Pxychology in rhe Schools 1982. / 9 , 170-174

THE TEACHABLE PUPIL SURVEY: A TECHNIQUE FOR

ASSESSING TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PUPIL ATTRIBUTES’ BARBARA KORNBLAU

University of California

The Teachable Pupil Survey was developed to measure teachers’ perceptions of at- tributes that characterize teachable pupils. Teachers were asked to generate their perceptions of “idealized teachable” pupils and to identify “teachable” attributes from an adjective checklist. The responses were submitted to a multidimensional scal- ing technique, item reliability was established, and the 33 descriptors were organized into a Likert-type scale consisting of three major dimensions. The dimensions were labelled Cognitive-Motivational Behaviors, School-Appropriate Behaviors, and Personal-Social Behaviors.

Individual differences in pupils’ competencies have been recognized as important variables influencing school performance. Current research concerning teacher-pupil relations suggests further that the nature of teachers’ attitudes, attributions and expec- tations for their pupils are translated into behaviors that affect pupil achievement and adjustment (Brophy & Good, 1970, 1972, 1974; Good & Dembo, 1973; Helton, 1972; Jackson, 1968; Kornblau & Keogh, 1980; Rist, 1970; Thelen, 1967; Willis, 1972). However, to date there has been only limited effort directed at identifying individual differences among teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ teachability and the impact of those perceptions on teacher-pupil relations. It seems reasonable that teachers’ perceptions serve as a measure or standard upon which judgments and behaviors are based. It is likely, too, that teachers’ thoughts and actions regarding pupils are influenced by their views of the attributes that characterize “idealized teachable” pupils. Thus, knowledge of the factors influencing teachers’ perceptions of “idealized teachable” pupils may con- tribute to a broader understanding of teachers’ expectations and interactions with in- dividual pupils.

While teachers’ perceptions of pupil attributes have been acknowledged as impor- tant factors influencing teacher-pupil interactions, they have been elusive and difficult to measure. The goal in this project was to develop an objective measure of teachers’ perceptions of attributes that characterize teachable pupils. The Teachable Pupil Survey was developed and scaled for this purpose. The development of the Survey involved several major steps.

METHODS A N D RESULTS Teacher-Generated Descriptors

One hundred teachers currently employed in the Los Angeles area and/or enrolled in courses at major Southern California universities participated in the study. Subjects ranged from novice student teachers to experienced teachers, preschool through elemen-

‘“This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare under contract number 300-77-036. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US. Government.”

Requests for reprints should be sent to Barbara Kornblau, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Project REACH, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024.

170

Teachable Pupil Survey 171

tary programs; all volunteered for the study. Ninety-two were female, eight male; 82 were Caucasian, and 18 either Hispanic or Black. During all phases of scale develop- ment, teachers’ responses to the information requested were anonymous, and no in- dividual identifying names were recorded.

Fifty-five teachers generated descriptions of their perceptions of the characteristics of “idealized teachable” pupils. Participating teachers were asked to respond to the directions: “As a teacher in a classroom, please describe your perceptions of the characteristics of an ‘idealized teachable’ pupil appropriate for the grade-age level you are currently teaching.” Each teacher responded to the question by listing self-generated pupil characteristics that described his/her perceptions. Adjective Checklist

Step two was conducted approximately two to four weeks later, and utilized The Adjective Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, Jr., 1965)’ containing 296 descriptors, which provided the subjects with a broad range of behaviors representative of pupil attributes. Each teacher who participated in the first phase was asked to “Check all the characteristics which describe your perceptions of an ‘idealized teachable’ pupil. Then rank order from one to ten the most important characteristics in descending order.” The two procedures were used to obtain a comprehensive list of behaviors deemed important by teachers in characterizing “idealized teachable” pupils.

Multidimensional Scaling Technique2 Following the compilation of descriptors identified by teachers, the items were sub-

jected to a frequency count and converted to percentages. Only items receiving 60% or more agreement among teachers were included for further analyses. These items were submitted to a multidimensional scaling technique (Chang & Carroll, 1972), which in- volved independent judges sorting the items into congruent categories. The multidimen- sional scaling technique permitted assessment of the functional importance of the various characteristics (Glass, 1967; Kruskal & Wish, 1978; Shepard, 1962; Subkoviak, 1975). It also provided a means for the establishment of a hierarchy of the importance of specific attributes, since it allowed the participants to choose freely from the characteristics they considered important. It has been suggested that with this procedure, experimenter bias may be considerably reduced (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968).

Fifteen new subjects served as participants in the multidimensional scaling process. These judges rated the descriptors on the basis of their similarities or congruence to one another. The judgments of the participants led to a positioning of the items into a mul- tidimensional space in which items viewed as similar were clustered together, while those viewed as dissimilar were relatively far apart. When some items cluster in a narrow sub- space, it is possible to characterize such a grouping as a dimension. This procedure yielded three discernible dimensions. Review of the content of items within each dimen- sion suggested that the three dimensions could be logically labelled: Dimension X, Cognitive-Motivational Behaviors; Dimension Y, School-Appropriate Behaviors; and Dimension Z, Personal-Social Behaviors.

Further refinement of the categories or dimensions occurred when another group, consisting of six judges, consensually validated the dimensions and items by sorting the characteristics or descriptors into the same independent categories as represented in the multidimensional scaling technique. Items that did not provide high internal consistency

ZDetailed data analyses can be obtained by writing the author through Project REACH at UCLA.

172 Psychology in the Schools, April, 1982, Vol. 19, No. 2

and low correlations with other items were deleted. The scale was then reduced to 46 descriptors. Item Reliability

The reliability of items was determined by still another group of 24 teachers who were asked to sort the 46 descriptors into the three dimensions yielded by the mul- tidimensional scaling technique; if unable to do so, they were told to place the items in a category labelled miscellaneous. Teachers were able to sort 3 1 items into clear, indepen-

TABLE I Descriptors and Dimensions in Teachable Pupil Survey

Dimension X: Cognitive-Motivational Behaviors bright (lOO%) clear-thinking, logical, rational (95%) curious, inquisitive, questioning (80%) enterprising, inventive in thinking (75%) high verbal ability (90%) intelligent (95%) imaginative, uses materials in an original manner (80%) insightful, perceptive (75%)

able to begin and complete classroom tasks (100%) academic achievement appropriate for age and grade (75%) alert, attentive to classroom proceedings (100%) attention span appropriate for age and grade (90%) completes work on time (95%) eager, enthusiastic about classroom activities (85%) enjoys school work (95%) follows directions (100%) willingly participates in classroom activities (80%)

calm (100%) confident (90%) considerate of others ( IOOW) emotionally stable (100%) empathetic, understanding of feelings of others (100%) extroverted, outgoing (100%) friendly (100%) happy, cheerful (100%) has sense of humor (100%) honest (100%) pleasant, good-natured (100%) sincere (100%) socially well-adjusted (95%) well-accepted and liked by peers (95%)

cooperative (70%-2; 30%-Y) adaptable to changing classroom routines (60%-Y; 40%-2)

Dimension Y: School-Appropriate Behaviors

Dimension 2: Personal-Social Behaviors

Miscellaneous

Teachable Pupil Survey 173

dent dimensions. Those items receiving 75% or more agreement among subjects were in- cluded in the scale. Two additional items were retained in a miscellaneous category, although they did not meet the 75% requirement; they were high frequency items that teachers in the earlier steps had described as essential or salient characteristics of “idealized teachable” pupils. Table 1 contains the descriptors according to dimension.

Likert Scale The final phase of scale development involved putting the descriptors into a Likert-

type weighting system ranging from I-not important at all to 8-extremely important. The Likert scale allows the determination of the relative importance of the individual descriptors and dimensions by the weightings. Some examples of descriptors are: follows directions; bright; able to begin and complete classroom tasks; and calm. The final result is a 33-item instrument to assess and quantify teachers’ perceptions of the attributes of “idealized teachable” pupils.

DISCUSSION Teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of “idealized teachable” pupils clustered

into three major dimensions. Viewed in conjunction with prior research (Rubinstein & Fisher, 1974; Solomon & Kendall, 1977), this finding adds strong support for the hypothesis that there is agreement among teachers regarding their perceptions of desirable pupil attributes. Sample teachers were able to define clear, consensual, and in- terpretable dimensions that were conceptually consistent with other approaches to this question (Herbert, 1974; Keogh & Sbordone, 1975; Rubinstein & Fisher, 1974; Solomon & Kendall, 1977). These three dimensions, plus two miscellaneous items, generally characterized pupil “teachability” as perceived by teachers.

Further, although the teachers’ responses were consistent and conceptually inter- pretable, their perceptions of pupil attributes were complex and multifaceted, a finding also suggested in prior research (DuCette & Wolk, 1972; Fleming & Anttonen, 1971; Gesten, 1976; Jackson, 1968). Teachers probably have a priori perceptions of the characteristics of “idealized teachable” pupils. It is likely that these perceptions serve as a standard or model upon which judgments about school success or failure of individual pupils are based, a finding that lends credence to the contention of other researchers on the impact of teacher expectancy (Rist, 1970; Torrance, 1963, 1975; Yamamoto, 1969).

While the Teachable Pupil Survey was developed as a way of operationalizing teachers’ perceptions of idealized pupil attributes, the scale is also useful as an instru- ment for investigating teachers’ perceptions of pupils. To date, the Teachable Pupil Survey has been used in research with regular and special education teachers, with the in- itial findings providing information about the importance of particular pupil attributes according to grade levels and handicapping conditions (Kornblau, 1979). Use of the Teachable Pupil Survey with preschool and elementary, regular and special education teachers has yielded information pertaining to the relationship between idealized pupil attributes and actual pupil characteristics.

REFERENCES BROPHY, J., & GOOD, T. L. Teachers’ communications of differential expectations for children’s classroom

BROPHY, J. , & GOOD, T. L. Teacher injuence on student behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,

BROPHY, J. E., & GOOD, T. L. Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt,

performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365-374.

1972.

Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.

174 Psychology in the Schools, April, 1982, Vol. 19, No. 2.

CHANG, J. J., & CARROLL, J . D. How ro use INDSCAL. Unpublished manuscript, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hills, NJ 1972.

DUCETTE, J., & WOLK, S. Ability and achievement as moderating variables of student satisfaction and teacher perception. Journal of Experimenral Education, 1972, 41, 12-17.

FLEMING, E. S., & ANTTONEN, R. G. Teacher expectancy or My Fair Lady. American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 8, 241-252.

GESTEN, E. A. Health resources inventory: The development of a measure of personal and social competence of primary grade children. Journal of Consulring and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 775-786.

GLASS, G. Factors in teachers’ perceptions of students. Journal of Educational Meacuremenr, 1967,4,87-93. GOOD, T. L., & DEMBO, M. GOUGH, H. G., & HEILBRUN, A. B., JR. The adjecrive checklist. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist

HELTON, G. Teacher arrirudinal response ro selected characteristics of elementary school studenis. Un-

HERBERT, G. S. Teachers’ ratings of classroom behavior. Brirish Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974,

JACKSON, P. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968. KEOGH, B. K., & SBORDONE, M. Early identification of educarionally high risk and high potentialjrsi grade

KORNBLAU, B. Teachers’ perceprions of the characterisiics of idealized reachable pupils. Unpublished doc-

KORNBLAU, B., & KEOGH, B. K. Teachers’ perceptions and educational decisions. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.),

KRUSKAL, J. B., & WISH, M. Mulridimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Papers, 1978. RIST, R. Student social class and teacher expectations. The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Har-

vard Educational Review, 1970, 40, 4 I 1-45 I . ROSENBERG, S., NELSON, C., & VIVEKANANTHAN, P. S. A multidimensional approach to the structure of per-

sonality impressions. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 283-294. RUBINSTEIN, G., & FISHER, L. A measure of teachers’ observations of student behavior. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 310. SHEPARD, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with unknown distance function, I ,

Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 125-140. SOI.OMON, D., & KENDALL, A. J. Dimensions of childrens’ classroom behavior as perceived by teachers.

American Educalional Research Journal, 1977, 14, 41 1-421. SUBKOVIACK, M. J. The use of multidimensional scaling in educational research. Review of Educational

Research, 1975, 45, 387-423. THELEN, H. A. TORRANCE, E. P. The creative personality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College Record, 1963,65,220-226. TORRANCE, E. P. Assessing children, teachers and parents against the ideal child criterion. The Gifted Child

WILLIS, S. Formation of teachers’ expectations of students’ academic performance. Unpublished doctoral

YAMAMOTO, K. Images of the ideal pupil held by teachers in preparation. California Journal of Educarional

Teacher expectations: Self-report data. School Review, 1973, 81, 247-252.

Press, 1965.

published doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1972.

44, 233-240.

children (Tech. Rep.). University of California, Los Angeles, 1975.

toral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1979.

New direcrions for exceptional children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Classroom grouping for teachability. New York: Wiley, 1967.

Quarterly, 1975, 19, 131-138.

dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, 1972.

Research, 1969, 20, 221-232.