teacher dimensions in pupils' - science

DISSERT4TION ABSTn/\Cf

rcgSg. In the curront attenpt to apply

the

beneflts oi'

sclence anct technoJ.ory

to lnprove natlonal

eoonoay,

a

fo'ur-pronged. approach towarcl

eclucatl0nal

^\

lnproveaent

has requlred.

reexaslnattorr

ancl ilevelopnent

of

noclem

sclence/pathenatlds cumlcurar natorlals

ancl

nethoclolory

as welr as a

searsh

for

outstancllng personal

qualltles of sclence-lncl1ned

_{teachers anct} strrclents,

Ttre

involvenent of the U. P.

Sclence Educatlon Center

(sBc)

_{has been}

ln

upgracllng

of

eurDlcuLar

naterlars

and

sclence

r.rethoclolog.

^,Ihe

present stuqy,

whlch explores

the teacher factor

!.rr

pupil

_acaclenlc

achievenontl alns

to provld.e

the thlrct

cll:renslon

ln the

research

actlvlty of

the

center. rt

seeks

to

d.eternrne

the set of teacher

personal-

1ty

cllnenslons rvhlch

cllfferentlates

^tttro?e

effectlverr fron

rl.less

effectlvett

te,achers, arrcl

the set of teacher

personal-,

1ty dlnsnsions

whlch .could

be

consld.ered

precllotlve _of pupll

acad.enlc perfornance

1n

sclence and. nathematlcs.

Ue-Lfro_tls-,

Slxty

cooperattng

teachers of the U.

^p.

sclence Eclucatlon

csnter

⁽

sac)

^roho were ^.usecl

in the

stuey were

oategorl"uu r"rr ⁽¹⁾ hlgh school experlnental,

(2')

hleh school

oontrol

, ⁽³⁾ elenentary school experlnental,

ancl

(4)

eJ.enontary

school control _teacher groups.

_'rhese.

teachers were

involvecl ln the evaluatlve

^sUudy

of

^the

Cente3

rel-atlve to tlre flelcl try-out of the

fiEC newly clevelopecl

ourrlcrlar naterlals ln Physlcsr

^B1o1ory'

Chenlstrryr

l{lgh

^Bohoo1 l..iathenatlcs

Ir Hleh

School Math-

enatlcs II,

^erncl Sleroentary School Sclences

Ir II

^and.

III.

The aforenentlonecl teachers were seazurecl

ln

twenty-

flve scales of eleht

stasdard.Lzed anil non-sta5clarcllzed.

lnstruaents reflectlng teacher aptltuclesr attltud.es' ^per- sonal tral.ts, laterestsr values, practlces

^and'

the llke.

Q.r

the basls of thelr

cllchotonlze<]. rrhl8herrt

or

^tt]e1ss3rt

class

achlevogent ^galns

(wlth

acaclenlc subJect ^{g3oup neant}

:b

stand.arcl

erlor as thc cut-off-polnt

)

t ^the slxty

^teachere

were oLasslflecL

lnto

two ^groups

Labellccl

^ltnore

offectlvett

ancl

ttless effectlvett

^teachcrs.

'r'rr*e Cochran Q

tests for

honogenelty

of

teacher

,I

_{soores nad.e}

tenable the conblnatlon of ?

scoros

of all four

^groups

of the teacher

sanple

for conposlte statlst|-

ca1

ar:aLysls. fhe

}!'lod-nAn two-way anaLysls

of

^varlance

test

^ruas

ei:ployla to cleternlne the slgnlficasoe of

varlance

founrl ^botwecn

the

two ^gsoups

of teachers ln

^two

educatlonal levels.

The ch!-6gtr4r@

tests,

^appllecl'

on the

frequenc

clos of T

scores assLgnect

to a 2

bV

2 table' lclentlfjed' those scales ln whlch

^rrxxore

effectlvefr ^teachers

^scored.

x1

slgnlflcantly hlgher than the ^trless effectlvett

teachers.

Slngle correlatlons of

^pupJ.l

galns rvith

each

of

the

twenty-fivs teecher

cllnenslons wetre perfornccl

wlth

the

rse of the

Pearson pr"oduct-noucnt

statlstlcs, tcl

cleternlne whlch

factor, lf any,

wouLcl yLelcl

rt s of

conslclerabre

slg- nlflcance for pr'ecllctlng pupll galns fro.n the

rarowled.ge

of

teacher

personallty

neasures.

Fbctor analysls

was

to be

perfornecl

on the

whore set

of twenty-f1vs _scales

ylelded.

by the researoh'lnstruaents,

lf the previously

nentionecl

correlatlonal

anal.ysls

wanant-

ed.

lt.

Howover,

the results of the comelatlonal _analysls

zuggesteci

that factor analysls

was

not necessary, but

was

nevertheless 'umd.ertaken

for lnterest

^purposes

only.

Flndlg$s__q$A _.ConcLu s I on s

'Ihe f o11owLn6; flncllngs. were

reporteil:

1.

?he FY,leiLnan two-w6y

anal.ysls of varlance test

provlclecL ovld.ence

for

acceptance

of the null

^hypothesls

thet nonslgnlflcant score varlanoe exlstecl

anon6

the

slx.w

teachers, regarclless of thelr cllfferent school

envlron-

nentsr educatlonal levels lnvolved.,

ancl acaclenlc subJects

taught.

Hence,

the

honogenelty

bf

bhe sanple was

further

establlshecl

in respect of the twenty-flve

score neasures obtalnect

by the

sanple.

^:rs

xl1

d1

2,

rllre

chl-sguare test

clescrlbecl

the

^rrnore

effsoflysttt

teachers

as signiflcantly hlgher than the ^rrless effectlven

ones

ln thelr ^obtalneii

^scores

on

^(a

) orlglnal

thlnklngXr-

(2t

cci:Li;;r::ii;;'r, a"n'J

(c) _esthetic lnterest. I:r the

^sar;te

testr'the

^r;Bore

effectlverr

group rras

signlflcantly

lower

tlran the ^trless effectlverr

group

ln (ci) personal

aclJustnent,

(e) leaciership

ancL

(f ) sociabllity.

3.

'Ihe ^observecl

hlerarciry of slgnlflcance of

score

cllfference

between tr$ore

effectlvetr

ancl ttLess effec'blvett

teachers

^placecl

orlglnal thinklng ln the hlghest posttlon, through con'fo:slty. esthetlc lnterestr ^nortal abillty

^ancl

sclence aptltucle':r

to ^personal

aclJustnent,

leaclershlp

and

soclabillty, the latter three holcilng

.negatlve values.

fhls

^observecl

^hierarchy rejecteil the

research hypothesle

that soclal-lnterpersonal

d.inenslons such

as soclablllty

ancL

leaclershlp

^woulcl

be

forrncl

of ^{greatest positlve} slgnl- floance for effectlrie sclence

teachlng,

l$. _{Ihe slngle} comelatlon lncllces

obtalnecl, whlch rarrgecl

fron -.22.to.17

^were

all

founcl

too low to

alLow any

slgnlficant precllctlon of the pupll

acacieulc achleve-

nent fron the

}nowleclge

of

teacher nreasures.

5.

^Because

of the non-slgnlflcance of the predlctlve

val'ues

.of the assoclatlon

^between

^teacher

^{scores and.}

pupl1

achlevenent

scoresr

none

of the teacher

cllaenslons 'trIir

the hlerarchy of

1:rportance

of the varlables,

mental

abillty

^{ancl sclence}

^aptltucle

reoord.ecl

posltlve'

-

tilough ^Sinal-l SL8nll-1carlce.

xi11

lncl.lcateil ^needeat

further analysls

^such

as those

^u,s

lng

factor ^analysls.

Gr

tho basls of these flncllngs, ^{tlvc tentative}

concluslons

were

statecl:

^.

1,

']he rtllore

effectlverr science teachers cllff

ered fro.i:r

their ^rtless effectlverr counterparts, not ln

^ar1l

of the

ftypotheslzecL

twenty-five scales but lrr only slx of these

cllnenslons.

2, Iil8h

^reeasrres

ln orlglnal thlnki-ng, confornlty,

and.

esthetlc lnterest

characterl2ecl

the

^Itlfore

effectlvett

teachers.

^Qy1

the other.hanil., low

^neasures

ln

^personal

acljustnent, leaclership

^ancl

soclabillty also

characterlzecl then.

In thls

^stucly

^the d.evlatlng flncling fron

^other

report;A

^{sUufl.les on}

general teacher effectlveness ls that

of the

loW

rioag[res of the Iteffectlverr _sclonce

_teacher on

factors

^such

as personal aclJustnent' sociablllty

^ancl

lead.ershlp.

-filthough

ratlonal support of thls flncllng

can

be

for.urcl

ln personallty

psychology anci

ln

^the

llterature,

^such

heurlstlc lnterest

^shouLd

^be

Seneraterl ^by

thls lnvestlgatlon for future stuclles on the cLeslrablllty,

lf agy,

^of

'Increaslng the ^personal acljustnent, sr:clablllty

a3cl.

leaclership

^neasures

cf

the.

tteffectlvel

_sclence

teacher.

xlv