ASSESSING THE EFFECT AND TRANSFER VALUE
OF A CLASSROOM SIMULATOR TECHNIQUE

Thesis for the Degree of Ed. .D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Charles W. Week
1965

.ooq-....v.. -- c . f.~-,

0‘ —- fiW‘

L1 0 K {1 K I l
Michigan Stem
Ui‘ti'versity (

.wmm...w'r': ‘

IHESIS

This is to certify that , the

thesis entitled

r-r: ".wor‘rxrfl T'“ ‘.'7"‘.“""71 :'-*'r\ m. straw?" 1H "-
11C; goullu TLC. LF.‘.nu..'. n-..) l3; “0.2.3.: -..». 1;

OF A CLAS¢RSQII SITTULATQR TECHIKICJJIS
presented by
Charles ’w". Vlcek ._ '.

>

L ' a

has been accepted towards fulfillment ;
of the requirements for _, , . I

M degree lin_E.dll£La_L.i on

Date

 

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

ASSESSTNG THE EFFECT AND TRANSFER VALUE
OF A CIASSROOM SINUEATOR TECHNIQUE

by Charles W. Vlcek

This study investigated: (1) the effect of a class—
room simulator in providing teacher-trainees with experience
in identifying and solving classroom problems prior to
their student teaching experience; (2) the transfer value
of the classroom simulator experience; and (3) the effect
of the simulator on teacher—trainee self—confidence in
their ability to teach. In addition, the study measured
teacher-trainee attitudes toward their classroom simulator
experience.

A two factorial design was employed consisting of an
experimental and a control group which were selected
randomly from a Junior level Elementary Bloc sequence a:
Michigan State University divided by high and low GPA's.

The experimental group received nine hours of classroom
simulator experience while the control group received an
orientation session only.

Three hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—

ence will identify and react more correctly to
representative simulated classroom problems as

measured by a post-test, than subjects not
receiving classroom simulator experience.

Charles W. Vlcek

H2: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—
ence will identify and react more effectively
to actual classroom problems, as measured by an
observation criterion instrument during their
student teaching assig ment, than subjects not
receiving classroom simulator experience.

H3: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi-

ence will exhibit a higher level of confidence
in their ability to teach, as measured by a
confidence scale, than a group not receiving
simulator experience.

A replica of a front section of a sixth grade class-
room was constructed. Classroom problems and feedback
sequences were projected in sound, motion, and color on a
large rear projection screen in "life—like" size. Teacher-
trainees physically and verbally responded to each problem
presented and immediately observed the class behavior
elicited by their response. Problems and feedback sequences
were presented repeatedly until the teacher-trainee elicited
a desirable response from the class. A guided discovery
technique was employed.

Following the instructional phase both groups were
given a post-test in the simulator. he first hypothesis
was supported. Significant differences were found between
the groups on the mean test scores for two out 'f three
divisions of the test. The experimental group was signifi—

cantly better in coping and being aware of more principles

used in handling the simulated classroom problems. No
differences were found between the mean scores of the two

groups for being aware that problems did exist.

Charles W. Vlcek

A follow-up study measured the transfer effect of
the simulator experience during the teacher-trainee‘s
student teaching experience. Three groups observed the
teacher—trainees during student teaching: (1) three
trained observers, (2) university coordinators, and (3)
classroom supervising teachers. The transfer instrument
was divided into the following sections: awareness of
problems, response to problems, and application of
principles. The second hypothesis did not find adequate
support. No significant differences were found by the
trained observers between the experimental and control
groups on their awareness of problems existing or on their
effectiveness in responding to the problems. Significant
differences were found in the application of principles
used in solving classroom problems. Analysis of the data
indicated that both groups applied approximately equal
numbers of principles with effective results but the
experimental group applied a greater number of principles
with ineffective results.

The university coordinators recorded significant
differences between the two groups on responding effectively
to problems but no differences on awareness of problems
and correct application of principles. The classroom

supervisors found significant differences on the

Charles W. Vlcek

observational instrument for all three divisions--awareness
of problems, response to problems, and application of
principles.

The evidence recorded on the confidence scale provided
strong support for the third hypothesis that classroom
simulator experience increases self-confidence in ability
to teach.

Information collected by the attitude scale, ”Student
Reaction to Simulator Experience," indicated that the
participants did feel that classroom simulator experience

was worthwhile and helpful.

Conclusions

 

\

Several conclusions are made from the findings

reported in this experiment.

1. Awareness of classroom problems is not developed
through classroom simulator experience. Teacher—
trainees apparently possess this ability to
identify classroom problems prior to the simulator
experience.

2. Effective responses to classroom problems can be
developed through classroom simulator experience
prior to the teacher—trainee's student teaching
assignment.

3. Principles which can be used in solving classroom

problems can be developed through classroom

U’l

Charles W. Vlcek

simulator experience prior to the teacher-
trainee's student teaching assignment.
Experiences gained in responding to problems
within the classroom simulator do not transfer
to the teacher—trainee's student teaching experi—
ence. However, evidence does exist which
supports the postulate that experience with more
simulated classroom problems increases transfer.
Principles developed for application in solving
classroom problems do transfer to the teacher—
trainee's student teaching experience.
Teacher—trainee confidence in ability to teach
is increased through classroom simulator experi-

ence .

ASSESSING THE EFFECT AND TRANSFER VALUE

OF A CLASSROOM SIMULATOR TECHNIQUE

By

A!“ A
3

Charles w? Vlcek

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1965

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The number of people who supported, assisted, and
were involved in this project are too numerous to enable
the naming of each-—faculty members of the Elementary
Bloc, the university off—campus coordinating professors,
the classroom supervising teachers, and the Winter quarter
teacher—trainees at Michigan State University. However,
several are singled out for their sincere interest and
special assistance.

The author particularly wishes to thank Dr. Charles
F. Schuller, his committee chairman, whose interest and
full cooperation made this study possible and to his
committee members, Dr. Colby Lewis, Dr. Donald Olmsted, and
Dr. Troy Stearns.

Special acknowledgment goes to Dr. Calhoun Collier,
Professor of Education; Dr. Henry Kennedy, Director of
Student Teachers; Dr. Jean LePere, Associate Professor of
Education; and Mr. Archie Watson, Head of Audiovisual
Distribution Facilities Services for their assistance and
cooperation.

Special tribute is given to Mr. Milton Glassman and
Idr. Richard Gallien whose extra hours devoted as research
assistants contributed to the success of this study and
to Mrs. Carole Vincent who served invaluably as general

ii

office manager and typist from the beginning to the end of
the study.

Without the special interest and cooperation of the
above mentioned persons, this study could not have been

completed.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF

TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF
Chapter

I.

II.

III.

APPENDICES

THE PROBLEM.

The Need for the Study

The Purpose of the Study
Hypotheses

Theory Underlying the Study
Definition of Terms

Plan of the Study.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Military Applications of Simulation.

Business and Industrial Application of
Simulation .

Simulation in Education.

Discussion of Previous Research

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The Classroom Simulator Facility.
Description of the Sample
Instrumentation

Post—Test .

Observational Record Form.

Confidence Scale.

Student Reaction to Simulator Tir aining
The Statistical Hypothese
The Experimental Design.

‘5.

iv

Page
ii
vi
xi

xii

Chapter Page

Assignment of Experimental and Control

Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Controls . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Analysis of the Data. . . . . . . . . 74

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 82
Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . 82
Discussion of the Findings. . . . . . . 121

Summary of the Results . . . . . . . . 125

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . 130
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . I34
Implication for Future Research . . . . . 135
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A5

Table

10.

ll.

l2.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Procedure for scoring problem responses during

classroom simulator post-test . . . . . . 55
Coefficient correlations of observer agreement

before and after receiving training on using

the observational record form . . . . . . 61
Comparison of all—university grade point average

means and standard deviations of experimental

and control groups. . . . . . . . . 67
Comparison of age means and standard deviations

of experimental and control groups . . . . 68
Distribution of ages with:n the experimental and

CODEIQI gr01Jps o o 0 o o o o e o o o 68
Simulator classroom behaviors and related

problem sequences . . . . . . . . . . 70

7a

Summary of varia le controls . .

Comparison of experimental and control group

post-test variances . . . . . . . . . 76
Comparison of experimental and control group
confidence scale variances . . . . . . . 77

Comparison cf the means and standard deviations
of the excerlrental and control groups on the

respor se seclion of the post—test. . . . . 83
Analysis of variance of post—test response score
means between experiments: and control gzoops. 84

Comparison of the means and standard deViaticns
of the experimental and control groups in the
assessment section o: the post— tes t . . . . 8»

Analysis cf varia
score means bets u . . . .
groups. s I o o o . . . t . . . . ?’\;‘

Table Page

cit):- {111:1 32:30;de rEV;Eithl’lE

(ll

14. Comparison oi :hs m

of the experimental and control groups on
the principles section :; the p,sT—vest . . . 86

15. Analysis oi \ai
applied scoi H al and
control gr cps . . . . . . . . . . . 86

(D L—'
(D
Q)
'3
m
0‘
(D
(4
E
(D
(I‘.
:3 .
m (/1
><
T)
(T) 7
'1 *‘3
’_"_I
E":
(D
:3 +—

16. Comparison oi i:eqcenoies c1 3;;orrance, sttdent
teacher awareness, and Their razios between
experimental a canprcl gr;ups during the
student teaching experienoe as "ecorded by
trained Jose: er . , . . . . . . . . 8

J
w

(13

(fl

“her

()7

17. Comparison ;1 ceha41;r it- .zed—studen: te

awareness “hll_S and z-csst vaiCEE between
experimenzai and “:n'ro- inppr during the

ECorded or

student teach: i
s . . . . . . . . . 89

the trained so

(I

U) I-

(T) ‘

'1

"‘ (T)

(D X

'< 7‘.
(I
H
F]
(T)
:3
O
(D
D!
J
"3

F—fl
(
(a
C
H
H.
Q3
:3
(-
”D

18. Comparison oi

rchencies pi e , student
teacher awareness, and tisi: rat; s between
experimentai and c ntrri :'c.or dcnin the

student ts“ ing experienc

the universicy cc.rdinating tr-x

Q
. ("1
J“
(D
511
U
b—L ff
'T- (I)
(
(
'5
Q
«=mc;
Q
(1
K“

U!
I

(

r

\Q

C

U

19. Comparison oi behaVicr :cccrr'
awareness ratios ' '

(I
C Q)
f‘i
Ll
[\
l
U
(" (I:
Q
” I
:1 (
r—- ("f
_: C C
D C
U“ (T
3
U
(D
bu C" t‘t
:2

experimental and ; , i the
studenT ’eachinq exterierc~ at 'e ri'd by
the university ; 11-;ating p:c:~;~ s . . . jl

20. Compa

(I
b—
(.4
L‘
r
LL
’fi
5.“
(
\
F‘
\
H ""1
1‘
D"-
f
I
f‘
(
D
's
b—
"\
.x
)
F—
T

‘x

I...
91
(n
(I
H
L)
(
:1
I
f‘ .
71 :
.1,
x
L-
i
,4
"I
Q
1‘)
(Ti
’1
'J
L);

Q.
l

21. Comparison c: z-zest va-ues oi behavior agcurw“

student LEéghéf fiwtjorrafi rat_;s he: ran jICPVi-

mental and cont;¢i _r,1:i i; _;m :‘e t: ,,t

teacning exterience a: la 44.; c; tic s—

room supeivi -r ‘vi"_e . . . . . . . 34
22. Comparison of the eiiertii— e , _ * i *

teacher {EQULLSL, *u ciz”tf I I: 1

between exgeziuevtwi : l rziti i gt

FQCCFurd c» 7::Inrd i. : ezs . . . . . .

Table

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Comparison of effectiveness of student teacher
response to classroom problems between
experimental and control groups as recorded
by university coordinating professors . . .

Comparison of the effectiveness of student
teacher responses to classroom problems
between experimental and control groups as
recorded by classroom supervising teachers .

Comparison of the chi—squares on effectiveness
of student teacher responses between experi—
mental and control groups as recorded by
trained observers. . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the chi-squares on effectiveness
of student teacher responses between experi-
mental and control groups as recorded by
university coordinating professors

Comparison of the chi—squares on effectiveness
of student teacher responses between experi—
mental and control groups as recorded by
classroom supervising teachers . . . . .

Comparison of the principles applied to solve
classroom problems by student teachers
between experimental and control groups as
recorded by trained observers.

Comparison of the prinoiples applied to solve
classroom problems by student teachers
between experimental and control groups as
recorded by university coordinating
professors .

Comparison of the principles applied to solve
classroom problems by student teachers
between experimental and control groups as
recorded by classroom supervising teachers

Comparison of chi-squares on principles applied
correctly by student teachers between
experimental and control groups as recorded
by trained observers.

Comparison of chi-squares on principles applied
correctly by student teachers between experi-
mental and control groups as recorded by
university coordinating professors

viii

Page

96

97

98

100

101

102

103

10“

l06

107

Table

33-

3A.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Comparison of chi—squares on principles applied
correctly by student teachers between experi—
mental and control groups as recorded by
classroom supervising teachers

Comparison of principles applied but not to
specific behaviors experienced in the
simulator between experimental and control
groups as recorded by the trained observers.

Comparison of principles applied but not to
specific behaviors experienced in the simula-
tor between experimental and control groups
as recorded by the university coordinating
professors.

Comparison of principles applied but not to
Specific behaviors experienced in the
simulator between experimental and control
groups as recorded by the classroom super-
vising teachers . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the means and standard deviations
of the experimental and control groups on
confidence scale pre-test. . .

Comparison of the means and standard deviations
of the experimental and control groups on
confidence scale post-test

Analysis of variance of differences between
experimental and control groups pre-test
level of confidence mean scores.

Comparison of the pre-and post-test differences
score means and standard deviations of the
experimental and control groups.

Analysis of variance between experimental and
control groups using pre-test and post-
test level of confidence difference scores

Summary of null hypothesisl findings:

effectiveness of classroom simulator
experience.

ix

Page

108

109

110

111

113

11“

115

116

117

126

Table Page

#3. Summary of null hypothesi52 findings: Transfer
effects of classroom simulator experience . . 127

A4. Summary of null hypothesiS3 findings: effective—
ness of classroom simulator experience on
confidence level toward teaching . . . . . 128

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. The experimental design . . . . . . . . 65
2. Classroom simulator instructional model. . . 71

xi

LIST CF APPENDICES

“('7

{1)
0’4

I'D

Appendix

A. Physical Arrangemen: of classroom Simulator . 146

{'1‘
N
\

B. Examples of Classroom Simula a. Instructional
Procedure Sheets . . . . . . . . . lA8

F...)
O\.
F.)

C. Remote Control Panel. . . . . . . . .

(D
+_l
’...A
O\
U)

. Master Control Pan

H
O\
U7

D
E. Post—Test Score Instrtment
F

G. Classroom Observational Record Instrument- . 171

H. Directions for Using Classroom Observational
F‘Orm O O I O C i O fi 0 f C O E

#4
‘1
.C

1
.
l

Cad—e O t I g r O I O O I

Fl
CI)
Lu

(I)

1. Confidence

'__ I
CI)
\3

J. Student Reactions to Simtlatir Training .

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my wife Evelyn whose
love and encouragement made completion of this task
possible . . . and to my children, Jeannette, Timothy, and

Beverly, who were so understanding,

xiii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The Need for the Study

 

One of the many problems faced by teacher educators
today is providing adequate classroom experiences for
future teachers. Teacher trainees are provided with a
variety of books and reference materials to study. They
are provided with opportunities to discuss problems
encountered daily by teachers in classrooms. They are given
opportunities to hear experienced teachers describe and
explain teaching pedagogy through lectures, demonstrations,
films, and other media. However, after all this preparation,
many teacher—trainees have difficulty transferring their
newly acquired Knowledge into practice during student
teaching and first year teaching assignments. They make
mistakes, they misinterpret, and they lose rapport with
their students.

Several explanations are given for this difficulty.
First, student teachers do not receive adequate guidance
by their already overburdened classroom supervising teachers.
Secondly, student teachers are in the uncomfortable position
of trying to satisfy both their supervising teacher and
university coordinating teacher, which does not provide an

1

atmosphere conducive to a maximum learning experience.
Another reason for difficulty is that student teachers
are not given an opportunity to experiment with different
teaching techniques and methods of solving classroom
problems.

Experiences should be provided ideally so that
teacher—trainees can practice their newly acquired teaching
behaviors privately before facing a real class. Teacher—
trainees should be given the opportunity of being baited
or tested by students, and experiencing how students will
react to various situations. By carefully supervising and
controlling these experiences; by removing student teachers
from the uncomfortable position between university co—
ordinating teachers and classroom supervising teachers;
by allowing student teachers to try different techniques;
prOSpective teachers can then discover and develop classroom
behaviors and prepare themselves for that ”real” classroom

prior to their student teaching assignment.

The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if teacher—
trainees can discover and develop desirable teaching
behaviors based upon previously taught basic principles
of learning and teaching through a classroom simulator
experience. If these newly discovered and developed

desiIable teaching behaviors then transfer from the

simulator experience into actual field practice and the
teacher—trainee's confidence in his ability to teach can
be increased through classroom simulator experience, then
a truly valuable technique will have been created to help
solve the problem of providing teacher—trainees with more
classroom experience before they reach the classroom as

student teachers and teachers.

The Hypotheses

 

The effectiveness of using a classroom simulator
technique in providing classroom experiences for elementary
teacher-trainees will be determined by testing three
hypotheses:l

l. A positive relationship exists between class—
room simulator experience and a teacher—trainee's
ability to identify and react to representative
simulated classroom problems.

2. A positive relationship exists between class—
room simulator experience and a teacher—trainee's
ability to identify and cope with representative
classroom problems during student teaching assign-
ments.

3. A positive relationship exists between class—

room simulator experience and a teacher—
trainee's confidence in his ability to teach.

Theory Underlying the Study

 

During the past 60 years much research has taken
place which has attempted to clarify what happens during

the learning process. However, this research has not

1These hypotheses are restated in testable form in
Chapter III.

provided the educator with concrete theories upon which
to base learning activities.
H. H. Remmer stated in a 1953 report:

The simple fact of the matter is that, after #0
years of research on teacher effectiveness during
which a vast number of studies have been carried
out, one can point to few outcomes that a superin—
tendent of schools can safely employ in hiring a
teacher or granting him tenure, that an agency can
employ in certifying teachers or that a teacher
education faculty can employ in planning or improving
teacher education programs.

Gagne and Bolles have also recognized that research
has not yielded meaningful and measurable criteria upon
which educators can rely:

From the very amount of research that has been

done on human learning much is known about the
conditions that influence learning, and many of

the variables that govern learning have now been
identified. It is somewhat surprising that in spite
of this body of information, relatively little of

a systematic nature is known about how to promote
efficient learning in practical situations.

Many reasons are given as causes for this deplorable
state. The studies attempt to isolate and vary single bits

of stimulus materials to determine the effect of these

variations on the learning process. They tend to involve

 

2H. H. Remmer, et al., ”Second Report of the Committee
on Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness,” Journal of Educa—
tional Research, Vol. 46 (May, 1953), p. 657.

 

 

3Robert M. Gagne and Robert C. Bolles, ”A Review of
Factors In Learning Efficiency,” Automatic Teaching: The
State of the Art, E. H. Galenter, editor TNew York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1959), p. 13.

 

 

“Ibid.

*

\J‘l

rather restricted stimuli far removed from the types of
materials which are of practical importance.u The result

is a collection of data so attenuated, so far removed from
the sight, sound, smell, feel, and sense of the classroom

that the reality has escaped and the data collected is no

longer representative of the real classroom.

Many studies proceed without any explicit theoretical
framework for developing rationalized and testable hypoth-
eses.S Many of the theoretical frameworks from which many
research studies have been organized do not have any
immediate or worthwhile practical application. The
researcher is concerned with how the learning process
functions and not with how to implement learning.

The studies undertaken do not interact and build upon
one another.6 There is little replication of studies
duplicating all dependent and independent variables. Each
researcher feels a responsibility to solve new problems
instead of adding to and validating findings of other
researchers.

Still another limiting factor in the usefulness of
the compiled volumes of research are contradictory findings
about the same phenomena. One does not need to search
through the literature extensively before finding research

support for a variety of viewpoints.

 

5Ibid.
6

 

Remmer, et al., loc. cit.

For these reasons, past research has not been able
to provide educators with a unified and organized pool of
knowledge about the learning process from which teaching
methods can be premised.

While Gagne and Bolles7 dramatize the shortcomings
of research many of the quarrels are internal and are not
very important. There are a great many scattered, practical
and important experimental relationships upon which
researchers are in substantial agreement. It is from
these practical and important relationships which research
evidence does tend to support that this study obtains its
theoretical framework.

There are eight theoretical elements or parts of
learning theories upon which researchers are in general
agreement and upon which this study is based. They are:
(l) the role of feedback in learning; (2) the value of
laboratory or actual experience in learning; (3) learning
by principles; (4) learning through problem solving; (5)
learning through discovery; (6) the transfer of learning;
(7) stimulus generalization; and (8) the role of self-
concept to learning. Each of these theoretical elements
will be developed separately and summarized at the end
of this section.

Researchers are in general agreement that reinforce-

ment is important in learning. Research evidence indicates

 

7Gagne and Bolles, loc. cit.

that feedback or knowledge of results is important in the
learning process. The list of authorities who support
this view is formidable.8 A typical example of the
attitude of educational psychologists is taken from
Wolfle:
Laboratory studies are unequivocal in emphasizing
the importance of giving a subject as Specific
and as immediate imformation as possible concerning
the outcome of his efforts.
Other researchers who take this same viewpoint are
Angel and Troyer,lO Gagne and Bolles,ll Miller,12 Smith
and Van Ormer,13 and many others.

Immediate feedback is frequently cited as being one

of the requirements not only necessary to shape a learner's

 

8R. B. Ammons, ”Effects of Knowledge of Performance:
A Survey and Tentative Theoretical Formulation,” Journal

of General Psychology, Vol. 5M (1956), p. 283.

9Duel Wolfle, "Training,” Handbook of Experimental
Psychology, S. S. Stevens, editor (New York: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc., 1951), p. 1267.

 

10G. W. Angel and M. E. Troyer, "A New Self—Scoring
Test Device for Improving Instruction,” School and Society,
Vol, 67 (January 31, 1948), p. 84.

llGagne and Bolles, op. cit.

12R. B. Miller, Psychological Considerations for the
Design of Training Equipment (Wright Air Development
Center, Wright—Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, December,

1954).

13K. R. Smith and E. B. Van Ormer, Learning Theories
and Instructional Film Research (Special Devices Center,
Office of Naval Research, Port Washington, New York,

June, 19h9).

8

behavior but to maintain it’s strength.lu Woodworth and
Scholosberg find that if students are to learn skills,
they must practice skills and see the results of their
practice.15

In other words, some means must be provided for the
learner to perceive the results of his activity. The
learner must receive from the learning environment some
feedback which will enable him to realize that his
performance is correct. This does not mean that the learner
must always be specifically told that he is correct.
Sometimes he knows he is correct just by observing the

results of his behavior or actions.16

In summary, research evidence tends to support the
theory that immediate knowledge of results is important
in the learning process. The learner need not always be
told that he is correct; he will know by observing the
results of his behavior.

Another area of agreement involves laboratory
experience. The laboratory method of teaching assumes that

first-hand experience and manipulation of materials or

 

l”Douglas Porter, ”Teaching Machines,” Teaching Machines
and Programmed Learning, A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser,
editors (Washington: National Educational Association,
1960), p. 206.

15R. S. Woodworth and H. Schlosberg, Experimental
Psychology (revised edition; New York: Henry Holt and

Company, 1954).

 

16Robert M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning (New York:
Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 225.

events is necessary for learning certain concepts and
skills. The premise is that sensorimotor experiences aid
in the learning process. McKeachie states that from the
standpoint of theory, the activity of the student, the
sensorimotor nature of the experience, and the individual—
ization of laboratory instruction should contribute
positively to learning.17

However, McKeachie cautions that one would not
expect laboratory teaching to have an advantage over other
teaching methods in amount of information learned. Rather
we might expect the differences to be revealed in
retention and ability to apply learning or skills.18

Deductive learning by the application of principles
is another widely accepted generalization. Wallen and

Traverse include this generalization as one of their six

principles of learning:

Practice in applying a principle to the solution
of problems will increase the probability of
transfer of training to new problems which require
the use of the same principle for their
solution.

 

17W. J. McKeachie, "Research on Teaching at the College
and University Level,” Handbook of Research on Teaching,
N. L. Gage, editor (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company,
1963), p. 1144.

lalbid.

19Norman E. Wallen and Robert M. W. Traverse, ”Analysis
and Investigation of Teaching Methods," Handbook of Research
on Teaching, N. L. Gage, editor (Chicago: Rand McNally

and Company, 1963), p. 497.

 

10

However, certain conditions must be met before a
principle can be applied to the solution of a problem. A
principle is a chain of two or more concepts. Accordingly,
for a principle to be understood, the concepts to be linked
must have been previously learned.20 This places principle
formation on a higher level than concepts, and these
concepts must be learned before the principles can be
developed and learned.

Concepts and principles show marked resistance to
forgetting and are retained longer with little loss over
periods of months and years as compared with forgetting of
the simpler forms of learned capacities such as chains and
multiple discriminations.21 Katona demonstrates in a
study that learners who learned simple verbal statements
of principles forgot most of them within a month, whereas
those who learned the principles themselves and could
demonstrate them showed almost perfect retention after
the same time interval.22

Research provides evidence therefore, that learning

principles not only produces a capacity to understand

 

20Gagne, op. cit., p. 52.

21D. P. Ausubel, The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal
Learning (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1963), p. 44.

 

22G. Katona, Organizing and Memorizing (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1940).

 

11

and use information but it is also well retained for a
relatively long period of time.

There is some evidence, though not conclusive, that
problem solving is a valuable method of learning. Gagne
lists problem solving as one of his eight types of learning:

The evidence strongly suggests that achieving

a higher—order principle by means of problem
solving produces a highly effective capability
which is well retained over considerable periods
of time.23

With transfer of learning as the criterion, most
studies involving problem—solving find that a variety of
problems produce the best performance if each of the
problems are learned to a moderate degree.24’ 25’ 26
Through the application of principles in solving a
variety of problems, solutions become generalizable to
other similar problems. However, these solutions generalize
to similar problems only if they have been learned.

Another variable in training which affects problem

solving, transfer, and concept learning involves the use

 

23Gagne, o . cit., p. 164.

24M. F. Callantine and J. M. Warren, "Learning Sets
in Human Concept Formation," Psychological Report, Vol. 1

(1955). p. 363.

25K. E. Lloyd, ”Supplementary Report: Retention and
Transfer of Responses to Stimulus Classes," Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Vol. 59 (1960), p. 207.

26C. P. Duncan, ”Recent Research on Human Problem
Solving,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959), p. 397.

H
R)

of overt verbalization by the subject while he is solving
problems. There is a wealth of support from the literature
on verbal mediation and concept learning to indicate that

language is an important independent variable.27’ 28
Rephrasing or summarizing one's solution to a problem or
conclusions does aid in the learning process.

Gagne and Smith, in a study on problem solving,
required one group of ninth and tenth grade boys to verbal—
ize by stating a principle used during instruction while
requiring another group not to verbalize.29 They summarized
their results as follows:

The results appear to indicate that requiring S's

to verbalize during practice has the effect of making
them think of new reasons for their moves, and thus

facilitates both the discovery of general principles

and their employment in solving successive problems.3O

Still another theoretical element upon which this

study is based is the value of discovery in the learning

 

27Katherine Norcross and C. C. Spiker, ”Effects of
Mediated Associations on Transfer in Paired-Associate
Learning," Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 55

(1958), p» 129.

28C. N. Cofer, ”Experimental Studies of the Role of
Verbal Processes in Concept Formation and Problem-Solving,"
Fundamentals of Psychology: The Psychology of Thinking,
E. Harms, editor (New York Academy of Science, Vol. 91,

1960), p. 94.

29R. M. Gagne and E. c. Smith, Jr., ”A Study of the
Effects of Verbalization of Problem Solving," Journal of
Experimental Psychology, Vol. 63 (1962), pp. 12-18.

3OIbid., p. 18.

process. Discovery as a learning technique is a relatively
new area for research but many studies provide evidence
that the discovery method is effective.3l’ 32: 33

Anderson found that the discovery method may reduce
recall of specific information and knowledge but may
increase transfer of principles to new examples.3Z4 Evidence
also indicates that guided discovery may be more effective
than pure discovery.35’ 36’ 37

Craig, in summarizing his study on guided discovery,
interprets his study as one which indicates that guidance

or "external direction” can help learners make future

 

31G. Katona, op. cit.

32G. L. Anderson, ”Quantitative Thinking As Developed
Under Connectionist and Field Theories of Learning,”
Learning Theory in School Situations (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1949), pp. 40—73.

330. L. Stacey, ”The Law of Effect in Retained
Situations With Meaningful Material,” Learning Theory in
School Situations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1949), pp. 74—103.

 

3“Anderson, op. cit., p. 41.

5R. C. Craig, HDirected Versus Independent Discovery
of Established Relations," Journal of Educational Psychology,

'Vol. 47 (1956), pp. 223-234.

36B. R. Corman, ”The Effect of Varying Amounts and
Ifinds of Information As Guidance in Problem Solving,”
Psyctmdogy Monograph, Vol. 71 (1957), pp. 1—21.

37J. E. Kittell, ”An Experimental Study of the Effect
of‘lixternal Direction During Learning in Transfer and
Ifietention of Principles," Journal of Educational Psychology,

‘Volt 48 (1957), pp. 391-405.

discoveries by providing them with an adequate background
of information.

Many have advocated relatively independent problem—
solving in the belief that learning situations
should be similar to anticipated transfer situations.
This point of view rests on the assumption that future
discovery of principles will be through independent
problem-solving, hence, more like pupil self—discovery
than directed discovery. A different view is that
problem-solving and discovery are never independent
except in the sense that no one is physically present
to prompt the learner. Principles previously learned
in an area serve to direct discovery. Out—of—school
discovery is not independent but directed by the
knowledge gained under the direction of previous
teachers. The more direction of this kind available
to the learner, the more effective his discovery of
new relations. The cumulative effect of greater
learning through directed discovery over months or
years may offset and transfer to situations and grove
to be the best preparation for new discoveries.3

On the other hand, there is evidence contrary to
guided discovery. Hendrix found support for his postulate
that independently derived principles are more transferable
than given principles,39 Kersh indicates in a recent
study that assistance in discovering principles may lead
to better understanding, but when the principle is
discovered without aid it is better assimulated and

rememberedfi‘LO

 

38R. C. Craig, op. cit., p. 233.

39C. Hendrix, "A New Clue to Transfer of Training ”
Elementary School Journal, Vol. 48 (1947), pp. 197—20 .

 

MOB. Y. Kersh, "The Adequacy of ‘Meaning' as an
Explanation for the Superiority of Learning by Independent
Discovery,” Journal of Educational Psyphology, Vol. 49
(1958). pp. 282-292.

 

}__1
KY}

The effect of guidance is to speed up learning, since
the learner does not waste time on discovering principles
which are wildly wrong. Guidance also lowers the
learner's anxiety level. A high anxiety level tends to
interfere or reduce learning. Even though the learner is
guided, if he actively generates the principles himself,
the discovery technique should result in more effective
learning.

Wittrock, after reviewing the research on discovery,
answers the question: as of the present, what does
empirical research on discovery learning imply for teaching
by discovery?

It seems that some type of carefully sequenced,
guided discovery is a sound compromise and combination
from the realms of motivation, efficiency, and
transfer within concepts. In terms of the results
from the empirical research, the curriculum projects
which present carefully sequenced and hierarchically
organized material and which require the learner to
verbalize his own generalizations are defensible
because they retain the feeling of self—discovery and
combine it with anuefficient programmed direction
aimed at transfer.

The sixth element of theory which this study will

be based upon is stimulus generalization. Thorndike and

Woodworth began the development of stimulus generalization

 

“1M. C. Wittrock, The Learning By Discovery_Hypothesis,
A paper prepared for the Conference on Learning by
Discovery, New York City, January 28—29, 1965 (California:
Stanford University, 1965), p. 61.

,.
l“
:\_:A

theory as a result of their experiments in 1901.42 They
concluded ”The spread of practice (transfer) occurs only

where identical elements are concerned in the influencing

 

and influenced functions.”“3 A second theory maintained

by Judd, and related to stimulus generalization, is

generalization of experience.u4

 

Sorenson agrees with these two theories to explain
transfer of training. He states:

The principle of identical elements involves
specificity and perception. The transfer depends
on the extent to which specific elements exist
common to each situation and the degree to which
they are perceived. The principle of generalization,
on the other hand, is conceptual in nature.
Transfer depends on possessing a concept or idea a
and being able to apply it in another situation.u/

There is a great deal of experimental evidence and

very little disagreement that positive transfer increases
with the degree of similarity or identical elements of the

/
internally-learned task to the final task.uo’ ”7 The

 

“2E. L. Thorndike, Educational Psychology, Vol. II,
The Psychology of Learning (New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1923), p. 452.

 

“31bid.

 

“MC. H. Judd, Psychology of Secondary Education
(Boston: Ginn and Company, 1927), p. 545.

“BHerbert Sorenson, Psychology in Education (New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1940), p. 385.

 

46C. I. Hovland, "Human Learning and Retention,"
Handbook of Experiment Research, S. S. Stevens, editor
(New York: Wiley, 1951), p. 613.

47C. E. Osgood, Method and Theory in Experimental
Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953).

 

17

significance is clear. Stimuli of the association to be
learned should be made as nearly like the stimuli of the
final task as possible.

It is not enough that stimuli of the association to
be learned is as similar as possible to the stimuli of the
final task. If learning is to effectively transfer, the
stimuli and problems must be real to the learner. In
short, experience must precede transfer; one cannot transfer
or apply a principle to an unfamiliar situation.48

In a sense, identical elements and stimulus generali—
zation both supplement each other. To whatever extent
there is similarity between elements provided for the
learner with those in reality, generalization to parallel
situations in reality will occur.

The role of a learner's self—concept in learning is
the seventh element of theory which will be applied in
this study. The relationship between the development of
self-concept and learning is not disputed in the literature.

Writers on the development of self—concept agree that its

development is inseparable from learning.49’ 50’ 51

 

u8Percival M. Symonds, What Education Has To Learn
From Psychology (New York: Columbia University, Teachers

College, 1964): p. 89.

 

 

49G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 135.

 

50Kimbal Young, Social Psychology (Third Edition; New
York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1956), Chapter 6, p. 118.

 

51Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology
9: Education (Second Edition; New York: American Book
Company, 1964), p. 468.

 

 

18

There is a definite relationship between the way an
individual feels about himself and the way he feels about
others. Stock finds that an individual who holds negative
feelings toward himself tends to hold negative feelings
toward people in general.52 As an individual's feelings
toward the self change to more positive ones, feelings
about others tend to change in a similar direction. Bloom
found that students with considerable hostility and
negativism about themselves spend much of their time
evaluating, usually negatively, the persons in the class
and the ideas or contributions being considered by the
group.53 In another study involving an action—research
seminar program with teachers, Moustakas cites data which
demonstrates how change in teachers' behavior leads to
change in students' perceptions of self resulting in a

i;

change of their behavior.5

 

52D. Stock, “Investigations into Inter—Relations Between
Self-Concept and Feelings Directed Toward Other Persons and
Groups," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 13 (June,
1949), pp. 176—180.

 

53Benjamin S. Bloom, ”The Study of the Thought—
Processes of Students in Classroom Situations,” University
of Chicago Round Table No.766, V01. 17 (November, 1952):

p. 190

 

 

52'Gardncr Murphy, ”Affect and Perceptual Learning,”
Psychological Review, V0. 63 (January, 1956, pp. 1-15.

 

19

Sommer reports that both pleasant and unpleasant
results affect the development of a perception but the
pleasant results have greater effect.55

Thus, there is research agreement that self—concept
and learning are closely related. Self-concept theory
proposes that feelings of inadequacy, insecurity and
self-rejection will lower motivation, level of aspiration,
and actual performance. But there is evidence that these
feelings can be changed, causing corresponding improvement
in the learner's motivation, level of aspiration, and
performance.

The eighth and last element upon which this project
will be based is the element which explains how learning
transfers from the learning experience to practice. The
ultimate purpose of education is to prepare the learner to
perform and take his place in society. Efficient learning
is learning that transfers to a real Situation.

As previously discussed in the development of the
first seven elements of theories, nearly all of these
elements are conducive to transfer of learning.
Insufficient evidence is available to generalize that
knowledge of results causes transfer. However, evidence

does allow the generalization that laboratory experiences,

 

55Robert Sommer, ”The Effects of Rewards and Punishments
During Perceptual Organization,” Journal of Personality,
Vol. 25 (September, 1957), pp. 550—558.

 

20

learning of principles, learning through problem—solving,
learning through discovery, and similarity of learning
experience to the real experience are factors which help
the learner to transfer knowledge into practice.

In summary, an attempt has been made to develop a
theoretical framework upon which to base this study. As
has already been explained, there are no inclusive, broad
learning theories available upon which learning theorists
and researchers are in general agreement. However, there
are many elements of theories on which there is general
agreement. Based upon these elements for which there is
agreement, the following statements are postulated as
a theoretical foundation for this study:

1. Immediate knowledge of results is important
in the learning process.

2. Activity of a teacher-trainee through
laboratory instruction contributes positively
to learning.

3. Application of principles to problems are
conducive to generalization.

4. Verbalizing principles increases generalization
to similar situations.

5. Guided discovery increases retention.

6. Learning experiences must be meaningful
and realistic.

7. A healthy self—concept of oneself aids learning.

8. Laboratory experiences, the learning of princi-
ples, learning through problem-solving,
learning through discovery, and meaningful and
realistic learning experiences are factors which
contribute to transfer of training.

he)
I‘ .1

Definition of Terms

 

To assist the reader in perceiving meanings of
concepts as they are used in this experiment, a definition

of terms and concepts will be helpful.

Simulation

 

Simulation as used in this experiment is defined
as a process of constructing a model, replication, or
adequate reproduction of a real system. It is the process
of constructing an operating model of an individual or
group interaction process which allows experimentation
with this model by manipulation of the variable interrela-
tionships.

Classroom Simulator

 

The classroom simulator used in this study consists
of a combination of physical facilities and filmed
materials organized to form a model or replication of a
sixth grade classroom atmosphere. Certain variables such
as student attitudes, individual differences, and various
discipline problems have been recreated which can be
controlled and varied by the researcher.

Teacher—Trainee

 

Throughout this investigation, the term ”teacher—
trainee'I shall be interpreted as a college student
enrolled in a teacher education program which leads to
the receipt of a college degree and state certification
for teaching.

Research Assistants

 

Research Assistants are defined as the researchers
who participated within the classroom Simulator with the
teacher—trainees and manipulated the classroom Simulator
variables.

Observers

 

The observers are research assistants trained to
use an observational instrument and who observed the

22

teacher-trainees in their classrooms during their student
teaching assignment.

Coordinating Professors

 

Coordinating professors are defined in this study
as university professors located at off-campus centers
distributed within the state. They are responsible for
scheduling student teaching assignments to teacher-
trainees; for occasional visits to the student teacher's
classroom; and for conducting weekly classes or seminars
with the student teachers.

Supervising Teachers

 

In this study, supervising teachers are defined as
the public school teachers throughout the entire state who
receive and supervise student teachers within their
classrooms.

Plan of the Study

 

The pertinent literature will be reviewed in Chapter
II. Military and industrial uses of Simulation will be
described briefly but major emphasis will be placed upon
a review of the literature on the research on Simulation
as an educational technique and its application.

The design of the study will be discussed in Chapter III.
The sample will be described, followed by a description
of the classroom Simulator facility. Instruments developed
and methods used for their validation will then be discussa..
The statistical hypotheses will be given followed by a
detailed description of the experimental design. Then,

in the analysis of the data, the models used for the

analysis and their assumptions will be discussed.

'23

In Chapter IV the analysis of the results will be

followed by a summary and discussion of the findings.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Simulation is a relatively new term in education.
Few attempts have been made to use Simulation techniques
in the education of American youth or in teacher education.

'The Armed Forces have developed and used simulation
techniques widely. Simulation techniques play an important
role in the training of pilots and other military personnel.
Pilots receive training and then are tested in modern
aircraft simulators. Air defense radar sites use simulator
models for training personnel. War gaming provides
valuable experience for military leaders.

Industry, too, makes use of simulation techniques in
training personnel. Simulation techniques are used to
test new ideas before they are put into operation in order
to determine if they are more efficient than present
procedures. A few examples of industrial applications of
simulation are profit planning simulation, customer
servicing, airline maintenance, central warehousing, and
job Shop scheduling.

Military and industrial applications of simulators

in training personnel are reviewed in this chapter,

24

25

followed by a review of the literature on simulators
currently used in education. A summary and discussion of
how the research findings are integrated in this study

conclude this chapter.

Military Applications of Simulation

Simulation as an educational tool was introduced into
the training program of the Armed Forces in 1929 when
Edwin Link, a young flight instructor, saw the need for a
safe and inexpensive means for teaching aircraft control.
The Link Trainer went through various stages of development
to the point where highly complex Simulators are used in
military schools.1

Another example of the use of a simulator for training

in an operational Air Force task is the Radar Navigational
Trainer developed by Searle and Murray.

The Radar Navigational Trainer employs radar motion
films as its prime component and provides a means of
acquiring skill in interpreting radar scope returns,
obtaining fixes, determining wind, plotting courses,

and maintaining the navigational log as would be done
in actual flight.2

 

 

1Don D. Bushnell, System Simulation: A New Technology
for Education (Santa Monica, California: System Development
Corporation, April, 1962), p. 2.

 

2Jack A. Adams, ”Some Considerations in the Design
and Use of Dynamic Flight Simulators,'' Simulation in Social
Science: Readings, Harold Guetzkow, editor (New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs, 1962), p. 36.

 

Experimental results measuring the differences between
groups receiving training in all air missions, half air
and half motion-picture training with the Radar Navigational
Trainer, or all motion—picture training revealed no
Significant differences in the course final performance
examination. The Radar Navigational Trainer greatly
Simplified the instruction and practice was accomplished
more economically than with conventional in-flight methods
of instruction and practice.

The Military employs many such trainers or Simulators.
A C—llC jet instrument trainer is used to simulate various
instrument flying problems, radar control, and GCA (Ground
Control Approaches).3 This technique reduces the number
of dual instructor-student flights and provides more
effective use of actual flights. The MF—l (T-33A) Cockpit
Procedures Trainer permits training and evaluation over
an extensive range of normal and emergency procedures for
the T-33A jet aircraft.21t

The Systems Research Laboratory of the Rand Corpor-
ation recreated an air defense direction center using

a . . . .
human beings./ The Simulator recreated the entire

 

3Ibid.
”lbid., p. 37.

5Kalman Cohen and Richard M. Cyert, "Simulation of
Organizational Behavior,” Simulation Models for Education,
IVicholaS Fattu and Stanley Elam editors (Bloomington,
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1965), pp. 148—152.

 

environment of an air defense direction center including
the physical layout, the communication net, the central
displays, the general atmosphere, and the cultural envi-
ronment. The only manipulated variable was the task
environment, i.e., the kinds and amounts of information
the crews were called upon to respond to.

Chapman, in reporting the training effectiveness of

this air defense laboratory experiment concluded:

The members of each crew became an integral unit in
which many interdependencies and coordinating skills
developed. And each crew learned to perform more
effectively. This learning Showed itself in
procedural shortcuts, reassignment of functions, and
increased mgtor skill to do the job faster and more
accurately.

Results of the laboratory experiments prompted the

Air Defense Command to contract with the System Development
Corporation of RAND for training of all their air defense
crews throughout the world by using simulator packages.7

"Monopologs" is another simulator employed by the

Air Force which simulates part of the Air Force supply
system. It consists of one depot and five two—wing bases.8

The game simulates reality but compresses time and Space

so that players can conveniently experience essential

 

6Ibid., p. 151.
7Bushnell, op. cit., p. 3.
8Jean Renshaw and Annette Heuston, The Game Monopologs,

INA—l9l7-l (Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation,
July, 1960).

30

PL.)
F

problems of management. The players practice inventory
management and gain insight into inventory control problems.

H The player acts as the inventory manager for the
Widget --a high—value, depot-reparable Spare part—-
and makes the principal decisions of inventory
control that such a manager has to make in reality.
Aware of the given costs and lead times for each

of his actions, he initiates procurement, plans

repair schedules, and sets inventory and distribution
policies.

True to practical Air Force experience, the demand
for the ”Widget” is a random variable beyond the
player's control. He is given certain limited
information on the basis of which he must predict
demands and establish inventory levels. He makes
decisions, and in time learns their consequences. The
game runs through a simulated period of 31 months,
at the end of which he computes his score: the total
costs his actions incurred.

Monopologs is used as an educational training device.

The simulator has been used effectively to train civilians
who are unfamiliar with the Air Force supply system, Air
Force supply managers, and aircraft contractors.

Just a few of the military applications of Simulators
for training personnel have been reviewed. Summarizing,
Simulation is used by the Armed Forces for training
personnel to develop individual skills, group skills, to
work together as teams, and to develop management skills.

Business and Industrial Applications
of Simulation

 

Simulation techniques have been used for many years

in business and industry for solving problems and training

 

91bid., p. iii.

2 0

personnel. The In-Basket Problem is one type of simulator
usually employed as an individual decision—making exercise.

Each member of the training group, working individ-
ually, is usually given from an hour to an hour and
a half to study over the problem presented and to
indicate in writing what action he wisnes to take
on each of his In-Basket items, together with his
reasons for each decision. Once this decision—
making period has been completed, the various courses
of action taken individually are usually compared
and analyzed—~either by the total training class,
small ”buzz groups,” or both.

Paul S. Greenlaw emphasizes that the In—Basket
technique is an excellent vehicle for stimulating discussion
of management principles and concepts for a specific
situation.11

Another Simulation technique, the Incident Process,
developed by Paul and Faith Pigors, centers around a labor
arbitration case and calls for each student to commit
himself individually in writing to a Specific course of
action.

The Incident Process begins with each student being
given a brief description of an incident of importance
in the case under review. The group is then allotted
about thirty or forty minutes to ask questions of the
instructor (who has at his disposal additional

information about the problem) in an effort to find
out as much as they can about the situation. After

 

10Paul S. Greenlaw, Lowell W. Herron, and Richard H.
Rawdon, Business Simulation In Industry and University
Education (New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 12.

 

 

11Paul S. Greenlaw, "The In-Basket as a Training
Instrument," Marketing Keys to Profits in the 1960's,
Wenzil K. Dolva, editor (Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 1960), pp. 452-59.

 

LA ,)
C)

completion of the question period, the major issues
at stake are usually summarized, and each student is
then asked to submit in writing an outline of the
course of action he deems mgst appropriate to the
resolution of the problem.
Discussion of the positions taken by the group follows.
The Incident Process places emphasis on obtaining suffi—
cient information to make effective decisions.
Operation Suburbia, designed by Dr. Allan A. 2011
is another type of Simulator.l3 In this simulator exercise
each of five company groups own real estate which is
mapped out in a hypothetical developmental area. Each
group has a different goal and requires the acquisition
of a portion of the other companies' land for its
fulfillment.
The groups are given about forty or fifty minutes
to negotiate with each other in any manner they see fit.
To add realism to the exercise, each group is given play
money, deeds, and option forms.
After negotiations, plans, and strategies have been
completed the groups discuss the results. The Incident
Process centers around group decision—making and provides

14

for competitive interaction and negotiation practice.

 

12Greenlaw, Herron, and Rawdon, loc. cit.

l3lbid., p. 13.

14Ibid.

31

American Management Association's Top Management
Decision Simulator is another popular competitive business
game.15 Each participant plays the role of a member of
top management of several company teams which compete with
each other involving a Single product in a hypothetical
market. Each company prices its products, determines its
expenditures for production, marketing, research development,
and plant investment. Each company receives a statement
from the game administrators as to its assets and
liabilities. During the Simulation each company's results
are plotted on charts to be discussed by all participants
at the end of the simulation.

In the Top Management Decision Simulator, time is
condensed representing 15 to 20 years of simulated
operations which enables the fulfillment of the objective
to provide as much experience in which the participants
can increase their understanding of the decision—making
process and sharpen their analytical skills.

Another industrial Simulator, the Carnegie Tech
Management Game, is a simulator for training people to
become more effective business managers.16 The packaged
detergent industry is the general setting composed of

three competing firms. The participants play the roles

 

15Ibid., p. 15.

l6Kalman Cohen and Richard Cyert, op. cit., pp. 144—48.

32

of top executives in these companies. All three firms have
factories in the same area and compete against each other
for the detergent market. Players in the Simulator must

make a host of related decisions.

They must schedule production by product and by
warehouse destination, they must purchase raw
materials ahead of time, they must insure, through
their employment and overtime policies, that enough
workers are on hand and, through maintenance and
capital investment expenditures, they must provide
adequate equipment and facilities.

Finished goods or excess inventory can be consigned
to distinct warehouses. Firms can generate new products
through research and development and must plan ahead and
meet their financial commitments.

Results of training in the Carnegie Tech Management

Game indicate that:

Active participation in the Carnegie game has
proved to be useful training for future businessmen.
Students playing the game are challenged to deal
effectively with many of the same types of
problems faced by real executives. The game helps
students understand that decisions made in different
functional areas and on different dates are inter-
related, and it helps them realize that their
organization and procedures for decision making have

consequenées for the quality of performance which
results.1

Another simulator is the Remington Rand Univac Sales
Management Decision-Making Simulator which calls for

decisions to be made in the areas of sales personnel

17Ibid., p. 146.

181bid., p. 147.

33

administration, product pricing, advertising and sales
promotion, and stock management.19 It is designed for
computer use.

The Dayton Tire Simulator is another simulator and
is a manually scored dual-market game in which participants
make decisions each quarter pertaining to prices, expend—
itures, advertising, and enter yearly bids for quantity
tire orders.20

In summary, simulators serve many functions in
business and industrial training programs:

1. Simulators serve as a vehicle for stimulating
discussion of management principles and concepts.

2. Simulators provide practice in obtaining
necessary information upon which to base
decisions.

3. Simulators are used to provide experience in
group decision—making and competitive interaction.

4. Simulators can provide experience in making top
management decisions.

\N

Simulators can suppress time to provide more
experience in a shorter time interval.

Simulation in Education

 

A review of the literature reveals that simulation
techniques have been used only to a limited extent by
educators in public schools or colleges. Few attempts have

been made to employ Simulation techniques in education.

19Greenlaw, Herron, and Rawdon, op. cit., p. 18.

201bid.

34

One of the first and probably the most publicized
Simulators in the educational field is the Whitman School
Simulator experiment.21 In this study several hundred
elementary school principals from school districts all
over the United States participated and played the role
of the new principal of Whitman School. The ”principals"
were prepared for their roles by studying written materials,
tape recordings, and films about Whitman School and the
hypothetical community of Jefferson. The principals reacted
and responded to various Simulated problems presented to
them by the ”in—basket” technique. Examples of problems
encountered are writing an article for the school paper,
making a tape recorded speech to the PTA, analyzing
quality of teaching of probationary teachers through
viewing a film, participating in a parent—teacher conference,
handling discipline problems, and answering various letters.
The participants played the role of principal of Whitman
School for a period of one week. At the end of each day
completed work was left in an "out—basket” for scoring.

Frederiksen concluded the study by stating:

The simulation of a standard job in educational

administration through the use of in—baskets has
proven to be successful as a method of collecting

records of administrative performance which can be
scored reliably, and yields scores which are useful

 

21Norman Frederiksen, ”In-Basket Tests and Factors in
Administrative Performance,” Simulation in Social Science:
Readings, Harold Guetzkow, editor (New Jersey: Prentice—
Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 124-37.

in providing a better understanding of some of the
dimensions of performance in such a situation.22

The Whitman School Simulator package was used by
eight universities during the summer of 1961.23 A Survey
reveals that the simulator materials were used in a variety
of ways. They were used as an administrative core sequence,
as an introduction to school administration, and in others
as a laboratory experience. Participants in the simulator
workshops included elementary principals, secondary princi-
pals, teachers, superintendents, full—time graduate
students, university instructors, and counselors.

The outcomes from the standpoint of the staffs at
the conclusion of the workshops were:

The simulated Situation provided high motivation and
interest plus instructional opportunities not usually
found in traditional courses.

WorkshOpS provided an opportunity to apply theory
to Specific Situations in working with students
preparing for administrative positions. In the
Simulated situation the responsibility for problem
solving was shifted to the group. The workshop
staff was better able to appraise students' effort
since each participant's approach to problem solving
could be observed. 4

Another early attempt at applying Simulation techni-

ques in teaching was developed by Harold Guetzkow at

 

22lbid., p. 134.

 

23G1enn L. Immegart, ”The Use of Simulated Materials In
Eight Universities,” The Instructional Uses of Simulation
in the Preparation of School Administrators (Columbus, Ohio:
University Council For Educational Administration, January,
1962), pp. 1-14.

2Z4Ibid., pp. 13-14.

—-——

 

 

36

Northwestern University in 1957—58. Five nations were
simulated and operated simultaneously by two decision makers
for each nation to provide experience in inter-nation
relations. In each nation:
an ”internal decision- maker" (IDM) made the
nation's final decisions with regard to overall
policies of the nation as they related to both
external and internal considerations. Another parti-
cipant served as ”external decision—maker" (EDM),
conducting the relations of his unit with other
nations.25

The two positions, IDM and EDM, attempt to represent

the nation's decision-making. The IDM'S and EDM's were
involved in problems of maintaining their positions in
holding their office, establishing nation goals, making
decisions about resources, and participating in interaCtion
among nations.

Guetzkow concluded:

As the war game has been judged of practical value
in providing decision—maker experience to military
executives, so the manning of an inter— nation Simu—
lation may be hglpful in the training of foreign
policy makers.

At Lawrence High School, Lawrence Kansas, an

International Relations Simulator was developed Similar to

Guetzkow's simulator.27 The simulator was designed to

 

25Harold Guetzkow, ”A Use of Simulation in the Study
of Inter—Nation Relations,” Simulation in Social Science:
Readings, Harold Guetzkow, editor (New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 85.

 

26Ibid., p. 92.

27Cleo Cherryholmes, ”Developments in Simulation of
International Relations in High School Teaching," Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 44 (January, 1965), p. 227.

present the basic concepts of international relations-—e. g.,
balance—of—power, sovereignty, and international law. Three
students occupy the positions of Central Decision Maker,
Chief Diplomat, and Military Advisor. The Central Decision
Maker had the final authority to determine the policies of
his nation. Every strategy available to real nations
including economic and military resources were available in
the Simulator.

Over a two year period, 1962 and 1963, eight simulator
runs were made involving approximately 500 students.
Results of an attitude scale administered during a Simulator
run the Spring of 1963 indicated:

1. High school students have grasped some major
features of international relations.

2. Simulation in international relations at
Lawrence High School tended to produce realistic
attitudes toward international relations.

3. Attitudinal changes do seem to occur as a result
of simulation.2

In the field of driver education, driver training
simulators are being used successfully to teach behind-the-
wheel driver training. Several series of films covering
specific major areas within a total course in driving such
as turning at intersections, Shifting, backing, driving
on hills, and driving on expressways are presented to
driver education classes. Each film is divided into

logical steps essential to learning.

 

281bid., pp. 230-231.

U..-
CO

Each student Sits behind the wheel of stationary
"simulated cars.” Each ”car” is equiped with standard
automobile equipment, including footbrake, hand brake,
accelerator pedal, steering wheel, horn, directional
signals, ignition switch, clutch, standard Shift controls,
and push button automatic Shift. The students drive as
they follow directions and resolve traffic problems
projected before them. In the process, the reactions of
each subject are recorded as a score sheet moves through
a recorder.29

Presentation of organized driving procedures within
each film and in the complete series provides for orderly
effective learning of safe driving skills. By bringing
street and highway conditions into the classroom, teachers
are able to provide solutions for many emergency and
dangerous driving situations.

Marshall Crawshaw, a California driver education
consultant, has pointed out that the location and
environment of a particular school may automatically limit
the opportunities available to its students for driving
experiences under varying topographic, weather, and
traffic conditions. Through the use of driver Simulators,

these problems may possibly be overcome. He states:

 

29Cecil G. Zaun and Melvin T. Schroeder, ”The Driver
Trainer: A Teaching Machine,” Journal of Secondary Edu—
cation, Vol. 37 (February, 1962), pp. 112—116.

 

39

Not all schools have the many types of driving
experiences within the distance which may be reached
in dual control instruction. Steep hills, fast
traffic, freeways, night driving, wet weather--these
conditions involve hazards rarely possible for all
students. . . . By means of simulation, however, we
can provide all of these experiences to all students
in all locations. ——_—

Two additional simulators, The Sumerian Game and
French Game, are being developed under the direction of
Richard Wing by means of a COOperative Research Grant at
Yorktown Heights, New York.31 In the Sumerian Game, a
fourth grader assumes the role of a priest king in ancient
Sumer and makes decisions about planting and storing
grain. One-half hour of the game has been programmed for
computer use.

In the French game the student observes a film
sequence simulating the activities of a U. N. committee
meeting. Committee members' voices are intermittedly
removed from the sound track and the students attempt to
fill in the parts.

Dr. Bert Y. Kersh at the Center for Teaching Research,
Oregon State System of Higher Learning, ionmouth, Oregon,

has experimented with a classroom simulator for training

 

3OJOhn W: Gibbons: HSimulators: Research Tools,”
Safety Education, Vol. 41 (November, 1961), p, 15,

 

31"Status Report on Research Project," mimeographed

sheet received through personal correspondence with Richard
'Wing, Chief Investigator, Project 2841, Northern Westchester
Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 845 Fox Meadow
Road, Yorktown Heights, New York.

40

teacher-trainees.32 The first part of this study relates
directly to the Kersh study.

Kersh developed a set of 60 filmed problems and
student responses based upon the work of Marie Hughes.
Hughes identified in a study of the public schools in Utah
the most common types of problems encountered by student
teachers during their student teaching experience.33 Dr.
Kersh developed his filmed materials based upon the
problems encountered most frequently in the Hughes study.
Kersh selected 40 Junior and Senior teacher education
students screened on the basis of scholastic aptitude, sex,
age, and experience with children and assigned the students
to four matched experimental groups. The groups were:

Group 1 Large-Motion (most realistic)

Group 2 Small-Motion (intermediate)

Group 3 Large-Still (intermediate)

Group 4 Small—Still (least realistic)3u
A preeteSt given in the Simulator to each group indicated

no Significant differences between the groups.

 

32Bert Y. Kersh, Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension
in Teacher Education, Final Report, Title VII, Project
Number 886, National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research, Oregon State System of Higher
Education, June 30, 1963).

 

33Marie Hughes, et al., A Research Report: Assessment
of the Quality of Teaching in Elementayy Schools (Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press, 1959).

 

3L‘LKerSh, op. cit., p. 7.

During instruction students were presented with filmed
problems to which they responded verbally and physically.
Based upon the student's response to the problem, filmed
feedback sequences were then presented to enable the student
to see class behavior elicited by his response. The effect
of this experience was measured by a post-test with another
set of filmed problems.

Kersh hypothesized that a realistic display (life—size
picture and motion) would enhance learning. He found that
the simulator experience did enhance learning but a less
realistic (small picture and motion) mode of presenting the
filmed problems and sequences was more effective than a
realistic mode of presentation. Kersh concluded that with
a less realistic mode of presentation the learner did not
feel involved as was the case with the realistic mode.

He further concluded that the experimental design failed
to control the learning which must have resulted during
the pre—test experience which was Shared by all subjects.

A review of the literature on simulation techniques
in education reveals that very few attempts are being made
to use simulation techniques in education. The attempts
that have been made pertain to the following areas:

1. Simulation techniques have been devised and are

being used in the training of elementary school
principals.

2. An Inter-Nation Relations Simulator has been
developed and has been used with apparent success

\D

.1:-
h)

in teaching international relations at the college
and high school levels.

The use of driver training Simulators is
increasing in the field of driver education.

Simulators are being developed for use at the
elementary school level for teaching Government
and French.

A Classroom Simulator has been built and used to
provide pre—student teaching experience for
teacher-trainees.

Insufficient research evidence is available to gener—

alize on the success of these attempts.

Discussion of Previous Research

 

The review of the literature reveals that the Armed

Forces have used Simulators effectively in their training

programs for many years. Simulators have been used

effectively in developing individual Skills, group Skills,

teamwork,

and management skills.

Simulators serve many functions in business and indus-

trial training. Simulators:

1.

\fl

stimulate discussion of management principles and
concepts;

provide practice in obtaining information
necessary for making decisions;

provide group decision making and competitive
interaction experiences;

provide experience in making top management
decisions;

can suppress time to provide for more experience
in a Short time interval.

43

The review reveals that very little experimentation
with Simulation exists in the educational field. Simulators
have been developed for training elementary school princi—
pals and teachers; for teaching international relations
at the high school and college levels; and are being devel-
oped to teach Government and French at the elementary school
level. There is not enough research evidence available
as yet to fully evaluate their effectiveness.

The first part of this study relates directly to
the realistic (life—size projection and motion) mode of the
Kersh study. The classroom Simulator materials (Mr. Lands'
simulated Sixth grade class) as developed, tested, and
revised by Kersh and based upon the work of Hughes (1959)
are used.

Kersh's results exposed a few problems which his
experimental design failed to control. First, the design
did not control the amount of learning which may have .
occurred during the pre—test. The second problem was
that of a small N Size (10 subjects per cell as dictated
by the nature of the classroom Simulator which was
designed for individual instruction). As a result of
using fewer cells in this study, an N size of 30 subjects
in the experimental and control groups was used which
Should increase the strength of the findings. The pre-
test error was eliminated in this study by eliminating the

pre-test experience.

In addition to the Simulator post—test, a follow—up
study of the transfer effect of simulator experience to
the classroom behavior of the subjects was also conducted.

After reviewing the literature and discussing its
implications for this study in this chapter, the

experimental design is described in Chapter III.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The Classroom Simulator Facility

The classroom simulator facility used in this study
was a replica of the simulator developed by Dr. Bert
Kersh.l Because the first part of the experiment related
directly to the realistic (life-size projection and motion)
mode of the Kersh study, the classroom simulator materials
developed, tested, and revised by Kersh were used.

The classroom simulator consisted of three units:
a simulated classroom, an equipment area, and the simulator
materials.

The Simulated classroom was a room approximately
9 x 11 feet, which included a chalkboard and a bulletin
board to recreate as nearly as possible the front area of
a classroom. Art work and student work was exhibited on
the bulletin board. A third wall was composed of a large
6 x 9 foot rear projection (RP) screen which represented

the remainder of the classroom during operation. A

 

lBert Y. Kersh, Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension
in Teacher Education, Final Report, Title VII, Project
Number 886, National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Monmouth,
Oregon: Teaching Research, Oregon State System of Higher
Education, June 30, 1963).

 

45

46

teacher's desk added to the realism. A control panel was
placed in one corner of the room near the RP screen which
enabled a research assistant to control the projection
equipment. (See Appendix A.)

The equipment area consisted of four Bell and Howell
Film Sound Specialist Projectors, Models 285, 385, and
399, with common rear-surfaced mirrors placed in front
of the lenses. The mirrors were necessary to reverse the
image for RP operation. The projectors were mounted
centrally behind the screen. Photoelectric cells were
placed behind each projector film gate to stop the pro-
jectors after each sequence. Another control panel was
located adjacent to the projectors for use by an operator
who was responsible for rewinding, focusing and other
emergencies.

The simulator materials were identified as ”Mr.
Land's Sixth Grade.” A Single sixth grade classroom was
simulated through the use of motion picture films and
printed materials. The materials were develOped initially
as part of a research project supported by the U. S. Office
of Education under Title VII, National Defense Education
Act of 1958 (Kersh, 1963). Mr. Land is the fictitious
name of the regular supervising teacher for the class of
22 youngsters. The simulation materials include a complete
set of cumulative records for each of the youngsters, a

short description of the hypothetical school and community

47

plus orientation films showing Mr. Land working with his
class in a typical fashion. The main body of the
materials used in the instructional phase include a total
of 60 problem sequences on film. Each contains alternative
feedback sequences designed to snow the student teacher
the possible consequences of his handling of the problem.
The 60 problem sequences were divided into three sets of
20 sequences each (Programs I, II, III). Each of the
three programs corresponded to one school day and were
roughly parallel in terms of the types of problems
included...2

The printed materials consisted of an instructional
procedure sheet for each of the 60 problems. Included
in each instructional procedural sheet was a description
of the situation to be read to the teacher-trainee, a brief
description of the problem, and ”hold” cues telling when
the projector should be stopped leaving a still picture on
the screen. Also included on the instructional procedural
sheets were the standards (principles) which should be
applied in solving the problem.including examples of such
use, feedback descriptions explaining what is on each

filmed feedback sequence, the stimulus situation or

 

2Bert Y. Kersh, "Instructions for Using Classroom
Simulation Materials,” Mimeographed materials received
through correspondence (Monmouth Oregon: Teaching
Research Division, January, 19655

2.3

specification of the problem, and supplementary information.3
(See Appendix B for samples.)

The simulator filmed materials were divided into
three reels; a problem reel and two response reels. Each
of these were placed on one of three projectors for
projection. The fourth projector was used with a continuous
loop of a slow pan around the classroom to aid the subject
in associating names from a seating chart to the faces of
class members.

The control panel in the classroom simulator enabled
the research assistant in the simulator to start, stop, or
hold a frame as a still picture, adjust volume, cue the
operator to focus, advance, or rewind any one or all of the
filmed problems or responses. (See Appendix C.)

The operator s control panel in the equipment room
was necessary as a cueing board and held the electronic
components of the system. The operator could cue the
research assistant when any one or all the projectors were
ready for operation, This panel would not allow the operator

to turn on a projector lamp or sound. {See Appendix D.)

Description of the Sample

 

The subjects selected to participate in this experiment
were randomly selected during the Winter quarter from the

Junior level educational methods classes whicn formed an

” at Michigan State University.

9

"Elementary Bloc Sequenc

 

3Ibid.

49

The courses which composed the ”bloc" wer Education 321A,
321B, and 321C. This sequence of classes immediately
preceded the subject's student teaching assignment. There
were 156 students enrolled in this sequence during the
Winter quarter of 1965.

Not all of the 156 students enrolled in the ”Elementary
Bloc Sequence" were eligible for selection in the simulator
experiment. Certain restrictions were dictated by the
nature of the experimental design. Since a transfer test
was to be administered during the student teaching assign-
ment the following quarter these dictated restrictions
were:

1. To be eligible for student teaching at Michigan

State University, students must have a 2.0 or
”C” average. This eliminated some subjects
from the experiment.

2. Students not registered for student teaching
during the quarter following their ”bloc“
experience were also dropped from the population.

3. To assure equal treatment to all subjects
involved in the experiment, subjects not enrolled
for all three sections within the Elementary
Bloc Sequence, 321A, 321B, and 3218, were
dropped from the population.

Sixty subjects were randomly selected from the
"adjusted" population of 107 students. The all—university
grade point average (GPA) for the "adjusted” pOpulation
ranged from a low of 2.15 to a high of 3.91. The mean GPA

was 2.62 with a standard deviation of .39.

50

The subjects' ages in the sample ranged from 20 to
23 with one subject at age 31. The mean age was 21.22 and
standard deviation 1.51.

Only nine boys were enrolled in the elementary bloc.
By chance, eight were included in the sample.

All but seven subjects were from Michigan. Three
subjects were from the state of New York and one subject
from each of the following states: Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D. C.

Instrumentation

 

Two instruments were designed and tested for use in
this experiment. A post-test instrument was designed to
measure the effectiveness of the treatment (the simulator
experience). To determine if the concepts formed and the
skills developed during the simulator experience transferred
into use during each teacher—trainee's student teaching
experience, an Observational Record Form was developed and
tested. Confidence and attitude scales were also

constructed.

Post-Test Instrument

The post-test was divided into three sections:
(1) Assessment, (2) Principles, and (3) Response. (See
Appendix E.) These three sections corresponded with the
processes that the teacher-trainee was expected to follow

in solving each problem, namely: (1) assessment of the

51

problem to determine specifically what was the problem;

(2) formulation of the most effective method to cope with
the problem, i. e., awareness of principles to apply; and
(3) application of the principle or principles in physically
and verbally solving the problem.

The principles used in solving the problems in this
study were the standards developed initially by a jury of
master teachers in the Kersh study previously discussed.Ll
The standards were later revised and again tested by Kersh's
project staff and are as follows:

1. In problems involving rules of procedure, defer
to authority vs. establish own rules.

2. Show supporting manner vs. show non—supporting
manner.

3. When learners appear disinterested or confused,
it is T's responsibility to stimulate a more
active interested response vs. to make no effort
to change the learner's response.

A. Be attentive to entire class as well as the
individual vs. be attentive either to the
individual or to the class only.

5. Discourage undesirable behavior vs. encourage
undesirable behavior.

6. When direct action is required to control a
disruptive group (individual), act quickly vs.
delay.

7. To control a disruptive group (individual),
communicate at close range vs. communicate from
a distance.

8. Encourage student initiative to learn vs. dis—
courage student initiative to learn.

 

”Ibid.

 

52

9. When learners exhibit deviant behavior, deal
with the individual (3) directly with minimal
disruption of instructional continuity vs.
disrupt instruction.

10. When learners appear to make an inappropriate
response, T should encourage learners to replace

it immediately with an appropriate response vs.
does not encourage change.

11. When confronted with conflicting parent—school
interests, the st dent teacher maintains a
neutral behavior.

Standard 11 was deleted by the Kersh staff in the
revised materials. Because several problems dealt with
this particular problem this standard was included in this
study.

After operationalizing the standards, they were

reworded into "ifethen"cstatements and are referred to as: f

the principles in this experiment.

Each of the major divisions of the post-test instru-
ment-—assessment, principles, and response--were scored
during the post-test, based upon the pre-established
criteria developed and tested by Kersh.6 The scoring
criteria and procedures are as follows.7

,Assessment.--After the teacher-trainee reacted to a

 

problem, he was asked to assess the problem verbally. The

 

5Kersh, January, 1965, op. cit.

6lbld.

 

7Classroom Simulator Post-Test Procedure sheet used
by the research assistants are located in Appendix F.

assessment of the problem was scored by awarding one point
to the subject for each of the stimuli listed under
"Stimulus Situation" on the problem instructional procedure
sheet which the subject identified verbally for the

researcher.

Principles.-—After assessing the problem, the teacher—

 

trainees were asked to state the principles they were aware
of and those which they applied in solving the problem.

The number of principles required to solve each problem
varied from one to three as specified by the panel of judges
and listed under ”Standards” on the problem instructional
procedural sheet. One point was given for each correct
principle or principles the subject was aware of when solving

the problem and could verbalize to the researcher.

Response.——The teacher—trainees' physical and verbal

 

response to each problem was scored by comparing his overt
response to the principles required for the solution of the
problem.

If three principles were required, one point was
awarded to the subject for each principle correctly applied
establishing a range from zero to three points.

If two principles were required three points were
awarded if two principles were correctly applied; two points
if one principle correctly applied; one point if no correct
principles were applied but the subject did respond; and

zero points if the subject did not respond.

54

If only one principle was required, according to the
criteria as stated on the problem instructional procedure
sheet, two points were awarded if the one principle was
applied correctly; one point given if no principles were'
applied but the subject responded; and zero points given
if the subject did not respond. The scoring of the responses
is summarized in Table 1.

These scores were added for a total individual
problem score and all individual total problem scores were
again totaled for the subject's total post—test score.

The inter—observer reliability test of the Post-Test
Instrument was scheduled during the last two weeks of the
instructional phase of the project. Two research assistants
made independent observations of the same teacher-trainee
during random hours of instruction. One research assistant
was located within the simulator, working with the subject
on instructional problems. The other research assistant
was located outside the door of the simulator and observed
through the door to record the teacher-trainee's behavior.
During the first attempt by each teacher-trainee to cope
with a problem, each of the research assistants independ-
ently rated the subject on the Post—Test Scoring Sheet
according to how the subject responded to the problem, his
verbal assessment of the problem, and the principles which

the subject stated he applied to solve the problem.

55

TABLE l.-—Procedure for scoring problem responses during
classroom simulator post test.

 

 

 

 

 

Standards
(As specified by the problem Score for Response
Instructional Procedural
Sheet)
3 Principles Required 3 points 3 principles
applied
2 points 2 principles
applied
1 point 1 principle
applied
O points O principles
applied
2 Principles Required 3 points 2 principles
applied
2 points 1 principle
applied
1 point O principles
applied but
subject did re—
spond
O points subject did
not respond
1 Principle Required 2 points 1 principle
applied
1 point O principle

applied but
did respond
0 points subject did
not respond

 

56

At the completion of each hour, the two research
assistants had completed three or four independent obser-
vations of problem solutions. Discrepancies between their
independent observations were noted and discussed in an
attempt to determine the cause of the discrepancies. The
differences were then corrected. At the completion of one
week using these procedures, the research assistants had
very few discrepancies.

During the second week of such training, the research
assistants were not allowed to change their ratings, but
were asked to discuss discrepancies only. After 12
independent observations with approximately four subjects,
a Pearson—Product—Moment Correlation Coefficient was
calculated and the coefficient of observer agreement
correlation was .91. Later during the same week, another
correlation was calculated using an N of 18. This corre-
lation equalled .87.

During the first week of the Post—Test the research
assistants again made independent observations, following
the same procedures but deleting the discussion after each
observation of 10 subjects. Ten subjects, each solving
20 problems, produced an N of 200 problems. However,
five observations were missed by one observer during this
period of time due to interruptions. A Pearson-Product-
Moment Correlation Coefficient based upon an N of 195

produced a coefficient of observer agreement of .63.

This index would have probably remained higher if discussion
and review of the criteria had been employed periodically

during the post—test.

Observational Record Form

 

After surveying existing observation forms, it became
apparent that an observational form would need to be
designed to meet the needs of this experiment. A greatly
modified Flanders observational form was the result.8

Specific student behaviors and the required principles
applied in solving problems pertaining to these behaviors
were operationalized. The observational form was designed
to identify the frequency of occurrence of these student
behaviors and to record the teacher-trainee's behavior in
handling each problem, i. e., which principles were applied.

The Classroom Simulator provided experience for the
student in identifying and solving problems with five types
of student behaviors. The student behaviors were (1) inat—
tention, (2) baiting and testing, (3) disorderly conduct,
(4) distracting behavior, and (5) fatigue. In the process
of solving problems based upon these five behaviors, the
teacher-trainees discovered and developed the 11 principles
developed by Kersh which were discussed earlier in this

report.

 

8Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, ”Measuring
Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation,” Handbook of
Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage, editor (Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1963), pp. 27l—7A.

 

 

58

The purpose of observing the teacher-trainees during
their student teaching assignment was to determine if the
skills developed in the classroom simulator of identifying
the five behaviors and discovering and applying the 11
principles in solving problems dealing with the five
behaviors would transfer and be employed during the teacher-
trainee's student teaching assignment. The Classroom
Observational Record Form was designed to collect data to
answer the following questions:

1. Does the student teacher identify the following

student behaviors: (l) inattention, (2) baiting
and testing, (3) distracting behavior, (A)

disorderly conduct, and (5) fatigue?

2. Is the student teacher able to solve problems
pertaining to the five behaviors?

3. Does the student teacher apply the 11 principles
correctly and appropriately in solving the
problems?

The first step in developing the Classroom Observa—
tional Record Form was to Operationalize the five classifi—
cations of student behaviors and the 11 principles upon
which the simulator materials were based. The next step was
to decide how the instrument could be constructed so as to
require the least number of subjective judgments by the
observer but still remain as simple as possible and provide
for the recording of the desired data.

The result was a one page recording form which

required the observer to place a tally (1) on the sheet

adjacent to the listed behavior each time the behavior

occurred, tally how the teacher trainee handles the problems,
and list the principles applied. (Appendix G.) Directions
for using the Classroom Observational Record Form were then
constructed. (Appendix H.)

Arrangements were made to visit 10 elementary class-
rooms for training the observers to use the instrument.
During the observations, the observers were seated toward
the front of the room so the class members and the teacher
could be observed. After each observation, differences in
ratings on the observational form were discussed and
resolved. As training progressed it became more effective
to sit as a group to enable the observers to communicate
together.

Several changes were made in the Classroom Observa—
tional Record Form during the observer training sessions.
It became apparent that the observations would need to
be broken into smaller time intervals instead of the full
one—hour interval in order to eliminate constant checking
of individual continuous behavior. Five minutes was
decided upon as the time interval to be used. Each observer
would observe and tally in five—minute intervals and then
begin over again using the same observation form. If a
particular student exhibited a Specific behavior inter-
mittently during this five minute period, the student
behavior would be tallied only once during that time

interval. If the behavior was exhibited by the same

60

student during the next time interval, it would again
be tallied.

Several problems were encountered in the operational
definitions of the behaviors and principles. These were
corrected and rephrased.

Coefficient correlations of observer agreement were
calculated using a Coefficient of Intraclass Correlation
technique before and after the observers received training
for using the instrument.9 The purpose of the correlations
before training was to obtain an indication of observer
agreement between untrained observers—-namely, the super-
vising professors and classroom supervisors. Table 2
summarizes the calculated coefficient correlations. The
"before” correlations were computed from data collected
after the three observers had studied the directions which
accompanied the instrument for thirty minutes and then
made independent observations within the same classroom
during a one hour observation. The ”after" correlations
were computed after receiving eight hours of training in
various classrooms using the instrument.

The correlations obtained before training for "Behav—
iors Occurred in Class,” ”Student Teacher Aware,” and "How

Did Student Teacher Handle Situation-—Adequate” gave some

 

9Ernest A. Haggard, Intraclass Correlation and the
Analysis of Variance (New York: The Dryden Press, Inc.,

195E) .9 p0 39.

 

61

y r»; . - - .mm .Q .nmmma ..ocH .mmohm sewage one
”xpow 3mzv mocmflpm> mo mfimmwwc< on» cam cowpmamggoo mmmaompucH appsmmmm .< pmocpmm

if (D) r, L I'll! 'r’vrb'rrbrtr)vl|’rl’t r r r, (

mo.vo .eoooeeaowam ..
Ho.vo .eosoacacwam .
.zaopmsvmcwcH u .prH moanmpoooo< u .poooo< mzfiopmsvoo< u .voo< “opoz

sew. urmm. new. com. amw. was. «mm. rem. wcficflmpe
Lmum<

moped

cocoa. concessooo mm. HH.- co. om. .mw. sac. wcacsspe

chapmmm ucoHoHQMSmcH mnommm

poa>m£om zapompsoocH mapoonpoo ,HpmaH-i.pQwoofl, .oomay osm3< mmmao ca psoHOHmmmoo
oHcHooom oz ooHHooa ooaaooe . ,socoooe ooppsooo seaaaooaaom

.coapmSpHm maccmm
on cmfiaqo< moaofiocanm mmaoaocfihm o unmUSpm poa>m£om
moaaflocanm Locomma psopSum can 30:

 

 

m.enom whoops Hmcoauw>pmmno on» mean: so wcficfimnp
wcfi>aooop nopmm new phonon pcoEoopwm pm>pmmno mo mcoHpmHmnnoo ucoaoammmoots.m mqm<9

support for using the observations completed by the co—
ordinating and supervising teachers. However, the cor—
relations found between observers in the remaining
Categories of the instrument before training are extremely
poor. The "after training" coefficient correlations of
observer agreements indicated that the observers did learn

to use the instrument accurately.

Confidence Scale

 

A confidence scale was designed to determine if a
teacher-trainee's level of confidence in his ability tc

tcr exieri-

(I)

teach could be increased through classroom simul

r

ence. The confidence scale was limited to the measurement
of the teacher-trainee‘s confidence only in skills which
were experienced within the simulator. A nine~question,
four-point scale, similar to a Likert Scale_was devise .
The midpoint on the scale was eliminated to force the
teacher-trainees to take a position above or below a center

position. This instrument was administered to both grchps

..
-.

‘\ .

 

before simulator experience_and after the post~tcst. fl?
attempt was made to validate this instrument. (Appendix 1.)
Student Reactions to Simulator Training

To determine the attitude the teacher-trainees had

toward their classroom simulator experience a Student
Reaction to Simulator Training instrument was construe en.

This instrument asked 12 objective questions directed at

63

discovering the feelings the teacher—trainees had toward
the simulator experience. An open—ended question was also
included. This instrument was administered to the experi—
mental group after their simulator experience and again
during their student teaching assignment. No attempt was

made to validate this instrument. (Appendix J.)

The Statistical Hypothesis

 

To determine the effectiveness of providing simulated
classroom experiences in the Classroom Simulator to teacher-
trainees three statistical hypotheses were tested.

Null hypothesisl:

No differences will be found between groups
provided with and without classroom simulator
experience in the ability to correctly identify

and react to representative classroom problems
as measured by a simulator post—test.

Symbolically: H01; M1 = M2
Legend: M1 = experimental group mean
M2 = control group mean

Alternate hypothesisl:

Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi-
ence will be more able to correctly identify
and react to representative simulated class—
room problems as measured by the post-test
than will the subjects who have received no
classroom simulator experience.

Symbolically: H1: Ml >. M2

experimental group mean

Legend: Ml
control group mean

M2

Null hypothesisgz

No differences will be found between groups
provided with and without classroom simulator

64

experience in their ability to correctly
identify, respond, and correctly apply
principles to solve representative class—
room problems as measured by an observational
criterion instrument during the teacher
trainee's student teaching assignment.

Symbolically: H02: P1 = P2

Legend: P1 = proportion of subjects
identifying and responding
correctly in experimental
group.

P2 = proportion of subjects
identifying and responding
correctly in control
group.

Alternate hypothesisg:

Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—
ence in identifying, responding, and applying
principles to solve representative classroom
problems in the classroom simulator will be
more able to identify and react effectively

to actual classroom problems as measured by
the observation criterion instrument during
their student teaching assignment than will
the subjects receiving no simulator experience.

Symbolically: H2: P1 > P2

Legend: P1 = proportion of subjects
identifying and
responding correctly in
experimental group.

P2 = proportion of subjects
identifying and
responding correctly
in control group.

Null hypothesiS3:

No difference will be found in confidence
levels of subjects toward their ability to
teach as measured by a confidence scale
between groups provided with and without
classroom simulator experience.

Symbolically: H03: M1 = M2

Legend: M1 = experimental group mean
M2 = control group mean

55

Alternate hypothesiS3:

Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—
ence will exhibit a higher level of confidence
in their ability to teach as measured by a
confidence scale than a group not receiving

simulator experience.

Symbolically: H3: M1 P M2

Legend: M1
M2

H

The Experimental Design

 

experimental group mean
control group mean

A two factorial design was employed as diagrammed in

Figure 1. As previously described, the sample consisted of

60 subjects. The sample was divided into two gr ups,

subjects in an experimental group and 30 subjects in a

30

control group, each group consisting of 15 subjects with

 

 

high all-university grade point averages (GPA) and 15
subjects with low GPA's.
Experimental Control
Group Group
High 15 15
GPA subjects subjects
Low 15 15
GPA subjects subjects

 

 

 

 

Figure l.-—The Experimental Design.

Assignment of Experimental and Control Groups

 

The subjects were selected and assigned to experi—

mental and control groups by the following procedures.

TE”! e

,r,’

107 subjects within the ”adjusted” population were arranged
in rank order according to their GPA from high to low. The
median was located which divided the subjects into two
groups, a high GPA group and a low GPA group. These groups
formed basically a ”B" (high group) with GPA's from 2.5 to
3.91 and a ”C” (low group) with GPA's from 2.15 to 2.48.
Both groups were then numbered from 1 to 53. To determine
where the remaining student should be placed, a coin was
flipped.

A table of random numbers was used for assigning
students to the experimental or control groups. To determine
if the first student selected through the table of random
numbers should be assigned to the experimental or control
group, a coin was flipped. The first 30 students selected
by the table of random numbers from the high GPA group
were alternately assigned to the control and experimental

groups. The next ten students were assigned to the two

,3?

groups as alternates to be used if needed. The stme
procedure was used in selecting and assigning the members

of the low GPA group to the experimental or control groups.
A t-test revealed no significant differences between the
GPA's of the experimental and control groups. The
experimental group had a mean of 2.62 and standard deviation
of .40; the control group had a mean of 2.6M and standard

deviation of .38. (Table 3.)

67

TABLE 3.--Comparison of all-university grade point average
'means and standard deviations of experimental and control

 

 

 

groups.
Experimental Control
Group Group t*
Mean 2.62 2.64 .404*k
Standard
,Deviation .40 .38

 

t* is significant if ;_2.00862alpha .05 level of confidence.
**Not significant.

As was previously discussed, few boys were enrolled
in the Elementary Bloc. Accordingly there were only 2 boys
and 27 girls in the experimental group; and 6 boys and 24
girls in the control group.

Ages of the experimental group ranged from 20 to 22
with one subject at age 31. The mean age was 21.41 with a
standard deviation of 1.95. The control group ages ranged
from 20 to 23 with a mean age of 21.03 and standard
deviation of .78. (Table 4.) Examination of the ages of
the subjects within the two groups revealed no significant

differences between the two groups. (Table 5.)

68

TABLE 4.—-Comparison of age means and standard deviations
of experimental and control groups.

 

 

 

Experimental Control
Group* Group
Mean 21.41 21.03
Standard
Deviation 1.95 .786

 

*One age 8 years deviant from others.

TABLE 5.--Distribution of ages within the experimental
and control groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency
Experimental Control
Age
Group Group

20 6 8
21 14 14
22 8 7
23 0 1
31 1 C

N = 29* N = 30

 

*One age not available.

59

No attempt was made to control the variable of experi—
ence with children. This variable was assumed to be

distributed equally in both groups through randomization.

Treatment

 

The first phase of the study measured tne effective-
ness of the classroom simulator in providing experiences
for which teacher-trainees practiced identifying and
reacting to representative classroom problems within the
Classroom Simulator. Subjects in the experimental group
were trained in the simulator individually in hourly
sessions lasting over a period of nine weeks, completing
seven hours of training. The remaining two hours were
used in orientation and testing.

Each teacher-trainee in the experimental group was
orientated to the simulator and apparatus. During the
orientation the teacher-trainee studied tee cumulative
records, printed descriptiors of the school and community,
and "observed” the simulated class for approximately one
half hour while studying the seating chart. The teacher«

trainee also introduced himself to the class.

("i
O
H)

20 problem

(1’

Instruction began with a sel equen es
which provided teacher—trainees experience in coping with

five types of classroom behaviors. The five clrssroom

(D

behaviors and simulator problems dealing with them ar

summarized in Table 6.

70

TABLE 6.——Simu1ator classroom behaviors and related
' problem sequences.

 

 

 

 

Behaviors Problem Sequences Total
Program Problem Problems

Inattention I 4, 14, 16, 17 6

' II 6, 16

Baiting and I 5, 6 2
Testing

Disorderly I 7, 10, 11 3

Conduct

Distracting I 12, 13, 15 3

Behavior

Fatigue I 9, 18 2

Miscellaneous* I l, 2, 3, 8 4

TOTAL 20

 

*Individual Student and Content Problems.

An instructional model was developed and followed
during each simulator training session. To assist the
teacher—trainee in building an association between faces
and names, the teacher—trainee was given an opportunity at
the beginning of each instructional period to view the class
while studying a seating chart. The situation from the
instructional procedural sheet was read by the research
assistant to the teacher-trainee before each filmed problem
was presented. Figure 2 represents the instructional model

used during the instructional phase.

71

BEGIN

1

Review Orientation

l

 

Discussion* eSituation
Problem

Problem .

Assessment (film)
I Student Responds

Ineffective
Response

(film)

 

‘ If Ineffective

 

l

Effective Response

P

If 2nd or 3rd
Attempt

 

 

L
_r

(film)

roblem Assessment

Develop Principle

If lst

4: 11, Describe Ineffective

Attempt Response

Discussion of Results

l

Ineffective Response
(film)

Reinforce Effective
Response

1

Review Principle

 

‘

Next Problem J
or .

Exit

1

 

1—

Situation

1
EXIT

*Guided discovery technique.

Figure 2.~ Classroom Simulator Instructional Model

72

The problems were presented individually. The teacher—
trainee identified them and reacted physically and verbally
as he or she would need to do in the real classroom. Vased
upon his or her response to the problem, the teacher—trainee
was immediately shown a feedback sequence of how the class
might react. The problem and sequences were presented
repeatedly until the student elicited a desirable response
based upon pre—established standards. Interaction between
the teacher-trainee and the research assistant occurred after
the teacher—trainee responded and was shown the feedback
filmed response. However, non-directive techniques were
used in an attempt to force the teacher-trainee to rely
heavily on the feedback sequences and supporting records in
his self—evaluation.

A guided discovery technique was employed. It became
apparent during the first instructional period that a pure
discovery technique would require additional time. In
addition, the anxiety level of subjects who made consecutive
errors increased until the subjects could no longer respond
effectively.

After the teacher-trainee ”discovered” the correct
response, the appropriate filmed response was presented so
the teacher-trainee could see the slicited class behavior.
The teacher—trainee then developed a principle which might
be applied in solving similar problems.

If the teacher-trainee responded correctly to the

problem on the first attempt, he was asked how an

73

ineffective teacher might react to the problem and what
type of class behavior this might elicit. The ineffective
filmed response was then presented. The purpose of this
sequence was to impress upon the teacher—trainee the
importance of making the correct response. The correct
response was then verbally reinforced by eliciting from
the teacher-trainee the correct response. The teacher-
trainee then reviewed the principle or principles which
he developed before progressing to the next problem.

The control group received no instructional training
in the classroom simulator. Teacher—trainees in the
control group experienced the orientation sequence only

before participating in the post—test.

Controls

The sixty subjects were randomly selected from the
population and randomly assigned to one experimental group
and one control group by using a table of random numbers.
Therefore, it was assumed that variables were distributed
randomly between the two groups.

The subjects were told that the scores received in
the simulator post-test would not be used by their class
professor, but reminded that the simulator experience was
an expected part of their class work. The research
assistants were rotated during the instructional phase so

each teacher-trainee received fifty per cent of his training

74

from each research assistant. The control of variables are

Summarized in Table 7.

TABLE 7. —-Summary of varible controls.

 

 

Variables Me the d of Cor 1U cl

 

1. Experience with Distributed randomly
children tlrough random assignment
to groups

[0

. Otlvlulfln Same direeti
S 16‘ 1'

$10

{”13 gi‘ver‘. “‘3 :1;
lmini stra ti
ences arsumec
a1ocmlj

H (1

kl

tifD

3. Researcher's Bias Remove d from instructional
T“ [35288

J

y.

4. Research Assistants' Counter-balanced through
Biases rotation.

 

.2
.1
H
I;
L J.
(I)
O
H:
~+
(D
t-
a;
+
LL‘

 

The effect of the classroom simulator treatueat as
measured by the goat-test was cnalyzei by a Fixed Effect
Two— —Way Analysis of Variance Nude1,t3 ;1is msdel Hrs sever.
basic assumptions which should he met nafore the mine;
appropriate. The firs assumption that toe measuremcn; m

1 A o . " A I" P‘ 1" - 1" ”WW ~ ‘1" 7 r~ 1 (‘1 ‘1 1 r ‘\ “
tne requirements of interVal m€gou-tfl€flt vcs assimeu.

 

 

 

1— (x r" o u a n ’ "
’Willia m L. Hays, Statistics for Psycho} o11ets y
York: Holt, Rinehart, ar1d Winston, l9o3g, pp. 3o§~~l;-

75

Because the sample was randomly drawn from an assumed normal
population of teacher education students the assumption

that the errors are normally distributed within each
treatment-combination population was also assumed to be true.
Examination of the data revealed approximately normal
distribution of scores within each group. There we re
relatively large numbers of observations per cell which

made the requirement of a normal distribution of errors

1

rather unimportant?i An F-test of the variance of each
group revealed no significant differences between variances
of the control and experimental groups within the assecsnert
and principle protions of thepcst—test data. Significant
differences did exist between the two groups on the reaponse
section of the test. (Table 8.) However, with an equal
number of observations in each cell, the require me11 o1
equal error variance may also be violated without serious
risk.12
To satisfy the last assumption of independ nee c:
errors within and across each treatment ccmbihaticn, it was
assumed that the error portions entering into the reaps tizw
observations were ind ependert . This was assumed throufih

[i ’

assignment of different subject s 1n the control and experim
mental groups and through indep-end ent anal..1s treat“ nts

of the measured variables.
11- . t-
Ibld., p. HUB

9
1”Ibid.

76

TABLE 8.--Comparison of experimental and control group
Post-Test variances.

 

 

 

Variance
Experimental Control F
Group Group
Response 36.30 89.62 2.47*
Assessment 17.06 17.16 1.01
Principles 23.89 39.59 1.66

 

F is significant if.: 1.85 @ .05 level of confidence.
F is significant if_: 2.41 @ .01 level of confidence.

*Significant, p < .01.

Since the data collected with the Observational Record
form for the purpose of determining the transfer effects
of the treatment did not meet the assumption of the Analysis
of Variance Model, other tests were used. To analyze the
data collected in the ”Behavior Occurred in Class" and
"Student Teacher Aware” columns of the Observational Record
form for the purpose of determining the awareness of the
experimental and control groups to the behaviors, a z-test
was used to test the differences between the two proportions
by normal approximation. The z—test was chosen because the
sample size was large in which case the binomial can be
approximated by normal distribution.

To analyze the data in the three columns under ''How

Did the Student Teacher Handle the Situation?" the Chi—5301118?e

77

was chosen because the two groups (experimental and control)
were independent and because the scores under study were
frequencies in discrete categories (adequate, acceptable, and
inadequate).

The Chi-square test was again employed to analyze
data in the ”Principles Applied to Correct the Behavior"
column. The same assumptions were satisfied.

The ”Principles Applied But Not to Any Specific
Behavior” column were recorded descriptively.

The Confidence Scale was analyzed by the Two-Way
Fixed Effects Model Analysis of Variance. Values were
assigned to the classifications on the scale to meet the
assumption of interval scale. The values assigned were:
very confident 4; confident 3; uncertain 2; and very un—
certain 1. Examination of the Confidence Scale scores
revealed a normal distribution. An F-test revealed no signi-
ficant differences between the variances of the experi-

mental and control groups. (Table 9.)

TABLE 9.--Comparison of experimental and control group
confidence scale variances.

 

 

 

 

 

Variance
Experimental Control F
Group Group
Confidence
Scale 12.88 9.92 1.30

 

F is significant 1

1.85 @ .05 level of confidence.
F is significant i 2 41

f >
f E: @ .01 level of confidence.

78

Because different subjects were assigned to experi-
mental and control groups and each question on the instrument
was independent of others, the assumption of independence
was assummed.

Since the ''Student Reactions to Simulator Training"
questionnaire was administered only to the experimental
group, the responses on the instrument were recorded as

percentages.

Summary

A replica of a front section of an elementary sixth
grade classroom was constructed. The remaining portion of
the classroom was simulated through the use of a large
rear-projection screen where classroom problems and class
feedback sequences were projected in the form of 16mm.
sound and color motion pictures in large "life—like" size.
Subjects in an experimental group received nine hours
instruction individually in the simulator. Problems were
presented, the teacher—trainee physically and verbally
responded, and feedback of possible class reactions were
presented to the subject. The problem and feedback sequences
were presented repeatedly until the teacher-trainee elicited
a desirable response from the class. A guided discovery
technique was employed to force the teacher-trainee to rely
upon feedback sequences and supporting records in his self-

evaluation.

79

Subjects were randomly selected from a Junior level
Elementary Bloc sequence at Michigan State University with
a population of 156 subjects. All of these subjects were
not eligible to participate in the study because a transfer
test was to be given during the student teaching assignment,
1. e., the subject must be eligible and registered for
student teaching during the following quarter. Sixty
subjects were randomly selected from the eligible or
"adjusted" population of 107 students.

Several instruments were designed and tested. A post-
test instrument was designed to measure the effectiveness
of the simulator treatment. The instrument was designed
to measure a teacher-trainee's response on three factors:
(1) the assessment of the problem; (2) the awareness of a
principle or principles to apply in solving the problem;
and (3) the physical and verbal response used in solving
the problem. Eleven principles were utilized in solving
problems pertaining to five behaviors. The principles were
developed and tested in a previous study by Bert Y. Kersh
and served as the standards or criteria for this study. A
Pearson-Product—Moment-Correlation between two observers
produced a coefficient of observer agreement of .63 with
the post—test instrument.

The second instrument designed and tested was an
Observational Record Form to measure the transfer effect

of the treatment. This instrument required the observers

to: (1) place a tally after each cccurence of five specific
"I

behaviors; (2) place a tally in a cc1umn if the student-

ace another tally

L.--

teacher was aware of the occuranc-; {3; p
in the appropriate column answering the questions, 'now Did
the Student Teacher Handle the Situation:-—Adequately,

'\

Acceptable, or lnadequately;" (5; record the number repre—
senting each principle the student teacher applied in
solving the specific behavior problem; and (5) record the
number representing each principle applied generally but
not to any specific behavior. Coefficient correlations of
observer agreement of .67 to .90 were obtained with three
observers after training on all but one column of the
Observational Record Form. The coefficient correlations
of observer agreement are summarized in Table 2.

A nine—question, four point scale, similar to a Likert

Scale, was devised to measure a teacher-trainee's

H‘
:5

confidence hi

(f1

ability to teach based upon the skills
and behaviors experienced within the classroom simulator.

- ...x.,-..- ‘.'=
r-tra1nees held

To determine the attitudes the teach

(D

_. 7 4 ,. .: _ . .;-
a ’ St. :10»: n a.

D

toward their classroom simulator 1

* S
{D
(D

.xpe no

I

3

' 1m, -'..- . ‘ H. - ' N
11.:ng ument Was also

Reaction to Simulator Training'
constructed.
Three statistical hypotheses were formulated to obtain

answers to the following questions:

i D

1. Can desirable teacher classroom behaviors b.
developed through classroom simulation
experience?

81

2. Will these developed behaviors transfer into
practice during the student teaching experience?

3. Can a student's confidence in his ability to
teach be raised through classroom simulation
experience?

A two—factorial design was employed with an experi—
mental and control group divided by high and low GPA‘s.
The experimental group received nine hours of classroom
simulator experience while the control group received only
an orientation session. Both groups were administered an
identical post—test in the simulator at the end of the
quarter.

The post—test was analyzed by a Fixed Effects Two—
Way Analysis of Variance. Chi-square and z-tests were
used to analyze the transfer test data. An Analysis of
Variance was again used with the Confidence Scale data.

The "Student Reactions to Simulator Training” instrument

responses were reported descriptively.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
A compilation of the findings of the study are
reported in this chapter. The effect of the simulator
treatment (1) immediately after the experience as measured
by a post-test, (2) in transfering into use during the
teacher—trainees student teaching experience as measured by
an Observational Record Form and, (3) the teacher—trainee's

confidence in his ability to teach will be reported.

Findings of the Study

 

The first hypothesis tested in this study was:

H01: No differences exist between the means of
groups provided with and without classroom
simulator experience in their ability to
correctly respond, assess, and apply princi—
ples to representative classroom problems as
measured by a simulator post—test.

Symbolically: HO : M = M
l

A post—test was designed to provide evidence for this
hypothesis. The test was divided into three sections:
(1) response to the problem, (2) assessment of the problem,
and (3) application of the principles in solving the
problems as was previously discussed in Chapter 111.

In responding to the problems the control group mean
score was 37.06 with a standard deviation of 9.47 while the

82

83

experimental group mean was 43.06 and standard deviation
6.03. The experimental group mean score was 6.0 points
higher than the control group and the standard deviation
was 3.44 points lower. Small differences existed between
the means and standard deviations of the high and low sub—

groups. (Table 10.)

TABLE lO.——Comparison of the means and standard deviations
of the experimental and control groups on the response
section of the post—test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group* Control Group*
Entire Entire
High Low Group High Low Group
Mean 43.4 42.73 43.06 37.93 36.2 37.06
Standard
Deviation 3.85 4.62 6.03 5.90 7.35 9.47
*N = 30.

An analysis of variance was used to determine the
differences between the post—test response score means of
the two groups and also if differences existed between the
high and low GPA groups. An ”F" value of 8.33 was computed
for the treatment effect (simulator experience) which was
significant @ alpha .01 level of confidence F :_7.l2. No

level effects (high and low GPA) were present. (Table 11.)

84

TABLE 11.--Analysis of variance of post-test response score
means between experimental and control groups.

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Treatment 540 1 540 8.33*
Levels 21.60 1 21.60
Interaction 4.26 l 4.26
Error 3627.14 56 64.77

 

F is significant if F :_7.12 @ .01 level of confidence.

*Significant, p < .01

Both groups assessed the problems with approximately
equal success. The control group mean score was 22.33 and
the experimental group mean was 24.07 for a small gain of
1.74 points. The standard deviations were 4.14 and 4.13
respectively. Differences between the means and standard

deviations of the subgroups were again small. (Table 12.)

TABLE l2.-—Comparison of the means and standard deviations
of the eXperimental and control groups on the assessment
section of the post-test.

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group* Control Group*
Entire Entire
High Low Group High Low Group
Mean 24.80 23.33 24.07 22.13 22.53 22.33
Standard
Deviation 3.75 4.50 4.13 4.42 3.99 4.14

 

*N = 30.

85

An analysis of variance revealed an "F" of 2.58 for

the treatment effect (simulator experience) which was not

significant at the alpha .01 or .05 levels of confidence.

No level effects (high and low GPA) were present.

(Table 13.)

TABLE 13.——Analysis of variance of post—test assessment
score means between experimental and control groups.

 

 

Source 33 df MS F
Treatment 45 l 45 2.58*
Levels 4.27 l 4.27
Interaction 13.13 1 13.13
Error 977.20 56 17.45

 

F is significant if F Z 4.02 @ alpha .05 level of confidence.

*Not Significant

Large differences existed between the means of the

experimental and control groups on being aware of principles

to apply for solving simulated classroom problems.

The

experimental group mean score of 17.27 was 7.30 points

higher than the control group mean of 9.97.

The experimental

group standard deviation of 4.89 was 1.40 points lower than

the control group standard deviation, 6.29.

Again,

only

small differences existed between the high and low subgroup

means and standard deviation.

(Table 14.)

Analysis of the data on principles applied in solving

the problems by analysis of variance produced a significant

"F" value of 24.5. The "F” value needed for significance

86

TABLE l4.-—Comparison of the means and standard deviations
of the experimental and control groups on the principles
section of the post-test.

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group* Control Group*
Entire Entire
High Low Group High Low Group
Mean 17.93 16.60 17.27 10.20 9.73 9.97
Standard
Deviation 4.13 5.62 4.89 5.99 6.79 6.29
*N = 30.

at the alpha .01 level of confidence was i 7.12. (Table 15.)
Again, no significant differences existed for levels effect

(high and low GPA).

TABLE 15.—-Analysis of variance of post-test principles
applied score means between experimental and control

 

 

 

groups.

Source SS df MS F
Treatment 800 l 800 24.5*
Levels 12 1 12
Interaction 3 l 3
Error 1828 56 32.64

 

F is significant if F i 7.12 @ .01 level of confidence.

*Significant, p < .01

87

On the basis of the preceding evidence, the first'
hypothesis tested that the means of groups provided with and
without simulator eXperience in correctly responding,
assessing, and applying principles to problems would be
equal is rejected.

The second hypothesis tested was:

H02: The proportions of subjects in groups provided

With and Without classroom s1mulator eiperience
correctly identifying, responding, and applying
principles as measured by the Observational
Record Form during the teacher-trainees student
teaching assignment will be equal.
Symbolically: H02: P1 = P2

To test this hypothesis, three research assistants
were trained to use an Observational Record Form as was
previously explained in Chapter Three. In addition to
these observations, each student teacher's university co-
ordinating professor and classroom supervising teacher also
made observations using the same Observational Record Form.
These observations were scheduled during the fourth week
of the student teaching assignment.

The first two columns of the Observational Record
Form ("Behavior Occurred in Class" and "Student Teacher
Aware”) produced a ratio of student teacher awareness to
behavior occurred for each behavior experienced in the
simulator. The frequencies of occurrence, student teacher

awareness, and their ratios as recorded by the trained

observers are summarized in Table 16.

88

 

 

 

 

msm. Hom mow msm. new mos mqaeoe
wmm. m Hm 00m. m mm Hmpoe
nwa. m ma :Hm. m 3H 30g
00:. m m Hmfi. m HH swam msmupmm
mos. omfi eon mmm. moa mom Hmpoe
mwz. :m mHH Hmm. mm mod zoq pofl>mzom
mom. me mad osm. om mma swam manpoassmno
mam. es mmfi 0mm. mm OOH Hence
mam. em em oas. em mm. zoo poseeoo
one. am Hm was. mm mm swam sasmesomno
men. :2 mm mmu. mm mm- Hmooe
owe. om mm mam. ea em zoo meflpmme
msm. em so oom. ea mm swam new mesonmm
mmm. mm mmm :mm. m wmm Hmpoe
mam. em mma mmm. mm smfi zoo
smm. .Hm mmH 5mm. :m HOH swam cofipcoppmsH
prmm mpm3< emphoooo oflpmm opw3< conpoooo LoH>wcom
genomes noH>mcom genomes soH>mcom
poopsum pcooopm
Aom n 2% goosw Hospsoo Awm u zv QSOLG HmQCoEHsmme

 

.mno>pomno pmcfimpp an nongovmp mm mosmapmdxo

wcfieommp pomGSpm esp wCHLSU mosopw HoppGOO paw HmpCoEHmmoxm domzuon moHpmm Lassa
new .mwmdmnmzm genome» uncoopm .oodmpLSOQO mo moaodmovmmm go comHLmQEoouu.mH mqm¢a

89

Analysis of these proportions by the z-test for propor-
tions revealed no significant differences between the experi-

mental and control groups on any of the behaviors. (Table 17.)

TABLE l7.—-Comparis0n of behavior occurred——student teacher

awareness ratios and z-test values between experimental and

control groups during the student teaching experience as
recorded by the trained observers.

 

 

 

2*
Experimental Control (Absolute
Behaviors Group Ratio Group Ratio Values)
Inattention .254 .223 .68
Baiting and .538 .473 .53
Testing
Disorderly .650 .548 1.22
Conduct
Distracting .359 .408 (-) 1.22
Behavior
Fatigue .200 .238 (-) .26
TOTAL .372 .375 (-) .10

 

*2 Value significant if“: 1.96 @ alpha .05 level of confi—
dence.

*z Value significant if.: 2.58 @ alpha .01 level of confi—
dence.

The university coordinating professors made one
one-hour observation of each of their student teachers who
were involved in the study. The frequencies of occurrence
student teacher awareness, and their corresponding ratios

are summarized in Table 18.

9O

 

 

 

Hem. mom 6mm Ham. mm sea mqaeoe
mam. mm mm 66:. 6 ma asses
NH mm H m zoo
ma mm m NH swam msmnpae
000. mm mm wmw. 0: Ho Hmpoe
ma mm @H mm 30A pofi>mcom
om mm em mm swam weapomspmno
mmm. ma mm :Hs. 0H 3H Hmpoe
m 3H 2 w 30g poopcoo
@ ea 6 s swam sasmesOmHo
mm me m m Hmooe
new. :a ma mmw. o o 30g mcflpmoe
:m mm m m swam pom wcflpflwm
mmm. Hm OMH mmq. am as Hence
me me ma :3 zoq
mm em ma em ewnm coflocmpomeH
oHpmm osm3< posssooo oflpmm opm3< posssooo sofl>mcom
socomoe LOH>mcom Locomoe sofl>mcom
pcopopm peopopm
Aam u zv Q5090 Hospcoo ASH H zv moosm Hmpcoefisodxm

 

 

.mpOmmoooso wcfipmsflps000 mpwmpm>fico 05p an popLOomp mm oodmfismdxm
wcflgomop pooGSpm one usHsoo masons HospCOQ pom Hmpcosasooxo smozuop mofipmp aflocp
0cm .mmocopmSm noncomp psopopm .mocossoooo o0 moflocmovosm Mo COmemoEoouu.wH mqm<e

91

A z—test for proportions revealed one significant
difference between the experimental and control groups——
the behavior of Inattention—~as recorded by the university

coordinating professors. (Table 19.)

TABLE l9.——Comparison of behavior occurred——student teacher

awareness ratios and z-test values between experimental and

control groups during the student teaching experience as
recorded by the university coordinating professors.

 

 

 

Z'X'
Experimental Control' (Absolute
Behaviors Group Ratio Group Ratio Values)
Inattention .436 .623 (-) 2.44**
Baiting and
Testing .833 .844 .07
Disorderly .714 .536 1.11
Conduct
Distracting .656 .600 .65
Behaviors
Fatigue .400 .615 (-) 1.48
TOTAL .551 .641 (-) 1.93

 

*2 Value significant if.: 1.96 @ alpha .05 level of confi—
dence.

2 Value significant if_: 2.58 @ alpha .01 level of confi—
dence.

**Significant, p < .05.

The classroom supervising teachers completed five—
thirty minute observations during the fourth and fifth week
of each subjects student teaching experience. The

frequencies of occurrence, student teacher awareness, and

92

their corresponding ratios as reccrded by the classroom
supervising teachers are reported in Table 20.

Analysis of these prcpcrtions by a z—test revealed
significant differences as rectrded by the classroom
supervising teachers between the experimental and control
groups on total behaviors and on the individual behaviors
tr Inattention and Baiting and Testing. (Table 21.)

The next three columns cf the Observational Record
Form provided a place for each observer to record the
effectiveness of the student teacher's response as being
adequate, acceptable, or inadequate. The frequencies with
which these responses were reccrded by the trained observers,
coordinating professors, and supervising teachers as
adequate, acceptable, cr inadequate for each behavior
are summarized in Tables 22, 23, and 24.

The Chi-square was used to analyze the effectiveness
of student teacher responses——the frequencies recorded by
the trained observers, college coordinating professors, and
classroom supervising teachers. Whenever the N/cell was
too small for analysis by Chi-Square, the Fisher Exact
Probability Test was employed. Analysis of the frequencies
with which the responses were recorded by the trained
observers in each cell revealed that no significant dif—
ferences existed between the two groups. (Table 25.)

Analysis of the frequencies recorded by the university

coordinating prcfessors revealed significant differences on

i“

 

mom. mmm mwoa sem. moo QHHH mgeeoe
6mm. mm mm ome. mm as Hence
Ha Hm mm m zoo
ma em 0 mm cmflm osmflpwm
mom. sew mo: mam. mam so: Hmooe
mma Hmm mma qwfl 30A poH>mcom
meg Hma mafi 6mm swam mcapassaaao
ops. ms mm mas. mm ms Haooe
mm we a a zoo pasecoo
em as me as gene sagaegoaao
mos. mm Hma mmm. me am Hence
we me H2 H3 304 wcflpmoe
me me em 6: swam ens meaaaam
mam. mam Hoe oma. sow awe Hence
waa emm waa mam zoo
Hod sea mm mom swam codaeappmcH
oHpmm osm3< pontoooo oflpmm osm3< oopLSooo pofl>mcom
genomes poH>m£om Locomoe pofl>mcom
acmeSam ocaeaam

 

Awm n 2v ozone Hospcoo

ANN H zv ososc Hmpcoewsmaxm

 

 

.mpocomop wcfimfl>poosm Eooommmao one so poop060s mm mosoflpooxo

mcfizomop pcooopm one mcflsso mososw HoppCOo com Hmpcoefipooxo coosuoo mofipms Laocp
a002935000 mo moflocozdos% mo somHLmQEoo|u.om mqmge

pom qmmocopmsm pmnomop poooopm

94

TABLE 21.-—Comparison of z-test values of behavior occurred—

student teacher awareness ratios between experimental and

control groups during the student teaching experience as
recorded by the classroom supervising teachers.

 

 

 

2*
Experimental Group ‘ (Absolute
Behaviors Group Ratio Group Ratio Values)
Inattention .430 .546 (-) 3.43**
Baiting and
Testing .925 .709 3.76**
Disorderly .712 .760 (—) .71
Conduct
Distracting .599 .606 (—) .23
Behavior
Fatigue .450 .396 .62
TOTAL .547 .599 (-) 2.47***

 

*2 Values significant if i 1.96 @ alpha .05 level of confi-
dence.

*2 Values significant if 3 2.58 @ alpha .01 level of confi-
dence.

**Significant, p < .01.
***Significant, p < .05.

95

 

 

 

.omQOQmom H .Qmom MonmoooomsH .omcH moHnmpdooo< n .poooo< Hopmooop< .Ump< "meoz
6mm os smH mm Hem we moH mm mHeeoe
m H o a m H m H Hmaoe
m o o m m H m o 36H
m H o H m o H H :mHm mamHoag
HmH am am me am 0H 6: as Hence
mm m mm am mm 0 mm Hm 30H soH>m£om
we mH mm mH H: H NH mm eaHm weHnamnaaHo
we mm on em Hm sH mm mH anoe
mm m 6H om mm m mH m 36H oaaeeoo
em 3H 6H s mm m mH :H eme sHaaenOWHo
H: sH 6H m em oH mH m Hmooe
om m 6H s mH m m H 36H weraae
Hm HH 6 s 3H s m a eme can weHaHam
mm m Hm sH am 6H mm mH Hence
mm m mH oH Hm m mH HH 36H
mm m 0H s mm m OH w :mHm ooHpcoppmoH
.Qmom .meH .poooo< .oo©< .dmom .omoH .pdooo<. .Uop< msoH>m£0m
Hence Hapoa .

8m u 5 an n 5

Q5090 Hopscoo

@5090 HmpooeHnmoxm

 

.mom>s0moo pocprp an woodcuop mm mdoopm Honpd00 pom HmpdmeHnodxo domzpmn msmeono
eoosmmmHo 0p monsoomog ooeommp poopspm m0 mmoco>Hpommmo one mo QOmHnmonouu.mm mqm<e

96

 

 

 

mmcoommm u .omom HeywoooomsH u .meH moHpmpaooo< n .pdooo< Hopmsoooq u .Uop< “meoz
mom as we mm mm mH mH mm mHeeoe
em m m mH s H o m Hmpoe
mH H a m H o o H 36H
HH m H m m H o m emHm mawHng
ma mH 3H NH em m s an Hence _
Hm HH s mH eH o s OH 36H goH>aeam
mH s s 3 mm m m mH eme meramaaaHo
mH m m s 6H m o m Hence
s H m m m m o m 26H paseeoo
HH 3 m H m o o m eme ngaeHOmHo
mm m mH on e o m m Hence
3H m m OH o o o 0 30A wcflpmoB
mm m 6H 6H s o m m emHm sea wcHHHmm
as mH mm mm Hm m m 2H Hnooe
o: : mH Hm wH m a m 30H
em a sH HH mH m m m emHm coHpcappmeH
.Qmom .meH .poooo< .Uop< .Qmom .pmcH .po000< .Uo©< mpoH>mcom
Hmpoe Hmpoe

,AHm n zv AsH n zv

azopo Hospcoo ooosw Hmpomsflsoqu

 

 

.mLOmmmmopo mchmcHULOOo
thmp0>Hco an poop00os mm mdsosm Hospc00 pom HmpsoEHnmoxo opossum msoHQOpd

EOOmemao 0p momcoamop socommp ucmoopm mo mmoco>apommmo mew mo COmHLmQEooun.mm mqm<e

97

 

 

 

omcoomom n .omom HopmsompmoH .pmsH moHomuoooo< u .poooo< moumsooo< .dmp< "meoz
mmw mm HmH mwm mom H: mmH smm mH<BOB
mm H m NH Hm m :H :H Hmpoe
HH H m w mm m 0H OH 30H
mH o m m m H e e eme astomg
3mm Hm om mmH mmm :H as 33H Hmpoe
mmH mH Hm mm omH w m: we 30H p0H>m£om
moH mH mm em mHH m mm ms emHm meHoamnamHo
me e mH me mm m mH mm Hmpoe
:m m m :m m, o m m 30H posocoo
Hm m w Hm as m OH on eme ngaeHOmHo
mm mm mm mm me e Hm a: Hmpoe
me e mH em em m mH mm 26H meHamae
a: @H mH mH mm m m mm :me pom moHpHmm
HHm Hm mm mMH mHm mH ms omH Hmpoe
:HH oH mm Hm omH w on mm 30H
so HH mm em mm : am pm :mHm coHpooppmcH
.ommm .pmcH .pom00< .Um©< .omom .pmoH .pomoo< .oop< mp0H>mcom
Hence Hmpoe

Ham n zv Asm u 2V

moons Hospcoo

goons HmpCoEHpodxm

 

 

.msonomop wchH>noo5m
EoosmmmHo an ©0p900op mm mososm HOQHCOo pom HmpcoeHsodxo coozpon mEoHnoso

EOOHmmmHo 0H momCOQmop sozomop psopopm Ho mmmsm>HpooMmm mop mo COmemQEoouu.nm mHm<B

98

mo..w a HH pcmoHMHanm
same suHHHnmnoam pawns wonaHmaa
.u. u m ”HHup muonoocmuHucoo no Hm>oH mo. mnga m oo. 3 M MH ucaonaeme
.u.u m HHmp ozouoococHuaoo no Ho>oH Ho. snaHu 6 mm. N M pH unonuchHm mnmsomano.
uncommon u .nqu .mudsomuwcH.u .cwdH..oHaapnouo¢u .uaooo< .muwsd0u< u .dmp4 .maoz

 

 

 

NN. - 0N NmH mm m: moH mm mH<eoe

*amm. u n H o a H m H ostnmm
hoH>mnmm

am.: am am me 6H 0: a: wanomauaHn
Hoscqoo

mm. mm mm Nm NH mm mH sHamepomHo
wchnme

mm. NH 6H , m 0H mH m can mchHmm

om.m m Hm _ NH oH H ‘ mm ma coHucappaqH

smunsumuano .omcH .pdooo< .uoo< .flde .uam00< .0064
Hem n 2V Ham" 5
nacho Honpdoo macho Hmpdmanmdxm
.mho>nmmno

cocamnu hp cwcnoomh mm masonw HOHQGOo can Hmpcwanmnxm cmmzpmn monsonmmn
museum» unocsum no mmmcm>Hpommmm do mohwsum «no on» no comanmnsoouu. mm mqm¢a

\( 1
\LJ

total behaviors and distracting behavior between the experi-
mental and control groups on the effectiveness of their
responses. (Table 26.)

Significant differences were found between the experi-
mental and control groups on the frequencies recorded by
the classroom supervising teachers pertaining to the student
teacher's effectiveness in respondin to classroom problems.
The effectiveness of responses totaled over all behaviors
was significant as were the responses to the individual
behaviors of inattention, baiting and testing, and distrac—
tine behavior. (Table 27.)

The sixth column of the Observational Record Form was
designed to obtain evidence to indicate if the principles
developed and applied during the simulator experience would
transfer into application during the student teaching experi—
ence. The applied principles were recorded by placing its
respective number on the Observational Record Form. If the
student teacher hardled the situation adequately or accept—
ably (columns 3 and 4) then the principle was considered
correctly applied.

The total number of principles applied to each
category--adequate, acceptable, and inadequate-~by the
trained observers, university coordinating professors, and
classroom supervising teachers are summarized in Tables

~28, 29, and 30.

100

How v a ,pcmOHanme***
mo. v a nu pamOHuficme
.Amx pom Hamsm 00» Hamo\zv umme mpaafinmoohm pomxm mmcmfimxa
.U m .Hflwp oconoococflmcoo mo Hm>ma mo. madam © ow.a M ma unmeamacwfim
.U m .Hfimp mcouoocmcfimcoo go Hm>ma Ho. mamas © mm.w A ma pcmofimficwfim osmswmufinox
omcoomom u .Qmmm mopmsvoomcH u .UmcH moanmpoooo¢ n .paooo< mopmsvmo< n .Uoo< "meoz

.M
.m

 

 

 

 

***sw.aa 2: mm mm ma ma mm mq<eoe
*xmn. u Q m m ma H o m oswfipwm

***m:.oH wH 2H NH m 5 mm LOH>m£om
wcflpomppmfio

*xmm. u a m m a m o w posccoo
mapoonomfia

**om. u a m ma om o m m mcfipmme
was mcflpfimm
mm.a ma mm mm m m 2H coapcoppmcH
*osmzdmvwgo .UmcH .paooo< .Uo©< .UmcH .paooo< .Uoo< mLOH>mnmm

gum u zv ANH u zv
osopo Hoppcoo ozopo Hopcmeflsmoxm

 

 

.mLOmmmmopo wcflpmcflopooo
mpflmpo>fics an coonooop mm mosopm Hoppcoo new Hmpcmeflpooxm comzpoo mmmconoh

hmzommp poopsum mo mmozo>apoommo co monogamlazo mzp mo comfithEooll.mm mqm<e

 

 

 

 

 

 

:2 .v d 5295:.cmfi :
-- mm: v n ,p_\_u.,_.w..fl:m£:
.gno m .Hflmc ocomoocopfl%CCo no Ho>o~ mo, acoam @ oc,x.r @H nanowsflcwflm
,%,o m .Hflmp oCOuoocooflgc0o co Ho>oa so, wtoflm © mw,w . @H pomoflcwcmfim ctmnom:fllcs
omcoomom u .Qmom monsoooomca u rpwcw moaowpaooo< 4 ,wuooo< mopWSOoo< n ,Uop< HM%©Z
*ssmmcma mm ama mmm Ad moH Nmm wq<BOB
o: .q H m S. m i i 2&3 mm
**$mm.afl Hm Om mma 3H 3N 23H L0H>m£om
weapomnpmfla
cm,» s ma m: m ma mm 5258
m a masmpLOmHQ
“l
*smm,w mm mm mm N am a: mcfipmoe
ccm mcflpflmm
xxzo,m Hm mm mma ma ms OMH :oHpCoupmcH
*oanUmnflco .omcH .poooo< oooo< .omcH .pgooo< cooo< mpofi>m5om
am n E E n E
qsoso Hoppcoo ozopu Hmpcoeflpooxm

 

 

.mpmnommp wcfimfi>pm95m
Eoopmmmao zn omcLoOos mm mosopw HonpcoQ new Hmpcoefiuomxm Cmmzpon mmmcoammp
ponommp uncoopm mo mmmzm>fipommmo co mohmskufino on no QOmHLmQEoouu.nm mqm<a

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

U®HHQQ< moaqfiocfinm mo amnesz

mam ms was Ham mo mm: musics
as m w mg l as usurn
s o s m a 3 ago
m m a s c s can: samurai
mam mm mas can am can fimtos
sea 3 ca ens mg sea son coH>mgcm
mmfi am am Qua we mm emu: mzupumcpmuo
wag ma cos wad cm mm Asses
cm H mm s: me am go; nozccoc
mm sg mm as mg mm gnu: sHLQULOmHo
mo es s: cm 3% mm fiance
mm c mm m on mu 209 mcupwpa
mm ofl mm am : om emu: cam mzflpumm
Hofi m mm and am so asses
mm m s: cs an mm 309
a: a m: on On mm can: coflpcmpomcH
coHHQQ< hapooLLOocH xfipooggoc ooflaaaq haoooLLonw hwooospoo
Hates cmufiag< cmuaaq< Hmpoe cmufiaqq smflfiaa<
Aom n 2v ozone Houpcoo Awm n ZV QSOLU Hmucoeflnooxm
mpofl>mcom

 

.mpo>pompo pocflmpp
an noGLOooL mm mQSOLw HoLuCOQ new Hmpcoeflpoqxo cmoZpop mpozomou pcoodpm
an mEoHQosm Eoosmmmao m>H0m 0p coaamom moaoflocflpa ozp wo COmHLmQEoouu.mm mqm<e

103

 

 

 

qu om mmH 30H mH Hm mo<eoe
OH 0 0H m H w Hmpoe
s o s m o m $OH 1
m o m s H m gaHn mguHumm
mm mH mm m: x mm Hmpoe
: o : mH m sH 20H poH>mcmm
Hm mH mH mm m Hm cmHm mchompumHn
mH H :H m o m Hayes
3 o z m o m 30H poopcoo
HH H 0H m o m cme chmchmHo
mm m Hm m o m Hmpoe
m H w o o o 30H wchmme
am H mm m o m :me new wchHmm
om m ma H: m mm Hmpos
mm 0 mm mm m mH 30H
sm m mm 0H m :H :mHm :oHpcmppmcH
pmHHoo< meooLLoo mHoocssoo UoHHoQ< meoospoo NHpoospoo
Hmpoe -cH amHHaaa -cH cmHnga smHqua
AHmngv Q3090 Hospcoo ANHHZV moosw HmpcoEHLooxm

msoH>mcom

IIIIIIII' Iiilllllll

 

UoHHQQ< mHoHocHLm mo monssz

 

 

.msOmmoaonQ wchmcHCQOOo pompm>ch
so coonovos mm mosopw HonPCOQ new HmpcoEHLono cmomen mpocommu psoGSpm
mp mEoHQonQ EoosmmmHo o>H0m 0p poHHoom mmHQHocHLQ one mo comemoEoonn.mm mqm<e

104

 

 

 

 

poHHQQ< moHoHochm so ponEsz

smm Hm mmm mso mm 0mm nuance
:H o :H om o om Hmpoa
m o m mm 0 mm 39H ,
w o w m o m cme msaHHmm
HHm Hm mmH sow mH mmm Hmpoa
HOH N no FNH m on soq LoH>ocom
mHH :H mm co m sm cmH: mchomnpmHo
mm m we mm m Hm Hmpos
mm m mH NH O NH 30H posccoo
Hm m mm H: m mm eme chmop0mHo
mm mm so mm m ss Hmooe
on m mm m: 0 ma 30H mchmms
a: om mm mm m mm :mHm cam mchHmm
sHm mH How oqm m smm Hmpoe
mm m so smH o smH 30H
mHH HH soH ms m os cmHm coHocmppmcH
poHHoo< hHoooLLOocH prooppoo.poHHoo< meoopLOosH proonpoo
Hmooe coHHmn< anHQQ< Hmooe emHHgn< cmHHng<
Amm u zv Q5090 Houpcoo ANN n zv moons HmpcoEHnonm 4 mpoH>m£om

 

 

. .mpozommp wchH>Lmo3m EoopmmmHo
mp oopLOQop mm masonw HosuCOo com HmpcoEHLooxo coozpon mpocomop pcoUSHm
so mEmHQOLQ EoopmmmHo o>H0m Op owHHoom monHochQ mLp %o COmemQEooun.om mqm<e

105

The Chi-Square test was again used to test if any
differences existed between the frequency with which princi—
ples were applied correctly and incorrectly between the two
groups as observed by the three groups of observers. Signi—
ficant differences were found between the two groups by the
trained observers. The observed Chi-Square required for
significance @ alpha .05 level of confidence was i 2.71.

The observed Chi—Square for total behaviors was 4.02. Signi—
ficant differences were found between the experimental and
control groups on only one individual behavior, inattention,
which had an observed Chi-Square of 7.30. This was signi-
ficantly greater than the required Chi—Square of 5.41 @ alpha
.01 level of confidence. (Table 31.)

The university coordinating professors found a signifi—
cant difference on one behavior, distracting behavior.

(Table 32.) Significant differences were recorded by the
classroom supervising teachers on all behaviors except two,
disorderly conduct and fatigue. (Table 33.)

The seventh and last column of the Observational
Record form was used to record the principles generally
applied by student teachers but not applied to any of the
five specific behaviors. No test of significance was
attempted with this data. The trained observers recorded
312 principles (51% of total) applied generally by the
experimental group and 298 (49% of total) by the control

group. (Table 34.)

106

mo. v HH ucmOHuchHm
.cmma spHHHnmaosu homxm tmachm**
me, a .pCmonflcmess
HQ. v “HCmoH%H:wHw$

 

 

 

.m.o H .HHmH oco-oocooH@20o no Ho>oH mo. mLQHm @ Hs.m H mH pcmonchHw
.c.© H .HHmu mco-mocmoHc:oO no Hm>mH Ho. mLQHm @ Ha.m . cH cemchHcme mumsam-Hzo
xxmo.: ms ms: mm mm: mq<eos
*xxmm. u a m w H HH msmemm
cs. mm mmH om omH coH>mcmm
mcflpomupmfla
om.H wH ooH om mm posncoo
%HLoULOmHQ
oH. @H s: 3H mm mchmme
ocm wchHmm
som.w 0 mm mm Hm CoHpcoppmcH
opmsvm xawooLLOocH zapooppoo szooLLoQCH hfipoospoo
-Hso omHHnn< anHgaa cmHHQQ< cmHHan<
mnoH>mcom
Hom u zv ,me u zv
qsopo Hospcoo asoso HmpcoEHponm

 

 

.mpo>pompo
cochhp >9 nongovon mm masopm HOLQCOQ com HmpcoEHpoqxo coozpop msozomop
pCOUSpm hp mapoopsoo ooHHQQm moHQHoCHLQ co mosmsomano mo COmHanEoonu.Hm mqm<e

107

.I Ho. v .pcmOHuHcmHm***
mo. v a nH pamOHuchHm
pmmEIspHHHanOQm pomxm cmemHm**

 

 

 

.u.o H .HHmp m:o-mocmanc00 no Hm>mH mo. mgQHm @ Hs.m «.mH pamOHchme
.n.c H .HHmp mco-mocmoan00 no Hm>mH Ho. chHm o H:.m n uH pumOHchme mumsam'Hco*
Hooo. om mmH mH Hm mH<Boe
**sq. u an o oH H m msmHumm
***mm.m mH mm : mm coH>mnmm
wchomppmHQ
**mm. n a H :H o m .posucoo
kHLmGLOmHQ
**:w. n a m Hm o m mchmmB
new wchHmm
mm. m m: m mm :oHpcmppmcH
opmsom meooLQOOQH szooppoo meoopLOOCH meomnnoo
*quo smHHaa< omHHaa< cmHHanq cmHqua
mLoH>mcom
AHm u zv AsH n zv

axons Hospcoo

osopw HmpcoEHsomxm

 

 

 

..W90mmmhona wcHumchpOOQ
mpHmpm>Hcs hp sconcemn mm masopm HopuCOO cam Hmucmeromxo cmmzpmn mpocommp
uncoupm an meooLLOo coHHaom mmHQHochm co mmpmsvmano mo COmemQEoouu.mm mqm<e

108

m0. v «#Cmofi%wcmHm****
1. HO. v anmOHwHCmHm***

mo. v m oH pamOHuHcmHm
umm%.thHHQmQOLm pomxm LOEmHm**

 

 

 

Quoso HOLucoo

.msp H “Hku oCOIoocopHMQOo mo Ho>oH mo. mcmHm @ Hw.w H.MH unmoHHchHm

.m.n H HHHmp.mco-mocmcHucoo no Hm>mH Ho. msmHm @ Hstm A pH pcmoHuchHm mumsaw-Hzo*
**¢oo.Hm Hm wmm mm 0mm mH<eoe
**OO.H M Q o :H o om ostpmm

****OO.: Hm mmH NH mmm LoH>m£mm
wQHpomppmHQ

Hm. m m: m Hm coascoo
mHLoopOmHQ

***Om.® mm Nw 0 NF mCHpmmB
cam wchHmm
***oo.m MH now m bmm coHquppmcH

i.*mnmzom szoopnoocH meoonnoo it.szooun00cH ivlequMhoo
-Hso amHHgaa smHHgaq :. ,onHn a .1, ii.cmHHag<
muoH>m£mm
st n 2v

nacho HmucmsHmmgxm

‘1' r I u t in. L

.mgonomop wCHmesamsm

EoopmmmHo >9 onQOQoL mm masosm HohpcoQ cam HmHCmsHhoqxo cmospoc mmozomop

L' [Ir

pcocSpm mp meooLLOQ pmHHQQm.moHQHocHLQ no mommsomuHco mo COmHLmqeoonl.mm manqa

109

TABLE 34.--Comparison of principles applied but not to
specific behaviors experienced in the simulator between
experimental and control groups as recorded by the trained

 

 

 

 

observers.
Experimental Control
Group (N = 28) Group (N = 30)
Frequency Per cent* Frequency Per cent*
High 163 27% 140 23%
Low 149 24% 158 26%
Total 312 51% 298 49%

 

*Percentages calculated from total principles applied by
both groups (312 + 298 = 610).

110

Eighty-five principles (67% of total) were applied
by the experimental group and 41 (33% of total) by the con-
trol group as recorded by the university coordinating pro-

fessors. (Table 35.)

TABLE 35.-—Comparison of principles applied but not to

specific behaviors experienced in the simulator between

experimental and control groups as recorded by the
university coordinating professors.

 

 

 

Experimental Group Control Group
(N = 17) (N = 21)
Frequency Per cent“ Frequency Per«cent*
High 29 23% 8 6%
Low 56 44% 33 27%
Total 85 67% 41 33%

 

_‘Fercentages calculated from total principles applied by
both groups (85 + 41 = 126).

The classroom supervising teachers observed 528
principles (67% of total) applied generally by the experi—
mental group and 258 (33% of total) by the control group.
(Table 36.)

On the basis of the above evidence, the second
hypothesis tested that the proportion of subjects in groups
provided with and without classroom simulator experience
correctly identifying, reSponding, and applying principles
as measured by the Observational Record Form will be equal

is not rejected. This decision is based upon the

111

TABLE 36.-—Comparison of principles applied but nOt to

Specific behaviors experienced in the simulator between

experimental'and controligroups as recorded by the
classroom supervising teachers.

 

 

 

Experimental Group . Control Group
(N = 27) - (N = 28)
Frequency Per cent* Frequency Per cent*
High 261 ,' 33% 83 I 11%
Low 267 34% 175 22%
Total 528 67% 258 33%

 

r7—

1"

*Percentages calculated icom total principles applied by
both groups (528 + 258 = 786).

evidence as recorded by the trained observers where signi-
ficant inter-observer reliability coefficients were
obtained.
The third hypothesis tested was:
1kgzNo differences will exist between the confidence
level mean scores of subjects receiving and not
receiving classroom simulator experience per-
taining to their ability to teach.
Symbolically: H03: M1 =7M2
To test this hypothesis a confidence scale was
designed relating specifically to behaviors and principles
experienced within the classroom simulator. Pre-tests and
post-tests were administered to both the experimental and
control groups.

The experimental and control group pre—test means

were approximately equal, 23.21 and 24.82 respectively, with

112

standard deviations of 3.28 and 2.86. Pre— and post—test
means and standard deviations are summarized in Tables
37 and 38.

An analysis of variance of the pre—test data revealed
no significant differences between the means 0 the two
groups before simulator experience. (Table 39.)

After the classroom simulator experience, difference
scores were obtained by subtracting post-test scores from
each subject's pre—test score.

The experimental group difference mean was 5.60 with
a standard deviation of 3.59 and the control group mean
was 3.04 with a standard deviation of 3.16. The difference
score means and standard deviations are summarized in Table
40.

An analysis of variance using the difference scores
between the pre- and post-tests revealed significant differ-
ences between the experimental and control groups. An ”F"
value equal to or greater than 7.17 was needed for signifi-
cance @alpha .01 level of confidence. An ”F” value of
'7.93 was found. (Table 41.)

Based upon the evidence, the third hypothesis tested
that no differences will exist between the ability—to—teach
confidence level mean scores between subjects receiving
and not receiving simulator experience is rejected.

To determine the attitude of the subjects in the

eXperimental group toward their simulator experience a

 

113

mmw.m LHN .m 3\H.m
. . 5L 0 d1 “I o . \\ 0
mm m on : up H Amv COHHCH>oQ

 

 

 

mw.Hm \ Upmccmpm
l Lad . . .
2 ma to Hm am Hm mm ow.mm sm.mm Hxv ego:
a 1 .

opwmmm ?oH cwH: azopw 30H :mH:

. oaHHom -,.,

nHo
. p0 Hoppcoo esopw HcHCoEHLogxm

 

 

0 Q J|\
HmpcoEHpono omwomocmmowwmwm ooCoUHmcoo co mdzopw HOLHCOo pew
. . _ c . w.>®© ULGUCGJQ UCm admmE a
it - c esp mo comasquoo:n.sm
. . mHm<B

114

 

mm.m Hm.: m:.m mm.m @®.m :w.m Amv :oHan>oQ

 

 

 

onmpcmnm
mwém 91.1%. moon mwdm 8.8 8.3 CC :82
asonu 30H cme asonc 30H anm
oancm oancm
agonw Honncoo muons HmnCoEHnodxm

 

 

.nmopnmeQ_onom oesopHHCOo no masonw HonHCOo new
HmncmEHnono esp no mnoHpmH>o© UnmUCmnm cam mCmoE ecu no COmHanEoouu.wm mHmdB

115

.oocopanoo no Ho>oH mo.
.ooCoUHnCOO no Ho>oH HO.

mSQHm © mo.:

oeoHe o sH.s

n nH neooHanme
n nH noooHnHemHm*

A
\
I

 

 

0:.0 mm om.@wq nonnm

mo. H mo. coHnomnoncH

mm.m @@.Hm H @@.Hm mHo>oH
mw.m mH.mm H oH.mm nooEnoone
*n m: np mm condom

 

 

.monOom some mocopHnCOO no Ho>oH nmonuonn masonm
HonnCOo pcm HmnCoEHnoqxo newspon neocononan no ooCmHnm> no mHmnHmn<uu.mm mHm<B

116

,oH.m mm.m om.m em.m sH.e nm.m Aav eonsaa>mo

 

 

 

. onoocopm
Ho.m mm.m Hs.m om.m. :H.m so.m ARV coo:
.asonw 30H szm anonc _ 20H cmHm

mnHucm oancm . .

=-.-. anonc Honncoo . anonw HmunoEHnonm

 

 

.masonw HoanOQ pzm HmpcmEHanxm esp no mcoHpmH>mc
UnmUCmnm cam mCmme mnOOm coconmnan pmmeunwoa cam umna mzn no cemHanEooun.o: MHmdB

117

.Ho|..V o “nemoHnnomnm**
.oocopanoo no Ho>oH Ho. chHm © NH.N x n nH ncmOHanme*

 

 

m©.HH mm ms.mom nonnm

:m. H :0. coHnomnmncH

mm.oH H mm.OH mHo>oH

**mm.w em.mm H wm.mm pcmEnmone
*n m: np mm monsom

 

 

.monoom moocononan monocanoo no Hm>mH nmmnunmom new nmmp
Iona wchs masonm HonnCOo pcm HmncoEHnonm cooznmn mocmHnm> no mHmnch<un.Hq mqmne

118

"Student Reaction to Simulator Training" questionnaire was
designed. This instrument was based upon the behaviors
and principles experienced by the subjects within the
simulator. The instrument was administered immediately
after the simulator experience. Because the teacher-
trainee would not have had any classroom experience upon
which to base his feelings about the effectiveness of the
simulator experience prior to student teaching, the "Student
Reaction to Simulator Training” was administered again
during the fourth week of the student teaching experience.
The results of the attitude questionnaire are stated

descriptively both as percentage and frequencies:

1. I enjoyed receiving training in the classroom simulator.

After Simulation During Student
Experience Teaching Assignment
72% 21 a. Very much so 57% 12
24% '7 b. Somewhat 38% 8
4% l c. Not particularly 5% 1
0% O d. Not at all 0% O

2. The classroom simulator was realistic——"life like.H

6% 2 a. Very realistic 9.5% 2
43% 13 b. Realistic 48% 10
37% 11 c. Not particularly realistic 33% 7

14% 4 d. Not realistic at all 9.5% 2

119

"Acting out" my response to the problems made me feel
like I was involved in the situation.

After Simulation During Student
Experience ' Teaching Assignment
7% 2 a. Very involved 14% 3
33% 10 b. Involved 48% 10
60% 18 c. Not particularly involved 24% 5
0% 0 d. Not involved at all 14% 3

The discussion accompanying training was valuable in
developing the concepts.

73% 22 a. Very valuable 62% 13
27% 8 b. Valuable 33% 7
0% 0 c. Not particularly valuable 5% 1
0% 0 d. Not valuable at all 0% O

I believe that the simulator experience was meaningful in
its relation to real classroom problems.

45% 13 a. Very meaningful 33% 7
55% 16 b. Meaningful 62% 13
0% 0 c. Not particularly meaningful 5% . 1
0% 0 d. Not meaningful at all 0% 0

I feel that my experience in the classroom simulator will
help me to identify classroom problems.

57% 17 a. Very helpful h3% 9
40% 12 b. Helpful 43% 9
3% 1 0. Not particularly helpful 9% 2

0% 0 d. Not helpful at all 5% 1

120

7. I believe that my experience in the classroom simulator
has helped me develop methods of coping with classroom

problems.
After Simulation During Student
Experience Teaching Assignment
52% 15 a. Very helpful 38% 8
41% 12 b. Helpful 48% 10
3.5% 1 0. Not particularly helpful 9% 2
3.5% 1 d. Not helpful at all 5% l

8. The classroom simulator made the concepts more meaningful
than if they had been presented in lectures.

69% 20 a. Much more meaningful 52% 11
28% 8 b. More meaningful 38% 8
3% l c. As meaningful 10% 2
0% 0 d. Less meaningful 0% 0
0% 0 e. Much less meaningful 0% 0

9. I believe that the classroom simulator experience should
be provided on an individual basis.

52% 15 a. Strongly agree 52% ll
43% 13 b. Agree 38% 8
5% 1 c. Disagree 10% 2
0% 0 d. Strongly disagree 0% 0

10. I believe that the classroom simulator experience could
be provided to small groups (up to six students) just as

effectively.

3% l a. Strongly agree 5% l
17% 5 b. Agree 29% 6
48% 14 c. Disagree 48% 10
32% 9 d. Strongly disagree 18% 4

121

11. I believe the classroom simulator experience could be
provided to an entire class (40 to 60 students) just as

effectively.
0% O a. .Strongly agree 0% 0
3% l b. Agree 5% l
21% 6 c. Disagree 38% 8
76% 22 d. Strongly disagree 57% 12
12. I would recommend classroom simulator experience to my
friends.
38% 11 a. Strongly recommend 38% 8
62% 18 b. Recommend 57% 12
0% O c. Advise against 0% 0
0% 0 d. Strongly advise against 0% 0

Discussion of the Findings

 

The immediate effect of the classroom simulator as
measured by the post-test is that it is effective as a
method of providing classroom experiences to teacher-
trainees prior to their student teaching experience.
Teacher-trainees receiving classroom simulator experience
were better able to identify, solve, and apply principles to
solve classroom problems than were teacher-trainees not
receiving the experience. The "F: values found were large
and significant beyond the p <,01 level. A subject’s
previous success in classes as indicated by his all-
university grade point average seemed to have no effect on
successful performance within the simulator. Analysis of

variance revealed no level effects between the performance of

122

experimental and control groups within the simulator on the
post—test on any of the three sections. The evidence in
this study strongly supports the first theoretical hypothesis.

The second theoretical hypothesis that skills devel—
oped in the simulator would transfer into use during student
teaching receiVed very little support from the evidence
collected. There are several possible reasons why no support
was found. One, the post-test instrument may be invalid.
While the instrument measured only behaviors and principles
Specifically included in the simulator materials, operational
definitions may not have been adequate. However, coeffi-
cients of observer agreement after training ranged from
.67 to .96 with the exception of a .36 for ”Principles
Applied Incorrectly” which indicated that the instrument was
objective. The lower coefficients would allow error.

The second reason offered in explanation for non—
support of H2 is that interaction between other uncontrolled
variables within the classroom and the behaviors and princi~
ples being observed may exist.

Another reason may be that perhaps the wrong princi-
ples were being developed. Evidence provides some support
for this postulate. The data recorded by the trained
observers indicates that the experimental group applied 28
principles resulting in inadequate class results while the
control group applied 9 principles with inadequate results to

the behavior of Inattention. Both groups applied approximately

123

the same number of principles with adequate and acceptable
results, 91 and 92. This would support the hypothesis that
the experimental group was transferring or applying more
principles during their student teaching assignment than the
control group. However, these transferred principles did not
elicit desirable classroom behaviors. The same results were
obtained but to a lesser degree with disorderly conduct.
In addition, all three observer groups, trained observers,
university coordinators, and supervising teachers provide
further support of this hypothesis by their recording of more
principles generally applied but not applied to any of the
five specific behaviors by the experimental group than by the
control group despite fewer observations.

Another explanation is that perhaps more time should
be allocated to simulator experience to enable the completion
of more problems. Six problems giving experience with
inattentive behavior were provided to the experimental group.
This behavior was the only one found by the trained
observers where principles were applied significantly differ-
ent by the experimental and control groups even though they
were applied with negative results. Problems pertaining
to the behaviors disorderly conduct and distracting behavior
were presented to the teacher trainees with the next highest
frequency with three problems each being presented. These
three behaviors-—inattention, disorderly conduct, and

distracting behavior-—which were experienced most frequently

124

by the teacher—trainees in the classroom simulator provided
the highest statistical value in each category as recorded
by the trained observers. The evidence indicates a trend
toward a relationship between number of problems presented
and post-test success.

Still another reason why skills developed in the
simulator did not transfer into use during the student
teaching assignment is the differentiation between the grade
level of the simulated classroom (6th grade) and the grade
level in which the student teacher is teaching. The
subjects in the experiment were assigned to grades K through
8. Classroom problems and techniques of coping with them
are different across this large grade distribution.

The results obtained from the data recorded by the
university coordinators and the classroom supervisors is
reported but was not used in arriving at decisions about
each hypothesis for two reasons. One, it was impossible
to collect a coefficient of observer agreement with these
two groups of observers. The only indication of what their
agreement might be was obtained by the trained observers
before training. These coefficients were extremely poor.
The second reason, two university coordinators (2 out of
14) did not return the Observational Record Forms. These
two coordinators represented 20 observations.

The evidence recorded on the confidence scale provides
strong support for the third theoretical hypothesis that

classroom simulator experience will increase one's

self-confidence in ability to teach. The ”F” value found
was significant, p < .01 level of confidence.

Information gathered by the ”Student Reaction to
Simulator Experience” questionnaire both after the simulator
experience and during the student teaching assignment
indicates that the participants did feel that the experi-
ence was worthWhile and helpful. Because the teacher—
trainees indicated that the simulator was realistic-—not
particularly realistic and that they felt involved——not

particularly involved, perhaps the simulator experience

3

LL

could be provided to small groups (a to 6 subjects) inste(d
of on an individual basis. Tie value of the discussion
elicited by the simulator may replace he advantages of

the individual mode.

Summari‘ci‘jjyeiResults

 

Ttnxee lrfpcrthesres iveru} tctsteci it: tiris :sttnr . :rt Er
alternative hypotheses pertained to: Hi: the effectiver,ss

of the classroom simulator as a teaching tool; H
transfer value of the simulator; and R , the effectiveness
of the simulator in increasing teacher—trainee’s confidence
level in their ability to teach.

The results of the findings pertaining to
the three hypotheses are summarized in Tables 4:, 23, and

44.

126

 

 

z A E m
mocmoflecoo H
mo Ho>ofi mocmflgm> moaoflocflgm m2 u HS H om
Ho.vs do. a co eo
esteem ma.s e m.:mus mflmsasca pmmsupmom coassoaasse ”sHHsOHHOQEsm
mEmeopd on pomoh
cosmoflmcoo ocm mmapcoofl ow
mo Hm>oa mocmflpm> mEmHoogm mpflfiflom gflmzp CH
Ho.vo Ho. @ mo ow mocoflpodxm Lou
poowmm ma.m m mm.w um mflmzflmc< pmmplpmom omcoommm Imassfim psospfis
one Spas Umofl>
mocmoflmcoo nope masogw
mo Ho>ma mocmflpm> mEmHoopm comspmo pmfixo
mo. @ eo mo Hafiz moose Ho
pomoo< No.3 m mm.m um mflmzamc< pmoplpmom mmocmgm3< lememflo 02 H
COfimfiooQ cosmofimflcmflm ocsom mzqflcsooe pcoezpmeH coemfl>flm mflmmgpoamm
hoe ememmz msHs> massasea eoawmpflwo
oSHm>

 

EOOchmmHO rHO mm®Q®>HpO®,HMm

”mwcflocfle

.oocmwhmmxm poemHSEHm

mHmoLpOch Haze wo zemEESmlu.m: mqm¢e

.wio. v HLH szuoH w:LmLHn LL .us.éc LLHAH HLrLo:L.L.L / L.L;:n.rrxxxx
.L.U H .HHop occucccccHLCOo go mHo>®H HO. @ H2.J M Lo m0. @ Nb. ; H LL chcH;L:_iLn mH :x**x
L.U a .HHcp ecolcQCQUHL:Oo mo mao>cH H3. @ mm.w AiLO 90. @ 30.x AILL LecoL LL zmHo mH wx*x
..c:LLchH.choo who me.a>LoH HHL. we Hus .m A .Lno QLL. ®L mxi..H A .HH LLLL: L LLiLyeLn n L six

3

.Lcrcfi
”LOL>m:o: mcduomsuwHQ H .Lom .Lan: ”postcoo xHLoc:L H; u .u .Usow HQ mmszch Ccc m:

a I L VA. A
LmL L; n :er

r

LH:
LH .p. L n 9 L : ucLo:

 

127’

 

                 

 

 

.Cmflm xix03.fim n Wx QEZ HCSO. H 1x .Zm.m ***NO.: N TX LqECB
cuz so.H n .a Lmz >:.- a in ems gm. u xx czaLHcL
.chm 23.: n Ax .cmLm mo.m u ax Luz o:L. u mg .;;L .:L L wLHLL;:H;L
fizz Lo. n :x :mz mo. u a enH om.H u xx .r .eLcmLL Lo
.:eLm :m.r u cx Caz :m. n L sue 2H. n mx e e L :QLLL LHeee
.:mLu HzLLL u Mx LLaz .rc. n «x .cmLm 0m.~ u nx chLHchchL
.2uLu **ao.©H u mx .cmLm **>w.HHu mx em: axe-. H ex L<Bca mEoHLocL
Luz c:.: H ex :mz me. n L Lmz ****;c. n L sszece oL
.CdLm mm .HH H gx .CHQLW AL: .OHH vx CHE LLLL . 2 H Jx .LLLC. .prL; Qufioamcm
:mz cm. u xx tmz 35.- u ca . amz me. n MK .e .ceOmLc co
.::Lm ;m.> u xx Luz 7 cm. H a. Hmz mm. H mx 5 e L muccc>LHchLm
.:uLm :c.c u mx cmz mm.H u ax omz om.m u me so H::Ho :H
.:aLm xL-V>:.m 1 x sz Lmo. H u N ::H *cH. n a Leeoe
:mz as. a x amz sz. n N ::H Om. H n csmLucm
:uz mg. n m cmz .o. u N x2 Auuco.H h u .Lcm .LemH: mEcHLosm
cmz HF. n N 22L HH.H n x saw cm.H n x .o .cLomL; Lo
.:uLm os.m a a Qaz so. u N Luz mm. H N a a 2 mecccse3<
.:mLu Livm:.m n N .cuHm HIV::.Q A u ch no. u x coHLCQLLecL
Lchchc ozH:> :oLv .Lcca och> ccH LnLeo: osHe>
m.Lcme>.Lr>L:mL ,rLHc:LLL LLLpocrL ..L.c>.Lcm vLHV :rva.H>,LQ
Lasso. on“: ,c >.LLLJL,c> LzHL c.ocL L..Hm

 

 

.carcLL.:Lx.c LAHLCHszLw LeeanmmLuHc .Lo mfiHcoLLLo .Lchuchra unweLLCHfifH rmUmezLursz; .LHHzL.Lo LfiLeceLzm.:..m:.Lme:>w

128

m
m: u H: L 0:

”LHHmQHHOQE%m

,mcHLommp

Unmzop Hm>mH
moquHLQOQ uHmLp
CH mocmHLmme
LoLmHSEHm Eoog
-mmmHo psossz

mocmchcoQ 02m LLHB ©®©H>
mo Hm>mH mucmem> mmpon uoum mQSOLm CmmZL
Ho.,v Q Ho. @ mo mamom mocmmeHHQ Imp pmew HHHZ

pgmnmm mH(w. Q mm.w u m mHthmG< mucmchcoo pmmunmgm mmonLmMLflw oz

 

:on mQCmQHLHcmHm ccsom. QSUHCLumB LCmESLHmCH :onH>HQ mHmmLLomxm
-HUQH LOL wmcmmz msz> mHmHHmc< coHLmHHLo
msHm>

 

 

.wcHLomwp ULmBOL Hm>mH mocmcHLCOO co moCmHquxm 90pmaseHm

EoopmmmHo Lo mmwzm>flpommmm "meHUCHL MmHmmLpoazc HHSQ %o hLmEESmuu.:q mqm<B

129

Based upon the findings summarized in Table 42 the
first hypothesis was rejected and its alternative
accepted that teacher-trainees provided with simulated
classroom problems are better able to identify and cope
with simulated representative classroom problems than are
teacher—trainees not provided with such experience.

The second null hypothesis was not rejected. The
evidence summarized in Table 43 does not indicate that the
skills developed within the simulator transfer and are
employed during the teacher-trainee's student teaching
assignment.

The third null hypothesis tested is rejected by the
evidence as summarized in Table 44. The alternative
hypothesis that simulator experience increases self—

confidence in teaching ability is therefore supported.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This study investigated: (1) the effect of a class—
room simulator in providing teacher-trainees with experience
in identifying and coping with classroom problems prior to
their student teaching experience; (2) the transfer value of
the classroom simulator experience; and (3) the effect of the
simulator on teacher-trainee self—confidence in their abil—
ity to teach. In addition, the study measured teacher—
trainee attitudes toward their classroom simulator experi—
ence.

A two factorial design was employed consisting of an
experimental and a control group which were selected randomly
from a Junior level Elementary Bloc sequence at Michigan
State University divided by high and low GPA's. The
experimental group received nine hours of classroom
simulator experience while the control group received an
orientation session only. Uncontrolled variables were
assumed to be distributed randomly.

Three hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi-

ence will identify and react more correctly
to representative simulated classroom problems
as measured by a post—test, than subjects not

receiving classroom simulator experience.

130

131

H2: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—
ence will identify and react more effectively
to actual classroom problems, as measured by an
observation criterion instrument during their
student teaching assignment, than subjects not
receiving classroom simulator experience.

H3: Subjects receiving classroom simulator experi—

ence will exhibit a higher level of confidence
in their ability to teach, as measured by a
confidence scale, than a group not receiving
simulator experience.

A replica of a front section of a sixth grade class—
room was constructed. Classroom problems and feedback
sequences were projected in sound, motion, and color on a
large rear projection screen in "life—like" size. Teacher-
trainees physically and verbally responded to each problem
presented and immediately observed the class behavior
elicited by their response. Problems and feedback sequences
were presented repeatedly until the teacher-trainee elicited
a desirable response from the class. A guided discovery
technique was employed.

Following the instructional phase, both groups were
given a post-test in the simulator. The first hypothesis
was supported. Significant differences were found between
the groups on the mean test scores for two out of three
divisions of the test. The experimental group was signifi—
cantly better in coping and being aware of more principles
used in handling the simulated classroom problems. No

differences were found between the mean scores of the two

groups for being aware that problems did exist.

132 ii:

A follow-up study measured the transfer effect of
the simulator experience during the teacher-trainee's
student teaching experience. The second hypothesis did
not find adequate support. Three groups observed the
teacher-trainees during student teaching: (1) three
trained observers, (2) university coordinating professors,
and (3) classroom supervising teachers. The transfer
instrument (Observation Record Form) was divided into the
following sections: awareness of problems, response to
problems, and application of principles. No significant
differences were found by the trained observers between the
experimental and control groups on their awareness of
problems existing or on their effectiveness in responding
to the problems. Significant differences were found in
the application of principles used in solving classroom
problems. Analysis of the data indicated that both groups
applied approximately equal numbers of principles with
effective results but the experimental group applied a
greater number of principles with ineffective results.

Problems of low coefficient of observer agreement
and insufficient return of observation data limited the
significance of the findings recorded by the university
coordinators and classroom supervisors. The university
coordinators recorded significant differences between the
two groups on responding effectively to problems but no

differences on awareness of problems and correct application

of principles. The cl: »room supervisor found significant

9‘
Cf)
C)
(I)

differences on the observational instrument for all three
divisions-—awareness of problems, response to problems, and
application of principles.

The evidence recorded on the

(D

Iti“i-d

0
O

nce scale provided
strong support for the third hypothesis that classroom
simulator experience increases self—confidence in ability
to teach.

Information collected by the attitude scale, ”Student
Reaction to Simulator Experience,” indicated that the parti—
cipants did feel that classroom simulator experience was

worthwhile and helpful.

Conclusions

 

Several conclusions are made from the findings

reported in this experiment.

1. Awareness of classroom problems is not developed
through classroom simulator experience. Teacher-
trainees apparently possess this ability to
identify clrssroom problems prior to the
simulator experience.

2. Effective responses to classroom problems can
be developed through classroom simulator experi-
ence ‘rior to the teacher—trainee's student

teaching assignment.

13A

3. Principles which can be used in solving classroom
problems can be developed through classroom
simulator experience prior to the teacher-trainee's
student teaching assignment.

4. Experiences gained in responding to problems
within the classroom simulator do not transfer
to the teacher-trainee's student teaching experi-
ence. However, evidence does exist which supports
the postulate that experience with more classroom

problems increases transfer.

U7

Principles developed for application in solving
classroom problems do transfer to the teacher-
trainee's student teaching experience.

6. Teacher-trainee confidence in ability to teach
is increased through classroom simulator experi-

ence .

Implications for Future Research

 

Several problems were encountered during this experi—
ment which need further study. Since replications of
findings should be a requirement before innovations are
employed on a general basis, this experiment should be
repeated to determine if the findings are replicated.

A question that developed during the experiment was
whether the individual attention and discussion between the

research assistant and teacher—trainee might have the same

effect without the simulator materials. This question could
be answered by employing a second treatment group where

the teacher-trainee and a research assistant would discuss
the same problems and principles but without simulator
materials.

Results of the transfer test as recorded by the
trained observers provide some evidence that a relationship
might exist between number of problems experienced per
behavior within the simulator and amount of transfer during
student teaching. Another experiment manipulating this
variable could provide an answer to the question.

The value of the guided discovery technique employed
in this experiment should be further researched. Another
experiment employing identical materials but using a pure
discovery technique, guided discovery technique, and exposi-
tory techniques should be undertaken. A pure discovery
technique would require considerably more time for completing
a like number of problems. The transfer effects of these
treatments might prove very interesting.

More research is needed to determine the effectiveness
of screen size and motion. The Kersh study indicated that
a smaller, less realistic size was most effective. Kersh
also found that more practice trials were required with
motion pictures than with slides which might give support
to a hypothesis that slides are more effective than motion

pictures. However, Kersh made no attempt to determine the

136

transfer effects of such treatment. Further experimentation
with size and motion and their effects on transfer are
necessary.

More research is necessary in identifying classroom
problems encountered by student teachers. Principles
employed on solving classroom problems should be identified
and validated through their everyday effective use by
experienced classroom teachers. These problems and
validated principles should be classified by grade levels.
New simulator materials should be developed based upon
these validated lists.

If further classroom simulator research provides
evidence that simulation is effective in teacher education,
simulation materials should be developed by grade levels.
One problem encountered in this experiment was teacher-
trainees did not feel that the simulator problems (6th
grade) they were experiencing were pertinent at the grade
level they desired to teach. Materials should be
by grade classifications suchas K, l—3, 4—6, 7-9 by
subjects, lO—12 by subjects, and in special education
areas.

In order to determine whether or not it is necessary
to simulate Specific classes (all problems and sequences
filmed in one classroom) so as to enable teacher-trainees
to become familiar with all class members, further research

is needed. The alternative would be to record, randomly,

137

classroom incidents and responses over a period of years
and then employ these episodes in teacher education through
simulation projection techniques.

These have been a few of the problems which this
experiment has exposed. In Chapter II, the review of
literature revealed that research evidence supporting
simulation in the educational field is very limited.
Educators are beginning to realize the possibilities which
simulation techniques may provide for improving and ful-
filling educational objectives. This experiment has been
one of many needed before this innovation is employed in
teacher education courses in colleges and universities on

a wide basis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

138

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Jack A. ”Some Considerations in the Design and Use
of Dynamic Flight Simulators." Simulation in Social
Science: Readings. Harold Guetzkow, editor. New
Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1962, pp. 29-47.

 

 

Ammons, R. B. "Effects of Knowledge of Performance: A
Survey and Tentative Theoretical Formulation," Journal
of General Psychology, 54:279—299 (1956).

 

Anderson, G. L. "Quantitative Thinking As Developed Under
Connectionist and Field Theories of Learning,"
Learninngheory in School Situation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 193—, pp. 40—73.

 

Angel, G. W., and Troyer, M. E. "A New Self—Scoring Test
Device for Improving Instruction," School and
Society, 67:84-85 (January 31, 19A8).

 

Ausubel, D. P. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning.
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1963.

 

Bloom, Benjamin s. ”The Study of the Thought—Processes of
Students in Classroom Situations," University of
Chicago Round Table No. 766, November, 1952, pp. l7-19.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur, and Gottlieb, David. A Sociology of
_Education. Second Edition. New York: American

Book Company, 196A.

 

 

Bushnell, Don D. System Simulation: A New Technology for
Education. Santa Monica, California: System
Development Corporation, April, 1962.

 

Callantine, M. F., and Warren, J. M. "Learning Sets in
Human Concept Formation,” Psychological Report,

1:363-367 (1955).

Cherryholmes, Cleo. ”Developments in Simulation of Inter-
national Relations in High School Teaching," Phi
Delta Kappan, uu:227-231 (1965).

 

 

Cofer, C. N. "Experimental Studies of the Role of Verbal
Processes in Concept Formation and Problem—Solving,"
Fundamentals of Psychology: The Psychology of
Thinking. E. Harms, editor. New York Academy of
Science, 91:94—104 (1960).

139

 

140

Cohen, Kalman, and Cyert, Richard M. ”Simulation of
Organizational Behavior," Simulation Models for
Education. Nicholas Fattu and Stanley Elam, editors.
Beloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1965, pp.
105—158.

 

 

Corman, B. R. "The Effect of Varying Amounts and Kinds of
Information as Guidance in Problem Solving,"
Psychology Monograph, 71:1—21 (1957).

 

Craig, R. C. "Directed Versus Independent Discovery of
Established Relations,” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 47:223-234 (1956).

 

 

Duncan, G. P. "Recent Research on Human Problem Solving,"
Psychological Bulletin, 56:397—A29 (1959).

 

Frederiksen, Norman. "In—Basket Tests and Factors in Admin—
instrative Performance," Simulation in Social Science:
Readings. Harold Guetzkow, editor. New York:
Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962, pp. 124—137.

 

 

Gagne, Robert M. The Conditions of Learning. New York:
Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, Inc., 1965.

 

Gagne, Robert M., and Bolles, Robert C. ”A Review of
Factors In Learning Efficiency," Automatic Teaching:
The State of the Art. E. H. Galenter, editor. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959, pp. l3—A6.

 

 

Gagne, Robert M., and Smith, E. C., Jr. "A Study of the
Effects of Verbalization on Problem Solving,”
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63:12—18 (1962).

 

Gibbons, John W. "Simulators: Research Tools," Safety
Education, AlzlA-15 (November, 1961).

 

Greenlaw, Paul S. "The In—Basket as a Training Instrument,"
Marketing Kgys to Profits in the 1960's. Wenzil K.
Dolva, editor. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion, 1960, pp. A52-459.

 

Greenlaw, Paul S., Herron, Lowell W., and Rawdon, Richard H.
Business Simulation In Industry and Universipy
Education. New York: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962.

 

 

Guetzkow, Harold. "A Use of Simulation in the Study of
Inter-Nation Relations," Simulation in Social Science:
Readings. Harold Guetzkow, editor. New York:
Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1962, pp. 82-93.

 

 

141

Haggard, Ernest A. Intraclass Correlation and the Analysis

of Variance. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 958.

 

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.

 

Hendrix, C. "A New Clue to Transfer of Training," Ele-
mentary School Journal, A8zl97—208 (1947).

 

Hovland, C. I. ”Human Learning and Retention,” Handbook
of Eyperimont Research. S. S. Stevens, editor.
New York: Wiley, 1951, pp. 613-689.

 

 

Hughes, Marie, et al. A Research Report: Assessment of the

—.____

Quality 0 Teaching in Elementary Schools. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1959.

 

 

Immegart, Glenn L. The Instructional Uses of Simulation in
the Preparation of School Administrators. Columbus,
Ohio: University Council for Educational Adminis-
tration, January, 1962, pp. l-lA.

 

 

Judd, C. H. Psychology of Secondary Education. Boston:
Ginn and Company, 1927.

 

Katona, G. Organizing and Memorizing. New York: Columbia
University Press, 19AO.

 

Kersh, Bert Y. Classroom Simulation: A New Dimension in
Teacher Education. Final Report, Title VII, Project
Number 886, National Defense Education Act of 1958.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, Oregon State
System of Higher Education, June 30, 1963.

 

 

Kersh, Bert Y. "Instructions for Using Classroom Simulation
Materials," Mimeographed materials received through
correspondence, Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research
Division, January, 1965.

Kersh, Bert Y. l'The Adequacy of 'Meaning' as an Explanation
for the Superiority of Learning by Independent
Discovery,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
49:282-292 (1958).

 

Kittell, J. E. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of
External Direction During Learning in Transfer and
Retention of Principles,H Journal of Educational
Psychology, 48:391—405 (1957).

 

 

142

Lloyd, K. E; "Supplementary Report: Retention and Transfer
of Responses to Stimulus Classes," Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 59:206—207 (1960).

 

McKeachie, W. J. "Research on Teaching at the College and
University Level," Handbook of Research on Teaching.
N. L. Gage, editor. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 1963, pp. 1118—1172.

 

Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 193A.

 

Medley, Donald M., and Mitzel, Harold E. ”Measuring Class-
room Behavior by Systematic Observation," Handbook
of Research on Teaching. N. L. Gage, editor.

Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963, pp. 271—27A.

 

Miller, R. B. Psychological Considerations for the Design
of TrainingyEquipment. Ohio: Wright Air Development
Center, Wright—Patterson Air Force Base, December,
1954.

 

 

Murphy, Gardner. "Affect and Perceptual Learning,"
Psychological Review, 63:1—15 (January, 1956).

 

Norcross, Katherine, and Spiker, C. C. "Effects of Mediated
Associations on Transfer in Paired—Associate Learning,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55:129—134 (1958).

 

Osgood, C. E. Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1953.

 

Porter, Douglas. ”Teaching Machines," Teaching Machines
and Programmed Learning, A. A. Lumsdaine and R.
Glaser, editors. Washington: National Educational
Association, 1960, pp. 206—214.

 

 

Remmer, H. H., et a1. "Second Report of the Committee on
Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of
Educational Research, A6z6A1—658 (1953).

 

 

Renshaw, Jean, and Heuston, Annette. The Game Monopologs.
RM-l917—1. Santa Monica, California: The Rand
Corporation, July, 1960.

 

Smith, K. R., and Van Ormer, E. B. Learning Theories and
Instructional Film Research. Port Washington, New
York: Special Devices Center, Office of Naval
Research, June, 1949.

 

 

1:3

Sommer, Robert. "The Effects of Rewards and Punishments
During Perceptual Organization,' Journal of
Personality, 25:550—558 (September, 1957).

 

 

Sorenson, Herbert. Psychology in Education. New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, 19AO.

 

Stacey, C. L. "The Law of Effect in Retained Situations
With Meaningful Material," Learning Theory in School
Situations. Iinneapolis: University Of Minnesota
Press, l9fl9, pp. 74-103.

 

 

, "Status Report on Research Project," mimeographed
sheet received through personal correspondence with
Richard Wing, Chief Investigator, Project 2841,
Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational
Services, 845 Fox Meadow Road, Yorktown Heights, New
York.

Stock, D. "Investigations into Inter—Relations Between
Self—Concept and Feelings Directed Toward Other
Persons and Groups,” Journal of Consulting Psychology,
13 176-180 (June, 1949). ‘

Symonds, Percival M. What Education Has To Learn From
Psychology. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
0 ege,

Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology, Vol. II, The
Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1923.

Wallen, Norman E., and Traverse, Robert M. W. "Analysis
and Investigation of Teaching Methods," Handbook
of Research on Teaching. N. L. Gage, editor.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963, pp. 448-505.

 

 

Wittrock, M. C. The Learning By Discovery Hypothesis. A
paper prepared for The Conference on Learning by
Discovery, New York City, January 28-29, 1965.
California: Stanford University, 1965.

Wolfe, Duel. "Training," Handbook of Egperimental Psychology.
S. S. Stevens, editor. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1951, pp. 1267—1286.

Woodworth, R. S., and Schlosberg H. Experimental Psychology.
Revised edition. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
195 .

 

144

Young, Kimbal. Social Psychology. Third edition. New
York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1956

Zaun, Cecil G., and Schroeder, Melvin T. "The Drive Trainer:

A Teaching Machine," Journal of Secondary Education,
37:112-116 (February, 1962).

A F P E} f T: 1 E S

APPENDIX A

1146

147

 

 

Us. .TH... o

.2
hr‘
pi,

HoCmm Hompooo on n .m .

x\\\\ oases wonoaaom cos senses u a m i .m H8oz ////I

oscom Zoom ezmdepam
sneofiasm

~23 U

 

Eoommmddo fl

/
Coopom //
:oHpoomonm poem I .9 .w
Peace 7% a .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

I _ .m
3230 "I . n .o =
rug .2
HoCmm pospflz i-
Hoppcoo flg
opoEom LODoomonm -
uoaofio a

 

 

mOB<QDEHm Eoommm<qo
mo Bzmzmmz<mm< H<0Hmmmm

d. NHQZmEm<

 

APPENDIX B

1148

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLES OF CLASSROOM SIMULATOR INSTRUCTIONAL
PROCEDURAL SHEETS

Orientation Sequence
Iflr. Land's Sixth Grade

PURPOSE

CPO provide T with an experience comparable to an observation

gprior to student teaching. Also to help T get used to
sypeaking to the class and to learn to identify the pupils

by name.

IPIROBLEM

Ddr'. Land asks T to introduce himself to the class.

SI TUATION

ITt is about midmorning and Mr. Land is passing out papers
txa individuals in the class, calling them by name. T

flats just entered and is waiting to be noticed by Mr. Land.
lit should be understood that Mr. Land has interviewed T
ipI?eaviouSly in private and is expecting T to visit the class
81: this time to be introduced. This takes place about one
sneezk prior to the time when T actually is to begin student

tea ohing.

SCRIPT
1. OPEN ON MR. LAND PASSING MR. LAND: (says each pupil's
OUT PAPERS TO CLASS. name as he asses
out papers.§
:LOOKS TO FRONT AS IF NOT—
ICING T FOR FIRST TIME. ”on, hello. Would
you have a seat

over there? I‘ll
be right with you.”
CONTINUES PASSING OUT PAPERS.
WALKS TO FRONT AND SPEAKS "Now, if you LiIO‘dld
DIRECTLY TO T. like to think of
a few things to
say to the class.
149

150

CONTINUES PASSING PAPERS.

NODS TOWARD T.

LONG SLOW PAN OE CLASS
LISTENING TO T.

OPEN ON CLASS LISTENING. MR.
LAND STEPS IN VIEW AND SPEAKS
TO T.

THEN CONTINUES PASSING OUT PAPERS.

I'll give you a
few minutes to
think about it;
then I'll call
on you.

”All right .
now class, I‘d
like you to meet
our new student
teacher and

I believe I'll
let you introduce
yourself.”

(Thanks T and
continues passing
out papers and
commenting to

class.)

PROGRAMS

151

K )3
YD

i_J

Program I-~l
Instructional Procedure
Mr. Land's Sixth Grade

Situation: This is the first part of the day, just a few
minutes before the tardy bell rings. Mr. Land has been
called to the office to straighten out a matter concerning
lunch tickets and has asked you to monitor the class. You
are standing in front of the room. About half the youngsters
'are in the room. The rest are coming in from the playground.

 

Problem Scene: Scene opens on class about half empty.
Jack approaches T and says that he has been sick the
previous week and Should not be allowed to play during
recess.

 

Hold Cue: ". . . to play today."

Response Method

 

Standards

 

I In problems involving rules of procedure, defer
to authority vs. establish own rules.
II Show supporting manner vs. show nonsupporting
manner.

A, Defers to authoriyy: ,supporting_manner (3)

Assures Jack that his request will be considered.
Is brief, but warm and supporting. Avoids
prolonged conversation.
HThank you, Jack. We will check this with
Mr. Land."
”Would you mind checking this with Mr. III
Land?”
"Thank you, Jack. I am sure Lr. Land
will take care of it.H

B. Defers to authority: nonsgpporting manner (2)

Refers Jack to Mr. Land, but in a curt or
rejecting manner.
"Go see Mr. Land, will you?" [i]
I'I can't help you, Jack. That's Mr.
Land's department."

153

C. Establishes own rules: supporting manner (21

 

Same as A, but:

Alternatives

 

(l) Asks for note.
"Thank you, Jack. Do you have a
note?"

(2) Anticipates Mr. Land's decision
"I‘m sorry to hear that, Jack. We

will arrange something else for

you to do during recess period."

D. Establishes own rules: nonsgpporting manner (1)

 

 

Is extremely abrupt or rejecting i

I
‘ " rfir‘

"Well, Jack, do you have a note?"
(2) Orders Jack to seat without
reassuring him.
"Go to your seat, Jack. The bell is
about to ring.H
(3) Dismisses the problem abruptly.
HDon't bother me with this now.H

(l) Asks for a note immediately
(In.

E, No response (0)

 

fgedback Descriptions

 

Ebedback 1: Jack nods and returns to his seat.

 

Feedback 3; Jack reaches in his pocket and draws
fi' out a note.

 

Problem Assessment

 

Stimulus Situation

 

(1) Jack communicates to T that he has been sick
the previous week.

(2) He asks permission not to play during recess.

154

Supplementary,Information

Jack is a low-ability student who often receives criticism
as-a personal attack.

d

 

155

Program I——2
Instructional Procedure
Mr. Land's Sixth Grade

Situation: Now it is about 9:30 in the morning. Imagine
that Mr. Land has been called out of the room unexpectedly
and has asked you to take over for ten or fifteen minutes.
Since you have no particular instructional duties yet,

you have decided to describe something of educational

value from your own experience. Think of some recent experi—
ence you have had——something that you did on your vacation,

for instance, or something about your experiences in School—— ‘ f
and start telling the class about it. You are speaking

from the front of the room and the class is listening to

you.

 

Problem Scene: Class appears to be listening attentively

 

to Something T is saying or doing. Karen looks puzzled
and says, ”But I don't understand." Class appears to
disagree with Karen.

 

Hold Cue No. 1: After image blinks; ”But I don't
understand," plus class reaction.

 

Release Hold: If T asks, ”What don't you understand?"
film continues with Karen answering,
"The words that you use are so big."

 

Hold Cue No. 2: After class reaction to Karen.
(2nd time)

 

Response Method

 

Standards

 

I When learners appear disinterested or confused, it is
T's responsibility to stimulate a more active,
interested response vs. to make no effort to change
the learners response.

II Be attentive to entire class as well as the indi—
vidual vs. be attentive either to the individual
or to the class only.

E.

156

Stimulates active response: attends to entire class as
well as individual (3) ‘————' “——

 

 

 

Alternatives
(1) Gives other students a chance to
participate
"Well class, can you help Karen
out?"
(2) Gives a brief explanation to Karen

using a different approach or
simpler language.
”Karen, what I meant to say was
(Gives brief explanation)

Stimulates active resppnse: attends either to the
individual or to the class onlyg(2lfi ‘—-—"‘

Questions Karen beyond initial inquiry Verbal

"Karen, what words don't you understand?"

Does not stimulate active response: attends to entire
class as well as individual (2) “—_——‘

 

Explains it will be clear later on
”Just a few minutes, Karen. It will
become clear.

Does not stimulate active response: attends to either
the individual or to the class only (1)

 

Alternatives
(1) Makes elaborate explanation
(2) Scolds class for their reaction

”Class, settle down.

(3) Scolds Karen for not understanding '
"Karen, you shouldn't interrupt me. In.

No response (0)

 

Feedback Descriptions

Feedback 1: Karen nods in satisfaction and class
reacts with relief.

Ili- “ 9.-U‘-"§- H-” -m1.\-.1n-'?

"A

L

157

Feedback Descriptions (cont.)

Feedback 2: (After hold cue No. 1) Karen explains
that T's "words are too big."

 

Feedback 3: Karen smiles, others raise their hands
as if to speak.

 

Examples of Verbal Feedback
For B: Karen answers T's questions appropriately.
Others in class appear impatient. l A

Problem Assessment

Stimulus Situation

 

E1) Karen interruptsllto say she doesn't understand.
2 Others in class appear to disagree with Karen.

Supplementary,Information

Karen is an over—achiever who strives to please everyone.
She insists on pursuing a topic until She understands it
completely. Karen's question should not be considered
lightly by T.

158

Program I——3
Instructional Procedure
Mr. Land's Sixth Grade

Situation: This is a continuation of the previous Situation.
Continue talking to the class as if you has picked up where
you left off before Karen interrupted. You are in the front
of the room and the class is listening. Mr. Land has not
returned yet.

 

Problem Scene: Jackie asks for clarification of what T is
saying. This time the entire class seems to need the clari—
fication.

 

Hold Cue: After image blinks or ”This time I don't
understand” plus class reaction.

Release Hold: If T asks, ”What don't you understand?”
film continues with Jackie saying, "I
just don't get it.”

 

Hold Cue: ”. . . just don't get it.”

Response Method

 

Standards

 

I When the learners appear disinterested or confused,
it is T's responsibility to stimulate a more active,
interested response vs. to make no effort to change
the learners' response.

II Show supporting manner vs. Show nonsupporting manner.

 

 

A. Stimulates active rgsponse: supporting manner(3)
Alternatives
(1) Uses different modes of teaching, Ill

e. g., uses chalk board.

(2) Shifts to getting information from
the class
”Well, does anyone have a suggestion?”

 

(3) Changes topic
”This is not too important anyway.
Would you like me to tell you
n”

about the ——-: Describes other
topic.

 

 

159

B. Stimulates active response: nonsupporting manner (2)

 

 

Same as A, but acts irritated or disgusted
with class
"Why don't you understand? It's very
simple "
C. Does not stimulate active response: supporting manner (2)
Alternatives

 

(1) Persists with same mode of teachin .
"Well Jackie, I'll say it again.

(2) Acknowledges failure to interest Ila.
group without changing presentation.
”Well, I guess I didn't do too
well this time. Lets go on anyway.H

D. Does not stimulate active response: nonsupporting
manner (1)

 

 

Scolds class for not paying attention without
attempting to clarify or shift instructional method.
”Maybe you weren't paying attention.
I'll say it again."

E. No response (O)

 

Feedback Descriptions

 

Feedback 1: Class nods, smiles, as if in understanding.
Feedback 3: Class continues to look puzzled, frowning,
commenting to neighbors.

 

 

Examples of Verbal Feedback

 

For A: Class raises their hands, perhaps with
enthusiasm.

 

Problem Assessment

 

Stimulus Situation

 

(1) Jackie asks for clarification of what T is
saying.

(2) The entire class seems to need the clarification.

,3“; 5 a“. urn-an: .1- -“.T
I

160

Sppplementary Information

 

Jackie often Speaks for most of the class when there is a
matter of getting clarification. T's information is not
particularly important, so the topic can be changed, or
stopped entirely.

 

APPENDIX C

161

 

162

 

 

 

 

seesaw seesaw snag n we sang n a
mammoe N we Hospcoo oE2H0> H .Ho> swam “oopflsm n m ”opoz
m soocomosg m m a

egos doom doom doom

new One 6 a 6

m newcomosm
oaom upmpm psmpm

ax 0a E g

H scooowosm

Ufiom woo woo
a, 0.. a9 emu
mangoes oso mac
:7: K..."

.HO> .Ho>

45 age ammo

steam

g

@E

oso

.Ho>

@QWQ

 

/

Hmz<m HOmBZOO meozmm

o XHQZMmm<

 

APPENDIX D

163

 

164

 

 

 

 

@

mmgc>om n .>om oqu u q
ommzmom u .mom omsm soopflzm u m ”opoz
so doom doom been
AWV ppmpm pampm ppmpm
.>om 16v. .Lom Sex 40?..Hom Sex Alonsom
moo ozo ozo
mansope

QQQ @@Q @6@

modem modem Sodom

 

/

qmz<m qomezoo mMBm<Z

Q NHszmm<

 

APPENDIX E

165

 

166

APPENDIX E

POST-TEST SCORE INSTRUMENT

Subject

Group

 

Hour

Date

 

5 Problem

Resp.

Assess.

Princ.

Total-T

 

 

R)

 

 

JI'UU

 

 

 

 

 

\OODNONUT

 

IO

 

11

 

12

 

l3

 

14

 

15

 

16

 

17

 

18

 

19

 

2O

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ra- l-bxam-m'l L‘ AIoJr—j
y
u_ m

APPENDIX E

167

III

APPENDIX E

CLASSROOM SIMULATOR
POST—TEST PROCEDURE DIRECTIONS

Establish rapport.

Control Group:

 

Standard Orientation procedures.

Post—Test:

 

Now that you are acquainted with your new class
and your supervising teacher, Mr. Land, you are
going to be presented with various episodes or
events that occur in Mr. Land's classroom. These
episodes could and usually do occur in any
classroom.

Now, what are you to do?

1. Get involved in and with your class. This,
right here, where we are both Sitting, is
the front of your classroom. As you can see,
there is the chalkboard and beside you is a
bulletin board as they might be in a regular
classroom. The remaining part of the class—
room will appear on the screen.

2. As you observe your class, if you see a problem
developing or occurring I want you to physi—
cally and verbally react to cope with the
problem. If you feel that you must physically
move to solve the problem, then by all means
do it. If you feel that the solution would
require you to verbally respond, do it. The
important thing is that you cope with the prob-
lem. Don't tell me what you would do. Show me.
In your student teaching assignment you will
not solve problems by telling the class what
you should do, you will need to do it.
Therefore, don't tell me, show me.

 

 

 

If you don't remember a student’s name and
feel that you should use his name in coping
with the problem, give the student a new name.
In other words, pick a name out of the air.

168

 

IV

169

Instead of considering this as a test, let's consider
it as a chance to apply what you have learned about
teaching. Your performance here will not in any way
affect your Elementary Bloc grade. You are helping
us evaluate these simulation materials and this tech—
nique as a teaching device in providing additional
classroom experience.

Do you have any questions?
Okay. Let's try a sample episode. Remember, if you
see a problem developing or occurring, physically

and/or verbally respond to cope with the Situation.
Don't tell me. Show me.

Steps:
A. Read Situation (Sample Problem)

 

Problem
Student response
. Student assessment of the problem

a. What did you see happen and what did you
hear in the classroom that made you react
or respond?

b. What principles were you aware of that you
should have or may have applied to cope
with this situation?

4. Comment from comment sheet

LUMP

B. Reread Direction No. 2

 

Remember, as you observe . . . .
C. Problems

1 ——————————— > 20
Comments after Student Responds to Each Problem:
Okay, fine.

Okay, fine. That was an interesting problem, wasn't
it?

You are doing fine.
You could almost call this fun, couldn't you?

Sometimes the action moves quickly, doesn't it?

 

F,fi“ 1“.-

170

Comments after Student Responds to Each Problem:

Sometimes unexpected things happen in the classroom,
don't they?

Teachers have to cope with all kinds of problems,
don't they?

_‘- .‘ . ‘ ~§ .
.v._~
. .;—

rel?“ " ‘. -: \
L

r4119: ‘1

APPENDIX G

 

171

172

APPE-JDIX a

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONAL RECORD INSTRUNENT

 

 

 

 

 

Name City -
School Date Time
Observer ' Grade

 

 

 

 
 
    
   
    
  

 
  
  

How Did Student Teacher~
Handle the Situation?

Principles
Applied.
But Not to

  
   
   
    
   

  
   
   
      
    

Student
Teacher

rinciples
pplied to

   
   
    
   

havior

        
  
 

     

  
 

Student ccurred Aware- crrect the Any Specific
Behaviors n Class Overtly Adequately Acceptable Inadequately havior Behavior
Inatten-

tion

  

  

Bait
anéng
.Testing

    

Disorderly
Conduct

 
  
 

Distract
ing
Behavior

   
   

‘Fatigue

 

E
E
i
E
i
L

173

OBSERVATION RECORD

 

(continued)
STANDARDS:
1. Rules of procedure--defers to authority.
2. Shows supporting manner.
3. Class disinterested or confused--stimulates a more
active, interesting response.
4. Attentive to class as well as individual.
5. Discourages undesirable behavior.
6. Disruptive group or individua1——Acts quickly.
7. Disruptive group or individual——Communicates at
close range.
8. Encourages student initiative to learn.
9. Behavior which deviates from objectives—-Avoids
disrupting instructicn.
10. Encourages correction of inappropriate responses.
11. Ccnflicting parent-schocl interests--remains neutral.

HOW DID THE STUDENT TEACHER HANDLE THE SITUATION?

Adequately: Definite positive result

 

Acceptable: Results might be positive

 

Inadequately: Undesirable or no effect on behavior

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

174

 

APPENDIX H

DIRECTIONS FOR USING CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONAL
RECORD FORM

Introduction:

 

This observational tool has been designed to serve a
Specific purpose; to determine if Specific behaviors and
standards experienced through a classroom Simulator technique
are applied by student teachers during their student
teaching experience.

Behaviors and standards which are to be observed are opera-
tionalized by first describing each and then examples repre-
sentative of the behaviors or standard are given. By
studying these descriptions and examples each observer
should form identical perceptions of each behavior and

standard.

 

This observational tool will be used by trained observers
who will observe all student teachers who have been involved
in this project, during their student teaching experience,
Spring quarter, 1965. In addition, each supervising teacher
will use the same observation tool to make one half-hour
observation each day for one week. All observations are to
take place during the fourth week of the student teacher's
assignment. Coordinating teachers will make one 30 minute
observation between the third and fifth week.

Directions for Preparing to Use the Observation Record:

1. Quickly browse the Observation Record Form.

2. Study the operational definition of the student
behaviors which are to be observed.

 

3. Study the operational definition of the standards
which the student teacher is to be observed

applying.

 

4. Study the operational definitions of the rating
criteria to be used in answering the question,
llHow did the student teacher handle the Situation?”

5. Practice using the Observation Record. Where
difficulties are encountered, review the appro—
priate Operational definitions. NOTE: An abbre-
viated form of the Standards and the Rating
Criteria are attached opposite the Observation
Record for your convenience. Use it.

175

 

 

176

Directions for Using the Observation Record:

 

10

UI

Fill in the data requested at the top of the
Observation Record.

 

Observe from a position where you can see the
student teacher and the faces of the class
members.

Place a tally mark (I) under the heading

 

Behavior Occurred in Class column beside the
appropriate Student Behavior whenever such Eh
student behavior is exhibited. a,

Place another tally mark (I) under the heading
Student Teacher Aware if the student teacher

 

gives an indication that she is aware of the
exhibited student behavior.

 

Place a tally mark (I) in the appropriate
column under the heading How Did the Student
Teacher Handle the Situation, applying the proper

 

 

rating criteria. After approximately 30 seconds,
if the rating still is appropriate, circle the
tally ( CD); if'not, scratch this tally and

place a tally (I) in the appropriate space.

List the number or numbers (example: (I) or
(1, 2, 5N_of the Standard or Standards which
the student teacher applied in solving the
student behavior problem under the heading
Principles Applied to Correct the Behavior.

 

 

NOTE: In some cases only one principle may
be observed (1), and in others, multiple
principles may be observed (1, 2, 5, 8).

It is entirely possible that in some
instances no principles will be used.

List the numbers of the Standards which the
student teacher applies but are not applied to
any specific student behavior listed.

Observe and tally in 5 minute intervals. Then
begin over again using the same observation form.
If a particular student exhibits a Specific
behavior intermittently during this 5 minute
period, the student behavior would be tallied
only once during that time interval. If the
behavior is exhibited by the same student during
the next time interval, it would again be tallied
once.

177

Continue the observations in six consecutive 5
minute intervals for a total of 30 minutes each
day for five days. Record each 30 minute period
on separate forms.

In summary, the observer should locate herself so she can
see the student teacher and the faces of the students,
observe and tally horizontally from the left to the right
on the Observation Record form, and use the abbreviated
Standards and Rating Criteria Sheet attached to the
Observation Record as a guide.

 

 

Please return all completed Observation Records to your
coordinator immediately upon completion. Do not discuss
your observations with your student teacher until you have
completed the fifth observation.

 

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF BEHAVIORS

l. Inattention:

 

Overt student behavior which is characterized by a
student or students exhibiting a lack of interest
or non—responsiveness to the student teacher.

 

Examples:
a. Daydreaming
b. Looking out the window
c. Restlessness
d. Doodling on paper

2. Baiting and Testing:

 

Behavior exhibited by a student or students for the
purpose of determining how much deviant behavior the
student teacher will tolerate.

Examples:
a. Seeking permission to violate existing rules of
procedure:

1. Leave the room
2. Early or longer recess
b. Purposely creating undesirable situations to test
the student teacher:
1. Rowdiness
2. Continuation of undesirable activity after
being asked to cease activity

 

178

3. Distracting Behavior:

 

Overt student or students behavior which is annoying to
other class members and/or attracts their attention
away from the teacher or class objectives.

 

 

Examples:
a. Talking to neighbor
b. Tapping sounds created by feet, hands, or other
instruments
Rib or back poking behavior
Closing another student's book
Dropping objects on the floor
Whispering

"meJO

4. Disorderly Conduct:

 

Overt student or students behavior which is detrimental
and is disruptive to ongoing classroom activities, and/or
is in opposition to teacher or class objectives. Behav—
ior that if left unattended, could erupt into a complete
breakdown of classroom discipline.

 

Examples:
a. Pushing furniture
b. Fighting
c. Arguing
d. Teasing
e. Racing
f. Beligerance

5. Fatigue:

Overt student behavior which is contrary to a student or
students normal behavior in which the student (S) may
look physically tired.

 

Examples:
a. Drowsiness (caused by abnormal room temperature
or illness)
b. Unusual quick temper
c. Lack of usual vigor

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF STANDARDS

1. Rules of procedure—-Defers to authority:

 

In situations involving rules of procedure, when the
student teacher is not informed of rules, the student

5‘11: V , .92?» new
' ‘

- ll"! A‘fl:'kw-_Zi

179

teacher defers to some authority (e. g., the supervising
teacher).

Example:
a. ”I don't know the procedure. I'll check with Mr.
(Mrs., Miss) . . .”
b. 'I am not sure of the policy. Ask Mr. (Mrs.,
Miss) . . .”

Shows supporting manner:

 

When the student teacher responds or reacts to a class
or an individual or individuals'desirable or undesirable
behavior, she/he exhibits behavior which is warm and
reassuring to the individual (S) or the class.

Teacher response may be corrective in nature, but still
warm and reassuring.

Example:
a. "That's fine, Jack, as far as you went. Can some—
one add to Jack's description?”
b. "Very good."
c. "Thank you.H
d. "May I help you?"
e. A friendly smile.
f. A gentle pat on the back or placement of hand

on a shoulder.
g. ”Don't do that, Jack. That's a good boy.H

Class disinterested or confused——Stimu1ates a more

 

active, interesting response:

 

When the class or individuals appear disinterested or
confused, the student teacher attempts to stimulate
a more active, interested response.

Example:
a. Gives other students a chance to participate.
”Well, class, can you help Karen out?”

b. Changes mode of presentation. Changes from lecture

to demonstration; from demonstration to play—
acting, uses chalkboard.

Uses different approach or simpler language.
Shifts to getting information from the class.
”What is it that you do not understand?”

Q0

Attentive to class as well as individual:

 

In instructional Situations where one student's comments
or questions can monopolize the student teacher's

attention (to the detriment of on—going class instruction)

 

l _

rmauu 1 6x! If." 3

7.

180

the student teacher is attentive to the entire class
as well as the individual.

 

Example:
' a. Give a brief explanation to an individual.
b. Involve the class: "Class, can you help Carol?"

Discourages undesirable behavior:

 

When learners exhibit undesirable behavior (e. g., in-
terrupt discussion purposely with an inappropriate
comment, is rude, is loud, or exhibits any behavior
which disturbs or distracts from the on-going classroom
activity) the student teacher discourages the behavior.

Example:

a. Withholds praise.

b. If student has no justifiable reason for exhib—
iting a behavior, the student teacher extinguishes
it. ”Carol, return to your seat." "Bob, the
reason for your discussion with John is not
appropriate at this time. You can discuss the
problem with him during the science lesson."

Disruptive group or individual—-Acts quickly:

 

When direct action is required to control a disruptive
group or individual(s), the student teacher acts quickly
before the disruption has time to spread.

Example:

a. The student teacher gives forethought to Situations
and anticipates classroom management problems
before they occur.

b. As soon as the disruption is noticed the student
teacher restores order immediately. "Jack,

John, and Dick. Return to your seats.” ”Class,
return to your seats.H

Disruptive group or individual--Communicates at close

range:

When direct action is required to control a disruptive
group or individua1(s), the student teacher moves in and
communicates at close range.

 

Example:
Attempts to stop class or individuals by moving in
toward the individual or group.

 

10.

181

Encoulages student initiative to learn:

 

When an opportunity exists to encourage a student or
students for a task, the student teacher encourages
student initiative to learn.

Example:

a. Commends a lear or's efforts at outside leadings
or extra library work. HYou did an excellent
job, Jack. By completing the outs de readings

You have shown real initiative ”

b. The student teacher encour: ges students to
express, explore, and explain concepts.

1. ”Tell us about . . . Jack.”

2. ”Decide where you can find more in ormation
about . . . and explore your problem
further.H

3. "Explain the purpose of . . ., Carol.H

c. The student LGSCJGF does not publicly call
attention to an individual's shortcomings or
errors so as to place the learner in an
embarrassing position.

Behaii or which deviates from objectives——Avoids dis—

 

rupting instruction:

 

When learners are disruptive in a situation that is
fulfilling instructional Objectives (e. g., an organized
discussion, group, or class activity), the student
teacher deals with the individual(s) directly wi

minimal disruption of instructional continuity.

Example:

a. Deals with student or students privci tely at
close r5 inge.

b. Avoids calling class's attention to disruptive
individual(s). Says quietly, HSit dOWn, Jack.H
HGet back to your work, Jack.H

c. Asks deviant student to recite or do something.
”What is the reason that . . ., Jack?H ”Read
that last paragraph for us, Jack.'

d. Walks up to individual and gently tabs individual
on the shoulder.

Encourages correction of inarpropriate responses:

 

When learners make an inappropriate res onse (e. g.,
mispell a word on chalkboard, make errors while Itselng
orally), the student teacher encourages the learneRIS)
to replace it immediately with an appro opriate res spouse.

182

Example:
a. "If you have mispelled the word, correct it."
b. "The word is pronounced as . . . Try it again,
Jack.H
c. ”The formula is . . . Correct it, Jacki"

ll. Conflicting parent-school interests—~Remains neutral:

 

When confronted with conflicting parent—school interests
(e. g., a student pits his parents against a teacher),
the student teacher maintains a neutral behavior.

Example:

a. Places the question before the student. ”What
do you think about it?” "Do you have any idea
how you might change the . . .?”

b. Involve the class. "Class, how can Carol solve

her problem?”
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION RATING CRITERIA

How Did the Student Teacher Handle the Situation?

 

l. Adequately Elicited desirable student behavior.
Definite positive result.

 

2. Acceptable Changed on-going student behavior
toward a desirable direction. Results
might be positive.

 

3. Inadequately Elicited undesirable student behavior
or did not affect the present on—
going undesirable behavior. Unde-
sirable or no effect on behavior.

 

 

 

 

Recheck after approximately 30 seconds by cirCling
(®) if still appropriate and replacing if not app-go-
priate.

'avw' Amuse-Lava: : imam-3
.-
|

,7
_"_n

 

APPENDIX I

183

5%

 

1.

APPENDIX I

CONFIDENCE

I am confident that I have
effectively with pupils in

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain
Very Uncertain

I am confident that I have
effectively with pupils in

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain
VeryyUncertain

I am confident that I have
maintain the interest of a

 

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain

Very Uncertain

SCALE

the skills necessary to work
small groups.

 

the skills necessary to work
large_grogps (entire class).

 

the skills necessary to
class.

I am confident that I possess the necessary skills to
cope with individual discipline problems.

 

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain

Very Uncertain

18H

 

5.

185

I am confident that I possess the necessary skills
required to cope with group discipline problems.

 

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain
Very Uncertain
I am confident that I know how to study individual

F
pupil and school records carefully as a basisIfor EA
evaluating pupil behavior and progress. A ‘

 

 

Very Confident

Confident

I . _ .Inhlinhsfi'fl. 2710“,? i u'ia' ‘

Uncertain El?
Very Uncertain

I am confident that I understand the problems of upper
elementary children.

 

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain
Very Uncertain

I am confident that I have the necessary skills to deal
appropriately with unexpected situations as they

 

develop.
Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain

Very Uncertain

186

9. I am confident that I will enjoy my first teaching
position.

Very Confident
Confident
Uncertain

Very Uncertain

 

APPENDIX I

187

I ' l'u' IM’. ‘u .

 

APPENDIX J

STUDENT REACTIONS TO SIMULATOR TRAINING

This instrument is an attempt to determine your attitude
toward your classroom simulator experience. Feel free
to express your feelings toward the experience. This F
information will in no way affect your grade in the
Elementary Bloc.

I. Please write a brief paragraph about how you feel
concerning your simulator experience. If more space
is needed use reverse side of page.

 

II. Please read the following statements about the classroom
simulator and state your feelings about each statement
by checking (/) each statement below that expresses
your sentiment.

l. I enjoyed receiving training in the classroom simulator.
a. Very much so
b. Somewhat
c. Not particularly
d. Not at all

2. The classroom simulator was realistic-~“life like.
a. Very realistic
b. Realistic

c. Not particularly realistic

d. Not realistic at all
188

189

3. "Acting out” my response to the problems made me feel
like I was involved in the situation.

a.
b.
c.

d 9

Very involved
Involved
Not particularly involved

Not involved at all

A. The discussion accompanying training was valuable in
developing the concepts.

a.

b.

Co

d.

Very valuable
Valuable
Not particularly valuable

Not valuable at all

5. I believe that the simulator experience was meaningful
in its relation to real classroom problems.

a.
b.
c.

d.

Very meaningful
Meaningful
Not particularly meaningful

Not meaningful at all

6. I feel that my eXperience in the classroom simulator
will help me to identify classroom problems.

a.

b.

Very helpful
Helpful
Not particularly helpful

Not helpful at all

 

190

7. I believe that my experience in the classroom simulator
has helped me develop methods of coping with classroom

 

problems.
a. Very helpful
b. Helpful
c. Not particularly helpful
d. Not helpful at all h
8. The classroom simulator made the concepts more meaning— ?A‘
ful than if they had been presented in lectures. f
a. Much more meaningful
b. More meaningful
c. As meaningful Pt
d. Less meaningful
e. Much less meaningful

9. I believe that the classroom simulator experience should
be provided on an individual basis.

a.
b.
c.

d.

Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree

Strongly disagree

10. I believe that the classroom simulator experience could
be provided to small groups (up to six students) just
as effectively.

a.

b.

Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree

Strongly disagree

191

11. I believe the classroom simulator experience could be
provided to an entire class (40 to 60 students) just
as effectively.

a. Strongly agree

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly disagree

l2. I would recommend classroom simulator experience to my
friends.

a. Strongly recommend
b. Recommend
0. Advise against

d. Strongly advise against

””ll'lllluijlllfillillr’llllfiif