PREPARATION OF TEACHERS OF THE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED: CANDIDATES’ PERCEPTIONS AND
ACHIEVEMENT 0F SPECIFIC TEACHING COMPETENCIES

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
SISTER GABRIELLE KOWALSKI
1977

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PREPARATION OF TEACHERS OF THE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED: CANDIDATES' PERCEPTIONS AND
ACHIEVEMENT OF SPECIFIC
TEACHING COMPETENCIES

presented by

Sister Gabrielle Kowalski

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph. D. degree in Education

gamma/r,

Major professor

Date7Qd/Cé51 Q 5; / 9 7i

0-7639

LIBRARY

Michigan rate
University

 

ABSTRACT
PREPARATION OF TEACHERS OF THE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED: CANDIDATES' PERCEPTIONS AND

ACHIEVEMENT OF SPECIFIC
TEACHING COMPETENCIES

BY

Sister Gabrielle Kowalski

In this research groups of students preparing to be
teachers of the mentally impaired at Michigan State Univer—
sity were surveyed. Groups were constituted on the basis
of amount of field experience. They ranged from Group I
who had no field experience to Group V, student teachers.

The study determined the importance of the areas of
teaching competency as perceived by the students and com-
pared these perceptions to those previously obtained from
teachers in the field. Students were also asked to rate
themselves on the achievement of these teaching competencies;
then these ratings were compared across student groups and
with ratings of cooperating teachers. Further, the relation-
ship between independent variables other than amount of
field experience and student self-ratings of achievement

were examined.

Sister Gabrielle Kowalski

Major Findings

 

As amount of field experience increased there were
no significant differences among groups of teacher
candidates or between teacher candidates and expe-
rienced teachers in their perceptions of the impor-
tance of specific teaching competencies.

Teacher candidates' self-ratings of achievement of
teaching competency rose across levels of field
experience with the exception of student teachers.
Student teachers' self-ratings were lower than those
of the group with the next highest amount of field
experience.

Similarity of self-ratings within groups of teacher
candidates increased across levels of field experi-
ence when students with no field experience were
compared to those with increasing amounts of field
experience. However, the student teachers again
were the exception; their self-ratings were the
least homogeneous of any group.

Cooperating teachers considered teacher candidates
more competent as amount of field experience
increased.

When mean deviation scores of paired teacher can-
didates and cooperating teachers were examined it
was found that teacher candidates' perceptions of

their achievement of teaching competency did not

Sister Gabrielle Kowalski

become significantly more like those of their
cooperating teachers as amount of field work
increased.

Teacher candidates' self-ratings in all areas of
teaching competency were related at a low but
statistically significant level only to hours of
volunteer work during college and to special edu-

cation courses taken.

PREPARATION OF TEACHERS OF THE MENTALLY
IMPAIRED: CANDIDATES' PERCEPTIONS AND
ACHIEVEMENT OF SPECIFIC

TEACHING COMPETENCIES

BY

Sister Gabrielle Kowalski

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary and Special Education

1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to those who have
supported me in the completion of this dissertation,
particularly Dr. Donald Burke, my major advisor, and the
other members of my guidance committee: Dr. Charles Mange,
Dr. Lawrence Alexander, and Dr. Eileen Earhart. Their
assistance was not only intellectually stimulating but
personally supportive as well.

My gratitude is also extended to Ms. Su Sookpokakit
of the Office of Research Consultation for her help at
every stage of the research from initial inception to com-
pletion.

In a special way I would like to thank the Sisters
of St. Francis of Assisi. The successful completion of
this dissertation is due in large measure to their prayer-
ful encouragement and faith in me.

I thank the Board of Directors, the administration
and faculty of Cardinal Stritch College, Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, for the opportunity to share with them the approval
of "the better things." My appreciation goes particularly

to Sr. Joanne Marie Kliebhan, Chairperson-of the Special

ii

Education Department. Her belief in me pre-dated by many
years this dissertation.

I am grateful to my mother for the most important
influence on me--the example of a woman who is truly her
own unique person. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation
to the memory of my father. He did not live to see it
but it was his loving inspiration which has brought me to
whatever accomplishments I can now or will at any time in

the future claim as my own.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .
Importance of the Study . . . . .
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Definition of Terms . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Program Evaluation . . . . . . . .
Specific Teaching Competencies . .

Identification . . . . . . . .
validation O O O O O O O O O 0
Measurement . . . . . . . . .

Field Experience . . . . . . . . .

Student Teaching . . . . . .
Pre-Student Teaching Field
Experience . . . . . . . . .

Correlates of Teaching Competence
smary O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . .

Population . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . .
Data Collection . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . .

iv

Page
vi

viii

NI—‘ONbN H

P‘H

13
13
15

16
17
18
22
23
26

29
31

32

32
33
35
38

CHAPTER Page

IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . 43
Perceived Relative Importance of
Specific Teaching Competencies . . . . . 44
Self-Rating of Achievement of Teaching
Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Cooperating Teacher Rating of

Achievement of Teaching

Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Comparison of Candidates' self— -Ratings

and Cooperating Teacher Ratings . . . . 60
Relationship Between Specific Independent

Variables and Self-Perception of

Achievement of Specific Teaching

Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 81
Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
APPENDIX
A. Student Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . 95
B. Cooperating Teacher Survey Instrument . . . . 107
C. Student Cover Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
D. Cooperating Teacher Cover Letters . . . . . . 118

E. Follow-up Letters to Nonrespondents . . . . . 120

Table

l.

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Perceived importance of teaching com-
petencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multivariate analysis of variance of
mean importance ratings . . . . . . . .

Student mean competency importance rating
minus experienced teacher mean com-
petency importance rating . . . . . . .

Multivariate analysis of variance of
mean importance deviation scores . . . .

Teacher candidates' mean self-ratings of
achievement of teaching competencies . .

Multivariate analysis of variance of
mean self-ratings . . . . . . . . . . .

Univariate F test for mean scores,
achievement dimension . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale l,
planning instruction . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale 2,
assessing and evaluating behavior . . .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale 3,
conducting instruction . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale 4,
classroom management . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale 5,
facilitating social-emotional maturity .

Analysis of variance for sub-scale 6,

dealing with and relating to other
professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

45

47

48

49

50

52

53

53

54

54

55

55

56

Table Page

14. Analysis of variance for sub-scale 7,
working with parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

15. Cooperating teachers' mean ratings of
teacher candidates' achievement of
teaching competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

16. Multivariate analysis of variance of
teacher ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

17. Univariate F test for mean teacher ratings . . . 60

18. Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for
sub-scale l, planning instruction . . . . . . 61

19. Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for
sub-scale 2, assessing and evaluating
behaVior O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O 61

20. Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for
sub-scale 3, conducting instruction . . . . . 61

21. Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for
sub-scale 5, facilitating social-
emotional maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

22. Mean deviation scores of matched pairs of
cooperating teachers and teacher candi-
dates on competency ratings . . . . . . . . . 63

23. Multivariate analysis of variance of mean
competency deviation scores . . . . . . . . . 63

24. Univariate F test of mean competency
deviation scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

25. Contact with the mentally retarded . . . . . . . 66
26. Special education courses taken . . . . . . . . 67
27. Correlation between teacher candidates'

self-rating of achievement of teaching

competencies and selected independent
variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 69

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. Perceived Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Education today faces a need to evaluate practices
that have been adopted and accepted on the basis of theor-
etical constructs or folk wisdom. Teacher education,
including the preparation of teachers for children with
special needs, has, for example, moved recently toward an
emphasis on the acquisition of specified teaching com-
petencies by candidates. Undergraduate teacher preparation
programs are designed, supposedly, to foster such com-
petencies.

Statements regarding the competencies expected of
teachers of the mentally impaired have been developed and
some research has been done to validate these competencies
(Hoeksema, 1975). However, research on changes in teacher
candidates as a result of participation in undergraduate
preparation programs is limited. Investigation of changes
in candidates' perceptions about and achievement of spe-
cific teaching competencies could provide data for
describing, evaluating and strengthening preparation pro-

grams.

In this study such data were obtained regarding
acquisition of perceptions about the relative importance
of specific teaching competencies and achievement of these
competencies by pre-service teachers of the mentally
impaired. Candidates' perception of the importance of the
competencies were compared with those of teachers in the
field. Acquisition of specific competencies was rated
both by the candidates themselves and, where possible, by
those teachers who supervised them in field experience

placements.

Purpose of the Study

 

This research study was designed to investigate
the perceptions of students preparing to be teachers of
the mentally impaired regarding the relative importance of
specific teaching competencies and to compare these per-
ceptions with those of teachers in the field. The subjects
were at various stages in the teacher preparation sequence
and were grouped according to the level of field experience
or practicum in which they were enrolled. Intergroup
differences in the ratings of specific teaching competencies'
importance were examined in order to identify the pattern
of change in subjects' perceptions as they gained actual
classroom experience. The practicing teachers of the
mentally impaired who had been surveyed by Hoeksema (1975)

served as a criterion group.

A second purpose of this study was to examine
teacher candidates' self-ratings on the achievement of
specific teaching competencies. Again it was hypothesized
that self-ratings would change as a function of the length
of time spent in the teacher preparation program as
reflected by the level of field experience in which the
teacher candidates were enrolled.

Variation was also studied in terms of the relation-
ship between teacher candidates' self-ratings and other
independent variables of interest: kind and amount of other
contact with the mentally impaired; number of special edu-
cation courses taken; and grade point average.

For those subjects who were participating in field
experiences with the mentally impaired at the time data
were collected, ratings of the achievement of specific
teaching competencies were also obtained from those teachers
who supervised them, referred to as their cooperating
teachers. A progression in the demonstration of specific
teaching competencies was expected. However, the pattern
of this achievement was also of interest to the investi-
gator.

Finally, the self-ratings of the candidates were
compared to the ratings of their cooperating teachers in
an effort to determine whether the ratings became more

similar at more advanced levels of field experience.

Importance of the Study

 

Teacher education programs have changed over the
years. In the past they consisted of course work which
focused on cognitive knowledge about teaching. This
course work was coupled with minimal practical application
in the form of a terminal practice teaching experience.

Today teacher education programs generally combine
course work with several field experiences extended over
the students' total preparation period (Cooper and Sadker,
1972). This combination of course work and practicum is
designed to enable students to demonstrate, at the termina-
tion of the program, those competencies which will make
them employable as teachers.

This change in teacher education programs has come
about with little reliance on empirical validity. The
positive influence of additional field experience or prac-
ticum and of the emphasis on achievement of specific teach-
ing competencies has been accepted as a given.

This study did not set out to question the value of
field experience but rather to examine its relationship,
as well as that of the other variables identified, to per-
ceptions about teaching competencies. Did candidates, in
fact, gradually become more like teachers in attitudes
toward the importance of specific teaching competencies,
as preparation programs assume? Did candidates gradually

become more confident and homogeneous in their

self-perceptions. If so, what variables accounted for
these changes? The answers to these questions can be
employed in both the design and the evaluation of teacher
education programs, specifically those which train teachers
of the mentally impaired.

With increasing frequency students charge "that
teacher education programs lack relevancy" (Schalock, 1972,
p. 2). This study, by investigating the perceptions of
students during various phases of their preparation as
teachers of the mentally impaired, served indirectly as a
measure of consumer satisfaction. If students felt more
and more competent as they proceeded through their train-
ing, it could be inferred that they were satisfied with it.
If, on the other hand, students did not exhibit a sense of
achievement it may be inferred that they were dissatisfied.
Such results may indicate the need for revisions in the
teacher education curriculum.

This research has relevance in several areas. The
first of these is recruitment of teacher candidates. More
individuals are applying for admission to teacher education
programs than can be admitted or can realistically expect
to be employed given present population trends and economic
conditions (Kemble and McKenna, 1975). From the data
gathered in this study it is possible to examine variables

related to self-perception of achievement of specific

teaching competencies. Such variables could be useful in
the selection of teacher trainees.

The second area of application is that of teacher
education curriculum. Patterns of change in perceptions
about the relative importance of specific teaching compe-
tencies and rates of achievement of these competencies
found in the data serve to indicate possible strengths and
weaknesses within components or phases of the preparation
program for teachers of the mentally impaired. Results of
this study, therefore, suggest where emphasis should be
placed by the training institution.

Finally, school districts will find the research
important in planning in-service training for newly hired
or relatively inexperienced teachers of the mentally
impaired. It was assumed that even those subjects in the
study who most closely approximated experienced teachers in
their perceptions of teaching competencies still differed
from them to some degree (Bruce and Miller, 1976). The
nature and magnitude of such differences as well as the
rate and pattern of achievement of specific teaching com-

petencies may indicate priorities for in-service training.

Research Questions and Hypotheses.
Since the primary purpose of this study was to
examine differences in perceptions about the importance

and achievement of specific teaching competencies by groups

of students preparing to be teachers of the mentally

impaired, the following research questions were addressed.

1.

Do perceptions of students preparing to be teachers
of the mentally impaired regarding the relative
importance of specific teaching competencies

become more like those of experienced teachers as
amount of field experience increases?

Do teacher candidates consider themselves more
competent as amount of field experience increases?
Do teacher candidates become more homogeneous in
their perceptions of their achievement of specific
teaching competencies as amount of field experience
increases?

Do cooperating teachers consider teacher candidates
more competent as amount of field experience
increases?

Do teacher candidates' perceptions of their com-
petency become more like those of their c00perating
teachers as amount of field experience increases?
Do specific independent variables other than amount
of field experience account for variations among
teacher candidates in their perceptions of their
achievement of specific teaching competencies?

From these research questions the following

hypotheses regarding students preparing to be teachers of

the mentally impaired were drawn.

Teacher candidates' ratings of specific teaching

competencies by their importance will become more

like the ratings of teachers in the field so that:

a.

student teachers' ratings will most closely
approximate those of experienced teachers;
incoming students' ratings will least approxi-
mate those of experienced teachers;

the ratings of other student groups will fall
between those of student teachers and incoming

students.

ul # “2 # U3 # u4 # “5 # U6 (a .05)

(cc = .05)

Teacher candidates' self-ratings in the achievement

of specific teaching competencies will increase so

that:

a.

student teachers will rate themselves highest
in achievement;

incoming students will rate themselves lowest
in achievement;

other student groups' self-ratings will fall
between those of student teachers and incoming

students.
“1 # uz # U3 # U4 # “5 I“ = .05)

.05)

t
w
II
t
A
II
t
m
A
9
I

Within-group variance in self-ratings of the

achievement of specific teaching competencies will

decrease so that:

a. within—group variance will be greatest for
incoming students;

b. within-group variance will be least for student
teachers;

c. within-group variance for other student groups
will fall between that for in-coming students

and that for student teachers.

.05)

H3: 01 # o2 # 03 ¢ 04 y 05 (a
(a = .05)

Cooperating teachers will rate teacher candidates

higher in the achievement of specific teaching

competencies so that:

a. student teachers will be rated highest in
achievement by their cooperating teachers;

b. students in initial field experiences will be
rated lowest by their cooperating teachers;

c. ratings of other students will fall between
those of students in initial field experiences

and those of student teachers.

4' “2(t) < u4(t) < u5(t) (“ = ‘05)

“2(t) = “4(t) = “s<t) ‘“ = '05)

10

Teacher candidates' self-ratings in the achievement

of specific teaching competencies will become more

like those of their cooperating teachers so that:

a. student teachers' self-ratings will be most
like those of their cooperating teachers;

b. self-ratings of students in initial field
experiences will be least like those of their
cooperating teachers;

c. the relationship between self-ratings and coop-
erating teacher ratings for other students
will be greater than for students in initial
field experiences and less than that for

student teachers.

“5‘ (“2(t) ‘ “2’ T (“4(t) ' “4’ I (“5(t) ’ “5)
(a = .05)
(a = .05)

Independent variables other than amount of field

experience will not be related significantly to

teacher candidates' perceptions of their achieve-

ment of specific teaching competencies so that:

a. contact with the mentally impaired prior to
choice of major field;

b. volunteer work with the mentally impaired;

0. special education courses taken;

11

d. grade point average
will not affect teacher candidates' ratings of
their achievement of specific teaching compe-

tencies.

H6: r # 0 (m = .05)

H : r = 0 (G

0 .05)

Definition of Terms

 

Terms used in the research questions and hypotheses

are defined below:

1.

In-coming students - students who have identified
themselves as special education majors intending

to be certified as teachers of the mentally impaired
but who have no field experience (Group I).

Field experience - placement in a special education
class under the supervision of an experienced
teacher; earns course credit.

Student teaching - placement in a class for the
mentally impaired under the supervision of an
experienced teacher on a full—time basis (Group V).
Cooperating teachers - experienced special edu-
cation teachers who supervise field work place-
ments.

Specific teaching competencies - sixty-three

selected functions which may be performed by

12

teachers of the mentally impaired (Hoeksema,

1975, p. 37; see Appendix A).

Summary

The purpose and relevance of the present study have
been discussed, research questions and hypotheses delineated
and terminology defined. In the succeeding chapter this
research will be placed in a context provided by the pro-
fessional literature concerning specific teaching compe-
tencies, field experience and other variables affecting
teacher candidates. The research methodology used will be
outlined in Chapter III while Chapter IV will report the
results of the analyses of the data obtained. Lastly,
Chapter V will contain a summary of the findings, the con-
clusions reached, the limitations of the study, and recom-

mendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Literature relevant to the preparation of teachers
of the mentally impaired, in particular that which relates
to changes in candidates' perceptions and achievement of
specific teaching competencies, will be reviewed in this
chapter. Emphasis will be placed on changes associated
with participation in field experiences and other selected
personal and program variables. This literature is part of
a broad body of theory and research dealing more generally
with teacher candidates' socialization into the teacher
role (Lortie, 1975; Dreeben, 1970). This review will focus
only on those facets of that wider topic which relate to

the present study.

Program Evaluation

 

Much recent literature in teacher education has
emphasized a demand for program evaluation. This emphasis,
in turn, has arisen from the accountability movement in
both general and special education. Kelley (1974) sum-

marized the trend:

13

14

. . . general agreement developed that our schools

must become better. And both critics and advocates

of the schools agreed that better schools require

better teachers. Thus, demands for reform in edu-

cation led to demands for improved teacher preparation

(p. 7).

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE) in its standards for accreditation of
preparation programs recommended student participation in
program evaluation and the use of evaluation results to
improve basic programs (American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, 1971). The Council for Exceptional
Children (CEC) in its most recent statement on the prepara-
tion and training of personnel in special education pro-
posed the following guidelines (Council for Exceptional
Children, 1976):

2.6.1 Preparation programs for Special education
personnel should be evaluated systematically
and continuously. Such evaluation should
involve representatives of all constituencies
affected by the preparation programs including
students in the program (p. 38).

2.6.2 Preparation programs should assess and docu-
ment the competencies of all trainees (p. 39).

The call for the assessment and documentation of
competencies was echoed in the position statement on
teacher preparation and certification of the National
Association for Retarded Citizens (1973).

Under the impetus of the accountability movement,
models of educational evaluation were developed. For
example, Stake (1967) conceptualized evaluation as being

descriptive as well as judgmental while Cronbach (1963)

15

saw the components of evaluation as the study of process,
the use of both proficiency and attitude measures, and
follow-up.

The adoption of a discrepancy evaluation model was
spurred by the demands of the United States Office of
Education for cost-benefit analysis in programs funded by
federal monies (Evaluation Training Consortium Workshop,
1975). One component of this model is the collection of
performance information; that is "a measure of the dis-
crepancy between desired outcomes and things as they are"
(Grotelueschen and Gooler, 1972, p. 9). Similarly Provus
(1969) discussed evaluation as the comparison of per-
formance against standards.

The literature appears to support the contention
that evaluation has become a necessary component of any
educational program at any level. Such evaluation requires
specificity of program outcomes. In teacher education
these outcomes have come to be known as specific teaching

competencies.

Specific Teaching Competencies

 

When Provus' definition of educational evaluation
given above is applied to teacher education the questions
which immediately follow are: against what standard are
teacher candidates to be judged? how is good teaching

defined (Deneen, 1975)? The attempt to answer these

16

questions for purposes of program evaluation has led to

efforts to delineate specific teaching competencies.

 

Identification

Joyce, Soltis and West (1974) proposed five major
Options for identifying competencies. They are: a model
of the school; a general model; a particular educational
approach; a practitioner model and a traditional teacher
education model. Turner (1975) suggested three ways of
identifying teaching skills: the utilization of statements
drawn from psychological, developmental and pedagogical
theory; analysis of observed teacher practice; and the use
of teachers' reports concerning what they believe to be
important teaching skills.

The practitioner model, equivalent to Turner's
third suggestion, "involves asking practitioners which
competencies they believe are important . . . . Developing
the model of the teacher from real working teachers has
the advantage of real-world relevance" (Joyce et al., 1974,
p. 9). The use of the practicing teacher in identifying
specific teaching competencies is in keeping with systems
approaches to instructional design in which an analysis
of performance within the referrent situation provides the
objectives for the system (Davis, Alexander and Yelon,
1974). The literature seems to indicate agreement that

the concepts and skills which are to be translated into

l7

competency statements may be identified by conducting

inquiries of master teachers.

Validation

 

Several variations of the practitioner model have
been used to validate specific teaching competencies educed
from educational premises. Thomas and Kay (1974) attempted
to arrive at priorities among defined teacher competencies
by asking classroom teachers and supervisors to rate state-
ments of competencies on a five-point Likert scale.

Using a similar method Hoeksema (1975) found that
teachers of the mentally retarded ranked the competencies
of promoting children's independence, individualizing
instruction, helping children accept themselves, handling
unacceptable behavior and making learning tasks clear to
children as most important. Conducting large group activ—
ities, Operating audio-visual equipment, writing behav-
iorally stated objectives, preparing written lesson plans
and administering commercially prepared tests were ranked
as least important.

According to a survey of 365 Colorado teachers and
aides (Owens, 1973) the most needed competencies for
teaching the trainable mentally retarded were ability to
recognize growth and deve10pment patterns, to measure,
interpret and evaluate intellectual, social, emotional,
and physical performance and to select and plan instruc-

tional activities. Dykes (1975) surveyed teachers of

18

crippled and other health-impaired children. She obtained
a ranking of those competencies which 75 percent or more
of the teachers reported they used in their current
positions. A study by Bullock, Dykes and Kelly (1974)
concerned itself with competencies relevant to the edu-
cation of behaviorally disordered children.

The studies cited are difficult to evaluate because
each investigation used a separate and unique list of com—
petencies. Where a specific competency appeared in more
than one study, it might be defined differently by each
investigator. Nevertheless, such studies seem to be a
necessary first step in constituting a catalog of specific

teaching competencies.

Measurement

 

Assuming that specific teaching competencies are
validated by such studies of teachers in the field, Joyce
et al. (1974) pointed out that: "Good teachers might turn
out to be highly ideosyncratic artists whose qualities are
not amenable to training on any basis" (p. 9). The question
which faces teacher educators, then is: Are competencies
trainable? To raise it in a more classic form--is teaching
an art or a skill? In order to answer this question it is
necessary to ask whether competency levels change during
teacher training and if so whether such changes are measur-
able. Turner (1972) suggested that three conditions must

be present for the measurement of teaching competencies:

19

the teacher training program must provide evidence of
teacher growth in specified competencies; the school system
must provide evidence of pupil progress; and the relation-
ship between the two sets of measures must be studied.

In other words, the ultimate measure of a teacher's com-
petence is pupil achievement.

Because of the complexities involved in obtaining
measures of pupil progress within school systems few studies
relating such measures to teacher trainee competence are
reported in the literature. At Indiana University two
groups of teacher trainees, beginning students and student
teachers, were compared on ability to produce achievement
in mentally retarded pupils (Garrett, 1973). One variable
considered was student perception of the teacher role.

The results of the study as reported were not readily
interpretable.

Teacher educators, then, have concentrated their
efforts, for practical reasons, on meeting the first of
Turner's conditions--providing evidence of teacher growth
in specified competencies. Such evidence has typically
been gathered by objective measurement, subjective measure-
ment or a combination of the two.

An example of the use of objective measurement is
a University of Nebraska study of juniors and seniors
enrolled in a program for secondary teachers (Kelley, 1974).

They participated in field experiences where required

20

performances were demonstrated. A proctor judged whether
the performances met specified criteria. Approximately 20
percent of the students did not meet required levels of
competency each semester. Of these, half discontinued
teacher preparation.

Subjective measurement or self-assessment of the
attainment of teaching competencies is by far the most
common method of providing evidence of teacher growth.
Shearron and Johnson (1973) described the teacher education
program at the University of Georgia. Though assessment
criteria were given, no data were presented. It was
reported that "self—assessment is given top priority"

(p. 189). Newell (1976) discussed the development and use

of a Self-Assessment Scale at Auburn University. Comparison

 

of mean scores on the revised instrument showed that over
a two-quarter interval students gained significantly in
total score and in three of the five categories of the
scale. In the remaining two categories changes were in
the positive direction but not significant. She concluded
that self-evaluation or how one perceives his ability to
do something is important and tends to "motivate students
toward higher achievement" (p. 54).

Edgar and Neel (1976) compared self-assessments,
supervisor ratings and university advisor ratings of eleven
masters level students on fifteen competencies deemed

necessary for teachers of the emotionally disturbed and

21

learning disabled. They ascribed discrepancies to the use
of differing criteria. In a study of graduates of prepa-
ration programs for teachers of the emotionally impaired
in the state of Michigan Wood (1976) examined competency
self—ratings. She also asked advisors to predict the
areas in which their graduates would rate themselves most
highly.

Hoover et a1. (1965) studied 187 students at
Arizona State University. They were asked to compare
their feelings of competence in twenty-five teaching tech-
niques before and after student teaching. The results
showed significantly greater perceived competence in five
areas and significantly lesser perceived competence in
four areas. However, since the students were asked to
rank the teaching techniques it may be an artifact of the
research design that in four areas they expressed feelings
of decreased competence after student teaching.

Graduates of the teacher education program at
Weber State College reported feeling effective in applying
what they had learned. Their judgments were confirmed by
cooPerating teachers, school principals, and school dis-
trict supervisory personnel (Parker, 1974). On the other
hand, in a study by Groff (1962) no attempt was made to
corroborate student teachers' self-estimates of their
ability to teach elementary school subject areas with

evaluations by supervisors and/or methods class teachers.

22

Another approach to self-appraisal is found in
studies of changes in teacher candidates' self-concept
(Sellin, 1967). Minkoff and Sellin (1973) found signifi-
cant correlation between competency ratings by an experi-
enced observer and teacher trainees' self-reports of
self—concept of ability as a teacher. These studies assume
that "a teacher candidate's self-concept may be viewed as
an important, even powerful predictor of teaching behavior"
(Freeman and Davis, 1975, p. 214). However, Freeman and
Davis (1975) did not find such a relationship between

scores of the Self—Report Inventory and lessons coded for

 

eleven specific teaching behaviors.

Even though pupil achievement is acknowledged as
the best measure of attainment of teaching competencies,
it can be seen that the research studies have, for the
most part, used measures which are easier to obtain. These
measures are both objective, that is assessment by a
mentor, and subjective, that is self-assessment. In
summary, literature on the area of specific teaching com-
petencies reports attempts to identify, validate and

measure attainment of such competencies in teacher trainees.

Field Experience

 

The teaching competencies identified, validated
and measured in the studies cited above may be attained in
various ways. But the most universal mode of such attain-

ment seems to be field experience or practicum. Literature

23

related to field experience in teacher education, there-
fore, will be reviewed.

Justification for the inclusion of field experience
in teacher education was undertaken by such writers as
Fantini (1973), Meyen (1973) and Reitman (1973). The con-
structs on which their justifications are based were found
within socialization theory (Moore, 1969; Rosencranz and
Biddle, 1964).

The AACTE'S accreditation standards recommended
that curricula include laboratory and clinical experience
in conjunction with teaching and learning theory and cul-
minate with practicum (American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, 1971). State departments of public
instruction are also recommending that "the professional
sequence require, beginning early and continued throughout
that sequence, field experiences fOr pre-service education
students" (The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,
n.d., p. 3). The importance of practical experience for
special educators has been expressed over the years from
Goddard (1923) to the Council for Exceptional Children

(1976).

Student Teaching

 

Of all possible field placements or practicum
experiences that of student teaching has received the
greatest emphasis in the literature for reasons such as

those expressed by Eddy (1969): ". . . it seems clear that

24

important learnings about the role of teacher do occur
during student teaching and that this time may be particu-
larly useful for the transmission of written and oral
traditions about teaching from one generation of teachers
to the next" (p. 14). According to Wright and Tuska (1968)
not all the outcomes of student teaching may be positive
ones. "Student teachers play at their roles rather than

live them. It is easy for them to mistake the adult

responsibilities of teaching for an opportunity to enjoy
being a child" (p. 258).

Research on the effects of student teaching on
teacher candidates has focused, as was the case with
research on the attainment of teaching competencies, on
self-appraisal as measured by formal and informal instru-
ments (Walberg, 1968). Nagle (1959) found significant
improvement in attitudes toward pupils, teaching, teachers
and school-community relationships following student
teaching. Smith (1975) reported that significant shifts
toward self-actualization occurred over an eight-month
period in students exposed to simulation experience and
student teaching. Shifts of similar magnitude did not
occur in students exposed to simulation experience without
student teaching.

The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI)

 

has been used in several studies to ascertain changes in

attitude as a concomitant of student teaching. Campbell

25

(1967), Day (1959) and Dutton (1962) reported negative
shifts in attitude while Scott and Brinkley (1960) found
significant improvement in the attitudes of student
teachers whose supervising teachers held attitudes superior
to their own. However, Yee and Fruchter (1971) pointed

out that "MTAI scores have been found to be unstable in

the interval between pre-service teacher candidacy and

regular classroom teaching" (p. 119).

On three scales of attitude to education Butcher
(1965) found significant differences between experienced
teachers and students in training at three different
institutions with the teachers generally scoring lower than
the students. When the students were retested eight months
after initial testing it was found that those in two of the
training programs had made significant gains in scores,
making them even less like the experienced teachers.

If anxiety can be construed as the result of feel-

ing incompetent then studies of anxiety among student

teachers are of interest. Petrusich (1967) administered
parallel forms of an anxiety scale for eight consecutive
weeks. She found that anxiety peaked during the sixth
week of student teaching and then declined. Thompson
(1963) found that his subjects, 125 student teachers,
reported feeling more anxious prior to student teaching
than during the experience itself. Sorenson and Halpert

(1968) reported that approximately 70 percent of the 248

26

student teachers they studied experienced stress at the
beginning of their assignment. Twenty percent continued to
experience stress at the end. On the other hand, Travers
et al. (1952) found relative absence of change in anxiety
during the student teaching period as revealed by a sentence
completion test. Triplett (1967) approached changes in
anxiety level differently. He asked forty elementary and
fifty-five secondary student teachers to rank their needs
for preparation and guidance before and after student
teaching. The elementary student teachers expressed less
concern for four and more concern for three of the twenty-
three items. The remaining sixteen items did not fluctu-
ate more than three points in rank. Secondary teachers
were less concerned in two areas and more concerned in

two.

Newsome et a1. (1965) found that the student
teaching experience affects trainees in a way other than
that of changes in attitude and anxiety level. Scores on
a test of logical consistency of ideas about education
tended to spread out and to be lower at the end of student
teaching when compared with scores obtained on the same
subjects before student teaching.

Pre-Student Teaching Field
Experience

 

 

Despite research results which show the outcomes

of student teaching to be mixed an effort is being made to

27

extend field work experiences downward in teacher education
programs. Meyen (1969) suggested that there is a hierarchy
of practicum experiences which parallels that of course
work. The trend reported by Lantz (1966) is toward working
with individual pupils prior to assuming the group teaching
responsibilities of student teaching. Barnett (1975)
cautioned that, despite the advantages of early field
experience, "some young people may not be emotionally

mature enough to gain from such experience and it therefore

may be undesirable" (p. 45). Clarke (1971) summarized
programs of what he calls "graduated conceptualization/
practice" in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin,
Toledo and Pittsburgh and at Michigan State University,
the Northwest Regional Laboratory, Syracuse University and
Columbia Teachers' College.

Houston and Jones (1974), studying field experi-
ences provided students at the University of Houston,
found that as a result of the initial experience 10 percent
of the students decide not to teach and another 10 percent
change major areas. Anderson (1974) reported "greater
professionalism and commitment by those student teachers
whose training brings them into early association with
professional educators" (p. 80). Repicky and Marty (1975)
described evaluation elements included in field experience
for sophomore level prospective science teachers. These

elements include pre and post tests on a Nature of Science

 

28

Survey, a questionnaire designed to assess the students'
concept of the teaching profession and the preparation of
science teachers, and a semantic differential instrument
employed to determine attitudes toward cooperating teachers,
course requirements, the field-based experience and the
children with whom they worked. No data were presented
however.

Brim (1966) studied 250 undergraduate teacher
education majors who were at various points in their
training. The MTAI was given and then repeated ten weeks
later. Significant positive changes occurred across all
subject groups. However the greatest changes took place
among those who were in the earlier phases of the program.
Interviews were conducted with thirty-two students who
showed the greatest differences in pre and post test
scores. Brim reported that the "most characteristic
reasons for changing attitudes were based on laboratory
experiences" (p. 443). One hundred percent of the inter-
viewed students substantiated Brim's statement.

In a study which employed experimental and control
groups Sandefur (1970) found "behavioral changes in pros-
pective teachers . . . more readily effected by programs
of professional education that stress direct involvement
. . . in the teaching-learning process through meaningful
laboratory experiences made relevant to content and theory"

(p. 395). Measures used in comparing the two groups

29

included the Classroom Observation Record, Interaction

 

Analysis, grades in student teaching, and scores on the

National Teacher Examination.

 

Many reports in the special education literature
describe models of pre-student teaching field experience
programs (Olson and Hahn, 1964) and programs already in
existence (Anderson, 1967; Larson, 1972; Reid et al., 1976;
Shane, 1970). For example, sophomore students in the
Department of Special Education at Utah State University
are required during field experience to identify, deve10p
and present a learning sequence to a Specific child
(Fifield, 1972). Investigators such as Deines (1973) and
Kelley (1974) provided informal reports of the positive
effects of pre-student teaching field experience.

It can be seen that the emphases on field work
and on specific teaching competencies are related in that
both make use of the assets of classroom teachers as
described by Gaudia (1975): "daily contact with children,

parents, and the reality of teaching" (p. 284).

Correlates of Teaching Competence

 

Evidence supporting the value of field experience
is increasing but still remains limited. Other correlates
of specific teaching competence have, therefore, been
examined in the literature. Experience with the handi-
capped has been suggested as a necessary prerequisite for

enrollment in special education teacher training programs

30

(Carr, 1972). Effects of such previous exposure have been
studied by Minkoff and Sellin (1973) and Blackwell (1972).
Both found no relationship between prior contact with
exceptional children and teacher candidates' effectiveness
or self-concept.

The relationship between course work completion,
scholastic achievement and teaching competence have also
been considered (Nagle, 1959; Sellin, 1967). Errington
(1970) and Meisgeier (1965) found a positive relationship
between scholastic achievement and successful student
teaching. Results of a study of social studies education
students by Emanuel et al. (1975), on the other hand,
indicated that quality of work in education courses was
not significantly related to how well or how poorly these
students performed in their student teaching. Johnson
and Radebaugh (1969) held that "undergraduate grade point
average appears to be of little value as an indicator of
teaching excellence" (p. 155).

However, using program completion rather than
success in student teaching as the criterion variable
Belcastro (1975) found cumulative grade point average at
the end of the sophomore year a predictor variable which
contributed significantly to discrimination between students
who completed a secondary teacher preparation program and
those who had not. Wilk and Cook (1973), in studying

University of Minnesota students who persisted in teacher

31

education programs as compared with those who did not,
also found academic variables the most effective in
describing differences between the two groups: "Academic
performance was the most effective indication of whether

students would continue in teacher education" (p. 154).

Summary

This review of literature relevant to the present
study has presented a logical progression from demands for
educational evaluation and accountability to the deline-
ation, validation and measurement of specific teaching
competencies as a vehicle for such evaluation. It was seen
that delineation and validation were most often accomplished
with the assistance of practitioners in the field. Attain-
ment of teaching competencies is ideally measured in terms
of pupil progress. But when applied to teacher trainees,
the practical problems involved in measuring student
achievement required the use of other methods, usually
self-reports of some kind. The literature also reported
the increasing use of field experiences as a means for

developing specific teaching competencies. Studies of
other correlates of teaching competence were also examined

briefly. The present study continues the progression
delineated in the literature. It attempts to stimulate
program evaluation by measuring perceived importance and
achievement of specific teaching competencies as these
perceptions are related to participation in field experi-

ences and other variables.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

This chapter identified the research design and

methodology used in this descriptive study. The population

of the study, the instrumentation, data collection and data

analysis procedures will be discussed.

Population

 

The population under investigation was comprised of
Michigan State University undergraduates majoring in mental
retardation in the Department of Elementary and Special
Education. Subjects included:

a. sophomores, juniors and seniors enrolled for field
experiences in special education during the fall

or winter terms of the 1976-1977 school year;

b. freshmen who, as of the fall term, had declared

a mental retardation major but had not as yet

taken any field experience in special education.
Data were also gathered from cooperating teachers of those
students participating in a field experience with the

mentally impaired during the period of the study.

32

33

Data collected on students' perceptions of the rela-
tive importance of specific teaching competencies were com-
pared with data from practicing teachers of the mentally
impaired. The population from which these data were

obtained was described by Hoeksema (1975).

Instrumentation

 

The instrument (see Appendix A) to which students

responded consisted of two parts.

Part 1. Personal Data.--This portion of the instru-
ment obtained information regarding the respondents' sex,
age, amount of contact with the mentally impaired prior to
choice of major field, amount of volunteer work with the
mentally impaired, amount of field experience, number of
special education courses taken and grade point average.
With the exception of descriptive information regarding
sex and age, the data obtained were used as measures of
independent variables in the statistical analysis of the

responses.

Part II. Selected Competencies for Teachers of
the Mentally Impaired.--This portion of the instrument con-
tained the sixty-three specific teaching competencies
identified by Hoeksema (1975). Respondents were asked to
score each of the competency statements in two ways.
A. Respondents were asked, first, to rate each com-

petency as to its importance for a teacher of the

34

mentally impaired. A five-point scale from "1"

or "least important" to "5" or "most important"

was used. The ratings indicated the perceptions

of the respondents regarding the importance of the
teaching competencies specified.

B. Secondly, they were asked to indicate their per-
ceptions of their acquisition of each competency
by rating each statement on the following scale:
1. I have not developed this competency at this

time.

2. I am beginning to develOp this competency; I

need a good deal of direction.

3. I am about as competent as a teacher aide; I

need some direction.

4. I am about as competent as a beginning teacher;

I can function independently.
5. I am about as competent as an experienced
teacher.
The purpose of these ratings was to identify rate and
pattern of acquisition of specific teaching competencies
as perceived by teacher trainees.

The instrument to which cooperating teachers
responded contained the same sixty-three specific teaching
competencies (see Appendix B). The teachers were asked
to rate the competencies of the students they were super-

vising using a five-point scale which corresponded to that

 

Nit’l‘lI

 

NNNII‘NI II III

35

used by the students. Each teacher was also asked to
identify the field experience in which the student was
enrolled for purposes of data analysis. These ratings
identified rate and pattern of acquisition of specific
teaching competencies as perceived by cooperating teachers.
The self-ratings of trainees were then compared with ratings
of c00perating teachers by groups constituted by amount of

field experience.

Data Collection

 

Data were collected for the following groups of
students during the fall or winter terms of 1976-1977.

Group I: freshmen with no field experience with the
mentally impaired: N = 33; of these 25 or 75.76
percent returned instruments.

Group II: sophomores enrolled for initial field
experience with the mentally impaired; N = 22; of
these 20 or 90.91 percent returned instruments.

Group III: juniors enrolled in the "core" program
field experience with the handicapped other than
the mentally impaired: N = 32; of these 30 or 93.75
percent returned instruments.

Group IV: juniors or seniors enrolled in the "mental
retardation block" field experience with the
mentally impaired: N = 27; of these 26 or 96.3

percent returned instruments.

36

Group V: seniors enrolled in student teaching with the
mentally impaired: N = 24; of these 12 or 50 per-
cent returned instruments.

Group VI was comprised of teachers of the mentally
impaired for whom data were already available: N = 99.

An effort was made to provide that Groups I
through V be mutually exclusive; that as far as possible
respondents be surveyed at the time they are enrolled in
their most advanced field experience and that each group
be of maximum size. It was assumed, based on previous
enrollment figures for the various field experiences, that
these conditions would be met for Groups I, III and IV
during the fall term and for Groups II and V during the
winter term. Therefore, data were gathered from Groups I,
III and IV beginning in November, 1976, and from Groups
II and V beginning in February, 1977.

Students listed as mental retardation majors in
the Department of Elementary and Special Education were
assigned to appropriate subject groups based on their
registration in field experience courses. The investi-
gator explained and distributed the instrument in special
education classes to those students in Groups III and IV.
Students in Groups I, II and V were contacted by mail.

A copy of the instrument was sent to them with a letter
of explanation (see Appendix C) and a stamped, addressed

envelope for return of the instrument. Each student was

37

asked to sign his name on a form detachable from the
instrument. As each instrument was received it was given
an identifying code number and the signature form was
removed to preserve the respondent's anonymity. Follow-up
telephone calls were made to students who did not return
surveys within three weeks. Letters were written to those
individuals who could not be reached by telephone (see
Appendix E). It was necessary to send several reSpondents
a second copy of the survey since the original had been
lost.

A list of teachers supervising students in field
experiences in classes for the mentally impaired was
obtained from the Student Teaching Office at Michigan State
University. Teachers were sent a copy of the instrument,
an explanatory letter (see Appendix D) and a stamped,
addressed envelope for return of the instrument. Each
teacher was asked to sign his name so that instruments
could be assigned for analysis according to students' field
experience. As each teacher's response was received it
was assigned an identifying code number corresponding
to that of the student being supervised. The signature
was then detached to preserve the anonymity of both the
student and the cooperating teacher.

Follow-up letters were sent to nonrespondents (see
Appendix E). In several instances teachers reported that

they had not received the original copy of the instrument.

 

I'l‘lr

[III

I‘ll!

[IN I
ll‘l.’

I III 'III I

38

Therefore, second copies were sent to all nonrespondents.
The twenty-two students in Group II received fifteen evalu-
ations for a response rate of 68.18 percent. Of the
twenty-seven students in Group IV, twenty-five or 92.26
percent received evaluations. Twenty-four student teachers
(Group V) received nineteen evaluations for a response
rate of 79.17 percent.

The number of cooperating teachers in a given
group did not always equal the number of students in that
group because one teacher sometimes supervised several
students. In some cases where students were assigned to
"team teaching" classes more than one teacher's evaluation

was received for the same student.

Data Analysis

Procedures of data analysis used are presented for
each research question.

1. Do perceptions of students preparing to be teachers
of the mentally impaired regarding the relative
importance of specific teaching competencies
become more like those of experienced teachers as
amount of field experience increases?

Obtaining groups of maximum size necessitated that
some groups be surveyed during the fall term and others
during the winter term. This could have been a source of
invalidity. However, data were analyzed concurrently for

all groups since it was not anticipated that the

39

approximately ten-week difference would significantly
affect subjects' responses.

For purposes of statistical analysis the sixty-
three specific teaching competencies given in Part IIA of
the instrument were grouped into the following categories:

A. Planning Instruction (PI): competencies 1-14

B. Assessing and Evaluating Behavior (AE): compe-
tencies 15-20

C. Conducting Instruction (CI): competencies 21-29

D. Classroom Management (CM): competencies 30-35

E. Facilitating Social-Emotional Maturity (FS):
competencies 36-44

F. Dealing With and Relating to Other Professionals
(DR): competencies 45-54

G. Working With Parents (WP): competencies 55-63

The mean importance rating for each of the result-
ing seven sub-scales was computed for each group of
respondents. Group VI was used as a criterion group.
Results are shown in tabular form in Chapter IV.

Groups I, II, III, IV and V were compared using
a one-way multivariate analysis of variance in which the
five levels of field experience comprised the independent
variable and the mean importance scores in each of the
seven major competency areas were the dependent variables
(Kerlinger, 1973). Difference scores were obtained

between the means of Groups I through V and Group VI.

40

These deviation scores were then tested for statistical
significance. Post hoc analysis allowed for identification
of the group(s) significantly different from the criterion
group, and the category or categories of competencies which
contributed to significant differences.

2. Do teacher candidates consider themselves more
competent as amount of field work increases?

3. Do teacher candidates become more homogeneous in
their perceptions of their achievement of specific
teaching competenCies as amount of field experience
increases?

Responses to Part IIB of the survey instrument were
grouped in the same way as was described under research
question 1. Within each group the mean rating and the
standard deviation for each of the seven sub-scales of
specific teaching competencies were computed. The results
are presented in tabular form in Chapter IV.

For purposes of statistical analysis the mean
ratings in each of these areas for Groups I, II, III, IV,
and V were compared using one-way multivariate analysis of
variance. No data from a criterion group (VI) of experi-
enced teachers were available. This analysis also indi—
cated the degree and significance of within-group variance
in self-ratings. Appropriate post hoc analysis was done

subsequent to findings of significant differences.

41

4. Do cooperating teachers consider teacher candidates
more competent as amount of field experience
increases?

Cooperating teachers of students in Groups II, IV
and V described above were asked to rate the competencies
of the students they supervised. Group III was omitted from
consideration in this research question because the c00p-
erating teachers supervising "core" students are not
teachers of the mentally impaired. Group I, of course,-
had no c00perating teachers.

Responses, grouped by the amount of field experi-
ence of the students supervised, yielded a mean rating
for each specific teaching competency. These ratings are
reported in tabular form in Chapter IV.

Analysis of variance yielded the significance of
the differences between the mean ratings by the three
COOperating teacher groups of their students in the seven
major competency areas. ApprOpriate post hoc analysis
was done.

5. Do teacher candidates' perceptions of their com-
petency become more like those of their cooper—
ating teachers as amount of field experience
increases?

The self-ratings of students in Groups II, IV, and
V were compared with their ratings by their cooperating

teachers. Difference scores were computed. Mean difference

42

scores and standard deviations for each group are reported
in tabular form in Chapter IV.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was
performed to determine whether there is a significant
difference among the mean difference scores for the three
groups on the seven sub-scales of teaching competency.
Appropriate post hoc analysis was done.

6. Do specific independent variables other than

amount of field experience account for variations

among teacher candidates in their perception of

their achievement of specific teaching competencies?

Descriptive information regarding the demographic
variables of sex and age obtained from Part I of the survey
instrument were summarized. Tables report the distribution
of the respondents' responses to items 3a to Be in Part I
of the survey instrument. Continuous variables such as the
amount of volunteer or paid work done with the mentally
retarded, the number of special education courses taken,
and grade point averages were correlated with subjects'
self-ratings. Pearson product-moment correlations are
reported in Chapter IV.

Statistical analyses of the data were done via the

Michigan State University CDC 6500 computer.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS.

In this chapter the findings obtained from the
analysis of the data are presented. In the first section
statistics descriptive of the population are reported.

In section two the results of the statistical analyses
applied to the data for each research question are

reported. In the discussion section an attempt is made to
interpret the results presented and to draw conclusions from
the data. In the final section the research results in
terms of the acceptance or rejection of each research

hypothesis are summarized.

Descriptive Statistics
One hundred thirteen students responded to the
Student Survey Instrument. Of these 106 or 93.8 percent
were females and 7 or 6.2 percent were males.
The ages of the respondents ranged from eighteen
to forty with a mean of 20.8 and a standard deviation of

3.682.

43

44

Perceived Relative Importance of Specific
Teaching Competencies

 

 

The perceptions of students preparing to be
teachers of the mentally impaired regarding the relative
importance of certain teaching competencies are reported
in Table 1. The sixty-three specific teaching compe-
tencies which respondents rated by importance in Part IIA
of the survey instrument were categorized to create the
following seven sub-scales: planning instruction (PI),
assessing and evaluating behavior (AE), conducting
instruction (CI), classroom management (CM), facilitating
social-emotional maturity (FS), dealing with and relating
to other professionals (DR), and working with parents
(WP).

The respondents were grouped according to the level
of field experience in which they were enrolled. Group I
had no field experience; Group II were participating in
their initial field experience; Groups III and IV were
enrolled in more advanced field experiences appropriate to
their respective academic levels and programs; Group V were
student teachers. Group VI, teacher in the field, served
as a criterion group.

Table 1 shows the mean importance rating and the
standard deviation for each competency sub-scale for each
group of subjects. Figure 1 presents the mean importance

scores in graphic form.

45

wouwmmaa aaamucoa onu mo muosomou HH> macho

oneness» pompous u> macho

oocowummxo name“ :xooan cowuocumumu amazes: ">H macho
OOcOHuomxo vamwm amumoum gouOO: "HHH macho

mosmwuomxo pamwm Hmwufisw “Hw msouu

mosoauomxo paowm on “H macaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmm. «mm.¢ am. m.¢ mow. emm.v mom. 5mm.v ohm. mbv.¢ was. mv.¢ as .h
vow. emo.¢ 0mm. ~m~.v omv. NmH.v mum. mom.¢ was. mm.v who. ¢-.v mo .0
«mm. mm.¢ mov. mhm.¢ mom. hum.¢ bum. om.v hum. mmm.v mm. «hv.v mm .m
vmv. mmm.v mmm. hmv.v mmw. mmm.v mom. am.v an. mm.v Nb. vm~.v 20 .v
vmm. mma.v mmm. H.v nmm. m~.v mmm. H.¢ moo. mma.v «mu. mmo.v Ho .m
vac. mmm.m men. o.m mum. Ho.v mm. mm.m mm. Ho.m mom. evm.m md .m
how. amo.v hm. mo~.v he. mmH.v mmv. moa.¢ mmo. vo.v mew. omo.¢ Hm .H
mm m mm m Om m Gm m Gm m cm m
manomIQSm
mmuz I Nauz mmuz omuz omuz mmuz aocouwmfioo
H> macho > msouo >H macho HHH msouo HH macho H macaw

 

.mowocouomaoo msfinomou mo oocmuuomsw pm>woouomnn.a wands

46

 

 

 

 

 

A .moeotooc

C. 0950th

 

 

 

Ev. U,

 

 

 

- -wc _..--I... IE:

 

 

 

 

47

The mean importance scores for Groups I, II, III,
IV and V were compared using a one-way multivariate analy-
sis of variance in which the five levels of field experience
comprised the independent variable. Table 2 shows that
there were no significant differences among the five stu-
dent groups; further analysis would have shown no signifi-
cant differences between sub-scales of teaching compe-
tencies.

Table 2.--Multivariate analysis of variance of mean impor—
tance ratings.

 

Source of variance df F P

 

Status (amount of
field experience) (28, 369.188) 1.161 .266

 

The five student group means were then converted
into difference scores by subtracting the experienced
teacher group mean from the student means for each of the
seven sub-scales of teaching competencies. The mean devi-
ation scores and standard deviations are reported in
Table 3.

It is clear from the information given in Table 3
that the five student groups deviated somewhat from the
criterion group of experienced teachers in their ratings
of the importance of specific teaching competencies.
Group I, the students with no field experience, differed

most from the criterion group. This finding is in keeping

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm. N. mov. va. own. now. mum. who. Nah. mo. m3 .5
0mm. «mm. @mv. «ma. mum. mom. man. on. who. «mm. mo .0
wow. mmo.| mom. eno. bmm. 00. new. mHo.I mm. mNH.I mm .m
mmm. mma. mmv. mvo. mom. mo.| mom. no.n own. mam.l :0 .v
mmm. H. mmm. Hmo. mmm. a. mom. mao.l NMh. moa.u Ho .m
mvm. m. mmm. mam. mm. noa.l Ham. mH.I mom. omm.| md .m

hm. mod. hv. moo. mov. moo. MMC. 00.: mwm. vvo.l Hm .H

om m cm m cm m cm m cm m mHmomunsm

> macho >H msouw HHH moonw HH macho H moouo Sosouomaoo

 

>Ocouomeoo cmofi

umsomou ceasefiuomxm mosas

.mcwusu mosmuuomsa

madam“ mocmuuomEH aocmuomaoo some ucopsum||.m manna

49

with the hypothesis presented in research question one.
However, the group which most closely approximated the
criterion group was not Group V, the student teachers, as
was hypothesized, but rather Group II. To determine whether
the five student groups differed significantly from each
other a multivariate analysis of variance of the deviation
scores was done. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.--Multivariate analysis of variance of mean impor-
tance deviation scores.

 

Source of variance df F P

 

Status (amount of (28, 369.188)

field experience) 1-151 ~256

 

This test was not significant at the .05 level of

confidence; therefore no further analyses were done. It

was concluded that the null hypothesis (H0:

“1 = '12 “3

= “6) could not be rejected.

“4 “5

Self-Rating offiAchievement of
TeachingACompetencies

,In Table 5 mean self-ratings and standard devi-
ations for the five groups of teacher candidates in each
of the seven categories of teaching competency are reported.
It can be seen that the self-ratings of the five groups
differed across the seven sub-scales of teaching competency
as was hypothesized. Only for sub-scale one, planning

instruction, however, was the pattern of self-ratings in

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmn.a mo.a moo.H mov.m mhm.a bm¢.N mam. m~¢.H mom.a mom.H m: .h
en.a mmm.m ohm. mmh.m mmm. ho~.m Nmo.a mmh.~ oam.a mm.~ mo .o
mH>.H mov.m vow. mam.m hom. vm.m oao.a ~m.~ mov.a vom.~ mm .m
o~o.~ mom.m omm. m.m mew. mm~.m hmo.H mom.~ Hmv.a m-.~ 20 .w
non.a mnm.m Hme. .von.m vmo. nm~.m mmm. vh.m omm.H moo.m Ho .m
mmo.H mmn.~ nmo. omm.m mmm. mm.~ one. mao.a moo.H mmv.a m4 .m
mmN.H Nm>.m Nov. omm.m «mm. vm.m ems. mmm.~ moH.H omo.a Hm .H
mm x no m ow .m om M 0m m
I mamomnASm
Nauz omuz omuz owuz mmnz aosmuwgeou
> macho >H macho HHH msouo HH msouo H macho

 

.mowosouomsoo.osflaooou.mo usoae>oanom no moswumulmaom cums .moumowocoo nonomoenn.m magma

51

the direction hypothesized; that is, each successively
more experienced group rated themselves higher in achieve-
ment of teaching competencies. For the remaining six
sub-scales the pattern hypothesized was seen only in
Groups I through IV; Group V, the most experienced group
of teacher candidates, consistently rated themselves

lower than Group IV.

A similar phenomenon was evident in the standard
deviations of the five groups across the seven sub-scales.
The groups did not become more homogeneous as amount of
experience increased. In fact, the group with the most
experience, the student teachers, showed consistently
more dispersal in self-ratings than any of the other
groups. The hypothesized trend for greater experience
to be associated with increased homogeneity was seen in
sub-scales three through seven, but only for Groups I and
IV. For sub-scales one and two the deviations within the
groups appeared random.

Since the mean scores of the five groups were
different these data were then analyzed using a one-way
multivariate analysis of variance. The results are shown
in Table 6.

This test was significant at less than the .05
level of confidence. Therefore, the general null hypoth-
esis that the means of the five groups were equal could

be rejected. The univariate F test with a significance

52

Table 6.—-Multivariate analysis of variance of mean self-
ratings.

 

Source of variance df F P

 

Status (amount of

field experience) (28, 369.1884) 4.6633 .0001

 

level of Lg:

.007 was then employed to find the scale(s)
which contributed to the significant differences between
groups. The results are shown in Table 7.

Since each sub-scale was found to be significant
in its contribution to the total differences between
groups, a series of post hoc comparisons was done to iden-
tify the groups significantly different on each scale.
Group V was the group of greatest interest; therefore,
the following contrasts were tested: Group I-Group V
(111 - us); Group II-Group V (u2 - us); Group III-Group V

(u3 - us); Group IV-Group V (u4 - u ). The analysis of

5
variance tables (Table 8 to Table 14) follow for each of
the seven sub-scales.

A pattern is seen to emerge in which for com-
petency areas of classroom management, facilitating social-
emotional maturity and dealing with and relating to other
professionals, initial field experience contributed the
most noticeably to perceptions of increased achievement.

In the areas of assessing and evaluating behavior, con-

ducting instruction and working with parents the "core”

53

Table 7.—-Univariate F test for mean scores, achievement'

 

 

dimension.

Source of variance df MS F P

Sub-scale 1 (PI) 4 15.183 18.175 .0001*
Sub-scale 2 (AB) 4 15.929 16.816 .0001*
Sub—scale 3 (CI) 4 10.337 10.572 .0001*
Sub-scale 4 (CM) 4 9.005 7.484 .0001*
Sub-scale 5 (FS) 4 9.332 7.655 .0001*
Sub-scale 6 (DR) 4 8.187 6.164 .0002*
Sub-scale 7 (WP) 4 15.1712 9.723 .0001*

 

*Significant at the m = .007 level of confidence.

Table 8.--Analysis of variance for sub-scale l, planning
instruction.

 

Source of variance df MS F P

 

Status (amount of

experience) (5-1)=4

U1 - “5 1 41.482 49.658 .0001*
”2 - us 1 10.3 12.324 .0007*
M3 ‘ Us 1 8.64 10.343 .002
U4 - us 1 .314 .358 .541

 

Error term .835

*Significant at a = .001.

54

Table 9.—-Ana1ysis of variance for sub-scale 2, assessing
and evaluating behavior.

 

Source of variance df MS F P

 

Status (amount of

experience) (5-1)=4

ul - us 1 30.412 32.106 .0001*
“2 - us 1 29.457 31.1 .0001*
U3 - “5 1 1.472 1.554 .2153
H4 - us 1 2.375 .376 .5412

 

Error term .947

*Significant at e = .001.

Table 10.—-Analysis of variance for sub-scale 3, conduct-
ing instruction.

 

 

Source of variance df MS F P
Status (amount of (5_1)=4

experience)

“2 - “5 1 8.249 8.437 .0045
u3 — “5 1 3.194 3.267 .074

u4 - us 1 .136 .139 .71

 

Error term .978

*Significant at G = .001.

55

Table ll.--Analysis of variance for sub-scale 4, classroom

 

 

management.
Source of variance df MS F P
Status (amount of (5_1)=4
experience)

"1 - us 1 24.114 20.04 .0001*
“2 - us 1 7.433 6.178 .015
U3 - “5 1 3.776 3.138 .079
U4 - U5 1 .699 .581 .448

 

Error term 1.203

*Significant at G = .001.

Table 12.--Analysis of variance for sub-scale 5, facili-
tating social-emotional maturity.

 

Source of variance df MS F P

 

Status (amount of

experience) (5-1)=4

ul - us 1 23.484 19.263 .0001*
“2 - us 1 8.775 7.198 .009
U3 - Us 1 2.928 2.402 .124
114 - “5 1 2.143 1.758 .188

 

Error term 1.219

*Significant at ¢ = .001.

56

Table 13.--Analysis of variance for sub-scale 6, dealing

with and relating to other professionals.

 

 

Source of variance df MS F P
Status (amount of _

experience) (5 1,-4

pl - ”5 1 21.214 15.972 .0002*
“2 - “5 1 7.516 5.658 .019
U3 - “5 1 2.497 1.88 .173
U4 - “5 1 1.519 1.144 .287

 

Error term 1.328

*Significant at m = .001.

Table 14.-—Analysis of variance for sub-scale 7, working

with parents

 

 

Source of variance df MS F P
Status (amount of _

experience) (5-1)—4

“1 - “5 1 5.181 3.321 .071
“2 - “5 1 25.824 16.55 .0001*
u3 - “5 1 2.622 1.68 .198
U4 - “5 1 27.059 17.342 .0001*

 

Error term 1.56

*Significant at a = .001.

57

level field experience operated in a similar manner. Only
in planning instruction did the perception of achievement
of competency increase steadily and gradually over the
levels of field experience. The area of greatest concern
should be that of working with parents since student
teachers rated themselves lower than Groups I, III and IV
on this competency dimension.

Cooperating Teacher_§ating of Achievement
of Teaching Competencies

 

 

Table 15 reports the mean achievement ratings
given teacher candidates by their cooperating teachers in
the seven categories of teaching competency. Group II was
comprised of cooperating teachers assigned to students in
an initial field experience; Group IV of those assigned to
students in a more advanced field experience and Group V
of those assigned to student teachers. The numbers in
each group refer to the number of observations, not the
number of individual teachers, since some teachers super-
vised more than one student. Also, the numbers do not
necessarily correspond to the numbers in the student groups
since some surveys were not returned, thereby precluding
a one-to-one correspondence between each teacher candidate
and his or her respective cooperating teacher.

It is clear from the data presented in Table 15
that cooperating teachers rated candidates higher in

achievement of teaching competencies as the candidates

58

.muonomou mswusummooo mo
hopes: on» on no: .osoum some cw msOHum>uomno mo Hones: on» On muommu zm

 

 

 

 

 

mmm.a mmm.a ~mm.a New. mmm. New. m3 .h
mmh. mh.m mHH.H mm.m HNM.H vma.m mo .o
mmo. mm>.m moo.a va.m woo. hmo.m mm .m
mm. mmm.m mmo.H mo~.m mom. mNh.~ 20 .v
hm. msn.m 5mm. m.m com. mmm.~ Ho .m
how. won.m mam.a mvm.~ ~.H NNm. m4 .m
moo. mm.m mam. wo~.m has. mh.N Hm .H
om N am N am m
OHMOmIQSm
mauz mmuz mmans museummsoo
> moouo >H macho HH macho

 

.mmwosouwoeoo mcwsommu mo
vomEO>Ownom .mmumowosmo Resume» mo museumu same .muonommu ocflumuomooorn.ma wanna

 

 

fill, t[ l I. lflll\f {.III (II! III. III 4"

59

increased in experience. This finding supports research
hypothesis four across each of the seven sub-scales of
teaching competency.

In order to determine whether the magnitude of the
differences among the three teacher groups was signifi-
cant the mean teacher ratings on each sub-scale were sub-
mitted to a multivariate analysis of variance. Table 16
shows that the three groups differed significantly.

Table l6.--Mu1tivariate analysis of variance of teacher
ratings.

 

Source of variance df F P

 

Status (amount of

field experience) (14, 100) 3.203 .0003

 

The results of the univariate F test given in
Table 17 indicate that the differences occurred on the
sub-scales relating to planning instruction, assessing
and evaluating behavior, conducting instruction, and
facilitating social-emotional maturity. On the remaining
three sub-scales differences were not significant.

The mean teacher ratings on each sub-scale found
to be significant were then examined using the following
contrasts: Group II teachers minus Group V teachers
((12 - us); Group IV teachers minus Group V teachers
(u4 - us); and Group II teachers minus Group IV teachers

(u2 - u4). Results are given by sub-scale in Tables 18

60

Table 17.--Univariate F test for mean teacher ratings.

 

 

Source of variance df MS F P
Sub-scale 1 (PI) 2 5.586 8.272 .0007*
Sub-scale 2 (AB) 2 32.791 20.742 .00001*
Sub-scale 3 (CI) 2 3.676 6.508 .0029*
Sub-scale 4 (CM) 2 3.06 4.159 .021
Sub-scale 5 (FS) 2 5.084 7.721 .001*
Sub-scale 6 (DR) 2 1.635 1.395 .256
Sub-scale 7 (WP) 2 10.535 4.951 .010

 

*Significant at the m = .007 level of confidence.

through 21. The rate of change in the area of assessing
and evaluating behavior appears the most dramatic, with
each of the three groups being significantly different
from the other two.

Comparison of Candidates' Self-Ratingsand
Cooperating Teacher Ratings

 

Whether teacher candidates' perceptions of their
competency became more like those of their cooperating
teachers as amount of field experience increased was
examined. For this comparison only matched pairs of
teacher candidates and cooperating teachers were used.
Where data from only one of a teacher candidate-
cooperating teacher pair were available such data were

discarded. If more than one COOperating teacher evaluated

61

 

 

Table 18.--Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for sub-
scale 1, planning instruction.

Contrast Value S. Error t Value df P

”2 - ”5 -l.124 .282 -3.984 56 .000*

u4 - “5 - .671 .249 -2.7 56 .009

“2 - H4 - .453 .267 -l.697 56 .095

 

*Significant at the m = .002 level of confidence.

Table l9.--Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for sub-
scale 2, assessing and evaluating behavior.

 

 

Contrast Value 8. Error t Value df P

u; — “5 -2.786 .435 -6.399 56 .000*
H4 - “5 -l.163 .384 -3.031 56 .004
u2 - H4 -l.623 .412 -3.943 56 .000*

 

*Significant at the a = .002 level of confidence.

Table 20.--Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for sub-

scale 3, conducting instruction.

 

 

Contrast Value S. Error t Value df P

“2 - “5 — .921 .259 -3.564 56 .001*
U4 - “5 - .473 .228 -2.078 56 .042
uz - H4 - .448 .245 -1.833 56 .072

 

*Significant at the m = .002 level of confidence.

62

Table 21.--Post hoc analysis of teacher ratings for sub-
scale 5, facilitating social-emotional maturity.

 

 

Contrast Value S. Error t Value df P

u2 - “5 -1.105 .281 -3.936 56 .000*
u4 - “5 - .567 .247 -2.293 56 .026
“2 - H4 - .538 .266 -2.026 56 .048

 

*Significant at the a = .002 level of confidence.

a given teacher candidate each observation was considered
separately for purposes of analysis. For each pair the
student self-rating was subtracted from the cooperating
teacher rating on each of the seven sub-scales. The
resulting mean deviation scores and standard deviations
are shown in Table 22 for each group on each sub-scale.

Table 22 shows that Group II, students in initial
field experiences, most closely approximated the evaluations
of their cooperating teachers. Group IV was the most dis-
crepant when self-ratings were compared with cooperating
teacher evaluations.

To determine whether the differences among the mean
deviation scores of the three groups were statistically
significant, a multivariate analysis of variance was per-
formed. Results are given in Table 23.

Since the differences in mean deviation scores
were statistically significant at the d = .05 level of con-

fidence, the univariate F test was used to identify the

63

Table 22.—-Mean deviation scores of matched pairs of
cooperating teachers and teacher candidates
on competency ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

Group II Group IV Group V
Competency N=13 N=21 N=1l
Sub-scale _ _ _
X SD X SD X SD
1. PI .154 1.063 -.39 1.023 .436 1.722
2. AB -.623 1.767 —.667 1.473 1.036 1.974
3. CI .123 1.456 -.448 .944 .527 1.99
4. CM .138 1.373 -.576 1.046 .464 1.948
5. FS -.038 1.652 -.695 .971 .782 1.852
6. DR .515 2.019 -.529 1.372 .791 2.096
7. WP -.746 1.095 +2.6 1.304 .855 3.321

 

Table 23.—-Multivariate analysis of variance of mean com-
petency deviation scores.

 

Source of variance df F P

 

Status (amount of

field experience) (14172)

2.436 .007

 

64

competency areas which contributed to the differences (see
Table 24). Sub-scale 7 alone, working with parents,
accounted for the statistically significant variance among
the groups. Inspection of the mean deviation scores in
Table 22 showed that teacher candidates in Group IV devi-
ated markedly from their COOperating teachers in evaluating
competency in this area. Their cooperating teachers rated
the teacher candidates in Group IV considerably lower on
working with parents than the candidates rated themselves.
It was concluded that the null hypothesis--Ho: (“2(t) - ”2)
(“4(t) - U4) = (“5(t) - H4)--could be rejected but the
research hypothesis was not substantiated. No further post

hoc analyses were done.

Table 24.--Univariate F test of mean competency deviation

 

 

scores.
Source of variance df MS F P
Sub-scale 1 (PI) 2 2.78 1.821 .174
Sub-scale 2 (AB) 2 11.825 4.144 .023
Sub-scale 3 (CI) 2 3.687 1.869 .167
Sub-scale 4 (CM) 2 4.492 2.288 .114
Sub-scale 5 (FS) 2 7.977 3.9 .028
Sub-scale 6 (DR) 2 7.895 2.541 .091
Sub-scale 7 (WP) 2 45.126 11.943 .00008*

 

*Significant at the e = .007 level of confidence.

65

As they are now assigned candidates begin each
field experience without knowing the cooperating teachers'
expectations. For their part cooperating teachers ordi-
narily evaluate candidates without any knowledge of their
previous experience of prior level of competence. It is
possible that the mean deviation scores would have shown
a much different pattern across the three groups if can-
didates were assigned to the same cooperating teachers
over their three field experiences or if the training
institution and the cooperating teachers communicated more
specific standards of performance to the candidates.

Relationship Between Specific Independent
Variables and Self-Perception of
Aghievement of Specific
Teaching Competencies

Descriptive information obtained from Part I of
the Survey instrument is summarized below. Table 25 shows
the distribution of positive responses to items 3a to Be.
Each of these items divided the population into two cate-
gories on the basis of their contact with the mentally
retarded prior to their enrolling in college.

Of the 113 respondents, 74 or 65.5 percent reported
having done some volunteer or paid work with the mentally
retarded prior to entering college. The number of years
spent ranged from one to a high of nine. Since involvement
in volunteer service is a requirement for acceptance into

special education programs at Michigan State University

66

Table 25.--Contact with the mentally retarded.

 

 

N of "Yes” % of Total

Item Responses Responses
Related to a Mentally
Retarded Person 24 21’4
Have a Friend Related
to a Mentally Retarded 59 52.2
Person
Mentally Retarded
Person Lives in 49 43.8
Neighborhood
Attended School with
Special Class 49 43'8
Know Teacher of 92 81.4

Mentally Retarded

 

it is not surprising that 94 or 83.2 percent of the
teacher candidates reported doing volunteer or paid work
with the mentally retarded since entering college.
Obviously the number of years spent is limited by the
number of years enrolled in college.

The number of special education courses, other than
field work, taken was reported by 103 of the respondents.
The distribution of the responses is shown in Table 26.

It should be noted that respondents may have mis-
read the question and reported credits taken rather than
courses.

For subjects who reported their grade point aver-

ages, high school grade point averages ranged from 2.2 to

67

Table 26.--Special education courses taken.

 

 

N of Courses N of Respondents % of Total Responses
0 26 25.2
1 13 12.6
2 5 4.9
3 2 1.9
4 8 7.8
5 8 7.8
6 9 8.7
7 8 7.8
8 5 4.9
9 7 6.8

10 4 3.9
12 l 1.0
14 2 1.9
15 3 2.9
21 l 1.0
33 l 1.0

 

68

4.0 with a mean of 3.33 and a standard deviation of .367.
College grade point averages ranged from 2.0 to 4.0 with a
mean of 3.08 and a standard deviation of .429.

The Pearson product moment correlations were
obtained between the variables: number of hours of volun-
teer work before college; number of hours of volunteer
work in college; number of special education courses taken;
grade point average in high school; grade point average in
college; and subjects' self-ratings in the seven categories
of specific teaching competencies: planning instruction
(PI); assessing and evaluating behavior (AE); conducting
instruction (CI); classroom management (CM); facilitating
social-emotional maturity (FS); dealing with and relating
to other professionals (DR); and working with parents (WP).
The correlations are shown in Table 27.

Sixteen of the correlations obtained were statis-
tically significant at the .05 level or below. The
number of hours of volunteer work engaged in during college
and the number of special education courses taken were
related slightly though significantly to self-ratings in
each of the seven categories of specific teaching compe-
tencies. Nevertheless, since none of the correlations
exceeded .32, their practicality in predicting teacher
candidates' self-perception of achievement of specific

competencies is of little value.

69

.Ho. v mas

 

Omoo V m *
mso. moo.u aoo.t emo.s Nae. Ado.a Hao.n seesaw
no“: cw Mao
Hmo. so. moo. mmo. mmo. Hos. .Naa. mmmafloo :A was
.smm. ..m~m. .mqm. ..ms~. .eom. ..mom. .em. momusoo

sofiumoooo amwoomm

«mks. ..oe~. ..-~. .NHN. «.eem. ..mom. ..¢m~. mmmaaoo masses
mason nomussao>

«OH. vHH. «mma. mad. «ma. hmo. mNH. OmOHHOO OHOMOQ
mason umouco~o>

 

.3 so me so 8 Ha HA

 

maauz manmsum>

sous wosmuomeou mcwnomoa

 

.moanmaum> pcooswmmosfl omuooamm can mmwosmuomeoo osflnomou
mo ucoEO>ownom mo mswumulmaom .mmumowosmo Honomou consumn sowumaounooul.h~ manna

70

Grade point averages and hours of volunteer work
done before enrolling in college were not related to self-
perception of achievement except on the individual sub-
scales of planning instruction and facilitating social and

emotional maturity.

Discussion

 

The research thus far reported will be discussed
in terms of its implications in the following areas:
recruitment of teacher candidates; the design and evalu-
ation of teacher preparation programs in relation to
curricular strengths and weaknesses and consumer satis-
faction; and in-service training for teachers new to the
field. These areas were delineated in Chapter I. An
additional area of discussion is that of the continued
use of the survey instrument as an assessment tool in
teacher preparation programs.

Recruitment of Teacher
Candidates

 

 

From the results of this research study it appears
that the usually accepted criteria for enrollment in a
special education teacher preparation program--grade point
average and volunteer service to the handicapped--operate
at little better than a chance level in predicting students'
self-perceptions of their teaching competencies. Grade
point average serves to screen out the grossly unqualified.

Requirements related to volunteer or paid work with the

71

mentally impaired prior to acceptance into the program
may, however, serve a function as a self-screening device.
Students who self-selected themselves out of a special
education teacher training program on the basis of a
volunteer experience with the handicapped are not repre-
sented in the population under study. Nevertheless, it is
likely that such a phenomenon does occur.

Design and Evaluatiog of
Teacher Preparation Program

 

 

From the data generated by this research study a
fairly consistent pattern became visible. Groups I
through IV in general conformed to the expectations
expressed in the relevant research hypotheses. The
importance ratings of Group I were most different from
those of the criterion group while Groups II, III and IV
more closely approximated the criterion group. In self-
ratings of achievement Groups I through IV generally
increased in their self-ratings across levels of field
experience.

Group V, the student teachers, deviated from those
expectations. Their importance ratings differed more from
the criterion group's ratings than did those of Group IV.
Also, student teachers rated themselves lower than had been
hypothesized in achievement in six of the areas of teaching
competency; that is, Group V teacher candidates' self-

ratings were lower than Group IV teacher candidates'

72

self-ratings. These findings could lead to the supposition
that student teachers in classes for the mentally retarded
were not receiving necessary guidance and support. Such
guidance and support might enable them to develOp added
self-confidence which would be reflected in their self-
rating.

In support of this supposition it should be noted
that the student teachers had the lowest percentage of
returns of the survey instrument. The 50 percent return
may be representative of those teacher candidates with the
more positive self-ratings. In other words, if all student
teachers had returned surveys it is possible that the out-
come would have been more negative than it was.

That student teacher self-ratings were more
reflective of level of self-confidence than of actual
skill is supported by the fact that cooperating teachers
saw their student teachers as more competent than they saw
themselves in all seven areas of teaching competency.
Perhaps these positive evaluations were not adequately
communicated to the student teachers. In the teacher
preparation program, therefore, it may be necessary to
build in a better support and guidance system for student
teachers, either through university supervision or through
better communication between cooperating teacher and

student teacher.

73

Alternative explanations exist for the decline in
self-ratings by student teachers. One such explanation
is that for the first time in the sequence of field experi-
ences the teacher candidates feel the weight of teaching
responsibility. It may be that the impact of such respon-
sibility would be lessened if student teaching were
deferred for another quarter or if it became, as some
theorists recommend, a part of a fifth-year internship.

On the other hand, the effect might be similar regardless
of the time at which student teaching were introduced.

The drop in self-ratings by student teachers may
not be the negative phenomenon this study supposed it to
be. Perhaps such a decline is a necessary and unavoidable
concomitant of the reality testing involved in the student
teaching experience and, in fact, facilitates the eventual
attainment of greater teaching competency.

It may also be that the particular group under
study was unique in its responses. Further research,
especially longitudinal research, may conclude that
teacher candidates do not invariably perceive themselves
as less competent as a concomitant of the student teaching
experience.

However, if the results of this study are repli-
cated, they may indicate a need for restructuring field
experiences in such a way that the demands made on teacher

candidates are delineated with greater specificity. If

74

certain teaching competencies were identified as the focus
for each level of field experience, expectations could be
communicated in greater detail thereby allowing for a
reduction in anxiety level and a more gradual transition
to the fuller responsibility of student teaching. For
example, for teacher candidates other than student teachers
the competency area of assessing and evaluating behavior
might require additional emphasis during the initial field
experience and the area of working with parents during
both the initial and "core" field experiences. Students
involved in these experiences rated themselves lowest in
these competencies.

If teacher education programs associated a gradu—
ated series of teaching competencies with levels of field
experience a major outcome would result. The effects of
field experiences would be more consistent for all can-
didates because particular cooperating teachers would hold

a common set of expectations.

In-service Training

 

In-service training needs for newly employed
teachers of the mentally retarded may be looked at from
two viewpoints, that of the neophyte and that of an objec-
tive observer. In this research an attempt was made to
identify these two vieWpoints. Student teachers, those
who will be newly employed, were asked for their per-

ceptions of the importance of and their competency in seven

75

areas of teaching skills. On the basis of their responses
in-service needs would appear to be in working with parents,
an area where self-ratings were low, and in assessing and
evaluating behavior, where both self-ratings and importance
ratings were low.

From the viewpoint of the objective observer, in
this case the COOperating teacher, classroom management
would have to be added to the in-service program. Though
cooperating teachers rated student teachers higher in
classroom management than they rated themselves, it was
the second lowest area of competence. Only working with

parents was rated lower by cooperating teachers.

Use of the Survey Instrument

 

Teacher candidates and COOperating teachers who
responded to the survey often included written comments on
the instrument even though these were not solicited. Some
respondents asked for copies of the competencies and
others for the results of the research when it became
available. It appeared from these comments that the
survey could be used as a means both of assessment of
student performance in field experiences and of communi-
cation between cooperating teachers and teacher candi-
dates.

If this were to be done several changes in the
format of the survey are recommended on the basis of

respondent feedback. First, the survey would be easier

76

to use if it were collapsed into the seven sub-scales used
in the data analysis. Cooperating teachers could rate
teacher candidates from one to five on the seven sub-
scales, using the specific competencies in each sub-scale
as guidelines but not necessarily scoring each. Secondly,
some competency statements could be clarified. For
example, competency twenty-five refers to large group
instruction. A number should be provided as a rule—of-
thumb since what is a large group in one special education
classroom is a small group in another. Some directions
should be clarified. In the rating scale, for example,
the criterion for a rating of three should be changed
since it is not uncommon that a teacher aide in a special
education classroom is fully certified and is as competent
as the classroom teacher. The exigencies of the job
market, not level of competency, make her a teacher aide.
Finally, in future research, instruments preceded for
assignment to appropriate analysis groups could be used.
Such a procedure would preclude to some extent the loss of
data which occurred in the present study when respondents
failed to complete or incorrectly completed the personal
identification portions of the survey.

Given these modifications the instrument may con-
tinue to be a useful tool in the teacher preparation pro-
gram. It might also be used in the in-service training of

special education teachers and in working with regular

77

education teachers who are being asked to "mainstream" or
integrate mentally retarded students into their classes.

The instrument could serve as the basis for discussion of
needed competencies among principals, teacher-consultants

in special education, and classroom teachers.

Summary

In summary, in regard to each of the research
hypotheses and its alternative null hypothesis the follow-
ing was found:

Hypothesis 1: As amount of field experience increased
there were no significant differences among groups
of teacher candidates or between teacher candidates
and experienced teachers in their perceptions of
the importance of specific teaching competencies.
Therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected
(°‘ = .05).

Hypothesis 2: Differences among groups of teacher candi-
dates in their perceptions of their competence were
significant at the a = .05 level. Therefore, the
null hypothesis could be rejected. However, the
pattern of differences found did not support the
alternative research hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: Inspection of the data led to the
rejection of the null hypothesis that the standard
deviations of the competency self-ratings of the

five teacher candidate groups were equal. No

78

statistical test was employed. Again, the pattern
found did not support the alternative research
hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4: The three groups of COOperating teachers
differed significantly in their ratings of the
teacher candidates they supervised. Therefore,
the null hypothesis could be rejected. The differ-
ences were in the direction hypothesized in the
research hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5: Mean deviation scores of paired teacher
candidates and cooperating teachers differed sig-
nificantly. The null hypothesis could, therefore,
be rejected. However, the differences among the
three groups were accounted for by only one of the
seven areas of teaching competency; and the
direction of change did not support the research
hypothesis.

Hypothesis 6: Hours volunteered during college and
number of special education courses taken were
significantly related to teacher candidates' self-
ratings of achievement of teaching competency.
Therefore the null hypothesis could be rejected.
However, the correlations, though statistically
significant, were not of such magnitude as to have

major practical application.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

Overview

In this chapter the research study reported in the
preceding chapters is summarized briefly. Recommendations
based on the findings, limitations of the study and sug—
gestions for further research will be discussed.

In this research groups of students preparing to be
teachers of the mentally retarded at Michigan State Univer-
sity were surveyed. Subjects were grouped by the amount of
field experience in which they had participated. Group I
had no field experience; Group II, III and IV had increas-
ingly extensive field experiences; Group V were student
teachers.

The purposes of the study were to:

1. Identify the areas of teaching competency per-
ceived to be important by groups of teacher
candidates and to compare these with the per-
ceptions of teachers in the field.

2. Examine teacher candidates' self-ratings of
achievement of teaching competency across levels
of field experience.

79

80

Examine within-group similarity of self-ratings
across levels of field experience.

Examine evaluations of teacher candidates made

by cooperating teachers across levels of field
experience.

Compare teacher candidates' self—ratings with
cooperating teacher evaluations.

Relate teacher candidates' self-ratings to
selected variables other than level of field
experience.

It was found that:

As amount of field experience increased there were
no significant differences among groups of teacher
candidates or between teacher candidates and
experienced teachers in their perceptions of the
importance of specific teaching competencies.
Teacher candidates' self-ratings of achievement

of teaching competency rose across levels of field
experience with the exception of student teachers.
Their self-ratings were lower than those of the
group with the next highest amount of field
experience.

Similarity of self-ratings within groups of
teacher candidates increased across levels of field
experience when students with no field experience

were compared to those with increasing amounts of

81

field experience. However, the student teachers
again were the exception; their self-ratings were
the least homogeneous of any group.

4. Cooperating teachers considered teacher candidates
more competent as amount of field experience
increaSed.

5. When mean deviation scores of paired teacher
candidates and cooperating teachers were examined
it was found that teacher candidates' perceptions
of their achievement of teaching competency did
not become significantly more like those of their
c00perating teachers as amount of field work
increased.

6. Teacher candidates' self-ratings in all areas of
teaching competency were related at a low but
statistically significant level to hours of
volunteer work during college and special education

courses taken.

Limitations of the Study

 

The generalizability of this study is limited
because the population was comprised solely of students
from Michigan State University. Students enrolled in
teacher preparation programs at other colleges and univer—
sities may differ in the perceptions both of importance and

of achievement of specific teaching competencies.

82

In the ideal research world it would have been
possible to select a comparable group of students in a
training program with no field work component. However, no
such program was readily identifiable. Therefore no "con-
trol" group could be used.

Research such as the kind described here was
cross-sectional. Stronger, but more difficult to obtain,
results would likely come from a similar study in which a
group of incoming students were followed through their
four years of college.

The practical necessity of working with an already
existing group of subjects operated not only in regard to
the students but to the cooperating teachers as well. No
empirical evidence existed that the cooperating teachers
were themselves competent in the areas under consideration
or were able to evaluate adequately the students who were
assigned to them. Their competency had to be assumed as

a "given."

Suggestions for Further Research
The present research can be viewed as part of a
sequence of inquiry leading to the validation of a body of
specific teaching competencies for teachers of the mentally
impaired. The competencies thus validated may, in fact,
have broad practical application to teachers in other
areas of exceptionality and even to regular class teachers

who are increasingly being mandated to accommodate

83

handicapped students in their classes. Initially, Hoeksema
(1975) identified the specific teaching competencies under
discussion and attempted to establish their validity as
determined by practitioners in the field. The study
described here also attempted to establish their validity
but as determined by the consumers of a teacher education
program. The study was, in a broad sense, a program
evaluation study.

It remains for future researchers to apply these
validation studies to both undergraduate preparation

programs and to in-service training programs.

Undergraduate Preparation

 

In the area of recruitment, it would be valuable
to look at those students who were admitted to the special
education program in mental retardation but did not com-
plete it and to those students who participated in pre-
screening volunteer experiences and then chose not to
apply for admission to the program. Perhaps factors such
as grade point average, prior exposure to the mentally
retarded, and initial self-rating on an instrument such as
the one used in this study can, in fact, separate out
these groups from those who do complete the program.

In the undergraduate teacher education program
itself the primary research need is in the area of the
measurement of teacher candidates' competencies. The

present study used the admittedly crude measure of teacher

84

candidates' self-assessment and assessment by cooperating
teachers as indicative of the attainment of competencies.
More objective outcome measures should be devised and their
reliability and validity tested. The Optimum outcome
measure would be one which related attainment of specific
teaching competencies with measured pupil achievement and,
perhaps, pupil attitude. However, use of such an outcome
measure would be difficult because of the many uncontrolled
and uncontrollable factors which Operate when teacher can-
didates work directly with handicapped students. Measures
which are less direct than measures of pupil achievement
but still more objective than those used in the present
study are needed.

Secondly, modifications of the teacher preparation
program to provide more support and guidance to teacher
candidates at the student teaching level and more direct
relationship between development of specific teaching
competencies and the content of specific courses and field
experiences could form the basis of one or more future
research studies. In longitudinal studies it may be
possible to identify more accurately the pattern of change
in teacher candidates' attitudes and competencies over
time. However, the practical problems are great because
of the number of students who "drop out" of programs during

their college years and the number of those who transfer

 

 

 

I‘ll." .II I

I. ll... .3 1 I‘ll

85

into a program from another college, university or other
area of specialization.

In a third type of study candidates who have com-
pleted a teacher education program could be followed
through at least their first year of teaching to see what
relationship, if any, exists between their self-ratings of
competency as student teachers and their success on the

job.

In-service Training

 

At the same time that a body of specific teaching
competencies is identified, validated, and imparted to
teacher candidates that same body can and should be used
experimentally as the basis of in-service training for
teachers already practicing. Hoeksema (1975) found that
teachers in the field identified certain competencies as
those in which they needed additional training. In the
present study student teachers, next September's neophytes,
rated themselves as less than totally competent in all
areas of teaching skill. Both of these findings point to
the need for in-service training that is directed toward
practitioners' felt needs and also validated through the
use of objective outcome measures.

Finally, the survey instrument used in this study
should be evaluated by further research to determine its
applicability as a gross evaluatory tool in teacher train-
ing programs and in the ongoing assessment of practitioners

in the classroom.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

The accreditation of basic and advanced_preparation

programs for professional sghool personnel.
Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 1971.

Anderson, D. S. New patterns of teacher_education and
tasks. Paris: OrgafiizatIOn fbr Economic COOpera-
tion and Development, 1974.

Anderson, R., and Hemenway, R. Pre-student teaching
practicum with exceptional children: a program
description. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, vol. 9, no.53, October, 1974,
152-157}

 

Barnett, D. C. The emergence of new concepts for teacher-
education field experience. Interchange, vol. 6,
no. 1' 1975' 44-480

 

Belcastro, F. P. Use of selected factors as predictors of
success in completing a secondary teacher prepara-
tion program. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, vol. 35, no. 4, Winter, 19 5, 957-962.

 

Blackwell, R. R. Study of effective and ineffective
teachers of the trainable mentally retarded.
Exceptional Children, vol. 39, no. 2, October,
1972, 139-143.

Brim, B. J. Attitude changes in teacher education stu-
dents. Journal of Educational Research, vol. 59,
no. 10, July-August, 1966, 441-445.

Bruce, M. H., and Miller, H. B. PBTE as a research
vehicle: a way out of the forest. Science
Education, vol. 60, no. 1, 1976, 69-83.

Bullock, L. M., Dykes, M. K., and Kelly, T. J. Competency
based teacher preparation in behavioral disorders.
Exceptional Children, vol. 41, November, 1974,
1924194}

86

r

87

Butcher, H. J. The attitudes of student teachers to edu-
cation: a comparison with the attitudes of experi-
enced teachers and a study of changes during the
training course. British Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, vol. 4, pt. 1, February,

Campbell, Donald. Dimensional attitude changes of student
teachers. The Journal of Education Research,
vol. 61, no. 4) December, 1967, 160-162.

 

 

Carr, D. B. Symposium: strategies, models and ideas for
action in western colleges and universities. In
J. A. Bradshaw et al. (eds.), Continguity and
continuity in general and special education.
Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission
for Higher Education, 1972, 53-72.

 

 

Christiansen, Ted. An integrated undergraduate program

 

 

in mental retardation. Education and Training of v
the Mentally Retarded, v61. 6, no. 2, April, 1971,
67F69.

Clarke, S. C. T. Designs for programs of teacher education. ,
In B. O. Smith (ed.), Research in teacher education.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971, 119-157.

 

Cooper, James, and Sadker, David. Current trends in teacher
education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education,
vol. 23, no. 3, Fall, 1972, 312-317?

 

Council for Exceptional Children. Guidelines for personnel
in the education of exceptional children. Reston,
Virginia: CBC, 1976.

 

 

Cronbach, L. J. Course improvement through evaluation.
Teachers College Record, vol. 64, 1963, 672-683.

 

Davis, R., Alexander, L., and Yelon, S. Learning System
Desi n. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1974.

 

Day, H. P. Attitude changes of beginning teachers after
initial teaching experience. Journal ofiTeacher
Education, vol. 10, no. 3, September, 1959,4326-328.

 

 

Deines, Jack. The Winnipeg center project: teacher edu-
cation for inner-city people. Interchange, vol. 4,
no. 2/3, 1973, 106-110.

 

88

Deneen, James. Recruitment, selection and retention. In ./
N. L. Gage (ed.), National cgnference on studies
in teachin . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute
of Education, 1975.

 

Dreeben, Robert. The nature of teachin . Glenview, 111.:
Scott, Foresman and9Company, l9 0.

 

Dutton, Wilbur. Attitude changes of elementary student
teachers and anxiety. Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 55, no. 8, May, 1962, 380-382.

 

Dykes, M. K. Competency needs of special educators of
crippled and other health-impaired children. ’
Journal of Special Education, vol. 9, no. 4, 1975,
367-374. '

 

Eddy, Elizabeth. Becoming a teacher. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1969.

 

Edgar, Eugene, and Neel, R. S. Results of a competency *
based teacher-training program. Exceptional
Children, vol. 43, no. 1, September, 1976, 33-35.

 

Emanuel, Jane, Larimore, David, and Sagan, Edgar. The
relation of selected academic program variables

to student teaching performance. Contem orar ,
Education, vol. 46, no. 4, Summer, I975, 245-248.

 

Errington, Garth. An analysis of certain factors leading
to the predictability of success and failure in
elementary student teachers. Unpublished disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1970.

Evaluatiegtrainigg consortium workshop. Evaluation
Training Consortium. Washington: Division of ,
Personnel Preparation, Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, 1975.

Fantini, Mario. Patterns for reform in American teacher
education. Interchanggn vol. 4, no. 2/3, 1973,
28-390

 

Fifield, M. G. et a1. Symposium: strategies, models and
ideas for action in western colleges and univer-
sities. In J. A. Bradshaw et al. (eds.), Con-
tinguity and continuity in general and speEiEl
education. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education, 1972, 81.

 

89

Freeman, Jeanne, and Davis, 0. L., Jr. Relationships of
self-concept and teaching behaviors of secondary
teacher candidates in micro-teaching. Contemporary
Education, vol. 46, no. 3, Spring, 1975, 215-220.

 

Garrett, C. S. The relationship of teacher-trainee char-
acteristics, classroom process variables, and EMR
pupil learning to special education teacher
traineesriteaching ability. Bloomington, Indiana:
Center fOr InnovatiOn in Teaching the Handicapped,
Indiana University, 1973.

 

 

 

Gaudia, Gil. Some thoughts before embarking on a field-
centered competency-based intern program. Peabody
Journal of Education, vol. 52, no. 4, July, 1975,
284-289.

 

Goddard, H. H. School training of defective children. .
New York: World Book Company, 1923.

Groff, Patrick. Self- estimates of teaching ability in
elementary school subjects. Journal of Teacher
Education, vol. 13, December, I96 2, 417-421.

K

 

 

Grotelueschen, A. D., and Gooler, D. D. Evaluation in
curriculum develOpment. In Joel Weiss (ed.),
Curriculum Theory Network Monograph Supplement.
Curriculum Evaluation: Potentiality and Reality.
Toronto: Ontario InstituteTIOr Studies in Educa-
tion, 1972, 7- 21.

Hafemeister, N. R. A professional practicum at the junior
year. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, vol. 2, no. 1, February, 1967, 38- 40.

Hoeksema, T. B. The development of teaching competencies:
a study of teachers of the mentally impaired.
Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University,
1975.

Hoover, K. H. et al. A comparison of expressed teaching
strengths before and after student teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 16, no. 3,
September, 1965, 324-328.

Houston, W. R., and Jones, H. L. Three views of competeney-
based teacher education: II UniverSIty of Houston.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation, 1974.

90

Johnson, James, and Radebaugh, Byron. Excellent teachers.

Joyce, Bruce, Soltis, Jonas, and Weil, Marsha.

Kelley,

Kemble,

Clearing House, vol. 44, November, 1969, 152-155.

 

Performance-

 

based teacher education design alternatives: the
concept 6f unity. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
1974.

 

Edgar. Three views of competency-based education:
III Univereity of Nebraska. Bloomington, Indiana:
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1974.

 

 

Eugenia, and McKenna, Bernard. PBTE: viewpoint of

 

two teacher organizatione. Washington, D.C.:
AmeriCan AssoCiatibn Of Colleges for Teacher
Education, 1975.

 

Kerlinger, F. N., and Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression

Lantz,

Larson ,

Lortie,

D. L.

 

in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1973.

 

 

no. 2, June, 1964,5200-203.

Keith et a1. Symposium: discontinuity in general/

special education. In J. A. Bradshaw et al. (eds.),

Continggity and continuity in general and special
education. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate
CommisSiOn for Higher Education, 1972, 53-72.

 

D. C. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1975.

 

Meisgeier, Charles. The identification of successful

Meyen,

Meyen,

teachers of mentally or physically handicapped

children. Exceptional Children, vol. 32, December,

 

1965, 229-235.

E. L. Practicum variety and selectivity. In
Council for Exceptional Children, Selected convention

Changes in student teachers' concepts of self
and others. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 15,

 

pepers: proceedings of the anneal international
convention of the Council for Exceptional Children
(47th, Denver, Colorado, April 6-12, 1969).
Arlington, Virginia: CEC, 1969, 190-192.

E. L., and Altman, Reuben. Individualizing instruc-

tion for pre-service teachers: an applicable com-

petency based training model. Focus on Exceptional

 

Children, vol. 5, no. 1, March, 1973,5i-9.

I

91

Minkoff, Jack, and Sellin, Donald. College juniors'
reactions to tutoring adolescent trainable retarded
students. Education and Training ogythe Mentally
Retarded, vol. 8, no. 3, October, 1973, 146-149.

 

Moore, W. E. Occupational socialization. In D. A. Goslin
(ed.), Handpook of socialization theory and
research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company,

1969, 861-883.

Nagle, L. M. Some effects of student teaching patterns
upon professional attitudes. Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 52, no. 9, May,’1959, 355-357.

 

National Association for Retarded Citizens. Teacher
preperation and certification: position statement
and recommendation. Arlington, Texas: NARC, 1973.

 

 

Newell, Laura. The evaluation component of a personalized
teacher education program. Edngational Technology,
vol. 26, no. 1, January, 1976, 54-56.

 

Newsome, G. L., Jr., Gentry, H. W., and Stephens, L. D.
Changes in consistency of educational ideas
attributable to student-teaching experiences.
Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 16, no. 3,
September, 1965, 319-323.

 

Olson, J. L., and Hahn, H. R. One approach to preparing
teachers of the mentally retarded. Hi h School v”
Journal, vol. 48, no. 3, December, 1964, I9I-I97.

Owens, Kaye. Projected TRR teacher competencies: Colorado
community center survey. Colorado Journal of
Educational Research, vol.512, no. 4, Summer,
1973, 24-27. '

’

 

 

Parker, Reese. Weber State College evaluates IPTE after .r
three years. Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 55, no. 5,
January, 1974, 320-324.

 

Petrusich, M. M. Separation anxiety as a factor in the
student teaching experience. Peabody Jeurnal of
Education, vol. 44, no. 6, May, 1967, 353-356.

 

 

Provus, M. M. Evaluation of ongoing programs in the public
school system. In R. W. Taylor (ed.), Educational
evaluation: new roles, new means. The 68th Year-
book of the Nationel Society for the Stndy of
EdGCatiOn, Part II. Chicago: Nationa1980ci6ty for
the Study of Education, 1969, 242-283.

 

 

92

Reid, William, Reid, Barbara, Whorton, James, and Reichard,
Gary. An experimental special education program
for college freshmen. Journal of Special Education,
vol. 6, no. 2, Summer, 1972, 127-133.

 

Reitman, Sanford. An alternative field work model for
prospective teachers. Interchange, vol. 4, no. 2/3,
1973, 61-78.

 

Repicky, P. A., and Harty, Harold. Evaluation design
elements for an early field-based experience in
science education for pre-service teachers.

Science Education, vol. 59, no. 4, October-December,
1975, 531-537.

Rosencranz, H. A., and Biddle, B. J. The role approach to
teacher competence. In B. J. Biddle and W. J.
Ellena (eds.), Contemporar reseerch on teacher
effectiveness. New York: Ho t, Rinehart and
Winston, 1964, 232-264.

 

 

Sandefur, J. T. Kansas State Teachers College experimental
study of professional education for secondary ,,
teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 21,
no. 3, Fall, 1970, 386-395.

 

Schalock, H. D. Performance based, field centered and
personalized teacher education: an overview.
Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research, a Division of
the Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1972,
mimeo.

 

 

Scott, Owen, and Brinkley, Sterling. Attitude changes of
student teachers and the validity of the Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, vol. 51, no. 2, April, 1960, 76-81.

 

 

Sellin, Donald. A strategy for the evaluation of a teacher
preparation program in mental retardation.
Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,
vol. 2, no. 2, April, 1967, 79-85.

.1;

 

Shane, D. G. Introductory experiences with handicapped
children. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, VOTE 5, no. 2, April, 1970, 87-90.

 

Shearron, G. F., and Johnson, C. E. A CBTE program in
action: University of Georgia. Journal of Teacher
Education, vol. 24, no. 3, Fall, 1973, 187-193.

I

 

 

93

Smith, C. L. Personality and attitudinal shift under a
simulated teaching experience. ImprovinggCollege

and University Teaching, vol. 23, no. 4. Autumn,
' - o

Sorenson, Garth, and Halpert, Ruth. Stress in student
teaching. California Journal of Educational
Research, vol. 19, no. 1, January, 1968) 28-33.

 

 

Stake, R. E. The countenance of educational evaluation.
Teachers College Record, vol. 68, no. 7, April,
1967, 523-540.

 

Thomas, A. K., and Kay, Patricia. Determining priorities
among competencies: judgments of classroom teachers
and supervisors. In W. R. Houston (ed.), Exploring
competency-based education. Berkeley, California:
McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974.

 

 

Thompson, M. L. Identifying anxieties experienced by
student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,
vol. 14, no. 4, December, 1963, 435-439.

 

Travers, Robert, Rabinowitz, William, and Nemovicher, E.
The anxieties of a group of student teachers.
Educational Administration apd Supervision, vol. 38,
no. 6, October, 1952, 368-375.

 

Triplett, DeWayne. Student teachers rank their needs.
Michigan Education Journal, vol. 45, no. 10,
November, 1967, 13-14.

 

Turner, Richard. Teaching as skill performance. In N. L.
Gage (ed.), National conference‘of studies on
teachin . WaShington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute
of Education, 1975.

/

 

. Rationale for competency-based teacher education
and certification. In B. Rosner et al. (eds.), /
The power of compepency-bgsed teacher education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972.

 

Walberg, H. J. Personality-role conflict and self-
conception in urban practice teachers. School
Review, vol. 76, no. 1, March, 1968, 41-49.

Wilk, Roger, and Cook, W. W. A study of factors operative
in the selective retention of students in teacher

education. Minneapolis: University ofiuinnesota,
1963.

 

 

 

94

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Recommendation
of the state superintendent's commission for the
study of teacher education and certification.
Madison:;The Wisconsin Department of:Public
Instruction, n.d.

 

 

 

Wood, Paula. A study of the competency self-ratings and
related program variables of 1974-1975 graduates
in the field of emotional impairment in the state
of Michigan. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1976.

Wright, Benjamin, and Tuska, Shirley. From dream to life
in the psychology of being a teacher. School
Review, vol. 76, no. 3, September, 1968, 253-293.

Yee, Albert, and Fruchter, Benjamin. Factor content of
the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. American
Educational Research Journal, vol. 8, January,
1971, 119-133.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STUDENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX A

STUDENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

A Survey of Students Prepgring to be
Teachers of the Mentally Impaired

 

 

The purpose of this survey is to gather information
about your perceptions of the competencies necessary for
teachers of the mentally impaired. Your responses are
significant in the continuing effort to improve teacher
training programs. Information about your background is
also helpful in describing students who intend to be
teachers of the mentally impaired. Your cooperation in
completing the survey is greatly appreciated.

Gabrielle Kowalski

350 Erickson Hall

College of Education
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824
(355-4545)

Please fill in your name below. This will enable
us to keep track of who has returned the survey. Your
name will be detached from the survey as soon as it is

received to insure your anonymity.

NAME:

 

Ifi

Last irst Maiden

95

96

Part I. Personal Data

1. Age 2. Sex: Male

 

Female

 

3. Contact with the mentally impaired: please check the
statements which apply to you.
a. I am related to a mentally retarded person.

b. I have a friend(s) who is related to a
mentally retarded person.

c. A mentally retarded person lives in my
neighborhood.

d. The grade and/or high school I attended
had a special class for the mentally
retarded.

e. I know a teacher of the mentally retarded.

f. Before I started college I did volunteer
and/or paid work with the mentally retarded.

If so, for how many years?
Approximate total number of hours.

9. Since I have been in college I have done
volunteer and/or paid work with the
mentally retarded.

If so, for how many years?
Approximate total number of hours.

h. Since I have been in college I have taken

lab/field courses in exceptional education

(include courses taken this term).

If so, check those taken (including this
term).

Sophomore level field experience w/mentally
retarded

Junior level "core" field experience

S.
6.

97

Senior level "mr block" field experience
Student teaching w/mentally retarded
Indicate the total number of special education
courses other than lab/field you have taken
(include courses taken this term).
List your college grade point average.

List your high school grade point average.

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mauom vowmwusmcw
m v m N a m v m N a on ouaaumoummd acoucoo ocfiuooaom .m
m N m .GONuusMumcw
v m H c m N H mo mafia: camaoomm How mamom usauooamm .v
.udoh on»
m v m N a m v m N A non madam mo ouconvon on» mcwuwgumuo .m
.udoa can
m w m N H m v m N a you «doom HosowuosuumsfiVmcwumasauom .N
.mucovaum no msuuum wanna concomwo on»
m e m N a m e n m H «5603 35 9.3 and? 336 ufiuuom A
cowuosuumcu msdccmdm
Hoot among umoz ummoq
Banzmmmmmd mama Nozmammzou mo muzcamomzH m «am
m ZIDHOO ¢ szqou

 

 

 

 

.d cabaoo huco was- .nfiadoo vacuum can ouosmw omnmdm "myoz

:.m: new gas com3uon ouogzmaom

Maniac a odouwo an: no» .ucouuomaw umoa ouo sowg3 omocu How gm: odouflo «usmuuomaw pumma mum sows:
anon» you :a: odouwu .vouwnmaw haamusua on» no nonvmou o>wuoomaoum n am so» on ma honoucgaoo pun»
ucuuuomaw so: on mcwcnoooa soaon ucoamumum sumo ovum .muonuo can» Hmwusmmmo whoa mum .Ho>mzon .oaom
.vouwngad Madmusua 0:» mo muonouou now usouuomaw on on oo>owaon cud soaon woumwa mowocouomloo ANN .d

QflMH¢m2H MHA‘HZM! NIB MO mmmmudfla MOE wwHUZMBHAZOU QMBUBHMm

HH HM‘fi

99

 

.msuuum «.oHHzo a mcwmnuuuo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m e m N H m m N H you mummy Huauoucw GOHuosHumsou .mH

HOH>nsom mcHuusHu>m can ochmmmm<

m e m N H m m N H .uHmHuouna so: osHuuchHuo .vH
.nusopaum no homo: OHMHoomu uoofl

m c m N H m n N H on anm mcHnonou HuHouuaaoo mcHhmHoo: .NH
.anou HdsoHuosHuucH

m v m N H m m N H on oDMHumoummd «HMHHouua msHuch .NH
.ucoauoH

m e n N H m m N H NHHMG mo oocosuom any msHNchouo .HH
.ncOmuOH OHNHoomu

m v m N H m m N H you muonuua Ha:0HuosHuwcH msHuoozu .oH
.onmHoo on onEHm

m e m N H m m N H .aoum madam HHaau ousH mxuau ocdeoum .m

m e n N H m N N H £03259: SHNHHSBSHHEH .m

m e n N H m m N H 69,3830 6336 333333 3383 . N

m e N N H m N N H afiHm .833 cauuHuz ocHuomwum .m

umoz anus “no: Hana

anzmmmmm< hflmm
m ZZSHOO

 

uUZMHHAZOU ho NUZflHMOAEH

d ZZDQOU

 

MBZMZHBEHM NUZMBMAIOU

 

100

 

.mUHOHmoo muomcom nqu couvHHno

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m v m N H m m N H How souoummm unencumlHuHsa_u msHmD .NN
m v m N H m m N H .ucoamano HmamH>I0Hu§n mcHumuomo .NN

.soHvHHgo
m v m N H m m N H on umoHo axon» mcHsuuoH mcmez .HN
:0HuosuumcH mcHuonvcoo

.coHuosuumsH mo muaoouso
m v n N H m m N H can MNHH0> on mugoosum ucHumoqumom .oN

.mowuwawvom uchuooH OHMHoomo

m v m N H m m N H HON unocHoaou acocflum osHluouov ou
uonoumuum acmaumoumuoum uso msHmuudO .NH

.souvHHso

you mcuHm HucoHuuonuo usHmoHo>mu

m c m N H m m N H cH :MHUHumosmoHc a an nonouanHafio
mummy Hmauom aouu mama mswuoumuousn .mH

.soucHHno new usuHm HuGOHuuosco

m v m N H m m N H moHo>ou on mummy couuuchHafla
Iuonoomu mo muHsnou «nu maHmc .NH

.mumou
m v m N H m m N H pounmoum hHHmHouwaaoo wcHumuchHafim .oH

HMO! puns HMO! “was

Haulwwmmmd hflmm
m 225300

 

HUZMBMAIOU mo HUZEHMOQZH

d ZZDQOO

 

mBZHZMBEHm NUZMHHASOO

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m v m N H m m N H .HoH>mnwa oHnuumuoomss mcHHnsmm .Nm
.mcHsumoH oumuHHHoou on aooummMHo

m e m N H m m N H may cH amoum HMUHuNgm on» mchsmuud .Hm
.musoosum ou HmoHo

m w n N H m m N H mousvoooum can m0Hsu aboummuHo madez .om

acmawmmcuz aboummMHo
.mucopnum mcwuobHuoa

n v N N H m m N H Mom avenue! mo NuoHumb a msHma .mN
.mchHnoH

N v N N H m N N H 9386 wHHmaH 3 x0388 SHEEN .NN

N v N N H m N N H $33583 838338. 3923 9:3 .NN
.hHmsoosoquaHm mononucoo

N v N N H m N N H 33333 298qu 9.3802086 .oN
.moHuH>HHOd

n v m N H m m N H mchuaoH macho oanH mcHuonucoo .mN
.mo>Huoonno cOHMHucmpH :uHs unoumHmcoo

m ¢ m N H m m N H m.“ Hg HHOHUOEMGH UHHO gflag .wfl

3.0: H33 Hue: 33H

BZHmeNwmd hflflm
m ZZDQOU

 

MUZHBHAIOU m0 MUZ¢HMOQZH

d BlfiQOU

 

mBZMlNHCBm NUZHBHASOU

 

102

 

.nvooa m.smHvHHso

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m c m N H m m N H on mchuooou H0H>unon use» mcHuunnud .oq
.mmHnmcoHuoHou
m c N N H m m N H HnsonuomuoucH o>Hunuomooo ochuHsoocm .mm
.muonuo
m v m N H m m N H No mmcHHoom can .mouauHuum .mmaHub
on» no churn «Bacon mucousum mchHom .NN
.mmcwHoou can mopsuHuum
.moaHm> Hmconumm mo :oHumoumxo
m w m N H m m N H can nuocoumsu on» ouoaoum AOHni
333.308 HucoHuonuuucH mcHusmameaH . NN
.cHuaov 0>Huoommm
m v m N H m m N H 0:» GH mHHmnm MON nHoom uchoH0>on .mm
auHHsunz HocOHuoauuHMHoom acHumuHHHoom
m v m N H m N N H .uoommou ucuvsum mchHmusHuz .mm
.upounon HHmym omsuzo on
m v m N H m m N H nucoanawcsm ho noudrmu ucwuouchfiaua .cm
.unno sumo
m v m N H m m N H you NCHvasmu mH was: mchfiauouwn .NN
uuoz unouq umoz Hanan

azuzmmflmmfl hflflm
m ZSEHOU

 

NUZMHflAIOU m0 flUZdHMOflZH

1 225800

 

maznlflhtam Hozmsmmloo

 

.103

 

.muonomou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m c m N H m m N H Hanna scum auHoHuHuo msHHpcmm .om
N N N N H N N N H 2033898 PHmmHocHum on» 9:35. .NN
.oanomou H30» «0
m v m N H m m N H mcoHuu>homno .muoumuuchHauu mcHHucu: .mv
N v m N H m N N H .muonomou Honuo hoax ou msHuuoo .Nq
.Hoosom onu uonuso moHocoou
m v m N H m m N H sown mucousum Mom mHoa mconom .mv
.mucpm
N v m N H m m N H Macao aouu muouH Ho mHon Mom ocqud .mv
mHmconmououm uwnuo nqu coHHMHom can mcHHmoo
N H. N N H N N N H 680335 N 33320 23988 . 3
N v m N H m m N H .mm>Homamnu phonon smuvHHno osHmHom .Nw
.vooumuooss cum musHHoou uHonu
m v m N H m m N H van» coHUHHno on mcHuaowsslaoU .NN
.NHsamo can
m w m N H m m N H NHumoson mmcHHmou Hoax msHmmonxo
an Hones obHuoomun an an usHuod .Hv
umoz unwed umoz wanna

Haulmmflmmd hflflm
m zzagoo

 

uUZMBflmlOO ho MUZ‘HMOQSH

d ZZQHOO

 

mBZMZMH¢Hm NUZMHMASOO

 

104

 

.mucouom Baum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N H. N N H N N N H NH Bo on... 33... 539385 2282.0 .NN
.3oH> mo usHom uHosu mchom
m v m N H m m N H No Hoom on» AUHD mucouum on @sHsoumHH .mm
.moocouousoo usouom :H mocmuHsm
m v m N H m m N H can msHsmH>uoucH .ocHHomsnoo
mo monHocHum ooumooou mchD .Nm
N v N N H N N N H .NauHoHuHuo €33 53 maHHnoo .NN
.nusoudm.nuH3 mumOHcdaaoo
m v m N H m m N H on muonuoa_uo NuoHHm> a mcha .mm
mucuuwm nqu mswxuos
.muonouou
m ¢ m N H m m N H aooummuHo ustmou :uHs mcHuHancou .vm
.omsouuo Hmcomuom mcquu
n v m N H m m N H usonuHs chHcho usououuHu mcHuuuoHoa .Nm
N v m N H m m N H .mo>HuoouHc 0>HuuuuchHauu mcHsoHHom .Nm
N v m N H m m N H .moch Honouou cth ocquos .Hm
umos ummmn uno: unnoq

Ezmzmmummd hflflm
m ZZDQOU

 

wuzmhflmzoo ho MUZ¢HmOAZH

fl zzafloo

 

mazmzmaflfim wUZMBMAZOO

 

105

 

. 38: an. 5.635

 

 

 

 

 

m v m N H m m N H uHonu 20H: Hump ou musmumm wchHom .mm
.adumoum Hoonom on» No uuommsm ou vmoH

m v m N H m m N H 50Hn3 man? :H Madonna 0» mchcomnmm .Nm
.coHcHHnu on monumoummm

N v m N H m m N H Hoonom can 036: mcHumchuooo .Hm
.pHHno
n v m N H m m N H HHonu How mchcmHm HmcoHumosuo on»

A :H :oHuumHoHuumm ucoumm ocHumHch .oo

umo: ummmq umoz umuuq

BZMmeflmm¢ hflflm
0 220900

 

MUZHBHNIOO 20 m02¢am0m2H

t 220H00

 

mazmzwhflfim NUZMBHQZOO

 

106

B. As an undergraduate student in special education you
participate in the process of increasing your competence
as a teacher of the mentally impaired. In some areas you
may need little or no improvement while in others you may
be very eager to improve your skill. Please respond to
each of the competency statements on the preceding pages
according to the following scale:
1--I have not developed this competency at this time.
2--I am beginning to develop this competency; I need
a good deal of direction.
3--I am about as competent as a teacher aide; I need
some direction.
4--I am about as competent as a beginning teacher; I
can function independently.
5--I am about as competent as an experienced teacher.
Return to page 3 and complete Column B by circling the

appropriate responses.

APPENDIX B

COOPERATING TEACHER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX B

COOPERATING TEACHER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

A Survey of Cooperating Teachers of
Students Preparing tgbe Teachers
of the Mentallinmpaired

 

 

 

The purpose of this survey is to gather information
about your perceptions of the teaching competence of
special education students you supervise. Your responses
are significant in the continuing effort to improve teacher
training programs. They will not be associated with
individual students and will have no bearing on student
grades. Your cooperation in completing this survey is
greatly appreciated.

Gabrielle Kowalski

350 Erickson Hall

College of Education
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824
(355-4545)

Please fill in the information requested below.
This will enable us to keep track of who has returned the
survey. It will be detached from the survey to insure

your anonymity.

107

108

NAME:

 

(Last) (First)
1. The student I am supervising is a
sophomore
junior

senior

 

2. He/she is taking

sophomore level field experience w/mentally
retarded

senior level field experience/"MR block"

student teaching

109

 

m v m N H .Huoa may you mHuom mo oocosvon 0:0.msHuchmao .n

 

m v m N H .Hmoa on» How mHuom anoHuosHumcH msHuoHnauom .N

 

.uucopsum mo msuuum uHaQu
paucomxm on» unsound oucH oxuu :OHns mHmou mcHuuom .H

soHuosuumsH mcHsanm

 

 

vac! umeH
mfizmxflhdam N02flhflm200
NUZMBHAEOU $0 Ezflxmmflmm¢

 

 

.uomcommou ouMHumoammn any msHHouHo NA >o>usu on» oungaoo
.Honomou voocoHuomxo an no acouomaoo mm usonm mHnlm
.NHucoocomousH coHuocnm coo Hmonoaou mcHssHuon a no acouomaoo mm usonu mHIIv
.coHuoouHc neon @600: NocHn Magnum» a no ucouomsoo an usoau mHIIm
.:0HuoouHc mo Hump 0000 m «woos «mucouogloo mHAu moHo>ou ou NCHcsHmon mHIIN
.oaHu mHnu um monouomioo mng oomoHo>ov uo: muSIIH
"msHmH>Mom5m so: who 50% acopsum as» ou
moHHmmd oHcom mcHonHON on» 30H£3 :H mm: on» on mchuooon soHon manuauuaum accouwgaoo «nu mo zoom
on ncommou ammon .HHme uHonu o>oumEH cu poo: hue hos» muonuo :H oHng acoam>oumBH o: no uHuuHH
000: was was» mmoud meow :H .vouHumaH NHHuucaa and mo muonoomu mm oocwuomfloo HHmau mchmouosH
mo mmoooum Hascnuu m cH oucmHoHuumm GOHuoosvo HoHoomm :H musovaum mumscnumuovsa .ooanmEH
NHHuucoa on» no unusomou you usduuomaH on on co>oHHon mum onon coumHH moHosouomEoo HH<

QMMHQNZH NAH‘HZM! HEB m0 mm020dflfi 20h mMHUZMBMAZOU QMBUQHNm

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m e N N H .mHMHuouua so: mcHuucHuHuo .vH
M m N N N .mucovsum mo ovoo: oHuHoomm
m H Home on mpHn 053060» HnHoumaloo 95%qu .NH
F
w m e N N .an0m
1 H HucOHuosuvmcH ou ouoHumoummd mHuHuouda mcHuaHm .NH
m m e N N H .mcommoH NHHno mo mucosvom on» mcHuHsmoao .HH
.m:0muoH
N v N N H UHNHoomm Hon «panama HucOHuosuumcH mchooau .oH
.memEOo
« m e N N H ou onaHm scum macaw HHuBm oucH mxmo» mcdeoum .m
N H. N N H £338.33 NNHNHHQHVHHBH .N
m c N N H .mo>Huoonno counum NHHnuowbmnoa msHtuz .N
n v N N H .mcuHm connoH souuHH3 mcHudmonm .m
N v N N H .mHuom ponHusocH on oumHumoummd acoucoo mcHuooHom .m
N v N N H .coHuonuumsH mo muHcs OHMHoomn you mHuom mcHuooHom .v
to: ”.23

 

N02flaflm200 20 Bzmzmmflmmfl

 

m82fl2flaflam M02MBflm200

 

111

 

--fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N v N N H .ucuamHsvo HmsmH>noHvsm usHumuomO .NN
N v N N H .coHcHHso ou HmoHo mxmuu mchumoH mcHxnz .HN
coHuosuumcH mcHuosncou

N v N N H £338.35
mo moaoouao onu NwHuo> on mucousum msHumounumom .ON

.moHuH>Huom mcHsumoH

m ¢ N N H OHNHoomm HON mmosHooou ucovsum ocHahouov
ou monoumuum usoaumomuooum use msHNHuuo .NH

.gmuvHHno How mGMHm

m e N N H HucOHumoauo mchoHo>oo :H suHoHumocmmHu u an
m wououmHsHafifl mummy Huauom scum dump mcHuoumuoucH .NH

N

N v N N m .cwupHHso How mcmHm HmsoHumosvo mon>ov on

H M mama» cououmHsHafluluonouou mo mUHsmou may mchD .NH
_

N v N N H .wuumu oounmoum aHHMHoumano osHuouchwaua .oH

.msumum m.cHHno
m V N N H m msHmmommu How mummy HmauomcH mcHuosuumcoo .NH
HOH>mnom wsHumsHm>m can mchmomma

umoz ummoq

N02MBQA200 b0 Ezmzmmmmmfl

 

mfizmzmaflfim w02maflm200

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N v N N H .uoH>nson oHndumoooucs msHHusda .NN
m e N N H .mchuuoH ouuuHHHonm
o» aoouumnHo on» sH madam HooHuhsm on» msHmcduH< .HN
m e N N H .mucovnuu
ou uuoHo monsooooum can uoHsu.BooummnHo mcdez .ON
acoaoodcdz.aoouuNMHu
m c N N .musooauu
H ocHud>HuoE Mom noonuoa no NuoHuu>.u deuD .NN
N N N N H .NchucoH ucHunc NHHmaa o» xounkuu mchH>ouN .NN
N e N N H .mmschnomu coHuooHNHNoa uoH>asmn ucHua .NN
N .hHmsoocHUHsaHu
N v N H vouoaucoo moHuH>Huou acouommHv maHNHcounosam .oN
m c N N H .uoHuH>Huom mchunoH macho odeH mcHuoaocoo .mN
N v N N H . 333630 33353 5?
acoumHmsoo mH awn» cOHuosuuucH uso usHauuuo .vN
.muHOHuop whomsom nqu
m e N N H coucHHno HON nouoummd muomsomuHana m mcHuD .NN
umoz unmoq

M02MHHm200 ho fizflzmmflmmd

 

m82fl2flh¢9m N02M9flm200

 

113

 

.NHcomo can NHumosos mucHHoom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
N v N N H _ Mao» ochmoumxo an H0005 o>Huoommo an no mcHuo< .Hv
.uoooa
N v N N H » .
m.:oucHH:o ou mchuoooo uoH>unoa Hoax vcHumsnnd oc
m e N N H .ananOHuoHou
HucoauomuoucH o>Huuuomooo mchuuaoocu .NN
.uuonuo mo mmcHHoom new .mocauHuua
N v N N H .uosHm> on» no ounzm «Bacon musoofium msHmHmm .NN
.uocHHowu can mousuHuuu .uoaHm> Husonuom
m N N N H No :oHumuumxo can anacoudsu 05 ouoaoum
AOHss mmHuH>Huom HMdOHuosuumcH msHusoamHmaH .NN
.chaov
N v N N H 0>Huoomum may cH mHHmsm you «Huom mchoHo>oo .oN
NuHusuuz HMGOHuoaflIHuHoom ocHumuHHHodm
n v N N H .uoomnou usonsum mchHuustz .NN
.HOH>uson HHmsm
N v N N H «mango on mucoaancsm Ho mvuazou mcHuoumHsdfiua .vN
m e N N H . .oHHno sumo Mow mcHUHmzou mH Hug: mcHnHaHouoo .NN
umoz Human

MUZMBMAIOO $0 Ezflzwmflmmd

 

mBZNZMBEHm H02MHMA200

 

114

 

.omsomuo Hmcomumm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N v N N H W mcquu usonuHs mGOHcho acoH0MMHp msHumuoHoa .Nm

N v N N H M .mo>HuoouHc o>HumuuchHaua mcHsoHHom .Nm

N H. N N H I. .33... “£33 5? 9.382 .HN

N v N N H l. .2383 3.30 Sun 38306 NEHHHESH .8

N v N N H .NGOHumuoomxo m.HomHocHum on» mcHsocM .me
.mswsouou

N v N N H u=ON mo :oHum>Homno .muoumuuuHsHaua mcHHusnm .me

N v N N H .muosumou Macao sosx o» mcHuuoO .Nv
.Hoosou osu

n v N N H ouHmuno mOHosomo Bonn mucovaum How mHmA mconom .m¢

N v N N H .336 umfio and 283 no .HHE now 933 .NN

deconmmmoum Hosuo :uHs msHunHum can mcHHmon

N H. N N H 60865965 N 33330 9.3038 . 3

N H. N N H 663355 383 :3ng 9:33 .NN
.vooumuouss mum

m e N N H mucHHoou uHonu was» :oHvHHno ou mcHucOHcsaaoO .N¢

anal ummmfl

u02flfimm200 mo Hzmzmmmmmd

 

mazmzmfiflfim M02MBHA200

 

115

 

.oaos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N v N N H an coucHHAo uHonu :uHD Hump on mucouum ochHom .No
.auumoum Hoonou as» no “Hogmam

m N N N H on UMOH £0Hn3 mam: cw mucouum on ucwuaommom .Nw
N v N N H .coHcHHsv

on monouoummd Hoonom and «no: mcHunsHvHoou .H@
n v N N H .vHHso HHonu How mcHsdde

HusoHuuosbo on» sH cOHuomHOHuumm usoudm msHumHch .oo

N v N N H .mucouom 3.6 320 23 ~88» 832585 93:38 .NN
.3mH> no usHom uHosu

N v N N H msHooa mo Hdou on» nqu mucouom 0» ucficoumHH .mm
.moocououcoo vacuum cH oosavHsu can mcHonb

m c N N H nuousH .msHHomssoo no monHosHum woumooou mchD .NN

m e N N H .mamHOHuHuo ucoudm nuHs mcHHuoo .mm
.musouom

m e N N H 5H3 oHQOHsHfi-uoo on 90058 no auoHHdb m DEED .mm

mucoudm squ mstuoz

m N N N H .muonomou.aooumumHo ustuou nUH3 NcHuHsmcoo .vm

awe: umuQH

M02MBflm200 20 azuxmwmmmfl

 

mazmxflaflam NUZMBHAZOO

 

APPENDIX C

STUDENT COVER LETTERS

APPENDIX C

STUDENT COVER LETTERS

Student Cover Letter
Groups I, II, III, IV

Dear Student,

A persistent concern in the field of mental retardation is
the improvement of teacher training programs. You, as a
student preparing to be a teacher of the mentally retarded,
can provide information which will have an impact on such
programs. Simple stated, we need to know about you and
your perceptions in order to better understand the process
of teacher education.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your cooperation
in completing the enclosed opinion survey. Return of this
questionnaire within one week would be greatly appreciated.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your
convenience.

Your participation in this research will help us to better
serve mentally retarded children. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski

116

117

Student Cover Letter
Group V

 

Dear Student:

A persistent concern in the field of mental retardation is
the improvement of teacher training programs. You, as a
student preparing to be a teacher of the mentally retarded,
can provide information which will have an impact on such
programs. Simply stated, we need to know about you and
your perceptions in order to better understand the process
of teacher education.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your cooperation
in completing the enclosed opinion survey. Return of this
questionnaire within one week would be greatly appreciated.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your
convenience.

The graduate affairs committee of the Division of Student
Teaching and Professional Development has approved the
data collection and hopes that each student teacher and
supervising teacher in mental impairment will participate
in the study. Such participation will help us to better
serve mentally retarded children. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355-4545)

gk

encs .

APPENDIX D

COOPERATING TEACHER COVER LETTERS

APPENDIX D

COOPERATING TEACHER COVER LETTERS

Cooperatinngeacher Cover Letter
Groups II and IV

Dear Teacher:

A persistent concern in the field of mental retardation is
the improvement of teacher training programs. You, as a
cooperating teacher working with a student preparing for
certification in mental impairment, can provide information
which will have an impact on such programs. Simply stated,
we need to know your perceptions about your student teacher
or student aide in order to better understand the process
of teacher education.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your cooperation
in completing the enclosed opinion survey. Your student
will receive a similar survey and we ask that they be com-
pleted independently. Return of the questionnaire within
one week would be greatly appreciated. A stamped, self-
addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Your participation in this research will help all of us to
better serve mentally retarded children. Thank you.

Sincerely,

118

119

Cooperating Teacher Cover Letter

91:312.!

 

Dear Teacher:

A persistent concern in the field of mental retardation is
the improvement of teacher training programs. You, as a
supervising teacher working with a student preparing for
certification in mental impairment, can provide information
which will have an impact on such programs. Simply stated,
we need to know your perceptions about your student teacher
in order to better understand the process of teacher edu-
cation.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your cooperation
in completing the enclosed opinion survey. Your student
will receive a similar survey and we ask that they be
completed independently. Return of the questionnaire
within one week would be greatly appreciated. A stamped,
addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

The graduate affairs committee of the Division of Student
Teaching and Professional Development has approved the
data collection and hopes that each student teacher and
supervising teacher in mental impairment will participate
in the study. Such participation will help all of us to
better serve mentally retarded children. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355-4545)

gk

encs.

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO NONRESPONDENTS

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO NONRESPONDENTS

Dear Teacher:

Our records show that by March 12, 1977, we had not
received your response to the Cooperating Teacher Survey.
Since the information which you can provide is crucial to
the study being done we urge that you return your completed
questionnaire as soon as possible.

If your survey form is in the mail please disregard this
letter. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355-4545)

gk

120

121

Dear Student:

Our recent records show that as of March 14, 1977, we had
not yet received your response to the STUDENT SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE. Since the information which you can provide
is crucial to the study being done we urge that you return
your completed questionnaire as soon as possible.

If your survey form is in the mail pleasr disregard this
letter. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355—4545)

gk

Dear Teacher:

Recently we wrote to you requesting that you complete a
Cooperating Teacher Survey for each mental retardation
student from Michigan State University whom you supervised
during the winter term. Through telephone contact we

have found that several people never received the survey.
We have, therefore, enclosed a copy of the questionnaire
with this letter.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355-4545)

gk

encs .

122

Dear Student:

Our recent records show that as of March 31, 1977 we had
not yet received your response to the STUDENT SURVEY
INSTRUMENT. It is possible that the survey was lost in
the mail. Since the information that you can provide is
crucial to the study being done, we have enclosed a copy
of the survey with this letter.

If you have already mailed your form, please disregard
this letter. If not, it is important that we receive
your completed questionnaire as soon as possible. Your
help will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Gabrielle Kowalski
350 Erickson Hall
(355-4545)

gk

encs .

"IT'E'E'EE'IMMMWWW’IIE(Es