matching achievement styles and instructional environments
TRANSCRIPT
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5, 216-226 (1980)
Matching Achievement Styles and Instructional Environments
HELGOLAG. Ross Depurtment of Educational Leudership, University of Cincinnati
Reactions of students with four achievement styles based on combinations of the Achievement via Conformance and the Achievement via Independence scales of the CPI to small group learning experiences are explored as a function of group composition, achievement styles, and the demands of different tasks over time. Student reactions to working in homogeneous groups were largely positive; there were no differences due to achievement styles alone. Comparisons of reactions of students with the same achievement style in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups showed outcomes to be complex interactions between achievement styles, group composition, task, and time. Results were integrated with sociometric data from the perspective of students with different achievement styles.
Achievement styles based on combinations of the Achievement via Conformance (AC) and Achievement via Independence (Ai) scales of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) have been studied in a number of college classrooms (Domino, 1968, 1971; Covington & Jacoby, 1972a, Jacoby, 1973). Performance and/or affective outcomes were investigated as a function of interactions between achievement styles and instructional techniques. The emerging understanding of how students with different achievement styles function in various teaching-learning situations is useful for the college instructor concerned with helping students learn more efficiently, with promoting a sense of effectiveness and satisfaction, and with fostering positive attitudes toward learning. It is the purpose of this paper to summarize research on the Ac/Ai configurations and to extend it to small group learning situations. Affective reactions of stu- dents with different achievement styles to small groups will be explored as a function of achievement style, group composition, and the demands of different tasks over time.
Students with high AC/high Ai (HH) achievement styles described themselves on the Adjective Check List with words denoting high self- esteem (Gough, 1968, 1969). Research by Domino (1968) and Jacoby
This article is hased on my dissertation which was carried out under the supervision of Martin V. Covington and submitted to the Department of Psychology, University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Covington for his unfailing assistance in the devel- opment of my dissertation and his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Helgola G. Ross, Department of Educational Leader- ship, College of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221.
216 0361-476X/80/030216-11$02.00/0 Copyright @ 1980 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ACHIEVEMENT STYLES AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS 217
(1973) suggests that their self-estimates are realistic: They had the highest overall GPA. High work aspirations were met despite a weak sense of obligation to fulfill them or the standards of the instructor. They rated productive thinking projects as less stimulating and less difficult than students with other achievement styles. Students with HH achievement styles are intelligent, autonomous, and competence oriented and bring to educational settings the skills necessary to make their learning experi- ences successful. The key condition to which they respond favorably seems to be challenge.
Students with high At/low Ai (HL) achievement styles described them- selves as industrious, conscientious, and compliant (Gough, 1968, 1969). In the classroom, HL students preferred a conforming to an independent teaching style (Domino, 1971) and convergent over divergent tasks (Covington & Jacoby, 1972a). They were rated lower in original thinking than LH students, regardless of their learning environment (Domino, 1971). The HL students’ strong need to do well may be best expressed under conditions providing freedom within an overall framework, in which they perceived themselves as able to exercise autonomy and creativity (Jacoby, 1973).
Students with low AC/high Ai (LH) achievement styles described them- selves as less consistent than other students. One set of adjectives em- phasized an individualistic nature, but they also saw themselves as reli- able and foresighted as well as reckless and pleasure seeking (Gough, 1968, 1969). These different aspects were also noted in classroom re- search. LH students performed best and were most satisfied in classes taught in an independent manner; they preferred divergent to convergent tasks, and surpassed the HLs in original thinking (Domino, 1968, 1971; Covington & Jacoby, 1972a). Yet, feeling relatively little obligation to meet their high work aspirations or the standards of the instructor, they performed less well than students with all other achievement styles. Al- though intellectually capable, they seem to lack organizational study skills (Jacoby, 1973) and have ambivalent feelings about their autonomy in col- lege classrooms (Gough, 1968). Blaming the educational system for their failures may prevent them from correcting their own deficiencies.
Students with low At/low Ai (LL) achievement styles chose adjectives presenting a completely self-deprecating self-protrait (Gough, 1968, 1969) which is consistent with Domino’s (1968) and Jacoby’s (1973) findings: LL students had the lowest overall GPA; they found productive thinking projects more nebulous and difficult than other student groups. Yet, they had high work aspirations and a strong sense of obligation to meet them and the standards of the instructor. Falling considerably short of their goals, they blamed themselves for their failure. LL students seem to employ self-defeating learning strategies (Gough, 1968), and need instruc-
218 HELGOLA G. ROSS
tional environments which actively involve them in achievable learning experiences while providing psychological support.
The composite descriptions of students with different achievement styles indicate that traditionally taught college classes are better suited for HH and HL than for LH and LL students who experience difficulties of varying kinds and degrees. Teaching-learning conditions which accom- modate the achievement needs of the LHs and LLs as well as the HHs and HLs can be found in small groups and group tasks. A research strategy combining the small group approach with the study of individual differences is available through group composition. Reactions of students working on different tasks in homogeneous groups, composed of either HH, HL, LH, or LL students only, can be compared to each other and to reactions of students with the same achievement styles working in hetero- geneous groups (comparable to randomly formed groups in classrooms) on tasks selected to benefit students with all achievement styles. Decision-making exercises involve all group members actively with task and peers; they are intrinsically interesting and should maximize student performance and satisfaction for all achievement styles. Grading- feedback exercises are relevant to academic achievement and should contribute to the control students have over their learning and perfor- mance in the course.
Since groups are complex interdependent systems (Shaw, 1971), group composition, achievement styles, tasks, and the length of time groups have existed as an entity may all contribute to group interactions. Ex- perimental hypotheses are not warranted-not enough is known about how these variables interact. Instead, working hypotheses are submitted: For HH students, challenge is provided through the exercise of leadership in both types of groups, particularly for the decision-making (DM) tasks, while for the grading-feedback (GF) exercises homogeneous groups pro- vide more stimulating and less defensive peers. For HL students in- teracting around common tasks provides structure within which students can exercise autonomy. On academically relevant GF tasks homogeneous groups should optimize this effect while heterogeneous groups may frus- trate the HLs whose needs may run counter to the desires of students with other achievement styles. For LH students organization is inherent in the structure of the task. While working with peers, students may develop into significant others for each other, diminishing ambivalent feelings about autonomy and the effect of the instructor. Reactions should be more positive to the DM exercises than to the GF tasks which epitomize the instructor’s authority. For LL students, groups may provide success experiences through the structure of the task, involvement in group in- teraction, and peer support, especially for the involvement-inducing DM exercises.
ACHIEVEMENT STYLES AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS 219
Subjects
METHOD
Five-hundred-and-twenty-eight freshmen and sophomores admitted to an introductory psychology class at the University of California, Berkeley were given the AC and Ai scales of the CPI during preenrollment. Indi- viduals with scores high or low on both or high on one and low on the other dimension were selected for this study, yielding a sample of 247 students. Seventy-nine of these had HH, 55 HL, 43 LH, and 70 LL achievement styles. Cutting scores determining high and low standing on the scales were similar to those used by Domino (1968, 1971) and Jacoby (1973). High AC scores ranged from 27 to 36 (M = 29.8), low AC scores from 13 to 25 (M = 21.3), high Ai scores from 22 to 32 (M = 24.1), and low Ai scores from 9 to 21 (M = 18.5).
Procedures Groups. Students were assigned to homogeneous (horn) and heteroge-
neous (het) groups on the basis of their Ac/Ai scores. Thirty groups were homogeneous, composed of HH, HL, LH, or LL individuals only (nine each HH and LL, six each HL and LH). Twelve groups were heteroge- neous, composed of students from all achievement styles in proportion to their representation in the class. Students whose scores did not fall into the upper or lower ranges on Ac/Ai also met in small groups but were not included in the study. The median number of students attending individual group meetings was six. Four of ten weekly discussion sections accom- panying large lectures met for 1.5 hr and were led by six teaching assis- tants. For research purposes, each section was subdivided into three small groups, with group types counterbalanced over teaching assistants.
Tasks. Both types of task used in this study were highly structured. The two DM exercises, “Lost on the Moon” (Hall, 1971) and the “Kerner Riot Commission Report” (Pfeiffer & Jones, 1971), asked students to rank-order items in terms of their importance to a problem’s solution, first individually, then as a group. Success on these tasks depends on the involvement of every group member in the consensus process, and the skills with which constructive and destructive conflict are used. Instruc- tions emphasized such strategies. The two GF exercises were representa- tive of a number of productive thinking projects (Covington & Jacoby, 1972b) students were required to complete in the course. One asked stu- dents to create a toy through which children could learn Piaget’s concept of conservation, the other to design a situation in which the principles of persuasion could be used creatively. During the sessions students were shown criteria and standards for grading and giving feedback, and exam- ples of projects fitting various levels of performance. Students then graded and commented on each others’ projects. Success on these tasks
220 HELGOLA G. ROSS
depends on the degree of trust students have in their own and their peers’ ability and willingness to grade and comment on projects, and their level of acceptance and respect for performance whose quality is considerably above or below their own.
Times. During the second and seventh week of the quarter groups worked on the DM exercises. Half of each group type worked first on “Lost on the Moon,” the other half on the “Kerner Report.” Tasks were reversed during the seventh week. During the third and eighth week groups worked on the GF exercises. All groups worked first on the Piage- tian toy and then on the persuasion project. Tasks could not be counter- balanced due to sequencing of content in the course.
Instruments. Students filled out questionnaires containing items con- cerned with student perceptions about their contribution to group effec- tiveness, trust, acceptance, and respect among group members, and learning and satisfaction at the end of each group meeting. Items were rated on a 5-point scale anchored at both endpoints. During the last meeting students completed a sociometric questionnaire in which group members nominated each other for leadership, modeling, friendship, and concern with personal needs.
Control analyses. Sex and age composition of the groups, grades in the class, and group consensus scores did not differ significantly for students with different achievement styles among horn and between horn and het groups. Differences in affective reactions are not likely to be attributable to these variables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Two MANOVAs comparing perceptions of students with different achievement styles on the DM tasks (F(3,202) = 1.34, p s . 11) and the GF tasks (F(3,178) = 1.33, p c .ll) early and late in the quarter show no significant differences due to achievement styles. Although it is tempting to interpret these results as showing that small groups are equally desir- able learning environments for students with different achievement styles, outcomes of 16 MANOVAs, reported in Tables 1 and 2, each comparing perceptions of students with a given achievement style on a particular task at one point in time qualify such global interpretations. They suggest that students with different achievement styles do not even have a general preference for horn or het groups, but that such preferences depend on complex interactions between achievement styles, task, and time. Higher-order interactions, as suggested by Cronbach (1975), characterize these attitude-treatment relationships. A series of MANOVAs showed that students in het groups were not perceived to varying degrees as leaders, models, or friends or concerned with personal needs. However, rankings of all categories except leadership consistently produced a LH,
TABL
E 1
MEA
NS
FOR
STU
DEN
T PE
RC
EPTI
ON
CO
MPA
RIS
ON
S BE
TWEE
N H
OM
OG
ENEO
US
AND
HET
ERO
GEN
EOU
S G
RO
UPS
ON
DEC
ISIO
N-M
AKIN
G
TASK
S
Varia
ble
Tim
e 1
Uni
varia
te
Tim
e 2
Uni
varia
te
Stud
ent
styl
e X
hmll
X iw
t F
Prob
. X
ham
fil
et
F Pr
ob.
Con
tribu
tion
HH
3.
87
Trus
t 4.
04
Acce
ptan
ce
4.05
Le
arni
ng
3.29
Sa
tisfa
ctio
n 3.
87
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
K
Lear
ning
-
Satis
fact
ion
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
Le
arni
ng
Satis
fact
ion
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
Le
arni
ng
Satis
fact
ion
HL
3.75
3.
85
4.00
3.
43
3.83
LH
3.93
4.
03
4.14
3.
17
3.69
LL
3.65
3.
59
3.57
3.
17
3.30
3.60
3.
95
3.90
3.
30
3.65
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 69
) =
.36
p s
.88
N
= 55
, 20
3.
25
3.58
3.
42
3.17
3.
50
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5, 4
6) =
.7
8 p
5s .5
7 N
=
40,
12
3.55
3.
73
4.00
3.
60
3.36
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 34
) =
.46
p c
.80
N
= 29
, 11
3.
95
3.75
3.
95
3.60
4.
05
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5, 6
0) =
1.7
8 p
c .I3
N
=
46,
20
3.64
3.
74
3.85
2.
91
3.51
3.63
3.
80
3.86
2.
80
3.37
3.41
3.
62
3.70
2.
74
2.70
3.29
3.
45
3.60
2.
55
3.00
4.16
4.
45
.04”
3.
58
4.16
2.
74
3.32
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 66
) =
2.67
p
,c .
03
N
= 53
, 19
3.
17
2.75
Il.
13
.002
3.
42
2.92
3.
08
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5,
41)
= 2.
55
p s
.04
N
= 35
, 12
3.
55
3.64
3.
64
2.64
3.
00
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5,
32)
= .3
5 p
=s .8
8 N
=
27,
11
3.94
6.
67
.Ol
4.11
6.
08
.02
4.22
6.
08
.02
3.06
3.
18
.08
3.94
10
.69
,002
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 54
) =
2.28
p
c .0
5 N
=
42,
18
I’ O
nly
sign
ifica
nt
univ
aria
te
F ra
tios
and
prob
abilit
y va
lues
ar
e re
porte
d.
The
figur
es
follo
win
g N
ar
e th
e nu
mbe
r of
su
bjec
ts
in h
orn
and
het
grou
ps,
resp
ectiv
ely.
TABL
E 2
MEA
NS
FOR
ST
UDEN
T PE
RC
EPTI
ON
CO
MPA
RIS
ON
S BE
TWEE
N
HO
MO
GEN
EOU
S AN
D H
ETER
OG
ENEO
US
GR
OU
PS O
N G
RAD
ING
-FEE
DBA
CK
TASK
S
Stud
ent
~ st
yle
X ho
rn Ti
me
1 U
niva
riate
Ti
me
2 U
niva
riate
Varia
ble
X ile
t F
Prob
. X
hwll
X he
, F
Prob
.
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
Le
arni
ng
Satis
fact
ion
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
Le
arni
ng
Satis
fact
ion
: C
ontri
butio
n Tr
ust
Acce
ptan
ce
Lear
ning
Sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Con
tribu
tion
Trus
t Ac
cept
ance
Le
arni
ng
Satis
fact
ion
HH
3.
49
3.70
3.
96
3.45
3.
47
HL
2.97
3.
92
3.92
3.
32
3.24
LH
3.04
3.
58
3.58
2.
88
2.85
LL
2.95
3.
59
3.76
3.
08
2.97
2.52
13
.59
2.67
10
.30
2.86
12
.66
2.62
7.
84
2.38
11
.49
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5,
68)
= 3.
56
p s
,007
N
=
53,
21
2.92
3.
62
3.54
2.
92
3.08
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 44
) =
.65
p 5
.66
N
= 38
, 12
2.
80
3.60
3.
40
2.40
2.
90
Mul
tivar
iate
F
(5,
30)
= .6
0 p
s .7
0 N
=
21,
10
2.95
3.
79
3.95
3.
32
3.42
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 50
) =
.75
p s
.59
N
= 37
, 19
.000
5 ”
3.54
,0
02
4.04
a0
07
4.04
,0
07
3.15
,0
01
3.31
3.58
4.
07
4.16
3.
42
3.90
3.08
3.
38
3.65
2.
77
2.88
3.38
3.
84
3.76
3.
24
3.41
3.41
3.
82
4.24
2.
82
3.06
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 59
) =
1.26
p
=s .2
9 N
=
48,
17
3.08
2.
55
3.58
3.
31
3.33
9.
79
2.75
4.
99
2.50
22
.03
Mul
tivar
iate
F(
5,
37)
= 5.
82
p s
.000
5 N
=
31,
12
3.50
4.
10
4.20
3.
30
3.50
M
ultiv
aria
te
E‘ (5
, 30
) =
1.33
p
=s .2
8 N
=
26,
10
3.30
3.
90
3.90
3.
30
3.45
M
ultiv
aria
te
F (5
, 51
) =
.26
p s
.93
N
= 37
, 20
.12
.08
,003
.0
3 .O
OO
l
” O
nly
sign
ifica
nt
univ
aria
te
F ra
tios
and
prob
abilit
y va
lues
ar
e re
porte
d.
The
figur
es
follo
win
g N
ar
e th
e nu
mbe
r of
su
bjec
ts
in h
om a
nd h
et g
roup
s,
resp
ectiv
ely.
ACHIEVEMENT STYLES AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS 223
LL, HH, HL order. For leadership, HH students were nominated more frequently than students with other achievement styles. These results will be integrated from the perspective of students with different achievement styles.
Students with HH achievement styles reacted favorably to work in small groups, expressing their competencies in contributing to task and group maintenance functions. Notions that they would react positively if they could exercise leadership when working on the DM tasks and be stimulated by the performance of HH peers on the GF tasks were gener- ally supported. When first working on the DM tasks students responded well to interacting with and learning from their HH peers and the tasks, but felt that they learned less when working on a similar exercise later. In het groups the HHs’ acknowledged leadership abilities increased their effectiveness over time (F(5,66) = 2.67, p d .03). When working on the GF exercises, HH students clearly preferred horn to het groups, espe- cially early in the quarter (F(5,68) = 3.56, p c .007). Projects of students who excel academically provided stimulation at both times, and trust, respect, and acceptance remained high. In het groups, evaluating projects of students whose work is generally less good than their own (the LLs’), or who may be defensive about their performance (the HLs and LHs), put HHs in an awkward position, particularly early in the quarter. Although HH students function well in small groups, they do not seem to benefit as much from others as they do from exercising their own skills, using the groups as vehicles for personal growth. Peers with other achievement styles saw them as leaders but seemed too uncomfortable to choose them as models or friends.
Students with HL achievement styles also responded well, especially to horn groups, which they preferred under all conditions. In these groups their strong task orientation can express itself freely within a safe and supportive environment. As expected, the effect was maximized for the GF exercises, particularly late in the quarter (F(5,37) = 5.82, p c .OOOS), where an almost perfect fit between achievement style and task require- ments seems to have created a “multiplier effect” (Harrison, 1965), generating social norms which augmented already positive work orienta- tions. Het group composition was less beneficial. On the DM exercises the diversity of achievement styles fed into the stress-generating nature of the task, both contrary to the HLs’ styles. On the GF exercises, the HLs’ need to comply with the instructor’s demands conflicted with less com- pulsive habits of other students. Seen by their peers as domineering and annoying, last chosen as leaders, models, or friends, HL students in het groups were not in an enviable position.
Students with LH achievement styles changed their preferences de- pending on group composition, tasks, and time. As expected, they reacted
224 HELGOLA G. ROSS
positively to learning with peers, and the effect was stronger for the DM than the GF tasks. Constructive conflict arising from diverse opinions optimize success on the DM tasks. Horn groups provide diversity through the LH students’ individualistic styles, het groups through group compo- sition. Thus, task and group characteristics matched the LHs’ styles. In contrast, GF tasks epitomize instructional authority. At first, LH students reacted negatively, as expected. While perceptions in horn groups did not change over time, responses in het groups improved considerably. Com- paring these to responses of the HLs, it is remarkable to what extent they present exact counterparts of each other. While HL students become more interdependent in horn groups, LHs remain dissatisfied. As LHs become more interdependent in het groups, HLs become less so. The opposite styles were so clearly expressed that peers chose them in polarized patterns. LH students were seen as least quiet or willing to budge from their opinions, but also as least annoying and least uncomfort- able to be with. They were chosen most frequently as models and friends, and second only to HHs as leaders. HLs were seen as most quiet and annoying, rated least capable of leadership, and least desirable as models and friends. It seems that for course-relevant tasks recognition from peers with different achievement styles helped LH students in het groups over- come their negative feelings toward educational authority over time. Tasks with less course relevance did not bring out the negative aspects of the LHs’ styles, and horn and het groups were more alike in producing positive effects.
Students with LL achievement styles, in contrast to all others, consis- tently preferred het groups. Het group composition, more than the involvement-inducing DM tasks, generated positive effects. For the DM tasks the margin of preference for het groups increased over time (F(5,54) = 2.28, p < .05); for the GF tasks the margin was smaller and responses more equally positive for both group types. Feelings of acceptance and respect, made salient by contrast with the LLs’ negative self-esteem, were acknowledged by their peers, who ranked them second as friends and models and low in concern for personal needs. Small groups seem to be ego-building environments for LL students, especially when they are working with others having achievement styles different from their own. When working alone, LL students seem to be so insecure and self- deprecating that they have difficulty committing themselves to a realistic course of study. Groups with structured tasks help them express and channel their energy into more constructive and successful learning expe- riences. The mechanisms through which benefits seem to derive are structure, social recognition, and peer support.
The differences in flexibility with which students of varying achieve- ment styles adapt to teaching-learning situations, already suggested by
ACHIEVEMENT STYLES AND INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS 225
previous research, are more clearly brought out by this study. While HH students are able to work in many settings, the other three styles limit students to varying degrees. Teaching-learning environments have to accommodate them if they are to experience maximum success and/or satisfaction with themselves as learners and the educational setting. HL students, although very much affected by the educational setting, gener- ally do well in traditional courses which meet their need for structure and cooperation with instructional authority. LH students, while intellectually capable, have affective reactions to aspects of the educational setting which may prevent them from getting thoroughly involved in their tasks and from developing positive attitudes toward learning and the educa- tional system. LL students simply need more structure and support than most college instructors can provide. Thus, it appears that the small group learning environments created for this study were more beneficial for LH and LL students than for HH students, whose styles restrict them less, and HL students, whose styles fit better with conventional instructional designs.
The data do not suggest, nor is it practically feasible or philosophically desirable, to assign students to teaching-learning conditions on the basis of their Ac/Ai scores. An alternative is a course design which incorporates success-oriented learning structure for students with all achievement styles, and provisions for special avenues of support or challenge to ac- commodate specific needs. Small heterogeneous learning groups, formed through random assignments of students, and used on a regular basis, provide one such support structure.
REFERENCES COVINGTON, M. V., & JACOBY, K. E. Work habits, achie\~emrnt and course .satisfaction as
a ,frtnction of an independence-co~formit.v dimension. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association, Portland, Oreg., April. 1972. (a)
COVINGTON, M. V., & JACOBY, K. E. Thinking p.s.~cho/ogy. Berkeley, Calif.: IPAR, Univ. of California, 1972. (b)
CRONBACH, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Ps~~chologisr. 1975, 30, 116- 127.
DOMINO, G. Differential prediction of academic achievement in conforming and indepen- dent settings. Joarnal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 256-260.
DOMINO, G. Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement. Journal of Edacational Psychology, 1971, 62, 427-43 1.
GOUGH, H. G. An interpreter’s syllabus for the California Psychological Inventory. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological as.ses.sment. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1968. Vol. 1, pp. 55-79.
GOUGH, H. G. Manual for the California psychological in\~entory. Palo Alto, Calif.: Con- sulting Psychologists Press, 1969. Rev. ed.
HALL, J. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Psychology Today, 1971, 5, 51-54, 86-88. HARRISON, R. Group composition models for laboratory design. Joumcrl of Applied Be-
hal~ioral Science. 1965, 1, 409-432.
226 HELGOLA G. ROSS
JACOBY, K. E. Sutisfacrion in the first course in p.sychology as predicted from achievement
orienfation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1973.
PFEIFFER, J. W., & JONES, J. E. A handbook aj’structured experiences f;v human relarions
training. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates, 1971. Vol. 3. SHAW, M. E. Croup dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill. 1971.