Personality is such a common term that a definition appears unnecessary. Yet using a term like this without clarifying the meaning intended often leads to confusion and misunderstanding. For example, when referring to personality, the average person tends to refer to the individual's skill in relating tc others and in evoking a positive response in the people with whom he comes in contact. The psychologist, on the other hand, is accustomed to following a more specified, organized approach to the definition of personality. Some stress "social interaction" and a predisposition to behave in a consistent pattern. Others focus on the "integration" of specific actions with the total behavior pattern, the "total adjustment" of individuals with their physical and social environment, and the "unique aspects of behavior" that give the person her individuality (Ausubel & Robinson, 1969).
The variety of definitions for personality arises from the many-faceted aspects of this concept. Various groups select differing components of personality as the focus of their attention. As a result, the meanings reflect varying emphases on cognitive, affective, and social considerations. Those who stress cognitive aspects are interested in the internal processes with which the individual perceivesand organizes his life situation intoa meaningful, comprehensible (to him) whole. Those who focus on the social components in their definition of personality are most aware of the interrelationships occurring in the social matrix in which the individual is operating. Those who place primary emphasis on the affective components are concerned with the person's attitudes and feelings as he draws meaning from his interaction with the physical world and his social circumstances. In defining personality, the affective-social variables normally receive more stress than the cognitive, although it is obvious that the individual's cognitive structure plays a determining role in the development of the affective-social aspects of personality and that there is a decided interaction among all three components.
Klausmeier and Ripple (1971) outline some milestones of ego development (which they adapted from Loevinger and Wessler) that are pertinent to personality development. As was true in the case of cognitive development, any individual may be at any given level. It cannot be assumed that someone of
a particular age will have reached a certain ego development stage. Some individuals (perhaps many) will never reach the highest ego state. A knowledge of the hierarchical stages of ego development provides the teacher with greater insight into the general stage at which the student or students may be at a particular point in their growth and gives a framework for attempting to comprehend and interpret individual and group behavior. The following list summarizes the succeeding stages in ego development:
1. a. Presocial, b. Symbiotic. In this stage infants are primarily concerned with themselves and with making a distinction between self and the non-self parts of their surroundings. At first they do not distinguish between animate and inanimate objects. At the beginning of the symbiotic stage they are able to identify "mother." This stage ends with the onset of speech.
2. Impulsive. Children are conscious of their separate existence from mother and are concerned with body feelings and functions. They have acquired few, if any, restraints on their impulses. An act is bad only if they are punished for it.
3. Self-protective. This is an intensely competitive period. Growing out of dependency on parents, the youngsters seek to gain control over other people and/or things. They want to get the best of everything, to be first, to have the most, etc. Following rules is desirable if one gains an advantage by doing so, and behavior is wrong only if one gets caught.
4. Conformist. During this period of development an intensely high premium is placed on appearance, possessions, and reputation, especially as each compares and relates to one's peers. Certain people, things, and acts which are "in" dictate an outward conformity. Rules are followed simply because they are rules, and the person is ashamed of breaking the rules.
5. Conscientious. The individuals reach a stage of internal direction and personal responsibility for their actions. They now have the capacity for self-evaluation and self-criticism. They are more capable of forming true and meaningful personal relationships based on feelings rather than group-sanctioned conformity. They can envision goals and ideals and plan for means of achieving them. When they fail to "live up" to their expectations, they suffer guilt rather than shame.
6. Autonomous. On this level individuals gain two abilities. They learn to cope with conflict, whether it be inner-conflict or inter-conflict. They become more tolerant of differences in others. They emphasize the desirability of self-fulfillment for each individual.
7. Integrated. Individuals reaching the highest possible level of ego development are able to reconcile the conflicts going on within themselves and around them. They value individual worth and achieve a sense of their own integrated identity.
It goes without saying that personality is a major factor in determining student success or failure in school. The position of the student on the
adjustment-maladjustment continuum furnishes the student with, or deprives her of, the security and confidence needed to grow cognitively, emotionally, and socially. The student who lacks confidence in herself is likely to be low in achievement motivation, high in anxiety, and low in achievement. Knowing where the student is on the ego-development scale will enable the teacher to ascertain more specifically what steps might be beneficial in overcoming student problems. However, a word of warning must be inserted here. Teachers usually lack sufficient training and experience to handle severe emotional problems, and they must distinguish between those situations in which they are capable of assisting and those in which they are not. As Disick and Barbanel (1974, p. 213) state the situation: "Although a sensitive teacher can contribute to the positive emotional development of his students, there are limits to what he can accomplish. Since most teachers lack extensive psychiatric training, there must be limits on what is said and done in the classroom."