A DEFINITION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF STUDENT TEACHING THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF PHD. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT HENRY HOEKTER 1970 Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DEFINITION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE ‘ OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CERTAIN I ASPECTS OF STUDENT TEACHING presented by Robert Henry Hoexter has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD. degree in Education '1 Major professor / Datew 0-169 ABSTRACT A DEFINITION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF STUDENT TEACHING By Robert Henry Hoexter This study was designed to serve two purposes. The first was to define the role of the building principal in terms of a set of pre- determined criteria which were identified from study of the literature on student teaching. The second purpose was to test six hypotheses dealing with role perception of the principals, themselves, and percep- tions of the principals by college supervisors who place, supervise and evaluate student teachers in the schools administered by the prin— cipals. . A questionnaire was devised which examined five aspects of the principal's role in student teaching programs: (l) Selection of Coop- erating Teachers, (2) Orientation of Student Teachers, (3) Selection of Student Teachers, (4) Supervision and Evaluation of Student Teachers. (5) Liaison with the Teacher Preparation Institution. The questionnaire was administered to college supervisors from two universities in Michigan who were each asked to identify one prin— cipal from a cooperating school where the particular college supervisor placed student teachers. These principals were then asked to answer a similar questionnaire to the one answered by the college supervisors. Robert Henry Hoexter In the questionnaire, each of the five aspects of the principal's role was examined in several questions. Each question was repeated three times in different forms to determine the depth and character of the principal's role from actual performance, ideal performance, and ”empathospective" performance (What does the other respondent think is ideal) viewpoints. The questionnaire responses were used directly to create a narra- tive description of the role of the principal in student teaching. This examination of responses found that, in general, the principal was res- ponsible for activities traditionally in his domain. He selected coop- erating teachers, but indicated that, ideally, the college supervisor should help. He did not select student teachers, but responses showed that he should have a greater voice in the selection. He oriented stu- dent teachers to his school in groups and felt that this was also the ideal situation. He gave only token supervision and left evaluation es- sentially to others, actions which also were seen as ideal. He had lit- tle direct or indirect contact with the teacher training institution and responded strongly that there should be more. The implication that there should be better communication between the public schools and the teacher training institution was clear. The statistical analysis, which used a coded form of question- naire data, examined relationships which were intended to supplement the narrative role perception. Robert Henry Hoexter Both the principals and the college supervisors differed as to their actual and ideal role perceptions, the ideal scores being con- sistently higher. Between principal and college supervisor perceptions of both ideal to actual, and actual to actual roles, there were no sig- nificant differences, indicating a high degree of consistency between the perceptions of the two groups of respondents. This same consist- ency extended into tests of "empathospective" perception (principal's ‘ ideal of what the college supervisor thought was ideal, and the con- verse). The study indicates that there is more agreement between prin-. cipals and college supervisors than was assumed in developing the study. It was also shown that principals are not doing all they think they should with respect to student teaching, even though they are well aware of what their role should be. A DEFINITION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF STUDENT TEACHING By Robert Henry Hoexter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 G - (5:55:25 /”c1¢;2~’7/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to a number of persons for their help in the completion of this thesis. Dr. George Myers, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, who was patient, helpful, and encouraging in his assistance. The members of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Dr. Alice Davis, and Dr. Henry Kennedy each contributed help, suggestions, and criticism which improved the focus and meaning of this study. The principals and college supervisors who took the time to pro- vide the information on which this study is based each have the appreci- ation of the writer. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................... ii LIST OF TABLES ...................... v LIST OF APPENDICES .................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................... l The Problem. .................... l Definition of Terms ................ 3 Objectives of the Study .............. 4 Limitations of the Study ..... ' ......... 6 Organization of the Study ............. 7 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. 8 Selection of Cooperating Teachers ......... 9 Orientation of Student Teachers .......... l4 Selection of Student Teachers ........... l6 Supervision and Evaluation of Student Teachers. . . l7 Liaison with the Teacher Training Institution . . . 23 III. PROCEDURES AND POPULATION ............. 29 Devel0pment of the Instrument ........... 29 Populations .................... 33 General Information on College Supervisors ..... 35 General Information on Principals and schools . . . 36 Procedure for Obtaining Data ........... 37 Method of Statistical Treatnent of Data ...... 38 Page CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ......... 40 Actual Role Perceptions .............. 4O Ideal Role Perceptions ............... 44 Inferences from Actual and Ideal Observations . . . 47 Statistical Tests of Hypotheses .......... 48 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions .................... 65 Recommendations .................. 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 68 APPENDICES ........................ 73 Table LIST OF TABLES Page The Significance of the Difference of Means of PA and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals ..................... 50 Correlations of Involvement Indices .......... 50 The Significance of the Difference of Means of PA and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals ..................... Sl The Significance of the Difference of Means of PA and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals ..................... 51 The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals ..................... 52 The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals ................ 53 The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals ................ 54 The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSI and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All PrinCipals ..................... 55 Table Page 9. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CS and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for I Secondary Principals ................ 56 TO. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSI and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals .......... . ...... 56 ll. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and PA at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals ..................... 57 12. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and PA at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals ................ 58 I3. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and PA at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals ................ 58 I4. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CS and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals ..................... 59 E IS. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CS and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals ................ 60 E IS. The Significance of the Difference of Means of CS and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals ................ 60 E vi Table "own—u- l7. l8. I9. be: The Significance of the Difference of Means of PE and and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 The Significance of the Difference of Means of PE and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . 62 The Significance of the Difference of Means of PE and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. Letter to College Supervisors ............. 73 8. College Supervisors Form of the Questionnaire With Response Coding Used to Determine Involvement Indices ........................ 74 C. Letter to Principals ................. 84 0. Principal Form of the Questionnaire With Response Coding Used to Determine Involvement Indices ..... 85 E. Follow-Up Post Card Sent to Both College Supervisors and Principals ......... . .......... 96 F. Mean Involvement Index Scores for Principals and College Supervisors .................. 97 G. Responses to Questionnaire-Actual Dimension ...... 98 H. Responses to Questionnaire-Ideal Dimension ...... 99 I. Responses to Questionnaire-Empathospective Dimension ...................... lOO viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem‘ The origin of this thesis was a study by the author of the edu- cational literature dealing with roles of various participants in the student teaching experience. One of these several roles gained Special significance because of the lack of any quantity of data or objective study. The role so obviously ignored in the literature is that of the principal of the school where student teachers obtain their experience. Alex Perrodin has stated, "For some reason or other the role of the principal of the school to which a student teacher is assigned is not always clear."1 George Ross said, "Although authorities in both the fields of educa- tional administration and student teaching agree that the school prin- cipal has a vital role in the student teaching program, little has been done in either area to clarify and clearly define this role."2 Student teaching is no longer--even in its titlee-the same ex- perience provided for teachers-to-be as it was in the past. What was 1Alex F. Perrodin, "The Principal and the Student Teacher", Educational Administration and Supervision, XLII (March, 1956), p. 149. 2George E. Ross, "The Role of the Elementary School Principal in the Student Teaching Program", in Roles of Off-Campus Student Teach- ggg, Leonard E. Kraft and John P. Casey (Eds.), (Champaign, Illinois: tipes Publishing Company, I967), p. 233. once, both in name and character, "practice teaching"--an opportunity provided for the budding teacher to "practice” his art-~is now con- sidered a learning experience. Indeed, student teaching is the final learning experience in the formal training of a teacher over which there is any real measure of control. It is one of the terminal screen- ing and evaluating steps prior to certification in Michigan. With increasing demand for teachers whose education and train- ing enables them to be effective in the classroom without a long period of adjustment, comes the necessity for those persons in positions of responsibility for any phase of teacher preparation to examine care- fully all aspects of their programs. Much has been written regarding the various roles in student teaching, and some specific, if subjective, attention has been given to estimates of the principal's role in particular. These facts emerge from study of the materials available on the principal's role in the student teaching activity: the role is not yet fully defined, and, therefore, probably unfulfilled, and in need of investigation. Thus, the intention of this study becomes: (l) to identify, from experience and the literature, some of the critical aspects of the role of the building administrator relative to student teaching; (2) to at- tempt to measure quantitatively, by the use of a questionnaire, the per- ceptions of those participants in student teaching most likely to be aware of the administrator's role; and (3) to analyze the resultant data in an attempt to define the role more clearly (a) to give some per- Spective on the priorities of the various segments of the principal's role, and (b) to make some recommendations to the profession as to what might be done to improve the overall student teaching program in those dimensions where the principal can be of value. Definition of Terms In order that the reader may more clearly identify the underly- ing ideas, the research findings, and the conclusions in this study, there must be an understanding as to the meaning of terms used in this investigation. Principal: The chief administrative officer in charge of the operation of a school in which student teachers are placed. In some cases, particularly in large schools, the responsibility for student teaching activities within the school is delegated to an assistant prin- cipal or other staff member; where such delegation occurs, the responsible staff member is subsumed under the term "principal." College (University) Supervisor: A member of a college or university staff or faculty who is charged with the responsibility for establishing and maintaining the liason and communication necessary for, as well as the actual placement, general supervision, and evaluation of. student teachers in the public schools. Student Teacher: A college student, generally an undergraduate senior (sometimes a graduate student seeking a certificate). who is assigned a particular position in a public school, not on the University campus, for the purpose of gaining a realistic, supervised, field experience in teach- ing prior to, and as a requirement for, certification as a teacher. CooperatingATeacher: A regularly employed, fully certified, experienced teacher in a public school who has expressed the willing- ness to accept the responsibilities and duties of providing a realistic, challenging field experience for a student teacher, and who is seen by those responsible for the selection of cooperating teachers as able to fulfill those requirements. 391g; A set of acts, actions, behavior patterns, and expecta- tions which are generally accepted by persons assuming, or relating to those assuming, a particular title or identity. A role is considered to be, in itself, only one of many facets of a total personality, which consists of many roles, each to be activated in situations and under circumstances where the participant is expected to assume such a role. Role Segment: A set of acts, behavior patterns, and expectations characteristic of limited circumstances and situations which is insuffi- cient, in and of itself, to encompass a role, but which is an integral and essential part of a generally accepted role. Objectives of the Study There are two major objectives of this study. The first is to develop qualitative descriptions of the principal's role as a partici— pant in student teaching experiences: (I) as the principal sees himself ideally in the role; (2) as the principal sees himself performing in the role; (3) as the principal is seen ideally in the role by the college supervisor and (4) as the principal is seen performing in the role by the college supervisor. Each of these aspects is examined in the questionnaire. and, from the data, a subjective, narrative picture is constructed which has application and interest most specifically to those in student teaching. The second objective is to test some hypotheses which were sug- gested by the study of available literature, and from extensive conver- sations with principals and college supervisors regarding their percep- tions of the principal's role in relation to student teaching. The hypotheses which are examined have their foundation in one basic assumption: the greater the involvement of the principal in the various activities concerned with student teaching, the greater the likelihood of useful, viable, student teaching experiences occurring in the school that the principal administers. This assumption rests on purely subjective grounds, and no efforts have been made to verify this Iassumption experimentally. The hypdtheses to be examined are as follows: I. Principals will show significant differences between their own ideal and actual role perceptions. 2. There will be significant differences in the ideal and actual role perception for the building principal from the point of \ view of college supervisors. 3. There are significant differences between the ideal role perceptions of principals from the point of view of the college supervisors, and those of principals as seen by themselves. 4. There are significant differences between the actual role perceptions of principals from the point of view of the college supervisors, and those of principals as seen by themselves. 5. There are significant differences between the principal's own ideal role perception, and the college supervisor's estimate of the principal's own ideal role perceptions. 6. There are significant differences between the college sup- ervisor's own ideal role perception for the principal, and the principal's estimate of the college supervisor's ideal role perception of the principal. Limitations of the Study Although there is undoubtedly value in attempts to identify the role perceptions which all participants in the student teaching process hold for the building administrator in the student teaching experience, the fact that the principal-college supervisor relationship remains stable, while the student teachers, students, cooperating teachers and other personnel change makes this relationship seem likely to yield the most information on role perceptions of the principal, actually and ideally. Thus, this study is limited to the principals of schools where student teachers are placed, and to the college supervisors of student teachers placed therein. This study is limited to the objectives and hypotheses enumerated in the section entitled Objectives of the Study. This study is also limited by the definition of terms. Organization of the Stpgy The balance of this study is organized into four chapters. Cpepter II: Review of the Literature - In this chapter, the ed- ucation literature is reviewed in areas which relate to the principal and the principal's involvement in student teaching. Chapter III: Procedures and Population - This chapter describes the instrument used in gathering data, the populations and their charac- teristics, and the means for statistical treatment of the data. Chapter IV: Presentation and Analysis of Data - This chapter presents both overall responses to the questionnaire, and extracted and analyzed data. Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations - Conclusions are drawn as to the involvement of principals in student teaching, and re— . commendations are made. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this chapter an attempt is made to review a major portion of the written material on student teaching from which were identified and extracted references to, and about, the role of the building principal in the student teaching process. The Education Index was reviewed from the year I929 to the pre- sent under these listings: l. Practice teaching 2. Student teaching 3. Role playing 4. Principals 5. Administration 6. Supervision Over sixty articles were found which made reference to student teachers and administration, or supervision. Of these, only a few made more than passing reference to the role of the building principal, while most completely ignored his existence as part of student teaching. Recent articles are more likely to refer to the principal than ones of older vintage, but they are, in general, no more explicit as to his duties and responsibilities in student teaching. Each book listed under "Student Teaching" in the libraries at Mich- igan State University. Eastern Michigan University, and The University of Michigan was examined for referenCes to the place of the building adminis- trator in the student teaching process. Of this total (over one hundred volumes in all) only a few were of value.' A search of dissertation abstracts from T937 to the present yielded only three with the necessary relationship to this thesis. After a thorough study of the available literature, five major areas of responsibility for the building administrator in the student teaching process become clear. They are the role of the principal in: l. Selection of cooperating teachers Orientation of student teachers Selection of student teachers boom Supervision and evaluation of student teachers 5. Liaison with the teacher training institution. Each of these role segments will be examined separately. Selection of Cooperating_Teachers "The third member of (the) student-teaching team (after the cooper- ating teacher and college supervisor) is the principal of a school to which (students are assigned. Only very recently has the importance of this role ’been.recognized, and even less attention has been given to it in the liter— ature. Of all the persons in the school situation the principal is the one who can most effectively set the tone for a professional climate that IQ is so important to the proper functioning of all these (college-school) relationships."1 In The Education of American Teachers, James Conant states that the "(school) board should direct the superintendent to have his prin- cipals see that the best teachers become cooperating teachers."2 This idea is a common thread throughout nearly all writing on student teach- ing. Although some work has been done to determine if building princi— pals participate to any extent in selection of cooperating teachers, there is no gross data on actual involvement in this selection.3 Both Brown4 and Vanderlip5 tested the role perception of the principal in the student teaching process and, in each case, there was a significant difference between the activities which were seen as ideal-~in this case, selection of cooperating teachers-~and what actually occurred, as seen by copperating teachers, college supervisors and student teachers. Most authors state that, in order to have a good student teaching program, the selection of cooperating teachers is of utmost importance. 1Leonard O. Andrews, Student Teaching_(New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., l964), p. 68. 2James B. Conant, The Education of American Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., l963), p. 63. 3Fuller discussion of this aspect will be found in James L. Brown's, "The Functions of School Principals in Student Teaching Programs" (Un- published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, I962); and in William F. Vanderlip's, "Role Attributes and Expectations of the Building Principal in the Internship Program" (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Cornell Univer- sity, l965). 4Brown, Ibi d. 5Vanderlip, Ibid.' ll Cook, Wilt, and Woofter, in a comprehensive discussion of the role of the school principal in student teaching state: The principal must select the supervising teachers and other staff members. In any school the most crucial task of the administrator is the selection and retention of a capable school faculty. In campus and off-campus laboratory schools and in public schools where student teaching is being done, the task becomes much more for- midable. All schools are entitled to the best teachers available; but practice teaching schools should have faculties of superior professional competence. The pub- lic cannot afford to have student teachers working under the supervision of teachers of only average professional ability.5 In discussing the process followed at Northern Illinois State Teach- ers College, O.M. Chute illustrates the principal's role in the selection of cooperating teachers by asking the principal ". . . to name those teach- ers whom he considered to be outstanding members of his staff. If the teachers suggested by our faculty were not included in his list, they were no longer considered."7 Dahlem states this function as a joint venture with the college supervisor: The principal can give invaluable assistance to the col- lege coordinator in the initial selection of supervising teachers. Because of his close association with his staff 6Kermit A. Cook, May L. Wilt, and Y. Mildred Woofter, Student Teach- ing in the Secondary School. (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., l954), p. 30. 7O.M. Chute, "A C00perative Out-of—town Program of Student Teaching at the High School Level," Educational Administration and Supetvisiog, XXX (May, I944), p. 308. 12 he is in a position to identify those teachers who will make a real contribution to the student teaching program. Chase also finds the principal's involvement a factor: It is essential that the local administrator and college representative work together in solving one of the major difficulties in a program of student teaching--that of securing high calibre resident teachers.9 Dahlem also defines ways in which the principal can work within his school to improve the selection proceSs. should The principal cannot afford to overlook his responsibility in building readiness of teachers to work with student teachers. Because teachers function best when they ac- cept student teachers on a voluntary basis, they must be helped to realize the benefits that accrue from the pro- ,gram. The wise principal capitalizes upon the testimon- ials of teachers who have had satisfying supervisory ex- periences. He gives these teachers Opportunities to point out the advantages at staff meetings. While it is true that he can do much on his own to swell the ranks of su- pervising teachers, Miss B, an enthusiastic rooter for student teaching, is in an even better position to win over Miss C, who teaches across the hall from her.10 Perrodin provides some indication of the criteria the principal use in choosing the coooerating teacher: No one is in a better position than the local school prin— cipal to serve (the) recruitment function. He knows which 8Margaret Dahlem, "A Role Perception: The C00perating School Principal," Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Year- book of the Association for Student Teaching, (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, l96l), p. 54. ' 9Daniel C. Chase, "Student Teaching Programs Require Effective C00peration," California Journal of Secondagy Education, XXXI (April, 1956), IO p. 20l. Dahlem, 0p. cit., p. 57. l3 teachers are truly master teachers, which have well adjusted personalities, which have a contageous zeal for teaching, and which are equipped with the human relations skills that are needed for guiding and sharing teaching and learning experiences.1 Nelson and McDonald feel that the principal's decision is usually based on four factors: a. The teaching ability of the teacher. b. The emotional stability of the teacher. c. The willingness of the teacher to cooperate in the student teaching program. d. The adequacy of the physical facilities involved.12 In general, however, the preponderance of writing in the area of student teaching and administration avoids either mentioning and/or de— fining the principal's role. Experience of this writer studying the lit- erature is paralleled in a statement by Vanderlip, in which he states,’ "In a survey of nearly one hundred educational administration and super- vision books, the writer found no mention about the role of the principal in student teaching programs."13 It is interesting to note two characteristics ascribed to the build- ing principal in educational literature. First, he is somehow not regarded as a member of the instructional staff. He is seen as someone who is above teaching and participates in instructional activities only when he has some special interest to pursue. Second, some care must be taken not to burden llAlex F. Perrodin, "The Principal and the Student Teacher." pg: ucational Administration and Supervision, XLII'(March,l956), p. 149. 12Leslie Nelson and Blanche McDonald, Guide to Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., l952), p. 42. ”Vanderlip, o_p_. cit., p. 44. 14 or disturb the principal with student teachers. The student teacher must show respect and deference but must, in the bargain, still learn about the functions and duties of the principal as applied to both stu- dents and staff. Orientation of Student Teachers_ Among the writers, there is were agreement as to the orientation function of the principal in student teaching. Cook, Wilt, and Woofter list four important orientation activities: I. The principal should welcome student teachers to the school. This may be done in group meetings or indi- vidually. It must be remembered, however, that the first day as a student teacher can be rather bewild- ering to some college students. 2. The introduction of student teachers to the school secretary, nurse, custodian, teachers, and special staff members may be vital to the early success of the young teacher. This introduction should come early through the principal or director of student teaching. 3. The introduction of student teachers to the general school program should come through the principal's office. 4. The principal must see to it that student teachers are invited to attend faculty meetings of parent teacher associations, and particippfie in all phases of school-community relationships. Andrews sees the orientation function as covering not only the Operation of the school but the "School, its phiIOSOphy, policies, and 14Cook, Wilt, and Woofter, op. cit., pp. 31-32. IS "15 its community. Indeed, nearly every reference to the school adminis- trator in relation to student teaching indicates that he should act as an interpreter between the student teacher and the community at large. Dahlem's statement on this point is quite clear: Fairly early in the term the principal talks to his stu- dent teachers about the school community, and the socio- economic background of the pupils. Some principals take their student teachers on a tour of the school community to show them the homes of their pupils and to give them a general idea of the neighborhood. The principal is in a strategic position to introduce stu~ dent teachers to extra-curricular activities in which they may want to participate. He is aware of leadership Oppor- tunities in after-school athletic programs, student clubs, and scout troops in his community. He is able, too, to tell student teachgrs about field trip possibilities and resource persons. Perrodin has the principal participate in orientation by being more visible in his regular role as principal, listing the following activities: The principal can accept the student teacher as a partici- pating member of the school faculty. The principal can assist the supervising teacher in arrang- ing for appropriate school and conmunity laboratory experiences for the student teacher. The principal can arrange to acquaint the student teacher with the rples of the principal and the school admin~ istration. 7 15Andrews, op. cit., p. 70. 16Dahlem, op. cit., p. 55. ”Perrodin, 91).,”ch , p. 150. 16 In their book on student teaching, McGuire, Myers, and Durrance see the principal as separate from the instructional program and the authors recommend scheduled group viSits as illustrated in this state- ment: Some administrators are swamped with work and may not be able to give you (the student teacher) time for a two-hour interview. In some instances, it might be best if, with the principal's permission, you just sat and observed the routine in his office. In other cases, even observation in his office may be impossible. Principals realize, however, that the more faculty members understand the principal's problems, the more cooperation will be developed; hence they usually wel- come a visit from student teachers. 3 It is evident, then, that the principal is expected not only to introduce the student teacher to the school and community. but he must introduce and orient the school and communitv to the student teacher and the programs which the student teachers represent. Selection of Student Teachers Although several authors have carefully detailed the responsibili- ties of the principal, only a few give any weight to his role in selection and placement of student teachers. Andrews' role definition states that the principal: 18Vincent McGuire, Robert B. Myers. and Charles L. Durrance. 122:, Student Teachipg:in the Secondary School, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., l959), p. 35. I7 . . participates actively in the placement process and gives final approval to all teacher-education students to be assigned to his school.19 Perrodin points out that "The principal can accept the student teacher as a participating member of the school faculty“20 but with regular faculty, the principal usually has some control over placement and often over hiring and dismissal. and distortion of this usual role of the principal could influence the student teaching program adversely. In anecdotal information collected from faculty members at Eastern Michigan University, it is evident that, given a chance to evaluate po- tential student teachers for placement through examination of credentials and personal interview, both the student teacher and principal begin the relationship with a better understanding of, and feeling for. the student teaching experience. Supervision and Evaluation of Student Teachers Supervision of teaching is still considered an aspect of the prin- cipal's job. As years pass, it is assumed that the teacher gains exper- ience and requires less supervision. Logically, then, the student teacher should be subject to the closest and most careful supervision by the prin- cipal. Cook, Wilt, and Woofter point out that: Student teachers have a right to good supervision. They have a right to experience the best practices in curric- ulum development and instructional practices. The estab- lishment of a school providing a wide range of experiences IgAndrews, op. cit., p. 68. 20Perrodin, op. cit., p. l50. 18 for student teachers is entirely unlikely in the absence of a good program of supervision for in-service teachers. Here the responsibility of the principal is unmistakable, and failure on his part will mean an inadequate student teaching program. and later make specific recommendations for action, stating: The principal should observe the student teacher at work in order to help supervising teachers analyze and evalu- ate professional growth so that pupils being taught by student teachers will not receive poor instruction. The principal should work closely with the director of student teaching and other members of the college per- sonnel in planning situations in his school which will insure a high degree of teaching success. The principal should check frequently in order to find out the extent to which student tegghers are becoming a real part of the school program. Andrews, in defining the role of the principal, sees that role as indirect, as in a section titled PRelationships with school facultv": 4. Counsels with teachers about their STs. 3(Student teachers) 5. Counsels with teachers to assist them in providing their pupils with a well-balanced learning situation during STs presence in the school. 6. Assists CTs (cooperating teachers) and STs in arrang- ing observations and special experiences in his school, . other schools, and throughout the community. 7. Supports teachers and works closely with them on prob- , lems of weak STs and those arising because of the pre— sence of the student—teacher program. 8. Encourages CTs to experiment and explore new approaches both in working with STs and with their classes during ST assignment. 21Cook, Wilt, and Woofter, op. cipp, p. 30. 22 bid., p. 32. (Iv-.0 IN. t‘.‘;-‘ ' l9 9. When possible and appropriate readjusts teacher loads and provides released time for CTs to hold conferences, especially three-way and four-way conferences which include a college supervisor. l0. When appropriate, especially in large schools, delegates to some staff member the responsibility for coordinatin the teacher-education functions of the school. 2 In a section titled, "Relationships with student teachers", Andrews makes these statements: 3. Gives general supervision of the STs observing them sufficiently tO be familiar with the quality Of their work. 5. As Opportunity presents itself, counsels with STs on professional matters, career choices, seeking a position, professional organizations and the like. 6. Exercises constant care to avoid exploitation of STs and to protect the best interest of the pupils.24 Dahlem expresses much higher expectations for the principal. In a section titled, “Supervisory Activities," she makes the following state- ments: The principal, by virtue of his supervisory Opportuni- ties, is in a unique position to be a "teacher of stu- dent teachers. He can give student teachers the same kind of assistance that he customarily extends to the regular staff. The principal who takes time to observe student teachers will discover that he is helping to improve the work of both student teacher and supervis- ing teacher. It is extremely important for student teachers to be made aware of the desirability of their being supervised by their principal during their period of service. They should expect the principal to Observe 23Andrews, Op. cit., pp. 69-70. 24Ibid,, p. 70. 20 their teaching, make suggestions for improvement, and share in the job of evaluation. Student teachers need also to understand what principals expect of them in the post-visitation conferences--how Often they will be held and when and where. A satisfactory supervisory experience during this period can affect favorably the attitude toward supervision and supervisors which a young teacher carries into his career. The principal is functioning in another supervisory capacity when he gives the student teachers Opportuni— ties tO discuss their teaching problems with him. In short, the principal's rich background of educa- tional experiences qualifies him to be professional guide to the intricacies of the profession.25 Schwartz makes a plea for better student teacher-principal com— munication in stating: The student teacher will come to the principal only if he knows he is welcome. To achieve this rapport, the principal should greet the student teacher at the begin- ning Of his internship, have a private conference with him at the beginning of the semester, and at frequent intervals thereafter, orient him to the general philo- sophy and goals of the school, and urge him to seek help whenever it is needed. The principal should make it a rule to go into the classroom from time to time and to hold periodic conferences with the supervising teacher as well as the student teacher.26 and she tends to increase the impact of her ideas bv continuing: TO keep this procedure from becoming burdensome, the principal should determine the amount of time he will ,1 stahlem, Op. cit., pp. 55-55. 26Shiela Schwartz, ”The Principal's Role in the Student Teaching Program,“ The Journal of Teacher Education, XIII (March,1962), p. 80. 2T be able to devote to this task and use this as a guide to the number Of student teachers he will accept each semester.27 Mass acceptances to be accommodating should become obsolete. All the suggestions in the literature are valid, providing that the principal is interested, has not had student teachers forced into his school Of upper-level administrative edict, and, as mentioned be- fore, can commit the necessary time to supervision. Brink, however, in data “from forty institutions, twenty-two of them large state universities, and eighteen privately-endowed universi- ties with enrollments Of more than four thousand students", found, in answer tO the question: DO the principals or the heads Of subject-matter depart- ments of the cooperating public schools exercise any super- visory functions in connection with student teaching?P sixteen universities answered 'no', fifteen answered yes‘, and nine qualified their answers by such terms as 'occa- sionally', 'little', or 'sometimes'. It is apparent, how- ever, that in the majority of cases the supervisory activi- ties Of these Officials are Of an incidental and voluntary characterfl‘8 In terms of evaluation, the principal is frequently kept outside the team charged with student teacher evaluation simply by the exclusion Of the principal from lists Of those responsible as, for example, in an article by McGrath: TO be effective. a program Of evaluation in student teaching should utilize judgment and appraisal ren- dered by the pupils taught by the practice teacher. ~—-‘- . 27 28William G. Brink, "The Administration of Student—Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Egpcatjppelhfigmpnjétretjon 9nd Supervision, XXXV (November, l945), p. 398. Schwartz, [pep pip. 22 by the student teacher of his own work, by the class- room teacher under whose direction the student teacher taught, and by the supervisor of student teaching em- ployed by the teacher training institution. Byers and Irish point up extremes in the participation of the principle by describing, to the student teacher, their view of the re- lationship of the principal to the student teacher. The extent to which the school principal evaluates stu- dent teachers varies from school district to school dis- trict. In one metrOpolitan area, the school principal visits whenever the college supervisor visits, and some- times for other lessons as well. He holds group confer- ences with student teachers each week, and holds indivi- dual conferences as he feels they are needed. In other districts, the principal relies upon the impressions he receives from your manner and conduct in the school, and from reports of the supervising teacher and college su- pervisor. Regardless Of the amount of supervision your principal gives you, he is a key person in your school. It is important to establish a friendly relationship with him without being presumptious. You will, of course, Observe professional ethics by not discussing teachers or their techniques with the princiBal, but you may talk to him about educational problems.3 Curtis and Andrews describe no special role for the principal except that, if the student teacher is seen as not good, the Brincipal may be brought in to support the negative evaluations of the classroom teacher and college supervisor.3] 29G.D. McGrath, "Evaluation of Student Teaching,” Educational Administration and Sppervision, XXXV (November. 1949), p. 443. 30Loretta Byers and Elizabeth Irish, Spgge§§_jn Student Teaghjpgg (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1961), p. 231. 3IDwight K. Curtis and Leonard O. Andrews, Guiding Your Student_ Teachepg, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1954). 23 Dahlem paints an ideal scene, picturing the principal as a "Partner in Evaluation", writing "that good situations are where the principal makes numerous contacts with the student so that he can offer his own evaluation to the student teacher directly and through the stu- dent's records 'provided that he has seen enough of the student's work to make a fair appraisal'."32 Liaison with the Teacher Training Institution Increased emphasis on the student teaching phase in teacher preparation has resulted in need for greater understanding and COOperation between the . . school . and the teacher training institution. 3 One facet of the principal's role which is taken for granted too Often is that of acting as an intermediary between the teacher training institution and the schools. Frequently, some system-wide administra- tive official such as an assistant superintendent will be given the job of overseeing and coordinating student teaching in the system's schools. Unless, however, the teacher training institution leaves all supervision to the school system (an unlikely situation), the college supervisory personnel must deal from time to time with the building principal. Many schools today are cooperating with teacher-train- ing institutions to the extent that student-teacher programs are an integral phase Of the local school situation. In these instances, the primary respons- ibility for the organization and administration of 320ahlem, gpgugit., p. 57. 33Chase, op: Elisa p. 200. 24 the successful student-teacher program rests with the principal. He plans, initiates, implements, and eval- uates it. The principal should be aware of the program of the teacher train— ing institution and should interpret this program to the school and its community. Ducker points out that: It is, Of course, a mutual obligation of both college and school to see to it that good rapport is established between the personnel of the two institutions. When such rapport exists, the principal can be of great ser- vice by making clear to the college the viewpoints of the school staff and of himself about ways in which student-teaching procedure can be made more effective. The relationship should be one Of mutual respect. There is no sharp impassible barrier between the theory taught in the college classroom and the practice carried on in . school. This must be constantly kept in mind by both school and college personnel. Perrodin is more explicit as to activities which can achieve these ends: (1) The principal can assist in creating in the school and the community favorable and constructive attitudes toward the student-teaching program. (3) The principal can make a conscientious effort to become well acquainted with the college supervisor, with the policies of the teacher-education institution, and with the state program of teacher education. 34Howard H. Mosher and Dorothy Parr Bruno, "Methods of Improving the Student Teaching Program," School Board Journajg CXXX (March, I955). p. 55. 35Sam Ducker, ”The Elementary School Principal and the Student Teacher," Educational Administration and Sppervision, XLI (December, 1955), p. 473. 25 (4) The principal needs to orient the college supervisor to the local school situation and to avail himself of his potential services for the benefit of the school.36 If the principal Of a school which trains student teachers can act as an effective substitute to handle problems arising from student teaching when college personnel are not available within the school, many of the usual problems which plague both student teachers and co- operating teachers can be avoided. Along this line, Cook, 93, gl,, point out: If the principal does not well understand the aims, func- tions, and procedures used in student teaching, he may become a liability rather than an asset to the student teaching program. 7 Hicks and Walker write, based on wide experience at both ends of the school-college relationship: The principal's influence on American education today is so great, in our Opinion, that generally he cannot hand to someone else his contributions in teacher education. No one else can do this job for him. This is another rea- son why the success of the student teaching program in his school is greatly dependent upon his support. If he is negative, the program fails. If he is lukewarm, the pro- gram will soon die out. We have examined student teaching programs in school systems that were "Spotty", or where fewer and fewer student teachers were placed. Student teachers that were assigned to these school systems had only mediocre success. In almost every instance it was discovered that the principals Of these schools did not believe in the student teaching program.38 ....- .- 36Perrodin, Opp git,, pp. 149—150. 37Cook, Wilt, and Woofter, opgngt,, p. 31. 38William V. Hicks and Clare C. Walker, Tull TimeMStudent leach— ipg, (East Lansing, Michigan: The Michigan State'University Press, T957), p. 143. 26 Hetenyi, in writing on the power of the principal, makes a stronger state- ment: TOO Often we forget just how powerful a figure the building principal is in student teaching programs. He is the first screening Officer for supervising teachers. Should he de- cide that his special interests are not well served by a given program, he makes no secret Of his negative reactions. The teachers are quick to get the message, and applications for assignments are few and far between. But even if the principal does not choose to wield his power so brazenly, he can make the situation so tense for student teachers (by setting up onerous regulations, by making access to records difficult, by limiting their participation in interesting ' duties) that his building becomes a veritable Siberia in the student teaching program. In contrast, these wide powers Of the building administra- tor can also Operate positively. Adequate preparation in faculty meetings does wonders to draw forth qualified vol- unteer teachers who might otherwise shrink into the back- ground. Careful orientation to a reasonable range Of duties and easy access to records and auxiliary services can make the lot of the student teacher both pleasant and profitable. The principal, through his contacts in the district and his personal connections in other buildings, can provide for student teachers a wider range Of experiences than would be possible were they confined to a single classroom. Whether or not, and in which direction, the principal chooses to exercise his power has a vital bearing on the success of student teaching. Since district meetings Of administrators tend to be numerically dominated by building principals, the Opinions they hold concerning various student teaching pro— grams, specific colleges and universities or even individuals on university supervising staffs has significant bearing on which student teaching programs a district accepts and how much latitude in Operating the program student teachers and college supervisors can expect. This power has been so Open- ly exercised in so many districts that colleges have had to learn to tailor their procedures to, or at least avoid, sig- nificant gaolations of, the preferences of building admini— strators. . 3qutenyi, Laszlo, "The Politics of School-College COOperation in Student Teaching", in E. Brooks Smith, e3, g1, (Eds.), Partnership_ip_ Teacher Education. (Washington, D.C.: A Joint Publication of The Amer- ican AssociatiOn of Colleges for Teacher Education and The Association for Student Teaching, 1967), pp. 109-110. 27 For those who are concerned with the best possible student teach- ing experience, it must be concluded that not only must the importance of the principal as an integral, participating member of the student teach- ing team be emphasized in Off-campus student teaching programs, but that efforts must be made to see that all those involved in student teaching recognize and accept the contributions Of the principal. A recent study made by the Deans and Directors Of Teacher Educa- tion in Michigan dealing with the impact of student teaching on cooperat- ing schools polled student teachers, teachers, and principals. The simple choice Of respondents provides some measure of credence to the place of the principal in student teaching programs, but, in the student teacher and teacher forms, only a passing reference was made to the principal. In the principal's form, the only references which bore on the principal's role dealt with work load hours expended. By far the greatest majority (81.8%) said that there was no change, or one hour or less per week more work. In another question which assessed change in work load, 47% indicated increased work due to the necessity for additional reports regarding student teaching or student teachers; 55% saw increased work loads in counselling student teachers; 49.8% had more work in selecting supervising teachers; 62.9% found orientation of student teachers more work; and 56.8% eXperienced a larger work load due to counselling super- vising teachers.40 40Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan, The Im- pact Of Student Teaching Programs Upon the Cooperating_Public Schools in Michigan, (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Council of State College Presidents, 1970). 28 Although the thrust of the Deans and Directors study was on the impact Of student teaching on the schools, it is clear that the princi- pals see some Obligation to the student teaching program in reporting, counseling, selection Of supervising teachers, and working with super- vising teachers. These findings tend to bear out statistically what the literature suggests on a more subjective level. Although some authors have attempted to identify what the prin- cipal should or should not do in student teaching, this review of the literature revealed the lack of Objective study concerning the role of the principal in the student teaching experience. This investigation is intended to provide both Objective evidence and subjective inference based on data collected. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND POPULATION Development Of the Instrument The five areas identified in the review of the literature were used as the basis for a questionnaire. These areas are: 1. Selection Of cooperating teachers 2. Orientation Of student teachers 3. Selection of student teachers 4. Supervision and evaluation Of student teachers 5. Liaison with the teacher training institution Each of these areas is a role segment of the total special role played by the building administrator in the student teaching experience. These role segments were explored for various identifiable facets which could be defined and examined by means of a questionnaire. Items were constructed so as to yield both qualitative and quantitative data on each facet. Much of this exploration and the subsequent construction Of questionnaire items is based on direct personal questioning Of build- ing principals currently working with student teachers, other administra- tors who had, at one time, been principals dealing with student teachers, and college supervisors. Originally it was the intention of this study to investigate each 29 3O role segment from two dimensions, the actual dimension-~who actually does what is specified; and the ideal dimension--who does the respon- dent think should do what is specified. A third dimension, probably best described as "empathospective", was added,1 with questions which simply ask the respondent to "take the place" of someone else and spec- ulate on what that person thinks is the ideal behavior for that role. To illustrate the three points of view, the first three questions on the questionnaire can be used. From the principal's form of the questionnaire (See Appendix D): 1. Who actually selects cooperating teachers in your school? (This asks the respondent to identify the real participants.) 2. Who do you think should select cooperating teachers? (This question form asks for the ideal participants.) 3. Who does the college supervisor think should select cooper- ating teachers? (In this "empathospective" form, the respondent must project himself into another role and identify that person's perSpec- tive of the ideal participants.) . Equivalent questions are posed for the college supervisor. Wording 1The writer is indebted to Dr. Wilbur Brookover of Michigan State University for this suggestion. 31 in changed in the question so that the answers will refer to the same person or situation. Thus, equivalent questions to those above on the college supervisor's form Of the questionnaire read: 1. Who actually selects cooperating teachers in the school? 2. Who do you think should select cooperating teachers? 3. Who does the principal think should select cooperating teachers? A number Of questions were written to explore each of the five areas seen as the principal's responsibilities. It was felt that, in order to keep the questionnaire within manageable proportions and not so long as to inhibit the respondent, each role segment could be represented by only three or four questions. This limitation was necessary since each ques- tion was to be explored in the three dimensions explained above. With the limitation in mind, the first role segment is examined by investigation Of: 1. Who selects cooperating teachers? 2. On what criteria are the cooperating teachers selected? 3. When are cooperating teachers selected? The second area is examined in four sets of questions: 1. Who orients the new student teachers? 2. Does the principal meet with new student teachers? 3. Does the principal arrange for orientation activities? 4. When are orientation activities carried on? 32 The third area is explored in three sets of questions: 1. How are student teachers selected? 2. What criteria are used in student teacher selection? 3. What efforts are made to find out about the student teacher before placement? Four sets of questions view the fourth role segment: 1. Does the principal maintain supervisory contact with the student teachers? 2. How Often does the principal have contact with student teachers? 3. Does the principal participate in evaluagion of student teachers? 4. How Often does the principal contact cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? The fifth role segment is examined in three questions: 1. How Often does the principal meet with the college supervisor? 2. How Often does the principal have contact with the college relative to student teaching? 3. Has the principal taken a course dealing directly with student teaching? The result, with eaCh facet examined from the three points of view, is fifty-one questions. 33 In addition to the body of the questionnaire, some general infor- mation was requested,to be used in the description of the population. The college supervisor was asked to identify the teacher training insti- tution he represents, the area (elementary and/or secondary) supervised, and the number of years associated with student teaching. (See Appendix 8.) Because the actual and empathospective questions asked of the col- lege supervisor refer to a specific principal, and the empathospective questions asked of the principal refer to a specific college supervisor, the college supervisor was asked to identify one principal who administers a school into which the college supervisor placed student teachers. These administrators were sent the alternate form of the questionnaire which also included questions Of general information. Since the principal is more able to give infonnation about the school he administers than is the college supervisor, he was asked to give more information about the school (see Appendix D). The first three questions dealt with the size and type of school. Questions four, six and seven were concerned with numbers, source,and length of contact of student teachers, while numbers five and eight gave some identity to the respondent. Popplations Because Of the necessity to assure matching responses to questions, the following procedure was used in determining the sample: 34 l. Questionnaires were administered ep_masse to all college supervisors at Eastern Michigan University. 2. 0n the same day, questionnaires were mailed to all college supervisors employed by Michigan State University. 3. Questionnaires were mailed to principals designated by the college supervisors in a group for those designated by East- ern Michigan University college supervisors. and one at a time, to principals designated, as questionnaires were returned by college supervisors from Michigan State University. 4. A cut-Off date was established for mail returns, and a follow- up postcard was sent to those college supervisors who had not returned the questionnaires (see Appendix E). 5. A similar procedure was used as a follow-up device for prin- cipals who had not returned the questionnaires. Since a pairing of principal with the corresponding college sup- ervisor was established as the precondition for inclusion in the popu- lation, the original number of eighty five college supervisors asked to complete the questionnaire--by means Of non-reSponse of either college supervisor or principa1--was reduced to thirty three.2 2It is probably significant that during much of the time while data was being sought, the 0.5. Postal Service was suffering the first strike Of employees in its history. This may account for some of the reduction in respondents. 35 Although geographic location was not used as a criterion for choosing the sample, as it turned Out, all the respondents (college supervisors and principals) were located in the lower peninsula Of Michigan. General Information on College Supervisors (See Appendix B.) In response to the general information requested on the first page Of the questionnaire, some interesting facts emerge regarding the college supervisors. Seven supervisors (21.21%) worked with elementary student teach- ers only; thirteen supervisors (39.39%) worked only with secondary stu- dent teachers; and another thirteen supervisors (39.39%) worked with both elementary and secondary. In number Of students supervised, consideration must be given to the fact that many college supervisors are hired for less than full- time supervision. Nonetheless, the figures for numbers of student teach- ers supervised are interesting. Only one (3.03%) supervised less than ten; seventeen (51.51%) supervised from eleven to twenty students; twelve (36.36%) supervised from twenty-one to thirty student teachers; and three (9.09%) worked with from thirty-one to fOrty students. The cal- culated median for supervisors was 18.92 students per term. A large proportion (sixteen; 48.5%) Of the college supervisors had had experience with student teachers, having been cooperating teachers prior to becoming college supervisors. The mean number of years of 36 experience Of this group as cooperating teachers was 6.50, the median somewhat lower at four years. A smaller group (eight; 24.24%) of the college supervisors had had administrative contact with student teachers. The mean years of experience in this area was 7.25 years with a median of 2.50; the dis- parity in these two measures is accounted for by a range of from one to twenty-six years. The mean years of experience as a college supervisor was 3.36 years with a median Of 2.50, and a range of from one-half to fifteen years. Eleven of the responding supervisors were associated with Michigan State University, and twenty-two with Eastern Michigan University. General Information on Principals and Schools (See Appendix 0.) Elementary schools constituted 45.45% of the sample (N = 15); Junior High (or Middle) Schools 21.21% (N = 7); and High Schools 33.33% (N = 11). The schools ranged in number of pupils from below three hundred (3%; N = l), to over 1,200 (24.24%; N = 8). Nine schools (27.27%) were between three hundred and six hundred students; five (15.15%) from six hundred to nine hundred students: and ten (30.30%) from nine hundred to 1,200. Considering the fact that fifteen Of the thirty-three schools included are elementary, the median size of 959 pupils is striking. The numbers of teachers within the schools of responding principals 37 ranged from two schools with fewer than ten teachers, to thirteen schools with forty or more teachers. Median numbers of teachers per building was 35.65. Comparing medians of pupils versus number of teachers yields an interesting figure of 959 students to 35.65 teachers, or, an approxi- mate 27 to l pupil-teacher ratio. In response to the question dealing with numbers Of student teach- ers usually in the school each term, eight principals (24.24%) responded from one to three; nine (27.27%) had from four to six; eight (24.24%) from seven to nine; and eight (24.24%) had over ten student teachers. Among those responding to the principals' questionnaire, only three (9.09%) were pp§_the principal; all three were assistant principals. Questions six and seven Of preliminary information are interre- lated, since the length of student teacher contact in the cooperating school is determined by the college or university. Among the thirty- three schools reporting, it was found that student teachers were placed from twelve different colleges and universities, each with a different term. Of particular interest is the number of principals who had had experience as cooperating teachers (eighteen; 54.54%) in addition to their experience as administrators. Procedure for Obtaining Data Since one of the major objectives of this study was to establish the involvement of the principals in various identified aspects of the 38 student teaching program, the responses to the questions were coded to indicate whether that particular response indicated active involvement in the student teaching program (+1); whether the particular response had no significance in relation to the activity, or whether the activity specified in the choice was possible without active involvement (0); or whether the response chOsen indicated a negative interest or rejection of the particular activity under consideration (-l). (See Appendices B and 0.) Responses were tallied for both the college supervisors and prin— cipals (see Appendix F). Since the questions were grouped in threes to investigate actual practices, ideal practices, and empathospective view-' 'point Of practices, scores were summed algebraically, in each dimension, giving each respondent three scores: 1. A Involvement Index, Actual 2. I Involvement Index, Ideal 3. E InvOlvement Index, Empathospective These data constitute the information used in the statistical anal- ysis related to the hypotheses specified in Chapter 1. Method Of Statistical Treatment of Data Since the hypotheses to be tested predict that one score will be greater in a particular direction to a statistically significant degree, it was decided that a one-tailed test Of significance was apprOpriate.3 3Henry E. Garrett.Statistics in Psychology and Education (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., T958), p. 218. 39 Because the data is of equal-interval type it was determined that the difference between the means would probably be the best test of whether one score was, indeed, greater to a statistically significant degree than another score. Because the N's were small, there was a greater likelihood Of the distribution of scores being leptokurtic (peaked) rather than mesokurtic (bell-shaped). Thus the significance Of the means of scores to be compared were tested using "t".4 t = (M g M2) : where M1 and M2 are the mean scores; m where Sm is the standard error of the mean for small samples S —§—- where s = N-l) t scores were evaluated on a table of t according to the appro- priate number of degrees of freedom at the 0.05 level of probability, us- ing the 0.10 probability column on the table. because a right-tailed (t difference) is sought and non-significance at this level will reject the hypothesis. At the beginning of the next chapter there is a description Of the principal's role in student teaching in narrative form. This narra- tive is followed by a statistical examination of the hypotheses. 41bid., p. 191. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Chapter IV is divided into four sections. The first two sections establish actual and ideal pictures of the principal's role in student teaching through qualitative and comparative interpretation Of principal and college supervisor responses, in each of the five areas identified as role segments. From this picture, a third section presents Observa- tions and inferences. The fourth section of the chapter deals with the statistical ex- amination of the six hypotheses enumberated in Chapter I. Actual Role Perceptions (See Appendix G.) Selection Of cooperating teachers. Of the thirty-three reSpon- dents included in the sample, most principals (69%) said that they sel- ected the cooperating teachers alone, while a far smaller number (30%) said that they cooperated with the college supervisor. College super- visors, on the other hand, reversed the order with the majority (42%) seeing joint selection, and a smaller number (33%) seeing the principal as sole selection agent. Both principals (72%) and college supervisors (81%) overwhelmingly stated that the basis for selection of cooperating teachers was both local school and college criteria. 40 41 As to when the cooperating teachers are selected, only a few (P = 18%; C5 = 18%) indicated that they select coOperating teachers be- fore anything is known. In both principal and college supervisor res- ponses, there was relatively equal distribution between when needs for placement are known and when student teacher credentials are available. In the dimension of choice Of cooperating teachers, the principal appears to be deeply involved. This is a reasonable conclusion since the principal generally has some responsibility for the teaching load and evaluation of teachers in his building. Orientation of student teachers. In both college supervisor and principal responses the principal was nearly always mentioned as a par- ticipant in orientation. Most principals (51%) and college supervisors (66%) saw orientation being done by the principal, the college super- visor, and the teacher, jointly. However, in the main, principals (84%) and college supervisors (75%) saw the orientation as a group activity rather than an individual one, with the principal arranging orientation activities for groups rather than individuals (CS = 57%; P = 84%). Most principals carried on orientation activities after placement in the school (60%), but a considerable number (45%) oriented student teachers prior to placement with a cooperating teacher. The ratio was different for college supervisors, with 30% seeing the principal orient- ing students prior to placement, and 57% seeing orientation after place- ment. 42 It is evident from the responses that the principal has a defi- nite role in the orientation of student teachers, perhaps in the same sense that he has an equivalent responsibility to regular teachers en- tering his building for the first time. Selection of student teachers. In selection of student teachers, no principals answered that they acted alone, and only a few (21%) felt that they were not involved at all. The college supervisors, however, diverged from this pattern, stating that many principals (36%) did not participate. In choice of criteria for selection of student teachers most prin- cipals (51%) felt both college and local criteria were used, while a small number (27%) felt student teachers were chosen by the availability of cooperating teachers. The great majority of college supervisors (69%) felt that both college and local criteria were used in selection Of stu- dent teachers with only a small number (12%) feeling the choice was made on the basis Of availability Of cooperating teachers. Both college supervisors (60%) and principals (51%) chose the Op- tion Of "some" in response to the question regarding efforts Of the prin- cipals to Obtain infOrmation about student teachers before placement. Although there are some discrepancies between college supervisor and principal perceptions Of the extent Of principal involvement, it is clear from this section that the principal does have a part of play in student teacher selection. 43 Supervision and evaluation of student teachers. It is interesting, and perhaps a comment on the relationship which exists between the prin- cipal and the whole student teaching program, that the greatest number Of principals (81%) saw their supervisory contact work with the student teacher as an indirect activity carried on through either the cooperat- ing teacher or the college supervisor. College supervisors also saw this relationship (96%). Regarding the frequency Of contact of the principal with students, both principals (36%) and college supervisors (39%) had the greatest number of responses at once a week. .Many principals (33%) saw themselves as contacting the students daily, while the college supervisors (15%) did not agree. Again the indirect character of the principal's rOle in student teaching becomes evident in the fact that nearly all (84%) principals and supervisors (81%) saw the principal as participating in the evalua- tion Of student teachers indirectly, either through the cooperating teacher or the college supervisor. I Frequency of contact between principal and cooperating teacher to discuss student teaching found no modal response from either college supervisor or principal, with approximately equal scores ranging from more than once a week to monthly. As might be expected, after the initial orientation and placement, the actual role perceptiOn of both principals and supervisors is one Of limited and indirect Contact. 44 Liaison with the teacher training institution. Although there was a range in frequency Of meetings between college supervisor and princi- pal, the mode for principal (36%) and college supervisor (45%) was more than once a month but less than weekly. The largest number of both supervisors (42%) and principals (42%) saw the principal not going to campus or attending college sponsored meetings regarding student teachers at all. One respondent, however, wrote on his questionnaire, ”If they had any, I would surely go!" Per- haps there is a lack Of either events or communication regarding confer- ences and other activities on the part of the colleges. Paralleling this conclusion is the fact that only 33% of the prin- cipals had taken a course dealing directly with student teaching, and college supervisors surmised that only two (or 6%) had done so. For whatever causes--overwork, lack of time, lack Of support from upper level administration--it is clear that principals are not involved in college-school relationships, as measured in the questions in this segment, as might be desired. Ideal Role Perceptiopp (See. Appendix H.) Selection Of cooperating_teeghers. Responding to "who do you think" dimensions Of this questionnaire, all thirty-three principals felt they should be involved in the choosing of cooperating teachers: fifteen (45%) alone and eighteen (54%) with the college supervisor. College supervisors were more desirous of a voice, twenty-three (69%) 45 specifying principal and supervisor joint effort in selection. Both groups (P = 87%; CS = 93%) agreed that both local and school criteria-~in the most common cases the local contract-~and university criteria should be used in choosing cooperating teachers. , Both groups also indicated (P = 81%; CS = 72%) that cooperating teachers should be selected after needs and student teachers are iden- tified. In the ideal dimension, the responsibility for choosing cooperat- ing teachers is shared more between the college supervisor and the prin- cipal than in the actual dimension. ngentation Of student teachers. Both college supervisors (69%) and principals (63%) ideally see the principal, college supervisor and the teacher involved in orientation activities. The ideal dimension numbers remain unchanged from the actual, with both principals (81%) and college supervisors (81%) indicating that the principal should orient new students in groups. Twenty-nine principals (87%) and twenty-five college supervisors (75%) indicated that, ideally, the principal should arrange for orienta- tion activities. These activities, according to principals (45%) and supervisors (45%), should take place prior to placement with cooperating teachers. The ideal role, not surprisingly, differs little in the area of orientation from the actual role, since this is one of the principal's traditional activities. 46 Selection Of student teachers. Both the college supervisors (63%) and principals (54%) saw the principal ideally working with the cooper- ating teacher and college supervisor in selection Of student teachers. Also, supervisors (78%) and principals (69%) agreed that both local and college criteria should be used in selection of student teachers. About the same number of principals and supervisors saw ideal in- volvement in procuring information on potential student teachers as equiv- alent to actual performance. The ideal perception Of how student teachers should be selected dif- fers little from the actual perception in this dimension, either in prin- cipal or college supervisor judgment. Supervision and evaluation Of student teachers. Again, the ideal -dimension of the role differs little from the actual. Most principals (78%) and most college supervisors (81%) saw the principal maintaining only indirect contact, with a similar spread of frequency Of contact from daily to once a semester. Nearly all principals (81%) and supervisors (81%) felt that the principal should contribute to evaluation only indirectly through the college supervisor or cooperating teacher. As in the case of actual perception, the frequency Of contact of principal with cooperating teacher to discuss student teaching had no clear mode, and ranged from more than once a week to monthly. The ideal role perception Of the extent of contact Of principal 47 with student teachers appears subjectively to be the same as the actual role perception for this area. Tradition role expectations as well as other factors, such as available time, and perception of the need to en- gage in contact activities, appear to contribute to the stability Of the role perception. Liaison with the teacher training institution. Both principals (33%) and college supervisors (45%) felt that, ideally, they should meet more than once a month but less than weekly. The range, however, was from more than "weekly" to "not at all" in both groups. Ideal expectation of attendance Of principals at college sponsored meetings regarding student teaching was high fOr principals, who spec- ified once a semester (39%), and for college supervisors, who also spec- ified once a semester (63%) as the desired frequency. Ideally, principals (63%) and college supervisors (69%) reversed the actual response to taking a course dealing directly with student teaching, saying that the principal gppp1g_take such a course. In the ideal dimension, then, there seems to be some shift to a greater involvement on the part Of the principal in liaison with the teacher training institution when comparing the actual and the ideal perceptions. Inferences from Actual and Ideal Observations Viewing the information gathered on the questionnaire from a qual- itative standpoint gives rise to speculation that, far from being a 48 powerful and dynamic figure on the local school scene as regards the student teaching program, the principal sees himself, and is seen, ac- tually, as a participant in a process over which he has little control and in which he has limited interest. Variations between ideal and actual perceptions Of the principal's role are large. In many instances, there is reason to think that, iden- tified by the teacher preparation institution as a necessary participant, the principal can contribute more to student teaching programs. In the next section Of this chapter statistical tests are made on coded data derived from the questionnaire.v All tallying and initial calculations were done by hand and checked on a computer. Explanation of the statistical treatment is found in the section titled Method Of Statistical Treatment Of Data in Chapter III. Statistical Tests Of Hypotheses Discussion and tables. In this section the following abbrevia- tions are used: PA Principal involvement index, actual PI Principal involvement index, ideal PE Principal involvement index, empathospective CSA College supervisor estimate Of principal involvement index, actual CSI College supervisor estimate of principal involvement index. ideal 49 CSE College supervisor empathospective estimate Of principal involvement index. Hypothesis 1 states that principals will show significant differ— ences between how they should fulfill their role (PI) and how they ac- tually fulfill their role in the student teaching process (PA)' Table 1 illustrates the relationship between mean scores on prin- cipals' ideal and principals' actual role perceptions for all principals. A t Of 4.98 at 32 degrees of freedom indicates the difference to be highly significant. Ideal and actual involvement indices correlate sub- stantially (r = 0.67), indicating a strong relationship (Table 2). 50 Table l The Significance Of the Difference Of Means Of P and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals Item PA PI Number 33 33 Mean 8.63 10.93 Standard Deviation 3.51 2.80 Number Of degrees of freedom = 32 t = 4.98 t(0.05) = 1.70 Table 2 Correlations of Involvement Indices (Product Moment [r])* PA PI PE , CSA CSI CSE PA 1.00 PI 0.67 1.00 PE 0.60 0.80 1.00 CSA 0.20 0.26 0.35 1.00 CSI 0.07 0.18 0.12 0.30 1.00 CSE 0.17 0.31 -.28 0.13 0.75 1.00 *Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Ppychology_and Education, (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., T958) p.139. 51 Tables 3 and 4 show the relationship between ideal and actual role perceptions for elementary and secondary principals. Both of Table 3 The Significance of the Difference of Means Of PA and P at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals Item PA PI Number 14 14 Mean 9.78 11.98 Standard Deviation 2.75 2.58 Number of degrees of freedom a 13 t = 4.19 t(0.05) = 1.77 Table 4 The Significance of the Difference Of Means Of PA and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Secondary Principals Item PA pI Number 19 19 Mean 7.79 10.21 Standard Deviation 3.84 2.80 Number of degrees of freedom = 18 t = 3.37 t(0.05) = l.73 52 these relationships show significant differences with the probability of chance lower for elementary principals than for secondary. All three tests bear out the hypothetical prediction that there are signi- ficant differences between ideal and actual role perceptions Of princi- pals as measured by the questionnaire. Hypothesis 2 examines the college supervisors' perceptions in the same variables as the first hypothesis. In this case, the college supervisor had identified what he sees the principal doing in the various dimensions Of the role analyses (CSA),.and what he thinks the principal should do ideally in the role (CS1). Table 5 illustrates the relationship of all college supervisor perceptions of principals' actual performance with the college supervisors' perceptions of what the principal Should be doing in the student teaching Table 5 The Significance of the Difference of Means of CSA and CS1 at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence for All Principals Item CSA CSI Number 33 33 Mean 6.93 11.21 Standard Deviation 5.31 3.83 Number Of degrees of freedom = 32 t = 7.02 t (0.05) = 1.70 53 process. Although the correlation here is low (r = 0.30), a t Of 7.02 at 32 degrees Of confidence indicates a high degree of confidence that the difference of mean scores is significant. Table 6 and 7 examine the same relationship divided into elemen- tary and secondary cells. In these cases, also, a significant differ- ence exists, but, here, different from the principals' perceptions, the secondary college supervisors' scores yield a higher degree Of confidence in the hypothesis. In all cases, the statistics tend to prove the hypo- thesis. Table 6 The Significance Of the Difference of Means Of CSA and CS at the 0.05 Level of Confidence fdr Elementary Principals Item CSA CSI Number l4 14 Mean 8.50 12.85 Standard Deviation 3.71 1.99 Number Of degrees of freedom = 13 t = 4.52 t(0.05) = 1.77 54 Table 7 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means Of CSA and CS at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence Ior Secondary Principals Item CSA CSI Number 19 19 Mean 5.79 10.00 Standard Deviation 6.08 4.42 Number Of degrees of freedom = 18 t = 5.23 t(0.05) = 1.73 The third hypothesis predicts that there will be significant dif- ferences between the principal's ideal role perception (PI) and the role perception the college supervisor thinks is ideal (CSI). Table 8 compares the mean score of PI and CSI for all principals. The low t Of 0.36 illustrates that the difference is not significant. Table 9, which explores the significance of the difference of means for secondary respondents, and Table 10, examining the elementary respon- dents, also show t scores lower than necessary to achieve significance. 55 Table 8 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means of CS and P at the 0.05 Level of Cdnfidende for All Principals Item CSI PI Number 33 33 Mean 11.21 10.93 Standard Deviation 3.83 2.80 Number Of degrees of freedom = 32 t = 0.36 t(0.05) : 1.70 56 Table 9 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means of CSI and P at the 0.05 Level of Confidence Ior Secondary Principals Item CSI PI Number 19 . 19 Mean 10.00 4 10.21 Standard Deviation 2.80 2.80 Number of degrees of freedom = 18 t = 0.18 t(0.05) = 1.73 Table 10 -The Signficance of the Difference Of Means of CSI and P at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence f r Elementary Principals Item CSI PI Number 14 14 Mean 12.85 11.92 Standard Deviation 1.99 2.58 -..-. “fl“. '0-.. 9. ~--- Number of degrees of freedom = 13 t = 1.12 t(0.05) = 1.77 57 Hypothesis 4 predicts that there will be significant differences in what the principal sees himself as actually doing (PA), and what the college supervisor sees the principal actually doing (CSA). The corre- lation (r = 0.20) between these scores is low (Table 2). Table 11, comparing mean scores for all participants, shows low mean scores for both principal actual involvement (PA mean = 6.93), and college supervisors' perceptions of principals' involvement (CSA mean = 6.93), and the difference of the means is not significant statistically. Table 11 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means Of CSA and PA at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence for All Principals Item CSA PA Number 33 33 Mean 6.93 8.63 Standard Deviation 5.31 3.51 Number of degrees of freedom = 32 t = 1.69 t(0.05) = I.70 The same pattern Of low t scores is illustrated in Tables 12 and 13, where elementary and secondary data groupings are presented. 58 Table 12 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means of CSA and P at the 0.05 Level of Confidence or Elementary Principals Item CS A A Number 14 14 Mean 8.50 9.78 Standard Deviation 3.71 2.75 Number Of degrees of freedom = 13 t = 1.08 t(0.05) = 1.77 Table 13 The Significance of the Difference of Means of . CSA and PA at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence for Secondary Principals Item CSA PA Number l9 19 Mean 5.79 7.79 Standard Deviation 6.07 3.83 Number of degrees Of freedom = 18 t = 1.31 t(0.05) = 1.73 59 The fifth hypothesis follows the same pattern as the fourth in comparing principal and college supervisor perceptions Of the same element Of role. In this hypothesis, it is predicted that the princi- pals' ideal role perceptions (PI) will be significantly different from the estimate, made by the college SUPEPVISOF Of what the principal sees as ideal (CSE). Table 14 indicates that the difference, although close to sig- nificance, does not achieve it at the 0.05 level of confidence. Table 14 The Significance of the Difference of Means Of CSE and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals Item CSE PI Number 33 33 Mean 9.57 10.93 Standard Deviation 4.89 2.80 Number Of degrees Of freedom = 32 t = 1.61 t(0.05) = 1.70 Table 15 indicates a very close convergence Of means for elemen- tary respondents, but Table 16 illustrates that the secondary responses were significantly different, repeating the situation found in hypothesis 3 where disparities are found which seem to be a function of the level of the school. I 60 Table 15 The Significance Of the Difference of Means of CSE and PI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for Elementary Principals Item ~ PI CSE Number l4 14 Mean 11.93 11.64 Standard Deviation 2.50 3.27 Number of degrees Of freedom = 13 t = 0.27 t(0.05) = 1.77 Table 16 The Significance Of the Difference Of Means of CSE and PI at the 0.05 Level Of Confidence for Secondary Principals Item P17 CSE Number 19 19 Mean 10.21 8.05 Standard Deviation 2.80 5.41 Number Of degrees of freedom = 18 t = 1.74 t(o.05) = l.73 61 The results of examining the sixth hypothesis (Tables 17, 18, 19) are not particularly striking in view of the results Of similar analy— sis Of the fourth and fifth hypotheses. In hypothesis 6, the college supervisor's identification Of what is an ideal role for the principal (CSI) is matched against what the principal assumes is the college sup- ervisor's ideal perception Of the principal's role (PE). Table 17 The Significance of the Difference of Means Of PE and CSI at the 0.05 Level of Confidence for All Principals Item PE CSI Nunber ' 33 33 Mean 10.24 11.21 Standard Deviation 2.53 3.83 Number Of degrees of freedom = 32 t = 1.28 t(0.05) = 1.70 Once again, as in previous hypotheses, the elementary respondents' scores were significantly different, while total and secondary response differences were not. Of interest in this case is that the college sup- ervisors' score on the ideal role is higher (indicating more involvement) in each case than the principals' perception of what the college super- visor thinks the ideal rOle should be. 62 Table 18 Significance of the Difference Of Means of PE and CS at the 0.05 Level of Confiddnce for Elementarv Principals Item CSI pE Number 14 14 Mean 12.86 10.64 Standard Deviation 1.99 2.73 Number Of degrees Of freedom = 13 t = 2.59 t(0.05) = 1077 Table 19 Significance Of the Difference Of Means of PE and CS at the 0.05 Level Of EConfiddnce for Secondary Principals Item ~ CSI PE Number 19 19 Mean 10.00 9.94 Standard Deviation 4.42 2.41 Number Of degrees Of freedom = 18 = 0.046 t(0.05) = 1.73 63 Summary of tests of hypotheses. This chapter has treated the in- formation gathered by means Of the questionnaire in two ways. First, a subjective analysis was made Of actual and ideal dimensions Of the role segments identified on the questionnaire, and some inferences were made from this analysis. Second, statistical measures were applied to coded data representing the involvement of principals in the various role seg- ments identified on the questionnaire. The six hypotheses were tested with the following results: 1. The hypothesis that principals will show significant differ- ences between hOw they should fulfill their role in student teaching and how they actually fulfill their role, was accepted at the 0.05 level Of confidence. The hypothesis that the college supervisors' perceptions Of what the principal should be doing and what he is actually do- ing in relation to student teaching will differ significantly, was also accepted at the 0.05 level of confidence. The hypothesis which predicts that the college supervisors' ideal role perceptions will differ significantly from the prin- cipals' stated ideal role perceptions, was not accepted for all respondents, or for respondents categorized under “elementary", or “secondary". The hypothesis predicting significant differences between what the principal actually sees himself doing and what the 64 college supervisor sees the principal doing in relation to student teaching, was not accepted at total respondent, elementary, or secondary level of testing. The hypothesis that the principals' ideal role perceptions will differ significantly from the college supervisors' es- timates Of the principals' own ideal role perceptions, was not accepted, as it failed to reach the necessary level Of significance. The hypOthesis which predicts significant differences between the ideal role perception established by the college super- visors; and the principals' empathospective perceptions Of what the college supervisors' ideal role perceptions are, was not accepted for all respondents or for those categor- ized as "secondary", but did achieve significance for those categorized as "elementary“. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter IV presented the findings and summarized the tests of the underlying hypotheses of this study which defines and examines the principal's role in student teaching. This chapter draws conclu- sions from the results and makes recommendations for further study and action. Conclusions There is more agreement between college supervisors and princi- pals about the principal's role in student teaching than was assumed in framing the hypotheses. This is demonstrated by the similarity of the actual and ideal role perceptions, and the ability of each group to predict the ideal role perception of the other. Principals are not now doing all that they, themselves, as well as college supervisors, think that they should in student teaching pro- grams. The highly significant difference between actual and ideal role perceptions on the part Of both groups, with the ideal role per- ception always being one of more involvement,makes this quite clear. There is no ambiguity about the role of the principal in student teaching. This is born out by the fact that the last four hypotheses, each of which predicted differences between respondent role perceptions, were all rejected. 65 66 Recommendations Colleges and Universities should take the initiative in providing on-campus programs for principals dealing with student teaching. Res- ponses to the questionnaire point out the need fOr better communication and interaction between the sponsoring teacher preparation institution and the principal. This area of the study had the greatest number Of spontaneous written responses, and these responses generally asked for more contact. ' This evidence of need for information about student teaching sug- gests that study Of teacher education programs should definitely be in- cluded in the professional preparation of administrators. Considering that the role of the principal is well defined, re- search is needed tO determine which segments Of the role are of value to the student teaching program, and which, if any, are superfluous. Certainly the modern building principal is a busy person, with limited time for student teaching participation, and it is Of definite value to find out which aspects of his role he should stress, and which are un- needed. The discovery that principals, in large measure, are either un- able or unwilling to perform at the ideal level set by both principals and college supervisors merits further study. One possible cause for this behavior which should be investigated is whether the routine of the principal allows time for effective participation in student teach- ing activities. Another is whether the lack Of motivation to perform 67 at the ideal level is the result of the principal's feeling that stu- dent teaching is not really valuable. A third might be that, regard- less Of how the principal views student teaching, he might be convinced that his participation in student teaching activities is Of little val- ue. Opinions of educators, expressed in the literature, give value to the principal as a member Of the student teaching team, but these Opin- ions appear to be founded on what these authorities feel, rather than on actual evidence. Whatever causes keep the principal from performing at the ideal level need to be identified through further study. BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles and Periodicals Ashmore, Henry L., "Establishing an Off-Campus Student Teaching Pro- gram,“ The Journal of Teacher Education, II (December, 1951), 295-98. Brink, William G., "The Administration of Student Teaching in Univ- ersities which Use the Public Schools," Educational Admini- stration and Supervision, XXXI, (October, 1945), 396-400. Chase, Daniel, "Student Teaching Programs Require Effective CO-Opera- tion," California Journal of Secondary Education, XXXI (April, 1956), 200-01. Chute, O.M., "A CO-Operative Out-Of-town Program Of Student-Teaching at the High School Level," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXX (March, 1944), 307-12. Cox, Dan, "Why Should Public Schools Accept Student Teachers?“, Educa- gipnal Administration and Supervision, XLV (September, 1959), 275-79. Curtis, Dwight K., "Off-Campus Student-Teaching," Educational Adminis- tration and Supervision, XXXVIII (December, 1952), 58-62. , "Ways in which Supervisors Helvatudent Teachers," Educa- tional Research Bulletin, XXXVIII (March, 1958), 57-60. Del POpOlO, S.A., and M. Hillson, "Student Teaching and the Role Of the Public Schools," New York State Education, LI (March, 1964), 14-15. Ducker, Sam, "The Elementary School Principal and the Student Teacher", Educational Administration and Supervision, XLI (December, 1955), 467-74. Evsen, Myrtle, "The Role Of the Cooperating School," The Journal_gf Teacher Education, XVIII (Winter, 1967), 410-15. 68 69 Foster, Lucille, "Student Teaching--The Value to All Program Partici- - pants," California Journal of Elementapnyducation, XXIX (May, 19611] 241-48. . Hicks, E. Perry, "Changing the Role Of the Cooperating Teacher," Ipe_ Journal Of Teacher Education, XX (Summer, 1969), 153-57. Lingren, Vernon C., "Three Proposals for Improving Student Teaching", Educational Administration and Supervision, XLIII (November, 1957), 385-89. McGrath, 6.0., “Evaluation Of Student Teaching," Educational Adminis- tration and Supervision, XXXV (November, 1949), 442-46. Mercer, W.A., "Teacher Education Laboratory Experiences: Off-Campus Student Teaching,” Improving College and University Teachipg, XI (Spring, 1963), 110-11} Michaels, R.E., "The Principal's Role in the Recruitment and Training of Future Teachers,“ Bulletin of the National Association of 'Secondary School Principils, XXXV'TMarch, 1951), Mosher, Howard H. and Dorothy Pan Bruno, "Methods Of Improving the Student Teaching Program," School Board Journal, CXXX (March, 1956),'55+. Orr, Charles W., "A Student Teacher Induction Program," The Bulletin ‘ Of the National Association Of Secondary School Principals, (May, 1955) , 102-04. Payne, C.J., "Student Teachers Team All Phases of Education," Wisconsin Journal Of Education, XCVI (September, 1963), 21. Perrodin, Alex F., "The Principal and the Student Teacher," Educational Administration and Supervision, XLII (March, 1956), 149-52. Saxe, Richard W., “Student Teaching: What is the Role Of the Princi- pal," Illinois Education, LV (November, 1966), 104-06. Schwartz, Sheila, "The Principal's Role in the Student Teaching Programztrn- The Journal Of Teacher Education, XIII (March, 1962), 78-81. Smith, E. Brooks, "Needed: A New Order in Student Teaching that Brings Joint Accountability for Professional Development," The Journal of Teacher Education, XX (Spring, 1969), 27-36. 7O Soles, Stanley, "Teacher Role Expectations and the Internal Organiza- tion of Secondary Schools," Journal of Educational Research, LVII (January, 1964), 227-38. Stewig, John Warren, "What Should College Supervisors 00?", The Jour- nal Of Teacher Education, XXI (Summer, 1970), 251-57. Taylor, G.K. and J.W. Fields, “Problems Confronting the College Coordi- nator in an Off-Campus Student Teachin Program," Peabody Journal Of Education, XLI (March, 1964?, 308-11.‘ Books Adams, Harold P. and Frank G. Dickey. Basic Principles Of Student Teaching. New York: American Bock Co., 1956. Andrews, Leonard 0. Student Teaching, New York: The Center of Applied Research in Edfication, Inc., 1964. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Toward Better Teachin . The 1949 Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: TNational Education Association, 1949. Association Of Classroom Teachers. Report Of the Classroom Teachers National Stpgy Conference on the Role Ofithe Classroom TeaCher in the Student Teaching_Program. Washington, D.C.: National EducatiOniASSOCTation, 1970. Brown, Thomas J. and Serafina Fiore Banich. Student Teaching in an Elementary School. New York: Harper andTBrOthers, 1962. Burr, James B., Lowry W. Harding, and Leland B. Jacobes. Student Teach- ing in the Elementary School. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1958. Byers, Loretta and Elizabeth Irish. Success in Student Teaching. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1961. Cook, Kermit A., May L. Wilt and Y. Mildred Woofter. Student Teaching_ in the Secondary_SchOOl. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, Co., 1954. ' Crow, Lester D. and Alice Crew. The Student Teacher in the Secondary School. New York: David McKay, Co., Inc., 1956. 71 Curtis, Dwight K. and Leonard O. Andrews. Guidinngour Student Teacher. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954. Dahlem, Margaret, "A Role Perception: The Cooperating School Principal," in Teacher Education and the Public Schools; The Fortieth Year- book of the’Association for Student Teachihg. Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1961. Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan. The Im act of Student Teaching Programs Upon the Cooperating PuBIic Schools. Lansing, Michigan: MiEhigan Council of State CollegeiPresi- dents, 1970. Gage, N.L. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963. Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1958. Hicks, William V., and Clare C. Walker. Full-Time Student Teaching. East Lansing, Michigan: The Michigan State University Press, 1957. Jenkins, William A. (Ed.) The Nature of Knowledge: Implications in the Education of Teachers. MilwaUkee: Edward A.O. Uhrig FOund- atiOn, 1961. ' Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching. A New Order in Student Teaching: Fixing Responsibilities for Student Teachin . Washington, D.C.: *National EducatiOn AssoOiation, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Stan- dards, 1967. Lindsey, Margaret and William T. Grutin. Student Teaching in the Ele- mentary School. New York: The Ronald Press'Co., 1957. McGeoch, Dorothy M. Directed Experiences in Teacher Education: A Story of Three Progpams. Neinork: ‘Bureau of Publications, TeaEhers COllege, Columbia University, 1953. McGuire, Vincent, Robert B. Myers and Charles L. Durrance. Your Stu- dent Teaching_in the Secondary_School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., T959. 72 ‘Myers, George R. and William J. Walsh. Student Teaching and Intern- ship in Today's Secondopy School. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Morrill Books, Inc., 1964. Nelson, Leslie and Blanche McDonald. Guide to Student Teaching, Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, Co., 1952. Smith, E. Brooks et. al. (Eds. ) A Guide to Professional Excellence in ClinicET Experiences in TeaEher Educat1on. Washington,iD.C.: The Association for Student TEachers, 1970. Smith, E. Brooks pt, 31. (Eds.) Partnership in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: A Joint Publication of the American Associ- ation. of Colleges for Teacher Education and The Association for Student Teaching, 1967. Stratemeyer, Florence B. and Margaret Lindsey. WOrkin with Student Teachers. New York: Bureau of Publications, eaChers College, ColumEia University, 1958. Wiggins, Sam P. The Student Teacher in Action. Boston: Allyn and . Bacon, Inc., 1957. Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1950. . Woodruff, Asahel D.‘ Student Teaching Today. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of College ih'Teacher Education, 1960. Unpyblished Works Brown, Lawson James. “The Functions of School Principals in Student Teaching Programs. " Unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Univ- ersity of Alabama, 1962. Vanderlip, William Finley. "Role Attributes and Expectations of the Building Principal in the Internship Program." Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1965. . . , .APPENDIX A Eastern Michigan Universnty \‘Inilnmi, \Iu‘IiieJn INN): LETTER TO COLLEGE SUPERVISORS December, 1969 Dear Colleague: I am engaged in a study of the place and function of the participants in Student Teaching. I will be most grateful for your assistance in this project by your taking the time and effort to respond to the en- closed questionnaire. The questions require you to make judgments regarding one building principal with whom you work. Please write this principal's name in ‘the Space indicated on the first sheet of the questionnaire, since the validity of the study requires that he or she complete a similar questionnaire. If you are not sure of an answer, please give your best guess. I am interested in your perceptions. Feel free to check more than one res- ponse to any question if this Seems apprOpriate. It is not necessary for you to put your name on the questionnaire. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Robert Hoexter Assistant Professor Curriculum and Instruction Division College of Education Rszc 73 APPENDIX B COLLEGE SUPERVISOR FORM OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH RESPONSE CODING USED TO DETERMINE INVOLVEMENT INDICES Name of Teacher-Training Institution 1. Area of supervision: l 1 Elementary 1.2 Secondary l 3 Both 2. Number of student teachers supervised each term: 2.l___ l to 10 2.2___.1l to 20 2.3___ 21 to 30 2.4____3l to 40 2. 5___ over 40 3. How'many years have you supervised student teachers? 3.1 As a cooperating teacher years 3.2 As an administrator years 3.3 As a college supervisor years Will you please provide the following information on one principal who administers a school where you place student teachers? He ‘will‘be asked to complete a questionnaire similar to yours. Thank you. Principal's Name Name of School Address of School Mich. Zip Your Name (For Identification Purposes Only) 74 CS-l 75 The cooperating teacher to whom the student teacher is assigned within the public school is an important contributor to the student teacher's experience. are chosen varies, this section we are interested in the how, when, The means by which these teachers as do the criteria used in selection. In and why of cooperating teacher selection. 1. Who actually selects cooperating teachers in the school? 1.1 i the principal 1.2_ -— the college supervisor 1.3_ +- the principal and college supervisor, jointly 1.4 - the teachers themselves 1.5 Z others (specify) 2. Who do you think should select cooperating teachers? 2.1 i the principal 2.2 - the college supervisor 2.3 i' the principal and college supervisor, jointly 2.4 " the teachers themselves 2.5 2 others (specify) 3. Who does the principal think should select cooperating teachers? 3.1 f' the principal 3.2 *' the college supervisor 3.3 +' the principal and college supervisor, jointly 3.4 " the teachers themselves 3.5 P others (specify) 4. On what basis are cooperating teachers now selected for this school? 4.1 —— exclusively on college criteria 4.2 3: on local school criteria alone 4.3 ‘t on both school and college criteria 5. On what basis do you think cooperating teachers should be selected? 5.1 - exclusively on college criteria 5.2 3; on local school criteria alone 5.3 1; on both school and college criteria 6. On what basis does the principal think that cooperating teachers should be selected? 6.1 " 6.2 t 6. 3 + exclusively on college criteria on local school criteria alone on both school and onllpap nri+oria cs-z 75 When are cooperating teachers selected? 7.1 Q before placement needs are identified 7.2 (2 when placement needs are known 7.3 £3 after student teacher credentials are available When do you think cooperating teachers should be selected? 8.1 Q before placement needs are identified 8.2 Q ‘when placements needs are known 8.3 Q after student teacher credentials are available When does the principal think that cooperating teachers should be selected? 9.1 C’ before placement needs are known 9.2 1) when placement needs are known 9.3 f) after student teacher credentials are available The selection of student teachers from among those available at the teacher-training institutions may have some bearing on the school's instructional program, and on the welfare of pupils in the school. It is these factors which cause us to ask questions related to dimensions of the principal's role in this selection process. 10. ll. 12. How does the principal select student teachers? 10.1;t_ alone 10.2_1;_with help from you 10'3—iL with help from you and cooperating teachers 10.4; with help from teachers 10.5_:;_not at all How do you think the principal should select student teachers? 11.1;i;_alone 11.2;i; with help from you ll.3_d; with help from.you and cooperating teachers ll.4_jL_with help from teachers 11-5;:; not at all How does the principal think that he should select student teachers? 12.1_j; alone 12.2_j;_with help from you 12.3_i;'with help from you and cooperating teachers 12.4_:t_ with help from teachers 12.5 - not at all CS-3 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 77 On what criteria are student teachers selected? l3.l_:: college criteria only 13.2_;t.1ocal criteria only 13.3_;t_both college and local criteria 13.4_£L no special set of criteria 13.5_Q_ availability of cooperating teachers How do you think student teachers should be selected? 14.14:; college criteria only 14.2 local criteria only l4.3_j;_both college and local criteria 14.4_£l no special set of criteria l4.5_£L availability of cooperating teachers On what basis does the principal think that student teachers should be selected? 15.1_:;_college criteria only 15.2_1; local criteria only 15.3_j;'both college and local criteria 15.4 0 no special set of criteria 15.5:3iZavailability of cooperating teachers Does the principal make efforts to obtain information about the student teacher before placement? 16.1 3}; yes, many 16.2 Q yes, some 16.3 ~~— no Do you think the principal should make efforts to obtain information about the student teacher before placement? 17.1 it yes, many 17.2 Q yes, some 17.3 - no Does the principal think that he should make efforts to obtain information about the student teacher before place- ment? 18.1 ~P yes, many 18.2 0 yes, some 18.3 -— no cs-4 78 The orientation of student teachers into the particular school situation in which they will work may have some bearing on their success in student teaching. Here we are concerned with the how, when, and why dimensions of the principal's role. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Who actually orients the new student teacher into the school? 19.1_;t_the principal 19.2_;;,you 19.3_:; the cooperating teacher 19-4._"t_ you and the principal 19.5_j; the principal and the cooperating teacher 19.6_j;jyou, the principal and the cooperating teacher 19.7_:; you and the teacher Who do you think should orient the new student teacher into the school? 20.1_;t_the principal 20-2_:; you 20.3_:; the cooperating teacher 20.4_J; you and the principal 20.5_;t_the principal and the cooperating teacher . 20.6_;t;you, the principal and the cooperating teacher 20.7_;:,you and the teacher Who does the principal think should orient new student teacher into the school? - 21.1_j; the principal 21. 2__:_ you 21.3_;;_the cooperating teacher 21.4_3; you and the principal 21.5_j; the principal and the cooperating teacher 21.6 j: you, the principal and the cooperating teacher 21.7 ‘- you and the teacher Does the principal now meet with new student teachers for orientation? 22.1 4- individually 22.2 1; in groups 22.3 —— not at all Do you think the principal should meet with new student teachers for orientation? 23 . 1 i individually 23.2 i in groups 23.3 = not at all Does the principal think that he should meet with new student teachers for orientation? 24.1 i individually 24.2 1: in groups 0A3_ Cs-s 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 79 Does the principal arrange orientation activities such as meetings, tours, etc.? 25.1 :1: yes, for groups 25.2 :t yes, for individuals 25.3 —— no Do you think the principal should arrange orientation activities such as meetings, tours, etc.? 26.1 :1: yes, for groups 26.2 :t yes, for individuals 26.3 - no Does the principal think that he should arrange orientation activities such as meetings, tours, etc.? 27.1 -¥ yes, for groups 27.2 j: yes, for individuals 27.3 “ no When does the principal carry on orientation activities? 28.l_j; prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 28.2_;t_after placement 28.3_;t_after a period of adjustment to the classroom 28.4_;: not at all When do you think the principal should carry on orientation activities? 29.1_;t_prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 29.2_;t;after placement 29.3_;t after period of adjustment to the classroom 29.4_;:_not at all When does the principal think that he should carry on orientation activities? 30.1_j; prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 30.241; after placement 30.3_j; after a period of adjustment to the classroom 30.4_;: not at all Because of the impact which student teachers can have on a school, we are concerned with the nature and extent of the principal's contact with the student teacher. CS-6 31. 80 Does the principal now maintain a supervisory contact with student teachers? 31.1_;t_persona11y 31.2_£L through the cooperating teacher 31.3_£L_through you 31.4_;L_by classroom visits 31.5 I in groups 31.6 ‘- not at all 32. 33. 34. 35. Do you think the principal should maintain a supervisory contact with student teachers? 32.1_;t,personally 32.2_LL through the cooperating teacher 32.3_£L through you 32.4_;t by classroom visits 32.5_+_ in groups 32.6_:; not at all Does the principal think that he should maintain a supervisory contact with student teachers? 33.l_j-_ personally 33.2_£; through the cooperating teacher 33.3_£L through you 33.4_j'_ by classroom visits 33.5_;t_in groups 33.6_:;_not at all How often does the principal contact each student teacher? 34.1_-i_ daily 34.2_-_+_ weekly 34.3_;t.month1y 34-4_$L twice a semester 34.5 - once a semester 34.6 —- not at all How often do you think the principal should contact each student teacher? 35.1__j-__ daily 35.2; weekly 35.3_;t_month1y 35.4_£1'twice a semester 35.5_:; once a semester 35.6_:: not at all 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 81 How often does the principal think that he should contact each student teacher? 36.1__‘f_ daily 36.2_j'_ weekly 36.3_~_t_ monthly 36.4_£;.twice a semester 36.5;:__once a semester 36.6_::_not at all Does the principal participate in evaluating student teachers? 37.1;1; directly in writing 37°2_£L indirectly through the college supervisor 37.3_QL indirec tly through the cooperating teacher 37.4_-_ not at all Do you think the principal should participate in evaluating student teachers? 38.1 _«_t_ directly in writing 38.2 indirectly through the college supervisor 38.3____indirectly through the cooperating teacher 38.4_;;_not at all ' Does the principal think that he should participate in evaluat- ing student teachers? 39.1_;£ directly in writing 39.2_§L indirectly through the college supervisor 39.3_£l indirectly through the cooperating teacher 39.4_;;_not at all How often does the principal meet with cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? 40.1‘;£_mwre than once a week 40.2__-L weekly 40.3_j_ more than once a month 40.4__Q_ monthly 40.5_;; not at all Haw often do you think the principal should meet with cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? 4l.l_j;_more than once a week 41 . 2_-5-_-_ weekly 41.3_jt more than once a month 41.4_£L.monthly 41.5_;;_not at all cs-e , 82 42. wa often does the principal think that he should meet with cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? 42.1_i_ more than once a week 42.2_j;lweekly 42.3_j;_more than once a month 42.4_£;.monthly 42.5_:;_not at all Since the building principal is a contributor to the success of any student teaching program, we are interested in the extent and charac- ter of his relationship with the teacher—training institution. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. How often does the principal meet with you? 43.1_j;_more than once a week 43.2_;t_week1y 43.3_;t_more than once a month 4 3 . 4__Q_ monthly 43.5 - not at all * HOw often do you think the principal should meet with you? 44.1_;t_more than once a week 44.2_4;.week1y 44.3_j>_ more than once a month 44.4_£1,month1y 44.5 - not at all How often does the principal think that he should meet with you '2 45.1 i more than once a week 45.2 3: weekly 45.3 1: more than once a month 45.4 52 monthly 45.5 _. not at all How often does the principal attend college sponsored meet— ings, or go to the campus for reasons related to student teaching? ' 46.1 " not at all 46.2 Q once a year 46.3 once a semester 46.4 L more than once a semester How often do you think the principal should attend college sponsored meetings, or go to the campus for reasons related to student teaching? 47.l_;:_not at all 47.2_£L once a year 47.3_i; once a semester 47.4 1’ more than once a semester CS-9 48. 49. 50. 51. 83 How often does the principal think that he should attend college sponsored meetings, or go to campus for reasons _related to student teaching? 48.1_;;.not at all 48.2_5L once a year 48.3__§;_ once a semester 48.4__j_ more than once a semester Has the principal taken a course dealing directly with student teaching? 49.1 - no 49.2 I yes Do you think the principal should take a course dealing with student teaching? 50.1 " no 50.2 1: yes Does the principal think that he should take a course dealing directly with student teaching? 51.1 " no 51.2 1: yes APPENDIX C LETTER TO PRINCIPALS Eastern Michigan University Vlhildlll I, Mu lugnn l5 m; Dear I. 11. Student (or practice) teaching experience, part of the preparation of the potential teacher, is recognized by those in teacher educa- tion as being foremost in importance. Those of us at the University whose concern it is to assist students in realizing the greatest benefit from their student teaching experiences would like to know more of the "how" and "why" of those who participate in the process of training teachers. Since the school principal is a major partic- ipant in this process, a study has been designed to examine the role, and role perceptions, of the principal in the student teaching ex- perience. Your opinions, comments, and suggestions, as a principal of a school which student teachers are placed, together with your answers on the enclosed questionnaire, will be most valuable and very much appreciated. The questions are straightforward. However, as you will note, your . answers will provide us with information at three levels: 1. WHAT YOUR ROLE IS--Hhat you do now. 2. HOW YOU SEE YOUR ROLE IDEALLY:-what you think you should do. YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SPONSORING UNIVERSITY'S EXPECTATIONS, AS SET FORTH BY THE COLLEGE SUPERVISOR--Nhat you feel he thinks you should do. Other information requested will help in the analysis of our data. The questionnaire has been given a code number to preserve your anon- ymity, and neither your name nor that of your school will be used in the correlation of data, or in any publication which may result. Thank you for giving this project your time and effort. Sincerely, Robert Hoexter Assistant Professor Curriculum and Instruction Division College of Education 84 APPENDIX 0 PRINCIPALS FORM OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH RESPONSE CODING USED TO DETERMINE INVOLVEMENT INDICES Name of School (For Coding Purposes Only) 1. Type of School 1.1 Elementary 1.2 Junior High (Middle School) 1.3 High 2. Number of Students ___2.1 Below 100 ___3.2 100 - 299 .___2.3 300 — 599 ___2.4 600 - 899 ___2.5 900 - 1199 2.6 over 1200 3. number of Teachers 1 Below' 10 2 10 - l9 .3 20 - 29 4 30 - 39 5 40 or over 4. How many Student Teachers (practice teachers, intern teachers) ___5 1 Principal .___5 2 Assistant Principal .___5.3 Counselor ___5 4 Other (Please specify) 85 6. 86 How long do student teachers spend in training in your building? 1 under 6 weeks 2 6 to 9 weeks 3 10 to 12 weeks .4 12 to 15 weeks 5 16 weeks or more 6 Don't know What teacher-training institutions usually place student teachers in your school ___].1 Central Michigan university ___].2 Eastern Michigan University ___7.3 Michigan State University ___7.4 The University of Michigan ___].5 Wayne State university .___7.6 western Michigan University ___].7 Other (Please specify) How many years have you worked with student teachers? 8.1 As a teacher year(e) 8.2 As an administrator year(e) d/ P-l The cooperating teacher to whom the student teacher is assigned within the public school is an important contributor to the student teacher's experience. The means by which these teachers are chosen varies, as do the criteria used in selection. In this section we are interested in the how, when, and why of cooperating teacher selection. 1. Who actually selects cooperating teachers in your school? 1.1;j;}you, the principal 1.2_;;.the college supervisor 1.3;j_jyou and the college supervisor, jointly 1.4_:;.the teachers themselves 1.5_EL_others (specify) 2. Who do you think should select cooperating teachers? 2 1 + you, the principal 2 2_ the college supervisor 2.3_T;_you and the college supervisor, jointly 2 4_ " the teachers themselves 2 5: others (specify) 3. Who does the college supervisor think should select cooperating teachers? .1_1; you, the principal 2_:;_the college supervisor 3_-1-_ you and the college supervisor, jointly .4;:;.the teachers themselves 5___ others (specify) 4. On what basis are cooperating teachers now selected for this school? .1 -' exclusively on college criteria 21 on local school criteria alone 'f on both local school and college criteria bfb .3 .5. On what basis do you think cooperating teachers should be selected? 5 1_ - exclusively on college criteria 5.2_ :t on local school criteria alone 5 3___ 4 on both school and college criteria 6. On what basis does the college supervisor think that cooperat— ing teachers should be selected? 6 —- exclusively on university criteria 6. 1; on local school criteria alone 6.3 i; on both local school and college criteria 88 When are cooperating teachers selected? 7.1 0 before placement needs are identified 7.2 a when placement needs are known 7.3 (2 after student teacher credentials are available When do you think cooperating teachers should be selected? 8.1 2 before placement needs are identified 8.2 2 when placement needs are known 8.3 a after student teacher credentials are available When does the college supervisor think that cooperating teachers should be selected? 9.1 0 before placement needs are known 9.2 Q when placement needs are known 9.3 Q after student teacher credentials are available The selection of student teachers from among those available at teacher-training institutions may have some bearing on the school's instructional program, and on the welfare of the pupils in the school. It is these factors which cause us to ask ques- tions related to dimensions of your role in this selection process. 10. 11. How do you actually select student teachers? 10.1 1: alone 10.2 4- with help from the college supervisor 10.3 i with help from the college supervisor and cooperating teachers 10.4 + with help from the teachers 10.5 - not at all How do you think you should select student teachers? 11.1 t alone 11.2 + with help from the college supervisor - 11.3 + with help from the college supervisor and cooperating 12. teachers 1.4 + with help from the teachers 11.5 = not at all How does the college supervisor think that-you should select student teachers? 12.1 + alone 12.2 1: with help from the college supervisor 12.3 :1: with help from the college supervisor and cooperating teachers 12.4 4‘ with help from the teachers 12.5 " not at all 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 89 On what criteria are student teachers selected? l__-_-_ college criteria only 13.2___~t_ local criteria only 3 + both college and local criteria 13.4_0__ no special set of criteria 13.5_Q_ availability of cooperating teachers How do you think student teachers should be selected 14.1 - college criteria only 14.2__t_ local criteria only 14.3___t_ both college and local criteria 14.4_Q_ no special set of criteria 14.5L availability of cooperating teachers On what basis does the college supervisor think that student teachers should be selected? 15.1__-:_ college criteria only 15.2__+_ local criteria only 15.3 4' both college and local criteria 15.4:2E:no special set of criteria 15.5__Q_ availability of cooperating teachers Do you make efforts to obtain information about the student teacher before placement? 16.1 1 yes, many 16.2 Q yes, some 16.3 -- no Do you think you should make efforts to obtain information about the student teacher before placement? 17.1 1 yes, many 17.2 Q yes, some 17.3 - no Does the college supervisor think that you should make efforts to Obtain information about the student teacher before placement? 18.1 4- yes, many 18.2 Q yes, some 18.3 - no P-4 90 The orientation of student teachers into the particular school situation in which they will work may have some bearing on their success in student teaching. Here, we are concerned with the how, when, and why dimensions of your role. 19. Who actually orients the new student teacher into your school? 19.1 r you 19.2; the college supervisor 19.3_:; the cooperating teacher 19.4_1; you and the college supervisor l9.5_j; you and the cooperating teacher 19.6_1; you, the college supervisor and the teacher 19.7_;: the college supervisor and the teacher 20. Who do you think should orient the new student teacher into your school? 20.14_ you 20.2_:;_the college supervisor 20.3_:; the cooperating teacher 20.4_j;_you and the college supervisor 20.5_3;_you and the cooperating teacher 20.6_jL_you, the college supervisor and the teacher 20.7_:L the college supervisor and the teacher 21. Who does the college supervisor think should orient the new student teacher into your school? 21-1_:i:. you 21.2_;; the college supervisor 21.3_=L.the cooperating teacher 21.4;;t_you and the college supervisor 21.5_;t_you and the cooperating teacher 21.6 -t you, the college supervisor and the teacher 21.7 - the college supervisor and the teacher 22. Do you now meet with new student teachers for orientation? 22.1 I individually 22.2 :t in groups 22.3 - not at all 23. Do you think you should meet with new student teachers for orientation? 23 . l j: individually 23.2 ‘* in groups 23.3 " not at all 24. Does the college supervisor think that you should meet with new student teachers for orientation? 24.1 -+ individually 24.2 +' in groups 24.3 " not at all 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 91 Do you arrange orientation activities such as meeting, tours, etc.? 25.1 1 yes, for groups 25.2 1 yes, for individuals 25.3 - no Do you think you should arrange orientation activities such as meetings, tours, etc.? 26.1 4- yes, for groups 26.2 ‘# yes, for individuals 26.3 -- no Does the college supervisor think that you should arrange orientation activities such as meetings, tours, etc.? 27.1 'A yes, for groups 27.2 i yes, for individuals 27.3 .1 no When do you carry on orientation activities? 28.1 1: prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 28.2 4' after placement 28.3 1: after period of adjustment to the classroom 28.4 —- not at all When do you think you should carry on orientation activities? 29.1 it prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 29.2 7 after placement 29.3 1’ after a period of adjustment to the classroom 29.4 .. not at all When does the college supervisor think that you should carry on orientation activities? 30.1 4' prior to placement with a cooperating teacher 130.2 1 after" placement 30.3 1- after a period of adjustment to the classroom 30.4 u not at all ' P-6 92 Because of the impact which student teachers can have on a school, we are concerned with the nature and extent of your contacts with the student teacher. 31. Do you now maintain a supervisory contact with student teachers? 31.1; personally 31.2_Q_ through the cooperating teacher 31.3_o_ through the college supervisor 31.4_-_t_ by classroom visits 31.5_j-_ in groups 31.6__‘_'_ not at all 32. Do you think you should maintain a supervisory contact with the student teachers? 32.1; personally 32.2_Q_ through the cooperating teacher 32.3_Q_ through the college supervisor 32.4; by classroom visits 32.5; in groups 32.6: not at all 33. Does the college supervisor think that you should maintain a supervisory contact with the student teachers? 33.1_—-t_ personally 33.2 Q through the cooperating teacher 33.3_Q_ through the college supervisor 33.4__-j-_ by classroom visits 33.5_:}»_ in groups 33.6_:-_ not at all 34. How often do you contact each student teacher? 34.l_-_f_ daily 34.24;; weekly 34.3_+_ monthly 34.4_Q_ twice a semester 34.5_—-_:_ once a semester 34.6; not at all 35. How often do you think you should contact each student teacher? 35.1_-_i-_ daily 35.2__+_ weekly 35.3_-t_ monthly 35.4__Q_ twice a semester 35.5 ‘- once a semester 35.6 - not at all p-7 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 93 How often does the college supervisor think that you should contact each student teacher? 36.1_jL.dai1y 36.24 weekly 36.3_f_ monthly 36.4_12.twice a semester 36.5_:; once a semester 36.6__-_-_ not at all Do you participate in evaluating student teachers? 37.1;i; directly in writing 37.2_5;_indirectly through the college supervisor 37.3_£L_indirect1y through the cooperating teacher 37.4_:;.not at all Do you think that you should participate in evaluating student teachers? 38.1_;t_directly in writing 38.2_12_indirect1y through the college supervisor 38.3_£L indirectly through the cooperating teacher 38.4_:; not at all Does the college supervisor think that you should partici— pate in evaluating student teachers? 39.1 __~§:_ directly in writing 39.2_Jl.indirectly through the college supervisor 39.3_£; indirectly through the cooperating teacher 39.4_;:_not at all How often do you meet with cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? 40.1_i;.more than once a week 40.2_‘_t’_ weekly 40.3_1’_ more than once a month 40.4_Q_ monthly 40.5_:;_not at all How often do you think you should meet with cooperating teachers to discuss student teaching or student teachers? 41. 1_ .1 more than once a week 41. 2_ +- weekly 41. 3_i;.more than once a month 41 .4__Q_ monthly 41.5_:; not at all 9-8 94 42. How often does the college supervisor think that you should meet with the cooperating teachers to discuss student teach— ing or student teachers? 42.1__~I_~__ more than once a week 42.2_;|-_ weekly 42.3__f_ more than once a month 42.4_£L,monthly 42.5_;;_not at all Since the building principal is a contributor to the success of any student teaching program, we are interested in the extent and charac- ter of your relationship with the teacher-training institution. 43. HOW often do you meet with the college supervisor? 43.1_j;_more than once a week 43.2_:t_weekly 43.3_;t_more than once a month 43.4_£1-monthly 43.54:; not at all 44. How often do you think you should meet with the college supervisor? 44.1_;£_more than once a week 44.2_;t_weekly 44.3_j; more than once a month 44.4_£1'monthly 44.5.; 1101: at all 45. How often does the college supervisor think that you should meet with him? 45.1_;L_more than once a week 45.2_i_ weekly 45.3_Jt.more than once a month 45.4_j;_month1y 45.5; not at all 46. How often do you attend college sponsored meetings, or go to the campus for reasons related to student teaching? 46.1 - not at all 46.2 9 once a year 46.3 i once a semester 46.4 i more than once a semester 47. How often do you think you should attend college sponsored meet- ings,or go to the campus for reasons related to student teaching? 47.l_:;_not at all 47.2_$;.once a year 47-3..:t_ once a semester 47.4_jL_more than once a semester P-9 48. 49. 50. 51. 95 How often does the college supervisor think that you should attend college sponsored meetings,or go to the campus for reasons related to student teaching? 48.l_::_not at all 48.2_§L_once a year 48.3 once a semester 48.4____more than once a semester Have you taken a course dealing directly with student teaching? 49.1 " no 49.2 1: yes Do you think you should take a course dealing directly with student teaching? 50.1 " no 50.2 1: yes Does the college supervisor think that you should take a course dealing directly with student teaching? 51.1 - no 51.2 _t yes APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP POST CARD SENT TO BOTH COLLEGE SUPERVISORS AND PRINCIPALS Side 1 Dear Colleague: Some time ago, I sent you a questionnaire dealing with the role of the school principal in student teaching. As yet, I have been unable to share your views and this is of concern. Your Opinions are very impor- tant and I would not want to omit them from the study because of a mailing or other mishap. Please check the appropriate box on the re- turn post card and mail it to me. . Thank you, Robert HoeXter Side 2 II I have returned the questionnaire. [3 I received it but do not wish to answer. I] I did not receive it but I am willing to answer. L' I did not receive it and do not wish to answer. fl I am not working with student teachers and cannot answer. Name Address City , Michigan ZIP 96 APPENDIX E MEAN INVOLVEMENT INDEX SCORES FOR PRINCIPALS AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS PA PI PE CSA CSI CSE Mean All Respondents 8.63 10.93 l0.4O 6.93 ll.21 9.65 Mean Elementary 9.78 ll.92 l0.64 8.50 12.85 11.64 Mean Secondary 7.79 lO.2l 9.94 5.79 l0.00 8.05 97 APPENDIX G RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE - ACTUAL DIMENSION College College Response Principal Supervisor Response Principal Supervisor No. % No. % No. & No. % 1.1 23 69 11 33 28.1 15 45 10 30 1.2 0 0 0 0 28.2 20 60 19 57 1.3 10 30 14 42 28.3 11 33 5 15 1.4 0 0 4 12 28.4 0 0 2 6 1.5 0 0 5 15 31.1 15 45 10 30 4.1 0 O 0 0 31.2 27 81 21 63 4.2 8 24 4 12 31.3 12 36 12 36 4.3 24 72 27 81 31.4 11 33 11 33 7.1 6 l8 6 18 31.5 4 12 l 3 7.2 17 51 13 39 31.6 0 0 2 6 7.3 10 30 12 36 34.1 11 33 5 15 10.1 0 0 1 3 34.2 12 36 13 39 10.2 24 6 18 34.3 1 3 7 21 10.3 14 42 12 36 34.4 7 21 2 6 10.4 3 9 2 6 34.5 1 3 4 12 10.5 7 21 12 36 34.6 1 3 2 6 13.1 4 12 4 12 37.1 2 6 O O 13.2 1 3 l 3 37.2 10 3O 18 54 13.3 17 51 23 69 37.3 24 72 20 60 13.4 3 9 0 0 37.4 3 9 6 18 13.5 8 24 4 12 40.1 7 21 5 15 16.1 13 39 8 24 40.2 5 15 2 6 16.2 17 51 20 60 40.3 8 24 8 24 16.3 2 6 4 12 40.4 8 24 9 27 19.1 4 12 3 9 40.5 3 9 7 21 19.2 0 O l 3 43.1 4 12 3 9 19.3 4 12 0 0 43.2 9 27 8 24 19.4 4 12 0 0 43.3 11 33 15 45 19.5 9 27 8 24 43.4 5 15 4 12 19.6 17 51 22 66 43.5 1 3 3 9 19.7 0 O l 3 46.1 14 42 14 42 22.1 12 36 10 30 46.2 7 21 6 18 22.2 28 84 25 75 46.3 10 3O 7 21 22.3 0 O 1 3 46.4 1 3 4 12 25.1 28 84 19 57 49.1 21 63 24 72 25.2 8 24 9 27 49.2 11 33 2 6 25.3 3 9 6 l8 98 APPENDIX H RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE - IDEAL DIMENSION College College Response Principal Supervisor Response Principal Supervisor No. % No. % No. % No. % 2.1 15 45 2 6 29.1 19 57 15 45 2.2 0 O 0 0 29.2 16 48 14 42 2.3 18 54 23 69 29.3 10 3O 5 15 2.4 4 12 4 12 29.4 0 O l 3 2.5 5 15 9 27 32.1 14 42 14 42 5.1 O 0 O 0 32.2 26 78 18 54 5.2 3 9 O O 32.3 12 36 14 42 5.3 29 87 31 93 32.4 14 42 11 33 8.1 8 24 8 24 32.5 4 12 31 9 8.2 14 42 11 33 32.6 0 0 O O 8.3 13 39 13 39 35.1 12 36 6 18 11.1 0 O 2 6 35.2 12 36 16 48 11.2 8 24 7 21 35.3 4 12 8 24 11.3 18 54 21 63 35.4 4 12 2 6 11.4 2 6 0 O 35.5 1 3 1 3 11.5 3 9 2 6 35.6 3 9 0 0 14.1 2 6 2 6 38.1 3 9 2 6 14.2 1 3 0 0 38.2 12 36 15 45 14.3 23 69 26 78 38.3 23 69 24 72 14.4 0 0 O 0 38.4 3 9 3 9 14.5 8 24 4 12 41.1 8 24 4 12 17.1 16 48 10 30 41.2 6 18 4» 12 17.2 14 42 21 63 41.3 7 21 10 30 17.3 2 6 O O 41.4 11 33 13 39 20.1 2 6 O O 41.5 0 O 0 0 20.2 0 0 0 0 44.1 3 9 2 6 20.3 2 6 0 0 44.2 8 24 8 24 20.4 4 12 0 O 44.3 12 36 15 45 20.5 6 18 9 27 44.4 6 18 5 15 20.6 21 63 23 69 44.5 1 3 2 6 20.7 0 0 1 3 47.1 5 15 1 3 23.1 13 39 8 24 47.2 7 21 5 15 23.2 27 81 27 81 47.3 13 39 21 63 23.3 0 O 1 3 47.4 6 18 4 12 26.1 29 87 25 75 50.1 9 27 9 27 26.2 8 24 5 15 50.2 21 63 23 69 26.3 2 6 3 9 99 APPENDIX I RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE - EMPATHOSPECTIVE DIMENSION College College Response Principal Supervisor Response Principal Supervisor No.7777 No. ETTFE No. fiE‘ No. % 3.1 13 39 6 18 30.1 14 42 10 30 3.2 0 O O 0 30.2 12 36 18 54 3.3 15 45 21 63 30.3 8 24 4 12 3.4 2 6 5 15 30.4 0 0 1 3 3.5 2 6 4 12 33.1 9 27 12 36 6.1 0 0 O 0 33.2 19 57 22 66 6.2 O 0 2 6 33.3 8 24 13 39 6.3 27 81 28 84 33.4 8 24 10 30 9.1 6 18 8 24 33.5 3 9 2 6 9.2 11 33 11 33 33.6 0 0 2 6 9.3 8 24 11 33 36.1 4 12 7 21 12.1 0 0 2 6 36.2 10 30 14 42 12.2 6 18 6 18 36.3 3 9 5 15 12.3 14 42 20 60 36.4 4 12 2 6 12.4 1 3 O O 36.5 3 9 3 9 12.5 2 6 1 3 36.6 1 3 O O 15.1 2 6 1 3 39.1 4 12 2 6 15.2 1 3 0 O 39.2 10 30 13 39 15.3 21 63 25 75 39.3 17 51 21 63 15.4 0 0 O 0 39.4 2 6 3 9 15.5 3 9 3 9 42.1 4 12 4 12 18.1 12 36 9 27 42.2 5 15 6 18 18.2 12 36 20 60 42.3 5 15 7 21 18.3 2 6 1 3 42.4 7 21 8 24 . 21.1 1 3 0 0 42.5 1 3 5 15 21.2 0 0 O 0 45.1 2 6 2 6 21.3 0 0 0 0 45.2 9 27 7 21 21.4 3 9 0 O 45.3 6 18 13 39 21.5 5 15 8 24 45.4 5 15 5 15 21.6 16 48 23 69 45.5 1 3 2 6 21.7 0 0 1 3 48.1 4 12 5 15 24.1 7 21 9 27 48.2 4 12 10 30 24.2 21 63 25 75 48.3 11 33 11 33 24.3 0 O l 3 48.4 6 18 5 15 27.1 21 63 21 63 51.1 4 12 14 42 27.2 6 18 6 18 51.2 26 78 6 18 27.3 1 3 5 15 100 3 9 8 3 "5 ”3 ”o m3 Illo iii3 H 9 "2 H 1 .m3 m Ii H |