXXIV
Zero Order Correlation Coefficients among the Seven Variables for all Girls and all Boys Taught by Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement and between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement with Intelligence Held Constant..................
91
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement and between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement with Personality Held C o n s t a n t .............. ..
93
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement and between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement with SocioEconomic Status Held Constant........
94
Coefficients of Correlationbetween Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement and between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement with Interest Held Constant. ......... . . . ,
95
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement and between Teachers’ Marks and Algebra Achievement with Age Held Constant ..........
97
XXXV
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers* Marks and SocioEconomic Status, between Teachers’ Marks and SocioEconomic Status with Intelligence Held Constant, and between Teachers’ Marks and SocioEconomic Status with Intelligence and Algebra Achievement Held Constant . . . . . . 98
XXXVI
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Personality, between Teachers' Marks and Personality with Intelligence Held Constant, and between Teachers' Marks and Personality with Intelligence and Algebra Achievement Held Constant. .............................. .100
XXXVII
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Interest, between Teachers’ Marks and Interest with Intelligence Held Constant, and between Teachers’ Marks and Interest with Intelligence and Algebra Achievement Held Constant.
xi
TABLE XXXVIII
.
PAGE
Coefficients of Correlation between Teachers’ Marks and Age, between Teachers’ Marks and Age with Intelligence Held Constant, and between Teachers’ Marks and Age with Intelligence and Algebra Achievement Held Constant. . . ........
102
XXXIX
Multiple Correlation Coefficients, Rq#125456 ? for both Boys and Girls Taught by both Men and Women. ...........................105
XL
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables on all Students ...........108
XLI
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for all G i r l s .............. 110
XLII XLIII
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for all Boys. . . . . . . . .
Ill
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for all Students Taught by Women .........................
113
XLIV
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for all Students Taught by Men . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . 114
XLV
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for Girls Taught by Women . . 116
XLVI
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for Girls Taught by Men . . . 117
XLVII
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for Boys Taught by Women. . . 119
XLVIII XLIX L LI
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for Boys Taught by Men. . . .
120
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 1 ...........
147
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 2 ...................
148
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 3 . . . ...............
149
LII
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 4 ...................... 150
LIII
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 5 . . . • • • • ......... 151
xii
TABLE LIV LV LVI LVII
PAGE Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 6 . . . ..................
152
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 7 . . . ..................
153
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 8 . . . . . . ............
154
Scores of Individual Students on Each of the Seven Variables, Class 9 9 ...........
155
xiii
CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS With the rapid development of objective testing procedures in the United States, it was to be expected that there would be numerous investigations concerning teachers* marks.
Mathematics,
traditionally a subject which lends itself to objective measure ment, has come in for its share of these investigations.
There
have been investigations concerned with the reliability of teachers marks assigned to students in elementary school arithmetic.
There
have been similar studies concerned with the marks assigned by teachers of plane geometry.
Studies concerned with the validity
of teachers* marks, on the other hand, have been practically neglected. In addition, a great many studies have been concerned with the study of sex differences in almost all of the traditional school subjects.
These studies reveal that, on the whole, girls
excel in general school achievement.^
Also, sex differences
have been found in the expressed preferences for different school subjects among elementary and high school students.2
In regard to
1.
A. Anastasi and J. P. Foley, Jr., Differential Psychology. p. 660.
2.
L. Carmichael (ed.), Manual of Child Psychology,
p. 964.
school progress, girls are consistently more successful than boys. The differences, although small, appear irrespective of the partic ular criterion of school progress employed.
Girls are less fre
quently retarded, more frequently accelerated, and promoted in larger numbers than boys. In most school situations, achievement is measured in terms of teachers1 ratings.
School progress generally is based on the
ratings assigned by teachers.
It seems imperative that teachers'
marks be investigated to determine whether the sex of the student, when compared to the sex of the teacher, is a factor in determining the validity of teachers' marks. Statement of the Problem The problem is to investigate variables in pupils, other than mental ability, which enter into the assignment of marks by teachers of beginning algebra.
The investigation will determine
the effect of socioeconomic status, interest, and individual differences in personality of boys and girls in relationship to the assigned marks.
The investigation will ^iso determine whether
or not teachers tend to favor one sex and whether the sex favored tends to be determined by the sex of the teacher. The investigation is organized with reference to a solution of the following four subproblems: 1. With intelligence held constant, what is the relationship between standardized achievement test scores and marks assigned by teachers? 2. With intelligence held constant, what is the relationship between sex of the student and sex of the teacher in the assignment of marks?
5 5. What is the relative influence of the pupil’s age, interest, and various intellectual, social, and personality traits on teachersT marks? 4. What is the potency and significance of these factors in the assignment of marks by women teachers as compared to men teachers? Delimitations of the Problem 1.
It is not within the scope of this study to discuss
the educational philosophy underlying the giving or not giving of marks. 2.
This study is limited to a sampling of students enrolled
for the first time in beginning algebra. 5. classes; 4.
It is limited to a study of nine beginning algebra four taught by women and five taught by men. Teachers’ marks are limited to a study of the first
semester marks recorded on the permanent records kept in the office of the principal.
Teachers are not aware of the true nature of the
study, nor are they aware that marks assigned by them are subject to investigation. 5.
The investigation is limited to a selection of variables
usually considered to be measurable objectively. 6.
The term achievement, as used in this investigation,
will refer only to the score made on the standardized algebra achievement test. Definition of Terms Factor.
as used in this study, means any element or
constituent that contributes to produce a result.
It is not to
be confused with the term factor as used in the statistical process known as factor analysis.
It denotes the elements or
4 constituents that are measured by the tests used in the investigation. 2.
Mental ability is defined as the scre obtained on the
OtisQuick Scoring Cental Ability test.
It is synonymous with
test intelligence. 3.
Marks are defined as numerical values assigned by
teachers at the end of the first semester to indicate the teacher’s judgment of the level of performance in algebra of the pupils in his class, 4.
Standard!zed test, as used in this investigation, refers
to a device which has been constructed to .ensure objectively the level of performance in a specific academic or intellectual area. It is accompanied by instructions for its administration, as well as with keys for scoring, and norms for the proper interpretation and evaluation of the scores. 5.
Validity is defined as ’’the guarantee of genuineness
of verity”^ or restated, validity is an evaluation of the extent to which ’’any finding (as defined) is what it purports to be, an authentic representation of the defined facts in the matter,"2 Validity is primarily an act of judgment, in that the validity is measured by comparing one device with a standard or criterion. For this study, the criterion of validity will be the scores made by pupils on a staiidardized algebra achievement test.
The
 marks in beginning algebra which the teacher gives will be judged
1.
W. Burton, ’’Some klotes on Validity,” Journal of Educational Research. 3£ (1939), pp. 605607,
2.
Ibid.. p. 605
5
valid to the degree to which they approximate the test scores. •P~' 6. Reliability is the term associated with the concep of consistency or dependability.
An instrument is reliable
to the extent to which it will give identical or similar results upon repetition under the same or similar conditions. mark is reliable if it is consistent.
A teacher’s
A student working under
precisely the same conditions should get the same grade, if marked by the
same teacher at different times,or by a group of
at the
same time.
teachers
Significance of the Problem The primary significance of the problem is found in the almost universal use of marks in the public school systems of the United States.
By the use of one device or another, teachers do
express their judgments of the level of achievement exhibited by the various members of their classes.
The marks assigned by
teachers will, in many instances, influence the future school careers of the pupils who receive those marks.
In other cases,
teachers’ marks are used in connection with the grouping schedules. Children are often accelerated or retarded in grade progress on the basis of teachers* marks.
Various honors, presented at
graduation time, are based largely on teachers’ ratings.
Teachers’
marks are used as one of the criteria to determine who shall be admitted to affect
study at the college level.
In other words, marks may
a child’s future academic training as well
occupation.
as his choice of
There is, therefore, a definite need for a lucid and
objective evaluation of teachers’ marks in terms of validity.
6 A lack of specific definition of terms related to this problem has led to errors of interpretation that have been fairly common to studies in the past.
Our attitudes toward marks have
been greatly influenced by past investigations which have shown in many cases teachers1 marks to be unreliable and in some cases invalid.
Daniel Starch1 pointed out that there are large inequal
ities in the standards employed by different teachers.
An identi
cal paper marked by various teachers resulted in marks varying as much as sixty per cent (papers marked on the basis of 100).
The
method used by Starch, and followed by many other investigators, yields results which evaluate or reflect the degree of reliability of the assigned marks rather than their validity.
There is a
definite need to view teachers’ marks with an eye to validity, and not to confuse validity evaluation with criteria of reliability. There is a scarcity of investigations of the validity of teachers’ marks in beginning algebra.
Most studies devoted to the
question of teachers’ marks have been carried out with respect to elementary school arithmetic or with plane geometry.
The latter,
usually an elective subject, is not necessarily subject to the same factors in teachers’ assignment of marks.
Of the research in the
elementary school field, a great portion is devoted to a discussion of sundry philosophical aspects of the question or an evaluation of the theoretical implications of marks in general.
1.
D. Starch, ’’Reliability and Distribution of Grades,” Psychological Bulletin. 1915, pp. 1074.
7
Organization of the Report In Chapter II is presented a brief history of teachers' marks to provide the research setting for the immediate problem at hand.
Competent writers have touched on this subject at one time
or another.
A complete review of all literature concerning the
subject would be an endless task;
consequently, only selections
which reflected experimental evidence were chosen.
In Chapter III
is presented an account of the selection of the materials and the subjects used.
A description of the tests, together with the method
of determination of the sample, will also be found in this chapter. In Chapter IV are presented the results of the testing program.
In
Chapter V are presented an analysis and an interpretation 6f the statistical data.
Also in this chapter is presented the relation
ship between the teachers' marks and the various other variables under consideration in this report.
Chapter VI consists of the
summary and the conclusions deduced from the materials collected and presented in the complete report.
CHAPTER II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In the presentation of the previous research hearing on the present problem, an attempt will be made to deal w i t h the various studies under the following classifications;
(1) studies
recording the consistency or reliability of groups of teachers marking the same paper;
(2) studies questioning or advocating
the use of the normal frequency curve as a means of distributing grades;
(3) studies reporting sex differences in secondary
school mathematics;
and, (4) studies reporting the assignment
of marks by teachers on the basis of sex differences.
All of
these classifications are related to the present problem.
They
are introduced for the purpose of providing the research setting for the problem at hand. In the literature there are found some studies in which the terms reliability and validity are confused.
The present
study is concerned with the problem of the validity of teachers' marks.
A clear distinction between the validity and reliability
of teachers' marks must be established.
The second classification,
studies involving the use of the normal curve, pertains to a method used by some teachers for the assignment of marks.
This
would, of course, be a factor to be considered in any investi gation of problems concerned with the assignment of marks by
9 teachers.
The other two classifications, sex differences in sec
ondary school mathematics and marks assigned by teachers on the basis of sex differences, pertain directly to the problem at hand.
Historically, in the studies reported in the literature
these two variables have been investigated separately in indi vidual studies.
In the present problem the sex of the teacher
and the sex of the student are considered as two variables in the same problem. Investigations on Reliability of Teachers* Marks One device frequently used for inquiry into the ability of teachers to grade consistently student*s paper is reproduced teachers to mark.
has been a method by which a
and given to a number of different
In 1913, Daniel Starch1 published the first in
a series of papers on the variability and reliability of grades at the high school level.
He had 142 teachers grade two English
papers and 118 teachers grade one geometry paper. graded on the basis of 100.
Papers were
His results were reported as follows:
English Paper A English Paper B Geometry Paper
Range 6498$ P.E. 4.0 Range 5098$ P.E. 4.8 Range 2892$ P.E. 7.5
Starch concluded that ’'apparently mathematical papers are not marked w i t h mathematical precision any more than any other paper. **^
Starch measured the variability of teachers’ marks
1.
D. Starch, "Reliability and Distribution of Grades," Psychological Bulletin. 10 (1913), pp. 1074.
2.
D. Starch, Educational Psychology,
p. 521.
10 adequately.
However, an important factor frequently overlooked
is that the teachers were marking papers, not students.
It is
questionable whether conclusions pertaining to marks a teacher gives to a pupil, based upon daily observations supported b y a number of examinations, are valid when based upon experimentation and research of this kind. Many investigators used the same method as Starch to arrive at some questionable conclusions.
Beatty,
for example,
quoted this type of evidence to show the lack of validity of teachers* marks.
He sometimes used the terms reliability and
validity interchangeably.
According to the definitions accepted
in the field of measurement, these investigations can yield re sults relevant only to reliability, and even in this area there exist the same limitations pointed out in connection with the work by Starch. Bolton has boldly denied that teachers show marked lack of uniformity in marking papers.^
His evidence was based upon
an investigation which he conducted together with a reexamination of a minor study by Starch.
Bolton* s experiment was very well
conceived except that it did not parallel the work of Starch, nor were his statistical procedures the best that could be employed. Bolton had a number of sixth grade arithmetic teachers con struct examinations and administer them.
By a sampling process he
1.
W.S. Beatty, "Objectifying School Marks," American School Board Journal. 87 (1933), pp. 2728.
2.
F.E. Bolton, "Do Teachers* Marks Vary as Much as is Supposed?" Education. 48 (1927), pp. 2338.
11 selected the results for twentyfour pupils. then graded by twentytwo teachers.
These papers were
Bolton’s point of view, which
guided
his
paradigm for the investigation,
in his
own
words.
can best be expressed
Speaking of the type of teachers used bypre
vious investigators, he says: They vary in experience; their everyday work may vary from teaching beginners to read to admin istering a school system with a hundred teachers; some teach one subject, some many others; some have had real professional training, some absolutely none. Possibly not one tenth of those marking the papers have had experience in marking papers in that subject, and many are so rusty in the facts of that subject as not to know the answers to the questions themselves. While it is possible that Bolton’s statements may be true in some cases, the assertion that ninetenths of the teachers taking part in the experiments of Starch were incompetent is gross misrepresentation.
Starch used 142 English and geometry teachers
selected from the North Central Association under instructions to have the grading done by the principal teacher of the subject. The principal objection to Bolton’s procedure and his conclusions rests in his choice of statistical methods.
He aver
aged the marks of the twentytwo teachers for each of the twentyfour papers.
He next found the average of the deviations about
such averages. There is, of course, no objection to the use of averages and average deviations from such averages as a statistical pro cedure unless the choice of such a method of interpretation is questioned.
1*
After all, the range between the highest and lowest
Ibid.. p. 24
12 marks given an individual paper may be the important factor, not the fact that the average deviations about the averages of twentytwo teachers is fairly small. ly twentyfive points.
The median of the ranges is rough
In about half the cases the most lenient
teacher marked from twentyfive to fortyfive points higher than the most severe one. The data do not seem to support Bolton’s statement,
”A
glance at the distribution.... .of variations from the average discredits entirely the assertion that there is no uniformity of m a r k s . B o l t o n shifted the argument from the idea of extreme differences (ranges) to deviations about an average.
This is
defensible, of course, speaking purely statistically, but the fact remains that his interpretation is not comparable to that of Starch.
When comparable treatments are made, the differences
between Bolton and Starch are not so very great.^ Using the Hudelson English Composition Scale, Hulton® selected five compositions to be graded by English teachers. Changing the order of presentation, he had the same teachers mark the same papers two months later.
He found teachers to be
inconsistent in giving either high or low grades.
Fifteen
teachers showed a shift in Judgment that could have changed the paper from a passing grade on the first test to a failing grade on the second.
On such examinations, teachers could not
1.
Ibid.. p. 28.
2.
G. M. Ruch, The Objective or New Type E x a m i n a t i o n ,
3.
C. E. Hulton, "The Personal Element in Teachers* Marks,” Journal of Educational Research. (1925), pp. 4955.
p. 88.
13
consistently agree with other teachers or with themselves.
He
concluded that teachers* marks are mere guesses. Wood1 made a study of algebra and geometry papers of the June, 1921,
examination of the College Entrance Examination Board.
The scoring
on these exams was so unreliable that if 10,000 can
didates had
been tested on two consecutive days on two equivalent
forms of the same test and
approximately thirtyper cent had been
failed, 1279 of the 3000 who failed on the first test would have passed on the second day and 1279 of the 7000 who passed on the first day would have failed on the second day.
In other words,
the reliability of grading these examinations was so low that 2558 could not be accurately placed by either passing or failing. In a study reported in 1924, Trabue2 showed that the per centage of failing grades assigned by teachers in five high schools of New Jersey ranged from eight per cent to twentyseven per cent. He examined the failure lists of five high schools and found that two schools reported eight per cent failures. reported twelve per cent failures. fourteen per cent failures.
One other school
Still a fourth school reported
The fifth school reported that twenty
seven per cent of its students failed.
He concluded that the
differences between eight and twentyseven could not be due to differences in general character of the schools nor to differences in ability of the pupils, but that the differences had to be interpreted in terms of the fact that "failures” was defined in
1.
B. D. Wood, Measurement in Higher Education,
2.
*11. H. Trabue, Measuring Results ia Education,
p. 193. p. 43.
14 various ways. In a survey of the schools of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, in 1929,1 it was found that the failures varied from 19.51 per cent to 1.07 per cent in the elementary school.
In the high school
it was found that physics, Virgil, and clothing reported no fail ures, while 4.06 per cent of the plane geometry students failed, and 17.07 per cent failed commercial arithmetic.
It might be
asked why more children should fail in one subject than in anoth er if the work were adjusted to the level at which it was taught. Rinsland^ presented to 111 of his students who had taught arithmetic a mimeographed copy of 10 problems and one child* s solution of these problems.
The students were instructed to
grade each problem on the basis of 10 points.
The range on the
total grade was from 21 per cent to 88 per cent.
The greatest
agreement, and then by only 10 teachers, was at 50 per cent. Problem number one was graded from 0 per cent to 10 per cent. Rinsland pointed out that teachers differ on grades to be assigned because they do not agree on what to count;
neither can
they agree on number of points or weights to be assigned to the things they do count.
He also pointed out that teachers have
different standards of severity and leniency, and that even the same teacher has different standards on different occasions. These differences can be accounted for by factors of fatigue,
1.
E. Collins, et al. Report of the Bartlesville Survey. (Mimeographed Edition, Vol. I V ) . Board of Education, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 1929, pp. 2529.
2.
H. D. Rinsland, Constructing Tests and Grading,
p. 6.
15 personality,
effort, and industry, either on the part of the stu
dent or the teacher.
He also stated that when all studies have
been examined, it must be admitted that both the grading of an i n dividual paper and the whole grading system are subjective, unre liable, and unfair. Finlcelstein1 tried a different paradigm to investigate the reliability of teachers* marks.
Using the same students, he re
versed teachers at the end of the first semester.
On the basis of
the number of persons exempted from taking the final examinations, he concluded that teachers* marks are not reliable.
During the
first semester, with teacher number one, only 12.5 per cent of the students were rated high enough to be exempted from the final ex amination.
When teacher number two was assigning the marks, the
percentage had risen to 37.5 per cent.
The investigator is forced
to be somewhat skeptical of the results, however, in view of the fact that no mention was made of the relative ability of the teachers, nor was the factor of motivation investigated.
Either
or both of these factors may have contributed to the differences. On the basis of the evidence at hand, it must be concluded that teachers* marks are unreliable. found in the grading system.
Two serious errors are
First, different teachers have dif
ferent standards of severity and leniency. not consistent with themselves.
Second, teachers are
It must be concluded that teach
ers* marks are subjective, that type of subject matter is not a
1.
E. E. Finkelstein, **The Marking System in Theory and Practice,** Educational Psychology Monograph. 10 (1913), pp. 183.
16 respectable criterion to insure reliability, and that though cor relations computed from testretest situations give positive co efficients, the coefficients are low enough to evaluate teachers* marks as mere guesses. Normal Curve Inve sti gati ons For many years the desirability of using the normal fre quency curve as a means of assigning marks has been a point of lively disagreement.
This method has been defended by capable
advocates for its adoption while being attacked by equally astute opponents. Due to the widespread dissatisfaction with grades as given, the use of the normal curve was turned to as a possible means of improvement. agreement;
Rugg,1 defending its use, reported one point of namely, the need to overhaul thoroughly the methods by
which the outcomes of instruction are measured in the public school.
The agreement on this point, however, was not accompanied
by anything approaching agreement when the methods for remedying the situation were advanced.
Even among those who advocated the
use of the normal curve, there were conflicting views as to ex actly which percentages were to fall into each division of the scale.
For example, Starch2 advocated a five point scale, to
which most investigators were willing to agree.
His proposal
1.
H. 0. Rugg, "Teachers* Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System,** Elementary School Journal. 18 (1918), pp. 701719.
2.
D. Starch, "Reliability and the Distribution of Grades," Science. 38 (1913), pp. 630636.
17 involved giving 7 per cent A fs, 24 per cent B*s, 38 per cent C Ts, 24 per cent D*s, and 7 per cent F*s.
In the numerous studies to
be found dealing with the proportional distribution of the various grades,
systems have been set forth advocating as low as 3 per
cent or as high as 10 per cent A ’s with corresponding shifts along the scale. A much more fundamental disagreement than the distribution of grades is the question as to whether the normal curve should be used.
Cajori^ quoted many investigators who favored the use of
the normal curve.
He indicated that Foster,8 Huey,3 Judd,^
Smith,5 Starch,6 and Steele^ all favored the use of the normal curve.
However, almost all authorities advocated a modified or
qualified use of this method of distributing grades.
Cajori, for
example, proposed an involved procedure of tentative ratings, r e visions of these ratings on a basis of weights and formulas, and
1.
F. Cajori, "A New Marking System and Means of Measuring Mathematical Ability,” Science. 39 (1914), pp. 874881.
2.
W. F. Foster, "Scientific Distribution of Grades at College," Science. 35 (1912), pp. 887889.
3.
E. B. Huey, "Retardation and the Mental Examination of Retarded Children," Journal of PsvchoAsthenics. 15 (1910), pp. 3143.
4.
C. H. Judd, "On the Comparison of Grading Systems in High School and Colleges," School Review. 18 (1910), pp. 460470.
5.
A. G. Smith, "A Rational Marking System," Journal of Educa tional Psychology. 2 (1911), pp. 383393.
6.
D. Starch, "Reliability and Distribution of Grades," Science. 38 (1913), pp. 630636.
7.
A. G. Steele, "Training Teachers to Grade," Pedagogical Seminary. 18 (1911), pp. 523531.

I
f
Reed
18
then the application of the normal curve.
Smith stated that the
use of the curve could only be valid after a careful study and definition of the areas to be used.
Steele agreed with Smith, but
added that marks should be weighted according to which teacher has given them.
Walls^ concluded that the use of the normal curve
gives more valid results if the cumulative returns of a numberof years are considered.
Rugg2 suggested that a five point scale be
used, that teachers substitute clear word statements for obtuse literal or numerical symbolism, and that they apply the normal curve only when the group used is greater than 100. The investigators considered thus far favored the general use of the normal curve, although they often differed in the con ditions which they maintained are necessary for the successful application of the principle.
There was a group, however, that
felt that the principle itself was unsound, or that the conditions under which it must be applied made it an impractical device for rz
educational purposes.
Edmiston
group is normally distributed.
objected to its use unless the This condition rarely exists.
Where homogeneous grouping is the rule, the normal distribution
1.
W. A. Walls, "Variability of Grades Assigned to Pupils by Teachers," American School Board Journalf 50 (1915), pp. 866.
2.
H. 0. Rugg, "Teachers1 Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System," Elementary School Journal. 18 (1919), pp. 701719.
3.
R. W. Edmiston, "A Method of Providing a More Valid Distri bution of School Marks," Journal of Experimental Education. 3 (1935), pp. 194197.
19 would be entirely invalidated,
Davis^ felt that the use of the
normal curve embraced the possibility of too many failures.
He
pointed out that the distribution showing six per cent F Ts would result in approximately half of the college population failing
g over a four year period.
Pressey
demonstrated that there is not
a normal distribution of grades, nor should it be expected.
He
pointed out that there cannot be a system of marking which has five critical points if the average school has only one critical point, namely, the passing mark.
He also called attention to the fact
that even if capacity were normally distributed, incentive and teachers* application are not so distributed. The contention is that a normal distribution of work in a class is to be expected only when there is an even or normal distribution of incentives..• Poor children were being helped to do average per formance, and the very good children were given almost no attention. On the basis of these factors, he concluded that the normal curve could not be used, and under the present conditions, one should not expect it to be used. Niessen4 pointed out that several factors contribute to a skewed distribution in a classroom.
1.
2.
Some of these factors consid
J. D. Davis, "The Effect of the 62244226 Normal Curve System on Failures and Grade Values," Journal of Educa tional Psychology. 22 (l93l), pp. 636640. S. L. Pressey, "Fundamental Misconceptions Involved i n Current Marking Systems," School and Society. 21 (1925), pp. 736738.
3*
Ibid.. p. 736.
4.
A. M. Niessen, "Marking on a Curve," School Science and Mathematics. 46 (1946), pp. 155158.
so ered in connection with this problem involved numerous personal factors in the classroom which prevent a normal or random sampling. The class represents a select group;
this is especially true the
farther the sample is removed from the elementary level.
Since it
is presupposed that the teacher makes a selection of the material to be taught, the tests used are not applicable to the normal distribution since the teacher also makes out the test.
He is in
favor of the complete abolition of attempting to grade on the normal curve. Beck1 pointed out that since classes have fewer than 40 students, every class cannot be expected to follow the normal curve, even if students have enrolled on a chance basis. dition to enrollment, other factors influence the result.
In ad Grad
uation requirements and choice of majors often limit chance se lection;
the difficulty of certain courses may cause some poor
students to avoid them, and this in turn will also prevent chance enrollment of students.
He made a significant closing statement:
The concept that one should gain from a study of chance and coincidence in accepting the curve as an ideal in grading is that no hard and fast rule can be followed based on a certain per cent for each letter grade in every class regardless of size. Regardless of this conclusion, one should also note that there are never more A Ts and F fs in a class than C fs on the basis of chance. If a teacher will follow test results and yet try to construct tests that will at least give a distribution of scores which resembles the normal curve, he will soon have less false pride in his abil ity to determine accurately the number of A ’s in each of his classes. He will also discover that the practice of assigning an arbitrary percentage for each letter
1.
R. L. Beck, "Chance, Coincidence, and Normal Curve," School and Society. 68 (1948), pp. 523526.
21 grade in every class does not have scientific justi fication. One might add that registrars and personnel directors will then have grades with more meaning."1 The evidence has been summed up by Tiegs^ i n these terms: In using this (normal curve) concept in marking, how ever., we must not forget that we are assuming a rela tionship that does not always exist, to any marked extent, and, if this fact is kept in mind, a purely mechanical and often unintelligent use of the normal curve concept, which so often leads to error and dis satisfaction in marking, may be avoided. Sex Differences in Secondary School Mathematics The investigations generally indicate that boys apparently reach higher levels of achievement in mathematics than girls of the same grade, age, and mental ability.
Outstanding pioneer
studies were those of Frailey^ and Minnick,^ made i n 1914 and 1915 respectively.
Frailey observed the grades made by two groups,
equated on the basis of having studied the subject at the same time, years of schooling, and instructors, as they passed through the Urbana High School, Urbana, Illinois.
He concluded that the
average girl is as good a student in algebra and geometry as the average boy, perhaps a little better;
the boys are more likely
1.
Ibid.. p. 325.
2.
E. W, Tiegs, Tests and Measurements for Teac h e r s .
3.
Loc. cit.
4.
L. E. Frailey and C. M. Crain, "Correlations of Excellence in Different School Subjects Based on a Study of School Grades," Journal of Educational Psychology. 5 (1914), pp. 141151.
5.
J. H. Minnick, "Comparative Study of Mathematical Ability of Boys and Girls," School Review. 23 (1915), pp. 7384.
p. 179.
22 to rank at the top or bottom of the scale.
Minnick compared the
marks of 150 boys and 243 girls made in the four years at Bloom ington, Indiana, High School. er percentage of failing marks.
The boys received a slightly high Girls were found to make higher
marks than boys in other subjects. Butler,^ in an investigation made in 1936, found among 1,377 pupils in grades seven, eight, and nine, in nine different schools differing in size and type of organization, that boys surpassed girls slightly in their mastery of mathematical concepts as judged by Schorling»s tests of mathematical concepts. p
In 1927 Webb
compared the achievement on the Webb Geom
etry Tests of 439 girls and 410 boys in five large high schools in or near Los Angeles, California— the two sex groups being chosen so as to be of equivalent average I. Q. based upon the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability.
Apparently no differences were
observed between conditions of instruction or teaching.
Boys
were found to be superior to girls by amounts clearly not at tributable to chance
(3.3 to 3.9 times the S. D. of difference).
The difference is most marked at lower levels of mental age, girls of the mental age of 18.6 and more being slightly superior to boys of the same age.
Girls were found to be more variable in their
achievement than boys.
1.
C. H. Butler, "Mastery of Certain Mathematical Concepts by Pupils at Junior High School Level," Mathematics Teacher. 25 (1932), pp. 117172.
2.
P. E. Webb, "A Study of Geometric Abilities among Boys and Girls of Equal Mental Ability," Journal of Educational Research. 15 (1927), pp. 256262.
23 Employing practically the same procedure as Webb, Foran and O’Hara^* in 1335 found that 486 boys in the Catholic High Schools of an eastern city made higher achievement scores than 501 girls of equal intelligence as measured by the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability.
On the four parts of the Webb Geometry
Test the differences favoring the boys were easily statistically reliable, and on the other the difference was 1.36 times as great as the standard error of the difference.
The superiority
of the boys was found at all levels of intelligence.
The scores
of the girls represented a greater variability than those of the boys. In the field of algebra, Pease^ found in 1930 that boys in the high schools of Oskaloose, Albia, and Charles City, Iowa, and Marshall, Mississippi, made fewer errors per 100 problems in only one case, that of horizontal addition of literal numbers. In all other parts of the test, the girls held the advantage over the boys in terms of correct solving of the problems.
The average
boy made 163.77 errors, to 142.81 per average girl. These results agree with those reported by Perry3 in 1929 but not with those by Touton4 in 1924.
Touton reported from a
1.
T. G. Foran and (Brother) C. O ’Hara, "Differences in Achieve ment in High School Geometry," School Review. 43 (1935), pp. 357362.
2.
G. R. Pease, "Sex Differences in Algebraic Ability,” Journal of Educational Psychology. 21 (1930), pp. 712714.
3.
W, M. Perry, "Are Boys Excelling Girls i n Geometric Learning," Journal of Educational Psychology. 20 (1929), pp. 270279.
4.
C. Touton, "Sex Differences in Geometric Ability," Jour nal of Educational Psychology. 15 (1924), pp. 234247.
24 study of the achievement of 2800 New York High School pupils on a test involving "original" proofs that the median score of the boys was higher than that of the girls, that they made more perfect scores, and that, in general, boys were less variable than girls. Perry reported that girls in her study reached a higher degree of achievement in the solution of exercises in geometry. Book,^ reporting in 1928, stated that scores made on Test III showed boys far superior to girls.
This part of the test
called for the exercise of all common arithmetical abilities and for information on all sorts of things which had been experienced by each sex* from 9 to 25.
Boys clearly excelled the girls on every age level Boys at every age from 16 to 23 made a higher total
score on the test than did the girls.
From 9 to 15 this condition
was reversed. Eells and Fox>^ reporting in 1932, also found boys superior to girls in achievement in high school mathematics among 6,000 first year students in California Junior Colleges.
While boys
made slightly superior scores on the American Council on Education Psychological Examination (138.0 to 136.8), they made greatly superior scores on the mathematics section of the Iowa High School Contest Examination (34.74 to 25.20), a difference of 9.54.
When
groups of boys and girls, equalized as to age and high school
I
1.
W. F. Book and J. L. Meadows, "Sex Differences in 5,925 High School Seniors in Ten Psychological Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology. 12 (1928), pp. 5881.
2.
W. C. Eells and C. S. Fox, "Sex Differences in Mathematical Achievement of Junior College Students," Journal of Educational Psychology. 23 (1932). pp. 381386.
25 preparation, were selected for study there was still a distinct and significant superiority of boys.
An analysis of 100 papers
chosen at random indicated that boys attempted more problems, i.e., worked faster than girls. Stroud and Lindquist^ reported in 1942 that in the Iowa. Every Pupil Basic Skills Testing Program (Grades III to VIII) girls have maintained a constant, and on the whole,
significant superi
ority over boys in the subjects tested except i n arithmetic, where small, insignificant differences favor the boys.
However, in the
Iowa*Every Pupil High School Testing Program, the advantages have just as definitely gone to boys, two exceptions being in algebra and reading comprehension, where small, and on the whole, not sig nificant differences favor the girls. In an article published in 1955, Johnson2 found that 61 per cent of the boys and 29 per cent of the girls were in the upper half of their classes on the SonesHarry Achievement Test.
He was
unable to account for these differences by an investigation of intelligence since 51 per cent of the boys and 49 per cent of the girls were in the upper half of the distribution. Lobaugh3 investigated the scores made on the MyersRuch High
1.
J. B. Stroud and E. F. Lindquist, "Sex Differences in Achieve ment in Elementary and Secondary Schools," Journal of Educational Psychology. 53 (1942), pp. 657667.
2.
G. R. Johnson, "Girls Lead in Progress Through School," American School Board J o u r n a l . 115 (1935), pp. 4447.
3.
D, Lobaugh, "Girls and Grades: Significant Factor in Evaluation," School Science and Mathematics. 47 (1947), pp. 763774.
26 School Progress Test by all seniors in a large high school +85.35 x O ^ £> O with a standard error of estimate of ^6.19. The regression equation can offer a check on the accuracy
115
of the computations.
Taking a specific case and substituting the
values for the respective X values in the regression equation, the derived value should approximate the actual score, X^.
As an
example, subject number 32 in class number 91 possesses the fol lowing data:
X2 =
11
X1 = 106
16
65
X5 = 173
XQ = 120 X3 = 44 Substituting these values in the regression equation given above for all students taught by men (N equal to loo) XQ =
7 2,27
The actual mark in beginning algebra assigned by the teacher to student number 32 in class number 91 is 71.
Thus the value
"predicted" from the regression equation, 72.27, is only 1.27 points more than the actual mark assigned to the student. is possible to say, therefore, that
72,27
It
is the "best estimate"
that can be made for the X^ value. Regression Equation for Girls Taught by Women The data necessary for writing the regression equation for the girls taught by women (N equal to 42) are presented in ■ Table XLV.
Substituting the necessary values in the formula as
given above, the regression equation based on the data for all girls taught by women becomes Xq= .28Xq+.32Xg.40X3+. O2X4+. O2X5+. 15Xg+o8. 78 with a standard error of estimate of is,44.
113
TABLE XLV Beta C o ef fi ci en ts and Regression Coefficients for S e v e n Variables for Girls Taught by Women
N=42 Variable
x° X1
X2 x5 x4 x6 5
Mean
Teachers » Marks 86.71 Intelligence Test Scores 107.38 Achievement Scores CiQ .bo SocioEconomic Scores 42.71 Interest Scores 56.93 Age (in months) 171.81 Personality Test Scores 150.60
B Beta Coefficient
SD
b Regressi'. Coef ficii
8.67 9.14 7.19
.2991 .2652
.2837 .5198
9.57 11.13 16. 50
.4454 .0306 .0403
.4055 .0257 . O 1 1~
16.73
.2868
.1481
The regression equation can off^r a check on the accuracy of the computations.
Taking a specific case and substituting the
values for the respective X values in the regression equation, the derived value should approximate the actual score, Xq .
A s an
example, subject number 22 in class number 98 possesses the fol lowing data: Xi = 105
x4 =
x2 =
X5 = 165
30
53
X6 = 159 xs = 40 Substituting these values in the regression equation given above
for girls taught by women (N equal to 42) XQ = 84.99 The actual mark in beginning algebra assigned by the teacher to student number 22 in class number 98 is 83.
Thus the value
117
"predicted" from the regression equation, 84.99, is only 1.98 points more than the actual mark assigned to the student.
It
is possible to say, therefore, that 84.99 is the "best estimate" that can be made for the Xq value. Regression Equation for Girls Taught by Men The data necessary for writing the regression equation for the girls taught by men (N equal to 58) are presented in Table XLVI.
Substituting the necessary values in the formula TABLE XLVI
Beta Coefficients and Regression Coefficients for Seven Variables for Girls Taught by Men N=58 Variable xn xi
xP X3 x4 X8
Teachers’ Marks Intelligence Test Scores Achievement Scores SocioEconomic Scores Interest Scores Age (in months) Personality Test Scores
B Beta Coefficient
b Regression Coefficient
8.84 7.72
.2943 .4858
.2197 .4142
54.07 58.21 171.62
12.40 6.34
.0213 .1275 .3312
.0113 .0708 .3448
148.24
18.84
.1502
.0523
Mean
SD
79.50
6.60
108.90 29.16
11.88
as given above, the regression equation based on the data for girls taught by men becomes X0= .2 21i + .41X2.01X3+.07X4+. 34X5+ .Q5Xq25 .46 with a standard error of estimate of ±4.71.
113
The regression equation can offer a check on the accuracy of the computations.
Taking a specific case and substituting the
values for the respective X values in the regression equation, the derived value should approximate the actual score, Xq .
A s an
example, subject number 2 in class number 99 possesses the fol
=
X3 =
110 19
ii
II H
X
Xn
>
1 E 1 3 1 I
•op XjB9J noX s3uiqj joj q 9qj punoiE 9pjp b 95jeui uaqx ’op oj 92jq qonui Xj9a pjnoM jo 95ji[ noiC jBqj Suiqj qa*B9 joj q gqj punojE opjio e 95jBp\[ ;s9j siqj ui Suiqj q9E9 jb 3joo ;sjij S3IXIAI1DV 0NV S1S3831NI
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS After each o f the following questions, make On the next pages are more questions. a circle around the YES or NO. f For exam ple, if you have a dog at home The answers are not right or wrong, but m ake a circle around YES. D o the other two show what you think, how you feel, or what th e same way. you do about things. A . D o y o u have a dog at home? YES NO Go right on from one page to another until B. Can you drive a car? YES NO you have finished all of them. C. Did you go to school last Friday? YES NO — 2—
SECTION 1 B
SECTION 1 A
1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
Do you keep on working even if the job is hard? Is it hard for you to be calm when things go wrong? Does it usually bother you when people do not agree with you? When you are around strange people do you usually feel uneasy?
16. YES
NO
YES N O
17. 18.
YES N O
19. YES
NO
20.
Is it easy for you to admit it when you are in the wrong?
YES
NO
Do you have to be reminded often to finish your work?
YES
NO
21.
22.
Do you often think about the kind of work you want to do . when you grow up?
YES
NO
Do you feel bad when your classmates make fun of you?
YES
NO
23.
24. 9.
Is it easy for you.to meet or introduce people?
YES
NO
25. 10. 11.
12. 13.
Do you usually feel sorry for yourself when you get hurt?
26. YES
NO
Do you find that most people try to boss you?
YES
NO
Is it easy for you to talk to im portant people?
Do you usually finish the things that you start? Score Section 1 A..
27.
28. YES
YES
NO
Do you find that a good many people are mean?
YES
NO
Do most of* your friends seem to think that you are brave or strong?
YES
NO
Are you often asked to help plan parties?
YES
NO
Do people seem to think that you have good ideas?
YES
NO
Are your friends usually in terested in what you are doing?
YES
NO
Are people, often you?
YES
NO
Do your classmates seem to think you are as bright as they are?
YES
NO
Are the other students glad that you flre in their class?
YES
NO
Do both boys and girls seem to like you?
YES
NO
Do you have a hard time doing most of the things you try?
YES
NO
Do you feel that people do not treat youas well as they should?
YES
NO
Do many of the people you know seem to dislike you?
YES N O
Do people seem to think you are going to do well when you grow up?
YES
NO
Do you find that people do not treat you very well?
YES
NO
unfair to
NO
Do you find it easier to do what your friends plan than to make your own plans?
14. ' Do your friends often cheat you in games ? 15.
YES
Are you often invited to parties where both boys and girls are present?
NO
29. YES
NO
YES
NO
30.
Score Section 1 B.................
SE C T IO N 1 C
31. 32. 33.
SECTION 1 D
Are you allowed to say what you think about most things? Are you allowed your own friends?
35. 36.
37.
38.
YES NO
Are you allowed to do m any D o you feel that you are punished for too m any little things? D o you have enough spend ing money? Are you usually allowed to go to socials where both boys a n d girls are present? D o your folks usually let you help them decide about things?
40.
41.
43. 44.
NO
48. 49.
YES N O
50. YES N O
51. YES NO
YES NO
52.
53.
YES NO
Are you allowed to go to as m any shows and entertain m ents as your friends? YES NO D o you feel that your friends can do w hat th ey w ant to more than you can? YES NO
54.
55. 56.
D o you have enough tim e for p la y a n d fu n ?
42.
YES
47.
Are you scolded for things that d o n o t m a tte r m u ch ?
39.
NO
to choose
o f th e th in g s y o u w a n t to do?
34.
46. YES
YES NO
57.
D o you feel that you are not allowed enough freedom? YES NO D o your folks let you around w ith your friends?
58.
go YES NO
D o you help pick out your Own clothes? YES NO
59. 60.
45.
D o other people decide what you shall do m ost of the time? YES NO Score Section 1 C...............................
Do you find it hard to get acquainted with new stu dents?
YES NO
Are you considered as strong and healthy as your friends?
YES NO
Do you feel that you are liked by both boys and girls?
YES NO
Do most people seem to enjoy talking to you?
YES NO
Do you feel that you fit well into the school where you go?
YES NO
Do you have enough good friends?
YES NO
Do your friends seem to think that your folks are as success ful as theirs?
YES NO
Do you often feel that teachers would rather not have you in their classes?
YES NO
Are you usually invited to school and neighborhood parties?
YES NO
Is it hard for you to make friends?
YES NO
Do you feel that your class mates are glad to have you in school?
YES NO
Do members of the opposite sex seem to like you as well as they do your friends?
YES NO
Do your friends seem to want you with them?
YES NO
Do people at school usually pay attention to your ideas?
YES NO
Do the other boys and girls seem to have better times at home than you do?
YES NO
'
Score Section 1 D.....................................
— 4—
SECTION 1 F
SECTION 1 E
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Have you noticed that many people do and say mean things? YES Does it seem as if most people cheat whenever they can? Do you know people who are so unreasonable that you hate them? Do you feel that most people can do things better than you can? Have you found that many people do not mind hurting your feelings?
76.
67. 68.
and
77.
Do you have more problems to worry about than most boys or girls?
69. Do you often feel lonesome even with people around you? 70. Have you often noticed that people do not treat you as fairly as they should? 71. Do you worry a lot because you have so many problems? 72. Is it hard for you to talk to classmates of the opposite sex? 73. Have you often thought that younger boys and girls have a better time than you do? 74. Do you often feel like crying because of the way people neglect you? 75. Do too many people try to take advantage of you?
Do you sometimes when you get excited?
YES
stutter NO
YES NO
78. YES NO
YES NO
79. 80.
YES NO
Are you often not even at meal time?
YES NO
hungry
YES NO
81.
Do your eyes hurt often?
YES
82.
Do you often have to ask people to repeat what they just said? YES
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
Are you often bothered by headaches?
Do you usually find it hard to sit still?
social
Have you often felt that older people had it in for you?
YES NO
NO
66. Would you rather stay away from p arties affairs?
Do you frequently have sneez ing spells?
83. 84.
YES NO
YES NO
85.
Do you often forget what you are reading?
NO
NO
YES N O
Are you sometimes troubled because your musclestwitch? YES
NO
Do you find that many people do not speak clearly enough for you to hear them well?
YES NO
Are you troubled because of having many colds?
YES NO
Do most people consider you restless?
YES N O
Do you usually find it hard to go to sleep?
YES N O
Are you tired much of the time?
YES NO
Are you often troubled by nightmares or bad dreams?
YES N O
YES NO
86. YES NO
87. YES NO
88 . YES NO
89. YES NO
90. YES NO
Score Section 1 F........................................
Score Section 1 E...................
— 5—
SECTION 2 A
91.
92. 93. 94.
95. 96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102. 103.
104.
105.
Is it all right for one to avoid work that he does not have to to do? Is it always necessary to keep promises and appointments?
SECTION 2 B
106. NO YES
Is it necessary to be kind to people you do not like?
YES
NO
Is it alright to make fun of people who have peculiar notions?
YES
NO
Is it necessary to be courteous to disagreeable persons? Does a student have the right to keep the things that he finds? Should people have the right to put up “keep off the grass” signs Should a person always thank others for small favors even though they do not help any? Is it all right to take things that you really need if you have no money? Should rich boys and girls be treated better than poor ones?.
YES
NO
110. YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
112.
113.
NO
114.
NO
115. YES
NO
116. NO
Is it important that one be friendly to all new students?
YES
NO
Is it all right to make a fuss when your folks refuse to let you go to a movie or party?
111.
NO
YES
If you know you will not be caught is it ever all right to cheat?
108.
109.
Is it all right to laugh at people who are in trouble if they look funny enough?
When people have foolish beliefs is it all right to laugh at them?
107.
NO
117.
118. YES
NO
119. YES
NO
120 . YES
NO
Score Section 2 A..............................
When people annoy you do you usually keep it to your self?
YES NO
Is it easy for you to remember the names of the people you meet?
YES NO
Have you found that most people talk so much you have to interrupt them to get a word in edgewise?
YES
Do you prefer to have parties at your own home?
YES NO
Do you usually enjoy talking to people you have just met?
YES NO
Do you often find that it pays to help people?
YES NO
Is it easy for you to pep up a party when it is getting dull? 
YES NO
Can you lose games without letting people see that it bothers you?
YES NO
Do you often introduce people to each other?
YES NO
Do you find it hard to help plan parties and other socials?
YES NO
Do you find it easy to make new friends?
YES NO
Are you usually willing to play games at socials even if you haven’t played them be fore?
YES NO
Is it hard for you to say nice things to people when they have done well?
YES NO
Do you find it easy to help your classmates have a good time at parties?
YES NO
Do you usually talk to new boys and girls when you meet them?
YES NO
NO
Score Section 2 B............................................. —
6
—
SECTION 2 C
121. 122.
123. 124. 125.
126. 127. 128. 129.
130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135.
Do you have to get tough with some people in order to get a fair deal? Do you find that you are happier when you can treat unfair people as they really deserve? Do you sometimes need to show anger to get your rights? Do your classmates often force you to fight for things that are yours? Have you found that telling falsehoods is one of the easiest ways for people to get out of trouble? Do you often have to fight for your rights? Do your classmates often try to blame you for the quarrels they start? Do you often have to start a fuss to get what is coming to you? Do people at school sometimes treat you so badly that you feel it would serve them right if you broke some things? Do you find some people so unfair that it is all right to be mean to them? Do you often have to push younger children out of the way to get rid of them? Do some people treat you so mean that you call them names? Is it all right to take things away from people who are unfair? Do you disobey teachers or your parents when they are unfair to you? Is it right to take things when people are unreasonable in denying them?
SECTION 2 D
136. YES NO 137. YES NO
138. YES NO
YES NO
139. 140.
YES N O
141.
YES NO
142. YES NO
143. YES NO
144.
Are your folks fair about it when they make you do things?
YES
NO
Do you often times at home family?
YES
NO
Do you have good reasons for liking one of your folks better than the other?
YES
NO
Do your folks seem to think that you will be a success?
YES
NO
Do your folks seem to think you do your share at home?
YES
NO
Do your folks seem to feel that you are interested in the wrong things?
YES
NO
Do you and your folks agree about things you like?
YES
NO
Do members of your family start quarrels with you often?
YES
NO
Do you prefer to keep your friends away from your home because it is not attractive?
YES
NO
Are you often accused of not being as nice to your folks as you should be?
YES
NO
Do you have some of your fun when you are at home?
YES
NO
Do you find it difficult to please your folks?
YES
NO
Have you often felt as though you would rather not live at home?
YES
NO
Do you sometimes feel that no one at home cares about you?
YES
NO
Are the people in your home too quarrelsome?
YES
NO
have good with your
YES NO
145. YES NO
146. YES NO
147. YES NO
148. YES N O
149. YES NO
150. YES NO
Scgre Section 2 D..
Score Section 2 C...................
— 7—
SECTION 2 E
SEC TIO N 2 F
166.
1 51 .
H ave you found that your teachers understand you? YES NO
152 .
D o you like to go to school affairs with members of the opposite sex? YES NO
167.
Is some of your school work so hard that you are in danger of failing? YES NO
168.
H ave you often thought that some teachers care little about their students? YES NO
169.
153 .
1 54 .
155 .
156 .
157 . 1 58 .
159 .
160 .
161 .
D o some of the boys and girls seem to think that you do not play as fair as they do? YES NO Are some of the teachers so strict that it makes school work too hard? YES NO D o you enjoy talking with students of the oppositesex? YES NO H ave you often thought thdt some of the teachers are unfair? YES NO Are you asked to join in school games as much as you YES NO should be? Would you be happier in school if the teachers were YES NO kinder? D o you have better times alone than when you are with YES NO other boys and girls?
162 .
D o your classmates seem to YES NO like the way you treat them?
163 .
D o you think the teachers w ant boys and girls to enjoy YES NO each other’s company?
164 .
165 .
D o you have to keep away from some of your classmates because of the way they treat YES NO you? Would you stay away from YES NO school oftener if you dared?
170. 171.
Do you often visit at the homes of your boy and girl friends in your neighborhood? YES N O Do you have a habit of speak ing to most of the boys and YES NO girls in your neighborhood? Do most of the boys and girls near your home disobey the YES NO law? Do you play gam es with friends in your neighbor hood? YES NO Do any nice students of the opposite sex live near you? YES NO Are most of the people near your home the kind you can like? YES NO
172. Are there boys or girls of other races near your home whom you try to avoid? 173. Do you sometimes go to neigh borhood parties where both boys and girls are present? 174. Are there people in your neighborhood that you find it hard to like? 175. Do you have good tim es with the boys and girls near your home? 176. Are there several people living near you whom you would not care to visit? 177. Is it necessary to be nice to persons of every race? 178. Are there any people in your neighborhood so annoying that you would like to do something mean to them? 179. Do you like m ost of the boys and girls in your neighbor hood? 180. Do you feel that the place where you live is not very interesting? Score Section 2 F..
Score Section 2 E...................
—8—
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO YES n 6
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO