Rigidity Among Perspective Teachers in Relation To Discipline and Gender

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/INDU RATHEE (5011-5015)
RIGIDITY AMONG PERSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN RELATION TO DISCIPLINE

AND GENDER
Indu Rathee
Associate Professor, Tika Ram College of Education, Sonipat (Haryana)
Abstract
Term rigidity includes preservation, conservation, dogmatism, analytic, intolerance of ambiguity and
compulsiveness. The present study is proposed to understand the nature of rigidity in relation to
discipline and gender of perspective teachers. The study has been conducted on a sample of 70
perspective teachers selected randomly from four B. Ed. colleges located in Sonipat city (Haryana).
Coulter Rigidity Scale (CRS)(1994) was used to collect data. The obtained data was analyzed by
using Mean, S.Ds and t-test. The findings of the study revealed: i) No significant difference between
Perspective teachers of Arts and Science streams regarding rigidity ii) No significant difference was
reported in the rigidity of perspective teacher regarding their gender.
Keywords- Rigidity, Perspective Teachers, Discipline and Gender
R4Z Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com
INTRODUCTION
Rigidity is a highly interesting psychological construct because it refers to, two aspects of
individual differences personality and ability that are usually regarded as separate. More than
100 years of systematic study of rigidity have produced a large body of research with some
clear and established findings. However, controversies surrounding several fundamental
aspects of rigidity still remain. Behavioral rigidity refers to a students difficulty maintaining
appropriate behavior in new and unfamiliar situations. The opposite of rigidity would be
flexibility, which enables any student to shift effortlessly from task to task in the classroom,
from topic to topic in conversation, from one role to another in games, etc. Rigidity can also
affect thinking. According to Piaget, affective and moral development is inseparable from
cognitive development. Therefore, the rigid behavior found in intellectual tasks have their
parallels in the lack of autonomy, perseveration and rigid constructions of personal and
interpersonal values found in social behavior. Cognitive rigidity occurs when anyone is
unable to consider alternatives to the current situation, alternative viewpoints, or innovative
solutions to a problem. The student with rigid thinking tends to view things in either-or
APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5011

terms (e.g., things are either right or wrong, good or bad). He or she wants concrete, black
and white answers.
Werner (1946) defined rigidity as the lack of response variability or the lack of adaptability
of behavior. Werner further made the distinction that stability is not the same as rigidity but a
flexibility of response in order to preserve the functional equilibrium of the organism in the
face of mutable situations Although the term rigidity may be somewhat out of vogue among
personality and social psychologists today, we continue to see considerable interest in a range
of highly related personality variables, such as flexibility, need for closure, and openness to
experience. Chown noted that the construct of rigidity had proved difficult to define. Indeed,
the term had been used to describe mental sets, extreme attitudes, ethnocentrism, stereotypy,
lack of flexibility, perseveration, authoritarianism, and the inability to change habits.
Rokeach defined rigidity as a resistance to change in beliefs, attitudes, or personal habits. The
usefulness of this definition is its multidimensional nature. Rigidity is not simply the
perseveration of behavior on a behavioral task, but can be divided into cognitive, attitudinal,
and behavioral components. Rigidity may be cognitive, especially; perceptual that is, it may
be an ability to perceive things differently even when the objective conditions have changed.
Rigidity may also be affective, or it may show itself in overt action. Despite the long history
of research on rigidity, the construct continues to attract research from a variety of
psychological disciplines (D'aunno& Sutton, 1992). Systematic study of rigidity has
produced a large body of research with some clear and established findings. Systematic
research on rigidity can be traced back to the Gestalt psychologists of the late 19th and early
20th century (Cattell, 1946; Chown, 1959; Luhcins&Luchins, 1994; Stewin, 1983). An
examination of published research reveals that the term rigidity continues to be commonly
used by psychological researchers. Werner ( 1946) stated that rigidity is a multiform rather
than a uniform trait. He discriminated two types of rigidity i.e. subnormal rigidity and
abnormal rigidity. Subnormal rigidity is observed in feeble-minded persons of familial
(endogenous) type. It is assumed that this kind of rigidity is mainly the result of
differentiation of mental functions. A person who is sub normally rigid, fails to solve
problems because he over-simplifies them. Abnormal rigidity is found mainly in mentally
defected persons of brain injured (exogenous) type. This type of rigidity is said to be the
result of lack of integration and lack of coherence. The present study is proposed to
understand the nature of rigidity in relation to discipline and gender of perspective teachers.

OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity regarding their discipline
(Arts and Science).
2. To compare the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity regarding their gender
(Male and Female).
HYPOTHESES
1. There is no significant difference in the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity
regarding their discipline (Arts and Science).
2. There is no significant difference in the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity
regarding their gender (Male and Female).
METHODOLOGY
Normative survey method was used for the study. The subjects in this study consisted of
seventy, second year B.Ed. students of science and arts stream from four B. Ed. colleges
located in Sonipat city (Haryana). In the selection of the sample, due representation was
given to sex and discipline of the subjects. Coulter Rigidity Scale (CRS)(1994) was used to
collect the data. The data was collected and statistically analyzed using mean, standard
deviation and t-test.
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
Table-1 Showing means, SD &t value of rigidity of perspective teachers in relation to
their discipline.
Sr.N Group N Mean SD t Significant
o Value / Not
Significant
1. Perspective Teachers 3 15.74 1.82 1.00 Not

(Arts) 5 Significant
2. Perspective 3 15.31 1.79
Teachers( Science ) 5
Not Significant at 0.05 level.
Interpretation- As it can be seen from table- 1 that t value of 1.00 is significant at 0.05
level. This means that the two groups under the study do not differ significantly in relation to
rigidity. The mean score of perspective teachers related to Arts stream is 15.74 as against the
mean score of 15.31 of the Science perspective teachers. It should be remembered here that,
according to the scoring pattern, higher score indicate high rigidity. Thus from the result it
could be said that Perspective Arts teachers have high rigidity than the perspective Science
teachers but the difference is not significant. Thus hypothesis that There is no significant

difference in the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity regarding their discipline
(Arts and Science). is accepted.
Table-2 Showing mean, SD & t value of rigidity of perspective teachers in relation to
their gender.
Signif icant /
Sr.N t Not
Group N Mean SD
o Value Signif icant
Male Perspective
1. 31 15.45 1.52
Teachers
0.02 Not Significant
FemalePerspective
2. 39 15.44 2.01
Teachers
Not Significant at 0.05 level.

Interpretation- Table 2 depicts that the t -value (0.02) for the mean scores of rigidity of
male and female perspective teachers is not differ significantly at 0.05 level. On comparison
of mean scores, it was found that the male perspective teachers and their female counterparts
are almost at same level regarding rigidity. Thus, the hypothesis 2 There is no significant
difference in the mean scores of perspective teachers on rigidity regarding their gender (Male
and Female). stands retained.
CONCLUSION
Flexibility is what enables individuals to generate new ways to solve a problem, adapt to
changes in routines, and adjust to the unexpected. Cognitive and emotional flexibility are
included in most lists of executive or self-regulatory functions. Cognitive flexibility enables
teachers and students to shift effortlessly from task to task at school, from topic to topic in
conversation, from one role to another in any activity, and the like. Emotional flexibility is
also important to experience the full range of emotion, like happiness, sadness, or anger.
Nowadays, the actual practical role of emotions in professional teaching activity is not clearly
evaluated, ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. Teachers and future teachers specially
are not prepared to possible emotional overload, do not form deliberately his relevant
knowledge, skills, personal qualities needed to minimize and overcoming emotional
difficulties of profession. The present study revealed that perspective teachers possess high
level of rigidity in respect to their discipline and gender. The study further found no
significant difference in the rigidity of perspective teachers of Arts stream and perspective
teachers of Science stream. No significant difference was observed in the mean scores of
rigidity of male and female perspective teachers.
Perspective teachers with high scores of rigidity should be helped by the teacher educators to

be able to lower their level of rigidity because it is detrimental to their performance. Harsh
punishment, sarcastic commands and negative attitudes are to be avoided by the teachers to
develop positive outlook among their students with a well-adjusted personality. Therefore, as
prevention, it is better to conducting special workshops with the psychological unloading and
training methods and techniques of self-regulation and ability to change. Such preventive
work will help to maintain emotional health of perspective teachers.
REFERENCES
Cattell, R. (1946). The riddle of perseveration.Journal of Personality, 14, 239-267.
Chown, S.M. (1959). Rigidity: A exible concept. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 195-
223.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotions and
prevention in decision-making. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision-Making, 69,
117-132.
D'Aunno, T., & Sutton, R. (1992). The responses of drug abuse treatment
organizations to nancial adversity: A partial test of the threat - rigidity thesis.
Journal of Management, 18, 11-131.
Luchins A.S., &Luchins, E.H. (1994). The Water Jar Experiment and Einstellung
Effects, Gestalt Theory, 16, 101-121.
Muthar I. S. & Bhatia P. (1994). Coulter Rigidity Scale (CRS), National Psychological Corporation,
Agra.
Spearman, C. (1927).The abilities of Man, their nature and measurement. London:
Mac Millan.
Stewin, L. (1983). The concept of rigidity An enigma. International Journal of
Advanced Counselling, 6, 227- 232.
Roaeach. M (1960).The open and closed mind, New York; Basic Books.
Werner, H. (1940). Comparative psychology of mental development.
New York: Harper.
Werner, H. (1946). The concept of rigidity: A critical evaluation.

Rigidity Among Perspective Teachers in Relation To Discipline and Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigidity Among Perspective Teachers in Relation To Discipline and Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rigidity Among Perspective Teachers in Relation To Discipline and Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/INDU RATHEE (5011-5015)

RIGIDITY AMONG PERSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN RELATION TO DISCIPLINE

R4Z Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5011

APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5012

1. Perspective Teachers 3 15.74 1.82 1.00 Not

APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5013

Not Significant at 0.05 level.

APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5014

APRIL - MAY, 2017, VOL. 4/21 www.srjis.com Page 5015

You might also like