a dissertation the requirements for doctor of education
TRANSCRIPT
/
THE RELATIONSHIP OF TWO TEACHING METHODS
AND THE STUDENT SELF-CONCEPT
by
James Lowell Bynum, B.S., M.Ed.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
/ ^ Ap^roj^d
y 1/ Accepted
August, 1969
dop
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am deeply indebted to the chairman of my advisory
committee, Dr. Morris S. Wallace, and the committee members,
Dr. Holmes A. Webb and Dr. Walter J. Cartwright. Their
guidance and direction has been most helpful in the com
pletion of this study.
Mr. Harold Carpenter, Superintendent, and Mr. Earl
Madding, Junior High School Principal, of Cooper Rural
High School were most cooperative in providing the school
setting required for the study.
Finally, it would not have been possible to conduct
the study without the help of a teacher who was interested
in research and willing to do the necessary extra work.
Mrs. Dorothy Taylor filled this essential role in this
study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOV/LEDGMENTS i i
LIST OF TABLES v
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Scope of the Study . • • • . . . 1
Purpose of the Study • • . • • . 1
Need for the Study • . . . . • 2
Hypotheses • • • • • • • • • 3
Definitions 4
II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH 6
Definition of Self-Concept . 6
Self-Concept and Achievement C§^
The Teacher's Role in Self-Concept -x
Development 12'
Method of Teaching and Self-Concept . . . 15
III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . . . 1?
Control Tests 18
The Self-Concept Inventory . . . . . . . . 19
Two Teaching Methods . . . . . .21
In-Service Program . . . . . . . 22
Statistical Treatment . . . 23
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . 24
Pre-Test Data 24
111
i v
P o s t - T e s t Data • • 35
Summary of Data . . . . 60
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND REC0M 1ENDATI0NS . . 6 l
Summary . • • • • • • • • . • • 6 l
F i n d i n g s 62
Conc lus ions . . • • • 64
I m p l i c a t i o n s . . • • . ' • • . . • • • • . . 65
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research . . . (y(i
LIST OF REFERENCES 6?
APPENDIX A 72 6 74
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Pre-Test I. Q., Achievement, and Self-Concept 26
2. Pre-Test Individual Items on the Self-Concept Inventory 29
3. Pre-Test Self-Concept, Analysis of Covariance • • • . . . . . . . . . 34-
4-, Pre-Test Total Self-Concept, Adjusted Means . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. Net Change in Achievement, Adjusted Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. Net Change in Achievement, Analysis of Covariance • . • . • 37
7« Post-Test Total Self-Concept and Net Change in Self-Concept 39
8, Post-Test Individual Items on the Self-Concept Inventory • • • 4'2
9. Pre-Test, Post-Test Comparison, Teacher-Dominated Instruction Group . . . . 47
10. Pre-Test, Post-Test Comparison, Individualized Learning Group . . . 52
11. Post-Test Total Self-Concept, Adjusted Means • • S^
12. Post-Test Total Self-Concept, Analysis of Covariance . . • • 57
13. Net Change in Total Self-Concept, Adjusted Means . . . . . 58
14'. Net Change in Total Self-Concept, Analysis of Covariance • • . • • • 59
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to determine the
relationship between two teaching methods and the enhance
ment of the student self-concept. The two teaching methods
were teacher-dominated instruction and individualized
learning.
Scope of the Study
The study was limited to the students in two classes
in a public secondary school in Texas. Both classes were
taught by one teacher in order to minimize differences
caused by factors related to the teacher.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine whether
either of two methods of teaching would lead to greater
enhancement of the student self-concept. Tests were ad
ministered to determine student self-concepts before and
after the period of the experiment. Achievement was also
tested to determine the correlation between self-concept
enhancement and level of achievement.
Need for the Study
Why do some students fail to reach levels of achieve
ment in school-related skills commensurate with their
mental ability? Walsh (36), McCallon (22), and Shaw and
Alves (32) found that there was a positive relationship
between achievement and the student's self-concept. If
this is the case,'it would certainly be advantageous to
determine whether a particular teaching method is more
likely to enhance self-concept development than another.
It is difficult to establish cause-effect relation
ships and this is particularly true in the area of achieve-
ment and self-concept. While it seems logical to assume
that increased achievement would cause increased self-
concept levels, there seems to be some evidence that there
is a reciprocal relationship between the improvement of
self-concept and achievement. Wattenberg and Clifford
conducted a study to attempt to answer the question whether
self-concepts precede achievement. Students were tested
for self-concepts prior to their entrance in the first
grade. Data were gathered
. . . to determine whether the association reported by other investigators linking low self-concept to reading difficulties was caused by poor self-concepts leading to reading difficulties or by the unfortunate experiences in reading undermining the self-concepts. (37«^2)
Although statistical levels of confidence were found
to be somewhat marginal, it was felt by Wattenberg and
3
Clifford that the study indicated: (1) in general, the
measures of self-concept and ratings of ego-strength made
at the beginning of kindergarten proved to be somewhat
more predictive of reading achievement two and one-half
years later than was the measure of mental ability? and
(2) the self-concept stands in a causal relationship to
reading achievement. If this is true, it would be evi
dent that the enhancement of the self-concept should be
a vital concern of the school.
In addition to their concern with achievement,
today's schools are also interested in all facets of the
student's development. In the area of self-actualization,
as pointed out by Combs (7)» the self-concept is particu
larly important. The individual who suffers from weak
nesses in the self-concept is rarely a fully functioning
person. In view of this, the need for means of enhancing
the self-concept is of greatest importance. If certain
teaching methods are more effective in self-concept en
hancement, administrators and teachers should be aware of
this and its significance in the teaching-learning process
Hypotheses
In this study, the following null hypotheses were
tested:
HQI - There is no significant difference in the self-
concept enhancement between the two groups.
Ho2 - There is no significant difference in the
achievement of the two groups.
Ho3 - There is no significant relationship between
self-concept enhancement and increased achievement.
HQ^ - There is no significant relationship between
the teaching method and changes in responses to specific
items on the self-concept inventory.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms
were defined:
1. Student Self-Concept. The student self-concept
was the way the student perceived himself in
the class in question as measured by the self-
concept inventory.
2. Achievement. Achievement was defined as the
student's ability to do school-related tasks as
measured by the standardized achievement test.
3. Teacher-Dominated Instruction. Teacher-dominated
instruction was defined as instruction primarily
by lecture and by teacher chosen activities with
a minimum of pupil-teacher interaction.
k. Individualized Learning. Individualized learning
was used in this study to mean allowing each
student to choose the activities in which he
participated and allowing each student to pro
gress at his own rate.
CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
The literature and research related to this study
were reviewed within the following categories:
1. Definition of self-concept,
2. The relationship of self-concept to achievement,
3. The teacher's role in self-concept development,
and
k. Teaching methods and the self-concept.
It was deemed desirable to find definitions of the
self-concept in the general writings, but in the other
categories, the emphasis was on research.
Definition of Self-Concept
While the definitions found of the self-concept were
similar in nature, it was helpful to view several in
order to fully understand the meaning of self-concept.
It was noted that many writers seemed to use the terms
self and self-concept interchangeably.
Jersild provided a definition of the self-concept
which placed emphasis on the relation of the self-concept
to past experience.
That which we call the self comes into being as a child, when all that is inherent in his makeup, comes to grip with the experiences of life. The self, as it finally evolves, is made up of all
that goes into a person's experience of his individual existence. It is a person's "inner world." It is a composite of a person's thoughts and feelings, strivings and hopes, fears and fantasies, his view of what he is, what he has been, what he might become, and his attitude pertaining to his worth. (18:116)
Dinkmeyer placed emphasis upon the interaction of the
individual with his environment and the effect of the self-
concept on behavior.
The self is one's inner world. It results from evaluational interaction with others, becoming the consistent personal perception of "I" and "me." The child's perception of the reflected attitudes and judgments of those who comprise his world servas as the foundation for the formulation of self. The self-concept is really the individual's anticipation of his general acceptance or rejection In a given situation. As the self-concept is formulated, it tends to shape new experiences to conform to established patterns. Behavior then becomes an attempt to maintain tlie consistency of the self-conjpept, a homeostasis at the psychological level. (9:183)
Klausmeier and Goodwin pointed to the totality of the
self concept.
The self-concept is what the individual refers to as "I" or "me" and is the totality of meanings, attitudes, and feelings which the individual has of himself—the most complete description one could give of his present self. It is his private conception of his own personality. The self-concept develops over a period of time and is learned, albeit incidentally and in part through conditioning, identification, and imitation as well as with awareness. The infant is not av/are of himself as a person, but as he grows and learns, he acquires an awareness of self. This awareness subsequently broadens to include more complete interpretations. (19:395)
Wheelis wrote of identity, but as one studies his
definition, the relationship to self-concept is seen.
8
Identity is a choherent sense of self. It depends upon the awareness that one's endeavors and one's life make sense, that they are meaningful in the context in which life is lived. . . • It is a sense of wholeness, of integration, of knowing what is right and what is wrong and being able to choose. (38:19)
Strang (3^) identified four dimensions of the self
which influence a person's behavior as follows: (1)
basic self-concept—the individual's concept of the kind
of person he is as influenced by his physical self, his
personal appearance, abilities, values, beliefs, and
aspirations; (2) the transitory perception of self—the
self-concept as influenced by the mood of the moment or
recent happenings and may not have lasting implications;
(3) the social self—the way in which one believes others
perceive him—even though the social self may not be a
true reflection of others' perception of the individual,
it does have a strong influence on the individuals be
havior; (k) the ideal self—the individual's perception
of the person he hopes to be or would like to be.
Self-Concept and Achievement
In a study of the relationship between self-concept
and achievement, Walsh (36) studied forty boys in the
second, third, fourth, and fifth grades. Twenty of the
boys were considered to be low achievers while the other
twenty were considered to be adequate achievers. All of
these students had I. Q.'s ranging from 120 to 1^6. Low
9
achievers and adequate achievers were paired on the basis
of race, nationality, grade, socio-economic status, and
intelligence. The groups were differentiated solely on
the basis of academic achievement. The Driscoll Playkit
was then used as a vehicle for determining the individual's
self-concept as demonstrated by his manipulation of the
boy doll in the playkit. The achievers were found to be
(1) more free to pursue their own interests, (2) more
free to accept his own feelings, (3) more accepted as a
member of the family, and (k) more adequate in responding
to environmental stimuli.
In an effort to determine the relationship betv/een
pre-school concepts and reading achievement, Lamy (20)
measured the reading achievement of students whose self-
concepts had been determined in earlier studies. It was
found that there was a positive relationship between a
kindergarten child's perception of self and his later
reading achievement in the first grade. It was also con
cluded that there was a positive relationship betv/een a
student's self-concept in the first grade and his reading
achievement in the first grade. As in many other cases,
the findings indicated that the I. Q. and self-concept
combined were a better predictor of achievement than either
factor separately. Lamy felt that the relationship between
kindergarten self-concept and first grade achievement seemed
10
to indicate that self-concept stood in a causal relation
ship to achievement.
Reiss (30) used the High School Index of Adjustment
and Values to determine the self-concepts of one hundred
and forty-nine eleventh grade students. Sixty-eight of
these students v/ere classified as bright underachievers.
Eighty-one were considered to be bright achievers. A
difference was found between the self-concepts of the
two groups, but a greater difference was found between the
ideal self-concepts of the two groups. A study of the
grades earned throughout their school experience was
deemed to indicate a predisposition for underachieving
by the underachievers.
McCallon (22) generated three groups on the basis of
self-ideal self discrepancy from an earlier experiment
involving 1135 fifth and sixth grade students. A self-
concept and ideal self had been established for three
students in the earlier experiment using a 22 item inven
tory. It was found that there was no significant differ
ence between the ideal self of the groups. This being
the case, actually those with the greatest self-ideal
self discrepancy were those who had the lowest self-
concept. It was found that there v;as a relationship
between self-ideal self discrepancy and achievement.
This meant that those students who were the lowest in
self-concept tended to be the lowest in achievement. ^
11
No causal effect was suggested by McCallon.
Carlton and Moore, in search of a means of improving
reading achievement made use of self-directive dramati
zation with culturally disadvantaged children. The re
sults were summarized as follows:
Significantly greater gains in reading were achieved in the study by groups of culturally disadvantaged elementary school children through the use of classroom self-directive dramatization of stories which pupils selected and read than through the use of methods involving the traditional techniques of the basal readers in small groups or in the whole class. There is also evidence to indicate that through the use of self-directive dramatization favorable changes occurred in the self-concept of the children. (6:130)
It was noted that in this study no correlation between
increased achievement and self-concept enhancement was
purported. The increase in self-concept was reported
as a concomitant result of the use of self-directed
dramatization.
The self-concepts of bright underachievers were
studied by Shaw and Alves. (32) The subjects of the
study were eleventh and twelfth grade students in high
school. Each of the subjects had attained an I. Q. of
110 or above. Those students v;ho had a grade point aver
age of 2.5 or less on a four point scale were considered
to be underachievers. Those who had a grade-point average
of 3.0 or better were considered to be achievers. The
study indicated that the male underachievers reported
more negative self-concepts than the achievers. The male
12
underachievers also were found to be less self-accepting
than the achievers. The female underachievers were not
significantly different from the achievers in their self-
concept, but their perception of how others viewed them
was significantly more negative.
Summary
All of the studies reported above suggested a
relationship between self-concept and achievement. While
some of the studies suggested that the self-concept stood
in a causal relationship to achievement, most made no
such claim.
The Teacher's Role in Self-Concept
Development
The importance of the teacher in self-concept develop
ment has been established by several studies and supported
by many writers.
Williams and Cole wrote of the actions of the teacher
which influence self-concept.
LThe academic reinforcement consistently KX received by the brighter student but infrequently by the less bright undoubtedly affects the self-concept.] V/hile the slov/ learner may be adversely affected by existing educational practices, it is assumed that a negative self-concept could be significantly ameliorated by a productive school experience^ In the context of the present investigation,/^^productive school experience may be defined as one in which the learner receives consistent, positive communication from the instructor and his immediate academic peer group concerning his ability and achievement. ((39:^80)
13
Perkins (26) was interested in the effect of variables
in teacher training upon the teacher's ability to enhance
self-concepts in his students. It was found that there
was a significantly greater change toward congruency of
self-ideal self for students whose teachers had completed
child study courses. It was noted, however, that in this
study, greater congruency did not lead to greater achieve
ment or to greater peer group acceptance. The relatively
short duration of the study may have failed to give these
factors sufficient time to react.
Staines discussed the role of teacher comments as a
factor in the development of self concepts.
. . . much more frequently than teachers believe, the ordinary run-of-the-day comments on success and failure, and incidents where a child is casually preferred to another for what seems to the teacher an unimportant task or role, may be fraught with status possibilities and intense emotional content. V/hile no claim is made that these unnoticed situations are always significant for all children, it is reasonable to conclude that the teachers who most frequently invoke status situations and make relevant comments are most likely to modify the child's self-picture in this direction. (33:101)
Fischer (13) suggested some ways in v/hich the teacher
could .enhance self-concept development. These were:
1, Provide praise and recognition,
2. Give the students tasks that are possible for him
to perform,•
3.• Accept the child where he is and as he is.
1/
k. Project feelings of acceptance and worth to the
student,
5« Made use of "I feel" messages rather than judg-
1 \ ments,
6. Involve students in planning and evaluation,
7* Praise behavior rather than character, and
8. Organize the lesson in simple steps in order that
the student can progress.
Davidson and Lang (8) investigated the relationship
between children's perceptions of their teacher's feelings
toward them and the child's self-perception. Ten classes of
fifth and sixth grade students were used as subjects. The
students completed a self-concept inventory of thirty-five
items on the basis of "My teacher thinks I am." This test
ing was done in the morning. In the afternoon, the students
completed the same inventory on the basis of "I think I am."
The "My teacher thinks I am" scale was used as a measure of
perceived teacher feelings. The "I think I am" scale was
used as a measure of self-concept. A significant corre
lation was found between the perception of teacher feelings
and the self-concept, (r = .82). V/hile no attempt was made
to establish causality, it was pointed out that the results
of the study emphasized the need for teachers to display
positive attitudes toward their students.
15
Summary
In the above studies, the relationship between teacher
behavior and student self-concept was apparent, but it was
virtually impossible to determine causality. No one was
willing to assert that students developed certain self-
concepts as a result of teacher behavior. The possibility
that teachers may have behaved in a certain manner because
of student self-concepts or that students' self-concepts
may have influenced their perceptions of teacher behavior
could not be entirely dismissed.
Method of Teaching and Self-Concept
While the importance of determining means by which the
self-concept may be enhanced has been widely recognized,
there has apparently been little research on the influence
of teaching method on the self-concept.
Jeffs and Jessler (17) conducted a study to determine '
whether the use of programmed instruction had any influence
on the student self-concept. The sample for the study con
sisted of eighty high school freshmen and juniors. The
freshmen students were divided into three groups. The first
group had programmed instruction the first semester and
traditional Instruction during the second semester. The
second freshman group reversed this schedule. The third
group of freshmen had no programmed instruction. Of the
two junior groups, one had a full year of programmed
instruction while the second group had no programmed
16 %
instruction. Jeffs and Jessler v/ere reluctant to generalize
from their findings, but they did find some evidence to
support the conclusion that programmed instruction had a
positive influence on self-acceptance.
Dyson (10) studied the effect of ability grouping on
the self-concept. Two groups of seventh grade students were
identified and equated on the basis of age, intelligence,
academic achievement, school grades earned, the school
environment which they experienced, and the socio-economic
levels of their communities. While one group was hetero-
geneously grouped for instruction, the second group was
homogenously grouped on the basis of academic learning
ability. Academic learning ability was based on I. Q.
scores, achievement scores, teacher evaluation, and princi
pal evaluation. In order to establish self-concept, each
student responded to the Index of Adjustment and Values and
to the Word Rating List. The self-concepts of the two
groups were not significantly different. This lead Dyson
to conclude that ability grouping had no effect on the
self-concept.
Summary
Of the two studies found on the method of teaching
and the self-concept, one indicated a relationship between
method of teaching and the self-concept while the other
yielded no relationship. No significant trend could be
found without further studies.
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
The subjects used in this investigation were the
students in two eighth grade social studies classes in
a junior high school in Texas.
At the beginning of the school year, these two groups
completed a pre-testing period to determine mental ability,
achievement, and self-concept. Following the pre-testing
period, one group was taught using a teacher-dominated
method of teaching. The second group was taught using an
individualized learning method of teaching. After seven
months under the two teaching methods, the students were
again tested for achievement and again completed the self-
concept inventory. The two groups were then statistically
compared to determine whether any significant differences
existed.
While the two groups were equal in size, absences
during the testing periods resulted in one group's having
thirty subjects and the other group's having twenty-five
subjects.
It was not possible to move students from one class to
another for equating purposes. For this reason, the analy
sis of covariance statistical technique was used for equat
ing the groups. The particular test used was Analysis of
17
18
Covariance—Multiple Covariants of the Health Sciences
Computing Facility, University of California at Los
Angeles, as modified for the Texas Technological College
Computer Services. This test was particularly designed
for groups with unequal numbers of subjects.
Control Tests
The testing at the beginning of the study included
two tests for control purposes. These were the Science
Research Associates Primary Mental Abilities Test, 6-9
and the social studies portion of the SRA Achievement
Series, Multilevel Edition.
The mental abilities score was used as one of the
covariants for the analysis of covariance used in test
ing the difference between the two groups in change in
self-concept during the period of the study. This score
was also used as a covariant for testing difference in
achievement.
The achievement test was administered both at the
beginning of the study and at the end. The purpose of
the achievement test was to serve as a covariant for the
analysis of covariance used to test change in self-concept
and to determine whether one teaching method resulted in
greater achievement than the other.
19
The Self-Concept Inventory
In order to determine the students' self-concepts, a
C[-sort using the items from Davidson and Lang was used.
The items on the inventory were the following. The nega
tive items are indicated by an asterisk.
Fair ^ Not Eager to Learn*
A Nuisance* A Leader
Afraid* /
Cheerful-
Time Waster*/
Neat <-
Generous
Nervous*
Sensible
Polite V
Lazy* V
Forgetful*'
Hard Worker
Bad*
Good Sport ^
Considerate -
Not Eager to Study*^^
Careless* (8:110)-
Unhappy*
Loving V
Outstanding
Loud* -
Sociable \/
Clever
Not Alert*
Smart
Silly*^
Kind ^
Shy
A Sloppy Worker*
Dependable
Helpful
A Day Dreamer*
Each student was given a set of thirty-five cards on
which was written the above items. There was one item on
each card. Five envelopes were provided. The envelopes
20
were labeled as follows:
Not at All True of Myself
Slightly True of Myself
About Half-Way True of Myself
Mostly True of Myself
True of Myself
The students were"directed to place the cards with the
descriptive items on them into the envelope which best
described the way the student felt about himself.
In order to assure anonymity, each set of envelopes
was numbered. Each student was allowed to choose the set
of envelopes that he wanted and this number became his
identity for all tests and inventories. To be sure that
the students did not forget their numbers, a member of
each class was asked to maintain a record of the identity
numbers. In this way, a student who was not sure of his
number could go to the student who had the record and
establish his identity.
After the students had completed the -sort of the
self-concept inventory, the results were tallied and
quantified. For positive items, the values from one
through five were assigned beginning with one for "Not
at All True of Myself" and progressing to five for "True
of Myself." This scoring was reversed for the negative
items. A total score for the thirty-five items was then
21
computed. This total became the student's score on the
self-concept inventory. This procedure was follov/ed on
both the pre-test and the post-test.
Two Teaching Methods
Teacher-Dominated Instruction
Teacher dominated instruction was typified by teacher
lectures. All of the planning was done by the teacher.
The students were not given any options concerning what
they were to do. Examples of typical procedures for one-
week periods can be found in Appendix A.
Individualized Learning
The work of the individualized learning group was
typified by student selection of activities. Some teacher
lectures were presented, but student activities consti
tuted the major part of the work of this class. At the
beginning of each unit, the students were given a list of
possible activities to be completed. Each student chose
the activities in which he would participate with the only
restriction being that he was required to do at least one
activity from each of the various groups. Each student
was evaluated on the basis of the work that he completed.
It was explained to the students that they were not all
expected to do the same amount of work in each unit.
22
Examples of imit plans and activities for this group can
be foxrnd in Appendix B.
In-Service Program
In order to carry out the study procedure, it was
necessary to conduct a pre-service and in-service program
with the teacher.. The pre-service orientation of the
teacher consisted of eight hours v/hich was spent working
with the investigator to establish the design of the
study and to define the two teaching methods. As a re
sult of this period, it was determined that the greatest
need for helping the teacher lay in the area of individu
alized instruction.
The in-service program consisted of weekly meetings
between the investigator and the teacher. The teacher and
the investigator also attended a two-day workshop at the
Region XVII Educational Service Center, Lubbock, Texas,
concerning individualized learning. In addition to the
above, the Individualizing Instruction Extension Service (16)
was provided for the teacher.
To insure that the design of the study was followed,
the investigator made regular visits to the classes and
received weekly reports from the teacher detailing what
activities were being conducted in the classes.
23
Statistical Treatment
The principal statistical treatment used in this
study was the analysis of covariance. Popham pointed
out the usefulness of this technique.
For the educational research worker, analysis of covariance is an extremely valuable statistical technique, since it allows one to test for mean differences between two or more intact groups while compensating for initial differences between the groups with respect to relevant variables.
Analysis of covariance may be used in the many school research situations when the researcher is unable, for justifiable practical reasons, to manipulate groups so that the samples can be made equal on such important variables as intelligence, prior achievement, etc. (29:230-231)
In addition to the analysis of covariance to determine
whether there was any difference in self-concept enhance
ment or achievement, jfc-tests were performed to determine
whether the groups were significantly different in mental
ability, achievement, or self-concept. Correlation tests
were also used to determine the correlation between change
in achievement and change in self-concept.
An alpha level of .05 was established as the level of
confidence required for statistical significance.
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data gathered in this study included student
mental abilities in the form of I. Q.'s, achievement
in the form of raw scores, and self-concept in the form
of individual items and a total self-concept score. No
attempts were made to control the variables of age, sex,
or ethnic or socio-economic background.
Pre-Test Data
Mental Ability
The SRA Primary Mental Abilities Test was used to
determine the student's I. Q.. The mean I. Q. for the
individualized learning group was 9^.96 with a standard
deviation of 16.20. The mean I. Q. for the teacher-
dominated instruction group was 103*87 with a standard
deviation of 11.99* A jt-test was run and it was de
termined that the groups were significantly different
at the .05 confidence level. The results of this test
were summarized in Table 1.
Achievement
Also shown in Table 1 were the results of the Jb-
test to determine the significance of the difference
between the group means on achievement. The individualized
2k
25
learning group had a mean raw score of 18.40 with a
standard deviation of 6,3k, The teacher-dominated in
struction group had a mean raw score of 22.03 with a
standard deviation of 5*01. The group means for achieve
ment raw score were found to be significantly different
at the .05 level of confidence.
Self-Concept
The self-concept inventory was also a part of the
pre-test battery. The individualized learning group had
a pre-test mean score of 121.96 on the self-concept
inventory. The standard deviation was 14.20. The
teacher-dominated Instruction group had a mean score of
125.27 with a standard deviation of 13.74. A t-test was
performed and it was determined that the difference of
the means was not significant. The results of this t-
test were also summarized in Table 1.
26
9 EH
EH
w o 2: o o I
w
<:
-EH
we M W O E
W - E H . I
CJfEH
EH W W EH
I
04
I fi4
Q CO
0)
o
p
c cd
o u
cd >
«
• c ^ c^ CVJ
« * f ^ <M C^
« cvi c^ 0 0
CM CV2
« 00 CM 0 0
• rH
O N CJN
• H i H
C^ 0 0
• C ^
o rH
O 0 ^
Q 1
EH
O CM
• VO rH
VO C^
• J:}-C3N
U ^ CM
Ti C M
• cy
• M
* VO O
VO «
rH
r-i O
• VO
C^
o • CM CM
O f ^
Q 1
EH
^ r>
• v£>
O ^
• 00 rH
vn CM
Ti
c H
^ o <
* 00 VO o
• rH
^ C^
• c^ rH
C^ CM
• v> CM rH
O c-\
Q 1
EH
O CM
• ^ rH
VO C3v
• rH CM rH
vn CM
73 C M
O 1
CO
• p
c as o
• H VH • H
g) • H CQ
- P O 2
*
> 0)
O •
<U
-P
•P
a -p c (d o
• H «H • H
& ^ CO
* 4e
H (D > 0)
H
• H O
•
<D
- P
a •p c cd o
'ri «H ^
c w • H CO
* 3»:
*
27
In addition to the jt-test to determine the significance
of the difference in mean self-concept scores for the two
groups, t-tests were used on each of the items on the self-
concept inventory to determine v/hether significant differ
ences existed between the group means on these items. It
was found that there were significant differences on five
of the inventory items. On the item "Time Waster," the
individualized learning group had a mean of 3*76 with a
standard deviation of 1.01 while the teacher-dominated
instruction group had a mean of 2.79 with a standard devi
ation of 1.43. This yielded a t of 2.4o6 which v/as
significant at the .05 level.
On the item "Lazy," the individualized learning group
had a mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of .87. The
teacher-dominated instruction group had a mean of 3.4o
with a standard deviation of 1.28. These scores yielded
a t of 2.067 which v;as significant at the .05 level.
On the item "A Leader," the teacher-dominated in
struction group had a mean of 2.87 with a standard devi
ation of 1.43. The individualized learning group had a
mean of 1.92 with a standard deviation of .95* The
resulting t was 2.925 which was significant at the .01
level.
On the item "Sociable," the teacher-dominated in
struction group had a mean of 4.17 with a standard
deviation of .95. The individualized learning group had
28
a mean of 3'52 v/ith a standard deviation of .87. The
resulting t of 2.630 was significant at the .05 level.
The final item on which there was a significant
difference was "Shy." The teacher-dominated instruction
group had a mean of 3«77 vdth a standard deviation of
1.17. The individualized learning group had a mean of
2.88 with a standard deviation of 1.24. These scores
yielded a jt of 2.719 which was significant at the .01
level.
The results of the t tests on individual items on
the self-concept inventory v/ere summarized in Table 2.
29
CM
9
£ri (^ W o s o
&9 W PQ co<: EH
S>H ^ ^
< : :2;s ^ ^
coco s W EH B-i CO M W
E H P I < : E H CD
Qfe >o M EH Q S
g^ ^
EH M CO M E H
1
§ IX,
•P
o 'r^ • p cd
F-r
Q CO
c cd
ft :3 o ^
o
Q CO
c (d <D
s
ft 3 o u a
0) i H
,o cd
'ri fH Cd
>
* rH f-H 00
rH
* * C^ CV2
c^ rH
O CM
i H
C^ CN
C^
Q I
EH
CM rH
rH
CO ^
C^
-o c
M
^ • H (d
pL.
* o c^ c^
* 00 CO VO
i H
rH O
i H
r> Gs
C ^
Q 1
EH
00 C^
CM f H
^
TJ C M
0) O
c (d CO
^ :3
s; < :
• VA rH 00
i H
* C^ C^ O
• H
^ i H
rH
C^ o\ r>
Q 1
EH
c^ rH
rH
VO C*^
C^
XJ C
M
TZJ nH Cd >H
«H <
* VO C^ • H
H
* VO E^ O
H
CM C3N
O H
^
Q 1
EH
VO Ov
O 00
c^
Ti
c M
rH :3
«H ^ 0) ®
j : : : CJ>
* * VO o ^
CM
* * C^ CO C?\
rH
r^ ^
rH
C^ OV
CM
Q i
EH
H O
i H
VO C^
0 ^
•o j : : M
ter
m cd
^
<D
e ^ EH
* VO CM CM
* 00 OV
o H
VO H
rH
0 ^ ^
r>
Q 1
EH
CM CM
H
VO C^
C^
- d
c M
•p Cd <D
z
-« 00 c^ CM
rH
*^ C^ O CM
rH
00 OV
{N-CM
^
Q 1
EH
00 O
H
C i Ov
C^
n c M
u © c
Cd cd W ©
P -P
o o s -p
•p
c (d o • H
<H ^
c M
Not Si
*
i H © > ©
H
v^ O
•
© ^ -P
+> od +3 C Cd o
• H
Signif
* *
f H © > ©
i H
H O
•
© j:^ •P
• P cd
• p
C cd o
• H
Signif
* * *
30
©
.H
o o
I f
CM
3
O fH -P
Cd
I Ct4
Q CO
Cd ©
ft o o
Q CO
©
ft o u
© iH
Cd fH u cd
>
CM Ov
CM
c^
CM
CM
00 CM
* iH 00 c ^
CJs 00 C3V
rH
00 * c ^ H
00 VO
* O
o CM
* * r^ >A CM
i H
« VO CO CM
rH
* c^ c^ CO
* o c^ rH
H
* c^ H o
« H C^ O
rH
* CM 0 0 VA
* rH O H
rH
* XA i H C^
VO
o o iH
00 cn
OV 00 VO
o 00
C^ 0 0 o c^ o f H
(*> CM
C^ O
r^ CO
o c^ VO
CM CO C*^ C ^ C n CO
Q 1
EH
v> Cv
CM OV
i H
-d C M
U ©
Ti cd © »-q
<
Q 1
E-^
^ O
i H
CM OV
CO
Ti
c M
> j
ft ft Cd
x: c
tD
Q 1
^
CO CM
i H
0 0 ^
CO
xi C M
W) c
• H >
o H i
Q 1
EH
c f H
i H
0 0 ^
CM
•d c
ding
I
c Cd
+^ CQ
+» 13
O
Q 1
EH
OV CO
f H
CO ^
CO
n C H
Td :3 O KJ
P 1
Er^
XO OV
^ VO
CO
nd C H
CQ :3
o ^ ©
c ©
o
Q 1
EH
v> CM
rH
^ VO
CM
TJ C H
03 3 O > ^ © 2:
Q 1
EH
i H rH
f H
00 VO
CO
T i C M
© i H ,Q ^ CO C © CO
P 1
EH
CO C^
0 0 00
CO
•o c M
© •P MH H O
PH
fleant
• H
c
Not sig
*
evel
H
o •
©
-p
nt at
cd o
Signifi
* *
evel
rH
.01
©
-p
nt at
od o
Siifi
* * *
31
•d © :3 c
fH -P c o o
I I
CM
9
- P Cd U I
P CO
(d ©
ft o
C5
P CO
Cd ©
ft o
© fH
Cd fH
Cd
* *
c VO
o
* v> VO
c
* VO f H CM
* H VO C^
* rH c CO
* CO CM
o
* o o
VO
* rH rH VO
« VO Ov ^
* * o CO
VO
CM
M
Cd
73
M
rH :3
-P ©
JH O
73 C
M
©
O
U
a
73
73 Cd
PQ
73
M
-P u O ft
CO
73 O
o C5
73 C M
© •P Cd U © 73
CO C o o
•d
O
©
Cd
73 •p :3 o -P S C O
73 73
M
CM
>ie O C^ fH
CM
CO CM
* O -;t VO
f H
C^ O
* CJ\ CM CM
H
VO 00
« * CM Ov i H
CM
o\ C^
* * VO 00 ov f H
CO 00
• CM CO VO
f H
J : ^ Ov
* Cv-O ^
rH
c CO
« c
-::}• i H
f H
f H 00
* CO CO VO
H
O
c
*
c 00 f H
f H
VO C3V
73
•P
(d o fH <H •H c W)
fH CO
- p O
rH © > © rH
VO O
©
•p
•p Cd
•p
§ o
• H «H
f H ;3
«H ft
rH © K
10 CO ©
H © JH Cd
o
© i H fi a
fH O
o CO
:«: Hi *
« * 4c
fH © > ©
rH
©
-P
•P Cd
-p c od o
• H
&
CO CO
32
73 © 73 :3
fH
o o o
I I
CM
a < : EH
-p cd
I
P CO
cd ©
ft o u
C5
P CO
©
ft o u
©
iH
Cd • H Cd
>
Ov 0 0 Ov VO CJv c ^
CO CM 00
CO CO
CO H c ^ c ^ O VO
* CO o
Ov H
*
c ^ f H
* CM ^ f H
* 00 CO VO
H
* CO
VO Ov
f H
CJv f H
*
CO
f H
f H rH
*
CM O
CM
0 0 f H
,482*
f H
O
VO CO
• H
CN
CM
* VO CM rH
rH
H
OV CO CO
f H
rH CM
* * O
f H
CM
00 VO
295*
f H
CO CO
o ON
CO VO VO VO CO
CM CO CO CO CO CO CO
p 1
EH
VO 0 0
CO VO
• CM
•d C
M
U © > ©
f H O
P 1
EH
VO Ov
CO
o • ^
73 C M
t ©
rH <
•P O S
P 1
EH
CO CO
CO 0 0
• CM
-d C
M
- P U Cd
e CO
p 1
E H
rH CO
i H
CM C^
• CO
73 C
M
>» f H f H • H CO
P 1
EH
o\ o f H
00 CO
• CO
xi c M
73 C
fH W
P 1
EH
^ CM
rH
0 0 0 0
• CM
73 C
M
>s ^ CO
P 1
EH
CO ^
rH
CM C^
• CO
73
c
ker I
u o >> ft ft O
f H CO
P 1
EH
O O
f H
O VO
• CO
73 C
I H
© f H
Cd 73
c © ft © p
p 1
EH
i H VO
f H
CM t H
• CO
73 C M
© 6 cd © U P
> j
cd P
fleant
fH
c
Ot sig
s *
vel
© f H
VO
o •
© xi •p
nt at
cd o
ignifi
CO
* *
vel
© H
.01
© £ - p
nt at
cd o
ignifi
CO
* * *
33
An analysis of covariance was also computed on the
total self-concept score using I. Q. and achievement as
covariants. For testing the difference between means,
an £1,51 of 1.02 was not significant. Prior to adjust
ment, the teacher-dominated instruction group had a mean
total concept of 125.27 while the individualized learning
group had a mean of 121.96. The adjusted means following
the analysis of covariance were 125.63 for the teacher-
dominated instruction group and 121.52 for the individu
alized learning group. The analysis of covariance summary
was shown in Table 3. The adjusted means were shown in
Table 4.
3^
CO
pq < EH
CO M CO
< pq < :
EH EH PH WW o o s s o < OM
< >
w o coo a EH CO
w I
p^
o
<
car CO
I
< : w
s CO
CO
I
CO
CO w Pi <
CO I
CO
>H >H
fe
© o u o
CO
CO
C^
C C © © 6 ©
•P ^ cd +^ © ©
E H ^
00 •
CO <3v fH
rH VO
CM VO
VO
fH
00 CO
• CO fH CO O rH
CO VO
CM VO
VO CO
• CM CM fH
O O
• 00 VO
o
VO
O CO
• CO o CM
VO CO
• CM ^ rH O f H
VO VO
• VO ^ CO
o rH
O CO
• CO
o CM
• d ©
CO 13
"d <
c fH
-p CO ©
EH u o fH ©
10
§
^ • - ^
c fH
J H £ O -P U fH J H ^
pqw
o +> u c u © w ^ 6 i H •p m cd cd w +5 © :3 o UrHEr^ EH P ^ ' ^
© 0 + 3 c c © © JH B © P «H cd «H © •H U P E H
•p
o «H fH
g> (0
+5 o IS
I
CM O
• fH
It
fH VO
iH
35
TABLE 4
PRE-TEST TOTAL SELF-CONCEPT ADJUSTED MEANS
Treatment Treatment Adjusted Standard Error Mean Mean (Adjusted)
T-D 125.27 125.63 2.65
Ind 121.96 121.52 2.92
Post-Test Data
The post-test battery consisted of a second adminis
tration of the achievement test and the self-concept
inventory.
Achievement
The primary interest in achievement in this study was
as a control factor. In order to determine whether the
change in achievement was significantly different for the
two groups, an analysis of covariance was computed for the
change in achievement. The covariants used for this test
were the I. Q. and the pre-test achievement score. Prior
to the analysis of covariance, the mean change in achieve
ment for the individualized learning group was 11.60 with
a standard deviation of 4.14. The mean change in achieve
ment for the teacher-dominated instruction group was 13*^0
with a standard deviation of 3.93- After the means were
adjusted by analysis of covariance, the adjusted mean
36
change in achievement for the individualized learning group
was 12.54 v/ith a standard error of .68, The adjusted mean
for the teacher-dominated instruction group was 12.61 with
a standard error of .61. The F which the analysis of
covariance yielded was not significant. The adjusted
means for change in achievement were shown in Table 5.
The summarization of the analysis of covariance was shown
in Table 6.
TABLE "^
NET CHANGE IN ACHIEVEMENT ADJUSTED MEANS
Treatment
T-D
Ind
Treatment Mean
13.40
11.60
Adjusted Mean
12.61
12.54
Standard Error (Adjusted)
.61
.68
37
VO
s EH
^
CO I
s CO
car CO
I
CO
CO
Of CO
I
CO
>H
^
© o u :3 O
CO
VO VO
•
o H
VO O
fH VO
CM VO
C^ 00
• c^ CO VO
CO ov
• D -CO VO
VO
o •
0 0 rH
• ^ ^
f H
• P ^ ^
c c © ©
E 9 •P ^ cd -P © © JH m E H W
CO CO
f H CM CO
O CM
• Ov VO 00
CO v^
*—s
c • H
^^X O -P J^ »H ^ ^
w —
- p
c ©
VO ^
VO VO CO
00 CO
• CO
o o\
^ VO
fH o u u^ e WrH
+ Cd ©
cd to -p ri o
U rH ^ EH P H ^
sted
3 'r-i 73 <
esting
F H
e for
'
Means
O -P
c ©
u c © B
© p «H CH fH
cd © ^
P E H
•p
c nifica
W) • H CO
- P
5 - No
o o
•
il i H VO
* r-H
& H |
38
Self-Concept
Upon the completion of the post-test self-concept
inventory, the data were treated in several ways to de
termine whether any significant changes had been effected.
The first test was a _t-test to determine whether a sig
nificant difference existed between the two groups in
the means of the total self-concept inventory. The
teacher-dominated instruction group had a total self-
concept mean of 124.40 with a standard deviation of 17.37.
The individualized learning group had a mean of 124,08
with a standard deviation of 15.38. There was no signifi
cant difference between these two means. The results of
this test were summarized in Table 7.
An examination of the net change in self-concept
total showed that the individualized learning group had
a mean increase in the total self-concept of 2.12 with a
standard deviation of 10.04. The teacher-dominated in
struction group had a mean net change in the total self-
concept of -I.07 with a standard deviation of I7.80. A
^-test computed for these mean net changes indicated that
there was no significant difference between the means of
the two groups. A summary of the results of this jt-test
was also shown in Table 7*
39
EH
p < :
EH EH PL< PUW o
O O I
8ga 2:: o o I
& . , WCO CO
pq
EH
W K
< EH O EH
CO w o <w
EH W E H CO O w EH EH &HS CO O p^
EH CO
I EH
• P Od U 1
P CO
cd ©
ft :3 o
C5
P CO
Cd ©
ft o o
© fH Cd
• H u cd
*
-:i-CM C^
•
* ^ C^ CM
• ^ CO 0 0
•
• « c -co
CO
c^ CO
• c^ f H
O -:t
• ^ CM f H
P 1
EH
00 CO
• VO rH
00 O
• ^ CV2 f H
73 C M
1 «H f H © CO - P
ft f H © Cd o •p c o o
E H O
1 © «H M-H C ©
o 00
• c^ rH
C^ O
• rH 1
P 1
EH
VO O
• O rH
CM rH
• CM
'd C
M
cdco -P X O r H
Cd •p -p © o
ft © O
c o S EH O
flea
nt
fH
& fH m
•p o 2
*
f H © > ©
f H
VO O
•
© X •P
nt
at
cd o
fH CH fH
W) • H CO
*
H © > ©
f H
i H O
•
© ^ -P
nt
at
cd o
• H «H • H
ht fH CO
4c * <(
40
In order to determine whether any correlation ex
isted betv/een increased achievement and self-concept
enhancement, the Pearson Correlation Program from the
statistical library of the Texas Technological College
Computer Center was used. For the teacher-dominated in
struction group, the coefficient of correlation between.
the change in achievement and the change in self-concept
was .281. With twenty-eight degrees of freedom, this was,
not significant. For the individualized learning group,
the coefficient of correlation betv/een change in achieve
ment and change in self-concept was .I56. With twenty-
three degrees of freedom, this was not significant.
As with the pre-test, a battery of t-tests were run
on the individual items of the self-concept inventory to
determine whether significant differences existed between
the two groups on any individual item. It was found that
the individualized learning group had significantly more
favorable mean ratings on "Polite" and "Not Eager to Study."
On the item "Polite," the individualized study group had a
mean of 4,12 with a standard deviation of I.09. The
teacher-dominated instruction group had a mean of 3.^3 with
a standard deviation of 1,30. The t of 2,124 was signifi
cant at the .05 level. On the item "Not Eager to Study,"
the individualized study group had a mean of 4,08 and a
standard deviation of 1,26, The teacher-dominated in
struction group had a mean of 3.23 with a standard
41
deviation of 1.45, The resulting t of 2,316 was signifi
cant at the .05 level. The final item on which there was
a statistically significant difference was "Shy." The
teacher-dominated instruction group's mean was 3.57 with
a standard deviation of 1.45, The individualized learning
group had a mean of 2,32 with a standard deviation of 1,24,
These scores yielded a t of 3.419 which was significant at
the .01 level. The summary of this group of -tests v/as
shovm in Table 8.
42
00
9
O >H
UXK S o EH ^ H
t 3 >H P E H D : : M pL< < > W § M O S P ^ ^ D s o CO M O
EHfoCO C O M W W W E H EH CO I I B^
g5S O E H
• P Cd U I
P CO
cd ©
ft :3 o ^^
O
© M
Cd • H (^ cd
>
* c u Cv.
* ^ o o
* VO CM CO
* CO c o
* Ov VO
1.2
* VO CO c
* VO VO
* 1.
0
* ^ CO o
* ^ CO ^
* ov c M
4: M VO C^
* C^ VO rH
* VO o
1.0
* c CM rH
VO CM Ov
C^ O
CM
VO CO
o
CO V O
CM C ^
00
o VO 00
CM
CO CO
-d
M
73
c M
73 c M
73
M
u fH Cd Cm
© o C cd EQ
fH 13 S
<
73 fH Cd J
«H <
r-H ;3
«H ^ © © x: o
73
fH ©
•P CO
Cd
©
e .H EH
CO CM
O
CO CO CO
73 C M
•P Cd ©
o
c Cd © S
ft 3 O ^ C5
P CO
CO 00
CO
p 1
EH
VO C^
O 00
CO
p 1
EH
C3V 00
O ^
. ^
P 1
EH
M 00
CO O
^
P 1
B^
0\ O
C^ CM
CO
P 1
E-f
C-rH
C^ o CO
P 1
Eri
CM CO
c>>. 00
CO
P 1
EH
M M
VO M
73
M
f-i © C
cd Cd W ©
M •P O O
^•p
• p
cd o
fH «H fH
fH CO
-P O
rH © > © M
VO O
© Xi +3
•p cd
+ cd o
fH
• H
• H CO
* *
© > ©
M
M O
©
•P
+^ cd
+> c cd o
•H
& 5) CO
* *
if3
•d ©
c fH -P c o o I I
00
EH
cd ©
ft :3 o o
p CO
cd ©
ft
o o
© M
cd • H
od >
« CO VO M
* CJV CM VO
* o M C^
* C^ c o
« C?v CM cyv
* c»-c VO
« 00 M CM
« ^ CO VO
• * ^ CM M
* VO o ^
CM
F-r
ati
p CO
,220
*
H
VO rH
,601
*
f H
CO M
* M VO O
M
CO M
* VO O CM
rH
M O
* VO CO o rH
CM
,017
*
M
c O N
* VO Ov
VO
rH
VO VO
033*
rH
VO
o
*
CM
M
O CO
,044
*
M
00 CM
CM
- d
M
© 73 cd ©
00 CM
VO CO
CM V O
CM VO
00 CM
CM M VO
CM rH
CO CM CO CO CO CO
C M
>i ft ft Cd
Xi
•d "d 73 73 7! "d
c c s:: c f: c M M M M M M
73 CO ©
W ) Cd o ; s , D C -P J H O • H
^ CO T i © > CO > P» :3 c J H c o s O © © ©
Hi O t-^ O S CO
73 c M
© •p fH rH O
PH
VO CO
• CO
73
M
>5
cd
+ C cd o
• H «H •H
g, CO
•P
o
rH © > ©
M
VO O
© xi -p
•p a
c cd o
• H
• H CO
M © > ©
M
M O
©
• P
• P Cd
•P C Cd o
•H
•H & &
CO
« VO CM Vi"N
4: C^ C^ 00
• VO CO CM
« O D--^
* rH CM CM
VO M CO
4: c CM o
4: Cv. 00 CM
% o CM rH
CM
44
o fH -P Cd U I
Ct4
CJV VO O
* H CJv M
M
VO
CM
« o ^ rH
* ^ ^ O
* CM ^ CO
* * CO o
. ;}• VO CO
rH
P CO
CJV H
rH O CM
H CJv
O O
VO VO O
• rH
O 00
©
*r\ •P C o o I I
00
pq < :
cd ©
ft :3 o u o
p CO
cd ©
CO
o o o ov
o o
CO V O
C O CM
ft o o
© M
Cd fH JH cd
>
CO CO CO
p I
EH
VO M
p I
E-t
rH rH
P I
Eri
0 0 C^
P I
EH
<Js
CO CO
p I
EH
00 OV
P 1
EH
VO CM
O CO CO VO
• • CO CO
p I
EH
V O c ^
P t
EH
c ^ CM
V O
C O
p I
Ert
rH rH
O C M J : 3 - C M V O C O 0 0 . : 3 - C M C M C O C M M O V O O j : i - C O
• • • • • • • • • C O C O ^ ^ C O ^ - : J - C O C O
73 C
M
M 3
CH -p © W) ^ O
^
Tf C M
f^ © M fH o
^
73 fH Cd W
73
c M
73 Cd PQ
73 ^ M
•P U O ft
CO
73 O O C5
73 C
M
© •P Cd U © TJ fH
m C O o
-d C M
JH © >» W)73 Cd :3 W-P -P o
CO
O S -P
73
c M
M rJ
«H ft
M © K
73 C M
to CO ©
M © ^ Cd o
73 C M
© M ^ Cd
•H O O CO
-p c cd o
fri CH •H
g, fH Ul O
M © > ©
M
VO O
©
•P
Cd + C cd o
fH «H .H
c • H CO
* *
M ©
©
M O
©
- P
- P
Cd
+ c cd o
fH «H •H &
•H CO *
^5
•P Cd fH I
p CO
CM VO VO CO
* VO CM CM
4e O O O
4: VO O CO
* * * CJv rH
4e 4( CV- 00
cv. J:}-
* O VO O
« CO Ov ov rH
CM CM
H
« 4: 4t CM CO CM
CO
VO rH
* VO CM VO
H
VO CO
* CN VO rH
rH
CO M
H
* .=^ Cv. rH
H
00 00
CO
* VO VO CO
H
VO . ^
* OV H VO
M
VO CM
4! CO
. = ) •
o H
CO o
* 00 00 H
rH
^ VO
Cd ©
CO rH
O Ov
CO
o o o
Ov
Cv. VO
CO CO VO
c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o
o M CO
•d © 73 :3
M o O o
I I
CO
9
ft :3 o o
p CO
cd ©
ft O o
© M
cd fH
cd
T-D
Cv. 00
T-D
VO
T-D
VO O
T-D
CM CM
T-D
CM CO
T-D
CM
T-D
VO
T-D
M O
T-D
rH
o o
• CO
73
M
© > ©
rH O
VO CO
73
c M
-P u © M < •P O
VO Ov
CM
•d
o
CO
• d
M
O CM
CM CO
• CM
CM C ^
Tli C M
73
M
73
M
f^ ©
VO C ^
M
CO
o CO CO CO
73 c M
•p fH Cd 6 CO
>s M M MH
CO
73 C
^ {id
>s x: CO
.M ^ o
^
> i ft ft O
M CO
© M
Cd 73 C © ft © P
fH © B cd © ;^ p
>5 cd P
• p
cd o
fH «H H H
CO
O
M © > ©
VO O
© x: -p
• p cd
•p
cd o
fH «H
5 fH CO
* *
M ©
© M
©
•P
- P Cd
cd o
H H CH fH c
CO
4t
*
46
A comparison was also made of the pre-test and post-
test mean scores of each group on the self-concept total
and on each item of the self-concept inventory. For the
teacher-dominated instruction group, while twenty-one of
the thirty-five individual items were lower on the post-
test than on the pre-test, there were no significant
differences between the pre-test and post-test means for
either the individual items or on the total self-concept
score. A summary of these Jb-tests was given in Table 9*
47
CN
PQ < EH
2 :
o C O M « <
O
o
p w E H < M
O P
I
CO
w E H
I EH CO o P^q
< : - W
EH EH CO
w Er(
I
0 > H KOi CJ <
M CO PQ E H O E-t :3co « w EH EH CO I ^E^ M
< EH
Pi*
O • H •P
Cd
I
P CO
cd ©
- p (0 ©
EH
P CO
cd ©
CO ©
EH
© M
Cd • H ^^ Cd
>
*
cv VO VO
* CM CO v>
* CO CO
VO
4e VO o CO
4c CO M CJ\
4c VO 00 M
4c CJ CO VO
4c VO c VO
CO 00
•p CO o ft
o 00
CO CO
•p CO O
ft
rH
.173*
rH
rH 00
,20
4*
M
M O
.141*
M
M
4c VO VO
M
CM c^
4c M
C^
rH
CO
114*
M
Cv-M
129*
M
00 Ov
4c 00 CO VO
M
CO
C^ CJ\
CO
Pre
VO Cv-
co c^
CO
©
ft
Csi O N
CO c^ CO
© u ft
Cv-
o M
o M
.=J-
©
ft
VO c^
c-CJ\
CM
©
ft
00
o M
CO
CO
© u ft
CO CM
M
CM
.:t
©
ft
O
M
C^ 00
CM
©
ft
VO M
M
o CO
o
-p CO o ft
-p CO o ft
^ fH Cd C
© o c cd CO
•H 13
S
<
73 fH Cd ^
<H < :
M :3
«H $H © © x: o
Cv-CM
• CO
•p CO o ft
fH © •p CO cd
© 6
fH EH
c^ O
CO
•p CO o ft
cv. CO
• CO
-p CO o ft
-p cd ©
© C hDU cd cd
W © M
•P
o o s-p
VO
CM
•P m o ft
© xi Cd ©
C cd o
CH fH
C
• H CO
- p o
M © > ©
M
VO O
©
+ - P Cd
• P
Cd o
• H CH • H C
CO
4c 4c
© > ©
rH
rH O
©
•p
•p Cd
- p
Cd o • H «H fH
6 • H CO
# 4c 4 :
48
- p Cd u i
P C O
4c 4c CJ Ov CO 0 0 C^ VO
4c 4c Cv. CM C ^ CJv CJv ^
4c CO CM V O
4c 4: CJv o CO <J\ O . ^
4c 4: 4c . ^ CM CM M VO ^ C ^ V O CO
4c VO C^ VO
rH
CM C^
4c VO
. : } • CM
M
VO O
4c c c rH
rH
o M
4c cv. CM C^
M
00 CO
4c VO O O
M
c c
M
4c cv. CJV o M
CO VO
4: .:)• O O
M
VO O
4c 4c CO o VO
CM
M 00
4c r-H CO CO
M
00 CM
4c .=)• CM CM
M
cv-O
xi ©
c fH -p
O ' O
I I
~ c ^
a EH
cd ©
5=?
•P CO ©
E H
P CO
©
•P to ©
EH
© rH
Cd fH u Cd
>
- P CO O
ft
>> ft ft cd x: c
•p CO O
ft
•H > O
•P Ul o ft
c 'ri 73 C Cd + CO
: 3 O
- p CO O
ft
• p CO O
ft
•p to O
ft
•p CO O
ft
- p CO O
ft
- p CO O
ft
73
O Hi
to O
©
©
to O >
©
© M .o fH Ul ©
CO
©
O
ft
to cd
•p to O
ft
:3 «H •P ©
O
-p cd o
«H
to
•P o
© > © M
VO O
© x: •p
•p cd
c cd o
• H C H fH
6
4c 4c
M © > ©
M
M O
© xi •p
•p cd
• p
cd o
fH C H
CO CO
4c 4c 4c
49
©
c fH •P c o o I I
OS
E-i
- P
Cd
I
P CO
Cd ©
CO ©
EH
P CO
©
-p CO ©
EH
©
M
Cd
f^ Cd
>
4c .;t c CM
4c M CJV CO
• M
VO CO
4e CM c CJv
4c 4c 4c rH VO ^
• CM
c Cv.
4c 00 CO
1.1
4c 00 o Csl
• M
CO CO
4c O o 00
4c CM ^ M
• rH
^ CJV
4c M CO M
4c CO CJV O
• H
c CO
4c CO 00 VO
4c (Jv Cvi cv.
• M
M 00
* O CO M
4c .=3-CM ^
• rH
O o\
4c . = ) •
O
1.8
4c .=^ VO VO
• M
VO Ov
4! O CM CO
4e M VO O
• M
c M
4c j t M rH
4c rH CJv o
• M
M M
CO M
CO
c^ M
CV. CM
CO C ^ M
CO V O
O V O
CV. M
CO CM
C^ 00
CO CO CO CO CO CO
© f^ ft
rH O
M
CV. O
CO
•P Ul O ft
u ©
Ai ^ O
^
73 ^ Cd X
© f^ ft
. : t CM
M
O Ov
CO
-P to O ft
73 Cd PQ
© ^ ft
M OV
O O
^
-P CO O ft
•p u O ft
CO
. ' d O O o
© fH ft
o o M
CO VO
CO
•p Ul O ft
© +> cd f-t ©
73 fH Ul c O o
© JH ft
VO ^
M
CO CM
CO
-p to O ft
%i © > i M 7 3 Cd W • P O
^ + CO
O
z-p
© ^ ft
VO o rH
O CO
CO
4^ CO O ft
rH 13
CH ft
M © W
© ^ ft
Cv. O
M
CO VO
CO
-p CO O ft
to to ©
M © u a o
© u ft
00 M
M
Cv-VO
CO
-P to o ft
© rH P Cd
fH O O CO
© ^ ft
CM CM
M
CO M
CO
+3 CO O ft
U © > ©
rH O
© ^ ft
VO rH
rH
O Ov
CO
-P Ul O ft
•P fH ©
M < :
•p O s
lea
nt
CH fH
C
t S
ig
O s 4c
M © > ©
M
VO O
•
© x: •p
•p Cd
•p C cd o
gn
ifi
fH CO
4: *
M © > ©
,01
1
© xi • p
• p cd
• p
c (d o
OT
ifi
1 ^
CO
4c 4c 4c
50
•d © •d
M O C o o I I
c^
• p cd fH I
P4
P CO
cd ©
• p to ©
EH
P CO
cd ©
• p CO ©
EH
© M
Cd • H
Cd >
4c VO o .^J-
4c 00 VO . ^
4c C -vo VO
4c 00 00 VO
4c ^ CO c
4c c H cv.
4c _-t M CM
o CO
CO M
O c^ CM
© u ft
VO CO
C O
o
•p Ul o ft
•p u cd B
CO
4c Cs2 M M
C^ O
CO VO
©
ft
CO M
O
•P Ul o ft
rH rH •ri CO
4c C ^ M M
• M
c^
4c Ov VO VO
c-M
4c 4c 4: CO 0 0 VO
VO . ; } - Ov O CO VO
M CM
Cv-C ^
CO CO
©
ft
CO 00
c^
Cv.
CO
© f4 ft
VO
CV-VO
© u ft
VO CM
O Ov
C ^ VO
CO
CO O ft
• p to o ft
•d
c .H
x: CO
- p CO o ft
fH ©
o
ft ft O
rH
m
CO CO
c^ CO
CO CO
© u ft
VO
o M
CO t o CO CO CO CO
•p to O ft
u © B cd © u p >> cd
P
Cv.
CO M
C ^ CM
• V O CM M
© U ft
Cv. CO
o
CM M
• P to O ft
i CH rH © CO-P
ft rH © cd O
-P C O O
E H O
•P C Cd o
fH CH •H
•H to
•P O 2:
M ©
© M
VO O
© x: +5
+3 cd
•P C cd o
• H C H
• H CO
4c 4c
M ©
© rH
©
+
cd
• P
cd o
C H »ri C
CO
4c * 4c
51
For the individualized learning group, twenty-six of
the thirty-five means on the individual items were more
favorable. However, the item "Afraid" was the only item
on which there was a significant difference between the
pre-test and the post-test. On the pre-test, this group
had a mean score of 3«36 with a standard deviation of
1.19. On the post-test, the mean v/as 4.08 with a standard
deviation of ,81, The t of 2.504 was significant at the
.05 level. There was no significant difference between
the mean total score on the self-concept inventory. The
results of this group of ;t-tests were shown in Table 10,
52
< : EH
CO o M « CH o
s ^ m o M<: O S EH
Pi EH O H CO WCC
w 3 < E H W B cotsa CO O M f^t-^Ert
< C 0 - t ) W
E H P E H CO M I W > E H EH M I P
ft
O fH •P
Cd
I
P CO
Cd ©
- p CO ©
EH
© M
Cd fH fH Cd
>
4e 4c M 00 .:}• CO C ^ VO
4c 4c
o V O
4c CO CO r-H
4c CJv
V O
00 VO
CO
CO O ft
CM
c-CO
+5 to O ft
00
o VO cv.
00 CM
- p to O ft
•p Ul O
ft
u •H Cd
PH
© 0
c cd to
fH :3 s <
73 fH Cd U
CH <
M S
CH JH © © x: 0
to O ft
© •p to cd
©
H H
EH
O
to O ft
- P Cd ©
4c C ^ C -C ^
4c 4c 0 V O CM
CM
CM M
rH
4c H 0 CO
M
00 Cv.
C I
4c 4c M CO rH
CM
C^ M
4c CO OV CM
rH
VO c^
rH
41 V O
CO
M
M 0
175*
M
CM CM
055*
rH
00 0
c cd © s
• p CO © EH
P CO
00 .::
• CO
©
u ft
VO c ^
CM M
• ^
© JH ft
CTs 00
VO CO
• CO
©
u ft
M CO
0 00
• CO
©
u ft
Ov 0
VO c ^
• CO
© fH ft
c^ M
VO CO
• CO
© JH ft
CM CO
CM Ov
• CO
© U ft
M rH
VO M
CO CO CO ^
•P Ul O
ft
u © C Cd cd
W <i> M +
O O ^ -P
+5
c Cd o
fH CH
W) •H to
• P O
©
© M
V O O
© x: •p
• p Cd
- p
cd a fH CH ^
W)
4c 4c
M © > ©
rH
rH O
© x: •p
• p cd
•p
c cd o
• H CH fH C
CO CO
4c 4c 4c
53
- p cd U I
P CO
4c O <o M
M
4: 00 CO CV.
M
VO Ov
4c 00 00 CM
H
4t CO CM CM
. M
- I t O
rH
4: VO VO CO
4c M .:t rH
rH
CO CM
M
4: CO CO rH
4c CM CJV VO
rH
c M
H
4c VO O M
4c CJV ^ M
rH
0\ CO
M
4c C^ rH CO
H
4c Ov VO O
rH
VO Ov
4c VO .:t CO
rH
4c CO CvJ O
M
VO CVI
M
4c CM CO H
4c CO
J:}-H
M
M M
M
4c Cv. CO 00
4c CO 00 CO
M
CO c
4c . ^ o ov
* 4c 4c . ; } • VO Cv-
CM
C^ 00
4c Cv o ov
4c CO CO CO
M
CO CO
M
73 © :3
•H •P
c o o I I
O rH
EH
cd ©
• P to © Eri
P CO
Cd ©
•p to ©
EH
© M
Cd
U cd
>
CM CJV
M
Pre
00 CM
CM CJv
CO
©
ft
CJV
00
CO
© fH ft
VO rH
00
CM
© u ft
CM C7\
00
CO
© fH ft
c ^ CM
VO
CO
© fH ft
00 CJV
VO
CM
©
ft
Cv-CM
00 VO
CO
© f^ ft
o
00 00
CO
© fH ft
ov o
o o ^
© f^ ft
00 00
CM
© u ft
VO M
CO CM
CM
•P Ul
o ft
© 73 Cd ©
00 CM
•P Ul
o ft
> i ft ft cd
xi
vO CO
•p Ul o ft
•H > O
CM VO
•P CO o ft
fH 73 C cd
-p CO
•p :3 o
CM VO
CO CM
CM rH
-P to O
ft
73
O
•P CO o ft
CO 75 o u ©
© o
•p Ul o ft
to
o >
© 2:
VO
•P to O ft
© M , Q • H to
© CO
CM M
CO CM CO CO CO CO . : t
-P to o ft
© •p fH rH O ft
VO CO
-P to o ft
cd
o CM
CO CO
-p to o ft
M
«H - P ©
O
•P
§ o
• H C H • H &
CO
• p o
M © > ©
M
VO O
©
+> - P Cd
+ C cd o
• H C H
• H CO
4c 4c
rH © > ©
M
rH O
©
• p
- p cd
- p
c cd o
fH C H
§) & CO
4c 4c 4c
54
73 ©
MH •p C O o i t
o rH
9
O fH - P
cd
I
p CO
c cd ©
• p to © EH
P CO
cd ©
• p CO ©
Eri
© M
cd fH U Cd
>
Jit
rH CM 00
4c VO Ov Ov
CM CO
CO
-p CO o ft
f-i ©
fH O
73 fH Cd
CM
+> CO O ft
xi cd
PQ
4 c , 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c 4c rH VO Cv. O 00 C^ Cv. CJv M ^ M C ^ O M C ^ C ^ O CO V O C ^ CO
4c CO ^ r^
• rH
VO OV
4: 4! .:t VO CM
• .CM
C^ rH
4c CM .;i-.:t
• H
C^ M
H
4c rH O
.:3-•
M
VO M
M
4c VO ^ M
• M
Cv-M
4c CO M CM
• rH
C^ 00
4c .:t VO CM
• rH
VO rH
4c .zt M VO
• M
cv. 00
rH
4c CM CO O
• M
VO 00
00 O
CO
Pre
rH rH
VO OV
CO
© fH ft
00 Cv-
00 00
CO
© u ft
cv. ov
. ^ ^
CO
© fH ft
C O CJV
CM Cv-
co
© u ft
VO CM
o o .:t
© fH ft
V O CJV
VO
CO
©
ft
CJs CM
CM V O
CO
© u ft
M M
CO VO
CM
© fH ft
Cv-00
Cvl M
•P to o ft
o ft
CO 73 O
o CiJ
VO C7\
CO
• p CO o ft
© •p cd fH © xi fH Ul
c o o
00
o 00
o ^ . ^
-p to o ft
-p to o ft
•p CO o ft
© > i W73 cd 13
W - P CO
+ o o s -p
M 75
CH ft
M © W
CO CO © M © $H Cd
o
CM CO
• P to o ft
© M
Cd fH o o
CO
o o
CO CO CO
-p to o ft
u ©
© M
o
• p
cd o
fH CH
g. M H to
•p o
©
©
M
VO
o © xi •p
•p cd
- p c cd o
fH CH
c • H CO
4c 4 :
M ©
© H
M O
©
• P
•P cd
-p
cd o fH CH •H
5 • H CO
4c 4 : 4c
V.
55
73 © •d 75
rH O C o o I I o
M
9
• p
o • H • P Cd fH i
P CO
4c
o CM CM
M
4c 4c 0 0 CO CM
C^
VO
c^
4c C^ O N CM
4: O CM VO
M
CO 00
4c CO CJv 0 0
4c O ^ M
rH
rH CO
4c CO C^ rH
rH
* O CJV
c^ rH
CJV O
4c .:t c^ VO
rH
4c CM CM O
M
. ^ CM
4c O O O
4c CO
VO rH
rH
CO .=}-
4: CJ VO VO
4c CO CM O
M
O O
* CO VO Ov
* CM
.:}-M
M
M VO
4c VO o VO
4c CO c-M
M
O CM
cd ©
•P Ul ©
E H
P CO
(d ©
• P to ©
EH
- P to O ft
© M fi Cd
•ri
Cd >
•p J^ ©
M <
•P O
S
•p Ul O ft
•p to O ft
•p to O
ft
- p CO O ft
•p fH td B
CO
M
CO
73 C
• H CO
-p to o ft
©
O
ft ft O M CO
•P to O ft
© M
Cd 73
© ft © p
-p to O ft
© B cd ©
P
> i cd P
•P to o ft
I CJH M © CO-P
ft M © cd o -p C o o EH O
• p
c od a
fH «H fH
rH © > ©
M
VO O
•
©
x; +> p cd
+> C cd o
M © > ©
M
M O
•
© Xi •p
•p td
•P C cd o
CO
•p o
CH C „ fH fH
& S) • H CO CO
4c 4c
4c 4c 4c
5e
In order to compare pre-test and post-test total
self-concept means in a more meaningful v/ay, an analysis
of covariance was performed to find adjusted means and
to determine whether any significant difference existed
between the two groups. Again, the F was not significant.
The adjusted mean for the teacher-dominated instruction
group was 124.04 with a standard error of 3,11, The
adjusted mean for the individualized learning group was
124.51 with a standard error of 3,44, Table 11 presented
a summary of the adjusted post-test self-concept means.
The summary of the analysis of covariance to determine
significant difference was shown in Table 12,
TABLE 11
POST-TEST TOTAL SELF-CONCEPT ADJUSTED ]\1EANS
Trea tment Trea tment Adjusted Standard E r r o r Mean Mean (Adjusted)
T-D 124,40 124.04 3 .11
Ind 124,08 124 .51 3,44
57
CM
PQ < EH
EH ft WPQ
9 EH
O
o ow I o &5 W M COK
< Hi < E^
o EH
O
o ft o
EH COCO W M EH
I EH CO O ft
CO
<
<
W
< :
CO I
s CO
w < :=> Gf CO I
CO
CO
< :
cy CO
I
CO
>H >H
ft P
. ^ ^
© o fH 75 o CO
• P . - ^
c c © © B © •P ^ cd +^ © © ^ PQ EHv--
CO 0 0
• o c CM
M V O
CO O
• CO rH VO
CO rH
9
V O CM
M
CO V O
CM VO
O
c ^ •
rH rH VO
VO V O
• VO CM
3
VO
•P
©
fH O
u fH-
c^ V O
CM
c o
• CM rH 00 CO rH
VO VO
• ^ H CO CO H
C^ VO
• CM
-d © -p to :3
•r-3 73 <
C fH •P to ©
E H
U o
CH ©
© o+> © ©
to
cd
•H ^ j : : O "P f~i 'ri fH^ W v -
6 W - H •p cd cd to +^ © :3 o ^ M EH EH ft"-'
JH B © -p
CH cd CH © fH J^ P E H
-p c cd o
fH C H fH C W)
to
•p O
I
CJV O
o
H VO
M ftl
58
Although there was no significant difference in the
post-test comparison of the total self-concept, it ap
peared that there was a change in the total self-concept
which favored the individualized learning group. To
determine v/hether this change was significant, an analysis
of covariance was performed on the mean net change in
total self-concept using I. Q. and achievement as
covariants. The adjusted mean change in self-concept
for the teacher-dominated instruction group was -I.69
with a standard error of 2.83, The adjusted mean change
for the individualized learning group showed an increase
of 2.87 with a standard error of 3,12, The F^ 52. ^
1.090 v/as not significant. The adjusted means were
reported in Table I3 and the analysis of covariance
was reported in Table l4.
TABLE 13
NET CHANGE IN TOTAL SELF-CONCEPT ADJUSTED MEANS
Treatment Treatment Adjusted Standard Error Mean Mean (Adjusted)
T-D -1.07 -1.69 2.83
Ind +2.12 +2.87 3.12
59
M
< Eri
cy CO
I
^
CO
cy CO
i
CO
CO
C? CO
I
CO
>H >H
s
© o 7i o
CO
ov c ^
• CO CM CM
H VO
VO O
•
CM
CM VO
0 0 CM
• CO CM .:t rH H
.=}• CO
• C^ >o VO M rH
VO O
• .:3-. * CM
.:}-^
• 00 CO rH
rH
-P^-^ c c © © B © -P ^ cd -P © © fH PQ
E H ^ '
CO CM
• CO CO H
VO VO
• VO O VO rH rH
CO VO
^-^
c fH Uxi o P> ^ ^ ^ ^ W ^
+5 c ©
VO VO
• C^ C^
o o
• VO .:f rH rH
^ VO
U o u u^ e WrH
• p cd ©
cd to jp 75 O
fnrHEri E H f t ^
sted
3 f-i
xi <
esti
EH
e for
Means
o -p c © ^
c © B
© -p CH CH fH
cd © U
P E H
•P
c cd
gnific
fH Ul
-P o ^
1
o CN O
• rH
II
M VO
«k
rH ftl
60
Summary of Data
The alpha level which was established for statistical
confidence v/as .05. On this basis, there were no signifi
cant differences between the mean scores of the groups in
change in achievement, total self-concept, or in change in
total self-concept. The correlation between change in
achievement and change in self-concept v/as not significant.
On the pre-test comparison of the groups, the teacher-
dominated instruction group perceived themselves as exercis
ing more leadership, being more sociable, and being less
shy than the individualized learning group. The individu
alized learning group perceived themselves as being more
efficient users of time and as being less lazy than the
teacher-dominated instruction group.
On the post-test comparison of the groups, the teacher-
dominated instruction group again perceived themselves as
being less shy than the individualized learning group. The
individualized learning group perceived themselves as being
more polite and more eager to study than the teacher-domi
nated instruction group.
On the pre-test, post-test comparison of the group
means, the individualized learning group perceived them
selves as being less afraid at the end of the study than at
the beginning. This'v/as the only significantly different
item on the pre-test, post-test means of the two groups.
CHAPTER•V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The problem of this study was to determine v/hether
either of two teaching methods was more effective in the
enhancement of student self-concepts. In order to carry
out the study, two groups taught by the same teacher
were compared using the statistical methods of analysis
of covariance, Pearson correlation, and t-tests. One
group was taught by an individualized learning method of
teaching. P^^e^tAsting was done to determine the mental
ability, the achievement, and the self-concept of the
two groups. Mental ability, as reflected by an I. Q.
score, and achievement, as reflected by a raw score on a
standardized achievement test, were used as controls in
comparing the student self-concept. The post-test battery
consisted of a repetition of the achievement test and the
self-concept inventory v/hich were used in the pre-testing.
An analysis of covariance technique was used to de
termine whether there were any significant differences in
achievement and/or self-concept between the two groups on
the pre-test, and the post-test, or in change in achieve
ment and/or self-concept from the pre-test to the post-test,
61
62
To determine whether other significant differences
existed between the various means of the two groups, at
tests were employed. These tests were run for the follow
ing purposes:
1. To determine whether significant differences
existed betv/een the two groups on the pre
test means of mental ability, achievement,
self-concept, and individual items on the
self-concept inventory.
2. To determine whether significant differences
existed between the pre-test and post-test
means for each group compared to itself.
3. To determine whether significant differences
existed between the two groups on the post-
test means of achievement, self-concept, and
individual items on the self-concept inventory,
A coefficient of correlation was computed to determine
whether there was any relationship between the change in
self-concept and the change in achievement.
Findings
In this study, four null hypotheses were tested to
determine whether significant differences existed betv/een
the groups. The first hypothesis was that there v/as no
significant difference in the self-concept between the two
groups following the period of the study. As adjusted by
63
analysis of covariance, the teacher-dominated instruction
group had a mean change in self-concept of -I.69 with a
standard error of 2.83. The individualized learning
group had a mean change of +2.87 with a standard error
of 3.12. The analysis of covariance yielded an F^ r of
1.090 which was not significant. The hypothesis of ho
difference in self-concept enhancement was sustained.
The second hypothesis tested was that there was no
significant difference in the achievement of the two groups.
The analysis of covariance on change in achievement did not
yield a significant F. Therefore, this hypothesis was
sustained.
The third hypothesis tested was that there was no
significant relationship between self-concept enhancement
and increased achievement. The coefficient of correlation
for the relationship between self-concept change and
change in achievement was not significant. This hypothesis
was sustained.
The fourth hypothesis tested was that there was no
significant relationship between the teaching method and
changes in response to specific items on the self-concept
inventory. In this case, the individualized learning
group perceived themselves as being less afraid on the
post-test inventory than on the pre-test inventory. In
addition, significant differences existed on the pre-test
inventory favoring the teacher-dominated instruction group
64
on the items "A Leader" and "Sociable," On the post-test,
the teacher-dominated instruction group was not signifi
cantly higher on these items. On the post-test inventory,
the individualized learning group felt themselves to be
more polite and more eager to study than the teacher-
dominated instruction group. This feeling had not been
evidenced on the pre-test inventory. In view of these
differences on specific items v/ithin the self-concept
inventory, the fourth null hypotheses was rejected.
Conclusions
Based upon the findings of this study, the following
conclusions were reached,
1. Neither of the two teaching methods v/as superior
from the standpoint of self-concept enhancement.
2. Neither of the two teaching methods was superior
from the standpoint of change in achievement.
3. There was no relationship between change in self-
concept and change in achievement,
4. Although there was no difference in the total
self-concept change between the two groups, the
method of teaching would appear to have had some
influence on specific items within the self-
concept inventory.
(>5
Implications
An underlying assumption of this study was that
there was a positive relationship between the self-
concept and achievement. However, this study did not
seek to sustain or refute this assumption. The positive,
although not significant, relationship which was found
between change in self-concept and change in achieve
ment would seem to be supportive but not conclusive
evidence of a positive relationship between these two
variables.
There seemed to be some implication of a possible
advantage for the individualized learning method of in
struction in the enhancement of self-concept. Due to
the fact that it was not possible to equate the groups,
the teacher-dominated instruction group had an initial
advantage in self-concept which it subsequently lost
during the period of the study. Support for this impli
cation was found in the fact that the individualized
learning group had an increase in self-concept during
the period of this study while the teacher-dominated
group had a decrease. Further implication for this
possible advantage for the individualized learning method
is found in the fact that the teacher-dominated instruction
group scored lower on the post-test than on the pre-test
on twenty-one of the thirty-five self-concept inventory
items while the individualized learning group scored higher
66
on the post-test than on the pre-test on twenty-six of
the thirty-five items.
Recommendations for Further Research
Based on this investigation, it is recommended that:
1. A study using a similar model be conducted in
which the students spend the whole school day
under the specified teaching method.
2. Similar studies be conducted to determine
whether significantly different results might
be obtained with various ethnic and socio
economic groups.
3. Similar studies be conducted at lower and
higher grade levels.
4. Studies be conducted to determine the source
and effect of influences from outside the
school on the student self-concept.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Block, Jack and Thomas, Hobart, "Is Satisfaction with Self a Measure of Adjustment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LI (September. 1955), 254-259.
2. Borislow, B. "Self-Evaluation and Academic Achievement," Journal of Counseling PsychologVi IX (Fall, 1962), 246-254. ^ ^ ^
3. Brookover, Wilbur B,, Thomas, Shailor, and Patterson, Ann. "Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement," Sociology of Education. XXXVII (Spring, 1964), 27I-278.
4. Brookover, Wilbur B., et al. "Self-Concept and School Achievement," Human Learning Research Institute, Michigan State University, (February, I967). ERIC: ED 010 796
5. Brookover, Wilbur B, "Some Social Psychological Conceptions of Classroom Learning," School and Society, LXXXVII (February, 1959). 84-87,
6. Carlton, Leslie and Moore, Robert H. "The Effects of Self-Directive Dramatization on Reading Achievement and Self-Concept of Culturally Disadvantaged Children," The Reading Teacher, XX (November, 1966), 125-130.
7. Combs, Arthur W, "Intelligence From a Perceptual Point of View," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVII (July, 1952), 662-673.
- 8 . Davidson, Helen H. and Lang, Gerhard. "Children's Perceptions of Their Teachers* Feelings Toward Them Related to Self-Perception, School Achievement, and Behavior," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIX (December, I960), 107-118.
9. Dinkmeyer, Don C. Child Development: The Emerging Self. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
10. Dyson, Ernest. "A Study of Ability Grouping and the Self-Concept," The Journal of Educational Research, LX (May-June, 1967), ^03-^05.
67
^
68
11. Esbensen, Thorwald. "Individualizing the Instructional Program," Duluth Public Schools Minnesota, (August, 1966). ERIC: ED OI6 003
12. Find, M. B. "Self-Concept as it Relates to Academic Underachievement," California Journal of Educational Research. XIII (March, 1962), 57-62.
13. Fischer, W. "Better Self Images," Instructor, LXXVIII (August, 1968), 95.
14. Glaser, Robert. "The Education of Individuals," Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh University, (September, I966). ERIC: ED 014 785
•15. Goodlad, J, I. "Understanding the Self in the School Setting," Childhood Education. XLI (September, 1964), 9-i7r;;
16. Hetland, Melvin and Elmlinger, Charles. Individualizing Instruction Extension Service. Chicago: ^ Science Research Associates, Inc., I968.
17. Jeffs, George A. and Jessler, David L. "The Effect of Programmed Instruction on the Self-Acceptance of High School Students," Nevada Western Small Schools Project, (I965). ERIC: ED Oil 208
18. Jersild, A. In Search of Self. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952.
19. Klausmeier, Herbert J. and Goodwin, William. Learning and Human Abilities. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
20. Lamy, Mary. "Relationship of Self-Perception of Early Primary Children to Achievement in Reading," Human Development, Readings in Research. Chi-cago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1965*
21. Long, Barbara H., Ziller, Robert C , and Henderson Edmond H. "Developmental Changes in Self-Concept During Adolescence," The School Review, LXXVI, (June, I968). 210-229.
A
69
22. McCallon, Earl L. "Self-Ideal Discrepancy and the ^ Correlates Sex and Academic Achievement," \ ^ Journal of Experimental Education, XXXV (Summer, 1967), 45-49.
23. McCallon, Earl L. "Teacher Characteristics and Their Relationship to Change in the Congruency of Children's Perception of Self and Ideal Self," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXIV (Summer, 1966), 8 -88.
24• . Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming, Yearbook. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, I962.
^25. Perkins, Hugh V. "Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self-Concepts," Child Development, XXIX, (June, 1958), 222-230.
26. Perkins, Hugh V. "Changing Perceptions of Self," Childhood Education, XXXIV (October, 1957).
^27. Phillips, A. S. "Self Concepts in Children" Educational Research, VI (February, 1964), 104-109.
28. Piers, Ellen V. and Harris, Dale B. "Age and Other Correlates of Self-Concept in Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, LV (April, 1964), 91-95.
29. Popham, W. James. Educational Statistics. New York: Harper & Rov/, 1967.
30. Reiss, Stanley M. "Dimensions of Self-Concept and Achievement in Bright Eleventh-Grade Male Students." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Nebraska, I966.
31. Sears, P. S. "The Pursuit of Self-Esteem: The Middle Childhood Years," Newsletter, Division of Developmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, (Fall, 19DO).
/32. Shaw, Merville C. and Alves, Gerald J. "The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Underachievers: Continued," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII (December, 1963), ^01-^03*
70
33- Staines, J. W. "The Self-Picture as a Factor in the Classroom," British Journal of Educational Psychology. XXVIII (June, 1958), 97-111.
34. Strang, Ruth. The Adolescent Views Himself. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957-
35. Thompson, George G. and Hunnicutt, Clarence W. "The Effect of Repeated Praise or Blame on the V/ork Achievement of 'Introverts' and 'Extroverts,'" Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXV (May, 19^^), 257-266.
36. Walsh, Ann M. Self-Concepts of Bright Boys v;ith Learning Difficulties. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia, 1956.
37. Wattenberg, William V/. and Clifford, Clare. "Relationship of Self-Concept to Beginning Achievement in Reading." Cooperative Research Project No. 377, Wayne State University, Detroit.
38. Wheelis, Allen. The Quest for Identity. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1958.
39. vailiams, Robert L. and Cole, Spurgeon. "Self-Concept and School Adjustment," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (January,. I968), ^78-^81.
APPENDIX
A. Lesson Plans for Teacher-Dominated Instruction
B. Activities for Individualized Learning
71
APPENDIX A
Lesson Plans for Teacher-Dominated
Instruction
The following are examples of daily lesson plans for
the teacher-dominated instruction group during a unit on
the pre-revolutionary period of American history.
Monday
Lecture—Colonial Resistance to British Interference British Desire to Control Frontier British Plan to get Needed Money From
American Colonies
Tuesday
Lecture—The Stamp Act The Navigation and Trade Acts The Townshend Acts
Wednesday
Students complete Chapter 6, Section 1 check-up
Thursday
Lecture—Colonial Opposition to British Laws The Boston Massacre Repeal of Townshend Acts Tea Taxes
Friday
Lecture—Boston Tea Party Intolerable Acts
Students complete Chapter 6, Section 2 check-up
72
73
Monday
Test on Sections 1 and 2, Chapter 6.
Tuesday
Lecture—First Continental Congress
Wednesday
Lecture—The Start of Fighting Lexington Concord
Thursday
Students do Chapter 6, Section 3 check-up Review of chapter.
Friday
Test on Chapter 6.
APPENDIX B
Activities for Individualized Learning
Each student was given a list of possible activities
for the unit. They were instructed to do as many activi
ties as they could v/ith the single stipulation that they
must do at least one activity from each major group of
activities. The following activities were used in the
unit on the pre-revolutionary period of American history.
Important People
Write a brief summary on the following:
Samuel Adams John Adams Patrick Henry Paul Revere William Dawes Dr. Samuel Prescott Edmund Burke Thomas Jefferson George Grenville King George III.
Writing Activities
Write an accoimt as it might have appeared in a
newspaper of the time on one or more of these topics:
Boston Tea Party Paul Revere's Ride A Sons of Liberty Raid The Battle of Lexington The Battle of Concord.
7k
75
Book Reports
Report on any book covering this period.
Drawings
Draw one or more cartoons shov/ing any event of this
period. Your drawing and title should point up some
particular point you want to stress.
Readings
Read as many as possible of the following:
The Proclamation of I763 Frontier Grievances in Pennsylvania, 1764 The Indignant New York Merchant, I765 Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress, I765 The Intolerable Acts, 1774 The Association, 1774 Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be
Reduced to a Small One, 1773 Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, I767 The American, A New Man, 1770-1795*
