VARIABLES INVOLVED IN TEACHERS’ MARKS. AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF SOME NON-INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF MARKS BY TEACHERS

Citation preview

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 Non-Intellectual 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 whictn-may 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 Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test. . . . 35 Colvin-Schrammel Algebra T e s t ................ 36 California Test of Personality.

. . . . . . . 3 7

Sims Score Card for Socio-Economic Status . . 38

CHAPTER

PAGE Garretson-Symonds 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 Socio-Economic 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 Socio-Economic 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 Socio-Economic 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 Quick-Scoring 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 Garretson-Symonds Interest Questionnaire. . . . .

51

Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Sims Score Card for Socio-Economic 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 Sub-Test of the California Test of Personality . . . . • • • • • ..................

54

XI

Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Social Adjustment Sub-Test 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 Garretson-Symonds 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 Gi-rls on the Self-Adjustment Sub-Test of the California Test ofPersonality. . 71

XXII

Differences and Critical Ratios between Scores Made by Boys and Girls on the Social Adjustment Sub-Test 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 Socio-Economic 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 Socio-Economic Status, between Teachers’ Marks and Socio-Economic Status with Intelligence Held Constant, and between Teachers’ Marks and Socio-Economic 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 socio-economic 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 sub-problems: 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 sc-re obtained on the

Otis-Quick 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. 605-607,

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. 10-74.

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 64-98$ P.E. 4.0 Range 50-98$ P.E. 4.8 Range 28-92$ 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. 10-74.

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. 27-28.

2.

F.E. Bolton, "Do Teachers* Marks Vary as Much as is Supposed?" Education. 48 (1927), pp. 23-38.

11 selected the results for twenty-four pupils. then graded by twenty-two 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 nine-tenths 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 twenty-two 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 twenty-five points.

The median of the ranges is rough­

In about half the cases the most lenient

teacher marked from twenty-five to forty-five 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. 49-55.

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 twenty-seven 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 twenty-seven 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. 25-29.

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. 1-83.

16 respectable criterion to insure reliability, and that though cor­ relations computed from test-retest 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. 701-719.

2.

D. Starch, "Reliability and the Distribution of Grades," Science. 38 (1913), pp. 630-636.

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. 874-881.

2.

W. F. Foster, "Scientific Distribution of Grades at College," Science. 35 (1912), pp. 887-889.

3.

E. B. Huey, "Retardation and the Mental Examination of Retarded Children," Journal of Psvcho-Asthenics. 15 (1910), pp. 31-43.

4.

C. H. Judd, "On the Comparison of Grading Systems in High School and Colleges," School Review. 18 (1910), pp. 460-470.

5.

A. G. Smith, "A Rational Marking System," Journal of Educa­ tional Psychology. 2 (1911), pp. 383-393.

6.

D. Starch, "Reliability and Distribution of Grades," Science. 38 (1913), pp. 630-636.

7.

A. G. Steele, "Training Teachers to Grade," Pedagogical Seminary. 18 (1911), pp. 523-531.

|

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 number-of 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. 8-66.

2.

H. 0. Rugg, "Teachers1 Marks and the Reconstruction of the Marking System," Elementary School Journal. 18 (1919), pp. 701-719.

3.

R. W. Edmiston, "A Method of Providing a More Valid Distri­ bution of School Marks," Journal of Experimental Education. 3 (1935), pp. 194-197.

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 6-22-44-22-6 Normal Curve System on Failures and Grade Values," Journal of Educa­ tional Psychology. 22 (l93l), pp. 636-640. S. L. Pressey, "Fundamental Misconceptions Involved i n Current Marking Systems," School and Society. 21 (1925), pp. 736-738.

3*

Ibid.. p. 736.

4.

A. M. Niessen, "Marking on a Curve," School Science and Mathematics. 46 (1946), pp. 155-158.

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. 523-526.

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. 141-151.

5.

J. H. Minnick, "Comparative Study of Mathematical Ability of Boys and Girls," School Review. 23 (1915), pp. 73-84.

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. 117-172.

2.

P. E. Webb, "A Study of Geometric Abilities among Boys and Girls of Equal Mental Ability," Journal of Educational Research. 15 (1927), pp. 256-262.

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. 357-362.

2.

G. R. Pease, "Sex Differences in Algebraic Ability,” Journal of Educational Psychology. 21 (1930), pp. 712-714.

3.

W, M. Perry, "Are Boys Excelling Girls i n Geometric Learning," Journal of Educational Psychology. 20 (1929), pp. 270-279.

4.

C. Touton, "Sex Differences in Geometric Ability," Jour­ nal of Educational Psychology. 15 (1924), pp. 234-247.

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. 58-81.

2.

W. C. Eells and C. S. Fox, "Sex Differences in Mathematical Achievement of Junior College Students," Journal of Educational Psychology. 23 (1932). pp. 381-386.

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 Sones-Harry 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 Myers-Ruch 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. 657-667.

2.

G. R. Johnson, "Girls Lead in Progress Through School," American School Board J o u r n a l . 115 (1935), pp. 44-47.

3.

D, Lobaugh, "Girls and Grades: Significant Factor in Evaluation," School Science and Mathematics. 47 (1947), pp. 763-774.

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 Socio-Economic 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 Socio-Economic 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+ .Q5Xq-25 .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 X|jB9J 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