Abstract

The study aimed to look for the participation and comparison of gender-based teachers’ involvement in the development of various personality traits of students at secondary school level. To answer the research questions, a sequential explanatory mixed method design was adopted. The Southern districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were taken as a source of data. The researcher selected 361 secondary school teachers as a sample through simple random sampling technique. For collection of data Big Five Factors Personality Inventory developed by Buchanan(2001) were adapted. Results of the study revealed that mostly teachers are strongly agree that they have their role in extroversion personality trait development. Significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement as “Extroversion” and “Conscientiousness” while no significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement as “Agreeableness”, “Neuroticism” and “Openness to Experiences”.

Key Words

Extraversion, Neuroticism, Personality, Secondary level students.

Introduction

Teachers perform an admirable and persuasive role in their student’s development. Baumrind (1967) points out that preschool children elevated by parents' distinguishable parenting technique which is diverse in their degree of social proficiency. Baumrind (1971) put forward a theory of parenting according to which the style in which parents sort out their child’s joint requirements for both protection and limit-setting has a greater effect on the degree of social proficiency attained and also on their child’s behavioral adaptation. This theory pointed out three qualitatively varied patterns or sequences of parental control (Baumrind, 1971). This typology was eventually improved with the help of classifying families by making their levels of parental demandingness (command, observation, adulthood demands) and responsiveness (affability, adoption, participation) (Maccoby and Martin, 1983). A fourfold typology is generated by reanalyzing parenting techniques in terms of the communication between these two aspects; dictatorial, authoritative, permissive and neglectful. Those parents who are categorized as parenting in a dictatorial way are meant to be highly demanding and unconcerned. Dictatorial or authoritarian parents try to emphasize obedience or servility and admiration for authority (Baumrind, 1991).
All human beings are biological organisms who live in groups and in specific surroundings. For living with other human beings every individual has some personality traits, and the personality psychologists are curious about what distinguishes one individual from the other and why we act the way we do. Personality research, like any science, depends on measurable concrete data which may be used to analyze what people are like. Here the Big Five performs a crucial role.
The Big Five basically had its origin in thew1970’s. It was invented by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae who become a little bit dissimilar from others when giving the same results; the majority of human personality traits can be summarized to five broad dimensions of personality, irrespective of language or culture. These five dimensions were the result of investigating thousands of people and hundreds of questions then examining the data with a statistical procedure known as factor analysis. It is crucial to understand that the researchers did not intend to find five dimensions, but rather these five dimensions were the result of their analysis of the data. In scientific circles, the Big Five at this time is greatly adopted and used the pattern of personality. The pioneering American Psychologist Gordon Allport (1961) narrated two vital methods to study personality; the Nomothetic and the idiographic. Nomothetic psychology deals with general laws that can be applied to several different people, as there is the principle of self-actualization or the trait of extraversion. Idiographic psychology is an effort to perceive the distinctive features of a specific individual.
Nowadays so many research studies are tackled i-e in academic institutions as well as outside the academic institutions where the study of teenagers’ adaptations and their academic achievements have been focused on. In various situations, different adaptation problem is faced by teenagers. As stated by Heckinger (1992) all teenagers are at a turning point or we can say that they are at a crossroad; these important years give an opportunity to change a period of excessive risk into one of the excessive hopes. When to these youngsters a chance or opportunity is given they can make their lives of great gratification to their own self and also can make their elders, communities and nation proud.
The study of teenagers is basically crucial nowadays because it helps in defining the status and roles of a teenager and also highlight the difficulty characteristic of that period. It also throws light that in what ways and to which extent youth is important and it also highlights the wholesome as well as unwholesome characteristics of that period. To every teenager, a chance must be given so that they can make a home, social, personal and affection educational and health adaptations totally. Now-a-day, youngsters came across different adaptations and personality problems.
Several research studies are undertaken today, both in academic institutions and outside where the study of adolescent adjustment and their development has been of great concern. An in-depth study was conducted by Dogra (2007) on the Genesis of Concept of Adolescence and found that adolescence terminates psychologically with the establishment of realistic and relatively consistent patterns of problem-solving and is socially still not defined as an adult; and vice versa, an individual may have entered adult status but may still be lacking in realistic patterns of problem-solving.
Yet another study was done on Urban versus Rural Impact on Adolescent Development (Jushchuk, 1999). Research findings indicated that the development of the impact that location has on adolescents will be developed to explain some of the reasons for certain behavior. The research of the urban-rural differences is significant because of the real-world application. Hence the researcher desires to focus on parent-teacher involvement in personality development and social adjustment of secondary school students of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.


Objective of Study
Objectives of the study were:
• To find out the involvement of teachers in the development of different personality traits of students studying at the secondary school level.
• To compare gender-based teachers ‘involvement in students’ different personality traits development studying at the secondary school level.
Research Question
This study was guided by the following research questions.
• What is the involvement of teachers in the development of different personality traits of students studying at the secondary school level?
• Is there a significant difference between male and female teachers’ involvement in students’ different personality traits development studying at the secondary school level?


Concept of Personality
Personality cannot be regarded as a human property which is cheap and common. Philosophy defines human personality as organized, integrated and disciplined self-physical, moral or ethical and mental, are the three crucial aspects of human personality. We can further elaborate on personality in two ways. First, there is a person’s identity, which can be defined as one’s inside personality. This is the person’s own self who can be better identified by his hopes, dreams aims, and goals and also his values. Second, there is a person’s reputation, which is his outside personality i-e personality from outside. This type of person is made others and this is clearly elaborated in the Five-Factor Model – which is in terms of a person's own approach, his connection or relation with a community, his creativity or we can say his self-portrayal towards other. Schneewind and Ruppert (1998) define “personality as something which is known to every person that it is present, but nobody has an idea that what it is”. It is definitely that we cannot put human personality into scientific terms which according to Goethe (1970). We can define personality as a systematic and organized set of features that are controlled by a person that in different situations affects his or her behaviors. The word personality comes from the Latin word “Persona” means mask. In the world of Latin, the work mask was used as a convention in order to represent or symbolize the character. Personality can also be defined as an arrangement of thoughts, emotions, feelings and behaviors which is coherently revealed by an individual all the time and that also greatly effect our expectations, self-knowledge, and attitude. It also foresees our reactions to people, problem and crises. To sum up the personality we can say that it does not only represent who we are but it also shows how we are.


Components of Personality
Freud in 1873 gives a statement about human behavior. He says that human behaviors are stimulated by a force known as psychodynamic forces. He further says that a child in order to satisfy his basic urges he then needs psychic energy. The psychic energy is the type of energy that serves the instincts, and here the psychic energy is ID, ego, and superego. The personality is known as ID. According to Freud, the major work of ID is to serve the instincts in a way that it will seek those objects that will satisfy them. He further says that a point comes when there is a diversion of psychic energy from ID, in order to stimulate some important cognitive processes which are perception, logical reasoning and learning, at that point ego emerges. Freud called the person’s moral arbiter the superego. Ego gives rise to the superego, it basically represents the ideal and serves for the perfection and uniqueness. It doesn’t deal with pleasure or reality. Freud says that when a child is between to 3-6 years he slowly and gradually recognizing the moral standard of parents. There are some components of personality such as Habits – Attentiveness – Attitudes – Merit – Mental capacity and Concept. These components are put forward by Mary Laurence F. Fortu (n.d). There are some other components of personality which are described by Dr. Arthur Janov, which are, (i) Intellectual (ii) Physical (iii) Communal (iv) Affectional (v) ValuegSystem


Personality Measurement
Personality helps in determining different person’s traits, which includes people’s way of interaction with others, what they admire, and what motivates them. Trait theory says that one’s personality comprises of several numbers of broad traits (Searle, 2003).
A successful attempt was made by early theories in order to defines each character’s trait. Cattell says that up to some extent every person has the 16 traits, but there are some persons who are high in some traits and glow in others. 
There are career tests which are held in order to know which kind of job suits a person's personality or which careers one has an aptitude for. In order to measure intellectual functioning or in simple language, how unique or smart one is, intelligence tests are used. These tests are designed in such a way that they can measure a person’s mental skills. It also measures the interest of a person how it can match other people’s interests. Personal characteristics of a person i-e emotional brought up.


Theories of Personality
Kendra Cherry (2003) says that there are various theories about the development of personality. Then these theories are taken by the different schools of thought in psychology. The early impact on personality is the type of theories.
According to these theories, there are few numbers of “personality types”, which are related to biological influences. The personality theories such as psychodynamic theories are greatly affected by Sigmund Freud’s work and focus on the effect of the unconscious on personality. Behavioral theorists define personality as a result of the interaction between a person and his/her environment. These theorists reject the internal thoughts and feelings and focus on observable and measurable behaviors. The Behavioral theorists include John B. Watson and B.F Skinner. Then there come Humanist theories that mainly focus on the importance of an individual’s experiences. 
These theorists are Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. The Trait theories define personality as a result of internal characteristics that are genetically based. We can’t call central traits as dominating traits like cardinal traits because these traits are the person’s major characteristics one might use it to define another person. Secondary Traits: These types of traits are mainly concerned with attitudes or preference and they often appear under certain situations or specific circumstances. Then another Trait theorist Raymond Cattell limited the number of personality traits. As Allport's initial list contains 4000 words, Raymond reduces it to 171, he mostly rejects the uncommon traits and combining those traits which have the common characteristics. Hans Eysenck, a British psychologist, presented a model of personality. This model was based upon three universal traits: Introversion/Extroversion: Introversion deals with inner experience i-e it directs the attention inward, while extraversion focuses on outward attention i-e on other people and the environment. Neuroticism/Emotional Stability: This trait theory mainly focuses on a person’s mood and a balanced temper, while neuroticism concerns a person’s capacity to become upset or emotional on the other hand stability mainly focuses on a person’s tendency to remain emotionally constant. 
An American psychologist Lewis Goldberg (1992) gives credit to Francis Galton (1884) for one of the most recognizing scientists who clearly identified the basic lexical hypothesis – namely in the human transaction the most important differences among individuals will be considered as single term in all the languages of the world (Goldberg, 1990).
The theory given by Cattell’s and Eysenck’s becomes the subject of research, this leads the other theorist of the time to criticize their work because the Cattel’s trait theory comprises too many traits while Eysenck’s trait theory comprises of a small number of traits. This confusion gives rise to another trait theory i-e “Big Five Theory”. This Big Five theory represents the five different factors of personality which are:


Extroversion
A person having this personality trait is usually friendly, conversational and informative (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992). 


Conscientiousness
It includes such persons or we can say students who set few goals in their lives and mainly focus on these goals. They work very hard, reliable and well organized. (Howard & Howard, 1998). 


Agreeableness
Also known as likeability, which includes unselfishness, humble, polite, friendly and kind, with the ability to understanding social bonding (Digman, 1990). 


Neuroticism
The one who is neurotic and has a high tendency suffers from terror, depression and danger, while the one who scores low, remains calm, balanced and cool minded. 


Openness to experience
A person suffers from this trait are usually imaginative, innovative, conservative and conventional. (Cooper and Miller, 1991) 


The Southern districts (Bannu, Lakki Marwat, Kohat, Karak, Hangu, Tank, and D.I Khan) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were taken as a source of data for this study. The total population consists of 505 government secondary schools and 5878 government Secondary School teachers (District EMIS 2014). 


Sample of  The Study
The researcher selected the 361 secondary school teachers as a sample through simple random sampling technique with the following Daryle W. Morgan formula:
s = X2NP(1? P) ÷ d2 (N ?1) + X2P(1? P).
s = required sample size.
X2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level (3.841).
N = the population size.
P = the population proportion assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum sample size).
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05).


Instrumentation
For the collection of the data Big Five Factors Personality Inventory developed by Buchanan (2001) was adapted to measure teacher’s involvement in the personality traits development of the students.


Data Analysis
The collected quantitative data was entered in SPSS-21 and analyzed using Simple Percentage, Frequency Distribution, Mean Score, Standard Deviation, Pearson Product Moment Correlation, and t-test were utilized according to the objectives of the study.

Results

Table 1. Teacher’s role in students’ Extroversion Personality Trait development

Statement	SDA	DA	UD	A	SA	M	S.D
I advise my students not to be talkative	5	4.7	3.6	46	40.7	4.13	1.03
I motivate my students to be energetic all the time	1.4	2.2	1.9	44.9	49.6	4.39	0.76
I wash the brain of my students with the fact that “shy is a curse” for a student	1.7	3.3	8.3	35.7	51	4.31	0.88
I suggest my students keep his temperament friendly to everyone	1.1	2.5	2.8	44.3	49.3	4.38	0.76
Extroversion	2.3	3.2	4.2	42.7	47.7	4.30	0.86

 

Table 1 shows that 5% respondents are “Strongly Disagree”, 4.7% are “Disagree”, 3.6% are “Undecided”, 46% are “Agree” and 40.7% are “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I advise my students not to be talkative” while overall the respondents are “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.13 and S.D=1.03. 1.4% respondents are “Strongly Disagree”, 2.2% are “Disagree”, 1.9% are “Undecided”, 44.9% are “Agree” and 49.6% are “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I motivate my students to be energetic all the time” while overall the respondents are “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.39 and S.D=0.76. 1.7% respondents “Strongly Disagree”, 3.3%  “Disagree”, 8.3%  “Undecided”, 35.7%  “Agree” and 51% “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I wash the brain of my students with the fact that “shy is a curse” for a student” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.31 and S.D=0.88. 1.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.5% e  “Disagree”, 2.8%   “Undecided”, 44.3%   “Agree” and 49.3%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I suggest my students keep his temperament friendly to everyone” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.38 and S.D=0.76. Overall 2.3% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 3.2%   “Disagree”, 4.2%   “Undecided”, 42.7%   “Agree” and 47.7%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Extroversion” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.30 and S.D=0.86.

 

Table 2. Teacher role in students’ Conscientiousness Personality Trait Development

Statement	SDA	DA	UD	A	SA	M	S.D
I try to make my students as a trustworthy worker/friends	0.8	1.9	1.1	34.9	61.2	4.54	0.70
I ask my students to be enthusiastic minded all the time	1.7	3.9	1.4	43.8	49.3	4.35	0.83
I try to train my students the techniques of organizing any work	1.1	1.4	3	33.8	60.7	4.52	0.73
I advise my students to make plans and follow it	8.6	12.5	9.1	45.4	24.4	3.65	1.22
Conscientiousness	3.1	4.9	3.7	39.5	48.9	4.26	0.87

 

Table 2 shows that .8% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.9%   “Disagree”, 1.1%   “Undecided”, 34.9%   “Agree” and 61.2%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I try to make my students as a trustworthy worker/friends” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.54 and S.D=0.70. 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 3.9%   “Disagree”, 1.4%   “Undecided”, 43.8%   “Agree” and 49.3%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I ask my students to be enthusiastic minded all the time” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.35 and S.D=0.83. 1.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.4%   “Disagree”, 3%   “Undecided”, 33.8%   “Agree” and 60.7%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I try to train my students the techniques of organizing any work” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.52 and S.D=0.73. 8.6% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 12.5%   “Disagree”, 9.1%   “Undecided”, 45.4%   “Agree” and 24.4%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I advise my students to make plans and follow it” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=3.65 and S.D=1.22. Overall 3.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 4.9%   “Disagree”, 3.7%   “Undecided ”, 39.5%   “Agree ” and 48.9%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Conscientiousness” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.26 and S.D=0. i87.

 

Table 3. Teacher role in students’ Agreeableness Personality Trait Development

Statement	SDA	DA	UD	A	SA	M	S.D
I ask my students to be dependent on everyone to get the target	2.2	2.2	1.9	27.1	66.5	4.53	0.83
I motivate my students to always be unselfishly helpful to everyone	1.7	1.9	1.7	32.7	62	4.52	0.77
I try to teach my students that always make your nature to forgive others	1.7	2.2	1.7	53.7	40.7	4.30	0.76
I aw  my students for the fact that be kind to everyone	1.1	0.8	3.6	39.6	54.8	4.46	0.71
Agreeableness	1.7	1.8	2.2	38.3	56.0	4.45	0.77

 

Table 3 shows that 2.2% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.2%   “Disagree”, 1.9%   “Undecided”, 27.1%   “Agree” and 66.5%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I ask my students to be dependent on everyone to get the target” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.53 and S.D=0.83. 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.9%   “Disagree”, 1.7%   “Undecided”, 32.7%   “Agree” and 62%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I motivate my students to always be unselfishly helpful to everyone” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.52 and S.D=0.77. 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.2%   “Disagree”, 1.7%   “Undecided”, 53.7%   “Agree” and 40.7%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I try to teach my students that always make your nature to forgive others” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.30 and S.D=0.76. 1.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 0.8%   “Disagree”, 3.6%   “Undecided”, 39.6%   “Agree” and 54.8%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I aware my students for the fact that be kind to everyone” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.46 and S.D=0.71. Overall 1.7i% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.8%   “Disagree”, 2.2%   “Undecided ”, 38.3%   “Agree ” and 56.0%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Agreeableness ” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.45 and S.D=0.77.

Table 4. Teacher role in students’ Neuroticism Personality Trait Development

Statement	SDA	DA	UD	A	SA	M	S.D
I appreciate my students to co-operate others	1.7	2.2	4.4	52.1	39.6	4.26	0.78
I advise my students not to be depressed	0	0.6	0.6	41	57.9	4.56	0.54
I tell my students to be relax and face stress bravely	2.5	6.1	3	36.6	51.8	4.29	0.97
I ask my students to avoid quarreling with others	0.6	1.4	1.1	39.6	57.3	4.52	0.65
Neuroticism	1.2	2.6	2.3	42.3	51.7	4.41	0.74

 

Table 4 shows that 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.2%   “Disagree”, 4.4%   “Undecided”, 52.1%   “Agree” and 39.6%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I appreciate my students to co-operate others” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.26 and S.D=0.78. 0% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 0.6%   “Disagree”, 0.6%   “Undecided”, 41%   “Agree” and 57.9%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I advise my students not to be depressed” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.56 and S.D=0.54. 2.5% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 6.1%   “Disagree”, 3%   “Undecided”, 36.6%   “Agree” and 51.8%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I tell my students to be relax and face stress bravely” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.29 and S.D=0.97. 0.6% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.4%   “Disagree”, 1.1%   “Undecided”, 39.6%   “Agree” and 57.3%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I ask my students to avoid quarreling with others” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.52 and S.D=0.65. Overall 1.2% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.6%   “Disagree ”, 2.3%   “Undecided”, 42.3%   “Agree” and 51.7%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Neuroticism ” while overall the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.41 and S.D=0.74.

 

Table 5. Teacher role in students’ Openness to Experience Personality Trait Development

Statement	SDA	DA	UD	A	SA	M	S.D
I try to teach my students to be emotionally stable and active	0.3	3.9	4.7	49.3	41.8	4.29	0.75
I advise my students never be rude to others	1.1	4.7	6.6	45.7	41.8	4.22	0.85
I guide my students not to find fault and follies in others	2.2	8	11.1	40.2	38.5	4.05	1.01
I try to train my students to create new fruitful ideas	1.7	12.7	16.9	41.6	27.1	3.80	1.03
Openness to Experience	1.3	7.3	9.8	44.2	37.3	4.09	0.91

 

Table 5 shows that 0.3% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 3.9%   “Disagree”, 4.7%   “Undecided”, 49.3%   “Agree” and 41.8%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I try to teach my students to be emotionally stable and active” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.29 and S.D=0.75. 1.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 4.7%   “Disagree”, 6.6%   “Undecided”, 45.7%   “Agree” and 41.8%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I advise my students never be rude to others” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.22 and S.D=0.85. 2.2% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 8%   “Disagree”, 11.1%   “Undecided”, 40.2%   “Agree” and 38.5%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I guide my students not to find fault and follies in others” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=4.05 and S.D=1.01. 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 12.7%   “Disagree”, 16.9%   “Undecided”, 41.6%   “Agree” and 27.1%   “Strongly Agree” with the statement “I try to train my students to create new fruitful ideas” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with the statement with Mean=3.80 and S.D=1.03. Overall 1.3% respondents  “Strongly  Disagree”, 7.3%   “Disagree ”, 9.8%    “Undecided”, 44.2%   “Agree”  and 37.3%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Openness to Experience” while overall the respondents   “Agree” with Mean=4.09 and S.D=0.91

Table 6.  Gender based comparison of teachers’ involvement in students’ personality traits development

Trait	Gender	N	Mean	S.D	t	p	Phi (Effect Size)
Extroversion	Male	181	4.39	.481	3.34	.001	0.34
	Female	180	4.20	.609
Conscientiousness	Male	181	4.36	.465	3.98	.000	0.41
	Female	180	4.15	.535
Agreeableness	Male	181	4.47	.520	.711	.478	0.06
	Female	180	4.43	.629
Neuroticism	Male	181	4.43	.498	1.02	.308	0.10
	Female	180	4.38	.491
Openness to  Experiences	Male	181	4.11	.568	.711	.477	0.08
	Female	180	4.06	.601

 

Table 6 shows that male teacher’s mean score is “4.39” and female teacher’s is “4.20” with t value “3.34”, p is “.001” and effect size is “0.34” which shows that there is moderate significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Extroversion”. Male teacher’s mean score is “4.36” and female teacher’s is “4.15” with t value “3.98”, p is “.000” and effect size is “0.41” which shows that there is moderate significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Conscientiousness”. Male teacher’s mean score is “4.47” and female teacher’s is “4.43” with t value “.711”, p is “.478” and effect size is “0.06” which shows that there is weak significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Agreeableness”. Male teacher’s mean score is “4.43” and female teacher’s is “4.38” with t value “1.02”, p is “.308” and effect size is “0.10” which shows that there is weak significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Neuroticism”. Male teacher’s mean score is “4.11” and female teacher’s is “4.06” with t value “.711”, p is “.477” and effect size is “0.08” which shows that there is weak significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Openness to Experiences”.

Findings

The results have been drawn keeping in view the objectives formulated for this study. Major findings of the study drawn out of the foregoing chapters, presented in accordance with the objectives, are as follows.

• Overall 2.3% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 3.2%   “Disagree”, 4.2%   “Undecided”, 42.7%   “Agree” and 47.7%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Extroversion” while most of the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.30 and S.D=0.86.

• Overall 3.1% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 4.9%   “Disagree”, 3.7%   “Undecided”, 39.5%   “Agree” and 48.9%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Conscientiousness” while majority of the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.26 and S.D=0.87.

• Overall 1.7% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 1.8%   “Disagree”, 2.2%   “Undecided”, 38.3%   “Agree” and 56.0%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Agreeableness” while more respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.45 and S.D=0.77.

• Overall 1.2% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 2.6%   “Disagree”, 2.3%   “Undecided”, 42.3%   “Agree” and 51.7%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Neuroticism” while most of the respondents   “Strongly Agree” with Mean=4.41 and S.D=0.74.

• Overall 1.3% respondents   “Strongly Disagree”, 7.3%   “Disagree”, 9.8%   “Undecided”,  44.2%   “Agree” and 37.3%   “Strongly Agree” with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Openness to Experience” while majority of the respondents   “Agree” with Mean=4.09 and S.D=0.91.

• Male teacher’s mean score is “4.39” and female teacher’s is “4.20” with t value “3.34”, p is “.001” and effect size is “0.34” for personality trait “Extroversion”

• Male teacher’s mean score is “4.36” and female teacher’s is “4.15” with t value “3.98”, p is “.000” and effect size is “0.41” for personality trait “Conscientiousness”. 

• Male teacher’s mean score is “4.47” and female teacher’s is “4.43” with t value “.711”, p is “.478” and effect size is “0.06” for personality trait “Agreeableness”. 

• The male teacher’s mean score is “4.43” and the female teacher is “4.38” with t value “1.02”, p is “.308” and effect size is “0.10” for personality trait “Neuroticism”. 

• The male teacher’s mean score is “4.11” and the female teacher is “4.06” with t value “.711”, p is “.477” and effect size is “0.08” for personality trait “Openness to Experiences”.

Discussion

Most teachers strongly agree that they have their role in extroversion personality trait development of the students. Majority of the teachers highlighted their strong role in Conscientiousness personality trait development of the students. Almost all of the teachers strongly agree with their role in personality trait development of the students as “Agreeableness”. Most of the teachers strongly agree that they have a role in Neuroticism personality trait development of secondary school students. All the male and female teachers agreed that they have their role in personality trait development of the students as “Openness to Experience”. Significance difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students' personality trait development as “Extroversion” and “Conscientiousness” while no significant difference found between male and female teacher’s involvement in students personality trait development as “Agreeableness”, “Neuroticism” and “Openness to Experiences”.

References

• Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Ho lt, Rineha rt & Winston
• Baumrind.(1967). Advances in Psychology Research.35. Alexandre Columbus, Nova Science Publishers, inc. New York
• Baumrind.(1971). Current Patterns of Parental Authority.Nova Science Publishers, inc. New York
• Baumrind.(1991b). Developmental Psychopathology and family process.Guilford Press New York, NY.
• Costa &McCrae.(2006), W. Roberts, Brent and Kate E. Walton & Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Personality Traits change in Adulthood: university of Maastricht
• Dogra.(2007). Person ality predicts academic perfo rmance : Expl oring the moderating role of gender, Jou rnal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27, 105-127
• Heckinger.(1992).Personality, academic attribution and substance use as predictors of academic achievement in college students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 501-511
• Jushchuk. (1999). A psychoanalytic perspective on the five-factor model of personality. In J.S. Wigg ins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163-179). New York: Guildford Press
• Maccoby & Martin.(1983).Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and Neuropsychological Correlates of the Fifth Factor of Personality, Journal of Research in Personality, 7 3 : 8 2 5-258.
• Sandra,G., Pajares & Urda n.(2004). Looking at type and learning styles. Gainesville, FL: Center for Application of Psychological Type. (p.2)
• Shaffer.(1993). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 99-123