TEACHER PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED OPEN AND NON-OPEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Abstract

The problem of the study was: Can teacher personality characteristics be identified which distinguish between the open and non-open teacher? The major purpose of the study was to develop a profile of personality characteristics as measured by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the Sixteen Personality Factor (16 PF), and the Teacher Satisfaction/Compatibility Questionnaire, all of which describe the open and non-open classroom teacher. It was a descriptive study which utilized volunteer teachers from a large school district in the Southwest. Two trained observers made two 20-minute observations in the classrooms of teachers who had volunteered to participate in the study. Based on these two observations and using the Walberg-Thomas Observation Rating Scale, each observer independently rated the openness of the learning environment of each of the classrooms visited. The volunteer teachers were administered the CPI, and 16 PF, and the Teacher Satisfaction/Compatibility Questionnaire. Data were analyzed by means of a t-test for two sample tests of independent means for null hypothesis 1 and null hypothesis 2. Data were analyzed by means of a two-way ANOVA for each of the 34 dependent variables for null hypothesis 3 and null hypothesis 4. The level of significance for rejection of all hypotheses was set at the .05 level. Conclusions of the study were as follows: the two open schools differed significantly from the five non-open schools in openness of the learning environment. The open teachers differed significantly from the non-open teachers in satisfaction; however, the open teachers did not differ significantly from the non-open teachers in compatibility. With openness and satisfaction serving as independent variables, and the 18 CPI scales and the 16 16 PF scales serving as dependent variables: (1) open teachers did not differ significantly from non-open teachers on 12 CPI scales and nine 16 PF scales. Open teachers did differ significantly from non-open teachers on six CPI scales and seven 16 PF scales: (2) with one exception, satisfied teachers did not differ significantly from not-satisfied teachers in scale scores on the CPI and the 16 PF; (3) no interaction existed between open teachers and non-open teachers and satisfied teachers and not-satisfied teachers in scale scores on the CPI and the 16 PF. With openness and compatibility serving as independent variables, and the 18 CPI scales and the 16 16 PF scales serving as dependent variables: (1) open teachers did not differ significantly from non-open teachers on 10 CPI scales and eight 16 PF scales. Open teachers did differ significantly from non-open teachers on eight CPI and eight 16 PF scales; (2) with three exceptions, compatible teachers did not differ significantly from not-compatible teachers in scale scores on the CPI and the 16 PF; (3) with three exceptions, no interaction existed between open teachers and non-open teachers and compatible teachers and not-compatible teachers in scale scores on the CPI and the 16 PF. It was possible to identify teacher personality characteristics which distinguished between open and non-open teachers. It was possible to develop profiles of personality characteristics which describe open and non-open teachers. Based on the conclusions of this study, various recommendations were made. Similar studies with additional factors and/or larger number of subjects and wider geographic area were recommended. There should be a continuing search for the personalities and behaviors which characterize open and non-open teachers. Perhaps a major focus in future research on education should be the determination of principal personality characteristics that are best suited to the philosophy and methodology of open and non-open education.