(ii) For the difference between tribal and non-tribal in average achievers, the null hypothesis is rejected and hence the research hypothesis is accepted which indicates that community (Tribal/Non-Tribal) does have an influence in making a person average achievers. (iii) For the difference between tribal and non-tribal in low achievers, the null hypothesis is rejected and hence the research hypothesis is accepted which indicates that community (Tribal/Non -Tribal) does have an influence in making a person low achievers. This difference is in favour of non-tribal students. CHAPTER V FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.0 Introduction: The present study was designed to study the contribution of some psycho-social variables like personality, intelligence and socio-economic background with respect to the academic achievement of school children. For the conduct of the study some objectives were formulated and hypotheses were framed under chapter one. In order to achieve the objective of the present study, the data was collected by administering the various tests/questionnaire for the variables under questions including the data with
regards to achievement scores of the school children. The previous chapter, in this connection, discussed the analysis and interpretation of data. It now becomes necessary to summarize the findings and conclusions resulting from the present investigation. Thus the present chapter is devoted to this purpose under the following heads: (i) Status of Academic Achievement, Personality Dimensions, Intelligence and Socio-Economic Background. (ii) Relationship between Various Personality Dimensions and Academic Achievement. (iii) (iv) Relationship between Intelligence and Academic Achievement. Relationship between Various Components of Socio-Economic Background and Academic achievement. (v) Difference among High, Average and Low Achievers with Respect to Various Personality Dimensions. (vi) Difference among High, Average and Low Achievers with Respect to Intelligence. (vii) Difference between Male and Female within High, Average and Low Achievers. (viii) Difference between Rural and Urban within High, Average and Low Achievers.
(ix) Difference between Tribal and Non-Tribal within High, Average and Low Achievers. 5.1 Status of Academic Achievement, Personality Dimensions, Intelligence and Socio-Economic Background: (a) Academic Achievement: The marks (in percentage) obtained from the sample of 845 students of class X on Academic Achievement (i.e. S.S.L.C. exam) were found to have the following distribution: Criteria for Categorization N M SD High Achievers Above 60% 85 66.60 5.05 Average Achievers 45% or more but less than 60% 324 52.75 3.95 Low Achievers Below 45% 436 39.70 3.00 It can be seen that majority of 436 students were placed under the category of low achiever with the mean of 39.70 and SD of 3.00, 324 students were placed under the category of average achiever with the mean of 52.75 and SD of 3.95and only 85 students were placed under the category of high achiever with the mean of 66.60 and SD of 5.05.
(b) Personality Dimensions: The sample of 845 students was found to have the following levels of personality for its different dimensions. As per manual, personality dimensions are classified as follows: Levels of Personality Dimension High Level Category Sten Scores 8 to10 Average Level Category 4 to 7 Low Level Category 1to 3 The scores obtained by the students were categorized under the levels given above. The sample was grouped according to the scores obtained by students. The findings are: (i) Towards Average and Low: Most of the students were found to have their personality dimensions towards average and low categories. These are: 1. Adaptability (Ad) 2. Creativity (Cr) 3. Enthusiasms (En)
4. General Ability (G) 5. Innovation (In) 6. Mental Health (Mh) and 7. Social Warmth (Sw) (ii) Towards Average and High: Majority of the students were found to have their personality dimensions towards average and high categories. These are: 1. Academic Achievement (Am) 2. Competition (Co) 3. Excitability (Ex) 4. Guilt Proneness (Gp) 5. Individualism (Id) 6. Maturity (Ma) 7. Sensitivity (Se) 8. Self Sufficiency (Ss) and 9. Tension (Tn). (iii) Towards Average Category: Only few of the students were found to have their personality dimensions towards average category. These are: 1. Boldness (Bo)
2. Leadership (Ld) 3. Morality (Mo) and 4. Self Control (Sc). From the above findings we can conclude that out of the 20 personality dimensions, majority of the students were found to have their personality dimension towards average and high categories in 9 dimensions, followed by the students who were found to have their personality dimension towards average and low categories in 7 dimensions and few of the students were found to have their personality dimension towards average category in 4 dimensions. (c) Intelligence: of DIQ. The sample of 845 students was found to have the following distribution Classifications Criteria of categorization Frequency % Very Superior 140 and above 1 0.11 Superior 120-139 74 8.78 High Average 110-119 221 26.15 Average 90-109 468 55.38 Low Average 80-89 81 9.58
Total 845 The intelligence scores obtained by the pupils were categorized under the levels given above. The sample was grouped according to the scores obtained by the students. The findings revealed that majority of the students about 81.53% (i.e. 26.15% and 55.38%) fall under the high average and average level, whereas 8.89% (i.e. 0.11% and 8.78%) of the students were placed under very superior and superior level, and the rest of the students were under low average level. (d) Socio-Economic Background: Socio-Economic Background is being indicated by three components viz (i) Education, (ii) Occupation (iii) Income of the parents:
(i) Education of the parents: The parents of 845students were found to have the following educational levels: Education Father % Mother % Above Graduate 56 6.63 22 2.60 Graduate Level 160 18.93 83 9.82 HSSLC 138 16.33 100 11.83 SSLC 157 18.58 171 20.23 Below Middle School 264 31.24 360 42.60 Un-edu/ Illiterate 70 8.29 109 12.92 In the present study we found that majority of the parents have educational level between HSSLC and below middle school, followed by the parents having graduate and above graduate qualification. Few of the parents were also found to be un-educated/illiterate. (ii) Occupation of the parents: The parents of 845students were found to have the following occupational levels:
Occupation Father % Mother % Grade A 124 14.67 29 3.43 Grade B 141 16.69 77 9.11 Grade C 270 31.95 281 33.26 Grade D 310 36.69 458 54.20 The findings with regards to parental occupation revealed that majority of the parents fall under the occupational level of Grade D followed by Grade B, C and A. (iii) Income of the parents: The parents of 845students were found to fall under the following income groups: Income Father % Mother % Above 20,000 31 3.67 4 0.47 Between 15,001-20,000 103 12.19 29 3.43 Between 10,001-15,000 135 15.98 67 7.93 Between 5,001-10,000 288 34.08 284 33.61
Below 5000 288 34.08 461 54.56 It was found that majority of the parental income fall in the income group of 5,001-10,000 and below 5000. Few of the parental income fall in the income group between 15,001-20,000 and above 20,000. 5.2 Relationship between Various Personality Dimensions and Academic Achievement: The following are the findings and conclusions with regards to the relationship between various Personality Dimensions and Academic achievement: (a) Adaptability (Ad) is significantly related to academic achievement: This led us to conclude that those students who are adaptable perform better academically than those who are not well adaptable. In other words we can say that adaptable students are in the advantageous position to benefit from the changes brought about in the school environment than those who are not adaptable because they find it difficult to cope with changes.
(b) Academic Achievement (Am) This dimension itself reflects academic achievement. So its relationship with academic achievement is bound to be positive and high: From the result obtained we can conclude that students with high academic achievement are ambitious, anxious to achieve more, want to explore the realities of life and enhance themselves academically than those who are low in academic achievement. Hence, we can say those students having these qualities are able to make better performance in their work and studies than they would otherwise be able to do. While the under achiever students represent the opposite qualities which are evidently detrimental to the concentration of the mind, proper utilization of abilities and devotion to work which are indispensable for productive and excellence in academic pursuit. (c) Boldness (Bo) is not significantly related to academic achievement: academic On the basis of the results we can conclude that the
achievement of the students and personality dimension of boldness are not related with each other. When we look at those who are able to score high in this dimension, they are adventurous, bold and energetic, quick decision makers but do not necessarily make correct decision, while those who score low in this dimension are intensely shy, slow and impeded in expressing themselves. In both the cases, the dimension boldness revealed that it does not influence one s achievement. So in other words we can say that the personality dimension of boldness has nothing to do with academic achievement. (d) Competition (Co) is significantly related to academic achievement: Findings show that students who are competitive are assertive, dominant and aggressive which are great assets in attaining academic distinction than those students who are not competitive. In other words we can say that competitive students enjoy in bringing up their own ideas, having things their own way and possess a high degree of interest in the subject that they study, and holds wholesome and positive attitude towards the requirements of their courses and make a dispassionate and objective evaluation of their potentialities. This evidently enables them to achieve more
than what they are mentally capable of. But the less competitive students will not make use of their potentialities and it drain off a good deal of energy which could otherwise be used in academic works. Such students fail to achieve what they are potentially expected to achieve. (e) Creativity (Cr) is not significantly related to academic achievement: It is generally admitted that students with high creativity are able to achieve more than the students with low creativity, but the findings of the present study shows a different results. The results revealed that there is no significant relationship between academic achievement and creativity. It shows that the academic achievement of the students and personality dimension of creativity are not related to each other. From the results we can conclude that there is no significant relationship between creativity and academic achievement. In other words we can say that the personality dimension of creativity has nothing to do with academic achievement. (f) Enthusiasm (En) is not significantly related to academic achievement:
As per the findings we can conclude that there is no significant relationship between academic achievement and enthusiasm. It shows that the academic achievement of the students and personality dimension of enthusiasm are not related to each other. The description of this dimension revealed to us that high scorer in enthusiasm are happy-go lucky, socially outgoing, lively and enthusiastic, while those who score low simply indicates that the students will internalize their inner conflicts, are serious, cheerful and sober. In both the cases, the dimension enthusiasm revealed that it does not influence one s achievement. Thus in other words the results finally convinced us to say that the personality dimension of enthusiasm has nothing to do with academic achievement. (g) Excitability (Ex) is negatively correlated with academic achievement: On the basis of the findings we can conclude that students who are not excitable can achieve better academically than those who are more excitable. In other words we can say that students who are less excitable are calm and cool, remaining socially reserved and emotionally undisturbed, they are serious minded and they are earnest in whatever they are required to do. These students stand a better chance of securing good grades in academic
success. While those who are high in excitability are restless, easily distracted and waste their energy by being active in their social relationship than in dedicating their work to academic achievement. (h) General Ability (Ga) is significantly related to academic achievement: Findings showed that students with high general ability have a greater mental ability and are high in academic performance than those who are low in general ability. The students who have good general ability are intellectually adaptable. They are inclined to have more intellectual interest and show better observation in their judgment which helps them to excel in their academic pursuits. But students with low general ability have poor mental capacity and fall short of what they are capable to achieve. (i) Guilt Proneness (Gp) is negatively correlated with academic achievement: From the results obtained we can conclude that students who are low in guilt proneness are likely to perform better academically than those who are high in guilt proneness. Hence, we can say that the students with less guilt proneness are secure, have a sense of safety, belonging, acceptance, and recognition which enable them to reach the expected level of achievement. But
the ones, who score high in guilt proneness, are considered shy, ineffective speakers, hinderers which automatically affect their academic achievement. (j) Individualism (Id) is negatively correlated with academic achievement: As per the findings we can conclude that students who are low in individualism show high progress in their academic achievement than those who are high in individualism. Students with low individualism are vigorous, energetic, and ready to accept common standards, they like to work more rapidly and are able to accomplish more than the average students. It shows that these students are successful and achieve high academic grades. However students with high individualism cannot perform well academically. They require a counselor who will help them so that they can become successful and improve in their academic performance. (k) Innovation (In) is significantly related to academic achievement: This led us to conclude that those students who are innovative perform better academically than those who are not innovative. The innovative students like to work on difficult problems, are intellectually curious, enjoy thought provoking question and discussion and like to think about new ideas.
These students are always successful and achieve high grades than the low innovative students who show poor academic achievement. (l) Leadership (Ld) is negatively correlated with academic achievement: From results obtained it can be concluded that those students who are low on leadership show good academic achievement than those who are high in leadership quality. The students who score low in this dimension are undependable and prefer to be sound followers. It shows that these students are able to pay full attention to academic matters. But students who score high on leadership have the ability to direct, control and initiate actions for a group, power to influence others, are quick and alert in their surroundings but they suffer from the influences of other sources like politics, social condition etc. It reveals that these students are likely to show poor academic achievement. (m) Maturity (Ma) is significantly related to academic achievement: As per the findings we can conclude that students who are high in maturity are progressive in their academic achievement than those who are
not mature. The students who are mature show high sense of responsibility, are emotionally stable, confident and are successful in life. They are committed, persistent and normally serious about their studies and hence prove to be successful in their academic performance than the immature students who tend to show poor academic achievement. (n) Mental Health (Mh) is significantly correlated to academic achievement: This led us to conclude that students who are high in mental health are able to achieve more than those student who are mentally unhealthy. The students with high mental health are adjustable, which ensure maximum effectiveness of mental abilities. It also brings out a balance among his intellectual, emotional and physiological satisfaction. In short we can say that mentally healthy students are mentally alert and their lives are so regularized that a good deal of energy are made available for more important and constructive activities of life, and they are high in their academic achievement. They even rated their health as good or excellent than those who are less in mental health which revealed that they cannot perform well academically.
(o) Morality (Mo) is significantly related to academic achievement: The findings obtained can be concluded that students with high morality turn out to be high achievers in academic work than those students who are low in morality. The students with high morality have high sense of duty, are more respectful of authority, emotionally disciplined and responsible. It shows that students having these characteristics are essential for proper utilization of capabilities which help them to excel in their academic pursuits than those students with low morality that develops austere, hostile and rebellious qualities which affects their academic achievement. (p) Self Control (Sc) is significantly correlated to academic achievement: From the findings we can conclude that self-controlled students are associated with all kinds of scholastic success than those students who are low in self-control. The students with self controlled nature are socially conscious, have strong will power and are achievers in the academic field. Lower scores in this dimension mean that a student are mostly delinquents and show poor academic achievement.
(q) Sensitivity (Se) is significantly related to academic achievement: The findings can be concluded that those students who are sensitive are able to perform better academically than those who are not sensitive. The students who are sensitive prefer to be reasonable, rational, which contribute significantly to academic achievement. But students with low sensitivity represents some sort of tough, masculine, practical, immature, group solidarity which is likely to have poor academic achievement. (r) Self Sufficiency (Ss) is significantly related to academic achievement: The findings led us to conclude that those students who are self sufficient play a highly significant role in contributing to academic achievement. Student who are self-sufficient are independent, have clear insight into their own abilities and weaknesses which result in experiencing minimum conflicts, strain and tension. They also prefer to work alone rather than with committees and are good in problem solving. They also appear to be related to success at school/college, particularly at the upper educational levels. While students who are low in self sufficiency are dependent, strongly value social approval which stands in the way of good academic achievement.
(s) Social Warmth (Sw) is not significantly related to academic achievement: As per the findings we can conclude that there is no significant relationship between academic achievement and social warmth. It shows that the academic achievement of the students and personality dimension of social warmth are not related to each other. The description of this dimension revealed that student with high social warmth are warm hearted, personable and easy to get along with people, they even enjoy social recognition and are more tolerant of difficulties, while those who are low in social warmth are quite uncompromising, prefer things to people, like to work alone and are introspective which revealed that these tendencies are evidently detrimental to the poor concentration of the mind. In both the cases, the dimension social warmth revealed that it does not influence one s achievement. Thus in other words the results finally convinced us to say that the personality dimension of social warmth has nothing to do with academic achievement. (t) Tension (Tn) is not significantly related to academic achievement:
On the basis of the results we can conclude that academic achievement of the students and personality dimension of tension are not related with each other. When we look at those who are able to score high in this dimension they are worried, tense, disordered, irritable, anxious and always in turmoil, while students who score low in this dimension tends to be calm, composed and satisfied. In both the cases, the dimension tension revealed that it does not influence one s achievement. Thus in other words we can say that the personality dimension of tension has nothing to do with academic achievement. Thus, we find that the following dimensions of personality traits act as a significant factor in enhancing Academic achievement. i. Adaptability. ii. Academic Achievement. iii. Competition. iv. General ability. v. Innovation. vi. Maturity. vii. Mental health. viii. Morality. ix. Self Control. x. Sensitivity. xi. Self Sufficiency.
The above findings are in agreement with the earlier findings supported by Patel (1981) on general ability, Ainsworth (1967), Srivastava (1976) on selfsufficiency, Tayek Talom (1985) on social warmth, Berry & Plecha, (1999), Simon & Eachus, (2000) on self- control who found that their personality dimension were correlated successful with academic achievement of the students, whereas, Deka (1985) found that creativity has no significant relationship with academic achievement. However, Manuel (1982) on tension, Khan (1983) on individualism, found that these personality dimensions have negative relationship with academic achievement. dimensions. The above findings do throw light on some of the personality But one does not find many studies with regards to personality correlates of high, average and low achievers. 5.3 Relationship between Intelligence and Academic Achievement: From the first half of the present century to the present time intelligence has widely been used as a factor to correlate with academic achievement. Though there is inconsistency in the results, as some studies
have found a high degree of correlation and some have found only a moderate one. All studies agree that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and academic achievement. On the basis of the findings of the present study also we can conclude that intelligence and academic achievement are positively correlated. In other words the correlation between intelligence and academic achievement is highly significant. This shows that those who are highly intelligent are likely to have good academic achievement. Therefore, there is reason to believe that more intelligent pupils could learn more quickly, retain for longer period of time, perform better in all academic affairs and so could obtain high positions in their classes compared to the less intelligent pupils. It also means that the person who is quick to grasp an idea is a fast learner and intelligent and is likely to achieve better academically than those who have less intelligent. The results of this investigation are in agreement with other studies conducted by other scholars Carter (1960), Rastogi (1971), Reddy (1973), Deshpande and Lodhi (1981), Shah and Kishan (1982), Joshi and Srivastava (1983), Khurshid and Fatima (1984), Malabika (1989), Smith, Smith and Dobbs (1991), Garg and Chaturvedi (1992), Stipek and Gralinski (1996), Kossowska
(1999), Ediseth (2002), Gagne and St Pere (2002), Parker (2004), Vineeta (2004), Manas (2005), Vaidharani and Chamundeswari (2006), Fraine, Damme and Onghena (2007), Ehrmann and Massey (2008), Nalini and Ganesha Bhatta (2009), who have reported that academic achievement of the students is significantly correlated with intelligence. Thus, it can be said that the intellectual abilities of the students appear to have positive correlation with their scholastic achievement. However, some studies have reported low correlation between these two variables like Carrol (1943), Mathur (1963), Dannis Child (1964), Dhaliwal (1971),Christma and Ardhnareeswaram (1976). Whereas, Pandey and Singh (1978) could only summarize that academic achievement and intelligence are correlated with moderate positive correlation. 5.4 Relationship between Various Components of Socio-Economic Background and Academic Achievement: The relationship between various components of socio economic background (Education, Occupation and Income of parents) and academic achievement was found to be related as given below: (a) Education:
The present study reveals that there exists a significant relationship between the education of parents and academic achievement. In other words we can say that this component does have an influence in making a student s high, average or low achiever. It is generally felt that better educational level of the parents act as an incentive for the students and the effect of poorer educational level of the parents seems to have a deteriorating influence on them. This result is not unique in case of the present study, rather these have been explored by a number of studies conducted earlier by Chatterji, Mukherjee and Banerjee (1971), Sharma (1984) who found that educational level of the parents was directly related to the achievement of the students. Salunke (1979) found that educational facilities at home contributed positively to the academic achievement of the students. Khanna (1980) observed that the academic achievement of the children of educated parents was significantly correlated with the socio-economic status of the family. Sontakey (1986) found that the high achievers had a high socio-economic status and they hailed from highly educated families. Malabika Ganguly (1989) revealed that the children of relatively higher socio-economic background were more inspiring for higher educational level than their lower middle or lower peers. Frempong (2004) concluded that parental income, education and occupation are related to academic achievement. Studies done by Panigarhi (2005), Dills (2006) and
Zora (2008) also revealed same results. However, Nemzek (1940) reported that education of parents and their profession have no influence over the academic success of their children. Kaur and Bajwa (1985), Ramana Sood (1990) also found no relationship between academic achievement and education of parents. Thus, it was evident from the above findings that the educational level of the parents plays a highly significant role in contributing to the academic achievement of the pupils. (b) Occupation: The findings led us to conclude that there exists a significant relationship between parental occupation and academic achievement. On the other hand we may conclude that this component does have an influence in making a student s high, average or low achiever. Parental occupation not only helps a student in getting higher education but also it helps in academic achievement. Parental occupation is important in achievement, because the higher the parental occupation the better the educational facilities available, together with more intellectual stimulation, which is not present with the socio economically deprived children. Research on the influences of parental occupation has produced consistent and conclusive findings from the works of Bear (1928) who found that parental occupation was related to academic success. He reported that sons
of farmers and businessman ranked low in scholarship in comparison with those of artisans, salesmen and so on. Pavithran and Feroze (1965) found that occupational status of parents highly accelerates the scholastic achievement of pupils. Austin (1964), Dave and Dave (1971), Menon (1972), Abraham (1974), Ojha (1979), Grewal (1985), Patel (1993), Govinda and Varghese (1993), Sukhla (1994), Seong (2002), Bhuwal (2003), Frempong (2004), Sirin (2005) Dills (2006) and Zora (2008) concluded positive relationship between academic achievement and parental occupation. However, Chaterji, Mukherjee and Banerjee (1971), Sudame (1973), Nemzek, Slunke (1979), Reddy (1981), Narang (1987), Sood (1990), Benno (1995), Frempong (2004) concluded that the economic conditions of the family seemed to have no effect upon the scholastic achievement in all the intellectual ability groups. They also found that parental occupation was not consistently related to students achievement. The present study thus revealed that the parental occupation plays a highly significant role in contributing to the academic achievement of the pupils. (c) Income: There exists a significant relationship between parental income and academic achievement. In other words we may say that the component of parental income does have an influence in making a student s high, average or
low achiever. Many empirical studies have also recognized the importance of such background factors in connection with the achievement of the students. The students from high income group are likely to do better in their school/college achievement, because their parents generally are able to provide necessary facilities for them. On the other hand, children from low income get very little facilities which might have a damaging influence on their achievement. The present study reveals that the parental income plays a highly significant role in contributing to the academic achievement of the pupil s. The results are in consistent with the earlier findings supported by Dave and Dave (1971) who found that high achiever belonged to homes having high parental income, whereas a low achiever belonged to homes having low parental income. Jagannathan (1986) found that the socio-economic components viz, parental income, education and occupation had got much impact on the academic performance of their children. Results of the studies conducted by Grewal (1985), Patel (1993), Govinda & Varghese (1993), Sukhla (1994), Seong (2002), Pandey (2003), Bhuwal (2003), Frempong (2004), Sirin (2005), Panigarhi (2005), Dills (2006) and Zora (2008) are also in agreement with the present study. However, Banerjee (1971), Sudame (1973), Nemzek, Slunke
(1979), Reddy (1981), Narang (1987), Sood (1990), Benno (1995), Hauser, Sirin and Stipek (2003) Frempong (2004) indicated no relationship between academic achievements and parental income. The above findings of the present study revealed that parental income has a significant impact on academic achievement. From the above findings of all the three components viz, education, occupation and income of the parents we can conclude that there is a great influence of socio-economic background on achievement. The parents have to take due care about their socio-economic background, by improving their educational qualifications. They can even change their occupation depending on their educational qualifications and also with the available financial resources. 5.5 Difference among High, Average and Low Achievers with Respect to Various Personality Dimensions: The findings and conclusions with regards to the differences among high, average and low achiever students in respect to various personality dimensions were found as under:
(a) The high and average achievers and high and low achievers student differ significantly on the adaptability dimension, whereas, average and low achievers student do not show any marked difference on this dimension: This shows that high achievers are adaptable, who are characterized as accommodating, and able to accept and adjust to any situation easily which is beneficial to his academic pursuits. On the other hand the average and low achievers do not differ significantly in this dimension. Low achievers when compared with high achievers are not adaptable and do not have harmonious relationship in their environment and are unable to obtain satisfaction for most of their needs which affects their academic achievement. These findings noted above have been supported by Elva Burgess (1953) who found that high achievers are more intellectually adaptive, more constricted and inhibited, more cautious and realistic in approach to problems and have greater need for achievement and self- improvement, whereas the low achievers are having more dependency needs and need to be free from restraint. (b) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly on the academic achievement dimension:
These differences can be attributed to the qualities showed by high achievers like general intelligence, dominance, imaginative and realistically involved in various aspects of their school/college life, when compared with both average and low achievers. On the other hand when the average and low achievers are compared, the average achiever seems to perform better than the low achievers. While the low achiever students show the opposite qualities which are evidently detrimental to the concentration of the mind, which affects their academic pursuits. Thus the results point out that high, average and low achiever students do differ significantly on this dimension. (c) The high and average achievers student do differ significantly on boldness dimension, whereas high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on boldness dimension: This shows that those who scored high in boldness tend to be adventurous, bold and energetic with good insight. When the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension. But when we look at the low achievers they tend to be intensely shy, slow and impeded in expressing himself in comparison to high and average achievers. So in other words we can conclude that high, average and low achievers student
differ significantly on this dimension. The result of the present study is in agreement with Suri (1978) and Khatoon (1988) who found that high achievers tend to be sociable, bold, ready to try new things, spontaneous and abundant in emotional responses, while low achievers tend to be shy, having inferior feelings, withdrawn and cautious. (d) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers student do differ significantly on competition dimension, whereas average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on competition dimension: This shows that high achievers achieve more than what they are mentally capable of when compared with both low and average achievers. When the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension, while the low achievers tend to be submissive, mild, humble and accommodating which will automatically affect the academic achievement of such students. From the results obtained we can conclude that high, average and low achievers student differ significantly on this dimension. The result of the present study is supported by Jahan (1985) who found that high achievers are more competitive than the low achievers.
(e) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on creativity dimension: The high score in creativity means that they are reserved tend to be independent, undemonstrative, critical thinkers and high on scholastic and mental abilities. When the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension. But low score on this dimension, are dull, unstable, and impatient. So the results point to us that high, average and low achievers student do not show any marked difference in this dimension. The finding is in agreement with the findings of Deka (1993) who found that achievement does not differ significantly with regard to the creativity of the students. (f) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ on enthusiasm dimension: Those who scored high in enthusiasm are generally cheerful, talkative, expressive, and frank when compared with both low and average achievers. So when the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ
significantly in this dimension. On the other hand low score on this dimension are not outstandingly popular with their peer groups and do not usually succeed in personal work. The above findings get support from Jahan (1985) who found that high achievers are more enthusiastic than the low achievers. (g) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on excitability dimension: This revealed that those who score high in excitability are impatient, demanding and hyperactive in behaviour and thoughts. When the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension. Low score on this dimension are complacent, not easily jealous and unemotional in nature. Thus, from the results it can be concluded that high, average and low achiever do not differ significantly in this dimension. Khan (1983), Jahan (1985) supported the study and found that high achievers are more excitable than the low achievers. (h) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly on general ability dimension:
This revealed that those who are high achievers are high in general ability and have a greater mental capacity to learn. They are insightful, fast learning, intellectually adaptable and show better judgment in their observation, when compared with both low and average achievers. When the average and low achievers are compared the average achievers seems to have better mental capacity than the low achievers. The low achievers in comparison to the high and average achievers on the other hand, have a poor mental capacity to learn and are unable to handle abstract problems. They tend to be less organized and show poor judgement in their observation and it will affect their academic achievement. Thus we can conclude that high, average and low achiever students do differ in this dimension. The above findings under general ability dimension were supported by Deka (1993) who indicated that achievement of the high and low achiever student differ significantly. (i) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on guilt proneness dimension: This revealed that those who score high in guilt proneness are escapist, irresponsible, insecure and depressed. When the average and low achievers
are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension. Low score in guilt proneness on this dimension are totally different from the high and average achievers because they can influence their academic achievement. The results obtained can be concluded that the high and average achievers and high and low achievers student do not show any marked differences on this dimension, whereas average and low achiever students differ significantly on this dimension. The result of the present study is supported by Khan (1983) who found that high achievers and low achievers differ significantly in this dimension. (j) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly on individualism dimension: This revealed that the high achiever prefers to do things on their own, they are physically and intellectually obstructive and think over their mistake repeatedly, when compared with both low and average achievers. When the average and low achievers are compared, the average achiever seems to be more individualistic than low achievers. But low achievers in comparison to high and average achievers on the other hand, are zestful and highly involved in group actions, they are vigorous, ready to accept common standards and are able to accomplish more. Thus the results can be concluded that high,
average and low achiever students do differ significantly in this dimension. The finding is in agreement with the findings of Deka (1993) who found that achievement does not appear to be a significant variable with regard to the individualism of the students. (k) The high and average achievers and average and low achievers student do not differ significantly on innovation dimension, whereas high and low achievers student do differ in this dimension: Those who score high in innovation are more inclined to experiment with problem solutions, liberal ideas and can analyze concepts swiftly. When the average and low achievers are compared, both do not differ significantly in this dimension. This is totally opposite to the low achievers in comparison to the high and average achievers in this dimension, which they tend to be neurotic. From the results we can conclude that high and average achievers do not show any marked differences in this dimension, whereas high and low achievers and average and low achievers do differ significantly in this dimension.
(l) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers students do not show any marked differences in leadership dimension: This shows that the high achiever has the ability to direct and control the attitude or actions of others. They are self confident, controlled and have strong will power. They are also adventurous and responsive to people, determined and responsible and are usually quick and alert in their surroundings, when compared with both low and average achievers. When the average and low achievers are compared, both show no marked differences in this dimension. But low scores on this dimension are undependable, obstructive and prefer to be sound followers. They are group dependent and impatient and are likely to escape when faced with responsibilities which affect their achievement. The above findings under leadership dimension were supported by Moore (1932), Sward (1933), Hunter (1935), Remmlein (1936), Sumption (1941), Holland (1960) who concluded that leadership were observed in superior students. (m) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly on maturity dimension:
The high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers are able to meet the challenges of life. When the average and low achievers are compared the average achievers seems to be more mature than low achievers. The low achievers in this dimension when compared to the high and average achievers are easily annoyed by things and people, the restriction of life and their own health which affects their achievement. The obtained results point that these high, average and low achiever students differ significantly on this dimension. The result of the present study is in support of the studies of Hildreth (1939), Vanarese (1970), Morgan (1952), Jahan (1985) who revealed in their studies that high achievers students showed maturity and seriousness, awareness and concern of others, a higher sense of responsibility than the low achievers. (n) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly on mental health dimension: The high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers are well adjusted, have a zest for living and are attaining self actualization or self realization which attribute to their achievement. When the average and low achievers are compared the average achievers seems to be mentally healthy
than low achievers. The low achievers when compared to the high and average achievers are easily distracted, difficult to reach their goals and are dissatisfied with the way they have lived, which affect their academic achievement. Thus the results point that this dimension does differ significantly in high, average and low achievers. The finding is in agreement with the findings of Wig and Nagpal (1971) who found that the high achievers and the low achievers student are significantly different in mental health. (o) The high and average achievers and high and low achievers student differ significantly in morality dimension, whereas average and low achievers student do not show any marked differences in this dimension: This shows that the high achievers in comparison to average and low achievers tend to be more persistent, more respectful of authority and more conforming to the standards of groups. They consistently correlate with academic achievement, interest in school and peer. When the average and low achievers are compared, they do not differ significantly in this dimension. Low achievers on morality dimension when compared with high and average achievers are associated with behaviour such as showing off, stealing, lying, and destruction of property and temper tantrums. These findings have been supported by McGhee and Lewis (1942), Bonsall and Steflre (1955) in their
study of comparison who found that high achievers are moralistic, responsible, persevering, while undesirable personality traits were found among those who are low achievers. (p) The high and average achievers student do not differ significantly on self-control dimension, whereas high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly in this dimension: It indicates that the high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers show socially approved character and considerateness of others. When the average and low achievers are compared the average achievers seems to be more self-controlled than low achievers. Low achievers in comparison to the high and average achievers on this dimension self control are associated with delinquency. They are the major contribution to anxiety pattern and serve as an important clinical sign, signalling the teenagers inability to keep their emotions in order. The results showed that this dimension does differ significantly in high, average and low achievers. Sumption (1941), Jahan (1985), Barry & Plecha, (1999) Simon & Eachus, (2000) supported this study and concluded that self-control were observed in high achiever students than the low achieving students.
(q) The high and average achievers student do not differ significantly on sensitivity dimension, whereas high and low achievers and average and low achievers student do differ significantly in this dimension: This shows that the high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers are tender minded, dependent, over protected, and insecure. When the average and low achievers are compared, the average achiever seems to be more sensitive than low achievers. But low achievers in comparison to high and average achievers represent some sort of tough, masculine, practical, mature, and realistic temperamental dimension. The results point that this dimension does differ significantly in high, average and low achievers. The above finding under sensitivity dimension was supported by Khan (1983) who found that high achievers and low achievers differ significantly in this dimension. (r) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers student do not show any marked differences in self-sufficiency dimension, whereas average and low achievers students do differ significantly in this dimension: The high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers on this dimension prefer to be alone and are good at problem solving. They are
confident, resourceful person, mature and their general achievement is high. When the average and low achievers are compared, the average achiever seems to be more self-sufficient than low achievers. But the low score in this dimension is those who is group dependent and who strongly values social approval. The result of the present study is in support of the studies of Ainsworth (1967), Srivastava (1976) Jahan (1985) who revealed in their studies that high achieving students, in comparison to the average and low achieving students, excelled in self-sufficient dimension. (s) The high and average achievers and high and low achievers student do differ significantly in social warmth dimension, whereas, average and low achievers student do not show any marked differences on this dimension: This shows that the high achievers in comparison to the average and low achievers are found to be very warm hearted, personable and easy to get along. They are outgoing, participative and good natured. When the average and low achievers are compared, they do not differ significantly in this dimension. But low achievers in comparison to the high and average achievers on this dimension are quite uncompromising. They prefer to work alone, look for thinking quality in companionship and are introspective. Srivastava (1975),
Tayek Tolam (1985) supported the study and found that high achievers have more social warmth than the low achievers. (t) The high and average achievers, high and low achievers and average and low achievers students do differ significantly on tension dimension: This shows that high achievers in comparison to average and low achievers are short tempered, irrationally worried, tense irritable anxious and turmoil. When the average and low achievers are compared, the average achiever seems to be tense than low achievers. Low achievers in comparison to high and average achievers are more relaxed, at ease, focused, confident and have good concept of group unity and orderliness. Thus the results point to us that this dimension does differ significantly in high, average, and low achievers. Terman and Oden (1947), Suri (1978), Khan (1983) findings show fair support to the results that high achievers and low achievers differ significantly in this dimension. From the above findings, it can be observed that the various personality dimensions do make a difference in the academic achievement of the student. But for one thing, one does not find many studies with regards to personality differences of high, average and low achievers. No doubt some personality