School systems that attempt to respond to outside pressures of accountability have an obligation to seek changes that make schools and teaching more effective. Any factor, including affective factors, proven to have an impact on the degree of teacher effectiveness should be carefully considered by administrators.

Brophy (1979) demonstrated that teachers who believe strongly that their students are capable of learning new skills or subject matter are more likely to be successful in increasing students' learning. Students usually respond positively to teachers who believe that their students can learn. Sabine's (1977) teacher effectiveness research demonstrated that students prosper under two teacher characteristics; teachers challenging students, and teachers caring for students.

This study examined whether a significant relationship exists between inviting characteristics of teachers and the effectiveness of these teachers as rated by their principals. The study also examined the difference between the effectiveness of humanistic or inviting teachers versus the effectiveness of custodial or disinviting teachers. If a relationship exists, and if a significant difference can be found between the effectiveness of inviting versus disinviting characteristics, school planning can be affected. Promoting inviting teacher characteristics through inservice and staff development activities may be realized.

Lunenburg and Schmidt (1989) defined quality of life in school as the students' satisfaction with school, commitment to class work, and students' reactions to teachers. Their research supported the hypothesis that custodial pupil control ideology, defined here as disinviting teaching, was related to unfavorable quality of school life. In contrast, humanistic or inviting teaching was correlated to favorable quality of school life. These researchers used an instrument designed to measure the quality of life as perceived by students.

Willower and Lawrence (1979) found a significant relationship between teacher perceived threats and "custodialism" of teachers. The custodial orientation favors a rigid and highly controlled setting concerned primarily with the maintenance of order. According to these researchers, impersonality, pessimism, and "watchful mistrust" imbue the atmosphere of the custodial school. The greater the perceived threat to teacher status, the greater the custodialism. Estep, Willower, and Licata (1980) found a positive relationship between humanistic acts and classroom robustness. Robustness involved interest level, "eventfulness", and the stimulation of a class. The researchers concluded that high interest levels, eventfulness, and stimulation in these robust classrooms clearly make them interesting places that do not require strict control.

Lunenburg and Stouten (1983) found a direct relationship between custodialism or disinviting acts in teachers' pupil control ideology and children's projections of rejections and hostility onto teachers. They also found that inviting acts on the part of teachers were related to low student rejection of teachers.

Shearin (1982) demonstrated that consistency or agreement on humanistic or inviting acts among teachers within a school is important. Teachers' ratings on control ideology for four junior high schools were analyzed in relation to student alienation. These data showed that more humanistic schools had less student alienation.

Kottkamp and Mulhern (1987) studied the problem of motivation among teachers. They found that humanistic control ideology and an open school climate were positively related to motivation among teachers.

These studies indicate a genuine need for research demonstrating a relationship between humanistic inviting acts and teaching effectiveness. While these studies show a relationship between humanistic schools and classroom robustness, less rejection and hostility, less student alienation, and more teacher motivation, research is needed to link humanistic acts with teaching effectiveness using other indicators. This study is a preliminary attempt to do just that.

Method

Operational Definition

Inviting teachers were defined as teachers in the sample who responded to twenty written ideological statements and scored above a certain criterion. The ideological statements concerned teachers, students, and schools. Disinviting teachers were defined as teachers who scored below the selected criterion on the twenty ideological statements. The criterion for inviting or disinviting classifications was chosen by an analysis of the mean score for all participants on the ideological statements. A score clearly above the mean or clearly below the mean was used to form inviting or disinviting cells in classifying subjects for this preliminary study. Teaching effectiveness, the dependent variable, was operationally defined as principal-rated effectiveness as determined by responses to eight different indicators.

Methods of Observation

The method of observation for the independent variables, disinviting and inviting characteristics of teachers, was a pupil control ideology form consisting of twenty statements about schools, teachers, and students. This form was introduced into the literature by Willower, Hoy, and Eidell (1967). Possible scores range from 20 to 100 points on the form. Teachers could select responses from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" on a 5 point Likert scale. The higher scores ostensibly pointed to more humanistic, inviting attitudes while lower scores favored more rigid, autocratic, and less inviting attitudes.

The validity and reliability research undergirding the instrument was a major reason this form was chosen for this preliminary study. Willower, Hoy, and Eidell validated the instrument by demonstrating that teachers previously judged to hold a custodial or autocratic ideology scored significantly below average on the instrument in comparison to teachers who scored above average and were previously judged humanistic. Willower, Hoy, and Idell (1967) also calculated split-half reliability resulting in a.91 reliability coefficient.

The method of observation for the dependent variable, teacher effectiveness, was a principal's rating form consisting of eight different indicators. Possible scores of effectiveness range from 8 to 40 points. Principals rated the effectiveness of teachers on the eight indicators using a scale of I to 5, with I being "low" and 5 being "Superior." Higher scores on the principal's rating form represented higher effectiveness, lower scores represented lower effectiveness.

Research shows a link between quantitative and qualitative changes in the learning of students and the eight teacher effectiveness indicators on the principal rating form. Studies undergirding these effectiveness indicators are Sabine (1977), Brophy (1979), and Gorton (1983).

The instrument was validated further by having principals use the instrument and rate the effectiveness of 60 teachers previously evaluated by existing state-approved instruments. Sixty teachers previously rated "meritorious" or "in need of improvement" were selected for the validation process. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean ratings of previously rated "meritorious" teachers and teachers "in need of improvement." The validation process suggested the rating instrument was valid.

Subjects

Nine schools including four high schools, two middle schools. and three elementary schools participated in the study. Schools participating in the study were selected on the basis of size, diversity of student population, socioeconomic status, and geographical boundary. A total of 235 teachers and their principals from the nine schools in South Carolina participated. Ninety-eight percent of all the teachers from the nine schools chose to participate in the study.

Respect for confidentiality was emphasized as part of the orientation process with the school principals. The orientation process involved visits with each school administrator and discussion of the details of their involvement. The instruments were described and discussed in detail with the principals. Each of the instruments had space at the top for recording demographic information. Separation of this information from the actual responses was easily accomplished by paper perforation. This helped assure confidentiality. The principals stapled the appropriate data together for statistical analysis after removing the demographic data.

Procedure

The pupil control instrument was administered to the 235 teachers. Principals asked the teachers to complete the pupil control ideology form during a faculty meeting. Principals were asked to control conversations between teachers while the forms were being completed by asking them not to share their data for the fifteen minutes required to complete the process. The principals subsequently completed the rating forms, and were instructed circumspectively in the orientation process not to examine any of the ideology forms before they responded to the eight indicators of teaching effectiveness for the teachers.

Demographic data included marital status, age, years of experience, and subject area. The form completed by each teacher and the corresponding principal's effectiveness form were stapled together and delivered to the researcher.

Results

A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was computed between the scores for the 235 teachers on the pupil control form and the principal's ratings of effectiveness. A positive relationship was found to be statistically significant [r (233) = .37, p. < .0011. This means a positive significant relationship existed between humanistic, inviting teacher characteristics and teacher effectiveness when all subjects were analyzed.

A t-test for uncorrelated means was used to determine if a significant difference existed between the effectiveness of teachers with humanistic, inviting attit' des and the effectiveness of those with custodial, disinviting attitudes. A statistically significant difference was found [t (149.1) = 4.65, p. < .001], meaning that humanistic, inviting teachers were more effective than their disinviting, custodial counterparts.

A correlation coefficient was also computed separately for the four secondary schools, two middle schools, and the three elementary schools. There was a positive and statistically significant correlation, low to moderate, between pupil control ideology and teacher effectiveness in the four secondary schools [r (I 19) = .36, p. < .001]. There was also a positive and significant correlation between the pupil control ideology and teaching effectiveness in the two middle schools [r (43) = .54, p. <.001]. The relationship at the elementary level was not statistically significant [r (67) = .20, P. = .09].

An analysis was also performed to determine if a significant difference occurred in the effectiveness of inviting and disinviting teachers when secondary, middle, and elementary schools were compared.

Table I shows that there was a statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of the inviting versus the disinviting teachers in the four secondary and two middle schools. The difference favored the inviting teachers in these schools. The difference between means among the three elementary schools was not statistically significant.

TABLE I

Mean Differences in Teacher Effectiveness

Demographic data were analyzed to determine if significant differences existed in either pupil control ideology or effectiveness for people of varying marital status, age, years of experience, or subject areas. There were no significant differences on either ideology or effectiveness for teachers being analyzed according to marital status, age, or years of experience.

However, a statistically significant difference was found when teachers were analyzed according to subject areas. Teachers in math were significantly different from all the other subject areas in pupil control ideology and effectiveness (p. < .05). Math teachers tended to express more disinviting attitudes and as a group were rated less effective by their principals. No other significant differences were found among subject areas.

Discussion

Based on the results of this study, certain attitudes that parallel the concept of "inviting" teacher behaviors seem to correlate with effective teacher performance, as measured by school principals. As a preliminary investigation, this study serves as a catalyst for discussion as to how best to identify an inviting teacher. What statements, ideology, or forms would most efficiently identify an inviting teacher? For all young professionals beginning a teaching career and wondering about their ideology, what statements could help them determine that they were or were not unintentional disinviters? How is the best way to measure effectiveness? Is effectiveness even the most important criterion?

As a preliminary endeavor, this study has obvious limitations. The Willower, Hoy, and Eidell form does not include questions pulled directly from invitational theory. Few would question, however, that pupil control ideology is inexorably linked to invitational theory. Another limitation is that the instrument for pupil control ideology measures self-rated attitude. The instrument does not measure behaviors directly. The fact, however, that attitude alone as measured in this study significantly correlated in six of nine schools to teacher effectiveness was promising. By using only attitudes toward pupil control ideology, we found significant differences in effectiveness for six of nine schools.

This study should help stir the water and motivate proponents Of invitational theory and practice to answer these questions and others yet to be posed. Further research is needed in this vital area that holds so much potential for teaching and learning in the next century. More precise methods of defining, describing, and validating inviting behaviors are needed to affirm the preliminary findings of this study and support the belief that humanistic, inviting teachers are effective classroom leaders.

References

Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and student learning. Educational Leadership, 37(l), 33-38.

Estep, L. E., Willower, D. J., & Licata, J. W. (1980). Teacher pupil control ideology and behavior as predictors of classroom robustness. High School Journal, 63, 155-159.

Gorton, R. A. (1983). School administration and supervision: Challenges and opportunities. Dubuque: William C. Brown Company Publishers.

Kottkamp, R. B., & Mulhem, J. A. (1987). Teacher expectancy motivation, open to closed climate and pupil control ideology in high schools. Journal of research and Development in Education, 20, 9-18.

Lunenburg, F. C.., & Stouten, J. W. (1983). Teacher pupil control ideology and pupils' projected feelings toward teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 528-533.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Schmidt, L. J. (1989). Pupil control ideology, pupil control behavior and the quality of school life. Journal of research and Development in Education, 22, 36-44.

Sabine, G. A. (1977). How students rate their schools and teachers. An ERIC Report: ED-052-533.

Shearin, W. H. (1982). The relationship between student alienation and extent of faculty agreement on pupil control ideology. High School Journal, 66, 32-35.

Willower, D. J., Hoy, W. K., & EideIl, T. L. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology (Study No. 24). University Park, PA: Penn State University.

Willower, D. J. & Lawrence, J. D. (1979). Teachers' perceptions of student threat to teacher status and teacher pupil control ideology. Psychology in the Schools, 16(4), 586-590.

Thomas Cloer, Jr. is the director of special Service Programs at Furman University in Greenville, SC, and William A. Alexander, Jr. is principal at Thornwell School for Children in Clinton, SC.