{"id":{"repo_id":"de-montfort","oai_identifier":"oai:dora.dmu.ac.uk:2086/25688"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/de-montfort/oai:dora.dmu.ac.uk:2086/25688","repository":{"repo_id":"de-montfort","name":"De Montfort University","base_url":"https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"PERSONALITY AND OTHER QUALITIES, ATTRIBUTES, ABILITIES AND OPINIONS OF SOME ’A' LEVEL DESIGN STUDENTS.","abstract":"Recent research identified subjective claims that students studying the Oxford Delegacy's 'A' level Design examination possessed certain personal qualities, attributes and abilities not found in students who studied other academic 'A' level examination subjects. The principal aim of the research was to submit these subjective claims to empirical investigation. The research focused on 13 Leicestershire schools and the subjects included a: (a)cluster sample of 200 'A' level students, (c)sample of 30 'a' level Design teachers, (d)sample of 5 other 'a' level subject teachers. The following methodologies were used: (a)descriptive studies, (b)causal-comparative cross-sectional studies, (c)quasi-experimental longitudinal studies. The instruments used included: (a)Descriptive Questionnaires, (b)Descriptive 'Questionnaire' single pole rating scale, (c)unstandardised single pole 'designing' attributes Rating Scale, (d)AH4 & AH6 General Ability Tests, (e)Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. The data was subjected to statistical analysis based on: (a)differences between means, (b)Analysis of Variance, (c)'t’ Tests, (d)Correlations. The principal findings: 1> The main differences between Design and other 'a' level examination subjects were shown to be determined by: syllabus structure / coursework; methods of teaching / learning; assessment procedures; and the challenges / demands of the course. 2> Compared to other 'A' level examination students those studying Design were found to be significantly less academically, intellectually, verbally and numerically able. They were more 'happy-go-lucky', 'practical', 'group dependent', creative, inventive and innovative. 3> From a group of potential 'A' level Design students a degree of self-selection was shown to take place as those who actually chose to study the subject were significantly less academic, more creative, inventive, confident and innovative than those who chose other subjects. 4> The 'a' level Design course was shown to contribute to a limited change and/or development of personality in students with a significant moderating effect on the 'tough minded' characteristic. 5> The 'a' level Design course contributed to a significant increase in both intellectual and academic ability in students. By the end of their courses of study there was parity between 'A' level Design and other 'A' level students, both intellectually and academically, although the Design students were more diagramatically able and the other students were more verbally and numerically able. 6> Compared to unsuccessful ’A’ level Design students those who were highly successful were significantly more academically able, 'apprehensive’, ’experimenting' and ’tense’. They also showed more initiative and perseverence as well as a propensity towards problem solving and decision making activities. They were more discriminating, creative, inventive, determined, imaginative, confident, self-reliant, innovative, industrious, well organised, resourceful, adaptable and reliable. 7> Whilst there was no significant difference in intellectual ability between the two student groups there was a high success and failure correlation between Design and other ’A’ level subjects with a success differential in favour of Design. 8> Although ’A’ level Design was seen as a female minority subject the females were shown to possess significantly higher design related personal quality ratings and subsequently were more successful than the males. 9> Those ’a’ level Design students also taking Mathematics and/or Physics were shown to be significantly more intellectually and academically able compared to those also taking Art. 10> It was shown that teachers were able to predict the degree of success of ’A’ level Design students using personal quality rating criteria. 11> General conclusions: The study has shown that it is feasible to identify students with a potential for success in a particular subject using personality measures as part of selection procedures. The study further showed that certain aspects of student personality can be changed as a result of specialised courses of study and it acknowledged that educational subject success can be assessed and predicted using personality criteria.","abstract_html":"Recent research identified subjective claims that students studying the Oxford Delegacy's 'A' level Design examination possessed certain personal qualities, attributes and abilities not found in students who studied other academic 'A' level examination subjects. The principal aim of the research was to submit these subjective claims to empirical investigation. The research focused on 13 Leicestershire schools and the subjects included a: (a)cluster sample of 200 'A' level students, (c)sample of 30 'a' level Design teachers, (d)sample of 5 other 'a' level subject teachers. The following methodologies were used: (a)descriptive studies, (b)causal-comparative cross-sectional studies, (c)quasi-experimental longitudinal studies. The instruments used included: (a)Descriptive Questionnaires, (b)Descriptive 'Questionnaire' single pole rating scale, (c)unstandardised single pole 'designing' attributes Rating Scale, (d)AH4 & AH6 General Ability Tests, (e)Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. The data was subjected to statistical analysis based on: (a)differences between means, (b)Analysis of Variance, (c)'t’ Tests, (d)Correlations. The principal findings: 1> The main differences between Design and other 'a' level examination subjects were shown to be determined by: syllabus structure / coursework; methods of teaching / learning; assessment procedures; and the challenges / demands of the course. 2> Compared to other 'A' level examination students those studying Design were found to be significantly less academically, intellectually, verbally and numerically able. They were more 'happy-go-lucky', 'practical', 'group dependent', creative, inventive and innovative. 3> From a group of potential 'A' level Design students a degree of self-selection was shown to take place as those who actually chose to study the subject were significantly less academic, more creative, inventive, confident and innovative than those who chose other subjects. 4> The 'a' level Design course was shown to contribute to a limited change and/or development of personality in students with a significant moderating effect on the 'tough minded' characteristic. 5> The 'a' level Design course contributed to a significant increase in both intellectual and academic ability in students. By the end of their courses of study there was parity between 'A' level Design and other 'A' level students, both intellectually and academically, although the Design students were more diagramatically able and the other students were more verbally and numerically able. 6> Compared to unsuccessful ’A’ level Design students those who were highly successful were significantly more academically able, 'apprehensive’, ’experimenting' and ’tense’. They also showed more initiative and perseverence as well as a propensity towards problem solving and decision making activities. They were more discriminating, creative, inventive, determined, imaginative, confident, self-reliant, innovative, industrious, well organised, resourceful, adaptable and reliable. 7> Whilst there was no significant difference in intellectual ability between the two student groups there was a high success and failure correlation between Design and other ’A’ level subjects with a success differential in favour of Design. 8> Although ’A’ level Design was seen as a female minority subject the females were shown to possess significantly higher design related personal quality ratings and subsequently were more successful than the males. 9> Those ’a’ level Design students also taking Mathematics and/or Physics were shown to be significantly more intellectually and academically able compared to those also taking Art. 10> It was shown that teachers were able to predict the degree of success of ’A’ level Design students using personal quality rating criteria. 11> General conclusions: The study has shown that it is feasible to identify students with a potential for success in a particular subject using personality measures as part of selection procedures. The study further showed that certain aspects of student personality can be changed as a result of specialised courses of study and it acknowledged that educational subject success can be assessed and predicted using personality criteria.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["TYERS, J. M."],"institution":"De Montfort University","degree_name":"PhD","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1993,"date_issued":"1993-04","date_published":"1993-04","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:18:47Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/f2535280-6447-429b-8331-357ee19e06e7/download"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":null,"outbound_label":null,"outbound_source":null},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["TYERS, J. M."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1993-04"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Faculty of Health and Life Sciences"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["De Montfort University"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2086/25688"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["PhD"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/f2535280-6447-429b-8331-357ee19e06e7/download"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/4d481797-c38f-4868-a9c2-ee5bdd662c31/download","https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/eae0872d-cb95-42e5-abf6-9c3c14678dd7/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Recent research identified subjective claims that students studying the Oxford Delegacy's 'A' level Design examination possessed certain personal qualities, attributes and abilities not found in students who studied other academic 'A' level examination subjects. The principal aim of the research was to submit these subjective claims to empirical investigation. The research focused on 13 Leicestershire schools and the subjects included a: (a)cluster sample of 200 'A' level students, (c)sample of 30 'a' level Design teachers, (d)sample of 5 other 'a' level subject teachers. The following methodologies were used: (a)descriptive studies, (b)causal-comparative cross-sectional studies, (c)quasi-experimental longitudinal studies. The instruments used included: (a)Descriptive Questionnaires, (b)Descriptive 'Questionnaire' single pole rating scale, (c)unstandardised single pole 'designing' attributes Rating Scale, (d)AH4 & AH6 General Ability Tests, (e)Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. The data was subjected to statistical analysis based on: (a)differences between means, (b)Analysis of Variance, (c)'t’ Tests, (d)Correlations. The principal findings: 1> The main differences between Design and other 'a' level examination subjects were shown to be determined by: syllabus structure / coursework; methods of teaching / learning; assessment procedures; and the challenges / demands of the course. 2> Compared to other 'A' level examination students those studying Design were found to be significantly less academically, intellectually, verbally and numerically able. They were more 'happy-go-lucky', 'practical', 'group dependent', creative, inventive and innovative. 3> From a group of potential 'A' level Design students a degree of self-selection was shown to take place as those who actually chose to study the subject were significantly less academic, more creative, inventive, confident and innovative than those who chose other subjects. 4> The 'a' level Design course was shown to contribute to a limited change and/or development of personality in students with a significant moderating effect on the 'tough minded' characteristic. 5> The 'a' level Design course contributed to a significant increase in both intellectual and academic ability in students. By the end of their courses of study there was parity between 'A' level Design and other 'A' level students, both intellectually and academically, although the Design students were more diagramatically able and the other students were more verbally and numerically able. 6> Compared to unsuccessful ’A’ level Design students those who were highly successful were significantly more academically able, 'apprehensive’, ’experimenting' and ’tense’. They also showed more initiative and perseverence as well as a propensity towards problem solving and decision making activities. They were more discriminating, creative, inventive, determined, imaginative, confident, self-reliant, innovative, industrious, well organised, resourceful, adaptable and reliable. 7> Whilst there was no significant difference in intellectual ability between the two student groups there was a high success and failure correlation between Design and other ’A’ level subjects with a success differential in favour of Design. 8> Although ’A’ level Design was seen as a female minority subject the females were shown to possess significantly higher design related personal quality ratings and subsequently were more successful than the males. 9> Those ’a’ level Design students also taking Mathematics and/or Physics were shown to be significantly more intellectually and academically able compared to those also taking Art. 10> It was shown that teachers were able to predict the degree of success of ’A’ level Design students using personal quality rating criteria. 11> General conclusions: The study has shown that it is feasible to identify students with a potential for success in a particular subject using personality measures as part of selection procedures. The study further showed that certain aspects of student personality can be changed as a result of specialised courses of study and it acknowledged that educational subject success can be assessed and predicted using personality criteria."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["bd41181d9a4c38b5ebacc69a027024d9","206fab5ab97848994b068a5140afc777","902f58e351140a1cb23899bb05dbac6b","8bfbf407afdbde72dfefbd6e808a5b2d","e03c458131019162e77865d08aad66b8"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["PERSONALITY AND OTHER QUALITIES, ATTRIBUTES, ABILITIES AND OPINIONS OF SOME ’A' LEVEL DESIGN STUDENTS."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["TYERS, J. M."],"dc:date.issued":["1993-04"],"dc:description.abstract":["Recent research identified subjective claims that students studying the Oxford Delegacy's 'A' level Design examination possessed certain personal qualities, attributes and abilities not found in students who studied other academic 'A' level examination subjects. The principal aim of the research was to submit these subjective claims to empirical investigation. The research focused on 13 Leicestershire schools and the subjects included a: (a)cluster sample of 200 'A' level students, (c)sample of 30 'a' level Design teachers, (d)sample of 5 other 'a' level subject teachers. The following methodologies were used: (a)descriptive studies, (b)causal-comparative cross-sectional studies, (c)quasi-experimental longitudinal studies. The instruments used included: (a)Descriptive Questionnaires, (b)Descriptive 'Questionnaire' single pole rating scale, (c)unstandardised single pole 'designing' attributes Rating Scale, (d)AH4 & AH6 General Ability Tests, (e)Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. The data was subjected to statistical analysis based on: (a)differences between means, (b)Analysis of Variance, (c)'t’ Tests, (d)Correlations. The principal findings: 1> The main differences between Design and other 'a' level examination subjects were shown to be determined by: syllabus structure / coursework; methods of teaching / learning; assessment procedures; and the challenges / demands of the course. 2> Compared to other 'A' level examination students those studying Design were found to be significantly less academically, intellectually, verbally and numerically able. They were more 'happy-go-lucky', 'practical', 'group dependent', creative, inventive and innovative. 3> From a group of potential 'A' level Design students a degree of self-selection was shown to take place as those who actually chose to study the subject were significantly less academic, more creative, inventive, confident and innovative than those who chose other subjects. 4> The 'a' level Design course was shown to contribute to a limited change and/or development of personality in students with a significant moderating effect on the 'tough minded' characteristic. 5> The 'a' level Design course contributed to a significant increase in both intellectual and academic ability in students. By the end of their courses of study there was parity between 'A' level Design and other 'A' level students, both intellectually and academically, although the Design students were more diagramatically able and the other students were more verbally and numerically able. 6> Compared to unsuccessful ’A’ level Design students those who were highly successful were significantly more academically able, 'apprehensive’, ’experimenting' and ’tense’. They also showed more initiative and perseverence as well as a propensity towards problem solving and decision making activities. They were more discriminating, creative, inventive, determined, imaginative, confident, self-reliant, innovative, industrious, well organised, resourceful, adaptable and reliable. 7> Whilst there was no significant difference in intellectual ability between the two student groups there was a high success and failure correlation between Design and other ’A’ level subjects with a success differential in favour of Design. 8> Although ’A’ level Design was seen as a female minority subject the females were shown to possess significantly higher design related personal quality ratings and subsequently were more successful than the males. 9> Those ’a’ level Design students also taking Mathematics and/or Physics were shown to be significantly more intellectually and academically able compared to those also taking Art. 10> It was shown that teachers were able to predict the degree of success of ’A’ level Design students using personal quality rating criteria. 11> General conclusions: The study has shown that it is feasible to identify students with a potential for success in a particular subject using personality measures as part of selection procedures. The study further showed that certain aspects of student personality can be changed as a result of specialised courses of study and it acknowledged that educational subject success can be assessed and predicted using personality criteria."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["bd41181d9a4c38b5ebacc69a027024d9","206fab5ab97848994b068a5140afc777","902f58e351140a1cb23899bb05dbac6b","8bfbf407afdbde72dfefbd6e808a5b2d","e03c458131019162e77865d08aad66b8"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/4d481797-c38f-4868-a9c2-ee5bdd662c31/download","https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/eae0872d-cb95-42e5-abf6-9c3c14678dd7/download"],"dc:publisher.department":["Faculty of Health and Life Sciences"],"dc:publisher.institution":["De Montfort University"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["https://hdl.handle.net/2086/25688"],"dc:rights":["https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/f2535280-6447-429b-8331-357ee19e06e7/download"],"dc:title":["PERSONALITY AND OTHER QUALITIES, ATTRIBUTES, ABILITIES AND OPINIONS OF SOME ’A' LEVEL DESIGN STUDENTS."],"dc:type":["Thesis or dissertation"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["PhD"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:18:47Z"}