v. -5. ‘ru. . 1 1 . "AA. 444.. 4 ‘ , nwsflr...z.u.: .8". . rich-av»: , ,3. sh... - r 32...? 39:3. f2. .5 f MHHMJV- .1... 1.. i. «a . 51 Her. 3,524.... ._..£..a........ . WM... . . . u .t . 2.; i . . 5.55....» . , 3...? . ‘v . ‘ . V 3—H. ..:I... 33:9. . . .: A 5.33...th ‘ . . , , . . . .3. . a .i .. . v :.;~... A 1 ~ .M ‘ , a. up». . 2.3.1:». on; .5 9 m v.55“... . L a “rt .3? r. . .: Quark; 1:...» Sifgfif'.‘ ' .‘n‘ r, . a‘z’s V.’ 5 fix». . , ., I. . , “2.1.4,? .. -34.; , 43: 2:1:- ‘L 5. a .,: :3 . . 1'2“}: Cu, y“. "ism. gm... .‘ 1 . a PE? . .,Ma (The a ; . f. a 7n . 4 .2 7.2.1.1.? . A, I 4.951 415.3; ‘ . I. L - {Al-[gvl~ln r Jab? . a . M. . u r 3 “VFW .Q a . 1.1%“?! , , . 1.5.].{tl-z! 1’}: .‘uuhu . ‘ . . . . . \1 . . . . ...\ ‘1, . V; In)...’ .54.. x. .i . . . ‘ 3...: . In» 1.! lz$l|btto E;l.l9"?.srv(.ftffil{ :1 A: a ,1 . . L! 1 ‘ 1| 6.31:5. JO!!!1‘)}.!§!{;I1.!PJWV . . ‘, .‘.., “. u... ‘ . ,,,. .... ‘ , !.!f Lizt. ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SURVEY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS AS VIEWED BY STUDENT TEACHERS presented by Robert Lloyd Driscoll has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education {Wm UMajor professor Date July 17, 1970 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS AS VIEWED BY STUDENT TEACHERS BY Robert Lloyd Driscoll Problem and Purpose Student teachers have long identified pupil dis- ruptive behaviors as their primary problem area. Research typically has identified this problem on a global basis while concern for specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors virtually have been left unexamined. This descriptive study was designed to (I) examine the relation- ship gf sex of the student teacher, socioeconomic level of the schools as perceived by the student teacher, size Of classes taught by the student teacher, classes taught by the student teacher all day, special education classes taught by the student teacher, team teaching of which the student teacher is a member, and school types identified by the Michigan Department of Education to one hundred and thirty-two specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors, (2) identify the pupil disruptive behaviors that student teachers perceive to be most frequent and serious. Robert Lloyd Driscoll Procedures The questionnaires, (form one and form two) designed by Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University, were administered to 664 student teachers from Michigan State University during the final seminar of Spring term-- 1969. The entire spring term student teaching population was used in the study; each subject was randomly assigned one of the forms of the questionnaire. Purpose one was analyzed from each questionnaire by analysis of variance—- repeated measures design. Purpose two was analyzed from each questionnaire by using group mean scores for each pupil disruptive behavior. Conclusions and Discussion The following conclusions were supported for purpose one: 1. Pupil disruptive behaviors, as they relate to class size, special education, teaching the same group all day, and population and economic focal point of communities that have schools in which student teachers are placed were not significantly effected. 2. This study concluded that it is questionable whether team teaching has any affect upon the way student teachers responded to the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. Robert Lloyd Driscoll Sex of the student teacher was not a primary factor in the way student teachers as a group responded to all of the pupil disruptive behaviors. Perceived socioeconomic levels of schools had little effect upon the way student teachers as a group responded to all the pupil disruptive behaviors. It was concluded that specific pupil disruptive behaviors could be identified for each de- pendent variable category except team teaching. Conclusions for purpose two: 1. The most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors were considered by student teachers as a nuisance or as harmless. The most serious pupil disruptive behaviors were considered by student teachers as seldom occurring. Analysis of the most frequent forms of pupil disruptive behaviors for both forms were whispering in class, failing to follow di- rections for assignment, making noise in the hall, talking out while class is working, day dreaming in class, reading or writing while teacher is talking, chewing gum in class, and clicking pens, etc., in class. Robert Lloyd Driscoll Analysis of the most serious forms of pupil disruptive behaviors for both forms were possessing guns, being under the influence of narcotics while in school, turning in false alarms and bomb threats, stealing materials from school, stealing from another student, stealing from the teacher, starting fires, possessing brass knuckles and/or Molotov cocktails, and possessing narcotics. The identified positive forms of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors for both questionnaires were (1) questioning teacher's opinion, (2) pointing out teacher's mistakes. The findings of this explorative study suggests that further analysis could be undertaken regarding: 1. Specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that relate to the categories of sex of the student teacher, class size, special education, teaching same group all day, and population and economic levels of schools. The relationship of pupil disruptive behaviors to the professional develOpment of a teacher. The intent of such analysis could be the determination of specific activities and professional experiences that cause student teachers' primary perceptions to change from Robert Lloyd Driscoll serious behaviors related to violations of school regulations to that of experienced classroom teachers primary concern over be— haviors that interfere with achieving in- structional goals. 3. An analysis of the two forms of the question- naire. The present questionnaires need extended item analyses, and reliability and validity checks. Applying the results of this exploratory study to teacher education courses at Michigan State University should be done once fuller consideration has been given to identifying other possible disruptive behaviors that student teachers are anxious about and to examining the relationship of student teachers' perceptions of disruptive behaviors to community, school, and classroom variables. A SURVEY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS AS VIEWED BY STUDENT TEACHERS BY Robert Lloyd Driscoll A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1970 C (9 7 ()2 (fin-I) :3 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated with humility and appreci- ation to members of my family. In particular, this thesis is dedicated to my wife, Marty, for her constant love, patience, and understanding; to my daughters, Tanya and Elizabeth, who have given my life such great purpose and meaning; to my father, who is deeply loved and sadly missed; to my mother, whose inner strength and love have provided a constant source of encouragement to me as a son and a student; and finally, to my two brothers and four sisters, whom I deeply love and cherish. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer is particularly indebted to Dr. Robert Schmatz, his doctoral committee chairman. Dr. Schmatz's interest, support, and guidance can never be stated so that it appropriately indicates the profound positive effect he has had upon my life. I would like to thank him for his help and insights in bringing this study to com- pletion. Thanks are also extended to Drs. Dale Alam, Glen COOper, Ted Ward, and James McKee for their encouragement and effort in helping me with this study. Their influences as individuals and teachers serve as a continual reminder of what it is to be committed to the individual and the teaching profession. To Dr. Judith Henderson, Mr. Howard Teitlebaum, Mr. Robert Hermann, Mr. David Wright, and Mr. Urban Oen a special thank you for their time and advice. I would also like to extend a thank you to Dr. Kennedy of the Office of Student Teaching at Michigan State University, the college supervisors, the student teachers, and secretarial staff in the Office of Student iii Teaching, for their special efforts and willingness to pursue and contribute to this study. Lastly, I would like to thank Elaine Repasch, secretary, Office of Field Experience at the State Uni— versity College of New York at Fredonia, for her special effort in typing rough drafts and handling office affairs while I was at Michigan State University completing the final stages of this study. iv Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . The Purpose . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . Assumptions of the Study . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . Definition of Terms Pertinent to This Study. . . . . . Hypotheses Examined in the Study . Hypotheses for Perceived Student Teacher Frequency of Pupil Dis- ruptive Behaviors . . . . Hypotheses for Student Teacher Attitudes Toward Pupil Disruptive Behavior . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . .- . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . Basic Approaches for Examining Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . . . The Case Study Method. . . The Observational Method. The Experimental Method . . The Survey: Questionnaire . The Wickman Study and Subsequent Studies C O O O O O O I 0 Specific Areas and Findings . . Degree of Teacher and Experience Race 0 O O O O O O 0 Lower Ranges of Intelligence Grade Levels. . . . . . Page 0mm 11 12 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 18 20 22 23 24 32 32 33 34 36 Chapter III. IV. Sex of the Teacher . . Sex of the Student . . Summary . . . . . . . Major Findings Summarized. . . . PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY . . The The The Introduction . . . . Population. . . . . Design . . . . . Communication and. Contacts. Data Collection . . The Analysis. . . . . . Summary . . . . . . ANALYSIS Instrument. . . . . Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behavior Anal Seriousness of Pupil Disruptive Behavior Anal YSiS. O O O O I O Hypothesis 1 Relating to Student Teacher . . Hypothesis 2 Relating to Hypothesis 3 Relating to Varying Economic Status Hypothesis 4 Relating to Education . . . . . Hypothesis 5 Relating to Teaching . Hypothesis 6 Relating to Same Group All Day . . Hypothesis 7 Relating to and Economic Focal Point ysis. . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 Relating to Student Teacher . . Hypothesis 2 Relating to Hypothesis 3 Relating to Varying Economic Status Hypothesis 4 Relating to Education . . . Hypothesis 5 Relating to Teaching . . . . . vi Sex of Class Size Schools of Special . Team " Teaching . Population Sex of Class Size Schools of Special Team Page 39 41 42 42 46 46 46 48 49 53 58 58 60 60 61 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 79 80 82 85 87 Chapter Hypothesis 6 Relating to ‘Same Group All Day . . Hypothesis 7 Relating to and Economic Focal Point Analysis of Data For Purpose Frequency and Seriousness of ruptive Behaviors. . . . General Overview for Frequency Interpretation . . . General Overview for Seriousness Interpretation . . . Interpretation of the Frequency and Seriousness Dimensions . . Introduction . . . . Positive Perceptions of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Teaching Population Two: Pupil Dis- V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research . . Implications for Teacher Education . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Directions and Questionnaires (Form One and Form Two). . . . . . . . . . . . B. Communications . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 89 91 93 93 94 109 109 115 115 119 119 120 123 133 137 141 146 153 Table 2.1. LIST OF TABLES Significant Decreases In Three Original Wickman Serious Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Pupil Disruptive Behaviors For Grade Levels 1—6, 7-9, and 10-12 . . Student Teachers Assigned by Michigan State University Spring Term 1969 . . . . Per Cent of Student Teachers Responding to Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Sex of Student Teacher (Frequency) Form One. . . . Analysis of Variance By Sex of Student Teacher (Frequency) Form Two. . . . Analysis of Variance By Class Size (Frequency) Form One . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Class Size (Frequency) Form Two . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Perceived Schools of Varying Economic Status (Frequency) Form One . . . . . . . .. . . Analysis of Variance By Perceived Schools of Varying Economic Status (Frequency) Form Two . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Special Education (Frequency) Form One . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Special Education (Frequency) Form Two . . . . . . viii Page 31 37 48 54 62 67 68 69 70 71 71 72 Table 4.9. 4.10. Analysis of Variance By Team Teaching (Frequency) Form One . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Team Teaching (Frequency) Form Two . . . . . . Analysis of Variance For Teaching Same Group All Day (Frequency) Form One . Analysis of Variance For Teaching Same Group All Day (Frequency) Form Two . Analysis of Variance of Schools Classified By Population and Economic Focal Point (Frequency) Form One . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Schools Classified By Population and Economic Focal Point (Frequency) Form Two . . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Sex of Student Teacher (Seriousness) Form One. . . Analysis of Variance By Sex of Student Teacher (Seriousness) Form Two. . . Analysis of Variance By Class Size (Seriousness) Form One . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Class Size (Seriousness) Form Two . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Perceived Schools of Varying Social, Economic Status (Seriousness) Form One . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Perceived Schools of Varying Social, Economic Status (Seriousness) Form Two . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Special Education (Seriousness) Form One . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Special Education (Seriousness) Form Two . . . . . Analysis of Variance By Team Teaching (Seriousness) Form One . . . . . ix Page 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Table 4.24. 4.35. Analysis of Variance By Team Teaching (Seriousness) Form Two . . . . . . Analysis of Variance For Teaching Same Group All Day (Seriousness) Form One . Analysis of Variance For Teaching Same Group All Day (Seriousness) Form Two . Analysis of Variance of Schools Classified By Population and Economic Focal Point (Seriousness) Form One . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Schools Classified By Population and Economic Focal Point (Seriousness) Form Two . . . . . . Mean Scores For Form One: Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . . . . Mean Scores For Form Two: Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . . . . Mean Scores For Form One: Seriousness of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . . . . Mean Scores For Form Two: Seriousness of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . . . . Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Perceived As Occurring Hourly to Daily (Form One) . . . . . . . . Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Perceived As Occurring Hourly to Daily (Form Two) . . . . . . . . Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Perceived As Being Serious or Extremely Serious (Form one) 0 O O O O O O O O O Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Perceived As Being Serious or Extremely Serious (Form Two) . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings of Hypotheses Regarding Frequency and Seriousness of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . . . . . . Page 88 89 90 92 92 95 98 102 105 110 112 113 114 116 Table Page 5.1. Frequent Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Derived From Tables 4.33 and 4.34 and Classified According to Wickman's Schema . . . . . 129 5.2. Serious Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Derived From Tables 4.35 and 4.36 and Classified According to Wickman's Schema . . . . . 130 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Clinical Research--Studies of Instruction . . 6 2. Wickman's Classification and Interpretation of Serious Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . 27 3. Organizational Chart For Main Effect Analysis of Sex of the Student Teacher. . . . . 62 4. Main Effect Analysis of Sex of the Student Teacher and Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. . 64 5. Diagram of Interaction Analysis of Sex of the Student Teacher and Pupil Disruptive Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . 65 xii CHAPTER I THE INTRODUCTION Teaching practitioners and education researchers have long had difficulty in effectively communicating with one another. However, some notable efforts have been undertaken to bridge this gap. One such effort began twenty years ago under the influence of Stephen Corey.l This effort was functionally labelled "action research" and its basic thrust was to improve teaching behaviors by training teachers to be mini—researchers. It was also designed to help teachers appreciate and learn how to structure objective inquiry. This orien— tation has received criticism from Cookingham,2 Corman,3 lStephen Corey, Action Research to Imwrove School Practices (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953). 2Frank Cookingham, "Critical Research: A Two-Way Street Between Research and Practice," Papers of the In— stitute No. 52, Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, June, 1967. 3Bernard R. Corman, "Action Research: A Teaching or A Research Method?" Review of Education Research, XXVII (1957), 544—47. Hodgkinson4 as it did not necessarily fulfill its two primary missions. If anything, it tended to foster poor research practices. The action research movement in teacher education lost its impetus because little data was accumulated to show that it actually improved teacher instructional behavior. Ward5 hypothesized that the failure of action research to fulfill its primary missions was essentially due to the lack of planned integration of the following groups of people: practioners, researchers, and prac- titioner trainers. Ward further stated that the integration of the above people can be realized through clinical research studies of instruction. This can be achieved through the . . . efforts of highly trained behavioral scientists to research with practitioners--first to develop descriptions of the real world in which their client- contact tasks exist, then to describe the variables the practitioners manipulate and the effects these manipu— lations produce, and finally, to so precisely define the vocabulary of the descriptions that corollary statements from basic research can be reliably identi- fied and constructively related to applied problems.6 In the clinical research model the results of the joint efforts of the practitioners and researchers would be 4Harold L. Hodgkinson, "Advantages and Limitations of Informal Classroom Investigations," American Business Education Yearbook (1961), pp. 17-27. 5Ted W. Ward, "Professional Integration and Clini- cal Research," Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966. 61bid. consciously integrated by teacher trainers into teacher education courses. The added integrative emphasis of the teacher trainer in the clinical research model could overcome the serious shortcoming of action research. Recent efforts to bridge the research-to-practice gap have been increased by application of the clinical research approach of all the related educational workers. The supporters of clinical research usually contend that decision-making is basic to teaching and, therefore, emphasis ought to focus upon that process. Past teacher education efforts have hoped to "indirectly" improve a teacher's decision-making as was the case of the action research movement. The value of clinical research, directly amalgamated into teacher education programs, is that it presently focuses upon the teacher as a decision—maker. The benefit of this orientation as presented by Ward is that: . . . if a student can learn to seek and select environ- mental data and to base his instructional decisions on the important characteristics of the problem situation, he will develop a versatile and useful teaching skill. He will begin to adopt a systematic habit of using observations about what is in planning his teaching moves and evaluating the outcomes of his actions. Thus, he can profit from success and failure. Exciting possibilities are opened up to us once we commit our- selves to a crisp definition of the basic behaviors we want in professional practices. Ibid. Henderson8 has described the phases that Ward9 identified as being the essential parts of the clinical research cycle. Arriving at the commitment level that Ward de- scribed is a task that requires a carefully integrated research program. Clinical research activities explicating instructional behaviors can be furthered in a much more meaningful and systematic manner when it incorporates 10 dimensions of clinical research (refer to Henderson's Table 1). Henderson'sll conceptualization of the components of clinical research, initially identified by Ward, furthered the manner in which clinical research should be developed in actual practice. She recommended that a systematic, yet broad development of clinical research programs ought to be undertaken. This is necessary because of the highly inte— grated nature of each phase of clinical research. This study of student teachers' perceptions of pupil disruptive behaviors was initiated so that clinical re- search in the area of pupil disruptive behaviors may be 8Judith Henderson, "An Investigation of Prac— titioner Evaluation and Agreement Regarding Effective Language Arts Instruction," unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, College of Education, 1968, p. 16. 9Ward, op. cit. 10Henderson, op. cit., p. 21 11Ibid., 15-23. imbedded in a broad developmental research program empha- sizing Henderson's Phase II: School and Community Context and Classroom Situations; variables referred to in Figure l. The Problem Discipline has long been recognized by many edu— cators as the most frequent and serious problem which will likely confront a student teacher during his field experi- ence. Batchelder,12 Wingo,13 and Ionnaccone,14 who have written books dealing with the topic of student teaching, indicate that a student teacher will undoubtedly face his most serious problems in this area. The usual remedy for such tribulations is a few statements that explicate rules or guidelines for the student teacher to follow. The student may receive such warnings as, "Be consistent," "Don't threaten pupils unless you can fulfill the threat," "Good planning and classroom organization is the key to discipline in the classroom," "Treat each pupil as an individual, "Treat the causes and not the symptoms." 12Howard T. Batchelder, Maurice McGlasson and Raleigh Schorling, Student Teaching in Secondary Schools (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956). l3Max G. Wingo and Raleigh Schloring, Elementary School Student Teaching (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1960). l4Lawrence Ionnaccone and H. Warren Button, Functions of Student Teaching (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Health, Education and Welfare Research Project 1026, 1964). wmumowamxw mum coumwmon cammn 30: can HMGOfiuHoUm How mono .H noummmom .m cwmoaw>wo cum wfimnmoum moifiom law How mwfimoumuvm can mamwumumz .N , cmumofiamxw mum mnofi>msmn chowuwu Iomum How mmmcmso H0\p:m SOADMEHHHGOU .H I-Iulll mofluomnm comon>mt mum msmumoum wmumofiamxo mum m:0flum Isuwm mafiaomwu Hmaommm cam Hmuwcom ou onwaum Ionmmm mHoH>mnmm .H coflumoswm Monumma oneaqumma \oneaqumzH >H mmmnm U newuoshumcH mo mwflonumllnuumomwu Havanaaouu.a mudmfim mHOUOE Havamomocmm can Hmoflsmomoafinm nufiz .m meUOE suumwm Ion oammn nuflz .N mawpoe sedansfluou nomumzo Hmowhfim law wmuw>ac Bud: .H mmaua>auo< acmfium ECU aocoz mcoflumEHow Imcmuu mmmsmamq .m mxmmu oauxamcé .H moapa>auo¢ manuaflsm ammo: wDDBm qmooz HHH mmMSQ moanedocnome .0 m:0Huflc Icoo Hmoam>nm .n GOAUMNHGMmuo .m mcoflmcwfiac Hmucmecoufl>cm .m coco Isamcw nmsumwa .o wumefiao moonu .Q mofiumfluwuomnmnu Hocuqu .m mcofimnwfiflc Hmu0H>msmm .N anflsgcfl HON moflmwumuum .n >cpum uo ucounoo .m maofimcoeflc w>fluqmumndm .H “8'3 Imsuflm EooummmHo mommfln mflnmnwcmoq .v moan“ .m .:OADMNH:mmHo .m ucwfimflsvm .ucmam HMOflmmcm .N malome UNEocoomIOAUOm .a muxoucoo Danna IEOO tam Hoosom é ZOHB€2H2¢XM 024 ZOHBmHmUmma mqdem4> HH mmmnm Amem cucfl waoo monam> song: um ucfiomv owed :a mmmoozm cam ucwe I0>wflnum Hamdm mafiaoonom ucwsw ImeSm wo acme .m Iw>mfinom Adana .N mm>flu nowmno uo Dame Iw>wanom Hamsm .H mauouauu m>Huuo.no o M munwumm .m maflmsm .v mHOmH>uwmsm .m muoumuumflcflecd .N wuonomma .H .¢ w .4 ZOHaomAmm onfidqflmom H mmmnm Yet, despite all the advice from textbooks and other related media, student teachers continue to cite discipline as their greatest problem. Research studies related to the student teaching experience support what many authors have intuitively identified as being the most serious problem in student 15 16 17 and teaching--discipline. Sharp, Deiulio, Bouchard, Traversl8 through studies which ascertained the main problems which confront student teachers during their field experience have arrived at similar conclusions——that disci— pline continued to be the most urgent and pressing problem during student teaching. Thus, the general literature and research are mutually supportive; however, it still remains that student teachers continue to be plagued by the anxiety associated with not being able to control a classroom of pupils. 15Jack Sharp, Off Campus Student Teaching, Thirti- eth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1951), p. 118. l6Anthony Deiulio, "Problems of Student Teachers," American Teacher, XLVI (December, 1961), 9—10. 17John B. Bouchard and Ronald E. Hull, "A Pilot Study of Problems and Practices in the Induction of Be- ginning Teachers," Paper presented at 1969 Meeting of Educational Research Association of New York State, Con- cord Hotel, Kiamesha Lake, New York, November 6, 1969. 18Robert Travers, et al., "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision (October, 1952), pp. 368—75. The problem, more specifically stated, is that many educators have recognized that student teachers have major problems with discipline. Few educators get beyond the level of globally recognizing the problem to that of identifying the specific kinds of disciplinary problems which confront a student teacher. Moreover, the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors is further compounded by the almost total lack of data about the student teacher and variables which include class size, academic subject matter taught, grade levels, socio—economic level of the school, and school organization schemes. The Purpose The purposes of this survey are as follows: 1. To identify the pupil disruptive behaviors that student teachers perceive to be most frequent and serious. 2. To examine the relationship pf sex of the student teacher, socio—economic level of the schools as perceived by the student teacher, size of classes taught by the student teacher, classes taught by the student teacher all day, special education classes taught by the student teacher, team teaching of which the student teacher is a member, and school types identified by the Michigan Department of Education E9 132 specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. Lg.” Importance of the Study Teacher education usually presents the topic of pupil disruptive behaviors within the context of methods courses. Discussions are vague and usually based upon the assumption that experienced teacher perceptions of dis- cipline are applicable to a student teacher's eventual classroom experiences with pupil disruptive behaviors. The application of this assumption is usually achieved by advising the students to be fair, be natural, be consistent, change the pace, locate the pupil's problem. After providing a general set of guidelines, the student teacher is finally exposed in his student teaching assignment to the dynamic realities of a classroom of pupils. Another common approach of teacher education dealing with the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors focuses upon the practitioner relating his perceptions as to how a situation ought to be handled. In the student teaching situation, practitioner perceptions frequently act as the main vehicle for advising the student teacher how to deal with pupil disruptive behaviors. The result of both approaches is an all too frequent "bag of tricks syndrome," or frantic search for a method that applies to all situations. The research to date suggests that approaches which are atuned to the above, do little to alleviate the student teacher's problem of not being able to control pupil dis— ruptive behaviors. In a recent study (1969) by Frances Fuller, it is pointed out that no study supported the 10 notion that beginning teachers are basically concerned with "instructional design, methods of presenting subject matter, assessment of pupil learning, or with tailoring content to individual pupils, the areas often presented before student teaching in education courses."19 Instead, the findings indicated much agreement: they concluded that the student teacher's basic anxiety is related to "fear of inability to gain control of classes and fear of inability to gain pupils' emotional support."20 Arriving at the stage where teacher education will directly attack the problem that student teachers face with pupil disruptive behaviors will not be easily accomplished. Because of the perplexity of pupil disruptive behaviors it becomes extremely important that research be conceived and carried out in a thorough and systematic manner that fits into a broad developmental research program. The major importance of this study is that it will contribute to teacher education by providing data about the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as perceived by student teachers. Another importance of this study is that it contributes to a larger and similar clinical research effort undertaken by Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University. The larger study concentrated upon 19Frances Fuller, "Concerns of Teachers: A De- velopmental Conceptualization," American Education Research Journal, Vol. VI, No. 2 (March, 1969), 210. ZOIbid., p. 215. 11 experienced classroom teachers and pupil disruptive be- haviors while this study concentrated upon the student teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors. Both studies will provide the data necessary to move to Phase III of Hen- derson's model of Clinical Research——Studies of In— struction.21 This particular phase emphasized the building of instructional models which will later have their ap— plication in teacher education, classroom practice, and further research efforts. Assumptions of the Study 1. That student teacher perceptions are a fair and adequate measure of the frequency and seri— ousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as they occur in classroom reality. 2. That data regarding specific pupil disruptive behaviors is not only necessary but desirable to a relevant on—going teacher preparation program. 3. That the 132 specific pupil disruptive be— haviors cited on the two forms of the question— naire are drawn from teachers in the public schools and have application to the student teacher. 21Henderson, op. cit., p. 16. 12 4. That the survey method is a reliable means of collecting data from a population of 664 student teachers about 132 pupil disruptive behaviors. Limitations of the Study l. The selected student teacher population is unique to Michigan State University's teacher preparation program. 2. The 132 pupil disruptive behaviors which appear on the questionnaire may be an adequate sample of the kinds of pupil disruptive behaviors that a student teacher may confront; however, there may be pupil disruptive behaviors that are serious and occur frequently that do not appear on the questionnaire and thus not measured or accounted for. Definition of Terms Pertinent to This Study Student Teacher. An elementary, secondary or special education student who is in the junior or senior year of college at Michigan State University. The student must have been assigned by the Office of Student Teaching to student teach in a classroom of the public schools located in the state of Michigan. 13 College Supervisor. A member of a college staff who is responsible for the supervision of the student teacher. Pupil Disruptive Behaviors. Any verbal or non- verbal behavior by the pupil that requires the classroom teacher and/or student teacher to provide a stimulus to terminate or alter the behavior according to social norm. Perception. The interpretation by the student teacher of pupil behaviors that will be classified as disruptive in nature. Experienced Teachers. Teachers employed by the public schools who are either tenured or non—tenured. Type 1 = Metropolitan Core. One or more adjacent cities with a population of 50,000 or more which serve as the economic focal point of their environs. Type 2 = City. Community of 10,000 to 50,000 that serves as the economic focal point of its environs. Type 3 = Town. Community of 2,500 to 10,000 that serves as the economic focal point of its environs. Type 4 = Urban Fringe. A community of any popu— lation size that has as its economic focal point a metrOpolitan core of a city. Type 5 = Rural Community. A community of less than 2,500. The rationale used in establishing community types was based on the factors of size (population) and economic 14 focal point. The above definitions established the five community type categories.22 Hypotheses Examined in the Study Hypotheses for Perceived Student Teacher Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Hol: There will be no significant difference between the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and the sex of the student teacher. H02: There will be no significant difference between the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and the size of the class taught by the student teacher. Ho - There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools which a majority of pupils are viewed by the student teacher as being from the lower, middle, and upper socioeconomic levels. 4: There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors in special edu- cation classes and non—special education classes. H05: There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in team teaching and non-team teaching situations. Ho - There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in classes they are with all day and classes they are not with all day. 22"Activities and Arrangements for the 1969—70 Michigan Assessment of Education," Assessment Report Number Two, Michigan Department of Education, December, 1969, pp. 10—11. Ho 15 There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools classified by the Michigan State Board of Education according to the degree of cultural and economic deprivation. Hypotheses for Student Teacher Attitudes Toward Pupil Disruptive Behavior Ho Ho There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and sex of the student teacher. There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and the size of the class taught by the student teacher. There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools which a majority of pupils are viewed by the student teacher as being from the lower, middle, and upper socioeconomic levels. There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in special education classes and non—special education classes. There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in team teaching and non-team teaching situ— ations. There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in classes they are with all day and classes they are not with all day. There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools classified by the Michigan State Board of Education according to the degree of cultural and economic deprivation. 16 Overview In Chapter II the relevant research was reviewed with the intent of providing the reader with a background with regard to findings of other researchers who have looked at the topic of pupil disruptive behaviors. Chapter III provides the reader with a conceptual per- spective of the sample used in the study, the instrument, the design, and the analysis procedures. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Gnageyl strongly supports the point that there has been little scientific research completed about the subject of discipline since the 1930's and early 1940's. Scien- tific research which related specifically to the classroom teacher and pupil disruptive behavior is skimpy as is scientific research relating specifically to the student teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors. Because of this problem it was decided to incorporate four dimensions in the development of this chapter: (1) a general discussion of approaches used by researchers in analyzing the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors, (2) an examination of the research done by Wickman2 in 1927, a survey study which has particular relevance to this study, (3) an examination of findings of survey studies which have used Wickman as a 1William J. Gnagey, Controlling Classroom Misbe— havior (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1965). 2E. K. Wickman, Children's Behavior and Teacher's Attitudes (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1932). 17 18 basis, and finally (4) a summary of findings regarding pupil disruptive behaviors. Basic Approaches for Examining Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Approaches which have been used by researchers in attacking the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors fall into one of the following modes: the case study, the observation, the experiment, and the survey. The Case Study Method Berelson and Steiner stated, The case study intensively examines many character- istics of one "unit" (person, work group, company, community, culture), usually over a long period of time. The goal of such investigations is to learn "all" about the area of interest for the one case involved. The work of Fritz Redl4 best typlified this approach. Redl's contribution to the area of pupil disruptive be- haviors was a result of his experiences with severe cases of anti—social children. Information gathered from case histories has provided Redl with a vast abundance of knowledge from which he was able to suggest practical 3Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Be— havior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964), p. 27. 4Fritz Redl and D. Wineman, Controls From Within (New York: The Free Press, 1952); Fritz Redl, When We Deal With Children (New York: The Free Press, 1966); Fritz Redl and D. Wineman, The Aggressive Child (New York: The Free Press, 1957). 19 techniques for handling anti-social children. Many of these techniques have been applied to behavior problems of pupils in public school classrooms. The chief criticism of Redl's work as it applies to regular classes of pupils is that his views have been drawn from an extremely narrow and biased sample of pupils-~those of seVerely anti-social children. Regardless of this limitation, Redl's pioneering work in classroom management has been of value in teacher education. A practical application of the case study approach to pupil disruptive behaviors is the use of "critical incidents." An example of this approach is Corsini and Howard's belief that h. . . teachers can learn general principles of classroom leadership through the case approach and through discussions of cases by people who have special knowledge and special interest in good 5 While Corsini and Howard's case approach has teaching." much to commend it, it has limitations. They have made the assumption that critical incidents gave teachers the greatest difficulty. However, there is the possibility that a variety of minor pupil disruptive behavior incidents may be more bothersome to a teacher than one critical incident. Another shortcoming of the case approach was the limited and perhaps biased sampling of cases of pupil 5R. J. Corsini and D. D. Howard, Critical Inci- dents in Teachipg (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964), p. v. 20 disruptive behaviors selected by Corsini and Howard to act as a representative sample of all critical incidents. The Observational Method Medley and Mitzel referred to observational tech— nique as ". . . procedures which use systematic obser- vations of classroom behavior to obtain reliable and valid measurements of differences in the typical behaviors which occur in different classrooms, or in different situations in the same classroom."6 Kounin and Gump7 in a 1958 study about the effect of teacher control techniques used a data gathering system and observers. It was in this study that the "ripple effect" (effect of a disciplinary action upon the children who are on—lookers) was investigated. Pre— liminary findings indicated that a teacher's control technique influenced the behavior of both the deviant and other pupils who were audience to the technique. Kounin and Gump also noticed that pupils who were strongly affiliated with the deviant and/or the disciplinary action taken by the teacher were more affected by the sequence of action than those pupils who had little or no relationship with the deviant or the control technique. 6Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mintzel, "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation," in Handbook of Research on Teachipg, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rank McNally & Company, 1963), p. 250. 7J. S. Kounin and P. V. Gump, "The Ripple Effect in Discipline," Elementary School Journal, Vol. LIX (De— cember, 1958), 158—62. 21 In one observation study, using video tapes, Kounin, Friesen, and Norton8 concentrated upon the dis- ruptive behaviors of emotionally disturbed children as they participated in "regular" classrooms. Their research concern emphasized two areas: work involvement and deviancy rate. Because of the importance of this study the major findings are reported: 1. The highest degree of school-appropriate be- havior for both emotionally disturbed pupils and non-emotionally disturbed pupils occurred in sub—group recitation periods (e.g., reading groups) and the lowest degree of school- appropriate behavior occurred in seatwork situations. 2. Emotionally disturbed children show less school—appropriate behavior than non-emotionally disturbed children. 3. Teachers who were successful in handling the behavior of non-emotionally disturbed children are relatively successful with emotionally disturbed children. 4. Teacher "with-it-ness" techniques of handling group movement and programming for variety 8J. S. Kounin, Wallace V. Friesen, and A. Evange- line Norton, "Managing Emotionally Disturbed Children in Regular Classrooms," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVII, No. 1 (February, 1966), 1-13. 22 change in learning activities correlated with the behavior of children. 5. Programming for variety change is a significant dimension of classroom management. The implications of this study, drawn by Kounin, are also of importance and include the following: 1. That analysis of teacher behavior according to personality factors may not be as valuable as that of analyzing concrete techniques of programming activities and initiating and maintaining movement within a program. 2. That a higher priority ought to be placed on training for group management rather than studying individual children. This is usually the emphasis of many educational psychology classes. The Experimental Method Berelson and Steiner defined experiment as . . . any investigation that includes two elements: manipulation or control of some variable by the investigator and system- . . 9 . . atic observation or measurement." The exper1ment 1n pupil disruptive behaviors was found in William Gnagey'slo 9Berelson and Steiner, op. cit., p. 19. 10William J. Gnagey, "Effects of a Deviant Student's Response to Discipline," The Journal of Educational Psy- chology, LI (February, 1960). 23 ll . . pre11m1nary study of Kounin, Friesen and Norton's findings with regard to the "ripple effect." Specifically, Gnagey was interested in the social power of a deviant and its affect upon a class when he was punished. Four classes of fifth graders were measured before and after a ten minute showing of a film. A male classmate was selected and trained in secret to misbehave and have an altercation with the teacher. He, in effect, became the target for a control technique by the teacher. He was directed to react in a defiant but submissive manner. The main finding of this study supported Kounin and Gump's initial observation: that "the overt reaction of the male student does have some measureable effects on the perceptual behavior and learning performances of his classmates and that these effects are influenced by the social power of the deviant."12 The Survey: Questionnaire The survey was identified by Kerlinger13 as being one of the most important means and/or tool for assessing characteristics of whole populations of people. The survey llKounin, Friesen and Norton, op. cit., pp. 1—13. 12Gnagey, op. cit., p. 8. 13Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967). 24 method identified by Hilwayl4 included one or a combination of one of the following: interviews, questionnaires, and tests. The emphasis of this section is the questionnaire, a research method frequently used by educators. Wick— man's15 questionnaire study regarding pupil disruptive behavior, because of its theoretical relevance to this study, was presented in greater breadth. The Wickman Study and Subsequent Studies The Wickman study,16 using a questionnaire approach, examined the problem of pupil disruptive behaviors. In the study (1927), 511 elementary teachers were asked to respond to fifty specific acts of pupil disruptive behavior they regarded as most serious. To obtain the information regarding the above objective, Wickman sought data about: 1. The teacher's awareness of the various kinds of behavior problems. (This is similar to the "frequency" dimension of this study.) 2. The distinguishing characteristics which identify a problem child to a teacher. This was obtained by analyzing behavior reports of children identified by teachers as behavior cases . l4Tyrus Hillway, Handbook of Educational Research: A Guide to Methods and Material (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969). 15 16 Wickman, op. cit. Wickman, op. cit. 25 The personal feelings of teachers to specific forms of behavior problems. This was obtained by asking teachers to judge the seriousness of specific behavior problems. (This is similar to the "seriousness" dimension of this study.) The basic findings of Wickman'sl7 study related to the frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors were: 1. Child behavior problems which were responded to the most frequently were those that relate to the school situation, (e.g., infraction of classroom rules and routine, failing to submit school work promptly). That personal problems of the child seem to be subordinated to the problems of classroom management and teaching. Aggressive behavior problems which were more recognizable than problems "inner" oriented, were reported more frequently because they interrupted the purpose of teaching. Behavior problems of boys characterized by their aggressiveness were recognized more frequently than problem behaviors of girls which were identified as being more sublimated. 17 Ibid., pp. 26-50. 26 18 The findings of Wickman's study related to the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors are best pre- sented by Figure 2. In summary, Wickman's findings suggest: . . . that teachers' reactions to the behavior problems of children are determined in direct relation to the immediate effect of behavior upon the teachers them- selves. Those problems which transgress the teachers' moral sensitivities and authority or which frustrate their immediate teaching purposes are regarded as relatively more serious than problems which affect for the most part only the welfare of the individual child.19 The Wickman study has been cited as classic by 20 . 21 22 Stoffer, Schrupp and Gjerde, and Hunter. However, Goodwin Watson23 noted limitations in Wickman's type of research. One of the most serious cited by Watson was item ambiguity (e.g., "stubborness"--sometimes stubborness is a form of independence). In short, Watson finds these items offensive in that they are not situational. The second 18 19 Ibid., p. 115. Ibid., p. 116. 20George A. Stouffer, "Behavior Problems of Children As Viewed by Teachers and Mental Hygienists: A Study of Present Attitudes as Compared with those Reported by E. K. Wickman," Mental Hygiene, XXXVI (1952), 271-85. 21Manfred H. Schrupp and Clayton M. Gjerde, "Teacher Growth in Attitudes of Children," The Journal of Educational Psychology, 203-14. 22E. C. Hunter, "Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior over the Last Thirty Years," Mental Hygiene, 3-11. 23Goodwin Watson, "A Critical Note On Two Attitude Studies," Mental Hygiene, 59-64. 27 mHoH>m£wQ 0>Hpmsumflc Hamsm mnowuom mo coaumpmumuwucfl tam coflumoHMHmmmao m.cmEMoH3||.m wudmflm muflmnu xHOS Hoosow muflmuu H0fi>mnon cam muflmup H0H>msmb can on GOHDMOHHmmm mpfluozusm huHHmGOmnmm >uflamc0muwm Eooummmao Dmcflmmm mcoflmmoummcmne m>HmmwomH m>Hmmoummm ca mmocflanmpno mmflummcoamfla .mcfi3mnpnuflz .pcmmm>mnbxm "mo mcoflumHOH> mmeHHMHoEEH cmna GMSB cage msoflhmm who: msoflumm who: msoflumm who: "moaoomn c0fluma ISEHOM m>onm mnu .mfioanoum mo masonm map mo GOHDMOAmemmHo m>HpmHmMmch mm mocmsna mmmcmpsm moqmcsmEH umnsnuso HmmEmB mmmcfiammuo mmmsmanmaamucb mocmflwma mnflmq m>flumcfimmEH mmmcwfiommappmz mmmnflmmq wocmcflunmmEH mmocmDoHOAQmsm mcHDQSHHmucH meCmmmHmMmo wocmflCOQOmHQ xnos ca mmmcasmummm mmwcoHHSm ummuoucfl mo xomq memaboum xmm mmwcHMAOOmCD coflpcmppm mcfluomnuud mmwcw>flucmpumcH mafiummco Eooummmao mmmcmnm mcfiummcflEon GH mmmcflanmpHOmHo mmmcasmnp5HucD mcHHMODm away sane owns mSOHHmm mHoE mSOHme 0H0: msoHHmm who: 28 criticism was directed at a phase of the Wickman study which compared the teacher attitudes to mental hygienists. In order to accomplish this, each group was asked a differ- ent question. Watson stated: The teachers were asked what offenses cause serious upset in the school situation. Quite rightly, they noted sex offenses, which would bring a whole com— munity up in arms; stealing, which is likewise socially dangerous; truancy, which defeats every objective of school work; and give larger weight to other dis- turbances in the organized life of the group. The mental-hygienist, free from any obligation to think about class and community morale, were asked only to pick the symptoms that point toward probable mental disorders in adult life. . . . After we made allowances for the unreliability of the answers within each group, and take account of the difference in form of the questions set, there remains very little disagreement to be accounted for. Regardless of the cited weaknesses in the Wickman study, it is still regarded as an excellent questionnaire study. From the research undertaken since Wickman's study, similar studies have attempted to find whether there has been a change in teacher attitudes toward the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. George Stouffer25 in 1953 replicated the Wickman study by testing 481 male and female elementary school teachers. His major findings indicated that (1) problems related to sex, honesty, truancy, and classroom order and application to school tasks were rated as most serious of 24Ibid., p. 62. 25Stouffer, op. cit., pp. 271—85. 29 the fifty Wickman pupil disruptive behaviors. This was consistent with the original Wickman study. (2) Problems related to withdrawal behavior, recessive personality traits (depression, unhappiness, unsociability, and with- drawing) were progressively becoming more important to teachers. Schrupp and Gjerde26 in a similar study found that elementary and secondary teachers tested in 1952 were more aware of and concerned over recessive pupil disruptive behaviors. Their major findings were in agreement with Stouffer. They found elementary and secondary teachers as a group were still mostly concerned with pupil disruptive behaviors that were anti—orderliness and morality; they were less concerned with traits that were related to with— drawal behaviors. 27 revealed that the ten Hunter's (1955) study problems rated most serious in his study were also rated as most serious by Wickman teachers. Hunter concluded that teachers still believed that frequent and serious pupil disruptive behaviors were characterized by annoying, aggressive, and irresponsible behavioral patterns. His findings also showed that teachers were moving closer to fuller awareness of withdrawing or recessive behaviors as being of greater or of equal importance as aggressive 26Schrupp and Gjerde, op. cit., pp. 203—14. 27Hunter, op. cit., pp. 3—11. 30 pupil behaviors. Hunter's remarks summarized the general tendencies of teachers perceiving pupil behaviors identi— fied as recessive (not aggressive). . . . it appears that today's teachers are definitely showing more concern about non—agressive traits and behavior suggesting mental health problems than did the teachers in 1926.28 Stouffer29 identified the serious pupil disruptive behaviors of masturbation, smoking, and profanity as having taken a significant drop from their original ranking in the Wickman study. Studies by Schrupp and Gjerde,30 Hunter31 also provided support for this observation. Table 2.1 shows the decrease in perceived seriousness of masturbation, smoking, and profanity. Wickman's classification system of pupil disruptive behaviors placed masturbation, smoking, and profanity in the area of "Violations of General Standards of Morality and Integrity." The change of these behaviors to a lesser degree of seriousness is most difficult to affix to any one reason; however, greater educational emphasis and under— standing about the nature of these problems may have contributed to their decrease in importance to a teacher. 281bid., p. 11. 29Stouffer, op. cit., pp. 271-85. 30Schrupp and Gjerde, op. cit., pp. 203-14. 31Hunter, op. cit., pp. 3-11. 31 TABLE 2.1 SIGNIFICANT DECREASES IN THREE ORIGINAL WICKMAN SERIOUS PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS 1927 1952 1953 1955 1927 1952 1953 1955 1927 1952 1953 1955 Masturbation Wickman Schrupp and Gjerde Stouffer Hunter Smoking Wickman Schrupp and Gjerde Stouffer Hunter Profanity Wickman Schrupp and Gjerde Stouffer Hunter 39.91;. 3 23 26 28 15 32.5 29 In summary, the general findings of studies based upon the Wickman study have been consistently supportive of the following statements: Pupil disruptive behaviors perceived as most frequent and most serious to teachers are: 1. . those relating to school requirements, infractions of classroom rules and routine and failure to meet school requirements. The person— ality problems of the children are subordinated to problems of classroom management.32 32 Leigh Peck, "Teachers' Reports of the Problems of Unadjusted School Children," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XXVI (January-December, 1935), 123. 32 2. . . . that behavior which offends the teacher's moral standards and challenges their authority and which interferes with classroom routine is re— garded as relatively more serious than personality problems which affect the general welfare of the child, and that aggressive behavior is considered more serious than regressive behavior.33 Another significant point is that teachers are becoming more cognizant of the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors that are related to person— ality problems. Specific Areas and Findings After reviewing studies which relate to pupil dis- ruptive behaviors the following areas have been recognized as being factors which may have relationship to the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. The identified factors are: degree and teaching experience of the teacher, sex of the teacher, sex of the pupil, race, low-achieving pupils, and grade levels. Degree of Teacher and Experience One study, Sparks,34 addressed the point of teaching experience, degree held, and their relationship to pupil disruptive behavior. Sparks' main finding was that amounts of teaching experience had little or no effect upon the attitudes of teachers toward pupil behavior 33Ibid., p. 124. 34J. N. Sparks, "Teacher Attitudes Toward the Be- havior Problems of Children," Journal of Educational Ps — chology, XLIII (1952), 284-91. 33 problems; however, the amount of education did affect their ratings. Teachers with education beyond the bachelor's degree tended to perceive pupil disruptive behaviors as being highly related to non-aggressive, withdrawing be- haviors. Teachers of lesser education tended to look at pupil disruptive behaviors as annoying, aggressive and generally irresponsible. 3192 James E. Greene and Frances Gatesky3S tested the hypothesis that black and white high school teachers and pupils would not differ significantly in their perceptions about aspects of school discipline and morale. One of his major findings was that teacher—pupil differences occurred with much greater frequency among whites than among blacks. The determination of specific types of pupil disruptive behaviors showed that black teachers reported greater frequency of the following behaviors: working unsatis— factorily, talking, cutting class, chewing gum and tardi- ness. White teachers' primary identification of pupil disruptive behaviors were: carelessness, disobedience, impertinence and over-activity. It should be noted that both white and black teachers in this study did not con- sider pupil withdrawal or recessive behaviors as important. 35James E. Greene and Frances Gatesky, "Discipline and Morale," Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XII, No. 4, (December, 1961), 437-47. 34 Greene and Gatesky's study, then, was supportive of Wickman, Stouffer, Schrupp and Gjerde, and Hunter's premise that aggressive pupil disruptive behaviors occurred more frequently and were perceived as being more important than recessive, non—aggressive pupil behaviors. Black teachers reported the following significant pupil be— haviors: cutting classes, talking, tardiness and working unsatisfactorily. White teachers reported the following pupil behaviors as significant: disobedience, inattention, impertinence, and over-activity. One major limitation of using Greene and Gatesky's study for this purpose was the small sample of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors and vague pupil disruptive behavior categories. Perhaps racial and ethnic factors should be given further consideration as it may provide another area of information that at present is most limited. Lower Ranges of Intelligence Research studies to date have indirectly pursued low I.Q. pupils (70 and below) and pupil disruptive be- haviors. Those that have, are indeed, few in number. Two 36 37 studies, Julius Yourman and John Levy used Wickman's 36Julius Yourman, "Children Identified by Their Teachers as Problems," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. V (September, l931-May, 1932), 334-43. 37John Levy, "Quantitative Study of Relationship Between Intelligence and Economic Factors in the Etilology of Children's Behavior Problems," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, I, 2 (January, 1931). 35 behaviors as the basis for their studies. Yourman's conclusion was: "70 per cent of the problem children were retarded as against 24 per cent of the non—problem children."38 Yourman summarized his findings with a rather sweeping and negativistic list of behaviors identifiable with the less intelligent. He stated that problem children were identified as: ". . . less intelligent, inattentive, indifferent, lazy, over-active, and over—talkative, self- asertive, rude, defiant, dishonest, impatient, excitable, negativistic, and moody."39 John Levy40 in another study specifically directed at intelligence and pupil disruptive behaviors found that a marked tendency existed for children's behavior problems to shift with increased intelligence. Conduct problems identified as aggressive forms of anti-social behaviors were characteristic of the lower ranges of I.Q. (75 and below). Levy also pointed out that personality problems of withdrawing and evasive misbehaviors were characteristic of higher ranges of I.Q. pupils. 38Yourman, op. cit., p. 337. 39Ibid., p. 337. 40Levy, op. cit. 36 Grade Levels A recent study (1967) by Eaton, §E_3T.,4l examined grade levels and occurances of pupil disruptive behaviors. The basic concerns of the study were: types of problem behavior from grade level to grade level, types of problem behavior that occurred most frequently among boys and girls. From Eaton's study it was found that pupil dis- ruptive behaviors in school increased from grades one to six and ten to twelve. Another revealing, although not too surprising finding, was that problem behavior in out- of—school situations increased the greatest between grades seven and nine and ten to twelve. In reviewing the entire study by grades, 1—6, 7-9, and 10-12, the following major behaviors were descriptive of each general grade level (Table 2.2). Each major pupil disruptive behavior is marked with a plus or a minus to indicate whether a behavior has increased or decreased from the preceeding grade level groupings. In a study undertaken by Dorothy Mutimer and Robert 42 Rosemier (1967) 455 boys and 456 girls in grades 7—12 41Merrill T. Eaton, Louis D'Amico and Beeman N. Phillips, "Problem Behavior In School," Journal of Edu— cational Psychology, Vol. XLVII (October, 1956), 350-57. 42Dorothy Mutimer and Robert Rosemier, "Behavior Problems of Children As Viewed by Teachers and Children Themselves," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. XXXI, 6 (December, 1967), 583-87. 37 TABLE 2,2 DESCRIPTIVE PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS FOR GRADE LEVELS 1-6, 7-9, and 10-12 1-6 Grades 7-9 10-12 Carelessness in work Inattention Cheating Carelessness in work (-) Inattention (-) Restlessness (+) Whispering, note- writing (+) Unexcused absences (+) Interrupting (+) Carelessness in work (decreased in frequenty) (-) Cheating (-) Smoking (-) Stealing (+) Unexcused absences (+) Swearing (+) Drinking (+) 38 and their fourteen female and twenty—six male teachers were asked to complete Wickman's questionnaire. The major findings were: 1. Violations of classroom work and behavior requirements constituted 73 per cent of the problem behaviors which occurred in grades one—to—six. 2. Violations of classroom work and behavior requirements constituted 77 per cent of the problem behaviors which occurred in grades seven—to-nine. 3. Violations of classroom work and behavior requirements constituted 28 per cent of the problem behaviors which occurred in grades ten-to—twelve. Another major finding summarized by Mutimer was: . . . data indicates that most types of problem be— havior varied in frequency from grade level to grade level. Such problem behavior as carelessness in work, inattention, lying, and vandalism decreased in frequency from grades one to six to ten to twelve. Other problem behaviors such as smoking, unexcused absences, stealing, swearing, drinking, and illicit sex activities increased in frequency from grades one to six to twelve. Still other problem behaviors such as restlessness, interrupting, smartness, whispering and notewriting, and disorderliness occurred most frequently in grades seven to nine. 43Ibid., p. 354. 39 George Stouffer's44 study of secondary school teachers and pupil disruptive behaviors treated grade lines in a more global manner: grades 7-12 were called second— ary; grades 1-6 were labeled elementary. Stouffer's findings showed behavior problems considered most serious by secondary teachers to be more extroversive in nature. Specific forms of extroversive behaviors are: imperti- nence, destroying school material, interest in opposite sex, disobedience, profanity, and inquisitiveness. With- drawing tendencies (shyness, sensitiveness, suspiciousness) were not noted by secondary teachers to be most serious. It is interesting to note that elementary and secondary teachers agreed on all but one of serious behaviors-- destroying school materials. In this case, secondary teachers rated this more serious than elementary teachers. To summarize Stouffer's study, the agreement by elementary and secondary teachers over pupil disruptive behaviors was likely due to their moral sensitivities being collectively violated and that maintaining an orderly classroom was necessary for establishing an environment for learning. Sex of the Teacher Stouffer's45 finding, although limited, may provide preliminary information regarding sex of the teacher and 44Stouffer, op. cit., pp. 271-85. 45Ibid., pp. 271-85. 40 pupil disruptive behaviors. Seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors identified by male teachers were compared to the total population used for this study. Stouffer believed that finding forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that groups of teachers considered "less serious" may provide a measure of a sex difference. The following “less serious pupil disruptive behaviors" were identified by male teachers. 1. Hetero sexual activity 2. Masturbation 3. Physical coward 4. Smoking 5. Impertinence, definance 6. Unrealiableness 7. Disobedience 8. Temper Tantrums In reviewing the less serious pupil disruptive behaviors it can be found that they fall into three of Wickman's pupil disruptive behavior classifications—— violations of general standards of morality and integrity, transgressions against authority, and violations of school work requirements. Although the data is limited, the cited pupil disruptive behaviors may not be important or serious to male teachers. 41 Sex of the Student 46 Eaton, D'Amico, and Phillips' findings about sex of the student and occurance of disruptive behaviors is in 47 and Epstein.48 There is agreement agreement with Wickman about the following findings: (1) more boys than girls were involved in every type of pupil disruptive behavior. Exceptions to this statement were high increases of frequency in smoking and illicit sex activities of girls. (2) the difference between boys and girls (in favor of boys) was greatest at the senior high level (10-12); the least amount of difference between boys and girls was at the junior high level. (3) disruptive behaviors equally distributed between boys and girls were carelessness in work, inattention, restlessness, and interruption. (4) disruptive behavior reached its peak for girls in grades 7-9 and boys in grades 10-12. One study, however, contradicted Eaton, ep_§T., 49 and Epstein's findings. Hildreth's data indicated a decrease in the percentage of male disruptive behaviors 46Eaton, op. cit., pp. 350-57. 47Wickman, op. cit. 8Leon Epstein, "An Analysis of Teachers' Judgments of Problem Children," The Journal of Genetic Psychology, LIX (1941), 101-07. 49Gertrude Hildreth, "A Survey of Problem Pupils," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XVII (June, 1928), 1-14 0 42 at the senior high level. This contradiction may be suspect as Hildreth's findings were based upon thirty—nine high school pupils of superior intelligence and economic background. Summary Reviewing the literature and research regarding pupil disruptive behaviors, four factors become apparent. First, little research about this topic has been undertaken since the 1950's. Second, the research on pupil disruptive behaviors completed to date has in a very limited way concerned itself with sex of the teacher, sex of the student, socioeconomic levels, years of teaching experi- ence, subject matter areas, grade levels, school organi- zational patterns, community types, class size, and time spent with students. Third, research using the Wickman instrument of fifty pupil disruptive behaviors may be limited as the instrument was constructed and field tested in 1926. Fourth, research about the student teacher and specific pupil disruptive behaviors was most limited. Major Findings Summarized 1. Control techniques exerted by the teacher affected learning performances of classmates to the degree of the social power of the deviant being punished. 43 2. That teachers tended to be more concerned about controlling pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to the classroom work situation. 3. Aggressive pupil disruptive behaviors were reported more frequently. Inner directed behavior problems of students were subordinated by teachers to controlling pupil disruptive behaviors related to classwork. 4. The seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors was largely viewed in the light of transgressions of the following types: immoralities, dishonesty, acts against authority. Violations against classroom order and school work were also viewed as being very serious. On the other hand, pupil disruptive behaviors that constituted with- drawal or recessive personality and behavior traits were considered by teachers the least serious. 5. Limited research showed: teachers with edu- cation beyond the bachelor's degree tended to look at pupil disruptive behaviors as being highly related to recessive personality behavior traits and withdrawal be- haviors. 6. Black teachers were primarily concerned with pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to violations of orderliness in the classroom. White teachers tended to be primarily concerned with pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to immorality, dishonesty and acts against authority. 44 7. Pupil disruptive behaviors in the lower ranges of intelligence (70 I.Q.) tended to be physical and aggressive in nature. The pupil disruptive behaviors in the upper ranges of intelligence tended to be reflective of withdrawal and recessive behaviors. 8. Disruptive pupil behaviors which would be violations of classroom work increased at each grade level until grades 10-12 at which time these misbehaviors noticeably changed. 9. Grades 1—6 tended to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of carelessness in work, lying, inattention, vandalism (behaviors were violations of dis— honesties and disorderliness in class work). Grades 7—9 tended to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of restlessness, interruptions, smartness, whispering and notewriting, and disorderliness (behaviors were authority directed). Grades 10-12 tended to be characterized by pupil disruptive behaviors of smoking, unexcused absences, stealing, swearing, drinking, and illicit sex activities. (Behaviors were violations of moral codes.) 10. Limited data indicated that male teachers were nggp concerned with violations against general standards of morality and integrity, transgressions against authority, and violations of school work re- quirements. 45 11. Male students were more involved in every type of pupil disruptive behaviors than girls. Girls significantly gained in the area of smoking and illicit sex activities. 12. Pupil disruptive behaviors reached the peak for girls in grades 7-9; boys reached their peak in grades 10-12. It might be pointed out that the "peaks" coincided with the periods of rapid physical growth and development of girls and boys. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY The Introduction Described in this chapter are the population, the design, communication and contacts, data collection, the instrument, and the analysis. The Population The population used in this study were student teachers from Michigan State University's Elementary and Special Education Department and Secondary Education Departments. The students were assigned by the Office of Student Teaching to student teaching during the 1969 Spring term. No sampling procedures were undertaken as the total student teacher population was used. It was decided that the total student teaching population was needed to provide an adequate sampling per background data area. Student teachers assigned by Michigan State Uni- versity's Office of Student Teaching usually are in their junior or senior year of college, and must also meet the following requirements . . . must have at least 105 46 47 credits, a 2.0 all-college grade point average, a 2.0 average in the pre-student teaching education courses, a 2.0 average in the pre-student teaching education courses, a 2.0 average in the University college courses, a 2.0 average in . . . major field of study."1 An additional screening device consists of obtaining approval by the University Health Service, by the Office of the Dean of Students, or by the faculty in the department of the student's teaching major.2 These were the only entrance controls placed upon the population which was used for this survey. Figures obtained from the Office of Student Teaching at Michigan State University in April of 1969 showed the breakdown on the following page of student teachers assigned for student teaching during the Spring term.3 The final totals of student teachers in this study varied from the totals indicated in Table 3.1 because of the following reasons: 1Student Teaching: Questions and Answers for Prospective Student Teachers (East Lansing, Mich.: Michi— gan State University, College of Education, Student Teaching Office), pp. 3-4. 2Hugo J. David, ed., Handbook for Student Teachers, Michigan State University (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Book Company, 1964), p. l. 3Figures obtained from Student Teaching Office, May, 1969. 48 TABLE 3.1 STUDENT TEACHERS ASSIGNED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SPRING TERM 1969 Elementary Student Special Education Secondary Education Teachers Student Teachers Student Teachers 288 45 334 Totals 667 1. Some student teachers may have withdrawn or have been dropped from student teaching by the final week of the experience. 2. Some student teachers did not complete all the necessary pages of the questionnaire; these students were withdrawn from the study. The Design The design, which was descriptive in nature, called for the completion of a three-page questionnaire which contained sixty-six specific pupil disruptive behaviors and eleven personal background variables.* Questionnaires were administered by the college supervisors of the Michi- gan State University Student Teaching Centers to all student teachers at the final seminar in the Spring term. Each questionnaire was collected by the college supervisors and returned to the Office of Student Teaching at Michigan State University. *See Appendix B. 49 Communication and Contacts Initial formal permission was obtained from the Basic Program Council, a committee in the College of Edu- cation who function to screen, approve or reject research projects which would necessitate the use of any college student population. After receiving permission to continue the study, a meeting was held with Dr. Henry Kennedy, Director of Student Teaching at Michigan State University to discuss the study, procedures for circulating, administering, and receiving the questionnaire. At this meeting, it was decided that there would be no necessity for a general orientation with the college supervisors as each supervisor was familiar with both the nature of the project and method of administering the questionnaire. The familiarity with the questionnaire was due to the participation of the supervisors in the similar project conducted in the 1968 Fall term by the Learning Systems Institute and College of Education. It was agreed by the Office of Student Teaching to circulate the packets of questionnaires and related materials to each of the supervisors two weeks prior to the projected date of administration. The only contact with the supervisors was through letters of introduction containing the statement of purpose of the project, directions for administering and returning the 50 questionnaires, and sample copies of the questionnaire.* It would, however, be suggested that in a similar project where individuals administering the questionnaires have not received necessary background and other forms of instruction from the researcher, that careful attention be given to this aspect of the project as professional cooperation and enlightenment about the nature of a project is a Vital component to its fruition. Data Collection A separate master list was kept which contained the Student Teaching Centers, the names of the college super- visors for each center, the names of each student teacher assigned to each center, and finally, the name of each school district, school, and supervising teacher. A complete packet of materials was prepared for each student teacher. The packet contained a letter to the Student teacher explaining the project and requesting his cooperation, questionnaire directions, and the three page questionnaire.** On the outside and in the upper right hand corner of each packet a number and letter was assigned. The number on the packet corresponded to a similar number that represented a specific Student Teaching Center on the *See Appendix A and B. **See Appendix A and B. 51 master list. This aided in identifying the questionnaire with a specific Student Teaching Center. The letter assigned identified a specific public school in the Student Teacher Center. Each college supervisor received a bundle of packets——one packet for each student teacher in the Center. The bundle of packets was forwarded two weeks prior to the actual date of administration. It was agreed that the questionnaire would be administered once during the last seminar meeting held at the end of the student's student teaching experience. Upon completion of the questionnaire by the student teacher, the questionnaires were collected, checked, and placed in one bundle and returned to the Student Teaching Office. Each bundle of packets submitted to the Student Teaching Office was collected and tallied on the master list. An identification system was used to keep each respondent's responses together. In the upper right hand corner of each page of the questionnaire, a code was assigned to the respondent in the manner shown on the following page. 1. The top box was assigned any number, one through four if the form was red; any number five through nine if the form was green. It is important to remember that there were two forms. The 52 The second, third and fourth box from the top was assigned a sequence number which served to identify each subject's responses. The bottom box was allocated to identify the specific page of the questionnaire. The letter A, B, C was entered in the box which served to identify the specific page of either form. following is a review description of each page (A, B, C) of the questionnaire. A: The The page of the questionnaire which had one through thirty—six pupil disruptive behaviors. The page of the questionnaire which had thirty-seven through sixty—six pupil dis— ruptive behaviors. The page of the questionnaire which had the Background Data. "Background Data" areas of highest educational level completed, respondent's age, and number of years of 53 teaching experience were dropped for the student teacher study. The reason for dropping these areas was that they were not generally applicable to the student teaching population. One area was, however, added in place of the highest educational level: school districts, classified according to population and economic focal point. Five district classifications were substituted for five edu- cational levels. This was accomplished by a secretary marking each respondent's district classification on the Background Data sheet. Table 3.2 shows the percentage of .82 student teachers responded to the one administration of the questionnaire. There was no attempt to undertake the follow-up study of non-respondents or to increase the percentage of respondents by sending out further question- naires. Because most student teachers attended the last seminar meeting, it was assumed that a representative number of respondents would be ascertained for completion of the study. The Instrument The survey instrument for this study was formulated by Learning Systems Institute for their study of pupil disruptive behaviors perceived by public school teachers. The instrument consisted of two forms (red-green)——each having three pages. The first page requested information regarding eleven demographic variables; the second and 54 TABLE 3.2 PER CENT OF STUDENT TEACHERS RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE Student Teaching Questionnaires Questionnaires Per Cent Center Sent Received Returned 1 29 29 1.00 2 17 14 .82 3 20 17 -85 4 63 35 .56 5 44 41 .93 6 29 O .00 7 24 22 .92 8 57 48 -84 9 23 18 .78 10 35 28 .80 ll 42 38 .91 12 20 18 ~90 13 69 55 -78 l4 18 15 ~83 15 54 51 .94 16 12 12 1-00 17 96 85 .89 18 12 11 .92 Total 664 537 .82 Per Cent of Questionnaire Returned .82 55 third pages have sixty-six pupil disruptive behaviors written in behavioral statements. The respondent was expected to read each pupil disruptive behavior and answer the following two questions about the behavior: 1. How often do you encounter this behavior? This question was rated on a six point scale-- hourly to never. 2. How do you perceive this behavior? This question was rated on a five point scale ranging from extremely serious to harmless. In 1968 Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University at the request of the Michigan Education Association conducted a workshop on "Discipline." Disci- pline had been identified by the Michigan Education Association as a prime problem area for new as well as experienced classroom teachers. In an effort to focus the workshop topics a questionnaire was designed by Learning Systems Institute. It was approved and administered to classroom teachers by the Michigan Education Association. The questionnaire requested teachers to check and write in pupil disruptive behaviors that gave them the most diffi- culty. As a result of the enthusiasm and interest generated in the "Discipline Workshop," Dr. Judith Henderson and Dr. Ted Word of Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University decided that this problem should be considered in a more systematic and comprehensive manner . 56 The next phase decided upon was to adopt the pupil isruptive behaviors already identified by the workshop articipants and expand them to be more inclusive of lassroom disruptive behaviors that would occur in lassrooms of the public schools. Interviews were held 'ith all levels of beginning and experienced classroom .eachers, graduate students of Michigan State University 'ith successful public school classroom teaching experi— ‘nce, and curriculum consultants. From the results of ,he interviews another questionnaire was constructed. ‘here were 180 specific pupil disruptive behaviors which 'ere identified. From this step directions were written and items 'ere eliminated if they overlapped and were ambiguous. 'his completed, the pupil disruptive behaviors now totaled 40. Four questions were posed per item. This specific 1uestionnaire was submitted to a group of graduate .ssistants from Michigan State University who responded .5 if they were members of the sample. They were inter- ‘iewed individually for item ambiguity. Changes were made n the survey based upon the graduate assistants recom— Lendations. The next phase consisted of administering the 'evised instrument to 180 teachers from the Lansing *ublic Schools. Included with this phase was a fifteen .tem background data sheet. As a result of this pilot 57 ( tflnree major changes were made: (1) it was decided to : tflne survey into two forms (red-green) because the required to respond to the entire survey would likely ourage co—operation. The red and green forms shall after be referred to as Form One and Form Two;* (2) «Itions were clarified; (3) the number of questions mi about each behavioral item was reduced from four to This was done because two of the questions were not :riminating between items. The questions per item 3 identified with the frequency of pupil disruptive aviors and the seriousness of pupil disruptive be- iors. One major weakness of the questionnaire was related the limitation of the number of pupil disruptive be- riors that the re5pondent may react to. The question— Lre, because of the limited choice of pupil disruptive maviors, could act as an inhibitor towards ascertaining multiplicity of other pupil disruptive behaviors that e real to a student teacher. The interpretation and alysiS(of data must be kept within the bounds of only £3132 pupil disruptive that appear on the instruments. erermw be many more behaviors of equal importance that >1xfi:appear on the final version of the questionnaires. *Please note that the questionnaire now shall be dentified as Form One and Form Two. 58 Analysis Tflie analysis of variance—repeated measures design 5eél tr) analyze the significant background data pendent variables) and pupil disruptive behaviors ndenrt variables). The analysis of variance yielded a efftnzt F score which was used to judge the accepta— :y cxf the stated hypothesis. An interaction F score of independent variables and one dependent variable was used to further interpret the main effect. The ication of items F score indicated the manner in which >ondents marked the items. The level of significance for testing the null otheses was established at .01. To identify the specific pupil disruptive behaviors .t student teachers perceived to be most frequent and rious an MD STAT ROUTINE developed by the Agricultural perimental Station of Michigan State University was used. a score of main interest for this analysis was the mean ores. Summary The survey instrument which contained 132 specific armscfi pupil disruptive behaviors was administered to the otalpomflation of 664 Michigan State University student eadwrsduring the Spring semester of 1969. The two mrmmesof this exploratory study were: (1) to examine mmildimmptive behaviors and their relationship to seven 59 lependent variables, and (2) to identify the frequency 1 seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as perceived student teachers. To accomplish the statistical mination of purpose one, an analysis ofpvariance- peated measures design was used. To accomplish the atistical examination of purpose two, mean scores were mputed for each pupil disruptive behavior. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS Frequency of Pupil Disruptive Behavior Analysis This chapter was organized into two major sections. LCh section represents the analysis of data by the two Ljor purposes of this study. Purpose one was: to examine the relationship 9: ax of the student teacher, socio-economic level of the :hools as perceived by the student teacher, size of Lasses taught by the student teacher, classes taught by 1e student teacher all day, special education classes aught by the student teacher, team teaching of which the tudent teacher is a member, and school types identified y the Michigan Department of Education 39 132 specific arms of pupil disruptive behaviors. Purpose two was: to identify the pupil disruptive ehaviors that student teachers perceive to be most requent and serious. Under purpose one, fourteen hypotheses were xamined. Each hypothesis was analyzed in light of (l) he dimensions—-frequency and seriousness, (2) the specific testionnaire--Form One and Form Two. 60 61 Under purpose two no hypotheses were posited as .is area was designed for exploration. The level of significance was established at .01. The analyses that follow are all related to purpose <3 which was to: examine the relationship a: sex of the Indent teacher, socio-economic level of the schools as rceived by the student teacher, size of classes taught by we student teacher, classes taught by the student teacher .1 day, special education classes taught by the student :acher, team teaching of which the student teacher is a amber, and school types identified by the Michigan De- Lrtment of Education 23 132 specific forms of pupil dis- Lptive behaviors. 'pothesis l Relating to Sex :_Student Teacher There will be no significant difference between the :udent teachers perceived frequency of pupil disruptive ehaviors and the sex of the student teacher. The initial analysis of sex of the student teacher 1d its relationship to the frequency of pupil disruptive ehaviors (Table 4.1) was presented in greater detail to :ovide the reader with a base to understand the analyses lat are to follow. Another way of presenting Table 4.1 can be found in Lgure 3. The sex of the student teacher which has two ategories (male-female) will be used for the analysis. 62 TABLE 4.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SEX OF STUDENT TEACHER (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE uce SS df MS F P >ups 18.0551 1 18.0551 1.2812 N.S. Dr 3917.5611 278 14.0920 . . ems 11098.0154 65 170.7387 207.1357 >.01 rups Items 205.4350 65 3.1605 3.8343 >.Ol or 14894.8185 18070 0.8243 . . (Pupil Disruptancies) ms 1 66 e M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6—%>Mean Score Across Items ale M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6—' Mean Score Across Items Significance of Means Between _ Item 1, 2, etc. and categories a Mean Im Im Im )> (male-female) Item 1, 2, etc. and categories (male—female) lre 3.——Organizational chart for main effect analysis of sex of the student teacher 63 From Table 4.1 the main effect, a statistical measure to determine the significance or non—significance of the null hypothesis, is labeled groups. The score of main concern was the F ratio. In this case the F ratio was 1.2812. When 1.2812 was computed from tables designed to show significance levels it was found not to be significant at the .01 level. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. To enterpret this finding and others to follow, the following figure may aid the reader. The main effect, it should be remembered, tests the significance between ggppp me§p§_when all the means for each item are tabulated and an overall mean arrived at for all items. Each category (male-female) had a total mean score for all items. The researcher was testing the significance of the relationship of means. In short, how did male and female student teachers react to the questionnaire in its entirety? Another way of posing the above question is: Could one determine from the totals of item mean scores who was responding to the questionnaire? In this case, the answer to both questions was no as the F ratio of 1.2812 was not significant at the .01 confidence level. Figure 4 which shows just the main effect analysis would look like the figure on the following page. The second.area of primary importance on Table 4.1 was the Groups by Items. Again, the score of main interest 64 Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Items 1 66 Mean Score Male Across Items Significant Mean Score ._.or not Significant Across Female Items Figure 4.-—Main effect analysis of sex of the student teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors was the F ratio. In this case the F ratio was 3.8343. When computed to determine significance it was found to be significant at the .01 level. To enterpret this finding and subsequent Groups by Items, Figure 5 may be of assistance. The Groups by Items tests the interaction of each specific pupil disruptive behavior and category (male-female). Group means for gggh item from the male and female categories were compared for the significance of their relationship. In this case, the interaction of items and the independent categories of mng and female was significant at the .01 level. The emphasis of the Groups by Items (Interaction) score is less gobal than the main effect score; it is geared to diagnose each item on an individual basis. The enterpretation of the above finding (significant inter- action effect of sex categories and items) would be as 65 Items 1 mm. 11956 Male f*‘bt* > 1 E 3 Female 0*j > _i i 1 Mean of . Interaction M1.M1 *Scores of interest are the group category mean scores for each item. A total mean score was compute (Mi--Mean interaction) to test for significant male and female responses to each individual item. Figure 5.—-Diagram of interaction analysis of sex of the student teacher and pupil disruptive behaviors follows: that items, when considered individually, are responded to differently by sex of the student teachers. Apparently, the frequency of individual pupil disruptive behaviors are perceived differently by each sex. This analysis did not indicate, however, which specific pupil disruptive behaviors were related to the sex of the student teacher. It can be ascerted that the Form One ££equency analysis significate interaction F ratio indi— cated that male and female student teachers responded in a Significant manner to the items. The phipd score reported on Table 4.1 was labeled "Items." For this analysis the score of interest was the 66 F ratio 207.1357 which was significant at the .01 level. A narrative explanation of the "Items" score will suffice for this area of analysis. Essentially, the "Items" analyzes how the respondents are replying to the items of the questionnaire. The analysis seeks to indicate whether the responses are all alike, nearly all alike or spread over the number of choices open to the respondent. In this case the "Items" or Replication Effect is significant at .01 confidence level. This indicated that the items were responded to by both male and female student teachers in a manner that showed a spread of choices over the frequency dimensions of: Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Seldom and Never. In short, the questionnaire's items and dimensions were causing each student teacher to react differently. The importance of the significant replication effects was that it supports or furthers the power of a main effect or interaction analysis. In this case, as an example, the respondents as a group were not all replying to the items in the same manner. The following analyses will not have the thoroughness of Frequency—Form One (Table 4.1) as the intent was to provide a base for the reader to enterpret the ensuing analyses. When frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors was considered from Form Two (Table 2.2), the null hypothesis was rejected at the .01 level. Form Two frequency 67 TABLE 4.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SEX OF STUDENT TEACHER (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 69.2444 1 69.2440 8.2562 >.Ol Error 2012.8702 240 8.3870 . . Items 6614.1621 65 101.7563 134.7103 >.01 Groups by Items 371.0894 65 5.7091 7.5580 >.01 Error 11783.7993 15600 0.7554 . . analysis showed that female and male student teachers as a group responded significantly different to pupil disruptive behaviors when considered across items. When the inter— action of items upon female and male student teachers was considered, the above analysis was further supported at the .01 level. Again, the significance level of .01 of the replication of items showed a variability in the way the respondents marked the frequency of each item on Form Two. Hypothesis 2 Relating to Class Size There will be no significant difference between the student teachers' perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and the size of the class taught by the student teacher. When the analysis of variance was completed on Form One (Table 4.3) for the enrollment of classes and frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors, the main effect 68 TABLE 4.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY CLASS SIZE (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 109.2247 5 21.8449 1.5587 N.S. Error 3825.9850 273 14.0146 . . Items 11067.8525 65 170.2747 207.4102 >.01 Groups by Items 473.1156 325 1.4557 1.7732 >.Ol Error 14567.8647 17745 0.8210 . . of groups showed no significance. Thus, the null hypothe- sis failed to be rejected. Turning attention to the inter— action of the items upon the class sizes, there was significance at the .01 level. This suggested that the class sizes of 10 and under, 11-16, l7-20, 21-27, 28—34 and over 34 when considered jointly with items differ signifi— cantly. The replication of items indicated an F ratio of 207.4102 which was significant at the .01 level. Items were responded to by student teachers of varying class sizes in different ways. When Form Two (Table 4.4) was examined in light of frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and class size an F ratio of 0.7297 was arrived at for the main effects. This was not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at the .01 level. When the sixty-six dis- ruptive behaviors were interacted with the varying class sizes a significant F ratio of 1.9071 was reached. This 69 TABLE 4.4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY CLASS SIZE (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 31.6841 5 6.3368 0.7297 N.S. Error 2049.5613 236 8.6846 . . Items 6613.4651 65 101.7456 133.5895 >.01 Groups by Items 472.0709 325 1.4525 1.9071 >.01 Error 11683.3855 15340 0.76163 . . indicated, however, that the frequency of items varied from one class size to another. Again, the replication of items F ratio 133.5895 was significant at the .01 level. Hypothesis 3 Relating to Schools of Varying Economic Status There will be no significant difference between the student teachers' perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools which a majority of pupils are viewed by the student teacher as being from the lower, middle, and upper socio-economic levels. When Form One (Table 4.5) lower, middle, and upper socio-economic means were viewed across the sixty-six pupil disruptive behaviors the null hypothesis failed to be rejected at the .01 level. When the lower, middle, and upper socio-economic areas were interacted with the items a significant F ratio of 2.1442 was obtained. This pointed out that although there was no significant difference in 70 TABLE 4.5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PERCEIVED SCHOOLS OF VARYING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC STATUS (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 77.7083 2 38.8542 2.7896 N.S. Error 3858.1115 277 13.9282 . . Items 11098.8408 65 170.7514 206.7527 >.01 Groups by Items 230.2130 130 1.7709 2.1442 >.01 Error 14869.8374 18005 0.8259 . . the means of the socio-economic levels when considered in isolation that significance did exist when the levels were interacted with the items. Replication of items showed an F ratio of 206.7527 which was significant at the .01 level. Student teachers from the lower, middle, and upper socio- economic levels discriminated among the items. Form Two (Table 4.6) analysis of variance of social economic levels showed a main effect F ratio of 9.6098 which was significant at the .01 level. The null hypothe- sis was rejected. The interaction of independent variables upon items showed an F ratio of 1.9637 which was signifi- cant at the .01 level. The strength of the rejection of the hypothesis was increased when items responded to by student teachers in differing socio—economic levels reflected an F ratio of 131.4780 which was significant at the .01 level. 71 TABLE 4.6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PERCEIVED SCHOOLS OF VARYING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC STATUS (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 155.0429 2 77.5215 9.6098 >.01 Error 1919.9373 238 8.0670 . . Items 6589.3048 65 101.3739 131.4780 >.01 Groups by Items 196.8284 130 1.5141 1.9637 >.01 Error 11927.8905 15470 0.7710 . . Hypothesis 4 Relating to Special Education There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors in special education classes and non-special education classes. TABLE 4.7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SPECIAL EDUCATION (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 34.6114 1 34.6114 2.4666 N.S. Error 3900.9583 278 14.0322 . . Items 11099.1575 65 170.7563 207.1011 >.01 Groups by Items 201.0622 65 3.0933 3.7517 >.01 Error 14898.8370 18070 0.8245 . . 72 Analysis of Form One (Table 4.7) for the special education hypothesis indicated a main effect F ratio of 2.4666 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Further analysis indicated a group interaction of special education and non-special education student teachers and items. An F ratio of 3.7517 was obtained. This was significant at the .01 level. This indicated that special education and non—special education student teachers have specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that differ. An examination of items showed that student teachers responded differently to the items. TABLE 4.8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SPECIAL EDUCATION (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 1.7435 1 1.7435 0.2012 N.S. Error 2079.4911 240 8.6646 . . Items 6613.5166 65 101.7464 133.1172 >.01 Groups by Items 231.7531 65 3.5654 4.6647 >.01 Error 11923.6604 15600 0.7643 . . Form Two (Table 4.8) analysis indicated an F ratio for main effect of 0.2012. This was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. When special edu— cation teachers were interacted with items an F ratio of 4.6647 was obtained. This was significant. Although 73 student teachers in groups did not significantly differ, the interaction suggested that individual items yielded sig- nificant differences. A replication F value of 133.1172 was significant at .01 level which indicated that student teachers were not marking the pupil disruptancies in the same manner. Hypothesis 5 Relatingfito Team Teachipg There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in team teaching and non-team teaching situations. TABLE 4.9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY TEAM TEACHING (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 109.1025 1 109.1025 7.9243 >.01 Error 3827.5368 278 13.7681 . . Items 11097.5399 65 170.7314 205.3954 >.01 Groups by Items 78.7329 65 1.2113 1.4572 N.S. Error 15020.3745 18070 0.8312 . . Form One (Table 4.9) frequency analysis of student teachers who were in team teaching and non-team teaching situations showed a significant F ratio of 7.9243. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected at the .01 level. Further 74 analysis of interaction of items and the two independent variables indicated a non—significant F ratio. This suggested that the subjects were not responding signifi— cantly to each item. The non-significant F ratio offered some question as to the credence of the rejected null hypothesis. The replication of items ratio which was significant showed that the respondents were responding in a different fashion to each pupil disruptive behavior. TABLE 4.10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY TEAM TEACHING (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 21.5734 1 21.5734 2.5137 N.S. Error 2059.7996 240 8.5825 . . Items 6613.8429 65 101.7514 131.0642 >.Ol Groups by Items 44.2582 65 0.68090 0.8771 N.S. Error 12111.0247 15600 0.7764 . . Form Two (Table 4.10) main effect of student teachers who were in team teaching and non-team teaching situations yielded an F ratio of 2.5137 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The support of the above finding was furthered by a non- significant F ratio for groups by items. Apparently, team teaching and non-team teaching situations and frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors yield no significant 75 differences. The replication of items was significant at the .01 level. This indicated that the respondents were not marking the items all in one dimension. Hypothesis 6 Relating to Teaching Same Group All Day There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived frequenpy of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in classes they are with all day and classes they are not with all day. TABLE 4.11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHING SAME GROUP ALL DAY (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 6.5589 1 6.5589 0.4642 N.S.- Error 3938.0509 278 14.1297 . . Items 11099.9693 65 170.7688 208.7895 >.01 Groups by Items 322.1405 65 4.9560 6.0594 >.01 Error 14779.4406 18070 0.8179 . . Form One (Table 4.11) frequency analysis of student teachers who were with classes all day and those who were not showed a non-significant F ratio of 0.4642. Thus, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Further analysis indicated a significant interaction effect of 6.0594. This indicated that student teachers significantly responded to items when the two independent variables were 76 interacted. A replication of item F value (208.7895 was significant at the .01 level) which suggested that the student teachers responded to the items in differing degrees. TABLE 4.12 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHING SAME GROUP ALL DAY (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 50.2909 1 50.2909 5.9402 N.S. Error 2031.8775 240 8.4662 . . Items 6613.5315 65 101.7466 136.9778 >.01 Groups by Items 567.6106 65 8.7325 11.7562 >.01 Error 11587.6308 15600 0.7428 . . Form Two (Table 4.12) main effect of student teachers who were with classes all day and those who were not yielded an F ratio of 5.9402 which was not signifi— cant. The hypothesis failed to be rejected. Although the main effect was not significant, interaction of groups by individual items showed an F ratio of 11.7562 which was significant at the .01 level. Again, individual pupil disruptive behaviors apparently were significant when interaction was considered rather than means across items. The significant replication analysis F ratio of 136.9778 further strengthened the interaction results. 77 Hypothesis 7 Relating to Population and Economic Focal Point There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools classified by the Michigan State Board of Education according to the degree of cultural and economic deprivation. TABLE 4.13 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC FOCAL POINT (FREQUENCY) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 106.7981 4 26.6995 1.9105 N.S. Error 3829.1745 274 13.9751 \ . Items 11065.8053 65 170.2432 204.8254 >.Ol Groups by Items 238.0553 260 0.9156 1.1016 >.01 Error 14802.9997 17810 0.8312 . Form One (Table 4.13) main effect analysis indi- cated an F ratio of 1.9105 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Interaction of the five levels of school types upon each item yielded a significant F ratio of 1.106. Student teachers in each of the five levels of schools perceived significant specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. This was further supported by a replication F value of 204.8254 which was significant at the .01 level. 78 TABLE 4.14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC FOCAL POINT (FREQUENCY) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 9.8589 4 2.4647 0.2821 N.S. Error 2070.4804 237 8.7362 . . Items 6613.7664 65 101.7503 131.1379 >.01 Groups by Items 204.0342 260 0.7848 1.0114 >.01 Error 11952.7818 15405 0.7759 . . Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors (Table 4.14) occurring across each of the five levels of school types yielded individual means with a non—significant F ratio of 0.2821. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Inter- action of the five levels of school types upon each item showed a significant F ratio of 1.0114. There were Specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that were significant when different levels of schools Were inter- acted with the specific forms of pupil disruptive behavior. Again, the replication of items F ratio (131.1379) was significant at the .01 level. This suggested that student teachers in each level were responding differently to the specific forms of pupil disruptive behavior. 79 Seriousness of Pupil Disruptive Behavior Analysis Hypothesis 1 Relating to Sex of Student Teacher There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and sex of the student teacher. TABLE 4.15 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SEX OF STUDENT TEACHER (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 1.0030 1 1.0030 0.1169 N.S. Error 2385.6088 278 8.5813 . . Items 6932.9885 65 106.6614 190.7628 >.01 Groups by Items 99.4394 65 1.5300 2.7361 >.Ol Error 10103.4942 18070 0.5591 . . Form One (Table 4.15) showed the main effect of sex upon seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as not significant. The hypothesis failed to be rejected. Upon further examination of the results, interaction of sex (male—female) upon the items indicated an F ratio 207.1357 which was significant at the .01 level. This suggested that while sex across all items was not a significant factor that sex interacted with each pupil disruptive behavior was. When the items were considered for repli- cation, a significant F ratio of 207.1357 was obtained. 80 This gave more support to the interaction significance in that student teachers of each sex were marking each item in a different manner. TABLE 4.16 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SEX OF STUDENT TEACHER (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 13.4217 1 13.4217 1.5722 N.S. Error 2048.8771 240 8.5370 . . Items 5130.7664 65 78.9349 120.8136 >.01 Groups by Items 77.9569 65 1.1993 1.8356 >.01 Error 10192.4288 15600 0.6533 . . Form Two (Table 4.16) indicated that the main effect of sex across all of the items was not significant. The F ratio for groups across items was 1.5722. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of sex upon each item was significant as the F ratio is 1.8356. The replication F ratio for items of 120.8136 was signifi- cant. This indicated that both sexes were responding differently to each of the pupil disruptive behaviors. Hypothesis 2 Relating to Class Size There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and the size of the class taught by the student teacher. 81 TABLE 4.17 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY CLASS SIZE (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 57.2487 5 11.4498 1.3496 N.S. Error 2316.0543 273 8.4837 . . Items 6903.2972 65 106.2046 189.3427 >.Ol Groups by Items 220.2029 325 0.6779 1.2085 >.01 Error 9953.3803 17745 0.5609 . . Form One (Table 4.17) analysis of class size and pupil disruptive behaviors yielded an F ratio of 1.3496 which was not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of varying class sizes upon each item showed a significant F ratio of 1.2085. This indicated that class sizes of 10 and under, 11—16, 17—20, 21—27, 28—34 and over 34 have specific forms of pupil disruptive behavior that differ. The replication of items revealed a 189.3427 F ratio which was significant at the .01 level. Items were responded to by student teachers of varying class sizes in different ways. Form Two (Table 4.18) examined in light of the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and class size showed an F ratio of 1.1151 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Again, the interaction F ratio of 1.1701 indicated that class sizes do have specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors that 82 TABLE 4.18 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY CLASS SIZE (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 47.5898 5 9.5180 1.1151 N.S. Error 2014.4446 236 8.5358 . . Items 5131.1031 65 78.9401 120.8175 >.01 Groups by Items 248.4744 325 0.7645 1.1701 >.Ol Error 10022.8894 15340 0.6534 . . are different. The replication F ratio of 133.5898 was significant at the .01 level. This showed that student teachers from the different class sizes responded to the pupil disruptive behaviors in different ways. gypothesis 3 Relating to Schools of Varying Economic Status There will be no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools which a majority of pupils are viewed by the student teacher as being from the lower, middle, and upper socio-economic levels. Form One (Table 4.19) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in lower, middle, and upper socio-economic schools reflected a main effect F ratio of 0.6634. Because the F ratio was not significant, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of 83 TABLE 4.19 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PERCEIVED SCHOOLS OF VARYING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC STATUS (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 11.3734 2 5.6867 0.6634 N.S. Error 2374.6234 277 8.5727 . . Items 6932.5822 65 106.6511 189.7045 >.01 Groups by Items 80.7666 130 0.6213 1.1051 >.01 Error 10122.7210 18005 0.5622 . . independent categories (lower, middle, and upper socio- economic levels) upon each item related a significant F ratio of 1.1051. This suggested that while there was no significant relationship of main effect that in the specific pupil disruptive behaviors there was significant relationship of the three categories within the socio— economic independent variable. When the subjects re- sponding to the socio—economic levels were measured, a significant F ratio of 189.7045 was reached. This ratio reflected that subjects marked each of the sixty—six items discriminately. This added further support to the meaning of the interaction measure. Form Two (Table 4.20) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in lower, middle, and upper socio—economic schools showed a main effect P ratio of 0.1106. The F ratio was not significant. The null 84 TABLE 4.20 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY PERCEIVED SCHOOLS OF VARYING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC STATUS (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 1.9149 2 0.9575 0.1106 N.S. Error 2060.1076 238 8.6559 . . Items 5094.0199 65 78.3695 119.9655 >.Ol Groups by Items 118.7553 130 0.91350 1.3984 >.01 Error 10106.0480 15470 0.6533 . . hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of independent categories (lower, middle, and upper socio- economic levels) upon each item related a significant F ratio of 1.3984. This made a clear—cut interpretation of the null hypothesis more difficult. The significant interaction suggested that the specific pupil disruptive behaviors when interacted with the three categories of socio—economic levels yielded a significant relationship. There were specific pupil disruptancies which were signifi- cant to each of the three categories of socio-economic levels. Further support of this analysis was ascertained when the replication F ratio of 119.9655 was significant at the .01 level. 85 gypothesis 4 Relating to Special Education There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in special education classes and non- special education classes. TABLE 4.21 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SPECIAL EDUCATION (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 4.8889 1 4.8889 0.5707 N.S. Error 2381.6942 278 8.5673 . . Items 6933.1830 65 106.6644 189.8838 >.01 Groups by Items 52.3762 65 0.8058 1.4345 >.01 Error 10150.5478 18070 0.5617 . . Form One (Table 4.21) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in special education and non— special education classes related a main effect F ratio of 0.5707 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of independent categories and each item (pupil disruptive behaviors) indicated a significant F ratio of 1.4345. This, again, suggested that there were specific forms of pupil dis— ruptive behavior which were significant. Further power was added to the interaction effect when a significant F ratio of 189.8838 was reported for replication of items. 86 TABLE 4.22 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SPECIAL EDUCATION (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 11.8549 1 11.8549 1.3871 N.S. Error 2051.1176 240 8.5463 . . Items 5130.5028 65 78.9308 120.7748 >.01 Groups by Items 75.0949 65 1.1553 1.7678 >.01 Error 10195.1826 15600 0.6535 . . Form Two (Table 4.22) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in special education and non- special education classes indicated a main effect F ratio of 1.3871 which was not significant at the .01 level. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of independent categories upon each specific pupil dis— ruptancy showed a significant F ratio of 1.7678 at the .01 level. This indicated that there were specific forms of pupil disruptancies which were significant to the cate— gories. When the replication of items F ratio (120.7748) was added to the interaction one can be assured that the respondents were replying in a discriminate manner to the specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. 87 Hypothesis 5 Relating to Team Teaching There will be no significant difference in the student teachers' perceived seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors occurring in team teaching and non-team teaching situations. TABLE 4.23 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY TEAM TEACHING . (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 0.3822 1 0.3822 0.0445 N.S. Error 2386.0823 278 8.5830 . . Items 6933.3192 65 106.6665 189.7142 >.01 Groups by Items 43.0154 65 0.6618 1.1770 N.S. Error 10159.8215 18070 0.5622 . . Form One (Table 4.23) main effect analysis indi— cated an F ratio of 0.0445 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Interaction of the items upon team teaching and non—team teaching situations showed that it was not significant. Replication of items F ratio 189.7142 was significant. This indicated that the respondents from team teaching and non—team teaching situations, while not differing significantly in their perceptions of pupil disruptive behaviors, showed variability in the way they marked the seriousness of each item on Form One. When the three factors of main 88 effect, item interaction with groups, and replication of items of Form One were considered together, they lended further support to the observation that team teaching and non-team teaching situations may not be a significant variable where pupil disruptive behaviors are concerned. TABLE 4.24 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY TEAM TEACHING (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 0.8051 1 0.8051 0.0937 N.S. Error 2061.4570 240 8.5894 . . Items 5130.1748 65 78.9258 120.3057 >.01 Groups by Items 36.0361 65 0.5544 0.8451 N.S. Error 10234.2804 15600 0.6560 . . When the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors was considered from Form Two (Table 4.24) the above hypothesis failed to be rejected. Form Two showed that groups of student teachers from team teaching and non— team teaching situations did not respond significantly different. Further support of the above observation was added when replication of items yielded a significant F ratio of 120.3057. This connoted that the student teachers from each group marked the items differently. Form Two seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors sup- ported the view that team teaching and non-team teaching 89 situations which had student teachers involved did not differ in their perceptions of the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. Hypothesis 6 Relating to Teaching Same Group All Day There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived seriousness of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors occurring in classes they are with all day and classes they are not with all day. TABLE 4.25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHING SAME GROUP ALL DAY (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 3.4091 1 3.4091 0.3978 N.S. Error 2382.6464 278 8.5707 . . Items 6933.7649 65 106.6733 190.0746 >.01 Groups by Items 62.1340 65 0.9560 1.7034 >.01 Error 10141.2104 18070 0.5612 . . Form One (Table 4.25) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in classes student teachers were with all day and classes they were not reflected a main effect F ratio of 0.5707 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. When the items were viewed across the two categories the relationship of group means suggested that there is no difference in the 90 way the two groups looked at the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as a whole. The interaction effect gave further insight as to the specific relationship of independent categories and each pupil disruptive behavior. The F ratio for interaction effect was 1.7034. This was significant at the .01 level. When specific pupil dis- ruptancies were viewed individually there was significance in the way student teachers perceived them. The replication of items F ratio (190.0746) was significant at the .01 level. Thus, student teachers from each category were responding to the specific forms of behavior in different ways. TABLE 4.26 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHING SAME GROUP ALL DAY (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 0.4774 1 0.47743 0.0556 N.S. Error 2061.5876 240 8.5900 . . Items 5131.0622 65 78.9394 120.9559 >.01 Groups by Items 89.5429 65 1.3776 2.1108 >.Ol Error 10181.0249 15600 0.6526 . Form Two (Table 4.26) analysis of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors in classes they were with all day and classes they were not showed a main effect F ratio of 0.0556 which was not significant. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. When the items were computed 91 across the two categories the relationship of group means indicated no significant difference in the way the two groups perceived the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors as a whole. The interaction of independent categories and each pupil disruptive behavior yielded a significant F ratio of 2.1108. This indicated that student teachers from each category significantly perceived different forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. The strength of this observation was increased with a signifi- cant F ratio of 120.9559 for item replication. Hypothesis 7 Relating to Population and Economic Focal Point There will be no significant difference in the student teacher's perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring in schools classified by the Michigan State Board of Education according to the degree of cultural and economic deprivation. When the analysis of variance was completed on Form One (Table 4.27) for the degree of cultural and economic deprivation and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors, the main effect of groups showed no significance in the mean responses of each group as a whole. Thus, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. The interaction of the items upon the five types of schools was significant at the .01 level. This suggested that the school types when jointly considered with items differed significantly. 92 TABLE 4.27 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC FOCAL POINT (SERIOUSNESS) FORM ONE Source SS df MS F P Groups 19.0611 4 4.7653 0.5546 N.S. Error 2354.4060 274 8.5927 . . Items 6900.6020 65 106.1631 188.6498 >.01 Groups by Items 150.2335 260 0.5778 1.0268 >.01 Error 10022.6185 17810 0.5628 . . The replication of items indicated a significant F ratio of 188.6498. Items were responded to by student teachers of different community types in different ways. TABLE 4.28 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC FOCAL POINT (SERIOUSNESS) FORM TWO Source SS df MS F P Groups 54.5870 4 13.6468 1.6108 N.S. Error 2007.9095 237 8.4722 . . Items 5130.9365 65 78.9375 120.6634 >.01 Groups by Items 193.1513 260 0.7429 1.1356 >.01 Error 10077.8823 15405 0.6542 . . 93 When Form Two (Table 4.28) was examined in light of seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and degree of cultural and economic deprivation, the main effect of groups F ratio was 1.6108. This showed no significance in the mean responses of each school type. The null hypothe- sis, consequently, failed to be rejected. The interaction of the items upon the five types of schools yielded a significant F ratio of 1.1356. The replication of items indicated a significant F ratio of 120.6634. The student teachers responded to the pupil disruptive behaviors differently. Analysis of Data For Purpose Two: Frequency and Seriousness of Pupil DiSruptive BehavIors General Overview For Frequency Interpretation The identification of specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors student teachers considered most frequent and serious was arrived at by reporting the computed mean values of each specific pupil disruptive behavior. To interpret the meaning of the frequency dimension the following system was used: 1. The frequency dimension was divided into five areas: hourly, daily, weekly, seldom, never. 2. Each dimension was assigned a number value. Hourly Daily Weekly Seldom Never 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 94 The mean value reported reflected the assigned number value of each dimension. Tables 4.29 and 4.30 will provide the reader with a general overview of the frequency means of all pupil disruptive behaviors on Form One and Form Two. General Overview For Seriousness Interpretation To interpret the meaning of the seriousness dimension the following system was used: 1. The seriousness dimension was divided into five areas: positive, harmless, nuisance, serious, very serious. 2. Each area was assigned a number value one through five. Positive Harmless Nuisance Serious 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Very Serious 5.0 The mean value reported reflected the assigned number value of each dimension. Tables 4.31 and 4.32 will provide the reader with a general overview of the seri- ousness means of all pupil disruptive behaviors on Form One and Form Two. 95 TABLE 4.29 MEAN SCORES FOR FORM ONE: FREQUENCY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Showing disrespect for another student's opinions. Naively asking teacher personal questions. Failing to follow directions for assignment. Leaving desks or lockers messy. Playing with toys, yo-yo's, etc. in class. Leaving room before dismissal. Throwing temper tantrums. Girls wearing skirts too short. Making allusions to sex (written or verbal). Carrying cigarettes. Pulling a student's hair. Swearing at teacher. Cheating on in-class assignment. Failing to put away materials after use. Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc. in class. Refusing to participate in class activities or assignments. Gossiping among students. Combing hair in class. Having arms around each other outside of class on school property. Possessing alcohol on school property. Destroying or defacing another student's property. 3.1214 3.6500 2.2143 3.0144 3.4571 4.0857 4.2464 3.6799 3.8607 4.1000 4.3571 4.5232 3.6857 3.3047 3.7025 3.0609 2.7634 3.5964 3.4803 4.8750 4.0464 96 TABLE 4.29 (continued) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete homework. Misusing class materials (e.g., turning Bunsen burner too high). Talking out while class is working quietly. Daydreaming in class. Always asking to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water. Wearing clothes too tight. Holding hands in class. Possessing firecrackers on school property. Calling another student names. Complaining about grades. Turning in messy papers. Forgetting notebooks, textbooks, or other classroom materials. Whispering, or nonverbally communicating at inappropriate times. Cutting classes or skipping school. Displaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to be adequately clean. Looking up girl's skirt. Reading or possessing obscene books or pornographic materials in class. Verbally interrupting a student while he is talking to teacher or class. Making passes at teacher or getting fresh with teacher. 4.2509 2.9892 3.8607 2.3250 2.5000 2.7642 4.0072 4.4679 4.8357 3.1821 3.5214 2.8750 2.7464 2.1649 3.6286 4.3107 3.5250 4.3893 4.6321 2.8022 4.5893 97 TABLE 4.29 (continued) 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52 53 54. 55 56. 57 58 59 60 61. 62. 63. 64 65. 66. Cheating on tests. Throwing water. Answering questions in humorous, disruptive way. Sitting in wrong seat. Using slang in class. Chewing gum in class. Kissing outside of class on school property. Throwing things out window. Stealing from another student. Questioning teacher's opinion. Under the influence of narcotics in class. Deliberately dropping books or other objects in class. Drawing pictures to poke fun at teacher. Excessive belching in class. Turning in false fire alarms or bomb scares. Calling teacher by first name. Writing on walls. Slouching or otherwise sitting inappropriately in seat. Making noise in the halls. Soiling pants. Possessing guns on school property. Caring for fingernails in class. Verbally interrupting teacher while she is talking. Stealing materials from school. 3.9429 4.3714 3.0321 3.4000 2.7097 2.6237 4.4179 4.5750 4.2214 3.3309 4.8244 4.0394 4.5000 4.5464 4.8500 4.4929 4.5071 2.5536 2.3214 4.4893 4.9250 4.2964 2.7878 4.4000 98 TABLE 4.30 MEAN SCORES FOR FORM TWO: FREQUENCY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Drawing picture to poke fun at another student. Asking teacher personal questions to purposely make her uncomfortable. Doing wrong assignment. Failing to hang up coats, boots, etc. Clicking pens, or making other similar noises in class. Refusing to take lecture notes. Crying in class. Wearing inappropriate clothing, low cut dresses, ripped, etc.). (e.g., Discussing sexual matters. Smoking on school property. Swearing at another student. Arguing with teacher. Cheating on homework. Carelessly using materials paints). (e.g., spilling Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc., in class. Complaining about class activities or assignments. Spitting. Putting on make—up in class. Hugging or having arms around each other in class. Under the influence of alcohol in class. 4.4380 4.3485 3.7645 4.3195 2.7967 3.8340 4.2324 4.0702 4.1494 4.4256 3.7303 3.2603 3.9256 3.8264 3.6183 2.8967 4.6818 4.3444 4.2066 4.9380 99 TABLE 4.30 (continued) 21. 22. 23. 24 25 26 27. 28. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Throwing things at another student. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete in-class assignment. Misusing bathrooms (e.g., stuffing up toilets, throwing paper around). Asking irrelevant questions (not pertaining to content being discussed). Sleeping in class. Excessive complaining about feeling ill (hypochondriac). Boys wearing shirts outs. Holding hands outside of class on school property. Possessing brass knuckles, molotov cocktails, etc., on school property. Making fun of another student. Sassing or speaking rudely to teacher. Plagiarizing. Forgetting lunch money, permission slips or other non-academic materials. Writing and passing personal notes in class. Coming to class tardy. Displaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to have hair cut properly. Making obscene gestures. Possessing stolen goods (not stolen from school, teacher or students). Laughing at another student's mistakes. 3.6281 4.3884 2.9091 4.2975 2.9628 4.0000 4.0620 3.3595 3.4917 4.9212 3.1743 3.6860 4.2531 3.4174 3.7769 2.9339 4.4628 3.6446 4.2727 4.7355 3.2125 100 TABLE 4.30 (continued) 42 43. 44 45 46 47. 48. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55. 56 57 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. Inappropriate display of affection towards teacher. Cheating on tests. Throwing refuse on floor. Whispering, or nonverbally communicating after teacher's request to stop. Reading, writing, etc., while teacher is talking. Pulling pranks (e.g., hiding things). Chewing gum in class. Petting outside of class on school property. Starting fires. Hitting, shoving, or tripping another student. Pointing out teacher's mistakes. Possessing narcotics on school property. Putting notes on the blackboard when teacher isn't there. Making fun of teacher. Expelling gas in class. Failing to leave building during fire drill. Lying to teacher with the intent to deceive (not fantasy). Writing on desk tops. Putting books or papers away too soon. Tattling. Soiling pants. 4.4587 4.0372 3.1405 2.3554 2.6612 3.9050 2.7521 4.6074 4.8963 3.2810 3.5394 4.8347 4.1405 4.3057 4.4669 4.9083 3.9339 3.6818 3.2769 3.2686 4.6942 101 TABLE 4.30 (continued) 63 64 65 66 Possessing knives on school property. Eating in class. Stealing from teacher. Stealing materials from school. 4.7314 4.1901 4.7510 4.5868 102 TABLE 4.31 MEAN SCORES FOR FORM ONE: SERIOUSNESS OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. Showing disrespect for another student's opinions. Naively asking teacher personal questions. Failing to follow directions for assignment. Leaving desks or lockers messy. Playing with toys, yo-yo's, etc., in class. Leaving room before dismissal. Throwing temper tantrums. Girls wearing skirts too short. Making allusions to sex (written or verbal). Carrying cigarettes. Pulling a student's hair. Swearing at teacher. Cheating on in-class assignment. Failing to put away materials after use. Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc., in class. Refusing to participate in class activities or assignments. Gossiping among students. Combing hair in class. Having arms around each other outside of class on school property. Possessing alcohol on school property. Destroying or defacing another student's property. 3.5607 2.3907 3.4444 2.8387 3.0429 3.5556 3.9571 2.5215 2.9785 3.2929 3.2607 3.9679 4.0250 3.0612 3.4424 3.7679 2.9068 2.6786 2.5393 4.3273 4.3179 103 TABLE 4.31 (continued) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete homework. Misusing class materials (e.g., turning Bunsen burner too high). Talking out while class is working quietly. Daydreaming in class. Always asking to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water. Wearing clothes too tight. Holding hands in class. Possessing firecrackers on school property. Calling another student names. Complaining about grades. Turning in messy papers. Forgetting notebooks, textbooks, or other classroom materials. Whispering, or nonverbally communicating at inappropriate times. Cutting classes or skipping school. Displaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to be adequately clean. Looking up girl's skirt. Reading or possessing obscene books or pornographic materials in class. Verbally interrupting a student while he is talking to teacher or class. Making passes at teacher or getting fresh with teacher. 2.9927 3.6392 3.7857 3.3393 3.1036 2.8857 2.7384 2.8921 4.2310 3.5821 2.5321 3.1619 3.2222 3.9964 3.9964 4.2186 3.3393 3.4158 3.8357 3.5233 3.7230 104 TABLE 4.31 (continued) 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Cheating on tests. Throwing water. Answering questions in humorous, disruptive way. Sitting in wrong seat. Using slang in class. Chewing gum in class. Kissing outside of class on school property. Throwing things out window. Stealing from another student. Questioning teacher‘s opinion. Under the influence of narcotics in class. Deliberately dropping books or other objects in class. Drawing pictures to poke fun at teacher. Excessive belching in class. Turning in false fire alarms or bomb scares. Calling teacher by first name. Writing on walls. Slouching or otherwise sitting inappropriately in seat. Making noise in the halls. Soiling pants. Possessing guns on school property. Caring for fingernails in class. Verbally interrupting teacher while she is talking. Stealing materials from school. 4.1362 3.4404 2.9143 2.6964 2.4194 2.5893 3.0433 3.7122 4.3464 1.6043 4.5663 3.3179 2.9283 3.2446 4.4393 3.0036 3.7518 2.7643 2.9571 3.3669 4.6259 2.9107 3.4209 4.4014 105 TABLE 4.32 MEAN SCORES FOR FORM TWO: SERIOUSNESS OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Drawing picture to poke fun at another student. Asking teacher personal questions to purposely make her uncomfortable. Doing wrong assignment. Failing to hang up coats, boots, etc. Clicking pens, or making other similar noises in class. Refusing to take lecture notes. Crying in class. Wearing inappropriate clothing (e.g., low cut dresses, ripped, etc.). Discussing sexual matters. Smoking on school property. Swearing at another student. Arguing with teacher. Cheating on homework. Carelessly using materials (e.g., spilling paints). Throwing erasers, spitballs, paper airplanes, etc. in class. Complaining about class activities or assignments. Spitting. Putting on make-up in class. Hugging or having arms around each other in class. Under the influence of alcohol in class. 3.1292 2.8506 3.0417 2.6942 2.9876 3.0336 3.6058 2.9333 2.2958 3.5579 3.5560 3.0909 3.7510 3.2282 4.4400 2.7810 3.6058 2.9582 2.9132 4.3693 106 TABLE 4.32 (continued) 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Throwing things at another student. Pulling prank against teacher. Failing to complete in—class assignment. Misusing bathrooms (e.g., stuffing up toilets, throwing paper around). Asking irrelevant questions (not pertaining to content being discussed). Sleeping in class. Excessive complaining about feeling ill (hypochondriac). Boys wearing shirts out. Holding hands outside of class on school property. Possessing brass knuckles, molotov cocktails, etc. on school property. Making fun of another student. Sassing or speaking rudely to teacher. Plagiarizing. Forgetting lunch money, permission slips or other non-academic materials. Writing and passing personal notes in class. Coming to class tardy. Displaying masochistic behavior to demand attention. Failing to have hair cut properly. Making obscene gestures. Possessing stolen goods (not stolen from school, teacher or students). Laughing at another student's mistakes. 3.7603 2.9458 3.4959 3.7676 2.7355 3.2448 3.3801 2.3140 2.2438 4.5601 3.6639 3.9835 3.9046 2.8548 2.9297 3.0950 4.2385 2.3843 3.7231 4.3071 3.6946 107 TABLE 4.32 (continued) 42. 43. 44 45. 46. 47 o 48. 49. 50. 51. 52 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Inappropriate display of affection towards teacher. Cheating on tests. Throwing refuse on floor. Whispering, or nonverbally communicating after teacher's request to stop. Reading, writing, etc., while teacher is talking. Pulling pranks (e.g., hiding things). Chewing gum in class. Petting outside of class on school property. Starting fires. Hitting, shoving, or tripping another student. Pointing out teacher's mistakes. Possessing narcotics on school property. Putting notes on the blackboard when teacher isn't there. Making fun of teacher. Expelling gas in class. Failing to leave building during fire drill. Lying to teacher with the intent to deceive (not fantasy). Writing on desk tops. Putting books or papers away too soon. Tattling. Soiling pants. Possessing knives on school property. 3.4835 4.0455 3.2149 3.3719 3.2033 2.9627 2.5620 3.5909 4.5702 3.9793 1.6888 4.5537 2.7012 3.1653 2.8963 4.2083 4.1157 3.4545 3.0290 3.0415 3.4542 4.2176 108 TABLE 4.32 (continued) 64. Eating in class. 3.1074 65. Stealing from teacher. 4.4090 66. Stealing materials from school. 4.4628 109 Interpretation of the Frequency and Seriousness Dimensions Introduction The focus of this section is upon the frequency dimensions of hourly (1.0)* and daily (2.0)* and the seriousness dimensions of very serious (5.0)* and serious (4.0)*. The results are reported in terms of behaviors which were perceived as occurring most frequently and as being most serious. To implement this, an arbitrary mean value of 2.8 for the frequency dimension was established as a cut off point. Similarly, an arbitrary mean value of 4.0 for the seriousness dimension was established. The tables and interpretations that follow report pupil disruptive behaviors that have mean values within the established mean ranges: Frequency (1.0——2.8); Seriousness (5.0--4.0) Interpretation of Form One frequent pupil dis- ruptive behaviors (Table 4.33) was derived by using mean values for the group as a whole. Each pupil dis— ruptive behavior between 1.0 and 2.8 (between daily and weekly) was recorded as being a frequent form of behavior. To aid in the total meaning of the frequency means, each reported mean for the pupil disruptive behavior had its counterpart in the seriousness dimension. This was added *Assigned number value. 110 TABLE 4.33 FREQUENCY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS PERCEIVED AS OCCURRING HOURLY TO DAILY (FORM ONE) Description of Mean Value Mean Value Disruptive Behavior Frequency Seriousness Whispering in class 2.1649 3.2374 (Daily) (Nuisance) Failing to follow direction 2.2143 3.4444 for assignment (Daily) (Nuisance) Making noise in hall 2.3214 2.9571 (Daily) (Nuisance) Talking out while class is , 2.3250 3.3393 working quietly (Daily) (Nuisance) Daydreaming in class 2.50000 3.1036 ' (Daily) (Nuisance) Slouching or otherwise sitting 2.5536 2.7643 inappropriately in seat (Daily) (Harmless) Chewing gum in class 2.6237 2.5893 (Daily) (Harmless) Using slang in class 2.7097 2.8857 (Daily) (Harmless) Gossiping among students 2.7634 2.9068 (Daily) (Harmless) Always asking to go to the bathroom 2.7643 2.8857 or get a drink of water (Daily) (Harmless) Forgetting notebooks, textbooks, 2.7464 3.2222 or other classroom materials (Daily) (Nuisance) Verbally interrupting teacher 2.7878 4.4014 while she is talking (Daily) (Serious) 111 to help the reader obtain a more complete picture of the specific pupil disruptive behavior. When the mean value of a frequency item is reported (e.g., "whispering in class" at 2.1649) the following interpretation may be made. Whispering in class is viewed as the most frequent pupil disruptive behavior (Daily). The mean seriousness value of 3.2374 indicated that while whispering in class was viewed by student teachers as most frequent it also was viewed as being a nuisance. The most outstanding interpretation of the frequency mean values reported in Table 4.33 was that the twelve most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors were largely viewed by student teachers as being either harmless or a nuisance. Another significant reported mean value was related to the pupil disruptive behavior: "Verbally interrupting the teacher while she is talking." Considered by itself, this disruptive behavior had little meaning until the seriousness dimension mean value of 4.4014 was added. This suggested that the gnly frequent pupil dis— ruptive behavior that student teachers considered serious was verbally interrupting the student teacher while she was talking. When Form Two (Table 4.34) mean values for frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors was analyzed with an arbitrary 2.8 cut off point, "Whispering in class" tended to be the most frequently occurring pupil disruptive 112 TABLE 4.34 FREQUENCY OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS PERCEIVED AS OCCURRING HOURLY TO DAILY (FORM TWO) Description of Mean Value Mean Value Disruptive Behavior Frequency Seriousness Whispering in class 2.3554 3.3720 (Daily) (Nuisance) Reading, writing, etc., while 2.6612 3.2033 teacher is talking (Daily) (Nuisance) Chewing gum in class 2.7521 2.5620 (Daily) (Harmless) Clicking pens, or making other 2.7967 2.9876 similar noises in class (Daily) (Harmless) behavior (DAILY). This behavior was also perceived as a nuisance behavior. The other identified frequent pupil disruptive behaviors were also regarded as either a nuisance or harmless. When the serious pupil disruptive behaviors from the Form One (Table 4.35) were analyzed, the tw0 behaviors of "Under the influence of narcotics" (4.5663) and "p05- sessing guns" (4.6258) appeared to be most serious to student teachers as a group. The major trend of the item means indicated that the pupil disruptive behaviors perceived as most serious seldom occurred. Form Two (Table 4.36) revealed item means that placed possessing narcotics, possessing brass knuckles 113 TABLE 4.35 PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS PERCEIVED AS BEING SERIOUS OR EXTREMELY SERIOUS (FORM ONE) Description of Mean Value Mean Value Disruptive Behavior (Seriousness) (Frequency) Possessing guns 4.6258 4.9250 (Serious) (Seldom) Under influence of narcotics 4.5663 4.8244 (Serious) (Seldom) Turning in false alarms, 4.4393 4.8500 bomb threats (Serious) (Seldom) Stealing materials from 4.4014 4.4000 school (Serious) (Seldom) Stealing from another student 4.3464 4.2214 (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing alcohol 4.3273 4.8750 (Serious) (Seldom) Destroying other student's 4.3179 4.0464 property (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing firecrackers 4.2310 4.8357 (Serious) (Seldom) Displaying masochistic 4.2186 4.3107 behavior (Serious) (Seldom) Cheating on tests 4.1362 3.9429 (Serious) (Weekly) Cheating on in—class 4.0250 3.1214 assignment (Serious) (Weekly) 114 TABLE 4.36 PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS PERCEIVED AS BEING SERIOUS OR EXTREMELY SERIOUS (FORM TWO) Description of Mean Value Mean Value Disruptive Behavior (Seriousness) (Frequency) Starting fires 4.5702 4.8963 (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing brass knuckles, 4.5602 4.9211 molotov cocktails (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing narcotics 4.5537 4.8347 (Serious) (Seldom) Stealing from school 4.4628 4.5868 (Serious) (Seldom) Stealing from teacher 4.4091 4.7510 (Serious) (Seldom) Influences of alcohol in 4.3693 4.9380 class (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing stolen goods not 4.3071 4.7356 stolen from school, teacher, (Serious) (Seldom) students Displaying masochistic behavior 4.2384 4.4628 (Serious) (Seldom) Possessing knives 4.2176 4.7314 (Serious) (Seldom) Failing to leave building 4.2083 4.9083 during fire drill (Serious) (Seldom) Lying to deceive teacher 4.1157 3.9339 (Serious) (Weekly) Cheating on tests 4.0455 3.1405 (Serious) (Weekly) 115 and/or Molotov cocktails, and starting fires to be the most serious pupil disruptive behaviors. When the serious pupil disruptive behaviors were viewed in terms of frequency, the general tendency was for student teachers to perceive them as seldom occurring. Positive Perceptions of Pupil DiSruptive Behaviors The seriousness dimension which sought perceptions about how the student teacher felt about each behavior yielded only two pupil disruptive behaviors that were viewed as positive: (1) questioning teaching opinion (Form One), (2) pointing out teacher's mistakes (Form Two). When these behaviors were viewed in light of frequency, the mean values placed the rate as weekly. Summary The analysis of the hypotheses in the study were examined and the following results were found. A table of results provides a shortened version of the analysis completed. Under the purpose: to identify the pupil dis— ruptive behaviors that student teachers perceived to be most frequent and serious the following observations were made: 1. When the most frequent pupil disruptive be- haviors were identified and compared to their mean score 116 TABLE 4.37 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF HYPOTHESES REGARDING FREQUENCY AND SERIOUSNESS OF PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS Hypotheses Regarding Form One Form Two 12. 13 Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and sex of student teacher. Seriousness of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors and sex of student teacher. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and class size. Seriousness of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors and class size. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and socio—economic levels. Seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors and socio- economic levels. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and special edu- cation and non-special edu- cation classes. Seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors and special education and non—special education classes. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and team teaching. Seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors and team teaching. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and teaching the same group all day. Seriousness of pupil dis— ruptive behaviors and teaching the same group all day. Frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors and schools classi- fied according to cultural and economic deprivation. Seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and schools classi— fied according to cultural and economic deprivation. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject Rejected at the .01 confidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 confi- dence level. Failed to reject at the .01 confi- dence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .0I’con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Rejected at the .01 confidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Rejected at the . confidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to re'ect at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to re ect at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con— fidence level. Failed to reject at the .01 con- fidence level. at the .01 con- fidence level. 117 for seriousness, the most frequent behaviors were con- sidered by student teachers as a nuisance or as harmless. 2. When the most serious pupil disruptive be- haviors were identified and compared to their mean score for frequency of occurrence, the most serious behaviors identified by student teachers seldom occurred. 3. The five most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors for the Form One were: whispering in class, failing to follow directions for the assignment, making noise in the hall, talking out while class is working, and day dreaming in class. 4. The most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors for the Form Two were: whispering in class, reading or writing while the teacher is talking, chewing gum in class, and clicking pens, etc., in class. 5. The five most serious pupil disruptive be- haviors for the Form One were: possessing guns, being under the influence of narcotics in school, turning in false alarms and bomb threats, stealing materials from school, and stealing from another student. 6. The five most serious pupil disruptive be- haviors on the Form Two were: starting fires, possessing brass knuckles and/or Molotov cocktails, possessing narcotics, stealing from school, and stealing from the teacher. 118 7. The behavior that student teachers viewed to be positive from the Form One was "Questioning teacher's opinion." 8. The behavior that student teachers viewed to be positive from the Form Two was "Pointing out teacher's mistakes." CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter V is organized in four sections. The first section is a summary of the study. Conclusions are dis— cussed in the second section. Implications for further research are found in the third section with implications for teacher education in the final section. Summary The purpose of this study was to: 1. Examine the relationship 9: sex of the student teacher, socio—economic level of the schools as perceived by the student teacher, size of classes taught by the student teacher, classes taught by the student teacher all day, special education classes taught by the student teacher, team teaching of which the student teacher is a member, and school types identified by the Michigan Department of Education 39 132 specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. 2. Identify the pupil disruptive behaviors that student teachers perceive to be most frequent and serious. 119 120 Fourteen null hypotheses were generated to test the first purpose. The second purpose was analyzed by using the mean scores of each item. The questionnaire was comprised of two forms—— Form One and Form Two. Each form contained sixty-six specific pupil disruptive behaviors and was administered and analyzed separately. The population used for this study was 664 student teachers assigned by the Office of Student Teaching from Michigan State University to student teach in area schools. The analysis of variance-repeated measures design was used to analyze the hypotheses related to the first purpose of this study. The level of significance for testing the null hypotheses was established at .01. The second purpose of this study was analyzed by using an MD STAT Routine which yielded mean scores for each pupil disruptive behavior. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study the following conclusions were supported: 1. Hypotheses for frequency and seriousness dimensions which stated no significant differences between pupil disruptive behaviors and class size, special edu— cation, teaching the same group all day, and population and economic focal point of communities that have schools 121 in which student teachers are placed, all failed to be rejected. Furthermore, when the items were interacted with categories of the above background data, significant results were obtained. The significant interaction effects suggested that when items were viewed individually with categories there were differences in the way student teachers perceived the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors. 2. The null hypothesis for team teaching and the frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors for Form One was rejected while Form Two failed to reject the hypothesis. The null hypothesis for the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors and team teaching failed to be rejected on both forms. The interaction of items and team teaching cate— gories was not significate for both the frequency and seriousness analysis. This finding provided enough support for doubting whether team teaching has much of an effect upon the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors for student teachers. 3. The examined null hypothesis for sex of the student teacher and the frequency of pupil disruptive be- haviors found that Form One failed to reject the hypothesis while Form Two rejected the hypothesis. Both forms yielded significant interaction effects when items were jointly considered with female and male categories. The null hypothesis for sex and the seriousness dimension on both 122 forms failed to be rejected. There was, however, signifi— cant interaction results between the items and female and male categories. Thus, sex of the student teacher was not a primary significant factor in the way student teachers as a group responded to all of the pupil disruptive be— haviors. 4. The null hypothesis which tested socio—economic levels (lower, middle, and upper) and frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors failed to be rejected on Form One and was rejected on Form Two. The interaction effects of the items jointly considered with the three socio-economic levels yielded significant results. The null hypothesis for the social economic levels and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors on both forms failed to be rejected. The interaction of items jointly considered with the three economic levels (lower, middle, upper) was significant. In conclusion, socio—economic levels for frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors had question- able affects upon the way student teachers as a group responded to all the pupil disruptive behaviors. Under the purpose: to identify the pupil disruptive koehaviors that student teachers perceived to be most frequent and serious the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors Vvere considered by student teachers as a nuisance or as llarmless. 123 2. The most serious pupil disruptive behaviors were considered by student teachers as seldom occurring. 3. Analysis of the most frequent forms of pupil disruptive behaviors for both forms were whispering in class, failing to follow directions for assignment, making noise in the hall, talking out while class is working, day dreaming in class, reading or writing while teacher is talking, chewing gum in class, and clicking pens, etc., in class. 4. Analysis of the most serious forms of pupil disruptive behaviors for both forms were possessing guns, being under the influence of narcotics while in school, turning in false alarms and bomb threats, stealing materials from school, stealing from another student, stealing from the teacher, starting fires, possessing brass knuckles and/or Molotov cocktails, and possessing narcotics. 5. The identified positive forms of pupil dis- ruptive behaviors for Form One and Form Two were (1) questioning teacher's opinion, (2) pointing out teacher's mistakes. Discussion The "main effects" measure which reflected means for the groups on the entire questionnaire showed, in most cases, that the background variables as independent measures were not significantly related to the pupil 124 disruptive behaviors as a whole. The closeness of groups across the items suggested that student teachers from Michigan State University as a group, were quite homo— geneous when the entire items (pupil disruptive behaviors) of the questionnaire were considered. As an example, one would not be able to tell if a male or female student teacher responded to the questionnaire when all the items were tabulated and mean scores computed. This finding, although important, may not be as important as the general finding of significant interaction of the independent variables when jointly considered with the specific forms of pupil disruptive behaviors. This finding related the point that when items were interacted with the different categories for each examined independent variable, they were significant. Individual items on the questionnaire were responded to by student teachers significantly different. This particular study did not pursue which specific items were significantly responded to when jointly considered with the independent variables. As an example, the individual means of population and economic focal point classifications were not significantly related. However, the interaction of the pupil disruptive behaviors and schools from communities in the metropolitan core, city, town, urban fringe, and rural community was significant. The meaning of this was that student teachers from each of these settings responded differently to each specific pupil disruptive behavior. This study did not undertake 125 to find which specific pupil disruptive behaviors were related to each of the five categories. It can, however, be reasonably ascerted that student teachers from Michigan State University who are placed in various settings responded differently to individual pupil disruptive behaviors. I Initial results from the similar study directed by Howard Teitlebaum of Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University1 indicated that public school teachers, as a group, responded significantly differently to each independent variable and pupil disruptive behaviors. Interaction of items and groups also showed significant results. This may indicate that student teachers as a group perceived pupil disruptive behaviors differently than public school teachers. If this, indeed, is the case, an interesting concept has begun to be formulated: that student teacher concerns over the frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors may be related to their development as a professional. If student teachers have the tendency to see behavioral problems in more of a global context than experienced public school teachers it would enhance our knowledge of this area to know when and how the global perceptions change to priority concerns for pupil lInformation received from conference with Mr. Teitlebaum on June 9, 1970. 126 disruptive behaviors that are related to maintaining control over the learning situation. One possible reason for the existence of the global concerns of student teacher may be that they still perceive themselves as students and because of this view relate more to others in the same classifi— cation. Perhaps it is not until the "strings" are completly severed with the university or college do they begin to perceive themselves as a teacher. Further questions, however, could be asked: Does the first and second year public school teacher still have the global View? What specific professional activities or experi- ences are related to the change of the global View to the View of classroom related pupil disruptive behaviors? At any rate, the concept does furnish a base for future concerns that may be explored. The frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors identified by this study were further understood when Wickman's2 original groupings of behaviors were added. Wickman's pupil disruptive behavior groupings consisted of: Group I Violations of General Standards of Morality and Integrity Stealing, Dishonesties, Immorality, Profanity. 2Wickman, op. cit., pp. 15-17. 127 Group II Transgressions Against Authority Disobedience, Impertinence, Refusing to do Things When Asked, Insubordination. Group III Violations of General School Regulations Truancy, Tardiness, Destroying Materials. Group IV Violations of Classroom Rules Disorderliness, Restlessness, Interruptions, Whispering, Lack of Supplies. Group V Violations of School Work Requirements Inattention, Lack of Interest, Carelessness, Laziness. Group VI Difficulties With Other Children Annoying Other Children, Tattling, Laughing at Others Mistakes, Interfering With the Work of Others, Fighting. 128 Group VII Undesirable Personality Traits Negativisms, Unacceptable Social Manners, Self— Indulgence, Arrogance, Diffidence, Evasions, Inter- ferences, Lack of Emotional Control, Undesirable Mental States. Further understanding of the reported most frequent behaviors (Tables 4.33 and 4.34) was extended when the behaviors were viewed in terms of Wickman's behavioral groupings. The behaviors identified by student teachers in Tables 4.33 and 4.34 were combined into one list and classified according to one of the seven Wickman groups of pupil disruptive behaviors. As indicated earlier, the frequent pupil disruptive behaviors in Table 5.1 were viewed by student teachers as being either a nuisance or as harmless. The specific pupil disruptive behaviors identified by student teachers when grouped according to Wickman's schema, primarily reflected infractions of classroom rules and school work requirements. Pupil disruptive behaviors with mean values 1.0 to 2.8 were not found for the following Wickman cate— gories: Violations of General Standards of Morality and Integrity, Transgressions Against Authority, Violations of General School Regulations, and Difficulties With Other Children. The extended analysis of the original frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors identified by student 129 TABLE 5.1 FREQUENT PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS DERIVED FROM TABLES 4.33 AND 4.34 AND CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO WICKMAN'S SCHEMA Pupil Disruptive Wickman's Classification Behaviors Classified Mean Value* I. Violations of General I. None identified in Standards of Morality and Main Grouping From Integrity Tables 4.33 and 4.34 II. Transgressions Against II. None identified in Authority Main Grouping From Tables 4.33 and 4.34 III. Violations of General School III. None identified in Regulations Main Grouping From Tables 4.33 and 4.34 IV. Violations of Classroom IV. Whispering in class 2.1649 Rules Making noise in hall 2.3214 Talking while class is working quietly 3250 Slouching, sitting inapprOpriately 2.5536 Chewing gum in class 2.6237 Always asking to go to bathroom to get a drink of water 2.7643 Verbally interrupting teacher while she is talking 3.7878 Clicking pens, etc., in class 2.7967 V. Violations of School Work v. Failing to follow Regulations directions for as— signnmnts (3.1549 Reading, writing while teacher is talking 3.6612 Using slang in class 3.7097 ForguLLinq notebOOks, textbooks, etc. 2.7464 VI. Difficulties With Other V1. None identified in Children Main Grouping From Tables 4.33 and 4.34 VII. Undesirable Personality VII. Daydreaming in class 2.5000 Traits Gossiping among students 2.7634 *For interpretation of the mean values for the frequency of pupil disruptive behaviors the following number values were aSSigned each area (amount of frequency): Hourly Daily Weekly Seldom Never 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Mean values reported in Table 5.1 reflect those behaviors that fall within a range of 1.0 (Hourly) to 2.8 (Daily). Thus, a mean value of 2.1649 (Whispering in class) would indicate that this behavior occurred daily. The derived mean values used for classifying the most frequent pupil disruptive behaviors were taken from Chapter IV: Table 4.33 and 4.34. 130 TABLE 5.2 SERIOUS PUPIL DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS DERIVED FROM TABLES 4.35 AND 4.36 AND CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO WICKMAN'S SCHEMA Wickman's Classification Pupil Disruptive Behaviors Classified Me an Value* I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. Violations of General I. Standards of Morality and Integrity Transgressions Against II. Authority Violations of General III School Regulations Violations of Classroom 1V. Rules Violations of School Work V. Regulations Difficulties with Other VI. Children Undesirable Personality VII. Traits Stealing from teacher Stealing materials from school Stealing from another student Possessing stolen goods not from school, teacher, students Cheating on tests Lying to deceive teacher Cheating on in-class assignments None identified in Main Grouping From Tables 4.35 and 4.36 Possessing guns Starting fires Under influence of narcotics Possessing brass knuckles, Molotov cocktails Possessing narcotics Turning in false alarms, bomb threats Under influence of alcohol in class Possessing alcohol Possessing firecrackers Possessing knives Failing to leave building during fire drill None identified in Main Grouping from Tables 4.35 and 4.36 None identified in Main Grouping from Tables 4.35 and 4.36 None identified in Main Grouping from Tables 4.36 and 4.36 Destroying other student's property Displaying masochistic behavior 4.4091 4.4014 4.3464 4.3071 4.1362 4.1157 4.0250 4.6258 4.5702 4.5663 4.5602 4.5537 4.4393 4.3693 4.3273 4.2310 4.2176 4.2083 4.3179 4.2384 area value of 4.0(+) reported in Table 5.2 were taken from Chapter IV: *For interpretation of the mean values for the seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors the following number values were assrgned each (degree of seriousness): Harmless 2.0 Positive 1.0 3.0 Mean values reported in Table 5.2 reflect any value over 4.0. would indicate a serious behavior. Nuisance Serious 4.0 5.0 Very Serious A *The derived mean values for each pupil disruptive behavior Table 4.35 and 4.36. 131 teachers added further support to Wickman findings. His findings showed that classroom teachers were more aware of disruptive behaviors that interfered with accomplishing the goals of instruction than they were with pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to the personality of the pupil. The same seemed to be true of this group of student teachers. The serious pupil disruptive behaviors derived from Chapter IV: Tables 4.35 and 4.36 were also examined in light of Wickman's groupings. The behaviors listed in Tables 4.35 and 4.36 were perceived by student teachers as occurring seldom or weekly. Table 5.2 reflected the result of the combined findings for Form One and Form Two. Pupil disruptive behaviors of the seriousness dimension were primarily identified by student teachers as Violations of Standards of Morality and Integrity and Violations of General School Regulations. The original Wickman study and subsequent studies have consistently identified serious pupil disruptive behaviors that were related to acts of immorality, transgressions against authority, Violations of classroom, order and violations of school work requirements. From this finding, student teachers agreed with Wickman and other related studies that serious pupil dis— ruptive behaviors were highly related to acts of immorality. Behaviors that had associated personality problems were also sublimated by student teachers. The most significant 132 finding, however, was the student teacher's primary concern for pupil disruptive behaviors which were related to violations of school regulations. Other studies of public school teachers that used Wickman as a basis have not indicated this primary concern. The nature of the pupil disruptive behaviors grouped under "Violations of School Regulations" seemed to be problems, when viewed within the context of the classroom and school, that are indeed complex. Pupil dis— ruptive behaviors related to possession of firecrackers, narcotics, alcohol, Molotov cocktails, knives, and guns have far wider affiliation than the public schools; they are behaviors of some youth which are presently shaking the entire rubric of major institutions in the American society. The total lack of primary concern for serious behaviors related to classroom order and school work suggested that the student teachers tended to see pupil disruptive be- haviors in a wider and more global fashion whereas public school teachers have tended to identify serious pupil disruptive behaviors closely related to running a smooth, efficient classroom and maintaining their authority or control over pupils. 133 Implications for Further Research Henderson's3 clinical research model outlined phase two as describing and examining school and community contexts and classroom situations. This study of student teachers' perceptions of pupil disruptive behaviors concentrated upon exploring phase two: Variable De- scription and Examination. To move to Henderson's4 Model Study, from the findings of this study would be premature as much more attention needs to be given to describing variables as they relate to pupil disruptive behaviors. The seven variables examined in this study are but a few among the many that relate to the school as it interacts with the community and society at large. The affect of the community and total societal variables upon the nature of pupil disruptive behaviors has yet to be given the attention it deserves. Research examining pupil disruptive behaviors that excludes major techno- logical advances, major social issues, social change, and the role of the government in American lines is indeed short sighted and perhaps oversimplified. When the com— plexity of the community and societal variables are considered one is almost overwhelmed when the classroom situation is added. Major variables of content and 3Henderson, op. cit., p. 21. 4Ibid., p. 21 134 inquiry strategies, the learner, group climate, teacher personality, physical conditions, and technological advances in teaching all have a major influence upon the perceived frequency and seriousness of pupil disruptive behavior. In short, the identified pupil disruptive behaviors of this study are (1) only a few of the many forms of behaviors that may exist in our schools today, (2) not clearly understood until they are fully examined in terms of school, community, and societal variables and classroom dimensions. Any research treatment of the explorative findings of this study which precludes a thorough examination of the above variables is most risky at this stage of development. Having stated the above concerns, the mej9£.impli- cation of the study of student teacher perceptions of pupil disruptive behaviors is related to the significant interaction effects between items (pupil disruptive be— haviors) and the categories of six of the seven variables examined in this study. Team teaching as a variable had no significant interaction and main effects and therefore would not be recommended for further study. The intent of further research could be to identify which specific pupil dis— ruptive behaviors are related to the categories under sex of the student teacher, socio-economic level of the schools as perceived by the student teacher, size of classes taught by the student teacher, classes taught by 135 the student teacher all day, special education classes taught by the student teacher, and population and economic community and school types in which the student teacher is assigned. This study did not undertake the identification of the specific pupil disruptancies for each category: its main thrust was to determine if the main variables mentioned above were significantly related to pupil dis- ruptive behaviors. The significate interaction effects of items and variables categories suggest that when items are viewed on an individual basis per category there is signifi- cance. The next step, then, would be to determine which items (pupil disruptive behaviors) are significantly related to each category under all the examined variables except team teaching. If this step were undertaken it would yield initial understanding of pupil disruptive behaviors as they occur in classes of varying size, schools and communities in different economic lands, in groups taught all day as opposed to part of the day, special education classes and non-special education classes, and male and female student teachers. This would be a significant but small step toward fuller understanding of pupil disruptive behaviors occurring during student teaching. Further research could be undertaken to relate findings of student teachers as pre—professionals to findings of a similar Learning Systems Institute's study which used public school teachers as its population. 136 Related to this topic, the general finding that the perceived seriousness of pupil disruptive behaviors may be related to the development of the student from pre— professional experiences to professional activities provides an interesting starting point for further research. A 1965 study by Kaoi and Schutz5 used a rotated factor loading analysis to examine disturbing behaviors which determined the following five factors: Physical Aggression, Peer Affinity, Attention—Seeking, Challenge of Authority, and Critical Dissension. The result of the study was the statistical formation of a classification system for pupil disruptive behaviors. The disruptive be- haviors reflective of the five categories may be an indi— cation of the various techniques and approaches for handling specific situations. Extended research which examines student teachers perceptions of pupil disruptive behaviors via a similar statistical method may provide teacher education with a consistent categorical system, sharper insights as to the relatedness of various pupil disruptive behaviors, and general indications as to how situations may be handled. The questionnaire provides another major area for further research. The questionnaire is presently divided 5Beverly Y. Kaoi and Richard E. Schutz, "A Factor Analysis of Classroom-Disturbance Intercorrelations," American Education Research Journal, Vol. LVII (1965), 37—40. 137 in two forms: Form One and Form Two. To date there has been no thorough item analysis, validity, and reliability checks made upon the instruments; however, there have been attempts to eliminate items that were ambiguous or that were not responded to. Furthermore, it may be feasible to fuse the two instruments as some items, although worded differently, are examining the same behavior. The replication results for all variables examined indicated that reSpondents answered the question for each item differently. One general indication at present, then, is that the instrument is functioning to the point where items are not being answered in a homogeneous manner. If the questionnaire is to serve Learning Systems Institute and other interested researchers in the future, the above recommendation needs foremost attention. Finally, application of the results of this study to other student teacher populations from colleges having different teacher preparation programs and having varying sizes of student bodies could also be undertaken. This would help in ascertaining consistent and inconsistent results regarding pupil disruptive behaviors and various independent variables. Implications for Teacher Education The findings of this study and subsequent studies regarding pupil disruptive behaviors could be phased into 138 treeeacher education courses of the School of Teacher Edu- czaartzion of Michigan State University. One way in which the jE:i.radings related to the frequency and seriousness of pupil élersruptive behaviors could be obtained is by teaming ssrLlcscessful classroom teachers, educational psychologists, errata teacher educators for the purpose of generating jE>Jreescriptive teaching practices for dealing with the pupil disruptive behaviors. The prescriptive teaching practices <2<>n11d.be designed to fit automated and paper-pencil Simulation experiences. The intent of such experiences Could be to individually prescribe pupil disruptive be- heat‘Jtiors that would likely occur to a student if he were aSSigned to a school in a particular type of community, assigned in a particular academic discipline, and assigned alt: a particular grade level. The student, via the simulated €3>eriences, then could practice making and analyzing C1‘53-(2isions related to ways in which they could handle a EDEllrticular situation. The emphasis of such experiences Eshould be upon the teacher as a decision—maker rather than t3-1‘1e teacher as an accumulator of a "bag of tricks." IBitijpecting pre—professionals to continually identify, Elttack, evaluate, and re-counter problems related to pupil raraashould not be too hasty in pushing a concept until the jEIJJadamental questions and issues similar to the ones mentioned above have been settled. A second and similar implication related to student tleaacming may be found in some of the student teacher's Personal teaching experiences. If, for example, a student teacher has difficulty in handling a specific form of E3111?il.disruptive behavior, he may use the simulated exper— enCes for reviewing, finding new techniques, and further aI"léalyzing his handling of the situation. The pupil disruptive behaviors identified in this $51ZI-IJLdy also offer a base from which discussions in student t3€iaacher seminar meetings may evolve. In summary, teacher education at Michigan State [Jrliversity may eventually benefit from this study and (Diihers to follow in that discussions of pupil disruptive it"ehaviors could be initiated from a factual basis of the IPUpil disruptive behaviors viewed by student teachers as Inost frequent and serious. Further emphasis in education courses could also be given to the teacher as a decision— maker. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY "Activities and Arrangements for the 1969—70 Michigan Assessment of Education." Assessment Report Number Two. Michigan Department of Education, 1969. Batchhelder, Howard T, McGlasson, Maurice, and Schorling, Raleigh. Student Teachieg in Secondary Schools. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964. Betts, George H. "Teacher's Diagnosis of Classroom Difficulties." Elementary School Journal (April, Bond, Jesse. "Analysis of Observed Traits of Who Were Rated Superior in School Discipline." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XLV (March, 1952), 507-16. Bouchard, John B., and Hull, Ronald E. "A Pilot Study of Problems and Practices in the Induction of Be- ginning Teachers." Paper presented at 1969 Meeting of Education Research Association of New York State, Concord Hotel, Kiamesha Lake, New York, November 6, 1969. Cookingham, Frank. "Critical Research: A Two—Way Street Between Research and Practice." Papers of the Institute No. 52, Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, June, 1967. Corey, Stephen. Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953. 141 142 Corman, Bernard R. "Action Research: A Teaching or a Research Method?" Review of Education Research, Vol. XXVXVII (December, 1957). Corsini, R. J., and Howard D. D. Critical Incidents in Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964. Deiulio, Anthony. "Problems of Student Teachers." Ameri— can Teacher, Vol. XLVI (December, 1961). Eaton, Merrill T., Di'Amico, Louis, and Phillips, Beeman N. "Problem Behavior in School." Journal of Edn- cational Psychology, Vol. XLVII (October, 1956), 350—57. Ellis, D. B., and Miller, L. W. "A Study of the Attitudes of Teacher's Toward Behavior Problems." Journal of Educational Psychology, XXVII (1936), 501-11. Epstein, Leon. "An Analysis of Teachers Judgments of Problem Children." Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. LIX (September, 1941), 101—07. Fuller, Frances. "Concerns of Teacher's: A Developmental Conceptualization." American Education Research Journal, Vol. VI (March, 1969), 207-26. Galvin, John P., and Quay, Herbert C. "Behavior Disorders.‘ Review of Educational Research, Vol. XXXIX (February, 1969). Gnagey, William J. Controlling Classroom Misbehavior. WashingtOn, D.C.: National Education Association, 1965. ‘ . "Effects of a Deviant Student's Response to Discipline." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. LI (February, 1960). Greene, James E., and Gatesky, Francis. "Discipline and Morale." Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XII, No. 4, (December, 1961). Haggerty, M. E. "The Incidence of Undesirable Behavior in Public School Children." Journaltof Educational Research, Vol. XII (September, 1925), 102-12. Henderson, Judith. "An Investigation of Practitioner Evaluation and Agreement Regarding Effective Language Arts Instruction." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, College of Education, 1968. 143 Hildreth, Gertrude. "A Survey of Problem Pupils." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XVII (June, 1928). Hillway, Tyrus. Handbook of Educational Research: A Guide to Methods and Material. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Advantages and Limitations of Informal Classroom Investigations." 'American Business Education Yearbook, 1961. Hugo, David J., ed. Handbook for Student Teachers, Michi— gan State University. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Book Company, 1964. Hunter, E. C. "Changes in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior over the Last Thirty Years." Mental Hygiene, Vol. XLIV (January, 1957). Ionnaccone, Lawrence, and Button, H. Warren. Functions of Student Teaching. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Health, Education and Welfare Research Project 1026, 1964. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Kooi, Beverly Y., and Schultz, Richard E. "A Factor Analysis of Classroom Disturbance Intercorre— lations." American Education Research Journal, Vol. LVII (1965), 37-40. Kounin, J. S., Friesen, Wallace V., and Norton, A. Evangeline. "Managing Emotionally Disturbed Children in Regular Classrooms." Journal of Edu— cational Psychology, Vol. LVII, No. 1 (February, 1966). , and Gump, P. V. "The Ripple Effect in Disci- pline." Elementary School Journal, Vol. LIX (December, 195_). Levy, John. "Quantitative Study of Relationship Between Intelligence and Economic Factors in the Etiology of Children's Behavior Problems." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. I (January, 1931). Mitzel, Harold E., and Medley, Donald M. "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation." Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gnge. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. 144 Mutimer, Dorothy D., and Rosemier, Robert A. "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Children Themselves." Journal of Consulting Psyr chology, Vol. XXXI (December, 1967). Peck, Leigh. "Teachers' Reports of the Problems of Unadjusted School Children." JOurnal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XXVI (1935), 123-38. Redl, Fritz. When We Deal With Children. New York: The Free Press, 1966. , and Wineman, D. Controls From Within. New York: The Free Press, 1952. , and Wineman, D. The Aggressive Child. New York: The Free Press, 1957. Schrupp, Manfred H., and Gjerde, Clayton M. "Teacher Growth in Attitudes of Children." Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, Vol. XLIV (1953). Sharp, Jack. Off Campus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1951. Sparks, J. N. "Teacher Attitudes Toward the Behavior Problems of Children." Journal of Edugational Psychology, Vol. XLIII, No. 5 (May, 1952). Stouffer, George A. "Behavior Problems of Children as Viewed by Teachers and Mental Hygienists: A Study of Present Attitudes as Compared with Those Re- ported by E. K. Wickman." Mental Hygiene, XXXVI (1952). Student Teaching: Questions and Answers for Prospective Student Teachers. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, College of Education, Student Teaching Office. Tolar, A., Scarpetti, W. L., and Lane, P. A. "Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children's Behavior Revisited." Thompson, Michael L. "Identifying Anxieties Experienced by Student Teachers." Journal of Teacher Edu- cation, Vol. XIV (December, 1963), 435-39. 145 Travers, Robert, Rabinowitz, M. W., and Nemovicher, Elinor. "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers." Educational Administration and Super- vision, XXXVIII (October, 1952). Ward, Ted W. "Professional Integration and Clinical Research." Learning Systems Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966. Watson, Goodwin. "A Critical Note on Two Attitude Studies." Mental Hygiene, Vol. XVII (January, 1933). Wickman, E. R. Children's Behavior and Teachers' Atti- tudes. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1932. Wingo, Max G., and Schorling, Raleigh. Elementary School Student Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1960. Yourman, Julius. "Children Identified by Their Teachers as Problems." Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. V (February, 1932). APPENDICES APPENDIX A DIRECTIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRES (FORM ONE AND FORM TWO) DIRECTIONS It is very important for you to read the descriptions below before examining thegggestionnaire. On the left hand side of the following answer sheets are lists of behaviors which may or may not be exhibited by various types of students. To the right of the behaviors, and at the top of the page, are two questions; each is explained in detail below. QUESTION A. HOW OFTEN DO YOU ENCOUNTER THIS BEHAVIOR? For this question, we are interested in how often you personally encounter this student behavior in your present teaching situation. For each behavior listed at the left margin, there are five possible responses: hourly, daily, weekly, seldom, and never. To answer this question, consider first whether the behavior occurs at least once every hour in your classroom situation. If it does not, consider next whether it occurs at least once every day. Continue from left to right across the five choices until you determine which response is appropriate for your teaching situation. For example, if the behavior occurs every other day, you would mark the space in the weekly column; that means the behavior does not occur at least every day, but it does occur at least once every week. If the behavior does not occur at least once every week, mark the space in the column headed "seldom." If you never encounter this behavior, either because it does not occur, you are unaware of whether it occurs, or it is handled directly by the administration, mark the space in the column headed "never." Mark only one response to this question for each behavior. QUESTION B. HOW DO YOU PERCEIVE THIS BEHAVIOR? This question asks for your personal opinion as to whether the behavior under consideration is a positive behavior, a harmless behavior, or a serious problem. There are five possible responses to this question. Read carefully the following explanation of each of the response choices. POSITIVE: This is a positive behavior in my teaching situation. I try to encourage it. HARMLESS: This is a harmless behavior in my teaching situation. I usually ignore or fail to notice it. NUISANCE: This is a nuisance. It bothers me, but it may not bother other teachers. I usually try to discouragg it. SERIOUS: This is a serious problem in my teaching situation. I try to stop it; but it may be attended to either when it occurs or at a later time. fEXTREMELY: This is an extremely serious deviancy in my teaching situation. K SERIOUS: The behavior must be stopped immediately. The third answer sheet asks for background data about you. The directions for responding to this sheet are at the top of the answer sheet. Please remember: 1. Use a pencil. Make heavy marks. No pens or colored pencils. 2. If you wish to change an answer, be sure to erase thoroughly. 3. Do not staple or fold your answer sheets. Thank you for your cooperation. 146 ' BACKGROUND DATA PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS BOX Usinganordinary:pencil;:lalacken thespagegoihefiefztgi tlaa3 A :33 33: :33 33: appropriatewsponse.er'questionsr‘fitthroughraryowshould 22:1: 2:3: :3)- :fi: 22:25: mark=only smack”... L‘. each t.“ ‘ " W 2 10:2: 22:21: :23: :23: :25: 22:25: throughfltyou may markany number Oimspanses.::::: II: 32:1: :23: :23: :23: 12:25: Whatjswoumexlxr =12: ::=:: :22: 2:2: :22: 22:: 8.:Eromzwhatsocio-eoonomic class arethe maturitymf ::::: ::::: - 3343:933: :33 33: 33: 33: 33: 33: 32:: studentsyouzleachiz :3: 2:3: 3:: :33 33: :33 :2: ::Eemale: 22:2: :22: :2: 2:2: :2: 2:2: ::::: 221:: :bflwefzxz ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:: :2: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 22:2: - IMtlddle: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ‘,‘” '" “3' ‘ ‘ " 'levelzspouzhax/e completed?::::: 22:: :Upper:::: =22: 12:2 221:: 222:: =22: ===== 222:: :::: ::BoctoralDegtee::::: 33: 33: 33: 33: 23:: 33: 33: 33: 33: 33: 33: 3:3 33: 33: 33: --:: ::Educatk>nal:8pedalist :3: 23:: :3: :23: 23:: :::: IMasterfs Degree ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :2: 22:2: ::::: 2¥£$ :21: :2: :21: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: —- 2:89meflolleggt ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:1: :2: - :Nfi ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:: 2:: ::::: :22: :3: rarigfpsmogtflegreg 33: :33 :33 :33 :33 :33 3:3 33: 33: :33 33: 3:3 33: :33 ::::: :22: 2:2: ::::: ::::: 22:2: :22: 22:: 2:: 10.:Vithatgradetslzarezyw presently teaching?:lftnoxx—grade¢, :Whatisyoutage?:::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :22: :2::: 2:2: :vvhatievel?::::: 2:2: 2:2: 1:: ::::: 222:: ::::: ::::: — 32:1 or:under:-: 23:: :23: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:: :23: -K: :3: 2:3: :3: 2:2: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 222:: :222’25222 22222 2222: 22222 22222 2222: 2222: 22222 22222 22%: 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 2222: 2222: ::::: 3 01/6250 :;::: :2: 2:2: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ,I‘As ofrJunei1969gwhatrwill be the total numberm‘ years =2=== 12:: ===2= :3: ===== ===== ===== :otteacmngexpepienceyou will havshadizrz 2:: :1: :22: 33: 2:22: ::=:: :2: ::=== 2: - :20:1 years ::::: ::::: ::::: :22: 2:: ::::: :22: fl 2:: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::2:4 years ::::: ::::: ::::: 222:: 2:2: 22:: 2:2: a— 2:2: ::::: :2: 2:2: 2:: ::::: ::::: ::5:1&years:3:: 33: 33: 3:: :22: :32: :3: a. 33: 23:: 32:: :3: :3: 32:: ::::: ::::: :;:H-20:ygars~:: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:2: 2:: ::::: ::::: ::::: 3:2: :3: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:: :33 ::Qver:20 years 33: 33: 33: 33: :32: 3:2: 11.:ln:wmch subject matter:atea(s) do you now:teach:classes? ::::: 33: 33: :33 33: 33: 33: 33: :33 :33 :(Elemeniaryieacherfi: besure to mark alkibatfipplylxz 3:3 larDo youneaehnomhe same group ofstuderrts allxiayhrx III: :33 AH 33: II: =32: 222:: =1: 22:1: :22 ===== 11(Exclude extmturricuiaractivitiesltxz 22:: 22:: :22: :22: ::::: :BHSlnflSEEdfiGBTlQH: :22: 22:: ::::: ::::: ::::: 3:335 33: 3:3 33: 33: 3:3 :33 :33 33: :33 :Eereigla:iasguaga::3 3:3 :33 3:3 3:3 3:3 - ::N0 :3: 33: :23: :33 33: :33 33: 33: 3:: P "'1 " Ehy ' ' Crlnr‘i’rirmn- 33: 33: 33: :3: =3 :33 33: 33: :33 :33 :33 33: 33: 33: 33: :Heme:arad Familyiiving 3:3 33: 33: 33: 33: 3::Whatisihe-aueragestudent enrollment lease classes33: 33: :33 :HQme:Eeort0fiaic5,33 :33 :32: ::y,eu new teach? 33: :33 :33 :33 :33 3:3 3:3 33: :Humanities:33 33: 33: :33 :33 33: 33: :33 3:10 andyndext 33: 33: :33 33: 33: :33 :33 :lndustt‘tal Arts 33: 33: 33: :33 33: 3:3 31:1»163: :33 33: :33 33: :33 :33 3:3 33: Language Aggineluding English) 3:3 :33 :33 - :31J-ZQ3 :33 33: :33 :33 :33 :33 33: ::::: :tibrary: :3: 2:3: :33 :3: :33 :33 :33 32:12:23: :33 33: 33: 33: :33 3:3 3:3 33: :Mathematics: 33: :33 33: 33: 33: :33 2:28-%22 22222 22:22 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 :MBSiQ:::: 222:: ...._ 22222 22222 2222: 2222: 22:2: 22:: :22: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :2: 2:2: 2:2: - :Science: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: :2::: :2: ::::: LATE you presentlydearmieaching? ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:: :22: ::::: :SQClai:SiUdieS: :22: 222:: 2:: 2:: ::::: 2:: 2:::: :::Y£S ::::: ::::: :2: 222:: 2:2: :2: ::::: ::::: ::::: :y9caiiQE‘a'éDi5trH33—liwe EdUQaEiQn ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ('mmu'm UJS. A, PLEASE DO NOT WRITE III THIS BOX —- _ S | :' 2: ::A: :9: 2222: 22222 22222 22222 22222 2222: 22:22 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 2222: 2222: 22 2 22°: 2 : £2 E E L 2222: 2222: 222:: 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22:22 2222: 2:222 2222: 22222 22222 2222: 22222 12': EMMPEE 2222: 22222 22222 22222 2222: 22:22 2:222 222:: 22222 22222 22222 2222: 2222: 2222: 22222 2222: 22:22 22222 22222 2222: 22222 -~ 2222: 2222: 22:22 22222 - 7 DIN U.S.A. 149 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE III THIS BOX :22: 2222: 22222 22222 2222: 22222 22222 2222: 22222 22:22 2922 49!: :23: 23222: 2422:: 2§222 26222: 27222: 282222 92222 ______________________________________________ Q__ -1-_ -2__ 3, -4--- -5__ .53- -7---_ 83- 93-- .... ______________________________________________________ _ _____ m _________ _ ____________________ 22222 2222: 2222: 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 22222 2922 aloo- 22222 23222: 24222: 2§222 262222 27222: 282222 €222: _ __________________________________________________ 9__ _.1__- _2___ .3..- 5L- .5"- §__- 7 §__- 51-.- -: 2.- i: :2 I: :1 I: I: :4: B I: i: I: :2 I: i: :- ......... _ -_--_ ----- ---._ _____ _---_ --.-- _..._ _.-._ A.Hownftendo_youennounmr --.B.Ho wndoynupercaivenn- this behavior? ffi‘Is behaVIor?"" 21;: 2202: 2W2 2g: 2N2: 22F: 2H2: 2N2: 2522 E222: Verbally inter_rup_ting_ a_ §tudent while he Is talking tp teacher or class. """ "“ ->-~- ---‘- ""- *—--- _____ 41.“--- m" u..- '"" m" m“ m" a ::::: ""— D:e:l:iber_a2!g_ly d‘r‘Op:ping 'bOOk's‘QE Other ObLe292t§ In_(_:IQ_SS 2222: 22222 22222 54' 22222 22222 22:22 22222 fl 2222: 22222 ¢ 22222 22222 E§!lin9-!e_a-che_r_hy fir-s-tr-Iamg ---------------------------- 58 ____________________ .3... _____ I _______________ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||l|l|||||||||||l|||||||||||||||||l|I||||||||||||||||l|||||||||||||||||||| PRINTED IN U. S. A. BACKGROUND DATA :Usingpafiordinaryflencihblacken the2spane2io Etteflefifif the: Zipbrdfiifiatéfi'sponse """ . F‘équuestions=4 threugh==9$ yOEfshoUFeF :fi'iarkzéifily 6H6 respcnseIfGr each qeestiomrfiormstiem 10:: =tfifough311=vcm may mark any number otrespmeses.:::= :212: FWfiatil‘SiyouFZSéxFi: ===== ===r= ==== ===== =::== =:=== 222:2 =Nale==== 222:: 2222: 22222 22222 22222 2:22: 2:22: .- ::F:emalg: ::::: ::::: :2: :2: ::::: ::::: :22: 1.43%.... L. 21.2. hlul. .- ' “' ' 3 . 3 , . .5 v completed? 2:: :2Doctoral Degree::::: 2:21: 3:2: :22: ::::= :21: 2133: IIEducationaifipeciaHst :22: :22: :2: 22:2: 22:2: 2:22: ZIWSt‘e'Fig D'e‘gi—‘ee 222:: 2-222 222:: 222:: 2:22: 2:22: - :Seme'GollegeC ===== ===== =22: =3: 12:: 13‘: =31: IiHigh=Schoertfiegme =21: ===== ===== ===== =12: EWhatisyourageZI: 22:: =2: :2: xx: :22: 2:2: =3“: 2:23 orzundetzc: 22:: 2:: ::::: 2::2: 22:2 11:2: - ::22-25::: ::::: ::::: :22: :22: ::::: ::::: 22;: 1339631 oFilUne319695WFIaFWiil be the Ema! ITB'I'fibCFGf years 22222 iefiteabfingemerience 39011 will havehadtI 22222 22222 ===== ‘ 1:021 years 2:22: =:=== ===3= 2:: 2:2:4 years ::::: 22:: 22:: 32:: 2:: :--:: 2:: ::::: ::5:10:y:ears::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 2:2: :;::: 2:22 2:13 20:33.32: :222 2:: 2:22 2:: :2: 2:: :2: raven-20 years 2:2: 122:: :2: ::::= 5396 y‘c5i}=tea‘eh=to {he sameigroup olflsmdeitfis all‘day?===== 222: #Erxclude extra-carricutar-activitieslrzx 22:: 2:: 1:21: 2:22: 2:: :::\€es 2:: :222 :2: 2:: 2:22 2:22 22:22 22:2 - ::No :22: 22:2: 22:2: 222:: 222:: 222:: 222:: ::::: 3;Whatisiheaveragestudmt enrollment imme classes:::-: ----- :syfiu now teach? 222:: :::22 22222 2:22: 2:22 2:22 2:: 22:2 7:10 anduneler :22: II: 22:: :22: 22222 2:222 :22: : H46 ~: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: - - 1720- : :22: 2:22: 22:: 22:2: 22:2: :22: ---23-2~ :2 22:2 222: 222:: 222:: 22:22 22222 22222 2:22 _ 2823-4 22 22222 22222 2:: 22:2: 22:2: 22:22 2:22 — OWE-3.4 222: :2: 22:2 222: 22222 22222 22222 7;Are you pmsemlyzteam:maching? ::::: ::::: ::=:: ::::= ::::: ::::: :::Y:eS 2:::: ::::: ::::: :22: 2:: :2: 22:: :2: :-N‘-O 2:22: 2:32: 122:: :2222 2:22: 2:22: 2:_2: 2:22: 150 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS BOX 8.£~Tom:what13€reio—eeanomie class arecme majoritwef ===:: studentszyouieachi: _ .... :bowetxz ___- _._.- --.__ ___-_ ::::: 10.3What gradetsltaretyw presentl y teacthZIltnqugraded; :vvhat ievel?:::: ................ “glam/Nth subject mattemaneds) do you nowieachxlasses? ::::: :(Elemeniarscieachers: besure to matk alckflaat applyiz: :Ari fiminessfiducation: — ———— 2E0Ieign2Language22: ----- ----- 22222 _____ ll '¢|. .1 DL: ' 1 [2A _____ __.._ ..... _J 7 -..._ IPRTlOnIZZ ............. . .... :Homefind Eamilyifiving __.__ _.-__ -.-_- ::::: 2HQme:EeorI9micsc2222 --___ 3;: 3:; 3:: - .... :Lz'rbrary: -_-._ ---_- -..__ _-__- ---.- ::::: """ :BAflSlQ:::: "“’ Sciencex 2Social:Studies: 2yecatieaa|ADjstribmive Education 222: PRINTED 151 PLEASE DO IIOT WRITE III THIS BOX .Carelesly_ usi_n_g_ materials (_e_ g._ spilling paints) .Complaining about class activities or assignments. P.ulling_ prank _a_ga_inst teacher. .Askingirrelevant questions (not pertaining“ to content being discussed). or_9ettin_g lunch money pe_ ssion slips or other non-acade ' 52 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE III THIS BOX 1. Use a _p_e_nci| Make heayy_ _marks. No p_ens or colored pencils. APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS May, 1969 Dear Co-ordinator: Maintaining classroom discipline has frequently been recognized as being a major importance for a successful student teaching experience. It seems fair to say that student teachers experience some of the most frustrating and trying moments when attempting to maintain classroom discipline. Unfortunately, teacher training institutions have sometimes ignored their role in reckoning with specific discipline problems and specific techniques for handling deviate behavior. As a result, it has not been unusual to encounter student teachers having control problems. The identification of serious and chronic problems in classroom settings will be part of a doctoral dissertation and research by the School of Teacher Education and Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University. It is planned that such study will lead to the development of simulation experiences and subsequently more adequate preparation of student teachers before the field experience. The intent is to first identify the nature and severity of classroom discipline problems in schools of varied sizes containing pupils of different ages and socio- economic backgrounds. The second is to create a team of educators from successful classroom teachers, educational psychologists, and teacher educators for the purpose of generating a series of prescriptive teaching practices for dealing with the deviances. The prescriptive techniques will include both preventative and corrective measures. The information will then be integrated into the preservice teacher training program at Michigan State University. The following suggestions are forwarded to you for implementation of the questionnaire: 1. Pass out the questionnaires during the May seminar meeting; have student teachers complete the questionnaire during an estimated time of 30 minutes. (Since the time will vary, I would recommend you allow 45 minutes). 2. Circulate the questionnaire by having student teachers from the schools identified on the front of the brownflpackets pick up their own packet and complete it during the time allotted during the seminar meeting. 3. Collect the questionnaires. The questionnaires should be handed to you in the original brown packet in which they were circulated. 4. Return the questionnaire answer sheets by bringing them personally to the Student Teaching Office when you visit campus. Please try to return the questionnaires by June 13th. l53 154 Page -2- The dissertation will not report or use any results to generalize about specific student teachers, student teaching centers, or schools. General- izations will only be made on the basis of such demographic variables as the following: socio—economic status, elementary versus junior high versus senior high schools, self contained classroom versus team teaching. The information regarding this study will be available to you hopefully by Fall term of 1969. - Thank you for your consideration and any inconvenience this may cause. It is hoped, however, that through these efforts future student teachers will be better prepared to cope with classroom management problems. Sincerely, ') 2 \—-‘ l .I Robert L. Driscoll RLD:sll encls. 155 DIRECTIONS TO THE STUDENT TEACHER CO-ORDINATOR l. Enclosed please find: 3. individual brown packets of questionnaires, one for each student teacher in your regional center. b. separate all brown packets by the schools identified and give questionnaire to just student teachers assigned to the school. 2. Each student teacher in your center should be given one packet. A packet contains a letter explaining the purpose of the survey, two pages of directions to the student teacher, and three answer sheets — red and green; it make no difference which form the student teacher completes. After a student teacher completes the answer sheets, he is to replace only the red or green answer sheets in the original brown packet and give it to you. 3. Please have all answer sheets completed during the seminar meeting; it should take approximately 30-45 minutes for completing the survey. 4. When every student teacher has returned his packet of answer sheets to you, please return them to the Student Teaching Office when you visit the campus. Please try to return the questionnaire by June 13th. If you have any problems, please call 517-353-3796 OR 517—694-9508. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. nr~ . .. leg—ed j- A!) 2212421420; Robert L. Driscoll RLD:sll 156 May, 1969 Dear Student Teacher: In an effort to find out more about the area of discipline, the valuable insights that you as a student teacher have gained over the past weeks in student teaching are being called upon. Experienced public school teachers throughout the state of Michigan have recently participated in a similar study; it is hoped that your experiences with discipline coupled with the experiences of public school teachers responses can serve as a meaningful starting point for examining this critical area. This study will not report or use any results toggeneralize about specific student teachers, student teaching centers, or schools. All responses will be kept 8110112520 US . The identification of serious and chronic problems in classroom settings will be part of an ongoing research by the School of Teacher Education and Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University. Hopefully, such study will lead to more adequate preparation of student teachers prior to the field experience. Given the results of the questionnaire, 3 team of educators consisting of educational psychologists, successful classroom teachers, and teacher educators will generate a series of teaching practices for dealing with the specified behaviors. The success of this study is completely dependent upon your cooperation in responding to this questionnaire. It is estimated that it will take you about thirty minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire; yet the responses that you give will have a significant effect on the content of future teacher training programs at Michigan State University Thank you very much for your cooperation. are .2? aux-me Robert L. Driscoll RLDzsll 157 ‘ 3. - "‘ -- -—.~~ Gab‘ling werLbCLb 1‘: Change in Background Data Sheet Dear Coordinator: Unfortunately, there Was an important error on the Background Data Sheet accompanying the questionnaire which you have received. On the question which asks for the highest educational level'completcd by the student teacher, the response ”bachelor's degree” was omitted. There- fore, ask student teachers whose highest educational level completed is the bachel r's degree to blacken the rGSponse--”some college.” Student teachers who are about to graduate this June are also directed to consider themselves as possessors of the bachelor's degree. I would appreciate your announcing this change before tne student teachers complete the questionnaire during the seminar meeting. Sincerely, ,f/’ ,_ Z I: .2 . - _ 3Q 'c‘WAI-‘L'Rx I” - 7"“. 9“,; Ll-(\~‘\- \2' \ \ . Robert L. Driscoll ~A”.~...nrve .v" .. lrt>l‘,‘lf.,?iv .,_, h ' P * HlllllllllHllliflifl]Mm...