This problem lies in the field of teacher selection. School superintendents and school executives have no more important problems than those concerned with the technique of selecting and rating teachers. At the present time the various methods of teacher selection are based upon the judgments of competent judges. The general aim of our investigation is to devise some technique which will measure and predict teacher success

Bathurst, J. E.

University of Northern Iowa

Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 33 Annual Issue Article 83 1926 The Prediction of Success of Elementary Teachers J. E. Bathurst State University of Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits you Copyright ©1926 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Bathurst, J. E. (1926) "The Prediction of Success of Elementary Teachers," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 33(1), 275-277. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol33/iss1/83 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uni.edu. THE PREDICTION OF SUCCESS OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS J. E. BATHURST This problem lies in the field of teacher selection. School su-perintendents and school executives have no more important prob-lems than those concerned with the technique of selecting and rating teachers. At the present time the various methods of teach-er selection are based upon the judgments of competent judges. The general aim of our investigation is to devise some technique which will measure and predict teacher success. Dr. F. B. Knight and others have shown that the reliability of judgments of specific factors of teacher ability is only slightly above the reliability of a single judgment of the total function of teacher ability. Various rating schemes and score cards have been built upon the assumption that the reliability of judgments of specific factors of teacher ability is higher than a single judgment of the total function. According to the Spearman-Brown Form-ula for the Measurement of Reliability, the reliability of one judg-ment is .177. If this be true, the greatest possible correlation of a true score of teacher ability with the judgment of one judge would be .42. A correlation of .42 has a predictive value of 9% better than chance would give. In other words, the highest pos-sible prediction of the judgment of one judge of teacher ability is 9% better than chance. If the reliability of rating schemes when rated by one judge is only slightly higher than a single judg-ment of the total function of teacher ability, their highest possible predictive value is only slightly above 9% better than chance. By "highest possible" we are assuming a perfect validity of the judg-ment or rating scheme. It is generally recognized that this as-sumption is not true. Hence the predictive value of rating schemes, if the above analysis is correct, is less than 9% better than chance. We may now restate our problem and say, it is to develop a technic1ue which will more adequately measure and predict teacher ability. For lack of time we have narrowed our problem down, today, to this question; is a teacher who is ranked 'superior,' for example, by the superintendent of a school system also ranked 'superior' by one of the supervisors of the same school system? Do two equally 275 1Bathurst: The Prediction of Success of Elementary TeachersPublished by UNI ScholarWorks, 1926276 IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE compentent judges who have observed the teaching abilityof a teach-er for at least one school year agree as to the ability of that teacher? It would be only sound logic to assume that just to the extent to which they do not agree is there absence of measurement hy judg-ments of competent judges under optimum conditions. In other words, to the extent of their disagreement is teacher ability actually unknown for if there is disagreement, equally competent judges cannot agree upon the amount of its presence when actually seen. The following data were secured from five representative schools from five different states. The rankings were made on elementary teachers. Rankings on each teacher, of the group selected, by the superintendent and supervisor of that school system were secured. In school A the correlation between the rankings of the superin-tendent and the supervisor was+ .8484; P. E. ± .026. The S. D. of the rankings of each was 11.26. This correlation gives an agreement between the superintendent and supervisor of 47.19'70 better than chance. In school B the correlation was + .8070; P. E. + .044. The S. D. of the rankings of each was 6.31. This correlation gives an agreement of 41 '1<; better than chance. In school C the correlation was + .2918; P. E. ± .194. The S. D. of the rankings of each was 2.68. This correlation gives an agree-ment of 4.4'.k better than chance. In school D the correlation was + .4646; P. E. ± .118. The S. D. of the rankings of each was 5.32. This correlation gives an agreement of l 1.45'l better than chance. In school E the correlation was + .9590; P. E. ± .0085. The S. D. of the rankings was 17.0. This correlation gives an agreement of 71.7% better than mere chance. The mean agreement between the judgments of the superin-tendents and the supervisors of these five school systems is 31.l % better than chance. In other words, assuming that the above schools are a sampling of schools in general, if a superintendent rates a teacher as 'superior' there are 31 chances out of a hundred that one of the supervisors of the same school system would rank the same teacher as 'superior' and 69 chances out of a hundred that the supervisor would rank the same teacher as of a lower or higher rank. Other data which we have collected from various school systems support the same fact. In the actual selection of teachers superintendents and school executives are obviously unable to observe the actual work of the candidate applying for a position. The validity of the judgment on the candidate is thus lowered and, as we have seen, to probably less than 9% better than chance. 2Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, Vol. 33 [1926], No. 1, Art. 83https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol33/iss1/83SUCCESS OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 277 It might be contended that such factors as intelligence, second-ary record, academic marks, professional marks, student teaching success, and physique of the candidate which data can be secured by the superintendent and school executive will give a high pre-diction of teacher success. F. L. \Vhitney, in an extensive inves-tigat!on, has shown that the correlation between these factors as a group and teacher success is .288. This was determined by the technique of multiple correlation. A correlation of .288 has a predictive value of 4.3% better th.an chance. These six factors combined, according to vVhitney's study, therefore, have a pre-dictive valu~ of only 4.3% better than mere chance would give. From this discussion and on the basis of further experimental data not given here, we would conclude ( 1) that the problem of teacher selection and ranking is not a simple one, (2) that the ex-isting methods of selection are inadequate for the present exigen-cies, ( 3) that a scientific technique based upon an objective stand-ard for the selection and ranking of teachers ought to be developed. STATE UNIVERSITY OF IowA, IowA CITY, IowA. 3Bathurst: The Prediction of Success of Elementary TeachersPublished by UNI ScholarWorks, 1926

The Prediction of Success of Elementary Teachers

https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5756&context=pias

The Prediction of Success of Elementary Teachers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Northern Iowa