study is to investigite the relationships between the structural

and affective dimensions of group climate using the classroom

as the unit of analysis.

Thelen and his associates at the University of Chicago

had empirically established a number of principles of group

dynamics as applied to the classroom as early -as 1950. One

study with Withall (1949) employed interaction observation

checklist', pencil-sand-paper assesaments of the classroom with

seven standardized 4uestionew and electrical graph mechanisms

for recording students' feelings expressed by button pushing

during class sessions. This and other studies showed experimental

-differences between "teacher-" and "learner-centered" classes,

"democratic" and "traditional" organization, and classes in which

teachers varied in the expression of their personal feelings.

Among other implications, this work led Thelen (1950) to the

principle that experiences in the class serve to meet tie "socie

(achievement) and "psyche" (affective, interpersonal) needs of

the learner. This distinction is similar to that of the Getsels-

Thelon theoretical scheme and the relationship we are hypothesizing

here between structural and affective.aspects of classy's= climate.

Two multivariate studies from social psychology haoe metho-

dological relevance to the instrument used here to measure class- .

room climate. Cattell, Aunders. and Sties (1953) fact= analysed

a great number of behavioral and attitudinal measures og small' . \

4

,groups Using the group mean as the unit of analysis. 4kmong the

4

.

f..

001376

Structural and Affective Aspects

. af CIABUIX/M'CliMatO

Herbert J. Walborg

Harvard University1

DEC 8 1867

ton

aa-

: 1.

itudents of social.relations have long concerned themselves

wias grow norms. on one hand and individual needs on the other.

Astoria "rationales for the social structure. of the classrocm

group hypothesise a complementary or synergistic relation betweena.

these' factors. Presumably in classes in which the group work ..

4:."

::is.organited efficiently, -the needs of individual students.tre.:::-.

1:7rro70C22C

70

=

O70

2C

2C

',II';

being met affectiVely. Suss cent paragraphs touch on sows.

a1C-,rrs

rn

Pa.4a=

.:.--asultivhriate research on the social Psychology

review some recent work, on classroom climate, and present a

"f

.

betweon hemlock and exile. But quantitative, empirical

rationale Jim the present study.

Philostphical and literary traditions on problems of

a, -a. ;

-individual-vamp relations trace at least as far back as Socrates.'

.xasearch on group oitmate and individual satisfaction started

as late as 1939 with the work of Lewin, Lippitt, and White.

'

1.. Harvard Proiect Physics supported the research reported hers. ...

.. I gratefully acknowledge the influence of Jacob W. Getsels and. Ilerbert A. Thelon througit their.published Writings and personal

1:4

. communications° Gary Andersen,- Flotsam: G. Watson, and Wayne- it wameiv?...;.:,4have been most kind in diecttrosing .the *trim& of.pagiere of which , -

. this is a pert, ',of courser any orgore'vt cant, .ansaisiaig iftwAW- ";-ge-."pretation should attributed -te iroe. *

. 1.. .: 11 .4.

V..

o4,,

or

r.

41...42141t

iiheir study aawAnad the effects of different leadership styles.!:?;-

. 4on group climate. Clubs of eleven -yeas boys mot for six

: .

:week periods, under adults who acted the pert as.dgmocratic.

. autocratic, or laisses-faire leaders. Observers made contiauous

stenographic records of club conversations, kept running accounts

oi social interactions, and noted psychologically interesting

anecdotes. It was found that group members under democratic

leadership were. mote friendly, group- and work-minded, and showed:

more initiative and frustration tolerance than the other groups.

Mork on the social psychology of smell groups has mushroomed

since this early study, and one recently annotated bibliography

listed 2699 pieces of research (McGrath and Altnan, 1966).

.Unfortunately, almost all of the work has limiter relevance for

the classroom because the samples WI groupsbomber crews,

of workers on production lines, two -persofi dyads in artificial

laboratory settings--do. resemble school classea, Moreover,

4. .many of the studies employed simplebivariate designs in which.

the effect of an experimental variation is tested cr, one dependent

variable. Common eanse tells the researcher that he must, look

. :at many facets of group climate to understand what is going 9a

in the classroom.

The dearth of research bearing on classroom climate has some

outstanding exceptions, 141;wever, In the theoretical schtime of

Getiels and Thelon (1960), the impiricel studies of Thelect and

Ed his colleagues 1See Withal]. and Lewis, 1963, for a -review

ri'

of classroom "studies by Planderi, taidawell, Thelen, Withal', ::'-; , .....;.f

'

and others) , the multivariate measurement techniques of - $ L. .,,:-

..., :....

..q4:Cattell (1953) ; 1e*phi11 (1950)# and their associates (See

4-summary, 1966). Let us consider the aspects of this

literature wiliCh are related to the present study.

While we shall examine only an abstracted portion of the

Getzela-Thelen scheme here, the interested reader is referred

=s' The upper line can be termed the "structural" dimension; it

refers to the structure or organization of the classroom, for :

to the original article (1960) for a more complete description

and examples as well as two recent pieces of empirical work

(Melberg, 1968, and Walberg and Anderson, 1968) based upon the

"scheme. The main elements can be summarized analytically. as

follows:

Institution Role

Class -+ Climate

Individual Personality

et. Expectations

Intentions 4- Behavior

.1° Dispokitions

example, democratic, stratified, or heterogeneous. For individual

students, it refers to their roles, obligations, or prervatives..

While the upper Cline' applies to the shared, group-sanctioned:

.'behavior, the lower line refets to idiosyncratic perional dispositions. .

act in a give: way to satisfy individual personality needs..

:e.'his line is termed the w affective dimension, and in the present

research, it shall pertain to classroom levels of satisfaction,

.intimacy, friction, And other such variables. The purpOse of the

, ,. " .

. . -j9

r

study is to investigate the relationships between the structural

and affective dimensions of group climate using the classroom

as the unit of analysis.

Thelen and his associates at the University of Chicago

had empirically established a number of principles of group

dynamics as applied to the classroom as earlyas 1950. One

study with Withall (1949) employed interaction observation

checklists, pencil-end-paper assessments of the classroom with

seven standardized 4uestionai and &metrical. graph mechanisms

for recording students' feelings expressed by button pushing'

during class sessions. This and other studies showed expeiimental

-differences between "teacher-w and "learner-centered" classes,

"democratic" and "traditional" organization, and. classes in which

teachers varied in the expression of their personal feelings.

Among other implications, this work led Thelen (1950) to the

principle that experiences in the class serve to meet tae "socio"

(achievement) and "psyche" (affective, interpersonal) needs of

the learner. This distinction is similar to that of tha Getsels-

Thelon theoretical scheme and the relationship we are hypothesizing

here between structural and affective, aspects of classroom climate.

Two multivariate studies from social psychology have metho-

dological relevance to the instrument used here to measure class-

room climate. Cattail, Aunders, and StLce (1953) fact= analysed

a great number of behavioral. and .attitudinal measures of small' .

groups Using the group mean as the unit of analysis. Among the

analysis of the modified items revealed a finer structure of 18-.

. ...

--.-.factors, these tactors were used as criteria for predicting.aid-0-:. /-

...... .5 t:_...: ,. ".1...:,-,"-=.--. ,- .

--.?,...

-.-.:,--- 7- year class. climate Iron measures obtained earlier on teachers... .,- ---- .-.

(Welberg, 1968) and students (Walberg and Anderson, 1968) . For;.' :, :3:; fa . f -,.--1'..t.':'1 this study the factors were classified into a set of 10 strpOturaland

v-.....--:--:-:., -;

--- s% . li----,

---T'--:-- ...i:,7 affective variables. (One scale, Social Heterogeneity, was -..i. -4iP. f'.. l . .i....1 r77.4,0:...%';'

1

..

..:1,:::::7:1 ... ::''

' '' -. i'-' '1

i .' k ... r-c: ..,,

.unclassified and deleted from the analysis.)

Subjects. and Instrument

Method . . I "' ;":

r.

.:,.'.. .

,...i. 4 ..;:_v, .

- .Home 2000 high school juniors and emniors in 72 classes- .

-.4.4 ... . ,

... '..throughout the country participated in the preliminary evaluation. -.-

....-.,....

.:.-..4.--c..-..of Harvard Project Physics, a new course emphasizing philosophical,.

historical, and humanistic aspects of physics. The mean ICI of.

--thik-group on the Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test is 115 (s.dts14).

This -level is about one standard deviation above the norm group

;-&:c:and corresponds to the 84th percentile. It is about what one

a might eXpect from the rattier select group of stedentsvho take

school physics. Approximately 61 percent o the subjects

are male.

4

ff. / r*.

'--

M explained above, the Classrocat Climate Questionnaire& .

is a series of B0 items such as "The class knows exactly whatexactly-

'('` :'has to got done..*. Students are asked to express degrees of

agreement or disagreement on a five point scale. Subscores

are calculated by averaging the ratings of the items loading

uniquely above .30 on eachof the 1,4 dimensions (See Table 1

for the nails., of the factors, and Walberg, 1968, for illustrative

items and reliabilities for each dimension). By employing an

extension of the Spearman-Brown formu'a (Remmers, Shock, and

Kelly, 1927), it was found in a previous study (Walberg, 1968) that

when used as a group measure all dimensions have ,reliabilities

above .15 and 9 of the 18 have reliabilities of .95 or better. .

Procedure

A random fourth of the 2000 students in each of the 72

classes took the Classroom Climate Questionnaire under a system

of randomized data. collection (Walberg and Welch, 1968). By

giving a set of tests to random sets of students in each clams, a.

this method tende.to miniMize testing time. and maximise the Amber.

.of tests that can be adminletexed, It is especially, though; not

solely,useful in studies such as this one in which the unit., of

.analysis is the ,class mean,

The 18 subsdorea for individuals were totaled separately

and divided by the -number taking the Questionnaire. Thus, the '72._

:Aolass means on the 18 dimensions. served as the unit of analysis.

..4.; r;

, A-:.. - ''' , - ' e ..1. 4, r' 7;5' f,'/Ztiii-: Hk.;!:%.?:/!...:1s 4 '- . ''''' . : * 1." Ai, . 4 .

4 7;-

, ...0.i : The correlations, between the' structural and" effective measureseoi7.-.-..,. ovr .4,,,,i.g-

,

1.;,:lltAfi:e:-Ggert. calculatadi,eaoh of the affective murex were regressed'.*4 Z!, IN...

.

4."'fr :-. on allof"the situctural-measures; and similarly, each of the', ..4,-7--; 1\ -

6'"...: % ' 45C;-:}ye,r-,-., structural measures were -regressed on all the affective measuresf-'' -. : -'t , .. . ,

.

--t.:4::1'ctMmaiiIiiiiiillt'1). Finally, canonical correlationswere calculated',;-W',..t.-':,-. : -. , =

cirri '-;4L'i

all, the structural and all the affective aspects.

Results

Table-:. shows a number of low to moderate correlations

Joetween the two aspects of classroom. climate. In a 10 by 7

matvile, 3 to" 4 ogoks.g4^I.6.4^me,wWit, ..... ^WIMP are alimp...&....1UW MO' significant at

the .05_ level by chance. Table 1 contaiiis 23 correlations

as.Jove this level, nearly:7 times the chance probability.

Moreover, there are 15 Significant beyond the .01 level in

contrast to the chance expectation of less than 1 (actually

.7) in 70.

(Insert Table 1 about here.)

All of the affective measures are. predictable from the

-structural measures in the multiple regression analysis (p (:05).

'The mean multiple R is .60 which accounts for 36 'percent of. the

variance in the affective measures. Similarly, with the exception1

: of Strict Control and Speech Constraint, all the structural

a ,

.4

4I

W

measures can be separately predicted from the affective measuree*

(p < 305). The mean R is .54 which accounts for 29 percent

of the affective variance on the average.

The third method used here to analyze the relationship

between classroom structure and affect is canonical correlation.

This technique produces one or more sets of weights between two

groups of variables which,. when multiplied by the variable

values, maximize' the overall correlation between the two

groups. The weighti represent the contributions of the individu.al

variables to the canonical correlation and are interpretable

analogously to beta weights in multiple correlation (See iatsuoka

and Tiederaan, 1963, for a theoretical treatment and Walberg,

1968, and Walberg and Anderson, 1968, for empirical examples

in classroom climate research.)

The first stat4stir.A1 test is the hypothesis of no signifi-

cant correlation between the two groups of variables, in this

case, structural and affective. The Chi-Square test of the

hypothesis was 190.92 with 72 degrees of freedom and very highly

significant (p < .001). Subsequent tests with successive "roots"

remared revealed no significant (p < .05) residual correlations

between the two ,groups after.foim canonical variates were

extracted. The four canonical correlations were .80, .75,

.63, and .5/. detaili of the variable contributions. to

oath canonical correlation are .discussed below.

!the simple Correlations in Table I seem to make crInd

psychological sense. For example, the affective measure,

Internal Friction, is correlated positively with Subservient,

Disorganized, Stratification, and speech Constraint and

negatively with Democratic and egalitarian. Similarly, the

structural. variable, Goal Direction, is correlated positively

with Classroom Intimacy and Satisfaction and negatively with

Alienation.and Personal Intimacy.. the positive relation of

goal direction to classroom but not personal intimacy2 can

. be explained by the general spit de of a group working

together on clear-cut goals as opposed to the clique subsets

a

in dis3rganized :groups. 'However, one or two of the correlations

-Y seem itrange. It stands to reason why a clisorganized group

shoulS exhibit more personal intimacy, alienation, internal

friction, and lets satisfaction (See Table 1) . But it is

mo:Pe difficult to explain why disorganized class ;s have higher

goup status. .1n. additioh to Disorganized, the three other

correlates of group Status are positive: Democratic, Strict

. Control, awl Speech Constraint.' The pattern suggests to this

Writer the possibility that some classes vacillate between

autocratic and democratlermodes perhaps as a result of the

f

2. Lower-case names of variables refer here to the underlyingconstructs; capitalised variables toter to empirical measures.

6

.to be derogatory or demeaning. Our previous study Othaberg

and Welch, 1967) showed that aside from their. courage in volun

tearing to try an experimental courab they are superior intel-!

lectually -and emotionally to -other samples of teachers.

andi a symbol of group status,

meantIt is important. to note that the discussion of the teachers istOott

ta

' ?:

*.

.!

5" :1

The 23 significant zero-order correlations are too numerous

to comment on individually. The interested reader may wish

to examine Table 1 more closely than this brief discussiori

permits. In any case, one can conclude that variables in the

affective domain are significantly related to variables. in the,

struatural domain. Moreover, the multiple correlations show thtt

most of the variables in both domains aremoderately predictable

from the variables in the opposite domain: Al more succinct

analysis is the canonical correlation which resolves the complex'.,.

associations- between the two domains into their significant-

4-.;'-,;',Hcooponents.

The first canonical correlation was..80 and weighted .30...;

higher (or :30 or lower) on two structural aspects of class-

room citaate and four affective aspects. These weights

with decimal- points calitteld: are as follows:

."

.c

.:

fo

flElactural 'WAIL

Disorganised

Stratif ied

Affective As cts

87 Internal Friction

37 Alienation

Persona/ Intimacy

Satisfaction

50

47

47

-41

Thus* students who perceive their classes as disorganized and

stratified also sae themselves alienated, dissatisfied, in con-

flict with one anothik. The greater personal intimacy may be

the clique pattern referred to in the discussion of the simple

correlations. On a more positive note, classes which are low

on this canonical variate are organized and unstratified on

one hand and the students ate more satisfied, less hostile and

alienated, and, if our interpretation is correct, less cliquey..

The second 'canonical correlation was .75, involved more

variables, and has a more complex interpretation. The weights

for the structural and affective aspects, (on the left and right,

respectively) are:.

Egalitarian. 46 Interest Heterogeneity 54

Speech constraint 43 Internal Friction 52

Democratic -36 Satisfaction 42

Strict Control -39 Classroom Intimacy -46

Goal Diversity -?.9

0Students in classes high on this canonical variate saw themselves

as being treated. equally (Egalitarian) but not having a voice in

class activities (Democratic). At the sane time, they felt

On the affective side? they saw temmamma am having more,

heterogeneous interests, internal friction, and satisfaction,

and, finally, less illassroom intimacy.

A recent )bservational study of high school science teachers

(Gallagher, 1167) showed that they spend from 65 to 95 pircent

of the time ta'..king.. With this in mind a picture of this kind

of class emerges: the teacher is lecturing; the students are

treated alike; little individual expression is allowed; the

goals of the c:.ass are unitary and teacher-defined. Afficilvely?

unexpressed interests are heterogeneous, there is more irterLal

fricticn, and Xess classroom intimacy. But how can one.accourt

Zor Vie less Exict control and greater student satisfaction is'

tkase classes? The answer may lie in the psychology of tbe

teacher. Lecturing may -be dull, but it affords the safety of

the external, on-stage control of the class. It is much earier-

.for the teache-rand students to play the roles of "lecturer" and

turned -off "listener," much easier and satisfying than cirrying

out the difficult art of Socratic dialogue which leads to

"stupid" or "difficult" questions.

The third canonical correlation was .63. The weights for

it are:

Speech Constraint 65 Group Status P9

Democratic 50 'Personal Intimacy -38

Strict Control 30

7 -

4

' I

- -

.i,'%'- ";It-2:5". 1-:-3e.tr;;:.1 lit.,:.1 ; -

,-^ - .4-.- y At: , ,., .7.; ..-` c.: , . r 15% -. t.Lni ix, :--,..., ,. .. ..-

44..N:" ?3."S' oroi.:?-A.....' .0.. .. a -7- -

"..--,...,:,...-"'....,-.

4111011LS

..

.

-13

, .yr."7,

'*1 r - At-

pattern suggests a closely controiled.classroom

each numuwasu mom MMISAA O.M4%. aqUal VOiCe 4-1!!one* 4.10.0641.WYO

;

!Jr': <!.r.1".

1-

in %fib

aimpwlgsamok4%.40.110146114

.

class members give up a degree of personal intimacy and identify

more closely with the class as a high status group. This kind of

class seems to exhibit a restrained 222ritusthaLt may be

very beneficial to learning.

The'last correlation was .57 and weighted as follows:

Goal Directed 75

Egalitarian -45

Classroom Intimacy

Internal Friction

Personal Intimacy

60

SS

-30

Interest Heterogeneity -41

.This is the claSsroom in which the 'goals are clearly directed and:

the students are not treated equally. On the affective sides.' .;

students feel intimate ai a group but not personally; there is

more internal friction between students and less heterogeneity

of interests. Behind the variable pattern liei$ the image of

.the autocratic teachor who plays favorites. The unity of the

class and the perceived 'homogeneity' of interests may be defenses

against this kind of teacher. However, there is at the sane time

-friction between the class members and less personal intintacy4

One wonders if this tension is between the favorites and the

rest of the class united against them.

Conclusion

a

The statistical analyses sispport the hypothesis geperi6ed

from the conceptual scheme: the structural aspects of the

a.

4saroolk9etffate-alUperceived:Lbilitudents are strongly related.

... -''-7.r.,F.t0 their affective perceptions. In other terms, the role expeco...

.iet*tat.J.-atioall foe stvelehtivin the class are associated with their4.7.raw'kr-=

-a' dispositions as class members. However, the relation-

ships between the structural and effective dimensions are by no."}

means simple. The canonical correlations discussed boil the

the complexity into four basic patterns of association. Hope-

. .1 fully, a.replication of the study planned for the coming academic

Y ear will show the generalizability of these patterns.

This is a third in a series of studies employing the

measurement of classroom climate. The first (Walberg, 1968)

showed that the dimensions of climate are from

teacher personality measured earlier. The second Malterg

and Anderson,-1968) showed that the dimensions are also predictehLW

from the mental abilities and personalities of the students-in

the class. This study. shows that the structure of the class is

related to students' affective reactions. Another study of the

psychometric properties of the instrument has been completed

(Anderson, 196n. Armed' with a revised form of the instrument

(llaberg and Anderson, 1967), we feel that two series ti etWei

are now in order.- The first ill the introduction of random

experimental variations into classrooms such as traditional and

new C-Oureei and,democratic and autocratic teaching methods to

study their effects on climate.. A second series will be done in. .

conjunction with the first, the correlation of systematic

, ,,s K. 101, , . ri 474':*7!O. I,

.;'::?)...41'AC? /

;:;,1, F.'TO "45" '11'4 4.44-4 r hilt& .; t ckit ,t;:r

,

r sE4 ,

1;%4 Ng" iS 't i X., ,1 44:`! !,fi

;: i"; 4. " ' '.% i.Vk 0/1 70.; ' ro 1' . '.r

: ." ,16

....

1

, ...: ' '-:. :.:;-....

: .

1 *A

S0 rii

1 I1'...,.

f :,,...., . r:.i., ..

41. 0.'i,' ';.. .., .- w

0-, A, ^. '..

1 '; to .,' gV t L

IP$

t

EtOC: bb

et" rSri $

, ..4., i ,.... .- , ,.'''''o,' t.

v., . a' 4U

,. !,; .... .... 0o '13 S

..4...t., .

,. .1C. .

. .' , ' 411 IleAt

.. !:5i.C...li''....:::.1. :"..-.... *1 foll

le.,c;,..,.

Ph' ` ";1"

S

It

-0.1.4; ..2;

".4..itt

. ,:

Z

i.

t. .

,,

?"

-.

Stru

ctur

al*;

iltsa

iniU

res

Dction

Goa

t Div

ersi

tyt-

Vemocrst,ic

t.

Subs

ervi

ent

3t is Control

pis?

rgen

ited

-

Stra

it 'rt

iga

tion

ilerel/

ar all

t, , r+

cizi

asli

Lay

e'

ty

a

Intlarnal

ftiction

28**

29**

50**

*

-30*

*

Sposcb.Constraint

30**

7 ..

.t

MultOld

It,

:.

,,

,,

5,s'y

.

,:

;

'o*

;Tablok 1

.Correlation Between Structural and

Affective Measures of Classroom Climate

Affective Measures

Classroom

'Intimacy

24*

3e**

*

Noa

l/MIN

INSI

NIM

I/Pd

1.

Interest

Hetero-

Group

geneity

Status

Satis-

faction

44**

Alienation

-21

Personal

Intimacy

_34**

24*

/a/a

Multiple

R

61***

51**

'36**

-23*

55***

20-2

140

2221

-,26*

47*

34**

_53***

4s*d*

35**

73***

21

'54**

21-24*

52**

24*

726*

42

39***

22

-22.

62***

57**

53*

61**

*64**

54**

58**

Xotis;-=eimple and multiple correlations significant at

* 05

01

and

.001 levels are marked

with

1,

21

*

'74.

.4.1

:':V

allt4

kri.a

kStrespectively.

Decimal point's and

--240itrrialatIons below the. .1 level are omitted.

.%

if.%

;."

,4

;ii;

%.

t.

,14.

;,.

.

the

and

'4'

4.

..,......, ,

' .ft . ' .,:. , - -4r, : ...-' :-:.-- , .,% .... .

,.., .4,.....,,,t ' .I.y', .41.- ,-- .r. t.....??..trAef. .1' ,3 %.,1?- *ot Se),' '`C'1",:t '?'`i ''' . ' '..W5;p:e,1,Yzir 40--=: N. ...... -...% ,,,, eAf.r...,.' ..6-:,..,- I,-'.; ..,_ . ,. -V l4.3.,:-.- :1,, ,

< '3'''' Ile .."rI'g. ' Y'4' -'4'1.V., '!--:* N *s% 4: 5'6.: ,... . ....'.:;,-. i:i C.'fi.:-.11ANA -'......-i*,?.. -,i, . '; -, , 'c ''' , : ". '.' , s:...,-* 4t 'itti,''''''fi ....:::.

"I't -- '1. ..... -.;' `",,,, -'r WV'' 43' e ..., ' *4-,. ' i..;:l .C.C.? -,`,., . -ells.: 417.. ,...---,,Vrg. . '. . -. . - . % _ -A : ; -.!f eV : . 4 .471:,,-.. 4 '"'...,.,/,,.,; "f -- --s, ..-- ,. ,, . -,.,

-,,.- j..i. ; zz, ,/, .!.;':,:.,1-..`: 12i...,1?.??.7.0ej:1.12'.. .!''''.. Refiiiitenceiv`-'..-k-s.: -:(1k,c,r-::!:--::-1,i3.-;-'- : ...,....... ...i, -e41,. f.,`::. ''.: 4 - t<:3.'St .. r -. ;,-. ,.: *A I. AS' ./.. 'i .,

i''''' . ."4A1'S t: ..,.:':1*-+ . '' r 0 ' : ' ;..... .,,

. .3 . t. k I... , .

-er, - . . f r - ' ' f

- ;,

of sint&Uty it ma11 groups.and Stee,.Human Relations

***741C--..:1'4."

The diransfons1953, 53, 331356.1''.:;"':.2.-:;."'

1111111111 >

Gailaglisrs474:- '.ã he variation in concept presentation in.zYthe BS= curricula program. bio1 Joel. Science's Curriculure

19674; 30, 61.-11 - 7' r

44. . . .:. . Z: ;4. r ,-;sell , .J.W. and Thelen, H.A. The classroom group, as a 'unique -..;' 4:-"4..:',:.;,-'?:',...s.--Ar-..-,

"-4.-;,iflY,t;P:"-c--,:-. social trete*. 'National Society for the Study of' Education........... .,....---..le-x,=7-;:.i.,;:-..;.-.-.3:,4.-,.....-.;

-. i.r.:....,.. .-:.-.4-11---,-,-fCe-:Yearbook, 1960, 3, (Ito . 1 ) , 51- . .,..... :

,.. %..

'." % .." - 1 :kV, ew..'":" "- Ti. 1,1 ',it:,

-:-c'" ,- '4`.1:1t;', 4 - ""s. .

:.:',,..,:4:;:-.-i7;!-Z.:: ''_-..- Hemphill? J.K. and Westie, C. The sm-easurement of group diatett- - -4,-:,-.."..-

V-A:7' t sions, y

Journal of Psychology, 1950, 29, 325-342.._,.... .,. ,,,t-....

arralaaft .4, . r

-,..-4,1d.r.t

McGrath, J. 8. and Altman, I. Small grou research: A synthesisand criti us of the field. New or11 0 tt (iriiart,and s --

'Lewin, K. ; laippitte,R., and White R.K. Patterns cf aggressivebehavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal211221.01Loamch 1.939, 10 o 271.299.

^. .^

'.

;,14..-:vi- nef .' Remmers H.R. Shock, N W. and Kelly E, L. An experimental study

;--; of the validity of the Spearman-Brown Formula as applied to the.

-\ X117t4 Purdue Rating Sdale. 1na1 Of Educational Psaholmo 19271 --`.

18 187-195-.

Vatsuoka, H.H. and Tiecleman, D.V. Statistics aa an aspect ofthe scientific in research on teaching. Xn N.L. Gage (Ed.)Handbook of Research on Teach. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963,.- .

Thelenv N.A. Educational dynamics: Theory and research.;Journal of Social Issues, 1950, 6, 5-95.

-.

Walberg, H.J. Classroom climate uestionnaire: Form A.Cambridge, Ness:71faiirarar 711:11ers y multirrilied)

.: i,.`.-e'.Z:

-4 -^ ' : P.

WalbergPorta B.

.

Walberg, R.J. Teacher personality and clasarocm climate.Ps c..xhc2m111 in the schools, 19613, in press.

I.

-

H.J. and Anderson, G. Classroom climate uStionnaire:Cambridge, Hass. I Harvit1Eaver, 197 TriatrillEERO .J

I.. Nalberg, U.J. and Anderson, G. The achievement-crea.:ivity dimen-

4 sion and Olessroosi_ain press. .

,

limate. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1968,

r.

-kkve:.,..,,,f-:sliF4k=Ctrtty

..'.,:;,...,..4.-...,..

...;:;.;,-.4.".,...,,,..-: ......z.....:,4-.--:-k..,.,A:Pc:ly, ,,.., :,.., s. -4 y,..-:.',..."., - f .)';r: . ".' ';-5. ...,,, ,,. i. ; ..;' ', ,i? 1 "41::: , : :, ,.4, }", ,..l'..; r.S.z.H. VF!. ,..5,.. .:7 :;;Prt ,f,. ...:,41: ,. : 4.rt u. .v.--4...i.+- :.'s., = -.. -..-.,... ,-....,,,, . ..ti .,.4t, v-* ''64 .,.- ..,- c,,,se c.,:.'s,..,.2-:,,,C;k'frrm!stiNos.,.7.$4 .:e- ..,:-=;.., , .,..!A.4 *:P',}1 n ,'.zz-.1.-: :1- i .4'1" = 1 '''' ' ' t". ' ii. ;4;

,f e;:,.... .1 ' .;.. , ". , '

v.: 5-1. - %.-.1...1 :" . : ,,,...,.,......,.,?,:.,,.! ,.. 11.-....., ; -

.,-,4,14.;:;,-.-..... ....:.,..-:,.,

,.. . , a

,.

:

1010110001111itailaitagalli-

54'^,

;

. . ."'

%. 11:

...

..

4 :0 co to al D uto a41 osi g 0

5 1411se

4

A01 .;I :40 E

011 4i0

, ... 0 .4

U wo

14 N0 0.44 1-4

0'-6-1 ei0 041

. ....

dor

5',". . : .-. 0 8 kit 0 6$4

i.:.--9:-; .,, . ",- #04 04 *

''... A''''.7. .:1'. '', 0 A 4 1 S i:-- . it 0 li13 til t iir . 4 V.., .. ,

, :.,... ..,1 4. . .. 0 0 4 Ift 40 M-...",:,;: ,..:...- .:. r11.12, :51/ im ir"" tt, 0 ti$a 0 1:2 sir to 0

r.: St nr4.4%.It 41.4 :-. 41

a. 01 st

0 , i`..1./4s;"' * .'

X Ir4 ixt 0% lbi' .',.. '',":' vas V 0 44* arta

:: Ob sot .. ...: ....-

:, ...'',/ r-

CA"

,-.;,.:r , .

..t'.'.... .' 2 i 2.48 varts 0 v $ arilIlb .

1.. ,'.) 0 ;FPI

.., t4.12, .1.-ii fg 1.2 ttri4

%est -.4 o-s

.ti gi 14 .__,

r4 0 r4 r4 a.

:ity

1. Ira

r .` "

r.51":.x, i

,.. .4.',.' ,:, te:: .',i.ty

.t4.,;4" I,

-. ...'-P '' ':... $.,

,.,,i) ..41-'V

4 . . ..?/ . ! k .

1 D -Iotte- ,',iiir--....1,44*

.44 114Im 0 a

A eh; '.!"1.;X.3"

z.

.

.i.. .

ts4; ll:: 1, .4,.,'. *". ,-;'"'.' I. +.,F:,'..,, ',aulcai",:talami.,,":-.IA s