associations among preservice teachers’ psychological traits and classroom performance ratings

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 12 October 2014, At: 16:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Associations among preservice teachers’ psychologicaltraits and classroom performance ratingsMartha Daugherty a , Jenny Logan a , Matthew Turner a & David Compton ba Department of Psychology , Georgia College & State Universityb Rinker School of Business , Palm Beach Atlantic UniversityPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Martha Daugherty , Jenny Logan , Matthew Turner & David Compton (2003) Associations amongpreservice teachers’ psychological traits and classroom performance ratings, The Teacher Educator, 38:3, 151-168, DOI:10.1080/08878730309555315

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730309555315

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08878730309555315

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730309555315

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Teacher Educator, vol. 38, no. 3, Winter 2003

ASSOCIATIONS AMONG PRESERVICE TEACHERS'

PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS AND CLASSROOM

PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Martha Daugherty, Jenny Logan, and Matthew TurnerDepartment of Psychology, Georgia College & State University

David ComptonRinker School of Business, Palm Beach Atlantic University

Abstract

Educational theorists and researchers have often overlooked potential linksbetween successful teaching and a teachers personal qualities. This investiga-tion explored associations among three psychological characteristics and class-room performance ratings of prospective teachers. Fifty-three students enrolledin a teacher education program participated in the study. The students wereassessed on personality style, creative thinking, motivation, and classroom per-formance competency during student teaching. Correlational statisticalanalysis found significant relationships among three creativity measures andratings of preservice teachers' classroom performance. Further, regressionanalysis revealed originality, one subscale of creativity, was a significant pre-dictor of effective student teaching. Findings indicate that creative constructsmay have potential value in assessing teacher education candidates.

In the 1996 edition of the Handbook of Research on TeacherEducation, Ducharme and Ducharme identified voids in the literature onpreservice teachers and teacher preparation. One challenge cited by theseauthors was the need to explore psychological traits of preservice teachersthat may be predictive of successful teaching. According to theirextensive review, the rationale for further research in this area was •supported by documentation accumulated in a variety of otheroccupational fields to show that personal qualities have an effect on workperformance.

This investigation was planned with the objective of examiningpsychological characteristics of prospective teachers and theirrelationship to classroom instructional performance. Three traits wereidentified: personality style, creative thinking, and motivation. Interestin these attributes emerged while examining the literature anddiscovering their unique contributions to teaching effectiveness (Fisher& Kent, 1998; Hawkes,1991; Howey & Strom, 1982; Zimpher &Howey, 1990). Specifically, connections among the three constructs were

151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


noted in the literature on reflective teachers (Abdallah, 1996; Czubaj,1996; Norton, 1996, 1997).

Reflective thinking is defined as a teachers consistent inquiryinto the methods and consequences of his or her own educationalpractices and is recognized as one hallmark of a competent teacher(Norton, 1997). Norton found that not only was an internal locus ofcontrol inherently tied to reflective thinking, but that the reflectivepractitioner also tended to be highly creative. Amabile, Hennessey, andGrossman's (1986) and Hennessey and Amabile's (1988) work oncreativity supported this link between locus of control and creativethinking. Reflective thinking was also identified with specific personalitystyles (Scheirer & Cohen, 1998).

The readings in this research revealed that personality style,motivation, and creative thought could be linked to tendencies towardsself-reflection and could provide possible indicators of preservice teacherswho will be effective in the classroom. The purpose of this research wasto examine the predictive value of these psychological constructs onpreservice teachers' performance ratings during student teaching.

Personality, Locus of Control, and Creative Thought

PersonalityPersonality has been defined as an individual's particular

preference for taking in information, making decisions, andcommunicating thoughts and feelings Qung, 1993). Personality isinherently tied to one's psychological perspectives and behaviors. Thenature of a teacher's personality greatly influences instructional qualities.For example, teachers' personality traits have been linked to a variety ofcharacteristics that range from classroom management style (Martin,1995) to recent concerns of technology-oriented attitudes (Katz, 1992).

Additionally, research has found that personality influencespatterns of interaction among teachers, their students, and the types oflearning environments that emerge from relationships between the two(Fisher & Kent, 1998; Follman, 1994). For example, efforts todetermine levels of job performance stress among teachers have identifiedpersonality as a significant predictor of teacher burnout (Hughes, 1987).This research, using Myers-Briggs Type Indicators, concluded thatextroverted, sensing personality types were more resistive to stress thanthose styles consistent with feeling and perceptual dominance.Personality, it seems, can even be tied to school reform issues. Scheirer

152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


and Cohen (1998) determined that teachers with cognitive-basedpersonalities who engaged in reflective thinking were potential keyplayers in current school reform movements.

Locus of ControlMotivation is most often measured by locus of control

assessments. Rotter (1966) defined locus of control as "the degree towhich [an] individual perceives that [a] reward follows from, or iscontingent upon, his own behavior or attributes versus the degree towhich he feels the reward is controlled by forces outside himself and mayoccur independently of his own actions" (p. 1). Generally, the field ofeducation accepts the premise that our most effective teachers aremotivated by internal orientations of control (Hawkes, 1991; Norton,1997).

Reflective thinking practices of teachers have been positivelyassociated with an internal locus of control (Abdallah, 1996; Norton,1997). A reflective teacher, by nature, is internally driven to evaluatepractices and methods in a classroom and improve them accordingly, animportant characteristic of effective instruction. In addition, teacherswith internal locus of control preferences have higher expectations ofstudents, which consequently tends to increase student achievement(Czubaj, 1996; Feldman, 1983). It also makes sense that teachers whomodel self-direction and take charge of their own circumstances andactions will influence their students to do the same.

Creative ThoughtThe third construct investigated in this study was creative

thinking. The art and craft of teaching calls for creativity, imagination,and a philosophical approach that requires students to play with ideas,problems, and concepts (Abdallah, 1996; Eisner, 1983; Ducharme &Kluender, 1986). In essence, the ability to think creatively is consistentlyrecognized as an essential asset to effective teaching and is oftenattributed to specific thought processes such as reflective thinking(Flinders, 1987; Norton, 1996; Sternberg, 1996).

Good teachers approach curriculum development andinstruction creatively. They problem solve creatively on a daily basis(Sternberg, 1996). And, perhaps most important, when teachers modelcreativity, creative thinking is initiated and enhanced among theirstudents (Goree, 1996). In addition, due to the instructional strength ofthis characteristic, it is often recommended diat creative thinking and

153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


strategizing be taught in teacher education programs (Abdallah, 1996; •Nickerson, 1994; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).

The purpose of this study was to examine these characteristicswith a focus on their predictive value of preservice teachers' instructionalcompetency ratings. If significant, indicators such as these could offermore multidimensional information for preservice teacher selection andretention (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996; Elliott, 1993; Howey &Strom, 1982). The establishment of preservice teacher selection criteriabased on a more complete conceptualization of the teacher could alsoprovide a model for evaluation research of teacher education. Personalitytyping might contribute perspectives on an individual's interpretation ofenvironmental information and knowledge of self and others. Locus ofcontrol measures would generate information on preservice teachers'belief systems in terms of motivation. Finally, creativity assessmentscould suggest insight into problem-solving abilities.

Method

ParticipantsFifty-three preservice teachers from a university located in the

southeastern United States participated in the study. Admittance to theteacher education program was based upon a grade-point average of 2.5on a four-point scale and completion of core work. Thirty-two of thestudents were early childhood education majors. Twenty-one studentswere middle grades majors. The mean age for the entire sample was 25years with an age range of 20-31 years. The group was comprised of 5African-American students, 1 Hispanic student, and A7 Caucasianstudents. Forty-eight of the participants were female, and five studentswere male.

InstrumentationThree assessments were administered during the first semester of

the students' senior year of college. Specifically, measures of personality,locus of control, and creative thinking were collected on the sample. Inaddition, ratings of classroom instructional performance were collectedand averaged on each participant during their student teachingexperience.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI) is designed to identify an individual's preferences of perceptionand judgment and has been established as an instrument that can

154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


categorize personality type (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The inventoryitems were created from Carl Jung's (1993) theory of personality. Fourscores based on dichotomous constructs are obtained; Extroversion vs.Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judgmentvs. Perception. According to type theory, the 4 constructs interact and,therefore, 16 four-letter personality types can be identified. For example,an introverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging (INTJ) personality is anintroverted and intuitive individual who is both thinking and judging.For purposes of this study, scores were reported based on the 1-4 scale.

MBTI inventory items involve a forced-choice format allowingindividuals to choose among two or three responses. Scoring weights areassigned to responses based on a prediction ratio, which indicates type ofpreference. All indices are determined in the same manner except for theThinking-Feeling (TF) scale, which is scored differently for males andfemales (Devito, 1985).

Reliability of the MBTI is presented in the manual and indicatesthat identified types remain the same when the inventory isreadministered at a later date (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). In addition,study findings discussed in the manual demonstrate validity of theinstrument. The data indicate that the MBTI correlates to personalitymeasures, SAT performances, and the Edwards Personal PreferenceSchedule (Devito, 1985). In his test critique, Willis (1984) also citednumerous studies that demonstrate that the assessment accuratelymeasures each of the four constructs.

The administrator and scorer of the MTBI in this study receivedtraining from a qualified university counselor. Administration, scoring,and interpretation results were also guided and supervised by the samecounselor. Subjects' personalities were categorized according to one of the16 types based on the 4 scales. To represent participant personality type,each of die 4 personality scales was assigned a value for the study'sstatistical analyses

Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale. Nowicki andStrickland's (1972) Locus of Control Scale was designed to measureinternal versus external control of reinforcement. The scale wasconstructed on the basis of Rotter's (1966) definition of internal-externalcontrol of reinforcement and motivation. Items describe reinforcementsituations that address interpersonal and motivational areas such asaffiliation, achievement, and dependency. The test is administeredverbally, with each item read twice. Students complete the 40-itempaper-pencil test with a yes or no response mode.

155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale has establishedconvergent validity. The Scale has been significantly correlated with theIntellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire and the Bialer-Cromwell Scale. Internality was found to increase with age and besignificantly related to achievement scores. Reliability has also beenestablished on the scale through the split-half method corrected by theSpearman-Brown Prophesy Formula with r = .63 for Grades 3-5; r = .68for Grades 6-8; r = .74 for Grades 9-11; and r = .81 for Grade 12+(Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).

Scores for the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale arebased on a continuous scale with higher scores associated with externalorientation. Mean scores were established with a variety of samples,ranging from third grade through college, during the construction anditem analysis of the instrument. Mean scores declined with age but weresimilar among sexes (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). Obtained scores arecompared to mean scores of the appropriate age group for interpretationof results.

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Verbal Form). The TorranceTest of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Verbal Form (Torrance, 1990)measures creative thinking abilities with seven subtests that are scored onthe basis of fluency, flexibility, and originality. The subtests consist of thefollowing activities: Asking, Guessing Causes, Guessing Consequences,Product Improvement, Unusual Uses, Unusual Questions, and JustSuppose. Scores on the three creativity constructs are accumulated acrossall subtests.

Subtests are time limited with students allowed 5 to 10 minutesto complete items. The tests are game-like, move rapidly, and requirewriting. The verbal test takes a little over 30 minutes of working time.

Several test-retest and alternate forms of reliability studies havebeen reported on the Torrance Tests. Although the studies have variedaccording to sample size and age groups, the reliabilities have rangedfrom .50 to .93, with only an occasional finding to the contrary (Chase,1985). In studies cited in the TTCT Norms Technical Manual (Torrance,1984), classroom teachers who had only studied the scoring guideshowed mean reliability coefficients from .94 to .99. This evidencesuggests that the Torrance Tests display reasonable reliability forevaluating and identifying specific creative thinking constructs.

Validity data are also provided in the TTCT Norms TechnicalManual. Construct validity has been established by relating TTCT scoresto various measures of personality and intelligence. In addition, there is

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


evidence to support TTCT scores being positively related to othercriteria of creative thinking, including evaluations of drama talent andteacher ratings of student creative thinking and activities (Torrance,1972). In a variety of studies, TTCT scores were positively andsignificantly correlated to creative accomplishment (TrefFinger, 1985).Torrance (1981) also found in a 22-year longitudinal follow-up study ofstudents that the Torrance Tests were significant predictors of creativeattainment.

Scoring of the Torrance Tests is by hand with the aid of themanual and streamline guides. Psychometric sophistication is notrequired for scoring, and "classroom teachers who have gone through themanual appear to do a competent job as scorers" (Chase, 1985, p. 1296).The administrator of the Torrance Tests for this research project hadreceived training and had obtained inter-rater reliabilities of .90, .92,.99, .94, and .96 on each subtest, respectively, based on percentagreement with the trainer.

Classroom Performance Rating. College supervisors of studentteaching completed 8 formal evaluations on students participating in thestudy. The evaluation form consisted of 13 descriptors rated on a Likertscale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicating the poorest performance and 10demonstrating a rating of excellence. The evaluation descriptors areidentified in Table 1. Descriptors covered competencies that ranged fromplanning instruction, assessing student progress, and managing theclassroom environment. Characteristics such as quality of interaction andinvolvement with students, and appropriateness of lesson content werealso noted as performance criteria.

The rating scale was based upon descriptors reflected in theGeorgia Teaching Observation Instrument (GTOI; Georgia Department ofEducation, 1997). The Georgia State Department of Education, incollaboration with teachers and administrators in every Georgia schoolsystem, developed and published this instrument in the early 1990s. TheGTOI is used extensively today to evaluate teachers' classroomperformance in the state of Georgia. The initial development of theinstrument was based on a review of teacher effectiveness research.Affirmations of the validity were obtained from Georgia teachersthrough surveys administered at critical points throughout 2 years offield-testing (Georgia Department of Education, 1993). The surveys

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 1Classroom Performance Rating Criteria

1.2.

3.4.5.

6.

7.8.

9.10.

11.12.

13.

Plans and Organizes LessonsProvides Specific Lesson Objectives that Include Evaluation

StrategiesPresents Instruction with Appropriate Delivery Strategies

Organizes and Sequences Content PresentationPromotes Learning Transfer through Connections to Prior and

Future LearningUses Questioning Techniques to Check for Understanding

Provides Guided Activity to Practice Learning

Assesses Student ProgressProvides Student FeedbackEstablishes Appropriate Learning Environment

Monitors and Maintains Appropriate Classroom BehaviorSelects and Uses Appropriate Instructional MediaUses Standard English: Oral/Written

included items that asked whether or not (a) the GTOI behaviors wereroutinely performed, (b) the GTOI descriptors should be required aspart of the annual evaluation process, and (c) the GTOI addressed themost important teaching behaviors that should be assessed for annualevaluation. Approximately 95,000 surveys were returned to the StateDepartment of Education. The analysis of the data indicated "strongvalidity related support" for the GTOI (Georgia Department ofEducation, 1993, p. 22).

A final descriptor was added to the evaluation form for purposesof this research. This item focused on the overall performance of diestudent teacher based on that day's assessment and was rated on a Likertscale of 1 to 10. Supervising teachers were asked to average the ratingsthe student received for the observation (13 items) and provide anoverall mean rating for the final item. An average (mean) rating for thislast item, computed from means of the 8 formal evaluations, was used asa measure of performance competency during student teaching for eachparticipant. A mean descriptive statistic was chosen in order to take intoaccount classroom performance throughout the semester, includingvariance that likely occurred from first to last instructional presentations.

158

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Four college supervisors participated in the evaluation process.The college instructors had supervised student teachers for an average of7 years. Interrater reliability among the supervisors for the performancescoring was established by supervisors observing the same student teacherand noting percent agreement of ratings. A 90% agreement wasidentified on the overall performance rating of the student teacher.Additionally, the systematic nature of the college's supervisionrequirements during student teaching facilitated the accuracy of thegenerated ratings on students. Supervision responsibilities includedbimonthly visits to public school classrooms where individual studentswere placed for the semester. The visit generally consisted of anobservation of the student teacher's instruction, a conference with bothstudent teacher and classroom cooperating teacher, and planned timewith the student teacher to discuss and evaluate lesson plans.

Procedures

Preservice teachers were assessed on creativity, locus of control,and personality during the first semester of their senior year of college.Individual assessments were given during three class times, oneassessment per class, with several days between each testing session.Assessment times varied with the Nowicki-Strickland Inventory takingthe least amount of time (15-20 minutes) and the Torrance Test ofCreative Thinking taking the most time (30-40 minutes).

During the last semester of their senior year, the students wereassigned to student teaching experiences. The teacher education programhad set guidelines for this experience. Student teachers were required tobegin the semester observing children. During the second week theybegan teaching, adding subjects and/or class periods until they wereteaching full-time by approximately mid-semester. The student teacherswere responsible for full-time teaching and related classroom routines forat least 2 weeks. During the remaining weeks of the semester, theygradually gave up teaching responsibilities.

Their college supervisor formally evaluated the students eighttimes during student teaching. Evaluations were sometimes prearrangedand at other times occurred spontaneously when supervisors visitedschools without prior warning. An average overall rating for the eightobservations was calculated on each student and used as a measure ofclassroom performance during student teaching.

159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Results

The sample summary statistics for all measures are identified inTable 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation procedures were used toexamine the bivariate relationships between the various predictorvariables and between the predictors and the criterion variable. Theresults are presented in Table 3. All three Torrance creativity measureswere significantly correlated with classroom performance ratings (allp's < .001), but no significant association was observed amongpersonality type and classroom performance, K50) = .25, or locus ofcontrol and classroom performance, r(50) = -.151. Last, all threeTorrance measures were highly correlated (ally's < .001).

Following an examination of the zero-order relationships, diepredictor variables, (a) the three Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingSubscales of Originality, Fluency, and Flexibility, (b) the Myers-BriggsType Indicator, and (c) the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scalewere considered in a stepwise regression model with classroomperformance rating as the criterion variable. The result of this analysis(see Table 4, Model 1) revealed that only one predictor, the originalitysubscale of the Torrance Creativity Test, was predictive of teacherperformance ratings, R2 = .520, F(l, 49) = 53.11,p < .001.

However, because of the high bivariate correlation between thefluency creativity measure and teacher performance rating, threeadditional analyses were performed to examine the predictiverelationship of the originality and fluency measures as a predictor ofteaching performance after statistical control of the second predictor.Specifically, the analysis determined the amount of variance in teachingperformance accounted for by originality alone (previous analysis, i.e.,Model 1), fluency alone (Model 2), originality after fluency was partialedout (Model 3), and fluency after originality was partialed out (Model 4).The results of these analyses also appear in Table 4.

The fourth column entries in Table 4 are the attenuation in theefFect of the first variable after the second variable was partialed out. Thispercentage was determined by the following formula: (R2 Originality[Model 1] - R2 Originality [Model 3]IR2 Originality [Model 3]). Forexample, the drop in the variance in teacher performance rating from52% (Model 1) to 6.5% (Model 3), after statistical control of fluency,suggests that fluency accounts for 87.5% of the originality-associatedvariance in rated teaching performance (i.e., .520 - .065/.520 = .875).

160

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


This finding is noteworthy and suggests that individual differences influency account for a sizable proportion of originality-associated variancein rated teaching performance.

Table 2

Summary Statistics for All Measures

Variable

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

FluencyOriginality-

Flexibility

Personality-

Locus of ControlClassroom Rating

Mean

94.5381.77

43.35

2.638.207.18

SD

22.23

21.257.62

.81

3.431.11

Range

56-15338-13624-61

1-4

3-18

5-9

Note. N= 53.

Table 3

Intercorrelations Among the Variables

Variable

Fluency

Flexibility

Originality

Personality

Locus ofControl

Rating

Torrance Creativity Test

Fluency

.710**

.955**

.213

-.016

.676**

Flexibility

.723**

.220

.041

.498**

Originality

.236

-.076

.721**

Personality Locus of Rating

Control

—

-.071 —

.251 -.151 —

*significant, p < .001.

161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 4Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Each Measure of Cognitive Performance

ModelVariable

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

R2 = .522,K2, 48) = 26.19

Model 4

R2 = .522,F(2,48) = 26.19

PredictorAttenuated

Originality

Fluency

Fluency

Originality

Originality

Fluency

R

.721

.676

.676

.722

.721

.722

R2

.520

.457

.457

.522

.520

.522

R2

.065

.002

P

87.5%

99.5%

F

53.11

41.28

41.28

6.49

53.11

0.17

df

1,49

1,49

1,49

1,49

1,49

1,49

P

.001

.001

.001

.05

.001

ns

Note. Fourth column entries are the attenuation in the efFect of one variable, originality or fluency, after statistical control of thesecond variable.

i.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Examining the relationship between teaching performance andfluency revealed that fluency accounted for 45.7% of the variance in thisvariable (see Model 2). As noted above, originality accounted for 52% ofthe variance in teaching ratings. The R2 associated with Fluency afterstatistical control of Originality (Model 4) decreased to 0.2%. At anyrate, the fact that fluency is highly correlated with originality (and alsoflexibility, i.e., collinearity, Keppel & Zedeck, 1989) suggests that whenconsidered collectively, fluency will offer little in the way of explainingthe variability in teacher performance ratings above that associated withthe originality measure.

Discussion

Correlational statistical analysis found significant relationshipsamong all three creativity measures and preservice teachers' performanceratings. Further, regression analysis showed that the creativity measure oforiginality significantly predicted classroom performance ratings.Specifically, originality contributed the most information to the degreeof quality represented by classroom performance of student teachers.

In order to interpret these findings, an understanding of theassessed creativity constructs is necessary. The Torrance Tests of CreativeThinking measure processes that are typically regarded as a combinationof thinking factors, temperament traits, and abilities related to creativity.The construct of fluency is based on the premise that a person who iscapable of producing a large number of ideas per unit of time will have agreater chance of having significant ideas. Flexibility refers to anindividual's creative mental capacity to change a mind-set and try newapproaches. Originality indicates the degree of novelty or frequency ofuncommon responses one is capable of when required to respond tocertain situations, items, or people (Torrance, 1988).

According to Torrance's (1988) definition of creativity, the char-acteristic of originality is specifically related to problem-solvingprocesses. Highly original thinkers approach everyday problems on moreadvanced and qualitative levels. For example, the originally creative pre- •service teacher might engage in problem solving with new, unusual, ornovel ideas, or redefine pieces of information to create new uses or possi-bilities. Engaging in this type of problem solving would naturally fit inclassroom environments and curriculum instruction. Indeed, thisapproach to thinking would facilitate more constructive teacherresponses to classroom situations and contexts.

Although locus of control was not significantly predictive ofclassroom performance, it is interesting to note that the sampleparticipating in this study had a mean score on this measure of 8.20,

163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


SD = 3.43. This statistic was well below the scales normalized mean of12.37, SD = 5.05 for the studied age group (Nowicki & Strickland,1973). To interpret this, keep in mind that the Nowicki-StricklandLocus of Control Scale is based on a continuous scale. Scores higher thanthe normalized mean are more associated with an external orientationwhereas those below the mean indicate more internal control. The meanstatistic indicated that the sample, as a group, was prone towards internalmotivational tendencies. The literature on creativity supports tendenciesof creative individuals to have internal motivational patterns whereas lesscreative people tend to be more externally oriented (Amabile, Hennesey& Grossman, 1986: Amabile, 1979).

Personality was not related to any of the variables in the dataanalysis. However, approximately 20% (11) of the preservice teacherswere assessed as extroverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceiving (ENFP)personality types. The Myers Briggs manual describes individuals withthese personality characteristics as enthusiastic, imaginative, intuitive,and having a greater range of interests and abilities than any otherpersonality type. Although no significance was detected among indices ofpersonality and classroom performance, it seems worth noting that thesecharacteristics are common to many of the descriptors used whendescribing the temperament of highly creative people (Torrance, 1988).

Conclusions and Implications

Study findings imply that in the sample under investigationcreative thinking was related to teaching performance at the preservicestage of development and that originality was one creative-thinkingattribute that could predict the success of these potential teachers. Theconnection of creativity, especially originality, to preservice teachers'classroom performance indicates that creative constructs may havepotential value in assessing teacher education candidates and, perhaps,for teachers already in the field.

Creativity, by its very nature, reflects interpersonal sensitivityand uniqueness in cognitive ability and behavioral talents (Gardner,1988). For example, Sternberg (1988, 1996) described a creativeindividual as one who applies advanced qualitative problem-solvingstrategies and evaluation monitoring. Similarly, Torrance (1988) foundcreative people to be sensitive to problem defining and able to generatemore viable solutions to problems and to change strategies as the needdictates. Finally, the affective nature of creativity supports expressiveness,intuition, enthusiasm, and the ability to accept and nurture divergent

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


and critical thinking and resulting ideas (Gardner, 1988; Walberg,1988). Obviously, more teachers that reflect these qualities would greatlybenefit the educational arena.

In addition, the creativity literature has shown that creativethinking can be nurtured and increased over time (Rubin, 1985;Sternberg, 1988; Torrance, 1972). Typical educational environments thatfoster creativity reflect attributes of "cooperation, critical thinking,constructive attitudes, lifelong learning, and self-reliance" (Walberg,1988, p. 352). Walberg stated that instructors who facilitated creativityamong students "treated students as individuals, encouragedindependent thinking, were dynamic lecturers, indicated that excellencewas expected and could be achieved, and rewarded student's creativebehavior or work" (p. 353). Modeling of creative thinking is anotherpowerful way to develop creativity among teacher education students(Sternberg, 1996).

Instructors of our future teachers should show them how toapproach teaching from a creative perspective. For example, they canoffer creative assignments and assessments that allow teacher educationstudents to play with ideas, question assumptions, and develop new waysof thinking about old issues. Instructors can also offer educationalenvironments that encourage sensible risk-taking, allowing for mistakesand independent thinking (Sternberg, 1996). This type of environmentwould nurture natural creativity. And, finally, instructors should rewardcreative ideas and products, thereby increasing the value of creativethought among our preservice teachers. The results of this study supportteacher education programs that reflect these environmental andinstructional qualities.

References

Abdallah, A. (1996). Fostering creativity in student teachers. Community Review,14, 52-58.

Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.

Amabile, T. M., Hennesey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influenceson creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Chase, C. I. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V.Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The 9th mental measurement yearbook (pp. 1631-1632). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Czubaj, C. A. (1996). Maintaining teacher motivation. Education, 116, 1, 372-379.

Devito, A. J. (1985). Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In J. V. Mitchell,Jr. (Ed.), The 9th mental measurement yearbook (pp. 1030-1032).Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Ducharme, E. R., & Ducharme, M. K. (1996). Needed research in teachereducation. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbookof research on teacher education (pp. 1030-1046). New York:Macmillan Library Reference USA Publisher.

Ducharme, E. R., & Kluender, M. M. (1986). Good teachers in good schools:Some reflections. Educational Leadership, 44, 43-46.

Eisner, E. W. (1983). The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership 41,4-13.

Elliott, R. (1993). Professional education and the idea of a practical educationalscience. In J. Elliott (Ed.), Restructuring teacher education (pp. 65-85).Washington, DC: Falmer.

Feldman, R. S. (1983, August). Personality factors and expectation effects inteacher-student interaction. Paper presented at the 91st AnnualConvention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Fisher, D. L., & Kent, H. B. (1998). Associations between teacher personalityand classroom environment. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33, 5-13.

Flinders, N. J. (1987). Focusing on creative function in teacher training:Connecting subject matter content with pedagogical process. In O. M.Eveline (Ed.), Philosophy of education proceedings (pp. 36-49). Calgary,Canada: University of Calgary Press.

Follman, J. (1994). Teachers as life influences. People and Education, 2, 7-13.Gardner, H. (1988). Creative lives and creative works: A synthetic scientific

approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 298-325). New York Cambridge University Press.

Georgia Department of Education. (1993). Georgia teacher evaluation program.Atlanta, GA: Author.

Georgia Department of Education. (1997). Georgia Teaching ObservationInstrument (GTOI). Atlanta, GA: Author.

Goree, K. (1996). Creativity in the classroom . . . Do we really want it? GiftedChild Today, 19, 36-39.

Hawkes, B. B. (1991). Teacher locus of control: Who's responsible? Education,111, 475-479.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 11-43). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Howey, K. R., & Strom, S. M. (1982). Teacher selection reconsidered. In K. R.Howey & W. R. Gardner (Eds.), The education of teachers: A lookahead (pp. 1-34). New York: Longman.

Hughes, T. M. (1987, November). The prediction of teacher burnout throughpersonality type, critical thinking, and self-concept. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,Mobile, AL.

Jung, C. G. (1993). Analytical psychology. In R. B. Owen (Ed.), Theories ofpersonality (pp. 79-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

166

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Keppel, G., & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs: Analysis ofvariance and multiple regression/correlation approaches. New York:Freeman.

Katz, Y. J. (1992). Toward a personality profile of a successful computer-usingteacher. Educational Technology, 32, 39-41.

Martin, N. K. (1995). Belief regarding classroom management style: Relationshipsto particular teacher personality characteristics. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,San Francisco, CA.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the developmentand the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nickerson, R. S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 409-449). SanDiego: Academic Press.

Norton, J, L. (1996, November). The effective practitioner: Images from first yearteachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-SouthEducational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Norton, J. L. (1997). Locus of control and reflective thinking in preserviceteachers. Education, 117, 401-411.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1972). Nowicki-Strickland Locus of ControlScale. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external controlof reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).

Rubin, L. J. (1985). Artistry in teaching. New York: Random House.Scheirer, E. A., & Cohen, M. (1998). Preservice belief, assumptions and

conceptions about children, schools, knowledge, learning, and teaching.Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the AmericanAssociation of Teacher Educators, New Orleans, LA.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives(pp. 125-148). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Investing in creativity: Many happy returns. EducationalLeadership, 53, 80-85.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativityin a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of CreativeThinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114-143.

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators ofcreative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child and AdultQuarterly, 6, 136-140.

Torrance, E. P. (1984). Norms-technical manual, Torrance Tests of CreativeThinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychologicalperspectives (pp. 43-76). New York: Cambridge University Press.

167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4


Torrance, E. P. (1990). TTCT streamlined (revised) manual including norms anddirections for administering and scoring. Bensenville, IL: ScholasticTesting Service.

Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell,Jr. (Ed.), The 9th mental measurement yearbook (pp. 1632-1634).Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Walberg, H. J. (1988). Creativity and talent as learning. In R. J. Sternberg(Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives(pp. 340-362). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, C. G. (1984). Myers-Brigg type indicator. Test Critique, 1, 482-490.Zimpher, N. L., & Howey, K. R. (1990). Scholary inquiry into teacher

education in the United States. In R. P. Tisher & M. F. Eideen (Eds.),Research in teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 211-287).Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

168

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:58

12

Oct

ober

201

4

associations among preservice teachers’ psychological traits and classroom performance ratings

Documents