title: The Self-Concept and Self-Actualization of University Faculty in Relation to Student Perceptions of Effective Teaching
Creators: name: King, A. Paul
Publisher: name: Utah State University
Year: 1971

description: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between student ratings of university instructors and instructors' self-concept and self-actualization. During the academic year 1970-71, students rated faculty members teaching undergraduate courses from the "Illinois Course Evaluation Questionnaire", Instructors rated high or in the top three deciles were defined in this study as "good" or "effective" teachers, and those rated low or in the lower three deciles were defined as "poor" or "ineffective" instructors. Sixty-eight percent or 118 of the instructors in these categories submitted to two psychological tests--the "Index of Adjustment and Values" and the "Personal Orientation Inventory". These instruments were used to investigate the self-concept and self-actualization of university instructors. From the IAV two main areas were considered or investigated--the self- acceptance and discrepancy between the real and ideal self. Analysis of variance scores showed that there was no difference between mean scores of good and poor instructors in relation to how they accepted themselves and how they viewed their real self in relation to their ideal self. Both groups showed congruency and a positive view of self. When good and poor instructors were compared by an analysis of vari­ence as to their self-actualization, again, there was generally no difference between the means. However, on three subscales (of twelve) the groups differed significantly (.02-.05). Good instructors scored higher in Self­ Actualizing Value, Spontaneity, and Self Regard, or it might be said they are more self-willed, self-expressive, self-assertive, open, honest, and cognizant of their strengths and capabilities. Generally, poor instructors are just as self-actualizing (releasing of full capabilities and potentialities) as good instructors. Other data which showed significant distinction between good and poor instructors was the descriptive data. This data showed that college affiliation an d number of years of teaching seem unrelated to teacher effectiveness. However , sex, age, highest degree earned, rank, and years of formal education did make a difference in this study. Those instructors rated high by students were also those who were mostly female in sex, younger in age (average of 39 years), who had received a master's degree with an average of seven years of university education and a professional rank lower than a professor. Those instructors rated low by students were also those who were mostly male in sex, older in age (average of 46 years), who had a doctorate degree, eight years of university education, and a professional rank of professor. From this study of university instructors rated high and low by students, and from the limited psychological testing, the following may be concluded: (1), When male university instructors terminate their formal education by a doctorate and arrive at the rank of professor students perceive them to be less effective as teachers. (2), How a university instructor feels about himself, how congruent his real and ideal self are, and how well he accepts himself may not be related to his effectiveness or ineffectiveness. University instructors whether good or poor essentially view themselves the same. (3), How well a university instructor is actualizing his potentialities or has satisfied basic needs of safety, belongingness, love and self-esteem, may not be related to his effectiveness or ineffectiveness as a teacher. (4), University instructors appear to be more effective if they hold self-actualization values, are more spontaneous and possess a good self-regard; or in other words, they are more self-willed, self-expressive, self-assertive, honest, and cognizant of their strengths and capabilities. (5), Since good and poor instructors showed significant differences in the descriptive data but none in the self-concept inventory and only limited differences in the self-actualization inventory, then the use of the IAV and POI for university instructors is questioned because of their failure, generally, to differentiate. From the above summary and conclusions the following recommendations are made: (1), Coad instructors in this study could be investigated further to determine what they do specifically as teachers, in order to be rated high by students. (2), Further study needs to be conducted to determine more precisely if self-actualization is related to effective university teaching.