a study of personality characteristics of under-achievers ...ir.amu.ac.in/2129/1/ds 1721.pdf · a...
Post on 20-May-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDER-ACHIEVERS ACROSS ANY TWO
SCHOOL DISCIPLINES
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
dllagter of ^fiilos^opfip IN
EDUCATION
BY
Mrs. SWAPNA NEGG
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA)
1 990
''^^^^idw^^'y
DS1721
Phone: 2704
DR. NAJMUL HAQ fMf^^\ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Reader P ^ C ^ I M ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
AUGARH, 202002, U.P.
CERTIFICATE
T h i s i s t o c e r t i f y t h a t t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n e n t i t l e d ' A STUDY OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERIST I C S OF UNDER-ACHIEVERS ACROSS ANY TWO SCHOOL D I S C I P L I N E S ' , s u b m i t t e d b y M r s . S w a p n a N e o g , i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f M . P h i l . ( E d u . ) d e g r e e o f A l i g a r h M u s l i m U n i v e r s i t y , A l i g a r h , i s h e r o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n . S h e p r e p a r e d t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n u n d e r my ' g u i d a n c e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n .
I c o n s i d e r t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n f i t f o r s u b m i s s i o n f o r t h e d e g r e e o f M . P h i l . i n E d u c a t i o n .
1 . 9 . 1 9 9 0 (DR.) NAJMUL HAQ
S u p e r v i s o r ,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the very out-set I offer my heartiest thanks and deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Najinul Haq, Reader, Department of Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, not only for his inspiration and keen interest, but also for stimulating discussion and suggestions throughout the course of this investigation repor-ted herein,
I am grateful to Professor Mohd. Sharif Khan, Chairman, Department of Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for his moral support and various suggestions from which I have been greatly benefitted.
I convey my heartful thanks to the teachers and students of High and Higher Secondary Schools, Nagaon, Assam, for their cooperation at the time of data collection.
I must acknowledge with thanks the help and inspiration extended to me by Sjt. Bimal Kr. Borah, Principal, Nowgong Girls' College, Nagaon, Assam^ and my senior colleagues and friends during the course of study.
I shall be failing in ray duty if I did not acknowedge the help and cooperation that I received frc»n Mr. Mashhood Alam Raz and his family. I aia also thankful to Mr. Raz for the typing of the manuscript.
Last but not the least I am very much grateful to my husband, Mr. B.K.Borah, whose keen Interest and encouragement inspired me to carry on this work.
(MRS.) SWAPNA NEOG
ii
CONTENTS
List of Tables ... iii
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES 11
METHOD AND PROCEDURE 40
ANALYSIS OP RESULTS 52
DISCUSSION 121
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 147
Bibliography 157
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Measure of Intelligence
Measure of Personality
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in English and over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors ... 55
2 Significance of difference between the means of under-achievers in English and under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors ... 61
3 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in English and under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors ... 64
4 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in Mathematics and under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 69
5 Significance of difference between the means of.male over-achievers in English and male over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 77
6 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between the means of male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh and male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathematics on four teen p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 80
7 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means of male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Eng l i sh and male xander-ach ieve r s in Eng l i sh on fou r t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 84
8 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means of male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics and male under -a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics on four t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 87
IV
9 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in English and female over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 90
10 Significance of difference between the means of female under-achievers in English and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 94
11 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in English and female under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors 96
12 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in Mathematics and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 99
13 Significance of difference between the means of the mal over-achievers in English and over-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors. io3
14 Significance of difference between the means of male over-achievers in Mathematics and female over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 107
15 Significance of difference between the means of male xander-achievers in English and female under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors 111
16 Significance of difference between the means of male under-achievers in Mathematics and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 116
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Achieving not up to the expected level has now
become a menacing problem not only in India but also
in the schools of the most advanced countries of the
world (Writh, 1977; Clark et al., 1981; Garlet £t al.,
1985; Dianne, 1986), It is quite recently that the
research workers in the field of academic achievement
have come to realise the growing danger of under-
achievement (Ridding, 1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).
India, where illiteracy has assumed gigantic shape
(64 %), under-achievement is adding a new dimension
to the problem.
Though the problem of under-achievement among
the students can be traced back to the inception of the
concept of measured intelligence, it was objectifiably
comprehended and statistically recognised with metho
dological accuracy by Throndike in 1963. Baffled by the
failure of prediction in relation to the discrepant
achievers, the workers in the field focussed their
attention on finding out the causal and concomitant
factors of over-achievement, that is achieving above
the expected level and under-achievement, that is
achieving below the level expected on the basis of
intelligence. In the words of Throndike, "It is
necessary to define over- and under-achievement as
discrepancies of actual achievement from the predicted
achievement, predicted upon the basis of the regression
equation between aptitude and achievement" (Throndlke,
1963, p.13).
As it happens with all conceptual and methodo
logical phenomena at the beginning stage, the new
found-land, i.e., the over-under achievement phenomenon
generated much confusion in research operations. Over-
and under-achievement being methodologically very
•tricky' got muddled up with high and low achievement
or success and failure in many a research work (curry,
1961; Parsley et _al., 1964, Jaygopal, 1974; Tandon,
1978), while the two concepts are vitally different
from each other.
It has by now become an established fact that
intelligence and academic achievement are so closely
related to each other — as it has been evidenced by a
very large number of investigations (McCandless et al.,
1972; Mehryar and Khajavi, 1973; Chaterji and Mukerji,
1974; Kohli, 1976; Crano et al., 1979; Glossop et al,,
Nagpal, 1979; Roberge and Flexer, 1981; Yule et al.,
1982) — that it can be safely said that intelligence
is the most iniportant predictor of academic achieve
ment. However, the relationship between the two
variables has never been found to be perfect. A
chunk of population has in such studies always remained
unpredicted that is either the subjects have fallen
above or below their predicted levels. This kind of
discrepant achievement was realised by the early workers
in the field like pintner (1922) , Peters (1926) , and
Burt (1937) also, but they failed to identify exactly
what caused the failure of prediction in such cases.
Believing in the perfect relationship between intelli
gence and achievement they held some methodological
error in testing itself as responsible for the failure
of prediction. However it was Burt (1937), that
indicated the role of schools in contributing towards
the over- and under-achievement of the pupils — caused
by the 'pull and push' force of the schools. Since
that time the research workers have been trying to
find out factors responsible for discrepant achieve
ment going unpredicted by intelligence.
The research workers have explored the problem
from different directions. A large n\imber of studies
were carried out to find out the extent of relation
ship between academic achievement and different
dimensions of personality, extraversion and neuroti-
iism (Savage, 1966; Menon, 1972); anxiety (Rai, 1974;
Tandon, 1978; Vora, 1978; Traxih, 1984) ; adjustment
(Srivastava, 1967; Sharma, 1972; Kumawat, 1984);
peed achievement (Rao, 1963; Koul, 1978; Rxihland,
Gold and Fled, 1978) and study habits (Vanarasi, 1970;
Saxena, 1972), Some investigators found out the
relationship between environmental climate and
scholastic achievement (Curry, 1961; Tiegland et al.,
1966; Miner, 1968; Jain et al., 1985).
These explorations did reveal quite significant
relationship between academic achievement and certain
personality factors as well as certain environmental
factors. In these studies the high achieving groups
have been found to be more adjusted, more prone to
introversion, possessing better study habits and
having lower level of anxiety. The low achieving
groups have been found to be less adjusted, more prone
to extroversion, possessing poor study habits and high
level of anxiety. Environmental conditions at home
and school have also been found to be playing a vital
role in the academic performance of the children.
Many a research work has been done in this field
with conceptual and methodological misconception. The
workers tried to find out the personality character
istics of high and low achievers but perhaps due to
some misunderstanding referred them as over- and
under-achievers. Some research workers in this field
have derived the individual discrepancies from the
group achievement mean scores and dubbed as over- and
under-achievement (Parsley et al., 1964; Jarvis, 1965).
Many other investigators calculated the discrepant
achievement from a single comparison between ability
and achievement scores (Shaw and McCuen, 1960; Curry,
1961) and some other investigators worked out over-
and under-achievement following some arbitrary norms
for their studies (Joygopal, 1974; Tandon, 1978).
As such these studies, though provided quite consi
derable data on the relationship of personality and
achievement, did not study the phenomenon of over- and
under-achievement as it precisely stands for.
Any research work demands a clear conception of
the phenomenon from both the definitive and methodo
logical point of views. As stressed by Throndike,
over- and under-achievement should be defined in terms
of actual achievement from the predicted achievement,
•predicted upon the basis of the regression equation
between aptitude and achievement' (Throndike, 1963, p.13)
On the basis of intelligence, the most important
predictor of achievement, the over achievement would
refer to positive discrepancy and under-achievement to
negative discrepancy of the actual achievement from the
predicted value.
After 1963, when Throndike clarified the conceptual
and methodological phenomenon of over- and under-
achievement many a research worker exploring the non-
intellectual factors tried to find out the personality-
characteristics of over- and tmder-achievers (Rao,
1963; Taylor, 1964; Morrison, 1969; Vanarasi, 1970;
Dhaliwal, 1971; Agarwal, 1976).
These studies on discrepant achievement discovered
some personality factors like better adjustment, good
study habits, emotional stability going with over-
achievement and social adjustment^ poor study habits and
emotional instability with under-achievement. Though
these few studies have definitely made a break
through in the area, they have completely ignored the
possible intra-individual differences in academic
achievement.
In all these studies, the investigators have tried
to derive over- and under-achievement from the averaged
achievement scores of the subjects and not from the
scores in individual school sxibjects — when it is
almost an established fact that achievement in different
subjects is generally not uniform. An over-achiever
in one sxibject may not be over-achiever in all the
other subjects and the same is true about the under-
achievers.
Some investigators have empirically observed
the intra-individual differences in academic achieve
ment (Blair, 1956; Anastasi, 1958). Their findings
give a clear evidence that a high or low achiever in
one subject is not a high or low achiever in all othe:i;;
school sxibjects respectively.
Individual differences among people have long
been recognised. The over- and under-achieving
students in different school s\ibjects show different
dimensions of personality. Ridding (1966) made an
investigation on personality variables which were
related to over- and under-achievement in English and
Arithmetic. His findings showed that over-achievers
in English were more dominant and extrovert and in
Arithmetic more surgent than the under-achievers.
Saxena (1972) found over-achievers in Science more
adjusted than the under-achievers. Haq (1987) found
over-achievers in Hindi more enthusiastic than under-
achievers. In his study the over-achievers in English
were found to be more obedient and submissive than the
under-achievers. In Mathematics the over-achievers
were found to be more relaxed and the under-achievers
tense.
Haq (1987) also investigated the sex differences
among the students in academic performance and
found that the male over-achievers in different subjects
8
were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable
than the female over-achievers. In English over-
achieving boys were found to be more intelligent
and emotionally stable than over-achieving girls in
the same subject. The female over-achievers in Hindi
were found to be more excitable and far more tense
while the over-achieving boys in Hindi were emotionally
stable and adventurous. In Mathematics and Science,
the over-achieving boys showed higher intelligence,
greater emotional stability and more adventurousness than
the over-achieving girls.
In case of under-achievement almost same differences
were found among under-achieving boys and girls in the
four knowledge areas.
Thus the over as well as under-achievers in each
of the four school sxibject areas were specifically
been found to be having their own personality character
istics set •«.- quite different from the over- and
under-achievers of the other school subject areas.
Thxis the investigations carried out by Ridding
(1966) and Haq (1987) give a clear indication of the
intra-individual differences existing in the phenomenon
of over- and under-achievers along different subjects.
The present study was taken up for further exploita
tion in the realm of intra-individual differences,
indicated by the findings of the above two studies
in the field of over- and under-achievement in
specific knowledge areas, here being English and
Mathematics.
The main purpose of the present investigation
is thus to identify the personality differences
between over-achievers and under-achievers within
each of the two subjects on one hand and between over-
achievers as well as under-achievers across the two
subjects, English and Mathematics, respectively.
Against the theoretical background presented
in the preceding few paragraphs of this chapter, the
present investigation was taken up with the following
objectives and hypotheses:
The major objectives of the present investiga
tion would be:
1, To find out the personality differences between
the over-achieving groups in different school
subjects,
2, To find out the differential personality factors
going with over- and under-achievers in
different school sxibjects.
3, To find out the personality factors differen
tiating the male and female subjects in
different knowledge areas both among over- and
unde r-achi eve rs.
10
Hypotheses
1. The over-achievers in English would be different from the over-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.
2. The under-achievers in English would also be different from the under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.
3. The over- and under-achieving boys in English would differ from the over- and under-achieving boys in Mathematics along their personality characteristics.
4. The over- and under-achieving girls in English would also exhibit personality differences when compared with the over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics respectively.
5. The male over- and under-achievers would differ from the female over-under achievers in each of the two school subject areas respectively.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES
AS already mentioned in the first chapter, the
present study was carried out to investigate the dis
tinctive personality characteristics of the under-
achievers in English and Mathematics. Some valuable
work has certainly been done in the area of over- and
under-achievement yet the personality characteristics
going with under-achievement in specific subjects
have been taken up by only a few investigators, A
brief survey of the related studies would perhaps
provide a factual base for understanding the present
problem.
Studies of Intelligence and Academic Achievement
Intelligence is a major predictor of academic
performance. Quite a large number of studies have
been carried out to ascertain the extent of relationship
between intelligence and academic achievement since the
very beginning of the concept of measured intelligence.
Some important studies are reviewed here.
McCandless/ Roberts and Sterns (1972) studied
11
12
intelligence in relation to scholastic achievement.
They carried out their investigation on 443 VII grade
students and tried to obtain intelligence scores
through California Test of Mental Maturity. The corre
lation between intelligence and academic achievement
was found to be .56. From their study it is clear that
intelligence is significantly related to academic
achievement.
Mehryar and Khajavi (1973) also conducted a
valuable investigation on intelligence in relation to
scholastic achievement. The Persian form of the EPI
and Eysenck's Psychoticism Scale were administered to
a large group (23,000) of Iranian secondary school
students.
Analysis of results for two randomly selected
groups of boys and one group of girls revealed a
consistently negative correlation between measures of
cognitive performance and psychoticism. A somewhat
less consistent but positive correlation was observed
for the extraversion scale. There was little corre
lation between neuroticism and measures of intelligence
or achievement.
Chaterji and Mukerji (1974) investigated the
achievement through the Differential Aptitude Test
Battery Scores. They studied upon 1,042 VIII grade
students.
13
Significant relationship was found at .01 level.
The correlation of coefficients ranged from .21 to .49,
Kohli (1976) carried out a study on behavioural
and environmental correlates of academic ^achievement
of over- and under-achievers at different levels of
intelligence.
The study was conducted on a sample of 264 over-
achievers, 276 average and 219 under-achievers. The
tools employed were the Raven's Standard Progressive
Matrices, the Jalota*s Group Test of General Mental
Ability, the Mittal's Adjustment Inventory, the
Cattell's Jr-Sr High School Person'ality Questionnaire,
the Joshi and Pande's Test of Study Habits and
Attitudes, a Projective Test of Achievement Motivation
and the Socio-economic Status Scale by Jalota, Pande,
Kapoor and Singh.
The major findings were:
1. The spectnam of some of the non-intellectual behaviour-environmental factors was related to academic achievement.
2. Certain factors were common to those groups which differed widely in achievement.
Glossop, Appleyard and Roberts (1979) also
conducted a valuable study on intelligence in relation
to scholastic achievement. They argued that achieve
ment and accomplishment quotients which were used in
14
early studies of under-achievement would yield mis
leading results by over-estimating the nxomber of
under-achievers of high IQ and under-estimating those
of low IQ in any group of children.
Four indices of achievement relative to a measure
of general intelligence were constructed for a sample
of 178 adolescents.
Using reliability estimates for two achievement
tests, reading comprehension and mathematics and for
intelligence test^ it was calculated that 69 per cent
of the variance in the regression residuals for reading
comprehension and 56 per cent in that for Mathematics
were independent. Analysis of the relationships
between the essay and Mathematics, v;ith intelligence
controlled, suggested the involvement of two independent
skills.
Crano, Messe and Rice (1979) carried out a study
on the predictive validity of mental ability for class
room performance. They conducted their investigation
upon 5,200 elementary school children. They used the
Standardised Achievement Test Battery and NFER mental
ability test to find out achievement and ability
scores. The coefficients of correlation was found
between .474 to .505.
Nagpal (1979) carried out a study on Non-
15
intellectual characteristics of over-under achievers.
He used Questionnaires of Wig, Nagpal and Kapoor, the
students' personal Problems Index (SPPI) of Wig and
Kagpal. Shostrom's personality Orientation Inventory
consisting of 150 two-choice comparative value and
behaviour judgement item was used for measuring self-
actualisation.
The result shows that the ability measures accounted
for a limited proportion of the total variance in
academic achievement.
The prevailing academic adjustment v;as important
correlate of over- or under-achievement. Under-
achievers reported a greater number of emotional
problems. Non-intellectual factors related to acquisi
tion of knowledge resulted in over- or under-achieve
ment. Socio-economic variables related to students
determined selection but were not relevant to subse
quent academic performance.
Roberge and Flexer (1981) carried out a study on
the relationship between intelligence and scholastic
achievement. They found that both reading and
Mathematics were correlated with intelligence. Mental
ability and scholastic performance both vjere inter
related. The correlation of coefficients in their
study was found to be .58 to .61.
16
Yule, Lansdown and Urbanowiez (1982) carried out
an investigation on prediction of educational attain
ment through intelligence. To measure intelligence
they used Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(WISC-R) and Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Vernon
Graded Arithmetic Mathematic tests were used to measure
achievement of the children.
They carried out their investigation on 160
children and found a high relationship between intelli
gence and achievement. The correlation between intelli
gence and academic achievement was found to be .457
to .911.
From the studies discussed above it can clearly
be concluded that intelligence is a very reliable
predictor of academic achievement. However, it is
also borne out that the relationship between the two
phenomenon is never perfect or one to one. As such a
portion of population always remains unpredicted which
is generally dubbed the 'residuals'.
Studies on Personality and Other Non-cognitive Factors in Relation to Academic Achievement
The problems of 'residuals' has very often attracted
the attention of the investigators. They have tried
to explore the non-cognitive factors which could be
responsible for the failure of prediction through
17
intelligence.
R.D.Savage (1966) conducted a study on 93 school
children of both sexes to investigate the relationship
between extraversion and neuroticism and the intellec
tual level and school achievement. The Mental Ability
Test, Alpha Form A or Form B (1937) randomly and
Eysenck Personality Inventory (1965) were used.
It will be seen that there is a mildly significant
relationship between extraversion and IQ (.267) between
extraversion and AQ (.235) whilst the extraversion RQ
(.191) relation fails to reach the 5 per cent signi
ficant level by only .009.
It would appear therefore that high extraversion
is related to a brighter intellectual level and higher
academic attainment in these children.
The relationship between neuroticism and academic
attainment is also of interest in this sample. The
neuroticism scores were significantly related to RQ
in a negative direction but were not significantly
related to intelligence.
Eysenck and Cookson carried out a study on
scholastic performance and personality variables. The
study was conducted on a large sample of 4,000 eleven
year, old boys and girls.
18
They used Moray Houst Test and Schonell General
Word Reading Test to measure ability and achievement.
The results showed a very close inter-relationship
between scholastic performance and personality
dimensions.
Rai (1974) also carried out a study on the rela
tionship of anxiety with academic achievement. He
conducted investigation upon 1,000 Biology students.
Sinha's Anxiety Scale was used to measure anxiety and
the examination marks were taken as achievement measure.
The results showed a negative relationship between
anxiety and academic achievement/ but high leve-ls of
anxiety were related to low achievement and low levels
of anxiety went with high achievement.
Koul (1978) also carried out an investigation to
make a comparison between low and high achievers in
Mathematics on a number of Murray* s personality needs
to see if these needs could be used as possible non-
cognitive predictors of achievement in Mathematics.
The sample comparised 200 high-achieving students
equated on socio-economic status. The tools consisted,
of Socio-economic Status Scale, Questionnaire of Jalota
and others and Hindi version of Edward's Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS).
The major findings of the study were: the high-
19
achievers in Mathematics differed significantly from
low-achievrs on eight of Murray's needs. The low-
achievers in Mathematics were more exhibitory succorant,
hetrosexual and aggressive. Several Scale of EPPS,
discriminated between the high and the low-achievers
in Mathematics and could be used as possible non-
academic predictors of achievement in Mathematics.
R\ihland, Gold and Feld (1978) carried out a study
on motivation and scholastic achievement. They inves
tigated 154 primary level children and found a significant
relationship between scholastic performance and
motivation.
Vora (1978) investigated the anxiety level of 200
VIII grade students in relation to academic achievement.
He used Patel's Reading Ability Test and Test Anxiety
Scale to find out ability score and anxiety level. His
findings indicated a negative correlation between
achievement and anxiety.
Khurshid Mohammad and Fatima Rafat (1984) made a
comparative study of personality traits of high- and
low achievers.lhey compared personality traits of 45 low-
achievers and 45 high-achievers selected from 408
students in class VII and class VIII of A.B.Inter
College, Aligarh. Students were selected on the basis
of their final examination grades and were matched with
20
regard to age, grade level and socio-economic status.
Results of R.B.Cattell*s HSPQ reveal that high-
achievers and low-achievers differed significantly
on 7 personality factors. In comparison to low-
achievers, higher achievers were more reserved, inte
lligent, obedient, conscientious, adventuresome, self-
sufficient and self-controlled.
Traxib (1984) carried out a study on shyness,
depression and anxiety in relation to academic per
formance. He investigated 187 under-graduates and
found shyness positively correlated with depression
and anxiety. But in his investigation it was also
found that shy people possessed higher achievement
mean score than the non-shy pupils.
Kumawat (1985) carried out a study on certain
factors related with high- and low-achievement in
college students. The investigator administered the
Culture Pair Intelligence Test, a concept formation
test, an adjustment inventory, a values measure and
a self-report job performance measure to 300 high and
low achieving male undergraduates in the college of
Science and Agriculture Science and Agricultural
Engineering at an Indian university. Results show the
following:
21
(a) High achievers in all 3 academic groups had higher intellegence scores.
(b) High achievers in Science and Engineering had better concept formation ability than low achievers,
(c) There were no significant differences between the adjustment scores of high and low achievers in the 3 groups.
(d) High achievers in Science and Agricultural Science had better scientific attitude than low achievers.
(e) There were no significant differences between high and low achievers with regard to contact personality factors in any of the 3 groups.
(f) High achievers had job values related to self-expression and social service while low achievers endorsed the values of profit and social service.
(g) Both high and low achievers' job performance were for administrative and agro-industrial position.
Pal, Jain,Penni and Tiwari (1985) investigated
the self concept and level of aspiration in high and
low achieving higher secondary pupils. They examined
the effect of the personality variables,self-concept
and level of aspiration on the scholastic achievement
of 240 high school students. The effect of sex and
socio-economic status (SES) on level of aspiration
was also investigated.
Results of students'scores on Rastigi's Self-
Concept Scale and Singh and Tiwari's Level of Aspira
tion Scale indicate that high achieving students
22
pcesessed better self-concepts than did low achievers.
Scholastic achievement, sex and SES independently as
well as simultaneously were found to significantly affect
level of aspiration. Middle SES males displayed the
highest levels of aspiration. Males surpassed females
in level of aspiration. Middle SES males diaplayed the
highest level of aspiration. Males surpassed females
in level of aspiration while male and female middle SES
students surpassed their same sex high SES counter
parts in this variable.
Thus it can be concluded from the findings of
the above studies that there is a very close inter
relationship between scholastic performance and certain
personality dimensions.
The over-achievers in these studies were found
to be more intelligent, consientious, self-sufficient
and self-controlled.
The under-achievers on the other hand were found
to be more warmhearted, assertive, socially group
dependent and relaxed.
The results also showed that high level of anxiety
Ve$ related to low achievement and low level of anxiety
went with high achievement.
In case of extraversion-intraversion it was
23
found that extraversion was related to a brighter
intellectual level and higher academic attainment.
Studies on Personality Factors in Relation to Academic Success and Failure^ Termed Qver-and Under-Achievement.
Some investigations have been done on personality
factors Influencing on over- and under-achievement,
but much of the work has suffered from the definitive
misconceptions of the phenomenon.
Some of these studies are presented here to
provide a historical background:
Curry (1961) carried out a study to identify
over-achievers and under-achievers. By using Cali
fornia Test of Mental Maturity he identified that
sxobjects whose achievement scores were higher than
intelligence scores were termed as over-achievers
and whose achievement scores were below the inteJligenoe score
were termed as under-achievers. His findings showed
that greater portion of underachievers came from
upper socio-economic group.
Parsley^ Powel and Oconmer (1964) attempted to
find out sex differences among over- and under-achievers.
They studied five different IQ groups of boys and girls
by using California Achievement test.
Their findings showed that girls in all groups wer6
24
found to be superior than ooys in their achievement
scores.
Jarvis (1965) carried out a study to find out
sex differences in academic achievement. He carried
olit his study on a large sample of 347 girls and 366
boys. He divided them into three IQ groups — bright,
average and dull. His results also confirrrijy showed
that girls were superior to boys in scholastic
achievement at the same age level,
Jaygopal (1974) investigated low high achievers
in relation to personality. He used Cattell's HSPQ
Test to find out personality factors. Out of 14
factors of Cattell's HSPQ Test only three factors
A (warmhearted) , E (assertiveness) and 1 (tender-
minded) were associated with high achievement. Only
two factors J (circumspect individualism) and H
(adventuresomeness) were related to academic achieve
ment in case of low achievers.
The results showed that the higher achievers
were reseirved, humble and tenderminded whereas under-
achievers were zestful and more social.
Tandon (1978) carried out a study on 400 High
school failures both male and female. He used Sinha's
Anxiety Scale to measure anxiety level of both over-
and under-achievers.
25
The findings showed no significant difference
among boys and girls. Both the male and female under-
achievers possessed high level of anxiety. It is clear
from his study that anxiety is closely related to
scholastic underachievement by which he really meant
the low achievement.
From these above studies it is clear to us that
high achievers exhibit low level of anxiety. They are
humbleminded and reserved. The high achieving girls
showed superior scholastic achievement. Low achiever^
possessed high level of anxiety. They were found to
be zestful and more social. Low achievement is mainly
a problem of male sex.
Studies on personality Factors in Relation to Over- and Under-Achievement Based on Composite Achievement Scores
Some valuable studies are based on a clear concept
of over- and under-achievement. The studies tried to
find out the non-intellective personal factors of
over-achievers and under-achievers.
Rao (1963) carried out a study on adjustment in
relation to academic performance. He predicted the
university students' achievement scores through Regre
ssion Equation/ calculated the positive and negative
discrepancies and identified the over- and under-
26
achievers precisely.
The results showed that over-achievers were more
adjusted than the under-achievers. The under achievers
weire rather poorly adjusted.
Taylor (1964) investigated the relationship
between academic achievement and personality traits.
From his findings it is clear that over-achievers are
more confident, possess high self-esteem, higher
power of self-decision and leadership, acceptance of
authority, good habit and interest in academic values
and are guided by realistic gosls. But in case of
under achievers, the investigator found high anxiety,
negative self-concepts, poor adjustment, disrespect
towards authority and unrealistic goal orientation as
their differential characteristics.
Srivastava (1967) carried out an investigation
into the factors related to educational under achieve*
ment. The stuay was conducted on a sample of 1,837 male
pupils studying in class X and c^ss XI of nine
secondary and higher secondary schools of Patna.
On the basis of verbal and non-verbal tests of
intelligence the data were collected. The data were
analysed using product-moment correlation, analysis of
variance, 't' test, chi-square and phi coefficient.
Findings indicate that:
27
(1) Under achievement was related to (a) poor study habits, (b) ppor reading ability, (c) low ,^ academic motivation, (d) poor health, (e) poor social and emotional adjustment
(2) No significant relationship found to exist between under-achievement and intactness of parental structure, hobbies, interest in games sports and music and attitude towards school.
Morris (1969) carried out a study on under achieve
ment in relation to passive aggression. He employed
California Test of Mental Maturity upon 164 boys from a
public school. He divided the whole sample into three
groups — over-achievers, achievers and under-achievers.
The findings showed that under-achievers possessed
higher passive aggression in relation to other two
groups.
Vanarasi (1970) studied 77 pairs of normal and under-
achievers and tried to find out relationship of study
habits of the two groups. The investigator employed
Sinha's personality Test. The achievement record of
annual examination of IX and X classes were also used.
The results showed that over-achievers were
significantly superior to under-achievers on study
habits.
Bhaduri (1971) investigated some psychological
factors of the over- and under-achievers. The inves
tigator used total marks of annual examination as the
measure of achievement.
!8
The result showed significant psychological
differences between over- and u" ier-achievers. The
over-achievers were found less neurotic and less
anxious than the under-achievers.
Dhaliwal (1971) carried out a study on some factors
contributing to academic success and failure among
high school students — personality correlates of academic
over-under achievement.
The study was completed in two phases. The pilot
study was carried out on a sample of 441 school
students. In the main study a large sample comprising
887 subjects was taken up
Raven's Progressive Matrices and the two forms of
Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2)
were employed for measuring intelligence. To measure
personality, Cattell's fourteen factors of personality
was employed.
The results clearly indicate that superior study
habits reseirvedness, higher verbal ability, home
emotional and school adjustment, poor social adjustmerft
and security feeling corresponded with over-achievement,
whereas inferior study habits, outgoing tendencies,
low verbal ability, emotional instability, assertive-
ness, happy go lucky like temperament, poor adjustment
in home, emotional and school areas, good social
29
adjustment and insecurity feelings were associated
with academic under-achievement.
Anxiety and need for achievement bore a curvili
near relationship with the so called over- and under-
achievement.
Sharma (1972) carried out a comparative study
of adjustment of over- and under-achievers. The
study has been carried out in two phases — preliminary
and final studies. The preliminary study was based on
a sample of 98 subjects while the main study was on a
large sample of 525 subjects of several institutions.
Sxibjects of both the studies were male students of
grade VIII of age range from 13 to 15 years.
Mehta's Verbal Intelligence Test and examination
marks were-used for the study. The major findings were:
(1) The over achievers had better adjustment than the under achievers in the school, home, social and religious and miscellaneous areas.
(2) Intelligence was related to adjustment in all these areas which implied that adjustment was at least partly dependent upon intelligence.
Menon (1972) also investigated the relationship
between under achievement and certain personality
factors such as social activity, extraversion-intro-
version, tolerance, certain motivational traits like
academic interest, areas of interest like outdoor.
30
aesthetic, scientific, mechanical and social service.
The sample was made up of 1,245 boys and 1,155
girls. The tools used in the study were: two
parallel forms of an intelligence test. General Mental
Ability Test - Verbal Form A and B, a personality
inventory, a motivational inventory, an interest
inventory and a general data questionnaire.
The main findings of the study were: the over-
achieving boys and girls were less extrovert and less
maladju.sted than under achievers and showed greater
academic interest and endurance. Over-achieving
girls of general ability showed strongest interest
in aesthetic social and mechanical activities. The
socio-economic status markedly influenced over- and
under-achievement, urban residence was related to
high achievement.
Passi and Lalithama (1973) carried out a study on
self-concept and creativity of over- and under-
achievers. The sample was consisted of 117 tenth
grade students from Baroda High Schools and divided
as over, normal and under achievers. They employed
Patel's Intelligence Test and Passi Test of Creativity
and personality Word List.
The results showed that over achievers possessed
more creativity than the other two groups. But in
31
case of self concept, there were no significant
differences among the three groups,
Agarwal (1976) investigated some personality
factors in relation to academic under-achievement.
The investigator employed Cattell's HSPQ test to find
out thft personality variables.
The results showed that over-achievers possessed
these factors: C (emotional stability), G (super
ego strength) / H (adventuresomensss), Q^ (self
sufficiency) , and Q_ (self control). In case of under-
achievers/ I, J and Q factors namely tendermindedness,
circumspect individualism and tenseness were higher
than over-achievers, respectively.
McRae, Loren James (1982) conducted investiga
tion on the relationship between various personality
characteristics and academic achievement. The specific
purpose was to better understand the underachievers.
The design for this study included theoretical
interpretation through Maslow's personality Syndrom
Theory and interviews with randomly selected subjects.
The sample for this study was composed of 187
undergraduates of about an equal number of males
and females. The four instruments were administered to
the sample. This yielded 34 measures of personality
for each subject.
32
The data analysis indicated that underachievers
were more likely than overachievers to be hedonistic
socially active, averse to being along, expressive
and intimate. Overachievers were conformists while
underachievers were more likely than average achievers
to be counter-authority. Women over-achievers were
aditionally self-disciplined and group active as well
as more socially active than men overachievers.
Stockhard and Wood (1984) carried out a study on
sex differences in academic under-achievement. They
employed California Test of Mental Maturity upon 287
male and 283 female graduate students. The results
showed that under-achievement is mainly a problem of
male sex than that of female sex.
It has been found from the studies discussed
above that over-achievement generally goes with
superior study habits, poor social adjustment and
security feelings and under-achievement with good
social adjustment, insecurity feelings and unrealistic
goal orientation.
Studies on Personality Factors in Relation to Over-and Under-Achievement in Specific Knowledge Areas
Under this heading individual's achievement in
individual school subjects is taken as the basis for
33
deriving over- and under-achievement. A few investi
gators have attempted to study in this field.
Ridding (1966) made an investigation on personality
variables which were related to over- and under-
achievement in English and Arithmetic. The sample
consisted of 600 boys and girls aged 12+ from
Manchester schools.
The children completed Forms A & B of Cattell's HSPQ,
and Children's Questionnaire adapted from Eysenck's
M.P.T, which gives two measures — Neuroticism and
Extraversion.
He classified the sample as over-achievers, under-
achievers and average achivers on the basis of pre
diction through verbal intelligence. The results
showed that:
(1) The over-achieving girls showed more neuroticism in English than the over-achieving boys.
(2) The under-achieving girls were more extroverted in Arithmetic than the underachieving boys.
(3) The over-achieving girls were more surgent than the average achievers in English.
(4) The over-achieving girls possessed more conscientiousness than the under-achieving girls in Arithmetic.
(5) The over-achieving boys were more surgent than the average and under-achievers in Arithmetic.
34
(6) The trait of conscientiousness was associated with over-achievement in Arithmetic.
(7) There was no significant relationship between over- and under-achievement and emotional stability as well as anxiety.
Saxena (1972) carried out a study on adjustment
problem of over- and under-achievers. He selected
sample randomly from XI grade students of 15 years
from Science, Arts and Commerce streams of higher
secondary schools at Allahabad.
Mooney's problem Check List was used to measure
adjustment problems. The normal over- and under-
achievers were identified by Regression Equation.
The results showed that the under-achievers
possessed more adjustment problems than over-achievers
in all the streams.
Haq (1987) conducted a valuable study on personality
in relation to scholastic achievement. The study was
conducted on a large sample of 650 VIII and IX grade
school children from Aligarh Muslim University Boys'
and Girls* schools.
The Investigator employed Cattell and Cattell's
'Culture Fair' test (Scale 2, Form A) for testing
intelligence and for the achievement measure the
investigator had to depend upon the school records. The
Indian adaptation of Cattell and Beloff's H S P Q (Form A)
35
was employed for measuring personality. The results
showed that:
(1) The male over-achievers in Hindi were more prone to be enthusiastic, less excitable and less tough minded than the male under-achievers in Hindi.
(2) The male over-achievers in English were more prone to obedience, submissiveness and accommodating temperament while the under-achievers in the same subject were more inclined to be assertive, competitive and aggressive.
(3) The male over-achievers in Mathematics were found to be relaxed and the under-achievers tense.
(4) In English the over-achieving girls were found to be more assertive, more enthusiastic, more inclined to toughmindedness and more prone to be self-sufficient. The under-achieving girls in English on the other hand, were comparatively less assertive, less enthusiastic and less toughminded but more intelligent, more prone to circumspect individualism and more sociably group dependent.
(5) The female over-achievers in Mathematics were found to be more self-sufficient and ehthusiastic than under-achievers.
(6) Among the girls, over-achievers in Science were more inclined to be reserved and self-sufficient than the under-achievers,
(7) Over-achieving boys in Hindi were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable, adventurous and individualistic. The over-achieving girls on the other hand were more excitable, more apprehensive and far more tense.
(8) In English over-achieving boys were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable and obedient while the over-achieving girls were found to be more assertive, self-sufficient and tense.
36
(9) In Mathematics the over-achieving boys were found to be emotionally stable, enthusiastic and adventurous while the female over-achievers were more apprehensive and self-sufficient.
(10) The over-achieving boys in Science showed higher intelligence, greater emotional stability, more adventurous than the over-achieving girls. The female subjects on the other hand, were more assertive, more apprensive, more self-sufficient and tense,
(11) The under-achieving boys in Hindi were found to be more reserved, emotionally stable, adventurous and tough minded than the underachieving girls.
(12) In English the under-achieving boys were emotionally more stable, excitable, more assertive, sober, tough minded, apprehensive and socially more dependent than the underachieving girls.
(13) In Mathematics, the male under achievers were found to be intelligent, emotionally stable, adventurous, tough minded and self-controlled while the female subjects were prone to be assertive and tense.
(14) In Science the male under-achievers were more reserved, emotionally more stable and more tough minded, self-assured and relaxed while the female under-achievers were emotionally less stable, tenderminded and more tense.
There are only a few such studies on over- and
under-achievement in specific school subjects. From
these studies it can be concluded that over-achievers
are more adjusted, more conscientious and more enthu
siastic in different school subjects than under-
achievers.
37
Studies on Remedial^Measures of Under-Achievement
The problem of under-achievement has now become
a burning problem in our educational system. Some
studies have been conducted on remedial measures for
under-achievement,
Writh (1977) carried out a study on effects of
a remedial reading and counselling programme on under-
achieveing students. He carried out his study on 190
under-achievers from 3rd and 6th grade students. He
divided the sample into two groups — one was'treated
group' and another was 'control group'.
The investigator used the Intellectual Achieve- ,
ment Responsibility Scale (lARS) for pre- and post-
test comparison. The results showed significant
differences between the control group and treated group/
the differences going in favour of the treated group.
Clark, Ronald Bide (1981) investigated the
effects of selected counselling approaches on low
achieving grade X students. The purpose of this
study was to determine which of the selected approaches
of counselling was most effective in terms of improv
ing the self-concept/ scholastic achievement, class
room behaviour, attitude towards school and attendance
of low achieving grade X students.
38
Results indicate that:
(1) The low achieving grade X students could be assisted through individual counselling to Improve in attitude towards school.
(2) The low-achieving student could be assisted through individual counselling, to improve his attendance at school.
(3) The factors of self-concept, scholastic achievement and classroom behaviour of low-achieving students were affected similarly when the students were counselled either in groups or individually.
Garler, Kinney and Anderson (1985) carried out
a study on "effects of counselling on classroom perfor
mance". They carried out their study on 41 under-
achievers from III and IV grade and this was the
treated group. Another group consisted 24 under-
achievers and this group was control group.
From their findings, it is clear that the treated
group in comparison to control group gains more in
classroom behaviour through counselling.
Miller and Dianne (1986) investigated the effect of
small group counselling on under-achievers. They
studied the effect of small group counselling sessions
on 47 IV graders, classified as under-achievers.
Students were assigned randomly to a treatment or
control group. Treatment students participated in small
group sessions twice a week for nine weeks.
39
Group session consisted of discussion and
activities in four areas — self-appraisal and self-
concept/ study skills and following directions,
listening skills and goal setting.
There was a statistically significant difference
only in the mean change scores between the two groups
on the Elementary Guidance Behaviour Rating Scale for
teachers. The results indicate that small group
intervention may improve student's classroom behaviour
and work habit as judged by teachers,
A perusal of the studies on over- and under-
achievement, would, thus reveal that very little work
has been done in the area of discrepant achievement -io
the area of concomitant personality factors of dis
crepant achievement with reference to specific
knowledge areas. The present study is therefore an
attempt to explore and identify the personality
characteristics going with under-achievement in English
and Mathematics only.
The method and procedure of the present investi
gation is described in the next chapter.
Chafpter III
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
As mentioned in the foregoing chapters, the
present investigation aimed at finding out the perso
nality characteristics associated with under-achieve-
ment in English and Mathematics. The present chapter
deals with the methodological and procedural aspects
of the investigation.
Tools of the Study
Before embarking upon any research work it has
to be ascertained that the tools and measures are
reliable and valid. In the present investigation
the Investigator employed th^ following standard tools
and measures:
(1) The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2) .
(2) Cattell and Beloff's HSPQ Test (Kapoor and Mehrotra Form A, 1973) .
For achievement scores of 30S students in two specific
school subjects the investigator had to rely upon the
school achievement records.
40
41
Measure of Intelligence
The Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test
(Scale 2) is designed to find out the most consistent-
score of basic capacity which many researches have
shown to be largely inborn/ a relatively constant
characteristic of the individuals and operative in
quite different areas, e.g., verbal, numerical and
social skills. The authors claim that the test is
highly suitable for the varied research situations,
especially for those in which general ability is the
variable to be controlled or experimentally manipulated,
The scale consists of 4 sub-tests which contain
46 problems in all,presented in single-line diagrams
involving series, classifications matrices and condi
tions. The test-wise division of items is 12, 14, 12
and 8 respectively. In the arrangement of the sub-
testa, a comparatively well known easy-to-grasp test
has been chosen to start the subject off. The first
sub-test which has 12 series of items and time allotted
for it is 3 minutes. The second sxib-test contains 14
items and the time allotted for it is 4 minutes. The
third sub-test contains 12 classifications and the
allotted time is 3 minutes. The fourth sub-test
has 8 items and 2 /2 minutes are allotted for it.
42
A brief instruction is given before each sub
test so that the subjects Qan easily treat them.
Reliability of the Intelligence Measure
The reliability of the test has been evaluated
both in terms of the Dependability Coefficient and the
Consistency Coefficient. The Dependability Coefficients
for the full test were .82 to .85. In split half method
Consistency Coefficients were found between .95 to .97
(Technical Suppliment for the Culture Fair Intelligence
Test, Scale 2 and Scale 3, 1973, p.2) .
V lj.ditv of the Intelligence Measure
The validity for the 12 series items of the first
sub-test of Culture Fair Intelligence Test is .76. For
the second sub-test which consists fj 14 items, the
coefficient is .54. The coefficient of the third sub
test of 12 matrices is .76 and for fourth sub-test
which consists 8 topology, the coefficient is .51. For
the whole 46 items, the validity coefficient was found
to be .85 (Technical Suppliment, 1973).
In the manual it is also reported that the concrete
validity coefficients for four tests of intelligence —
the Wechsler Adult,Revised Beta, Otis Group Test and
43
Coloured Progressive Matrices — were found to be .74
for first sub-test, .76 for second sub-test, and .71
for third sub-test. The average coefficient for all »•
these four sub-tests was found to be .70 (Manual,
1973, p.11).
The Measure of Achievement
Due to the non-availability of the standardized
achievement tests, the investigator had to depend on
the school records of examination marks. The achieve
ment records of one whole year have been taken for
this purpose. It would be better if any standardized
achievement test could be employed for the school
subjects chosen for the study. There was another
alternative to construct an achievement test and
standardise it. The reliability and validity of the
achievement test in such case could have been ensured.
The achievement record of the school is not so reliable
but due to the non-availability of achievement tests,
the investigator had to depend upon school records.
To get better reliability of achievement scores,
results of two tests were taken (one half yearly
and one annual) in the two selected school subjects,
English and Mathematics.
44
Measure of Personality
To investigate the personality characteristics
of the over- and under-achievers, the present investi
gation employed Indian adaptation of Cattell and
Beloff's HSPQ (Kapoor and Mehrotra, Form A, 1973).
The author claims that these fourteen measures
have been found to cover almost the total personality.
It is a comprehensive test of personality consisting
of 114 items.
Cattell and Beloff's HSPQ test was found to be
suitable for this study at the first place it was
suitable for the age group taken for the study and
secondly it was easy to administer within a school
period.
The 14 factors of personality on the HSPQ are
represented^by different alphabets. Out of these 14
factors, 10 factors are ranging from A to J and last
four are 0, Qj/ Qo and Q-, All factors are bipolar.
One pole represents low score and another pole
represents the high score. The characteristics of each
pole are opposed to each other. Given below is the
detailed list of personality characteristics in which.
left pole represents the low score and the right pole
represents the high score:
45
A. Reserved
(Critical/ aloof and stiff)
Warmhearted
(Outgoing, participating, easy going)
B. Less intelligent
(concrete thinking, low scholastic mental capacity)
More intelligent
(abstract thinking, higher mental capacity)
C. Affected by feeling
(easily upset, low ego strength)
Emotionally stable
(mature, calm, high ego strength)
Undemonstrative
(deliberate, inactive stodgy)
Excitable (impatient, overactive, unrestrained)
Obedient (mild, docile, accommodating)
Assertive (aggressive, competitive, stub bors)
F, Sober (taciturn, serious)
Enthusiastic
(heedless, happy go lucky)
G. Disregard rules
(expedient, weaker super ego strength)
Conscientious (persistent, stronger super ego strength)
H. Shy
(timid, restrained threat sensitive)
Adventurous (thick skinned, social ly bold, does not see danger)
I . , Tough-minded (rejects i l lus ion , s e l f - r e s t r a in t , responsible)
Tende r-minded (sensit ive, dependent, over protected)
J . Zestful (likes group action)
CircxOTspect individualism
(reflective, internally restrained)
46
0 . Self-assured (placid , secure , untroubled)
Socia l ly group dependent ( jo iner , sound follower)
Uncontrolled (follows own urges , ca re less of soc i a l rules)
Relaxed (tranquil, unfrus-trated, cortiposed)
Apprehensive
(self-repreaching, insecure)
Self-sufficient (resourceful, prefers own decision)
Controlled (exacting will power, socially precise)
Tense (driven, frustrated fretful)
Reliability of Personality Measure (HSPQ)
To find out the reliability of HSPQ, Form A, the
authors have indicated the test-retest agreement for
each of the fourteen factors. The reliability co
efficient is ranging from .74 to .91 and after six
months ranging from ,53 to- .69 and after one year the
reliability coefficient ranging from .38 to .69
(Manual for HSPQ, 1974, p.4) .
Validity of personality Measure (HSPQ)
According to the authors, "what matters crucially
is good intensive measurement of the personality
factors in the first place and therefore the HSPQ
scales are meant to stand or fall by their construct
47
validity" (Manual-for HSPQ, 1973, p.5) . Here
validity coefficients ranged from .57 to .75. There *
should be no difficulty in obtaining the reliabilities
and validities here indicated, but it should still be
obseirved that at present the HSPQ is apparently
systematically better at measuring some factors than
others (Manual for HSPQ, p. 11) .
Population
Three hundred and two students of class X were
selected from four girls' and one boys' higher
secondary schools of Nagaon, Assam, The ages of the
students ranged from 14 to 16 years. The mean of the
students' age is 15. The students generally came from
middle class from the socio-economic point of view and
were studying under the auspices of one and the same
educational administrative body, the Secondary Education
Board of Assam (SEBA) .
Administration of the Test and Collection of Data
The administration of both the tests — Catteil's
Culture Fair Intelligence Test and HSPQ test — was
completed in four days in each school. Instructions
given by the author were strictly followed while
administering the two tests.
48
Being a novel experience for the students both
the tests proved to be very involving for the subjects.
They did the whole task very seriously.
For scoring both the tests, the keys provided by
the authors were used. Thus scores on intelligence and
fourteen personality factors were obtained. For render
ing the intelligence and achievement schores, statisti
cally more comparable, all the intelligence and achieve
ment scores were converted into Z scores (Best,1977,p.238)
Identification of Over- and Under-achievement
The data having thus been collected, the principal
task for the investigator was to identify the over-
and under-achievers in specific school subjects,
namely English and Mathematics. Now there was the
problem regarding the prediction of 'the expected
achievement', upon which the positive and negative dis
crepancies, symbolising over- and under-achievement
respectively, were to be computed. The terms over-
achievement and under-achievement are relevant and
meaningful only in comparison with some standard of
achievement predicted or expected. For the statistical
recognition of over- and under-achievement in each of
the two school subjects, the regression equation between
intelligence scores and achievement scores as
49
suggested by Throndike (1963) was used by the inves
tigator. The formula for regression equation was:
y = r -2-JL. (X - M ) + My
In this equation/ the factor r -—^ is called the
regression coefficient. When the two variables (i.e.,
the predictor and the criterion have equal variability
(i.e., <r"x = d y) , the correlation coefficient, i.e.,
r is identical with the regression coefficient (cf.
Walker and Lev, 1958, p.l44). As regards other
Symbols:
y = the predicted value of criterion (achievement) .
r = the coefficient of correlation between the predictor (intelligence) and the criterion (achievement) variables.
cry = standard deviation of the criterion scores,
o"X = standard deviation of the predictor scores.
X = individual predictor scores.
Y = individual criterion scores,
Mx = mean of the predictor scores.
My = mean of the criterion scores.
(Garrett, 1981, p. 158)
The mean and the standard deviations of the
predictor and criterion variables were worked out and
50
the coefficient:of correlation between intelligence
and achievement scores were found out. Thus the
expected achievement scores were found^ predicted on
the basis of intelligence.
Having obtained the predicted scores, the inves
tigator calculated the discrepancies between the actual
achievement scores and predicted values, for each
individual in two specific school subjects.
For more precise identification of the over- and
under-achievers and to avoid statistical errors, the
standard error of estimate was used. One SDe above
their predicted score were recognised as over-achievers
and one SDe below the predicted level were identified
as under-achievers. The formula for standard error of
estimate was as follows:
SDe = SD/ 1-(r) (Garrett, 1981, p. 161)
Thus following the above procedures, the over-
and under-achievers among male and female subjects
were recognised iq the two spec i f i c knowledge a r eas .
Both over-achievers and under-achievers were divided
in to following 12 groups:
1, Over-achievers in English.
2, Over-achievers in Mathematics,
3, Under-achievers in English.
51
4. Under-achievers in Mathematics.
5. Male over-achievers in English.
6. Male under-achievers in English.
7. Male over-achievers in Mathematics.
8. Male under-achievers in Mathematics.
9. Female over-achievers in English.
10. Female under-achievers in English.
11. Female over-achievers in Mathematics.
12. Female under-achievers in Mathematics.
Procedure for Determining Group Differences on Fourteen Personality Factors
To find out the differences between the over-
aa well as under-achievers in each of the two knowledge
areas on the fourteen personality factors were tested
for significance by the 't'-test. It, on any
personality variable, the differences in the mean scores
for the groups of over-achievers as well as under-
achievers were found to be significant in an ascending
or a descending order, then a positive or negative
linear relationship was suspected. The formula for 't'
value is given below:
t = — 2 2
/^l . 2 (McNemar/ 1962, p. 102)
The results of the present investigation thus
obtained, have been presented in the next chapter.
" l •
^1
- " 2
^2
^2
Chapter IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
As Stated earlier in the preceding chapters,
the main objective of the present investigation is
to find out the personality differences between
the over- and under-achievers in two major school
subjects, namely, English and Mathematics. The data
for this study were collected from a sample of 302
students of both the sexes from five schools.
The over- and under-achievers were identified
both among boys and girls in each of the two subject
areas — English and Mathematics — and the follow
ing pairs of groups were compared along fourteen
personality dimensions on Cattell's H.S.P.Q.:
(1) Over-achievers in English Vs Over-achievers ^ in Mathematics.
Under-achievers in English Vs Under-achievers in Mathematics. Over-achievers in English Vs Under-achievers in English. Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs under-achievers in Mathematics.
52
53
(2) -Male Over-achievers in English Vs Male Over-achievers in Mathematics. Male Under-achlevers in English Vs Male Under-achievers in Mathematics. Male Over-achievers in English Vs Male Under-achievers in Engl ish. Male Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs Male Under-achievers in Mathematics.
(3) Female Over-achievers in English Vs Female Over-achievers in Mathematics, Female Under-achlevers in English Vs Female Underachieve rs in Mathematics, Female Over-achievers in English Vs Female Under-achievers in English. Female Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs Female Under-achievers in Mathematics.
(4) Male Over-achievers in English Vs Female Over-achievers in English. Male Over-achievets in Mathematics Vs Female Over-achievers in Mathematics, Male Under-achievers in English Vs Female Under-achievers in English. Male Under-achievers in Mathematics Vs Female Under-achievers in Mathematics.
As mentioned in the previous chapter , the study
employed the ' t* t e s t to find out whether the pe r sona l i t y
differences between the compared groups were s i g n i f i c a n t
or not . The r e s u l t s of the ' t ' t e s t are presented in
t ab le s 1 to 16.
54
Comparison Between Over-achievers In English and Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 1 shows the differences between the over-
achievers in English and Mathematics on fourteen
personality factors.
As can be seen from Table 1, the over-achievers
in the two specific school subjects, differ signifi
cantly on eight personality factors, namely Reserved
vs Warmhearted (A), Less intelligent vs More
intelligent (B), Affected by feeling vs Emotionally
stable, (c). Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) , Disregard
rules vs Conscientious (G), Shy vs Adventurous (H),
Tough minded vs Tenderminded (I) , Sociably group
dependent vs Self sufficient (Q2) and Uncontrolled
vs Controlled (Q^).
On factor A, Reserved vs Wairmhearted, the means
of the over-achievers in English and Mathematics are
10.87 and 8.17 while the SDs are 3.29 and 2.85
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.4 which
is highly significant, i.e., at .01 level.
The results clearly show that the over-achievers
in Mathematics are more warmhearted than the over-
achievers in English.
On factor B. Less intelligent vs More intelligent,
(U
0}
u >
•H J2 U <0 I (0
u u 0) -H > +» O (0
E
o x: §= 0) C S - H
(U 01
> c <o Q) -H
4J <t> Q) I
cq i^
0) >
o o c 2 1 Q) ID
m -< x:
•H W Q T»
H o c
H 0) o
I 03
0) o
>w c O (0
o
>-H a> c •J en
•H 0)
0) - s> - <0
>
w u
(0 2 R
55
o r C 2!
0)
01 M 0) U3 > 01 0) "H OX >r| r-l VO
u a II
§J
M
O • P O <d
4J
(0 C
o 0) 0) 04
i-i r-i ID
o o o in in H rH o o o o O O
CO r- 00 o c>4 M 0\ VO 0\ TJ<
in in ^ iH
f- t*- in vD in 00 CM r o VO CTt O \ 0 CO CO
H f M r M r o f N J O O r o f N j
< 7 » i n ^ o o r o i n i n < * o « ; » « r H o c o o c M i n » H o \ i n o r - ) c g c o o o 0 \ Q O i n o
n c N i n c M c a r o f o n c ^ i c M C N j c M r o r o
t- in r~ CM 00 in cr\ ON
r H i n r o O t j " i - i o o ' * i n i n • « f n < M i n o O r - j ' « i ' c o < D O
o » o o o o o v o < T > f H o r ~ o o o o r - o j a »
in 00
» - f c O ' * r * i n i n n m ' « i » v o o o i n O N r H c n c o r o o o > H o \ i n o o v O r j * n o o
0 < C N < M C > 4 r M < M n C M < v i O J C M C M f O C N
r > a i o > H i n r « r ^ f n i n o o H c ^ ' 5 i ' c ^ i - J ^ O N H v O H C f t l O i r J O ' H H C M n
o o ^ o o c o t n o o a \ o o v o o o t ^ v o . - i o o
0)
It)
• P 01 B OJ > i
e
• P C 0) •ri V
•H
0 01
0)
O s I
c 0)
•H
0)
C
c o -p
(U
g u 1 en c •H
H <U 0) M-)
'd 0) +j 0 0) m >4
<
^ •p -rH
q X M 1
0)
> •H -P ft)
•P 01
c 0 E a> -d c D
0) > •H
ti 0) 0}
^ 1
4J C (1) •H •0 0) XJ o
0) (0 Ul (0 0) 0)
^ C Q U Q W P M O D C H h i O oa en ^ I
a a a I
56
the means of the over-achieving groups in English and
Mathematics, are 6.55 and 4,49 and S.Ds. are 2.55 and
2.11 respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.28
and it is again significant at .01 level. It clearly
shows that the over-achiervers in Mathematics are more
intelligent than their counterparts in English.
On factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emotionally
stable, the mean scores of the over-achievers in English
and Mathematics are 8.9 and 9,87 while the S.Ds. are
2.98 and 3.14 respectively. The •t' value is found to
be 1.97 which is significant at .05 level. The high
scorers in this factor are emotionally stable while th^
low scorers affected by feeling.
It can be concluded from the results on factor C,
that over-achievers in Mathematics are emotionally
more stable than the over-achievers in English.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the high
scores represent enthusiastic and low scores sober and
calm characteristics. On this personality factor, the
mean of the two over-achieving groups in English and
Mathematics are 9.35 and 8.17 while the S.Ds. are 3.05
and 2.85 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
2.42 which is significant at .05 level.
It can be concluded from the results shown in
57
Table 1 tha t the over-achievers in Mathematics are more
incl ined to be en thus i a s t i c and happy go lucky while
the over-achievers in English are l ess incl ined to the
en thus ia s t i c nature .
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious, the
means of the two over-achieving groups of English and
Mathematics are 11.23 and 9.97 while the S.Ds. are 3.35
and 3.15 respec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found to be
2.37 and i t i s s i gn i f i can t at .05 l e v e l .
The trend of r e l a t ionsh ip between over-achievers
in English and over-achievers in Mathematics on fac tor
G/ Disregard rules vs Conscientious dimension of
pe r sona l i ty as borne out by the r e s u l t s in Table 1, the
over-achievers in Mathematics are tending to be more
conscientious while over-achievers in English are less
conscientious and d is regarding r u l e s .
On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the means of
the over-achievers in English and Mathematics are
10.50 and 8,63 while the S.Ds. are 3.24 and 2.93 r e s
pec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found to be 3.67 which
i s highly s i gn i f i c an t , i . e . , a t .01 l e v e l .
The r e s u l t s thus c l e a r l y ind ica te t h a t the over-
achievers in Mathematics are far more adventurous than
the over-achievers in English.
58
On factor 1/ Toygh minded vs Tenderminded/ the
high scorers are tenderminded and sensitive while the
low scorers are tough minded and reject illusions.
The means of the over-achievers in English and Mathe
matics on this factor are 7,84 and 6.55 while the S.Ds.
are 2.8 and 2.55 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 2,95 which is significant at .01 level.
The results clearly show that the over-achievers
in Mathematics are found to be more tender minded and
sensitive than the over-achievers in English.
On factor Qj/ designated as Sociably group dependent
vs Self sufficient, the two over-achieving groups
significantly differ from each other. The means of the
two groups in English and Mathematics are 7.84 and 6.17
while the S.Ds. are 2,8 and 2,48 respectively. The 't'
value is found to be 3,88 and it is significant at .01
level.
The results clearly indicate that the over-
achievers in Mathematics are more self-sufficient
while the over-achievers in English are sociably group
dependent.
On factor Q^, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the over-achievers in English and over-
achievers in Mathematics are 11.24 and 12.85 while the
59
S.Ds. are 3,58 and 3.-35 respectively. The 't* value
is found to be 2.82 and it is significant at .01
level.
As such it may be concluded that the over-achievers
in Mathematics are more controlled than the over-
achievers in English.
On the rest six factors as can be seen from Table 1,
the differences between the two groups are insignificant.
The results presented in the Table 1 may be
summarised as under:
The over-achievers in English are found to be:
(1) Less warmhearted
(2) Less intelligent
(3) Emotionally less stable
(4) Less enthusiastic
(5) Less conscientious
(6) Less adventurous
(7) Less tenderminded
(8) Sociably group dependent
(9) Less controlled
The over-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:
(1) More warmhearted
(2) More intelligent
(3) Emotionally stable
(4) More enthusiastic
(5) More conscientious
60
(6) More adventurou;s
(7) More tenderminded (8) More s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t (9) More c o n t r o l l e d
Comparison Between Under-achievers in English and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors CHSPQ)
Table 2 shows the differences between the
under-achievers in English and under-achievers in
Mathematics on fourteen personality factoirs. As can be
seen from the Table 2, the differences between the two
groups are significant on three personality dimensions,
namely. Tough minded vs Tenderminded (I), Self-
assured vs Apprehensive (0) / and Uncontrolled vs
Controlled (Q,) .
On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the
high scorers are tendermineded and sensitive. The low
scorers on the other hand are tough minded. The mean
scores of the under-achieving groups in English and
Mathematics are 7.52 and 5.73 while the S.Ds. are 2.74
and 2.39 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
4.97 which is highly significant at .01 level.
The results clearly indicate that the under-
achievers in English are tender-minded and sensitive
while under-achievers in Mathematics are prone to
c •H
2 a> > <u •rl
•g (0 1 0) M 0 OJ-H '2-»i a (tf
O P 10
ws c (0 C 0) -H
s: n 4) U
SX 0) •p >
0) C T H
a (0 +> 1 0) M m 0)
•d 0) C O ID a 0) -O (H C 0) Id m •wx: •H 9) Q -H
H <H D» 0 C
H lU 0
§ 0
•H ^ •H C 0>
W
OJ o
M C O ff)
o
> - H
•H
n 0)
- (0 >
0) W4
$ > • <U Q
4:+>o\ U (0 m s li .1
w c a •« -H ^-^
Q (0
0) H (0 Z
IQ
u 0) > J C - ^ 0) <0 VO • H - H O J C H H O 0> (tf C B 1 W
u z a) c w 'g-^ &
Q W
«> rH (D S
(0 M 5 O (0
PM
> i
+> •H H
0 (Q Wi 4) 04
r-o o
ON r» OJ
<N CO •
t ^
o CO
rg
i n CO
r-
-d (V •p M OJ 0)
s fd S 1 'd 0)
t (i) (0 0) a:
<
i n 00
o
i n o fM
CM (S
• n>
r* o CvJ
CM rt
• « *
4J c OJ C7>
-H rH r ^
a> +J c -a 0) M o S 1
4J
o» •H H r-l
<u •p c
•H
W 0} <U
H^
CQ
O i n
H
i n H
ro
r-o\ •
ON
VO CN»
ro
ro VO
O
0) H
-s 4J n > i
rH rH (TJ C 0
•H
+> 0 S' U 1 o» c
•rl rH 0) 0) tl4
> 1
SX
-d 0)
+> o 0) 44 m «<
o
o VO
O
r-f^
CM
CO VO •
r-
H CD
CM
•-\ a\ r-
0) H
-§ 4J •H O X M 1
% •rl 4J rt) U -P 0) c g 0) •d c !=>
Q
r~ a\ o
rH i n
CM
m CO •
VO
00 i n
CM
VO vO
VO
4) >
•H
ti V 0)
^ 1
-P a o
•H •d
^ o
M
«o Ti*
O
CM H
ro
VO r* •
o\
i n r ^
CO
VO a\ a\
o •H
+»
•H
3 x: 4J c u 1 M 4) 43 0 to
1^
CO ' i '
o
i n o\ CM
i n t^ •
00
0 \ a\ CM
i n 0 \
CO
0) 3 0
•H •p c 4)
•H 0 (0 c 0 u 1 4)
rH
2 to -d u (d D> g (0
•rl Q
e>
CM o\ H
CO Ov
CM
00 "f •
00
'd' o fO
c CM
<
CQ SI 0 M 3 •P C 4) > '5 <
1 > i
Xi CO
X
o •
r-o\ • ^
a\ ro
CM
tn r-
• i n
^ r-CM
CM i n
r-
•d 4) XJ c
•rl S ^ 4> -d c 0) 6H 1 'd a> •d c
•H E
x: en d 0
B
H
i n r-o
VO VO
CM
0 \ O •
r-
•^ r-CM
t^ n
f -
6 0) •H rH (d :3
TJ •H >
•rl T3 C
•H
4-> O 4) 0< « p 0 u
•H U 1
H ;3 m -p m 4)
tcj
o
rH O
•
i n r-<
n
CM r~ CM
o "# •
r-
ro c CM
o vO
CO
0) >
•H W c 0)
x: 4} u a ^ 1
TJ
P M D (Q U) (tf
<4-» H 4) CO
O
P» C~
o
C--i n
CM
ro VO •
vO
CM VO
CM
H o\ VO
P c 4)
•rl
IM VM 31 CO
»w H 4) to 1
•P c 4) T3 C 4) D* 4) •d
& 0 p M D> > i
rH ^ (0
•rl (J 0 to
CM a
o •
ro ^ 00 a\
CM O
VO CTN <JN t^
CM CJ
O CM 00' CO • •
00 r -
VO VO H CO
ro CM
0\ 00 a\ rH
Ov 00
-d 4)
rH H
a •p c 0
u 1 4) "d to 4) C
rH 4) '-< 6H 0 1 U Xi •P 0) C X O (0 O rH a 4) D an
a a 1
61
62
tough-mindedness.
On factor 0 Self assured vs Apprehensive, the
mean scores of the two under-achieving groups in
English and Mathematics are 8.60 and 7,40 and the S.Ds.
are 2.93 and 2.72 respectively. The 't* value is
found to be 3.15 which is highly significant at ,01
level.
Since the mean score of the under-achievers in
English is significantly greater than that of under-
achievers in Mathematics, it can be concluded that the
under-achievers in English are more apprrehensive than
the under-achievers in Mathematics.
On factor Q,, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the under-achievers in English and Mathematics
are 9.99 and 8.80 while the S.Ds. are 3.16 and 2.96
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.83
which is significant at .01 level.
The results thus clearly bring out that the under-
achievers in English are more controlled while the
under-achievers in Mathematics are less controlled.
On the remaining 11 factors, the differences
between the under-achievers in English and Mathematics
are insignificant.
63
The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in Tab le 2 may be concluded
as under:
The uDder-achlevers In English are:found t o be:
(1) More tender minded
(2) More apprehensive
(3) More controlled
The under-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:
(1) Less tender minded
(2) Less apprehensive
(3) Less controlled
Comparison Between Over- and Under-achievers in English on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 3 shows the significance of difference
between over-achievers in English and under-achievers
in English on fourteen personality factors.
As can be seen from Table 3, the over-under
achievers in English differ significantly on seven
personality factors, namely. Affected by feeling vs
emotionally stable (C), Obedient vs Assertive (E),
Sober vs Enthusiastic (F), Disregard rules vs Cons
cientious (G)t Tough minded vs Tender minded (I),
3elf assured vs Apprehensive (0) , and Uncontrolled
vs Controlled (Q.) .
CO
Xi V)
•H H o» C M C
•H
(Q U
o (0 I
en
o u 0) C
0) 0) CO
x:
0) I ? n -P 0) 0) -O n B 0 , ^ 013 c c 0) rtf M 0) * < •H Q >w o 0) o c (0 o
•H *w •H C cn
• H CO
0) o
O It)
o
>-^ •H
0) - 3 4J H - (0
>
64
to
(U
0) w ^ •H -H O J S H O O O^rH
(1) c ^
C
(0
u > m ^
•H H VO
(0 U I M C
> o
(0
o
CM
>1 4J
c o (0 M 0)
o in rH in 0 0 0
in o
in o
o C7S o \ o 4 O 0 ' * c o i n r - o < x ) ^ o i £ ) i n r o ' * i n i n o c s c M i n H r ~ • ' ^
• • * * * • • • • • • • O M * O O < * 1 O C ^ < * > r M r H C M r H r 0 H O
o t 00 O
CM rH iH in 0\ CO in H o\
• J* •^ •<* C O CM v O v O
o r- r- a> vo H 00 C N r > j c o c > i c M n c M r o c M C N < N j c s j n c M
i n c N r o r H v o v D i n t ^ c M r - o H C 0 c ^ v o o ^ v O C ^ O ^ C M l n ^ ^ v o o ^
0\ CO 0\ H
r ^ T T o r > - ' ^ c ^ o o c y > r ^ t ^ c o ^ £ > O N O O
i n H c O ' * r - m i n r o i n < < j » v o o o i n a \ C 0 > ^ O ^ C 0 n C 0 r ^ O ^ l n C 0 V O ^ J ' ^ O C 0
C M f N l C M O l C M C M r O C M C N C M C N C v J f O O )
c ^ < y > o H i n r > - r * r o i n c o < H r ^ 5 i < r ^ r - < T l < 0 \ r H V O H a » l O t n O H r H r > a f O
C O ' ^ C O C O L O O O C ^ C O v D C O r - V O r H C O
t ) Q)
ti (d <u ^ ^ P rd 3: 1
'd (U
t 0) (0 0) 05
c 0)
•H H
Q) +J C
•A
0) U 0 2 1
4J B 0) D> •H i - (
rH (U •P C
•H
(0 U] <U ^
<0 r-t JQ (0
•P W
rH rH (0 c 0
•rt -P 0
E M 1 cn C
•H H (U 0) m > i 4a -d 0) •P 0 0)
4-» IW
<
0) .H jQ <d -P •H 0 X u 1
<u > •H
+) (d u -p CO c 0 g 0) 'O c ID
0)
> •H -P U (U CO
^ 1
4J G 0) •H •d (1) ^ 0
0 •r<
+> %
•r(
m :3 x: •p B M
1 M (U X( 0 to
CO P 0
4J B (U •H 0 CO G 0 u 1 CO <D r-i :i
« CO
Td u m Di
P u CO
•rH
«
CO p 0 M P -P B (U > -d < 1
> i ^ CO
•d (U XJ B
•H
e u flj
TJ B CU B 1
-d <u -d B
•H
e x: 01 p 0 tn
e CO
• H
(d
' d •rH > •H
-d B
•H
•P 0 1) CU CO
E 3 0 M
•H U 1
rH P
»H -P (0 CD
oa
9> > •H CO B OJ x: a> M
a 9-< 1 x j <u u J3 CO CO (d
m rH (U CO
B <U •H 0
fH IH i«
CO
IW r-\ CU
CO 1
-p B (0 -d B (d a CU -d
a p p n
,o> >1
H
^ •H 0 0 CO
-d CU r-{ H 0 U +J c 0
V XJ CU
rH iH 0 u -p B 0 0 B 13
CU CO B CU E-i 1
TJ (U
S H CU 05
<c cQ u p w oi m ^
( x , o K H b o a a a
65
On factor C, Affected by feeling vs emotionally
stable, the means of the over-achievers in English
and underachlevers in English are 8.9 and 10.63 while
the S.Ds. are 2.98 and 3.26 respectively. The 't'
value is found to be 3.39 which is significant at
.01 level.
The results thus reveal that the over-achievers
in English are emotionally less stable while the under-
achievers in the same subject are emotionally more
stable.
Factor E, on which high scorers are counted as
more assertive and low scorers less assertive, obedient
and sxibmissive, the over-achievers in English have
lower mean scores than the vmder-achievers in English,
Their mean scores are 5.65 and 6.66 while the S.Ds.
aire 2.37 and 2.51 respectively. The 't* value is ,
found to be 2,5 which is significant at .05 level.
The results thus clearly indicate that the over-
achievers in English are obedient while the under-
achievers in English are prone to be assertive and
dominant.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the means of
the two groups are 8.17 and 9.96 and S.Ds. are 2.85
and 3,15 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
66
3.58 which is significant at ,01 level.
The results thus evidently bring out that the
under-achievers with their high mean score in English
are more enthusiastic while the over-achievers in
English are less enthusiastic.
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious,
the means of the both over- and under-achieving groups
in English are 9.97 and 8.95 while the S.Ds. are 3.15
and 2.99 respectively. The 't' Value is found to be
2,04 and it is significant at ,05 level.
The results indicate a trend of positive linear
relationship between over-under achievement. The
over-achievers show significantly greater ability of
conscientiousness than the under-achievers in English,
On factor I, Tough-minded vs Tender-minded, the
means of the over-under achieving groups in English
are 6,55 and 7,52 and S,Ds, are 2.55 and 2.74 res
pectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.25 which
is significant at .05 level.
The results on this personality dimension thus
clearly indicate that the under-achievers in English
with their high mean score are more tender-minded
than the over-achievers in English.
Comparison between over- and under-achieving
67
groups in English on factor 0, Self-assured vs Appre
hensive also shows significant difference between the
two groups. The mean scores of the groups are 7,11
and 8.60 and S.Ds. are 2.66 and 2.93 respectively.
The »t« value is found to be 3.10 which is significant
at .01 level.
As such it may be concluded that the over-achievers
in English on this factor are less apprehensive while
the under-achievers are more apprehensive.
On factor Q^/ Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the over-achievers in English and under-
achievers in the same subject are 11.24 and 9.99 while
the S.Ds. are 3.35 and 3.16 respectively. The 't*
value is found to be 2.40 which is significant at .05
level.
The results on this factor clearly indicate that
over-achievers in English are more controlled while
the xinder-achievers in the same subject are found to
be less controlled.
On the rest seven factors the differences between
over- and under-achievers in English are insignificant.
The findings shown in Table 3 are summarised
as follows:
68
The over-achievers J-n English are found to be:
(1) Emotionally less stable.
(2) Obedient and submissive.
(3) Less enthusiastic and less happy go lucky,
(4) More conscientious.
(5) Less tenderminded.
(6) Less apprehensive.
(7) More controlled.
The under-achievers in English are found t o be:
(1) Emotionally stable.
(2) Prone to be assertive and dominant.
(3) More enthusiastic and happy go lucky.
(4) Less conscientious.
(5) More tenderminded.
(6) More apprehensive.
(7) Less controlled.
Comparison Between Over- and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 4 shows the significance of difference
between over- and under-achievers in Mathematics on
fourteen personality factors. As can be seen from
Table 4, the over-achievers in Mathematics differ
significantly from under-achievers in the same stobject
on eleven personality factors, namely. Reserved vs
Warm-hearted (A), Less intelligent vs More intelligent
(B), Undemonstrative vs Excitable (D), Disregard
0)
(0 O
• H •P (fl S 0)
(0 2 c
•H
0} M Q) >
•H ^ W O O (0 -H » +>
M <0 0) g > 8 O JC
o s w c C H (0 0) (0
0) >
-p -H JC
c o 0) Id Q) I ^ u +> <u 0) 13 CQ C
0 , ^
C •
go,
• H Q
O
0) u c (tl o
• H 4-4 • H C
a>
0)
o O OJ
O r-» -rl Q) U-4 > -H OJ C
• H W
(1) - 3
>
0)
0) >
X! -P 0\ U t) i t ) S II
69
a> •
x: <D II
(0 Z I C
0) > O
o o
0
o 0] M
o o o H H H i n i n H H r - l o o o o o o o o
in 00 CO ro
O o o c M a ) a \ o 4 r M r o i n c o < 7 » r ^
v o ^ O O < M O O ' * ' ! j « i r ) r g r M C M CM
o \ i f > i n r » H c » J i n H o \ \ o c M r - v o c r i a ^ O H t ^ i n H O N C ^ r o v o c ^ i n c h r *
< M 0 J n C > J ( N n f M C M C > 1 0 1 C v J C N ( N r M
r o r j r » - c o n v O i r > o o n < 7 > o r o o c > i o o ( N i ( y > v o r o t ^ r « ' * r » o - 5 i ' v o o o a )
r - « ! j < o \ i > v o c n o o ( n i r > r - t - v o o o ! ^
o ^ i n ' i j ' C O f n i n m ' ^ O ' i ' r H o c o o < M i n r - t < T » i n o r o c M c o c O C T H C o i n o r o c M n c N j o i n c o r o c N C N J C M c s j r o n
r~ in r- CM rM 00 in 00 <T» -*
i n r o o ^ H o O ' ^ i n i n n c N i n o O ' - i r i ' o o c o o
o vD en 00 *o Oi rs
(0
CO - P C
0) 4J C
• H
(1) M O
•P C 0)
H
-P C
(0 C O
•H -P O e M t -H
0t O C X
H
P
• H
0) 0)
m
<U
> • H -P
0) >
ti 01
(0
o • H 4J C Q)
• H O w c o
o u •H I
0) 0) n CO
-p to q
O S 0)
< p
I •P c 0) •H
0) A
a 0)
w «} >
n m
o r^ CO 00 CO cN cTi
p c 0)
• H U
• H >W
(0 I
m H (U w I
c 0)
T3 C a> a 0)
a
6 w
• H
no
M 0)
(0
•d
-d c
• H
- P O
^ i •o p TJ C
a en
> i
•H O O
O t O Q W E - t N C O C O
•H O
•H I
M
O
I >> o
0 •p in 0)
0) >
• H to C <u
42 a Q, -CI
I
a m
m
m
r-l O M -p c O
0) iH H O
•P C o o c
G
H
<: p o Q M CM n ^
frtOEHboaaa
70
rules vs Conscientious (G), Shy vs Adventurous (H),
Tough minded vs Tender minded (I), Zestful vs Circum
spect Individualism (J)/ Self assured vs Apprehensive
(0)/ Sociably group dependent vs Self-sufficient
(Q2)/ Unctontrolled vs Controlled (Q^)/ and Relaxed
vs Tense (Q ) .
On factor A, Reserved vs Warm-heairted, the mean
scores of over- and under-achieving groups in Mathe
matics are 10.87 and 7.83 while the S.Ds. are 3.29
and 2.99 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
6.35 which is highly significant at .01 level.
It can be concluded from the results on this
factor^ that the over-achievers in Mathematics with
their significantly higher mean score are far more
warm-hearted than their under-achieving counterparts.
On factor B, Less intelligent vs More intelligent,
the means of the both over- and under-achieving
groups in Mathematics are 6.55 and 4.22 and the S.Ds.
are 2.55 and 2.05 respectively. The 't* value is found
to be 6.33 which is again highly significant at .01
level.
The results clearly indicate that on factor B,
the over-achievers in Mathematics with their higher
mean score are more intelligent while the under-
achievers are less intelligent.
71
Comparison between over- and under-achievers in
Mathematics on factor D, designated as Undemonstrative
vs Excitable also shows significant difference between
the two groups. The means of both over- and under-
achievers in Mathematics are 8.92 and 7«68 while the
S.Ds.are 2,98 and 2,77 respectively. The 't' value is
found to be 2.81 which is highly significant, at ,01
level.
The results clearly indicate that the over-
achievers in Mathematics are more excitable while the *
under-achievers in the same subject are less excitable.
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious, the
means of the two groups are 11,23 and 8,75 while the
S.Ds. are 3,35 and 2.95 respectively. The 't' value
is found to be 4,92 which is once again significant at
.01 level.
It can be concluded from the above results that
the over-achievers in Mathematics are more conscientious
while the tinder-achievers are less conscientious and
disregard rules.
On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the high scores
represent adventurous and the low scores represent
shy nature. On this personality factor the mean
scores of the over-achievers and under-achievers in
Mathematics are 10.50 and 8.48 while the S.Ds. are
72
3.24 and 2.91 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 4.29 which is highly significant at .01 level.
The results thus clearly bring forth that on
factor H, the over-achievers in Mathematics with their
significantly higher mean score are far more adven
turous than the under-achievers in the same subject.
On factor 1, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the
mean scores of the over- and under-achieving groups in
Mathematics are 7.84 and 5.73 and S.Ds.are 2,80 and
2.39 respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.17
which is again highly significant.
The results thus clearly bring out that the over-
achievers in Mathematics are more inclined to tender
mindedness while the under-achievers in Mathematics
can be described as more inclined to tough mindedness.
The comparison between over- and under-achievers
in Mathematics on factor J, designated as Zestful vs
Circumspect individualism, shows the significant
difference between the two groups. The mean scores of
both the groups are 8.11 and 7.09 while the S.Ds. are
2.48 and 2.66 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 2.37 and it is significant at .05 level.
The results in this particular personality
dimension clearly indicate that the over-achievers in
Mathematics are more prone to circumspect individualism
73
while the under-achievers in Mathematics are less
prone to circumspect individualism and internally
restrained temperament.
On factor 0, Self-assured vs Apprehensive, the
means of the over- and under-achieving groups in
Mathematics are 8.84 and 7.40 and S.Ds.are 2.91 and
2.72 respectively. The't" value is found to be 2.51
which is significant at ,05 level.
It can be concluded therefore that the over-
achievers in Mathematics are more apprehensive while
the under-achievers in the same subject are less
apprehensive.
On factor Qj/ Sociably group dependent vs Self-
sufficient, the means of over- and under-achievers in
Mathematics are 7,84 and 6.63 and S.Ds. are 2,80 and
2.57 respectively. The 't* value which is significant
at .01 level is found to be 2,88.
The results thus clearly show that the over-
achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean score
are more prone to be self-sufficient, reflective and
prefering own decisions while the under-achievers in
Mathematics are less prone to self-sufficiency.
On factor Q^, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the over- and under-achievers in Mathematics
74
are 12.85 and 8.80 and S.Ds. are 3.58 and 2.96
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 7.94 v/hich
is highly significant at .01 level.
As can be seen from the results of this particular
personality factor, the over-achievers in Mathematics
with their high mean score are more controlled than the
under-achievers with their low mean score.
On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the high scores
represent more tense temperament and low scores relaxed
and tension free. On this personality dimension, the
mean scores of the over- and under-achieving groups in
Mathematics are 9.05 and 7.82 and S.Ds. are 3,00 and
2.79 respectively. The 't' value is again highly
significant at .01 level.
The results clearly give evidence that the over-
achievers in Mathematics are more tense while the
under-achievers in the same sxibject are comparatively
less tense.
The results presented in Table 4 thus reveal that
over-achievers in Mathematics are:
(1) More warmhearted
(2) More intelligent
(3) More excitable
(4) More conscientious
(5) More adventurous
75
(6) More i n c l i n e d t o tender -mindedness
(7) More prone t o c i rcumspec t i n d i v i d u a l i s m
(8) More apprehens ive
(9) More prone t o be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and r e s o u r c e f u l
(10) More c o n t r o l l e d (11) More t e n s e
The under-achievers in Mathematics are found
to be:
Less warm hearted
Less intelligent
Less excitable
Less conscientious
Less adventurous
More prone to tough mindedness
Less prone to circumspect individualism
Less apprehensive
Less prone to be self-sufficient
Less controlled
Less tense
On the rest three factors as can be seen from
Table 4, the differences between the two groups are
insignificant.
Besides the above mentioned over all comparison
between the over-achievers of the two subjects as well
as the under-achievers in two subjects, and within
the subject/ between over- and under-achievers, com
parisons were also made on the basis of sex,that is,
within the same sex area and between the two sexes
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
76
both for the over- and under-achievers in English
and Mathematics.
Comparison Between Male Over-achievers in English and Male Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors(HSPQ)
AS stated earlier in the preceding chapters,
one major objective of this investigation is to find
out the differences among over-achieving groups in
English cind Mathematics on fourteen personality
dimensions.
Table 5 shows the significance of differences
between over-achievers in English and over-achievers
in Mathematics on fourteen personality dimensions.
As revealed by the results shown in Table 5,
the male over-achievers in English differ from male
over-achievers in Mathematics on factors. Reserved
vs Warmhearted (A) , Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) , and
Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .
On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the
means of the over-achieving groups in English and
Mathematics are 7.13 and 8.95 while the S.Ds. are
2.67 and 2.95 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 1.99 which is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the over-achievers
77
u 0) > 0)
i n
Q) H ^ <9 H
o m I
U CO (D O > -H O -P
(ti 0) S H <U (0 43
S -ti (0
m s 0 c
n -H
«3 0) 0) i^
s: $ >
0) 0) x : -H 4J J3
0 a (0 0) I 0) t-i ^ 0) +J > (U o CD
(U Q) H 0 (0 c S 0) M -a 0) C 4- fl HA •H 42 Q n
•H H-t M o a>
c (U W 0 c to
o • r \
^ •H c D
y)
QJ O
H-l C O (0
a
> -H
0) C
J en
w - p
>
CO
u 0) • > w <U 43 O
(1) ^ +J Ol
I C Z
> o
u <o x: > » ^ ®-H in
0) ^ iH H H 43 D» flJ O C II S (dW
> o
M O
o m
c o (0
in o
in o
OS 00 -^ r^ 00 H ON v£) o r^ a\ CN
i n v O i n r ^ a » c N v O " * o o y 3 L n a \ a \ f H v o r o n a s o o i n i n ' ^ CTv
in • *
H
in o
i n CM rH •* CM o
^ 00 CM
i n 00
CM o
r-CM
i n CM
O O O O C M O O O O O O O C M
in
C M r H r O C M C V l n C M C M C M C M C M C M r O C M
i n i n i n i A i n i n o o o o i n i n o o c T i c ^ c o c ^ o ^ ^ - H C O ' ^ ^ ~ v D o r ^ c ^ oo
o o r ^ c ^ ^ l n ^ ^ c o c o y ^ ^ ' ^ u ^ c ^ ^ ~
r ~ C O v O O v O v D C O O O C M O ( 7 ^ C ? \ O
v o o i H i n c M O i c ^ c o v o i o v O i n o i n C M C M f O C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M m C M
n c i o o v o c n n i o o ^ o n o c M H r o o f M i H o o c y > c o o o c n o o r - v o o i^ 1* o vo in CO c o r ~ v o v D v o ^ c ^ u J
-0 OJ 4->
w fO 4) 4:3
a (0 3 1
-0 (U > u Q) W 0) Oi
•P C
0) 4J C
•H
0) H 0
s 1 4J C <u Di •H -H f H 0) 4J
n •H
w w 0) t j
^ r * " A c e N o . ^ ^ \
>1 <-l
c 0
•H -P 0
E W 1
tj>
c •H H <U <U m > i 43
'd 0) 4J 0 (U ^ 'w <
01 r^
-§ •P •H 0 X w 1 0) > •H -P (0 ^ 4J 0)
c 0
e Q) 'O C D
Q) >
•H
ti 0) (0
^ 1
•p
c 0) •H t J (U ;Q 0
0 •H •P
« (fl
•rl CO 3
4: •P c M 1 M (U ^ 0 CO
CO
0 -H -P c Q) •H 0 (0 c 0
V CO cu
r-( 3 05
CO t ( u (0 D> Q) M CO
•H Q
CO 3 0 Ul p) •p
c 0) >
"CI -< 1
> 1
sx CO
^
'O (U t ) c
•H
e u (U -d c (1) H 1
t J 0) ' d c
•H
e x: 01 ;3 0 H
e CO
rH IT)
> •H T3 C
•H
-P 0 (U
a CO
£ P 0 u
• r \
U 1
H 3 m -P CO Q) ISl
0) >
•H
« C (U x: 0) ^ OA
Q< < 1
T) a> u 13 CO (0 (0
IW rH QJ CO
4-> C 0) •H U
-H
CO
CO 1
+> c (U T3 C CD
a CU 13
a 3 0 W cn
> i
r-\ 43 (0
• H U 0 CO
•v> OJ H H 0 W 4J C 0 u 1
•n QJ
rH r-i 0 U •P
c 0 0 c n>
0) CO
c 0) H 1
n (U
^ H Hi 05
r>J r n «;}<
< m u P w P ^ o K H b o O ( a a
78
in Mathematics are of more warmhearted, outgoing,
easy going and participating characteristics than the
over-achievers in English.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the high
scores represent enthusiastic and happy go lucky
and the low scores less enthusiastic and sober type
of temperament. On this personality dimension the
means of male over-achievers in English and Mathe
matics are 8,8 and 11.15 and the S.Ds.are 2.96 and
3.32 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
2.21 which is significant again at ,05 level.
Since the mean score of the over-achievers in
Mathematics is significantly greater than that of
over-achievers in English, it is concluded that the
male over-achievers in Mathematics are more enthu
siastic while the over-achievers in English are less
enthusiastic.
On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the means of the
over-achieving groups in English and Mathematics are
6.02 and 7,89 while the S.Ds. are 2.50 and 2.75
respectively. The 't' value which is significant
at ,05 level is found to be 2.25.
The results once again indicate that the male
over-achievers in Mathematics with their high mean
score are more tense while the male over-achievers in
79
English are l ess t e n s e .
On the r e s t eleven factors the differences
between male over-achievers in English and Mathe
matics are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .
The r e s u l t s shown in Table 5 may be concluded
as under:
The over-achievers in English are found to be:
(1) Less warmhearted"
(2) Less enthusiastic
C3) Less tense
The over-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:
(1) More warmhearted, outgoing and easy going
(2) More enthusiastic/ happy go lucky
(3) More tense
Comparison Between Male Under-achievers in English and Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 6 shows the differences between male under-
achievers in English and male under-achievers in
Mathematics on fourteen personality factors. The
differences between the two groups are significant
on three personality dimensions, namely Reserved vs
Warmhearted (A) , Zestful vs Circumspect individualiq^m
(J) and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q_).
0) H
c •H
to M 0) > 0)
• H x: o (0 I
M W Q) O C -P tD m
e (U 0)
(d -p
o c (0 C (Q 0) Q)
S > Q)
•P O <0
C I (U M
0) a>
+> c CQ
0) 0) <H O (0 C £ <u
14-1 to
•H x: Q w
•H 4^ H O Cn
c 0) ba o a ([} o
•ri
•H c cn
- H CO
80 0) u
4-1 C O (0
o Q) 4-1 > -rH (U C
-H W
0) - 3 -P H » (0
>
W M 0) > • 0) W ^
0) -H x: CN -H x: -p r-(O O (tJ S (OS II
I M C 25 <D -H ^ -n c 3
> - l (U
>x: 0) 0) ^
0) -H -H <N •H x : <Hr-(0 O D» S <t» C II
i M U 2 Q) C —'
XJ-H c p
M M 0
•P (J
•P •H rH (0 c O 01 0) Q4
o o
r ^ ^ o ( ^ l C D < H r ^ ^ - m r - a ^ o ^ -m v D o j m r g r - r o r o o o o r o o
<N
O 00
" t O O O o o o o v o H o n
vo i n CM ON a \ CM
r O C M C M r O C M C S C N C N C N C N C N C s l
C D > H r - i n t n c < 4 0 v o c o c r v r o a > i n r - ' O N O O r o i D ' ^ M c r t c D o m ^ L n v o t ^
00 n o r- v D o i n o o t ^ t i ' ' X > v o r ~ r -
i n r o o N r H r o o ( T > ' 4 ' v o « * r - r ^ O L n v o o H r ^ v o c s i f o O N ^ v o v D i n o o o f M C N ) n < M r N J n ( N C M C N < N r M ( M r O C M
t i ' v o o o o m o i n o N ' H c N c o o j ^ j ' i n O H c M f o o N n r - v o r H O H y D O ' H
t-» -"i* o r- v o o L D O O r - r - r - v o c h c o
T> OJ
4J
^ (0 0) ^ ^ n (d 'S 1
-d 0)
^ (U w (1) 05
<:
-p
c 01 •H rH 0) -P c
•H
Q) M 0 2 T •P
c <u o» •H f H rH 0) -P C
•H
to W (U ^
CQ
0)
X5
-p (0
> 1 r-l r-i ft) C 0
•H 4-» 0
e w 1 0 1
c •H rH 0) <U 4^
> i X!
TJ 0) •P 0 0) >« 4-1 <
u
0) r H
X3 fO -P •H 0 X Ctl 1
(U > •H
-P (0 M
•P m a 0 B 0)
'a c 0
a
0) >
•H
1 0) CO
m <: 1
•p c Q)
•H t 3 <2> X> 0
U
0 •H JJ (0 fO
•H CO 3 x: -p c; u 1 M <U .0 0 CO
PM
eo P 0
• H - P
c (1)
•H 0 (0 c 0
u 1 to (U
r H
3 M
CO X) 5-1 (t) ON <a u to
•H Q
0
to 3 0 M 3 4J C 0) > n <
1 N x: CO
K
t j 0) T3 c
•rj g M (U 13 C (U
e-< 1 Xi 0) -a c
•H
e x: 0^ 3 0 i^
H
e CO
• H r-i
p
•H >
•H -0 c
•H
+J 0 0) D* to p
3 0 i-i
-H U 1
r-f
D 4-( •p to (U N
b
(U >
•H to c Q) x: <u t ) cu 9* < 1
••o 0) u p in 10 (0
4-1 r-l 0) CO
0
-P C 0) •H U
•H 4-1
CO I
4-1 - H CU
CO 1
-p c: (U
-o c QJ
a 0) t3
a 0 0 u cn > i
rH
^ •H 0 0
CO
CN
a
-d 0)
r H r H 0 M 4J
c 0
V t ) <u
r H r H 0 M -P G 0 U C
a
0) to c 0) H 1
TJ Q)
?3 r H Q)
a
81
On factor A/ Reserved vs Warmhearted, the means
of the male underachieving groups in English and
Mathematics are 7.04 and 8.98 while the S.Ds. are
2,65 and 2.96 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 4.31 which is significant at .01 level.
It can be concluded therefore, that the male
under-achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean
score tend to be more warmhearted, out going, easy
going and of participating nature. The mean score of
the under-achievers in English being significantly
lower,they are prone to be less warmhearted.
On factor J, Zestful vs Circumspect individualism,
the high scorers are more individualistic, reflective
and internally restrained and low scorers are more
zestful.
The means of the under-achieving boys in English
and Mathematics, as can be seen from Table 6, are
7.02 and 4.59 and S.Ds. are 2.64 and 2.14 respectively.
The 't* value is found to be 6.39 and it is highly
significant at .01 level.
The results clearly bring out that the under-
achievers in English are more prone to circumspect
individualism, reflecting and internally restrained
nature while the under-achievers in Mathematics are
more zestful.
82
On factor Q-., Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the both under-achieving groups in English
and Mathematics are 9.04 and 7.65 while the S.Ds.
are 3.00 and 2.76 respectively. The 't' value is
found to be 3,02 which is again significant at .01
level.
It can be concluded from the results shown in
Table 6 that the male under-achievers in English are
more controlled and male under-achievers in Mathe
matics are less controlled.
On the rest eleven factors, the differences
between the two under-achieving groups in Mathematics
are insignificant.
The findings shown in Table 6 may be summarised
as under:
The male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h a r e found t o be :
(1) Less warmhearted
(2) More prone to circumspect individualism, reflective and internally restrained nature
(3) More controlled
The male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics are found t o b e :
(1) More warmhearted and easy going
(2) More z e s t f u l
(3) Less c o n t r o l l e d
83
Comparison Between Male Over- and Under-Achlevers in English on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 7 shows the differences between male over-
and under-achievers in English on fourteen personality
dimensions.
AS seen from the Table 7, male overachievers in
English differ significantly from male under-achievers
in English on three personality dimensions/ namely^
Obedient vs Assertive (E) , Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) ,
Disregards Rules vs Conscientious (G).
On factor E, Obedient vs Assertive, the means of
the male over- and under-achievers in English are
5.13 and 6.95 while the S.Ds. are 2.26 and 2.63 res
pectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.8 and it is
significant at .01 level.
Since the mean score of the over-achievers in
English is significantly lower than that of under-
achievers in English, it can be concluded that the
male over-achievers in English are prone to be of
obedient, temperament while the under-achievers in
English are prone to be assertive.
The comparison between over- and under-achieving
boys in English on factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic
shows significant difference between the two groups.
The means of the over- and under-achieving boys in
84
c • H
V) M d) > (1)
•rH
x: o (0 1
M 0) x: > 01 Ci -H
H 0) en
rH C (0 w s c 4-1 -H 0
(0
to M C 0) (0 > 0) 0) S - H
X! 0) U X ro • ^ » , '
(4
c a> 0) tJ 0) C >. ^ -p 0) 0) PQ "H
<0 <U 2 O C O (2) C U (0 Q> >w x: 4-1 to •H -H P H
Cn 4^ C 0 U <u o c to 0
• H I M • H C a>
•<-{
w
a) o c (0 u
r-t ^ 0) M-l > -H 0) C
-H to
0) - ;3 4J H - (0
>
to
u 0) > £ (1) (» <^
•H -H (N 0) x: rH r-• H O W m 0) c II S 1 a
M 2! <U C - --d -H C D
a w
c rt) 0) s
to UXi 0) to ^ > -H IT) Q) rH «-!
0) -H D> H X C II ro O W S n» Z
1 C - - ' U T 4 0) > o
Q to
c nj
a> s
to M 0
4J O rtJ
CC4
> 1 4J • H r H
(0 c o to u (V cu
rH CM
O
i n vO
(N
•<* o
r-
r-vo CM
m r H
r~
TJ 0) •P U (0 0) x: E M ITJ S »
'd OJ
t Q) W 0) CiJ
<
as ( N
o
m o OJ
v£» r H
^
CO o CM
n ro
'^
-P C 0) D>
•H / H rH 0) J j C
• H
0) V 0
s 1 •p
c 0) w
• H H
^ (U •p c •H (0
to (U J
CQ
CM O
O
cr> r H
ro
O CM
O r H
^ rH
m
o o
o H
<U r-»
^ •P to >l
r-i r H
m c 0
• H •P
O E W
1 cn c:
• H r-i
d) <u
^M
> i XI
'0 (U •p o Q) MH MH
<
u
t--IT)
r H
H
r-CM
00 n
r»
o i n
OJ
vo CM
v£)
0) r H
-S J-) •rt
0 X w
1 0) >
•r(
+J fO
M •p to c o e 0) •d c p
Q
o •
o 00
CM
CO vO
CM
i n cn
«^
vD CM
CM
n r-i
i n
0) >
•H 4J M tu to
^ 1
+J C <u
• H . ^3 (U X) o
w
i n o •
CO t ~
r-i
o CM
fO
o n
o r H
VO
cn CM
o CO
00
0 • H
+J to (t)
• H to 3 x: 4-1
c M 1 M <U XJ 0 W
fa
r-l O
•
CM
cn
CO
cn n CM
i n r-
t n
CO CTi
CM
ro cn
00
to 3 0
• H •P c Q)
• H
U to C O U
1 to (1)
H
s CO XJ IH m o> <u n to
-rH P
O
m o H
«* a\ CM
<n t o
CO
o CO
CM
<X) CO
r-
to p 0 M :i •p c (U P> -d << « N x: CO
K
CM
•>*
O
vD VO
CM
r H r H
r>
o VD
CM
o 00
VD
-d 0) -d c
• H g M 0) 'd c 0) £H 1
T) m TJ c
- H
e x: O i ;3 0 H
H
ro OJ
O
-* VO
CM
CM O
C^
CM VO
CM
VO 00
vO
e to • H H to 3 TJ •rt
> • H 'd c
• H
+J 0 0) cu to £ 3 a u
•r»
o 1
H ;3
i p
-p to Q> (SJ
t ^
CN i n
o
r~-VO
CM
00 r-i
r-
o vD CM
O CO
VO
QJ >
• H to q ti) x: (U M a Q , <
1 TJ 0) u 3 CO (0 (0 1
4H r H QJ CO
O
•* r H
o
r-i n
CM
CM VO
VO
cn i n
CM
ro r-VO
-p c (U •w o
•ri m m 3 to 1
H-i r-i
0) CO
1 •p c Q) -d c (U a Q)
• d
a 3 0 u 0 1
> t r H
X) nJ
• H
o o
CO
CM
a
CM VO
o
o o
ro
•<* O
<y\
a\ o
ro
O VD
Ch
d Q)
r H rH 0 u 4-> C
0 u
1 'd 0)
H r-i O U -P c 0 0 c
ro a
r~-rH
H
in CO
CM
i n r-i
00
as vO
CM
VO CM
r-
(U CO c (U E-i
1 'd (U
1 r-i Q)
a
^ a 1
85
English are 8.8 and 10.30 while the S.Ds. are 2,96
and 3.20 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
1.78 which is significant at ,05 level.
Thus it can be inferred from the results that the
male over-achievers in English with their low mean
score are prone to be less enthusiastic and male
under-achievers with their high mean score prone to
be more enthusiastic and happy go lucky.
On factor G, Disregards rules vs Conscientious^ •,
the means of the over-under achieving boys in English
are 8,93 and 5.75 and the S.Ds, are 2.98 and 2.39
respectively. The 't' value which is highly signi
ficant at .01 level is found to be 3.92.
The results thus clearly indicate that the over-
achievers in English are more conscientious while the
under-achievers are prone to be disregarding rules
and neglecting the bindings.
On the rest eleven factors the differences
between over- and under-achieving boys in English are
insignificant.
The findings shown on Table 7 may be concluded as
follows:
The over-achieving boys in English are found to be:
(1) Less assertive, less dominant and less aggressive.
86
(2) Less enthusiastic
(3) More conscientious
The under-achievers are found to be:
(1) More assertive and aggressive
(2) More enthusiastic and happy go lucky
(3) Less conscientious and disliking rules
Comparison Between Male Over- and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 8 shows the differences between male over-
achievers in Mathematics and male under-achievers in
Mathematics, on fourteen personality factors. The
differences between the two groups are significant
on three personality factors, namely. Disregard rules
vs Conscientious (G), Zestful vs Circumspect indi
vidualism (J) and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q ) .
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious
the high scores represent conscientiousness and
low scores a disregard for rules. The means of the
over- and under-achieving boys in Mathematics are 8.8
and 5.90 and S.Ds. are 2.96 and 2.42 respectively.
The 't' value is found to be 3.97 which is highly
significant at .01 level.
The results thus give a clear evidence that the
over-achieving boys in Mathematics are conscientious
00
0) H
u > 0)
•H
0 (l> (n I U
U -H Q) 4-> > (0 o g
0) 0) J3
rH 4J (0 0
a 2 4-1 C O-H
(0 (0 C M nj 0) <u >
•H 0) £
• a I
G Wi
(u -a •p := 0)
c
u "^
u-t m 0) •H O Q -H
•p
o e 0)
c (0
u •H M-l -rl c en
•H CO
0) u
IW C o ta
o r-i -H 0) 4^ > - H 0) C
•H (0
- ;3 •P rH - to
>
0)
0) > 0) • •H to ^
H o -p r> rt) ffl (0 S I S «
0) C Z
C ID
W U
> •
•H ^ O <U JC 4J <S H O <t) (0 (d S II
> o
87
w M O 4J o m
^4
> i 4J -H H /O C o Cf]
o o
o r- t~ in o ^
<H -^ o r- >* t -o o ' * C3N o i n
o o o -H
(7* C>1 " y 00 rH a> csj 00 00
• • • • CO n o o o4 •
i n i n o 4 5 j < n C T v c M r ^ v O ' 4 ' r ^ v o v o o o o c ^ c N r - i n r H ' » j < c r i v D r H u n i n r ~ c ^ r s l r H c n C M O 4 n O J < N C M O J C v i 0 > J O l C M
i n r H r - i n i n c N O v o o o o N r o o s i n r -o c o r o i n - « i * c N O ^ o o o L n v O L n i o r ^ r - n o t ~ * ' X > o i n c o t - < i ' ^ o v D r - r ~
v D i o m r o c ^ f M v O ' 3 < o o v o i n a > t j < n O C T * i H v O f o O C T > o o i n i n ' < * m r H r -< N J r H n C S J < N n C M 0 4 C M C S C N C M r O C M
00 in in in in in o o CO a\ CJN r* rH oo
o o o in in o o rH r- v£) o r~ o\ tn
^ * r o o ^ v O l n o ^ o o c o v o ^ o ^ o v o o ^
T) 0) -P M 03 Q) ^ g G (0 3 1
Xi (U
c; <u (Q 0) CK
<
P c (U Di
•H rH rH 0) 4J c
•H
0) M 0 s 1
-p c 0) D> -H r H r H <U -P C
• r l
n (0 0) A
PQ
(U rH
-S (0
rH rH (TJ C 0
•H -P Q e W 1 CT C
• H rH 0) 0)
i p
> 1
^ -0 (U •p 0 0)
I M MH <
u
0) H
-s •p vH O X w 1 Q) > •H •P (t) M •P W C 0 g <u -0 Q D
Q
0) >
• H •P U Q) 0}
^ i .
+> B 0)
^
ii O
u
o •H +J w <0
•H n 3 ^ •P
c M 1 U
^ 0 w
fu
0 •H -p G <D •rl 0 (0 C O U 1
tn <u
r H
2 -0 u (0 en (1) M CO
•rl Q
O
(Q 0 0 M :3 +J c 5 >
• ^ < 1
> i 42 en
tc
T) 0)
^3 c
• r l
e tH 0) TJ C (U £H 1
t3 (U 73 C
• r l
£ J: a> ;3 o B
H
e m
•rH r H
•r |
> •r l T) C
• r l
•P 0 Q) a U) s 3 u u
•r l
u 1
r-^
3 m +J U) 0)
N
• ^
0) >
• r l W C (D x: <i) u a 9< < 1
-d 0) SH 3 w w no
i p r H 0) CO
O
•P C Q)
•H O
•H 4H 4H
m
rH
CO
1 -P C 0) TD C (1) D^ 0)
T3
Q. 3 0 U C^
:> i
H XI (0 •H U 0 CO
a
no 0)
r H r-i 0 n 4J c 0 u 1
Xi (1)
<-{
r-i 0 M +J c 0 0 c ID
a
a> W c 0) fH 1
t i 0)
% H (U
a
88
and the under-achievers in the same subject disregard
rules.
On factor J, Zestful vs Circumspect individualism,
the mean scores of both the over- and under-achieving
groups in Mathematics are 6,6 and 4,59 while the S.Ds.
are 2.56 and 2.14 respectively. The 't* value is
found to be 3.19 which is again highly significant at
,01 level.
From results on this particular factor, it can be
concluded that the over-achievers in Mathematics are
characterised by circumspect individualism, reflective
ness and internally restrained temperatment. The under-
achieveirs are markedly zestful and internally less
restrained.
On factor Q-,, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of the over- and under-achieving boys in Mathe
matics are 9,9 and 7,65, the S,Ds. are 3,14 and 2,76
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.88 which
is significant at .01 level.
The results clearly indicate that the over-
achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean score
tend to be more controlled and under-achievers in the
same subject tend to be less controlled.
On the remaining eleven factors, the differences
between both over- and under-achieving boys in
89
Mathematics are insignificant.
It can, thus be concluded from the results
shown in Table 8 that the over-achieving boys in
Mathematics are:
(1) More conscientious
(2) More prone to circumspect individualism
(3) More controlled
The under-achieving boys are found to be:
(1) Disregarding rules
(2) More zestful
(3) Less controlled
Comparison Between Female Oyer-achievers in English and Female Over-achievers ip Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 9 shows the significance of difference
between over-achieving girls in English and Mathe
matics on fourteen personality factors, AS can be seen
from Table 9, the differences between the two female
over-achieving groups are significant on three
personality factors, namely, Reseirved vs Warmhearted
(A), Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q^) and Relaxed
vs Tense (Q^) .
On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the high
scorers are more v/armhearted, out going, easy going
and of pari:icipating characteristics. The low scorers
0) r-l
B
2 > 0)
• H
nj I
M <u
r-i (0 (0 g
CM 4 J 03
^x Q
c (0 0}
>
o C (t) (U I
jt 0)
-p > 0) O CQ
0) 0) <-l O (0 c E
<D
• « C •H fl3 Q
m o n V c (0
o
•rl
c
cn
o o <t)
o 0) U-l > -H 0) C
•H 0)
- SJ
. (0
to
> <0 (U
0) ^
(0 j3 + » i n (0 o
(0 I
> o
to u
> n ^ 0) -H H i n
-H ^ D»
(t) o c n g (0 M _ 0) I Z
0) -H
to M O
•P 0 (0
&«
•P •H H (fl C o to u Q) OK
i n o
CN
00
Xi 0)
4-> U (tJ 0) x:
I
> M 0)
w 0)
cm
in r-l
o o
O H O i n i n O i n t s o r o c D o i i n r - i
o o o H o O O O CM fS
i n og Ti< 00 O •^ O CD
• " I ' t ^ C ^ O O r o C T i n r O O O
' * o o c 4 o o r - r - c o r - r o r - t
m c M f g o i c v j C M m o j t N C M o j o a m n
o o n O n v O t - f O i n t ^ o J i n t T v i n v o n o r - m O N C O l ^ f O - ^ C O O v C r o v o
a ^ i n c o c o i n r - o o o r - 00 r- <H en
vo 00 > in r^ 00 o o> Oi •* a\
00 iH r- vo vo in »X) CO o in CO r^ vD r-l CD
( N < N C M C N J ( N C M r O r O < N C M 0 4 ( N r O C N )
o j i n c~- •<* CN) tN f<> CO C~ rH
vO 01 CN O ^ H rH vO <M VO
CO 00 vO
<D
i n
00 O ON vO
ro O <N O O csj
00 r- O CO
4J c 0)
Q)
c
o s I
-p c 0)
• H
0) -p c
•H
to to
• J
-3 •p (A
c o
-p
i M
I
to
o •o
e to
-H (0 3
•r^
c (1) fH
o
iw 0 to
iW rH
to
•H 0> 0 C X
H (U (1) 0) >
i « -H •P
• H - P M Q) to
CO to
tu •P O
4H ^0 0) MH q ^ < p» o
I •p c 0)
•H
0 •H -P to (tJ
•tH to 0 x: -p Q M 1 u ^ 0 tn
4J c 0> •H 0 to c 0 C) 1 I/! <u rH
ii xt M (0 CT (U M to
•H Q
to :3 0 M 0 -P C 0) >
•^ < 1
> l
s: w
0) Tl c
•ri
g
M 0) '0 c (U H 1
Tl 0) T) C
•H (=
x: m :3 0 H
> •H Xl C
•H
-P 0 <U a to E 3 0 M H 0 1
r H 3 <« •P to 0) N
0) >
•r^
to
0) x: OJ i-i Q, a < 1
a Q) M 3 to CO (0
m H 0) to
( • p
c 0)
c 0) a, Q) '0
9* 3 0 M a> > i
r H
^ -r^
u 0 en
'a 0) rH rH 0 M •P C 0 0 1
XJ Q)
rH r H
0 M -P C 0 u « H)
0) to G (U H 1
T) 0)
S r H (U cC
< CQ U Q W
<N n ^
91
on the other hand, are more reserved, aloof, critical
and stiff in temperament.
The means of the over-achieving girls in English
and Mathematics are 8.22 and 9,38 while the S.Ds. are
2.86 and 3.05 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 2,10 and it is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the over-achieving
girls in Mathematics are warmhearted, easy going, out
going and of participating characteristics. On the
other hand, the female over-achievers in English are
more reserved, aloof,critical and stiff in temperament.
On factor Qo, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the
means of both female over-achieving groups in English
and Mathematics are 10.00 and 9,66 and the S,Ds,are
3,16 and 3,30 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 2,25 which is moderately significant at .05
level.
It can be concluded, therefore, that the over-
achieving girls in English are less controlled while
the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more
controlled.
The comparison between both female over-achieving
groups in English and Mathematics on Q designated as
Relaxed vs Tense also shows significant difference
92
between the two groups. The means of the over-
achieving girls in English and Mathematics are 8.22
and 9.66 while the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 3.10 respec
tively. The 't' value is found to be 2.61 which is
significant at .01 level.
The results thus give a clear indication that
the female over-achievers in English are far less
tense than the over-achievers in Mathematics, the
latter thus being more tense, frustrated and
fretful.
On the rest eleven factors the differences
between the over-achieving girls in English and
Mathematics are not significant.
The resul ts presented in Table 9 thus reveal
that the over-achieving g i r l s in English are:
(1) Less warm hearted
(2) Less controlled
(3) Less frustrated, less tense
The over-achieving girls in Mathematics are:
(1) More warmhearted, easy going and of participating characteristics
(2) More controlled
(3) More tense, frustrated and fretful
93
Comparison Between Female Under-achlevers in English and Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 10 shows the significance of differences
between the female under-achieving groups in English
and Mathematics on fourteen personality dimensions.
As can be seen from Table 10 the female under-achieving
groups in English and M athematics differ significantly
on two personality dimensions, namely. Sober vs
Enthusiastic (F), and Tough minded vs Tender minded.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic the mean scores
of both female under-achieving groups in English and
Mathematics are 8.88 and 5.90 and the S.Ds. are 2.97
and 2,42 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
4.08 which is highly significant at .01 level.
It can, therefore, be concluded from the results
that the female under-achievers in English are
enthusiastic while the female under-achievers in
Mathematics are sober.
On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender-minded the
means of the two female under-achieving groups in
English and Mathematics are 5.12 and 8.09 while the
S.Ds. are 2.29 and 2.84 respectively. The 't' value
is found to be 4.12 which is again significant at
.01 level.
c •H
cn U 0) >
• H x: o 03 I W
u o C a)
^1 0) ^
H 4J « (0
1^ PM C
•H
O 01 U
(0 0)
S > 0) -H
o
• c • •P U
<u C 'Q 0) P
e 0) 0)
c
M C 0) It)
m Xi
Q H H
o c M
o
o >« •H C Oi
•H CO
0) 14-1 U
o c rt)
>-( U Q) -H > M-l
tJ C D<
•H 0)
0) - 3 +J H - fO
>
(0 ^ (U >
H -H £ r^ flj £ 4J rM sum 0) (OS n
14 C Z ti a 13
94
2 a> > J2 (l> 0) ^
Q) -H -H ^ rH ^ iH n (« O Cn " • C II e (0 Q) I
0)
w o -p
5^ > i •p •H t - l (d c o 0) M 0)
H O
c o v D o i n ^ a j i n t n c M f o o o o m i n O v D T j « C N n o v O r j ' H O c > j m c O f n
H O O O O ' * r H O " ^ 0 0 ' - ( 0 0
( N r O 0 0 C r i ' < * ' < * ' 5 j ' C D C 0 C 0 O \ v O r > 4 vO
r O C M C S l C M C M C N j n C M C M C M C N J C M f O O
O O C O n ' H f - < O v O ' * O N ' ' l < t - » O r H
(7> CM
m f M C M ( N C M f N j n c ^ ) c < i < N o j r M n
( N O i n r g ' * o O ' J 3 o < N m o i n c o H Q O O i n ' H
4J
c en
-H rH H 0) -P C
•H Q) M O s I
4-> C 0)
en
0) P M (6 Q)
s I
TJ Q)
0) CO CO CO (U (U 05 h l
p CO
Id c o
• r (
•P O
6 w,
I
cu rH X) (d -p
0)
c
C X •H W
I 0) >
• H P CO U
P CO c o E 0)
cu o
0) 0)
M-i
x>
cu p o 0)
4J M CD
CO Id
CO CO
ip c
CO
I - P c cu
•H
O
3
P
c M
I
O CO
CO
o •H -P C (U
• H O W c o u
I CO ( 0
o u ^ p c CU
>
cu
2
Id
cu
c
e
cu •d c cu
c
CJ>
s CO
•H Q
'Tl < 1
> i
JZ CO
0 0 £H
g CO
• H H Id
> •H '0
c •H
•P o cu a CO o M
U I
H :3
ip 4-) CO 0) eg
> •H
m H cu
CO I
•P c cu
CO T J
cu x: cu
u a
cu
a 0)
I -a cu M
W CO Id
(U
3 0 n en
> i <~{ XI fO
• H U
o CO CO
CU
o u p a o o
I -o 0)
-H rH
p c o o c
o <x>
o i n c o c D t n i n r H c o c o c D c o v o o r H rH r^
^ r o o xj* CO CO CO m CO
CM
c o o 00 CM in in o
c 7 ^ l n Q O o o v D c o o c O l n c o o o ^ - c ^ r-
P c cu
•H O
•H * P ip
CO
(U CO c cu
I
cu
(U
o j n ' *
95
It is thus evident from the results shown in
Table 10 that the female under-achievers in English
are tough minded while the female under-achievers in
Mathematics are tender minded.
On the rest twelve factors the differences
between the female under-achieving groups in English
and Mathematics are not significant.
The findings shown in Table 10 may be concluded
as under:
The under-achieving g i r l s in English are found to be:
(1) En thus ia s t i c , happy go lucky (2) Tough minded
The under-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics are found to be:
(1) Sober
(2) Tender minded
Comparison Between Female Over- and Under-Achievement in English on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 11 shows the significance of differences
between female over- and under-achievers in English
on fourteen personality dimensions. As seen in
Table 11, the over- and under-achieving girls differ
significantly on three personality factors designated
c •H
a > Qi
• H x: o (0 I
M Q) X > 0) O •<-•
H q 2 M 8 C
«M 01 O U
0) to >
B 0)
0) fX
^ A •P 0)
TJ C C <U P 0) » 4) • P H
u c no
(U 4-1 x : m w •H -H Q H
M C O M
u C
o •H %\ • H C D»
• H CO
S
o o <o
o
> - H 0) C •J D>
•H W
- 3 +> H - (t)
>
n 0) > JC
•H H •«l' J3 H fO
E nj c u
tt) I M _
0) C '
O
9 6
0)
1-1
<u « ^ • r l - H •«}«
0) ^ H i n H O 0< (0 10 C II S .' M -fl) M Z
O
0) U o -p o (5 &«
> 1
p • H H (0 a 0 to M 0) 04
IT)
o
0 0
o o r H
O IT)
ir> (N i H
fO
o CO i n
04
00
a:
O •<* << 00 CX) CO lO CT> H r- r- ch
o o o o o
CO n CM vo o (M en o\
CM O in <N in o in CO
•^ 00 VO O fM rH 00 o i n r-i
vO
vo 00 r- in CO O <7N O
<H CO rH r» vo vo i n ^D o i n 00 t^ vo H
' # o o o o " ^ o o o c h v D o o r - - r -
4J C
0)
+j
to
>. r H H fO C O
T 3 <U •P M (t) <D
g (0
I
<u
0) to to to
p c •H
Q) ^ O
s 1 -p c <u CP •H
•r\
p 0 S M 1 D> C
•H r H <U 0)
It-I
0) H
^ +J • H O K W 1
0) > •w • p
C •H
0)
> •H •P M 0) (0
t % -P I
<t> w •P 4) C C 4J P <U o a -H 0) 0) t J 4-1 -O 4) 4 j C fl <: D o
CO
g c 0) •H o to c o u I
to <a (0
o
•p
> 1 0
to
o <u u to
O -H CO Q
I M
to
o u ?> -p c 0)
>
I > 1
CO
0) - d c
M (U T3 C (U
c •rl
cn
o H
e CO •H rH (0
T> •H > 0)
•H >
c to •H q
•p x : O 0) 0) M 04 a to a g < 3 I U "d M
•H U I
2J
p
c 0) •H O
•d
m
to IH « CO I
•p 0) Q)
C "H (U O a M O -P XJ C
0 a u 3 I O TJ
4-1 •p to 0) 0)
3 to (0 (d I
4-1
XI (0
CD
a •p c o
in o
CM O O O O CN
r ^ t ^ i O r - 4 ( y » ' < : i < r ~ - o c j \ v o • • * O \ < N O \ C M 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o u 3
r O C M C M C N C M O J r O C M C N C M C M C M r O C N )
O O CO in in o
c n i n o o o o ' ^ o o o o o i n o o r ~ - t ~ - c 7 \ f ^
o o o c
M CO CO D
CO CO
{ N C N r v J r M f N j f M r o n C N C N i r v J f M r O f M
f M i n r - ^ c N ' - H v o c M o j O ' c j ' n o c N < S f O C O t ~ > H i n H r - t i D r > ) v D O O ( ^
O 00
to c 0)
I
r-l 0)
< l : m U Q M ( * ^ O K H ^ 0 CN n • ^
o a a a
97
as Reserved vs Warmhearted (A) , Tough minded vs
Tender minded (I) and Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .
On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted the main
scores of over- and under-achieving girls in English
are 8.22 and 9.52 and S.Ds. are 2.86 and 3.08
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.03
which is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the over-achieving
girls in English are less warm hearted. The under
achieving girls on the other hand are more warmhearted,
out going and easy going.
On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender minded the
means of the over- and under-achieving girls in English
are 6,62 and 5.12 while the S.Ds. are 2.57 and 2.29
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.94 which
is significant at .01 level.
It may be concluded from the above results that
the over-achieving girls in English are more inclined
to be tender minded while the under-achieving
girls are tough minded.
The comparison between the over- and under
achieving girls in English on factor Q., the mean of
the over- and under-achieving girls in English are
8.22 and 7.08 and the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 2.66 respec
tively. The 't' value is found to be 2.01 which is
98
significant at .05 level.
The results therefore indicate that the over-
achieving girls in English are more tense, frustrated
and fretful than their under-achieving counterparts
in English.
On the rest eleven factors the differences
between the both over- and under-achieving girls
are not significant.
The findings as shown on Table 11 may be sxammarised
as follows:
The female over-achievers in English are found to be:
(1) Less warmhearted, easy going and out going
(2) More inclined to be tender minded
(3) 5ore tense, frustrated and fretful
The female under-achievers in English are found to be:
(1) More warmhearted, easy going, out going.
(2) Tough minded
(3) Less tense and less frustrated
Comparison Between Female Over-achievers and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 12 shows the significance of differences
between over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics
on fourteen personality dimensions. As can be seen
99
<NJ H
Q) rH
-s B
U 0 > 0) •H
0) +J > (d o g
(0 (0 E S (1) &< c
-H 4^ 0 CQ
U
C >
n) 0) 2 .C
o 4) (d J3 1 -P M
0) C Xi 0) C 0) : D
+J Q) 0) H
<u 1
h 4-1 <W W •H t ) Q -H
•P
0 g 0)
(1) £ 0 +> C (0 <ti S V
•A 4-1 •rH C
o> •H W
0
0 (d O
0) >44
<U C
• H CO
Q) - J3 • P H
>
(0 i^ 0)
(d 0 4J CM g (d Id 0) 1 S U PM M
w 0) >
0) 0) 0) ^ <-< -H jCC^ (9 jz -P ir> g o (d <i) fd s II CM I
> o
0)
u 0 +J 0 fd U4
>i •P -H H (d c 0 (0 V4 <1> 04
Q CO
§ 0) 2
Q CO
C rd
2
vO (M
rH
CNJ CM
m
00 ro
O f - l
VD 00
(M
00 n OS
TD 0)
t: <0 0) •S g H (d s 1
•n Q)
^ 0) 0) (V OS
<:
CM vo o
r-i m 04
00 ro ir>
00 o CN
n o in
•P c 0)
•r(
H 0) +J C
-H
0) U O 2 T •P c 0) a>
•H iH rH 0) -P c
•H
OJ W (U t^
«
i n vo o
vo CO
c j
ro CM
00
r-CTv
CM
O r-co
9) r-i
-§ -P 0}
>1 rH H (d c 0
•H •P 0 g M 1 cn c
-H rH a> Q) vw N /5 X) (U •P 0
<u I p vp <:
o
r-fn
o
CO Ov
CJ
•-H VO
00
i n CTi
CM
m n 00
0) rH
^ +) •H 0 X w 1 (U >
•M •P Id (H +J CO c 0 g as 'V c D
Q
00 o o
CM •^J"
eg
rH a> i n
c~ -* OJ
vo c i n
0) >
•H -P V4 (U CO
3 1
•p c 0)
TH
x) <u rO o
w
rH
o •
r-o fO
CM • ^
CM
O CTi
i n
rH <y\
CM
I -CO
r-
u •H •P 05 Id
•rt CO ;3
x: -p
c w 1 M ^ 0 CO
fr)
in o •
00 cr\ rH
rH • *
n
\o CJ\
rH H
00 rH
n
n r»
o
rH
CO
3 0
• H 4J
c 0)
•H U CO c 0 o 1 CO 0)
r~{
2 -D U (d 0 P u CO •H Q
O
Ov CM
O
i n 00
CNI
• ' 1 ' rH
CO
H o ro
i n m CO
(» 3
o u 0 •p c 0) > V. <
1 >< s: CO
K
00 CO
o
•=# CO
CN
c o CO
r-i n
CM
C--• *
-a 0) TJ C
•H
s M d) T) C (U H I
TJ Q) T) C
•H g
x: 01 3 o B
H
'^ <• O
m 00
Csl
•* r-i
CO
vo 00
CM
OJ 00
g CO
• H H Id
•H
> •H 'C5 C
-H
P U Q)
a U} g 3 u M
•H
u 1 rH
0 4-( +J (0 0) !S1
:)
CO i n
o
.H c CM
r~ • > *
CO
vD r-CN
i n o CO
0)
> •H CO c 0)
x: (U M
a 9< <c I
-o 0) M P CO (0 fd
IH rH (P
CO
o
CTi CO
O
CN VO
<N
o o\ vO
i n vO
CM
a\ • < *
•P c d) •H 0
•H iP IP
W
>P rH a> CO
1 4J n (U ' 0 c 0)
a 0) ' d
a 0 0 ( en >t
rH
-§ •H o 0
CO
CM
a
•
t - vo CO vo
o c*»
r~- 0^ CM r-
n CM
rH O t^ 00
o r-rH
vo 00 rH CO
n CN
in vo CO vo
rH
T3 0)
r-i r-i
o u -p c o u 1 0) Xi CO <u c
rH 0) rH fH 0 1 U xi -P Q)
0 (d O H C 0) n3 OJ
en ^
a a
100
from Table 12^ the female over-achievers in Mathe
matics differ significantly from female under-
achievers on three personality factors, namely. Sober
vs Enthusiastic (F) , Disregard rules vs Conscientious
(G) and Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic the means of
over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics are
7.87 and 5.90 and S.Ds.are 2.91 and 2,42 respectively.
The 't' value is found to be 3,07 which is significant
at .01 level.
The results thus clearly exhibit that the female
over-achievers in Mathematics are enthusiastic while
the female under-achievers in Mathematics are sober
and taciturn.
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious,
the mean scores of both over- and under-achieving
girls in Mathematics are 10,73 and 11.96 while the
S.Ds. are 3.18 and 3.41 respectively. The 't' value
is found to be 1.98 which is significant at .05
level.
Since the mean of the female over-achievers in
Mathematics is lower than that of the under-achievers,
it can be concluded that the female over-achievers in
Mathematics are less conscientious than the female
under-achievers in the same subject. The female under-
101
achieving subjects are, therefore, more conscientious
than their over-achieving counterparts.
On factor Q./ Relaxed vs Tense, the mean scores
of over- and under-achieving girls in Mathmatics are
9.66 and 7.80 and the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 2.79
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.66 which
is significant at .01 level.
The results thus clearly bring out that the female
over-achievers in Mathematics are more tense while
the under-achievers are less tense.
On the remaining eleven factors, the differences
between female over- and under-achieving girls are
not significant.
The findings shown in Table 12 may be concluded
as under:
The over-achieving girls in Mathematics are:
(1) More e n t h u s i a s t i c (2) Less c o n s c i e n t i o u s (3) More t e n s e ^
The under-achieving girls in Mathematics are:
(1) Sober
(2) More conscientious
(3) Less tense
102
CcMTiparison Between Male Over-achievers in English and Female Over-achievers in English on Fourteen Persona l i ty Factors (HSPQT
As already mentioned, comparisons were also made
to find out personal i ty differences between male and
female over-achievers as well as under-achievers in
both the school subjec ts , namely, English and Mathe
matics . The r e su l t s of such comparisons are given
in Tables 13 and 16.
Table 13 shows the s igni f icance of difference
between male and female over-achievers in English on
fourteen personal i ty f ac to r s .
As can be seen from Table 13, the male over-
achievers d i f f e r s i gn i f i c an t l y from female over-
achievers in English on four persona l i ty f ac to r s ,
namely Undemonstrative vs Exci table (D), Shy vs
Adventurous (H), Zestful vs Circumspect individua
lism ( J ) , and Relaxed vs Tense.
On fac tor D, Undemonstrative vs Exci table , the
means of the over-achieving male and female groups
in English are 6.26 and 8.74 while the S.Ds.are 2.50
and 2.95 respec t ive ly . The 't* value i s found to be
3.30 which i s s ign i f i can t a t .01 l e v e l .
The r e s u l t s give a c l ea r evidence tha t the female
over-achievers in English with t h e i r higher mean scores
are moire exc i tab le while the male over-achievers in the
103
n H
<V
EH
C
> 0)
^ O (0 I
0) £ > w O -H
0) Cn r H CJ
K 4-1 -H O
to (0 M C Q) fd > 0) <1>
= 3 0) U
4J » U
C 0) 0) > <o o •P 0)
OQ g (U § U Px c U C 0) ID
4 j x :
H
o c w
0) o c u •rl •H C
•H
0) o
4-1 C O (t)
O H -H (U 4-1 > - H 0) C :) cn
• H CO
0) - 3 •P -< - ro
>
(0 u <u >x:
Q) fl) 01 ^ H -H -rH ' *
(0 JC H If) B O 01 0) r0 C It fe ,1 W
0) C ^ > - H O
0) M
> 0) ^
« -H »-< r-( H x : 0*
(0 O C II
I Z t4 C — > o
to
o +J o
•p •H r-t
(0 c o (0 0)
i n o
IT)
o
n H O r-l
vo CO r* i n r>- rH 00 CO o o\ o i ^c cn H
CM
r H t ^ VD VO i n VO
o in 00 r- vD H
CO "* o o o o v o o o o a i v D o o t - - r - o rH r-l
H O
c r \ c N i n o t - ' < * H o o ^ o o •<3<r r O O C N f O ' 5 l ' f O ' * C r \ C N f M r H < ; l t v t < C T \
O O CN
00 CO
C M C N J C N C M C N C N r O n C M C M C M C M f O C M
r N j t n r ~ - ^ r M f - f v £ > c N ( M O ' ^ r o o c M C N d 0 0 r ~ H L n r H H U ) C M « X ) O O C N
00
^ ^ 0 0 ' ^ O v O ^ O C O O O c ^ ^ O C ^ C ^ O « x > O H i n ( N O i c r » c o v D v o v o i n o L n
C M C S n C M C N C M O J C N C M C M C N C N n C M
n c O O V O f O O r O V O O v O O n O C M H r O O C M i H C O C n c O C O C O C O r ^ v O O
r > ^ o v D i n o o c o r ^ ^ v o ^ v O ( T i v o
'0 Q) ^ M ITJ 0)
g Q (d 3: 1
TJ <u ^ 0) to (U «
•p c 0)
• H
-P
c •H
S o S 1
•P c (U cn
•H H rH (U •p c
•H
to to 0)
H5
0) rH A (0
-p to
> 1 •-t
(0 c 0
+1 0 E M T cn c •H
r-l
<u (U 4-<
> i ^
'0 0) -P o (U 4-1 4-1 <
Q) r-l X} (d 4-> •rl U X w 1 a> >
•H -P (D-M •P 01 c 0 £ 0} -0 c D
0) >
•H •P Wl 0) to
^ 1
•p c tl)
^
,8 o
u •H -P to 0)
•rl to 3
J C -P
c w 1 M (U X) 0 CO
to ;:» o
-w •p c QJ
•H U to C o u 1
0) H
s to T l u to
on 0) M to
•H Q
to 3 0 U 3 -P
c d) > V. <
1 >l £. W
TJ c •H
e M di T3 C 0)
£H 1
T3 0) T) C
•H
e x: cn 3 0 H
e to
•rl r-\ (0
-d
•rl 'O c H
-P CJ dJ
a to
s p 0 t-l •H
o 1 r-l 3
4H •P to 0) N
0 >
•r\
to
c dJ x: fi a a < 1
T) 0) M 3 to (0
(t 4-1 r-l (U CO
c •H u
• H 44 4-1
to
4-t r-< (U CO
1 -p
c <u -d c (U a tu
TJ
^ o u cn > i
r-l XI (0
•H 0 0 CO
•d 0)
r-l r^ 0 U •P
c 0 u 1
•d Q)
r-l f~\
p u •p
c 0 CJ c t2
Q) to c a>
EH 1
-d 0) X (d
«H tu «
< : CQ CJ Q W CM n Tjt
( i i O K H b o a a a
104
saroe subject are less excitable.
On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the mean scores
of both the over-achieving boys and girls in English
are 7a86 and 9.12 and the S.Ds. are 2.80 and 3.01
respectively, the 't' value being 1.98 which is sig
nificant at .05 level.
Since the mean score of over-achieving girls in
English is higher than that of the other group, it
can be concluded that female over-achievers in English
are more adventurous than their male over-achieving
counterparts in English.
The comparison between the male and female over-
achieving groups in English on factor J, Zestful vs
Circumspect individualism, the means of the over-
achieving male and female groups in English are 6.86
and 8.20 while the S.Ds. are 2.62 and 2.86 respectively,
The 't' value is found to be 2.20 and it is signi
ficant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the female over-
achievers in English are more inclined to individualis
tic, reflective and internally restrained temperament
while the male over-achievers are less inclined to the
individualistic temperament.
On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the means of the
over-achieving male and female groups in English are
105
6.02 and 8.22 and S.Ds. are 2.50 and 2.88 respec
t i v e l y . The ' t* value i s found to be 2.97 which
i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l .
The r e s u l t s thus c l ea r ly br ing out tha t on
fac tor Q., the over-achieving g i r l s in English with
t h e i r s i gn i f i can t ly higher mean score are more tense ,
f rus t r a t ed and f r e t fu l than the over-achieving boys
in Engl ish. The over-achieving boys are thus l e s s
tense and l e s s f r u s t r a t ed .
On the r e s t ten fac to r s , the dif ferences between
the over-achieving male and female groups in English
are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .
The r e s u l t s presented in Table 13 thus reveal
t ha t the over-achieving males in English a re :
(1) Less excitable
(2) Less adventurous
(3) Less individualistic
(4) Less tense and less frustrated
The female over-achievers are:
(1) More excitable
(2) More adventurous
(3) More individualistic
(4) More tense and frustrated
106
Comparison Between Male Over-achievers in Mathematics and Female Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)
Table 14 shows the significance of difference
between male over-achievers in Mathematics and female
over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality
factors.
AS can be seen from the results shown in Table 14,
the male over-achievers differ significantly from
female over-achievers in Mathematics on six personality
factors, namely. Less intelligent vs More intelligent
(B), Affected by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C),
Undemonstrative vs Excitable (D), Sober vs Enthusias
tic (F), Disregard rules vs Conscientious (G) and
Relaxed vs Tense (Q ).
On factor B, Less intelligent vs More intelligent,
the means of the both male and female over-achieving
group In Mathematics are 3,85 and 5.03 and the S.Ds.
are 1.96 and 2.42 respectively. The 't' value is
found to be 2.22 and it is significant at .05 level.
It can be concluded from the results, therefore,
that the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more
intelligent than the over-achieving boys in the same
subject.
On factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emotionally
107
CD
6 ^
C
•ri
(0
u
> 0)
•H 0) £ O 0 - H «J 4J I (0 M 6 0) (I)
^ s (0 C S - H
M-l 01 0 H
0) CO > C 0) n) -H (U J3 S O
0) x: •p
(0
M 0) >
C O a>
-P (0 (U g
0) O t a c c
S 0 ) CO
>w o
Q (?
o x:
to o
-H 44 •H C
o> • H W
<3)
o c
H O Q) -H > (4-1 0) -H J C
D> •H to
0) - 73 •P rH - (0
>
0)
> • 0) (U 0)
(d 43 -p in e o (0 0) (0 2 n • I
»4 C 2
> O
0) > • 0 ) CO ^
0) H x: o m 0 n) 2 nj s n
14 C Z
> O
(>4
CO u o -p o (0
•p
10 c o CO M (U 0.
in en in O o o
H in o o
v O c > J c ^ H " 5 t i n r - " ? i < r i < i n c M C ^ o r o c J S ' ^ l ' f o H
00
O CM r-t C>J O rO CM O <H
a \ t n o o o o L n r * - o o o rH
i n vD 0^ <T>
i n i n i n i n i n m o o o C T i o o a N C T > r - H c o r H r -
0)
o •rl •P
CO
•H H
CO
O •H +J
n 0)
T 4
o CO c o u (0
•a G
•H
e M (V -o G
CO V
6 CO
(0
-a
> •H
c
•H
O
3 o ^
0)
> • H CO C
x : <u
CO a
e < U t3
5 U
W ''J
M
CO Q 0
;3 •p c 0) >
I > i
CO
0) x» G
x:
o
o (4
•H U 1
H
i « •P CO
t
CO (0 (0
.H (1)
44 44 D CO
44 rH Q)
CO I
0) Q)
C rH 0) O
a M 'O C
o a u
o •x^ u 0)
c o
in o
r~- o t^ i n r~ H VD •<*
o o o c
N CO CO D
CN
i n c M ' * C D < c j < r - r « c D f O O \ n r n o o 0 " < ^ c r » c O ' < < ' C D C M O o t ^ f ^ c o r - m H
n c N J C N C M C M C N f O C s j c N c s r M C M r o n
o o m o n v D r ^ f o t n r ^ c M i n C N i n v o n O C ~ - n < ^ C D r ^ r o - < 4 « c o O - ^ r o v O
00 c~» rH a \
l n ^ o < 3 ^ c N v O r t c D ' J ^ l n c J ^ ' # l n r H v O r o c n c T i ( D i n i n ' ; » « t n r H r ^
C > ) r H r O C N l < N m ( N C M C M < M C M ( N n C M
o in in CO cr> vo o r- CTi CO
0 0 f O O N i O i n r H 0 0 C D ^ > X ) U 3 v O ( T > r -
4->
c •H
o
CO
c
I 'd
rH 0)
< : C Q U Q W l i « O l H b O O J CO «:d«
a a a
108
stable, the means of the male over-achievers and
female over-achievers in Mathematics are 9.95 and
8.70 and S.Ds. are 3.15 and 2.94 respectively. The
•t* value is found to be 1,97 which is significant
at ,05 level.
The results thus point out that the male over-
achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean scores
are emotionally more stable, calm, and of higher ego
strength than the female over-achievers in Mathematics.
On factor D, Undemonstrative vs Excitable, the
high scorers are more excitable and low scorers on
the other hand are undemonstrative.
The means of the over-achieving male and female
groups in Mathematics on this factor,as shown in
Table 14, are 6.95 and 8.33 while the S.Ds. are 2.63
and 2.88 respectively. The 't' value is found to be
2,01 which is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that on factor D, the
female over-achievers in Mathematics are more excitable
than the over-achieving boys in the same subject.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic,the means of
the male over-achievers and female over-achievers in
Mathematics are 11.15 and 7.87 while the S.Ds. are
3.32 and 2.87 respectively. The 't' value is found to
be 3.95 which is highly significant at .01 level.
109
I t can, there fore , be safe ly concluded tha t
the over-achieving boys in i^athematics are more en
t h u s i a s t i c while the female over-achievers in the
Same subject are l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c .
On factor G, Disregard ru les vs Conscientious,
the means of the male and female over-achieving
groups in Mathematics are 8,00 and 10.73 while the
S.Ds. are 2.96 and 3.27 re spec t ive ly . The ' t ' value
which i s s i gn i f i can t at .05 leve l i s found to be 2.47,
I t can be concluded from the r e s u l t s , the re fore ,
tha t the over-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics with
t h e i r higher mean scores are more prone t o be con
sc ien t ious while the over-achieving boys are l e s s
conscient ious .
On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the high scorers
are more tense and f ru s t r a t ed . The low scorers on
the other hand, are relaxed and l e s s fmastrated.
The means of the over-achieving boys and g i r l s
in Mathematics are 7.89 and 9.66 while the S.Ds, are
2,75 and 3.10 re spec t ive ly . The ' t* value i s found
to be 2,45 which i s s i gn i f i can t a t .05 l e v e l .
I t can be concluded from the above r e s u l t s t ha t
the female over-achievers in Mathematics are more
f rus t r a t ed , tense and f r e t f u l . On the other hand,
the male over-achievers in the same subject are l ess
110
tense and less frustrated.
On the irest seven factors the differences between
male and female over-achieving groups in Mathematics
are insignificant.
The results presented in Table 14 show that the
over-achieving boys in Mathematics are:
(1) Comparatively less intelligent.
(2) Emotionally stable
(3) Less excitable
(4) More enthusiastic
(5) Less conscientious
(6) Less tense
The over-achieving girls in Mathematics are:
(1) More i n t e l l i g e n t (2) Emotionally l ess s t ab l e (3) More exc i tab le (4) Less en thus i a s t i c (5) More conscientious (6) More tense and f rus t ra ted
Comparison Between Male and Female Under-achievers in English on Fourteen Personal i ty Factors (HSPQ)
Table 15 shows the s igni f icance of differences
between male and female under-achievers in English on
fourteen persona l i ty f ac to r s .
As can be seen from Table 15, the under-achieving
in
0)
C •M
01 M (U > 0)
•H
•g (0 , « - ^ M (0 0) -H -O H
a ot 3 C
M 0)
O M
0) > C 0) (d TH
^ u
c c 0) D (U ^ 0) •P rH 0) (U
m a 0)
o c -d (U C i-l <0
^ s: M-l tQ •H -H Q - < <4-l C O M
<U O c (0 (J •H VW •H c o^
• H CO
0) O
<w c 0 t)
o 0) 4-1 > - H OJ C
to
0) - 3 +> H - (0
>
w M 0) ,C > to
© d) H «!• H "H H ro
g u c n 0) Id M
CM I Z M B no C t3
CO U (U
a) 0) ^ 0) TH iH CM
H ^ <Hr -
I w
OT M 0 4J 0 (0 4-1
> 1
4J •H
T3 0) •P M (tj 0) x:
(0 a o to n a)
111
r-t in o o in H o o
r o i n v D ' < * ( N ( T » v O i H ' * T j < i H C T i v O " ^ ^ O c M O o O H O A
r~ t ^ CO «* r* i n vo 00
• * i H CM CS i H CN
00 n <N vO r- r-o CM CT\ en «* <T>
o •^ O rH
C M ( 7 \ C M C 0 Q 0 0 0 r O 0 0
n C N C M C M C M C M r o C M C M C M C M C M f O C M
c M o i n c M ' ^ o o v o o o j i n o i n o O ' H o o o i n r H
r-i a\ o o 00 rH CM i n i n o
o ^ l n c o o o v o o o o o O l n o o o o ^ » c ^ t ^
i n n c r i r H r o o < T \ ' < i ' v O " * r ~ r ^ v O O r H r - v D C M r o C T > v D v O ' X ) i n
o o
• « * ^ o o o i n o L n o > r H c M O r - H C M r o ( T » r o r - U 3 r H O
r - ' * o r ^ v o o i n c o r - r ~
0) r H
4->
m •P c 0) 0 1
OJ • •p c
•H
o 2 I
4J
c (U 0>
•H
c o
•H p o e w
I
0) H
en o
p c
xs
m w 0) 0) « J
• H r H 0) 0) 4-1
•>, n
(1) •p u 0)
w I
•r1 •p (0 M V 0) c o E 0)
4-1 T3 4H C <: D
> •rt
u T H
4J
n
0 o
•p
c 0)
• H 0 w c o u
J CO CO
E CO
• H r H
:i •xi •rl >
c • H
CO CO CO <
c (U
•H
0)
o
3 x: c w
I u % o
cu
u 0
3 o u 0 c 0) >
Di TJ
c;
c
e u o -o c d) (0 H S
cu T3 c
e
^ n B cu
4J X! U tt) 0) (H a On
I
-o
0)
CO
CO
cu r H
8
o u •p c o
a u 0 I O T3
0) H
I
•H x ; Q to
cu CO
u 1
r-i 3
4H 4J CO H
cu <u >+
o C-H ISl IW
^ 4J c
H O o o o
CO
B :3
in 00
C M C N r O C N C M r O C M C M C M C M C N C M O O C M
CO CM •<* i n r^ \0 O r-i
vo cyi 00
4-> c cu
•H u
•H I H 4H
p
CO
4H
f-^
(U CO
I +J c cu
T3 c 0)
cu XJ
cu CO
q cu
EH I
XJ cu
r H
cu 05
< m u Q M C M 0 3 : ^ o CM n •<*
a a a
112
boys in English differ significantly from under
achieving girls in English. On six personality di
mensions, namely. Reserved vs Warmhearted (A), Affected
by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C), Undemonstrative
vs Excitable (D), Sober vs Enthusiastic (F), Dis
regards rules vs Conscientious (G) and Tough minded
vs tender minded (I) .
On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the means
of both male and female under-achieving groups in
English are 7.04 and 9.52 and the S.Ds.are 2.65 and
4.08 respectively. The 't* value is found to be 4.13
which is highly significant at .01 level.
The results thus clearly indicate that the female
under-achievers in English are more warmhearted and
easy going. The male underachievers on the other hand
are less warm hearted.
Comparison between under-achieving boys and girls
in English on factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emo
tionally stable, also shows significant difference between
the two groups. The mean scores of the male and female
under-achievers in English are 10.20 and 8.55 and
S,Ds. are 3.19 and 2.92 respectively. The 't' value
is found to be 2.66 which is again significant at .01
level.
It can be concluded from the results therefore
113
that the male underachievers in English are emotionally-
more stable^ calm and of higher ego-strength. The
female under-achievers in the same subject are emo
tionally less stable and possess lower ego strength.
On factor D, Undemonstrative vs Excitable, the
means of the male and female under-achieving groups
in English are 7.38 and 8.82 while the S.Ds. are 2.71
and 2,96 respectively. The 't* value is found to be
2,44 and it is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the female under
achievers in English are more excitable while the
male under-achievers in English are less excitable.
On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the means of
the male and female under-achievers in English are
10.30 and 8.88 and S.Ds. are 3,20 and 2,97 respectively.
The 't' value is found to be 2.29 which is signi
ficant at ,05 level.
The results, therefore, indicate that the male
under-achievers in English are more enthusiastic and
happy go lucky while the female under-achievers are
less enthusiastic.
On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious,
the mean scores of male and female under-achieving
groups in English are 5.75 and 10,06 and the S,Ds.
114
are 2.39 and 3.26 respectively. The 't* value is
found to be 7.06 which is highly significant at .01
level.
It can be therefore, concluded from the results
that the female under-achievers in English with their
high mean score are more conscientious. The male
under-achievers on the other hand, with their lower
mean scores are less concientious in the same subject.
On factor 1, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the
means of the male under-achieving and female under
achieving groups in English are 7.11 and 5.12 and S.Ds.
are 2.66 and 2.29 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 4.14 which is once again highly significance at
.01 level.
The results thus clearly bring out that on factor
I, the under-achieving boys in English with their
significantly higher mean score are tender minded
while the under-achieving girls in English with their
lower mean score are tough minded.
On the remaining eight factors, the differences
between the male and female under-achieving groups in
English are not significant.
The findings shown in Table 15 may be concluded
as under:
115
The male under-achievers in English are found to be:
(1) Less warm hearted
(2) Emotionally more stable
(3) Less excitable
(4) More enthusiastic
(5) Less conscientious
(6) More tender minded
The female under-achievers in English are found to he;
(1) More warm hearted, out going and easy going
(2) Emotionally less stable
(3) More excitable
(4) Less enthusiastic
(5) More conscientious
(6) Less tender minded.
Comparison Between Male and Female under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPoT
Table 16 shows the significance of differences
between male and female under-achievers in Mathematics
on fourteen personality factors.
As can be seen from table 16, the male under-
achievers in Mathematics differ significantly from
female under-achievers in Mathematics on seven per
sonality factors, namely Reserved vs Warm hearted (A),
Less intelligent vs More intelligent (B), Affected
by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C), Disregard rules
vs Conscientious (G) , Zestful vs Circxamspect
1 1 6
H
0)
<0 M
>
x: u m a) u
<u ID
m o to
(0 0)
c >
s ^ o
0)
J3
0) 0)
B (1> CQ ( 0
(U
c
l-l C
>« CO •H O
o g
o +>
•H
•H C Dt
to
0) o
IW C O flJ
o OJ m > - H (1) C
• H W
0) - P -P H - (0
>
(0
ID > •
« ^ 4JCM H o to V (ft X tt
-d B
n u > 0)
(0 £ II
xi o HJ I
M
T^ -H ' - ' B
U O •P o (0
4-1
a o en u Q)
i n <H rH o o o o o
CM n n H
<N fH V£> n (M CM fO CO CTi •<*
O C O r H H v O r o O - ^ C v J
m Tj" t n iH CM r~ 00 CO 00 (^ vD CM
^o i n cN (7\ CTi CM
CM
ro
4J CO B 4) >(
13 0)
u ft)
rt)
I
c; (1) 0) (0 (Q 0) 0)
0) • p c
• H
0)
O
=? 4J B 0)
cn • H H r- l Q) +J B
• H
E O
•H • P O E U
0)
-3 p H
0» O B X
W I
>
H 0) 0)
P
M •P tn E O 6
0) +> O
E
0) >
• H -P U (U CO
^ I
4J B CU
• H
cp < O
CO
o •H +1 B 0)
•H O CO B
O O •H U •P I CO en
• H r-i
to
x: p B M M CU
2 n u (0 a\ (D u
Xi to O -H
to 3
3 p B CU >
< I
> 1 x: to
T3 (U
TJ B
• H
E
(U
x> B 0) EH
I -O 0)
' O B
• H
a x: o» 3 O
E to
•d
xs B H
O CU
(U >
• H CO E CU
x: 0)
CO Q i
B 0)
• H O
• H t - l
:3 CO
(U CO I
•p B (U
•O B 0) CU (U 'd
CU
•p c o
c n C M O l C N C M O l n C M C M C M C M O J r O O ^
O O C O r o r H ( H O v D ' « l ' C n s f P > 0 ' - t O
f O f o c M v o c ^ o ^ v O r ^ O l H • < * c 3 ^ r - c o
O L n c o o o i n m r H o o c o c o c o v o o c ^ rH H fH
( ^ c ^ r « i r ~ v O M < r - v o v o o o i / i r H ^ c h y j r - j i n i n r ^ r -
f O o a c M r n c M C M r s i c v j o i c M C N i r v )
o o H r ^ i n i n c M O v o o o c 3 \ f n c T i i n t - ^ c ^ o o c o i n T t c M C ^ Q O O m ^ O i n y D r ^ o o r o o t ~ - v o o i n c o t ~ - ' * ' ^ > ^ c - - r ^
<moQatuox
1 o 1>I
•H C> 1
H P
i p +J cn CU ^3
b
< 1
-d ?> ui 3 cn (0 (d
i p r H (U to
o
§ 0 u a\ > i
H X) fd
•H u 0 to
CM
a
o 1
TJ CU
rH r H
O U •P E 0 0 B P
( a
(U CO B CU H I
Xi i)
S H 0) DH
^ a
117
individualism (J) , Self-assured vs Apprehensive (0)
and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q ).
On factor A, Reserved vs Warm hearted, the
means of the male and female under-achievers in Mathe
matics are 8,98 and 10.38 and S.Ds, are 2.96 and 3.22
respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.18 which
is significant at .05 level.
The results thus indicate that the female under-
achievers in Mathematics are more warm hearted, out
going and more easy going while the male under-achie
vers are less warm hearted.
On factor B, Less intelligent vs More inte.
gent, the mean scores of both male and female under-
achievers in Mathematics are 3.81 and 5.38 while the
S.Ds. are 1.95 and 2.31 respectively. The *t* value
is found to be 3.38 and it is significant at .01 level.
It is thus concluded from the results presented
in Table 16 that the female under-achievers in
Mathematics are more intelligent than their male
counterparts.
Comparison between the male and female under
achieving groups in Mathematics on factor C, Affected
by feeling vs Emotionally stable, the means of the
male and female under-achieving groups are 10.37 and
8.23 while the S.Ds. are 3.22 and 2.86 respectively.
118
The 't' value is found to be 3.50 and it is again
highly significant at .01 level.
The results give a clear evidence that the
female under-achievers with their low mean score are
emotionally less stable. The male under-achievers on
the other hand, with their higher mean score, are
emotionally more stable, calm and of higher ego-
strength.
On factor G, Disregards rules vs Conscientious,
the mean scores of male and female under-achievers
in Mathematics are 5-. 90 and 11.66 while the S.Ds. are
2,42 and 3.41 respectively. The 't' value is found
to be 8.75 which is highly significant at .01 level.
It can be concluded that the under-achieving
girls in Mathematics are conscientious while the
under-achieving boys in the same stobject are less
conscientious and disregard rules.
On factor J, Zestful vs Circumspect individualism,
the mean scores of male under-achievers and female
under-achievers in Mathematics are 4.59 and 8,14 and
S.Ds. are 2.14 and 2.85 respectively. The 't* value
is found to be 6.69 which is again highly significant
at .01 level.
It can be concluded from the results presented in
factor J, that the male under-achievers in Mathematics
119
are prone to be zes t fu l while t h e i r female counter
pa r t s are prone t o be circumspect individual ism.
On factor 0, Self-assured vs Apprehensive, the
high Scores represent apprehensive while the low
Score se l f -assured temperament. Here mean scores for
male and female under-achievers in Mathematics are
6.63 and 8.47 while the S.Ds.are 2.57 and 2.91 r e s
pec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found t o be 3.22 which
i s once again highly s i g n i f i c a n t .
The r e s u l t s thus c l ea r ly ind ica te tha t the female
under-achievers in Mathematics are more apprehensive
while the male under-achievers in same subject are
l e s s apprehensive.
On factor Q-,/ Uncontrolled vs Control led, the
mean scores of the male and female under-achieving
groups in Mathematics are 7.65 and 10.71 and S.Ds. are
2,76 and 3,27 re spec t ive ly . The • t ' value i s found
to be 4,78 which i s s i gn i f i c an t a t .01 level once
again.
Since the mean score of the female under-achievers
in Mathematics i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g rea t e r than tha t of
male under-achievers in Mathematics, i t i s concluded
tha t the female under-achievers in Mathematics are more
cont ro l led while the male under-achievers in Mathematics
are l ess con t ro l l ed .
120
On remaining seven f ac to r s , the differences
between the male under-achievers and female under-
achievers in Mathematics are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .
The r e s u l t s shown in Table 16 may be summarised
as under:
The male under-achievers are found to be:
(1) Less warm hearted
(2) Less intelligent
(3) Emotionally more stable
(4) Less conscientious
(5) Prone to be zestful
(6) Less apprehensive
(7) Less controlled
The under-achieving girls are found to be:
(1) More Warm-hearted, out going and of participating characteristics
(2) More intelligent
(3) Emotionally less stable
(4) More conscientious
(5) More prone to circximspect individualism
(6) More apprehensive
(7) More controlled
The discussion on the findings of the present
study is presented in the following chapter.
Chapter V
DISCUSSION
The p r e s e n t s t u d y , as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , was
c a r r i e d ou t mainly t o f ind out d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r
s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in
Eng l i sh and Mathematics wi th t h e assxomption t h a t t h e
c a u s a l and concomitant p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s might©
p o s s i b l y be d i f f e r e n t f o r i inder-achievement i n two
d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , one l i t e r a r y t h e o t h e r s c i e n t i f i c
o n e .
The s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e d a t a r evea l ed
t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s
between o v e r - a c h i e v e r s and u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s ; between
t h e groups of o v e r - a c h i e v e r s as w e l l as u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s
a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , namely Eng l i sh and Mathe
m a t i c s . Marked d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found between
male and female s u b j e c t s both in the a r e a of the
over -achievement as w e l l as under-achievement in t h e
two s u b j e c t s .
To f ind o u t whether x inder-achievers were d i f f e r e n t
from o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h , comparisons were made
between the two groups along four t een p e r s o n a l i t y
d imens ions . The o v e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh i n c l u d i n g
122
both male and female subjects were found to be more
conscientious and obedient while the under-achievers
in the same siibject were less conscientious and less
obedient rather prone to assertiveness and dominance.
These two results are corroborated by the findings of
Ridding (1966) and Haq (1987) . It also seems quite
convincing that the more conscientious and obedient are
more likely to achieve higher than those who are less
obedient and less responsible and less conscientious.
The other results also fall in line with the
above conclusions. The over-achievers in English
have been found to be more controlled and the under-
achievers less controlled. It is quite resonable
that those who are more self-controlled their behaviour
would be more goal oriented and well-programmed. The
absence of such characteristics would naturally lead
to achieving below expectation.
Besides being less controlled the under-achievers
in English have also been found to be more appre
hensive, a characteristic which would never allow a
person to reach up to the mark what to say of going
beyond expectation in achievement. The over-achievers
in English being less apprehensive are quite naturally
prone to achieving excellence even beyond the expected
level.
123
The result that the over-achievers in English
are not so happy go lucky as their counterparts/ the
under-achievers, also happens to be a reasonable
corollary of the above results. One can easily under
stand that the over-achievers being more conscientious,
obedient and controlled can hardly over be happy go
lucky fellows like their under-achieving counter
parts; the hallmark of the over-achievers being
responsibility, obedience and conscientious etc. It is
only the under-achievers that would feel contented
with their happy go lucky behaviour.
That the under-achievers in English are more
tender-minded and over-achievers less tender-minded
is also quite understandable. For greater and higher
achievement too much of tendermindedness is not very
much helpful. One has to be a bit toughminded for the
consistency in decision for rising up and going
above the expected level. The earlier result of greater
apprehensiveness found in under-achievers seems to
anticipate the characteristics of greater tender
mindedness going with under-achievement and lesser
tendermindedness going with the over-achievement in
English.
Literature in general and English literature in
particular is in the real sense of the term are
124
expression and appreciation of human feelings and
emotions. Quite naturally those who over-achieve in
English language and literature, would be more sen
sitive to feelings and emotions. Emotional stability
or the characteristic of being unaffected by feelings
and emotions would never correspond with over-achieve
ment in a beautiful language like English. The under-
achievement would certainly go with unaffectedness and
stability of emotions.
The over-achievers in Mathematics including both
boys and girls have been found to be, as the subject
itself demands, more intelligent, more conscientious
and responsible as well as more adventurous, self
reliant and more controlled than the under-achievers
in the area. The result is quite understandable as a
scientific subject like Mathematics possess challenges
to the mental abilities and perseverance of the person.
If any one over aspires to gain excellence in Mathe
matical subjects one has to have a high level of
intelligence, sincerity of purpose and a controlled
and self-reliant demeanour. One has also to be
adventurous, ready to accept the challenges of mathe
matical problems. The lack of such characteristics
would surely throw one into the ditch of under-achieve-
ment in Mathematics, as the present findings have
quite vividly shown the phenomenon.
125
Due to almost a constant mental preoccupation,
the over-achievers in Mathematics who are more devoted
to and involved in the subject become tense and some
times excitable and tenderminded. They are also
apprehensive of unnecessary interaction and distur
bances. They want to rem^n occupied in their indivi
dual problems. Hence characteristics such as tense
ness, excitability, tender-mindedness, individualism
and apprehensiveness may also be quite reasonably
the concomitant factors going with over-achievementlxi Maths,
The under-achievers following the same logic will
quite understandably be less intelligent, less con
scientious, less adventurous and less controlled.
They would not be so preoccupied mentally and tense as
were their counterparts. They would also not be very
sensitive to distracting elements and very much
individualistic and self-involved.
What is a bit surprising in the greater warm
heartedness of the mathematics over-achievers, a
deeper understanding of the phenomenon would reveal
that the high achievers and those who achieve even
higher than their expected level are more likely to be
well adjusted and warmhearted (Srivastava, 1967;
Sharma, 1972; Kumawat, 1984) .
Quite naturally the under-achievers in Mathematics
126
_ would-be less adjusted and less warmhearted.
For having a clearer understanding of the diffe
rential personality phenomenon of the over- and under-
achievers in English and Mathematics, comparisons were
also made between male over- and under-achievers as
well as female over- and under-achievers in both the
subjects separately along the fourteen personality
dimensions on the HSPQ.
While cc«nparing the personality characteristics
of the male over- and under-achievers in English, the
over-achievers were found to be more obedient and more
conscientious. They are also less enthusiastic. The
results on these three dimensions of personality appear
to be quite convincing — the obedient and concientious
pupils are more likely to gain from their teaching-
learning situation. Those who are more obedient and
serious about their responsibility would be very
enthusiastic.
AS a corollary of the above discussion, under-
achievement would quite convincingly be more associated
with assertion and aggression greater out bursts of
enthusiasm as well as a lack in sincerity and con
scientiousness. These characteristics quite signi
ficantly differentiate the total population of over-
and under-achievers in English also as can be seen
127
from Table 3, There are other s tud ies a lso t h a t
support the present findings to a g rea t e r ex ten t .
(Ridding^ 1966; Haq, 1987) .
The comparison between male over- and iinder-
achievers in Mathematics yielded s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences
on three pe rsona l i ty f a c t o r s . The over-achievers in
Mathematics were a l so found to be moire conscient ious
than the under-achievers as was the case with male
over-achievers and under-achievers in English. As
such the r epe t i t i on of discussion may be avoided for
t h i s p a r t i c u l a r dimension. The over-achievers in
Mathematics have been found to be more cont ro l led and
i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c while the xinder-achievers are l e s s
cont ro l led and l e s s se l f - involved . There seems to be
an i n t e rna l v a l i d i t y in these r e s u l t s when compared
with the persona l i ty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the over- and
under-achievers in Mathematics including both the
sexes as given in Table No.4.
I t i s not su rpr i s ing the re fo re , t h a t the male
over-achievers in Mathematics are more conscientious
and the under-achievers are l e s s conscient ious ; the
over-achievers are more se l f - involved and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c
and under-achievers in Mathematics are l e s s involved;
the male over-achievers in Mathematics are more
cont ro l led and male under-achievers in Mathematics
are l e s s con t ro l led . Psychological s tud ies as well as
128
our school experiences seem to buttress the present
findings (Ridding, 1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).
Comparisons were also carried out between the
over- and under-achievers among the female subjects
in English and Mathematics separately.
In the area of English the female over-achievers
were found to be less warmhearted and under-achievers
more warmhearted. On the factor of tendermindedness
the over-achieving girls in English proved to be more
tenderminded than the under-achievers. On the per
sonality dimension of tenseness, the over-achievers
were found to be more tense while the under-achieving
girls in English were found to be less tense.
Warmheartedness, tendermindedness and tenseness
which are generally the female characteristics
(Dhaliwal, 1971; McRae et al., 1982; Haq, 1987) are
found to be going with both the female over- and
under-achieving subjects but only with varying
degrees. Both the groups are warmhearted but the
over-achievers being more preoccupied and tense, are
quite naturally less warmhearted than their under
achieving counterparts. With greater tenseness,the
over-achievers greater tendermindedness is also quite
understandable. Once again it can be said that English
language and literature being more akin to feeling
the over-achievers in English are likely to be
129
more tenderminded than the under-achievers in the
same sub jec t .
As can be seen from tab le 12, the female over-
achievers in Mathematics are more en thus i a s t i c and
tense than the under-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics.
Mathematics has yet not become a favour i te subject of
the g i r l s in India . As can be seen from t h e i r very
low enrolment as compared to tha t of boys in depar t
ments involving the mathematical sc iences .
Mathematics being not a subject of the t e s t , keeps
the over-achieving g i r l s far more tense than the
under-achieving g i r l s . They are a lso not very s incere
and conscientious although they have t o exhib i t a l o t
of ex te rna l e f fo r t and enthusiasm for higher achieve
ment and achievement beyond expecta t ion. The under
achieving g i r l s seem to be qu i te contented with t h e i r '
under-achievement as they f a i l to show much enthusiasm
about the subject . Consequently they are less tense
than the labourious over-achievers who go very much
against t h e i r w i l l and conscience. The under-achievers
have reasonably being found to be more conscient ious
than the over-achievers in obeying the d i c t a t e s of
t h e i r conscience, feel ing not much concern about the
subject against t h e i r t a s t e .
AS s ta ted e a r l i e r , the main object ive of the
present inves t iga t ion was to discern the d i f f e r e n t i a l
130
personality character is t ics of over-achievers as well
as under-achievers across the two selected subjects
namely English and Mathematics. I t was hypothesised
that the over-achievers in English would exhibit some
personality differences from those of over-achievers
in Mathematics. I t can be seen from the previous
chapter that each of the two groups of over-achievers
has emerged with quite different combination of
personality charac ter i s t ics .
Including both boys and g i r l s , t he over-achievers
in English and Mathematics were found significantly
different from each other on nine out of fourteen
personality factors .
Where the differences are very much significant
and glaring/ the over-achievers in English have been
found to be less warmhearted, less adventurous and less
tenderminded. They are also less sel f -suff ic ient and
less controlled than the i r counterparts, the over-
achievers in Mathematics. These combinations of
differential personality character is t ics seem to have
an internal coherence and a re la t ive importance.
In corrparison to English, Mathematics demands a
greater control and greater self-sufficiency which has
been found to be quite convincingly the mark of over-
achievers in Mathematics, As has already been discussed.
Mathematics i s a challenging subject and demands a
131
grea te r amount of adventurousness and a high l eve l
of In te l l igence which the over-achievers in Mathematics
have r igh t ly been found to possess .
Mathematics being a more object ive and s c i e n t i f i c
sxibject/ the achievement in the area brings in g rea te r
confidence in the s tuden t . This g r ea t e r confidence
generatesin him the qua l i ty of b e t t e r adjustment and
higher warmheartedness which has been found to be a prone
d i spos i t ion of over-achievers in Mathematics and not
so much of the over-achievers in English.
There are three other fac tors out of nine where
the differences are of the moderate kind yet follow
ing the l ine of the more marked d i f f e r e n t i a l cha rac te r
i s t i c s of the over-achievers of English and over-
achievers of Mathematics,
I t i s qu i t e understandable t h a t the over-achievers
in Mathematics who have a g rea te r cont ro l are a lso
emotionally more s t ab le than over-achievers in Engl ish .
English l i t e r a t u r e being a t reasure of feel ings and
emotions, renders the more involved person, more
sens i t ive to fee l ings and emotions. I t i s t he re fo re ,
qui te understandable t h a t the over-achievers in
English are more prone to fee l ings and lack of emotional
s t a b i l i t y .
A d i f f i c u l t siibject l i ke Mathematics c a l l s for a
132
higher sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and conscientious
than the subjects from the area of humanit ies . I t i s
therefore qui te na tura l t h a t t he over-achievers in
Mathematics are more conscientious and responsible than
those in Engl ish.
I t seems qu i te convincing t h a t the challenges of
Mathematical problems are met with the g rea te r
enthusiasm of the over-achievers in Mathematics. The
grea ter enthusiasm of the over-achievers in Mathe
matics qui te understandably f a l l s in l ine with t h e i r
marked grea ter adventurousness and v ice-versa for the
English over-achievers . Thus the d i f f e r e n t i a l per
sona l i ty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s going with over-achievers in
English and over-achievers in Mathematics qui te con
vincingly seem to form the d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
s e t s for the two compared groups.
When comparisons were made between over-achievers
in English cind over-achievers in Mathematics only
among boys, the two groups were found to be d i f f e r en t
on three persona l i ty dimensions but qu i te moderately.
AS has already been discussed the male over-
achievers in Mathematics were found t o be more warm
hearted and en thus i a s t i c than the male over-achievers
in English qui te corresponding to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
foiind in general with the over-achieving subjec ts in
133
Mathematics including both boys and girls. As such
the same logic applies here too/ to explain why the
over-achievers in Mathematics have greater warmth and
enthusiasm than the over-achieving boys in English.
The results that over-achieving boys in Mathe
matics are more tense than the over-achieving boys
in English,needs a little explanation. Mathematics
being a more difficult and tension creating subject
than English language and literature, would quite
convincingly make over-achievers in Mathematics more
tense than the over-achievers in English.
When comparisons were made between the over-
achieving girls in English and Mathematics,they were
also found to differ on three personality dimensions.
Just like the boys the over-achieving girls in Mathe
matics were also found to be more tense than the over-
achieving girls in English. And the same explanation
for the difference, as given in case of boys^ may also
be presented here. But the repetition would simply
prolong the discussion.
Similar is the case of greater warmheartedness
of the over-achieving girls in Mathematics and the
lesser warmheartedness of the over-achieving girls in
English. Both boys and girls have been found to
differ in the same direction and thus it would be
134
needless to repeat the logic already presented in
the case of boys.
The resul t that the over-achieving g i r l s in
Mathematics are more controlled than the over-achieving
gi r l s in English, i s quite interest ing and r a t iona l i s t i c .
Those who are familier with the greater objectivity
of the mathematical subjects than that found in
l i t e ra tu re , can easily understand that Mathematics
demands greater control on the part of students than
does any other s\±>ject from ar t and l i t e r a tu r e . I t i s
therefore, not surprising that the over-achieving
g i r l s in Mathematics are more controlled than the
over-achieving g i r l s in English.
As one of the objectives of the present study was
also to see the male-female differences of the over-
as well as under-achievers in English and Mathematics,
comparisons were made f i r s t between the male-female
over-achievers. In English the male over-achievers
were found to be different from the i r female counter
parts on four out of fourteen personality factors .
In case of English over-achievement, the boys
were found to be less excitable and far less tense
than the g i r l s . The boys were also found to be,
though quite moderately, less adventurous and less
individual is t ic than the over-achieving g i r l s in
135
English. Studies on personality dimensions of boys
and girls give evidence of quite higher neuroticism^
excitability and tenseness to be found in girls in
comparison to the boys (Ridding, 1966; Dhaliwal,
1971; Haq, 1987) .
It is found in life experiences also that the
women subjects are more irritable and tense than the
men in general. It is, therefore, quite convincing
that the over-achieving girls are more excitable and
tense than the over-achieving boys in English. The
boys are less individualistic than the girls is very
much evidenced by our social experiences. Boys are
more gregarious and more exposed to group activity
than girls who generally prefer to remain inside their
homes or at least do not mix up with others as freely
as the boys do. Thus the greater individualism of the
girls is quite understandable.
Quite interesting to note, the girls who have
over-achieved in English have been found to be more
adventurous than the over-achieving boys in English.
This point reflects a gradually emerging recent change in
ti>je interest of girls. Girls have been found to be
aspiring for adventuresome activities which had not
been the area of interest in the olden days (Blair,
1956; Parsley, et al., 1964; Jarvis, 1965).
136
Now-a-days the girls are ready to accept even
military services and participate with full enthu
siasm in open field games and sports. It has now
become an international phenomenon. It is therefore
not surprising that the over-achieving girls in
English who are more akin to western culture exhibit
greater adventuresomeness than the boys.
While comparing the male over-achievers in Mathe
matics with the female over-achievers one personality
factor emerges where the difference is of high signi
ficance and it is on the factor of enthusiasm. The
over-achieving boys have been found to be far more
enthusiastic than the over-achieving girls in Mathe
matics and it seems to be quite natural as enthusiasm
especially shown against challenging situation is
more a part of the male subjects. Mathematics being
rather a male area of interest is more enthusiasm
provoking for the boys than for the girls.
There are other five factors on which over-
achieving boys and girls in Mathematics show some
differences but only on a moderate level, i.e., .05
level. Boys have been found to be emotionally more
stable than the girls. And it is almost a general
phenomenon as discussed earlier (Ridding, 1966; Dhali-
wal, 1971; Menon, 1972; Haq, 1987).
137
AS fotind in the case of over-achieving boys
and girls in English, in Mathematics also the boys
have been found to be less excitable and less tense
than the over-achieving girls. As such the same
logic given in the case of English over-achieving
boys and girls may also be applied here.
Girls have been generally found to be more
devoted, responsible and concentrative in their school
work than the boys. It is therefore quite understandable
that the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more
conscientious than the over-achieving boys in the
present findings.
It is quite interesting to find that the over-
achieving girls in Mathematics have been found to be
a bit more intelligent than the boys, psychological
studies <Blair, 1956) have failed to find any signi
ficant superiority of males or females in general
intelligence. As such a little superiority of girls
over the boys or of the boys over the girls would not
matter very much.
As it was stated at the very outset, the main
thrust of the present investigation was on finding
out if there were any personality differences between
the under-achievers across the two selected subjects
namely English and Mathematics, in this regard.
138
conrparisons were made between the under-achieving
subjects including both the sexes in the two subjects
as well as between the under-achievers of the two
subjects within the same sex and a l so i n t e r - s e x .
When the under-achievers in English (overa l l
boys and g i r l s ) were compared with the under-achievers
in Mathematics, i t was found tha t the English under-
achievers were far more tender minded and appre
hensive than the \ander-achievers in Mathematics, As
discussed in the case of over-achievers , these
differences seem to be sub jec t -o r ien ted , AS i t i s not
the comparison between over- and under-achievement
but a comparison between the under-achievers of the
two subjec ts , i t appears to be qui te convincing t h a t
the English subject i s more prone to s e n s i t i v i t y of
fee l ings and emotions; and the re fore , are more tender-
minded and apprehensive than the cases in Mathematics,
which by the v i r t u e of being more an object ive and
s c i e n t i f i c subjec t ,has l i t t l e to do with the emotional
s ide of l i f e , AS such, the Mathematics s tudents are
not su rpr i s ing ly l e s s tender-minded and less appre
hensive than t h e i r counterpar ts in English.
A strange phenomenon seems to occur when the f e e l
ing prone under-achievers in English appear to be
more control led than t h e i r counterpart 's in Mathematics
139
but a deeper analysis of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c com
p lex i ty would reveal t h a t the s i t u a t i o n of swinging
between the two extremes or contradic tory charac ter
i s t i c s crea t ing a dilemma would never be helpful for
academic achievement. The outcome of t h i s dilemma
would qui te na tura l ly be under-achievement, whether i t
i s English or Mathematics. However, the difference
l i e s in the d i rec t ion of swinging between the two
stibject a reas . The English under-achievers swinging
between more control led and more tender-mindedness while
the under-achievers in Mathematics swinging between
l e s se r control led and l e s s e r tenderroindedness.
The comparisons between the male under-achievers
in English and Mathematics yielded s i g n i f i c a n t
differences on three pe r sona l i ty dimensions. The under-
achievers in Mathematics were found to be more warm
hearted and zes t fu l than the under-achievers in
Engl ish. The l a t t e r in t h e i r turn were found t o be more
i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c and l e s s warmhearted. These two r e s u l t s
seem t o be qui te convincing as more zes t fu lness of
the under-achievers in Mathematics would go qui te
reasonably with warmheartedness; and individualism of
the under-achievers in English with l ess warmhearted
ness . The t h i r d r e su l t seems to be a coro l la ry of the
above two f indings. The more warmhearted and zes t fu l
140
pupils would quite naturally be less controlled as
it appears in case of under-achievers in Mathematics;
and the more individualistic and less warmhearted pupil
would quite expectedly exhibit greater control as
can be seen in the case of under-achievers in English.
The reason why the Mathematics students are more
zestful,warmhearted and less controlled and the under-
achievers in English more individualistic, less warm-
hearted and more controlled, may be traced in the
nature of the school subjects themselves. Mathematics
being a more challenging subject evokes greater
enthusiasm, warmth and freedom than literary
subject like English with lesser challenges.
The findings concerning the personality chara
cteristics going with female under-achievers in
English and Mathematics, are very much in consonance
with earlier results in the two subjects. Girls
being more enthusiastic about language matters have
quite reasonably been found to be more enthusiastic than
those in Mathematics. The greater enthusiasm quite
naturally goes with lesser tendermindedness. The
girls in English are also less tenderminded than
their counterparts in Mathematics.
The comparisons between under-achieving boys and
girls in English has yielded very significant
differences on four personality factors and moderately
141
significant differences on other two personality
factors.Where the personality difference is sharper
between the two sexes the male under-achievers in
English have been found to be less warmhearted, less
conscientious but emotionally more stable and more
tenderminded than the female under-achievers in
English. The male under-achievers in English have
shown moderately significant differences on excita
bility and enthusiasm. They have been found to be less
excitable but more enthusiastic than the female under-
achievers in English.
What has been said about the overall under-
achievers in English seems to be true for the male and
female under-achievers in English also. Both the male
and female cases seem to suffer from the dilemma of
opposing characteristics. The male under-achievers in
English have been found to be less warmhearted but
more enthusiastic, emotionally more stable but also
more tenderminded. Such contradictory characteristics
would make them swing between the two extremes and .
only contribute towards their growing under-achievement.
The same thing can be said about the female under-
achievers in English who are just the reverse of boys
along the six different personality characteristics.
Both male and female cases seem to suffer from self
contradiction and thus fail to achieve upto their
.42
expectations. As contradiction would never allow one
to remain one directional or goal oriented what had
happened to Hamlet, happens to every undecisive
personality: "... to be or not to be that is the
question", a perfect sign of a certain failure in
achievement in general.
The comparison between male and female under-
achievers in Mathematics yielded highly significant
differences between the two sexes on six personality
dimensions. The female cases were found to be more
intelligent, conscentious and individualistic than
their male counterparts. At the same time they were
also found to be more controlled than the male under-
achievers in Mathematics. However, the female cases
emerged as more apprehensive and emotionally less
stable than the male under-achievers in Mathematics.
A difference of moderate significance was also
found on the factor of warmheartedness. The girls were
found to be more warmhearted than the boys.
Emotional instability and greater warmhearted
ness seem to be quite common characteristics with the
female under-achievers. Almost similar differences
have been found both in Mathematics and English, with
the under-achieving girls. It is also quite convinc
ing that the emotionally less stable would quite
143
logically be more apprehensive as in the case of the
female under-achievers in Mathematics, The reverse
being true for the male cases they were emotionally
more stable and less apprehensive. With the male
under-achievers in Mathematics being low in intelli
gence and being less controlled and less conscien
tious all such characteristics are quite understandable
against the background of their under-achievement.
Mathematics being a difficult subject specially for
the girls (Ridding, 1966; Haq, 1987), a subject
in which they are generally not interested, it is
quite reasonable why they have failed to achieve up
to the expected standards in spite of their some
favourable characteristics like greater control and
conscientiousness and higher intelligence in comparison
to the male cases.
It can thus be inferred from the foregoing
discussion of the present findings that both the
groups of over-achievers in English and Mathematics
have quite different personality characteristics —
each of the two groups having distinctive chara-
cteriestic combinations. Thus the results on
personality dimensions of over- and under-achievers
confirmed the first hypothesis of the present work
that "The over-achievers in English would be different
144
from the over-achieyers in Mathematics in their
personality characteristics".
AS can be seen from the above discussion/ the
under-achievers in English also exhibit significant
differences from the under-achievers in Mathematics
on different personality factors. As such the second
hypothesis of present investigation, "the under-
achievers in English would also be different from the
under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality
characteristics," stands confirmed.
The results emerging from the comparison along
.fourteen personality dimensions between male over-
and under-achievers in English as well as in Mathe
matics show distinctive personality characteristics
going with each group of over- and under-achievers
in both the subjects. Thus it can be reasonably said
that the results on differences between over- and
under-achieving boys in both the subjects confirmed
the third hypothesis of the present investigation,
that is "the over- and under-achieving boys in English
would differ from the over- and under-achieving boys
in Mathematics along their personality character
istics".
AS can be seen from the results on the personality
characteristics of over- and under-achieving girls
145
in English as well as in Mathematics, the over-
achievers have been found clearly differing from
the iiftder-achieving girls in both English and Mathe
matics with reference to their combination of
personality characteristics, AS such the findings
in this regard confirmed the fourth hypothesis of
the present study, that is "the over- and under
achieving girls in English would also exhibit per
sonality differences when compared with the over-
under achieving girls in Mathematics respectively."
The results of comparison between male and
female over- and under-achievers in English as well
as in Mathematics have clearly shown that male over-
achievers in English differ from female over-achievers
in English, male over-achievers in Mathematics
differ from female over-achievers in Mathematics in
their personality characteristics. As for the under-
achievers the male under-achievers in English differ
from the female under-achievers in English and the
male under-achievers in Mathematics differ from the
female under-achievers in Mathematics on different
personality factors each group having its own
distinctive characteristic combinations. Thus the
result on sex differences in both the subjects —
English and Mathematics — confirmed the fifth
146
hypothesis of the present investigation,that is
"the male over- and under-achievers would differ
from the female over- and under-achievers in each
of the two school subject areas respectively."
Chapter VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of the present investigation was
primarily to identify the personality differences
between the under-achievers in English and Mathematics.
In order to get at these differential characteristics,
the study was conducted on differences between over-
and under-achievers on one hand and between over-
as well as under-achievers across the two subjects,
namely English and Mathematics on the other. Over-
achievement, in this regard, refers to the positive
discrepancy and under-achievement to the negative dis
crepancy between actual achievement score and the
score predicted on the basis of intelligence. Both
the phenomena have been recognised as psychological
problems, but under-achievement is becoming far more
menacing and damaging in the realm of education.
Achieving below the level predicted through intelligence
is a clear wastage of the individual's potentials and
an irrepairable loss of hxoman resource.
The review of related studies which is presented
in Chapter II would reveal that intelligence, being
147
148
very closely associated with academic achievement is
the most reliable predictor of school achievement
(Dhaliwal, 1971; McCandless et al., 1972; Glossop,
et al., 1979; Roberge and Flexer, 1981; Yule et al.,
1982). However, the correlations between the two
variables have never been found to be perfect. As
such a portion of population always remains unpre-
dicted through intelligence, which is generally dubbed
the 'residuals'.
The problems of the 'residuals' have very often
attracted the attention of the investigators. They
have tried to explore the non-cognitive factors which
could be responsible for the failure of prediction
through intelligence. The investigators in this field
satisfied themselves with exploring personality and
environmental factors going with academic achievement. '
These studies at best have indicated the relationship
between certain non-cognitive factors and high and
low achievement but do not indicate the extent of
operation of these factors on achievement when the
effect of intelligence is accounted for (Savage, 1966;
Rai, 1974; Koul, 1978; Vora, 1978; Khurshid
Mohammad and Fatima Rafat, 1978; Traiib, 1984; Kumawat,
1985) .
Some studies based on the clear concept of over-
and under-achievement, have tried to find out the non-
149
intellective personal factors of over- as well as
under-achievers (Rao, 1963; Taylor, 1964; Srivastava,
1967; Morrison, 1969; Bharudi, 1971; Dhaliwal, 1971;
Sharma, 1972; Menon, 1972; Agarwal, 1976; McRae,
et al., 1982; Stockhard and Wood, 1984). It has
been found from these studies that over-achievement
generally goes with superior study habits, poor
social adjustment and security feelings and under-
achievement with good social adjustment, insecurity
feelings and unrealistic goal orientation. Although
these studies of over- and under-achievement have
provided valuable data regarding the differential
personality characteristics of over- and under-
achievers, yet have derived over- and under-
achieveroent from the total achievement scores of the
subjects, which hardly represent the achievement
level of the individual in specific subjects.
Only a few investigators have attempted to study
the individuals' achievement in individual school
subjects and tried to find out personality factors
which are intimately correlated with academic
performance (Ridding,1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).
These few studies have indicated some differential
characteristics going with over-achievement and under-
achievement in different school subjects. The
findings call for further empirical evidences as well
150
as serve as a threshold for a new dimension of
exploration, i.e., the identification of personality
characteristics of over-achievers as well as under-
achievers across different school sxibject areas.
The present work,-as such, was therefore carried
out with the following objectives:
(1) To find out the personality differences between the over-achieving groups in different school subjects.
(2) To find out the differential personality factors going with over- and under-achievers in different school sxibjects.
(3) To find out the personality factors differentiating the male and female subjects in different knowledge areas both among over- and under-achievers.
The hypotheses formulated for the present study
were as under:
(1) The over-achievers in English would be different from the over-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.
(2) The under-achievers in English would also be different from the under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.
(3) The over- and under-achieving boys in English would differ from the over- and underachieving boys in Mathematics along their personality characteristics.
(4) The over- and under-achieving girls in English would also exhibit personality differences when compared with the over- and underachieving girls in Mathematics respectively.
151
(5) The male over-,and under-achievers would differ from the female over-under achievers in each of the two school subject areas respectively.
The present study was conducted on a sample of
302 students from X class of boys' and girls' high
and higher secondary schools frcxn Nagaon, Assam,
In the present investigation the investigator
employed the following standard tools and measures:
(1) The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2)
(2) Cattell and Beloffs HSPQ Test (Kapoor and Mehrotra, Form A, 1973)
For achievement scores of 302 students in two
specific school svibjects, the investigator had to rely
upon the school achievement records.
For further statistical treatment/ the intelli
gence and achievement scores were converted into '2'
scores.
The over- and under-achievers in both English
and Mathematics were identified with the help of
regression equation as suggested by Throndike (1963).
After obtaining the predicted achievement scores,
discrepancies between the actual and predicted scores
were calculated to find out the cases falling above
and below the predicted scores in each of the two
152
sxibject a reas . Those who were lying one S.De above
the predicted score were designated as over-achievers
and those lying one SDe below as under-achievers in
each of the two sub jec t s , among boys and g i r l s
separa te ly .
Following were the s ixteen p a i r s of groups for
mulated for comparisons of fourteen persona l i ty
dimensions:
Overall Comparisons
1. Over-achievers in English vs Over-achievers in Mathematics
2. Under-achievers in English vs under-achievers in Mathematics
3 . Over-achievers in English vs under-achievers in English
4. Over-achievers in Mathematics vs xinder-achievers in Mathematics
Among Boys
5. Male over-achievers in English vs Male over-achievers in Mathematics
6. Male under-achievers in English vs male under-achievers in Mathematics
7. Male over-achievers in English vs Male under-achievers in English
8. Male over-achievers in Mathematics vs Male under-achievers in Mathematics.
153
Among Gi r l s
9i Female over-achievers in English vs female over-achievers in Mathematics
10. Female under-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in Mathematics
11. Female over-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in English
12. Female over-achievers in Mathematics vs female under-achievers in Mathematics
Sex differences among over- and under-achievers
13. Male over-achievers in English vs female over-achievers in English
14. Male over-achievers in Mathematics vs female over-achievers in Mathematics
15. Male under-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in English
16. Male under-achievers in Mathematics vs female under-achievers in Mathematics
The ' t* t e s t was employed to find out the s i g n i
ficance of differences between the s ix teen pa i r s of
groups. The r e s u l t s of the ' t* t e s t have been
presented in Tables 1-16.
The findings of the present inves t iga t ion may be
summarised as follows:
(1) The over-achievers in English were found t o be more prone t o be warmhearted (A), l e ss
154
intelligent (B),, emotionally less stable (C) ,
less enthusiastic (F) , less conscientious (G)/
less adventurous (H), less tenderminded (I) ,
socially group dependent (Q-), and less
controlled (Q^) than the over-achievers in
Mathematics.
(2) The under-achievers in English were more prone
to tendermindedness (I) , apprehensive (0) and
controlled than the under-achievers in
Mathematics.
(3) Over-achievers in English differed from under
achieve rs in English on seven personality
factors. The over-achievers in English were
found to be emotionally less stable (C),
assertive (E), enthusiastic (F), conscientious
(G), less tenderminded (I), less apprehensive
(0) and more controlled (Q-) .
(4) The differences between over- and under
achieve rs in Mathematics were found on eleven
factors. The over-achievers in Mathematics were
found to be more warmhearted (A), more inte
lligent (B), less excitable (D), more con
scientious (G) , more adventurous (H) , more
tenderminded (I), more individualistic (J) ,
apprehensive (O) , self sufficient {Q2) , more
controlled (Q^) and more tense (Q.) than the
under-achievers in Mathematics.
(5) The male over-achievers in English were found
to be less warrohearted (A), less enthusiastic
(F) and less tense (Q.) than the male over-
achievers in Mathematics.
155
(6) Male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n E n g l i s h d i f f e r e d from male x inder-achievers i n Mathematics only on t h r e e p e r s o n a l i t y measures . The u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh were found t o be l e s s warmhearted (A), more i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c (J) and more c o n t r o l l e d
(Qo) than t h e u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathemat ics ,
(7) The male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h d i f f e r e d from male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in same s u b j e c t on t h r e e p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The male o v e r -ach ieve r s in Engl i sh were found t o be l e s s a s s e r t i v e (E ) , l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c (P) and more c o n c i e n t i o u s than the male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h ,
(8) The male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were found t o be more prone t o be c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s (G)/ i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ( J ) , and more c o n t r o l l e d (QO) than t h e male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathem a t i c s .
(9) The female o v e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh were more prone t o warmheartedness (A) , l e s s c o n t r o l l e d (Q-) and l e s s t e n s e (Q ) w h i l e the female o v e r -a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were more i n c l i n e d t o be r e s e r v e d , more c o n t r o l l e d and more t e n s e .
(10) The female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on two out of f ou r t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Engl i sh were found t o be more e n t h u s i a s t i c (P ) , and l e s s tenderminded (I) whi le the female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were found t o be l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c and more tough minded.
(11) Among g i r l s , o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Eng l i sh were
more i n c l i n e d t o warmheartedness (A) , t e n d e r -
156
minded (I) and tense (Q ) than the under-
achievers in English.
(12) The female over-achievers in Mathematics
exhibited significant differences on three
out of fourteen personality factors. The over-
achieving girls were found to be more enthu
siastic (F)/ less conscientious (G) and more
tense (Q.) than the under-achieving girls in
Mathematics.
(13) The over-achieving boys in English were found
to be less excitable (D), less adventurous (H), less individualistic (J) and less tense than the
female over-achievers in English.
(14) In Mathematics the over-achieving boys were
emotionally stable (C), less intelligent (B),
less excitable (D) , more enthusiastic (F) , less
conscientious (G) and less tense (Q.) than the
female over-achievers in Mathematics.
(15) The under-achieving boys in English were found
to be less warmhearted (A) , emotionally more
stable (C) , less excitable (D), more enthusiastic
(F), less conscientious (G) and more tenderminded
than the under-achieving girls in Mathematics.
{16) In Mathematics the under-achieving boys were
found to be less warmhearted (A), less inte
lligent (B), emotionally stable (C)/ less con
scientious (G) , more zestful (J) , less appre
hensive (0)/ and less controlled (Q^) than the
under-achieving girls in Mathmatics.
156
The findings of the present study thus empirically
reveal certain personality characteristics going with
under-achievement in English and Mathematics specifi
cally as different from those going with over-achieve
ment both among boys and. girls ;and as such the study
serves as a threshold for further research work in
the realm of identification and early prediction of
under-achievement to prevent the loss of human
resource, to an extent, through remedial measures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, M. (1974) . Some factors irelating to under-achievement in English of Secondary School Pupils. Ph.D., Edn. Kernataka University.
Abraham, P.A, (1969) . An experimental study of certain personality traits and achievement of secondary school pupils, Ph.D., Psy., Kernataka University.
Agarwal, S.K. (1976). A psychological study of academic underachievement, 1, Dissertation Abstracts, July-Dec, 1981, Vol. X, No, 3, 4, 311-315.
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Anastasi, (1958). Differential Pshchology, Macmillan Pxiblishing Co., New York.
Asbury, C.A. (1974). Selected factors influencing over- and under-achievement in young school age children. Review of Edu. Research, V. 44 (4), 409-158:
Batchtold, L.M. (1969), Personality differences among high ability under achievers. Jour. Edu. Res., 63, 9-18.
Best, J.W. (1977). Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Bhaduri, A. (1971). A comparative study of c e r t a in psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the over-and under-achievers , D . p h i l . , Psy . , Cal . Univers i ty ,
B l a i r , G.M. (1956), Diagnostic and remedial teaching. Macmillan Pxib. Co., I n c . , N.Y.
157
158
Burt, C. (1937). The backward child, Univ. of London Preis, London.
Burt, C. (1957). Letter to the Editor, Education, 109, p.507.
Burt, C, (1959). The accomplishment quotient: A reply. Brit. Jour. Edu. Psychol., 29, 259-260.
Cattell, R.B. and Cattell, M.D. (1973). Technical supplement for the Culture Fair Intelligence Tests, Scales 2 & 3, The psychology Centre, New Delhi.
Cattell, R.B. and Cattell, M.D. (1973). Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests, Manual for Scales 2 and 3, The psychology Centre, New Delhi.
Cattell, R.B. and Beloff, H. (1973). Manual for the HSPQ, Inst, of personality and Ability Testing, Illinois (Printed in India) , psychology Centre, New Delhi.
Chatterji, S. and Mukerji, M. (1974) . predictive ability of a differential aptitude test battery : A follow up study. Jour, of Edu. & Psychol., vol. 33, No,2
Clark, R.B. (1981). The effects of selected counselling approaches on low achieving grade ten students. Dissertation Abstracts (Inter), vol. 42, 3707, A.
Crano, W.D., Messe, S.R. and Rice, M. (1979). Evaluation of the predictive validity of tests of mental ability. Jour. Edu. Psychol., vol.71, 2, 233-241.
Curry, R.L. (1961) . Ceirtain characteristics of under achievers and over achievers, Peabody Jour, of Edu., 39, 41-45.
159
Curry/ R.L. (1962). The effects of socio-economic status on t]ie scholastic achievement of sixty-grade children. Brit, Jour.of Edu. Psychol.»
Dhaliwal, A.S. (1971). A study of some factors contributing to academic success and failure among high school students (Personality Correlates of academic over-under achievement), Doctoral Thesis, psychology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Dianne, M. (1987) . The effect of small group counselling on under-achievers. Psy.Abstract (July), vol.74, 7, 20334.
Eysenck, H.J.(1974). Students selection by means of psychological tests: A critical survey, Brit. Jour.of Edu.Psychol., 17, 20-39.
Garler, E.R., Kinney, J. and Anderson, R.F. (1985). The effects of counselling on classroom performance. Special Issue,Multimodal Approaches, 23(4), 155-165.
Garrett,H.E. (1981). Statistics in psychology and Education, Vakils, Feffer and Simons Ltd., Bombay.
Glossop, J.A., Appleyard, R. and Roberts, s. (1979). Achievement relative to measure of general intelligence. Brit. Jour, of Edu. psychol., 49, 249-257
Guilford, J.P. and Fruchter. (1978). Fundamental statistics in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, Kogakushia, Tokyo.
Haq, N. (1987). A study of certain personality correlates of Over-Under Achievement in Different school subjects. Ph.D. Thesis, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Jain, S.K. (1967). Study habits and academic attainment in Uttar Pradesh Colleges. Doctoral Thesis, Psychology, Agra University.
Jarvis, Oscar T. (1965). Boy-girl ability differences in elementary school language arts. Childhood Education, 42, 198-200.
160
Jayagopal, R, (1974). personality profile of the under and high achievers of some of the schools in the city of Madras, Dept.of psychology, Madras University.
Kohli, T.K. (1976). Characteristic behavioural and environmental correlates of academic achievement of over and under achievers at different level of intelligence, Ph.D., Patna University,
Koul, L, (1978). personality needs of high and low achievers in Mathematics. H.P.U., Himachal Pradesh.
Khurshid, M. and Fatima, R. (1984). A comparative study of personality traits of high and low achievement. Postgraduate College, Rampur, Asian Jour.of Psychol, and Edu.,vol. 13(2-4), 41-44.
Kulshrestha, S.K. (1956). A study of intelligence and scholastic attainment of X and XI class students in Uttar Pradesh, Doctoral Thesis, Phil., Allahabad university.
Kumawat, U. (1985). A study of certain factors related with high and low achievement in college students. Sukhadia Univ., Udaipur, Asian Jour, of Psychol, and Edu. (Dec.) , 15(4) , 1-7.
McCandless, R.B., Roberts, A. and Sternes, T. (1972). Teachers' marks, achievement test scores and aptitude relations with respect to social class, race and sex. Jour, of Edu.Psychol./ 63, 153-159.
McRae, James L. (1982). Academic achievement and personality syndromes. Temple Univ., Dissertation Abstracts (Inter.), vol. 44(1), July, 4029A.
Mehryar and Khajavi (1973). Some personality correlates of intelligence and educational attainment in Iran, Brit. Jour, of Edu. Psychol., 43(1), 8-16.
161
Menon, S.K, (1973). , A comparative study of personality characteristics of over achievers and under achievers of high ability, Ph.D., Ker. Univ.
Morrison, E. (1969). Under achievement among pre-adolescent boys considered in relation to passive aggression. Jour. Edu. Psychol. 60(1) , 168-173.
Nagpal, R. (1979). A study of non-intellectual characteristics of over and under achieving engineering students, Ph.D., Human,, IIT, New Delhi.
Pal, R., Jain, P. and Tiwari. (1985), Self-concept and level of aspiration in high and low achieving higher secondary pupils. Agra Psychol, Research Cell, perspective in Psy. Research (Oct,), vol, 8(2), 49-53.
Parsley, K,M,, Powel, M. and Oconner, H.A. (1964). Further investigation of sex differences in achievement of under, average and over achieving students within five IQ groups in grade four through eight. Jour, of Edu, Res., 57, 268-270.
Rai, P.N. (1974), A comparative study of a few differential personality correlates of low and high achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Agra university.
Ralph, E.G. and Charles, J,H, (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance; The effect of study-related behaviour. Jour, of Edu. Psychol., 72(1), 16-20.
Rao, D.G, (1965). A study of some factors related to scholastic achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Education, Delhi University,
Ridding, L,W. (1966). An investigation of personality measures associated with over and under achievement in English and Arithmetic. Abstract of Thesis, 1966, Manchester University, British Jour, of Edu. Psychol,, February, 1967, 37, 397-398,
162
Roberage^ J.J, and B.K. Flexer (1981). Re-examination of covariation of field independence, intelligence and achievement, Brit. Jour. of Edu. Psychol., 51, 235-236.
Savage, R.D. (1966). personality factors and academic attainment in junior school children, Univ. of Newcastle, British Jour, of Edu. Psychol., vol. XXXVI, Part (1) , 90-92.
Saxena, P.C. (1972). A study of interest, need pattern and adjustment problem of over and under achievers. D. phil., Edu., Allahabad University.
Sharma, K.G. (1972). A comparative study of adjustment of over and under achievers. Doctoral Thesis, Edu., Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Shaw, M.C. and McCuen, J.T. (1960). The onset of under achievement in bright children. Jour. of Edu. Psychol., 51, 103-108.
Srivastava, A,K. (1967). An investigation into the factors related to under achievement. Doctoral Thesis, psychology, Patna University.
StocXhard,J, and Wood, J,W. (1984). The myth of female under achievement: A re-examination of sex differences in academic under-achievement, Amer. Edu. Research Jour., 21(4), 825-835.
Tandon, S. (1978). A psychological and ecological study of under-achievers. Doctoral Thesis, Education, Banaras Hindu University.
Taylor, R.G, (1964) . personality trait and discrepant achievement: A review. Jour, of Counselling Psychol,, 11, 76-82.
Throndike, R.L. (1963). The concepts of over and under achievement. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univ., N.Y.
163
Traub, G.S. (1984). Correlation of shyness with depression/ anxiety and academic perfor-mance, Psychol. Abstracts/ 71(3), 723.
Vanarasi/ S.j. (1970). Ability and scholastic under achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Psychology/ Poona University.
Vora, I.A. (1978). A study of reading achievement in relation to sex, attitude and anxiety. Jour. Edu. and Psychol., 36(1 & 2), 41-53.
Wirth/ S. (1977). Effects of multifaceted reading programme on self concept. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 1977 (Oct.), 12(1) 33-40.
Yule/ W. (1984). The operationalising of "under achievement". Doubts dispelled. Brit. Jour, of Clinical Psychol./ 23(3), 233-234.
Yule, W., Lansdown, R. and Urbanowiez, M.A. (1982). Predicting educational attainment from WISCR in a primary school sample, Brit. Jour. of Clinical Psychol., 21, 43-46.
D AT APPMDIX-A
Test of "g": CULTURE FAIR Scale 2, Form A
Prepared by R. B. Cattell and A. K. S. Cattell
Name. Sex. First
Name of School (or Address).
Last (Write M or F)
Today's Date- Grade (or Class)-
Date of Birth-Month Day Year
Age. Years Months
Test
1
2
3
4
Score Remarks
Total Score
M
Do not turn thfl( page.Mntil.told,to do so
Copyrighi o by The luMuule for Her .onahty & Abil»1» 1 e s l . n j , 1949, 1957 Int tmal ional copyright in all cauatnea under the Benie Union, . , " " " ' , ' / , t ^ „ ? ,."""•"'•, " ? ' ' "" ' ' ' f"" ' Copyright Convontions All property rights reserved by The laautute lor Pe r . on .U ty « Ability l eb lmg, 1602-04 Coronudo Drive. Champoign, I l l inois , U S A l^nnted in I n d i a .
TEST 1
Examples
4
4 7 -:,i X 0 Q- (3'G> (D
> niswers
m
D
D
I.
2.
3.
4.
? 2 ?
• • • • • • • •
OO
! /
\j' I
• • • •
/ » / ^
oO o
D
D
n
n
D
1.
Go on to tkrn tttxt pagv.
6. 0
o
o
o-
10.
h 11. e-
o
I 1
\ >
c ^
n
^IX M
» t 12.
- J
Answers
o 0
• c
0 oo Q
1
• a n V V A
X X X
X X
t 1^
«=>0<=» -^^^-^ ( ^ ^ — ^ ^ ^ TBM»
z:s ^ (:x Q
^ ? id C?l <>
n
•
D
D
EndofTcsll
2.
STOP! Do not turn tb« pagt until told to do so
TEST 2
Examples 1 5 Answers
0
D
2.
' 1
2
j . - '
6.
n
D
D
n
D
D
Oo on to tht next page.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3. ;
D
LI.
L2.
1
< «
1
K)
2
2
(0
3
v\/v
3
(I)
4
4
0)
5
5
( ) (
Answers
D
n
n
D
D
D
n
n End of Test 2
STOP' Do not turn the page until told to do so
TEST 3 f- X MM.
1.
I.
3.
4.
b.
1 ! 1 1
L.. 1 _J r-—1 ''—•"'
^ / ^
L ) I
>1J,
' !'-ll] r - - - 1
IlliL
kll : A 1 ;
I 1 c , _ . i
X!±-r - 1 1 — - 1
4 ', ' 1 , 1 1
1 1
•
1
/
1
1
I J
1 1 1
1 1
1
A
1
ix
1
•X!
2
• •
2
g2 2
>
2
• • •
2
111 2
A
2
2
~
3
• •
3
I I
3
f ^
3 • •
"^
1 .!
A
3
"
3
..xj
4
%
4 s 4 a 4 • •
4
t 4
A
4
\
4
X ... _ ..
5 • •
5
IJ
5 m
5
•
5
^
5
A
5
\
5
-f
Answers
3
D
D
D
D
D
D
a 5.
Go on to ih« next page
6. mm — 1 1 — 1
n i i I I
7. 1 r 1 • • L I
8. \
o°
. • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
ea] a I I
>• . J
10.
11.
BOLT
12.
End of Test 3
1
•
1
o
1
^ #
1
B
ti
1
i
2
f
2
•
2
°o
2
2
2
2
1
3
D
3
•
3
-.
3 a 3 '
3
3
X
4
•
4
o 4
• •
iij
4
4
[XJ
5
0 5
•
5
^
5
5
5
5 m
Answers
D
n
D
n
n
D
n 6.
STOP! Do not turn the poge onfi/ to/J fo </o so.
TEST 4 Examples
O o
$ > ^ ® 3 4
^
Answers
D
D
I.
m 3. T-i
5.
6.
7,
8.
m
^.
M r /
_3
I I
i
© ^ (S) (Dl
5 _
^ " ' ^ , , . I \ * ^ . I ' fc I • i i i i - " J ^ • ' • • I I.I • • •••
End of Test I 7.
Jr.-Sr. FORM A (Revised)
H. b» r • Q« K V C J 1967 Hindi Edition
Prepared by : A P P E N D I X - B S . O. Kapoor and K. K. M«hrotra
( Original Test Authors are Dr. R. B. Cattell and Hallo Setoff)
(«p) 3€a«fiT5r5r » trsjTJTfr'IPT*JT, (^) ^rnrft w, («r) »^-^r?r "fs^r 1
%i^s^ 5T <T<Ht ^^ *5fM "Hct ITT fl»Tis?r g>, ^^m ^^ grrr H ^ fftr ^ v ^ 1 s r ^ vn % eftf iwrf if % i?it gr rc g^^l ^ T f^itiT srt tilii^ ^ x(^ 5 ^ ^ fs j ^tV^ ^q^tfi ?T^T I ag: 5T?5T« JJ H % Wt p? ^ 1 ^ 3 ^ ^ % ^tf> ^ ^ 'TT
' fTT-q' if ^^ gq; n f (Box) % vf%x qv H|V ^ ( / ) f^TH ir^w Hnrw^ 1
fSTH ST^T % Sr?^ 3WT r?^ ni^ I 1% |(t srgg ^ 5T5 5^ jfeTVT * teTC 5 « t ^ ft^ I «W 51?% q«n "TW2
«p> *fr rrq a> "Tf% sr f 155: <>?> %^K v^ ?r* ^rt^ T ^ arncft 1 s i^ ffi ^ t ^ «»T^ ^ ftreft wnif qr «!TTH ^ «Tr'SRTTT I :—
(?) sr Hlf % j T a=5^f ^ a«Tr ffrf^'*>^ m^ % ift, wffv T TW gtiT ^ ^ 5 ^ T T ^ $ ?TITIT 5TJ(! | I 5»T ^^?t «n ^m VK^ ?> ^WT ?*> g^T irt I IT? »r5r fft^> Pn ^ ' ^TT ^ T ^^'m % 1
(^) ir«rfcr m n^Tr wt % ftrt vt^ HUIT fsift' r ^ii %,, fTsr vV 5»T sr pfff vr rtrr 5ftWOT % ^ I ^ vnm fi jhr ft' -fq TT ! ^ «ft <I WT %V^ »T5T if WTIT 5^ f^iT^ % m^[x «nc «ft I fs i snpr ITJF 5 ^ % frrsr - jq^ irr^p
T?% t "TT?5 *"J< ifV ^ sT fT r 5Tf?r qR % T ^ 11 «?r; g ^ g^r »ft ww«T-W5r«T ?t H ^ j 1
(^) ^ 'nfTT 9 TT «T«Tffr "iTfsTfii r" (JTT '^') ^^^ ?nfT> JTIT 'T if nuft sr ft? «T5?r irr vr? r?r ^ mc "CT ^^mr fr?Tf«T *T?p--*T ff I «T?r: x^f^wf^\ %' (JTT 'IC'O Hflf' {m 'n') % 3 ^ §1 sTiTt«T *f «TTSIT ^ f ? ^ 1
(V) fip t ?fy 5T?5T vt Tg- Bjtft I xmx. ^ STW «p?cT: 5*T qT m^ «T?t ?f ur 5 ^ ^ ^^ *^«55FH T ft, %^ {nftgn •<TfsTfWer' (qr •^') % ?ft% «T^ Jf ffr^nf iTinft 1
*nT^ 51C5 f«"][«j!!T ^ rft «T^ «(^ iP^ ?t, iftr ITPJ WW if <rrt* w^S^i fcn^ f t «rt «fif WVT 59 fr»^ ft I fapyg ^Ji5r ^ ? ^ ffT«ft <f?t « T ^ ! T W V d 1
Copyright © 1967 by The Psycho-Centre, T-22, Green Park, New Delhi-16 (India>, ana also 1958, 1962, 1963 by the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1602-04 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. Ail rights reserved. International Copyriglit in all countries under the Berne Union, Buenos Aires, and Universal Copyright
Conventions, and all Bilateral Copyright Agreements. Printed in India.
t ^ j
t. fsrr fnHtti »t vnT: ^ T?T t . wr yr!??? ^ v % ^«»; <rt f t ? \J?^^, (^) wrfft^cT, (T) Sfflf I
5?. Jifir 5*r f v ^ PrifpTv if n^ ft 5f>, wr «ftf Hijir * f^fJr:
( ' ) ft, (T) iT?Tf I
(«) fsrft^fr f>?rr | , (w) iJW % ^^ n, (»r) ff fiF-^rf?-^ f>arr t ?
^. 3ra nJt ^nr 1 ^ wTf ft«iT sffT iT I ?ft t^rm ^^ 5 rT% %, ^^t | T ?fWlf «n: f?r «Frtft(H ft sn f f> ? (v) «PWT, 4 ^ ) *>fy-^nft, (n) i5rrii«f ft «>ft 1
(s. ff^ PTT % rar Ttf 8f n^^< f>^ TT, wr ^ T ?r«r r's^ f^^fTt qr> ^^f^ftr sq^ ^ft ^^^ f* vff 'J^^t w^Tr?flt
("R) ft, (^) m^K, (T) !Tft I
(V) ft, i ^ , {m) HTtTT ffmpiT, (T) STgt I
( T ) ft, (^) ^>fy. nft, (n) ^ft I
t •. fTPTf?rfe5 vtat Jf ^ ^H # fTs 5*51^ 5«i%?^ qr wF^v srr f>«t \ ? (v) ftreTfff iftnT ^ r , (^) Jftsif % «t^ ft, (n) ^ ^ if ^zx T irm^r 1
(v) f t , (^) iim^, (n) !f^ I
t'?. f^r fffncT «itwif qr ip\^ SPTTT gf'^^ ?"t?rr | ?rt Jir 5»T ^t^!r ft fP ^^ <TT f f fu r f^??rrii f^^fsi ?5t | ? (T) f t , (^) 5T(»T?, («l) JTft I
t?. €f f>5»ff j m «% f ^ r i^nv 91 '^rft, ?it >»irT §«T fTfrr f f rar ft? ^ ^ rmT «nT?< ?«% ft ? (V) f t , (^) 5rT«T?, (ir) !nPf I
tv. firr 5^ fft^rr %n^ ^resf^^ vrr ^Twt ^ ^ i ^ ft <?r?TT Hv?f ft, ^ 51T »R: nft f t irt %'w ?rtt ft iift ft ? (T) f t , (w) i!Tm<, (T) «rft I
?X. w r 5^ nt^^ ft ftr nriT w^ TT ^^\\ qv srRrs ?TtT nrtspfiTa a rftB ^ ^ vt f%fT H»ii^'n t ? ("P) f t , (W) WfJT?, CF) »fft I
t S. smr.' f»f r<!r<rft w*P(fn^ )f*r?rr v'ct $ grsrft wM? f»T«rft «nr wr 5«r«t <rr M^m | J^ inaii Tv % v t t fmat ft T I ft ? (•(f) ft, (W) 5IIJT?, (^j T ^ < .
, ^ ^ • • I
tv». f ^ 5»T -(fT tft ftt 5»T l?Tft ft awf^fT iTT ?nrt fsrn r fv 5»T F^WT >i«?t at u t i 5*51^ fcro ^ ? (V) f t , (^) 5TR?, ( n ) ' ^ ^ ! . ' '" / ' ' -
<c, ftrstft vm ft q ^ ! i t j ryw VT^ TT, WT 5^ : " , ' (V) 5«[ ^ ^^ vT ^rf% ft %m %ft ft, (^) «rfiif?^cr, 'Cti ls^^-g;^ ft*m *it ft ?
U- ^"ir y^ r t wm f«Pfft ft ftm »r3riT fpqr % fsr wt nr? ft ft ^M^ «««|tm1i^'f' • (*) f t , {m) ^ - v ^ t , (ir) Tfl i
[ ^ J
( * ) | r , ( « ) 'frffft'^cT, ( T ) 5T?1f!
- 3. f^pf if 3ft -^ q rrar orrrrr ^ Jfrr cr% ^ T 7fr ar^ % ITVK ^^ f> ?
^ y, f err ^>'ilf pr ^?^r ^ ffr 5T ^HV-^ITV rr TT r %(\x st^-arr^r & T ? ^ ?t, 2T«rf<T ^JT% fi^^R 8f 5H « « ^ WT% ?> ? ( T ) St, - (i^) 5IR^, ( T ) ifi\ I
( T ) St. ('^l 5TR?, ( T ) JT|f I
3 c JTJTr gT f=fiifr m JTS ^^r^r fffffst ^^^ s i f«P g ^rq^-qBi^^ ?r trm r ^ r ? (^) SI, (^) 5P>i>-T>fV, (IT) ^Tr I
= €. Km?i)x qr ^r? «Pt 5»i% t |? i src^-'*^* «ri ?g?r «"> «f)^-^l^ ?)5icir t eft ^RT 5«? ^Iv ^ sir¥> ^RT ^ T ?(r? f> ? (fT) St, (^) 'P^'V-^, (T) H 'V I
(^) V. ( ' ') 'Tw?, ( 1 ) .r?V I
^^. F"P?fl' pi^'fV fffsJir ^ ?r»iir eji » R : w r ^^^rr q?r?ff TTtit ?
^ ^. w i q5r«>- Ht 5*1 JT? n^T^ gt % 5r>»T tn^ IX^TH\ | f^ ^rs wt'ft «rHif | T T < ^ Hi^ ^ ^ t
(ir) ?rrir^, f?T) n m ? , (ir) ?r?jr Tttf t ' / t
V'(. ijtrr rjiTTt f ^ - V H t fhTT 5riicTf ^ ftr ?|»r ^f^r « r ^ «irfffi ^rst ft, iVt fr *ift ^'i^ »T?f«t^ (frpf v\% ^t ?
{^) Bt. ( « ) «rrifif^, ( 1 ) nff I
V/. "T|ff> t;wt Sr WT 5»? fiffi nt * sff? »f% f^fi = % «ri?r ^ ?
?^. WT gJI iP»I% iTV ^^•<^ ^ Tf^ %«r.7 ffffHJj' ^^^ «> fip ^^ J7>»T fiTT » ^ I ?
(•f) ^t, C^) 51(11=?, (If) ^Tf I
(* ) ?if. (w) 5 i m , ( T ) Hp I
?'^. iwi g»Tf;> Hi^i ^ OP g^xu'V irf^vt?! w? ir*?TiT|r ^ ^ j j ^ ^ ^ ^ f ^ 5t?ft T ? ^ ^ ?
[ '' 1
H . w?ft?r «TT sfw if WT 511 !Tt larir Tf JTTff ^ nrwfjft ^ ?ft« ?^ 5 ?
(T) ?t, («) "p^t-ffiiY, («r) !i|Tf I
v: . !Tr s jp irt iqr "^^ («ffTT) «nt tn? ^T pt wafV? Hint | ?
("p) | t , (^) ^ H V - ^ ^ , (T) ^ ^ I
(^) flrr v i ^ f ?r?t STIT ^ip nftir gi^ wt TA?? ^ T , ^^) ffiHMrcf, (T) «r 7«T «PirRr 1
(vj f f 5T Jf ^^& 5ft f5ra ftm^iff, (^) ?rf*Tf5 «T, (n) ?f?fftnT ifirTc^ Tmr fjRrnff 1
">fv». !ift tft p ^ ^ 5I VTI gfl% Jnt it ^? f ih fs ft B K^,^ ? (V) win^ nt T ift, (fr) 'F>»V-^, (T) ^irtrr 1
(v) 5t, («) (snJi , (»r) ! i ^ I
K«>. wr g^«t 5»^ SHT %^ * nmn f ^ ^«r r trsssr 5r«i?rr | ?
xt, iffir v^f 5»frt srftr ft^'msT ft?:m win 5) ?ft WT 5«r TO <n: Hrnar % fiisiro * t * TOVt «(* «ftT wraTi%J> ?
51 . ^^l ^^ Hnnr | ^F ^x wWsra vr} vt »T& gt gn 5tv-5TT WT ^ ft ? (») (jt, («) m^, (T) Hi l l
XX. wr fT iK»»%*'ft wwrnw «t ffW t ^ i f % ftiq STOT fir^r'r 5 ^ ft ? (v) ft, («) <TPW^, («J) wifr I
X . BW 5»T afffijv "Pfpft q?% ?t, ?ft <WT: (m) ^ « * i«r»«n «Rr % f?Tt PTf*»9 xf& ft, («) wfHfi?^, («v) Vfr^t % «if«t if wmf^ %% ft ?
«c». anr 5^ PRft iT(pjrj# %<r Jf 5^ ?rrf fr f f t arr?t f t , rft wr 51? : (*) f r 0 ft f% iTf ?ft % ^ *»f ?[, («r) fffifm, (»r) »rTtnr ftwi?t j jt(rftrinit imvt f w n ^ | t ?
[ ^ ]
i q. Kw 5n JTir 5ftnf ^ jftf Jf arrJr 5*, nt w r : (v ) 5fiw ft 5«Ti5> w«i?rT I np (?T) 9ti> % 'Tt'T Jr, (»r) ?T>T> vt arT5T% ^ fi^ innr ?nr?iT | ?
^% « f "Ft 5Ti int jft,
(^) <Tt«!TTsit, (^) ftTT, (n) Ijfjr % I
^o. "f^rr" «Fr "55q" ^ JTjt si^r^ I ait " ^ ? a w " ^ : CF) 5f?aT, (w) ?f?r?m, (n) Sf?PF % 11
(v) ?t, (^) ir T'fnjr, (n) sTftf i
%^,. 5«:$T tpt? = 3r f nf Tf qit t WTflt ?nTT fBi ^ j j 5rm m xf^Hv i«s f t wTqf wt w r 51T wrwr Tf «rT?r ft ? (c) |f, (^) 51TJTIT, («r) H(S, f% ^ flftw mwr 1 1
^ . wr grr^ q ^ icrr-fqcrr ^ <!;>?> vl- JT V^T t OP f i ^ ?T«irT^ ' l ^ fV ya% <B5rT % | iftr 'rf wrsppH % ^^^ft ^ ( ?r 5»T isftr gif i^ 9t??i) Hfl*R T?t qr^ ? '^
(ip) f t , (^) ^rrg?, (n) »rf71
^Y. if Iff 5»T ^^ wsJTrT 'i vt rftr P T^?? ? T ^ ft sft j^ript rm? ft? vm %ff ?Rf «R^r ^ f f i t ? (^) ft, (^) "SIR!?, («r) Jif71
vc. fzrr 5JT ^ ?!>«)> 8r ?t f> aft «r<T t fjnT-»!f»?ft *r f^-JT'^i'P % f % fmr r * T & | ? (v ) 5T, (^) OTiir, («r) TfTf I •
^ . fjrr 5»T 5if?r ?RTTf * r ^ ^^ ^ 4 ^ "ffftr^^r »II'T TIST ^ r ^ Jr ^ frr f t [V^TR ?H% fip w€t THT uPrwj ^ uT«r5 "P?iT«ft % T^^ vw[%ft] ?
• (T) f t , (jsr) 5Tr>T«f, (T) nft 1
V9. CTTT 5ft«t1f vt s m fffT^ T R TT ?mt ft, fisT ^ f rr 5^ fwTr i r f ^ ^fbit ftSt »T^ <r«# ?Ptf v r ?r«F f t ? (T) f t , {tg) mvf^ (ir) 5Tfif I
\^. far ft>^ ^5r % ?TT3rm% if ^^f ' ff ft?rr t ^ 5«Tfrt "HTT ft % 3 ^ ^T?RT 1 ^ | ? (v ) f t , (?T) iSTfre, (*r) 5r^ I
(V) iftiTff, (w) wfnft^w, (IT) «Tff?iT:
50. 3rw 5^ WT t f»T'T-»f»?ft *f f t^ ft 5fr nf^T ^^^ ftjHJr wrat«r JF RT ft ? (V) «fl«ft VT aTfr?n ?t% Jf, (9r) «rfjrft ?T, ( f ) aft ft TfT | g% w% W t
vs?. >f«Tr 5»T ^Jift iTf ^ '^ I ftr wnr ?afHTT ft %«RT 5»T ft crv wrfts Tf amft ?ft WT vrtit ? (V) ijt, (W) «rfJTpW?r, (H) 5T^ I
\»^. ffpirft * «T HT% qr ^ r ^gt sr 5»T »ft ^tgsnst ?T»T& ft ? (v ) ft, (w) "Rrnrfwijr, (n) sr^ 1
("F) 55ff TT fTR?^ mx^T, («r) w^f^^nr, (u) H^T* f«Bt% 9<« *^ «Tnff * T mm fl«TT 1
V9V. ? ^ Jr wTfiT T (fiT^ft ^«r) % mif ^ wr vfi»t ? (V) crm %Ht't, (w) wHrft^, (ir) ^ * firt iit *nr fii?rT 19<ni^ mct r ?
( T ) f JT r?rc[fT *FT^ ft fm wr stv | , («r) irf^ft^w, («r) aHt fftr «Tt<r «inc t ^Ir f t w^ ft ?
vs . sriT gq ff^ft ^THTT Tjft Jf HH T | f t^ f t ?Tt "PH W^^ fTfft nRTT | ft? Vtf g^^fm «ftw VT tfT I ?
(^) ?t, (?T) 5rTire, («T) »r|[ 1
[ ^ ]
•jv>. ^^ »Ff t TgTr 7?rf5 mx]it ?
(sp) ^>fy-y»fy, ( ^ ) ifTsrr, (»r) ?J9I I .
( « ) ?t, (^ ) «Tm , (IT) qff I c t ^Fs 'r 5^^ ?nTJT t;nx ^r^r^ - ryr ?»>' fi r 5^^ T ^m fiM f, -^"i ?-vr .-
t;^. nfer 5T 3ft?-f^5iR % f ffV Fjr?ri«ff ^ m«f ?>^ -JT f^fj^ri tri gti^r f^^Jf irftrqir msff^ u i i i T ?
T^jf Jr, JTT ^r?eT ^ T ^ ft I
("P) f t , (fT) 5Trii5, (^) ^^t I
cY. HUTF^^ trt^r^twlt it 5 1 F«w ¥ q S »r«r w.rnj 7 H ? ? ^7~in ''
( ? ) ?t, (^) WTT , ( « ) anft I c S . WT 5»T tTTsfr ipwr % «TJT fsfflT f » # «r)»TT?e xOx ^\m^ % ^ ijli t « > if> ?
{^) §t, (^) 5Tm?, (w) «nfif I CVS, ^ T 5n«t rnsTr t Fit ? j ^ Sf 5*gT^ laitJTrq^ :
( v ) 51^ 5fT 5> I , (i^) wF^fr^ar, ( n ) 'P^rif^ i j ^ sn*!^ ift T ?r1f
qq, snr 5»T F^RT ir «P1| ^i^ i\ j g ? q?5TT 3 » ^ ?> fTt la l :
(«P)5»t '"5' f* 'p'T"i^'"' t5^ fT tjMr t , (<3r) iiFflF5^?T, (iT)5»Tni YftF^«i5^irat%'r?T»T?<TfJi^t' e g . w«iT ^ti ^nr q m " ? ^ '= 1 n F^ar STT JT f>, «> I T I W^AT g t ^ ^ ??? 15% ^ q^^rnft ^eft t f« :
{f) %^ r«T ij.'t ?»T «-? rrtn FTT?!irr ipT #»t, {^) ffF'f^T, ^n) <f f«Jf iifi^ftTfr »»^ ?t3;'«ii ? t o . ^'^ *f *»V% FJT^ » 1 T k <?F'ar?f?f if: F iif g^ W<TJI> anrFi ? 't '
( « ) ip«n Jf Fqeif^ sirir F-iwrfTirt rrt {HI) vUf^^^, (I) v^i^vivM^ "CT t f | 5 « R r«pn arm 1 ff^fi wmi' ^-niA ^TQ[', '* ,
t< 'ff g'?'^ ^TT m5^'T-5r^^ '^q ft g> ^^ "r, JUT «HJT ^ T :
{%) STTI: l^ff ft TO.'T q?^ fI, {?») «TfTF5 =T, (n) Hfl ^ HH W5r ^ T 5«rT % «!ftff Tf* fff ?
t ^ . WT JT »T «5ff ft fftni TI ffTu |f\ irt nT»jTT ft ft F«r3r?ft ^^w;^ ft f s i r^ arr^ ^ ?
( * ) ?t, (w) 5TW, (n) ^ ^ I
t < . fiT ?i,K ^ ^ ?t Fi; nf^TT) Fuflr-4T># FT^TT^ sfi FT^T|U ftn> | % fipift tr^ wrfiflB % T^m- ft '^fjar inft i v\x
( * ) ?t, (?r) ?rw?r, ( '?)T?!ti
tV, F««t T R *> rfhr f ^ T ?flft qT WT rl,»T jft TT IT?!* ?t, Hl5f ^«ft fBi OT ^ ^ T fft ?
(f!) 5t, ( w ) tortw, (T) sT?nf I
eK. TF?J >!?I| ?r»^rt Ff^iTi ft wflr?*rff if>, ?ft WT g;jT:
( « ) »T*> TTT ^ T ft *T^ ^ ?>, (^) »rfM»w?r, (nj ^ft *i"THi c[ft ?t?f ir? ftft VT H H T ^ft f ?
[ * ]
e s. ?[!T TR wJTf Jt ?rt: 5 %, OT'PJ, 3^T, <ft?&, ^ Jf I "ptsTflrr ?ri[ li? | aft iftfr ^ iW ir^ mm ^ ?
(sp) 5f>%, («) "fV ^, (»») fsT^ •
• ( T ) ?t, (^) fffJTf?^?, (n) JT Vi
ee. «r^ iptf gT?>- ffr y ir srtr "Pfe ^rq vt ?:% ^ fH^ «Pf5Tr t , eft ^in 5*r:
( T ) ipr f1!» ?t «V^ ?m\ «Tt*TaT ^T (€f) 'srin?, (T) ^ ir^iw "PT^ jjt fe v^ n«w?
Tft' nT ^ ?>, T ft !^ir ?
?o0. ^err ^ 5^ lit H^T VT ^TTT 1% % f?r sr? 5^ wf r sipfli % ffT«r rT ^5i& ft, ?ft zrr T # r ^ ft sn^ ft ?
(jp) i;>?t-iJ>it, Cir) v^x T^t, (n) ^irt Tft 1
\o\. ?f?r if 5»T ^^'( ^THT q«'? ^Ttir ^
(^) Wffllr ^Tf ift ipT ff Vt ^fr^ft T TTT, (^) wf^ft^cT, (it) ? ^ VH\^ ffTf^ «r|4 VTTr I
( * ) r!(«rTWt?T, (^) «fTTlf * ift^ ^. («r) %JlT5ft?T I
\ ov. ipwr ^ ^ Ht at? !FT % «Tf% fzrr %n ai^grft ?r f???^ ^ ^ ft fv tRr irft | ?
(V) fJrwr, (^) WtmTfrrcT: ( T ) » R : Tjft I
(^) vf^x, (?r) ^TTt-v^ft, (ir) *>ft ^ t « • . ?nTT g r f i ^ ^ f ^ n r : '',
(^) wfiT nt ^3i> qT TJtRcft Tfcft t, (^) TTffT * 9\^ Jf, (ff) ijffjrr fft * r f ? ^ ^5ilf «rc anr «rf I ?
? o\s. af? fFfTTT fJtf ^r?i^ f»i^ Ppwt fiT$r«r ?pnrc »TT g^frft u ^ fipfft <T?«r arffB wm«r irftrv q««f <R{rr , at wr ^ir:
(V) fr& ftrsETq^ TT^ ft fip 55% (^) ^tTt * ^t^ Jf, (IT) «t<l% ft pF tt T «ft f ^ W^f | ?
^r^Kt 3%6Tr iPt t
\oQ. Hi'jffV are-f^T?!t W Jir g»T wwT nfg T 'PT?r ft ft;:
(v) gTfT7:r qe? ir^ f>T?!T | , («) rHrf?^ , (tr) aifnr iw w% %« «mT t ?
Xoi. «r*r ^ v t «rfT if <jTt fts?T srftiwr v^sft <r?iTt | eft JTT ^ T JTR:
(v) ^ ^ % sfjftwT s; ^ ft, (^) vr^r^^, (n) ipft^ ft 33* ft iftr fwnr « f flJt * n%arT%^«t^f t?
\Xo. Hz(i e trvt ?Tr 5rinrr | f«P frfiTt ra^Tir grsft ^ j n't ^ % 55T tt«rft ? (<P) WWT, («) T^t-ll^t, (n) VtT? ft T»ft I
t < t 5»T ff^r JTvit ^ ?t??r «T«r?? "Ret f> ?
(T) 3ft ^W5?t i f ^ ^ ft , (?r) «W5^?T, (u) vfBt nnfti (11 n ^ . fitr f»r «ift^ f> ftr OR-W ft% % fsnt Tf ffr^wv | f«»r wTift ^i^Tiifr qt ^ nm^ #wr WR ?
(*) |t , (?i) wrir?, (»r) ^ 1
n ? . f i i #^t-?{ta <T 9nfTirt % 51T »^-?Tft f T H»r ft ariet ft, fi?iTf* 5?? wm^ itf^^w^ » r f f ^ «ift | ?
Hv . f^r §»» fTft ier ft fv gn^ 5r?itv sr sr »i gwr I f ar | ?
CP) ^» - (^) 5ruT?, (»r) ^ft I
^ <V tf .«• < « r ' ; : : v < * A tf •«•-«• < - « ^ - »
• J O D O D D Q D a O O a D O D D D O D D ^
i D D D D D Q a a a a a a a n a n a D D S
lo a D D D a a D D n a a D O D D o a D ^ :
t
^ A}
D D a D D D D D D D D D
a a a a a a a n a a a D D D o D O D a o a D n q
D D D n D D D D a a D D D a n D n D n n o D D a n D a O D O C D a c n D
(S <i & <• <S 0 . . « " , / « . « « > > ^ ^
D D a n n a D a n a a a D a D D D a a D D D D D D D n D D n D D n n a a
A> ^ A* ^ Ai ^ •C -«• >i> « •
D D Q D O D
D D D a D D
D D D D O D
«< <K < < < *« •< AU ^ <w o J*
a D D D a a
• D a D G a
D D D D 0 O
-«" >« ^ <l« Jp ^
•^' . M •^^ i> » • tS
o a D a D a
a a • D D a
o D D n a n
IT 1
D ^
H
^ *%
< .
a
D D D D D D a D D D D D n n a D O
a D a a a a n D a o a c i a D a D D a a a D D Q D a D a a n a n a n o
«
c D *
D ' T 1
K ' u i <<).<« • ^ < s i ^ ; r « < « > . M • •• ^ ^
• *• <v *
o
a a a a p n a a a o a D D a a a n D D a a a D D D D D D D D D D D D D D a a a a D n D D D D D o a a D
D
J*
o
D 3
i
&>
1%
9 9 Q o W i - X o •n m D O o> >
i
FACTOR
«
i
*• a o mo
1
I
top related