Sunteți pe pagina 1din 187

Copyright by PATRICIA LEE STOUT GARCIA December 2010 All Rights Reserved

THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PERSONALITY STYLES ON THE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS

A Dissertation by PATRICIA LEE STOUT GARCIA

Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Texas A&M University-Kingsville and Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2010

Major Subject: Educational Leadership

UMI Number: 3483002

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3483002 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PERSONALITY STYLES ON THE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS

A Dissertation by PATRICIA LEE STOUT GARCIA

Approved as to style and content by:

Lori ~ ,oriKupczynsKi, Kupczyasl Ed.D. (Dissertation Chair)

, j, St t

f..j~

./ .

is * .,<- ...

Glenda Holland, Ed.D. (Member)

Linda Challoo, Ed.D. (Member)

U2U' /ZorfiaGs (jGradmate Council Representative)

Ar/brose O. Anoruo, Ph.D. (Associate VP for Re/earch & Dean, College of Graduate Studies) December 2010

ABSTRACT

The Impact of Personality Styles on the Academic Excellence of Secondary Students (December 2010) Patricia Lee Garcia, B.S., University of Texas at San Antonio; M.S., Texas A & M University-Kingsville Dissertation Chair: Dr. Lori Kupczynski

The focus of this study was to determine if there was a significant relationship amongst tenth and eleventh graders' (secondary students) Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores due to teacher personality styles. One model that was reviewed in this study was the five factor model. The study used the Big Five Inventory (BFI), to assess teachers' criterion referenced test. The second model that was reviewed in this study was the students standardized test scores. The study used two years worth of TAKS test scores for secondary students in grades ten and eleven. Finally, the study looked at the relationship between teacher personality styles and secondary students test scores. Secondary students' TAKS scores were compared to the teachers' surveys, BFI, in order to determine if there was a significant relationship to tenth and eleventh graders' TAKS scores due to the teacher's personality style. Results indicate that there is a significant difference amongst the academic excellence of secondary students based on teacher personality style. The results of this study suggest that further research should be conducted in this area.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of those who helped me achieve my goal of earning a Doctorate of Education. There are several people I would like to thank, but the first person I want to thank is Dr. Lori Kupczynski. She served as my chair and is a professor at the University of Texas A & M in Kingsville. Dr. Kupczynski has been dedicated to my work as a professional and she has been a great mentor, teacher, and support system. Second, I would like to show gratitude to my family for being very patient and supportive during my endeavors. I wish to give special recognition to my daughter, Samantha, for her patience and kind words when I needed it, to my son, Mikel, for those shoulder rubs after sitting in front of the computer for those long hours, and to my husband, Perfecto, for bringing me Tylenol when I had headaches from staring at the computer too long, bringing me water and dinner when I was busy, and for understanding if I did not go to bed early leaving him to sleep alone. Next, I would like to show appreciation to Mrs. Wroten and Dr. Linerode who were instrumental in assisting me in the collection of the data for chapter 4.1 would also like to express thanks to my good Mend, Dr. Leslie Dean for always answering the phone when I had questions and being such a wonderful study partner. Finally, a special appreciation to all of my coworkers at school for lending an ear when I didn't think I would ever finish my dissertation. I could not have done this dissertation without the support of my professors, family, friends, and coworkers. Thank you all so much for your support. It will not be forgotten.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Introduction Statement of the Problem Research Questions Research Hypotheses Significance of the Study Assumptions Limitations of the Study Delimitations of the Study Definitions of Terms Organization of the Study CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction History of Testing Standardized Testing Current Standing History of Personality iii iv v viii 1 1 3 5 7 8 8 9 9 10 13 15 15 16 18 22 25

Personality Styles Current Standing Standardized Testing and Personality Styles CHAPTER m. METHODOLOGY Introduction Research Questions Null Hypotheses Research Methodology Research Design Population and Sample Instrument Procedures Data Analysis Reliability and Validity Summary of Methodology CHAPTERIV. RESULTS Introduction Data Preparation Population Analysis of Data Interpretation Results Summary CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

30 35 36 38 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 47 48 50 52 52 55 57 57 104 104 108

vi

Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations Analysis of Data Summary Conclusions Contributions Recommendations for Additional Research Summary REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDED A. Institutional Review Board APPENDDCB. Institutional Review Board Approval APPENDED C. Informed Consent APPENDrXD. Survey Instrument APPENDED E. Survey Instrument Consent Form APPENDLX F. Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Blueprint APPENDED G. District Approval Letter APPENDLX H. Letters to Teachers VITA

108 109 113 115 116 117 120 130 131 141 143 145 151 157 167 169 171

vii

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 Demographic Information about Participants Table 4.2 Grade 10,2008-2009 Student Demographic Table 4.3 Grade 10,2009-2010 Student Demographic Table 4.4 Grade 11,2008-2009 Student Demographic Table 4.5 Grade 11, 2009-2010 Student Demographic Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 66 65 64 59 60 61 62 63

Table 4.9 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Table 4.10 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 68 67 66

Table 4.12 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Table 4.13 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 69 68

viii

Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 70

Table 4.15 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Table 4.16 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Table 4.17 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 73 72 71

Table 4.18 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 Table 4.19 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 74 73

Table 4.20 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 76 75

Table 4.22 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Table 4.23 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 77 76

Table 4.24 One-Way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 78

ix

Table 4.25 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Table 4.26 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 80 79

Table 4.27 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Table 4.28 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Table 4.29 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 82 81 80

Table 4.30 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Table 4.31 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Table 4.32 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 85 84 83

Table 4.33 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Table 4.34 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Table 4.35 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 87 86 85

Table 4.36 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Table 4.37 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Table 4.38 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 89 88 88

Table 4.39 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Table 4.40 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers, for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Table 4.41 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 91 90 90

Table 4.42 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Table 4.43 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 93 92

Table 4.44 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personahty Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Table 4.45 Post-Hoc Results for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Table 4.46 Descriptive Statistics for Personahty Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 95 94 93

xi

Table 4.47 One-Way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Table 4.48 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 96 95

xii

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.1 English Language Arts Student and Teacher Participants Figure 4.2 Mathematic Student and Teacher Participants Figure 4.3 Science Student and Teacher Participants Figure 4.4 Social Studies Student and Teacher Participants 97 99 101 103

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION Educators are always looking for best practices in order to increase the learning and success of students in public education (Stewart, 2009). With the push for accountability in the United States, educators have started looking at ways to improve scores on state-mandated tests (Olson, 2000). Texas has aligned the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the state curriculum, with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, the current state assessment. Aligning the TAKS test with the TEKS allows public schools to have the same curriculum and alleviates discrepancies that could occur if this was not in place (Stewart, 2009). Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a TAKS blueprint for teachers and administrators which illustrate how the TEKS support what is assessed on the TAKS (TEA, 2007). The TAKS test is designed to test students on what they are taught. Some educators believe that the TAKS test is a cumulative assessment, however it is not. This test is designed to assess what students learn based on the TEKS for that school year (TEA, 2007). According to Stevenson and Kritsonis (2009), the TAKS test is an assessment that is given yearly to all public school children beginning in the third grade, but there are key grades where students must pass the TAKS in order to graduate high school or be promoted to the next grade level. Ninth grade students take a reading and math TAKS while tenth and eleventh grade students take an English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies TAKS. Eleventh grade is a critical grade because the student must pass the TAKS with a score of 2100 (met standard) or better to graduate. Students

who fall short of this score (did not meet standard) on any area of the test are given more opportunities to pass before graduation; however, if one does not pass the TAKS test, the student is unable to graduate (Stevenson and Kritsonis, 2009). One percent of the students who are in special education can be exempt from testing, according to the U.S. Department of Education (Thompson & Crank, 2010). Typically, a school's special education population consists of more than 1% of the student population (Thompson & Crank, 2010). All other students in special education that are not in the 1% exempted category have to be tested on grade level or they will be counted as failures regardless of their disabilities (Bloomfield & Cooper, 2003). TAKS is an incredible task for public schools across the state and an unbelievable strain on students who do not make a passing grade on the test (Stevenson and Kritsonis, 2009). Stevenson and Kritsonis (2009) said that districts are challenged with the idea of how to help Texas students achieve success on the TAKS. This is an issue with schools throughout the state and most are looking for original and new ways to increase students' test scores and schools' accountability ratings, which are principally based on test scores. Kritsonis (2007) suggested that in order to increase academic achievement, the fundamental tasks of most educational institutions is to establish, define, and organize the curriculum. Kritsonis (2007) pointed out that there is more to learn, more to teach, and more to put in the curriculum than there is time available. Deciding what takes precedent posed a challenge for teachers while planning their lessons. Educators need to find a way to meet the needs of their students and prepare them for graduation from high school (Bard, Gardener, & Wieland, 2005). Bard, Gardener, and Wieland (2005) stated that the

cost associated with these tasks has been an ongoing concern for policymakers at both the state and federal levels. A study by Richardson and Arker (2010) suggested that personality styles need to be recognized in order to meet individual students' needs. Richardson and Arker (2010) affirmed that understanding personality profiles is important. Understanding personality profiles allows educators to be proactive in determining a better fit for each student (Richardson and Arker, 2010). Richardson and Arker (2010) also promoted that overall productivity can be enhanced by bringing together individuals with similarities. Davis (2006) and McCombs and Miller (2006) emphasized that good relationships between students and teachers often lead to increased student performance. They eluded that examining the relationship between the student and teacher would provide a good predictor of the learners' motivation to achieve academically. Statement of the Problem Educational reform needs to be addressed for many reasons. According to Morse (1992), significant adjustments to educational reorganization efforts are necessary to look at the needs of students. A concern facing education is the variety of personaUty styles that could either negatively or positively impact academic excellence in secondary students. Studies based on research need to be done in order to determine what personality style is most beneficial to secondary students based on academic achievement. Minimal studies have been done on the impact of teacher personaUty styles on the academic achievement of students. A study was done by Cooper and Benis (1967) looking at teacher personality, teacher behavior and their effects upon pupil achievement. The students' grades, using a non-standardized score were used in order to reflect

achievement. The personality assessment that was used was an ipsative approach (forcedchoice scale). A study which was done by Levin (2006) made reference to assessing teacher personality and the effects on academic achievement but the focus of their study was on the leadership component and its effects on student learning. Another study found by the researcher was one that was done by Moscoso and Slagado (2004). Their research looked at negative types of personalities, which they refer to as the "dark side" and its effect on job performance. There were only a few studies resembling this one, however the study done by Cooper and Benis (1967) was most like this one. Cooper and Benis (1967) said that, "If certain patterns of teacher classroom behavior could be demonstrated to relate to pupil achievement (or the reverse) then we would be in a position to guide the development of that teacher's behavior which leads to pupil learning" (p.l). This study connected teachers' personalities and behaviors as factor for student learning. The scale that was used to assess a teacher's personality was the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), developed in 1959. An additional study on personality styles noted a need for more studies on personality styles and the effects on academic achievement (Levin, 2006). The majority of Levin's (2006) focus was on the leadership component and its effect on student learning. Jacocca (n.d.) found that several people such as Lewin, a behavioral scientist; Fiedlers, leader of contingency theory of leadership; Vroom and Yettons, leaders of the normative decision-making model of leadership, and Houses, leader of the path-goal theory of leadership model, studied the relationship among leadership and personality styles. These studies proved to be inconsistent and contradictory (Jacocca, n.d.). Jacocca

(n.d.) emphasized that further studies need to be done because the majority of the studies were done during thel940s and 50s. Moscoso and Slagado (2004) researched personalities on the dark side and how those personalities related to job performance. Moscoso and Slagado (2004) focused on personalities that would commonly be construed as negative, hence "the dark side." The study by Moscoso and Slagado (2004) showed that there were seven types of personality styles that negatively impacted job performance, shyness, suspiciousness, sadness, pessimism, suffering, eccentricity, and riskiness. However, Moscoso and Slagado (2004) did not study the effects of a person's personality on another person's job performance. There was a lack of studies that showed if there was a relationship between a teacher's personality style and secondary students' academic success. There were no studies found that utilized standardized test scores and the BFI instrument in order to assess the effect teacher personality has on student achievement. Therefore, personality styles could not be ruled out as a contributing factor to the success or failure in tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement based on TAKS scores. This study focused on the impact of teacher personality styles on secondary learners. Research Questions 1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the English language arts success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010?

2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 3. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 4. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 5. Is there a statistically significant difference in the EngUsh language arts success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 6. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 7. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 8. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010?

Research Hypotheses Hi There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H2 There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H3 There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H4 . There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H5 There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H6 There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 20008-2009 and 2009-2010. Hy There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

Hg There is a statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Significance of the Study With the push for accountability in the United States, educators have to start looking at ways to improve scores on state-mandated tests. One area which has not been studied is whether personality styles of teachers play a role in student success (Olson, 2000). Educators need to know if personality styles affect the success of secondary student's academic achievement. The study proposed that it is important to the educational success of secondary students that data be collected to determine teacher personality styles and applied against the mean test score obtained from students' Texas mandated TAKS test scores in order to determine if personality styles effected student success as measured by the state mandated TAKS test. Examining the results was important so that school districts have a better understanding of teacher personalities and were more capable of making informed decisions as to the future of secondary students. A gap in research prompted a descriptive research study in order to determine if further studies in the area of tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement on standardized assessment (TAKS) were impacted by an educator's personality style. This study was used to determine if further studies in this area are beneficial. Assumptions The following assumptions were posed for this study: 1. The first assumption was that the convenience sample that participated in the study answered questions voluntarily and were not influenced in any way.

2. The second assumption was that the population that participated in the study answered the questions honestly and was not influenced in any way. 3. The third assumption is that the convenience sample that participated in the study has had proper training to effectively teach students in their perspective core academic area. Limitations of the Study The first limitation of the study was that the school studied may not have represented the experiences of all Texas public schools. Secondly, the study was limited to teachers who were familiar with their personality styles and the impact on academic achievement of secondary students. Another limitation was that the study would seek to assess only the students in grades ten and eleven for the school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 who took TAKS and would not be the result of all student performance within the campus. However, the scores obtained for those students produced the data necessary to answer the research questions posed in this study. In addition, another limitation to the study was that there may have been more teachers who had similar personality traits based on the five factor model and fewer teachers who had other personality traits. Finally, the convenience sample analyzed was limited to only secondary teachers and did not seek input from students, parent, counselors, administrators, or the community. Delimitations of the Study The first delimitation of the study was that only secondary teachers who taught English language arts, science, mathematics, and social studies on one South Central Texas high school campus in a suburban area were surveyed. This study did not take into account prior learning which may have impacted the student's ability to grasp concepts

10

for which the student was tested; however, the study did acknowledge that each year TAKS testing is based on TEKS curriculum which is unique to that year (TEA, 2007). Another delimitation of this study was that the Five Factor Model instrument was chosen to survey personality styles of secondary teachers on one high school campus. In addition, the TAKS scores for two years from grade ten and eleven on one South Central Texas high school campus in a suburban area was compared to the personality style survey instrument that was administered. Finally, the survey instrument used was identified with a teacher's identification number in order to compare the personality style surveys to their secondary students' TAKS scores. Definitions of Terms Academic Achievement: Each state chooses its own standardized test to measure achievement, and each state defines its own level of "proficiency" on that test. Educators and policymakers have embraced standards as a way to ensure that all students, no matter what school they attend, master the skills and develop the knowledge needed to participate in a complex community. Currently NCLB (2002) calls for yearly progress in increasing the level of students and sub-groups toward a standard in reading, mathematics, and science (Emmerling, Rahlan, Neurohr, Purse, and Lindsay, 2006). Accountability: A political system that holds students, schools, or districts responsible for academic performance based on set standards (Elmore, 2002). Agreeableness: A person's personality consists of the tendency to be kind, tender, unquestioning, honorable, and affectionate (Anglin, 2005). Bureaucracy: This is a structure which delegates the rules and daily routines in the school setting (Somech and Wenderow, 2006).

11

Conscientiousness: A person's personality represents the affinity to be orderly, industrious, reliable, decisive, dutiful, competent, deliberate, and self-disciplined (Oliver, Naumann, and Soto, 1991). Dependent learner: In order to achieve, the learner needs someone to prescribe clear-cut objectives and straightforward techniques (Grow, 1991). Education: Is when one develops and uses knowledge from within and then continues drawing out that knowledge (Hill, 2008). Emotional Adjustment: A person's personality is often labeled by its opposite, "neuroticism," which is the affinity to be restless, apprehensive, dejected, and morose (Anglin, 2005). Extroversion: A person's personality represents the affinity to be extroverted, confident, energetic, and excitement-seeking (Anglin, 2005). Neuroticism: A person's personality represents the insecurity, emotionality, irritability, anxiety, anger, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, vulnerabUity, and impulsiveness (Oliver, Naumann, and Soto, 1991). Openness to Experiences (Intellectance): A person's personality represents the inclination to be imaginative, original, insightful and unselfish (Anglin, 2005). Personal Mastery: This involves the way institutes learn and continue to develop their work-related abilities (Chanpoe, 2000). Personality: This refers to how people differ but remain true to themselves they may be; conscientious or careless, kind or stern, placid or excitable, outgoing or withdrawn, excitable or placid (Harris, 2004).

12

Political System: This is a system involving legislators, governors, advocacy groups and professional organizations that set the accountability standards (Elmore, 2002). Relationship behavior: A leader engages in communication involving two or more, which encompassing behaviors such as listening, facilitating, and being supportive (Johnson, 1995). Self-directed Team: A group of employees are self-directed and are capable of managing themselves for day-to-day responsibilities with minimum direct supervision (Fischer, 1997). Shared Vision: A vision is developed to create a forward positive movement in development among organizational members (Chanpoe, 2000). Systems Thinking: This method involves the progression of balanced and imaginative solutions to problems as a way of creating self-protective resolutions and increasing an agreeable viewpoint by the majority (Chanpoe, 2000). Team Learning: The concept involves sharing ideas among organizational members through common exchange of ideas that will increase the development of group awareness and interest (Chanpoe, 2000). Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): As mandated by the 76 Texas Legislature in 1999, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) were administered beginning in the 2002-2003 school year. The TAKS measures the statewide curriculum in reading at grades 3-9, in writing at grades 4 and 7, in English language arts at grades 10 and 11; in mathematics at Grades 3-11; in science at grades 5,10, and 11, and social studies at grades 8,10, and 11. The Spanish TAKS is administered at grades 3-

13

6. Satisfactory performance on the TAKS at grade 11 is prerequisite to a high school diploma (TEA, 2007). Texas Education Agency (TEA): This agency was developed to provide leadership, guidance and resources in order to help public schools meet the educational demands of all students. It is comprised of the commissioner of education and agency staff. The State Board of Education (SBOE) guides and monitors activities and programs related to public education. The SBOE consist of 15 members who are elected representatives' from different regions of the state and one member is appointed chair by the governor (TEA, 1996). The Mental Model: This model involves the means of changing ideas and adjusting viewpoint in order to respond to new information and increase creativity that will increase the achievement of organizational goals (Chanpoe, 2000). Organization of the Study The study was divided into five chapters. Chapter I included the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, definitions of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter II consisted of a review of the literature supporting the study as it pertains to teacher personality styles and the affect on secondary learners. This chapter defined and presented the history of standardized testing and then moved on to define and present the history of personality styles. Chapter II also discussed and examined the importance of both components and whether or not one had an effect on the other Chapter EI described the methodology, procedures and instrumentation, and provided a plan for the analysis of data. This chapter clarified the rationale for the selection of the

14

instrumentation that was used for data collection. It also provided data, which was collected from one suburban high school campus located in Texas. Lastly, the research design used to examine this study was a quantitative method. Chapter IV provided the results and interpretations of an ANOVA test that was done to determine which of the five teacher personality styles (independent variable) may have had a significant relationship to the students' TAKS scores (dependent variable) in order to assess which personality style of teachers had an effect on secondary learners' success. The mean scores obtained were from tenth and eleventh grade TAKS scores. The raw score ranged from thirteen hundred to twenty-seven hundred. An ANOVA was used to compare the means in TAKS scores of students in grades ten and eleven over a period of two years on one South Central Texas high school campus to teachers' personality styles as reported on the Big Five Instrument (BFI) survey instrument. Chapter V included a summary, conclusion and recommendations for future studies. This study concluded that additional studies need to be done. Educators need to continue to look into different practices in order to increase the potential for student learning and student success. A list of references and all appendices follow Chapter V.

CHAPTER n

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Smith (1997) argued that there is a close connection between the academic discipline in the public life of psychology and psychology in relation to the study of differences amongst people. Smith (1997) made reference to the psychology of an individual as that person's personality style. Even though studies have researched individual personality styles and how they have evolved over time, there was still a lack of studies that examine a person's individual personality style and how it may have affected another person's success according to the literature by Levin, (2006), Jacocca, (n.d)., and Richardson and Arker, (2010). The literature and the lack of literature found by the researcher illustrated a need for further studies in this area. Due to this, the profile that was the focus of this study was "The Five Factor Model or The Big Five," one that numerous researchers have established and supported. The Five Factor Model was originally developed by Barrick and Mount (1991). In order to examine the effects of a person's personality style, there needed to be just cause. According to Stewart (2009), educators continually look for ways to increase the learning success of students in public schools. The literature by Illovsky et al. (2008) suggested that personality traits of an individual affected scholastic achievement. Scholastic achievement in this study was based on the current standardized testing, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. According to Cruse and Twing, (2000), Smith and Kritsonis, (2006), Iron, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, and Farrow, (2007),

15

16

and Ying et al. (2009), standardized testing which is criterion referenced has proven to be reliable, valid and has evolved over time. Chapter II provided a thorough description of the different strategies and ideas that were used in this study. The variation of literature discussed throughout this chapter was supported by the design and arrangement of this study in a variety of ways. The study looked at a variety of intellectual writings and included what other researchers contributed over the course of time. The study also addressed the decision of the research design and how it would add value to the field of education, specifically in the areas of: (a) standardized testing and (b) personality styles. History of Testing Cruse and Twing (2000) emphasized that the stakes are high, and the opportunity to learn has evolved since the 1980s. Cruse and Twing (2000) provided a contextual background on how assessment has evolved in Texas. The Texas State Legislature passed a bill in 1979 amending the Texas Education Code (TEC), which required the Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2007) to approve a criterion-referenced assessment in three areas of competencies: reading, mathematics, and writing. The first assessment developed was known as the Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS) which was first implemented in 1980. Students in 9th grade were required to take this assessment, and if they failed, they took it every year thereafter, but they could still graduate if they failed and were not held accountable for failing the exam. TEA (1984) saw a change with the State Board of Education (SBE) and mandated an increase in the rigor of the assessment, so they developed what was called the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS) which replaced the TABS

17

assessment. This new assessment was given to high school students who were in grade 9 and 11. The students in grade 11 had to pass this assessment in order to graduate; the TEAMS started with the class of 1987. The TEAMS assessment was developed to assess whether or not the students were learning the curriculum, which was set in place by the state. This was also the first year that campus performance was publicized in order to increase public and district awareness to the high stakes nature of testing (Cruse and Twing, 2000). In the late 80s, TEA and SBE made a number of changes to the assessment based on TEC rules. This was to increase the level of achievement and standards of student academic achievement. At the beginning of the 1990 school year, new state mandates required high school students to pass reading, writing and mathematics on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) in order to graduate. This new assessment had new regulations for students to follow, such as course requirements, attendance requirements, and a passing standard set by the SBE. Students in grades 9 and 11 were required to take this assessment, but students in grade 11 could not graduate without passing the exit level of the TAAS assessment (TEA, 1996). In 2003 the transition was made from TAAS to the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). In 2003, diplomas were held back for the first time for not meeting the standards on TAKS (Ying et al., 2009). The new TAKS requirements for students in grade 11 were that they had to meet the comprehensive assessment requirements in ELA (reading & writing), mathematics, science, and social studies in order to graduate.

18

The comprehensive assessment requirements of the TAKS were aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The teachers were able to respond to the states TAKS requirements, since the state provided a framework for the TAKS, the TEKS. The TEKS are significant because these are the standards for which teachers are held accountable (Iron, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, & Farrow, 2007). The TEKS are aligned with the TAKS and it is critical that the daily lessons in school be aligned with the TEKS as well (Smith & Kritsonis, 2006). The Texas Education Agency had a Texas Assessment Knowledge and Skills blueprint, which estabhshed the length of each test and the number of test items measuring each objective. These blueprints provided a consistency within the test, to ensure that each subject-area/grade-level test included a variety of TEKS across objectives for that grade level according to the TEA website at htlp://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3228&menu_id3=793. Smith and Kritsonis (2006) claimed until students are treated equally in preparation for the TAKS assessment, education will struggle and have no focus. Standardized Testing The new rigorous state assessment, called the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), was introduced to public schools in 2002. This high-stakes testing system required that schools reach at least a pass rate of 55% on state assessments for all student groups. The legislature created a standards-based curriculum in 1993 in order to launch homogeneous, challenging academic expectations for all public schools (Patterson, 2002). The curriculum was set up to provide a basis for state assessments and textbook selection. The legislature increased accountability in 1999 by eliminating social promotion. The TAKS test began in 2003 and in order for students to be promoted to the

19

next grade-level; they were required to pass the state assessment. During the past ten years, special initiatives have been introduced which target supplemental funding in order to increase performance in core instructional areas such as reading, mathematics and science. Additional funds were also provided for compensatory education and students at risk of dropping out (Patterson, 2002). The increase for standards was not only a concern at the state level but also a concern at the national level (Iron, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, & Farrow, 2007). This was due to the national requirements of the 'No Child Left Behind Act' (NCLB, 2002), which has caused more and more educators to look into ways of redesigning programs and aligning the standards. Educators also looked for different ways to assist in increasing student academic achievement (Iron, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, & Farrow, 2007). According to Gratz (2000), there were two purposes for increasing achievement levels and expectations for all students. Gratz (2000) said the first reason was because the gap was widening and that Americans were losing economic competitiveness amongst international student achievement levels. The second purpose, according to Gratz (2000), was in order to decrease the achievement gap between upper- and middle- class white students and disadvantaged students, schools needed to start looking for ways to increase the standards to meet all learners' needs. American schools were being asked to try new methods, which involved engaging in systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of student's educational experiences (Elmore, 2002). With the increased accountability, schools are faced with performing in truly challenging conditions for which prior training and experience have not prepared them. Educators often claimed they were being treated unfairly. This may

20

have come from the idea that most educators were lacking the skills and knowledge necessary to produce academic quality and performance (Elmore, 2002). Dr. Chingwei Shin (2008) presented arguments against a commentator named Mr. Moore who suggested that the school accountability systems were out of line and that he did not know how schools were suppose to be able to keep up with the rigorous standards of the state. Shin (2008) stated, "I wonder if Mr. Moore is not more upset with the poor performance of the students." He also said that the curriculum was aligned with the current assessment, later stating that "maybe the students have not learned as well as they should" (p.2). Since the curriculum was aligned with the assessment, and teachers were teaching the curriculum, students should do well on the assessment (Shin, 2008). TEA provided a TAKS blueprint for teachers and administrators which illustrated how the TEKS supported what is assessed on the TAKS (TEA, 2007). Educators need to learn to do their work differently if they are to increase the performance of their students. Largely, professional development amongst educators responded to external demands and engaged in the improvement of practice and performance (Elmore, 2002). "Staff development is defined as the provision of activities designed to advance the knowledge, skills, and understanding of teachers in ways that lead to changes in their thinking and classroom behavior, (Elmore, 2002, p. 14)." Elmore (2002) continued to say that teachers enhance knowledge through understanding ways to change thoughts and actions. Clere's (1995) research heralded a new idea, stating that if teachers understood personality types and occupational choices, it may have assisted them in their own career choices. Illovsky et al.(2008) placed an emphasis on the idea that personality types

21

among teachers affect the scholastic achievement of learners. Further studies by Hlovsky et al.(2008) determined that the ratings based on assessment proved that positive personality traits assisted in developing a healthy mind and guided the behavior of children in schools and the community. A connection found that teachers, who were positive, encouraging, and who had innovative instruction, had successful students. Opponents of Hlovsky et al. (2008) believed, that all teachers really needed to know were the subject. However recent research done by Hlovsky et al. (2008) showed that there were other factors that played a part in the success of student learmng. Opportunities to learn new and different concepts by obtaining information on the psychological characteristics helped teachers better understand and educate students (Hlovsky et al., 2008). Studying psychological characteristics provided information that facilitated, impeded or influenced the learning and teaching process. Teachers benefitted from understanding personalities and how they impacted a student's educational outcome. Clere (1995) studied student learning preferences and found that the majority of students' preferences shifted as they became older. During Clere's (1995) study, there were a number of personahty tests, learning preference tests and performance tests performed. The studied revealed two areas that increased student performance such as a preference towards extroverted and introverted personahty traits, a learning preference of being active and reflective, and finally a preference for feeling and thinking. Even though this study investigated several areas, Clere (1995) concluded that further studies need to be done on the effects of all three tests, if we were to increase the success rate of student learning within the classroom.

22

Elmore (2002) said that teachers who have a change in attitudes, behaviors and beliefs were typically able to use certain practices successfully. The more positive the attitude the teacher implored, the better the chances were for individual learning to improve. Guskey (1989) tested the theory of attitude and perceptual change in teachers in order to show increase in student learning. Guskey's (1989) test showed that teachers needed to know and keep in mind, that students learn what they were taught when teaching was done effectively and thoughtfully. In the teacher education program at the University of Wisconsin (UW), changes were being made in the education of future teachers. UW emphasized that it was the personality of the teacher that was apparent in the classroom. The teacher's personality would lead to defeat or success when it came to teaching (Schrenker, 1997). The shift for higher accountability in the United States affected every aspect of teaching. An article by Learning Point Associates (Viewpoints, 2010) professed that district administrators generally knew that educators were often faced with a multitude of moment-by-moment decisions. This was why Douglas County Independent School District (DCISD) located in Colorado built a system to support good educators and their decisions. They understood that high-stakes testing alone could not create change, but they knew that it did leverage the input for changes that are necessary. Like DCISD, there were many districts faced with decisions on how to increase the accountability ratings for students based on standardized testing often set by the state (Viewpoints, 2010). Current Standing Educational reform needed to be addressed for many reasons (Morse, 1992). Awareness relating to persons who have successfully implemented strategies was

23

nominal. Knowledge was inadequate and Morse (1992) contended that research needed to be done. According to Morse (1992), significant adjustments needed to take place and educational reorganization efforts needed to take a look at the needs of students. In schools, teachers were responsible for departments, textbook adoptions, student performance, and committees, as well as being responsible for teaching and providing an education to their students. Morse (1992) continued to say that recent studies needed to focus on a bottom-up approach. Site-base management has called for this reform. Studies about teachers and their efforts in the restructuring efforts were starting to become known. Teachers who lead and motivate their organization to change were also beginning to emerge. They were proactive and took risks (Morse, 1992). Teachers were seen as leaders in the traditional sense which has prompted some reconsideration for teachers and their roles. Nickse (1977) studied teachers as revolutionizing leadership roles in an effort to impact change for four reasons, the first was that teachers have a vested concern, "They genuinely care about what they do, how they do it, and they believe they have a sense of responsibility for their hard work" (p.5). Another reason was that teachers have an intellect of history. They were "conscious of the work produced by their equal" (p.5). Also Nickse (1977) said that teachers knew the society, and "have knowledge concerning the morals and attitudes of the public" (p.5). Finally, teachers applied change, they "are where the need is...in the place to commence change on the foundation of need" (p.5). Even with all the research, teachers needed an eye-opener in order to actively produce the change; they must make decisions about the nature of the desired state (Manasse, 1986). According to Westley and Mintzberg (1989), vision was a three-stage

24

process. Westley and Mintzberg (1989) contended that the three-stage process should consist of a vision, an open line of communication and empowerment amongst the group. The vision should be developed by the group to impact changes in the future. The line of communication was so that thoughts could be shared. The empowerment should be felt by the followers who enact the vision. Unfortunately, according to Elmore (2002), there was a widespread assumption that teachers learn nearly all of what they needed to know about how to teach before they go into the classroom. Elmore (2002) went on to say that there was evidence showing that the majority of what teachers knew, they learned after they began teaching. The narrow view from administrators assuming that teachers learned nearly all of what they needed to know about how to teach before they go into the classroom demanded little educational leadership. Since administrative work currently had little to do with what the teachers taught, vision became even more critical in the success of educators (Morse, 1992). Hallinger and Murphy (1986) emphasized that it was important that administrators generate a vision that encompassed the entire organization. Teachers and administrators should have a rapport and share their visions. A shared vision, particularly one that was trusted and planned, which was then put into place in order to increase student knowledge, should, as a result, create academic success. Teachers' ethics and values needed to be considered, particularly since Hallinger and Murphy (1986) reported that teachers' expectations were higher in individual students at more affluent schools than students from less affluent schools. Teachers thought individuals from the less affluent schools had negligible parental support and help with schoolwork, so teachers did not dispense as much effort. Teachers' values working with students needed to be

25

evaluated, particularly as reorganization efforts and site-based management were being implemented and pursued. The impact on school improvement needed to be explored in contrast with the relationship between educators' values and beliefs (Morse, 1992). In education teachers should be proactive and risk takers, and they should initiate change in the organization. Effective transformation required skilled teachers who put together the kind of individual elements with tough business actions (Joiner, 1987). The kind of individual element has not been determined. So, one should consider what Chanpoe (2000) stated, "There is a significant correlation among behavior and learning organization" (p.6). History of Personality The history of behavior in personality traits (style) and how it has evolved may have had an effect on the academic success of learners. Howard and Howard (2004) reported, "All cloths are woven from fibers, all theories are composed of language. Language is one ingredient that all theories have in common. So, it's language itself, and not theories, that we must extract the source metaphor for describing personality" (p.3). This category, according to Smith (1997) had a very complex history, which included political and legal dimensions. The word personality was used in political terms by Locke and Descartes (Smith, 1997). The word in theological terms was used in Christology, as a personhood of Christ (Smith, 1997). "Personnalite" was a common English term that was used when referring to personality in the 1880s (Smith, 1997). During this time, the personality was viewed as human character and an individual soul. The work of Ribot and Janet brought about the psychological aspects of individuality by "personnalite," (Smith, 1997). They defined personality as a part a person plays in

26

society, their name, their religious thoughts and other impressions brought upon them from the world. The word personality did not come about until the late nineteenth century. Smith (1997) stated that the use of personality assessments was referred to as "psychotechnics" and it was during this time that personality assessments became a growing trend. They used the assessment to determine a person's complex relation to life (Smith, 1997). Horner explained (1997) that the Lexical Hypothesis developed by Galton (n.d.) was the first salient and socially relevant personality assessment to be recognized. Allport and Odbert (1936) expanded on Galton's premise by plowing through two of the most ample dictionaries of the English language. They extracted eighteen thousand personality-describing words. The list later reduced in 1937 by Allport and Odbert to a list which consisted of four thousand five hundred adjectives. These adjectives were well thought-out, observable and moderately permanent qualities (Horner, 1997). According to Horner (1997), Cattell asked citizens to score the people they knew by their personality qualities and then Cattell put in ten more qualities that were obtained from a review of psychiatric literature. Cattell and his colleagues constructed a personality test after narrowing the personality styles to forty-five styles. They then used these styles in the personality test and the data that was obtained was then combined with the statistical methods of factoring analysis. Technology was emerging during 1997, and it was at this time, that Cattell factored the data that was collected. The results from the data that Cattell obtained showed sixteen major personality qualities that lead to the advancement of the 16PF Personality feedback form.

27

Horner (1961) contended that two Air Force researchers, Tupes and Christal, collected personality data from eight different hefty samples. They used Cattell's trait procedures and they established five frequent recurring factors. This effort was then borrowed by Norman (1963) who also established that five major factors were recurring. This information was enough to report a significant number of set personality figures that were later composed. Norman (1963) identified these factors as: Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture. Mischel (1968) published a book titled "Psychological Assessment" that studied personality tests. Mischel (1968) realized that personality tests unaided could not calculate behavior. Mischel's (1968) work informed us that attitudes and behaviors were not constant but were varied and dependent on context. In the early 1970s "Radical Situationist" went so far as to say that personality was simply a superficial construct that people inflict on others in order to preserve a false impression of steadiness in society. Personality assessments for practical reasons, according to Smith (1997), were used to determine an individual psychological function. Function was assessed to determine what was perceived as "normal" behaviors (p.579). For the next two decades, personality research proved difficult. Methodologies were questioned in the 1980s. Horner's idea (1997) was challenged by proposing that instead of attempting to predict solitary instances of behavior, a method which was not dependable, methodologies might calculate patterns of behavior by culminating large numbers of observations. The correlation linking personality and behavior was found to improve substantially, and "personality" apparently did really exist. Then, psychologists agreed that personality and situational variables were desired in order to fully explain

28

individual behavior. Trait theories were then acceptable, and there was a renewed awareness in this area. Goldberg (1981) began his own venture with a new set of words and he found the Five Factor Model once again. Barrick and Mount (1991) studied and revised the five factors to: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. According to John, Naumann, and Soto (1991), the factors were replicated by Norman (1963), who defined the five factors. However, Tellegen (1985), McCrae and Costa (1990), and John (1990), briefly described the five factors as: (I) Extraversion, a vigorous move towards the societal and materialistic world (hospitality, doings, self-assurance, and positive emotionality); (JJ) Agreeableness, which contrasts a pro-communal and shared orientation towards others with opposition (altruism, modesty, tender-mindedness, trastfulness); (HT) Conscientiousness, which describes communally-prescribed controlling whims that direct task and goal-specific behavior such as thinking before responding, prolonging gratification, and attending to the norm and rules, (planner, organized, prioritizing); (IV) Neuroticism, which contrasts emotional stability and level temperedness with unconstructive emotions (apprehensive, edgy, distressing, uptight); and finally, (V) Openness to experience describes the depth, uniqueness, and intricacy or emotional stability based on an individual's psychological and pragmatic life (calm, not neurotic, not easily upset) (p.138). A lone strength of the Big Five Taxonomy was that it could capture a broad level of concepts, and commonalities amid the existing personality styles (Pinker, 1997). Consequently, the Big Five Instrument provides a detailed descriptive model for research.

29

According to Pinker (1997), hypotheses have been tested and one of the most surprising outcomes in the history of psychology has occurred, there were five major ways to describe personality. They were: 1. A person who was sociable (extraversion) or retiring (introversion). 2. A person who worried constantly (neuroticism) or calm and self-satisfied (stability). 3. A person who was courteous and trusting (agreeableness) or rude and suspicious (antagonism). 4. A person who was careful (conscientiousness) or careless (un-directedness). 5. A person who was daring (openness) or conforming (non-openness). According to Pinker (1997), these personality traits have been clear and replicable. In "How the Mind Works," Pinker (1997) argued that 50% of the variation in personality had genetic causes and these results have become well known. A common opposition to the Five Factor Model was that five subgroups perhaps could not cover all of the differences in individual personalities, and they may be too wide-ranging (John, Naumann, & Soto, 1991). According to John, Naumann, and Soto (1991), the hierarchical level a researcher selected depended on the descriptive and predictive tasks that needed to be addressed. The way in which people perceived the environment and the way they are influenced (college classes, jobs, places to live, relationships, even music) was through their systematic interaction with the environment. John, Naumann, and Soto, (1991) believed that it was through regular interactions with the environment and the risks one took caused their style to influence their behavior, emotional, social, and material life that produced the uniqueness of the individual.

30

Smith (1997) said, "Nowhere is there a closer connection between the academic discipline of psychology and psychology in public life than in relation to the study of individual differences" (p.l). Psychologist Judith Harris said a variation of forty-five percent of an individual's personality was unknown. She suggested that personalities were shaped by unique events that occurred to a child's developing brain. When children were required to respond to questioning, the setting may have played a factor in how children behave. Harris (2004) said that students in a shared environment that were treated the same will be more alike than those that were treated differently within their same environment. Harris (2004) resolved the issue by showing that there were other factors that affected one's response to the environment and they should continue to be explored. Personality Styles Personality styles, according to Human Sciences, were a means to find answers to systematic, objective and rigorous ways of life (Smith, 1997). For Olberding (2006), there seemed to be evidence of improvements in an individual's self-perception, attitude towards work, job performance and skills, based on a study that took into account the type of program evaluation and feedback that was given. Oldberding (2006) stated there were multiple factors that affected ones performance and one of those factors was the personality (extraversion, conscientiousness, etc.) factor. Olberding (2006) continued to explain that even though there were other factors that could negatively or positively influence a person performance, the fact remained that program evaluations needed to be put in place, in order to tap into the overall effectiveness of the given program. Olberding

31

(2006) continued to emphasize and point out, that the bottom line remains, future studies needed to look into factors that affect performance, such as individual personality traits. Barrick and Mount's (1991) work informed us about studies that have been done, which showed a relationship between individual performance and personality style. A study was done assessing an individual's performance using the five factor model which assessed personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The Five Factor Model of personality, according to Thompson (2006), was an arrangement method of personality styles planned in five extensive proportions. These styles were openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Openness to experience, as defined by Thompson (2006), was the dimension that represents those who were original, inquisitive, and daring. He continued to interpret the components of the five factors of personality model; extraversion was the dimension that represents those who were hopeful, self-assured, and outgoing. Next, he described extraverted individuals as having a similar style, because they were skilled at exercising their authority in an assertive manner to communicate efficiently. Thompson (2006) described conscientiousness as a dimension that represents those who were regimented, structured and unrelenting. The Five Factor Model explained this as individuals who look over or guard against recklessness, idleness, and ineffectiveness. These individuals were consistently meticulous, dependable, and detailed in their decision making behavior (Thompson, 2006). Thompson (2006) took out the neuroticism component and substituted it with emotional stability, since it is the dimension which is the antithesis of Neuroticism. He said that emotional stability best represents individuals who were secure, attuned, and

32

self-confident. The Five Factor Model represented emotional stability as those who have maturity, composure and steadiness in order to make rational decisions and to act fittingly. These individuals were confident and have strength of mind to become accustomed to varied conditions under stressful or demanding circumstances. Thompson's (2006) factor analytic study received obtainable measures on personality qualities, which were established and were then generalized across different cultures. The study consisted of 405 students located in the Midwestern United States. However, only 201 responded, a 49.6% response rate. The average age of students who responded was 22 years old. According to McCrae and Costa (1990), the person's five factor rating may have changed during young adulthood but was less likely to change after title age of 30. However, personalities could change in life shifting conditions or work, but it did show that people at the age of thirty and older were less likely to change. Studies have shown that extraversion and openness to experience were two personality styles that were good predictors of training and proficiency criteria. Out of 117 studies, meticulousness showed reliable relation with the majority of job performance criteria (Barrick & Mount, 1998). Sternberg (1988) suggested three kinds of problem solving strategies which were accessible to individuals: they could try to transform themselves, they could try to transform others, or they could try to transform given situations. Howard and Howard (2004) made a point to state that, for the most part, important advances of the Five Factor Model of personality were established with ordinary verbiage and order. Most developers placed significant importance on the use of an ordinary personality vocabulary as a means of functioning within their organizations. Introducing

33

a simplified language to members of a group enables a person to recognize and talk about strengths and weaknesses beneficially and non-defensively within that group (Howard & Howard, 2004). For example, Orenstein (1994) stated, "Ideas for personality classifications.. .provide everyone from small children to clinical psychiatrists with a routine for classifying people, one that helps us make sense of ourselves and others" (p.23). Orenstein (1994) went on to say that personality typing provided us with an explanation that allowed us to get through the day. What separated this example from others is that it was not based on the hypothesis of any one psychologist, but rather on a language and a structure that the public uses to understand each other. The Big Five was pleasant to researchers who dismissed variables on a large scale in other theoretical frame work and no matter what the inadequacies were it was not a bad position from which to start (John, Naumann, & Soto, 1991, p. 147). Some examples of different adaption strategies that a person may have used that may have changed were: balancing their own weaknesses, handing over a task, preparing earlier, and receiving counsel. Some examples of different adaption strategies that a person may have used that may have changed others were: giving consent for somebody else to be in positions which none like but all necessitate, increasing a set of group norms, manipulating group roles (chair, recorder, timekeeper, etc.), dispensing deadlines and names to every mission item, evaluating team outcomes every once in a while (in light of norms), by preparing, or conferencing job descriptions, goals, and rewards. A person may have also changed the circumstances by adding more group members to an organization, asking for more volunteers in order to execute absent functions, requesting non-members to attend, making clear decisions on processes planned (boss, vote, and consensus),

34

relocating or dismissing individuals from employment, or redesigning processes and assignments. Sternberg (1988) proposed that those with higher intelligence will try strategies from the three problem-solving strategy categories in order to alter a personality depending upon the situation. Sternberg (1988) also proposed that those with lower intelligence may be inclined to fix rigid types of tactics and continue trying the same variations. Nelson and Low (2003) brought attention to the premise that all people have negative and positive attributes, but that intelligent people acknowledged them and adjusted them accordingly. Barrick and Mount (1991) predicted, based on meta-analyses indications, that extraversion and conscientiousness were positively related to individual performance. However, Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) have shown that openness to experience and agreeableness were positively related to individual performance. Other studies indicated that extraversion, openness to experience and agreeableness seemed to vary across settings and responsibilities (Barrick, Mount & Judge 2001). Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, and Hochwater (2005) illustrated that for all practical purposes, individual performance may have been contingent upon the role in which they were expected to perform. An individual who was neurotic may be better suited for a job where they do not have to focus on minute details. However, if a person's personality reflected conscientiousness, they may have been better suited for a position where their job was clearly defined (Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, & Hochwater, 2005). A teacher's personality was an important component to teacher effectiveness, (Lahiri, n.d). "Masculine" qualities were rated higher than those with "feminine"

35

expressive ones. Those that were high in both masculine (active/instrumental) traits and feminine (nurturing/expressive) traits were viewed as competent and confident. Consequently, teachers may have been able to improve their teaching effectiveness by portraying a personality trait that included warmth, enthusiasm and extroversion (Lahiri, n.d.). Current Standing To get a better understanding of human personality, Paul (2004) suggested in the early 1980s, that the Five Factor Model be used. The Five Factor Model inspired hundreds of researchers (Paul, 2004). Buchanan (1999) examined what researchers had to say about the Five Factor Model. Buchanan (1999) found literature which revealed a consensus among personality theorists that the Five Factor Model of personality was the best current description of the structure of personalities. Researchers such as John, Naumann, and Soto (1991) and DeWaal (2005), agree that the Five Factor Model provided individuals with a language and method that citizens could use to get to know one another. John, Naumann, and Soto, (1991) professed that developing an understanding of how different personality styles were linked to performance and job satisfaction was instrumental in assisting researchers to develop a trait by job. DeWaal (2005) said that people needed to take a good look at their own self and gain a better understanding of who they were before they could then help others. DeWaal (2005) recognized that if people could understand the process and development of personality, then they could understand the product.

36

John, Naumann, and Soto, (1991) predicted from their recent studies that conscientiousness was a good indicator and general predictor ofjob performance across a varied range of jobs. They found that neurotic individuals were linked to a higher burnout and job dissatisfaction rate. DeWaal (2005) realized that people were all capable of destructing their own environment based on their personality, but they were also capable of showing kindness, empathy, and love (DeWaal, 2005). Thompson (n.d.) articulated the novel idea that further studies needed to be done on the effects of a specific group of individuals, based on the influence of the one in charge. Studies needed to be done to determine what personality trait a group of individuals responded to based on the success rate of a specific aspect (Thompson, n.d.). Teachers were responsible for student success, which was often validated through standardized testing (Lahirir, n.d.). Personality traits affected others and further studies needed to be done to determine if there was a relationship between the teachers' personality and its effect on standardized testing. Standardized Testing and Personality Styles Previous researchers who studied personality styles using the Five Factor Model, and standardized testing using the TAKS assessment proved their importance and contribution in student achievement in pairs or in isolation. However, there was a gap found in the research because no studies were found that considered whether tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement on standardized assessment (TAKS) were impacted by the educator's personality style using the Five Factor Model. Studies were needed to determine if these two factors show a relationship and if there was a significant impact on tenth and eleventh grade students TAKS scores in English

37

Language Arts, mathematics, science and social studies. This study was descriptive in nature and was used to determine if further studies in this area were beneficial.

CHAPTER HI

METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of the study was to examine the impact that educators of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies teachers had on the academic success of tenth and eleventh grade students on one Texas suburban high school campus based on teachers' personality styles. The model that was used to determine educators' effectiveness according to their personality style was the "Five Factor Model of Personality." The academic success of students in grades ten and eleven was measured using their Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores. There was a gap in research deterrnining if there was a significant relationship between secondary students' TAKS scores in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and teachers' personality styles. This research investigated the success of tenth and eleventh grade students. The students' academic success was measured using their TAKS test scores. Since public schools have the same curriculum and the same statewide test to assess students, discrepancies, which could occur if there was no alignment among the curricula across schools, were alleviated (Stewart, 2009). These scores were utilized and cross-referenced with survey results to determine an individual educator's personality style, so that the impact he/she may have had on secondary learners may be assessed.

38

39

Research Questions This study determined if there was a significant difference in TAKS scores based on teacher personality styles for students in grades 10 and 11. The following questions guided the study: 1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the English language arts success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary Enghsh language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 3. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 4. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 5. Is there a statistically significant difference in the English language arts success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010?

40

6. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 7. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 8. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? Null Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were tested: Hoi. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H02. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Ho3.There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H04. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

41

H05. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Ho6.There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 20008-2009 and 2009-2010. H07. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Ho8. There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Research Methodology The research method used for the study was quantitative by design. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007), descriptive research can be defined as information concerning the current status of the phenomena to describe "what is" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation (p.305). The two critical factors were (1) standardized TAKS scores collected from the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years and (2) personality of the teacher as determined by the Big Five Inventory (BFI). The results of the study were utilized to determine if teacher's personality type has an impact on student academic achievement. The researcher used the public-domain survey instrument, the BFI. It has 44 questions that identify a respondent's personality type (See Appendix B). The BFI

42

instrument used a five-point Likert Scale. The researcher used the standardized TAKS scores as reported by the state for grades ten and eleven. Research Design This study is descriptive in nature and the goal of this study was to grow a base in more investigation. The BFI instrument used was developed by Oliver P. John, from the Institute of Personality and Social Research, in order to assess personality styles. The BFI survey instrument had 44 questions that assessed five personality types. The BFI survey instrument was based on a five-point Likert scale format, which used the following choices: agree strongly (5), agree a little (4), neither agree or disagree (3), disagree a little (2), and disagree strongly (1), to answer the survey questions. Access to the BFI survey instrument was obtained online athttp://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.htm. In order to use the instrument a survey had to be completed online by the researcher. Once this survey was completed, access was granted and the BFI instrument was downloaded. The researcher downloaded the survey instrument to surveymonkey.com. An attempt was made to administer the survey through Survey Monkey. Survey Monkey is an internet-based survey administration and scoring service located at URL surveymonkey.com. Each member of the sample population was e-mailed the survey instrument link. The e-mail was accompanied with instructions on how to complete the instrument on surveymonkey.com (details on how to log on to surveymonkey.com, instructions and details on how to input their responses) and, how to submit the completed instruments. The e-mail was also accompanied by a note thanking the sample population for their participation in the study. However once the e-mails were sent out to the sample

43

population the researcher received an e-mail from one of the participants of the sample population. The e-mail stated that they were having trouble accessing the survey. The researcher telephoned the technology department employed by the school district and was told that the survey had a banner ad connected to it and that there was no way to fix the problem. The respondents were supposed to participate in the survey through the use of Survey Monkey; however, due to a banner ad that interrupted the surveys, the URL surveymonkey.com was not accessible. As a result of limited time and the possibility of losing some of the sample populations' willingness to complete the survey, hard copies were printed and disseminated the same day. The teachers, who agreed to the survey, completed it and turned them in to the researcher mailbox. The BFI instrument was used to survey the sample of teachers and then that instrument was used to establish if there was an impact on each individual educator's students' TAKS scores for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The teacher response pattern identified the primary personality type of that teacher. The primary type was used to define the teacher. The researcher obtained the student-level TAKS information from the district. Each teacher's district-assigned identification number was used to link the academic teacher of record with the student's TAKS scores. Once the information from the TAKS scores were linked with their perspective teachers based on their personality, the teachers' identification numbers were deleted. The researcher collected the teacher identification number in the demographic section of the survey. Again, the teachers' identification numbers were severed once the researcher obtained the information needed in order to protect the identity of the educator.

44

The researcher collected, analyzed and organized the data by downloading the population's responses to an Excel spreadsheet which was then transferred into the Predictive Analysis Software (PASW) for the analysis and the reporting of data. PASW was formally known as SPSS, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Recently purchased by EBM, the software package was renamed. Descriptive statistics was used in order to quantitatively summarize the data set. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each school year, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, was used to determine if the independent variable (teacher's personality) had an impact on the dependent variable (students' TAKS). In other words, the procedure helped to determine if there was a relationship between secondary students TAKS scores based on the personality of the teacher providing the instruction. There are five groups; Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. The individual groups were the independent variables and the dependent variable was the students' TAKS scores. Population and Sample The survey instrument disseminated to a total sample population (N=72) from one South Central Texas suburban high school, which included English language arts teachers, science teachers, mathematic teachers, and social studies teachers. The target and sample population were one in the same. The researcher attempted to obtain samples that were representative of the school's population. The participants were chosen because they each hold an educator role, have direct instructional contact with secondary students and were able to provide responses based on professional experience.

45

Instrument Data was gathered by using an originally developed survey instrument, the Big Factor Inventory (BFI). The BFI instrument has been used for a variety of purposes by many researchers. Literature revealed a consensus among personality theorist that the Five Factor Model of personality (BFI) provides the best description of the structure of personalities. The BFI instrument provides an integrative descriptive model for personality research. This instrument is used to determine different personality styles through the use of ordinary personality vocabulary. The instrument assesses personality styles in five extensive proportions. These styles were openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These five dimensions represent personality styles at the broadest level of abstraction, and each dimension summarizes a large number of distinct, more specific personality characteristics. The BFI instrument was uploaded onto surveymonkey.com. Procedures Permission was requested from Texas A&M University-Kingsville's Institutional Review Board (TRB) (See Appendix A). The IRB committee ensured that all studies conducted at Texas A&M University-Kingsville comply with the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) (TAMUK College of Graduate Studies). In addition to ensuring complete compliance with federal regulations, the ERB committee was responsible for ensuring that all activities involving human subjects provided for the "safety, health, and welfare of every individual" (TAMUK College of Graduate Studies, p. 3). This process also ensured that every person who participated in this study was ensured complete confidentiality.

46

Next, the researcher also received permission from the Program Evaluation Specialist for District Programs at one South Central Texas suburban district and from the campus principal by submitting the University IRB along with information about the intent of the study to the Texas A&M University-Kingsville review board and to districts Program Evaluation Specialist Once permission was obtained from the campus principal and Program Evaluation Specialist for the District, the researcher was required to submit a copy of the University IRB along with information about the researcher's intent. The intent included a brief description of the study, the researcher's hypothesis, the method in which the assessment was to be employed, how many schools and staff would participate, special conditions, time required for staff participation, the paperwork required, space needed in order to complete the survey, when the researcher wished to start, and a copy of the data collection instrument. Once the approval was obtained and the research was completed, the researcher was required to turn in a copy of the final study to the Program Evaluation Specialist for District Programs. In addition to obtaining written consent from the Texas A& M UniversityKingsville's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the district Program Specialist survey instruments were disseminated. The surveys were disseminated by the researcher to educators that teach one of the four core subjects (English language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics) in tenth and eleventh grades. The educators were contacted by the principal letting them know about a campus wide faculty meeting. Each educator received and signed an informed consent document prior to taking the survey. Once each of the participants completed signing the informed consent document, they were instructed to check their e-mail later during the day in order to take the surveys utilizing

47

surveymonkey.com; however, this did not occur due to a banner ad attached to the surveys online. The researcher made hardcopies and disseminated the hardcopies in person once the error was reported by one of the survey participants. Data was then gathered and analyzed, once all educators among the core subject areas completed the survey and returned the survey instrument. Data Analysis The demographic information contained information such as the subject taught, grade levels taught, level of education, type of certification held, sex, age, number of years taught, and teacher identification number (deleted for anonymity). The population was ensured that their responses were completely anonymous and that their individual teacher identification numbers would be deleted to ensure anonymity. The individual teacher identification numbers were deleted once the teachers' personality was connected to their perspective student population for research purposes. The population was as follows: 13 of 15 English language art teachers, 14 of 20 mathematic teachers, 12 of 19 science teachers, and 11 of 18 social studies teachers. The purpose of this research was to determine how personahty styles affect secondary learners. The procedure the researcher used to record data received was an inferential statistical test called analysis of variance (ANOVA). To test the researchers' hypothesis, data about the teachers' personality types was collected and then it was compared to the students' TAKS results. The TAKS results have a raw score ranging from 1,300 to 2,700 and they were reported as an average in order to obtain a mean score. The BFI survey indicated if each member of the population had the following personahty trait: extraversion, openness to experiences, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or

48

neuroticism. The ANOVA test was conducted to determine which of the five teacher personality styles (independent variable) had a significant relationship to the students' TAKS scores (dependent variable). An ANOVA was used to compare the means in TAKS scores of students in grades ten and eleven over a period of two years on one South Central Texas suburban high school campus to teachers' personality styles as reported on the BFI survey. Reliability and Validity The reliability and validity of a quantitative study was typically limited to itself and what could be measured or quantified based on questions from a survey instrument (Winter, 2000). Winter's (2000) work indicated that within quantitative research, causality had to be established for a test to be valid or of any use at all. Validity of a study was an important element of any type of test or measure. The researcher reviewed the literature in order to identify the validity and reliability of the Five Factor Model to ascertain if there were any single personality styles within the model found to positively or negatively affect others. The Big Five Factor models has been very well validated, and while it has shown correlations with performance in jobs, studies indicate that the correlation with particular jobs does not exceed 0.30, which accounts for no more than 15% of the variance. (Goldberg, Zheng, Zhao, and Liu, 2008, pp.650). The Big Five factor instrument uses more than one adjective to describe items because researchers found that items were answered less consistently when they were accompanied with only definitions or elaborations (Goldberg & Kilkowski, 1985). Although the BFI scales only had eight to ten items, the instrument did not sacrifice

49

either content coverage or good psychometric properties (Oliver, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness showed a mean validity of .95, which showed a high equivalence of the reliability of the instrument. However, neuroticism showed a validity of .86 and openness showed a validity of .90 which was notably lower. The reliability of the BFI instrument has shown an overall coefficient of .83 across instruments, and extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness were shown to be the most reliable measurements. Agreeableness and Openness tended to be a little less reliable (Oliver, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Lastly, the researcher reviewed the literature in order to identify the validity and reliability of the TAKS test. The validity of standardized assessment was determined by the state of Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2007). The state of Texas over the past few years has been responsible for reporting on the validity and reliability of TAKS. The reliability of TAKS is expressed in terms of reader agreement and the correlation between first and second readings. Reliability was a measure of the consistency of a test. The data became more valid when the test was more reliable. The coefficient range of 0.0 to 1.0, with a high coefficient indicating high reliability, was often used to express the reliability of a test (Green & Salkind, 2008). Amico and Lyer (2007) emphasized the importance of a survey instrument being user-friendly when collecting data. This was suggested in order to assure the population that was sampled follow through with completion to the best of their ability.

50

Summary of Methodology The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not there was a significant relationship between educators' personality styles and the academic success of tenth and eleventh grade students across the four core subject areas. Studies were conducted to compare the influences that educators have on secondary students' academic achievements, by utilizing the BFI survey instrument to assess teacher personalities. The researcher then compared personality type to the individual core courses' TAKS scores. The research design used to examine this study was a quantitative method. The sample population in the study were asked to participate using a Likert scale online survey instrument using surveymonkey.com. As part of the procedure, written consent from administrative personnel was obtained in order to sample teachers. Teachers were asked to use their teacher identification numbers in order to correlate individual students TAKS scores for each core subject for the purpose of this research. Permission was obtained from Texas A&M University-Kingsville's, Institutional Review Board (ERB) (See Appendix A) in order to conduct the necessary research The consent forms were disseminated to high school educators during a campus wide faculty meeting and the research instrument was disseminated by e-mail. The participants were chosen because they were each responsible for educating students, had direct contact with students and were able to provide responses based on professional experience. Also, the data was downloaded to a PASW file to be scored and analyzed. After careful review of the surveys, the responses were tabulated according to the mean scores for each grade-subject dyad across the five personality types using the ANOVA procedure. The BFI survey included questions in order to determine the personality types

51

of those in educational roles. The survey instruments was then compared with the schools' tenth and eleventh grade students' TAKS scores in order to determine how the teachers' personality type affected the academic excellence of those tenth and eleventh grade students.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS Introduction The investigator found that there was a void in research formulating if there was a significant relationship between secondary student TAKS scores in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and teacher personality style. Public schools have the same curriculum and the same statewide test to assess students. Discrepancies, which can occur if there was no alignment among the curricula across schools, were alleviated (Stewart, 2009). The goal of the researcher was to investigate whether or not the academic achievement of tenth and eleventh grade students as affected by their teachers' personality style. The students' academic success was measured using their TAKS test scores. These scores were utihzed and cross-referenced with survey results to determine an individual educator's personahty style. The surveys and TAKS scores were analyzed to determine if there was an impact on the academic achievement of secondary learners. This study was divided into eight essential areas to establish personality styles as a contributing factor to the success or failure in tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement based on TAKS scores. This study focused on the impact of teacher personahty styles on secondary learners and the research questions were as follows: 1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the English language arts academic achievement of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personahty

52

53

style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic academic achievement of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 20092010? 3. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science academic achievement of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 4. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies academic achievement of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 5. Is there a statistically significant difference in the English language arts academic achievement of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 6. Is there a statistically significant difference in the mathematic academic achievement of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 20092010?

54 7. Is there a statistically significant difference in the science academic achievement of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personahty style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 8. Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies academic achievement of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personahty style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? The corresponding null hypotheses were as follows: Hoi There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth

grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H02 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth

grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H03 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth

grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H04 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of tenth

grade students on the TAKS test based on the personahty style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H05 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of

eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

55 H06 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of

eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. H07 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of

eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Ho8 There is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of

eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Data Preparation Permission was obtained from Texas A&M University-Kingsville Institutional Review Board (IRB) (See Appendix F), the Program Evaluation Specialist for District Programs at one large South Central suburban district and the principal from the campus studied respectively. The intent of the study was explained to the Program Evaluation Specialist for the District Programs at the school district and to the campus principal. The researcher explained that all information obtained may serve to set higher academic standards for all students. The instructions for the survey instrument were then disseminated by the researcher during a campus wide faculty meeting. The original intent of the researcher was to meet with each department individually during their weekly departmental meetings, however it was late in the school year and the departmental meetings for the year had already been conducted. The sample population was given the informed consent during the campus wide faculty meeting. The researcher explained the purpose of the

56 research, how the surveys were confidential and why the surveys were instrumental to the study. The researcher also explained during this meeting that each person who voluntarily agreed to participate in the survey and signed the consent would receive an e-mail with a URL link to the surveys on surveymonkey.com. The consent forms were collected and the survey instructions were e-mailed. The original aim of the researcher was to collect the data utilizing surveymonkey.com; however, once the surveys were disseminated the researcher received a response from an individual teacher stating they were having problems with the URL link. The researcher then contacted the technology department within the district and was told that there was a banner ad that was popping up causing the survey on surveymonkey.com to be blocked. The researcher adjusted the dissemination of the survey by making hardcopies of the survey and providing them to the individual teachers with a letter attached (Appendix F). The researcher received 52 of the 76 surveys back and out of the 52 surveys returned, 50 of them agreed to complete the survey, with a 44% return rate. The information about the teacher's personality types to test the researcher's hypotheses was collected and then compared to the students TAKS results using the teacher identification number, to link them to their correct students for the teachers that participated in the surveys, their information was hand entered into electronic form and proofed based on a scoring rubric the researcher provided, which was obtained by the BFI website. The confidence level in the scores is that the scores were entered into SPSS and raw scores were put into group mean scores which were extracted from the BFI. The TAKS data was assigned to each teacher's type of personality. The personality data was

57 combined with the raw data for final analysis. The data was entered by teacher identification numbers and once this was done it was severed. Population People in the study consisted of seven English teachers, eight social studies teachers, six science teachers, and 11 math teachers. Each teacher held an educator role and each has had direct contact with students. Teachers who taught students and had reported standardized test score were utilized for this study and the number of students for each subject were: 1138 in Enghsh language arts, 1472 in math, 978 in social studies, and 801 in science. The number of students, whose standardized test scores were utilized, was based on teachers who participated. Analysis of Data As shown in Table 4.1, the sample population consisted of eleven males and thirty-nine females. Within the sample population, 20% of them have been in education at least 11 years and 60% of them hold at least a bachelors degree. The highest reported age range was 46 years or older at 34% responses, while the second greatest age range was ages 38 to 41 and 26 to 29 each at an 18% response rate The procedure used was a two step process and the first step was inserting the teachers' personahty inventory information and hand entering it into electronic form and proofing it. This was done based on a scoring rubric provided by the researcher, which the researcher obtained from the BFI sight. The raw score to the group mean score was used, which was extracted from the BFI. The second step was extracting the TAKS data assigned to the teachers personahty types. The researcher took the personahty data plus the raw data and combined the two for final analyses. Once the teachers' names were

coded the teachers' names were severed. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality for all participants of the study, the teacher identification number linking them to their student(s) was destroyed once raw data was collected and the teachers' identification number was correlated with their perspective students' TAKS score. The TAKS scores collected have a raw score ranging from 1300 to 2700, which was reported as an average to obtain a mean score. The BFI survey indicated whether a member of the population sample had the following personality traits; extraversion, openness to experiences, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or neuroticism. Based on the data collected, the majority of the BFI teacher personalities were conscientiousness while the lowest was neuroticism. The one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean in TAKS scores of students in grades ten and eleven in four core academic areas (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) over a period of two years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years) on one large (consisting of 2800 or more students/5 A) school South Central Texas suburban high school campus to teachers' personality styles as reported on the BFI instrument. This study was done to assess whether or not there was a significant difference in TAKS scores based on teacher personality styles for students in grades ten and eleven. The procedure the researcher used to record the data received was an inferential statistical test called a one way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA).

59 Descriptive Analysis Table 4.1 Demographic Information about Participants Variable Age 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-33 34-37 38-41 42-45 46 + Gender Male Female Teacher Certification Held English History Math Science Other Years Taught 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26+Level of Education Bachelors Masters Doctorate Other 11 39 14 13 14 12 11 16 7 10 6 5 6 30 19 1 0 22 78 22 20 22 19 17 32 14 20 12 10 12 60 38 2 0 0 2 9 2 7 9 4 17 0 4 18 4 14 18 8 34 Frequency Percentage

The majority of the participants in this study hold a bachelors degree. The results showed that the majority of the participants have taught anywhere from one to five years. The majority of the participants were female (78%) and 34 % of the participants were 46

60 or older. The participants each held a teaching certificate in the subject area they taught, 17 % of those participants also held additional certificates. Table 4.2 represents the percentage of students in grade 10 among each ethnic group for the school year 2008-2009 that met the standards for the TAKS test. The total number of student that were scored, who took the TAKS test was 656. Within the 656 students, there were 33 African Americans, 361 Hispanic, 236 White, and 26 Asian/Pacific Islander students who took the TAKS test. Table 4.2 Grade 10, 2008-2009 Student Demographic who took the TAKS test

Demographic Info. African American Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Male Female

ELA % 28 329 219 23 311 287

Math % 17 238 172 20 250 200

Science % 22 249 189 20 275 203

Social Studies % 32 329 217 21 328 275

The TAKS scores for grade 10 during the 2008-2009 school year revealed students that scored the highest on the TAKS test in English language arts were White (93%), while in math Asian/Pacific Islanders (75%) scored the highest, but in science the group that scored the highest were White (80%), and finally in social studies it was

61 African Americans (96%) that scored the highest Males appeared to have higher TAKS scores in math (70%) and in science (77%), while females had a higher score in English (96%). However, they did equally well in social studies (92%). Table 4.3 represents the percentage of students in grade 10 among each ethnic group for the school year 2009-2010 that met the standards for the TAKS test. The total number of student that were scored, who took the TAKS test was 647. Within the 647 students there were 32 African Americans, 356 Hispanic, 233 White, and 26 Asian/Pacific Islander students who took the TAKS test. Table 4.3 Grade 10, 2009-2010 Student Demographic who took the TAKS Test

Demographic Info. African American Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Male Female

ELA % 29 338 226 25 317 291

Math % 20 235 196 24 256 211

Science % 17 239 200 20 269 199

Social Studies % 30 335 228 24 327 288

The TAKS scores for grade 10 during the 2009-2010 school year revealed students that scored the highest on the TAKS test in English language arts (97%), science (86%) and social studies (98%) were Whites, while in math Asian/Pacific Islanders (91%) scored the highest. Males have higher TAKS scores in math (75%), science (79%) and social studies (96%), while females have a higher score in English (98%).

62 Table 4.4 represents the percentage of students in grade 11 among each ethnic group for the school year 2008-2009 that met the standards for the TAKS test. The total number of student that were scored, who took the TAKS test was 516. Within the 516 students there were 26 African Americans, 283 Hispanic, 186 White, and 21 Asian/Pacific Islander students who took the TAKS test. Table 4.4 Grade 11, 2008-2009 Student Demographic who took the TAKS Test

Demographic Mb. African American Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Male Female

ELA % 25 272 180 21 270 228

Math % 25 243 173 20 259 207

Science % 21 246 177 20 259 207

Social Studies % 24 280 177 20 275 280

The TAKS scores for grade 11 during the 2008-2009 school year revealed students that scored the highest on the TAKS test in English language arts were Asian/Pacific Islander (99%), while in math African Americans (96%) scored the highest, but in science the group that scored the highest were White and Asian/Pacific Islanders (95%), and finally in social studies it was Hispanics (99%) that had the highest average score. Males appeared to have higher TAKS score of 92 % in both math and science. It was reported that females had a higher score in English (97%), however they did equally well in social studies (98%).

63 Table 4.5 represents the percentage of students in grade 11 among each ethnic group for the school year 2009-2010 that met the standards for the TAKS test. The total number of student that were scored, who took the TAKS test was 499. Within the 499 students there were 25 African Americans, 274 Hispanic, 180 White, and 20 Asian/Pacific Islander students who took the TAKS test. Table 4.5 Grade 11, 2009-2010 Student Demographic who took the TAKS Test

Demographic Mo. African American Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Male Female

ELA % 24 263 176 19 250 231

Math % 19 233 164 18 229 205

Science % 22 244 169 17 242 210

Social Studies % 25 271 178 20 260 234

The TAKS scores for grade 11 during the 2009-2010 school year revealed students that scored the highest on the TAKS test in EngUsh language arts (98%), math (91%), and science (94%) were White (98%), while in social studies all ethnic groups did equally well at 99 %. Males appeared to have higher TAKS scores in science (92%), while females had a higher score in English (98%). Both male and female students did equally well on the math (87%) and social studies (99%) TAKS. What tables 4.2-4.5 does not report is in 2008-2009 are that those who participated in the TAKS 45.6 % of them were female while 54.4 % were male. The average population for grade 10 in special education was 32 %, the economically

64 disadvantage population was 49 %, and the limited English proficient population was 14 %. The average population for grade 11 in special education was 58 %, the economically disadvantage population was 80 %, and the limited English proficient was less than 1 %. The tables also do not report that in 2009-2010 of those who participated in the TAKS, 47.3 % of them were female while 52.7 % were male. The average population for grade 10 in special education was 54 %, the economically disadvantage population was 54 %, and the limited English proficient population was 3 1 % . The average population for grade 11 in special education was 52 %, the economically disadvantage population was 73 %, and there were no limited English proficient students reported. Null hypothesis #1, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.6 reports the Descriptive statistics for the two groups. Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness N 18 93 M 2255.11 2346.52 SD 133.662 119.001

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching English language arts is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for

65 84 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is the table below. Table 4.7 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.7 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(l,109) = 8.549, > = .004. The level of significance for this procedure was 0.004. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that in the population from which these sample mean were drawn, one mean was different from the other mean. In other words, teachers of English language arts that possessed the BFI personality style of 'conscientiousness' taught students that scored higher on the TAKS test than those teachers of English language arts that possessed the personality style of 'agreeableness.' Null hypothesis #1, investigating academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the 2009-2010 school year was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.8 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups. Sum of Squares 126000.582 1606551.004 1732551 df 1 109 110 Mean Square 126000.582 14739.000 F_ 8.549 Sig. 0.004*

66 Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism N 12 158 12 M 2308.33 2356.27 2243.00 SD 98.916 130.173 83.183

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching English language arts is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 87 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is the table below. Table 4.9 One-way ANOVA Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significants0.05 Table 4.9 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. .The ANOVA was significant, F(2,179) = 5.066, p = .007.The level of significance for the procedure was 0.007. This 2844103.964 3005085 179 181 15888.849 Sum of Squares 160981.822 Df 2 Mean Square 80490.911 F 5.066 Sig. 0.007*

67 was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, was different from at least one of the other mean. Because this topic, personality styles of teachers for the 2009-2010 school year teaching English language arts at grade 10, was disaggregated by three groups, a post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were different from which other mean(s). Table 4.10 Post-Hoc Results for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 10 Subset for alpha =0.05 BFI Personahty Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientious Sig. N 12 12 158 .314 1 2243.00 2308.33 2308.33 2356.27 .535 2

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =17.341. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.10 the post hoc analysis indicated teachers with the BFI personality style of 'neuroticism' had students that scored lower on their TAKS test than those students who had teachers that were in the BFI 'conscientiousness' category. The third BFI personahty style, 'agreeableness,' was statistically the same as its counterparts.

68 Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism N 22 152 61 112 M 2292.59 2400.64 2189.25 2189.25 SD 147.11 187.905 135.590 169.610

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching mathematics is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Agreeableness and Neuroticism account for over 32 % while the other two categories account for less than 20 % in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is the table below. Table 4.12 One-way ANOVA Results of Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 1.008 1.312 343 346 29394.512 Sum of Squares 3034047.229 df_ 3 Mean Square 1011349.07 Sig. 0.001*

69 Table 4.12 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(3, 343) - 34.406, p = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, was different from at least one of the other mean. Because this topic, teacher personality styles of mathematics for the 2008-2009 school year teaching grade 10, was disaggregated by four groups, a post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were different from which other mean(s). The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different. Table 4.13 Post-Hoc Results of Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2
2292.59 2363.38 2363.38 2400.64

BFI Personality Openness Extrovert Conscientious Agreeableness Sig.

N 112 22 61
1

1 2189.25

1.000
.223

.748

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =51.709. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

70 Table 4.13 the post hoc analysis indicated teachers with the BFI personality style of 'openness' had students that scored lower on their TAKS test than those students who had teachers that were in any of the other three categories. Students with teachers with a personahty style of 'agreeableness' had higher scores than students who had teachers with a personahty style of'extrovert' or 'conscientiousness.' However, students of teachers who had a personality style of 'conscientiousness' scored the same as students of an 'extrovert' teacher. The students of 'conscientiousness' teachers scored the same as 'agreeable' teachers. Null hypothesis #2, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personahty style of secondary math teachers for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.14 reports the descriptive statistics for the four groups. Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness N 13 119 24 202 M 2285.85 2351.71 2326.38 2178.58 SD 137.520 163.941 140.213 149.974

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching mathematics is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Openness teachers account for 56 % of

71 the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The results of the procedure are shown in the table below. Table 4.15 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.15 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(3,354) = 34.081,/? = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, was different from at least one of the other mean. Because this topic, teacher personality styles of mathematics for the 2009-2010 school year teaching grade 10, was disaggregated by four groups, a post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were statistically different. The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different. Sum of Squares 2417889.299 8371499.092 1.079 df_ 3 354 357 Mean Square 805963.100 23648.303 F 34.081 Sig. 0.001*

72 Table 4.16 Post-Hoc Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 10 Subset for alpha = 0.05 BFI Personality Openness Extrovert Conscientious Agreeableness Sig. N 202 13 24 119 .063 1 2178.58 2285.85 2285.85 2326.38 2351.71 .428 2

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =30.316. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Table 4.16 ihepost hoc analysis indicated the following: Students of 'openness' and 'extroverted' teachers scored the same, Students of'extroverted,' 'conscientiousness,' and 'agreeableness' teachers scored the same, and Students of 'openness' teachers scored lower than students of 'conscientiousness' and 'agreeableness' teachers. Null hypothesis #3, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.17 reports the descriptive statistics for the two groups.

73 Table 4.17 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 Group Conscientiousness Openness N 225 63 M 2273.45 2188.57 SD 175.832 175.184

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching science is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 78 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.18 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10. Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.18 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(l,316) = 11.789,/? = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that in the population from which Sum of Squares 363965.120 9755664.566 1.012 df 1 316 317 Mean Square 363965.120 30872.356 F 11.789 Sig. 0.001*

74

these sample mean were drawn, one mean was different from the other mean. In other words, teachers of science that possessed the BFI personality style of 'conscientiousness' had students that scored higher on the TAKS test then those teachers of science that possessed the personality style of 'openness.' Null hypothesis #3, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.19 reports the descriptive statistics for the two groups. Table 4.19 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 Group Conscientiousness Openness N 332 30 M 2268.74 2204.57 SD 171.905 127.218

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching science is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations from which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 92% of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

75 Table 4.20 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.20 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, ^(1,360) = 3.980,/? = .047. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.047. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that in the population from which these sample mean were drawn, one mean was different from the other mean. In other words, teachers of science that possessed the BFI personality styles of 'conscientiousness' had students that scored higher on the TAKS test then those teachers of science that possessed the personality style of 'openness.' Null hypothesis #4, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.21 reports the descriptive statistics for the two groups. Sum of Squares 113321.882 1.025 1.036 df 1 360 361 Mean Square 113321.882 28474.413 F 3.980 Sig. 0.047*

76 Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness N 63 246 M 2234.86 2376.24 SD 112.806 182.874

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching social studies is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations from which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 80% % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.22 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significants0.05 Table 4.22 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(l,307) = 34.267, p = .0001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null Sum of Squares 1002616.065 8982437.080 9985053.146 df 1 307 308 Mean Square 1002616.065 29258.753 F 34.267 Sig. 0.0001*

77 hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, one mean was different from the other mean. In other words, teachers of social studies teachers that possessed the BFI personality style of 'conscientiousness,' had students that scored higher on the TAKS test then those teachers of social studies that possessed the personality style 'agreeableness.' Null hypothesis #4, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.23 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups. Table 4.23 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness N 19 128 10 M 2266.84 2425.23 2467.80 SD 155.408 164.136 189.158

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching social studies is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations from which the groups were derived. Agreeableness and Openness account for less than 12 % while Conscientiousness teachers account for 82 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

78 Table 4.24 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.24 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(2, 154) = 8.334, p = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, was different from at least one of the other mean. Because this topic, personality styles of social studies teachers for the 2009-2010 school year teaching grade 10, was disaggregated by three groups, a post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were different from which other mean(s). The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different. Sum of Squares 452237.189 4178222.556 4630459.745 df 2 154 156 Mean Square 226118.595 27131.315 F 8.334 Sig. 0.001*

79 Table 4.25 Post-Hoc Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 10 Subset for alpha = 0.05 BFI Personality Agreeableness Conscientious Openness Sig. N 19 128 10 1.000 1 2266.84 2425.23 2467.80 .732 2

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =18.698. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.25 the post hoc analysis indicated that teachers with the BFI personality style of 'conscientiousness' and 'openness' had students that scored higher on their TAKS test than those students who had teachers with a personality style of 'agreeableness.' Null hypothesis #5, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA). Table 4.26 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups.

80 Table 4.26 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism N 135 132 76 M 2317.06 2317.90 2353.70 SD 126.107 131.979 151.649

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching English language arts is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness teachers account for more than 38 %, while Neuroticism teachers account for 22 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.27 One-way ANOVA Results of Teachers Personality Styles of English Language Arts for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.27 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 340) = 2. 151,p = . 118. The level of significance for the procedure was Sum of Squares 77666.464 6137627.285 6215293.749 Df 2 340 342 Mean Square 38833.232 18051.845 F 2.151 Sig. 0.118*

81 0.118. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different Table 4.28 Post-Hoc Results of Teachers Personality Styles of English Language Arts for the 20082009 School Year Teaching Grade 11 Subset for alpha =0.05 1 2317.06 2317.90 2353.70 .139

BFI Personality Agreeableness Conscientious Neuroticism Sig.

N 135 132 76

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =106.606. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmomc mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.28 the post hoc analysis indicated no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the personality type of 'agreeableness,' 'conscientiousness,' and 'neuroticism' who taught during the 2008-2009 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores. Null hypothesis #5, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts

82 teachers for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA). Table 4.29 reports the descriptive statistics for the four groups. Table 4.29 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Group Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness N 106 153 65 169 M 2308.26 2314.14 2336.23 2419.54 SD 134.923 118.609 125.924 115.398

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles for teachers teaching English language arts is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness teachers account for 22 % or more of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

83

Table 4.30 One-way ANOVA Results for the Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.30 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(3, 489) = 26.993,j? = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, one mean was different from the other mean. Because this topic, teacher personality styles of English language arts for the 2009-2010 school year teaching grade 11, was disaggregated by four groups, a.post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were different from which other mean(s). The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different. Sum of Squares 1209202.175 7301828.896 8511031.071 df 3 489 492 Mean Square 403067.392 14932.165 F 26.993 Sig. 0.001*

84 Table 4.31 Post-Hoc Results for the Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching English Language Arts at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 BFI Personality Agreeableness Conscientious Neuroticism Openness Sig. N 106 153 65 169 .423 1 2308.26 2314.14 2336.23 2419.54 1.000

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =107.320. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.31 the post hoc analysis indicated teachers with the BFI personality style of 'agreeableness,' 'conscientiousness,' and 'neuroticism' had students that scored lower on the TAKS test than those students who had teachers whose personality reflected 'openness.' Null hypothesis 6, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.32 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups.

85

Table 4.32 Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness N 125 222 132 M 2274.25 2355.77 2279.15 SD 153.838 163.637 137.131

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching science is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Agreeableness teachers account for 46 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.33 One-way ANOVA Results for Teachers Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.33 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was significant, F(2,476) = 15.671, p = .001. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.001. This was less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null Sum of Squares 745068.299 1.132 1.206 df 2 476 478 Mean Square 372534.149 23772.649 F 15.671 Sig. 0.001*

86 hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, was different from at least one of the other mean. Because this topic, teacher personality styles of math for the 2008-2009 school year teaching grade 11, was disaggregated by three groups, a.post hoc analysis was necessary to determine which mean(s) were different from which other mean(s). The Scheffe post hoc test was conducted to determine which personality styles were significantly different. Table 4.34 Post-Hoc Results for Teachers Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 BFI Personality Extrovert Conscientious Agreeableness Sig. N 125 132 222 .963 1 2274.25 2279.15 2355.77 1.000 2

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =149.400. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.34 the post hoc analysis indicated teachers with the BFI personality style of 'extrovert' and 'conscientiousness' had students that scored lower on their TAKS test than those students who had teachers that were in the 'agreeableness' category. Null hypothesis #6, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers

87

for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.35 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups. Table 4.35 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles for Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness N 105 98 78 M 2286.05 2294.04 2310.24 SD 125.180 123.170 128.898

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching mathematics is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations from which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers' account for 28 %, Agreeableness teachers account for 35 % while Extrovert teachers account for 38 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomphshed by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

88 Table 4.36 One-way ANOVA Results for the Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.37 Post-Hoc Results for the Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School year Teaching Mathematics at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2286.05 2294.04 2310.24 .426 Sum of Squares 26544.531 4380576.970 4407121.502 df 2 278 280 Mean Square 13272.266 15757.471 F 842 Sig. 0.432"

BFI Personality Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientious Sig.

N 105 98 78

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =92.170. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.36 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 278) = 842,^ = .432. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.432. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypotheses of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the

89 mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. Results revealed no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the BFI personality styles of 'extrovert,' 'agreeableness,' and 'conscientiousness' who taught mathematics for the 2009-2010 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores. Null hypothesis #7, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.38 reports the descriptive statistics for the two groups. Table 4.38 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Group Conscientiousness Openness N 149 53 M 2212.53 2213.87 SD 129.380 124.115

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching science is known the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 74 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

90 Table 4.39 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.39 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(l,200) = .066,^7 = .798. The level of significance for the procedure was .798. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. Table 4.40 Post-Hoc Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2367.33 2367.46 2466.17 .090 Sum of Squares 1021.351 3095307.303 3096328.653 df Mean Square 1021.351 15476.537 F .066 Sig. 0.798*

200 201

BFI Personality Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientious Sig.

N 21 76 12

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =20.817. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

91

Table 4.40 the post hoc analysis indicates there was no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the personality type of 'conscientiousness' and 'openness' who taught science for the 2008-2009 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores. Null hypothesis #7, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the 2009-2010 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.41 reports the descriptive statistics for the two groups. Table 4.41 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Group Conscientiousness Openness N 86 10 M 2214.58 2233.00 SD 119.339 108.152

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching science is known the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Conscientiousness teachers account for 90 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below.

92 Table 4.42 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Science at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.42 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(l,94) = .217, p = .642. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.642. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to fail to reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. There is no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the personality type of 'conscientiousness' and 'openness' who taught science for the 2009-2010 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores. Null hypothesis #8, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.43 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups. Sum of Squares 3039.070 1315830.930 1318870.000 df 1 94 95 Mean Square 3039.070 13998.201 F .217 Sig. 0.642*

93 Table 4.43 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles of Teachers for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientiousness N 21 76 12 M 2367.33 2367.46 2466.17 SD 164.460 128.469 191.838

Once descriptive statistics information for personality of teachers teaching social studies is known, the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Agreeableness teachers account for 70 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.44 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.44 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 106) = 2.527, p - .085. The level of significance for the procedure was .085. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to Sum of Squares 104101.794 2183585.215 2287687.009 df 2 106 108 Mean Square 52050.897 20599.861 F_ 2.527 Sig. 0.085*

94 fail to reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. Table 4.45 Post-Hoc Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2008-2009 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2367.33 2367.46 2466.17 .090

BFI Personality Extrovert Agreeableness Conscientious Sig.

N 21 76 12

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =20.817. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.45 the post hoc analysis indicated no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the personality type of 'extrovert,' 'agreeableness,' and 'conscientiousness' who taught social studies for the 2008-2009 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores. Null hypothesis #8, investigating the academic achievement of eleventh grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school year 2009-2010, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (oneway ANOVA). Table 4.46 reports the descriptive statistics for the three groups.

95 Table 4.46 Descriptive Statistics for Personality Styles for Teachers for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Group Extrovert Agreeableness Openness N 20 118 77 M 2428.15 2361.30 2381.73 SD 140.336 131.674 113.627

Once descriptive statistics information for personality styles of teachers teaching social studies is known the goal is not to make judgment based on groups but to infer to the populations which the groups were derived. Agreeableness teachers account for 55 % of the teachers in this group. The inferential process is accomplished by using in this case a One-way ANOVA procedure. The result of the procedure is reported in the table below. Table 4.47 One-way ANOVA Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Source Between Groups Within Groups Total * Significant < 0.05 Table 4.47 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2,212) = 2.573, p = .079. The level of significance for the procedure was 0.079. This was greater than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to Sum of Squares 82135.531 3383992.441 3466127.972 df 2 212 214 Mean Square 41067.765 15962.228 F 2.573 Sig. 0.079*

96 fail to reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that all the mean in the population, from which these sample mean were drawn, were the same. Table 4.48 Post-Hoc Results for Teacher Personality Styles for the 2009-2010 School Year Teaching Social Studies at Grade 11 Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2361.30 2381.73 2428.15 .055

BFI Personality Agreeableness Openness Extrovert Sig.

N 118 77 20

Mean for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =41.981. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. Table 4.48 Ihepost hoc analysis indicates there is no statistical difference between the population mean. In other words, teachers with the personality type of 'extrovert,' 'agreeableness,' and 'openness' who taught social studies for the 2009-2010 school year had no significant difference in the academic achievement of eleventh grade students TAKS scores.

Figure 4.1 English Language Arts Student and Teacher Participants

Total Students: 1138

@ Agreeable D Conscientiousness Extrovert Neurotic Openness

Total Teachers: 7

@ Agreeable Conscientiousness Extrovert D Neurotic O Openness

Figure 4.1.The pie chart represents the number of English language arts teachers who participated in the study and the number of students whom were taught by teachers with different individual personality styles. The total number of teachers who participated in

the study for grades 10 and 11 who taught English Language Arts (ELA) for the 20082009 and 2009-2010 school years are seven and the total number of students that those teachers taught for those school years are 1138. Null hypothesis #2, investigating the academic achievement of tenth grade students on TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary math teachers for the 2008-2009 school year, was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Table 4.11 reports the descriptive statistics for the four groups.

Figure 4.2. Mathematic Student and Teacher Participants

Total Students: 1472

& Agreeable Conscientiousness Extrovert D Neurotic Openness

Total Teachers: 11

21

0/ 1

p^nM^MIttijn 1 m ^ ^ w ^
^r \ t ^ ^ ^ m ^ ^

S Agreeable D Conscientiousness Extrovert D Neurotic H Openness

I2H

>^._j/

Figure 4.2.The pie chart represents the number of Mathematic teachers who participated in the study and the number of students whom were taught by teachers with different individual personality styles. The total number of teachers who participated in the study

100 for grades 10 and 11 who taught Mathematics for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years are 11 and the total number of students that those teachers taught for those school years are 1472.

Figure 4.3. Science Student and Teacher Participants

Total Students: 801

S Agreeable Conscientiousness Extrovert Neurotic E Openness

Total Teachers: 6

Si Agreeable D Conscientiousness Extrovert Neurotic 0 Openness

Figure 4.3.The pie chart represents the number of Science teachers who participated in the study and the number of students whom were taught by teachers with different individual personality styles. The total number of teachers who participated in the study

102 for grades 10 and 11 who taught Science for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years are 6 and the total number of students that those teachers taught for those school years are 801.

Figure 4.4. Social Studies Student and Teacher Participants

0-

Total Students: 978


o-

~^^/-
^ ^ 2 7 1 , . ^ 3 Agreeable D Conscientiousness Extrovert Neurotic 13 Openness 822 / ,

Total Teachers: 8

S Agreeable Conscientiousness Extrovert

! i
i i

Neurotic d Openness

I I i

Figure 4.4.The pie chart represents the number of Social Studies teachers who participated in the study and the number of students whom were taught by teachers with different individual personality styles. The total number of teachers who participated in

the study for grades 10 and 11 who taught Social Studies for the 2008-2009 and 20092010 school years are 8 and the total number of students that those teachers taught for those school years are 978. Interpretation The Five Factor Model (BFI) and standardized testing using the TAKS assessment proved their importance and contribution in student achievement in isolation. However, there was a gap found in research because no studies were found that considered whether tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement on standardized assessment (TAKS) was impacted by the educator's personality style using the Five Factor Model (BFI). Studies were needed to determine if these two factors showed a relationship and if there was a significant impact on tenth and eleventh grade students' TAKS scores in English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. This study was descriptive in nature and is being used to determine if further studies in this area are beneficial to the future success of secondary learners. Results Summary A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean in TAKS scores of students in grades ten and eleven over a period of two years on one South Central Texas suburban high school campus to teachers' personality styles as reported on the BFI survey instrument. The mean score was obtained from tenth and eleventh grade TAKS scores. The raw score ranged from 1,300 to 2,700. The teachers of the four core subject areas (English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies) in grades ten and eleven were surveyed and TAKS scores were collected for the past two years for those students that those teachers taught to

determine if there was a relationship to the teachers' personality style and the academic success of those students based on individual TAKS scores. In English language arts for the 2008-2009 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2346.52 and the neurotic teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2419.54. For the 2009-2010 school year in English language arts it was found that teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2356.27 and the open to experience teachers with a mean score of 2419.54. The highest mean score reported for English language arts teachers were the neurotic and open to experience teachers with a mean score equivalence of 2419.54. The conscientious teacher had a consistent report two years in a row for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years with an average mean score of 2351.39. Studies revealed that in mathematics for the 2008-2009 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the agreeable teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2400.64 and the agreeable teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2355.77. However, for the 2009-2010 school year in mathematics the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the agreeable teachers with a mean score of 2351.71 and the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2310.24. The highest mean score reported for mathematic teachers was the agreeable teacher with a mean score of 2400.64. The mathematic teachers had three of the four highest mean scores under the personality of agreeableness. Whereas in science for the 2008-2009 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers for grade ten

with a mean score of 2273.45 and the open to experience teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2217.64. While science in the 2009-2010 school year found teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2268.74 and the open to experience teachers with a mean score of 2233. The highest mean score reported for science teachers was the conscientious teacher with a mean score equivalence of 2273.45.The science teachers had an equal number of conscientious teachers and open to experience teachers for both the 2008-2009 and 20092010 school years with an average mean score of above 2200. Social studies for the 2008-2009 school year revealed that the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2376.24 and the open to experience teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2467.80. It was also found for the 2009-2010 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2466.17 and the extrovert teachers with a mean score of 2428.15. The highest mean score reported for social studies teachers was the open to experience teacher with a mean score if 2467.80. The conscientious teacher had a consistent report for two years in grades ten and eleven for 2008-2009 and 20092010 with an average mean score of 2421.20. The data reports the highest mean scores for the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school years reported within the four core subject areas. There were seven 'conscientiousness,' four 'openness to experience,' one 'neuroticism' and one 'extroversion.' The data revealed that the majority of students are most successful with teachers whose personality style was that of 'conscientiousness.' Barrick and Mount

(1991) studied conscientiousness and they describe it as a person who communally prescribes controlling whims that direct task and goal specific behavior such as thinking before responding, prolonging gratification, and attending to the norms and rules (planner, organized, prioritizing). Thompson (2006) described conscientiousness as a dimension that represents those who are regimented, structured, and unrelenting. The Five Factor Model explained conscientiousness as individuals who look over or guard against recklessness, idleness, and ineffectiveness. These individuals are consistently meticulous, dependable, and detailed in their decision making behavior (Thomspon, 2006). Barrick and Mount (1991) predict, based on meta-analysis indications, that conscientiousness along with extroversion are positively related to individual performance. Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, and Hochwater (2005) illustrate that for all practical purposes, individual performance may be contingent upon the role in which they are expected to perform. If a person's personahty reflects conscientiousness, they may be better suited for a position where their job is clearly defined (Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, & Hochwater, 2005). According to the Texas Education Agency the comprehensive assessment requirements of the TAKS were aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS); therefore, teachers' jobs are clearly defined. The state provides the framework for the TAKS, the TEKS. The TEKS are significant because these are the standards for which teachers are held accountable (Irons, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, & Farrow, 2007). The TEKS are aligned with the TAKS; therefore, aligning daily lessons with the TEKS is critical (Smith & Kritsonis, 2006).

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS While educators have started looking at ways to improve scores on statemandated tests, one area that had not yet been studied was whether or not personality styles of teachers played a role in student success (Olson, 2000). Educators need to know if personality styles affect the success of secondary student's academic achievement. The study set out to examine the educational success of secondary students based on the data collected to determine teacher personality styles that data was analyzed with the mean test score obtained from students' Texas mandated TAKS test scores. These data were collected to determine if personality styles had an effect on student success as measured by the state mandated TAKS test. Examining the results was important for school districts to have a better understanding of teacher personalities and their effects on the future of secondary students. Personality assessments became a growing trend around the late nineteenth century (Smith, 1997). Previous researchers that studied personality styles using the Five Factor Model and standardized testing using the TAKS assessment proved their importance and contribution in student achievement in pairs or in isolation. However, there was a gap found. There were no studies found that considered whether tenth and eleventh grade students' academic achievement on standardized assessments (TAKS) was impacted by the educator's personality style using the Five Factor Model. Considering the importance of this study, more in depth study is needed. Results of further studies may offer a broader insight as to the impact of teacher personality styles and their impact on student success. Much research to date has focused on the students'

108

personality and their academic success based on their own personality or on standardized test scores being impacted by factors other than a teacher's personality style. These studies are limited. The current study provides additional research pertaining to the academic success rate of tenth and eleventh grade students based on teacher personality styles. This study was investigatory because there were limited studies done on whether or not teacher personality styles had a significant relationship to the students TAKS scores. This study provided quantitative data that was collected utilizing 1,258 tenth and eleventh grade social studies students, 1,160 tenth and eleventh grade science students, 1,653 tenth and eleventh grade math students, and 1,426 tenth and eleventh grade EngUsh language arts students who took the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and utilized the BFI instrument which determined 50 out of 76 teachers' individual personality style. Not all traits were represented and this did not surface until later in the study. Analysis of Data Summary A one-way ANOVA test was administered to determine which of the five teacher personality styles (independent variable) may have had a significant relationship to the students' TAKS scores (dependent variable). The mean score was obtained from tenth and eleventh grade TAKS scores. The raw score ranged from 1,300 to 2,700. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean in TAKS scores of students in grades ten and eleven over a period of two years (08-09 and 09-10) on one Texas high school campus to teachers' personality styles as reported on the BFI survey instrument. The teachers of the four core subject areas (EngUsh language arts, mathematics, science and social studies) in grades ten and eleven for the past two years were surveyed

110 and TAKS scores were collected for the students that those teachers taught to determine if there was a relationship to the teachers' personality style and the academic success of their students based on the students' individual TAKS scores. The researcher found that English language arts teachers in grade ten who were determined to be conscientious and the grade eleven teachers who were neurotic had the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS for the 2008-2009 school year with a mean score of 2346.52 and 2419.54 respectively. However once the one-way ANOVA was run, reports indicated it was not significant. In English language arts for the 2009-2010 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2356.27 and the open to experience teachers with a mean score of 2419.54. The highest mean score reported for English language arts teachers was the neurotic and open to experience teachers with a mean score equivalence of 2419.54. The conscientious teachers had a consistent report two years in a row for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years with an average mean score of 2351.39. The data as reported in mathematics for the 2008-2009 school year found the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the agreeable teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2400.64 and the agreeable teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2355.77. Mathematics teachers who were conscientious and agreeable had the highest mean score for the 2009-2010 school year. The data showed that agreeable teachers had a mean score of 2351.71 and conscientious teachers had a mean score of 2310.24. The highest mean score reported for mathematic teachers was the agreeable teacher with a mean score of 2400.64. The mathematic teachers had three of the four highest mean scores under the personality style of 'agreeableness.'

Ill It was found that in science for the 2008-2009 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2273.45 and the open to experience teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2217.64. While in 2009-2010 school year, the science teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2268.74 and the open to experience teachers with a mean score of 2233. The highest mean score reported for science teachers was the conscientious teacher with a mean score equivalence of 2273.45.The science teachers had an equal number of conscientious teacher and open to experience teachers for both the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years with an average mean score of above 2200. In social studies for the 2008-2009 school year, the data showed that the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers for grade ten with a mean score of 2376.24 and the open to experience teachers for grade eleven with a mean score of 2467.80. Finally, the researcher found in social studies for the 2009-2010 school year, the teachers with the highest reported academic achievement on TAKS were the conscientious teachers with a mean score of 2466.17 and the extrovert teachers with a mean score of 2428.15. The highest mean score reported for social studies teachers was the open to experience teacher with a mean score if 2467.80. The conscientious teacher had a consistent report for two years in grades ten and eleven for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 with an average mean score of 2421.20. The data reports the highest mean scores for the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school years reported within the four core subject areas. Of 16 one-way ANOVA's the following personality types were more prominent than others, conscientious (seven),open

112 to experience (four), neurotic (one) and extrovert (one). The data also reveal students are most successful with a teacher whose personality style is conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was described by Barrick and Mount (1991) as a person who readily initiated ideas that directed task and goal specific behavior such as thinking before responding, prolonging gratification, and attending to the norms and rules (planner, organized, prioritizing). Thompson (2006) described conscientiousness as an element that represents those who are well-organized, structured, and unrelenting. A person who looks over or guards against recklessness, idleness, and ineffectiveness according to the Five Factor Model is described as a conscientiousness individual. These individuals are without fail meticulous, dependable, and detailed in their decision making behavior (Thompson, 2006). Barrick and Mount (1991) attributed individuals who are conscientious and extroverted as individuals for whom individual performance are positively related. Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, and Hochwater (2005) stated that individual performance may be dependent upon the role in which they are expected to perform. For instance if a person's personality reflects conscientiousness, they may be better suited for a position where their job is clearly defined (Byrne, Stoner, Thompson, & Hochwater, 2005). According to the Texas Education Agency the comprehensive assessment requirements of the TAKS were aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), therefore teachers' jobs are clearly defined. The state provides the framework for the TAKS, the TEKS. The TEKS are significant because these are the standards for which teachers are held accountable (Irons, Carlson, Lowery-Moore, & Farrow, 2007). The TEKS are aligned with the TAKS and it is critical that the daily lessons in school be aligned with the TEKS

113 as well (Smith & Kritsonis, 2006). TEA provides a TAKS blueprint for teachers and administrators that illustrate how the TEKS support what is assessed on the TAKS (TEA 2007) It has been suggested by Elmore (2002) that educators should do their work differently if they are to impact change. Increasing student performance will depend on educators. Elmore (2002) suggests that professional development focus on external demands as well as educating teachers how to engage in the improvement of practice and performance (Elmore, 2002). "Staff development is defined as the provision of activities designed to advance the knowledge, skills, and understanding of teachers in ways that lead to changes in their thinking and classroom behavior, (Elmore, 2002, p. 14)." Elmore (2002) went on to say that teachers enhance knowledge through understanding ways to change thoughts and actions. According to the data collected by the researcher, teachers can benefit from understanding personalities and how they impact a students' educational outcome. Lahiri (n.d.) indicated that a teachers' personality is an important component of teacher effectiveness. Conclusions Based on the analysis of data, it can be concluded that a teacher's personahty style plays a part in student success. The data indicated in 10 of 16 analyses that the level of significance for the procedure was less than 0.05, less than the alpha level of 0.05. There was a difference of at least one mean in 10 of the 16 null hypotheses tested. These results indicated that there is a need for further studies and that there is a statistical difference in teachers' personality and the success rate of tenth and eleventh grade students based on their TAKS scores. Out of the 16areas in which personality styles were

114 assessed, the most prevalent was 'conscientiousness' which appeared eight times out of the 16, with an average TAKS score of 2326.27. The next personality style, which appeared three times each out of the sixteen, were 'agreeableness' with an average TAKS score of 2369.36 and 'openness' with an average TAKS score of 2373.45. The last two personality styles reported were 'neuroticism' and 'extroversion', which appeared one time each out of the 16. 'Neuroticism' had an average TAKS score of 2353.70 while 'extroversion' had an average TAKS score of 2428.15. Even though 'neuroticism' and 'extroversion' show to have high TAKS scores, they were also the least represented teacher personality style. 'Conscientiousness,' according to the data, appeared, to be most prevalent and according to a prediction by John, Naumann, and Soto, (1991) 'conscientiousness' is a good indicator and general predictor of job performance across a varied range of jobs, but it was found that neurotic individuals have a higher burnout and job dissatisfaction rate. DeWaal (2005) indicated that people are all capable of destracting their own environment based on their personality, but they are also capable of showing kindness, empathy, and love (DeWaal, 2005). Thompson (n.d.) suggested mat further studies need to be done on the effects of a specific group of individuals, based on the influence of the one in charge. The researcher concurred with Thompson (n.d.), in that this study is just the beginning and further studies need to be done to determine what personality trait a group of individuals respond to based on the success rate of a specific aspect. Teachers everywhere are responsible for student success and failures, which often times is validated by standardized testing (Lahiri, n.d.). According to the data presented in this study, personality traits significantly affect others. Further studies need to be done to

115 validate and determine if there is indeed a relationship between the teachers' personality and its effect on student success rates based on standardized testing. Contributions As researchers continue to study the effects of teachers' personality styles and the academic success of students, deterrninirig what will best serve the academic success of our future leaders is imperative. This research should be beneficial to all schools that are looking to increase their student success rate. Based on the results of the study, the following broad recommendations for the academic achievement of students based on teacher personality are suggested: 1. Disseminate a personality assessment for teachers to take to assist them in understanding their own personality style and its implications. 2. Provide professional staff development programs to teachers that explain the different personality styles and the implications for the academic success of students. 3. Provide professional staff development programs to counselors, explaining personality styles and how to assess teacher student conflict to maximize student learning Knowledge gained through the research contributes to the educational success of students based upon the descriptive and comparative nature of the study. In addition, the current study offers a guideline from which other studies can be designed to allow for continual attainment of knowledge as this area, scholastic achievement based on teacher personality styles, grows.

116 Recommendations for Additional Research As literature showed there have been a limited number of studies done in the area of teachers' personality and its affect on student success, the following recommendations for additional research are suggested: 1. Replicate the study at a later date utilizing a larger sample population. The current study was implemented at one South Central Texas high school in a suburban area. 2. Replicate the study over a longer period of time, to assess the students' success rate based on the teachers he/she has over a period of time. The current study was done utilizing a two year period. As this study included two years worth of data, it is possible the finding may change based on teacher personality type and age of student. 3. Replicate the study, assessing both elementary and secondary students to see if the population reacts differently to teachers' personality based on students' age. The current study assesses tenth and eleventh grade students at the secondary level only. 4. Conduct the study by doing a cross comparison between low performing schools and high performing schools, to determine if teacher personality types differ in those environments. 5. Conduct a study surveying administrator personality types, to assess if it is the administrators that impact the success of the campus as whole, since they do the majority of the hiring.

117 6. Conduct a study assessing both the leadership styles and the personality styles and their effect on the academic success of students. 7. Conduct a study assessing the age of the teacher, to determine if it has any bearing on the success rate of students based on their teachers' ages. These suggestions may or may not impact the results, but they cannot be ruled out as possibilities until the data have been provided to assess whether or not there is an impact on the academic success of students. Summary Based upon an extensive review of literature, a study was prepared to focus on the personality style of teachers and the impact of their personality styles on secondary learners. This area was chosen because of the lack of research on the impact on students based on teacher personality styles. The current study-utilized quantitative analyses, in the form of a descriptive study, presented through a survey instrument and standardized test scores, TAKS. The purpose of the study was to determine was a teacher personaUty style of the five personalities (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) presented on the BFI instrument impacted student learning. The results of the analysis showed that there was significant difference in the success rate of students based on teacher personality styles. According to the ANOVA 10 of the 16 levels of significance was less than the alpha level of 0.05. Since there were differences found in the mean score of student TAKS scores based on teacher personality, it appears that teacher personality does have an effect on the academic achievement of tenth and eleventh grade students' TAKS

118 scores on one suburban high school campus in Texas. This study reinforces the idea that additional studies need to be done in this area. Accountability is high at the national and state levels and this is just one of the many areas that school districts need to consider. Finally, this is just one of the many practices for educators to consider in order to potentially increase the student learning and student success. Educators will need to learn to do their work differently if they are to increase the performance of their students. Largely, professional development amongst educators should respond to external demands and engage in the improvement of practice and performance (Elmore, 2002). "Staff development is defined as the provision of activities designed to advance the knowledge, skills, and understanding of teachers in ways that lead to changes in their thinking and classroom behavior, (Elmore, 2002, p. 14)." Elmore (2002) stated that teachers enhance knowledge through understanding ways to change thoughts and actions. According to the data compiled by the researcher, teachers can benefit from understanding personalities and how they impact a students' educational outcome. Lahiri (n.d.) indicated that a teachers' personality is an important component of teacher effectiveness. According to the results provided by the one way ANOVA, 10 of the 16 levels of significance were less than the alpha level of 0.05. As a result, the decision was made to reject the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, it was inferred that one of the mean of the populations, from which the sample mean was drawn, was different from at least one of the other means. Since there were differences found in the mean scores of students' TAKS based on teacher personality, the researcher cannot rule out that there is no statistical difference between the population means. Teacher

119 personality does appear to have an effect on the academic achievement of tenth and eleventh grade students' TAKS scores on one suburban high school campus in Texas.

REFERENCES Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47,211. Amico, M, & Iyer, M. (2007). Seeking evidence: using clinical practice to generate research. Special Interest Section Quarterly Physical Disabilities, 30(3), 1-4. Anglin, J. (2005). Empowering strategic leadership within the field of exercise physiology. Professionalization of Exercise Physiology Online, 5(4), Retrieved from http://facmty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/EmpowermgLeadership.html Bard, J., Gardener, C , & Wieland, R. (2005). Rural school consolidation report: history, research summary, conclusions and recommendations. National Rural Education Association. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED497049). Barrick, M, & Mount, M. (1991). The Big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1-26. Barrick, M, Mount, M, & Judge, T. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?. InternationalJournal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 9-30. Bloomfield, D, & Cooper, B. (2003). NCLB: a new role for the federal government. THE Journal, 30(10), 6-9. Buchanan, T. (1999). Online personality assessment: equivalence of traditional and www personality measures.. Department of Psychology, 8,1-5. Byrne, Z, Stoner, J, Thompson, K, & Hochwater, W. (2005). The Interactive effects of conscientiousness, work effort, and psychological climate on job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 326-338.

120

121

Chanpoe, L. (2000). Relationships among leadership behavior and learning organization in the catholic schools. Chanthahuri Diocese, 6. Retrieved from http://www.journal.au. edu/abacjournal/2003/jan03/article06.pdf Clere, B. (1995). A Study of learning style and locus of control of traditional and nontraditional student's in business education certification programs. Informally published manuscript, Department of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd01072009-31295008888298/unrestricted/31295008888298.pdf Cooper, J, & Bemis, K, (1967). Teacher personality, teacher behavior and their effects upon pupil achievement. ERIC database Cruse, K, & Twing, J. (2000). The History of statewide achievement testing in Texas. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(4), 327-331. Davis, H. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 193-224. DeWaal, F. (2005). A Leading primatologist explains why we are who we are. Our inner ape. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Informally published manuscript, Alber Shanker Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.shankermsu^te.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf Emmerling, S, Rahlan, J, Neurohr, J, Purse, A, & Lindsay, E. (26, July 2006). Measuring academic achievement. Center of American progress [Online Forum Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/07/bl98201 Lhtml

122

Fischer, M. (1997). Priestly leadership and managerial leadership, parish councils: why good delegators don't always make good leaders. Today's Parish, 36, 27-30. Gall, M, Gall, J, & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research an introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Goldberg, L. (1981). Language and individual differences: the search for universal in personality lexicons. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldberg, L, & Kilkowski, J. (1985). The Prediction of semantic consistency in selfdescriptions: characteristics of persons and terms that affect the consistency of responses to synonym antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 82-98. Goldberg, L, Zheng, L, Zhao, Y, & Liu, L. (2008). ReliabiUty and concurrent validation of the big-five factor in china. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 649654. Gratz, D. (2000). High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 681-687. Green, S, & Salkind, N. (2008). Using SPSSfor windows and Macintosh. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Grow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125-149. Guskey, T. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 439-453.

123

Hallinger, P, & Murphy, J. (1986). What's effective for whom? School context and student achievement. Planning and Changing, 16(3), 152-160. Harris, J. (2004). No two alike: human nature and human individuality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Harris, J. (2006). No two alike: human nature and human individuality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Hill, N. (2008). The law of success: the master wealth builder's complete and original lesson plan for achieving your dreams. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Horner, M. (1997). Time performance management, leadership theory: past present and future. Denton, TX: MCB University Press. Howard, P, & Howard, J. (2004). An Introduction to thefivefactor model of personality for human resource professionals. Informally published manuscript, Center for Applied Cognitive Studies, Charlotte, NC. Hlovsky, M, Gintiliene, G, Bulotaite, L, Rickman, R, Belekiene, M. & Janowitz, K. (2008). PRF cross-cultural psychological study of Lithuanian student, teachers, and special education teachers. 23(1), 93-99. Iron, E, Carlson, N, Lowery-Moore, H, & Farrow, R. (2007). Standards and accountability implementation, why, how, where: teacher's perceptions. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. Jacocca, L. (n.d.). An American legend: situational leadership. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/course/prr/370/LEADERSHIP.doc

124

John, O. (1990). The Bigfive factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language questionnaires. New York, NY: Guilford Press. John, O., Naumann, L., & Soto, C , (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. Johnson, D. (1995). From Expectations to achievement: application of the situational leadership model to improving the sbi program. . Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, California State University, Fresno, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sbaer.uca. edu/research/sbida/1995/pdf/23 .pdf Joiner Jr., C. (1987). Leadership for change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. Kabacoff, R. (2002). Personal motivations and leadership styles. Portland, ME: Management Research Group. Kritsonis, W. (2007). Ph.d on schooling [4th edition]. Retrieved from http://www.asmsuexponent.com/montana-state-university/william-kritsonis-phdschooling Lahiri, S. (n.d.). Status offemal teachers when students evaluating teachers. Informally published manuscript, Faculty of Education, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. Retrieved from www.isical.ac.in/~wemp/indexl.html

125

Levin, H. (2006). Can Research improve educational leadership. Educational Researcher, 6. Retrieved from http://www.journal.au.edu/abacjournal/2003/jan03/article06.pdf Manasse, A. (1986). Vision and leadership: paying attention to intention. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1), 150-173. McCrae, R, & Costa, P. (1990). Personality and adulthood. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.McCombs, B, & Miller, L. (2006). Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments: maximizing student motivation, learning and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. McMillan, J. (2004). Educational Research, Fundamentals for the Consumer. United States: Pearson Education. McCombs, B. L., & L. Miller. (2006). Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments-.Maximizing student motivation, learning, and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Mischel, H. (1968). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessments. John Riley and Sons, Inc. Morse, S. (1992). Leadership characteristics thatfacilitate school change: the imperative for change (SEDL's Electronic Library), Retrieved from htrp://www.sedl.org/change/leadership/welcome.html Morse, S.M. (1992). Leadership Characteristics that Facilitate School Change: The Imperative for Change. SEDL's Electronic Library. Retrieved on February 22,2010, from http://www.sedl.org/change/leadersHp/welcome.html

126

Moscoso, S, & Salgado, J. (2004). Dark side personality styles as predictors of task, contextual, and job performance.. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(4), 356-362. Nickse, R. (1977). Teachers as change agents. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Nelson, D, & Low, G. (2003). Emotional intelligence. United States: Pearson Education. Norman, W. (1963). Toward an Adequate taxonomy of personalty attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Olberding, J. (2006). Applying the '360-degree' approach to program evaluation: a case study of an international youth exchange program. Retrieved from www.aspanet.org/source/commumties/passthru.cfm?section=Conimumties& 086F756666766C Oliver, J., Naumann, L, & Soto, C. (1991). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Olson, L. (2000). Worries of standard backlash grows. Education Week, 19(30), 12-13. Orenstein, P. (1994). School girls: young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York, NY: Doubleday. Patterson, C. (2002). From Taas to taks: a progress report on new assessments for Texas public schools. Texas Public Policy Foundation, Retrieved from http://www.Texaspolicy.com/pdf/2002-01-06-education-taks-patterson.pdf

127

Paul, A. (2004). The Cult of personality, how personality tests are leading us to miseducate our children, mismanage our companies, and misunderstand ourselves. New York, NY: Free Press. Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind works. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Richardson, R, & Arker, E. (2010). Personalities in the classroom: making the most of them. Kappa Delta Pi, 46(2). Schrenker, C. (1997). The History of teacher education at the university of Wisconsin superior 1896-1997. Informally published manuscript, Department of Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WL Retrieved from www2.uwsuper.edu/ted/cope/The%20History%20of%20Teacher%20Education Shin, C. (2008). Test measurement & research services. Pearson, 1(2), 1-8. Smith, R. (1997). The Norton history of the human sciences. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Smith, Y, & Kristonis, W. (2006). National insight: toward a clearer understanding of preparing high school students for passing state examinations for graduation in the state of Texas. National Forum of Teacher Educational Journal, 16, 1-4. Somech, A. & Wenderow, M. (2006). The Impact of Participative and Directive Leadership on Teachers' Performance: The Intervening Effects of Job Structuring, Decision Domain, and Leader-Member Exchange: Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 746-772. Sternberg, R. (1988). The Triarchic mind: a new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking

Stevenson, R, & Kristonis, W. (2009). Utilizing the six realms of meaning in improving campus standardized tests scores through team teaching and strategic planning. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 11-19. Stewart, L. (2009). Achievement differences between large and small schools in Texas. The Rural Educator, 30(2), 20-28. Tellegan, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tett, R., Jackson, D, & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742. Texas Education Agency. (2006-2007). Performance Assessments Used on TAKS/TAKS-I and SDAAI. Technical Digest, 19, 199-212. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/techdig07/Chapters/Chapt er 19-PerformanceAssessmentsUsedOnTAKS-TAKIandSDAAn.pdf. Texas Education Agency. (2007) Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Blueprints. Retreved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3 .aspx?id=3228&menu_id3=793 Texas Education Agency. (1996). The development of accountability systems nationwide and in Texas (Pub. No. GE6-601-07). Austin, TX: Author. Thompson, M. NATO, Department of Defence. (n.d.). Individual difference theory and research: application to multinational coalition feawworA:(RTO-MP-HFM-142). Toronto, CA: R & T Organization.

129

Thompson, M. (2006). Leadership trait development: a new approach in assessing student's leadership potential. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 5(2), Retrieved from http://www.leadmgtoday.org/weleadMearning/volume_5.htm Thompson, M., & Crank, J. (2010). An evaluation of factors that impact positive school climate for school psychologists in a time of conflicting educational mandates. Retrieved from, http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/ 46/82/2b.pdf Viewpoints, (2010). Assessment-driven reform: a leadership approach from high stakes testing to assessment for school improvement. Learning Point Associates, 8. Retrieved from http ://www.ncrel. org/poHcy/pubs/htrnl/beyond/stakes.htm#further Westley, F, & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 17-32. Winter, G. (2000). A Comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR4-3/winter.html Ying, Z, Jennings, J, Rentner, D, Kober, N, & Chudowsky, N. (2009). State High school exit exams: trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rate. Center on Education Policy, (297), Retrieved from http://wAVW.cepdc.org/document/docWmdow.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDoc ument&documentid=297&documentFormatId

APPENDICES

130

APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

DATE: LOG NO: TEXAS A& M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS (Original + 1 Copy Required for Expedited Review) (Original +10 Copies Required for Full-Board Review) PLEASE TYPE 1. Principal Investigator's Name: Patricia Lee Garcia Department & Campus Address: Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling. MSC 223 Cellular Phone No.: 210-834-8726; Home No.: 210-682-4089 Associates: N/A 2. If you are a student, provide the following: Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Lori Kupczynski; Ext.: 361593-4286 Is this your thesis or dissertation research? Yes X; No What is your academic status? DoctoraKX_; Graduate ; Undergraduate

3. a) Title of the project: The Impact of Teacher Personality Styles on the Academic Excellence of Secondary Students. b) Project Time Line: From May 2010 4. to December 2010

Has this project previously been considered by the IRB? Yes ; No X

5.

Is a proposal for external support being submitted? Yes ;No X

If "yes", you must submit one complete copy of that proposal as soon as it is available

133 And complete the following: a. Is notification of Human Subjects approval required? Yes_XjNo b. Is this a renewal application? Yes_;No^^ c. Sponsor's name and identification number: Dr. Lori Kupczynski d. 6. Total proj ect period: From May 2010 To December 2010

Description of human subjects: Number: 70+; Age: 23-60 years Sex: F Unknown ; M Unknown

7.

Does your project fall under one of the categories eligible for expedited review as listed in Section VI of the IRB guidelines? Yes X :No

If "yes" indicate the category number and page in this manual of the expedited Review category: Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as: (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. 8. I have included copies of all pertinent attachments including, but not limited to: questionnaire instruments, informed consent(s), letters of approval from cooperating institutions, copy of external support proposal if application, etc. Yes J^j, No

(If no, explain below):

Describe the source(s) of subjects and the selection criteria. Specifically, where did you obtain the names of potential subjects (i.e., agency files, hospital records, local organizations, etc.)? Where and how will you contact them? The data of potential subjects will be obtained from TAKS scores provided by Northside Independent School District and the data will also be obtained by giving the personality survey instrument to individual teachers. The teachers will be contacted and a time will be scheduled with the teachers during their team meetings to attend their regularly scheduled meeting in the computer lab. Once the teachers are in the computer lab, the purpose of the study will be explained, and they will then be asked to log onto Survey Monkey in order participate in the study. The first question on the survey will ask if they are willing to participate in the survey. It will explain that the survey is completely voluntary.

Brief description of proposed research: include major hypotheses and research design. This study will use a Likert Scale survey instrument in order to survey teachers regarding the impact of personality styles on the academic excellence of secondary students. This study will examine the effects of teacher personality styles on the secondary students, grade nine through eleven TAKS scores, located in one Texas suburban high school. It is important to the educational success of secondary students to analyze the data obtained from the Texas mandated TAKS test scores and teachers personality styles in order to provide evidence for the schools to continue supporting excellence in education. It is also important that

135 the results of the study be examined so that school district can make informed decisions as to the future of secondary students. The following questions will guide the study: 1. Is there a significant difference in the English language arts success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 2. Is there a significant difference in the mathematic success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 3. Is there a significant difference in the science success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 4. Is there a significant difference in the social studies success rate of tenth grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 5. Is there a significant difference in the English language arts success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary English language arts teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 6. Is there a significant difference in the mathematic success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary mathematic teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010?

136 7. Is there a significant difference in the science success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary science teachers for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010? 8. Is there a significant difference in the social studies success rate of eleventh grade students on the TAKS test based on the personality style of secondary social studies for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 In order to answer the research questions the following research hypotheses were formulated: 1. Personality styles of secondary English language arts teachers impact academic achievement among tenth grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 2. Personality styles of secondary science teachers impact academic achievement among tenth grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 3. Personality styles of secondary mathematic teachers impact academic achievement among tenth grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 4. Personality styles of secondary social studies teachers impact academic achievement among tenth grade students on the TAKS test, for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 5. Personality styles of secondary English language arts teachers impact academic achievement among eleventh grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

137 6. Personality styles of secondary science teachers impact academic achievement among eleventh grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 7. Personality styles of secondary mathematic teachers impact academic achievement among eleventh grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 8. Personality styles of secondary social studies teachers impact academic achievement among eleventh grade students on the TAKS test for the school years: 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 11. Procedures: Provide a step-by-step description of each procedure, including the frequency, duration and location of each procedure. The target population of the study will be tenth, and eleventh grade students in one Texas suburban high school. A sample will consist of two groups. One group will be identified tenth, and eleventh grade secondary students. The other group will consist of teachers who teach English language arts, math, science, or social studies to the members of the first group. The high school selected for this study is in south central Texas. The school has 168 teachers. Each of the 8 hypotheses will be assessed with a one-way ANOVA procedure for the school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Demographic statistics will be provided along with the inferential results. A statement of conclusion will be included with each hypothesis. 12. Informed consent: Describe the consent process and attach all consent

documents. An informed consent will be needed in order to assess teacher personality styles using the BFI survey instrument. There will be a statement at the start of the electronic survey that indicates 1) the teacher's participation in the study is voluntary and 2) completion of the survey will be construed to their consent. The same information will be provided verbally to the group prior to the staffs data entry session. Benefits: Describe the anticipated benefits to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. With the push for accountability in the Unites States, educators have to start looking at ways to improve scores on state-mandated test in order to validate whether or not ones personality style plays a role in student success (Olson. 2000). Educators need to know if personality styles affect the success of secondary academic achievement. Educators need to continue looking for best practices in order to increase the learning and success of students' academic achievement (Stewart, 2009). The study proposes that it is important to the educational success of secondary students that data be collected using the BFI instrument to determine teacher personality styles and then to compare the data which is collected against the mean score which will be obtained from students Texas mandated TAKS test scores. This study is being done to assess and gather evidence to determine whether or not there is a significant relationship between the two. It is important that the results of the study be exarnined so that school

139 districts have a better understanding of teacher personalities and are more capable of making informed decisions as to the future of secondary students in the district. 14. Risks: Describe the risks involved with these procedures (physical, psychological and/or social) and the precautions you have taken to minimize these risks. No physical, psychological or social risk is anticipated. Neither teachers nor students will be personally identified. Teacher identification numbers that link teacher identity to student's subject and class period will be deleted once information is extracted and primary links are made. Names and/or identification numbers will not be released in the report. Confidentiality will be guaranteed by all documents handled only by the principal investigator and will be stored in a secure environment. 15. Addition to or changes in procedures involving human subjects as well as any problems connected with the use of human subjects once the projects has begun must be brought to the attention of the IRB. I agree to provide whatever surveillance is necessary to ensure that the rights and welfare of the human subjects are properly protected. I understand that I cannot initiate any contact with human subjects before I have received approval and/or complied with all contingencies made in connections with that approval.

Signature of Principal Investigator 16.

Date

Approval by Faculty Sponsor (required for all students): I affirm the accuracy of this application, and I accept the responsibility for the conduct of this research and the supervision of human subjects as required by law.

140

Signature of Faculty Sponsor 17.

Date

Approval by Department Chair/Dean/Director (not required for applications for Expedited Review): I confirm the accuracy of the information stated in this application. I am familiar with, the approve of the procedures that involve research on human subjects.

Name of College/Department

Date

Signature of Chairperson of Department

Date

Signature of Dean of College

Date

APPENDKB INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

141

142
OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND

TTEXASA&M
KTNGSVILLE

GRADUATE STCDIES 700 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD, MSC 1 I t KINGSVILLE, TEXAS 7S30-*2Q2 3SI/593-28M FAX361/5B-34I2

To: From:

Ms. Patricia Lee Garcia Thomas A Fields, Ph.D.^j Interim Assoc. VP for R/CGS and Chairperson of IRB Committee May 18,2010 IRB Proposal Application (Log# 2010-79)

Date: Re:

The proposal application submitted by you entitled "The Impact of Teacher Personality Styles on the Academic Excellence of Secondary Students" falls under the Expedited Review category as listed in the manual of Policies for Personnel Engaged in Research Involving Human Subjects, TAMUK. As Chairman of the IRB, I approve the project as authorized under the expedited review procedure. TAFrcad (jfj/tfrdAjO

M> \gfi.fo

Copy: H3fTLori Kupczynski

APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT

143

Texas A&M University-Kingsville Consent to Participate in Research

THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PERSONALITY STYLES ON THE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS You are being asked to participate in a research study that is being done by Patricia Lee Garcia. This research is studying secondary teachers' personality styles and comparing their personality to the teachers secondary students TAKS scores, in order to determine if there is a significant relationship between the two.. Although there has been research done on either personality styles or the academic success of secondary students, there were no studies found by the researcher that compared the two. You are being asked to participate in this study because you are a secondary school teacher. About 70 plus teachers will take part in this study as well. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to choose not to participate or to withdraw your participation at any point in this study without affecting your employment or other services to which you are entitled. If you agree to participate, you will complete three questions in regard to your highest degree attained, total number of years you've been teaching, and grade currently teaching. Then you will be asked to complete a survey on Survey Monkey which will consist of forty-four question containing five choices (1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree a little, 3 = neither disagree or disagree, 4 = agree a little, and 5 = agree strongly) questionnaire that will assess your personality style. This questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. I will take measures to protect your privacy and the security of all your answers. No record will be kept that links your teacher identification number with the questionnaire you submit. In the future, Mrs. Garcia will publish what she learns from this study, however, your teacher identification number will not be used in the publication. Teachers will be grouped according to their grades and personality style. Results from the surveys will be used for further data analysis and to further the knowledge of educators. Information contained in your questionnaires will be used to generate the data for the final study. This research study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, TAMU-K. For research-related problems or questions regarding subject's rights, I can contact the Institutional Review Board through Dr. Thomas Fields, Interim Associate Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies (361) 593-2809 or kftafOO@tamuk.edu. I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers to my satisfaction. I have been given a copy of this consent document for my records. By signing this document, I consent to participate in the study.

Signature:

Date:

Signature of Investigator:

Date:

THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE INSTrrDTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT

145

146

* 1.1 understand that my participation in this survey is voluntary and that all responses will be kept confidential. By answering yes to this statement: *l agree to be part of the research study. *l understand the researcher will use my responses in further analyses. *l understand that once the survey is completed the results will be linked to studentlevel data. *l understand that once the data are linked and proofed that teacher identification code that identifies me and links me to a specific student will be deleted from the data base.

Oyes

147

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please check one radio button for each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

* 1.1 am someone who...


Disagree Strongly Is talkative Tends to find fault with others Does a thorough job Is depressed, blue Is original, comes up with new ideas Is reserved Is helpful and unselfish with others Can be somewhat careless Is relaxed, handles stress well. Is curious about many different things Is full of energy Starts quarrels with others Is a reliable worker Can be tense Is ingenious, a deep thinker Generates a lot of enthusiasm Has a forgiving nature Tends to be disorganized Worries a lot Has an active imagination Tends to be quiet Is generally trusting Disagree a little Neither agree nor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

148

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please check one radio button for each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

* 1.1 am someone who...


Disagree Strongly Tends to be lazy Is emotionally stable, not easily upset Is inventive Has an assertive personality Can be cold and aloof Perseveres until the task is finished Can be moody Values artistic, aesthetic experiences Is sometimes shy, inhibited Is considerate and kind to almost everyone Does things efficiently Remains calm in tense situations Prefers work that is routine Is outgoing, sociable Is sometimes rude to others Makes plans and follows through with them Gets nervous easily Likes to reflect, play with ideas Has few artistic interests Likes to cooperate with others Is easily distracted Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature Disagree a little Neither agree or disagree Agree a little Agree strongly

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

149

* 1. What subject did you teach in school year 2008-2009?


Q
( (

Math
) Science J English Language Arts

C J Social Studies

2. What subject did you teach in school year 2009-2010?


Q
( (

Math
J Science J English Language Arts

C J Social Studies

* 3. What grade level(s) did you teach in school year 2008-2009?


| J Grade 9
| [ | Grade 10 | Grade 11 Grade 12

* 4. What grade level(s) did you teach in school year 2009-2010?


I Grade 9 | Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

* 5. How many years have you taught? (count this year)

* 6. What is your 3 digit teacher identification number?

150

1. What is your level of education?


f J Bachelors ( J Masters ( J Doctorate

Other

* 2. What type of teacher certification(s) do you hold?

i
3. What is your sex? Q Male
f ) Female

ti

4. What is your age range?


Q Q 18-21 22-25

(~) 26-29 Q Q Q 30-33 34-37 38-41

) 42^5

046+

APPENDIX E SURVEY INSTRUMENT CONSENT FORM

The Big Five Inventory


Are you requesting permission to use the Big Five Inventory (BFI)? Visit our BFI Download page and complete a short survey on how you plan to use it.

Oliver P. John, Director Institute of Personality & Social Research 4140 Tolman Hall #5050 Berkeley, CA 94720
Office: (510)642-2178 Fax: (510)643-9334 ucbpersonalitvlab@gmail.com

Thank you for completing the survey.

Where do I get the Big Five Inventory (BFI)? A copy of the BFI, with scoring instructions, is reprinted in the John, Naumann, and Soto (2008) Handbook of Personality chapter as an appendix. You can also download a MS Word version rherel with SPSS scoring syntax.

You should reference these articles in manuscripts using the BFI:

(1) John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

(2) John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. (3) Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.

Scoring Scoring instructions and SPSS syntax are available [here].

Short Version: Click [here] for an abbreviated 11-item version of the BFI. However, given that the entire BFI consists of only 44 very short phrases and takes only 5 minutes to complete, we do not recommend using the short 11-item version unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Children and Parents: For the version of the BFI where items with wording difficult for children have been modified, click [here]. For a version that has been adapted so that parents may fill it out for their children click [here]. To see which items were modified, click fhere].

Translated Versions:

Chinese Dutch German (BFI-10 only) English Hebrew

Italian Lithuanian Portugese Spanish Swedish

Copyright 2007-9 Berkeley Personality Lab | Designed by edg3.co.uk | Managed by Laura Naumann

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS
To score the BFI, you'll first need to reverse-score all negatively-keyed items: Extraversion: 6, 21, 31 Agreeableness: 2, 12, 27, 37 Conscientiousness: 8, 18, 23, 43 Neuroticism: 9, 24, 34 Openness: 35, 41 To recode these items, you should subtract your score for all reverse-scored items from 6. For example, if you gave yourself a 5, compute 6 minus 5 and your recoded score is 1. That is, a score of 1 becomes 5,2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1. Next, you will create scale scores by averaging the following items for each B5 domain (where R indicates using the reverse-scored item). Extraversion: 1, 6R 11, 16, 21R, 26, 31R, 36 Agreeableness: 2R, 7, 12R, 17, 22, 27R, 32, 37R, 42 Conscientiousness: 3, 8R, 13, 18R, 23R, 28, 33,38,43R Neuroticism: 4, 9R, 14, 19, 24R, 29, 34R, 39 Openness: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35R, 40,41R, 44

SPSS SYNTAX
*** REVERSED ITEMS RECODE bfi2 bfi6 bfi8 bfi9 bfi12 bfi18 bfi21 bfi23 bfi24 bfi27 bfi31 bfi34 bfi35 bfi37 bfi41 bfi43 (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO bfi2r bf!6r bfi8r bt!9r bfi12r bf!18r bfi21 r bfi23r bfi24r bfi27r bfi31r bfi34r bfi35r bfi37r bfi41r bfi43r. EXECUTE. *** SCALE SCORES COMPUTE bfie = mean(bfi17bfi6r,bft11 ,bfi16(bfi21r,bfl26,bfi31r,bfi36). VARIABLE LABELS bfie 'BFI Extraversion scale score. EXECUTE. COMPUTE bfia = mean(bfi2r,bfi7,bfi12r,bfi17,bfi22,bfi27r,bfi32,bfi37r,bfi42). VARIABLE LABELS bfia 'BFI Agreeableness scale score'. EXECUTE. COMPUTE bfie = mean(bfi3,bfi8r,bfi13,bfi18r,bf[23r,bfi28,bfi33,bfi38,bfi43r). VARIABLE LABELS bfie 'BFI Conscientiousness scale score'. EXECUTE. COMPUTE bfin = mean(bfi4,bfi9r,bfi14,bfi19,bfi24r,bfi29,bfi34r,bfi39). VARIABLE LABELS bfin 'BFI Neuroticism scale score'. EXECUTE. COMPUTE bfio = mean(bf!5,bfi10,bfi15,bfi20,bfi25,bfi30,bfi35r,bfi40,bfi41r,bfi44). VARIABLE LABELS bfio 'BFI Openness scale score'. EXECUTE.

156

REFERENCE INFORMATION The BFI should be cited with the original and a more accessible, recent reference: John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

APPENDLXF TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS BLUEPRINT

157

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 10 AND GRADE 11 EXIT LEVEL

Grade 10 Selectionsone "triplet" (literary + expository + visual representation) Objective 1 (reading basic understanding) Objective 2 (readingliterary elements and techniques) Objective 3 (reading analysis and critical evaluation) Objective 4 (composition) Objective 5 (composition) Objective 6 (revising and editing in the context of two peer-editing selections) Total number of items Approximately 3000-3500 words total 8 multiple-choice items 8 multiple-choice items 1 short answer item* 12 multiple-choice items 2 short answer items* 1 writing prompt 20 multiple-choice items (10 items per selection) 48 multiple-choice items 3 short answer items 1 writing prompt

Grade 11 Exit Level Approximately 3000-3500 words total 8 multiple-choice items 8 multiple-choice items 1 short answer item* 12 multiple-choice items 2 short answer items* 1 writing prompt 20 multiple-choice items (10 items per selection) 48 multiple-choice items 3 short answer items 1 writing prompt

* Short answer items require students to respond briefly and accurately. Their responses must include a reasonable analysis or interpretation of the text supported by specific evidence from the text itself. One short answer item will assess the literary selection (Objective 2), one will assess the expository selection (Objective 3), and one will bridge the two selections (Objective 3). Two of the three short answer items are from Objective 3 because the "crossover" item deals with both selections and always requires students to analyze or evaluate some aspect of both texts; analysis and evaluation both fall under Objective 3.

Curriculum Rationale The English Language Arts assessments at Grades 10 and 11 are integrated reading and writing tests. Although these assessments are the same length, they differ in the complexity of the reading selections and the revising and editing passages. In addition, the eleventh grade items require a higher level of performance from students than the tenth grade items. In reading, for example, critical analysis items require exit level students to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the texts.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

Objectives 1, 2, and 3: Reading Both Objective 2 and Objective 3 cover TEKS that address higher-order thinking skills; these objectives together are weighted more heavily than Objective 1 (basic understanding) because the TEKS designated for assessment at Grades 10 and 11 support this emphasis. While it is still important to ensure that students have the skills necessary to understand a text's literal meaning, by Grades 10 and 11 students are expected to utilize their skills in critical thinking. These critical thinking skills require students to connect what they have read to what they already know, to make predictions, and to develop reasonable interpretations based on the text Furthermore, students at Grades 10 and 11 are expected to demonstrate an understanding of literary elements and techniques appropriate to their grade levels: for example, connecting literature to historical contexts and current events and comparing and contrasting varying aspects of texts, such as themes, conflicts, and allusions. There are fewer multiple-choice questions on the reading portion of the Grades 10 and 11 ELA tests than on the Grade 9 reading test because the ELA tests are integrated reading and writing tests. Tenth and eleventh grade students must be able to complete both the reading and writing sections in a single testing period. Objectives 4 and 5: Written Composition Objectives 4 and 5 are assessed through a composition written in response to a specific topic. Students should be able to produce an effective piece of writing that is focused and coherent, organized, well developed, original and authentic, and well written (assessed through the student's ability to apply the conventions of standard written English). This portion of the writing assessment will likely require a significant amount of time to complete, since students are encouraged to utilize the writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing) in producing a composition that represents their best work. Expectations for eleventh grade writers with regard to organization, focus and coherence, development of ideas, voice, and conventions of standard English (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, usage, and sentence structure) will be higher than those for tenth writers. Objective 6: Revising and Editing Multiple Choice Objective 6 encompasses the most important skills students need to revise and edit effectively. These skills include adding, deleting, or rearranging sentences to improve organization and development; adding transition words or phrases to strengthen progression; recognizing correct and effective sentences; correcting grammar, usage, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors; and replacing vague or informal words or phrases with more specific or appropriate language. The level of proficiency of eleventh grade students with regard to these skills is expected to be higher than that of tenth grade students. The number of multiple-choice items (10 per passage) allows for appropriate spacing of items within each passage. Two passages and 20 items allow for a broad coverage of the knowledge and skills that comprise Objective 6. In addition, given the length of the ELA test overall, the number of passages and items in this section of the test is appropriate.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

160

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR GRADES 9-11 MATHEMATICS Objectives Objective 1Functional relationships Objective 2Properties and attributes of functions Objective 3Linear functions Objective 4Linear equations and inequalities Objective 5Quadratic and other nonlinear functions Objective 6Geometric relationships and spatial reasoning Objective 72D and 3D representations Objective 8Measurement Objective 9Percents, proportions, probability, and statistics Objective 10Mathematical processes and tools Total number of items Grade 11 Exit Level 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 5 9 60

Grade 9 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 5 9 52

Grade 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 9 56

At all grade levels, items are primarily multiple choice, although a small number of griddable items will be included on a test form. Curriculum Rationale In high school, TAKS mathematics items are of greater complexity, require a more in-depth level of critical thinking than TAAS, and are based on comprehensive high school courses as opposed to only eighth grade TEKS. In fact, the high school level mathematics TAKS assessments are closer to the Algebra I end-of-course test than the exit level TAAS mathematics assessment. These factors will likely increase the average length of time needed to complete a TAKS test. Algebra I: Objectives 1-5 For the 9th and 10th grade tests, Objectives 1-5 receive more emphasis than the other mathematical areas assessed (e.g., geometry and statistics), as most students will have recently completed this course. Additionally, Algebra I is a building block for higher-level mathematics coursework.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

161

For the 11 grade exit level test, Objectives 1-5 still receive a great deal of emphasis, but the percentage of Algebra I items as compared to the overall percentage is slightly less due to the increased emphasis on Geometry. Geometry and Measurement: Objectives 6-8 For the 9th and 10th grade tests, Objectives 6-8 receive slightly less emphasis than Algebra I. This is due to the fact that not all students will have completed the high school geometry course by the end of 10th grade. Therefore, the 9th and 10th grade assessments are limited to eighth grade geometry TEKS, which have been chosen to reflect to the greatest extent possible the TEKS student expectations eligible for assessment on the 11 th grade exit level test. For the 11 th grade exit level test, Objectives 6-8 receive increased emphasis because students should have completed high school Geometry by the 11* grade. Therefore, the TEKS student expectations eligible for assessment in these objectives at Grade 11 come from the high school Geometry course. Probability and Statistics: Objective 9 Objective 9 remains constant for all three high school assessments. Objective 9 is limited to eighth grade TEKS and therefore receives less emphasis than other objectives. However, probability and statistics skills are naturally emphasized in high school courses, and items related to probability and statistics will reflect this emphasis. Mathematical Processes and Tools: Objective 10 Objective 10 maintains a strong focus across grades, as the included TEKS not only provide students varied opportunities to link skills from different mathematical areas but also allow students to think critically and problem solve effectively. The problems solved in this objective combine content from multiple objectives. For example, calculating the effect of the change in slope on geometric figures as they appear on a coordinate grid would link skills from Objectives 3 and 6.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR GRADE 10 SCDENCE

Objectives Number of Items 1Nature of Science 17 2Organization of Living Systems 11 3Interdependence of Organisms 11 4Structures and Properties of Matter 8 8 5Motion, Forces, and Energy 55 Total number of items

Curriculum Rationale Objective 1: Scientific Processes and Skills Objective 1 focuses on an understanding of scientific processes and includes design of investigations, accurate data collection, the use of models to represent the natural world, and data analysis. Because an understanding of the nature of science is critical to scientific literacy, this objective is given slightly more emphasis (17 items) than the other four objectives. Objectives 2 and 3: Biology Concepts Since biology is usually a freshman or sophomore level class, students will have a better opportunity to accurately demonstrate their knowledge of biological concepts if the assessment is given shortly after they have learned the material. Therefore, more items (11) for Objective 2 and 3 are found on the Grade 10 science assessment. Objectives 4 and 5: Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) Concepts Even though the test is based on student expectations from IPC and biology, course sequences for high schools are not mandated by the state. Therefore, the blueprint takes into account the recommended high school program sequence of biology, chemistry, and then physics. Since students will likely not have completed this sequence by the end of tenth grade, Objectives 4 and 5 (chemistry and physics) have fewer items (8) than Objectives 2 and 3 (biology).

A 55-item science test will provide an accurate snapshot of students' understanding of IPC and biology concepts and skills.
Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

163

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKTLLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR GRADE 11 EXIT LEVEL SCDZNCE

Objectives 1Nature of Science 2Organization of Living Systems 3Interdependence of Organisms 4Structures and Properties of Matter 5Motion, Forces, and Energy Total number of items

Number of Items 17 8 8 11 11 55

Curriculum Rationale Objective 1: Scientific Processes and Skills Objective 1 focuses on an understanding of scientific processes and includes design of investigations, accurate data collection, the use of models to represent the natural world, and data analysis. Because an understanding of the nature of science is critical to scientific literacy, this objective is given slightly more emphasis (17 items) than the other four objectives.

Objectives 2 and 3: Biology Concepts Since biology is usually a freshman or sophomore level class and the exit level assessment is not given until the end of eleventh grade, fewer items (8) will focus on Objectives 2 and 3 (biology). Students are less likely to remember the finer details of biological concepts two years after taking the course and, therefore, will have less of an opportunity to accurately demonstrate their knowledge. Objectives 4 and 5: Integrated Physics and Chemistry Concepts Even though the test is based on student expectations from Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) and biology, course sequences for high schools are not mandated by the state. Therefore, the blueprint takes into account the recommended high school program sequence of biology, chemistry, and then physics. Since students will likely be completing this program by the end of eleventh grade, Objectives 4 and 5 (chemistry and physics) have more items (11) than Objectives 2 and 3 (biology).

A 55-item science test will provide an accurate snapshot of students' understanding of IPC and biology concepts and skills.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

164

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR GRADE 10 SOCIAL STUDD2S

Objectives Objective 1History Objective 2Geography Objective 3Economics and Social Influences Objective 4Political Influences Objective 5Social Studies Skills Total number of items

Number of Items 7 12 7 12 12 50

Curriculum Rationale Objectives 1 and 4 are comprised of Grade 8 TEKS only, which is the grade at which early American history is taught, and focus on issues and events in early American history as well as the development of representative government in the United States. Twelve of the twenty-eight student expectations eligible for the Grade 10 TAKS social studies test are included under Objectives 1 and 4. To fully measure these student expectations while maintaining a balance with the world studies content, the total number of test items for these two objectives is 19. Objective 2 is the geography objective and consists of six TEKS student expectations. These student expectations cover broad concepts, such as the impact of geographic factors on major issues and events in world history, as well as important geographyrelated skills. Therefore, a relatively large number of items is required to measure these student expectations fully. Objective 3 contains three TEKS student expectations pertaining to economic and social influences on major issues and events in world history. Seven items per test will sufficiently measure this small number of student expectations. Objective 5 measures critical-thinking skills, which are included in the social studies curriculum beginning in kindergarten. If students are able to think critically, they will develop a greater capacity to understand the broad spectrum of social studies concepts and information necessary to become informed citizens. As a result, the number of items included under this objective is comparatively large.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

TEXAS ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (TAKS) BLUEPRINT FOR GRADE 11 EXIT LEVEL SOCIAL STUDIES

Objectives Objective 1History Objective 2Geography Objective 3Economic and Social Influences Objective 4Political Influences Objective 5Social Studies Skills Total number of items

Proposed Number of Items 13 9 13 9 11 55

Curriculum Rationale Objective 1 consists of 17 TEKS student expectations that focus on issues and events in American history from the colonial era to the late 20th century. Examples of such issues and events include the establishment of the United States as an independent nation, the emergence of the United States as a world power during the late 19 century, and the role of the United States in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. The student expectations in Objective 1 cover content that spans a long period of American history and therefore require a relatively large number of items per test (13) to measure fully. Objective 2 focuses on geography and consists of content- and skills-based world geography, world history, and U.S. History TEKS student expectations. Nine items per test are required to measure both the content and skills within this objective. Objective 3 contains 17 TEKS student expectations that focus on economic and social issues in American history from the colonial era to the late 20th century. Examples of such issues include the rapid growth of U.S. industry during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the causes and effects of the Great Depression, and the development of the Civil Rights movement during the 20th century. These student expectations cover content that spans a long period of American history and therefore require a relatively large number of items per test (13) to measure fully. Objective 4 focuses on the development of representative government in the United States as well as on political influences in American history from the colonization era to the present. Since there are fewer TEKS student expectations in this objective than in Objectives 1 and 3, nine items per test are sufficient to measure the content within this objective. Objective 5 measures critical-thinking skills, which are included in the social studies curriculum beginning in kindergarten. If students are able to think critically, they will develop a greater capacity to understand the broad spectrum of social studies concepts
Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

166

and information necessary to become informed citizens. As a result, the number of items included under this objective is comparatively large.

Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology September 2002

APPENDLX G DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER

167

Page 1 of 1
168

Pati Garcia - External Research


J*^*l*MI*6**MhMMaiJ~*ilrit^~~b-UJUell-^

From: To: Date: Subject:

Philip Linerode Pati Garcia 5/18/2010 1:35 PM External Research

Ms Garcia, NISD staff have review your proposal for data collection of selected instructional staff at^ The study seems reasonable and appropriately rigorous. The study is approved. You may continue with the logistical needs to collect the data. Please coordinate with campus administration in your efforts. Best of luck, -phii

C I ///-<.\r-v_

APPENDIX H LETTER TO TEACHERS

169

Dear Fellow Teachers, I received a report from a fellow teacher stating that she was having problems with the online survey. I immediately contacted the helpdesk and they reported there is a banner ad that is preventing teachers from completing the survey online. I will be hand delivering hardcopies of the survey to your classrooms, since there is a problem with the server. Once you have completed the hardcopies please place them in my mailbox. Sorry for any confusion and I appreciate your participation. Thanks again, Pari Garcia

VITA

PATRICIA LEE GARCIA 7897 Krueger Moore Rd San Antonio, TX 78250 EDUCATIONAL HISTORY University of Texas A&M Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas, M. S. in Educational Leadership, December 2007 University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, B.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies, August 1997 CERTIFICATIONS Special Education Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade, 1997 Elementary Education First through Eighth Grade, 1997 Deaf Education Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade, 1998 Principal Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade, 2008 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 2004-2010 Auditory Impaired Teacher, Northside Independent School DistrictMarshall High School, San Antonio, Texas 2003-2004 Special Education Teacher, Northside Independent School District- Ward Elementary, San Antonio, Texas 2001 -2003 Special Education Teacher, Northside Independent School DistrictSteubing Elementary, San Antonio, Texas 1997-2001 Special Education Teacher, Southwest Independent School District- Big Country Elementary, San Antonio, Texas

171

S-ar putea să vă placă și